The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
People who like rugby tend to think of football as a sissy’s sport. They think rugby is for people who are all big and strong and football is for retarded ballet dancers.
Personally, I like football, and hate rugby. So, I am going to try to prove to you that football is less of a sissy sport and rugby might not be as brutally manly as some people like to think.
First of all, I will talk about the strength involved.
In rugby, a great deal of strength is needed if you want to break free of tackles or take someone down. In fact, if a rugby team does not have any really strong players, they will probably lose every game.
In football, however, it is basically the same level of strength required - it’s just that in football, strength isn’t always essential. To prove this, I will take two good players - one who is stronger, and one who is less strong but a lot quicker and more skilful.
The stronger player is Roy Keane. He is excellent at tackling people, and good for running through the opposing player’s challenges. What he can do is similar to what I previously said strength was needed for in rugby.
The skilful, less strong player is Roberto Carlos. He’s a very short player, and so you would think that he would just get pushed over all the time and wouldn’t be a good player. Yet his pace, skills and teamwork make him an excellent player. This proves that in football, although strength is nice to have, it isn’t always necessary.
As rugby and football are two different games, it is pretty obvious to see differences in the two. But whilst rugby players need the strength to do well; in football, strong players and more skill-based players do well.
Rugby players and football players look a bit different too.
Rugby players are generally bigger built. They tend to look a bit more scary and a lot more muscly too. I’m not sure, but I think rugby players wear a lot of padding. If they do, that will make them look a lot bigger and stronger than they actually are - you could make Jiminy Cricket look quite fearsome if you padded him up like rugby players are.
Football players are looked upon by rugby fans as being complete ‘poofs’. They gel their hair, they are meant to be better looking than rugby players, and they look like stick-insects compared to the hulking rugby players.
One of the main ‘manly’ parts of rugby is the way that players are thrown around by each other and jumped on and kicked. Rugby fans see the cleaner spirit of football as being a bit for ‘poofs’. Well, what seems to be more for poofs - kicking a ball around or big groups of sweaty men rolling around on the floor and touching each other a lot?
Football also has its fair share of violence, with very bad tackles often resulting in serious injuries. Whilst rugby may seem more violent, football players are much more likely to pick up a really serious injury.
Moving on to the actual sports, there are several changes which may give the reasons for rugby fans thinking of football as being for sissies.
Football is much more based on skilful team work, and this shows, as skilful teams like Real Madrid and Brazil are currently the best in the world.
Rugby is a lot more based on contact, whereas football is played by a spread-out team. In rugby you often get most of the players on the pitch all in one place, trying to grab hold of the ball. This may be where rugby fans think of football as less of a man’s sport - the contact-based style of the sport makes it look a lot more violent.
I can see where rugby fans get their ideas about football from, but I do not agree with them. Rugby players say football isn’t a big man’s sport, yet rugby involves hairy men climbing on top of each other. I just can’t see how rugby fans can possibly think of football the way they do. I can see the difference between the sports, with rugby being more aggressive, whilst football is more skilful and patient. But that doesn’t make either sport less manly. I know rugby isn’t a sport for weak people, and I can see the tactical skill in the game - but then, surely rugby fans should see the skill and beauty of football.
Personally, I like football, and hate rugby. So, I am going to try to prove to you that football is less of a sissy sport and rugby might not be as brutally manly as some people like to think.
First of all, I will talk about the strength involved.
In rugby, a great deal of strength is needed if you want to break free of tackles or take someone down. In fact, if a rugby team does not have any really strong players, they will probably lose every game.
In football, however, it is basically the same level of strength required - it’s just that in football, strength isn’t always essential. To prove this, I will take two good players - one who is stronger, and one who is less strong but a lot quicker and more skilful.
The stronger player is Roy Keane. He is excellent at tackling people, and good for running through the opposing player’s challenges. What he can do is similar to what I previously said strength was needed for in rugby.
The skilful, less strong player is Roberto Carlos. He’s a very short player, and so you would think that he would just get pushed over all the time and wouldn’t be a good player. Yet his pace, skills and teamwork make him an excellent player. This proves that in football, although strength is nice to have, it isn’t always necessary.
As rugby and football are two different games, it is pretty obvious to see differences in the two. But whilst rugby players need the strength to do well; in football, strong players and more skill-based players do well.
Rugby players and football players look a bit different too.
Rugby players are generally bigger built. They tend to look a bit more scary and a lot more muscly too. I’m not sure, but I think rugby players wear a lot of padding. If they do, that will make them look a lot bigger and stronger than they actually are - you could make Jiminy Cricket look quite fearsome if you padded him up like rugby players are.
Football players are looked upon by rugby fans as being complete ‘poofs’. They gel their hair, they are meant to be better looking than rugby players, and they look like stick-insects compared to the hulking rugby players.
One of the main ‘manly’ parts of rugby is the way that players are thrown around by each other and jumped on and kicked. Rugby fans see the cleaner spirit of football as being a bit for ‘poofs’. Well, what seems to be more for poofs - kicking a ball around or big groups of sweaty men rolling around on the floor and touching each other a lot?
Football also has its fair share of violence, with very bad tackles often resulting in serious injuries. Whilst rugby may seem more violent, football players are much more likely to pick up a really serious injury.
Moving on to the actual sports, there are several changes which may give the reasons for rugby fans thinking of football as being for sissies.
Football is much more based on skilful team work, and this shows, as skilful teams like Real Madrid and Brazil are currently the best in the world.
Rugby is a lot more based on contact, whereas football is played by a spread-out team. In rugby you often get most of the players on the pitch all in one place, trying to grab hold of the ball. This may be where rugby fans think of football as less of a man’s sport - the contact-based style of the sport makes it look a lot more violent.
I can see where rugby fans get their ideas about football from, but I do not agree with them. Rugby players say football isn’t a big man’s sport, yet rugby involves hairy men climbing on top of each other. I just can’t see how rugby fans can possibly think of football the way they do. I can see the difference between the sports, with rugby being more aggressive, whilst football is more skilful and patient. But that doesn’t make either sport less manly. I know rugby isn’t a sport for weak people, and I can see the tactical skill in the game - but then, surely rugby fans should see the skill and beauty of football.
Asher D wrote:
> People who like rugby tend to think of football as a sissy’s sport.
I don't know any rugby fans who don't like football, except my sisters. Most of the lads who will be crushed into the pub to see the football tonight will all be back in to watch the rugby on Friday night.
> As rugby and football are two different games, it is pretty obvious to
> see differences in the two. But whilst rugby players need the strength
> to do well; in football, strong players and more skill-based players
> do well.
Rugby players also need plenty of skill.
> Football is much more based on skilful team work, and this shows, as
> skilful teams like Real Madrid and Brazil are currently the best in
> the world.
Codswallop!! You believe that rugby players do not need skilful team work to achieve results?
> In rugby you often get most of the players on the
> pitch all in one place, trying to grab hold of the ball.
No you don't. You cannot take the ball off a player unless it is a one to one tackle, otherwise it is a penalty. If all the players were in one big lump it would leave far to many gaps for the attacking team to run through.
> People who like rugby tend to think of football as a sissy’s sport.
I don't know any rugby fans who don't like football, except my sisters. Most of the lads who will be crushed into the pub to see the football tonight will all be back in to watch the rugby on Friday night.
> As rugby and football are two different games, it is pretty obvious to
> see differences in the two. But whilst rugby players need the strength
> to do well; in football, strong players and more skill-based players
> do well.
Rugby players also need plenty of skill.
> Football is much more based on skilful team work, and this shows, as
> skilful teams like Real Madrid and Brazil are currently the best in
> the world.
Codswallop!! You believe that rugby players do not need skilful team work to achieve results?
> In rugby you often get most of the players on the
> pitch all in one place, trying to grab hold of the ball.
No you don't. You cannot take the ball off a player unless it is a one to one tackle, otherwise it is a penalty. If all the players were in one big lump it would leave far to many gaps for the attacking team to run through.
Asher D wrote:
> I’m not sure, but I think rugby
> players wear a lot of padding.
Surprisingly little actually. Most padding worn by Rugby players in on the shoulders, and about 1cm thick. Some wear shorts with padding on the outer thigh, same thickness, and a few wear an arm pad on their ball carrying arm, simply because they're liable to smack it into a lot of things.
> Whilst rugby may seem more
> violent, football players are much more likely to pick up a really
> serious injury.
That's crap. You only hear about so many more serious football injuries because so many more people play it. The proportion of rugby players getting career ending injuries like ruined knees and ankles, cracked necks and serious back damage is much higher than in football. Besides which, professional footballers spend half their time rolling around on the floor if someone so much as touches them. That's why they're poofs. Bunch of pansies would take 6 months off if someone ever stamped on their head (which hurts quite a bit by the way.).
> In rugby you often get most of the players on the
> pitch all in one place, trying to grab hold of the ball.
That just shows a lack of knowledge about rugby. For a start, a lot of the people anywhere near the ball, probably aren't paying IT any attention. They're spread out just like a football team, with everyone having a job, it's just that all the players are attackers and defenders. There is no such thing as a defender in rugby, in a similar way to how defenders can attack in Football, but even more so. Think of the entire team as midfielders, if you won't get back and defend or you won't go forwards and attack, you'll get subbed.
> but then,
> surely rugby fans should see the skill and beauty of football.
Yeah, a lot do. It's just fun to make footballers really annoyed by telling them that their sport is for poofs.
And stop talking about men rolling around grabbing each other like it instantly makes you gay. Just because you're sexually insecure doesn't mean the rest of us are...
> I’m not sure, but I think rugby
> players wear a lot of padding.
Surprisingly little actually. Most padding worn by Rugby players in on the shoulders, and about 1cm thick. Some wear shorts with padding on the outer thigh, same thickness, and a few wear an arm pad on their ball carrying arm, simply because they're liable to smack it into a lot of things.
> Whilst rugby may seem more
> violent, football players are much more likely to pick up a really
> serious injury.
That's crap. You only hear about so many more serious football injuries because so many more people play it. The proportion of rugby players getting career ending injuries like ruined knees and ankles, cracked necks and serious back damage is much higher than in football. Besides which, professional footballers spend half their time rolling around on the floor if someone so much as touches them. That's why they're poofs. Bunch of pansies would take 6 months off if someone ever stamped on their head (which hurts quite a bit by the way.).
> In rugby you often get most of the players on the
> pitch all in one place, trying to grab hold of the ball.
That just shows a lack of knowledge about rugby. For a start, a lot of the people anywhere near the ball, probably aren't paying IT any attention. They're spread out just like a football team, with everyone having a job, it's just that all the players are attackers and defenders. There is no such thing as a defender in rugby, in a similar way to how defenders can attack in Football, but even more so. Think of the entire team as midfielders, if you won't get back and defend or you won't go forwards and attack, you'll get subbed.
> but then,
> surely rugby fans should see the skill and beauty of football.
Yeah, a lot do. It's just fun to make footballers really annoyed by telling them that their sport is for poofs.
And stop talking about men rolling around grabbing each other like it instantly makes you gay. Just because you're sexually insecure doesn't mean the rest of us are...
People who like rugby tend to think of football as a sissy’s sport. They think rugby is for people who are all big and strong and football is for retarded ballet dancers.
Personally, I like football, and hate rugby. So, I am going to try to prove to you that football is less of a sissy sport and rugby might not be as brutally manly as some people like to think.
First of all, I will talk about the strength involved.
In rugby, a great deal of strength is needed if you want to break free of tackles or take someone down. In fact, if a rugby team does not have any really strong players, they will probably lose every game.
In football, however, it is basically the same level of strength required - it’s just that in football, strength isn’t always essential. To prove this, I will take two good players - one who is stronger, and one who is less strong but a lot quicker and more skilful.
The stronger player is Roy Keane. He is excellent at tackling people, and good for running through the opposing player’s challenges. What he can do is similar to what I previously said strength was needed for in rugby.
The skilful, less strong player is Roberto Carlos. He’s a very short player, and so you would think that he would just get pushed over all the time and wouldn’t be a good player. Yet his pace, skills and teamwork make him an excellent player. This proves that in football, although strength is nice to have, it isn’t always necessary.
As rugby and football are two different games, it is pretty obvious to see differences in the two. But whilst rugby players need the strength to do well; in football, strong players and more skill-based players do well.
Rugby players and football players look a bit different too.
Rugby players are generally bigger built. They tend to look a bit more scary and a lot more muscly too. I’m not sure, but I think rugby players wear a lot of padding. If they do, that will make them look a lot bigger and stronger than they actually are - you could make Jiminy Cricket look quite fearsome if you padded him up like rugby players are.
Football players are looked upon by rugby fans as being complete ‘poofs’. They gel their hair, they are meant to be better looking than rugby players, and they look like stick-insects compared to the hulking rugby players.
One of the main ‘manly’ parts of rugby is the way that players are thrown around by each other and jumped on and kicked. Rugby fans see the cleaner spirit of football as being a bit for ‘poofs’. Well, what seems to be more for poofs - kicking a ball around or big groups of sweaty men rolling around on the floor and touching each other a lot?
Football also has its fair share of violence, with very bad tackles often resulting in serious injuries. Whilst rugby may seem more violent, football players are much more likely to pick up a really serious injury.
Moving on to the actual sports, there are several changes which may give the reasons for rugby fans thinking of football as being for sissies.
Football is much more based on skilful team work, and this shows, as skilful teams like Real Madrid and Brazil are currently the best in the world.
Rugby is a lot more based on contact, whereas football is played by a spread-out team. In rugby you often get most of the players on the pitch all in one place, trying to grab hold of the ball. This may be where rugby fans think of football as less of a man’s sport - the contact-based style of the sport makes it look a lot more violent.
I can see where rugby fans get their ideas about football from, but I do not agree with them. Rugby players say football isn’t a big man’s sport, yet rugby involves hairy men climbing on top of each other. I just can’t see how rugby fans can possibly think of football the way they do. I can see the difference between the sports, with rugby being more aggressive, whilst football is more skilful and patient. But that doesn’t make either sport less manly. I know rugby isn’t a sport for weak people, and I can see the tactical skill in the game - but then, surely rugby fans should see the skill and beauty of football.
Personally, I like football, and hate rugby. So, I am going to try to prove to you that football is less of a sissy sport and rugby might not be as brutally manly as some people like to think.
First of all, I will talk about the strength involved.
In rugby, a great deal of strength is needed if you want to break free of tackles or take someone down. In fact, if a rugby team does not have any really strong players, they will probably lose every game.
In football, however, it is basically the same level of strength required - it’s just that in football, strength isn’t always essential. To prove this, I will take two good players - one who is stronger, and one who is less strong but a lot quicker and more skilful.
The stronger player is Roy Keane. He is excellent at tackling people, and good for running through the opposing player’s challenges. What he can do is similar to what I previously said strength was needed for in rugby.
The skilful, less strong player is Roberto Carlos. He’s a very short player, and so you would think that he would just get pushed over all the time and wouldn’t be a good player. Yet his pace, skills and teamwork make him an excellent player. This proves that in football, although strength is nice to have, it isn’t always necessary.
As rugby and football are two different games, it is pretty obvious to see differences in the two. But whilst rugby players need the strength to do well; in football, strong players and more skill-based players do well.
Rugby players and football players look a bit different too.
Rugby players are generally bigger built. They tend to look a bit more scary and a lot more muscly too. I’m not sure, but I think rugby players wear a lot of padding. If they do, that will make them look a lot bigger and stronger than they actually are - you could make Jiminy Cricket look quite fearsome if you padded him up like rugby players are.
Football players are looked upon by rugby fans as being complete ‘poofs’. They gel their hair, they are meant to be better looking than rugby players, and they look like stick-insects compared to the hulking rugby players.
One of the main ‘manly’ parts of rugby is the way that players are thrown around by each other and jumped on and kicked. Rugby fans see the cleaner spirit of football as being a bit for ‘poofs’. Well, what seems to be more for poofs - kicking a ball around or big groups of sweaty men rolling around on the floor and touching each other a lot?
Football also has its fair share of violence, with very bad tackles often resulting in serious injuries. Whilst rugby may seem more violent, football players are much more likely to pick up a really serious injury.
Moving on to the actual sports, there are several changes which may give the reasons for rugby fans thinking of football as being for sissies.
Football is much more based on skilful team work, and this shows, as skilful teams like Real Madrid and Brazil are currently the best in the world.
Rugby is a lot more based on contact, whereas football is played by a spread-out team. In rugby you often get most of the players on the pitch all in one place, trying to grab hold of the ball. This may be where rugby fans think of football as less of a man’s sport - the contact-based style of the sport makes it look a lot more violent.
I can see where rugby fans get their ideas about football from, but I do not agree with them. Rugby players say football isn’t a big man’s sport, yet rugby involves hairy men climbing on top of each other. I just can’t see how rugby fans can possibly think of football the way they do. I can see the difference between the sports, with rugby being more aggressive, whilst football is more skilful and patient. But that doesn’t make either sport less manly. I know rugby isn’t a sport for weak people, and I can see the tactical skill in the game - but then, surely rugby fans should see the skill and beauty of football.