Not a clickbait post here but an honest question. Isn't some form of running the total base requirement for most kinds of real sport? Isn't restricting it to 'only' running an admission that all other requirements for sport, i.e. co-ordination, timing, team work, aggression, intelligence beyond the candidate? Isn't just plain 'running' just a Forest Gump initiative? I imagine a fair percentage of those reading this post pursue other more athletic pursuits but in the universe of 'runners' is it not fair to say they are not athletes or sports people but just glorified 'walkers'? No offence intended.
0 ·
Comments
i hate running anything more than 5k, it’s so repetitive and boring but I have to do it to keep fit enough for football. People who spend hours running for the hell of it are weirdos and should be avoided.
But am I talented? Oh hell no. I don't have the ideal build for distance running, my stride is short and shuffly and probably don't have great lung capacity. It took me 13 half marathons to get under 2 hours and I had to work hard to achieve that. A lot of people do that on their first try, and with less training (which makes me a little salty, but hey, they are them and I am me).
There are a lot of runners like me. There are a lot of runners slower than I am. But when you look at the front of the field, you have people with talent. A lot of talent. And sure, some of them might have been brilliant at other sports but chose running as the sport they wanted to compete at. Would you describe Eliud Kipchoge as a glorified walker? No, me neither.
I think the point is, running is accessible to almost everyone, whether you have the talent for it or not. It's fairly unique in that a shuffling penguin like myself can run in the same race as Mo Farah (something I did at The Big Half this year), whereas someone who plays football on a local team once a week is not going to be playing in the FA Cup. Those guys and girls at the front of the field, though - they're athletes, make no mistake about it. They understand nutrition, hydration, race strategy and a multitude of other things. Running, or specifically, racing, is a sport. Just one that is very inclusive.
While running is involved in many sports most sports don't require a lot of running to be the sport. In fact if you ran a lot in a football match you would be missing the point, as is the same in tennis for instance. In both these sport running is a means to an end. Namely positioning. Once that is achieved you stop and do something else. Kick, volley, smash, back hand etc. You don't need to develop the running ability of a runner. Even some runners don't have to run far...but that a different story.
So yes running is a sport. The most basic and the oldest. Get from here to there faster than every one else and you win. What can be more sporting than that?
On your marks, get set.....
I think you could describe any "sport" in those terms. Football is just running with a few stops to kick a ball around (and at the highest level, a bit of acrobatics when tackled). Golf is whacking a ball with a stick. Swimming is just not drowning.
"Not clickbait" but what's your point? All sport is ultimately just exercise.
To be honest that's just my opinion, and that's been my motivation for running. Setting a goal and recording my runs, hoping to see an improvement!
I'll tell you the "sport" which requires he least sporting ability - football. 22 grown men fight over a pig's bladder while trying to not upset their hairstyle. They run, what, about 6 miles over the course of 90 minutes. Sometimes these bursts of speed are quite quick but they're very short-lived and then there's a rest where they just walk around and recover. I'm twice the age of some of these players but I could comfortably run twice as far as them over 90 minutes, and without moaning afterwards that I'm too tired to do it again a few days later.
Maybe spending a little less time on hair and tattoos and more time on fitness? Would be interesting to see how fit these idiots actually are - would love to see them run a HM during their football training to see if they could finish it and in what time.
On the subject - the first year of the Westminster miles there was supposed to be a professional footballers race - never happened. Me and my mate were discussing how long it would take someone like Gareth Bale, I said he could be sub5, mate disagreed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1327102/Tottenhams-Gareth-Bale-reveals-The-Prince-Wales.html
The result was that I have never ached so much after 90 minutes.
Don't confuse your fitness with that of a footballer. The two are completely different. Whereas I could happily do a two hour long slow run, and the next day do a recovery run, I could not move after this game. I struggled for a week. The difference was primarily that when I run I pretty much go in a straight line and can run to a rhythm. When I played football it was stop/start, changes of direction, contact with other players, short bursts and sprints to get in to position. Something that my body wasn't used to. Yes I was fit, especially for my age, but I wasn't fit in terms of playing football.
Professional footballers are fit. They have to be.
Well i have only done 2 marathons myself, and do track races, but if you've seem my pathetic attempts at throwing, long jump, 100m.. etc you would see why I class myself as a runner, NOT an athlete! Still think it's good to challenge yourself, although I see loads of folk challenging themselves up the distances, you don't see many trying to go for shorter and faster..i suppose there's less opportunity to do the races.
Regarding football, thanks for the Bale article. I bet he could do 4.45, coming off the end of the season at RM and still being fit. Football uses so many more muscles agreed - its usually the glutes that kill after a match!
Oh well, hopefully he can find solace with his £350k a week salary.
I would suggest, as above, they are fit. However their fitness equates to the sport they're playing. Usain Bolt would have struggled to do a half marathon, but would you have said he's "generally not fit" as he only ran a maximum of 200m?
I don't doubt a professional footballer would be able to run a half marathon. The average distance covered in a game is 7 miles. It would be interesting for you to play a full 90 minutes of football and see how you feel after.
It might be interesting, and I may well be wrong. I don't play football, and you're right, I don't hold it in high regard because I find the constant cheating by all footballers to be a bit wearing. I mean, every time the ball goes out of play there seems to be an automatic reflex action to turn to the referee and stick the arm up. Every time there's any decision they don't like then they harass the referee. Can't stand it - the players are paid to kick a ball, not to influence the referee's decisions. They don't need to gesture or speak, and they should be sent off for doing so. Sounds harsh, but it's called being professional. The managers are just as bad, jumping around and shouting like demented chimps who've been force-fed blue smarties. The whole thing is becoming ever harder to watch - why have a referee and then allow the players their opinion?
My point was just that while there are some fast bursts of speed, these are not prolonged, and it's mostly just jogging / walking / standing still. Yes, there is the kicking of the ball, but in terms of factual / scientific definitions of "work done", it's not a lot. The ball is in constant movement, the players aren't. They are playing for 90 minutes, and I don't think an average of 13 minutes / mile is desperately difficult for any athlete.
Their fitness does equate to the game they're playing, I agree, and maybe they don't need to be fitter than they are. Maybe being able to run 7 miles in 90 minutes is fit enough? They just have to be as fit as the other team, I suppose.
My point is simply that if an old fart like me can cover twice the distance they can over the same time, and not just once a week, how come a top footballer in peak physical fitness (with no other job conflicts and access to massive resources) has to be "rested" between games? I've even seen footballers look tired at the end of a game, 90 minutes often looks like too much for some players.......
Get yourself some cones, complete the tests in the article below (maybe suggest them as an activity for a training night at your club?) and report back:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/11063463/Test-yourself-are-you-as-fit-as-a-Premier-League-footballer.html
Then why do they do so much standing around? Watching Brazil last night, even the commentator mentioned that Neymar's game seems to be based mainly on just standing around waiting for the ball. There was also a comment that one of the players (can't remember who) had run much further than the others, possibly as much as 22K over 2 games.
I can't speak for football, but I can speak for (field) hockey which you could argue is pretty similar in terms of required fitness/movement etc.
What I will say is that the type of fitness required for hockey and the type of fitness required for running are completely different. Two summers ago I spent 16 weeks training for a marathon, ran it in 3:38, then went into the start of the hockey season having not done any pre-season fitness on the assumption that I would be fine having been covering 50 miles per week. Wrong! In the first match I couldn't believe how unfit I felt, was shattered within 20 minutes.
In a hockey match I may cover about 10k in the 70 minutes, a distance which if I just went out and ran it on the road in that time I would barely break sweat (I can run sub 40 10k), yet after a hockey match I am tired and parts of me ache that would never ache after running. There may well be some standing around, but there are also times I am sprinting in bursts, and crucially, suddenly stopping and changing direction. It also requires concentration on a far higher level throughout the match, even when standing around (because you are focusing on who you need to be marking, and getting into good positions for when a team mate has the ball so you are available to be passed to). That mentally drains you too in a way that running doesn't.
The two are completely different. During the hockey season I will play a match on the Saturday, and then treat an hour run on a Sunday as a recovery run to shake out my muscles that ache. I may well cover greater distance in that recovery run on the Sunday than in the match the previous day, but I know which leaves me feeling more tired.
I would say a football/hockey match is on par with a hard fast 10k and the recovery needed is similar.
Is it possible that you've only ever watched a game on TV? That would then dictate what it is you see. You wouldn't necessarily see the movement players make off the ball, the running into space in the hope the ball might be played to them. If you saw a match in the flesh, as it were, you might get a different perspective.
Additionally Neymar carries around with him a certain reputation that does make him open to the kind of observation that he's not doing a great deal. I wouldn't say I'm his biggest fan and can understand the criticism he receives, however it would appear those who have paid £200m for his services in the past understand what his game is about. And it's not about chasing or closing down or defending, it's about being in a position to receive the ball in the last third of the field where he can be the most effective.
Players will walk during a game as a recovery. Where is the need for them to be able to run at a decent club runner's pace for the entirety of a game? That would just be pointless in the same way it would be pointless for you to kick a ball during the whole of a half marathon.