Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

The brief history of rugby union

The Webb Ellis Cup is seen inside the venue prior to the Rugby World Cup France 2023 draw at Palais Brongniart on December 14, 2020 in Paris, France (Photo by Pascal le Segretain - World Rugby/World Rugby via Getty Images)

Rugby is said to have been invented in 1823 when schoolboy William Webb Ellis picked up the ball during a game of football and decided to run with it.

ADVERTISEMENT

Although there is little evidence to support this story, it has become the famous origin of this great sport. This folklore has become so prominent in the game we see today, that the world cup trophy is actually named after the young lad that supposedly set our game in motion.

William Webb Ellis himself went on to become an Anglican Clergyman after graduating from his days at Rugby school, the place where the sport got its name.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

Despite the romantic thought that Webb Ellis had invented the game, it is thought that rugby had been played at Rugby School in some variety or other for around 200 years prior. Unofficial rule changes were brought in with each new cohort arriving at the school.

The first-ever official set of rules were written up in 1845 by three boys from the school. From here the game started to travel far and wide, with many universities and schools taking on the sport. This came about through word of mouth, and students from Rugby school arriving at these universities and passing on their game.

In 1871 the Rugby Football Union was formed, and shortly afterwards the game of rugby saw its first-ever international match played. Taking place in Edinburgh, Scotland beat England by two tries and a conversion to the English sides one try.

Scotland wore brown shirts with a thistle as their crests, whereas England wore all white, similar to what we see today. This match and the one that England won the year after was played over two 50-minute halves.

ADVERTISEMENT

Through the size of the British Empire, many southern hemisphere sides began to experience the game in the mid/late 1800s, with the introduction of their own club sides.

It wasn’t until 1900 that rugby went truly international though. With the inclusion of rugby in the summer Olympics, the major southern hemisphere sides alongside the likes of France and Germany started to put together national teams.

The international competitions came to a halt in 1924 however, as rugby was dropped from the Olympics despite drawing some of the biggest crowds at the games.

In the meantime, the amateur game saw a huge rise in participation. The social side drew in as many supporters and players alike as the game itself. It was this attraction to the sport that saw many clubs start to pop up all around the world.

ADVERTISEMENT

Club sides would start to compete on a more serious level, with domestic leagues being created and European competitions becoming a huge attraction to fans. It was thought of at the time that rugby was a sport to play in the winter while the more popular cricket was out of season.

It wasn’t until 1987 when the inaugural world cup competition was created, that rugby truly became a global game.

All Blacks forwards pile into the breakdown for New Zealand during their 1987 World Cup match with Italy. (Photo by Getty Images)

The introduction of the rugby world cup catapulted the game to the front of the sporting world. The inaugural competition was held in New Zealand and gave fans the first real experience of the global rugby competition that we know today.

The first-ever world cup saw 478,000 fans in attendance over the 32 matches played, which was fantastic for the time. But fast forward to the 2019 world cup in Japan, there were an incredible 1,698,528 supporters turning up to the 45 games on offer. This shows the incredible growth the game has had in just over 20 years.

A common trend since the introduction of the world cup however is the sheer dominance of the southern hemisphere nations. Out of the nine competitions there have been, just one has been won by a northern hemisphere side, England in 2003. Both New Zealand and South Africa lead the way with three world cups each.

1995 saw a dramatic change in the rugby landscape, with the game turning professional for the first time in its history. The European club competitions had previously been dominated by teams like Bath and Brive, but this change-up threw huge challenges into the mix for these clubs.

Professional coaches were now hired, changing the way teams trained and played. Players were suddenly looking for clubs that could pay them a suitable living, rather than just playing for their local sides.

Most recently there has been a crackdown on the amount of money players can be paid in the professional leagues, with the introduction of wage caps. Saracens and Leicester are just two names that have been penalised in the past for breaking the rules.

As the game travels more and more into the entertainment bracket rather than just sport, it is starting to appeal to those outside of the traditional ‘rugby family’. Big rugby events are creating a festival atmosphere, with bands playing and fairground attractions afterwards bringing together all walks of life.

A positive outlook for the game.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 49 minutes ago
What is the future of rugby in 2025?

on the article "Why defensive aggressor Felix Jones will drive new-look England" I said:


"Look at the kick:pass ratio from England’s games under Borthwick:

Italy 20:100

Argentina 50:100

South Africa 53:100

Fiji 24:100

Samoa 22:100

Chile 12:100

Japan 25:100

Argentina 55:100

Fiji 30:100

Ireland 21:100

Wales 24:100

Wales 13:100

Ireland 26:100

France 22:100

Wales 26:100

Italy 23:100

Scotland 18:100

The average is 27:100

The average in games we have won is 28:100

The average in games we have lost is 26:100, but these averages are skewed by the fact that we have tended to kick less and pass more against worse sides

The average in games where we have beaten current top 10 sides is 35:100

The average in games where we have beaten current top 8 sides is 39:100

The average in games where we have beaten current top 7 sides is 53:100

The average in games where we have lost to teams currently ranked lower than us is 20:100"


on the article "Four talking points after England's narrowest-ever win over Italy" I said:


"Look at the kick:pass ratio from England’s last 8 games

Italy 20:100

Argentina 50:100

South Africa 53:100

Fiji 24:100

Samoa 22:100

Chile 12:100

Japan 25:100

Argentina 55:100

So (1) England spread it wide more yesterday than against anyone bar Chile, and (2) all of england’s best performances have been when we kick loads, and in every match where we kick loads we have had a good performance."


"In particular you're neglecting the impact of the type of D Felix Jones was trying to introduce, which demanded most of England's training energy at the time."


I'm not, actually, I'm hyper aware of that fact and of its impact. I think it is because of the defence that England's new attack faltered so much for the first three games, something you ignore when you try to judge England's attack in the six nations by taking an average of either the trys scored or the rucks completed over the whole tournament.


"International coaches don't just pick those styles like sweets from a sweet shop!"

Yeah, I know. England's defence wasn't exactly the same as SA's, but it was similar. England's attack did rely on turnovers more than the Irish system did, but it was still pretty similar to it, and then shifted to something similar-but-not-identitcal to the Labit/Nick Evans systems, which are themselves similar but not identical.

102 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
The Fergus Burke test and rugby's free market

"So who were these 6 teams and circumstances of Marcus's loses?"


so in the 2023 six nations, England lost both games where Marcus started at 10, which was the games against Scotland and France. The scotland game was poor, but spirited, and the french game was maybe the worst math england have played in almost 30 years. In all 3 games where Marcus didn't start England were pretty good.


The next game he started after that was the loss against Wales in the RWC warmups, which is one of only three games Borthwick has lost against teams currently ranked lower than england.


The next game he's started have been the last 7, so that's two wins against Japan, three losses against NZ, a loss to SA, and a loss to Australia (again, one of borthwicks only losses to teams ranked lower than england).


"I think I understand were you're coming from, and you make a good observation that the 10 has a fair bit to do with how fast a side can play (though what you said was a 'Marcus neutral' statement)"


no, it wasn't a marcus neutral statement.


"Fin could be, but as you've said with Marcus, that would require a lot of change elsewhere in the team 2 years out of a WC"


how? what? why? Fin could slot in easily; its Marcus who requires the team to change around him.


"Marcus will get a 6N to prove himself so to speak"


yes, the 2022 six nations, which was a disaster, just as its been a disaster every other time he's been given the reigns.

224 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Rob Baxter left fuming by key decision as Exeter lose at Leicester Rob Baxter left fuming by key decision as Exeter lose at Leicester
Search