I like football as a sport because it is such a tactical and strategic game, and I never got why people stereotyped it as a "sport for meatheads". But, its a shame that the biggest and most prominent football league and competition in the us (and in the world) is cucked as fucked (as pretty much every other major sporting league is). It's funny too because I doubt the subhuman faggots who would get mad over what a shock jock radio host said are the type of people who play and watch football anyways. It's funny too because soccer leagues in europe are less pozzed than this, and soccer was always known as the "pussy sport".
The "updates" to Baseball have diminished the strategic elements. The removal of time for the defense and the addition of designated hitters for the NL offense have significantly lessened the burden on teams to make good strategic decisions about who pitches, and when.
This accompanies anti-strategy decisions like the removal of the shifted infield, the inability of managers to change coverage in the outfield, and other defensive decisions that made baseball a strategic game in the first place.
They're trying to make baseball a game like basketball, with scoring the only aim.
Yeah, make baseball great again. It used to be a slowburn strategy game which rewarded patience and didn't hinge entirely on a small selection of star players. But every sport over the last 30 years has been a race to the bottom, they've all been changing the rules to to punish intellectual plays and reward sheer athleticism over team cohesion. Even Basketball used to be a much more thoughtful game which required more cooperation between players.
30 years ago, basketball strategy involved a whiteboard and a series of planned passes. Now it's "get the guy we're paying $40m a year the ball every chance you get".
Yes. A cricket match takes a long Ng time to play. There was a simplified version called "Rounders" popularised in schools. It is quicker to play and focuses on big, spectacular hits.
Cricket is (at the core) a game of defense. The batting team defends the wicket from the attacks of the bowler while also trying to make runs to score. It is absolutely a game of endurance, with a test match lasting a couple days, and a Test Series is about five games.
There are shorter versions of cricket matches, with one day matches (50 overs) and 20/20 (20 overs) and they require differences in strategy.
To sum up, an international Test Match Series has deep strategy, where the resources of the bowler meet the risk-taking of the batsmen over days.
I know it looks a bit dry, but if you like baseball you should watch a game of 20/20 and see if you can come to grips with the reasons the players are doing what they are doing.
I like football as a sport because it is such a tactical and strategic game, and I never got why people stereotyped it as a "sport for meatheads". But, its a shame that the biggest and most prominent football league and competition in the us (and in the world) is cucked as fucked (as pretty much every other major sporting league is). It's funny too because I doubt the subhuman faggots who would get mad over what a shock jock radio host said are the type of people who play and watch football anyways. It's funny too because soccer leagues in europe are less pozzed than this, and soccer was always known as the "pussy sport".
True. Football is tactical and strategic but I’d say baseball is more so. Or maybe more analytical. Granted it’s my favorite sport but I’m biased.
The "updates" to Baseball have diminished the strategic elements. The removal of time for the defense and the addition of designated hitters for the NL offense have significantly lessened the burden on teams to make good strategic decisions about who pitches, and when.
This accompanies anti-strategy decisions like the removal of the shifted infield, the inability of managers to change coverage in the outfield, and other defensive decisions that made baseball a strategic game in the first place.
They're trying to make baseball a game like basketball, with scoring the only aim.
That is a good point.
Yeah, make baseball great again. It used to be a slowburn strategy game which rewarded patience and didn't hinge entirely on a small selection of star players. But every sport over the last 30 years has been a race to the bottom, they've all been changing the rules to to punish intellectual plays and reward sheer athleticism over team cohesion. Even Basketball used to be a much more thoughtful game which required more cooperation between players.
30 years ago, basketball strategy involved a whiteboard and a series of planned passes. Now it's "get the guy we're paying $40m a year the ball every chance you get".
Sure thing bloke. Now go watch some analysis of a Test Cricket match.
Baseball has some roots in cricket right?
Yes. A cricket match takes a long Ng time to play. There was a simplified version called "Rounders" popularised in schools. It is quicker to play and focuses on big, spectacular hits.
Cricket is (at the core) a game of defense. The batting team defends the wicket from the attacks of the bowler while also trying to make runs to score. It is absolutely a game of endurance, with a test match lasting a couple days, and a Test Series is about five games.
There are shorter versions of cricket matches, with one day matches (50 overs) and 20/20 (20 overs) and they require differences in strategy.
To sum up, an international Test Match Series has deep strategy, where the resources of the bowler meet the risk-taking of the batsmen over days.
I know it looks a bit dry, but if you like baseball you should watch a game of 20/20 and see if you can come to grips with the reasons the players are doing what they are doing.