What I see is not encouraging. And before people criticise me for saying that, maybe they should look at a few of the games from our 1984 Grand Slam tour to see how we used to do it.

We worked hard and prided ourselves on our skills – the basics like catching, passing, running straight and communicating.

As a result of getting that right, the style we played was not only exciting but effective.

While Matt Giteau had to try to kick a field goal just before halftime in the 9-8 loss to Scotland, we used to back ourselves to score a try.

After coming from a Crusaders side that prided themselves on their skills, coach Robbie Deans must start to wonder what these guys are all about.

Our skills used to be the best in the world, and even rugby league looked at how we did things.

But now it has changed around.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/11/19/are-13-men-the-answer-to-rugbys-professional-growing-pains/

I want to clarify I don’t have any problem with people disagreeing with me. But I am concerned people support positions that may have no truth in fact, but are passed on from generation to generation as such. That’s why I say keep an open mind.

My point is being missed. There are untruths being uttered in the defence of union over league. Many union fans might not want to know that league might actually be closer to the original than union. I say ‘might’.

But in any case, I agree with you that ultimately it doesn’t matter, as long as what you love gets your rocks off.

Furthermore, enjoy the WWE fantasy, as long as you don’t start subscribing it as fact. Which unfortunately, some people do.

I love the Robin Hood legend for example. Although I understand that no single person of that origin existed, but that he is a composite of many fables & legends. But I still enjoy Robin Hood all the same.

OJ,

Funnily enough, we are probably closer than you imagine in our thinking, but merely expressing ourselves differently.

Fabulous Fantasy didn’t stop the religious fanatics from defending their faith.
Why should it stop the sporting fanatics?
Regardless if the story is true or not its a base from which rugby originated.

‘but it might be frightening to consider some elements of league are closer to 1800s rugby, than union (Heaven forbid!). Anyone having trouble accepting this may need therapy.’

True or not doesn’t mean people that don’t agree with you in this matter require therapy.

That’s silly simply because there’s as much traffic comment going the other way.

Union fans will tell you their game is better than league. Aussie rules fans will tell you their game is best. Soccer fans will tell you their game is best of all. Everybody (diehard fans) thinks their particular code/sport is the best & we all have to live with it.

Your comment is just another example of what I’m trying to point out – too many union fans have a closed mind when it comes to the history of rugby. Accepting certain things as unshakeable truths when that might not be the case at all.

Have an open mind….. have an open mind….. have an open mind.

There are two types of rugby, one played with 13 players (called league), the other 15 players (called union). Anyone having trouble accepting this may need therapy. Both codes have a legitimate claim to the generic name rugby.

Both rugby codes – league & union – have characteristics of 1800s rugby in their current format. Indeed, the jury’s still out, but it might be frightening to consider some elements of league are closer to 1800s rugby, than union (Heaven forbid!). Anyone having trouble accepting this may need therapy.

Perhaps I shouldn’t mention at this point, that the William Webb Ellis story is a fabulous fantasy with barely a thread of truth to sustain it. Oops, sorry………………..

Siva didn’t mention Spencer, Umaga, Cullen, Jomu, Bunce or Little. So i was only responding to the players he mentioned.

However, in respect to the players you mention – yes, Spencer & Cullen were magical players who did things out of the ordinary; Little & Umaga maybe 50/50; while Bunce & Lomu were just tough bastards who through, or over, people!

So….. Touche………. !

However, I may concede it’s perhaps easier for a good back to look brilliant in a 13 aside game rather than a 15 aside game. Need to think this one through a bit more…..

Yes, look where it has got them. The Super Bowl remains a more widely watched event than the Rugby World Cup final, despite the latter being much more international.

“Absolute bullshit. Where did you get this drivel? Oh that’s right you’ve made it up.”

Ok, I don’t have the figures and perhaps “more” was excessive. But the ratings, massive attendances (GreenBay Packers have a waiting list for season tickets that is several years long) at both the college and NFL level would indicate an extremely fanatical and devoted supporter base. Last time I checked there were no University soccer teams in Europe that got 80,000 people to their matches on a regular basis. Obviously that’s also a culural thing, but again, it does indicate the level of support American Football enjoys.

On line outs – the majority of rugby fans agree with me I would argue given that the rule was never repealed.

“And any less is too little of a deterrent to stop negative play…”

Subjective nonesense. Scrum penalties on the 50 metre line that are often at best 50/50 calls do not deserve 3 points. In the 22 I agree there needs to be a price, but with some of the penalties given all one can do is shake their head. Just look at the controversy over the handling of the scrum in the Italy V NZ game.

Failing that, marks anywhere in the half would probably be adequate – you can kick aimlessly, but if you do it will cost you territory if the ball is long or possession if the ball lands in your own half. Either way, your team would be back on defense.

Genius. I suggest TommyM for PM. However I suggest anywhere on the field.

“Kiwi union players are generally very technically proficient, but you don’t associate ‘left field’ action with those kind of players.”

You are kidding right? Spencer, Umaga, Cullen, Lomu ring a bell? Frank Bunce used to say that even he didn’t know what Walter Little was going to do half the time and he played over 100 games with Little.

Just because you don’t make an association doesn’t make it so.

Interesting one I heard floated, but haven’t really had time to think through – at the breakdown defensive penalties = full arm penalty (i.e. loss of points/territory), attacking penalties = free kick (i.e loss of possession), idea being that it would place a premium on being in possession of the ball.

Don’t see what Dan? That England couldn’t host a world cup? They have and are going to. That they can’t play rugby games a soccer stadiums? They have and will do again.

I’ve seen all the players you mentioned first-hand myself. None of them are better than Inglis. They might be as good, but not better. Besides, it’s very difficult to judge players in different sports.

That said, Inglis does things ‘off the cuff’ I never saw the others do. Kiwi union players are generally very technically proficient, but you don’t associate ‘left field’ action with those kind of players.

You are so determined to defend union you are letting your bias show……….