• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

NH vs. SH clash in the final, no matter what!!!!

This arguement always gives me a chuckle.

Please note that this arguement is all based on stereotypes of how each country plays as that's the only way in which this is ever argued.

Wales and France have always played a dynamic expansive sort of game. Scotland have almost always played a dull and boring one. England played a forward dominated game for about 5 years between 2003 and 2008....besides that they usually play a very balanced game. Ireland don't know what they're doing. So lets say 2 of 5 play the stereotypical borin rugby.

In the SH, one third of the teams is renowned for playing a forwards orientated game. So it's pretty much a third in either hemisphere (of the major teams). Add in Argentina and Italian stereotypes and you get exactly half in each hemisphere.
The point I am making is not so much about style, it is about a general approach to the sport. It really does seem from where I am sitting that England and Scotland in particular just gave up on attacking back play some time ago. They pick backs to tackle and to get over the advantage line - and that's about it. New Zealand and Australia in particular have a 100% commitment to using attacking back play as a means of breaking down defences and scoring points. And as a result their back play is light years ahead. There is no comparison.

The fact that a team like England can still compete (against Australia at least) doesn't negate my point.

It would be very interesting to see what someone like Wayne Smith could do with an England backline. I am sure he could turn it into a real weapon even against quality defences. But that is just anathema to English sensibilities for some reason. To me it is comparable to a cricket batsman deciding that he is not going to play any attacking shots on the leg side. Now such a batsman may be able to construct a complete game around that and be competitive. But he is never going to be the best in the world. Or even close.
 
The point I am making is not so much about style, it is about a general approach to the sport. It really does seem from where I am sitting that England and Scotland in particular just gave up on attacking back play some time ago.
I stopped reading here because it's obvious that you don't watch NH rugby so your opinions on it are all plop.
 
I stopped reading here because it's obvious that you don't watch NH rugby so your opinions on it are all plop.
Well I don't watch NH club rugby but I do watch all of the internationals. Someone, it may have been you, said that there are all sorts of styles played by different clubs across the NH and I will happily defer to your expertise there.

But I see what I see at international level.

Look, I don't mind being proved wrong. I am not wedded to preconceived notions. Point me at some youtube clips (or whatever) of England or Scotland breaking down decent defences with quality back play. I think for every one you show me I can show you 10 or more of higher quality from the ABs. (Hmm, actually not sure I want to commit the time to defending that. Oh well, let's see what happens).
 
Well I don't watch NH club rugby but I do watch all of the internationals. Someone, it may have been you, said that there are all sorts of styles played by different clubs across the NH and I will happily defer to your expertise there.

But I see what I see at international level.

Look, I don't mind being proved wrong. I am not wedded to preconceived notions. Point me at some youtube clips (or whatever) of England or Scotland breaking down decent defences with quality back play. I think for every one you show me I can show you 10 or more of higher quality from the ABs. (Hmm, actually not sure I want to commit the time to defending that. Oh well, let's see what happens).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I don't watch NH club rugby but I do watch all of the internationals. Someone, it may have been you, said that there are all sorts of styles played by different clubs across the NH and I will happily defer to your expertise there.

But I see what I see at international level.

Look, I don't mind being proved wrong. I am not wedded to preconceived notions. Point me at some youtube clips (or whatever) of England or Scotland breaking down decent defences with quality back play. I think for every one you show me I can show you 10 or more of higher quality from the ABs. (Hmm, actually not sure I want to commit the time to defending that. Oh well, let's see what happens).

Sorry but there are to many variables in this and how far do you want to go back. I am sure the England - Scotland match of 1871 was a thing of beauty that brought grown men to tears.

What is a great back display to me might not be to you. Look at Chris Ashton's try of the year. It's like marmite some love it others hate it. The great Welsh backs of the 70's played amazing, but were they that good when defences were different, fitness levels etc are taken into account. Was Dean Richards a better player having to work a night shift as a Police Officer then playing at Twickenham the following afternoon in the 80's - 90's.

The All Blacks have played some great running rugby in this competition, and I do not wish to take any thing away from the teams in there group. In my own opinion they have had the least tough group, given the French have failed to show up and were happy to settle for second place. Most if not all of the other groups had teams fighting for first and second spot.

There is a massive difference from playing running rugby against Japan than a Scotland team who need to win. You have to also take into account the levels of your opponent.
 
Tricia,

a couple of points:

1) Nice try
2) As good as it was it wasn't really a constructed backline move now was it? It was broken play with a couple of good individual moments from Simpson-Daniel and Wilkinson.
3) You know this was from 2002 right? 9 years ago. When I made my point earlier and used the expression "some time ago" I meant after the 2003 world cup.
4) Hehe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/2446245.stm
 
Tricia,

a couple of points:

1) Nice try
2) As good as it was it wasn't really a constructed backline move now was it? It was broken play with a couple of good individual moments from Simpson-Daniel and Wilkinson.
3) You know this was from 2002 right? 9 years ago. When I made my point earlier and used the expression "some time ago" I meant after the 2003 world cup.
4) Hehe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/2446245.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-5z4Nu5r7E running rugby up north for you.
 
Couldn't find this posted individually online but take a look at the Colin Slade try at 1:30 in the following video. It is from this year's trinations against South Africa.



Now if you can show me anything comparable from England since 2003 then I will be very surprised.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are nuts sir.

Heres one for you fellows across the sea then :p

"Now if you can show me anything comparable from England since 2003 then I will be very surprised. "
In Wales there this season ...Club level might I add...enjoy ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Heres one for you fellows across the sea then :p

"Now if you can show me anything comparable from England since 2003 then I will be very surprised. "
In Wales there this season ...Club level might I add...enjoy ;)


2hpsk11.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now if you can show me anything comparable from England since 2003 then I will be very surprised.
You're missing your own point, this was never a competition over who got the flashiest tries, this was you saying England/the NH don't go out to run the ball/score tries

You're changing your argument because you've realised you're wrong
 
Semis France vs Wales / SA vs NZ
Final Wales vs SA
Winner SA

What the....no no no, dont make us the favourites. You are jinxing us.
 
Kinda crazy how things have turned out...

Not just that the draw is north/south split but also that the top 3 ranked teams, the three teams with shortest odds too are on the same side of the draw which means I think that one or two of the biggest and most important games of the tournament (maybe bigger than the final itself) will be played before the final.

The fact France has made the quarters even though they lost two pool games.... You'd think they were rubbish easy beats but it may mean they are the ones to watch out for. can't help but think France can flick the switch and beat anyone in the world if they have their day. England haven't been that impressive either but at least they are winning games. Which is more than what France have done so far.

Ireland vs. Whales - two of the best teams so far facing off and one will go home before time is due. Contrasting styles that have both been effective.

Aussie vs. South Africa - #2 and #3 team in the world, one will go home. Aussies look good even though they have had to deal with a couple injuries, and they are a Much better team with Pocock who was out for the Irish game. Boks are still a bit of an unknown quantity. They struggled past whales, maybe should have lost that game. Struggled past Samoa, they slammed Fiji but Fiji have been the big disappointment of this WC. You would think they aren't true contenders but the reality is they have the best goal kicker in the world right now, they play tight winning rugby and the tougher things get the harder they play.

NZ vs. Argi - to win the W NZ are paying something like $1.70 and Argi are paying $200 I think that says it all. Argi haven't impressed me and they are missing some of their star players because of injury. They don't have a chance against NZ.

All in all this finals series is going to produce some great contests, though as I said I think the biggest games will happen before the final.
 
I reckon[WARNING!!!! TROLLING!!] If we win our Semi, we will win the Final...
 
You're missing your own point, this was never a competition over who got the flashiest tries, this was you saying England/the NH don't go out to run the ball/score tries

You're changing your argument because you've realised you're wrong
How have I changed my argument? It's not about flashiest tries but if you are going to convince me that England go out to be positive and constructive in the backline (more than just getting over the advantage line) then it seems reasonable to ask to see some evidence in the form of, you know, actual backline play. No?

And I thought you stopped reading.

The examples I have been shown so far are England from 2002 (that didn't really meet the criteria), a Leinster compilation (very nice indeed - now translate that to international level), and one try from a Welsh club game (which was alright I suppose, but I already acknowledged that Wales aren't included in any criticisms).

You're missing your own point, this was never a competition over who got the flashiest tries, this was you saying England/the NH don't go out to run the ball/score tries

You're changing your argument because you've realised you're wrong
You are definitely using the word "flashiest" here with some disdain - I can smell it.

Go back and look at the Slade try at 1.30 and then the Kahui try at 2:50 in my video and tell me that's just being "flashy". This is using the full skill sets of the NZ backs to open up a quality defence. That is what rugby should be all about surely.

Here's that video again:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did he really just make three posts in response to a single post straight after one another?
 
Did he really just make three posts in response to a single post straight after one another?

Yup! And he has proven in those 3 posts he's even more biased than Nigel Owens in a Samoan game! LoL!! He's giving the worst examples ever! He's comparing apples with artichokes!
 

Latest posts

Top