Australia's Wallabies react after their 19-14 loss to New Zealand's All Blacks during their Bledisloe Cup match in Hong Kong Saturday, Nov. 1, 2008. AP Photo/Kin Cheung
Watching the kick fest that has become the staple of international rugby, I can’t help but hark back to my own playing days. Granted we were on rungs much lower than any professional match, we were not really told how we would play the game.
We had general tactics that played to what little strengths we may have had.
If we got super clever, we may even have tried to exploit an opposition weakness. By and large, however, we played the way we liked to.
When forwards got their hands on the ball, they just ran forward with as much aggression as they could muster. When the back got it, they tried loops or other fancy things to avoid tackles.
Sure, we kicked when we had to, but running was the name of the game and that’s what we did. We didn’t win every week, but we always had a good time.
My question to the Roarers out there is this: If Deans said “stuff this, the boys want to run, let them run and to hell with the result,” would you support it?
If he said, “we will do everything we can to win, EXCEPT KICK THE BALL AWAY,” would you support it?
Would you support it if the Wallabies, or whoever your preferred team is, decided that the spirit of the game and the manner in which it is played is more important than the score?
Even if that meant you would lose more often and by bigger margins (not really a concern for us Wallaby fans at the moment)?
It would also mean supporting a losing coach and team and not looking for blood when the results don’t fall your way.
You see, no manner of ELV’s, whinging, whining or cajoling will make any difference to the style of game we see. As long as winning is the only measure, you will not see teams who are prepared to risk defeat for a thrilling victory.
You will always get teams playing the percentages, like professional gamblers, when what we want to see is mug punters going for it all.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, running rugby, wallabies
November 24th 2009 @ 10:25am
David said | November 24th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Isn’t the whole kick-fest that international rugby has become due entirely to the new law introduced this year that the tackler (and 1st defender to the ruck?), when on his feet, has all the rights to the ball? Even when a ruck is formed, the tackler can still hold on to the ball. While intending to create more competition for the ball at the breakdown, the lawmakers have created a monster.
Teams are too afraid to run the ball out from defence in case they become isolated in the tackle and a)turnover possession or b) give away a penalty in kicking range for holding on.
It’s unfortunate that coaches have, on the whole, responded to this challenge negatively (ie minimise the chance of conceding points by playing in the opposition half) rather than improving the skills and support play of their players.
November 24th 2009 @ 4:15pm
Campbell Watts said | November 24th 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Bang on David!
I’ve been suprised more people haven’t realised this fact too. The rise of the South Africans this 3N and the lack of tries in all internationals – I put a lot of it down to this small rule change!!
Funny cause at the time it was being mooted I thought it sounded like a great idea!!
It has certainly highlighted the value of a top-shelf opensider!! Noticed how often they are winning Man-of-the-match lately??
November 24th 2009 @ 7:30pm
Jack Petro said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
David, if we have a tackle – we can either have a tackled player and a tackler OR a tackled player and a defensive player. The difference lies in whether the person making the tackle has gone to ground. If they have they MUST release the tackled player before either rolling away or getting to their feet to play the ball. If the player remains on their feet when they make the tackle, they must still release the tackled player before they are allowed to play the ball – in this way ‘continuity’ is maintained and IF the Support Players of the ball carrying team are in place they should be able to ‘keep the ball’.
Unfortunately, the Wallabies have shown little desire to actively support the ball carrier – which has meant a truly staccato performance whilst in the NH. It’s not the ELV, Law changes or whatever else we wish to blame the IRB on – it’s just the way our players are lazy in their responsibility around the field.
November 25th 2009 @ 7:57am
stillmissit said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Jack Petro – ‘Unfortunately, the Wallabies have shown little desire to actively support the ball carrier’
This is the one aspect of Australian rugby that annoys the hell out of me. It is so like rugby league, when they take the metres and everyone else holds back and lets them go. It goes against the continuous competition for the ball and is the big thing that NZ and SA have over us. It kills off loads, securing the ball, putting pressure on defences and ensuring that the forwards do the right thing (rather than hang back looking for a run).
Dont know how we can stop it, it has been like this forever, it is also linked to why we like to see fat boys run with the ball as opposed to doing the hard work. Maybe ban the guys from watching RL – I dont think so.
November 24th 2009 @ 10:37am
stillmissit said | November 24th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
If only it were that easy, this is a war not a race. I want to win and I care about how it is done but done it must be.
November 24th 2009 @ 11:35am
Terry Kidd said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
I’m with formeropenside in that complete rugby is the way to go, with bugger all kicking. Would I support a Wallaby team who played this way whether they win or lose? Yes, I would …. and I also believe that if you keep the ball in hand, you will win more than you lose and the exciting open breaks with open field running will come. The thing about this style of play is that if you have possession opposing teams can’t score and you will eventually create a lot of anxiety in the opposition defence … it all feeds on itself.
Back in my young military days I was an officer cadet at Portsea. I played open side loose at 75 kgs !!! We were all fit as rabid kangaroo dogs but had no weight. We played against some monstrous blokes in the local Melbourne comp. We were light but very very fit. We played our version of ‘complete rugby’. We avoided set pieces because we got murdered in them, we had to recycle very quickly at the breakdown otherwise we lost it due to greater weight. We ran the ball at every opportunity and supported, supported and supported. When we didn’t have it we tackled, tackled and tackled. Invariably we would be behind at halftime but would come home like Bernborough as the opposition tired and we were still running them all over the park …. in the end it would be a high scoring win or loss, but we also enjoyed our game come what may.
My point is that the Wallabies do not field kick well at all, but we do have players who can run, we do have a pack that can win ball in rucks and mauls and who can retain possession …. so, our strength is retaining possession and running the ball, not kicking it away. So why not make that our version of complete rugby, forget attacking on the counter, aim to keep possession and attack continually, then defend for your life until you get the ball back. Yes, Yes and yes, I would support a team that played such a style …. something near to Fijian perhaps without the flamboyant passing skills or slack defence.
November 24th 2009 @ 1:42pm
PastHisBest said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
“and I also believe that if you keep the ball in hand, you will win more than you lose”
The current Wallabies under Deans have won more than they have lost. Happy?
November 24th 2009 @ 1:44pm
PastHisBest said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
…and it isn’t a game style that will win you a world cup.
November 24th 2009 @ 1:22pm
whodares said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
It is the coach who is at fault
If he wants to play a kicking then he needs to find a guy that can kick as well as Carter, Wilkinson, Morney Steyne, Etc.
If he can’t find the player then don’t bloody well enter into this kicking game run the ball.
November 24th 2009 @ 2:26pm
Terry Kidd said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
So what do you advocate Pasthisbest?
No, I’m not happy with a team that kicks away possession, that puts in stupid grubber kicks within a 22m when hot on attack. But I am willing to listen to alternative opinions ….. so how about offering one.
November 24th 2009 @ 5:12pm
Andystath said | November 24th 2009 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
“…and it isn’t a game style that will win you a world cup.”I think the Saffas have proven that PastHis Best.A poll in the Republic regarding playing style suggested that 80% of Bokke fans didn’t care what style of football was played as long as they won.To suggest the Springboks play boring rugby is inviting scorn from my very sensitive South African friends.
November 24th 2009 @ 5:36pm
Dean Pantio said | November 24th 2009 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
No, that’s loser talk. Play pretty or ugly, but win. That’s all that matters. If I want aesthetics, I look at beautiful women and cars.