LittleGuy
First XV
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,911
- Country Flag
Rugby's only big in socialist countries that share commen wealth? Unless of course you meant the "Commonwealth". Besides your wrong about that anyways....
Well time to get negging!!!!
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Football is better than Rugby - FACT
- Thread starter RugbyIsAwful
- Start date
- Status
Rugby's only big in socialist countries that share commen wealth? Unless of course you meant the "Commonwealth". Besides your wrong about that anyways....
Well time to get negging!!!!
Canadian_Rugger
Bench Player
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2004
- Messages
- 505
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
It is clear from this man's earlier posts that as a child he didn't get enough of this:
And in his early adolescence, he did too much of this:
These two things, led to him becoming this:
Premise, Premise, Conclusion! Yep we are done here!
RugbyIsAwful
Academy Player
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Messages
- 31
- Country Flag
Club was brought by the Glazers who immediatly hiked ticket prices and labored a huge debt on the club of around £700m (more money than rugby will ever see) and alienated fans, FCUM was set up in protest of that and of the way TV changes kick-off times from the traditional 3PM Saturday. It's a club by the fans for the fans, punk football.
Rich Taff
First XV
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,062
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Anyone else just hear an infuriating buzzing noise?
Bzzzz was bzzzzz bzzz bzzzz bzzzzz
LittleGuy
First XV
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,911
- Country Flag
Canadian_Rugger
Bench Player
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2004
- Messages
- 505
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
He is probably trying to write some half-assed response to my earlier post calling me "a big gay".... his attempts at ruffling my feathers will inevitably fail 
RugbyIsAwful
Academy Player
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Messages
- 31
- Country Flag
Just for the heck of it I have decided to respond to this guys points:
Hello, I've come on here to debate with those silly enough to think that Rugby, a sport played by about 10 nations is better than the worlds game, Football. I will put forth my list of reasons and you can put forward yours (although I already know what they'll be) and we can have a good debate.
1) - Rugby games are devoid of any atmosphere, the fans consist of the most boring people ever content to make absolutely no noise at all.
OK, I will give you that, rugby fans are probably less "passionate" in their support for their teams; however, that does not mean they do not care as much about their teams. You also have to remember that rugby has traditionally attracted a different crowd then association football, drawing more fans from the higher classes of society which is why it took so long for rugby union to become a professional sport.
I would also argue though that we don't need stupid audience gimmicks to occupy ourselves with like "fireworks, fighting, hooliganism and tom fowlery" because the sport of rugby is far more exciting to watch then association football; therefore, are fans are focusing on what is important: THE GAME!
2) - Rugby has barely any match attending fans for club games. Leicester Tigers get a crowd on average of 21,244, thats the best there is in the whole of the Rugby Premier League. So far after one round of Premier League Football action EVERY team went past that apart from Swansea, who sold out but their stadium isn't as big as Leicesters.
Again, you are drawing from the English experience where I will agree, association football is the dominant code. In every other English speaking country, Association Football is a poor cousin of another sport. In the US American Football dominates, In Canada we play Canadian Football, Australia has Aussie Rules and New Zealand has Rugby Union. England's love of association football is fairly unique amongst your cousins, everyone else decided they would rather pick the ball up and use their hands then dance around like a little fairy.
Also, you must remember that again, professional rugby is still fairly young (1995) so teams have not developed the facilities that are comparable to association football yet the gap is beginning to close but it will take time and continued investment of money. You cannot deny that rugby has grown immensely since becoming a professional sport.
3) - The 'world' cup in Rugby is handful of nations from the Commenwealth with a few teams there to make up the numbers, when the football world cup is on the whole world stops and watched
Again, very flawed logic! Rugby like Association Football has a few countries that are dominant but the sport is extremely competitive at the top level and the WC gets more competitive every year. Argentina, France, Italy, South Africa are all strong rugby countries that produce world class teams and Georgia, Romania, Japan, Namibia, Uruguay, USA, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Ivory Coast have all competed at the rugby world cup and displayed some fine results so it is not just a bunch of Commonwealth countries. You can't tell me that certain teams in Association Football aren't far more favoured to win the WC, so rugby like association football is basically the same.
4) - The fans aren't passionate, and by passionate I don't mean dressing up like a daffodil and looking a bell. Anyone who's been to a football match will realise the result at the game means a lot whole lot more to the fans than it does to the Rugby equivalent. As a fan of FC United of Manchester I experience the greatest atmosphere in Britain every week, and we're in the 7th tier of English football. SEVENTH. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4Th9oRtmIE <-- If you can find any rugby fans more passionate than us, the 7th tier of football then I will give you £50.
Again being passionate doesn't necessarily mean you are more of a fan. I equate what you call being a "fan" to being a sellout and subscribing to a "brand". We see the same thing in Canada with Ice Hockey. I know tonnes of people that say they are fans of the Montreal Canadiens or the Toronto Maple Leafs yet they know SFA about the sport. I think Association Football has the same sort of fans, they can all scream really loud and rant and rave about their team who they identify with yet they have little knowledge about the actual game unlike most rugby fans who are true students of the game and have a far deeper understanding of their sport then some ****** wearing a Man U jersey throwing smoke grenades into his local pub because he believes he is supporting his "brand".
5) - Rugby is played by people who couldn't play football, you know that fat kid who couldn't shoot, pass or run? He's probably playing rugby.
Again this is a completely flawed argument. Ever hear of the saying "if it were easy, everyone would be doing it"? I believe this applies to Association Football. It is the reason undernourished children from Africa can pick up a ball and become instant sensations or a guy like Peter Crouch
can be a superstar because association football is the easiest sport in the world to master thus more people are able to play it which evidently makes it more popular.
Rugby, on the other hand, is a sport that requires genetic gifts, which is why certain ethnic groups are able to excel at the sport while others flounder. It is not racism it is just a fact of life that not all people are created equal and rugby is a reflection of that. One of the greatest things about rugby though is the match up of styles which is what makes it so interesting. Japan for instance, produces small quick players with incredible speed, while Italy for instance produces big strong physical specimens that can dominate people in the physical aspects of the game. This makes for intriguing match ups to see who can come out on top.
Also rugby is the official sport of the military, not soccer! Your country has used rugby as a way to train soldiers to fight wars so it must be of some utility if it is believed to prepare men to face the ultimate physical test, which is combat!
6) - Rugby is just a line of fat potatoes devoid of skill running into the other line of fat potatoes.
Again wrong, Rugby is a game for all shapes and sizes as the game is based on a series of different positions. Rugby is also a game of strategy, I equate it to a form of human chess and it is far more technical then the sport of association football.
7) - Rugby came from some kid who was obviously diabolical at football and so he had to cheat being the fat useless mess he was and picked up the ball, hopefully he was battered.
Wrong again, rugby came from a kid who decided he was going to use his physical gifts to completely and utterly destroy all the other ******s that were setting stupid conditions in order to make up for their own impotence! In rugby you need to be able to kick, pass, run, catch, tackle. It is a combination of multiple sports and does not limit itself to a few limbs and appendages, thus it allows for far more creativity and open thought then a low class uneducated sport like association football.
8) - Rugby is for gays only, I'm straight so why on earth would I want to play a game based upon pulling men to the ground before diving on them and grabbing their ass. No thanks.
Seems we have a case of the kettle calling the pot black here!
9) - Rugby players have to pass it backwards to go forwards, what the hell is the point? The Americans realised this and made their own game, American Football.
Rugby players are allowed to kick the ball forward though like in association football so I really don't see your point. The fact we are allowed to pass with our hands at all means we are the superior game with a far more dynamic and challenging ruleset that requires more athletic ability.
10) - Scores in Rugby have no significance, the fans barely celebrate them because they know they'll be another 57474 penalties anyway, goals in football are rarer and mean a lot more.
Again rugby is all about strategy, take the penalty and go for the easy points or try and work a little harder and go for that little extra. Football is a snorefest and honestly the goals feel more like luck then any actual strategy the team put in place.
11) - Economics. Rugby fans call footballers overpaid (true) however this can be easily compared to cars. Why would you pay the price of an Aston Martin for a Ford Kia? There's a reason footballers are paid more, it's because there's actually interest in them because they are talented.
Average joe's like to pay lots of money to people that remind them of themselves... "he deserves that money because he is a ****** just like me!" It is the reason you have dudes like Peter Crouch become superstars!
On top of this, rugby has only been a pro sport for 18 years so of course we will have less money but that is slowly changing.
12) - [STOLEN] The 2006 World Cup Final drew an average live audience of 322 million people, with an eventual reach of 638 million people. Cumulatively speaking, over a billion people watched Italy beat France on penalties to lift the Jules Rimet Trophy. That’s one sixth of the planet. In terms the tournament as a whole, a cumulative audience of 30 billion viewers watched the finals in Germany. By comparison, the 2007 Rugby World Cup tournament had a cumulative world television audience of 4.2 billion. That’s 14%. Rugby is BETAMAX, Football is VHS. The bottom line is, Rugby sits behind Football, the Olympics, the Tour De France and the Superbowl in terms of a global fan base. That’s right, more people watch men cycling up a hill in spandex than watch Rugby.
People don't want to watch what they can't understand. Football is for simpletons who couldn't pass their grade 10 and we all know their are a lot of those hanging around! Rugby requires a certain higher level of thinking to be able to understand the sport, don't worry though I wouldn't expect an inbred, simpleton such as yourself, that wasn't breastfed by his mother as a child to understand this though
I applaud you for trying to come back at me but you're wrong, on a lot.
1. Rugby fans don't focus more on the game, at the only rugby game I've ever been to the people in front of us spent most of the game discussing politics, barely even watching the game. They're not passionate and to be honest they barely even care about it.
2. How big is Rugby in the US and Canada as you mentioned? Tiny, miniscule. Football is much further ahead of rugby in both of those countries and North America remains the hardest continent for football to crack, however the MLS' popularity is slowly rising and the PL is rising fast in the US so it might not be long before it is a large sport whereas Rugby has no chance and no future in the US and Canada. Australia play Aussie Rules, which isn't rugby again. New Zealand I'll give you, weirdos.
3. The world cup is dire, fact. The best teams are all from the a very small section of the world, the rest of them are cannonfodder and get smashed every single game.
4. Fans are not sellouts, fans are the ones who will travel the width of the country to support their team wherever they play, get behind the team whenever they play and follow them for life. Whereas Rugby 'fans' sit down, have a cuppa and relax as the fattys run into each other for 80 minutes until they can all go home.
5. Wow, did you honestly just say Rugby needs more skill than Football? HAHAHHA. Rugby you catch run throw and you can be the best in the world if you're fat enough, football takes years of perfection to make it big time, try guiding a ball into the top corner from 30 yards. Also the reason Africans can play the game is because it's simple in concept but when played to be the very best you have to be unbelieveably skilled. Only the best players make it out of Africa and I can assure you they don't make it easy.
6. Rugby is far less tactially advanced as football. Don't comment on something you obviously have no knowledge about, there has been whole books written just on the way coaches get their teams to play their football. Footballs tactics are a lot more in depth than Rugbys.
7. No, the guy who made rugby is a useless cheat who decided because the game he was playing was too skilled he should make it easier for every fat kid to play hence he picked up the ball and became a massive bell.
8. Some unintentional photos taken at bad times.
9. Football requires more athletic ability, all rugby players have to do is be fat. The fact you pass with your hands shows a lack of skill.
10. The goals in football are all luck? Seriously?
Pfft, pretty damn lucky Gerrard. You wouldn't be able to do better with your hands.
11. No, average joes pay their money because they know these people are talented beyond their capabilites, hence why Rugby makes so little money because nobody wants to pay to watch a sport when they could do the potatoes jobs anyway.
12. American Football isn't exactly easy to understand yet it's still 2nd, good one that mate. Getting hard over the internet, Rugbys keyboard warriors.
Last edited by a moderator:
RugbyIsAwful
Academy Player
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Messages
- 31
- Country Flag
So many internet warriors on here, pfft.
Please don't hurt you big strong Rugby players wahhh
Please don't hurt you big strong Rugby players wahhh
LittleGuy
First XV
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,911
- Country Flag
Soccer has been here for decades and decades and has been treated as a "major sport" by our media forever, and TV ratings are still absolutely abysmal, the in crowd experience at some stadia is decent I'll grant you but MLS is dour stuff and the league is probably only averaging in the 17,000 a game range. Rugby is growing here, I guess you aren't informed enough about the sport here(or in general), in fact in the United States and Canada it has been in the top 3 growing sports for much of the past decade. Canada now has more players than Scotland and Italy.
Last edited by a moderator:
LittleGuy
First XV
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,911
- Country Flag
Hypocrite.
Rich Taff
First XV
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,062
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Football is indeed a simple game, supported by simple people (kick ball! Ball in net! mungo done good!)
Most surprising thing is that there appears to be a (semi) literate person who's managed to drag themselves away from 'The Sun' and, with ape-like tenacity, has managed to find a forum about rugby.
Guess the 'infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters' adage had to come true at some point.
Most surprising thing is that there appears to be a (semi) literate person who's managed to drag themselves away from 'The Sun' and, with ape-like tenacity, has managed to find a forum about rugby.
Guess the 'infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters' adage had to come true at some point.
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,120
- Country Flag
Whilst this guy is obviously just a troll, I think it does open up a worthwhile discussion topic: What can football and rugby learn from one another? I'm going to run through the OP's points and use them as a guideline for my own analysis...
1) Rugby games are devoid of any atmosphere.
Having sat through an Aussie Rules game between Carlton and Collingwood I can completely appreciate how spectacular it is when the fan's are (obnoxiously) passionate. When you can hear the buzz of the crowd around you it's a magnificent thing, which rugby is obviously missing. That being said, this isn't always a good thing. I'd rather not have to put up with people shouting out cuss words and acting completely offended when the referee makes a call against their team (regardless of whether the call is correct or not). It's great how passionate people can get, but at the end of the day people have to realise it's only a game, which is where I think football goes over the top a lot of the time. Never should a game result in crowds having to be segregated due to fear they will attack one another.
Result: Tie. Passion is great, but over passionate crowds are problematic.
2) Rugby has low attendance for club matches.
There's no arguing with this. It would be interesting to compare numbers of how often each fan actually attends games for both sports. Because football is more popular it obviously has larger crowds, but is any individual football or rugby fan actually more likely to attend a much, or is it purely down to numbers? Due to the higher popularity of football, it's always going to win out.
Result: Football wins.
3) The world game.
More countries play football, definitely. As people have posted, however, it's dominated by European and South American nations. Whilst more countries play football, there is greater continental involvement in rugby. Football is much more accessible, so again will always win out in terms of pure viewership figures. I think rugby is moving towards being more internationally competitive - particularly with the increased interest from America and Asia. 7's at the Olympics is obviously a great step forward.
Result: Football wins. Rugby will never compete in terms of numbers, but it's a growing game.
4) Passion - already covered.
5) Rugby is played by people who can't play football.
Rugby is a game made for all body types, football is not. To say that only the rejects play rugby is a huge misnomer. Try chuck Ronaldo or Messi on a rugby field and see how well they do. It's not exactly like the props are just tubby lard buckets (well, some of em are). Even if rugby did accept more unfit players, I fail to see how this is a bad thing? They aren't going to make it professional, and it allows them to play a sport and keep fit.
Result: Rugby wins.
6) Fat potatoes and no skill.
You have to watch rugby regularly to appreciate the skills and strategies required. To suggest that it's simply potatoes running into potatoes suggests that any sorts of contact sports are complete rubbish (e.g. boxing is just two potatoes hitting each other, wrestling is just two potatoes hugging each other etc.). Whilst the core aspects of football may be more difficult (i.e. kicking the ball and controlling it with your fit via either passing or dribbling) than the core aspects of rugby, I'd actually suggest that at the higher level rugby is more strategic.
Result: Draw.
7) Rugby was created by a fat kid(?) - erm, ok...
8) Rugby is more gays - apparently touching another man is now gay.
9) Rugby players have to pass the ball backwards - I don't even see how this is something you can argue about, it's the nature of the game... Hurr durr football players can't touch the ball with their hands, they so silly.
10) Scores in rugby hold no significance.
So the argument here seems to be that because more points are scored in rugby the tries become less significant? I think that's a flawed way of looking at the game. I actually think rugby has the best balance between sports like soccer (where scores are very low) and basketball (where scores are very high). Whilst close games are great, at the end of the day the best stuff to watch is points being scored (in the form of tries obviously, not penalties). When the scores are all fairly homogeneous it's kind of boring (i.e. basketball) though, so rugby is a good balance, like I said.
Result: Rugby wins.
11) Yes, football players are paid more because they're more in demand.
12) Football is more popular - already discussed.
As mentioned by many others, rugby has other huge benefits (better use of technology, respect for referees [your passion argument is the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen, do you think rugby players aren't under pressure to win, do you think they have less desire??]). Someone mentioned football not changing its rules much is a bad thing, which I disagree with. Football is almost perfect, the rules don't need adjusting (except some penalties should be harsher). Rugby still has a way to go.
Just my thoughts - more could be said but I've got work to do
1) Rugby games are devoid of any atmosphere.
Having sat through an Aussie Rules game between Carlton and Collingwood I can completely appreciate how spectacular it is when the fan's are (obnoxiously) passionate. When you can hear the buzz of the crowd around you it's a magnificent thing, which rugby is obviously missing. That being said, this isn't always a good thing. I'd rather not have to put up with people shouting out cuss words and acting completely offended when the referee makes a call against their team (regardless of whether the call is correct or not). It's great how passionate people can get, but at the end of the day people have to realise it's only a game, which is where I think football goes over the top a lot of the time. Never should a game result in crowds having to be segregated due to fear they will attack one another.
Result: Tie. Passion is great, but over passionate crowds are problematic.
2) Rugby has low attendance for club matches.
There's no arguing with this. It would be interesting to compare numbers of how often each fan actually attends games for both sports. Because football is more popular it obviously has larger crowds, but is any individual football or rugby fan actually more likely to attend a much, or is it purely down to numbers? Due to the higher popularity of football, it's always going to win out.
Result: Football wins.
3) The world game.
More countries play football, definitely. As people have posted, however, it's dominated by European and South American nations. Whilst more countries play football, there is greater continental involvement in rugby. Football is much more accessible, so again will always win out in terms of pure viewership figures. I think rugby is moving towards being more internationally competitive - particularly with the increased interest from America and Asia. 7's at the Olympics is obviously a great step forward.
Result: Football wins. Rugby will never compete in terms of numbers, but it's a growing game.
4) Passion - already covered.
5) Rugby is played by people who can't play football.
Rugby is a game made for all body types, football is not. To say that only the rejects play rugby is a huge misnomer. Try chuck Ronaldo or Messi on a rugby field and see how well they do. It's not exactly like the props are just tubby lard buckets (well, some of em are). Even if rugby did accept more unfit players, I fail to see how this is a bad thing? They aren't going to make it professional, and it allows them to play a sport and keep fit.
Result: Rugby wins.
6) Fat potatoes and no skill.
You have to watch rugby regularly to appreciate the skills and strategies required. To suggest that it's simply potatoes running into potatoes suggests that any sorts of contact sports are complete rubbish (e.g. boxing is just two potatoes hitting each other, wrestling is just two potatoes hugging each other etc.). Whilst the core aspects of football may be more difficult (i.e. kicking the ball and controlling it with your fit via either passing or dribbling) than the core aspects of rugby, I'd actually suggest that at the higher level rugby is more strategic.
Result: Draw.
7) Rugby was created by a fat kid(?) - erm, ok...
8) Rugby is more gays - apparently touching another man is now gay.
9) Rugby players have to pass the ball backwards - I don't even see how this is something you can argue about, it's the nature of the game... Hurr durr football players can't touch the ball with their hands, they so silly.
10) Scores in rugby hold no significance.
So the argument here seems to be that because more points are scored in rugby the tries become less significant? I think that's a flawed way of looking at the game. I actually think rugby has the best balance between sports like soccer (where scores are very low) and basketball (where scores are very high). Whilst close games are great, at the end of the day the best stuff to watch is points being scored (in the form of tries obviously, not penalties). When the scores are all fairly homogeneous it's kind of boring (i.e. basketball) though, so rugby is a good balance, like I said.
Result: Rugby wins.
11) Yes, football players are paid more because they're more in demand.
12) Football is more popular - already discussed.
As mentioned by many others, rugby has other huge benefits (better use of technology, respect for referees [your passion argument is the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen, do you think rugby players aren't under pressure to win, do you think they have less desire??]). Someone mentioned football not changing its rules much is a bad thing, which I disagree with. Football is almost perfect, the rules don't need adjusting (except some penalties should be harsher). Rugby still has a way to go.
Just my thoughts - more could be said but I've got work to do
Canadian_Rugger
Bench Player
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2004
- Messages
- 505
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
The only internet warrior I see is you
Nice way to avoid actually answering any of the points I brought up though
I need to go eat and run some errands but don't you worry I will be back for you soon
Canadian_Rugger
Bench Player
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2004
- Messages
- 505
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
He bit his boner hahahahahahahahaha!
This is actually cracking me up like crazy right now!
Last edited by a moderator:
Canadian_Rugger
Bench Player
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2004
- Messages
- 505
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
- Status
