Finnegan Posted 6 November 2009 Author Posted 6 November 2009 Bollocks. So on track, in spikes he could probably knock half a second off that which is close to the WR time.Some people believe some utter tosh. Exactly. With no disrespect to Unit, people are too quick to believe these myths. Like my mate with his Wayne Rooney 10secs jibberish. People don't quite have it in perspective just how fast Olympic sprinters are and just how fast ten or even ten-point-five seconds is to run the 100m. People have it in their heads that every Olympic sprinter's bombing it down at like nine and a half seconds in every race and it just isn't true. At the world athletics final this year, Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell only just came in under ten seconds to take gold and silver. Darvis Patton who took bronze did it in ten sharp.
Bert Posted 6 November 2009 Posted 6 November 2009 I'd give most Premiership footballers a run for their money.
Finnegan Posted 6 November 2009 Author Posted 6 November 2009 I'd give most Premiership footballers a run for their money. Out of interest, do you know your PB over 100?
leicesterfox86 Posted 6 November 2009 Posted 6 November 2009 Now I imagine this is the wrong place to come expecting you all to side with rugby - but I'm having an argument with a friend of mine who thinks pretty much all "fast" footballers are faster than their rugby playing counter parts. He claims that even the so called fastest rugby players are too bulky and are carrying too much weight, relative to their size, to be fast. The flip side of this of course being most football players are weedy twigs compared to the average Olympic sprinter.Now, speculation aside, it got me interested in finding the actual speeds of professional footballers but a quick couple of google searches and I actually can't seem to find any reliable figures for any pro footballers sprinting times? I told my friend that the likes of JP Pietersen and Bryan Habana have been clocked at narrowly over 10 seconds and that Tom Varndell can reportedly do the 100 in 11 seconds. To which he tried to claim that even Wayne Rooney can run the hundred in under ten. Now surely that's absolutely bollocks? In fact I'll personally eat my weight in Oreos if Wayne Rooney can run that quickly, I just don't have any evidence. So come on, brainiacs of Foxes Talk. Can you help me find any reliable sprint times for professional footballers? (Preferably ones people have heard of. And no, Dennis Rommerdahl hasn't run it in 10.5, that's a myth.) Blimey, good research!!
lildave3 Posted 6 November 2009 Posted 6 November 2009 I'd give most Premiership footballers a run for their money. I reckon I could take David Weir over 20.
Finnegan Posted 6 November 2009 Author Posted 6 November 2009 I reckon I could take David Weir over 20. You underestmate David Weir.
maddog Posted 6 November 2009 Posted 6 November 2009 Most fast Premier League footballers would do the 100m somewhere between 11-13 seconds. I'm sure a few could break 11 seconds but doubt if any of them are anywhere near 10 seconds.
Tommy G Posted 6 November 2009 Posted 6 November 2009 Most fast Premier League footballers would do the 100m somewhere between 11-13 seconds.I'm sure a few could break 11 seconds but doubt if any of them are anywhere near 10 seconds. One of the first correct things you have ever said!
Uncle Albert Posted 6 November 2009 Posted 6 November 2009 I reckon Aaron Lennon could get close to 10 flat.
Dave-Pundit Posted 6 November 2009 Posted 6 November 2009 Needum Onouha used to be a sprinter for England in Under 16's if I remember correctly. Yep just read up: "when Ned's fledgling career peaked with a 100 metres time of 10.9sec. He came in second in the 100m final when he was 14" So I'm guessing if he kept training to be a sprinter he would of been something close to 10. I wouldn't say Rooney is 10 seconds in 100m, but when I asked a youth coach of under 18's level who the fastest player he had ever seen was, he said Rooney with Walcott also just behind. Weird really, I'm guessing as Rooney bulked up a little, he lost abit of his speed, although He's still very quick. Agbonlahor is unbelievable quick and also powerful to go with it. Walcott did 11.7 seconds when he was 14...so not as quick as Onouhua, but again with training and what not...
Guest ttfn Posted 6 November 2009 Posted 6 November 2009 There is absolutely no way that any professional footballer or rugby player could run 100m in less than about 10.3, even with spikes, a running track etc. You can get through to the quarter finals of the Olympics (ie about the top 32 in the world) in 10.3 seconds. These people are professional sprinters who train every day just to run fast in a straight line. This is not to even begin to mention their body shape. Stick an average UK sprinter (Craig Pickering for instance) in a 100m race with Theo Walcott and it would be totally embarrassing for Walcott. He'd get shat on
Guest Posted 6 November 2009 Posted 6 November 2009 Corrected You obviously haven't seen me where free alcohol is about.
BoneDog Posted 6 November 2009 Posted 6 November 2009 Stick an average UK sprinter (Craig Pickering for instance) in a 100m race with Theo Walcott and it would be totally embarrassing for Walcott. He'd get shat on That would be pretty embarrassing, and very humiliating
MPH Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 agbonlahor is apparently the fastest footy player in the prem with a top speed of 21.1 mph when racing to the ball.. some clever person can work out what that is over 100m im sure http://www.skysports.com/whoisthefastest/index.html Habana is clocked at 10.4seconds over 100m - fastest man in rugby http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunio...f-all-time.html EDIT: oooooooooooooooooooooooo gotta love google http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&s...mp;oq=&aqi= (10.4 s) over (100 m) = 21.5090028 mph so there you have it. Brian Habana is faster than the fastest person in the prem ( gabby agbonlahor) FACT
Finnegan Posted 7 November 2009 Author Posted 7 November 2009 Eh yeah but just because Gabby can hit that speed it doesn't mean he can sustain it for 100m. Harder than it sounds. But yeah, way easier to find this sort of information on rugby players.
MPH Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 Eh yeah but just because Gabby can hit that speed it doesn't mean he can sustain it for 100m. Harder than it sounds.But yeah, way easier to find this sort of information on rugby players. either way Habana is still faster then?
Fox You Forest Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 That first link is all Nike though, so surely only players who have a boot sponsorship deal with them have taken part.
MPH Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 That first link is all Nike though, so surely only players who have a boot sponsorship deal with them have taken part. no its done in partnership with sly sports and Optex that stats people besides, in other pages i looked into it was commonly states gabby agbonlahor was the fastest footballer....
Bert Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 Out of interest, do you know your PB over 100? 11.34.
SMX11 Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 I can remember Dennis Rohamdahll (spelling) playing for Charlton. They say he could do it under 10 seconds
Uncle Albert Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 There is noway in hell that Dennis Rommedahl could ever run 100m in under 10 seconds - if any idiot thinks that then they are a grade A idiot. Do you really think Rommedahl would of pissed about with Charlton and had an average footballing career if he knew he could run under 10 seconds, that meant he could of gone to Olympics in 2004 and won a Gold medal.
Webbo Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 There is noway in hell that Dennis Rommedahl could ever run 100m in under 10 seconds - if any idiot thinks that then they are a grade A idiot. Do you really think Rommedahl would of pissed about with Charlton and had an average footballing career if he knew he could run under 10 seconds, that meant he could of gone to Olympics in 2004 and won a Gold medal. a)Running under 10 secs wouldn't necessarily win a gold medal. b)Football pays a lot better.
Uncle Albert Posted 7 November 2009 Posted 7 November 2009 a)Running under 10 secs wouldn't necessarily win a gold medal.b)Football pays a lot better. The winner of the 04 Olympics ran 9.85 so he would come close to this if he can run under 10. Yeah maybe so but he still would of made a big earning from it, I personally think its a load of horseshit that he can run under 10.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.