Rich Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 I've recently had two seperate discussions (rather heated) with a couple of relatively young but seemingly well educated professional type rugby followers. I don't know how they started but, they both tried to claim that rugby was a more skillfull game than football. I asked them to carry a ball in their arms across a field while running and then to do the same with a ball at their feet. As they were both in their early twenties I came to the conclusion that they had gone to rugby playing colleges and had been indoctrinated with this utter bullshit propoganda, which would be typical of the way they put down the game of the working classes. Anyone had simmilar debates? I'm not saying there is no skill to rugby but, ultimately using any part of your body to control a ball whether it be round or oval, other than with your hands and arms has, to be more skillful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JammyOne Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 It's simple: Football is tactical. Rugby is physical. Test cricket is... mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Apples and oranges my friend. Professional rugby players need a certain level of physicality which for me negates a certain amount of the skill. But that said, there is significant skill in what a Dan Carter or Israel Folau does and even being a top class scrumaging forward or break down specialist is a tremendous skill in itself. But are Messi and Ronaldo and Ozil more skilful than their equivalents in rugby? Definitely for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Is that the game where the bloke had the fake blood capsule in his mouth so he could be substituted? Funnily enough every time I turn on the radio some pompous bloke (usually Ian Robertson) is going on about how sporting and honest it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfOfWestStreet Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Is that the game where the bloke had the fake blood capsule in his mouth so he could be substituted? Funnily enough every time I turn on the radio some pompous bloke (usually Ian Robertson) is going on about how sporting and honest it is... One pretty isolated incident. Ian Robertson is in hiding after some rather ill informed comments about Warren Gatland before the third lions test. So agree he's a bit if a tool. It's a stereotype that all rugby fans are all public school toffs. I love rugby and I live on west street. It's a pointless argument anyway two completely different sports. Like what's more skilful tennis or squash? Who actually cares enjoy sports for what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tins Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Is that the game where the bloke had the fake blood capsule in his mouth so he could be substituted? Funnily enough every time I turn on the radio some pompous bloke (usually Ian Robertson) is going on about how sporting and honest it is... compare it to Football there is a lot less cheating involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Apples and oranges my friend. Professional rugby players need a certain level of physicality which for me negates a certain amount of the skill. But that said, there is significant skill in what a Dan Carter or Israel Folau does and even being a top class scrumaging forward or break down specialist is a tremendous skill in itself. But are Messi and Ronaldo and Ozil more skilful than their equivalents in rugby? Definitely for me As I see it, every single move in rugby apart from throwing and catching the ball while running is contrived. There are very little off the cuff moments of skill because every other event is practiced and practiced. As you say, it's a physical game which encourages body contact and not, free flowing skillful sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 compare it to Football there is a lot less cheating involved. When I played rugby at school (Brislington) we had Jim Waterman the Bath fullback coaching us, he taught us so many ways of cheating we ended up being quite good. What you seem to forget is that the media is full of rugger loving journalists who put football down and portray rugger as the good clean sport it most certainly aint. There's an old saying. Rugby is a game watched by gentlemen and played by animals. Football is a game watched by animals and played by gentlemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 It's simple: Football is tactical. Rugby is physical. Test cricket is... mental. Pure class. Horace doffs his spines to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tins Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 When I played rugby at school (Brislington) we had Jim Waterman the Bath fullback coaching us, he taught us so many ways of cheating we ended up being quite good. What you seem to forget is that the media is full of rugger loving journalists who put football down and portray rugger as the good clean sport it most certainly aint. There's an old saying. Rugby is a game watched by gentlemen and played by animals. Football is a game watched by animals and played by gentlemen. I would disagree. The press are more football orientated and if something like a dive will happen they go mental! Rugby just never get's the back page unless it's England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 It's simple: Football is tactical. Rugby is physical. Test cricket is... mental. So Rugby and Cricket aren't tactical? Yeah that's obviously right. If anything i'd say Cricket were the most skilful of the 3 but that's my personal opinion. Pointless argument really as fans will say their own sport is more skilful. Both Rugby and Football require a high level of skill and it should be recognised by both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oops Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 I just wish City,and god forbid, England, would show the same commitment, courage, bravery and skill that the British Lions did in that last test match. Football is full of shit. I can't remember the last time I felt proud of a football team. Apart from my boy's under 7's team last week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southport Red Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 As someone said earlier, Apples and Oranges. Both games are easy to play badly and very difficult to play well. I like both, BCFC and Bath Rugby, almost in equal measure. I don't need one to be more skillful than the other, I also don't understand why so many people think you have to choose between the two. I like that the West Country has (historically) been a leader in Rugby, we aren't exactly known for our football are we? I would hope that, in the coming years, a lot more Bristol RFC fans become followers of City and a lot more City fans start to support Bristol (and that's hard for a Bath fan to say!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oops Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 There is really no comparison between the two sports. I would love to see a football match played with the physical intensity of Rugby, and a Rugby match with the skill and artistry of Football. You can keep the knotted sweater bonhomie of Rugby fans, and the Danny Dyer walk of Football fans, because the two don't mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 If its skill you want, look no further than Ashton Vale, the residents of that estate are legendary for their talent of skating no ice. I'd love to see it, I'm sure it must be pure poetry in motion ('rhyming bullshite' - hmm, I just made that one up, not bad for this time of the morning eh? -'poetry in motion' / 'rhyming bullshite' ... anyway although I've not witnessed this skating magic personally it is on official record apparently so there must be truth in it. Ashton Vale the home of Skating No ice - not a lot of people know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS34Red Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Who's more skilful a pilot or an engineer? or an engineer or the designer? Personally have no time for rugby, don't understand why you can't throw the ball forward. From the outside every game looks the same to me. I think the most skilful sport is actually that of a formula one driver. You have to be super mega fit, most of the drivers run between 20-30km a day. It's an intense 3 day event where you could drive 150 laps in total, the concentration levels needed are impossible for the average person, they need to make snap decisions within a blink, they need to hit every apex, manage their tyres, multi tasking at 200mph like speaking on radio, trying to over take, changing settings etc etc. The pressure is purely on that of the driver, if they smash into a wall they can't go blaming their team mates, the driver is the responsible one for writing off a car worth millions of pounds. Avoiding death each time their on track must also be quite skilful. They have to devote their whole life to the sport, every day on the simulator, the intense media work and sponsorship obligations, being away from family for most of the year, the constant travelling and change in time zones, the day to day fitness work and they got to be extremely careful in what they eat. They are the only sportsmen that I truly respect and admire. Ok its not a sport sport but the physical and mental demands make it a sport for me. Very few sports compare to the physical and mental demands of a formula one car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Lewis Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Who's more skilful a pilot or an engineer? or an engineer or the designer? Personally have no time for rugby, don't understand why you can't throw the ball forward. From the outside every game looks the same to me. I think the most skilful sport is actually that of a formula one driver. You have to be super mega fit, most of the drivers run between 20-30km a day. It's an intense 3 day event where you could drive 150 laps in total, the concentration levels needed are impossible for the average person, they need to make snap decisions within a blink, they need to hit every apex, manage their tyres, multi tasking at 200mph like speaking on radio, trying to over take, changing settings etc etc. The pressure is purely on that of the driver, if they smash into a wall they can't go blaming their team mates, the driver is the responsible one for writing off a car worth millions of pounds. Avoiding death each time their on track must also be quite skilful. They have to devote their whole life to the sport, every day on the simulator, the intense media work and sponsorship obligations, being away from family for most of the year, the constant travelling and change in time zones, the day to day fitness work and they got to be extremely careful in what they eat. They are the only sportsmen that I truly respect and admire. Ok its not a sport sport but the physical and mental demands make it a sport for me. Very few sports compare to the physical and mental demands of a formula one car. How about darts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmabbuttshair Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Rugby is for fat kids who can't play football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshtonGreat Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 compare it to Football there is a lot less cheating involved. Unless you include stamping on people's heads as cheating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rule The Waves Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Rugby is for fat kids who can't play football Are you fat? If not, why don't you come for a game or training session with my team and you'll be able to run rings around us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rule The Waves Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 My favourite quote on the comparison between football and rugby, which in my view you cannot compare as they are 2 totally different sports is from Martin Johnson: "Footballers spend 90 minutes trying to convince the referee they are injured; rugby players spend 80 minutes trying to convince the referee they are not injured." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS3 GAS Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Rugby is for fat kids who can't play football Brilliant, the rugby team at my old school was full of people who couldnt play football!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 I would disagree. The press are more football orientated and if something like a dive will happen they go mental! Rugby just never get's the back page unless it's England. I'm not referring to the amount of coverage, which is obviously greater for football. I refer to the journalists themselves. Obviously you need certain accademic skills to become a journalist, so it stands to reason that you'd get more journalists that have been educated in the system which does not naturally follow football. I believe that there are more people in journalism who are from certain social groups who just happen to look down their noses at football and it's followers and don't waste an opportunity to put it down. So as I see it, there is a group of people from a minority commenting an a subject for the majority and tainting that subject with their predjudices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 My favourite quote on the comparison between football and rugby, which in my view you cannot compare as they are 2 totally different sports is from Martin Johnson: "Footballers spend 90 minutes trying to convince the referee they are injured; rugby players spend 80 minutes trying to convince the referee they are not injured." That would be a good example of the type of ignorance and arrogance that I'm referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty Swallocks Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 My favourite quote on the comparison between football and rugby, which in my view you cannot compare as they are 2 totally different sports is from Martin Johnson: "Footballers spend 90 minutes trying to convince the referee they are injured; rugby players spend 80 minutes trying to convince the referee they are not injured." Unless your physio keeps blood capsules of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cider red Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 I'm not referring to the amount of coverage, which is obviously greater for football. I refer to the journalists themselves. Obviously you need certain accademic skills to become a journalist, so it stands to reason that you'd get more journalists that have been educated in the system which does not naturally follow football. I believe that there are more people in journalism who are from certain social groups who just happen to look down their noses at football and it's followers and don't waste an opportunity to put it down. So as I see it, there is a group of people from a minority commenting an a subject for the majority and tainting that subject with their predjudices. I see your point rich but your inferring you have to be a certain class to get a degree which is wrong. Plenty of normal city fans have them, to get into journalism you dont have to be middle class to get the qualifications! As for ruggers, it is a game for brutes, who have a lot of application and not much skill. Boring as hell to watch too, certainly ot would never ne referred to as the beautiful game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 The 'gentlemens game' thing always makes me laugh. Two of my best mates are big rugby fans and they always go on about the idea that no matter what happens on the pitch, they can all have a pint together afterwards. They just don't see how messed up it is that you can stamp on someones face, gouge their eyeball, drive them head-first into the pitch or break their arm and then go and laugh about it. It's not the reaction of normal human beings. I really enjoy rugby- both League and Union- but I've always found the culture that surrounds the playing of the sport difficult to like. I played Rugby League as a kid and as a result was a pretty good sevens player when I got to Uni. I was invited to play for the university but lasted 1 training session because the rest of the team were, to be honest, complete dicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 As I see it, every single move in rugby apart from throwing and catching the ball while running is contrived. There are very little off the cuff moments of skill because every other event is practiced and practiced. As you say, it's a physical game which encourages body contact and not, free flowing skillful sport. Hmmm... if you watch someone like Will Genia play, you wouldn't say there is no 'off the cuff skill'. The problem in world rugby is that the most mercurial players (Quade Cooper, Gavin Henson, Danny Cipriani for example) tend to be the biggest *****s and the most inconsistent. Watch a bit of Super 15 rugby and if you see Cooper hit the top of his game, you'll change your mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TV Tom Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 Rugby, like tennis, is utter shyte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashtonphil Posted July 19, 2013 Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 This is an interesting debate, as a qualified coach who teaches both games, there are many qualities that make both games great. I have not played rugby seriously since I left school, however when I began teaching it again I remembered why i enjoyed it. I don't necessarily like the physicality of it at an adult level, but when played well it is a good game. The RFU are aware of the sports failings and have introduced new rules for U10s and younger to speed up the game, with less static play. These will make the game better and the players more skilfull. Avoiding 3 minute mauls and rucks at 10 years old. Football is a skilful game but it is easier for young people to pick up the skills of footbal and to start playing competitively earlier as there are less technical and safety issues to worry about. The issues of sportsmanship and attitude will always be the hot debate. Remember a few years the FA decided to move the ball 10 yards forward if the players answered the ref back - lasted how long?? Why because of the attitude of the players and this will always rub off on to the young players who idolise them. In rugby this does not happy, only the captain can talk to the ref and only when he's been invited to do so. This creates discipline on the sports field. Arrogance or Ignorance?? In my opinion it's neither just a belief that they think rugby is a better game, as many think that football is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.