I love rugby, but it's a pity that the union variant tends to be popular with those that can be best described as poorly informed and ill equipped to discuss their own code, let alone the more progressive one. Sure, there are intelligent folk among them, but they do often get drowned out by the elitist clods, the kind that have found their way to this thread and who concentrate on "body shapes" and "complexities" rather than the entertainiment factor and the enjoyment of playing the game.
Union is an ok game, I find it quaint because it's like looking through time and seeing rugby league in the 1950's. The only thing is that instead of a play-the-ball it has fat blokes writhing on the ground with even fatter guys standing on them and even by that stage we had gone 50 years without line-outs. In fact these days I refuse to consider union a separate football code at all and for those reasons. It's quite clearly just a slower, bastardized interpretation of rugby league in the 50's.
Union might be good for people as a social exercise, a bit of fun on sunday between mates, but by no means should it be presented as a professional game. I'd imagine that attending a Super 12 match or even a Wallaby game would be a bit like going along to a renaissance fair, where guys pretend to be knights but aren't really any more than dreamers. They might have the talent to be knights, but the middle ages have past. Just like the era of when union was a code unto itself.
Brilliant.
