Everyone wants to see more attacking rugby, it's far more fun to watch. But the truth is, it's a highly unreliable and volatile style of play, prone to handling errors, interceptions and a mass of other problems that don't occur when you keep the game tight.
The AB's have been playing that way for about the past 6 years, and every time they come under a huge amount of pressure, they choke. It simply doesn't cope well in crucial moments.
So how do you solve this problem? Noone seems to have a definitive answer. Reducing drop goals from 3 points to 1 or 2 might work, but chances are that instead of doing a drop goal set play, we'll instead see more mauling or short drives, and far more attempts to get the other team to infringe and get a penalty instead. Reducing penalties below 3 is ludicrous, there's already far, far too much illegal play in the game, and reducing the punishment for breaking the rules is stupid.
So you'll continue to see sides like England and France, who emphasise defense and tactical/point kicking, doing well in World Cups. Not taking away from them, but I think the final few matches aren't going to be the exciting, running rugby that I at least was hoping it would be.
Originally posted by JonoKyleAre we forgetting the Australian teams of the 80's with the Ella brothers,the game they played was running rugby and there wasnt the dropped balls,Teams try to force the ball these days and that creates the mistakes,every move or phase doesnt have to score .
Everyone wants to see more attacking rugby, it's far more fun to watch. But the truth is, it's a highly unreliable and volatile style of play, prone to handling errors, interceptions and a mass of other problems that don't occur when you keep the game tight.
The AB's have been playing that way for about the past 6 years, and every time they come under a ...[text shortened]... aren't going to be the exciting, running rugby that I at least was hoping it would be.
Maybe we could allow hands in the ruck and make the breakdown a true contest,bring back the rucking like the good old days,and the breakdown will be a dogfight for possession.
Reducing the penalty to 2 points will allow teams to go for a try ,attacking rugby is not necessarily throwing the ball willy nilly ,if its the short drives then so be it,ball is still in hand.The pick and drive can still be nullified by good defensive teams,like the Wallabies showed against England,like the Frenchj showed against the All Blacks.
At least trial it ,see if it works.
Originally posted by boarmanI've read what you have to say and I don't have a problem with three points for a penalty or drop. So, England didn't score a try but that's not unusual for England.
Are we forgetting the Australian teams of the 80's with the Ella brothers,the game they played was running rugby and there wasnt the dropped balls,Teams try to force the ball these days and that creates the mistakes,every move or phase doesnt have to score .
Maybe we could allow hands in the ruck and make the breakdown a true contest,bring back the rucking ...[text shortened]... st England,like the Frenchj showed against the All Blacks.
At least trial it ,see if it works.
It's a perfectly legitimate way for the attacking team to score points when the opposition infringe. Reducing the number of points won't cut down on penalties awarded, which surely is the problem if you feel there is one.
It's notable that this issue usually comes up when a team loses by penalties.
Originally posted by buffalobillI completely agree with this. I've always found it strange that when a team wins by scoring penalties it's somehow their fault for spoiling the game, rather than the team that keeps offending.
It's a perfectly legitimate way for the attacking team to score points when the opposition infringe. Reducing the number of points won't cut down on penalties awarded, which surely is the problem if you feel there is one.
Decrease the number of points for a penalty and you increase the incentive to commit fouls to prevent tries.
You really want to increase "attacking" rugby - increase the points for a penalty! Make it seven points for a penalty, and I suspect teams would suddenly find themselves able to avoid being offside etc.
(And no, I wouldn't actually do this, but it does demonstrate the point).
Originally posted by boarmanI don't know why you would bring up something like that when speaking about a scoring issue?
Once again i find myself in a debate with you Crowley and your experience at playing rugby lacks mine,as we have worked out in the past.
When talking about technical issues like prop technique, you may know more about it than I do. I played 12 years at flank/lock, so I have some experience there (and the game in general), but seriously, what's the significance of our relative experience on this issue?
Anybody who knows the rules can weigh in equally on a discussion like this.
The only thing I would like to see is more bonus points for teams scoring tries in 'league' matches.
Some thing like:
3 tries - 1 bonus point
5 tries - 2 bonus points
7 or more tries - 3 bonus points
A structure like that would be great for me, giving sides real incentive to not just win games, but win them well.
Changing points scoring now makes no sense. The game is nicely balanced now, points-wise. Opposition needs to score 3 penalties or drop goals to beat a try.
Disciplined sides who score tries and defend well will win games. What more do you want?
SA played a loose game and almost played into the hands of Fiji (and I mean this literally, I think we passed 4 balls straight into their hands).
At the end, we tightened it up and steamrollered their forwards into submission.
Taking nothing away from the Fiji forwards, I was surprised to see them compete well in all phases, except the scrums.
I hope the boks have gotten this looseness out of their system and will just stick to steamrollering the rest of the teams out of the way en route to the cup...
No complaints with the points system here, perhaps drop goals should be one pt but I'm happy to leave it at 3. Pens must stay 3pts..no debate.
One counter attacking try against a team that makes a rare mistake while camped in the opposition half feeding off stress induced penalties doesn't make the try scoring team a winner..
Got up in the middle of the night and turned on the BBC to catch the announcement of My Henry axing. There is to be an inquiry into the earliest ever exit by NZ with emphasis on the rotational policy and resting of players.. Purists here have been slamming Henry for it for 2yrs.
Half our players now leave for European contracts.. probably not able to return for some time.. can't blame them either.. this country is harsh on rugby losers but this is a case where the coach let the men down badly.. the playing 15 was never identified and subsequently lacked game time, hardness and cohesion.
Jock Hobbs NZRFU Chairman says a new AB coach will be appointed by Xmas. Favs are Warren Gatland (Waikato & former Ireland coach) and the highly successful (domestically) Robbie Deans.
Hopefully we'll see a back to heartland basics where every game counts and to wear the black jersey means you are one of the best 15 players the country..
I laughed with coverage of the Scots fans in fancy dress singing and dancing.. they optimistically hope to beat England in the final of the World Cup. hahaha good on them and good luck.
I see SA disposed of Fiji but the BBC said they struggled to do it.. the scoreline 37-20. with two late tries saving the day of the boks.
Originally posted by Tirau DanYes. Fiji scored two tries to come back to 20-20 with 20 minutes to go. And then twice came within inches of scoring another try (one knock-on inches from the line, one superb tackle that stopped a player grounding the ball even though he was over the line). If either of those had gone differently, SA would have been under real pressure.
I see SA disposed of Fiji but the BBC said they struggled to do it.. the scoreline 37-20. with two late tries saving the day of the boks.
Originally posted by Tirau DanNo doubt Carter would have dropped into the pocket to put over the drop goal when NZ were on France's goal line in the last few moments. The lack of a player to take that position ultimately cost NZ the win, IMHO.
No complaints with the points system here, perhaps drop goals should be one pt but I'm happy to leave it at 3. Pens must stay 3pts..no debate.
I don't think you can knock the rotation policy. It looked like he needed them all in the match against France. Eddie O'Sullivan is getting flack for not blooding enough players over the past couple of years, so when our 1st 15 didn't perform, we had very few experienced options.
D
Originally posted by Tirau DanA goodly portion of the SA players are heading north too. I suppose in NZ if you lose, someone's got to be sacrificed. Never mind results to date, the WC counts.
Got up in the middle of the night and turned on the BBC to catch the announcement of My Henry axing. There is to be an inquiry into the earliest ever exit by NZ with emphasis on the rotational policy and resting of players.. Purists here have been slamming Henry for it for 2yrs.
Half our players now leave for European contracts.. probably not able to r ...[text shortened]... they struggled to do it.. the scoreline 37-20. with two late tries saving the day of the boks.
Meanwhile in SA, we don't even wait for the cup to be over. The coaches' job was advertised this week.
Originally posted by mtthwJesus, I have no nails left!
Yes. Fiji scored two tries to come back to 20-20 with 20 minutes to go. And then twice came within inches of scoring another try (one knock-on inches from the line, one superb tackle that stopped a player grounding the ball even though he was over the line). If either of those had gone differently, SA would have been under real pressure.
I was getting some real respect for those Fijians, until that last quarter, when they got real pissy and started hitting, slapping the SA players and generally just turning the game ugly.
Originally posted by CrowleyThought the South Africans gave it back to them. Great game though
Jesus, I have no nails left!
I was getting some real respect for those Fijians, until that last quarter, when they got real pissy and started hitting, slapping the SA players and generally just turning the game ugly.
Delighted to see the Aussies out, but what a shock I wasn't expecting it and France perhaps the ABs were over confordent.
Argentina seem to have it in the bag in the last qtr
can someone clear this up for me?
the top 8 from last years world cup where seeded this year. was the top 4 seeded the same way?
and is it the same in 4 years?
i mean if the top 4 are seeded from this world cup we could see a group with south africa, new zeeland and ireland in the next world cup.
or argentina, fiji and 3 crap teams.
scary.
Originally posted by trevor33The semi finalists are the seeded teams for the next cup all the rest except the host nation have to play in qualifying games.
can someone clear this up for me?
the top 8 from last years world cup where seeded this year. was the top 4 seeded the same way?
and is it the same in 4 years?
i mean if the top 4 are seeded from this world cup we could see a group with south africa, new zeeland and ireland in the next world cup.
or argentina, fiji and 3 crap teams.
scary.
NZ are the 2011 hosts otherwise they were going to have to play the likes of Iceland or Sri Lanka to qualify.