Winning Ugly?

Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by KZNSharksFan, Nov 28, 2007.

  1. KZNSharksFan

    KZNSharksFan Guest

    What do you think about "winning ugly"?

    Personally, I think that the more flowing style game is much more exciting, but old 10 man rugby still has its merits. Should the IRB be drawing up rules to eliminate the Style of play exhibited by England?
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. ikvat

    ikvat Guest

    Free provocation! :p
  4. Yes....And as our coach use to say "Dont kill the ball"... let it flow
  5. Maccaweeny

    Maccaweeny Guest

    I totally agree with reform, either that or nations like Australia (England never will, though I could be proven wrong) start playing more of a running man's game. People go to games to see what nations like Fiji provide, constant excitement.

    Nontheless, with English play. Whether it appeases the eyes or not, when your team lose to England, it's not because they played an ugly one man game, it was because they were better. Style never excuses a result.

    That's what I think anyway.
  6. Interesting how this debate only ever crops up when our forwards actually start giving people problems again. No one ever complained about us trying to out-muscle teams when we were losing regularly. Funny that.

  7. yeah 100% agree. it must be something to do with me being a foward myself. but its when you get 2 foward based teams, then having one with a utter **** backline when it gets boring. rugby requires variety, and foward play is great as long as there is some back play to spark it up a bit.

    people say its dumb how england play, but isnt it common sence when your in your own half, to slow the ball down untill its turned over then kick the **** out of it? its simple, and all teams do it.

    and if youve ever seen the last 10-20 min of a fijian game. not that fun to watch when there that tired
  8. I think what Laporte did with the French team was ridiculous, you could see they looked very uncomfortable having to kick for corners. In the last couple of year France have looked less and less dangerous in attack, forwards and winning ugly is important but so is scoring tries and this very structured gameplan that most sides have these days in killing the game. To be honest i find France infuriating to watch, so many great players yet very few tries against good sides because of their unnatural kicking game. You should play to your strengths but to many coaches nowadays tell their teams to play sterotypical rugby, kick for the corners be strong at the breakdown etc.., basics are important but you need a bit of imagination to be a top team in the long term.
  9. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    Interesting anyone can say watching your team winning in an ugly mannor is dull; Surely watching your team lose is dull?

    It's easy to go on about Aus and NZ how they like to spin the ball, which when it works admittedly is superb stuff; How much spinning of the ball can you do when you've not got it though?

    Over the last 18 months I've watched the 2 teams I support play all sorts of different rugby; England loose ugly forwards based rugby in the 6N and autumn, England win ugly forwards rugby in the WC, Saints loose fancy backs rugby in the GP, Saints dominate fancy backs rugby in NL1.

    While I like everyone else love watching Spencer flick it over his shoulder to Myler, who puts through a grubber that Ashton collects then sprints 40m to gambole between the posts week in-week out, there are still fewer prettier things in life watching a pack of forwards grinding away against a defensive line with a rolling maul. It's not "pretty" per-say, but by God is it magnificent!

    There is room in the world for more then one style of play. There is not room in the word for 2 variations of Rugby League, which is what the Aussies really want.

    And being as the Boks are also well known for the power of their pack, I have no idea what KZN is banging on about only England using this style of rugby. The only difference is the Jake White had a few backs who weren't completely incompitent, therefore could mix it up a little.
  10. Klarkash-ton

    Klarkash-ton Guest

    Is rugby the opposite of real life?

    In real life if you are beautiful and use that beauty to earn millions then you are just a tart.
    In real life if you are ugly and then have to use brains/grift/work really hard to earn millions then every thinks you are a worthy example.

    Is forward play therefore not more worthy than beautiful running rugby?

    But put the games into perspective. England have lost loads of games. They beat Australia only by a couple of points, even though Australia turned up with no front row. A few desperate tackles kept the Aussie backs out, even though it was hardly a vintage set of Aussie backs. Even then the result was an upset.

    France tackled New Zealand into the ground, and the All Blacks didn't help themselves. The AB's should have won that game on the day despite everything. They had the possession, the territory, and the opportunities. France won on blood and guts.

    England/France cant really figure in this discussion since both teams played similar tactics. England are better at those tactics, and France should have learnt from the 6nations this year.

    England/SA: It always looked to me that SA had another gear. I thought SA were playing a very dangerous game, trying to control the game but too nervous to try things. But it worked. England's blood and guts ran out, and several players limped from the field.

    The only way you can take the 'ugly' out of rugby is by taking the core of the game out. Then you have rugby league (I've played a lot of league btw).
  11. Super 12 was spectacular in its hey day, free flowing rugby... No one ever questioned weather it looked like rugby league, of course those on the outside looking in would say otherwise
  12. When would you say it's heyday was? Because I would argue there was a time when defences simply weren't all that great. Running rugby is great, but it becomes all the more special when used to unlock defences that have sound structure. A try scored by one of New Zealand's backs against England, would be far more spectacular than one against Portugal for example, simply because their timing and lines of running would have to be so much better.
  13. I find this absolutely crazy talk. A win is a win isn't it? And at the end of the day when it comes to sport, to quote a song, winning really is the only thing.

    Perhaps if some of the more "attractive" teams played ugly rugby, perhaps they would reach finals and semi finals instead of crashing out at the quarter final stage.
  14. Give me a break mate.... Maybe you should think about your team playing more attacking rugby then you would find they'd win more then 1 game per every 3 years :bleh!:
  15. I don't follow England RU. I wouldn't know if they won 3 games a year or not, this is winning in general.
  16. KZNSharksFan

    KZNSharksFan Guest

    I used England as an example as they have been the most prominent this year in using only forwards and the boot of Johnny. Dont get me wrong, i love to see 8 forwards all above 100 kg smashing into each other in the mauls and rucks (i am from SA you know).

    I was merely trying get peoples views on the matter.

    Personally, I think that the variety of ways in which teams are able to win games: from forward dominated play by England, all out attacking rugby by NZ and a mixture of the two by South Africa, is one of the things that make rugby such an excellent game to play and watch. To take that away would rip 100+ years of tradition from the game.

    And Teh Mite, to say that the SA backs were not totally incompetent is a wretchedly unfair understatement. Surely you witnessed the way they were able to carve through opposition backlines of every team they played, including Wales recently.
  17. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    Ah, I see. My appologies.
  18. KZNSharksFan

    KZNSharksFan Guest

    My fault for wording the opening post incorrectly. What i meant to say was that the IRB is considering altering the laws to make a faster game.(these laws are apparently not part of the new experimental ones being tested at Stellenbosch etc)
  19. Enguelaz

    Enguelaz Guest

    I think the IRB should think more about training their referees (cause i am sorry but the level at the last WRC as APPALLING) or developing structures for minor teams to develop their rugby instead of think about changing the rules...

    I think it's too easy to hide behind the rules and kinda say they're unfair for a certain type of play or another - because it's all about that - guys ****** off at England for winning with out scoring tries... and so what?!? I am sure they have been working hard to set these systems up, it's a different style of play that is totally valid to me. And i think France has been a good example of what NOT to do. We tried to play an English type of game against them, and of course it didn't work - it's hard to beat the masters at their own game... but I am sure we had other means to counter them, all we had to do was organise the play differently, surprise them. All teams have means to counter "Ugly" play.

    What the IRB wants is more flowing rugby, more ENTERTAINMENT = more $$$...

    And it is not only in rugby - look at football - good example would be Italy and their very defensive type of play - they're world champion, is the FIFA wondering about changing the rules, like not being allowed 10 players in your own half for more than 10min or something like that? It should have been though before hand - now it's too late - look at Basket Ball for example with their limited time to shoot or in handball you have the "refuse of play" penalty when players pass the ball around without attacking intention.

    All I am saying is that it's not by changing the rules that it's going to change anything - or maybe yes it will, until teams adapt and find other ways to play a defensive / ugly type of game...
  20. stormmaster1

    stormmaster1 Guest

    The best 2 teams in the world: SA and the All Blacks. Both beaten in 2003 by a better uglier meaner pack. They learnt. The past 4 years the All Blacks dominated by having a fantastic pack that did the basics: get the ball, support the ball, make hard yards and tackle. With this in place it lets them unleash their backline. South Africa were more controlled in the World Cup. Their pack was awesome, and their backs could play well off it in most matches. For both sides, their control of the game came from the pack. Both sides could live with uglier sides because their pack was up to the job. If you don't like sides winning ugly, you need to be able to match their pack so you have the chance to wreak havoc with more open play.

    I don't see any problem with it. It is for sides like Australia and Wales to learn how to deal with it, so they can turn fancy rugby into winning fancy rugby.
  21. IMO it does need to be changed...

    I missed the runs that Jonah Lomu exhibited and would like NZ and Aus to actively use those tactics.

    A Grand Final without even a try is rather boring..

    If i really wanted to watch a drop goal and penalty goal contest i'd turn it on...otherwise i'd rather watch older games of Union or League..
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page