Soccer Tougher Than Rugby?

Sindri

I seen this on the boxing forum. Looks to be very interesting; rating soccer above rugby as well as a few other sports. The manner in which the rating was done (by professional sports scientists asked to give a rating :rolleyes:) it could be argued the likes of tennis, and gymnastics are tougher, which both feature above rugby but not only is soccer rated tougher than rugby so is baseball!!! :eek:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills


FFS soccer even has a greater hand eye co-ordination requirement! :eek: :rolleyes:








I am aware, mods, the last soccer-rugby thread was closed but this is about the required skill set and the skills of rugby are run down and under appreciated far too often.

Lando Griffin

Sindri wrote: »

FFS soccer even has a greater hand eye co-ordination
This is one of the more important skills a soccer player needs; he needs to know where his eyes are so he can cover them with his hands every time his ankle is broken four or five times in a match.

thomond2006

Warning: Uneducated view here.

They're different sports with different key skills, undoubtedly rugby and football players are conditioned differently. Both players from both codes are conditioned to take severe punishment. Football players don't need upper body strength (although it would no do harm I suppose), rugby players do. I would think football players have to be lighter on their feet and more agile. Rugby players have to be ready to receive multiple impacts on their bodies.

Unfortunately football players are allowed to get away with gamemanship/simulation on a regular basis. Football players are far from "pussies", they get their legs hacked at with studs 5-10 times a game and risk braking any numbers of bones from the hip down. Many pro footballers simply know how to play the officials.

Now before a football fans reads the above and calls me out for being a bigoted rugby fan, unfortunately simulation has crept into rugby with Irish players among the culprits. Given the nature of the sport, it's more difficult to simulate injury.

I don't think there's much difference in 'toughness'.

Monty Burnz

American football scores suspiciously high - considering that you've an attacking team, a defensive team and perhaps a kicking team, I can't imagine fitness or endurance are that important. And when you consider that the main thing most players do (aside from wide receivers and the QB) is bash into their opposite number, I'm baffled by the hand-eye coordination (most players never even touch the ball) and the 'analytic ability' ratings.

Neil3030

I'd wonder how much they factored in positional roles in their appraisal. TBH, I think it's even a bit unfair to break it down by sport, especially when you then compare team sport to individual sport. A boxer has a harder job than a winger, but I wouldn't say he has a tougher job on his hands than a tight-head prop. Similar arguments could be made across the board.

Bodhisopha

Thread title is a little misleading but yeah, football definitely requires a greater skillset than rugby. Hardly surprising, i'm sure most rugby fans would agree.

Neil3030

A few of their definitions are bit wayward to say the least

HAND-EYE COORDINATION: The ability to react quickly to sensory perception. Example: A hitter reacting to a breaking pitch; a drag racer timing acceleration to the green light.

Erm... is that not reaction time?

Chucky the tree

Monty Burnz wrote: »

American football scores suspiciously high - considering that you've an attacking team, a defensive team and perhaps a kicking team, I can't imagine fitness or endurance are that important. And when you consider that the main thing most players do (aside from wide receivers and the QB) is bash into their opposite number, I'm baffled by the hand-eye coordination (most players never even touch the ball) and the 'analytic ability' ratings.

Hand eye co-ordination doesn't need to involve touching the ball.

dharn

what about hurling ?? toughest game in the world, hand to eye coordination , amazing levels of same required

Monty Burnz

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Hand eye co-ordination doesn't need to involve touching the ball.

No it doesn't, but it's difficult to see how gridiron requires much more H/E coordination than rugby does where you are expected to handle the ball (as well as tackle).

My point is that it's an American article and they may be inclined to grant American Football a status it doesn't objectively merit (or face howls of protest from their main market). Where did their ten experts hail from, one wonders.

Monty Burnz

dharn wrote: »

what about hurling ?? toughest game in the world, hand to eye coordination , amazing levels of same required

Not exactly a world sport though.

irishbucsfan

It's just very very clear that these scientists had never seen rugby and are basing this on their very low levels of knowledge of the sport.

Anyway, what counts as skilful? You need to be able to do more of everything to be a rugby player at the very top. Every player needs to be able to do some of everything, bar kicking. It is becoming more and more like that as the game goes on. Whereas in soccer your skills are a lot more dependent on your position.

If you just count passing and kicking as the skills in rugby though, then you could easily claim soccer is the more skilful sport. However tight head scrummaging is one of the most technically advanced things in any sport in the world, and takes a hell of a lot longer to develop than any single skill in soccer. So it's such an open question and needs a lot of clarification before you can go into it.

mikedragon32

It is an opinion poll with no scientific basis. The opinion of a scientist is still just that, an opinion.

Unless there has been a controlled evaluation of the criteria set out for a large enough sample of professional/elite competitors in all of the sports listed to enable coverage of all key positional groupings/skillsets within each sport then the conclusions are invalid.

28064212

Lol, why would anyone go to the bother of putting to gether something so utterly pointless. What does a "7" in endurance mean? Does it mean the same thing coming from the "Director of the Coaching and Sport Sciences Division at the United States Olympic Committee" as it does from the "SportsCenter anchor"? It's so incredibly subjective, it's not even funny

Chucky the tree

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No it doesn't, but it's difficult to see how gridiron requires much more H/E coordination than rugby does where you are expected to handle the ball (as well as tackle).

My point is that it's an American article and they may be inclined to grant American Football a status it doesn't objectively merit (or face howls of protest from their main market). Where did their ten experts hail from, one wonders.

Basing on what they rank hand-eye co-ordination it is easy to see why american football ranks higher than rugby.

boredatwork82

What a ridiculously stupid article.
i reckon the yanks have never seen an international or H cup game.

BarackPyjama

Stupid article is stupid.

irishbucsfan

Wait a minute. Rugby gets a 5.6 for Analytic aptitude and American Football gets a 7.1?!

If anything shows you that these people don't know what theyre talking about, it's that.

its_phil

Very fact rowing is down in 45, is an even bigger joke with hand-eye co-ordination getting a 2.88. Tells me they havent got a clue if they rate rowing as the 45th most difficult sport when really it should be top 5.

Rugby's stats compared to soccer are just plain dumb

titan18

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Wait a minute. Rugby gets a 5.6 for Analytic aptitude and American Football gets a 7.1?!

If anything shows you that these people don't know what theyre talking about, it's that.

Considering your username, I can't decide whether you think football should be higher or lower

irishbucsfan

titan18 wrote: »

Considering your username, I can't decide whether you think football should be higher or lower

Well I have experience with both sports and on a playing level there is a huge amount more analytical ability needed from a rugby player than an American footballer.

titan18

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well I have experience with both sports and on a playing level there is a huge amount more analytical ability needed from a rugby player than an American footballer.

I'd disagree, between having to know plays and play calls, along with the QB reading the defense or the linebackers reading the QB, football would be higher

thomond2006

thomond2006 wrote: »

Warning: Uneducated view here.

They're different sports with different key skills, undoubtedly rugby and football players are conditioned differently. Both players from both codes are conditioned to take severe punishment. Football players don't need upper body strength (although it would no do harm I suppose), rugby players do. I would think football players have to be lighter on their feet and more agile*. Rugby players have to be ready to receive multiple impacts on their bodies.

Unfortunately football players are allowed to get away with gamemanship/simulation on a regular basis. Football players are far from "pussies", they get their legs hacked at with studs 5-10 times a game and risk braking any numbers of bones from the hip down.** Many pro footballers simply know how to play the officials.

Now before a football fans reads the above and calls me out for being a bigoted rugby fan, unfortunately simulation has crept into rugby with Irish players among the culprits. Given the nature of the sport, it's more difficult to simulate injury***.

I don't think there's much difference in 'toughness'****.

*perhaps team wide but i would say wingers and some full-backs and centers are lighter on there feet than most rugby players. look up shane williams

**getting your legs hacked every once in a while (and hacked is an overreaction they get tripped) and getting hit by a giant of a man running at full tilt are very different. look up jerry collins

*** i dont think simulation is in rugby to a fraction of the extent its in soccer but at the same time if a soccer player dosent dive he wont get a free this is an issue with the governing of the game more than the players.

****this is way off base when you get hit for a living you become naturally tougher soccer players are not "pussies" i agree i think there acting makes them look worse than they are but they are by no means hard men put rooney who would be a soccer hard man against an average rugby player in a fight and he will be hospitalised.

Tox56

They had an 8 man panel to cover 60 sports, the results were never going to be accurate.

titan18

titan18 wrote: »

I'd disagree, between having to know plays and play calls, along with the QB reading the defense or the linebackers reading the QB, football would be higher

i would agree for the qb and the player on d calling the plays but you could say the same about an out half or pack leader calling plays albeit to a lesser extent overall id say there pretty level bar the qb

Tox56

Tox56 wrote: »

They had an 8 man panel to cover 60 sports, the results were never going to be accurate.

i agree and given that its america they where never going to be knowledgeable enough about some of the sports over here

titan18

Hattie Large Barium wrote: »

i would agree for the qb and the player on d calling the plays but you could say the same about an out half or pack leader calling plays albeit to a lesser extent overall id say there pretty level bar the qb

All the players still need their assignments on each play. What route the WR is going to run for an example or who to block on any play for the OLine. I think it's definitely understandable why football is higher than rugby, especially when you take the QB who'd probably get a 10 on it

Tox56

titan18 wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well I have experience with both sports and on a playing level there is a huge amount more analytical ability needed from a rugby player than an American footballer.

I'd disagree, between having to know plays and play calls, along with the QB reading the defense or the linebackers reading the QB, football would be higher

As a 13, it is my experience is tha you have to do the jobs of both a QB, in terms of implementing (and sometimes calling) offensive moves, and the job of a linebacker reading the attack and making the tackle.

titan18

titan18 wrote: »

All the players still need their assignments on each play. What route the WR is going to run for an example or who to block on any play for the OLine. I think it's definitely understandable why football is higher than rugby, especially when you take the QB who'd probably get a 10 on it

i think theres no argument possible with the qb but if a play is called in rugby the other players all need to know where to run its pretty much the same.

irishbucsfan

titan18 wrote: »

I'd disagree, between having to know plays and play calls, along with the QB reading the defense or the linebackers reading the QB, football would be higher

On offense you are looking at one player reading the defence, identifying any hidden blitzes, or mics, and possibly making a change from one pre-defined play to another, both of those plays are pre-defined by a coach. Your center will read the line and possibly change a blocking assignment, but on teams with established quarterbacks this will be done by QB1 as well. Also worth remembering the guy making this call has a microphone and is in contact with his coach despite being in the field. Of the 11 guys on offense one guy needs to be able to read the defense pre snap.

On defense you are looking at a play called by another co-ordinator off the field. You then have your identified player, very often an IL or a cheating safety Ian 46 defense, who also has a microphoned helmet. He reads the defense and might change the defensive play from one preset to another. All of this predetermined by another coach who is in constant contact with the players. Of the 11 players on defense only one of them needs to know how to read the defense.



The idea if American football needing more analytical ability at a playong level than rugby is insane to be honest.

Tox56

Tox56 wrote: »

As a 13, it is my experience is tha you have to do the jobs of both a QB, in terms of implementing (and sometimes calling) offensive moves, and the job of a linebacker reading the attack and making the tackle.

you had a 13 calling plays? was that not awkward

irishbucsfan

Hattie Large Barium wrote: »

you had a 13 calling plays? was that not awkward

You might have modular play calling. Look at Darren Cave.

Tox56

I think a lot depends on the level you are playing at, and the players you are playing with, does the article specify professional level only?

For set piece moves I would contribute sometimes, but it isn't a primary responsibility at 13. Leading the defence is (for me anyway), and the variety of skills needed in all positions seperates rugby from a sport like American Football.

10, 12 and 13, for example, have to share such a variety of skills on attack and defence.

thebaz

on a simplistic level , my body was always more wrecked after playing a competive game of rugby , than soccer

Naomi00

They gave gymnastics a hand-eye co-ordination rating of 4.5?
I wouldn't really take any of those ratings seriously seeing as that is so wrong.

You can't really compare a lot of these anyway.

errlloyd

Lads they said Basketball requires more power then rugby. I wouldn't read into it.

chupacabra

Devastated that my beloved Curling scored so low.

arodabomb

I'm not sure I aggree with much of that. I understand it is very hard to objectively rank sports which require vastly different skill sets though.

For me sports like american football and baseball are very strict position wise. The quarteback has an amazing ability to dictat the game and throw killer passes that are phenomenally accurate, but he spends all his time training for a few skills. Same with Alex Rodriguez, his skill is hitting a ball with a stick and reading the pitchers throw, nobody expets him to pitch or really play outfield well.

The modern rugby game however requires props to be world class scrummagers while also incresingly play like flankers. Soccer frequently involes positional shifts. Also I have no idea how lacross features so low down. The only reason I could offer is that there is frequent substitutions (but this is also true in american football). Anyone who has played the game can see the fitness levels (frequent full pitch sprints are common), physicality (although you can't tackle like rugby, the hits are pretty insane, you can charge at someone with your stick and knock em for six), while not on the skill level of hurling with the stick, the control those guys have is pretty amazing.

iroced

Don't want to be offensive but that sounds so "american" to rank / compare everything... :rolleyes:


I find it pretty useless and ridiculous to compare and rank sports by "toughness". The whole "criteria analysis" part is interesting but the rest is at best childish at worst cocky.

Different sports just don't require the same aptitudes. In a way I'd say that the "toughest" sports are the ones that demand you to be skillfull enough in different disciplines e.g. decathlon or modern pentathlon...