Now which teams wins that?
I suppose the football team overall given their 53 man rosters made up of guys ranging from like 180 to 350lbs, and track and field guys able to play it because of the sheer range of one dimensional roles in the sport. You're failing to understand how this alone doesnt mean that football has better athletes though, it means it has bigger rosters with more variation in attributes by position.
To illustrate the point - you wouldnt be picking LBs, TEs, RBs, DEs for the football side for the most part would you? because like I said before, they are not the fastest positions nor the strongest, and yet they are considered some of the best athletes on the team precisely because they fall into a middle ground. You conveniently avoided me bringing that up before, just like you keep avoiding accepting the importance of cardio, something that is a major factor in almost every sport.
rugby guys cannot run with the WR, CB in pro football
Didnt I bring up in the other thread that rugby player Louis-Rees Zammit, who was brought in through the player pathway programme recently, ran a 4.43 at 6'2 209lbs? for reference thats as fast as Justin Jefferson ran it at 195lbs, and he was the 2nd best receiver in the NFL last season.....oops!
Now, do you think the NFL just magically found the only rugby player capable of doing that? or do you think maybe its actually possible that there are people in that place called "the rest of the planet outside of America" who are also capable of running fast?
no they can't match the power of those 340 pounders.
You do realise there are 340lb'ers in rugby right? albeit not as common due to the higher cardio/mobility demands, but they are still around here and there.
You also dont seem to realise how many pacific islanders play rugby, They're a higher proportion of rugby than they are American football, at least when it comes to southern hemisphere rugby. You know...that demographic that are considered to make beastly football players due to their strength and athleticism?
And we already went through this, being 340lbs doesnt automatically make you stronger than someone who is 280lbs.
All I am seeing here is those who don't live in the USA don't get any of that. All they know is rugby, soccer.
Yes, its the rest of the planet that has it wrong. It couldnt possibly be that you live in a bubble and only consume your own sports and sports media to the point that it completely effects your perception.
I mean, lets put this in perspective, you're arguing that the best athletes in ball sports happen to play in a sport that draws basically its entire player base from the colleges of one country that makes up maybe 5% of the global population. Does that not sound completely fucking ridiculous to you?
It gets even more ridiculous, said sport is a derivative of rugby where the ball is in play around a third as long even though the games take about an hour longer to be completed, plays lasting around 5 seconds each. And in spite of this teams have the biggest rosters in team sports, with completely separate teams for offence and defence, unlimited substitutions, players rarely being on the field for more than 10 mins at a time, and basic rugby player skills being divided up across multiple positions, with basic rugby plays (running the ball, making a tackle etc) resulting in a stoppage and replays being shown of it like it was some incredible moment.
Lets add even MORE perspective, the tackles leader for the last game of the recent Six Nations was Thibaud Flament, a puny tiny rugby player at a mere 6'8 256lbs, with 18 tackles,in the same game he also made 8 carries, and engaged in ..
8 scrums
and 30 lineouts.
Cant even find stats for how many rucks/mauls ie these
He was involved in, but probably a lot.
He was on the field for a total of 74 minutes, across a game that in total (counting half time etc) lasted around 2 hours.
Now, lets compare that to the tackles leader in the last Superbowl, Drue Tranquill, a gargantuan football player at a whopping 6'2, 235lbs, Drue made 11 tackles in that 3+ hour long game, and since this is American football thats all he did, never touched the ball etc.
In addition, there were only two players in the game who made more carries than our French rugby friend, two giants in Jalen Hurts at 6'1 223lbs, and Saquon Barkley at 6'0 232lbs, obviously neither of them made any tackles either.
In conclusion, the rugby guy SIMULTANEOUSLY made more tackles than the tackles leader at the Superbowl AND would have been top 3 in carries while being much bigger than any of them AND did a bunch of shit football players dont even do (scrums, rucks, mauls, lineouts) AND did it in about an hour less of game time. Oh yeah... didnt wear pads and helmets either.
Is it sinking in yet? rugby is the more athletically demanding sport.
BTW dont even fucking get me started on rugby league, just looked up the stats for a recent NRL game and the tackles leader made 44 tackles IN ONE FUCKING GAME.
You're living in a bubble. Watch more sports. I'm out.