Why Rugby League converts don't make it big in Rugby Union

i think that reason ruby league players struggle in yard is that the union game is slow compared to league and union players seem incapable of thinking of two plays ahead. for a union player when a moves fail there is no b move.

Matt Rogers was decent at union but he is a superior league player the best was Andrew Walker although he had his problems he was very good at union. The main reasons league players struggle is because its so slow and union lacks physical confrontations in union, Tuqiri and Sailor were at there best in league when mixing it with the forwards now they just catch colds in union especially when playin with teams like the Reds and Waratahs!

If Union is so slow and League players think two steps ahead, why does Andy Farrell look so ponderous in an England jersey? Surely he should be reacting twice as quckly as everyone else?

Andy Farrell was a good captain for the British Lions in Rugby League but he was never a huge star. He was the dependable worker type, and was already at the tail end of his career and on a pair of crutches when he signed to union. Jason Robinson, Lote Tuquiri and Wendell Sailor did well in both codes, but again none of them was a huge star in rugby league. Everyone loves a try scorer, but union has never signed a single player who has come within reach of the Golden Boot award for best player. Andrew Walker struggled at times to even retain a first grade spot in the NRL. Union signs wingers, promising juniors and guys who struggle for contracts like Andrew Walker and Brett Sheehan (no better than 5th string for the then worst team in the NRL. A guy like Darren Lockyer in his peak, or Jonathan Thurston right now would rip holes in any union line. Matt Rogers grew up playing union as well as league so he's hardly a convert, and whilst he is better at league than union, he's not exactly a world beater either

Farrell was never a great player i dont think hes quick enough to play in the backline. John is right Lockyer, Thurston, Bowen and Brett Stewart there players who would carve union to pieces especially in broken field play you would never kick it to bowen especially with tired forwards. If i was the arl id throw millions at those guys!

The All Black back line would run circles around any NRL team - you guys have got your heads in the sand! League is slow and compared to attacking movements in Union where the ball can go the legnth of the field in one movement - with league, it stops and starts all the time and the defence gets reset continually. That is why the Leaguees cant make it in union - it is too hard to adjust!

Your wasting your time comparing, Appreciate league and union for what they are....2 different sports! NSW and the north of england are the only places on earth where people think league matters. the rest of us can get on with the job of watching a sport where players need to engage some grey-matter.

John Christie - have you ever watched both the codes? League is constant fast movement, union is endless 5 minute breaks for set pieces. Try counting at a stoppage in union and stop when the game restarts. Do the same watching league. You will then realise which game is faster. 5 seconds is considered slow for a play-the-ball in league. How many scrums and line-outs take 5 seconds, eh? Farrell was an old, crocked league forward, for goodness sake. It is hard to adjust playing union for league players. They have to get used to hardly touching the ball and only making one or two tackles, for a start.

League and Union are 2 very different games after 100 years. Some players can adjust early in their career. It's the old story get them while they are young and teach them your codes skills. Only player managers are winning with this cross code auction of players, not the codes or the public and doubtful the players get more than a few pieces of silver and maybe a few headlines (good and bad)

You should remember that Rugby League players have only been able to try their hand at the other code since 1995, when the pointlessly malicious and atavistic life ban was done away with. Only a handful of top players have made the switch so far, and not all of them have been as well suited to Union as they were to League. The fact that anyone can name plenty of RU players who made it in League is that there have been a great many code-switchers over the last century, and the successes stand out. The ones who couldn't hack it are pretty much forgotten.

Daniel - you should have also mentioned that in the olden days union converts to league would often spend a year in the reserves. Of course part of that was fitness but part of it was teaching them the game. It seems bizarre to me that the league converts to union get thrown in at the deep end. For example, you would think it would take at least a year for a league player to learn not to run with the ball but rather to punt it into touch at all possible occasions.

Mishery - I watch both codes (and as a kid played both codes) but my point is the organisation. Rugby attack that can go on for 10 or more phases with 15 players imvolved is far more difficult than league, that stops in the tackle. I think thats why the leaguees have trouble with union, but I dont disagree that league has it's tougher areas ie the one on one tackling

John, league does "not stop in the tackle" when the tackle is made the teams get themselves on side and organise for attack or defence, just as union players do when there is a ruck or a maul. And the ball is typically back in play faster at a league tackle than in a union ruck or maul. So the issue is not organisation. In addition, as many rucks and mauls end with offences and so end in penalty or a scrum, the need to be focussed and ready for the next phase of play is higher in league than in union. In addtion, often in union the forwards keep the ball, with the backs standing around getting cold. That was certainly my experience of playing on the wing in union. Some games I would touch the ball only once. So, as far involvement goes, league backs are much more involved in the game than union, which can for phases be an 8 vs. 8 game. Especially if you include the average of 37 line-outs and 12 scrums per game (IRB figures).

League is a simple game but very enjoyable, union has become way to complicated especially at ruck time. I sat there trying to explain to someone all the rules of the game and realised just how much of a joke the ruck has become.

In every area of commonality between the two sports, Athleticism, Fitness, Speed, Passing, Defence, Intensity, Football Instinct Professionalism, Youth Development etc.., Rugby League is light years ahead of Union! Andy Farrell was finished at League and played his last year as a front row, a prop with knackered knees; he is then touted as Rugby Unions answer for all their problems playing as a CENTRE! The All Black back line would get mullered by an NRL or SL backline! The pace at which League is played would run the Union boys into the ground. The Blacks would be melted in the intensity of the Leagues defence. Let’s not forget that many of the All Blacks are ex League juniors who didn’t cut it at top class Rugby League. Tana Umaga, an All Black and Rugby Union legend<, was a failed junior at Newcastle Knights. I know Union has improved with open professionalism but League has moved forward faster. Compare Bath v Wigan or Wigans saunter through the Middlesex 7s with Bradford Bulls even easier win a

R Kelly - union is better at line-outs, which are the most frequent and therefore most important set-piece in union. They involve a huge break in the game and I have yet to find a union fan that has been willing to describe them as exciting. Nevertheless, they are a very important part of the game and they spend a lot of time practicing them. Which is why they don't have time to practice passing, running lines, defense etc and so are markedly poorer at those aspects compared to league players. Union also are better contested scrums. Although they don't end up with any more strikes against the head, can lead to serious injuries, take an age to set up, often take several attempts to get set up and 1/5 times lead to a penalty they are indeed better at these.

Having played League at school and Union at Uni (neither that well lol) its not a question of athletisism or proffesionalism - its a question of training. The leagies that have made the switch recently have all been thrown into internationals without being afforded the chance to learn the game first - naturally they get caught out of position. Its doubtful you'll ever get a true dual player in today's environment 'cause it takes a few years to rise to the top in one code at which point who in their right mind would sacrifice time by playing a reserve year learning the opposite code? Enjoy 'em both and move on...

Having played League at school and Union at Uni (neither that well lol) its not a question of athletisism or proffesionalism - its a question of training. The leagies that have made the switch recently have all been thrown into internationals without being afforded the chance to learn the game first - naturally they get caught out of position. Its doubtful you'll ever get a true dual player in today's environment 'cause it takes a few years to rise to the top in one code at which point who in their right mind would sacrifice time by playing a reserve year learning the opposite code? Enjoy 'em both and move on...

Mishery - It would be interesting to see comparison stats relating to the average time the ball is being moved in any one play. I reckon Union would win easily. But I agree League would win in terms overall time the ball is being used. But my point is the complexity of a good union team moving the ball through different phases requires more thought and execution than league. Less than 50% of the time, probably only 30% do the League boys keep the ball alive and get an off load prior to being held. Union is the opposite and creates a longer and extended period of attack and more complex? Thats my view mate

"Mishery - It would be interesting to see comparison stats relating to the average time the ball is being moved in any one play." I don't think you can equate a play the ball in league with a scrum/line-out/penalty in union. I think a proper equation would be between time in possession in the two games and I think the difference would be in league's favour in that case. Remember the ball is in play at the play the ball (it can be knocked on) so it is technically not a stoppage. In union there are rules about the opposition leaning over and grabbing the ball at a ruck, so if you want to call a play the ball a stop in play you also need to call a union ruck a stop in play. Also, given the fact that union only has the ball in play for 35/80 minutes on average, the possibilities for more variation of play in league is obvious, there is simply more time. One final point, if union is so complex and league so simple, how come you keep having to nick our defensive and attacking strategies?

Mishery :) - to answer your question re defence and attack strategies - my view is - league is less complex in terms of different options but the games are the same in terms of stopping the man and beating the man - maybe League by having less options has simply perfected the attack and defence earlier (2 less players also meaning more work) But the AB's perfect back attack now and I believe the fact that union dosnt have to have a formal stop (play the ball) in the tackle mean that the Union attack flows with much more intensity than league and can get complex. The game continues to change - I can see the day coming when the idiots at IRB will depower the scrum and we will have even more contest in the loose and broken play. 25 years ago Union was all about set phase and field position "if you dont have parity in possession and territory you dont win' but the AB's have smashed that theory (thanks to league) the AB's now win with less than parity because of the forward pressure they put on the ball at eve

I dont see the ruck as the same as a play the ball because the ruck can take many different forms and the timing and direction is in the hands of the players, therefore making it more of an attacking option more difficult to defend against. Where as the play the ball is controlled and has less attacking options (kick, pass, dummy half runner)- making it less difficult. My view.

Firstly, I don't think the union maul is equivalent to a league PTB but in terms of the analogy you were making, time in possession was the proper analogy. The description of rugby union you give is an ideal description. If the games were like that I would probably not have converted to league. But they aren't. There are endless infringements at the rucks and mauls leading to endless penalties and scrums, which slow the game down and reduce the intensity down to nothing. And the safety first play of kicking to touch all the time again removes the intensity. I am planning to watch RU again, if they bring in the rule changes that are being trialled at the moment that speed the game up. Perhaps then it might look like the game you describe. But for now, when I watch RU, all I see is endless line-outs, penalties and scrums. Occaisionally there is a bit of running rugby but often after two passes a back in great field position hoofs the ball into touch and the intensity drops to zero as I was watch the forwards t