Re: Best Athletes
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the answer is fairly obvious. Rugby has by far the best overall athletes. Players have to be multi skilled... backs needs the ability to run, pass, kick, tackle. Forwards need lineout abilities, ruck and maul abilities, scrum abilities etc. Also the game doesn't stop after every play like a certain american sport. I agree backetball also has great athletes, but I think the physical aspect of rugby puts it ahead.
[/ QUOTE ]
While the -average- international Test-class rugby player I think is certainly a better overall athlete than, say, a 335-pound NFL offensive lineman, the BEST athletes in the NFL are much better than the best athletes in rugby. See, rugby's supporters (of which I am one, I have played and loved the sport for years and wish it had a bigger profile in the USA) tend to deride NFL players for the protective equipment they wear during a game, and call rugby more of a "man's" sport because they don't wear protective equipment. Here's why that argument doesn't quite hold water. I have been in the same room with Test-class rugby players, and I have been in the same room with NFL players. NFL players are WAY bigger and stronger, and the good ones, like, say, Lawrence Taylor or Ray Lewis, are WAY faster. Yeah, if a rugby player takes a hit from another rugby player, it's gonna hurt but he's not probably going to need pads. If a typical rugby player got blindsided by someone with the speed and strength of LT, they'd need a spatula to scoop his remains off of the pitch. The only rugby player that I think has that sort of athletic ability, at least the only one who comes right to mind, is Jonah Lomu. NFL players wear pads because they NEED to wear them to avoid serious, serious injury.
Now if you want to make the argument that rugby players, due to the fact that play never technically "stops" (which isn't exactly true.....don't tell me that rugby doesn't offer plenty of rest opportunities during, say, the interval after a long kick for touch or the 213 minutes it generally takes to set up your typical penalty kick for goal), have more CARDIOVASCULAR FITNESS than your typical NFL player, then I might buy it. But that's a different animal from possessing more ATHLETIC ABILITY.
[/ QUOTE ]
Theres a pretty obvious reason why NFL players are physically bigger than rugby players. The speed and continuity of rugby is far greater than NFL. The fact that it takes 3 hours to finish a 60 minute game proves my point. The fact that an offencive and defencive team in nfl is only on the field for roughly 30 minutes of that 60 minutes further proves my point. Sure there are stops in rugby, However a player typically is on the field for the full duration of the game (80 minutes)and a game is over in around 100 minutes (including 10 minutes half time break). I don't think of most nfl players as great athletes and don't think most would make it in international rugby. There are some good athletes in the NFL, Terrel Ownens and Randy Moss would probally make good wingers, guys like Ray lewis probally would be good number 8's/ blind sides, and guys like Vick probally not bad 1st 5/8's I think the overall athleticisim of players like Richie Mcaw, Tana Umunga, George Smith, Joe Rockooko, Brian O'drisciall, Dan Carter exceeds the NFL players.
|