[quote]thosebananas wrote:
ok so we cant agree on the skills part…
what about brutalness? and watchability?
[/quote]
If you know the rules and love athletic competition, then they’re equally watchable. I don’t know the rules to rugby and there isn’t much coverage in this country, so I don’t watch it often. It doesn’t mean I think american football is better, it’s simply the sport I follow.
It sounds like you just want validation for thinking rugby is the toughest, meanest, most physically demanding sport in the whole wide world. You’ve come to the wrong place.
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]
Children may be able to switch from one to the other, but not professional level players (other than the truly exceptional), at least without a significant drop in performance.
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
ok so we cant agree on the skills part…
what about brutalness? and watchability?
[/quote]
As the previous poster mentioned, football is designed to be a collision sport – the big hits are much bigger and much more frequent for several reasons:
Each play is basically a 4-second SPRINT. Everyone is full-speed all the time. Also, given the space provided, there are MANY more full speed, head-on collisions. And the impact of the linemen, I would argue, is far more intense than that of a scrum (depbatable I suppose, but it’s certainly more frequent).
Padding. If I try to hit as hard as I can in rugby, I’m going to get beat up pretty quick, and I won’t be very efficient at getting back to my feet, hawking the ball, etc.
Technique. In football, as long as the carrier falls, he’s down. YOu don’t have to wrap up.
Different sports, different skill sets, but football (at least at the NFL level) is MUCH more brutal. I know plenty of guys 50+ still playing rugby. How many people over 50 still play full-contact football? Ultimately, football at an elite level RUINS your body far more quickly than rugby will – not necessarily a selling point, but it’s a fact. NFL players fall apart pretty quickly after age 50.
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.
[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
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.
"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]
Just imagine if a top level player went overseas to play rugby, or even a guy like Reggie Bush.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
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.
"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.”
Just imagine if a top level player went overseas to play rugby, or even a guy like Reggie Bush.[/quote]
I don’t know…in most cases it takes a lifetime of experience to be a top class rugger. Now throw Reggie Bush at wing, you might be talking!
[quote]apayne wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
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.
"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.”
Just imagine if a top level player went overseas to play rugby, or even a guy like Reggie Bush.
I don’t know…in most cases it takes a lifetime of experience to be a top class rugger. Now throw Reggie Bush at wing, you might be talking!
[/quote]
APayne, I agree with you, and would say that to really play with an understanding of the game, it takes longer than football does. So what do you make of the occasional ‘Dan Lyle’ story? He’s certainly not the athletic specimen that Reggie Bush is, but he picked up the game pretty damn quickly. Is he just an anomaly?
haha I don’t even have to watch it to know what hit it was. Rugby and football are two different monsters.
Yes talented players play both and football is supposedly 4 second sprints. But with football if one person misses an assignment or takes a wrong step it could be td offense.
Rugby to me seems slow they seem like they huddle up together and just hug out comes the ball and then what?
Also if you think about how long an NFL game lasts it usually is more than 80 minutes. They have stoppage of play on incomplete passes and going out of bounds.
I’m not sure how big the rugby guys are but I know there are guys in the nfl that have been 6’9 and theres a guy on dallas cowboys that is 6’6 366 lbs. Thats huge.
Also I don’t think american football players would want to play rugby because they may fear for their lives! No padding what so ever? In the NFL they try to get as much padding as they can.
I have never watched a game of rugby but study and have played the game of football love it and prefer it. It’s all about opinion I guess.
I’d say the Lyle story is a combination of credit to him and getting great coaching from the start. Most Americans do not have the benefit of high quality coaching so it takes a LOT of trial and error to see what works.
[quote]apayne wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
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.
"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.”
Just imagine if a top level player went overseas to play rugby, or even a guy like Reggie Bush.
I don’t know…in most cases it takes a lifetime of experience to be a top class rugger. Now throw Reggie Bush at wing, you might be talking!
[/quote]
Just spin the ball out to him and let him fly.
If they are impressed by Dan Lyle’s athleticism Bush would blow them away.
[quote]apayne wrote:
I’d say the Lyle story is a combination of credit to him and getting great coaching from the start. Most Americans do not have the benefit of high quality coaching so it takes a LOT of trial and error to see what works. [/quote]
I’ve seen Clark mention his name several times. Was he initiatlly his coach?
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
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!
Show of hands among NFL fans on T-Nation- how many former rubgy players are on your teams, other than punters or kickers? Anyone?
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.
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.
[/quote]
Rugby is infinitely more fun to watch than football in my opinion. The build-ups on attacking phases are awesome, constant action leaves you standing on your feet screaming bloody murder for 8 phases when your team is 5 meters out from the goal line. Nothing in football can come close to that.
[quote]Manofsteel319 wrote:
haha I don’t even have to watch it to know what hit it was. Rugby and football are two different monsters.
Yes talented players play both and football is supposedly 4 second sprints. But with football if one person misses an assignment or takes a wrong step it could be td offense.
Rugby to me seems slow they seem like they huddle up together and just hug out comes the ball and then what?
Also if you think about how long an NFL game lasts it usually is more than 80 minutes. They have stoppage of play on incomplete passes and going out of bounds.
I’m not sure how big the rugby guys are but I know there are guys in the nfl that have been 6’9 and theres a guy on dallas cowboys that is 6’6 366 lbs. Thats huge.
Also I don’t think american football players would want to play rugby because they may fear for their lives! No padding what so ever? In the NFL they try to get as much padding as they can.
I have never watched a game of rugby but study and have played the game of football love it and prefer it. It’s all about opinion I guess.[/quote]
the huddle you talk about is 8 men ranging from 17-21 stone from each side throwing them selves into each other as hard as they can and they pushing against eachother untill the ball is one… this is called a scrum and requires a lot of skill and a lot of strength. the 3 men at the front of each scrum are takeing ALOT of froce through there necks and through their bodies. it has been likened to licking arms with 8 of your mates then running into a wall.
the most well known rugby player of the last generation is jonah lomu, he was 6ft 6 and 280 pounds. he did the 100metres in 10.8. this was when the game wasnt even pro.
this generation we have bryan habana doing the 100 (on grass in full kit) in 10.1. and racing cheetahs for that matter…
