The game finished 6-3 ffs.
I actually don’t mind a boring 0:0 draw on a cold and gray November day in a small stadium between bottom-of-the-table teams. That’s part of the sport, part of football culture where I come from. I never liked the American way, with cheerleading and the whole fluffy stuff.
That’s just one game. I’m talking about in general.
By the way, soccer didn’t start collecting detailed game statistics until 2000s. Baseball has been doing that since the 1950s.
They had to do something quickly to fight the boredom.
That’s because they don’t know anything better.
Of course they know. I am European and follow sports around the world. Still like old European football the best.
Soccer is of course easier to discern what the people are doing, that’s why the masses like it.
American football has more strategy and more sophistication. You have to read defenses.
The problem with American Football and also baseball is that there is no continuous play. No play lasts more than 10 seconds or so and then the time between plays is even longer than the action. I don’t think European football is more entertaining, but it’s ant least equally attractive.
I like American football. One of the few sports that people can start playing in adulthood and actually get signed to a pro team.
You don’t want continuous play. You want the game divided into discrete plays, so you plan your next move, so there’s more strategy. And you can collect statistics.
Yes, baseball is boring because the players take too long in between plays. If there weren’t so much tradition associated with it in Taiwan, I probably wouldn’t watch. But it’s constantly trying to improve, and that’s why it instituted a pitch clock to get players to move faster.
American football and baseball are constantly tweaking the rules (sometimes excessively) to increase scoring, but soccer refuses. Same low-scoring, coma-inducing stuff.
What does that statement even mean? Please explain.
Football is difficult to play, that what we like.
Basketball used to be good a sport until they figured out 3 shots is statistically better. Now is boring as hell, before was difficult. More score made the game worse.
The only sport than can match football is rugby.
Learn the tactics of football, it’s fascinating to look at the tactics mixed with individual brilliance, how a team can neutralize a player like Messi or Ronaldo requires skills
Personally I fall asleep with American football, too slow… looked a lot before as it was a social gathering when living in the states but one thing I don’t miss 
Speak for yourself. I want continuous play. I enjoy watching the NFL. But I equally enjoy football where the teams don’t have to line up all the time.
This take I also don’t understand. Why is everyone complaining about 3-pointers in basketball? It’s a beautiful shot. Is big men posting up more attractive? There is also a lot of plays to run to get 3-point shooters open. I get that people want more physicality, but I don’t think the 3-point shot is the problem.
Back to football. There are a few things that have always annoyed me in European football. Fouled players exaggerating the foul by rolling on the ground in pain. The offside rule in general. Players getting away with pulling opponents’ jerseys. And now excessive video refereeing that, again, disrupts the flow of the game.
Whatever “tactic” you have, there’s only one. You can’t call a different “tactic” in the middle of the game, except for set pieces, and only some times practice them. So we know what you’re gonna do most of the time.
That’s like watching a movie wherein you know what the characters will do.
Only the wealthiest teams like Liverpool and ManU have analytics departments. Every baseball team has one.
Man U should fire theirs.
Field goals in American football should be made harder. Now, a 50-yarder is routine.
As to the whole “which is better?”, people from India tend to like Indian food , while Mexicans like Mexican. Surprise! What you’re used to generally (not always) seems more attractive