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.

Cricket firmly entrenches people in a very specific skill set. I't s a lot more niche oriented than other sports. I could argue that NFL is the most skillful sport for the same reasons you'll give as to why Cricket is. Saying that one sport is more skillful than another is ridiculous.

Yes, but they're not deemed to be especially 'good' at it, the only reason they've made it in the AFL is because they're good athletes, not on the back of their actual ability in the sport. There are a bunch of players across Europe who have played Basketball or other sports at an a-grade level, I guess that means that football isn't that big a deal either.

Niall Quinn is one of many ex Gaelic footballers to have made a very good living in English soccer.

Let's not forget Hans-Peter Briegel. He was a decathlete up to the age of 17, specialising in the long and triple jumps, before taking up soccer, and he went on to play 72 games with West Germany. He started off as a striker, but later became a defender with Kaiserslautern and the West German NT, playing in the losing 82 and 86 world cup finals.

There's also the terrific story about one of the Matildas who took up the game aged 14/15 and was in the Matildas team within 18 months.

How many other stories are there just like this around the world? Who knows.

It just goes to show what you can do with a bit of hard work and natural ability.

Surely some of you guys have played both?? For mine, I reckon it's Association Football.

I think that, to a degree, people who have grown up in Australia will have a slightly different view to those who grew up in a single-sport society (like Sth America perhaps??). We are used to the Rugby and ARF elements whereas it would be totally foreign to them...

Personally I grew up playing League, Football and Cricket on the playground and mainly Football and Cricket on the weekends. I played them all competitively in varying degrees at some stage. Also played a couple of games of local Aussie Rules when their team was short (Reserve grade).

I haven't played enough ARF to make a definitive judgement, but the running / catching / kicking-on-the-run / tackling seemed to come pretty naturally. Handballing didn't. But it was damn fun! I struggled a bit with the rules and positional play though. I think it would be relatively easy to become competent with a bit of dedication.

League - also fun but can be intimidating. Positional play and the concept of space don't seem to apply as much because you're usually facing the opposition and they stand in a line across the field. You rely a lot on the support of your team mates.

Football - the game I love most. IMO requires certain skills that just don't come naturally like the above two. Also requires MUCH more cognitive ability.

Cricket - technique is critical. So are a big set of balls when a quick bowler is moving it around. Cannot be compared to the football codes because it requires such different qualities.

Socially, I surf (short board) and play golf (rarely these days). They're both difficult but once you get the technique right things get easier.

I not refuting any of your examples, nor anyone else's. But I just had the thought that perhaps a better comparison would be of participants at amateur level, rather than high level athletes who can sometimes just be 'good at everything' and make things look easy.

If you were to take 2 local pub Football teams and make them play a game of ARF against each other they would undoubtedly look like a bunch of gumbies.

If you made the same kind of switch with the local ARF team, making them play Football they would also look like gumbies.

The question is, who would look like the biggest bunch of gumbies?? :-k

I've got mates who cross codes all the time. I know 2 blokes who play indoor over the summer and American Football during the winter.

Who really cares? Different skills are needed in each sport in such a specific way that it is very difficult, almost impossible, to master any two sports.

One thing about skill sets in rugby league that I find surprising is just how deficient in teaching kicking skills they are. Most of the better kickers in the NRL attribute at least some of their kicking ability to playing football(soccer) as a kid.
I remember the school rugby league coach being astonished watching us, the football team, having a field goal competition that got past halfway before anyone missed while we waited for our coach to come.

If you go in cold, yes, of course, anyone will look like a gumby trying a new sport for the first time, especially if they are playing blokes who know what they are doing.

On the other hand, plenty of blokes grow up playing more than one sport very well.

Plenty need to choose one over the other as they approach the age of 15/16.

Soccer players probably need to specialise a bit earlier than that - but the flip side is are they able to do anything else once they start specialising?

ARFBALL is obviously easy.Eg the Palestinians that were getting taught the rules the day they played for their county in the ARFBALL World Cup last year

I don't see why not. If other sports take less time to become specialised in surely that means turning the cognitive intention into action isn't as hard?

Edited by ual: 16/7/2012 07:39:31 PM

I don't think that counts as a sport. But nice try. :"

I guarantee you I could teach someone the basic rules and techniques of Soccer in a shorter amount of time that it would take me to teach them the basic rules and techniques of Aussie Rules.

Questionable. How long have you got to explain offside? :P

The skill sets are different, why does one have to be better 'or more skillful' than the other?

Edited by Joffa: 16/7/2012 07:55:31 PM

I think we can all agree that the most skilful sport is without a doubt, cheese-rolling.

I disagree.

Running of the Bulls in Spain. I mean, fuck. The skill, speed, talent, reactions you gotta have to avoid being gored.

QFT

The amount of times I've stared at a screen and watched it absolutely spliffed out of my mind is beyond belief, it never ceases to amaze.

Next time you toke up give it a viewing, it won't disappoint.

Especially when you get to the part where you see all the injuries sustained and there's limbs sticking off at all kinds of angles :lol:

That was actually a mixed Israeli and Palestinian team - and the correct name of the competition is the Australian Football International Cup.

Their results:

Canada 3.6 (24) def Peace Team 0.0 (0)
USA 12.7 (89) def Peace Team 0.0 (0)
Peace Team 12.18 (90) def China 1.1 (7)
France 5.5 (35) def Peace Team 4.5 (29)
Peace Team 7.15 (57) def India 2.8 (20)

Finishing 15th of 18 nations (above India, China and East Timor).

So against the countries with a bit of history in the game (Canada and the USA), they weren't much chop, but they were quite good against countries new to the game.

I have played lots of games in my time. I watched a race the other weekend but then I turned on the TV and I couldn't see what was on so the ball went flying over my head and landed. The sausages ended up burning. That's why I think it is the most skill is required to play it.

Ice Hockey for me. You need to skate at an elite level... stick handle at an elite level and be as tough and physical as any rugby code. \:d/

The decathlon must be one of the more demanding sports at the Olympics, requiring competence in 10 different disciplines.

The marathon is not skillful per se, but it's certainly gruelling - the best are running 42 kms at almost spot on 3 minutes per kilometre, which is a super human effort.

Most of us would struggle to run just 4 km at 3 minutes per km, let alone 42.

As a one time regular jogger, in between footy season, I would run a 6km course in 24 min, at 4 minutes per kim - and that was the very, very best I was able to achieve.

The top fun runners can do 10m in 30 minutes, and that's 3 minutes per km, but that's still a long way off doing 42 km at 3 minutes per km.

I did 16km in 63:30 during season - then stuffed my knee in a 50/50 tackle & couldn't distance run for nearly 6 months. Yeah, I know Football doesn't have injuries & I was just faking it.......

Just show them the clip from bend it Like Beckham :d

Looking to keep this with a mainstream sport my vote is GOLF !

As a would be fair hacker just playing 18 holes near to par is damn hard.
Each shot is hardly the same, club distances, surfaces vary.
Its not a reflex its mechanical, static ball looks easy to hit but hit it where its meant to go every time #-o
Pro level playing over 4days must be damn draining mentally =d>

Obviously you went to ground holding your face...

an interesting thing that I read or saw somewhere was that a racing car driver (I think it was Webber) loses close to 2.5kg per race.

Pretty good for someone 'sitting down'

As for the OP in my humble opinion AFL requires more and varied skills were as soccer requires more finesse.

As for skillful sports a hammer in the works... Esports

Don't AFL players get selected from athletics carnivals as youngsters these days? Not that there's anything wrong with it, but for me AFL is largely an athletic sport, not so much skillful. Although in the same way a 100m sprint isn't all that skillful, it doesn't make it any less impressive.

I think when people compare skill sets used in particular sports it becomes somewhat irrelevant when discussing it as a spectator sport. People don't go to see the most skillful game, but perhaps the most skillful players. Jonathan Thurston may play a fairly basic sport as a skill set, but to call him basic at it would be wrong.

In terms of playing it myself, as someone who has played Football all my life, I'd feel more comfortable having a go at Sunday sport like AFL or NRL, rather than more skillful sports (IMO) such as basketball, tennis, etc. The physicality and athletics of those sports would make me be able to fit in reasonable well. On the one occasion I played League for a school team I was far from a standout, but was fairly quick to pick up where to be and what to do, even scored a try. I think the more "skillful" sports are much easier to be found out in. You can't just turn up at a 3point line in bball and start knocking them down.

I would not say sprinting isn't skillful. It takes years and years of dedicated practice to get reaction times and technique to the level that you can compete with best. Just being the fastest runner isn't good enough anymore.

Of course there is skill involved, but comparatively the skill set is much smaller to that of other sports such as Football, Basketball, Tennis, etc.

AFL has changed to being a sport that protects and rewards speed ahead of technical ability ability and it's seen a decrease in many of the 'core' skills in the sport. Kicking accuracy over the last 10 years has decreased notably.

This is the kind of athleticism AFL clubs are constantly looking out for:

[youtube]szPpo-14Cto[/youtube]



Edited by Mister Football: 20/7/2012 01:46:55 PM

Just because understanding the basic rules and techniques is easier ( I agre with you there) it doesn't follow that it's easier to execute those techniques.

The big variable in football is using pretty much exclusively feet to control the ball, which isn't anywhere as natural as using hands.