Is Rugby League dying?
Discussion
I remember the glory days in the 80’s where you couldn’t get a Challenge Cup final ticket for love nor money.
As a Hull FC fan we lived with the opposition chants of “You’ll never win at Wembley”
Watching today there was huge areas of the Tottenham stands empty.
Not even 60,000 attending.
Where is RL heading in the UK? It looks like a dying sport with a few heartlands left across the M62 corridor.
Sad really. I used to love Challenge cup weekend at Wembley but now it’s at Tottenhams stadium. Would not put a weekend around that.
As a Hull FC fan we lived with the opposition chants of “You’ll never win at Wembley”
Watching today there was huge areas of the Tottenham stands empty.
Not even 60,000 attending.
Where is RL heading in the UK? It looks like a dying sport with a few heartlands left across the M62 corridor.
Sad really. I used to love Challenge cup weekend at Wembley but now it’s at Tottenhams stadium. Would not put a weekend around that.
I suspect it will be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Lower attendances mean they can't justify the cost of Wembley (although this year Wembley was out
as it was already booked) and go elsewhere which takes the edge off the occasion leading to lower attendances.
Rinse and repeat.
Lower attendances mean they can't justify the cost of Wembley (although this year Wembley was out
as it was already booked) and go elsewhere which takes the edge off the occasion leading to lower attendances.
Rinse and repeat.
Edited by over_the_hill on Monday 30th May 17:33
Ignoring Mr Spoon's rather churlish remark....
Cards on the table: my mother is Welsh. I grew up playing rugby union in public school - I was in the same class in prep school with one of the England World Cup winners. I really like rugby union. As a kid in the 80s (theme here) I watched Wigan playing this weird, but very exciting version of rugby on the TV. I loved it. And have followed them ever since. They were the first fully professional side (which is why they dominated then). I moved to the North West 20+ years ago and live around 10 miles from Wigan (just as well the other half isn't from St Helens!).
I have no real axe to grind between the two games - they're not so different as die hard fans of each code make out. I enjoy both. I don't understand the cultural animosity from union or the cultural shrug of the shoulders to union from league fans - two great versions of the game in my mind.
But there is a reality here that, as much as union is centred on the M4 corridor, it has expanded successfully outside it at the top level. In the UK, league has never really broken out of its heartlands of the M62 corridor. There are lots of reasons for this - as many to do with the inability of the game to capture attention beyond its core audience as the apartheid attitude of the RFU since the formation of the Northern Union a century ago (take the game in France - banned outright in 1940 and then, even when it was permitted to return, couldn't use the name "rugby" until 1991... Same in South Africa, where it was banned from the early 1950s to 1994 and still is not able to access government funding). The flipside is Australia, where the NRL is dominant and union is down the list - look at the State of Origin for huge national attendance.
The strength of union is in the international format. It's got the monopoly on its world cup being the "Rugby World Cup" (and not the Rugby Union World Cup). It is televised internationally because, although there aren't that many top tier nations (eight?), there are more than the two Rugby League has to offer. And that comes down to money.
Neither code would be where they are without TV money, but union definitely has the advantage of some excellent people who have maximised the ability to see the game to a bigger domestic and global audience. In the UK, it was the introduction of the Super League that propelled the game forwards in the 1990s but it's never really reached beyond its traditional, embattled heartlands.
So rugby league has always had a battle to exist. That's why it continues to reinvent itself and develop its own ways of playing, many of which find their way into union (the 40-20 kick adopted as the 50/22..!). And it will always be second financially. So long as it can continue to attract TV and other external funding, it will live on but it will always be behind the pace of its richer, more widely known brother.
Me, I'll continue to watch and enjoy both codes. I
Cards on the table: my mother is Welsh. I grew up playing rugby union in public school - I was in the same class in prep school with one of the England World Cup winners. I really like rugby union. As a kid in the 80s (theme here) I watched Wigan playing this weird, but very exciting version of rugby on the TV. I loved it. And have followed them ever since. They were the first fully professional side (which is why they dominated then). I moved to the North West 20+ years ago and live around 10 miles from Wigan (just as well the other half isn't from St Helens!).
I have no real axe to grind between the two games - they're not so different as die hard fans of each code make out. I enjoy both. I don't understand the cultural animosity from union or the cultural shrug of the shoulders to union from league fans - two great versions of the game in my mind.
But there is a reality here that, as much as union is centred on the M4 corridor, it has expanded successfully outside it at the top level. In the UK, league has never really broken out of its heartlands of the M62 corridor. There are lots of reasons for this - as many to do with the inability of the game to capture attention beyond its core audience as the apartheid attitude of the RFU since the formation of the Northern Union a century ago (take the game in France - banned outright in 1940 and then, even when it was permitted to return, couldn't use the name "rugby" until 1991... Same in South Africa, where it was banned from the early 1950s to 1994 and still is not able to access government funding). The flipside is Australia, where the NRL is dominant and union is down the list - look at the State of Origin for huge national attendance.
The strength of union is in the international format. It's got the monopoly on its world cup being the "Rugby World Cup" (and not the Rugby Union World Cup). It is televised internationally because, although there aren't that many top tier nations (eight?), there are more than the two Rugby League has to offer. And that comes down to money.
Neither code would be where they are without TV money, but union definitely has the advantage of some excellent people who have maximised the ability to see the game to a bigger domestic and global audience. In the UK, it was the introduction of the Super League that propelled the game forwards in the 1990s but it's never really reached beyond its traditional, embattled heartlands.
So rugby league has always had a battle to exist. That's why it continues to reinvent itself and develop its own ways of playing, many of which find their way into union (the 40-20 kick adopted as the 50/22..!). And it will always be second financially. So long as it can continue to attract TV and other external funding, it will live on but it will always be behind the pace of its richer, more widely known brother.
Me, I'll continue to watch and enjoy both codes. I
I don't 'get' League. It just seems like thirteen men running at each other, flapping about like a fish when tackled and then rolling the ball backwards. There doesn't seem to be any strategy or tactics. It's all about keeping the ball moving by passing.
Unless I'm missing something, it takes all the bad bits from Gridiron, mixes them with all the bad bits from Union and calls it a game.
What I do know though, is League players are much fitter or perhaps have more staying power than their Union counterparts.
Unless I'm missing something, it takes all the bad bits from Gridiron, mixes them with all the bad bits from Union and calls it a game.
What I do know though, is League players are much fitter or perhaps have more staying power than their Union counterparts.
I grew up in Hull (on the right side, Hull KR 
) so League has always been the rugby flavour for me. I find international Union boring, too long to set scrums and line outs etc, and I just can't understand why there are scrums and line outs.
League will never be as popular as it is pretty much an M62 sport, with the odd team in France and Canada. They tried to get interest in the South with the London Bronco's, but it never seemed to take off.
Union has the glitz and the glamour, League has the Northern grit. I'll take League any day, but I know it will always be in Union's shadow.
Will it survive? Possibly, as long as Sky and Channel 4 keep putting money in. If they don't, then I think it will sadly be the beginning of the end.
) so League has always been the rugby flavour for me. I find international Union boring, too long to set scrums and line outs etc, and I just can't understand why there are scrums and line outs.League will never be as popular as it is pretty much an M62 sport, with the odd team in France and Canada. They tried to get interest in the South with the London Bronco's, but it never seemed to take off.
Union has the glitz and the glamour, League has the Northern grit. I'll take League any day, but I know it will always be in Union's shadow.
Will it survive? Possibly, as long as Sky and Channel 4 keep putting money in. If they don't, then I think it will sadly be the beginning of the end.
Tyre Smoke said:
I don't 'get' League. It just seems like thirteen men running at each other, flapping about like a fish when tackled and then rolling the ball backwards. There doesn't seem to be any strategy or tactics. It's all about keeping the ball moving by passing.
Unless I'm missing something, it takes all the bad bits from Gridiron, mixes them with all the bad bits from Union and calls it a game.
What I do know though, is League players are much fitter or perhaps have more staying power than their Union counterparts.
I’m no expert, so I’ll take a schooling from those who know more…Unless I'm missing something, it takes all the bad bits from Gridiron, mixes them with all the bad bits from Union and calls it a game.
What I do know though, is League players are much fitter or perhaps have more staying power than their Union counterparts.
So (and without any intention of trying to persuade you to like something you don’t), both games are strategically about territory to get into scoring positions. Union has more control over how to achieve that because possession is automatically limited in league.
League is about scoring tries to move the scoreboard. Union is about creating a variety of scoring opportunities (with the penalty kick being highly valued).
Because possession is limited, the key is how to attack to gain territory through the set of six tackles and then, immediately defend effectively to prevent territory gain by the opposition during their set. Both games rely on attrition, with league that is done at a high tempo across the pitch.
Tactically, with more lateral room on the pitch (but fewer people committed to the ruck), it’s about the speed of handling and the precision of runs both on and off the ball - check the dummy runners and what they can (legally) do to the defence. Union relies on the scrum half to steer the team round the pitch, whereas in league it’s the hooker who is making subtle choices to keep the defence guessing.
You’re right the players have a higher level of fitness - the ball is in play for around twice as long per game as union, but there are also permitted interchanges. These are also used tactically, usually through the front and second rows, to keep the pressure on defence/attack.
As for the flipping like a fish - it’s more a feature of the British game than the NRL. Tackles can be more than one man on the ball carrier. If you get the ball carrier on their back with their head facing towards their own goal line it gives maximum time for the defence to drop 10 metres and set. So if you have the ball you want to compete in the wrestle and get moving as fast as possible so you keep the defence on the back foot.
For all the big men smashing each other up front, it’s a game of great subtlety carried out at a hundred miles an hour.
Edited by OMITN on Friday 17th June 15:27
No worries. And you’re right - there is an element of that. Basically think of it as attack attacking the defence and defence attacking the attack as fast as they can. Makes fast decision-making crucial as the space to play is instantly shrunk, hence the role of the attacking shape (including dummy runners) being really important.
The best side right now are St Helens - they often give a masterclass on how to play like this. Wigan are a more exciting team because they have more inventive players who can exploit defensive weaknesses. Like this try by Bevan French for Wigan against Salford (if you can see into Twitter):
https://twitter.com/superleague/status/15353558621...
The Salford kick is to drop the ball right in the corner - there’s no calling a mark like union - forcing the defence to start their set of six tackles from their goal line (or worse, be tackled in goal and have to restart with a goal-line dropout back to attacking team). Only the two lightning fast Aussies instantly tear through to go the length of the field….
Played well it’s like Sevens being played by a team of union back-rowers with the speed and skills of centres.
The best side right now are St Helens - they often give a masterclass on how to play like this. Wigan are a more exciting team because they have more inventive players who can exploit defensive weaknesses. Like this try by Bevan French for Wigan against Salford (if you can see into Twitter):
https://twitter.com/superleague/status/15353558621...
The Salford kick is to drop the ball right in the corner - there’s no calling a mark like union - forcing the defence to start their set of six tackles from their goal line (or worse, be tackled in goal and have to restart with a goal-line dropout back to attacking team). Only the two lightning fast Aussies instantly tear through to go the length of the field….
Played well it’s like Sevens being played by a team of union back-rowers with the speed and skills of centres.
Tyre Smoke said:
Your last sentence should be all of the description needed.
(TBH I think that applies to both codes - but isn’t always present in either..!)
Joking aside - I suspect if there weren’t entrenched views either way on what rugby is/isn’t, then actually there can be room for both and north can thrive and support each other. Sadly, we live in a binary world where everyone is too keen to choose a side….
Edited by OMITN on Friday 17th June 18:27
Mr Spoon said:
OMITN said:
Ignoring Mr Spoon's rather churlish remark....
No need to ignore it. Embrace it and let those wasted players come over to the real fame of rugby. 
t. 
To varying degrees, the things that League rules prompted, Union adapted to cover to make that game more flowing. Equally, I think League bigged up its strengths too much to the point they became weaknesses.
Time moves on and adaptation is key.
Sheffield Eagles fan here. I was at Wembley in 1998. What. A. Day. I will never forget standing outside a pub after the match with my mate, and all the Wigan buses going home. I had a very sore head the next day (not helped by winning a fair bit of cash on the game...that got spent into the small hours).
The merger with Huddersfield made me lose interest very quickly (just as The 100 in cricket holds no interest), I got more into Union and haven't gone back.
Time moves on and adaptation is key.
Sheffield Eagles fan here. I was at Wembley in 1998. What. A. Day. I will never forget standing outside a pub after the match with my mate, and all the Wigan buses going home. I had a very sore head the next day (not helped by winning a fair bit of cash on the game...that got spent into the small hours).
The merger with Huddersfield made me lose interest very quickly (just as The 100 in cricket holds no interest), I got more into Union and haven't gone back.
Tyre Smoke said:
Mr Spoon said:
OMITN said:
Ignoring Mr Spoon's rather churlish remark....
No need to ignore it. Embrace it and let those wasted players come over to the real fame of rugby. t. Tyre Smoke said:
You're letting yourself down. Are you wearing a Crew Clothing shirt and salmon chinos?
Meanwhile, I shall embrace the League and watch a game.
We have escalated to what we are wearing now... that didnt take long Meanwhile, I shall embrace the League and watch a game.
I share my opinion of league with a million Welsh brethren.
Mr Spoon said:
Tyre Smoke said:
You're letting yourself down. Are you wearing a Crew Clothing shirt and salmon chinos?
Meanwhile, I shall embrace the League and watch a game.
We have escalated to what we are wearing now... that didnt take long Meanwhile, I shall embrace the League and watch a game.
I share my opinion of league with a million Welsh brethren.
Oh, Jesus wept.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff