Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

1…182183185187188…435

Comments

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,196
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    laurentian said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Why is Football the top sport?

    This is actually a really interesting question.
    A football is a relatively cheap thing to buy wherever you are in the world. Failing that a "football" can be fashioned from a ball of rags/a fuit/a tin can etc etc.

    One ball, two kids, some kind of goal and football can be played anywhere, any time.

    There are few sports that can be played so easily and cheaply.
    I mean the pro sport, not participation.
    For the majority, play as a kid, watch as an adult.
    Honestly? I think that has very little to do with it.
    That's fine. Different opinions are allowed, even wrong ones. 😉
    See basketball and baseball in the States. Played when young, watched when old. Not here.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,424
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    laurentian said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Why is Football the top sport?

    This is actually a really interesting question.
    A football is a relatively cheap thing to buy wherever you are in the world. Failing that a "football" can be fashioned from a ball of rags/a fuit/a tin can etc etc.

    One ball, two kids, some kind of goal and football can be played anywhere, any time.

    There are few sports that can be played so easily and cheaply.
    I mean the pro sport, not participation.
    For the majority, play as a kid, watch as an adult.
    Honestly? I think that has very little to do with it.
    My theory is it's a replacement for tribal warfare.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    laurentian said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Why is Football the top sport?

    This is actually a really interesting question.
    A football is a relatively cheap thing to buy wherever you are in the world. Failing that a "football" can be fashioned from a ball of rags/a fuit/a tin can etc etc.

    One ball, two kids, some kind of goal and football can be played anywhere, any time.

    There are few sports that can be played so easily and cheaply.
    I mean the pro sport, not participation.
    For the majority, play as a kid, watch as an adult.
    Honestly? I think that has very little to do with it.
    it has everything to do with it
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited January 2022
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    laurentian said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Why is Football the top sport?

    This is actually a really interesting question.
    A football is a relatively cheap thing to buy wherever you are in the world. Failing that a "football" can be fashioned from a ball of rags/a fuit/a tin can etc etc.

    One ball, two kids, some kind of goal and football can be played anywhere, any time.

    There are few sports that can be played so easily and cheaply.
    I mean the pro sport, not participation.
    For the majority, play as a kid, watch as an adult.
    Honestly? I think that has very little to do with it.
    it has everything to do with it
    Most proper fans I know, I mean season ticket holders, have barely kicked a ball.

    All those people watching the World Cup matches - vast majority have not ever played 11 v 11 or even 5 v 5
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,196
    You don't have to have played organised 11 v 11, or even 5 v 5 to have had a kick around with friends and/or family as a child.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,018
    pblakeney said:

    You don't have to have played organised 11 v 11, or even 5 v 5 to have had a kick around with friends and/or family as a child.

    Whenever I buy a car, I make sure I kick all the tyres. Same thing.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,208
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    laurentian said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Why is Football the top sport?

    This is actually a really interesting question.
    A football is a relatively cheap thing to buy wherever you are in the world. Failing that a "football" can be fashioned from a ball of rags/a fuit/a tin can etc etc.

    One ball, two kids, some kind of goal and football can be played anywhere, any time.

    There are few sports that can be played so easily and cheaply.
    I mean the pro sport, not participation.
    For the majority, play as a kid, watch as an adult.
    Honestly? I think that has very little to do with it.
    Surely high participation numbers = high numbers of youths that aspire.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • womack
    womack Posts: 566
    I'm quite intrigued at the moment about how many inter racial marriages there are in Britain, there is one on every TV advert.

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited January 2022
    pinno said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    laurentian said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Why is Football the top sport?

    This is actually a really interesting question.
    A football is a relatively cheap thing to buy wherever you are in the world. Failing that a "football" can be fashioned from a ball of rags/a fuit/a tin can etc etc.

    One ball, two kids, some kind of goal and football can be played anywhere, any time.

    There are few sports that can be played so easily and cheaply.
    I mean the pro sport, not participation.
    For the majority, play as a kid, watch as an adult.
    Honestly? I think that has very little to do with it.
    Surely high participation numbers = high numbers of youths that aspire.
    The viewing figures for the international competitions are way way way in excess of any participation numbers, and that also bears out in just who you see watching it. Whole families, people who have never kicked a ball in their life save for when a PE teacher was shouting at them.

    There is something in the mix of the game, the balance, the low scoring nature of it, whatever it is, that elevates it above all else.

    I do think the low scoring nature of it is quite critical; really adds a level of jeopardy.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,196
    You really are underestimating the participation levels at garden/street/park/beach levels. Literally every boy in the UK has participated in football even if at a low level.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • skyblueamateur
    skyblueamateur Posts: 1,498
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    laurentian said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Why is Football the top sport?

    This is actually a really interesting question.
    A football is a relatively cheap thing to buy wherever you are in the world. Failing that a "football" can be fashioned from a ball of rags/a fuit/a tin can etc etc.

    One ball, two kids, some kind of goal and football can be played anywhere, any time.

    There are few sports that can be played so easily and cheaply.
    I mean the pro sport, not participation.
    For the majority, play as a kid, watch as an adult.
    Honestly? I think that has very little to do with it.
    it has everything to do with it
    Most proper fans I know, I mean season ticket holders, have barely kicked a ball.

    All those people watching the World Cup matches - vast majority have not ever played 11 v 11 or even 5 v 5
    My experience would be the exact opposite.

    Me and my mates loved playing football as kids and in our teens, went to the football every saturday with our dads and have carried that on into our 20's and 30's.

    My two sons are doing exactly the same. Love playing and live and breathe Coventry City.

    I'm still going up to the games with the same lads I grew up with and they're bringing their kids with them.

    Generational for us.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,018
    rick_chasey said:

    pinno said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    laurentian said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Why is Football the top sport?

    This is actually a really interesting question.
    A football is a relatively cheap thing to buy wherever you are in the world. Failing that a "football" can be fashioned from a ball of rags/a fuit/a tin can etc etc.

    One ball, two kids, some kind of goal and football can be played anywhere, any time.

    There are few sports that can be played so easily and cheaply.
    I mean the pro sport, not participation.
    For the majority, play as a kid, watch as an adult.
    Honestly? I think that has very little to do with it.
    Surely high participation numbers = high numbers of youths that aspire.
    The viewing figures for the international competitions are way way way in excess of any participation numbers, and that also bears out in just who you see watching it. Whole families, people who have never kicked a ball in their life save for when a PE teacher was shouting at them.

    There is something in the mix of the game, the balance, the low scoring nature of it, whatever it is, that elevates it above all else.

    I do think the low scoring nature of it is quite critical; really adds a level of jeopardy.
    Its also got relatively simple rules (compared to rugby or cricket, say) and games are about the right length. It is free flowing, relatively speaking, which means there's always the chance that something interesting is about to happen. As you've said, it is low scoring, so that something can be game changing.

    Other options are available though, RC.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,387
    pblakeney said:

    You really are underestimating the participation levels at garden/street/park/beach levels. Literally every boy in the UK has participated in football even if at a low level.

    You'd have to try quite hard to avoid it as part of the school PE curriculum.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,791
    rick_chasey said:

    pinno said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    laurentian said:

    rick_chasey said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Why is Football the top sport?

    This is actually a really interesting question.
    A football is a relatively cheap thing to buy wherever you are in the world. Failing that a "football" can be fashioned from a ball of rags/a fuit/a tin can etc etc.

    One ball, two kids, some kind of goal and football can be played anywhere, any time.

    There are few sports that can be played so easily and cheaply.
    I mean the pro sport, not participation.
    For the majority, play as a kid, watch as an adult.
    Honestly? I think that has very little to do with it.
    Surely high participation numbers = high numbers of youths that aspire.
    The viewing figures for the international competitions are way way way in excess of any participation numbers, and that also bears out in just who you see watching it. Whole families, people who have never kicked a ball in their life save for when a PE teacher was shouting at them.

    There is something in the mix of the game, the balance, the low scoring nature of it, whatever it is, that elevates it above all else.

    I do think the low scoring nature of it is quite critical; really adds a level of jeopardy.
    The people who watch the international competitions are the same people who watch curling at the Olympics. People are happy to cheer on their country in any big event.

    Otherwise, you've been given all the reasons already. There is a clear correlation between participation and viewing figures - for example, hurling and gaelic football are watched in Ireland where participation is high.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    I dunno, participation is high in the US but it gets very little traction as a professional sport.

    My experience in cycling clubs vs fans of pro-racing also points to a lack of correlation between participation and interest in the professional sport.

    My grandfather was a top footballer (got called up to play for Holland no less) and he much preferred cycling to football despite never donning lycra shorts or riding a road bike.

    I'm not anti-football, I actually really enjoy watching it. The hooliganism I don't like (and when you live next to a stadium which you don't attend, that's the bit you see) though I understand the tribalism is a big and enjoyable part of it, and it's hard to get into a sport that's behind a prohibitively high paywall.

    I just think there is something in the balance of the rules, whether it's the size of pitch vs the number of players, the size of the goal to make it just the right level of low scoring but not too low scoring, whatever it is, that elevates it from "something everybody does" to EASILY the most watched professional sport in the world - by absolute miles.

    We all can run and jump or throw balls or whatever, but there's something in 11 v 11 that is special.

    I've watched the odd pro 5v5 football and it's rubbish. There is something in 11 v 11 that makes it transcend pretty much every other sport.


    _
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,424
    People who, rather than simply stop using a forum or cancelling their account, choose to try to get themselves banned (and then rejoin again under a new name). Very odd.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    I dunno, participation is high in the US but it gets very little traction as a professional sport.

    My experience in cycling clubs vs fans of pro-racing also points to a lack of correlation between participation and interest in the professional sport.

    My grandfather was a top footballer (got called up to play for Holland no less) and he much preferred cycling to football despite never donning lycra shorts or riding a road bike.

    I'm not anti-football, I actually really enjoy watching it. The hooliganism I don't like (and when you live next to a stadium which you don't attend, that's the bit you see) though I understand the tribalism is a big and enjoyable part of it, and it's hard to get into a sport that's behind a prohibitively high paywall.

    I just think there is something in the balance of the rules, whether it's the size of pitch vs the number of players, the size of the goal to make it just the right level of low scoring but not too low scoring, whatever it is, that elevates it from "something everybody does" to EASILY the most watched professional sport in the world - by absolute miles.

    We all can run and jump or throw balls or whatever, but there's something in 11 v 11 that is special.

    I've watched the odd pro 5v5 football and it's rubbish. There is something in 11 v 11 that makes it transcend pretty much every other sport.


    You are using anecdotal evidence to argue against the in depth studies done around the world over decades.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    I am unaware of any such studies nor any referenced here, so I'm nor sure that's entirely fair.

    Is there a study that says participation = interest in the professional sport?
    _
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,208
    edited January 2022
    You don't need any real technical knowledge to watch football.
    When a family is sat in front of the TV watching whoever in the World cup, Mum who expresses no interest normally will know the simplicity of if the ball goes between those posts it's a goal. A simple numeric: one point - a goal. A bunch of people chasing after a ball. You could say the same for rugby except it's not so free flowing or binary.

    If you had never seen a cricket game in your life, the terminology alone would bamboozle you. "When you are in you are out and when you are out you are in" such is the state of the batting or fielding side on a wicket where the ball is moving in the air and it's a sticky wicket and that is the reason why 1 wicket has already gone this morning - he was out leg before wicket and so the night watchman went and is out, replaced by a tail ender and will face this spin onslaught and more googlies from the left handed Pavel Singh coming over the wicket to try and get the last wicket... he's on his 3rd ball this over ...and so the batsman is lining up middle and off... Of course if it rains Ritchie, who's likely to win under the Duckworth Lewis method?...

    I watched the world cup final on a small Black and White TV between Holland and Argentina as a boy not knowing the rules (bar not handling the ball). The ticker tape, the noise, the roar of the crowd and it was one of those absolutely magical moments in my childhood. Half time was spent kicking a tennis ball around the hall.

    There are few ball sports (if any) where the object is so blatantly simple, the point scoring is simple, where the reaction of the crowd is direct (and mostly) unambiguous.

    Next time you are watching a bike race and someone who doesn't know much about cycling asks you "who's winning?"(and there's still 120km to go and there's no breakaways), try and explain it.in simple terms that will attract or endear them to the sport.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    more simplistically look at other sports and try and break the link between participation and watching.

    If you take Sri Lanka I would be amazed if you could find a non-cricket playing county with a 20 million population that had more people watching cricket
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,993
    The low scoring in football also makes it more unpredictable. If the goal was twice the size, the game would still essentially be the same but where there is a gulf in skill, the better team would always win.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,018
    rick_chasey said:

    I dunno, participation is high in the US but it gets very little traction as a professional sport.

    This just isn't true. MLS is now quite popular, but the main reason it doesn't compete with established US professional sports (aside from the weight of history there), is that it is pretty crap. The best football in the world is played in Europe, so that's what people watch and follow on TV. In pretty large numbers.

    It is a bit like why American Football is fairly popular here, but we don't have any London Broncabuckaroos any more, and why the NFL Europe would never succeed.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Which bit isn't true? That there isn't high participation, or that none of them watch football?

    Surely the fact that more people play football in the US than ice hockey or American football would translate into those being more popular professional sports?
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,791
    rick_chasey said:

    Which bit isn't true? That there isn't high participation, or that none of them watch football?

    Surely the fact that more people play football in the US than ice hockey or American football would translate into those being more popular professional sports?

    A lot of girls play football in the US. This is why their women's team has historically been a lot stronger.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Which bit isn't true? That there isn't high participation, or that none of them watch football?

    Surely the fact that more people play football in the US than ice hockey or American football would translate into those being more popular professional sports?

    A lot of girls play football in the US. This is why their women's team has historically been a lot stronger.
    You'd have thought that would translate into viewers, according to the logic of participation > popularity.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,791
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Which bit isn't true? That there isn't high participation, or that none of them watch football?

    Surely the fact that more people play football in the US than ice hockey or American football would translate into those being more popular professional sports?

    A lot of girls play football in the US. This is why their women's team has historically been a lot stronger.
    You'd have thought that would translate into viewers, according to the logic of participation > popularity.
    Women's sports don't get many viewers, but that is another topic.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Which bit isn't true? That there isn't high participation, or that none of them watch football?

    Surely the fact that more people play football in the US than ice hockey or American football would translate into those being more popular professional sports?

    A lot of girls play football in the US. This is why their women's team has historically been a lot stronger.
    You'd have thought that would translate into viewers, according to the logic of participation > popularity.
    Women's sports don't get many viewers, but that is another topic.
    So participations > popularity only applies to men?
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,791
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Which bit isn't true? That there isn't high participation, or that none of them watch football?

    Surely the fact that more people play football in the US than ice hockey or American football would translate into those being more popular professional sports?

    A lot of girls play football in the US. This is why their women's team has historically been a lot stronger.
    You'd have thought that would translate into viewers, according to the logic of participation > popularity.
    Women's sports don't get many viewers, but that is another topic.
    So participations > popularity only applies to men?
    It would be interesting to know the most watched sports in the US by women, but I would imagine the big four are still watched more, so yes, the theory probably only holds for men.

  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,018
    rick_chasey said:

    Which bit isn't true? That there isn't high participation, or that none of them watch football?

    Surely the fact that more people play football in the US than ice hockey or American football would translate into those being more popular professional sports?

    The NHL is the least watched of the US pro sports. Soccer in the US has both higher participation and I'm willing to guess probably higher viewing figures overall.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,018
    And what do you know, even MLS has overtaken it...

    https://worldsoccertalk.com/2021/12/09/soccer-surpasses-nhl-as-4th-most-popular-sport-in-united-states/

Categories