From my experience, if your mate said this pre-2005, he had a point. But if after, it's comparing apples and oranges - two different sports with some similar skill sets. The ball is in open play for twice the amount of time in league, so of course a league prop forward is more mobile and has a higher aerobic fitness than a union prop forward, but then if power output is measured, then an equal level league prop forward would struggle in the scrummaging over the course of a game. If it was so much easier, there would be a lot more league props moving over to bigger salaries in union, but as I wrote, it's a different job. I am not so sure about the difference in fitness between league and union backs nowadays. When Sam Burgess played union for those two seasons, he was considered one of leagues best players (?), and his fitness didn't seem to be that different from union opposition players, nor do I remember his ball carrying strength being of a superior level to similar level union players. There's certainly been some league crossover success and ball handling skills are somewhat higher, due to the more open nature of the game. I've never heard a professional league or union player disparage the other code, so it seems to be a fan mentality thing. There's room for both codes, but the problem with both is that they don't generate enough money to support the player salaries. I know you from the Broncos time, so won't attempt to give my opinion on league clubs economies as don't know a lot in comparison, but the problem with English union is that the national team bring in millions but most clubs lose money due to salaries. There's just not enough paying spectators, despite the high number who train and play. There's two mediocre TV deals and low level player sponsorship for the top Union league and the vast majority goes on salaries. But the major issues are with the equivalent of third-fifth tier level clubs - they're basically paid for by the profits from the national game and they're paying appearance fees of £100-350 to players, when only family members are watching. This money should be going into development and promotion of the sport instead of paying lower level players to beat the next village/small town's rival team. The money the national team generates is being badly spent/invested and has been for 20 years. There's going to be some huge changes in union in the near future if the legal challenge regarding brain injuries is successful. Long term, a cricket style solution will be likely - regional teams and national players on salaries. And it will probably be better for it. Anyway, just my opinion
fact is having two codes or rules for the same sport is silly and dilutes the already smallish user base unify both into one, and itll be for the better in the overall scheme in future
It would have been around 2009...I think. But I take your point, Union is a far more professional game now and the players are fitter. I don't think there is any point in an argument on Jesse's thread about that. And you're right in terms of the wages, it's been like that for a long time in Rugby League. It's got a horrendous case of keeping up with the Jones' which sees small clubs desperately trying to stretch themselves to stay relevant. I suggested 2 years ago at a meeting that Super League extends to 16 and the rest of the clubs either buddy up as feeder clubs accepting their position in the pecking order or join the amateur game. It is the only way the sport will survive but as you can imagine a dozen or more owners of the likes of Hunslet, Doncaster and Swinton want to try and prove people wrong by building a Super League team with no money, no fans, no academy and no staff. Super League is a very entertaining level of Rugby and the Championship can serve up some decent games too but there just isn't enough interest outside of the 16 or so big towns and Cities that have a decent club.
how long do they stick with him? losing at home to 10 men wolves is another sting in the nutters cross
Talks between Jesse Marsch and #SaintsFC are off. Southampton wanted a six-month deal with an option to extend, but Marsch was reluctant to agree a short term deal.
Leeds United set to confirm Javi Gracia as their new head coach. He's had about twelve clubs in twelve years, very odd appointment.
And yet of the last 17 managers Watford have had, he's lasted the longest! Football management is the personification of basketcaseness and no mistake. Hopefully his scattergun experience will take TWS straight down.
He took Watford to a Cup Final after staving off relegation. Hence he lasted about 6 months, including the close season. Nothing personal but I hope he fails spectacularly.
The other managers will be happy, as they'll pretty much know he'll set up 442 as he always does, so they can plan their game accordingly.
If Leeds United do indeed have a plan, rather than simply lurching from one crisis to the next, then it’s a plan I approve of. As it is leading them to relegation. Is Bielsa perhaps an impossible act to follow?
What a strange appointment. I'd be disappointed & concerned if he had become our manager, not that he was in the running as far as I know, so what the hell Leeds are thinking and seeing in him. As others have said, hopefully it's his next failure project in a long line of apparent failures & sackings.
God, I wish I was a football manager. You get sacked for being crap and get paid off... you get another job, where youre crap and get paid off and at yet another new club no one seems to worry about the fact that at the previous club they got sacked for a reason. Imagine 12 clubs paying you off and another one comes in for you...
It's staggering how lucrative failure is in football . In normal life it leaves you pretty much broke which shows just how absurd football is
