Total Time vs Actual Gameplay
- Thread starter James_Bond
- Start date
I was never much of a fan of soccer. Over the last couple of months, I've been tuning into the English Premier League games on Saturday mornings. I've become a fan due in part to how quick the games are. Most of the games are finished in under 2 hrs.
This would also be better expressed as a fraction, but exluding scheduled breaks such as halftime, and the 2.15 at half innings for baseball.
Now factor in how many of the players are actually active during the specified "actual gameplay".
Football's 0.18 times 22 = 3.96
Soccer's 1.06 times.. what.. maybe 3-4 on each side at any movement actively involved in the "gameplay".. that's 1.06 times 7 = 7.42
Now, that is still more than football... but much of that "gameplay" is running about the same speed that players use getting on and off the field in football. In fact, I'd imagine that no-huddle and quick-snap offenses have a lot of "gameplay" between plays that is equivalent tot eh effort put out on soccer fields.
Now consider how much of soccer "gameplay" is spent watching players take dives and write on the ground in mock agony...
AMERICAN FOOTBALL WINS.
Football's 0.18 times 22 = 3.96
Soccer's 1.06 times.. what.. maybe 3-4 on each side at any movement actively involved in the "gameplay".. that's 1.06 times 7 = 7.42
Now, that is still more than football... but much of that "gameplay" is running about the same speed that players use getting on and off the field in football. In fact, I'd imagine that no-huddle and quick-snap offenses have a lot of "gameplay" between plays that is equivalent tot eh effort put out on soccer fields.
Now consider how much of soccer "gameplay" is spent watching players take dives and write on the ground in mock agony...
AMERICAN FOOTBALL WINS.
I've never agreed with the methodology in these things. They consider "gameplay" only when the ball is in motion... but some sports have a lot of action when the ball is not moving.
For instance, in football, when the QB is under center, there is action... even if it's players in motion on the offense, defenses showing blitz or changing coverages, hard counts, audibles, etc. In basketball, there is plenty of action while a ball is being inbounded, but that isn't counted because the ball isn't in play. In baseball, when the pitcher is in his stretch, that should be counted, too - even if the ball hasn't been thrown yet.
For instance, in football, when the QB is under center, there is action... even if it's players in motion on the offense, defenses showing blitz or changing coverages, hard counts, audibles, etc. In basketball, there is plenty of action while a ball is being inbounded, but that isn't counted because the ball isn't in play. In baseball, when the pitcher is in his stretch, that should be counted, too - even if the ball hasn't been thrown yet.
I have tried to develop an interest in watching soccer but just cannot hack it for more than a few minutes.Great individual skills and endurance but to what end. I would rather watch Australian FB or Rugby if I had to.
This is not accurate...it says a baseball game takes 3 hours but is only 3 minutes of gameplay...thats wrong
Mlb.com has condensed game videos that generally run about 12-15 minutes and that is just pay off pitches on strike outs, good defense and every time a batter reaches safely...
Not included are routine outs and non- payoff pitches
So to say 3 minutes is wrong, it looks like OP did this on excel sheet
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Mlb.com has condensed game videos that generally run about 12-15 minutes and that is just pay off pitches on strike outs, good defense and every time a batter reaches safely...
Not included are routine outs and non- payoff pitches
So to say 3 minutes is wrong, it looks like OP did this on excel sheet
Posted from Rivals Mobile
LOL. You do realize that 0.3 hrs translates to 18 minutes, right?
When you look at the actual 'active' time, you realize why you're more likely to see a 'fat' baseball/football player than a 'thick' soccer player. Almost surprised by the tennis gametime, but then they do have a lot of downtime with changeovers, etc.
Im guessing you didnt major in science or math.
Its not 3 minutes, its .3 hours - about 18 minutes.
Reality is - who cares. We like the sports we like. All of the excuses for why we like one over the other are just post hoc rationalizations of inherently non-rationally based opinions.
Incorrect assumptions. Attend a high level game in person and you will see there is almost no standing still (with the exception of the Goalkeepers). Midfielders never stop. By this standard one should not count WRs as "active" on most running plays if they are not near the RB.
Soccer diving = Basketball flopping = Football WR calling for PI flags after every incomplete deep ball. Even diving in hockey has increased substantially as officials have been instructed to call more tripping/interference. All unfortunate parts of their respective games, but certainly not specific to soccer.
The biggest element regarding "gameplay" that I like to look at as a fan is commercial interruptions. Soccer is by far the best of the sports in terms of uninterrupted game flow- one break (halftime) versus dozens for American football/baseball/basketball/hockey. Just allow yourself to imagine watching your favorite televised sporting event with no commercial interruptions- what a different experience it would be. For those of us who enjoy watching soccer, we have that today, and it makes an enormous difference.
I love college football, don't get me wrong. But when compared to soccer in terms of the efficiency of game play, it falls short.
I think this is in a strange way why football is popular.
Not talking about the endless TV time outs but the time between plays gives all us amateur experts the chance to go over the previous play and say what we would or would not have done. We all become analysts and more involved in the nuances of the game.
Not talking about the endless TV time outs but the time between plays gives all us amateur experts the chance to go over the previous play and say what we would or would not have done. We all become analysts and more involved in the nuances of the game.
Diving in soccer is worse for a few reasons. One ref, two assistant refs... for a playing area that is 10+ times the size of a basketball court that has three refs. And no replay. Much more goes unseen in soccer than in basketball or american football - so the players have incentive to exaggerate everything to draw the ref's eye.
Also, in basketball and american football, there either is a whistle/flag or there isn't... and the next play goes on fairly quickly. There's no writhing around hoping that the ref notices and walks over to see what's going on. That is also partly a product of the rules of soccer, which do not allow for the clock to stop - it's a way of wasting time (especially after stoppage time has been announced) and giving players a break, which is much more rare in other sports where there are more frequent stoppages in the clock and play.
And I don't mind commercial breaks, since I'm usually watching on a delay on DVR anyway.
I enjoy soccer at times (US national team, really), but it's not a game I feel drawn to watch regularly.
Not true for basketball- if a defender flops and is deemed to have fouled or have been fouled, play stops, free throws may ensure...
This post was edited on 4/16 1:05 PM by famousbill19
I'd consider free throws the next play.
There is no player in basketball who writhes on the ground for 20-30 seconds before the ref makes a decision on a foul. If there's no call, the player is up and moving down the other end of the court - possibly with some "are you serious?" motioning to the ref. If there is a call, the player is usually up and getting set at the foul line, not writhing like he'll never walk again.
If there is a serious injury, play stops and the player has to come off the court and can't return until the next stoppage of play. Same as in football. You just don't see soccer's level (and duration) of scenery-chewing in basketball or american football - and that's largely because there are more refs, so there's no need to be as dramatic to draw their attention.
There is definitely flopping and "gamesmanship" where players try to get the refs to call things their way (in any sport, really), but it's been elevated to an art form in soccer.
Similar threads
