By nice fluke, there has been a heady clash of cultures over the past few days, with comparisons anything but invidious. The intriguing bundle of important international football matches has converged precisely with both rugby league’s grand final and the closing stages of rugby union’s World Cup in France. The ubiquitous radio phone-ins and the letters pages of the public prints have been enthused with discussion on each code’s relative merits, particularly on the simplicity or otherwise of the respective rules and the discipline, chivalry and civility of the players. The pros and cons, the cut and thrust of the polemic in many cases has led to penitent crossover and even total conversion. Siding with both apostasy and proselytism, the columnists have naturally been fanning the flames.
The Guardian’s ace interviewer and diehard football nut, Simon Hattenstone, dived headfirst into the confessional: for 35 years, the Mancunian admitted, he had contemptuously scoffed at rugby as legalised assault by cauliflower-eared, double-barrelled toffs. No more, not after the World Cup (look away now, good Rod L): ‘Everything about rugby union seems better than football — the drama, the pace, the one-twos, the passion, skill and muscle, the deadly grace and savage beauty of it all . . . God knows how good it gets when you understand the rules.’
If England vs Russia at football was a seminal encounter in Moscow this week, so had been the two rugby games which provided ecstatic European rugby glee as the two cocksure and preening Anzac squads were dispatched to their distant homes as early as the quarter-finals by England and France; both contests could have been described by precisely the same sharply alliterative tabloid headline: BATTLERS BEAT BOTTLERS.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in