B
BokMagic
Guest
But since when is "winning rugby" and "ugly rugby" mutually exclusive concepts?
The AB`s have won just about everything possible during the past 4 years. They had a winning record of something like 90%, unheard of in modern-day test rugby, since 2004. And they did it with all-out, attacking rugby. Running it from deep, the whole 9 yards.
And then, for some or other reason, they threw out their tried and tested game-plan of running the ball during the QF. Look, all credit to France, making 178 tackles was an awesome effort. But if you look closely, the AB`s forced an average of something like only 60-70 rucks per game in the period from 2004-2007. But in the big one-off, they forced 160-odd rucks. More than double what they normally do. They tried to play ugly, without going for the drop. And ended up losing, playing a brand of rugby unfamiliar to them.
Right, so while we`re on the subject of beautiful vs. ugly winning rugby, let me make another sweeping statement. The great, the truly magnificent Wales sides of the `70`s, certainly knew how to play winning rugby. Countless Grand Slams and 5 nations ***les points to this. But would the likes of Williams, Edwards, Bennet, Gibson et al have been able to run riot like they did, without their forwards doing the dirty work up front for the 1st 50-60 minutes? Methinks not. Even those great Welsh teams played ugly first, and turned on the style later on. Subdue and penetrate.
In short gents, the truly great sides are able to play with both their pack and their backs, depending on the state of the match etc. You can win games playing either beautiful or ugly rugby. But the truly great sides, like Wales in the `70`s, like the AB`s of 87-90, like Australia in 99-02, like England 01-03, can interchange between the 2 styles.
The AB`s have won just about everything possible during the past 4 years. They had a winning record of something like 90%, unheard of in modern-day test rugby, since 2004. And they did it with all-out, attacking rugby. Running it from deep, the whole 9 yards.
And then, for some or other reason, they threw out their tried and tested game-plan of running the ball during the QF. Look, all credit to France, making 178 tackles was an awesome effort. But if you look closely, the AB`s forced an average of something like only 60-70 rucks per game in the period from 2004-2007. But in the big one-off, they forced 160-odd rucks. More than double what they normally do. They tried to play ugly, without going for the drop. And ended up losing, playing a brand of rugby unfamiliar to them.
Right, so while we`re on the subject of beautiful vs. ugly winning rugby, let me make another sweeping statement. The great, the truly magnificent Wales sides of the `70`s, certainly knew how to play winning rugby. Countless Grand Slams and 5 nations ***les points to this. But would the likes of Williams, Edwards, Bennet, Gibson et al have been able to run riot like they did, without their forwards doing the dirty work up front for the 1st 50-60 minutes? Methinks not. Even those great Welsh teams played ugly first, and turned on the style later on. Subdue and penetrate.
In short gents, the truly great sides are able to play with both their pack and their backs, depending on the state of the match etc. You can win games playing either beautiful or ugly rugby. But the truly great sides, like Wales in the `70`s, like the AB`s of 87-90, like Australia in 99-02, like England 01-03, can interchange between the 2 styles.
