Yeah I came to make the same comment. But Messi and Ronaldo didnt play each other that many times in the grand scheme of their careers. A big part of the comparison is statistical. Trophies, records and so on. Tennis might be a better comparison because to win a grand slam, Sampras really had to beat Agassi.

I don’t disagree with your general point, but Messi and Ronaldo absolutely have played directly against each other a decent number of times — a quick google suggests 30 head-to-heads in the “clasico”, supposed to be one of football’s biggest rivalries.

The rivalry is whether one QB is better than the other in taking their team to the promised land, as they both have the most overall contribution to team success. Really all it is.

It basically comes down to the face that the quarterback position has an outsized importance in the game and those players become the face of their franchises. They are often credited with wins and losses despite those being a team stat.

Some of the players do find this fan/media obsession strange. They may be asked about playing against QB X and reply that they're actually playing against the opposing defense.

There are rivalries between players who are on the field at the same time, but they're less prominent. Those between a wide receiver and cornerback are probably the most common. Throughout the game they are racing, pushing and deceiving each other and fighting over the ball and it can become heated.

However, it's also possible to have a competitive rivalry without directly facing each other on the field. In individual sports like golf this is the only way. But in other sports players can also compete with each other on some individual aspect. In baseball, the 1998 HR chase and Dimaggio brothers are some prominent examples. In Brady's case he had a strong desire to be number one. The threat of Peyton winning MVPs over him, having better statistics than him or Peyton's team winning over his was a strong motivator for Brady to protect his status.

It's about stats, not head-to-head play against the rival. Each week the teams are not playing against each other, but the rivalry still exists. Also, these come into play with fantasy leagues. You want your player to have a good week while the others have bad weeks. That Ronaldo v Messi you used as an example also doesn't happen on a weekly basis. Maybe a couple of times a year at best, yet they are still rivals. I'm also confused on when you would have sen Ronaldo track back to be competing for the same ball that Messi would have been playing.

In football, the QB generally decides the outcome of the game and their performance is directly comparable.

I admit there's some weirdness that they don't face off directly, but that's why.

Wow. That's such an interesting observation. Two major uniquely American sports have this pattern: QBs in football and pitchers in baseball. I wonder if it is just a coincidence of history. I guess cricket has the same pattern as well?

If you think that's interesting, did you ever consider that baseball is the only sport where the defense has the ball?

Cricket?

But the goal is to use your defense (bat) to prevent the offense throwing the missile at you, and blowing up your home(plate).

Ah, politics. It's all perspective.

Goalies in hockey, and whoever the best player is on the team in basketball. ;-)

You have a similar thing in golf even though the rivals almost never play their rounds in the same group.

We compare QBs because QBs are comparable. It's really difficult to build a narrative around the number of passes one person completes vs the number of tackles a different person dishes out to different people on different teams, but very easy and meaningful to compare completion percentages for two quarterbacks. It's also because QB is considered a leadership and decision-making role moreso than any other position on the field, and so the overall performance of the offense tends to be attributed to the team as a whole but the QBs are compared on the decisions they make on the field and the rest of the offensive units are compared on their ability to execute those decisions.

Have you watched much, or any, American Football?

I considered typing out a novella, but it wouldn't mean much if you're as unfamiliar with the sport as you seem to be.

Its not really dissimilar to sports like golf, gymnastics, track and field (the high jump), etc. I certainly believe there can be rivals in those sports, so I don't see why we'd exclude football QBs from this conversation.

That said, American football is altogether inferior to the real football.

Nah, soccer is real boring, would take American Football anyday.

It's just that they take turns. The top rivals in darts, or pool, or any other turn-taking game is the same way. They have to react to what their rival left them.

> there are people on both teams who really are tackling those guys.

This is the critical distinction.

Peyton isn't deciding the defense when Brady is on offense. Brady isn't reacting to whatever Peyton left on the pool table or the dart board.

Quarterbacks start with the ball ~at the start of almost every play and one of the two quarterbacks is in possession of the football for the majority of the game. They are BY FAR the most important individuals in the game. Receivers, tight ends, and running backs get some attention too because they are also individually fairly involved, but plays are split between ~5 of them.

I think much of the same is true of pitchers in baseball as of quarterbacks in football, except pitchers only play something like 1 in 6 games, and these days it's very rare for them to pitch a complete game.

You find it interesting that people that play the exact same role on both teams can be rivals?

By your logic golfers could never be rivals, because they're never interacting or defending against one another -- they're just playing against the course.

> there are people on both teams who really are tackling those guys.

This is the critical distinction.

Why is the commentator talking about Brady vs Peyton, when actually Peyton is doing nothing to stop Brady getting touchdowns?

Why don't they focus on whoever is making the decisions on the defensive side? That would seem to matter more as a struggle between combatants. It's not like each defense is some nameless, generic unit that simply reveals who is the better QB.

There might be some depth to the attack vs defense strategy that is worth highlighting, above the QB v QB.

A rival isn't the same thing as an enemy. Rivals are equals that compete for the same goal (e.g a championship). They do not have to compete head-to-head.

For example, academic rivals compete in the classroom to have a better GPA, business rivals compete to win more customers and sales, etc.