A quick overview of the Rugby world

[Big Ewis]

This isn't an article-type post or anything, I'm just thinking out loud, maybe someone wants to add his view on the thing.

I really like England atm, wouldn't have thought it possible just a brief time ago.
They're the only team I like with NZ and Aus atm. France are too shhitty really to support but I'll do it still , SA are hard to enjoy watching. They win, but who the fk as a neutral wants to watch guys walk over others ? Argentina are no longer enjoyable, neither are Gatland-run Wales; and Italy and Scotland are barely keeping their heads above Tier 1 level atm, with Italy clearly dropping into Tier 2, no debate.
Ireland are pretty good now too. Don't like em as much as during the O'Gara years.
Samoa have dropped tremendously since their unprecedented rise in 2012. That was impressive.
Fiji can't fkng play Rugby. They have athletes like very few...nay, like NO other country for Rugby - but seriously there's no brains there.
Tonga haven't looked like the kind of side that can upset bigger nations in a while.
Haven't seen Canada, the US or Georgia play since last November.
Japan are on the rise but still not good enough to attract Tier 1 nation watchers.

It's not a great era for Rugby and to be objective, I think the only teams that are really worth-while are NZ, SA, AUS, ENG and IRE.
Anybody feel this way ?

 

[jbobo1]

Argentina are no longer enjoyable, neither are Gatland-run Wales and Italy and Scotland are barely keeping their heads above Tier 1 level atm

Not forgetting France...

although i wouldn't discount Wales too soon, were certainly a good step ahead of Italy and Scotland...And we provide more excitement than any of these teams mentioned above.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

why scotland ? i'll give you that one Jbobo1 but i think we looked like tier 2 in the 6 nations but i think scotland are taking a step up, and i think that Samoa should be a tier 2 atleast soon btw does someone have highlights to that game ?

 

[ratsapprentice]

I disagree on Japan - I'm very interested as to what sort of style they'll develop as they creep towards Tier 1.

 

[jbobo1]

I didn't mean it as a confirmation of Ewis' opinion. More than if you are going to mention these teams as possible tier two teams, then I would argue that you cannot realistically class Wales as one of those nations. Indeed i believe France would be more of a candidate in that discussion easily. For the record, i don't regard Scotland as a tier two nation.

- Scotty

 

[Big Ewis]

I disagree on Japan - I'm very interested as to what sort of style they'll develop as they creep towards Tier 1.

well what they've always been. Pretty damn good combination work in the backline for a Tier 2 team, quick and witty Rugby, and very fast sprinters. They did actually show good scrummaging when NZ passed by some months ago, so that's encouraging. I too am eager to see what they'll become with their Top League growing so fast, but I'm saying I won't watch them right now with as much interest as I watch Tier 1 nations.


































Pantera.

 

[Big Ewis]

I didn't mean it as a confirmation of Ewis' opinion. More than if you are going to mention these teams as possible tier two teams, then I would argue that you cannot realistically class Wales as one of those nations. Indeed i believe France would be more of a candidate in that discussion easily. For the record, i don't regard Scotland as a tier two nation.

- Scotty

Oh no man, I meant Scotland and Italy (being close to Tier 2), obviously not Wales made it more clear by adding a semi-colon.
Although Wales aren't scaring too many teams anymore, man. I think the Aussies and English are easing into the idea of that "pool of death" in a year more and more overtime. Remember how we all thought it was the Pool of Death, the sickest pool of all-time in rugby history of the history of histories ?? Well right now, it kinda just looks like the home-favorite along with the token SANZAR nation and then an average world class side.
It's still the most dense pool, but Wales have lost a whole lot of their scare factor over other sides.

 

[SomeOke]

Australia win 6-0 today and you prefer them over us who scored 5 tries, 4 of which were in the outside backs and created by a bit of space and a bit of brilliance. What exactly do you want us to do to be "worthy" of you may I ask .

I'll take it as a complement though haha.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Oh no man, I meant Scotland and Italy (being close to Tier 2), obviously not Wales made it more clear by adding a semi-colon.
Although Wales aren't scaring too many teams anymore, man. I think the Aussies and English are easing into the idea of that "pool of death" in a year more and more overtime. Remember how we all thought it was the Pool of Death, the sickest pool of all-time in rugby history of the history of histories ?? Well right now, it kinda just looks like the home-favorite along with the token SANZAR nation and then an average world class side.
It's still the most dense pool, but Wales have lost a whole lot of their scare factor over other sides.

Maybe Wales feel they need to return to the ranking they had when they got put in the pool in the first place? I've never seen a side decline so rapidly.

 

[Big Ewis]

Australia win 6-0 today and you prefer them over us who scored 5 tries, 4 of which were in the outside backs and created by a bit of space and a bit of brilliance. What exactly do you want us to do to be "worthy" of you may I ask .

I'll take it as a complement though haha.

In stead of telling you what I like in Rugby, I'll tell you what South Africa are, and why it doesn't appeal to me. It's more pertinent and less leaky:
South Africa are giant white men with black guys in the backline who run super fast. They insure basic passing to communicate the ball, but make sure they smash into opponents every time. They rather roll over opponents. They're rather all confrontational. And Rugby becomes a matter of who is biggest, i.e. something I want no part of.
Surely, you'll take this as an offense and start throwing verbal spears at me, but it is merely my understanding of a very simple reality and my laying it down. I don't hate the Boks, or any of their fans or SA in general. But this is how it is, and I don't find it appealing.
Oh and, I wouldn't call the S.A. tries today brilliant.

The opposite of that is Australia, which I happen to have always been a fan of, and then the All-blacks aren't far but aren't as thin and thoroughly backline-oriented as the Aussies.
I'm all for forward play and ruggedness and all, but when Rugby is a matter of size up front and then guys who run straight really really fast, I sort of lose focus and interest. I dunno, it's just the way I am.

As for taking whatever for a compliment, I have no clue what you're on about but that's highly unimportant.

 

[SomeOke]

In stead of telling you what I like in Rugby, I'll tell you what South Africa are, and why it doesn't appeal to me. It's more pertinent and less leaky:
South Africa are giant white men with black guys in the backline who run super fast. They insure basic passing to communicate the ball, but make sure they smash into opponents every time. They rather roll over opponents. They're rather all confrontational. And Rugby becomes a matter of who is biggest, i.e. something I want no part of.
Surely, you'll take this as an offense and start throwing verbal spears at me, but it is merely my understanding of a very simple reality and my laying it down. I don't hate the Boks, or any of their fans or SA in general. But this is how it is, and I don't find it appealing.
Oh and, I wouldn't call the S.A. tries today brilliant.

The opposite of that is Australia, which I happen to have always been a fan of, and then the All-blacks aren't far but aren't as thin and thoroughly backline-oriented as the Aussies.
I'm all for forward play and ruggedness and all, but when Rugby is a matter of size up front and then guys who run straight really really fast, I sort of lose focus and interest. I dunno, it's just the way I am.

As for taking whatever for a compliment, I have no clue what you're on about but that's highly unimportant.

I understand what you're saying and I can appreciate your opinion but I do think that your opinion might be biased before you even started, if you look at the tries today from South Africa they certainly were created by good vision and skills by the outside backs.

All sides try to create space for their backs by dominating up front, this tactic is so central to rugby that if a team doesn't adhere to it they cannot play rugby. I would content that Aus today did not perform well because none of their forwards have the ball carrying ability of the Saffers, meaning that they never had front foot ball, and their backs never had a chance because they were out-muscled up front. In other words physicality up front is necessary for all of rugby and that doesn't mean that South Africa (especially at the moment) doesn't have the creativity to cross the whitewash.

tl:dr: South Africa will always contend up front but that is not how we finished the game off today.

 

[TRF_heineken]

In stead of telling you what I like in Rugby, I'll tell you what South Africa are, and why it doesn't appeal to me. It's more pertinent and less leaky:
South Africa are giant white men with black guys in the backline who run super fast. They insure basic passing to communicate the ball, but make sure they smash into opponents every time. They rather roll over opponents. They're rather all confrontational. And Rugby becomes a matter of who is biggest, i.e. something I want no part of.
Surely, you'll take this as an offense and start throwing verbal spears at me, but it is merely my understanding of a very simple reality and my laying it down. I don't hate the Boks, or any of their fans or SA in general. But this is how it is, and I don't find it appealing.
Oh and, I wouldn't call the S.A. tries today brilliant.

The opposite of that is Australia, which I happen to have always been a fan of, and then the All-blacks aren't far but aren't as thin and thoroughly backline-oriented as the Aussies.
I'm all for forward play and ruggedness and all, but when Rugby is a matter of size up front and then guys who run straight really really fast, I sort of lose focus and interest. I dunno, it's just the way I am.

As for taking whatever for a compliment, I have no clue what you're on about but that's highly unimportant.

That's a very biased one-eyes approach from you.

What we did was to play at a tempo that Wales couldn't keep up with. Our creative players used the space and their BRAINS, not brawn to create the tries.

Every nation uses their forwards to bash into the opposition, trying to draw in defenders to make space for the more creative backs.

Willie's vision today was brilliant, he saw Wales defending flat, so he chipped over them to create the try for Habana.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the basic way of distribution in rugby by doing basic passing?

 

[Big Ewis]

well yeah guys I obviously understand all that. But bringing up basic Rugby notions like the forwards work allows back play or South Africa having more pace than Wales in specifically today's test won't change everything else I've said. How is it I have taste for the sport of Rugby but not for the Boks' style ? How is it I can appreciate other sides but not the Boks ? Even going through what the Boks do in far greater detail won't magically make me appreciate them.
Regardless they're too big, too powerful, and in Rugby power often beats skill and I've got the Springboks as the 2015 RWC winners...

 

[barkinghooker]

Hey Ewis. Not put much thourght in to it but how about having weight limits in the 15 and subs? Maximum of 850 kg per pack? Maybe lighter?

 

[Feicarsinn]

What a silly thread.

 

[TRF_heineken]

What a silly thread.

Agreed! It's like Windows giving you a cyclic redundancy error...

 

[Big Ewis]

Hey Ewis. Not put much thourght in to it but how about having weight limits in the 15 and subs? Maximum of 850 kg per pack? Maybe lighter?

well yeah somebody proposed the idea earlier in some other thread, I think it was SimonG. I'm not entirely against it, but I mean I guess it's that fluctuation in weight and how teams play with or around it that's interesting...although there will come a time when your flanker will need to be at least 110kg or so, or he simply won't be able to compete in the rucks.

Feic and heineken: and yet you take the time to read up and comment still, now who's the silly one

 

[barkinghooker]

I think scrums should be abandoned or have the ref feed the ball in. I don't have a rule book with me but ive always assumed the ball must be fed in the middle. Or is there an imaginary square the ball can go in? Anyway I've always felt scrum feeds are a bit wrong and now when a team slightly goes backwarda the other team gets a penalty when the team slightly going back are still holding and straight? How about reducing to a five man scrum? I'm bit of a fan of sevens and dreamed of a format where it's 10-12 a side. I think they do such a thing in Malaysia? I don't think it would make it a basketball spectacle either. Anyway I better shut up before purists destroy me here :s


Back to the scrums. If the ref feeds the ball in theres no pissballing about waiting for the SH to stop pausing and put the ball in. At least the ref can talk to both sides to tell them when the contest starts.

 

[Big Ewis]

I think scrums should be abandoned or have the ref feed the ball in. I don't have a rule book with me but ive always assumed the ball must be fed in the middle. Or is there an imaginary square the ball can go in? Anyway I've always felt scrum feeds are a bit wrong and now when a team slightly goes backwarda the other team gets a penalty when the team slightly going back are still holding and straight? How about reducing to a five man scrum? I'm bit of a fan of sevens and dreamed of a format where it's 10-12 a side. I think they do such a thing in Malaysia? I don't think it would make it a basketball spectacle either. Anyway I better shut up before purists destroy me here :s


Back to the scrums. If the ref feeds the ball in theres no pissballing about waiting for the SH to stop pausing and put the ball in. At least the ref can talk to both sides to tell them when the contest starts.

I can't agree with your views there, but then again you're a hooker (I presume) and I've never scrummaged in my life so you have the advantage of practice over the only yapping that I can provide !
I love scrums...but it's interesting to read such a view from a frontrower.

 

[Tony Manx]

I can't agree with your views there, but then again you're a hooker (I presume) and I've never scrummaged in my life so you have the advantage of practice over the only yapping that I can provide !
I love scrums...but it's interesting to read such a view from a frontrower.

I have played prop and hooker and even wing forward.....and dear old Barkinghooker is exactly that....barking!

Take away the scrum and you take away what union is all about...you might as well go to Aussies rules and have the ref chuck the ball up in the air!

The day they do away with the powered scrum is the day I give up watching the game!