Future of International Rugby

Goose81

I would,whats the point in winning if you play boring rugby,I like rugby because it is entertaining,its not all about winning.

Of course everyone likes to win but its more special if you try to play rugby.

SA is slightly different in that the physicaliy and mayhem adds to the entertainment factor,they are probably the only team in the world that can bring manic aggression every game as pauly likes to call it.

Four-Percent

Goose81 wrote: »

I would,whats the point in winning if you play boring rugby,I like rugby because it is entertaining,its not all about winning.

So you're implying that you'd rather lose and play champagne rugby than win the championship and play a tight game?

If you had been asked that question before the grand slam, what would your answer have been?

anonymous_joe

Diamondmaker wrote: »

I wonder though just t compare them to Prem Soccer players.........

I always thought that the UK press was the worlds worst at vilifying sports stars, politicians or even the roayls. Therefore I assumed that most of what happens by Premiership Players would have gone reported.

After 2 years here and the stories I have heard in the press ( mainly NRL ) I wonder are they a " worse lot " or have the big Prem CLubs just got a much better wall of silence and or more goes on behind closed doors in ultra posh clubs.
NRL is a lot more down to earth, in that these guys often are seen out in normal clubs, unlike Prem players. I was talking to some Broncos only a few weeks ago.
I dont think sports stars from any one code can be worse than any other, its just the NRLs time to be vilified by the press, I think.

Ultimiately the product is constantly being dragged through the mud by the press and the seemingly ever willing players to assist. The product is still good as a form of entertainment through ball in hand rugby and tabloid press aside you can see why league fans, especially NRL, like league.

Union had better start picking its act up with regard to entertainment or we will be heading back to the days of 6-3 score line games....Incidentally I belive a lot of this changed when the try went to 5 points and I belive this can change again.

PS. I also go to more league games as unfortunately QRL think they can charge more for tickets for a **** house team than Broncos can charge for attending a game at the same venue ! How do Super league prices compare with the English Prem any one know ??

Part of the problem with Aussie lads in the RL is that by all accounts, the Premiership teams do spend more money to hush things up and also to try and keep players on the straight and narrow to one degree or another.

I mean, fcuk it, I'm 22, I've done all sorts of depraved and debauched things that would bring shame to my family and condemnation from a bishop, but no-one knows, because I'm an ordinary person. We've all done all sorts of mad stuff, it's just that no-one cares.

A good mate of mine when drinking is basically a cnut. He's the kind of guy who can get in fights, etc. Now if we didn't look after him he'd get in a bit of trouble but we do. Now if he was a famous rugby player, or a footballer or whatever, he'd get in all sorts of trouble.

Actually, I was in Spain recently, and met a rugby player of some renown who was charming and friendly, despite being píssed out of his tree. Turns out we have some mutual acquaintances, it was just a normal drunk conversation. It could end up in a normal drunken anything.

With Australia, there's interest in seeing rugby lads cause trouble, most people won't care that much. They'll watch what's on telly or in the stadiums. And they'll follow success. That matters more than quality to most people.

FridaysWell

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Part of the problem with Aussie lads in the RL is that by all accounts, the Premiership teams do spend more money to hush things up and also to try and keep players on the straight and narrow to one degree or another.

I mean, fcuk it, I'm 22, I've done all sorts of depraved and debauched things that would bring shame to my family and condemnation from a bishop, but no-one knows, because I'm an ordinary person. We've all done all sorts of mad stuff, it's just that no-one cares.

A good mate of mine when drinking is basically a cnut. He's the kind of guy who can get in fights, etc. Now if we didn't look after him he'd get in a bit of trouble but we do. Now if he was a famous rugby player, or a footballer or whatever, he'd get in all sorts of trouble.

Actually, I was in Spain recently, and met a rugby player of some renown who was charming and friendly, despite being píssed out of his tree. Turns out we have some mutual acquaintances, it was just a normal drunk conversation. It could end up in a normal drunken anything.

With Australia, there's interest in seeing rugby lads cause trouble, most people won't care that much. They'll watch what's on telly or in the stadiums. And they'll follow success. That matters more than quality to most people.

Nice one. Agree with what you say. Good points.

I believe rugby can be a much more welcoming sport than the GAA or soccer. I'm not here to bash either sport but I've had negative experiences with the GAA and I love football but its just not for me, teamwise. The problem with rugby in Ireland is the negative stigma that people have of it, especially here in Leinster. Its a 'posh' sport only 'faggits' play. True the game is strongest in the Dublin schools and older clubs (sure I'm part of that) but its expanding and in some cases overtaking in other areas. Eg Barnhall. People have this view that it is a game only for people with boats, and that is something that really ticks me. To me its a sport I love to play, its a game I try to perfect. Its not a status symbol. You make so many life long friends playing rugby. But whats worse is some people treat it as 'oh we are more superior to you, cuz we play for XY club etc' and this damages the image of the sport and its coming from within. It would be like me going around saying all football players are scumbags which is not the case. I know this is a sensitive issue but some people really hate rugby for this stupid reason. Its horrible because alot of people would love to play but are almost afraid because of reaction from people they know or something. Ignorance in regards to what I have written really annoys me.

And people here need to change, its a great sport not a shiny BMW. (bad metaphor i know)

OldJay

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Part of the problem with Aussie lads in the RL is that by all accounts, the Premiership teams do spend more money to hush things up

By which accounts exactly? Where have you ever seen any evidence of the NRL or ARL hushing up player misconduct?
The only reason you know (apparently) about any incidents in the first place is transparency.

Diamondmaker

Justind wrote: »

By which accounts exactly? Where have you ever seen any evidence of the NRL or ARL hushing up player misconduct?
The only reason you know (apparently) about any incidents in the first place is transparency.

I think he means that the English soccer Prem spend money to cover things up and thats why the players who ( one would have to assume ) get up to every bit and worse trouble, than the NRL guys. The Englich guys dont get half as much bad press as you see here in the press. It is unreal, a bi weekly occurance of beatings, drunken incidents, "party" drugs or just bad manners, from both playesr and staff.

Would people say that Union lpayers get involved in a lot of reported incidents ? More than NRL ? I cant see how the UNion players any where would have anywhere near the sort of wall of silence that Prem soccer plaers would have therefore if it goes on ala Ciprianni, we here about it. There is just less incident ?

SO off topic....:o

anonymous_joe

Justind wrote: »

By which accounts exactly? Where have you ever seen any evidence of the NRL or ARL hushing up player misconduct?
The only reason you know (apparently) about any incidents in the first place is transparency.

As Diamondmaker said, I meant the English leagues cover silly stuff up. Or employ people to make sure it never happens. Footballers have minders for a reason. THe Aussie rugby league lads don't do that, and let's face it, what do you expect from a bunch of hyper-aggressive, macho lads who spend their days lifting weights and fighting? :pac:

Diamondmaker wrote: »

I think he means that the English soccer Prem spend money to cover things up and thats why the players who ( one would have to assume ) get up to every bit and worse trouble, than the NRL guys. The Englich guys dont get half as much bad press as you see here in the press. It is unreal, a bi weekly occurance of beatings, drunken incidents, "party" drugs or just bad manners, from both playesr and staff.

Would people say that Union lpayers get involved in a lot of reported incidents ? More than NRL ? I cant see how the UNion players any where would have anywhere near the sort of wall of silence that Prem soccer plaers would have therefore if it goes on ala Ciprianni, we here about it. There is just less incident ?

SO off topic....:o

Not entirely off topic because it's definitely a reason the game could be seen to be in trouble.

Fans moving to another sport is definitely a factor in teh future of international rugby, and while the game's future looks rosy in Ireland, can the same be said of every country?

Peter B

For the future of international rugby, to solve the over-kicking problem I really believe changing the ball would make a big difference. I was watching the 1973 Barbarians vs All Blacks match.

• Conversions were very difficult, especially from near the sideline.
• Drop goals were near impossible.
• Because the ball didn't travel so far up and unders were not as useful as players could not get to the landing location in time to make a good gain in yardage.

Because of these things kicking was not as much of an option. I really don't believe the value of a drop goal or penalty should be changed.

I don't care if the scoring records are not going to be valid anymore. The total scoring records were already invalidated when tries went from being 4 points to 5.

I guarantee if we were to introduce the same style of rugby ball that they used in 1973 we would watch far more exciting rugby played with a less emphasis on kicking.

I also support rules where teams commit as many people to the breakdown as possible. Especially with defence. This uses up players and should create more space in the backline for attack. See lions tour 1997 for a good example.

handsomecake

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/stuart_barnes/article6832180.ece
stuart barnes does a smashing article on a lot of the stuff we eluded to in here

Stev_o

handsomecake wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/stuart_barnes/article6832180.ece
stuart barnes does a smashing article on a lot of the stuff we eluded to in here

Should of copyrighted this thread >_>

It's a good article but Barnes is having a laugh when he said their should be limited kicks its just madness, mark kicks from where ever though could work though.

Crash

Barnes is essentially suggesting turning rugby into a numbers game. Joy of joys, i'll get my click counter ready. His core point about whats wrong with the sport is dead right, but his conclusion is ridiculuous.

Someone in the comments of that article made a good one however - allow a player to call a mark anywhere within his own half.

Stev_o

Crash wrote: »

Someone in the comments of that article made a good one however - allow a player to call a mark anywhere within his own half.

See while id agree with the marking bit any coach with half a brain will then their OH to kick low with a bounce all the time.

Teg Veece

Stev_o wrote: »

See while id agree with the marking bit any coach with half a brain will then their OH to kick low with a bounce all the time.

I agree that kicking low with a bounce would be employed a lot more if calling the mark anywhere in your own half were the case but you're also robbing the kicking team of one of the key reasons to put boot to ball. The up-and-under gives the chasers plenty of time to follow up while the catch has to stand there like a sitting duck waiting for the ball to come back down to earth. If the kicks were forced to go low, the opposition could counter-attack much quicker.

irishbucsfan

Teg Veece wrote: »

I agree that kicking low with a bounce would be employed a lot more if calling the mark anywhere in your own half were the case but you're also robbing the kicking team of one of the key reasons to put boot to ball. The up-and-under gives the chasers plenty of time to follow up while the catch has to stand there like a sitting duck waiting for the ball to come back down to earth. If the kicks were forced to go low, the opposition could counter-attack much quicker.

Yes but the lack of counter attacking has nothing to do with time. It's just down to the fact that with the new rules players are far more vulnerable to losing the ball when tackled in open play and so it makes far more sense to kick the ball back at the opposition. A low trajectory kick would not encourage counter attacking, it would make it even more dangerous (less time for support to arrive to the player).

Agree that allowing marks in the teams own half could be a good idea though.

gosplan

I hope whoever was singling out the Boks as regards over-emphasis on kicking and forwards is watching All-blacks v Aus this morning.

Really dull.Especially surprising from NZ.

gosplan

gosplan wrote: »

I hope whoever was singling out the Boks as regards over-emphasis on kicking and forwards is watching All-blacks v Aus this morning.

Really dull.Especially surprising from NZ.

OK in fairness to them, they're getting creative now but it's once they're 13 points up.

handsomecake

KICK AND HOPE


This is a lament for the kicking skills of New Zealand rugby players, in the land which spawned prodigious and accurate punters of the ball like George Nepia, Bob Scott and Don Clarke.
It is a lament brought into stark light by the pinpoint kicking game which the Springboks – no expansive side when it gets tight in a big test – have shown us through most of 2009.
Waikato Stadium 12 days ago saw a contrast in the execution of both the Boks and the All Blacks. Where one team poured on the pressure through their kicking game, the other exerted none through their aimless and poorly executed jeu au pied, as the French would call it.
In short, every time the Boks kicked it was to space or arrived at the same time as their chasers (via box kicks or bombs). It was not enthralling to those who only like to see the ball moved at will, but it was mightily effective. Rugby, especially test rugby, is about playing to your strengths while exploiting the opposition weaknesses. When you have the world’s best halfback – Fourie du Preez – who also happens to be the world’s best kicking No 9, plus one of the world’s best goalkickers and tactical kickers – Morné Steyn – you can exert huge pressure on a side that struggles under the high ball, as the All Blacks do.
Click here to read more



HARD MONTH AHEAD FOR OZ
While some All Blacks will be resting up over the next month or turning out for their provinces, only hard yakka and soul-searching lie ahead for most of the Wallabies.
Coach Robbie Deans admitted his charges had taken a big step back after the clear progress from the Brisbane upset of South Africa.
“The All Blacks were hugely desperate and played very well. The disappointing thing was we essentially capitulated once the game had gone, which was pretty late, to be fair.
“This young group has now experienced both extremes.”
Berrick Barnes, who potted a first half goal but could not unleash his outsides, partly due to Matt Giteau’s puzzling lack of spark, was candid after the loss, which consigned Australia to the Tri Nations wooden spoon with an unflattering 1-5 record.
“We’ve pretty much got a month pre-season leading into the Tokyo game (October 31). I’ve no doubts Robbie’s going to be working us hard, and rightly so. The All Blacks were good and we were ordinary.”
Click here to read more



MONEY BEFORE THE JERSEY

At 6.45am on Tuesday, my phone rang. It was Geoff Mould and he was as mad as hell about the demand by some senior Wallabies for $2500 to play a trial match before the overseas tour, writes Spiro Zavos for The Roar.
Mould is a rugby guru. He coached and selected the 1978 Australian Schoolboys side which is, arguably, the best rugby side produced in Australia. He spotted the Ella brothers at Matraville High, and had a lot to do with their development as master players and thinkers about the game.
Now he was incensed.
“Sorry to ring you so early,” he told me. “I can’t believe it, this story in the Herald about the players refusing to play a trial match unless they are paid $2500. This mob couldn’t beat their aunt fanny even if she was playing in a wheelchair. Just play the game, and those who refuse to play unless they are paid can miss out on the tour!”
According to Tony Dempsey, the chief executive of the Rugby Union Players Association, the players’ trade union, they were happy to play for nothing: “If it was just an internal trial to select the touring team at North Sydney Oval, we wouldn’t expect to be paid.”
But what RUPA objected to, according to Dempsey, was playing a high profile match put on by the NSWRU as part of their season schedule. The Australian reported that the amount of money RUPA wanted for this high profile match was around $7500.
This figure is much higher than the figure quoted by Greg Growden in the SMH, in his story of the episode.
He reported that RUPA was approached by some senior Wallabies about the match and the demand of $2500 a player to play in it was made on the ARU by RUPA.
Click here to read more stories on The Roar




WHISTLE RUGBY WINS TRI NATIONS

Whistle Rugby enjoyed a clear 219-183 victory over Real Rugby in the just-completed, nine-game Tri Nations campaign, writes Doug Buckley for The Roar.
There were no less than 73 successful penalty goals through the tournament that finished in Wellington the other night.
This gave Whistle Rugby 73 x 3 = 219 points, so an easy overall win over Real Rugby, on 183 points from everything else (that is, from tries, conversions, and drop goals).
This means there was an average of more than eight penalty goals per game.
If we had two points per penalty goal, Real Rugby would have won by 37 points, thereby rewarding positive achievements more than negative events

handsomecake

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/need-to-make-space-means-reducing-player-numbers-1897436.html

tony ward thinks the game is toilet too.he thinks we need to have 13 PLAYERS INSTEAD OF 15!!!!!!!!!!!!

Risteard

Tony Ward wrote:

What we have in fact ended up with is glorified Rugby League -- with scrums, line- outs and excessive kicking.

League doesn't have line-outs, scrums or excessive kicking, how is it a glorified version of it? Don't understand that at all.

toomevara

Risteard wrote: »

League doesn't have line-outs, scrums or excessive kicking, how is it a glorified version of it? Don't understand that at all.

QFT. Union and League have one thing in common, the shape of the ball. Folks out there may not like it but for those of us who do, league is perfection, the perfect balance between attacking creativity and defensive grit.

Don't want to turn this thread into a league V union thing, life's waaaay too short, but it irks me when people start saying that RU as currently constituted is a 'glorified' version of league. It isn't. It's a very,very different animal indeed.

Risteard

I've nothing against League. Personally I find it boring. Though this may be down to only being able to watch Super League. Maybe it's a different game down in Australia but I generally find for the most part everytime I watch, it's pop, run, get tackled repeat. The last league game I watched was Warrington when Brian Carney made his comeback a couple of months ago. It was alright, more exciting than soccer but didn't really do that much.

It's fun to play though and get's you pretty fit and from some clips on Youtube it seems to be a different game down under.

Chucky the tree

Obviously Tony was to busy admiring pictures of Brian O'Driscoill he has hung up all over his wall to do any research on RL. Hardly the first time he's looked like an ill-informed clown though. Any time he goes near the subject of supplements it's just one big facepalm.

Anyway I think rucks are still a great part of the game, that's why I don't think league is perfection. Nothing more impressive seeing someone like Brussow glued to the floor while arched our clinging onto the ball while 2 players have zero successive in shifting him in an inch while running full pelt at him.

For rule changes I'd like to see penalties only given in the opposition 22, and maybe change the freekick rule to allow teams who kick for touch to take the lineout. Another one would be that if a team kicks a goal and it's goes to the deadball line then it's a scrum back where the penalty was taken as if you kicked it dead from you're hands. Now a days teams get to try 60m penalties as shoots to nothing because the opposing team will have to start from their own 22, this might go some help to disacourage that.

Hippo

toomevara wrote: »

QFT. Union and League have one thing in common, the shape of the ball. Folks out there may not like it but for those of us who do, league is perfection, the perfect balance between attacking creativity and defensive grit.

Don't want to turn this thread into a league V union thing, life's waaaay too short, but it irks me when people start saying that RU as currently constituted is a 'glorified' version of league. It isn't. It's a very,very different animal indeed.

Can't let you away with 'league is perfection'. Perfectly boring maybe, no variety, no scrums, no lineout, often incredibly dull and predictable to watch. But I agree with you that union isn't really a version of league, and unquestionably union is facing many problems right now with the hopeless situation of refs' 'interpretation' of the laws and the disease of pointless kicking conspiring to strangle the game.

toomevara

Hippo wrote: »

Can't let you away with 'league is perfection'. .

My comment was of course prefaced with; 'for those of us who love it'...

Stev_o

Hippo wrote: »

. Perfectly boring maybe, no variety, no scrums, no lineout, often incredibly dull and predictable to watch. But I agree with you that union isn't really a version of league, and unquestionably union is facing many problems right now with the hopeless situation of refs' 'interpretation' of the laws and the disease of pointless kicking conspiring to strangle the game.

The very same can be said with union though with a over dependence on one out play or kicking. When i watch league im safe in the knowledge that im going to see ball in hand more often then Union.

In a way its funny looking pack on the days when the NH where scared ****less of professionalism taking hold saying that it would ruin the game, now given or take it's taken about 15 odd years or so but i can see what they mean, international teams now are just too good in defence and thus its more efficient to not have the ball.

Goose81

I agree 100% with Ward,rugby is utter **** atm.

I prefer to watch league these days,at least you see a bit of running.

Im probably in the minority but if Leinster continue to play **** rugby I wont watch simple as,the same with Ireland.I was not pleased with the rugby they played last time and if they do the same this campaign I will lose interest preety quickly.

I would be more in favour of increasing the width of the pitch than taking the amount of players to 13 though,I also think they need to do something about the kicking.

Maybe you can kick but if its kicked back to you ,you have to run it or make sure it goes to touch,if it doesnt its a free kick penalty to the opposition from where you kicked it.

Stev_o

Goose81 wrote: »

I agree 100% with Ward,rugby is utter **** atm.

I prefer to watch league these days,at least you see a bit of running.

Im probably in the minority but if Leinster continue to play **** rugby I wont watch simple as,the same with Ireland.I was not pleased with the rugby they played last time and if they do the same this campaign I will lose interest preety quickly.

I would be more in favour of increasing the width of the pitch than taking the amount of players to 13 though,I also think they need to do something about the kicking.

Maybe you can kick but if its kicked back to you ,you have to run it or make sure it goes to touch,if it doesnt its a free kick penalty to the opposition from where you kicked it.

Nah id agree with all your points there and feel exactly the same, rugby ain't what it used to be.

anonymous_joe

Got a laugh last night when I made a crack about 'sure Leinster have never been known for attacking rugby and scoring tries.'

It's getting worrying tbh. The Ospreys game was dire, as was yesterday's. I'm not going to stop watching, but I can see why some would.

We need a team to start winning by playing well tbh. Hopefully France or New Zealand or someone will get a bumper crop of pacey and agile wings and centres in the next few seasons who can tear apart the defences of the modern era.

Hippo

toomevara wrote: »

My comment was of course prefaced with; 'for those of us who love it'...

Goose81

Anyone else wish the whole world had adopted the ELV's that they used in the SH?

Quick tap penalties etc