Union more entertaining than League
Mr Peter Marsden
the rules of league were supposedly formulated to make it
better entertainment. I suppose one cant take any sport seriously when
its leading team is from a dump like Wigan.
A Maye (Keyworth Institute)
: Why is it that Union is a much better spectacle than League yet
: the rules of league were supposedly formulated to make it
: better entertainment. I suppose one cant take any sport seriously when
: its leading team is from a dump like Wigan.
Now that's fighting talk.
Mind you, if that's the only argument you can come up with, then you are
obviously talking bollocks.
Andrew.
Keith M Richardson
Normally I would agree with your sentiments about the entertainment value
of union vs league, but with a result of 23-12 from last Sats. game at Twickenham and not try scored, that does nothing to bolster unions image, nor that of either the ability of England or Scotland.
FLIMBLE McFLOMBLE
I hope you`re not a typical Union fan. If you are then I have no
sympathy for Rugby Union being so shite.
AS Campbell
To the idiot who wrote that Union is a better spectacle than league there
can be only one reply "He's a madman".
John Lancaster
I agree with the Wigan bit, coming from St Helens, but come on, you
can't really be serious about kick and clap being better than league
!!
Mind you though, I keep playing time and time again the tape of
Saturdays England and Scotland Match. Those were some of the most
exciting and dramatic goal kicks I have ever seen. If you cant score a
try, why persist with an oval ball. Pile 'o' shite..........
John Lancaster
j...@grebe.u-net.com
http://www.u-net.com/~grebe/
==============================
A Maye (Keyworth Institute)
: mab...@mathssun5lancs.ac.uk (Mr Peter Marsden) wrote:
: >Why is it that Union is a much better spectacle than League yet
: >the rules of league were supposedly formulated to make it
: >better entertainment. I suppose one cant take any sport seriously when
: >its leading team is from a dump like Wigan.
: I agree with the Wigan bit, coming from St Helens,
What's all this "Wigan is a dump" propaganda that's starting appearing on the
net? I'm from Wigan and can testify to it having some of the nicest run down
areas I've ever seen ;-)
: John Lancaster
Andrew.
Brian Pickersgill
>From: FLIMBLE McFLOMBLE <rj...@coventry.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Union more entertaining than League
>Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 15:56:30 +0000
Shouldn't there be an age limit on this newsgroup. This is like listening to
my infant sons argue! GROW UP!!!
Bets regrads
Brain (Brian L. Pickersgill)
Brian Pickersgill
>From: as-c...@pat.uwe.ac.uk (AS Campbell)
>Subject: Re: Union more entertaining than League
What's wrong with Wigan?? I spent a week there one night!!
Martin Green
Has ball and runs with it, head down, never looking up until another
3 ton player stops him, opposing players back off?
This is repeated another four times.
If try has not been scored boot the ball anywhere you like.
Whereby the opposing team get the ball and do the bleeding thing!
Major boredom sets in after around 10 minutes.
2) An excuse for Wales losing, (i.e. world class ? union defections
which if they did not occur Wales would not concede a single point in
any Union match, then would be banned from world Rugby due to their
undoubted superiority).
3) Without Union player defections, the entertainment level of R.L. would
be almost as low as an American Football match.
4) Commentators with daft accents, with unbelievably biased commentaries.
5) Fans who think a flowing move is handing the ball to the kicker for an effort
at goal.
6) Product of the class system.
For those of you with nosense of humour,
judging by some of the postings,
a lot of you,
the above is meant as "tongue in cheek"
so if it gets your back up,
go get therapy.
Take it easy,
Mart.
A Maye (Keyworth Institute)
: For those of you with nosense of humour,
: judging by some of the postings,
: a lot of you,
: the above is meant as "tongue in cheek"
Don't give up the day job.
: Take it easy,
: Mart.
Andrew.
:
Graeme Morris
> OK, slag us off, if you play, fancy a game of league?.
Furthermore, in the 3 ton player department, compare the average pack
weight in league to that in Union, and youll see mr blobby is a union
lad!
>Poncy strips? At least no league player would be seen dead with a flower
on his shirt!
SJ BUTLER
>From: mab...@mathssun5lancs.ac.uk (Mr Peter Marsden)
>Date: 18 Mar 95 12:35:00 GMT
Jonathan Davies on Sportsnight last night said "League is a far better
spectator sport than union." I don't think many people are more qualified
to compare the two games than JD.
If what you say is true, let's just compare two games less than 24 hgours
apart.
1. Bradford Northern 27 v St Helens 31
Friday 17 March. Live on Sky Sports.
An end to end game of exciting fast flowing Rugby League
2. England 24 v Scotland 12
Saturday 18 March. Live on BBC
Kicking practice for Rob 'four man overlap so I'll drop a goal' Andrews
If aliens came down and watched videos of the two games, I have no doubt
they'd go out, buy themselves a new flat cap and spend their Sundays
watching the greatest sport in the world......provided they didn't get hit
by the RU bandwagon whilst on their way to the ground.
Graeme Morris
Nice one geezer! But what about the whippet?
D.James
bmf...@news.salford.ac.uk (SJ BUTLER) writes:
>
>Jonathan Davies on Sportsnight last night said "League is a far better
>spectator sport than union." I don't think many people are more qualified
>to compare the two games than JD.
If he did otherwise it would be a bit like the Pope coming out in favour
of the Muslim faith. See what he says & more importantly where he goes when
he hangs up his boots.
Dick James
Jon Thackray
>Why is it that Union is a much better spectacle than League yet
>the rules of league were supposedly formulated to make it
>better entertainment. I suppose one cant take any sport seriously when
>its leading team is from a dump like Wigan.
Jonathan Davies on Sportsnight last night said "League is a far better
spectator sport than union." I don't think many people are more qualified
to compare the two games than JD.
If what you say is true, let's just compare two games less than 24 hgours
apart.
1. Bradford Northern 27 v St Helens 31
Friday 17 March. Live on Sky Sports.
An end to end game of exciting fast flowing Rugby League
2. England 24 v Scotland 12
Saturday 18 March. Live on BBC
Kicking practice for Rob 'four man overlap so I'll drop a goal' Andrews
If aliens came down and watched videos of the two games, I have no doubt
they'd go out, buy themselves a new flat cap and spend their Sundays
watching the greatest sport in the world......provided they didn't get hit
by the RU bandwagon whilst on their way to the ground.
Can't we cut this crap? First point, with sample sizes of one or two,
you can prove anything (with a suitable meaning attached to the word
"prove"). Second point, do you know what the most popular "sport" in
the UK is? Answer: angling. To a lot of people this is about as
interesting as watching paint dry. So why not agree to differ? Some
people like league, some like union, some like both. Some people feel
threatened by one or the other, and some people feel the need to try
to "prove" that their ideas are better, truer or whatever. But many of
us are bored by the latter set.
--
Dr. Jon Thackray jo...@harlqn.co.uk 44 223 872522 (voice)
Harlequin Ltd. 44 223 872519 (fax)
Barrington Hall
Barrington
Cambridge CB2 5RG
England
Graeme Morris
You really havent got a clue have you Dick?. Although obviously he cant
say anything to upset his club, League players are at least free to
express an opinion about their sport, and to try others.
John Gallagher was onced dropped from the All Blacks, despite being their
leading try scorer, for saying that he disagreed with the kiwi sprint coach!
If thats not being forced to tow the party line, what is?
Furthermore, let us not forget a certain Welsh rugby union star who,
despite telling the league club he had a trial for that he didnt want to
play league, was banned from Union for having a trila in the first place!
I think you should pay more attention to the RFU thought police before
criticising league "Paymasters"
Graeme
D.James
- the criticism was of you for being unable to realise that
Davies could not be considered an *independent* witness while he remains
an RL employee.
Dick James
Dr J.S. Marsland
: In article <D61u9...@liverpool.ac.uk>
: Why should I consider Barry John at all? - other than as a golden memory.
Barry John: 'I think League is a better game to play in today - and to watch'
Source: The Guardian, p.24, 24th Sept. 1994.
But how could the uncle of a Rugby League player possibly be independent.
: It is one of you RL posters who put forward Davies's view as some sort of
: 'proof'. I feel no need to advance anyone's view other than my own. The view
: of an individual star is just that - a view, just as mine is & perhaps even
: yours.
The trouble with your 'view' of reality is that it is somewhat ill-informed -
from previous postings you clearly do not know the rules of Rugby League nor
understand how successful and entertaining teams play the game.
: I'll say this once more only - it has to be the last time even though you
: chaps seem to have such difficulty in grasping it. If you want to
: advance your 'argument' by enlisting the support of a 'star' then Davies
: was a bad choice as he is still an employee of RL & therefore *cannot* be
: held to be independent.
Personally I believe Davies meant what he says - and for you to infer
otherwise is clearly two-faced. By your own standards of 'proof' Union
players are obliged to say that Union is more entertaining than League even
if they don't believe it.
I know as little about Union as you clearly know about League - please join me
in refraining from slagging off each others chosen sport.
--
John
'Come on you 'Fax!'
copyright Hanson Land End away supporters.
Dr J.S. Marsland
: Davies could not be considered an *independent* witness while he remains
: an RL employee.
Would you consider Barry John to be *independent* in this regard?
D.James
mars...@liverpool.ac.uk (Dr J.S. Marsland) writes:
>D.James (SD...@ib.rl.ac.uk) wrote:
>: Davies could not be considered an *independent* witness while he remains
>: an RL employee.
>Would you consider Barry John to be *independent* in this regard?
Why should I consider Barry John at all? - other than as a golden memory.
'proof'. I feel no need to advance anyone's view other than my own. The view
of an individual star is just that - a view, just as mine is & perhaps even
yours.
chaps seem to have such difficulty in grasping it. If you want to
advance your 'argument' by enlisting the support of a 'star' then Davies
was a bad choice as he is still an employee of RL & therefore *cannot* be
held to be independent.
D.James
>: In article <D61u9...@liverpool.ac.uk>
>: Why should I consider Barry John at all? - other than as a golden memory.
>Barry John: 'I think League is a better game to play in today - and to watch'
>Source: The Guardian, p.24, 24th Sept. 1994.
>But how could the uncle of a Rugby League player possibly be independent.
your own arguments - if you have any.
>
>: It is one of you RL posters who put forward Davies's view as some sort of
>: 'proof'. I feel no need to advance anyone's view other than my own. The view
>: of an individual star is just that - a view, just as mine is & perhaps even
>: yours.
>
>The trouble with your 'view' of reality is that it is somewhat ill-informed -
>from previous postings you clearly do not know the rules of Rugby League nor
>understand how successful and entertaining teams play the game.
>
>: I'll say this once more only - it has to be the last time even though you
>: chaps seem to have such difficulty in grasping it. If you want to
>: advance your 'argument' by enlisting the support of a 'star' then Davies
>: was a bad choice as he is still an employee of RL & therefore *cannot* be
>: held to be independent.
>
>Personally I believe Davies meant what he says - and for you to infer
>otherwise is clearly two-faced. By your own standards of 'proof' Union
- I don't know nor care. But because he is a RL employee his opinion just
cannot be regarded as *independent* . Surely you can graps that my point has
been all along that whatever his opinion is it is NOT going to be seen as
impartial plus the subordinate point that his opinion has in any case
little bearing on which is 'the better game'. Nothing 2 faced about that -
reread and think before you post again.
>players are obliged to say that Union is more entertaining than League even
>if they don't believe it.
a bias towards RU and would consider theit opinions accordingly. Just like
Davies though their views in this area are only views.
>I know as little about Union as you clearly know about League - please join me
>in refraining from slagging off each others chosen sport.
>John
Dick James
Dr J.S. Marsland
On the other hand you are arguing that Union is more entertaining than League
- it's your argument and the burden of proof rests with you. Thus far you
have singly failled to provide even a decent case.
D.James (SD...@ib.rl.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <D63IA...@liverpool.ac.uk>
: mars...@liverpool.ac.uk (Dr J.S. Marsland) writes:
: >Barry John: 'I think League is a better game to play in today - and to watch'
: >Source: The Guardian, p.24, 24th Sept. 1994.
:
: Once more - why should John's opinion mean anything or 'prove' anything. Use
: your own arguments - if you have any.
Your patronising tone is indicative of your failure to put a decent case
forward - you critise one person for not providing independent evidence
and when an independent view is offered you change your argument. I have
no doubt that your view is your view - if John's comment proves anything
it is that your view is not widely held.
: >The trouble with your 'view' of reality is that it is somewhat ill-informed -
: >from previous postings you clearly do not know the rules of Rugby League nor
: >understand how successful and entertaining teams play the game.
:
: Nor care.
You know not what you are missing.
: >Personally I believe Davies meant what he says - and for you to infer
: >otherwise is clearly two-faced. By your own standards of 'proof' Union
:
: Even now you cannot grasp it - Davies might or might not mean what he says
: - I don't know nor care. But because he is a RL employee his opinion just
: cannot be regarded as *independent* . Surely you can graps that my point has
: been all along that whatever his opinion is it is NOT going to be seen as
: impartial plus the subordinate point that his opinion has in any case
: little bearing on which is 'the better game'. Nothing 2 faced about that -
: reread and think before you post again.
Again you are adopting this mistasteful patronising tone - neither myself
or anyone else has claimed that Davies is independent but to infer that his
expressed views are not his own is disgraceful.
: >players are obliged to say that Union is more entertaining than League even
: >if they don't believe it.
:
: They're not 'obliged' to but I'd be astonished if their views didn't show
: a bias towards RU and would consider theit opinions accordingly. Just like
: Davies though their views in this area are only views.
And Davies's views are not?
: >I know as little about Union as you clearly know about League
:
: You seem a little shaky on logic too.
Again patronising - lacking in any clear argument for why Union is more
entertaining than Rugby League it's all you have.
D.James
jo...@harlequin.co.uk (Jon Thackray) writes:
>Can't we cut this crap? First point, with sample sizes of one or two,
>you can prove anything (with a suitable meaning attached to the word
>"prove"). Second point, do you know what the most popular "sport" in
>the UK is? Answer: angling. To a lot of people this is about as
>interesting as watching paint dry. So why not agree to differ? Some
A lot of scope for pointless argument about watching paint professionally
administered to that of amateurs. In my view professional painters might
be faster, keeping the roller in use for longer, but they lack the subtlety &
variety (and sometimes the completely unexpected outcome) of the amateur
d-i-y enthusiast. We are talking about house-painting and not fine arts aren't
we?
>people like league, some like union, some like both. Some people feel
>threatened by one or the other, and some people feel the need to try
>to "prove" that their ideas are better, truer or whatever.
to argue meaninglessly. Are you against sport too? It's endlessly repetitive
and can hardly be said to prove anything or have a final outcome.
>But many of us are bored by the latter set.
all articles. You could even look at the subject first and skip some articles.
Mustn't become too cosy - it's not a political rally - it entertains some
to have argument - even vituperation, if legal.Dick James
A Maye (Keyworth Institute)
: In article <JONT.95Ma...@dedekind.harlqn.co.uk>
: jo...@harlequin.co.uk (Jon Thackray) writes:
:
: >Can't we cut this crap? First point, with sample sizes of one or two,
: >you can prove anything (with a suitable meaning attached to the word
: >"prove"). Second point, do you know what the most popular "sport" in
: >the UK is? Answer: angling. To a lot of people this is about as
: >interesting as watching paint dry. So why not agree to differ? Some
:
: Now you're talking! Is there a group for paint watchers?
: A lot of scope for pointless argument about watching paint professionally
: administered to that of amateurs. In my view professional painters might
: be faster, keeping the roller in use for longer, but they lack the subtlety &
: variety (and sometimes the completely unexpected outcome) of the amateur
: d-i-y enthusiast. We are talking about house-painting and not fine arts aren't
: we?
But DIY enthusiasts are usually crap at their trade. They tend to pap on all
the time about how great and interesting their work is when everyoine knows
it is really low quality shabby stuff. The 'subtlety & variety' stems from
an inability to do what they want to do correctly and when things do go wrong
they tend to splash a bit of paint over the top in an attempt to con everyone
into thinking that it is a feature of their work.
Also, the DIY-er is one of those who just won't admit when he's wrong - one
of those who just won't say that the professional painters do a far better
job, since they spend all their time practising, studying and perfecting the
art of applying paint. The professionals know all the tricks of the trade
and know how to keep the customers happy with their work.
People just tend to humour the do it yourself-er so as to keep him happy in
his own little world.
:
: Dick James
:
Andrew.
Graeme Morris
> Sorry, but i didnt realise there was a point to miss. The "League
paymasters" bit seemed an obvious dig, but then i ma to used to seeing
criticism of Gods own game on this newsgroup.
Anyway, who is the worlds graetest try scorer? >
Graeme Morris
> OK, dont accept Davies as a valid independant judge on the two codes.
However, perhaps you can accept John Gallagher (great bloke, have i
mentioned him before?) as such a voice. Gallagher, upon retireing as a
player with London Broncos R.L.F.C, turned down an offer to coach a
French Union side (a PAID job, i'll hasten to add), and instead elected
to accept a part time post as League develpoment Officer for North
London, for which he recives a small income. If Union was so much more of
an attractive offer, then surely an ex all Black would reaturn to the fold?
A Maye (Keyworth Institute)
: In article <1995Mar27....@leeds.ac.uk>
: and...@dcre.leeds.ac.uk (A Maye (Keyworth Institute)) writes:
: >D.James (SD...@ib.rl.ac.uk) wrote:
: >: jo...@harlequin.co.uk (Jon Thackray) writes:
: >: >Can't we cut this crap? First point, with sample sizes of one or two,
: >: >you can prove anything (with a suitable meaning attached to the word
: >: Now you're talking! Is there a group for paint watchers?
: >: A lot of scope for pointless argument about watching paint professionally
: >
: >the time about how great and interesting their work is when everyoine knows
: >Andrew.
:
: Lots painted over but this new group seems to have got off to a flying start
: despite your fundamentally wrong,
Dunno about wrong. I think most people would agree about DIY-ers apart from the
DIY-ers themselves.
: but entertaining, posting.
Most kind!
:
: Dick James
:
Andrew.
D.James
and...@dcre.leeds.ac.uk (A Maye (Keyworth Institute)) writes:
>D.James (SD...@ib.rl.ac.uk) wrote:
>: >Can't we cut this crap? First point, with sample sizes of one or two,
>: >you can prove anything (with a suitable meaning attached to the word
>:
>: A lot of scope for pointless argument about watching paint professionally
>
>the time about how great and interesting their work is when everyoine knows
>
Lots painted over but this new group seems to have got off to a flying start
Dick James
D.James
mars...@liverpool.ac.uk (Dr J.S. Marsland) writes:
>Let's clear one thing up - I am not arguing that League is better than Union.
>On the other hand you are arguing that Union is more entertaining than League
>- it's your argument and the burden of proof rests with you. Thus far you
>have singly failled to provide even a decent case.
me included , posted argument & counter argument for RL or RU. I think it's
fair to say that a conclusive proof (of anything) did not emerge. It's fun
to argue though - I can tell you're enjoying yourself.
You could try and revive the argument though - I expect you'll find few
takers so soon although you stand a better chance than most since you
appear able to maintain a thread on your own - providing arguments from your
respondents that they haven't actually written - you could go on for ever and
I expect you will.
>Your patronising tone is indicative of your failure to put a decent case
>forward - you critise one person for not providing independent evidence
>and when an independent view is offered you change your argument. I have
what I *did* do was point out to the original poster that while he, the
original poster, thought Davies's view was a clincher that in fact it could
not be thought of as independent. You're really struggling with this concept.
>no doubt that your view is your view
of - subliminal no doubt. If it weren't such a cliche I'd probably write
"I didn't know I had it me."
>- if John's comment proves anything
>it is that your view is not widely held.
>Again you are adopting this mistasteful patronising tone
You seem to be a little overwrought.
But before bleating about being patronised you might consider that you have this and earlier posts you have used
already used 'disgraceful', '2-faced', 'ill-informed' plus sundry charges of
ignorance and generally weak intellectual & moral attributes in responding
to me.
This might be a picture my acquaintances & family would readily recognise but
you have used mainly arguments provided by yourself on my behalf but which
I haven't made to call me these beastly names.
> - neither myself
>or anyone else has claimed that Davies is independent
judgement. I pointed out that he couldn't be considered independent. This
seems to have worked you up into a lather and had you frothing at the
fingers.
>but to infer that his
>expressed views are not his own is disgraceful.
>: They're not 'obliged' to but I'd be astonished if their views didn't show
>: a bias towards RU and would consider theit opinions accordingly. Just like
>: Davies though their views in this area are only views.
>
>And Davies's views are not?
It's just not important.
>: You seem a little shaky on logic too.
>
>Again patronising - lacking in any clear argument for why Union is more
>entertaining than Rugby League it's all you have.
>'Come on you 'Fax!'
Dick James
Dr J.S. Marsland
: In article <D63sM...@liverpool.ac.uk>:
: You seem to have missed most of the thread - that bit was last week.
I read it - that's why I know that you have no case.
: I think it's fair to say that a conclusive proof (of anything) did not
: emerge.
Is this an admission that you cannot prove Union is more entertaining than
Rugby League?
: It's fun to argue though - I can tell you're enjoying yourself.
I enjoy watching people squirm.
: You could try and revive the argument though - I expect you'll find few
: takers so soon although you stand a better chance than most since you
: appear able to maintain a thread on your own - providing arguments from your
: respondents that they haven't actually written - you could go on for ever and
: I expect you will.
That's rich coming from you. I'm going on holiday soon - I expect you will
still be here on my return.
: I've changed no argument - I take no notice of John's nor Davies's view but
: what I *did* do was point out to the original poster that while he, the
: original poster, thought Davies's view was a clincher that in fact it could
: not be thought of as independent.
So it was a 'clincher' after all?
: You're really struggling with this concept.
Indeed not; it is you who is strggling with the concept that reasonable
evidence need not necessarily be independent.
: >- if John's comment proves anything
: >it is that your view is not widely held.
:
: Interesting conclusion - how did you get to it?
To assume the views of John and Davies is more representative than the views
of D. James is not unreasonable. It cannot to be proved in any scientific
sense but it's certainly more tenable than any of your propositions.
: >Again you are adopting this mistasteful patronising tone
:
: Well at least you understood a little of my post.
There's very little in them to understand. (Yes I know.)
: You seem to be a little overwrought.
But there again we can both patronise each other.
: But before bleating about being patronised you might consider that you have
: already used 'disgraceful', '2-faced', 'ill-informed' plus sundry charges of
: ignorance and generally weak intellectual & moral attributes in responding
: to me.
:
: This might be a picture my acquaintances & family would readily recognise but
: you have used mainly arguments provided by yourself on my behalf but which
: I haven't made to call me these beastly names.
'disgraceful' - see below
'2-faced' - I'll let the majority decide
'ill-informed' - about Rugby League without a shadow of doubt
: > - neither myself
: >or anyone else has claimed that Davies is independent
:
: Ah but the original poster put forward Davies as well qualified to make a
: judgement.
That's reasonable surely.
: I pointed out that he couldn't be considered independent.
So what?
: >but to infer that his (Davies)
: >expressed views are not his own is disgraceful.
:
: I didn't.
I take it that you retract any such inference, intended or otherwise, from
the following statement.
On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, D.James wrote:
: Get a grip. Davies is an employee with paymasters & a paying public to please.
: If he did otherwise it would be a bit like the Pope coming out in favour
: of the Muslim faith. See what he says & more importantly where he goes when
: he hangs up his boots.
:
: Dick James
Yours awaiting the next bleat
--
John
'Come on you 'Fax!'
D.James
mars...@liverpool.ac.uk (Dr J.S. Marsland) writes:
>Is this an admission that you cannot prove Union is more entertaining than
>Rugby League?
>still be here on my return.
>: I've changed no argument - I take no notice of John's nor Davies's view but
>: what I *did* do was point out to the original poster that while he, the
>: original poster, thought Davies's view was a clincher that in fact it could
>: not be thought of as independent.
>
>So it was a 'clincher' after all?
'clincher'?"
Was it a) the original poster, b) Dick James, or c) everyone because it's
an absolute truth?
I'll give you a clue - you were wrong first time.
>'disgraceful' - see below
>'2-faced' - I'll let the majority decide
>'ill-informed' - about Rugby League without a shadow of doubt
>the following statement.
run the risk of bursting a blood vessel. You appear to be getting more
& more worked up, perhaps a touch hysterical, as well as confused.
>--
>John
Dick James
Dr J.S. Marsland
: In article <D65Gx...@liverpool.ac.uk>: >Is this an admission that you cannot prove Union is more entertaining than
: >Rugby League?
Question unanswered - conclusion drawn.
: >So it was a 'clincher' after all?
:
: Read the above again.
[remainder of patronising gibberish deleted]
My contribution to the art of patronising:
Now you read again. Do you understand how a question mark at the end of a
sentence changes the sense of that sentence?
: >I take it that you retract any such inference, intended or otherwise, from
: >the following statement.
: On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, D.James wrote:
: : Get a grip. Davies is an employee with paymasters & a paying public to please.
: : If he did otherwise it would be a bit like the Pope coming out in favour
: : of the Muslim faith. See what he says & more importantly where he goes when
: : he hangs up his boots.
: :
: : Dick James
: Certainly not.
[more patronising gibberish deleted]
You imply that Davies is a professional liar and do not expect to be rebuked
for doing so. I stand by what I said before - your inference is disgraceful
- and lets make it abundantly clear - I do not mean to patronise you in
saying so - it is absolutely disgraceful.
Patronising mode back on:
Now hurry along with these return bleats - my holiday draws ever closer.
Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats
: Anyway, who is the worlds graetest try scorer? >
Paul Newlove. Sorry Graeme.
--
Chris Russell |Rugby League Home Page
Minister of Curry |http://www.brad.ac.uk/~cgrussel/
People's Republic |finger cgru...@muser.brad.ac.uk for more
of Yorkshire |details.
SD...@ib.rl.ac.uk
>: : Get a grip. Davies is an employee with paymasters & a paying public to please.
>: : If he did otherwise it would be a bit like the Pope coming out in favour
>: : of the Muslim faith. See what he says & more importantly where he goes when
>: : he hangs up his boots.
>: :
>: : Dick James
>
>
>You imply that Davies is a professional liar and do not expect to be rebuked
>for doing so. I stand by what I said before - your inference is disgraceful
>- and lets make it abundantly clear - I do not mean to patronise you in
>saying so - it is absolutely disgraceful.
yours - you're now verging on paranoia.
>John
Dick James
Graeme Morris
Thankyou!.
When you say " obliged " i would agree. In reference to a point i made in
an earlier posting, the constraints placed on Union players to tow the
party line as it were, are far stricter than those under which league
stars operate.
UnswortG
I happen to have spoken personally with Mr. Davies and he is adamant that
RL is indeed a faster, more entertaining sport than RU. He feels more
satisfied that he is stretching his athletic talents to a limit that was
never reached in Union. Rugby Union will never match Rugby League in terms
of entertainment value because of its insistence on maintaining laws that
reward negative play. If ever they changed that then League would have a
problem. As it is, League should no longer worry about what Union does,
after all when provided with the facts (league and union side by side)
League will win. Witness Auckland Warriors in UnionLand!, Tonga, Fiji and
Western Samoa. Lookout for France after the Union World Cup - I understand
the League 'circus' is poised to be a major success. South Africa has
indicated a willingness to promote full professionalism in League, and the
USA, not recognised for its Rugby prowess has begun to take to Rugby
League. Live games, Australian League, League World Cup about to come
up.... What would happen if British League went Summer?! I think that
would prove to be a winner all round.
In any event, us Leaguers should be promoting the game instead of whining
to the Union holier than thou's. We recognise that League is a great sport
full of strong physical contact and gracefull skills, speed, energy and
force. Let Union kick themsleves into touch - they're good at that!
Regrds to all.
Ged Unsworth.
If anyone is interested in the League game here (USA) then don;t hesitate
to contact me. I can provide all details.
Aleksey Y. Romanov
>
>
>of those who just won't say that the professional painters do a far better
>job, since they spend all their time practising, studying and perfecting the
>art of applying paint. The professionals know all the tricks of the trade
>and know how to keep the customers happy with their work.
I played Union myself for about 12 years and now I am forced to watch RL
(no Union ganes on CATV in our town). It do enjoy RL games. However,
I have an impression which could not leave me everytime I am watching RL.
These guys do know what they are doing adn they are good at this, however,
I doubt that they will be able to be equally good playing RU. For example,
it seems like RL players forget what does it mean fast one-on-one tackle.
Practically in all one-to-one high speed encounters either offensive player
makes a penetrating attack, or is able to make several more steps controlling
the ball before it will be finally brought on the ground. In majority
of similar cases RU player will bring down his opponent not allowing him to
make steps at all. I saw number of tries which were due not to the high
potential of offence but rather to relatively low level of defensive skills.
I think that professionalism is great and definetely makes a positive
impact on RL, I would like to see professional league playing RU rules
myself, or there should be a free migration at least. At the same time,
it does not seems that RL player will be able to play RU at similarily
high level, without painful adjustments.
>Andrew.
Aleksey
A Maye (Keyworth Institute)
This is the first time I've ever heard the Union players are better in
defence than League players. It's usually used against League that it is too
defence oriented.
Why 'professional league' playing Union rules? Why not professional union?
Free migration has been covered lots in previous articles.
Exactly the same thing can be said (and is seen) about Union players making the
grade in League. They need 'painful adjustments'. Don't forget, Union and Rugby
League are two completely separate sports, each requiring their own set of
skills.
: Aleksey
Andrew.