Rugby - Last Feet!

[vulture]

Greetings all - hope everyone had a good Christmas / New Year combo. I'm trying not to look too smug as I sip tea from my Gloucester mug....

Havak - I wouldn't say that Leicester have had a sudden decline. It's just a sign of how much success you've enjoyed in recent years that you're finding being fourth (can't remember exactly) in the table and still in with a shot at the title as something of a disappointment. Yes, the standard of Leicester play has slipped, but in this game you don't have to slip very far before you see a big difference in what happens on the pitch. And remember, most of the clubs are still in a far worse position - look at Bath (and don't forget to smirk while you do it). And you're still the reigning league champions (okay, officially you're not, but to my mind the post-season playoffs are wholly stupid - Leicester won the league last year by virtue of ending up top of the table; end of story).

Now we all get to look forwards to the Heineken cup games for the next two weeks (apart from the sadly deprived, non-Europeans amongst us).

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
Poor old Frank Tournaire was caught on the floor by their lock and got a knee in the head for his trouble. So far so good but as the ref blew Frank saw red and swung not one but three punches in combination with the ref right behind him.

Very unusual attitude for such a player, I am really surprised.

Suicidal discipline from the guy!

When you are urged to take a decision, never think twice about the proper thing to do. Act!

Although he speaks excellent English he played the “not understand” card and the ref let it go. The lad ‘got out of jail’ there.

He is pretty good at taking the "innocent face" but this has never worked with a french referee, the english refs don't know him well but this will not last.

[Havak]

Actually vulture we are officially Champions. They changed their minds several times last year but eventually decided that the League toppers would be "Champion club".

That should help explain why we put a third string out against Bristol. The only side who took the Zurich Championship (despite the name a seperate trophy to the league title last year) seriously was your lads.

Outside of that minor point however I agree entirely. Barring disaster you will top the league table after 22 games and that for me makes you worthy champions.

The tricky thing about us is however badly we play we can still win big games - we might well beat you if we meet you in the play off final - but it wouldn't make us champions. At the risk of upsetting Finbar this silly play off idea is the worst thing we have adopted from the Super 12 to my mind.

Having said that the way we are playing right now we aren't likely to trouble the play offs anyway!

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
The tricky thing about us is however badly we play we can still win big games...

This is exactly the problem with the Stade Toulousain and an obstacle to evolution...

- we might well beat you if we meet you in the play off final - but it wouldn't make us champions. At the risk of upsetting Finbar this silly play off idea is the worst thing we have adopted from the Super 12 to my mind.

The final phase is the tradition in France since Rugby has been introduced here, as far as I am concerned the disappearance of this phase will be a disaster and the French Championship will loose most of its flavor.

[LDiCesare]

The final phase is the tradition in France since Rugby has been introduced here, as far as I am concerned the disappearance of this phase will be a disaster and the French Championship will loose most of its flavor.

would be, you mean?
I don't think they would remove the final in France championship. It has been the case before (around 1950 I believe), but it lasted only 2 or 3 years. We almost always have had a final phase. Considering the final is the onlychampionship match which draws a vast TV audience, it would be suicidal to change that. Not counting the "ambiance" of the final, of course.

btw tomorrow is my first 'frozen field - no rugby' day of the year.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

would be, you mean?

Yes, you are right...

I don't think they would remove the final in France championship. It has been the case before (around 1950 I believe), but it lasted only 2 or 3 years. We almost always have had a final phase. Considering the final is the onlychampionship match which draws a vast TV audience, it would be suicidal to change that. Not counting the "ambiance" of the final, of course.

I really hope so (cross fingered)...

btw tomorrow is my first 'frozen field - no rugby' day of the year.

Does it happen often?

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon


Including, as you no doubt noticed, Stuarts half-joking offer to play for England should he be dropped from the Australian side?
I rather suspect they'd drop the joke were he to show a serious interest.
It also makes me wonder how the ACB would take it if this were to become a reality...

With residency qualification restrictions, et al, it will remain a joke.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
The forwards continue to dominate sides and our possession ratio tends to be superb but the backs never capitalise. We are in a way England writ small.

That actually occurred to me from the way you've been talking.

Maybe he has matured. I heard his generous comments on England on the radio this morning.

Steve Waugh, IMHO, is one of the few truly fascinating characters in sport. Genuinely painfully shy; hates fuss, particularly about and over him; a traditionalist to his socks - he insists that everyone wears their Baggy Green for the first session of a Test match when the team is fielding; plays the game as hard and tough as anyone and expects the same in return; shook Mark Butcher's hand on the field when he was batting and Butcher had declared he wasn't sure he had taken a clean catch; and genuinely respects his opponents while reserving the right to grind them into the ground. In many ways he's a throwback to Australian cricket of the 1930s and 1940s

I’m personally still in shock that they won a test down there!!!

England played better cricket than Australia. As simple as that. Michael Vaughan's innings was stunning. It's been a privilege to watch him in action in this series. He's a batsman of the highest class. The unfortunate thing for England is that he's the only one.

Australia set themselves up for big trouble in this match by enforcing the follow on in Melbourne. Waugh was worried about forecast storms and rain and didn't want to risk batting again. That had the bowlers operating in stinking heat for 3 consecutive days with only a 2 day break before starting again in Sydney and minus McGrath. Macgill bowled 90 overs in Melbourne and was still buggered 2 days later and Gillespie started in Sydney about 60% fit and shouldn't have played at all. So enforcing the follow on came back to haunt them physically.

Then, as England had done for a lot of the series, the Australians fielded appallingly. Dropped catches cost England dearly in earlier matches, and 2 Australian dropped catches in Sydney - Butcher and Vaughan - cost 180 runs. Bad fielding is bad cricket.

And the umpiring? Incompetent. Michael Vaughan should still be batting. His LBW in the 180s was criminal. Langer and Hayden's LBW decisions in our second innings were beyond laughable. Which doesn't excuse Hayden breaking the door in the dressing room in the slightest. I'm not sure what the problem is with Zimbabwean umpires. We had one here last season who was incompetent, and now, with Umpire Tiffen, another one.

Yes I’m afraid they have picked up the ‘never walk’ bug from your lads these days. It’s really not cricket is it?

The point is, the umpiring was incompetent on a number of occasions. It shouldn't get down to a question of walking or otherwise.

I’d still murder to tempt Patty Howard back though. Sky’s ‘Poido’ Stuart Barnes suggested the same thing on Saturday.

I'm quite sure they will make enquiries, if they haven't already. I don't know how long he signed for with the Brumbies, but if he came back with the aim of a Wallaby gig, he's nowhere near the frame.

[finbar]

Originally posted by vulture
I'm trying not to look too smug as I sip tea from my Gloucester mug....

Have one for me! Better still, send me a Gloucester mug!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
At the risk of upsetting Finbar this silly play off idea is the worst thing we have adopted from the Super 12 to my mind.

I'm no great supporter of the finals system. As I think I've said before, I think it's largely a money-making exercise. The team that finishes on top - having played all the other teams (I assume) twice - should rightly be called the best. In fact, given the concerns about so much rugby being played by the top players, eliminating the finals series would seem to reduce the workload. But money will always out.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I'm no great supporter of the finals system. As I think I've said before, I think it's largely a money-making exercise. The team that finishes on top - having played all the other teams (I assume) twice - should rightly be called the best. In fact, given the concerns about so much rugby being played by the top players, eliminating the finals series would seem to reduce the workload. But money will always out.

As far as I am concerned I would never consider a team ending at the first place of a Championship without finals as being a "real" champion. Winning the Brennus Shield like this would lose much of its meaning...

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
As far as I am concerned I would never consider a team ending at the first place of a Championship without finals as being a "real" champion. Winning the Brennus Shield like this would lose much of its meaning...

But how many times does a team have to beat other teams in a season in order to be considered the champion team?

[LDiCesare]

But how many times does a team have to beat other teams in a season in order to be considered the champion team?

With our current system, between 0 and 5 times!
They can meet 0 or 2 times in the first part of the championship, repeat that in the second phase, and then come the final phase.
Some teams never meet in a season. If they were all to meet one another, there would acutally be many nore matches, unless you trim the championship even more. And here we are back into money/politics, as many teams want to be in first division, even though they have little hope of winning.
But here the final of the championship is a tradition which was not built on money but really would help rugby spread.

About frozen fields: Usually it starts happening earlier in the season. I rarely can play matches between end november and february, and about one training session in two is usually lost to forbidden terrain (either frozen or soaked). This season is rather good as we could play rugby during all autumn.

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

With our current system, between 0 and 5 times!
They can meet 0 or 2 times in the first part of the championship, repeat that in the second phase, and then come the final phase.
Some teams never meet in a season. If they were all to meet one another, there would acutally be many nore matches, unless you trim the championship even more. And here we are back into money/politics, as many teams want to be in first division, even though they have little hope of winning.
But here the final of the championship is a tradition which was not built on money but really would help rugby spread.

Mmmm. You have a very much bigger, more complicated competition with more teams to worry about. In the S12 comp, everyone plays each other twice - home and away - and then you have the top 4 teams playing off in the finals. This really is a case of a money-making exercise, because the team that finishes top, having already played every other team twice, can already, rightly, be called the champion team.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Mmmm. You have a very much bigger, more complicated competition with more teams to worry about. In the S12 comp, everyone plays each other twice - home and away - and then you have the top 4 teams playing off in the finals. This really is a case of a money-making exercise, because the team that finishes top, having already played every other team twice, can already, rightly, be called the champion team.

Yes, but during the qualification games you will almost never have the delicious tension you can feel when your team is playing a semi-final or final, especially when you reach the last minutes of a game.