Which is more brutal? skillfull? Fun to watch? etc…
intersted in an americans take on this…
American football is easily more brutal, and the talent of the player (except for QBs and MAYBE offensive linemen to a degree) is determined by their degree of athletic prowess.
Rugby is much more of a thinking man’s game – albeit a TOUGH thinking man. It requires more experience, knowledge, and skill to really excel at than does football.
The athletes in the NFL are the best in the world, bar none. They’re bigger, stronger, and faster than any other sport.
That being said, I played football for 12 years and have played rugby for 6, and I consider rugby to be my favorite sport. It’s a GREAT game.
fair points… but i find it a little strange that every post season over here theres always loads of stories of the NFL trying to buy rugby stars!
also my major hang up with NFL is how specialist each persons job is… and also that the players are never going for more than 30 secs at a time… if that was the case in rugby. the props and forwards would be massive and but not able to last the 80 min game. i think the fact we have players who can run for 80 mins, many covering 8-10ks a match, and still hit each other, think clearly, kick, and still lift vast amounts in the gym… andrew sheridan 500/600/700! show that we in fact have the best atheletes in the world.
*also is that shane magowan in your avator?
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
fair points… but i find it a little strange that every post season over here theres always loads of stories of the NFL trying to buy rugby stars![/quote]
Show of hands among NFL fans on T-Nation- how many former rubgy players are on your teams, other than punters or kickers? Anyone?
Even though both sports have origins in football, rugby and american football have gone in different directions and require different types of physical preparedness. An athlete specializing in one of the sports would suffer in the other until/unless they adapt to the different stimulus. If you’re elite in your sport, you’re an elite athlete, period. Well, except for billiards players and bowlers, lol.
i would say there are few because they would rather play rugby as thats what they have trained there whole life to do.
also in reponse, hands up… how many ex NFL players play rugby?
i would love to see a match with one half rugby and one half american football.
there is a competetion in ireland called the Happy Hooker Cup. we play one half Gaelic Football and one half Rugby. Great Spectical!
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
i would say there are few because they would rather play rugby as thats what they have trained there whole life to do.
also in reponse, hands up… how many ex NFL players play rugby?[/quote]
No one has made a claim that LOADS of NFL players are being recruited for rugby.
Are we talking full rosters and complete rule changes including use of protective gear? If so, it would be the american football team running away. Keep in mind an NFL roster is 53 players. The 22 starters could sit out the rugby half, leaving 31 available bodies to cover the, what, 15 positions for one half? The a. football team would just whether the storm for a half, and then run over the rugby team in the second half.
If the american football team can only have the same number of players as a rugby team, then it would be the rugby team in a rout. Even more so if full gear isn’t allowed.
yea no gear… 22 players to choose.
i didnt make the clain that they are being recruited, i made the claim that the NFL are trying to recruit.
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
yea no gear… 22 players to choose.
i didnt make the clain that they are being recruited, i made the claim that the NFL are trying to recruit.[/quote]
Then the rugby team will win, because the rules would be suited to their strategy and skill-set.
i think uve proved my point about specialisation… most rugby players can play in numerous positions. so suddenly when ur player base is cut in half you feel you will instantly lose because ur players are only skillfull one job…
i dont see how havnt no gear makes in yor favour… how about gear in the NFL half and none in the rugby half… surely these “bigger stronger athelete” could take the punishment and make the same hits without all the pads??
also in rugby u cant have rolling sub… u can only make 7 in one match. so i think the nfl players would die of exhaustion!
Here’s one example for you. Dan Lyle was a good collegiate player who couldn’t make the grade in the NFL. couldn’t cut it in the NFL. However, he became a pretty good rugger pretty damn quick.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/rugby/world_cup/news/1999/09/14/si_lyle/
"Lyle told the NFL to take a hike, and three years later, on the eve of next month’s Rugby World Cup, he’s the first American to be considered among the best players on the planet. So smitten with him is the London Sunday Times that last year it named Lyle, 28, to its World 15 international all-star team. “For a big guy he has absolutely staggering athleticism, and his dexterity with the ball is amazing,” says Stephen Jones, the Times’s rugby correspondent since 1983. “He’s probably one of the most extraordinary players I’ve ever seen.”
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
also in rugby u cant have rolling sub… u can only make 7 in one match. so i think the nfl players would die of exhaustion! [/quote]
Yes, and the rugby guys will have cleat-marks up their backs after being run over in the NFL half, with NFL rules. I’ve said it before on here and I’ll say it again, the fact that there is specialization makes this an apples and oranges argument. You might as well compare cricket vs. baseball, curling vs. bowling, and hockey vs. basketball while you’re at it.
The rules of the game dictate the level of specialization, and the athletes are trained in that fashion. Other than the truly exceptional, no individual can compete at an elite professional level in different team sports.
I have heard people try to debate this many times, and it is a stupid comparison. They are two different games! You wouldn’t compare cricket and baseball just cause they both use a bat and a ball would you?
“Gee, I think a bowler throws harder and is better than a major league pitcher”
“But a bowler could never throw a 12-6 curve ball”
Silly argument, they are two different games!
As far as who hits harder, one aspect of the games that is similar, and not even that similar since a rugby player must wrap and not leave his feet in a tackle…I play top level rugby in the U.S. (Super League) and I have never been hit as hard as I was on the hardest shot I got playing high school football. Take from that what you will. I also never had to work in football to the extent that I have to in order to get around the pitch for 80 minutes.
If you don’t like specialization, play rugby. If you like the separation and stoppage of play, football’s your game.
ok so we cant agree on the skills part…
what about brutalness? and watchability?
@Doug Adams
LOL on the sametime cricket/baseball comparison
wat do u mean by this?
on the baseball cricket agruement. i think it would be easy enough to transfer between these sports and remain at a similiar level
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
on the baseball cricket agruement. i think it would be easy enough to transfer between these sports and remain at a similiar level[/quote]
Lol, not so much.
y do you think this…
the whole game and skill sets are basically the same. except the shape of bat and way of hitting… and also there is more turn around in baseball…
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
and not even that similar since a rugby player must wrap and not leave his feet in a tackle…
wat do u mean by this?[/quote]
In football you can launch yourself at someone and give them a flying shoulder/helmet. In rugby(union at least) you cannot.