Which style is better: Wallabies or Dragons?

Gamebreakers don't have to score tries,they are there also to create the opportunities.A creative forward such as Beetson in the past can be a game breaker.Soward and Boyd make sufficient breaks to set up supports.It is up to the supports to be instinctive enough to react.Man of the match awards tend to support also my view.Gallen(Sharks) can be a gamebreaker with his offloads,ask the Roosters. Deft kicking such as the bomb,or inside passes to the likes of Creagh and cut out passes to Morris. Sorry I disagree but I will agree with the regimented defense of the Dragons.Pity the Walls were not as capable in that important aspect of either rugby code.

The fact that the format of RU may be slightly more complex than those of RL or AFL is not really the explanation per se for the relative popularity of the codes as RU is the mass code in more countries than either AFL or RL. It's just that the formats of AFL and RL have been simplified to deliver more real action wherein the real comlpexity lies than does RU. RU has more stoppages and thus less time with the ball in play hence less opportunity for the genuine complexity of ball in play action. The action when it takes place is just as good (often) and unpredictable as the other codes but there is just less of it, particularly for spectators in Australia accustomed the constant action of these other codes. It seems RU supporters prefer the less contiuous action of RU. Maybe it does provide more opporunities for reflection and analysis and discussion of the ref's rulings and the game tactics for the afficianados, as does cricket, whereas new spectators accustomed to other codes just wonder why the game has to keep stopping all the time. SOme people prefer more action, others more reflection and discussion. As far as breathtaking v clinical......??

I don't think either Boyd or Soward are gamebreakers. Boyd is a good playmaking fullback but he's scored two tries all year. Two! Guess how many he scored last year, that's right two tries! He works well in their team but a game breaker he isn't. Soward has a great kicking game and a good pass but doesn't get involved enough. WIthout their defence the Dragons wouldn't be nearly as good as they are.

CityRascal I responded as to the comparison drawn between the style of football played,betweena ru national side and an NRL side. Therefore it is quite appropriate to respond by contrasting the styles of other NRL teams to the Wallabies,to argue my case. After all it was the author that introduced a NRL team into the equation. Failry obvious one would have thought.

So Jamie Soward is not a game breaking player,and I am not and have never been a St George fan.Throw in Darius Boyd.Give me a break LOL. Yeah! well if you are into lineouts rucks scrums etc and all the technicalities known to man,the Wallabies are entertaining.Horses for courses. One thing they do currently have in common with St George of latter years.They know how to choke.If you call that entertainment. Maybe the real comparison should be between RU national sides.the comparison thrown up is like comparing apples with pommygranites.

Obserevr, Because the poster I was replying to compare the Tigers-Roosters game to any Wallaby game. Quite simple really.

If left is saying the Saints boring football wins matches then he's right. The only people excited by it are St George fans. I think part of it is they really don't have game breaking players. If they did have Slater, Hayne (when he feels like it) they would use them more. But they play very conservative, boring football and try to win it with their defence and field position. The Walabies on the other hand are a good team to watch at the moment. I don't think their problem is that they try to run the ball, it's more their lineouts, scrum, counter rucking, restarts, goal kicking. Just take your pick, they will be hopeless at one aspect of the game and get punished. When Sth Africa were boring as hell and winning games they dominated most aspects of the game as well.

Basically Rugby Union has lost its way. 20 years ago it was a great game, now its slow and BORING. yes its about field possession, but the rule changes with 3 points for a penalty has ruined the game, change it back t 1 point. A bottom of the table game in the NRL will see an average of 10 tries a game maybe 2-3 goals. In any Rugby game .. 10 goals and 1-2 tries if you are lucky... The constant kicking to gain field possession and lack of running and the constant breakdowns in rucks and mauls have made this a very slow game. I grew up playing rugby with 3 internationals but Rugby League has become a much faster more interesting game, thank god !

Just thought I'd throw some stats in. The IRB does detailed stats on Rugby regularly. These from the 2009 Tri-Nations; The average passes per game of 83 made by South Africa was the lowest by any team in at least the last 6 years of Tri Nations– (New Zealand and Australia each averaged 125 - or 50% more) ¨ Not one of the 10 tries scored by South Africa contained more than three passes (Australia had 3 such tries, New Zealand 6) ¨ 7 of South Africa’s 10 tries comprised 1 pass or less. SA won the tournament. You can find the stats here http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/gameanalysis/index.html

CizzyRascol ust dont know why you bother to compare an international to a Club match.

John Grant, a bit of a ring-in wasn't he? Obviously the AFL guys pulled out at the last minute and they had to fill the lanes but it might have been a bit embarressing to the organisers if he had gone on to win it when only his family knew who he was... no denying the guy has some toe though

I saw that the other Eastwood winger came 2nd after Lachie Turner...so a Sydney club rugby player is faster than the Hayne train...to be fair to Greg Inglis he was a lot faster a few years ago before he bulked up heaps in the past two seasons.

kiwkool Appears you have watched very few rugby league matches live or on TV:eg Sandor Earl try last weekend.Or tries scored by Newcastle finished off by Uate as examples.Obviously you did not view the last canberra defeat of st george. The thread was based on the Wallabies playing a more exciting and entertaining style than St George,who have on occasions played some exciting open football (despite there being another 15 teams that have maybe better offerings in the NRL).Gould,the wok are like anyone entitled to their opinions,but there are many things they have stated which I and many others have a different viewpoint.Gould is the same bloke,who states"that is not a high shot"",when a tackle is clearly made around the neck area.Great arbiter. It might have been just as interesting if the author had drawn comparisons with an expansive team like the Raiders,which BTW tends to kick before the set completion or run the ball on the 6th. Anycase you are gifted with 6 tackles ,use them to theutmost ,depending on field position,the ability of the players in your team and the defensive structure of the opposition. If you have unlimited tackles the game can be bogged down in rucks.Probably why rl is known as open rugby by some . Some people choose simplicity and fast moving flow,others complexity with some flow.Give me last sat.roosters v tigers over just about any match I have seen in both rugby codes.The crowd did not let up from the kick off to the final whistle,that says it all really. I must be missing something,when someone says a team is playing amore entertaining style than another from another code.Are league supporters supposed to sit back and nod in agreement.Then why draw a comparison,if another code involved and beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. The comment I'don't know why leaguies leap to the defence when criticism is levelled at their code." Please;For the very same reason ru people leap to the defence of their code when criticised or comparisons drawn. The only difference is rl people can be just as criticial of their code as outsiders,which outsiders never fully understand or appreciate.

Nobody here has said that because League is simpler, it is worse, just different. "Anycase the 90 minute spectacular presented by Roosters and Tigers.leaves anything offered by the Wallabies this year in their wake as to entertainment value" That is an opinion. It was a brilliant game, but in my opinion, the South Africa v Wallabies game in Bloemfontein was one of the best games I've seen in years, not just this season.

As you say, you brought rugby league into a rugby union blog to make it interesting, as Rugby Union has continbued to copy Rugby League for the past 15 years. So like Spiro, you merely want to hang onto your predjudices and try and compare our code with your code when; quite simply; there is no comparison.

JF - I don't really know what evidence you base the assertion that RL's simplicity as compared to RU's complexity gives it mass appeal when by your own admission RU is the mass game in NZ, Wales and PI's (also amongst the white population in SA as I understand). That is 3 1/2 whole countries more than RL is the mass market game in as far as I can see. RL is a boutique game dominant in 2 states of OZ and popular in a couple of counties in the UK. But as I say it seems anyone can convince themselves of anything if it suits their preconceptions and prejudices and noone actually points out how illogical these assertions are.

For me personally, There are so many great rugby tries that spring to mind that have multiple passes (5-9+ passes) and some come from length of the field stuff. The good league tries I remember have 2-3 passes tops before the line is broken and a try is scored.

Groan. We've been here before chaps. http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/11/26/checkers-vs-chess-rugby-league-vs-rugby-union/