Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RL does what Sky says

How others see our game

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, RP London said:

To quote 4 paragraphs  leaves out all the pages and pages before and the pages and pages afterwards of information about who is doing what and where. 

Tony Collins would not simply quote a small section and use it as proof of an entire argument, entire books are written on single arguments with pages and pages of references at the end and even then if it is about "who did what and why and what influence it had" it is still down to opinion of the author...

seriously.. I agree with part of what you are saying but with all due respect you are selectively quoting to make a point that doesn't need making nor is 100% correct. no one is laughing at Tony Collins but even he may be slightly miffed at the way you are representing this entire debate. 

Your example of "germany invaded Poland" as a fact that is irrefutable is true.. however, with this discussion that is likening it to "Brazil started playing football in xxxx" but what is being debated is more a kin to "who caused Germany to invade Poland and why" and for that you can go back to the 1840s and the beginnings of the unification of Germany for what leads to the likes of Hitler gaining power and before that why Wilhelm lost power, which social class or section of society may be to blame and so on and so forth. It is not as simple as quoting one person as fact nor is it as simple as selectively quoting to prove your point... as i have said before it is very very complicated and long winded and to try and get it down to an internet message board is pointless and fruitless and no one will agree... 

time to move on.

There’s an awful lot more I didn’t quote about the English being insular and indifferent to the growth of football, unlike the French for example. FIFA, World Cup, European Championships, UEFA Champions League, even the individual awards (Balon D’Or).

It took the Hungarians (Mighty Magyars) to smash England at Wembley in the 1950s for the English to realise they weren’t at the centre of the football universe. Their insularity was blown wide open, and gradually they began to embrace the world of football outside the island.

Regards the historian Tony Collins, I only used him as a reference on here as he’s a known in Rugby league circles. 

The English planted seeds in football in non English speaking countries much like they did with Rugby (union), the difference being professionalism in football allowed other nations to grow the game without the approval of anyone in Britain (“free from the shackles of Britain”), while rugby (with its amateurism) they were under the thumb of Rugby HQ in London.

While the seeds were essential to the growth that subsequently happened, without the others that growth in football would never have occurred, as happened with ruggers. There wouldn’t be the global game.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DC77 said:

There’s an awful lot more I didn’t quote about the English being insular and indifferent to the growth of football, unlike the French for example. FIFA, World Cup, European Championships, UEFA Champions League, even the individual awards (Balon D’Or).

It took the Hungarians (Mighty Magyars) to smash England at Wembley in the 1950s for the English to realise they weren’t at the centre of the football universe. Their insularity was blown wide open, and gradually they began to embrace the world of football outside the island.

Regards the historian Tony Collins, I only used him as a reference on here as he’s a known in Rugby league circles. 

The English planted seeds in football in non English speaking countries much like they did with Rugby (union), the difference being professionalism in football allowed other nations to grow the game without the approval of anyone in Britain (“free from the shackles of Britain”), while rugby (with its amateurism) they were under the thumb of Rugby HQ in London.

While the seeds were essential to the growth that subsequently happened, without the others that growth in football would never have occurred, as happened with ruggers. There wouldn’t be the global game.

this is my last post on this as its off topic... I should hope you can quote more and I can quote books and chapters and paragraphs from umpteen other sources interpreting the influence in different ways... as with politics, in history there are very few times when there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs and they mostly involve body counts (thanks Jed Bartlett)... history is about interpretation history is not just about the retelling of facts, though that is, of course, interesting in itself that is more "story telling".

you talk about the FA and their attitude which is, to an extent, fair but the FA were not representative of "the English" which is what other people are talking about, a single Englishman doing something off their own back is an englishman helping to expand the game.David Argylle is an Australian helping expand the game but you couldn't say that the NRL is expanding the game. 

As I have said there is right on both sides of the argument and there are degrees of right but you are being hugely (and almost embarrassingly) simplistic in your argument and interpretation.. You are quoting facts without looking at what leads up to it. a few examples:

There are arguments around the Wars (which also helped spread the game) and whether other games would be growing in a bigger and better way without them. Tony Collins also has a great podcast that talks about the strength of other sports around the Wars and how the war halted that growth and other games took over. The popularity of football, for example, was helped by the outbreak of war, football was a uniting past time something most people could play and something that didn't need huge resources to do so. It was something that brought together the different allies and antagonists as it was the only sport played by most, therefore, growth and the unifying state of football can be seen and can be spread amongst the workers more. other sports were damaged by this inability to play etc. 

You quote the insular nature of the FA and the Hungarians beating them changing that.. thats an interpretation of the facts and one that is not necessarily fair. The facts are that England won most of their matches, they played the home internationals and a lot of friendlies year in year out and they won the majority of the games, if they lost it was not a hammering. Since WW2 (when everyone had a bit of insularity) off the top of my head they had played 57 times before the first of 2 beatings by the hungarians in 1953, of those they had won 37 and lost 8, playing the likes of Switzerland, Portugal (10- 0 win), Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Norway, France, Argentina etc in friendlies outside of the world cup. It wasnt insularity that Hungary broke it was a bit of invincibility.. before 1953 they had already played, and lost to the USA, in the world cup, they had been playing 3-4 international friendlies a season outside of the home nations championships and before the first world war they were doing it too. They had rejoined FIFA and taken part in the 1950 world cup any insularity that the FA had was already gone, hence actually playing Hungary in the first place.

People use the fact we were not in the first 2 world cups as insularity of the FA yet the reasons for missing the first world cup are complicated (though arrogance is a part). European teams were finding it difficult to travel logistically, and because players would need to be away from domestic leagues for 3 months during the season. By february 1929 no teams from Europe had entered and invites were re-sent and by November 1929 there were still no European teams down to participate. England were very much not alone in not wanting to go down from Europe to play, it was only the fact Jules Rimet put pressure on that got 4 teams to go, England were not part of FiFA at the time and pressure was difficult to apply. England were not insular, or at least no more so than anyone else in Europe, they were just practical (lets not forgot what was happening in Europe at this time and what had happened in the previous 10-15 years, socio economic considerations have to be thought of). 1934 we did not participate because it was a FIFA tournament and we were not members of FIFA. The FA also believed that the other nations were not strong enough for it to be a world cup so declined their special invitation (again superiority not insularity) they felt the home nations was more of a world cup (Rugby League Tri Nations vs World cup argument too). In the preceding years England had only ever lost to France in 1931 and Spain in 1929 outside of the home nations (and they were playing international friendlies at the time) so although hugely arrogant (not a rarity in English culture at the time) it was based on some truth. There is also an argument around the fact it was very much a propaganda tool for Mussolini and there is a debate around whether pressure was put on the FA (this has never been backed up by facts AFAIK but I believe it is the same debate as whether GB should have gone to the 1936 olympics and IMHO is more about 20:20 hindsight than anything else).

I don't believe the description of insular is fair, they felt superior. They still played the other nations they just beat them. To say they didn't help the international game is debatable, they certainly played a large number of internationals for the time and against more than just the home nations. To say the game against hungary made the English embrace the world outside the island is also missing the fact that the Second president of FIFA (the first was only there for 2 years) was an Englishman (Daniel Burley Woolfall) who helped organise the first major international tournament (the 1908 olympic tournament) and also drafted both the FIFA constitution and helped to push the "english laws" to be taken on around the world. He also brought in members from South America and the USA into the fold. The first world war interrupted the world of Woolfall who then died in office in 1918. Rimet arguably was simply continuing on the work started by the Englishman, leading (again arguably) inevitably towards a world cup. The FA made stands later about post WW1 central powers being in FIFA and then about Broken Time Payments but they embraced the game outside the island but they took stands too against what they did not like (rightly or wrongly)

I know this is a long post and i apologise but the point of it is to show that there are different interpretations of each event but more so that each event cannot be taken in isolation from other events around and a conclusion be drawn from other things must be taken into account and other previous events must be looked at to form a round picture... but it also highlights what i have said all along, which is that you are IMHO being too simplistic and an internet message board is not the place to debate this complicated subject, to a point you are right in what you say but to discount those with counter arguments is wrong because they are also right and the truth is, as always, somewhere in between.

lets move on as this is about Rugby League and its about how people view us, its not about who developed football around the world.. if you really want to learn i suggest you read more than simply Tony Collins (though his books are very good.. i recommend "blood, sweat and beers" its a great read, not about this though.) as it is a fascinating topic.

Edited by RP London
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RP London said:

this is my last post on this as its off topic... I should hope you can quote more and I can quote books and chapters and paragraphs from umpteen other sources interpreting the influence in different ways... as with politics, in history there are very few times when there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs and they mostly involve body counts (thanks Jed Bartlett)... history is about interpretation history is not just about the retelling of facts, though that is, of course, interesting in itself that is more "story telling".

you talk about the FA and their attitude which is, to an extent, fair but the FA were not representative of "the English" which is what other people are talking about, a single Englishman doing something off their own back is an englishman helping to expand the game.David Argylle is an Australian helping expand the game but you couldn't say that the NRL is expanding the game. 

As I have said there is right on both sides of the argument and there are degrees of right but you are being hugely (and almost embarrassingly) simplistic in your argument and interpretation.. You are quoting facts without looking at what leads up to it. a few examples:

There are arguments around the Wars (which also helped spread the game) and whether other games would be growing in a bigger and better way without them. Tony Collins also has a great podcast that talks about the strength of other sports around the Wars and how the war halted that growth and other games took over. The popularity of football, for example, was helped by the outbreak of war, football was a uniting past time something most people could play and something that didn't need huge resources to do so. It was something that brought together the different allies and antagonists as it was the only sport played by most, therefore, growth and the unifying state of football can be seen and can be spread amongst the workers more. other sports were damaged by this inability to play etc. 

You quote the insular nature of the FA and the Hungarians beating them changing that.. thats an interpretation of the facts and one that is not necessarily fair. The facts are that England won most of their matches, they played the home internationals and a lot of friendlies year in year out and they won the majority of the games, if they lost it was not a hammering. Since WW2 (when everyone had a bit of insularity) off the top of my head they had played 57 times before the first of 2 beatings by the hungarians in 1953, of those they had won 37 and lost 8, playing the likes of Switzerland, Portugal (10- 0 win), Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Norway, France, Argentina etc in friendlies outside of the world cup. It wasnt insularity that Hungary broke it was a bit of invincibility.. before 1953 they had already played, and lost to the USA, in the world cup, they had been playing 3-4 international friendlies a season outside of the home nations championships and before the first world war they were doing it too. They had rejoined FIFA and taken part in the 1950 world cup any insularity that the FA had was already gone, hence actually playing Hungary in the first place.

People use the fact we were not in the first 2 world cups as insularity of the FA yet the reasons for missing the first world cup are complicated (though arrogance is a part). European teams were finding it difficult to travel logistically, and because players would need to be away from domestic leagues for 3 months during the season. By february 1929 no teams from Europe had entered and invites were re-sent and by November 1929 there were still no European teams down to participate. England were very much not alone in not wanting to go down from Europe to play, it was only the fact Jules Rimet put pressure on that got 4 teams to go, England were not part of FiFA at the time and pressure was difficult to apply. England were not insular, or at least no more so than anyone else in Europe, they were just practical (lets not forgot what was happening in Europe at this time and what had happened in the previous 10-15 years, socio economic considerations have to be thought of). 1934 we did not participate because it was a FIFA tournament and we were not members of FIFA. The FA also believed that the other nations were not strong enough for it to be a world cup so declined their special invitation (again superiority not insularity) they felt the home nations was more of a world cup (Rugby League Tri Nations vs World cup argument too). In the preceding years England had only ever lost to France in 1931 and Spain in 1929 outside of the home nations (and they were playing international friendlies at the time) so although hugely arrogant (not a rarity in English culture at the time) it was based on some truth. There is also an argument around the fact it was very much a propaganda tool for Mussolini and there is a debate around whether pressure was put on the FA (this has never been backed up by facts AFAIK but I believe it is the same debate as whether GB should have gone to the 1936 olympics and IMHO is more about 20:20 hindsight than anything else).

I don't believe the description of insular is fair, they felt superior. They still played the other nations they just beat them. To say they didn't help the international game is debatable, they certainly played a large number of internationals for the time and against more than just the home nations. To say the game against hungary made the English embrace the world outside the island is also missing the fact that the Second president of FIFA (the first was only there for 2 years) was an Englishman (Daniel Burley Woolfall) who helped organise the first major international tournament (the 1908 olympic tournament) and also drafted both the FIFA constitution and helped to push the "english laws" to be taken on around the world. He also brought in members from South America and the USA into the fold. The first world war interrupted the world of Woolfall who then died in office in 1918. Rimet arguably was simply continuing on the work started by the Englishman, leading (again arguably) inevitably towards a world cup. The FA made stands later about post WW1 central powers being in FIFA and then about Broken Time Payments but they embraced the game outside the island but they took stands too against what they did not like (rightly or wrongly)

I know this is a long post and i apologise but the point of it is to show that there are different interpretations of each event but more so that each event cannot be taken in isolation from other events around and a conclusion be drawn from other things must be taken into account and other previous events must be looked at to form a round picture... but it also highlights what i have said all along, which is that you are IMHO being too simplistic and an internet message board is not the place to debate this complicated subject, to a point you are right in what you say but to discount those with counter arguments is wrong because they are also right and the truth is, as always, somewhere in between.

lets move on as this is about Rugby League and its about how people view us, its not about who developed football around the world.. if you really want to learn i suggest you read more than simply Tony Collins (though his books are very good.. i recommend "blood, sweat and beers" its a great read, not about this though.) as it is a fascinating topic.

Good post RP - unfortunately, when DC gets his teeth into something he has a tendency to repeat himself over and over again despite other, often more realistic, points of view ....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Rugby League - a sport where shape and size does not limit your potential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, David Wild said:

Good post RP - unfortunately, when DC gets his teeth into something he has a tendency to repeat himself over and over again despite other, often more realistic, points of view ....

yeah true.. thats why i thought i'd write that but then not get myself back embroiled. I had mentioned a few things like "very complicated" and "too long winded for message boards" but thought it best this time to prove the point.. that is a tiny tiny bit of the "growth of football" debate and its still long winded! Think i've said my piece now, I know people may disagree with the interpretation of the historical events, that is the beauty of historical discussion, but it shows its not all as one sided as some are making out. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, John Rhino said:

When we visited Trinidad we were told only those of Asian decent were interested in cricket these days and that was diminishing. 

Those of African decent were playing basketball 

Quite. And why? Because if you live in the Caribbean these days and you want to get an education, then a sports scholarship to a US university is pretty high up the list of "might come offs" - that's before you dream even bigger and think about making your fortune in the NBA. 

It's almost like it all comes down to money...

Cricket meanwhile, get into the IPL or play tests for England or Australia and you're set for life, hitch yourself to the circus that has been Cricket West Indies in recent years (though it does appear to be getting its act together) and you'll be running a bar at retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Wild said:

Good post RP - unfortunately, when DC gets his teeth into something he has a tendency to repeat himself over and over again despite other, often more realistic, points of view ....

I'm surprised he hasn't brought up the play the ball putting people off yet.

  • Haha 2

"I'm a traditionalist and I don"t think you'd ever see me coaching an Australian national side!"  Lee Radford, RLW March 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, latchford albion said:

I'm surprised he hasn't brought up the play the ball putting people off yet.

........or the only sport that is really "gripping" is golf.....

  • Haha 3

Rugby League - a sport where shape and size does not limit your potential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/06/2019 at 18:06, overtheborder said:

Nice idea actually, i'm a bit young to remember that but i do like a good American football blitz play. The only downside to this for me is that it could stop dummy halves taking chances to run at gaps, or barge over the line, although if the rule was that they had to be caught behind the starting line of the play the ball then fair enough.

In the kids game if they score they aren't tackled so the score stands. I assume it was same at senior level so it doesn't stop barging over 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I've been pretty vocal about some of the things I don't like and don't make our sport look good on this thread...

The finish we have just seen by Makinson in the Leeds game is as skillful and athletic as you would find in any sport. 

That should be on highlight reels of every sports update for the next 24 hours, but I know it won't be and that's a real shame as Makinson could be easily as big a star as we have seen in Rugby League. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/06/2019 at 09:17, David Wild said:

Good post RP - unfortunately, when DC gets his teeth into something he has a tendency to repeat himself over and over again despite other, often more realistic, points of view ....

Gave you a trophy for that little pearl of wisdom.

I’ll stick with the historians, thanks folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/06/2019 at 05:59, David Wild said:

........or the only sport that is really "gripping" is golf.....

Mr Wild, you were gripped by the Ryder Cup were you not?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dunbar said:

While I've been pretty vocal about some of the things I don't like and don't make our sport look good on this thread...

The finish we have just seen by Makinson in the Leeds game is as skillful and athletic as you would find in any sport. 

That should be on highlight reels of every sports update for the next 24 hours, but I know it won't be and that's a real shame as Makinson could be easily as big a star as we have seen in Rugby League. 

Does the way RL is played today allow for players to stand out in the same way an Offiah or Hanley did? 

RU being much more restrictive in open play than previous means the like of a Lomu running riot and knocking people over like skittles (becoming the first RU superstar as a result) couldn’t happen in today’s game. Given RU has taken on many RL people to improve the defensive side of the game it seems logical that RL is also defensively tight.

The most watched RU vid online, the Gareth Edwards Lions try, the defences were wide open, which made for a more open, exciting spectacle. The 1970s Welsh side was revered with four or five players becoming household names, but transport that team to today and they’d get shut down. Tighter defences may make the game much harder, but at the cost of more open play which creates stars. 

 

Edited by DC77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DC77 said:

Does the way RL is played today allow for players to stand out in the same way an Offiah or Hanley did? 

RU being much more restrictive in open play than previous means the like of a Lomu running riot and knocking people over like skittles (becoming the first RU superstar as a result) couldn’t happen in today’s game. Given RU has taken on many RL people to improve the defensive side of the game it seems logical that RL is also defensively tight.

The most watched RU vid online, the Gareth Edwards Lions try, the defences were wide open, which made for a more open, exciting spectacle. The 1970s Welsh side was revered with four or five players becoming household names, but transport that team to today and they’d get shut down. Tighter defences may make the game much harder, but at the cost of more open play which creates stars. 

 

I think this is a fair point.

I have said before that the famous try Hanley scored up the right touchline wouldn't be scored today.  Not because Hanley wouldn't be a stand out player in the modern era... he certainly would be... just that he beat 4 or 5 cover tacklers on that run and today there would be 10 or 11 cover tacklers.

The Offiah try at Wembley maybe he would score today as that was pure pace and I am not sure he would be caught.

(that Hanley try is my favourite try by my favourite player so I am not disparaging it, just trying to put it into context)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I think this is a fair point.

I have said before that the famous try Hanley scored up the right touchline wouldn't be scored today.  Not because Hanley wouldn't be a stand out player in the modern era... he certainly would be... just that he beat 4 or 5 cover tacklers on that run and today there would be 10 or 11 cover tacklers.

The Offiah try at Wembley maybe he would score today as that was pure pace and I am not sure he would be caught.

(that Hanley try is my favourite try by my favourite player so I am not disparaging it, just trying to put it into context)

I've made the same points before too. These days you literally have some forwards as quick as backs who would be across covering and you never have less conditioned players being fatigued and out of the play in the same way either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DC77 said:

Does the way RL is played today allow for players to stand out in the same way an Offiah or Hanley did? 

 

1 hour ago, Damien said:

These days you literally have some forwards as quick as backs who would be across covering and you never have less conditioned players being fatigued and out of the play in the same way either.

Agree with both points.  With some forwards now being as quick as backs and with less risks being taken by throwing the ball about as much in open play, those backs in the past, especially wingers, got all the publicity for their try-scoring feats, yet these days the tries are more evenly shared and so individual players are not receiving the same personal glory which those outside the game might become aware of.

I'm no great follower of football but if a player scores a hat-trick then they usually get all the praise and publicity even if they just tapped the ball into the net when others had actually contributed far more in the build up to those goals. Their name then becomes more well known even to those with little interest in the sport.

If the question was asked to people with little interest in football about who was the best forward in world then probably most people could name at least one of two. However, if asked who was the world's best defender then they would probably not be able to even name one, yet they do their job just as efficiently and contribute just as much to a team's success.

It's the same with RL; if just a few players were constantly in the media because of their individual feats of try scoring then they too would be known, even if only by name, to a wider audience. These days, however, there are very few opportunities for individual players to make such news which might make them known to people outside the game. Yes, we involved with RL might appreciate that a player is the top tackler; makes the most yards or creates more space for others, but are non-RL people really interested in that ?

However, when Martin Offiah was at his peak he was often referred to in reports even if he only scored 1 try in a game and just because his name was well-known, whereas someone else who had done the same wasn't mentioned.

Go on the street and ask people who do not follow sport to name a Rugby League player. I would suggest that the two players named in the latest posts above might receive mentions but would any current players ?

So, yes, to repeat the quote from DC77 above ... "Does the way RL is played today allow for players to stand out in the same way an Offiah or Hanley did?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DC77 said:

Mr Wild, you were gripped by the Ryder Cup were you not?

 

 

No


Rugby League - a sport where shape and size does not limit your potential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DC77 said:

Gave you a trophy for that little pearl of wisdom.

I’ll stick with the historians, thanks folks.

Thank you - you will stick with whatever is going on in your own little planet DC....


Rugby League - a sport where shape and size does not limit your potential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/06/2019 at 13:14, latchford albion said:

Three more posts towards the ultimate goal.

I’m no RU devotee (unlike that Kiwi fella), so cross code has zero interest to me. 

On 22/06/2019 at 13:17, Dunbar said:

I think this is a fair point.

I have said before that the famous try Hanley scored up the right touchline wouldn't be scored today.  Not because Hanley wouldn't be a stand out player in the modern era... he certainly would be... just that he beat 4 or 5 cover tacklers on that run and today there would be 10 or 11 cover tacklers.

The Offiah try at Wembley maybe he would score today as that was pure pace and I am not sure he would be caught.

(that Hanley try is my favourite try by my favourite player so I am not disparaging it, just trying to put it into context)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. I wasn’t sure myself as my memory of RL on Grandstand is vague, but I did know who Hanley was (most certainly Offiah), and it wasn’t just because they were on the BBC. Images of Offiah leaving people in his wake stand out to this day, and I was merely a casual observer.

This kind of eye catching play draws people in. Regan Grace I think would stand out much more had he played in the era mentioned. I’ve seen him do some amazing runs with his sidestep leaving opponents for dead, but the number of these per game is maybe not enough for him to really be elevated in the way similar type players were in the past. The better defensive structure of the game makes it a much harder test today, and from that point of view the players deserve even greater plaudits than previously, but making it harder for individuals to really stand out, and become household names as a result, harms the profile of the sport. RU (which I’m more accustomed to, while not a devotee) is now completely devoid of stars. People mock the turnstile defences of yesteryear, but those turnstile defences allowed Campese, Lomu, Sella, O’Driscoll, JPR Williams, Edwards and co. to run riot and get people off their seats. RU has the event status (primarily six nations) to retain a profile, whereas RL without this type of event needs to rely on the product where individuals really stand out to retain a profile. I think this change in being defensively tighter (allied with players now physically being much bigger) has hindered both rugby codes, but at a greater cost to RL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DC77 said:

I’m no RU devotee (unlike that Kiwi fella), so cross code has zero interest to me.

? .....of course not DC.....

  • Like 1

Rugby League - a sport where shape and size does not limit your potential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DC77 said:

I’m no RU devotee (unlike that Kiwi fella), so cross code has zero interest to me. 

Strange that a supposed new poster even knows about cross code, the posts needed and that kiwi fella after a couple of weeks. Even stranger when someone who is a new poster is overly argumentative and falling out with posters like he has been posting for years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/06/2019 at 09:17, David Wild said:

Good post RP - unfortunately, when DC gets his teeth into something he has a tendency to repeat himself over and over again despite other, often more realistic, points of view ....

Scotchy syndrome.  A bit like the oomy goolie bird.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

League needs to bring back the scrum if only to add some additional variety to matches.  

Part of the reason the scrum went the way of the Dodo in League was I believe an attempt to further distance the sport from Rugby Union.  

However, my feeling is the scrum along with the lineout and maul are the greatest parts of Rugby Union.  They add variety to the sport and teams that master the set-piece in Rugby Union can win matches off the back of that set piece dominance.  

There is also a cultural aspect to the scrum that appeals to the machismo of certain nations.  All the latin countries that play Rugby Union extensively (but don't really play League) view the scrum as one of the most important elements of the game.

Argentina:

Italy:

Romania:

France:

Uruguay:

There are also others that view the scrum as a very important part of the game, Japan and Georgia in particular:

 

Almost all of these countries produce big strong men with a mean streak in them.  I believe Rugby League lacking contested scrums means a large number of countries who view the scrum as one of the most important parts of rugby will never play League as a result.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, CanadianRugger said:

Part of the reason the scrum went the way of the Dodo in League was I believe an attempt to further distance the sport from Rugby Union. 

Not really. It went the way it has because it was a complete mess with reset after reset, penalties and was wasting too much time. Pretty similar to the issues now seen in Union.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Damien said:

Not really. It went the way it has because it was a complete mess with reset after reset, penalties and was wasting too much time. Pretty similar to the issues now seen in Union.

There are stated reasons and then there are other reasons.  I don't think certain countries value the scrum nearly as much as others.  Australia is usually the biggest proponent of getting rid of scrums in Union, funnily enough they also love League in Australia, Coincidence?

Countries like Australia and England don't like seeing countries that are considered "lesser" than them beating them. One way they are usually beaten is in the scrum.  Maybe instead of continuously tweaking the rules around scrums and resetting them, teams actually get penalized severely for poor scrummaging. 

We see this in Canadian Rugby Union all the time.  Administrators here often bemoan scrums and mauls because they aren't "pretty" or champagne rugby and as result these areas of the game are all but neglected at club level and by coaches.  These same Administrators then complain when Georgia, Romania, Uruguay, Japan, Italy, etc show up and beat up our national team.  

Edited by CanadianRugger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...