Discussion in 'Rugby World Cup 2007' started by timmyhoran, Sep 29, 2007.
This is not very "rugby" :huh:
Nah mate, that's why they invented league, Union is about the running game.... [/b][/quote]
I think you've got that ass backwards buddy. One major difference between league and union IS the scrum. It is what Union is about, and (to me) offers greater tactics and stratagems. It's like the difference between draughts and chess. It's all very well having prancing backs, if they can't get the ball they are useless. It's also all very well having a dominant scrum that is not too happy about giving it to backs who may lose it. You play to your strengths, and the ideal is to have a dominant scrum AND dominant backs. However, to be honest, I watched the ABs play Canada a few months back, and they had both dominant backs and scrum, and the result was so predictable and boring with the ABs running tries in at will etc, and so one sided, I switched it off.
However, when one side has an advantage over the other side, it becomes far more interesting.
Of course, the same could be said of two well matched teams, both with good forwards and good backs. But if th is happens, and they cancel each other out, it can become the kicking game we all dread.
If you think league is more about scrumming than Union, then your'e in cloud cuckoo land.
You didn't mention scrummaging once, I was referring more to the comment of rugby is where 'players destroy each other physically', which I assumed wasn't aimed towards scrumming in particular but more towards the pretty unattractive ten man rugby many nations seem to play...where much of the flair union is usually known for is noticably absent....my bad...
EDIT: I think I explained that terribly.... [/b][/quote]
Well (scratching my head), you've lost me............
Separate names with a comma.