If League Wasn't a Sport

by GloriousEmpire Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:41 pm

Imagine a world where rugby league had not been invented.

When I see the vastly superior athleticism and spacial awareness of Rugby League converts, it makes me wonder just how different the rugby landscape would be if the game didn't exist at all.

The way someone like SBW revolutionised mid-field play with his outrageous offloading ability. Israel Folau decimated and embarrassed professional rugby players with years of robust defensive reputation. To a lesser extent, Chris Ashton was such a revolutionary beast for England that the normally conservative view of what a wing did was altered for ever, perhaps opening the eyes to exactly what it was the wingers for other nations had been doing to them for years.

It's clear, that in Australia's case, the top talent is not representing the national side.

When you consider the kind of dominance Australia has in Rugby League, we can only shiver at the prospect of a world in which rugby league did not exist.

by bigvonmic13 Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:42 pm

I hate to state the obvious, but if league didn´t exist you´d just have loads of union players with the same skill sets you get now. It´s the nature of the game that produces the difference in the players.

by t1000advancedprototype Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:47 pm

It wouldn't make Australia any better than England at union if all the league players played union.

Andy Farrell
Iestyn Harris
Shaun Edwards
Martin Offiah

Imagine them playing for England in the mid 90's....

Now you have freaks like Sam Tomkins.

by Hood83 Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:51 pm

Most days I try and imagine a world where league doesn't exist.

by SecretFly Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:58 pm

Also tie into the argument Rugby League's documented drug taking in Australia Wink

I hear they (PEDs) help with all that 'superior athleticism' stuff.

by aitchw Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:12 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:Imagine a world where rugby league had not been invented.

When I see the vastly superior athleticism and spacial awareness of Rugby League converts, it makes me wonder just how different the rugby landscape would be if the game didn't exist at all.

The way someone like SBW revolutionised mid-field play with his outrageous offloading ability. Israel Folau decimated and embarrassed professional rugby players with years of robust defensive reputation. To a lesser extent, Chris Ashton was such a revolutionary beast for England that the normally conservative view of what a wing did was altered for ever, perhaps opening the eyes to exactly what it was the wingers for other nations had been doing to them for years.

It's clear, that in Australia's case, the top talent is not representing the national side.

When you consider the kind of dominance Australia has in Rugby League, we can only shiver at the prospect of a world in which rugby league did not exist.

This is only partly true of the best of League's backs who are exceptional even in their own code and I dispute the athleticism claim anyway. Also, it only applies to backs as there is no meaningful forward play at all. Back in the pre pro era the best of the Union converts to League were exceptional too.

The two codes are very different games and it's great that they can feed off each other though these days I concede it's mostly one way.

Money and snobbery were the reasons for the split and sometimes I think that for some only the money aspect has changed. I'm lucky to to have a dual code club fielding my Union side.

by MotelMoneyMurderMadness Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:37 pm

If the OPs point is to suggest Australia RU would be considerably stronger without RL, thats true. But that would mean that huge swathes of Northern Englands best players would be available to play RU. If we are going to have this pointless discussion, imagine a world with no soccer and the impact upon RU in Europe.

by doctor_grey Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:50 pm

t1000advancedprototype wrote:It wouldn't make Australia any better than England at union if all the league players played union.

Andy Farrell
Iestyn Harris
Shaun Edwards
Martin Offiah

Imagine them playing for England in the mid 90's....

Now you have freaks like Sam Tomkins.

Martin Offiah - the only player to have gone a whole career and never got dirty playing two sports.

If League didn't exist, Rugby would be a much bigger global sport than it is now.

by JmD Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:06 pm

If rugby league didn't exist we'd probably see a load of people trying to ruin rugby union by changing the laws to make it more like rugby league and it would end up as a terrible hybrid.

by kingraf Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:13 am

To be fair you are talking about guys who bossed League, And then went to boss Union.

by Full Credit Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:31 am

t1000advancedprototype wrote:It wouldn't make Australia any better than England at union if all the league players played union.

by dragonbreath Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:39 am

doctor_grey wrote:
t1000advancedprototype wrote:It wouldn't make Australia any better than England at union if all the league players played union.

Andy Farrell
Iestyn Harris
Shaun Edwards
Martin Offiah

Imagine them playing for England in the mid 90's....

Now you have freaks like Sam Tomkins.
Martin Offiah - the only player to have gone a whole career and never got dirty playing two sports.

If League didn't exist, Rugby would be a much bigger global sport than it is now.

Why? It is played in Aus the M62 corridor and by some people in NZ. It is a marginal irrelevant sport in a global context. If RL didn't exist would anyone actually notice

by lostinwales Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:07 am

Rugby union requires a more rounded skill set than american football (power but not big on endurance) league (running/ passing skills) oz rules/ gaeilic (kicking). Its easy for athletes from those sports to look good doing their relevant thing in union. harder for them to master everything. For every billy whizz there are plenty of chev walkers

by Icu Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:17 am

Full Credit wrote:
t1000advancedprototype wrote:It wouldn't make Australia any better than England at union if all the league players played union.

Australia and NZ would be stronger if there was no NRL - Australia in particular. Cameron Smith, Jonathon Thurston, Billy Slater and Greg Inglis to name but a few would tear it up in rugby. All are as good if not better natural talents than Folau and SBW. Doubt it would make England any stronger. The English players in the NRL are mid tier - average but nothing special.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:37 am

For every SBW, Folua & Ashton there's a Lesley V, Lee Smith and Farrell.

Only reason it happens in the NH is there's more cash in Union as it has a larger fan base.

If RL finished tomorrow I doubt anyone outside of the M62 corridor would care.

by Taylorman Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:57 am

Icu wrote:
Full Credit wrote:
t1000advancedprototype wrote:It wouldn't make Australia any better than England at union if all the league players played union.

Australia and NZ would be stronger if there was no NRL - Australia in particular. Cameron Smith, Jonathon Thurston, Billy Slater and Greg Inglis to name but a few would tear it up in rugby. All are as good if not better natural talents than Folau and SBW. Doubt it would make England any stronger. The English players in the NRL are mid tier - average but nothing special.

The laugh was my first reaction as well...if Aussie let all its players into Rugby TODAY they would shoot to number 1 in a matter of weeks. Mind you they can leave the 'enhancifiers' behind...

by dallym Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:15 pm

wouldn't change the Poms too much. Sure Offiah was a great player, but he wouldn't have scored any tries due to the English 10man rugby.

by Taylorman Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:24 pm

Ofiah did play rugby though, and did score tries.

With Oz though for one thing looking at the 18 or so sides of the NRL, I reckon I'd be close in saying none of the Wallaby backs would make the side- perhaps Folau, and maybe but not necessarily, Genia. And the loosies? Imagine the lineup there... thanks to the NRL (and probably the AFL as well) and Sate of Origin NZ and the rest have the record it does...

by doctor_grey Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:56 pm

As I said before, Offiah was the only player who played league and Union, but never, ever, got dirty in either sport.
A truly gifted player.

by Shifty Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:42 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:When you consider the kind of dominance Australia has in Rugby League, we can only shiver at the prospect of a world in which rugby league did not exist.

That's a bit like saying the USA is dominant in NFL! Only the Americans give a toss about the NFL, and only that country plays it seriously.
Rugby League is pretty much about Australia and England only, the only reason other countries have sprung up is because plays from other nationalities have been given professional contracts in those 2 countries and as a result a lot of them were able to form some sort of national team.

The RL World Rankings are a total joke.
Australia has 30% more points than second placed New Zealand! And twice as many as England!
Paupa New Guinea are the 6th ranked team in the World yet how many people can name one PNG RL player?

1 (1) Australia 1,225.00
2 (2) New Zealand 825.00
3 (3) England 646.00
4 (4) France 258.00
5 (5) Wales 227.00
6 (4) - PNG 218.00
7 (7) Fiji 105.00
8 (6) - Samoa 80.00
9 (9) Ireland 71.00
10 (9) - Tonga 71.00
11 (10) - Scotland 70.00
12 (10) - USA 63.00
13 (13) Italy 54.00
14 (14) Russia 47.00
15 (14) - Serbia 45.00
16 (14) - Lebanon 36.00
17 (12) - Cook Islands 36.00
18 (17) - Germany 35.00
19 (18) - Canada 32.00
20 (18) - Norway 30.00
21 (20) - Malta 25.00
22 (22) Jamaica 18.00
23 (23) Ukraine 15.00
24 (22) - South Africa 14.00
25 (22) - Latvia 10.00
26 (24) - Czech Republic 7.00
27 (27) Denmark 6.00
28 (27) - Sweden 2.00
29 (new) Netherlands 2.00

I'm not really sure England would be any stronger if RL was merged into it. I'm not even sure they would of in the 90's either, because the RL players would of been amateur so would not of had time to develop their strength and skills ahead of the amateur Rugby Union players.

In fact it's fair to say England may of been weaker because Wales might not of lost Jonathan Davies, Jonathan Griffiths, Gary Pearce, Allan Bateman, Rowland Phillips, Mark Jones, Paul Moriarty, Stuart Evans, Kevin Ellis. Terry Holmes, David Young, Adrian Hadley, Robert Ackerman, David Bishop, John Devereux, Richard Webster, Scott Gibbs, and Scott Quinell to rugby league, then they may of not been quite so dominant in Europe!

by **Pal Joey** Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:49 pm

Surprised to see Latvia so far down the rankings. The Riga Liga must have celery cap problems.

Good to see Lebanon on the rise though.

by Guest Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:54 pm

Linebreaker wrote:Surprised to see Latvia so far down the rankings. The Riga Liga must have celery cap problems.

Good to see Lebanon on the rise though.

That's their problem right there - they need to switch to protein and clean carbs!

by Guest Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:58 pm

Shifty wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:When you consider the kind of dominance Australia has in Rugby League, we can only shiver at the prospect of a world in which rugby league did not exist.

That's a bit like saying the USA is dominant in NFL! Only the Americans give a toss about the NFL, and only that country plays it seriously.
Rugby League is pretty much about Australia and England only, the only reason other countries have sprung up is because plays from other nationalities have been given professional contracts in those 2 countries and as a result a lot of them were able to form some sort of national team.

The RL World Rankings are a total joke.
Australia has 30% more points than second placed New Zealand! And twice as many as England!
Paupa New Guinea are the 6th ranked team in the World yet how many people can name one PNG RL player?

1 (1) Australia 1,225.00
2 (2) New Zealand 825.00
3 (3) England 646.00
4 (4) France 258.00
5 (5) Wales 227.00
6 (4) - PNG 218.00
7 (7) Fiji 105.00
8 (6) - Samoa 80.00
9 (9) Ireland 71.00
10 (9) - Tonga 71.00
11 (10) - Scotland 70.00
12 (10) - USA 63.00
13 (13) Italy 54.00
14 (14) Russia 47.00
15 (14) - Serbia 45.00
16 (14) - Lebanon 36.00
17 (12) - Cook Islands 36.00
18 (17) - Germany 35.00
19 (18) - Canada 32.00
20 (18) - Norway 30.00
21 (20) - Malta 25.00
22 (22) Jamaica 18.00
23 (23) Ukraine 15.00
24 (22) - South Africa 14.00
25 (22) - Latvia 10.00
26 (24) - Czech Republic 7.00
27 (27) Denmark 6.00
28 (27) - Sweden 2.00
29 (new) Netherlands 2.00

I'm not really sure England would be any stronger if RL was merged into it. I'm not even sure they would of in the 90's either, because the RL players would of been amateur so would not of had time to develop their strength and skills ahead of the amateur Rugby Union players.

In fact it's fair to say England may of been weaker because Wales might not of lost Jonathan Davies, Jonathan Griffiths, Gary Pearce, Allan Bateman, Rowland Phillips, Mark Jones, Paul Moriarty, Stuart Evans, Kevin Ellis. Terry Holmes, David Young, Adrian Hadley, Robert Ackerman, David Bishop, John Devereux, Richard Webster, Scott Gibbs, and Scott Quinell to rugby league, then they may of not been quite so dominant in Europe!

Shifty, your post is massively condescending and a bit offensive to rugby league nations. To say only Aus give a toss about it is a bit wide of the mark. England has had a fully professional and pro league since time began, attracts bigger crowds on average (I think) than club rugby union, and attracts stars from around the world. It's also big in NZ, and they're very good at it. Not as big as union obviously, but still very big. It's also the national sport in a few countries too - PNG for one. To say only Oz are interested or take it seriously is laughable. If you just look at rankings tables then you could say that in union only NZ take it seriously and Wales, for example, do not give a stuff.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:04 pm

On a global level both Rugby Union and Rugby League are minority sports. Across the world Rugby 7s is now the pre-eminent version is spreading and growing rather rapidly.

Australia could easily win the Olympics if they included RL players in the squad.

by fa0019 Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:36 pm

If Folau can have that big an impact, you'd wonder why the ARU are not flashing their cheque book at the other stars in the NRL. Imagine just another folau type on the other wing to go with Beale, O'Connor, Genia, Folau etc?

Folau makes SBW look average. Does anyone remember such a great debut?

Matt Tait vs. Wales in 05?

by **Pal Joey** Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:45 pm

Exactly fa. GI (Greg Inglis) springs to mind. Equally as damaging as Izzy.

We've got a betting ad here: "If GI scores... the money's yours!"
(cartoon caricature of an stubble-faced GI in a tank planting the ball down under the posts as bombs, gunfire goes off around him... and dollar notes exploding around the tank in the in-goal area) Laugh

by fa0019 Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:50 pm

I'm not that big on league anymore but Folau was just amongst a clutch of talented chaps right?
If a chap in SA did what Folau did, the next home club game would have thousands more in attendance (if they're not sold out already). He justifies a massive salary for last saturday alone.

I worry for everyone else if they can sign 1 or 2 more major major players pre RWC15.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:58 pm

Australia have not had the best of returns with their RL recruits. Wendell Sailor, Mat Rogers and Lote Tuqiri all had some success without ever really totally convincing. That will leave any Union a little hesitant to over splash the cash.

by **Pal Joey** Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:08 pm

LT, the latest NRL players are a level above those guys from 10 years or so ago.

Inglis is the most brutal of all but relies on speed+force... very hard to get a grip on him due to his sheer size. Folau has more dimensions to his game compared to Sailor and Tuquiri (who were simply hard ball runners but not super-creative... they hardly knew how to pass the ball!). Rogers was on the small side but could be handy with the boot on ocassion but was an average league and union player and he also had too many injuries right at his 'peak'.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:10 pm

I am sure they are LB - but for ARU to really splash out they will need some convincing.

by **Pal Joey** Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:16 pm

Oh yeah... like the Benji Marshall 'enquiry' last week. He's just fishing around though I'd say. I think he'd be better than QC (freakish but less risky... he also offers more team protection than Quade) There's also the big, bruising, thuggish NRL forwards (ex-backs some of them with bulk and pace on the ball) who would make a mark in rugby... but they'd also be queuing up at the ARU/IRB judiciary every week no doubt.

by fa0019 Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:17 pm

I actually had a lot of respect for Mat Rogers. He was a very talented player and for someone to be able to play flyhalf union from league is quite remarkable... I would say he was the most talented of the 3 but injuries proved difficult and had he played union all his life he would have been one hell of a player.

by **Pal Joey** Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:18 pm

Matt also had the family problems too which was disruptive. His father Steve was an absolute legend in the game.

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:25 pm

fa0019 wrote:I actually had a lot of respect for Mat Rogers. He was a very talented player and for someone to be able to play flyhalf union from league is quite remarkable... I would say he was the most talented of the 3 but injuries proved difficult and had he played union all his life he would have been one hell of a player.

Iestyn Harris managed to play fly half in both League and Union, but I guess that was different as he was given the fly half shirt the day he signed his union contract without actually having to prove any skills.

by fa0019 Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:30 pm

That whole period was a joke.... the WRU hd to play him (like England played Farrell) because they couldn't be seen to make such a big financial mistake.

The guy had as much BMT as charlie hodgson.

by lostinwales Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:55 pm

I think Farrell might have worked if he had shifted over a few years earlier and had actually found a position to play.

by MotelMoneyMurderMadness Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:27 pm

Farrell was an incredible player. If he had come to union fit, instead of hobbling on a busted knee and a few years earlier, he would have been a union darling just like Robinson. Yes, the talent in RL in Australia is formidable, I watch a lot of NRL, however we have some fine players here too.

by GunsGerms Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:39 pm

If Gaelic Games wasnt so popular in Ireland we would in theory also have a lot more talented players. All of the following Lions came from Gaelic football:

Eric Millar
Rob Kearney
Geordan Murphy
Tommy Bowe
Keith Wood (hurling)

There are lots of really talented gaelic players that could have been incredible rugby players.

by aitchw Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:55 pm

Now if we could tempt Kevin Sinfield there really would be some fly half options. Only joking, Rhinos need him!

by **LondonTiger** Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:57 pm

aitchw wrote:Now if we could tempt Kevin Sinfield there really would be some fly half options. Only joking, Rhinos need him!

Sinfield, like Farrell would also be joining past his best. Would love to have secured Sam rather than Joel Tomkins for RU.

by LordDowlais Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:03 pm

If there were no such thing as RL then Wales would have been a lot nicer place to watch rugby in the 90's, we lost about two generations to league back then, how good could we have been if we kept hold of the players Shifty mentioned earlier.

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:14 pm

LordDowlais wrote:If there were no such thing as RL then Wales would have been a lot nicer place to watch rugby in the 90's, we lost about two generations to league back then, how good could we have been if we kept hold of the players Shifty mentioned earlier.

Would Rugby Union have gone pro-earlier? Maybe we would have seen the likes of Jiffy, GIbbs and Co. cross the bridge and play in the Prem instead?

by MotelMoneyMurderMadness Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:14 pm

The benefits to England RU over the years would have been huge with players like Hanley, Edwards, Betts, Lydon, Sculthorpe and Long in theory being available. However as RL is a working mans game, would they be even playing Rugby Union or would they be playing soccer?

The flip side of that is that Australia would have had access to players like Wally Lewis, Meninga, Langer, Tallis, Lockyer, Daley and so on...

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:24 pm

The plus side is England wouldn't have had access to the Volcano, Henry Paul or Shontayne Hape. Even better the All Blacks would have been lumbered with them!!

by LordDowlais Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:30 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:If there were no such thing as RL then Wales would have been a lot nicer place to watch rugby in the 90's, we lost about two generations to league back then, how good could we have been if we kept hold of the players Shifty mentioned earlier.

Would Rugby Union have gone pro-earlier? Maybe we would have seen the likes of Jiffy, GIbbs and Co. cross the bridge and play in the Prem instead?

They might well have gone over the bridge, who knows, but at least Wales would not have been on the end of humiliating defeats that were to follow the mass exodus.

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:39 pm

Lord - I was thinking more along the lines of Wales being more in a position where we are now, a handful of the senior players blocking shirts in England and France whilst their back ups all play regular in for their clubs/regions (prob would have happened sooner if pro came sooner).

by LordDowlais Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:45 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Lord - I was thinking more along the lines of Wales being more in a position where we are now, a handful of the senior players blocking shirts in England and France whilst their back ups all play regular in for their clubs/regions (prob would have happened sooner if pro came sooner).

Sigh, tell me about it, I was forever the optimist during the 90's, I even thought Byron Haywood would come good, and Arwell Thomas, but hey ho at least now those days are behind us.

by SecretFly Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:52 pm

If League wasn't a sport, the number 6 would long ago have been consigned to the rubbish bin.

Even Union doesn't need 6 ..as 7 if infinitely more important Wink

by kiakahaaotearoa Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:56 pm

It'd be a shame as we'd be current world champs in one less sport. Very Happy

:D

by Mr Fishpaste Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:38 pm

Stop imagining! The world where there's only union and no league does exist: South Africa. I'd say you average die-hard bok fan would not even be able to name a single league club, and no league player (unless they've also played union). It doesn't even factor into our rugby consciousness. So perhaps this gives insight into what the rugby world-sans-league would look like: 10 man kicking rugby!

by Sponsored content