Sci-fi author John Ringo on the differences between American football
and soccer.
"In football, there are constant pauses where both sides reconsolidate.
The leader, dealing with advisors out of the battle frenzy, determines
the moves for the next assault while casualties are removed and resupply
(WATERBOY!) is managed without interfering with the planning. Once the
plan is established, it is sent to all the lower units who move into
position and on H Hour begin the assault. There is an objective, but the
objective is rarely reached, rather the assault brings the forces
forward a bit farther and another assault is planned. During the
assault, each unit has a stated objective and often secondary objectives
with precise plans on how to achieve them. That being said, sometimes,
often, in the midst of the assault, the plans tend to go awry and units
have to act in an aggressive, intelligent and pro-active manner to
ensure its success. Most of plans are not designed to take the main
objective, but to prevent the enemy from reacting to the main assault.
Occasionally broad, deceptive stratagems are enacted and are very
successful. But in general the best technique is a slow ground pound
towards the enemy headquarters. This may be more brutal, but it's also
the best way to avoid major defeats. Occasional airmobile raids and
assaults into the enemy backfield are appropriate and can enact major
gains. They also can enact major defeats, so choose wisely. And,
eventually, you take the enemy's headquarters and, nine times out of
ten, they counterattack. The bastards.
In the meantime the defenders are making their plans. They aren't as
fixed as the assault group, because they don't know exactly what the
assault will turn out to be. So, by and large, they put their heavy
forces to the fore with light, fast forces to the rear in case the enemy
stages a breakout. They would like to stop the enemy cold or even
counterattack and push them back. But their main focus is simply to
break up the attack and channel it to ineffectiveness. Occasionally they
base their strategy on a plan of counter-attack during the assault. It's
risky, it risks that their intermediate weight "anti-breakout" units are
tied up in the counter-attack. But when successful it's devastating.
In soccer there is a continuous fluidity. The objective changes from
moment to moment and no one can give clear orders because the situation
changes too rapidly. There are, at best, weak and limited plans with
exception of occasional brilliant coordination by a few minor units. The
best most leaders can do is give general directions and hope for the
best. Although there is a target, it is rarely achieved. There is no
logistical resupply except removing units and replacing them with
sub-par ones. It depends upon the fleet movement of light fast units. If
you kick them in the shins they tend to fall on the ground writhing in
agony.
Football is how Americans fight wars. Soccer is how the French do it.
I know which one I'd choose."
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.