Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:38 pm  

I've managed 30 minutes but, in the words of that famous old sailor, I can't stands no more. Clermont v Leinster has been a perfect example of the fear of losing overcoming the desire to win, making for a negative and frankly boring spectacle.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:27 pm  

Catalancs wrote:

I've managed 30 minutes but, in the words of that famous old sailor, I can't stands no more. Clermont v Leinster has been a perfect example of the fear of losing overcoming the desire to win, making for a negative and frankly boring spectacle.

The problem Union has as a spectator sport is that it's possible to win by using negative tactics. A team has to be pretty good to overcome this. The All Blacks say, but even the All Blacks succumbed in 2007 to France's negative tactics. When the game was mainly aimed at the players this didn't matter, but once they started taking the public's money in earnest they need to open up their game. The obvious way is to remove two players from the field - but they couldn't possibly do that - could they? The other way would be to increase the size of the field I suppose - hardly practicable.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:08 pm  

major hound wrote:

The problem Union has as a spectator sport.

The Stade Chaban-Delmas in Bordeaux...capacity 34,500...attendance 32,397...93% capacity...200 miles away from "home"
The Aviva Stadium, Landsdown Road Dublin, capacity 51,700...attendance 45,147...87% capacity...100 miles away from a home tie.
90% capacity...77,544

I would suggest that whilst RL purists would have issues with the way Union is played, the game itself has little problem in getting people to part with their hard earned cash.....even if the "home fans" are faced with 1hr 30mins or even 3 hrs of travel to get there.

Meanwhile, another sport that shall remain nameless, stuggles to get 29,000 to 8 games....less than 28% capacity in it's premier cup competition, whilst fans of that sport criticise Union as a spectator Sport..

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:05 pm  

You should have continued reading the rest of his thread. Then maybe you wouldn't have got the wrong end of the stick and gone off on one... again. And yet another dig at rugby league GF? Get that chip off your shoulder, it must weigh a ton by now.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:44 pm  

Catalancs wrote:

You should have continued reading the rest of his thread. Then maybe you wouldn't have got the wrong end of the stick and gone off on one... again. And yet another dig at rugby league GF? Get that chip off your shoulder, it must weigh a ton by now.

I read his post....as a spectacle, there is either something that appeals to fans in Union at the moment or there are a lot of very stupid people out there willing to fork out cash to watch "gash"......union continues to "tweak" rules as a direct result of the whining from O'niell in Australia, but as a spectator sport it is doing just fine.......negativity in cup games is not a Union trait only......it occers in pretty much every sport.

...and the wrong end of the stick eh?

The obvious way is to remove two players from the field - but they couldn't possibly do that - could they?

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:30 am  

Catalancs wrote:

I've managed 30 minutes but, in the words of that famous old sailor, I can't stands no more. Clermont v Leinster has been a perfect example of the fear of losing overcoming the desire to win, making for a negative and frankly boring spectacle.

the first thirty was pretty boring but the last thirty was great and the game was in the balance up to the last second with CA nearly snatching a one point victory with a disallowed try - great try from Leinster to open the game up though...
A bit like the Parsons Egg this game...

talk about being bored - the Cats v Sheffield game was boring after the third try went in - just a training session for the Cats and no great satisfaction or fun even for the most ardent RL fan...and it cost a tenner to get in plus diesel & hotel etc etc zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:39 am  

Yes Peter, I heard the closing stages were nailbiting with some top drawer siege mentally defence from Leinster. I had Toulouse to win the tournament and backed Clermont and Ulster -6 this weekend. I'm going for Leinster in the final... so put your money on Ulster.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:25 pm  

Catalancs wrote:

Does Dutoni still lurk about on there? It's not often you see such hatred for a sport as he has for rugby league.

Bloody hell that's a blast from the past.

Not seen him for ages mate,have to say though there are a right few pillocks on there who can't help but slate RL,especially Burke's Boot,an Aussie who hates everything to do with RL,even says Wally Lewis came from union to League.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:26 pm  

I was proud of Edinburgh's performance, they were the team that were trying to play all the rugby.

They were done in by the usual Scottish Failings, not taking their chances and the scrum.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:40 pm  

cjhatesunion wrote:

....says Wally Lewis came from union to League.

Not saying Lewis wasn't league through and through......but, I actually saw that touring Australian schoolboy side in 1977.....they were awesome.
I believe Lewis signed papers with the Diehards in 1978 when he returned from a victorious tour of the British Isles with the Australian Schoolboys Rugby Union side....his arm was, I believe, in a cast at the time.
His background was 100% league...he is 100% League....but his first representative honours were with the other code. Mark Ella and he have a mutual appreciation society