Footy Vs. Basketball

[rodgerfox]

When I was doing my VCE, I was obviously a mad footy nut. And so was one of my teachers.

We'd often hijack science class and talk about his hatred of Plugger, and my love of him.

Anyway, he made a comment once which I thought was interesting. It was in relation to the difference between footy and basketball. At the time the NBL was doing quite well, so naturally the 'my sport is better than yours' argument was quite topical.

He pointed out once to a basketball fan, that there's no point in watching the whole game in basketball, you just tune into the last 5 minutes because that's when it's all decided. What happens up til then matters little.
Whereas with the footy, the entire game was of utmost importance because the last 5 minutes - unless there was only a goal in it, mattered little. the game was decided throughout the previous 115 minutes.

At the time I kind of agreed.

I watched a little bit of the NAB Cup game the other night, and his comment came flooding back to me.
It was mind numbingly boring to watch. And I knew that unless there was a 8-10 goal difference going into the last 10 minutes of the match, it would only get interesting at that point.

Basketball always has close matches. And some fans love this. They'll sit through 45 minutes of shiit just to get a close finish.
To me, I find it boring as. May as well just skip to the last 5 minutes - leave out the rest.

Footy is the same now. Many more close matches, because of the way the game is played. Teams can come back from 6 goals down to make a game of it with 10 minutes to go.
I feel now that if a games on and I care about the result, I'll just tune into the last 10 minutes. Up until it's simply pretty much the same as basketball:
Team A gets it is in their defence, both teams sprint to the other end. Team A then gets a chance at scoring.

Team B then gets it in their defence, both teams sprint to the other end. Team B then gets a chance at scoring.

This goes on for 110 minutes until the team that is behind opens up and actually tries to win.

The last 10 minutes of AFL footy these days is the only part worth watching. The same as basketball.

[fingers]

Interesting observation. The coach of the South Dragons was talking about the similarities on the radio earler this week..Brian Gorjan (sp?) The whole zone idea is a direct lift from basketball and it seems the coaches are talking more and more.

Personal view - they should just start basketball games at 99-99 with 32 seconds to go.

[joffaboy]

There is more kicking in basketball now.

Basketball has banned zoning and has a 24 second shot clock.

Still as boring as batsh.ite.

Football will become the same.

However I disagree with the last ten minute theory.

Footy will soon not be worth watching for any of the game.

[kaos theory]

You are applying 'selective memory' roger.

We all do that when we recall the 'good old days' whenever something has now changed. Its a common psychological trait. We forget the dull boring bits and only remember the exciting stuff; therefore things don't seem as great these days...

There where many very boring games in the 60s, 70s, 80s & 90s. Today we have the media spotlight every game, with full replays, that is a bit much to take, unless you are a serious football tragic.

Also, our attention span these days aint what it used to be. There are 100s more activities for people to get involved with, all pushing up the excitement factor to draw peoples attention away from spending their money elsewhere.

Also, I wouldn’t class a NAB cup game as interesting/exciting - its a practice game, there are no sheep stations at stake.

[evertonfc]

Whilst I don't doubt basketball has changed footy, I still reckon you need to watch the whole of an AFL match to get a grip on what's happened.

And for the record, I'm loving Bulls-Magic on ESPN right now.

...and you thought Riewoldt had big shoulders.

[rodgerfox]

You are applying 'selective memory' roger.

We all do that when we recall the 'good old days' whenever something has now changed. Its a common psychological trait. We forget the dull boring bits and only remember the exciting stuff; therefore things don't seem as great these days...

Not really KT. The contest and arm wrestle of a footy match in days gone by was what had me coming back for more.

Scrappy, 'boring', low scoring games weren't 'boring' to me at all. It was about the passion, contest and physicality of an Aussie Rules game.

Less focus on athletes standing in a spot on the ground, and more about talented footballers outplaying each other.

I never found footy 'entertaining' as such. I found it entertaining to play, but watching it was about passion. Not about being entertained or bored.

I don't see it as a passionate game anymore. It's a manufactured spectacle.

[matrix]

the last 5 mins decides the game???

cant say that happened to many times in the games i went to this year.
maybe one or two, but not every game.

go u sixers

[GeorgeYoung27]

Footy fans set the bar high as far as standards go. Soccer, basketball and cricket (ODI and T20) are sometimes enjoyable at the time but soon after disappear in the mists of time. Footy has mostly also been like that too

KAOS is spot on about us comparing this generation with previous. When I was a kid, all we saw on TV was a replay of the best 1/4 of the 2 best games each week. St Kilda was never on through the 80's unless there was a split round. I loved watching St Kilda only because it was us, but most of the games I saw through the 70's and 80's were no better than anything today.

It is really popular to be negative about the game now. To say it's boring, soft etc. I going to take some flack here, but having watched footy regularly from the 70's, I enjoy it as much now as ever. It has changed, but it always has changed.

[Cairnsman]

When I was doing my VCE, I was obviously a mad footy nut. And so was one of my teachers.

We'd often hijack science class and talk about his hatred of Plugger, and my love of him.

Anyway, he made a comment once which I thought was interesting. It was in relation to the difference between footy and basketball. At the time the NBL was doing quite well, so naturally the 'my sport is better than yours' argument was quite topical.

He pointed out once to a basketball fan, that there's no point in watching the whole game in basketball, you just tune into the last 5 minutes because that's when it's all decided. What happens up til then matters little.
Whereas with the footy, the entire game was of utmost importance because the last 5 minutes - unless there was only a goal in it, mattered little. the game was decided throughout the previous 115 minutes.

At the time I kind of agreed.

I watched a little bit of the NAB Cup game the other night, and his comment came flooding back to me.
It was mind numbingly boring to watch. And I knew that unless there was a 8-10 goal difference going into the last 10 minutes of the match, it would only get interesting at that point.

Basketball always has close matches. And some fans love this. They'll sit through 45 minutes of shiit just to get a close finish.
To me, I find it boring as. May as well just skip to the last 5 minutes - leave out the rest.

Footy is the same now. Many more close matches, because of the way the game is played. Teams can come back from 6 goals down to make a game of it with 10 minutes to go.
I feel now that if a games on and I care about the result, I'll just tune into the last 10 minutes. Up until it's simply pretty much the same as basketball:
Team A gets it is in their defence, both teams sprint to the other end. Team A then gets a chance at scoring.

Team B then gets it in their defence, both teams sprint to the other end. Team B then gets a chance at scoring.

This goes on for 110 minutes until the team that is behind opens up and actually tries to win.

The last 10 minutes of AFL footy these days is the only part worth watching. The same as basketball.

This is funny. I posted in another thread about the 1966 GF before I read your post RF. I'll state it again because it has relevance to this thread.

Watch the 1966 Grand Final. It is boring as Shyte, except for the last 5 minutes.

[yipper]

Footy fans set the bar high as far as standards go. Soccer, basketball and cricket (ODI and T20) are sometimes enjoyable at the time but soon after disappear in the mists of time. Footy has mostly also been like that too

KAOS is spot on about us comparing this generation with previous. When I was a kid, all we saw on TV was a replay of the best 1/4 of the 2 best games each week. St Kilda was never on through the 80's unless there was a split round. I loved watching St Kilda only because it was us, but most of the games I saw through the 70's and 80's were no better than anything today.

It is really popular to be negative about the game now. To say it's boring, soft etc. I going to take some flack here, but having watched footy regularly from the 70's, I enjoy it as much now as ever. It has changed, but it always has changed.

Agreed. I have that very same view. It is still a great game, tactics are now more part and parcel of elite footy - but that is still not detracting from the game. It is still a bloody tough game to play at the elite level. It still has the highs and lows exactly like those of the bygone era. Contested footy is still there - ask Luke Ball how easy it is to get a kick out of the middle?? Ask anyone having to run in the path of Jonathon Brown is the game softer nowadays. Ask anyone playing on Steve Baker how soft this game is. It is all rubbish. Sure the rules get tinkered with to much, sure there are sanctions on how you can hit someone and when, and the zoning and flooding have forced teams to go short instead of long a bit more. But the game still has 4 quarters of drama and marks still get taken, goals still get kicked - some freakishly. Just like the old days. It is our game, and it is still a ripper of a sport.

[JT]

There is more kicking in basketball now.

Basketball has banned zoning and has a 24 second shot clock.

Zoning is only banned in the NBA & even in the NBA it is allowed to a degree. Zoning is allowed in the Olympics, in Europe & in the NBL.

It had been banned in the NBA until about 5 years ago, now thy are allowed to play a modified zone.

[GrumpyOne]

Not interested in the "I score you score I score you score I score you miss I win" game.

[plugger66]

Funny how last year most commentators said it was one of the best years of footy for many a year. We havent even played a game this year and we have the sad RF and I dont like what the Saints have done JB saying the game is stuffed.

It seems both have other agendas which are clouding their thinking.

[HarveysDeciple]

Funny how last year most commentators said it was one of the best years of footy for many a year. We havent even played a game this year and we have the sad RF and I dont like what the Saints have done JB saying the game is stuffed.

It seems both have other agendas which are clouding their thinking.

Yep. Agree with you, GY27 and Yipper on this.

The rule changes do my head in, but fundamentally the game is still the same enjoyable spectacle it always has been.

It's just popular to kick the game at the moment.

[Superboot]

Not interested in the "I score you score I score you score I score you miss I win" game.

That's exactly how I see it.

Imagine watching footy if every game involved the opposing teams taking it in turns to kick a goal for almost the entire game and hardly ever missing.

[joffaboy]

Funny how last year most commentators said it was one of the best years of footy for many a year. We havent even played a game this year and we have the sad RF and I dont like what the Saints have done JB saying the game is stuffed.

It seems both have other agendas which are clouding their thinking.

And what is that?

I have seen St.Kilda all of last year and they were boring for most of it.

I have seen three of their four matches this year (one on TV, the intra-club and the game against the Bulldogs), and the game plan was pathetic and boring.

You might not like my opinion but bad luck. In my opinion the heart has been ripped out of the game by the AFl administration that has compromised and skewed the "competition" to such an extent that it means virtually nothing.

It has changed the rules so much and so often that it has taken almost all the physicality out of the game.

ANd now we have a game of ringy ringy rosey keepings off handball happy crappola because of midfield flooding.

Obviously you drone like support and like boring defensive football, and a compromised "competition" fair enough. You probably also like WWE and the staged "matches" there as well.

So if I have an agenda it is that i want to see the attacking high scoring football. The type played by the Saints in the early to mid part of this decade.

I also find it highly amusing that the chief defender of the AFL, umpires, the game as a spectacle and anything that is ever critisised when it comes to football would accuse anyone of having clouded thinking.

After all it was you who lied about me wanting shirtfronts and hits behind play, and when challenged to quote me ran away and wouldn't.

Its fine to disagree with me and my opinions but bald face lying about what I posted just makes you look like the AFL apologist who will resort to any lie to defend your masters.

So you got that quote or will you run away again?

[plugger66]

Funny how last year most commentators said it was one of the best years of footy for many a year. We havent even played a game this year and we have the sad RF and I dont like what the Saints have done JB saying the game is stuffed.

It seems both have other agendas which are clouding their thinking.

And what is that?

I have seen St.Kilda all of last year and they were boring for most of it.

I have seen three of their four matches this year (one on TV, the intra-club and the game against the Bulldogs), and the game plan was pathetic and boring.

You might not like my opinion but bad luck. In my opinion the heart has been ripped out of the game by the AFl administration that has compromised and skewed the "competition" to such an extent that it means virtually nothing.

It has changed the rules so much and so often that it has taken almost all the physicality out of the game.

ANd now we have a game of ringy ringy rosey keepings off handball happy crappola because of midfield flooding.

Obviously you drone like support and like boring defensive football, and a compromised "competition" fair enough. You probably also like WWE and the staged "matches" there as well.

So if I have an agenda it is that i want to see the attacking high scoring football played by the Saints in the early to mid part of this decade.

I also find it highly amusing that the chief defender of the AFL, umpires, the game as a spectacle and anything that is ever critisised when it comes to football would accuse anyone of having clouded thinking.

After all it was you who lied about me wanting shirtfronts and hits behind play, and when challenged to quote me ran away and wouldn't.

Its fine to disagree with me and my opinions but bald face lying about what I posted just makes you look like the AFL apologist who will resort to any lie to defend your masters.

So you got that quote or will you run away again?

I cannot remember you saying how crap footy and the Saints looked last year but if you produce all those quotes I will apologise. It seems to me that you have been very negative about the Saints and the game in general since the level 2 thing. I am sorry i still love the game even if it is different to 10 years ago.

[kaos theory]

Scrappy, 'boring', low scoring games weren't 'boring' to me at all. It was about the passion, contest and physicality of an Aussie Rules game

What?

You can't be serious. I can go an watch a low grade, scrappy game in some lower level competition, and there is plenty of desire & passion. But I aint going to spend 100s of dollrs on tickets and waste my time going to watch all this level of game all the time.

There is plenty of passion & physicallity in the modern game. You just aint looking anymore. Don't give me the nab cup as an example.

Look at the passion and courage of the players to commit. Players playing through pain and injury all the time (e.g. Croad played with a broken foot in the gf).

Also, there was a lot less passion in the old days. Watch a game from the 60s or 70s....Not as much reaction from the players or the crowds.

Point is that because the saints are currently not a glamour side, with up & coming stars, then the game doesn't seem as exciting. I bet most hawks, cats, blues & tiger supporters think differently..

Also, watch an old game and you won't see much team work or tactical stuff going on. Its bomb it long and hope your guy in the forward line marks it.

So there is more zoning & possession going on now, but again, every time a boring game happens, you and others, point to the cause as the modern game. BUT when there was a boring game in the 60s or 70s, you ignore it or try to create some bogus arguement about the 'passion'.

[joffaboy]

I cannot remember you saying how crap footy and the Saints looked last year but if you produce all those quotes I will apologise. It seems to me that you have been very negative about the Saints and the game in general since the level 2 thing. I am sorry i still love the game even if it is different to 10 years ago.

Find them yourself when you are looking for all those quotes you SAID I made saying I wanted shirtfronts and hits behind play.

I dont want an apology. I just dont like being lied about.


And dont be sorry you still love the game, you seem like the type that would drone like take anything from the AFL and put up with it.

According to your posting ethos, nobody has the right to critisise the game, the administration, the AFL, the umpires, or anything in any way shape or form. You will not allow anyone to have an alternate opinion to the ones expressed by the prevailing orthodoxy of the apperanchik.

Well heres some news. I also LOVE the game. And that is why I critisise it when the game is being corrupted and destroyed.

I lost all interest in the game last year. It became boring, and predictable. This NAB cup has been appalling and the season looks not much better.

Hows the Saints membership coming along?

[rodgerfox]

There is more kicking in basketball now.

Basketball has banned zoning and has a 24 second shot clock.

Zoning is only banned in the NBA & even in the NBA it is allowed to a degree. Zoning is allowed in the Olympics, in Europe & in the NBL.

It had been banned in the NBA until about 5 years ago, now thy are allowed to play a modified zone.

The scary thing is, that the 3-pointer was introduced to combat 'flooding' in basketball.

Exactly as with footy, the 'flood' forced players to take shots from a lon way away from the basket. Introducing the 3-pointer gave plenty of incentive to take longger shots, and gave the defending team plenty of incentive not to flood so tight around the key.

I'm scared shiitless that the 9-pointer is the best fix for the debacle we now see as AFL footy.

[iwantmeseats]

I think we are jaded as St.Kilda fans, due to the crap we have been served up over the last few years. I cant help but agree, however, I still go and still care. My passion for the saints is still there, but it would probably not stand another 3 years of RL's ridiculous idea of how to play the game.

[Cairnsman]

I cannot remember you saying how crap footy and the Saints looked last year but if you produce all those quotes I will apologise. It seems to me that you have been very negative about the Saints and the game in general since the level 2 thing. I am sorry i still love the game even if it is different to 10 years ago.

Find them yourself when you are looking for all those quotes you SAID I made saying I wanted shirtfronts and hits behind play.

I dont want an apology. I just dont like being lied about.


And dont be sorry you still love the game, you seem like the type that would drone like take anything from the AFL and put up with it.

According to your posting ethos, nobody has the right to critisise the game, the administration, the AFL, the umpires, or anything in any way shape or form. You will not allow anyone to have an alternate opinion to the ones expressed by the prevailing orthodoxy of the apperanchik.

Well heres some news. I also LOVE the game. And that is why I critisise it when the game is being corrupted and destroyed.

I lost all interest in the game last year. It became boring, and predictable. This NAB cup has been appalling and the season looks not much better.

Hows the Saints membership coming along?

Hey Joffa this is a serious question as I would be interested in your thoughts. I watched (again) the 1966 grand final the other night and it is interesting to compare today’s style of play to back then. Obviously a lot has changed about the game in the past 40 years but the one thing about footy back then was that it resembled kick-to-kick like you would in the park with all of your mates when the ball would be roosted from one end of the ground to a large pack of players that would all contest for the mark. Most times the ball would fall to the ground and then play would stop after the pack of players locked up the ball. This then would be repeated over and over. The game was very stagnant and there were big pauses in the game. I'm not trying to be confrontational but this style of game to me is a lot more boring than what we watch today.

Out of interest what period of football do you think was the most interesting to watch during your time as footy fan? i.e. 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s or 00s. The reason I ask this is because you hear a lot of people bag today’s style of play but I wonder what era they are comparing it to with regards to their preferred style of play.

[Griggsy]

you must really hate soccer then... thats shites always close

[iwantmeseats]

There is more kicking in basketball now.

Basketball has banned zoning and has a 24 second shot clock.

Zoning is only banned in the NBA & even in the NBA it is allowed to a degree. Zoning is allowed in the Olympics, in Europe & in the NBL.

It had been banned in the NBA until about 5 years ago, now thy are allowed to play a modified zone.

The scary thing is, that the 3-pointer was introduced to combat 'flooding' in basketball.

Exactly as with footy, the 'flood' forced players to take shots from a lon way away from the basket. Introducing the 3-pointer gave plenty of incentive to take longger shots, and gave the defending team plenty of incentive not to flood so tight around the key.

I'm scared shiitless that the 9-pointer is the best fix for the debacle we now see as AFL footy.

9pt bulls*** wank goals SHOULD NEVER EVER be bought into the game proper.

[fingers]

Funny how last year most commentators said it was one of the best years of footy for many a year. We havent even played a game this year and we have the sad RF and I dont like what the Saints have done JB saying the game is stuffed.

It seems both have other agendas which are clouding their thinking.

And what is that?

I have seen St.Kilda all of last year and they were boring for most of it.

I have seen three of their four matches this year (one on TV, the intra-club and the game against the Bulldogs), and the game plan was pathetic and boring.

You might not like my opinion but bad luck. In my opinion the heart has been ripped out of the game by the AFl administration that has compromised and skewed the "competition" to such an extent that it means virtually nothing.

It has changed the rules so much and so often that it has taken almost all the physicality out of the game.

ANd now we have a game of ringy ringy rosey keepings off handball happy crappola because of midfield flooding.

Obviously you drone like support and like boring defensive football, and a compromised "competition" fair enough. You probably also like WWE and the staged "matches" there as well.

So if I have an agenda it is that i want to see the attacking high scoring football. The type played by the Saints in the early to mid part of this decade.

I also find it highly amusing that the chief defender of the AFL, umpires, the game as a spectacle and anything that is ever critisised when it comes to football would accuse anyone of having clouded thinking.

After all it was you who lied about me wanting shirtfronts and hits behind play, and when challenged to quote me ran away and wouldn't.

Its fine to disagree with me and my opinions but bald face lying about what I posted just makes you look like the AFL apologist who will resort to any lie to defend your masters.

So you got that quote or will you run away again?

Joffa your problem is that the game looks soooo much better from Level 2