I just can't get excited about either the Heart or the Victory, not for lacking of trying.

I just don't care.

The quality isn't there.

I guess it's like when I've been to lesser EPL matches.

I once saw Middlesborough take on Fulham and was thoroughly disinterested.

Give me Arsenal v Tottenham any day.

I could not agree more.

It will probably be a really good game but you never know some one might score and mess it all up!

However my money is on nil all.

heart v VICTORY on Saturday night is going to effing rock. While it may not last here, you can't get that kind of atmosphere and game in the AFL.

Yes you can, and it's atmosphere that's generated because of the exhilarating skills and courage on display in a tightly fought game of AFL football. Not to mentioned the 25+ goals you see socred during the game.

Crowds at the soccer have to jump up and down and shout their tribal loyalties. If they didn't all it would be is silence while two teams endlessly engage in what looks like 88 minutes of mundane circle work, with about 2 minutes of genuinely exciting action.

Most soccer games are tedious affairs. I went to a couple of A-League games at Etihad this year and sorry to say it was boring as batsh!t.

I just can't get excited about either the Heart or the Victory, not for lacking of trying.

I just don't care.

The quality isn't there.

I guess it's like when I've been to lesser EPL matches.

I once saw Middlesborough take on Fulham and was thoroughly disinterested.

Give me Arsenal v Tottenham any day.

I don't blame you if you were out at The Riverside!! I think Victory's average crowd in the last season Boro were in the premier league was better than that at the north-eastern English club.

The 'good' moments in the A-league are genuinely exciting and skillful. The problems is that almost every team has a few players on the pitch that bring the quality down a few notches.

Still it's good to have a team to support and watch every week in your home town, and it's great to have a home town rivalry blossoming. I go pretty much every week, and the quality, form, ladder position and opponent doesn't really have anything to do with it.

By the way, that night at White Heart Lane was going well for Spurs until a late, late equaliser from Arsenal at a set piece. It really fired the crowd up and made the hour or so after the game around the stadium very "interesting" indeed.

I don't blame you if you were out at The Riverside!! I think Victory's average crowd in the last season Boro were in the premier league was better than that at the north-eastern English club.

The 'good' moments in the A-league are genuinely exciting and skillful. The problems is that almost every team has a few players on the pitch that bring the quality down a few notches.

Still it's good to have a team to support and watch every week in your home town, and it's great to have a home town rivalry blossoming. I go pretty much every week, and the quality, form, ladder position and opponent doesn't really have anything to do with it.

By the way, that night at White Heart Lane was going well for Spurs until a late, late equaliser from Arsenal at a set piece. It really fired the crowd up and made the hour or so after the game around the stadium very "interesting" indeed.

Thats The problem TJ Its hardly ever the game that is the most exciting or interesting bit.

You either have to get drunk before you get there, sign songs in the ground or have a punch up afterwards.

Because there is not a lot happening when the game is on.

The way to fix Soccer is get rid of "off Side'

and make the goal net 1 metre wider.

The way to fix Soccer is get rid of "off Side'

Agreed. I've said that with all sincerity to association people before and even good friends think I'm trolling.

Thats The problem TJ Its hardly ever the game that is the most exciting or interesting bit.

You either have to get drunk before you get there, sign songs in the ground or have a punch up afterwards.

Because there is not a lot happening when the game is on.

The way to fix Soccer is get rid of "off Side'

and make the goal net 1 metre wider.

I'm taking that all for the joke that it is.

If you think about the game (both games in this instance) on more of an intellectual level then I'm not quite sure why having a wider goal (and presumably then more goals per game) and changing a key rule that makes the game a "challenge" (the offside rule) would make it "better".

I suppose every time an AFL team develops a strategy to limit the opposition's chances of scoring (gee we're slow at developing that side of the game) we should just change the rules, wait to see what other changes will happen as a result fo the rule change and then make some other rule change and set off another chain reaction.

This talk of "intellectualising" the game is not me saying I am smarter than any other fan, I'm just saying I think about it and enjoy it in a different way. It's not just more goals = better game = I had more fun = lets make sure that happens more often.

Agreed. I've said that with all sincerity to association people before and even good friends think I'm trolling.

I have tried as well

You will never win mate!

I'm taking that all for the joke that it is.

If you think about the game (both games in this instance) on more of an intellectual level then I'm not quite sure why having a wider goal (and presumably then more goals per game) and changing a key rule that makes the game a "challenge" (the offside rule) would make it "better".

I suppose every time an AFL team develops a strategy to limit the opposition's chances of scoring (gee we're slow at developing that side of the game) we should just change the rules, wait to see what other changes will happen as a result fo the rule change and then make some other rule change and set off another chain reaction.

This talk of "intellectualising" the game is not me saying I am smarter than any other fan, I'm just saying I think about it and enjoy it in a different way. It's not just more goals = better game = I had more fun = lets make sure that happens more often.

You are probably right

However I grew up with a different attitude to what makes a game entertaining

Try as I might I cannot get involved in Soccer.

There is just not a lot happening for me. To me it is like watching basketball except no one scores.

I cannot imagine going to a basketball game and at the end of an hour the final score was nil all.

For better or worse I have trouble watching the game.

I do understand where you are coming from, The Jacks, but 'I'm taking that all for the joke that it is.' is whats alienating alot of potential Australian converts. The offside rule is a major obstacle to scoring. Devotees call it a feature, say it creates 'tension'. People used to results, paying good money to watch professional atheletes (at tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per game) do circle work for 90+ minutes call it stupid, a joke. Heck, I went to an A-L game this year to check out AAMI (average, btw) and even a 0-2 score-line @ $45 left me bored to tears. And the crowd agreed. From the 20 minute mark to the 90 minute mark they were more interested in chanting what side on the stadium they were in.... IMO changing/removing the offside rule would cement the global domination plans of FIFA. Imagine a 10-9 WC victory. The see-saw of emotions, the understanding that the game isn't 90% over once one team scores.. /end novel

This article is written by the author of "Inverting the Pyramid", a book I referred to earlier on this thread (well I think it was this thread).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/dec/23/the-question-football-tactics-develop-decade

This paragraph, in particular, was interesting, given the discussion of the evolution of tactics in AFL, "soccer" and other sports (rubgy world cups are mentioned here):

To an extent, evolution is a game of cat and mouse: a space opens, it is closed, and so a space opens elsewhere. A rugby writer recently suggested to me that rugby World Cups tend not to produce attacking play because of a natural cycle. After each tournament, he said, law variations are brought in to open the game up, which works for a year or two, but by the time the next tournament comes around, coaches have worked them out and so it becomes more defensive again.

It seems to me that, with one or two exceptions – the 1925 change in the offside law, the 1992 outlawing of the backpass and the tackle from behind in response to the sterility of Italia 90 – football is strong enough to generate new ways of attacking on its own without recourse to tinkering with the game's mechanics, but the process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis is the same.

This article is written by the author of "Inverting the Pyramid", a book I referred to earlier on this thread (well I think it was this thread).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/dec/23/the-question-football-tactics-develop-decade

This paragraph, in particular, was interesting, given the discussion of the evolution of tactics in AFL, "soccer" and other sports (rubgy world cups are mentioned here):

To an extent, evolution is a game of cat and mouse: a space opens, it is closed, and so a space opens elsewhere. A rugby writer recently suggested to me that rugby World Cups tend not to produce attacking play because of a natural cycle. After each tournament, he said, law variations are brought in to open the game up, which works for a year or two, but by the time the next tournament comes around, coaches have worked them out and so it becomes more defensive again.

It seems to me that, with one or two exceptions – the 1925 change in the offside law, the 1992 outlawing of the backpass and the tackle from behind in response to the sterility of Italia 90 – football is strong enough to generate new ways of attacking on its own without recourse to tinkering with the game's mechanics, but the process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis is the same.

Good luck Jack if you can get any mental stimulation from that meaningless scribble

Is about as exciting as the "game" it is purportedly discussing

but you're such a round ball tragic you'll only see what you want to

grow some balls, ditch soccer and give the Dees your 100% devotion - guaranteed to make you feel better

Neither game is that interesting tactically. It's like comparing the size of an apple and orange, while there's a pumpkin sitting next to them with a big "NFL" sticker on it.

Next to the elephant with "Chess" written on it.

To be honest I think anyone who wants to pull themselves over which ball sport offers the most tactically is really just carrying on for the heck of it. Ultimately they all just come down to who's the fastest, strongest, most skilled and mentally switched on at the time. The tactics, while a very interesting part of most sports, are really just about squeezing out an extra 1% of performance.

It does annoy the bejesus out of me when ignorant soccer fans tell me there is no skill in Australian rules football though.

I do understand where you are coming from, The Jacks, but 'I'm taking that all for the joke that it is.' is whats alienating alot of potential Australian converts. The offside rule is a major obstacle to scoring. Devotees call it a feature, say it creates 'tension'. People used to results, paying good money to watch professional atheletes (at tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per game) do circle work for 90+ minutes call it stupid, a joke. Heck, I went to an A-L game this year to check out AAMI (average, btw) and even a 0-2 score-line @ $45 left me bored to tears. And the crowd agreed. From the 20 minute mark to the 90 minute mark they were more interested in chanting what side on the stadium they were in.... IMO changing/removing the offside rule would cement the global domination plans of FIFA. Imagine a 10-9 WC victory. The see-saw of emotions, the understanding that the game isn't 90% over once one team scores.. /end novel

Tend to agree. Hockey is all the more interesting given it's removal of the off-side rule some years ago. All the more attacking and alot more shots at goal. Higher scores. More interest.