Did anyone say Rugby Union was entertaining?

Fight the power, man!

I think that if the entertainment on show doesn't improve next season, direct action should be taken.

Yep. But who's going to be the first person to throw himself under a bus in protest?

There's a few I would happily push

Fair point!

You said (or whoever you may have quoted, if it's not you) Super League has become as boring as Union though, which I just can't agree with.

I'm not sure Rugby League, on the whole, is that boring. The NRL and the Co-operative Championship teams still want to entertain to a limited degree but Super League's a different matter.

What does "to a limited degree" mean?

Its like "to my maximum capacity" but a bit less, I think.

It means it's more entertaining than Super League but still nowhere near as entertaining as the Rugby League we once knew and loved.



They throw the ball about a bit more than in Super League and there is more an emphasis on trying to score through attacking rugby rather than by simply ploughing it down the middle and hoping the defence will buckle.

In simple terms, England played the game, in the first half against Australia ,exactly like a Super League game. The second half, we played it more like an NRL or Championship side would; i.e we tried to move it and we looked ten times more dangerous. Accepted, the Aussies had packed up for the day but the point remains.

Sorry your right. [uMORE [/uboring....

I have to agree with you young man, through my new relationship i've been to maybe 9/10 Roughyeds games this year in CC1 and each of them has been dramatically more entertaining than Super League. Conversely, the delectable Mrs has been to a dozen Saints games and the only ones she found remotely passionate or entertaining were Leeds & Wigan games and this was mainly because of the atmosphere and not the rugby on show.

Never before in 17 years of supporting Saints have i felt I’d rather be at home watching on TV, at KR I did a few times last year, I found myself turning Sky games off when Saints weren't involved too, because it was just slow, dull & repetitive (something most of us will have called rugby union for being exactly the same over the years)

Yes maybe Championship games are played by lesser athletes with less skill but they are played with at least equal passion & commitment, this from part time player’s who are paid peanuts in comparison. Teams actually try to score on every set, they look to make breaks & create tries at any opportunity, there is a bit of biff and its all smiles in the bar at the end.

I know a lot on here & RedVee blame Potter for most if not all of Saints in 2009 and won't be happy until he is sacked. I won't deny he is at least partly accountable for our style of play & results last season. But at the same time had we thrown the ball about behind the sloth like play the ball & it had backfired as defences got on the front foot & smashed us, the same people would have been equally derogatory about him, probably complaining that that we weren't doing the grinding out up the middle enough!

Under the refereeing directives all the coaches had to find the most effective way to play within the rules – despite everything Potter wasn't exactly miles away from success & given weaker squad than 2005-8 & the injuries we actually did very well, and while it was in very grim fashion, we certainly weren’t much less entertaining than most other clubs based on all the games I saw last season.

It was appalling at times for most fans, ref’s were letting players lie on for 5 seconds, then let them get to their feet slowly while holding the ball carrier, it sucked the life out of the game, defences were always set, breaks in normal play were seldom, getting the ball out wide was punished because lines had time to be up out wide before the ball got there, there were fewer gaps as players had longer breaks between tackles – teams were forced to go up the middle or they went backwards.

There are other ways to stop good teams getting on a roll like Saints / Leeds used to without spoiling the flow of a game and ultimately the highest level of competition in general in 2009 was the worst for entertainment value in memory.

Note to the RFL / things I’d like to see brought in for 2010 (in no order of priority):

1.) Teams kicking dead from sometimes from their own half to slow the game down (even more) – I’d go further than Clarke on this & make this a hand over from where the ball was kicked (similar to union), meaning ball will be in play more and more skill required when kicking.

2.) Instead of having to have touch judges in position & the ball on the centre spot, have some consistency and allow teams quick taps as soon as all attacking players on side and the ball is “roughly" in the centre of the pitch - splitting hairs over 1 foot either way is pedantic & unnesseceraily painful (take note Ian Smith)

3.) Play the ball to take no longer than a count of 2 from completed tackle, completed from referee calling “held” / carrier on the floor – obviously speed to be dictated by attacking team – if they want to cock about its their choice.

4.) Penalties for slowing the play down, offside, holding down, flopping, hands in the ruck etc – 3rd penalty warning, 4th penalty sin bin – no excuses or leniency for anyone.

These changes are just off the top of my head and would vastly speed the game back up make it vastly more open & allow for teams to vary attack to try and win games rather than a grind fest.

Is this coz you haven't won anything?

Er, no.

I watched Saints for 20 years before they won anything so being trophyless its newt new. Fact is the game IS less attrractive the way it is being played at present.
Its been progressively boring in recent seasons when we DID win something.

No not at all, i don't want to sound bitter about that, the game as a whole suffered last year. All teams have peaks and troughs but i'd still have felt the same entertainment wise had we swept the board in 2009.

Even back when i started watching in 1992 Saints where pretty average and under Eric Hughes trophies seemed an impossible dream but the game was still entertaining none the less.

I used to love watching games on tv at Cas and even Wigan as they where invariably exciting affairs, i'd go out of my way to watch them as they entertained me now i'm far more choosy as its just not the fun it used to be.

When is this era that you're referring to? You seem to be suggesting that it was pre-Super League and I want to check that I am understanding what exactly it is that you are stating.



Whilst the slowing of the PTB has contributed to a more stifled game plan the game has to evolve as well. As defences get better, a natural element of increased professionalism, so the game has to develop to take account of that. As I've said before, you can't have it both ways. You can't have teams just throwing the ball around against good defences. They need to set up that platform to allow themselves to do that. If what you're saying is that isn't happening that's a different and more complex discussion than a few simple throwaway soundbites about the game being less entertaining than rugby union.



That's a very selective memory you have there my friend. How are you defining entertaining because on one hand we have this "back in the day" crowd complaining about the lack of entertainment today, highlighting the poor quality of skill involved and decrying any increase in competitiveness about it and in the next sentence they are referring to times when the ball hit the grass more often than Bob Marley as being some kind of utopia.



You make it sound like the way the game is played now is something new. The Australians have been playing this sort of ball control tactics since before you started watching Saints. It has taken us, over here, nigh on 20+ years to get our sides in a position to think the same way. Wigoon dominated the sport on the back of being the only side in the competition able to behave in such a professional manner. Hoping for teams to try and score on every set is just naive. The game has moved on from such a freewheeling attitude. We need to increase awareness amongst players about being switched on to that opportunity (as witnessed by the Australians in last week's game) but you can't build a game plan on the back of looking to score from wherever you are on the field. If you're saying that's what it should be like then I should merely reference the days of when we'd give the ball some air in front of our sticks and cough it up because it was a ludicrous and expensive high-risk strategy. I'm sure you're not suggesting that.



Now that's a reasoned post and one I can agree with. It's lacking in the emotional and manipulative language that some more mature posters could do well to recognise when posting themselves about matters. Emotional flippancy does nothing for this discussion other than to commit debaters to a position of argument from which they can't move from for the fear of them looking like they'd made a silly comment.



Do you read Bert's posts more than others because I'm seeing a common thread here of people listening to closely to those that talk the loudest. This is all sounding a bit like a few heavyweight posters picking a point they wish to believe in and using their credibility to push a particular viewpoint no matter how perceptive it is. I mean, how often do you see teams kicking straight dead from their own half? I don't recall it happening that often as a deliberate tactic in this year's Grand Final, just as an example.

I haven't argued against removing the slowing down of the PTB because it has closed the game down more. What I will argue against is this peddled opinion that because defences have improved so the game has become less exciting. I want to see good play rewarded as everyone does. What appears to be the difference between the two camps is that some appear happy to see players ghost through ordinary defence and then proclaim it as sheer brilliance which is exactly the sort of attitude that has led us to crumbling on the international stage against teams that can actually defend. We are not going to compete with the best when players are falling off tackles as they used to do (and still do but less often) over the past thirty years. We either accept that defences are getting better and focus on developing a game to counter that or we ignore those defensive improvements and complain about it not being the touch and pass that it's been described as in comparison to NRL standards. If we choose the latter then whatever creativity increases will be on the back of less remarkable defence. That's a false economy from where I'm sat.

Have you ever considered the possibility that it's you rather than the game that's changed?

I love this. Every time Mike ends up in an argument it's get the dictionary out, make himself look like a literary genius and throw in as much science as possible to convince the masses that, as he's such a clever chap, he must be right and the world of Rugby League is more entertaining than it ever was.



A common theme throughout the posts is to berate the quality of Rugby League in the past. Quality is not the issue here. Entertainment is. If all I wanted was quality, I could go and watch a sculptor creating a statue of the Virgin Mary for eighty minutes. It isn't. I want to be interested in what I am seeing, excited, even.

There is continual reference to the ball hitting the deck every few tackles all those years ago. Have you watched any games this year? I've never seen the ball hit the deck so much as over the last few months. The difference is, now they are hitting the deck for no reason other than players cannot execute a simple short pass, or keep hold of it during the tackle. At least, in the past, the ball went to ground at the end of an attacking passing movement.

The simple facts are that the modern day game involves less passing, less risk taking, less ball handling, less invention, less off loading and virtually no thrilling passges of play. The game involves more defence, more one man rugby and total predictability.

In short, the game has gone from being an attacking sport to a defensive sport. If you get your thrills out of trying to strangle the life out of the opponents rather than beating them by producing better quality, open football, then fine, but don't try and insult my intelligence by claiming that it's all selective memory and the game has never been more exciting to watch. It might be better if you tried arguing with someone who hasn't got twenty years worth of contemporary written records that negate the possibility of selective memory.

You appear to only see one side to "quality". Quality isn't just attacking, quality is defending too.

And quality defending means better quality attacking is required. In SL at the moment, the good defences are on top. It has happened before in the NRL, but the balance is forever changing and some of the attacking rugby in the NRL this season was breathtaking, far better than the apparently halcyon days of 90s league in the UK.

You seem to have an incredibly rose tinted memory of the past. Some of the games were just as dull and duller.

Give me games like Aus/NZ the other week and Leeds/Saints over the last few years over a 40-36 scoreathon any day.

I can't speak for DD but certainly i am not for one second suggesting games have to be scoreathons to be exciting.

Some games from the past were dull but they were a minority compared to two thirds of games being dull last season

I love good defence, conceding 0 to me is better than scoring 60. But i don't really agree that defences are on top, not when it is being exaggerated by slowing the attack down to make it easier for the defending team.

As I said, "quality" is not the same as "entertainment". I'm not a complete village idiot. I am aware that the quality of defending is significantly better than it ever has been.

I have never said the "quality" used to be better but the "entertainment" was. It's nothing to do with rose tinted spectactles. Anyone can see that the game has evolved into a very different game than it was ten years ago. Anyone can see that the predominant tactic has changed to ploughing it down the middle and securing territory. Anyone can see that the flair half backs, centres and wingers have all but disappeared. Anyone can see that long range tries are largely a thing of the past. They are stone wall facts. The game is different.

The brand of rugby that was formerly played is very different than now. I enjoyed free-flowing, attack based Rugby League, with teams looking to score whenever possible. I'm not a fan of conservative, safety first Rugby League.

I have my own written reports of every game dating back twenty years. Those reports signify my love of the game. They talk enthusiastically about the entertaining day that I had. They don't anymore. So at least I have some contemporary evidence to back me up.

Maybe it's you who has a distorted version of events rather than me.



There were low scoring games in the past you know? A look at things will tell you that there were significantly less points per game on average in the period between 1990 and 1993 than there was in the period between 2006 and 2008. The 4-5 and 8-8 games against Wigan though still involved people trying to move the ball about.

The Australia-New Zealand game was more more like that kind of era. The close games in Super League of late don't even resemble the same sport sometimes.

Didn't want to sound condescending, I've no doubt you've watched more RL than me (I'm 2icon_cool.gif. But I remember watching some truly horrible games during winter rugby. They were not all about throwing the ball about, there was lots and lots of "up the jumper" dour rugby, as the conditions demanded it.



I personally find the brutal defense based games far, far more entertaining. Give me the big shots of the Aus/NZ game over length of the field tries due to poor defence. Plus, long range tries may be a thing of the past at Saints due to a lack of pace, but they certainly aren't at Leeds for example.

Going back 10-15 years, who were these flair half backs you speak of? I'd rather watch Tomkins and Eastmond at 6 and 7 than people like Tony Smith and loose forwards playing 6 like we saw then for GB.

Is, for example, Eastmond any less exciting than a young Sean Long?



Fair play



Maybe you were a different person 20 years ago to what you are now? Maybe RL played a more important part in your life?



I would expect so, given the games were played in the depths of winter in often terrible conditions.



As do the close games these days.



The Australia-New Zealand is more like this era because, well, it IS this era.

In response to FeartheVee

Didn't want to sound condescending, I've no doubt you've watched more RL than me (I'm 2icon_cool.gif. But I remember watching some truly horrible games during winter rugby. They were not all about throwing the ball about, there was lots and lots of "up the jumper" dour rugby, as the conditions demanded it.

There were horrible games because of the weather, yes, but it may be worth noting that we have had considerably more rain at games in the Friday night era than we ever had during the Sunday games in winter. I can honestly say, especially since St. Helens Town moved in, the pitch has been more of a mud-bath in the early and late season months than it ever was during the winter months in the late 80s/early 90s.

I personally find the brutal defense based games far, far more entertaining. Give me the big shots of the Aus/NZ game over length of the field tries due to poor defence. Plus, long range tries may be a thing of the past at Saints due to a lack of pace, but they certainly aren't at Leeds for example.

I'm sorry but if you find big hits more entertaining than teams playing with the actual ball then maybe you should start watching boxing or bloody WWF.



Long range tries are very rare across the board in Rugby League as there is a dearth of fast, pacy wingers, fast centres and tight defences simply don't allow it.

Going back 10-15 years, who were these flair half backs you speak of? I'd rather watch Tomkins and Eastmond at 6 and 7 than people like Tony Smith and loose forwards playing 6 like we saw then for GB.

Is, for example, Eastmond any less exciting than a young Sean Long?

Eastmond is going to be a good one, as are Tomkins and Myler but are they true greats? Time will tell. This is the era though where people trump up very average players such as Danny McGuire to be a great half back when his kicking and passing game is at best average. How about Bobbie Goulding, Tommy Martyn and Andy Gregory to name but three. True artists with the ability to unlock defences in a way that your modern half backs in this country can only dream of.

Maybe you were a different person 20 years ago to what you are now? Maybe RL played a more important part in your life?

RL maybe played a more important part in my life but I still know what I enjoyed and what I don't enjoy now. The game has changed massively and it's not the free-flowing game I used to place as my favourite sport. For me, football has pulled itself out of the defensive era to become an attacking game again and I enjoy watching that more now.

And before anyone says anything, that's taking club loyalties out of the question.




As do the close games these days.

No they don't Not to anywhere near the same extent. It's biff, bash, up the jumper, kick on the last, offloading at a minimum.

The Australia-New Zealand is more like this era because, well, it IS this era.

I said it was more like a game from THAT era.

I

I would prefer to discuss it with someone who actually goes to the game.

Of course the game has changed and not for the better.