By Harry Kimble -
October 12th 2009 @ 4:03am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...A weekend of Rugby in Europe
I saw an interesting game on the internet last night. It was a RWC2011 qualifier between Ukraine and Belgium, played in Kiev.
Ukraine won, 13-11, scoring the winning try in the last minute of play. This was despite Ukraine having 90% of possession and territory. Belgium actually led 11-6 until near the end having scored a try against the run of play in the mid first half.
Ukraine used the wrong tactics.
Whenever Belgium got possession, they kicked deep into Ukraine’s half. The strong and fast backs easily ran the ball up to Belgium’s 22 metre line then gave it to the forwards to bash and barge to the tryline.
The Belgian defence played well to hold them out. Ukraine had four tries disallowed for being held up over the line and one for knocking-on over the line. A few knock-ons also relieved pressure on Belgium.
Eventually, from eight metres out on the left side, the flyhalf kicked left footed across the field to the right winger who scored and the conversion won the game for Ukraine.
Both teams had a lock over two metres tall. The game was very clean and very few penalties were awarded. The referee was Laurent Valin from France. The standard of the game was a little below Super 14 level.
Rugby in Ukraine has taken a step up with the formation of the Professional Rugby League which controls the national Rugby competition of four teams from Ukraine and two from Tiraspol, the capital of the breakaway Moldovian province of Transnistria.
The Ukrainian authorities said rugby would die in the country if it did not go professional. The competition is well supported. The crowd at the game was about 3,000 but how professional was it to put the match on at the same time that Ukraine was playing England in soccer?
Also in Europe, Bosnia-Herzegovina was leading Monaco 23-8 when an all-in brawl began and the referee abandoned the game. The referee was from Moldova. Also Slovakia has withdrawn, stating they “will not be able to continue in the competition”. Because of this, all games and points awarded in the 2008-09 series have been cancelled. It appears the Slovakian players prefer to be part of the Czech competition.
In the two other games played over the weekend, Lithuania 40 beat Andorra 8 in a RWC2011 qualifier to extend their winning streak to 12. In a non World Cup match, Hungary beat Slovenia, 17-11, both games were played at the winner’s home. Virtually all of Lithuania’s side was from the one club, Siauliai, the town where the game was played.
The 2009-10 season is the second leg of FIRA’s competition and the series are part of the RWC2011 qualifiers.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(75)
Chris said | October 12th 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
Not having seen the game it is hard for me the comment – but I would be very, very surprised if the game was anything near Super 14 level. I would be more than happy to bet that most Super 14 teams would beat Italy and Scotland, let alone Ukraine!
Knives Out said | October 12th 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Australia and SA have struggled to beat Italy and Scotland recently.
Chris said | October 12th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
SA have only lost to Scotland once since 1969 and have never lost to Italy (they won their last 4 games against Italy by a combined 241 to 40). Australia has won their last 16 games against Scotland (with Scotland only once finishing within two converted tries) and have not once lost to Italy. If that is “struggling” I would hate to see dominating!
I would back the Bulls, Crusaders, Hurricanes, Waratahs, Sharks, Brumbies and Chiefs to account for either of those teams home or away (and the Blues and Force to beat them at home).
Knives Out said | October 12th 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
Yes, well you certainly have taken the word ‘recently’ to the extreme. I was referring to the recent European tour when Scotland dominated SA and when Australia were somewhat fortuitous to defeat Italy. Australia even looked pretty poor against the Italian 2nd and 3rd string this season.
I’m not getting into one of these boring NH v SH debates but I’m pretty sure the average rugby fan is aware just how powerful the Scottish and Italian packs are, and what good kickers they have, so it’s probably a logical extension that the national teams would beat what I would consider some very mediocre Super sides.
Chris said | October 13th 2009 @ 1:41am | Report comment
I am always highly suspicious when the terms “2nd and 3rd string” are bandied around. The Italian side we saw here in June was far from third string.
I am sure most people also know how rubbish Scotland in particular is in the 11-15 department. Even the Reds have a better backline. I am not saying every Super 14 side would beat Scotland and Italy – but I would certainly put my hard earned on a lot of them.
Knives Out said | October 13th 2009 @ 2:00am | Report comment
You can be as suspicious as you want but the fact of the matter is that the Italian side that toured recently was their 2nd and 3rd string side.
The Reds don’t have a better back line than the Scots. Digby would make the Scottish team but no other player would. Blair and Custer are experienced and clever 9s, whilst Henderson, Morrison and Dewy are hugely physical centres who align well with the incisive Evans and Lamont brothers and Nikki Walker and Simon Danielli. When one considers the metronomic boot of Chris Paterson it soon becomes clear that were Scotland to have a decent 10 then they would have a penetrative set of backs. I wouldn’t put my hard earned on any of the Super sides beating any test teams. If you take the Bulls as an example. They have an excellent lineout and a superb kicker, but they also have one of the most shambolic scrums and a set of backs who are journeymen at best. I would expect an organised test side to beat them without much fuss.
Chris said | October 13th 2009 @ 6:52am | Report comment
Yeah, Habana, Steyn, de Preez, Kirchner, Olivier and Ndugane are all horrible players, far below the best of Scotland!
Are you serious!! The Bulls would DESTROY Scotland on the Veldt and their forwards + Steyn would be able to out play Scotland at “10 man Rugby” at Murrayfield. Italy would be even worse (allthough the Bulls would need to play more of a running style against them.
As for the Italian “3rd String” side – name the two Italian players who would be keeping Sergio Parisse out of the 1st and 2nd String sides!
Ian Whitchurch said | October 12th 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Chris,
And thats the problem when clubs, provinces and countries think in terms of their interests, and no-one is looking out for the good of the code.
Chris said | October 12th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Sure, I’m not saying it isn’t concerning that the once powerful Scot’s are now the Six Nations Whipping Boys – but there is no point sugar coating it. Indeed it is a very good thing that Rugby in Belgium and Ukraine is developing – but lets not pretend they are even in the same ballpark as Super Rugby because, frankly, they aren’t.
therealalekid said | October 12th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
“The standard of the game was a little below Super 14 level”
it’s great to see the developing nations making improvements, but the majority of the Belgium side come from Federale clubs in France. There is a huge gulf between Lille and the Crusaders (or I at least hope so).
Chris said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Well I just took a look at the Belgian side. They have ONE player playing in the French Top Division and ONE player in the French Pro Division 2. Aside from that they are scattered amongst suburban clubs and – as you say – the Federale clubs (ie French 3rd, 4th and 5th Division).
I hate to use a rather school-boyish method here but the Brumbies 2nd’s beat Toulouse (the Top 14 champions) and Belgium sources their players from several divisions below the Top 14. It would seem pretty logical then that Belgium would have a lot of trouble holding even the Reds to under 100 points.
Colin N said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
“I hate to use a rather school-boyish method here but the Brumbies 2nd’s beat Toulouse (the Top 14 champions)”
They didn’t play Toulouse, they played a Perpignan second’s and won 17-0, but lost the other three games on that tour.
Chris said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Right you are – I knew the Brumbies beat the T14 champions but I forgot the name of the team! (Must have been as Toulouse were the champions the year before). Regardless it is apparent there is a pretty substantial gap between the caliber of S14 and Belgian Rugby.
Colin N said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Well yes, I would hope so too!!
Knives Out said | October 12th 2009 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
It’s not particularly sustainable logic that a pre-season tour would indicate much at all.
Chris said | October 13th 2009 @ 6:54am | Report comment
Well its the best we have because Super 14 sides and Top 14 sides rarely meet. But if you would like to mount an argument that the best of Belgium would be competitive with any Super Rugby side I would love to hear it!
Kevin,Meath said | October 12th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Where on the web do you find the game?
always interested in seeing the game spread
Harry Kimble said | October 12th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
The game was broadcast live on the Professional Rugby League of Ukraine’s own website using Strela TV’s feed. The site address is http://prl.org.ua/translations
Georgia and Russia also have live transmissions on the internet of home games.
Ian Whitchurch said | October 12th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Chris,
Lets compare it to the WA Super 14 side.
That side has nil none exactly no Western Australians in it. It’s a franchise side completely comprised of contract mercenaries.
So, yeah, Belgium would stomp WA’s super 14 side – if they are under the same rules as WA are (ie zero requirement to actually come from there).
You also wrote, “but lets not pretend they are even in the same ballpark as Super Rugby because, frankly, they aren’t.”.
OK, lets tour them. Lets play them against State sides, and lets see if thats true.
The only way people get better is solid coaching, good development work and, most importantly, playing competition thats better than them.
Australia has been remarkably unwilling to assist with any of these things (ie when was the last Australia-Tonga game, or Australia-Fiji).
Chris said | October 12th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
I should think an all WA side would beat Belgium pretty comprehensively, lets not forget 90% of the Belgian team are British and French expats. What would an Australia tour of Belgium prove (other than the fact we could bring up a century in the first 40 minutes)? Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here and build them up to be bigger than they are – this is after all a team that has lost to Spain 77-0 (yes, the same mighty Spanish team that Australia beat by 80 points several years ago).
Yes it is a good thing that Belgium is taking to rugby, but we are kidding ourselves if we think they are any better than a club in the Sydney forth division. Any Tier One nation could put 150+ past them.
As for Tonga, Fiji and Samoa) it is a crying shame how little the IRB is doing to foster their rugby talent. I know it won’t happen but I would like to see Fiji included in the Tri Nations (along with Argentina). In addition Tonga and Samoa should be getting regular matches against Tier One opponents (either of them could beat the weaker 6N teams on their day).
Pieter said | October 13th 2009 @ 4:31am | Report comment
I should think an all WA side would beat Belgium pretty comprehensively, lets not forget 90% of the Belgian team are British and French expats.
–> Completely untrue: there may one or two. There are many Belgian players playing for French clubs, but almost all of them are Belgian born and have learned their rugby here! By the way, it’s not because you have an English name that you are an expat. Alan and Kevin Willams have an English father, but they were born in Belgium and learned to play rugby in Waterloo, Brussels.
this is after all a team that has lost to Spain 77-0 (yes, the same mighty Spanish team that Australia beat by 80 points several years ago).
–> When you are going to quote a WIkipedia entry, trie and mention all of the information: that result was from 15 years ago. There have been HUGE changes in Belgian rugby since then! (FYI: last internationl between against Spain ended in a 18-06 win for Belgium (2006))
Chris said | October 13th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
Well you pretty comprehensively caught me out! Hats off…
Pieter said | October 13th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Well I woudn’t be very Belgian if I didn’t react, now would I?
To stay on-topic: Belgium will not be playing anything near Super 14 level for years to come.
Belgium is playing rugby at a French Federal 1 level, ProD2 at a stretch..
Completely embarrassed about the typos though..terrible (I just read my comment again)
Chris said | October 13th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
I do have one question though (and you are probably better qualified to give the answer than I am). Does Belgium’s massive improvement against Spain say more about the improvement in Belgian rugby or the fall of Spanish Rugby?
Pieter said | October 16th 2009 @ 12:38am | Report comment
Well, it is a combination of things..
To fully understand that result from 15 years ago, we should have to take a look at both teams’ line-up.
Rugby in Belgium back than was at such a low level that playing for your national team wasn’t really considered a huge honour. Basically if you wanted to play, you could. So the quality of the team was really inconsistent. It could even have been a match where Belgium barely had 15 players. That kind of situation was no exception back than. Luckily things have changed alot over the years. There is a much stronger league, there are more Belgians playing in tougher competitions abroad and there is a much better organised home union (more media attention, more money, more fans, etc…). These things combined have made playing for the National team an honour again. So there is more internal competition, which causes the level to rise.
I actually believe that both countries’ levels have risen in terms of national teams. The Spanish are a bit further at club level though. Last year they created an all professional league together with Portugal. At the moment, this is a step too far for Belgium.
True Tah said | October 12th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Ian
Australia has played the Tongans and Fijians, although it has been some time since we played in the Islands.
The Fijians are scheduled to tour her next season.
Australia has been willing to play these teams, we were the first destination outside the Islands for both Fiji (1952) and Tonga (1973) – in fact we gave the Tongans their biggest ever victory on the World Stage when they beat us in Brisbane.
Julio said | October 12th 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
Lithuania’s match against Andorra was NOT a world cup qualifier.
therealalekid said | October 12th 2009 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
2I should think an all WA side would beat Belgium pretty comprehensively, lets not forget 90% of the Belgian team are British and French expats”
“Yes it is a good thing that Belgium is taking to rugby”
That’s not true, majority of Belgium players are from Belgium and the Flemish have quite a decent rugby culture. Stade Francais are even going to switch a game to Brussels in the near future.
the issue is balance Belgium has some Rugby culture (always has) and hopefully with a good home Union they can make decent strides.
Knives Out said | October 13th 2009 @ 7:02am | Report comment
‘Well its the best we have because Super 14 sides and Top 14 sides rarely meet. But if you would like to mount an argument that the best of Belgium would be competitive with any Super Rugby side I would love to hear it!’
I wouldn’t say anything of the sort, but nor would I say that because the Brumbies beat Perpignan a host of Super sides could beat the lower ranked top ten teams.
‘Yeah, Habana, Steyn, de Preez, Kirchner, Olivier and Ndugane are all horrible players, far below the best of Scotland!
Are you serious!! The Bulls would DESTROY Scotland on the Veldt and their forwards + Steyn would be able to out play Scotland at “10 man Rugby” at Murrayfield. Italy would be even worse (allthough the Bulls would need to play more of a running style against them.
As for the Italian “3rd String” side – name the two Italian players who would be keeping Sergio Parisse out of the 1st and 2nd String sides!’
Ndungane, Kirchner, JP Nel, Olivier and Pretorious are journeymen at best. If you knew anything about the players I had mentioned then you would be able to actually analyse them side by side as opposed to making broad statements, Chris.
I severely doubt that the Bulls could out ‘10 man’ Scotland because the Scotland pack would brutalise the Bulls pack twice as easily as they brutalised the SA pack. Paterson is just a good a kicker as Steyn.
Sergio Parisse’s inclusion does not mean that the Italian side was not their 2nd and 3rd string. You examine the starting lineups versus Australia and then come back to me. Matt Dawson travelled on the’ tour to Hell’, does that mean that wasn’t England’s part-timers?
True Tah said | October 13th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
KO
if the Bulls played the Wallabies the same way they did in their finals games against the Chiefs and the Crusaders, then they would have beaten them as well.
If the likes of Ndungane, Kirchner, Oliviier are journeymen, where does that leave the much vaunted Scottish backs? JP Nel is just a thug so I left him out.
Knives Out said | October 13th 2009 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
On any given day any club side could beat a test side, which is why we have recently seen the Ospreys beat Australia and Munster nearly beat NZ. However, 9/10 times an organised top ranked test side would win. The Bulls simply do not have a good enough scrum or good enough backs to break down a test level team. I’m sure altitude would help their cause but I find it hard to believe that you would suggest that Ndungane, Kirchner and Olivier aren’t journeymen. What do you know about Nikki Walker, Thom Evans, Rory Lamont, Max Evans, Simon Danielli etc?
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Well – from watching Scotland during the Six Nations and a fair bit of Magners League – I know that none of them would come close to being in the NZ, SA, Australian, Irish, Welsh, French and maybe even English teams. I guess thats something…
Calling Scotland a “Test Level team” is more laughable by the day. They could only get one player into a Lions team. That Lions series was over in two tests – at the hands of a South African team which contained no less than 6 Bulls. To say Scotland would beat the Bulls is crazy talk!
pothale said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
“Well – from watching Scotland during the Six Nations and a fair bit of Magners League – I know that none of them would come close to being in the NZ, SA, Australian, Irish, Welsh, French and maybe even English teams. I guess thats something…”
Chris – seems to me that that you didn’t watch that much of the 6 Nations or much of the Magners League last season to make that assertion. Here’s who I’d take out of the Scotland squad for the Ireland squad…..
Evans Bros, Blair, Hines, Ross Ford and lastly Euan Murray who Victor Matfield said would have fixed the Lions scrum, if he’d been available for the tour. He and Hines were originally picked for the tour, and two other Scottish players travelled subsequently – Blair and Ford. So get your facts straight.
Scotland may be ranked lower, but to say they are not a test team says more about your knowledge, than it does about them. And there’s a few Scottish players I’d pick ahead of the some of the current Wallabies too, never mind Wales, France or England.
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Pothale.. I wasn’t talking about the Scottish squad – I was talking about the players KO mentioned – Nikki Walker, Thom Evans, Rory Lamont, Max Evans nad Simon Danielli, none of which I would include in the Wales, Ireland or French teams (on reflection a couple could fit into the English side). Obviously several of the players you brought up (specifically Murray) would make any 6 Nations side – however we were not actually talking about them! With respect, before blasting someone you might actually want to read what they said.
As far as Scotland being a test nation, obviously they are one (although so are Israel and Zimbabwe!) Being a Test team in Rugby carries none of the kudos that it does in cricket. KO’s logic seems to be that Scotland is a test team and therefore better than the Bulls by default – this is of course deeply flawed.
Viscount Crouchback said | October 13th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
KO,
I admire your tenacious defence of northern rugby, but you do sometimes stray into the realms of fantasy. The Bully Boys of Pretoria would eat the Scotch for breakfast – it would be Spion Kop II. It is foolish to keep harping on about that match at Murrayfield – the South Africans treated it as a borderline friendly and performed accordingly. The Boks also scraped past Connacht before WC2007, but I trust you would not suggest that Connacht are a match for the Bulls (or any other S14 team).
Incidentally, it is nonsense to suggest that Paterson is some dead-eyed kicker. He had a nice run around the time of WC2007 but anyone who witnessed him fall apart under the pressure of Gloucester v Munster could tell you that the man is a mental weakling. He went home to Scotland with his tail between his legs after just one season in the GP, yet remains one of their star players. That tells you all you need to know about the Scots’ lamentable lack of quality.
Chris said | October 13th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Personally I would rank Steyn as one of the 5 best goal kickers I have ever seen in the pro-era (probably ahead of Carter/O’Gara but probably just behind El Masri/Mehrtens/Wilkinson). To suggest Paterson in up there with him is idealistic at best.
Scottish Rugby is, sadly, not what is once was. To pretend that the UK’s third best provincial side would beat the best of the Super 14 is ridiculous.
“the Scotland pack would brutalise the Bulls pack” – Yeah, I’ve seen Matfield and Botha being “brutalised” a lot! Good luck to Scotland winning a lineout.
Knives Out said | October 13th 2009 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
What do you know about Paterson’s kicking?
What do you know about Scottish rugby?
It seems to me that you’re dealing in stereotypes with no real understanding whatsoever. I can only presume that you didn’t watch the Scotland v SA test last season.
Knives Out said | October 13th 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
I’m not offering a tenacious defence of northern rugby (I have no interest in supporting Scottish rugby whatsoever), I am offering a logical argument that an organised test team would beat a provincial side which has obvious weaknesses. We heard all this rubbish about the Bulls before, and how they would theoretically destroy the Lions, and how the Lions backs were stodgy etc, but it is quite obvious that SA backplay is not setting many trends, and the Bulls have one of the least dynamic, inventive or penetrative back lines in the Super tournament, not to mention perhaps the weakest scrum. I think a test side would exploit those weaknesses.
And it is not foolish to keep harping on about the Scotland v SA test because the SA pack was easily contained, just as it was in the Wales test, and just as it was by Shaw and his friends in the 2nd and 3rd Lions tests, and during the 3N. The trend, therefore, shows that SA does not have a dominating pack. Scotland (with all their best players available) does. Even PDV was quick to point out that he was pleased to see Euan Murray attain an injury on the Lions tour.
It is nonsense to suggest that Paterson is not an excellent kicker. One poor season at a club run by a fool who undermined various test careers does not undermine years of good work. His kicking has generally been excellent since his test debut.
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
You are the only one harping on about that test!
“But sir – Scotland only lost by four!”
You do release that losing by four was their best result against SA in 7 games don’t you?
As for your other argument: “I am offering a logical argument that an organised test team would beat a provincial side which has obvious weaknesses.” – Sure, but that would suggest that Scotland is an organised test team. I think its results recently would suggest that it is far from Organised. It would also suggest the Bulls have obvious weaknesses – you don’t win a S14 with obvious weaknesses.
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Respectfully, I don’t think you know anything about Scotland or the Bulls which should end this discussion. However…
The logic is simple: the Bulls have a pack which is a terrible scrummaging unit. Scotland has an excellent scrummaging pack. Therefore, that is a weakness that could be exploited. Scotland has an excellent maul and a very good lineout. As does the Bulls. The Bulls has an excellent kicker. Scotland has an excellent kicker. I think Scotland has superior backs to the Bulls. Scotland would beat the Bulls. Further, I don’t keep harping on about the test. I refer to the recent test as the only valid template for what could theoretically occur. I can’t imagine what else you could possibly infer.
‘You do release that losing by four was their best result against SA in 7 games don’t you?’
What does this have to do with anything?
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Scotland has a marginally better front row than the Bulls.
Scotland have a decent lineout – the Bulls have probably the best lineout in the history of Rugby Union.
The Bulls have a marginally better backrow than Scotland.
The Bulls have World 22 players in both the 9 and 10 positions. Scotland does not – allthough they are both solid players.
The Bulls have a marginally better center combination than Scotland.
The Bulls – by virtue of Habana – have a much, much, much better back three than Scotland.
The Bulls would win – by a lot.
Working Class Rugger said | October 13th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Chris
That is an excellent question. I can’t tell you from first hand experience but going from what I have been able to scrape up it seems a mixture of both. The Belgians seem to be producing an increasingly better quality Rugby player as the competitiveness of the U18’s European Championships team would suggest. Whilst the FER ( Federation Espana Rugby) has stagnated in its development of the game beyond the Division of Honour. Sounds errily simialr to the ARU doesn’t it.
I think it is great to see Belgium become more competitive and rather sad to see Spain struggle. However, from their performance in Hannover Spanish Rugby may be finding its feet once more. They have a ‘professional’ league their now. The SupaIberica De Rugby. Looks to be involving the Portugese next year. So they should grow in strength oncemore. Hopefully.
funmaster said | October 13th 2009 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
Remember, Argentina and England defeated France and France ended up defeating New Zealand. All happend in the last world cup, so i think that might suggest that strange and weird things does happen in the world once in a while. Heck even the wallabies trashed the boks once this year, but KO for you to suggest that scotland (and may god save their queen or king or whatever) could beat the bulls!!? lol look dog i used to be a pot smoker and i know the signs. So please lay of the greens for a while and enjoy next monthe’s tours. GO THE SHARKS!!!
Knives Out said | October 13th 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
Yeah, the bulls are great, funmaster. Must be why they have so many titles under their belt.
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
What – two in the last three years?
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
Two in how many years?
P.S. I’m not sure how many NZ fans would legitimize the 07 Super tournament.
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Well the fact is both the Crusaders and Blues carried full strength squads into the 07 finals and both lost. Given NZ was the country who decided to destroy the 07 tournament I say it is irrelevant what they say about it!
And I am not saying that a Bulls side from any given year would beat a Scottish side from that year – I am saying today Bulls side would beat today’s Scottish side… by a lot!
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
And you should be basing that conclusion on your profound knowledge of South African and Scottish rugby and not regurgitated stereotype.
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
I do not claim a profound knowledge of Scottish rugby (other than to know that they are in continual decline and – according to the IRB – ranked below Fiji). I do not claim a profound knowledge of South African rugby (other than to know that they are the World Number One and the Bulls provide around 40% of their team.
I think that alone says enough…
QC said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
Chris I think you will find the majority of the ABs from both these teams were rested for half the season, all though they may have had full strength teams come finals they were still under prepared due to the lay off.
Also the Bulls two titles in three years has been bettered by both the Crusaders who had three in a row and Auckland two in a row.
Whilst i agree with you Scotland would struggle against a full strength Bulls outfit I do think you are getting carried away with how good you think this Bulls team really is. The won a final over a team that had a 6 day turn around and then had to play on the high veldt, The Bulls were lucky to even get a home final after the debacle that was Goddard in Wellington. Had the Bulls had to play their final away from home I very much doubt the score would have been so great and I’d go as far as saying they wouldn’t have won. But they did and its history and pure specualtion much the same as the Scotland, Bulls debate
funmaster said | October 13th 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
And scotland has how many titles under their belt exacly? yeah i know its not fair to compare a country with another country’s province on title bases, and iam sure theres more rugby players in gauteng then there are in the whole of scotland, so excuse me for my woefull comment and me suggesting that you smoke pot. All said, the super 14 still remains the toughest provincial competition on planet earth, along with the currie cup. And with that said, please note iam not a bulls supporter HELL NO! infact if there were any one seen with a bulls jumper were i come from, he or she would be surely beat up and mugged.
Knives Out said | October 13th 2009 @ 10:58pm | Report comment
Scotland doesn’t claim to be a world superpower, and never has, funmaster.
Yeah, the Currie Cup is tough and is probably the 2nd best competition in the world.
funmaster said | October 13th 2009 @ 11:47pm | Report comment
As for now, whoever wins the currie cup this year, could and should be able to win next year’s super 14.
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Nah – that will be the mighty Brumbies (who could also beat Scotland
)!
QC said | October 14th 2009 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
I’d put money on the top ANZC teams beating the Currie Cup teams, I’d love to know how you justify your tournament to be tougher than the ANZC
Neil said | October 14th 2009 @ 2:24am | Report comment
I thought the Boks beat Scotland at Murrayfield last year … I was there … The Scots put the Bok forwards under immense pressure but still came out second best on the scoreboard. Or are we not using the score as the indicator of overall dominance anymore?
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 2:51am | Report comment
No, not when the context of the discussion centred around the forward battle.
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
No it didn’t – we were talking about which team would win!
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
Yes, and given that the Bulls didn’t play Scotland last year I’m not sure what you think you’re getting at? I said that the Scotland pack was far superior to the SA pack, you sarcastically denied that, to which Neil took on to another tangent. You follow?
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
I didn’t sarcastically deny it – I pointed out that there is not one player in the Scottish pack – nay, the the entirely of Great Britain – the caliber of Matfeild and Botha.
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
You missed the Lions series then?
Colin N said | October 14th 2009 @ 3:02am | Report comment
If we use that logic many results will look skewed. Wales were by far the better team against Australia a year ago, but only won by three points.
When Wasps played Sale, Wasps were by far the better side. Sale won.
You could argue that with all the territory and possession New Zealand had against France, that they were the better side.
etc etc.
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Knives Out – I am a little confused by your argument. It seems to be that Scotland – by virtue of being an International side – would defeat the Bulls by default. This is of course irregardless of the players on the field. It seems like a pretty strange argument to me.
I’m going the use the World XV test for a minute here (not particularly scientific but better than nothing!).
Right now any objective rugby supporter would put Zero Scot’s in a World team.
Right now any objective rugby supporter would put Matfield, du Preez and Habana in the starting team without question. They are pretty much automatic selections. Most – including myself – would put Botha in as well. Some biased South Africans would put Morne Steyn on the XV right now but most rugby supporters (Including myself – an Australian who has no particular predisposition to South Africans) would put him on the bench. Thats 4 Bulls in a World XV and one on the bench to ZERO Scots.
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
It is contradictory logic to suggest that it is illogical to presume that a test side would beat a provincial side whilst a test side packed with world class players (in your opinion) would beat a test side without world class players. I have explained my argument simply and coherently, and with all due respect I don’t think you have the rugby knowledge to engage in a debate about Scotland or the Bulls.
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
“and with all due respect I don’t think you have the rugby knowledge to engage in a debate about Scotland or the Bulls.” – Play the ball not the man KO.
“It is contradictory logic to suggest that it is illogical to presume that a test side would beat a provincial side whilst a test side packed with world class players (in your opinion) would beat a test side without world class players” – I had to read that about four times to get a handle on it. Upon reading it fifth time I ask – Come again?
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
I’m hardly playing the man when you admit the very thing that I suggest.
Colin N said | October 14th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
“I do not claim a profound knowledge of Scottish rugby (other than to know that they are in continual decline and – according to the IRB – ranked below Fiji). I do not claim a profound knowledge of South African rugby (other than to know that they are the World Number One and the Bulls provide around 40% of their team.”
So if you don’t have a profound knowledge of Scottish and South African rugby, why are you making such statements as, ‘the Scottish front row is only slightly better than the Bulls front row.’ Where’s this knowledge come from?
The Scottish front row smashed their South African counterparts last Autumn. This time their only up against a provincial (a very good one at that), but I would epxect the Scottish front row to be even more dominant.
“the Bulls have probably the best lineout in the history of Rugby Union.”
Lets talk about the second row as a whole when Scotland last faced Botha and Matfield, they were outplayed and outmuscled by their Scottish opposition. It’s not definitive logic, but it’s a better way of forging a conclusion through, ‘he’s better than that guy’ etc.
Again, I rate the Scottish back-row and I think it’s better on paper than what the Bulls can offer.
“The Bulls – by virtue of Habana – have a much, much, much better back three than Scotland.”
So because Habana is in their side, it means they have a better back three?
Again, the Scottish back three are very talented. Rory Lamont (when fit) could be one of the best full backs in the world, and has played excellently for Toulon since joining them. Thom Evans is rapidly becoming a very good winger and then you have the two ‘big guys’ in Simon Danielli and Nikki Walker, both who have shown excellent form for their club/regions this season. However, I must admit, their form for Scotland has been below what they are capable of. Then you have Sean Lamont, who’s a fine winger, that lost a bit of form in the last couple of years.
In the centres, I don’t rate Morrison, and they need to find someone else quickly, but they have a luxury a OC, with Max Evans and Ben Cairns both coming up quicklly on the radar.
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Colin – I don’t even claim a “profound” knowledge of Australian rugby, or ever my beloved Brumbies. Heck – I don’t claim a profound knowledge of anything – that just arrogance. Not having a “profound” knowledge of something should not exclude someone from commenting on it and it would be a sad day for the Roar if it did!
But come on – do you honestly think Scotland would beat the Bulls?
I wouldn’t even rate my own nations (Australia) chances of defeating them.
We seem to be hearing a lot about Scotland apparently outplaying South Africa last time they met. The reality is… Scotland lost, at home.
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
Actually lecturing people and confirming that your opinion is definitely right based on no prior knowledge of either team is stunningly arrogant. I could add to what Colin has said but what’s the point? He has made a lot of good points and that hole you’re digging is becoming deeper and deeper. I hope you don’t injure yourself too badly when you land.
funmaster said | October 14th 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
And dont forget that the Lions who toured SA in june struggled againts the cheetahs,W.P and sharks sides. All of whom were second stringers and not the full super 14 outfits. The Lions even got scares from inland and coastel sides full of 2nd division players. Given the bulls form this year, it would be fair to say even they would’ve comfitably beaten the LIONS! please tell me again who is scotland exacly?
Chris said | October 14th 2009 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
No worries funmaster. Scotland are a British provincial side who are so bad that they could barely get a player into the Lions side. By comparison the Bulls are a South African provincial side who had many players in the South African team that comprehensively beat the Lions.
I agree with everything you wrote above. To suggest that Scotland would beat the Bulls by virtue of being an International team is like saying Great Britain would beat Queensland in Rugby League, Australia would beat Manchester United in soccer or that the West Indies would beat NSW in cricket. It just ain’t gonna happen!
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
Yet another insightful, objective SA fan. I see you paid scant attention to the tour. Yawn.
funmaster said | October 14th 2009 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
Iam a rugby union fan KO. It just so happens that iam also south african. Double Yawn.
Knives Out said | October 14th 2009 @ 10:02pm | Report comment
Exactly.
funmaster said | October 14th 2009 @ 10:36pm | Report comment
He who is not bias may trow the first stone.