Another Victory For Rugby

Another victory for rugby today as NZ saw off the negative and defence minded Pumas in terrible weather, and Australia had enough creativity to break down the predictable and repetitive Springboks.

But to me, the most interesting thing of the day was the change of game plan from South Africa when they went down by a try late in the game and Morne Steyn went off with an eye injury. Finally the held the ball, counter attacked and went through phases. They even looked threatening. I hope they take a lesson from this and not reverting back to the hail of up and unders next week...could be interesting!

I just want to see the boks enjoying their rugby. It has so many negative aspects about it. Next week will again be difficult for them. Do they kick all that ball away again in perfect indoor conditions?

The ABs are still looking for higher standards, accuracy and the usual blah blah and will seal the title with a good win with 4 from 4 with two to spare depending on how oz finish their next three.

If they stay with the tried and true they'll find it tough. Predictability is not a good trait. If they kick and hope it may be returned twith interest. Now they're in the position I mentioned before the English test series. They're stuck with this gameplan. 'Pick him for one more test' Steyn hasn't been moved on and now there's too much risk too move him.

Still maintain with injuries, retirements they should have made changes to their backline and diversified. Throwing lambie and goosen on at the end was a little too late but I need to watch that part again.

Any citings yet?

My worry is that are heading into another era of kick and clap. One of my issues is that defence is starting to dominate to an extent that teams need to resort to kick for position (play in the opposition half) and kick endless up and unders in the hope that opposition is pinged. Rugby needs for there to be more space out wide.

I agree bc. The biggest leaps made are by sides who significantly up their defensive strategies. The chiefs are the best examples. W smith added that to their repetoire and that was the single defining strategy.

Argie have clearly done the same and SA and England have always done it. Ireland made the biggest improvement in the second test directly because they up'd their D big time in the second test.
I think what it does is has the effect of making a side better than they are, made obvious by the lack of true attacking skills, getting over the advantage line etc.

SA Argie England and even the ABs get pass marks because of it. But the best teams still know how to score tries through genuine pace and skill, rather than get them through pressure and forcing mistakes alone.

But you're right, defence is becoming king again.

blackcanelion wrote:My worry is that are heading into another era of kick and clap. One of my issues is that defence is starting to dominate to an extent that teams need to resort to kick for position (play in the opposition half) and kick endless up and unders in the hope that opposition is pinged. Rugby needs for there to be more space out wide.

Yes, to be honest I think defenses are starting to dominate when we still see Nigel Owens and his pals from Britain continuing to ping the offensive ruck for technicalities when they are clearly dominant.

Another example from SA v AUS yesterday as the scores are tied up again at 16-16. It's just pitifully pedantic refereeing and it's encouraging the "pressure" game of circa 2007 to make a return. And we all accept that was an ugly time for rugby.

Is it just me or has international rugby become boring again?

Pain

Your 100% wrong, 'british' refs, of which I am sure you mean european refs allow a contest at the breakdown for both teams, not just a free for all for the attacking team as the SH refs tend to prefer.

By the letter of the law the ruck is a contest - KEYWORD!!!

Thanks for the patronising response.

I'm talking about the particular scenario when an overwhelmingly dominant attacking ruck blows away one or two poorly positioned defenders, win the ball cleanly and quickly and are then pinged (often after the ball is gone) because one of the many dominant attackers left their feet. I am 100% correct about this and have posted many examples. Owens is notorious for it. This is mostly because he is unfit if you ask me and doesnt like too much pace on the game.

Hold the phone I've been away for a while.

Has AWOP finally admitted to being a native English speaker or did he miraculously learn how to conjugate all verbs properly, speak in all tenses also perfectly and construct complicated clauses all within about 2 months??

K&C, that's edumucation for you, blue - night classes worth every penny

Well it was obvious from day one. I was happy to play along with it...I mean who cares... play the ball not the person I say...

K, not just me. Ta.

Apologies for my Pi@@ poor contribution to this otherwise not-horrible thread.

Accepted. And please just moving on.

Surely the point is the rules are there and they apply in the same way whereever or who ever you are.Pedantic referees in the last few minutes of the Pumas v Boks match scores locked.Boks on the attack desperate for the ball to maybe set up a Drop Goal.The REF spends nearly four minutes setting and resetting the Scrum game over.

True Alan, but we were still poor.

Nigel Owens is one of the fittest NH refs and equal to pretty much anyone else

Hilarious.

munkian wrote:Nigel Owens is one of the fittest NH refs and equal to pretty much anyone else

If hes so damn fit then how come he always gets caught in position? Position of All Black first five eighth.

This thread is basically saying the All Blacks don't have a ref worthy enough to run their matches and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards of lesser mortals....

It's the R Kelly defence , only God can judge me

No, I'm just saying that there is a trend of refereeing slip back to 2007 interpretations of favour the defenders and not allow dominant attack to prosper.

There's no excuse for diving over a ruck and going off your feet

Surely interpreting rules that invite defenders into contesting at the breakdown is the way to go in order to create space for attacking/flowing rugby. It seems counter-intuitive at first, but if you just let the attacking team throw players over the ball and let them away with it, then the defending side isn't likely to be able to compete for a turnover. If a defense thinks it won't successfully compete for a turnover at the breakdown, then the defensive coaches will commit less players to the breakdown. That spreads more tacklers out across the field and kills space, creating multi-phase series of plays potentially without any penetration.

A competition at the breakdown will draw in players and allow teams that produce good quick (and clean) attacking ball the opportunity to exploit space while also giving the opportunity to the defending team to win turnover ball (which is possibly the best platform to attack from as the opposition will be out of position).

I'd also say proper competition in the scrum, where the backrow have to put their heads down and shove instead of meerkating, gives backlines more space and should be looked at a bit more.

I didn't see any change of game plan from SA. With a couple of minutes to go and needing to score they kicked the ball away. I'm not sure that the current players have what's required to be more creative. I don't really understand it because having watched some Currie games (not that many I admit) there's some brilliant rugby being played - and at a lot faster pace.

munkian wrote:There's no excuse for diving over a ruck and going off your feet

But Munkian. I'm not talking about "diving over a ruck". Did you look at any of the videos I posted on the topic?

We're talking about 5,6,7 attacking players overwhelming a ruck being protected by one or two isolated players, the ruck moves suddenly 20 meters down field and the ball pops out on the dominant teams side and then PING! someone like Owens penalises that team because one of the 5 or 6 players trips over a prone defender, who is doing his best to not get out of the way despite being outnumbered and having no chance of winning the ball.

offload wrote:I didn't see any change of game plan from SA. With a couple of minutes to go and needing to score they kicked the ball away. I'm not sure that the current players have what's required to be more creative. I don't really understand it because having watched some Currie games (not that many I admit) there's some brilliant rugby being played - and at a lot faster pace.

It has to be tactical from the coaches in my opinion, and coaches not giving the players the confidence and green light to go for it. I remember under the old rules of kicking and high balls, Kearney was always rated highly as he could do both. Then with the rule tweaks (be it rules or interpretations) fullbacks were encouraged to run the ball back and people questioned whether he could do this or if his days were done! Then a couple of months of being fit and running ball back, journo's decided he was always class at doing that. (I only use Kearney as an example as I'm a Leinsterman and its the best example to hand). I think the SA players definitely show creativity in the Currie games that I watch from time to time, but they are also given confidence from their coaches to play that way. It's almost a mindset of 'trying not to lose' instead of 'trying to win'. The first mindset will end up almost criminalising anyone who makes a mistake, while the more positive approach of trying to win should bring out more creativity. It would take a coach with a strong will though to instill that approach with the SA team.

I was listening to Kobus Wiese interview Johan Ackerman, the caretaker coach at the Lions last night.

The Lions scored seom scitnitlating tries the weekend with a real passing and offloading into space game. They beat the Bulls away from home.

anyway, Wiese asked Ackerman whether he insists that they follow the game plan.

Ackerman said no, only the set pieces have specific calls, anything there after the players play what they see in front of them.

A total paradigm shift in SA rugby, wish Meyer would believe in it.

Biltong wrote:I was listening to Kobus Wiese interview Johan Ackerman, the caretaker coach at the Lions last night.

The Lions scored seom scitnitlating tries the weekend with a real passing and offloading into space game. They beat the Bulls away from home.

anyway, Wiese asked Ackerman whether he insists that they follow the game plan.

Ackerman said no, only the set pieces have specific calls, anything there after the players play what they see in front of them.

A total paradigm shift in SA rugby, wish Meyer would believe in it.

BOD has said a similar thing to this about Schmidts approach at Leinster. There is far more trust from the coaches. But then at club level there is more time to practice this together and have everyone on the same page, spotting the same gaps/opportunities/etc. Do we give international coaches similar time?

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Biltong wrote:I was listening to Kobus Wiese interview Johan Ackerman, the caretaker coach at the Lions last night.

The Lions scored seom scitnitlating tries the weekend with a real passing and offloading into space game. They beat the Bulls away from home.

anyway, Wiese asked Ackerman whether he insists that they follow the game plan.

Ackerman said no, only the set pieces have specific calls, anything there after the players play what they see in front of them.

A total paradigm shift in SA rugby, wish Meyer would believe in it.

BOD has said a similar thing to this about Schmidts approach at Leinster. There is far more trust from the coaches. But then at club level there is more time to practice this together and have everyone on the same page, spotting the same gaps/opportunities/etc. Do we give international coaches similar time?

Obviously not, the domestic calenars are to full.

But that just emphasises the importance of combinations.

When you consider Goosen and Sarel Pretorius are going to play a full Super 15 season as a combination next season, and both being very exciting young players, it could be worthwhile for Meyer to select them as halfback combo's.

Many countries have gone down that route before, Gregan and Larkham, Genia and Cooper, Marshall and Carter etc.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Biltong wrote:I was listening to Kobus Wiese interview Johan Ackerman, the caretaker coach at the Lions last night.

The Lions scored seom scitnitlating tries the weekend with a real passing and offloading into space game. They beat the Bulls away from home.

anyway, Wiese asked Ackerman whether he insists that they follow the game plan.

Ackerman said no, only the set pieces have specific calls, anything there after the players play what they see in front of them.

A total paradigm shift in SA rugby, wish Meyer would believe in it.

BOD has said a similar thing to this about Schmidts approach at Leinster. There is far more trust from the coaches. But then at club level there is more time to practice this together and have everyone on the same page, spotting the same gaps/opportunities/etc. Do we give international coaches similar time?

Interesting to reference Leinster, not only as they have played the most complete rugby in Europe for several seasons but also because this form has not translated to the Irish team - just as good SA play isn't eveident in the current SA side.

True. It is an issue most evident in Ireland and SA at the moment.

From an Irish POV, I think there is inconsistency in how Munster/Ulster/Leinster approach their games and a different approach again is used for Ireland. It's almost as if a style of play should be chosen by the IRFU, and rolled out across the provinces so that people have the similar approaches when they get into the national side. I think something that is starting to take shape in Leinster is how the academy play a similar style to the senior side so kids can step up to the big boy game and but already be used to the approach so the leap isn't as big. Maybe that is something that should be done between the provinces and the national side. In the dark old days Ireland were absolute pants. Then when we started to progress there was a Munster dominated pack and a Leinster dominated set of backs, with a couple of Ulster lads (and Easterby) in both but really the pack played the Munster way and knew what each guy was doing while the backs played the Leinster way and knew what each guy was doing. The last few changes to the ireland squad mixed up the divide far more (and rightly so in most cases as the choices should be on form, not which club you play for == an endless argument in its own right) but removes the familiarity that was a hidden bonus in the older setup. The more that there is an overall mix of players, the more that the style/approach has to be consistent. It's almost a Barca/Ajax ethos and it will be something that has to happen from a Union level rather than a coach level because to achieve it will take far longer than the tenure of a coach.

That is exactly what Heyneke Meyer has promoted in SA, problem is the provinces don't want to play kick and chase.

That's because I'm just too good.

KickAndChase wrote:That's because I'm just too good.

sharp, very sharp indeed.

KickAndChase wrote:Hold the phone I've been away for a while.

Has AWOP finally admitted to being a native English speaker or did he miraculously learn how to conjugate all verbs properly, speak in all tenses also perfectly and construct complicated clauses all within about 2 months??

anotherworldofpain wrote:No, I'm just saying that there is a trend of refereeing slip back to 2007 interpretations of favour the defenders and not allow dominant attack to prosper.

This is true though.

There was I believe a recommendation from the IRB to favor attacking teams at the ruck and I don't think it's ever been withdrawn, but slowly lazy refereeing has crept in instead which see's us go back to play that's more like that of '07.

Well done on growing up and stopping the accent too.

To be fair I still have the accent. But you can't hear it so much in writing.

Thanks for the patronising response.

I'm talking about the particular scenario when an overwhelmingly dominant attacking ruck blows away one or two poorly positioned defenders, win the ball cleanly and quickly and are then pinged (often after the ball is gone) because one of the many dominant attackers left their feet. I am 100% correct about this and have posted many examples. Owens is notorious for it. This is mostly because he is unfit if you ask me and doesnt like too much pace on the game.
________________________________________________________-

I need to respond, firstly it wasn't patronising, there is a NH/SH trend of reffing, you were trying to point out Owens to engage debate from welsh posters, yet he is still regarded by many who work within the IRB (including his piers) as one of the best refs on the planet.

2ndly regarding Owens fitness, besides his bodybuilding background, or his qualifications in the fitness industry, I was told a little while ago that he holds the record for CV testing of international referees, although that was beaten recently by Billtongs boyfreind.

Thirdly your 'specific' scenario. If a defencive team have blown away attacking ball protectors the ball should be up for grabs, there is no excuse for going off your feet. As soon as the defence has been wiped theres no need for more forwards to pile past, also Ive seen lots of examples when the first 'sealer' has been wiped the next man has dived off the ball.

Regarding you being 100% right...

He is my friend, my very dear friend, my wife won't approve.

AWOP plays fast and loose with the rules of English langauge. This is not an offence on 606 per se, or one of the mods would have carded him long ago.

As for fussy refereeing AWOP has a point. Without dragging specific names into it, yes waaay too much pedantic whistle from many refs. For various ruck and front row 'offences' which no-one but the ref can understand. Including the side benefitting.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Thanks for the patronising response.

I'm talking about the particular scenario when an overwhelmingly dominant attacking ruck blows away one or two poorly positioned defenders, win the ball cleanly and quickly and are then pinged (often after the ball is gone) because one of the many dominant attackers left their feet. I am 100% correct about this and have posted many examples. Owens is notorious for it. This is mostly because he is unfit if you ask me and doesnt like too much pace on the game.
________________________________________________________-

I need to respond, firstly it wasn't patronising, there is a NH/SH trend of reffing, you were trying to point out Owens to engage debate from welsh posters, yet he is still regarded by many who work within the IRB (including his piers) as one of the best refs on the planet.

2ndly regarding Owens fitness, besides his bodybuilding background, or his qualifications in the fitness industry, I was told a little while ago that he holds the record for CV testing of international referees, although that was beaten recently by Billtongs boyfreind.

Thirdly your 'specific' scenario. If a defencive team have blown away attacking ball protectors the ball should be up for grabs, there is no excuse for going off your feet. As soon as the defence has been wiped theres no need for more forwards to pile past, also Ive seen lots of examples when the first 'sealer' has been wiped the next man has dived off the ball.

Regarding you being 100% right...

"There is no excuse for going off your feet" The point is that it is an irrelevancy. The law is there to prevent players from sealing off the ball from the other team and obstructing the breakdown area. In this case that is not happening and the player going down is not seeking to gain advantage, in fact they prefer to stay up! but alas trip over some prone opposition player who we kindly say is probably "trying to get out of the way" (wink). Penalising the massively dominant attacking team for this irrelevancy is just blatantly dumb.

As for Owen's alleged fitness. I don't recall too many other referees panting out an "oh no! oh dear god!" as the play swept past him in recent times. Body building is completely wrong for the kind of aerobic fitness required. And frankly it has nothing to do with him being Welsh, just everything to do with him being a numpty.