Australian Rules Football is a better sport than American Football

I would like to start my final round by clarifying something from Round 2 that con (probably justifiably) has critised me for and I was unable to add in in round 3. When I stated that NFL players only had to be good at one thing, I was more meaning one position or aspect of the game. I must agree with con in saying that it is ridiculous to infer that a player must only perform 1 skill on the field. Going back t what i said about wide receivers, what I meant was that they only have to know how to play as wide receivers, which is only a small part of the game as a whole. While Australian Football also has designated positions for players these positions, with the exception of one or two, are likely to change throughout the course of the game. Defenders must also master the art of setting up an attack for their team and forwards must be able to defend the ball moving out of their teams forward line. Also Cons comment that, "Catches in the NFL are based on actual athleticism, not jumping on the back of the person in front of you and catching the ball. " could not make less sense. I fail to see how soaring through the air higher than your opponent, or perfectly timing a leap over them to hang there while catching the ball is not a feat of athletic ability, not to mention skill and strength. I also find cons comparisons of AFL to soccer to be quite misguided. While they are both continuous sports as con points out, but AFL is full contact, is played on a completely different field with completely different goals, plus, as con also points out, it is a high scoring game, unlike soccer, where it is more than possible for no one to score for the whole game (yawn). Con also continues to insist that all AFL players are exactly the same, even though my links and videos provide evidence to the contrary. Seeing as he is not convinced here are some more: . http://www.kangaroos.com.au... (172cm) . http://www.saints.com.au... (197cm) . http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au....aspx(176cm) . http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au... (201cm) I also fail to see how a high scoring game is not an exciting game. Sure there can be blowouts by up to 20 goals when there is an obvious gap in class between the two teams but there will be a gap between the top and the bottom and I’m sure, from time to time, NFL teams also lose by 5 or 6 touchdowns. But getting back to the excitement factor, more goals gives you more highlights, more chances for fans to celebrate with the players and more chance of a large margin being overthrown. On Cons point about the AFL grand final broadcast, this was a bit of a farce. However it is worth noting that that station no longer has broadcast rights and for the first time this year every AFL game has been broadcast live in High Definition. We also need to take into consideration that the AFL is dealing with a market of around 24million people while the NFL has a market of around 311m plus American culture has a much better influence of the rest of the world than Australia does. If the roles were reversed and American had invented our game and us their then I'm sure the ratings would still be similar. A few final points: Cons arguments about being tackled with the ball promoting turnovers is part of the reason the game is so exciting, in an instance one team can go from being on the attack to having to defend quickly. It also highlights how much skill it takes to keep possession of the ball. Bouncing the ball is not intentionally fumbling, why would any player intentionally lose the ball, it's just another skill that is a part of the game and adds to the difficulty of the sport. It’s also no weirder than some of the technical rules in the NFL such as the third quarterback rule or the fact that a quarterback can't through past the line of scrimmage (I've always thought this would add an exciting element to the NFL). Con also seemed to be baffled by the notion of tripping being illegal. While tripping can cause serious injuries (and AFL players would rather die then prance around in full padding) it is also almost seen as cheating. Instead of tackling your opponent by using your strength against his, you stop him from running by taking out his legs. How is this a courageous, honourable way of matching your skill and strength against your opponent? While a defensive linesman probably could beat up the average AFL player this has nothing to do with the merits of the sports. I will however apologise for calling them fat. I did not mean it was a bad thing, it was merely a way of explaining for the difference in size and their size does serve a purpose that is not needed in AFL football. Nic Naitanui is not the only person who can do anything in the AFL, the videos clearly prove this. While he is extremely athletic, his skill level is actually not that great compared to other players, like most other ruckmen, hence is a part of the least skilled group that plays AFL. If you want to see some examples of other, less amazing, ruckmen, look up players like Darren Jolly and Ivan Maric. They still do more than most NFL players. The "benchwarmer who sits on his rear end the whole game in Aussie football" is actually a sub who can take the place of an injured player in the team. This rule was brought in to keep the game fairer if one team had an injury and could not rotate as many players as the opposition. I have said already that I have immense respect for quarterbacks however, as i have already pointed out, they are the elite of their team and only one player, whereas a good AFL team requires several of their equivalent. Punting the ball and hoping your team marks it is the equivalent of throwing a long pass in an NFL game, sometimes it comes off and sometimes it doesn't. The risk helps make the game exciting. I'm done.