|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Games are games and in the end, that is all they are. To get nationalistic about games is to be childish. Can you get dorkier than, "We invented another country's game but we never played it"? |
I kind of get where you're coming from, but you forget - and I think this is partly down to the fact that the US are largely absent from big global team sporting events, and trust me when I say that I'm not saying that just to sound smug - just how enhanced ones appreciation of any given sport becomes when the stakes are raised to the national level. Take Rugby for example, and I'm sure JMO will agree, a game between Ireland and England at Lansdowne Road (better still, Croke Park) greatly transcends otherwise mundane games between two domestic clubs from their respective countries. Also, don't confuse the nationalism you may be associating with football hooliganism with the nationalism one finds at Rugby and Cricket matches as the two couldn't be further apart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yea I would agree to an extent. I would say however that the fervor associated with games between countries can be replicated within countries in certain sports.
College football in America is intensely local. I'd say the atmosphere of the LSU-Alabama game tonight would be quite close to an Ireland/England game.
A dublin/kerry game at Croker would be quite close as well.
Your right though. I'm not a nationalist by any stretch but Ireland/England at Twickenham(I prefer twickenham because there are so many Irish in England we are represented there also) is special. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| the US are largely absent from big global team sporting events, and trust me when I say that I'm not saying that just to sound smug - just how enhanced ones appreciation of any given sport becomes when the stakes are raised to the national level. |
I can agree with that. That's what makes the Olympics fun (in part). I think what Europeans miss is that the US is a 'continental nation' so a World Series, for example, between Florida and Pennsylvania is much the same as between Italy and Spain. A football game between Nebraska and Oklahoma is like Germany and Russia on a bad day.
PS: 'global' in soccer means just Europe and a couple of South American countries, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| the US are largely absent from big global team sporting events, and trust me when I say that I'm not saying that just to sound smug - just how enhanced ones appreciation of any given sport becomes when the stakes are raised to the national level. |
I can agree with that. That's what makes the Olympics fun (in part). I think what Europeans miss is that the US is a 'continental nation' so a World Series, for example, between Florida and Pennsylvania is much the same as between Italy and Spain. A football game between Nebraska and Oklahoma is like Germany and Russia on a bad day.
PS: 'global' in soccer means just Europe and a couple of South American countries, right? |
Showing your age YaTa:) Oklahoma and Nebraska is more like Germany/Poland circa 1939. Nebraska is down big time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Showing your age YaTa:) Oklahoma and Nebraska is more like Germany/Poland circa 1939. Nebraska is down big time. |
I was hoping no one would catch that. It comes from living across the river from Nebraska for 20 years and having to listen to their 'We beat Oklahoma again this year' OR 'The Refs cheated and beat us' this year. Kind of ingrained. Sorry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
PS: It's GOOD to hear Nebraska is down this year.  I liked Nebraska until I lived next to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| PS: 'global' in soccer means just Europe and a couple of South American countries, right? |
Kind of, but you're forgetting Australia, a big swathe of Asia a sizable part of Africa and pretty much all of South and Latin America. The middle East are pretty keen as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
One thing that struck me about Baseball as compared to cricket, is that players can specialise a lot more. I was told by an American friend that you have players who are specialist basemen and so on. In cricket the same 11 are used for the whole game, so you really need to be multiskilled. |
What I really like about baseball is that it is a perfect game from a statistical point of view. Because the batter is isolated one on one versus the pitcher you can get a much better view on one players ability than in other sports. American football has such a short season, coupled with players being so dependent on their teammates that it is hard to isolate a player statistically.
edit: forgot to say what i was going to say about cricket. i agree with bs dos about cricket. there is a lot of not so obvious specialisation. For example opening batter is a much different type of player than no.6. They need different temperaments and different skill sets. Your best pure batter would come at 3 or 4. Lots of different types of bowlers. I spent alot of time watching cricket when i was on summer hols from school..a game that definitely rewards repeated viewing. |
The statistics are just as prevalent in cricket. Any game that's a contest of bat and ball has statistics up the wahoo it seems.
Yes, I wasn't saying that cricket didn't have specialisation. There's preferred fielding positions, preferred places in the batting lineup and so on. But every player in the 11 will be expected to bat, and even the worse batter in the side will try to get a half dozen or so runs and support the guy at the other end. There're players who are good at certain fielding positions, but the stage of the game may have them out of position, with a slip fielder at long leg, for example.
I think the thing about cricket that I like is the chess game aspect of it. Captaincy is a skill into itself, and picking bowling changes and fielding positions can take years to master.
The other thing I like about cricket is that you see the most incredible fielding without mitts.
Just a question for the baseball fans. What kind of tricks do the pitchers play with the ball? Without the interaction with ball and pitch, how do they fool the batter?
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=r4jeQG15QAk
A bit of reverse swing. In conventional swing it goes the other way; in some situations a good bowler can get the aerodynamics to reverse, usually making the batsman look like a goose.
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw5_hLpcGEo
Shane Warne getting spin off the pitch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| PS: It's GOOD to hear Nebraska is down this year. I liked Nebraska until I lived next to them. |
they've actually been down for a number of years. Coming from a person who has only been following college football closely for a few years it's hard to see why they were so up. the state of nebraska has decent talent but not as rich as the big 3(florida, texas, cali) and not really in the same league as Ohio, Penn, Michigan, Louisiana(most nfl players by capita) or miss(2nd most per capita) or georgia and a few more.
They really need to lock their state down and make even further inroads into texas. Really though if you are a top east texas kid and you have the choice of nebraska, texas, a&m or lsu...its going to be texas or lsu.
It's hard to see Nebraska coming back. Which is good news for you:) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
The statistics are just as prevalent in cricket. Any game that's a contest of bat and ball has statistics up the wahoo it seems.
. |
Well whilst I agree with this, you can't really catergorise a player in Cricket by 3 or 4 stats like in baseball.
Also because cricket is just not played as much as baseball and because the ball changes and each player in the batting order faces different conditions, the stats are not as perfect as in baseball imo.
i agree with everything else you said..i love that warne video.
Baseball pitchers achieve deception with speed and finger position causing the ball to move in different ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just realised that Ireland are playing Canada today. Don't know if I fancy finding a stream and staying up all night to watch it though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusty1983
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
Baseball is a very simple game that only requires a stick and a ball. We played rounders in elementary school..it is not very hard to play. |
That's the beauty of baseball. It looks simple, but the complexities run much deeper. That's why most baseball players don't perform their best until around the ages of 27-30. Frankly, it takes a good 20 years to really learn the intricacies of the game. Where as soccer players usually peak when they are between 21 and 23, which is the height of their physical prowess. By 30, when their physical abilities are on the wane, they are usually out of the game. If soccer was truly a game of skill we'd see a lot more 30, 35, or even 40 year old professional players. But no, it's pretty much a game for the young. When they can run fast and kick the ball hard. |
Football players do not peak around 21-23. who on earth told you that?
You just described football, more or less. Looks simple but runs so so deep, and the players start to peak around 26/27. Maradona put in probably the best performances ever seen at Mexico 86 when he was 26 years old. Many players play well into their late 30s, and some of them are considered world-class. The problem is it is so physically intense that you have to be conditioned to the max or your legs start to give way.
At the last world cup Zinedine Zidane was 34, and he was the best player in the tournament, or at least he would have been if not for that headbutt.
He is also representative of intelligence in football. Zidane is a bit special but you have intelligence and trickery in spades. You also have high drama, cheating, tragedy, heroes, villains, age-old rivalries and also the fact that any team can win any given match. Football has been so important in culture for so long it is impossible to imagine life without it.
It is complex yet simple. If you say there are no tactics in it you dont know what youre talking about. Many many titles have been won with tactics alone. It is like a bit like a high-octane chess game in many ways.
Also most places you go you can watch it because there is a local team. If I went to Eastern Europe next the best way to quickly learn about the culture would be to go to a match. History and culture are built in to it. It is also a great way to break the ice, you can go all over Europe and if you know a bit about football chances are you can make a friend(or an enemy).
I like the American sports too though. Baseball has a nice rhythm to it and it relaxes me, like snooker does.
The problem with the American sports is theyre not accessible. Footbaall is played all over because it one of the only sports anyone can play. Even the poorest kids can play, they just need to find something they can use as a ball. Someone like Maradona can come from the poorest slums and become immortal. It is like boxing in this respect.
Contrast this with American Football where you have to have expensive equipment, a ridiculous shaped goalpost, painted yard lines, an umpire, a coach etc etc. Kids in the slums just arent gonna pick it up and go with it.
American football is exciting but it isnt accessible. I much prefer American Football to Rugby, Rugby is fucking shit.
If I lived in America Id watch it but it will never become an international sport.
No one can be bothered to learn the rules and the statistics side of it isnt for most people. Too many numbers and plays going on.
I like baseball, it has a good rhythm and is relaxing to watch, like snooker. I can see why this has spread (and I think the Romanians DO have a good case for inventing it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oina).
With all of these sports though it's like why would would you bother? You know football is gonna always be better.
By the way no one has really mentioned the number 2 most popular sport in the world yet - Cricket. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^Two things wrong with the above. First of all, Maradona was a fat, cheating, cocaine-snorting, bastard. A much better example would've been Pele.
Secondly, I take exception the Rugby being 'fucking shit'. Football is a game played by eleven individuals. Rugby is a game played by a team of fifteen. I can agree that Football is probably more enjoyable from the spectators perspective, but having played both, football doesn't come close to rugby in terms of playing the game. There's nothing quite as exhilarating as either making a good tackle or breaking a good tackle. The other great thing about rugby; win or lose, you're on the booze.
Last edited by BS.Dos. on Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sharkey
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rusty1983 wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Yeah, it is a girl's game. They used to make us play it at school. I bloody hated it. Hockey was much better. |
Are you being sarcastic here? Hockey was behind only netball and hopscotch in terms of girls games. My mate hid his out of school involvement in hockey for years for fear of reprisals!
|
where do you live in a town full of homo-sexuals ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rusty1983 wrote: |
Football players do not peak around 21-23. who on earth told you that? |
Look at the rosters.
Man United
I count 5 guys who are 30 or older. The oldest is Van der Sar at 38.
Philadelphia Phillies
They have 20 players who are 30 or older. With 4 players 40 or older and the oldest at 45.
| Quote: |
| Many players play well into their late 30s, and some of them are considered world-class. The problem is it is so physically intense that you have to be conditioned to the max or your legs start to give way. |
Great players in soccer can stretch out their careers to 30, sometimes even 35. But it's still a young man's game. For those who can ran fast and kick the ball. The only skill position is goal keeper, as evidenced by Van der Sar's advanced age.
In baseball, learning the skills and techniques of the game take a long time to learn. In many cases they are more valuable than physical ability alone.
In short, soccer has two tools - running and kicking. Baseball has five. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
