The Student Room Group

Reason why Rugby and Cricket are boring compared to football

Scroll to see replies

For me, football is sooooooo boring - in what other sport can just one goal / point whatever be scored and people think it is a good match.

It is the slowest-scoring of all the popular sports.

I was thinking of a slight change to football to make it more interesting - have TWO balls in play at once! It would be a lot more interesting to watch - a team could be attacking and defending at the same time - see the players actually thinking for a change. I think it probably wouldn't take off though since it would be hard to televise. meh!
Whilst I would say I love football, it is awfully boring at times.

In 90 minutes, probably less than half is actually entertaining, the rest is just passing the ball back to defence, then back to the keeper, then kicked long down field, possession is lost/ball goes out of play...repeat

I absolutely love watching rugby league though. For entertainment I don't think there's a better sport. I find that in 80 minutes there's rarely a dull moment as you have to attack and if you don't get to the line you surrender possession, making the need to score critical. Also, when the underdog does win it's because they've made a real effort in defence, not just parking the bus on the 18 yard box in football and scrambling the ball away.

On Saturday England take on Australia in the Rugby League Four Nations final - see if you agree with me by watching - 18:00 on Sky Sports 2 :smile:

If you watch the game, I'll happily watch the next England rugby union fixture :tongue:
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 42
Original post by Cabine Sono Qui
How about mixed martial arts eh? This debate could go on forever.

Anyway, this thread was about boredom. Having played cricket for a number of years, watched numerous test matches on TV and attended international test matches, I can safely say that test match cricket is probably the most boring sport in existence.

Nowadays the only cricket I can tolerate is 20/20.



you disgraceful heathen. wash your mouth out.
Original post by py0alb
you disgraceful heathen. wash your mouth out.


I place self-righteous, uppity 'purest' sports fans on the same level as self-righteous, uppity religious nuts. Jus' sayin'
Reply 44
Original post by Cabine Sono Qui
I place self-righteous, uppity 'purest' sports fans on the same level as self-righteous, uppity religious nuts. Jus' sayin'



I place uneducated and ill-informed lowest common denominator sports fans on the same level as people who prefer watching reality tv to reading a book and as a result are unable to correctly spell the word "purist".
Original post by scoutzawwar
By competitive I mean that each team even though they may be underdogs in a match have the chance to win the match.
You rarely see underdogs winning in cricket.


Erm, not true. I distinctly remember both The Netherlands and Ireland beating England at World Cup Cricket.
Original post by py0alb
its without doubt the epitome of the world's sporting competitions. there is no more rigorous test of skill and mental strength.


Hmm. I partially agree with you. I don't think that there are many more rigorous tests of mental strength, or even physical strength, especially for bowlers with the constant repetitive motions. But there are many rigorous tests of skill. Football is one. Also, events in the Olympics such as the pentathlon, decathlon etc require huge multifaceted amounts of skill.
Original post by py0alb
I place uneducated and ill-informed lowest common denominator sports fans on the same level as people who prefer watching reality tv to reading a book and as a result are unable to correctly spell the word "purist".


Lolz. How did you work out I watch Jersey Shore?!

I'm hardly uneducated though. It feels like I'm drowing in education atm.
Original post by KingMessi
Erm, not true. I distinctly remember both The Netherlands and Ireland beating England at World Cup Cricket.


If there is a cricket series of Ireland vs England, who would you predict to win on paper?
Original post by kingsholmmad
Then who(and in what sport) would you class as underdogs?

It's not that long ago that Bangladesh beat England; how often do you see either of the Mancunian sides losing to your idea of an underdog side?


unlike the fans.
You don't actually watch any cricket, do you? England are number one Test side in the world and we are still perfectly capable of making games against the West Indies or Bangladesh close and exciting.


Do NOT get me started on video technology in football: it desperately needs to happen but, until Sepp Blatter can see a way of making money out of it, it's not going to.



Do you know the records Bangladesh broke in the last 5 years? One of them was beating India at home soil after goodness knows how many years. That team would have been classified as underdogs in the last 20 years but they are much stronger now. Similarly I would not call West Indies to be a small team.

I can not agree more with you on the video technology that needs to be implemented in football.
Reply 50
Original post by scoutzawwar
If there is a cricket series of Ireland vs England, who would you predict to win on paper?


20 or 50 overs?

In either case I would predict a narrow series win to England.

The longer the format, the more likely the better team will win. The shorter the format, the closer to football it becomes.


It depends what you're looking for in sport, really. If you want to watch humanity achieving its pinnacle in its ultimate contest of physical and mental ability, then Test cricket is for you.

On the other hand, if you would rather watch lowest common denominator "sportertainment", then stick to wendyball, or possibly WWE.
Original post by scoutzawwar
If there is a cricket series of Ireland vs England, who would you predict to win on paper?


Obviously England. But, in the same vein, if you said 'If there were seven/five games between Manchester United and Leeds, who would you predict to win on paper?', obviously it'd be Man United. But Leeds managed to beat Man U. Both sports are unpredictable in certain contexts.
Reply 52
I usually get bored watching football matches because a lot of the time the ball seems to be played in the middle third with relatively few chances on goal. The exception to this is when its a scrappy game, Chelsea v QPR was a great game purely because there were a few red cards, periods of play when everyone fell over and it was pretty end to end.

In contrast I can easily sit through a game of rugby, since there is always one team going all out on the attack and another having to defend with the constant threat of a line break. There is almost always something gong on. The only issue I have is with the current refereeing around the scrums, they should bring in a touch judge to watch the other side of the scrum to check the binds. There's simply nothing like the suspense of when a team breaks into the 22 and works their way up to the 5 metre line through phases upon phases of play.
Original post by py0alb
If you want to watch humanity achieving its pinnacle in its ultimate contest of physical and mental ability, then Test cricket is for you.


Physically, test cricket is one of the easiest sports to play. In no way shape or form can you compare the physical requirements of cricket to football, rugby, MMA, tennis and so on. Mentally, you've just got to stop yourself from falling asleep.
It's down to the fans. Rugby fans are polite and human, football fans are hooligans.
Reply 55
I think the big club competitions in each sport (premier league and champions league, premiership and Heineken Cup, county championship and T20 cup) are all quite similar in their excitement levels. They're all pretty entertaining to watch as a neutral, and exciting to follow as a supporter.

However in international sport, rugby and cricket kick football's ass. International football is really boring and defensive compared to the gung-ho premiership style, whereas international cricket and rugby go up a level of excitement and intensity as well as quality.

How can anyone who appreciates sport even just a little bit try to tell me that Newlands Test Match wasn't an incredible sporting spectacle?
Reply 56
Football is a gentleman’s game played by hooligans, and rugby is a hooligans game played by gentlemen.

I prefer rugby.
Reply 57
Original post by Cabine Sono Qui
Physically, test cricket is one of the easiest sports to play. In no way shape or form can you compare the physical requirements of cricket to football, rugby, MMA, tennis and so on. Mentally, you've just got to stop yourself from falling asleep.



Sure, sure, I'd like to see you face bowling at 90mph all day long in the hot sun with millions of people watching. Jesus, I faced a bowling machine at 75mph for 20 minutes last night and I hardly had the strength to focus my eyes afterwards.

I can run around a football pitch for 90 minutes, no problem at all, but preparing your concentration and fast twitch fibres to execute a precise and powerful movement in less than half a second, over and over again is utterly exhausting.
Original post by py0alb
20 or 50 overs?

In either case I would predict a narrow series win to England.

The longer the format, the more likely the better team will win. The shorter the format, the closer to football it becomes.


It depends what you're looking for in sport, really. If you want to watch humanity achieving its pinnacle in its ultimate contest of physical and mental ability, then Test cricket is for you.

On the other hand, if you would rather watch lowest common denominator "sportertainment", then stick to wendyball, or possibly WWE.


Exactly, and cricket cannot go shorter then 20 overs can it?
And no I would say that the contest of physical and mental ability would be playing 90 minutes of competitive football, week in week out.
Reply 59
Original post by scoutzawwar
Exactly, and cricket cannot go shorter then 20 overs can it?
And no I would say that the contest of physical and mental ability would be playing 90 minutes of competitive football, week in week out.



Hardly a true test of ability when you admit yourself that the best team quite often doesn't even win? That sounds like a pretty defective test to me.

Mentally, there is no contest. Cricket is far more strategic, and requires far greater levels of concentration, courage, mental toughness and will power.

Physically, having played both on several occasions, I would say a 40 over game of cricket is about as tiring as 90 minutes of football. Rugby is more tiring than both. Rugby is ****ing intense.

However a full day of cricket, or even consecutive days of cricket, just saps you of energy. Running around on hard ground in the hot sun for 7 hours is absolutely shattering, far more tiring than fannying round a football pitch and occasionally diving on the floor.
(edited 12 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest