The League Media
- Thread starter spikhaza
- Start date
- Status
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
just saw NQ won the game, and it seems ALL of HJs points of mungo describing a mungo game were very evident. Well done sir!
Anyhows, in the match report these few lines grabbed my attention
The Broncos made 318 tackles and missed 13, a 96 per cent completion rate. That is almost unheard of in today’s game. Yet they did it three weeks ago against the Cowboys. Unfortunately for the Broncos, this figure was above 97 per cent with 15 minutes to go, but they missed seven costly tackles in the last 15 minutes. Completing 291 tackles and missing 20, the Cowboys had a 93 per cent completion rate. Not bad at all, but not as good as Brisbane.
So that is 609 tackles in an eighty min (well, some extra time it seems) game. Assuming an average of five seconds writhing per tackle (the actual average is not important for this point) means a total of 50.75 minutes of nothingness, complete wasted time.
Yet they will call rugby Yanwnion with its endless scrum re-sets.
the mind boggles.
I think Muldoon was right.
Antony
Alex Ross (28)
There are two edges to the bias sword guys - the NRL grand final was great, you've got to be able to admit that.
The one thing that really gets my goat is the use of the word 'superstar' to describe players I've never heard of (and I keep a reasonably close eye on league). Everyone can't be a superstar. That's the point of being a superstar.
The one thing that really gets my goat is the use of the word 'superstar' to describe players I've never heard of (and I keep a reasonably close eye on league). Everyone can't be a superstar. That's the point of being a superstar.
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
Yes and No. I most certainly acknowledge that you are being 'fair and reasonable minded' about the bias, so well done.
Have not seen the grand final, and doubt I will, but I would be quite surprised if I found it was great. (I would certainly acknowledge if I DID find it great however)
On the face of it, I can see how that would come across as biased against (ie already 'deciding' I would not like it without having watched it) which is exactly what you are warning against.
The reason I feel quite secure that it is not plain old, uninformed bias is because I can state exactly the reasons why I do not like the game. The above illustration is one of them, constant interruption to the flow of the game. It just stops.every.tackle. Heck, you will be penalised if you strip the ball (or something along those lines). There is no competition for the ball, not at the tackle, the penalty (tap), the scrum.
To re-work those tackle numbers above another way, in 80 minutes (give or take, I know that game went into extra time) there is a STOP (tackle) every
7.881 seconds. That is not taking into account any penalties, scrums or kickoffs (restarts).
I might not like the game because of that, others might love it because/in spite of that. That is fine, each to their own.
BUT, it is not bias. Bias is exactly what HJ said above, a low score game in league is tough, uncompromising hard man defence but a low score game in rugby is inferior athletes incapable of attack. (loig is great and yawnion terrible)
Or, as you mentioned, the reverse bias from a rugby fan towards league.
It is the 'just because' that is a sign of bias. (just because league is better than union, or the reverse).
Knowing exactly why, and being able to articulate, why someone does not like a sport is not a sign of bias. Cherry picking, unequally applied standards (such as in HJs illustration earlier) are the demonstrations of bias.
And no amount of logic, or proof, will ever be able to make inroads on bias.
Antony
Alex Ross (28)
I agree with all of that, and it was well said, I just think that you'd like the Grand Final specifically. It was great in the way that a really tense game of literally any sport can be great - from snooker to soccer to tennis to darts. A lot of league fans loved the Tahs v Crusaders grand final for the same reason - there was a lot at stake and it went down to the wire.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Close games are the best spectacles (except when my team wins easily, of course).
However, it does help if you care who wins. For me, there is absolutely no interest in a game between two teams with American names playing a sport which is pretty much confined to these shores.
Shoot me, if you like. But I tried a couple of times to watch, but turned back to BBC World News, or the National Geographic channel after a minute or two.
That is not because I am biased - I played loig when I was a kid, and used to absolutely love watching it, either live, or on the box. Now I just do not like it.
However, it does help if you care who wins. For me, there is absolutely no interest in a game between two teams with American names playing a sport which is pretty much confined to these shores.
Shoot me, if you like. But I tried a couple of times to watch, but turned back to BBC World News, or the National Geographic channel after a minute or two.
That is not because I am biased - I played loig when I was a kid, and used to absolutely love watching it, either live, or on the box. Now I just do not like it.
pjm
Billy Sheehan (19)
T
TOCC
Guest
my 2 cents, i thought the golden point grand final ruling was a ridiculous decision, i cant fathom how the grand final can come down to a golden point rule like that, it favours heavily to the team who wins the extra time coin toss.
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
Hunt still shouldn't have dropped the ball.
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
thanks ant, and maybe (based on your recommendation) I WILL have a look. On your 'closeness' point, well yes, any game (including tiddleywinks) can be close, exciting and on the edge within the parameters of the game itself. It is a bit of stretch to go from that to endorsing the sport in general.
I, like wamberal just now, grew up in league, knew ONLY league (bein a NSW schoolboy) and freely admit a lot of the games 'back then' were great..fast, flair, attack. I usually reference canterbury and the mortimer brothers as illustration.
It gradually just grew old and dull. A bit like not noticing your kids growing up and that they change. It is too gradual to see. Now, it is a overpowering sameness.
I recall some of the hooha after the last RWC, a 'league commentator' and a 'rugby commentator' giving impressions of the game. To the leaguie it was proof (low score) how dull rugby was. Not that 14-13 (or whatever it was) is exactly a high scoring game.
There is your cherrypicking, taking one game (in one code) and contrasting it with another isolated game in a different code. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, it only takes (in this example) a high scoring game to totally blow your argument out of the water.
But these idiots never see that.
Just BTW, I must have been waiting for a RWC game to start and just happened to catch half an hour of a QLD league game whilst waiting. One of the teams I think was a PNG team?? Crikey, it was actually great! Fast, exciting, back and forth.
Often it is 'not the game itself', it is how it is played, or the intent brought along. Those 'mortimer brothers' games were still league, but they were great. A game of rugby played negatively can be one of the most painful experiences you can imagine. 'Someone shoot me...NOW' type of stuff. That QLD game I saw was really entertaining. And it was league.
But the three man hug for five seconds every 7.8 seconds, it is just so negative and boring.
T
TOCC
Guest
He shouldn't have but thats not really the argument, the issue is that statistically the team who wins the extra time toss is more likely to win the golden point because they have better field position.
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
I thought the Fivekick GF was a solid spectacle and the way it came down to the wire was a sensational finish to the game. JT had the chance to slot every schoolkid's dream shot and bounced it off the post.
I would agree though that the game needs some improvements to the current structure.
* Scrum is an obvious starting point, make it a contest;
* The ruck, speed it up and penalise offenders;
* Get rid of the high tackles, tip tackles etc, clean that up.
Just some thoughts from a Rugby fan, although i'm not sure that the general league fan wants anything to change.
I've never watched a golden point game of league and i was surprised to see them toss the coin, i thought that was a strange part of GP. I agree that GP is a poor way of deciding on the outcome of a Grand Final.
I would agree though that the game needs some improvements to the current structure.
* Scrum is an obvious starting point, make it a contest;
* The ruck, speed it up and penalise offenders;
* Get rid of the high tackles, tip tackles etc, clean that up.
Just some thoughts from a Rugby fan, although i'm not sure that the general league fan wants anything to change.
I've never watched a golden point game of league and i was surprised to see them toss the coin, i thought that was a strange part of GP. I agree that GP is a poor way of deciding on the outcome of a Grand Final.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Have not seen the game. Doubt I ever will. The NRL supporters at work will be shocked that I didn't, and wonder why.
In any case, what I heard on TV from a journo that supports league - is that the last 20 minutes was a bit ho-hum, but the atmosphere going into the last few was pretty special due to the Cowboys getting into gear.
Then I saw the footage of this great try scored on the buzzer, and thought "wow that is some pretty shit cover tackling. They were 3 on 3, the fullback coming across to cover the kick, with 5 seconds to go, and the winger is back pedalling instead of forcing a decision. Then the inside man grabs his target around the shoulders instead of driving in and lowering him or at least trying to stop him."
Now I accept they were tired and decision-making in the last seconds of a GF probably aren't anybody's thing, but also when a game is decided in such a shit fashion like Golden Point, how can you rave on about it?
Credit to Thurston though - he seems like a pretty humble bloke.
In any case, what I heard on TV from a journo that supports league - is that the last 20 minutes was a bit ho-hum, but the atmosphere going into the last few was pretty special due to the Cowboys getting into gear.
Then I saw the footage of this great try scored on the buzzer, and thought "wow that is some pretty shit cover tackling. They were 3 on 3, the fullback coming across to cover the kick, with 5 seconds to go, and the winger is back pedalling instead of forcing a decision. Then the inside man grabs his target around the shoulders instead of driving in and lowering him or at least trying to stop him."
Now I accept they were tired and decision-making in the last seconds of a GF probably aren't anybody's thing, but also when a game is decided in such a shit fashion like Golden Point, how can you rave on about it?
Credit to Thurston though - he seems like a pretty humble bloke.
RunnerGunner
Frank Nicholson (4)
Golden point seems particularly odd in rugby league where it is so easy to make 30-40 metres and control posession on a set of six. It's not like the NFL at all which is where I believe they took the idea from, but even the NFL have got rid of it now.
I think golden point is ridiculous, particularly for regular season games. They brought it in because apparently fans feel dudded if a game ends in a draw. I don't see how it is any better having the result decided by a field goal. Whether your side wins or loses it feels like a pretty random result.
For elimination finals where you need a winner, I agree that the best scenario would be to play 10 minutes each way and not make it first score wins. If after the 20 minutes it is still tied then you could make it golden point and just keep playing until someone scores. By that stage you've given it enough time to produce a more genuine result.
For elimination finals where you need a winner, I agree that the best scenario would be to play 10 minutes each way and not make it first score wins. If after the 20 minutes it is still tied then you could make it golden point and just keep playing until someone scores. By that stage you've given it enough time to produce a more genuine result.
Although I agree with the sentiment re golden point, I dont see why you cant just keep having extra periods of time ala basketball until you get a result.
You will still get field goals, but the other side will get a chance to return serve.
In any event, the actual game itself was very open for the first half, and although it was a bit of a grind in the second half you could only expect that with the weaker team being in front doing everything it could to hold on for dear life to get the result.
You will still get field goals, but the other side will get a chance to return serve.
In any event, the actual game itself was very open for the first half, and although it was a bit of a grind in the second half you could only expect that with the weaker team being in front doing everything it could to hold on for dear life to get the result.
Trying to compare the two codes is pretty futile IMO. They have never been so far apart, hence the reason it's almost impossible for a League forward to become a Union forward. I think it was Ian Heads described League as the 13 backs game, but that was a long time ago. The 6 biggest and slowest are now called forwards.
When the codes split in 1895 they played under exactly the same rules. Some of the subsequent changes were good, but the most recent ones have been a disaster. 10 metres at the play the ball has killed the art in the game. A previous poster mentioned the Mortimer brothers (for me, especially Steve), but I also remember the best halfback combo I've seen in the game with Sterling and Kenny at Parramatta (for Union think Larkham and Gregan). There's nobody around with that craft anymore apart from maybe Thurston. As for the scrums, for me it's a tragedy because contested scrums meant less predictability. I also have issues with the 6 tackle rule with the game attempting to ape the NFL, but forgetting that if you made 10 yards on the 4 downs you retained possession. Now, fullbacks are the busiest players on the field.
I loved League, but now I only like it.
When the codes split in 1895 they played under exactly the same rules. Some of the subsequent changes were good, but the most recent ones have been a disaster. 10 metres at the play the ball has killed the art in the game. A previous poster mentioned the Mortimer brothers (for me, especially Steve), but I also remember the best halfback combo I've seen in the game with Sterling and Kenny at Parramatta (for Union think Larkham and Gregan). There's nobody around with that craft anymore apart from maybe Thurston. As for the scrums, for me it's a tragedy because contested scrums meant less predictability. I also have issues with the 6 tackle rule with the game attempting to ape the NFL, but forgetting that if you made 10 yards on the 4 downs you retained possession. Now, fullbacks are the busiest players on the field.
I loved League, but now I only like it.
It is the imperial system of weights and measures compared to the Metric system, with mungoball in the former category.
There is a small but wealthy part of the world that is frightened of the Metric system, rigidly sticking to their archaic and impractical system of weights and measures believing the simple, practical and popular Metric system to be the lead Horseman of the Apocalypse Riders coming into town to lay waste to the 'merkin* way of life. You Goddamn know it it is so and there is no goddamn way that you will force us to goddamn change.
It is so with a bastardised and little known variant of Rugby that is popular in a couple of small population pockets in geographically isolated and remote parts of the world.
Common sense says that there should be a meeting of minds and a merge of sorts will occur. The reality is that current generations of supporters and administrators are extremely polarised and entrenched in their defensive positions on "their game" to such an extent that there can be no compromise in the short to medium term.
*hold the jokes about what a Merkin really is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin), and how suitable that may be to superficially describe U.S.A. , U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A. etc.
There is a small but wealthy part of the world that is frightened of the Metric system, rigidly sticking to their archaic and impractical system of weights and measures believing the simple, practical and popular Metric system to be the lead Horseman of the Apocalypse Riders coming into town to lay waste to the 'merkin* way of life. You Goddamn know it it is so and there is no goddamn way that you will force us to goddamn change.
It is so with a bastardised and little known variant of Rugby that is popular in a couple of small population pockets in geographically isolated and remote parts of the world.
Common sense says that there should be a meeting of minds and a merge of sorts will occur. The reality is that current generations of supporters and administrators are extremely polarised and entrenched in their defensive positions on "their game" to such an extent that there can be no compromise in the short to medium term.
*hold the jokes about what a Merkin really is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin), and how suitable that may be to superficially describe U.S.A. , U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A. etc.
- Status