You wouldn't be the only one short on the requisite information...

Unfortunately.

1) Not really; you either don't live in the UK or you're too stupid to process what's in front of you.

2) they pick off the players they want. This will continue for a long time, the only stop in this rut will be if Saints offer Eastmond a nice wedge and he stays in league.

3)They've not, maybe i'm missing something but the only cross code challenge I can remember is an average pro Sale beating saints 40-38. You can look it up if you like. Wigan beating an amateur team in 7's doesn't count.

4) This point is based on the UK game, i'm not overly aware of whats happened in australia. League converts except Jason Robinson have failed in union. All these Celtic juniors and a couple of the catalans juniors are ex union players and they've converted easily. Look at players like tuigamala, Davies and Offiah in the 90s. All union players who had a massive influence in league

5) See 6

6) Now I know you're australian. Union is not a game designed for running and scoring tries; I know, it's pathetic. The Irish, welsh and English union backs for the most part could pick their place in that England league side that lined up in the four nations which was my original point that started this off. Gavin Henson's a crocked nancy boy but he'd still walk over most Super League centres, he's twice the size of them. Lee Byrne against Shaun Briscoe??? O'Driscoll against Chris Bridge?? jesus. Vainikolo isnt good enough to get in the England union side and he made Super League look like a training ground; also see Shontayne Hape et al.

7) As much as I cheered on Bradford demolishing Wasps in the middlesex 7's and Wigan, its not really credible is it, it's more rugby league than union which is half the reason its been put in the olympics....it actually contains entertainment.
If you were to say would the kangaroos beat the wallabies in 7s, yes, of course they would, it would be so embarrassing the ARU might as well pack up and quit, but that isnt what was said.

I hate union; but I come across players locally (in a RL heartland) from both codes at an amateur and semi pro level and the most naturally gifted players at grassroots in the UK are in union im afraid.
Union players aren't fit but they're ridiculously powerfull, their gym regimes are based on pure power, short bursts of trudging power. Since the game went pro, these same players have shifted the fat and put on probably an average of 12kg of muscle more. Their deadlifting, squatting, cleans are something else, often 280kg (that's what i've seen) and the backrowers average about 6 foot 8. The kangaroo pack in this day and age simply wouldn't compete with this, they're not designed to.
Rather than have a petty poo throwing contest if you'd like to provide evidence to the contrary that the kangaroos could beat the wallabies at union then I welcome it. Unless they were extremely lucky to beat England the other week then I highly doubt it

Nice little rant.

You believe the crap you read written by Stephen Jones it seems. LOL.

The last Australian union player to walk into the Kangaroos in their first season of rugby league was Jim Lisle in 1962.

I can name several Kangaroos that have walked into the Wallabies within their first year of playing union.

Hint - they weren't 47 years ago...

BTW, as for union turning professional in 1996, this is another joke from that side of the fence.

The game was shamateur for at least 25 years prior to that.

Middlesex 7s do count.

As do the two wartime internationals I mentioned.

You, Dico, cannot point to a single result the other way (in the other's sport).

The fact you know nothing about the subject is not a valid excuse.

I could never understand how union got into the olympics, maybe they thought hmmm what a interesting game which is really RL anyway.If they say union 7s is similar as league then they the leaguies should also be involved @ the olympics aswell. And then you can have the best of the wallabies vs the kangaroos then will see, not only our 13 man game can demolish them in union but also there so called 7s TO IMO.

The coaching issue especially shows up this bull about union being superior...

Until Mooney was appointed in the last few weeks as a backs coach by the Brisbane Broncos, RL had never (to my knowledge) appointed a union coach to a rugby league coaching position.

How long you got for the reverse scenario?

Lydon, Edwards, Larder, Kiss spring to mind immediately.

But according to the fool Dico, RL has nothing to contribute.

If it wasnt for the SL saga they would still as we know it today still amatuer

How do 7's count, it bears no resemblance to the 15 a side game. There's no real scrums, rucks, mauls or lineouts. It's like a badminton player beating a lawn tennis player at table tennis.

I admit you got me hook, line and sinker with your other point, I assumed you were talking about a RL victory with relevance, as opposed to something that happened over 60 years ago.

RL players may be more skilled, quicker, stronger, bigger, label them with whatever superlatives you want. But in a proper game of Union, the League forwards lack of knowledge in the art of the scrum, ruck, maul and lineout would see their backs starved of possession and ultimately lead to the loss of the game.

Well done for admitting you have no clue.

It is the start of any exercise in rehabilitation.

The fact union avoided such contests throughout its shamateur era speaks volumes for the concerns raised by the WWII matches.

You and dickless should also canvass the coaching issues you are studiously avoiding.

Further, while on the subject of Kangaroos v Wallabies, touch on the issue regarding the walk-ups in first year in union for RL players and the complete absence of the reverse scenario for 47 years.

The initial poster asked what would happen if the Kangaroos played the Wallabies. I have merely posted that each would win their own game comfortably, because the skill sets needed for each game are quite different.

In RL the Wallabies wouldn't be able to cope with the speed and running angles, the ferocity of the collisions,etc etc

In RU the Kangaroos wouldn't win any ball because they'd be lost in the scrums, rucks, mauls etc.

I see no reference to coaching issues in the original poster's question. However I will comment on it if you wish.

Of course RU poaches RL coaches, because the the angles of running, ball skills, tackling etc; in fact any skill which is shared by the codes, is probably better in RL.

However the fact remains that there are parts of RU that would be foreign to a RL player and therefore lead to defeat in a 15 a side game.

This just sums up RU the ultimate bore!

not the kangaroos, theyd win both.

union players core skills in passing, kicking and tackling are dificient.

the wallabies contain 2 players who failed to make it in the nrl.

2 players.

therefore the calibre of union players is of reserve grade standard

the roos are not only first graders, a level which these 2 wallabies failed at, they are the cream of the crop.

if the ARU could afford it the entire roo backline would make up the wallabies backs.

and we could fill our backline with 2 more sides, thats how deep our playing ranks are

please stop embarrasing yourselves guys

wendall sailor, lote tuqiri and mat rogers went from zero real union experience to starring for the wallabies in the space of a year

think about that.

they went from nothing in union to starring for the best side theyve got, thats how good their skills were.

could any wallaby be a regular first grader in the NRL?

Nearly there with your weak apologist viewpoint.

You just missed the part about the 47 years.





Keep trying...

I'm not disputing the fact that the Kangaroo players are better at passing, running, tackling etc etc.

But in a game of RU, the Kangaroo forwards would find the scrums, rucks, mauls and lineouts a totally alien concept, not win any ball, and therefore the lose, even if it was 3-0 by a single penalty.

Not only did Palu and Elsom both excel in rugby league reserve grade, Ryan Cross never got within a thousand yards of a Kangaroos jumper...

Re- the highlighted section, DM - they can't help it if they believe the e written about RL in the English (southern based) press.

The evidence for this exists only in your fevered imagination, AT.

Of course, again, you may want to point to the actual game result that tallies with this little dream of yours.

We [ihave[/i won at union, so presumably the rucks, mauls, lineouts, excessive standing around doing nothing, etc. wasn't a factor.

To repeat, union has not accomplished the reverse.

Accordingly, my view is based in the hard evidence of results (plural, note), yours not so...

Shame.

So Gijou, in a game of RU do you honestly believe the Roos would win enough ball up front, to give their backs a chance.

what would the wallaby backs do with the ball dunce?

the only way theyd score is kicks at goal

Er no....you pointed to games that took place over 60 years ago, when both codes were very different.

The only game played in recent years was Saints v Sale..........2 full time professional outfits, so a fair comparison.

The game was played as one half of RL and one of RU. Each team won their own half by 7 tries to nil........ the only difference was that Sale got one more conversion.

During the RU half, the Saints players were lost in an endless stream of rolling mauls and hardly touched the ball.


As a fan of both codes, I fully accept that in the shared skills, the RL game is light years ahead, but there are too many parts of RU's forward play that are too complex to pick up in a few weeks, months or even years. That's why all the successful RL converts have been backs.

Fine, so they'd win by kicks......they'd still win. I'm not suggesting that RU is a game full of running and passing, just that the Kangaroo forwards would dominate in a game of RU.

Still avoiding the 47 year bit...

Sigh. Nothing's changed.

As a team, they wouldn't let the woeful Wannabees get over for a single try.

And they take their chances (again compare the pathetic Wannabees). Hence, even one chance would be enough to finish off that useless bunch of posers.

Every conceivable piece of evidence suggests the Kangaroos are far stronger than the Wannabees. Even at the e that is union.