Superbowl

[Gen. Volkov]

No, football is where gigantic men put on pads and a helmet and run at other gigantic men in pads and helmets as fast as they can, trying to get to the guy with the ball. Soccer is where a bunch of pansies kick a little black and white ball around a field for 60 minutes and maybe score once, or not at all. Soccer games can end in a tie, tied football games end in sudden-death overtime.

[Firetooth]

Pansies? Okay, maybe Cristiano Ronaldo, and a few others, but there are plenty of giant footballers. Heskey, Elokobi, Akinfenwa, Frimopong, Helguson etc.

http://www.images99.com/i99/02/31804/31804.jpg



Not many games end 0-0, and it's actually 90mins. Plus, many games are high scoring. The Manchester derbies (man utd-the biggest team and man city-probably the best atm) have finished 6-1 to man city and 3-2 to Manchester united so far this season.

[Gen. Volkov]

Oooo, 6-1, that must have been TERRIBLY exciting, 7 whole goals scored. The final score of the Alamo bowl this year was 67-56. That's 9 or so touchdowns by just one side. Granted, that was one of the highest scoring games in history, but still, 7 touchdowns by just one side is not uncommon, and both sides together have more than 7 touchdowns with some regularity. I was using hyperbole, but the point stands, US football is a lot more exciting than soccer. Especially if it's only 7 goals in 90 mins. American football lasts 60 minutes, nominally. Commercials and timeouts and halftime adds more, but 60 minutes of play.

Also, Heskey would be only middling-size in college football, let alone the NFL. Might be a decent corner or safety, those are usually the smaller guys on the team. I dunno how fast he is though, those guys are usually stupid fast, like if they weren't in the NFL, they'd be running track at a high level somewhere. The fastest NFL players would be running 10 second hundred meter dashes or so. I wouldn't be surprised if Chris Johnson or Devin Hester couldn't at least stay in the ballpark of Usain Bolt. The NFL times on the 40 yard dash, which means the runners still haven't reached their top speed before they are done, but Johnson and Hester both had sub-4.5s 40 times. The timing systems are different though, so it's hard to make a direct comparison. The guy who won the gold at the 2004 Olympics in the 100m had a slower 40yd time than someone who's best wasn't under 10s, for example. Anyway, point is, your "giant footballers" would be on the small side in the NFL, like the smallest NFL corner is about as tall as Elokobi, and those soccer players would probably be too slow to boot. Calvin Johnson is one of the bigger wide receivers in the game, he's 6'5", 235 lbs, and he's stupid fast. Then there are the offensive linemen, who tend to be 6'4" and taller. Byrant McKinnie, for example, is 6'8" and weighs 345 lbs. That's the kind of size I mean when I talk about "giant guys in pads and helmets".

[Firetooth]

The highest scoring football/soccer game remember is 9-1, so 10 goals. Moreover, goals are dull if they're really common, the fact they're difficult makes them more worthwhile. ANd whilst Yank football is indeed skilled, it is not on the level of soccer in terms of technical ability required, at least in my opinion. You won't get stuff like roulettes, wonder goals and such, there's a lot less variety in the kinds of goals scored, at least in my opinion. Basically I'm saying quality/quantity, but that is of course subjective as pretty much every American prefers American football to soccer football. On the point of it being better for there to be a few quality goals instead of a load of tap-ins, I can't remember a single goal from the 9-1 match, and it isn't even a memorable match for me. Do you think this would be memorable if you got these all the time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLRiM2F60lk

Now Heskey has the pace of drying paint, but in his youth he was rapid. Most football teams have at least one "big" (moderate by american football standards) in defence and usually one up front, too. Chris Samba, Didier Droga, Yakubu, Dzeko and (of course) Heskey would all be good examples. Of course American footballers are bigger, no denying, but you do still get big footballers. Akinfenwa (did link, image at bottom) isn't tall but stupidly huge considering his height. Plenty of tall footballers, too. As I said, most teams have a striker who is tall and has strength to score headers, called a target man. Drogba at 6'2 1/2 is a good example, Jaap Stam (retired) was 6'3, Edin Dzeko is 6'4, Andy Carroll is 6'3. Obviously not quite as big as the tallest American Footballers, but all over 1.80. Of course there are plenty of good small guys, like Michael Owen and Lionel Messi (pretty much the best player since Maradonna) which is actually a good thing. Nice to see a sport where both strength and nimbleness are rewarded. As for speed, Obafemi Martins, Ashley Young and Darren bent are rapid, and several footballers (like Marvin Emnes) were actually sprinters in their youth's.

tl;dr you're basically right, but there are a lot more big soccer players then you probably realize, considering I only gave a handful of examples, all of whom play in the British league, which isn't even the world's best. Strength and size are important in both types of football, just more so in American football, for obvious reasons. I also prefer soccer, but that's just personl prefence.

[Dark Claws]

Patriots. Diehard fan for those of you not in the Spa. Ravens can't stop Brady's arm.

[Gen. Volkov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byhsk-HAsTY&feature=related

Watch that video, and tell me you still think there is more technical ability required in soccer. I'll grant those are some of the craziest catches ever made, but stuff on a slightly lower level of skill happens every Saturday and Sunday in college and NFL games. It takes A LOT of skill and athletic ability to be a top flight receiver in the NFL or at a Division 1 college. As much or more as it takes to play the more skilled positions in soccer.

As for roulettes etc. Look up the Statue of Liberty, Fumblerooskie, Flea Flicker, hook and ladder, or heck, just Google "trick plays". Or "spread option". LOL. Believe me when I say this, touchdowns in football are almost never boring. The most boring games are the ones where few to no touchdowns are scored. Like LSU vs Alabama during the regular season this year, or the championship rematch of those two teams. In those two games, there were a total of 13 field goals attempted, 10 made, 1 touchdown, and like 80 punts. (I am exaggerating on the punts) Two most boring bloody games I have seen in a long time. Blowouts are particularly exciting in football either, unless you are fan of the team that's winning, which is why that 9-1 match wasn't very exciting, but the 67-56 Alamo bowl was pretty fun to watch. The 70-33 demolition of Clemson by West Virginia was not as fun, though pretty amazing, given how good everyone thought Clemson was. Yes, that's 10 touchdowns scored by just one team. Not the highest scoring game I've ever seen either. The highest scoring game I have ever seen was Navy vs. North Texas in 2007, 74-62, and since it was close, it wasn't actually that boring. The highest scoring game in college football history happened in 1916, when Georgia Tech defeated Cumberland 222-0. I imagine that was pretty boring. That was a weird game though, Cumberland had canceled their football program the year before, so the team that faced a really good Georgia Tech team was just 14 random guys a student manager picked, because they had to play the game or pay GT 3000 dollars. (That was a lot of many back then, equivalent of 60 grand today.) In that game, Georgia Tech never had a 3rd down, and Cumberland never managed a 1st down, and only had 14 total yards, to Georgia Tech's 1,620 rushing yards. Easily the most lopsided game in football history.

[Firetooth]

*watches video*

Still more technical ability in soccer. :P

Don't get me wrong, to play any professional sport at the top level you have to be incredibly talented. But soccer is less defined by build and more about skill. Those kind of catches are very impressive, but you'd see that kind of stuff from the goalkeepers in football as well.

As for whether touchdowns are boring, obviously depends on how into American football you are. Obviously it's a shorter game and has more points crammed in and is faster paced. You do get duff soccer matches, the last I watched was awful, Chelsea v Norwich, no goals, spent most the time losing the ball and passing in their own half. All in all though, I think soccer is slower paced because more co-ordination and vision is required to break down defenses and make attacks. This is all subjective though. I've never played American football (played rugby a fair bit, which is similar-ish?) and I doubt you are a soccer fanatic, so lots of this is just down to different preferences.

[Gen. Volkov]

Dunno about that. Goalie doesn't have to worry about keeping his feet inbounds. A sideline or back of the endzone catch requires the player to catch the ball, secure it, keep both feet in bounds, and make sure he doesn't lose the ball when he hits the ground. That's quite a bit of athletic and technical skill required. I get what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. I think it takes more skill to play wide receiver in football than to kick a little ball around the field.

Probably some of it is down to different preferences, but I think anyone who goes to a football game is going to find it exciting. It's easier to score points in football than in soccer, but not so easy that it's boring, and it's not so hard that points are rarely scored. We have soccer in the US, and football is a lot more popular. I think there is good reason for it too, the game itself, no matter who is playing, is one of the most exciting sports on the planet, and the deeper you get into the game, the more complexity and skill you realize there is required. Rugby and football have a common ancestor, to use an evolutionary term, but they have diverged greatly since then.

[Dark Claws]

Really its more of what player you are. In fact, neither of them requires too much skill to play, just they both require a lot of mental exertion that makes it harder to play. To think on your feet every time you say the word hike is going to be mentally taxing and require more energy to take care of that. If your are skilled enough to know what your going to do instead of winging it, its much more of skill then a waste of energy.

[Gen. Volkov]

I truly have no idea what point you are attempting to make here.

[Firetooth]

Fair enough,we can agree to disagree on that. I also agree on average American football is more exciting in terms of individual games, simply because there are more points scored, but I think that the best soccer games are more exciting. American football is more popular for lots of reasons, but soccer is becoming more popular in America. Lots of good talents such as Donovan, Dempsey, (scored a hat-trick today) Howard and more.

I truly have no idea what point you are attempting to make here.

Seconded haha. Both require a great deal of skill to play.

[Gen. Volkov]

Define "best soccer games", and while, yes, soccer is increasing in popularity in the US, I don't think its ever going to be as popular as football. It's pretty much a niche market here. In the polls they do, the NFL is far and away the most popular, baseball is a somewhat distant second, and then basketball, and then hockey and soccer are about tied for popularity. Both hockey and soccer are only really popular in certain areas of the US.\

Also, a lot of soccer's increase in popularity has to do with shifting demographics, that is, immigrants from countries where soccer is the most popular sport. As they assimilate into US culture, that is probably going to disappear some.

[Kilkenne]

The funniest thing about soccer in America is that its popularity grew tenfold when some NFL players thought about playing on soccer teams if the NFL had locked out. Sporting KC, the Kansas City team almost had Chad Johnson on their team, and they went from barely breaking even to filling their stadium every night with people who really didn't care much about the game prior.

[Gen. Volkov]

That just goes to show how insanely popular football is in the US. LOL.

[Kilkenne]

I think realistically that soccer would be more popular in the US if the best teams weren't in Europe. The best athletes in Europe play soccer. The best athletes in the US play football. People want to watch the best, and it's difficult to justify waking up at 6am all the time to watch premier league stuff. The idea of drinking beer for breakfast at 6am to watch premier league euro soccer intrigues me, but not enough to actually do it.

Furthermore, you and I are in a gross minority of people who like college football more than the NFL, volkov, it's hard to explain to NFL people why the game is better at the university level. (It has nothing to do with the athletes being paid or not, that's a horrible argument imo)