Re: Sam Burgess : Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:59 pm  

bren2k wrote:

Anyhow - while RU gazes at its own navel for the next 12 months, Sam is back in the game; and the next big name who Farrell targets will likely think twice, having seen Burgess' treatment at the hands of the RU establishment.

Im not sure Farrell will get the chance to talk anyone into International RU anytime soon.

Re: Sam Burgess : Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:59 pm  

The comparison that struck me the other day is between real tennis and lawn tennis. Real tennis is the original game, with it's complex medieval rules, played by toffs. Lawn tennis is the simpler, faster, more democratic version played by everybody.

Unfortunately, in terms of public profile, it's more the other way round for us!

Re: Sam Burgess : Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:02 am  

I already like Jon Wilkin for his punditry, but he's really gone up in my estimation with that piece he did on 5 Live. Intelligent, articulate, balanced, well argued, spot on.
Wish Nigel Wood would take some lessons from him in how to talk to the media.

Re: Sam Burgess : Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:27 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

Except it carries with it the stereotype of chess being a game for intelligent, thoughtful people and checkers the game for everyone else who can't get the hang of chess.

Except it didn't; I guess you had to be there.

Re: Sam Burgess : Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:05 pm  

Pssst ... wanna punt 100k? Yours, The Kit Man.

Pssst ... wanna punt 100k? Yours, The Kit Man.

Re: Sam Burgess : Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:18 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

Except it carries with it the stereotype of chess being a game for intelligent, thoughtful people and checkers the game for everyone else who can't get the hang of chess.

League is every bit as complex and challenging to play well as Union, but with fewer arcane laws to confuse the watching viewer.

Union is more complex. It was a great comparison. There is alot more technical aspects involved with the breakdowns (lineouts, scrums, rucks) posession is contested at every single breakdown.

I don't know why people get a chip on their shoulder with Union being more complex. Team sports aren't supposed to be complicated. The best ones are the simplest, look at the popularity of football.

If you want a mental challenge go actually play chess, or learn mandarin chinese.

Re: Sam Burgess : Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:23 pm  

I don't have a problem admitting Union is a more complex game. Given the greater positional specialisation it's bound to be.

Re: Sam Burgess : Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:44 pm  

Although the chequers analogy is a bad one given that a computational solution for it has been found. By comparison Rugby League is off-the-chart in terms of complexity.

Re: Sam Burgess : Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:59 pm  

Mugwump wrote: Pssst ... wanna punt 100k? Yours, The Kit Man. I read that too! Maybe Lancaster and Farrell are safe if it was all the kit-man's fault. As to losing money - who would take investment advice from the kit-man? If it was a sure-fire winner then it would almost certainly be as a result of insider trading.

Mugwump wrote: Pssst ... wanna punt 100k? Yours, The Kit Man. I read that too! Maybe Lancaster and Farrell are safe if it was all the kit-man's fault. As to losing money - who would take investment advice from the kit-man? If it was a sure-fire winner then it would almost certainly be as a result of insider trading.

Re: Sam Burgess : Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:04 pm  

Dally wrote:

I read that too! Maybe Lancaster and Farrell are safe if it was all the kit-man's fault. As to losing money - who would take investment advice from the kit-man? If it was a sure-fire winner then it would almost certainly be as a result of insider trading.

Where there's big money the stench of corruption is never far from the nostrils. To be honest I have one or two suspicions about at least one game in that competition.