[Madmick]

Originally Posted by Kyryllo

Football is more a game of abbilities and specialization, less a game of skill. There are only few positions in football that require skill more than abbilities. Running and curving, hitting, blocking, being big etc. are abbilities and there's little things you can improve from your natural state. Passing, vision of the game, reading the defense/offense, performing a correct tackle etc. are skills. In football you need the specialists in rugby you need the alrounders. Maybe R. Bush is great with running with the ball, even better than any rugby winger but if he can't run for 80 mins, can't pass, kick the ball or defend he would be an absolutely worthless rugby player, he can't just walk alongside the 22m line waiting till his team brings the ball and receive the pass for his run. Almost any quaterback would be physicaly too weak for the rugby game, any offense/defense line player would just be too fat and too big. There are not many player positions from football that would actualy fit in a rugby position. You never know if a great football player would actualy be able to develop the skill he would need for a rugby game.


Maybe you should just watch a rugby game instead of HLs.
All Blacks Lions tour 2005 full game(the game where drisco gets spear takled after 40 sec) http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...12905266494004

Good post.

[Narcosis]

Never thought that a BO'D HL would stake this debate but its a good one.

Mad Mick I understand you haven't seen alot of rugby but its an entirely different game from football. One of the key points is that in football the RB is basically a ball carrier and when he goes down from a tackle the ball is dead in that position - in rugby the ball is still live and thus involves passing etc etc and rucks, mauls etc. So to have someone to an extent just run with the ball to make as many yards as possible in rugby would just lead to a turn over and possession loss.

I am not saying that BO'D is better than a famed RB from the NFL but the skills set needed is bigger and believe me to watch BO'D play live you see a world class athlete move.

Incidentally a couple of years ago an NFL team offered BO'D big money to come and play football but he thankfully turned down the offer.

If BO'D was to put on pads and work as a running back I would expect that he would tear it up there too - he is just that good.

With regard to who is the best inside centre in the world - I would pick Gordon D'Arcy in the worlds best XV - I think he is as good as Umaga, Latham etc and him and BO'D (who has to be there) play club and inter level together and know each others game inside out. I do hope this next 6 nations brings D'Arce back to his best form like we saw in the 2004 6 Natoins.

[Marty-Morgy]

Originally Posted by Kyryllo

Football is more a game of abbilities and specialization, less a game of skill. There are only few positions in football that require skill more than abbilities. Running and curving, hitting, blocking, being big etc. are abbilities and there's little things you can improve from your natural state. Passing, vision of the game, reading the defense/offense, performing a correct tackle etc. are skills. In football you need the specialists in rugby you need the alrounders. Maybe R. Bush is great with running with the ball, even better than any rugby winger but if he can't run for 80 mins, can't pass, kick the ball or defend he would be an absolutely worthless rugby player, he can't just walk alongside the 22m line waiting till his team brings the ball and receive the pass for his run. Almost any quaterback would be physicaly too weak for the rugby game, any offense/defense line player would just be too fat and too big. There are not many player positions from football that would actualy fit in a rugby position. You never know if a great football player would actualy be able to develop the skill he would need for a rugby game.

The first statement is ridiculous, all players football have game awareness and read the defense and adjust properly. Offensive linemen still have to remember hundreds of plays and read the defense and pick up their assignments. All defensive players have to perform correct tackles, that is their job. Reggie Bush acts as a running back, a reciever, a blocker, and also has thrown the ball this year. Obviously quarterbacks, kickers, place holders, adn the like would not translate into rugby but they wouldn't really translate into any other sport for that matter. The NFL is a sport of inches where you have to be incredibly agile and incredibly smart whether you are a 5'10 200lb RB or a 6'3" 320 O Lineman.

The players that could easily transition to rug by would be every RB, TE, FB, TB, HB, WR, S, etc. Your point doesn't seem to hold any water. Gaining stamina for these people wouldn't be that hard.

RB's would absolutely demolish any rugby players in the open field, TO would also. The fact is it's a different game, you can't expect someone who has trained to play football to play rugby but if they trained they would dominate. Could soccer players play Football? Not for 1 second, they would be killed. Could rugby players play football? Maybe, if they were trained for a decade. Could football players play rugby? yes.

[Narcosis]

Originally Posted by Marty-Morgy

Could soccer players play Football? Not for 1 second, they would be killed. Could rugby players play football? Maybe, if they were trained for a decade. Could football players play rugby? yes.

Soccer players could play fuck all - they would get mauled in Rugby too - soccer players are a bunch of big overpaid women.

Well someone thought BO'D could play NFL as they offered him a big contract but it wasn't his cup of tea.

I think the impact a rugby player could make in Football would be similar to the impact NFL players would make in rugby. To suggest otherwise makes you sound like a tool. No doubt you post crackers about how average looking Angelina Jolie is and how everyone wants to be an American.

[Dekker5437]

I just want to apply a little logic to this whole debate about who are better athletes. The NFL players are the genetic cream of the crop in terms of athletes in america but the rugby players are also the most gifted athletes from a variety of countries such as South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Pacific Islands, Argentina, Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, France and even Italy. Having the most gifted athletes is just a matter of player population and finding the most genetically gifted within that population. The NFL players are not genetically superior to the rugby players and vice versa

[kris one]

Originally Posted by Dekker5437

I just want to apply a little logic to this whole debate about who are better athletes. The NFL players are the genetic cream of the crop in terms of athletes in america but the rugby players are also the most gifted athletes from a variety of countries such as South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Pacific Islands, Argentina, Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, France and even Italy. Having the most gifted athletes is just a matter of player population and finding the most genetically gifted within that population. The NFL players are not genetically superior to the rugby players and vice versa

Hit the nail on the head.

[Kyryllo]

Originally Posted by Marty-Morgy

The first statement is ridiculous, all players football have game awareness and read the defense and adjust properly. Offensive linemen still have to remember hundreds of plays and read the defense and pick up their assignments. All defensive players have to perform correct tackles, that is their job. Reggie Bush acts as a running back, a reciever, a blocker, and also has thrown the ball this year. Obviously quarterbacks, kickers, place holders, adn the like would not translate into rugby but they wouldn't really translate into any other sport for that matter. The NFL is a sport of inches where you have to be incredibly agile and incredibly smart whether you are a 5'10 200lb RB or a 6'3" 320 O Lineman.

The players that could easily transition to rug by would be every RB, TE, FB, TB, HB, WR, S, etc. Your point doesn't seem to hold any water. Gaining stamina for these people wouldn't be that hard.

RB's would absolutely demolish any rugby players in the open field, TO would also. The fact is it's a different game, you can't expect someone who has trained to play football to play rugby but if they trained they would dominate. Could soccer players play Football? Not for 1 second, they would be killed. Could rugby players play football? Maybe, if they were trained for a decade. Could football players play rugby? yes.

My statement is not ridiculous, football IS a game of abbilitis which is fact. None of those players you mentioned would transition "easily" because they would lack the needed rugby skills that are evolved over years. "Gaining stamina wouldn't be hard"? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any Idea about sports and training? It is a billion times easier to gain 30lb of muscle than to evolve the stamina for a 80 mins game. And your last statement is pure hilarity, so if a rugby player would learn football for 10 years then he could maybe play football, but a football player just could play rugby instantly, although football players mostly pactice only one of the things that can be transfered into rugby out of multipple things a rugby player needs. Have a shitty day.

[Chute Stomp]

This is fucking funny. The NFL would like to have everyone believe that their players are supermen who would dominate any other sport if they ever tried it.

You don't have to be this so called amazing athlete to great or even good at a sport. Some of the greatest players in all sports where never the fastest, strongest...ect. Im sure their are even examples in the NFL. Guys who weren't the fastest or the strongest but who were just really good at their chosen sport.

Thats what O'Driscoll is. On the field he makes things happen. He see's passes and gaps in the defense that no one else see's.

I thought this American "We would dominate any sport if we really wanted to" attitude got put to bed after the many poundings US Basketball team got against international opposition. In Baseball and Hockey as well.

[ULLMONKEY]

I would say that the NFL has the supperior athletes to those playing rugby. thats not every NFL player but the cream of the crop, the ones that have the basic athletic abilities such as speed and strength

rugby supporters like to think that its a world wide game, etc, etc, but the reality is that in the countries its played only NZ can say its the dominant sport, thats what 4-5 mill, in wales it was, but these days soccer is equal to it if not bigger but again only 3-5 mill, every other country its a minority sport,

england a game thats dominated by rich people, go to inner city london, manchester etc and you dont see any rugby and if you do its a very recent arrival, you just have to look at the backgrounds of the english soccer and rugby union teams to see the differences

the same in scotland, and ireland, i think its again very middle class, the bogons play irish sports and soccer

australia its a very big third/fourth behind aussie rules and rugby LEAGUE and maybe even these days behind soccer

and then theres south africa, 80% black, how many black players have ever played rugby for the springboks? not many thats for sure, 80% + of the population only concerned about soccer

south pacific? its big but as the countries only have populations of a few hundred thousand

american football the doninant sport in a country of 300 million, thats dominant the way that soccer is dominant in england, not just a minority sport played by a few rich kids

[Madmick]

Originally Posted by Dekker5437

I just want to apply a little logic to this whole debate about who are better athletes. The NFL players are the genetic cream of the crop in terms of athletes in america but the rugby players are also the most gifted athletes from a variety of countries such as South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Pacific Islands, Argentina, Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, France and even Italy. Having the most gifted athletes is just a matter of player population and finding the most genetically gifted within that population. The NFL players are not genetically superior to the rugby players and vice versa

My impressions was that this wasn't true. I thought the majority of talent in other countries went into soccer.

The NFL is the cream of crop in the most dominant sporting country in the world. Let's face it: that's the height of sophistication in my argument.

It wasn't meant to be political, either, so please no dumb rednecks. I like the football talk, though.