Hamlet wrote:
"I have yet to see a real tackle in your 'real footy', When a Melbourne Rules player can face up to a charging 120k opposition player who is determined to go through him rather than just kick the ball over him you can tell me about pain in 'football'."

You've obviously never watched Aussie rules properly, if you've never seen a charging player hit another player in AFL, plus the speeds your 120kg guys get up to, as opposed to AFL 95kg (all muscle) guys...well, the comparison is laughable, the momentum of a 120kg Rugby player run-walking (that's the best description I could come up with) towards the opposition defensive line is nothing compared to a tackler going full pelt in AFL getting hit by a shepherd (blindsided), much much bigger collision.

By the way, the thing that you're derisively calling "Melbourne Rules" is far bigger than League or Union in this country, just because it was INVENTED HERE unlike Rugby (I'm talking Australia, as apart from Melbourne) doesn't mean it's any less of a game than one invented elsewhere, or do you subscribe to the Prime Minister's philosophy that we should just get our innovation from overseas.

WORLD CUP NEWS

SEMI FINAL

Italy versus Germany

Half Time Score:

NIL ALL

And that, folks, sums up soccer.

Hadz

Melboune Rules was the original name of the game:

From http://www.vandyaussierules.com/aussierules.htm

The game this group drew up became known as Melbourne Rules Football. The rules which most differentiated it from variations of rugby were rule six, which allowed and defined a mark and the resultant free kick, and rule eight, which said the ball could be carried when marked or caught from a bounce. It could not be lifted from the ground.

A few years later, the rule forcing players to bounce the ball every 10 metres was introduced. By 1866, Melbourne Rules Football had been accepted as Victorian Rules Football and much later as Australian Football.

To see a team of Melbourne Rules players alongside a team of Rugby players is like comparing light middleweight boxers with heavyweights. Both are lean, but the Rugby players have a much greater level of overall muscle mass. That is simply a function of the game, if Melbourne Rules had a requirement for heavily muscled players to physically overcome each other, then the players would look like Rugby players, but as I said before, the idea is to go over your opposition, not face them tackle after tackle.

Scout: half time score nil all Italy v Germany yes. Full time score ditto. Score after an enthralling 30 minutes of extra time Italy 2-0. Come on, if you couldn't find some excitement in that match, I would call you so biased against Football that you should probably never watch it.

In rugby codes and AFL, sure, there is plenty of scoring by half time. But, if you see a half time score of say, 28-6, is there genuinely any interest in the second half of the match? Likewise in cricket, say in 1 day games, the side batting 1st gets say 250 (which may be pretty good to watch) but the side batting second falls to 6/120, the rest of the innings usually becoming a pretty dull survival affair. Any sport at all will have its highlights and lowlights.

The biggest blight on football is the diving and once again the Italians got away with too much. I agree with some posters here that diving/acting does not occur to the same extent in other contact sports, but that is certainly not to say that it does not occur at all.

The real interest in today's game was that this is the WORLD CUP. The world's premier sporting event. No-one wants to lose it, so sure plenty of these games will be tense and tight. To me, this spectacle on the world's stage is far better and more exciting than anything any of Australia's favourite sports can put up.

Hey PK - you're right I don't watch it - tried but too slow, boring. Prefer a game that moves me during the game itself - not at the end with a desperation shoot-out. No wonder people beat each other up after it.

I do appreciate the skills however, now if they increased the size of the goal area.... then maybe I would watch. However, must confess to parochialism, I grew up with Aussies Rules, why should I turn my back on a game I and many other Australians enjoy? Aussie Rules is an important part of my culture, also it is a damned fine game. Cricket is Australian too, however, I find it even more boring than soccer. So there you go, PK. Not about to change my stripes on this one.

Aussie Aussie Aussies OY OY OY - whatever game you prefer.

Regards

Dianne

Scout, seems you didn't actually watch the Germany v Italy game - shame for you, a damn fine match. Not so Italy v Portugal, unfortunately. France v Italy should be a cracker though - both teams should be all out to win - allez La France!

Aussie rules I was not brought up on and don't fully get, but I can appreciate a good example of the game. Rugby League can be fine - there are fewer finer sporting contests than the annual State of Origin as last night's series decider in Melbourne showed. And then there is the Tour de France, one of the few genuine world sports where Australians really excel (and, it would be nice to think, drug unassisted). So, I think it is best to try to keep an open mind about sport as in other things and not be limited to what you were brought up on. That way, you can choose to view the very cream of a number of sports instead of confiining yourself to a small number of sports and therefore being left with a fair share of humdrum matches.