League vs Union...

Discussion in 'The Clubhouse Bar' started by kbourke88, Jun 19, 2007.

  1. kbourke88

    kbourke88 Guest

    League vs Union argument is an age old argument in Australia, its in our blood, its a class war, its a sports war, its a war of passion and belief here. (well at least in NSW and QLD. the rest of the country plays some dumb sport called AFL). Maybe it isnt so relevant to non-Aussies, but i would love to hear any insights from you guys from around the world, if you dont have an opinion on which is better, at least tell me how stupid you think the argument is or something like that.

    Another thread got me onto the thought that i would like to see what everyone says to this. Im pretty sure this forum is dominated by Union supporters, but I am sure we will be able to get a healthy debate going, and if a League bashing session ensues, well all the better I say. :D

    I thought of this argument when we were discussing whether or not drop goals should be worth 3 points in Union after the events in the tri-nations opener. I am all for the 3 points, i think if we reduced them to 1 point we might as well get rid of them altogether. I think that a 3 point drop goal is a very important part of our game because it rewards teams that dominate field position, and puts it in the mind of the defensive team that they have to cover the man going for it, which can in turn create holes for the attacking team to score more tries, and MOST importantly, it rewards someone who can calmly kick a drop kick accurately under pressure.. a skill not many posess. the 3 points allows it to have enough of a bearing on the game to be important.

    But to the League vs Union argument...

    I love my Union. In my mind and in my heart, it excites me more, it is more fun to play, its more fun to watch, the hits are bigger, the skills are greater, the game is more open, ITS MORE INTERNATIONAL.

    I think you would find any Leaguie to say exactly the same about League (without the last point). In fact i got one sitting next to me at work saying it right now! :p

    I honestly cant understand why Leaguies call this great game of ours Yawnion. Generally i think that League is a much simpler and less dynamic game than Union, with mostly one out hit-ups and only expansive play happens on the last tackle.

    Having said all of that and declared which side of the fence i sit on, this year especially i am enjoing watching League, and its KILLING ME!! there are so many young guys coming through the ranks here in League, and they are exciting and really talented. On the oother hand, in Union in Australia we are feeling the fallout of the big League buys of Wendell, Lote and Rogers, which i thought pushed a lot of juniors out of the game because they felt there was no future for them in Union when the ARU would just buy a good Leaguie instead of support an up-and-comer from the junior ranks. Its going to take the domestic Aussie teams a few years to recover, and it shows in our depth at Wallaby level.

    I have a bit more to say on the argument, but i think i will leave it open for discussion for the moment.

    I'd love to hear people's opinions on Unioin buying League players, and anything else you can think of related to this great battle!
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    I love the international aspect to union. I don't find that at all in League...even though you do have the tri-nations.
    However, if I were to pick one of the two codes to present to an American audience, I would present League. It's much easier to follow (by that I mean understand).
    I've never had the opportunity to play it, though...I'd love to try. I'm just happy I get both codes on tv now. I love it both ways. I guess that makes me bi-rugbyal.
  4. League just feels more contrived...to me it's a stripped down high octane version of rugby union. I can certainly see how people can say league is much more exciting because it's been tailored for that slam-bang spectacular aspect of the game. I have immense respect for the people who play it too as it's so intense, more so than Union. I can genuinely see why you'd be attracted to league and, using the same arguments, why you'd take the **** out of "Yawnion" Or "kick & giggle".

    The problem is that it's just not for me...to me it's just Rugby training, or something to excite the new fans. It's like comparing Twenty/20 to Test Cricket. I just adore the cut and thrust or Union. The different tactics and gameplans that can be employed, the way different levels of ambition dictate the different options at your disposal, the myriad of different skills you need and the intricacies of the game, the different ways in which the game can unfold, the specialisation of the players and they way they have to fit together for it to work.

    I'd say that it's much easier to have a bad game of Union but when things are clicking a good game of Union far exceeds a good game of League...there's just more to enjoy.

    Add on top of this the fantastic tradition of the internationals and it's Union all the way for me.

  5. I've always watched League when I've spotted that it's on TV, simply because it's still rugby. Going to watch a whole live weekend of it also made me far more appreciative of the 'other' code.

    However, I will always prefer Union:

    - I love the fact that it can (and should) be played by people with different physical attributes. Obviously there are differences in League, but it seems like positions are very interchangable, whereas in Union it is a lot more specialised.

    - I love the way that Union creates more clean breaks than League. Gaps are there to be found and exploited. League uses a more blanket defense, and especially early in a match, this makes breaks from deep very difficult to achieve.

    - I love the fact that set pieces are actually contested. League scrums make me cringe.

    - I love that ball retention is actually seen as a skill in Union, that body position in the tackle is key. All too often you see players going into contact bolt upright in League and getting knocked into next week.

    Basically, even though I can quite happily watch League and enjoy the fact that it is rugby, for me Union just encompasses a wider range of skills and diverse sets of tactics which can be employed.
  6. BokMagic

    BokMagic Guest

    Webby`s assessement is pretty much spot-on. I`d just like to add a couple of thoughts onto that:

    - There is much more actual playmaking involved in union. Defensive patterns are worked out in great detail, there is the not-so-subtle differences between the rush and the drift defense. Whereas in league it`s pretty much just man-on defense. As a result, a union flyhalf or centre needs to take a much more active role in manipulating the defense of the opposition, either by passing, running or kicking than in league.

    - There is the contrasting styles employed by union teams. We`ve seen sides being effective with the more conservative, 10-man game-plan involving a powerful pack and a kicking flyhalf. We`ve also seen the Brumbies and the Aussies making the retention of possession game into an artform, and the counter-attacking, offloading in the tackle style of the AB`s.

    - And most importantly, in union we have a little thing called the Rugby World Cup. The 16 best teams in the world competing every 4 years for possession of old Bill. You just don`t get that in league.

    And every time your mate wants to throw "yawnion" at you, there is the true-blue union man`s response- it sure beats "diet rugby"!
  7. I agree with the previous two posts. I will watch both league and unoin if they're on, but I prefer union because to be honest IMO it's a harder game to master since there are so many different parts involved.

    Plus I could not play a game in which I did not need to ruck
  8. Tin

    Tin Guest

    myself being a big fan of league and union, i enjoy both games a lot in both playing and watching sense.

    but i feel union will always be a better sport due to the different aspects of the game i enjoy the physicality of league but the tactical and athletic parts of union are far better,
    personally always enjoy union more as i enjoy the Competitiveness of the breakdown, nothing better then seeing your own team camped on their own tryline defending bravely, and then to see one of your own players manage to turn the defender in contact or get over the ball and either win the penalty or clear it safely to touch

    and for these and many more reasons union will always win it when it comes down to my decision
  9. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    Personally I'm laughing at "Yawnion" and "Diet Rugby."
  10. SPIDER18

    SPIDER18 Guest

    Union for sure. pretty much the sames reasons obviously a better international competition.
  11. BOKean

    BOKean Guest

    league is pretty much union minus everything good about union...

    no scrums
    no lineout
    no passing
    no strategic kicking
    no teamwork

    but it does have way more big hits
  12. Wellycane

    Wellycane Guest

    Rugby of course is by far the better sport than League. Honestly I get bored of watching that 'run, 6 tackles then finally kick' process happening in League, over and over again. This is probably why people see 'bigger hits' that occur in League than Rugby, running the ball up to defenders is the main part of the game we see. Unlike rugby, big hits does not have a specific reason to take place in there because the point of tackling in rugby is to bring the opponent down to the ground and forcing a turnover.
  13. kbourke88

    kbourke88 Guest

    The big hits in League also has a lot to do with the legality of Shoulder charging. You couldnt have that in Unioin tho.. the blokes are too big. Imagine getting shouldercharged by Victor Matfield..
  14. BOKean

    BOKean Guest

    fully agree... i get bored as hell watching league - hit up hit up hit up

    sometimes i wish they would kick on the first tackle for field position, or for the speedy winger to chase. it also annoys me the dumbyhalf runs that go 2 metres sidways and waste a tackle. why not just pass it? :wall:
  15. Ripper

    Ripper Guest

    The Way I see it, for 90 years Union Has Beens or Never Beens such as Matthew Ridge and Franco Botica went over and became stars, for the last 10 years Union has bought some of the best players in Recent History over the game over from League, but they virtually have all failed to make any kind of impact.

    Jason Robinson has got to be the most overated Union Player I have seen in my life, Wendell Sailor was a bust. Lote Tiquri has been good, but he's been a bit iffy. I mean whenever a League Player comes over you see League fans harp on about how they are going to dominate the game and that any League Player would become a megastar, but how are Henry Paul and Andy Farrell doing these days?

    Brad Throne could barely make the Canterbury NPC Team's bench, but he crosses back over and is suddenly State of Origin standard again.
  16. Don't you mean hit, dry-hump the ground, up. hit, dry-hump the ground, up. hit, dry-hump the ground, up.
  17. Wellycane

    Wellycane Guest

    Don't you mean hit, dry-hump the ground, up. hit, dry-hump the ground, up. hit, dry-hump the ground, up. [/b][/quote]

    :lol: ...I think I meant that too. :p

  18. Ok, so no one has asked the question yet - where did you get that from?

    He isn't as quick over long distances as he used to be, but one on one, show me a better finisher than Robinson during the time he has spent in Union.
  19. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    Andy Farrell!!! :lol:

  20. Wellycane

    Wellycane Guest

    Ok, so no one has asked the question yet - where did you get that from?

    He isn't as quick over long distances as he used to be, but one on one, show me a better finisher than Robinson during the time he has spent in Union.


    This does not answer your question but that try he scored in the RWC final...brilliant. I only remembered that he smoked Sailor and - I think - Rogers.
  21. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    A better example of Robinson would be his wonder run against Wales in 2003, skinning the entire team before popping it out to Greenwood for the score. Or for that matter, his efforts against France in 2002 and Scotland in 2003 could be mentioned as better then his WC final score.
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page