|
Post by Ben on Apr 11, 2019 9:05:32 GMT
Now, I watch quite a fair bit of football (as some of you may know), but I'm also a curious old soul who sometimes read about and have a passing interest in other sports too.
And so I was reading about rugby union, and there are some 'cultural' aspects of the game that kinda left me baffled. I was probably seeing it from a football perspective, so perhaps some of you more enlightened folks could explain for my benefit?
1) Why do rugby teams name their starting line-ups days before the actual game? In the football world teams make great effort to not reveal what they're planning right until the last possible moment (and make a big deal when details are leaked. See Leeds/Bielsa spygate this season). So why would rugby teams plausible give away that advantage by revealing line-ups so early?
2) It seems that in many cases, players can only play for their countries if they ply their trade in their own country's league. I've seen the argument for this as a move to encourage the development of the local game, by tying the best players down domestically. But in a globalised world these days, isn't it a bit short sighted? Surely players would benefit from playing abroad and experiencing different cultures and styles, and bringing them back home to help their country? English football is yet another case reference for this. For so long English footballers have been reluctant to move out of their comfort zone and play abroad, and the England team have probably, in part, suffered for it. Now with young guns like Sancho, Nelson etc playing in Germany, they're developing new skill sets and experiences that they can contribute back to the development of the England team.
3) Central contracts. From what I've read, some countries sign their best players to central contracts to the national association, whereby they are, in essence, paid employees of the national team, and are given conditional release to play for clubs. Again this is supposedly to tie down the best players and ensure that they give the country priority over their clubs with regards to playing time and schedules. Now, I might sound crazy, but this feels like an absurd arrangement. Representing your country is supposed to be something that is done with pride and honour, and not a commercial arrangement. There's so many ways this can be abused (a player who's not particularly patriotic but likes the financial offer given by the association, for instance), so I don't really get this.
Now I know all these are not at all car-related, but I've just been very curious about it all. Perhaps I'm just a bit cuckoo...
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Apr 11, 2019 9:26:12 GMT
2 kind of answers 3.
In some countries the league is a lot more powerful then the national side. Take France for example, clubs will not release players for international duty until a couple of days before competition. Its why the French team woefully under deliver. They are a team of great individuals that can't play toghether as they have no time to practice. The clubs are the powerful ones and dictate the terms. The clubs have a great income from TV and therefore get the say.
England is the opposite you could say. If you are in the England setup you are making the big bucks, Players are contracted in to do promo work for England, there is very little club promo apart from getting a free Land Rover or advertising double glazing. The RFU dictates the terms to the clubs and the clubs will happily release players as they are given decent compensation by the RFU. In England its the RFU with all the money and clout and therefore they don't want to have to argue with the likes of Toulon about releasing players as they aren't going to go along so its easier to have only players in England sides playing for England.
It was rumoured that it was so we didn't lose players to the French league which has some truth as anyone who is likely to be in the England team long term will never give up the RFU salary. Also, if you play in Aus or SA you've got lot of jetlag to get over for an international so logistically that doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Apr 11, 2019 11:06:21 GMT
Maybe, but shouldn't the leagues and the national side work together?
I know in football there is still a bit of grief about clubs releasing players for international duty, but by and large they still comply, and on their end FIFA is working to make it less of a pain for clubs who cooperate.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Apr 11, 2019 11:22:07 GMT
FIFA is your answer, a hugely powerful organisation that runs the game as bit of a dictatorship. Rugby has the IRB which is good for running the world cup or sevens but as Will Caring so eloquently many years ago, its the old farts that get in the way of progress.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Apr 11, 2019 13:05:36 GMT
Thanks Ed. So in effect it's all because of conflicting interests, and a battle of clout then? It just feels like a completely different world (and highly disorganised) to me. Also, no answers on question 1?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 11, 2019 13:37:31 GMT
The main difference is odd-shaped balls and the propensity for rugger players to commit unspeakable acts in the scrum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 13:40:48 GMT
The difference is the fans in the crowd. Rugby fans will all have a drink together after the match rather than try to knife someone with the wrong coloured scarf on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 13:43:25 GMT
The main difference is odd-shaped balls and the propensity for rugger players to commit unspeakable acts in the scrum. Whereas footballers save the latter for young women in hotels!
|
|
|
Post by franki68 on Apr 11, 2019 14:18:34 GMT
The difference is the fans in the crowd. Rugby fans will all have a drink together after the match rather than try to knife someone with the wrong coloured scarf on. all 2 of them.
|
|
|
Post by Blarno on Apr 11, 2019 15:33:42 GMT
The big difference is that I will happily watch a rugby match.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 16:12:19 GMT
I have never seen a ballerina playing rugby, on the footie pitch it is the norm, or the Norm.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Apr 12, 2019 7:37:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Apr 12, 2019 9:44:18 GMT
You haven’t discussed the fact that 2 codes of rugby dilute the ability to maintain control in the way FIFA can. There’s only one way to play football (well 2 if you include the shite Sam Allardyce calls football) whereas rugby is League (fit professionals running a lot) and Union (less fit professionals standing around for most of the time).
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Apr 12, 2019 9:45:33 GMT
Freedom of expression means you are free to express the views pre-approved by others.
|
|
|
Post by cbeaks1 on Apr 12, 2019 11:14:09 GMT
You haven’t discussed the fact that 2 codes of rugby dilute the ability to maintain control in the way FIFA can. There’s only one way to play football (well 2 if you include the shite Sam Allardyce calls football) whereas rugby is League (fit professionals running a lot) and Union (less fit professionals standing around for most of the time). Your comment led me to check as I wondered if the more meandering nature of union might mean linger distances, but apparently League is slightly higher on average (7k ish). Football is 10k. A fast bowler can do 20km in a day, but that is 6 hours rather than 80 or 90 minutes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 11:18:11 GMT
On an atypically serious note, it seems to me that respect for the rules and officials is significantly higher in Rugby.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 12, 2019 17:05:10 GMT
The difference is the fans in the crowd. Rugby fans will all have a drink together after the match rather than try to knife someone with the wrong coloured scarf on. Mrs Sacamano has worked hospitality for both Newcastle United and Newcastle Falcons RFC and will tell you they are both as bad as each other. In fact she's had to deal with some nasty stuff at the rugby lately. I enjoy watching both games but rugby frustrates me with the constant breaks for penalties and seemingly minor infractions, the mass changes at 60 mins, and then it finishing at 80 mins, when it's just getting interesting. Play for 90 mins for God's sake. The lack of passion among the crowd at league games also irritates. I get free tickets for the Rugby League as well but you couldn't drag me to watch that. 80 mins of blokes taking turns running into each other in alternative directions before having a kick. Shite.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Apr 12, 2019 17:52:04 GMT
The difference is the fans in the crowd. Rugby fans will all have a drink together after the match rather than try to knife someone with the wrong coloured scarf on. Mrs Sacamano has worked hospitality for both Newcastle United and Newcastle Falcons RFC and will tell you they are both as bad as each other. In fact she's had to deal with some nasty stuff at the rugby lately. I enjoy watching both games but rugby frustrates me with the constant breaks for penalties and seemingly minor infractions, the mass changes at 60 mins, and then it finishing at 80 mins, when it's just getting interesting. Play for 90 mins for God's sake. The lack of passion among the crowd at league games also irritates. I get free tickets for the Rugby League as well but you couldn't drag me to watch that. 80 mins of blokes taking turns running into each other in alternative directions before having a kick. Shite. I find Rugby interesting for the same reason it frustrates you. I would rather gouge my eyes out than watch football - it bores me senseless.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Apr 13, 2019 8:11:33 GMT
I must admit if it comes to TV if it’s not Arsenal playing I’d rather paint a wall and watch it dry than watch, indicating that if you don’t have a vested interest most sport is boring. England under Southgate has made me watch more International games not because they’re playing better football but because I’ve met Southgate and had a few beers with him when he was U21 manager and he’s actually playing out his philosophy as 1st team manager. Ergo I have a vested interest.
Perhaps this is why I find athletics so stultifyingly dull: a load of people that have trained personally to achieve their personal best. Do you think I could sell tickets to how long I could leave the dishes before I get shouted at to put them in the dishwasher? because it amounts to the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2019 10:36:11 GMT
I did watch cricket a long time ago but find it tedious, especially the five day tests. How can any game survive where a team getting beaten so badly gets TWO cracks of the whip? Pointless, perhaps why 20/20 and limited overs games are so prevalent. Just not my cup of tea now.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Apr 13, 2019 15:00:37 GMT
I must admit if it comes to TV if it’s not Arsenal playing I’d rather paint a wall and watch it dry than watch, indicating that if you don’t have a vested interest most sport is boring. England under Southgate has made me watch more International games not because they’re playing better football but because I’ve met Southgate and had a few beers with him when he was U21 manager and he’s actually playing out his philosophy as 1st team manager. Ergo I have a vested interest. Perhaps this is why I find athletics so stultifyingly dull: a load of people that have trained personally to achieve their personal best. Do you think I could sell tickets to how long I could leave the dishes before I get shouted at to put them in the dishwasher? because it amounts to the same thing. That's fair comment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 6:32:44 GMT
I love athletics, at least at a high level. That's watching, not attempting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 8:31:25 GMT
I prefer person to person sports like motor racing, athletics, tennis etc over team sports like football. I'll casually watch a game if there's nothing else on, but I wouldn't pay actual money to do so.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Apr 14, 2019 18:22:48 GMT
When I was at school, rugby ruled absolutely and the First XV were the school gods, whereas football was a curious minority sport played by only a few diehards on a pitch so far-flung it was practically in the next county (the school grounds were vast).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 20:26:36 GMT
No footie in my school. Fencing, gymnastics cross country and rowing. We used to row the boat race course so I have an affinity with that, interesting that Cambridge got both titles this year. I even got third place in the school nationals in the year I entered. That, the fact that my 'half' of the rowing team (The lighter tub 4 team) always beat the heavy side and being stroke oar I felt a lot of pride for that. We had Russell Burgess who was deputy director of the Philharmonic choir ran our school choir and we 'did' the first night of the proms for five years. Beat the Vienna school boys choir in competition for the job too. I know, a very long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 15, 2019 7:28:10 GMT
Rugby is a game that serves a valuable social purpose of giving something the fat kids who are no good at football something to do sportwise. They can roll in the mud and touch each other in the showers to their heart's content. Roger Utley was one of our coaches.
In my school we played football and rugby but, for some reason, something to do with a strike at Local Authority schools, IIRC, there was a switch over to hockey so we could play the local public schools. We ended up with a very good school hockey team that cleaned up in the area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:36:53 GMT
The difference is the fans in the crowd. Rugby fans will all have a drink together after the match rather than try to knife someone with the wrong coloured scarf on. Mrs Sacamano has worked hospitality for both Newcastle United and Newcastle Falcons RFC and will tell you they are both as bad as each other. In fact she's had to deal with some nasty stuff at the rugby lately. The lack of passion among the crowd at league games also irritates. Cant speak for Newcastle, but at Gloucester it can be pretty full on passion wise especially in the shed. Two sides are terrace, with 18k in a compact ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:42:44 GMT
Ben, if you go to a Premiership rugby match, the team which takes the pitch is often quite different from the is in the programme notes. Surely this is the same for football?
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Apr 15, 2019 12:55:40 GMT
Ben, if you go to a Premiership rugby match, the team which takes the pitch is often quite different from the is in the programme notes. Surely this is the same for football? Is that so?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 15, 2019 12:58:16 GMT
Ben, if you go to a Premiership rugby match, the team which takes the pitch is often quite different from the is in the programme notes. Surely this is the same for football? Is that so? It certainly is if, like a friend of mine, your wife gets you tickets to watch Dundee United when you're a Dundee fan.
|
|