Rugby is the real winner

handsomecake

The 4 semi finalists are the teams who throw the ball around and endeavour to play nice rugby.
England Ireland Argentina and south Africa are not easy on the eye.
Wales and Australia are reaping the reward of picking young players over tired established players.
France are a basket case but at least they entertain.

SomeFool

meh

Typh

I think that’s somewhat unfair on Argentina given the fact that their style of play is actually quite free-flowing and off-load heavy, as exemplified in a very dull game by their one try.

Also, ‘nice’ is a very sweeping term which will find so many variations of subjective interpretation. If you see enormous forwards licking their lips with their eyes fixed on some tiny back for them to strangle, someone might call that nice. If I saw intense competition at the breakdown, and a clash of the titans between hulking packs, you could equally call that nice. It’s intense physicality which I see as an integral part of the game, and while it may be ugly, grunting labour, it’s a physical competition tbh. While I do enjoy games where it’s literally end to end with messy off-loads and backs flinging passes to each-other and dancing around like fairies to evade tackles, I do also enjoy the uglier battles. It’s why I enjoy watching France play tbh. On their given day it’s chaos meeting grace.

pajunior

handsomecake wrote: »

The 4 semi finalists are the teams who throw the ball around and endeavour to play nice rugby.
England Ireland Argentina and south Africa are not easy on the eye.
Wales and Australia are reaping the reward of picking young players over tired established players.
France are a basket case but at least they entertain.

Australia are exceptionally lucky to be in the semi-final. South Africa four years ago would have ripped them to shreds today and today's South Africa really should have won, they could have kicked numerous drop goals and left it at that.

cgpg5

pajunior wrote: »

Australia are exceptionally lucky to be in the semi-final. South Africa four years ago would have ripped them to shreds today and today's South Africa really should have won, they could have kicked numerous drop goals and left it at that.

The SA team of four years ago is relatively the same as today, the only difference , I feel, is that the team four years ago had one of the easiest run ins possible in winning the RWC.

Phonehead

I tell you what annoys me more than the "Glorious defeat brigade" the "Those who rejoice in our failure brigade"

Australia barely strung 4 passes together yesterday, yet you feel they played entertaining rugby Honestly :rolleyes:

Brendan97

cgpg5 wrote: »

The SA team of four years ago is relatively the same as today, the only difference , I feel, is that the team four years ago had one of the easiest run ins possible in winning the RWC.

or they are just 4 years older and slower!

.ak

handsomecake wrote: »

The 4 semi finalists are the teams who throw the ball around and endeavour to play nice rugby.
England Ireland Argentina and south Africa are not easy on the eye.
Wales and Australia are reaping the reward of picking young players over tired established players.
France are a basket case but at least they entertain.

Wrong.

They endeavor to win.

tolosenc

.ak wrote: »

Wrong.

They endeavor to win.

At all costs.

Just a mentality Irish people never seem to have.

ferike1

While today's game might not have been the easiest on the eye I thought it was a really really exciting game. Watch SA pound away at Australia for a good 70 minutes and Australia hanging on was great. (Despite the result of course)

cgpg5

Brendan97 wrote: »

or they are just 4 years older and slower!

What kind of a statement is that? Four years hardly makes that much difference, if anything most players that were young four years ago should be improving and reaching their peak by now.

Fight_Night

cgpg5 wrote: »

What kind of a statement is that? Four years hardly makes that much difference, if anything most players that were young four years ago should be improving and reaching their peak by now.

Most of the key players of the 07 SA team are getting on and in their 30's, past their peak. I'm fairly sure we'll see Bakkies and Matfield retire soon enough. And you can only play what is in front of you, South Africa won all of their games what more can you ask? They also beat the lions in 09.

cgpg5

Fight_Night wrote: »

Most of the key players of the 07 SA team are getting on and in their 30's, past their peak. I'm fairly sure we'll see Bakkies and Matfield retire soon enough. And you can only play what is in front of you, South Africa won all of their games what more can you ask? They also beat the lions in 09.

Don't think this particular group are past their peak maybe John Smit, but I see what you're saying. With regards to them having an easy route, I understand fully you can only beat what's in front of you, but what pajunior said is that they would hammer today's Aussies which isn't true- we saw no evidence in 2007 to suggest they'd hammer any big team. They even made heavy enough weather of beating Fiji!

handsomecake

Phonehead wrote: »

I tell you what annoys me more than the "Glorious defeat brigade" the "Those who rejoice in our failure brigade"

Australia barely strung 4 passes together yesterday, yet you feel they played entertaining rugby Honestly :rolleyes:

No I don't mean today , I mean historically and in general these 4 teams play attacking rugby. The semis could be quite entertaining. Ireland england and SA have hulking backrows and pragmatic out halfs.
Wales have played some top drawer rugby and scored lots of tries.
France on form are superb to watch
NZ and aus have served up some of the greatest rugby I've seen in this 4 year cycle.
I'm happy with the 4 teams left in the comp.
And delighted England cant win it again.
Any of the 4 teams remaining who win it will sit well with me.
I couldn't stand an England or south African win

dfx-

handsomecake wrote: »

No I don't mean today , I mean historically and in general these 4 teams play attacking rugby. The semis could be quite entertaining. Ireland england and SA have hulking backrows and pragmatic out halfs. I couldn't stand an England or south African win

What is attacking rugby? Can you not attack with hulking backrows, a dominant pack, a lineout and a kicker? Because SA did today and Australia didn't cope.

'Attacking rugby' isn't good rugby. As Australia have shown on at least two occasions so far.

The_Kew_Tour

Best 4 teams are left no question. Cant wait for both games.

walshb

Simple: Rugby players win rugby matches. If that is by flare and aesthetic skills so be it. If it's by power and strength and kicking, so be it. Rugby is the winner no matter what, so the OP IMO is well of the mark.

The title rugby is the winner. What is that supposed to mean?

Do you mean "pretty play" is the winner? If so, title it like this.

Some of the best rugby games are the hard slogs in the trenches.

Just like some of the best frames in snooker are the long and tactical safety frames.
It all depends on the mood of the audience at the time, and of course, the quality
of the slog!

MungBean

I dont understand this Aussies and NZ play more attractive rugby. Less use of set pieces is not more attractive rugby union. Its trying to play like rugby league. If you want fast backs constantly running in both directions with the ball bouncing back and forth watch league. An attractive game of rugby union involves scrums, lineouts kicking for territory and a raft of other things.

NZ's most exciting player at the moment is a league player playing league style rugby. Kinda sums it up.

handsomecake

MungBean wrote: »

I

NZ's most exciting player at the moment is a league player playing league style rugby. Kinda sums it up.

Israel dagg didn't play league

Jess16

MungBean wrote: »

I dont understand this Aussies and NZ play more attractive rugby. Less use of set pieces is not more attractive rugby union. Its trying to play like rugby league. If you want fast backs constantly running in both directions with the ball bouncing back and forth watch league. An attractive game of rugby union involves scrums, lineouts kicking for territory and a raft of other things.

I don't think that's entirely true. Fast, open play with great handling is an intrinsic part of union too. Scoring tries from quick turnovers is always going to look attractive and that's a huge part of the Kiwi and Aussie appeal

MungBean

Jess16 wrote: »

I don't think that's entirely true. Fast, open play with great handling is an intrinsic part of union too. Scoring tries from quick turnovers is always going to look attractive and that's a huge part of the Kiwi and Aussie appeal

It is attractive to see good back play and great lines being ran with support in broken play. But they like to label Aussie and NZ style play exciting and call everyone else boring and archaic.

But that style only truly works when one team is far beyond the level of the other. Cooper is a genius against lesser opposition but today a good Bok side reduced him to shíte. A good Ireland team did the same. As exciting and attractive as they think they are, it only works in union when one team is outclassed. Otherwise it descends into the likes of the super 15 final, backs running it, losing it and running it back. With refs unwilling to penalise at the breakdown, offering an age for knock on advantage to avoid scrums being given, all to keep this free flowing game going.