By Spiro Zavos
September 15th 2008 @ 8:00pm
And the winners are: the All Blacks and the ELVs!
The final of the 2008 Tri-Nations tournament - won by the All Blacks 28-24 over the Wallabies - was “a marvellous match packed with variety, intensity and no little tension”.
The praise is lifted from the opening sentence of the UK Sunday Telegraph’s rugby expert, the former England second-rower and no friend of the experimental law variations, Paul Ackford. I couldn’t have put the description better, what with the excitement, the high drama, the vivid passages of play, the passion of the players and the crowds (with the ground resounding time after time to great cries of Wallabies! Wallabies! and All Blacks! All Blacks!) and the nail-biting finish.
Compare this great Test, a match that was a do-or-die game for both teams, with the rotting cold fish of the 2007 Rugby World Cup final in Paris less than a year ago. The RWC was a safety-first yawnathon played in slow motion compared with the titanic and exhilirating Brisbane Test.
What made Saturday night’s Test so wonderful was that every ruck and maul was sternly contested, especially by the All Blacks, which meant that there were many turnovers and counter-attacks and scrambling defences.
In Paris, the players could have played another 80 minutes more but at Brisbane all the players and the officials were stuffed at the end. Stirling Mortlock was puffing like a bishop forced to chase a bus at the end and could hardly blurt out the usual after-Test cliches that the television broadcasters love so dearly.
And this brings us to two points that were highlighted in the Test. There were, apparently, 25 short-arm penalties awarded. This meant that play was on whenever a tap-and-run was on, as happened when the All Blacks scored their first try. There was far less time-wasting penalty kicks at goal (the All Blacks did not have one penalty kick) than you see under the current laws.
The referee, too, was able to make decisions with the ELVs about slowing the ball down and so on, and if he made a mistake, as he did occasionally, the punishment was not as harsh for the aggrieved side as it might have been.
We saw the unfairness of the long-arm penalty sanction when Richie McCaw was penalised incorrectly for offside when he correctly came from behind his ruck and picked up a ball that was laying loose.
Of course, Phil Kearns, whom I’m convinced does not know or understand the laws at rucks and scrums, yelled out that is was about time etc. But when the play was shown in slow-motion, there was a noticeable silence from the panel of commentators.
The second point about the ELVs is that, in the words of a shrewd rugby thinker Hugh Dillon, they allow for a “running of the bulls”. The big players get tired with all the running around, especially the muscle-bound forwards but not exclusively because big backs get exposed too, and faster players come into their own.
This brings us to the master stroke of the All Blacks coach Graham Henry to take off Ma’a Nonu, who seemed to have a sore knee anyway, and bring on Stephen Donald and move Dan Carter out to second five-eights (in the NZ vernacular and rugby theory).
The shift of the smaller Carter to line up against the huge Stirling Mortlock looked counter-intuitive. But Carter’s quick and slick side-step and acceleration led to the crucial try as he got past Ryan Cross and Mortlock to score what turned out to be the winning try.
When he first came into rugby from rugby league I didn’t think much of Cross’ play, to be honest. But he has played very strongly in the Tests, and had a particularly strong game in Brisbane.
He did miss two crucial tackles that led to NZ tries (what is it about these Rugby league defenders?). But when Berrick Barnes comes back, Robbie Deans is going to have to make a tough decision about the long-term future of his captain.
The Wallabies had something like five and a half minutes inside the All Blacks 22: the All Blacks had a little over two minutes inside the Wallabies 22. It seems to me that if Barnes had been on the field, the Wallabies, with two traffic controllers, would have made more of their territorial and possession (60 per cent) dominance.
With Cross playing so strongly, a future backline, perhaps late next year, might have as its core Luke Burgess, Matt Giteau, Berrick Barnes and Ryan Cross.
How do we rate Robbie Deans’ first home season as Wallaby coach?
My guess is that he would give himself about a 55 out of 100 pass mark.
The Wallabies won all but one of their home Tests. They defeated the Springboks twice, with one of the victories being a rare away win. They defeated the All Blacks in Sydney with a splendid performance and lost a home and away Test to the old foe. And they were thrashed twice, by the All Blacks in Auckland and the Springboks in Johannesburg.
The defence is not up to the standard of the Macqueen era, particularly. But Deans is slowly putting in place a new team that has a lot of promise.
Benn Robinson is helping the scrum stability. James Horwill (a future captain, perhaps) is becoming a dominant second-rower. Peter Hynes has established himself as the No.1 winger.The faith in Adam Ashley-Cooper was vindicated with his terrific try right on half-time. Ryan Cross seems to be a genuine Test player. Richard Brown, I thought, added a lot to the Wallabies forward mobility when he made his Test debut.
A work in progress, in other words, with the emphasis very much on the progress that should be made on the European tour at the end of this year.
Like this article? Please spread the word about the Roar to your mates.
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...
(54)
Benjamin said | September 15th 2008 @ 3:38am | Report comment
I would have thought that an experienced journalist such as yourself would know better than to compare a round-robin competition with a knock-out competition. All knock-out tournaments elicit conservative, tight responses - in every sport. That does not however make them any less tense, exciting or worthwhile events - I think that is what Ackford is referring to also. He didn’t say the game was a marvel of skill, wonder and excitment. All knock-out games are both tense and intense, and that is how Ackford described the game.
It’s sweet that you think one enjoyable game, as opposed to a very average tournament, justifies wide-spread change. I imagine it’s not a coincidence that you choose to ignore the multiple negative points about the new laws.
Colin N said | September 15th 2008 @ 4:00am | Report comment
I don’t get why everyone keeps comparing one match with another. I think you’ve got to look at every game on the their merits. Under the old laws there were some good games and some bad games and the same goes for the ELV’s, some good, some bad. But from what I’ve seen, in my opinion the ELV’s haven’t done anything to justify their permanent inclusion in the game. As with the old laws,if the game is refereed well then more often than not it will be a good game. If it’s refereed badly, take Friday night for example, Sale v Saracens (terrible referee) then it’s probably going to be a poor game. But if the aim was to make it easier for referees then the ELV’s haven’t done that.
bob said | September 15th 2008 @ 7:09am | Report comment
I don’t want to pi55 on the parade… but it wasn’t a great game of rugby… the scrums were a shambles, the lineouts okay-ish, the passing poor by the standard of the players and the tactics were non existant. It was a nail biter because it was a winner takes all game, and those two teams in a winner takes all battle would have made any game any sport, under any laws, exciting… but as a rugby match it was no classic. The AB’s spent too much time on the wrong side, going straight off their feet, and spoiling the wallabies ball… there were no mauls to speak of, and neither team built tension through pressure tactics, they just kicked and hit.
There seems to be a pc shield around the AB’s that says they can do no wrong, but as a rugby man, I can point to many, many more games of rugby that were better.
That’s not to say those two teams are not amongst the top in the world, but lets stop with the bull, and tell it as it is… if that’s rugby union under the ELV’s prefered by the SH unions, the world game will indeed split, because I know, and those players know that they can do better and build more tension if the tap and go option is removed, ala the NH and soon to be global trial. And you can jump on Ackfords approval as if it justifies anything, because he wasn’t saying anything that wasn’t obvious… the AB’s and Wallabies can play, even if you give them half baked laws to play to… but there was no clever rugby, no intelligent display of tactics to undo the opposition… it has become in the SH a simple battle athleticism, a kick chase and hit game. And sorry, but if Kaplin is the best the SH can do for refs, you need to worry…. just what does McCaw have to do to get carded?
ulysses said | September 15th 2008 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Benjamin - Spiro was not comparing the tournaments but the final matches - the final. two sides, 1 game, 1 winner of the tournament, 1 side finishing second. Seems pretty comparable to me.
Colin - you make the absolute key point. “the old laws work if the game is refereed well” and then mention a game where it wasn’t. Precisely. Reality is games are often not refereed well - we all know that - some refs just aren’t good, players cheat as much as they can, the laws are complex, multiple decisions and things to check to be made in split seconds concerning half a dozen players, etc etc. So the key point is acknowledging poor refereeing of a complex game is reality, lets lessen the chances of games being decided by poor refereering penalty decisions and a kick at goal. And so reducing the sanction to a short arm for most of the complex at-breakdown breaches makes sense to me. Now I am fully aware that some say that makes the ELV’s a “cheats charter” because the full penalty sanction deters illegal behaviour. Fine in theory but it doesn’t happen does it? No-one can seriously argue players followed the laws more under the pre-ELVs! They have the death penalty in the USA but a higher murder rate… Deterence is seriously over-rated.
Again - it isn’t all tap and go. A team is fully able to take a scrum instead. So they can slow the game down, exert scrum dominance, clear the field of defenders, get 5m more attacking space, and build pressure. Some ELV games by some teams have been very much like this. In this game, both team chose different tactics electing to tap and go more frequently. But again, the ELV’s do not require that.
Bob - what does “lineouts OK-ish” mean? The Wallabies won one against the throw, the AB’s none. And that was despite competitive jumping almost every time. So that means there was extremely precise throwing and jumping, and clever tactical calling. What do you want…? If there had been lots of turnovers seems to me you would be criticising them as a shambles….no?
Bob - you say “no clever rugby, no intelligent display of tactics to undo the opposition”. What game were you watching? Try Giteau’s repeated use of the very flat cross kick pass to his winger to get a 1 on 1 competition in space. Created a try and almost worked other times. Takes incredible skill under pressure because it can go badly wrong. And that was tactic being used to counteract the AB tactic of a very compressed defensive line to counteract the threat of Mortlock’s running at 12. Try also the AB’s exploitation of the recent Wallaby defensive laps in numbering up out wide. They saw that from Jo’burg, and themselves managed to get the quick ball centre field going forward and find an overlap usually on the left wing side - result two tries. Don’t be blinded by the pace and athleticism, there is plenty going on out there in terms of tactics. WHich is why the ABs and Wallabies will win all, or almost all, of their tests in November!
Bob - OK I’ll bite. Please name one of the many many games of better rugby than that - internationals in last 10 years.
Last point - we agree with you about Kaplan. especially if you are a Tahs supporter! He is not ranked by even the IRB as anywhere near the best SH referee.
Benjamin said | September 15th 2008 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Ulysses, not a particularly apt comparison because the WC is an 8 week tournament that occurs every four years which necessitates a specific style of play to win and despite ‘the winner takes all’ facade the 3N is a yearly tournament and there is still a game to play for the Bledisloe (even though Australia have already lost it) - not life and death because everybody gets a crack next year. Doesn’t stack up.
Nobody is saying the game wasn’t a good game but I can also think of many better games than that…
New Zealand 31-43 France 1999 WC
Italy 34-20 Scotland 2000 6N
France 25-27 Ireland 2000 6N
Australia 13-29 GB Lions 1st test 2001 LT
Ireland 6-42 England 2003 6N
Australia 22-10 New Zealand 2003 WC
South Africa 40–26 New Zealand 2004 3N
SA 26-45 NZ 2006 3N
that’s just off the top of my head without even considering some of the excellent pre and post-season tours from all countries like France winning in SA, England winning in SA and Australia, NZ nearly winning in England with the 2nd/3rd team. I suppose you would have to accurately define what makes a good test.
Just for arguments sake, NZ will win all of their autumn tests but I wouldn’t be so optimistic about Australia until a prominent tight five pitches up.
Cutter said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Benjamin said: Just for arguments sake, NZ will win all of their autumn tests but I wouldn’t be so optimistic about Australia until a prominent tight five pitches up.
The Australian tight five has improved this tournament. Even without Vickerman, we looked ok against the ABs. I hope it can continue and, if it does, I expect us to win all our games on tour with the possible exception of the Hong Kong Bledisloe which will be too close to call.
Benjamin said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:17am | Report comment
The AB’s don’t have a heavy weight pack though. The litmus test will be the autumn. A saving grace for the Wallabies is that there are fewer scrums under the NH ELVs. I’d be very surprised if Australia beat England and Wales nonetheless.
Mike wc said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Colin,
That was a very good game despite a very average ref (I’m being nice here - he’s been pass it for the last 3 yrs).
As too ELV’s - if you don’t think the extra speed & the getting rid of spending half the game waiting for a pentalty kick to be taken is not an imporvement you’re obviously a grumpy old codger living in the past. Please go get some old videos that’ll make you happy while we watch a much better brand of rugby.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Ulysses, you have nailed it with your response to the three amigos, Col Bob and Ben, the flowerpot men.
I watched the game again last night, without the beers and noise of the pub. It was (again) a great game, but with one thing missing. There were 22 penalties/free kicks in the first 25 minutes, according to C7’s Gordon Bray. Someone or maybe two people, needed to spend some time in the bin for killing opposition ball at the breakdown. This is a cynical act and cardinal sin that needs to be stopped.
Kaplan made a few mistakes, but it was very fast and he is only human. The linesman have done nothing in return for now being called assistant referees. We get more from the linesmen in a recent U13 GF.
Most of the tries were scored out wide and Cross’s try was from a set piece play with a cut out, 2 dummy runners and Cross back against the grain and, importantly, with his foot on the gas.
A quick tap and go produced Muliana’s try.
As regards the ELV debate, until the NH get with the programme, show loyalty to IRB, stop holding the game to ransom and trial, (it is only a trial) them properly for a season, I wont be reacting to the illinformed noise, particularly when Eddie Jones mouths off about them. Eddie should get his med’s checked.
Darryl said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Pull your pasty pom head out of your already jam packed backside Benjamin. You are boring, England is boring.
Colin N said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:38am | Report comment
To be honest, as an England fan I’m not looking forward to the Autumn tests as I don’t think we’ll do very well. Simply because we have a new regime an I think it will take a while to gell. I think there’s a lot of potentially world class players in England but it’s about harnessing that potential and getting the right coaching team in. Ford and Wells were the death of back-play in the England national side. It’s amazing how the majority of the club sides in the GP play open, expansive rugby yet when it came to the national side, the coaching was that inept that the players weren’t really aloud to reproduce open rugby.
True Tah said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Colin N
“It’s amazing how the majority of the club sides in the GP play open, expansive rugby yet when it came to the national side, the coaching was that inept that the players weren’t really aloud to reproduce open rugby.”
Colin the guys who are playing open rugby in the GP happen to be NZers and South Africans, sort of explains why England are unable to reproduce it at national level.
Colin N said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Darryl, if you haven’t got anything constructive to say then piss off. Everyone’s got an opinion, whether you agree with it or not and they should be aloud to express it.
Colin N said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:44am | Report comment
True Tah, do you watch the GP, because i’d be surprised if you did because you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.
ulysses said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Benjamin - you post an awful lot on this site but it seems to me do not always read carefully what others write. You blast Spiro for comparing “a round robin competition and a knockout competition” when his article is clearly about the the finals. I point this out and your response is again about an 8 week tournament …
In your response to me you say “no-one is saying the game wasn’t a good game”. Sorry but that was precisely what your mate Bob was saying 1 post above: quote in his first line “it wasn’t a great game of rugby”. An extraordinary statement to make.
I actually enjoy most of your postings and appreciate the different perspective and allegiances you bring. Part of what makes this site work. But perhaps just a little more focus on others’ postings rather than your own rapid fire immediate response to everything would be even better.
And I have certainly filed away the comment that you’ll be very surprised if Australia beats England and Wales!
We’ll bring that one out in a couple of months for sure. But oh - wouldn’t it be great if you could even dare say something close to the same about England and Wales touring here!
bob said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Well it’s good to see objective argument has been sustained… oh, until anyone who detracts from your view is flowerpot man, or a pasty pom. I don’t recall using any insults in my argument, so save yours.
I was trhere fro teh ARC when the full ELV’s were trailled, I was there for the s14 too. I still play so am currently playing the ELV’s in tehir GLOBAL, as agreed by the IRB format, and I am coaching them too. It is the SH who have taken it upon themselves to drive for the short arm santions, the IRB have given tehm up for teh GLOBAL trial, so who is being loyal to teh IRB and who is trying to hold them to ransom? Who’s administratos tell teh world that if they can’t have teh ELV’s teh game will split? Who says if the game isn’t simplified, it will die in their country? Australia’s O’Neill. So who’s that holding he rest to ransom again?
And you’re wrong if you think test matches are teh only ones that count… if you want to see a better game than the one the other day, try any number of Heineken Cup clashes, try the GP play offs and finals, year in, year out… you are so Test centered you can’t make reasoned argumnent.
The first Tri-nations game between teh boks and teh AB’s was actually a far better game of rugby… but you’re blinded because it was a nail biter the other day, and you’re letting your patriotism get in the way.
To say England is boring is so dull… but you know what, England never asked you to like their rugby, never asked you to play in the same style, and never spat teh dummy when the IRB insisted on a trial… they found some common ground and agreed, against the wishes of just about everyone ion the game in the country, to give it a go… but clearly that’s not enough for you guys.
As for suggesting that because in lineouts, “the wallabies won one against the throw, the AB’s none” everything was fine, is nonesense. You are blinded by stats… and a cross field kick is not much of a tactic, not a pressure builder, not easy, I agree, not without great skill, but it is another pass, a move as at home in league as in union…
Nope, I’m afraid your pro-ELV arguments died in the tri-nations after the first game… the first game showed promise, but it was short lived.
Your only hope is to get rid of the short-arm, get back in line with the IRB and the global rugby community and stop trying to throw your weight about.
And learn to scrummage.
True Tah said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Colin N,
unfortunately in the south, we get bugger all coverage of any NH rugby.
I have heard of guys like Cipriani from Benjamin on here, but yet to see him play.
My view is based on:
A - Watching England plat Oz and NZ and SA
B - The host of Kiwis/Islanders/Saffers queueing up to join England rugby teams - McCalister/Mauger/Loki Crichton/Butch James/Shaun Berne/Willie Walker/Nick Evans/DeWet Barry/Hougaard/Carlos Spencer/Barritt/Jacobs
These are some damn fine players amongst this lot, and you should be thankful they are plying their trade for your clubs, hopefuilly some of their attacking play might rub off onto their English team mates.
ulysses said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Bob - insults didn’t come from me. Please explain why everything wasn’t OK in the lineouts or they were OK-ish. I gave a precise answer - they were of high standard because the throwing team won them all bar one despite contested jumping. Implying very accurate throwing and jumping; and astute tactical calling. You respond by saying “nonsense”. Well that certainly advances the discussion doesn’t it. If you want to have a debate, have a debate.
bob said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:16am | Report comment
ulysses, sorry mate, but it was no classic. It was hard, physical and fast… but not a great game of rugby! I loved watching it, but it was almost on a par to league for its individual nature… and the breakdown was a joke. The AB’s were illegal almost the entire time.,, almsot every breakdown, it seemed to me, they went straight off their feet… but in enough numbers to make it look such a mess no one player could be sanctioned.
True Tah, you are very poorly informed if you think the flair and open play in hte GP is because of the SH players… they add to the show, but they are not the show.
And I will happily go out on a limb here, and predict that by 2011, England will be the best team in the world, and possibly France and Wales will be in serious contention too. The SH has until then to crow…. but count the days!
O’Neill has already staed that union will die in Oz if everyone doesn’t do what he says and play a league union hybrid, SA will by then be quota’t into a squad made up of at least 17 nationalities, 7 women and a ladyboy, and everyone will have to get at least one go at hooking in every game… and there will be no pro rugby left in NZ after the NZRU goes into liquidation due to gross mismanagement, and every player worth a bean will be in Europe… but don’t say we didn’t warn you!
Colin N said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:25am | Report comment
True Tah, it’s not that England lack talented players. I just believe that it is due to poor coaching at international level. There are a lot of SH players applying their trade up here but the most importany/impressive players for each team has mainly been English. For Harlequins it’s been Danny Care (the all English back row not far behind), Wasps it’s obviously been Cipriani. Sale-Hogdson along with Foden last season (although he’s moved on to Northampton). Gloucester-Ryan Lamb and JSD. I could make a list if you want but I think you get my point.
England have been crap for the last five years and that was in part due to the lack of English talent but there is plenty now and it just needs to be harnessed in the right way. I believe Danny Care and Cipriani will go on to form a great half-back partnership for England (injuries depending of course).
bob said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:25am | Report comment
ulysses, sorry, the lineout, I said it was OK-ish, I didn’t slate it… but the opposition jumped but never won anything, or very little, which could be due to precise throwing etc, as you point out, or could be due to the uneven numbers making a contest almost impossible… I’m not sure…. but as I said, it was ok-ish. To be fair, so far here, the lineout ELV has mede very little difference… the maul not much either yet, except for some clubs who seem to have abandoned it altogether, but theta’s tehir choice… I have seen the maul still work, still roll etc, and it has become more dynamic, so provided that ELV isn’t sabataged by clubs abandoning the maul to prove a point, I think it will work… as will the kciking from 22 ELV… but crucually, it seems that the SH is in love with the short arm, and we are not even trialing that at all…. and the global ELV’s do not feature it, so the SH will lose it after the curently in play competitions. All of which makes this debate a bit pointless… BUT what is your take on teh ELV’s without the short arm? Like it or not, it’s what you will be playing next…. or am I worng there?
ulysses said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Bob - I agree with your comment about the breakdown more or less. That’s the game these days. England at the RWC07 QF didn’t look much different. (you may not agree but that’s fine - not really my point). My point is what do you want to do about it - I just don’t believe full-arm penalties would make a difference. As you say, if enough people do it no-one gets sanctioned. And the refs get pulled and pushed by the IRB to manage the game and not have “too many” penalties, etc etc
Roger said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Cmon guys, lets all cool down. Spiro has obviously sent this thread out with tongue firmly in cheek. He is taking the parochial view to fire up Ben, Colin and Bob, who’s defensive replies will fire up all the kiwis and Aussies.
Bob, your last entry went a ‘bridge too far’ unfortunately. Also unfortunately for the view you hold about the game is in stark contrast to the response from English journos, all praising the game highly. So if its not heavy contact, desperate, emotional, ball in hand rugby that you don’t like in a game (as this Test was )..what kind of rugby pray tell do you enjoy?
Enough with the speculatilon about the supposed intentions of the ARU and also the hilarious statement that the ARU throws its weight around. A country’s Union has a duty to try and do the best for them, whether they be English or Australian. To say O’Neill has weight to throw around is a bit nonsensical as it seems that most other Unions despise him. I think the anti-ELV campaigners dont’ want to admit that the IRB consists of plenty of NH reps who actaully assented to these rule trials, and would rather just mouth off at JON who is bascially an advocate (albeit a tad over confident) for Australian rugby. He takes his position on the future course of the game, the RFU takes theirs.., with the representative IRB to make the decisions.
Colin N said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Roger, explain defensive. I was merely putting across my view about the topic in question.
ulysses said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Bob - good point. For mine - the biggest single thing in the ELV’s IS the short arm over long arm penalties. It is the thing that makes the game “different”. the rest is tinkering at the edges - on balance for the good IMO but marginal. (sorry - with the exception of the 22 kick-out law, which has the second biggest impact and is also a very good thing IMO).
The short arm is the right thing because it simply keeps the ball in play longer - and that is a very positive outcome for mine. It is also how you really build pressure in my view - the more the ball is in play, the better for the stronger, fitter and more skilled team. And the scrum option is still there keeping that crucial part of the game front and centre when it tactically suits.
ELV’s without short-arms - well, not sure they are worth the heat and passion they generate!
The fundamental issue short-arm ELVs try to address is that a full-arm is too great a penalty for the offence - it is unbalanced. We all know that there are multiple offences at just about every breakdown. Always have been. But a long arm with its distance+possession sanction or 3-point goal kick sanction is too big a penalty for the multiple offences that can be called. It puts too much power in the (at times seemingly arbitrary) decisions of the ref to decide the game; too much benefit in playing a style that simply looks for position and plays for penalties, rather than plays positive rugby.
That is why I am a supporter of the ELV short-arm. Now if we don’t end up there; well that is a big disappointment; but the game will continue and will still be great. Just could be better! And I think the debate re the balance of sanction versus offence at the breakdown will continue - eg. I can forsee a move to greater codification of the use of yellow cards; ie automatic yellow card (maybe 5 mins rather than 10) after x number of breakdown offences, etc.
Nigel Lopez-McBean said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:52am | Report comment
I still can’t get my head around how much contempt the ARU and cronies have for the amateur players.
Most people who play rugby have a one average ref. ELV’s just don’t work in that scenario
Actually…I’m wrong, there are practically no amateur players in Australia. Other unions, especially in Europe, which regardless of what anyone says is still the soul of the game, with the most players, biggest, oldest unions, best venues and finances give a damn about the guys that pay to play. They matter.
I open a copy of the Herald Sun yesterday and 22 pages in on half a page there is the Tri-nations result. Rugby Union needs to become important again in Australia. The game is practically dead in Victoria.
I ask three people today about the game on saturday and they say “Oh St Kilda did well”
Forget the ELV’s debate…saving the game in Australia should be the focus.
As for comparing the annual Bledisloe with the RWC. Don’t be silly. 4 years of pain is very different to 12 months. It’s easy to take risks when you get another chance next year.
ulysses said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Nigel - why exactly don’t the ELV’s work in an amateur game with one average ref? What about them makes it harder for an average part-time ref? I don’t see that. My whole point is that the short-arm sanction reduces the impact a poor or average ref can have on a game by giving penalties for at times arbitrary offences.
Colin N said | September 15th 2008 @ 11:03am | Report comment
I thought that’s what were in the minds of the ARU when they put their full backing behind the ELV’s- they probaly thought that if they market the ELV’s to the Austrlian public as a new form of ‘open’ rugby then they hoped this would get the Australians re-interested in union.
Even though the England team have done poorly over the last 5 years, the club game has become more popular (even though the original boom was caused by the 2003 win). I believe that in England the game is more club based where as in the Southern Hemisphere it is more test based.
Roger said | September 15th 2008 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Colin N, I was not being critical, you are entitled to be defensive when Spiro send out inflammatory articles.
Roger said | September 15th 2008 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Colin N, I was not being critical, you are entitled to be defensive when Spiro sends out inflammatory articles.
taya said | September 15th 2008 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
well it is good to see a rugby game fire up some many emotions !! well done !!
however without being too technical as we all can be lets look at the game for what it was and what it delivered ! the fans loved it and why not ….? it was fast, tight, nail biting, skillful in parts and yep had some mistakes by the ref but what good game doesn’t?
i think perhaps we should stop canning the ref (poor buggers without them we would have no game ….and agree phil k is now a joke re his bias - the team on fox is appalling) everyone makes mistakes
as the lone female comment for today i would like to say as a loyal fan of rugby, understanding the technical side etc following it as much as my male friends lets not be too harsh .. …we have 2 more years to get things right and with robbie being able to do what he needs to we will be ok…i would rather 3 world cup than 7 years of the bled cup and tri nations - think of any other athlete competing in both world championships and the olympics - which title would you want ? of course we all want both but that is special - i would rather win at the olympics every four years than win all world champ titles - just ask the el garouge (not sure how to spell this one from morroco) the famous long distance athlete who finally won in athens…
i do agree with someone who said with barnes back the tough call will be to drop stirling in favour of cross ! i think this must be done …please lets not make the same mistakes we have done since 2003 !!
when thinking strategy of where we need to be this time next year and year after it is with our future young guns in the squad and team - cross is a vg player - that try he scored was excellent (set up by matt g…and brown ) well done ryan …. i think lote should also be dropped in favour of our younger faster players - with lachie back our backs will have pace to burn - and we need that - we have the skills no doubt - AAC was on fire and i am glad to see - he is an outstanding 15 and we need him to feel confident to play with such speed and skill and what about richard brown? - a tough player with alot of JC about him we need him more than we think we do !! (so lets also nuture tahu and not destroy his confidence just like peter h from nsw some years ago ! looks all too familiar …)
so we all thought the game was great - my friends all loved it - and yes as someone said rugby in vic is wanting ! and when i said what a great win of rugby the comment was ‘ but the storm lost ‘ ummm….
and yep we all could have pulled the game apart and dissected it forever but lets keep it simple !! the kiss theory could serve many better if they just stick to what they do best ….
ps henry did coach very well indeed a smart move to shift players around and harness the impact player !! do we have any of these ?
Dave said | September 15th 2008 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
“Pull your pasty pom head out of your already jam packed backside Benjamin. You are boring, England is boring.”
This is exactly the kind of comment we have grown used to reading from bitter Ausssies who have been beaten by England in three of the past 4 RWC’s. I love it
On the subject of the ELV’s, the game last weekend may have been fast and furious but the breakdown was a complete mess and made the game laughable viewing. As for the short arm penalties, it’s aabout time the SH let these go as they will NEVER be implemented worldwide. Australia may ove rugby league but we in the NH don’t want our game turned into a RL type TV-friendly sport
With comments from John O’Neil and the psuhing of ALL the ELV’s in one go (from Australia) it no wonder that the rugby world is ignoring Oz (and it lapdog NX) on the rule changes
Shaun said | September 15th 2008 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
Not sure if one of the above posters covered it, but I’d have to say that the single most critical sub in the game was as Spiro said- Stephen Donald. Not that it necessarily gave Carter more space, but that it enabled the passes to escape the compressed Wallabie defence, and reach the outside backs of Kahui, Sivivatu and Muliania. That, and the breakdown was where I thought the game was won..
stuff happens said | September 15th 2008 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
I’m disappointed that Spiro equated an excellent game of rugby with the ELV’s. It’s as if there were no exciting games of rugby prior to their disorganised introduction. I agree with Benjamin entirely on this issue.Also,his list of exciting matches is v. good and Wales -v- Fiji in RWC ‘07 was another.
The real issue is that the AB’s deserved to win this year’s TN and I for one would have felt odd if Australia had won the tournament because we were hammered twice, once by the biggest score in our history . And you have to hand it to old sour puss;having lost how many players to Spiro’s nemesis ( NH ) he and his cohorts have rebuilt the AB’s superbly so credit where it’s due.
And Australia? my view has been for sometime that the first year after a RWC is usually a rebuilding programme for many countries.The questions are about direction,leadership, the right players in the lead up to 2011 and of course the coaches.Australia look no more than OK to me mainly because we have a lack of player resource which may be a struggle in the forwards. The AB’s will have almost an embarassment of riches ( again) by RWC 2011 which they often don’t handle well and the ‘Boks could be awesome unless they are politically derailed.
Finally, there was a wonderful pic in the Daily Telegraph in London a week or so ago of Martin Johnson in his new role in classic pose in the August rain at an England training camp.No prisoners there my friends - give him what ,eighteen months!
Harry said | September 15th 2008 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
Dave,
Be aware that Daryl is actually a South African, not an Australian.
Could you explain to me why you are opposed to the ELV’s? I truly think they improve the game and should be adopted - sure with some refinements, but by and large I think they have improved the game.
Davo said | September 15th 2008 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
Its getting very tiring that any exciting game of SH rugby becomes the poster child for the ELVs but equally tiring that the same old suspects on this site after each major SH game will use words like “intense”, “bash” and “athletic” as a form of feint praise but refuse or acknowledge that there was any semblance of tactics, skill or tension in the matches because of those dirty rotten ELVs.
ohtani's jacket said | September 15th 2008 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
I also thought it was like watching league. To me it was a better executed version of the Sydney Test, which I didn’t really like either, but the way it played out was exciting. I had a f–king great time at the bar.
People up North have a right to criticise the rugby. They won’t find much agreement either side of the Tasman, since most Kiwis and Aussies I spoke to last night thought it was a great game, but nobody says you have to like it. I wouldn’t tout it as a victory for the ELVs, but like the Super 14 final it was a good watch.
bob said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
Ohtani, I agree… I enjoyed watching it, and I was on the edge of my chair… but imo it wasn’t greta rugby… because there was no build up of pressure… the lineouts didn’t lead to maulk, sucking in defenders, opening space, the scrums fell down, and teh breakdown was a jumble and a mess. BUT the game entertained and didn’t disapoint. However, as an advery for teh ELVs the first test, between bok and blacks in NZ, was better…
I understand the love of the pace, and the speeded up game is impressive, but it seems to have lost too much, maybe more than it gained. The SH ALWAYS ran it, always had pace and flair and individual brilliance… the battle was between that and the NH mechanized style.
But as we are told up here, in February next year, the tap and go option will be removed from rugby for a uniformed globalk trial, so how does that sit with SH rugby people who have clearly come to like that particular ELV… I have to say that so far up here, teh ELV’s without that one, are pretty much no drama.
jools-usa said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
Spiro,
I’d give Deans more than 55 % right now.
What he has done with a “transition” team from oldies to rookies is notable.
If nothing else he showed how weak W’s had become versus N Z, and even SA.
Wallaby pack were a joke (especially in beefcake-oriented NH). yet improvement is there.
Despite probably the leanest bench in Tri N (that was obvious when injuries hit), he fielded credible teams
that believed in themselves. Yeah, I know, what about the SA drubbing. But what about the 1st win in SA?
Give him a 70 & look forward to 100. And lets thank him, and all W’s who gave it their best.
Jools-USA
Benjamin said | September 15th 2008 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
Darryl, congratulations. England play exactly the same style of rugby as South Africa and they’re boring?! What next - you’ll tell me to eat my shorts?
Spinner, I have asked you four or five perfectly valid qestions which you choose to ignore - trying to chip into debate with no meaningful ideas is a bit pathetic. Illinformed and loud. How utterly surprising. You have no willingness whatsoever to debate whenever a person critiques any aspects of the noise all you do is chip in with this hyperbole and white noise about NH rugby letting the game down. Poor.
Ulyysses, I think it’s quite evident that my response to Spiro was apt, and it’s also quite clear that others agree with me. Just for clarification then - I didn’t say it was a bad game. Happy? Incidentally I do recall Australia only beating Wales with a last minute Hoiles try in their recent two test series… I know my NH rugby and like England Wales have been very poorly coached, over the next two years Wales and England - potentially Ireland will steadily rise.
I wouldn’t suggest that you’re being inflammatory Tah but the crop of players in England has the best potential ever. Look at how Wales perfomed under Gatland and then how the regions have fared. The same applies to England, they have just suffered from poor, poor coaching. The players you mention by and large have had little impact; Mauger, Crichton, Berne, Walker, Barry and Spencer have bordered on the very poor with their performances. Hougaard is hardly a quarterback and like Barritt and Jacobs is yet to actually play. Even McAlister has been hit and miss, as has Jack, Rawlinson, Hayman and Gear. The transition, it seems, is rather more difficult than a lot of players had imagined.
Colin N said | September 15th 2008 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
Most SH players have all said that they have been surprised by how physical the GP is, arguably more so than the super 14. Perhaps that was the reason for them underpeforming. Can someone tell me why Mauger was so bad last season. As for a guy who was playing for New Zealand the previous summer in the WC, he was so out-classed by McAlister it was almost untrue.
Although McAlister did have some poor games, that was mainly down to little niggling injuries. So far this season he, along with Hodgson have been Sale’s two best players. I know it’s only two weeks into the season but Hodgson and McAlister are starting to form at better understanding this season than last.
ohtani's jacket said | September 15th 2008 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
GP is more physical, but it’s much slower. That tends to be a problem whenever England play New Zealand.
Danny said | September 16th 2008 @ 12:14am | Report comment
Ok, firstly, I’m SO SICK of everyone talking about the W.C. all the time - it is like an obsession; 5 minutes after the last one has ended, we start using that horrible management-speak/weasel-word “rebuilding phase”, and lots more cliches spew forth. By talking about the WC so much we demean the tests it’s FOUR YEARS AWAY PEOPLE.
Also on the WC, if the Old Tie Club doesn’t give the AT LEAST on of the two next WCs to Japan or Argentina (preferably both), I’ll be furious; I’ll be more furious at the Old Tie Club (thats you, Mr Growden) media who don’t support the developing nations getting a WC, as the man in question is on record as supporting NZ getting the WC AGAIN in 2011, over Japan for some insane reason (some dubious comments about “size” and something vague about “never grow the game in Asia”, and something that sounded suspiciously like “can’t wait for Saturdays game with the other 5 men and a dog and my free sausage sizzle down at rat park”. Look, I like Sydney club rugby as much as the next person, but the mulleted (15 years too late) Maty Rogers really was correct about club rugby - almost refusing to play for Sthn districts! The future is NOT in having a kick and a run and some beers on a Sat arvo on the green expanses of Sydney Uni. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that all our sports in Australia (and England) aren’t like in America where you HAVE to be top-notch to even have a run in a sport like gridiron (only 2 teams in each high-school, no full-contact amateur club competitions); BUT glorifying suburban rugby over including Buenos Aires and Tokyo in Super 14 is madness…Really, soccer is far more intelligently marketed than rugby.
Now, I am an Australian fan and it was dissapointing to lose, however we are improving and if Barnes was there we may well have won. On that note, I think the Tugboat, Rod Kafer, has a point in swapping Gits and Barnes - at least give it a go on the Spring Tour… I’ve been a fan of Waugh for ages but, yes, perhaps he is past his prime however he should still be on the tour. I’m afraid ol’ Chrome Dome (as someone hilariously dubbed Mortlock on a previous post!) will have to hang up the boots soon… End of an Era.
In regards to Kearns being biased, well maybe slightly, he’s allowed to be - we need 1 Buddha-esque commentator. Oh and PLEASE don’t say that Ch 7s commentary is good - it was GREAT when Poido (intelligent analysis) and Buddha (over-the-top comic passion) were there, before some idiot marketing ‘guru’ from the ARU or Ch 7 got on the blower and told them to ‘get some new faces’. Horan (great player) and Crowlley (average player) add nothing to the (stilll) very good Gordon Bray. Actually, isn’t it interesting to compare to dulcet tones of Union chief commentators Bray and Clarkie on Fox, and Mr North Shore-leather elbow patches himself, the former ABC rugby commentator Jim Maxwell, to the croaking, orgasmic shout of that interminable fool Ray “Rabs” Warren,,( he who considers League the “opera of the proletariat”) combined with bone-head ‘experts’ Fatty Vautin and Stirlo, who have a 1950s sense of humour, shown by the fact that they still think it is riotously funny to dress up in women’s clothing and pretend to do the housework. Embaressing - give me Roy and HG doing the Origin any day!
On to the ELVs, I think they are, overall, great and they certainly DO NOT turn it into League - As Spiro asserts the key word or phrase here is ‘Contest for possession’. The ONLY things I have a problem with are 1) repeated infringements near the tryline should be full arm and/or sinbins 2) you should NOT be allowed to collapse the maul - why does no one talk about this when they criticise the ELVs? I think this is the only “anti-rugby” law variation suggested - it is negative play and I, for one, loved a good rolling maul, something teams like Argentina and NH could always do far better than us - it gave them a competitive edge and, as rugby fans, we should all be hoping that this competitiveness only increases as professionalism expands - it would be terrible if we ended up with a situation like that of Int cricket, although all the indicators point to this being unlikely…
This self-mythology we Australians have manufactured around the fact that we don’t cheat in sport (whilst every other nation does) is ridiculous, pathetic and probably a result of the unfortunate recent surge in nationalism in the last decade… Especially when it comes to rugby, most sides have “cleaned up their act” now, I don’t believe we will see the eye-gouging, squirrel-grips etc of yesteryear again; obviously League, in comparison, still has a long way to go in the discipline department, both on and off the field.
Oh, and to the “Pom” who reckons we want to change Union into League because “Union will die”, obviously you haven’t been reading the papers. IMO neither League nor Union will “die”, I think League will still be the most popular sport in NSW unfortunately, but what can you expect when our population has had years of Murdoch-driven propaganda - the Tele’s coverage of League rivals Pravda’s coverage of the annual Communist Party conference in Leningrad, or Fox News coverage of American politics for their bias; for example, for some strange reason they only write about union when an ex/current leaguie is involved). So, thumbs down to the Telegraph!
What a great rant this has been…
Benjamin said | September 16th 2008 @ 12:31am | Report comment
OJ, I think that depends on the season, for example some of the play-off games over the past four years have been very fast. I would also say that last season and this season there has been a definite icrease in the pace of most teams play - aside from one or two teams most coaches have been engaging with a completely new approach. The 03 England team had the abilty to play fast and slow and I would say that the premiership is much, much faster now than then. I would say that a big problem is the clubs that certain players choose. Mauger was never going to be liberated at Leicester, likewise look what Wasps have done with Flutey.
Colin N said | September 16th 2008 @ 1:13am | Report comment
Can people on these pages not judge the GP until you’ve seen highlights or something. Go on:
http://www.itv.com/Sport/RugbyUnion/default.html.
You may not be able to watch the highlights in your country but you may as well try.
Ian Noble said | September 16th 2008 @ 6:05am | Report comment
Spiro
I wasn’t able to watch the Wallabies v AB’s game live, but I have read a number of reports both NH and SH about the game and I really wonder whether the ELV’s made such a difference to the game, which would have probably been just as intense and exciting under the old rules.
On the ELV’s I have kept my powder dry until I have seen a few matches played in the GP.
I was at the London Double header at Twickenham where together with another 52000 I was able to watch two GP games, Wasps v London Irish and Saracens v Quins. In looking back over both games my initial impression was if I just arrived from Mars after a few months would I have noticed any differences from the previous season, the answer probably is no. Both the eventual winners London Irish and Quins were renowned for their fast open style of play last season and so it continued in both games.
However, both London Irish and Quins through Catt and Hewat for the Irish and Care, Brown and Evans for Quins were excellent at kicking out of hand. Not too much difference from before although with the ELV’s to avoid a ping pong kicking game the ability to recognise space behind the back line and bounce the ball in play is more important than before. Not just the space but the real skill of pace on the kick to allow the chase to be successful. Obviously, a lot of practice had gone into the kicking game and following on last Saturday two of the five tries scored by Quins v Bristol were mistakes by Bristol in allowing defenders to be caught in possession and quick turnover through not just the backs but the speedy back row following up the kick creating the opportunities.
At the base of the scrum both Irish and Quins were better at exploiting the 5M rule with the respective scrum halves in particular playing a big part. Danny Care for Quins created a try for Strettle v Saracens from a scrum in the 22 within 53 seconds of kick off through speed off the mark and putting Strettle into space. Danny Care followed up with an excellent game v Bristol, where his decision making was spot on coupled with his speed off the mark creating space for others through exploiting the 5M rule.
I wasn’t too impressed by the lineout play in all the games, there seemed to be some confusion and in the main they were very scrappy, It will probably settle down although another observation was the speed of the chase in the main negated the ability to use the quick throw in, with the chasers purposely positioned to prevent the quick throw backwards.
There seemed to be more scrums, no stats to hand, as I suspect the attacking side can bring more structure to their game and obviously exploit the 5M rule. Interestingly refs in the NH have been instructed to be severe at the breakdown and quickly penalise teams who kill the ball. As long as there is consistency then it will not be a problem and will discipline teams to quickly recycle the ball with the hope that the number of penalties will reduce over the course of the season.
I know on another blog you headlined by saying “ELV’s in the UK are Ok”, probably something of an exaggeration as in true Brit fashion they are here and we shall make a good fist of them. Whether they have improved the game the jury is out and it will only be in the course of a few more games as teams get to grips with the ELV’s will views become clearer. The overall impression at the moment is the games are scrappy with little structure, but hopefully that will settle down. One myth that has been destroyed is that the importance of place kicking will be reduced under the ELV’s, not the case as Butch James will testify his poor place kicking with 5 kickable opportunities lost Bath a comfortable win v Gloucester, not to mention J W and his 22 points out 34 for Newcastle Falcons v Northampton Saints.
Benjamin said | September 16th 2008 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Ian, I think that the Butch James debacle proves that in reality tries don’t win games, penalties do. I have to disagree with your scrum argument though - their is no short hand so teams are given full penalties. I was at that double header too and I agree that the sides involved were perhaps the best practioners to make the ELVs look seamless. Less organic and more mechanic sides like Bristol and Leicester may not make for such attractive games. That, I think, proves very effectively that the most significant aspect of rugby is the aims and objectives of the teams. Leciester, Harlequins and Wasps were playing attractive rugby pre-ELVs and they will continue to do so now.
I think your even-handed response is exactly the sort of approach offered my the majority of NH fans… but shush, don’t spoil the witch hunt. There’s a bogey man on the loose and it’s the NH! Damn their rich European hides!
Jim said | September 16th 2008 @ 10:48am | Report comment
I can’t understand how people can knock the ELVs. With quick tap kicks to keep play going the game is so much faster, there is so much more action. It also gives the ref more options to do something that is not going to be as severe as giving away 3 points, as was often the case for a relatively minor infringement, eg getting pinned at the bottom of a ruck on the wrong side. The play can now be restarted with a minimum of impact on the flow.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 16th 2008 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
Colin, The judgement is about the ELVs in GP, not the tournament itself.
Ian Noble, dont waste your time expecting to be able to assess the ELVs from the GP. They are trialing only 13 of the 33.
Jim, Simple but good assessment. I agree completely. A no brainer really if you are talking about the rugby that results from them. There is too much hubris, poor logic and self interest to conclude anything other than that the ELV argument is about the undercurrent of who controls rugby.
Danny, we have all learnt that RWC focus too far out is disasterous, just ask G Henry. He has adjusted his focus, to his credit.
Lem said | September 17th 2008 @ 3:57am | Report comment
LeftArmSpinner: There were 23 ELVs, not 33. The GP is trialling 13 of them, including two that weren’t trialled in the S14. The S14 also trialled 13, including two that are not included in the global trial. If we can’t assess anything from the global trial, the same must be true of the S14 trial.
Benjamin said | September 17th 2008 @ 6:30am | Report comment
Spinner, I would suggest that you’re propogating much of that hubris. I can’t imagine that blindly accepting something without considering any potential critiques can be considered anything other than grandly arrogant. I would love you to analyse all of the 3N games individually and assess the positive impact of the ELVs on those games. I would also like you to consider the need for change. I would like you to consider the qualifications of those involved in the LPG. I would like you to consider the IRB mismanagement of the ELVs. I would like you to consider that a section of the ELVs are awfully thought out and have propogated nothing but cyncial rugby. I would love you to consider the NH’s democratic right to ignore the ELVs having stridently voted against them. I would love you to consider all of the above, but you won’t. I asked you before and you don’t respond. I think therefore that that silence is louder than any analysis you could offer - because there is nothing eminating from your corner but exagerrated sentiment.
Lem, that’s very interesting. Would you be able to expand on that?
vincent said | September 17th 2008 @ 9:06am | Report comment
As crushed as I was and still is, I’ve grown tired of reading rugby web sites that seem to have the All Black commentators crowing away…..like Spiro I think Ryan Cross was outstanding..does anyone think like I do that Ryan Cross has nailed down a starting position with the Wallabies? I thought that apart from his defensive lapse (and Mortlocks weak cover) that led to a carter try, he seemed to make alot of ground with ball in hand..Richard Brown with his abrasive play impressed me too..I have not been able to watch any replays but once I get over the emotion I might notice the game for what it was…at the moment like