Have you not just answered your own question there. I like Rugby League and therefore I may I dislike something that is different to it – I understand that one does not follow from the other but they are not mutually exclusive

Anyway, I don’t particularly dislike Rugby Union, I just find it infuriating – the laws of game not only allow negative tactics, they encourage it. From the scoring system to the ability to just remove the ball from the pitch when you are in defence, the laws simply don’t encourage the use of the skills that make RL great such as ball handling and attacking rugby. As said on the previous page, the more competitive and combative elements of sport such as the lineout and the scrums are being ruined by lifting and feeding (one in the law and one that is just overlooked by the ref)

Oh, and one more point – what do you mean about kicking? The attacking kicking game in RL is light years ahead of Union who simply don’t have the same variation or skill. Now if you mean a quality spiral punt into touch or a drop goal then I agree Union is ahead. If you mean top quality skills to put in attacking kicks, League is a clear winner

To sum my attitude up – when I watch Union, I am always waiting for a decent game of rugby to break out and I am usually disappointed

I think a lot of the problems in cross code debates come from people either defending their code too much, or wanting the other code to be played like theirs too much.

The people who tend to either like both, or understand both properly such as Catalancs tend to make good, unbiased posts.

I take a lot of Dunbars points, only I feel the same way about League. I like the sport, Wigan are "my team" (I put the inverted commas because I follow them but I wouldn't say I support them). I went to Warrington away in the cup and it was a great game. Shocking defence as usual (my main gripe with modern League) but entertainment wise, I won't lie - not many Union games will top that and that's from a person who heavily sides with Union.

However I also watched the 2 Challenge Cup games at the weekend and really enjoyed them, both a complete contrast to that game. I saw people on the Warrington forum slagging the Wigan/Saints game off, but I loved the tension. Leeds and Castleford was even better. League is a great sport for me when the defence is tight. Keeps you on edge all the time. I actually enjoy seeing teams kick for goal as it makes sense in games like that. Again, that's my Union side coming out but despite Sale being rubbish and now and again choosing getting beat with spirit over winning ugly - I would choose a 3-0 win over loads of tries and getting beat any day of the week. It often winds me up watching a game of League between 2 big clubs, close game, scoreline is about 8 points in it, they get a penalty and go for a set of 6. I always think common sense would say take the 2, then the crowd boo which I never like.

I agree with the things you said about the scrummaging and line-outs. I don't think the line-out is a big problem really, but it can be time consuming. Scrummaging gets worse every year. I'd hate to see the embarrassing scrum that you get in League, but it gets reset too much. They should either have a time frame or a limit on how many restarts before you award a free kick or penalty. I realise this is often the outcome anyway, but sometimes they go on for about 4 or 5 minutes and it's boring. Yet at the same time, it's an integral part of the game. When you see a side like Leicester on a good day, they can drive a team 30 metres and that's how they win a lot of their games.

As somebody said - both games could take a lot off each other. People just generally make thick points though because they expect both to be the same when they're not. The gripes I have with League, I just accept. It's the way the game is played. People expect loads of tries and not much kicking. Speaking of which though - I do have to agree with red death though. I have a lot of League fans saying their kicking game has advanced over the years and is ahead of us. Yet whenever I watch it I rarely see it. Place kicking is fine and Sinfield is one of the best in either code. But a few 40/20's a season aside, I don't think the tactical kicking is very good. Though I'm not really sure what you can praise or judge it on too much anyway. You get to the 5th tackle and hoof it into the air, now and again resulting in an error from the opponent. I don't see how that's any different to "kick and clap" as the whole point is trying to gain territory or force an error. Only I suppose you HAVE to make the kick unless you're in for a try in League

Thanks for the reply Shark J, I enjoyed reading your thoughts

Just to expand on a couple of points from my perspective

On the Union scrums. The authorities really do have to stamp down on the feeding of the scrum – the best Union forward packs can win a game through their dominance of the scrum but if the scrum half’s are allowed to creep the feeding in the way they are getting away with now then soon the coaches will be picking all of their forwards based on their performance in the loose rather than the specialist scrimmaging props we see now. I am a League man through and through but I am happy to concede the League scrum is a joke – Union fans should not want their scrums going the same way

On the kicking. I don’t think the long tactical licking game in League is anything to shout about – in fact, I firmly believe that it the one area where the GB/English side has been let down badly on the international scene in the last few decades, the Australian and New Zealand halves seem far better technically than ours. I hope that the likes of Danny Brough can reverse that in the 4 Nations this year but that is a conversation for another time. Rather, it is the variation of kicking particularly close to the line where League for me is ahead. I was watching England Wales at the weekend and one side or the other would be hammering away at their opponents line for phase after phase without any variation or innovation. I couldn’t help thinking that a decent League half would open the defence in a second with a clever attacking kick

Bath have completed the signing of New Zealand fly-half Stephen Donald on a three-year deal.

[iDirector of rugby Sir Ian McGeechan said: "We are very much looking forward to Stephen joining us here at Bath. Players he has played alongside all speak very highly of his ability and in particular his character."[/i
Not bad when you're new employer hires you on the word of your mates



[iDoubts were cast over his move to the Premiership because Rugby Football Union rules state foreign players must have featured for their country in the last 15 months, and Donald has not played for the All Blacks since September 2009.[/i
The RFU making themselves look weak again. Funny how Bath often find a loophole or 'valid' reason for the law to be ignored.

It's like the 'We won't pick you if you play abroad (unless you're face fits like Jonny and we'll pick you anyway' rule.

[url=http://www.stephenfry.com/2011/08/13/open-letter-to-all-who-despise-sport/2/Stephen Fry lets us in on his thoughts on both codes of rugby.[/url

Rugby. Never quite got into the northern code, although Colin Welland once kindly took me to a match. But Rugby Union can cause a spectator to stand and rip his vocal cords to shreds like no other game. Its peaks of excitement are higher and more intense than you will find in any other. The offsides, infringements, rulings and strategies are all but incomprehensible, but the blend of brute force, balance, speed, wit and stamina that the game demands cannot be matched in any other than I know.

I see England's foreign nations team did well again.

He might have been a good player, but Martin Johnson is taking England nowhere.
Why do we persist with him.
It's almost as though we are deliberately wasting the talent of a generation.

Can someone please put a case forward for him that might cheer me up and give me some hope for the future?

I am pretty sure that if any other home nation had at their disposal the players England have, they would be pretty much unbeatable.
Yet England are less than the sum of their parts.
We are having to rely on penalties and drop goals to even compete.

It would seem to me that Johnson is trying to reproduce the game plan that Woodward employed in the 2003 triumph. He has a strong forward pack that can dominate a lot of teams up front and two good goal kicking fly half’s. I don’t think the outside backs of England 2011 are anywhere as good as the 2003 variety

The backline for the World Cup final was Lewsey, Robinson, Greenwood, Tindall and Cohen

Tindall is still there but has always been a one dimensional centre who’s grunt was complemented by Greenwood. Maybe Hape can play the same game as Greenwood but he still seems on a different wavelength to his team mates

Only Chris Ashton can be described as world class in the England backs and I doubt anybody would suggest he is better than Robinson (at least yet)

The problem that Johnson has is that the international game is different today to what it was in 2003 and I don’t think you can win a World Cup through dominating up front and grinding out the points from the boot – NZ and Australia at least (and probably a full strength SA) would have too much firepower for that

Leave Johnson alone. He's doing just fine.

England are entirely a counter-attacking side. With Foden, Ashton and Cueto they can cut you to pieces if you kick poorly or don't chase well.

Present them with a well organised defensive line however, and the midfield partnership of Flood/Wilkinson, Tindall and Hape has all the cutting edge of a rubber knife. The bash and barge nature of the Premiership has led to a generation of centres happy to take the contact rather than look to do something creative.

So I'm not the only one who's worried. m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011 ... pe=article Kitson even gives rugby league a mention

So I'm not the only one who's worried. m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011 ... pe=article Kitson even gives rugby league a mention

Quote ="Catalancs"So I'm not the only one who's worried. m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011 ... pe=article Kitson even gives rugby league a mention '" What the article does not take into account there is not a great deal between Eng/Fr/Ire/Wales, the inconsistency Australia and poor form of RSA they could quite possibly lose to Ireland and Wales respectively, that is before even taking into account the WC history between NZ and france. Similar things were said about previous world cups arguably only in 1987 and 1999 have the favourites won. Taking 2007 as an example Wales were knocked out by Fiji, Ireland (the best European team at the time) outclassed against france and argentina, whilst very fortunate to beat georgia and struggled against Namibia. England suffered their heaviest world cup defeat (ranked 7th at the the start of the tournament) and came very close to failing to make the quarters yet they beat the number 2 side and the hosts in Paris to play the 3rd ranked team in the final. Then there is what happened to NZ in the final. There are more shocks and surprises in that tournament than 20 years of the FIFA world cup. The article looks like a filler article without much substance, rankings are mentioned but england Ireland and France all changed places based on the weekends tests with England having had an opportunity to overtake RSA in 3rd so using the rankings in the argument would indicate unpredictability. The only group that looks clear cut as pool winners is Pool A and even that is not a given.

Quote ="Catalancs"So I'm not the only one who's worried. m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011 ... pe=article Kitson even gives rugby league a mention '" What the article does not take into account there is not a great deal between Eng/Fr/Ire/Wales, the inconsistency Australia and poor form of RSA they could quite possibly lose to Ireland and Wales respectively, that is before even taking into account the WC history between NZ and france. Similar things were said about previous world cups arguably only in 1987 and 1999 have the favourites won. Taking 2007 as an example Wales were knocked out by Fiji, Ireland (the best European team at the time) outclassed against france and argentina, whilst very fortunate to beat georgia and struggled against Namibia. England suffered their heaviest world cup defeat (ranked 7th at the the start of the tournament) and came very close to failing to make the quarters yet they beat the number 2 side and the hosts in Paris to play the 3rd ranked team in the final. Then there is what happened to NZ in the final. There are more shocks and surprises in that tournament than 20 years of the FIFA world cup. The article looks like a filler article without much substance, rankings are mentioned but england Ireland and France all changed places based on the weekends tests with England having had an opportunity to overtake RSA in 3rd so using the rankings in the argument would indicate unpredictability. The only group that looks clear cut as pool winners is Pool A and even that is not a given.

I thought it was a fair a valid article. Looking at the group stage I'm struggling to get excited and not just because this England team are bereft of ideas once they move away from the training ground set plays.
The IRB rankings are similar to the FIFA ones, pointless and only good for arguments down the pub. You could throw a blanket over France, England, Wales and Ireland at the moment but they are a long way off the big three. I've read people saying that Scotland could punch above their weight and not to forget the Argies but the truth is that they aren't going to get anywhere near the final. Argentina seem to have gone backwards after years of impressive progress but I still think they'd have too much for Scotland.
Pool A will see the All Blacks followed by France. Pool B England then for me Argentina. Pool B could be the worst in terms of entertainment. Pool C the Wallabies and Ireland with South Africa and Wales coming through from pool D. With the exception of Argetina or Scotland I can't see any dramas in terms of qualyfying.

Oh, and a New Zealand v Australia final with the All Blacks to finally get their second rugby union world cup.

40 group games is an awful lot when there is typically only two or three big games per group – at least half of the group games will be relatively poor quality with no real significance on which teams progress to the quarter finals

You can assume that if these games were played in the RL or cricket World Cups there would be a negativity from the fans and the media although I suspect that a positive spin will be placed on this tournament from the UK media at least – we will see one sided contests praised for ‘plucky losers’ fighting against the big boys and poor skills excused as teams learning their new game... what will go unsaid is that these type of statements have been thrown around for the last two decades at least

[url=http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,12337_7101633,00.htmlMallett unhappy at imports.[/url
He's got a point but it's a bit rich coming from an English born South African international who has constantly filled his Italy side with foreigners.

Course, if Nick Mallett was in charge of Aironi he'd fill the side with entirely Italian eligible players, irrespective of results.

No, really he would.

It's the South African way - just look at all those exciting young English players at Saaarikans.

Newport-Gwent Dragons beat Russia 40-12 in a world cup warm-up game on Tuesday night.

[url=http://www.therugbyblog.co.uk/matt-giteau-retires-from-international-rugby?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRugbyBlog+%28The+Rugby+Blog%29Matt Giteau left out of Australian world cup squad... and announces retirement from international union.[/url
Am I alone in believing he was one of the most overrated players in recent years?
I often got the feeling he got a Wallabies shirt because of his ability to play so many positions.

For my part you are off the mark - always thought Giteau was a fantastic player though probably not able to control a game well enough to play 10.



I'd pretty much agree with this - I was really looking forward to Hape making a big impact but sad to say he just looks completely out of place. Flood seems to have lost confidence since early promise and he was never the great runner that some commentators were suggesting anyway.

Personally I would go with Manu Tuilagi and one of Hape/Tindall, but it still doesn't give you a really creative centre along the lines of SBW or Conrad Smith.

Johnson fundamentally is just far too conservative and risk averse.

He's been a fantastic player but the way he's talked about sometimes you'd think he was the second coming.
He plays with the mindset that he can stand at 9, 10, 12 or 13, all at the same time. He also has a habit that all centres and wings despise in a fly-half, running sideways and cutting off their line. I would never say he is a bad player, I just think that he is overrated as the total package.

Discovered last night that there are not one, but TWO RU games finally been released for the 360 - Rugby World Cup 2011 and Jonah Lomu's Rugby Challenge!

Anyone made a decision yet which one they're going to go for? (RWC is released late August IIRC, JLRC is early Sept).

Wasps beat Munster 15-0 last night in a freindly

[url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/5495990/Britannia-must-not-rule-waves-at-World-CupMark Reason tells it like it is. BOOM![/url
'That's another aspect of this England side that offends many a former supporter - the sheer opportunism. Manu Tuilagi has five brothers who have represented Samoa. He entered Britain on a tourist visa and stayed illegally. Hape has represented New Zealand. Flutey is another New Zealander. Yet Johnson has picked them all in his time as England manager, along with a posse of South Africans.'


and in other news...

[url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/rugby/5489551/Aussie-rugby-stars-in-brawl-scandalWallabies rugby union players in brawl scandal.[/url According to the Nine Network, O'Connor and Wallabies playmaker Quade Cooper ganged up on close friend and teammate Kurtley Beale in a late-night scuffle in the lead-up to the season-ending test against France.

[url=http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/23082011/58/world-cup-russia-pick-australian-byrnes-world-cup.htmlRussia pick Australian Byrnes for rugby union world cup[/url