Rugby’s echo chamber

thehairygrape

A bit of context. I come from a GAA background, but am a bit sports mad in general. I’d follow almost any sport, especially one involving an Irish sports person or team. I’ve always followed Rugby and have attended school’s matches, club games, Munster matches and the few internationals I was able to get tickets for. So, I’m well disposed towards the game.

A few observations after two weekends of watching the tv coverage.

1. The matches are boring. Bar the odd outbreak of a bit of flair, you have large, overmuscled men crashing in to each other until they get tired and then a scrum half kicks the ball away and on they go. The game was invented for Englishprivate school boys, but has evolved into an overly defensive bore fest dominated by bulk and muscle rather than flair and skill. I’m sure this is fascinating to those involved in the game, especially coaches, but it’s not a great watch for the rest of us.

2. Because the game is now so defense driven, the analysis is almost incomprehensible. At half time on Virgin media, Ronan O’Gara might as well have been speaking Swahili for all the sense he made to me. Now, I’m a great admirer of Ronan for all he’s achieved both on and off the pitch, but who exactly was he addressing? Other coaches, that’s who. The rest of us were lost. Virgin hardly helped by not providing clips to illustrate the, no doubt excellent, points he was making. Matt Williams and Eoin Redden were not much better. If it’s so technical that it can’t be explained relatively easily then something’s gone wrong somewhere. I love watching a good analyst explaining some technical aspect of a sport. What I’m watching on all channels in relation Rugby is just not explaining anything. A long way from ‘pull like a dog’ of the O’Donovan Brothers.

Just a few thoughts. I’ll still watch the games and hope Ireland win their next three matches. I’d just worry that the sport won’t grow beyond their own echo chamber. Just look at the number of school kids in Limerick wearing GAA jerseys and start worrying.

awec

Closing this for now.

awec

Thread reopened again after discussion with the OP and an adjustment to some content. Please be constructive.

joficeduns1

You're points are certainly valid for some games being defensive heavy. That's just part of the game now for some teams/coaches. There's good in it too though.

I'm not a fan of Virgin's coverage. I've been watching ITV or BBC where possible now. Much better production value.

Pudsy33

I love O'Gara's analysis, he explains the intricacies of the game far better than anyone else in Irish media. I appreciate that it might be tough going for the average viewer, but I'd take it over Quinlan or Williams any day of the week.

awec

Pudsy33 wrote: »

I love O'Gara's analysis, he explains the intricacies of the game far better than anyone else in Irish media. I appreciate that it might be tough going for the average viewer, but I'd take it over Quinlan or Williams any day of the week.

Sometimes, but there was a point yesterday when O'Gara was talking about -1 and -2 defenders etc and it was a bit anorak-ish, like a Murray Kinsella article.

Digifriendly

Scotland Vs Wales was not a boring game by any stretch of the imagination but it has been the exception. I am a rugby union fan first and foremost above all other sports but I found Wales vs Ireland and Ireland vs France quite boring apart from last few minutes of both. Rules do need to be looked at otherwise we won't win any new fans in foreeable future.

As I can only get VM on SD here in N. Ireland I always watch either BBC or ITV for 6N in HD. SD quality on VM is particularly poor so I'm missing ROG's comments. I think BBC/ITV pundits are pretty good and not too technical on the whole.

Limerick - now a decent Gaelic football side as well as hurling so your observation is timely. What will interest me most as a rugby fan is when this present pandemic (and with it crowd restrictions) are over will we see a gallop back through the turnstiles at e.g. Thomond Park or will some fans be lost to the game for good?

awec

On the entertainment part, I think for a while test rugby turned into a percentage game of playing low-risk rugby to avoid making mistakes and it that made it a bit harder to watch. Don't play in your own half, don't offload etc.

sydthebeat

It was said before (i thin by bernard jackman) that its the job of the co-commentators in a game to describe what was happening to the layperson. I think the likes of Jackman and Toland are quite good at breaking down plays into their very basics . Toland will often say "now watch number X here, hes going to do Y in order to get the opposition do Z" and when it happens its clear why. Jackman is a bluffer at higher levels but explaining the game at the basics heres quite good IMHO.

O Gara is a completely different kettle of fish.
Hes a guy whos very measured in what he says and when hes describing plays he has seen things that a lot of fervent fans wouldn't, therefore using phrases like "the minus 2 defender" and stuff like that.
Yes its very specialised, but i would argue for lay people fans virgin have matt williams, so its nice to have someone like o gara offering insights for the more experienced fan.

as for the game play, i completely agree with you. The laws have been altered so that it hugely favours the defence and a lot of time its better to play without the ball than with... thus you see so much kicking.

you will often hear that it looks like they play a different game in the southern hemisphere , as games tend to be a lot more open and the style of play a lot more exciting and opportunistic. I believe that comes down to mindset. The biggest NH leagues have relegation therefore coaches are thinking about not losing first and foremost. set pieces like the scrum are viewed as a way to win a penalty rather than a way to create space that you might see more down south. You also have better basic skills in general in the SH, with only perhaps france having the flair and gall to play away from contact and keep the ball alive. The 4 home nations have always been rather brawn over brain focused in the professional era.

Pudsy33

I think rule changes are needed, I'll be watching the 50/22 trial in Aus with particular interest. I think something dramatic like this is required, I don't think more breakdown changes will solve anything.

I like GAA. I like Rugby. They are different. Different is good.

TheCitizen

Some good points from the op. Soccer is my game but I always watch the rugby internationals especially.

The flair from backs and enterprising running rugby from years ago seems to be gone. The French were famous for it when they had players like Blanco. The Welsh always had genius out halves. The game doesn't produce players like Campese anymore. It's all about braun now big lumps on God knows what supplements battering each other for 60 minutes and then replaced by other similar lumps to continue the process. The back lines get nowhere most of the time with defenders in their faces whenever they try to pass and run the ball.

Not a rugby expert but I reckon they need to make some major rules changes to benefit attacking running rugby.

The op is also correct about his echo chamber remark. Rugby people don't like it when people from other sports make points about the game of rugby.

sydthebeat

Pudsy33 wrote: »

I think rule changes are needed, I'll be watching the 50/22 trial in Aus with particular interest. I think something dramatic like this is required, I don't think more breakdown changes will solve anything.

i think the 50/22 plus the offside line being properly policed would make a big difference to attacking play.

id even be on for there having to be daylight between the ruck and the defensive line like 1 meter away from the pillar defenders

awec

sydthebeat wrote: »

It was said before (i thin by bernard jackman) that its the job of the co-commentators in a game to describe what was happening to the layperson. I think the likes of Jackman and Toland are quite good at breaking down plays into their very basics . Toland will often say "now watch number X here, hes going to do Y in order to get the opposition do Z" and when it happens its clear why. Jackman is a bluffer at higher levels but explaining the game at the basics heres quite good IMHO.

O Gara is a completely different kettle of fish.
Hes a guy whos very measured in what he says and when hes describing plays he has seen things that a lot of fervent fans wouldn't, therefore using phrases like "the minus 2 defender" and stuff like that.
Yes its very specialised, but i would argue for lay people fans virgin have matt williams, so its nice to have someone like o gara offering insights for the more experienced fan.

as for the game play, i completely agree with you. The laws have been altered so that it hugely favours the defence and a lot of time its better to play without the ball than with... thus you see so much kicking.

you will often hear that it looks like they play a different game in the southern hemisphere , as games tend to be a lot more open and the style of play a lot more exciting and opportunistic. I believe that comes down to mindset. The biggest NH leagues have relegation therefore coaches are thinking about not losing first and foremost. set pieces like the scrum are viewed as a way to win a penalty rather than a way to create space that you might see more down south. You also have better basic skills in general in the SH, with only perhaps france having the flair and gall to play away from contact and keep the ball alive. The 4 home nations have always been rather brawn over brain focused in the professional era.

I think this has improved in recent years thanks to the new laws and referees telling players to use it if the ball is at the back before collapse happens.

Pudsy33

sydthebeat wrote: »

i think the 50/22 plus the offside line being properly policed would make a big difference to attacking play.

id even be on for there having to be daylight between the ruck and the defensive line like 1 meter away from the pillar defenders

You're dead right on offside, the way it is policed currently is awful. The 1m idea is a good shout.

Are the touch judges supposed to be focusing on this?

irelandrover

TheCitizen wrote: »

The op is also correct about his echo chamber remark. Rugby people don't like it when people from other sports make points about the game of rugby.

Go into any sports forum and tell them their game is boring, their team are terrible and see how you get on.

The soccer forum have a post count requirement before you can post for reasons like that.

Hesh's Umpire

I'm completely from another sporting background.

Gaelic football is my number one sport by miles. And by golly it can be an atrocious game to watch at times. No disputing that.

It's probably something to do with only remembering the good parts of childhood but when I was a kid and teenager, I loved watching rugby. It seemed a great sport.

But honestly I find most rugby games hard to watch these days. The OP covered most of what I would think about it. Over the weekend I saw a few minutes of the England Italy game but that's all. 30 years ago I would have watched all three games. To be fair, maybe there's so much choice on TV these days (sport and otherwise). 30 years ago I probably had only a few channels.

Can't comment on the analysts. That's the time to make tea or grab another drink! (for all sports)

TheCitizen

irelandrover wrote: »

Go into any sports forum and tell them their game is boring, their team are terrible and see how you get on.

The soccer forum have a post count requirement before you can post for reasons like that.

That's probably true but in the case of soccer, that game is still producing flair players. All games evolve but in the case of rugby it seems to have evolved to lessen the impact of creative players with defences and defensive play winning out.

The echo chamber being defensive about any observations from others doesn't help.

Hurrache

I find soccer incredibly boring, feic all happens in them bar a bit of play acting in order to cheat the ref, but there you go.
The Scotland/Wales game the weekend just gone was pretty entertaining and exciting, and even the Ireland game wasn't the worse

irelandrover

TheCitizen wrote: »

That's probably true but in the case of soccer, that game is still producing flair players. All games evolve but in the case of rugby it seems to have evolved to lessen the impact of creative players with defences and defensive play winning out.

The echo chamber being defensive about any observations from others doesn't help.

Rugby still produces flair players. I watch both sports. Most games at the very top in both are tight affairs.

Watch pro14 and you will see a lot more free running and offloads than you would at international.

Look at the games between the top 6 in the premier league. they are quite often borefests as well.

TheCitizen

Hurrache wrote: »

I find soccer incredibly boring, feic all happens in them bar a bit of play acting in order to cheat the ref, but there you go.
The Scotland/Wales game the weekend just gone was pretty entertaining and exciting, and even the Ireland game wasn't the worse

The Ireland game was very poor standard. Error strewn, unforced errors from both sides meant the game was tight on then scoreboard as a contest. Maybe Covid has had a bigger impact on rugby than other sports with training prohibited ? It was very poor stuff.

awec

This isn't a rugby vs soccer vs GAA discussion, please don't go down that road.

sydthebeat

TheCitizen wrote: »

That's probably true but in the case of soccer, that game is still producing flair players. All games evolve but in the case of rugby it seems to have evolved to lessen the impact of creative players with defences and defensive play winning out.

The echo chamber being defensive about any observations from others doesn't help.

the 4 home nations national level soccer teams are horrible to watch.
similar to rugby there's a dearth of basic skills

leakyboots

sydthebeat wrote: »

It was said before (i thin by bernard jackman) that its the job of the co-commentators in a game to describe what was happening to the layperson. I think the likes of Jackman and Toland are quite good at breaking down plays into their very basics . Toland will often say "now watch number X here, hes going to do Y in order to get the opposition do Z" and when it happens its clear why. Jackman is a bluffer at higher levels but explaining the game at the basics heres quite good IMHO.

O Gara is a completely different kettle of fish.
Hes a guy whos very measured in what he says and when hes describing plays he has seen things that a lot of fervent fans wouldn't, therefore using phrases like "the minus 2 defender" and stuff like that.
Yes its very specialised, but i would argue for lay people fans virgin have matt williams, so its nice to have someone like o gara offering insights for the more experienced fan.

Very good point on Toland. I know he's not a favourite on here (and definitely not one of mine) but he does make a concerted effort to explain some of the intricacies of the game to the lay person, I'd noticed that about him (in between the inanity)

Matt Williams says everything with such emphasis and conviction the whole time it's gas, even if it doesn't need it.

hahashake

Hurrache wrote: »

I find soccer incredibly boring, feic all happens in them bar a bit of play acting in order to cheat the ref, but there you go.
The Scotland/Wales game the weekend just gone was pretty entertaining and exciting, and even the Ireland game wasn't the worse

Take away the context/stakes and a lot of popular sport is dull, or at least doesn't stand on its own as entertainment - bar highlight reel moments. With context however, it can be enthralling - but that context has to be earned by time and public interest.

The problem for a sport like rugby is that it wants to grow or at the very least maintain its market share, however it can't do that without improving the sport itself (in my opinion).

It isn't a monolith like association football/soccer that can churn out mediocre games between top teams that their own diehard fans will decry as dull but still watch because of the history and meaning that it brings to them. A 0-0 draw still has a meaning in the context of a season, which has context for a team that has existed for 100+ years and is followed globally.

Purists don't want any major changes but rugby has always had major changes, it has changed far more as a sport than soccer over it's history.

TheCitizen

sydthebeat wrote: »

the 4 home nations national level soccer teams are horrible to watch.
similar to rugby there's a dearth of basic skills

Please don't use terms like home nations.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

the 4 home nations national level soccer teams are horrible to watch.
similar to rugby there's a dearth of basic skills

the skills in rugby,should be significantly easier to master vs soccer/hurling etc (almost zero kicking/weighted kick passes are expected)


Its example of what is wrong with a lot of sports (particularly gaeilc football too,which is a terrible spectacle to watch at times).....it should be move the ball fast into space and get players on it.......

but in reality rugby has devolved into just bigger and bigger players,crashing into one and another and skill levels are been snuffed out in pursuit of success,masking over it with buzzwords such as phases/rucks is not a long term solution.....

it was never going to be worlds most skilful game,by design,but as a spectacle,it isnt as enjoyable to watch vs,early 00..

thehairygrape

awec wrote: »

This isn't a rugby vs soccer vs GAA discussion, please don't go down that road.

I genuinely wasn't trying to pitch one sport against another. I love hurling for instance, but I've attended quite a few games where I almost lost the will to live, as well as all feeling in my extremities.
I have never thought of sport as one or the other. There's room for all sports to grow with the right will of those involved. I suppose it's that Rugby was on TV over the weekend that pushed me to comment. I also hope this thread doesn't become a 'one-sport-against-another' one.

Podge_irl

TheCitizen wrote: »

The flair from backs and enterprising running rugby from years ago seems to be gone. The French were famous for it when they had players like Blanco. The Welsh always had genius out halves. The game doesn't produce players like Campese anymore.

TheCitizen wrote: »

The Ireland game was very poor standard. Error strewn, unforced errors from both sides meant the game was tight on then scoreboard as a contest. Maybe Covid has had a bigger impact on rugby than other sports with training prohibited ? It was very poor stuff.

A large amount of the flair and enterprising running from years ago was possible precisely because of poor standards and errors. It is completely logically inconsistent to complain about poor standards and errors while harking back to a time when they were rife.

thehairygrape

Hesh's Umpire wrote: »

I'm completely from another sporting background.

Gaelic football is my number one sport by miles. And by golly it can be an atrocious game to watch at times. No disputing that.

It's probably something to do with only remembering the good parts of childhood but when I was a kid and teenager, I loved watching rugby. It seemed a great sport.

But honestly I find most rugby games hard to watch these days. The OP covered most of what I would think about it. Over the weekend I saw a few minutes of the England Italy game but that's all. 30 years ago I would have watched all three games. To be fair, maybe there's so much choice on TV these days (sport and otherwise). 30 years ago I probably had only a few channels.

Can't comment on the analysts. That's the time to make tea or grab another drink! (for all sports)

Good post, but have to disagree about the analysis. I attended a cricket test once in England (Lords). Had the good luck to sit next to a guy who spent the day explaining what was going on. He didn't talk down to me, but patiently explained the intricacies of the game. By the end of the day I was fascinated by the game, and five days tests in particular and still am (we were also slightly drunk, but that's another story). My point is, is that a good analyst can add so much to the enjoyment and understanding of an unfamiliar sport. But I do take the points made earlier that O'Gara's analysis did sit well with some people.

Quin_Dub

Podge_irl wrote: »

A large amount of the flair and enterprising running from years ago was possible precisely because of poor standards and errors. It is completely logically inconsistent to complain about poor standards and errors while harking back to a time when they were rife.

This is a very valid point.

It's unreasonable to compare the game of rugby before/after the introduction of Professionalism.

Going back 30/40 years ago in the days of a Gareth Edwards , a Mike Gibson or a Campese etc. they were extremely skillful players playing in hugely unstructured games where , certainly at International level the players literally would have had a few hours together prior to matches to prepare and agree on game plans etc.

The whole game back then was largely "wait for the super-star to do something" or taking advantage of a a series of mistakes from the opposition either as a result of a lack of organisation or a lack of fitness because they all had day jobs too.

Now though , not only are they all supremely fit athletes they have also spent countless days/weeks preparing for games and as such the general error count is massively reduced.

Some ignore the huge amount of skill and preparation it takes to do the things that we see in games today both in attack and defence. The level of skill ,training and preparation required to have multiple big guys running dummy lines and delivering cut-out passes etc. etc. seems to be lost on a lot of people.

The "error strewn" games we see today are in fact anything but - a handful of dropped passes or misdirected kicks etc. are a fraction of what was seen 30 years ago.

In fact the "mistakes" were the norm then and the skill on display was mostly guys either recovering from those mistakes or taking advantage of them.

thomas 123

For me as an ex player(very low level) it was great to hear what one of our greatest had to say. His in depth analysis made him worth having there rather then the usual “they are buying into the system” “rebuilding phase” stuff.

The detail he went into about what teams get up to style wise in training was particularly interesting to me.

Rugby is a far more complex game rules wise to GAA and soccer, there is a lot of little rules or little things players do that the average supporter would know little about - and there’s no shame in it, I was lost as a player in the latter stages of my “career” with rule changes.

joficeduns1

thomas 123 wrote: »

For me as an ex player(very low level) it was great to hear what one of our greatest had to say. His in depth analysis made him worth having there rather then the usual “they are buying into the system” “rebuilding phase” stuff.

The detail he went into about what teams get up to style wise in training was particularly interesting to me.

He's definitely a great brain and voice to have explain things, but sometimes a visual aid is needed for those of us who took few too many knocks in a ruck years ago.

Ben Bailey

Podge_irl wrote: »

A large amount of the flair and enterprising running from years ago was possible precisely because of poor standards and errors. It is completely logically inconsistent to complain about poor standards and errors while harking back to a time when they were rife.

Can't disagree with this. Professional sports have all moved away from the free-flowing style that thrived whilst these sports were amateur. Professionals, whether they be coaches, players, referees or administartors now depend for their living on successful outcomes, and not on the 'love of the game'. Whereas we, as supporters, remain as amateurs with the same level of emotional investment in 'our' teams.

thomas 123

joficeduns1 wrote: »

He's definitely a great brain and voice to have explain things, but sometimes a visual aid is needed for those of us who took few too many knocks in a ruck years ago.

RTE had some way of doing it before when they are in studio, not sure if that was prepared during ad breaks or what though.

We will send pen and paper out to ROG to be sure he shows us next time sure!

Niallof9

rugby will die without some debate about where its headed. You can also see the echo chamber in action over on the main Ireland thread. its the same narrative for so long.

Irish rugby has so many issues that aren't being talked about particularly regarding the productions lines,the schools, the clubs and the central contracts.

Rugby itself has too few people playing the game, and the problem with the schools part being a Worldwide issue as Genge mentioned before.

Rugby is so professional and players so fit, mistakes are at a minimum, and in a chicken and egg situation to keep mistakes at a minimum, risk is taken out of the game. But its clearly becoming more and more boring. And some of the blood and thunder is being taken out of the game as well through officiating as well as more professionalism and mental training etc.

There was a perfect point probably in the second age of professionalism. Its been steadily downhill since with a few exceptions. Robotic players with robotic personalities being churned out. Funnily enough Sexton is probably the last of the old school breed. And maybe Earls.

NIMAN

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is a very valid point.

It's unreasonable to compare the game of rugby before/after the introduction of Professionalism.

Going back 30/40 years ago in the days of a Gareth Edwards , a Mike Gibson or a Campese etc. they were extremely skillful players playing in hugely unstructured games where , certainly at International level the players literally would have had a few hours together prior to matches to prepare and agree on game plans etc.

The whole game back then was largely "wait for the super-star to do something" or taking advantage of a a series of mistakes from the opposition either as a result of a lack of organisation or a lack of fitness because they all had day jobs too.

Now though , not only are they all supremely fit athletes they have also spent countless days/weeks preparing for games and as such the general error count is massively reduced.

Some ignore the huge amount of skill and preparation it takes to do the things that we see in games today both in attack and defence. The level of skill ,training and preparation required to have multiple big guys running dummy lines and delivering cut-out passes etc. etc. seems to be lost on a lot of people.

The "error strewn" games we see today are in fact anything but - a handful of dropped passes or misdirected kicks etc. are a fraction of what was seen 30 years ago.

In fact the "mistakes" were the norm then and the skill on display was mostly guys either recovering from those mistakes or taking advantage of them.

All correct I'm sure, as I often see in older games team tries that cover half the length of the pitch, yet now its a lot rarer to see such flowing moves and tries. Maybe its just my perception, but the vast majority of tries now involve masses of bodies pushing and heaving each other over the line. Its all so well organised that individual skill or moments of genius have been snuffed out.

That "greatest try ever" by Gareth Edwards was on telly the other night, and I remember thinking "you don't see tries like that anymore". Nor will we again?

Ironically, as the game has got a lot better technically, the entertainment value has plummeted.

Lost Ormond

thehairygrape wrote: »

A bit of context. I come from a GAA background, but am a bit sports mad in general. I’d follow almost any sport, especially one involving an Irish sports person or team. I’ve always followed Rugby and have attended school’s matches, club games, Munster matches and the few internationals I was able to get tickets for. So, I’m well disposed towards the game.

A few observations after two weekends of watching the tv coverage.

1. The matches are boring. Bar the odd outbreak of a bit of flair, you have large, overmuscled men crashing in to each other until they get tired and then a scrum half kicks the ball away and on they go. The game was invented for Englishprivate school boys, but has evolved into an overly defensive bore fest dominated by bulk and muscle rather than flair and skill. I’m sure this is fascinating to those involved in the game, especially coaches, but it’s not a great watch for the rest of us.

2. Because the game is now so defense driven, the analysis is almost incomprehensible. At half time on Virgin media, Ronan O’Gara might as well have been speaking Swahili for all the sense he made to me. Now, I’m a great admirer of Ronan for all he’s achieved both on and off the pitch, but who exactly was he addressing? Other coaches, that’s who. The rest of us were lost. Virgin hardly helped by not providing clips to illustrate the, no doubt excellent, points he was making. Matt Williams and Eoin Redden were not much better. If it’s so technical that it can’t be explained relatively easily then something’s gone wrong somewhere. I love watching a good analyst explaining some technical aspect of a sport. What I’m watching on all channels in relation Rugby is just not explaining anything. A long way from ‘pull like a dog’ of the O’Donovan Brothers.

Just a few thoughts. I’ll still watch the games and hope Ireland win their next three matches. I’d just worry that the sport won’t grow beyond their own echo chamber. Just look at the number of school kids in Limerick wearing GAA jerseys and start worrying.

When you say boring what more do you want in terms of excitement?
Some of what O Gara did say was overly technical and only those who would watch the game and even be involved in the game a fair bit would understand that but him using those terms isnt necessarily the problem its the presenter and other panel members who dont explain it in more basic easier to understand terms which is the issue.

Pudsy33 wrote: »

I think rule changes are needed, I'll be watching the 50/22 trial in Aus with particular interest. I think something dramatic like this is required, I don't think more breakdown changes will solve anything.

Im not sure many law changes are actually need
15 years is a long time in sport but we get major law changes every few seasons and there is tweaks every single season and often there is directives to officials and teams mid season

Deleted User wrote: »

I like GAA. I like Rugby. They are different. Different is good.

Yes it is good but OP has a point.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Some good points from the op. Soccer is my game but I always watch the rugby internationals especially.

The flair from backs and enterprising running rugby from years ago seems to be gone. The French were famous for it when they had players like Blanco. The Welsh always had genius out halves. The game doesn't produce players like Campese anymore. It's all about braun now big lumps on God knows what supplements battering each other for 60 minutes and then replaced by other similar lumps to continue the process. The back lines get nowhere most of the time with defenders in their faces whenever they try to pass and run the ball.

Not a rugby expert but I reckon they need to make some major rules changes to benefit attacking running rugby.

The op is also correct about his echo chamber remark. Rugby people don't like it when people from other sports make points about the game of rugby.

The game will always change substantially when you get more organised and the rugby league influence in terms of defence. There's a lot of nostalgia towards the past but you only have to look at many games and the sheer messiness of the games. Of course there would be flair and attacking genius but it was helped hugely by the game being a complete mess.

Pudsy33 wrote: »

You're dead right on offside, the way it is policed currently is awful. The 1m idea is a good shout.

Are the touch judges supposed to be focusing on this?

The Assistants do focus but you penalise when its material to the play, actually going to cause a considerable effect on the other team. Just like if a player at a tackle or ruck is lying on the wrong side. you dont penalise immediately but if they then are really slowing the ball down you penalise them. Most often the defensive line can be close to offside but its not worth penalising
1m back would make things even harder to manage from an officials point of view

Deleted User wrote: »

the skills in rugby,should be significantly easier to master vs soccer/hurling etc (almost zero kicking/weighted kick passes are expected)

Its example of what is wrong with a lot of sports (particularly gaeilc football too,which is a terrible spectacle to watch at times).....it should be move the ball fast into space and get players on it.......

but in reality rugby has devolved into just bigger and bigger players,crashing into one and another and skill levels are been snuffed out in pursuit of success,masking over it with buzzwords such as phases/rucks is not a long term solution.....

it was never going to be worlds most skilful game,by design,but as a spectacle,it isnt as enjoyable to watch vs,early 00..

I dont see because there is much less kicking that skills should be significantly easier in rugby.
Phases and rucks arent buzzwords. They are key parts of the game. After most tackles happen in a game a ruck occurs. And after each tackle/ruck you enter a new phase of play. That isnt a buzzword.

Rattlehead_ie

OP, While I think most here would agree with your points to some extent, I would think that maybe if you were to watch the likes of Curry Cup or Super 15s rugby, you would see a different view of rugby. IMO, this is the way rugby should be played and especially aimed for / progressed to in this country if we want to get back to 2018 type results. You can see NZ already at this type of game and others at least bringing in facet of it

Niallof9

Niallof9 wrote: »

rugby will die without some debate about where its headed. You can also see the echo chamber in action over on the main Ireland thread. its the same narrative for so long.

Irish rugby has so many issues that aren't being talked about particularly regarding the productions lines,the schools, the clubs and the central contracts.

Rugby itself has too few people playing the game, and the problem with the schools part being a Worldwide issue as Genge mentioned before.

Rugby is so professional and players so fit, mistakes are at a minimum, and in a chicken and egg situation to keep mistakes at a minimum, risk is taken out of the game. But its clearly becoming more and more boring. And some of the blood and thunder is being taken out of the game as well through officiating as well as more professionalism and mental training etc.

There was a perfect point probably in the second age of professionalism. Its been steadily downhill since with a few exceptions. Robotic players with robotic personalities being churned out. Funnily enough Sexton is probably the last of the old school breed. And maybe Earls.

New Zealand is currently having that debate, but it's nearly too late. Soccer has already taken over from rugby as the most popular sport in the country, and the number of kids playing it in the schools and at underage level is at a critical level.

In New Zealand, rugby became a purely elitist sport played by the very best and they forgot about the need to cater for the vast majority who will never play at the very thin end of that wedge. Schools rugby, in particular, became so competitive and some of the kids so big that rugby wasn't even an option for many kids. Soccer and other sports just hoovered up the rest.

Forsaking the club game for the good of the provinces and the international team is another huge issue here.

NZ should serve as a warning for us, as that's exactly where we are headed if we don't sit down and have a serious conversation about where Irish rugby sees itself in 10 years' time.

Ben Bailey

NIMAN wrote: »

Ironically, as the game has got a lot better technically, the entertainment value has plummeted.

This.

Ireland v Australia at Lansdowne Road was the first game I saw.
My Dad brought me (we didn't have at TV then anyway).
53 years later, I'm still watching and hoping for great moments.

Quin_Dub

NIMAN wrote: »

All correct I'm sure, as I often see in older games team tries that cover half the length of the pitch, yet now its a lot rarer to see such flowing moves and tried. Maybe its just my perception, but the vast majority of tries now involve masses of bodies pushing and heaving each other over the line. Its all so well organised that individual skill or moments of genius have been snuffed out.

That "greatest try ever" by Gareth Edwards was on telly the other night, and I remember thinking "you don't see tries like that anymore". Nor will we again?

Ironically, as the game has got a lot better technically, the entertainment value has plummeted.

In terms of that try - It probably wouldn't be scored today , not because the skill level is any less , but because there wouldn't have been 6 or 7 missed tackles due to exhaustion in the defence etc.

The "entertainment" element is the trade-off for Professionalism.

The better prepared the players are , the more organised the defences are and so on , the less likely you are to have the errors that lead to off the cuff scores like the Baa-baas one happening..

There are things that could be done - I'd be inclined to reduce the number of tactical subs allowed in a game and not allow them at all in the last quarter for example.

Still have 8 on the bench to allow for proper positional coverage , but stop having 16 completely fresh players appear from 50 minutes in the game.

Bit of tiredness to open up defences and it would also mean that the "big men" would be reduced as if you knew that you'd have to keep most of them on the pitch for the full 80 , carrying 120kgs isn't going to work.

We also need to enforce the laws as they are today around the break-down, we don't actually need to change the laws.

The Willis injury highlighted the issue , but the Italian player was off his feet when he pulled Willis over - Notwithstanding the safety issue of the crocodile roll , he shouldn't have been allowed to clear him out either way.

There was a similar issue in the Ireland game where a French player lying on his back over a ruck , tackled the Irish player as they picked up the ball which is an offence and should be whistled.

Also - players clearing out and going off their feet should be penalised - Today they are only pinged if they seal off the ball while doing it, but they should be getting done for torpedoing across the ruck and landing well beyond the ball as well.

Those changes would make turn-overs more likely , which in turn would force teams to move the ball away much quicker and look to gain ground by other means instead of just crash/bash/recycle.

Sabre0001

A cracking try (re: the "greatest ever try") but plenty that you'd tear your hair out now at too - and you wouldn't see it now because the game would have stopped for one or two red cards! Lineout was lost, poor kicks handed possession back easily, plenty of players in support but running support lines that you'd see at the mini games at half time

While I agree that some games can be quite tight and a lot of bish-bash-bosh, and defences are incredibly tight, I think it's unfair to say that you don't see these kinds of tries. They're not happening all the time, but there are some exceptional tries. We often dismiss Super Rugby because defence is optional, but you'll see some amazing tries and skills. The international game has produced some of the below too.

For sheer entertainment, Fiji are well worth watching. But it is the structure at the very top level that catches them out (and some years, not having a 10 that can kick points)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t_vMcTebsY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96xYyxdu2Rs

Japanese tries in first 5/6mins of footage here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZA0AnSdbBI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiSrvl1btYg

Lost Ormond

Deleted User wrote: »

New Zealand is currently having that debate, but it's nearly too late. Soccer has already taken over from rugby as the most popular sport in the country, and the number of kids playing it in the schools and at underage level is at a critical level.

In New Zealand, rugby became a purely elitist sport played by the very best and they forgot about the need to cater for the vast majority who will never play at the very thin end of that wedge. Schools rugby, in particular, became so competitive and some of the kids so big that rugby wasn't even an option for many kids. Soccer and other sports just hoovered up the rest.

Forsaking the club game for the good of the provinces and the international team is another huge issue here.

NZ should serve as a warning for us, as that's exactly where we are headed if we don't sit down and have a serious conversation about where Irish rugby sees itself in 10 years' time.

But New Zealand rugby has changed plenty to keep some who were being disfranchised interested especially those who find themselves too small especially to compete against the bigger players especially some of the pacific islanders. The under 85kg competitions are gaining in popularity year on year. There is even some provincial and representative teams for that level of rugby now.
Irish rugby had to move to provinces as the main teams but the problem is most people didnt keep a decent relationship with the clubs beyond that.
If you polled a lot of people here a significant number wouldnt have been in a club/attended club games regularly in years(take out the covid19 effect and that there hasnt really been any club rugby in almost 12 months).

Lost Ormond

Lost Ormond wrote: »

Phases and rucks arent buzzwords. They are key parts of the game. After most tackles happen in a game a ruck occurs. And after each tackle/ruck you enter a new phase of play. That isnt a buzzword.

Its one thing about rugby,they never acknowledge,is its packed with buzzwords


IE...In.any other sport,an offload would be called a pass


Gonna put this out there,to improve it as a spectacle,should they.not consider moving the ball faster,so each and every tackle deosnt decend into a "ruck" situation

The "rolling maul" while.seemingly a massive favourite among rugby support....is an awlful spectacle to look at from an entertainment point of view,and probably typifies more than anything how little skill is involved (good example of teamwork,strength etc,yes,but it is not skilful nor involves individual technical brilliance imo)

Lost Ormond

Deleted User wrote: »

Its one thing about rugby,they never acknowledge,is its packed with buzzwords

IE...In.any other sport,an offload would be called a pass

Gonna put this out there,to improve it as a spectacle,should they.not consider moving the ball faster,so each and every tackle deosnt decend into a "ruck" situation

The "rolling maul" while.seemingly a massive favourite among rugby support....is an awlful spectacle to look at from an entertainment point of view,and probably typifies more than anything how little skill is involved (good example of teamwork,strength etc,yes,but it is not skilful nor involves individual technical brilliance imo)

I dont think they are buzzwords for the most part. It is a pass but there is a clear difference between passing normally in the backline and offloading out of the tackle. You say it like its easy to just pass before the tackle. Many teams attempt to do so.
I dont see how the maul is not entertaining and like many other areas of the game can help find space in other areas of the pitch. A well organised, maul involves plenty of skill though and the maul as an attacking weapon can help create and set up technical brilliance and allow the backs or others not involved in maul to express their skillfulness and technical brilliance in more space than they otherwise would have

OldRio

Looking back in nostalgia is a grand but we tend to only remember the best. Some of the utter tosh that was served up in the 60's and 70's is forgotten. (Pick your decade)
Sure we remember the wonderful running of the speed merchants Helped out by some awful tackling and defending. (Not to mention the diet of beer and chips the forwards lived on)
Professionalism changed that. Money changed that. I agree the latest law tweeks have favoured the defending team therefore changes should be made.
The elephant in the room is the action being taken be ex players in regard to brain injuries. This will impact greatly on the laws.

AlanG

With regards to the Echo chamber remark I think analysis in Ireland is really limited by the closeness of the players and how reliant they are financially on using their former careers.
I heard several Irish pundits being asked why Rhys Ruddock had not made a Six nations start in 11 years and none of them said anything other than he was unlucky. That is not analysis or insight - it is not wanting to upset your mates. It happened time and time again and happens with most controversial topics. Similar approach to Sexton and concussion - so called pundits regularly saying that players know themselves best and they wont do anything to harm themselves, especially if they have kids. Everyone knows this is total BS, but the pundits seem to believe it - if that was the case we wouldn't need health and safety rules for any job.

Lost Ormond

Lost Ormond wrote: »

But New Zealand rugby has changed plenty to keep some who were being disfranchised interested especially those who find themselves too small especially to compete against the bigger players especially some of the pacific islanders. The under 85kg competitions are gaining in popularity year on year. There is even some provincial and representative teams for that level of rugby now.
Irish rugby had to move to provinces as the main teams but the problem is most people didnt keep a decent relationship with the clubs beyond that.
If you polled a lot of people here a significant number wouldnt have been in a club/attended club games regularly in years(take out the covid19 effect and that there hasnt really been any club rugby in almost 12 months).

Yeah, watched an under 85kg game recently, but a lot of the response has come too late and they have lost so many youngsters to other sports. The stats are there to prove it.

I think the last sentence there is a huge part of the problem - the game is now all just funnelled towards the elite. That's not a sustainable model.

Snickers Man

From a quality of match point of view, especially for neutrals, the bright spot looming across the horizon into general view is the French returning to something like their old selves. Flair play, ridiculous handling skills and a willingness to attack space.

Their first try against Ireland on Sunday was typical of that adventurism. They effectively worked an overlap WHILE THEY WERE A MAN DOWN by destroying the Irish defence on the right hand side of the field and then zipping the ball out quickly to their left.

Granted, one of the Irish defenders (was it Gibson Park or Lowe?) didn't help by shooting out of position when he should have held his ground and marked his man but the fact that the French were in so much space put him under that psychological pressure in the first place.
And that space had been created by quick hands, slick passes and adventurous running in the build up.

In the 50 odd years I have been watching the game, it is generally speaking over the long term, the French who at their best play the best style of rugby. They eschewed that for many years by going for bovine south sea islanders and south Africans all across the pitch, at both club and national level. But now, mercifully, they seem to be returning to their old selves. I hope they prosper.

The only nagging worry (if one is speaking as a neutral) is that Ireland gave a good account of themselves in the set pieces and were will within a lucky break of a win in the last seconds. (and by lucky break I mean a fortuitous penalty or advance into drop goal territory). The corollary is that England could be well placed to beat France with bosh bosh bang rugby, even though France are much the better and more attractive team.

Lost Ormond

OldRio wrote: »

Looking back in nostalgia is a grand but we tend to only remember the best. Some of the utter tosh that was served up in the 60's and 70's is forgotten. (Pick your decade)
Sure we remember the wonderful running of the speed merchants Helped out by some awful tackling and defending. (Not to mention the diet of beer and chips the forwards lived on)
Professionalism changed that. Money changed that. I agree the latest law tweeks have favoured the defending team therefore changes should be made.
The elephant in the room is the action being taken be ex players in regard to brain injuries. This will impact greatly on the laws.

Would agree about that. What law tweaks are you referring to?
There's been loads of law changes that have helped attacking sides from things like back lines having to be 5m back from scrums.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, watched an under 85kg game recently, but a lot of the response has come too late and they have lost so many youngsters to other sports. The stats are there to prove it.

I think the last sentence there is a huge part of the problem - the game is now all just funnelled towards the elite. That's not a sustainable model.

There hasnt been much club rugby in 12 months solely because of covid. That isnt the game being funnelled towards the elite.

Though would be interesting to find out when was the last time most people who regularly contribute on this forum went to a game of rugby that wasnt Ireland or one of the provinces?