Rugby - formerly 6Nations, formerly WRC

[kater]

On fb's point we've been having a discussion about this whole points issue on DrosGemmell and this is what we came up with so far:

Kater
Re: Rugby World Cup
« Reply #93 on: Nov 16th, 2003, 3:38pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on Nov 16th, 2003, 2:51pm, Aaron wrote:, but I think the point system needs to change, if everyone played rugby like England it would kill the game.



I was talking with my old man today and he said he thought that union should adopt the league scoring system but with a try still worth five. As it stands four drop goals is worth two tries and a conversion, whereas in league a drop goal is worth only one point and a penalty two, this makes league an enjoyable attacking game to watch and I think union would benefit no end from this system. It should be a chance equals reward, where attacking rugby should be rewarded much higher than giving the ball away. Personally I'd be tempted to do away with drop goals and penalties all together and make the only way to win be scoring tries But then I'm like that So anyone know where the next WC is


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Aaron
Re: Rugby World Cup
« Reply #94 on: Nov 16th, 2003, 3:56pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I tend to think a drop goal should only be 1, penalties I think are ok at 3. Otherwise it would get too scrappy with teams doing anything to stop tries, safe in the knowledge that penalties wont win a game.
See you in France, 2007.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



RaGe
Re: Rugby World Cup
« Reply #95 on: Nov 16th, 2003, 10:27pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:Oh and Rage some of us in the Northern hemisphere do play running rugby, arguably the best of the tournament



I agree with you Kater, I don't like to make sweeping generalisations, but sometimes you have to, to get the point across. Ireland and Wales have both played some inspiring games. I kind of wish those 2 teams made the semis, then its a real war out there. They are always looking to score a try. Theres nothing like seeing keith wood take the ball up on the boil and smashing through for a try. Thats what I think makes the game interesting. England seem to have lost that. And they have some of the best attacking players in the game. The try that robinson scored (against wales?) where he just made a mad dash through the middle of the field was nothing short of brilliant...

With the league scoring system, I have to agree. I think penalties should remain at 3, that discourages ppl from killing the ball when a try is on. You have to have a damaging penalty system to stop the other team from doing professional fouls.

Drop goals should only ever be used in the situation, like they are in league, where you are two converted tries ahead and want to put the game out of reach. OR when the scores are level and its a shootout to see who breaks the deadlock. THEN its fun and interesting. So pushing them back to 1 point would discourage that style of play. One of the ex-wallabies was on the Roy and HG show saying they should drop them to 2. even that would slow it down. If its only worth the same as a conversion ppl might stop using them to win games.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Aaron
Re: Rugby World Cup
« Reply #96 on: Nov 17th, 2003, 12:32am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, droppies should be game breakers, not point makers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Talos
Re: Rugby World Cup
« Reply #97 on: Nov 17th, 2003, 02:22am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You guys are all forgetting about the weather conditions in which yesterdays semi was played. There was a reason that so many world-class players were dropping the ball, wet weather.

Martin Johnson himself said that he was dissapointed not to get tries in an interview after the game, but he also said that in the end, it wasn't really an option. England adapted brilliantly to the weather, France didn't and thats why they aren't going to the final. You can moan all you want, but I thought it was great tactical rugby.



OLDSKOOL
Re: Rugby World Cup
« Reply #98 on: Nov 17th, 2003, 04:50am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think England set out a game plan to win and get to the final based not only on the weather but also on the fact that they have realised the shortcomings in the team. If England had gone head to head with France and played an expansive style they would have been beat. I also think that Wales scared the crap out of them in the quarters so they have made the nescessary adjustments. I agree that with a lot of the posts and it is not pretty and not nice to watch, but here is a more worrying aspect to Englands tactics. If other teams think that the only way win the World Cup is to keep it tight and grind to a win then it could put Rugby back years ( a similar thing happened in Football a while back). We must realise Rugby is not a global sport and to attract interest in the game the World Cup must be an advertisement of the best the sport has to offer. The RFU has to stop tinkering with the rules and have a good long look at the points system to encourage expansive play. This will not only make sure that the Rugby is more attractive to watch but will also stop the ludicrous scorelines in the World Cup which only reflects badly on the tournament.
England have played a bad system to their full advantage and good luck to them but with the competition from Football and the expanding sports coming fron the U.S. such as basketball Rugby needs to sell itself in the best light possible to make it in a very overcrowded environment.
Oh in case anyone was wondering I am a Wales fan

 

[Jacquin]

So let me get this straight?

Firstly England are crap and don't stand a chance.

Then once they'd won it was a boring game.

Then once it was pointed out that they were simply using the rules to their advantage, the rules need to be changed?

So England won, GET OVER IT!!!!!

 

[kater]

Ok let me make this nice and simple so you don't misunderstand me again. I don't/have never liked the English rugby team, its inevitably a parochial thing but I'm not looking to justify it as an unbiased opinion. In this WC they have played some dour rugby and won, fair enough its not anybody's fault if they don't play attacking rugby though it would be nice to see. I have never stated England were 'crap' or that they 'don't stand a chance', quite the opposite its frustrating because they do stand a good chance playing such a boring style of rugby. Sure I wouldn't mind if Wales made the final playing like England do, but they didn't so I see no need to change my views. I personally felt that the referee's have given England more than the rub of the green in this WC but again I'm not looking to suggest this as an unbiased opinion. Lastly I introduced what people had said on my forum because I felt it relevant to fluffy bunny's point about the scoring system and was hoping to have a mature discussion on how rugby in general could be made more friendly on non-fans so as to attract larger crowds to what is a geat sport. I didn't expect to be shouted at to 'get over it' when I couldn't care less about the final and was trying only to make a valid point and encourage discussion.

 

[Jacquin]

Kater,

My posts are not by any means aimed specifically at you.

My point is simply that at every opportunity members have put down England's chances, and when they made it to the final it simply became members putting down England.

As the lone (vocal) England supporter on the boards I get quite fed up when people ignore the evidence that stares them in the face and deride my team. OK England are not the most spectacular rugby team on the planet, but they are without a doubt one of the most professional and accomplished at the moment.

J

 

[Jacquin]

To put this thread back on topic (which was of course how great England are) here are a few facts.

1) The first World Cup was won by the All Blacks, for whom Grant Fox, their goalkicking fly half, scored 126 points, a World Cup record.

2) If all kicked goals were worth 1 point England would still have beaten France 8-6

3) England have only had 2 more penalties than Australia in this world cup.

Strangely these facts haven't been getting much of an airing lately...

 

[kater]

............ and have been twisted anyway

1.) The first WC was an invitation only event meaning that the top 16 alone were there and no Uruguay or Georgia to ramp up your tries tally and points diference. Of Grant Fox's 120 pts there included 30 conversions, 19 penalties and 1 drop goal, in comparison JW for this WC has 10 conversions, 19 penalties and 7 drop goals. Had he played against Georgia and Uruguay he would have had approx 25 conversions, 21 penalties and 1000 drop goals And if it wasn't obvious enough already, of the top six try scorers in the 1987 WC five of them were New Zealanders, tallying between them more tries than the whole England team has scored in this WC Its fair to say for a team with goal-kicking 1st 5/8th they played some decent rugby

Johnny Wilkinson in this one tournament has kicked more drop goals than any other player has in the history of the tournament, in his nine games in WC rugby (one less that Grant Fox) he has kicked half as many conversions as Grant Fox but four more penalties, averaging four successful penalties per game He is one penalty shy of beating Gavin Hastings WC record for number of penalties having played four less games. In his 13 games Gavin Hastings scored 9 tries, JW has one.

*In the Wales vs England game Wales conceded six kickable penalties, five given in a fifteen minute period between the 48th and 66th minute having conceded only one in the entire rest of the match. Strange that

Its funny what you can do with statistics, who says they always lie

 

[Jacquin]

LOL!

Ok, lets look at another few facts.

Australia progressed to the finals through a drop goal from Stephen Larkham.

In their last meeting England scored 3 tries to Australia's 1

In the previous tournament England were knocked out by SA, deBeer successfully kicking 5 drop goals.

In 1987 World rugby was strictly amateur in the UK, not so in the southern hemisphere teams.

Would England be any good without JW? Who knows, how about asking how many times NZ have been world champions since Fox retired...

To quote Martin Samuel (Sports writer of the year) in the Times "I'm sorry, my TV must have been on the blink when the Wallabies were repeatedly surging over the try line on Saturday"

To quote Homer Simpson "Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that."

 

[fluffy bunny]

hmm NZ trashed France a bit more convincingly that England did. And not a drop kick in sight on the scoreline (well apart from conversions)

Twiddling my thumbs waiting for the highlights since I missed it

 

[kater]

Your making this too easy

Larkham's drop goal was to win the match in double extra time against SA in the semi-final of the 1999 WC, Australia had three tries disallowed in that match, two of which seemed very geunine to me. George Gregan is the only man to have dropped a goal of OZ in the 2003 WC so far, Australia are the only team to have won the tournament twice, England haven't won it.
Debeer it was concluded was a very boring 1st 5/8 and as an eyesore was promptly dropped after the semi's
Rugby became a professional sport in 1995, it was therefore impossible and illegal for the southern hemisphere teams to pay their players in accordance with the strict rules of amateur sport.
Look around Grant Fox and see how many NZ legends he played alongside in the 1987 and 1991 World Cup's, gonna compare Neil Back to Michael Jones? Ben Cohen to John Kirwan? Name one player other than Martin Johnson who will go down as a Legend should England win the WC. The test of JW will be if he's around in another four years and can he cope with a less dominant pack giving him terrible ball
Every team bar England scored a try in the 2003 WC semi's, running rugby is defined by running with the ball in hand not using your foot to run the ball into touch or in the air again and again

87.213 % of statistics are made up on the spot

 

[kater]

More wood for the fire

A English rugby fan goes into the pub with his dog to watch the rugby. The game's going well and Jonny suddenly kicks a drop goal! Instantly the dog does a perfect backflip.
"Wow" says the barkeeper
"that's pretty impressive, what's he do when they score a try?"
"I don't know" replys the dog owner,
"I've only had him for 3 years."

 

[Jacquin]

I'm sure Will Greenwood and Josh Lewsey just forgot that when they scored their ten tries between them...

Seriously though, why do people (OK I can fully understand why the Welsh would be bitter, they can't help only having a points difference of 23 ) have such a problem with the England teams style of play?

Lets look at the facts, the game in the Southern Hemisphere favours a running style of play, it is primarily dry and warm, in climates where it is often wet and rainy a kicking game is almost always more sucessful (ok we should point out that the Welsh have played some beautiful running rugby at times but this fact is mirrored in their recent successes).

The teams from the Northern Hemishpere that are successful tend to favour a kicking game thereby turning the disadvantage of poor weather into an advantage.

The way the Australian press has reacted goes against the "gentlemanly" ethos of Rugby up to now. It is the ace up their sleeve. This way whatever the result tomorrow they retain the bragging rights. If they win they are better, if they lose it is simply the result of an outdated scoring system that favours talentless players.

The simple fact is that Successful Northern Hemisphere rugby has a different style to that of the Southern Hemisphere. It is only now where there is a team with enough skill, talent, experience and raw power to match the Southern teams that we see the fact that it is a more efficient method of playing the game.

Let me finish with another couple of facts for Kater...

England are in the world cup final.

Wales aren't

 

[kater]

Originally posted by Jacquin
I'm sure Will Greenwood and Josh Lewsey just forgot that when they scored their ten tries between them...

Josh Lewsey's five tries against Uruguay doesn't colour that stat at all I'm sure, nor does the mediocrity of Georgia and Uruguay. Against better opposition in SA, Wales and France England scored two tries both by Wil Greenwood, one a charge down the other a blatant knock-on earlier in the piece. A sure sign of running rugby

Originally posted by Jacquin

Lets look at the facts, the game in the Southern Hemisphere favours a running style of play, it is primarily dry and warm, in climates where it is often wet and rainy a kicking game is almost always more sucessful (ok we should point out that the Welsh have played some beautiful running rugby at times but this fact is mirrored in their recent successes).

South Island, NZ, in winter = horrendous conditions for running rugby.
Canterbury, South Island, NZ = Four time super 12 champions playing sublime running rugby.
Otago, South Island, NZ = multiple super 12 semi-finalists playing running rugby.
Its a cheap and easy excuse to blame it on the weather but it is in fact inherent within the English system to play a forward-orientated, set-piece game from an early age. Just look at the club system - Leicester, Gloucester, Wasps, Bristol, Newcastle .... the list goes on of forward, set-piece driven teams. This then filters into the national team where when put under pressure they resort to what they know and whats instinctive. I'm not arguing merits of whats good and bad simply that it is fundamental to the nature of english rugby not an aberration created my local weather patterns and climate. Wales gets equally as bad weather and yet are famous for running rugby since its inception. Its our natural game, we naively thought that professionalism equated to big, muscular packs because England were dominating the Southern Hemisphere using just that yet we were soundly thumped. Its only in this WC have we realised we aren't naturally big enough, a 'normal' welshman being small of stature, to play this type of game and so bulking up doesn't help us rather it inhibits our natural game which is play with pace and width allied to flair and creative individua and collective genius. We don't have to play the forward type of game because we've realised there are other ways to play, much more suited to our set-up. Hopefully we will resort de facto to this type of game, England simply can't do it, its not in their nature.

Originally posted by Jacquin


Let me finish with another couple of facts for Kater...

England are in the world cup final.

Wales aren't

*hands over ears* robbed .........lalalala.............six nations soon

 

[Nevyn]

Originally posted by Jacquin
The way the Australian press has reacted goes against the "gentlemanly" ethos of Rugby up to now. It is the ace up their sleeve. This way whatever the result tomorrow they retain the bragging rights. If they win they are better, if they lose it is simply the result of an outdated scoring system that favours talentless players.

Please in no way confuse the Australian press with genuine sports loving Aussies . There are a few choice words that can be used to describe the lying right wing of our country , starting with the fact most have no idea what it's like to actually play a sport

As for tonights game , JW wont be much of a problem after a George Smith tackle

Me , I'm watching the game down at the club with a Guinness

cheers

 

[kegasaurus]

Originally posted by Jacquin
Seriously though, why do people (OK I can fully understand why the Welsh would be bitter, they can't help only having a points difference of 23 ) have such a problem with the England teams style of play?

Because of the watchability. No one, not even us Australians are denying the fact that you do whatever it takes to win, but its the fans of the sport who are saying that they don't want to watch England's style of play. This is coming form all over the world, not just Australia. I'll ask you this;

Would you rather watch running football, or the kicking game as an unbiased spectator?

Originally posted by Jacquin
The way the Australian press has reacted goes against the "gentlemanly" ethos of Rugby up to now. It is the ace up their sleeve. This way whatever the result tomorrow they retain the bragging rights. If they win they are better, if they lose it is simply the result of an outdated scoring system that favours talentless players.

Gentlemanly? Australians? Oxy-moron.

Actually, a lot of the knowledgable press are saying that you do what it takes to win It might be boring, but its just as boring as a Tubby Taylor century or Glenn McGrath on a flat track. We have done it for years, its why we are successful. I think the English Press may need to held up for task for only presenting half the story.

The true test will be whether when (oops I meant 'if') we lose the Australian public riot through the streets.

Kater, one thing you are forgetting to mention about Wales is that against both NZ and England you had a try in the bag very early in the piece, but dropped teh ball. If either one of those tries had been scored, I don't think Wales would have lost.


Flately v Wilkinson in the mud. JW has the points, but EF has a better conversion rate this WC. Should be a dour (oops, I mean 'dire') contest.

Originally posted by Rocket Sheep

Keg, does that mean you're going to take your nice black AB jumper off now?

My hearts still black.

 

[Jacquin]

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAAA!

Need I say more?

 

[fluffy bunny]

well dought England. Personally though I felt it wasn't the best of finals- a tad bored during it

 

[Jacquin]

Originally posted by fluffy bunny
well dought England. Personally though I felt it wasn't the best of finals- a tad bored during it

Huh? Were we watching the same game? Personally I thought my heart had stopped on at least three occasions...

 

[kegasaurus]

Sorry, gotta agree with J here, but that was a beautiful final. No there wasn't any running, no there wasn't fast paced action, but that was a gripping game played in the mud. (By mud I mean as close as it gets in Oz.)

I think it was perfect that JW missed his first two drop goals but hit the 'game breaker.'

Mat Rogers kicking the ball to touch with a minute to go in JW's kicking range, not wise but what can you do.

 

[Nevyn]

 

[kater]

Great final, not sure it beats 95 but damn close, good game and England deserved to win. Did anyone notice how quickly that guy was shoving the aussies medals on their heads? I laughed my a$$ off at that Only problem is its over and now there's nothing to watch or argue about