This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
So...take your pick
Twenty two fairies in ballet slippers, kicking a balloon, throwing themselves on the floor and pretending to be hurt, then pushing the referee to protest their innocence, while the managers only manage to see the opposition's fouls, but never their own, and where the sight of blood on a player necessitates immediate transfer to an emergency hospital
versus
30 (or 26) hard men knocking shit out of each other, getting up off the floor and pretending not to be hurt, despite obvious nasty and painful injuries, while accepting the referee's decision and getting on with it, followed by going out for a pint with the opposition, after the coach has praised the opposition for a superior performance.
Not really a contest, is it?
If in doubt, watch the Rugby highlights and Match of The Day tonight - compare and contrast.
JW
Twenty two fairies in ballet slippers, kicking a balloon, throwing themselves on the floor and pretending to be hurt, then pushing the referee to protest their innocence, while the managers only manage to see the opposition's fouls, but never their own, and where the sight of blood on a player necessitates immediate transfer to an emergency hospital
versus
30 (or 26) hard men knocking shit out of each other, getting up off the floor and pretending not to be hurt, despite obvious nasty and painful injuries, while accepting the referee's decision and getting on with it, followed by going out for a pint with the opposition, after the coach has praised the opposition for a superior performance.
Not really a contest, is it?
If in doubt, watch the Rugby highlights and Match of The Day tonight - compare and contrast.
JW
31
13
In reply to John Ww:
The game is far more entertaining and skillful than rugby. Given the choice of a ball being passed to you at pace, do you think it's easier to catch it, or control it on any other part of your body?
Johnny Wilkinson has recently lambasted the advent of feigning injury into rugby. Then there's Bloodgate. Please discuss.
Football is fast, skillful and entertaining. No one likes the divers and cheats but that is in rugby too.
> So...take your pick
> Twenty two fairies in ballet slippers, kicking a balloon, throwing themselves on the floor and pretending to be hurt, then pushing the referee to protest their innocence, while the managers only manage to see the opposition's fouls, but never their own, and where the sight of blood on a player necessitates immediate transfer to an emergency hospital
Admittedly, football has changed in the last 20 years. Touching the ref is a sending off offense now. It's fair enough that a player with blood on them is removed. Gone are the Terry Butcher and John Wile days mainly due to AIDS.The game is far more entertaining and skillful than rugby. Given the choice of a ball being passed to you at pace, do you think it's easier to catch it, or control it on any other part of your body?
> versus
> 30 (or 26) hard men knocking shit out of each other, getting up off the floor and pretending not to be hurt, despite obvious nasty and painful injuries, while accepting the referee's decision and getting on with it
Johnny Wilkinson has recently lambasted the advent of feigning injury into rugby. Then there's Bloodgate. Please discuss.
> Not really a contest, is it?
Two different games. Rugby union has too many rules and they are either on the floor all the time, or kicking penalties. Or is that just NH rugby?Football is fast, skillful and entertaining. No one likes the divers and cheats but that is in rugby too.
> If in doubt, watch the Rugby highlights and Match of The Day tonight - compare and contrast.
Can't wait for MOD, but doubt I will look for the rugby.
11
7
In reply to John Ww:
So you're a rugby fan then, yes? Perhaps a homophobic one judging by the "fairies" comment?
Fan of both sports but football does itself no favours and something needs to be done re:behaviour, lack of ref respect etc.
The only issues I have with rugby aren't with the pro players but more with the yah brigade fans of union (not all of them of course) and the culture of amateur club rugby tomfoolery that's far worse than it's football equivalent.
So you're a rugby fan then, yes? Perhaps a homophobic one judging by the "fairies" comment?
Fan of both sports but football does itself no favours and something needs to be done re:behaviour, lack of ref respect etc.
The only issues I have with rugby aren't with the pro players but more with the yah brigade fans of union (not all of them of course) and the culture of amateur club rugby tomfoolery that's far worse than it's football equivalent.
8
4
In reply to Dave the Rave:
Just to clarify, I've played, taught and coached both soccer and rugby to a pretty reasonable level, but I know which I would rather watch.
JW
Just to clarify, I've played, taught and coached both soccer and rugby to a pretty reasonable level, but I know which I would rather watch.
JW
1
4
8
In reply to John Ww:
You forgot:
Post match city centre warzone and overworked emergency services vs post match brilliant atmosphere in city centre.
You forgot:
Post match city centre warzone and overworked emergency services vs post match brilliant atmosphere in city centre.
5
1
In reply to John Ww:
how many people who read this forum do you think are remotely interested?
> Just to clarify, I've played, taught and coached both soccer and rugby to a pretty reasonable level, but I know which I would rather watch.
> JW
how many people who read this forum do you think are remotely interested?
9
10
In reply to nathan79:
Get off your high horse. Sorry, pony.
> So you're a rugby fan then, yes? Perhaps a homophobic one judging by the "fairies" comment?
Get off your high horse. Sorry, pony.
3
6
In reply to John Ww:
when I went to school (many years ago), 'rugger' was the game for lads who were too fat to play football.
when I went to school (many years ago), 'rugger' was the game for lads who were too fat to play football.
9
2
1
In reply to Removed User:
Except at Wales v England at the millennium 2015?
> You forgot:
> Post match city centre warzone and overworked emergency services vs post match brilliant atmosphere in city centre.
Except at Wales v England at the millennium 2015?
2
In reply to John Ww:
So what? If you prefer rugby that's fine. Your coaching credentials mean jack shit.
> Just to clarify, I've played, taught and coached both soccer and rugby to a pretty reasonable level, but I know which I would rather watch.
> JW
So what? If you prefer rugby that's fine. Your coaching credentials mean jack shit.
11
3
In reply to John Ww:
It's a strange thing, that the default position of UKC is to rail against rugby in support of soccer: on the one hand, there's a sport of defining rules, which celebrates fortitude in the face of overwhelming odds, the testing of endurance and threshold to pain, and respect for the opponent. Added to which, an acceptance of when one has fallen short and a steeliness to overcome next time.
Then there's soccer.
To me, soccer is the antithesis of climbing. I'm not sure what support for it says about UKC (cue a slew of red ).
It's a strange thing, that the default position of UKC is to rail against rugby in support of soccer: on the one hand, there's a sport of defining rules, which celebrates fortitude in the face of overwhelming odds, the testing of endurance and threshold to pain, and respect for the opponent. Added to which, an acceptance of when one has fallen short and a steeliness to overcome next time.
Then there's soccer.
To me, soccer is the antithesis of climbing. I'm not sure what support for it says about UKC (cue a slew of red ).
21
3
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Football is your 'thinking climber', lithe, athletic and skilful.
> It's a strange thing, that the default position of UKC is to rail against rugby in support of soccer: on the one hand, there's a sport of defining rules, which celebrates fortitude in the face of overwhelming odds, the testing of endurance and threshold to pain, and respect for the opponent. Added to which, an acceptance of when one has fallen short and a steeliness to overcome next time.
Rugby is your' fat grunter' of a climber who uses his knees.> Then there's soccer.
Football is your 'thinking climber', lithe, athletic and skilful.
9
7
In reply to Trangia:
OK, being thick here, what does that mean?
> You have only got to watch who watches each game....nuff said....
OK, being thick here, what does that mean?
In reply to Trangia:
And in other countries? You think rugby doesnt have issues?
Look at the cricket violence?
> You have only got to watch who watches each game....nuff said....
And in other countries? You think rugby doesnt have issues?
Look at the cricket violence?
In reply to Dave the Rave:
Football is your preening, whining, excuse laden poseur who is more interested in showing off how expensive his car is than testing himself in the hills with friends.
> Rugby is your' fat grunter' of a climber who uses his knees.
> Football is your 'thinking climber', lithe, athletic and skilful.
Football is your preening, whining, excuse laden poseur who is more interested in showing off how expensive his car is than testing himself in the hills with friends.
6
In reply to Martin not maisie:
You think? Not that I ever want to be accused of defending ukc but I reckon there is very strong rugby following on here, though maybe it's because I never notice any of the football threads.
> It's a strange thing, that the default position of UKC is to rail against rugby in support of soccer:
You think? Not that I ever want to be accused of defending ukc but I reckon there is very strong rugby following on here, though maybe it's because I never notice any of the football threads.
In reply to Removed User:
> Football is your preening, whining, excuse laden poseur who is more interested in showing off how expensive his car is than testing himself in the hills with friends.
youtube.com/watch?v=L15an8oakQw& In reply to John Ww:
Rugby definitely.
Regarding football, I'd love to see today's spoilt mincing premier league wimps come up against some of the characters of yesteryear such as Norman Hunter, Tommy Smith, Billy Bremner and Chopper Harris.
Rugby definitely.
Regarding football, I'd love to see today's spoilt mincing premier league wimps come up against some of the characters of yesteryear such as Norman Hunter, Tommy Smith, Billy Bremner and Chopper Harris.
5
1
In reply to John Ww:
In Rugby, the referees aren't 'scared' of the players: -
youtube.com/watch?v=_K0ts859I4w&
In Rugby, the referees aren't 'scared' of the players: -
youtube.com/watch?v=_K0ts859I4w&
1
In reply to Goucho:
But why should the stars of today, and they are stars, really skilful ones at that, be "honest" when those at the top of football are so corrupt?
> Rugby definitely.
> Regarding football, I'd love to see today's spoilt mincing premier league wimps come up against some of the characters of yesteryear such as Norman Hunter, Tommy Smith, Billy Bremner and Chopper Harris.
But why should the stars of today, and they are stars, really skilful ones at that, be "honest" when those at the top of football are so corrupt?
1
In reply to Dave the Rave:
Except at Wales v England at the millennium 2015?
Apart from social media, have you got any evidence of this?
The Police and stadium officials said that there were no more incidents than normal.
Except at Wales v England at the millennium 2015?
Apart from social media, have you got any evidence of this?
The Police and stadium officials said that there were no more incidents than normal.
In reply to Goucho:
Even better - remember when Bath played Wigan in alternate Rugby Union v Rugby League matches? In an ideal (contact free) world, how many Premiership soccer players do you think would fancy playing alternate soccer v rugby fixtures?
JW
Even better - remember when Bath played Wigan in alternate Rugby Union v Rugby League matches? In an ideal (contact free) world, how many Premiership soccer players do you think would fancy playing alternate soccer v rugby fixtures?
JW
1
In reply to Glyno:
when I went to school (many years ago), 'rugger' was the game for lads who were too fat to play football.
That's a geographical thing though. In South Wales, the opposite is true.
In fact, it's one of the reasons cited for New Zealand's dominance in the sport. Rugby is the main/basically only sport played from an early age.
when I went to school (many years ago), 'rugger' was the game for lads who were too fat to play football.
That's a geographical thing though. In South Wales, the opposite is true.
In fact, it's one of the reasons cited for New Zealand's dominance in the sport. Rugby is the main/basically only sport played from an early age.
In reply to Martin not maisie:
I think in general football is more skilful and better to watch than rugby, but is spoilt somewhat by the constant cheating. I actually started a slightly tongue-in-cheek thread once about rugby being crap, but that was after watching a typical 6 nations match. The SH rugby we saw today was just a pleasure to watch. Rugby is good for the honest endeavour, the greater intelligence of the players and pundits and the sheer physicality.
I think in general football is more skilful and better to watch than rugby, but is spoilt somewhat by the constant cheating. I actually started a slightly tongue-in-cheek thread once about rugby being crap, but that was after watching a typical 6 nations match. The SH rugby we saw today was just a pleasure to watch. Rugby is good for the honest endeavour, the greater intelligence of the players and pundits and the sheer physicality.
1
In reply to Wainers44:
So what your saying is, that if Sepp Blatter can fiddle his expenses, then Ronaldo can pretend a ball hit him in the face - when 20 million people watched it roll along the ground into his foot at a speed which wouldn't have dinted a freshly iced cake - and roll around the pitch in pretend agony in order to try and get someone sent off?
Spoken like a true football supporter.
> But why should the stars of today, and they are stars, really skilful ones at that, be "honest" when those at the top of football are so corrupt?
So what your saying is, that if Sepp Blatter can fiddle his expenses, then Ronaldo can pretend a ball hit him in the face - when 20 million people watched it roll along the ground into his foot at a speed which wouldn't have dinted a freshly iced cake - and roll around the pitch in pretend agony in order to try and get someone sent off?
Spoken like a true football supporter.
5
In reply to FactorXXX:
> Except at Wales v England at the millennium 2015?
> Apart from social media, have you got any evidence of this?
The local online newspapers reported the incidents . I'm not going to mention the main perpetrators as it's irrelevant .> The Police and stadium officials said that there were no more incidents than normal.
Hillsbrough.
1
In reply to John Ww:
Now I would pay serious money for a ticket to that match
> Even better - remember when Bath played Wigan in alternate Rugby Union v Rugby League matches? In an ideal (contact free) world, how many Premiership soccer players do you think would fancy playing alternate soccer v rugby fixtures?
> JW
Now I would pay serious money for a ticket to that match
1
In reply to Dave the Rave:
Rugby is your' fat grunter' of a climber who uses his knees. Football is your 'thinking climber', lithe, athletic and skilful.
Reckon John Dunne would be more likely to be a Rugby player, as opposed to a Football player...
Rugby is your' fat grunter' of a climber who uses his knees. Football is your 'thinking climber', lithe, athletic and skilful.
Reckon John Dunne would be more likely to be a Rugby player, as opposed to a Football player...
In reply to Goucho:
Not sure I was saying that, you think much more deeply than me !
I think what I meant was don't only blame the players?
> So what your saying is, that if Sepp Blatter can fiddle his expenses, then Ronaldo can pretend a ball hit him in the face - when 20 million people watched it roll along the ground into his foot at a speed which wouldn't have dinted a freshly iced cake - and roll around the pitch in pretend agony in order to try and get someone sent off?
> Spoken like a true football supporter.
Not sure I was saying that, you think much more deeply than me !
I think what I meant was don't only blame the players?
In reply to Wainers44:
Agreed. The top level of football is all about money, both on and off the pitch.
> Not sure I was saying that, you think much more deeply than me !
> I think what I meant was don't only blame the players?
Agreed. The top level of football is all about money, both on and off the pitch.
1
In reply to Dave the Rave:
The local online newspapers reported the incidents . I'm not going to mention the main perpetrators as it's irrelevant .
Which reported on comments made in the social media. I know people that went to the match and they said it wasn't any worse than normal.
Hillsbrough
What are you suggesting?
The local online newspapers reported the incidents . I'm not going to mention the main perpetrators as it's irrelevant .
Which reported on comments made in the social media. I know people that went to the match and they said it wasn't any worse than normal.
Hillsbrough
What are you suggesting?
In reply to FactorXXX:
> The local online newspapers reported the incidents . I'm not going to mention the main perpetrators as it's irrelevant .
> Which reported on comments made in the social media. I know people that went to the match and they said it wasn't any worse than normal.
Worse or acceptable?> Hillsbrough
> What are you suggesting?
It's well documented . In reply to Dave the Rave:
What about the back-chat to the ref, the getting in his face and waving your hands like a prat? Touching should be out of the question, but showing the level of disrespect that occurs should be considered equally bad.
All very minor, and a big issue is being made about it, compared to what occurs every few minutes in a football match.
Even not knowing the rules of rugby, the physciality is surely a spectacle?
Strange, I find the opposite. Football to me is just endless passing forward or back with potential for no score at all at the end of 90 minutes.
Overall, I can accept that people enjoy football. But I find the players and many of those associated with them deplorable.
> Admittedly, football has changed in the last 20 years. Touching the ref is a sending off offense now.
What about the back-chat to the ref, the getting in his face and waving your hands like a prat? Touching should be out of the question, but showing the level of disrespect that occurs should be considered equally bad.
> The game is far more entertaining and skillful than rugby. Given the choice of a ball being passed to you at pace, do you think it's easier to catch it, or control it on any other part of your body?
> Johnny Wilkinson has recently lambasted the advent of feigning injury into rugby. Then there's Bloodgate. Please discuss.
All very minor, and a big issue is being made about it, compared to what occurs every few minutes in a football match.
> Two different games. Rugby union has too many rules and they are either on the floor all the time, or kicking penalties. Or is that just NH rugby?
Even not knowing the rules of rugby, the physciality is surely a spectacle?
> Football is fast, skillful and entertaining. No one likes the divers and cheats but that is in rugby too.
Strange, I find the opposite. Football to me is just endless passing forward or back with potential for no score at all at the end of 90 minutes.
Overall, I can accept that people enjoy football. But I find the players and many of those associated with them deplorable.
3
1
In reply to nathan79:
A couple of players have come out as gay with little in the way of backlash. And the ref of today's world cup final is small, homosexual, Welshman as well - one of the best, most respected refs in the world, who has maintained discipline and bossed around several hundred different blokes over the course of this world cup without a single comment made about his orientation.
Homophobia seems pretty rampant in football but not rugby.
> So you're a rugby fan then, yes? Perhaps a homophobic one judging by the "fairies" comment?
A couple of players have come out as gay with little in the way of backlash. And the ref of today's world cup final is small, homosexual, Welshman as well - one of the best, most respected refs in the world, who has maintained discipline and bossed around several hundred different blokes over the course of this world cup without a single comment made about his orientation.
Homophobia seems pretty rampant in football but not rugby.
11
1
In reply to David Martin:
really? can you point to any evidence?
>
> Homophobia seems pretty rampant in football but not rugby.
really? can you point to any evidence?
2
1
In reply to Glyno:
The current furore about two premiership players who *might* be gay.
> really? can you point to any evidence?
The current furore about two premiership players who *might* be gay.
2
2
In reply to David Martin:
I'm sorry, *one of the best*? Was there ever more of a shoe-in for the official at a world cup final?
> And the ref of today's world cup final is small, homosexual, Welshman as well - one of the best, most respected refs in the world
I'm sorry, *one of the best*? Was there ever more of a shoe-in for the official at a world cup final?
In reply to Dave the Rave:
Worse or acceptable?
The whole issue was around the fact that it was a Friday evening match and the level of incidents allegedly increased due to that. From what I can tell, there is no official confirmation of that.
It's well documented
What is? I think we all know what happened at Hillsborough. Are you trying to say that a similar 'cover up' has happened?
Worse or acceptable?
The whole issue was around the fact that it was a Friday evening match and the level of incidents allegedly increased due to that. From what I can tell, there is no official confirmation of that.
It's well documented
What is? I think we all know what happened at Hillsborough. Are you trying to say that a similar 'cover up' has happened?
In reply to FactorXXX:
Not at all. You said that the police and stadium officials said that there were no more incidents than normal. I was doubting the validity of your comment in relation to the version of events by similar organisations at Hillsbrough.
> Worse or acceptable?
> The whole issue was around the fact that it was a Friday evening match and the level of incidents allegedly increased due to that. From what I can tell, there is no official confirmation of that.
Well when you've got rugby fans saying they will never take their kids to another Wales v England match in Cardiff, the day it took place on is irrespective.> It's well documented
> What is? I think we all know what happened at Hillsborough. Are you trying to say that a similar 'cover up' has happened?
Not at all. You said that the police and stadium officials said that there were no more incidents than normal. I was doubting the validity of your comment in relation to the version of events by similar organisations at Hillsbrough.
In reply to Martin not maisie:
I thought he had a poor game today, distinct lack of one liners and he didn't get all school teacher with the front rows
Owens, Barnes and Garces (the team today) are clearly head and shoulders above the rest.
I thought he had a poor game today, distinct lack of one liners and he didn't get all school teacher with the front rows
Owens, Barnes and Garces (the team today) are clearly head and shoulders above the rest.
Post edited at 22:37
1
In reply to Horse:
I think the fact that he was almost invisible in probably the best final to date speaks volumes.....
OTOH, the third Kiwi penalty came after a clear forward pass, and the late hit on Carter was nothing of the sort, everybody having been suckered into the TMO's slow-motion replay. So not his best game, perhaps, but at least we had someone on the pitch
I think the fact that he was almost invisible in probably the best final to date speaks volumes.....
OTOH, the third Kiwi penalty came after a clear forward pass, and the late hit on Carter was nothing of the sort, everybody having been suckered into the TMO's slow-motion replay. So not his best game, perhaps, but at least we had someone on the pitch
Post edited at 22:32
In reply to Goucho:
Regarding football;
I think you'll find that the majority of today's prem league 'mincers' are far from wimps.
In fact the majority of them would make short work of Norman ,'The Anfield Iron',Bremner ,and Chopper.
Modern players are masters of their Art ,and simply can't get away with administing GBH to opposing players.
In the 70's pulling a sword ,or revolver out of you shorts might have gotten you a yellow.using one of the aforementioned ,might have gotten you a red card.if it was one of those no nonsense refs.
Football is a proper working mans sport.
Rugby,even if played by the working man, is an elitist sport.
And I've met my fair share of the,ahem, 'elitists' that play it.
> Rugby definitely.
> Regarding football, I'd love to see today's spoilt mincing premier league wimps come up against some of the characters of yesteryear such as Norman Hunter, Tommy Smith, Billy Bremner and Chopper Harris.
Regarding football;
I think you'll find that the majority of today's prem league 'mincers' are far from wimps.
In fact the majority of them would make short work of Norman ,'The Anfield Iron',Bremner ,and Chopper.
Modern players are masters of their Art ,and simply can't get away with administing GBH to opposing players.
In the 70's pulling a sword ,or revolver out of you shorts might have gotten you a yellow.using one of the aforementioned ,might have gotten you a red card.if it was one of those no nonsense refs.
Football is a proper working mans sport.
Rugby,even if played by the working man, is an elitist sport.
And I've met my fair share of the,ahem, 'elitists' that play it.
3
4
In reply to andymac:
Oh, that's just hopeless.
> Rugby,even if played by the working man, is an elitist sport.
> And I've met my fair share of the,ahem, 'elitists' that play it.
Oh, that's just hopeless.
3
2
In reply to andymac:
Well they do very good impressions of them.
Oh don't talk nonsense.
So the likes of Pele, Best, Usabio, Creyf, Beckenbauer etc weren't?
Exactly, far more entertaining and unpredictable.
Is that because the average Rugby player can actually string a coherent sentence together, and knows words with more than one syllable?
I've spent the odd night in the past getting pissed with Fran Cotton, Stevie Smith and George Baker. Three more down to earth unpretentious blokes would be hard to find - even after Fran and Stevie started to make serious money with Cotton Traders.
> I think you'll find that the majority of today's prem league 'mincers' are far from wimps.
Well they do very good impressions of them.
> In fact the majority of them would make short work of Norman ,'The Anfield Iron',Bremner ,and Chopper.
Oh don't talk nonsense.
> Modern players are masters of their Art
So the likes of Pele, Best, Usabio, Creyf, Beckenbauer etc weren't?
> In the 70's pulling a sword ,or revolver out of you shorts might have gotten you a yellow.using one of the aforementioned ,might have gotten you a red card.if it was one of those no nonsense refs.
Exactly, far more entertaining and unpredictable.
> Rugby,even if played by the working man, is an elitist sport.
Is that because the average Rugby player can actually string a coherent sentence together, and knows words with more than one syllable?
> And I've met my fair share of the,ahem, 'elitists' that play it.
I've spent the odd night in the past getting pissed with Fran Cotton, Stevie Smith and George Baker. Three more down to earth unpretentious blokes would be hard to find - even after Fran and Stevie started to make serious money with Cotton Traders.
Post edited at 22:58
1
In reply to Goucho:
1.sadly ,being a wimp ,diving and getting players sent off is one of the black arts of the game.and just one of the ways ,as well as scoring goals ,that the opposition can be beaten.
2.Billy Bremner was 5ft 5 .Harris wasn't much bigger than him.
If John Terry ,Kompany ,Roy Keane ,Scholes,and (God forbid) Joey Barton and Charlie Adam could travel back in time and play by the Laws of 1971 , they would destroy these mythical figures from the past.
Although I do suspect that Tommy Smith would still manage to kill them all.
3.again ,I don't think these much vaunted players of the past would stand out against the players of today.on the contrary ,in fact.
4.Agree.much more entertaining.Unpredictable is good.
5.after watching Class of '92 , footballers intellectual capacities have actually gone up in my estimations.Wayne Rooney uses a lot of big words in his post match interviews.
6.cant argue with that.Unpretentious ,and grounded ,is always good.
1.sadly ,being a wimp ,diving and getting players sent off is one of the black arts of the game.and just one of the ways ,as well as scoring goals ,that the opposition can be beaten.
2.Billy Bremner was 5ft 5 .Harris wasn't much bigger than him.
If John Terry ,Kompany ,Roy Keane ,Scholes,and (God forbid) Joey Barton and Charlie Adam could travel back in time and play by the Laws of 1971 , they would destroy these mythical figures from the past.
Although I do suspect that Tommy Smith would still manage to kill them all.
3.again ,I don't think these much vaunted players of the past would stand out against the players of today.on the contrary ,in fact.
4.Agree.much more entertaining.Unpredictable is good.
5.after watching Class of '92 , footballers intellectual capacities have actually gone up in my estimations.Wayne Rooney uses a lot of big words in his post match interviews.
6.cant argue with that.Unpretentious ,and grounded ,is always good.
2
1
1
2
In reply to andymac:
What does that even mean? Professional sport is supposed to be elitist! That's half the point of it.
Are you trying to say that rugby is too posh?
> Rugby,even if played by the working man, is an elitist sport.
> And I've met my fair share of the,ahem, 'elitists' that play it.
What does that even mean? Professional sport is supposed to be elitist! That's half the point of it.
Are you trying to say that rugby is too posh?
5
In reply to Goucho:
Snob
Name dropping snob
> Is that because the average Rugby player can actually string a coherent sentence together, and knows words with more than one syllable?
Snob
> I've spent the odd night in the past getting pissed with Fran Cotton, Stevie Smith and George Baker. Three more down to earth unpretentious blokes would be hard to find - even after Fran and Stevie started to make serious money with Cotton Traders.
Name dropping snob
2
2
In reply to Donald82:
The skill levels of elite sports people in whatever sport tend to be very similar, as do the fitness levels, although the skills and required fitness differ. Both are great games to play, 15's is a bit more complex but I don't see that as making it elitist.
I do find watching football pretty dull though.
> football... The skill levels just don't compare and both are equally athletic.
The skill levels of elite sports people in whatever sport tend to be very similar, as do the fitness levels, although the skills and required fitness differ. Both are great games to play, 15's is a bit more complex but I don't see that as making it elitist.
I do find watching football pretty dull though.
In reply to andymac:
Elitist in what way? I think your far more likely to find a premiership footballer who has a Rolls Royce collection and private jet than you are even the most famous rugby player. Just because the players may come from certain schools or socio-economic background does not make the sport itself elitist, and perhaps its more a case of football being the issue, not rugby: football culture would repel those who don't conform to it slightly warped morals (eg. the treatment of Le Saux). It is almost deliberately and intentionally working class.
> Rugby,even if played by the working man, is an elitist sport.
Elitist in what way? I think your far more likely to find a premiership footballer who has a Rolls Royce collection and private jet than you are even the most famous rugby player. Just because the players may come from certain schools or socio-economic background does not make the sport itself elitist, and perhaps its more a case of football being the issue, not rugby: football culture would repel those who don't conform to it slightly warped morals (eg. the treatment of Le Saux). It is almost deliberately and intentionally working class.
In reply to John Ww:
Football is a great game, which has been spoiled by the players, managers, money and the fans.
Rugby is a great game, which has not been spoiled by the players, managers, money and the fans.
Football is a great game, which has been spoiled by the players, managers, money and the fans.
Rugby is a great game, which has not been spoiled by the players, managers, money and the fans.
15
In reply to andymac:
Football is a proper working mans sport.
Rugby,even if played by the working man, is an elitist sport.
And I've met my fair share of the,ahem, 'elitists' that play it.
Maybe where you come from, but that isn't true everywhere.
Where I come from, South Wales, it's pretty much an equaliser. Talent is paramount.
Maybe, dare I say it, that is part of the problem with English Rugby...
Football is a proper working mans sport.
Rugby,even if played by the working man, is an elitist sport.
And I've met my fair share of the,ahem, 'elitists' that play it.
Maybe where you come from, but that isn't true everywhere.
Where I come from, South Wales, it's pretty much an equaliser. Talent is paramount.
Maybe, dare I say it, that is part of the problem with English Rugby...
1
In reply to Martin not maisie:
current furore? I haven't seen or heard anything, I suppose I need to buy a newspaper
> The current furore about two premiership players who *might* be gay.
current furore? I haven't seen or heard anything, I suppose I need to buy a newspaper
In reply to John Ww:
I would use the viewing figures to decide which is the better sport to watch. Regardless of your own opinions, the result of that experiment answers which sport is "picked" by us humans as the best spectacle.
I like rugby, but the atmosphere at Twickenham when I have been to games doesn't scratch the surface of some of the football games I have been to. But there in lies the problem...it's that passion and hatred of your rivals that makes things so tense...the singing, the humour, the fear of losing...the tension from the media, the crowd, can infect the players and the management and it can overspill into mayhem on the pitch. If you're not a fan this just looks like petulance..(which a lot of it is) these are probably all the things that people posting on here either don't understand, haven't experienced, or find intimidating (or just don't enjoy). Yes there is an underbelly of unpleasantness that can be found...but for me, football really stirs the soul and can make or break a weekend, or even a week, The banter at work (In all my years working I have never heard banter about a rugby match between two opposing fans)
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I can not understand why people on here get so excited about watching cycling..What the fck is all that about? ..horses for courses and all that...I really enjoyed yesterdays final, as much as I enjoyed Chelsea vs Liverpool.
I would use the viewing figures to decide which is the better sport to watch. Regardless of your own opinions, the result of that experiment answers which sport is "picked" by us humans as the best spectacle.
I like rugby, but the atmosphere at Twickenham when I have been to games doesn't scratch the surface of some of the football games I have been to. But there in lies the problem...it's that passion and hatred of your rivals that makes things so tense...the singing, the humour, the fear of losing...the tension from the media, the crowd, can infect the players and the management and it can overspill into mayhem on the pitch. If you're not a fan this just looks like petulance..(which a lot of it is) these are probably all the things that people posting on here either don't understand, haven't experienced, or find intimidating (or just don't enjoy). Yes there is an underbelly of unpleasantness that can be found...but for me, football really stirs the soul and can make or break a weekend, or even a week, The banter at work (In all my years working I have never heard banter about a rugby match between two opposing fans)
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I can not understand why people on here get so excited about watching cycling..What the fck is all that about? ..horses for courses and all that...I really enjoyed yesterdays final, as much as I enjoyed Chelsea vs Liverpool.
9
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Apparent popularity is no measure of quality - look at TV viewing figures, or our inexplicably bad two-party political system.
There's nothing wrong with football, the game: fairly simple to pick up, to understand and to play. Everybody who's ever played will, in their time, have scored (fluked) a goal to rival anything the greats of the game have ever produced (once, in a pick-up Sunday morning match, I executed a Cruyff turn at full pace, went through three more players - one a nutmeg - and sent the keeper the wrong way) and it's that sense of identification which makes it so much fun. Rugby, on the other hand, is less simple to organise and - if you played in the kind of teams I did - more clodhopping than is expected at international level. I've participated in more than a few exhausting swamp battles which were probably excruciating to watch.
What's wrong with Football Inc. is twofold: the incredibly large sums of money have distorted the game, so that sportsmanship is so irrelevant to success that it's seen as quaint or old-fashioned; and second, the bl**dy fans. I used to go to home games at the Baseball ground in Derby, which was known for its atmospherics - the stands were only about a metre from the touchline - and it was great, but not a patch on a decent rugby international. And my experience is that with the latter, opposing fans walk out together, but in football all holy hell breaks loose because of a single disputed foul. Clearly, something in the contrasting approaches to physical contact speaks to the respective fans.
Football is bigger, but that certainly doesn't mean it's better.
Apparent popularity is no measure of quality - look at TV viewing figures, or our inexplicably bad two-party political system.
There's nothing wrong with football, the game: fairly simple to pick up, to understand and to play. Everybody who's ever played will, in their time, have scored (fluked) a goal to rival anything the greats of the game have ever produced (once, in a pick-up Sunday morning match, I executed a Cruyff turn at full pace, went through three more players - one a nutmeg - and sent the keeper the wrong way) and it's that sense of identification which makes it so much fun. Rugby, on the other hand, is less simple to organise and - if you played in the kind of teams I did - more clodhopping than is expected at international level. I've participated in more than a few exhausting swamp battles which were probably excruciating to watch.
What's wrong with Football Inc. is twofold: the incredibly large sums of money have distorted the game, so that sportsmanship is so irrelevant to success that it's seen as quaint or old-fashioned; and second, the bl**dy fans. I used to go to home games at the Baseball ground in Derby, which was known for its atmospherics - the stands were only about a metre from the touchline - and it was great, but not a patch on a decent rugby international. And my experience is that with the latter, opposing fans walk out together, but in football all holy hell breaks loose because of a single disputed foul. Clearly, something in the contrasting approaches to physical contact speaks to the respective fans.
Football is bigger, but that certainly doesn't mean it's better.
3
In reply to John Ww:
The rules in rugby are far too complicated for the layperson to understand. Most of the time all you see is a load of players lying in the ground trying to find the ball.every now and then it gets exciting. To me it is just a game of controlled thuggery played by big blokes who can run fast.
Never understood it.
The rules in rugby are far too complicated for the layperson to understand. Most of the time all you see is a load of players lying in the ground trying to find the ball.every now and then it gets exciting. To me it is just a game of controlled thuggery played by big blokes who can run fast.
Never understood it.
2
5
Having spent the last 6 weeks trying to get my footy only mates to understand rugby I gave up. It was the comment of...."haven't they worked out they are going to pass to the left" that did it.
I did have to agree that it is much easier to predict a passage of play and see what is about to happen in rugby. They all agreed that for them it was an aspect that let the game down.
On an atmosphere point of view I go to premier league football, european football, premier league rugby, international rugby (not just england) and rugby league games. Football atmospheres are on the whole much better for crowd participation and emotion.
Post edited at 08:52
1
1
In reply to John Ww:
Agree with the criticism of football re the overpaid players, winging managers, attitude towards refs, corruption of FIFA and violence amongst some fans.
But the problem is that all these are the result of the popularly of the game, and the excitement and passion it creates. If Rugby was able to generate the same interest in the same number of people it would have the same problems - to suggest that human nature is changed by the shape of the balls you play with is the height of stupidity
Agree with the criticism of football re the overpaid players, winging managers, attitude towards refs, corruption of FIFA and violence amongst some fans.
But the problem is that all these are the result of the popularly of the game, and the excitement and passion it creates. If Rugby was able to generate the same interest in the same number of people it would have the same problems - to suggest that human nature is changed by the shape of the balls you play with is the height of stupidity
4
In reply to John Ww
"throwing themselves on the floor and pretending to be hurt" - see Newcastle v Stoke. Pitiful.
"pushing the referee" - Liverpool v Chelsea. Embarrassing.
"watch Match of The Day tonight" - see two perfect examples above.
"throwing themselves on the floor and pretending to be hurt" - see Newcastle v Stoke. Pitiful.
"pushing the referee" - Liverpool v Chelsea. Embarrassing.
"watch Match of The Day tonight" - see two perfect examples above.
> JW
1
In reply to John Ww: I find it notable that these rugby vs. Soccer threads are always started by rugby fans. Insecurity?
Rugby might be great to play and they're all super chaps part-timing as brain surgeons but I find it poor to watch.
Rugby might be great to play and they're all super chaps part-timing as brain surgeons but I find it poor to watch.
3
1
In reply to wbo:
Often the case when you don't know the rules of the game nor have sufficient experience of it. Same in UFC - those with knowledge of martial arts can appreciate the sport at a subtle and nuanced level to which they'd be otherwise oblivious.
> I find it notable that these rugby vs. Soccer threads are always started by rugby fans. Insecurity?
> Rugby might be great to play and they're all super chaps part-timing as brain surgeons but I find it poor to watch.
Often the case when you don't know the rules of the game nor have sufficient experience of it. Same in UFC - those with knowledge of martial arts can appreciate the sport at a subtle and nuanced level to which they'd be otherwise oblivious.
In reply to Shani:
I think rugby is that kind of game - you pretty much do need to know the rules or have played it to appreciate what is going on. To an outsider, it does most of the time just look like a load of big blokes piling on top of each other, with the whistle blowing constantly for no obvious reason.
Football is a simpler game in which it is far easier for a punter to appreciate what is going on and who is doing it well. I can't begin to figure out how they do it, but I can easily appreciate the skills of Bergkamp and Zidane, which I find just breathtaking, and watch over and over again on youtube.
I think rugby is that kind of game - you pretty much do need to know the rules or have played it to appreciate what is going on. To an outsider, it does most of the time just look like a load of big blokes piling on top of each other, with the whistle blowing constantly for no obvious reason.
Football is a simpler game in which it is far easier for a punter to appreciate what is going on and who is doing it well. I can't begin to figure out how they do it, but I can easily appreciate the skills of Bergkamp and Zidane, which I find just breathtaking, and watch over and over again on youtube.
In reply to mbh:
I know what you mean, but the semis and final of the RWC have been better in that respect. Never played union so often much of the 6 nations games goes over my head, but the ball skills shown in these last few games are easy to appreciate.
OP - Seriously!?! How old are you and are you American?
> Football is a simpler game in which it is far easier for a punter to appreciate what is going on and who is doing it well. I can't begin to figure out how they do it, but I can easily appreciate the skills of Bergkamp and Zidane, which I find just breathtaking, and watch over and over again on youtube.
I know what you mean, but the semis and final of the RWC have been better in that respect. Never played union so often much of the 6 nations games goes over my head, but the ball skills shown in these last few games are easy to appreciate.
OP - Seriously!?! How old are you and are you American?
In reply to Mike Stretford:
a) very
b) no - northern
But if you wish, I'll rephrase the question to specify the difference between Association Football and Rugby Football.
Does that help?
JW
a) very
b) no - northern
But if you wish, I'll rephrase the question to specify the difference between Association Football and Rugby Football.
Does that help?
JW
In reply to David Martin:
Obviously you weren't at Goodison today when we (Sunderland) got hammered 6-2 after we had hit the woodwork twice at 0-0. Everton scored twice with counter attacks launched from their own box.
Dull it was not. Depressing (for me, me dad, brother and nephew) it certainly was.
Afterwards we spilled out on the streets along with all of the Everton fans with zero hassle.
There is lots of cheating in rugby, some of it very sneaky technical cheating, other stuff is plain thuggery. And they are edging closer to influencing the ref as had been very obvious this RWC with players drawing attention to alleged infringements. Plus Laidlaw was very openly questioning the ref against AUS, both at the time and afterwards.
Oh, and not many will have seen it as I assume it wasn't shown on telly but a fan (a Saffer I assume) invaded the pitch at Villa Park, Saffers v Samoa and tackled a player. I haven't seen that at a footie World Cup.
Some people are view rugby with rose tinted specs/lenses.
youtube.com/watch?v=dlLtlJsNfUA&
or
youtube.com/watch?v=dlLtlJsNfUA&
anyone?
> Strange, I find the opposite. Football to me is just endless passing forward or back with potential for no score at all at the end of 90 minutes.
Obviously you weren't at Goodison today when we (Sunderland) got hammered 6-2 after we had hit the woodwork twice at 0-0. Everton scored twice with counter attacks launched from their own box.
Dull it was not. Depressing (for me, me dad, brother and nephew) it certainly was.
Afterwards we spilled out on the streets along with all of the Everton fans with zero hassle.
There is lots of cheating in rugby, some of it very sneaky technical cheating, other stuff is plain thuggery. And they are edging closer to influencing the ref as had been very obvious this RWC with players drawing attention to alleged infringements. Plus Laidlaw was very openly questioning the ref against AUS, both at the time and afterwards.
Oh, and not many will have seen it as I assume it wasn't shown on telly but a fan (a Saffer I assume) invaded the pitch at Villa Park, Saffers v Samoa and tackled a player. I haven't seen that at a footie World Cup.
Some people are view rugby with rose tinted specs/lenses.
youtube.com/watch?v=dlLtlJsNfUA&
or
youtube.com/watch?v=dlLtlJsNfUA&
anyone?
2
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
And yet the policing of RWC is undoubtedly cheaper than the policing of the equivalent football competition. We know this by looking at the cost of policing domestic soccer and rugby games. Only in one of these sports doesn't involve marshalling the supporters with police dogs.
And yet the policing of RWC is undoubtedly cheaper than the policing of the equivalent football competition. We know this by looking at the cost of policing domestic soccer and rugby games. Only in one of these sports doesn't involve marshalling the supporters with police dogs.
In reply to Shani:
Police with dogs? Not seen Police dogs around anfield for many many years.
Barely any police these days.
Police with dogs? Not seen Police dogs around anfield for many many years.
Barely any police these days.
In reply to Rampikino:
From experience in Leicester when the football team play there is shed load of police, when the rugby team play its minimal.
From experience in Leicester when the football team play there is shed load of police, when the rugby team play its minimal.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Can't agree. All down to the demographic the games attract.
International rugby games with 80k crowd, no segregation, police bored, everyone happy & drinking together, losing fans congratulating the winners' fans.
Local football game, 20k crowd, segregation, police busy, bother between fans.
Bugger all to do with the number of people, everything to do with the type of people. That's why you read about disproportionately "passionate" behaviour from parents watching their kids play football in local league.
It's still, I'm afraid to have to say, a middle class v working class divide in values with respect to what is considered acceptable behaviour.
In football, a percentage of the fans seem to think that someone wearing the opposing team's kit is a reasonable excuse to punch them in the face.
In rugby, such behaviour is generally confined to the pitch.
> But the problem is that all these are the result of the popularly of the game, and the excitement and passion it creates. If Rugby was able to generate the same interest in the same number of people it would have the same problems - to suggest that human nature is changed by the shape of the balls you play with is the height of stupidity
Can't agree. All down to the demographic the games attract.
International rugby games with 80k crowd, no segregation, police bored, everyone happy & drinking together, losing fans congratulating the winners' fans.
Local football game, 20k crowd, segregation, police busy, bother between fans.
Bugger all to do with the number of people, everything to do with the type of people. That's why you read about disproportionately "passionate" behaviour from parents watching their kids play football in local league.
It's still, I'm afraid to have to say, a middle class v working class divide in values with respect to what is considered acceptable behaviour.
In football, a percentage of the fans seem to think that someone wearing the opposing team's kit is a reasonable excuse to punch them in the face.
In rugby, such behaviour is generally confined to the pitch.
5
In reply to Chris Harris:
Right answer wrong reasons. Football fans are, on average, much more passionate (read: tribal) about the team they support, and when something matters more the boundaries of what people view as acceptable start to move accordingly. Maybe the middle-class vs. working-class thing is more about what other things you have in your life for you to shout about.
Right answer wrong reasons. Football fans are, on average, much more passionate (read: tribal) about the team they support, and when something matters more the boundaries of what people view as acceptable start to move accordingly. Maybe the middle-class vs. working-class thing is more about what other things you have in your life for you to shout about.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Last premiere (rugby) game I went to there was no fan segregation. Home and away fans together whilst enjoying a pint. No trouble and friendly banter
Last premiere (rugby) game I went to there was no fan segregation. Home and away fans together whilst enjoying a pint. No trouble and friendly banter
Post edited at 23:36
In reply to Chris Harris:
Some of the worst violence I have seen has been on the rugby pitch.
Remember that Wigan player banned for 6 months for that punch a couple of seasons ago.
There's been a few rugby players banned for sticking fingers and thumbs up people arses also!!
I remember being in Australia in 2008ish watching highlights of an Aussie rugby league game. A player had a head injury and came back on to the pitch bandaged up. Within minutes another player raked across his face causing a significant blood episode. The offending player was banned for several months.
Throw in all the players banned for biting etc. At times rugby is brutal beyond anything in violence terms served up in the equivalent level football match
> In rugby, such behaviour is generally confined to the pitch.
Some of the worst violence I have seen has been on the rugby pitch.
Remember that Wigan player banned for 6 months for that punch a couple of seasons ago.
There's been a few rugby players banned for sticking fingers and thumbs up people arses also!!
I remember being in Australia in 2008ish watching highlights of an Aussie rugby league game. A player had a head injury and came back on to the pitch bandaged up. Within minutes another player raked across his face causing a significant blood episode. The offending player was banned for several months.
Throw in all the players banned for biting etc. At times rugby is brutal beyond anything in violence terms served up in the equivalent level football match
Post edited at 23:46
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Oh, and not many will have seen it as I assume it wasn't shown on telly but a fan (a Saffer I assume) invaded the pitch at Villa Park, Saffers v Samoa and tackled a player. I haven't seen that at a footie World Cup.
At least it was an idiot fan assaulting a player, as opposed to the other way around: -
youtube.com/watch?v=JFsW6vvBwHk&
Oh, and not many will have seen it as I assume it wasn't shown on telly but a fan (a Saffer I assume) invaded the pitch at Villa Park, Saffers v Samoa and tackled a player. I haven't seen that at a footie World Cup.
At least it was an idiot fan assaulting a player, as opposed to the other way around: -
youtube.com/watch?v=JFsW6vvBwHk&
In reply to Alan M:
You seem to have introduced Rugby League into the discussion as well...
As for the fingers/thumbs up bums, thought that was confined to the communal bath!
You seem to have introduced Rugby League into the discussion as well...
As for the fingers/thumbs up bums, thought that was confined to the communal bath!
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
I'm talking rugby some of the worst sport related violence I have seen has been on a rugby pitch. Those events are just from the top of my head I can think of plenty of union related events also.
Including an england player banned for biting a finger etc.
What they get up to in the bath shouldn't be on the pitch!
> You seem to have introduced Rugby League into the discussion as well...
> As for the fingers/thumbs up bums, thought that was confined to the communal bath!
I'm talking rugby some of the worst sport related violence I have seen has been on a rugby pitch. Those events are just from the top of my head I can think of plenty of union related events also.
Including an england player banned for biting a finger etc.
What they get up to in the bath shouldn't be on the pitch!
Post edited at 00:12
In reply to John Ww:
After all these years we have not yet managed to establish whether the red team or the blue team is the best. Now it seems we need first to know whether they are playing the red sport or the blue sport. Is there no end to it?
After all these years we have not yet managed to establish whether the red team or the blue team is the best. Now it seems we need first to know whether they are playing the red sport or the blue sport. Is there no end to it?
1
In reply to Alan M:
To get uptight about players getting in fights in rugby is a bit like getting worked up over boxers drawing blood.
Rugby is a seriously physical game. In the old days proper rucking meant a stamping sprigged boot smashing in to you until you rolled away from the ruck. The rules were much more lax and the dividing line between outright violence and playing within the rules very fine - not even close to football. It is a no brainer that what would be filthy play in football was tolerated in rugby.
But at the end of it all, the fans did not resort to violence and the players showed respect to ref and each other and the game. Isolated cases of stupidity in rugby seem to be common-place in football.
To get uptight about players getting in fights in rugby is a bit like getting worked up over boxers drawing blood.
Rugby is a seriously physical game. In the old days proper rucking meant a stamping sprigged boot smashing in to you until you rolled away from the ruck. The rules were much more lax and the dividing line between outright violence and playing within the rules very fine - not even close to football. It is a no brainer that what would be filthy play in football was tolerated in rugby.
But at the end of it all, the fans did not resort to violence and the players showed respect to ref and each other and the game. Isolated cases of stupidity in rugby seem to be common-place in football.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I call nonsense
Sports require different attributes. Skill, athleticism, strength etc.. The balance between the importance of these attributes varies. Football, tennis, cricket - lots of skill, lots of athleticism (maybe less for some cricketers), strength not as important relatively speaking. Rugby bit more on the strength and being big side of things. Bit less emphasis on skill
The most skilful positions at rugby, might be comparable with centre half at football skillwise. Probably not though.
That's not to sa rugby layers aren't skillful. Just a lot less so.
> The skill levels of elite sports people in whatever sport tend to be very similar
I call nonsense
Sports require different attributes. Skill, athleticism, strength etc.. The balance between the importance of these attributes varies. Football, tennis, cricket - lots of skill, lots of athleticism (maybe less for some cricketers), strength not as important relatively speaking. Rugby bit more on the strength and being big side of things. Bit less emphasis on skill
The most skilful positions at rugby, might be comparable with centre half at football skillwise. Probably not though.
That's not to sa rugby layers aren't skillful. Just a lot less so.
Post edited at 03:04
1
In reply to Donald82:
Although all the players have to have a very good understanding of tactics, set plays and know what all the other players on the team are doing.
Whereas in football they just boot the ball around a bit and hope it goes in the net.
Although all the players have to have a very good understanding of tactics, set plays and know what all the other players on the team are doing.
Whereas in football they just boot the ball around a bit and hope it goes in the net.
2
3
In reply to Donald82:
I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the required skills required to play fly half and centre half - fly halves seem to have to do a lot more things.
And in defence of the merely strong - meeting a skill full member of the FRU can be a horrific experience!
I'm glad you managed to get the word 'nonsense' into this thread however!
I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the required skills required to play fly half and centre half - fly halves seem to have to do a lot more things.
And in defence of the merely strong - meeting a skill full member of the FRU can be a horrific experience!
I'm glad you managed to get the word 'nonsense' into this thread however!
1
In reply to Dr.S at work:
The question we need to ask ourselves is this
Why do supporters of football have a tendency to get very animated, agitated, tribal, shouty and sweary, stressed and in some instances...violent, where as rugby fans are , on the whole, far less.
I reckon the answer is passion. Football has it in spades, rugby less so.
What is passion? A strong feeling, or enthusiasm for something. Or also the suffering of Christ between the last supper and his death. Suffering is all part of being a football fan. You can't have those extreme highs with out extreme lows...but that's the buzz, the fear, the passion.....
You don't get that from sitting next to away supporters exchanging pleasantries and possibly having a BBQ with them in the stadium car park out of the back of your Range Rover. That's not sport, that's just a day out socialising
The question we need to ask ourselves is this
Why do supporters of football have a tendency to get very animated, agitated, tribal, shouty and sweary, stressed and in some instances...violent, where as rugby fans are , on the whole, far less.
I reckon the answer is passion. Football has it in spades, rugby less so.
What is passion? A strong feeling, or enthusiasm for something. Or also the suffering of Christ between the last supper and his death. Suffering is all part of being a football fan. You can't have those extreme highs with out extreme lows...but that's the buzz, the fear, the passion.....
You don't get that from sitting next to away supporters exchanging pleasantries and possibly having a BBQ with them in the stadium car park out of the back of your Range Rover. That's not sport, that's just a day out socialising
Post edited at 10:01
3
4
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Agree. Football is a much more fickle game than rugby. Deciding a whole game by one goal, one moment of skill/luck/bad luck/bad refereeing is a much much more common occurrence in football than in rugby, which makes it much more of an emotional tightrope, especially for the passionate and/or inebriated.
Agree. Football is a much more fickle game than rugby. Deciding a whole game by one goal, one moment of skill/luck/bad luck/bad refereeing is a much much more common occurrence in football than in rugby, which makes it much more of an emotional tightrope, especially for the passionate and/or inebriated.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Agree. Football is a much more fickle game than rugby. Deciding a whole game by one goal, one moment of skill/luck/bad luck/bad refereeing is a much much more common occurrence in football than in rugby, which makes it much more of an emotional tightrope, especially for the passionate and/or inebriated.
Have you actually watched any of the Rugby World Cup?
Agree. Football is a much more fickle game than rugby. Deciding a whole game by one goal, one moment of skill/luck/bad luck/bad refereeing is a much much more common occurrence in football than in rugby, which makes it much more of an emotional tightrope, especially for the passionate and/or inebriated.
Have you actually watched any of the Rugby World Cup?
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
So are you saying that it is imposdible to be passionate about something without hurling foul mouthed abuse and descending into violence?
> The question we need to ask ourselves is this
> Why do supporters of football have a tendency to get very animated, agitated, tribal, shouty and sweary, stressed and in some instances...violent, where as rugby fans are , on the whole, far less.
> I reckon the answer is passion. Football has it in spades, rugby less so.
> What is passion? A strong feeling, or enthusiasm for something.
>So are you saying that it is imposdible to be passionate about something without hurling foul mouthed abuse and descending into violence?
2
In reply to FactorXXX:
I have actually. It's been really notable for the kind of incidents I've described. The fact that they are notable pretty much agrees with what I wrote.
I have actually. It's been really notable for the kind of incidents I've described. The fact that they are notable pretty much agrees with what I wrote.
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Why do supporters of football have a tendency to get very animated, agitated, tribal, shouty and sweary, stressed and in some instances...violent, where as rugby fans are , on the whole, far less.
Because they're Neanderthals? You make it sound as if all this 'passion' and what results from it is actually a positive thing. It isn't.
Why do supporters of football have a tendency to get very animated, agitated, tribal, shouty and sweary, stressed and in some instances...violent, where as rugby fans are , on the whole, far less.
Because they're Neanderthals? You make it sound as if all this 'passion' and what results from it is actually a positive thing. It isn't.
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I have actually. It's been really notable for the kind of incidents I've described. The fact that they are notable pretty much agrees with what I wrote.
Did you also watch the last day of the 6 nations?
I have actually. It's been really notable for the kind of incidents I've described. The fact that they are notable pretty much agrees with what I wrote.
Did you also watch the last day of the 6 nations?
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
This could really go on, couldn't it? I said that these events are much more common in football than in rugby, not that they don't happen in rugby at all. Inevitably in a sport where scores usually go well into double-figures, results are more regularly a true reflection of which team has been the most dominant for the duration of the game. In a sport where things are regularly decided by one goal there is more opportunity for the Fickle Finger of Fate to prod someone in the eye (or up the bum, in the case of Aussie rugby league).
This could really go on, couldn't it? I said that these events are much more common in football than in rugby, not that they don't happen in rugby at all. Inevitably in a sport where scores usually go well into double-figures, results are more regularly a true reflection of which team has been the most dominant for the duration of the game. In a sport where things are regularly decided by one goal there is more opportunity for the Fickle Finger of Fate to prod someone in the eye (or up the bum, in the case of Aussie rugby league).
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
You mean you want them to come round and thump you?
> I'm trying to get some passion out of the rugby fans on here.....
You mean you want them to come round and thump you?
3
2
In reply to FactorXXX:
Let us remember the original post, which is the better sport. I'm coming at it from a fan perspective.
No doubt rugby fans enjoy their game and many will think it's far superior to football. I haven't got a problem with that at all. But I doubt they go through the range of emotions to the same intensity as a football fan can. And it's that which I am trying to convey (probably badly) as a factor in deciding the provocative (but fun) original post . I think there has to be more to it than "neanderthal, poor people with no education vs clever rich people with higher social class".
Let us remember the original post, which is the better sport. I'm coming at it from a fan perspective.
No doubt rugby fans enjoy their game and many will think it's far superior to football. I haven't got a problem with that at all. But I doubt they go through the range of emotions to the same intensity as a football fan can. And it's that which I am trying to convey (probably badly) as a factor in deciding the provocative (but fun) original post . I think there has to be more to it than "neanderthal, poor people with no education vs clever rich people with higher social class".
3
In reply to John Ww:
Ok, you're very serious about that old post you cut and pasted. 'balloon' and 'ballet shoes' don't work too well, an inflated ball is common to both sports and footwear is similar nowadays. In rugby, the most successful team avoids 'getting the shit kicked out of it' by moving the 'balloon' around and getting it over the tryline. I know lower tier amateur rugby would often descend into a glorified scrap but the modern professional game isn't like that.
> a) very
Ok, you're very serious about that old post you cut and pasted. 'balloon' and 'ballet shoes' don't work too well, an inflated ball is common to both sports and footwear is similar nowadays. In rugby, the most successful team avoids 'getting the shit kicked out of it' by moving the 'balloon' around and getting it over the tryline. I know lower tier amateur rugby would often descend into a glorified scrap but the modern professional game isn't like that.
Post edited at 11:53
In reply to Postmanpat:
Definitely not! But could we sing some songs? (that sounds a bit weird.....lol)
Definitely not! But could we sing some songs? (that sounds a bit weird.....lol)
In reply to FactorXXX:
Maybe you are correct, that it is the lesser of two evils but that is precisely my point.
Maybe you are correct, that it is the lesser of two evils but that is precisely my point.
In reply to John Ww:
I`m not sure that the old stereotypes of
rugby fan / player = toff in open necked shirt / barbour , aroused by touching / hurting other men / watching men touch and hurt each other
football fan / player - inarticulate working class yob
are as true nowadays as in previous years?
I`m not sure that the old stereotypes of
rugby fan / player = toff in open necked shirt / barbour , aroused by touching / hurting other men / watching men touch and hurt each other
football fan / player - inarticulate working class yob
are as true nowadays as in previous years?
In reply to thepeaks:
Other than some areas of England , I don't think that ever was the stereotype was it ? I can't imagine that many Barber Jackets in Abertillery !
> I`m not sure that the old stereotypes of
> rugby fan / player = toff in open necked shirt / barbour , aroused by touching / hurting other men / watching men touch and hurt each other
Other than some areas of England , I don't think that ever was the stereotype was it ? I can't imagine that many Barber Jackets in Abertillery !
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Why would the range of emotion be any different in Rugby? (Other than obviously a bit more sympathy for players when they get flattened)
> Let us remember the original post, which is the better sport. I'm coming at it from a fan perspective.
> No doubt rugby fans enjoy their game and many will think it's far superior to football. I haven't got a problem with that at all. But I doubt they go through the range of emotions to the same intensity as a football fan can. And it's that which I am trying to convey (probably badly) as a factor in deciding the provocative (but fun) original post . I think there has to be more to it than "neanderthal, poor people with no education vs clever rich people with higher social class".
Why would the range of emotion be any different in Rugby? (Other than obviously a bit more sympathy for players when they get flattened)
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Because my hypothesis is that if there were the same range of emotions or the same passion in the fans, rugby would be as popular as football as a spectator sport.
Because my hypothesis is that if there were the same range of emotions or the same passion in the fans, rugby would be as popular as football as a spectator sport.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Rugby in England at least -(its a different er ball game in Wales and poss more working class areas of England - cornwall perhaps) hasn`t got that sense of being rooted to a community that football has. The average Bath fan for instance probably doesn`t identify as strongly with the club / community as the average Bristol City fan.
Rugby in England at least -(its a different er ball game in Wales and poss more working class areas of England - cornwall perhaps) hasn`t got that sense of being rooted to a community that football has. The average Bath fan for instance probably doesn`t identify as strongly with the club / community as the average Bristol City fan.
2
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
i don't think it holds up - the second most popular sport in the world is cricket and that goes on for days with scores in the hundreds so it's hard to see how having small margins alone would be the deciding factor .
i don't think it holds up - the second most popular sport in the world is cricket and that goes on for days with scores in the hundreds so it's hard to see how having small margins alone would be the deciding factor .
In reply to Dave the Rave:
and the "football" climber calls for an Air Ambulance when he gets a grit rash!
> Rugby is your' fat grunter' of a climber who uses his knees.
> Football is your 'thinking climber', lithe, athletic and skilful.
and the "football" climber calls for an Air Ambulance when he gets a grit rash!
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Where did I mention small margins? My supposition is that the passion of the fans (amongst other things) indicates how "good" a sport it is. It could be completely wrong of course..
Cricket is incredibly popular in a few countries...like rugby. Having said that, if it is the worlds second most popular sport (?) that would tie in with the absolute obsession of the billions in the South Asian continent of all things cricket...to the point of religion. In which case, we can conclude that cricket, as well as football, is better than rugby
Where did I mention small margins? My supposition is that the passion of the fans (amongst other things) indicates how "good" a sport it is. It could be completely wrong of course..
Cricket is incredibly popular in a few countries...like rugby. Having said that, if it is the worlds second most popular sport (?) that would tie in with the absolute obsession of the billions in the South Asian continent of all things cricket...to the point of religion. In which case, we can conclude that cricket, as well as football, is better than rugby
In reply to Paul Hy:
He's also incapable of onsighting anything above a Diff.
> and the "football" climber calls for an Air Ambulance when he gets a grit rash!
He's also incapable of onsighting anything above a Diff.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
It's not difficult getting nonsense into a thread round here. People coming out with crazy rugby as skilful as football type stuff
It's not difficult getting nonsense into a thread round here. People coming out with crazy rugby as skilful as football type stuff
1
In reply to Donald82:
Not really.
I don't understand football. It seems pointless. All the skill seems to be in one or two players being able to control the ball.
I understand there is supposed to be something else in the game but just can't see it. After about 20mins I'm bored and switch off. Nothing ever seems to happen.
> I call troll
Not really.
I don't understand football. It seems pointless. All the skill seems to be in one or two players being able to control the ball.
I understand there is supposed to be something else in the game but just can't see it. After about 20mins I'm bored and switch off. Nothing ever seems to happen.
In reply to Glyno:
not yet- there's still extra time!
and maybe a golden goal
or perhaps a silver one...
not yet- there's still extra time!
and maybe a golden goal
or perhaps a silver one...
In reply to DancingOnRock:
My wife thought Arsenal were playing a Spanish side when we played Aston Villa. She doesn't understand it either
My wife thought Arsenal were playing a Spanish side when we played Aston Villa. She doesn't understand it either
1
In reply to andymac:
I'm always amazed by sports fans hating other sports.
I love sport, obviously United dominate, but I love watching great sportsman.. Brady, nadal, Federer, Schumacher driving in the wet, carter, Zidanne.
I'm getting into the NFL as I really enjoy watching guys like Brady under pressure, or cam newton.. Massive characters.
Soccer is my preferred sport but I just enjoy watching those at the pinnacle of their sport
I'm always amazed by sports fans hating other sports.
I love sport, obviously United dominate, but I love watching great sportsman.. Brady, nadal, Federer, Schumacher driving in the wet, carter, Zidanne.
I'm getting into the NFL as I really enjoy watching guys like Brady under pressure, or cam newton.. Massive characters.
Soccer is my preferred sport but I just enjoy watching those at the pinnacle of their sport
3
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Agree, football is my main game...although my guilty pleasure is aussie rules. Fantastic game, very fast moving, good flow and extremely fit players. Whenever I am in Oz I will go and watch local "footy" and have been to some great games at the MCG.
But great sport is great sport...Murray winning Wimbledon, Mo winning Olympic golds, England winning Rugby WC, England Germany semi final 1990, 2012 Ryder Cup, England Scotland Euro 96, Ovett vs Coe 1980's etc....
and the ultimate...
Arsenal Liverpool 89. The highest elation of my sport watching life...
Agree, football is my main game...although my guilty pleasure is aussie rules. Fantastic game, very fast moving, good flow and extremely fit players. Whenever I am in Oz I will go and watch local "footy" and have been to some great games at the MCG.
But great sport is great sport...Murray winning Wimbledon, Mo winning Olympic golds, England winning Rugby WC, England Germany semi final 1990, 2012 Ryder Cup, England Scotland Euro 96, Ovett vs Coe 1980's etc....
and the ultimate...
Arsenal Liverpool 89. The highest elation of my sport watching life...
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Not necessarily, people always forget about the history of football when things like this come up.
One example, the 1923 FA Cup Final - Trotters v Hammers. Also known as the White Horse Final due to the white horse that was used as crowd control to clear the pitch. It was the first final in the new Wembley, capacity 130,000 but double that turned up to watch and invaded the pitch. The King was there so embarrassment all round and the game was delayed by 45 minutes to sort the crowd out (all ticket finals was the result).
That number of people would be like 400,000 turning up today, so although there's been growth recently, it was after football became less fashionable in the 70s. So it's not the result of popularity but rather the increase in wealth that society has to dispose of.
In little over 50 years of the english league starting football had gone worldwide and was played by millions and millions of people, it's a phenomenon only comparable to say, Beatlemania or similar in today's world.
That's partly why it's risible when people say the women's game could be like the men's if only they were on TV more, it's a complete misunderstanding of the organic growth of sport and the market in TV. The women's game and Rugby have had their opportunity to do similar but it just hasn't happened.
Football, of course is about mass participation, whereas Rugby (and women's football) is about mass consumption, two very different things.
So this thread isn't about sport or the game, it's the middle class's favourite pastime; conspicuous consumption and demonstrating that the middle class values of rugby they aspire to are somehow superior to the working class values of football. It's akin to old biddies saying they prefer Marks and Spencer's bras to Primark.
> Agree with the criticism of football re the overpaid players, winging managers, attitude towards refs, corruption of FIFA and violence amongst some fans.
> But the problem is that all these are the result of the popularly of the game,
Not necessarily, people always forget about the history of football when things like this come up.
One example, the 1923 FA Cup Final - Trotters v Hammers. Also known as the White Horse Final due to the white horse that was used as crowd control to clear the pitch. It was the first final in the new Wembley, capacity 130,000 but double that turned up to watch and invaded the pitch. The King was there so embarrassment all round and the game was delayed by 45 minutes to sort the crowd out (all ticket finals was the result).
That number of people would be like 400,000 turning up today, so although there's been growth recently, it was after football became less fashionable in the 70s. So it's not the result of popularity but rather the increase in wealth that society has to dispose of.
In little over 50 years of the english league starting football had gone worldwide and was played by millions and millions of people, it's a phenomenon only comparable to say, Beatlemania or similar in today's world.
That's partly why it's risible when people say the women's game could be like the men's if only they were on TV more, it's a complete misunderstanding of the organic growth of sport and the market in TV. The women's game and Rugby have had their opportunity to do similar but it just hasn't happened.
Football, of course is about mass participation, whereas Rugby (and women's football) is about mass consumption, two very different things.
So this thread isn't about sport or the game, it's the middle class's favourite pastime; conspicuous consumption and demonstrating that the middle class values of rugby they aspire to are somehow superior to the working class values of football. It's akin to old biddies saying they prefer Marks and Spencer's bras to Primark.
2
2
In reply to winhill:
There seems to be a heck of a lot of consumption in football. I'm not at all convinced that mass consumption is a hallmark of either sport at a grass roots level - the middle class distinction may be true in some parts of England, and for Rugby Union, but its clearly not the case in some other parts of the country/world or for rugby league.
I think that's a subject for an other thread - possibly including Rigby and Peller.
> Football, of course is about mass participation, whereas Rugby (and women's football) is about mass consumption, two very different things.
There seems to be a heck of a lot of consumption in football. I'm not at all convinced that mass consumption is a hallmark of either sport at a grass roots level - the middle class distinction may be true in some parts of England, and for Rugby Union, but its clearly not the case in some other parts of the country/world or for rugby league.
> It's akin to old biddies saying they prefer Marks and Spencer's bras to Primark.
I think that's a subject for an other thread - possibly including Rigby and Peller.
Post edited at 13:17
In reply to winhill:
I suspect that more people over 25 watch football than play it. Certainly in my office, the number of people who actively participate in sport is 1. Me.
The other 20-30 blokes watch football (even if it's just their sons and daughters playing).
I never watch football and have only ever been to 1 rugby match as a spectator although I have played hundreds of games.
I suspect that more people over 25 watch football than play it. Certainly in my office, the number of people who actively participate in sport is 1. Me.
The other 20-30 blokes watch football (even if it's just their sons and daughters playing).
I never watch football and have only ever been to 1 rugby match as a spectator although I have played hundreds of games.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
For some reason I have become acquainted with Aussie Rules.
Got round to watching old clips on YouTube.
'The Flying Doormat'; now he was some player.
Great hairstyle.
For some reason I have become acquainted with Aussie Rules.
Got round to watching old clips on YouTube.
'The Flying Doormat'; now he was some player.
Great hairstyle.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Surely the emotional response of a fan, be it football or rugby, is directly proportional to how closely they support their team??? To the dedicated follower, rugby produces just as many cliff hangers, victories snatched from defeat, displays of heroism and high octane drama as football does. Ask a Scottish fan how they felt during their quarter final game with Australia, ask an Irish fan how they felt during the win against France, ask a Japanese fan to describe their emotions after their astonishing win against South Africa, ask me how I felt watching Munster win their first Heineken Cup or an England fan watching Johnny Wilkinson slot a drop goal in the dying minutes of the 2003 final. They will tell you they were having heart palpitations followed by extreme elation/anguish
> But I doubt they go through the range of emotions to the same intensity as a football fan can.
Surely the emotional response of a fan, be it football or rugby, is directly proportional to how closely they support their team??? To the dedicated follower, rugby produces just as many cliff hangers, victories snatched from defeat, displays of heroism and high octane drama as football does. Ask a Scottish fan how they felt during their quarter final game with Australia, ask an Irish fan how they felt during the win against France, ask a Japanese fan to describe their emotions after their astonishing win against South Africa, ask me how I felt watching Munster win their first Heineken Cup or an England fan watching Johnny Wilkinson slot a drop goal in the dying minutes of the 2003 final. They will tell you they were having heart palpitations followed by extreme elation/anguish
3
In reply to John Ww:
Having watched schoolboy rugby (elder son) and schoolboy football (younger son) for quite a few years I would say that the main difference between the two is the respect shown to the referee.
In rugby the referee's performance may well be dissected in the bar but NO dissent on the pitch. In football the constant carping, whining and general crap aimed at the ref. by both players and parents is enough to dissuade anyone from ever wanting to be a ref.
Having watched schoolboy rugby (elder son) and schoolboy football (younger son) for quite a few years I would say that the main difference between the two is the respect shown to the referee.
In rugby the referee's performance may well be dissected in the bar but NO dissent on the pitch. In football the constant carping, whining and general crap aimed at the ref. by both players and parents is enough to dissuade anyone from ever wanting to be a ref.
1
In reply to C£ Chullain:
Yes, but their are not as many "dedicated rugby followers" What's the average Munster gate 14k? My point was if the sport was so amazing and better than football then surely Munster would attract more fans? (it's only a bit of fun, not based on fact) . National teams will always pull the nationalistic heart strings, rugby is no different...that's where the rivalry and passion might get close to club football.
Yes, but their are not as many "dedicated rugby followers" What's the average Munster gate 14k? My point was if the sport was so amazing and better than football then surely Munster would attract more fans? (it's only a bit of fun, not based on fact) . National teams will always pull the nationalistic heart strings, rugby is no different...that's where the rivalry and passion might get close to club football.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Not sure what your point is, rugby will never be as popular as football, does not mean it is less exciting or emotional as a fan to witness compared to football though.
Every school in the UK plays football, a fraction of that number offers rugby as an option, throw into the mix the generally outdated and off-putting stereotypes of rugby being a 'toffs' public school game and a raft of parents who think it is too violent for little Johnny to play and you end up with, in England at least, roughly 131,000 registered adult rugby players. I would imagine football would be at least 20 times that number, way more clubs fielding multiple sides and all the fans that go with that. Rugby is less accessable, fewer pitches to play on, fewer top flight sides to watch elite rugby, less money in the game, there will never be close in terms of playing numbers and fan base. Nothing to do with it being less exciting to watch, just fewer oppotunities to play or support it.
With regards to Munster you are probably picking the wrong club to demonstrate a lack of interest in the sport, rugby is a religion in Limerick and Munster fans are well known for travelling all over Europe in vast numbers to support their side. Over 60,000 travelled to Cardiff to watch them play in the Heineken Cup final against Biarritz, so many travelled there was a genuine fear in Ireland where a census was taking place that weekend that Limerick would be downgraded from a city to town status. Thomond Park used to be packed for every game, the Irish 2008 financial crash hurt a lot of people and needless to say watching rugby took a back seat to paying the mortgage for a few years so attendances went down although have since started to recover.
> Yes, but their are not as many "dedicated rugby followers" What's the average Munster gate 14k? My point was if the sport was so amazing and better than football then surely Munster would attract more fans? (it's only a bit of fun, not based on fact) . National teams will always pull the nationalistic heart strings, rugby is no different...that's where the rivalry and passion might get close to club football.
Not sure what your point is, rugby will never be as popular as football, does not mean it is less exciting or emotional as a fan to witness compared to football though.
Every school in the UK plays football, a fraction of that number offers rugby as an option, throw into the mix the generally outdated and off-putting stereotypes of rugby being a 'toffs' public school game and a raft of parents who think it is too violent for little Johnny to play and you end up with, in England at least, roughly 131,000 registered adult rugby players. I would imagine football would be at least 20 times that number, way more clubs fielding multiple sides and all the fans that go with that. Rugby is less accessable, fewer pitches to play on, fewer top flight sides to watch elite rugby, less money in the game, there will never be close in terms of playing numbers and fan base. Nothing to do with it being less exciting to watch, just fewer oppotunities to play or support it.
With regards to Munster you are probably picking the wrong club to demonstrate a lack of interest in the sport, rugby is a religion in Limerick and Munster fans are well known for travelling all over Europe in vast numbers to support their side. Over 60,000 travelled to Cardiff to watch them play in the Heineken Cup final against Biarritz, so many travelled there was a genuine fear in Ireland where a census was taking place that weekend that Limerick would be downgraded from a city to town status. Thomond Park used to be packed for every game, the Irish 2008 financial crash hurt a lot of people and needless to say watching rugby took a back seat to paying the mortgage for a few years so attendances went down although have since started to recover.
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Always sold out at Leicester Tigers, 24,000. Soon to be more when the new stand is finished.
Always sold out at Leicester Tigers, 24,000. Soon to be more when the new stand is finished.
In reply to andymac:
I sat through a whole DVD called "Daicos Magic" more than once!
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/may/20/the-joy-of-six-peter-daic...
I sat through a whole DVD called "Daicos Magic" more than once!
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/may/20/the-joy-of-six-peter-daic...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...