Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2007
England v France
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Canadian_Rugger" data-source="post: 154566"><p>You have to understand we're not argueing whether 10 man rugby is the way to win knockout games or not. I think that has been answered fairly definitively. What we are saying is that it is utter **** to watch as a neutral and is horrible for a casual or non-fan to get into. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As for you hockey analogy, it makes no difference because hockey has the same problem as rugby. The trap is ruining the game. It should not be there. If you're not as skilled, as athletic or as talented, you should not be able to survive on the ice (or on the pitch when refering to rugby).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's all about improving the game, that's what we want. We want to see rugby expand and progress. For rugby to get better we need to finally see the end of 10 man rugby. Regardless whether it is an effective winning strategy doesn't matter. It is holding rugby back and needs to go.</p><p></p><p>[/b]</p></blockquote><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>I don't see anything wrong with employing the trap. Oh and the way too beat it has already been figured out. Its called dump and chase hockey. Which in my opinion is some of the most exciting hockey played. </p><p></p><p>NZ could of easily beaten the French if they had simply fought fire with fire taken their chances at dropping for goal and stopped being so fing arrogant. They tried to bull there way over out of sheer arrogance and it cost them. Sport should not be constricted simply because the rules have been interpreted and executed in such a way that a team cannot use it anymore. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>With the argument your using what your basically saying is NZ can't win if England play a game of territory and forward dominance we shouldnn't allow the game to be played like that at all.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>In that case I would say well England can't win if NZ employs their backline effectively which they didn't do against the French.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>If NZ would of played to their strengths and not played into the hands of the French it could of been different. if th Aussies hadn't played to Englands strengths, maybe fronted up a bit more in the pack they could of whalloped the English. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>As a military man I really admire someone who plays to their strengths. Its like lets say I am going to clear a house and its full of enemies. Will I send my Platoon in or will I call in a B1 Bomber to drop a JDAM on the f***ing compound. I am gonna obviously call in the JDAM. Its the same thing in rugby, sometimes things don't happen the way they are supposed to accept it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>so wot wud u call that 26 phase up the jumper rugby that nz played against france then.... </p><p></p><p>[/b][/quote] </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They forgot that ten man rugby requires you to pick up points in three's with the occasional five pointer. They lost their head and didn't take the three on offer at the end. Not to mention they got sucked into arial pingpong instead of running it back down France's throat.</p><p></p><p>[/b][/quote] </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Exactly NZ rugby revolves around a strong running game with lots of attack. You played right into France's hands and executed poor judgement in the process. You deserved to lose for that.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Canadian_Rugger, post: 154566"] You have to understand we're not argueing whether 10 man rugby is the way to win knockout games or not. I think that has been answered fairly definitively. What we are saying is that it is utter **** to watch as a neutral and is horrible for a casual or non-fan to get into. As for you hockey analogy, it makes no difference because hockey has the same problem as rugby. The trap is ruining the game. It should not be there. If you're not as skilled, as athletic or as talented, you should not be able to survive on the ice (or on the pitch when refering to rugby). It's all about improving the game, that's what we want. We want to see rugby expand and progress. For rugby to get better we need to finally see the end of 10 man rugby. Regardless whether it is an effective winning strategy doesn't matter. It is holding rugby back and needs to go. [/b][/quote] I don't see anything wrong with employing the trap. Oh and the way too beat it has already been figured out. Its called dump and chase hockey. Which in my opinion is some of the most exciting hockey played. NZ could of easily beaten the French if they had simply fought fire with fire taken their chances at dropping for goal and stopped being so fing arrogant. They tried to bull there way over out of sheer arrogance and it cost them. Sport should not be constricted simply because the rules have been interpreted and executed in such a way that a team cannot use it anymore. With the argument your using what your basically saying is NZ can't win if England play a game of territory and forward dominance we shouldnn't allow the game to be played like that at all. In that case I would say well England can't win if NZ employs their backline effectively which they didn't do against the French. If NZ would of played to their strengths and not played into the hands of the French it could of been different. if th Aussies hadn't played to Englands strengths, maybe fronted up a bit more in the pack they could of whalloped the English. As a military man I really admire someone who plays to their strengths. Its like lets say I am going to clear a house and its full of enemies. Will I send my Platoon in or will I call in a B1 Bomber to drop a JDAM on the f***ing compound. I am gonna obviously call in the JDAM. Its the same thing in rugby, sometimes things don't happen the way they are supposed to accept it. so wot wud u call that 26 phase up the jumper rugby that nz played against france then.... [/b][/quote] They forgot that ten man rugby requires you to pick up points in three's with the occasional five pointer. They lost their head and didn't take the three on offer at the end. Not to mention they got sucked into arial pingpong instead of running it back down France's throat. [/b][/quote] Exactly NZ rugby revolves around a strong running game with lots of attack. You played right into France's hands and executed poor judgement in the process. You deserved to lose for that. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2007
England v France
Top