By Martyn Riddle
April 25th 2008 @ 2:35am
Loading ...Rugby versus football
I have the “luck” to be in the UK at the moment, and for the past two nights, have had the misfortune to watch the two semi-finals of the Soccer European Champions League.
I say misfortune as both games were completely uninspiring, had very little spark, and for the casual spectator, offered very little by way of a viewing spectacle.
However, for the past two nights, the pubs in the area that I am staying in have been packed to the rafters with people gathering to watch the games.
After the 2007 RWC there was a great deal of warranted criticism of our great game of rugby that it was dull and boring to watch.
Now that same argument could be stated in spades for most soccer games, yet they still gather great passion and interest. Why is that the case?
Before I flew over here, I watched a number of HC, GP and Magners games on Foxtel and was pleasantly surprised at the passion, commitment, speed and skills levels displayed in those games, even – dare i say it – compared to most Super 14 games.
What intrigues me is how these games can’t garner the same level of support as a couple of dodgy European soccer games.
If I now hear one more Pom complain the rugby is boring, non-expansive and dominated by forwards sticking the ball up their jersey, I think I have a couple of suitable responses.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(66)
bob said | April 25th 2008 @ 9:36am | Report comment
“If I now hear one more Pom complain the rugby is boring, non-expansive and dominated by forwards sticking the ball up their jersey,”
You wont hear many poms saying that… we love forward play. We also thought the RWC was heart stoppingly exciting… and the soccer fanaticism is due to tribalism, just as the HK, premiership and 6 nations is in rugby…
I hope you enjoy your stay in England, and realise that travel and experience other cultures is indeed lucky, without the need for inverted comma’s.
Dave said | April 25th 2008 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Pity you couldn’t have been there for the Liverpool-Arsenal Qtr final at Anfield or Roma – Man Utd Qtr final or Man U- Arsenal league game or Liverpool – Havant & Waterlooville cup game or Barnsley – Chelsea cup game or Aston Villa – Birmingham derby or Tottenham – Chelsea league game or Portsmouth – Reading league game or Tottenham – Aston Villa league game or… need l go on?? Yes there are crap football games, unfortunately tends to be more so with the greater significance of the match. You are also right about the Rugby WC lots of crap, boring games with a few very good games (non Rugby person having an occassional glance) So whats the point? The English are football mad and that’s their poison…good luck to them as they have the best league in the world.
“Dodgy European games” can be the biggest spectacles in sport. When they are good there are no peers… but you are correct, although a little obvious, to state there are crap games also. Part of the trials and tribulations of being a fan are putting up with the bad which makes the good even more enjoyable. However to get fully emersed into the atmosphere it helps to have an emotional attachment.
Junior said | April 25th 2008 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
The difference is that SOME football matches can SOMETIMES appear uneventful to the uninitiated whereas MOST rugby games are excruciatingly mediocre MOST of the time. I mean seriously, watching two games of football in the UK because you happen to be there is hardly a statistically significant sample. Yes raw numbers are not always indicative of superiority (case in point – Mariah Carey album sales), but when there is an absolute chasm in global interest or viewership between the two sports, surely that is telling you something.
True Tah said | April 28th 2008 @ 10:18pm | Report comment
Martyn,
the 2007 World Cup did end on a dull note, but there were some great games too (Wales v Fiji, South Africa v Tonga).
Soccer is probably going to be number one in the UK in the forseeable future, but I have travelled there several times over the past few years, and interest in rugby has increased dramatically (the reverse it would seem with Australian rugby!!).
Soccer is a tribal thing in the UK, and the English are a bit more obsessed with it than most other countries – doesn’t help their national team though.
Midfielder said | April 28th 2008 @ 11:22pm | Report comment
Martyn Riddle & True Tah
Beauty as they say is in the eye of the beholder ……….. to compare the best car race would bore me to tears.
Comparing good games in RWC to football ———- streches things a tad……………. especially if you want rugby to win, in the first place, I normally ignore these articles , but get real be glad you are in England and come home happier for the experience..
All I can say is you may be write about the EPL ————— but predictions are that in the next round of TV contracts it will be pai over one billion pounds for the international rights have a look at these indian site. Mate get over it
———————–http://goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=649885
———————-http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070201/asp/opinion/story_7331845.asp
———————-http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HF13Df04.html
————————http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060601/5/sports211211.html
Plus there was a link added about three weeks ago about Man U V Arsnel and the world wide audience was over one billion. From the telegraph if orginal poster can find it add to the post.
Ian Noble said | April 29th 2008 @ 3:09am | Report comment
Martyn
Rugby in England will never compete with football in terms of numbers, but there is no doubt that in recent years interest in rugby has grown at rate which five years ago could not have been foreseen. It has found a level which is reinforced by the emergence of new exciting talent, some of whom have switched from football academies to embrace rugby, Cipriani, Care, Sackey, Strettle are prime examples.
In addition,there has been the call from some football managers that football should follow the example of rugby in respecting the referree and officials. Rugby has taken the moral high ground, which football is unable to compete with.
I presume you are in London, but you will find there are rugby pubs where rugby games on Sky are packed out. In the meantime have a great time and if you have time watch a GP game in the flesh, much better than watching on the box.
Spiro Zavos said | April 29th 2008 @ 9:42am | Report comment
In the 1890s and 1900s rugby was far more popular in Britain than football. The 1905 All Blacks, for instance, played England at White City and drew a crowd of 50,000. This was much bigger than com parable football crowds. As a sideliner, haters of SH rugby like Stephen Jones and his ilk should remember that it was the SH touring teams, the All Blacks in 1905, the Springboks in 1906 and the Wallabies in 1908 who ensured that rugby was going to be a mainstream game in the UK and not go the way of royal tennis and the other arcane Public School games.
Rugby lost its popularity dominance in the UK when the RFU (the English rugby union) administrators provoked the split with the the very strong Yorkshire and Lancashire unions in 1895 over the payment of wages for injured players (mainly miners) thereby hastening the creation of rugby league: over a refusal to change the arcane laws of the game to allow a passing/handling game rather than a hacking/kicking game (the chairman of the RFU, for instance, was against tries being awarded more points than drop goals on the grounds that teams shouldn’t be rewarded for having fast players): and the RFU’s refusal to allow club and regional competitions along the lines practised in South Africa, Australia and NZ.
At the time the RFU resolutely turned its back on competitions, professionalism and simpler, more effective laws, football introduced the FA Cup tournament and its now famous club premiership.
It’s said that if we don’t learn from the mistakes of the past, we will repeat them. The RFU has finally accepted club and regional competitions and professionalism, albeit about 100 years after it should have done so. But it is still in the 1890s when it comes to making the rugby laws easier to play in an expansive, skilful manner and to understand.
This brings us to the opposition to the ELVs. History tells us that when the RFU is adamantly opposed to a change/reform in the laws, it is invariably wrong. I cannot think of any improvement in the history of the laws or administration of rugby that the RFU has promoted. It has opposed everything from law reform, to competitions, to the Rugby World Cup etc etc before finally, reluctantly adopting the reforms.
If it weren’t for the SH interventions since the 1880s rugby in England would be a minor sport and not the flourishing sport it is now. The SH-haters should remember this from time to time.
AL said | April 29th 2008 @ 10:23am | Report comment
Martyn Riddle,
The two matches you watched were both quite poor. Manchester United decided for the first time all season to play defensive, and anyone who follows football knew Chelsea vs Liverpool was going to be a scrappy, bland match. The problem is, at the top echelon of European matches, victory is more important then style. In 10 years time, most people will remember who won the 2008 Champions League, but few will remember details apart from the goals and if there is a major incident (injury, red card etc). Watch some EPL matches while you’re in England, they may give you a better indication of how good the game can be.
Dave said | April 29th 2008 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
Spiro
“In the 1890s and 1900s rugby was far more popular in Britain than football”.
Not to my thinking. FA Cup Final 1901 Attendance 110,820, 1905 FAC ATT 101,107. etc
Football league games were drawing crowds of 40-60,000 at times. Chelsea vs ManU 1906 Att 60,000 etc The Football league had 1st and 2nd Division with full professionals!! How did you come up with the above statement? What were the crowds at Rugby matches in their league competition?? Rugby don’t get anywhere near those crowds now, 100 years later. Rugby was never more popular than football when taken as a national perspective. There may have been some individual towns that preferred Rugby.
Spiro Zavos said | April 29th 2008 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
Dave, you are right. I got my decades mixed up. Before the FA was established and the football club premiership and before the 1895 split that saw the creation of rugby league with the Northern League, in other words in the 1880s – so sports historians suggest – rugby was the popular football code in the UK. Once the national club competitions and the FA Cup started football swept rugby away as the popular sport.
My point was not about football, it was about how the stupidity of the RFU allowed rugby to become an elitist sport in England rather than a popular sport, because they wanted to keep the game in the hands of the Public School ‘old farts’. Nothing very much has changed, I fear.
Dave said | April 29th 2008 @ 5:59pm | Report comment
No worries Spiro…I enjoy the banter.
Paul said | May 7th 2008 @ 10:52pm | Report comment
Spiro, I agree with you. All of my research has shown me that Rugby was indeed the more popular sport in the early years, and even spread internationally faster at first. The fatal flaw of Rugby was to not turn professional. Association Football’s choice to do this in 1885, was the move that set them up for expansion, even though they probably did not realise it a the time.
As to which sport is more boring….. which sport has more 0-0 draws than all the others combined?
a) American Football
b) Canadian Football
c) Gaelic Football
d) Australian Rules Football
e) Rugby Union
f) Rugby League
g) Association Football
Dave said | May 7th 2008 @ 11:17pm | Report comment
Paul
As you’ve asked 2 questions l’ll have a go at both:
The first question “Which is more boring” Tough one but…no…maybe…ok its d) AFL?
The 2nd question “Which sport has more 0-0 draws” Has to be…errr… g) Association Football!
Are there any prizes??
Keep the quizzes coming, love them
Andrew said | May 8th 2008 @ 12:59am | Report comment
I love both Football (soccer), and Rugby Union, a SHITLOAD. I watch the EPL EVERY WEEK! here in Oz and some A-League, and love the passion and tribal nature of the game as mentioned before, and I love Rugby Union, well, becuase I was born in NZ for a start, and coz I just plain old enjoy watching everything about it, even excessive kicking and penalty goals and endless forward play!!!
And, can anyone exactly tell me what’s boring about a 0-0 game, UNLESS it’s obviously one of the occasional off days. It usually means it’s a closely contested game and goes down to the wire, I watch football for the excitement of the play, exciting and numerous goals are just the bouns. I would also happily watch a rugby match that finishes 3 – 6.
LOVE THE GAME, NOT THE STATS!!
Bradley said | May 8th 2008 @ 1:20am | Report comment
I was brought up watching rugby and therefore prefer rugby. I only watch football when manchester united are playing because when supersport started showing English soccer in SA man U were the best. Rugby can be very frustrating to watch a turnover in rugby through a knock on or stupid kick is devastating because it is so difficult to get the ball back. in football turnovers are not that serious because the likelyhood of getting the ball back is pretty strong, also unlike rugby one is rarely put under subsatntial pressure due to turnovers. The debate of wich is a better spectator sport can only truly come from a completely independent source ie if aliens had to land on earth wich sport would they take home. But the aliens should not be working class and weaklings or upper crust and like to go to the gym and workout and hence end up favouring one or the other. last point most rugby fans have played rugby its about enjoying the sport not the show.
Ian Noble said | May 8th 2008 @ 4:28am | Report comment
Andrew
I could not agree more as low scoring games can be more interesting and tense tactical battles than a try or goal fest. Sorry to change sport but some of the best games of cricket are low scoring where the chasing side loses quick wickets, panics and either scraps home or loses by a small margin.
Spiro
More pot shots at the RFU, they have indicated throughout that some of the ELV’s are benficial. They have been more pro than either the Welsh or Irish.Still trawling over old ground, sorry but the “sins of their fathers etc”.Alot has changed and professionalism has been the catalyst. They have received enormous criticism for their treatment of Ashton and the reaction of Baron and Andrew was that in this tough new environment, tough decisions have to be made!! Brian Moore and others have called for Baron to be sacked.
It has taken a long time for professionalism to be accepted and just this year a “professional game group” following on from the agreement between the clubs and the RFU has been established. Recognising the need for the clubs and the RFU to work more closely together, unlike the football eqivalent of the EPL which to all intents and purposes has broken away from the FA.
Change has been managed, some by force majeur, but the majority by well thought out strategic plans and objectives quite a change from when the “57 old farts” ran the RFU. It’s annual turnover is circa £100m a year and quite rigthly it is very protective of its success as the evolution is built on firm foundations not a load of froth.
bob said | May 8th 2008 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Spiro, spiro, spiro… rugby is a great game, it’s my game, I love it… and the RFU used to be elitist but times are changing… but enough of the nonsense… rugby was never more popluar than football, and the SH didn’t save the game up here.
You just can’t be taken seriously if you keep up the revisionist history!
For a new nation, you guys really do live in the past don’t you? But look, instead of keeping on about our history, just wait a while and oneday you’ll have some of your own! ; )
Redb said | May 8th 2008 @ 9:33am | Report comment
I like them both about the same, with a slight preference for rugby becuase I prefer games where you can use all four limbs.
But I have to agree, you cannot judge a football code by looking at one or two games and consider them A-typical. Emotional ties automaticially attach significance to any sporting contest, especially finals. As long as my team wins it doesn’t matter if it was the worse game in history – it’s a great bloody game.
The neutral observer watching a sport that is not their first preference is obliged to pick a team if they want to be jumping out of their seat.
For me its a little like seeing a great photograph you can say gee that’s a great shot, five seconds later its forgotten. If you took the shot or it has emotional significance it is the most important photo ever taken, even if blurred, darkish and off centre.
There is no subsitute for passion.
Redb
Spiro Zavos said | May 8th 2008 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Bob
This isn’t revisionist history. You obviously haven’t had any dealings with Francis Baron, the CEO of the RFU.
The RFU stuffed up the popularity of rugby in 1895 when they booted the northern unions out of the game. If you read the history of rugby up to the modern times you’ll find that this stupidity has continued to the present day. In 1924 for instance they wanted to kick France out of the IRB because it wasn’t an English-speaking country. The RFU wanted rugby to be kept to the English-speaking countries. The South African delegate pointed out that the majority of rugby players in South Africa didn’t speak English either, being Afrikaners. And so the proposal did not get up. France was booted out of the IRB in the 1930s, however.
The point about history is that if the lessons of the past aren’t learnt, they are repeated. There is little evidence that the RFU has really changed. It still tends to oppose every idea about making the game more skilful and attractive to play and watch.
One further point: the arguments used about the ELVs project have been entirely dishonest. First: that it is a SH plot when the IRB is running it. Second: that scrumming will be taken out of the game. I had a piece in the SMH on Tuesday pointing out that there were 25 scrums in the Crusaders-Sharks match.
So much for the ELVs taking scrums out of rugby. It is self-evident, too, that if sides want to take scrums from short-arm penalties under the ELVs, there will be more scrums than previously. Why don’t the NH journalists who are so opposed to the ELVs admit this obvious fact?
You must understand that the SH has gone through this scare type of campaign against reforms that self-evidently improve the game every decade. In the 1980s it was the damage the RWC would do to rugby. The RFU, of course, was opposed. Now it wants to cash in on the world-wide popularity of rugby that the RWC tournaments have created.
In the 1990s there was all the nonsense about how the ‘use-it or lose-it’ was going to destroy the muscular game.
Is it any wonder that the SH is dismayed about the RFU reaction to the ELVs project?
Wouldn’t it great if just once the RFU said let’s work together in the push to make our great game even more attractive to play and watch while maintaining the traditions and ethic of the game.
bob said | May 8th 2008 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Ok, Spiro, Francis Baron might be old school but even he can’t be blamed for what happened in 1895… unlike John O’neill whose vampiric qualities might indicate he had a hand in everything evil from the dark ages to the present.
As for the elitist RFU, there have been issues and there are still a few, but times are changing and professionalism rules the game here now… I don’t think the England team will ever be selected again on which school the players went to… in fact it is probably more inclusive here than in Aussie, where union is still the preserve of certain schools.
To the ELV’s… it seems the SH just wont accept that the game here is doing better than ever, with every aspect flourishing, and we actually LIKE the mauls, scrums, set pieces… we don’t like the S14 style of play, although we admire the individual talents of the players, and here, at grass roots we play the whole 8 months in mud, so our game has evolved to cope with that… and we don’t like having the ELV’s forced upon us… the game is by players for players, and the IRB desire to see it as a global competitor for football, or national indiginous games, isn’t realistic…
We dispute that it needs to be made simpler, it isn’t complicated, it isn’t hard to ref, it isn’t hard to grasp… All those assertions are, in the opinion up here, false or misguided.
The great interest in a NH v SH test is how the forward trench warfare of the NH deals with the flying pace of the SH… that is risked under laws that encourage all teams to play to the same style.
And you have to recall the Americans asking fifa to make football goals wider so there would be more goals, higher scoring games etc. And the answer was No… the rarity of the diamond decides it value… more tries and higher scores doens’t mean a better spectacle… in my opinion.
So now we have to trial the collapsing of the maul at all levels, something potentially dangerous that the S14 declined, and uneven numbers in the lineout, something that will slow the game down more than speed it up… we’re okay with the 5 meter at scrums, and the 22 law, as well as quick lineout can go backwards… but the rest have been referred back, or put off for some un-named competiton to trial… it’s a mess.
we are not opposed to change, but really don’t want change for the sake of it… and the changes the IRB are presenting are for the most part, not welcome here.
Oh, and the use it or lose it, is still a duff law… it is quite uneeded… unlike rucking, which is needed!
But in truth, the game is in trouble in Australia, and perhaps from a financial point of view, in NZ too… and ALL the evidence, led by O’Neill himself, is that the IRB are trying to fix the SH problems, at the risk of the NH… we think they’re doing this because they think we wont walk away… they think we’re a safe bet, but really, we can walk away from the elite clubs if we want to, just as you guys have… and the IRB should be worried because the elite clubs can walk away from the IRB too… up here, like football, the clubs hold sway…
But to the scrum, spiro, seriously, under ELV’s, are the scrums moslty in the last quarter?
Paul said | May 8th 2008 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Ok Andrew and Dave,
Here’s a cryptic question for you.
If one particular code of football has more games that end with ***no score what so ever***, then how is it possible that other codes can be more boring?
When ever I have been to a football match of any of the 7 codes, I have not gotten very excited when no score was made, unless it was Darren Jarman flying through the air to mark a ball (just why did the Football Association remove the aspect of “marking” the ball from the game?).
I have no problem with a low 6-3 score line in Rugby. A low score in cricket for a batting side implies 10 wickets for the bowling side. 10 wickets is way, way more than 0 goals,
And if you think countless scoreless games are not boring, I’m sorry, bet there in lies your delusion.
_____________________
Spiro,
You are so right in saying that the RFU stuffed things up for their sport by being so snobbish. I dunno, though Union still looks more attractive to me than League. I can’t claim to be an expert though on the differences between the two games. Maybe I’m wrong on this one.
——————————–
Red B,
When I was a kid in primary and high school, when ever a game of soccer was played, often as the “Skips vs the Wogs” (maybe not PC these days, but no one was seriously offended in the school grounds), I always chose to play goalie. I had this instinct that it was just plain wrong to tell people not to use their hands. So I took advantage of this, and always enjoyed booting the ball to the other end of the ground. If an offender was ever coming at the goal and there was no defended in between us, I would always charge the offender and pounce ont the ball. I managed to turn the game into a full blown contact sport. It was the only way I could ever tolerate playing the game.
Redb said | May 8th 2008 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Paul,
There is so much more to soccer than meets the eye, but perhaps the two limb concept of soccer is some sort of twisted English plot to deprive people of having fun, much like the Irish ‘river dance’ dancers where they had to keep their arms by their sides.
Redb
Paul said | May 8th 2008 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Yeah, I will go “out on a limb” here and say that there have been some exciting moments in soccer, when goals are scored. But still, no score at all, makes me want my money back.
Eamonn Flanagan said | May 8th 2008 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Exciting moments in football are only when goals are scored Paul!
You clearly have no kid involved in the game, no passion for a team, and dare I suggest little understanding of the game.
If you did, a Mark Scharwzer save can be as exciting as a goal. A Jade North last ditch tackle, a piece of Harry Kewell trickery, a Mark Viduka back-heel, a Tim Cahill leap, a Brett Emerton dash, a Scotty Chipperfield overlap, a tricky Nicky Carle step-over, a David Carney belter, and a Vinnie Grella pass.
All priceless. All can be seen in any level of football from about Under 6. Surely it’s the same in any code, it’s not just the try or the goal kicked, true sports fans love many different things about the game.
Junior said | May 8th 2008 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Redb – the “all four limbs” argument is extraordinary. Surely it comes down to what you are required to do with your limbs? I reckon it’s a tad harder to run at a bloke with a round ball at your feet and try to get by him with skill and ability than it is to tuck a ball under your arm and run at your opponent and hope to run over the top of him. In football, once you beat your man the decision becomes do I try to beat the next bloke, pass the ball or shoot on goal. All of these require a degree of skill to execute. The decision in rugby is where is the next bloke I can trample over or do I let myself be tackled and hope the ref sees one of the other team’s raft of infringements before he sees one from my team? Either way, little or no skill is required.
Paul – if it’s only the result of the game that matters and not the aesthetics, the subtleties or the historic significance of the match, then newspapers are clearly for you. They tend to provide an adequate summary of scores. And forget the articles, that might provide superfluous insight.
Paul said | May 8th 2008 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Junior,
Well this banter is proving to be fun.
To my eye, a kick sailing through the air and people flying high to mark it is a thousand times more exciting than people dribbling and passing back and forth. Then when a shot is taken on goal in soccer, missing the goal frame altogether. At least an errant kick in Aussie Rules usually hits the post, or goes just behind. An errant kick in soccer might end up in my lunch box. So the aesthetics are ever so important Junior. I remember sitting by the goals at the preliminary final watching Adelaide play Footscray in 1997. Adelaide were a long way down. Darren Jarman took the most spectacular mark, with his feet literally higher than his opponents shoulders. He then goaled. Following this spectacular display, the team lifted so much that they won that game by 2 pts and went on to win the premiership. Now THAT is aesthetics. But continual failed shots on goal is really just a waste of time if you ask me.
I would far prefer to sit at a game than read about it too. Thanks for your point of view though.
Wouldn’t the soccer players look like dorks with their hands tied behind their backs? As it is they just look like nerds. They’re also wimps and crybabies every time they fall over and writhe around in pain waiting for a free kick. Two minutes later they are kicking a penalty goal. It seems to me that so many goals are scored in soccer this way. Oh, and by the way, how many world cups have been decided on penalty shoot outs? It seems the game of soccer does not even have a satisfactory method of finding a result.
Eamonn Flanagan,
I have one child. But she does not play soccer. Hmmm, while my kids will have freedom in life, they won’t find any encouragement from me to play soccer. I am sure that parents enjoy watching their kids play soccer. I know I enjoy watching just about everything my child does in life, even though you would probably find it boring, because she is not your kid. Soccer may be a highly popular sport among kids in the US, because the mums find it to be safe (no kids writhing around in pain waiting for a free kick), but by the time they get to high school they are all switching to American Football. So soccer in the US is really just a feeder sport. How’s that for the country that has the highest participation in soccer? They are just using the sport as a stepping stone to the highest attendance by average code of football in the world. (An NFL game has an average crowd of 67 000, higher than any other code of football. AFL is second at 39 000.)
Redb said | May 8th 2008 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Junior,
Twas a jest in fun.
I have no doubt soccer requires skill, by the same token i think your selling rugby a bit short though.
Redb
Spiro Zavos said | May 8th 2008 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
Bob
You ask if all the scrums aren’t in the last quarter of a game under the ELVs. This is the point I am trying to make. Watch the games and you’ll see that the scrums are taken where it is tactical to take them. In the Crusaders-Sharks match there were five scrums in the first couple of minutes.
The point about the ELVs that NH people don’t seem to grasp is that the game they love, the kicking/scrumming game is still available to their teams, with more scrums probably if teams want them.
BUT teams that want to play more expansively have a better chance of doing this than happens now. It is too easy to do nothing with the play, ‘not play rugby’ as they say, and win big matches at the present time. We saw that in the RWC when England and South tried to out-do each other to see which team played the less rugby to win. The Springboks kicked deep, stayed on side in defence, won their lineouts, were put under little pressure with their dicey scrum because there weren’t too many scrums and bored their way to victory.
Is this what we want to showcase our splendid, muscular, flowing game?
It will be in England’s interest to have the ELVs because they will have the opportunity to use their power in the scrums more effectively. Also, if the mauls can be pulled down, the England will develop (or should develop) the breakaway fast maul with their big loose forwards which is likely to be much harder to defend against than the slow-plod maul.
This is the frustrating thing about this discussion. If the NH were not so paranoic about SH plots they would see that the ELVs have lots of advantages for their style of play.
So I will make the fearless prediction. If the ELVs come in England particularly will do well with them. The English pundits who are now so opposed will drop their opposition, as they did with the ‘use-it or lose-it’ rule.
But will they be paranoic when the next reform is proposed? Let’s hope they won’t be. However, I think that history tells us that they will.
After all, there is something wrong with the DNA of the RFU when it opposed the use of numbers on the back of players because this gave too much information to the spectators. English teams used letters to confuse everyone for a long time. English teams refused to have specific positions for the forwards until the 1920s. NZ and Australia had specific positions many decades earlier in the 1880s. Typically, NZ teams with their front rows, locks, flankers etc in 1905 were accused of ‘cheating’ by having specific positions. The NH sides lined up in the scrums and lineouts with the first forward going in the front etc
My point is that the RFU’s opposition to improvements is not just past history. It is marks the entire history of the RFU to the present day. Could the NH just once give reforms a chance?.
Which brings me to my last point. The argument is made by the RFU, Stephen Jones, Paul Ackford and Bob et all that they love rugby the way it is now, and they want to keep it this way. But this rugby is the culmination of all the reforms initiated by SH ideas. These reforms were vehemently opposed at the time by the RFU and the press equivalent of Stephen Jones, Paul Ackford et all.
If the NH had got its way on reforms to the laws of rugby, as they intend to do by stopping the ELVs, we’d still be playing a rugby game where the try had no value and rucks/mauls went on for 10 minutes at a time …
Towser said | May 8th 2008 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Make of this what you will.
One of the reasons given for Association Footballs dominance as both a sport to be played and watched by the world in general is that the usage of the foot only for passing receiving dribbling tackling shielding etc allows a greater usage of the brain in creating passages of play. In other words their is no limit to the level of play you can develop the game to depending on your skill level. Or conversely you can remain at a certain skill level and still enjoy & do well at the game. So if we had a team of Ronaldinhos we could create a one touch passing & receiving,shielding game of mind boggling speed with players moving on & off the ball also at mind boggling speed. This would then require defenders to also think and act as quickly as the attackers. This may result in a 0-0 draw but the display of skill on display more than compensates.
This is what seperates then Rugby(both codes) from Football. Neither better or worse just very different ideologies. So in reality by using your hands you can bring Rugby up to creating a spectacle far quicker than you can football. Hence the difficulty in this country until now that players have reached a certain calibre, of providing a football spectacle.
Even now I see in the A-League say Craig Moore make intelligent runs & passes(experience in Professional Overseas Leagues) whereas locals who’ve stayed here sometimes run around like headless chooks.
In other words to answer the crux of this opinion piece as to why Football is supported the way it is in the UK more than Rugby is that more people(population wise) quite simply like myself “Understand” it. No different from people who understand what they get out of any sport.
My philosophy on life is if you dont understand, dont knock non life threatening pursuits like sport art or entertainment.
Bradley said | May 8th 2008 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
SPIRO, I heard that the panel who decided on the ELV’s were Rod Mcqueen (aus) Paddy O’Brien (NZ) and Ian Mcintosh (SA) they were initially refered to as the Stellenbosch laws and were being trialled before the world cup. I can see how the Northern hemisphere would be upset as they apparently were not on the initial panel.
Dave said | May 8th 2008 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
Paul
“But continual failed shots on goal is really just a waste of time if you ask me.”
So thats why they give you a point for missing in AFL!!
Paul said | May 8th 2008 @ 9:31pm | Report comment
Towser,
You make a fair point, perhaps I bowled a few no balls. The reason that I have been spending the time knocking soccer is because of the arrogance of many who claim it is the best sport in the world. As I have preached myself, this is an age of pluralism. There by, I should be happy for you to enjoy your football and me mine. There have been some though that claim FIFA football is out to take the world, so to them I take up an offensive stance to see AFL spread through out the world. But in a relative age, I won’t take that stance with you.
Dave,
Regarding the behind score of 1 pt, yep, aren’t we nice?
Dave said | May 8th 2008 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Paul
You need to spend more time with your wife and family. The bitterness re football is shining through. Don’t take it to heart. AFL does well in the southern states of Oz. Has some good games here and there which can be enjoyed by many. Its just that evrybody else around the world has other codes or sports to enjoy so AFL doesn’t register. It will continue to do well in Oz and you can follow it from afar. You should however try and mix in with the locals and enjoy some top class football whilst living in Russia.
bob said | May 8th 2008 @ 10:31pm | Report comment
spiro, I think I get where you’re coming from… you like change, we don’t… but we have agreed to trial some ELV’s… teh conditions here especially at grass roots mean the game is very different to what is seen on TV… and that’s why we love the maul and set piece.
But the mind is set here, due in part to John O’Neill, who from the outselt has pinned Australais colours to the laws, and you know, that’s like Australia taking on laws Stephen Jones insists you must have!
Maybe the IRB needs to withdraw the ELV’s, rethink them with genuine consultation from players from both NH and SH, in a think tank for players by players, with everyone represented, then launch them again… and this time tell O’Neill to be quiet… after all, he hates us! Why would we trust him? And right or wrong, the battle lines are drawn… we know it isn’t all aussies, poor old Michael Linnagh has been on TV cringing with embaarassment ay O’Neill and co… but the rot is set in…
Spiro Zavos said | May 8th 2008 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
Bradley
there werre Scots officials and other NH people on the ELVs project.
As for the term ‘the Stellenbosch Laws’ this was actually a term created by myself. The first games played with a set of ELVS, some of which have been dropped, were played at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. Rod Macqueen showed me some of the video of these games and I wrote an article for the Sydney Morning Herald, the first article on the ELVs as it happens.
The great South African Springbok, coach and IRB board member Danie Craven taught at Stellenbosch. Craven had two Ph.Ds. Stellenbosch University was made into the spiritual home of South African rugby while Craven was there, about 40 years. I interviewed Craven once and he told me that he often trialled possible new laws for rugby to take to the IRB for approval – he was the chief expert on the laws of rugby – at Stellenbosch University.
I put this in my aricle on the ELVs and said that they should be called the Stellenbosch Laws in honour of Craven. Voila! Other journalistrs picked up the phrase.
There is nothing of a SH conspiracy in the naming of the ELVs, therefore. But once again more disinformation from NH people.
Paul said | May 9th 2008 @ 3:02am | Report comment
Dave,
Thanks for your concern. Believe me, in all of the time I have lived in Russia I have tried to get into the game of soccer. I’m an Aussie and naturally I love sport. But there’s so little choice in Russia. The majority of sport played is soccer. So, yes, even since I decided that I am not a fan of the game, I have played it with locals so I could get some sport and exercise. But I really haven’t enjoyed it, it’s just such a dull game.
That is why I enjoyed playing Lapta the other day. Tomorrow is a public holiday here and I am hoping some people will be out playing it again tomorrow, I plan to join in if they are. That’s kind of the way sports work here, anyone can join in on a public game. Lapta just formed their federation last year, even though it is an ancient game. (It’s a Russian bat and ball game.)
So, I’ll play Lapta when ever I get a chance, but as for soccer, I’ve already given it lots of chances. For me, simply, it’s just a big thumbs down.
Dublin Dave said | May 9th 2008 @ 3:49am | Report comment
Spiro
I don’t know what history books you’ve been reading but they are apparently quite different from the ones on my shelf. These tell me that traditionally it was European rugby, ie that of Britain, Ireland and France, which kept the flame of running handling and passing rugby burning brightly and it was down in the dour depths of the Southern Hemisphere, in particular South Africa and New Zealand that the powerful, forward dominated and let’s be frank far more successful brand of rugby was played.
Australia, to be fair, had a traditional reputation for playing running rugby but then it was not seen as a consistently strong rugby UNION country, principally because the northern countries beat them so often up until the 1980s.
Here’s a passage from “The History of the British Lions” written by Clem Thomas, a former Welsh and Lions player who may have been many things but was certainly not a wealthy RFU “old fart”. Talking about a tour made to Australia and New Zealand in 1888 (not strictly a Lions tour as it had not been sanctioned by the RFU and it was mainly made up of Englishmen anyway) he writes:
“The reports of the matches all had a common denominator, which was that the most impressive aspect of the visitors was their back play, which was to become the characteristic, indeed the hallmark, of Lions teams for the next century. It was the first time that New Zealand had seen organised back moves which delighted them, and they were quick to start adopting the same tactics.
“O.L. Owen wrote in his History of Rugby Union Football, ‘The New Zealanders, though highly critical, realised that the Englishmen had a much better conception than themselves of the passing game and, furthermore, knew how to exploit what in those days was called the practice of heeling from the scrummage, without which passing in the open could not hope to develop.
“T.R. Ellison, who was to captain the 1893 New Zealand side and who was the author of The Art of Rugby, was highly critical of the tour and said: ‘Beyond learning the minor, though petty and effective, trick of feign passing from Mr Haslam, and learning to disregard the strict laws of offside play as regards forwards in the scrum, I challenge anyone to tell me what else the 1888 side taught us.’ He had a point, because it took 83 years after the first tour of New Zealand for the British Lions to win a Test series in that country.
“In their book The Complete Rugby Footballer, published in 1906, Dave Gallaher (who captained the 1905 All Blacks) and his collaborator, WJ Stead, refuted this and clearly stated: ‘It was left to [the tour captain] Stoddart’s British team to show Maoriland the fine points of the game and the vast possibilities of combination. The exhibition of passing which they gave were most fascinating and impressive to the New Zealander, who was not slow to realise the advantages of these methods. One may safely say that, from that season, dates the era of high-class rugby in the colony.”
So back in the 1880s, it was the ‘home countries’ who were showing the ‘colonies’ how to run the ball. Even if that lesson was grudgingly accepted by whingers like Mr Ellison.
Little matter. The successful countries in the first half of the 20th century were S Africa and New Zealand, and they both put their faith in monstrous packs and well organised forwards. The tradition of gigantic South African farmers, raised on an outdoor lifestyle and good diet vied with a similar tradition of New Zealand farmer forwards. The middle class public schoolboys and the working class townies from places where rugby was strong among the working people of Britain and Ireland (Swansea, Newport, Gloucester, Bath, Bristol, Limerick) couldn’t compete with that.
The epitome of negative play triumphing over more adventurous play was when the 1959 Lions lost their first Test to New Zealand despite outscoring them by four tries to none. Having examined the records of all 5/6N matches since WWII, I can categorically say that such a travesty has NEVER happened in the Five or Six Nations in the past 60-odd years. I very much doubt if it happened before WWII either, although back in the days before modern scoring values were adopted it’s anyone’s guess as to what happened.
Spiro Zavos said | May 9th 2008 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Dublin Dave
You have to understand that in the 1870s and 1880s when rugby was starting up in NZ, and everywhere else, there was great confusion over what the laws meant. That English team, for instance, were able to convince NZers that you could ruck the ball back. It had been thought in NZ that rucking the ball back put the players in front of the ruck offside. Once balls came back from rucks as ruck ball, rather than squirting out from massive hacks etc you could set up the backs to use it. The Welsh devised a three-quarters system based on the ball coming out of the rucks in a coherent manner. Previously teams played most of their players in the forwards.
By 1905 NZ had developed an expansive system of backplay. The captain of the side Dave Gallaher and Billy Stead wrote a book for Methuen called ‘The NZ system of rugby football’ which was Aristotlean in the way it analysed the various systems needed for winning games, especaily in the backs. A leading try-scorer for the 1905 All Blacks was the fullback Billy Wallace. The first try scored by a full-back on the Five Nations was 30 years later, by Vivian Jenkins.
From time to time NZ rugby became obsessed with forward power to the detriment of the backs and two Lions side, 1959 and 1971 revived NZ back play.
Generally though NZ rugby has featured very strong forwards complemented by very good backs. No team in world rugby, for instance, has come close to scoring as many tries as the All Blacks.
Dublin Dave said | May 9th 2008 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
Spiro,
“No team in world rugby, for instance, has come close to scoring as many tries as the All Blacks.”
And for years the leading New Zealand try scorer in tests was Ian Kirkpatrick, a blind-side flanker!!! Up here leading try scorers have always been backs.
What irks me, with all due respect, about your take on history is your persistent line that European countries in general and the English in particular are so archly conservative that they resist all innovations “Not invented here” as dastardly SH plots. This is simply not the case.
Your charge about English teams refusing to wear numbers is baseless. I have seen photographs of the English team as far back as the 1920s wearing numbers on their backs. It is true that SOME English clubs, notably Bristol and Leicester, retained the fashion of using letters instead of numbers until quite recently (ie the 1980s if not the 1990s) for what reason I know not. But it was hardly to “Confuse” people. I mean, how confusing can a 26-letter alphabet be?
Much more “confusing” in my view, would be the NZ habit of numbering their teams in reverse, ie the front rows numbered 15 to 13 and the full back numbered 1, which they were certainly doing in the 1950s.
I don’t see the ELVs as a “plot” by Australia and I dare say, neither do any other of your “betes noires”. I actually see them as being a bit like the Gallipoli campaign. That wasn’t a “Southern Hemisphere” idea either, but it was a cause which they enthusiastically embraced. It was a topic that came to be a bone of contention between the British and Aus/NZ regarding their commitment to it and remains the subject of much resentment down south even today from what I can see.
And finally, as I’m sure you know, the best organised and most successful part of the whole campaign was the skillful retreat by the Australians and New Zealanders from what had become an untenable position.
Here’s hoping history repeats itself in that regard at least.
Spiro Zavos said | May 9th 2008 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
Dublin Dave
Just to keep the Gallipoli analogy going. The ANZAC retreat came after the British leadership stuffed up the campaign. The more things change, the more they stay the same …:
Mart said | May 9th 2008 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
Chums – as someone who grew up loving soccer and rugger I watch both (sadly don’t play both) equally these days. And of course you get duff games in rugby (Aus / Boks in Sydney not so long back anyone ?) and beltingly good games in soccer and vice versa. You pays yer money you takes yer choice. Regards the changing of rugby’s laws I’m personally not sure it will make the game better but (right or wrong) that’s what an international body (the IRB) is charged with – the game’s health – and I think they have the right to into changes. I tend to agree with Spiro that the Poms will probably come out of the ELVs OK, despite their / NH reservations but what makes me laugh is the “E” in ELV – it was E for about a season, and now is law and won’t be backed out. Hurrah for democracy ! I resigned myself long ago to the fact that the SH and NH will likely never agree on what should consititute a set of rugby laws or ethos. C’est la vie. What makes me laugh / cry (delete as applicable) is that SH authors like Spiro are simply mirror images of their detested NH counterparts (Stephen Jones) in terms of blinkered, NIMBY, mudslinging, chest thumping misguided patriotism disguised as ‘progress’. “It’s all the Pom’s fault, if only they’d listened to us !”. Sorry but with tosh like this and some of the pap spouted in this post you don’t have to look too far to see why said Poms were ecstatic at beating us in the last RWC by playing a forward-centric game really well and responding in the best way possible to yet more dumb words from the likes of J’ON, Tiquiri etc.
Dublin Dave said | May 9th 2008 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
Yes. Spiro. It was a bad idea. Based on false assumptions. Conceived in Britain. Put to the test by the Aussies and Kiwis who were led up the garden path and have been resentful ever since…..
Gosh, the analogy becomes clearer the more I think of it.
bob said | May 10th 2008 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Actually guys…. Gallipoli was the site of a British loss of life over 5 times the loss of life sustained by the gallant ANZACS… and the problem began when an unamed Aussie officer, in the vanguard of the ANZAC units, decided to take the hill in front of him, instead of making the 2 mile march down the penninsular to the correct hill… had orders been followed instead of impetuousness, the campaign may have been different.. and had the correct hill been taken, the allies would have held the pass, thus preventing the Turks taking the strategic high ground.
It may not be politically correct, but it is military fact… and the officer isn’t names because it would not benefit anyone to do so… all who fell were gallant and should be remembred with the greatest honour… but lets not forget the 26,000 British lives lost too…. or for that matter, the Turks.
However, the analagy works to some extent… it was Australian impetuousness that led to the impasse…
There is another point though, and that is it is hardly fitting to compare the two issues! If we aren’t careful we’ll be in the gut churningly embarassing situation of a certain Anton someone-or-other, who compared being in the RWC quarter final to being in the tenches and no-mans land of Paschendalle…. we are talking about sport, rugby union… not the slaughter of young men in war!
And please don’t react to this as anti-Anzacs… i’m only pointing out facts.
Cpaaa said | May 10th 2008 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Paul
different strokes for different folkes. your in europe, football is the main sport, it might be a while before afl takes over. so in the meantime why not try hanball. the euros love it and best of all you get to use your hands, just like afl and you get to score lots of goals, just like afl.
Paul said | May 10th 2008 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Cpaaa,
Well I’m not really in Europe, I’m in Siberian Russia. The most popular game on the street is European Football, by far. So, I don’t see any opportunities for Handball here. But I have enjoyed playing Lapta, a Russian game. Also, as some of the kids play Rugby, they are very good at handling the Aussie Rules ball, and so this makes kick to kick enjoyable.
Midfielder said | May 10th 2008 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
Paul
Off topic slightly ………….. but a mate ( he was a made keen RL bloke) worked in Russia a number of years ago and for a part of that time in Siberian he told me that the playing fields were so hard, he doubted any sport outside ice hochery and football could be played due to risk of injury because the fields were to hard. He said the cold harded the fields and sometimes snow was on the grounds that sports were being played on..
I would be interested in your throughts as to my mate opinions.
Paul said | May 10th 2008 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
Midfielder,
Well as a rule. most of the playing surfaces are awful, just big mudbowls. There is little or no effort what so ever put into maintenance. I’m not sure most Russians really know what grass is- that’s a bit tongue in cheek, it’s just that most grass is allowed to just grow long and hagged, and a lot of public areas are very dusty, with no effort made to plant grass.
I did go to a professional Football match back in 2006, the surface there was very good. The professional stadiums are the only full size playing surfaces I have seen. All of the soccer fields are half size or even smaller.
Rugby is played in this city, Krasnoyarsk, so the surface must be good enough for Rugby. The first game is on Monday night, so I may try to check it out.
Spring is here now and the temperatures are up to 20 C. The grounds are no longer hard, I guess it would just depend on where abouts in Siberia your mate was, it’s a very big place (twice as big as Australia).
bob said | May 10th 2008 @ 9:38pm | Report comment
The reason soccer grew in the urban centres, over rugby which remained mostly rural, is becaause of the hard surfaces. Going to ground on the hard stuff was really not good… so the community games kind of polarized… rugby in hte fields, soccer in the yards.
And of course soccer today is perfected by urban kids playing in the roads and on estates all over the poor world… it is noticeable that in the UK, one of the reasons for the demise in skill levels amongst youngsters, is that they “play out” less in the street.
Midfielder said | May 10th 2008 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
Paul
Thanks ……. my mate is an engineer …………. funny he was working for a French company owned by English shareholders who sub contracted to a Germany company for piping contracts of some kind with the Russian gov in the mid 80’s. He was all over the place so not sure what part of Siberia he was in and had no idea it is twice the size of Australia.
The fields sound bad and makes me happier with my local fields in Sydney. Agian thanks
Cpaaa said | May 12th 2008 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
just on the topic of surfaces
i was in spain not long ago and went to plenty of local football matches. every football field that i saw was made from artificial grass, and it looked magic. very few sliding tackles during game play as well.
off the topic and different region but i thought id throw it in.
Paul said | May 12th 2008 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
I used to think I was a purist and would heavily criticise the use of artificial grass over the real thing. If only they would do something like that in Russia, then at least the surface would stay. But that would require too much money. There may be a lot of billionaires and millionaires around in Russia today, but they don’t share their money with the community, so I guess people will have to be satisfied with the mudbowls.
Ian Noble said | May 12th 2008 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
What a fantastic weekend for English sports lovers.
On Saturday the GP final round with the majority of games having some impact on the final placings for the play offs. Unfortunately Quins lost in the last few minutes to Leicester, to a cracking tie by Tom Varndell. On Sunday the final matches in the EPL with nail biting finishes particularly with Fulham winning to stayup, one of my daughters boy friends not too happy as he is a Reading season ticket holder.
Listened to all the action on the radio (BBC Five live), much better and more comprehensive than following on TV. Who worries about rugby v football when both co-exist and the TV and radio schedules avoid clashes.
Dave said | May 12th 2008 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
Ian
Well said. Football lover myself but all the codes including Cricket seem to be going through boom times at the moment. Can it last? When will the rich owners become bored or lose enough money to have a 2nd look? Can you see any end to all the money in pro sport in England at the moment? Will the sub prime issue and the slowing of the economies have an effect? Dont expect you to know all of this just an opinion is fine.
Ian Noble said | May 12th 2008 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
Dave
Of course sport can not be immune from the wider financial picture, but it appears to me these guys are not in the game to make a profit. The finances in rugby inparticular do not stack up and the lifting of the salary cap potentially can make the picture more uncertain. Most of the guys are supporters first and take pride in the performance of their team, it becomes one big ego trip.
Football is a different ball game and with the new TV agreement kicking in next year the riches for the EPL are potentially enormous. However balance that against the lower leagues where Leeds have been in administration, Rotherham and Luton are in administration. There is a big difference between the haves and have nots.
Cricket is upon us and I shall be listening to New Zealand test series with TMS (Test Match Special). 20/20 seems to be changing the face of cricket with a game mooted to be played in the West Indies between England and select XI; winner take all for a prize of £1M. 20/20 started in England and now the ECB is organising a tournament on similar basis as the IPL, but based upon the existing counties not cities. It appears they have learnt from rugby in not moving to regional structure as the initial club loyalities will be lost to detriment of the game.
As for the spectator, if ticket prices get too high they will vote with their feet., but judging from last weekend people seem willing to make sacrifices in other areas to follow their team.
Midfielder said | May 12th 2008 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
Ian
I see the cost of going to a football matchs in England, be it Rugby / League / Football has grown over recent years to the point I for one would find it difficult to justify going to live matches.
An example last year I purchased a season ticket to 10 home games of the Central Coast Mariners ( an A-League team) for $ 140.00, it was the cheapest but the most expensive was $ 240.00.
Would appreciate you tho’s on the cost of attending live sport in UK, and if crowd types are changing because of the price changes.
Thanks in advance ……….. Midfielder
Dave said | May 12th 2008 @ 10:14pm | Report comment
Midfielder
ManU EPL tickets 26-48 pounds (Aus $102) Juniors 10 pounds Cup games cheaper until latter rounds
Season tickets 494 – 980 pounds Juniors 190 pounds Seniors max 494 pounds
Arsenal EPL Cat A tickets 46 -94 pounds Cat B games 32 -66 pounds Juniors 13-18 pounds
Sunderland EPL 20-30 pounds Juniors 8-10 pounds
MV Membership $165 in 2007-08 plus $75 student. Will go up in 2008-09 but havent been notified yet
MV membership looking good value
Lindommer said | May 14th 2008 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Bradley, the review of the laws of rugby was initiated by Syd Millar, an Irishman. The iRB Laws Project Group consists of Bill Nolan (a Scot), Bill Beaumont (a Pom), Pierre Villepreux (a Frenchman), Rod Macqueen (an Australian), Ian McIntosh (a Jaapie), Richie Dixon (a Scot), Paddy O’Brien (a Kiwi) and two iRB officials, Mick Molloy (iRB Medical Officer) and Bruce Cook (iRB Development Manager). I seem to recall Graham Mourie (former All Black skipper) was involved somewhere. Including Millar and Mourie that’s seven from the NH and four from the SH.
Your ill-informed comment is typical of those from the NH on the ELVs.
Ian Noble said | May 14th 2008 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Midfielder
Dave has got some good knowledge of prices in the EPL, for rugby and league have a look at the Quins web site
http://www.quins.co.uk as both teams share the ground.
By the way tickets for the first test at Lords v NZ are £75, Oval reported to be charging £100 for seat in the new stand.
Treizistes said | May 16th 2008 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
As a mad RL fan, I have often wondered how Rugby would be around the world if the game didn’t split.
I read somewhere I think the Bradford Bulls site (Rugby League) that in the late 1940’s, RL in England had something like 7 – 9 million paying spectators through the gates in 1 season, I have no idea what the average crowd was, but looking at the AFL who get 7 million and ave around 37,000, it must’ve been pretty high, i know they played a lot more games though, so I have no idea.
If the split didn’t happen and Rugby went pro way back when, imagine adding the Southern Rugby averages to the Northern, could’ve made the Soccer numbers look small.
I know club Union in England back then wasn’t much in regards to spectators, more like family and friends and this only started to change when they went Pro, but looking at what RL achieved in the North, you would expect if the game stayed as one, went pro and made the game more spectator friendly like RL did back then, it could’ve given Soccer a real run for its money.
Rugby would be a completely different game now and it probably would’ve been a true Global sport like Soccer is now, imagine the best of Aus, NZ, France, Eng, Wales, Sth Africa, all the Island nations, PNG and rest only playing 1 game of Rugby?
Rugby’s WC would be massive these days as it would’ve started when the French made it happen in 1954.
Oh well, life’s full of could’ve beens.
Paul said | May 16th 2008 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
As this is a “football” tab, I am sure this will get flamed down within seconds by Koala Bear, Norm or Midfielder…..
Treizistes,
Thanks for your comments, it’s refreshing to read someone who thinks about their sport. I’m sorry that I don’t have enough of an understanding of League, coming from south of the border. I wholeheartedly agree with you. If Rugby had turned pro in 1895 then it would have had a real shot at becoming the world game. It was not until 1910 that soccer took the undisputed lead over rugby at an international level. Professionalism would have helped Rugby no end.
There is one big difference though between Rugby and Soccer apart from the professionalism debate, soccer organised itself into a league very efficiently from 1888 while Rugby was still mostly playing representative and friendly matches. This was due to the elitism of the southerners, they thought leagues were for the commoners. It was their snobbery that was the real root of Rugby never being shared with the world.
We can lament what could have been or we can dream what can be. Rugby can still have a bright future. If you wonder what could have happened if Rugby never split, is it possible to dream today what could still be if the two Rugby codes reunite. Or I am ignorant and speaking blasphemies? If the two Rugbies take a unified approach to the world, then it will make a bigger impact than it does now.
Food for thought.
True Tah said | May 16th 2008 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
Treizistes,
those days were the golden days of English rugby league, back then playing the Poms actually meant something, as it was the pinnacle of the game, unfortunately State of Origin usurped Anglo-Australian tests. The English leage team also had the benefit of having the likes of Dave Watkins, Lewis Jones and many other Welsh greats playing for them.
Paul,
I still think soccer would have become the number one sport globally, for two reasons. One, soccer is far less physically demanding than either rugby league, AFL, US football, GAA and rugby union. Secondly, the game is simpler to understand. These do not make it a better sport, the same way McDonalds is popular – cheap and easy. However, in many countries where soccer had a genuine competitor, the people of that country chose the other sport (Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands, Philippines, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, US, Canada, Cuba, Ireland, Wales, Finland)
Dave said | May 16th 2008 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
Treizistes
After the war in England people were very keen to be entertained RL may have had 7-9million, football had 35-41million in the 4 seasons post war (4 divisions) with the 1st div getting 15-17million per season alone in those 4 years. Was a real boom time for sports. Rugby had no where near the numbers for football even just after the war.
Paul said | May 16th 2008 @ 11:09pm | Report comment
True Tah,
You may be right. Soccer is a simpler game to understand, and this among other factors could explain its spread across the world. Still kids love to play Rugby, Aussie Rules, Gridiron etc, even when they don’t really understand it. So while that may be a reason I prefer to stick with two major reasons:
1) Professionalism in 1885.
2) The Football Association established their FA Cup in 1871 and the League Championship in 1888. They were far more organised than Rugby and simply played a heck of a lot more games. The exposure was much greater.
So I actually take my hat off to the FA for their superior organisational skills over the Rugby Union. All codes can learn from this example moving into the 21st century.
Cheers mate.
Ian Noble said | May 17th 2008 @ 2:14am | Report comment
Treizistes
There are very few rugby union clubs in England that are fully pro, the 12 GP teams plus probably the top four in National league One, the remainder in National league One and Two are semi pro. The overwelming majority of clubs are still amateur as they have been for decades as clubs where guys and girls can play rugby for recreation. They pay their subs, drink their beer, smash hell out of each other and generally play rugby because they want to. I don’t know the actual number of clubs in England but somebody mentioned in the region of 2000. These grassroots clubs are thriving, backed I might add by an investment programme by the RFU in providing grants for upgrading facilities etc., The pro game has had very impact on these clubs otherthan the higher profile of rugby in England has attracted more players to try the game.
What has league achieved outside Lancashire and Yorkshire? Very little, it can not seem to break out from it’s tradition heartlands, except to London with Harlequins RL and to France with the Catalan Dragons. I was bought up in Lancashire and to be frank League is almost stuck in time warp. Whilst the only pro union clubs in the area are Sale Sharks and Leeds, the amateur union game is thriving and there are more people playing union than league in Lancashire and Yorkshire. Union seems to have gone the full circle to the point that either Lancashire or Yorkshire are generally one of the finalists in the annual county championship, which is a reflection of their strength at amateur level.
As Spiro pointed out in one of his postings, “in the 1890s rugby in Lancashire and Yorkshire was the heartbeat of English rugby”. Many of the players worked down the mines or in the cotton mills and rugby if it went professional gave them the opportunity to be paid in addition to their poor salaries in the pits and mills. Some of these clubs were backed by wealthy mill and mine owners. The game was very class ridden and payment for playing sport was almost considered a mortal sin by many and they were allowed to float away to form the NRFU.
In many ways, the NRFU followed the lead of football as the majority of the clubs who were the early members of the Football league and the professional football game are from Lancashire and Yorkshire, Blackburn, Burnley, Preston, Sheffield clubs, Man United and City, Bolton, Liverpool and Everton, Bury, Oldham, I could go on but it was the template that NRFU could see worked. Whereas elsewhere sport was considered to a be recreational activity and that included the RFU who wanted to retain it’s amateur status come hell or high water.
To be frank in a world wide context I don’t think that League can offer much to the growth of the game, union as a growing force in the world market has a long way to go but is making more headway than league, being played in over 100 countries worldwide. In the UK it is recognised as being one of the fastest growing sports. Union is atracting bigger sponsorships and the TV audiences but still lags well behind football.
Treizistes said | May 17th 2008 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
Ian Noble:
I read last year that only 267,000 people play union in England, this wasn’t from the IRB or RFU site which had at one stage 800,000 girls playing union written on their site.
This was from sports England, the mob who look at all sport.
I know union is growing, but so is League, 25,000 kids playing in the powergen schools comp shows it is and most of these kids come from outside the Leagues heartlands, London provides the most.
The RFL has for the last 4 years been in with the top sports growing at the fastest rate in Britain, this is no lie, it’s a fact!
The SL gets over double the people watching it each and every week compared the Union, sometimes the figures are 3 times as many on SKY Sports, yet you seem to think Union is leaving League for dead?
The crowds are around the same even though the GP has double headers at the beginning of the year where 50,000 turn up, yet both home teams get 50,000 average, you work it out.
Also, the SL only counts averages until the play offs start, the GP clubs put in the semis and the GF.
The SL Grand Final and the Challenge cup Final sellout, the first with over 70,000 at Man Uniteds home and the second at Wembley or the Millenium stadium, the GP do not sell out their GF’s at Twickenham, yet you seem to think RL is struggling compared to Rugby Union in England.
I agree about the number of Pro clubs, it would be the same as the SL with 12 in that group followed by maybe Salford, Widnes, Leigh and Celtic Crusaders from Wales, the rest as you say, play for fun.
I disagree with you when it comes to RL growing around the world, in the last few years, Serbia, Lebanon, USA, West Indies and a whole host of others have started playing the game, I know it might be hard for you to accept this seeing as you follow Rugby Union, but it is growing.
That old myth that only NSW/QLD/Auckland/North England only play RL doesn’t wash anymore and I find it very offensive that Union supporters continue to spew it out, the guys who are doing all this work deserve better than this from a bunch of wankers who have nothing better to do than hang shit on a sport that told them 113 years ago to get stuffed, not one of the old fools who started it would be around today, but it lives on in the generations of Union followers for some warped reason, maybe it’s fear, I don’t know.
And Union fans wonder why League fans can’t stand them.
Ian Noble said | May 18th 2008 @ 4:49am | Report comment
Treizistes
I am a supporter of both Quins and Quins RL and if you interested look at the Quins website http://www.quins.co.uk and I have no axe to grind just to put the whole matter into some form of perspective. Furthermore Rochdale FC where in Lancashire I spent my earlier years, Rochdale Hornets and all that, have just beaten Darlington in the League II semi final play offs. I will be off to watch the final of the play offs at Wembley next Monday. I just love all sports but have grown to enjoy watching rugby union more because of the intensity of the contest and the multifaceted nature of the game.
I don’t where you got all your facts from perhaps I can help with a few of mine .
When I was in Oz for RWC2003 the figure printed in all the programme for registered male players in England was 250K (an IRB figure), the game in England has moved on since that date and I suspect the number is probably closer to 300K. Remember these figures are for adult players and exclude female and junior players.
At the last Quins Rl v Leeds Rhinos game attendance was 2300, the last Quins games v Sale attendance was just under 13,000.
The Powergen initiative together with a newer Gillette initiative, where players such as Jason Robinson are ambassadors the idea is get kids playing rugby. Rugby at this level is tag rugby and whilst some will later play League, many others turn to union. Both Quins teams have community and school development officiers and there is no contest for kids as there are enough to go around. From a League point of view four or five of kids brought through their scheme is bearing fruit and are now playing for Quins RL, compared to Quins where 12 out of the first XV v Sale have come the academy system.
I have no doubt that League is growing but the point I was making was that is bearing in mind it broke away in 1895, and in particular since WWII growth has been very slow and painful. You have only to look at the teams taking part in RLWC2008, even you must accept that a team from Ireland beggars belief. Sorry but it will probably end up as a final between Aus and either NZ or Eng. Whereas in union the RWC2007 was a great success with the majority of the so called smaller nations giving a very good account of themselves. Perhaps illustrating that in the professional era in union and the opening up of the game and the employment of many of these players in NH teams has helped the development of these teams and a raising of standards across the board.
The final of the Heinekin Cup at Twickenham attracted a full house of 80.000, the 2008 final Toulouse v Munster at the Millenium will be full. capacity 78.000. The GP final at Twickenham on May 31st has already sold nearly 50.000 tickets before the finalists are known, the remainder will be split between the two finalists. I shall be going with three mates all Quins supporters looking forward to a cracking game of rugby, probably between Gloucester and Wasps, but I suspect Leicester and Bath might have a say in the semis tomorrow.
I am not going to be abusive because iit demeans the argument as both codes are working hard to persuade as many kids to play rugby, and that has got to be the aim. but the greater spread of union in England means that they will attract more players then league. The joint initiative with Gillette is an excellent idea and is reaping results, particularly as there has been alot of publicity recemtly poor standard of behaviour in football and it should follow the ethos of rugby in rspecting officials. The simple facts are there is room for both codes and the differences will attract players to either code but at the moment League not only in the NH but world wide is a poor second to union in terms of paticipation and spectator appeal.
Oh by the way the BBC have asked the powers that be that they would like to show more union on their TV channels following the success of the 6N’s (viewing audiences circa 7 million for each game featuring England or Wales) and the popularity of a programme on the Welsh channel called Scrum 5. Hope they get a positive response as it will take rugby more into the FTA arena. Tomorrow as the schedules don’t clash there will be comprehensive coverage of the GP semi finals on the radio, thank god as Sky have the TV rights and many listen on the radio in preference to TV as the commentary is better.
In the meantime give a cheer for Rochdale FC as they try and achieve only their second promotion in their 100 year history, “Up the Dale”.