Don't need them. It's obvious. I doubt the validity or relevance of the sources you mention.
Are top flight footballers better than equivalent athletes from other sports?
- Thread starter BusbyMalone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Are you 7 years old?
For starters, more people compete in running every week than football. Those numbers are unarguable. Unless you’re restricting the argument to team sports you’ve already shot yourself in the face.
If so, Cricket would maybe have a chance as cricket playing countries have solid playing bases with regular cricket played after folks turn 50. ie Participants have longer amateur careers. In pure numbers, I think 15-20% of men on the subcontinent play regularly. It’s not a stupid suggestion.
‘I doubt the validity or relevance of your sources’. Truly one of the most stunted response I’ve read in a while. Why not try and dig into it a little, learn something. Hell, you may be right. But even if you are you’ll know how popular Cricket/Volleyball/Whatever is, globally.
I'd say ski jumpers are higher level.
It's not the same thing at all. That makes no sense
Yes, I am 7 years old. Well done. Try to engage like a mature and reasonable adult perhaps before throwing insults around.
What do you mean more people compete in running and where are you getting that from? What is your (or the person's compiling that stat) definition of competiting in running every week? How old are they? Are you considering my 5o or 10k runs for exercise as competing in running? Is this school, running clubs, training, competitions? How often does those participants train/run/compete? Who is training them, in what facilities? Are they practising in the free time with their friends, in the garden, in the park, after school, on their lunch break? How long does the average participant persist with running as an activity? How many of them have opportunities to receive professional coaching or have running as a viable career path? Are you considering 100m sprinters and marathon runners as separate sports or one individual sport? How many long distance runners or middle aged joggers are doing it for exercise/fun and how many are doing it to compete and try to become one of the best runners in the world? Do you know any of the answers to these questions, or have you read one stat without any context and taken it at face value? Genuinely baffled at how emotional and insulting and irrational you are. Grow up and behave, it is absolutely pathetic of you to behave in such a manner. You should be ashamed of yourself and you owe me an apology, no, you owe yourself an apology, because you are better that that.
The cricket example and citing players over 50 is odd. What relevance does the number of 50 year olds playing have to do with the level of elite talent of players in their prime?
Cricket is certainly a well played sport but their are numerous factors. It may well be the number 2 sport in terms of total competitiveness. It's also largely played (in terms of total population/number of participants) in countries that are economically underdeveloped, which must have some impact. What % of participants are playing with an actual (in good condition) cricket ball, on a surface that is well maintained? Does having a game with a tennis ball or tape ball in a garden or park with a few friends count as participation? How many of these participants get regular coaching or the chance to play in match conditions or decent nets? How many will get professional training and the opportunity to pursue cricket professionally? How much impact does the fact only certain cultures and populations play the sport have?
As for volleyball, please. Its no comparison.
I would say Athletes like Bolt have been better than the best football players.
It really depends on how you wish to define athletic ability. With regards to Americans overvaluing basketball player prowess, they are not picking the best talents in terms of ball handling skills, shooting accuracy and stamina unless they also meet a minimum height criteria (Muggsy Bogues aside). I would not rule out basketball players from the list, but more people globally try to succeed as footballers than basketballers therefore the talent pool is bigger. I rule out NFL quarterbacks as in many ways they are like golfers so all these shouts of Tom Brady are delusional, Jerry Rice would be a better pick as a wide reciever.
My personal definition of the greatest athlete is somebody who competes in a mass participation sport with few hard barriers to entry and who could excel at multiple other sports. To me the shortlist becomes:
Cristiano Ronaldo Football Pace, balance, control, power, work ethic, my view is that he would excel at any sport he dedicated his time to.
Lin Dan Badminton People forget that this is the second most played sport in the world, and Lin Dan was the best, physically supreme, fast, technically amazing and a will to win unlike most others.
Usain Bolt Sprinting Not much to say except that he is also excellent at cricket and football as well as being the fastest man to ever live.
Michael Jordan Basketball Incredible physicality, speed, power and was excellent at baseball and golf as well as basketball.
Novak Djokovic Tennis Whilst low in the likeability factor, I think he is incredible, supreme endurance, pace and control. Also an excellent skier.
Rafa Nadal Tennis As above, but more explosive and a talented footballer.
I would argue that if each of the above had a lifetime to hone their skills at the respective sports, on balance I expect that only Ronaldo could be elite in all of them. Jordan I think would have been amazing at tennis and the others could interchange between badminton and tennis, with Nadal likely an elite footballer. Bolt, whilst a phenomenal runner actually wanted to play cricket but didn't quite have it skill wise.
Just some thoughts really.
My personal definition of the greatest athlete is somebody who competes in a mass participation sport with few hard barriers to entry and who could excel at multiple other sports. To me the shortlist becomes:
Cristiano Ronaldo Football Pace, balance, control, power, work ethic, my view is that he would excel at any sport he dedicated his time to.
Lin Dan Badminton People forget that this is the second most played sport in the world, and Lin Dan was the best, physically supreme, fast, technically amazing and a will to win unlike most others.
Usain Bolt Sprinting Not much to say except that he is also excellent at cricket and football as well as being the fastest man to ever live.
Michael Jordan Basketball Incredible physicality, speed, power and was excellent at baseball and golf as well as basketball.
Novak Djokovic Tennis Whilst low in the likeability factor, I think he is incredible, supreme endurance, pace and control. Also an excellent skier.
Rafa Nadal Tennis As above, but more explosive and a talented footballer.
I would argue that if each of the above had a lifetime to hone their skills at the respective sports, on balance I expect that only Ronaldo could be elite in all of them. Jordan I think would have been amazing at tennis and the others could interchange between badminton and tennis, with Nadal likely an elite footballer. Bolt, whilst a phenomenal runner actually wanted to play cricket but didn't quite have it skill wise.
Just some thoughts really.
Last edited:
There is a strong case for Bolt for a few reasons. Firstly there's the universality of running which has been well covered here. Then there's the appeal of being world’s fastest man which makes the 100m stand out as the highest profile event of the entire Olympics. And there's the less gruelling nature (albeit still challenging) of training for the sprints compared to distance events, which minimises the chances of the mega talents from deciding it's too much hard work. And arguably most importantly is his margin of advantage over anyone else in the 100m and 200m. Football is the only other sport with comparable universality but it lacks a great who stands head and shoulders above everyone else.
Should the difficulty of the sport factor into this discussion. So football is a very accessible game, whereas golf, for example, seems to me to be a very technical and difficult game to master. Now just because I can kick the ball around in the local park doesn’t mean I’m an elite footballer, but I think you can see where I’m coming from? Or maybe not.
Put it another way, do you think it would take more hours of practice and dedication to reach the top of the game in golf as opposed to football. Not sure if I know the answer there, to be honest.
Put it another way, do you think it would take more hours of practice and dedication to reach the top of the game in golf as opposed to football. Not sure if I know the answer there, to be honest.
You always need them. If only to show that the gap is not as big as people think.
I don’t understand how you can recognise that there are multitudes of other factors involved in a nationality comparison within a sport and yet fail to accept that there are multitudes of other factors in a comparison between sports.
Now that you mention it, I think I have seen him moan about rugby on the day of certain games (world cup final iirc). If he's always aware of it, he must be interested.
yes and when Bolt runs you expect him to win every race, be it the 100m, 200m or the 4x100 relay. With footballers, you never expect them to win every game and yes I know it is a team game. With his retirement the attraction of the mens sprinting has disappeared.
He's just pathologically obsessed with it. To the point where he almost judges the rugby players themselves and the people who seem to like it. Past traumas I think!Now that you mention it, I think I have seen him moan about rugby on the day of certain games (world cup final iirc). If he's always aware of it, he must be interested.
Are top flight footballers the best athletes? Yes of course they are.
You shouldn't have to look further than this year Italy team that won the Euro thanks to the incredible athleticism of key players like Verratti, Jorginho, Insigne, Chiellini, Bonucci...
... but, just to stress out that this wasn't an exception, one simply have to recap from the top of their head a random list of star players who have conquered football thanks to their ability to maximise human body performance on every possible metric. In the last fifteen years alone:
Messi, Iniesta, Xavi, Busquets, Kroos, Modric, Marcelo, Benzema, Neymar, Suarez, David Silva, Rooney, Tevez, Ronaldinho, Sneijder, Robben, Ribery, Riquelme, Pirlo, Totti...
You shouldn't have to look further than this year Italy team that won the Euro thanks to the incredible athleticism of key players like Verratti, Jorginho, Insigne, Chiellini, Bonucci...
... but, just to stress out that this wasn't an exception, one simply have to recap from the top of their head a random list of star players who have conquered football thanks to their ability to maximise human body performance on every possible metric. In the last fifteen years alone:
Messi, Iniesta, Xavi, Busquets, Kroos, Modric, Marcelo, Benzema, Neymar, Suarez, David Silva, Rooney, Tevez, Ronaldinho, Sneijder, Robben, Ribery, Riquelme, Pirlo, Totti...
Simone Biles, Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods, Novak Djokovic, Michael Schumacher, Jonah Lomu, Mohammad Ali, Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, Usain Bolt, Mo Farrah.
There are a bunch of Irish football journalists who rant about the rugby team as well. Its embarrassing.
I’d say football, hockey, rugby, and to a lesser extent basketball players, are in the same realm in their fitness levels.
How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Loads of sports people play more and train harder.
Last edited:
Water polo posh? It might be in the UK because nobody plays it (which is why they are terrible) but in the best countries e.g.Croatia, Serbia, Hungary it is as working class as football. It is becoming less working class in some countries e.g. Australia due to public polo pools being phased out for mini water park style pool complexes which is putting costs up but traditionally the best players come from state schools.
Golf is an interesting one in that respect.
When Tiger Woods burst onto the pro scene they'd often show footage of him playing as a small child. He started playing the game unusually young compared to even the professional players he was up against and he had more practice hours under his belt in his formative years compared to his rivals. You can't really do that in football because kids everywhere are playing at the age of three or four.
He may have been just as good if he didn't start until a few years later, we'd never know for sure but I'd be naturally inclined to doubt it and I think it gave him an advantage. Since Woods I think more younger kids are playing golf now.
Last edited:
Hey, that was tongue in check, the point was that none of the guys I cited was particularly remarkable physically.
Rugby is nowhere near. My local professional rugby team used to come and play football against us in their pre season to get their fitness up and work on agility, but they were miles away from us in both. Strong as hell though and often better footballers than you would expect.
Just the mere fact that he actually went to the gym gave him a huge advantage. Until he arrived on the scene golfers were the total opposite of athletes.
That's embarrassing. Sorry.
Its true I think. To be the very best in football, you have to start around 6 years old or earlier. Otherwise you can never reach the very top, because the competition is so high. If you are athletic and not so skilled, you can become a good player, but never one of the best like other sports.
Basketball for example Giannis, Embiid and Olajuwon all started playing between ages 13 and 18. And still reached the very top (Embiid not really though). In football that would be impossible, the skill level to be the very best is so high in football, that such a thing would be impossible. In sports like basketball the skill level isn’t that high, so you can catch up at a later age.
Basketball for example Giannis, Embiid and Olajuwon all started playing between ages 13 and 18. And still reached the very top (Embiid not really though). In football that would be impossible, the skill level to be the very best is so high in football, that such a thing would be impossible. In sports like basketball the skill level isn’t that high, so you can catch up at a later age.
This guy wrestles at 125kg
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Maybe I am a little biased since I currently coach wrestling at the school I teach at but having played football at the high school level and wrestling as well (made it collegiately at a junior college) I always found wrestling to be the most difficult sport to master. Athleticism can only take you so far. This is pure speculation but to earn a Gold medal in wrestling in the olympics, or the world championships, is the hardest feat in sport in my opinion.