I would dispute that view. Lots of teams didn't make it to the quarter finals including Italy, Germany, Senegal, Netherlands and South Korea. One would be hard-pressed to argue that none of them are serious football nations.
Football is a lot bigger in America than when they last hosted in 1994 and their women's team has long been excellent, having won two of the last four tournaments and finished as runners up in another. In fact, checking Wikipedia, the lady world cup was the only time since 1991 that they didn't finish at least 3rd.
It's just dull, unless you understand the rules well enough to follow what's happening. Not as bad as cricket, though that's a low bar. Now, rugby or Australian football is fun to watch: even if you don't understand the rules you can enjoy the violence.
I'm not very interested in sport generally. There was too much of it when I was at school. When I left school, I vowed to myself I would never play rugby again. I have kept that vow. It hasn't even been difficult.
But to me the ultimate boring game to watch is tennis, just plink-plonk-plink. Though that Olympic one where teams cycle round and round in circles runs it a very close second indeed.
It's just dull, unless you understand the rules well enough to follow what's happening. Not as bad as cricket, though that's a low bar. Now, rugby or Australian football is fun to watch: even if you don't understand the rules you can enjoy the violence.
I'm not very interested in sport generally. There was too much of it when I was at school. When I left school, I vowed to myself I would never play rugby again. I have kept that vow. It hasn't even been difficult.
But to me the ultimate boring game to watch is tennis, just plink-plonk-plink. Though that Olympic one where teams cycle round and round in circles runs it a very close second indeed.
Mexico may be a serious soccer nation in terms of raw statistics and the fact that they have hosted the World Cup three times, but with the exception of 1970 and 1986 when they hosted the tournament and reached the quarter finals, have not reached that stage.
I’m not sure exactly what criteria should be used, but I do think the hosts ought to have a good chance of winning the Cup.
. . . but I do think the hosts ought to have a good chance of winning the Cup.
Why?
Primarily to prevent hosting being bought. There ought to be some merit involved.
The only host nation that has really played beyond expectations was South Korea when they were joint hosts in 2002. They reached the semi finals where they were beaten by Turkey. YMMV.
It's just dull, unless you understand the rules well enough to follow what's happening. Not as bad as cricket, though that's a low bar. Now, rugby or Australian football is fun to watch: even if you don't understand the rules you can enjoy the violence.
I'm not very interested in sport generally. There was too much of it when I was at school. When I left school, I vowed to myself I would never play rugby again. I have kept that vow. It hasn't even been difficult.
But to me the ultimate boring game to watch is tennis, just plink-plonk-plink. Though that Olympic one where teams cycle round and round in circles runs it a very close second indeed.
You forgot about golf.
I agree golf is pretty dire to watch, but at least the background scenery is sometime a bit better than a tennis court or a stadium.
In 2034 the World Cup will be held in Saudi Arabia. As before Infantino had a lot to do with the decision.
There are going to be tens if not hundreds of thousands of supporters there and many of them will be thirsty. Anyone fancy drinking soda for three weeks?
I think it’s not dissimilar to the Olympics. Can the hosts provide stadiums, supporting infrastructure and social stability?
And the additional element of potentially winning new fans to the game?
I'm interested to see if being a World Cup host gives the sport a big boost in the US. I've seen some discussion about what needs to happen for the men's team to be better -- a lot of that discussion seems to revolve around expanding the talent pool at the teenage level, but that's just the stuff I've happened to see.
One of my partner's teenage grandsons is quite athletic, and he really loves soccer and plays well enough for his parents to devote some resources to letting him play in leagues beyond the usual school teams. But he's also on the school football team (American brand), because that's where the social prestige lies.
Why wouldn't you prefer a host nation that was NOT likely to win? Assuming they had a half-way sane leader, you'd not be facing nearly so much corruption and under-the-table crap to get their team that last little bit over the line into the championship. Instead they could spend their efforts on being a decent host.
But to me the ultimate boring game to watch is tennis, just plink-plonk-plink.
Wow! Fery v Dimitrov and Djokovic v Auger-Aliassime at Wimbledon will rank as two of the most tense, exciting and gripping sports events this year.
Two out of how many? One sided and attritional sports contests are too common and not pretty. No wonder many people don’t enjoy sports. You really need to have played many sports to enjoy watching them.
I know this is hell, but "Which sport is the most boring" still feels inappropriate here.
I am not a big sports fan, and football I find intensely boring. But I do also enjoy watching sports that others don't enjoy - some tennis, e-prix, snooker.
I thing it is very personal. I think you need to have some understanding of a sport to enjoy it. And you need something more. Yes I am immensely tedious and boring, and I like my sports to be people driving round a track as fast as they can, and hitting little balls. So what?
A lot of people enjoy football. A lot of people enjoy supporting their own team or country. Fine by me. If England get into the finals I will be supporting them to win. But that doesn't mean i will subject myself to watching.
Also, obviously, golf is the most boring sport.....
Football is very popular yes. Grid Iron is played over here , I have known several people who have played it. This World Cup has been more of success than many thought it would be.
Of course the greatest sport in the world is the one I did. Competitive Ballroom Dancing. Competition and style all in one
I object to things being called sports when there are a bunch of judges deciding things -- gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, all that sort of thing. They're very athletic, obviously, but I think sports should be decided by direct scores, not judges evaluating performances.
I object to things being called sports when there are a bunch of judges deciding things -- gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, all that sort of thing. They're very athletic, obviously, but I think sports should be decided by direct scores, not judges evaluating performances.
Another agreeing with @Ruth , although it’s pretty much unarguable. Equestrian dressage seems to be entirely at the mercy of the judges.
I find ski-jumping a magnificent spectacle, but that’s in part subject to judging too.
I object to things being called sports when there are a bunch of judges deciding things -- gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, all that sort of thing. They're very athletic, obviously, but I think sports should be decided by direct scores, not judges evaluating performances.
There were complaints at the 2002 Winter Olympics that a pair of supposedly suprerior Canadian figure-skaters got cheated out of a gold medal that went to some Russians instead. Someone in the media penned a column to the effect that in figure-skating, the subjectivity of it, including outrageously unfair rankings from time to time, was all part of the show.
Which I can see an argument for, but then, yeah, it's probably best to have those events in separate competitions from the Olympics. Though I think our side lost that debate a long time ago.
Another agreeing with @Ruth , although it’s pretty much unarguable. Equestrian dressage seems to be entirely at the mercy of the judges.
I find ski-jumping a magnificent spectacle, but that’s in part subject to judging too.
I agree but for a different reason - nothing puts me off going for a ride more than, well, actually, it being thirty fucking two degrees out there, but after that nothing puts me off more than it being described as a sport.
I object to things being called sports when there are a bunch of judges deciding things -- gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, all that sort of thing. They're very athletic, obviously, but I think sports should be decided by direct scores, not judges evaluating performances.
Same here.
I'm curious as to how it makes something no longer a sport.
I object to things being called sports when there are a bunch of judges deciding things -- gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, all that sort of thing. They're very athletic, obviously, but I think sports should be decided by direct scores, not judges evaluating performances.
Same here.
I'm curious as to how it makes something no longer a sport.
To my mind, the lack of objective criteria—most goals, fastest, farthest thrown or the like—by which a winner is determined.
I wonder if “sport” may be used slightly differently, and maybe a little more narrowly, in the US than in the UK.
I object to things being called sports when there are a bunch of judges deciding things -- gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, all that sort of thing. They're very athletic, obviously, but I think sports should be decided by direct scores, not judges evaluating performances.
Same here.
I'm curious as to how it makes something no longer a sport.
To my mind, the lack of objective criteria—most goals, fastest, farthest thrown or the like—by which a winner is determined.
I wonder if “sport” may be used slightly differently, and maybe a little more narrowly, in the US than in the UK.
But the sports listed as "non-sports" do have objective criteria, they're just harder to see. For instance a gymnast has to fulfil XYZ criteria within a routine. I also don't know what you would call gymnastics (for eg) if not a sport. I would define a sport as competitive physical exercise.
I object to things being called sports when there are a bunch of judges deciding things -- gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, all that sort of thing. They're very athletic, obviously, but I think sports should be decided by direct scores, not judges evaluating performances.
I disagree. There is an element of judgement in all sport. Rules are upheld. Judgements made. Many pro ballroom dancers work as hard if not harder than those in the sports mentioned.
For what it’s worth I would like it on record that the United States women’s soccer team is excellent. Did I mention that they have won the women’s edition of the World Cup four times out of the nine played?
Anyone who says otherwise must be a dinosaur who thinks they should stick to tennis and serve underarm.
Darts is very popular in the UK and elsewhere. Is it a sport or just a game? The best players are extraordinarily skilful and demonstrate great hand-eye coordination. A similar argument re snooker, which has built up unprecedented popularity in China. Thousands of people pay good money to watch both and they attract big international TV audiences.
Personally I’d prefer to call them games. I find them entertaining and engaging. But I’m sure that’s not a universal view amongst Shipmates!
When it comes to terminology, the one that caught me out by Americans is using the term 'athlete' to denote anyone who plays any sport. Normally, an athlete is someone who competes in the sport of athletics, in the same way a golfer who competes at golf.
The pub quiz question asked 'who is the highest paid athlete in the world in year X' and we limited our pool of potential answers to just athletes, not to the wider pool of all sportspeople.
My own, usually unpopular, opinion is that the sports that have objective measures (faster, higher, stronger, further) rather than either judgements or point scoring are those that should be kept in the Olympics, with the others discarded. So I'd be getting rid of boxing, football, tennis and diving, for example, but keeping in shot put, running, cycling, weightlifting and swimming.
When it comes to terminology, the one that caught me out by Americans is using the term 'athlete' to denote anyone who plays any sport. Normally, an athlete is someone who competes in the sport of athletics, in the same way a golfer who competes at golf.
The pub quiz question asked 'who is the highest paid athlete in the world in year X' and we limited our pool of potential answers to just athletes, not to the wider pool of all sportspeople.
My own, usually unpopular, opinion is that the sports that have objective measures (faster, higher, stronger, further) rather than either judgements or point scoring are those that should be kept in the Olympics, with the others discarded. So I'd be getting rid of boxing, football, tennis and diving, for example, but keeping in shot put, running, cycling, weightlifting and swimming.
But why? Why do you want to get rid of some sports? It doesn't harm anyone to have more sports competing - also the first modern Olympics featured poetry competitions, so what makes diving unsuitable (for instance)? Also surely point scoring is an objective measure?
The women’s game was always quite popular, but when I he premier league broadcast rights were sold to a different company the BBC started showing the women’s game. It has rocketed since then.
What I don’t enjoy in the modern men’s game is this retention of possession stuff. All this passing to one another in one’s own half can get very boring
I object to things being called sports when there are a bunch of judges deciding things -- gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, all that sort of thing. They're very athletic, obviously, but I think sports should be decided by direct scores, not judges evaluating performances.
Same here.
I'm curious as to how it makes something no longer a sport.
To my mind, the lack of objective criteria—most goals, fastest, farthest thrown or the like—by which a winner is determined.
I wonder if “sport” may be used slightly differently, and maybe a little more narrowly, in the US than in the UK.
But the sports listed as "non-sports" do have objective criteria, they're just harder to see. For instance a gymnast has to fulfil XYZ criteria within a routine.
Yes, I know they do. But there is also a panel of judges who score that gymnast on a combination of objective and subjective criteria. If there wasn’t subjectivity involved, every judge would have the same score.
When it comes to terminology, the one that caught me out by Americans is using the term 'athlete' to denote anyone who plays any sport. Normally, an athlete is someone who competes in the sport of athletics, in the same way a golfer who competes at golf.
Normally? Perhaps in the UK, but there’s nothing “normal” about restricting the meaning of athlete in that way in my part of the Anglosphere, nor is athletics typically confined to a specific sport or group of sports. Merriam-Webster defines athlete as “a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina.”
Many pro ballroom dancers work as hard if not harder than those in the sports mentioned.
So do many ballet dancers.
I’m not denying the athletic ability of dancers, gymnasts, etc. in any way. I’m simply saying that I’d categorize things like competitive ballroom dancing or gymnastics as something a bit different from a sport. Competative art form, maybe? It’s not a value judgment.
And I know my view is a minority, maybe even idiosyncratic, view. I can live with that.
@Nick Tamen in the UK at least, "athletics" refers to what I think is called "track and field" sports in the US. So you would refer to an "athletics track" in a sports ground, for example.
@Nick Tamen in the UK at least, "athletics" refers to what I think is called "track and field" sports in the US. So you would refer to an "athletics track" in a sports ground, for example.
Thanks, I thought that might be the case. Yes, we’d call it “track and field.” Athletics in the US is an umbrella term, hence my questioning of what is “normally” meant by athlete.
I think that the international organisations for the sport use the term "athletics", but I don't know if that reflects common international usage or if it's because the orgs were founded by British people.
Comments
Football is a lot bigger in America than when they last hosted in 1994 and their women's team has long been excellent, having won two of the last four tournaments and finished as runners up in another. In fact, checking Wikipedia, the lady world cup was the only time since 1991 that they didn't finish at least 3rd.
Just asking.
Another good BBC headline - "US caught sleeping in Seattle'.
But to me the ultimate boring game to watch is tennis, just plink-plonk-plink. Though that Olympic one where teams cycle round and round in circles runs it a very close second indeed.
Was this maybe meant for a different thread?
You forgot about golf.
I’m not sure exactly what criteria should be used, but I do think the hosts ought to have a good chance of winning the Cup.
Primarily to prevent hosting being bought. There ought to be some merit involved.
The only host nation that has really played beyond expectations was South Korea when they were joint hosts in 2002. They reached the semi finals where they were beaten by Turkey. YMMV.
Yes sorry. Dyslexia strikes again
And the additional element of potentially winning new fans to the game?
In 2034 the World Cup will be held in Saudi Arabia. As before Infantino had a lot to do with the decision.
There are going to be tens if not hundreds of thousands of supporters there and many of them will be thirsty. Anyone fancy drinking soda for three weeks?
I remember the comment. Just don't know enough about association football to know if Qatar fields a decent team.
I'm interested to see if being a World Cup host gives the sport a big boost in the US. I've seen some discussion about what needs to happen for the men's team to be better -- a lot of that discussion seems to revolve around expanding the talent pool at the teenage level, but that's just the stuff I've happened to see.
One of my partner's teenage grandsons is quite athletic, and he really loves soccer and plays well enough for his parents to devote some resources to letting him play in leagues beyond the usual school teams. But he's also on the school football team (American brand), because that's where the social prestige lies.
@Enoch
Wow! Fery v Dimitrov and Djokovic v Auger-Aliassime at Wimbledon will rank as two of the most tense, exciting and gripping sports events this year.
Two out of how many? One sided and attritional sports contests are too common and not pretty. No wonder many people don’t enjoy sports. You really need to have played many sports to enjoy watching them.
I am not a big sports fan, and football I find intensely boring. But I do also enjoy watching sports that others don't enjoy - some tennis, e-prix, snooker.
I thing it is very personal. I think you need to have some understanding of a sport to enjoy it. And you need something more. Yes I am immensely tedious and boring, and I like my sports to be people driving round a track as fast as they can, and hitting little balls. So what?
A lot of people enjoy football. A lot of people enjoy supporting their own team or country. Fine by me. If England get into the finals I will be supporting them to win. But that doesn't mean i will subject myself to watching.
Also, obviously, golf is the most boring sport.....
I admire anyone in sports and games who does things well.
Of course the greatest sport in the world is the one I did. Competitive Ballroom Dancing. Competition and style all in one
I find ski-jumping a magnificent spectacle, but that’s in part subject to judging too.
There were complaints at the 2002 Winter Olympics that a pair of supposedly suprerior Canadian figure-skaters got cheated out of a gold medal that went to some Russians instead. Someone in the media penned a column to the effect that in figure-skating, the subjectivity of it, including outrageously unfair rankings from time to time, was all part of the show.
Which I can see an argument for, but then, yeah, it's probably best to have those events in separate competitions from the Olympics. Though I think our side lost that debate a long time ago.
It is called the men's world cup. Also @sionisais the US women's team is excellent.
I agree but for a different reason - nothing puts me off going for a ride more than, well, actually, it being thirty fucking two degrees out there, but after that nothing puts me off more than it being described as a sport.
I'm curious as to how it makes something no longer a sport.
I wonder if “sport” may be used slightly differently, and maybe a little more narrowly, in the US than in the UK.
But the sports listed as "non-sports" do have objective criteria, they're just harder to see. For instance a gymnast has to fulfil XYZ criteria within a routine. I also don't know what you would call gymnastics (for eg) if not a sport. I would define a sport as competitive physical exercise.
Not in the press/broadcasting/pubs etc.
Anyone who says otherwise must be a dinosaur who thinks they should stick to tennis and serve underarm.
Darts is very popular in the UK and elsewhere. Is it a sport or just a game? The best players are extraordinarily skilful and demonstrate great hand-eye coordination. A similar argument re snooker, which has built up unprecedented popularity in China. Thousands of people pay good money to watch both and they attract big international TV audiences.
Personally I’d prefer to call them games. I find them entertaining and engaging. But I’m sure that’s not a universal view amongst Shipmates!
The pub quiz question asked 'who is the highest paid athlete in the world in year X' and we limited our pool of potential answers to just athletes, not to the wider pool of all sportspeople.
My own, usually unpopular, opinion is that the sports that have objective measures (faster, higher, stronger, further) rather than either judgements or point scoring are those that should be kept in the Olympics, with the others discarded. So I'd be getting rid of boxing, football, tennis and diving, for example, but keeping in shot put, running, cycling, weightlifting and swimming.
But why? Why do you want to get rid of some sports? It doesn't harm anyone to have more sports competing - also the first modern Olympics featured poetry competitions, so what makes diving unsuitable (for instance)? Also surely point scoring is an objective measure?
I think that as women's international football gains popularity, that is changing - but it takes time for culture to catch up.
What I don’t enjoy in the modern men’s game is this retention of possession stuff. All this passing to one another in one’s own half can get very boring
Normally? Perhaps in the UK, but there’s nothing “normal” about restricting the meaning of athlete in that way in my part of the Anglosphere, nor is athletics typically confined to a specific sport or group of sports. Merriam-Webster defines athlete as “a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina.”
So do many ballet dancers.
I’m not denying the athletic ability of dancers, gymnasts, etc. in any way. I’m simply saying that I’d categorize things like competitive ballroom dancing or gymnastics as something a bit different from a sport. Competative art form, maybe? It’s not a value judgment.
And I know my view is a minority, maybe even idiosyncratic, view. I can live with that.
I got a clouted at primary school for running around the classroom to demonstrate I had an athlete's foot.