RWC: England regressing the game – c’mon The Boks!
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 16 Oct 2007 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
107 Have your say
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
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW
- Nathan Sharpe to retire at end of 2012
- Queensland ready for Super challenge (2)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (43)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (48)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (25)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
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.