Football is complete game.
Nobody would ever accuse Inzimam of being an athlete. But there are
plenty of sports in which people who aren't athletes can succeed
because they have superior hand-eye coordination. Cricket is one. But
some bowlers are terrific athletes. Just because Inzi is a fat bastard
doesn't mean the game itself is a game only for fat people who are
imho football suffers as a sport because it is just that, football.
The natural inclination for any person is to use their hands, to pick
something up, feel it between their fingers. Football might be the
most popular game in the world but that means absolute shite. The map
of the human senses has huge hands for feel, huge lips, huge tongue
for taste and huge genitals for enjoyment. These are the things human
beings use the most. That makes football a waste of time, in fact it
says very little about the skill humans are capable of. If you want
real skill then rugby, darts etc show much more about human
capabilities than football does.
Looks like someone's Daddy just bought him his first computer.
~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
cultures can live together in harmony. ~
Please don't call soccer football.
Soccer is football. It's not a matter of what the 'real' football is, soccer
is the game where the foot is used. I hate people calling AFL, League and
Union football when a lot of the game is played with the hands.
Not true. Only about ten countries play Test cricket, but the game is
played in far more countries than that.
> It does not need athletic skill
Not true (regardless of which football code you mean).
> Even inzamam can play cricket.
True. Which shows that the game is about more than just physical
fitness. I would say that was a plus point.
> Cricket take more time
>than any other game.
What about round the world yacht racing? :)
> Cricket is stupid game.
>Football is complete game.
Those last two assertions are purely subjective, and so cannot be proved
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)
So I take it the Goalkeepers in soccer aren't playing 'football'
or Diego Maradona
Education takes time, only stupid people watch short games...
Can't stand soccer but I agree it is the only game that should be called
Norway isn't one of the countries that plays cricket, so what, aside from
trolling, is the purpose of your post?
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006
><Abh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
>> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
>> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>> Football is complete game.
>Norway isn't one of the countries that plays cricket, so what, aside from
>trolling, is the purpose of your post?
That might come as a surprise to the reigning ECC Trophy winners
A troll !
And so many took the bait.
Mate you sound very bored, but then I guess I would be too if I watched a
game for 2 hours that ended in a 0-0 draw.
And the head, and the chest, and potentially every other part of the body
except the arms.
Yeah, good argument.
> I hate people calling AFL, League and Union football when a lot of the
> game is played with the hands.
And I hate people referring to "AFL" as if it were the name of the sport.
The AFL is merely the foremost LEAGUE in the sport of Australian Rules
I'm aware of that, and I agree that "soccer" is a stupid word. That's why I
think it's a perfect name for the sport.
No, it should be called soccer at all times because it antagonises the
effete weirdos who play it and like it.
Yup. So much better to watch a game for 5 days that ended in
a draw. If you want to watch a drawn game, it's better to go the
whole nine yards.
You're forgetting that a draw in cricket still involves getting a SCORE!
not a 0-0 result.
Consider the Robo world cup - robots playing sport (ie. Aibo). They play
SOCCER because it is the simplest of all the major sports - yes, even robots
can be programmed to kick balls into goals, but there is no way robots could
play cricket because it is far more complex than soccer, whereas soccer is
essentially just kicking a ball which is why it's so popular - soccer balls
are cheap and anyone can play because its so easy, all you need is a friend
to kick the ball to. That doesn't mean it's an interesting sport though -
it's simplicity is one of the reasons why it's so boring.
The rules are simpler but the skill levels required to be successful at
the highest level of the game are more than what is required in
cricket, mainly because of greater competition. The simple rules also
impart great fluidity to the game.
Incorrect. What they show is not skill. Shane Warne shows far more
skill than any Ronaldinho you can point at.
OK before you respond let me explain myself. imho Shane Warne is more
skillful than Ronaldinho for the simple reason that the base instinct
of your average human being is not to kick the thing, but to pick it
up, feel it in your hands and see what it can be used for. He's
probably the best for many decades at what is supposed to be one of
the hardest skills for a human being to master. That is to feel
something in your hands, to make it part of your hand, to let the very
fine receptors in your hand control the flight and movement of the
Football cannot possibly compete with the skill shown by your average
Warne. Sorry, it is not possible in human existence or human
possibility. Without the hands the sport is a joke. And I'm a
Dutchman. I was born in the Netherlands, I will watch every second of
World Cup 2006, all 64 games. But don't try to tell me football is all
about skill. The World Cup will be a cultural event, the whole world
will be watching, but don't kid yourself that it will tell you
anything. If Brazil wins ti yet again it won't tell y ou much more
than the Brazilians are the most useless people on the planet because
they abandoned their hands and started using their feet.
and goals aren't scored of headers, and players never uses the chests.
perhaps soccer should be renamed
The ICC currently lists 96 members on its Web site.
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
That's why soccer is usually the #1 choice for programmed sports (ie.
robots) - its rules and style of play are relatively easy to replicate with
computers/software/robots compared to other more complex sports. When you
break down each sport it's harder to find a more simpler game, although
tennis/ping-pong is also very similar in that respect - easy to recreate
programmatically due to the simplicity of the game.
> mainly because of greater competition. The simple rules also
> impart great fluidity to the game.
Fluidity? If you want to see a fluid game watch AFL where there are rules
that are designed to keep the game flowing. Granted, soccer is a lot more
fluid than many sports (it's a heck of a lot more fluid than say rugby or
grid iron for example) but I don't think soccer can boast about being overly
fluid, it's somewhere in the middle
What I also don't like about soccer is that it's a non-contact sport so it's
not as entertaining when you're watching it with your mates (imagine if
soccer had contact rules similar to AFL, it'd be much more entertaining) and
the amount of acting (staged dives etc) that goes on in soccer is just
ridiculous - no other sport suffers from so much acting
not all soccer fans know how to google
Soccer is not just about kicking a ball just as cricket is not just
about throwing or hitting a ball. Nobody can be good at soccer in even
school and collegiate level competitions unless they can *feel* a
soccer ball with their feet and every part of their body (except the
hands). Just as skills are needed to swing/spin a ball in cricket,
skills are needed to make a kicked ball swerve deceptively while
playing soccer. Rules in soccer maybe simple, however the game has
evolved to such an extent that only a combination of the finest
strategy and skills can win you a game at the competitive level.
Thinking on your feet as well as feeling with your feet (and every
other part of your body except your hands) is essential to master this
We're talking about software and robots here, so such an undertaking can
only be made against the most basic of sports like soccer and
Keep in mind that Honda have already created walking humanoid robots, and
also keep Moore's Law in mind. Robots may soon be playing soccer better than
humans, and that'll be a long time before they're ever playing cricket as
well as humans
Computers are already playing very well against chess champions. Honda
is probably not focussed on making robots that can match champion
cricketers because so few countries in the world play this game at the
highest level. However, super sports robots would have similar chances
of success against champion cricketers as they would have against
champion soccer players, IMO. What makes you think otherwise?
> Honda is probably not focussed on making robots that can match champion
> cricketers because so few countries in the world play this game at the
> highest level.
Honda isn't focused on sports robots. Aibo (the #1 robot when it comes to
soccer) is made by Sony, and is used by many artificial intelligence teams
around the world. Try Google and you'll see that they chose to use soccer
because it's one of the simplest field sports, which makes it ideal for
robots and software algorithms.
> However, super sports robots would have similar chances
> of success against champion cricketers
"Super sports robots"??? They don't exist yet, and just because a robot can
master one sport doesn't mean it can master all sports -- Aibo can only play
soccer. Aibo is about as good as it gets at the moment as far as robots that
can play sports, and unfortunately Sony are no longer manufacturing Aibo.
Computers have finally beaten human brains in chess, but that's not sport.
> Please provide detailed reasoning about what would make cricket
> more difficult to master than soccer.
Cricket is far more complex in just about every aspect, especially when you
look at it from an algorithmic point of view. Aibo can compete in soccer
because it simply has to kick a ball around to its fellow Aibo robots,
identify where the goals are, and try to kick a goal. Cricket is far more
complex from a robots point of view. Consider the players - in soccer there
is essentially just two types of players - the two goalies and the other
players. All the players basically play the same game. That isn't the case
in cricket, where every single fielding position is unique, plus bowling is
unique, plus batting is unique, so that would require the development of
different types of robots, whereas soccer can get away with just having one
or two types of robots - they only use one type in the Robot world cup.
The bottom line - whether you prefer soccer or cricket is irrelevant, the
fact is soccer is a much more simple game, and that's reinforced by the fact
that soccer and tennis/ping-pong are the sports of choice when it comes to
programmers and robot designers - most games are still far beyond the realm
of robots. We won't see any robots attempting to compete in rugby any time
soon, for example.
Brazil won't win.
The Netherlands will!!! :-)
Gerrit - also born in Holland
Are you *this* Dave Turner ?
Aibo can compete in soccer
> because it simply has to kick a ball around to its fellow Aibo robots,
> identify where the goals are, and try to kick a goal.
But Aibo (or any