Originally Posted by
Stuttgart88
No, rugby is not more technically difficult. Sure John Hayes never played the game before 18 and went on to become a legend. The IRFU is scouting successful athletes from other sports, throwers, sprinters etc. If rugby was as technically difficult there is no way you could take up the sport late and succeed. There is a young lad on the fringes of the first XV at Connacht who didn't make the grade as a footballer in England. He has relatively little rugby experience.
Rogers and Wenger both say that in soccer if you haven't got the skill by 11 it's too late. But in rugby you can take it up late and as long as you're coordinated, strong and quick you can still succeed.
The spatial awareness to succeed in football is on a different plane to what is needed by 12 or more rugby playets on a team. Only at 10 and centre, in my opinion, is superior spatial awareness a real asset. In rugby you rarely need to "watch your house" because the game is mainly played in front of you and if you get stuck for an option in possession you can just kick it upfield (like our soccer players do!) or take the hit.
I was in school with rugby internationals. I always feel that tells a story. If all it takes is to be the best in a school like mine to have a chance, the playing universe can't be that big!
This isn't a dig at rugby, just a riposte to the nonsense quoted above.
And Early is absolutely right. It's incredibly difficult to even become a mediocre footballer in the overall scheme of things.