Skills
Snitch
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2012
- Messages
- 42,953
Different sports. NFL is good fun to watch live but like with all American sports, I feel like the drama is almost artificially created within the games.
It would be a good point if it was the norm in Football but it's not, nearly all 8 to 15 years olds future professionals are in local amateur clubs and are only funneled to far bigger clubs in the last stage between 15 and 18. The vast majority of footballers spend most of their development in far smaller clubs than the equivalent of the 49ers and D1 college Football provides similar infrastructure and staff support than NFL franchises, sometimes better.
And those 15 to 18 years old players skill level is closer to professional level than it is in the other sports mentioned.
And I forgot to mention Rugby follows the same system than Football.
So you enjoy rugby more?Different sports. NFL is good fun to watch live but like with all American sports, I feel like the drama is almost artificially created within the games.
So you enjoy rugby more?
Yeah, I'm not sure if it makes a huge difference in just saying it's a different system. Last time I read, 2 thirds of professional players come from academies not amateurs clubs though.
I'd agree that they often come from smaller clubs but not amateur level is my understanding.
Neither of these sports require higher skill to play at a high level. Power and pace will get you nowhere in Union and it's not the base of the game. The game is based on three things players skills with and without ball, players ability to read the situation and the ability to apply set plays based on what you read because Rugby isn't an improvised game nearly all plays are predetermined and a reaction to what the defense or the offense is trying to do.
I think football requires comfortably more skill. Just the motor coordination to do things with your feet for a start. (That's even without going into the sheer number of people you need to be better than to make it at a high level).
I'd argue playing in an improvised game requires more skill than one where plays are predetermined and positions more specialised.
Some parts of plays are predetermined. Many parts are not.where plays are predetermined
I think football requires comfortably more skill. Just the motor coordination to do things with your feet for a start. (That's even without going into the sheer number of people you need to be better than to make it at a high level).
I'd argue playing in an improvised game requires more skill than one where plays are predetermined and positions more specialised.
I watch way more NFL than Rugby, so I'd say the NFL. But I still feel like there's something artificial about the product I'm watching.
Football isn't an improvised game, players follow rules set by their coach, it's the same principle, in both case they follow a read and react system. They don't go on the field and just improvise.
The bold part is a low level skill applied by literal billions. Now have you ever tried to sprint to a precise point, while contorting your body and throwing something while making sure that you are not crippled during the potential incoming impact? Have you ever tried to throw something backward 5m to 40m with precision and pace while sprinting, are you able to do this with either leading hands? Have you tried to kick a ball with precision while sprinting and also while trying to fulfill a tactical goal? Are you able to kick the ball with either feet with precision and power?
Come off it. Literally every skill you mentioned is harder in football. Dribbling with the ball is far harder than carrying and running. Let's not even get into kicking.
I mean try controlling a ball that's been pinged to you over 50 yards without using your hands, a basic skill for a top level footballer that's taken for granted. I mean people generally underestimate how ridiculously skilled top level footballers are--I'm surprised to see it on a football forum
…but top level NFL players are ridiculously skilled in what they do?Come off it. Literally every skill you mentioned is harder in football. Dribbling with the ball is far harder than carrying and running. Let's not even get into kicking.
I mean try controlling a ball that's been pinged to you over 50 yards without using your hands, a basic skill for a top level footballer that's taken for granted. I mean people generally underestimate how ridiculously skilled top level footballers are--I'm surprised to see it on a football forum
So low skillBoth are relatively low-skill sports but rugby's definitely more watchable. Of course it helps that it finishes in less than two hours.
I mean there's a reason why America has exported every aspect of its culture to the world, but yet no one cares about the NFL. It's just not that interesting.
…but top level NFL players are ridiculously skilled in what they do?
They’re completely different sports, I’m not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet about which sport is harder and more skilful. They are both hard and require significant levels of slightly different kinds of skills. It’s possible to appreciate both.
I respect any top level sportsperson. Even darts is fecking hard.
You've never watched the NFL have you, the whole game is based on predetermined play, so is baseball and basketball to a certain extent, as for high-end skill level, if a Quaterback isn't a high-level skill position then I've no idea what one of those is, I don't watch the NFL or college football on any regular bsasis so I'm not biasedNeither of these sports require higher skill to play at a high level. Power and pace will get you nowhere in Union and it's not the base of the game. The game is based on three things players skills with and without ball, players ability to read the situation and the ability to apply set plays based on what you read because Rugby isn't an improvised game nearly all plays are predetermined and a reaction to what the defense or the offense is trying to do.
You've never watched the NFL have you, the whole game is based on predetermined play, so is baseball and basketball to a certain extent, as for high-end skill level, if a Quaterback isn't a high-level skill position then I've no idea what one of those is, I don't watch the NFL or college football on any regular bsasis so I'm not biased
The connection or lack of it is down to the draft system, that's one of the downsides to it, on the flip side it is a good levelling system that essentially ensures that one team doesn't completly dominate for years on end just because they have a bigger fanbase or more moneyYou’re right. And it’s literally a product. Players traded like commodities, with no youth development at any of the big clubs. You never feel NFL/NBA athletes have the connection with the club/fans you do when you’re watching homegrown players turn out for their rugby clubs. Never mind international players putting their bodies on the line for their country.
Apologies, I missed what you responded to, which is really where my response shpuld have been aimed atTwo things I watch the NFL every weeks as well as college Football and you seemingly quoted or read this post out of context nothing in that post is about the NFL.
The connection or lack of it is down to the draft system, that's one of the downsides to it, on the flip side it is a good levelling system that essentially ensures that one team doesn't completly dominate for years on end just because they have a bigger fanbase or more money
Well one of the things that upping sticks does meas they don't have an OT type stadiumYes, the way the system prevents stuff like the oil money domination in football is good. Although I don’t think that outweighs the disconnect it causes between clubs and their local fans. The way franchises can just up sticks and relocate to a different city seems so mad to me.
Plus you can’t get past the lack of any national teams in a comparison with a sport like rugby. The national element of team sports like football and rugby is the one remaining aspect of being a fan that hasn’t been completely distorted by all the money swilling around these sports nowadays. I would find it very hard to care about any sport where I didn’t have a national team to follow. Even a crap national team, like the Irish football team.
Yes, the way the system prevents stuff like the oil money domination in football is good. Although I don’t think that outweighs the disconnect it causes between clubs and their local fans. The way franchises can just up sticks and relocate to a different city seems so mad to me.
Plus you can’t get past the lack of any national teams in a comparison with a sport like rugby. The national element of team sports like football and rugby is the one remaining aspect of being a fan that hasn’t been completely distorted by all the money swilling around these sports nowadays. I would find it very hard to care about any sport where I didn’t have a national team to follow. Even a crap national team, like the Irish football team.
It's because US sports are exclusively franchises not local athletic/sporting clubs or those that were tied to factories, mills, and so forth. There were many local clubs in the 1800s into the early 1900s but had morphed into franchises, folded, or dropped to lower levels by the war era, especially in MLB and NFL.
Is that why college sports are so incredibly popular? They provide more of a local connection that you don’t get with NFL franchises?
Is that why college sports are so incredibly popular? They provide more of a local connection that you don’t get with NFL franchises?
Whereas Rugby is such a free flowing game.
I would say it's not even probably, it's notable that a lot of college stadiums are way larger than the pro teams, they get huge crowds and the TV rights are worth billions of $$ as wellProbably so. College sports is more regional in fervor depending on the sport. I have met plenty from the Northeast and most don't care about NCAA sports, they prefer pro sports. But not so in the Southeast where most prefer college football. But in Kansas is college basketball above everything else. Also get the notion most on the West Coast prefer pro sports.
It basically does, it's called a maul, then the scrum/fly half stands over the ball for about twenty seconds and waits for the backs to get into formation or then just boots it.Compared to the NFL it is. Imagine if every tackle in rugby led to a scrum. You can have your favourite obviously but rugby is definitely more fluid.
What I said on page 1I can't get into NFL at all. So many stoppages and because I don't know the common plays half the time I don't know where the ball has gone.
Rugby is more enjoyable but professionalisation has slowly turned it into a game of attrition. 15 monsters running head first into 15 other monsters.
Rugby League is where its at.
I would say it's not even probably, it's notable that a lot of college stadiums are way larger than the pro teams, they get huge crowds and the TV rights are worth billions of $$ as well
*Ruck, and Ireland's average time to move the ball away from a ruck is 2 seconds.It basically does, it's called a maul, then the scrum/fly half stands over the ball for about twenty seconds and waits for the backs to get into formation or then just boots it.
Straight into another ruck.*Ruck, and Ireland's average time to move the ball away from a ruck is 2 seconds.