In Argentina: The working class hates Rugby

[SimonG]

Same could be said about any soccer player playing rugby though! Taking hits, giving hits etc... Takes more from a player than anything in soccer. Soccer players would score higher in a bleep test or something similar in comparison to rugby players but they wouldn't be physically capable of playing rugby as Conrad is pointing out!

That's what I'm saying. A Rugby player would be gasping for air in no time playing football, and a footballer would get destroyed in the first collision playing Rugby. Football is based largely on skill with the phsyical necessity being endurance, Rugby requires power/bulk.

Soccer has a minor national footprint that really isn't actually bigger than AFL if we're being honest. The A-League is played in summer, and there's a reason for that, because it's a late comer that has no history in Australia outside of bickering ethnic immigrant groups. It's now been taken up by the hipster class though, who think it makes them worldly and cultured..

Ah I see...so it's the erosion of "Aussie Culture" that gets your back up. You feel culturally obligated to grasp on to whats "Australian". Don't get that at all as Rugby and Cricket are English public school games..Australia is drenched in English culture so football is just another slice of it. Same applied here too.. Croke park banned "English games" (Rugby and football) until the IRFU relented. As regards Aussie rules, their viewing figures (predominantly Victoria) come nowhere close to Australia in the World Cup (2006 Australia vs italy was a record). Yes it's bigger in one region, but in national terms the figures say otherwise.

Many professional rugby players can run for 90 minutes, running distances of 10 km and of course can play football like: Dan Carter, Quade Cooper, Ben Smith, Leigh Halfpenny, Mike Brown, Patt Lambie, Owen Farrell, Digby Ioane, Cory Jane and many more. I would say that in general ALL backs can play football because they are all shape and some forwards too, especially the back rows, flankers like Michael Hooper or David Pocock can play football without problems.
.

True some backs could well run for 90 minutes, however they wouldn't be able to keep up with the paciest football players. The less mass the less drag. But thats just the running aspect, even if you can run all day long, football is largely skill based so if you don't possess the skill then you ain't getting a kick.

 

[Jaguares]

True some backs could well run for 90 minutes, however they wouldn't be able to keep up with the paciest football players. The less mass the less drag. But thats just the running aspect, even if you can run all day long, football is largely skill based so if you don't possess the skill then you ain't getting a kick.

But I'm not talking about skills, rugby also requires great skill. I speak simply and solely on physical condition. Which is more difficult? Learn a offload in Rugby or learn a Chilean in football? Those are things that we will never agree. A supporter of football will always say that it's more difficult to learn to play football and a rugby supporter will say it's more difficult to learn rugby.

In rugby too much technique is required, for example a hooker requires much skill in the scrum. You simply can't put a defensive tackle from NFL at hooker just because he's strong, he will be a disaster, it takes years of training to learn the proper technique. I spoke only about the physical condition, and rugby is more complete than football . We have athletes that are as fast as footballers and can run long distances and we have strong athletes like NFL players.

I don't say that the best rugby players would be the best footballers, I say that they have the athletic ability to withstand the conditions of football. Ben Smith would be a disaster as a football player, is obvious. But he could run for 90 minutes, maybe he will be the worst football player around the world, but he could enter a football field. A football player couldn't ever join a rugby field, not only because he hasn't the skills of rugby, but because he would die on the first hit.

Conrad this is fascinating. I mentioned before I have got narky comments wearing a Rugby jersey while playing football (once called a p##fter which made me chuckle..also been called stereotypical upper class names "Timothy", "Bartholomew"), but it's not been as vitriolic as you mention in Argentina.

Yeah, here if you go to a working-class neighborhood wearing a rugby jersey, they will look at you bad and there are many chances that they will tell you that you're a rich kid. But football supporters here are very ignorant. Remember that they think that they would be the best in the world if they play rugby but they can't even recognize an international rugby jersey. I have many international rugby jersey from worldwide teams like: Munster, Leinster, Leicester Tigers, Crusaders, Toulouse, Sharks and others but they don't know those teams. For example, If I'm wearing a jersey of a Irish rugby team and crossed me with football supporters they say: "Cute jersey, what team is it?" and only if I tell them it's an Irish rugby team then they will not like the jersey. They are so stupid, they can only know the jerseys of the national rugby teams like: ABs, Boks, Wallabies, Ireland, England and others

In New Zealand lacross and water polo players and supporters fear for their lives on a daily basis.

In 1986 thirteen members of the national Lacross team were brutally murdered by the general public who predominantly supported rugby. Many of the rugby supporters felt there was no room in society for a niche sport and so hated the lacrosse players. People claimed that Ernie Wessler (the captain of the mens Lacrosse team) would never be as good a player as Grant Fox - and therefore could bring only shame to his country. The New Zealand media did a good job of covering up the incident - however was heavily sanctioned by the FIL (Federation of International Lacrosse). To this day many New Zealander's felt the murders were justified as Lacrosse stood for the growing tensions between USA and NZ over New Zealand's nuclear free policy.

Even this incident pails in comparrison to the Water Polo massacre of 1992.

Here is the same, it's a "civil war" between football supporters and rugby supporters. They outnumber us but we are stronger. We weighed around 90-100 kg while they weigh 60 kg on average. They aren't used to hits, so that in a fight between a football supporter and a rugby supporter, always win the rugby supporter.

In past decades, football supporters couldn't celebrate the Pumas' defeats in pubs or in the streets, because if rugby supporters were in the place, they would receive a beating. Now with technology and social networking, they can celebrate the Pumas' defeats from their homes, then they are less beatings. But it's quite common here, a group of football supporters will receive beatings by rugby supporters.

Especially in pubs, where the difference in number of them don't feel. In a pub are always 50 football supporters versus 30 rugby supporters (Usually a full amateur rugby team) and in those situations, always win rugby supporters because they are stronger although football supporters are more numerous. Football supporters are accustomed to fighting with weapons such as knives or guns. So if the environment is controlled (eg a pub) they have no chance against amateur rugby players

Cheers

 

[RoosTah]

Ah I see...so it's the erosion of "Aussie Culture" that gets your back up. You feel culturally obligated to grasp on to whats "Australian". Don't get that at all as Rugby and Cricket are English public school games..Australia is drenched in English culture so football is just another slice of it. Same applied here too.. Croke park banned "English games" (Rugby and football) until the IRFU relented. As regards Aussie rules, their viewing figures (predominantly Victoria) come nowhere close to Australia in the World Cup (2006 Australia vs italy was a record). Yes it's bigger in one region, but in national terms the figures say otherwise.

Origins aren't everything. Yes, rugby union, league and cricket all originated in England, but in the case of both codes of rugby, the vast majority of rule changes have been instigated by Australia and NZ (in the case of union). They've been part of the fabric of Australian society for far longer and belong to us as much as the do to England. Soccer isn't at all like that here; it's a late comer that survives off the support of the middle class 'cultural cringe' Australians who feel embarrassed by the country and recent immigrants and their children.

As for viewing figures for the World Cup - they're simply not a reflection of the reality of support. the World Cup is a festival event that draws in people with no interest in the game, so you can't draw much from it. It's like arguing that the sell outs of the Major League Baseball in Sydney or the sell out of the NFL in Wembly are indicative of widespread support baseball in Aus or American Football in the UK. You were right in saying rugby is the sick man of Aussie sport, but for all that the wallabies World Cup semi against the all blacks broke a number of ratings records in 2011. Is that indicative of strong support for the game? No, it's interest in the novel and rare World Cup event.

Ultimately my beef with soccer is precisely that in Australia it parades around like it's the people's game, but it's not here. It's a poser; It's not working class, it's a foreign and imperial force run by oligarchs that seek to impose a homogenous use of language and culture. It's the reason you have all these hipster f#cktards here telling everyone that they have to call the game 'football' now, as they they own the word. Funnily enough the pushback against that has been strongest in Melbourne, where the Age still rightly calls the game soccer and has berated the middle class private school hipster soccer tossers for their attempt to impose their cultural imperialism on the a country where it's just plain irrational (as an aside, speaking of irrational, why the hell do people in the UK call their emphatically not public schools "public"? It's the dumbest thing...).

 

[sigesige00]

I saw Argentina's 7s team in the IRB World 7s. I have a question. Why are Argentina's 7s jerseys radically different from 15s?

 

[Dato]

Many professional rugby players can run for 90 minutes, running distances of 10 km and of course can play football like: Dan Carter, Quade Cooper, Ben Smith, Leigh Halfpenny, Mike Brown, Patt Lambie, Owen Farrell, Digby Ioane, Cory Jane and many more. I would say that in general ALL backs can play football because they are all shape and some forwards too, especially the back rows, flankers like Michael Hooper or David Pocock can play football without problems.

However, the professional football players can't play rugby, none of them could. They are too weak, they would leave the rugby field in wheelchairs. They can't face our boys.

For this reason I say that rugby is a tougher sport that requires more fitness and better nutrition than football.

Ben Smith can play football, Neymar can't play rugby.

Conrad,

While your arguments are very interesting, I can not fully agree with you.
Mamuka Gorgodze was poor basketball player (tall and slim guy and he was not from rich family) who switched to rugby at age 17! Now he is one of the best forwards of modern rugby, often refereed as "Gorgodzila" (in France) or "Georgian Beast" (by English commentators).
Another example, Georgia is quite well known for producing quality props (French top 14 and prod 2 are full of them). Many of these props are former tier 2, tier 3 level wrestlers (Georgia has a lot of Olympic and World Champions in Wrestling and Judo and their is big competition within the country). Moreover, I do not know successful Georgian wrestler (judo), who was raised in upper-middle class family. Generally, their represent lower class.
So if we pursue your logic, it would mean that Rugby is by far less difficult sport than Basketball and Wrestling (Judo).
In fact, every sport has its own peculiarity and I think that social division does not really matter. I also do not think, that Rugby needs more fitness and better nutrition than football. I think that Rugby needs DIFFERENT fitness and DIFFERENT nutrition (and both are quite expensive).

 

[Jaguares]

I saw Argentina's 7s team in the IRB World 7s. I have a question. Why are Argentina's 7s jerseys radically different from 15s?

It isn't unique to Argentina, years ago there is a fashion among Sevens Teams in their jerseys have crazy designs, different from their XVs teams. For example England is a team that uses this fashion for years. Argentina just joined this fashion:

Conrad,

While your arguments are very interesting, I can not fully agree with you.
Mamuka Gorgodze was poor basketball player (tall and slim guy and he was not from rich family) who switched to rugby at age 17! Now he is one of the best forwards of modern rugby, often refereed as "Gorgodzila" (in France) or "Georgian Beast" (by English commentators).
Another example, Georgia is quite well known for producing quality props (French top 14 and prod 2 are full of them). Many of these props are former tier 2, tier 3 level wrestlers (Georgia has a lot of Olympic and World Champions in Wrestling and Judo and their is big competition within the country). Moreover, I do not know successful Georgian wrestler (judo), who was raised in upper-middle class family. Generally, their represent lower class.
So if we pursue your logic, it would mean that Rugby is by far less difficult sport than Basketball and Wrestling (Judo).
In fact, every sport has its own peculiarity and I think that social division does not really matter. I also do not think, that Rugby needs more fitness and better nutrition than football. I think that Rugby needs DIFFERENT fitness and DIFFERENT nutrition (and both are quite expensive).

Please don't offend me, bud. Of course I know who is Gorgodzilla, remember that I'm a crazy rugby supporter:

Post written by me in this thread last year:

http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...rs-v-Montpellier)/page2?highlight=Gorgodzilla

Returning to the issue at hand, I don't understand your point of view. I don't doubt that Gorgodzilla is a bad basketball player, what's the point?. Put one of the guys from the NBA to play rugby and they will also be a disaster. Also remember that the most popular sports in the USA are american football and baseball. This is easily demonstrated because the Leagues with more advertising and more televised audience in USA are the NFL and MLB, so many guys from the NBA tried to going to the NFL or MLB and they couldn't.

I remember a kid from the NBA who wanted to be a professional baseball player, a Michael Jordan. He was a disaster in baseball, then baseball is harder to learn than basketball? To Michael Jordan yes but for a professional MLB player is easier than basketball and he couldn't play in the NBA. This issue is so random I don't understand why we are arguing about this. For some people it's easier a particular sport and is harder other sports, I don't understand your point of view, it is obvious that it should not be discussed.

With regard to genetics, I have always talked about Argentina. And I dare to say to ALL Latin America, we simply do not have the genetics of other countries, therefore, in a sport like rugby our athletes excel with many resources and a lot of infrastructure . Argentina's working class can't compete internationally in rugby.

I know the situation in Eastern Europe, you are the poorest countries in Europe. Then you don't have resources such as other European countries like France, England or Germany. But you have another gene, most of its inhabitants are tall and strong. For that reason you may make very good forwards but lack speed to make good backs. Perhaps the Georgia's working class can excel in rugby (More precisely in forwards because their backs are disastrous) but you have another gene, different from Latin America. An Argentine working class can't compete against a Slavic working class, you are just stronger than us. So in our case, to compete against you, we need the strongest guys in our country, that's, the kids from the upper middle class, in the absence of genetics, have more resources and better nutrition than kids from the working class.

And regarding physical fitness in professional rugby and professional football, I can assure you that rugby is 10 times more intense than football, in every sense, nutrition, exercises, work time, etc.. For example, do you know Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter)?

Ok, He weighs 53 kgs and is 1.66 m according to this website:

http://healthyceleb.com/daniel-radcliffe-height-weight-body-statistics/3156

If he wants to be a professional rugby player, should weigh what they weigh smaller rugby players (scrum-half maybe). The weights of some small scrum-half are: Will Genia (85 kg), Danny Care (85 kg) and Morgan Parra (77 kg). So on average should rise about 20 kgs of pure muscle mass, to be a professional rugby player. Whereas if he wants to be a professional footballer, he wouldn't have to climb so many kilos, it's a lot less money, less training time and less difficulty.

I play both sports (Rugby and football), and I can assure you that my football friends could never tolerate the rugby training, as you can tell that my rugby friends could tolerate the football training. In fact, many of my fellow rugby (especially backs) play football without problems, but almost any of my football friends can play rugby and although they have the resources, they know that rugby requires more training and greater investment than football.

Cheers

 

[Dato]

It isn't unique to Argentina, years ago there is a fashion among Sevens Teams in their jerseys have crazy designs, different from their XVs teams. For example England is a team that uses this fashion for years. Argentina just joined this fashion:

Please don't offend me, bud. Of course I know who is Gorgodzilla, remember that I'm a crazy rugby supporter:



Post written by me in this thread last year:

http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...rs-v-Montpellier)/page2?highlight=Gorgodzilla

Returning to the issue at hand, I don't understand your point of view. I don't doubt that Gorgodzilla is a bad basketball player, what's the point?. Put one of the guys from the NBA to play rugby and they will also be a disaster. Also remember that the most popular sports in the USA are american football and baseball. This is easily demonstrated because the Leagues with more advertising and more televised audience in USA are the NFL and MLB, so many guys from the NBA tried to going to the NFL or MLB and they couldn't.

I remember a kid from the NBA who wanted to be a professional baseball player, a Michael Jordan. He was a disaster in baseball, then baseball is harder to learn than basketball? To Michael Jordan yes but for a professional MLB player is easier than basketball and he couldn't play in the NBA. This issue is so random I don't understand why we are arguing about this. For some people it's easier a particular sport and is harder other sports, I don't understand your point of view, it is obvious that it should not be discussed.

With regard to genetics, I have always talked about Argentina. And I dare to say to ALL Latin America, we simply do not have the genetics of other countries, therefore, in a sport like rugby our athletes excel with many resources and a lot of infrastructure . Argentina's working class can't compete internationally in rugby.

I know the situation in Eastern Europe, you are the poorest countries in Europe. Then you don't have resources such as other European countries like France, England or Germany. But you have another gene, most of its inhabitants are tall and strong. For that reason you may make very good forwards but lack speed to make good backs. Perhaps the Georgia's working class can excel in rugby (More precisely in forwards because their backs are disastrous) but you have another gene, different from Latin America. An Argentine working class can't compete against a Slavic working class, you are just stronger than us. So in our case, to compete against you, we need the strongest guys in our country, that's, the kids from the upper middle class, in the absence of genetics, have more resources and better nutrition than kids from the working class.

And regarding physical fitness in professional rugby and professional football, I can assure you that rugby is 10 times more intense than football, in every sense, nutrition, exercises, work time, etc.. For example, do you know Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter)?



Ok, He weighs 53 kgs and is 1.66 m according to this website:

http://healthyceleb.com/daniel-radcliffe-height-weight-body-statistics/3156

If he wants to be a professional rugby player, should weigh what they weigh smaller rugby players (scrum-half maybe). The weights of some small scrum-half are: Will Genia (85 kg), Danny Care (85 kg) and Morgan Parra (77 kg). So on average should rise about 20 kgs of pure muscle mass, to be a professional rugby player. Whereas if he wants to be a professional footballer, he wouldn't have to climb so many kilos, it's a lot less money, less training time and less difficulty.

I play both sports (Rugby and football), and I can assure you that my football friends could never tolerate the rugby training, as you can tell that my rugby friends could tolerate the football training. In fact, many of my fellow rugby (especially backs) play football without problems, but almost any of my football friends can play rugby and although they have the resources, they know that rugby requires more training and greater investment than football.

Cheers

Conrad,
We are not Slavik (we are as different from Slavs as Spaniards or Italians are from Scandinavians) and by far not the tallest nation in the world. In Georgia rugby is still number 3 sport after football and basketball and we do not have special genetics. Rugby is just not very developed sport globally and we used this opportunity. At first, due to Georgian wrestling school we gained competitive advantage with tier 3 nations (believe me, its quite easy to develop good prop from the wrestler). Than French clubs opened the door for Georgians which was crucial for maintaining the progress. Then Government and few businessmen noticed that it was easier and cheaper to develop rugby and invested in infrastructure. Couple of new pitches were enough to develop young generation with good backs (if you watch Georgian U-20 at JWRT during upcoming weeks, you may be surprised, as leading players are backs there, not forwards).
As regards football, you may be surprised to know that Georgia plays southern style with very little emphasis on physicality.
During past few years, Georgian youth national teams (U-19,U-17) have won against England, Netherlands, have drawn against France (twice) and England (Twice). They also beat other strong football nations. However, their future seems not so bright as Georgian clubs lack money and top European leagues have restrictions on non-EU country citizens.
In such competitive sport as football, it is extremely difficult for us to develop, while in Rugby small investments are enough for maintaining progress.
Money matters more in football than in rugby. Therefore, if working class is competitive in football, I do not see why they will not be good for rugby.
If rugby is as global as football or basketball (you mentioned that baseball and american football is more popular in USA, however, basketball is more global game. Nobody cares about american football outside US), academies will scout for talented youth with decent size, give them necessary nutrition and that is all.

By the way, I did not intend to offend you with introducing Gogodze. In fact, it is quite common for non-French and non-Geo rugby fans not to know about him. It is another example how non-global the rugby is.

 

[Peat]

Every sport has its own definition of fitness and changing from one to the other when you've specialised is hard. A while back, Dwain Chambers was looking to get into rugby and found that to do so, he'd have to get unfit as a sprinter, then fit again as a rugby player.

But the demands on a rugby player are greater than on a football player, because there are more of them and they are more contradictory. If a rugby player switched to football tomorrow then, providing they had the right skill level, most could walk into a fairly high level tomorrow in terms of athletic standards. Yes, they'd have some muscle to shed ideally, but they're already doing a high level of fitness training, speed training, agility training and so on. A football player hoping to make the switch would probably have a year in the gym to make any sort of standard. A football player must be fairly strong. A rugby player must be as strong as possible and as fit as possible - and also as fast as possible and as agile as possible. It is a harder, more demanding sport physically - and I would have thought that was obvious. I personally make Conrad right on that score.

Btw - Beep test argument - scraping around for a look on what's the standard there in pro football - judging from this page http://www.topendsports.com/testing/results/beep-test.htm most rugby players aren't too far off elite footballer levels of fitness.

 

[RoosTah]

To be honest, even though I can't stand the game, I think it's a little pointless to talk about the fitness levels in the respective games... Soccer players are like ultra-marathon runners, while rugby players have a range of sport you could compare them too because of the differing demands of their positions.

In terms of having the most balanced fitness demands, I actually think that Australian Football players are the most well rounded - they run enormous distances, but still have considerable upper body strength and need to know how to take a knock.
Also, in terms of sheer brutality I think League is tough than union - it's faster, you're hit harder and more often, and there's way less stoppages. I prefer union, but having played both I can tell you I was always more sore following a game of league.

 

[nickdnz]

It isn't unique to Argentina, years ago there is a fashion among Sevens Teams in their jerseys have crazy designs, different from their XVs teams. For example England is a team that uses this fashion for years. Argentina just joined this fashion:

Please don't offend me, bud. Of course I know who is Gorgodzilla, remember that I'm a crazy rugby supporter:

Post written by me in this thread last year:

http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...rs-v-Montpellier)/page2?highlight=Gorgodzilla

Returning to the issue at hand, I don't understand your point of view. I don't doubt that Gorgodzilla is a bad basketball player, what's the point?. Put one of the guys from the NBA to play rugby and they will also be a disaster. Also remember that the most popular sports in the USA are american football and baseball. This is easily demonstrated because the Leagues with more advertising and more televised audience in USA are the NFL and MLB, so many guys from the NBA tried to going to the NFL or MLB and they couldn't.

I remember a kid from the NBA who wanted to be a professional baseball player, a Michael Jordan. He was a disaster in baseball, then baseball is harder to learn than basketball? To Michael Jordan yes but for a professional MLB player is easier than basketball and he couldn't play in the NBA. This issue is so random I don't understand why we are arguing about this. For some people it's easier a particular sport and is harder other sports, I don't understand your point of view, it is obvious that it should not be discussed.

With regard to genetics, I have always talked about Argentina. And I dare to say to ALL Latin America, we simply do not have the genetics of other countries, therefore, in a sport like rugby our athletes excel with many resources and a lot of infrastructure . Argentina's working class can't compete internationally in rugby.

I know the situation in Eastern Europe, you are the poorest countries in Europe. Then you don't have resources such as other European countries like France, England or Germany. But you have another gene, most of its inhabitants are tall and strong. For that reason you may make very good forwards but lack speed to make good backs. Perhaps the Georgia's working class can excel in rugby (More precisely in forwards because their backs are disastrous) but you have another gene, different from Latin America. An Argentine working class can't compete against a Slavic working class, you are just stronger than us. So in our case, to compete against you, we need the strongest guys in our country, that's, the kids from the upper middle class, in the absence of genetics, have more resources and better nutrition than kids from the working class.

And regarding physical fitness in professional rugby and professional football, I can assure you that rugby is 10 times more intense than football, in every sense, nutrition, exercises, work time, etc.. For example, do you know Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter)?

Ok, He weighs 53 kgs and is 1.66 m according to this website:

http://healthyceleb.com/daniel-radcliffe-height-weight-body-statistics/3156

If he wants to be a professional rugby player, should weigh what they weigh smaller rugby players (scrum-half maybe). The weights of some small scrum-half are: Will Genia (85 kg), Danny Care (85 kg) and Morgan Parra (77 kg). So on average should rise about 20 kgs of pure muscle mass, to be a professional rugby player. Whereas if he wants to be a professional footballer, he wouldn't have to climb so many kilos, it's a lot less money, less training time and less difficulty.

I play both sports (Rugby and football), and I can assure you that my football friends could never tolerate the rugby training, as you can tell that my rugby friends could tolerate the football training. In fact, many of my fellow rugby (especially backs) play football without problems, but almost any of my football friends can play rugby and although they have the resources, they know that rugby requires more training and greater investment than football.

Cheers

Ok, please for the love of all things holy - enough with posting pointless large pictures and screen shots. Please.

 

[Jaguares]

Conrad,
We are not Slavik (we are as different from Slavs as Spaniards or Italians are from Scandinavians) and by far not the tallest nation in the world. In Georgia rugby is still number 3 sport after football and basketball and we do not have special genetics. Rugby is just not very developed sport globally and we used this opportunity. At first, due to Georgian wrestling school we gained competitive advantage with tier 3 nations (believe me, its quite easy to develop good prop from the wrestler). Than French clubs opened the door for Georgians which was crucial for maintaining the progress. Then Government and few businessmen noticed that it was easier and cheaper to develop rugby and invested in infrastructure. Couple of new pitches were enough to develop young generation with good backs (if you watch Georgian U-20 at JWRT during upcoming weeks, you may be surprised, as leading players are backs there, not forwards).
As regards football, you may be surprised to know that Georgia plays southern style with very little emphasis on physicality.
During past few years, Georgian youth national teams (U-19,U-17) have won against England, Netherlands, have drawn against France (twice) and England (Twice). They also beat other strong football nations. However, their future seems not so bright as Georgian clubs lack money and top European leagues have restrictions on non-EU country citizens.
In such competitive sport as football, it is extremely difficult for us to develop, while in Rugby small investments are enough for maintaining progress.
Money matters more in football than in rugby. Therefore, if working class is competitive in football, I do not see why they will not be good for rugby.
If rugby is as global as football or basketball (you mentioned that baseball and american football is more popular in USA, however, basketball is more global game. Nobody cares about american football outside US), academies will scout for talented youth with decent size, give them necessary nutrition and that is all.

By the way, I did not intend to offend you with introducing Gogodze. In fact, it is quite common for non-French and non-Geo rugby fans not to know about him. It is another example how non-global the rugby is.

Ok, I'm sorry. I was wrong because Hitler always said that the Slavs were an inferior race, and when he said Slavs referred to the USSR, of which Georgia were a part. Coincidentally Stalin was born in your country, for that reason I thought you all were Slavs, my mistake. However, the average European it's taller and stronger than the average American Indian, that I can assure you. Just as Hindus are smaller than the Europeans, and Japanese are also smaller. Europeans generally have better genetics than the American Indians, for that reason the Argentines of European descent are stronger than the native Argentines. Maybe because you live in Europe you don't notice the difference, but if you lived in Latin America or Japan, you would realize that Europe has better genetics than other ethnic groups and are generally higher and stronger. For that reason, Kiwis and Aussies are stronger than the Hindus, both are former colonies Anglo but Kiwis and Aussies are mostly descendants of English, while Hindus are native to Asia, then they are so small and can't play rugby.

Here we must separate things, soccer and basketball are more popular worldwide than rugby and American football, I agree. But this has a reason. Rugby and american football are too violent for most people, most overprotective mothers don't want their children to play sports too violent as rugby and american football, where broken bones are common. That's the advantage that football and basketball, as they are more friendly sports where violence is very small. For that reason in USA women play soccer and men play american football, one is a friendly sport that women can play. The other is simply too violent sport for women. That can also be applied between rugby and basketball.

I understand that in Georgia, as in most of Eastern Europe, basketball is very popular. So almost certainly I think you're in first place basketball supporter and in second place a rugby supporter. Maybe your played basketball first and then you met rugby a few years ago, because Georgia has no tradition in rugby but have tradition in basketball.

I think you're not familiar with the culture of football. Remember, I'm from Argentina and here we have a long tradition in football more than Georgia. Our teams are famous around the world, such as River Plate and Boca Juniors (If you are a football supporter, you must know those teams), we also have the best players in soccer history as Di Stefano, Maradona and Messi and many of our best players are playing in the best teams in Europe (as in Rugby) and I can assure you that the results of the youth national teams in football don't matter. A number of factors could mention why no matter the results of the young teams but would be too long explanation. Just let me say that Argentina was the most successful team in FIFA U-20 World Cup with 6 ***les, Japan 1979 (with Maradona), Qatar 1995, Malaysia 1997, Argentina 2001, Netherlands 2005 (with Messi) and Canada 2007 and 28 years ago we got not win the WC.

If you win the FIFA U-20 World Cup doesn't mean that you could win the WC. Also, if there's anything in Argentina don't have, is money and resources and yet we have the best football players in the world at this time as Messi, Kun Aguero and Higuain. They ALL are from Argentina's working class and I can assure you that they would never be professional rugby players. They are very small to play rugby, And such a violent sport like rugby, can't get as much money as you say, since it's not a very friendly sport. Football and basketball are soft sports and can play by women (like tennis), Rugby and American Football are too violent sports. For this reason, american football isn't spread throughout the world, and for this reason it's so difficult to globalize rugby, as in non-traditional countries of rugby, people do not get so involved because they see it as a sport to hooligans.

If you put a Japanese who has never played rugby and football. And you show the two sports, there are more chances that the Japanese choose the friendliest sport (Football), rather than the violent sport of hooligans (Rugby). And if you put a Hindu who has never played american football or basketball, he would choose the friendliest sport (basketball ) before a suicide's sport like american football. That's the advantage that soccer and basketball compared to american football and rugby, they are very friendly sports and can play by women. American football and rugby simply are too violent for most people.

For example, when I played rugby in child age, some teammates had to use makeup on their faces to hide the bumps, as their mothers didn't want them to play such a violent sport like rugby. And if they returned home with a blow, their mothers banned rugby for them. That's something the soccer kids and basketball kids don't have to fight because their sport isn't as violent as rugby. Your family must have a long tradition in rugby to support you 100% in this game, if your family doesn't know rugby, then they see rugby as a sport for hooligans.

For this reason it's very difficult to globalize the sport in non-traditional countries, and that some races are simply not prepared to support the sport. The Hindus are world power in cricket but their bodies couldn't tolerate a sport like rugby, which is why they could never be a power in rugby, they are too small for this sport.

Now, you must admit that as a good Georgian, first you are a basketball supporter and then you are a rugby supporter, in second place. So I can understand your position, which is that of a basketball supporter. In my case, Im a rugby supporter first and then I support other sports. And here we have differences with supporters of basketball, so I do not get along very well with supporters of basketball. Maybe basketball is your favorite sport, for me it is a very gentle sport, I do not like. I prefer a hard sport like rugby.

Another thing, you said that Georgia is now making good backs, you can say all you want. You must show in international level, I don't care if you think that the Georgian backs are competitive now, I want see them at the highest level. If truly now the Georgian backs are as good as you say, then very soon we will see the best Georgian backs in the top leagues around the world as Premiership and Top 14 or perhaps even in Super Rugby, haha. And if we don't see them soon in the best leagues, then you are you are talking nonsense about Georgian backs.

But the demands on a rugby player are greater than on a football player, because there are more of them and they are more contradictory. If a rugby player switched to football tomorrow then, providing they had the right skill level, most could walk into a fairly high level tomorrow in terms of athletic standards. Yes, they'd have some muscle to shed ideally, but they're already doing a high level of fitness training, speed training, agility training and so on. A football player hoping to make the switch would probably have a year in the gym to make any sort of standard. A football player must be fairly strong. A rugby player must be as strong as possible and as fit as possible - and also as fast as possible and as agile as possible. It is a harder, more demanding sport physically - and I would have thought that was obvious. I personally make Conrad right on that score.

Thanks bud! You know about it

Ok, please for the love of all things holy - enough with posting pointless large pictures and screen shots. Please.

Do you want that I delete these pictures?

To be honest, even though I can't stand the game, I think it's a little pointless to talk about the fitness levels in the respective games... Soccer players are like ultra-marathon runners, while rugby players have a range of sport you could compare them too because of the differing demands of their positions.

In terms of having the most balanced fitness demands, I actually think that Australian Football players are the most well rounded - they run enormous distances, but still have considerable upper body strength and need to know how to take a knock.
Also, in terms of sheer brutality I think League is tough than union - it's faster, you're hit harder and more often, and there's way less stoppages. I prefer union, but having played both I can tell you I was always more sore following a game of league.

SBW said that League is tougher than Union but he never be a RU's forward. Have you been an RU's forward? Or simply you are a UR's back?

We have already discussed that here:

http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...than-Union-quot?highlight=Sonny+Bill+Williams

And the conclusion that many forum members took the matter is that SBW never been a forward in Union. And to be a forward in Union is harder to be forward in League, as the toughest situations in the Union are: rucking and mauling and that doesn't exist in League. I acknowledge that I have never played the League code, in Argentina there is only Union like SA.

Cheers

 

[RoosTah]

SBW said that League is tougher than Union but he never be a RU's forward. Have you been an RU's forward? Or simply you are a UR's back?

We have already discussed that here:

http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...than-Union-quot?highlight=Sonny+Bill+Williams

And the conclusion that many forum members took the matter is that SBW never been a forward in Union. And to be a forward in Union is harder to be forward in League, as the toughest situations in the Union are: rucking and mauling and that doesn't exist in League. I acknowledge that I have never played the League code, in Argentina there is only Union like SA.

Cheers

I played in the backs, so you're right to an extent, but I do think that in general League is more taxing even in the forwards. Brad Thorn has commented that League is tougher in terms of the collisions, but that scrums and mauls are also exhausting. Not exactly definitive, but I think you'd have to say union is more technical, whilst not being more physically taxing - even for forwards.

 

[Peat]

I played in the backs, so you're right to an extent, but I do think that in general League is more taxing even in the forwards. Brad Thorn has commented that League is tougher in terms of the collisions, but that scrums and mauls are also exhausting. Not exactly definitive, but I think you'd have to say union is more technical, whilst not being more physically taxing - even for forwards.

That looks right to me. Besides, doesn't more conclusive as a single source than Brad Thorn on this issue. The tight play is bloody exhausting though.

You left out the keyword, *almost. Without the small pockets (Northampton, Leicester) I wouldn't have included the word 'almost'.

North of Watford is an expression. Outside the M25 (which Northampton is not far from) is more specific in geographic terms.

Home counties, west country, is Unions base. It's tenuous to start tagging on other regions.

Yorkshire claims 10pc of all of England's international rugby players. Northampton and Leicester are more than small pockets, they are part of a tradition stretching down from Nottingham to Bedford. I would consider the East Midlands more of a hotbed of rugby than the Home Counties. The West Midlands' historic tradition deserves a bigger pro club than Wuss.

Union is far more of a national game than you seem to think.

Also, I can't believe you talked about the heartland of Scottish rugby without mentioning the Borders. Srsly dude.

 

[Dato]

Conrad,
I am not biased when speaking about rugby (I am just realistic). Also, I do not like to compare absolutely different sports with each other.
I also know Argentinian football quite well, including its history, not only the current players and Georgian football has bigger history than you think (of course not comparable with Argentinian football).
Tevez and Messi would not be greatest players, but I can not say the same about Samuel, Collochini, Zanetti (would be grate back). Of course, if this guys would train in rugby from childhood.
Conservatism and prejudices like ,,we are special" and ,,only few can play rugby" hinders its development. This kind of ideology is used by rugby officials to justify protectionist policy towards some teams. Italy for instance.
The country with huge financial and human resources has most favourable treatment. They have awful teams allowed in Heineken and Amlin cups, they have a lot of naturalized players in NT, they play in 6 nations and have tests with New Zealand, Australia and etc. and still they are awful (and will become even worse, due to the fact that generation change in near future is inevitable).
At the same time, Georgia had only one tier 1 test outside WC (thanks to Argentina, who helped us) and we beat Samoa. Morover, we won last 2 games against Italy on U-18 Euro Elite.
The protectionism sucks everywhere: in rugby, in economy and in every field of life. Only competition moves the progress.
I really hope that conservative mentality of rugby world will change and the game shall become really global.

 

[jonny24]

I'm not sure I buy the whole "no one plays because they're too small and skinny" argument. At international and pro levels sure, but not at the grass roots. My high school team had all kinds of skinny little guys. Lots of them were also soccer players as well. Given, rugby wasn't a hugely popular sport, in fact we usually had barely enough guys for a team. But this just made it easier for the smaller guys to get involved.

A good example is my brother, who played only soccer until he was 14. He's around 5'6, 140 lbs (168cm, 64kg) no, he'll never play prop or lock, but he does just fine at scrum half and the outside backs. And this is for our (admittedly third rate) local men's team.

What I'm saying is that if the attitude/culture changed, the physicality would not remain an issue.

 

[Jaguares]

Conrad,
I am not biased when speaking about rugby (I am just realistic). Also, I do not like to compare absolutely different sports with each other.
I also know Argentinian football quite well, including its history, not only the current players and Georgian football has bigger history than you think (of course not comparable with Argentinian football).
Tevez and Messi would not be greatest players, but I can not say the same about Samuel, Collochini, Zanetti (would be grate back). Of course, if this guys would train in rugby from childhood.
Conservatism and prejudices like ,,we are special" and ,,only few can play rugby" hinders its development. This kind of ideology is used by rugby officials to justify protectionist policy towards some teams. Italy for instance.
The country with huge financial and human resources has most favourable treatment. They have awful teams allowed in Heineken and Amlin cups, they have a lot of naturalized players in NT, they play in 6 nations and have tests with New Zealand, Australia and etc. and still they are awful (and will become even worse, due to the fact that generation change in near future is inevitable).
At the same time, Georgia had only one tier 1 test outside WC (thanks to Argentina, who helped us) and we beat Samoa. Morover, we won last 2 games against Italy on U-18 Euro Elite.
The protectionism sucks everywhere: in rugby, in economy and in every field of life. Only competition moves the progress.
I really hope that conservative mentality of rugby world will change and the game shall become really global.

When I say that rugby isn't a sport for everyone, I'm telling the truth. You have joined the forum in 2011 but you have only 11 messages here. Are you a true rugby supporter? Have you ever played rugby? Or you're just a sports commentator? Because at times I feel I'm talking to a basketball supporter who doesn't know much about rugby's world. Comments like: "Rugby is not competitive" is a typical comment from a supporter of another sport that isn't very involved in what is rugby. That you say about Samuel and Zanetti could be good rugby players are nonsense, the only truth is reality. That's like saying, Messi might be the best doctor in the world, simply because he is the best football player in the world. You must to show that, if you can't prove it then you live in a fantasy world.

Let me tell you a personal story, so your able to see what you say about any football player can play rugby is a lie. I had a friend who is a crazy football supporter, always talking nonsense about rugby. He always said things like: "The Pumas always lose", "The Pumas are losers", "Rugby is a small sport that's played only in few countries", "Anyone can play rugby", "If rugby was the Argentina's working class sport, then we would be the best team in the world as it happens in football "and more nonsense. We were classmates in school, and many of my fellow rugby also went to that school. Then one day we told him: You talk a lot about rugby, you always criticize rugby, you always say things like that: "Rugby is a sport for hooligans", "Rugby players not need any skills", "Anyone can play rugby", "People are simply not interested in playing rugby because it's a small sport" and other foolishness. Then, we invite you to play rugby with us on our team. If it's too easy as you say and isn't competitive sport, then you will not have problems to excel in this sport.

Then he accepted the challenge, he was confident that rugby was not a competitive sport and with the thought that anyone can play rugby. Until he put the boots, he put the shorts and joined on the rugby field. I could tell you many stories about their suffering in every rugby training with our team but certainly, what happened in the first game, it's the best summary about it. His knowledge of rugby were poor, then the coach decided to put him on the wing, as this would have little contact with the ball and is the less compromised position in the game. At one point in the game, a teammate passed the ball to him, he was alone, only had to run forward, a fellow shouted: "Run forward" but he was so afraid of being hit by rivals then he started running backwards. My teammates and I will never forget this story, he only played 2 rugby games, after apologized saying he couldn't play due to injury (LIES AND MORE LIES).

Now every time we talk about rugby and he's present at the site, he says nothing. He was a coward when he played rugby, then he has no right to criticize rugby players. Maybe when he meet with football supporters, he still talk nonsense about rugby, but he knows that once had the opportunity to be a rugby player and he couldn't, simply because rugby is too hard for him. That's the truth about many people who criticize rugby (especially football supporters), talk is cheap, withstand many blows in the field is more difficult than talk, most of them simply can't withstand rugby hits.

You say that Samuel and Zanetti could be good rugby players, foolishness. They have to prove that on the rugby field. Rugby isn't banned in any country, whether it is too easy as some say, prove that it is. The kids from Argentina's working class, if rugby is too easy as you say, then make your own rugby team: "The Working Class Rugby Club" and win every game, then go play professional rugby in Europe and then win the WC. I want to see them face to face against: Israel Folau, Ma'a Nonu, Bismarck du Plessis and Manu Tuilagi.

And about Georgia's rugby, you also say foolishness. Georgia has to prove he can be a team of Tier 1 Argentina managed to enter the Tier 1 without having professional rugby, then Georgia can also do. You complain that Georgia doesn't have many games against teams from Tier 1, but you have the chance to prove that you can be a Tier 1 team every 4 years, in WC, and still didn't merit to be a Tier 1 team. Argentina beat Ireland in WC 99, with a team of mostly amateur players, now Georgia has more professional players than Argentina in the WC 99, that Pumas team only had a handful of professional players and despite the difficulties, we beat Samoa and Ireland.

The reality is that the Georgian backs are disastrous, if they were as good as you say they are, they'd be playing professional rugby in France. The French have no problem hiring Georgian players, in fact, most of the Georgian forwards play professional rugby in France. But the Georgian backs are so disastrous, that the French teams prefer to buy: Digby Ioane, Morne Steyn, Jonathan Sexton, Juan Martin Hernandez, Santiago Fernandez, Martin Bustos Moyano and many Pacific Islanders players but NEVER a Georgian back.

I remember last year's game against Georgia, the Georgian forwards were hard, but Georgian backs were a disaster. We won the game because the Georgian backs are slow and clumsy. And let me tell you something, NEVER Georgia has had a fly-half like Diego Dominguez, who is one of only five players (Dan Carter, Jonny Wilkinson, Ronan O'Gara, and Neil Jenkins) in history to have scored more than 1,000 points. Right now, Georgia doesn't have a back like Campagnaro, who despite defeats in the 6 Nations, showed that he's a great talent. Then Georgia simply can't take the place of Italy. Do you want to have more games against Tier 1 teams? So show it, you have a chance every 4 years. We have faced Georgia in the last two WCs, in both your backs have been disastrous, not your forwards. In 2003 we won: "33-3" and in 2007 we won: "25-7". Next year, you will have another opportunity against us, if you truly want a place at Tier 1, demonstrate that you are a Tier 1 team.

Cheers

 

[Dato]

Conrad,
I have an impression that you never read my post.
I have never said that rugby is very easy to play. I was not rugby player (used to wrestle for few years in childhood and only played basketball and football in the street or school gym), but I am watching it since 1996. I have a friend who used to play rugby in Georgian NT.
And please, where did you saw me criticizing rugby players? I am criticizing the attitude (including of rugby officials) which hinders development of rugby and is restrictive by its nature ("we are special" and "few can play rugby" are from this ,,opera")
Or why are you trying to explain that Georgian backs are not as good as Argentinian backs? Did I said that they are? I just said that in youth teams (U-20 and U-18), Georgia has good backs due to well developing infrastructure and new training system.
And can you tell me what I said foolish about Georgian rugby?
Is it fair for Georgia not to play test against tier 1 nations, while Italy is granted all kind of favors and despite this fact there is bigger difference between England and Italy than between Italy and Georgia? And why do you think that example of Argentina is good in this case (despite the fact that Ireland of 1999 and Ireland today are completely different level teams)? Argentina was not treated quite well throughout the years by rugby officials. You shall know it better than me.
And believe me, Georgia would become tier 1 rugby nation no matter if we get big tests outside WC or not. It is just a matter of time. Without stupid protectionism (justified by conservative ideology), we can just do it faster. Thats the point.

As regards the working class in your country, as I see I have better impression about them than you. Have no idea why you offend the ability of your co-nationals, as many of them spread your countries name worldwide.
Anyway, you must know better, but in my country ,,violent" sports like rugby, wrestling, judo and etc. are mostly played by working class and they are quite successful.

P.S. I am not very active here due to following reasons:
- lack of time
- when I have time I prefer to post in rugby unit of forum.ge (Georgian resource) where a lot of former and acting rugby players discuss various issues (even few guys playing or used to play in Top 14 read and post in this forum). And you will never hear from them that they are "special" and such funny things.

 

[Howzy]

Many professional rugby players can run for 90 minutes, running distances of 10 km and of course can play football like: Dan Carter, Quade Cooper, Ben Smith, Leigh Halfpenny, Mike Brown, Patt Lambie, Owen Farrell, Digby Ioane, Cory Jane and many more. I would say that in general ALL backs can play football because they are all shape and some forwards too, especially the back rows, flankers like Michael Hooper or David Pocock can play football without problems.

However, the professional football players can't play rugby, none of them could. They are too weak, they would leave the rugby field in wheelchairs. They can't face our boys.

For this reason I say that rugby is a tougher sport that requires more fitness and better nutrition than football.

Ben Smith can play football, Neymar can't play rugby.

Ahem you missed Danny Care out of this list.

 

[dasNdanger]

So...Will Smith's playing rugby now?



das

 

[Big Ewis]

So...Will Smith's playing rugby now?

you...dirty...raging racist BASTERD....



Oh and btw uhm, how does HITLER find his way seriously in a Rugby forum thread ? I would very much like to ask that question.
And Georgians aren't Slavic ??...