|
Post by indiga on Oct 28, 2009 14:23:08 GMT
But Beckam played in LA...anyway, I prefer Messi ;D
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 28, 2009 15:36:43 GMT
But Beckam played in LA...anyway, I prefer Messi ;D There is a growing number of US European football/soccer fans! Still most Americans aren't aware of the US professional European football/soccer teams. e.g. Los Angeles Galaxy, Chicago Fire, Kansas City Wizards, etc.. I looked in the internet to find out where the Chicago Fire plays and so far none of my US relatives have heard of this team before i asked them about it. Los Angeles Galaxy has more popularity, but professional baseball, US football, basketball and ice hockey are much better known in the US!
|
|
|
Post by indiga on Oct 30, 2009 21:09:27 GMT
It is curious, because here european football is a kind of crazyness!
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 19, 2009 23:49:43 GMT
Where are you, Latin America? Remember Honduras and Guatemala started a war over a soccer match! (Or was it El Salvador?) I now live right behind and next to an entrance road leading to the national GAA stadium which a year or two ago agreed to allow Rugby and Soccer and it was even reported on the news that 'God Save the Queen' was played without incident the first time England played there. It seems that in 1918 or something British troops opened fire on the crowd and killed a few, and people have long memories. Up North they're still gloating about 1689 after all.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 27, 2009 12:18:52 GMT
Was Beckam famous in the USA?? only as mr spice girl
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Nov 27, 2009 12:22:27 GMT
I have absolutely no idea whether soccer is big in the US. It's OK to watch ocassionally IMO but it's not the big sport for me.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 28, 2009 18:18:26 GMT
I have absolutely no idea whether soccer is big in the US. It's OK to watch ocassionally IMO but it's not the big sport for me. forty years from now, it will be. it is pretty big with kids, and there are soccer leagues in every city and school. it will take a couple of generations though for those kids to have kids and make it a popular spectator sport
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 27, 2010 18:18:24 GMT
I've tried to watch soccer a number of times but have always found it to be about on par with badminton and curling in terms of excitement and interest. Just a lot of running back and forth with very little scoring. Most of the games I've tried to watch have been won on penalty kicks or with an opposing team shorthanded. Seems like the games are often won or lost by the referees rather than the players. Hockey is another non-starter for me and for the same reasons.
Houston has a professional soccer team and the games are well attended. However, the fans are mostly latino immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. There aren't many native Americans who bother to attend.
However, I'm not down on all Euro sports. For me the Tour de France is a high point of the sports year. It's a sport that has benefitted greatly from technology. I love those small portable video cameras that can send clear TV signals from a photographer on a motorcycle high in the Alps to my living room in Houston.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 27, 2010 18:20:06 GMT
I've tried to watch soccer a number of times but have always found it to be about on par with badminton and curling in terms of excitement and interest. Just a lot of running back and forth with very little scoring. Most of the games I've tried to watch have been won on penalty kicks or with an opposing team shorthanded. Seems like the games are often won or lost by the referees rather than the players. Hockey is another non-starter for me and for the same reasons. Houston has a professional soccer team and the games are well attended. However, the fans are mostly latino immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. There aren't many native Americans who bother to attend. However, I'm not down on all Euro sports. For me the Tour de France is a high point of the sports year. It's a sport that has benefitted greatly from technology. I love those small portable video cameras that can send clear TV signals from a photographer on a motorcycle high in the Alps to my living room in Houston. Try rugby - its a bit like your football, but without all the nancy padding
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 27, 2010 18:26:38 GMT
Fret - I don't recall ever hearing or reading about a Rugby game being played in the Houston area. Might have to go to Europe to see that.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 27, 2010 18:29:54 GMT
Fret - I don't recall ever hearing or reading about a Rugby game being played in the Houston area. Might have to go to Europe to see that. DAS the six nations championship is on now, check the TV or go online.....
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 28, 2010 19:29:52 GMT
Not possible Fret. The Setanta Sports Channel is on Directv channel 615 and Dish channel 406 costing $14,99 a month. They have the six nations rugby matches on a delayed schedule. Setanta is not available on cable (which I have) only on satellite. The monthly subscription cost would be too high even if it was available because they don't carry many events that I would find of interest.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 28, 2010 19:43:23 GMT
Look here Fret www.setanta.com/US/Setana is a specialized sports channel that isn't widely available at any price. It is available in some markets (for example, Comcast (my cable provider) only carries it in Atlanta, Boston, and San Francisco). It costs $15 per month where it is available. Most of what they carry are Euro sports (soccer and rugby) which are of little or no interest to 99 percent of USA sports fans. We have zero exposure to Rugby, don't know the rules, never see it played live or on TV. So I don't see how it could become popular over here. Soccer is on TV twenty four hours a day here but primarily on the Spanish language stations.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 28, 2010 22:33:23 GMT
Look here Fret www.setanta.com/US/Setana is a specialized sports channel that isn't widely available at any price. It is available in some markets (for example, Comcast (my cable provider) only carries it in Atlanta, Boston, and San Francisco). It costs $15 per month where it is available. Most of what they carry are Euro sports (soccer and rugby) which are of little or no interest to 99 percent of USA sports fans. We have zero exposure to Rugby, don't know the rules, never see it played live or on TV. So I don't see how it could become popular over here. Soccer is on TV twenty four hours a day here but primarily on the Spanish language stations. DAS I thought Setanta went out of business! Try the Irish pages... www.setanta.com/ie/28 February 2010 18:00 GMT Wales v France Coverage from the 2010 Six Nations rugby competition. If the BBC covered the game use the BBC iPlayer But don't pay!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 4, 2010 2:41:23 GMT
Fret - I did find a you tube tutorial on Rugby. It does look a lot like American football but they're missing the best part (the forward pass). Definitely has some common roots with American football. Much better than soccer. Unavailable here though.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Mar 4, 2010 11:56:25 GMT
Fret - I did find a you tube tutorial on Rugby. It does look a lot like American football but they're missing the best part (the forward pass). Definitely has some common roots with American football. Much better than soccer. Unavailable here though. Its the forward pass that has ruined American football. The whole point of Rugby Football is that it about 'gained ground'. You have to advance up the pitch using your power, the ball is merely the marker to how much territory you have gained. The idea you can simply run up the pitch and catch a ball thrown forward without actually taking that ground in the first place defeats the whole point of both games. To be fair though, rugby has changed far too much in recent times. Too many rule changes have taken the enjoyment of it for me.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 4, 2010 18:26:21 GMT
Fret - I did find a you tube tutorial on Rugby. It does look a lot like American football but they're missing the best part (the forward pass). Definitely has some common roots with American football. Much better than soccer. Unavailable here though. Its the forward pass that has ruined American football. The whole point of Rugby Football is that it about 'gained ground'. You have to advance up the pitch using your power, the ball is merely the marker to how much territory you have gained. The idea you can simply run up the pitch and catch a ball thrown forward without actually taking that ground in the first place defeats the whole point of both games. To be fair though, rugby has changed far too much in recent times. Too many rule changes have taken the enjoyment of it for me. wrong. the forward pass IS football. the "three yards and a cloud of dust" is boring as hell. it was fine back when the "four horsemen" were on the scene, but it stinks. there is also the point that, no matter how good the runner was, if there wasn't a viable threat of a pass, the entire defense gets to gang up on him, and he won't go anywhere
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Mar 4, 2010 18:47:47 GMT
wrong. the forward pass IS football. Isn't the forward pass a newish invention? I agree that it changed the game in quite a dramatic fashion, but it betrays the games origins as a 'gained ground' game, into an overblown game of catch.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 5, 2010 12:27:22 GMT
wrong. the forward pass IS football. Isn't the forward pass a newish invention? I agree that it changed the game in quite a dramatic fashion, but it betrays the games origins as a 'gained ground' game, into an overblown game of catch. to an extent, yes. of course, it depends on your perspective. there are people who think a defensive game is cool. a 7-3 score is their cup of tea. of course, that is boring as hell. the reason that i liked the arena league was because the scores would be 60-57 or so. the more scoring, the better. the only time that a run is exciting is when the chap breaks loose for forty yards or so, which is not commonplace you must also remember that part of the game is for the defense to not allow the catch
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Mar 5, 2010 13:05:50 GMT
of course, that is boring as hell. They started showing the NFL on Channel 4 here 25 years ago or so. When LA had two teams and the Colts where still in Baltimore. Not live but just the recorded highlights. The first 3/4 would get condensed down to about 10 minutes showing touchdowns, turnovers great plays etc. Missing out the punts, three and outs and small gains etc. They would then show the last quarter 'as live', with the breaks for time outs and turnovers taken out. That worked well, until they started showing the whole game live and then the viewing figures dived. I think the games are too slow for British sports fans. The NFL sunday night game is on Channel 5 now, which is a bit of a come down, although the superbowl is on the BBC. I don't think Channel 5 can afford the rights, so the public service broadcasters has to take it over. The 3rd quarter blow out in the late 80s didn't help either to be honest. For me, the game only works from the two minute warning. That is when it gets interesting, with a no huddle offence on the pitch. The rest is just build up. Don't get wrong, I am not knocking the sport, I am not trying to bad mouth another person's passion, or say it is a silly game or anything like that, just not my cup of tea. I can accept that America may never take up normal football and that some find it and rugby boring. You guys like your sports and we prefer ours. No problem either way.
|
|