Yeah it's the rivalries that make Union, in my view. League is a nonentity as an international sport...
Rugby League Vs Rugby Union
- Thread starter Grandma Death
- Start date
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
see, that's nonsense tho. the variations in league are myriad, its such a quick presence of mind along with fleet o'foot and sheer physical strength, great game
travellerlife
Well-Known Member
Union all day everyday and twice on Sunday. Made an effort to watch and played some league socially, but found it boring, not much variety. I grew up with union, so I am biased. All the leg kicking and drowning tortoise impersonation while the tackler is releasing in league is seriously ridiculous, much better and more satisfying to just ruck over the sod, that trying to shake him off in a pseudo epileptic fit.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Hard to compare the two. A bit like comparing basketball and netball. League is a game for men.
Juice Terry
rama lama fa fa fa
Union everytime obviously....
unless its state of origin at Lang Park with a couple of gallons of VB. Hard to beat that for a fun night out.
unless its state of origin at Lang Park with a couple of gallons of VB. Hard to beat that for a fun night out.
rapattaque
At fighting weight
28 fat blokes watching two other blokes engage in a kicking contest. A generally unwatchable sport where progress is made either: a) by kicking the ball out of the playing area or b) by goading the opposition into conceding a penalty due to an unwitting infringement of one of the many obscure laws (see 'he's gone in the wrong side').
When the two 'kickers' are not engaged in exchanging hoofs into the stand, the 28 fat blokes are called upon to pile onto the ball to prevent its progress up the field. This is called either a 'ruck'; a 'maul' or '28 fat blokes in a heap'.
Games of rugby union are settled by which team has the best kicker. Occasionally a 'try' may be scored - but they are so rare that their value has been increased in order to encourage players to pursue that route to victory.
But as try-scoring requires fitness and handling skills, the sport prefers the kicking option to settle contests. (see also 'drop goal' - one bloke kicking while 29 watch). On the rare occasion that a try is achieved, 14 fat blokes pushing another bloke under a pile of bodies from 1 yard is considered a specimen of the type.
Generally considered: a) inferior to Rugby League in terms of skill, fitness and excitement; b) the preferred game of chinless wonders and old Rugby League players who can't hack it any more and c) the spectator sport of bandwagon-jumping twats who don't support any club and don't know any better (see 'Inverdale').
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I don't know much about Rugby. I really should know more, seeing as I grew up in Wigan. And was on the school Rugby (league) team.
I have gotten into watching Rugby with my dad. He likes both Union and League. He keeps pointing out when we watch Wales how they are using tactics from League that they have learnt from Shaun Edwards, and that is what makes them exciting to watch.
I have gotten into watching Rugby with my dad. He likes both Union and League. He keeps pointing out when we watch Wales how they are using tactics from League that they have learnt from Shaun Edwards, and that is what makes them exciting to watch.
jannerboyuk
...just kids gone wild.
yeah thats a good point which illustrates the importance of the international game for any code that doesnt have the spread of pro clubs like football. Luckily for me the celtic crusaders have provided that interest.
Alternatively you watch rugby league, where 28 identikit blocky fisher price men with moustaches and shiny plastic shirts bosch unimaginatively into each other, forcing themselves up by shagging the ground like a demented dolphin. until the final kick before changeover. And too often a single handling error, particularly a dropped up and under, changes the whole nature of the game, making all that heroic defending a little pointless.
Put it this way, rugby league's like American football without the variety, the spectacular forward passes, tactics and attractive cheerleaders. Union has its flaws, but it's a far more varied game encouraging differing modes of play.
Put it this way, rugby league's like American football without the variety, the spectacular forward passes, tactics and attractive cheerleaders. Union has its flaws, but it's a far more varied game encouraging differing modes of play.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Well, it has rucks, mauls and kicks to touch, which is a variety of sorts.
Sometimes they pass the ball though and it picks up a bit by looking like league normally does.
Sometimes they pass the ball though and it picks up a bit by looking like league normally does.
True, but as a player of both, there's something endearing about the honesty and logic of union. There's something bizarrely artificial about having someone lie on top of you after a tackle, trying to wear you out as you wiggle to your feet. Far better for a raft of forwards to come surging over you, clearing and kicking the tackler out of position.
Arguably I was a better league player, but union's got more for everyone on the playing field. There are few things better in life than being part of a decent pack that's flowing and working effectively, gaining momentum and clearing out the opposition. Only the buzz of pulling off complex blocking and stunt plays in American Football came close for me - bizarrely rugby league often felt less instinctive and more based around the set move than even American football.
Arguably I was a better league player, but union's got more for everyone on the playing field. There are few things better in life than being part of a decent pack that's flowing and working effectively, gaining momentum and clearing out the opposition. Only the buzz of pulling off complex blocking and stunt plays in American Football came close for me - bizarrely rugby league often felt less instinctive and more based around the set move than even American football.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
It's much, much harder for a team to kill the game in league than the fat code. You can see a bad game in either version if teams play badly - i.e. drop the ball a lot - but in league the ability to kill the game for large periods of time isn't there to anything like the same extent.
Of course there's more going on in the pack in a union game but to my mind it isn't particular interesting to see. Not that you can see it half the time.
Of course there's more going on in the pack in a union game but to my mind it isn't particular interesting to see. Not that you can see it half the time.
To use a cliche, it's probably one of those games you have to play to understand. The shenanigans around a good pack are fantastic, the edge of the laws being tested to keep the ball moving quickly. There's great beauty in the ruthless nature of forward play.
As I said earlier, league's perhaps a more consistent game for the spectator, but union seems to have much more of a potential upside for me. A great game of union, with marauding packs in full flow, is way better than even the best of league. It doesn't happen very often mind, but like test match cricket you keep hoping for that spectacular occasion.
As I said earlier, league's perhaps a more consistent game for the spectator, but union seems to have much more of a potential upside for me. A great game of union, with marauding packs in full flow, is way better than even the best of league. It doesn't happen very often mind, but like test match cricket you keep hoping for that spectacular occasion.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Well, union for playing and league for watching: I've thought that for a long time. Not that I do either of them here, mind.
League's probably more fun to play a lot of the time, albeit knackering.
You see more of the ball if you're a back, don't receive those niggling stamp injuries or thumbs in eyes (arseholes only I believe), nor have to spend as much time polishing the unpleasant close quarter skills of attrition or collapsing uncomfortably in the scrum. For someone who specialised in running straight and tackling hard, albeit with not enough subtlety, I fitted in pretty well at league.
Union has more variety for different body shapes, but league's a decent game to play. Apart from those stupid dolphin moves that is.
You see more of the ball if you're a back, don't receive those niggling stamp injuries or thumbs in eyes (arseholes only I believe), nor have to spend as much time polishing the unpleasant close quarter skills of attrition or collapsing uncomfortably in the scrum. For someone who specialised in running straight and tackling hard, albeit with not enough subtlety, I fitted in pretty well at league.
Union has more variety for different body shapes, but league's a decent game to play. Apart from those stupid dolphin moves that is.
Red Faction
Allez Les Rouges
rugby union is better than you
the button
out on the kocker
Played at its highest level, league for me. But a poor game of league is fucking woeful. Whereas all union games are the same. 
mattie
missing in inaction
I'm not clear what you mean - one of Martin Johnson's reasons for retiring after lifting the world Cup was the incredible fitness regime they were subjected to. And surely there are more diverse skills in union, which include every single skill you'd need in league and then some.
How you objectively measure excitement I don't know. How many sing along to the music after a try, perhaps?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
well, there's certainly more big fat lads still playing union and the passing skills of union players is nowhere near as advanced as those of league players. i suppose the one area where they might be better is kicking cos they have so much practice at it during the game.....kick....clap......kick......clap......kick......clap.......
That's bollocks. League converts have hardly lit up union with their sublime passing techniques of late. They look distinctly pedestrian in fact.
There's a big difference trying to find space and pass within a 15-man field rather than against 13. It's also probably fair to say that standards and talent pool are now higher on the union side, so even the biggest league fish tend to struggle in union despite excelling in their own sport.
There's a big difference trying to find space and pass within a 15-man field rather than against 13. It's also probably fair to say that standards and talent pool are now higher on the union side, so even the biggest league fish tend to struggle in union despite excelling in their own sport.
No, was wrong here.
bendeus
Bellend Tagline Generator
You must feel thoroughly vindicated that the poll bears out your viewpoint, Paulie - it seems that twice as many people find more excitement and entertainment in League than they do in.......
oh!
...ermmm.....carry on, like
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
the mere fact of the opinion of popularity as being any indicator of quality bears little resemblance to real life.
carry on rucking?!
carry on rucking?!
bendeus
Bellend Tagline Generator
the mere fact of the opinion of popularity as being any indicator of quality bears little resemblance to real life.
carry on rucking?!
It indicates that more people find union more entertaining than league.
Either that or it's a public show of revulsion against arse thumbing on live tv?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
more people like girls aloud than the supremes. it doesn't mean much.
league is the fastest growing sport amongst schools in the s/e of england apparently. we've finally started to develop and include local lads in the squad and i have some hopes that, at last, there may be a credible league side in london.
league is the fastest growing sport amongst schools in the s/e of england apparently. we've finally started to develop and include local lads in the squad and i have some hopes that, at last, there may be a credible league side in london.
I wouldn't believe that for a second Paulie. Hate to bust your bubble, but as a Londoner with plenty of school age relatives I can assure you that league's not making miraculous growth in schools, in fact I've never heard of it being played in anything other than a one off PE lesson or two. There may be a RL initiative, like there was in my day, where some official from the league visits and gives a few hours of training, perhaps boosting it above Bolivian Dolphin Hockey and Korfball as participative sports in schools, but it's hardly a lasting effect. To give you an example there used to be a Brixton RL mini team (Bulls) encouraged by a local state school headmaster and heavily backed/used in promo literature by the RL. It did alright for about 3 years, before seemingly dying in 2007 through lack of interest
They've been trying to make the Broncos/Harlequins/Big Arse Thumbing Jessies of London working for decades now, to dubious amounts of success - why the hell would the average schoolkid be tempted into a world of league when there's one big RL club nearby with a history of failure and plenty of union clubs, with the union clubs offfering a route to a more attractive, status-filled international game. Why would the average Londoner want to get into league instead, particularly when union's a more inclusive gam for all body shapes at school.
They've been trying to make the Broncos/Harlequins/Big Arse Thumbing Jessies of London working for decades now, to dubious amounts of success - why the hell would the average schoolkid be tempted into a world of league when there's one big RL club nearby with a history of failure and plenty of union clubs, with the union clubs offfering a route to a more attractive, status-filled international game. Why would the average Londoner want to get into league instead, particularly when union's a more inclusive gam for all body shapes at school.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
One might as well ask "why not just get into football?", as most people do instead.
There's really not that many people go and watch union matches in London - more than League without question, but it's mstil la very small proportion of the capital's sports-going public and very heavily weighted towards people who have been brought up in, shall we say, a union environment. Most people, given the choice, opt for neither.
I don't think it's reasonable to overlook the advantages of visilbility that union has over League. League starts from a position of near-invisibility over much of the country - to be honest it's about as prominent as volleyball or chess. Or, if you prefer, about as prominent as union in the USA, or as prominent as baseball in Ireland, or as prominent as hurling in France. In itself that doesn't of course prove anything - it doesn't mean that if it were on the national news every night people would stop supporting Manchester United and start supporting St Helens. But there is a situation in the UK (and not just there) where union, for a variety of reasons, built up an enormous, shall we say, cultural advantage over a period of decades, and that has a profound, lasting and perhaps irrevocable effect.
There's really not that many people go and watch union matches in London - more than League without question, but it's mstil la very small proportion of the capital's sports-going public and very heavily weighted towards people who have been brought up in, shall we say, a union environment. Most people, given the choice, opt for neither.
I don't think it's reasonable to overlook the advantages of visilbility that union has over League. League starts from a position of near-invisibility over much of the country - to be honest it's about as prominent as volleyball or chess. Or, if you prefer, about as prominent as union in the USA, or as prominent as baseball in Ireland, or as prominent as hurling in France. In itself that doesn't of course prove anything - it doesn't mean that if it were on the national news every night people would stop supporting Manchester United and start supporting St Helens. But there is a situation in the UK (and not just there) where union, for a variety of reasons, built up an enormous, shall we say, cultural advantage over a period of decades, and that has a profound, lasting and perhaps irrevocable effect.
