Can Australia start paying attention to Sevens?
Roar Guru
By rugbyfuture, 11 Feb 2010 rugbyfuture is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- 2016 Olympics, rugby 7s, Rugby sevens, Rugby Union, wallabies
152 Have your say
It has been proven that Australians love a gold medal, especially over the Yanks, Poms or Kiwis. Much has been made about the inclusion of rugby sevens in the Olympics.
The main problem Australian rugby has with their hopes in 2016 will be the fact that Australia has never taken Sevens seriously.
This dismissal of the Sevens game, which is otherwise a massive boost to rugby, is most likely because of Australia’s high focus on rugby league. That makes becoming the faster and more carnival game of rugby more difficult.
It is true that rugby league has been able to capitalise on the greater aspects of their game since its inception. This spot in most other countries, especially developing ones, has been taken by Sevens.
The Sevens program, even with the ignorance towards it, has developed well and brought out a few fifteen-man Wallabies. This may be perhaps a testament to rugby within Australia which, even with it being ignored by most, still manages to put out some of the greatest.
The interest here, however, is whether people will start taking Sevens seriously. If a Gold medal hope is to become reality at Rio 2016, there has to be enough public interest to develop the talent pool, and take those more suited to the Sevens game, rather than let them run off into other footballs.
Hopefully the entrance of rugby sevens in the Olympics will be met with a good integration of the Sevens development program into the Olympic development program, and create a better base than is currently in existence.
Because right now, with such a close competitor in rugby league, there’s not much anticipation for gold.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- 2016 Olympics, rugby 7s, Rugby sevens, Rugby Union, wallabies
Sam Taulelei said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Australia did take sevens seriously when they began participating in the Hong Kong Sevens tournament, certainly more so than NZ did who continued to send their best provincial team until they were famously not invited to the tournament in 1983. It was a gutsy move from the Hong Kong union but the right one and as a result the NZRU agreed to only send a national representative team and after being beaten by Fiji in the semifinal in 1984 they took the game far more seriously and recognised the benefits the game offered to players in the 15 a side game. The rest is history.
I don’t know why after the 1990′s the ARU’s interest in sevens rugby fell away, maybe it was their success at winning two world cups or maybe there wasn’t the depth of players with the advent of Super 12 rugby and the Brumbies joining the compettion.
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:30am | Report comment
I tuned into the 7′s the other day as it’s been a while since I’ve watched a game.
I’m obviously getting too old because it just didn’t grab me at all. Maybe I needed to be there with a beer, pie and a silly hat. Now that I could enjoy.
I’ve always wondered what 7′s actually does for the players who want to play the 15 man game. I can see the arobic benefits and so forth but reckon it would develop other habits a bit like touch footy to maybe pass when it was better to hang onto the ball.
Curious what others reckon.
oikee said | February 11th 2010 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
I agree, i happened to watch about 2 minutes of the wellington 7′s . Hate to be brutally honest, but rugby league has a nines tournament, and to be even more brutally honest, i never knew they played rugby 7′s.
until all the carrying on about the game last year, being admited to the olympics.
I can help you with one thing though, i can tell you that rugby league fans would be bored after 2 minutes. And thats being brutally honest.
Another good thing about 7′s , it looks like a good poaching ground for rugby league, some fast players their, all not suited to union.
No need for speed in the 15 man game.
Matt said | February 12th 2010 @ 7:22am | Report comment
To be brutally honest it is bigger than league as well.
Corey said | March 16th 2010 @ 10:39am | Report comment
And to be brutally honest Union guys suck at it more than Leagueys, Wigan verse Wasps ring a bell. The Union fans at the game were silenced and upset.
Dave said | March 16th 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
It was more of English rugby clubs were suck at it corey. Any clubs from SH would have walk over Wasps and Wigan that weekend.
Rod said | March 16th 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Liar, that Wigan side a year or two before came out here to Australia and beat the Broncos at ANZ stadium in QLD in front of 60,000 people for the WCC Dave, they were a bloody good side.
Corey said | March 18th 2010 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
I would have to agree with Rod, look at that side, you had Jason Robinson went to Union and played in the winning world cup side in 03, and he was the only try scorer for the English side.
Russ13 said | March 18th 2010 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
The Wigan sevens team that played in Middlesex 7′s had a few union boys who didn’t make the trip to Brisbane for WCC. But I do agree with you Rod they were an awesome side.
Dave said | March 18th 2010 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
How did 54,000 become 60,000 Rod ? lol. They might have been good at league 13′s but they weren’t that good at sevens rugby just because they beat some useless amateur 7′s club teams from England.
Southern Hemisphere were king of sevens rugby then Rod. Every dick and harry knows that. Can you tell me how fully professional rugby league clubs like London Broncos and St Helens went in the Dubai club sevens against Southern Hemispheres teams back in the late 90′s ? lol
Pete said | February 12th 2010 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Blinky – I’ve never been that keen on 7s and haven’t watched it for a while. I’ve enjoy 15s Union and League. However I recorded the Wellington 7s and I was hooked! The Aust vs. SA, Fiji vs Samoa were crackers. In fact I watched the Aust vs. SA 3 times, twice at home and again at the gym!
I have small kids and I rarely get the chance to watch a full game of League or Union without interruptions (unless its late at night). I loved the Wellington 7s because I could watch it in small chunks (each game going for ~15mins). I could watch one, go and play with the kids, watch another one do something around the house etc… but then I got really hooked. Ok, just one more game… just one more… its only 15 minutes… and by then I was into the finals.
I love the speed, the skill and the unpredictability. How can a team be down 19 nil with 4 minutes remaining and still win!! It’s exciting. Fiji is unbelievable. We’re seriously considering hoping on a plane to go and watch the Adelaide 7s.
I would love it if a FTA network and the ARU decide to replay one 7s game per night from the previous weekend’s IRB World series. It would be a 30 minute time slot. Perhaps the top quarter final match on Monday, the Semis on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Plate final on Thursday and the Cup final on Friday. 7s is a great tournament and the game’s short length is tailored made of a TV slot.
Sam Taulelei said | February 11th 2010 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Sevens has changed a lot since the international sevens series started in 2000. It’s now a specialist game in it’s own right and you’ll rarely see players from the 15 a side game switching to sevens and back again like they used to do. So they are in effect two different games requiring specialist skills, some skills transfer across and some don’t.
While sevens is noted for it’s attacking skills, it’s fantastic for learning how to tackle one on one, you can’t hide as much in sevens rugby and if you can’t tackle you’ll get cruelly exposed.
Rusty said | February 11th 2010 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
From a South African perspective the biggest problem for our sevens team is the recruitment of the star players into the currie cup/Super 14 franchises. Players like Juries, Mokuena, Mapoe, Aplon and a host more all got their initial recognition in the abbreviated format. As you mention – those that have come across specifically into the backline are great on defense and sure know how to beat a man 1 on 1
Sam said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:35am | Report comment
The problem is the same in NZ. The team changes significantly from year to year because many of the players move into NPC or Super 14 teams – especially in the outside backs/loose forwards positions. I think South Africa are doing the best of all the Sevens countries in developing the team because they treat their Sevens squad as a Super 14 team – apparently paying them the same and turning it into a full-time job. The NZ guys would apparently be lucky to get $40,000 a year – hardly a big investment.
King of the Gorganites said | February 11th 2010 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
sevens is RU’s in australia great hope. the game truly showcases the international scope of RU (something RL does NOT have). the game is fast, entertaining and easy to pick up on. more needs to be done to promote the game and get people to start talking postively about our great game again.
sevens will only gorw bigger internationally over the next years. accordingly we should look to grow the game locally. why not create a few local sevens comps.
i have been working on an article, but in summary i propose a tournament that will consist of the following;
- firstly this tournament will not compete with the irb sevens, it will not be palyed at the same time.
- it will be run by a joint parternship with the ARU and NZRU;
- 4 tournaments to be held over 4 weekends (not consevutcie weekends)(3 in aus; Gold coast, Sydney, Melbourme; 1 in NZ; Auckland (or any other NZ town)).
-20 teams. as per the irb WC sevens. teams will be:
-all five super Aus 15 franchises (incl the rebels)to field sides
-all five NZ super rugby sides
-an indigenous side and an maori side (llyoyd McDermott team)
– 7 international teams; mainly pacific island teams, but also look to get the USA and Kenya involed. our game (unlike RL and AFL) is truly a global sport. lets use it to our advantage.
– one local rugby team from the host city. for example in sydney a qualifiying tournament involing all internested subby clubs and grade clubs will be palyed. the winner will get a spot in the tournament.
I believe the above will fill up stadiums and get people watching on tv. more importantly i think it will get kids picking up a gilbert and going to the park to play some sevens rugby! time for the ARU to act.
rugbyfuture said | February 11th 2010 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
I think, personally that if a sevens competition were to be created it should be a launching pad for future domestic(3rd tier) teams rather than using the current s15 teams.
King of the Gorganites said | February 11th 2010 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
the use of super rugby teams would be doen for commercial reasons. put simply it is to get people through the turnstiles and watching on tv. imagine the like of NSW waratahs team with the likes of mitchell, beale, barnes palying with gay adbandon.
if the big names arent involved then the concept wont work.
oikee said | February 11th 2010 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Someone mentioned that sevens has been around for yonks, now ask yourself why its not popular here in oz, and also ask yourself why touch rugby league, rugby league nines and any other form of rugby league is not popular.
Because rugby league at top level is the game of choice. The masses are following the best game. Otherwise if their was no rugby league, sevens would be more popular.
I have mentioned above, along with another guy, i could watch 2 minutes, and then lost interest. I noticed the crowd was trying to have fun also, but i think they were also struggling to make themselves look excited.
Now, how much of this sevens do you think can be dumped on us, before you realise its no more popular than indoor cricket.
Its going to be great in the olympics, i can get my 2 minute update and then move onto other sports, like amatuer boxing, hockey, table tennis, sports that belong in the olympics, along with sevens it seems.
Sam said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
Yeah yeah. We know you love your rugby league, but 7′s is completely different. Still has all the elements of 15′s, but is clearly quicker and more of a loose rather than tight game. The game is actually growing in popularity significantly in most rugby playing countries, and a large number of non-traditional ones. Comparing it to indoor cricket is a joke, compare it to Twenty20 cricket, much more appropriate. You can skip it if you want, but don’t spend more time bagging the sport on these forums then you say you have ever even seen of it! The Samoa/Fiji final was great last week, and the Australia-South Africa match was brilliant.
Siva Samoa said | February 14th 2010 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
is that why wellington, dubai and the hong kong sevens are always sold out every year oikee ? rugby sevens is bigger than rugby league.
Corey said | March 16th 2010 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Douchebag, Dubai never sells out. Once again your propaganda finds you faulted, which seems to be the normality of all the douchebags you buy recently.
Dave said | March 16th 2010 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Dubai has always soldout corey. Post a link then douchebag.
Ora said | February 19th 2010 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Why would New Zealand only get to host one tournament?
Seems a bit rich that Australia gets 3 of 4 considering they’re not exactly super powers of the 7′s game. Wouldn’t it be best to have a two and two split.
Currently we have our National Provincial Sevens tournament in January which is a lead into the IRB sevens at Wellington, this tournament is trul;y national and puts the big boys ANZC provinces against the heartland teams and there were some big upsets namely Horowhenua Kapiti beating Wellington 17 – 14 then they went on to beat Auckland 21-15,
if you want NZ teams to be involved in such a tournament and support it, the pie needs to be shared
King of the Gorganites said | February 19th 2010 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
ha very fair point. i did consider an even split, but remember i am australia and i am looking mainly out for the intersts of the australian game.
another reason i had it as an australian controleld event is that in the past NZ and OZ have not worked effiecently together (i.e 03 WC).
However, i do concede that ‘spiltting the pie’ would be the fairest way. no real issues there. i thnk it would be benefical to both countries. now we just need the powers that be to make it happen.
kiwiinoz said | February 11th 2010 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
Simple answer, rugby yawnion is so damned boring they need something to make it a little more palatable to the masses. Lets face it, kick and clap is not going to win any ratings wars, other than the upper class tossers who go to the odd international game so they are seen in the right places with the right people. League is so much better to watch and play, no doubts.
Matt said | February 12th 2010 @ 7:25am | Report comment
aaahhh this is a little awkward but you drooled a little when you said that.
Realist said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
Spot on kiwiinoz!
Rugby union would probably become a more expansive game if it reduced the worth of penalty goals and drop goals to 2 points and 1 point, respectively. It would give teams a greater incentive to develop their ball skills so they can play an expansive game. The only problem is it would cause the northern hemisphere teams to drop well below the ones from the southern hemisphere.
rugbyfuture said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:20pm | Report comment
id go 2 points right across the board. I’d dispute that league is better to play.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 12:20am | Report comment
What happens when a rugby league team and a rugby union team play two games against each under each code’s rules? I’ve seen this happen a few times. On each occasion the league team scored far more tries and conceded far less when the they played a game of rugby union and a game of rugby league.
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 12:22am | Report comment
this still doesnt mean it is a better game to play. it has purposely evolved to be watched rather than played, rugby is the other way around.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 12:40am | Report comment
“this still doesnt mean it is a better game to play. it has purposely evolved to be watched rather than played, rugby is the other way around.” rugbyfutre
Go ask a winger, centre of halfback which game gives them more opportunity to do something with the ball in hand. I think that pretty much answers your question about which one is better to play. The only people who like playing rugby union are the non-athletic types who aren’t skilled enough — or brave enough for that matter — to do anything with the ball. A person who has no ball skills whatsoever can get by in rugby union by doing nothing other than “contributing” in the rucks, mauls, lineouts and scrums.
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 12:57am | Report comment
you arent answering anything Realist, you’re saying that you think a centre or winger or halfback would enjoy it more. you should go ask the USA rugby team for people who are “non athletic types” since they have olympic runners in their squads.
i could equally say that you should ask a prop, flanker, lock or no.8 which one is better, they do contribute greatly through the competitive background.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
“you arent answering anything Realist, you’re saying that you think a centre or winger or halfback would enjoy it more. you should go ask the USA rugby team for people who are “non athletic types” since they have olympic runners in their squads.” rugbyfuture
Go ask Tahu which code he reckons is better. He’s ‘qualified’ to comment on the issue as he’s played both sports.
“i could equally say that you should ask a prop, flanker, lock or no.8 which one is better, they do contribute greatly through the competitive background’” rugbyfuture
Those blokes play rugby union because it allows them to perform useful tasks off the ball. They’d be useless in rugby league because they’re too clumsy and unskilled to do anything with the ball.
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Technically, you cant use (in science) a subject as a control if they have been influenced by either side differently realist, im sure you can ask gower or gasnier, they’ve played both too.
they’d smash up any rugby league player, they’re all tiny with flimsy builds. They also have many skills and if you’re dissing Rugby forwards ure dissing the foundations of BOTH games.(i wish i knew HTML code to Italicise things but i dont). If you don’t like forwards fine, but get rid of them and rename your precious sport because it aint rugby.
BTW thats another 1 to rugby posts you’ve done.
ps I wouldn’t say Tahu played for both, more sat on the sidelines coz he wasn’t good enough in rugby
big Kev said | February 13th 2010 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
Realist wrote:
Go ask Tahu which code he reckons is better. He’s ‘qualified’ to comment on the issue as he’s played both sports.
Yeah right Tahu is qualified to comment after what 10 games of rugby union ever v 100s in League. Rather ask Lote or Jonathan Davies or Michael O’Conner or Brad Thorn even. You might get a more accurate answer.
Realist wrote:
Those blokes play rugby union because it allows them to perform useful tasks off the ball. They’d be useless in rugby league because they’re too clumsy and unskilled to do anything
and how about Ben Kennedy or Scott Gourley or Brad Thron – all successful Union forwards who shone at League.
Lets all laugh about how Willie Mason and the like would go at Union….. you think they’re tough enough? Or athletic enough? Don’t think so
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
“and how about Ben Kennedy or Scott Gourley or Brad Thron – all successful Union forwards who shone at League” big Kev
There’s always an exception to the general rule.
Siva Samoa said | February 14th 2010 @ 10:44pm | Report comment
another paranoid kiwi getting upset because the biggest event in new zealands history is coming next year. a kiwi bloke talking about tv ratings in australia. ha ha. rugby is played in nz by more working class men than.
reague is so much better to watch and play, no doubts.
Realist said | February 11th 2010 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
” our game (unlike RL and AFL) is truly a global sport. lets use it to our advantage.”
LOL
Rugby union is far from being a global sport. Its foothold is primarily based in the countries that were linked with the British Empire. The British exported to the game to a few countries outside of the British Empire, too.
The depth in international rugby union isn’t much greater than rugby league. At the moment you have 4 or 6 nations who can compete with one another reguarly, another 4 or 6 who can hang on to avoid losing by 30 or so points when they play the top-ranked sides and, a whole heap of countries who’ll get flogged by 60 or so points when they play the top 5. THe fact the Wallabies are ranked 3rd on the IRB World Rankings proves there’s very little depth in the sport and, the fact it took Scotland around 2 and a half decades to narrowly defeat Australia — an average Australian team that still managed to score the game’s only try because Scotland’s players are too clumsy and too unskilled to put together an attacking play that’s above the standard of an U-5′s rugby league competition — shows that the international game is very predictable and a bore to watch.
bennalong said | February 11th 2010 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
Realist’
I doubt from your comments that you watch Rugby at all. I don’t mind that you don’t like the game but your arguments against it as a global sport are childish twaddle. Why bother? Nothing better to watch/do?
Realist said | February 11th 2010 @ 7:32pm | Report comment
“your arguments against it as a global sport are childish twaddle.” — bennalong
I guess that’s why you’re incapable of refuting them.
Working Class Rugger said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
Realist
The depth of international Rugby far exceeds that of League. It’s not even close. There are only 3 competitive Nations in League while there are 10 in Rugby. Adding to that the level directly below (11 -25) is very competitve. While the next best in League there are huge differences in skill and competitiveness.
Realist said | February 12th 2010 @ 10:43pm | Report comment
“Realist
The depth of international Rugby far exceeds that of League. It’s not even close. There are only 3 competitive Nations in League while there are 10 in Rugby. Adding to that the level directly below (11 -25) is very competitve. While the next best in League there are huge differences in skill and competitiveness.
” — Working Class Rugger
The “list” of competitive nations in rugby union drops to about 4 or 5 when you judge them by the quality of their backlines — which is the real measure of skill! The only reason the Scotlands, Italys, Englands, Argentinas and Frances of the world can compete with Australia, South Africa and New Zealand is because they can score the bulk of their points through penalty goals and drop goals.
You don’t think there’s a huge difference between the “skill and competitiveness” of the backlines of the Australian Wallabies and Scottish teams? The Wallabies’ backline is a joke that would lose 100-0 if it were to play against the Kangaroos’ backline, yet it is far superior to the Scots’ pathetic excuse for a backline. And don’t even bother mentioning England’s backline. If drop goals and penalty goals were taken out of the game then England would probably end up with zero points beside their name after a match against the weak Wallabies.
In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve just pointed out that your game’s so-called “skill and competitiveness” is an oxymoron — it is based on your sport’s weaker, unskilled teams scoring their points through drop goals and penalty goals [in order to keep up on the score board] because they don’t have the skill that’s required to score their points through tries! It means the main point of your game, scoring tries, is no longer a necessary skill and, is becoming redundant. Thankfully, this is one ofthe reason syour sport is dying in Australia. The bulk of Australians aren’t interested in kick-fests between teams that have unskilled backlines. I wouldn’t be surprised if your sport’s lack of focus on try scoring leads to the game losing its high-status profile in New Zealand over the next 40 or so years. Evdience from New Zealand suggests the people are sick and tired of “boring rugby” — even the coach of the All Blacks reckons the game is boring and needs to be changed.
Big Kev said | February 13th 2010 @ 6:49am | Report comment
Good one about the Kangaroos backline! How about including these Kangaroos; Tuquiri, Sailor, Rogers & Tahu. Add in Chambers and any pair of RL halves you want and despite the fact that most of them have actually played top level rugby, they would concede over 50.
League players have no concept of one on one defence. Just ask Tahu about Jean DeVilliers or Rogers who never made 1 tackle in 4 seasons in Union. As for your league wingers, 1 dimensional, can’t pass, kick or even turn. Those are facts – just watch the majority of the abovementioneds performances in rugby.
Now let’s see how Wallabies who switched to RL have gone…. Hmm O’Connor, Stuart, Price, Fairfax, Gourley etc. Played for the Kangaroos (and not just for PR!)
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
“Good one about the Kangaroos backline! How about including these Kangaroos; Tuquiri, Sailor, Rogers & Tahu.”
The Wallabies’ backline was far stronger when it had the first three of those blokes in it. You only have to compare the Wallabies’ performances at the ’03 and ’07 World Cups to see how much the backline relied upon rugby league converts to give it the spark they needed to defeat the big guns. The Wallabies were a joke at the ’07 World Cup because they did’t have a genuine playmaker like Matt Roger in their side.
“Now let’s see how Wallabies who switched to RL have gone…. Hmm O’Connor, Stuart, Price, Fairfax, Gourley etc. Played for the Kangaroos (and not just for PR!)” Big Kev
Great work Kev, you’ve just shown that rugby union-to-rugby league converts haven’t done squat since the game became fully professional! There were many converts when the players weren’t as skiled and weren’t as fit as they are today, but since then there has been very little in the way of rugby union players contributing to rugby league. Andrew Leeds was a former Wallaby wasn’t he? He never amounted to much in rugby league — he played fullback for a dud club that couldn’t afford to buy anyone decent during its last decade in the top league.
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
they didn’t have mat rogers on their side for most the time he was signed! he kept getting too bruised to play, because he was too weak. Wendell did nothing, he was as unskilled as any “great” rugby league convert. Tuqiri here is an exception because he is just such a great athlete (also rugby background). read his tweets and you’ll see he cares more for rugby than league, and really only cares about his family and australia.
we’ll see how they go in the 2011 RWC.
the whole little Rugby players converting to league thing is because once you get to pro levels in rugby it isn’t worth going to league, however they have poached many, many school boys, who are making your boys look weak. some properly converting back to real Rugby.
this makes five today, two more and you have an extra 10% of your comments dedicated to rugby.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
“read his tweets and you’ll see he cares more for rugby than league, and really only cares about his family and australia.”
I guess that’s why he has taken a pay cut to play more games for less money in rugby league…
“however they have poached many, many school boys, who are making your boys look weak” rugbyfuture
Have you followed Berrick Barnes’ career? If so then you’d know he doesn’t fit the moronic stereotype you’re trying to cast off. He was alright in the Queensland Cup, but he never made any headlines when he played for the Broncos. He ended up running to the QRU because he was just a fringe player for the Broncos. The QRL picked him up and straight away he was the shining light that gave them hope on the field. The Reds were a decent team when Barnes was on the field — they were poor when he was off it.
big Kev said | February 13th 2010 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
mate – not even close to fact. both Sailor and Rogers were far from regulars in the side and in fact only got game time at the 2003 RWC because of injuries. Steve Larkham was 10 times the playmaker Mat Rogers ever was, and he didn’t miss every second tackle either. Rogers was next to useless. As for Sailor, better wingers like Scott Staniforth and Mark Bartholomeuz were lost to Australian rugby because of the money wasted on that useless, slow waste of space
And by the way there are hardly any Union converts to league now because they only did it for the money and now there is far more money in Union than League so the tide has turned.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 10:25pm | Report comment
Steve Larkham was a very good playmaker. He’s the only talented flyhalf — other than Barnes — that I’ve seen play the game in the modern era.
“I don’t consider myself a celebrity,” he said. “And I’ve got a great family that makes sure it stays that way. It doesn’t matter if I’m playing union for Australia, they still reckon I’m not good enough to play reserve grade in rugby league.” Matt Giteau
Giteau sure is “great” by rugby union standards, but he aint up to the standard that’s required to be a playmaker in rugby league.
“I’ve played for the Wallabies in a World Cup final, the Maroons and the Kangaroos and I have absolutely no doubt that Origin football is the toughest you’ll play in either code,” Matt Rogers
“Except for the front row, there’s no reason why a rugby league player couldn’t quickly adapt. They certainly have more superior skills with the ball in their hands than the Wallaby forwards.” Dual international, John Gray.
big Kev said | February 13th 2010 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
firstly Giteau is certainly not rated as a great in Aus rugby, never mind world rugby. To my knowledge he was not selcted in the Aus team of the decade nor any officially chosen world XV. He doesnt play rugby league, he plays rugby union so I frankly couldnt care whether you think he would be a decent playmaker in RL – it is irrelevant, but I would bet my bottom dollar he would be a better halfback than 90% of those in the NRL.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
Big Kev,
You live in a fantasy world.
Matt Giteau won the John Eales medal last year. He’s a senior member of the Wallabies’ squad too. To suggest he’s not a “big thing” in Australian rugby is just stupid.
What about Andrew Walker? He never amounted to much when he played rugby league, but was a huge thing in rugby union!
big Kev said | February 13th 2010 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
I certainly did not say he is “not a big thing in Aus rugby” I said he was not a “great” of Aus rugby and ranks well behind Tim Horan, Michael Lynagh, Steve Larkham et al. Dont put words in my mouth. He was also dropped as vice captain last year and would have been moved back to 12 if Barnes had not been injured.
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
can i have a link as to who john gray is?
also realist, you forget, Matt giteau’s family is a traditionally league family…(probs know the business well)
oh and is that 3 more comments on rugby boards?
Sam said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
What rubbish, and how is this relevant? This thread is about 7′s – which due to the short nature of the game is much more even. Kenya, Fiji, New Zealand, Samoa, Australia, England, Scotland, Wales, France, South Africa, Canada, Argentina, Tonga and USA – all capable of beating any of the others. The semi-finalists in the 7′s World Cup last year were Samoa, Wales, Argentina and Kenya – none of them considered 7′s super-powers.
Justin said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
I love the line “the depth isn’t much greater”, gold realist, absolute gold!! Straight to the top of the class for champion, you’ve done it again.
What number in the world were Scotland? Does that number exists in RL? If it does it would be around WC time when anyone with a passport gets a game for Russia or Lebanon.
Try sticking to the topic of 7s can you?
Big Kev said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:31pm | Report comment
what a load of rubbish. Only a handful of countries have ever won the FIFA World Cup – does that mean it isnt a truly global game? Sri Lanka arent likely to ever win the world cup but there are still more rugby players there than there are league players in NZ who won the last world cup! Fact is there are probably 30+ countries with more registered rugby union players than all but Aus, England and PNG!
Realist said | February 12th 2010 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
“Only a handful of countries have ever won the FIFA World Cup – does that mean it isnt a truly global game?” Big Kev
Unlike rugby union, the top 50 or so countries in soccer have a realistic chance of defeating the top 5. In rugby union, only a few teams have a realistic hope of defeating the top 5.
Justin said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
Suggest you check how many teams have won the FIFA WC, particularly the last 6-8. In any event the very nature of soccer lends itself to closer matches and occasional upsets. The soccer boys will tell you the same,but when it matter the cream rises….
rugbyfuture said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
you actually believe the socceroos can win the World cup?
I have no doubt they can make it through past the pools but really?
18 World Cups, 7 countries have won it, 5 to brazil.
6 Rugby World Cups, 4 countries have won it. highest is two, to south africa and australia respectively
thats around double the amount of chances of a different country winning the Rugby World cup over the World cup.
compare this further, 13 League World cups, 3 teams winning, 9 of which have been won by australia
thats a third of the likelihood, based on statistics, that a different country will win it than the RWC.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 12:16am | Report comment
What those statistics don’t tell you is that the four nations that have won the RWC are the ones who’ve dominated the sport for the last 100 or so years. The other thing it doesn’t tell you is that the most dominant team during the 1987 to 2000 and 2004-2009 period, the All Blacks, have choked against weaker teams at the last 3 world cups and, the only reason South Africa won the 1995 World Cup was because one of the employees at the All-Blacks’ hotel poisoned the players’ food on the night before the match. It’s impossible for a team to play well when they’ve been up all night with the runs!
Brazil have dominated the soccer world cup because they aren’t chokers.
The top 50 teams in soccer have a realistic chance of defeating one another in an international match, albeit it on an occasional basis only. The IRB cannot say the same about its top 50 teams, can it?
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 12:20am | Report comment
well doesnt the strong team choking still mean that there is a greater chance of winning the world cup?
and that theory is disputed.
its all good that brazil arent chokers but its still a maintained statistic
i’d like to see the socceroos defeat brazil or england but they have no chance, thats basically top 25 rounded into already. the IRB can say it about the top 10 and thats still greater than the top 3. League World cup should just play a 3 nations round robin to determine it.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 12:30am | Report comment
“i’d like to see the socceroos defeat brazil or england but they have no chance” rugbyfuture
LOL
Australia has already defeated England and Brazil: Australia defeated England 3-1 on English soil during the early 2000′s and; Australia defeated Brazil at a Confederations Cup tournament. Both of the aforementioned victories were scored by teams that were less competitive than the current one.
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 1:05am | Report comment
and scotland defeated australia, and France south africa and wales have defeated australia before and argentina france england and wales.
you’re still avoiding the main debate about leagues comparativity to Rugby too. in which case i’d like you to go through that one and see the top three defeated
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 1:33am | Report comment
out of interest realist, i ran up statistics on your registered comments under the “realist” username (wondering what the definition of a troller is)
67 comments
7 rugby league- 10%
[ (responses in league threads)
2 for rugby – 3%
1 AFL – 1.5%]
3 on Australian sport (general)- 4.5%
57 on rugby – 85%
this means that 6.5% of your comments are on League, which for a rugby league fan is surprising.
Can you try and talk about these stats as if they were untrue? feel free to go through my comments and articles (yes i contribute unlike some) and find the stats on that.
so just finishing off, what was that troll definition anyone?
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
“and scotland defeated australia, and France south africa and wales have defeated australia before and argentina france england and wales.
you’re still avoiding the main debate about leagues comparativity to Rugby too. in which case i’d like you to go through that one and see the top three defeated” rugbyfuture
If you’re going to include Australia’s defeats to scotland and Wales then you better acknowledge the fact the Papua New Guinea Kumals have defeated the England Lions and New Zealand Kiwis.
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Ok realist, i acknowledge that, but thats still double the amount of countries with competitive results. and did you see your stats?
thats three more Rugby posts attributed to you.
big Kev said | February 13th 2010 @ 10:12pm | Report comment
In the past 4 years Ireland have beaten England, SA and Aus. France have beaten all the top sides. Argentina have beaten France and SA. Wales have beaten Aus and SA and England. There are a legitimate top 8 in World Rugby.:
SA
NZ
Aus
England
France
Wales
Ireland
Argentina
In RL there are really only 3 countries that actually play the sport in any sort of number. As a comparison of the international reach of the 2 games, a country like Sri Lanka or Georgia or the USA would have more registered rugby players than the RL world cup holders and no 2 team in the world, NZ has league players so stop spouting your FFS Rugby 7s is a far bigger sport than RL.
King of the Gorganites said | February 11th 2010 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
ha realist you make me laugh. you honestly do. you and oikee are quite the combination. i must admit that you league fans really know how to make me laugh.
your numbers on the amount of teams who can compete is wrong. i list them as 8:
NZ
Aus
SA
Eng
Eire
Wales
Arg
France
Below that you have teams that can throw up the occassional upset;
Scotland (beat Aus recently)
Fiji (beat Wales in the 2007 world cup and almost beat the eventual champions SA in the q final
Italy
Samoa
Below that is a number of teams where rugby is played on a large scal, professional leagues exist and people passionately support the game.
should we compare this to RL and their mickey mouse world cup? Fiji made the semi finals for crying out loud! this is a country with no professional league, no professional players (excluding Hayne who surprsuingly is Fijian! apparently…., a country where RU dominates. yet they are the 4th best league nation?
lets look at your ‘world’ chsmpions- NZ- 1 professional RL team. 20,000 registered players (less then the amount of RU players in russia).
the simple fact is your game is irrelvant on the international sporting landscape.
the future is bright for RU thanks to the excting 7′s game.
oh and just a history lesson. the following countries where rugby is popular and gorwing were never part of the British empire:
Italy
France
Spain
Russia
Georgia
Romania
Japan
Urugauy
Tunisia
Portugal
Argentina
the list goes on……….
Realist said | February 12th 2010 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
“oh and just a history lesson. the following countries where rugby is popular and gorwing were never part of the British empire:
Italy
France
Spain
Russia
Georgia
Romania
Japan
Urugauy
Tunisia
Portugal
Argentina
the list goes on……….” — King of the Gorganites
I never said the aforementioned nations were part of the British Empire, did I? Nor did I say the only nations that play the game are those that are still linked with the Commonwealth What I said is the British introduced rugby union to nations like Argentina and France (which led to the Romanians learning the game from the French, thus meaning the English were the first link in the chain that made it possible for the game to reach Romania) and, that most of the nations that take the game seriously were members of the British Empire, as was made evident when the television viewing figures for the RWC Final were broken down by nationality. The English played a huge role in spreading the game to nations like Spain and France — both of which contain a large population of English expatriates and, attract many English tourists each year.
For the record buddy, Argentina has been close to Britain for centuries. See for yourself if you don’t believe me:
“We can come to the conclusion that Argentina and all of South America was indeed a British creation.
…
To help reinforce this point is the fact that subsequently a great many British and Imperial subjects took the opportunity of relocating and settling in Argentina and South America. Even today, Argentina has a population of over 500,000 British subjects, the largest such population outside of the British Commonwealth Countries or the United States. Argentina and England remained the best of friends and closest of allies until after WWII.” BritishEmpire[DOT]UK, British interest in South America was not as casual as many have assumed.
“your numbers on the amount of teams who can compete is wrong. i list them as 8:
NZ
Aus
SA
Eng
Eire
Wales
Arg
France” — King of the Gorganites
How many of them have a realistic chance of winning the world cup? About 4 or 6. The likelihood of France, Argentina, Ireland or Wales winning the world cup is quite low.
“should we compare this to RL and their mickey mouse world cup? Fiji made the semi finals for crying out loud! this is a country with no professional league, no professional players (excluding Hayne who surprsuingly is Fijian! apparently…., a country where RU dominates. yet they are the 4th best league nation?”
Fiji are not the 4th best nation in rugby league! PNG proved they’re better than Fiji when they defeated them last year.
“ha realist you make me laugh. you honestly do. you and oikee are quite the combination. i must admit that you league fans really know how to make me laugh.” King of the Gorganites
The bat-shit insane comments you’ve made about rugby union and rugby league over the last few weeks suggest you’re not in a position to judge rugby league fans. For example, you were silly enough to say that rugby union was ahead of rugby league in Australia during the early 2000′s and, that rugby union would overtake rugby league in 2011. Even some of your fellow rugby fans admitted that rugby union has never been bigger in Australia than rugby league.
Justin said | February 12th 2010 @ 10:53pm | Report comment
Realist stop making me laugh, you’ve more gold than the Reserve Bank.
Realist said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:03pm | Report comment
Justin,
You find “history” to be funny? If not then what are you laughing at? There’s nothing incorrect in my post.
Justin said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:33pm | Report comment
I wont comment on RL rankings, there are only 3 teams.
However if you think a team that has been to the semi’s 5 times and the final twice has a low chance of winning then we just judge things a little differently.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 12:03am | Report comment
“However if you think a team that has been to the semi’s 5 times and the final twice has a low chance of winning then we just judge things a little differently”
I take it you’re referring to France. You do realise they were flogged in both of the finals they appeared in, right? There’s a big difference between having a realistic chance at winning a world cup and being flogged when you get to the final! What you’re suggesting is the same as saying Andy Murray has a realistic chance of defeating Roger Federer in a Grand Slam final because he reached the final of the Australian Open.
“I wont comment on RL rankings, there are only 3 teams.” — Justin
Why, because the Kumals aren’t strong enough to defeat the top 3 nations? Since when does the 4th ranked team need to be beat the top 3? Few players on the ATP circuit can defeat Roger Federer, but it doesn’t stop them from having a ranking system from 1 to about 1,000 (or more).
Can Scotland defeat the All-Blacks? If not, then does that mean the teams ranked below Scotland don’t count?
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 12:12am | Report comment
realist, you just realised you criticised rugby for teams not realistically being able to defeat the top five then said it doesnt matter right? Scotland are currently 10th so it fits in with what you are saying only slightly, that the top 10, thats 10 can have a chance yes.
France, argentina and wales all have great chances of winning, as i’ve pointed out above, much more than any other football world cups.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 12:34am | Report comment
“realist, you just realised you criticised rugby for teams not realistically being able to defeat the top five then said it doesnt matter right? Scotland are currently 10th so it fits in with what you are saying only slightly, that the top 10, thats 10 can have a chance yes.” rugbyfuture
No I didn’t. I said there are only 4 or 6 teams that have a realistic hope of winning the world cup. Then I said there are only a few teams that have a realistic hope of defeating the top 5. The’s a big difference between defeating the 5th ranked team and winning the world cup.
“France, argentina and wales all have great chances of winning, as i’ve pointed out above, much more than any other football world cups.”
None of those teams have come close to winning the world cup: France were flogged in the two finals they played in; neither Argentina nor Wales have ever made the final. Has Wales ever made it to the semi-finals? I know Scotland did during the early days, but I don’t know about Wales.
Your “statistics” don’t point to France, Argentina and Wales having a great chance at winning. All they show is that the four dominant nations have won it.
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 1:01am | Report comment
no, you said that League having three countries that are unbeatable by any other country doesnt matter after stating a similar “problem” according to you in Rugby, except with double or triple the amount of teams.
as for rugby and telling me about flaws in the stats, i was refferring to them having greater chance than in other sports, which is true.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
“no, you said that League having three countries that are unbeatable by any other country doesnt matter after stating a similar “problem” according to you in Rugby, except with double or triple the amount of teams.”
I was showing your mate that his definition of a ranking system — he claimed that only the teams who can defeat the best can be ranked — equates to the the bottom 86 teams on the IRB rankings system (almost nine-tenthes) being irrelevant.
“as for rugby and telling me about flaws in the stats, i was refferring to them having greater chance than in other sports, which is true.”
The statistic about four nations having won the six RWCs that have been held since 1987 can be countered by showing you that 4 nations won the first six FIFA world cups that were held!
1930 — Uruguay
1934 — Italy
1938 — Italy
1950 — Uruguay
1954 — West Germany
1958 — Brazil
The difference between the FIFA world cup and the RWC is the former has more nations that are capable of winning it, as is evident by the diversity of nations that have reached the FIFA World Cup semi-finals. The semi-finals of the RWC are usually contested by a small core of nations. This illustrates the greater depth in the FIFA World CUp.
Other winners of the FIFA World Cup include England, Argentina and France. The likelihood of another 3 nations winning the RWC is highly improbable. Nations like Wales, Argentina, Ireland and France don’t have the firepower to compete with the likes of South Africa, England, Australia and New Zealand on a regular basis: France have shown they’re capable of defeating an underperforming All-Blacks’ outfit, but they’re yet to prove they can follow it up with a victory against the other major teams; Argentina were thrashed by South Africa in the RWC’07 semi final and, are unlikely to ever have a team capable of matching the one it fielded on that day; Wales’ thashing by the Wallabies last year shows they struggle to compete on a week-in-week-out basis against the southern hemisphere’s best teams and; Ireland have never made it past the quarter-finals.
rugbyfuture said | February 13th 2010 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
and back to the LWC realist?
Siva Samoa said | February 14th 2010 @ 11:17pm | Report comment
anybody who thinks the french national team is not a major rugby team is an idiot. realist is trying to say that fiji is now a major rugby league nation because they reach the rugby league world cup semi.
lets see how rugby league make sure some useless countries made the semi final. fiji were pooled with france and scotland.
fiji beat france 42-6
major rugby league nation of scotland beat fiji 18-16
fiji beat another major rugby league power house ireland 30-14 to make the semi-final.
so fiji never played england, new zealand, australia, samoa, tonga or png in a pool game. they pretty much walk into the rlwc semi playing some useless made up teams from superleague.
the fact is that most of the fijian team were made up of players not good enough to make the rugby union national team so the fijian rugby union team would have become the fouth best nation in rugby league.
Corey said | March 16th 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
This is a reply to Siva, why the hell did most of the Fijian players move out to Fassifern, its bloody close to where I live. The community loved them, no fringe player in Fiji would leave their family for a game they don’t really wanna play and move to another country, especially to a place like Fassifern. Go there and you will know what I mean. You astound me in the amount of tripe you can conjure up in a couple of lines. I have never seen some one who can create so many lies with such few words.
hutch said | February 11th 2010 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
the only chance of australia winning a gold medal at the olympics is with hayne, slater, inglis and co running out for them. i cant really see nrl clubs allowing their players a few weeks off to play in a rival code though.
True Tah said | February 11th 2010 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
hutch
as good as those guys are, the Fijian 7s team would run rings around those blokes.
Big Kev said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
I am in PNG at the moment and a local colleague told me a whole bunch of top local league players were starting to play Union 7s as they wanted to play in the Olympics. Given that part from Aus, this is the only country in the world where Union is bigger than League, that is quite a positive for Union 7s.
Springs said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
Haha, did you realise what you wrote?
Norm said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
Of course he doesn’t.
Sam said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
I think you meant that League is bigger than Union in PNG, but I get your point. Yeah apparently most of the PNG team at the Wellington Sevens last week switch between Rugby League and Rugby 7′s, so they can play league domestically and compete in the IRB Sevens Series (and potentially Olympics I imagine) without having to play one exclusively. I think it’s great, means they get to play both games they love, why should they choose? They were alright at the 7′s last weekend, hope their coach Serevi can have a big influence on them and make them more competitive.
Rod said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:45am | Report comment
What are you smoking True Tah, these Fijians aren’t even pro players yet they’d run rings around the likes of slater and Inglis lol.
If they were so good, they’d be playing in their 15′s sides now or the NRL clubs would have signed them up.
I’ve seen these so called Union 7′s teams play that manage to beat the likes of Australia and NZ, did you ever noticed these Top Union nations do not include any top name players?
They are full of nobodies and that is fact.
I watched on youtube last week, Wigan absolutely smashing WASPs (I think it was WASPS) at Union 7′s, it wasn’t even a contest, yet the Leaguies were playing Union rules, the Union mob went out to a 10 point lead and the Union commentators were getting wood, it didn’t last long as Wigan put on over 30 points without reply
rugbyfuture said | February 12th 2010 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
I think you mistake loyalty for skill.
let me point out that wigan it seems are slowly converting if they’re playing the sevens game.
True Tah said | February 12th 2010 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
When did Wigan SMASH Wasps at 7s?
7s is a differant game to either RL of RU 15s – and these Fijians have a knack for pulling off things you do not expect in 7s.
Rod said | February 12th 2010 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
True Tah
Go to Youtube and type in “wigan vs Wasps”, I watched it last week.
I’m looking to see if I can find the Bradford Bulls games from a couple of years later where they had their SL game the night before and their bus broke down on the way to the game, followed by a walk in the park in the Union Middlesex 7′s
I also watched the Wigan vs Bath cross code games from the beginning of SL, type in
RUGBY MATCH XIII VS XV WIGAN Vs BATH XV 8 MAI 1996 (part 5)
There’s about 17 parts to it.
Sam said | February 12th 2010 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
Rugby Sevens is the national sport in Fiji – using a Wasps Wigan club game comparison is a waste of time. The top nations do include some of their top players in the major competitions, but it isn’t all that successful. Australia tried it at the last commonwealth games and it got them nothing. Best to include players that play sevens regularly. Samoa started only selecting Samoan based players for their sevens team a few years ago (rather than overseas based professionals) and although they are only semi-pro, their team has done better and better, started winning tournaments and got to the semi’s of last years World Cup.
The Fijians are impressive though, have all the physical attributes you need, and ball skills as good as any top rugby or league player. Plus they have instincts in 7′s that most 15′s and league players just don’t have. I would back them over a scratch team of top league/15′s players any day.
Rod said | February 12th 2010 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
If they were any good, they’d be getting the big $$$$$$ from NRL/SL/Top14/Super14/GP and any other decent comp.
The fact is, they are not.
I also noticed you more or less right off what Wigan did, these guys had never played Union before and they not only went out and played, they flogged them all at their own game.
Could you imagine any Union team having no practice going into a RL 7s/9s comp and beating the Storm, Parra or the Broncos?
Not on your life.
Sam said | February 13th 2010 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Read my post again, specifically the Serevi portion – just because you are good at 7′s doesn’t mean you earn the big $$$$ in 15′s because the games are so different. I really don’t think you know what you are talking about, can you name anyone in the Fiji team? I’d also like to remind you that Tuquiri, Giteau and Latham all played in the 2006 Commonwealth games team, but did they run rings around Fiji? They all earned the big $$$ in 15′s, and Tuquiri in the NRL as well. League and Sevens are not that similar, keep quoting your Wigan vs Wasps game, but it’s a very poor example.
Realist said | February 13th 2010 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
“Read my post again, specifically the Serevi portion – just because you are good at 7’s doesn’t mean you earn the big $$$$ in 15’s because the games are so different.” Sam
Which could be the downfall of Rugby XV’s. If the bulk of the sport’s growth and marketability around the world is attributed to Rugby 7′s then the longer format find it harder to push into new markets.
Siva Samoa said | February 15th 2010 @ 12:09am | Report comment
you wish realist but sevens rugby aint going to give you the $500,000 or $1million a year contract that toulon, all blacks, wallabies, ulster, st francais, tolouse and many clubs give out.
i think rod has a very short memory. there’s not enough space on here to write down the names of sevens players from fiji, nz, samoa, australia, south africa that are now or were on full professional contract in the xv game.
here’s a couple
jonah lomu
christian cullen
tim horan
jason little
noa nadruku
brian lima
fred tuilagi
apollo perelini
william rider
liam messam
corey jane
vunibaka
rubeni caucau
joeli vendiri
kingi
scott fava
matt giteau
zinzan brooke
dallas seymore
pat lam
and many many more.
I also noticed you more or less right off what Wigan did, these guys had never played Union before – rod
next time you post you should do your home work first rod.
The Wigan squad contains four former union men. One, Martin Offiah, is well remembered by union aficionados for his Middlesex Sevens feats for Rosslyn Park. Another, Scott Quinnell, is about to return to union with Richmond, who may be sorry to be Wigan’s first opponents at 12.40pm.
The former All Black Va’aiga Tuigamala – whose brother Lua is in today’s Orrell squad – and the Samoan 1995 World Cup flanker, Shem Tatupu, complete the quartet.
a former england school rugby union international shaun edwards was also playing for wigan.
big Kev said | February 13th 2010 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
yeah funny that who was the star for Wigan that day? Tuigimala, a former Union player with far more experience playing Rugby 7s than most of the Wasps team. Martin Offiah also played, another Union player poached to League. A Rugby XVs side is by no means a decent 7s side and given that those guys porbably play ine pre-seasons 7s comp a year I dont think you should be jumping up and down too much about the win.
But I will say RL players are more suited to Rugby 7s than XVs and I think you will see the transition to play in the Olympics in GB, Aus, PNG.
Siva Samoa said | February 14th 2010 @ 11:36pm | Report comment
rod. sevens rugby in england and in europe at the time of the wigan victory was a joke. even my club team from samoa won the middlesex title easily in 1992.
any club teams from the southern hemisphere could have won that tournament. between 1996 and 2005 northhampton saints was the only english premiership team to win the middlesex title in 2003.
1996 Wigan Warriors (RL)
1997 Barbarians
1998 Barbarians
1999 Penguins
2000 Penguins
2001 British Army
2002 Bradford Bulls (RL)
2003 Northampton Saints
2004 British Army
fijian don’t have to be pro to beat other countries or to be good. sevens is very big in fiji. you can have all the professional players from xv’s in the nz and australian sevens team and fiji will still beat or compete against them.
fiji were still great at sevens when wallabies, all blacks and other international xv’s players were representing their countries at the hong kong and dubai sevens in the 80′s and 90′s.
rugbyfuture said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:39pm | Report comment
I’m gonna be brutally honest here, for those of you who can’t understand argument. Piss off leagueys. we’ve heard it, we’ve debated, and we’ve won on those issues. Deal with it, stop bothering bringing them up, your repeating yourself. If anything, you should be shutting up because you all believe its a conspiracy by private schoolboys to keep rugby alive in australia, and i’m not sure about you, but from what i experienced at my private school, we’re also quite good at debating.
you can’t win things by just yelling them out all the time. thats not how it works.
I would like to see the roar one day, possibly host a proper debate (in person and see how you fair).
but for now, stick to what was a given and stay out. I’d urge all Rugby folk to stay out of league posts as well if there isn’t productive comment. but for now the likes of norm, and realist, and oikee can stick to their opinion, thats fine, but give up, coz we’re as stubborn as you.
oikee said | February 12th 2010 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Rugby future, sorry mate, feel free to come on the rugby league sites. Without debate, we would not grow. Sorry about my posts, i can see the attraction of sevens.
I can also be the biggest critic of rugby league at times. We are run by a pack of mungo’s. Be nice to have the grunt of rugby union pushing the game.
rugbyfuture said | February 12th 2010 @ 11:15am | Report comment
well atleast you took my comment partially, something i would not grace someone saying something like that to me. I do believe that these debates create passion however. I hope that one day you spot the brilliance in the real rugby
It seems that there are many leagueys though, who will not take to some facts about Rugby which they would take about league and these people are the ones who don’t deserve to venture out of their native sports tab.