|
Actually I AGREE. Glad to see someone fairly technical. I love Super 12 and prefer it to Test Rugby; I would rather play it as well.
It is true to say that Super12 has long been derided in the Northern Hemisphere as 'basketball', where the weather conditions and fields are designed for forward play. Having said that, the ACT Brumbies and Wallaby success in recent years was attributed to solid defence and League style recycling, a style that England is now using. Both teams will be playing this style next week, but with both looking to 'strike' when they can. Badge |
Originally posted by badgersmount It is true to say that Super12 has long been derided in the Northern Hemisphere as 'basketball', Badge But yes, the canterbury crusaders sucessfully played that style for a few years as well. Don't get me wrong - I admire that style of play as well - for what it is - Aust executed it perfectly last weekend. dunno I guess the game will evolve somehow - in which direction I don't know. The only (very weak) comparison I can make is with cricket. Australia have revolutionised the way test cricket is played in recent years - it is so much more attacking, and there are so many more results. Maybe something similar will happen in rugby.... maybe not. |
actually - may well have to do that people that watch rugby used to play it - and like the psychological contest of sqeezing out a win, people on the sidelines never get to appreciate the scrums, rucks and mauls.
Sometimes I think this recent try argument is over exaggerated - even 30 years ago tries were scored etc and they still are. Kicking is just for the weather, for closely matched sides. Its not the big deal that people think. I mean this whole argument is overbaked. Ok so a team choosing to kick is not necessarily boring - just not allowing anther team to win on their game plan - it happens. One fact still remains : you can't score tries behind a weak pack, and a solid opposition defence - NZ learnt the hard way. And this is how Australia won in 1999, and the semi, NOT by Super12 rugby. The Auckland Blues won the Super 12 with a scorching backline. Have to adapt the game plan. Badge |
Originally posted by badgersmount actually - may well have to do that people that watch rugby used to play it - and like the psychological contest of sqeezing out a win, people on the sidelines never get to appreciate the scrums, rucks and mauls. Sometimes I think this recent try argument is over exaggerated - even 30 years ago tries were scored etc and they still are. Kicking is just for the weather, for closely matched sides. Its not the big deal that people think. I mean this whole argument is overbaked. Ok so a team choosing to kick is not necessarily boring - just not allowing anther team to win on their game plan - it happens. One fact still remains : you can't score tries behind a weak pack, and a solid opposition defence - NZ learnt the hard way. And this is how Australia won in 1999, and the semi, NOT by Super12 rugby. The Auckland Blues won the Super 12 with a scorching backline. Have to adapt the game plan. Badge |
Well done England and all that, but the main burning question is where have all the good looking England players gone?
I know rugby players are not traditionally the best looking chaps in the world ( all those cauliflower ears and broken noses tend to put a girl off) but in the days of Rob Andrew and Will Carling there was a fair bit of totty out on the pitch - Tony Underwood for one. But now the only one even halfway there is Billy Whizz Jason - even our man Jonny doesn't do it in the looks dept. and those new shirts don't help them - the only one who looks good in it is Mike Catt - and I don't really rate him as a player!! Come on Clive - pick some lookers and get our pulses racing again (because I have to agree that our kicking approach to the game doesn't get the old heart going) |
One of rugby's advantages over 'wogball' is that it pays credits to those with strength of character, persistence, team work etc.
It's this hard graft on the pitch in the forwards that members of the public don't seem to appreciate. That is why rugby is played in public schools because of the skills it teaches which then spill in to adult life - and public schools are renowned for "all round" education and self discipline; and it's not just a pommie public school class thing - I've heard Aussies say it teaches values to "poor country boys" etc. Most people on this forum seem to want their chidren to grow up all-rounders, and feel that perhaps the Aussie system will do this for them. Friends of ours with 10 year old boys say that when their son plays ruby, the parents all shout for the boy with the ball, whereas when they take him to play soccer, parents shout for their son. I find it "indicative" that Australia plays rugby and similar codes and leaves the soccer for the "wogs". I even like to think rugby (as a code) was chosen as a popular game in Australia because the country had a "hard grafter" / allrounder mentality. Does anyone know why the "hand" orientated codes of football become favoured over those of the "foot"? Just wondered. Badge |
lol.
Mrs B also likes Mike Catt's physique - he was renowned for being the fittest bloke in the sqad 1995 - on tests at least. They all like Mr Robinson!! Old Billy Whizz. Lewsey seems popular. I feel sorry for the forwards who never seem to get a look in when it comes to the girls. As a winger, we are always acused of playing there so that we can chat to the girls in the crowd and can therefore always be found 'absent' in key moments. Also the backs seem to be the ones with the maximum amount of hair care product in the team lol. The forwards do all the work, the backs get the glory all very unfair really, but that is the beauty - therre is something for everyone. We had a prop who used to insist that the whole team have "decent haircuts". Badge :D |
well yes I agree PeteY and Badgersmount - what you say is true.
forwards always win rugby matches - and yes there are exceptions to every rule. England often runs it with the best of them - and at other times plays it tight. horses for courses... I'm just trying to illustrate how rugby is viewed by many in NZ. I mean it's the national game, and die hard fans appreciate the forward play etc, but for many, they just want to see the tries and exciting play. Also, without wanting to get into dubious territory - I think the polynesian influence has a big influence on the style of rugby played. They are recognised as bringing flair to the game, and prefer the fast running game ( eg Fiji in the 7's) - likewise you get few polynesians playing cricket - not enough action. (these are terrible stereotypes - but stereotypes are generally true to an extent). It tends to have a much broader appeal in NZ - housewives, teenage girls, kids, and guys who have never played rugby in their lives. The masses want to see tries, and perhaps ignorantly label England as 'boring'. The media serves their market by reinforcing this stereotype.... Badgers, to answer your question I think the main reason was solely to be different to England. As part of the 'new world', NZ and Aus probably adapted sports that a: marked them out from England, and B: they could actually beat England at. eg Rugby is not played as widely as football, so therefore much greater chance of being world champs! |
I suspect the Aussies who spend this week going on about boring, one man team England are just trying to get to Martin's boys. I think England are mentally strong enough to ignore this nonsense and play to win. All England rugby fans know we're capable of playing great running rugby and hopefully we'll run half a dozen in on Saturday but let's stick to the task in hand and not get pushed into playing anything other than World Cup winning rugby.
|
Originally posted by badgersmount I find it "indicative" that Australia plays rugby and similar codes and leaves the soccer for the "wogs". (What is a wog BTW?) |
Originally posted by HiddenPaw Soccer is the fastest growing sport in Australia. (What is a wog BTW?) In aus....its people of italian/greek descent. |
Originally posted by badgersmount One of rugby's advantages over 'wogball' is that it pays credits to those with strength of character, persistence, team work etc. It's this hard graft on the pitch in the forwards that members of the public don't seem to appreciate. That is why rugby is played in public schools because of the skills it teaches which then spill in to adult life - and public schools are renowned for "all round" education and self discipline; and it's not just a pommie public school class thing - I've heard Aussies say it teaches values to "poor country boys" etc. Most people on this forum seem to want their chidren to grow up all-rounders, and feel that perhaps the Aussie system will do this for them. Friends of ours with 10 year old boys say that when their son plays ruby, the parents all shout for the boy with the ball, whereas when they take him to play soccer, parents shout for their son. I find it "indicative" that Australia plays rugby and similar codes and leaves the soccer for the "wogs". I even like to think rugby (as a code) was chosen as a popular game in Australia because the country had a "hard grafter" / allrounder mentality. Does anyone know why the "hand" orientated codes of football become favoured over those of the "foot"? Just wondered. Badge I went to a Rugby playing school and I found it to be the ethics of the school and not the games being played that determined the nature of its alumni. |
Originally posted by PeteY I always thought it was "western oriental gentleman". In aus....its people of italian/greek descent. |
Originally posted by jandjuk well yes I agree PeteY and Badgersmount - what you say is true. forwards always win rugby matches - and yes there are exceptions to every rule. England often runs it with the best of them - and at other times plays it tight. horses for courses... I'm just trying to illustrate how rugby is viewed by many in NZ. I mean it's the national game, and die hard fans appreciate the forward play etc, but for many, they just want to see the tries and exciting play. Also, without wanting to get into dubious territory - I think the polynesian influence has a big influence on the style of rugby played. They are recognised as bringing flair to the game, and prefer the fast running game ( eg Fiji in the 7's) - likewise you get few polynesians playing cricket - not enough action. (these are terrible stereotypes - but stereotypes are generally true to an extent). It tends to have a much broader appeal in NZ - housewives, teenage girls, kids, and guys who have never played rugby in their lives. The masses want to see tries, and perhaps ignorantly label England as 'boring'. The media serves their market by reinforcing this stereotype.... Badgers, to answer your question I think the main reason was solely to be different to England. As part of the 'new world', NZ and Aus probably adapted sports that a: marked them out from England, and B: they could actually beat England at. eg Rugby is not played as widely as football, so therefore much greater chance of being world champs! Please don't confuse the RWC with Super 12. Totally different animals. All Kiwis I speak and listen to at work and on the radio would rather have a winning AB team than spectacular losers. AB rugby is ALL about winning the RWC. Nothing else matters. |
I think there is an important difference in super 12 as opposed to say Tri Nations rugby.
In Super 12 the way you score points and bonuses is aligned in some ways to try scoring, namely you score more than x tries you get a bonus, you come within 7 points of the opposition you get some point or other. Its also obviously a 12 team tournament so those points add up over the piece. During the International season many of the commentators highlighted the different approach the very same players took to the international game where, dare I echo Mr Woodward here, players were 'just out to win the game'. In these games try scoring became less important than point accumulation. The thought being that every time you got to the opposition 22, you wanted to come away with points, be they 3,5 or better still 7. I'm pig sick of the members of the press going on about 'boring' England. I'd like to be able to actually enjoy the fact we've made the final and look forward to what should be an absorbing contest between 2 conflicting styles. Australia are quick at the breakdown and like to involve the backs early thus stretching defences. England are set piece experts and like to wear down the opposition and commit the opposition to the ruck before spreading the ball. It's not exciting v boring it's a scientific battle out there in many ways. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:51 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.