"Best" Era in world Rugby history

[tituslechmakus]

And ? Is it the best that English backline can do ? Not very impressed ! Tindall gets caught by the Ireland 11 ...

That is a centre :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI_af4TUYRU

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Fofana isn't fit to clean the dog crap out of Greenwood's garden.

 

[Big Ewis]

well @***uslechmakus SimonG is right in that world Rugby moved in that direction because of what teams had successfully achieved through it, although it was inevitable. To beat a great attacking team, you need great defense. Rugby is also a sport where moving forward means everything. It was inevitable our flair or any other good attacking team's would meet too tough defense eventually; staffs were going to patiently sit down, analyze and concoct some way to counter those movements and it was only a matter of time until we got to this point we're in now, especially with the event of the pro era kicking in.
At Rugby, you can win with JUST defense and really good forwards as long as you also keep your discipline under control (although yes against a very good team, the AB, it's hard to win with that). A low risk type game. Make the points from the boot. Those are all the characteristics of a team that wants to win through consistency.

Laporte understood that, and Lièvremont too (remember 2010 we won the last game against England by playing English, but we earned a Grand Slam), but it's Saint-André that has completely made us into a caricature of that system. All defense, NO ATTACK to be found. He's also simply bad at strategy and game plan in its entirety and a completely unfit int'l coach, but that's somethin else..

I do think watching Woodward's England - forward pressure, HUGE defense, great discipline, low risk game plan, big scrum, collect points from tee AND if Jason Robinson and Will Greenwood and maybe Ben Cohen can add some, then let's take it, it's bonus all the merrier - has changed things the way the world has looked at Rugby. In 2003, there was still some French flair and some wide open Rugby being played, remember...how things have changed gradually, and how flair has died out since then. Not to blame England, a scapegoat. Just thinking out loud and converging with SimonG's thoughts.

Fofana isn't fit to clean the dog crap out of Greenwood's garden.

It's absolutely stunning and amazing I get called for BS on this website when there's the occasional TROlly masterpiece. Interesting what privileges being a staff person can grant !

 

[SimonG]

I kinda see the point the French fella is making. England had a very good backline (11-15) with one superstar in Robinson. The other four were very competent mind...rock solid defensively and while not world beaters they were decent in attack. France, Australia, New Zealand and probably South Aftica were more gifted..plus the Lions backline had only Robinson as a definite English starter.

What was untouchable was the pack and the boot of Wilkinson which suffocated everything in its path, hence 10 man Rugby label. Victory in New Zealand with 13 men, victory over France in the semi, victory in the final over Australia (with Robinsons try).

 

[psychic duck]

And ? Is it the best that English backline can do ? Not very impressed ! Tindall gets caught by the Ireland 11 ...

That is a centre :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI_af4TUYRU

Greenwood was massively underrated by a casual Highlight Reel Harry. He created space and time for the backline and many of the backline at that time played their best rugby with him along side. Just to back up the point, here's a 'not so good' centre creating a try with some great handling against one of the best teams in the world back in 2003. At his peak he would be up there as one of the best European centres of the professional era.

<object width="425" height="344">
<embed src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=c2USK9DolxU&start=198&end=206&cid=3855380" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Greenwood was class. Could tackle, had a good pair of hands and most importantly could read the game.


@Big Ewis Play nicely please.

 

[SimonG]

He (Greenwood) was never a difference maker though.

Had England shared 50:50 ball possession and relied on 11 to 15 to win them the game, they wouldn't have won many against Aus, Fra, NZ and SA.

They had a pack that hogged possession, and a kicker who kicked just about everything.

 

[Patchey]

Fofana isn't fit to clean the dog crap out of Greenwood's garden.

This x9,000

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I like how ***us says that England try isn't impressive then shows a try that is a guy running fast, in a straight line, and is only scored because Ashton literally stepped out of his way to avoid making a tackle.

 

[Aristodemus]

Greenwood was indeed amazing. I really liked Lewsey too, he was ready to murder anyone cheeky enough to break the line. Those anthems too <3

 

[Big Ewis]

I kinda see the point the French fella is making. England had a very good backline (11-15) with one superstar in Robinson. The other four were very competent mind...rock solid defensively and while not world beaters they were decent in attack. France, Australia, New Zealand and probably South Aftica were more gifted..plus the Lions backline had only Robinson as a definite English starter.

What was untouchable was the pack and the boot of Wilkinson which suffocated everything in its path, hence 10 man Rugby label. Victory in New Zealand with 13 men, victory over France in the semi, victory in the final over Australia (with Robinsons try).

3 very good examples indeed. The win in NZ came from monumental defense, pressure up front, and an unbelievable kicking performance from Jonny Wilkinson. He shouldn't have made at very least one of those kicks, anyone else would've missed a few, and Eng would've lost.
The game against France was a great disillusion for the French...we've put 40 or 50 past everybody til that semi, incl Tier 1 nations in SCO and IRE, and we knew we could beat them as we'd come close in Twickenham some months prior
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwT0wzU8XN4
and did beat them in that warmup game at home (but got SMASHED in the return game !!... ). The look on our players' faces at the end...we'd been defeated by a pack and Wilko's boot, a great disillusion. All the effort we'd put in, physically, emotionally, and yet...a superior strategy had undone us. Nothing flair or heroic devotion could win against.

This x9,000

hmm...so you admit you're retarded times nine thousand then ! (joke)

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What team has just won the Word Cup? Germany...the best attacking team in the world

Which team won the last rugby world cup?
New Zealand.....the best attacking team in the world.

 

[SelimNiai]

I'm astounded Simon_G hasn't ruined this thread... it's tailor made for him.

You had to say it didnt you

 

[Canuck]

Greenwood was class. Could tackle, had a good pair of hands and most importantly could read the game.

Yep I always rated Greenwood very highly and feel many people underestimate him as an impact player. I remember him constantly breaking the line against the SH teams, especially the ABs. There were a few games against NZL were he was one of the top 3 or 4 players on the field on either team.

To say he was never a difference maker is a bit strange. I would rate him the best inside centre since Horan, with De Villiers, Jauzion, Giteau (although a completely different style of centre) and Umaga (although he only played inside centre in the last couple years of his international career) just behind him.

 

[big ginger 8]

And ? Is it the best that English backline can do ? Not very impressed ! Tindall gets caught by the Ireland 11 ...

That is a centre :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI_af4TUYRU

If you can find a centre that Denis Hickie wouldn't have caught then I'll be impressed.

 

[Big Ewis]

Which team won the last rugby world cup?
New Zealand.....the best attacking team in the world.

it's not because no one is on the AB's level that the style they practice is de facto, in an unconditional way, the model to follow. Scoring tries gets you 7 points, so in its constructs Rugby still mathematically favors an attacking team. But it takes such schemes, such combinations and relentless training in today's Rugby to become that proficient offensively that most teams go for sound defense first of all; look even the 10 must be a fkng 90kg stud; need a good kicker to put the pts on the bored, sorry *the board and then play a monumental battle at the breakdown. The attacking game from most teams is not about the offload, that is today an anomaly, a very highlight of a match; it is ruck, one pass, ruck, one pass, and going the width of the pitch left and right, left and right, until maybe a monstrous center can clean break and if the team is really really good they can string a whopping 3 or 4 passes for the score.
About New Zealand, recently they almost lost to France at the RWC final, France in Paris last Nov, and England in Test 1 this year. Neither those opponents for the day were close to being potent attacking-wise, and the match certainly could've gone their way.

I still love today's Rugby, for various reasons, but I had to adapt my taste for the game just as the game has changed so much.

Look:
I'm going to release my latest New Millennium French Flair compilation and post it on these pages soon in the Clubhouse, it'll be a "short" 7min best-of compilation, unlike the 4 archive videos I made before that. Watch it if you wish (whoever reads this) and maybe the motions on display along with the chosen soundtrack can move you and remind you a little bit of how great Rugby was/can be, and will put things in perspective as to today's methods and "aesthetics".

 

[dasNdanger]

I think it has yet to happen.

You could look back in the past (pre-pro) and say there were some great games and great players. You could look at the early pro-years and say there were great games, great players, and growing interest in the sport worldwide. But ever since then the game has evolved rapidly, and is still evolving, so I think the greatest era will come when the rugby union game finds its pace and settles down a bit (change-wise), and (hopefully) becomes a universally competitive game enjoyed by all, and not just a select few 'rugby' nations.


das

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I kinda see the point the French fella is making. England had a very good backline (11-15) with one superstar in Robinson. The other four were very competent mind...rock solid defensively and while not world beaters they were decent in attack. France, Australia, New Zealand and probably South Aftica were more gifted..plus the Lions backline had only Robinson as a definite English starter.

So the English backline were not world beaters despite the fact they er beat the world? Laughable... The English squad went into the world cup with an unbeaten record vs SH and beat the ABs when down to 13 men! You honestly think that was all down to forwards!? Stop talking out of your arse.

 

[Big Ewis]

So the English backline were not world beaters despite the fact they er beat the world? Laughable... The English squad went into the world cup with an unbeaten record vs SH and beat the ABs when down to 13 men! You honestly think that was all down to forwards!? Stop talking out of your arse.

yes. For a large majority. England didn't score a try that game or look particularly threatening on attack. But listen we're on a bad dynamic, I'm tired of silly online "confrontations" (quotes, cause that ain't what confrontation is..). I'm just saying, dude, have you seen that game ? Defense, a big pack and Wilko's boot (despite the crazy wind). NZ couldn't score on England down to 13 for a little while but ironically their try came when England were back to 15.

On a more global note, yes England had a nice backline but I'm with Simon or ***us on this one. Robinson was a one-off who instilled panic in the opposing defensive ranks. Cohen a big boy and good winger, Greenwood a very good center (maybe more). They had guys here and there like Tindall, Lewsey but they weren't what the opponents feared. As a Frenchman watching England from that era, I keep an eye on Robinson for obvious reasons, enjoyed Greenwood's game and looked for Cohen for his power.

But the scariest thing about England during those days was their organization, teamwork and chemistry to work methodically, patiently and simply. The scariest guys on that England side were Wilko, Robinson and Woodward.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

yes. For a large majority. England didn't score a try that game or look particularly threatening on attack. But listen we're on a bad dynamic, I'm tired of silly online "confrontations" (quotes, cause that ain't what confrontation is..). I'm just saying, dude, have you seen that game ? Defense, a big pack and Wilko's boot (despite the crazy wind). NZ couldn't score on England down to 13 for a little while but ironically their try came when England were back to 15.

On a more global note, yes England had a nice backline but I'm with Simon or ***us on this one. Robinson was a one-off who instilled panic in the opposing defensive ranks. Cohen a big boy and good winger, Greenwood a very good center (maybe more). They had guys here and there like Tindall, Lewsey but they weren't what the opponents feared. As a Frenchman watching England from that era, I keep an eye on Robinson for obvious reasons, enjoyed Greenwood's game and looked for Cohen for his power.

But the scariest thing about England during those days was their organization, teamwork and chemistry to work methodically, patiently and simply. The scariest guys on that England side were Wilko, Robinson and Woodward.

I don't know why you talk about a confrontation because the response was actually to someone else but it's just stupid to say the English backline weren't world beaters when they literally did beat the world. If the backs were merely "good" that would become a problem but it wasn't. England now have some very good forwards who I think could go toe to toe with most forwards of other nations yet it isn't leading to English dominance because our backs are weaker. I mean just who would people consider to have been the England superstars? Wilko and Johnson? I don't see how a team could be as successful as England were back there if most of our players would not be able to walk into other national teams as one of the best in their position, it just doesn't happen.

What is likely the case is people say more flair = superstar. England did not play with flair very much so very few of the players get superstar rating, despite outperforming everyone else.