what's rattue on at the moment?

[Matua]

Played both as well. Centre in league and second rower. Number 7 in union and second 5/8. I found union a lot easier on the body and not as quick as league. Just my experience.

Ha, I played the exact same positions.
As a flanker in rugby I needed a higher aerobic fitness. I'd make more tackles as well. 2nd 5 is probably the most league like position in rugby. It's the one area that you often get guys coming straight at you rather than trying to manoeuvre away from you.
As I said in league, only in defence did I find myself really struggling and that was around the ruck.

I was a better league player than rugby player (due to height issues). Liked playing both equally and playing both probably helped my fitness for each of them.

 

[Warrior@Heart]

Put the Warriors on FTA live, pretty sure it'll get more viewers than on sky which could generate more fans increase crowd attendances, memberships etc. NRL could very well benefit from selling the TV rights for the Warriors games seperately. I wonder if NZ channels would be interested in making a bid? Could result in becoming the most popular team in NZ besides the All Blacks.

 

[hitman82]

I'm not going to argue any points with you on your list because you're obviously a fundamentalist but how can you say rugby is more boring than soccer.

I'm not 100% sure if I believe you grew up in a house that followed both codes because I don't know anyone in NZ who calls rugby - union, unless they're my league mates who are grinding their axes.

Actually I will comment on 6 - that is bullshit, league is more standardised, rugby has different builds. SBW had to bulk up a bit because he's been too focused on beach muscles most of his career.

Yes I'm a rabid league fan so it's pretty much pointless trying to argue any of those points with me. Was simply replying because you asked politely .

Well I guess you wouldn't be 100% sure because you don't know me, but I have no real reason to lie about my sporting up-bringing haha. That would be a bit pathetic! But FYI my Dad calls union "rugby" and I call it union. And I am an axe-grinding league fan, yes.

On number 6, being a trainer myself, I can tell you Dollah Bill did not need to bulk up because of having too much "beach muscle". He was leaner because he had a higher physical workload and higher fitness requirements in league, as per my points. As for bulking up in itself, judging by photos he probably also gained a few kgs of fat. Ask pretty much ANY convert (apart from yourself apparently) and they will tell you league is the more physical of the two codes.

But I was exaggerating a bit on soccer vs union. They're both along the same lines in my opinion. I guess union just frustrates me a bit because it has the potential to become a decent game... ie league.
The only other sport I watch is Ice Hockey.

Cheers

 

[hitman82]

Put the Warriors on FTA live, pretty sure it'll get more viewers than on sky which could generate more fans increase crowd attendances, memberships etc. NRL could very well benefit from selling the TV rights for the Warriors games seperately. I wonder if NZ channels would be interested in making a bid? Could result in becoming the most popular team in NZ besides the All Blacks.

I agree, somewhat. Around 50% of NZ's households are SKY subscribers. I'd guess that a large portion of those have the Sport packages. There's a good chance that if you're a league fan, you're a sport fan, and if you're a sport fan, you will have SKY.

As far as greater exposure goes, sure.

 

[Rich102]

Put the Warriors on FTA live, pretty sure it'll get more viewers than on sky which could generate more fans increase crowd attendances, memberships etc. NRL could very well benefit from selling the TV rights for the Warriors games seperately. I wonder if NZ channels would be interested in making a bid? Could result in becoming the most popular team in NZ besides the All Blacks.

Who will pay the cost of the coverage?

 

[Matua]

Yes I'm a rabid league fan so it's pretty much pointless trying to argue any of those points with me. Was simply replying because you asked politely .

Well I guess you wouldn't be 100% sure because you don't know me, but I have no real reason to lie about my sporting up-bringing haha. That would be a bit pathetic! But FYI my Dad calls union "rugby" and I call it union. And I am an axe-grinding league fan, yes.

On number 6, being a trainer myself, I can tell you Dollah Bill did not need to bulk up because of having too much "beach muscle". He was leaner because he had a higher physical workload and higher fitness requirements in league, as per my points. As for bulking up in itself, judging by photos he probably also gained a few kgs of fat. Ask pretty much ANY convert (apart from yourself apparently) and they will tell you league is the more physical of the two codes.

But I was exaggerating a bit on soccer vs union. They're both along the same lines in my opinion. I guess union just frustrates me a bit because it has the potential to become a decent game... ie league.
The only other sport I watch is Ice Hockey.

Cheers

Ka pai you - at least your honest about your fundamentalism.

FYI - I'm not a convert, unless you count taking up playing league as an 8 year old converting.

In one on one situations league is probably more physical but you're discounting the physicality of rucking, mauling, defence around the ruck etc merely because you don't like the game that it comes from.

Also, pre professional era rugby your comments would fit perfectly - the late 80s and early 90s converts all same the same thing, but they were coming from an amateur game.

But I can tell I have as much chance of convincing you of anything as I would with islamic and christian fundamentalists.

Never mind, I"ll be enjoying my weekend of league and rugby without the chip on my shoulder (I reserve that for soccer ).

 

[Micistm]

Yep. you are dreaming.

At all stages this discussion has been about spectator sport hasn't it? So why the need for clarification now?

In regards to motorsport, most motorsport is on free to air tv, also there are differing types of motorsport, formula one, V8s, Indy cars, stick cars, rally - do they all come under the same umbrella? And then, do all ball sports come under the same umbrella as well? So, not convenient, they just aren't level playing fields.

In the comparison between league and rugby - what do you think is the main driver for Sky subscriptions? In any given week there are a number of live rugby matches played in different cities of NZ, the Warriors are a one country team yet they also struggle to pull big crowds. In the NPC, smaller centres like HB can regularly attract crowds between 8k and 10k for much of the season. In any given weekend how many people watch club rugby or league in NZ?

I'm not attempting to put down league in this but you guys need to face facts, rugby is more popular in NZ, it is what it is. In Sydney and Brisbane league is, therefore most of their media follow and report league more strongly.


I really don't get this type of comment? How can you find the tackling, the running, the passing etc to be so terrible in rugby yet find it so enjoyable in rugby. Granted you might not like rucks and mauls (I love them), but other aspects of the game should be enjoyable. I like seeing the tactical approaches in both games. They're different but I didn't grow up in an us vs them mentality so I'm able to enjoy each to as their own.

I would completely disagree with you on what specifically draws Sky sports subscribers. You have a good number Super Rugby games free to air, delayed but still at a reasonable hour. You have the majority of the League not shown on free to air to all, except the Manly game via a special Maori TV deal, and one or two selected games shown extremely late on Prime. IMO the obvious draw here is to entice League fans onto sky as the only way to see the majority of League games & programmes at a civilised time. You seem to assume League fans in NZ are only interested in Warriors specifically. I find it interesting you bring up poor crowds for Warriors games, yet casually forget the exact same arguement was being drawn around Rugby not long ago, and why fans were watching NPC, not Superleague, why fans were not selling out finals, and so on. Rugby has the same fair weather fans as the Warriors do. Watch the Warriors get a roll on and the fans turn up...watch the Warriors make the playoffs and see what the trade me tickets go for!;-)

 

[Matua]

I would completely disagree with you on what specifically draws Sky sports subscribers. You have a good number Super Rugby games free to air, delayed but still at a reasonable hour. You have the majority of the League not shown on free to air to all, except the Manly game via a special Maori TV deal, and one or two selected games shown extremely late on Prime. IMO the obvious draw here is to entice League fans onto sky as the only way to see the majority of League games & programmes at a civilised time. You seem to assume League fans in NZ are only interested in Warriors specifically. I find it interesting you bring up poor crowds for Warriors games, yet casually forget the exact same arguement was being drawn around Rugby not long ago, and why fans were watching NPC, not Superleague, why fans were not selling out finals, and so on. Rugby has the same fair weather fans as the Warriors do. Watch the Warriors get a roll on and the fans turn up...watch the Warriors make the playoffs and see what the trade me tickets go for!;-)

There is one delayed game of Super 12 a week on Prime, which is either late or the next day and then a weekly wrap on a Sunday - I don't know where you get the idea from that there is lots of rugby on free to air. This weekend there are 3 games of league on Prime and only one rugby game.

If league was the big drawcard on Sky then why is their a 'Rugby Channel' as opposed to a 'League Channel'? As I said, the league basically saved Sky in the early 90s, but you are deluded if you think that more subscriptions are targeted at league than rugby now.

I didn't say that rugby didn't have fair weather fans, both codes do.

 

[Sam_the_man]

Sky keep calling me asking me if i'd like the rugby channel free for a month.

 

[Matua]

Sky keep calling me asking me if i'd like the rugby channel free for a month.

They work on hoping you forget to turn it off when the month is up - which is what I always do!

 

[hitman82]

Haha, yeah you can actually ask the operator to set it to automatically turn off after the free month's trial. That's what I did with the movie channels and those games they have.

Of course, I'd never accept a free month of the union channel

 

[Micistm]

Lol, can't preach to the converted Matua, you obviously prefer Rugger and good luck to you man. As an ex coaster I'm a league man and you wouldn't expect anything less from me man, yeah? ;-)
But- Aside from the various debates over these pages, what I have seen over the years here in Canty mad Rugby town is a decrease in interest- not to say it still isn't big, just not nearly as big as it was and certainly not the be all end all our media would have you believe. Of course Rugby is still huge, it was- still is, regarded as the National Sport. But it's not the life stopping thing it once was. People have other interests.
I moved away from the Coast in 1990, briefly to Aussie then back to Chch to polytech for two years. In that time it was just Rugby, Rugby and more Rugby. I went back to the Coast for a couple of years after finishing, then returned here for good in '95. It was still all about the Rugby, and stayed that way for years. My wife and her family, were Union mad Cantabs. Something has happened in the past few years, and the mad interest has gone. The media still has the hyped adverts showing rabid Kiwis following the Rugby...but it isn't like that anymore. People still watch, people still enjoy. But their life does not revolve around it anymore, and more sports are getting into the mix. And that's good IMO. There are a few in the media, and older fans, who do not accept that. And fair enough, each to their own.

 

[Micistm]

There is one delayed game of Super 12 a week on Prime, which is either late or the next day and then a weekly wrap on a Sunday

No it's not. The FTA Rugby is shown around the 8.30 mark, one hours delay. The NRL games if shown are at around midnight.
The League tests are sometimes not even on at all.

 

[Matua]

Lol, can't preach to the converted Matua, you obviously prefer Rugger and good luck to you man. As an ex coaster I'm a league man and you wouldn't expect anything less from me man, yeah? ;-)
But- Aside from the various debates over these pages, what I have seen over the years here in Canty mad Rugby town is a decrease in interest- not to say it still isn't big, just not nearly as big as it was and certainly not the be all end all our media would have you believe. Of course Rugby is still huge, it was- still is, regarded as the National Sport. But it's not the life stopping thing it once was. People have other interests.
I moved away from the Coast in 1990, briefly to Aussie then back to Chch to polytech for two years. In that time it was just Rugby, Rugby and more Rugby. I went back to the Coast for a couple of years after finishing, then returned here for good in '95. It was still all about the Rugby, and stayed that way for years. My wife and her family, were Union mad Cantabs. Something has happened in the past few years, and the mad interest has gone. The media still has the hyped adverts showing rabid Kiwis following the Rugby...but it isn't like that anymore. People still watch, people still enjoy. But their life does not revolve around it anymore, and more sports are getting into the mix. And that's good IMO. There are a few in the media, and older fans, who do not accept that. And fair enough, each to their own.

I'd definitely agree that rugby is not as dominant as in the past - there are so many other things for the young fullas to do - including driving round in circles on weekend nights (I really don't get the boy racer craze).

It's not that I prefer rugby (as I love watching both sports) but the NRL is less interesting to me now than it was in the 1990s. With rugby I can watch my home province, the province I went to Uni at, the place where I'm living now and support all those teams and their S15 franchises as well. In league it's now just the Warriors for me - I used to watch the Lion Red Cup in the 90s because HB had a team - The mighty Unicorns. In NRL matches now I just pick the team with the most Kiwis and then just cheer for them.

I just really don't get why people always want to make it an us and them situation still. At the elite level the players/coaches etc all seem to get on well and they have cross code mixing etc (i.e. Bennett helping the Wallabies) and at grass roots level most people where I'm from are involved in both (many clubs are now rugby and league). But since I joined this forum I've noticed a real hatred of rugby. On one of the rugby forums I go on I'm always defending league - it seems on here I'm destined to defend rugby.

I'm not trolling when I engage in these topics, there is a particular poster on one of the rugby forums who continually trolls rugby, which I really don't get - why wouldn't he just frequent league forums? I love league, love the Kiwis, the Warriors and Wigan (hang over from the old days) but I'm not going to just stand by and listen to people having pot shots at rugby.

 

[Matua]

No it's not. The FTA Rugby is shown around the 8.30 mark, one hours delay. The NRL games if shown are at around midnight.
The League tests are sometimes not even on at all.

They never start before 9:30pm. Often they have the previous nights game on. The NRL are usually shown at midnight because they're delayed from Oz.

What the hell do I really care though, I have Sky - I get pissed off when the Warriors have 7:30 Saturday night games though as I have to switch channels every 5 mins.

 

[Micistm]

More of a Saints man myself in the SL Matua ;-)
I know what you mean about the 'Us vs them' thing, but by the same token I can understand why some League fans feel that way, as for years there was this feeling League was the embarrassing relation at the family wedding...the derogatory 'State House Rugby' thing thrown at them- still used today I have noted at times...the media pumping up of Rugby, the bad boy press used for League by the media-Which you may point out that's the media full stop, pumping a negative story because it sells.
Yes, you're right though- if you go on a League site you're likely to get anti Rugby sentiment, vice versa on a Rugby one. But as armchair atheletes, you can prefer one and still watch the other. Another reason I have thought rugby is on the wane is I have tried to talk people into going along to Rugby in the last couple of years (this one excluded-and lack of top Rugby in CHCH this year may well spark more interest again when it comes back), and got bugger all enthusiam. I got more interest for the Warriors last year and the ANZAC test before it was cancelled, and the Phoenix games. Whether the interest stayed up there if they were here more often is an interesting thought.

 

[Micistm]

They never start before 9:30pm. Often they have the previous nights game on. The NRL are usually shown at midnight because they're delayed from Oz.

What the hell do I really care though, I have Sky - I get pissed off when the Warriors have 7:30 Saturday night games though as I have to switch channels every 5 mins.

Yeah, sky on as well, and the constant Sat night games annoy because it's harder to argue with the missus to stay home! Under the thumb you see;-)

 

[Micistm]

If there's another good reason why some Leaguies have chips on their shoulders, look no further than the likes of Brendon Telfers attitude as to why the Kiwis did not deserve the Halberg award for team of the year after winning the WC. Pure, utter snobbism at it's absolute worst. Yet, this is the same guy who suggests the ABs are a dead cert for it should they get this years WC. Shut the book and don't bother nominating anyone else. His words.
Even taking out the fact I'm a Leaguie, I would have thought the Kiwis beating Aussie in their own home WC, against what they described themselves as their best team ever, given no chance...vs the ABs, regarded if not the best team pretty much the yardstick, playing in their home WC...
-Which is the better achievement?

Sorry, that's bound to start even more arguements ;-)

 

[Matua]

If there's another good reason why some Leaguies have chips on their shoulders, look no further than the likes of Brendon Telfers attitude as to why the Kiwis did not deserve the Halberg award for team of the year after winning the WC. Pure, utter snobbism at it's absolute worst. Yet, this is the same guy who suggests the ABs are a dead cert for it should they get this years WC. Shut the book and don't bother nominating anyone else. His words.
Even taking out the fact I'm a Leaguie, I would have thought the Kiwis beating Aussie in their own home WC, against what they described themselves as their best team ever, given no chance...vs the ABs, regarded if not the best team pretty much the yardstick, playing in their home WC...
-Which is the better achievement?

Sorry, that's bound to start even more arguements ;-)

Telfer is to rugby what Ratpoo is to league. Telfer isn't strictly a rugby man though really. He's netball, soccer etc as well.

What's the best?
I'd say they were equal , the Kiwis should have won it in 2008. If the ABs win this year then they should win it. Just because a team is often the best doesn't mean they don't deserve the award.

We regularly beat Oz in league finals these days so is it really that much of an achievement?

 

[Micistm]

Lol, fair point there!