League’s irresistible force meets its immovable object
Depending on the way you approach things, rugby league’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. The conundrum of how to advance the game and how that fits in with Sydney is the greatest challenge for the game’s administrators.
There are literally hundreds of theories on how rugby league should tackle its next leap forward.
And they are all marked by their diversity.
Recently retired players such as Andrew Johns, Shane Webcke, and the legendary Arthur Beetson, have all called for the number of teams in Sydney to be reduced and the game to be expanded in order to develop a truly national competition.
But this goes widely against the likes of Phil Gould, who believes the current clubs in Sydney all need to be part of any future competition.
Who’s right?
Someone, everyone, no-one?
The NRL for their part have stated that they are happy with the state of the Sydney market, despite also offering a fairly juicy carrot for someone to move to the Central Coast.
But that debate is for another time.
It’s a bizarre world, where passions run high and statistics are used to prove just about everything and nothing at the same time.
I’m not going to pretend I have the answers. But I find it fascinating just how diverse the opinions are and this is why I have such sympathy for David Gallop.
Say what you like about Gallop, but he is presented with an unenviable task.
Like all sports these days, he is meant to run the NRL as a business. Yet he is faced with the prospect of his poorest performing commodities also being his most valuable.
Look at the farce that surrounded the expulsion and re-admittance of South Sydney.
Pre-expulsion Souths were a joke: they were getting twelve people to their games, their books had the accountability of a bar coaster, and the writing was long on the wall that they needed to improve their game to stick around.
The inevitable happened and they were given the chop. Suddenly all hell broke loose and they were the world’s most popular team.
You had 100,000 Souths fans telling you they walked barefoot to the match every week.
Reality often has little space in rugby league.
Personally, I’m happy Souths are back in business, but their recent history shows that while rugby league has a tribal landscape, it’s not the sort of vicious tribal culture that some would have you believe.
Far from dog-eat-dog, Bulldogs and Panthers fans’ enthusiasm for the game declined on the back of the demise of the Bunnies and Bears.
Forget economists, that is one for the psychologists.
But does that mean there is no future for those pilgrims that see expansion as the answer?
The Broncos’ Bruno Cullen strikes me as one of the more sensible CEOs in the game today and his considered views on where the game should be heading are very different to the din that occupies so much copy in the media.
Cullen argues that the removal of the Western Reds and Adelaide Rams were necessary after Super League, but that doesn’t mean you give up on them forever, and if the game does want to grow, development in these markets is important in the future.
Surely most league fans would believe that expansion has been good for rugby league.
I can’t fathom that people would want to replace Melbourne with a revived Newtown Jets or return to the days of the NSWRL. But I know it is pointless for anyone to try to speak on behalf of all fans.
So while armchair economists point to the invisible hand of the market deciding which club has the right to move forward, spare a thought for the game’s administrators trying to juggle the tyranny of history while keeping the bean counters happy.
In the end the only thing people seem to agree on is that the game must make hard decisions.
But that’s the thing about hard decisions - they don’t please everyone, which is really why they are called hard decisions.
Sadly, easy decisions, which everyone likes, have gone the way of unlimited tackles and kicking duels.
And they aren’t coming back any time soon.
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...
(79)
Spiro Zavos said | August 12th 2008 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Steve
I agree with a number of your points. One of the real problems with RL right now is that there are too many jurisdictions,with the consequent problem of too many officials protecting their patch. The game needs a czar, like AFL and rugby union, and the simple and clearly defined lines of power and demarcation between the various parts of the game.
It was a joke, for instance, that David Gallop won a Sports Administrator of the Year a couple of years ago. He has very little power and subsequently can do little other than run the NRL premiership competition which any slightly competent administrator can do.
Compare with with John O’Neill when he first came to the ARU. There were something like 28 committees of blazers trying to run things. O’Neill got rid of the committees, with some angst from blazers who had been outed and who have never forgiven O’Neill. Then he forced through a board of talent rather than representatives from the states. It was ironic that rather like M.Guillotine that O’Neill was decapitated (metaphorically) by his board. Of course, he has been brought back to a job he never should have lost anyway.
The point about this is that O’Neill has been able to revamp the bureaucracy and board structure of the ARU something that Gallop has never been able to do, even if he wanted to do it. And until there is a revamp of the ARL to take away the vested interests running the game for their own purposes (and not for the game), the muddling along will continue.
One further point needs to be made to Steve’s interesting article. I’ve been re-reading the narrative of the Super League affair in the light of Sonny Bill Williams doing a bolter. Two things strike me from this narrative: one, David Gallop was a News Ltd lawyer helping players to get around the sanctity of their contracts with the official ARL: second, the Super League vision would have saved RL from what seems to be a slow slide into insignificance.
This brings me to my final point. Rupert/Lachlan Murdoch is often painted as the villian of the piece with the Super League war. But a close reading of the history suggests that Kerry Packer might have been a better choice. He bought the free-to-air television rights to RL. He refused to allow News Ltd to buy the Pay TV rights, claiming that his free-to-air monopoly covered Pay TV rights as well.
News Ltd were forced to make their assault on the control of the game to get Pay TV rights to RL.
The irony is that Fox Sports, which the Packers own 25 per cent of, have made a fortune from Foxtel by providing sporting content, especially RL matches for the Pay TV company.
If Packer had come to some agreement with Murdoch and the Super League vision had been implemented with the total resources of the RL game behind it, instead of the civil war, I have no doubt that RL would be buying rugby union players, spreading across the rugby world and challenging AFL as a dominant football code in Australia.
However, the arrow sent on its way cannot be recalled. So Steve’s dire set of scenarios represent a bleak future for the code.
Redb said | August 12th 2008 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Expansion is a difficult road. After the initial novelty factor and perhaps on field success wanes maintaining interest in the ‘new’ code is always tough. The only way to truly grow support is from the ground up and this is why IMO rugby league got it completely wrong in Melbourne, as did the AFL in the 1980s with the Sydney Swans.
I often read the lament from rugby league supporters that without the Superleague fiasco rugby league would be the dominate code in Australia. I find this an outsider’s view as the AFL has never been threatened by rugby league in its heartland. (Spiro,I know you said perhaps ‘challenging’, but many RL diehards claim ‘dominating’)
Rugby league played three SOO at the MCG in the 1990s, the first one got 80,000, the second 50,000, the third 35,000. Novelty interest in rugby league in Melbourne was intepreted as real interest. The Storm were created and dropped onto the Melbourne sporting market with a belief that the ‘product’ was so good and the perception that Melbournians will turn up to two ants racing up the wall at the MCG, that surely rugby league would swamp AFL.
Despite winning the premiership in its second year, this perception came to a screeching halt! No history, junior programs, no community involvement saw the Storm reap what they had sown in terms of popular support from Melbournians. The same could happen to the AFL in western Sydney if they rush the introduction of this team ahead of its real time for support.
Superleague after 10 years may have established a niche in Melb , Adel & Perth, but dominating? Pure hubris. It’s possible more Sydney clubs like the Nth Syd Bears would have gone belly up in Superleague (no salary cap) and the Sydney rugby league market may become even more vulnerable to other codes. David Gallop has stated that hanging onto the Sydney clubs provides some geographical protection from other codes. How many Sydney clubs would have survived Superleague?
I think Gallop should concentrate on his heartland, the NRL simply does not have the develpment money to grow into new markets like Adelaide and Perth. Central Coast, Sunshine Coast to Bundaberg, a better option with two of the weakest Sydney teams. Kill the team, kills the fans. South Melb Swans and Fitzroy Lions fans hated relocation but its ten times better than extinction.
Redb
Whilst rugby league stays under the radar in Melbourne it does incur the wrath of AFL fans threatened by rugby league the way RL fans in Sydney jump on the AFL at every opportunity, helped along enormously by News Ltd press.
The Link said | August 12th 2008 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
RedB, any claim of League dominating AFL outside of NSW/QLD is hysterical, just as it is to claim the Storm incurs the ‘wrath’ of AFL fans (as if all that it needs is to kick news out for it to be a success), or that League fans jump on the AFL at any opportunity. For example, many League fans support the Swans, its not a zero sum game
Spiro, now Super League was League’s saviour, how the worm turns!! Funny, cause you always quote Super League’s add for journo’s fluent in Chinese as representing the madness of Ribot’s vision.
Steve, a good article from a League realist, I see no ’slow decline’ from your article, more the need for some cohesion and hard decisions from the NRL.
Redb said | August 12th 2008 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
The Link,
That last bit was meant to say RL does not incur the wrath of AFL fans.
cheers
Redb
jacko said | August 12th 2008 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
While these are all parts of the puzzle that are currently causing league grief I have altogether different theory. And no, this is no intended as a league bash, rather more food for thought.
I suspect that people are tuning out and watching the other 3 winter codes as there is little contest for the ball now allowed in league. Soccer, aussie rules and union all allow the players right to contest the ball nearly everytime they touch it.
League rules have gone so far out on a limb that the only contest for the ball is now on the 6th tackle. Where’s the contest at scrum time? gorne as everyone wants to get back into play asap and no one shoves. Tackles 1-5? - Gorne as you cant strip the ball unless its a one on one tackle (which is rarer than ray warren silence) or get a big hit on the ball carriers arm. 6th tackle is it - bomb, grubber or run.
I used to love watching rugby league up until my late 20’s but have moved away as I’ve got older (now mid 40’s). The game has got to predicatable due to a lack of contest for the ball. Anyway, there’s my 2c into the mix.
The Link said | August 12th 2008 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
jacko, agree that some tinkering of the rules may need to take place, however, in NSW / QLD, League has no peer for popularity.
sheek said | August 12th 2008 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
For all their faults, News Corp had one good idea - to reduce the then 11 Sydney clubs into 4, through amalgamations.
The 11 Sydney clubs would still exist in a Sydney premier comp, but 4 super franchises would play in the national comp. For argument’s sake, let’s call them Sydney East, West, North & South.
Of course, the Sydney clubs baulked at this. Either they were all part of the ‘big league’, or nothing at all. 4 Sydney clubs would join one city/one club teams Brisbane, Newcastle, Canberra, Illawarra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, North Qld, Gold Coast & Auckland (NZ) in a 14 team comp.
We know what eventuated. Like the end of WW1 leaving no-one satisfied, & planting the seed for the angst that led to WW2, the angst of the Super League war of 1995-97 is not yet over.
The way I see it today, Sydney can only handle 6 clubs - Manly-Warringah, Cronulla-Sutherland, Parramatta, Penrith, West Sydney Tigers & East Sydney Rabbitohs (an amalgam of Easts Roosters & Souths Rabbitohs).
St.George are already established in Illawarra & Canterbury Bulldogs should relocate to Central Coast. Throw in Melbourne, Canberra, Newcastle, Gold Coast, North Qld & Auckland (NZ), & that’s your 14 club team. Whether Perth & Adelaide shouldd be added is another argument again.
Also, one national ruling body needs to be formed. At present, you have the ARL, NRL, CRL & QRL all protecting their turf. But beyond this, RL has plenty of other problems. Things might appear rosy on the outside, but inside, there is decay.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 12th 2008 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
Issues for league that require hard decisions:
1. Economic realities at club and code level; (Insufficient scale and revenues to compete with other codes in development, facilities and player payments.)
2. Ongoing unacceptable off field behaviour by players;
3. Unsatisfactory stadia for spectators;
4. Ownership and control of the NRL and the clubs;
5. Predictable nature of play;
6. Weekly grind for players;
Its a big list requiring many big decisions.
Many of the decisions are interdependent. Choosing the right decision is very challenging before even attempting to get it through the committees and boards and then implemented.
In more ways than one, hard decisions!
Steffy said | August 13th 2008 @ 2:26am | Report comment
“Its a big list requiring many big decisions.”
It’s a poor list.
Weekly grind for players? What’s that supposed to mean?
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 4:51am | Report comment
“It’s a poor list.”
It isn’t hard to be pleasant Steffy. There is no need to be consistently hostile to people who contribute.
Steffy said | August 13th 2008 @ 6:27am | Report comment
I wasn’t being hostile, I was giving my judgement on the list and didn’t have time to go through it all.
Recidivist said | August 13th 2008 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Steffy, rather than saying it is a poor list, offer some words of wisdom of your own.
For example, LAS referred to the repetitive nature of the game. This is true, as the defense is so good that kicking is now regarded as a greater chance of scoring than running the ball.
I love the Blue Mountains but traveling to Penrith doesn’t offer the view that you get of Table Mountain in Cape Town. Different cultures and places must offset some of the hard grind.
Already, Tahu has found that Union is a game where he has to think.
“There are arguments over rugby league and rugby union at the moment, but it is not easy to crack union, it is very hard,” Tahu said.
“Everything from the sizes of the players to the structure of the game, and how to play your position. In league I was only one side of the field the whole time, in rugby union I am everywhere.
“You have to play different positions and it is hard to keep up with the knowledge of the game.”
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Shontayne Hape
“Since I made the switch, I’ve had guys who I don’t want to name ringing me up and saying they are interested in coming over to union.
“They see that union is at a really good level now, whereas five years ago, maybe the Premiership was a little lower profile, but the game has really picked up.”
Steffy said | August 13th 2008 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
Hape, is of course talking nonsense. The Union premiership has always been much higher profile than Super League in the UK - even when the crowds were much lower in the union premiership than Super League it still got far more press coverage. Union club games have generally always got far more media coverage than the actual interest in them deserves. You can go back as far as the 1920s and a school union game would get more coverage in some national papers than a huge FA cup soccer game .
“Already, Tahu has found that Union is a game where he has to think.”
Good for him - he must think fast because how many union games did he play before being selected for the national side?
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
Your churlish attitude is actually beyond boring. Don’t worry, league players are only leaving for money and for money alone. That should keep you warm at night.
Adam Pearce said | August 13th 2008 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
Its really simple its what the VFL did in the 80’s which lead to the hugely successful AFL that we know today…..Expand.Not in logan not in the sunshine coast etc etc that is rugby league heartland we dont really need teams there people will support other teams close to there area.What we need is teams in Adelaide and Perth the two markets where AFL dominates that the NRL is too chicken to take on the AFL in there own back yards.
Arthur Beetson and Andrew Johns are right we cannot go into survival mode otherwise there will come a day that where we cant survive anymore on leagues clubs and pay tv money.We must expand into all the mainland states if we are going to survive and prosper and truly proclaim that we are a national league.
Forget the biases against league that is because the only teams in the league are eastern states.If you get teams that appear to truly represent that state/city and reach out to those who might not be huge AFL fans and those who will support a team so long as they are seen as truly representative it can be a success for the NRL.
Like the AFL it will be hard and undoubtably some money will be loss out of it, but having 9-10 games a week in all states would be a massive step forward for the league.
Oh and bulldoze the olympic stadium and we will really heading the right direction!
Steffy said | August 13th 2008 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
Benjamin, I was responding to your point about Hape and somebody elses point about Tahu. If you would rather be left in peace to make points without any comeback you should start your own blog and disable comments.
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
The genesis of Hape’s quote centred around the professionalism of early union as compared to NRL/Super League. He was not referring to popularity, so bringing up newspapers from the 1920s is rather irrelevant, but then I imagine it is always easier to be consistently negative than ocassionally positive.
Steffy said | August 13th 2008 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
Benjamin,
the top rugby and union clubs in England went fully professional at the same time (circa 1996) so why would he bring professionalism in to it? He mentioned the profile of the GP, that’s all and that’s the issue I addressed in my post. It really would help if you read posts correctly before wading in.
Hape, has spent a lot of the last few seasons injured. He knows that his body can’t take the stresses and strains of rugby anymore so has wisely decided to take up an offer to play union where he will be able to extend his playing career. I daresay quite a few rugby players who are feeling the strain in rugby will look to move to union to extend their careers. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 10:18pm | Report comment
Obviously league had been far more professional in its outlook than union, that is why Bentley, Quinnell, Young and Tait toured with the Lions in 1997 - their professionalism which they had inherited from league. I imagine that is why Hape brought professionalism into it - the standard of play and both the way the clubs conducted themselves as businesses. I did read your post, in which you described Hape’s reasoning as nonsense. This clearly isn’t the case.
Yes - I imagine many league players will look to move to union just to extend their careers. Just like Ashton and SBW, and Mat Rogers, and Lote Tuqiri and Iestyn Harris and Timana Tahu and… oh, hang on a minute….
Union is clearly far more physical than league. That is why union players train predominantly with free weights - because their bodies require more muscle as cushioning, and league players use their own bodyweight.
Steffy said | August 13th 2008 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
Rugby coaching was clearly way ahead of union coaching at the time but I doubt the clubs themselves were much more professional than their union counterparts.
“Union is clearly far more physical than league. That is why union players train predominantly with free weights - because their bodies require more muscle as cushioning, and league players use their own bodyweight.”
Keep telling yourself that.
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
Keep telling yourself that.
How analytical Steffy. Anything that you don’t like you resist with childishness a la ‘poor article’, without offering anything tangible in response. Why do union players train more with free weights then? I’d love to see Lockyer at the bottom of a ruck.
Of course league clubs were far ahead of union clubs, businesses run downwards, and having very professional coaches suggests a board with their heads screwed on. Budge Pountney retired from international rugby because the SRU didn’t even provide spare studs. I doubt this was happening in league even in the 60s. It simply is not logical to say that the playing side was professional but not the clubs themselves.
westy said | August 13th 2008 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
Benjamin………in Australia as I have to keep reminding some of my fellow rugby supporters we have to be careful despite recent successes not to throw too many stones at league………….we live at this stage in a house with a lot of glass windows. Australian rugby has fewer playing juniors than football, AFL and the fact we dare not admit league.
We are sadly number4 and by quite away. We do not want to lose the league juniors to AFL or football. I like Ewen and Eddie acknowledge upto say U/18 league juniors are generally better trained and conditioned simply on the basis of resources alone.They are a resource it is vital we not lose. League simply spends more resources on its juniors . This is just a fact. Barnes/Cooper etc. were attracted to league from rugby at a junior level because their training and conditioning is superior.
Some in Australia simply advocate an expansion of Australian rugby based om importing more players. I am not talking about a marquee player or a young foreign junior but wholesale imports.In UK rugby is number 2 here it is number 4 although certain people in rugby pretend otherwise. I believe it will in the future but we are a long way of and league is closer to us then our other prrotagonists.
As an aside I saw that second division side play Toulon……..dear me Sydney Uni first graders should seek an immediate contract and most competent NRL players would stand a 50/50 chance. They are professional but they were no where near the level of fitness of a NRL /super 14 player. Do not be too hard on a professional NRL player they play hard grind week to week. …Most professional rugby players would never contest their ability to play at a consistently hard level over a long season. Rugby has more power and impact and from different directions but I know of no serious rugby player that would question the man on man defensive stamina of a good NRL player. It would be a foolish thing to do when we have since professionalism copied and sometimes improved their defensive tecniques and patterns.
Steffy said | August 13th 2008 @ 11:16pm | Report comment
“Why do union players train more with free weights then?”
The only source I’ve ever seen for that is you - on this thread.
As for rugby in the 60s I don’t know what was happening but I wouldn’t base the difference in professionalism between rugby and union on the grievances of Budge Pountney and the SRU. I don’t think anybody would ever accuse the SRU of being highly professional and what was Budge Pountneys loyalty towards Scotland? He qualified to play for Scotland on the basis of having a Grandmother from the Channel Islands (which is about as far away from Scotland as you can get in the UK)
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 11:23pm | Report comment
Steffy…
1. Free weights - why did you not say that previously instead of offering a glib comment?
A question put to Kevin Sinfield…
Q. I’ve read that England rugby union prop Andrew Sheridan can bench press 215kg. Who can bench press the most at Leeds?
Trev, Wales
To be honest, the bench press isn’t really an exercise we do that much. We tend do a lot of own bodyweight stuff and a lot of press-ups and exercises that are particular to our game.
2. The SRU is an international firm, thus if they were that unprofessional then logic dictates that the trend would increase at lower levels. Especially ten years ago. If you want further proof of rugby’s lack of professionalism then have a flick through the autobiographies of Leonard, Probyn, Richards, Moore and Andrew. That should clarify the situation for you.
3. What does Pountney’s loyalty have to do with anything? He was the Scottish captain.
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
Westy, I’m a fan of league, and I’m quite content to admit its influence over union. Likewise I am content to admit the quality of the NRL, however just because the French second division is weak, which is no surprise, that does not detract from the grind of the Guinness Premiership which is the closest league in terms of results, in the world. The NRL does not possess that variation and thus there are some easier games. Relegation means that ever game is a fight in the UK, and that is why foreign players always take a season to acclimatise - Hayman is a case in point.
Steffy offered that league was more physical than union. I disagree - the average international flanker, and indeed pack member, must go through far more punishment than any league players. I do recognise that different types of fitness are involved however, but the defensive stamina of league players is irrelevant because it would not translate to union - hence all UK league-union swappers had to do a lot of work on their stamina.
Recidivist said | August 13th 2008 @ 11:42pm | Report comment
Steffy, you can’t help yourself can you? I think a few of the other bloggers have summed it up nicely pointing out you carry on in a childish manner. Once again you failed to even describe the two games properly:
“Rugby coaching was clearly way ahead of union coaching at the time but I doubt the clubs themselves were much more professional than their union counterparts.”
In case you still can’t get it, generally Rugby Union is either called Rugby or Union and Rugby League is called League!
The reason that the League guys are getting as bashed around as they are and might be able to move across to Union to prolong their careers is because there is a totally different focus on the ball at the tackle. In Union a player is interested in phase ball and wants to secure the ball. In League, the tackler wants to smash the player rather than think about what happens next with the ball. Sadly, he might just be plain frustrated knowing he just gets to hit it up straight, waiting for the highlight of League, the choice between grubber, cross field kick or bomb. It is no wonder that the game (league) is struggling without poker machine revenues. How anyone can think they will come out ahead putting money into those damn machines I will never know!
The two games focus on different things at the point of contact.
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
Recidivist, I would think that quite a few league players aren’t bashed around (a) because of the rolling subs and (b) because many players hang on the periphery and don’t tend to be that involved. The focal point of the ball does not tend to zig zag across the pitch thus a lot of wingers are left completely untouched, as opposed to union where a lot of wingers are used often - due to their physicality - Rougerie, Cohen, Horgan - the typical no.14, if you will. And also (c) the top players don’t play that many international games.
Steffy said | August 14th 2008 @ 12:06am | Report comment
“In case you still can’t get it, generally Rugby Union is either called Rugby or Union and Rugby League is called League!”
Not where I’m from and I see no reason why union should be referred to as just rugby and rugby should be referred to as just league - they are both rugby and if people people wish to use “rugby league” and “rugby union” or “league” and “union” or even “RL” and “RU” then I will happlily comply but to say my terminology is childish while continuing to use it (only in reverse) yourself is a nonsense - so until such a time as the sports are named correctly on here I will continue to use the terminology which is prevalent in my area.
As for Sinfield, maybe that’s what they do at Leeds (although I can’t see where he said they don’t use free weights - just not much bench pressing) but every time the Leeds Rhinos have been shown on TV training in the gym room they have been using free weights - same with every other club.
Benjamin said | August 14th 2008 @ 12:30am | Report comment
I recall McKenzie noting that one of the first objectives with Tahu was to bulk him up. Also on the GB Lions DVD the team does use free weights but also spends a lot of time on light/body weight circuits.
Steffy said | August 14th 2008 @ 12:37am | Report comment
“I recall McKenzie noting that one of the first objectives with Tahu was to bulk him up.”
That’s fair enough, he was probably too small for the game for all shapes and sizes.
“Also on the GB Lions DVD the team does use free weights but also spends a lot of time on light/body weight circuits.”
So what’s your argument?
Al said | August 14th 2008 @ 1:01am | Report comment
I guess the reason that RU is usually referred to as ‘rugby’ is because it is more widely known worldwide…just a thought
Benjamin said | August 14th 2008 @ 1:05am | Report comment
I don’t have an ‘argument’, I am merely confirming what I said earlier by offering another team that trains predominantly with body weight.
Steffy said | August 14th 2008 @ 1:38am | Report comment
Benjamin, you seem keen on taking a quote from an individual, removing all context then blanket applying it to everybody else in that sport.
It doesn’t really work that way. The Leeds rugby players will do a variety of different exercises in the gym using the variety of equipment which is at their disposal. Sinfield clearly didn’t want to get into a dick measuring contest about how much this Sheridan chap can bench press because, quite frankly, who cares?
Benjamin said | August 14th 2008 @ 1:41am | Report comment
I’m not actually. Could you explain how?
We tend do a lot of own bodyweight stuff and a lot of press-ups and exercises that are particular to our game.
Pretty conclusive.
Benjamin said | August 14th 2008 @ 1:42am | Report comment
Sinfield clearly didn’t want to get into a dick measuring contest about how much this Sheridan chap can bench press because, quite frankly, who cares?
I’m not bringing up bench pressing. You are so, so negative.
Steve Kaless said | August 14th 2008 @ 3:16am | Report comment
Gents,
It would seem my article has somewhat been turned into a bit of another union v league battle. No huge surprise but I’d like to make a few points.
While a number of rugby league players are currently converting to rugby union, if rugby union fans then feel they have no challenges themselves they are probably best described as delusional.
You only need to look at the dropping attendances for second tier test match series and the fact that the Bledisloe Cup tickets in Sydney were hardly walking out the door (pretty sure it didn’t sell out) and you see that John O’Neil is well aware of rugby weaknesses.
It wasn’t that long ago we were discussing the huge financial losses and the debacle of the ARC. They aren’t reversed by SBW going to play in France.
In fact, while rugby may be played in countries all over the world, it strikes me that Australian fans are only interested in watching a handful of those nations. Hence O’Neill’s plan to draw out the Bledisloe and have the All Blacks tour instead of a Northern Hemisphere touring side.
I agree with Spiro though that the NRL needs to adopt an independent body like the AFL to run the game, it is long overdue.
Finally, can someone explain to me why A-League fans are considered a threat to rugby league or indeed any winter sport seeing it is played in the summer. Surely it poses the same threat then as cricket.
I can’t for the life of me see why someone can’t support the Newcastle Jets in february and the Knights in July. The same can be said for Sydney FC and the Waratahs.
Benjamin said | August 14th 2008 @ 3:21am | Report comment
What union v league battle? Neither has anybody mentioned that union is perfect.
Steffy said | August 14th 2008 @ 4:06am | Report comment
“I’m not bringing up bench pressing. You are so, so negative”:
You brought it up as a way to show that rugby players don’t do as much free weights works as union players although you only have a single comment from Kevin Sinfield responding to a question from a chap in Wales to back that assertion up. Although why you think how much free weight work players do is important is anybodies guess.
“I agree with Spiro though that the NRL needs to adopt an independent body like the AFL to run the game, it is long overdue”
I doubt you will get many people who don’t agree with that.
Benjamin said | August 14th 2008 @ 4:14am | Report comment
No, I actually stated that rugby players do more free weights to pad their bodies with muscle and thus reduce impact injuries. That is why free weights are significant because their usage signifies that union is a physically more demanding game than league. If you recall, you haughtily suggested that league players converted to union to rest their aching bodies etc. That league players train predominantly with their own bodyweight suggests otherwise.
I think the Kevin Sinfield quote actually refers to the whole Leeds squad. I also cited video evidence on the GB DVD.
“I doubt you will get many people who don’t agree with that.”
There you go again… it must be so difficult to say “I agree, good point.”
Steffy said | August 14th 2008 @ 5:12am | Report comment
“That is why free weights are significant because their usage signifies that union is a physically more demanding game than league.”
It doesn’t signify that at all.
Benjamin said | August 14th 2008 @ 5:19am | Report comment
No? What doe it signify then?
Steffy said | August 14th 2008 @ 6:49am | Report comment
on the basis of your source material I would say it signifies that this Sheridan chap does a lot of bench presses.
Jerry said | August 14th 2008 @ 6:55am | Report comment
“Not where I’m from and I see no reason why union should be referred to as just rugby and rugby should be referred to as just league”
To be honest, I don’t either - but realistically that’s not the case. In 99% of places where people actually know that league and union are two different sports they call one rugby and one league. Your continued reference to “rugby and union” comes accross as pretty childish as you’re just failing to accept reality. If you wanna use the terminology that’s prevalent in your area (what is that area by the way?) then fine, but you should also accept that you’re in a very small minority and going against the generally accepted terminology.
Benjamin said | August 14th 2008 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Another glib comment Steffy. Why debate if you don’t have the answers?
True Tah said | August 14th 2008 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Steffy,
so you are happy for the so-called game of the working class man (Rugby League) to be called after an English private school?
Steve,
union has a lot of its own issues especially here in Australia, and I would be the first to admit this, and these have been documented throughout many posts here on the Roar.
Recidivist said | August 14th 2008 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Steve, you are quite right that Union in Australia has some really big issues. Luckily, like a spoilt kid at a private school, it will be able to survive because the guys that have played it in the past are some of the same guys who are heading up large companies and can help out financially.
For all the talk of bench-presses, free weights etc, I played both and I still say League is the tougher game. You can take a hell of a knock in both codes but I think in League generally you are more exposed in the tackle.
Steffy, you should read over your “comments” on this blog and others you have participated in and then compare them to other writers. When a blog degenerates into a bit of tit-for-tat, you are the common factor!!!
Benjamin said | August 14th 2008 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Recidivist, without wanting to degenerate into a league v union excercise, I do actually quite enjoy league, I think that my argument holds weight. Rugby league players are expected to be leaner than their union counterparts which suggests that the tackle situation is not as powerful as in union. Also in contemporary league, a lot of tackles are doubled-up. Plus there are rolling subs, and some wingers can go a whole game without touching the ball. Contrast that to those everpresent at the breakdown. Compare the bodies of O’Driscoll to Gasnier, Larkham to Lockyer and Wilkinson to Harris. 3 of those players are barely mobile, 3 aren’t. Hence there is a large emphasis on free weights rather than bodyweight in union training - to pad the body out. Anyhow, it is all academic, but perhaps worth mulling over for future debate.
Steffy said | August 14th 2008 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
“so you are happy for the so-called game of the working class man (Rugby League) to be called after an English private school”
Yes, of course. Why not? If the Webb Ellis myth is to be believed (and it certainly isn’t) he was a working class lad from Salford.
There is nothing intrinsically working class about rugby league
The Answer said | August 14th 2008 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
Benjamin,
I think you might have erred there mate. My understanding was that Union, being some much more sophiscated, was not about just bashing the bloke, like league, but your tackle was aimed at trying to then get the ball. Also you’ll notice forwards don’t always look to run over the top of defenders like in league because they are looking to set up the next play and ensure possession is retained.
However, if you believe Mark Gasnier and Darren Lockyer are either barely mobile or not mobile at all then it is pointless discussing anything with you.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 14th 2008 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
Steffy, i have watched this post. I cant believe some of the things you write and this one tops the lot. “There is nothing intrinsically working class about rugby league.” Check the locations of teams, the crowd demographics, the TV coverage, the simplified nature of the game!!!!
gavin said | August 14th 2008 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
ague should return to unlimited tackle rule. Ditch franchises and terms like “product” and return the game to the people. Union better be careful too here re franchises
Benjamin said | August 15th 2008 @ 12:33am | Report comment
The Answer… why would I suggest that rugby league players are leaner and then list three players and state that they are barely mobile? The point I am making,which is quite clear, is that the 3 rugby union players are less mobile than their league equivalents which illustrates the overt physicality of union, in contrast to league. Also, your points which illustrate how I am “erring” only serve to support my point that union is more physical, because the tackle situation involves a much more physical and detailed situation.
Peter K said | August 15th 2008 @ 12:34am | Report comment
Benjamin - The rugby forwards are stronger than their lite counterparts.
In rugby there are constant strength demands, in the maul, the scrum, and lifting in lineouts.
In rugby lite they need to be tougher. There are a lot more tackles. They constantly run into gang tackles, 1,2,3,4,5.
They take a pounding.
So I would not say that rugby players being stronger means there are more demands in the tackle rather the general strength needs across the park. I would say their bones are calcified and hardened more, like MAA fighters.
Rugby forwards are generally heavier too, makes sense them carrying more muscle.
Peter K said | August 15th 2008 @ 12:36am | Report comment
Clarification - I would say their bones are calcified and hardened more, like MAA fighters. This applies to rugby lite players not union. Hence they are tougher.
Benjamin said | August 15th 2008 @ 12:37am | Report comment
Peter, the carrying of muscle is to help in the impact situation. Were the tackle-impact as demanding in league then the players would be bulkier. It isn’t as if they need to be lean to run great distances. I would have thought that double tackles are easier on the tackler and not the other way around.
Rugby league backs are lighter than their union counterparts too. How do you justify that?
Peter K said | August 15th 2008 @ 12:51am | Report comment
Benjamin - I said I agreed that union players are stronger and have more muscle hence they are heavier.
I said that league players are pounded more in the tackle and are tougher.
Being gang tackled in easier on the tackler. But a lot harder on the guy being tackled. Thats why they are pounded.
The tackle is far more demanding technically in rugby than league. But you get hurt more in tackles in league because they get tackled a lot more and by more people.
Even in defense it is harder on the tackler in league. because they do about 3 times as many tackles as a rugby guy.
They need to be leaner in rugby because ever since the 10 metre offside rule they are constantly running a beep test. 1,2,3,4,5 they rush up, and then run back 10 metres, repetative excercise. Doing this for 40 minutes you just cannot carry that much muscle.
Benjamin said | August 15th 2008 @ 1:20am | Report comment
I’m very cautious of using the term ‘tougher’ as it is very subjective.
Steffy said | August 15th 2008 @ 1:34am | Report comment
“Check the locations of teams, the crowd demographics, the TV coverage, the simplified nature of the game!!!!”
And then what?
By the way, chess is a very simple game too.
Benjamin said | August 15th 2008 @ 5:12am | Report comment
I think the point of LAS, is actually best illustrated by the Super League. Frankly, it doesn’t require much investigation but the geography of the clubs very much suggests that league in England is a working man’s sport.
Steffy said | August 15th 2008 @ 5:18am | Report comment
What does the geography of the Guinness Premiership clubs tell you?
I don’t recall ever saying rugby wasn’t a working mans sport - I merely said “There is nothing intrinsically working class about rugby”
Benjamin said | August 15th 2008 @ 5:28am | Report comment
There may not have been anything intrinsically working class about league in its genesis, but currently it must be considered intrinsically working class because it represents large populations of the working class demographs throughout northern England. It is the chosen sport of the working class in northern England and many Super League professionals are working class themselves.
May I ask what the Guinness Premiership club geography has to do with anything?
LeftArmSpinner said | August 15th 2008 @ 8:00am | Report comment
League was created by players who could not afford to play rugby if it meant them having to “self insure” themselves for injury and hence loss of income. Sounds pretty intrinsically working class to me. Steffy, it is remarkable just how well you match with some of the other league fans on the roar. Sadly, for the game and the clubs, you prefer an argument over a discussion, jump immediately to social class argument and seem not to have grasped even the most basic concepts of each code, either strengths or weaknesses.
Anyway, good luck on ignoring the fundamentals. Fundamentals, being “intrinsically” fundamental, have a habit of taking vengenance if ignored. I have been a passionate Roosters fan since 1966, but I wont be watching them play the Storm tonight because I know that it will be boring.
Tackle, Tackle, Tackle, Tackle, tackle pass, Kick.
Then, Tackle, Tackle, Tackle, Tackle, Tackle pass, Kick.
By comparison, grade rugby (amateur) will display passing, running, kicking, lineouts, scrums with numerous S14 and Wallabies players. Possession is contested at all times and it is a much more skillful game to play and watch.
The Link said | August 15th 2008 @ 8:59am | Report comment
LAS, i’m the last one to defend irrational rants, however this is a rugby site and therefore there is a particular slant from the majority of posters. It usually starts with “I don’t mean for this to be League bashing but….” There is more than enough coming the other way from Rubgy posters.
I’d suggest the blow by blow of the semis and final RWC 07, make for worse reading LAS. Before we all kneel before the altar of contest for possession, it does not intrinsically make for a “better” game nor spectacle. Fans of the NFL may disagree for example. Too much contest can in fact make games degenerate into scrappy affairs
Tonights game will be many things, but boring it will not be (as a fan of both codes). So enough with the passionate Roosters fan stuff, if you refuse to watch tonight cause it will be boring, then you are neither passionate nor a fan.