By Spiro Zavos
October 16th 2007 @ 6:30am
RWC: England regressing the game - c’mon The Boks!
I never thought I’d ever utter the words, or write them down but here goes: ‘C’mon the Boks!’
Why? Because at least they are a team that plays with a bit of width, from time to time, and with good athletic skills. They play rugby, that’s why.
Rugby has evolved since the 1860s when the Rugby School old boys broke away from an Association (’soccer’) of other Public School old boys who had set up a football game. The Rugbeians wanted to keep hacking (rucking) and handling. So they broke away from the Association and drew up the laws in 1861 (I think) of a new type of football game which they named after their old school, the Rugby Football game.
The point about this historical digression is that England have taken the game back to a type of football game. They’ve kept the hacking but have essentially given away the running with the ball, relying on kicking mainly and the occasional fluke try (from kicks) for their scoring.
A very interesting post analysed England’s game and came to the conclusion that their mindset is an 80m field. From about 20m out from the opponent’s try line England try to win kicking opportunities, like a football team. Put this way, we see that what England have done has been to regress the game to the days when it was a football/handling game rather than the modern handling/football game.
No wonder most of the British press wants nothing to do with the Stellenbosch Laws. If implemented, perhaps not all of the laws, the general thrust of the game would be towards a rugby game rather than an England-style football game. Remember it was only two weeks ago that Eddie Butler was writing in The Observer that ‘England rugby is rotten.’
The England game with the present complicated laws - and with a sympathetic referee - allows a strong defence and no attack to present a formidable challenge to any side. And this is what England has done in the finals.
Needless to say the obnoxious Stephen Jones has been in his element in all of this - denigrating the Wallabies as con artists and the All Blacks as over-pampered and soft. He has been touting the superiority of the European club system with its endless tournaments and grim, introspective play as a superior rugby product to the exuberance and joy of rugby of the Super 14.
If only to shut up this Basil Fawlty-like nonsense, please God let South Africa win the 2007 RWC tournament. There, I’ve said it again.
By Spiro Zavos
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(107)
Temba said | October 16th 2007 @ 6:57am | Report comment
Nice one Spiro, I like it go the South we do seem to play more rugby.
I have one point that’s really making my blood boil at the moment. I live in Melbourne and most of the Aussie/NZ press I read seems to suggest the South African are lucky to have come this far. Against Fiji, they where lucky… against the Tonga, they where lucky. One idiot actually wrote that SA was lucky to have beaten argentine!
Here is what I think, SA does not have the best backline in the world maybe not even the best scrum/forwards in the world. Percy might not play with the most flair for a full back. The only thing about our team that seems attractive is the wing Habana (rightfully so). My point is that as a team over all they cover all the bases with good talent. They have lost concentration of late but at least it did not cost us the RWC like some others.
Every one likes to hate South Africa but not as much as England attitude. SA have played the hard matches and won. They beat England 36-0, no Wilco but he has not been in top form. Jake White had a 4 year plan, he built a team over 4 years in the aim to beat England in that game. The English scrum dominated in that match just as it did in the wallaby match (although not as convincingly) Ashtons game plan backfired. White knew before the game how they will play this RWC… everyone knew yet no one but SA could counter it.
South Africa is not lucky to be in the final, they deserve it. If they played Australia in the final they would win, the only team that had a chance and over all game to beat the boks are the AB’s. But the AB’s lost focus and so did the Wallabies . Having a plan and the tools to execute that plan is part of RWC’s. England don’t have much else to play with so I don’t blame them for sticking with what works.
So Leading try scorer, leading points scorer, have not lost a match in this RWC, kept their cool under pressure. I ask any one on here to tell me why South Africa are lucky to be in the final.
Richard said | October 16th 2007 @ 7:05am | Report comment
Full marks to the English players and coaching staff for having a game plan that worked not once, but twice. The supposed better teams such as Australia, NZ and France, should have had a Plan B and a Plan C to fall back upon. They didn’t and they lost. Why should the underdog play to another team’s strengths? Your stock answer is “for the sake of the beautiful game” go the Boks! – wise up Mr Zavos. Go the battler! Isn’t that a term the Aussies promote?
BPM said | October 16th 2007 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Temba,
I believe SA fully deserved their final appearance. As you pointed out you have won every game you have played, unlike England, most of these in convincing fashion. The men in green seem to have a belief and unity in purpose which is galvanising some good team performances.
Go Bok!
Mike said | October 16th 2007 @ 7:33am | Report comment
Go Spiro!! Totally with you there. Stopped reading Stephen Jones years ago because he is an uneducated, inaccurate, subjective, blind, self-opinionated moron.
The only rugby I’ve seen played since the QFs was from South Africa. They had an easy run to the final in most respects, but as far as the “best teams” making the final, a few weeks ago we expected (and it should have been) that the winner of an Aus v NZ semi would play SA in the final.
It seems a rife injustice that the team which struggled to make it out of its pool, has made it to the final.
I have never said Go Boks before either, but once the four teams I like least in the world of rugby, were the four remaining teams, I knew I was going to have to go for someone for the first time.
Let’s hope it’s bigger than 36-0, though hard to see that happening in a GF.
Terry Kidd said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Temba I haven’t seen anywhere in our media that the Boks were lucky to make the final, and I always expected them to be there.
The other finalist I didn’t expect and still don’t think they deserve their place, but there you have and they are there. I still think that England have got there more from Wallaby, AB and French bad play than for any other reason.
I, too hope that the Boks get up convincingly.
andrew said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:13am | Report comment
This article is almost as sad as Spiro’s effort in the SMH today. It’s all about whinge, whinge because ‘my team didn’t win’ (and half the time looked lost in my view).He even manages to whinge about the referees - not one but two of them!
Do we think that Spiro whinged when Aust beat the ‘Boks in ‘99 - no tries in the game whereas the other semi between France & the ‘Blacks was 43-31 as I remember. Oh no, then it would have been how wonderful Stephen Larkham’s drop goal was!
I mean can you imagine how down & nearly out the Poms must have been after 36 nil against the ‘Boks.That they are in the final is a remarkable achievement - and they have beaten France and Australia.
By the way if any of you are interested in a good analysis of Eng/France I suggest you read John Eales in yesterday’s AFR.
Mick Roche said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Spiro Spiro Spiro…… A typical type of article I would expect to read form a southern hemisphere rugby Journo…There is more than one way to skin a cat!!!! The Rugby world cup is about winning on the last day of the competition, and I can promise that is all that matters. You were beaten by England in the semi final fair and square, and with all due respect your “attractive game” did not look all that flash, in fact The English moved the ball around tha park on that day much better than the aussie’s. Lets look at Argentina,France or even the springboks none of them have executed the expansive game well in this tournament and have reverted to a set piece 10 man based game. Just for the record I am Irish so therefore am not biased. But I do know after years of playing the English and watching matches in Lansdown Roand and Twickenham, win, loose or draw we went to the pubs togther and drank and had fun, celebrated the game. So enough of the excuses, you lost fair and square. Stop bagging other teams, more focus on your own setup may help fix things over here. Both SA and England deserve to be contesting for the Willaim Webb Ellis trophey on Saturday, simply beacuse they are the only two left standing. Regards Mick
Sam Taulelei said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:17am | Report comment
I would like to see South Africa win it and not because they are a southern union but because they have been the form team not just of the world cup but the whole year. I’ve always wanted the best performing team to win the cup and I think that has generally been the case in the tournaments short history. I’ve enjoyed watching SA play this year (which hasn’t always been the case since their readmittance to international sport). It makes you wonder what impact a player like Pierr Spies would have had on this tournament playing in these conditions and their improved attack.
Temba if you do win it, I hope that we will see more attractions like the Shark girls and the Bulls cheerleaders next year.
Alphonse said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Anyone but England! I am happy to acknowledge that they out thought, out coached and out played Australia however for the sake of the game a South African victory is a must. Despite the great crowds and the wonderful performances from the perceived “second tier” teams the game is struggling. Too many laws open to an even greater number of interpretations and the blatant refusal of the ignorant silver spooned administrators to recognise how desperately change is required are driving genuine long-term fans from the game. A simplification of the rules and a rebasing of the points scoring sytem should be a priority. The try and the pursuit of the try at all times must become the goal of every team, not just the majority of teams. To think that England could win an RWC scoring less tries than the far from industrious Scots is appalling. I can’t cheer for South Africa BUT I won’t cheer for England.
Temba said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:19am | Report comment
John Eales, the same idiot who thought the pumas would upset the boks?
I agree with you thought that England has battled its way back into this RWC and that was unexpected.
Mick Roche said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Temba, you should not comment on a game you clearly know nothing about…John Eales was a Legend of the game and deserves alot more respect than you give him….Futher bagging…what’s wrong? bad loser perhaps.
Alphonse said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Hear, hear Mick. Eales, a legend with a capital ‘L’…
Sundo said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:30am | Report comment
England are sure playing ugly, but they’re also playing to their strengths & limitations. What do we expect them to do? If it were a normal test match, I too would be struggling to keep the remote in the holster, but these guys are playing for keeps, & the tension keeps me enthralled. I detect a rosy whiff of sour grapes in many posts about England. Personally I find a lot to like about them, especially their determination. The contrast with the soccer world cup is profound. I don’t remember too much being written about teams ruining the game with their playing style (apart from the spectacular dives) - the emphasis is on the result. In World Cups, rightly or wrongly, that is all that matters. I’m still shedding the odd tear into my Steinlager, but I don’t begrudge the Poms their acheivement. Good luck to them.
Temba said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Sam this years S14 should be good to watch after this RWC, lots of unfinished business for some. The teams here in Aus and NZ need to get cheerleaders.
Damian said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:32am | Report comment
True enough Andrew, but England are there because they won a mental game. They didn’t play better rugby and they didn’t even have a very water tight plan. They were fantastic at the breakdown and had a great kicker - and that’s it. These are the only eggs they had in their basket. It’s just a credit it to them they they got right behind this and played together. They won two matches by two points that they probably should have lost had the teams they were playing turned up mentally. This is all South Africa need to do, and I’m not saying that it is as simple as that. Two or three seven pointers and someone who can get close to parity with Wilkonson’s kicking and I think we’ll see England beaten convincingly. The boks are much better in the forwards than Australia and they are just as punishing when the field finally opens up a little. This is the type of rubgy I want to see and it’s why they deserve to win. Rugby is an invasion game - the try line is there for a reason, not just to mark the end of the field. If England’s tactics are so great why don’t they win more than they do? It’s just that now they’ve got older heads and that’s a huge advantage in the mental part of the battle. But come the GF, England will pay for ignoring the breadth that a rugby team must have. Australia have already paid that price for not having it in the forwards.
Colin D said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:35am | Report comment
I agree with Mick’s first comment. After watching the Back Page and Rugby World cup show last night on Fox Sports, I’m flabbergasted by the aussie journo’s reaction to England’s success at the RWC. Sport is not about huge scores, just look at how boring the AFL final and the Aus-NZ rugby league test were. England have played to their strengths and won tightly fought games that were fantastic to watch from a suspense point of view.
If you don’t like rucks, mauls and drop goals - stick to watching rugby league - the most one dimensional show on earth.
Nigel Lopez-McBean said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Sometimes I wonder whether we are still talking about professional sport the way that article reads.
Professional sport is about winning. It’s hard, ruthless, tactical and you need the ability to execute in the high-pressure situations.
The facts are this: England has delivered on a game plan they hid from no one, not the Australians or the French.
There is not a single person who watches rugby who doesn’t know how the English are going to play but so-called better teams have failed to meet the challenge.
England has offered a challenge “If we are so rubbish, so one-dimensional and lacking in world class…..beat us.”
It’s that simple. All the current talk about the death of the game etc is an emotional crutch for those who in the simplest of terms have failed in their professional responsibility to meet a (fairly basic) challenge. Australia was exposed for its lack of fundamentals and France was beaten by a team who optimised the hunger and physicality that makes rugby the wonderful sport it is.
England have stepped up like World Champions should and all I now hear is whinging. The battler sprit is well and truly alive…but not in Australia.
The old phrase is ‘No guts, no glory’….Australia and NZ could learn much from this English team’s naked hunger and pride in the shirt.
Temba said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Mich, I never doubted the mans skill as a rugby player but that prediction sounds more like a wish to me, not really something you blast out to the media when you are in his position. Its makes you look like an idiot when you get it wrong.
Simple enough
Mick Roche said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:37am | Report comment
Nigel….Spot bloody on……
Temba said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Have to say this is the first time I semi agree with Nigel, they have shown more heart and that is what the game(RWC) is all about. Everyone was cheering the Pumas and they never get the ball past 12.
It’s a world game and not every country plays league style running rugby.
Mick Roche said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Temba, there is no Qustion that after downing France and Ireland that the Argies had the ability to beat the Springboks….I think it was a bridge too far at that stage in the Tournament…but too call Eales an idiot is shall we say IDIOTIC
Temba said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:48am | Report comment
As I am being accused of not knowing the game by you Mich, ill explain something that you and Mr. Eals overlooked.
The Pumas played well, they really did but they played well against Northern teams that suited there simple yet affective game plan. They have always struggled against the Southern team because it does not suit their style of rugby. In 12 games they have managed to come close once and that was a B-team.
The Irish never pitched up to the tournament and they caught the French off guard in game one.
Now here is a perdition for you and Eals, France by 20 this weekend over the Pumas.
Sam Taulelei said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Does anyone else find it amusing and rather short sighted when we discuss the reasons why our teams win or lose at the world cup and often point to the style of game, the players, the coaches, preparation and build-up, the types of domestic competitions we play in and the mentality it fosters, over confidence or arrogance by players, the over reliance on kicking or try scoring.
With every win a country’s group of supporters will trumpet their success and the reasons why and the losers will look ruefully and longingly at their victors and then discuss how to manufacture a similar structure in an aim to emulate their success.
Then when that country loses we will all state the exact opposite as to the reasons why they lost and take solace and comfort in our own knowledge about how we each play the game.
This has been the theme since the quarterfinals began and I have reached this conclusion.
No amount of preparation, talent, gameplan and strategy will secure you a win in a knockout match. The margins at this level are very close and the difference between winning and losing can often hang on an incident that is beyond players control.
Some teams will rise to the occasion and play out of their skins, even though the form guide and the punters will suggest otherwise and it’s due largely to the attitude of the players on the day. Their trust and self belief in each other and how they manage and manipulate the fluctuations of a game.
Winning the world cup doesn’t prove that any one country is overall stronger or better at the game than another because if either finalist played any of the teams that were knocked out since the quarterfinals again this week they would just as easily lose. The world cup is a snapshot in time, we celebrate the winners and console the losers. But I wouldn’t expect to see any radical overhaul in how NZ, Aus, France, Argentina, Scotland and Fiji continue to play the game even though they were knocked out.
Each to their own and may the best team win.
Mick Roche said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Temba…3rd or 4th play off….c’mon please….The world cup is over for both teams now, the result is irrelavant. I do however agree with you that the french will beat them by a comfortable margin. But Irrelevant.
Temba said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Yes it makes sense and it is irrelevant, not like a John Eals perdition.
Terry Kidd said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:59am | Report comment
I’m sorry Temba, but twice is too much for me to let go. I have been smiling imagining John Eales in perdition …. did you by any chance mean ‘prediction’?
I think Ealsey has been in perdition many times, but never at the hands of the Boks.
slomo said | October 16th 2007 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
John Eales was a great player, but he’s certainly not god. His prediction, making it the way he did, was to cast him as an idiot.
I agree with Temba. Some people can’t stand the thought of South Africa succeeding at anything, so they conjure up scenarios which they then expound as wisdom, simply on the basis of their past glories. What gives Eales more credibility as a predictor of match results than any of us on this forum? While he was one of the great inspirational captains and an excellent footballer, he clearly has lost his ability to read a team’s capabilities. I know it’s easy to say it with hindsight, but Argentina was never going to beat South Africa.
I don’t understand the non sequitur ranting of Mick Roche. We all drink with the opposition at the end of the game; it’s hardly unique in Dublin or in London, and as for Spiro’s article, even though I have not always felt the way he does, I agree with him 100% this time.
I also hope South Africa win, but if they don’t I’ll salute England for the guts they’ve shown to come back from a thrashing in the pool round. It’s a lot of what rugby is supposed to be about.
andrew said | October 16th 2007 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Entirely agree Sam although I understand why some of us here are upset after all those years of preparation have come to naught.That is why I was so disappointed with Spiro today since his analysis is usually very good.Perhaps he’s been having cafe in France with John O’Neill (ye gods! does he ever say anything sensible?)
To the match on Sat and there’s a brief line in the Guardian in London this morning that Brian Habana may be cited for an elbow to the face on the Argentinian prop Roncero ( sorry not sure about the spelling) who went down like a ton of beef early in the game.It happened so fast I hardly noticed it and I don’t have a recording.
Mick said | October 16th 2007 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
slomo, I am sorry if you found my ranting a touch off the point. But I find alot of the Austalian rugby Supportes and usualy the most vocal ones( definately not all) poor winners and losers. You guys have a million excuses about how bad the team that actually beat you is, or how their approach to playing the game is damaging the sport. The world cup ended for Australiain the Quarter finals, now it as if the world cup is over. I do feel for some of your team, Mortlock, Gregan,Gitteau, etc but apart from needing to work on the tight 5 to support one of the best backlines in the world…I think attitude is a mjor problem with some of the players like Tiquiri ann Dunning…..Ireland had similar problems in the world cup, they believed that they were better than they actually were (reding too much press)and never played with the heart that has brought so close so many times in World cups against the best teams. I know my first comments will upset some of you but that is how the Aussie supporters are often percieved by outsiders.
Curl said | October 16th 2007 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Have been away for the last couple of weeks and managed to watch the game (Ausie/England) on a 24″ screen in some dingy motel in a small country town by myself…what fun. While Spiro, you are right above and in your SMH article today, I can’t help but think that apart from everything else - problems with the scrum and what not - the Aussie loose forwards were absent in that game. I cannot recall our loose forwards making it to the brakedown at all during the game, and I can’t help but think that this was part of the game plan, which in hindsight backfired on us.
I think it gets back to a couple of problems that the Wallabies have had for some years, which are the slowness of our loose (and other) forwards to get to the brakedown and be competitive in a competitive rucking situation, and secondly, our inability to read the game and change our game plan accordingly.
I can’t help but feel that if we were not competitive in the scrum and other set pieces during the game, however we were making it to the brakedown and we were competitive there, then the result would have been quite different. We have in fact won many games over the last decade where our scrum has somewhat outclassed on the field.
Temba said | October 16th 2007 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
That was funny now that I look back Terry but I am fluent in 3 languages (read and write) English not being the main clearly, how many are you flaunt in?
Me thinks the Pumas would love to be 3rd, If you asked them before the RWC if 3rd would be good enough I am sure they would of said yes.
As for Eals he is a legend and should of stuck to playing rugby rather then predicting games.
JimC said | October 16th 2007 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
In the first 20 minutes of the QF, England played all the rugby, and split the Aussie backline open a couple of times. With better finishing we could have been two tries up, but that’s been conveniently forgotten in this orgy of dummy spitting.
Spiro’s article is just sour grapes. Your best players like George Smith went missing, others like Vickerman and Palu, were lucky not to get yellow cards for persistent foul play. Australia were beaten by a better rugby team, that’s the bottom line..
Alphonse said | October 16th 2007 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
Jim, no one is disputing that the best team won. England thoroughly deserved their victory. At the end of the day four penalty goals and two could have been tries did beat one converted try and a penalty. No dispute.
Mick said | October 16th 2007 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Alphonse, have you read Spiros’s article????? He talks about England regressing the game….He is clearly saying the best team did not win….which has caused this whole argument.
Alphonse said | October 16th 2007 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
Yes Mick , I meant to say I’m not disputing it. Can anyone argue that England is progressing the game?
Mick said | October 16th 2007 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
I know what you are getting at…and they are playing old school stuff, but have Argentina, South Africa,France and even Australia played any different when it came down to the tough games. So it is all well and good to play expansive rugby scoring 10 tries a game, but when you shut up shop in the big games as you guys did against England, what does that indicate? to coin a phrase from golf…drive for show and putt for doe….
Alphonse said | October 16th 2007 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
Mick, well put. At the end of the day I suppose I would rather Australia win ugly than lose pretty. No sour grapes. Just disappointment.
Mick said | October 16th 2007 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Alphonse, at the end of the day I understand your disappointement, I was in Dublin in 1991 when we lost to Australia in last minute and again in Melbourne in 2003. At the end of the day it’s a great game Northern hemi style or Southern hemi style and no doubt the debate will continue. But Alphonse being an Aussie supporter at least you know you will see world cup knockout rugby again soon… Tip for the weekend france by 12.5 pts pays 2.4 on betfair, enjoy the final.
David Lewis said | October 16th 2007 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
I agree with virtually all Spiro’s analysis, but depart from him on who I wish to win. South Africa have played some decent footy and deserve to be in the final. In fact, they’d be deserved world champions if they win, as they should, by about 30 points, again. But with the All Blacks’ demise, and with the profusion of tragic rugby played at this tournament, I now regard the tournament as farcical. And as a farce, what better grande finale than an England win. That a team of such truly limited ability - even more limited than their class of ‘03, who were scarcely an excitement machine, could be crowned world chamions, potentially, is mind-bogglingly so ridiculous that one has to laugh. If England did win, I’d tell the NZRU to get on the phone and off them a game - anywhere, anytime - against the Blacks, and we’ll see who is worthy of the mantle.
If the Boks one, on the other hand, the sad thing for New Zealanders to deal with is that we’d have a world champion of some merit. That hurts, and us Kiwis are hurting enough.
JimC said | October 16th 2007 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
David Lewis - you don’t understand much about sporting competition do you?
“If England did win, I’d tell the NZRU to get on the phone and off them a game - anywhere, anytime - against the Blacks, and we’ll see who is worthy of the mantle.”
the NZRFU’s team reached the quarter finals and were beaten, fair and square, by France, who were then beaten fair and square by England. What is so difficult to understand? Get back into class. The bell has tolled, playtime is over.
Mick said | October 16th 2007 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
David Lewis….you are clearly upset over your baby blacks choking again….Onn the 7th of Spetmeber a competition started called the world cup, the winner of the last match on Oct 20 is the world Champion. NZ played in this comp and lost…Unlucky, don’t embarass your countriy’s people by crying like a baby cos you lost…be a man. So in summary JmC nicely said.
DF6 said | October 16th 2007 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
I will say that I would like to see SA win, for one they are the only team who in the last 4 years have actually beaten the all blacks, and 2 they are the team who has played the most consistent so far this year, the SA backline may not be “great” (habana and du preezs aside) but what they do have is the majority of the team playing the best rugby of their careers, It has been a while since we have seen this sort of form from montgomery and butch james is playing some of his best rugby.
Temba is right re argies, they played and competed well against structured teams, the reason the boks put them away so easy was class and individual brilliance, the stuff that you cant practice
Chariot said | October 16th 2007 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
It’s always nice to hear from Spiro mainly because you know what you are going to get. I am the proud owner of a signed copy of his book, Ka Mate, Ka Mate, New Zealands conqest of British Rugby, yes I’m the one. His loathing of English rugby is only surpassed by his contempt for Stephen Jones.
He’s clearly passionate about rugby and wants his team to win, the thing is they didn’t, so he’s not left with much to write about. It’s the last bastion of a scoundrel to turn against the opposition because you have no team left to talk up, Spiro could well take up a role in British politics.
I’ve said already that the success of England will give the RFU the illusion that their structure is correct, the truth is England is in the final because of the guts and determination of the players. Come what may England are my team and I’ll support them whatever.
sportym said | October 16th 2007 @ 8:21pm | Report comment
The English team gets the job done!!!. Simple as that. At the end of the day they are there to win the RWC, and that is all that matters. We can complain all we want about the Gilbert balls, The design of the Rugby Jumpers, the style of play all we like, but at the end of the day all that matters is the team that holds the cup!
You want to watch entertaining rugby, watch FIJI! But alas they will not hold the Cup, but enteraining they sure are!
I have to disagree stongly about england regressing the game, they are playing the game to thier best of thier ability, and without world class backs….they are doing a great job. If they played the syle “WE” wanted them to play, they would not be in the Final right now. Newsflash, S14 syle rugby, while entertainging is not a winning formula come tests. Was it not Australia V Sa that was considered one of the most boring Tri-nation games ever….both based on S14 forumula. You have to adopt on the day, study your opposition and counter them. Lets face it, England have a game plan that works wonders against Aus.
I actually thank England for humbling Australia on the Q4, it really identifies the problems we have in our forwards. When we can build a pack like the ABs, then we can compete!!. Lets not blame other countries style of play to cover our own lack of proficency.
I think the cup should go to the team that has shown the most passion, wanted it the most and have through bloody hard to get there. And that has been england, just based on their attitude in the last three games, they deserve it. I could care less the style they are planning, I am impressed with thier commitment and attitude! A true underdog….
Mike said | October 16th 2007 @ 8:21pm | Report comment
How many more cliches are we gonna hear like “sour grapes”?? Just because a person’s team lost, doesn’t mean they are not allowed to criticise. Plenty positives have been said about England’s efforts too, just because there are negatives doesn’t mean someone is a bad loser. It is only fair to add some criticism, particularly when there was a clash of such obviously different styles of play. And jeezzz, enough slanging goes on from both camps, it’s all part of the fun.
Also, let’s not forget that there are merely two or three moments of “luck” that have meant the difference between the current finals series and one involving a Wallabies v All Blacks semi. It is not that there is any serious gap in form or ability here, so many games in the tournament could have gone one way or another. It has been that close, yet the criticism from fans and press has been so polarised it’s as if there were regular 100-0 thrashing in there.
Stephen Jones has been the single worst offender for years, in making out that something that didn’t happen happened, it gave me a great chuckle to hear a genuinely good writer have a go at him on his own level. Who cares anyway??
What’s that Basil? Germans?? I’ll get my rifle….
Mart said | October 16th 2007 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
Sam - once again, thanks for bringing some sanity and logic to what seems to be a “you’re rubbish”, “no - you’re rubbish instead !” debate. The nature of knock-out rugby means, as Lawrence Dallolipop rightly says, you may not have to beat the best team, just the one in front of you in the next match. If I had 10c for every time I’ve heard folk say that if the Kiwis had won their 2003 semi they’d have murdered the Poms I’d be retired by now. So credit to the Poms since they have dragged themselves brilliantly up from a dreadful RWC start and won what were basically 4 knock-out games after the Boks pool result. Not pretty but geez they’ve had the Aussie characteristics of guts and sheer bloody mindedness. For my money the Boks have looked “best” all tourno and I think hiring Eddie Jones may be a masterstroke. I agree with several others on this post that Spiro’s opening comments don’t do justice to someone who is supposedly a learned rugby journo. He and Wayne Smith in the SMH seem more keen to bash Stephen Jones than actually talk rugby. I agree 100% Jones is wonky in his hyperbole but if you actually look at his main point it stands up - the Eng and French comps basically play more ‘attritional’ and forward-centric rugby all season and this is something that the Aussies and Kiwis haven’t been able to address come RWC time (interestingly it looks like the Boks have which probably bodes well for the final). Yep, Jonesy goes way over the top on everything everytime but this central point seems to be sensical to me. So far this RWC we’ve had Spiro having a pop at English journalists, English fans (boorish apparantly), the English RFU and their organisation of the 1999 RWC, and even the origins of the English national anthem ! Spiro, if they said they’d give the Elgin Marbles back would that help ?!?!
Ross Mativenko said | October 16th 2007 @ 11:08pm | Report comment
It boils down to one simple question - How much do you want to win?
True winners aren’t concerned with the nature of victory, just the outcome…just a win.
England could have been the most open, expansive team in the tournament…this would have - most probably - led to elimination. As was expected.
Instead, they reverted to a style of play which they are familiar with. It suits them, and is a winning strategy, so why sacrifice that at the altar of entertainment?
And so, for being winners, the English style is mocked, regardless of the results it gets.
Terry Kidd said | October 17th 2007 @ 4:58am | Report comment
G’day Temba … mate, I wasn’t having a go at you I just thought it was funny sending Eales to perdition …. and in a way your post did do that.
As for languages … I am fluent (some would argue that) in Aussie and have a smattering of German and Malay … or enough to get a room and order a beer anyway.
Michael Farrow said | October 17th 2007 @ 5:05am | Report comment
How is it regressing the game to play a power game that is within the rules? Early in the tournament, England were criticised for not understand the tactical kicking game as the Southern Hemisphere nations do and now they’re playing kick and rush? Rugby is a game of territory AND possession and kicking is an integral part, as every quarter finalist except the Fijians showed. Whilst watching England-France, I came to understand that rugby is probably the ultimate sport. Mike Catt had just kicked a cracking ball to touch and everybody in the bar applauded a great kick. Rugby union is not a game of free running play, it’s about the forward and both the games with France and Australia were engrossing. It was like a taut political thriller, whereas a game with no defence or decent forward play would be a dumb action movie. I know there’s a desire to essentially kill forward play in rugby union but it shouldn’t be allowed.
Matt said | October 17th 2007 @ 5:48am | Report comment
I agree with the point on England regressing the game in the style they play…BUT they are making every use of the laws as they stand. Teams that look to build phases and move the defence around are inevitably taking risks as the more phases they string together the more they risk turnover ball and the opportunity for the opposition to attack agianst a disorganised defence. England are just limiting the amount of phases and therefore mistakes, playing field position and patiently waiting for opportunities…boring but smart and to date winning rugby!
Where other nations can learn from England is in their physical preparation…How do they get these performances out of guys who in some cases are well into their 30’s. If you believe the story that 5 of their forward pack bench press over 200kg when the best the Wallabies can muster is 180kg then they must be doing something right on the paddock and in the gym. It was commented on in 2003 and needs to be raised again…How do they get these guys into this condition? Whoever looks after the Poms conditioning needs a pay rise…you can only put so much down to genetics! Add this impressive conditioning to the hugs experience England boasts and they are a hard nut to crack. For what it’s worth though I think they’ll meet their Waterloo in the ‘Boks who are every bit as abrasive at the breakdown, have a strong kicking game and have the skills to capitalise on any mistake England may make…it’ll be closer than last time but the result will be the same.
Barry Boyle said | October 17th 2007 @ 5:58am | Report comment
C`Mon THE BOK~S.
The A~B`S should have still overcome the {POM} Barnes.
Paddy O`Brien has also made a bloody idiot of himself.
Barnes was a disgrace as well as his touch judges.
Barry.
Matt said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Michael Farrow,
In answer to yuor comments…I guess I’m not saying regressing in a bad way. It’s one of rugbys great debates as to whether the game is improved by all the ball movement and emphasis on “entertaining”. Who’s to say that the old style of rugby isn’t the best. The evidence is there for all to see, England are using the rules as they stand to their obvious benefit.
I agree, the games have been hard to turn away from which just serves to remind us that rugby in it’s various forms is a beautiful game no matter what.
As far as the trend towards killing forward play alot of it stems from the desire to make rugby a safer, more marketable game…As an old frontrower I understand the reasons for it but am still saddened by it as rugbys ability to cater to different physiques is one of it’s strongest points.
Temba said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:09am | Report comment
I was sitting at home last night thinking about rugby and the upcoming game this weekend, when I started pondering about everyone saying England is regressing the game. If Australia says England is regressing the game, they should look in the mirror. In Australia you have NRL and AFL, all the players look about the same size. All the heroes are runners, this is why Australia cant produce a good front row. No one wants to be the big bloke with no neck and funny ears.
Scrumming, kicking and running are all parts of rugby union, take away one of those and you are regressing the game. In England, Argentina and South Africa the props are legends, they are the big men with small hearts. Everyone loves them, the are not the flashy stars of the game but their jobs is just if not more important then the backs. I love to see a good forward at work but them again I come from a country that does not have league.
I love line breaks and tri’s being scored but watching league bores me as to much of a good thing can be bad. A good front row takes just as long to develop if not longer, they are just as athletic based on strength rather then speed. The muscle of a team. This is what makes Union so entertaining… the diversity.
England are sticking to what works for them. If you say England is regressing the game then so is Australia.
Nigel Lopez-McBean said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:17am | Report comment
“So far this RWC we’ve had Spiro having a pop at English journalists, English fans (boorish apparantly), the English RFU and their organisation of the 1999 RWC, and even the origins of the English national anthem.”
Spiro often does it so well that I don’t actually mind…he’s just hopelessly in love with Australia.
…and he can say what he likes about the English RFU, I’ll be inclined to agree with him.
I’m just waiting for a SMH 600 word polemic on how annoying our tea making is and how boring the way we stir it is ; )
Sam Taulelei said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:18am | Report comment
So you are a nation of stirrers then (ha, ha)
mart said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Sam - Oi ! (tea) pot calling kettle black, stop (tea) bagging the poms as they may well win the rugby world cuppa, presumably you Kiwis take your tea (all) black…..OK, sorry, can’t think of any more bad puns so I’ll go for coffee (ahem)….
Michael Farrow said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:31am | Report comment
It just seems that Australians weren’t so keen to see major changes to the game when they won it in 1999 or when they got to the final only to lose to the best team in the world in 2003. There’s a lot of sour grapes going around because England haven’t spent six years preparing for this tournament and aren’t holding seminars every day. For all this “England are boring” talk, look at the stats. The French kicked more ball in that semi than England (47 to 40) but they committed more errors and they kicked less to touch. England made more tackles and got more turnovers. In the QF, the Australians gave up more penalties and England kicked it just six more times than the Aussies (28-22).
England beat Australia because for all the smarts in their team, the Aussies were outthought. Take a look at the stats, England kept the ball in hand a lot more and kicked it when they sucked the backs in. Brian Ashton has said that Catt and Wilkinson noticed the Australians kept dropping deep, expecting the kick so they kept it in hand. When the Aussies stepped up, they kicked. So this “predictable” tactic of kicking the ball messed with the Australians so badly that they didn’t know whether they were coming or going. The French tried to turn the game into a kicking contest, yet England kicked more effectively for much of the game and managed to win the game despite a possession and territorial disadvantage. They won the game by doing damage when they got in position. For a one-dimensional team, England seem remarkably smart, remarkably crafty and remarkably adaptable.
Matt said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Temba,
You hit the nail right on the head when you stated you come from a country that does not have league. To fully understand the dilemna that faces rugby in Australia you need to understand the threats the other codes present to us.
As you would be aware rugby in Australia has to compete for media time and space with league, AFL and soccer…Our need to compete with these three games sees us having to adopt a more entertaining game in terms of ball movement and running. This is also true in our choice of athletes…We compete with these games for players as well, this is not neccesarily true in SA, NZ and England to take some examples. AFL and rugby league are incredibly pro-active in terms of junior development and certainly the amount of money some of these kids can earn at a young age makes league in particular and very attractive proposition.
The new Stellenbosch rules, trialled in South Africa and used in the ARC will see rugby become a faster game and will to a certain extent depower the scrum and driving maul (not such a great thing IMO). If these rules are adopted internationally they will see rugby become a much faster game and see the “runners” of our game come to the fore. I have spoken to referees who have officiated under the new rules and to a man they are adamant that a new level of aerobic fitness is needed to referee the game so the strain on the player is going to be greater also…
There will still be a place for the big blokes (watch what you say about props having small hearts…not true) with no neck and funny ears but they will have to lift their mobility to compete in this new style of game.
In terms of regressing the game…read my earlier blog and you’ll see I’m not saying it is necessarily a bad thing…depends entirely on your viewpoint. I don’t think you can blame Australia for regressing rugby just because league and AFL exist in this country…that doesn’t really make sense. That’s like saying England kick alot because they have to compete with soccer
I know you’re a Springbok supporter so you’re obviously pretty feeling pretty good about things right now and given the Walalbies early exit from the tournament are taking the opportunity to give us a dig about the state of the game here. Have a think about it before you criticise too quickly, one game does not make any one style of rugby the right way of playing nor does it make any one country the bastion of all things good in rugby. As you yourself said, rugby is entertaining because of the diversity, celebrate that, don’t put another country down just because they lost a game. After all the Wallabies, playing a pretty awful game were still only two points behind England at the end of the game…there wasn’t all that much in it. There is no “better” way to play rugby, just different ways, sometimes one works better than the other…that’s rugby!
Sam Taulelei said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Nice comments Matt, it speaks well on behalf of all of us who share the same view. I know Temba personally and he also shares the same opinion. Rugby is a world game, not a SA game or a NZ game or any other country. Is it still only Wednesday, hurry up the weekend.
Temba said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:46am | Report comment
If you read some of my other post you will find that I think the rugby world is at a loss with Australia not competing.
Now let me see if I got this right Matt, Australia have problems so change the world game? I am suppose to not put other countries down yet all I read is how lucky SA are to have gotten this far (not on this site) and how crap England play.
England have problems in the backline you don’t see the British press bashing the running game?
It is diverse and I have not seen the new rules in play but I can tell you this, take away the forwards and all that comes with it and we will end up with a version of league and then Australia will be the best right?
SA, England, Wales, Ireland, Argentina… Most of the other countries have good forwards how many millions of people who love the game now have to change for a handful of Aussies union supporters?
Does not seem fair to me.
Changing it to league will not make it more successful on a world scale, that’s why league is not as popular.
Temba said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Official downhill to the weekend starts in 2 hours Sam, you will make it!
I should watch a game with the new rules, I am very interested to see how it works. Who knows maybe ill like it.
Sam Taulelei said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Likewise, I haven’t seen them in play either which is why I’m reserving judgement on them until later. Thanks for the picture by the way, thought it was very funny.
Terry Kidd said | October 17th 2007 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Guys I think we have all just about summed it all up as follows ….
Australia played crap and lost
England are playing ugly but winning
All Blacks are lovely to watch but lost again.
Argies played to their strengths and did well to make the semis
French played with passion occasionally but not much else
Boks are playing well and doing enough to win
Ireland - their bodies turned up but their heads didn’t
Wales - still singing somewhere
Scotland tried to tough it out but couldn’t
Italy - did they even turn up?
How the game is played - if you win who cares?
Whingeing supporters - if you win you don’t whinge.
Is this a fair summation of this thread so far? Do you reckon we have all had enough? can we now move on to what we think will happen on saturday night?
Mick Roche said | October 17th 2007 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Here here Terry, pretty good summary.
Friday night France by more then 15 points, Saturday night SA by 13
Temba said | October 17th 2007 @ 8:01am |