British Expats - Australia through to Final!!

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)

- Australia (https://britishexpats.com/forum/australia-54/)

- - Australia through to Final!! (https://britishexpats.com/forum/australia-54/australia-through-final-191197/)

Quote:

Originally posted by Ceri
It has got nothing to do with "English", like I have said in a previous post I would say the same about any team who did this..
enjoy:

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0...-29160,00.html

FIELD goals should be devalued from three points to one to see rugby played the way it was intended.

So says former All Black Grant Batty, who believes England hold an unreasonable advantage in possessing a golden boot like Jonny Wilkinson.

Batty claimed many were "bored to death by Jonny", who kicked three drop goals and five penalties in tryless England's 24-7 World Cup semi-final win over France last night.

The former New Zealand winger called for the International Rugby Board to consider a change in the scoring, which allows only two more points for a try than a drop goal.

He said one point for a drop goal would be fairer and would promote expansive ball-running.

"If it was meant to be a kicking game William Webb Ellis would never have picked up the ball and ran with it in the first place. That was the idea," he said.

"I have always thought three points for a drop goal was inequitable and it was a travesty to see Wales score three tries to one against England and lose (28-17) last weekend."

With only three tries in two World Cup semi-finals, the defensive strength of the world's leading sides mean drop goals are an effective match-winning tactic.

Batty, who played some of his 15 Tests in the days when a try was worth three points, said a change in the scoring system would have a positive effect on the game.

World Cup-winning Wallaby forward Rod McCall supported Batty's plea, calling field goals a soft option.

McCall, who played in the 1991 final win over England, felt it would not take long for the game's lawmakers to alter the scoring to promote running play.

"An attempt at drop goal is something you do if you couldn't be bothered (attacking) or you want to take cheap points," he said.

"I'd probably knock it down to at least two points and bring the value of a try up. They will eventually do it."

AAP

..............................................

Poor old Grant Batty was bored to death was he? Poor little sausage. The Kiwis and Wallaby teams of the past have all relied on a strong forward pack and a reliable goal kicker. In fact when they possessed such a combination it was revered. Powerful, intense, manly, real grunt, the hard yards etc. The fact that England have developed such a beast is a bane for them.
At no point has the kicking of goals EVER been a question for debate in the Southern Hemisphere when previous WCs have come around. ALL previous finals have been hard fought and intense not showcases for the neutral. And yet now that England have a real chance of winning in a similar manner it magically becomes UNFAIR. Read the script. It was brilliant when Sean Fitzpatrick and his monsters did it but it's not fair that Martin Johnson is doing it. Pathetic AND unrealistic. Grant Fox was a master kicker and celebrated as such. But you daren't say that about JW!
World Cups and Super 12 are separate and distinct animals. World Cups have a LOT more at stake and are never pretty or footloose. They are tense, desparate, do or die struggles where the strongest will survives. Super 12 is a showcase for running rugby and is exciting, full of error and risk. Great stuff. NOONE has EVER won a WC this way and probably never will. If we are talking about the RWC then England have got it right and good on 'em.

Quote:

Originally posted by cols
Rubbish. How was rugby originally intended to be played? Kicking goals was the fundamental way of scoring in early versions of rugby. Both soccer and rugby (which were developed around the same period) evolved from earlier street games which involved kicking, handling, and pushing the ball forwards to reach a goal.

Running forwards with the ball was introduced at some stage (the William Webb Ellis thing is mostly a myth), but kicking goals was still the fundamental way of scoring points. They even raised the height of the goal posts to make kicking from a distance easier, and introduced the cross bar to stop defenders blocking the goal.

Originally a "try" meant a "try at goal". If you put the ball down behind the oppositions goal line you were awarded a kick (try) for goal so that you could score a point. A "try" was scoreless at that time.

It was only when they had the problem of too many games finishing without any goals being scored that they started awarding the game to the team that had scored the most tries as a fallback.

You are both right - Cols have you ever tried kicking and old heavy leather rugby ball! It is not the same as the new Gilbert balls.
But to say England have an unfair advantage with Jonny W is just plain daft.

There is another arguement in Refereeing circles that a penalty should be increased to 6 or 10 points then we could see how many times players would break the laws.....

What was the best game so far????

Ken

I've already said on the other rugby thread that the AB's used to play that style with Grant Fox, and I've also sais previously that JW is a great kicker - one of the best ever.

My whole point was to illustrate why certain NZ fans, ex-players, and media 'bag' JW and this style of play. (I did this better on the other thread by the way)

I don't think anybody is denying that JW is great and England's style of play is as formidable as any in history. Sure the AB's have done it in the past, and I bet many NZ fans desperarely wish they'd play like that again. But also, it's precisely why NZ fans fail to get excited about JW - they've seen it all before.

Yes the WC will never be like the Super12 - but that's my point. They're different beasts, but can you really sit there and tell me you're prefer to watch drop goal after drop goal rather than try after try?

Anyway, as Badgers pointed out, England are more than capable of playing running rugby, and frequently do. They won't this weekend, because they want to win - that's fine.

I can understand your point of view and agree there is beauty in forward play and goal kicking as much as back play. But many 'joe and josephine' bloggs' punters in NZ want tries! (I'm not talking about the 'serious' rugby fan here - I'm talking mass market - the people who only only watch big games).

Why can't you people see where this 'arrogant' kiwi viewpoint comes from instead of dismissing it?

I would not offer to disagree with you, JanJUk. I agree, in a Leage, I would rather watch Super 12. But that is not suitable in knock out tournaments or indeed, in the middle of winter on some grounds in the UK.

Actually, Rugby is so adored in NZ that surely any rugby is appreciated by the real fans. The Super 12 is a showcase glamorous franchise comp, the actual rugby played in the Provincial comp may well be different. (Is it?)

Badge

good point about the grounds - yes that would have a large bearing of style of play - I hadn't thought of that - yet another factor for all of us to consider when comparing the styles.

well the play in NPC is every style you could imagine. as with all rugby, it depends on the conditions, the status of the game, the respective strengths and weakness of the players. Some teams play it tight, some play it open....

yes I think there so many serious rugby fans in NZ that it wouldn't matter what style is played as long as their team wins. but that said, there is limited people and limited money in NZ, so it has to appeal to as many fans as possible.

Contrary to popular belief and the media hype, not everyone in NZ likes rugby (just as not everyone in UK follows football), and personally I know lot of people turned off by that style of play - and it's from that culture that the 'boring' tags come from.

It's not going to change - that's just the way it is....

yeah, actually everyone was saying that the hard 'race tracks' of Aus would make the RWC hard for England..

but well - it rains a lot in New Zealand - I prefer Australia because as a winger, I like the ease with which I can run - I personally like to run, because that's my job. A soft, muddy pitch as any school boy knows is a misery.

This whole Eng vs Aus/NZ to me, is that England are desperate to win something that they have worked harder than anyone else for. England would get the prize for "most improved rugby team last 4 years". SANZAR are kind of jealous - not the right word -about England being, on an equal footing,at last. Lucky wins are starting to become permanent. If I was NZ or Aus, or poor SA, I would be hurt too.

Imagine if Argentina played in the 3N, or Super12 and got good - can you imagine it? Then walloped England all the time as a result? England would start the same whining maybe. I don't think that the Kiwis whine arrogant etc - it's THE PRESS, yours and ours.

Badge