On new things

Do you think that sports defy logic generally, or that there are particular sports that are more difficult to learn than others?

For example, I find cricket virtually impossible to understand more than at the very basest level - you get a run for this, you get an out for that. I understand not at all how cricket matches could possibly last three days. Huh?

So, here's my theory - made up almost completely on the spot. First, games with significant stops for strategy time are harder to figure out than flowing games like basketball or soccer or rugby. The flowing nature of games means that they have a natural explanation over time that makes them basically understandable if you have watched one complete game. Maybe not utter mastery - but enough that you can be dangerous. Thus, you can figure out water polo relatively easily if you watch an entire match. Second, games that resemble other games but are played with a larger court, different appendage, or with slightly modified rules are always easier if you understand where the game came from. For example, handball and lacrosse make sense in their Olympic/collegiate format if you understand soccer and/or basketball. Third, games with more players on teams are more difficult to understand. Thus, marathon running with lots of participants is easy. Twenty aside dodgeball is difficult.

Finally, the younger that you learn a game, the more logical the game appears to be.

So, if you have lots of players, with lots of stops, playing a game that does not really resemble other games, with lots of people who did not learn the game young - you get Powerder Puff Football. Impossible. Good luck coach!