Football is the best (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/05012006/325/study-shows-football-most-exciting-sport.html)

Football is the most exciting sport, even the Yanks say so

Interesting - although I'm not sure if it's fair to take data from the past 100 years, because of the sports on the list, only soccer and baseball were even organized sports at the time. The NBA (basketball) did not exist, the NFL (American football) did not exist, and I'm not sure about the NHL (hockey), although I'm pretty sure hockey got it's start before basketball and football.

Yeah, but it says that soccer has become a bit rubbish in the last decade. And where was cricket in that poll? That last Ashes series would have rated pretty highly under those criteria.

It seems like "upset frequency" is a very limited determiner of the most exciting sport...is a 40 - 0 upset more exciting than a 24 - 21 victory by the favorite?

Good point, Hacken Slash. One of the best games I saw in the last few weeks was when New Zealand almost beat the odds to chase Australia's mammoth 324 but fell a couple of runs short. We lost, but it was a stunning game and the end result was not an upset.

I think the only way to sort this out is for us to into a time machine and watch every sports game from the last 100 years ourselves. After that, if we still don't agree, we'll have to have a fight to the death, with the survivor being able to declare their sport the winner.

Lets just use the time machine anyway. I know that I wouldn't mind watching every game played in the last 100 years :D

I think the way to tell definitively would be to determine which fans got the least drunk at the events ;)


[edit]...nevermind, that would make it golf.

I love when some centralized polls make the results of the whole world :nono:

What about Argentinian, Spanish, Italian and other leagues? I'm sure about this, in Argentina we don't have a kind of 'Chelsea' team that has the best players to win everything, so every year is a lotery, you don't know who will win the championship.

And of course, football maybe the most exciting sport of all but for whom? I'm sure Cuban people would like baseball instead...

We have baseball in England, only it's called 'rounders' and if anyone other than 10 year old girls play it, they get the piss ripped out of them. Which is how it should be. It's one of the worst sports in the world!
Football is king, it's played allover the world. It's key has to be that it's easy to pick up. All you need is a football and nothing else.

SOCCER, is flat out BORING. The article just shows you can used statistics to prove anything. The scientists were probably all geeks pounded on by jocks in high school (except the soccer jocks -- who were also geeks in my high school).

Back when I was in high school only girls played soccer (it was called field hockey) -- and the jock wannabees. The boys who did play soccer got 'the piss ripped out of them.' However, nobody messed with the dude who could pitch a 90 mph fastball.

Football (the real kind), hockey, and basketball are exciting. Baseball is too slow to be exciting, but it's a good thing to watch while drinking (nothing gets spilled, unless a ball comes your way).

Soccer ranks right up there with curling, track and field, cross-country skiing as a spectator sport.

I would say basketball is the most exciting to play, because it offers a variety of exciting things (dunking, passing, shooting, blocking, stealing, moves, teamwork, you name it). The best thing about basketball though, is that with the relative easyness to score, games are often settled in the last few minutes, perhaps even by the last shot at the final second. This does not happen in soccer and other sports (almost never happens, anyway).

You sad, deluded man :lol: . Americans really are in a world of their own, with their own little crappy sports that only they play seriously :p . Football is KING, there's a reason it's played allover the world and is the most popular sport around (worldwide). It is my life, my absolute life. It's such an important thing for me.

Ah well, the glory of opinions, eh? :lol:

However, nobody messed with the dude who could pitch a 90 mph fastball. Many cricket fast bowlers can send a ball at pushing 100mph on occasion and 95mph regularly. And these balls are bloody tough and quite heavy, not softish and light like baseballs, you should try THAT on for size when it's flying are your upper body at that pace :thumb: .

Football is KING, there's a reason it's played allover the world and is the most popular sport around (worldwide). No, soccer is OLD, but a good game; that's why it's not only survived, but flourished. American football is young, but doing the same; the NFL Europe is only the beginning. There's bound to be a clash over the name, of course, which I believe soccer will win simply by seniority, but both sports are bound to prosper.

One other reason that soccer is more popular is because its fan base isn't split. There's no baseball where there's cricket; there's no cricket where there's baseball. There's no American football where there's rugby; there's no rugby where there's American football. But soccer has no similar sport to compete with, so it gets 100% of the people who like the style.

Basketball is young and growing, and may even compete globally with soccer someday. Volleyball, on the other hand, as much as I positively adore the game, I don't think it's got what it takes to go global. Tennis decidedly doesn't, since it's been out there so long with a relatively lackluster following.

Personally I prefer football... However excitement-wise I must admit that Hockey beats 'em all. Nothing beats the atmosphere of a hockey 'stadium'. It's quite dull to watch it on the telly, though.

Cricket is completely different to baseball, just as American football is completely different to rugby. That's a lame excuse if you don't mind to saying so pal. Football is immensely popular because it's GOOD. Just because you Americans don't like it, doesn't mean you can think of little excuses why everyone else does. Everyone else likes it because it's an incredibly good sport. If you think it's boring, you obviously haven't watched the right games.
Trust me, I'm a sports nut, I know about these things :p .

What a stupid premisis - likelihood of an upset is in no way an indicator of how exciting a sport is to watch.

I would say that the most exciting team that I have ever watched would have to be the Edmonton Oilers (NHL Ice Hockey) during the mid 80s. They were a dominant offensive powerhouse and you watched to see them wipe the floor with the competition.

Personally, I find football rather boring although I have no problem seeing why there would be the most upsets - if the majority of the games end up being decided by a single goal then the odds of the underdog winning on a lucky goal are greatly increased.

I think that there a lots of exciting sports. For me, cricket is the most exciting because every ball is a build up to something that might happen, especially when you have a top class bowler to a great batsman. Shane Warne bowling to Brian Lara - you know something's going to happen. That's tension, even though cricket is a 'slow' sport.

But I can see how other sports can be exciting too, especially when it is your team playing. I can understand why all those Liverpool fans loved that soccer game last year when they came back from behind to win. If that was my team, I would have been excited too.

If I had the time, I would probably follow all of the sports that have been discussed here, but I barely get enough time to watch all the cricket and rugby that I want to.

Cricket is fantastic because of how it is played. Some of my mates say "I only watch the highlights, then it cuts all the boring bits out" which is rubbish because if you know what you're looking for, there are no boring bits. How the bowlers use traps and techniques to try and lull batsmen into playing certain shots and certain plays. A bowler who makes the batsmen do what he wants them to do is just a joy to watch. Warney is the master of that, with McGrath a close second. Flintoff also does it very well. That's why cricket is so good. A test match usually lasts 5 days, but each hour of those days is engaging viewing as far as I'm concerned, I never get bored.

Cricket is completely different to baseball, just as American football is completely different to rugby. Yes, I hear this all the time from people who regularly compare the two anyway, saying that American football is rugby for wimps, etc. :rolleyes: Pick a direction and go with it. :p Regardless of how different they are, they still look the same to an outsider, and my point on exclusivity still stands.
Football is immensely popular because it's GOOD. If you had bothered to read my post, you'd see that I agree with you, ya blind hooligan! ;)
If you think it's boring, you obviously haven't watched the right games. *Buzz* Wrong. A buddy of mine tried to turn me on to soccer by showing me the best games he could think of. I was mildly interested, but not nearly as much as the hooting madman next to me. Of course, I used to love baseball when I was a kid but I don't anymore; maybe it's a maturity thing. ;)

That's why cricket is so good. A test match usually lasts 5 days, but each hour of those days is engaging viewing as far as I'm concerned, I never get bored. I love it when I can take 5 days off work and spent it at the park watching a great test match in the sun. Much better than hanging out at the beach.

A buddy of mine tried to turn me on to soccer by showing me the best games he could think of. I was mildly interested, but not nearly as much as the hooting madman next to me. I can be the nicest guy in the world, until football :lol: then I turn into a complete headcase and get screaming my head off at the TV. I'd never fight or anything like that, that's just not me (as in I'm a complete wimp) but a few of my mates are banned from football grounds and have their passports taken off them when England play abroad. Makes them sound like complete pricks, but honestly, get to know them outside football and they're as nice as pie. Always help you out and do favours for you etc. I suppose it all depends on how much importance you put on your sports.

I love it when I can take 5 days off work and spent it at the park watching a great test match in the sun. Much better than hanging out at the beach. In the park watching a test match? I take it you mean local cricket? Or do you mean on the big screens often put up. There's always massive cinema screen type things at parks here when England are playing in a test. It's brilliant going to one of them, you feel like you've got your own little barmy army :D .

I can be the nicest guy in the world, until football :lol: then I turn into a complete headcase and get screaming my head off at the TV. Ditto for me and a Packer game. And my aunt could make your head explode if a game lasted 5 hours. :xx:

Barmy Army is corect , football is the best ! :)

In the park watching a test match? I take it you mean local cricket? Or do you mean on the big screens often put up. No, at the actual ground watching the test match. Eden Park, for example.

To all you 'futball' fans I must say that what gets my heart to pumping is watching a good horseman (woman) showing off a well schooled horse. :outta:

Dressage, jumps, or... whatever do you call the combos of dressage, jumps and trail in EWnglish..., Nakia? :D

I used to watch a lot of football (soccer), but rugby has since been my favourite sport to watch because one side is always attacking. You cannot really play defensively in rugby, one side always has to attack, whereas in soccer you can hold the ball in your half for ages.

@Arabwell, not sure what you mean by combos. Dressage and jumping will usually appear together in a horse show but trail riding is unique because it covers long distances. Sometimes as much as 3 days. The main judgement is on the horse but the rider is judged on care of the horse and a couple of other things.
Jumping is the favorite of the general public here in the USA because it is more spectacular. Most people look at dressage and just see someone getting on a horse and riding around. You have to be horseback rider of at least a little skill to appreciate Dressage.

I can't talk of horsey stuff in English properly, I never picked up the terminology... but there's this combo thing that's done here that has the same horse/rider pair doing jumps, dressage andshort trail and the overall performance is what counts - not sure what to call it *shrugs' I thinkt he literal translation is something like "field"... I was rahter interested in those when I was younger.

Football (the real kind)Erm....that would be soccer as you guys call it. Your version of football came much later, and instead of coming up with an original name, you nicked the name of the most popular sport on the planet. Why someone would want to call a game where feet are hardly used football, is beyond my imagination, but i guess those helmets limit clear thinking. :shake:

Actually, now that I think about it, I reckon American Football is actually more comparable to cricket than to sport like rugby or soccer. Now this may sound insane at first, but there a few reasons why I say this:
1) Both cricket and American football last for several hours (with countless commercial breaks) compared to 80 or 90 minutes for rugby and soccer
2) Both sports are ‘fragmented’, in that there is a lot of standing around between short periods of action, compared to something like soccer where the ball is pretty much in motion for the whole game
3) The appeal of both sports is about the tactical buildup to each ‘fragment’ (the setup of each snap in American football and the delivery of the ball in cricket)
4) To the untrained eye, many of the fragments can seem completely boring. In American Football, you get so many incomplete downs where the attacking team drops the ball or only advances 1 metre and in cricket you get so many balls when no runs are scored.
5) In both sports, the drama is more of a ‘tension’ as you watch the manoeuvring that leads to something spectacular (like a great run or awesome touchdown catch in American Football; or a wicket or six in cricket)
6) Both sports have infinite statistical possibilities and various obscure records are always being broken (e.g. most yards rushing in a losing team or most wickets taken in the first innings of a test)
7) Both sports can look great in the highlights package at the end of the day (for people who only want to see the spectacular moments of the game)

Except in cricket, a big fat beergut isn't required to be on the defensive end of your team. It would make them look rather silly in those funny picknick outfits. :D

Also, both games require a similar volume of protective equipment, although a batsman wears most of his on his legs rather than his shoulders.

Thats nothing compared to the worlds fastest team sport - hurling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurling) . This makes football, rugby and american football look very girly indeed!

Fastest based on what? I thought pelote was the fastest sport?

Hmm, hurling looks like a variation of lacrosse (or vice-versa, probably). There are some major differences, but the basic idea (throwing a ball between goalposts using a stick) is pretty much the same. The funny thing is that at first I thought you said curling was the fastest sport. :lol:

Both cricket and American football last for several hours (with countless commercial breaks) Maybe this is something that is unique to American sports, but all of our major sports take a really long time to play. Hockey and basketball are probably the shortest, and even they routinely last 2 - 2.5 hours. Football easily last 3 hours, and baseball, depending on the pace of the game, frequently goes over 4 hours. I can't think of a single single significant sport in the U.S. that is finished in under 2 hours.

Both sports have infinite statistical possibilities and various obscure records are always being broken They both might have infinite statistical possibilities, but if you're into statistics, the sport of choice is baseball. The whole game is based on percentages really: Batting average and ERA are the most obvious, but there's OBP, slugging, WHIP, K/9, OBPS, and that's off the top of my head. Obviously, if you don't follow baseball, you have no idea what I'm talking about.

I think I'm a lot like Barmy Army in terms of my sports watching - but I follow all the sports he doesn't and vice versa.

A couple of questions for Barmy: Why do you consider an American baseball to be a "soft" ball? While I admit that it has a leather coating, and it differs from a cricket ball which is basically a spherical hockey puck (in terms of what it feels like) I can't see why you would think a baseball is soft - there really isn't any "give" to a baseball.

The sport you refer to as "rounders" sounds a whole lot like American softball, which is also considered primarily a female sport in the U.S. In fact one of the primary differences between baseball and softball (other than the whole underhanded pitching thing) is that baseball is played with what is commonly called a "hardball".

A couple of questions for Barmy: Why do you consider an American baseball to be a "soft" ball? While I admit that it has a leather coating, and it differs from a cricket ball which is basically a spherical hockey puck (in terms of what it feels like) I can't see why you would think a baseball is soft - there really isn't any "give" to a baseball.When I said 'soft' I didn't mean like squidgy soft. It's just that the leather on the outside of a baseball is kind of soft. I mean, you can't squeeze it but there's a certain amount of give. Whereas a cricket ball is rock solid and bigger and whole lot heavier. You certainly know about it more if a cricket ball hits you than a baseball.

You certainly know about it more if a cricket ball hits you than a baseball. I think a cricket ball is probably a bit harder than a baseball but I think I'd know about it if I was hit by either of them.

but if you're into statistics, the sport of choice is baseball Both baseball and cricket are chock full of statistics. To a certain extent, cricket would be much less interesting without all the statistics. I have a good friend who is fanatical about both cricket AND baseball (a very rare combination, given all our other discussions about how the two sports are not actually both big in any one country) and it is no coincidence that he is also a statistics freak.

Crickte is full of statistics because every action by a player is individually measurable, as opposed to something like soccer where it is more subjective as to how many tackles someone did or how well they controlled the ball.

Fo example, last week, New Zealand fast bowler Shane Bond became the bowler with the best strike rate in the history of one day cricket (of bowlers who have bowled more than 1000 balls). Strike rate is number of balls bowled divided by number of wickets taken. This differs from the usual measure of a bowler's ability which is number of runs conceded divided by number of wickets taken.

I think a cricket ball is probably a bit harder than a baseball but I think I'd know about it if I was hit by either of them. One of the things that might be confusing this issue is that there are two kind of baseballs: a softball and a baseball. Softballs are a bit bigger than baseballs, and as their name suggests, softer. Baseballs, OTOH, are just slightly smaller than your fist (well, MY fist anyway) and "hard as a rock", as Barmy put it. No doubt many of you know this, but I wanted to make sure everyone did. :)

I might just be being a big girl's blouse here, but I don't think I'd like to be hit by either a cricket ball, baseball ball, OR a softball ball because I reckon they all hurt.

And before anyone starts putting down softball, I'd just like to say that the New Zealand Black Sox are currently the World Softball Champions. And softball is mostly played by the same tough Pacific Island families that play rugby league so I wouldn't mess with any of them and start calling them girls.

@Harbourboy - Hey! We agreed that this was MY week to be the big girls blouse! You're supposed to be the fat mans pants!

On the popularity of soccer (for the sake of clarity), I think the person who posted that all you need is a ball really hit on it. As it really requires very little equipment (it can be played with a ball of rags) it can be played practically anywhere by even the poorest people. And it is quite fun to play. Especially in small groups.

It's popularity is not surprising.

Jack, that makes sense (plus the fact that everyone can participate at once - unlike cricket or baseball where 90% of players are standing around waiting), although it doesn't explain why soccer is so comparatively unpopular in countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and USA. In theory, due to the lack of equipment required, it should be just as popular there too.

Hey Barmy...are you sure these aren't the "Intelligent Design" scientists? :p

Tell me what they are and I'll let you know

Football is exciting and fun to watch and everything, but I enjoy and respect a lot more sports which require a superior level of physical prowess and athletic power, because that is what sports are all about.

Being hit with a baseball or softball doesn't really hurt that much...just gotta learn where it hurts and where it doesn't.

I catch and pitch for baseball, and also catch for the chick thats #1 pitcher in our state during practice. She throws in the area of 100 MPH, and tbh unless it hits you in the nuts or neck it doesnt hurt all that bad..same for baseball...rib shots hurt a little bit more with them because of the small size.

as for most exciting sport I would say American Football for me. It's fun to play , and fun to watch, where as for me baseball is fun to play boring to watch and basketball...well i just dont like basketball. Soccer is fun to play but I cannot watch it.

:rolleyes: When I was in high school I used to play baseball and as a pitcher I can say that getting hit by a line drive from a hard ball hurts plenty.

To this day I still wince at the memory of one line drive that I took straight to the gut - I had an absolutely hideous looking circular bruise for a couple weeks after that one. I don't want to even think about what would have happened if the guy had hit it back at me a little bit higher (or lower for that matter).

I don't really want to get hit with any kind of ball.

In cricket, fielders don't wear catching gloves - when the ball is hit to you at a million miles an hour, you know it's gonna hurt if you catch it, and even more if you misfield.

Good point Tassadar. Collecting the cricket ball anywhere other than the middle of your hands will cause a lot more pain (whatever you do, don't get hit on the end of your fingers).

And don't even mention standing the slip cordon or even worse... silly point! Sod that for a game of marbles.