Has Rugby Become boring?

[DC]

excellent post fcukernaut, we share the same point of view!

 

[jawmalawm24]

The final wasn't the most exciting game on earth but why can't hey change something so players will run the ball more instead of kicking the s*** out of it everytime they get it. Everyone goes to rugby training expecting to defend a running game but with the gameplay these days its more like soccer so they may as well train to defend kicks.

 

[Prestwick]

Why? Why is it ok for nothing to happen for 72 minutes like in the France/England Semi-final? Why is rucking and kicking the only basics? What happened to passing, vision and running lines? Are they not equal in terms of importance? Why do you feel that everyone wearing the numbers 11-15 are unimportant to the game apart from making up the numbers on defence and occasionally entering a kicking duel? I'm honestly trying to understand your position, but to me it just doesn't seem to make any sense.

By the comments that you have made, I'm not sure we're quite on the same page as to what running rugby means. We're not talking about a disorganized game like 7's, with outrageous final scores. We're simply saying that we want to see the emphasis change from kicking the ball and playing territory, to keeping the ball in hand and making the emphisis on the other basic skill, ball handling. There were something like 84 kicks in the final. I'm sorry but that is not entertaining, I want to see that number at least halved.

This is no longer an amateur game, and as such it should be run like a business. The more viewers you get the more money you receive from sponsors and as such there is more money to grow the game. There is not a neutral on the planet who likes watching a kicking duel like we saw in the final. My mother, who to her credit sat through most of the world cup games and finally became a fan after ten years of refusal during the World Cup. Now she is what is considered a casual fan, well that casual fan got up and left the room 20 minutes into the Final, because it was a terrible game. It only catered to the hardcore fan, and even then it was the select hardcore fan (read: English or South African). All I ever hear on this board is how the iRB is stuck in the past, and should leave itself of the Old Boys club and start developing rugby world wide. The same can be said for the product on the field, it's time they came out of the past and stopped catering solely to the hardcore. If the game stays the way it is, the game will not only be stagnant on the field but development of the game will stagnate as well.
[/b]

You can't force nations to play a certain way because you didn't like the match. That is fundementally wrong, it ruins the game for others and you'll end up turning more people off of the game than when you started. You can't force nations to stop themselves from trying to squeeze out a victory. If you want to win that badly, everything else goes out of the window. I mean, what do you want to do? Have the ref get the captains together and inform them that they're running low on their running quota and threaten to bin random players if they don't try to play more attacking rugby? You can't force attacking rugby through social engineering.

Yes, the game was a forward intensive battle but to say that it turned off the casual fan is a shockingly massive generalisation. I met several guys, slowly grounding themselves in rugby who found the game great to watch because of the sheer physicality and power of the performance. I asked them to name their best and worst performance of the world cup and for the worst performance they named one of the Argentina games. Why? The constant use of the high kick, they couldn't understand why there were so many of them throughout the match and as such it turned them off of the game.

There needs to be a balance. Yes, the various parts of attacking rugby are integral skills but a balance needs to be struck out between forward play and running play. Yes, challenge teams not to kick for touch but at the same time remind them that if, like with New Zealand against France in the RWC, you are in a situation where you are unable to break the gain line and are actually losing ground, then you must try to secure the game via any (legal) method possible.

I know you're not saying that Jonny shouldn't have kicked the drop goal in 2003 or that New Zealand were right not to consider a drop goal against France this year but as much as this might anger some people, sometimes a drop goal or a gradual rumble to the try line can be the only option left.

There has been some hype about the Stellenboche rules and the simple truth is that some of the rules are common sense no brainers which do good, some make no difference what so ever or make no sense and some are frankly dangerous or encourage bad behavior.Stellenboche won't suddenly turn Rugby Union into Rugby League but on the other hand they're going about trying to open up the game the wrong way.

Suddenly changing rules and suddenly expecting players, chaps brought up playing a specific style for all of their lives, to start playing poetic and romantic running rugby, won't turn Rugby Union into a fantastic game. If you want to change attitudes and styles of play, its going to take time, decades perhaps.

Don't than listen to ignorant dickweeds like John O'Neil. They may appear to support what you're talking about, but they're just trying to cover up the fact that their pack is just a facade, doing just enough to secure ball for their backs and that is an insult to every New Zealander who should be justifiably proud not just of the power, skill and prowess of their pack, but in how they have transformed the role of forwards to support the backs in ways simply not imaginable even ten years before. . If the game was changed to that of the 13 man variety tomorrow, chaps like John O'Neil would not shed a single tear.

Anyway, the game will change over time but sudden changes in misguided attempts to give fans more entertaining rugby will be counter productive. That I gaurantee you.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

Its no ending to this debate both hemispheres see different to the other. Australia New Zealand dont use a kicking game because there not good at it. While on the other hand England French are not known to have running backs...

SH want the goal post removed...

NH want the backs removed...

Which would you prefer??

 

[melon]

Its no ending to this debate both hemispheres see different to the other. Australia New Zealand dont use a kicking game because there not good at it. While on the other hand England French are not known to have running backs...

SH want the goal post removed...

NH want the backs removed...

Which would you prefer?? [/b]

Goals removed obviously.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Its no ending to this debate both hemispheres see different to the other. Australia New Zealand dont use a kicking game because there not good at it. While on the other hand England French are not known to have running backs...
[/b]

Do you watch rugby? The French are renound for being even more adventurous than the Kiwis. Historically you could argue that they have been the most flamboyant and attacking side on the planet.



And it may shock you, but England does produce some excellent backs. The balance wasn't right during this RWC, but when we won back in 2003 there were some superb running backs in the side. And there are hugely talented guys coming through.



On the flip side, how insulting towards Australian and New Zealand players can you get? Larkham is not only able to get a backline moving with ball in hand, but for years has been able to turn defenders with the boot when necessary. Similarly, although he may not have been at his best this torunament, Dan Carter has a huge boot on him when he decides to use it.



Stop these totally inane generalisations about everyone, they're essentially wrong and add nothing to the debate.

 

[Prestwick]

Exactly Webby. Diehardkiwi, have you forgotten RWC 99' that quickly?! The French have created some electric backs in the last 100 years.

And for a nation (quite rightly) trumpeting Dan Carter as a superb kicker and mover of the ball, how does that exactly fit with the generalisation that New Zealand "aren't good at kicking".

Silly generalisations and generally talking down how good your kickers and forwards actually are doesn't actually shore up your arguments.

 

[Crackdown]

+1 for the above two posts.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

And it may shock you, but England does produce some excellent backs. The balance wasn't right during this RWC, but when we won back in 2003 there were some superb running backs in the side. And there are hugely talented guys coming through.
[/b]

Ooh ok you say england produce "some england excellent backs" have you counted how many tries egland backs have scored in the last few years and the 2003 WC??

On the flip side, how insulting towards Australian and New Zealand players can you get? Larkham is not only able to get a backline moving with ball in hand, but for years has been able to turn defenders with the boot with necessary. Similarly, although he may not have been at his best this torunament, Dan Carter has a huge boot on him when he decides to use it.
[/b]

New Zealand and Australia alone have the most potent attacking back line throughout the world and stats will tell you they have a high percentage to run the ball rather then kick it.

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotemain'>
On the flip side, how insulting towards Australian and New Zealand players can you get? Larkham is not only able to get a backline moving with ball in hand, but for years has been able to turn defenders with the boot with necessary. Similarly, although he may not have been at his best this torunament, Dan Carter has a huge boot on him when he decides to use it.
[/b]

New Zealand and Australia alone have the most potent attacking back line throughout the world and stats will tell you they have a high percentage to run the ball rather then kick it.
[/b][/quote]

That point completely went over your head didn't it? Chaps like Larkham are seen as some of the most accurate kickers of the ball (although we'll forget about that kick that went straight to Steyn earlier this year...*ahem*...) and add an extra dimension to the Australian attack. New Zealand and Australia have produced some superb backs who can run and kick superbly.

What Webby was pointing out was that you've just completely ignored that fact and just made a sweeping (and incorrect) generalisation.

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotemain'>

And it may shock you, but England does produce some excellent backs. The balance wasn't right during this RWC, but when we won back in 2003 there were some superb running backs in the side. And there are hugely talented guys coming through.
[/b]

Ooh ok you say england produce "some england backs" have you counted how many tries egland backs have scored in the last few years?? [/b][/quote]

The last few years have been widely accepted as some of the worst in the history of the sport in this country.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

That point completely went over your head didn't it? Chaps like Larkham are seen as some of the most accurate kickers of the ball (although we'll forget about that kick that went straight to Steyn earlier this year...*ahem*...) and add an extra dimension to the Australian attack. New Zealand and Australia have produced some superb backs who can run and kick superbly.

What Webby was pointing out was that you've just completely ignored that fact and just made a sweeping (and incorrect) generalisation.
[/b]

Its not only my view read Peter Fitzsimmons book, NZ and Australia have a style that suits them and it doesnt involve kicking. Yes carter and larkem are good with the boot *what #10 isnt* otherwise they wouldnt be in there position

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

<div class='quotemain'>
That point completely went over your head didn't it? Chaps like Larkham are seen as some of the most accurate kickers of the ball (although we'll forget about that kick that went straight to Steyn earlier this year...*ahem*...) and add an extra dimension to the Australian attack. New Zealand and Australia have produced some superb backs who can run and kick superbly.

What Webby was pointing out was that you've just completely ignored that fact and just made a sweeping (and incorrect) generalisation.
[/b]

Its not only my view read Peter Fitzsimons book, NZ and Australia have a style that suits them and it doesnt involve kicking. Yes carter and larkem are good with the boot otherwise they wouldnt be in there position [/b][/quote]



So you just blew apart your own argument? Surely if they are both good with the boot, that enables both Australia and New Zealand to have good kicking games to add to their running armoury?



What you're saying makes no sense. Preferring not to kick is not the same as being unable to.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

My argument was Australia and NZs running game its turned around to kicking game...

Sorry Carter and Larkham are the best in the world at the kicking game...

There you go

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Originally posted by diehardkiwi07
Australia New Zealand dont use a kicking game because there not good at it.

Here is what you said. Here is what we disagreed with. Here is why your argument makes no sense.

Capiche?

 

[diehardkiwi07]

So you just blew apart your own argument? Surely if they are both good with the boot, that enables both Australia and New Zealand to have good kicking games to add to their running armoury?



What you're saying makes no sense. Preferring not to kick is not the same as being unable to.
[/b]

I see you prefer to answer that question but purposley chose to avoid the question i asked you about england producing some "excellent superb running backs"

Originally posted by diehardkiwi07
Australia New Zealand dont use a kicking game because there not good at it.

Here is what you said. Here is what we disagreed with. Here is why your argument makes no sense.

Capiche?
[/b]

What i should of said was "There running game is better then there kicking game"
*happy now*

Like i previously said, read peter fitzsimmons book he shares my view in saying NZ and Australia dont use a kicking style game...South Africa share the better of 2 worlds they have and always had the kicking game with a touch of SH flair

 

[diehardkiwi07]

And Saints fan webby tell Dan Carter how good his kicking game was against france??

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

And Saints fan webby tell Dan Carter how good his kicking game was against france?? [/b]

Originally posted by Me@ not long ago, on the subject of Dan Carter during RWC '07
Similarly, although he may not have been at his best this torunament, Dan Carter has a huge boot on him when he decides to use it.

Do you actually read what has already been said?



As for England's backs, I could flag up Dawson, Greenwood, Robinson, Cohen and Lewsey from the last RWC but would get told they aren't any good. I could then hark back to some classic English backs, and would also be told they aren't any good. I would then remark on young talent coming through, and be told that they will probably suck.



This argument has had it's day many times before you arrived on the forum, I'd hate to bore people by repeating myself.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

Well there you go mate... You bought up the argument, im glad you saw the end of it

Just to let you know Robinson and Wilkonson are about the only quality backs to get a mention

 

[Prestwick]

My argument was Australia and NZs running game its turned around to kicking game...

Sorry Carter and Larkham are the best in the world at the kicking game...

There you go [/b]

Sorry, not only did any of that make any sense whatsoever but that completely contradicts what you were saying before! :lol:

Do you actually watch rugby at all? You seem to be like the guy who sits between two completely different points of view, veering from one side to the other.