What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Top ten things Rugby owes to league

ANTiLAG

First Grade
Messages
8,014
Let's see:

1995 Winfield Cup:

19 Australian teams (12 based in and around Sydney), 1 New Zealand team (2 hour flight from Sydney)

1996 Super 12:

You mean the idea of a decent length competition going beyond borders? So you agree Winfield Cup was first.

3 Australian teams, 5 New Zealand teams, 4 South African teams (12 hour flight from Sydney to Cape Town)
Yes - SOuth Africa are global strength in the world rugby league. I repeat if it was viable it would have happened. It wasn't. SA just not big enough into league.


...and I guess the Super 12 adopted the Winfield Cup's five-team final series seeing as it's a direct copy, right? Oh wait...

Well the NPC had already copied the semi final and grand final system, albeit with 4 teams. This did come as a result of public pressure following the ratings success and envy of the NSWRL finals on tv here.




You mean the NPC 'copying' the Winfield Cup?

It's possible, but still pure speculation.

Not copying verbatim - but plagarism nonetheless. Not speculation if you were around and watching the debate and the subsequent development. NSWRL was both perceived as a threat and a model to learn from.
 

Squatdog

Juniors
Messages
542
Hah. Meant to type Africa. Its no worse than your 'entire southern hemisphere' playing Super 12.

No, I said across the entire southern hemisphere, which is true.

You mean the idea of a decent length competition going beyond borders? So you agree Winfield Cup was first.

LOL@going beyond borders...the Warriors were only added in 1995 and were a two-hour flight from Sydney.

The original Super Rugby series incorporating South African teams was in 1993, predating the Warriors by 2 years.

Uh-oh!


Yes - SOuth Africa are global strength in the world rugby league. I repeat if it was viable it would have happened. It wasn't. SA just not big enough into league.

Why didn't they form multiple franchises in New Zealand and reorganise the Winfield Cup teams along regional lines, like Rugby did?

I guess that's 'different', right?


Well the NPC had already copied the semi final and grand final system, albeit with 4 teams. This did come as a result of public pressure following the ratings success and envy of the NSWRL finals on tv here.

So they used a basic format that is standard in numerous sports across the globe, yet somehow 'copied' the Winfield Cup, which used a unique five-team finals format?

Makes perfect sense!
 

ANTiLAG

First Grade
Messages
8,014
No, I said across the entire southern hemisphere, which is true.
Sorry which South American team is in the Super 12? If there isnt one your point is false.

LOL@going beyond borders...the Warriors were only added in 1995 and were a two-hour flight from Sydney.
Are there not borders? Pretty sure an Australian passport looks different to an Australian one. Like the flags. The governments. etc.

The original Super Rugby series incorporating South African teams was in 1993, predating the Warriors by 2 years.
I previously said of a 'decent length' anticipating you to raise this point. I mean super team with 4 pool games and a final with no semis is hardly a season competition is it now?


No-oh!


Why didn't they form multiple franchises in New Zealand and reorganise the Winfield Cup teams along regional lines, like Rugby did?

They did not restructure the Winfield Cup along regional lines because the NSWRL already had a profitable product with a much stronger fan base than union. The NRL still does. If it aint broke - don't fix it. NZ got one team - because we did not have the coin nor the players to afford two. Maybe in the future NZ may. But its not as though the Warriors are the new Broncos.
I guess that's 'different', right?




So they used a basic format that is standard in numerous sports across the globe, yet somehow 'copied' the Winfield Cup, which used a unique five-team finals format? Makes perfect sense!

What? The 5 team finals stopped in 1994? Where have you been? But yes they copied the concept of a grand final and semi final matches from NSWRL following public pressure following the 89 (GF) 1990 (GF) and 91 (ALL FINALS LIVEISH) League matches. Union never had this before. The EPL did not have this. Its not like NZ had the NFL broadcast until Sky got revenue later in the 90's. But yes - it is commonly accepted that the NPC finals adoption in 1992 was a response to the huge ratings of the 1991 finals, and years previous to that in NZ.
 

Flapper

First Grade
Messages
7,825
LOL@going beyond borders...the Warriors were only added in 1995 and were a two-hour flight from Sydney.

The original Super Rugby series incorporating South African teams was in 1993, predating the Warriors by 2 years.

Uh-oh!

The Warriors were added in 1992, to start in 1995.

Now since you have clearly shown yourself to be a braindead merkin please piss off back to Planet Rugby troll.
 

Squatdog

Juniors
Messages
542
Are there not borders? Pretty sure an Australian passport looks different to an Australian one. Like the flags. The governments. etc.

One non-Australian team in an Australian competition, for one year, situated an insignificant distance from all but one of the other 19 clubs?

Meanwhile, Super Rugby has had multiple teams from three countries since 1993.


"Oh, but they didn't play enough games so....ummmm...uhhhhhh..."



I previously said of a 'decent length' anticipating you to raise this point. I mean super team with 4 pool games and a final with no semis is hardly a season competition is it now?

Irrelevant.

The Super 12 was the direct descendant of Super Rugby, except with more teams and yes, longer.

They did not restructure the Winfield Cup along regional lines because the NSWRL already had a profitable product with a much stronger fan base than union. The NRL still does. If it aint broke - don't fix it. NZ got one team - because we did not have the coin nor the players to afford two. Maybe in the future NZ may. But its not as though the Warriors are the new Broncos.
I guess that's 'different', right?

So the Winfield Cup was TOTALLY DIFFERENT and in no way related to the Super 12 franchise model that you claim was copied from League?


Uh-huh!

What? The 5 team finals stopped in 1994? Where have you been? But yes they copied the concept of a grand final and semi final matches from NSWRL following public pressure following the 89 (GF) 1990 (GF) and 91 (ALL FINALS LIVEISH) League matches. Union never had this before. The EPL did not have this. Its not like NZ had the NFL broadcast until Sky got revenue later in the 90's. But yes - it is commonly accepted that the NPC finals adoption in 1992 was a response to the huge ratings of the 1991 finals, and years previous to that in NZ.

...and when did the NPC introduce the finals series that was directly 'copied' from? Was it earlier than 1994?

Uh-oh!

Sorry which South American team is in the Super 12? If there isnt one your point is false.

Key word here is 'across' the southern hemisphere.

*looks where South Africa is in relation to Australia on globe*
 

Squatdog

Juniors
Messages
542
The Warriors were added in 1992, to start in 1995.

Well actually, Super Rugby began with the Super 6 championship in 1992, while the Auckland Warriors only BID for entry (along with 3 other teams) in May 1992.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
 

Squatdog

Juniors
Messages
542
...and apparently there was a South Pacific Championship with Australian and New Zealand provincial sides since 1986.

'Different'!
 

ANTiLAG

First Grade
Messages
8,014
One non-Australian team in an Australian competition, for one year, situated an insignificant distance from all but one of the other 19 clubs?

Meanwhile, Super Rugby has had multiple teams from three countries since 1993.


"Oh, but they didn't play enough games so....ummmm...uhhhhhh..."

SO you say earlier that rugby went pro as a reaction to super league. Super league was a competition involving what - 4 or 5 countries over 2 hemispheres.... And now you're saying rugby did not copy the model.... Which one.... be consistent please.

Irrelevant.

The Super 12 was the direct descendant of Super Rugby, except with more teams and yes, longer.

If going from a 4 week 2 pool comp long to 15 week long round robin is a direct descendant. Super 12 beared far more resemblence to NSWRL/super league than it did super rugby, mate. But you;ve already said rugby went pro when it did as a response to super league. Therefore, the pro comptetitions that were introduced were to compete with super league. So they took the good parts of the league model. Minor differences irrelevant.

So the Winfield Cup was TOTALLY DIFFERENT and in no way related to the Super 12 franchise model that you claim was copied from League?

The fear was super league so rugby took the winning formula, modified it, and ran with it.




No - oh. Still not an argument.



...and when did the NPC introduce the finals series that was directly 'copied' from? Was it earlier than 1994?
1992. After the 1991 televised series sweet heart.

Uh-oh!



Key word here is 'across' the southern hemisphere.

No the key word was 'entire'.

*looks where South Africa is in relation to Australia on globe*

Look where England, Wales and France are too for Super League's plans.

Nice debating with you. You should not have conceded earlier that rugby went pro as a response to super league. Would have saved your argument from total destruction ;)
 
Last edited:

AlwaysGreen

Post Whore
Messages
51,383
No I don't want a history lesson about the 1950's. I'm asking you, as you seem to enjoy telling everyone you know everything about French Rugby League because you read a book once, if you can tell me why Rugby League in France declined following the Golden Age.

I am fully aware of the disgraceful acts done by the FRU during WW2. One of numerous horrible things that happened during that period. The question still remains, why did the FRL, who went through a boom period in the 50's, disintegrate into a shambles.
I don't feed trolls, especially the union variety. So f**k off back to the old boys club where you paddle each other's arses.
 

AlwaysGreen

Post Whore
Messages
51,383
LMFAO!!!

The other 2/5s was VICHY FRANCE, which was semi-autonomous and WASN'T OCCUPIED:

632px-France_map_Lambert-93_with_regions_and_departments-occupation.svg.png


On 11 November 1942, the Germans launched Operation Case Anton, occupying southern France, following the landing of the Allies in North Africa (Operation Torch). Although Vichy's "Armistice Army" was disbanded, thus diminishing Vichy's independence, the abolition of the line of demarcation in March 1943 made civil administration easier. Vichy continued to exercise jurisdiction over almost all of France until the collapse of the Regime following the Allied invasion in June 1944.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Just stop.
Well done on proving yourself a complete f**kwit with the intelligence of a squashball. You've cut and pasted something to suit your purpose, from wikipedia no less, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France, without allowing the whole truth to be revealed. So not just f**ked in the head but sly and deceitful as well. You would have fit in well with the Vichy regime. Anyone who reads the wikipedia article will see that the Vichy regime was a nazi puppet state who colloborated with the Nazis. There was no such thing as 'semi autonomous' for the nazis, it is purely a euphemism, just like 'jewish resettlement in the east'.

But here is some more, Herr Squatforbrains from sources with a bit more credibility than wiki:

"The 'legitimate' French government was that of Marshal Philippe Pétain, an aged World War One veteran, and had its capital at Vichy in central France. The Vichy regime was authoritarian and collaborated with the Germans. Arguably, the wartime divisions within French society that were created by this arrangement are still not fully healed."http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/fall_france_01.shtml
Note the quotation marks around legitimate fooldog? The author of the article is being coy - the ruler of Vichy France was in effect Adolf Hitler.

Here's some more truth Fraulein dopeydog:

"The surrender of France in June 1940, was a major blow to many French people in terms of their pride. Many believed that the government had let the people down. The creation of a Nazi-approved Vichy government, primarily in the centre and south of the country, was, in the minds of many, further proof that politicians had let down France.

The public had been assured that the French army, along with the Maginot Line, was more than strong enough to resist a German attack. The speed and severity of Blitzkrieg had shocked the French people. The non-occupied region of France, known as Vichy France, was set up by the Germans and governed by Marshall Pétain." http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/french_resistance.htm


Notice I have left the links to the whole article so the whole truth is shown?

As I said, Germany occupied 3/5ths of France and put a puppet state in the other 2/5ths. A puppet state that collaborated closely with the nazis. A puppet state that demolished rugby league in France at the FRU's behest.
 

Thomas

First Grade
Messages
9,658
I don't feed trolls, especially the union variety. So f**k off back to the old boys club where you paddle each other's arses.

Trolls? I'm just asking you a question. One I thought you'd know the answer to.

I guess you don't. Probably because it isn't on Wikipedia...
 

AlwaysGreen

Post Whore
Messages
51,383
Trolls? I'm just asking you a question. One I thought you'd know the answer to....
Another dodo whose comprehension skills have gone to pack. The original article posted by the OP focuses on the Nazis and the Vichy Government's banning of RL in WWII, it has nothing to do with the 50's. If you want your irrelevent question answered do it yourself, if your intellect allows, I have better things to do then play oracle to thomas the twat.

I guess you don't. Probably because it isn't on Wikipedia...
Again, comprehension is an ability you are sorely lacking in. Another poster, in a feeble attempt to argue his ridiculous point, cited wikipedia, I tripped him up on that and used the wikipedia link only to showcase his foolishness. You, equally foolish as he, comprehended it as me using it as my source of information. You've had your head in one too many mauls dopey. Laughable.
 
Messages
42,652
Sorry - how does your lack of knowledge about league players assist you in this argument?

Go on, tell me how many games of Rugby League Botica played in the NSWRL.

Wait, I'll do it.

The answer is 5.

You really think I know about everyone who played 5 games in the NSWRL/NRL?

Do you know about them all?


How does missing the whole picture assist you in this argument?

So, an argument on the merits of Mick Cronin as a goalkicker requires the study of every post in this thread?

If you say so....

Why has leg spin bowling never become the norm? Clarrie Grimmet, Warnie even MacGill are so successful. Why is leg spin not the norm in cricket when it turns so much more and more attacking weapon with variation? Because its harder to learn. Because Willie did not pass on his training tips and knowledge he had accumulated. There was no tv analysis of it. Even then the critical thing to learn is where to strike the ball with your foot position. SOmething not really shown on TV. With the knowledge not being disseminated people did not 'know how' to do it. Like everything new. Now round the corner kicking is certainly a lot easier than leg spin bowling - but people still had to learn how to do it. In Union they started learning in the late 70's and by the early 80's it was everywhere. In League - you had to wait another 10+ years when the Union kickers and coaches came in and showed people how to do it. This was all discussed previously.

Yeah, nice analogy, not.

Senior Cricket was played in different cities in Australia, Cronin's whole career in the NSWRL was played primarily on Sydney grounds and nearly 1/2 those games were played at Cumberland Oval.

And you miss again with you "people have to learn to do" it crap. Are you suggesting that it took 40 years to teach players to kick at goal with the instep?

Your earlier post stating "I identify that Willie Horne was the first accurate round the corner kicker. He only played league, and was a superstar in the 1940's. "would suggest you are.

As against the thoery that with the Leather balls and grounds that were in use in the NSWRL at the time, the old toe-poker was just as, if not more, accurate. The fact that they didn't change en-masse to round the corner seems to be detrimental to your argument.

But its not - refer to previous posts. Round the corner accurate kicking started with leather balls on sand on sh)t grounds. It was not more accurate and you do not get greater distance with a 'toe poke' unless you are a novice to round the corner kicking. Round the corner gets better distance and far greater accuracy when you 'know how.'

You keep saying it but you've proved nothing other than that you have little understanding of the conditions senior Rugby League in Sydney was played in prior to 1985.

Tell me, did you ever see a game in Sydney prior to 1985 live?

Thats like saying theres no way an off spinner would make the Australian team after Grimmet or Warnie. Coaches have to work with what they've got. Also - the goal kicker has to actually play the game unlike NFL - so a lemming like Crossan with missed tackles may cost you the game despite great goal kicking. You've missed the point.

There is no point to miss. You completely ignore what you're replying to.

Are you suggesting that coaches wouldn't get their goalkickers taught to kick around the corner in the NSW from 1950-80 odd because it was too hard?

Once again - a coach has to work with what is at his disposal. Now with Stirling, Kenny, Atkins, Cronin, Ella, Grothe, Taylor owning their spots through their field play where exactly was he to put this goal kicker? I guess when Atkins left he could have sourced a gk in 1983 instead of Liddiard playing if there had been some available on the market. Guess there were none available on the market. I mean even in 1991/1992 the market was short - you had to goto union. Even then it was slim picking as to who would cross over. Kinda like decent leg spinners at the moment for cricket Australia. Alternatively, it was one innovation that passed Gibson by.

All talk. you yabber on but commonsense is something you seem to be unfamiliar with.

If Jack Gibson thought he could get even a slight advantage over other teams he would have done it in a heartbeat. Hell, throw in any coach for that matter. They would be remiss in their duty if they didn't based on your thoughts. You seem to be again suggesting that over the course of a career, goalkickers from certain eras weren't able to be taught how to kick a ball around the corner.

Utter bollocks.

By the way, the bloke who actually started the ball rolling in the NSWRL as far as I know was John Gray.
 
Last edited:

Loudstrat

Coach
Messages
15,224
RE Cronin
Loudstrat said:
Cronin was not a 45% kicker. You stated before (at ONE STAGE) - he was actually low 70's over his career.
Antileague said:
I never stated that. Paste it. SHow me
OK Sweetheart.
Antileague in post # 97 said:
The idiot enters with his normal idiocy. Cronin kicking at 45% and you back him anywhere from over 30 metres?

Re Crossan
Antiflog said:
Dumb dumb "Eion Crossan was a dead set liability and only useful for his goal kicking" and "Ugh Eion Crossan" does not mean "all time great". In fact it means the guy was cr*p. Its means AWFUL. Now I think you should really go back to primary school and learn to read and comprehend. Because you are clearly needing remedial help.
Ridge started the successful and lasting revolution - after Ridge's goal kikcing sensation NSWRL clubs signed Schuster, Crossan and Halligan for their goal kikcing.=Antiflog in post #89
Antibrain said:
1 First it ignores the games played per season. A mistake you made with Schuster who missed a lot of games through injury. Clearly you're not so dumb to think missed games through injury influences how good someone is at goal kicking? Are you? When Ridge came to Manly there was a top 5 and only 22 rounds. This meant the maximum number of games any club could play was 25 depending on finals results - 24 if they missed a week of the finals. The most games Ridge ever played in a season was 23. 1995, Manly won the GF they played 25 games. Cronin hit 28 games for a season a couple of times and another season hit 26.
Ridge goals per game: 3.909
Cronin goals per game: 4.02
Looks like the ordinary to crap kicker wins again.

Got any more excuses for Ridge? Remember he played in the 7m and 10m rule eras, meaning easier field position. Cronin played his entire career in the 5m rule.

And as EA said, not with a twinkie kicking tee and a nice manicured ground. With sand and mud.

Unlike Ridge, Cronin was second string kicker to nobody.


Antitard said:
He played round 20 2/6
round 21 3/5
round 22 2/2
round 23 3/5
round 24 1/2
major Semi 2/6
GF 2/4

Thats a whopping high 50% Goal kick rate.
Not bad with a detached retina and blurred vision in one eye. Kicking winning goals in a GF when one eye is as useless as you (totally f*cked)

Whats your reply? Ridge was blindfolded? Had artificial limbs? :lol:
 

Squatdog

Juniors
Messages
542
SO you say earlier that rugby went pro as a reaction to super league. Super league was a competition involving what - 4 or 5 countries over 2 hemispheres.... And now you're saying rugby did not copy the model.... Which one.... be consistent please.

The Super League only debuted the same year as the Super 12. How could Rugby copy something that didn't even exist at the time? You're getting confused again.

Also, the actual Australian Super League was an extension of the Winfield Cup, with 9 Australian teams and the Warriors, while the English Super League was a SEPARATE COMPETITION featuring 11 English teams and St. Germain.

Please don't tell me you're referring to the World Club Challenge farce, especially as you're still clinging to the caveat of 'decent length'...LOL!

If going from a 4 week 2 pool comp long to 15 week long round robin is a direct descendant. Super 12 beared far more resemblence to NSWRL/super league than it did super rugby, mate.

No it doesn't.

Super 12 is a direct extension of the Super 10. Funny that.

But you;ve already said rugby went pro when it did as a response to super league. Therefore, the pro comptetitions that were introduced were to compete with super league. So they took the good parts of the league model. Minor differences irrelevant.

I've already forced you to admit that the Union-controlled regional franchises were totally different to anything in the Winfield Cup. You're REALLY reaching here.

If Union HAD copied the Winfield Cup, they would have added Queensland, NSW and ACT to the NPC to form a Trans-Tasman league. That didn't happen.

1992. After the 1991 televised series sweet heart.

Uh-oh!

Yet they adopted the standard finals format that has been used across the world for decades, instead of the Winfield Cup's unique five-team finals series that was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?

Look where England, Wales and France are too for Super League's plans.

You mean there were two SEPARATE Super League competitions, each one being based in a single country with a single token team from outside (and a short flight away)?

Nice debating with you. You should not have conceded earlier that rugby went pro as a response to super league. Would have saved your argument from total destruction ;)

Oh teh ironing.

I've completely refuted your claims that the Super 12's Union-based regional franchises were somehow copied from the Winfield Cup's club structure and that the standard four-team semifinals system was somehow based on the Winfield Cup's five-team series.
 

Squatdog

Juniors
Messages
542
Well done on proving yourself a complete f**kwit with the intelligence of a squashball. You've cut and pasted something to suit your purpose, from wikipedia no less, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France, without allowing the whole truth to be revealed. So not just f**ked in the head but sly and deceitful as well. You would have fit in well with the Vichy regime. Anyone who reads the wikipedia article will see that the Vichy regime was a nazi puppet state who colloborated with the Nazis. There was no such thing as 'semi autonomous' for the nazis, it is purely a euphemism, just like 'jewish resettlement in the east'.

But here is some more, Herr Squatforbrains from sources with a bit more credibility than wiki:

"The 'legitimate' French government was that of Marshal Philippe Pétain, an aged World War One veteran, and had its capital at Vichy in central France. The Vichy regime was authoritarian and collaborated with the Germans. Arguably, the wartime divisions within French society that were created by this arrangement are still not fully healed."http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/fall_france_01.shtml
Note the quotation marks around legitimate fooldog? The author of the article is being coy - the ruler of Vichy France was in effect Adolf Hitler.


LMFAO!!!!

Once again:

Vichy France WASN'T OCCUPIED by Nazi Germany until 1942

Here's the picture again, can you see it?

632px-France_map_Lambert-93_with_regions_and_departments-occupation.svg.png




Once again, the state was semi-autonomous and controlled it's own internal administration over matters that weren't directly tied to the war effort.

WTF possible interest could the Nazis have in some local sport?

LMAO@claiming that the Nazis 'banned League'...
 

Loudstrat

Coach
Messages
15,224
I love watching these two Yawnion bozos and their "intellectual" argument. Like two one armed epileptics in a boxing match thinking they are Tyson and Hollifield.

Squatflog thinking Vichy France was a nice place to visit and totally free - like the inmates at Belsen worked a 40 hour week and has a f*cking health plan, rich Squatnazi?

As for Antiflack - and his latest habit (no, not the picking of nose) of typing "dumb dumb" every 3.9 words (Ironically the average goals per game the pathetic Matthew Ridge "achieved"), let me reveal what "Dumb dumb" actually referrs to:

DUMB:
Entire Southern hemisphere? India .....

DUMB:
Are there not borders? Pretty sure an Australian passport looks different to an Australian one. Like the flags. The governments. etc.

:lol::lol:
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,738
1. Squatdog is an idiot with very little idea about history. Mate just because the "picture" said so doesn't make it fact you fool.

2. Union is boring and slowly dying in this country. Remember after their world cup was here and Union was supposedly "taking over" and would be the #1 sport in Australian in no time. Well look at them now, the rules they've created themselves is killing the sport. They are barely holding off soccer for the #4 sport in the country.

So remind me why the f**k is this thread even here? Who cares about what that sh*t and boring codes owes us? They're a nobody now.
 

Latest posts

Top