Play the first minute like it’s the last
Roar Pro
By sledgehammer, 23 Jun 2008 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, referees, rugby
Saturday’s Herald published one of the most insightful sports letters ever published about rugby.
Bob Dengate of Bathurst wrote:
“I watch rugby only at international level and am amazed by how many phases of entertaining play occur after the full-time siren. Further to the myriad pedantic regulations which plague the code, could I suggest just one more experimental rule to modernize the game: that full-time is blown immediately after kick off?”
What a great insight! Why is it that so many international rugby teams (All Blacks excepted) leave their best rugby until after the final whistle?
Do we have too much pomp and pageantry before the games, is the build up too intense? Does the players’ refusal to play rugby until they have only a desperate chance of winning reveal the players’ innate conservatism, or does is reflect the restrictions placed on them by the coaches?
Or is it the referees who know that by blowing their whistle they will end the game, and so allow the game to flow more than they would during normal time?
Given so many tries are scored after the final whistle, why don’t teams attempt to play like this in the first minute, and forget about the much vaunted ‘feeling out’ stage?
The precedent might be from another sport, cricket. In the 1996 World Cup, Sri Lanka came out and batted from the start like most teams normally did in the final 10 overs. Given the field was up they scored plenty of quick runs, and won the world cup.
Will rugby ever see the death of the constipated, slow start?
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.
The Crowd Says (6) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
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)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (11)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (39)
- Wales’ Davies banned for ‘tip tackle’ (3)
- Graham Henry’s rugby future confirmed (14)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (22)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (16)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- 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:
- All Blacks, referees, rugby
sheek said | June 23rd 2008 @ 8:39am | Report comment
This is an old chestnut. It usually revolves around courage, or lack of.
Teams throw the ball when when all is lost, or mostly lost, simply because they have little more left to lose. The attitude is, “we’re going down, so we’ve got nothing more to lose”. Basically, it’s a cop-out attitude.
I am a great admirer of NZ rugby. They play hard the whole 80 minutes. There must be something fundamentally wrong with rugby that NZ have only won one World Cup. They deserve better than that. In 1995, they were beaten probably by the Gods, & a team wholly inspired on the day.
In 1999 & 2003, they were beaten in the semis mostly by their own arrogance & hubris. The 2007 loss remains unfathomable. But this is beside the point.
It is NZ who continue to be the flag bearer of world rugby, & provide the game with its standard bearer, or high point, like Australia in cricket & Brazil in football. Alternately, England for all its resources, is a sham & disgrace to rugby.
But getting back to the thrust of the post, yes, it’s basically a lack of courage that teams only decide to throw the ball around when all is lost. Just like aimlessly kicking possession away.
JohnB said | June 23rd 2008 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Rugby is hardly the only sport where this happens. It is a matter of risk/reward. Of course a team which is one score behind will keep throwing the ball around in the final few minutes – the risk is effectively zero, the potential reward (winning instead of losing) very large. Ten minutes before fulltime is a different matter – the reward is still high (though not as high – going ahead as opposed to winning) but the risk is much greater – going 2 scores behind. Does that mean teams shouldn’t try anything until it’s death or glory? Of course not. But equally you can’t expect them to play all out attack all the time.
Blinky Bill - Bellingen said | June 23rd 2008 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Sheek & JohnB covered it all nicely.
My real question is why do teams continue with the same ineffective game plan until the final whistle? Over the years I would have loved to have seen the Tahs switch from Plan A to Plan B when required.
Andrew B said | June 23rd 2008 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
If you want to see this type of rugby, go down to your local park on a sunday and watch the U11′s play. They try to score every phase!
Jameswm said | June 23rd 2008 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
You know I made a comment 7-8 years ago that the Brumbies were playing after the siren rugby during the 80 minutes.
No, it wasn’t high risk stuff. But when you’re 4 behind and the siren goes, the tactic is in fact not to be risky – it’s to control possession of the ball. So often, after the final siren, a team will win 20-30 phases and work their way upfield. The Brumbies seemed to perfect this style for the whole match, and it took the others a long time to catch up.
Of course, as cycles go, everyone else caught up and worked out how to stop it. Yet Gregan & co kept playing it for too long after it lost its effectiveness.
Sledgeandhammer said | June 24th 2008 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
I agree with Sheek, it’s a willingness to play for the whole 80 minutes, which is of interest. This is not a reference to under 11s running around like headlesss chicken. Nor it is about playing to a limited game plan of run the ball at all costs. It’s about playing to your potential and not allowing the occasion to dictate the game. In so many instances teams do wait until the last minute before they actually play any rugby, and by then it’s too late.
A good example of how this typical ‘wait and see’ approach can be turned on its head comes from the 2003 world cup. In the the semi final, Australia was playing NZ. The Australlans were huge underdogs, but cleverly changed their game plan. In the opening minutes they actually came out and ran the ball. The Australians played the entire game to their full potential, and with a bit of luck (thanks to Mortlock) scored an unlikely win, a win which would not have come about if they had sat back and waited until the last minute to chance their arm.