The Future of Rugby - Discussion

First topic message reminder :

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...

Saffy left the Dragons and was with the Melbourne Rebels last time I heard. I'm not sure where he is now.

Daine Laurie is now with the NSW Cup train-on players for the Newcastle Knights... and could be playing with the newly signed Willy Mason who said some pretty uncalled for things about Laurie:

On 31 January 2010, Laurie made comments about fellow player Willie Mason saying "Tell Willie Mason when I see him I'm going to slap him in the face, I'm gonna hurt him if he actually gets a start this year. [A friend] saw Willie out and was saying 'How about Daine Laurie, he runs pretty hard and he's a pretty good player'," Laurie explained. "Then Willie told him 'Nah, he's a poor excuse for a footballer and is just a drunk'. And calling me a drunk! Is he serious? He loves a drink. Everyone knows that. If you can put that in the paper, then put it in the paper. I used to have nothing but respect for the guy until I heard that. But that's it." Ironically, as of April 18 2012, Laurie and Mason now play for the same team, the Newcastle Knights.

Don't know too much about Allan Heldsinger but it appears he is still playing for the Redcliffe Dolphins.

Well it is safe to say rugby league is no threat to rugby union in SA, and looking at the demographics of where it is being played, the rest of the country has no interest in it.

It's probably best for other nations that it stays like that in SA because I can safely say that it (having players from both codes crossing over, bringing new skill sets,etc) has probably helped Australia succeed more in rugby union... perhaps more than we should have.
Otherwise, the cupboard is quite bare when it comes to rugby union stocks.

However it's good to see a handful of SA players come over here and make the transition to league and I wish them all the success.

Well we do play touch rugby, that helps with skills.
and a bit of sevens, and from what I heard there will soon be a ten a side structure as well.

I was watching a delayed Vodacom cup match of the EP kings and South Western districts late last night and the skills and will to run the ball was incredible, I know we have those skills, I just think our national coaches that have been appointed is simply just not prepared to play that way, it is daft.

Linebreaker wrote:It's probably best for other nations that it stays like that in SA because I can safely say that it (having players from both codes crossing over, bringing new skill sets,etc) has probably helped Australia succeed more in rugby union... perhaps more than we should have.
Otherwise, the cupboard is quite bare when it comes to rugby union stocks.

However it's good to see a handful of SA players come over here and make the transition to league and I wish them all the success.

I cant agree at all.. There is no logic to your argument, if the players didnt play league- they would be playing union from the offset

Mystir, I think Linebreaker is alluding to the skill set from league that is missing in our game.

still dont get the point- there is no reason why aus wouldnt have concentrated on passing ,running, handling etc over kicking even if they only played one code. you only have to look at football to see how different teams play the 'one' game

There was a wink, at the end of his statement, so perhaps a little tongue in cheek?

i doubt it..

the reason why aus are so good at RU is because they have so many rugby players which can switch codes. however they are not as good as the allblacks because they on the whole concentrate on RU, which wouldnt normally add up when comparing to other sports which Aus are better at..

NZ, doesn't only focus on rugby union, they just won the rugby league world cup the other day?

I'm simply saying that playing RL at the intensity we do very much helps players who make the transition to the other code. It's so obvious. No logic is required to explain the situation - it simply exists.

If RL didn't exist here the developments in passing, running, kicking, handling etc in rugby would not be at the level they are today. There is considerable 'cross-pollination' occurring in the 3 codes in terms of techniques and training. Surely you can see that, mystiroakey?

I just saw some vision of Issy Folau training for the GWS (aussie rules side).
It looked not too dissimilar to a rugby league/union training drill where the player 'runs the gauntlet' and is bashed by other players holding the pads.

You can clearly see League's influence on Union especially in attack (dummy runners) and defence (staying out of rucks and fanning out). I think as Linebreaker said Oz have used a lot of league tactics over the years

yes they have - however it doesnt proove anything at all. I argue that they would be a better team if they concentrated on union rather than having a split(union and league) like england . His point is that Aus are better off for it, my point is that they are not better off for it

biltongbek wrote:Mystir, I think Linebreaker is alluding to the skill set from league that is missing in our game.

Exactly Biltong. You know what I mean.

The Kiwis are current RL World Cup holders from 2008 however Australia (the Kangaroos) are current 4N holders winning in England last year.

Mystir, I'm not talking about the Wallabies 'being better than the ABs' - I'm just saying that if it wasn't for the influence of RL (and other factors) then we would not have had the success we have had in Rugby Union at international level.

biltongbek wrote:NZ, doesn't only focus on rugby union, they just won the rugby league world cup the other day?

Yes they did. Hoiwever there is no split oin NZ, i am sure all union fans would support there league team as well, its healthier in NZ. However they dont have a professional league set up - do they? i thought they only had one team(auckland) and yet are still better than Aus.. so could we say that RU is the better influence not league

Linebreaker wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Mystir, I think Linebreaker is alluding to the skill set from league that is missing in our game.

Exactly Biltong. You know what I mean.

The Kiwis are current RL World Cup holders from 2008 however Australia (the Kangaroos) are current 4N holders winning in England last year.

Mystir, I'm not talking about the Wallabies 'being better than the ABs' - I'm just saying that if it wasn't for the influence of RL (and other factors) then we would not have had the success we have had in Rugby Union at international level.

dont agree at all- if league didnt exist- your league players would play union and you would be better for it

No, I have to completely disagree with you there, mysti.

If we had concentrated solely on rugby union we would most likely not be ranked No.2 and have won a couple of RWCs. We would be wallowing around No 4 or 5 I'd say.

Up until the first BC series win in '79 we were the laughing stock of international rugby... to be brutally honest.

The 1986 BC win coincided with a crop of special players who had come to fruition. Interesting to note that the Ellas grew up in RL heartland and displayed typical RL balls skills, 'showing the ball', the dummy... basically finding ways to outwit the defences - our forwards were still below par on the international scale though. In 1991 we were rather lucky as you know but our forward play was just beginning to compete with the best.

That period above is also paralleled with the rise in professionalism in Rugby League. Players like Michael O'Connor, Ray Price, Ricky Stuart, Scott Gourley, etc. were some notable dual internationals in the phase of our RU development.

Then through the late 90's into the early 00s and up to today - the trend has continued and the Wallabies have been more or less up there with the best.

mystiroakey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:NZ, doesn't only focus on rugby union, they just won the rugby league world cup the other day?

Yes they did. Hoiwever there is no split oin NZ, i am sure all union fans would support there league team as well, its healthier in NZ. However they dont have a professional league set up - do they? i thought they only had one team(auckland) and yet are still better than Aus.. so could we say that RU is the better influence not league

Many mistakes in there mate. Speak to aucklandlaurie - he said the other day there's about 60 RL clubs in the Auckland region alone. It's a big sport there. It's obviously not affecting the All Blacks performance is it? I'm also not saying that it's all one-way traffic. It (players, skills, techniques, ideas) flows back and forth between the two codes... incrementally improving both RL and RU. New Zealand has benefited from playing RL in Oz (and vice-versa) and we have benefited from playing RU in NZ... and equally importantly - South Africa (and vice versa).

I have to agree with Linebreaker on this one.

General south african skills have always been at set piece and direct running, that was our strengths and still is today, purely becuase we are big and strong in the physical stakes, we don't "create" space like australia and New Zealand do, we will run at the line in hope to break the defence line and then by keeping the pressure on eventually create an overlap to hopefully score from.

Even in the 1995 world cup we would have but one or two back line moves that would be used as a surprise attack, such as the tries scored by the 8,9,10 combination of the set piece (Joel Stransky comes to mind in the RWC 1995 opener against australia.

For many year after Nick Mallet, we played the type of test match against Australia and New Zealand with the aim of strangling them and limiting their options to run at us (some years with succes and others not). Rarely did we go gung ho in attack, there were a few matches where we blew australia away, I remember in Perth in 2009 we ran in four tries in the first half, but then again even on form we would score mainly off set piece play.

South Africa has always been a set piece rugby nations and still is in the main.

Australia and New Zealand has influenced our way of attack which under PDV never came to fruition, but you can look at our provincial teams where these skills are now seen in every match. (these guys don't play rugby with the fear of failure and are there for more adventurous)

I like to beleive what NZ and OZ to a greater extent has learnt from us is set piece play and sturcutred rugby.

The reason why these three nations are the top 3 nations most of the time in my opinion is due to the diversity of their gameplans and traditional strengths.

We learn from each other all the time and it helps us improve in areas of weakness.

It is often said if SA rugby moves away from the SANZAR agreement and join Europe that their play will digress back to the set piece ethos. In a sense I agree with that, but by the same token, OZ and New Zealand will lose that set piece edge, we have been playing against them with, where they know they always have to be at their best.

So in my opinion it is a combination of all our strengths that keeps us sharp.

If Oz can only find a decent scrum.

Its impossible to tell what would have happened if there was no league union split- however logic only tells me that rugby would have been stronger in all areas if it had remained as one code- arguments to show how the game has developed arent relevant because we dont know how things would have turned out in another time line, untill we can tap into other 'time lines' we cant predict any future....


Anyway lol..

Point is we can only look at how other sports have developed without having two codes- the obvious one is football- and it has developed in various ways without another professional code- and not only has it developed it has also become the most successfull sport of all.Some fo that is due to no infighting for players and fans..

Linebreaker wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:NZ, doesn't only focus on rugby union, they just won the rugby league world cup the other day?

Yes they did. Hoiwever there is no split oin NZ, i am sure all union fans would support there league team as well, its healthier in NZ. However they dont have a professional league set up - do they? i thought they only had one team(auckland) and yet are still better than Aus.. so could we say that RU is the better influence not league

Many mistakes in there mate. Speak to aucklandlaurie - he said the other day there's about 60 RL clubs in the Auckland region alone. It's a big sport there. It's obviously not affecting the All Blacks performance is it? I'm also not saying that it's all one-way traffic. It (players, skills, techniques, ideas) flows back and forth between the two codes... incrementally improving both RL and RU. New Zealand has benefited from playing RL in Oz (and vice-versa) and we have benefited from playing RU in NZ... and equally importantly - South Africa (and vice versa).

no they dont they only hold each other back- the fact that things flow back and forth only cemment the view that they arnt helping each other- it just adds to the belief of 'what the heck is the point'

the natural development of sport would just come into play and at a much faster rate due to 'pooled' resources

"If Oz can only find a decent scrum."

That's where RL is letting us down... those uncontested scrums are a joke.

No seriously, we're working on it. There has been improvement in recent times but we are still so thin on the ground when it comes to replacements who can hold their own at International level. Luckily for us, the law changes have also benefited our packs significantly but all too often it can still fall apart at a critical moment in a game.

Mysti, I think we may be talking about two different things here.

I get your point about the original split over 100 years ago - and that there is no way we could predict what would have happened to rugby union say... if there was no rugby league.

I was concentrating more on the leading edge of what is happening now in the two sports - and given the fact that they did split all those years ago... and the two different codes now co-exist.

Good point you made about football... but apart from a few rule changes in the long history of the game (offside rule, substitutes, tackling,etc), it has progressively developed into the modern version it is today along with various styles of the many playing nations (cf South America, England, Germany... all have their particular nuances but it's basically the same simple game which is so appealing to billions of people)

For me, I don't ever think rugby will have the world-wide appeal football has... I may be wrong but certain countries just wont share the same love of the game as we do. Even though there has been a streamlining of the rules/laws it must still 'appear' to be too complicated and too rough to some people/cultures. However, I may well be wrong.

What I wanna know is where the %$£% did Gridiron come from?

(although I'm now glad it did <http://www.lflus.com/> )

Boomeranga, the americans didn't wanna get hurt. and they didn't think passing back when you are already running forward made any sense for some odd reason, and they didn't use the metric system go figure, and they struggled to count past ten so needed two poles with a ten yard rope inbetween , but they could also not kick, so the kicks only count for one , hence they invented Gridiron (they decided to make the name sound mean, as the paddings didn't help in that regard)

They were here (at least 2 of them)... at Queen's Park the other day.

Right near where I broke my leg in 2007. It makes it all kinda worth it now.

I feel like i am going around in circles abit Bilt. My point wont be agreed with by many. However i feel as though Rugby isnt the sport football due to its split.

Sadly and this is the way of the world. The only way to make rugby the global sport(or at least increase its value and fanbase around the world) is to directly compete for fans that are supporting other sports.

Basically to increase rugbys interest - you have to decrease other sports interests.

And one way of helping that cause is to merge league and union. Because together there are stronger , on there own there are fighting amongst each other and 2 seperate sports trying to acheive a global goal!

Ystir, I don't disagree with you on the fact that having two codes in one country splits the number of participants for each code, it has to, but what LB was getting at is what their rugby Union has gained from the skkillset from league.

my argument was based on his point that Aus(RU) were in a better place because of league, i agrue differently

Do you think football will see a decline in interest?

Also, how do we know that a combined rugby product will result in a better game - able to attract a larger fanbase?

Personally, I wouldn't be attracted to some form of hybrid game. I prefer to follow the two sports separately and enjoy them for what they are. I don't really care if rugby union or league are the dominant global sports. Sure I want each of them to grow and gather more followers globally but not they don't necessarily have to overtake football (almost impossible) and become No.1, mysti.

biltongbek wrote:Mystir, I think Linebreaker is alluding to the skill set from league that is missing in our game.

The skill sets between L and U are entirely different.

In League the skills required are:
Maintain possession and break down mean defences.

And that's it really. But that's not to say it's not a good game. But not to my taste. p.s. Is there any real difference between RL forwards and backs?

In Union there are so many complications caused by the retention of old values and in trying to regulate it the Unions have created a monster that will forever make it near-impossible to convert into a global sport.

I want a world that is united through sport... it will bring peace

Like Rollerball you mean...

Portnoy wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Mystir, I think Linebreaker is alluding to the skill set from league that is missing in our game.

The skill sets between L and U are entirely different.

In League the skills required are:
Maintain possession and break down mean defences.

Are these not prerequisite in union too Portnoy? In fact I would say it is the same for football, basketball, handball, waterpolo, netball and various other sports!

Whilst I don’t agree with Oakey on seeing the demise of League I see his point. Pooled resources would make Rugby Union stronger, certainly in Australia.

However, the centre of the RL universe just so happens to be Sydney and they overtook Union eons ago so there will be no demise of RL. This is fact and posters here should just accept that.

What about the reverse? If Union died a horrible death, would its supporters suddenly jump on the League bandwagon? I suspect not....

Anyway, if League did die out I feel most of the Australian players would gravitate towards AFL – it’s their national game.

Anyway, if League did die out I feel most of the Australian players would gravitate towards AFL – it’s their national game

Hmmm, reminds me of a bunch of little boys chasing fireflies.




Just a joke LB, don't shoot the messenger.

biltongbek wrote:

Anyway, if League did die out I feel most of the Australian players would gravitate towards AFL – it’s their national game

Hmmm, reminds me of a bunch of little boys chasing fireflies.




Just a joke LB, don't shoot the messenger.

It's actually a bloody good game to watch when you know what is going on...a bit like rugby really in that sense.

I had the privilege to live in Brisbane when the Lions reigned supreme with Michael Voss leading and Leigh Matthews running the ship. the atmosphere at the Gabba was something utterly different altogether!

I really like the look of the game.. from what i have seen, very random mind. they look more like tall football players over rugby players.

I find it difficult to come up with a rugby union equivalent for State of Origin in terms of intensity and hunger from both sides. Maybe because League tests seem to be few and far between and tests like the ANZAC tests invariably fail to live up to the hype. Maybe it´s because union also has abandoned the 3 match series in the recent past (the last time SA played a 3 match series was in 1996 against another nation - NZ - and of course the Lions in 2009). Let´s hope this season isn´t an anomaly and we see a lot more of these 3 match series that give a greater sense of worth to the purposes than most of this one-off drivel we see all too much of.

chewed_mintie wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Mystir, I think Linebreaker is alluding to the skill set from league that is missing in our game.

The skill sets between L and U are entirely different.

In League the skills required are:
Maintain possession and break down mean defences.

Are these not prerequisite in union too Portnoy? In fact I would say it is the same for football, basketball, handball, waterpolo, netball and various other sports!

Whilst I don’t agree with Oakey on seeing the demise of League I see his point. Pooled resources would make Rugby Union stronger, certainly in Australia.

However, the centre of the RL universe just so happens to be Sydney and they overtook Union eons ago so there will be no demise of RL. This is fact and posters here should just accept that.

What about the reverse? If Union died a horrible death, would its supporters suddenly jump on the League bandwagon? I suspect not....

Anyway, if League did die out I feel most of the Australian players would gravitate towards AFL – it’s their national game.

The difference between U and L is that there is a huge reliance on the contest for the ball (which L abandoned).

Despite the onset of professionalism and the rising (but inevitable) trend of the negativistic defences in U, the ball remains an essential object of desire. (not unlike footy). And that desire enables the multiplicity of skills required to regain/hold possession.

Thus the line-out, contested scrums, the breakdown and not once you are tacked the ball is mine.

Australia brought two of their AFL teams to SA some years ago to see if the crowds would enjoy it here, I just couldn't like it.

Its like the gaelic games in ireland and most probally limit both nations resources on the national sporting scale.

I think AFL has a massive following- however does anyone know how the gaelic sports are going in Ireland.. Will there last in the long run

I heard all this grunting and chanting outside a little while ago.

Turns out the Auckland Vulcans were competing with Fatty Vautin, Dazza Brohman and Gordy Tallis in a rock climbing contest up a fake plastic 'mountain' set up in the channel 9 carpark... which is just up the road from me.

The Kiwi kids smashed 'em.

I can't believe they've given 42.5 points start for a $4 bet on Friday night.
Great value or what?

biltongbek wrote:Australia brought two of their AFL teams to SA some years ago to see if the crowds would enjoy it here, I just couldn't like it.

They played a few games in the UAE and China as well. Didn't go down that well in Dubai (not surprisingly) but they loved it in China.

Biltong, you need to come over here to the "G" and watch a top of the table clash. Carlton v Collingwood last week had 84,000 and a few weeks ago they had 79,000 on consecutive nights. There's nothing comparable with it for intensity in a close match. What you don't appreciate on TV is the use of the space and the pin-point accuracy of the kicks. They are true athletes. They put the odometers on them - some players average between 16-23 km in a match! They make it look so easy though... which it isn't.

I played a few games many years ago... it's the most knackering sport. Imagine running your legs off and trying to boot a 'torp' when your legs feel like jelly (after about 3 mins) and when a few of the opposition are trying to tackle you or smash you off the ball.

LB I have no doubt it is a sport requiring athleticism, agility, fitness and skill, I just don't see why a bunch of guys running around a pitch, punching the ball to pass it, bouncing it to keep running and kicking in between 4 posts whilst the referee looks like he just squeezed a pip through his blowhole is entertaining, but then here in SA we are simpletons, give us rugby, cricket and the odd golfer and we are quite content.

They have two referees mate... and some women goal umpires. See, we're always ahead of the curve when it comes to sport.

You sound a little jealous there. It's actually quite appealing to Aussie simpletons.

you saffas certainly have some good golfers..

But their Olympians need a bit of work... consistently under performing on the world's biggest stage.
What's going on there?

Aussie rules is pretty interesting to watch. I think of it as similar in approach (though not at all in the physical activity of the game) to basketball

biltongbek wrote:Boomeranga, the americans didn't wanna get hurt. and they didn't think passing back when you are already running forward made any sense for some odd reason, and they didn't use the metric system go figure, and they struggled to count past ten so needed two poles with a ten yard rope inbetween , but they could also not kick, so the kicks only count for one , hence they invented Gridiron (they decided to make the name sound mean, as the paddings didn't help in that regard)

I can appreciate the idea that only passing backwards when your trying to go forward could seem flawed, but then they came up with a rule that says you can't pass to a guy wearing number 57 unless he tells the ref beforehand that it's ok.

Still, 100 million people cant be wrong. Must be good game once you work out why you need 99 players.

i like NFL alot.. Great watch once you get intoit and start understanding the concept,rules and the plays. It will never beat the passion of international rugby- but as a game its pretty decent