The Future of Rugby - Discussion

Rugby Union is becoming more and more influenced by rugby league and has already visibly changed from the game that we know of ten -twenty years ago.

Eventually the two codes could re-merge...Discus...

I hope not. But to be honest I doubt that would ever happen.

Although both codes use the sem ball, field, and basic principals, there are big fundamental differences.

The first problem you will enounter for the two codes to merge are the professional clubs and owners from one code would have to sell their assets to the other code, can't see that happening.

Looking at the differences Rugby Union is played in many more countries than Rugby League, so Rugby Union will gobble up rugby league if it were ever to happen.

Because of the differences at the ruck, scrum, mauling, etc, the codes are too far apart anyway.

There's no contest for the ball in league. The contest for the ball is really what union is all about. How can there be compromise rules over this fundamental difference? Surely it has to be either one or the other. So they won't merge. They're two distinct sports with their own proud histories anyway.

Talking of the future of rugby, I thought they were going to do something about the scrums after the RWC? We're most of the way through a whole season and there's been no attempt to fix the problem. They're still a mess.

It's been obvious for years that this touch/pause/engage stuff is a mess, and many think we need to remove the hit and just start pushing and hooking after the ball is put in (straight). Are there any plans to do anything about scrums?

personally i would like them to merge. It would make it easier for rugby to compete with other sporst- when you have so many different codes competeting with itself it cant promote the game well enough to emmeging nations

They'll never merge. What 'may' happen is union moves further towards league and previous league fans move over and league dies a death. I think union is strong enough to last (mainly due to the international game). More likely is that even if the codes start to converge they'll remain distinct differences depending on location due to political/historic reasons.

well i hope that union can take league out of the equation then

GeordieFalcon wrote:Rugby Union is becoming more and more influenced by rugby league and has already visibly changed from the game that we know of ten -twenty years ago.

Eventually the two codes could re-merge...Discus...

I actually I agree with you, the more I see of top end rugby the more boring it's becoming, any time I watch a game on tv I end up getting distracted because it's endless crash ball, resetting scrums and I just normally wait for a cheer and watch the replay of how the try was scored.

I have found my self recently becoming far more interested in the Welsh Premiership because it is faster, there is more points and far less emphasis on defense.

At the top end of rugby the players are too big, there are too many of them, and even in training sessions now the players are tagged, with cameras everywhere and players need to know where to be in any given situation and how fast to run! And they practice this for hours. This game is just too regimented, and it seems teams keep the ball until they score points then the other teams gets a turn at it.

Professional Club rugby is becoming a boring product in the northern hemisphere.

There is little we can do about the direction of rugby other than become more or less interested in the sport. Our reaction will contribute to the financial welfare.

If the game truly is becoming disinteresting it will duly suffer financially and the IRB will move the parameters to encourage a return of interest.

Is it like League?

A bit, though professionalism was always going to draw similarities, more physicality and a different attitude. That shows in the game.

but the basic differences are still the individuality that defines each sport. I am still very much a union fan over league.

Union is a complex game of intellect and power, League is a game of runners and tacklers and little substance and rare skill.

I am watching the Challenge cup Widnes vs St Helens match right now and I am very disinterested.

Alyn there's always been teams that play boring rugby. But there always have been and always will be teams that play exciting rugby. In fact they're particularly successful at the moment. Look at Queensland Reds, Australia, New Zealand, Crusaders, Leinster, Harlequins etc.

At the moment, it's true that Wales are using huge men to run straight into the opposition. But they do have skill too. And it's not boring ,even if it's not quite as unpredictable as the Welsh of the 70's.

I think the issue is more of progression of rugby union, we have only been professional since 1995 and i assume the problems union is experiencing now is the same ones league had.

Personally I'd like a hybrid of the game to appear and the codes to merge. Though I do worry England and Australia would benefit more than anyone else!

14 players (no blindside flanker).
passive scrums
keep line outs
6 chances to score, though rucks still happen, not the league foot pass through the legs

Some interesting thoughts guys.

Personally im a union fan and not interested in league.

However as mentioned as profesionalism has come in...the two codes have increased their similarities.

However for me the different parts of the union - contested scrums..lineouts, rucks and mauls etc make the game what it is. If they were to disappear i would admit to stopping following the game and proably watching Aussie rules or something.

In all honesty i dont think Union and League will merge...however i do think that we need to ensure our game is managed properly and that rucks/scrums etc are allowed to be totally contested...and not restricted...and that they sort out the scrums once and for all...

Sadly as it stands the contested scrums,mauls and rucks is what creates so many problems with refs interpretations and people screaming of injustices every 5 mins.

but also what makes union different to league and probally what makes the game better!

mystiroakey wrote:Sadly as it stands the contested scrums,mauls and rucks is what creates so many problems with refs interpretations and people screaming of injustices every 5 mins.

but also what makes union different to league and probally what makes the game better!

I presume league had the same problems and that's why they got rid of the contested scrums, lineouts and rucks.

I just hope the IRB never go down that route. They should always endeavour to improve the situation at rucks and scrums, which are currently quite messy. But they should ALWAYS be devoted to retaining that part of the game.

Lineouts run quite smoothly in general. Scrums once did to. The IRB need to try to get back to the way it was. We all know the suggestions for improving scrum time. And a lot of them make a lot of sense.

I'm not sure about the ruck. It's just so hard to officiate by it's very nature, with piles of bodies flying in. It's very dinamic and very it's messy. And there'll always be cheating in that environment.

OK ill put it out there...

Rucks to be come a free for all....discuss....

Both codes have their pro's and con's. I'm glad we have both. I wouldn't want them to merge or even move closer together. I want to enjoy the difference. I disagree with those that say league isn't a skilful game either.

The Widnes v St Helens game was a cracker today. Incredible finish.

they are holding each other back though spikes?

if rugby merged it would have more longleiviety- much higher quality, more money, wages would go up, everything would improve.

more about the long term for me.

There is a lot of truth in what the author of this thread says Rugby union as we know it now is a hybrid.The two will NEVER merge in my opinion BUT with the influx of League players,and coaches into Union.The laws will become more similer,just 3 instances league style high tackles[smother style].League style defences,the pick and Go{ league style 4 tackle rule].We have already lost the classic ruck,to be replaced by the dogs breakfast called BREAKDOWN.or Tackle.
The Scrum has been neutered,gone the wheel,dribbling rush,rush stopping,planned back row moves.The setting of it is so bad 40% are collapsed,34 %reset .In some cases you can go thru a game without a completed Scrum,when they are the Ref gives penalties by guess work.
The Laws have become a cheats charter,and inmany cases a joke,I don`t
care who`s right or wrong.IRB PLEASE give back useable laws,they were never perfect in the past.BUT at least they were governable until TV Companies wanted to change a sport into entertainment.

I think with regards to the future of rugby either union or league, will be more use of the TMO.

At the moment in rugby union any way the TMO can only be used to decide if the ball is grounded over the line or not.

The future of the TMO will be used more in decideing if a player in the act of scoring a try the TMO will beable to tell the ref, that their was a foot in touch, their was a forward pass, etc.

This is the way i think rugby will go in the future.

I would love to see some form of amalgamation of the two codes especially at grassroots level,along the lines of maybe League just becoming a 13 man version of the game ,like cricket now has a number of versions.
In Auckland city we have over 30 rugby union clubs and approx 30 rugby League clubs,the duplication of cost is ridiculous,and the sharing of assets is only pragmatic.many players in Auckland switch between the codes as it is.

On the other hand I could never see the chemistry occur where the international bodies of each would ever agree.

The other version of this discussion is,if sevens gets accepted permanently into the Olympics,then we could see sevens become the major International version of rugby union.

Too much fence sitting in this thread.

They won't merge because union is brilliant and league is pants !

We do need to simplify the rules at set piece and breakdown because competition for the ball is what makes union great If rugby league is on the telly I'll watch motor sport, preferably beach volleyball, or just the kettle.

"They won't merge because union is brilliant and league is pants !"

yeah thats why .........NOT!!


no they wont join because there is to much invested money,infrastructire,love and time in both codes.

however it is shortsighted to continue the two codes.

thats my two cents

mystiroakey wrote:"They won't merge because union is brilliant and league is pants !"

yeah thats why .........NOT!!


no they wont join because there is to much invested money,infrastructire,love and time in both codes.

however it is shortsighted to continue the two codes.

thats my two cents

Of course your right. I'm just highlighting that there's a lot if emotion in rugby. The difference between the codes is far larger than the similarity. Many fans simply don't enjoy the "other" code.

Do you guys think the actual contest between the union teams at the breakdown, scrums, lineouts etc has been diminished / restricted slightly through the years?

Surely thats one of the biggest differences between the codes in that union you can actually fight for the ball...

If this is a discussion abohut League and Union, then we shouldn't use the old terminology and call them different codes. The fact in today's world is they are different sports, not codes.

Can the two survive, or just one? Well, Union is a truly global game and growing. League is particular to Australia, wisps of NZ, some Islands, and the northern region of a nation within a country. From a purely commercial point of view, if Union continues to grow, League, especially in the Northen Hemisphere, will be under enormous financial/commercial pressure simply to survive. A rational end-result from the business side of things, and some league fans might come over. Would be sad as League is an institution and I have many friends who play or played.

But if we discuss how Union is evolving, to lay a lot of the change at the feet of League is over-stating things a bit. The big change rung in compared to 20 years ago is professionalism. At that time, we know big changes were coming, although we didn't know which. And influences have come from everywhere. League coaches may have improved defenses, but American Football has has great impact upon training. Which is more significant? Tv money and influence have driven and helped create professionally run organisations. Etc..

Some of the big changes, in no particular order and without benefit of my morning coffee, have been:
Full time and intelligent training
Much better athletes (pros v. amateurs)
Vastly improved conditioning, training, medical care
Better grounds (mostly)
Better turf - more money to invest in grass and grounds quality
Better and faster athletes
Better organised defenses (League helped here)
TMO, at least in the pro game
Better trained referees
Much more money
Playoffs
TV involvement with scheduling and influence throughout the top game
On and on.

offload wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"They won't merge because union is brilliant and league is pants !"

yeah thats why .........NOT!!


no they wont join because there is to much invested money,infrastructire,love and time in both codes.

however it is shortsighted to continue the two codes.

thats my two cents

Of course your right. I'm just highlighting that there's a lot if emotion in rugby. The difference between the codes is far larger than the similarity. Many fans simply don't enjoy the "other" code.

yep i suppose you did sum it up quite well then. I suppose the only way the two codes do survive so well on there own is that there is so many fanboys!

The truth is BOTH games are excellent in there own way,shared Stadiums and an mutually agreed fixture list to accomodate both would save money.
YES,Geordie Falcon the Scrum,Lineout,and RUCK/MAUL have been diminished.Under Amateur laws ,IF more than one Line out went against the throw,OR SCrum against the Head.HE would be looking for illegallities,the constant tampering with interpratationsof existing laws does nothing for the games too.
Just because one team is dominating the game is no excuse to change the rules
to curb them.It is up to other teams to find LEGAL ways to negate them as an example.The changes 2009/10 with the kick chase laws and breakdown area and the contrasting success of Boks and All Blacks in those years[injuries taken into account]

GeordieFalcon wrote:Do you guys think the actual contest between the union teams at the breakdown, scrums, lineouts etc has been diminished / restricted slightly through the years?

Surely thats one of the biggest differences between the codes in that union you can actually fight for the ball...

Interesting question. I think the contest is dimished, it has definately changed. Watch any classic game from 15 years ago and earlier and the breakdown and set piece is a different contest. Today lineouts can put pressure on a team but they are less a true contest for the ball. Srums are more a means to get a penalty! We might as well change the name for hookers because when did you last see a hooker need to hook the ball?

For me contesting the ball is the crucial part of union - and I miss the time when rucks, mauls, scrums and line outs provided a better contest than the current rules (and refereeing practices like allowing crooked feeds) do.

I really hope not, I know we have have had some dull Union games lately, but having watched a lot of "top level" league in Australia, played it there briefly and accidentally expose myself to matches in the UK, I think that with the exception of State of Origin, it is a much more tedious game than Union. The skills may be nice, there may be more tries but that does not an unpredictable or exciting sport make. I respect the opinion of those who enjoy it, and having been smashed around the park, play it but if I want to watch a lot of scoring with literally no turnovers I'll watch basketball thanks

Unions top priority is to clean up the scrum. It can be done. Then one of the big black marks on the game will be cleaned away. I don't understand why the IRB aren't more zealously pursuing this goal. Most rugby matches on TV now have the obligatory moment when the commentators discuss how terrible it is to watch scrums being reset over and over and how it's a blight on the game and how things need to change. What is the IRB waiting for?

GeordieFalcon wrote:OK ill put it out there...

Rucks to be come a free for all....discuss....

It would be interesting to see what happens. You'd initially think it would slow down all the ball. But certain teams and players might become particularly adept at getting it out quickly. And a free for all might suck more defenders into rucks and make it easier to run the ball when it does come out.

I rather have the ball slowed down for a season until teams adapt to find ways to quicken up balls, than have teams hesitate as to when they can conetest or not, and referees deciding matches.

offload wrote:

Interesting question. I think the contest is dimished, it has definately changed. Watch any classic game from 15 years ago and earlier and the breakdown and set piece is a different contest. Today lineouts can put pressure on a team but they are less a true contest for the ball. Srums are more a means to get a penalty! We might as well change the name for hookers because when did you last see a hooker need to hook the ball?

For me contesting the ball is the crucial part of union - and I miss the time when rucks, mauls, scrums and line outs provided a better contest than the current rules (and refereeing practices like allowing crooked feeds) do.

This is a major problem and I think that eventually they are going to have to remove the full penalty for offences at the scrum,it's the only part of the game where you can get penalised and even carded simply because you aren't very good and I don't think that's completely fair.

They should also make teams play the ball from a scrum when they have the chance instead of waiting for a penalty,essentially the scrum is a means to restart the game and while there has to be a contest there it shouldn't be allowed diminish the game like it frequently does.

FR

You see, i see the scrum as far more than just a means of restarting the game in union - In league it IS a means of restarting the game.

A powerful scrummaging team can use it as a real weapon.....and this is what appeals about union - the fact teams can play different styles.

Some teams like England traditionally, SA etc have been powerful and played to that in the scrums...whilst others like Australia have traditionally played a more expansive game....

Whilst i love exciting running rugby...i also love to watch a well organised rolling maul, or powerful scrum...

I would love to open up the rucks as a free for all...ensuring safety is considered of course...but allowing teams to fully wrestle for the ball.....Yes it might slow things for a season...but it would soon be adspted to and teams would become adept again in those skills...meaning it would soon speed up the release of the ball...

GeordieFalcon wrote:FR

You see, i see the scrum as far more than just a means of restarting the game in union - In league it IS a means of restarting the game.

A powerful scrummaging team can use it as a real weapon.....and this is what appeals about union - the fact teams can play different styles.

Some teams like England traditionally, SA etc have been powerful and played to that in the scrums...whilst others like Australia have traditionally played a more expansive game....

Whilst i love exciting running rugby...i also love to watch a well organised rolling maul, or powerful scrum...

I would love to open up the rucks as a free for all...ensuring safety is considered of course...but allowing teams to fully wrestle for the ball.....Yes it might slow things for a season...but it would soon be adspted to and teams would become adept again in those skills...meaning it would soon speed up the release of the ball...

+1

GeordieFalcon wrote:FR

You see, i see the scrum as far more than just a means of restarting the game in union - In league it IS a means of restarting the game.

A powerful scrummaging team can use it as a real weapon.....and this is what appeals about union - the fact teams can play different styles.

A team with a strong lineout can use it as a real weapon too,but the team with the weaker lineout won't give away penalties just because they aren't as good.

personally i cant see rucks becoming a free for all- as it would either be dangerous(in the modern game) or need just as much ref interpretation as to what is allowed and what isnt when wrestling for the ball!

mydtir it doesn't necessarily have to become a total free for all. Just remove the law for the ball carrier that he doesn't have to release, and if the other team can get their hands on the ball they may fight fo the ball irrespective of whether it is on the bround or not.

That is where most penalties come from. Rather have the players fight it out than the referee make a 50/50 decision.

biltongbek wrote:mydtir it doesn't necessarily have to become a total free for all. Just remove the law for the ball carrier that he doesn't have to release, and if the other team can get their hands on the ball they may fight fo the ball irrespective of whether it is on the bround or not.

That is where most penalties come from. Rather have the players fight it out than the referee make a 50/50 decision.

Would you still have a scrum for the attacking team when the ball is unplayable?Would you be able to play the ball when off your feet?

Yes in my view it is the onus of the defending team to wrestle the ball away from the attacking team, unless of course they manged to ruck over and is seen to have driven the attacking team back.

I would say you have to be on your feet to play the ball except for the tackled player as it is obvious he will not be on his feet after a tackle. However I would amend the "on you feet" cirteria, often when there are bodies on the ground and you reach over it is almost impossible to remain "totally" on your feet only, as long as the player defending or attacking is seen to have his heels on the floor he is deemed to be upright, even if he is hinging on another player.

What I am trying to say the law shouldn't be seen as are you "on your feet" as much as "off your feet"

ok cheers.

i have allways been abit confused when it comes to releasing- certain reffs shout at the players ten times to release before they blow a whistle and others just blow the whistle straight away.

would it potentialy be a way of wasting alot of time?

biltongbek wrote:Yes in my view it is the onus of the defending team to wrestle the ball away from the attacking team, unless of course they manged to ruck over and is seen to have driven the attacking team back.

I would say you have to be on your feet to play the ball except for the tackled player as it is obvious he will not be on his feet after a tackle. However I would amend the "on you feet" cirteria, often when there are bodies on the ground and you reach over it is almost impossible to remain "totally" on your feet only, as long as the player defending or attacking is seen to have his heels on the floor he is deemed to be upright, even if he is hinging on another player.

It's an interesting idea,I'd like to see it tested just to have a look at what would happen.It might mean a lot of sealing off from the attacking team but it would be worth a try just to see.

initially yes, but think about it this way.

Every time a law has changed it took less than a season for teams to find a way around it.

It won't take long for defending teams to realise chances are good that the attacking team will get the ball from a ruck, so they either need to arrive in numbers to immediately ruck over the ball.

The alternative is when you know someone is allowed to hold onto a ball, you will change your technique of freeing the ball, as now there will be no more hesitation as to whether they are allowed to attack the ball or not.

The attacking teams will soon learn to offload more, pass more, arrive at the ruck quicker, players will not run away from their support.

So in essence you could expect the game to slow down for a short while, and then thereafter teams will not use the ruck as a foil to gain penalties if they can't find a way throuh the opposition defences, but rather play to score.

HOw much gamesman ship do we see at rucks these days?

How often does a scrum half throw his hands in the air in hope of a penalty?

Those issues will all be removed.

The two games have lived side by side for 100 years and each has its own unique rules, structure amd following. Cant see any reason that would change.

One could argue that the restarts in league get the game flowing continuously by not waiting time on the valuable minutes spent fighting for the ball.

On the other hand defensive patterns in league make the game very predictable. 6 tackles and a kick chip or bomb for a try after 5. No real need for height for lineouts or strength for scrums.

For me rugby provides for a wider range of skills and body types and im prepared to put up with the vagaries of the breakdown to perhaps get something different.

In league it 5 tackles- kick...handover. 5 Tackles kick handover. 5 Tackles try. Restart. Every NRL game i watch seems to be the same.

For that reason supporters wont allow a merge. The unique differences are the reasons people watch them.

As I said earlier, Union and League are not really variants of the same sport any more. They are different sports. And depending upon what a person likes and what he or she is raised with, they pick one, the other, both, or neither.

The question about League is how well it can thrive in the tighter economic times. Their budgets are smaller, the places where played are fewer, and the tv money is less than Union; the only exception being Australia.

I am a Union guy, but have no problem with League, as it is a different sport. When I was raised, there was still the big rivalry between the sports. But for me, that was ancient history.

Really Rugby Union has been in a state of evolution since day one,SH sides [NZ,SA]were professional in the best sense since 1905-6.ALL sides had a manager and a Coach,all played in the same positions,all had a competent Goal kicker.Scrum formations evolved from 2-3-2,3-3-2,3-4-1,or 3-2-3 to the now universal 3-4-1.Once there was place or drop kickingGoals from a Mark,Conversions required a placer,The Ball was leather[every country had its own designs].Coaching in NH started about 1968,and overtook the SH for about 10 years.How many here played in shirt,shorts,socks,boots and if you were lucky shin pads or a scrum cap?On the field the whole match half an orange at half time.3 pm kick off Saturdays.If you could walk you played on,injured?a sponge up your shirt and you went back on.Simplistic yes,BUT you played because you loved it.
What `s changed MONEY of course,15 men teams become 22 or 3 now we have squads.Covered balls,designer boots,Skintight shirts,Sports medicine,complex rules,Huge TV screens PHOOR,TMO`s and on.The Officials always had a hard job,were often vilified right or wrong,certainly there were home team Refs.BUT by and large they were good honest men,today there every move is analysed to death.EVERY ONE knows better than them the Tv pundits with all the camera angles available love pulling them apart.BUT they don`t have to make a split second decision,often with players.Acting better on the field than Sir Laurence Olivier.THE most important member of the team is the TV analyst working with a gang of Coaches.Since 2002 tries have been going down penalties soaring.The biggest area of trouble is the Tackle/Breakdown/Pileup area.When does the tackle ball ,become a ruck?the rule concerning the tackle has`nt changed.IF tackled play it[offload] or release and roll away.It is incumbent on the tackler to release the tackled player,a player
MUST be on his feet to handle the ball subsequently UNLESS ruck has been callled.But how many times do you see players diving in on a tackled player physically making it impossible to roll away.All the time another player is shouting
LOOK REF PENALTY etc.
Can some Refs here clarify a few points for me,Scrum ALL players must stay BOUND until the ball is out?WHY is it a health and safety thing.It means planned back row moves like the" Wallaby" or "Wyllie" are no longer legal.How often do you see a team[defending] go for the "Badajala" and shove the attacking scrum backwards as it is hooked?
Line outs why is one arm not allowed in a certain way to win the ball legal?is it the outside arm.How often does one see shortened lineouts or Peels from one are they still Legal?
Every one wants to see there team winning,in the SH due to travel in a 3/4Ns thats the home team.Super Rugby has now become unwieldly and the Conference system flawed15[16 next year?]is a joke,in most years at best 4 NZ,3 SA,and at best 3Aus sides usually the same suspects prop up the rest.
This is at the cost of arguably the two best club Comps in the world ITM/Currie Cup.They are the roots from which Super Rugby and International sides grow.
In the NH teams should be developing there own players first,NOT employing more and more merceneries.The Top 14 has only 55% home qualified players
France are THE best NH side at test level just[by 0.5%]but there consistency is terrible.England Clubs want to increase the salary cap to compete and stop players going to France for more cash.BUT that just creates a them and us situation,Rich sides winning everything,poor ones just getting by.Wasps are on the brink of receivershipfamous names of my youth no more.Black heath,Mosely,Coventry,Richmond,The London Exiles Clubs,Orrell to name a few.
Look at Toulon since the Boot of Andrew Merthens got them promoted,how much money have they spent.How many Great Players been thru there what have they achieved relatively speaking NOTHING.!!!
I don`t have the answers,the laws desperately need simplyfying,do you really want to watch matches decided by 8 penalties to 7 .NO more for me thanks saw to much of that in the age of reality.120 lineouts in on match and the result was about 3-0 exciting it was`nt!!!

Rugby league has never taken off in South Africa, the endless repetitive nature of the same thing over and over has never really interested us compared to the complexities of Rugby Union.

There is a negative result due to that though, and it is seen in the comparative limited skills we show in the backline. We tend to be very straight forward in our attack and still rely on physical dominance to break defensive lines mostly and the odd overlap.

Whether it will ever change is up to the powers that be to realise we need guile, the ability to "con" defensive lines with angles etc.

In recent past we have seen the Franchises starting to run "of the shoulder" of the ball carrier and attacking the "grain" of the drifting defence.

There is no doubt that we can do it, but it hasn't been a big focus for us.

There is in my opinion no way that rugby League will ever form part of union, we used to play rugby league in our training sessions to sharpen handling skills and one on one tackling, but by the same token we used 7's to the same extent.

I know there are many that enjoy Rugby League, but for me it is merely a skill set training exercise.

It used to be said in amateur days League skills were better fitness and better tackling skills. Differences you`d expect from a sport or a JOB.IF you look at the pattern of WINNING sides whenever,it has been the utilitarian over the artistic.Solid forward play,minimal risks,take the points on offer,great defence,great goal kickers.THAT pattern does`nt and will NEVER change coaches owe there jobs to the successes of there teams.Trophies mean everything,look at the average super game solid defence.Drop or penalty goals as match winners,look at what is considered THE ultimate Trophy the RWC.
Teams go int o that with a mindset ,RISK nothing etc.it`s what wins matches and RWC`s.Most of the finals over the years have been close grinding affairs,gripping but no way attractive Rugby.
People get what they are prepared to pay for Winning Rugby,they don`t care HOW you win just win.The Game is litterd with losing Coaches who did`nt learn that lesson.

It will never happen (and as fan of both codes I wouldn't want it to) but the English domestic competition could be amazing if Union absorbed league and the leaguies got behind it (Again, never going to happen). Imagine a league that has the likes of Wigan, St Helens, Leeds, Hull and Warrington playing top AP teams like Leicester, Northampton, Harlequins, Gloucester and Sarries etc.

Cumbrian wrote:It will never happen (and as fan of both codes I wouldn't want it to) but the English domestic competition could be amazing if Union absorbed league and the leaguies got behind it (Again, never going to happen). Imagine a league that has the likes of Wigan, St Helens, Leeds, Hull and Warrington playing top AP teams like Leicester, Northampton, Harlequins, Gloucester and Sarries etc.

Then imagine them behind those stationary english rucks.

Yep, seasoned RU front five forward would suddenly become even more valuable with so many new teams needing them.