Who should have contested the RWC final, on form shown?

holcs wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:

holcs wrote:Phurt Gayball.

Each to their own though hey Lardy!

Gayball... fork orf... they're men(manly men), men in long socks.

If you say so Danny Boy...

Me ol' fruit basket.... you know all too well it's a man's game up until Championship level.... you've been there... just like me... just like many others... war on a saturday/sunday after a night on the razzle... like a deliberate handicap... -2 degrees... it's a damn fookin man's game...

[quote="Geoffrey Trueman
Well, being a rugby league fan I'm obviously going to disagree with that. My beef with union is it's entertainment value as a spectator sport can be almost nil. Low scoring games of RL on the other hand can still be thoroughly entertaining because both sides will be constantly 'running the football' and trying their damnedest to get over the try line with ball in hand.

[/quote]

Ah yes the running game that is League.

Would that be the one that is in a dead straight line? with floaty lateral passes, because the oppo have to give you 10m of space? Rivetting!!!!

Or the fact that you get 5 goes and then you have to kick the ball?

And those in Union aren't? I think you'll find every side try to get over the line in Union, problem is most defences are so good these days that its very difficult.

Batfink Begins wrote:

holcs wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:

holcs wrote:Phurt Gayball.

Each to their own though hey Lardy!

Gayball... fork orf... they're men(manly men), men in long socks.

If you say so Danny Boy...

Me ol' fruit basket.... you know all too well it's a man's game up until Championship level.... you've been there... just like me... just like many others... war on a saturday/sunday after a night on the razzle... like a deliberate handicap... -2 degrees... it's a damn fookin man's game...

Phurt again Danial me old mucker.. Tis a poof's game, one little tap and they roll around like they've been mauled by a Tiger, from Jewsons all the way up.

holcs wrote:Ah yes the running game that is League.

Would that be the one that is in a dead straight line? with floaty lateral passes, because the oppo have to give you 10m of space? Rivetting!!!!

Or the fact that you get 5 goes and then you have to kick the ball?

And those in Union aren't? I think you'll find every side try to get over the line in Union, problem is most defences are so good these days that its very difficult.

I've got a sneaky feeling you haven't seen much rugby league recently therefore your views and condemnation of RL is hard to take seriously. Ah well.

Anyway, what's wrong with kicking the ball after '5 goes'? That's at least three more than you get in union, surely?

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:

holcs wrote:Ah yes the running game that is League.

Would that be the one that is in a dead straight line? with floaty lateral passes, because the oppo have to give you 10m of space? Rivetting!!!!

Or the fact that you get 5 goes and then you have to kick the ball?

And those in Union aren't? I think you'll find every side try to get over the line in Union, problem is most defences are so good these days that its very difficult.

I've got a sneaky feeling you haven't seen much rugby league recently therefore your views and condemnation of RL is hard to take seriously. Ah well.

Anyway, what's wrong with kicking the ball after '5 goes'? That's at least three more than you get in union, surely?

I've tried to watch maybe 1/3 of the games televised on sky over the last couple of years perhaps. Problem is I get 30 minutes in and am bored!

And League has and always will be about float it a couple of times down the line and run dead straight at two men, hoping you can offload in the tackle. Unless of course the oppo's defence doesn't line up correctly and the guy at Dummy half is it can make a quick break.

So those 10 to 15 phases of play you invariably get in union are dull and boring as opposed to the, guaranteed kick after 5 goes. Talk about formulaic.

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:

I've got a sneaky feeling you haven't seen much rugby league recently therefore your views and condemnation of RL is hard to take seriously. Ah well.

And a League fan's condemnation of Union is something we ought to take seriously?

All the things you like about League are found in.....League. Why on earth do you want Union to be more like the game you prefer? You've got that already.

That's just weird. It's like a football fan saying the real problem with union is that people are allowed to handle the ball. Much better if they can only kick it - oh and put a net in the goalposts.

I quite like League as a spectacle, but I prefer Union. All the points made above are the reasons I get bored with it, running in a straight line, bashing into the bloke opposite, tapping it back, repeat till fifth occasion and then hoof it. Sorry, doesn't do it for me, it's formulaic and predictable.

It does have the advantage of being very simple to understand, and that's where it scores over union. But rugby league to me points up the very idiocy of the idea that running rugby is in itself the perfect goal. It isn't. Variety of play is the goal.

Fine, watch your rugby league. You prefer it, that's allowed. But to try to tell us that the problem with union is that it is not enough like the code we like less is both silly and frankly rather arrogant.

holcs wrote:Phurt again Danial me old mucker.. Tis a poof's game, one little tap and they roll around like they've been mauled by a Tiger, from Jewsons all the way up.

Soz Chasney, didn't realise you played in the United Pussies 2nd Division. Even the little strikers used to get up as quick as possible after being beasted to the floor by some meathead.
Luton v Cobblers, sky sports 1, october 8th: Hard football, good football, no mincing. There before your very eyes - though you probably didn't watch, because it's a damn non-event.

Fine, watch your rugby league. You prefer it, that's allowed. But to try to tell us that the problem with union is that it is not enough like the code we like less is both silly and frankly rather arrogant.

Having read the last 2 pages here with Leeege imposing it's blinkered views on Union, this one paragraph about sums things up.

As for changing the rules (just to suit a specific team who patently fail in producing good forwards) - the expression " if it ain't broke why try to fix it?" comes to mind.

Merlin wrote:
As for changing the rules (just to suit a specific team who patently fail in producing good forwards) - the expression " if it ain't broke why try to fix it?" comes to mind.

Which was interestingly enough more or less the view of former Wallabies coach Eddie Jones. From the BBC:

Former Australia coach Eddie Jones has voiced his concern at suggestions that rugby union rules should be altered to encourage a more attacking game.
In the wake of a try-less World Cup final and games decided by penalties, Australian Rugby Union chief executive John O'Neill called for rule changes.
But Jones said: "We've got to be careful we don't change the game just because we want entertainment.
"We'd be very, very foolish to look at changing to make the game like league."
Experimental laws have been introduced in Australia aimed at creating a more appealing game for the spectators.







But Jones, who advised champions South Africa in the recent World Cup tournament, insisted: "There's nothing wrong with the game.
"We've had some fantastic games at the World Cup and we've had some arm wrestles, but when you're playing for a big prize you're sometimes going to play quite simple rugby.
"I don't think there's anything wrong with that. In Europe they don't care about the way rugby's played. If it's fast and free it's good, if it's tight and grinding that's good, and the crowds at the World Cup were enormous."

Merlin wrote:

Fine, watch your rugby league. You prefer it, that's allowed. But to try to tell us that the problem with union is that it is not enough like the code we like less is both silly and frankly rather arrogant.

Having read the last 2 pages here with Leeege imposing it's blinkered views on Union, this one paragraph about sums things up.

Well pardon me for wanting to like rugby union, no wonder the game's treading water and ignored by the general public. The thing is it's not about me and what I think and my views are far from 'blinkered'. I prefer RL but I also watch RU, and like most non-lovers of RU I want to enjoy it. Unfortunately, in it's present form that's difficult.

The fact is, despite the hype brought about by media overkill, once the RUWC finished people not directly involved with the game went back to thinking rugby union is carp and have no interest in getting involved with it whatsoever.

If you're happy living in a bubble thinking everything's super, smashing, great, then fine. If you're happy knowing clubs in RUs equivalent of the Premier League are drawing in paltry crowds of 4/5/6/7 thousand then fine, let the game you love fall on it's arse and get left behind. It won't bother me.

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:

Merlin wrote:

Fine, watch your rugby league. You prefer it, that's allowed. But to try to tell us that the problem with union is that it is not enough like the code we like less is both silly and frankly rather arrogant.

Having read the last 2 pages here with Leeege imposing it's blinkered views on Union, this one paragraph about sums things up.

Well pardon me for wanting to like rugby union, no wonder the game's treading water and ignored by the general public. The thing is it's not about me and what I think and my views are far from 'blinkered'. I prefer RL but I also watch RU, and like most non-lovers of RU I want to enjoy it. Unfortunately, in it's present form that's difficult.

The fact is, despite the hype brought about by media overkill, once the RUWC finished people not directly involved with the game went back to thinking rugby union is carp and have no interest in getting involved with it whatsoever.

If you're happy living in a bubble thinking everything's super, smashing, great, then fine. If you're happy knowing clubs in RUs equivalent of the Premier League are drawing in paltry crowds of 4/5/6/7 thousand then fine, let the game you love fall on it's arse and get left behind. It won't bother me.

Don't pretend that you've propounded some neutral's view, with ideas of how to make the game better. Every criticism you've levied, and every idea you've come up with to "improve" union has been to make it more like league. That's ridiculous. In return, I'll say that league would be so much better if it had flankers, if the scrums were contested, if you had lineouts, if you could actually have real turnovers rather than artificial ones every six tackles, if.....oh, hang one. That would turn it into union, wouldn't it?

So don't come the innocent, we knew exactly what you were getting at - saying that everything that is wrong with union is the case because league is better. Fine. Watch league then.

As for the idea that club rugby is somehow dying, I'd suggest you actually go and look up some facts before spouting such nonsense. Guinness Premiership crowds actually average in excess of 10,000 per game, not 4/5/6/7 thousands as you so incorrectly wrote, and they are continuing to rise.

Shoeshine wrote:Don't pretend that you've propounded some neutral's view, with ideas of how to make the game better. Every criticism you've levied, and every idea you've come up with to "improve" union has been to make it more like league. That's ridiculous. In return, I'll say that league would be so much better if it had flankers, if the scrums were contested, if you had lineouts, if you could actually have real turnovers rather than artificial ones every six tackles, if.....oh, hang one. That would turn it into union, wouldn't it?

So don't come the innocent, we knew exactly what you were getting at - saying that everything that is wrong with union is the case because league is better. Fine. Watch league then.

As for the idea that club rugby is somehow dying, I'd suggest you actually go and look up some facts before spouting such nonsense. Guinness Premiership crowds actually average in excess of 10,000 per game, not 4/5/6/7 thousands as you so incorrectly wrote, and they are continuing to rise.

But it is the neutrals view, neutrals want more excitement, and forgive me if I'm wrong, that usually stems from passing the ball more often. Or have I missed something?

As for the crowd figures, what I said was factually correct. Worcester, Leeds, Sale and Saracens have had gates of 4/5/6/7 thousand. All you've done is use the league average. It's a bit like lumping in Brentford and Orient with Man U and Arsenal, the average is still pretty good isn't it?

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Don't pretend that you've propounded some neutral's view, with ideas of how to make the game better. Every criticism you've levied, and every idea you've come up with to "improve" union has been to make it more like league. That's ridiculous. In return, I'll say that league would be so much better if it had flankers, if the scrums were contested, if you had lineouts, if you could actually have real turnovers rather than artificial ones every six tackles, if.....oh, hang one. That would turn it into union, wouldn't it?

So don't come the innocent, we knew exactly what you were getting at - saying that everything that is wrong with union is the case because league is better. Fine. Watch league then.

As for the idea that club rugby is somehow dying, I'd suggest you actually go and look up some facts before spouting such nonsense. Guinness Premiership crowds actually average in excess of 10,000 per game, not 4/5/6/7 thousands as you so incorrectly wrote, and they are continuing to rise.

But it is the neutrals view, neutrals want more excitement, and forgive me if I'm wrong, that usually stems from passing the ball more often. Or have I missed something?

As for the crowd figures, what I said was factually correct. Worcester, Leeds, Sale and Saracens have had gates of 4/5/6/7 thousand. All you've done is use the league average. It's a bit like lumping in Brentford and Orient with Man U and Arsenal, the average is still pretty good isn't it?

It's not the neutral's view at all, because those same neutrals who loved the excitement of the world cup don't give a monkey's for rugby league, or you'd have a case. The idea that the neutrals would prefer a league style game is utter balls or they'd be flooding in to watch in vast numbers, and they aren't. Those "neutrals" aren't especially interested in the game of either code, or if they've been sucked in because of the World Cup excitement, they've been sucked in to union, not a regional game with no showcase to a national audience (since it buggered off to Sky) let alone an international one.

As for the crowd figures, if you want to pick the lowest, go ahead. It's a damn sight more misleading than actually quoting the average, which, I repeat, are continuing to rise.

Shall we then move on to talk about the Heineken (and successor) Cup? Six Nations? World Cup? None of this is anything League can remotely match. Given the way union has come up over the last ten years to become by miles the first choice of the casual fan in terms of code, perhaps you in league should be looking at how you can make yourselves attractive to a union audience rather than the other way around.

Oh, and by the way - Guinness Premiership average crowds are higher than those in Super League.

Yes, League is really the choice of the "neutral"...

Shoeshine wrote:It's not the neutral's view at all, because those same neutrals who loved the excitement of the world cup don't give a monkey's for rugby league, or you'd have a case. The idea that the neutrals would prefer a league style game is utter balls or they'd be flooding in to watch in vast numbers, and they aren't. Those "neutrals" aren't especially interested in the game of either code, or if they've been sucked in because of the World Cup excitement, they've been sucked in to union, not a regional game with no showcase to a national audience (since it buggered off to Sky) let alone an international one.

As for the crowd figures, if you want to pick the lowest, go ahead. It's a damn sight more misleading than actually quoting the average, which, I repeat, are continuing to rise.

Shall we then move on to talk about the Heineken (and successor) Cup? Six Nations? World Cup? None of this is anything League can remotely match. Given the way union has come up over the last ten years to become by miles the first choice of the casual fan in terms of code, perhaps you in league should be looking at how you can make yourselves attractive to a union audience rather than the other way around.

Gordon Bennett you're hard work you aren't you? This isn't supposed to be RL v RU. It's about RU being a rubbish spectator sport, something that's reflected in the crowds it brings in to all but the biggest of games. The reason the RUWC is so popular is down to the way the game's been perceived over the years, that and the huge media coverage. It's got bugger all to do with it being a better game than rugby league.

With regards to club crowds, well, I'm sorry, but in my world there isn't much difference between 7 and 10. If 7K is poor how can 10K be good? We are talking about the creme de la creme of English rugby union here aren't we? I gave four examples of low crowds, and due to you wittering on about it Mr Google now informs me London Irish and Wasps struggle to get more than 7,000 as well. So that's 6 teams, 50% of English RUs Premier League that can't break 7,000. Which as you seem so keen to mention it, PROBABLY doesn't compare favourably with that regionalised, unwatched, unloved crappy game called Super League. Mind you, I suppose the average league attendance in the Guiness Premiership will be higher than it should be if Wasps continue to play the odd home game, especially 'derby' games at Twickers. 6,629 versus Irish, 7,313 versus Leicester, both at Adams Park. 39,400 versus Saracens at Twickers. Who's 'misleading' who I wonder???

Btw, 'perhaps you in league should be looking at how you can make yourselves attractive to a union audience rather than the other way around.' Well, you'll be pleased to know RL is constantly striving to make the game more entertaining, both on and off the pitch. Rule changes, cheerleaders, you name it, they're doing it. Of course, being the regionalised, poor mans version of the game that it is, it's a struggle spreading the word. But unlike union, I'm glad to say nobody at the RFL is resting on their laurels, and, if Super League shared RUs alleged popularity and the same media coverage, they certainly wouldn't be content with 6,000 crowds. They would identify what was wrong with the game and do something about it. No living in a bubble for those chaps.

GT - it's you who's the hard work on here chuckie!

You're the one espousing change to Union Rules in order to thrill "neutrals" like yourself ... whilst you defend the "boring 5 back-tap then punt upfield - then barge into - then reverse it whilst the opponents do exactly the same heading the opposite way routine" ... crap that Leeege has to offer the neutral!

FFS ... if you find Union boring then bugger off back to Leeeege ... which, As holcs points out on page 4 ..."Would that be the one that is in a dead straight line? With floaty lateral passes, because the oppo have to give you 10m of space?" Aye ... farking riveting this lot in Leeeege !

I'd suggest take you take the time to study the subtleties, nuances, powerplays, line-outs and all the rest that goes towards what makes us Unionists abhor major changes to the game.

Either that or buy a season ticket to all the Rugby 7's ... plenty of tries there to keep you excited.

Why should 'neutrals' get excited about RL when the home crowd doesn't even get excited about it?

Tonights GB v NZ match is on shortly, in front of what looks like a pitiful crowd

If you're used to RU, League looks frightfully

16,000 was the crowd there tonight. Not making any kind of point about the earlier debate, but that's really poor. I wonder why.

I did watch it tonight; as I said before, I don't mind league at all; but it is just so predictable compared to union. Pick it up, run into player, repeat 200 times.

With both NZ & AUS picking pacific islanders in their team, looks like GB have said if you cant beat em' join em'...

Well, given that league has no real international set-up, you can hardly blame the Pacific Islanders for looking to whatever options there are for meaningful international recognition, can you?

I actually think it's more forgivable in league than it is in union, to be honest.

Merlin wrote:GT - it's you who's the hard work on here chuckie!

You're the one espousing change to Union Rules in order to thrill "neutrals" like yourself ... whilst you defend the "boring 5 back-tap then punt upfield - then barge into - then reverse it whilst the opponents do exactly the same heading the opposite way routine" ... crap that Leeege has to offer the neutral!

FFS ... if you find Union boring then bugger off back to Leeeege ... which, As holcs points out on page 4 ..."Would that be the one that is in a dead straight line? With floaty lateral passes, because the oppo have to give you 10m of space?" Aye ... farking riveting this lot in Leeeege !

I'd suggest take you take the time to study the subtleties, nuances, powerplays, line-outs and all the rest that goes towards what makes us Unionists abhor major changes to the game.

Either that or buy a season ticket to all the Rugby 7's ... plenty of tries there to keep you excited.

As I have already said, it's not about me, leeeeeeeeeeg and preaching to the converted. It's about why RU is still a minority sport at club level despite the huge world wide media coverage it gets whenever England play or a World Cup comes around.

You and shoe might abhor change, but your pompous, holier than thou attitude is precisely why rugby union doesn't appeal to a wider audience. I willingly accept RL is a regionalised minority sport, but in relation to this argument whether it's a better game than rugby union is irrelevent. All I know is the shirt and tie boys in charge of RL are moving heaven and earth to improve the game and sell it to a wider audience, which can only be a good thing. So with interest in RU still at a minimum, why you, shine and all the Oxbridge dinosaurs at HQ want to live in the dark ages and keep it like it is a complete mystery.

By the way, I left the computer last night to watch the Division 1 match between Doncaster and Plymouth. For the most part defences were on top and after building a lead Doncaster eventually won the match 19-13. The most enjoyable part of the game for me came at the end when Plymouth, who were nine points down at the time and staring defeat in the face started to throw the ball about with gay abandon. If only this happened more often, eh? Unfortunately proceedings came to a halt when Plymouth were awarded a penalty. Trailing by nine points with the clock ticking down the obvious thing to do was to kick for touch and gain field position. But no, Plymouth accepted defeat and kicked the penalty which meant they lost by less than 7 and gained a bonus point, WTF??? What sort of game is it that rewards thinking on the lines of, 'Sod winning, let's kick a penalty. That way we'll only lose by 6 and get a bonus point'. Explain that one!

Another weird rule I witnessed was the invisible try. From what I saw last night you can dive in the direction of the line and score a try without there being proof that the try was scored legally. Apparently the video ref needs to provide a reason why the try SHOULDN'T be awarded. Bizarrely, not being able to see the ball being grounded behind the whitewash isn't important. Honestly, you couldn't make it up.

Finally, and for what it's worth, I'm totally against the idea of a player/athlete representing another country via the residency rule. Especially if they have represented the country of their birth at international level. If there was a rule in place along the lines of them being eligible to play if they came to a new country as a minor then all well and good. Therefore imho Fa'asavalus inclusion in the GB squad is totally out of order.

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:

Finally, and for what it's worth, I'm totally against the idea of a player/athlete representing another country via the residency rule. Especially if they have represented the country of their birth at international level. If there was a rule in place along the lines of them being eligible to play if they came to a new country as a minor then all well and good. Therefore imho Fa'asavalus inclusion in the GB squad is totally out of order.

I'd like to know how long NZ's pacific islanders have been Kiwi residents in both codes actually and how that system works.

Do NZ just get to pick anyone they think is any good - how does that work?

FWIW, on Fa'asavalus, I agree with you - although I thought he had not played RL anywhere else but in this country?

Phew, I thought the first reply might have included the word 'Pietersen'.

Fa'asavalu hasn't played RL for Samoa, but he played for Samoa during the RUWC in 2003.