TheGreek1973 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Having played soccer throught my life until 5 years ago I have to say what is increadible to me is the fact that these guys in the world cup play so many matches in a month. For example Italy and France come Sunday most of the starters would have played 6 world class matches in less than 30 days. That to me is increadible, especially considering that all of these starters have come from playing a 45-65 match year at club level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red zone Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I completely disagree...watch an international test match. The type of activity some football players could do, but there is so little rest (especially for the forwards) that a football player would be on the sideline sucking oxygen while the rugby player is still running around out there.League, or Club? League is too close to football with the downs and all...I think you mean club rugby. sorry...wrong again...try going in a ruck, it's like wresting, only on a much grander scale. yeah if you play in a d-2 or d-3 league. My club plays alot of D-1, and those guys are in insane shape, not to mention the amount of former Eagles (USA Rugby), and international players that play in that div. Yes you get the others as well, but the "fat slobs" are slowly being weeded out of the more competitive divisions. Props for being a rugby player or whatever, but it's just not comparable. Football players are bigger, stronger and faster than rugby players. Plus, their covered from head to toe in hard plastic, composites and polyester in August and September for chrissakes. If rugby skills were even remotely close to football skills as you suggest, many more rugby players would cross over and play football for the scholarships and the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknsfan4life Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Yada Yada Yada. All this theoretical talk about which athlete is the best based on the sport they play is silly. Just get down to the brass tax. Who is the best athlete in the world, past or present? My vote is Bo Jackson. Speed, Strength, Explosiveness, body control, etc. etc. He had it all. And don't argue from a football perspective. This guy could do anything. Think I'm wrong tell me why and tell me who is the best athlete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSkins Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Think I'm wrong tell me why and tell me who is the best athlete. Jim Thorpe? While I'm a little young for this, from what I've read/seen/studied Thorpe's gotta get the nod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknsfan4life Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Jim Thorpe? To me it's pretty obvious. Who was Jim Thorpe? What did he do that was so great? Tell me WHY you think he was the best ever. Just because he was much better than all the other schmoes of his time doesn't mean he is the best ever. Give me some defense for your pick. Jim Thorpe is a good pick. I'm just asking you to defend him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Soccer is cardio-vascular in the same way that Jazzercize is cardio-vascular... Try having a 320lb Defensive tackle lean against you for 3 hours. its not actually 3 hours, its 60 minutes...that's the length of the game...they get few minutes break in between...actually they play 60 and get a 2 hour break.....not they are not great athletes in great condition, but they couldn't run around for 90 minutes or even 60 minutes, plus the amount of substitution in football is ridiculous at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 but when soccer players arent around the ball, theyre walking a lot of the time. so its not like theyre going 100% non-stop for 90 minutes. actually that's not as true....there is a lot of movement without the ball that a casual fan may not notice, plus the ball changes sides (length and width) a lot and the players have to be constantly moving around and minimally jogging. now, if you talk about the soccer goalies...then yeah, I agree...but you can't argue that cardio vasculary they are in great shape... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Football is a game based on sprints, soccer a game based on jogging.For my money, the best athletes on the planet are track stars. Every track and field event is basically a measurement of athleticism. More specifically, decathletes/pentathletes get my nod for being the best. Jogging...you must be kidding...then those sprints after the ball don't count? and when was the last time you saw an OL man or a QB or a DT sprint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 i would say soccer players, the nfl guys do not play both ways and get long breaks unlike the soccer players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSkins Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Jogging...you must be kidding...then those sprints after the ball don't count? and when was the last time you saw an OL man or a QB or a DT sprint? Keep reading, I go into more detail later in the thread. And chill out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Props for being a rugby player or whatever, but it's just not comparable. Football players are bigger, stronger and faster than rugby players. Plus, their covered from head to toe in hard plastic, composites and polyester in August and September for chrissakes.If rugby skills were even remotely close to football skills as you suggest, many more rugby players would cross over and play football for the scholarships and the money. have you seen a rugby match? or a national rugby player? As far as them being equivilent...do you know where football came from..it's didn't just pop out of Betsy Ross' womb ya know. Football has changed from where it came from, but not by that much. The only thing you got in your argument is that they wear pads. Those big guys in Football...they eat their way to that size...national level rugby players are close to that size without the fat. The inshape football players, I can find his equal in rugby. Plus...alot of players in football don't tackle all that well...they throw shoulder blocks and call it a tackle, shoulder blocking is illegal in rugby...when you are tackled...play keeps going, football you get a break. The forwards in rugby get a break when the ball goes out, halftime and injury time...that's about it. The time they are setting up for a scrum if the ball gets dropped forward (backwards ball is still in play) is not much of a rest time, followed by probably the most energy draining thing in sports. OLine and Dline pushing each other doesn't even come close to a scrum...a ruck maybe, but not a scrum. Why don't more rugby players come over to play in the NFL? Well from alot of the foreigners that I talked to...think it's boring, and don't really have the opportunity to play that much football growing up...soccer and rugby are the sports over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeks Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 between soccer and football, easily soccer takes the cake. unless you're one of the three guys being subed out in the soccer game you're for pretty much running 90 minutes straight in football 10 minute drives are probably the longest ur on the feild at a time its just two verry different games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy hudson Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 sorry can't compare soccer to football, both games need strength but football is power and short bursts and soccer is none stop for 90mins with the same 11 men. still prefer football tho. need to be fitter to play soccer for upto 2 hours inc extra time nonestop action!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InGibbsITrust Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 How sick would Santana Moss be as a soccer player? Better then Pele and Ronaldo combined? Could be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaVarGreen2856 Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 but when soccer players arent around the ball, theyre walking a lot of the time. so its not like theyre going 100% non-stop for 90 minutes. Yes... I'm Mexican, and even though the national sport here is soccer (not European football as someone said earlier), the best athletes play football. I've played both, and football is the more demanding and complete sport of the two. That's my take... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingchris626 Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 How sick would Santana Moss be as a soccer player? Better then Pele and Ronaldo combined? Could be... That's just crazy. Ronaldo is the perfect combination of size, speed, control and the ability to just score at will. Nobody has ever had so many weapons. He'll not only out run you most of the time, but if you keep up he'll juke you or he'll run you over. Then he'll kick the crap out the ball. Santana wouldn't stand a chance as a soccer player. Just as ronaldo probably wouldn't as a football player. They are both born to do what they do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.