Why are the Americans Women's football (soccer) team so much better than the men's.

[BooHoo]

there is no comparing the collisions in a football game to that of a rugby game. the padding allows you to hit much harder. it prevents damage to the degree that it allows for harder contact.

if you had an equal understanding of both games you'd find football to be far more violent in it's collisions by virtue of the equipment, and not the other way around.

and while there may be some world class talent playing rugby, lets be real. there's more talent one one american football team than there is in an entire rugby league. if you know what a great athlete looks like, you cant disparage that.

There are huge fat guys in the NFL too.

NFL guys are perhaps slightly taller on average and heavier, but that's because a lot are built for strength. However they would not be able to run for 80 minutes like Rugby players do because the size without the type of break you have in the NFL is a hindrance. A stat of actual game play on the NFL was something crazy like 12 minutes.

Get a built up MMA fighter to box 12 rounds like boxing and watch how his stamina let's him down. Heck Puginosky, 5 times World strongest man gasses out in MMA after throwing punches for 1 minute.

I agree on the padding making the force harder, but as stated, before the padding the players also tackled like rugby because the padding and helmet actually allows them to go in harder. So yes, the protective gear actually helps protect them.

In terms of World class talent, I agree on because the NFL pays well, very well, while Rugby is not so well paid because it is less popular than Football (Soccer)

However that does not mean a NFL guy is going to be able to play rugby. Rugby is limited to 5 substitutes only. I don't see a 400 lb man lasting 80 minutes, even if there are moments of not exhausting activity. The big guys are always involved in game play and players can not just throw the ball forward and gain 40 yards just like that. Also you must touch the ball on the ground as oppose to just run. If you watch rugby then you will know that it's not always easy to get it to the floor and in control. Two totally different skill sets. In the NFL you have big guys who only pin each other down etc... where as the guys in Rugby actually touch the ball. In the NFL you have specific people that get on for kicks. In Rugby the guy who does the kicks runs the game play. Of course A Football requires skills with a Quarter back and a receiver as well, but the game plan at least for me, is very start and stop with tactics pre built usually. It is not like Rugby where fitness does come into play and the game flow is better, and you need to improvise more.

Still, Rugby is where A Football derived from. Got to educate the noobs.

[-The Glove-]

That's still a vague definition if you cross sports. In the same sport you could say one guy was more athletic than the other with some certainty but it would be difficult to translate that into other sports. For pure measurable like height, weight, speed, agility etc yes i would say NFL players are superior in comparison to rugby.

I don't think so. Sheer athleticism crosses over. Most of the most athletic guys (even some of the less athletic) are multi-sport athletes. I think that's one think about athleticism that can't be measured. It's that natural ability in your body that translates to pretty much any sport you tackle.

[-The Glove-]

There are huge fat guys in the NFL too.

NFL guys are perhaps slightly taller on average and heavier, but that's because a lot are built for strength. However they would not be able to run for 80 minutes like Rugby players do because the size without the type of break you have in the NFL is a hindrance. A stat of actual game play on the NFL was something crazy like 12 minutes.

Get a built up MMA fighter to box 12 rounds like boxing and watch how his stamina let's him down. Heck Puginosky, 5 times World strongest man gasses out in MMA after throwing punches for 1 minute.

I agree on the padding making the force harder, but as stated, before the padding the players also tackled like rugby because the padding and helmet actually allows them to go in harder. So yes, the protective gear actually helps protect them.

In terms of World class talent, I agree on because the NFL pays well, very well, while Rugby is not so well paid because it is less popular than Football (Soccer)

However that does not mean a NFL guy is going to be able to play rugby. Rugby is limited to 5 substitutes only. I don't see a 400 lb man lasting 80 minutes, even if there are moments of not exhausting activity. The big guys are always involved in game play and players can not just throw the ball forward and gain 40 yards just like that. Also you must touch the ball on the ground as oppose to just run. If you watch rugby then you will know that it's not always easy to get it to the floor and in control. Two totally different skill sets. In the NFL you have big guys who only pin each other down etc... where as the guys in Rugby actually touch the ball. In the NFL you have specific people that get on for kicks. In Rugby the guy who does the kicks runs the game play. Of course A Football requires skills with a Quarter back and a receiver as well, but the game plan at least for me, is very start and stop with tactics pre built usually. It is not like Rugby where fitness does come into play and the game flow is better, and you need to improvise more.

Still, Rugby is where A Football derived from. Got to educate the noobs.

Nobody's arguing the fact that American football is influenced by rugby. There are positions in football that utilizes 400 lb guys. Those 400 lb guys aren't your average couch potato either. They're fast, explosive, and agile for their size. They may not have the endurance of a rugby player but anyone that's played football will tell you, it's not easy to play their positions. And don't act like because there are breaks that these mammoth men aren't fit.

[BooHoo]

If you think rugby players can touch the top (let alone the fringe) NFL players, you're ****ing mistaken. I can appreciate both sports but for the most part, any particular sport is downgraded because of the lack of understanding of said sport. (I used to **** on futbol until I watched Ronaldinho and have been watching sporadically since).

Why are you comparing NFL to Rugby head to head? If you think a quarter back talents mean anything in Rugby, nope, you can not throw forward. If you think a huge muscled up guy is gonna be running for 80 minutes on thick grass (Always) with a bigger pitch than A Football, Hell no.
We don't know if a NFL guy can throw the ball sideways or back at a good level, which does require a spinning technique to be fast and accurate. If you have poor technique you will be countered like a chump.

Then a Rugby guy, he would have to bulk up for the NFL type games. Some may not be strong enough. One would have to learn to throw forward. Kicking wise I guarantee you Rugby has better kickers. Receivers are fast and good catchers so that's gonna be hard to get.




Rugby is more like Boxing in terms of stamina and flow.

A Football is more like MMA with big guys and a lot of start and stop when it comes to the wrestling aspect, and less minutes.

An MMA fighter would not beat a boxing in the ring, as a boxer would not beat a MMA fighter in the cage (On the whole)

When I see Americans saying NFL guys would own Rugby guys, I say, at what? Usually people are ignorant like you say that but I think, AT WHAT? Are you looking at weight and muscles only? Speed? OK so what game.



You should watch the Champion league. The best teams in Europe with the best matches usually for football.

[Repeddled]

You should watch the Champion league. The best teams in Europe with the best matches usually for football.

I think i read somewhere that the CL semi final (not the final which is too edgy at times) over two legs produces better football than any WC or Euros and i wholeheartedly agree.

[BooHoo]

Nobody's arguing the fact that American football is influenced by rugby. There are positions in football that utilizes 400 lb guys. Those 400 lb guys aren't your average couch potato either. They're fast, explosive, and agile for their size. They may not have the endurance of a rugby player but anyone that's played football will tell you, it's not easy to play their positions. And don't act like because there are breaks that these mammoth men aren't fit.

They are World athletes, but at A Football. Two totally different body types.

Haye may be 210lbs, but put him in a ring with a 400lbs guy, he will knock that dudes ass out. Because the sport is different.

I am not saying they are not athletes, I am saying they are suited to their game. The breaks do help contribute to their game play and also how long they last career wise. Both sports, heck even football (soccer) have many injuries. People play the sports and are funnelled down on ability, but also durability just like boxing.

It's like a goalkeeper in Soccer. He has his build type and strengths that are suited to his position. 6 foot 4 and very fast reactions, but also they need to be able to kick the ball 80 yards which is very hard to do. They can play til an older age than say a striker.

Now put him on the pitch and he will look like a fool running with the ball most likely. A striker needs to be agile, fast, but also unpredictable. The technique they shoot needs to fool a keeper with little back lift while running. You need very strong legs to do this as well as technique. A midfielder runs around 6 miles a game and that is still a good pace in 90 minutes, but the fact that they control the ball with legs that run so much is the beauty of it.

Anyway bro, watch the champions league. You will be amazed at the goals and quality. I have recently seen some MLB goals that are considered great and I just think, slow, easy to read and the goalkeeper/defenders are just not able to read the game well.

[BooHoo]

Also yes I don't actually rate the World Cup. I always say watch Champions league to new footy fans.

I agree that the NFL does have great athletes in a team, but also the NFL is equiavalent of the best of the best in that sport. In Rugby it is far more spread, two type, league which is more skillful, and union which is probably more in size and strength. Then you have so many countries from England, France, Australia, New Zealand to the Islanders like Tonga, Somoa etc..

If you put the best of every nation in a super league, of one sport, then it would be like the Champions league.