I thought Wilkins analogy of the two codes was very good. Comparing Union to Chess (More technical, slower, specific roles) and League to Draughts (More Open play and faster). Wilkin and l should imagine many league players fully understand that the technical restrictive side of union is difficult to muster. Far easier for a Union player to adapt to Leagues running game, I can't think of one high profile British League Player to become a star player in Union other than Robinson.

The problem with Sam as mentioned is the England set up which is far more technical and restrictive than the All Backs, Australia, Argentina and Wales who have better passing games.

Comparing RL to checkers is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

It was a good comparison in the context wilkin was using it - If you think of union as chess, then league is checkers. The simpler more open game. I don't understand what's so ridiculous.

In context, it made perfect sense; he talked about the beauty of league being in it's simplicity - and that it required a greater level of work rate and intensity - both qualities that Burgess can deliver on in spades.

On the punditry point - Peacock had sufficient bottle to call out the snobbery of RU in the test preview earlier today - much to Davies' annoyance. Good on him for that.

Anyhow - while RU gazes at its own navel for the next 12 months, Sam is back in the game; and the next big name who Farrell targets will likely think twice, having seen Burgess' treatment at the hands of the RU establishment.

Except it carries with it the stereotype of chess being a game for intelligent, thoughtful people and checkers the game for everyone else who can't get the hang of chess.

League is every bit as complex and challenging to play well as Union, but with fewer arcane laws to confuse the watching viewer.

Im not sure Farrell will get the chance to talk anyone into International RU anytime soon.

The comparison that struck me the other day is between real tennis and lawn tennis. Real tennis is the original game, with it's complex medieval rules, played by toffs. Lawn tennis is the simpler, faster, more democratic version played by everybody.

Unfortunately, in terms of public profile, it's more the other way round for us!

I already like Jon Wilkin for his punditry, but he's really gone up in my estimation with that piece he did on 5 Live. Intelligent, articulate, balanced, well argued, spot on.
Wish Nigel Wood would take some lessons from him in how to talk to the media.

Except it didn't; I guess you had to be there.

rlPssst ... wanna punt 100k?rl

Yours,


The Kit Man.

Union [iis[/i more complex. It was a great comparison. There is alot more technical aspects involved with the breakdowns (lineouts, scrums, rucks) posession is contested at every single breakdown.

I don't know why people get a chip on their shoulder with Union being more complex. Team sports aren't supposed to be complicated. The best ones are the simplest, look at the popularity of football.

If you want a mental challenge go actually play chess, or learn mandarin chinese.

I don't have a problem admitting Union is a more complex game. Given the greater positional specialisation it's bound to be.

Although the chequers analogy is a bad one given that a computational solution for it has been found. By comparison Rugby League is off-the-chart in terms of complexity.

Where there's big money the stench of corruption is never far from the nostrils. To be honest I have one or two suspicions about at least one game in that competition.