Which code of Rugby do you prefer.? Why?

Question

I prefer league, I find the players are far more skillful and tricksy with ball in hand.

Their defence is better, It is faster, they players are more athletic and the whole game is just generally more intense.

So which do you prefer?

Answer 1

I like them both, but League is proper Rugby. Why? Well, if the story about William Webb Ellis is true, Rugby started when he took a pragmatic approach to the rules and did what he had to do to win the game.

In the same way, when the Union laws forbade the Northern teams from paying their players compensation for missing their shifts to play at weekends - a problem not faced by Southern teams - they took a pragmatic approach and formed their own league.

They then took the same approach to altering the rules to make the game spectator-friendly (since they now required income)

And again when they changed their season to Summer and formed the SuperLeague in order to secure sponsorship.

Still not sure? Well the justification for all of the above was to get a better game. The attitude of the Union throughout this time was to pedantically cite the rules. (Incidentally, Rugby Union has one of the biggest rulebooks in sport.)

Which do you think would meet with the approval of William Webb Ellis? (And it has made it a better game!)

Answer 2

the 2 codes are very different. i have played both to a high level and my conclusion is i prefered to play union as a game but league is more of a spectators sport

Answer 3

Union. You can compete for the ball when tackling, not that silly pass back.The scrums are contested not like the farcical ones in league.There are rucks and mauls in union, you give the ball away in league(after 5 tackles). Union is much more popular, see how many countries compete in the Union World cup compared to the league one.No comparison. League is just glorified tick-rugby.

Answer 4

RUGBY LEAGUE, by a country mile!!!

Better Game, Better Rules, Better Players, and Better Teams.

Union players are just so unfit, its unreal,

When Iestyn Harris came back to League from Union to sign for the Bradford Bulls, it took him over 12 months to regain the fitness required to play in Super League.

Answer 5

The art of rugby union any & every day

Answer 6

Rugby league is the best as it is more skilful - union you have rook which takes players in which opens the field - ruby league you have 13 players across the line so you have to me more skilful... And it is a more physical game

Answer 7

with rugby being so technical its not worth watching.2 it takes so long to put down a scrum you fall a sleep3 all they do is kick

Answer 8

Definitely Union. If you are skillfull enough to retain possession of the ball then you should keep it. Could you imagine watching Football if you had to give the ball to the opposition after the 6th tackle!

In any decent team game keeping possession is key to success.

Answer 9

I prefer to play league rather than union but when im watching i would rather watch international union than international league but i would watch the nrl instead of super 14

Answer 10

I would say union, and instead of generalizing, I will give you arguments:

The players are thinking and reacting in real time, and do the same handling than in league, that must be more difficult, therefore more skillful

Our defense is more useful, and must be going from one side of the field to another because the ball never dies on the ground.

Our players are far more athletic, and must endure rugby with its full fluidity, even the props, who must carry all their weight without getting tired.

It is just as fast.

The game is just as intense, but hits occur 3x more than in League.

Oh, and League is basically a mix between the worst of rugby and the worst of american football (gridiron)

Answer 11

I've played league since I was 11 (27 now), tried union 4 times and thought it was rubbish. As a back you hardly get the ball, the gaps are massive but it hardly comes out wide. It's like ping pong with a rugby ball, kick kick kick!!

Also, you have to be far fitter for league, in union defence is easy as you just hold your line where as league is up 10 back 10, hard work.

Also most union players are toffs!

Tally ho boys!!

Answer 12

Far more union players "make it" in league than league players "make it" in union. Yes, league has terrific defence, but that's a result of the totally differing styles of the two games.

Union players that have successfully made the switch to league (there'll be plenty I've missed):

Ricky Stuart, Scott Gourley, Ray Price, Michael O'Connor, Jason Robinson, Rex Mossop, Wally Lewis, Brian Smith, Craig Polla-Mounta, Brett Papworth and of course the famous Dally Messenger. Didn't big Artie Beetson play union too? Not sure on that one......... can someone correct me if I'm wrong???

League players that have successfully made the switch to union:

Matt Rogers, Lote Tuqiri, Wendell Sailor (debatable that last one!!! ;-))

Here's one example - Andy Farrell of England. He was a superstar at league, but he's struggled big time when he made the switch to union. His selection in the England squad for the RWC was highly contentious.

Rugby league - played by Australia, parts of NZ, north of England, parts of France.

Rugby union - international game.

I love both games, but for different reasons. But you leaguies have to admit your game runs a distant second to union in the global popularity stakes.

Where's Wayne A?? He'll be along shortly with his comments LOL

Answer 13

I definately prefer Union but comparisons between the two are fruitless.  While they have similarities, the differences make it like comparing Field Hockey to Ice Hockey... similar but VERY VERY different.

The whole "Better Defence" thing is pretty much a moot point because League players only have 13 players to defend against and dont have multiple players commited to a ruck or maul.  Also, anyone thats played in the tight five in Union will tell you that you lose 80% of your energy in the scrums, rucks, mauls and lineouts, while League has no rucks, mauls, lineouts and their scrums are an absolute joke.

I would agree that League players, overall, are more athletic but thats because most dont really have a specialised position anymore.  The hookers, scrum halves and standoffs all look the same.  Wings and Fullbacks together and almost every team switches players between prop and second row... second row and back row... second row and centres are almost twins now... especially in Australia.  When you dont have a specialised position, you cant specialise your training... which is why League players all look similar... very strong and mobile.

Having played both, I definately prefer playing and watching union... league is hugely entertaining too but I am a lover of the technical battles in rugby...the scrums are my home!!!  There is nothing better than taking a tight head in a scrum although making the opposition scrum crumble is hugely rewarding too!

Answer 14

I prefer League but think it is because i understand it more, union i find is all kicking and i am asking my hubby every 5 mins what was that for?( he does not mind before you men comment as long as i make the effort)League i turn up to on my own if he is working i think it is a brilliant game.However most of the people i know that follow both prefer Union .

Answer 15

I asked my husband this and he says Rugby Union is best and that league is for poofs!

Answer 16

I prefer League. I find Union to be a bit too much about kicking for field position and not enough about running with the ball. Being northern we're exposed to league a bit more than union anyway

Answer 17

As someone who has played both codes to quite a high level I have to say that I prefer playing Union to League. League is faster but I don't agree that it is more skilful....it's just that the defences back off 10 yards so that unless you are a really bad team you can just keep posession and moving forward until the defence splits and you are in under the posts. Union relies more on winning or stealing possesion and then battling to keep it....unless you are really skilful, get your handling right, your body position correct and have team-mates on hand you can have it stolen at any moment. For me that makes it more exciting to play.  Union is a far more varied game and all sizes have an important roles to play in it, where as in league nowadays everyone is of a similar size....both backs and forwards and the only people smaller are the half-backs.  This means the League game moves faster and places more emphasis on handling skills but looses important skills which are vital to the union game...The 'dark arts' if you like. These are for me what makes the Union game far more exciting....It gets the old adrenalin flowing and creates a huge rush which league never did for me!!!

I also disagree with people who say that union players can't switch successfully. If you look at the history books you will see a lot more Union internationals have gone on to achieve legend status in League....where as League to Union there is only Jason Robinson and Lote Tuqiri...and maybe Wendell Sailor (but thats a dodgy one) who have really made it the other way. Sure others have tried Iestyn Harris, Matt Rogers, Henry Paul and Andy Farrell but few have had the same impact as players as say Jonathan Davies, Martin Offiah, Scott Gibbs, Lewis Jones, Tom Van Vollenhoven, Michael O'Connor, or the great Dally Messenger all of whom are ex-union internationals and true rugby league legends.

Personally I found league very easy to adapt to after leaving union for a while. Sure I had to get a lot fitter but after that, as a back or fly-half, the game was simple. I couldn't believe the space I was allowed to run in... It was like paradise...actually if I'm truthful if anything it was too easy!!!  I missed having to beat breakway flankers or battling to cross the gainline against a rush defence. I had acres to run in and if I was in trouble just took the tackle, wriggled for abit, stood up and off we went again...a piece of ****. It was then far harder to come back to union because the union game is more complex and the lines of running to beat the tighter defences are completely different. If i'm tackled in union and go down with the ball I can be sure, very quickly, at least on huge forward is going to come in and try to rip my arms and legs off to at get the ball.....league that hit hard but you get used to that very quickly and if you are used to being regularly flattened by 6ft 8in lock forwards or 19st props it's easy. I don't think League players realise the true size and power of the opposition until they switch... by then it's too late !!

No I know union is slower but speaking as a player it is far more enjoyable to play. The after match beers alot more expensive down here in Devon though ...now thats the issue we should be discussing !!!

Answer 18

I like 2 watch both codes.

As for Union players to have made it in League:

Scott Gibbs, David Watkins, Scott Quinnell, Rowland Phillips, Alan Bateman, Johnathon Davies.

There are many more but cannot name them at this late hour.

How player League  Players have been successful in Union, only 2 I can think off & that is Jason Robinson.

Henry Paul & Andy Farrell, both very very over rated, paid & easily capped at international level.

Answer 19

Personally I find Union to be a more interesting game, due to its greater complexity.  This doesn't mean I don't enjoy watching League though.

However, I don't care that Union is a far more global game...that hardly validates it.  I prefer either game to soccer, even though soccer is vastly more popular on a global scale.

One thing that disturbs me too is that, in the era of professionalism, Union has had changes in its laws and also in the interpretation of those laws that make it more similar to League than it was in the old days.  I'd imagine that one day someone will point out that with the improved fitness and athleticism in Union (due to professionalism), the field has gotten too crowded with players...and some genius will decide that the remedy for this is to remove the flankers from the game.

Answer 20

I'm not sure that I agree with you on any of your claims, I'm afraid.

Skilful players - they hold the ball and run.  When tackled, they simply have to keep hold of the ball until the referee lets them get up and tap it back.  Union players have to work as part of a team, supporting the tackles, involved in rolling mauls, contested scrums and line-outs.  The quick thinking players often use quick re-starts to catch out the defending side.  There are dummy passes, miss-passes, and pop passes which need skill to make and take.

Defence - League defences have to cover just 13 players, instead of 15.  When a player is tackled, he is held down long enough for the defending team to re-organise.  Not so in Union, where if the ball is slowed up the opposition are given the ball.

Faster - do you mean the amount of play that goes on?  In Union they stop the clock every time the referee stops play, so the game always takes 80 minutes of playing time, the same as League.

Athletic - perhaps in the old days pre-Professionalism, Union players weren't on a par with League players, but now there is little to choose between them in terms of stamina, speed, and agility.

Intense - all games which are played at the highest level are intense, both for the players and the supporters.

I prefer Union because it is more accessible to a wider range of players.  To play League, even at an amateur level, players need physical power, but Union can be enjoyed by all physical shapes and sizes as long as they make up for this with quick thinking and intelligence.

I hope I've explained my decision, but I doubt whether I'll ever convince you to agree with me.