I once heard someone claim that part of soccer’s appeal is that it is so challenging by virtue of being so unnatural since humans evolved to manipulate things, not kick them.
But I recently read an article about the failure of a decade-long program to develop American soccer to world-competitive levels. The article said a major problem for American soccer is the public’s lack of interest in the sport precisely BECAUSE it is so unnatural.
Next time you watch a soccer match, try playing along with this mental game: Every time something happens that a player didn’t intend, say to yourself on his behalf, “I MEANT to do that!” You’ll be surprised to find yourself saying it constantly, especially as control of the ball goes back and forth, often on alternating kicks. This calls attention to how random and chaotic soccer play is, almost like Brownian motion at a macro level. I suspect it reflects a view of the universe that Americans generally don’t accept.
Oh, I disagree. One of the appeals of American football is that the ball isn’t round, that it takes unpredictable bounces.
Whenever a European or (Australian or African or South American or whatever) complains that American football is inferior for whatever reason (the pads, the stop-and-start action, whatever), I’ll not hesitate to defend it, but I don’t think that it’s SUPERIOR to Association football. I also don’t think it’s inferior. They’re just DIFFERENT, and vive la difference!
Fritzoid makes a valid point about how an American football bounces, but that fact doesn’t address my issue.
First, nothing he said negates the unnaturalness of “Association football” (AKA soccer) which was the main point of my comment.
Second, the unpredictable bounce of the American football is a nearly insignificant part of the game, applying mainly to missed passes and fumbles. The shape was not chosen to create randomness but to facilitate carrying and passing, which I point out involve hands. In fact, I’ve always considered the name “football” to be rather a misnomer for the American sport since kicking is so rare in the modern passing game.
But rather than try to defend any sport over another, I would point out that few people are less interested in sports than I am. I’m glad that such forms of entertainment exist for the billions who enjoy them, but deep down, sports are all just games.
Sports are almost all people chasing after a ball (Pucks are just flat balls.) Why atheletes get paid more than say teachers to chase a ball around is beyond me. And teachers don’t spit or taking performance enhancing drugs.
Interesting insight, Pschearer!
I assert, however, that I am one person who is less interested in sports than you. I have an Olympic gold medal in Sports Disinterest.
pschearer Premium Member about 15 years ago
I once heard someone claim that part of soccer’s appeal is that it is so challenging by virtue of being so unnatural since humans evolved to manipulate things, not kick them.
But I recently read an article about the failure of a decade-long program to develop American soccer to world-competitive levels. The article said a major problem for American soccer is the public’s lack of interest in the sport precisely BECAUSE it is so unnatural.
Next time you watch a soccer match, try playing along with this mental game: Every time something happens that a player didn’t intend, say to yourself on his behalf, “I MEANT to do that!” You’ll be surprised to find yourself saying it constantly, especially as control of the ball goes back and forth, often on alternating kicks. This calls attention to how random and chaotic soccer play is, almost like Brownian motion at a macro level. I suspect it reflects a view of the universe that Americans generally don’t accept.
fritzoid Premium Member about 15 years ago
Oh, I disagree. One of the appeals of American football is that the ball isn’t round, that it takes unpredictable bounces.
Whenever a European or (Australian or African or South American or whatever) complains that American football is inferior for whatever reason (the pads, the stop-and-start action, whatever), I’ll not hesitate to defend it, but I don’t think that it’s SUPERIOR to Association football. I also don’t think it’s inferior. They’re just DIFFERENT, and vive la difference!
pschearer Premium Member about 15 years ago
Fritzoid makes a valid point about how an American football bounces, but that fact doesn’t address my issue.
First, nothing he said negates the unnaturalness of “Association football” (AKA soccer) which was the main point of my comment.
Second, the unpredictable bounce of the American football is a nearly insignificant part of the game, applying mainly to missed passes and fumbles. The shape was not chosen to create randomness but to facilitate carrying and passing, which I point out involve hands. In fact, I’ve always considered the name “football” to be rather a misnomer for the American sport since kicking is so rare in the modern passing game.
But rather than try to defend any sport over another, I would point out that few people are less interested in sports than I am. I’m glad that such forms of entertainment exist for the billions who enjoy them, but deep down, sports are all just games.
mrprongs about 15 years ago
Sports are almost all people chasing after a ball (Pucks are just flat balls.) Why atheletes get paid more than say teachers to chase a ball around is beyond me. And teachers don’t spit or taking performance enhancing drugs.
Bill Hinds creator about 15 years ago
I’m pretty sure teachers don’t chose a career in education for the money.
If you could fill a 70,000-seat stadium with people paying $80+ apiece to watch someone teach English, then the teachers would get those big salaries.
Or maybe if the teachers could chase a ball while they’re teaching…
4deerinmyyard about 15 years ago
Interesting insight, Pschearer! I assert, however, that I am one person who is less interested in sports than you. I have an Olympic gold medal in Sports Disinterest.