14 Sep 07
Originally posted by buffalobillI am an England patriotic fanatic,What can I say we were out played outthought out muscled and totally stuffed.well done S.A. you deserved it.
SA 36 - England 0.
An easy win and SA were cruising at the end. England with the exception of Robinson were woeful and completely at sixes and sevens. The pack were completely anonymous. On this performance I'm tempted to wager some money on Samoa over England.
Very satisfying if you're a SA supporter and I feel they still have some gas in the tank to move up a gear.
14 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by smartrrrrsWhat must be deeply distressing is how far backwards England have moved in four years. There were only six in the starting lineup under 30. I mean for goodness' sake - you've had four years to build a new team. What I saw today were a bunch of yesterday's men - and that was even without Dallaglio!
I am an England patriotic fanatic,What can I say we were out played outthought out muscled and totally stuffed.well done S.A. you deserved it.
By way of contrast, SA have a great mix of youth and experience, ranging from the 20 year-old Steyn to the 35 of Du Randt. Same goes for NZ, but not so for Australia. I wonder if that will make the difference when they meet?
14 Sep 07
Originally posted by buffalobillWas weird, eh.
SA 36 - England 0.
An easy win and SA were cruising at the end. England with the exception of Robinson were woeful and completely at sixes and sevens. The pack were completely anonymous. On this performance I'm tempted to wager some money on Samoa over England.
Very satisfying if you're a SA supporter and I feel they still have some gas in the tank to move up a gear.
The English looked unfit, the forwards were never really in the game, the backs, except Robinson, lacked direction and pace. They were ill-disciplined and nobody looked like they wanted to put their hand up and give the team direction. Catt and Ferrel are two of the worst players I've seen in the world cup this year - the English really missed Wilkinson.
The boks looked composed all the way, everybody did well.
Special mention to Fourie du Preez, who had an amazing game and Wikus Van Heerden showed that we won't miss Burger too much.
All the forwards did well, except for those 2 scrum turn-overs. Steyn was comfortable and James had a great kicking game. Percy was his cool and collected self.
I just hope we don't play this kicking game against the likes of France, Aus or the All Blacks, because those teams will actually do something on the counter-attack.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94207
15 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyThat is exactly what SA needed to boost their campaign. The Boks tactical kicking was superb, and neither Farrell nor Catt were able to come up with an sort of credible reply. (I would not be surprised to see Wilkinson at 10 and Barkley at 12 against the Samoans, providing both are fit.)
Was weird, eh.
The English looked unfit, the forwards were never really in the game, the backs, except Robinson, lacked direction and pace. They were ill-disciplined and nobody looked like they wanted to put their hand up and give the team direction. Catt and Ferrel are two of the worst players I've seen in the world cup this year - the English really misse Aus or the All Blacks, because those teams will actually do something on the counter-attack.
The Boks still have some work to do before they can challenge the truly Tier 1 teams (they certainly need to cut out all the dropped balls, which incidentally England made no moves to capitalize on).
Essentially, the game was over as soon as the Boks scored the early try -- it put England's Plan A out of the window and made them try to play Rugby from all over the park (other than Robinson, however, there was no threat. Again, why Noon?)
A well deserved win for the South Africans, they played a clinical game against a weaker opposition, and are well on the road to the final now.
P.S. I'll certainly be cheering on Wales with all my heart tomorrow! Any guesses as to why?
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by buffalobillI'm just discovering this great game (I now have Setanta so I can watch the WC) and am looking to learn much more.
England with the exception of Robinson were woeful and completely at sixes and sevens.
What does "sixes and sevens" mean?
Thanks in advance.
15 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eagles54It basically means the team's structure was broken, usually used by commentators when commenting on the defence of one team while the opposition is attacking.
I'm just discovering this great game (I now have Setanta so I can watch the WC) and am looking to learn much more.
What does "sixes and sevens" mean?
Thanks in advance.
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by CrowleyThanks!
It basically means the team's structure was broken, usually used by commentators when commenting on the defence of one team while the opposition is attacking.
I can't believe I was never aware of this game before. The skill and the action are incredible. I'm enjoying the WC immensely.
What a n00b, I thought there was only one definition of a "hooker." 😀
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagles54We will win you Americans over from the dark side yet.
Thanks!
I can't believe I was never aware of this game before. The skill and the action are incredible. I'm enjoying the WC immensely.
What a n00b, I thought there was only one definition of a "hooker." 😀
The USA could probably become a strong rugby playing nation with your football background.
Rugby has many - and some strange - rules to people just watching for the first time and referees play a big role in their interpretation, which I beieve is much different from what you're used to in American football?
Enjoy the world cup and don't be afraid to ask if you don't understand something.
15 Sep 07
Thanks for the insight guys and I'll definitely avail myself of your help.
One thing that's perplexing is that I have no idea what the fouls are. The whistle will blow and I have no idea what the infraction is even though I was probably looking right at it. I guess that will come in time.
I'm hoping by the time the next WC rolls around that the US will have made some strides towards popularizing the sport more. It's a great game with outstanding athleticism and intelligence required. It just needs more exposure here and I think people would really go for it.
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by CrowleyAcutally, I thought we missed the like of Burger a lot. Did you notice how few turnovers we made? A class fetcher is essential at this level and Van Heerden is not a fetcher (despite his other qualities) unlike Burger or Watson (who is not in the squad).
Wikus Van Heerden showed that we won't miss Burger too much.
All the forwards did well, except for those 2 scrum turn-overs. Steyn was comfortable and James had a great kicking game. Percy was his cool and collected self.
I just hope we don't play this kicking game against the likes of France, Aus or the All Blacks, because those teams will actually do something on the counter-attack.
Great teams have great fetchers.
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagles54Welcome to the fold, Eagles. I love the game and particularly the world cup.
Thanks for the insight guys and I'll definitely avail myself of your help.
One thing that's perplexing is that I have no idea what the fouls are. The whistle will blow and I have no idea what the infraction is even though I was probably looking right at it. I guess that will come in time.
I'm hoping by the time the next WC rolls around that the US wil ...[text shortened]... igence required. It just needs more exposure here and I think people would really go for it.
You're not alone in being perplexed by fouls - most spectators and even referees are too with their different interpretations! Unfortunately, rugby has a myriad of rules and infrigements and they're being tweaked all the time in the interests of keeping the game flowing and of safety. It's a dangerous sport being contact and all - the most serious being neck fractures.
Perhaps the two most common that would confuse you would be at the maul and loose scrum. And then offside.
The maul occurs when three or more players are in contact with each other contesting for the ball and the ball is being held off the ground. The third player can join from any side (correct me here, guys!) in which case it is a maul. Here more players can join in but only from behind and contest for the ball. You're not allowed to pull the maul down unless it is in the act of contesting the ball.
If the maul goes to ground and the ball is on the ground it is a loose scrum and players are no longer allowed to use their hands unless it is in the act of placing the ball backwards. Players are only allowed to join from behind the last feet - not from the side. You're allowed to push players off the ball and use your feet (judiciously).
If the maul goes to ground and the ball is off the ground, the referee will generally call a scrum to the side going forward. If the maul was not going forward, the scrum will go against the side that was in possession. (big win for the defending side).
Loose scrums also occur when a player is tackled with the ball. Here, the third player joining is not allowed to dive on the players on the ground but may pick up the ball if he is on his feet. The tackled player is allowed to place the ball but otherwise must release it. An isolated player who is tackled often tries to hold on as long as possible to wait for support. Once the third player is off his feet or other players join, it is a loose scrum. No hands. One the ball is out of the scrum it is in open play.
Offside. Generally speaking, players must be behind the ball carrier to be onside. A forward pass is obviously then a pass going to a player in front of the ball carrier. In a scrum situation, players must be behind the last line of feet in the scrum.
Referees make a big difference to the game with their styles and interpretations of the rules. Most important is that they must be consistent in their rulings - even if they're wrong! Inconsistent refereeing leads to scrappy, ill-tempered games. My favourite referee of all is Jonathan Kaplan - you'll see that all his games are generally clean, free flowing matches with lots of tries scored.
The powerhouses of rugby are NZ, SA, Australia and France - England are reigning champs but have fallen away badly. The also-rans are Ireland, Wales and Argentina.
Sadly, the US is not going to take much to the game which will always be on the fringes next to gridiron.
15 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by buffalobillSure, Burger is a class player and there aren't too many players who can match him at breakdown and defence, save McCaw and George Smith.
Acutally, I thought we missed the like of Burger a lot. Did you notice how few turnovers we made? A class fetcher is essential at this level and Van Heerden is not a fetcher (despite his other qualities) unlike Burger or Watson (who is not in the squad).
Great teams have great fetchers.
But I also believe Burger is sometimes overrated a bit - he is not a playmaker, which is the only thing some other flankers out-do him in and Wikus is definitely underrated. Van Heerden won 2 (or maybe 3?) turnovers for us and he was always there or there-abouts, although he doesn't have the skills of Burger at the breakdown.
Van Heerden did a good job and the only person who could've done it better was Burger. I think we have ample depth in Van Heerden.
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by RagnorakActually, it's a polite way of saying they didn't know their a***holes from their elbows.
"sixes and sevens" isn't strictly a rugby term. It just basically means all over the place or disorganised.
If you're enjoying the world cup now, wait until the evenly matched games are more common.
D