Didier Drogba, Chelsea1. Soccer players are more athletic. Obviously there are plenty of NFL players who exhibit great athleticism, but let's face it, a lot of guys make a career out of being extremely large, and probably couldn't run for more than thirty yards without falling over. On the soccer field, everybody runs, almost non-stop, for ninety minutes without a break, regardless of the position they play (well, except for the goalies). There's also less specialization in soccer. Certainly different players play different positions on the field, and have certain responsibilities based on that, but the core skills are the same across the board-- the ability to handle the ball, make passes, play defense, etc. They remain on the field, usually for the entire contest with few substitutions, and they certainly don't field entirely different teams on offense and defense, as is true in the NFL.
2. Injuries are much less common, and much less frightening in soccer. I can't remember the last time I watched an NFL game where there wasn't at least one long stoppage in play as a player was prepared for a stretcher, or a player hobbled to the sideline unable to place any weight on a leg. Concussions are a common occurrence, and there's endless discussion about whether someone or other will be able to return to the field after taking a vicious hit. Yeah, it's a rough game, but it seems to have reached a point where the media and fans demand even harder hits as part of the entertainment, and that just doesn't appeal to me. Contact in soccer is pretty constant, but hardly of the type that lays out football players on virtually every play. And it's rare to see someone take such a hit that they can't get up and continue (though sometimes the players act like it-- granted, not the most attractive element of the sport).
3. NFL announcers these days are to a man repetitive and boring. Every game seems to have prepared script points, focusing on a star or a matchup that is endlessly commented on, almost regardless of how the game plays out. There's virtually nothing original in content from either the play-by-play guys or the color men. Maybe this is just the result of watching games for over forty years, but I've never noticed the same level of redundancy in baseball, or now soccer (though I'm willing to concede the latter may be because I'm a relative newcomer to the sport). Some of this, it seems to me, is an unwillingness to give the viewer credit for being a long-time fan-- there's very little historical context offered in football commentary (again, not the case with baseball), as if no one watching realizes the game was played before the time of say John Elway or Dan Marino. Given all the "down-time" between plays, you'd think it would give the broadcast crew some opportunity to wax nostalgic, at least some of the time.
4. The clock never stops in soccer. The players play for 45+ minutes per half, and the clock never stops. If there is a break in play, extra time is added, so that the fans get a full 90 minutes of competition. In the NFL, everyone is consumed with the clock, either running it down while you're ahead (which does not involve actually running plays, at least not very quickly), or stopping it if you're behind (with techniques that also lead to long breaks between bursts of action). The irony, to me, is that for most of the game, the clock just keeps on running while nothing is happening. That never happens in soccer.
5. You don't see soccer managers wearing headphones, getting information from observers up in sky-boxes providing data or intelligence on what the other side is doing. This is one of the most irritating aspects of the NFL to me-- the use of technology to gain some kind of edge. Talk about taking the game out of the hands of the players! This of course is part and parcel with the common analogy that football is like battle, and one wonders if it isn't a case where the side with the higher tech toys is inclined to win. Give me the relative purity of soccer any day.
No comments:
Post a Comment