The ELV need tweaking alright.Todays test match is a prime example why.The Ref was better than last week in interpreting them but once again he was not consistent.
Be patient. New rules, they always take time to settle. In the long run the game will be much better off.
As I said previously, I'm a league tragic and rugbywise- I usually only watch the Super 14 and Internationals, with the rare Shute Shield game on ABC as well, but I must say I actually enjoyed that game of union tonight. If every game was played with that pace and intensity, I would probably watch more. However, with all due respect to the Northern Hemisphere teams, I hate the way- esp. the Poms play. I know they played to the rules and that's rugby, but, esp. at the last World Cup- the style of rugby was woeful.
Poms invented the game and are pissed that our countries play it better than them.Top that off with there shite cricket team and you have the bitter Englishmen of our age.Sad sacks they are indeed.
It's interesting. I grew up in an age when the England rugby team was poor even by 5 nations standards, and Australia and New Zealand (and later South Africa) were just expected to be better. There certainly wasn't any noticeable day to day irritation around Australia being better at rugby. It was just regarded as normal. Then again I wouldn't claim to be a big rugby fan. Maybe they have a different opinion. There is, however, a big misconception about how big rugby union is in Australia. It's casually thought that the club game is huge in comparison to England. I knew that wasn't the case, but even I was really quite surprised when I was over there at just what a low impression club rugby union has on the sports radar even in NSW, which I believe is the heartland of the game over there. As for cricket... well there are a lot of stuffy MCC types who you can imagine have been going puce with rage at every England failing for decades, writing letters to the times demanding the reintroduction of national service and saying it all went downhill when men stopped wearing hats, but for a good 20 years the England cricket team has been regarded as a national joke. When people at work hear of the latest England batting collapse, they just laugh. I remember istening to a preview of the last ashes series on BBC Radio 5, and they weren't discussing whether England would win or not, they were discussing whether England would lose the series 0-5 or not.
I thought it was fine. You should be able to empathize, Liverpool is boring as ******** in Europe but Rafa plays like that because his team isn't good enough to play expansively and need to keep it tight in order to control the game. And sure as hell nobody in England was complaining. People from the SH need to get over the whole "running rugby is the only way to play rugby, everything else is boring, especially the Poms" mantra. It's lame, it's historically hypocritical (you think Michael Lynagh got 912 Test points by running the ball every chance he got and not kicking penalties?) and the surging crowds and interest in the NH, even when England or France or Ireland play ten-man rugby prove this to be false. Sorry to sound like I'm having a go, but it grinds my gears. Don't get me wrong, I love running rugby - I'm Welsh for god's sake - but when England beats Wales by a thousand little cuts from Mike Catt or Jonny Wilkinson, I don't blame the rules of the game, I blame our lack of a tighthead prop or the fact we haven't produced neither a good hooker nor a good lock in about 20 years. People need to remember this, England hasn't forced Australia to be so bad at scrummaging that Matt Dunning has 34 Test caps.
LOL at the Liverpool reference. I won't hijack the thread but I will say that no-one was even close to Liverpool's attacking football last year. We were the top scoring team in Europe by almost 10 goals- more if you include Riise's in the semi! Back to rugby- its not boring or lame to continue the running rugby is the only way to play rugby mantra. There's a reason why Northern Hemisphere teams have only won one World Cup out the six held, and that's because the Southern Hemisphere nations play better rugby- running rugby= winning rugby!
Yeah, which is why there was a grand total of one try scored in the 1991, 1995 and 2007 World Cup finals. Or how Australia got to the final in 1999 scoring no tries in the semifinals. The only two finals with lots of tries came in blow outs, where NZ or Australia was clearly better. You're just ignorant.
^^^It is real simple The Northern Hemisphere is not as good as the southern Hemisphere and all the records point to that.The only ingnorant thing would be to think differently.
I have a question for the rugby experts here. From what I understand, Super League which had teams in England only is now trying to be more of a European league. My question is that since rugby league in Europe is really only popular in northern England, then does it really make much sense to put teams in places like Wales and France where rugby union is prefered. I guess I'm wondering how popular rugby league is in Europe outside of England and how much of an impact would super league teams in places like Wales, Ireland, France have
As I keep saying, I don't have a problem with strong forward play and the kicking game. I have a problem with games decided by dodgy penalties for pissy little infringements in the breakdown. The reality is that with the advent of professionalism kicking has improved out of sight, to the point where penalties are a far more potent advantage than they were ten years ago. The game needs to adapt for that. I think its a bit rich to complain about the laws being brought in to negate the importance of good forward play. There's absolutely no statistical evidence from matches played under the new laws to suggest that's true. You will still see the same number of matches where good forwards will put the pressure on and win good field postion, and matches are won by accurate kicking rather than tryscoring. The difference is you won't have matches where the majority of points rely on the referee's whistle.
^^^ as per your earlier post I am not impressed with the new laws in action so far.However I will take your advice and be patient although it is wearing thin.Change is good but change for the sake of change is not IMHO.
The Super League is expanding and a team from Wales got in. I read that Toulouse was trying to get in and were denied. I know theres already a French team in the Super League. Since Wales is such a passionate rugby union country I was wondering why theyd put a super league team there when there are probably a few English teams who would have been better.
They have before and they have all failed so your guess is as good as mine why they would put another team from there in.
Rugby union was the only one allowed in France for a while, so of course it's bigger there. Support for Catalans says that league is not disregarded, though.
We got to play as we were allowed- you never get pretty football in the major part of tournaments like semis and finals- however, which were the teams to actually score a try? The southern hemisphere teams- point taken- thanks for that! The only one ignorant is the one who won't get out from under his tortoise shell and see what the rest of the world is seeing. England plays poor rugby, and good luck to them for doing that- it doesn't mean we all have to like it though. Getting back to the original point of the thread, its teams like England that show why rugby league is better than rugby union.
Yeah, Tony Daly burrowing over from 1m was the epitome of progressive rugby. England actually played the more expansive game that day, famously being wound up by Campo that they were boring and taking the bait, letting the pressure off on the Australian pack. As for what the rest of the world is seeing, what are you taking about? The money and power is in the NH game and the only SH country financially capable of matching them are the South Africans, who invented ten man rugby. They've been threatening to join the European comps for years because they could care less about running. So what does that leave? A bunch of people who like league (i.e. you, the Aussies) and the New Zealanders, who ********ed themselves up hitching their wagon to the Aussies. Pardon if that's not particularly convincing.
I've played both from a young age at school through to university and as a kid I thought League was better, but as I got older Union won me over. I agree with the earlier poster about League being like a dumbed down version - more like American Football, which IMO is the most boring code on the planet. As a kid I just wanted to run with the ball, get tackeld then run again - or tackle someone. As I got older though I began to appreciate the intricities of RU - you don't just get tackled and get up and start again, the game keeps flowing, you have to turn as you are tackled and enable your team to keep the ball, things like that. Since "superleague" I have lost all interest in league, they keep dumbing down the rules and making it more and more boring. There used to actually be some sort of contest in the scrums - not any more. Around the world I would say that in Australia League is bigger locally in NSW and QLD but not internationally (and Union would be bigger outside of NSW and QLD). In England League holds the north, Union the south, but again for internationals Union is bigger. In NZ Union is a lot bigger and elsewhere League is non existant compared to Union. On a global scale League has never been close to Union despite being proffessional from the beginning The RWC, whilst a long way behind the football WC or Olympics, is still up there with any other event, with probably 9 teams (inc Argentina) who could beat anyone on their day - and Italy getting better. The RLWC is a joke of a tournament where NZ and England try and see if they can upset Australia and no-one else is even able to get close. Most of the "international" teams are just made up of expats or Aussies with a grandparent link or something. League is also in a lot of trouble in Australia - which I had predicted would happen as soon as Rugby Union went proffesional. Most Sydney clubs had only been kept afloat in the past because of poker machines in their clubs - now the gaovernment has put a tax on these and the clubs are suffering. The crowd figures are a joke, clubs give away most tickets for free then count security staff and players in their figures. The TV ratings are still good, but of the clubs outside of Sydney only Brisbane and Gold Coast aren't being propped up by News Ltd - and intimations are that they will be dumping League pretty soon. I don't think it will be too long before Football becomes No. 2 sport in Australia (behind AFL) - a lot of people think it already is - and Union could go to no. 3. As for the "running rugby" debate I do think it is a step in the right direction with the new rules at the breakdown, but I would make 2 more changes, make penalties worth less points, and make most offences only short arm penalties so you can't kick at goal. Running rugby doesn't have to be the backs doing the running and FWIW England did play some good rugby at the WC in Australia especially with the rolling mauls.
And I would not have it any other way.Records speak for themselves.NH rugby is inferior to the SH rugby, always has been and always will be.It islong over due for teams like England to accept that they are not as good as they think they are.When they do perhaps the English Rugby team can help the English cricket team wake up as well .
Damn straight, and well said. Good offensive forward play is one of the great aspects of rugby, and the Stellenbosch laws are going to improve that. It's about restoring balance to the game. People moaning about the ELVs are fighting a strawman.
Dumbed down in what way? If you're coming from a gridiron perspective, I could see what you mean, but RL has nothing to do with that. You either get up and play the ball after a tackle or you form a dogpile and blow the whistle for improper piling. There's nothing "dumb" about the former. You make it sounds as if union has some kind of fancy rules that make it discernible only to the educated. In actuality, even the players and fans don't know the rules because they are so muddled and archaic. There's nothing superior about holding onto that crap while RL evolved by shedding some of the boring aspects of the game. That's not to say that RL was right to get rid of everything they did and that every difference present in union is worthless, I just mean that change is not always for the sake of appealing to idiots.
I like both for diffrent reasons. I like Union for the International drama I like League for the speed. You nailed on the head though Rugby League is what Gridion should be!