James O'Brien has brought up an interesting debate on his TV debate channel. What is more entertaining: Football or Rugby? He found it a tough decision, and I'm not surprised. He is a life-long Nottingham Forest and Kidderminster Harriers fan and as an avid Wycombe Wanderers fan, I would find it extremely tough to say that rugby is more entertaining than football.
He suggests that football could be losing the war of entertainment value to rugby because there are more entertaining features of rugby than just scoring points and it is more of a spectacle, with the excitement of whether Johnny Wilkinson will get a chance to drop-goal and to see the backs make runs all the way up the field. He also questions whether rugby is more entertaining for the neutral referring to that many games in international football competitions are often mundane instead of a great spectacle.
But I have to disagree with him. I must admit that I do not watch a lot of rugby, but is there really more of a guarantee that there is going to be more of a spectacle in rugby than in football, or any other sport? Perhaps it is that England are better at rugby than football at the moment. Watching England at football has been quite painful recently, so it would be a surprise to me if England playing rugby wasn't more entertaining at the moment. But rugby more entertaining as an international sport? No.
Not every game may have been guaranteed entertainment during the last World Cup, but matches still remain entertaining in my memory like the opening game of Germany beating Costa Rica 4-2; Argentina's 6-0 drubbing of Serbia and Montenegro, before their exit to Germany; Japan taking a shock lead against Brazil before losing 4-1; and the final match of the tournament, contested between France and Italy, an intense affair which said a surprisingly abrupt end to Zinedine Zidane's career after his sending off, and the hard-fought penalty shootout at the end for the most prestigious prize in international football.
Obviously there are plenty of arguments for and against either sport's entertainment value and which is more so, though the most important factor that I think impacts the entertainment value is the scoring systems. When I do have a moment watching rugby, I find it less entertaining because the players score so frequently and the points are valued higher than in football. Strange, isn't it? But I find that because goals in football are rarer, and I argue that it is more difficult to score a goal in football, it is more special and more of an achievement when it happens. That's why football edges it for me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am a fan of both sports. Well, if we're talking rugby it has to be league, NOT union!! League is faster, tougher and generally more enjoyable.
I've come across football fans, like myself, who enjoy watching rugby as an alternative - and this is especially the case when the football season finishes. (It can also be the same for cricket).
I've then met football fans who are complete snobs about it. When they refer to it as "egg chasing" it bothers me because rugby is a tough and exciting sport.
Having said this, I do prefer football because I was brought up on it. It's only more recently I started getting into rugby league. My dad is a big fan and so is my boyfriend so it provides another shared interest.
Superleague is huge in terms of rugby. The money involved is nothing like the Premiership of the football world, but it's still a big deal. The likes of the Bradford rugby team get far bigger attendances than their footballing counterparts. I think that says a lot.
I would say rugby is a "man's" sport. If footballers took hits like rugby players do, they'd be out for six months!!
So in conclusion: I think football is easier and generally better to watch - but I'd rather go out with a rugby player than a footballer! ;o)
Post a Comment