Rugby Union followers generally have more to say than 'Woohooo' shouts when expressing their appreciation of the game in front of them?
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Is scrum really necessary?
- Thread starter sigesige00
- Start date
Rugby Union followers generally have more to say than 'Woohooo' shouts when expressing their appreciation of the game in front of them?
SimonG
Academy Player
That's cause you can't see over the valleys. The game has its merits.
I haven't....the 600 stoppages per game wrecks the good stuff in between.
I previously never missed a major Rugby Union international...due to the demise of the sport I barely see half a dozen per year.
As a consequence I'm in purgatory...stuck in no mans land. Wanting to see Rugby return to what it was, or if it can't do that then change into something new that will return it to running Rugby.
It's the same sport that has been tweaked.
Oval ball
Pass the ball backwards
Score TRY by putting ball down
Conversion following TRY
Other methods of scoring...Penalty goals, drop goals
Difference
ruck vs play the ball....and that's where Union has the edge
Endless set pieces vs very few...League has the edge.
Same game with each code having a flaw that the other doesn't.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,119
- Reaction score
- 112
The fkg soccer troll again :ranting:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,119
- Reaction score
- 112
SimonG
Academy Player
Ok, let's put this in question form
Why has interest in Union nosedived in Australia?
Why is French flair dead?, and why have the French adopted the stodgy foreign forward orientated game?
Those two things have occurred over the last decade. That's two of what were previously regarded as Rugby Union heavyweights. That just leaves, NZ, South Africa and England.
We used to fear getting ripped open at Twickenham....that's gone. The two teams that havent changed: South Africa have always played a brutish attritional game where they bludgeon teams into submission....this is fine so long as its offset by the other teams continuing to play open running rugby. NZ meanwhile have maintained their high standards.
The game has changed due to a defensive foward dominated game (Clive Woodward had a big impact on this)...a low risk game bogged down with tactics which stifles creativity (which the France have adopted), and increased physicality...players are more bulked up than ever which means there are less gaps, less open running Rugby.
Why has interest in Union nosedived in Australia?
Why is French flair dead?, and why have the French adopted the stodgy foreign forward orientated game?
Those two things have occurred over the last decade. That's two of what were previously regarded as Rugby Union heavyweights. That just leaves, NZ, South Africa and England.
We used to fear getting ripped open at Twickenham....that's gone. The two teams that havent changed: South Africa have always played a brutish attritional game where they bludgeon teams into submission....this is fine so long as its offset by the other teams continuing to play open running rugby. NZ meanwhile have maintained their high standards.
The game has changed due to a defensive foward dominated game (Clive Woodward had a big impact on this)...a low risk game bogged down with tactics which stifles creativity (which the France have adopted), and increased physicality...players are more bulked up than ever which means there are less gaps, less open running Rugby.
Oh no the troll has returned.....
Big Ewis
Hall of Fame
right on the money. You're absolutely right, nothing I can disagree with here. I've been watching a SHIIT TON of 2000's games (2000-2010) the past two weeks as I'm working on 2000's French compilations. A few from the 90's as well in the mix. So my memory is vividly fresh as I type this. I was making those points to myself as the tendencies fortified the more games I laid in front of my eyes, and the clichés all became more and more founded.
Those points are:
- South Africa have indeed always been about forcing go forward onto opposition with brute force and direct confrontation w/o any sort of variation, even way back they had 100+kg wings.
- NZ are the only real champions in the war of Rugby principle and aesthetic values. They've always been great, on all accounts, and have kept the offloading game alive (in an era where two passes in a row make the highlight reel) while keeping the fundamentals in check and their individual talents prolific and rich to burst.
- I know exactly what you mean about (Sir) Clive Woodward having an impact on what's being discussed here, that pragmatic style, the defensive, forward oriented game, the "low risk" common sense although England really were great during those years. It must be said regardless.
As for France, I can tell you for certain we were still relevant in the true Rugby sense, it's almost perfectly a coincidence, a round delimitation, until Lièvremont took over. He wasn't great but wasn't bad - but the point is it's just a coincidence, he happened to have come into office when world Rugby had turned ugly; he's not a cause of the French lack of flair. We were still very much French Flair up until about 2002, with 2003-2005 collecting some fine plays with consistency still, 2006-07 a very slight shift to more sprint-oriented attacks (and less fluid passing and direction changing) and 2008, Laporte out the porte (door) in comes Lièvremont and the new era of Rugby world wide. The 2011 RWC marks yet another change, and yes, yet another step below but that's too off-topic here, let me just wrap this up by saying:
it's become very clear to me what's happened to Rugby. It's become much more efficient, and unfortunately, de facto, much less about a natural flow and continuity but a whole lot more about clinical precision, and, the 'sprint'. It's the era of sprint Rugby, surgical strikes. Offloading becomes a bonus, an absolute highlight, and not an integral part of most attacks like before (like, when we played Rugby the way it was supposed to). Players have bulked up tenfold; even flyhalves for God's sake; and sound defense has become the saving grace for all. There is less space around the park because defenses have analyzed attacks used in past decades and become more advanced, and castrate at the root all thought of the expansive 'romantic' movement.
Players are now terrified with making a play last too long, everything happens in spurts, short spits of Rugby, syncopated, interrupted, an extreme rush of an effort that lasts a few tenths of a second before going to ground for security and accumulate phase sequences. Coaches must've brainpounded players with this. It feels almost suffocating to watch a movement last more than 4 seconds, more than 3 or 4 consecutive passes, to keep the ball alive. It almost feels like the players are farting around and should do the right, sensible thing. Hit the ground.
Because of the acknowledgment of this "improvement" in world Rugby, teams and coaching staffs have adapted overtime and have anticipated the change: they simply coach most of the flair out of players and tell them to be more sound in those other more secure aspects.
2013 was an all-time low in regards to all this, at least in the N.Hemisphere, as in the 6N I think like, 3 tries were scored throughout the entire thing. We saw...defense.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,119
- Reaction score
- 112
1- Why has interest in League nosedived in New Zealand? (Warriors are losing popularity)
2- Why has interest in League nosedived in Ireland?
3- Why has interest in League nosedived in Wales?
4- Why has interest in League nosedived in Scotland?
5- Why has interest in League nosedived in England? (It has always been a sport of the north)
6- Why has interest in League nosedived in France?
7- Why has interest in League nosedived in Argentina?
8- Why has interest in League nosedived in South Africa?
9- Why has interest in League nosedived in Japan?
10- Why has interest in League nosedived in Italy?
Then you think, and among countries with rugby tradition, the only one where the League is more popular than Union is Australia, after in all the other countries, League is almost nonexistent. In Argentina we have no Rugby League teams and we are a country with rugby tradition, we have participated in all WCs.
Rugby League has 3 major countries: Australia, New Zealand and England. The only country where the League is greater than Union is Australia, in New Zealand and England, Union is the dominant code.
So... there's your answer, fkg soccer troll
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,878
- Reaction score
- 15
Yea ok **** you then
The game has two main formations from were to re start the game - the scrum and the line out - these two instances is what differentiate teams and it embodied in the principles of rugby! Team work and effort, especially the scrum! Rugby is a team game in the full sense of the term you can not scrummage unless you achieve a perfect coordination among the eight players. In football or many other collective sports a brilliant player can win a game, in rugby unless you have a brilliant team you can't win a game. Precisely, that is the beauty of Rugby Union! Try to win a game with out an effective scrum! In addition scrummaging has the power to bring up or down a team's morale. If your scrum wins the push and prevails your backs feel encouraged. Bottom line, if you question the need of scrum it means that you do not understand rugby and you should look for another sport! Sorry mate if I came hard on you, but it is the way I see it
Last edited:
Hey Mods!
How about moderating this thread... It has spiraled way off topic... Maybe lock it up.
How about moderating this thread... It has spiraled way off topic... Maybe lock it up.
Just because it's SimonG doesn't mean you should all start bagging League - it's a genuinely great game.
We've been over this a million times now though, the games aren't going to reunite anymore than American football and rugby are.
We've been over this a million times now though, the games aren't going to reunite anymore than American football and rugby are.
I never questioned the "need" for the scrum, just FYI mate... I'm in favour of keeping it. I just dispute certain claims people make about it...
And I didn't really see you as going hard on me there - it was an impassioned defence of the overall importance of the scrum to Rugby, but you didn't actually answer how it offers any significantly greater "tactical" depth to what Rugby League has with its more diminished scrum. Bashing another team's scrum to hurt their moral isn't really a matter of great tactical depth any more than playing a set of 6 where you defend so aggressively that they don't make it out of their 20m zone.
SimonG
Academy Player
Great research Ewis. The issue is, what can be done about it?
Rugby league gets hammered by biased Union folk all the time...now while I'm not a league follower myself having not been brought up on it I have watched a lot more stuff over the past 12 months (2013 RLWC was the first time I really had a good look...and discovered Sam Burgess while I was at it)...and the emphasis on running with the ball in league is what's now missing in Union. The play the ball rule with it's 600 odd stoppages wreck the game but the stuff in between is excellent.
The two factors I've mentioned in the change of Union..increase in defensive, low risk forward orientated game (which stifles creativity), and the increased physicality and bulking up of players. What can be done to counter the change to return the game to more open running rugby?
Some folk on here don't want to address the issue. The alarm bells should have started ringing in Australia years ago...one of what used to be a powerhouse of the game. Now they have players beg for folk to show up to games. The Rugby league Grand final got 5 million viewers in Australia, what does a Wallaby game get nowadays? NZ's recent unbeaten run was watered down by the fact their near neighbours and once great rivals are no longer competitive. Bledisloe Cup..yeah we won...again. Winning a Lions series in Aus is by far the easiest scalp of the three.
For me personally though it's the way France are no longer France that is the most damning of the modern game. They've seen England win a WC through Clive's stifling methods and they have adopted them.
Last edited:
goodNumber10
International
1. Rugby in Australia has nose dived because Australia hasn't had success. If Australia won every game for the next three years through ugly, forward oriented drop goals - rugby would come back. As it is they haven't won against New Zealand in four years and haven't won a Bledisloe Cup in a decade. The sport has been poorly administrated and marketed for the last ten years, and the 'golden era' players have all moved on and been replaced by constant scandals.
2. Why is French flair dead? Because they haven't had a quality coach since 2007. There is plenty of flair when watching the Top 14. 'French flair' is a somewhat euphemistic way of saying 'can produce quality running rugby in games they are expected to lose' and is just as much a stereotype to the French in general. PSA has never been a particularly creative or attack minded coach (despite him having plenty of 'French flair' as a player).
I suggest you watch some of the matches from the Rugby Championship this year. The All Blacks scored 17 tries in the six matches (so roughly 2.8 per game). Let's compare that to 1996 when we had a team full of flair and won every match - we averaged (2.5 per game). In this Rugby Championship there were 49 tries scored in 12 games (averaging 4 tries a game). New Zealand scored 17, South Africa 13, Australia 10 and Argentina 9. As solid as defenses are - it's not as if there aren't some great tries being scores.
In this years 6 Nations there were 64 tries scored over 15 games (again at an average of around 4 tries a game, admittedly some were blow outs against Italy and Scotland). Pick any year you like in the 5 Nations history. It's also funny how England are so often ripped apart for their apparent 'bosh' rugby of Clive Woodward - they held the record for most tries in a 6 Nations series in 2001
with 29 tries).The bulkiness of players argument always sort of amuses me. Let's say the average shoulder width of a rugby player in 1970 is 45cm. That means if there are 15 players lined side by side the would cover 6.75m of the field. Now let's say rugby players shoulder today were absurdly massive and therefore they were at 60cm in width (which would be ridiculous) they would still only cover 9m of a 50m field in width.
I feel your impression of rugby seems to be bogged down in false assumptions.
In terms of the set-pieces, it's fine if you don't enjoy it - but you seem insistent on claiming it's not a valid thing to enjoy. You only have to look at the emphasis Argentina, Italy and France put on having a strong scrum. Personally as a prop I love the scrum, it's an area where you can contest possession and free up space for the backs. You say you like unions rucks etc, but not the set-pieces. Well without those set pieces, there are less tries scored. It's a simply fact that more tries are scored off set pieces than in any given phase of general play - mainly because 16 of the 30 players are utilizing only around (under the previous suggested dimensions...) 1.8m of the 50m width. You can't really play league with rucks for the very basic reason, league is expansive because players are given 10m of free running space after very tackle! You simply wouldn't be able to compete for possession under these circumstances - which is why league only allows a designated number of phases that one is allowed the ball. League you can also try and keep the ball alive more and allow runners to get isolated, for this very reason - there is no competition for the ball! If you find it more attractive than by all means you should watch it - it has an appeal. But it's not as if league is just rugby unions with 'more skill' and less 'time wasting fatties'. There is a simple reason within the rules that league is like it is, and rugby union is not. The downside for league in my opinion is that general play does become pretty predictable in that there is generally three or so hits up, a couple of ambitious runs and then kick away if your not close enough to score.
Big Ewis
Hall of Fame
Well I see what you're saying, but it's not certain that's what happened. You and I have talked about that 2000-2003 England Rugby program and execution and agree that most probably had a (big) impact on how Rugby is played today, but as far as I'm concerned I don't have the necessary *knowledge* of contemporary Rugby history to make such a train of thought a statement. I wish there were some sort of solid documentary or insightful enough documentation online about this, the transformation in world Rugby but from France in particular as the new millennium progressed. I've only watched the stuff; it would be quite fascinating to talk to a Michalak, Rougerie, Traille or Jauzion who've lived through both eras, or even better a Fabien Galthié who was as heavily involved as the IRB player of the year at the start of the 2000's as he is today as a coach and avid Rugby buff.
But can we make such a statement: "France have seen England win a WC through Woodward's stifling methods and they have adopted them" ? Again, the Woodward program has left an indelible mark on world Rugby - everybody'd seen England methodically and patiently work up to the opposition's 22 and Wilko drop and kick in 3, collecting points, staying consistent the whole game and never complicating things, playing a simple ultra risk-free style... - but firstly England's success didn't last long (by 2004 they'd turned mediocre again already) and secondly it took other national sides years after 2003 to start adopting this more condensed, smothering style. If at all: Oceanian Rugby has remained the same (TON, FIJ, AUS) if not better (NZ, SAM); expansive, generous and exciting.
Argentina who were traditionally more about the forwards, scrum, setpiece have been playing a very nice brand of Rugby throughout the 2000's. With Sanchez at the commands and a conscious effort to offload and keep the ball alive, they still do today in 2014.
I'd say the teams that have really suffered from this change in global temperature are Wales (Gatland ball a huge culprit by 2008ish already) and France.
Finally the interesting and confusing thing about France is if you look at the talent there right now, there are tons of very skilled and exciting players throughout. All capable of throwing gorgeous passes on the regular, and much more talent here than I could find in other notable Tier 1 countries *individually*. But it's the setting they play in, the reality of today's diminutive Rugby that can only make them relevant for those short, ephemeral spurts, those jerky brief bits of time.
Think, the last time we were good (2012 EOYT), it was through such circumstances, we didn't have flair during that time but in stead we were relentless at the breakdown, bullied teams in the scrum, and scored on pinpoint accurately executed operations and through strength also. Michalak was leading as the metronome and kicked in everything opposition gave him. Surgical Rugby, no (French) flair.
In Italy rugby league is played officially since very few years,and the italian championship is played in summer and is used as offseason competition by union players
If you noticed it,national team players are italian-australians who play in NRL
