What constitutes the phrase, "Good game"? Does the score even matter?

[D-Man]

"Good game."

I've heard that two-worded phrase from many people over the years. It seems as if every person has their own version of what it actually means.

Some say that when both teams have a high-scoring game, it is considered a "good game" because points = excitement. Others say that a low-scoring game constitutes a "good game" because it depicts both teams as being so evenly matches that they cannot score on each other. I've also hears some fans say that a blowout game is considered to be a good game because it clearly depicted a true winner by a large margin. But some others think that a "good game" consists of a group of athletes who are superior in skill, showcasing their talents where score really doesn't matter; it's more about what transpired during the game that made it "good."

Needless to say, I'm confused to all hell.

So I guess my question to all of you is this - Which of these best describes your definition of a "good game"?

1. A high scoring game by all teams involved
2. A low scoring game by all teams involved
3. A blowout game where one team has a decisive win over the other.
4. A game where the score never mattered for one second; it was all about what transpired during the game.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I can't speak for all sports, but for hockey the score is irrelevant so long as the scoring chances are high, and the pace and energy of the game equal them.

A 6-1 game in which the winning team scores all six goals in the first period and coasts to victory isn't that fun to watch outside of the initial goal-scoring flurry, and subsequently, a 0-0 chess match between two defensive-minded teams is equally as boring.

So long as the tempo of the game, the scoring chances, the hitting and the speed are all above average, the game = good.

 

[Ferbian]

I really would say that the score doesn't matter that much because in the end, it's just a score, the thing that truly makes a great game is the teams involved if you ask me.

You can clash any team, and not always will it be considered a good game, take the Champion's League final from this year, Bayern Munchen vs Internazionale, two good teams I'll give you that, but it was almost too obvious who the winner was gonna be.

To me, a good match, has good teams, that can balance the results to evenly that even if you're a die hard fan of one of the teams, you're still in doubt of their chances of winning, even if they were the best team in the league / tournament, and the odds on favorite.

I would say the score is all something that adds a bonus to the game, if your favorite team wins a blow-out match, a low-scoring match, or a high scoring match, it doesn't matter, but it always feels a little better when your own team wins, on the other side, you're gonna be hating on it if your team looses, so the score really either damages, or improves the thought of the match's greatness.

So to me, it doesn't matter with the score, the match can have any damn outcome, as long as I was in doubt who's gonna win, if I saw both teams giving their all, then I will classify it as a good match, the same really applies to wrestling, if two wrestlers give their all, have a great back and forth match, it really doesn't matter who wins, be it a championship etc. it doesn't matter, because the match was still good, even if your favorite wrestler lost, I praise Wrestlemania 26 Shawn vs Undertaker, but Shawn lost for example.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Love this.

But it depends on the sport.

Hockey

Any way the NJ Devils can win makes it a good game for me, but overall, I'll take a 2-1 offensive game. Sound confusing? Nothing in hockey is better than a tight, end-to-end, high-octane goaltenders match-up. Give me two goalies who combine for 75 saves in a low-scoring game with desperation and struggle, and I'm thrilled. I'll take a 2-1 or 1-0 goaltenders battle over a 7-5 scorefest any day of the week.

Baseball

Anyway the Mets can win is a good game for me. But aside from that, I find the Home Run to be oddly anti-climactic. I imagine it to be similar to how the girl I lost my virginity to felt - contact was made, and within 5 or 6 seconds it was over and all that was left was one guy celebrating. I'd much prefer a lot of timely hits, doubles, stolen bases, plays at the plate, etc. Also, give me some strikeouts. I like pitchers blowing hitters away on a 3-2 count.

Football

Here's where I like offense - I only like a 10-7 game if the Packers win it, if it's in a foot of snow, or both. But I'd much prefer to see guys named Manning, Brees, Rodgers, or Warner slugging it out for 4 quarters, hitting their receivers with perfectly placed passes. I love play-action. A field-goal is like going to eat one of those Harry Potter Jellybeans thinking it tastes like coconut only to find out it tastes like slug semen. Unless, of course, Ray Finkle is kicking.

Baseketball

The wife and I are bigger College Basketball fans than NBA fans (Go UK!) so we like defensive basketball. Give me offensive rebounding - I like to see a player on offense follow up a teammates miss with a hard drive to the glass to keep the ball in possession.

I think that about sums it up...

 

[Big Sexy]

Honestly there is no one true definition. Different people have different ideas of what a good game is. It also depends on what sport we're talking out. If it's basketball some people like 115-110 games between the Suns and Nuggets. Others like myself enjoyed watching the 2004 Pistons play great defense and win 81-79. In baseball some like pitchers duels and some like 11-10 scores. Sometimes it even just depends on what type of mood your in as to the type of game you think is good.

Unless you're watching your home town/favorite team win then blowouts are never fun and sloppily played games with a lot of turnovers aren't exactly a joy to watch either. As long as both teams play their ass off and give me a close, exciting game then I consider it good, or great, or amazing depending on the circumstances.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

For me a good game is when everthing is left out on the field and the players play to the best of their abilities, I know I sound like a Little League coach but it's true. I'd rather see a game played with alot of heart and intensity over say a offensive or defensive clinic. Too many times in today's games are players so talented the don't feel they need to play hard throughout the game. It's really sad to be honest. A thing that happened recently was the play when Hanley Ramirez kicked the ball into the outfield and just trotted his happy ass out there to get it, he is probably in the top ten of great players in baseball right now but he feels entitled and doesn't need to play hard. Manny Ramirez is another guy like that, these players might be great, but in my eyes will never have my respect or have a "good" game to me, until they start to care more and hustle.

 

[CH David]

Like Big Sexy said, there is no one true definition of the phrase "Good Game". Everyone can consider any type of game a good game. I'll try marking it not only by each sport, but by age level in particular, because I think there are a lot of different ways of thinking that go into this. Plus the picture makes me reminisce of little league. This is all going about kids growing up with their respective sport. This is longwinded, probably unnecessarily, but oh well.

Age 3 or 4-7

In any sport, this is the age bracket where you are trying to get your legs under you, whether it is hockey, baseball, etc. Your team is not expected to win, unless you get the uber-competitive parent who needs to see their child succeed at everything, and it is the end of the world if they don't. Sorry, tangent. That age bracket is roughly the age where kids learn basic mechanics of the sport they want to play, and by the age of 8 or 9, the expectations of a good game rise. So as long as the kids play hard, and are having fun, I see that as a good game.

Age 8-10

This is where the expectations and emotions rise in little league games. The kids are a little older, a little stronger, and have a better grasp of how to play their respective sport. Parents now want their kids to play harder, expecting them to get that big hit, shot, or goal. The kids are still going out, playing hard, learning from their mistakes, and having fun. As long as I see that, I would consider that a good game still.

Age 11-13

More expectations again, hopefully a lot of hard work from the kids to improve their play. This is where the grasp goes from not just playing hard out there, obviously it is still key, but also playing well and minimizing errors. Seeing how bad kids want to improve and play, showing heart. The score still isn't as big a deal, but it is getting there. Playing with a lot of heart, not giving up on either side, and learning from their mistakes inside the game itself is a good game to me.

Age 14-18

This is the high school level, so there are higher expectations as well, mostly from parents. Coaches expect you to really dial in on the fundamentals, because those are the biggest things when playing sports. There is a common theme with me, playing hard, not giving up. Good games are hard working games, whether high or low scoring.

19 and Above

This is college and the pros, so the expectations are higher without a shadow of a doubt. College you still have room to get the fundamentals down 100%. Those games are always fun to watch, especially in the CWS, because they are playing so damn hard for their school. Two teams going hard just get recognition for their school, and opportunity at the next level. Again, playing hard, minimizing mistakes, it all ties together to me.

Now I'll go through the pros. A good game in the professional ranks for me is a team playing hard, never giving up, and being prideful. It can be a complete blowout, but the losing team can gain more respect from me by continuing to play hard, showing that they don't quit, than a team that goes up by 20 points, 6 runs, 4 goals, whatever the score, and just coasts. They get cocky, and act like they don't have to play hard.

The pros aren't different for me like they are for IC. In football, hockey, baseball, etc, I consider games to be good when they are played hard for the duration. When you have people playing hard, you can get over a mistake and move on faster than if someone is just lacksidasical at the time. In hockey, if you are take a lazy penalty, there is the chance that you just cost your team a goal and possibly a win. Baseball, lazy error can possibly lead to a blown lead, or a big inning for the opposing team. So on for football and basketball. Playing hard for the entire game, whether a close game or a blowout, that is what makes a good game for me.