Reply to: Wales vs Australia

[Forumbore]

I must admit your username sums you up perfectly.

I try to be objective

[benn0]

He made the point that there were very few players actively engaged at any one time in league which, depending upon your definition of engagement, is true. You argued that the remaining players were engaged by virtue of the fact that they were constantly "positioning" themselves which is also true. For you to then say he is talking crap shows what an idiot you are.

I must admit your username sums you up perfectly.

[malvolio]

Let's get back to reality. Yes there are subtleties in League that the average Joe like me will miss, so what looks like a two thirds of the players trying to keep warm while three of them are doing their thing in the mud is quite probably a complete misconception.

But then again, I find Formula One interesting, not least becuase it demands a degree of knowledge that goes way beyond watching 22 cars in line astern. Equally, I hate watching MotoGP - arguably the greatest and probably most dangerous racing spectacle in the world - because the presentation is utterly crap and effortlessly manages to take all the excitement out of it. Which you could also say about Union on the Beeb, come to that.

[Forumbore]

I dont know why I am doing this. I dont even like Rugby

[Forumbore]

Heh wow you're a very confrontational person aren't you? I'm not going to get drawn into a slaggin match. I think that anybody who's read my posts will find it painfully obvious that I have quite a good understanding of the two codes and rugby in general.

Ok so there's different positions... maybe that's why code switchers spend their first season in the reserves learning them. I could be wrong but more than likely I'm right.

I am simply trying to get you away from your obsession with athleticism. Rugby League is a game for athletes and Union needs players like Johnson Jason Leonard and Graham Rowntree who are not athletes. A prop needs to be a big fat b****** and it is most unlikely that a league prop would be able to compete for a Union prop position in ten seasons let alone one.

Richie McCaw has a skill for competing for second phase ball that has been developed since he was a child. It is highly unlikely that a league player could develop these skills in one season. Not one single league player has( with even Andy Farrell failing) made the switch as a flanker or forward even.

For you to say that league players could switch is a facile argument. The only "switchable" positions are in the backs where players like Jonathan Davies, Tiquiri, Rogers and Jason Robinson have made the transformation. But that is because thay have exceptional talent. Very few league players make it in Union, simply because they have to do things that they never do in league. Union players do well in league because all they have to master is improving or changing slightly on skills that they are already used to using week in week out.

You may not agree but competing for second phase ball lineout throwing and jumping and scrummaging require a set of skills that develop over many years. They are not something that can be learnt in a season.

[DanTheMan]

Heh wow you're a very confrontational person aren't you? I'm not going to get drawn into a slaggin match. I think that anybody who's read my posts will find it painfully obvious that I have quite a good understanding of the two codes and rugby in general.

Ok so there's different positions... maybe that's why code switchers spend their first season in the reserves learning them. I could be wrong but more than likely I'm right.

[Forumbore]

So you quote me as almost complete bollocks and then pretty much agree with me? Whatevers, I made the point and I stand by it. I don't think a league forward would be too far out of his depth in a top level scrum after some hard training. But what I was trying to say is that size wouldn't matter because once you've trained up a league forward he's still a better athlete than a union forward. This is a simple truth due to the fact that union hasn't been professional as long as league.

I like both codes. I really do. But I think union will benefit a lot more from league advancements than the opposite way around. League may a simpler game but the guys are biger and more skilled than the union fellas. Although they may have trouble with conversions...

You havent really quite grasped that the two games are different have you? League is for players who are athletes (can run fast and coordinate passing and catching) the other is also for athletes in some positions but not all. Try and think about this in a slightly different way, I know it is difficult and I know you like to see things with easy to understand benchmarks, but not all sports are set by the same rules.

[DanTheMan]

So you quote me as almost complete bollocks and then pretty much agree with me? Whatevers, I made the point and I stand by it. I don't think a league forward would be too far out of his depth in a top level scrum after some hard training. But what I was trying to say is that size wouldn't matter because once you've trained up a league forward he's still a better athlete than a union forward. This is a simple truth due to the fact that union hasn't been professional as long as league.

I like both codes. I really do. But I think union will benefit a lot more from league advancements than the opposite way around. League may a simpler game but the guys are biger and more skilled than the union fellas. Although they may have trouble with conversions...

[Forumbore]

He didn't make a perfectly valid point.

He made the point that there were very few players actively engaged at any one time in league which, depending upon your definition of engagement, is true. You argued that the remaining players were engaged by virtue of the fact that they were constantly "positioning" themselves which is also true. For you to then say he is talking crap shows what an idiot you are.

[Forumbore]

As to union vs league and size matters: it doesn't. If you're small in league you can make darting runs. If you're small in union you can be a scrum half and make... darting runs. But the bigger guys in league would ultimately kick arse in union due to their all-round conditioning. Andy Sherridan may be big and powerful but he wouldn't last the pace against a league forward. Ditto Martin Johnstone. The union forwards are usually bigger but not as good athletes.

That is almost complete bollocks. The bigger league players would be out of their depth in rucks mauls and the lineout and they would be life threatened if asked to scrummage. - No league player has successfully transformed to play in the scrum at Union (top level)
You are right about most Union forwards not being able to make the transformation to league (I would include Martin Johnson). Scott Quinnell was an outstanding league player. Sheridan is interesting in that he (in my view) could have been a good league player had he not been re-engineered into being a prop.
Rugby league requires players with basic all round athleticism and Union does not. In Union players are very much "positioned" whereas in league they are able to play anywhere (they all line up as backs)

[benn0]

In the same way that the fielding side of a cricket team is always involved in the game then yes you are right, but to sneer at Malvolio who was making a perfectly valid point was really rather pathetic.

He didn't make a perfectly valid point.

[Forumbore]

Not true. For one the play doesn't actually stop when the tackled player goes to ground. Defensive lines are getting organised and the next attacking play has already been called. Just because a player isn't rolling about on the floor doesn't mean he isn't busting his balls to get in position for the next play. attacking plays are often called six tackles in advance so to suggest that the other players are doing nothing is pretty wide of the mark.

I played League to a fairly high standard and Union at an OK standard. There is no comparison in the concentration and fitness levels required. That is why Union can be played indefinitely and most League players have called it a day by their mid thirties.

Union has it's place - When played correctly it can be an entertaining enough sport. Its main problem is that half of the players don't even understand half of the decisions made by the ref.

In the same way that the fielding side of a cricket team is always involved in the game then yes you are right, but to sneer at Malvolio who was making a perfectly valid point was really rather pathetic.

[DanTheMan]

BTW Kiwis always peak between world cups.

It's not them to be worried about. The Aussies ALWAYS play cack in the tri-nations group games and then spank everyone in the final. We may have beaten them the other day but I think they'll raise their game as always come final day (if we make it)

As to union vs league and size matters: it doesn't. If you're small in league you can make darting runs. If you're small in union you can be a scrum half and make... darting runs. But the bigger guys in league would ultimately kick arse in union due to their all-round conditioning. Andy Sherridan may be big and powerful but he wouldn't last the pace against a league forward. Ditto Martin Johnstone. The union forwards are usually bigger but not as good athletes.

[benn0]

Malvolio is quite right

The point is that away from the runners and their direct support players the remainder of the team do not do anything in league except hold a line. In Union players are involved in clearing out rucks, driving mauls, lifting and blocking line outs, and pushing scrums. as soon as the ball goes to ground in league the play stops and restarts whereas in Union multiple players need to engage around the ball at any one time. These elements provide a dimension to Union that allows the sport to play people of differing sizes.

Not true. For one the play doesn't actually stop when the tackled player goes to ground. Defensive lines are getting organised and the next attacking play has already been called. Just because a player isn't rolling about on the floor doesn't mean he isn't busting his balls to get in position for the next play. attacking plays are often called six tackles in advance so to suggest that the other players are doing nothing is pretty wide of the mark.

I played League to a fairly high standard and Union at an OK standard. There is no comparison in the concentration and fitness levels required. That is why Union can be played indefinitely and most League players have called it a day by their mid thirties.

Union has it's place - When played correctly it can be an entertaining enough sport. Its main problem is that half of the players don't even understand half of the decisions made by the ref.

[Forumbore]

If you claim that there are only three players involved in any play in Rugby League you have not played it to a 'good club standard'

Malvolio is quite right

The point is that away from the runners and their direct support players the remainder of the team do not do anything in league except hold a line. In Union players are involved in clearing out rucks, driving mauls, lifting and blocking line outs, and pushing scrums. as soon as the ball goes to ground in league the play stops and restarts whereas in Union multiple players need to engage around the ball at any one time. These elements provide a dimension to Union that allows the sport to play people of differing sizes.