The Ubiquity of Rugby

LeinsterDub

When you are all done comparing football and rugby you can take a stab at comparing apples and oranges

Wattle

I have to laugh at those who are calling Rugby supporters bandwagon jumpers. In a couple of weeks time it's going to be wall to wall Boys in Green, Trap's Army, Ole Ole Ole Ole, nationwide nervous breakdowns and drinking and puking and pissing in the streets. Will we jump on that bandwagon if the team is doing well? Of course we will.

BunShopVoyeur

This thread is like a bunch of aul ones bickering. I have never understood why this needs to be an argument.

Personally I like both sports. Everyone will never agree so what is the point of picking apart each game listing their merits and demerits?

They're both great sports in their own way.

smash

Bad Panda wrote: »

Any graceless, awkward person can throw a ball backwards and run forwards.

Soccer takes a lot more skill. Much harder to be a good soccer player than a rugby player.

And yeah, I'd know.

Obviously you don't if you think that's all it is.

recylingbin

LeinsterDub wrote: »

When you are all done comparing football and rugby you can take a stab at comparing apples and oranges

Apples don't play rugby.

kfallon

dodderangler wrote: »

But yet you get a little tackle and next thing your down holding your ankle screaming waitin for someone to take you off in a stretcher for a swollen ankle being little girls

As opposed to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ppwVqvTipU

:rolleyes:

prinz

recylingbin wrote: »

Also, it's pretty easy to be fat and run into another fat lad. Ou est le skill?

recylingbin wrote: »

He wasn't lauded as anything other than he was - a bulldozer. A great bulldozer, though. Anyway, he was one player. Most rugby players wouldn't last 2 minutes in an american football match. The game requires supreme levels of skill..

Lol, make your mind up.

Dravokivich

recylingbin wrote: »

Yesh, gimme 20 minutes of crouch touch pause snore any day of the week.

Which coincidentally enough is something all rugby supporters have been moaning about throughout the season just gone.

Doesn't lessen my interest in the sport any though.

Tox56

The respect shown to referees in rugby is something football should learn from, it would make the sport look a lot better.

foxyboxer

smash wrote: »

So If I work for a company that generates circa 60 million a year I should get paid more too?

Consider that a pro footballer's career is maybe 12 years at their peak.
And they are one major injury away from an early exit too.

St.Spodo

As a fairly athletic person, I find that there are very few things I can't do that rugby players do. I can catch the rugby ball from high in the air, handle it and kick it far. This leads me to believe that if I was faster and had another 20kg of muscle, I could play rugby at a fairly high level.

When it comes to football, it is a lot more difficult to master a ball that is at your foot as opposed to in your hands. It takes a lot more skill to develop the technique and control required to do so.

Football is a much more skilful game.

pajunior

kfallon wrote: »

As opposed to this



:rolleyes:

The fact that this instance is so hugely famous is amazing, and the people involved were hugely punished. It is rare because in rugby the officials rarely get very big decisions wrong.

smash

foxyboxer wrote: »

Consider that a pro footballer's career is maybe 12 years at their peak.
And they are one major injury away from an early exit too.

What's your point?

Zab

St.Spodo wrote: »

As a fairly athletic person, I find that there are very few things I can't do that rugby players do. I can catch the rugby ball from high in the air, handle it and kick it far. This leads me to believe that if I was faster and had another 20kg of muscle, I could play rugby at a fairly high level.

An excellent example of how deluded human beings can be. I'm sure you could have turned pro if you'd only hit the gym a little more.

carvaggio

There is nothing better than playing football, especially if you have the confidence to express yourself on the ball. 5-a-side football is definitely the most enjoyable sport I have ever played and really rewards skill and endeavor, though 11-a-side is still great fun too.

The major difference between rugby and football is that you don't necessarily have to be big, quick, strong or have any real particular physical quality to be a good footballer. It is primarily a test of intelligence, composure and skill

Tox56

St.Spodo wrote: »

As a fairly athletic person, I find that there are very few things I can't do that rugby players do. I can catch the rugby ball from high in the air, handle it and kick it far. This leads me to believe that if I was faster and had another 20kg of muscle, I could play rugby at a fairly high level.

When it comes to football, it is a lot more difficult to master a ball that is at your foot as opposed to in your hands. It takes a lot more skill to develop the technique and control required to do so.

Football is a much more skilful game.

I can't avoid sounding patronising when I say this, but I don't believe you

a) know what you are talking about
b) have played rugby for any length of time

That is an extremely simplistic view on what a rugby player must be capable of doing

foxyboxer

smash wrote: »

What's your point?

Point is I will be working until my 60's.
I can't envisage a 60-year old Ryan Giggs still playing top flight football.

There is a limited 'earning' window in a pro's career and considering that they are the proverbial talent, they need to maximise those earnings. There is a false image of the modern pro as a ferrari driving multi-millionaire prima donna. A League Two player doesn't fit that image at all, he probably is trying to pay a mortgage and pay his bills the same as anyone, but my point is, he will 'retire' at 33 or 34 in all likelihood.

Logical Fallacy

foxyboxer wrote: »

+1. You could argue that footballers are actually underpaid, considering the revenue it generates, what with tv rights, merchandise etc etc.

Someone as loathsome as John Terry commanding a six figure weekly salary is not a true representation of your run-of-the-mill professional.

If they generate so much cash then how come the Premier League teams lost so much money this season?

Genuine question btw, it's been a while since I really payed any attention to the PL.

St.Spodo

Zab wrote: »

An excellent example of how deluded human beings can be. I'm sure you could have turned pro if you'd only hit the gym a little more.

Never said that. I made the point that it is a lot easier to bridge the gap of physical prowess than to develop skill and control of a football.

dipper.meath16

Joey Barton or Brian O'Driscoll as a role model??! Foot ball players are mostly over paid pansies, where as rugby player put their bodys on the line for the ball. Rugby way more intense, physical and the players so a hell of a lot more respect to officials.

As for the GAA, cant beat the GAA, Although football is ruined by refs, hurling still has the same physicality it always did!

Greentopia

markesmith wrote: »

A lot of women seem to be mad into it especially, despite having zero interest in any other sport.

Probably because many rugby players are hot as hell! the likes of Tommy Bowe, Rob Kearney, Stephen Ferris, big brawny guys mmm.. love rugby players physiques. It's the rugby guys who end up in the top of any Hot 100 Irish Men list, not football or GAA players.

Bressie is a former rugby player for Leinster. I rest my case :cool:

Other than occasionally watching the Irish national rugby and football teams, I must confess to having little interest in any of them. None at all in the GAA. I know one or two women who follow their county games though.

Bad Panda

dipper.meath16 wrote: »

Joey Barton or Brian O'Driscoll as a role model??! Foot ball players are mostly over paid pansies, where as rugby player put their bodys on the line for the ball. Rugby way more intense, physical and the players so a hell of a lot more respect to officials.

As for the GAA, cant beat the GAA, Although football is ruined by refs, hurling still has the same physicality it always did!

Oh for Christ's sake! Talk about cherry picking to suit your silly argument. :rolleyes:

St.Spodo

Tox56 wrote: »

I can't avoid sounding patronising when I say this, but I don't believe you

a) know what you are talking about
b) have played rugby for any length of time

That is an extremely simplistic view on what a rugby player must be capable of doing

The skill level of at least half the players on a rugby pitch is wholly unimpressive. The likes of Paul O'Connell or that other big gormless Limerick lad are revered as great sportsmen. They wouldn't be if they were 5ft 11 and 12 stone. It is often the case that the great footballers become revered in spite of their physical prowess.

Logical Fallacy

St.Spodo wrote: »

The skill level of at least half the players on a rugby pitch is wholly unimpressive. The likes of Paul O'Connell or that other big gormless Limerick lad are revered as great sportsmen. They wouldn't be if they were 5ft 11 and 12 stone. It is often the case that the great footballers become revered in spite of their physical prowess.

Like who?

St.Spodo

dipper.meath16 wrote: »

Joey Barton or Brian O'Driscoll as a role model??! Foot ball players are mostly over paid pansies, where as rugby player put their bodys on the line for the ball. Rugby way more intense, physical and the players so a hell of a lot more respect to officials.

As for the GAA, cant beat the GAA, Although football is ruined by refs, hurling still has the same physicality it always did!

Convenient selection of players there.

Pal

recylingbin wrote: »

There's lads with their bellies hanging out over their shorts. And people laugh at darts players? At least they have a skill.

Sumo wrestlers might be good at scrums.

foxyboxer

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

If they generate so much cash then how come the Premier League teams lost so much money this season?

Genuine question btw, it's been a while since I really payed any attention to the PL.

Clearly there are issues with budgeting but a model example of running a Club is Arsenal, but the likes of Liverpool sell to new owners who bought the Club using borrowed Billions. :rolleyes:

Another example is Chelsea, where Abramovich losing a few hundred million would not affect him with his other 'interests' i.e. When you're worth Billions, losing a Billion isn't good but it's not the end of the world yet the headlines will scream of Chelsea 'losing' money.

St.Spodo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Like who?

Lionel Messi. Born with GHD but transcended this due in no small part to his astonishing skill level. He is only about 5ft 6 now, but is the greatest football in the world.

mackg

Leftist wrote: »

great post and 100% true.

there are plenty around that genuinely love the sport and did so before 2000.

so many bandwagon jumpers since. It's a fashion statement. A middle class glory hunting expedition. If irish teams were to become mediocre then these people wouldn't care.

Tox56 wrote: »

I've supported rugby all my life, and I still can't stand the "bandwagon" supporters line, as if the supporters of Man Utd are mancunian born and bred.

Success grows support and Ireland (and Irish teams) happen to be good at this sport, and people get behind them, you can like both rugby and football don't ya know.

Makes sense to me that the "real" supporters would be happy to see an increase in the sports profile, generating more interest and increasing the number of young people getting involved.

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Bollocks!

Rugby is more complicated in ways, the beauty of soccer is its simplicity. That's the reason it's played in every country in the world, all you need is a ball. The rules are basic enough. Rugby is more difficult due to the highly structured nature of it i.e. set pieces, rucks etc. As far as interesting goes it's purely subjective but don't let that stop ye wailing at each other for 15 pages.

Bad Panda wrote: »

Yawn.

Any graceless, awkward person can throw a ball backwards and run forwards.

Soccer takes a lot more skill. Much harder to be a good soccer player than a rugby player.

And yeah, I'd know.

Just because it takes more skill, which I would agree with although I don't agree there is the massive chasm between the two some in this thread are claiming, it doesn't necessarily make it more entertaining to watch for spectators.

This thread reminds me of the recent "people taking music too seriously thread" where I mentioned how differences in taste can be a good source of friendly banter, same goes for being fans of different sports but you have to wonder about people who take these debates seriously and think they are going to convince anyone through logic and reason that one is superior to the other.

foxyboxer

dipper.meath16 wrote: »

Joey Barton or Brian O'Driscoll as a role model??! Foot ball players are mostly over paid pansies, where as rugby player put their bodys on the line for the ball. Rugby way more intense, physical and the players so a hell of a lot more respect to officials.

As for the GAA, cant beat the GAA, Although football is ruined by refs, hurling still has the same physicality it always did!

Again with the gross generalisation.

Bad Panda

St.Spodo wrote: »

Lionel Messi. Born with GHD but transcended this due in no small part to his astonishing skill level. He is only about 5ft 6 now, but is the greatest football in the world.

Also Garincha. One of the greatest to ever play the game.

"He had several birth defects: his spine was deformed, his right leg bent inwards and his left leg six centimeters shorter and curved outwards, none of which impeded his ability to play football at the highest level"

carvaggio

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Like who?

Riquelme, Carlos Valdaramma, Roberto Ayala, Gianfranco Zola (the list goes on a long way). None of them were particulary notable in terms of pace, strength or size but all were excellent at what they did.

liamygunner29

If rugby was any good the Germans would play it..

Nobody bothers with it, its way off the pace in old England.

There was 2 Irish teams in the European cup final! I hate to break your big beautiful hearts but that wasn't because we're the best its because nobody else really bothers!

Pal

dipper.meath16 wrote: »

Joey Barton or Brian O'Driscoll as a role model??! Foot ball players are mostly over paid pansies, where as rugby player put their bodys on the line for the ball. Rugby way more intense, physical and the players so a hell of a lot more respect to officials.

As for the GAA, cant beat the GAA, Although football is ruined by refs, hurling still has the same physicality it always did!

Agree stickfighting can be physical.

GLaDOS

Actually does anyone know how much a top rugby player would be paid?

Tox56

St.Spodo wrote: »

The skill level of at least half the players on a rugby pitch is wholly unimpressive. The likes of Paul O'Connell or that other big gormless Limerick lad are revered as great sportsmen. They wouldn't be if they were 5ft 11 and 12 stone. It is often the case that the great footballers become revered in spite of their physical prowess.

If you think that you clearly don't know what you are talking about and I won't waste my time arguing.

Logical Fallacy

St.Spodo wrote: »

Lionel Messi. Born with GHD but transcended this due in no small part to his astonishing skill level. He is only about 5ft 6 now, but is the greatest football in the world.

Okay, but perhaps I am just a bit confused by the term "physical prowess". I assume you mean "size"?

Prowess basically means skill...hence my confusion.

So what you are saying is that his astonishing skill level makes him a great player, even though he would lack a degree of physical presence.

Gotcha.

Big Nasty

I like going to the pub to watch a game of rugby. Nice crowd of lads, often with their wives or girlfriends, horse a load of pints in to them, have the craic, maybe a meal after the game or hang around for a few pints before drifting off home. A generally nice experience.

On the other hand I am more likely to avoid a pub when their is a soccer match on with all the 'we' this and 'we' that about foreign teams, lads shouting and roaring at the telly and half cut on a few pints. I generally don't like the atmosphere in a pub when soccer is on.

foxyboxer

liamygunner29 wrote: »

If rugby was any good the Germans would play it..

Nobody bothers with it, its way off the pace in old England.

There was 2 Irish teams in the European cup final! I hate to break your big beautiful hearts but that wasn't because we're the best its because nobody else really bothers!

They do. :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_national_rugby_union_team

Zab

St.Spodo wrote: »

Never said that. I made the point that it is a lot easier to bridge the gap of physical prowess than to develop skill and control of a football.

Even if we were to just accept that, what's your point? By your definition of "skill" there are games that require more "skill" than either rugby or football, yet you aren't arguing that they're better.

St.Spodo wrote: »

The skill level of at least half the players on a rugby pitch is wholly unimpressive. The likes of Paul O'Connell or that other big gormless Limerick lad are revered as great sportsmen. They wouldn't be if they were 5ft 11 and 12 stone. It is often the case that the great footballers become revered in spite of their physical prowess.

Rugby players come in all sizes, although they do generally end up building more muscle than the average footballer. You think you could just slap anybody athletic and the same size as O'Connell onto the pitch and they'd be anywhere near as good as him? You're being really obtuse here. Drogba wouldn't be anywhere near as good if he was 5'6".

smash

foxyboxer wrote: »

Point is I will be working until my 60's.
I can't envisage a 60-year old Ryan Giggs still playing top flight football.

No, but he'll retire with enough in his account to do him until he dies.

foxyboxer wrote: »

There is a limited 'earning' window in a pro's career and considering that they are the proverbial talent, they need to maximise those earnings. There is a false image of the modern pro as a ferrari driving multi-millionaire prima donna.

Premier league players get paid obnoxious amounts of money.

foxyboxer wrote: »

A League Two player doesn't fit that image at all, he probably is trying to pay a mortgage and pay his bills the same as anyone, but my point is, he will 'retire' at 33 or 34 in all likelihood.

Well if he's not making the money then he's not good enough and he should get a trade to fall back on.

foxyboxer

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Actually does anyone know how much a top rugby player would be paid?

I would hazard a guess anywhere between 80 to 250k per year, not including bonuses for a top pro?

St.Spodo

Tox56 wrote: »

If you think that you clearly don't know what you are talking about and I won't waste my time arguing.

Don't really know what you're doing on a message board in that case, to be honest.

Wattle

St.Spodo wrote: »

The skill level of at least half the players on a rugby pitch is wholly unimpressive. The likes of Paul O'Connell or that other big gormless Limerick lad are revered as great sportsmen. They wouldn't be if they were 5ft 11 and 12 stone. It is often the case that the great footballers become revered in spite of their physical prowess.

Comparing the two is pointless because they have totally different physical demands.The reason that Paul O'Connell and others are that size is because modern professional rugby demands that level of size and strength. And these guys can really move too. You need to be superfit to play top level rugby.

BraziliaNZ

When the country shuts down on Sunday 10th June 2012 I think we'll know which international sport is and always has been the most popular in Ireland

mackg

St.Spodo wrote: »

The skill level of at least half the players on a rugby pitch is wholly unimpressive. The likes of Paul O'Connell or that other big gormless Limerick lad are revered as great sportsmen. They wouldn't be if they were 5ft 11 and 12 stone. It is often the case that the great footballers become revered in spite of their physical prowess.

Would Peter Schmeical have been as revered if he was 5ft 10? Or Drogba if he wasn't an animal of a man? People succeed in rugby also without being massive, there are positions on a rugby team for people of all shapes and sizes.

Greentopia

dipper.meath16 wrote: »

As for the GAA, cant beat the GAA, Although football is ruined by refs, hurling still has the same physicality it always did!

Any time I see hurling or GAA football on the telly they seem to be doing more scrapping and fighting than playing. If I watch a team sport I want to see a clean sport where rules are followed and players are not allowed to be so aggressive and violent towards each other. It's not allowed in football so why is it allowed in GAA? I don't think allowing brawling on the pitch is a very good example to set for kids either.

Just my opinion. Obviously GAA heads will tear me a new one for saying that but I'm just stating how I feel.
Maybe if I had more interest in either sport I'd be more inclined to overlook these faults as I see them. shrug

foxyboxer

smash wrote: »

Premier league players get paid obnoxious amounts of money.

If you're good at something, never do it for free

You could argue that, say, Julia Roberts getting $20m for some shítty rom-com is obnoxious, but then she's just part of a package and she could command such an amount because she would guarantee 'bums on seats', instead of paying a newcomer a lesser fee.

What should a less obnoxious amount for a pro be?

St.Spodo

Zab wrote: »

Even if we were to just accept that, what's your point? By your definition of "skill" there are games that require more "skill" than either rugby or football, yet you aren't arguing that they're better.



Rugby players come in all sizes, although they do generally end up building more muscle than the average footballer. You think you could just slap anybody athletic and the same size as O'Connell onto the pitch and they'd be anywhere near as good as him? You're being really obtuse here. Drogba wouldn't be anywhere near as good if he was 5'6".

I am not saying football is the most skilful sport. I came in when people where arguing the merits of football and rugby.

To reply to the second part, I think it would be a lot easier for a person who has the correct physical make up to become a quality rugby player than it would be for someone to become a quality football player. John Hayes didn't start playing rugby until he was 18. It would be nigh on impossible to start playing football at 18 and turn professional and excel in that sport.

Tox56

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

When the country shuts down on Sunday 10th June 2012 I think we'll know which international sport is and always has been the most popular in Ireland

Who is arguing that football isn't the most popular sport in Ireland, or for that matter almost everywhere else in the world by a country mile? Anyone who genuinely believes rugby comes close to football is deluded, but that is the case for every other sport.