O/T And you thought Dottie Pepper was tough

[Mark Bourgeois]

As for the haka, perhaps we see it to many times because there are to many matches for national teams.

Problem: execution.

Solution:

[Bob_Huntley]

quote author=Richard Farnsworth Goodale link=board=1;threadid=31537;start=0#msg616284 date=1192040541]
Who ever wrote that book, Dan would have to deal with the fact that Scotland regularly thrashed the English in the early days, the Republic of Ireland beat them at home before Hungary did, and the poor little USofA beat them in the 1950 World Cup.  In fact I think it would only be an Englishman who could consider them to ever have been "top of the heap," except for one briff shining moment in 1966, that we will probably never hear the end of......

Rihc,

The poor little USA team was made up of mostly of superannuated Brits. Go back to the books and see how many times Scotland beat them at home.

Dan and every other football fan, see:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/11/26/soccer_ed3_.php?page=2

There is great mention of Hogan as the catalyst for the Hungarian and European success in changing the game, but little mention is made of a true genius who introduced the idea of his players  "being where the other guys ain't". That was Arthur Rowe, who played for Tottenham Hotspur and had a spell as coach of the Austrian national team with great success.

It was under the fluid "Push and Run" style of manager Arthur Rowe, that Tottenham Hotspur finally announced their intentions in the grandest of styles by winning the Football League Championship for the first time.  They won both the League and FA Cup in 1961.


Bob
 

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

A quick glance tells me that Scotland beat England at home 17 times between 1877 and 1981, including the famous victory in 1967 against the reigning World Cup winners.  The goal vs. England in the 1950 world cup was scored by a Haitian/Belgian/American from a cross by a guy born in Philadelphia.  Maybe there were a few ex-Brits on the team, but who cares?

Rich

PS--care to know who are the holders of the Olympic title in Rubgby?

[Tom Huckaby]

Proof that one can find ANYTHING on this lovely internet.  A search on "olympic rugby" yielded this, the answer to Rich's question:

http://www.uidaho.edu/clubs/womens_rugby/RugbyRoot/rugby/FAQ/Trivia/olympics.html

All hail our champion US Eagles!

 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bob

A quick glance tells me that Scotland beat England at home 17 times between 1877 and 1981, including the famous victory in 1967 against the reigning World Cup winners.  The goal vs. England in the 1950 world cup was scored by a Haitian/Belgian/American from a cross by a guy born in Philadelphia.  Maybe there were a few ex-Brits on the team, but who cares?

Rich

PS--care to know who are the holders of the Olympic title in Rubgby?

An absolute sham Wembley footbridge wasn't named for Jim Baxter.

[James Bennett]

Rihc,

The poor little USA team was made up of mostly of superannuated Brits.


Bob
 

Unlike the English cricket team.

Then again, some of the Tongans and Samoans have elected to become Aussies and Kiwis, so perhaps people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.  My apologies England.

(just joking).

I am told by friends who grew up in Wales that it was very bad form to bring a round ball to school (soccer).  Frounded upon is too light a term for the resulting abuse.

Oh, and the big selling point for the TV showing the semi-finals -  ' watch France beat the poms '  

James B

[Kalen Braley]

As for the haka, perhaps we see it to many times because there are to many matches for national teams.

Problem: execution.

Solution:

I hate to say it...but living here in Utah I've noticed...

BYU of all teams does this in thier pre-game warm-ups.  Yes very very lame and cheezy and all that stuff.  But its BYU we're talking about here in Utah County, the nations capital of cheese...

[Jack_Marr]

Bob or others:

As a fan of both sports, but a much more devoted follower of football (soccer), I've always been intrigued about how the sports were treated in the UK, and in Ireland and how it all developed.

On an international level, would it be correct to say that England - and by extension Commonwealth countries - have pretty much always been dominant in rugby because most schoolboys treated it as the #1 sport, and if they played football (soccer) at all, it was just a diversion?  Or something like that?  And then they only became as good as they are internationally in soccer in say the last few decades (1966 nothwithstanding) because of the lack of attention to it?

And regarding the Republic of Ireland, weren't BOTH sports pretty much illegal, if not uttery cryit down, as ENGLISH sports?  And thus Ireland doing as well as they have internationally in either sport is a modern phenomenon?

Remember I'm asking as an interested American, hopefully a little up on these things, but also inundated with our American sports and our US-centric view of things.

TH

ps - curious side-note:  as I sit here and type today, I am wearing a US national team rugby shirt, vintage 1995 or so.  So never let it be said I am not a loyal follower of our national sides.  

The GAA originally banned its members from playing foriegn games, but that was a long time ago. So it was the GAA rather than the state, really.

Up to recently, they would not allow foreign games be played at their stadiums, but that also changed recently.

It was an effort to preserve the game and also a reaction to Bloody Sunday 1920.

For a country that divides its sporting population between GAA football, hurling, soccer and rugby, it's great that we can compete at all, also considering our small population.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jack:

Many thanks.  That does jive with my understanding of things regarding Ireland.  And for someone who did a minor specialty in college in Irish History, well...I shouldn't have had to ask.  But heck, college was 20+ years ago.

 

TH

[Jack_Marr]

No problem, Tom.

As it happens, I'm going to watch Ireland play Germany in Croke Park tomorrow. It's a magnificant stadium, considering it was built by an amateur organisation.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jack - believe it or not, I have been to Croke Park... well, outside it anyway.  1985, wandering around Dublin, U2 was playing there, we tried to get tickets, no one had much pity on us poor Americans.  That is, no one wanted to sell us any cheap and we couldn't afford the normal price!  

It looked pretty darn cool from the outside....

Go Ireland!

TH

[Ed Tilley]

Well bu**er me. England in the World Cup final. Isn't sport ridiculous sometimes. Surely the ride has to stop here, but you never know? Arise Sir Jonny perhaps?

My only real disappointment is that Argentina aren't in the final. Winning the World Cup beating Australia, France and Argentina - 3 of England's 4 big sporting rivals - would have been just about perfect. If only the Germans played rugby.

[Ed Tilley]

Ed

The England win was ugly.  Nor was there much rugby played, but a win is a win.  I didn't think they could beat France with Wilky off form again, but they did.  Quite amazing really.

Ciao

Are you an Australian in disguise? There was plenty of rugby played - just not the fancy dan, watered down southern hemisphere rubbish. A massive physical contest for 80 minutes, which is what rugby is traditionally about. There was nothing ugly about that win from an English perspective.

We can be a bit harsh on Jonny. He missed two kicks at goal - a touchline conversion and a penalty from well within his own half, which just scraped past the post. Of his 3 drop goals he missed one long range effort by about a foot, hit the post with another, and nailed his final one from 40 metres. Defensively he was superb, and his all round generalship was good.

One large caveat. I watched the England v France semi final from 4 years ago at the weekend. It was on ESPN classic. I hadn't watched it since the actual game. We were a brilliant side then - pace, power, precision. The difference between that side and this one is vast.

[Jack_Marr]

Jack - believe it or not, I have been to Croke Park... well, outside it anyway.  1985, wandering around Dublin, U2 was playing there, we tried to get tickets, no one had much pity on us poor Americans.  That is, no one wanted to sell us any cheap and we couldn't afford the normal price!  

It looked pretty darn cool from the outside....

Go Ireland!

TH

It's changed a lot since then, Tom. Holds 82,000 now and is very impressive.

Re England V France. It was not a very good game of rugby. England deserve a lot of credit, for their defence. It wasn't a very good game of rugby (in my opinion), but it was exciting nonethelss.

[Ed Tilley]

Sean,

Statistics for the semi finals. England passed the ball 103 times and kicked 39 times (the fewest of all 4 semi finalists). South Africa passed the ball 74 times and kicked 48 times. In the quarter final, England kicked the ball 31 times, South Africa 32 times - New Zealand kicked it 38 times.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics, but the impression that England are just kicking the ball away at will is not supported by statistics. England could score 3 tries and not kick the ball away once and the Aussies and Kiwis would still go on and on and on about how boring we are. Actually, I'm not sure England could score 3 tries.

England will keep it reasonably tight. They will keep the ball in hand, as they predominately did in the previous two games, without slinging the ball around. The last thing England want to do is to keep kicking the ball down the S. Africa back three's throats.

S. Africa won the game against Argentina due to Argentinian mistakes (2 interceptions, one dropped pass leading to tries). In the pool game, England gifted S.Africa early scores with mistakes. If England don't make many mistakes they have every chance. Play badly and they will get killed. I would put a lot of money on S.Africa kicking the ball more than England on Saturday.

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

England clearly the best team in the world in 2003?  Surely you jest!  Or maybe you are spending too much time reading the Sun and the Telegraph.

Yes, they did (barely) win the Match Play event called the World Cup, but if it had been Stroke Play, they would not have been in the last group on the final day and would probably have finished 3rd or 4th.........

Rich

[Ed Tilley]

Sean

England clearly the best team in the world in 2003?  Surely you jest!  Or maybe you are spending too much time reading the Sun and the Telegraph.

Yes, they did (barely) win the Match Play event called the World Cup, but if it had been Stroke Play, they would not have been in the last group on the final day and would probably have finished 3rd or 4th.........

Rich

I really do hope you're winding me up Rich. I will assume you are and not respond with a long (very long) diatribe about how England were clearly the best team in 2003.

[Rich Goodale]

Ed

I'd never try to wind you up, but Sean, that's another matter, particularly as I was able to switch the argument towards the stroke play v. match play issue....

I didn't really follow the 2003 Cup terribly closely because I am generally bored with the way Rugby is played these days, so your diatribes would fall on ignorant ears.  I personally think that if there had been a round robin tournament between the 4 semi-finalists in 2003, with victory based on goal difference (pretty damn good idea, if I say so myself!), England would probably not have won, but that's just a guess.  By the rules that they played they won fair and square, and good on them.  However........

I will probably be supporting SA over the weekend, not because I hate the English (which I don't, having largely English blood "coursing" through my veins) nor because I love the Springboks (which I don't) but because if the English win we will have another 7 days of exuberance plastered over the papers and the EBC and an undercurrent of triumphalism for another 4 years.  The only thing that could be worse would be you guys happened to win the real World Cup some day.......

As for me, this evening I'll settle in to my friendly local and a pint or five and watch the real sports story of the year, Scotland's impossible, improbable, so close you can taste it march through the Group of Death in the Euro '08 qualifiers.  And, if Scotland wins and I join in the fray with my woad-painted pals and yell, in best Mel Gibson mode--"FREEDOM!!!" please forgive me......

Rich

[Philip Gawith]

I think it would be unnecessarily self-denying for me to stay out of this topic too long!

Back in 2003 England were best in the world and had been for about three years. They had a few exceptional players, but above all a settled and experienced squad which made a real difference.

This time round the situation is pretty different. They are not the best in the world, or 2nd, 3rd or 4th best - and they have been very poor for three years. They lack exceptional players and they lack selectional stability. Against the odds, they have beaten two good teams to get to the finals. I will not comment on the Oz game which I did not see, but the France game was a pretty poor match which France bottled.

South Africa are a stronger team than England and have had a better recent past, and are settled and experienced. If they learn the only lesson they need to learn from the France-England semi (namely that they must play rugby and not be too defensively minded) their superior talents should win through. And this indeed would be the best outcome for rugby which anyone but an England fan can recognise. Though England have done well to recover, it is not pretty and not great for the game if they land up on top of the perch.

Of course in a knock-out game it is possible they will win. Maybe South Africa will bottle it like France did, though if that is the case, it is not going to be much of a spectacle for anyone other than the English!

And Rich is right - the triumphalism will simply be unbearable. It would be nice if England could return to the habits that pre-dated Clive Woodward but that seems a lot to ask.

As for Ed's watered-down, fancy southern hemisphere type of rugby - that is a heroic generalisation much fanned by Stephen Jones et al. It has some substance re Australia, less re New Zealand and almost no relevance in relation to South African rugby. You can't seriously think that the Bulls in Pretoria - or various other South African teams -  need to take lessons from the English in the joys of contact. The truth is that South African teams have tended to be TOO physically confrontational, too one-dimensional. This team is better than that, no doubt helped by Eddie Jones. Rugby is a 15 man game - not a game just played by 8 or 10. That is why any third party should be sad about New Zealand's demise because they tried to play 15 man rugby.

If South Africa kick more than England on Saturday they deserve to lose and I will not lament it. If they play 15 man rugby, as designed, which England can't replicate, they deserve to win.

[Ed Tilley]

Philip,

I agree with almost all you say. England are nowhere near the best team in the world and, as a rugby fan, it would devalue the tournament and the game (and even England's win 4 years ago), if they won on Saturday. As an Englishman, of course, I couldn't give a monkeys about that.

I enjoyed the England v France game. I thought it was a fantastic contest - a much better game than the other semi final in which Argentina handed 3 tries to S.Africa and were awful.

By watered down southern hemisphere rugby, I was, of course making a huge generalisation. As you say, S.Africa can be honourably excluded. Australia can be dishonourably included in that, and to a lesser extent New Zealand. Stephen Jones is almost becoming a caricature these days but he does make some valid points. What annoys me is the Australian and Kiwi belief that their way is the 'true' way to play the game. I find the Aussie, rugby league style constant recycling unbelievably monotonous. The All Blacks play great rugby but their loss to France was ridiculous. Why no drop goal in the final minutes?

Rugby is a massively physical contest. The scrums, rucks, mauls, lineouts should be genuine battles. Teams like S.Africa and France (at their best) with big ugly, ferocious forwards, and pacy skillful backs can be a joy to watch. Any attempt to water this down, normally coming from Australia, should be resisted.

S.Africa will kick more than England on Saturday. Even in the pool game they kicked more than England (44 to 33). They will kick to England's back 3 as they realise that England do not possess the firepower to trouble them. If England kick it out, S.Africa will rely on Matfield and Botha to win all their line out ball. England will kick less often and will try and keep it in play and away from Habana. Expect Pietersen to get more than his fair share of kicks coming his way.

Ed

[Philip Gawith]

Philip,





Rugby is a massively physical contest. The scrums, rucks, mauls, lineouts should be genuine battles. Teams like S.Africa and France (at their best) with big ugly, ferocious forwards, and pacy skillful backs can be a joy to watch. Any attempt to water this down, normally coming from Australia, should be resisted.

Ed, you are right, we are largely in agreement. I especially agree with this paragraph, which is why I lament how abject France were vs England. And that really draws me to the point re kicking. I don't mind intelligent positional kicking such as SA v England in pool game. But we need to distinguish - the England/France game was a long succession of up and unders. It is a legitimate tactic, but it is also pretty tedious to observe.

In parenthesis, partly because of my enjoyment of the contest, I have mixed feelings about all the citing rules and touch judge intrusion in the game. Dirty play is unacceptable, but most people know who the good guys are in rugby and who are bad guys. And physical threat is integral to the game. That is part of what made Martin Johnson good and what makes Bakkies Botha good - people are a little scared.

If Os du Randt can say he was scared when he propped against Argentina in his first test match, we are surely all allowed to recognise the element of fear!

In this vein, I heard a good story recently from an Oxford Blue who played with Nick Mallett. When Mallett was at Oxford aged 26/7 he was by all accounts already a serious physical presence. When Oxford played club teams like Bedford the clubs used to like to take it out a bit on the namby-pamby intellectuals. Till Mallett arrived. Apparently his strategy in the first line-out was to position himself next to the biggest guy, hit him hard, and then wave his finger and say "Just remember, no silly games with the students today!". I like that story! Apparently in the Varsity match similar tactics worked a treat with Paul Ackford!

I preferred the old days when forwards fell-out of the line-outs, mysteriously pole-axed by some hard man!

[Rich Goodale]

Ed and Philip

What do either of you guys think about reducing rugby teams to 13 or even 12 men, but keeping the same basic Union rules?  As an only partly experienced and infrequent observer, I think that the field is just too cluttered today, particularly with the massive increase in fitness which has occurred over the past 20-25 years.  In the good old days, when most of the forwards were big but fat, you could in fact kick for position and even the odd score.  It was much more exciting than some guy catching the ball and then transmogrifying the game into yet another loose ruck.  I know that Dottie Pepper would agree with me.....

[Philip Gawith]

I don't think that is the solution Rich. The solution is more likely to lie in finding ways of getting more forwards to commit to the ruck. The phenomenon you refer to is relatively recent and derives from the ruck not being sufficiently contested which allows forwards to fan across the field forming big defensive lines, which leads to rugby league patterns of play. I am not sure what the specific reform needed is - the rules are too complex for part-time observers!

[Ed Tilley]

I think the 'good old days' are a bit of a myth. Games were much more low scoring in the old days, even allowing for the change in points awarded for a try.

My uncle played for Wales (I'm half Welsh, although born and brought up in England) in the 1960's. He was a centre and in one game against Scotland he touched the ball once. The fly half and scrum half kept kicking everything into touch. I think they won 6-3.

As Philip says, finding a way to commit forwards to the ruck, thereby creating space out wide, is the key to any reforms.

[Bob_Huntley]

Philip,

Rugby is a massively physical contest. The scrums, rucks, mauls, lineouts should be genuine battles. Teams like S.Africa and France (at their best) with big ugly, ferocious forwards, and pacy skillful backs can be a joy to watch. Any attempt to water this down, normally coming from Australia, should be resisted.

Ed

Ed,

Is there one Rugby enthusisast in this discussion that can remember the 1951 Springboks? They had a centre, Ryk van Schoor, who was probably one of the most punishing tacklers in the game.  A couple of hits on the All-Blacks captain in their '48 tour of South Africa were things of legend.

For Richard Farnsworth Goodale, should he go to the record books, would see that the Boks beat Scotland 44-0 at Murrayfield. Now there was Rugby at its very best.

Bob