My Wife said to me "Why don't you watch the Rugby while I do the ironing" to which I replied "Nah. I'll do the ironing and you can watch it if you like." I actually ended up decorating and i'm thankful I did.

I don't know why anyone would want to move to Union. It requires no skill whatsoever, it's boring to watch and just becomes a competition for who has the best goal kicker.

If you were on, say£60k, at a league club and Union came knocking and offered £240k then you'd go. You'd be daft not to. That's the first reason why players go.
The other is to play Intls in front of 80000 and all the papers covering the game for the week prior to the game.

The 6 Nats is the same every year. Each fixture is made into a top notch event that draws people in.
every year the "Rugby" is dreadful but that doesn't really matter to those that attend.
They go for a great day out, attend a superb event and hopefully get the right result for them.

The quality of play is of no consequence at all.

Spot on

It was a slog to watch, but the France Wales games was far far worse. Strangely I was really impressed with the England game the week before. They had second row forwards running, dodging tackles and passing the ball - something I've never seen in Union before.

Why is defending so poor in union?
There doesn't seem to be any ability to tackle man on man.

I'd have to disagree with that. The better RU players I've played with and against have all been excellent 'textbook' tacklers - as in, shoulder into the waist, head to the side, etc. What they struggle with is the technicalities of defence, as in lateral movement and the discipline of maintaining an unbroken line and, in terms of RL, the intricacies and techniques of the 2/3-man tackle when the attacker doesn't seek to find the ground like in RU.

As for what others have said about the 6 Nations and RU in general, there's nothing to argue with. The RU game is generally pretty poor while RL offers much more. However, RL doesn't have an international 'event' of the same calibre. The Ashes used to be our big event and some bright spark chose to dispose with it. That said, we are not RU and shouldn't try and compete like-for-like.

I've always thought RU is so popular partly because it's relatively easy to play - the same reason football is hugely popular. As Offside Monkey said, RU clubs more often than not have up to 4/5 teams consisting of players well into their 40/50s. My local RU clubs are exactly the same, with others who come down solely for the social scene. RL is simply too tough to accommodate people past a certain age at full contact, and too aggressive for others. I also look at the 'gentlemanly' atmosphere of RU clubs, crowds and players and compare it to the raw aggression and often abuse in much of amateur RL and it's no surprise we don't attract the masses.

Masters and Touch RL game is doing something to address the issue of veteran players but it's pretty small scale and for older players who want lower intensity and impact, but still a full contact game, RU is currently the answer.

The RFL have introduced initiatives in recent years to incentivise amateur clubs to go to international games and we've used many of them. But those games still only see around 20-25k and we're still a long way from the 55,000 crowds we used to see at the Ashes. Has that ship sailed? I hope not.

There's also the issue already raised of closeness and unpredictability in results. If England's backs faced Australia or the All Blacks at league they'd get smashed out of sight. However, the nature of Union means that you can keep the ball tight and rely on kicking and set-pieces to squeeze the life out of a 'better' (in RL terms) team. Australia in RU are the opposite of England in that regard - their forwards are generally not so good, so they have to make up for it with back play. The undeniable fact is that teams with very different strengths and weaknesses can genuinely compete against each other.

In RL OTOH there is no chance to eliminate the opposition's strengths. Would anyone here genuinely complain if England were able to play some sort of 'up the jumper' RL style that nullified Thurston et al to the point we'd have every chance of beating them every time we played? That option simply doesn't exist in RL. The only way England can even hold the Aussies on a regular basis is to be almost as good as them.

Making RL internationals an 'event' will help with crowds (and we certainly should copy the way the RU worlds cup lauds 'brave minnows' who lose by 100 points) but the only real long-term solution is for England to be regularly competitive with Australia.

Another thing is that these brave minnows in rugby do tend to get a damn sight closer than in league because of the difference in rules. Because Japan can stay within a Tier 1 nation, thanks in part to the extra points for penalties, people falsely believe that the international competition must be miles ahead in rugby compared to league, but it's not that, it's just different rules, different scoreboards.

We were commenting in another thread just how unflattering a game league is on the scoreboards when you get two teams who are a class apart. It's an even bigger issue for international credibility if you ask me than it is for the Super League.

In rugby tier 3 nations can keep a tier 1 nation honest as you say BrisbaneRhino. Impossible in league. Even England and NZ, who are top tier nations, struggle to keep scorelines close with Australia a lot of the time.

It's a huge problem for the credibility of internationals but nothing can be done about it, not without changing the rules and diminishing the game on the pitch

I've always been an RL fan, however over the past few months i have been taking an interest and studying RU. The two sports are totally different and it's not really fair to say this or that is boring just because there were no tries. It seems to me that Union has a more varied range of skills required from the different players on the pitch. RL is very samey and repetative in comparison. Just because a game may give you ten tries does that mean it is a more interesting or exciting game to watch than a game with for example three tries?
Also going back to a point raised earlier by someone else, the general atmosphere and air of friendliness at my local RU club is much more pleasant than the aggressiveness between rival supporters which now seems to be the norm in RL.

The two sports are different and both have pros and cons. A major difference is rugby union as an international game. It's frustrating but the biggest game in rugby league is the state of origin and not an international match.

Entirely a matter of opinion.

I find Union far, far more repetitive and samey than league. Kick, set piece that ends up with pile of bodies on the floor, ref blows his whistle, kick.... and so it continues zzzzzzzzz

League is much faster paced, there are massive collisions in the tackle, tactical kick every set. A big part of it for me is the knowing that if a mistake is made, it is a massive deal, so players have to be skilful, physical and get it right 80 - 90% of the time.

And I'm not one of these "I love RL so I must hate RU" types, but I genuinely struggle to sit through a Union game.