: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:01 pm  

D.D. wrote:

Only baseball can compete with this sport in the sheer boredom stakes.

I was rather hoping you'd say Italian football, for old times' sake

I've tried with American Football, really I have, but I can't cope with the constant stoppages, the adverts and the jargon. Whenever a commentator starts going through a play I just seem to lose track of what he's saying, like he's speaking Arabic or something.

But its still not as bad as Bowls or Equestrian.

: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:23 pm  

What gets me is when some people complain about the stoppages, yet they'll happily sit for 5 days and watch pretty much every ball of a cricket match.

I agree about the World Champions thing but then again it's only a bit more of a joke than when we call the winners of the World Club Challenge - "World Champions", when essentially a team from one of two countries is going to win it.

It's a difficult sport to learn the ins and outs of, but once you know it's intricacies and nuances it's a great watch.

: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:27 pm  

Adamjk wrote:

What gets me is when some people complain about the stoppages, yet they'll happily sit for 5 days and watch pretty much every ball of a cricket match.

I agree about the World Champions thing but then again it's only a bit more of a joke than when we call the winners of the World Club Challenge - "World Champions", when essentially a team from one of two countries is going to win it.

It's a difficult sport to learn the ins and outs of, but once you know it's intricacies and nuances it's a great watch.

How many countries are eligable for the superbowl?

: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:59 pm  

Chris Dalton wrote:

How many countries are eligable for the superbowl?

The 32 teams that are in the league - at the moment they're American but that will be possibly extended to Canada, Mexico and the UK. Like I said, I agree it's a bit stupid, but surely it's a minor hangup. I mean, some people would probably take issue with the whole 'Greatest Game' label that's so often bandied around to describe rugby league.

: Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:15 pm  

t-r-i-n-i-t-y wrote:

Which is why they might as well just play a 5 minute match and scrap the rest of it. At least netball has something going for it....

Goal Attack.

: Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:52 pm  

Comparing American Football to Rugby League!?

Comparing American Football to Rugby League!?

: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:45 pm  

Baseball is fantastic. Anyone who thinks otherwise can ballacks.

Seriously though, you do need to understand a bit about the sport before you can really appreciate it. There's a lot of srategy to it. Plus when a baseball game gets tense, it's agonising because an at bat can last for quite some time. It's like the last minute of injury time when you're screaming for the ref to blow the whistle only for the 4th official to add another minute and another minute and another minute..... you get the picture. Many a time I've had to leave the room because I can't take it anymore.

: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:34 pm  

Chris Dalton wrote:

I just can't understand the hype hype hype. It has the basis for a half decent game and then they stop and start it every two seconds to show an advert.

And they have the gall to call the winners the world champions of football.

These are some of the aspects that annoy me. It's also just too ostensibly "American" for me.

Another factor that annoys me is people over here getting all excited about the Superbowl Final, but they won't watch English teams playing the same sport. They can sell out Wembley for exhibition games involving NFL teams, but a few years ago a European Cup semi final involving a London team and a Belgian (?) team was staged at the National Sportcentre at Crystal Palace; I happened to be strolling through Crystal Palace Park that day and could see right into the stadium from a raised footpath - there can't have been more than 100 spectators present.

I watched one game live almost twenty years ago. I think it was London Olympians versus Birmingham Bandits (who were predictably known as "the Brum Bandits"). It seemed to drag on endlessly for about three hours or more and the stoppages were more frequent than in rugby union.

I suppose the fact that I haven't really got a clue what's happening or why doesn't help, but I've never had the inclination for find out.

By contrast I saw a live Aussie Rules game at The Oval a couple of years ago between Geelong and Port Adelaide (an exhibition match between two of the top Aussie teams) and really enjoyed it and found it very easy to pick up the rudiments of the games's laws and tactics.

: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:42 am  

spooky wrote:

Baseball is fantastic. Anyone who thinks otherwise can ballacks.

Seriously though, you do need to understand a bit about the sport before you can really appreciate it. There's a lot of srategy to it. Plus when a baseball game gets tense, it's agonising because an at bat can last for quite some time. It's like the last minute of injury time when you're screaming for the ref to blow the whistle only for the 4th official to add another minute and another minute and another minute..... you get the picture. Many a time I've had to leave the room because I can't take it anymore.

I agree,when I started watching the NFL,MLB etc I found I enjoyed it more and more as I learned about the rules.As you begin to learn about the games the experience of being a fan gets better and better,now I can watch a White Sox game and shout at the tv to "bring the outfield in" or "walk him and pitch to the next man"etc

: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:58 am  

oli30045 wrote: Comparing American Football to Rugby League!? This is why I don't get when people on here moan about not knowing the rules I found it very interesting from a tactical point of view. The enforcers must shield the QB so he can pick out the best pass etc. Fair play to whoever wrote the Wiki article. They seem quite knowledgeable about both sports and it doesn't seem to show bias one way or another.

oli30045 wrote: Comparing American Football to Rugby League!? This is why I don't get when people on here moan about not knowing the rules I found it very interesting from a tactical point of view. The enforcers must shield the QB so he can pick out the best pass etc. Fair play to whoever wrote the Wiki article. They seem quite knowledgeable about both sports and it doesn't seem to show bias one way or another.