Union vs League

Canadian Rules Football · 29-03-2005, 01:49 PM

The codes look similiar enough to the differences between Canadian Football and American Football.
http://www.montrealalouettes.com/Vie...0&ATCLID=37902

Does Rugby Union teams every play Rugby League teams.If so is there a rulebook to bridge the gap .This may be hard to believe now but in the 50s and 60s CFL teams use to play NFL teams in exhibition games.A player at that time could make more money in the CFL then the NFL.They use to play a half each under each leagues rules.
If the Australian Football League can play the Gaelic Football League.Union should be able to play league in a series.

http://www.maximum-football.com
This is a link to a Canadian Rules Football game being developed.The game is cool in that you can mix and match the rules.You can play 11 man 4 down football on a Canadian field.It might be interesting to see a game developed that could do the same thing with Rugby play 13 men on a union field with 5 tackles or 15 men on a NRL field playing NRL rules.

parraeels_05premiers · 30-03-2005, 01:01 AM

Nah mate union teams never play league teams or vice versa. League is totally superior to union in every way. Im not being biased either cos i go to a union school, have played and watched both union and league for quite a few years, and i can tell you league kicks the **** out of union.

juan_schwartz · 30-03-2005, 02:52 PM

Rugby Union backlines would tear Rugby League to shreads. A good Rugby backline generates more creative and complex attacking plays that focus on getting bodies in motion, rather than Rugby League backlines who too often simply stretch the ball from sideline to sideline and are pretty stagnant inside the opposition quarter of the field.

Rugby League forwards generally speaking are more mobile than Rugby forwards, they're better ball runners and ball players and with the offloads and whatnot. A Rugby tight five (two props, two locks, hooker) can't match with the mobility of Rugby League forwards, though the back row (flankers, no.8) do fare better in the mobility department.

Rugby League usually has more continuity, though if Rugby is played properly by two positive sides, the game is superb.

Rugby is more precise, and has more nuances to it than Rugby League. Its more scientific.

I've spent a lot of my life both watching and playing the two games. Personally, I find more enjoyment in the game of Rugby Union.

League fans are extremely defensive about Rugby. Usually you see League people vigourously attacking Rugby, while Rugby people pay no mind. And I'd bet Rugby League wishes it could have the global following that Rugby Union does, and instead of taking pot shots at the game at every turn, they should be using Rugby as a benchmark for where they want Rugby League to go. One thing is for sure, Rubgy Union has developed more in the past 10-15 years than Rugby League has in decades.

parraeels_05premiers · 30-03-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

League fans are extremely defensive about Rugby. Usually you see League people vigourously attacking Rugby, while Rugby people pay no mind. And I'd bet Rugby League wishes it could have the global following that Rugby Union does, and instead of taking pot shots at the game at every turn, they should be using Rugby as a benchmark for where they want Rugby League to go. One thing is for sure, Rubgy Union has developed more in the past 10-15 years than Rugby League has in decades.

Man unions guys get real defensive bout league as well. They hate the fact league guys go across to union and kill it (Tuquri,Rogers,Robinson etc) and they think they are sub standard players. Union people definetly get defensive bout league, it's not one sided.

juan_schwartz · 30-03-2005, 07:53 PM

No one from my team pays any attention to League and the criticism that gets hurled towards their sport. Same with every hard core fan I know. And then you have Rugby League execs. and Rugby League sports writers bagging Rugby through the media as well, without reciprocation from the other side.

30-03-2005, 09:28 PM

[b][quote=juan_schwartz]Rugby Union backlines would tear Rugby League to shreads. A good Rugby backline generates more creative and complex attacking plays that focus on getting bodies in motion, rather than Rugby League backlines who too often simply stretch the ball from sideline to sideline and are pretty stagnant inside the opposition quarter of the field.[quote=[/B]

the only reason that rugby union back lines look good is because they have about 5 on 5 and a hole field to work with all the rest of the players are jumping on each other. and the reason they always make breaks is because (usually) the forwards cant tackle, but its not there fault because they usually dont have to tackle beacause there always in rucks

and im not having a shot at the game its just the truth. but i do believe that rugby has set the benchmark(fan wise not playing wise)

Sandstorm · 30-03-2005, 10:41 PM

I have played both codes and I think there are skillful players in both codes but League is tougher due to players having to stand 10m apart in defence.

I would like to see a game/rules developed so we could have League Vs Union games for charity.

tomowen · 31-03-2005, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

Rugby Union backlines would tear Rugby League to shreads.

tomowen · 31-03-2005, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Rules Football

The codes look similiar enough to the differences between

Does Rugby Union teams every play Rugby League teams.If so is there a rulebook to bridge the gap

Unlike CFL and NFL they're completely different sports. Both forms of gridiron are about gaining yardage by passing and running on a limited number of 'downs' however, the main aim in union is to gain a few metres by fighting tooth and nail in a maul etc or to kick for good field position and win lineouts whilst League is purely about gaining ground by running ball in hand and there is no rucking/mauling. The two codes of rugby are impossible to bring together in just one game as the sports' mentalities- and the type of people that follow them, are just too different.

Canadian Rules Football · 31-03-2005, 10:31 AM

So how much cross over is there between League and Union.I read in 1995 that league started loosing players to union .Between Canadian and American it is very difficult for a runningback to go from the Canadian rules to the American.Is there only positions in league that just don`t cross over to Union.
So wheres the money at .The big arguement between Americans and Canadians is ;American says the American game is better they have the best players to play well thats right I believe minimum wage is like $300,000 us for a player.CFL salary cap $2.85 million Canadian for the team.So a really high wage in CFL is $150,000 cdn.So the CFL looses the better players to the US.That said most Canadians argue with our rules we have a more wide open and exciting game with players that are more suited to the bigger field.
Long winded but my point weres the money .
NRL
SL
Super 12

Also are there any rule differences between NRL and SL

Sandstorm · 31-03-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

Rugby Union backlines would tear Rugby League to shreads.

Totally disagree!

The fact is professional League players would beat Union players in a game of League and Professional Union players would beat League players in a game of Union.

The two games are different. Yes you do have to run, pass and tackle but to compare the players you would have to formulate a new game that gives all players an even playing field and that would be hard to do.

russ · 31-03-2005, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

they should be using Rugby as a benchmark for where they want Rugby League to go. One thing is for sure, Rubgy Union has developed more in the past 10-15 years than Rugby League has in decades.

A benchmark.....LMAO. Unions club rugby (their equivalent to the NRL) is a game which draws crowds of 5000 and is aired on a Satuday afternoon on the ABC. The games quality is also poor. I've witnessed under 12 matches played with more passion and skill.

tomowen · 01-04-2005, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Rules Football

So how much cross over is there between League and Union.

So wheres the money at

Also are there any rule differences between NRL and SL

Until about the 1970s there was no crossover at all. If a union player played in a league competition, or vice versa, they'd be banned like a gaelic footballer caught playing/watching soccer would have been- for being a 'traitor' by playing the game of the enemy. Then it was one-way traffic from union to league simply because union was totally amateur (except in France!) whilst they could at least get some money from playing league and maybe make a living. Until 1995 there was no money in union- for the above reason, but there wasn't much in league either. Then in the nineties Murdoch pumped millions into rugby league on both sides of the world (in the same way he had in English football) but now there isn't as much money as in union simply because union internationals generate so much money as it's a toff's sport so even if tickets do cost over £50 each they can still fill a 75000 capacity ground about ten times a year. Salary caps in league, designed to keep the competitions as open as possible, mean 'top-class' players might not earn as much as they could.

As for rule differences between superleague and NRL, on paper the rules are identical but the mentality of the referees is definitely different in the two leagues.

Canadian Rules Football · 01-04-2005, 06:55 AM

So when the game does come out games between default rosters of the NRL and SL should be compeditive enough to play each other.If so my NRFL could have teams from SL and NRL in the same league playing each other and it wouldn`t be onesided.Since the NRFL is a sim league we could easliy have players from Canada England and Australia playing each other.

stevie1979 · 01-04-2005, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

Rugby Union backlines would tear Rugby League to shreads.

What a load of crap. Back in the 90's here in Britain they had some sort of centenary going on between Wigan (League) and Bath (Union). At the time they were the top two clubs over here. In the league game Wigan slaughtered Bath and vice versa.

LeedsRhino · 01-04-2005, 01:39 PM

Generally...
League is more quicker and none stop. End to end usually working the ball laterally. Defensive line is on the move no stop - back 10m then forward to meet the advancing attackers. The back 10m gives the attacking team room and time to advance which makes for a more quicker open game.

Union is slower and more technical. Its more about territory than anything else. Teams either kick back and forth to each other or try run the ball. A lot of plays evole around the ruck (which means loads of unfit*compared to league* guys dive on each other in a pile on stylie). Thats usually follow by a kick down toward the opponents line. Each time there is a ruck the defensive line only has to go back as far as the rook that the defense forms, which makes for a slower game as the attack have less time and room to maneuver(so they kick). Most kicks go out of play and result in a line out where half the team stands in line to catch a ball then dive on each other to form a rook. And they 2 more players on the pitch for each team(4 people in total) making for even less room to maneuver. Stop start stop start etc.... I'm not knocking union I admit it is technical and the best/key players are a teams kicker as there is so much of it. However its too slow and stop starty for me.

Having said all of the above. I did say generally so obviously you get games from both codes that don't quite apply. But IMHO League is better as a specatle and produces better, fitter all round atheletes. I'm not knocking the people who like kick and clap

juan_schwartz · 01-04-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie1979

What a load of crap. Back in the 90's here in Britain they had some sort of centenary going on between Wigan (League) and Bath (Union). At the time they were the top two clubs over here. In the league game Wigan slaughtered Bath and vice versa.

So what!? One game between two clubs more than 5 years ago is a successful gauge of the two codes? Give me a break. And you even said that Bath won the Rugby game, so I don't get your point.

I said Rugby backlines are more talented than League backlines. And you have said nothing to counter or disprove that opinion.

Sandstorm · 01-04-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

I said Rugby backlines are more talented than League backlines. And you have said nothing to counter or disprove that opinion.

I really don't agree. How can you say that. Look at some of the great backs in union at the moment. Matt Rogers, Lote Tuqiri, Wendell Sailor and Jason Robinson, just to name a few. All from League! Not to mention past players.

c_eagle · 01-04-2005, 06:21 PM

Union backlines don't have to do anything, except kick the damn ball. Can you imagine a league game without a single try? Of course not. In Union internationals, games are decided by penalty goals rather than the skill of a backline to finish off attacking movements.

As for club rugby, when was the last time a club rugby game got 5000? I doubt the final would draw that many.

The reason why League players head over to Union is because the structure is different. In Union, especially in Australia, the code is centralised, whereby, the national body is responsible for recruiting players and allocating them to different Super 12 teams, particularly those in the top X squad which make up the Wallaby teams. In Australia, there are only 105 professional Union players, therefore, the ARU has plenty to spend to attract players across.

The League competition is run by clubs, individual entities who have to keep under a 3.25 million dollar salary cap (around 3.5 mil with concessions.) If the NRL, the national body, was responsible for signing players, Union would be helpless in attracting players because the money generated for just the origin period is equivalent to the ARU's test season.

Union is just a small blip on the radar in Australia, a distant second in NSW and tied 2nd in QLD with Aussie Rules. League has a 30 week National competition which Union exec's can only dream of. While I do admit, Union has a superior international appeal, this is overstated by it's own PR team and would give it up in a second to capture the heart's and mind's of Australia's most populous city for 30 weeks of the year.

russ · 01-04-2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

Rugby Union backlines would tear Rugby League to shreads.

Please name the Rugby Union backline that would tear this Rugby League backline to shreads:

7. Andrew Johns
6. Darren Lockyer
5. Amos Roberts
4. Willie Tonga
3. Brent Tate
2. Matt Bowen
1. Billy Slater

stevie1979 · 02-04-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

So what!? One game between two clubs more than 5 years ago is a successful gauge of the two codes? Give me a break. And you even said that Bath won the Rugby game, so I don't get your point.

I said Rugby backlines are more talented than League backlines. And you have said nothing to counter or disprove that opinion.

Actually 2 games, and no you didn't say Union backlines are more talented you said Union backlines would tear rugby league backlines to shreads. Stop changing the story.
Yes Bath won the union game, but when Wigan adapted to it in the second half Wigan out scored bath at their own game. They were rattled. In the league game however Bath got mauled 82 - 6.

mini-macca · 05-04-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by russ

Please name the Rugby Union backline that would tear this Rugby League backline to shreads:

7. Andrew Johns
6. Darren Lockyer
5. Amos Roberts
4. Willie Tonga
3. Brent Tate
2. Matt Bowen
1. Billy Slater

Alot of union backlines would demolish those fellahs cuz some of them are trash...
how about: 7. Matt Orford
6. Darren Lockyer
5. Eric Grothe
4. Matt King
3. Ryan Cross
2. Billy Slater
1. Anthony Minichiello

juan_schwartz · 05-04-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandstorm

I really don't agree. How can you say that. Look at some of the great backs in union at the moment. Matt Rogers, Lote Tuqiri, Wendell Sailor and Jason Robinson, just to name a few. All from League! Not to mention past players.

Sailor is not one of the great backs in Union. Thats ridiculous. Sailor will be hard pressed to stay with the Reds for next season, and has been surpassed easily by the likes of Clyde Rathbone, Mark Gerrard and maybe even Peter Hewat for a position in the Wallaby squad.

I'd hope Rogers could play the game well, considering thats where he came from to begin with. And if you had guys like Stirling Mortlock, Joe Rococoko, Doug Howlett, Tana Umaga, Mils Muliaina, Clyde Rathbone, Jonny Wilkinson, etc. play Rugby League, they'd be stars. Rugby Union backs are more of a complete package than Rugby League backs, they have the size of backrowers, and have the hands, speed and kicking to go along with it. They also don't get the luxury of having 10 metres between them and the defensive line.

And what about Ryan McGoldrick, Nathan Blacklock, Henry Paul, Darren Junee and other Rugby League backs who have flopped in Rugby Union? Why didn't you mention them? Why didn't you mention that Lenny Beckett is totally clueless playing for the Brumbies? It works both ways. And if we want to talk about the past, guess which sport Ricky Stuart and the man who is sometimes regarded as the best Rugby League player ever, Wally Lewis, were signed from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by c_eagle

Union backlines don't have to do anything, except kick the damn ball

Try watching a game sometime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c_eagle

As for club rugby, when was the last time a club rugby game got 5000? I doubt the final would draw that many

Finals do get that many. And thats not a professional level of the game. Look at grade cricket. Who watches those games? Yet cricket is regarded as one of the most popular sports this country has ever see. Rugby League is the exception when it comes to first grade level, not the rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c_eagle

Union is just a small blip on the radar in Australia

How many people turned up during the World Cup in 2003? Hardly a 'small blip'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie1979

Actually 2 games, and no you didn't say Union backlines are more talented you said Union backlines would tear rugby league backlines to shreads. Stop changing the story.

Is that a joke? Or are you actually that stupid?

In order for one group of players to tear another group of players up, they'd have to BY DEFINITION be more talented than the other group, you nitwit. I'm not changing my story at all. Wake up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by russ

Please name the Rugby Union backline that would tear this Rugby League backline to shreads:

7. Andrew Johns
6. Darren Lockyer
5. Amos Roberts
4. Willie Tonga
3. Brent Tate
2. Matt Bowen
1. Billy Slater

The All-Blacks, just for one example.

Andrew Johns can hardly stop an U/18s team with the way he's playing. Billy Slater can't tackle, whats he going to do to a monster like Tana Umaga at full speed? How will Matt Bowen fare one on one with other wingers Joe Rococoko or Doug Howlett? There both twice his size and faster than he is. Then there's Dan Carter. Carter is one of the best players I've seen in either code in a long time. To me, he's just like Darren Lockyer (only ten times the goalkicker) that contest would be pretty even. But I'll give the egde to the older and more experienced Lockyer, who I believe would be able to handle Rugby easily. Then there's Mils Muliaina. As agile as Matt Bowen, but bigger, stronger and a staunch defender.

To reiterate:

Rugby Union Backs - better than League
Rugby League Forwards - better than Union

Sandstorm · 05-04-2005, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

No one from my team pays any attention to League and the criticism that gets hurled towards their sport. Same with every hard core fan I know. And then you have Rugby League execs. and Rugby League sports writers bagging Rugby through the media as well, without reciprocation from the other side.

Have you ever played both League and Union? I have played 7 seasons of League and 4 seasons of Union. And I usually play in the centres. I have a good idea about the skill level of players, especially backs.

The other thing is it's people like you who think you Union guys are better than the League guys that **** people off.

The fact is this is a League forum so if you want to bag it out, go find a Union forum.

Nothing Personal.

c_eagle · 06-04-2005, 12:24 AM

Bondi beach had 30k people filing through the gates every day for 10 days to watch Beach Volleyball during the Olympics, how big is that sport in Australia?

Australian's love events, the Union PR team did a magnificent job convincing us that the Rugby World cup is actual an event of global importance and we showed up in masses. Meanwhile, the S12 can't even get on Free-to-air television.

I watched many Union games, backs kick the ball all the time, more than they run it. They are useless compared to League backs. League backs have to tackle the 'talented' league forwards. League backs have to score tries. Union backs have to kick and catch the ball. Occasionally they'll kick it in the air and run after it, but that's just occasionally.

What's the difference if Club Rugby is amateur or not? It's still the best Union players in this country, minus 105. Actually, there are plenty of rounds in the Tooheys New Cup where even the Wallaby players play, these games still can't attract more than a few hundred.

Union is a small blip on the radar.

juan_schwartz · 06-04-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandstorm

Have you ever played both League and Union?

I said in my first post of this thread that I have

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandstorm

The other thing is it's people like you who think you Union guys are better than the League guys that **** people off.

The fact is this is a League forum so if you want to bag it out, go find a Union forum.

Not much of a reader, are you? First things first, read my first post in this thread. Clearly, I was raising one point against another, comparing the two codes. I also made it clear that I said Rugby League forwards are better athletes than Rugby Union forwards. Seems strange for one who likes to bag Rugby League to say that. Note that I never said one game is better than the other. Never. I said I enjoyed Union more than League, which is my honest opinion. Maybe if you didn't decided to react in such a knee-jerk manner to one of my points, you'd have noticed that.

Go to the Rugby League board here at Sidhe Forums and read my posts there. If I supposedly despised to game as much as you're implying, why would I waste my time watching and commenting on the game in a public forum? Fact is, I've been watching the game for some 14 years, and consider myself a bigger fan than most.

Dr@&0n$ RuLe · 06-04-2005, 08:48 PM

whats with this

Quote:
Originally Posted by russ
Please name the Rugby Union backline that would tear this Rugby League backline to shreads:

7. Andrew Johns
6. Darren Lockyer
5. Amos Roberts
4. Willie Tonga
3. Brent Tate
2. Matt Bowen
1. Billy Slater

Alot of union backlines would demolish those fellahs cuz some of them are trash...
how about: 7. Matt Orford
6. Darren Lockyer
5. Eric Grothe
4. Matt King
3. Ryan Cross
2. Billy Slater
1. Anthony Minichiello

ok matty orford isn't that bad but johnsy is definetly better.darren lockyer i agree with. who the is mat king? Willie tonga all the way.Brent tate is a player that can break through tackles so easily it ain't funny.matt bowen is a better winger then slater cause hes always on the spot. and minichiello is .billy slater is good but ben hornby has been the best fullback this year easily.

juan_schwartz · 06-04-2005, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr@&0n$ RuLe

ben hornby has been the best fullback this year easily.

Yeah...right.

PaulFromOz · 07-04-2005, 12:55 AM

If your a Foward or Half Back in Rugby Union, It's non stop, Espically attacking.

In rugby league, You run the ball up once, have a rest for 5 tackles, Run up the field a bit, Make 1 or 2 tackles, have another rest, Run a bit, Make another hit up etc etc

In rugby union as a foward you HAVE to make every breakdown, clear the ball out, take the ball up 2-3 times,

IMO: Rugby Union is a much more physically demanding game

As for the side that could rip the following team to shreads, idk Ripping them to shreads, but easily beating them would be my following team:

Please name the Rugby Union backline that would tear this Rugby League backline to shreads:

And seeing we have "Have-Beens" like johns in that side, i'll include one too
7. Andrew Johns Halfback: George Gregan
6. Darren Lockyer 5-8Th: Johnny Wilikinson
5. Amos Roberts Wing: Jonah Lomu (Has-Been)
4. Willie Tonga V.s Centre:Rupeni Caucau
3. Brent Tate Centre:Tana Umagu
2. Matt Bowen Wing: John Rocokoko
1. Billy Slater Fullback: Sterling Mortlock

I believe would Walk all over them

Gol · 07-04-2005, 01:59 AM

At the top end I don't see much difference between union and league backs, I'd love to have guys like Mortlock, Rockocoko, Umaga and Tuqiri (I also give Rathbone big wraps) in any league side, and I think they'd still be elite players. But at Super 12 level I have to say the backs are not as skilled on the whole. Their ball handling is inferior, they are less creative and dynamic in attack. I believe this is simply because they get less chances to attack openly like league backs, they see less ball and often with less space, plus often have to take safer options to ensure they retain possession rather than attempt something high risk that could also result in a turnover. While the top level union backs are just as skilled as league's best backs, as depth goes, there are a lot of average backs, watching a few Super 12 games this year I've just had to laugh at some of the passing skills and handling on show in some backline movements, particularly the South African teams.

In the halves I believe there is no contest, league halves are by far more complete packages, again, simply because of opportunity, can you imagine Gregan or Wilkinson pulling off some of the individual efforts that Orford, Lockyer and Johns show every week? I doubt it. Larkham and Spencer are as close to league halves as union gets, and while they're great players, they still would only rate mid pack amongst league halves on skill level I believe. A lot of a union halves job is vision, however, which I am imagining is a more complex job in union than league since they have less time with the ball and more players around them to read.

Forwards are just too different to comment on, union is about endurance and fitness, not to mention being a tough *******, where league is more athletic ability, but you get more rest, and have to have more skill with ball in hand, compared to union forwards who rarely touch the ball, and very rarely with any kind of open space.

rumplespliffskin · 07-04-2005, 02:20 AM

these games are far too different to even be bothered arguing. but wilkinson, seriously? he cant pass and he keeps injuring his shoulder cause they make him hit the tackle bags at training. a waste of time i know, cause hell never make a tackle in a game. hes only there to kick goals. darryl halligan style although darryl halligan was safe as a bank in defense. i do enjoy rugby but seriously, what is the point of some of it. the lineout is just stupid. it is ridiculous. the point of the game is to always be able to compete for the ball and thats why the lineout is in it but they dont let them (really) compete for it in rucks. and the when in doubt kick it out rule which is instilled in players from under 12s is stupid. in internationals the whole game is just a set-play-a-thon. they ruck and maul and arent interested in using the ball until theyre in a position to use a set play, whereas rugby league against this type of attack would belt them back in defense. theyre not allowed to run hard near a ruck because they just want quick turnover. id rather a big run for 15 metres than 16 runs for 5 metres. super 12 is the best sort of rugby because they have a go. they dont play traditional crap and just bludgeon their way around the paddock and wait for a chance to use the backline because forwards arent allowed to score. all the players have a go. it really does look like they hold back so the traditionalists can see a big backline movement. to often you seen someone make a half break and fall down to set up the next play when they could just score. its crap. i could go on for ages about this but id rather talk about something else.

jakey · 07-04-2005, 02:23 AM

I think it is utterly silly to try and argue one way or another. Union is a good game because it is Union and i enjoy watching it sometimes because it is Union (maybe also because nothing else is on). This is mainly becuase i was brought up a league boy. League is a good game becuase it is League and we love all the league stuff in it.

The games are entirely different and no amount of reasoning will ever resolve who has the better players, basically, as Gol was talking about, the different games require different skills from different positions and so it is hard to draw any comparisons between the two games.

Andrew Johns might find it very difficult to play union becuase he is not used to the game, this is not to say that his union equivilent is better than him (i can't think of the name), just that Andrew Johns hasn't been brought up and trained in union. Similarly George Gregan would not do very well in League because he would not be used to it and has not been brought up in it.

The essencial differences between the two sports makes it entirely impossible to reconcile them

that might about do it........sorry i get carried away a bit

PaulFromOz · 07-04-2005, 12:40 PM

This has been settled.

Although George Gregan would be an awesome halv's tackling

You see him a couple years back, Australia v.s New Zealand, He was the only one that dared to even attempt a tackle on big Jonah, and he succeded a couple of times!

b.fletcher 4 p.m! · 07-04-2005, 12:57 PM

i think i saw abit of a union game once on t.v. isn't that where they kick and everyone claps then they kick it again and everyone claps again? gave up on after a couple of minutes, ref was so bad couldn't even count to 6! swear he let like 20 tackles thu. if they want people watch union there gonna have to get refs that can count!

Sandstorm · 07-04-2005, 06:52 PM

You guys are wrecking my head!

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

Sailor is not one of the great backs in Union. Thats ridiculous. Sailor will be hard pressed to stay with the Reds for next season, and has been surpassed easily by the likes of Clyde Rathbone, Mark Gerrard and maybe even Peter Hewat for a position in the Wallaby squad.

I'd hope Rogers could play the game well, considering thats where he came from to begin with. And if you had guys like Stirling Mortlock, Joe Rococoko, Doug Howlett, Tana Umaga, Mils Muliaina, Clyde Rathbone, Jonny Wilkinson, etc. play Rugby League, they'd be stars.

John Eales and David Campese have been surpassed too but they were great and they did play for the Wallabies! So what are you saying about Sailor? Couldn't he play? Are you saying the Wallabies have sub-standard players on the wing? Are you saying Union backs aren't really that good?

As for those players being stars if they played League: Rococoko - Yes,
Howlett, Muliaina, Umaga - Maybe
Wilkinson, Rathbone, Mortlock - No

Sandstorm · 07-04-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

Rugby Union Backs - better than League

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

Rugby Union backlines would tear Rugby League to shreads. A good Rugby backline generates more creative and complex attacking plays that focus on getting bodies in motion, rather than Rugby League backlines who too often simply stretch the ball from sideline to sideline and are pretty stagnant inside the opposition quarter of the field.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan_schwartz

I said Rugby backlines are more talented than League backlines. And you have said nothing to counter or disprove that opinion.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. We could debate this for days.

Just to say it again I really disagree with what you said about “Union backs being more talented than League backs” and “Rugby Union backs – better than League”.
I still think it’s horses for courses. Some League players would make it in Union and vice-versa.
But a great player is just that and what code they play doesn’t make them into a great player. It’s genetics, coaches and training.

Do you really believe the All Blacks would beat Australia, NZ or GB in a game of League? Even if the backs played with the help of a League forward pack?

There are soooooo many points to counter what you have said.
Like the size of Union players……… They need to be big because they crash straight into players (crash ball) to get over the ad-line (like League forwards) and they can carry more weight because Union is not as endurance based as League.
That’s like comparing the body types of AFL with League or Union.

Also a Union ball is easier to pass and kick compared to a League ball. I don’t know why, it just is.
Defence is different and that determines heaps of differences including the style of play. Union backlines stand deeper (which makes a big difference) because the defence stands at the locks feet / back of a ruck or maul. They also have more time to get set for moves.
As for the players that have been mentioned……..well there are too many issues to debate and I don’t have the time. But Matt Rogers is the son of the great Steve Rogers and I think he would have had something to do with Matt being a good player, not Rugby Union. Also you didn’t say anything about the other 2 players I mentioned, Lote Tuqiri and Jason Robinson. Name me one current or recent Union back that has gone from international Rugby to International League. All the players I mentioned went from International League to International Union and they are still current.
And don’t forget international Rugby Union has a lot more money to spend than League.
Also, Rugby went to League looking to help improve the defence of their backs.

So I suggest:
1. You play a season of League. Not just a game!
2. You should ask someone like Ricky Stuart or Wally Lewis their opinion.

Tell me what RU team you play for, I’ll come watch how much more talented you Union backs are.

PaulFromOz · 07-04-2005, 08:42 PM

Rugby Union is far more Endurance based, It's non-stop.

As for your comment "What union players have gone to league and made it?"

Name a big name recent Rugby Union player that has made the switch?

The fact of the matter is, Rugby League dosn't have the money to pull big Union stars,

I could name a list of Union players that could easily make it in league

Heres a little one:

Chris Latham
Ben Tune
Rupeni Cau Cau
Phil Waugh
Matt Giteua
Radike Samo
George Smith
Toutai Kefu
Waisale Serevi (One of the greatest 7's and Players Ever)
Joe Veitayaki (Sheer Size)
Jonah Lomu (On the comeback trail)
Tana Umagu
Joe Rocokoko
Kees Meeuws
Breyton Paulse

This arguement could go on and on

edit: The only reason Lote,Wendell and Matty got into the australian side was they were big stars in Rugby League and the rep from League got em into the wallabies squad.

Look who is the only one still playing for the wallabies.. Lote

Sandstorm · 07-04-2005, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulFromOz

Rugby Union is far more Endurance based, It's non-stop.

I could name a list of Union players that could easily make it in league
Heres a little one:
Chris Latham
Ben Tune
Rupeni Cau Cau
Phil Waugh
Matt Giteua
Radike Samo
George Smith
Toutai Kefu
Waisale Serevi (One of the greatest 7's and Players Ever)
Joe Veitayaki (Sheer Size)
Jonah Lomu (On the comeback trail)
Tana Umagu
Joe Rocokoko
Kees Meeuws
Breyton Paulse

edit: The only reason Lote,Wendell and Matty got into the australian side was they were big stars in Rugby League and the rep from League got em into the wallabies squad.

You guys are dreamers, your living in a fantasy land.

Lomu and Rococoko would make it but you are starting to scrape the bottom of the barrell with Meeuws.

There was an article in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday the 26th March 2005 called "Shepherding drama".
Here are some quotes from it.
"Rugby Union fans are extremely arrogant about their code". And "The Rugby Union community is delusional about itself".

I think some of you guys fit into this category.

parraeels_05premiers · 08-04-2005, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandstorm

You guys are dreamers, your living in a fantasy land.

There was an article in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday the 26th March 2005 called "Shepherding drama".
Here are some quotes from it.
"Rugby Union fans are extremely arrogant about their code". And "The Rugby Union community is delusional about itself".

I think some of you guys fit into this category.

Couldn't agree more!

Panther · 08-04-2005, 11:54 AM

Look, they are both great games.
One is played in Heaven and the other is played everywhere else.

I agree with Juan. "Rugby League Forwards - better than Union".
I also agree with Sandstorm. "Rugby League backs are as good as Union backs". If not better!