Sigh so i have a particular someone who thinks australian rules football requires greater skill then football(soccer), the reason being a oval ball is harder to kick then a football/soccerball.

All bias aside which game requires more skill Australian rules or Football and why? Also what is the most skillfull sport in the world in your opinion.

Football requires alot more technical skill than Australian Rules, but Aussie rules players are better athletes.

Can't really compare the 2. They require different kinds of skills, and with a different ball.

And most skillful sport imo is TENNIS

Edited by MVFCSouthEnder: 15/7/2012 12:09:11 AM

The recent introduction of two NRL players into the AFL pretty much answers that question.

Don't forget the basketball and Union players. But AFL players need exceptional fitness.

Bingo.

FTR, I think AFL requires more varied Skills than Football, but you can't place one over the other because it's completely different.

Cricket, for most Skillfull IMO.

Kinda says something about the sport when two players from a different code come into the elite level of AFL with barely two years of experience.

No shit. They crossed over from the Elite level of a code which requires many of the same core skills as the code they joined.

Really don't get this argument. It's not like either of them have just stepped over and dominated. Karmichael Hunt has taken 2/3 years of playing to reach a decent level, whilly Izzy Falau hasn't shown anything yet.

If an oval ball is so much harder to kick then why do AFL players always look dumbfounded when they are given a round ball in international rules?

Edited by chillbilly: 15/7/2012 12:47:58 AM

Soccer requires much more skill.

Boxing in its heyday. The heavyweight champion was usually considered the greatest athlete in the world at the time.

Shame about this pay-per-view stuff, I love watching old fights.

I don't think football is the most skillful sport. Cricket and Golf are my top 2 - to play at the top level, you need to have a solid technique, as well as the mental stamina to be playing for a number of days in a row.

Was having a chat with an older guy the other day who's been involved in Union for years. Explained to him (and he accepted) that unless you start "soccer" when you're 8 at the very latest you won't have the skill set to succeed at the highest level. Talked proprioception all all that sort of stuff. He was quite happy to accept that the other three "football codes" give a player the opportunity to succeed through strength and athleticism whereas football isn't as forgiving, and the minimal level of technique at the highest level is still incredibly high.

THIS!!!!!!!!! i couldnt agree more.

gayfl is heaps shit.

Like mvfc southender and funky have stated u can't compare the two sports .

AFL requires the luck of the bounce, because of the ball shape. If the ball was round it would focus more on skill requirement.
AFL players can compensate for lack of skill through more physical bulk and contact. This is confirmed by Rugby players coming into the sport with no prior ability.

Get the fuck off these forums moron. Aussie rules is a great sport. Both ARF and football require certain skill sets, but IMO football requires more technical skill where ARF requires far greater physical conditioning. This bullshit about one sport being better than the other in any way is a pointless exercise - why can't people just take each sport for what it is and enjoy it?

Edited by ual: 15/7/2012 09:22:20 AM

AFl is endurance over skill some of the recent games i've watched (i couldn't sit through a whole match) have been shocking skills wise slow stop start filled with 50/50 contests players hitting their targets is the exception not the rule

NASCAR

Lawn bowls

Eton wall game

Not sure if serious.... or just dumb

Apples and oranges really.

Japanese game shows

Takeshi's Castle

As a former NSW state representative... I agree :lol:

Lacrosse.

Keeping the balloon off the floor

You really can't compare the two skill sets.

In terms of technical skill than football for sure, and there is a real intensity in the skill of constantly keeping the ball moving and having to contend with offside as opposed to the breaks in play once AFL footballers take a mark.

Having said that, AFL footballers have a broader skill set to contend with in terms of having to have a quality hand eye coordination as well as great foot skills, not to mention the more physical skill sets like aerial movement and tackling. They are highly skilled athletes and have an amazing stamina. BUT at the same time they'll never have the stress of a hectic Christmas fixture list and travelling midweek to some remote corner of Europe before returning to play domestic football, and likewise for our Euroroos, traveling from a chilly European climate to play in extreme Asian temperatures.

They have a fair bit of pressure on their shoulders in lining up a decisive kick from outside 50, or kicking for the game after the siren for example, BUT football has the same scenarios with penalties.

I think the few areas you really can compare the two sports on they each have their own merits and balance it out at the end, so it's a ridiculous debate really.

At the end of the day they are vastly different styles of sport, played on different styled grounds, with different styled balls, and with a disproportionate number of men, you have to have rocks in your head to be able to make the claim that one is more skilled than the other when it's impossible to reasonably compare.

Having played Union all through high-school, and only picking up football in the last few years, my view is it is much harder to kick a football than it is a Rugby football. There's also the type of kick. Rugby really only has three/four: drop punt, torpedo, box kick and drop-kick. Football has drive, chip, outside of boot, lob, cross-field rake (these are my own terms i guess)...I could go on.

IMO football is the more 'skilful' of the two codes, but it's fairly relative because a lot of it can't be compared.

I think it can be agreed that Rugby and AFL players are superior athletes though. But again, it's pretty relative because football doesn't necessarily require a big upper body.