This argument is so stupid. They've got 330 million people. There's more than enough people to have elite American Football players and Rugby players. Most other countries don't have anywhere near that kind of talent pool and still manage to compete globally across all of the sports.
It sounds more like an excuse for being shit.
New Zealand has a pop of around 5mil and Ireland/N.Ireland have around 7 mil and we're two of the best rugby teams in the world.
New York alone as has a higher population than both our countries put together.
What makes it even more impressive for Ireland is that, unlike New Zealand where rugby is by far the most popular sport, rugby is only like the 4th most popular sport here
As a dumb Englishman I'm curious what beats rugby in popularity. I'm guessing gaelic football is number 1, but I wouldn't say football is more popular.
So while schoolboy rugby is for wankers, club rugby is still going ~~strong~~ adequate in Australia.
Club Rugby beats schoolboy rugby and rugby league any day of the week.
Just Rugby Australia are cunts who can't organise a root in a brothel and fuck the game for everyone.
League all the way
Also the first of the two codes to try to make life better for it's players by offering medical and wage coverage for work missed due to play or injury etc.
I always think thatās really dumb (not you but the fact that a perception of social status dictates which discipline you like), personally I think Union is the better game but Iām as working class as they come. Itās a really damaging image and stereotype that needs getting rid of for the good of all rugby. People shouldnāt be put off a variant of a sport just because of a social stigma attached to it.
It doesnāt really have that feeling in Wales. There arenāt that many private schools there, for a start. All the men in my family had to pay rugby at school, despite all being totally unsuited to it (weāre on the skinny side).
[This](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby_world_cup_2015/article-3239120/No-wonder-call-Toffs-vs-Taffs-England-s-private-school-graduates-number-20-Wales-just-five.html) is from 2017 but shows the breakdown of state/ private school education in the four nationsā rugby teams.
Thatās quickly changing in fairness, way more playing for the clubs and stuff. Especially in the north where Iām from. Used to be Protestant exclusive (for the most part) with the posh ones playing the grammar schools and working class ones for clubs.
Way more getting involved now, obvious reason being that parents are setting their kids to it or the kids have more of an interest in it because weāre actually really good. Success breeds success as they say.
Rugby isn't considered a posh sport in Wales, much of the west country, much of Yorkshire and in Scotland. Its just, ironically, the comparably posh bits of England where the general population considers rugby too posh for them.
No rugby does have that in Scotland. A lot of lads are from farming backgrounds in local amateur teams and there's certainly not a lot of "posh" accents amongst the Scottish team.
While itās true that Rugby is the most popular sport to watch in NZ, in terms of participation it is way down the list. Ireland and NZ have quite similar numbers of adult participants these days.
Most girls tend to pick netball or basketball, and increasingly parents are choosing to put their kids into football instead of rugby as its safer. Plus there's cricket
The numbers are a bit hard to find online tbh, every site seems to claim something different
Nothing particularly different in NZ, rugby is a hard sport to arrange to play, you need a lot more people and space than say basketball. Itās also a difficult sport to play casually, compared to say tennis and itās a lot more difficult to play as you age compared to say golf.
The immense popularity of rugby as a spectator sport means that rugby gets its pick of elite athletes in NZ. If you excel at sports as a teenager in NZ there is plenty of support and infrastructure to help you develop as a rugby player.
Which is why this quote by Stephen Gould is so poignant:
āI am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einsteinās brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.ā
if i remember isn't America very strict on academy/ young players like if you do a littttle bit bad ur poop ur not a d1 athlete or whatever they call it
while in europe some bad people in academy became good it just took them some more time and a fresh new club to become good
while in america its like YOU MUST BE A DDDD 1 ATHELTE AT 19 IF U FAIL THEN U FLOPPED LEAVEEEE basically there is a few documentaries on stuff like that.
I found this list of registered rugby union players split up by country. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries
The US has about 20% fewer players than Ireland but still twice as many as Scotland.
New Zealand already has one of the deepest player pools in the world when it comes to rugby, despite their relatively tiny population. This is because of the popularity of the game there, they naturally produce far more quality players per capita because the game is very widely played and enjoyed from a young age.
Can confirm was married to a Maori, them Kiwi's are super organised at sports the youth programme for the young uns is par excellence, way beyond the support that the sprogs here get. They forge winners in NZ.
I think it isn't only about the population but how much they want to actually invest in these sports. Population always will be a big factor but it isn't the only one.
When you're the Richest country in the world and the 3rd most populous country in the world your population is absolutely the biggest factor. Croatia have a population of about 3 million people and they're still better at football than the USA. You can't seriously be claiming you can't find 3 million people interested in "saaaacker".
We can't find 11 good people in Bulgaria (a bit less than 6m people) that can play football. We had X with Gibraltar, and the guys from that team had to go to work the next day, they have like 30k population. I live in a small city with 10k people if we count the dogs too, only from here, we should have at least 3 better players, compared to them.
I think it's a problem with our system. We don't value academies the way you do in Europe. Many kids who are good at soccer will play in high school and then in college where the competition isn't very good. Maybe some of them leave and join an academy but not always. Many of our best players, who play for the national team, were either born in Europe or moved there when they were young to join a proper academy.
Source: I don't actually know what I'm talking about but this is my best guess.
These are points that is brought up in rsoccer whenever american development vs European development is brought up. Your whole development in all sports is tight to your education system and you repersent your high school or collage/university. In Europe you play for a club that is a part of the league system. The American Schools focus is to win now the European clubs and academies focus is to make each players as good as posible so that that they can be a part of the senior squad or so that they can sell them with a nice profit when they become older.
That mean that a talented 16 year old from America only plays against players of his own age for another 3-5 years while in Europe you get to play against grown up men/wommen in a lower league or if you are good enough in the top league of your country. I still remember whatching Martin ĆdegĆ„rd (current cpt of Arsenal) absolutly dominating a game in the Norwegian top league as a 15 year old. The drawback of this is that many young players play way to many high intensity games at a young age and get long time injuries that hamper their development or even ruin it completly, Ansu Fati is a prime example of this.
For football kids get scouted playing for their school teams or local teams then join clubs.
High school and college sports in America are nothing like anywhere else in the world. Your system favours development over pure luck.
Their development system for athletes runs through college. That cuts out low income families right on the spot.
Guys like Ronaldo grew up piss poor on Madeira without food for days. Or most Brazilians are from favelas.
American players growing up in Europe don't need to get through the "be rich" to get scouted bullshit.
There are 92 professional teams in England.
If we conservatively say that each one has a squad of 25 players, since that's the limit for full time professionals. That's still 2300 professional footballers. Ronaldo is 1 man.
Madeira is in Portugal. Portugal is a 1st world country.
England has a population of about 60 million people.
Portugal has a population of about 11 million people.
The USA has 330 million people and still can't find a coherent 23 man squad for international tournaments. The USA can't even win internationally at Baseball, Basketball and Hockey, the sports only the USA cares about.
Face it. You suck at sports.
????
Are you illiterate?
I just said that the US filters out a lot of talent cuz they choose their athletes through education which depends heavily on the wealth of the family.
Get it now? They lose a lot of talent.
A guy like Ronaldo would had no chance to get discovered in the USA. That's a major flaw in their system.
It also doesn't matter if Portugal is a 1st world country. Poor families live everywhere. I don't even understand what you want to say. Learn to read.
I critized the American system of youth talent scouting and you go on a rant lmao
Get your reading skills up.
I doubt that with 4 WC but you do you.
The only thing that matters here is the fact, that I critized the US Youth scouting system. That I critized the fact, that families with talented kids can't give them the proper development they deserve, cuz US education is so shit, you need to pay for it.
I even mentioned how a lot US players go through European youth academies instead.
I even mentioned how a player like Ronaldo would go unnoticed in the US (no money for college), therefore SAYING THAT MONEY AND EDUCATION DOESN'T PLAY A ROLE IN EUROPEAN YOUTH DEVELOPMENT. TALENT COUNTS.
But the only thing you do is talking about how Portugal is a 1st world country.
Ronaldo grew up poor on Madeira. I used him to get my point across how he wouldn't get a chance in sports if he would grew up under the same circumstances in the US.
Do you understand now? Youth development is shit in the US. Do you get it now?
I'm not defending it. Are you illiterate?
Edit : Junge du bist sogar Deutscher. Hattest du in der schule nur Singen und Klatschen als SchulfƤcher. Gott ist das peinlich.
Edit: I guess I have to put that I am talking about current day heavyweight boxing. In boxing they always say thereās no American heavyweight champs or any heavyweight boxing in general because the NBA and NFL
Yet the UK and Ukrainians have all the top heavyweights & heavyweight champions, 50m population in each. Youāre telling me the few thousand in the NBA & NFL team sport ball games are taking away all the big guys?
Nobody says āIf you can dunk a basketball you can take a punchā either, you couldnāt come up with two completely different sports. But they repeat it like itās gospel and āMan if we tried weād take over againā.
See, with the NFL the body types of most of those guys is completely wrong for Rugby and Football anyway.
They certainly do have enough funding and support, and most importantly people, in the USA to at least compete in most major world sports.
But no, excuses excuses. Anything that means they don't have to admit they're just not as good as they should be.
Their body types are only wrong because of how they've been trained since high school. American Football is such an oddly unique sport in how it's played that it creates very specialised athletes that struggle to transition to other sports when they realise they can't make it.
It's because they only play for 10 seconds at a time, then get a 30 second rest before going again. Hence why they attract sprinters to play in a bunch of positions, because out sprinting the opposition is just as important as being in the right place or catching a ball.
It's suits them. The actual game time is 13 minutes on average. The whole thing is 3 hours long. More ads than sport. They don't need stamina.
I wouldn't call defensive NFL players athletic either. Most of them are obese as fuck.
Ali, Tyson, Foreman to name a few... The dominance recently of Ukrainian Boxers is something to behold. Would really love to see the Klitchko brothers and Usyk knock the crap out of Putin in the ring.
I am talking right now man, lmao. I donāt know why people think Iām saying thereās never been a good American boxer, why would I even be talking about boxing if I didnāt know Mike Tyson or Muhammad Aliā¦
Of course they have good boxers Iām very in tune with boxing but I am talking heavyweight boxing right now, they have Deontay Wilder whoās a fun fighter but was a protected champ and has been pretty exposed, then Andy Ruiz whoās inactive as all hell and looking like a one hit wonder, the champions now are UK & Ukrainian and the contenders are various other countries.
They won in 1920 Antwerp Olympics, where only USA and France competed in Rugby.
They won in 1924 Paris Olympics, where only USA, France and Romania competed in rugby.
Bruh you think weāll make THAT distinction? We call the teams that win our football, basketball, hockey and baseball āWorld Champs.ā
This does remind me that it would be cool as hell to see a Club World Cup for basketball with NBA teams participating.
Japan REALLY wants to play against America, both in baseball and basketball, and has suggested a official pro league of American teams ve Japanese teams but keeps getting denied
I saw them during the 2015 world cup and they looked solid.
It would be nice if teams like Romania and Georgia could really challenge the tier 1 nations
āā¦and just compete with themselves.ā Sounds a little like someone justifying staying in to masturbate rather than trying to meet someone in real life, i.e. scared of rejection/failure perhapsā¦? ;)
Claiming gold medals in the 20s is fine, itās a great achievement at any games but it was also at a time when teams had to sail to get there. Australia had a total of 13 people competing. NZ had four in 1920.
So, grain of salt.
I think the US could be great at rugby and the second itās embedded as a high school sport, it wonāt be long before they become a competitive force. But that is at least 10 RWC cycles away.
But at the moment they suck. They could stack their team with NFL players and theyād still suck. They could get a 30pt start against the top 8 rugby countries and still lose them all.
The womens team have won over 30 years ago. The men didnt even qualify for 2023.Ā Ā
Typical mental gymnastics they through instead of just sdmitting they suck. This guy just cannot let go of this bs narrative/delusion that they are the best. Its is a fucking farce.
Saffa fans are by far the worst for macho egotistical stuff like this. I'd be torn between wanting Bok fans to be brought down a peg or two, and wanting to see Americans and their incorrect use of the term "Rugger" get pasted.
I think a lot of serious SA rugby fans that follow the game week-in-week-out are pretty sound. Always seem like good lads during the European cup games when we play the saffa URC teams. When the casual and fans come out of the woodwork during international periods, yeah, some of them are pretty obnoxious, but you can say the same about the casuals for any nation.
SA fans are some of the best I have encountered. Watched them play in 2015 against Scotland and it was top banter roasting them over Japan. 2019 Final turned into a can't beat them join them in a bar. 2023 Semi was great for about 70 minutes. 2023 game against the ABs at HQ was brilliant. So much green it was practically a Bokkes home game. Let a guy cut the queue because he had to get back to his wife quick.
The womenās team arenāt bad. However I think the menās team played the All Blacks a few years ago and lost by like a hundred and something points. š
Unless SA field an under 12s team, I'd be confident in a guaranteed mauling, even more so if Bakkie Botha's was still playing.
Even with an under 12s team, I'd put money on SA ha.
They did win Olympic gold medals in rugby in 1920 and 1924... Credit where credit is due.
(I mean it wasnt a professional sport back then, most things weren't).
I'd put it in the same relevance bracket as all of the US World War 2 veterans who seem to be incredibly prolific on social media... As in zero... Zero relevance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Rugby
(the recent achievements bit iis good for a chuckle - finished TENTH in the Sevens 2009-2010, and in 2021 they put one over on the All Blacks by losing 104 - 14. Murica, fuck yeah!! Fair fucks at least they got a couple of tries in, I'd imagine the Kiwis stopped caring little bit once 100 points were on the scoreboard. (Must confess I didn't watch that match because I don't enjoy any rugby game where a team is getting embarrassed).
The only reason American football is āmore challengingā than Rugby is that they load the players up with so much protective clothing theyāve made the game actually more dangerous due to weight.
But as for Rugby, my father had a flattened nose from his schooldays. At my school it was fairly normal to see boys walking around with neck collars on.
Listening to James Grahamās Headnoise podcast right now and theyāre touching on the subject of head knocks with all things that stem from it like concussions. Neuroscientist Owen Pierce says that the helmet is worn to protect the skull from fractures and lacerations; and the amount of force that a helmet can absorb isnāt enough to stop the brain tissue to stop from moving. Additionally, wearing a helmet can often give the wearer the āsuperhero complexā which is when the wearer more or less throws contact techniques out the window. A limited study on āAmerican football with vs without protective gearā collected data that showed there was 10 less G Force present in the āwithout protectiveā gear bracket.
Fun fact: 2 out of the 3 concussions I copped myself made me realise the above. The first two I had my mouth guard in. Many think they are just for your mouth area but I was told after the second concussion that itās also to stop impact vibrations from travelling upwards to rattle your brain in your skull. Given that the mouth guard didnāt stop the first two concussions, I stopped wearing it entirely then copped the third concussion eventually. That last concussion came with muscular injuries which I donāt think protective gear couldāve done much about
If they think American football is more challenging than rugby, then they're fooling themselves.
Rugby players have to be physically fit enough to run around a field 100 metres long and 70 metres wide, non-stop for 80 minutes. And they only get a 10 minute break after 40 minutes. There's no stopping and starting every 5-10 seconds, unlike in American football. Not to mention that all 15 rugby players on a team do both offence and defence, unlike in NFL, where teams have whole sets of offensive and defensive players and switch out one for the other, depending on who has possession. In other words, rugby puts a greater demand on players to have high endurance levels while being massively physically fit.
Then there's the fact rugby players don't wear any safety gear, except for the occasional skull cap, which is less about protecting the head and more for protecting the ears. (Cauliflower ear can look really bad.) There may also be strict rules around contact and tackling, but that only serves to make it more difficult for the defending team to stop the ball carrier and cause a turnover.
One other thing worth mentioning is that where in American football, a player simply has to cross the touch line to score, in rugby the player hasn't scored until they have pressed the ball to the ground. That makes for an even more difficult fight to score a try when all the action is up close to the try line. It means that when rucks and mauls are occurring right up on the try line, the defending team can still prevent a try even if the ball is over the line.
You can just go on line and watch a whole host of videos of Americans reacting to rugby matches, and being awed at how demanding and tough rugby players must be. So it seems to me the person in the OP has never watched a rugby match.
As a Welsh citizen, I feel like I'm honor-bound to chime in on this shit seeing as Rugby is involved-
US, hon, your national rugby team are the best athletes in the sandbox at baby daycare. Solid 17th on the league table because you can't take an impact without an NFL hurtlocker and dust yourself back off quick enough for the next scrum, you'd probably sue if you had to work any harder on the pitch for a win.
New Zealand? They slay EVERYONE, and unless you're with the SA Springboks you have a snowball's chance in hell of beating them. 509 consecutive weeks at the pinnacle of the game, they run you down like a pack of murderwolves, pop that ball away from your soulless corpse in the tunnel and casually fuck it off until your will to fight is completely broken. The Haka before kickoff was a warning, not a showboat. New Zealand are THE GOAT in this game and they work their bollocks off to keep it that way.
I'm the best American footballer in the world. I've already proven it in the two seconds I thought about what I could be the best in before posting this. Since it has already been proven, I decided to save the Americans a lot of time and the embarrassment of losing the superbowl against a single European person by just not even playing the sport once in my whole life.
Yank here. All of our sport league titles are "world championships". Whatever shit rugby league is in the US probably has a World Championship as the final.
They use their own version of the imperial system to 'proof' things. It is very intuitive. They think it, which makes it proven. The system is only used by the USA.
Most US rugby fans are pretty cool, but they are rare. I hang out on r/rugbyunion a bit and there are a few yanks there who follow the European leagues and love the game, but honestly I am quite glad it's a sport that the rest of the anglosphere can enjoy without the USA being involved.
Oh oh can i guess the response? "We only care about the important sports, we dont care about your dumb sports but if we did we would be #1 šŗšøšŗš²šŗš²šŗš²šŗš²š¦ š¦ š¦ "
The last time the USA beat the world in Rugby was Gold medals in 1920 and 1924 Olympics.
Rugby hadn't been played in the Olympics from 1924 until 2016 and again in 2020 where Gold was taken by Fiji (mens) and Aus and NZ for the women's Gold.
USA did not place.
Not to mention the times they won were against just the French 1920 and the French and Romanians in 1924.
Not much of a win if it was against 2 countries.
Pretty sure this is the same story North Koreans are telling themselves too.
The fact of the matter is, it's all bullshit.
Americans are brainwashed from a very young age with propaganda and all sorts of crap that these kind of comments aren't even the posters fault. It's a country that is largely built on lies and manipulation these days and the people are too indoctrinated to question it.
It's both measures sad and scary.
They were so good at rugby that they... isolated their athletes to not participate in world championships and gave their athletes goofy suits of armour for funsies and not because they couldnt handle the ouchies? Sure thing, XD
Rugby not being the most popular sport isn't the justification they think it. The US has well over 300 million people so that means they have a really large talent pool for sports. Rugby isn't the most popular sport in countries like Australia, Ireland or England and yet they've had success despite having much smaller sporting talent pools
Winning 1924 Olympics says nothing about their team today. They'd get torn apart by the AB, Ireland, SA, Scotland, France.
Hell you don't even need NZ or SA to play, the Pumas could kick the yanks. In fact they did 4 years ago during the Rugby WC 47-17. (Victoria digna moment).
I think even Italy and their horrible performance vs Ireland during the last Six Nations would still beat USA.
1) Americans are the best at every sport.
2) Whenever they aren't, they still would be if they really tried/cared enough etc.
What even compels them to make these statements? Even if what they said was true (and ... it fucking isn't), why say that? Why do they want to be the disrespectful arsehole clown in the room so badly? This has nothing to do with confidence or patriotism anymore, this is just obnoxious, toxic delusion.
More like it was too hard....so they took their ball away and played their own game..... Accept you could throw it forward, tackle anyone, call time outs to catch their breath, wear protective gear because they didn't want any more ouchies...... Then called it the opposite of what it is; football!! Even though they only kick it every now and then!!!! 6+ hours to play too....... No thank you......
I have heard this before, I think it was one of the sevens tournaments.
I guess Americans can't tell the difference between the rugby world cup and a regional sevens competition.
Itās not hard to look up the olympics games tables per capita. Last time i had an argument with an American about it they replied āwhats per capitaā.
> Rugby was just too easy, so Americans decided to create something more challenging.
Not only is this patent nonsense, we know exactly what the creators of American Football were thinking when they implemented the rule changes that evolved American Football out of Rugby. They had meetings! They took notes!
This isnāt even a situation where the evolution of the game is largely lost to history, like Baseball or the Proto-Football at English public schools prior to the Association Football/Rugby Football split.
The people who created American Football literally said why they were making the changes they were making to Rugby (increase offense; reduce injury)
Anyone that tries to fight on rugby and (American) football athletes just reminds me of two enemy WW2 vessels out of ammo waving fists angrily at one another. Theyāll never actually reach one another, but itās kinda funny to anyone that isnāt them
I'm starting to think American *IS* wierdly afraid of loosing at its own games, like Japan desperately want to set up official leagues and tournaments to play baseball against American pro teams and America is dragging its feet and doesn't want to commit to hapans big plan.
There has been suggestions for basketball as well and the NBA just refuses.
You gotta hand it to the British, they had the grace to invent the games, and let everyone else compete against them, letting everyone see how bad they are at the games they invented for themselves
This argument is so stupid. They've got 330 million people. There's more than enough people to have elite American Football players and Rugby players. Most other countries don't have anywhere near that kind of talent pool and still manage to compete globally across all of the sports. It sounds more like an excuse for being shit.
Imagine if the All Blacks had that amount of athletes to choose from š³
New Zealand has a pop of around 5mil and Ireland/N.Ireland have around 7 mil and we're two of the best rugby teams in the world. New York alone as has a higher population than both our countries put together.
Iām English but donāt really follow Rugby, personally, but thatās amazing! Imagine if you had over 300mil to choose from!
What makes it even more impressive for Ireland is that, unlike New Zealand where rugby is by far the most popular sport, rugby is only like the 4th most popular sport here
As a dumb Englishman I'm curious what beats rugby in popularity. I'm guessing gaelic football is number 1, but I wouldn't say football is more popular.
Gaelic football, hurling, and football are all more popular.
Association Football?
What else would you assume Football is referring to since GAA was already mentioned
In fairness the poster should have just went with "soccer" like most of us do
Aussie Rules. Canadian Football. Harvard Rugby.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So while schoolboy rugby is for wankers, club rugby is still going ~~strong~~ adequate in Australia. Club Rugby beats schoolboy rugby and rugby league any day of the week. Just Rugby Australia are cunts who can't organise a root in a brothel and fuck the game for everyone.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
League all the way Also the first of the two codes to try to make life better for it's players by offering medical and wage coverage for work missed due to play or injury etc.
I always think thatās really dumb (not you but the fact that a perception of social status dictates which discipline you like), personally I think Union is the better game but Iām as working class as they come. Itās a really damaging image and stereotype that needs getting rid of for the good of all rugby. People shouldnāt be put off a variant of a sport just because of a social stigma attached to it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It doesnāt really have that feeling in Wales. There arenāt that many private schools there, for a start. All the men in my family had to pay rugby at school, despite all being totally unsuited to it (weāre on the skinny side). [This](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby_world_cup_2015/article-3239120/No-wonder-call-Toffs-vs-Taffs-England-s-private-school-graduates-number-20-Wales-just-five.html) is from 2017 but shows the breakdown of state/ private school education in the four nationsā rugby teams.
Thatās quickly changing in fairness, way more playing for the clubs and stuff. Especially in the north where Iām from. Used to be Protestant exclusive (for the most part) with the posh ones playing the grammar schools and working class ones for clubs. Way more getting involved now, obvious reason being that parents are setting their kids to it or the kids have more of an interest in it because weāre actually really good. Success breeds success as they say.
Rugby isn't considered a posh sport in Wales, much of the west country, much of Yorkshire and in Scotland. Its just, ironically, the comparably posh bits of England where the general population considers rugby too posh for them.
No rugby does have that in Scotland. A lot of lads are from farming backgrounds in local amateur teams and there's certainly not a lot of "posh" accents amongst the Scottish team.
Not in wales butt
Football, Gaelic football and Hurling would be the top 3
Hurling! I knew I'd missed another random sport lol
GAA and hurling are like religions here, especially outside Dublin.
While itās true that Rugby is the most popular sport to watch in NZ, in terms of participation it is way down the list. Ireland and NZ have quite similar numbers of adult participants these days.
Surprised at that tbh. Generally the most popular sports are also the most played. Any reason why player numbers are lower given the popularity?
Most girls tend to pick netball or basketball, and increasingly parents are choosing to put their kids into football instead of rugby as its safer. Plus there's cricket The numbers are a bit hard to find online tbh, every site seems to claim something different
Nothing particularly different in NZ, rugby is a hard sport to arrange to play, you need a lot more people and space than say basketball. Itās also a difficult sport to play casually, compared to say tennis and itās a lot more difficult to play as you age compared to say golf. The immense popularity of rugby as a spectator sport means that rugby gets its pick of elite athletes in NZ. If you excel at sports as a teenager in NZ there is plenty of support and infrastructure to help you develop as a rugby player.
Which is why this quote by Stephen Gould is so poignant: āI am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einsteinās brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.ā
yea but 295 million of them are morbidly obese
if i remember isn't America very strict on academy/ young players like if you do a littttle bit bad ur poop ur not a d1 athlete or whatever they call it while in europe some bad people in academy became good it just took them some more time and a fresh new club to become good while in america its like YOU MUST BE A DDDD 1 ATHELTE AT 19 IF U FAIL THEN U FLOPPED LEAVEEEE basically there is a few documentaries on stuff like that.
I found this list of registered rugby union players split up by country. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries The US has about 20% fewer players than Ireland but still twice as many as Scotland.
New Zealand already has one of the deepest player pools in the world when it comes to rugby, despite their relatively tiny population. This is because of the popularity of the game there, they naturally produce far more quality players per capita because the game is very widely played and enjoyed from a young age.
it's impressive how much NZ has dominated Rugby for decades
There's a video on YT that explains it. It's about 10 minutes long, I think. At most. 'How NZ dominates in Rugby' or along those lines.
Can confirm was married to a Maori, them Kiwi's are super organised at sports the youth programme for the young uns is par excellence, way beyond the support that the sprogs here get. They forge winners in NZ.
I think it isn't only about the population but how much they want to actually invest in these sports. Population always will be a big factor but it isn't the only one.
When you're the Richest country in the world and the 3rd most populous country in the world your population is absolutely the biggest factor. Croatia have a population of about 3 million people and they're still better at football than the USA. You can't seriously be claiming you can't find 3 million people interested in "saaaacker".
We can't find 11 good people in Bulgaria (a bit less than 6m people) that can play football. We had X with Gibraltar, and the guys from that team had to go to work the next day, they have like 30k population. I live in a small city with 10k people if we count the dogs too, only from here, we should have at least 3 better players, compared to them.
You had Stoichkov. Once.
And Letchkov, Ivanov, a whole side of great players. They'll be back to that level one day.
We are lucky he lives mostly in the US now, I have a smarter cat than him.
As a Leeds fan, Iām grateful you found Ilya Gruev though! Heās rapidly becoming one of the best midfielders in the Championship this season.
I think it's a problem with our system. We don't value academies the way you do in Europe. Many kids who are good at soccer will play in high school and then in college where the competition isn't very good. Maybe some of them leave and join an academy but not always. Many of our best players, who play for the national team, were either born in Europe or moved there when they were young to join a proper academy. Source: I don't actually know what I'm talking about but this is my best guess.
These are points that is brought up in rsoccer whenever american development vs European development is brought up. Your whole development in all sports is tight to your education system and you repersent your high school or collage/university. In Europe you play for a club that is a part of the league system. The American Schools focus is to win now the European clubs and academies focus is to make each players as good as posible so that that they can be a part of the senior squad or so that they can sell them with a nice profit when they become older. That mean that a talented 16 year old from America only plays against players of his own age for another 3-5 years while in Europe you get to play against grown up men/wommen in a lower league or if you are good enough in the top league of your country. I still remember whatching Martin ĆdegĆ„rd (current cpt of Arsenal) absolutly dominating a game in the Norwegian top league as a 15 year old. The drawback of this is that many young players play way to many high intensity games at a young age and get long time injuries that hamper their development or even ruin it completly, Ansu Fati is a prime example of this.
I can remember watching Odegaard dominate a game yesterday!
For football kids get scouted playing for their school teams or local teams then join clubs. High school and college sports in America are nothing like anywhere else in the world. Your system favours development over pure luck.
Their development system for athletes runs through college. That cuts out low income families right on the spot. Guys like Ronaldo grew up piss poor on Madeira without food for days. Or most Brazilians are from favelas. American players growing up in Europe don't need to get through the "be rich" to get scouted bullshit.
There are 92 professional teams in England. If we conservatively say that each one has a squad of 25 players, since that's the limit for full time professionals. That's still 2300 professional footballers. Ronaldo is 1 man. Madeira is in Portugal. Portugal is a 1st world country. England has a population of about 60 million people. Portugal has a population of about 11 million people. The USA has 330 million people and still can't find a coherent 23 man squad for international tournaments. The USA can't even win internationally at Baseball, Basketball and Hockey, the sports only the USA cares about. Face it. You suck at sports.
???? Are you illiterate? I just said that the US filters out a lot of talent cuz they choose their athletes through education which depends heavily on the wealth of the family. Get it now? They lose a lot of talent. A guy like Ronaldo would had no chance to get discovered in the USA. That's a major flaw in their system. It also doesn't matter if Portugal is a 1st world country. Poor families live everywhere. I don't even understand what you want to say. Learn to read. I critized the American system of youth talent scouting and you go on a rant lmao Get your reading skills up.
Poor families live everywhere? So like... in the USA? Face it, you're just shit at sports.
I doubt that with 4 WC but you do you. The only thing that matters here is the fact, that I critized the US Youth scouting system. That I critized the fact, that families with talented kids can't give them the proper development they deserve, cuz US education is so shit, you need to pay for it. I even mentioned how a lot US players go through European youth academies instead. I even mentioned how a player like Ronaldo would go unnoticed in the US (no money for college), therefore SAYING THAT MONEY AND EDUCATION DOESN'T PLAY A ROLE IN EUROPEAN YOUTH DEVELOPMENT. TALENT COUNTS. But the only thing you do is talking about how Portugal is a 1st world country. Ronaldo grew up poor on Madeira. I used him to get my point across how he wouldn't get a chance in sports if he would grew up under the same circumstances in the US. Do you understand now? Youth development is shit in the US. Do you get it now? I'm not defending it. Are you illiterate? Edit : Junge du bist sogar Deutscher. Hattest du in der schule nur Singen und Klatschen als SchulfƤcher. Gott ist das peinlich.
Na zum Downvote reichts noch, ne? Aber fĆ¼r ein Konterargument simmer uns zu fein. Feil mal ein bisschen an deinen English-Skills. Peinlich.
Edit: I guess I have to put that I am talking about current day heavyweight boxing. In boxing they always say thereās no American heavyweight champs or any heavyweight boxing in general because the NBA and NFL Yet the UK and Ukrainians have all the top heavyweights & heavyweight champions, 50m population in each. Youāre telling me the few thousand in the NBA & NFL team sport ball games are taking away all the big guys? Nobody says āIf you can dunk a basketball you can take a punchā either, you couldnāt come up with two completely different sports. But they repeat it like itās gospel and āMan if we tried weād take over againā.
See, with the NFL the body types of most of those guys is completely wrong for Rugby and Football anyway. They certainly do have enough funding and support, and most importantly people, in the USA to at least compete in most major world sports. But no, excuses excuses. Anything that means they don't have to admit they're just not as good as they should be.
Their body types are only wrong because of how they've been trained since high school. American Football is such an oddly unique sport in how it's played that it creates very specialised athletes that struggle to transition to other sports when they realise they can't make it.
The premium American football places on explosiveness over stamina is strange.
It's because they only play for 10 seconds at a time, then get a 30 second rest before going again. Hence why they attract sprinters to play in a bunch of positions, because out sprinting the opposition is just as important as being in the right place or catching a ball.
It's suits them. The actual game time is 13 minutes on average. The whole thing is 3 hours long. More ads than sport. They don't need stamina. I wouldn't call defensive NFL players athletic either. Most of them are obese as fuck.
Ali, Tyson, Foreman to name a few... The dominance recently of Ukrainian Boxers is something to behold. Would really love to see the Klitchko brothers and Usyk knock the crap out of Putin in the ring.
I am talking right now man, lmao. I donāt know why people think Iām saying thereās never been a good American boxer, why would I even be talking about boxing if I didnāt know Mike Tyson or Muhammad Aliā¦
People are reading it as it is. Aren't we still doing Phrasing as a thing?
Really? the States has rock solid boxing pedigree & history. 4 of the best P4P boxers ever come from there
Of course they have good boxers Iām very in tune with boxing but I am talking heavyweight boxing right now, they have Deontay Wilder whoās a fun fighter but was a protected champ and has been pretty exposed, then Andy Ruiz whoās inactive as all hell and looking like a one hit wonder, the champions now are UK & Ukrainian and the contenders are various other countries.
America dominated boxing for a century before the public consciousness moved to ufc
The thing about talent pools is that there needs to be talent in them
Yep lol. Finland and Sweden very often outperform USA in ice hockey, not to even mention Canada which is an absolute beast.
USA doesn't even win at Baseball and Basketball. So of their 4 major major sports the only one nobody else really plays is Gridiron.
Making up excuses to excuse their inadequacies and crimes is America's national pastime.
Weren't there only three teams in the Olympics they're referring to and it was about 100 years ago?
They won in 1920 Antwerp Olympics, where only USA and France competed in Rugby. They won in 1924 Paris Olympics, where only USA, France and Romania competed in rugby.
It's like the "went to the Moon" argument, but older and mistaken: Olympics champions are Olympic champions, not World champions
Bruh you think weāll make THAT distinction? We call the teams that win our football, basketball, hockey and baseball āWorld Champs.ā This does remind me that it would be cool as hell to see a Club World Cup for basketball with NBA teams participating.
Japan REALLY wants to play against America, both in baseball and basketball, and has suggested a official pro league of American teams ve Japanese teams but keeps getting denied
Bro that would be so much fun
Ah, yes. Rioplatense beef.
Wow I was right, I wouldn't have guessed at Romania being the third team though.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I saw them during the 2015 world cup and they looked solid. It would be nice if teams like Romania and Georgia could really challenge the tier 1 nations
Tier 2 Rugby in Europe is starting to get pretty good. So good in fact that I got a ticket to see Portugal against England A next weekend.
āā¦and just compete with themselves.ā Sounds a little like someone justifying staying in to masturbate rather than trying to meet someone in real life, i.e. scared of rejection/failure perhapsā¦? ;)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Appreciated š
Hilariously accurate š¤£
What did they say
> [deleted]
Claiming gold medals in the 20s is fine, itās a great achievement at any games but it was also at a time when teams had to sail to get there. Australia had a total of 13 people competing. NZ had four in 1920. So, grain of salt. I think the US could be great at rugby and the second itās embedded as a high school sport, it wonāt be long before they become a competitive force. But that is at least 10 RWC cycles away. But at the moment they suck. They could stack their team with NFL players and theyād still suck. They could get a 30pt start against the top 8 rugby countries and still lose them all.
The womens team have won over 30 years ago. The men didnt even qualify for 2023.Ā Ā Typical mental gymnastics they through instead of just sdmitting they suck. This guy just cannot let go of this bs narrative/delusion that they are the best. Its is a fucking farce.
South African here. I would love to see the USA come play against the Boks here. Itās highly likely they would have their asses handed to them.
For once, I agree with a saffa rugby fan. ;-) They would absolutely have their asses handed to them. It would be a cricket score.
Saffa fans are by far the worst for macho egotistical stuff like this. I'd be torn between wanting Bok fans to be brought down a peg or two, and wanting to see Americans and their incorrect use of the term "Rugger" get pasted.
I think a lot of serious SA rugby fans that follow the game week-in-week-out are pretty sound. Always seem like good lads during the European cup games when we play the saffa URC teams. When the casual and fans come out of the woodwork during international periods, yeah, some of them are pretty obnoxious, but you can say the same about the casuals for any nation.
SA fans are some of the best I have encountered. Watched them play in 2015 against Scotland and it was top banter roasting them over Japan. 2019 Final turned into a can't beat them join them in a bar. 2023 Semi was great for about 70 minutes. 2023 game against the ABs at HQ was brilliant. So much green it was practically a Bokkes home game. Let a guy cut the queue because he had to get back to his wife quick.
The womenās team arenāt bad. However I think the menās team played the All Blacks a few years ago and lost by like a hundred and something points. š
I was hoping to be there, but jury service meant I had to miss out.
Well, if the ABs can put 100 on them, I'm sure the 'boks could do similar.
I'd pay to watch that AND provide the popcorn.
You provide the popcorn Iāll provide the beer
Unless SA field an under 12s team, I'd be confident in a guaranteed mauling, even more so if Bakkie Botha's was still playing. Even with an under 12s team, I'd put money on SA ha.
Yeah but if it was playing rugby not fighting on the field then the Americans might have a better chance.
They did win Olympic gold medals in rugby in 1920 and 1924... Credit where credit is due. (I mean it wasnt a professional sport back then, most things weren't). I'd put it in the same relevance bracket as all of the US World War 2 veterans who seem to be incredibly prolific on social media... As in zero... Zero relevance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Rugby (the recent achievements bit iis good for a chuckle - finished TENTH in the Sevens 2009-2010, and in 2021 they put one over on the All Blacks by losing 104 - 14. Murica, fuck yeah!! Fair fucks at least they got a couple of tries in, I'd imagine the Kiwis stopped caring little bit once 100 points were on the scoreboard. (Must confess I didn't watch that match because I don't enjoy any rugby game where a team is getting embarrassed).
There were 2 teams competing in 1920 and 3 in 1924. Hardly the world championship they seem to think it was
Hah, I didn't clock that bit. Love a good bit of context. Cheers mate.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You mean Germany?
The only reason American football is āmore challengingā than Rugby is that they load the players up with so much protective clothing theyāve made the game actually more dangerous due to weight. But as for Rugby, my father had a flattened nose from his schooldays. At my school it was fairly normal to see boys walking around with neck collars on.
Listening to James Grahamās Headnoise podcast right now and theyāre touching on the subject of head knocks with all things that stem from it like concussions. Neuroscientist Owen Pierce says that the helmet is worn to protect the skull from fractures and lacerations; and the amount of force that a helmet can absorb isnāt enough to stop the brain tissue to stop from moving. Additionally, wearing a helmet can often give the wearer the āsuperhero complexā which is when the wearer more or less throws contact techniques out the window. A limited study on āAmerican football with vs without protective gearā collected data that showed there was 10 less G Force present in the āwithout protectiveā gear bracket. Fun fact: 2 out of the 3 concussions I copped myself made me realise the above. The first two I had my mouth guard in. Many think they are just for your mouth area but I was told after the second concussion that itās also to stop impact vibrations from travelling upwards to rattle your brain in your skull. Given that the mouth guard didnāt stop the first two concussions, I stopped wearing it entirely then copped the third concussion eventually. That last concussion came with muscular injuries which I donāt think protective gear couldāve done much about
If they think American football is more challenging than rugby, then they're fooling themselves. Rugby players have to be physically fit enough to run around a field 100 metres long and 70 metres wide, non-stop for 80 minutes. And they only get a 10 minute break after 40 minutes. There's no stopping and starting every 5-10 seconds, unlike in American football. Not to mention that all 15 rugby players on a team do both offence and defence, unlike in NFL, where teams have whole sets of offensive and defensive players and switch out one for the other, depending on who has possession. In other words, rugby puts a greater demand on players to have high endurance levels while being massively physically fit. Then there's the fact rugby players don't wear any safety gear, except for the occasional skull cap, which is less about protecting the head and more for protecting the ears. (Cauliflower ear can look really bad.) There may also be strict rules around contact and tackling, but that only serves to make it more difficult for the defending team to stop the ball carrier and cause a turnover. One other thing worth mentioning is that where in American football, a player simply has to cross the touch line to score, in rugby the player hasn't scored until they have pressed the ball to the ground. That makes for an even more difficult fight to score a try when all the action is up close to the try line. It means that when rucks and mauls are occurring right up on the try line, the defending team can still prevent a try even if the ball is over the line. You can just go on line and watch a whole host of videos of Americans reacting to rugby matches, and being awed at how demanding and tough rugby players must be. So it seems to me the person in the OP has never watched a rugby match.
Your argument dont stand. Cos muricans wont understand metric system. Hahaha.
As a Welsh citizen, I feel like I'm honor-bound to chime in on this shit seeing as Rugby is involved- US, hon, your national rugby team are the best athletes in the sandbox at baby daycare. Solid 17th on the league table because you can't take an impact without an NFL hurtlocker and dust yourself back off quick enough for the next scrum, you'd probably sue if you had to work any harder on the pitch for a win. New Zealand? They slay EVERYONE, and unless you're with the SA Springboks you have a snowball's chance in hell of beating them. 509 consecutive weeks at the pinnacle of the game, they run you down like a pack of murderwolves, pop that ball away from your soulless corpse in the tunnel and casually fuck it off until your will to fight is completely broken. The Haka before kickoff was a warning, not a showboat. New Zealand are THE GOAT in this game and they work their bollocks off to keep it that way.
They're like ignorant, spoiled children. The things they say are so cringe
It always gives me - my dad can beat your dad in a fight - vibes.
I'm the best American footballer in the world. I've already proven it in the two seconds I thought about what I could be the best in before posting this. Since it has already been proven, I decided to save the Americans a lot of time and the embarrassment of losing the superbowl against a single European person by just not even playing the sport once in my whole life.
Yank here. All of our sport league titles are "world championships". Whatever shit rugby league is in the US probably has a World Championship as the final.
Amazingly, they don't. It's just called the "USARL Grand Final".
Haha shocking really. I don't watch the rugby league here
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I always find it weird how people come up with complete bullshits that can be verified simple google search.
Im an American living in the UK and I always get so embarrassed by this shit lol. I want to say not all of us are like this but...
Somone has become confused betwixt the difference of ācompete with ourselvesā and āplaying with oneselfā
They use their own version of the imperial system to 'proof' things. It is very intuitive. They think it, which makes it proven. The system is only used by the USA.
They played against New Zealand and lost 114 to 7 (I think) it also wasn't NZs best team.
Most US rugby fans are pretty cool, but they are rare. I hang out on r/rugbyunion a bit and there are a few yanks there who follow the European leagues and love the game, but honestly I am quite glad it's a sport that the rest of the anglosphere can enjoy without the USA being involved.
I can get loads of girls so I just sit at home jerking it
Best analogy
The US is the biggest propaganda and disinformation machine, its insane
Oh oh can i guess the response? "We only care about the important sports, we dont care about your dumb sports but if we did we would be #1 šŗšøšŗš²šŗš²šŗš²šŗš²š¦ š¦ š¦ "
The last time the USA beat the world in Rugby was Gold medals in 1920 and 1924 Olympics. Rugby hadn't been played in the Olympics from 1924 until 2016 and again in 2020 where Gold was taken by Fiji (mens) and Aus and NZ for the women's Gold. USA did not place.
Not to mention the times they won were against just the French 1920 and the French and Romanians in 1924. Not much of a win if it was against 2 countries.
Pretty sure this is the same story North Koreans are telling themselves too. The fact of the matter is, it's all bullshit. Americans are brainwashed from a very young age with propaganda and all sorts of crap that these kind of comments aren't even the posters fault. It's a country that is largely built on lies and manipulation these days and the people are too indoctrinated to question it. It's both measures sad and scary.
The only thing the USA excels at (apart from mass shootings of women and children) is simpletons talking complete shite.
They sound like north Koreans: "Glorious country won all golf with hole in one"
They were so good at rugby that they... isolated their athletes to not participate in world championships and gave their athletes goofy suits of armour for funsies and not because they couldnt handle the ouchies? Sure thing, XD
Not to mention gridiron football was invented in Canada then modified slightly by the Americans.
Rugby not being the most popular sport isn't the justification they think it. The US has well over 300 million people so that means they have a really large talent pool for sports. Rugby isn't the most popular sport in countries like Australia, Ireland or England and yet they've had success despite having much smaller sporting talent pools
Why do they even need to be a competition. Enjoy both sports equally.
Winning 1924 Olympics says nothing about their team today. They'd get torn apart by the AB, Ireland, SA, Scotland, France. Hell you don't even need NZ or SA to play, the Pumas could kick the yanks. In fact they did 4 years ago during the Rugby WC 47-17. (Victoria digna moment). I think even Italy and their horrible performance vs Ireland during the last Six Nations would still beat USA.
Not to mention the 1924 teams were as follows: * United States * France * Romania Not really against the world's rugby teams.
As an American, weād prefer not to claim him.
1) Americans are the best at every sport. 2) Whenever they aren't, they still would be if they really tried/cared enough etc. What even compels them to make these statements? Even if what they said was true (and ... it fucking isn't), why say that? Why do they want to be the disrespectful arsehole clown in the room so badly? This has nothing to do with confidence or patriotism anymore, this is just obnoxious, toxic delusion.
I played both American Football and Rugby. Rugby was WAY more physically demanding. Theres just no comparison.
More like it was too hard....so they took their ball away and played their own game..... Accept you could throw it forward, tackle anyone, call time outs to catch their breath, wear protective gear because they didn't want any more ouchies...... Then called it the opposite of what it is; football!! Even though they only kick it every now and then!!!! 6+ hours to play too....... No thank you......
Maybe they would be more successful if a yearly abo of Fentanyl was the price of the challenge š¤·š»āāļøWho really knows.
I think heās referring to 7ās.
The Pacific Island nations would stomp the shit out of them at Rugby 7s.
Apart from the fact that the last time the US played a pacific island team (Samoa), they won.
I stand corrected. Usually, it's the other way around, though
Would love to see an NFL team play a game of Rugby against the London Irish. See how long the yanks can survive with out all that armour.
Usain fucking Bolt??
Autumn Nations Series 2021, 104-14 All Blacks vs USA
Ahh! I see...here's the proof ->
I have heard this before, I think it was one of the sevens tournaments. I guess Americans can't tell the difference between the rugby world cup and a regional sevens competition.
Itās not hard to look up the olympics games tables per capita. Last time i had an argument with an American about it they replied āwhats per capitaā.
The U.S. men's national team, the Eagles, won the Gold Medal in Olympic rugby in 1920 and 1924.
Against 1 and 2 teams respectively.
Already been proven? Pretty certain China regularly wins more Olympic gold medals than any other country almost every Olympic Games.
Yeeeeeah. That premise, "I'm so good I can only effectively compete with myself" doesn't sound too persuasive if you give it even a moment's thought.
"Look at me in all my body armour, i'm so tough" \*shits their MAGA diaper\*
We should let American teams field more players to make it fair for them, maybe theyll actually win something
> Rugby was just too easy, so Americans decided to create something more challenging. Not only is this patent nonsense, we know exactly what the creators of American Football were thinking when they implemented the rule changes that evolved American Football out of Rugby. They had meetings! They took notes! This isnāt even a situation where the evolution of the game is largely lost to history, like Baseball or the Proto-Football at English public schools prior to the Association Football/Rugby Football split. The people who created American Football literally said why they were making the changes they were making to Rugby (increase offense; reduce injury)
Anyone that tries to fight on rugby and (American) football athletes just reminds me of two enemy WW2 vessels out of ammo waving fists angrily at one another. Theyāll never actually reach one another, but itās kinda funny to anyone that isnāt them
The absolute patriotism that Americans have is frightening...
I'm starting to think American *IS* wierdly afraid of loosing at its own games, like Japan desperately want to set up official leagues and tournaments to play baseball against American pro teams and America is dragging its feet and doesn't want to commit to hapans big plan. There has been suggestions for basketball as well and the NBA just refuses. You gotta hand it to the British, they had the grace to invent the games, and let everyone else compete against them, letting everyone see how bad they are at the games they invented for themselves