just because it happens more often doesn't make it less exciting, just means when you are watching a game and your team is losing you have hope right until the very end to get the win, if you're down 3-1 in football with 10 minutes left you are grasping at straws in hope to get a draw let alone a win. As I've said, I think many are judging their games while knowing nothing about them
I chose the Inter and Man United examples because they were the first that came to mind. It's a damn sight harder to score in football than, say, basketball. Baseball is basically the American version of a penalty shoot-out, only you have to run around the pitch a bit before you get given the 'goal'. How can not having draws make a game better? How can a game be any less interesting for having three potential outcomes instead of just two? Sure, American sports technically do have draws, but they are few and far between. In football, knowing a side is weighing-up whether to go all out for victory or defend a point is what makes matches fascinating, and draws are as much a possibility as either side winning because of the nature of the scoring system. This makes football more like chess. American football is more like a children's game where the two opposing kids (or teams) take it in turns to punch each other as hard as they can until one starts crying and goes home. Also, your point about the padding and more severe injuries in American football as opposed to rugby is fallacious. You assume that the footballers wear padding because of the risk of injury. In fact, injuries are caused by the moronic half-breeds who play the sport seeing the padding and helmets as an excuse to smash into opponents at full-speed. American 'football' is the 21st century equivalent of the Roman's Colosseum sports, and its fans the mentally-handicapped intellectual descendants of those who would turn up to see men fight bears and lions with nothing but a mace or spear.
I just think that it is a lot more satisfying for the fans when a bit of drama comes into play as we don't see it as often in comparison to US sports. That's just me, though. personally if my team had a comeback every 3 or 4 weeks, it would be great, but after a while it would seem like the norm, almost expected, if you get what I mean... Also, just for the record, I used to watch US sport a lot, back in the (very) late nineties and early to mid noughties. I just grew out of liking it and began to virtually despise it. Probably through my dislike of America (I don't even like US music or TV very much) as a whole as I have grown up. Just felt I needed to say that last part.
NFL is the one sport I have not gt into since moving to the States 2 yrs ago. I prefer NBA and of course the Miami Heat !!!
Ah right so chess is exciting then? it's interesting and fascinating but exciting? I used the word exciting for a reason. A baseball game can be boring as **** for 2 hours and then it all happens at the end of the game. Did I say football was boring? no. I am not saying american sports are better than football. I am simply defending them for what they are worth. You pass off American football as a sport for the severely brain damaged whether it be the players or the ones watching... I really didn't realise that our football was played and watched by Phd owners and mensa members... Have you been to a game recently? Have you not heard or seen the half-wits that follow the sport? Desailly was meant to be one of the smarter footballers, that's saying a lot about the average IQ of players. Please, if you're going to criticise american sports, you might want to have a look at ours first. ( i am not criticising football, I love football, I am simply defending american sports)
Whoa whoa whoa shot ya self in the foot here Zidane. American TV?? FFS we have literally **** all on British tv anymore apart from soaps and reality ****e. What about The Sopranos, The Wire, CSI, American Horror Story, True Blood, Sons of Anarchy, The Following???
Sorry but draws are ****ing ****. Parking the bus (to get a draw) is universally despised in the world a football yet you're trying to make it look like some tactical masterpiece. I'm not suggesting football would be better without them, leave the sport as it is but draws are ****. Well at least anything less than a 2-2 draw. I've never felt happy leaving a stadium with a 0-0 or 1-1 draw, no matter who the opposition was.
I did like The Sopranos. I don't really watch TV full stop to be fair because you are right about UK telly. I'm more into listening to music and/or the radio. The last decent UK series that I remember watching was Ashes To Ashes. Only thing I watch on TV nowadays is sport, actually. I'm watching that travesty against football known as the African Cup of Nations as we speak.
i know what you're saying but that is only a direct result of how the game is played. Since you only see about 2 maybe 3 goal on average in the space of 90 minutes, it creates excitement when it does happen. A Basketball game will have an average of 80/90 buckets/shots scored... this means that scoring is not exactly rare and hard but the excitement doesn't come in the shape of scoring but the timing. Same thing happens in tennis or cricket. I don't particularly like tennis but there is not such thing as a draw in tennis which means that there is always hope of a win. Your opponent can have 3 match points and you can still come back from 2 sets down and win it 3-2. when a team wins with by the smallest of margins 101-102 in basketball, when the lead was exchanged about a dozen times throughout the last 5 minutes, when the final "buzzer beater" shot, goes in with 0.1 seconds left , the smallest margin to release the shot and it goes in, the elation is massive. No matter how many times it happens, even if it is a regular occurrence for some teams, it never gets old. If all our remaining games playout the same way man united's game did against bayern munich in 99, I can assure you it would not get boring.
I didn't say chess was exciting (though it does fascinate me). I was merely drawing the comparison that it, like football, is a game of strategy and planning. This as opposed to American 'football', which for both players and spectators is all about smashing into each other as hard as possible in-between the long breaks they have for a chat and a 'Gatorade'. It's human monster trucks FFS. My point about the spectators is only about why they follow the sport and what the sport actually entails. There's hardly anything sport-like about American 'football' in my honest opinion. Obviously you're not going to be happy with the majority of draws your own team is involved in. You want to win every game. As a neutral, however, I thoroughly enjoy watching teams 'park the bus'. One of the best team performances I've seen was Inter Milan's at Camp Nou in 2010, when they defended a 3-1 first-leg advantage with ten men. They ended up losing 1-0, but it got them to the final and they won the tournament. I didn't find that **** at all.
You are right there, i'll give you that, but the whole concept of it happening EVERY game is very stale and repetitive in my eyes. I suppose in the heat of the moment the feelings are absolutely fantastic, but -- Listen to me. I'm ****ing 17 going on 18 next Friday, and I sound like my old man....and he's a fan of TWS.
I have to say, Erik, you're hitting the nails on the heads for me 100%. I'd like to discuss this further, but we need to go to a break from our sponsor.
American football has more strategy than rugby, football and cricket put together but you wouldn't know since you've never seen a full game
I have Circa and deciding to pit one group of thugs from the bench, against another set of thugs from their bench, while one throws the balls long/medium/short to a thug who will catch it then attempt to run away from the other teams thugs to score a TD, is not really that strategic. Anymore than standing in the corner with a football is.
