• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

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

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.

Someone gave you an example and all you said was LOL NZ ARE BETTER THO

No one is arguing about that, you said England don't run, you got proven wrong - end of.
 
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 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:


How about you go on You Tube, and type great England rugby tries or similar. Off the top of my head you will see Ashton running in against Australia, Ben Foden etc, etc. You can then sit at home and convince your-self England do not play running rugby and we can all get back to our lives.

You clearly have a computer, go seek and you shall find. As Olyy put it, it's then end of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Ok, ok I could not help my-self can we now agree England do play running rugby against France.

So here you have quality back line play, as you asked for as evidence.

I am sure you will now say we are better or that you can show hundreds of better AB examples. So it then degenerates into the best try competition. Also in my opinion it is not all about running cutting edge back play that's why the have 7's. A try off the back of the scrum can be just as decent if not better.

I guess it depends if you like your try scorers with hair gel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How easely we can score if we get Quickball, all this talk about who's starting at FH both can't play if we don't get good clean ball, go and get it forwards! :p
 
Ooh, ooh!

Can I add that Scotland have also tried running rugby this year, not quite successfully but we have tried!
 
Ooh, ooh!

Can I add that Scotland have also tried running rugby this year, not quite successfully but we have tried!

Yeah I think we all agree and know you can
biggrin.gif


This is the quick ball rugby we can play, plus the clip is against France. I just hope we can do it again.
 
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 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:


Sorry! Couldn't resist it just love any opportunity to bring up this. This is from 13/11/10, recent enough? Just skip to 2:10 if you want to see an example of running rugby - Also try of the year I believe beating several NZ nominees. - And just watch at 10 seconds if you want to see use of more of the Eng back line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VDbrR60bAM&feature=related
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry! Couldn't resist it just love any opportunity to bring up this. This is from 13/11/10, recent enough? Just skip to 2:10 if you want to see an example of running rugby - Also try of the year I believe beating several NZ nominees. - And just watch at 10 seconds if you want to see use of more of the Eng back line.
This exactly meets my expectations. It's interesting that someone asks for quality backline play and this is what gets put forward as the best example for England. Look, the Ashton try showed pace and skill to beat the covering defence but this was all about turnover ball + overlap on the blindside - not exactly what I was looking for. The defence here was nullified due to turnover ball (which is why good teams puts such a premium on turnovers) but what i am looking for is English backplay opening up a defence. Both of the examples I provided above were from first phase against South Africa. I am not looking specifically for a first phase play but at least you know in that scenario that the defence is set.

That Leinster compilation someone posted earlier far exceeds anything I have seen an England backline do (well, since WC2003).
 


Ok, ok I could not help my-self can we now agree England do play running rugby against France.

So here you have quality back line play, as you asked for as evidence.

I am sure you will now say we are better or that you can show hundreds of better AB examples. So it then degenerates into the best try competition. Also in my opinion it is not all about running cutting edge back play that's why the have 7's. A try off the back of the scrum can be just as decent if not better.

I guess it depends if you like your try scorers with hair gel.

Excellent. Thank you. This is a good example of decent back play. I hadn't seen that try before.

Of course there are other ways to score tries. The most effective is multiple phases putting defenses on the back foot - which the above try is a good example of - notice how fractured the French backline was when they were eventually beaten on the outside.

Rugby is not all about cutting edge back play as you say but you give away your prejudices with the reference to sevens and hair-gel. Why shouldn't excellent back play be a part of any teams' ambitions? That's what I don't understand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well first of it shows England can play running rugby
biggrin.gif
.

The England team 0f 2002 - 2003 was not known for it's running rugby. The New Zealand press slated them for being boring and the most ugly team the world has ever seen. What they did well was grind out wins by keeping the balls in the forwards and choking other teams to death. If you look at WC 2003 I do not think England scored that many tries at all.

The reason rugby will never be the open running game is because you have the forward battle, tactics for slowing the ball down etc, ctc. Defence that is right up on the back foot of the break down. That is why 7's is running rugby you do not have a rather large pack killing the ball every two minutes.

Mate I play rugby at 6 or 7. Backs always use to much hair gel pretty boys that they are
tongue.gif
 
Hey England scored 36 tries in the '03 wc which isn't too bad imo.
Is over 5 a game so seems fine.
Totally agree that backs are pretty boys that use too much hair gel.
In fact I'd go further and say that backs are all glory hunters that only look good because their forward pack does all the hard work in the first place.
Remember one team I played in at uni where we actually had to stop letting the backs have the ball as they couldn't catch and pass.
Team came middle of the league (which was good as we were a social team that had our practice at the pub) without any back-line play at all.
Lots of tries from mauls was the order of the day. :)
 
Well first of it shows England can play running rugby
biggrin.gif
.

The England team 0f 2002 - 2003 was not known for it's running rugby. The New Zealand press slated them for being boring and the most ugly team the world has ever seen. What they did well was grind out wins by keeping the balls in the forwards and choking other teams to death. If you look at WC 2003 I do not think England scored that many tries at all.

The reason rugby will never be the open running game is because you have the forward battle, tactics for slowing the ball down etc, ctc. Defence that is right up on the back foot of the break down. That is why 7's is running rugby you do not have a rather large pack killing the ball every two minutes.

Mate I play rugby at 6 or 7. Backs always use to much hair gel pretty boys that they are
tongue.gif



England did play some good running rugby back in 2001-2003, they had a pretty balanced team that was able to choke teams by grinding out wins using their forwards, and had some seriously talented backs such as; Robinson, Lewsey, Simpson-Daniel etc. And tbh running rugby is great and exciting but in knock-out rugby, grinding out games is a much easier and more effective option unfortunatly. Which is probably why they got slated so much in the WC back in 03
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Top