Rugby - See You In Ten!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

As far as I am concerned a replay that does not show the action from the beginning is worth nothing as, in Rugby, the way a try is conceived is far more beautiful than the mere act of diving to score the try.

I don't think I've ever seen a replay that didn't start at the beginning of the phase of play.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
the best team arguably didn’t win in 91, 95 or 99

*yawns again*

Oh, I heard on the wireless (great word wireless, much more evocative than radio) this morning that Winston Churchill had been nominated the Greatest Ever Briton. I gather you were in the running for quite a while but were eliminated from contention at around the same stage as Norman Wisdom.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Caligastia I don't think I've ever seen a replay that didn't start at the beginning of the phase of play.

Most of the worst replays I have ever seen come from the SH (the others mostly come from Italy), your TV producers are so obsessed with the try in itself they often bypass the action which brang the try.

But I am exaggerating, they sometimes show the last pass before the try.

[finbar]

Just watch yourself, Tamerlin. I was watching a documentary on werewolves last night. They focused on the history of werewolves in France. Two of the key indicators of werewolfdom are the keeping of extremely irregular hours, and prolonged absences, particularly at the seaside in the company of têtards. Your secret remains safe, but only just. So behave or I shall reveal all!

[ravagon]

How odd ...

I must say I've never noticed replays that show only the try before. In fact most commentators seem to take great pains to show exactly how it came about with a fairly detailed slow-motion (not necessarily unbiased mind you ) depiction of the process.


*Starts hunting for silver-tipped blades, wolvesbane and belladonna*

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon
How odd ...

I must say I've never noticed replays that show only the try before. In fact most commentators seem to take great pains to show exactly how it came about with a fairly detailed slow-motion (not necessarily unbiased mind you ) depiction of the process.

You're quite right. Tamerlin misses most of the replays while he's changing razor blades.

[Havak]

You can count on me to back England (to the exception of a France-England of course).

Merci mon ami.

The simplified version of Rugby played in the SH is made to appeal to the masses and to satisfy the needs of those who believe Rugby is limited to the act of scoring a try, those that are satisfied when a replay only shows the moment a player is crossing the try-line.

The most impressive rugby of the summer for me for example was played in the England-Australia game. The England mauling in the first half was some of the most remarkable rugby I have ever seen – and the ways the Australians started to counter and even maul a decent time or two themselves in the second half was far more impressive in many ways than the spectacular tries scored in that game.

*scoops bitter drinking fish into net*

I’m still trying to wriggle off the hook!

Further forward in 91, and perhaps 99, but not 95. 95 was a farce.

I can understand your problem with it – but it helped the world game. It rejuvenated Bok rugby (which was a joke when they first rejoined the world game) and launched the tri-nations as a viable tournament rather than the bi-polar event that pundits were then predicting – I think it helped the world game.

If it makes you feel happier NZ helped us in 95 – that mauling of Underwood junior by Lomu ended our dalliance with small whippet like wings and accelerated the end of Jack Rowell with England – and for that I’m eternally grateful. It was painful at the time mind you.

You think so? I will certainly be interested to see if that happens. I have my doubts though...

Crunch the numbers – your player roster is huge compared to population – but your potential TV audiences suck even in the tri-nations. And TV is the law in Rugby right now. Add South Africa, NZ and Australia together and you don’t even have the potential TV Audience that an England-France clash has – and nowhere near the audience of a Grand Slam decider of any flavour. It’s a bitter pill for a country that breathes rugby no doubt but accurate none the less.

And yes we all live in fear that the US ever gets serious about our game – partly because of the potential audience and partly because they’ll want a commercial break after every phase?

I think that's an exaggeration of the SH style. Our forwards do far more than you give them credit for.

Climbing on a hook yourself?

Have I implied they do very little? I have implied your game is currently based around aback orientated style of play – was that wrong? I’ve also said your forwards are not as strong as those of either England or France – and I do actually believe that. I think the last tri-nations game – where a woefully misfiring Wallaby pack actually gave you trouble – would tend to support me on that one. You are as they say “only as good as your last game”.

And I’m very well aware that means England are losers before anyone says it!

Are you going to claim that they did this by playing a more NH style?

Nope. I’m going to point out the bleeding obvious and suggest that no refs police any offside laws very well any more - unless it’s ‘flavour of the match’ from the IRB, and that this ‘sea change’ has come from the SH influence on the global game, and that I think it’s a bad thing that the NH have let the other hemisphere change the game to suit short term strengths of theirs.

But it will change – the SH doesn’t totally dominate the IRB any more – and a damn good thing too.

And just curious – but these SH sides that have beaten NH sides with NH refs – who and when? It’s three years since any SH side beat us when we were away and four years since one beat us at home – and both refs were SH I think - so do you mean France by any chance – or maybe giants of the game like Wales or Italy?

It a problem with consistency. As is often pointed out here.

Consistency is a problem – but failure to enforce the offside laws is endemic so I don’t think that applies here?

*Edit* Out of deference to Finbar and his need to stay awake allow me to say the opinion that the Wallabies were not the best side in 91 and 99 - and in fact were as boring as hell in 99 - is mine and mine alone. I have no doubt the whole rest of the world thought they were brilliant and thoroughly exciting.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak

Have I implied they do very little? I have implied your game is currently based around aback orientated style of play – was that wrong? I’ve also said your forwards are not as strong as those of either England or France – and I do actually believe that. I think the last tri-nations game – where a woefully misfiring Wallaby pack actually gave you trouble – would tend to support me on that one.

True.

And just curious – but these SH sides that have beaten NH sides with NH refs – who and when? It’s three years since any SH side beat us when we were away and four years since one beat us at home – and both refs were SH I think - so do you mean France by any chance – or maybe giants of the game like Wales or Italy?

The Wallabies rolled France twice last June (even if Les Grenouilles were undermanned). Chris White was the ref in one of the matches.

[Havak]

Since tri-nations duty in 2002 Chris has never been quite the same Finbar. You caught him at just the right time it would seem.

[Caligastia]

Of course.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
I can understand your problem with it – but it helped the world game. It rejuvenated Bok rugby (which was a joke when they first rejoined the world game) and launched the tri-nations as a viable tournament rather than the bi-polar event that pundits were then predicting – I think it helped the world game.

But the Bok RWC victory was shown to be a one-off thing for them back then as NZ beat them in 4 out of 5 games the next year. Even if you combined the Bok and aussie victories and called them one side the Tri-nations wouldn't be bi-polar. Out of 8 Tri-nations tournaments, SA have won 1, Oz have won 2, and NZ have won five.

If it makes you feel happier NZ helped us in 95 – that mauling of Underwood junior by Lomu ended our dalliance with small whippet like wings and accelerated the end of Jack Rowell with England – and for that I’m eternally grateful. It was painful at the time mind you.

Oh, yes. I'm so happy we were able to help you chaps out.

Crunch the numbers – your player roster is huge compared to population – but your potential TV audiences suck even in the tri-nations. And TV is the law in Rugby right now. Add South Africa, NZ and Australia together and you don’t even have the potential TV Audience that an England-France clash has – and nowhere near the audience of a Grand Slam decider of any flavour. It’s a bitter pill for a country that breathes rugby no doubt but accurate none the less.

You underestimate the potential audience here in the US. Last year the Boks played the US in Texas in front of a sizable crowd, and "Championship Rugby" (Fox Sports World's rugby show) is attracting major sponsors. And guess what? They only show SH rugby.

And yes we all live in fear that the US ever gets serious about our game – partly because of the potential audience and partly because they’ll want a commercial break after every phase?

I shudder at the thought. My american friends are amazed when I tell them rugby has two 40-minute halves uninterrupted by commercials.

Have I implied they do very little? I have implied your game is currently based around aback orientated style of play – was that wrong? I’ve also said your forwards are not as strong as those of either England or France – and I do actually believe that. I think the last tri-nations game – where a woefully misfiring Wallaby pack actually gave you trouble – would tend to support me on that one. You are as they say “only as good as your last game”.

And I’m very well aware that means England are losers before anyone says it!

Damn, you predicted my response!

[Havak]

But the Bok RWC victory was shown to be a one-off thing for them back then as NZ beat them in 4 out of 5 games the next year

Which is why they tied the consecutive win record in 1999 of course…

And guess what? They only show SH rugby.

No accounting for taste I guess.

But of course that could just be a prejudiced producer (almost certainly is in fact) and you are conveniently ignoring the fact the TV rights go for peanuts between Fox stations – and who has sole rights to NZ rugger broadcasting again?

And I’m not ignoring the potential audience in the US – but it’s for the Eagles not NZ and try not to kid yourself otherwise – if Rugger explodes there it will be USA! All the way and “who are the Ay-Bees?”

Oh and guess what – rugger devotees like myself aside hardly any SH rugby is watched in the UK. It’s not that popular here.

Tamerlin and myself are exceptions – and he only watches it to keep his blood boiling.

Damn, you predicted my response!

I’m psychic.

In a few minutes I'm leaving for another five day jolly.

On the plus side if England do well that spares you all - and doubly plus if they mess up I havwe time to calm down before sticking my head over the parapet.

Catch you all Wednesday.

*Edit* yes I know Tamerlin is in France - but you know what I meant!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
But of course that could just be a prejudiced producer (almost certainly is in fact) and you are conveniently ignoring the fact the TV rights go for peanuts between Fox stations – and who has sole rights to NZ rugger broadcasting again?

I don't actually know why it is that they don't show NH games anymore. They used to show a lot of them.

And I’m not ignoring the potential audience in the US – but it’s for the Eagles not NZ and try not to kid yourself otherwise – if Rugger explodes there it will be USA! All the way and “who are the Ay-Bees?”

You'd be suprised. Every show they have tons of letters from american viewers singing the praises of their favorite SH team. They give away AB Oz and SA jerseys on the show too.

Oh and guess what – rugger devotees like myself aside hardly any SH rugby is watched in the UK. It’s not that popular here.

No accounting for taste I guess.

Tamerlin and myself are exceptions – and he only watches it to keep his blood boiling.

In a few minutes I'm leaving for another five day jolly.

Have fun!

[Havak]

Touchế!

Will try to have fun - keep the rugger flags flying.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Caligastia And guess what? They only show SH rugby.

Remember what I told you, SH Rugby appeals to the uneducated...




Have fun Havak!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


Remember what I told you, SH Rugby appeals to the uneducated...

Hey, at least they have air conditioning here...

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Hey, at least they have air conditioning here...

Meager consolation...

[Andydog]

Basically the argument has revolved around the old 'rucks and mauls' vs 'running rugby'. What style is better? There have been suggestions that mauling is more exciting to watch than try scoring, other suggestions that those who like running rugby are uneducated, and more suggestions that SH refs are incompetent for not policing the game in a way to promote rucks and mauls.

I think it comes down to how you were brought up within rugby, and what skills you most identify with. The NH lads obviously identify with those skills required to batter, maul etc, ie those skills required by forwards. The SH lads tend to identify with those skills required to run through or around opponents, passing, kicking etc, ie those skills required of backs.

This has ultimately led to different styles, and I venture to suggest that there is no style that is 'better' or requires 'more education' to appreciate. Different people will find excitement in different aspects of the game. I personally love it when a back makes a break for the try line, the whole crowd jumps to their feet and screams their heads off. Similarly when a maul gets going, there is nothing more exhilarating hearing the crowd chant 'heeeeeve'.

Which style will eventually dominate? That style which most people will appreciate and identify with. I don't know what it will be, I don't think any of us do. To suggest that the NH has more population therefore the NH style will dominate doesn't quite sit right with me.

If rugby is to continue growing then TV audiences need to grow, and that means promoting and introducing more people to the game, and so now we are in the realms of un-education, or more accurately introducing people to the game who have never actually played it before. Perhaps audiences have already peaked in the SH, but in the NH there appears to be lots of room for export, but it seems that the SH are doing most of the exporting. Japan seem to prefer supporting the ABs, as does the yanks, I guess because they find our team more exciting to watch with more tries being scored etc.

So who knows? Not me. I'm looking to this Saturday's game only, with a view to the world cup, and I'll be watching it in the Spotted Dog, Willesden Green. Havak you might know it - it has a purple ceiling. They also do fantastic garlic bread, guaranteed to cure any kind of lycanthropy you may have. Think of how much euro you’ll save on razor blades Tamerlin.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Andydog
This has ultimately led to different styles, and I venture to suggest that there is no style that is 'better' or requires 'more education' to appreciate. Different people will find excitement in different aspects of the game. I personally love it when a back makes a break for the try line, the whole crowd jumps to their feet and screams their heads off. Similarly when a maul gets going, there is nothing more exhilarating hearing the crowd chant 'heeeeeve'.

I tend to agree completely. The more pressing issue I feel with NH-style play though is that there are just so relatively few memorable forward-induced movements. The Sydney test match will obviously be remembered for it more than anything else but thats about the only one that immediately springs to mind.
My vision is, of course, obscured by my SH-tinted goggles and I've hardly seen as many NH games but I find it hard to believe that their (successful) forward-play is anywhere near as widespread as, erm, "certain persons" would have us believe.

[Tamerlin]

I don't think that "Forwards" Rugby must be opposed to "Running" Rugby. IMO the best games are those that are featuring a balance between "Forwards" and "Running" Rugby. Rugby is a game where forwards and runners have different and complementary tasks to accomplish. A maul or scrum is not an end in itself, it must lead to something. A scrum or maul is often a step that tightens the defense and allows the backs to cross the advantage line and run to score.

When I look a SH game, that which I do less and less because of the way referees are ridiculing the laws and because I don't have the feeling it is Rugby anymore, I feel like I am watching an incomplete kind of game where integral parts of what Rugby is made of are missing. It is perhaps more spectacular but, somehow, this homogenized SH game has nothing to do with Rugby as I like it.

[Frozzy]

Whinger.

[Tamerlin]

Keeper of the flame

[Caligastia]

Great post Andydog. I think we all enjoy both aspects of rugby, and I seriously doubt that either will disappear from the game as Tamerlin suggests.

Tamerlin - I agree with your points regarding slack refereeing, and I understand your reluctance to accept the SH style, but IMO both styles are legitimate and will at some point be combined more fully as soon as the refereeing problem is sorted out. It's not only the SH that builds it's style around what it can get away with, the NH also pushes the limits - only in different areas. Rugby Union cannot continue with inconsistent refereeing forever. For the sport to grow there must be a clear understanding of the game. I'm optimistic that the IRB will eventually realize this.

[LDiCesare]

My american friends are amazed when I tell them rugby has two 40-minute halves uninterrupted by commercials.

I'm also amazed about that fact everytime I leave the field. Did I really manage to play that long?
Next match for me should be next Friday against a first series team that hopes to go to honour next year. Arggg... We've had one training session only this year.

And what's for sure is that France will be beaten tomorrow. Maybe they'll play a nice game, at least.

[LDiCesare]

As expected, the English crushed the French: 45- 14.
Food for finbar:
After Wilkinson and Johnsn went out, the English scored 1 try, while the French scored 1 try, 1 penalty and 1 conversion. Thus, the English would have lost based on their performance without their two key players.

More seriously:
The difference between French and English was mostly in defense.
The English defended, the French didn't. Actually, it looked like the English played, the French watched.
When a French player crossed the advantage line, there was always an English to tackle him afterwards. When an English corssed it, it was a try.
The French tackles were mostly bad and their defensive organization pitiful. At least two tries come from the fact that two French players try to tackle the same player. The most obvious one being the second English try. This is a typical, classical attack. Wilkinson runs slightly to the exterior. Merceron, the other fly half, goes to tackle him. Liebenberg, the inside center, instead of looking at his center, also goes for the tackle. Wilkinson is indeed tackled, but he could pass the ball to his center who had noone in front of him. Then the English didn't fumble or make silly passes like the French did, and scored a beautiful try.
The placement of the full back and the winger on the opposite side when the full back was up in the line was also terrible. No "second rideau" and no "troisieme rideau" (except for the occasional tackle by Labit or Pelous when he came in).

Also could someone explain me why Merceron played both scrum half and fly half and what the jerk wearing a blue jersey with a number 9 on his back was doing on the field? Waiting half an hour for someone else to get the ball out of a ruck?

[spartak]

Yashvili didn't have his best ever game. Its a shame England went off the boil in the second half but by then it was too late anyway. I though Abboot played well in the centre. he looked the part.

[LDiCesare]

Abbott was good but I don't think he was excellent. The English backs who shone were all the wingers, the full back and Wilkinson. But then Garbajosa and Poternaud were hardly there at all in defense, and there were too many kicks that were given to them so they could counter attack from their 22's.
I'm afraid that France is not the team you an measure your backs' performance against. We just have too bad a backline right now.

[Tamerlin]

LDiCesare has already summed up the game and France's lacks. Yashvili (half-scrum) was so bad (as usual with the french team, IMO he has nothing to do here) it was as if France was playing without a half-scrum. The problem is he has also done a lot of fumbles (very bad passes, bad kicks, wrong options).

Poor France...

[finbar]

Bugger!

Perhaps the problem was that I was secretly barracking for Les Grenouilles.

Still, it's nice to see, as LDiCesare points out, that England remain a two-man team. It looks like injury has now seriously buggered the Irish so Clive should wrap his two players in wads of cotton wool.

[Alexander's Horse]

I saw a French intellectual on TV recently who argued rugby was France's true national game and closest to the spirit of France.

Needless to say he saw soccer as an inferior game for the unwashed swill.