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

Problem: execution.

Solution:

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?

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.

Quote from: Ash Towe on October 10, 2007, 02:28:17 PM

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:

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 - 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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