You're wrong. Mate

But I could be mistaken cos I'm still a bit sleepy from watching that borefest. Took up space on sky+ drive it did too. Even the sky box is sluggish now after that!

Just as an aside, as devils advocate, surely being a good athlete means you have a high quality skill set which you can produce at pace and under high pressure.

Didn't see much of that today. Its alright being able to run fast if that's all you can do!

I don't care how the game was. And no, I'm not wrong. Ioane, Habana and Turner all run a sub 100m.

Still waiting on you to name a fat winger, fullback or centre. Please, enlighten me.

Well not really, mate, skill is skill.

Athleticism has nothing to do with being able to run lines, catch passes, throw them etc.

Nobody except the deluded are saying Rugby players are more or even as skillful as League players. What honest people are saying is that there's plenty of athletes in Rugby that embarrass our best.

You just come across as irrational and deluded by hatred of Rugby to deny that there's many amazing world class athletes in the game.

I'd love to see Ioane, Habana and O'Connor in rugby league.

Poor planning from the union men? He should have been on Habana's wing. A quality player who knows what to do with ball in hand. Sam would have scored two or three.

I have to disagree mate. Habana is approaching that side of the hill and has always been a man to exploit breaks and space, rather than create them.

Fruean is one of the best line break merchants in Rugby. Tomkins was better placed on the right. Habana didn't create much in the way of opportunity in the game, where as Fruean broke the line at will

(I also think people are being a little harsh on Tomkins performance by suggesting he should have been placed elsewhere - He played extremely well given it was his first pro game in a team that was and played off the park) By saying he should have been in position x, y or z it kind of implied he went on the right wing and shouldn't have been there, which I don't think is true

Devils advocate rancid. Know what that means?

Get off your high horse

Your definition of "athlete" is wrong, that's why you're all flustered.

Sam might not be as fast as some of those union backs but he is a better athlete cos he has a better skill set which he regularly produces at pace and under pressure

Union backs have superb upper body development but lack real athleticism, in relation to their upper body their core and leg muscles are under developed.

Apart from a couple of obvious exceptions Union backs also lack agility which is down to an over emphasis on strength training at the expense of a more universal athletic perpetration.

Their cadence is often suitable for nothing more than straight line speed in much the same way that 100mtr sprinters are, ask them to run lines, step, use agility and evasion and some can't do it, those that can, do so in a very rudimentary fashion that's light years behind League backs.

Their energy systems are at base levels, they do not have the aerobic capacity of League athletes and until they learn to prepare themselves as athletes and not bodybuilders they will never rival the performance levels attained by Rugby League players.

He's only 28, isn't he?

Playing Devils advocate is taking a position you don't agree with for the sake of argument. My response was valid whether you're playing devils advocate or not(which I seriously doubt you are).

What you're saying is that Sam is a more skillfull player. But being a good player and being an athlete aren't synonymous. James Graham and Michael Weyman are good players - Neither are out and out athletes.

Andy "The Viking" Fordham is a world class athlete by your definition and Usain Bolt is a athlete because there's little skill in running

You're also, I would argue, being deceitful. You suggested Rugby players were fat and lazy and therefore non-athletic. In your earlier posts by saying that you agreed yourself that athleticism is measured on physicality, not skill... Or you wouldn't have implied fat people can't be athletes.

You're all over the place mate. Are you that biased and irrational that you just can't accept plenty of Rugby players are better athletes than our own?

Yep. It doesn't matter that there's rugby wingers more explosive, faster, stronger, heavier, fitter than Tomkins. Their ability to run lines isn't as good so they're inferior athletes. If you tried making that argument to somebody who wasn't familiar with either sport they would laugh in your face!

Absolute nonsense. I can't stress enough how nonsense your post is. Good, well focused training will never change the fact that 99.99999% of English league players are quasi-athletes. You can educate and put them on a perfect system, it will not change the fact they're average athletes. You know this. You can't take a standard person and make them great athletes.

You also can't change the fact the absolute vast majority of English League players, professional or otherwise, are Caucasian.

It's confusing when you say rugby. I don't know if you mean rugby league or union. They are two different sports with some similarities. Union players would have difficultiess adapting to rugby league and vice-versa.

When I say Rugby I mean Union. And my argument is not that Union players are better players, I'm saying they're better athletes.

I'm not trying to sing the praises of Rugby, i'm just pointing out fundamental realities. Rugby draws from a player base about 100 x the size of ours, their best athletes are better than ours. Their worst athletes are alot worse, sure, but their best are FREAKS. There are very few freak athletes in League, the majority are in Aus or NZ.

While they might be at League and even Rugby when it comes to skills, there's no question as athletes they're(Union) above ours.

They're heavier, faster, stronger and more explosive. Even a monster like Manu Vatuvei looks ordinary when lined up against the best Rugby wingers.

Yeah, nonsense based on sports science and experience of coaching both Union and League players while your opinion is based on watching telly.... er....a lot!

Sorry but you're talking crap... I can't quite tell if you're trolling or not.