|
| |||||||
| |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
| | #31 (permalink) | |
| Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 679
| Quote:
The difference between the size and power of the hits in Football Vs Rugby is astounding. No rugby player would last 2 minutes without pads in football today, not because they are "wimps" but rather because football players aren't even human anymore. I think people who play professional rugby are some of the toughest bastards on the planet, aside from hockey players but still..professional football players are just, freaks/steroided up super humans. | |
| | |
| | #32 (permalink) | |
| Hard Rock Hallelujah Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,995
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #33 (permalink) | |
| BUBBLES THE MONKEY!!! | Quote:
Football is fucking pussy compared to Rugby. | |
| | |
| | #34 (permalink) |
| Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 268
| Thats because football uses alot more strategy. The setting for plays allows a much larger varieties of plays and attempts at scoring. I have watched rugby and while its fun to watch and yes those guys are tough.. football players are stronger and faster than they are with out a doubt. They need the pads because they are getting into head on colisions at 20 - 25 mph. NFL linebakers are the human equiv of bulldozers. I garuntee you give a rugby player pads and put him in hitting drills against a nfl line backer and its the rugby player who is going home sore. While chaotic adapt and flow games like basketball and rugby and even soccer ( though not so much ) are interesting to watch, i think its all the small things comming together much like chess that make football more interesting than the others. |
| | |
| | #35 (permalink) |
| Pride Never Die | Well it's an apples and orange's comparison for a Rugby Player and a Football Player with or without gear on. They are very different games. An NFL lineman playing Rugby would a clusterfuck and would be worthless. I'd dare say the Lineman wouldn't even last the first 10 minutes of the half.
__________________ Currently Playing: WoW: Nuklear - Tanaris PSN: Araxen http://www.fightthesmears.com http://therealmccain.com http://www.johnmccainrecord.com/ |
| | |
| | #36 (permalink) | |
| BUBBLES THE MONKEY!!! | Quote:
Back to MLS. The league is going to continue to strive as long as they keep building soccer specific stadiums for the clubs. It's a pretty well known fact that all the clubs that specific stadiums have seen their attendance rise and some are even turning a profit. Philly is opening a team in 2010 and their brand new soccer stadium will be ready. The Seattle team is going to be playing in Qwest and NE will continue to play at Gillette for the time being. As someone who's seen games at the Meadowlands let me just say that I know why teams who play in football stadiums don't get great attendance. It's a fucking miserable experience. You're about 30 feet from the field and that's if you're in one of the first 5 rows. A soccer stadium typically has the stands build right on the sideline (since most cameras are overhead and not sidelined base this is a bonus. The level of play in MLS is improving every year. As teams make more and more money they can afford to keep their top notch homegrown talent in the states. As it stands right now, all the top players desire to head to Europe and with good reason. The problem is going to be getting major TV deals and getting games regularly televised. Say what you will about ESPN (and I do), but their soccer coverage has increased dramatically ever since WC2006. It's kind of amazing because usually the interest peaks for a year and people forget. Rather than that happening though, people seem to stay interested. Like I said, I would gladly support either Red Bull New York or NE Revolution if either played in a soccer stadium. As it stands, RBNY is set to open their brand new soccer stadium next year and I'll definitely go to a bunch of games and maybe even look into season tickets. I think by the time Philly opens up their campaign in 2010, the league will have a lot of momentum (at this point all but NE, KC, Seattle, and San Jose will have their own specific stadiums with Houston are currently into a agreement to open their own park in downtown Houston near Minute Maid park) and you'll start to see more and more teams turning a profit. Soccer support in this country has seen it's growing pains there's no doubt. Now though you have teams like Columbus who come close to or do sellout their 22k seat stadium and that's what the league needs for now. They need to build it up and take it slow. I doubt it will ever reach the level that the sport has in Europe, but if all these scandals keep popping up in Baseball, Basketball, and Football, you never know what could happen. Holy fuck...That was like a fucking editorial. | |
| | |
| | #37 (permalink) |
| Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,879
| Soccer Is Boring It doesn't need to be anything more than that. Has nothing to do with competition. If the USA started dominating the world in soccer I'd give them props, but I still wouldn't watch because it's boring. I'd rather watch curling than soccer. But hey, I bash american sports fans just as much. Afterall, millions of people watch cars drive in a circle. At least basketball is catching on fairly well. I could care less if europe plays football. As for the giants vs dolphins last year...yeah that game sucked. It wasn't a good representation of the sport. Part of the reason is that the dolphins suck ass. Why send that team...I dunno. Another reason was the field. It was a piece of shit field for football. The grass and the ground wasn't made for it. That's why it was such a retarded, sloppy mess. Honestly if i was gonna expose britian to football i'd rather them watch a college game between two talented rivals. |
| | |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
| |