No. No, you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Printable View
No. No, you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I agree somewhat.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Your definition of fit has to relate to fit for what.
I can say that a soccer players aren't as fit as sportsmen who participate in football.
A player like John Riggins was not fit to sprint 100 yards in great time. He was there for speed, running over players and taking hits.
Also soccer players get their breaks too when they are out of play (similar to basketball in that respect).
Sure a soccer player is not running as fast as he can for the ball. That ain't the same as sprinting 50 yards....as fast you can. A track runner isn't just ho-hum after running a 40-yard dash and doesn't take a hits as well....but oh....many football players have a nice 40 time AND take hits. Figure that. :smilie4:
Thinner air comes into play when playing the Utah Jazz at home in basketball. They are in higher altitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carcinus
Why 'cause I don't enjoy it.:ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
That's just pish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
A midfielder runs an average eight miles in a match. I think an American footballer wouldn't run even one. There are some occasions where a footballer wouldn't run flat out, of course, but if he is in an offensive move or chasing another player for the ball - which is the most common circumstance, then he will be running as fast as he can.
Soccer/football is a poor analogy. Rugby/football is a better one.
The players take tackles, make tackles, kick and make covering/attacking sprints without the ball. All rugby players have to be competent at all disciplines. They have to be fit to tackle, fit to sprint and not have to take oxygen at any point - otherwise they won't make the team. They also stay on the pitch for 80 minutes.
This simply isn't true of American football. You get fat guys in American football.
Wales have one of the best running packs in the world, this mean that the big guys do just as much, if not more, running than the smaller, faster guys. In the 13-a-side version of rubgy, the players are traditionally fitter but now the 15-a-side code has caught up.
An international rubgy player is, overall, the fittest team sportsman in the world. NFL 'stars' don't come close.
Again..fit for what. You know that rugby and football are different don't you? I wouldn't claim William "The Refrigerator" Perry had more endurance than a rugby player. I probably wouldn't have replaced him with one either.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
The fat players are there to take up space and/or block and go after the QB (and all of them aren't fat either). Simon Rice of Tampa Bay looks fit as fiddle.
Plus from what I've seen in rugby and rugby union, the aim is simply to tackle not crush. In football they try to absolutely pummel the opponent (this is sometimes a fault when a player needs to be simply tackled but the opponent is trying to hit him hard and he gets away).
Also a rugby or soccer player isn't running a continuous 8 miles. It's all within pace.
Rugby is a continuous game in comparison. However, in football you are expecting to sprint, block, tackle, and whatever your function is AT YOUR HARDEST for each down. Short rest then do it again.
It seems to have a little less finesse but that's probably due to less set-up. It's has more anarchy. As does soccer and hockey.
I liked John Riggins, but I preferred Marcus Allen.
His performance when The Raider beat The Redskins in the Superbowl was nothing short of awesome.
He was a stupidly fabulous athlete.
"Football is the name given to a number of different, but related, team sports. The most popular of these worldwide is Association football, which is known as soccer in several countries. The English language word football is also applied to Rugby football (Rugby union and Rugby league), American football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football and Canadian football.Quote:
You know that rugby and football are different don't you?
You mean rugby and soccer are different games. I think he knows.
Football is far more of a continuous flowing game in comparison to Rugby.Quote:
Rugby is a continuous game in comparison. However, in football you are expecting to sprint, block, tackle, and whatever your function is AT YOUR HARDEST for each down. Short rest then do it again.
No it's not, they stop every few seconds, have a wee chat then fall forward a yard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carcinus
I admit, rubgy league is a far faster game than rugby union, which is very stop/start with all that scrummage and lineouts and falling over and things.