Is scrum really necessary?

[RoosTah]

Fully aware of the rivalry with South Africa (most Rugby folk are aware of the NZ players who were so desperate to compete against SA they disgraced themselves by travelling to play there during apartheid)..heard the great Sean Fitz talk about winning a series in SA. With due respect to South Africa, it's Australia who were the box office match up with NZ. The reasons for this are disputed, but I would say a number of factors; Australia has a bigger international profile as a nation (aided by being Anglo), bigger stadiums, bigger media which generated more publicity, being next door neighbours, the gold jerseys (and the contrast with black), the running style of play, the scarves, flags and songs (waltzing Matilda by banjo bloke worked a treat), the excitement generated by the public. A massive national event. All gone.

10 teams is a nonsense. When's the last time Sco, Wales or Ireland beat NZ? We are largely the filler. Union in England is not high profile..it's southern public school based, while in France its south west based. We look toward the three teams in the SH as the power base of the sport...and with one in decline that is what Rugby cannot afford.

Simon,

On your three points, I know you're viewing this from afar, but do you mean to say the Bledisloe is bigger as an international event than the Boks v ABs? Because I can tell you now that for Kiwis the boks have always been the big bad. For a about 20 years - 80s till the early 00s - Australia's rivalry in the Bledisloe was equal in terms of importance to kiwis, but it's not anymore for the same reason that England's rivalry with the Kangaroos in international rugby league is no longer seen as important (sadly) to Australians (i.e. they simply aren't competitive enough).

As for 10 teams - I agree 10 is stretching it in reality, but it's Scotland and Italy that are the fillers. Ireland and Wales are both genuinely great teams capable of beating all the other teams and have on many occasions. Ireland and Wales have also been the most success in the 6N over the past few years. Sure, Ireland have never beaten the All Blacks, and it's been a very long time for Wales too, but the reality of international rugby right now is really not a north-south divide anymore; it's an All Blacks and the rest divide.

As for its presence in England and France, you're simply wrong here in terms of the simple economics. Rugby is niche in England, but it's still significantly larger in terms of its economic footprint and player base than all three SH countries combined. It's worth remembering that England alone is about double the combined population of NZ and Australia - so niche in England is still much bigger than mainstream in NZ. In addition, Rugby is actually MORE niche in Australia than in England, where it basically has free reign in the south as the only contact football code. Indeed, I work with a guy who is an unashamed soccer nut (fan of some B-grader also-rans called the "Rovers" I think), but he told me that whilst he isn't much into Rugby he "wept" with joy when the ******** beat us in the World Cup Final in 2003 - so I'm guess it has some penetration into the mainstream when it comes to the big shows.

The decline in interest in the game in Australia has got zilch to do with my comment on football. I only mentioned Barcelona vs Real Madrid as an example of a box office game in sport. Football dwarfs everything so obviously I wasnt comparing,..hence your insecure post about why I didn't compare other sports with Rugby was pointless. In my previous posts I didn't even mention any specific box office matchups in sport. I could have said Federer vs Nadal, or Mayweather vs Pacquiaio (he dreams), or Europe vs USA in golf's Ryder Cup. NZ vs Aus used to be Union's box office match up, and it's sad that it's no longer the case.

League followers bring up the decline in Union in Australia a lot. Perhaps they are crowing (though their own code is just two regions) but they are right to talk about it as it is a major issue you can't hide away from. The fact is League is in direct competition with Union and in the Rugby hotbed of Sydney/Brisbane league is dominant.

League always had much better fundamentals in NSW and Qld than union did, it's just that it was organised by morons. Now the NRL are taking an increasingly NFL style structure and the game is reaping the benefits. 4 of the top 5 highest rated events this year were Rugby League games, with the AFL GF being pushed to 4th place after the NRL GF and the first two State of Origin games. It's got more big ticket events than any other code in the country now, and if England ever get their act together and become a genuine force again, then it'll have more still (there's nothing like a series against England).

However, this much more sophisticated level of organisation by the NRL effectively means rugby is not a competitor in the true sense of the word anymore - the game isn't even in the same weight division. The NRL and the AFL are competitors, whilst soccer and Rugby compete for what remains. In seasonal terms of course, soccer only competes with cricket, as it is played in summer to avoid competition, but in TV dollar terms all the networks spend all their rights cash on the NRL and AFL first and then whats left goes to soccer and rugby.

 

[William18]

I was in Australia in 2007 when the pool stages of the World Cup coincided with the NRL and AFL grand finals. No prizes for guessing what came 3rd on the News. I think Sanzar is correct that the club game in England is quite private school, the national team is followed by a fair amount of people.

 

[Big Ewis]

Simon I just thought about something a moment ago and cared to write it here as it's part of what I was saying earlier.
The 2010 Six Nations.
France beat everyone up til that point England were to come to Paris and defy us from getting the Grand Slam. They had had a pretty awful run so had nothing to lose and threw attacking Rugby at us. We *contained* the best we could and they scored as early as the 5th minute. Only try of the game though. As the the game went on, tendencies started appearing: the English were quite undisciplined, the French the opposite. The English showed movement, intent with ball in hand and looked menacing at times but we contained, contained...in the meantime Trinh-Duc hit a Drop Goal, and our kickers collected from the T patiently. We bid our time, put pressure on them and collected patiently. No erratic attacking or what not. Short little score in the end. 12-10, but France had won its longed-for Grand Slam prize.
Interesting how even the (french) pundits were all saying France were playing English Rugby and vice versa..Penalty count: 7(hometeam) to 13. It was funny because how many "crunches" aka ENG vs FRA were won on that specifically for the rosbifs, staying under control and pi$s the French off. And it worked. Tables had turned that night...and we won the Grand Slam like that.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I was in Australia in 2007 when the pool stages of the World Cup coincided with the NRL and AFL grand finals. No prizes for guessing what came 3rd on the News. I think Sanzar is correct that the club game in England is quite private school, the national team is followed by a fair amount of people.

Yes he is - to an extent, mainly because club rugby has no exposure on terrestrial tv, and state schools on the whole don't play rugby because they don't have the facilities.
You can play football on a concrete surface - rugby less so.

His insinuation seems to be that it's been weighed, measured and rejected by the working classes. Which is entirely untrue.
In less urban areas it's far more mainstream. It's the big cities where no-one has a clue about the sport.

 

[RoosTah]

Yes he is - to an extent, mainly because club rugby has no exposure on terrestrial tv, and state schools on the whole don't play rugby because they don't have the facilities.
You can play football on a concrete surface - rugby less so.

His insinuation seems to be that it's been weighed, measured and rejected by the working classes. Which is entirely untrue.
In less urban areas it's far more mainstream. It's the big cities where no-one has a clue about the sport.

My insinuation or Simon's? I wasn't arguing that - simply that whilst the game in general is a private school thing in club land, the national team has cut-through.

As for Public Schools not having the facilities, really? I mean where I grew up Rugby League was and has always been the game of the working class and up like soccer in England, but in terms of "facilities" League requires the same things union does - a field and goal-posts. Don't you guys have general purpose public parks with footy fields that schools can use?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

As for Public Schools not having the facilities, really? I mean where I grew up Rugby League was and has always been the game of the working class and up like soccer in England, but in terms of "facilities" League requires the same things union does - a field and goal-posts. Don't you guys have general purpose public parks with footy fields that schools can use?

Nope, not really. I've never seen rugby posts/pitches in a public park before.
I'd be interested in seeing the numbers of schools vs the number of schools that offer rugby as a sport. Every school I've ever come across has had rugby as a sport, but then I'm not from the middle of a city, where I know a lot of/most schools don't have the greenery for a pitch.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Yeah, sorry sanzar, I meant Simon.

There are a few pitches dotted around London, but only a minority have rugby posts, and will all mostly be in use by football teams at the time that state schools can use them.

 

[goodNumber10]

I grew up in East London and all the public parks have rugby pitches in them that might be one pitch to every 15-20 football picthes but they are about - and East London is a football stronghold due to West Ham.

Rugby was played in Public schools up until the teacher strikes in the 80's when a lot of after school organised sport was dropped - i went to a church based school but we played all the local schools at football in the week and rugby on Saturday mornings - Saturday mornings was school rugby, sunday was your clubs, you basically played a mini's tournament twice every weekend - that all stopped after the strike and pretty much everything dried up.

Football is easier to play, you can play i on any surface - rugby you can't (touch rugby is a relatively new sport in the UK) it's less likely you will get hurt and you literally just need two people to have a fun game - growing up literally every day my brother would be in goal (the garage at the back) whilst i smashed the ball as hard at him as possible - we both played rugby since we were 6/7 but we seldom played out of organised set ups.

 

[Beau Geste]

In my view the scrum is absolutely necessary, but I fear that the Union scrum is heading the same way as League scrums. The crooked feed now in Union is ubiquitous and one of the reasons IMO there are so many resets.

I'm from Hull, so was brought up on League: Union has almost zero interest in comparison. If I go back to the early 60's, League had unlimited tackles, contested scrums, and supposedly 3-yards at the play the ball although it was often less. Similar to what a ruck is now in Union. What we have now in League is effectively a different game. The standards, so far as flair is concerned, have gone down to the point whereby I cannot stomach Superleague and watch the NRL because it's far superior in almost every way. The game in general has become more predictable. The scrum's a 'lean-to' so the arm wrestle's gone out of the game, which means forwards can now get all over the field to make cover tackles, in the past props wouldn't have the energy to get there; in those days there was the great South African winger Tom Van Vollenhoven scoring 40 to 50 tries a season for St Helens and Billy Boston the same at Wigan, 10 yard rule at the play the ball means that flair is jettisoned because of the need for power; much easier to gain momentum when you've got a 10 yard run up, but there are no Alex Murphy's around anymore who could unpick any defence.

But I have issues with Union as well. I would introduce 2 refs like they do in the NRL. One to be the senior, but to concentrate on the breakdown; the other to ensure the offside rule is maintained, but also an idea from one of the old League refs that a referee puts the ball in the scrum; and looking for foul play in the back play. This would avoid some of the present nonsense where basically it's fed almost every time and the art of hooking the ball has become a thing of the past. It just becomes a borefest that turns people off. Rugby should be about attacking play and scoring tries rather than reset scrums, one front row getting pinged because the refs themselves don't know what they are looking for resulting in games being decided by penalties.

I love watching both games. I'm not one of the bigots who slags off the other code. They both have + and -. Would love to see them merged again although I'm not hopeful. Watching the ITM game at the weekend between Hawke's Bay and Manawatu is how I like to see the Union game played.

 

[majorb]

The scrum is purely a means of restarting a game after a stoppage on field. One of the things is was designed to do was create space (as you obviously had half your players tied into one small area of the field which in turn should create more tries or at least opportunities to score.
It obviously can be frustrating as in the modern game it seems all to often scrums are set and re set over and over again and normally only conclude in full penalty or free kick (which teams play for) which from a spectators point of view can be boring but that's down to the ref's. A professional foul leads to an automatic yellow card and it seems to me if your pulled up for boring in, dropping the scrum and so forth these could be determined as professional fouls and a season or so of players continuously sin binned for scrum infringements or the fear of the card would sort a lot of these issues out.
That said I always played in the backs with a very short stint at back row, but love watching that battle up front.

 

[majorb]

Having just read it I would totally agree also with Beau Geste 2 ref's as per NRL especially as a lot of so called senior ref's seem to miss obvious infringements in the scrum as or in open field due to managing the scrum's. I used to play with a centre that would live off side when the ref's had there heads in on the scrum. And I have seen it in the premiership, defensive players taking those few step up before the balls come out.

 

[majorb]

Apart from the All Blacks that is? who more often than not top the world rankings and still manage to filter in new talent at least every other season.

 

[MartinS]

I am not familiar with RL so as to participate - I do say that I was invited this year to watch a game while in Sidney and to be honest - I did not enjoy it, other than some impressive athletes running. I mean no disrespect, but I am trying to be honest.
Now, the one thing that does call my attention is that normaly RL lovers are the ones bringing up the beauties of RL as opposed to boaring RU! I must wonder why? I have yet to find a RU lover that tries to convince others of the greatness of RU vs RL.
As to why RL is bigger than RU in Australia? A mate from Sydney gave me an answer that has nothing to do with the aspects of the game - betting! - I know that this will create a big havoc, but it is what I was told.

 

[Beau Geste]

... As to why RL is bigger than RU in Australia? A mate from Sydney gave me an answer that has nothing to do with the aspects of the game - betting! - I know that this will create a big havoc, but it is what I was told.

Betting. Don't agree with that comment. RL's basically a working class game, Union middle class. It's what you're brought up on that tends to define which way you go. RL in Australia was formed in 1908 and in that time, so far as I'm aware, it has always been dominant over Union. I can't think of anyone I know who watches live RL because of betting, and certainly not any Aussies I know.

 

[SimonG]

Betting. Don't agree with that comment. RL's basically a working class game, Union middle class. It's what you're brought up on that tends to define which way you go. RL in Australia was formed in 1908 and in that time, so far as I'm aware, it has always been dominant over Union. I can't think of anyone I know who watches live RL because of betting, and certainly not any Aussies I know.

None of that answers why viewing figures and crowd attendances in Union have nosedived in Australia since 2006. it may be true that RL has always been bigger (Aussies can answer that one) but the gulf in popularity between it and Union has never been a big as it is now.

We can only go on what market research in Australia tells us and that is causal fans (which is the vast majority of the populous) have switched their attention away from Union and one of their reasons given was that the game is boring as a spectacle. The hardcore will watch week in week out (most on this site)...NZ don't have casual fans as the sport is a religion there so they will be interested regardless of the changes. South Africa meanwhile enjoy the attritional game. Aussies are different...there are more options with other competing sports there and with the NRL there is a constant contrast between the two codes...one with an emphasis on open running, the other with an emphasis on low risk forward play. Australia is unique in that respect in that it has two codes competing in the same area...and so Union has suffered. England, the only other nation where both codes have a professional league, is unaffected by changes in either code as they are segregated geographically with league in the north and Union in the south.

As a casual fan I share similar viewpoints with Aussies in wanting to see a more expansive running game, how Union used to be, but the difference with them is I don't have Rugby league to switch over to. I have watched the odd league game here and there (really to watch Burgess) but i will always watch Union, only nowadays I'm much more selective with what games I will watch.

 

[sigesige00]

The football thing was supposed to be an analogy on your 'Impossible when the difference of strength between 2 sides is large' point. What the score is irrelevant. I meant to say that it's not Germany's fault for being stronger. Same with a stronger pack in the scrum. Are they to blame for being stronger? Hell no. Like I said, it's not even a problem is it?

Also, what are you trying to say with the 300-0 game?

On a side note, there is a way to avoid scrums; don't drop the ball.

Sorry for a late response.
No, I am not blaming anyone for being stronger. That is not fault. So there is no problem about 300-0 game.
But, being far stronger is a problem for scrum. When a side is too stronger, scrum immediately collapses. So scrum is sometimes impossible.
In the case of maul and ruck, that's no problem. The weaker side can avoid maul and ruck. But scrum is a FORCIBLE full-contact play. So that's problem.
In Football, there is no forcible contact play. So scores like 20-0 are no problem.

 

[RoosTah]

As to why RL is bigger than RU in Australia? A mate from Sydney gave me an answer that has nothing to do with the aspects of the game - betting! - I know that this will create a big havoc, but it is what I was told.

That's literally one of the dumbest things I've read on this forum... Rugby League is bigger in Australia than Union because it was better organised, more accessable to more of the population (union was limited to private schools for decades) AND it was professional. People have been betting on all sports since forever - and that includes union.

 

[Bean]

League is bigger only because it guarantees Australia wins at rugby. If Australia were any good Union they'd all watch it. We saw it in the late 90's, early 2000's. In short, they're fair weather supporters. If Australia were bad at Union and League, they'd tell you they only care about Cricket, then AFL, then Soccer, then Netball, then Hockey.

 

[SimonG]

League is bigger only because it guarantees Australia wins at rugby. If Australia were any good Union they'd all watch it. We saw it in the late 90's, early 2000's. In short, they're fair weather supporters. If Australia were bad at Union and League, they'd tell you they only care about Cricket, then AFL, then Soccer, then Netball, then Hockey.

Nonsense. Aussies don't care about the international game in League...state of origin and the NRL dwarf the international game. Almost 5 million watched the NRL final...roughly a fifth watched Australia vs NZ league game.

Market research gives the reason interest in Union is dying in Australia, when questioned they listed the game is boring as a spectacle. Less open running (I'm witnessing it right now watching Eng Vs NZ)...very very very very few line breaks...did I stress very few enough? The game is about bulk, stifling tactics, low risk forward play. I was quite revved up for this game today but have been about as quiet as the crowd watching it.

 

[RoosTah]

League is bigger only because it guarantees Australia wins at rugby. If Australia were any good Union they'd all watch it. We saw it in the late 90's, early 2000's. In short, they're fair weather supporters. If Australia were bad at Union and League, they'd tell you they only care about Cricket, then AFL, then Soccer, then Netball, then Hockey.

I said the last post I quoted was the dumbest thing I'd read on this forum, but the ***le was short-lived. Congratulations, you're retarded.

Rugby League is bigger here for the reasons I just stated in my last post, and AFL is bigger for similar reasons.

As for the "fair weather jibe", even at Rugby's height in this country when we were winning every trophy imaginable and beating the All Blacks regularly, the Bledisloe never beat the State of Origin and the NRL or AFL GFs in ratings. I know a lot of Kiwis find this incredibly hard to grasp, but Rugby has actually never been very big in Australia. It got a lot of noteriety in the 90s and early 00s, but the over-all market share still never exceeded the NRL or AFL and the infrastructure - in terms of numbers of clubs/players - never grew all that substantially and remained too focussed on posh schools.