Is not losing all that matters?

It has been evident that this 6Nations has been blighted as a spectacle by teams trying not to lose rather than trying to win.
Fans are shelling out big bucks for tickets and are being short changed.Professional Sport has a duty to entertain in my mind and a combination of poor refereeing and negative tactics have produced one of the dullest 6N's ever.
When a Welsh CENTRE admits that he needs to work on his passing skills I despair for our game.They seem to be picked for their tackling and if they can pass a ball it is a bonus.
Throwing the ball around is considered suicidal and must only be employed as a last resort.Better to hoof the ball and hope that the other side make a howler or a charge down of their return kick might lead to something.
Watching the under 20's is much more like it.
I may be being contentious but I blame the Rugby League ethos that has pervaded our game since the Edwards and Farrells have held sway.Not losing Rugby has even stilted French flair.
It is no coincidence that the team with the least to lose has played the most watchable Rugby.

Sorry to be so gloomy but I can remember the days when I was uplifted by the skillset of my heroes.

Welcome to the Professional Era

Professional Sport has a duty to entertain in my mind

No that's ice hockey and basketball.

Pity, because I agree with everything else.

well tbh the weather and the bloody awful pitches hasn't helped

I have tried, I mean REALLY tried to convince myself that I would settle for a fantastically entertaining game next week, where we lose by a point or two in a try-fest brought about by creative, skilful and imaginative rugby - but I can't.

Winning does it for me every time.
(In terms of the we in that first sentence, I would challenge anyone, from any country to truly dispute the sentiment.)

People just need to appreciate strong defences and the tactics employed to stop the attacking team. It's an art in itself

I actually can't watch the Super Rugby stuff as the 36 44 score lines just bore the pants off me - That might seem strange but I'd prefer a tough encounter and actually was on the edge of my seat for the Ire v Eng game and Eng v Italy game

I agree with you Ruby.

RubyGuby wrote:Welcome to the Professional Era

But that is just my point.
Rugby is part of the Entertainment Business and there is a duty/obligation to entertain people.
Scottish fans have had the right idea and the empty seats that have been evident at Murrayfield over the years should be an evident protest that the "product" isn't up to scratch.
As long as Twickers,Aviva and MS keep selling out and the TV companies keep subsisting the Unions we will continue to get this crap Rugby.
I plead with all Unions to become more professional and give us some entertainment

RuggerBoy wrote:I agree with you Ruby.

You're obviously an intelligent rugby man Rugger

You could argue that the fewer tries are scored, the more exciting / 'entertaining' it is when it happens. Certainly, a low-scoring match with the odd try can be much more gripping than a match where a try is scored every five minutes.

RubyGuby wrote:People just need to appreciate strong defences and the tactics employed to stop the attacking team. It's an art in itself

I actually can't watch the Super Rugby stuff as the 36 44 score lines just bore the pants off me - That might seem strange but I'd prefer a tough encounter and actually was on the edge of my seat for the Ire v Eng game and Eng v Italy game

Hoofing the ball downfield isn't that skilful to be honest.
People need to appreciate that strong defence should be part of the game NOT the whole game.
If people are only looking for the Win why bother watching?Simply look at the Results page to see how your side got on would do it for you,surely?

RubyGuby wrote:

RuggerBoy wrote:I agree with you Ruby.

You're obviously an intelligent rugby man Rugger

No Ruby, just long in the tooth I think. It seems to me that people forget that some of the games in the so called "golden era" were nothing more that attritional battles between the packs. The skinny little backs used to run in tries for fun because nobody knew how to tackle properly and forwards couldn't really run in those days. When I think of my training as a second row in the 50's and 60's, I don't remember ever being coached how to tackle and fitness training amounted to not taking to the field with a fag in your mouth. I think the reason why Graham Price is my all time favourite player is because he was the first prop I ever saw running with the ball when he scored his try against France - amazing for it's day.

As for your comment Taffineastbourne, didn't you read Ruby's reply? He quite clearly stated that for him the SH stuff was the boring bit while the attritional play was the "edge of the seat" stuff - that's what I agreed with anyway.

I think there is a misguided perception when it comes to Super rugby.

In 72 pool matches during the HC, there were 270 tries = 3.75 tries per match.

So far in the Super rugby championship there has been 98 tries in 22 matches = 4.45 tries per match.

Of these 22 matches, 8 were within 7 points and a further 5 were within 10 points.

In the HC and average of 40.5 points were scored per match, in super rugby the average points per match 46.4, a mere 5.9 points difference, which would suggest as the try average per competition there is really just one more try in it.

when you consider the conditions and dryer weather in which the Super rugby competition is played it stands to reason that there will be a tad more open running and perhaps a try or so more per game.

As I say, pure perceptions.

You might say "long in the tooth" - I would say an intelligent traditionalist - I'm sure you've been called worse

Even the NH teams play differently in the HC, they have more confidence and belief to go and win the game. The 6 Nations is a unique event and perhaps the weight of history is too much as nations face a week of ridicule and depression, as do the players from their own media. I've always said that the 6 nations is legalised war between these previous foes and on some level this is creating a mustn't lose demanour as opposed to a must win. Fortune doesn't always favour the brave, particularly with such organised defences.

RuggerBoy wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:

RuggerBoy wrote:I agree with you Ruby.

You're obviously an intelligent rugby man Rugger

No Ruby, just long in the tooth I think. It seems to me that people forget that some of the games in the so called "golden era" were nothing more that attritional battles between the packs. The skinny little backs used to run in tries for fun because nobody knew how to tackle properly and forwards couldn't really run in those days. When I think of my training as a second row in the 50's and 60's, I don't remember ever being coached how to tackle and fitness training amounted to not taking to the field with a fag in your mouth. I think the reason why Graham Price is my all time favourite player is because he was the first prop I ever saw running with the ball when he scored his try against France - amazing for it's day.

As for your comment Taffineastbourne, didn't you read Ruby's reply? He quite clearly stated that for him the SH stuff was the boring bit while the attritional play was the "edge of the seat" stuff - that's what I agreed with anyway.

Loads of tries is dull too.
You missed my underlying point that creativity and endeavour have leaked from the game at 6N's level.Kicking aimlessly downfield is not attritional it is just boring.Rugby is a handling game if you want to see people hoofing the ball I believe that there is an overhyped game that already provides such thrills.

Taff - you have more than a point here - NZ run the ball back because they have the confidence to back themselves - At the moment against each other the NH teams lack this. NZ would actually love for us to kick the ball to them and this is where Wales in particular get stuck between a rock and a hard place when we play the SH teams. As an aside I think Scott Williams who is no sluch as a defender should replace Jamie as I think it will allow for more creativity, Scott is a better all round footballer and Jamie for me is having a poor 6 Nations

Biltong wrote:I think there is a misguided perception when it comes to Super rugby.

In 72 pool matches during the HC, there were 270 tries = 3.75 tries per match.

So far in the Super rugby championship there has been 98 tries in 22 matches = 4.45 tries per match.

Of these 22 matches, 8 were within 7 points and a further 5 were within 10 points.

In the HC and average of 40.5 points were scored per match, in super rugby the average points per match 46.4, a mere 5.9 points difference, which would suggest as the try average per competition there is really just one more try in it.

when you consider the conditions and dryer weather in which the Super rugby competition is played it stands to reason that there will be a tad more open running and perhaps a try or so more per game.

As I say, pure perceptions.

You are perfectly right Biltong. It is all about perception and maybe I perceive the style of rugby played in Super rugby to be less 'entertaining' than the style played in the NH. It's just that I find SH rugby so frustrating from a rugby purist point of view. What I mean is, the intention is still to win right?

For example, last weekend I watched the Hurricanes vs Crusaders game. I probably wanted the Crusaders to win (don't ask me why), anyway, they were leading by 9 points with just minutes to go. Now this is where it seems to my rugby psyche that a bit of control might be in order. Stop throwing it about so much and manage the game to its conclusion. I mean, the Crusaders have not exactly set the world alight this season so a win might be appreciated. But no, they carry on, in that devil-may-care SH style and give away a penalty. So it is now a 6 point gap and I really thought they would wake up to the fact that to continue the expansive game would not be to their advantage, did they wake up? No way was the answer, as the team in the winning position they continued to 'entertain', throwing it about with great skill and execution it has to be said - that is until the Hurricanes intercepted one of these deft passes to run in what proved to me the winning try. Bloody frustrating to my eyes.

THAT style of play is my overriding perception of Super rugby. Not for me I'm afraid. When all said and done, the object of the game is still to win and the Crusaders blew it.

I have to agree with taff here, since to first round, the 6N has been a disappointment, with fear forcing players into their shells. The "gut wrench" mentality of today - one intercept and the passer is lampooned and dropped, is ruining the game as a spectacle. The 6N is tournament rugby and the fear of losing rules all, the AI's aren't and tend to throw up much better stuff. Should we abandon tournaments for good?

Personally I'd take the SH rugby over the NH rugby any day. I prefer the more attack minded attitude. If you want to talk about physical attritional style stuff, some of the SA derbies have that in abundance. I get more enjoyment watching a well constructed team try with support play and contact offloading skills than just a kick based game. That's just my opinion and everyone enjoys rugby for the different reasons, that's what makes the game so great.

"everyone enjoys rugby for the different reasons, that's what makes the game so great."

+1 End of thread .

Come on Walessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Aptly named there Impossible Standards.

But seriously, your statement "everyone enjoys rugby for the different reasons, that's what makes the game so great" is my sentiment exactly, which is why I suppose no style of play will ever win universal approval.

Aptly named there Impossible Standards

Don't get me wrong I love the drama that the 6N brings and obviously being Welsh there is personal reasons to love it. I do enjoy a close fought battle in the rain (Being a dragons fan I get my fair share of those...) but some of the play I have seen from the SH especially the chiefs last year just blows my mind.

Heres to a good weekend of 6N rugby....What ever the types of games!

RuggerBoy wrote:

Biltong wrote:I think there is a misguided perception when it comes to Super rugby.

In 72 pool matches during the HC, there were 270 tries = 3.75 tries per match.

So far in the Super rugby championship there has been 98 tries in 22 matches = 4.45 tries per match.

Of these 22 matches, 8 were within 7 points and a further 5 were within 10 points.

In the HC and average of 40.5 points were scored per match, in super rugby the average points per match 46.4, a mere 5.9 points difference, which would suggest as the try average per competition there is really just one more try in it.

when you consider the conditions and dryer weather in which the Super rugby competition is played it stands to reason that there will be a tad more open running and perhaps a try or so more per game.

As I say, pure perceptions.

You are perfectly right Biltong. It is all about perception and maybe I perceive the style of rugby played in Super rugby to be less 'entertaining' than the style played in the NH. It's just that I find SH rugby so frustrating from a rugby purist point of view. What I mean is, the intention is still to win right?

For example, last weekend I watched the Hurricanes vs Crusaders game. I probably wanted the Crusaders to win (don't ask me why), anyway, they were leading by 9 points with just minutes to go. Now this is where it seems to my rugby psyche that a bit of control might be in order. Stop throwing it about so much and manage the game to its conclusion. I mean, the Crusaders have not exactly set the world alight this season so a win might be appreciated. But no, they carry on, in that devil-may-care SH style and give away a penalty. So it is now a 6 point gap and I really thought they would wake up to the fact that to continue the expansive game would not be to their advantage, did they wake up? No way was the answer, as the team in the winning position they continued to 'entertain', throwing it about with great skill and execution it has to be said - that is until the Hurricanes intercepted one of these deft passes to run in what proved to me the winning try. Bloody frustrating to my eyes.

THAT style of play is my overriding perception of Super rugby. Not for me I'm afraid. When all said and done, the object of the game is still to win and the Crusaders blew it.

I fully understand what you mean mate, but there you have three countries who all bring their own menatlity. SA is probably close to the mentality you appreciate in rugby, not helter skelter all the time, mostly playing according to the plan, appreciating the status of where the match is and what is needed.

I personally think each of the three nations bring a totall different mentality and approach to the competition.

The weather has a massive role to play.

That and the apparently shocking level of coaching at Int and club rugby in the NH

I don't mind seeing games end without a single try being scored, providing that both sides are trying to attack and their defences are so good the attacks are stopped.

However, I really hate watching Wales playing at the moment, as there doesn't seem to be an intent on attacking. The tactic of trying to stay in the opposition half (not even worrying if you don't make it to the 22m) and preying for pens really annoys me. It seems a bit dishonest to me, and at the end of the game I always have a feeling that we didn't actually win the game, but the oppositon lost it with silly pens.

For me, winning is it. As an England supporter for over 40 years I've seen England play ten man rugby (80s), expansively (2002 era) and now trying to find a balance - as yet unsuccessfully.

But for any sportsman, the win's the thing, whether 3-0 or 54 - 53.

Why would fans feel cheated - England - Italy was incredibly exciting and full of fast-paced action - just short on trys.

I wouldn't have minded it being a bit less exciting tbh

Biltong,

I'm sorry and I feel I should offer an apology as I've fallen into that trap of tarring the whole of Southern Hemisphere rugby, not forgetting that Argentina are now part of it, with the same brush. Unforgivable really as I'm one of the one's who constantly harp on about 'each to their own' - which is why I so readily agreed with Impossible Standards' closing comment earlier.

You're right, I do prefer the SA mentality over the others but I also agree that each of the four (not 3!) countries bring a different approach. Probably using two NZ teams to illustrate my point earlier was not a good idea because it was about like-playing-like, where each team seemed to spur the other on to even more 'entertaining' play. I will also admit though that I usually find two SA teams playing each other almost too structured and formulate in game plan. What I will say is, Southern Hemisphere rugby is much more compelling when a team from one SH country plays a team from a different SH country.

I think I've answered my own thoughts on this "entertaining' or 'attritional-win at all costs' dichotomy, I'm not really firmly in the camp of either, what I really want is 'compelling'. In my opinion, although this 6N has not been the most entertaining with basic skills generally being at a premium it has, at least in my eyes, been 'compelling'. It is with that thought in mind that I am truly excited by next week's game at the Millenium - BUT I still find myself saying "I don't care how Wales do it just so long as they win!".

Taffineastbourne wrote:It has been evident that this 6Nations has been blighted as a spectacle by teams trying not to lose rather than trying to win.
Fans are shelling out big bucks for tickets and are being short changed.Professional Sport has a duty to entertain in my mind and a combination of poor refereeing and negative tactics have produced one of the dullest 6N's ever.
When a Welsh CENTRE admits that he needs to work on his passing skills I despair for our game.They seem to be picked for their tackling and if they can pass a ball it is a bonus.
Throwing the ball around is considered suicidal and must only be employed as a last resort.Better to hoof the ball and hope that the other side make a howler or a charge down of their return kick might lead to something.
Watching the under 20's is much more like it.
I may be being contentious but I blame the Rugby League ethos that has pervaded our game since the Edwards and Farrells have held sway.Not losing Rugby has even stilted French flair.
It is no coincidence that the team with the least to lose has played the most watchable Rugby.

Sorry to be so gloomy but I can remember the days when I was uplifted by the skillset of my heroes.

Do you know what, I never thought I would say this but NO. The games this season against France Italy and Scotland have been so poor that there is no enjoyment. Normally the beer tastes sweeter after a win, but it is so dull I even went home before I was sick and not because I was sick. I have stopped counting spurned overlaps, hit and hope licking regardless of field position or situation, it is just soul destroying. The ball went to the centres 4 times, 4 times WTF. If watching is bad playing must be bloody worse

Our game plan is and has been limited for some time, but Howleys fear of the sack has taken the plan and made it more so. Personally I would ignore the results and sack the twhat anyway for killing the game. I enjoyed the Ireland game 10 times more that the others and we lost, but at least the game was exciting we played with ambition and intent in the 2nd half and the aftermatch emotions were those of disappointment rather than indifference.

Ruggerboy, I tend to agree with a lot of that, the only SA team that really breaks the "mould" of structured rugby is the Cheetahs.

And yes when opposing countries' teams meet the intrigue and context completely changes.

I enjoy most rugby, being a South African I like the attritional warrior like battles of physicality, I don't think any game without it is worth watching, so I would say the physical battle for me is the number one requirement.

I very quickly lose interest in a match if there is no contest, for me that is a training run and doesn't belong on the field of play (except for training purposes)

Although it is vitally important for me that the Springboks win, it is also highly important to me that they play well. And I don't mean scoring tries.

It is winning the physical battle, driving the defenders or attackers back, executing lineouts, scrums, rucks to near perfection, and then intelligence.

For me that is the one area that the Springboks lack, intelligent play. When I sit and watch a match and the gaps appear but we just play the same forward running pod over and over I want to hit a coronary.

I want to see us vary our plan and out think the opposition, and then there is the referees that have far too much influence on rugby these days.

I hate it when the whistle dominates rather than the physical battle.

If we do all those things and come out of the match with a loss, but there is honour and respect for the way we played the game, I can accpet we lost to a better team, but only a better team, sometimes though you do lose to a team that was better at playing to the referee and the interpretations.


that's me in a nutshell.

If you need a defensive game and an attacking game to be competitive and.................to win, then go with it. If they are both needed and you're reasonably good at both, then yes, that's a complete rugby game, as Ruby alluded to. And it can be very entertaining.

If you have an attacking game and choose to play a defensive game with it, just for practice and just because some of your coaches demand that its given its 'chance' to shine ....well............ that's what kinda annoys me. Keep winning with the winning formula and only fall back on the defensive one if needs must. If you can humiliate a team, do so...always

Now, if you only have a defensive game and attempt a loose AB attacking one.......well.................. welcome to 6N, the home of madmen coaches, French players and WelshvEngland forums

SecretFly wrote:If you need a defensive game and an attacking game to be competitive and.................to win, then go with it. If they are both needed and you're reasonably good at both, then yes, that's a complete rugby game, as Ruby alluded to. And it can be very entertaining.

If you have an attacking game and choose to play a defensive game with it, just for practice and just because some of your coaches demand that its given its 'chance' to shine ....well............ that's what kinda annoys me. Keep winning with the winning formula and only fall back on the defensive one if needs must. If you can humiliate a team, do so...always

Now, if you only have a defensive game and attempt a loose AB attacking one.......well.................. welcome to 6N, the home of madmen coaches, French players and WelshvEngland forums

And that is the case for the defense your Honour

Verily.

The Southern Hemisphere play their rugby in the summer (in a better climate), we play our rugby in the winter (in a shoddy climate). The last 3 weekends of six nations rugby has been royalling hammering it down, pitches tearing up under foot, people with great hands dropping every other easy ball and kicks moving around in the wind. We have been playing in these conditions since we were school children, coached by players that used to play in these conditons.....of course our game is alot more forward/ defense/ kick orientated, its so bloomin wet and cold all the time if you pass it swiftly along the line with SH flair some chump will drop it.

When the super magical international teams of the SH come to Britain on thier winged pegasus's of awesomeness and play attritional rugby against a 2nd rate scotland/ leicester/ ospreys side in shoddy NH conditions...they lose. Similarly when their almost godlike forwards come over here to make a retirement buck it takes them time to get used to the attritional nature of our game, the increased contact and scrummaging.

Michalak when playing for the sharks was amazing on the hard pitches, with quick rugby and quick ball...mercurial genius....in the NH in the dark days of winter when its hammering it down, he plays like a french sausage.

Is winning all that matters....yes

winged pegasus's of awesomeness

I like that quote, will use it in future.

Biltong wrote:

winged pegasus's of awesomeness

I like that quote, will use it in future.

Pegasi? Also, aren't all pegasi winged?

[/pedanticmode]

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

winged pegasus's of awesomeness

I like that quote, will use it in future.

Pegasi? Also, aren't all pegasi winged?

[/pedanticmode]

Going deeper into Pedantry.

Some might just call them Horses as Pegasus is just a name not a species. BUT....to call Pegasus a horse is a fundamental error....as his father was a Humanoid God and his mother was Medusa! Try living that family lineage down...and we thought that kinda thing only happened in the Appalacian mountains and down Cajun way

And in Norfolk.

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

winged pegasus's of awesomeness

I like that quote, will use it in future.

Pegasi? Also, aren't all pegasi winged?

[/pedanticmode]

Going deeper into Pedantry.

Some might just call them Horses as Pegasus is just a name not a species. BUT....to call Pegasus a horse is a fundamental error....as his father was a Humanoid God and his mother was Medusa! Try living that family lineage down...and we thought that kinda thing only happened in the Appalacian mountains and down Cajun way

Even worse can you imaging the ribbing he would have got at school? "Oi Pegasus, did you know one look from you mam will make any man hard!"

[/quote] Going deeper into Pedantry.

Some might just call them Horses as Pegasus is just a name not a species. BUT....to call Pegasus a horse is a fundamental error....as his father was a Humanoid God and his mother was Medusa! Try living that family lineage down...and we thought that kinda thing only happened in the Appalacian mountains and down Cajun way, Pitcairn and Norfolk [/quote]

Just so as we're picking on our US friends.

Speaking of winged inbreds........... saw that movie Splice last night. Jesus, it's not heavy on the horror but it's unsettling stuff in a gut wrenching way!

Biltong wrote:

winged pegasus's of awesomeness

I like that quote, will use it in future.

Biltong, when would you ever use that quote to describe South African rugby? Especially when you are used to watching teams that play un-awesome rugby to the extent that - and I quote, "gaps appear but we just play the same forward running pod over and over"

RuggerBoy wrote:

Biltong wrote:

winged pegasus's of awesomeness

I like that quote, will use it in future.

Biltong, when would you ever use that quote to describe South African rugby? Especially when you are used to watching teams that play un-awesome rugby to the extent that - and I quote, "gaps appear but we just play the same forward running pod over and over"

there is a new breed of player rising from the ashes of South African lore mate.

Aptly termed Pegasus


Willie le Roux, Paul Jordaan, Jan Serfontein, Raymond Rhule, Johan Goosen and the like.

Technically Bilt, If they are rising from the ashes they would be phoenixi (the plural of phoenix)..

I tell you what, as of now we will call them phoenixi, but for the purpose of being able to use that line just once, grant me the leeway and I will never use that line again (until ofcourse there is ample reason to.)

RuggerBoy wrote:

THAT style of play is my overriding perception of Super rugby. Not for me I'm afraid. When all said and done, the object of the game is still to win and the Crusaders blew it.

It has been well established here that the Saders blew it with the pass and it is one of the reasons the Saders are off song, not having won yet. They are normally clinical in this scenario and are well known for being able to shut down a match at the end, suffocating the opposition of any chance of coming back so that was just as surprisng here, not 'typical' in the way its coming across here.

I'm amazed that some people think you don't need to an attacking game and a defensive game to be competitive.
In my mind the best teams have both - though they may be better at one than the other.
The Crusaders in my opinion have always been an amazingly good defensive team with a good attack.
The Hurricanes have generally been an amazingly good attacking team while think that defence is a farming term.
The Chiefs have tightened up their defence to support their attacking game and won the thing last year.
In general the ABs score a few tries more tries than others but also they don't give up too many so they win more games than other teams. Its the balance that gives you the winning edge.

You have to score...easily enough (attacking prowess)...and you have to defend what you've gained (defensive prowess)

I think we all understand that those two aspects are the trademark of a quality side.

But yes, the thread is probably a meditation on the balances needed between each, and which you choose to prioritise.