Keep in mind, I have argued elsewhere that soccer players are the best overall athletes on the planet, and that the sport of soccer can be exciting to play, but it must it be acknowledged that soccer is painfully boring to watch. I will explain why, along with every other sport, in a unified theory of Athletic Excitement.
Here is the basic rule:
--If the basic skill of the sport advantages the defense, the game will be boring to watch
--If the basic skill of the sport advantages the offense, the game will be more exciting to watch.
Corollary:
Sports that advantage the defense are more exciting at the youth level than the pro level.
Sports that advantage the offense are more exciting at the pro level than the youth level.
Here’s why:
--Rules that advantage the defense lead to a sport in which there is little action, but lots of caution and preparatory maneuvers, because initiating the action leads mainly to failure. Youth, however, succeed more often than pros, because they are less developed in the defensive skills which can dominate.
--Rules that advantage the offense lead to a sport in which there is lots of speedy action, because the majority of offensive attempts will be successful. Youth, however, fail more, because they are less developed in the offensive skills which can dominate.
A few examples will suffice:
The basic skill of soccer (kicking a ball through a field of your opponents, hampered further by the offsides rule) is the hardest in all of sports, heavily advantaging the defense, and therefore making for one of the most boring sports to watch.
Boxing vs Wrestling
The basic skill of wrestling (throwing your opponent down and holding him down) is extremely hard, and advantages the defense. Therefore the highest level of wrestling is extremely boring to watch, although middle-school level is actually quite exciting.
The basic skill of boxing (hitting your opponent with a punch) is easy, it advantages the offense. Therefore the highest level of boxing is exciting, although watching middle school kids box is boring.
The Football-using-hands Codes
--The basic skill of rugby (running through a field of your opponents) advantages the defense. Combined with all the rucking and maneuvering for possession and field position (which, in fairness, Rugby League has attempted to address)… boring.
--The basic skill of American football (passing past your opponents) advantages the offense, thereby making football more exciting than rugby (but only/mainly/especially when the offense is based on a good passing attack, i.e. running teams are boring to watch).
--The basic skills of Aussie Rules (running/kicking/catching over an open field with no line of scrimmage and no play stoppage to reset the defense) advantage the offense the most, making it the most exciting code of football developed yet.
Basketball – Rules Evolution towards Offense
Basketball is an interesting case of how the rules have changed to advantage the offense, thereby making the game more exciting to watch.
-In the original code of basketball, with strict rules against traveling, palming, charging, and jump shots (along with more players on the court and no shot clock), the advantage was with the defense.
-Allowing players to do all those things (today even preventing defenders from touching or impeding the offensive player at all) advantages the offense.
The Advantages of Boring Sports
I would be remiss if I didn’t address the couple advantages of boring, defensive sports: PARITY and SUSPENSE.
In a defensive game, bad teams can complete much better with superior teams. This creates parity, and the greater frequency of upsets. This is good from a fan perspective.
In a defensive game, there is a much greater frequency of close competitions and games that go down to the wire. If you care about the result with some emotional investment, this is highly engaging. The action itself may be as boring as ever, but if the emotional tension continues to rise throughout the game, it can be an awesome spectating experience.
A little inflation . . . or a lot?
10 hours ago
5 comments:
That is one of the best pieces of sports analysis I have ever read. Did you think of all this yourself, or is there some kind of 'literature' in this field?
I had a shot at this kind of thinking - mostly in relation to cricket - a couple of examples here, near the bottom:
http://the-doosra.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html
Thanks, Bruce, high praise indeed. I just concocted the idea a couple weeks ago, no literature that I am aware of.
Let me ask you, why do Brits seem to prefer the more-boring-to-watch version of the similar sporting codes? I thought about speculating in my blog post, but I really have no idea, even enough to make a decent stab at it. I was thinking it is just a matter of traditionalism in action.
Justin,
I think most folks that watch soccer in England have their own local clubs and amateur leagues. So there's a good bit of sublimated nationalism and pride of place in their soccer matches.
It feels to me as if there is something or another left out, because, as I read, I was nodding a fair amount and also disagreeing a fair amount.
First, some nits. Professional basketball is rivaled only by golf for sheer eye-bleeding dullness. College basketball is more interesting. High school basketball is more interesting still. I know that I am not the only one who thinks this.
Soccer is not the sport with the most difficult primary technical skill. Hockey is. It has two skills more difficult than kicking a ball: 1) skating and 2) directing a tiny puck bouncing along ice with a small-bladed stick.
Second, I don't think the correlation between offense/defense and whether the pro game is more exciting than the youth game really holds up either. Both hockey and soccer are defense-oriented. However, in both cases, the youth game is much duller than the pro game. This seems to be because the youth game is a different sport entirely. Until players get good enough to connect on easy passes in game situations 80+% of the time, passing is a bad idea, and teams don't do it.
Hockey/Soccer minus passing is tedious. If you have one really good player, the right strategy is "get the puck/ball to the best guy and let him try to skate/run and shoot for a goal." If skill is even on the team, the right strategy is "play back (except for the guy challenging the puck/ball carrier) and if the ball/puck comes to you, then hit it down the field/rink towards the opposition's goal."
Another stray thought is that you seem to find scoring exciting. In which case, your whole argument is close to tautology: "high scoring sports are more exciting." For you, I guess, a routine layup is more exciting than a midfielder anticipating a pass and making an athletic run to intercept it. I don't share this judgement and find it kind of baffling.
Bill, you make some good points. I myself am one of those who finds high school basketball far more entertaining than pro. However... I would say that relates to the amount of effort being put in, as you will almost never find in a pro game all 10 players playing as hard as they can, while that is a regular feature of almost all high school games.
One thing I left out of the original analysis is the relation of SPECTACLE to sport. Pro-basketball has become as much spectacle as sport. Spectacle meaning the celebration of extreme feats.
To answer your direct objection: I think high-action sports tend to be high-scoring sports, but the excitement is not in the scoring per se, but in the action, which is encouraged in an offense-advantaged sport.
Hockey is a good example. The action is usually exciting, because the offensive is advntaged (advancing the puck by skating and passing is almost impossible to stop), but the scoring is low because the net is so small and the goalie in modern pads so large. High action, high excitment, but with low scoring leading to greater suspense and upsets, perhaps the best combination in all of sports.
Post a Comment