In Argentina: The working class hates Rugby

[SimonG]

OMG! You're talking like a football supporter. So for you, no skill in rugby??!

Quade Cooper isn't skillful?? Carlos Spencer isn't skillful?? Dan Carter isn't skillful?? Jesus Christ!

I didn't say there is no skill in Rugby...there are indeed rare moments. However it's a bish bash collision game. Scrums, line outs, the breakdown...in amongst all this there are fleeting moments of skill (O'Driscoll's dummy pass to himself for instance)...but you really have to dig deep to find them. This is why I lament the current game with less flair and the bulking up of players. The obvious case is France who are ugly to watch.

I see what you're saying but I don't think it's true. Basketball is by faaaaaaaaaar the sport that demands the most technical command and skill out of all US sports, and the most popular sports are fkn BASEBALL first, and then their rugby (American football).

And football may be aesthetically pleasing but I don't think we can say it's the skill per se involved that makes ppl marvel at it. And it's not even a great spectacle. If you take Rugby, there's a TON more action for example, so the aesthetic thing if we look at it from a purely entertainment perspective Rugby has a lot more going on than a bunch of guys on a wide field jogging for 88min with the odd acceleration and then an accumulated grand total of 2min of genuine excitement.

Basketball is the only North American sport that has a decent level of popularity outside of North America (not a fan of it myself as its back and forth of the same easy scoring and for overgrown folks).

Hmm.."TON more action" in Rugby...scrums, line outs, collisions...plenty of action but none of it aesthetically pleasing. Also scoring is easy...full width of pitch and just have the ball in your hands. You won't hear "look at the way he finished that try"..no because it's easy. The method of scoring hinders it as a spectacle (similar to many other sports). Football has always been an exception in this case. A quality goal (which are endless) will get millions of views. A home run in baseball for instance will get two men and a dog interested. The most entertaining aspect of Rugby is (was) the running, feints, swift passing, and the flair players...think Gareth Edwards against NZ. Now, if Rugby still emphasised this open running style and flair, the interest would increase and the sport wouldnt be a minor one.

 

[nickdnz]

You have to forgive SimonG, he's never played rugby or really watched it. He just likes Brian O'Driscoll.

I'd be suprised if he knew who Quade Cooper is.

 

[SimonG]

Cooper, Carlos Spencer...these type are shunned from Rugby. The current game doesn't lend itself to flamboyant flair players..it's a very structured game, regimented. Campese would be cursed in the modern game.

 

[Big Ewis]

in stead of just accusing SimonG of being this or that or anything else I'd rather discuss his points, i.e. the point of an online forum.

So I still disagree with you Simon: even with a more expansive, wide-going style of Rugby à la All-Blacks/Wallabies practiced a lot more football would easily, easily prevail. The fact is Rugby still would be very technical, too strategic, and would still have way too many rules and complicated ones that the common idio...errr individual would be way too lazy trying to grasp.
If it doesn't strike the mind immediately, it ain't worth shht. Give the ppl what they want - ppl want simple, simple, simple.

Rugby would still require too much anyways in terms of logistics, and let's not forget its origins: a gentleman's game, i.e. the game of the rich folks.

 

[SimonG]

So I still disagree with you Simon: even with a more expansive, wide-going style of Rugby à la All-Blacks/Wallabies practiced a lot more football would easily, easily prevail. The fact is Rugby still would be very technical, too strategic, and would still have way too many rules and complicated ones that the common idio...errr individual would be way too lazy trying to grasp.
If it doesn't strike the mind immediately, it ain't worth shht. Give the ppl what they want - ppl want simple, simple, simple.

Rugby would still require too much anyways in terms of logistics, and let's not forget its origins: a gentleman's game, i.e. the game of the rich folks.

Don't disagree with any of that. I never said it would come close to the popularity of football, what I did say is Rugby wouldn't be a minor sport if it emphasised flair and an open running game. Instead it's now very regimented, very structured...flair is stifled. It's about bulking up, downing protein shakes. There are next to no WOW moments in Rugby. Cannot remember the last time someone said anything that happened on a Rugby field.."wait to you see this". Campese has been the most vociferous critic of the game because it's alien to how he played it. Guscott said the same about the French. The hardcore who go to games will no doubt circle the wagons, defend the deterioration of the game, thus ensure the status quo.

 

[McTallshort]

So Football is popular because its skillful not simple.

Rugby is not as popular because its not as skillful and its getting less skillful...... but crowds are growing in most parts the game so your theory is crap.

 

[Big Ewis]

Cannot remember the last time someone said anything that happened on a Rugby field.."wait to you see this". Campese has been the most vociferous critic of the game because it's alien to how he played it. Guscott said the same about the French. The hardcore who go to games will no doubt circle the wagons, defend the deterioration of the game, thus ensure the status quo.

Wesley Fofana's try in Twickenham, 2013 6N. And about 1 out of 3 AB tries are just gorgeous, about the same for the Wallabies...but I see your point.

 

[Peat]

Rugby is not as popular because its not as skillful and its getting less skillful...... but crowds are growing in most parts the game so your theory is crap.

This. There is no accounting for taste, and my opinion that Simon is full of crap, that skill and flair is as important as it ever has been, and that we are living in a moment with plenty of such players who can produce wow moments - and that wow moments aren't just limited to moments of skill and creativity, they're also related to the physicality of the game - is just my opinion.

But the fact that crowds are growing and that the RWC is really well watched suggests the sport is still doing the right thing.

 

[SimonG]

Physicality is basic...it's not out of the ordinary (skill). This is not to say some folk dont like it (obviously otherwise no-one would be watching)..but it will never compete with skill. Skill requires exceptional talent, physicality requires downing protein shakes and running into folk.

Never said crowds were not growing...though its negligible. I havent witnessed any greater exposure of the sport in its home country. Meanwhile in Australia it's dying...and I keep hearing about the lack of attacking play as being a fundamental reason why.

 

[big ginger 8]

If the amount of skill was why everyone watched a certain sport hurling would be the most viewed sport in the world. Also there's plenty of skill involved in rugby it's just most people have the wrong idea of what skill is. Scrummagging involves a great amount of skill, it's not just being big and strong as many props have shown. Being able to ride a tackle and give an accurate offload requires skill.

I don't know why I bothered to read this.

 

[Da Grappla]

Football is not more popular because of a skill thing...few sports are more technical and skillful than olympic free style wrestling. There are thousands of techniques and counters, combinations, strategies, tactics...Does anybody watch it? Yes, by chance while they're waiting to see whatever any other sport while Olympics are broadcasted.

The same could be said of fencing, gymnastics, judo...just they're more easy to get for an untrained eye of an owner who never practiced those sports. Even some decent crowds are gathered in those events, outside of the olympics or world championships, those sports are just invisible to the mainstream.

Football is more popular than rugby because other things I don't want to say in respect of soccer lovers (like my father, who's getting a rough time right now watching FC Barcelona losing at this very moment) of this forum

 

[jonny24]

SimonG have you ever played? There is a ton of skill involved in every position, from taking high balls, tactical kicking, breakdown work, scrums and lineouts especially. Just because there is contact and physicality doesn't take away any of that, in fact it adds to the impressiveness of the skills on display. It would be enough hard to put in perfect kicks to the corner, without 15 guys try to tackle you at the same time. If rugby was really just about bulk and bashing, then the Americans would be the best at it by now.

 

[Tony Manx]

If the amount of skill was why everyone watched a certain sport hurling would be the most viewed sport in the world. Also there's plenty of skill involved in rugby it's just most people have the wrong idea of what skill is. Scrummagging involves a great amount of skill, it's not just being big and strong as many props have shown. Being able to ride a tackle and give an accurate offload requires skill.

I don't know why I bothered to read this.

With you there BG....even golf involves more skill than football!

 

[LittleGuy]

I didn't say there is no skill in Rugby...there are indeed rare moments. However it's a bish bash collision game. Scrums, line outs, the breakdown...in amongst all this there are fleeting moments of skill (O'Driscoll's dummy pass to himself for instance)...but you really have to dig deep to find them. This is why I lament the current game with less flair and the bulking up of players. The obvious case is France who are ugly to watch.



Basketball is the only North American sport that has a decent level of popularity outside of North America (not a fan of it myself as its back and forth of the same easy scoring and for overgrown folks).

Hmm.."TON more action" in Rugby...scrums, line outs, collisions...plenty of action but none of it aesthetically pleasing. Also scoring is easy...full width of pitch and just have the ball in your hands. You won't hear "look at the way he finished that try"..no because it's easy. The method of scoring hinders it as a spectacle (similar to many other sports). Football has always been an exception in this case. A quality goal (which are endless) will get millions of views. A home run in baseball for instance will get two men and a dog interested. The most entertaining aspect of Rugby is (was) the running, feints, swift passing, and the flair players...think Gareth Edwards against NZ. Now, if Rugby still emphasised this open running style and flair, the interest would increase and the sport wouldnt be a minor one.

Baseball is massive in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. It's also very popular in Venezuela in South America and is a fringe sport in Australia, the Netherlands, Italy and Brazil.

I'm not sure if your classifying Ice Hockey as North American which would be an even larger mistake. The only North American sport with virtually no international presence is Gridiron football.

 

[Jaguares]

Physicality is basic...it's not out of the ordinary (skill). This is not to say some folk dont like it (obviously otherwise no-one would be watching)..but it will never compete with skill. Skill requires exceptional talent, physicality requires downing protein shakes and running into folk.

Never said crowds were not growing...though its negligible. I havent witnessed any greater exposure of the sport in its home country. Meanwhile in Australia it's dying...and I keep hearing about the lack of attacking play as being a fundamental reason why.

Have you ever played rugby??? Delete the Leinster's logo in your profile, please. You're saying stupid things, just someone who has never played rugby can say that this sport don't requires skill.

A hooker takes years and years of training and a lot of skill to learn the proper technique in the scrum. A lock requires years of training and skill to learn how to jump on the line. A scrum-half requires great skill and years of training to do their duty. And I could be for hours quoting the skills needed to play rugby.

Go to the Soccer Forum, please

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

Have you ever played rugby??? Delete the Leinster's logo in your profile, please. You're saying stupid things, just someone who has never played rugby can say that this sport don't requires skill.

A hooker takes years and years of training and a lot of skill to learn the proper technique in the scrum. A lock requires years of training and skill to learn how to jump on the line. A scrum-half requires great skill and years of training to do their duty. And I could be for hours quoting the skills needed to play rugby.

Go to the Soccer Forum, please

while you played alot off rugby at the highest level

 

[Jaguares]

WTF??!!! Argentina is Tier 1 according to IRB:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_rugby_union_teams#Tier_1

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

WTF??!!! Argentina is Tier 1 according to IRB:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_rugby_union_teams#Tier_1

they were certainly a definite tier 1 nation in the 2007 rugby world cup. but italy is tier 1 and samoa is tier 2 ?

 

[nickdnz]

WTF??!!! Argentina is Tier 1 according to IRB:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_rugby_union_teams#Tier_1

Yes...because they are part of the Rugby Championship...

 

[Jaguares]

they were certainly a definite tier 1 nation in the 2007 rugby world cup. but italy is tier 1 and samoa is tier 2 ?

That's the problem of Italy and Samoa. Argentina is a Tier 1 team.

Yes...because they are part of the Rugby Championship...

And why Scotland is a Tier 1 team? In the last 14 years were an embarrassment in 6N. They are considered a Tier 1 team just because they have the power, because they are the IRB. I don't see much difference between Argentina and Scotland, and if any would be in favor of Argentina. We won bronze medal in 2007 and we eliminated them in 2011.