Basketball's gotta be bigger world wide than baseball. Basketball is fairly big in some European countries, it's the second biggest sport in Spain for example. The world basketball championships are much less of a joke than the baseball championships too.
Why Most Americans Consider Soccer Girly
- Thread starter Fifty
- Start date
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The goals are not the only things that happen during a game. There is far more that goes on.
It's like saying that you're not going to have sex just for 1 orgasm. A lot more goes on!
downtown said:
The best players do not world champions make. The White Sox won a couple years ago (2?). Did they have all the best players in the league?
I find it a bit arrogant of you to assume that no teams from other countries could beat a MLB team. If that were true maybe we should just give the trophy automatically with the team with the best players each year? Why have the playoffs? The team that spends the most on players should just be crowned world champions!
Over a 162 game regular season, their pitching staff performed better than anybody elses. They had some of the best players at the most important posistions.
You can call it arrogant if you like, but I don't think there is any evidence to the contrary, unless they actually played. It might be a fun exhibition series. Honestly, the only non-American domestic league I know anything about is the Japaneese one, where the best players try every offseason to come and play in the American leaugues.
Where does your line of thinking end? Do we let in college teams? Teams from Afirca? Anybody who wants to play? At some point, you say "you are not good enough"
I think the NBA is like this too, with the other domestic leagues. I don't think the Boston Celtics, or the Spur, or the Lakers, would need to feel obligated to play Real Madrid, or any of the squads in Moscow or Israel, to comfortablly call itself world champ, when there might be less than 20 players in the entire EUROleague that could even play in the NBA.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
The worst misconception is in #2. David Beckham might be a pretty boy, but he certainly never was a world class player.
As for the "acting", that is in part due to idiot refereeing, i.e. referees only awarding cards for the opponent when the player who was hit pretends to be close to dying. It's not a general thing though and more common in some leagues than in others.
Last match I watched was the North German Derby yesterday. Total girly stuff:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=peBpGA_9kTA
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
I can't think of any other major sport outside the US that calls themselves world champion, when they only have teams from one country playing in it. The European Champions League winners and whoever wins the South American verison of it are normally the only teams with a chance of winning the World Club Championship, but they still have it.
Several competitions from other sports allow small teams to play in the same competition as the big boys,
The FA Cup is the best example i can give, and the lower teams have done extremely well this year, hell Havant and Waterlooville were 2-1 up on Liverpool FC for a time! (I wasn't worried, well maybe a little!
)In fact most Football leagues in the world allow teams to complete in the same league ladder. I can play in a local league and if we kept winning we could go to the Premiership (not likely of course, but possible)
And the world cup for various sports allow small international teams to complete with the best, football has 208 members which most of them are taking part in the next world cup in 2010, Cricket allows teams like Ireland and the Netherlands to complete, Ireland got to the second round
Rugby allows smaller, rubbish on paper international teams to complete in the main finals of the last world cup in 2007 (England included! 
)I honestly think that is what i find best about sport is when a complete underdog gives one the the bigger teams a run for their money, without it i probably wouldn't be interested as i am at sport if i wasn't. A part of me even wanted Havant and Waterlooville to win that match at Liverpool
(we were never going to win it)
Statements like that are quite frankly ridiculous, how many other players have as many international caps as he does? part of the treble winning United team of 99 and has quite the back catalogue of medals and trophies. Not many other players can change the course of a game by one kick of a ball, ok so he wasn't the most potent goalscorer nor could he dribble round people but how was he any less world class than say Maldini etc.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
By being a significantly worse football player. An occasional set piece doesn't make a brilliant football player. A good one, okay, but we were talking World Class here.
As for his caps, of course he has them, being a media star and all. Now how far did England get with that, despite true World Class players like Gerrard?
Right so how is Gerrard anymore of a world class player than Beckham, at least on an international scale Beckham isn't almost always a disapointment, comparing him to Gerrard is obviously stupid as well, looking at how far England got without Beckham but with gerrard recently and theres that obvious blot- they didn't get anywhere. Naturally people hate him for his popularity but that doesn't diminish his playing ability and yet in the eyes of many it seems to cloud their judgement, he wasn't a significantly worse player in the slightest.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
I've seen him play for his whole career and I know what I saw.
He was/is a decent football player with some great skills when it comes to kicking the ball at set pieces, but not especially noteworthy were it not for the stardom that originates in all kinds of things other than football.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yeah, and if you asked anyone at the beginning of the season which team had the best players, would anybody have pointed to the White Sox? No, except perhaps a couple hardcore White Sox fans. My best friend is a hardcore White Sox fan, and he readily admits this. They did not win because they had the best players. They won because the coach & the team was able to work with what they had to outsmart all the other teams.
Baseball actually relies on a lot of strategy, something I learned that year
The team with the best players does not always win. Come on, that is something everyone should know!
Exactly! Unless they actually played. My point exactly.
You beat all the best teams from the U.S.? Great! You're U.S. champions. Haven't played anyone outside of the U.S.? No way of knowing who would have won.
That's the nature of sport.
So? Do you have any idea how many Brazilians come to play in European soccer leagues, because of the money and the quality of play?
Does this mean that Brazilian national team could never compete against European national teams?
Hey, wait..
Play who you like, but the _____ in "______ champions" depends on who you end up playing and where they are from.
I'm not saying that American baseball teams should start playing teams from all over the world. It doesn't matter to me who they play at all.
I'm saying that the championship name should reflect who they play, lest it remain a farce.
You know, the only reason it is called the "World Championships" is because the league WANTS baseball to be a world sport.. It's nice to pretend these things, but they don't become reality just because you want them to..
It's like on one hand they want it to be a world sport, but on the other they admit that there aren't really many teams across the globe that could compete.
Pick one and go with it!
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
Although admittedly somewhat ignorant of baseball, it occurs to me that one could argue that the role of the 'team' is much less important in baseball then, say, football. That is, the necessity of having a team as a single thinking organism is much reduced in a sport like baseball. As you elude to, In football (soccer) it is not players that make a team successful, it is the synergy between them. A pair of stikers, each knowing exactly what their partner will do, Where he will be to pass to, where the other will run for a pass from. That kind of thing is what makes a team so important in football.
To me, it appears that these situations are much less common in baseball. It is a much more individualistic sport. For one, the batter is largely divorced from his team for obvious reasons. As is the pitcher from his. Both have targets which are dictated by tactics, rather then interaction between teamates. The fielders also don't really require much complex team interaction. They need their teamates to be competent throwers and catchers, but they never really need to deduce what their teamates are thinking. It's not that kind of game.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I'm not sure how right or wrong you are, as I am not a big fan of baseball, but I have been told that the White Sox won that championship with what is called.. small baseball?
It was another term.. It's basically.. playing the basics.
Yeah, the details elude me, but it does involve the playing of baseball basics.. and teamwork. Great players, or good.. no matter.
I believe that the Japanese champions challenged the White Sox to a game that year, but nothing ever came of that. The Japanese coach (who is American) seemed to think he could beat the Sox using the very style of play they used to win the U.S. championship.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Baseball is obviously less of a team effort. It is essentially all set pieces. Being a power slugger can make you a big star although you are at best mediocre in all other regards.
In football set pieces are just a (minor) part of the game. Which is why David Ortiz may be a world class baseball player but Beckham is not a world class footballer.
In football set pieces are just a (minor) part of the game. Which is why David Ortiz may be a world class baseball player but Beckham is not a world class footballer.
EnlightenmentHK
Emperor
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,479
All the best players in the league? No. The best players in the league that year? Very likely. The spent the entirety of the season with the best record in baseball up until the last few weeks. They nearly swept the entire playoffs, losing only a single game and just dominating everyone with superior pitching. As you might have guessed, I'm a Sox (the only Sox...the White ones) fan.
In either case, I'd say their pitching staff was probably the best in the league that year. Their defense had a few notable holes, but exceptional at a few positions. They had power but not the greatest at hitting for average. Speed only with the leadoff spot and bench players. (Crede and Konerko were and are statues) They wouldn't often dominate the other team. What they did do was all the little things coupled with superior pitching to ensure they won nearly every close game they were in.
There are alot of situational responses in baseball. If you have a teammate with speed on first or second you're gonna approaching things differently at the plate. How good the guy hitting behind you is will determine what kind of pitching you see if you're a quality hitter. Speed, range and arm in the outfield will determine how far in, off, or away you and other outfielders can play. Defenders must back eachother up. Center fielders charging in for a dive, the right (or left, defending where the ball is) fielder must rush behind him in case he misses it. First basemen moves to make a play on the ball, the pitcher must run to cover the base. Any defender must have the situational awareness to know when he can make a play at a certain base and when its not worth the risk. The people covering the bases must always be alert and aware of this as well.
Alot of those second ones are basic baseball fundamentals. Things that all players should know and be able to execute. (though some do it better than others) I'm not sure if it'd qualify under your definition of teamwork, but there's certainly some of that involved. Knowing the other guy's tendencies and capabilities can often dictate your own response to a defensive situation. It probably doesn't occur as often as in soccer, but its there. But every time the bat hits the ball there's a hell of alot more going on on the field than just the guy making the play on the ball. Pros usually make it look easy. But they're supposed to.
As for the pitcher, a good and experienced catcher that they're comfortable with can be a major asset. So they're not strictly on their own out there either. But the starting pitcher is no doubt the most important player on the field in any given game.
Baseball is obviously less of a team effort. It is essentially all set pieces. Being a power slugger can make you a big star although you are at best mediocre in all other regards.
In football set pieces are just a (minor) part of the game. Which is why David Ortiz may be a world class baseball player but Beckham is not a world class footballer.
No he's just a world class footballer for his other footballing abilities.
Of course I know that, thats the point. The best Brazilian club players don't play in the domestic Brazilian leagues, they play in Europe. The best European basketball players don't play in the Euroleague, they play in the NBA. The stars of the baseball leagues in Japan come to America.
Doesn't mean that American nationals are the best baseball players. We got our butts handed to us in the world baseball classic. It means our domestic *leagues* are going to be better. I know there are exceptions, but who would win most head to head matchups...American and Brazilian domestic soccer champs, or English, Italian or Spanish ones?
Now multiply that disparity by 5, since there are so many more soccer players than baseball or basketball.
Lambert Simnel
One across
Actually, we can be pretty sure. No non-American baseball team could compete the MLB teams over a 162 game season. It's like suggesting that the teams from the Scottish 2nd Division might be able to beat the English premiership Champions. On a one-off ? Well, it's conceivable, but unlikely. Over a full season, no chance at all.
Dunno, I still don't really get why the name "World Series" seems to irritate Europeans so much. It's just a name.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
wait what happened to the Corinthians, Cruzeiro, Porto Alegre, Flamengo, Sau Paulo, Fluminese, and Portoguesa? I think they could take on European teams. (not talking about Arsenal or AC Milan, i'm talking about Portsmouth, Celtic, Tottenham, Roma, etc.)
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I understand all that and even agree with it.
I just don't think it matters! You become the champion of something by playing teams from that region.
Want to be the high school volleyball champion? Beat other volleyball teams from your high school.
Want to be the Scottish ski jumping champion? Beat other ski jumpers from Scotland.
Want to be the Zimbabwean curling champions? Beat other curling teams from Zimbabwe.
Want to be World champion? ...
The name of the competition implies a geographical connection or at least, some related group of people. World champions. The name implies that the competition that you won to become champions involved playing teams from around the World.
It's logical. It makes sense. I will not accept exceptions to this logic for what can be reduced to marketing reasons.
Lambert Simnel said:
Hey, this is an internet forum, and we gotta voice our opinion on something! It's not like I'm going to go on a killing spree in an anti World Series Jihad.
We've talked about Jesus, we've talked about homosexuals, we've pretty much talked about most things we can talk about. I feel like voicing my opinion on this particular topic. Deal with it
Lambert Simnel
One across
Boy, warpus, you sure are het up about this one.
Similar threads
