Rugby League players who could have/could make the switch

[papabear]

Yeah but this isn't league. There's no marker, so 2 defenders aren't necessarily taken out, then there's 2 additional defenders again as there are 15 player. It's congested, there's no gaps to run into tight, and again, this isn't league so defence is starting at the gain line advancing from there.

Furthermore, if the defence is loading up off the halfback, they will have less numbers around the ruck, meaning that's where the quick metres are. Building a couple of phases there will enable you to recycle wider when defence is not set.

I agree it isn't league, I don't think league teams play perfect or should be copied exactly, the spacing of defenders are different and obviously the attack keeps that in mind. some clubs continually run the play where the hooker or half runs a few steps sideways then gives the ball to the first forward running an inside line back at the markers, I'm all about the inside balls but I hate that nothing play which wastes a play for league players were plays being limited are infinitely more important.

Back to rugby - possession is important same as soccer, afl and a lot of other games, u can't be scored on if you got the ball.. I get that, but I still think the better union teams will always, ask the questions, now I know a lot less about rugby then most on here, but I still think u can play risk free plays around the ruck and move forward a bit that a more effective then what certain teams do.

 

[papabear]

I think the hope for a penalty bit is a rare occurrence. Yes, you might see it near the end of the game where three points will win the game but this is by far the exception rather than the norm.

The point you've made about not always trying to break the line relates to possession always being contested in union and is a fundamental difference between union and league.

The league player can try to bust the line every time because getting isolated is not an issue because the other team can't compete for the ball. In rugby you have to work to retain possession so getting isolated or even just tackled in a bad position can often lose your team the ball.

I don't think you need to break the line every time, but u need to run as if you are, or at the least have the defence questioning whether you are trying to.

The isolation argument I'm not huge on , if you can break the line and get into the backfield your support should be with u and your forwards only have to run forward not turn around as the opposition forwards do. Further I think if the line breaks are 11-3 in your favour u should win 99 percent of those games.

That said I'm not advocating a winger or fie eight running sideways and backwards away from his team just to stretch his legs get stuck by himself and set up a try for the other side. I like a relatively direct attack and just have as many numbers as you can moving in motion to where u think a defense could be lazy.

For instance if ur side is special and u have blokes who can't pass, at least have them run picks and drives in pairs and throw some dummies with one guy throwing a pass every once in a while just to keep the defence thinking... All u need is effort for that.. But one out pick an drives is lazy and denying the ultra talented supremely athletic backs a chance to dance

 

[papabear]

What could have devolved rapidly into a shit-slinging argument has turned into a interesting discussion on tactics used in both codes and variations within each code. Well done everyone.

Lol nice gif, rather appropriate in the circumstances.

 

[en_force_er]

The point is also worth making that rucks, mauls, scrums, and lineouts are actually part of the game. They might not appeal as much to the casual viewer, but to a rugby supporter the drama of the early reset defensive scrums in Rosario, a yellow card, and then Wallaby redemption was as fascinating as any try.

Liam Gill's steal in the final lineout in the Second Lions Test ditto.

Hmm, the thing is I don't think most rugby fans see it this way but that they SHOULD.

Test Cricket fans are quick to defend the game's speed and nuisances as tension building and part of the game where as rugby fans seem quick to decry the code they love. It's sad.

The average rugby punter really seems to either not understand the core of our game or genuinely dislike it. I can't say why.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Hmm, the thing is I don't think most rugby fans see it this way but that they SHOULD.

Test Cricket fans are quick to defend the game's speed and nuisances as tension building and part of the game where as rugby fans seem quick to decry the code they love. It's sad.

The average rugby punter really seems to either not understand the core of our game or genuinely dislike it. I can't say why.

I think it's got to do with the realisation that the game exists in a competitive environment. It tends to become this overriding presence and the need to be seen to entertaining against two ingrained football codes that can alter their rules at will to cater for their audience needs. It's can be a bit all consuming for some.

It's a pity as Rugby is such a dynamic game particualrly in comparison to the other codes, it's just that many a frozen in the midnset that for some reason, for something to be entertaining or worthwhile it must appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Cricket has it a little easier. There really isn't any opposing competitor during its traditional season. Though, there is a worrying trend with many kids finding the game boring.

 

[wamberal]

I am firmly of the belief that the aspect of the game that irritates people most is poor execution.

Continual knock ons, or other mistakes, leading to scrums are boring. A scrum per se is not boring (except maybe to loig fans, who all suffer from ADHD symptoms), but an unnecessary scrum is boring.


The ITM Cup is not boring, because execution levels are at a pretty high standard.


The simplicity of loig means that there are fewer complicating factors leading to mistakes. I prefer a more complex sport. Loig used to be more complex, when I played (and watched it, pretty religiously). Now it is mind-numbingly simple. Couldn't be bothered watching it now, frankly, it holds no interest at all for me.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I am firmly of the belief that the aspect of the game that irritates people most is poor execution.

Continual knock ons, or other mistakes, leading to scrums are boring. A scrum per se is not boring (except maybe to loig fans, who all suffer from ADHD symptoms), but an unnecessary scrum is boring.


The ITM Cup is not boring, because execution levels are at a pretty high standard.


The simplicity of loig means that there are fewer complicating factors leading to mistakes. I prefer a more complex sport. Loig used to be more complex, when I played (and watched it, pretty religiously). Now it is mind-numbingly simple. Couldn't be bothered watching it now, frankly, it holds no interest at all for me.

I agree to an extent. I often am left frustrated by the simple handling errors that can occur. These guys are professional athletes so there should be a level of expectation that they perform the skills at a high level.

The ITM Cup is good in terms of handling but I think that's got more to do with the level of play which while very good isn't quite Super Rugby and certainly not Test Rugby. The speed and intensity isn't quite as high. It also has the advantage of the talent being spread thinner allowing for the really top talent the time and often the space to demonstrate why they are the established or up and coming stars in NZ Rugby. Similar situation as the NRL. There are a lot of good but not outstanding footballers in the NRL. But there are probably 30 or so outstanding footballers that make or break teams. Same with the ITM Cup.

 

[papabear]

Test cricket is a different beast.

Again though, if you slow your over rate down and slow your run rate down, playing not to lose as opposed to playing to win, you deserve criticism.

Lets be honest these negative tactics stem from england, whether it be rugby or cricket and you can admire the mental stubbornness. I personnally find it unimaginative and disappointing.

But I am not going to commit alot of time to watch a side in any game play to avoid losing and the majority will vote with their eyeballs with me. If you are a die hard of anything be it rugby or something else you will find enjoyment in it no matter what the circumstances are. But really, if you want the game to grow you need eye balls and eye balls want to see wins. Not to teams trying not to lose and one of them ended up winning.

 

[JSRF10]

That Sonny-Bill Williams character would have made a decent utility back option on the BNZ bench, sadly he has decided that counting to 5 is his limit for another year

 

[CTPE]

Best three league players that I always thought could have made the switch to rugby successfully are:

1. Bradley Clyde as a 6 or 7 and possibly even an 8 - phenomenal work rate in both attack and defence and all the ball skills and carrying attributes that would have made him a standout as a loosie in rugby.

2. Darren Lockyer as a 10, 12 or 15 - lovely hands, could kick with both feet, was a very good defender and often had a lot of traffic coming his way, great ball runner with excellent acceleration and sustained speed + that one thing all the very best sportsmen and women have - time and temperament.

3. Shane Webcke - as a LHP - provided he could have mastered the dark arts of rugby front row play he would have revolutionised the role well before what we are now seeing from some current day props - he too had phenomenal fitness, mobility and work rate, great skills with the ball for a big unit and never shirked the tough stuff + he'd play at the same level of intensity for the full 80 mins if needed.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Best three league players that I always thought could have made the switch to rugby successfully are:

1. Bradley Clyde as a 6 or 7 and possibly even an 8 - phenomenal work rate in both attack and defence and all the ball skills and carrying attributes that would have made him a standout as a loosie in rugby.

2. Darren Lockyer as a 10, 12 or 15 - lovely hands, could kick with both feet, was a very good defender and often had a lot of traffic coming his way, great ball runner with excellent acceleration and sustained speed + that one thing all the very best sportsmen and women have - time and temperament.

3. Shane Webcke - as a LHP - provided he could have mastered the dark arts of rugby front row play he would have revolutionised the role well before what we are now seeing from some current day props - he too had phenomenal fitness, mobility and work rate, great skills with the ball for a big unit and never shirked the tough stuff + he'd play at the same level of intensity for the full 80 mins if needed.

Could not agree more about Clyde. At that time he probably would have come across as the perfect 7. Due to his lack of bulk (He debuted at 90kg and never played at even 100kg) I doubt he would have worked as a 6 or 8 but I can't help but see him adapting, similar to Simon Poidevin or David Wilson at the time.

I think Lockyer would have been good, but his defence was much maligned at times and Tonie Carroll was often employed in games as his defensive minder, so perhaps only as a 10 or 15. He was a great scheming five-eighth in League, however I'm not certain if that would have allowed him to actually adapt as a 10.

I think Webcke would really have ended up as another Ben Daley. Great around the park, strong in tight but technically deficient in the scrum.

 

[gel]

Could not agree more about Clyde. At that time he probably would have come across as the perfect 7. Due to his lack of bulk (He debuted at 90kg and never played at even 100kg) I doubt he would have worked as a 6 or 8 but I can't help but see him adapting, similar to Simon Poidevin or David Wilson at the time.

I agree on Clyde - one of the most balanced runners I have ever seen on a footy field too. Superb player.

For an 8 I always thought Bob Lindner would have crossed over quite well - particularly in his later career when he was massive.

Steve Renouf would also have been wonderful as an outside centre/winger - however he probably wasn't ever big enough by today's standards. Perhaps back in the early 90s maybe.

Wally Lewis would have made a great fly half.

 

[p.Tah]

Listen to Big Willie you young leaguies:

But with the amount of money on offer in rugby these days, Mason would have switched earlier, with more time to get to grips with the sport.
"When I was like 23, 24, I had done everything in the game. And if I could see in the future, which no-one can, I'd probably go to union," he said.
"That's why you see so many guys working their arse off to be an All Black, as soon as you get an All Black cap, bang, see you later, you get a million dollars over in Japan. You've played five minutes in the All Blacks, but it doesn't matter, you're an All Black.
"I wouldn't come to league either, why would ya? It's physical, it's hard, every week, it's 26 rounds, you don't get paid as much as when you can just f... around in France or Japan, bash all the Japanese guys around and get a few million dollars for 14 games."

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...been-a-rugby-union-player-20131024-2w42b.html

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Listen to Big Willie you young leaguies:



http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...been-a-rugby-union-player-20131024-2w42b.html

"With league being such a structured game these days, it sucks for bigger guys. If you're a front rower you just hit the ball up, man, you do what the halves tell you, man, run there, don't f...... run a metre either side of that line. That's how much the game's changed. When I first started it was like 'Just run, just run'."

Diehard Leaguies will argue to the death against this and will likely deride Mason as a fool but it's actually refreshing for a current player to be brutally honest about RL at present.

 

[en_force_er]

Listen to Big Willie you young leaguies:
http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...been-a-rugby-union-player-20131024-2w42b.html

To be clear, I don't believe either league or union is inherently a tougher game. But I do think prop in league would be the toughest individual position in either code, those guys get smashed again and again.

If you're props are playing shit and you're gaining no metres, there's no plan B in league. You just lose. It's so structured. Not my game at all.

 

[ParraEElsNRL]

None, aren't all League players actually Union players anyway?

I mean, RL isn't played anywhere actually, it's a figment of our imagination right? So doesn't that mean that all League players, are actually Union players in the first place?

Well that's what Kovana told me, and as he is doing his level best to grow Rugby online, I see no reason not to believe him (even though he's fat and wears a dress).

 

[gel]

Well that's what Kovana told me, and as he is doing his level best to grow Rugby online, I see no reason not to believe him (even though he's fat and wears a dress).

Kovana is on planet rugby, aren't they? Shouldn't you take it up with him/her over there instead if it is important to you?.

 

[ParraEElsNRL]

I could, but i decided to post it here, sorry old chap.

 

[Slim 293]

Oh dear.........

Everyone, be still......... and whatever you do.......

Do not mention the"world cup".........

 

[ParraEElsNRL]