tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post7768510200895871565..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: OverkillUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81207929437888811582010-07-01T17:12:55.339-07:002010-07-01T17:12:55.339-07:00Politicians profess to be passionate fans of lower...Politicians profess to be passionate fans of lower class sports because being "with the team" is an easy way to win lower class votes.<br /><br />Elites in the US are highly likely to be passionate about NFL football, college football, college basketball. It's not unusual to find ones who are pretty interested in MLB and NBA, though the sheer number of games make it hard for really successful people to follow them.<br /><br />They have virtually no interest in the simplest of spectator sports, the American soccer, Nascar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-16764433883217948622010-07-01T13:44:46.921-07:002010-07-01T13:44:46.921-07:00try befriending people who have graduated truly el...<i>try befriending people who have graduated truly elite European schools. It's a lot of effort to settle a bet, granted, but having a window into the thought of elite Europeans from different countries is constantly amusing (and I'm sure my crude American thoughts are equally amusing to them.)</i> <br /><br /><br /><i>I have sample sets of five or six from Germany (Heidelberg), Ireland (Trinity) and Switzerland (Geneva) and more than 20 in France (ENS and EP). I started emailing a bit of smack just before the World Cup and the replies basically showed that only two or three of them -- of about 35 people, 80 percent male -- planned to watch any of the games.</i> <br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Why don't you try befriending people from truly elite American schools, and then quiz them about their degree of support for the Lakers, Saints, or Phillies? Or would that undermine your theory?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80510336050494402262010-07-01T13:41:08.315-07:002010-07-01T13:41:08.315-07:00In other European nations, where it's still ju...<i>In other European nations, where it's still just fine for the elite to be openly snobbish, the elite do not watch soccer.</i> <br /><br /><br />The Chancellor of Germany and the Prime Minister of Great Britain watched the England-Germany soccer mach together. But perhaps you don't consider these persons to be part of "the elite".<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>In other European nations, where it's still just fine for the elite to be openly snobbish, the elite do not watch soccer. If you want to prove this to yourself, go to the website of the most elite newspaper in any country and see how much soccer coverage you see. Nearly zero.</i> <br /><br /><br />How much NBA coverage is there in Investor Business Daily or The Wall Street Journal? Remember, your claim was that soccer is a stupid sport for stupid people, unlike the sophisticated American games. So you should have no difficulty in meeting your own standard and demonstrating the way in which the intellectual elite in America are big fans of American sports. Hop to it, lawyer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38745356926537714082010-07-01T06:15:56.461-07:002010-07-01T06:15:56.461-07:00"Soccer is THE European sport" loved by ..."Soccer is THE European sport" loved by elites and working men alike??? -- (It's hard to respond to specific people when the comments don't allow conversation and the thought police have scared most comment writers out of using names.)<br /><br />Either you have never been to Europe during soccer season or you have not observed life there very closely.<br /><br />Up until maybe 15 years ago, Britain's broadsheets hardly bothered to even print soccer scores because soccer was such an absurdly working class sport. The conservative Telegraph and liberal Guardian were bound by the common belief that it would be pointless to print soccer scores because none of the mouth-breathers who watched soccer could read.<br /><br />Things are somewhat different these days because every elite person must constantly signal a distaste for elitism. Eton graduates speak mockney and everyone professes to support a team, though if you look at the ratings only about 5 percent of people in Britain's top earnings quintile watch soccer regularly.<br /><br />I know dozens of Oxbridge graduates and a fair number of LSEers -- because I travel for work; I'm not British, which is suppose is obvious from my spelling and use of the word "soccer" -- and only a handful of them are true fans of any Premier League club.<br /><br />In other European nations, where it's still just fine for the elite to be openly snobbish, the elite do not watch soccer. If you want to prove this to yourself, go to the website of the most elite newspaper in any country and see how much soccer coverage you see. Nearly zero.<br /><br />If this does not seem thorough enough for you, try befriending people who have graduated truly elite European schools. It's a lot of effort to settle a bet, granted, but having a window into the thought of elite Europeans from different countries is constantly amusing (and I'm sure my crude American thoughts are equally amusing to them.)<br /><br />I have sample sets of five or six from Germany (Heidelberg), Ireland (Trinity) and Switzerland (Geneva) and more than 20 in France (ENS and EP). I started emailing a bit of smack just before the World Cup and the replies basically showed that only two or three of them -- of about 35 people, 80 percent male -- planned to watch any of the games.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35168283364459083222010-07-01T04:16:46.693-07:002010-07-01T04:16:46.693-07:00adsfadsfadsfadsf wrote:
------
I wonder what game ...adsfadsfadsfadsf wrote:<br />------<br />I wonder what game is hardest to understand, easiest to score.<br />------<br /><br />A good contender for that prize would be sabre fencing, a sport contested in the olympics without break since 1896.<br /><br />In the direct elimiantion stage of sabre fencing, matches are fenced until one fencer has reached 15 points. With closely matched fencers, that would mean 28 points in one bout. In theory, the match is limited to a maximum of 180 seconds, but since experience has shown that real matches never get close to that limit, the clock is frequently turned off. A typical elapsed time (not counting stoppages) is about 30 or so, giving an average of 1 point scoring event/second.<br /><br />It is inherently difficult to defend in sabre fencing, and a tactical choice to only defend while waiting for the opponents mistake will always lead to failure. Only might be able to pull it off if one is national team caliber fenicng versus a complete noob, but that is debatable.<br /><br />Why is this so? team sports have a ball, a large field, and fixed goals at the opposite ends of the field. The defending team can contend itself with holding the ball away from its own goal, and put its players behind the ball so that a breakthrough is difficult.<br /><br />All of that is different in fencing. The field is cramped (14¤2m), and the object to score - the fencers own body - can only be defended behind a small blade. A defender can not retreat much, since going behind the back line will give a point to the opponent. It is impossible to attack without bringing your own body close to your own opponent. which gives him possibilities should you screw up. Not so in team ball sports - if you dominate the game, the ball will be close to the opponent´s goal, giving you multilple opportunities to score, while he can not score before he has taking possession of the ball and moved over the field. In fencing, each fencer has his own object to score with, blade and tip - no need to take possesion.<br /><br />In addition to that, sabre fencing has a Right-of-Way rule which says that if both fencer score roughly at the same time (which happens alot) then the one which had been on the offensive just before the hit will get the point, which the other one gets nothing. This rule favors offense even more, and makes looking at sabre fencing by those who have not done it themselves quite challenging.<br /><br />In comparison, epee fencing has a lower scoring rate - a 28 point game would typically take 7 minutes of effective time, or 15 seconds per point. Right-of-Way does not exist in epee, and defence-while-waiting-for-your-opponent-to-screw-up is a common and valid strategy in epee.<br /><br />HBD people might be interested in the fact that among USA fencers, jews are overrepresented, while hispanics and blacks are quite underrepresented. Other whites and east asians are a bit overrepresented also. Blue states knock the red states by a huge margin. <br /><br />Internationally, the European powerhouses are France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Hungaria with some other countries being 2nd tier. Outside Europe, USA, China, S.Korea, and Japan have risen dramatically in the last decade, and can compete or even outshine the better European countries. There are pockets of reasonable results in S.America and other parts of Australasia, but Africa is really bad. In the most recent African championships, several events had all-white medal stands, from South Africa and Algeria/Tunisia/Egypt.<br /><br />Sailer should really read up on this sport; the HBD aspects would interest him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54094692254675382602010-06-30T21:21:06.365-07:002010-06-30T21:21:06.365-07:00"Thus, a 1-0 World Cup game is like a 20-0 NF...<i>"Thus, a 1-0 World Cup game is like a 20-0 NFL game"<br /><br />Applying a similar calculation to basketball, we find that a 1-0 World Cup game is like a 94-0 NBA game. You see the problem, Steve.</i><br /><br />But think. A good many football games have scores that go up to higher 30s or even 40s. So, a score of 20 in football isn't something special. It is only half of a high scoring game. <br />What is a high scoring game in basketball? About a 100. Divide it by half, and you get 50. <br /><br />So, one goal in soccer is about 50 pts in basketball. <br /><br />Even so, soccer and football are roughly comparable, whereas basketball is very different game. <br /><br />Suppose every soccer score was worth 7 pts. 2-1 would be 14-7. <br /><br />Maybe soccer should make each regular goal 5 pts, each penalty kick 3 pts, and each shoot-off shot at the end 1 pt. Maybe a goal shot from far awaay should be 10 pts.asdfasdfadfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9066510716068675662010-06-30T21:14:04.049-07:002010-06-30T21:14:04.049-07:00"I think you're searching too hard for th..."I think you're searching too hard for the root of soccer's popularity, assuming that there must be something there when there isn't."<br /><br />Soccer is the easiest game to not only play but understand. If you don't know football, the game looks weird. If you don't know baseball, you wonder what it's all about. <br />But soccer you get right away. Kick the ball into the goal. <br />Easiest game to understand, hardest game to score. <br /><br />I wonder what game is hardest to understand, easiest to score.adsfadsfadsfasdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1723913419816254752010-06-30T19:21:00.008-07:002010-06-30T19:21:00.008-07:00Soccer players and its fans all come overwhelmingl...<i>Soccer players and its fans all come overwhelmingly from the lowest economic strata in Europe, which means they have the least experience playing better sports</i> <br /><br />Soccer is THE European sport. It's fans include the politicians and business tycoons of Europe. Yet the logic of your position is that Europe as a whole is at the "lowest economic strata" and completely deficient in people with experience in "better sports". I'm sure that Roman Abramovich would be disturbed to discover that he's in the "lowest economic strata".<br /><br />That minor problem aside, who are you to say which sports are "better"? And where is your complete ranking of all sports?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66749258788567679312010-06-30T18:42:24.054-07:002010-06-30T18:42:24.054-07:00Could the people who claim La Liga or Premier Leag...<i>Could the people who claim La Liga or Premier League is fundamentally different/higher scoring than the world cup kindly provide some numbers to substantiate their claims? Otherwise it's just assertion-tossing.</i> <br /><br /><br /><br />For the 2006 WC, there were 2.3 goals scored per game. Last year in the English Premier League, there were 2.77 goals scored per game.<br /><br />The trend in the WC is for lower scoring - back before the sixties scoring was much more frequent.<br /><br />Average goals-per-match for each World Cup tournament:<br /><br />5.385 : Switzerland 1954<br />4.667 : France 1938<br />4.118 : Italy 1934<br />4.000 : Brazil 1950<br />3.889 : Uruguay 1930<br />3.600 : Sweden 1958<br />2.969 : Mexico 1970<br />2.808 : Spain 1982<br />2.781 : Chile 1962<br />2.781 : England 1966<br />2.712 : United States 1994<br />2.684 : Argentina 1978<br />2.672 : France 1998<br />2.553 : West Germany 1974<br />2.538 : Mexico 1986<br />2.516 : Korea/Japan 2002<br />2.297 : Germany 2006<br />2.212 : Italy 1990<br /><br />The country listed is the country where the WC was held that year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70517007275844285792010-06-30T17:09:37.485-07:002010-06-30T17:09:37.485-07:00"Thus, a 1-0 World Cup game is like a 20-0 NF..."Thus, a 1-0 World Cup game is like a 20-0 NFL game"<br /><br />Applying a similar calculation to basketball, we find that a 1-0 World Cup game is like a 94-0 NBA game. You see the problem, Steve.SkinnyDynamonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83556226992288687732010-06-30T16:41:20.505-07:002010-06-30T16:41:20.505-07:00I think you're searching too hard for the root...I think you're searching too hard for the root of soccer's popularity, assuming that there must be something there when there isn't.<br /><br />1. It's not as popular as proponents say. From what I can tell, China, India, Indonesia and Japan join the US in nearly absolute indifference to soccer. That's more than half the world's population right there, so it's not really the world's game. (That's not to say that it isn't more popular than any other single sport. It's just to say that all those stories about how Americans are almost unique in their inability to appreciate the beautiful game are crap. Lots of people don't appreciate the beautiful game.)<br /><br />2. People like watching sports they play and soccer is just about the world's easiest sport to play. All you need is two goals and a ball. Rich, poor, urban, rural: no problem. Americans, who play lots of sports, including some that are far more fun to watch than soccer, choose to watch the others in later life, even though soccer is more fun to play than baseball, football (unless you're the QB) and hockey. Basketball is both more fun to play (5-man-teams mean you get the ball a lot) and more fun to watch.<br /><br />3. But Europeans are rich enough to play lots of sports and they still love soccer. Yes, some Europeans are relatively wealthy and some love soccer -- but there's not that much overlap among the two groups. Soccer players and its fans all come overwhelmingly from the lowest economic strata in Europe, which means they have the least experience playing better sports and the least mental wherewithal to understand them. Soccer is a great sport for stupid people because -- as you pointed out in this article -- small sample sizes mean that any very stupid guy can make any really stupid argument he wants without being categorically demolished by the sort of obnoxious analytical guy who loves baseball.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-11606736218979099322010-06-30T16:27:11.639-07:002010-06-30T16:27:11.639-07:00In case you all haven't noticed, I've been...In case you all haven't noticed, I've been explaining for some time now things that are _good_ about soccer.Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38324550255720876822010-06-30T16:23:14.464-07:002010-06-30T16:23:14.464-07:00Yes, as I said, low-scoring in soccer manages to &...Yes, as I said, low-scoring in soccer manages to "keep hope alive."Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86006141250080459032010-06-30T16:17:50.209-07:002010-06-30T16:17:50.209-07:00Steve, you're saying "for every 41 points...Steve, you're saying "for every 41 points scored in a 2009 NFL game, there were 2.1 goals scored in a group stage World Cup soccer match." OK, true. Then you say, "if your World Cup team is down two goals, that's like being down 6 touchdowns in an NFL game." Patently false. <br /><br />First, this can be empirically tested. What percentage of 6 touchdown deficits have ended up with a comeback? Whereas, just recently, to give two immediate examples, England tied up its game against Germany in 20 seconds (obvious call missed) and the US came back to tie 2-2 (and scored the winner, but the call was missed). <br /><br />Someone tells you: "A 2009 NFL game has just finished, but you have no further information. One team scored 23 points. Did it win or lose?" Then, you're smart to bet that it won, because 23>20.5. Similarly: "One random World Cup team scored a goal." Bet that it ended in a tie. <br /><br />But, learning that a random team <i>was down by</i> 23 points at some point is a different matter, conveying far more information than learning that a soccer team was down by a goal at some point. <br /><br />The probability that a random team makes up a 21 point deficit, given that it is inferior enough to be down 21 points, is very low indeed. The probability that a random soccer team makes up a 1 goal deficit, given that it is "inferior" enough to be down 1 goal, is not nearly as low.<br /><br />It's like a UFC fight vs an Olympic taekwando fight. Even if there is one staggering UFC strike per 12 taekwando points, it doesn't mean that a UFC fighter who gets knocked down once has the same probability of coming back as the taekwando fighter down 12 points. That's a question of how much information is conveyed by the deficit.<br /><br />Then, even if both sides were theoretically equal in ability, such that any past point/goal has no predictive value, logistics also come into play. An equalizing goal can be scored in the final minute, whereas making up a 23 point deficit quickly is impossible. Thus, if your team is down three touchdowns with 1/20 of the game (3 minutes) remaining, you head for the parking lot. You never do that if your soccer team is down a goal with 4.5 minutes to go (plus stoppage).Osman the Turknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75494903920161701002010-06-30T14:28:21.993-07:002010-06-30T14:28:21.993-07:00"Steve, you can't be serious. There is no..."Steve, you can't be serious. There is no way 1-0 in soccer feels even close to 20-0 in football."<br /><br />Right. That's why the point of my post is that, "Psychologically, however, 1-0 is quite different from 20-0."Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19910644065019425612010-06-30T14:21:13.522-07:002010-06-30T14:21:13.522-07:00If your World Cup team gets beat 1-0, that's a...<i>If your World Cup team gets beat 1-0, that's about as bad as your NFL team getting beat 20-0, but it doesn't necessarily feel that way. It's easier to construct a narrative about a 1-0 game to suit your feeling than about a 20-0 game.</i><br /><br />Steve, you can't be serious. There is <i>no way</i> 1-0 in soccer feels even <i>close</i> to 20-0 in football. Think about it: a shutout in football is much more of a drubbing than in soccer. You know, geezus, you could even get a measley field goal, how crap is that?<br /><br />I'd say it's like losing 20-14, or better yet, 10-6 -- you clearly weren't thumped, in fact you were pretty much "in it," and even you had a shot at scoring a "real goal," but all you could do was get for a couple of consolation scores.Silvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-15621965653547572152010-06-30T11:41:49.994-07:002010-06-30T11:41:49.994-07:00"regular season play in soccer is similar to ..."regular season play in soccer is similar to NHL action. there are more goals. the teams play differently. they play to win. they don't play not to lose."<br /><br />This is an interesting point. In regular season, gambling and taking chances to score more points is acceptable since a team can afford to lose a lot of games and still make it to the playoffs. <br />But in the World Cup, every game is ALL IMPORTANT, so teams take fewer chances. Thus lower scores. <br /><br />But the same is true of NFL playoffs and championship(every game is do or die) but they can be very high scoring.asfasdfasdfasfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-42625020953475537342010-06-30T11:38:30.858-07:002010-06-30T11:38:30.858-07:00World Cup should be compared with NFL playoffs tha...World Cup should be compared with NFL playoffs than with regular season.sdfasdfasdfasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4375266496404261892010-06-30T11:37:30.131-07:002010-06-30T11:37:30.131-07:00"Would the best NFL team really win 140 games..."Would the best NFL team really win 140 games if they played 160? Baseball has its flaws, but 162 games does provide a larger sample size than 16 NFL games."<br /><br />Element of chance or luck is much bigger in baseball, which is why even Japan can even beat US or Cuba on occasion. But imagine Japan beating US or Cuba in football.asdfasdfasfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63371322311043980262010-06-30T11:34:22.061-07:002010-06-30T11:34:22.061-07:00I guess lower scores means once poor-teams are get...I guess lower scores means once poor-teams are getting better. <br />Japan and S. Korea, for instance, used to be a joke and got clobbered by other teams but now they are respectable and can hold their own against most teams.asdfadsfadsfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-45483368388825668302010-06-30T11:29:14.628-07:002010-06-30T11:29:14.628-07:00Steve
What I _am_ saying is that if the score is...Steve <br /><br /><i>What I _am_ saying is that if the score is 1-0, it's easier to _feel_ however you want to feel about the score than if the score is 20-0, even though those scores are directly comparable. If your World Cup team gets beat 1-0, that's about as bad as your NFL team getting beat 20-0, but it doesn't necessarily feel that way. It's easier to construct a narrative about a 1-0 game to suit your feeling than about a 20-0 game.<br />6/30/2010<br /></i><br /><br />I think this is valuable insight that can also explain why professional league soccer is popular but why international soccer is MORE popular (as TV ratings go), even though it is much poorer in quality. Perhaps this is also your point.<br /><br />Yes, soccer is surrounded by narratives. Soccer's frequent low scoring games, draws and upsets means before the start of the game both sides feel they might have a chance, and at the end both might feel aggrieved. The unpredictability means that the factors which are know to influence a result (e.g. performance of star player, tactics) can be taken very seriously. <br /><br />Soccer is also popular because it is a safe i.e. PC subject with which you can interact with new people. Like the weather, everyone has a view on a soccer game. You can usually humorously support different teams and strike up a rivalry with someone without without becoming their deadly enemy.<br /><br />International football is talked about much more, probably because the games are much closer and because it's much much harder to put together a great international soccer team than a club one, so there are more problems to discuss. <br /><br />In international football managers don't have any choice over what talent they can field. Managers have to pick whatever half-decent players the national cohort has thrown up. If that's just 1 star goalie and 1 great right back and a decent striker among 8 mediocre outfielders, well the best players have to be picked to represent their country.<br /><br />But if the managers can't control the personalities of these players, they can't control the team spirit, its discipline and therefore how the team will perform. If the star player is selfish and moody an international manager can't buy in reasonably skilled talent which is selfless, specifically to compensate for his star player's bad side.<br /><br />When the manager's only other outstanding player in the country is a jackass too, there probably isn't going to be a good team spirit - e.g. France, or England, or typically the Netherlands teams of previous World Cups. (A lot to talk about though!) A professional club team would rarely get into a situation like that. Unlike club managers, international managers find it hard to not pick the best players for the good of the "team". <br /><br /><br />Steve, as other people have said, your use of statistical comparisons between NFL and World Cup are not appropriate unless you discuss the professional leagues too. It seems to me you have a casual, arms length, holding nose treatment, tailored for the kind American who likes to hate soccer... but this distracts from the good idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39151775513845133732010-06-30T11:27:49.616-07:002010-06-30T11:27:49.616-07:00More people play the lottery than soccer.More people play the lottery than soccer.asfdasfasdfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74542052699587190172010-06-30T11:27:49.617-07:002010-06-30T11:27:49.617-07:00Football is more like poker. You win some, lose so...Football is more like poker. You win some, lose some, and it carries on like that all evening. <br /><br />Soccer is more like the lottery. A score in soccer is really like a miracle.asdfasasdfasdfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90679935116681243962010-06-30T11:16:57.153-07:002010-06-30T11:16:57.153-07:00Allow me a brief tangent on the subject of seats
...<i>Allow me a brief tangent on the subject of seats</i><br /><br />Allow me then another perspective on seats. It's not about social class and the decline in civility since the 1960s.<br /><br />The Globe theater built around the turn of the seventeenth century only had seats around the rim. The majority of the spectators stood in the center. Those who stood had the best sight lines and heard the speech best. They were not lower class.<br /><br />Similarly the La Scala opera house originally had two types of public accommodation. There were boxes owned by families. Boxes had curtains and kitchens. But most of the public stood in the center. There were no seats in what we now call the orchestra. In the early ottocento they would show the first act of the opera then the first act of an unrelated ballet. They alternated acts all evening. Those performances typically lasted five hours or more while the majority of the middle class patrons stood.<br /><br />Later in the century the orchestra was filled first with folding chairs and then finally with fixed seats. These were not the cheap seats.<br /><br />There remains a vestige of this practice at the Vienna Staatsoper. They still have standing areas with leaning bars in the orchestra. These are very good places in terms of sound and sight. They are filled with solid bourgeois class patrons not the proletariat.<br /><br />There is a well documented long term trend for the public to be initially offered standing and later for seats to be substituted.<br /><br />BFD<br /><br />AlbertosaurusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48165825928384913732010-06-30T11:08:50.307-07:002010-06-30T11:08:50.307-07:00Steve,
You've just bet the Sailer farm on a f...Steve, <br />You've just bet the Sailer farm on a football game and a soccer game (with penalty shootout if tied). In the first half, either your football team will fall behind 20-0 or your soccer team 1-0. Which would you prefer? How many football teams down 20-0 actually come back to win or tie? Think why. <br /><br />One way of looking at it is that, 20 points can be distributed whereas 1 goal can't be. So, if on average there are 20 points scored in football for every soccer goal, and you assume the better team scores 2/3 of the points in football, then by the time a goal is scored in soccer, a football game should be 14-6. <br /><br />Remember, though, that in soccer if the better team goes ahead 1-0, they generally change strategy and become more defensive. This suppresses the total number of goals scored, but does not change the excitement level of the game. Imagine if in football, one half was offense, the other half was defense, and in the first half, your team went up 20-0. Then, you have the whole second half to root for your defense while the other team slowly chips away (with the possibility of an extra score for your team on a fumble being the equivalent of a counterstrike). <br /><br />Also, many soccer games stay 0-0 for a long time. Even North Korea held the Brazilians scoreless in the first half. A 0-0 soccer game is equivalent to a 0-0 football game. A football team that goes up 20-0 will generally make its dominance clear pretty early, so a 1-0 soccer game with 5 minutes left can be very different from a 20-0 football game with 10 minutes left. We've seen even in this World Cup equalizers in the closing minutes repeatedly, where it becomes more a matter of pure will and risk-taking strategy (e.g. your goalkeeper Tim Howard fighting the Ghanaian goalkeeper for a header), which a spectator can enjoy taking in without bearing through stupid commercials every three minutes.Osman the Turknoreply@blogger.com