The League Media
- Thread starter spikhaza
- Start date
- Status
I had a quick google and couldn't really find total nrl tries or team tries.. players is much easier.
Maybe someone else better at the internet could do a 2013 Super Rugby v NRL try comparison on a per game basis better then me.
In terms of my knowledge of rugby and players not kicking it away for shits and giggles. Of course I know that players are kicking it away for tactical purposes they want to play in better field position. Same reason they kick in league.
Same goes for having a slow ruck/maul they might be trying to push it down further or taking their time to setup for a play or waiting for the other side to get nervous and commit a foul. I know neither code makes decisions for shits and giggles but to win. The question is which game through its rules promotes more attractive / positive rugby in winning.
And I think you will find rugby league has its problems as well, which were well and truly acknowledged by the rl media last night with gus lambasting the game over how much garbage wrestle it was and how it was slowing the game down.
Generally, speaking I want rugby league to be as good as possible, and would prefer certain things changed to make the game better.
Same with union.
And I think most people would on here too.
Maybe someone else better at the internet could do a 2013 Super Rugby v NRL try comparison on a per game basis better then me.
In terms of my knowledge of rugby and players not kicking it away for shits and giggles. Of course I know that players are kicking it away for tactical purposes they want to play in better field position. Same reason they kick in league.
Same goes for having a slow ruck/maul they might be trying to push it down further or taking their time to setup for a play or waiting for the other side to get nervous and commit a foul. I know neither code makes decisions for shits and giggles but to win. The question is which game through its rules promotes more attractive / positive rugby in winning.
And I think you will find rugby league has its problems as well, which were well and truly acknowledged by the rl media last night with gus lambasting the game over how much garbage wrestle it was and how it was slowing the game down.
Generally, speaking I want rugby league to be as good as possible, and would prefer certain things changed to make the game better.
Same with union.
And I think most people would on here too.
mxyzptlk
Colin Windon (37)
That's a good idea -- I'll think about it. That's no promise, but I'll consider it.
Yeah, I was the one who made the point about the scores a few pages back, and last year did almost the same thing as you with an NRL game; I tallied all the passes-per-tackle in a Rabbitohs-Warriors game. I had that on a spreadsheet, but I don't think I kept it (over a year old now). That was... tedious.
Of all the NRL I watch, I've always preferred watching the Warriors when they're not stumbling, and the pass tally showed me why -- they were way more likely to pass the ball more than once per tackle, and a few times even got up beyond 5 passes.
But then again, I can see that all the time in union.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Yes, that was one of the points put forward a page or so ago was it not?
I testes one of the canards by checking the stats, another (even easier) thing to check is to go thru last years (because this is not finished yet) super comp vs NRL comp, and simply tally the number of tries scored on a per game basis.
Have no real idea of how the numbers would stack up, but I AM certain it would put to bed this stupid idea 'no attack in rugby, it is all scored by kicks'.
There would have to be another taker for that I'm afraid.
Average tries per game for Super Rugby 2014 was 4.91, haven't been able to find a total for NRL but average points per game for 2013 was 40.8 & I'd hazard a guess that means more tries per match given they kick fewer penalties & they're worth fewer points.
Like most things you could use that as evidence to support just about any argument, mine being that tries and/ or points per match don't really mean much in or of themselves. A match can be a classic or a dud regardless of the score in either code.
I think it's possible to love or at least enjoy both games & acknowledge their strengths & weakness without getting into a pissing contest, that being the original thrust of this thread. On that score, there's no doubt that the League media seldom misses an opportunity to take a dump on Union whereas the Union media hardly ever returns fire. That goes for both sides of the ditch btw.
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
for sure wo, and i agree completely that it can devolve to 'point scoring' (haha, geddit?) against the other bloke.
However, at least as I envisaged it, it was simply a tool that could be used to counter an argument such as, for example, 'enjoy your goal kicking contest' (implying few tries)
My attempt and that of mizzlpitzyk (NO idea how to pronounce it so just mucking about) was to do simply that, provide actual data and figures instead of the constant he said she said type of stuff.
Just for giggles, I multiplied the number of tackles by five seconds, what I guess is the time taken from first contact with the opposition player and when the dummy half first touches the ball after the play the ball. Feel free to adjust that figure up or down according to your own estimations.
I came up with fifteen minutes (14.91 to be exact) of what is essentially dead time taken up by tackles only (it cannot and is not competed for in the tackle, and it ignores any other deadtime such as taking penalties, tries and conversions etc).
Anyways, i thought to myself 'hey, not as bad really as I thought it would be', until I realised that was for only half a game, not a full game.
Yet the continual thing is league is faster and fitter than rugby? The stats simply do not back that assertion up.
papabear, a far more measured post than a few you have made, thanks.
However, at least as I envisaged it, it was simply a tool that could be used to counter an argument such as, for example, 'enjoy your goal kicking contest' (implying few tries)
My attempt and that of mizzlpitzyk (NO idea how to pronounce it so just mucking about) was to do simply that, provide actual data and figures instead of the constant he said she said type of stuff.
Just for giggles, I multiplied the number of tackles by five seconds, what I guess is the time taken from first contact with the opposition player and when the dummy half first touches the ball after the play the ball. Feel free to adjust that figure up or down according to your own estimations.
I came up with fifteen minutes (14.91 to be exact) of what is essentially dead time taken up by tackles only (it cannot and is not competed for in the tackle, and it ignores any other deadtime such as taking penalties, tries and conversions etc).
Anyways, i thought to myself 'hey, not as bad really as I thought it would be', until I realised that was for only half a game, not a full game.
Yet the continual thing is league is faster and fitter than rugby? The stats simply do not back that assertion up.
papabear, a far more measured post than a few you have made, thanks.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
The NRL has more teams with red jerseys. We all know that Red is the fastest colour, therefore I conclude that the NRL is faster than Super Rugby. However if the QLD Reds played an NRL team, I think the Reds would be faster, pass more and win because they'd be scoring 5 point tries whilst the NRL team tries would only be worth 4 points. I think that settled it.
Disclaimer: i haven't actually counted the number of red jerseys in either comp.
Disclaimer: i haven't actually counted the number of red jerseys in either comp.
mxyzptlk
Colin Windon (37)
That's why the number of passes per phase interests me a bit more. If "action" equals "entertainment," then the number of passes would seem to be a better predictor than the overall score.
I still watch some league and like it for what it offers, and what it offers is something different than union -- it's like union lite. But the breakdown, the set piece, kicking for space, the mail, and the strategies behind those keep my interest as much as passing and running. Take the women's World Cup finals; once England figured out they could dominate with the scrum, they adapted to that and made it part of their strategy. Then it came down to how they could either get to the scrum, or what the other teams could do to stop the scrum from happening. It added a whole new dimension to the semifinals and finals.
mxyzptlk
Colin Windon (37)
We all know red cars get pulled over more than cars of other colors. Ergo, if more NRL teams wear red, then more NRL players get penalized. Except when they don't.
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
yes, I think subconsciously I came to the conclusion that the metric to be used was just that, but since doing my exercise last night I think i have refined it more.
I asked rhetorically regarding the speed of the game 'in any case, how would you measure it?'. Thanks to watching the games and pondering I think I have improved how to measure it.
The realistation I have had is that it comes down to 'length of time the ball is in play', a subset of that of course being number of passes as that contributes to time in play.
When viewed from that perspective, we can look at the number of tackles made anew.
In the forty minutes of league the number of tackles equals 4.475 per minute, close enough to 4.5/min. That is the least it is able to be, as it does not take into account time off for tries, conversions, taps, kicks in general play etc etc.
So the real number must be higher per minute. Each tackle takes five seconds (say, on average) so a third of the game is simply guys being hugged or writhing on the ground.
BUT, with the new metric of 'time in play', and accepting a tackle is a stop (there is NO competition, and I suspect this rule is the same in both codes, 'the game ends at the first stoppage of play after the siren' or some such wording. Hence league ends at the first completed tackle (stoppage) after the siren, whereas in our code we all know that the game can continue for many minutes after the siren, irregardless of how many tackles or rucks are involved, as they are not stops and involve competition for the ball) we can see league comes to a complete stop three or four times a minute. For mine, where competition is paramount, the fact that the length of time taken for the play the ball is caused by the defending team deliberately slowing the game down, just worsens it. It would be a yellow card immediately in rugby.
So ok, even tho the number of passes per tackle is not too different between the codes (tho at first glance it IS more in rugby) the TIME the ball in play is vastly different, as unlike a tackle a ruck/maul etc is NOT a stop, but just another different competition for the ball.
It is this aspect which led me a few days ago to suspect rugby was 'at least four times faster', and the stats do seem to bear that out. (sure you might NOT like that a ruck is a competition for the ball, that is fine, it is personal taste so stick with league, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that 'all those accusations we made about rugby have not quite turned out to be true, in fact if anything the reverse applies)
Welcome to your Hotel California @Terry J.
I know you're right, but do you think that any of the diehards from Mordor are prepared to concede?
I know you're right, but do you think that any of the diehards from Mordor are prepared to concede?
I wrote this a few years ago. Thought it might be of interest.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/is-union-really-more-boring-than-league-a-reply/
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/is-union-really-more-boring-than-league-a-reply/
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
thanks sully, I remember reading it before. Would you believe me that I did not consciously borrow from you when I remarked on the stoppage element haha. (of course not, it is painfully obvious to anyone who follows rugby that league is just continuous stop and start)
What DID catch my eye from ritchie's remarks is this little gem
League types taught union players how to tackle and to dominate when they do it, not allow runners to get over the advantage line.
Sounds hard and tough, till you watch the group hug reality. And what dismayed me the most about the tackles in league, is just how few and how rare an actual tackle is. You know, like in the old days, you went around his legs and actually brought him to the ground. I honestly could not tell you how many there were in that half I watched, I guess there had to be at least a couple but can't say I can really recall.
So explain to me how three guys wrap their arms around one guy and hug is dominating? Or exciting?
And five times per minute? Jesus wept.
And the final bizarre aspect of this, that there are in truth very few tackles, I mean you KNOW it when you see a proper tackle right?, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it has occurred and has been completed right?, yet to watch league you have the constant painful refrain throughout the entire game from the ref of 'HELD!', 'HELD', 'HELD'.
It's just the final proof of no real tackles made in the code, and that it comes down to ref interpretation of when a tackle is completed as there is no other earthly way of telling when a tackle has been made!
What DID catch my eye from ritchie's remarks is this little gem
League types taught union players how to tackle and to dominate when they do it, not allow runners to get over the advantage line.
Sounds hard and tough, till you watch the group hug reality. And what dismayed me the most about the tackles in league, is just how few and how rare an actual tackle is. You know, like in the old days, you went around his legs and actually brought him to the ground. I honestly could not tell you how many there were in that half I watched, I guess there had to be at least a couple but can't say I can really recall.
So explain to me how three guys wrap their arms around one guy and hug is dominating? Or exciting?
And five times per minute? Jesus wept.
And the final bizarre aspect of this, that there are in truth very few tackles, I mean you KNOW it when you see a proper tackle right?, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it has occurred and has been completed right?, yet to watch league you have the constant painful refrain throughout the entire game from the ref of 'HELD!', 'HELD', 'HELD'.
It's just the final proof of no real tackles made in the code, and that it comes down to ref interpretation of when a tackle is completed as there is no other earthly way of telling when a tackle has been made!
Antony
Alex Ross (28)
I'm loving this thread, but you guys need to give a bit more credit to league. I think it's a game that in some ways does reward out and out toughness more than union does, and therefore tends to have more players who I would describe as 'tough'. Like those props who just keep charging up field into three-on-one gang tackles - they're really gutsy guys.
Because of the role of the set-piece and the breakdown in union, someone can't get by on just toughness - they need to fulfill other core roles. So for instance, somebody like Paul Gallen would be wasted in rugby, because he'd be spending his time trying to deal with technicalities instead of just ripping in.
At the end of the day those other aspects of rugby are what I find interesting, but other people prefer their game to just be a canvas for athleticism. I think it's fair to say that league probably better fits that bill. But as someone pointed out above, so does the 100m sprint.
(Obviously I'm not denying the toughness of rugby players - I think any good forward would be up there with anyone in the NRL, but you do get people who are picked as line-out specialists etc. despite lacking physicality)
Because of the role of the set-piece and the breakdown in union, someone can't get by on just toughness - they need to fulfill other core roles. So for instance, somebody like Paul Gallen would be wasted in rugby, because he'd be spending his time trying to deal with technicalities instead of just ripping in.
At the end of the day those other aspects of rugby are what I find interesting, but other people prefer their game to just be a canvas for athleticism. I think it's fair to say that league probably better fits that bill. But as someone pointed out above, so does the 100m sprint.
(Obviously I'm not denying the toughness of rugby players - I think any good forward would be up there with anyone in the NRL, but you do get people who are picked as line-out specialists etc. despite lacking physicality)
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
its a big "if" and he'd need to do more than cart the ball once in every 6 - of - and no peptides, thanks
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Peptides or not he has the biggest engine of any player I've seen. Pretty brutal boxer too, smashed Liam Messam and teammates refuse to go in the ring with him. He's the exact type of talent that if he was born in NZ grows up playing rugby and the type of forwards the Wallabies need.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Hindmarsh was better in terms of motor. Guy was a freak.
Don't doubt their toughness - JacPot is a player who would love league.
But the courage part of it is a bit diluted since they removed the shoulder charge. A measure they only really took on board because they hadn't policed their high tackle rules well enough. "Aw it just slipped up mate" and any ref who tried to stamp on it was vilified.
14.91 minutes of dead time in a half of league, I will assume your correct there and agree with you, that is why it needs to speed its ruck up so the play the balls are faster.
That said there would be just as much if not more dead time in union, the difficulty union has is with the northern hemispheres power they are going to struggle to modify the game in the direction the ARU wants to, to keep it competitive in an entertainment sense.
The north just don't give a shit about being entertaining and you can see it in their rugby compared to southern hemisphere teams.
That said there would be just as much if not more dead time in union, the difficulty union has is with the northern hemispheres power they are going to struggle to modify the game in the direction the ARU wants to, to keep it competitive in an entertainment sense.
The north just don't give a shit about being entertaining and you can see it in their rugby compared to southern hemisphere teams.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Hindmarsh was a schoolboy rugby star, apparently (I was overseas at that time). One that got away, maybe.
- Status