Rugby - One game to rule them all

[Havak]

You meant 15 points head start for England right?

Okay, okay, even I know that one won't run this time.

[Caligastia]

What do you think the margin should be Havak?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Strangely you are out of sync with current SH thinking – see here .

A translation of EddieSpeak: "The NH teams are now not only making a fair fist of playing continuous phase rugby, they've also worked out how to stop it. Time to try something else."

D'oh!, Eddie. They'd worked out how to stop it 12 months ago. Apart from that, he's wrong about the Wallabies improving. If anything, they've either stood still or gone backwards while other teams - NH and SH - have advanced.

"The game is becoming more about winning primary possession and then executing your plays over a set number of phases, probably three or four, rather than continuous rugby."

Eddie - the game has always been about winning primary possession and then executing your plays. You can't execute a play without possession of the ball. Which is where we have fallen down very badly on this tour!

I'm also not sure what the Bok commentator is on about. His definition of continuous phase rugby is simplistic. It has never been about just running with the ball. It has always involved tactical kicking, just not to the extent that kicking featured in other approaches to the game. A top class 5/8 will always have a fine kicking game, and, what's more, will know when to use it.

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by Journeyman
I guessed as much, you are at least willing to explain your anti League view. I understand this "finbar" is your friend, but the immature way he insults it got on my nerves and I finally posted my disapproval, and I'm not surprised he avoids addressing me on the issue. I understand that its your opinion but why be silly about it?

Wow, someone else trying to argue the other code? You can't change the opinions of others, but your reasons for League make sense - as for finbar, don't take the fellow personally, he knows about rugby but you won't get a debate from him on that. He just bags out everything.

Originally posted by Journeyman
I do not want to continue bothering this thread on the subject, sport is best played, not argued about. Union is a lovely sport but remember League has its purpose too and don't think for a moment Union would have progressed the amount it has (and continues to do so) without its sister code.

I don't share any hate of the code, different reasons (played both at school and watch more NRL than Super12 due to the cable issue) but I can relate when you say private schools lavish their rugby teams whereas the other teams are barely mentioned. The ARU is expanding, but still certain groups of Australia get more attention.

But argueing this further has really no point here - but I'm glad you've attacked the stupidity thing, I've played both codes for years and now attend University.

Originally posted by Caligastia
No it doesnt. Everyone else who posts in this thread knows that it is Rugby Union we are here to discuss, and they like it that way. We have humored you for now, but if you persist in talking about a game that we view as an abomination, you will find yourself being ignored.

'We' have humoured? Sorry, Caligastia but I think Havak made a pretty seroius debate. Don't think you talk for everyone.

Don't worry about finbar, but pay no attention to this bloke. He is the only member of the thread who can really annoy - I say don't continue this arguement but you can be sure you wont be completly ignored. Post anytime you feel!

[Bearcat]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
I must admit Olivier Magne could have been sin binned in the second half for a rucking on a AB player. He exhibited such an innocent face when the ref called him...

Doesn't Magne have a history of that stuff? I remember reading about him rucking an Italian player in the head, during last year's Six Nations.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Bearcat
How are the Eagles doing, if they are playing at all?

Sorry, Bearcat, I meant to answer this but completely forgot.

No, the Eagles aren't playing. I don't think they've played since their last WRC qualifier match. The matches we're talking about are a whole series of games involving Australia, New Zealand, England and most of the major European teams. Australia and New Zealand are currently on their Northern Hemisphere tours. Canada did play Wales but got beaten.

I did notice, though, that the USA Women's Rugby Team were recently beaten by the England Women's Rugby Team.

[Andydog]

Forgive my aside into Pedant mode but there are no ‘rules’ to the beautiful game. Laws if you please.

Your’re forgiven. And since we are being pedantic, please explain to us the precise difference between a ‘rule’ and a ‘law’?

You mean the actual phases of play that provide competition for the ball, the absolute essence of Union in actual fact?

Well, I look at it like this: If the opposition forwards are heavier, more experienced, and are therefore more likely to dominate and win possession, then a good team will look for the opportunities elsewhere. A good team will bring different tactics to the paddock. That is just what NZ has done – we have an inexperienced pack, for many this is their first tour. Clearly our backs are stronger, so good on them for taking the fullest advantage of that. Surely this the real essence of union?

And lastly, Journeyman. We all prefer union, and we all enjoy taking the piss. When I came across this thread, it was clear to me right from the beginning there was no holds barred. PC? Anyone attempting to be PC around here is asking to be teased.

I personally thought that the way Finbar took the piss out of L***** was bloody funny. He takes the piss out of Kiwis too, so what? Chill out, let it all roll off you like water off a ducks back, and enjoy the wit! If you don't share this type of ‘no-holds-barred-piss-taking’ sense of humour, then I suggest you avoid this thread – otherwise, sure as eggs, someone else’s piss taking will put you back on your hobby horse at some stage.

[Havak]

What do you think the margin should be Havak?

I actually think 15 is reasonable based solely on this months form. I do also think the Boks will play their best game against us however. Did you know that apparently no Bok team in history has ever toured and gone home with no wins. Saturday may be a truly historic day.

A translation of EddieSpeak

Great stuff. I think you have friend Eddie taped. I worry sometimes that he fires off ‘Stream of consciousness’ comments without truly thinking it through before engaging the old vocal chords.

Which is where we have fallen down very badly on this tour!

I have a feeling your percentage was slightly higher against us this year as it happens.

It has always involved tactical kicking, just not to the extent that kicking featured in other approaches to the game

But they haven’t had a fine tactical kicker since Stransky took the Kings shilling? Van Straten was very variable indeed.

I did notice, though, that the USA Women's Rugby Team were recently beaten by the England Women's Rugby Team.

Warning – sexist comment approaching.

Don’t get too excited – most of the team look, think and sound like Jonno.

And since we are being pedantic, please explain to us the precise difference between a ‘rule’ and a ‘law’?

I could if you really want me to but shall we just leave it at the fact that the game of Rugby has none of the former?

A good team will bring different tactics to the paddock.

Heck yes, I’m not saying you are not a good (or great even) side. I do worry that some of the ways you secure that slice of possession for the ultra talented back division are a little dubious though. For example it seems endemic in the SH, based on looking at the last two England games, that entering from behind the back foot is something you have heard of but disagree with? And I still think the tri-nations team don’t understand any variation of offside.

He takes the piss out of Kiwis too, so what?

And the English. Though frankly those idiots deserve it. Oh hold on…

Anyway I’m still half Scottish until Saturday.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Havak
And the English. Though frankly those idiots deserve it. Oh hold on…

ROFL!

My sense of conservatism rears its ugly head again, particularly after the narrow English win last week, so I'd guess at a margin of about 10 I think.
(Of course I plan on backing them anyway so that may have a tad too much bias in it. ).

[finbar]

Originally posted by Andydog
Your’re forgiven. And since we are being pedantic, please explain to us the precise difference between a ‘rule’ and a ‘law’?

The bottom line is that they are - officially - called the Laws of Rugby, not the Rules of Rugby. That aside, the word "Law" has a nice, um, quality to it. I wonder if that's being elitist?

Technically, law - or, "the law" - is a body of rules. Rules are rules.

Well, I look at it like this: If the opposition forwards are heavier, more experienced, and are therefore more likely to dominate and win possession, then a good team will look for the opportunities elsewhere. A good team will bring different tactics to the paddock. That is just what NZ has done – we have an inexperienced pack, for many this is their first tour. Clearly our backs are stronger, so good on them for taking the fullest advantage of that. Surely this the real essence of union?

You're not going to win this one via logic, Andydog. I've tried. I'd just settle for observing - as I have, many times - that these NH types b*tch about our backline methods only because it's beyond their backlines to organise such things. If they could, they would. I mean to say, have you seen the England backs and forwards on the field together? When will someone introduce them to each other?

[Havak]

that these NH types b*tch about our backline methods only because it's beyond their backlines to organise such things

Actually I save my best 'attack dog' sessions for your forwards as it is crystal clear how they choose to infringe even to the casual observer.

Even the greatness that is Kronfeld falls off his feet at the drop of a feather.

[Andydog]

I mean to say, have you seen the England backs and forwards on the field together? When will someone introduce them to each other?

I saw them in Twickenham the other weekend. They were sending each other messages via pigeons, specially picked from Trafalgar Square.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Bearcat
Doesn't Magne have a history of that stuff? I remember reading about him rucking an Italian player in the head, during last year's Six Nations.

Yes, Olivier Magne can be a great player, even one of the best, but I don't like his attitude on the field, from times to times he seems to forget about Rugby and start acting like a boorish amateur player coming from another age.

[Havak]

I think we might be really good if we ever get Forwards and backs who take to the same field with the same game plan.

And, truly, on that day, we may all be flying porcine airways.

Pretorius is back at Fly for Saturday so their kicking is shored up a little. James moves to inside centre so may even last five minutes into the game before shoulder charging someone?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I actually think 15 is reasonable based solely on this months form.

I think 15 is an absolute minimum. I saw some of the "highlights" of the Boks-Scotland game tonight, with the Bok defender - I think it was Brayden Pulse (but I might be wrong) - running in circles, panicking, in his own in-goal area surrounded by both teammates and Scotland players. He ended up trying to pass to one of his teammates, missing him, picking out one of the Scotland players, who promptly grounded the ball.

I do also think the Boks will play their best game against us however.

Havak, you optimist!

Great stuff. I think you have friend Eddie taped. I worry sometimes that he fires off ‘Stream of consciousness’ comments without truly thinking it through before engaging the old vocal chords.

It was classic Eddie. Sometimes the quantity of his verbiage outweighs the quality. In this case - particularly about the Wallabies' improvement - he's simply wrong. It's PR. But who believes it?

But they haven’t had a fine tactical kicker since Stransky took the Kings shilling? Van Straten was very variable indeed.

That's probably the case, but that wasn't his point. He seems to think that kicking doesn't happen in running rugby. Which is bullsh*t.

For example it seems endemic in the SH, based on looking at the last two England games, that entering from behind the back foot is something you have heard of but disagree with? And I still think the tri-nations team don’t understand any variation of offside.

Pots and kettles!

BTW, who is playing this weekend? Boks -v- England, Italy -v- Wallabies, and who else?