Who would you say are generally fitter (faster) football players or rugby players?

Question

Who would you say are generally fitter (faster) football players or rugby players?

Answer 1

Rugby. They are running all the time. Football is only for a few moments at a time.

Answer 2

Rugby players are by far the fitter athletes of the two. Rugby players have two run nearly all the time unlike football where there's constant breaks in play.

Answer 3

Different types of fitness.  Football players go for the entire game, but do not have the physical side that Rugby players need for their game.

Both are fit, but Rugby players are stronger

Answer 4

Both require a high level off fitness,footballers game is ten minutes longer and without the ball they must still markup and follow their opposite round the paddock and generally play in burst of speed,Rugby is constant running and their bodies are being battered through the whole 8omn (mainly the forward pack).I played rugby for 16 yrs and only played soccer at school intervals and sometimes rugby training for team skills and found it quite cool and really takes it out of you when played at pace{i wasnt very good}...lol

Answer 5

I have played both competitively and as everyone is pretty much saying they are simply a different type of fitness. Soccer players do way more running and are fitter anerobically but rugby is more of an endurance battle and hits you physically in many different ways.

BTW it must be said also that different positions in rugby require a range of different attributes so therefore this can never be a completely accurate arguement. For example a 1st 5 doesn't really need to be that fit at all compared to a number 7 whereas football players are more similar physically to one another

Answer 6

Anaerobically soccer players are fitter, Strength wise rugby players are, Its that simple. Soccer players are more coordinated however, I believe the only time your body is in prefect coordination is when you fall over and strangely for a non contact sport soccer players seem to this more often tackled rugby players.

Yahoo!Xtra official rugby expert for Wellington. Ask me anything on Yahoo Xtra answers

Answer 7

On average football players cover more territory (kilometres/miles) per match than rugby players. Aussie Rules players apparently run more than both of them.

I can't remember the exact figures but I have heard them from various people a number of times....

Football and rugby are a different kind of fitness though. In rugby it is a lot more physical which takes plenty out of you. Especially if you are a forward, not only do you have to cover heaps of ground but rucks and mauls are really energy sapping. Then you get to a set piece, seems like an ideal time for a break but you need to lend your weight in the scrums or lift/jump in the lineout.

Overall rugby players are fitter (IMO). You use far more muscles and exert more energy.

P.S - by football I mean soccer, the round ball game. Not that joke of a game with pads and helmets.

Answer 8

It has to be rugby. They are running pretty much constantly throughout the game. That doesn't mean that American Footballers are not fit just not as fit.

Answer 9

Rugby players are more fit than both football/soccer and American football players.  In terms of faster, I would say football/soccer players are faster than rugby (and definitely faster than American football) because not all of rugby is about speed; it's about strength.  Both rugby and football/soccer involve a lot of running, but unless the latter has changed tremendously since I last watched, there isn't a lot of tackling involved.  Some rugby players are on the team because they're strong, not because they're fast - and not all of them need to be fast to succeed.  Football/soccer is more about speed and coordination.