• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

"Britain doesn't have any creative no.10's in football because of Rugby"

Was thinking about this a bit more, and two other thoughts come to mind: England also lack creativity in the halves in rugby league, a problem that has made it almost impossible to beat Australia in any competition in decades, and two, rugby also happens to be the second sport of a country called Argentina - who are responsible for a soccer player named Messi that most seem to think is more than a little creative.

So perhaps it's more to do with British culture?


That is about what I said in my previous post ... England does not have any creativ player in any sport because their sport culture is based on physical opposition and not on creativity. If you look at their football, it is still based on the kick and rush, even if their club teams do not play this way anymore due to foreign players. But English football is still much more physical than any other top european league ... Isn't it cultural in English rugby to play a lot with forwards and rarely use the backline ?
 
Possibly true - but I'd argue that pitch conditions and a professional league that values imported players so highly is equally as important. If you look Germany and the Bundesliga, they have a lot of key combinations playing together. Yes they import players, but you don't often hear of them signing big name foreign players. Instead they give their own players preferential treatment and it continues into the national team. The English team have a league full of foreign players. The selection of the team is almost always Liverpool, Arsenal and Manchester United - regardless of form. They have a professional league of 20 teams per season, 8 teams contribute to the current national team, and the current top two teams have 2 player playing for England (Joe Hart and Gary Cahill). I think the Premier Leagues lack of interest in promoting English talent is a big reason why they struggle.

I don't think there is any doubt Gareth Bale is a world class player (maybe not Messi, Ronaldo or Ibrahimovic but pretty damn close). Can't imagine that Wales working class culture is any different from Englands.

They reckon the problem is that the Premier League has far too many English players and not too little. https://books.google.co.nz/books?id...emier league have too many foreigners&f=false

Of course, there will always be outliers. I think we can all agree that Gareth Bale in Wales is just that. They don't say that England can't produce quality players. Their point is that they can't produce quality players in a high enough quality compared with Germany. Obviously England has produced many world class players in the past. Besides, I think Bale sort of proves their point. Bale's mother was an Operations Manager and his father was a caretaker. A caretaker is obviously working with your hands but I think culturally it is quite different to being a miner.
 
The Welsh Fly Half factory was shut down by Health'n'Safety.
 
This man is considered a journalist? It's just a moron who doesn't know about rugby.

He's a f*cking ignorant who thinks that rugby are 30 hooligans in a fight. He has no idea about the technique and strategy used in this sport.

If rugby was a sport where only matter the brute force: Georgia, Russia and Romania should be the best teams in the world.

The tackle requires a lot of technique and many hours of training, however for him is just a hit and a more stronger player is a better tackler. However HUGE athletes as Lomu or Robbie Fruean were or are bad tacklers and smaller players like Conrad Smith and Matt Toomua are better tacklers than them.

In Argentina we have the same problem. Many football journalists who don't know about rugby but want to review rugby from ignorance. You can't be an authority on something you don't know
 
Last edited:
This man is considered a journalist? It's just a moron who doesn't know about rugby.

He's a f*cking ignorant who thinks that rugby are 30 hooligans in a fight. He has no idea about the technique and strategy used in this sport.

If rugby was a sport where only matter of brute force: Georgia, Russia and Romania should be the best in the world.

The tackle requires a lot of technique and many hours of training, however for him is just a hit and the more stronger is a better tackler. However HUGE athletes as Lomu or Robbie Fruean were or are bad tacklers and smaller players like Conrad Smith and Matt Toomua are better tacklers than them.

In Argentina we have the same problem. Many football journalists who don't know about rugby but want to review rugby from ignorance. You can't be an authority on something you don't know

South Africa or the Pacific Islands amongst others amongst crush those sides in a match of brute force.
 
South Africa or the Pacific Islands amongst others amongst crush those sides in a match of brute force.

The Pacific Islands have never won anything without the tactic and strategy of countries like Australia or NZ.

Tevita Kuridrani playing for Fiji or Fekitoa playing for Tonga never could win a World Cup. About Saffers, they have much brute force but they have also had great players with great technique as Joost van Der Westhuizen, Naas Botha, Joel Stransky, Percy Montgomery, Bryan Habana or Willie le Roux.

Georgia never had a top class scrum-half like Joost or a top class fly-half like Naas. Also these countries haven't the perfect kicking game that South Africans have developed.

So don't say stupid things,you are able to say that the pope Francisco is black, just for attack me
 
The Pacific Islands have never won anything without the tactic and strategy of countries like Australia or NZ.

Tevita Kuridrani playing for Fiji or Fekitoa playing for Tonga never could win a World Cup. About Saffers, they have much brute force but they have also had great players with great technique as Joost van Der Westhuizen, Naas Botha, Joel Stransky, Percy Montgomery, Bryan Habana or Willie le Roux.

Georgia never had a top class scrum-half like Joost or a top class fly-half like Naas. Also these countries haven't the perfect kicking game that South Africans have developed.

So don't say stupid things,you are able to say that the pope Francisco is black, just for attack me

The point was you picked out strange examples of 'brute force', the top teams all smash those teams in that regard. South Africa have bigger, stronger, better conditioned players than those teams. If you were to rate teams in terms of brute force they are without doubt considerably stronger, same with New Zealand, or England, or the Pacific Islanders etc. Romania don't barely have a single ball carrier to make hard yards, Russia are possibly one of weakest most feeble teams around. To claim they would win out on brute force is absurd.
 
The point was you picked out strange examples of 'brute force', the top teams all smash those teams in that regard. South Africa have bigger, stronger, better conditioned players than those teams. If you were to rate teams in terms of brute force they are without doubt considerably stronger, same with New Zealand, or England, or the Pacific Islanders etc. Romania don't barely have a single ball carrier to make hard yards, Russia are possibly one of weakest most feeble teams around. To claim they would win out on brute force is absurd.

Ok, Zirakashvili and Mamuka Gorgodze are weak

:lol::lol::lol:


He is nicknamed "Gorgodzilla" just as a joke

141223010047634974.jpg
 
Ok, Zirakashvili and Mamuka Gorgodze are weak

:lol::lol::lol:


He is nicknamed "Gorgodzilla" just as a joke

Must have missed when the sport consisted of one player, or where I called Gorgodze 'weak'. In terms of brute strength, South Africa, Samoa and the vast majority of major teams have more 'brute force' as a collective unit.
 
The Romanian forward pack is tough, I remember the Pumas pack had problems against them in WC 2011, and the Pumas pack is considered one of the best in the world. Not to mention the Lelos forward pack, most Georgians forwards are playing in France, they are tough guys. The Pacific islands are tough guys, they are also an example of what I mean. They are tough but without intelligence and strategy can't advance. Their forwards are strong but still their scrum isn't good, it shows that the scrum is not only strength, a lot of technique and coordination.

So bye bye
 
The Romanian forward pack is tough, I remember the Pumas pack had problems against them in WC 2011, and the Pumas pack is considered one of the best in the world. Not to mention the Lelos forward pack, most Georgians forwards are playing in France, they are tough guys. The Pacific islands are tough guys, they are also an example of what I mean. They are tough but without intelligence and strategy can't advance. Their forwards are strong but still their scrum isn't good, it shows that the scrum is not only strength, a lot of technique and coordination.

So bye bye

Clearly not watched them play many times then. The Romanian scrum is without doubt the most effective element of their game. Outside of that, they lack dynamic collision winners and would get overpowered by elite nations. If anything, they thrive on the technical grinding play than the loose collision play. Claiming they and the others would be top of the world at 'brute force' ahead of better conditioned, bigger sides is laughable.
 
I think people are being a little too quick to dismiss this.

First, I do find it very plausible that some of these guys did have major involvements in other sports. Danny Care, Jordan Crane, and probably a lot of others who I can't recall off the top of my head were in academies at one point. Phil Neville was a seriously well rated young cricketer - as was Joe Hart, although a bit less so - Victor Moses swam competitively until he was at least 11/12. Rooney boxed most nights until he was 15. Now, yeah, sure, there comes a point when you've got to pick between sports, but until that point, there's plenty of kids that just want to play sport as much as they can. Could that bleed into their approach? Arguably, yeah.

I'm not sure what Rats is saying when he says the fundamentals of rugby's passing game are the same as basketball. Are you referring to the technical hand motions? If so, I think you're missing the crucial point, which is basketball involves looking for people moving into space on a 360 arc; rugby does not have that, but it is there in football.

I mean, I can see quite a few flaws in what he's saying, but what common second sport in England teaches movement the same way basketball does?

Ah but we do , certainly we can only pass along 180degrees but the identification of space , noticing defenders spacings checking if the fullback is home , wingers up flat , perhaps dink it in behind them.
Rugby although you can only pass along 180 the game is played around 360 degrees with a level of intricacy that you wont see in football. In football a man runs into space and you pass. In rugby you must manipulate the defence much more if you want the same results.
 
On the subject of how much BS Nevin's theory is. By his logic rugby players should all see space like footballers as it might be their second sport.
 
Also going by his theory Ireland should be unbelievable at soccer because of the Gaelic Football influence, you've got that whole 360 arc, having to identify space near and far on the pitch with a reasonably similar method of scoring... And our best player of all time is Roy Keane, known for being a tough *******! This forum has been a load of reaction to ****e journalism of late.
 
Clearly not watched them play many times then. The Romanian scrum is without doubt the most effective element of their game. Outside of that, they lack dynamic collision winners and would get overpowered by elite nations. If anything, they thrive on the technical grinding play than the loose collision play. Claiming they and the others would be top of the world at 'brute force' ahead of better conditioned, bigger sides is laughable.


Mate, sorry but you did not read Conrad's post ... He's talking only about brute force ... In all the examples you give, the technique cannot be taken appart as all the top teams are better than Romania or Georgia because of that technique. He' trying to explain you that Georgia could beat anyone at a brute force contest, which might not be wrong. Of course, they cannot win the WC because rugby is not a matter of brute force. The technique of forwards in rugby is how do you use it properly. We had quite a lot of the best scrummargers of their time down here (Marconnet, de Villiers, Mas) and they were far from being the strongest ...

- - - Updated - - -

Ah but we do , certainly we can only pass along 180degrees but the identification of space , noticing defenders spacings checking if the fullback is home , wingers up flat , perhaps dink it in behind them.
Rugby although you can only pass along 180 the game is played around 360 degrees with a level of intricacy that you wont see in football. In football a man runs into space and you pass. In rugby you must manipulate the defence much more if you want the same results.


??? What the hell are you saying ? Do you mean that in football, you can't manipulate an opposing defence to creat space for others ? Well you do not watch football at all !!!

The perception of the gap in football is clearly the same as in rugby ! Because it is just a matter of looking at other players ... And back to the topic, this in something English players are far from being able to do, as culturally, they just run forward into the opposition, always trying to crush them ! After all, they are the inventor of : no scrum, no win ! Down here we say : la balle a l'aile, la vie est belle ! And that is the main cultural difference !
 
Mate, sorry but you did not read Conrad's post ... He's talking only about brute force ... In all the examples you give, the technique cannot be taken appart as all the top teams are better than Romania or Georgia because of that technique. He' trying to explain you that Georgia could beat anyone at a brute force contest, which might not be wrong. Of course, they cannot win the WC because rugby is not a matter of brute force. The technique of forwards in rugby is how do you use it properly. We had quite a lot of the best scrummargers of their time down here (Marconnet, de Villiers, Mas) and they were far from being the strongest ...

- - - Updated - - -




??? What the hell are you saying ? Do you mean that in football, you can't manipulate an opposing defence to creat space for others ? Well you do not watch football at all !!!

The perception of the gap in football is clearly the same as in rugby ! Because it is just a matter of looking at other players ... And back to the topic, this in something English players are far from being able to do, as culturally, they just run forward into the opposition, always trying to crush them ! After all, they are the inventor of : no scrum, no win ! Down here we say : la balle a l'aile, la vie est belle ! And that is the main cultural difference !


I disagree. The real movement and breakthrough in soccer comes from off the ball movement and the current man in possession identifying the movement.
In Rugby it's moreso up to the ball carrier to create the space or fix defenders and the man off the ball to identify it. Similar but very different.

Again just my opinion , but yes I watch football frequently and play it regularly enough to understand that the run is more important than the pass.
The best 10 ever Bergkamp taught all the players around him at arsenal that his first movement off the ball was to throw a defender and the second movement was for the passer.
 
Mate, sorry but you did not read Conrad's post ... He's talking only about brute force ... In all the examples you give, the technique cannot be taken appart as all the top teams are better than Romania or Georgia because of that technique. He' trying to explain you that Georgia could beat anyone at a brute force contest, which might not be wrong. Of course, they cannot win the WC because rugby is not a matter of brute force. The technique of forwards in rugby is how do you use it properly. We had quite a lot of the best scrummargers of their time down here (Marconnet, de Villiers, Mas) and they were far from being the strongest ...

I did read it actually and it was absurd. The Eastern European sides couldn't beat anyone at a 'brute force contest', virtually all the bigger, better conditioned elite sides would be stronger in that regard.
 
I did read it actually and it was absurd. The Eastern European sides couldn't beat anyone at a 'brute force contest', virtually all the bigger, better conditioned elite sides would be stronger in that regard.

Especially Russia.....this myth of Russia as huge blokes ready for a forward contest must be one of the most overused false tropes in rugby disscussion.
 

Latest posts

Top