Herald Sun Article - Rugby boring
- Thread starter Set piece magic
- Start date
- Status
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
Couldn't agree more. I have fallen asleep to French Top 14 matches (which display brilliant running rugby on a regular basis) dozens of times because while I love our sport I genuinely don't care what the outcome is.
I follow pretty much all football codes to varying degrees. Rugby is the game I am most passionate about as it is what I played as a kid. It is also the sport I attend most as I am a Waratahs member.
That said, I follow AFL and NRL as well. I've been a Tigers fan since I was a little kid and still go to a couple of games a year. I'm also a Sydney Swans fan and go to a few games every year. I make an effort to at least watch a replay of the Swans and Tigers matches every week. I also follow Arsenal in the EPL and watch a fair few of their games when I can.
My order of watching the three sports would be Rugby --> AFL --> NRL. Whilst I am very happy to watch a rugby game between two teams I don't follow and pretty happy to watch an AFL game between two teams I don't follow, I get thoroughly bored trying to do the same for NRL.
The NRL and its fans have a huge inferiority complex when it comes to the other codes. They are always the first to sing out that their game is better or that something is wrong with one of the other codes. When Israel Folau went to the AFL, there were so many articles about how he wouldn't be a good AFL player and it was a stupid decision. They missed the point that it really was just a publicity stunt and all they were doing was adding to the publicity.
Rugby League suffers from the fact that the game has evolved into only suiting a copy of body types and most of the players on the field are pretty much identical whether they are playing on the wing or in the second row. 5 tackles and a kick means the game is very repetitive and does generally come down to tries to create interest. I hate the fact that half the tries are scored by getting down to the attacking end and putting a bomb up. It is very boring.
That said, I follow AFL and NRL as well. I've been a Tigers fan since I was a little kid and still go to a couple of games a year. I'm also a Sydney Swans fan and go to a few games every year. I make an effort to at least watch a replay of the Swans and Tigers matches every week. I also follow Arsenal in the EPL and watch a fair few of their games when I can.
My order of watching the three sports would be Rugby --> AFL --> NRL. Whilst I am very happy to watch a rugby game between two teams I don't follow and pretty happy to watch an AFL game between two teams I don't follow, I get thoroughly bored trying to do the same for NRL.
The NRL and its fans have a huge inferiority complex when it comes to the other codes. They are always the first to sing out that their game is better or that something is wrong with one of the other codes. When Israel Folau went to the AFL, there were so many articles about how he wouldn't be a good AFL player and it was a stupid decision. They missed the point that it really was just a publicity stunt and all they were doing was adding to the publicity.
Rugby League suffers from the fact that the game has evolved into only suiting a copy of body types and most of the players on the field are pretty much identical whether they are playing on the wing or in the second row. 5 tackles and a kick means the game is very repetitive and does generally come down to tries to create interest. I hate the fact that half the tries are scored by getting down to the attacking end and putting a bomb up. It is very boring.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
The biggest single problem with league is that it is now totally dominated by Australia, the rules, the international schedule (as tiny as it is), most of the money in the game, pretty much all controlled here. So the game has now been developed to the point where only the very fittest players can play it properly, which means that it cannot ever spread internationally much beyond its current territory.
However, we also need to understand that league's success in Australia means that the NRL (as well as the AFL) are held up as the example of what an attractive sport looks like.
Rugby is a far more nuanced game than either of those two, but sadly it takes time, effort, and (dare I say it) brains to appreciate the subtelties of rugby.
However, we also need to understand that league's success in Australia means that the NRL (as well as the AFL) are held up as the example of what an attractive sport looks like.
Rugby is a far more nuanced game than either of those two, but sadly it takes time, effort, and (dare I say it) brains to appreciate the subtelties of rugby.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Just on this, I have always subscribed to this same view. But then I thought about it.
Years ago when as a single bloke, I bumped into this dead set stunner in a Brisbane pub one night. Coming from central QLD, she grew up surrounded by your typical Mungo blokes. As a result, she did not like 'footy' one bit.
When she found out me and all my mates played 'footy' she was quite surprised as we seemed to have half a brain and could hold a conversation. Some of us, were even reasonably well mannered (I use this term loosely!
). Anyway, years and years later, we are married and she quite likes watching Rugby. I never pushed it on her, but it took time and effort on her part and yes, she's a smart lass and now enjoys the game quite a bit. She doesn't really understand many, if any, of the rules and certainly doesn't get the subtleties or nuances. Yet I don't think this matters. She still loves watching the game. To the point where, due to the time it takes us to travel to the games, I wasn't going to get a Reds membership, but she still wanted one.
I don't know where that leaves me, I still don't know what makes people love Rugby so much? Or more importantly, what stops those that don't love it, from getting into it?
I think there is a large element of tribalism. Like political parties, people choose to hate something because they like something else.
For many people it seems that if you like rugby league, you're expected to actively dislike rugby union. There seems to be this idea that the two are mutually exclusive and liking both is not acceptable and liking ones means that rather than just not caring about the other, you should dislike it.
I find it very strange.
I
Ian
Guest
Rugby appeals to only a select group of people, we should count ourselves lucky that our select group is many many times bigger than those that prefer AFL and NRL.
I can't imagine many Africans, Poms, Europeans, Americans etc. tune in for the AFL or NRL grand finals. I would love to see a comparison between the world wide viewing numbers for the "dead rubber, boring" bledisloe cup game and the so called "exciting" AFL grand final.
I can't imagine many Africans, Poms, Europeans, Americans etc. tune in for the AFL or NRL grand finals. I would love to see a comparison between the world wide viewing numbers for the "dead rubber, boring" bledisloe cup game and the so called "exciting" AFL grand final.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Well, amazingly enough, I have a similar story. My wife had never seen or even heard of rugby in her life until after we were married, and moved back to live in Australia.
When we set up house I said to her that I loved to watch cricket and rugby particularly, and it would be great if she could learn to enjoy them as well. I actually watched a fair bit of sport in those days, including league.
The extraordinary thing is that she actually loved rugby at sight, and hated league. Many years later, she doesn't know a helluva lot more about rugby than she did then, but she knows enough to get frustrated when our team makes mistakes, or plays negatively, and on the whole she still loves the game.
The other extraordinary thing is that she took an instant dislike to league. She just cannot bear to watch it, no matter what. I don't watch more than a minute or two at a time these days, I used to love the game, back when they had proper scrums, unlimited tackles, etc.
The Red Baron
Chilla Wilson (44)
What I am the most surprised at is the fact that this thread has reached 4 pages, and we are yet to be trolled by one of those LU drongos!
I
Ian
Guest
If you think that was parochialism, fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, My opinion is that AFL is the scourge of contemporary Australian society, and an embarrassment to our national identity...
But hey, just my opinion...
I
Ian
Guest
Because it is a simplistic game based on lowest common denominator entertainment. I find that embarrassing, that we could not come up with something better.
I see AFL as more of a collection of spectacular moments rather than an enthralling competition.
Does not appeal to me, I hate it and see that hate as a gift that should be shared with the world.
Again, just my opinion.
I disagree.
I don't think the level of complexity is what makes a sport good or bad.
When you boil it down, cricket for example is an incredibly simple game however most people who follow the game closely would certainly argue that there are many nuances that make it interesting, complex and enjoyable.
I don't think the level of complexity is what makes a sport good or bad.
When you boil it down, cricket for example is an incredibly simple game however most people who follow the game closely would certainly argue that there are many nuances that make it interesting, complex and enjoyable.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
Similar story to mine. Loves Rugby but no interest in AFL, RL or cricket (sports which I also follow). Part of the appeal is the travel. When the kids are older I'm sure Japan RWC, Argentina, the UK, South of France, South Africa etc. will be appealing. Paying for those trips is something else.
I
Ian
Guest
I used to love Cricket, but, while drinking at my pub, Glenn McGrath invited my girlfriend back to his hotel room*... Fair to say, not a fan of Cricketers much anymore.
*she declined
E
Ex-AshgroveEmu
Guest
Don't you just love it when the mungoes bag rugby on the basis of one cherry-picked match? They won't apply the same standards to their own games, when they'll praise a low-scoring game of "six and kick" for its intensity and excitement. Of course, it serves their misguided purpose (ie. agenda) to ignore other games in the same Rugby Championship that had plenty of tries scored but, I'd argue, were not of the standard of what I saw on Saturday night at the Fortress of Gold.
I also love the way the leaguies proclaim that rugby is boring, while at the same time stating, as if it were a badge of honour, that they "never watch it". Well, Mungo, if you never watch rugby, how the feck would you know whether it's boring?
A constant theme I see in the criticisms by rusted-on leaguies can be boiled down fairly easily to "it's not enough like league". I'd describe that as a sort of sporting xenophobia - and in today's culture of ad hoc re-definition of words, I'll say that sporting xenophobia = a rabid fear and illogical hatred of something they don't understand.
The trouble with league supporters when they debate the relative merits of their game and any other, is that they won't accept that their argument, and therefore their sport, has any flaws. Which is just hilarious when you read what passes for journalism in that code, and also read the many on-line comments by the game's supposed supporters, which are universally negative and abusive - and that's just when they discuss their own game - the referees, the administrators, player behaviour, the merits of one team versus another or one player versus another, scheduling etc. Comedy gold. And hypocritical in the extreme. If your game's so great, why do you insist on crapping on it from a great height all of the time?
Of course, this argument over the "entertainment value" of rugby is entirely circular - when we have a scoreline like last weekend's, the leaguies can be relied on to trot out their ill-informed cliches about "boring" rugby. However, if we have a game like, for example, the Reds vs Chiefs classic at the Fortress earlier this year, the mungoes start up on the equally dim "youse blokes can't tackle" rubbish. So there's no winning any debate with our feral friends, no matter what logic and reason we present.
I'm biased about this, of course I am - I grew up on rugby and it's in my DNA. I'd like to think I understand it's intracacies a little better than some (only some!) and a lot better than the mungoes. But just because you don't understand the technical nature of something doesn't mean it's crap - a lot of Shakespeare goes over my head but if I make an effort I can enjoy it. Jaysus - references to league and Shakespeare in the same post - who would've thunk it?
I don't suggest that rugby is perfect - far from it. But for leaguies especially to label it as boring carries about as much credibility as a television soapie actor bagging a film performance by Geoffrey Rush.
I also love the way the leaguies proclaim that rugby is boring, while at the same time stating, as if it were a badge of honour, that they "never watch it". Well, Mungo, if you never watch rugby, how the feck would you know whether it's boring?
A constant theme I see in the criticisms by rusted-on leaguies can be boiled down fairly easily to "it's not enough like league". I'd describe that as a sort of sporting xenophobia - and in today's culture of ad hoc re-definition of words, I'll say that sporting xenophobia = a rabid fear and illogical hatred of something they don't understand.
The trouble with league supporters when they debate the relative merits of their game and any other, is that they won't accept that their argument, and therefore their sport, has any flaws. Which is just hilarious when you read what passes for journalism in that code, and also read the many on-line comments by the game's supposed supporters, which are universally negative and abusive - and that's just when they discuss their own game - the referees, the administrators, player behaviour, the merits of one team versus another or one player versus another, scheduling etc. Comedy gold. And hypocritical in the extreme. If your game's so great, why do you insist on crapping on it from a great height all of the time?
Of course, this argument over the "entertainment value" of rugby is entirely circular - when we have a scoreline like last weekend's, the leaguies can be relied on to trot out their ill-informed cliches about "boring" rugby. However, if we have a game like, for example, the Reds vs Chiefs classic at the Fortress earlier this year, the mungoes start up on the equally dim "youse blokes can't tackle" rubbish. So there's no winning any debate with our feral friends, no matter what logic and reason we present.
I'm biased about this, of course I am - I grew up on rugby and it's in my DNA. I'd like to think I understand it's intracacies a little better than some (only some!) and a lot better than the mungoes. But just because you don't understand the technical nature of something doesn't mean it's crap - a lot of Shakespeare goes over my head but if I make an effort I can enjoy it. Jaysus - references to league and Shakespeare in the same post - who would've thunk it?
I don't suggest that rugby is perfect - far from it. But for leaguies especially to label it as boring carries about as much credibility as a television soapie actor bagging a film performance by Geoffrey Rush.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
Mr Doug
Dick Tooth (41)
I was interested to see the following on Wikipedia, under the heading: 'Rugby League gameplay':
"A 2012 New Zealand study found that over 659 tackles are made per game in professional Rugby League". (This figure came from a tackle-injury survey using 31,655 tackles from 48 games).
During the last two weeks of the NRL, I studied many of the tackles in relation to time lost from original contact to the play-the-ball, and found that it was approx. 3 to 4 seconds.
Therefore, @ 3 seconds x (say) 660 = 1980 seconds = 33 minutes, or @ 4 seconds x (say) 660 = 2,640 seconds = 44 minutes!!
Add that to the stoppages for other reasons, and there's no debate!
I just had a thought which alters my figures. The survey probably multiplied each contact by the number of tacklers, (eg av.2) , so maybe my time lost numbers should be between 16.5 minutes and 22 minutes?!
- Status