Rugby - The Ball's Out!

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
It hadn't occurred to me - and it should've, because they're the middle men - but the centres could well be a key to the dislocation. You can get centres thinking and playing more like forwards, you can get centres doing the same as backs. Our best centres in recent times - Timmy Horan and Jason Little - were out and out backs. Stirling Mortlock - our best centre now - is another pure back. Umaga of the ABs is yet another. Indeed, Kafer and Howard think and play like backs. Very interesting food for thought.

I think the best centers are those that are a cross between the light and the heavy cavalry, a kind of back able to play like a third row player when it is needed. When a winger is caught by the heavy ones, for example, a center must be ready to support him and clear the area before the heavier ones can reach the maul and gain the advantage.

[Havak]

A couple of changes for Saturday. Ben Kay replaces Grewcock. That makes it likely that they intend to compete all the line outs this time as he really excels in that area.

Dallaglio dropped to the bench. Finbar was right – he never set the pitch on fire Saturday and has admitted himself he is several levels away from top form. The reformed back row will see Hill move to number 8 and Neil Back return at openside, with the ‘committed’ Moody staying at 6.

I can understand the odd mistake in the hurly burly of play, but something as fixed and basic as a lineout can't be hard to police.

I’m absolutely sure refs prioritise quite rapidly at the beginning of a game. You can almost feel the teams adapting to what they can get away with some times?

I wouldn't want to try to drive him off the ball

Neither would I – but I don’t think Moody or Hill will worry about trying it. It will be a good contest for sure.

Apparently Larkham will play

Lets face it we all want to see this.

Surely he won’t risk injured players against our pack? It’s a ludicrous thought. I would think he just wants to keep Woodward guessing?

How we're missing him. Hindsight, I suppose, is easy.

That’s what makes it the ubiquitous skill in this world.

Very interesting food for thought.

Just occasionally I stumble upon the odd golden nugget.

Scary when you've only got two credentialled centres left on tour.

Do you have any utility men who could slot in? Dare I say it – I’m talking a Healey type.

He had an off day. Everyone did.

True. Could we book another for Saturday please?

Where does responsibility for onfield decision making lie?

You trying to catch me out? I would suggest the playmakers – the scrummy and stand off – should be calling the plays in that kind of situation. Pop the pill behind the brick wall a few times, try to turn it? But a captain in any position should call “plan B” fairly swiftly?

God knows what his evidence might have been because he didn't produce any. As I said earlier, if Poido can't find fault with a penalty against the Wallabies, there isn't one.

Now what is that tabloid journos adage – never let the truth spoil a good story? But thanks for brightening my afternoon with a ‘Celtic conspiracy’ tale. I’ve long suspected why those sneaky Irish wanted the IRB.

You do have to wonder, if he truly believes that, how sane the guy is?

I've seen that chip over the top and re-gather tried so many times only to fail. That's the fundamental difference.

Funnily enough he claims he popped it up for Robinson when he saw the ABs come up flat and then suddenly realised he in fact had the best chance to re-gather. The lad can be amazingly modest at times.

Remember last time? The parallels with this time are terrifying.

I’m expecting a slightly different game. Our forwards starved you of possession last time and by doing so kept your ever threatening backs in check somewhat. I would expect them to move it wide a little more this time. We shall see.

I take your point – it’s another injury racked struggling Wallaby side walking into the cauldron of HQ. Not an ideal situation to be in.

I think he should worry more about the way the team is playing - and he's very worried - and less about the refs.

The moral is to worry about what you can control. Eddie has always been so verbal about refs and the NH that he has become the boy who cried wolf in many peoples eyes – including the IRB I suspect.

made reference to the Luger try that, he said, wasn't a try.

Do you know if you saw the BBC footage or the Sky footage? On the BBC you have Eddie Butler (Welsh) and Brian Moore. Eddie is the man behind the comments attributed to Austin last year, he is Welsh, and that tells you all you need to know. Moore was a hooker. Enough said?

My thoughts on your historically-based system are already well known. I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough. I abandoned it after leaving that 1998 game in would give England a 12 point start. Taking it out gives us a 3 point start.

I figure you may be trying to open the bidding at 15 for your lot? I can’t wear that.

Your first home loss since single-cell amoebae ruled the earth? Goodoh. I could do with a new sig.

It will be the first home league loss since December 1997 – over 50 games.

There have been losses since – a play off round earlier this year – but that was a joke to the players with the Euro final the next weekend. Two Euro cup losses (once they already knew they were not through the group stage). But thats about it.

It will be a big scalp for Gloucester should they take it. I can assure you 22 men in Tigers shirts will not give it up easily.

OF COURSE HE WAS, HE IS FRENCH !

I think Tamerlin may be worried here? A suggestion of offside then.

[LDiCesare]

Hi, dropping by late because of lack of internet connection this week end.
Wilkinson's try was probably the most beautiful this week-end, though Heymans' (who happened to be onside) try was very nice too.

Although the score for the French was big, I am a bit concerned by the fact that, the more I see that team, the more I think Fabien Galthie is the very key element in French victory. He did the kick for the first try for instance, and that required a lot of vista and also the ability to be there at that time. He tackles more than any other scrum half I ever saw, and generally leads play in an outstanding manner. His absence from the team in the quite calamitous tour we had last time may have had something to do with the results.
I was a bit sad about the tactics chosen by the French, however, as it was clearly "Let's put a third row just between the 10 and 12, one more between 12 and 13, and we don't really need backs. No use having Castaignede if he never gets a ball to play (ok, he did score a drop-goal)...

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I am a bit concerned by the fact that, the more I see that team, the more I think Fabien Galthie is the very key element in French victory.

I agree with you though I would rather say he is the key element in the french game. I'am a bit worried about this as we don't have any half-scrum of the same level to replace him if he is injured or when he stops his carreer.

I have never found Pierre Mignoni good to the exception of his games with Béziers where he is associated with Jeff Dubois, Michalack is too young and should rather be used, in my own opinion, as a half-fly, Mathieu Barrau is still lacking some experience and lacks some consistency. There is a real problem here.

...the team was a bit sad about the tactics chosen by the French, however, as it was clearly "Let's put a third row just between the 10 and 12, one more between 12 and 13, and we don't really need backs. No use having Castaignede if he never gets a ball to play (ok, he did score a drop-goal)...

Wasn't this simple tactic a deliberate one as the players had not played together for a long time, I think we will know more about their potential after the All Blacks game.

[Andydog]

I thought I'd jot a few lines on my Twickenham experience last Saturday. You'll have to forgive me if my words sound a bit croaky, I don't think my voice has quite recovered yet!

One word: Awesome. And I realise that Kiwis often tend use that word rather flippantly in their every day vocabulary, but here I intend it to its fullest meaning, along the lines of 'phenomenal', and 'tremendous'. There was several times where I felt tingles travelling up and down my spine - has anyone ever had that? It's bloody freaky I tell you.

Taine did come close didn't he! I've never seen such a look of relief on the face of the England captain as the final whistle blew. If only NZ hadn't blotched that last line out... All in all, even though we lost, I'm fairly happy with the game. We came within a whisker of beating a full strength England squad, at Twickenham, without the bulk of our key players. If the skill and depth of our reserves doesn't now scare the rest of the rugby world, I don't know what will. John Mitchell got his tactics spot on (except where it went tits up inside 10 minutes either side of the interval), and England seemed to have little to answer to the AB's slick and smart use of decoy runners.

In my spot in the stadium I was stuck amongst a crowd of die hard England supporters, all who took delight in the fact that I was the only kiwi for miles around and teased me mercilessly throughout the game. It was all good natured I'm pleased to report, and rest assured I held my own. At the end of the game they took me to a place just out of Richmond called 'Hoggs & Heffers'. I was sceptical, but they assured me that it was simple, honest, working mans pub, and a purveyor of fine spirits. I knew I'd been duped when I found myself confronted with a strange drink they called 'Dr Peppers', which was a pint of half beer, half coke that you
skulled completely after dropping in a shot glass of Amaretto. But that's another story and nothing to do with rugby...

[finbar]

Stay tuned for more episodes of Tales Of An Innocent Kiwi Abroad.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Andydog
...and England seemed to have little to answer to the AB's slick and smart use of decoy runners.

Isn't it forbidden by the laws of the game:

In my spot in the stadium I was stuck amongst a crowd of die hard England supporters, all who took delight in the fact that I was the only kiwi for miles around and teased me mercilessly throughout the game.

Absolutely fair when we, supporters, are at home.

...and rest assured I held my own.

Of course, if not it isn't interesting at all.

At the end of the game they took me to a place just out of Richmond called 'Hoggs & Heffers'. I was sceptical, but they assured me that it was simple, honest, working mans pub, and a purveyor of fine spirits. I knew I'd been duped when I found myself confronted with a strange drink they called 'Dr Peppers', which was a pint of half beer, half coke that you
skulled completely after dropping in a shot glass of Amaretto. But that's another story and nothing to do with rugby...

Come on, say it, you knew from the start how it would end.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
We should think twice before we do something.

I always have. That's why I don't have any. Various partners - including the current Mrs finbar - have had them though. That's been close enough to parenthood for me. Frankly, IMHO, children should be born with conversation skills - able to discuss the bastardry of American foreign policy, why Middlemarch is the greatest novel ever written, the derivation of interesting words, that sort of thing - or not born at all.

OF COURSE HE WAS, HE IS FRENCH !

Brilliant answer!

Typing my last post.

Damn! He did it to me again!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

I think the best centers are those that are a cross between the light and the heavy cavalry, a kind of back able to play like a third row player when it is needed. When a winger is caught by the heavy ones, for example, a center must be ready to support him and clear the area before the heavier ones can reach the maul and gain the advantage.

Hopefully the #6 and/or #7 will be there if they're going their job. But I agree, a centre should have that capacity. Just as he should also be able to run and step like a winger. And there aren't very many with all these attributes.

*Havak limbers up to peck out A-u-s-t-i-n on his keyboard*

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I’m absolutely sure refs prioritise quite rapidly at the beginning of a game. You can almost feel the teams adapting to what they can get away with some times?

Without doubt. I think it's a priority for most teams. What p*sses me off is when one's team is well aware of what the ref won't allow and continues to do it anyway. Thank you, Mr Noriega.

Surely he won’t risk injured players against our pack? It’s a ludicrous thought. I would think he just wants to keep Woodward guessing?

I don't know how serious Larkham's hammy ever really was. But they won't play "injured" players. OTOH, there will, by necessity, be players on the field whom they would rather rest if there were a full squad from which to pick. With a fit squad to choose from, Burke wouldn't have played against the Irish after a healthy corkie against the Pumas.

Do you have any utility men who could slot in? Dare I say it – I’m talking a Healey type.

The crux of the problem is the injury to Rogers. With Latham left behind due to injury, that meant the fullback options were Rogers and Burke, with the one not at full back giving us a third option in the centres - Mortlock, Herbert, plus he-who-wasn't-at-fullback. Without Rogers, the fullback is either Burke - leaving us with two credentialled centres - or Steve Larkham, who started his career at fullback, but is obviously much more valuable to us where he is. So Rogers and Burke were/are utility men anyway, really.

Beyond that, there's really only winger Staniforth who probably could handle centre, but whom you'd have to replace on the wing.

I would suggest the playmakers – the scrummy and stand off – should be calling the plays in that kind of situation. Pop the pill behind the brick wall a few times, try to turn it? But a captain in any position should call “plan B” fairly swiftly?

That's what I mean - Gregan and Larkham should have spent this week sorting out options and alternatives instead of Gregan spending 48 hours in the air albeit probably in first class. As it happens, Larkham was trying to pop the pill behind the brick wall last week but his kicking was terrible. He was just giving the ball back to them. The alternative I would have liked to see was what the Wallabies do best - spreading the ball. They didn't, even when the opportunity presented itself. Back inside and up the middle they went. Yes, the conditions were crap, but if you're not making headway one way, you've got nothing to lose trying another way.

Funnily enough he claims he popped it up for Robinson when he saw the ABs come up flat and then suddenly realised he in fact had the best chance to re-gather. The lad can be amazingly modest at times.

I think he's talking tosh, to be honest. I've seen it replayed a hundred times. He put it - effectively - straight in front of himself and took off as soon as he'd kicked it. Much, much too modest.

I’m expecting a slightly different game. Our forwards starved you of possession last time and by doing so kept your ever threatening backs in check somewhat. I would expect them to move it wide a little more this time. We shall see.

Well, our forwards were incredibly average last week, so I can see England having a ball all over the paddock.

Do you know if you saw the BBC footage or the Sky footage? On the BBC you have Eddie Butler (Welsh) and Brian Moore. Eddie is the man behind the comments attributed to Austin last year, he is Welsh, and that tells you all you need to know. Moore was a hooker. Enough said?

I don't think it was Butler and Moore. I saw the names supered but those names don't ring a bell. Who commentates for Sky?

Fair enough. I abandoned it after leaving that 1998 game in would give England a 12 point start. Taking it out gives us a 3 point start.

A 3 point start for England? If I were a vet, I would recommend you have your system put down.

I figure you may be trying to open the bidding at 15 for your lot? I can’t wear that.

Okay, at least 11 1/2. Anything less than that and I would be backing England. And I would only be backing Australia at 11 1/12 for patriotic reasons.

It will be the first home league loss since December 1997 – over 50 games.

Bring it on!

I think Tamerlin may be worried here? A suggestion of offside then.

I notice that LDiCesares thought it was all right. Quelle surprise!

[Havak]

England seemed to have little to answer to the AB's slick and smart use of decoy runners.

I’m very pleased you are happy to have lost a game.

It all goes to prove we see what we want to see doesn’t it? That was the senior England sides first game since April so a win over a depleted ABs side has not devastated us the way some Kiwi observers seem to think. The worrying thing for Australia and the Boks is that we are likely to improve on that performance in the next games.

Decoys should, and soon will be, illegal of course. It’s always been right on the edge of the spirit of the game in any case. Many thanks to Tamerlin for pouncing on anyone praising this form of ‘cheating’.

Of more concern was this extended issue to decoys, and eternal habit the black shirts have, of getting men ‘accidentally’ between tackler and ball carrier. It was so blatant only an SH ref could have missed it Saturday (and lo and behold – Kaplan did miss it).

The interesting thing is the first choice England team seems to have been saved for the Australians by the looks of it. Had the full AB squad turned up I doubt either Dallaglio or Grewcock would have featured – neither looked at all sharp.

I am happy that the ABs have now been made red hot favourites for the RWC – it takes pressure of us as we are still clearly a developing side. But it also suggests Australia will win the next tri-nations as whenever the ABs seem untouchable the Aussies seem to mug them badly.

But that's another story and nothing to do with rugby..

Actually, in England, that has everything to do with rugby.

*Havak limbers up to peck out A-u-s-t-i-n on his keyboard*

Flex fingers and A-u-…

What p*sses me off is when one's team is well aware of what the ref won't allow and continues to do it anyway

Such brain fades are not uncommon in the front row as they try to outdo each other in the nefarious arts. I’ve seen Tigers props marched up to the ref by you know who for a detailed lecture on what they should not do yet again.

Thanks for the run down on your back division.

The alternative I would have liked to see was what the Wallabies do best - spreading the ball.

Hmm I guess that has to be plan A Saturday? You know your build up has been so disjointed and negative that I wouldn’t be surprised to see us mugged in the same way you seem to catch NZ when they are red hot favourites.

Much, much too modest.

Faux modesty then? You can’t use that more than once or it becomes rather annoying. I agree as it happens – re-watching it I can’t see how Robinson was ever the target.

I’ve actually reviewed my favourite tries several times – Moody’s as I’m amazed his skull is still intact, Wilkos of course and Cohens as I still can’t believe Howlett backed the full back on that one.

And yes I’ve watched Howletts many times too – it stands out from their others in so many ways – not least the lack of nefarious build up play options.

Well, our forwards were incredibly average last week, so I can see England having a ball all over the paddock.

They have backed off the power a little and gone for a touch more ‘art’ with Backy coming in. But on paper we look a much stronger outfit up front I guess.

Who commentates for Sky?

Miles Harrison and Stuart Barnes. The former is the straight man and the latter ex-Bath captain is the Poido style trash talker. Let me guess who rubbished the Luger score?

A 3 point start for England? If I were a vet, I would recommend you have your system put down.

Don’t you think it shows the flaw in the historical system I use perfectly? We better win and win big now or I’ll be most upset.

Okay, at least 11 1/2. Anything less than that and I would be backing England. And I would only be backing Australia at 11 1/12 for patriotic reasons.

Well we all saw the fallacy of the ABs crying wolf last week – can we let the Aussies do it too? What do the neutral guys think?

Bring it on!

Plus if I want to go I have to stay at work an extra three hours. SO I’m really looking forward to it in so many ways!

I notice that LDiCesares thought it was all right. Quelle surprise!

Une vraie surprise certainement.

(errors in grammar there are all my own work)

Are we just looking at the French and English games for spreads – Wales play Canada and I fancy the Canucks there.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


Isn't it forbidden by the laws of the game:

Gee, I don't know how I missed this one. No, decoy runners aren't against the laws of the game. Decoy runners who cause obstruction are against the laws of the game.

Come on, say it, you knew from the start how it would end.

Don't know how I missed this one either. No, he didn't know from the start how it would end. He's a Kiwi. Most things in life come as a surprise to a Kiwi.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Decoys should, and soon will be, illegal of course. It’s always been right on the edge of the spirit of the game in any case. Many thanks to Tamerlin for pouncing on anyone praising this form of ‘cheating’.

I'll keep this simple. In order to run decoys, you need to have an organised backline. That aside, there's nothing illegal about them unless they cause obstruction. They don't, by definition, cause obstruction. They can, in which case they are penalised.

Of more concern was this extended issue to decoys, and eternal habit the black shirts have, of getting men ‘accidentally’ between tackler and ball carrier. It was so blatant only an SH ref could have missed it Saturday (and lo and behold – Kaplan did miss it).

Face it, the ABs pioneered the lazy wander from offside back to onside, interfering with the play in the process. Hats off to Sean for that one.

Miles Harrison and Stuart Barnes. The former is the straight man and the latter ex-Bath captain is the Poido style trash talker. Let me guess who rubbished the Luger score?

That was them. Never heard them before. To my unbiased ears, they did a good, unbiased job.

[Havak]

I'll keep this simple

As ever I appreciate that.

They don't, by definition, cause obstruction. They can, in which case they are penalised.

As a general rule of thumb only if it’s an NH official. It’s another marker of the difference in attitudes between north and south. Still it seems very likely the IRB will make them illegal – more grist for that journos Celtic conspiracy theory?

Woodward has asked the IRB this week to decide one way or another before RWC. He is happy to coach either way but wants the issue cleared up. He gave a press conference on Tuesday where he demonstrated the ‘blockers’ in the lead up to the Lomu tries. Woodward likes his PR offensives.

I can’t really worry about law changes that hurt SH coaching styles – call me biased if you like.

Face it, the ABs pioneered the lazy wander from offside back to onside, interfering with the play in the process. Hats off to Sean for that one.

Referees were instructed several seasons ago to stamp on it. Didn’t that work well?

That was them. Never heard them before. To my unbiased ears, they did a good, unbiased job.

Miles is okay. Barnes varies depending on his mood (or how many bottles he has had pre-match). He can be plain dumb at times. Plus he captained Bath for years. That’s a big minus.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
...children should be born with conversation skills - able to discuss the bastardry of American foreign policy, why Middlemarch is the greatest novel ever written, the derivation of interesting words, that sort of thing - or not born at all.

...Okay, at least 11 1/2. Anything less than that and I would be backing England.

This time I have to agree with Finbar, Havak. I hope this will have no effect on our unity against the heresies of the SH though I'am rather concerned by the commonwealth conspiracy against Cédric Heymans and his undisputable try.

No, decoy runners aren't against the laws of the game. Decoy runners who cause obstruction are against the laws of the game.

I know the law but I still think the decoy runners should be completely forbidden whether they cause an obstruction or not, no runner should be ahead of the ball.