They are both "rugby" one is league and the other union. I can't remember either code having copyright to the name "rugby"

I'm studying hard to find where union has surpassed league on the pitch? I still see union as dull now as it was 30yrs ago, the idea in either code is to score tries but this doesn't seemed to have cottoned on in union.

Arguably RL in this country was better to watch 30 years ago.

Sadly I have to agree

The old games on Wigan TV are bringing that home to me. But I suppose it's partly the tactics, and partly the players avaialble too. There just aren't players of the quality of Edwards, Gregory, Hanley, Sculthorpe etc in SL these days, more's the pity.

On union, I haven't bothered looking up stats, but it seems to me (based on watching internationals and TV highlights of club matches during our close season) that there is a bit more try-scoring than their used to be. Precision of handling skills in general attacking play, although improved, still looks some way below even SL's reduced standard now.

RU has improved with all the influx of RL coaches in their game since they went pro.

The fact you are getting so wound up about one player who has half ONE decent season shows how far rugby league has fallen behind rugby. Rugby could lose 10 wingers who at better than solomona and not bat an eye lid

Regards

King james

Keep drinking.

In another 24 hours you might feel motivated to give me a 3rd response to my post.

absolute bollox union will never surpass on the pitch, league fans dont watch union because the ball in is play 55% of the time in general and they say league is too stop start. There is too much kicking and too much emphasis on set plays so they lose an awful lot of basic skills. They find it hard to run and pass at the same time, thats not a dig but a fact. I played both and couldnt believe how easy union is due to me able to play with a basic skill set.

they dont have 10

It isn't rugby anymore than it is the Rugby World Cup. It is rugby union which is a kicking not a handling game.

A good example of this is George North, awesome RU winger by the way. I watched him attempt to draw the last defender and pass to his team mate and it was like watching someone who'd never played rugby doing it, it was embarrassing, it came off though but it was ugly rugby.

The same can be said with most RU players other than scrum halves, fly halves and centres, everyone else has appaling passing skills whereas from 1-13 on an RL field they're all decent ball handlers.

On another note I've been a fierce critic of what I used to call Rugby Yawnion but I'd say internationally is is better to watch than any SL game other than Wigan, that's because I'm biased. It has come on leaps and bounds due to RL becoming too sterile. They stopped hooking at scrums and PTBs, too many subs, all teams run the same attacking plays, stand to far back so that the attacking line isn't deep anymore.

I was talking to a mate the other week just before Eng v Aus and I said I would rather watch any GB v Aus match from the 80s or 90s, even early 2000s than the forth coming game because it has got so sterile and robotic.

How many rule changes have football, rugby union, boxing, cricket, tennis etc had over the last 50 years? Now compare that to RL and we look like a laughing stock who don't know what we're doing. The super 8s confuse me and I've followed RL all my life.

What we need is someone like Eddie Hearn to get involved with RL, he's worked wonders with boxing just like his dad did and he's making the big fights which Frank Warren would have held back on for years.

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always had. Time to get rid of Nigel and the rest of the mob and get someone in like Eddie Hearn.

I would argue that RU has always had the upper hand financially, it's just that now the players are benefitting from the cash generated by the game rather than the bunch of old farts at Twickers.

I remember going to Twickers for the cross code challenge with Bath and wondered how an amateur game could afford such a nice stadium in such an expensive area of London.

Should have seen the old arms park inside during the 80's. It was like a palace for the time start of the art equipment boardrooms etc.

As you say union has had the money but now its going to the players instead of committee men who line their friends pockets rather than the players.

Agree about George North, the lionising of him by the union commentators is a mystery to me; he's a biggish lad who runs hard, but certainly doesn't look anything special.