Union v League

[Chunter]

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/199347

[ourla]

There are only two kinds of sport. Good sport and netball.

[Noddy555]

Coming from Lancashire I have patronised both forms of rugby and although the basics are essentially the same except for the play the ball situation and 6 tackle rule, Tactily and mentally they are totally different. Having played both at Schoolboy level, I now find that union is the more exciting of the two to watch, the bravery of modern playersd in both codes staggers me.
Talk about putting your body on the line!

[Old Tight Head]

"League is a more fluid, open game"... really?!

[Noddy555]

If Old Tight Head reads my post properly, he will see that I said the most exciting and by definition fluid game is Rugby Union. Perhaps I'll use BLOCK Letters on my next post, is it your eyesight or is the problem further back.

[northerntiger]

The fluid quote was from the article

[mol2]

As someone who loves a good scrum and ruck, league just doesn't do it for me.

[Old Tight Head]

As northerntiger has pointed out, the quote about being fluid was actually in the article. If Noddy555 would like to borrow my glasses then he only needs to ask.

[DickyP]

I've never understood how a game where the whistle goes on average every 4.4 seconds (published figures) and the game stops dead for a formal restart (play the ball) can be counted as fluid and less stop/start than union.

I actually quite like league and for many years went to games when I lived in the league area, however, I believe it has lost its soul which happened when it threw away close contests in search of lots of cheap tries.

This is a very weird (very Australian) perception that high scoring equates to excitement: it doesn't - close contests do. Yesterday's game against Montpelier was a case in point: it was exciting because Tigers could never get away from Montpelier and the final kick of the game meant something. If the distribution of the eight tries had been 6/2 or 5/3 in favour of Tigers (as it could easily have been) then the game would have been far less gripping.

[Mersey Tiger]

I find (any) arguments that are along the lines of choosing one or other of the codes - or one is "better" than the other - disappointing.

Because of where I live - you've guessed it from my moniker "Mersey Tiger" - I am not really near to a major club in either code.

I support Tigers because I always have done from when I lived in Leicester in the 1970s. I even went to the first Cup Final at Twickenham, along with half of Leicester, where we witnessed an open free-scoring game - Gloucester 6 Tigers 3

Being a child of the 50s I well remember the BBC TV games of Rugby League, and they were great stuff.

My eldest son - despite going to a dogmatically Union school - has always preferred League, and since he moved to Leeds it made sense for him to support the Rhinos. And in the spirit of family togetherness I adopted the Rhinos as "my" League team at that time. This was a few years back so the bonus for me is that I have been able to cheer on the Rhinos to a number of Grand Final successes (via the TV).

Equally my son (and his brothers) supports Tigers as his Union team, and he and his middle brother have accompanied me to several Tigers' finals. (Dad paid of course)

My point is that my son and I like BOTH Rugby codes - it is just that I much prefer Union and he much prefers League. We went to both the RLWC Semis at Wembley and the Final at Old Trafford (with our respective better halves) and had a great time. [But it was rather sickening for England to lose to New Zealand with the last kick of the semi].

Therefore, as at the end of the day both sports are entertainment, prefer one but enjoy both. It gives you more games to watch on the TV!

Before I sign off can I say that I agree with DickyP's comment about high scoring not necessarily equating with entertainment. The Tigers v Montpelier game was a perfect example; lots of scoring but not entertaining - because I don't class having a heart attack while my teeth are clamped firmly into the arm of my chair as "entertainment" (at least for the second half); Give me a 'stuff-it-up-the jumper' 6-3 Tigers' win any day

[DickyP]

...
Before I sign off can I say that I agree with DickyP's comment about high scoring not necessarily equating with entertainment. The Tigers v Montpelier game was a perfect example; lots of scoring but not entertaining - because I don't class having a heart attack while my teeth are clamped firmly into the arm of my chair as "entertainment" (at least for the second half); Give me a 'stuff-it-up-the jumper' 6-3 Tigers' win any day

Actually I wrote excitement not entertainment - similar but subtly different. The Baa Baas can be highly entertaining but seldom exciting. Last night, however, was certainly exciting although as you say only arguably "entertaining"!

[Noddy555]

For Old Tight Head & Northern Tiger, I stopped reading articles by so called
sports journalists my 3 year old great grandson knows more than that shower anyday.

[Mersey Tiger]

My apologies to DickyP!

At my age eyesight can go a bit awry - I misread your comment.

Clearly the match was TOO exciting for me - I intend to watch the return game next weekend from behind my sofa (the one without the teethmarks) clutching my teddy bear

[DickyP]

My apologies to DickyP!

At my age eyesight can go a bit awry - I misread your comment.

Clearly the match was TOO exciting for me - I intend to watch the return game next weekend from behind my sofa (the one without the teethmarks) clutching my teddy bear

You be kind to that Teddy!! And you can't go behind the sofa - we're playing Montpelier not the Daleks!