I grew up playing football, it was the last traditional U.S. sport I watched consistently (into my 30s). So I understand it reasonably well and I can't watch it anymore because I find it boring. Too much stop/start and endless analysis because of all the down time. It doesn't help that I don't watch commercials either. I've tried DVRing games and still couldn't stick with it even fast-forwarding through the commercials. Different strokes for different folks. I'm sure 15 years ago I would have said soccer was boring.
I do agree with you. I actually watched the Super Bowl. I enjoyed watching it, but it only started to get interesting in the 4th quarter. Rooney grew up in Liverpool, a pure soccer city. He would have known nothing but soccer and boxing. But he also watches Rugby League. He would have watched the SuperBowl and compared that code of football to Rugby League IMO. (note: Rugby League and NOT Rugby Union) And in that respects I reckon any "neutral" or somebody who hasn't grown up on the sport would find Rugby League more entertaining than American Football. But that's just my opinion. I can definetely understand how the average American would find soccer boring. I'm a fan of soccer, but I can't watch the Serie A or the South American leagues, because I find them boring. I'd probably rather watch the NFL.
I tried watching cricket; I still don't know what goes on. Same with A-rules Football. I should give lacross more of a chance, I have never seen a full game. But the list of sports I am not familiar with is huge!
I really got into Aussie Rules, but only when I went to see some games in person (not an easy option, I know). It's almost impossible to understand the build-up play on tv if that's all you've ever known, but when you are there, after about 15 minutes you are sort of "...oh yeah, I get it now..." and it all slots into place. It also doesn't come across too well in highlights as there are so many goals, about 25 a game. Cricket would probably be more watchable to the casual observer in the Twenty20 form, which only lasts about three hours. A 10 minute wikipedia search to find the rules and terminology would be enough. It would be very hard to expect anyone, let alone the merely inquisitive, to watch a whole test match* I understand NFL, and I did watch a bit of the superbowl, but I couldn't stick with it to the end of the 1st quarter. There were just so many stoppages, which wouldn't be so bad if the breaks between each didn't last so long. Maybe there are more or longer stoppages for ad breaks in the superbowl I've never liked rugby of either code. I know what's going on, and I can appreciate the odd flowing passing move, but most of the time the game just seems to be bogged down in a physcial impasse, and I don't find that interesting. * it just reminds me of a line in a repeat of Fawlty Towers I saw last night. The Major is talking to Basil about a girl he was once fond of. Major: I must have been very keen on her. I took her to see India. Basil: India? Major: Yes...at The Oval!
For me, lacrosse looks like it would be a blast to play, but as a spectator it just seems to be all about the area around each goal. One thing I absolutely love about soccer is midfield play; in lacrosse it just seems like the midfield is just flyover country between the two goal areas.
Lacrosse - cant see the ball, nets too small, why is there fighting, boxla>field Baseball - grew up watching it and love playing it. now only world baseball classic is good (passionate) enough to watch. plus blue jays stand no chance. Cricket - Only got into it recently. T20 is awesome. More fun to play pickup than baseball. Good passion and rivalries. AFL - havent watched it yet. NRL - its ok, certainly better than canadian football. too bad the rich white guys who spread the next game didnt. Rugby - Overly complicated butt-sniffing with great pregame dances Rugby Sevens - games are quick Gridiron - played it growing up. watched the argos,bills,jets,pats,colts, understand the game, but only like it if its big names. honestly i watch the sb hoping for commercials and to see what the score is... Basketball - similar to soccer except you can start watching anytime and know whats up. sure the first 3 qtrs can be boring and theres too many timeouts in the end....lots of superstars and great stats and battles. fun to play pickup. not as fun to play fullcourt. Gaelic - looks like it would be incredible to play. havent watched it.
Good post. I agree from a neutral perspective Rugby League is more exciting than American Football and for me its also better than Union, but I say that having followed League since I was a kid here in Oz. The funny thing though is 4 years ago I thought exactly the same as Rooney. I watched the Giants v Patriots game in 2008 and kept thinking to myself "Man, Americans call Soccer boring but watch this"?? However a change in work schedule meant I could watch NFL games during the day and the more I watched it, the more it intrigued me. I now dont think its boring and have really got into the game.
I don't think the Super Bowl was especially long for an NFL game once you account for the longer halftime. If the Super Bowl has longer breaks, it isn't the only American sport to do so. The World Series (maybe the whole MLB playoffs) and NCAA Basketball Tournament have longer breaks. I wouldn't know about the NBA and NHL playoffs. I don't watch or know the rules of lacrosse, cricket, Australian rules football, rugby union, or rugby league. I've seen a few seconds on Sky Sports News of what looks similar to a baseball pitch except the ball intentionally bounces on the way to what baseball would call home plate.
There's a good rule of thumb to calculcate how "athletic" a sport is. Every sport is a combination of athleticism and skill. Before we proceed, let's define the two. Athleticism includes strength, speed, agility, size, etc. Skill includes first touch, passing, throwing accuracy, etc. Disclaimer: this analysis works better for sports that are played on a consistent basis in a season format - soccer, hockey, etc, and worse for sports where an athlete can prep for a singular event - boxing, MMA. Here's the key - with age athleticism deteriorates, whereas skill hols up much better. Additionally, some athleticism fizzles more (speed, agility) than other (size, strength). So, to figure out how much a sport, or even positions within sport, is dependent on athleticism vs skill, you can map out at what age players tend either end their careers or go downhill form their peak. You will find, by and large, that sports that are largely dependent on pure athleticism - players reach pinnacle earlier and go sdownhill earlier. Swimming, sprinting, cycling, gymnastics are sports that are athleticism-based. There, all athletes reach peak before 30 (Lance Armstrong is a rare exception, but almsot all other Tour de France winners were much younger). Within ball sports, you can generally rrank them, as follows: Tennis Football Soccer/Basketball/Hockey Baseball Golf This is a generalization, and also depends on position you play within the sport. But, by and large, tennis - you're done by 30, football as well (especially running backs, receivers, corner backs, linebackers), soccer/basketball/hockey are around the same, although basketball/hockey have made tremendous strides recently in prolonging careers. Baseball and golf are much more skill-based, and thus players tend to play much longer. You can also anlyze within positions. For example, in soccer, the further up front you play, the sooner you're finished. Thus, being a striker is more of an athletic feat than goalkeeper/defence, with the caveat that size/strength are athletic abilities that hold up better. It is true that beinga good defendeer is oftentimes about acquiring the "skill" to play the position. You see a lot more 18-year-old striker phenoms, whereas defneders/goalies don't mature till 25. Football, as well. quarterback is more of skilled position - players start older and play til lthey are older. Running backs/wide receivers are much more athletic-based, and thus finish earlier. Now, finally, one more point. this is a general rule for how "athletic" a sport is. Once you've made it to the highest level, you can be a superior player, even if you're not a top athlete within the group, but happen to be more skilled.
I would rank. 1. Boxing/MMA 2. Swimming 3. American Football/Rugby/Soccer 4. Basketball/Hockey The other ones I dont know and I dont care.
I almost forgot tennis, even though I know is very hard to hit a baseball I dont think is as hard to play the sport at a high level, hey I like the sport, I just dont think is that difficult overall.
in england they are middle class sports...and the middle class doesnt need sports to better their lives in america...soccer, lacrosse, and tennis/golf are middle class
interesting. the same thing can be said about soccer in america. sports are sports and you are usually going to go for the one you are better at. I went for soccer because I was better at soccer, I was good at tennis but it was a joke, only really rich salvadorans would take tennis serious. you have to remember that some people does not like to be part of the mainstream. for example. I have met people that say they dont like facebook, other people that do not like pop music, a lot of rich kids would do surfing or wakeboarding because they can afford to live near the beach or near the lake, something lower income families wont do. soccer is not a mainstream sport yet in america but it will get there, and you will see more and more people trying to stick to the game. right now a lot of americans would tell you "I played soccer when I was a kid, everybody did, but it wasnt cool back then, nobody took it serious in middle school, it was lame."
I've noticed that usage more outside of the US, where you tends to see a distinction drawn between 'middle class' and 'working class' (basically, the US distinction between blue and white collar). The US tendency is to put both of these into the 'middle class', where the term has a positive connotation. Outside the US, where it's more likely to mean only white collar workers (and more typically in some sort of managerial position), it can sometimes take on the connotation you describe above--or at least the connotation of social/economic climbers who aspire to that status.