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.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
April 29th 2008 @ 5:59pm
Dave said | April 29th 2008 @ 5:59pm | Report comment
No worries Spiro…I enjoy the banter.
May 7th 2008 @ 10:52pm
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
May 7th 2008 @ 11:17pm
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
May 8th 2008 @ 12:59am
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!!
May 8th 2008 @ 1:20am
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.
May 8th 2008 @ 4:28am
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.
May 8th 2008 @ 9:03am
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! ; )
May 8th 2008 @ 9:33am
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
May 8th 2008 @ 9:54am
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.
May 8th 2008 @ 10:55am
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?