The bashing level would probably be similar. Rugby: many rugby bashers would be gridiron people who claim their code is a more "refined" "civilized" "intelligent" version of football; rugby players would be stereotyped as brutes, criminals, etc. Cricket: many cricket bashers would be baseball people who claim their sport is more "manly" and "efficient"; cricketers would be stereotyped as "girlie", "wimpy" etc.
well, i guess you would get the american football fans saying their's involves more strategy. while rugby players have to be more all-round players compared to the 'departmentalization' of the NFL. as for cricket and baseball, i can't see how baseball fans could declare their's more manly. i would think cricket has more strategy.
Intelligent? Don't most American football players just do one job? Whereas rugby players have to be able to play in many facets of the game and have all-round skills to reach the top. I'm not too sure how either game could be called refined or civilized. Manly my arse, if a bowler wantas to bowl at your head in cricket, that's perfectly fine. In baseball you get a walk to first base if the ball even touches your clothing. You don't get a great big glove, so you actually have to learn to catch the ball too. "Barehanding" a ball in baseball seems to be some cause for celebration in the games I've seen. And the level of concentration needed to bat for hours at a time would be beyond the comprehension of baseball players.
As an American who has lived abroad in Europe, I've learned that rugby and American football (and likewise, cricket and baseball) are very, very different. To the average fan/supporter who has only really seen the sports on one side of the pond, it's easy to see one sport as simply a differen "version" of the other- but the differences are much larger than mere variation. Rugby and American football (the pair with which I'm somewhat more familiar) are almost nothing alike, despite football's probable roots in rugby. From top to bottom, they're two completely different games. If you're just flipping through the channels, though, it looks like padding is the only difference. I think a lot of Americans, especially those in areas where rugby is not a big part of the high school or college athletics scene, see rugby as a "rich kid's" game, like lacrosse in many areas. However, I think it's generally respected from a physical standpoint. In all honesty, I think the "effeminate" reputation of cricket in this country has more to do with the stereotypical white sweaters and tea breaks than it has to do with the actual game as it's played on the field. I don't think most people would necessarily have an aversion to it, if it was marketed to them properly, except that baseball has already filled the "ball and stick" niche in this country and is usually honored as a distinctly "American" tradition, despite its somewhat recent global appeal. Anyway, my main point is that we shouldn't resort to "bashing" any of these sports as a mere bastardization of another. Each is pretty unique.
It's times like these, when I wish the cricket forum shouldn't have been broken up from the 2 (or 3 if you count Rugby League) football codes forum.
this is a dumb ass thread.Americans dont dislike soccer because of its "postion" in society.They dislike it because they think its boring to watch. as far as Rugby and a potential backlash if it became more popular.Nonsense, I play Rugby and people are always keen to hear about it when they find out I play. The problem, with Rugby isnt that people dont like it, they just dont know about it and there is no major league. I would wager if there was a Rugby league in the US that had the same coverage as MLS ;the Rugby league would easily surpass Soccer and possibly Hockey in popularity.
BTW.. a good friend of mines son is a rookie for the Houston texans of the NFL (Glenn Earl Jr).I have known the family for quit a few years, and Jr. has frequently commented to me about his admiration for the game of Rugby (itried to recruit him for my club a few years back but Notre Dame wouldnt have it ) I also know alot of guys who play football at various levels who are always commenting how "rugby is a real mans sport".
I can see the headlines now if there was Major League Rugby: "Investors promise Rugby Specific Stadium for Harrison, N.J., in 60-90 days." I wish rugby had a bigger profile here. Since we got CSTV on cable, they've shown last seasons collegiate rugby finals and they were kinda fun to watch.
Actually soccer's position as a fringe sport with mainstream potential is a perceived threat to some media people (Jim Rome, etc).
The main reason why Rugby does not get the coverage it deserves in the United States is because of the media's power and the traditionalists' self-interest in this country. The American media and sports traditionalists (lobbies) will not tolerate the Rugby original verison of the game to gain popularity over the American bastardized version of the game, the NFL. It would be the biggest sports crime they can think of. Everything about American sports screams nationalism. "We don't play Rugby which is played internationally, we made an 'improved' version", "We don't play soccer that is played in every corner of the World, we play our own football (NFL)", "We don't play international cricket, we play baseball, another sport we invented", "By the way, we invented another sport, basketball... suck these games up and start teaching your countrymen how to play them", "Ice hockey? Well we invented that too, well actually it was invented in Montreal by Frenchmen, but we consider Canada an extended leg of the U.S., and so we manipulate the American public into believing its 'our' sport and everyone else is a parasite".