Big Bunny said:
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.
Do you really want to debate the proposition that people who play and follow rugby union are "poorly informed and ill equipped" to discuss the game? What an extraordinary notion. I thought we were all supposed to be elitist products of the most academically rigorous schools and universities? Perhaps you can expand on this, and it would be helpful if you visited some league message-boards to observe the standards of spelling, grammar, logic, and manners to be found amongst leaguies.
The question of which is the more entertaining code is surely a matter of personal opinion. I grew up in a rugby union environment and prefer it as a game. I think you will find that Australia is the only major country in the world where league is still more popular than rugby union.
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.
Ah, yes, the league play-the-ball. If you are looking for reasons why league is struggling to gain an international profile, look no further than this piece of flim-flam. It used to be a genuine two man scrum, back in the days when league also had genuine 12 man scrums, instead of the 12 man waltz customary today in rugby league. Which is, of course, another aspect of the game which looks laughable to all but you diehards.
I used to quite like league back in the 60's and 70's. But, in a desperate attempt to make the game more "entertaining", wonderful innovations like the four tackle rule, then the six tackle rule were introduced, not to mention the bastardisation of the play-the-ball into a variant of girls' tunnel-ball, and the emasculation of the scrum.
Still not "entertaining" enough? Okay, let's invent a "40/20" rule.
Now rugby league looks like a training drill with tackling, most of which, of course, is aimed at attacking the head.
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.
The only Knights that I know seem to be struggling to find a sponsor, or even to survive without poker machine money.
Meanwhile rugby union goes from strength to strength, both here, and, more importantly, internationally. Mate, you guys are the dreamers. Singapore? Malta? Dream on.
