Baseball or Soccer...which is harder?
 

So I was having a discussion with my fellow co-workers the other day and we got to talking about baseball and soccer. They said that soccer was a harder sport to play than baseball. I say that baseball is a harder sport to play because it takes more ability than soccer. I say anybody can kick a soccer ball around, but not everybody can hit a baseball, which I think is one of the hardest things to do in any sport. The only way I see soccer being harder than baseball is that you need to be able to have very good cardio training. Ability wise, I think baseball is the hardest sport to play. It takes tremendous skill and ability to be able to hit a 90mph fastball.

What do you guys think?

Football (soccer) is way harder to play. You have to run for nearly the entire game. Baseball is a lot of inactivity followed by short bursts of action.

Soccer any day of the week. And for too many reasons to list.

To speak to your "anybody can kick a ball" statement - I defy you to land the ball within 1m of where you intend - from a distance of > 30m. I bet you can't.

I agree that hitting a 90mph fast ball is tough - but it only required slightly different skills, not different "levels" of skill.

You never see fat soccer players.

Enough said.

Upper body strength vs lower body strength. Hand eye coordination vs footwork. Apples vs oranges.

People say baseball is easy until they try swinging at a 90 mph fastball, or stand behind the plate and gun down a runner trying to steal second, or dive for a bloop to shallow center.

The truth is that at the professional level of either sport, both are pretty damn hard.

I have to say that I'm partial to soccer, as it's the sport I've played throughout my life and thus I appreciate it more. However, as quasi and bearcub stated, I don't think you can say that one is really "harder" than the other. They require different skill sets, but particularly when you start getting competitive, they are both very difficult. Everyone playing at a certain level has a base set of skills, so what sets apart the best players is how they capture the particular strategies and nuances of that particular sport. An excellent soccer player may not be able to play baseball worth a damn, and vice versa. Same goes with just about any other serious sport. I will say that adjusting to foot-eye coordination is very difficult for some people, plus the fact that you have to be skilled with both feet in order to play at a certain level. The level of fitness required is difficult to achieve...but once you have these basic issues covered, the real challenge in soccer is the strategy of pulling your opponents out of position to enable you to catch them off-balance, as well as the sense of flow you have to develop as a team without having the opportunity to take breaks and strategize your next moves. You have to be interchangeable, to some extent, to be a decent team - save for the keeper.

But I know that a whole different set of skills are required to play baseball, and while I suck at it and really don't enjoy playing it - I appreciate the skill required to play well. My grandfather was a professional player, so I've been told my entire life I should have played. I played one year, we lost every game, and I hated the waiting and the anticipation of being hit by a small, hard ball traveling at high velocity.

Going from personal experience only, I'd say soccer. I'm much better with hand/eye coordination than foot/eye coordination :)

It depends on your definition of "harder".

Soccer is more about pure conditioning and athleticism, while baseball is more about specific skill sets.

That doesn't mean that they both don't have an awful lot of each, but that the focus is different.

All I will say is that I stunk at both, but I stuck with baseball for eight years while playing one year of indoor soccer, so soccer was definitely worse for me.

Overall, I think that it depends on the person.

Since you call football (association football if you must differentiate it from american football) "soccer" - I dont think you are really in a position to make judgments about the sport.

I could come in here and say that baseball is nothing more than an armoured version of rounders (a game played in the UK by school girls under 11) - but I dont choose to make ignorant statements about a sport I dont really know much about.
-----Added 7/12/2008 at 04 : 15 : 39-----
haha, I wouldnt go that far?

Off the top of my head:

Mick Quinn?
Jon Hartson?
Neil Ruddock?
Jan Molby?
Tom Huddlestone?
Ronaldo??

futball is way harder for the simple fact that the field is huge (way bigger than a football field) and you cannot sub out players without taking them out for the rest of the game. Once you are subbed out you can't be put back in! That means professional futball players are running like crazy for at least 80 minutes with very few breaks. Also running while controlling a ball with your feet is hard.

I've played both... lettered in both. They both require skills and technique. They both require strategy.

I love both. As to which is harder? I dunno, it's apples to oranges as already mentioned.

The only time I take exception to questions like these are when people say football (soccer) is a pussy sport or something of that nature. I played varsity football, basketball, baseball and soccer.. and I was never injured as much as I was while I was on the pitch.

Diego Maradona.

One of the most difficult things to do in all of sports (and I've played virtually
all sports commonly played in North America) is to head the ball into the net, in traffic,
off of a corner kick. Timing, jumping, head-eye coordination, it's brutally hard.

But, baseball, at it's finest, has vast amounts of hand-eye coordination, on a scale
with golf. Chasing down a line drive requires a great deal of fitness.

On the whole, I'd say soccer, by a header.

I play both, and you can't compare them - it's like "What's better - a Ferrari or a HumVee?" They are entirely different things. Both are vehicles, but that's where the similarity ends.

Physically, of course, football is infinitely more demanding. But the single act of hitting a baseball or fielding a hard grounder at short is also very difficult.

Oh, and Frank Lampard re: fat footballers.

:)

any fucking chelski bum is a fat loser ;)

Played both - got trophies for both. I was a better soccer player than baseballer, but I was a fairly decent short stop for a left hander. Having said that, I also played soccer from the age of 6 and only played baseball for 3 seasons (when in my thirties). The popped AC shoulder joint (on my throwing arm) I did playing soccer played havoc with my baseball though - I often had shoulder pain after games. As has already been discussed, fitness is the huge differentiator. I *never* did fitness training for baseball, but the soccer team I played for had a single 2 hour training session each week, half of which was fitness based and half skill based and expected further fitness outside that (at least my last serious team did). The last team was a drinking team that played soccer.

Baseball practice mostly consisted of catching/picking up/throwing drills and being aware of where runners on base were. And batting practice (though this was the weakness in my game - I was a crappy batter).

Everybody can make their own judgments about any sport. Just because we call it something else doesn't mean that we're ignorant to the sport and are unable to form an opinion about it. Sorry if I didn't call it "football." I didn't know people took offense to it. Besides that, this is America. We call it soccer here, not football. The rest of the world has it wrong. haha. Baseball is baseball all around the world. There's no other name for baseball. Soccer has two names. Deal with it. I don't know what Rounders is so I can't say anything about it. I don't know why I'm arguing about this. I guess I'm just in the arguing mood.

I might be partial to baseball because I've played it professionally as a pitcher and now I'm pursuing it as an outfielder and I know how hard it can be. You guys are right in that its apples and oranges. I just thought they had interesting view points. Also, I was just defending my sport. haha. I did play soccer as a child and it was difficult, but I still think the skill set required to play baseball takes more time to develop, just because there are a few more things that need to be learned. As with soccer, yes, you have to be able to kick the ball wherever you want with precision aim, but again I'm bias towards baseball. I can't help it.

Having played both... baseball. You need to have exceptional specialized abilities to play good baseball. Not to mention nerves of steel. Soccer is socialist.

it takes quite a bit of nerve to run through a ball knowing you're going to get your legs taken out from you..

I also believe baseball is more difficult. People who stress soccer player's conditioning are barking up the wrong tree as far as making the sport "harder." 60 year old grandmothers run marathons, that doesn't impress me. I have played soccer for many years growing up, so I do appreciate that there is a skill set in soccer, however, some of the specific skills in baseball are far more difficult to do, never mind do well. Think about it, when little kids play soccer they play with smaller nets, in essence making it harder to score. When little kids play baseball, it is so difficult for them that they place the ball on the tee because it is too difficult to throw or hit it. I know that's just little kids, but just the same, ask your average person to kick a moving soccer ball into a goal from 20 yards and ask them to hit a line drive off a 90 mile per hour fastball in a batting cage and see which happens first.

Good point. When I first started reading this thread, I thought "soccer has to be harder!" But thinking about it - when I was a kid I would get incredibly discouraged because I very rarely got a hit when playing softball (which is easier than baseball, the ball is nearly twice the size). If someone had told me when I was a kid that it was ok to miss the ball sometimes and that even professionals don't always hit homeruns, I probably wouldn't have given up on the sport. Soccer, on the other hand - well, it wasn't too difficult for me to become a valuable player on a church young women's soccer team.

I played both and was much better at soccer than baseball. My 2nd to last year our team went undefeated.

I don't believe one is harder than the other. I was just better suited to playing soccer.

/mild threadjack, but I'm dropping a deuce and need something to do...

of course anyone can kick a moving ball into an open net at 20 yards...well, actually you'd be surprised how often some people miss that, but still - of course that's not hard. and it's not just the conditioning that's hard. it's the skill, plus the conditioning, plus having the entire field change around you constantly. you're not just kicking a ball into a net...you're having to hold the ball against someone, having to get your angle open, having to decide to shield, feint for a shot, or lay it off. you're having to calculate what defensive position your team will be in if you go for the shot and lose the ball, or how much space to lead the guy who's looking to make a run, giving you the possibility of threading the ball between the defenders, and where you need to be 10 seconds after you lay it off. you have to recognize certain shapes on the fly, and decide how to exploit them for your team's strategic advantage.

simply put, you can have relatively low-level game of either sport, and regular people will be just fine. if you play a sport at a high level, it requires a lot of skill. for me, soccer is much more entertaining to play and watch, and it's precisely because of the level of nuance required to play it. i think this is why so many people think it so boring - we're so geared towards the "big play" - the homerun, throwing a guy out at home, scoring a touchdown, hitting a three...that it's hard to adjust to the subtle, yet incredibly important, things that constantly happen in a soccer match. whether that requires a higher level of thinking, well... :P

Of course, where is getting the end result harder?

Yes, the specific act of hitting a really hard fastball is difficult, but in baseball, the end result is to score runs. And that is relatively easy to do, even at MLB level where typical scores are quite high (8-5, 7-6, 6-3, etc), never mind at the level most play at, where some truly mind boggling scores can be registered.

Achieving the end result at high level football (Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga) is much, much harder. It's not as simple as "hitting a ball into the net from 20 yards" - it's about beating defenders, and keepers, in addition to a fairly complicated ability to control and hit a moving ball accurately.

Even looking at individual play, a top hitter in the pros will hit 1/3 of the time. A top striker will not score 1/3 of the time he is in possession within 18 yards of the goal.

Looking at average players - the average person can get up off the couch and play a full nine innnings of baseball. The average person CANNOT get off the couch and go play 90 minutes of football. Like I said, I play both, and the physicality required to play all but a couple of position in baseball is minute compared to other sports. So when you say "60 year olds can run marathons", well, they play baseball too.

Still, comparing the two is a bit silly - they are very, very different.

Your points are good, as is the case in any lively debate, and ultimately your final point is ultimately the most true, this is apples and oranges. But for the sake of argument...
Hitting a ball is difficult, but so is fielding, throwing and catching the ball, which is some of the reason for the high scores at the lower levels of the game.
As far as the good players succeeding in getting hits at a higher rate than good players scoring, a more apt comparison would probably be hitting a home run, vs. scoring a goal. A good power hitter will hit maybe one every 12 at bats or so (most far less), which is probably around the same rate that a good striker will score with an open shot in the box. Other hits are probably like good runs in the offensive zone that don't necessarily equate to goals.

I vote for Football. Much harder. You need to be in amazing shape to play that game well.

So because the scores are higher in baseball, its easier? That's flawed logic. Baseball allows for unlimited scoring opportunities, unlike Soccer, which has a time limit. The individual acts DO matter - baseball is a sport that makes full use of physics and psychology. The idea that the average baseball player is out of shape is terribly ignorant. When they are young, they are fit. As they get older, they may lose their shape, but they maintain their coordination and skill - most gain power.

to play? soccer.
to watch? baseball.

The point about scoring was a direct response to a comment about end results (hitting a moving football ball into a net or hitting a moving baseball). The whole comparison of the two sports is - most people seem to agree - a bit out there to begin with.

However, as a player of both, there is really zero comparison in terms of physicality between the two sports. Yes, you have athletic people who play baseball at high levels, but the fact is not all of them are very fit (unlike top level football). There are a more than a few fat DHs, catchers, 1st basement and pitchers out there. You really can't get away with being unfit at high level football - that's why even the best players in the world tend to be too old for Premier League or La Liga or international duty by their early thirties (32 or 33 sees most top players dropping off the rosters of the Liverpools and Arsenals and Real Madrids because they can't compete anymore). And anyone aside from the very best by that age have dropped down the European leagues or, like Beckham, find themselves playing in the lower standard MLS. In baseball, many players (especially pitchers, 1st basemen and DHs) can easily hang around into their later thirties or even 40s because all around physical ability is much less in demand.

I had a feeling you were going to bring Becks into this. ;)

Really, there is no comparison between these two sports. They just simply are different all levels other than the term sport. Each has a unique skill set and each has a unique strategy.

as I said before if I had to choose it would be football .. but really I think it's pretty much a comparison that can't be made.

now basketball or baseball that would be easier..

The question was which sport is harder, not which one requires greater physical endurance. Although there are some superior conditioned athletes in baseball, there is not much comparison between soccer and baseball athletes in terms of physical endurance. But really any sport whose biggest difficulty claim is that their players can run around for 90 minutes isn't that impressive (I am being somewhat hyperbolic here, as I know soccer players have lots of technical skill). But seriously, does this mean that the Tour De France riders are better athletes, or triathletes? Almost every US Marine I know could run your average soccer player into the ground, so does that mean that they are better athletes? I guess my point is that there are a tremendous array of sport specific skills that someone must have to succeed at baseball, tiny nuances that separate average from superior ballplayers, that I believe make baseball harder.

ahh here's where it gets interesting.. those same nuances apply in football as well. sure, anyone with a decent set of lungs can run for 90 minutes.. but add a ball and other players trying to get the ball from you in the equation and it's suddenly a different shall I say..game.

being able to control the ball when someone like john terry(chelski bum) grabbing your shirt takes skill.. being able to receive a ball in the zone and put it where it needs to go, whether in the back of the net or to a teammate takes skill.. reversing field and hitting your target takes skill.. you see guys who can do it..and those who can't.. another tiny little nuance.. being able to finish a ball. those who can seperate themselves from the average.

VERY well said Ilow. I totally agree.

Just like how athleticism, as speed and strength and reflex, are a critical part of baseball.

I think the main point that can be brought to the table when comparing the two is that:

A) Any ability baseball requires - speed, hand/eye (or foot/eye) coordination, agility - football also requires. However, the added ability that football requires (endurance) is not required by baseball.

B) All football players require all these abilities (save the keeper, who is otherwise generally the most agile guy on the pitch with the best reflexes) - but not all baseball players do, thanks to the specialization of positions and the bastardization of the game with the use of the DH.

Lacrosse.

It's like soccer except you get to whack each other with sticks and use body checks. Imagine a soccer team where everyone has muscles and you picture a lacrosse team. Ooh, baseball players have fastballs. The stick puts a lot of power behind the ball, and you are trying to catch it with a effectively a glove on the end of a stick. While someone is trying to take your head off. Why do so many soccer players roll around on the ground like NBA players trying to fake fouls? As far as baseball, darts require pinpoint accuracy as well, but you have to hold a beverage in the other hand.

umm..ok.. Lacrosse..

not sure what that has to do with football or baseball.. but ok

and no..I've never seen a footballer with muscles.. nope..

:rolleyes:

I've never seen a lacrosse-versus-baseball discussion end well with either a lacrosse or a baseball player, so I'm going to get into this :lol:

This is just ridiculous. The main skill of soccer is NOT endurance. It's a prerequisite to play the game. You're absolutely correct - being a good marathoner does not make one a good soccer player. Being a good soccer player, however, would tend to make it more probable that someone could finish a marathon. As far as a lack of skill in soccer - foolishness. When you can pop a ball 60 yards, with bend and spin in the wind, and have it land within a couple of feet of where you intended - which is to a player who is running (so you have to lead them)...and when that player can take it out of the air with a single touch - while still running - and not have it carom off to god knows where...but have it stay at his feet while he's in stride....and then have that player manipulate the ball within the context of the shapes that both teams are laid out in....then you have very skilled people at work. When you see a group of people connect a series of one-touch passes to pull another team out of position and/or to remain possession...I'm sorry, but it takes a lot of skill. If you don't believe me, go out and try it with people who ARE skilled at soccer, and see how frustrated you become. As far as the players faking in order to get fouls called, I personally think it's another level of skill - mental skill. Many will disagree with me, but I've always considered messing with the refs head and/or trying to get him on your side is another dimension to the game. What matters at the end is the score, and in organized play, how many cards your team carries. If you can get your team a strategic advantage by having a player from the other team removed, then congratulations. Yes, it sucks when it happens, but it's not as easy as you might think. The refs know that players are trying to fuck with them, so you have to be very good or put the other team in a position where the ref has no choice but to give you the call. Just like in cards, I consider skillful cheating to be an integral part of soccer. You have to adapt to a particular referee's predispositions - essentially, the rules of the game change slightly every time you step on the field.

As for lacrosse, I have very little appreciation for it because it's not big down here in the South - but I do think it takes a lot of skill to play. So now its apples to oranges to bananas.

Another interesting thing about soccer is how little you need to play. A ball. That's it. A main reason why its so universally played - anyone can learn to play soccer, because you don't need gloves and bats.

Yeah, it's why football and basketball will continue to grow and be the dominant sports in the world while baseball, hockey, American football, etc will remain static or decrease in popularity worldwide.