By runrugby -
December 5th 2009 @ 3:01am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Why rugby should be a thirteen man game
What a disheartening year 2009 has been. The difference from past years is not the fact that the Wallabies have ridden a roller coaster of late. Rather, it is my indifference to the June tests that worries me.
It is an indifference that is shared across a wide range of fellow rugby tragics.
Each Sunday morning I get up early and head down to the beach to watch the nippers try their hearts out and learn the craft of water safety.
Each Sunday morning the dads gather to discuss the games they recorded and got up early for. Yet the dads don’t discuss the result so much, but rather how boring the current game is, and the comparative merits of rugby league.
These are dads who have grown up with union in the blood.
Maybe it is because we are saturated with an endless year of rugby.
Maybe it is the power of the remote control which glosses over the stoppages in play and focuses on the limited running rugby there is, or maybe it is simply time for the game to be remodelled, cognisant of a new viewing audience.
Personally, I find a lot of league boring. It feels like watching a basketball game, where teams run to each end only to chip or put an up-and-under kick to take the 50/50 gamble on who grounds the ball first.
But they have a point. Some league games are simply outstanding, where the ball is moved wide.
I think the solution is simple.
Sacrilegious as this statement is, I believe we should simply reduce the number of players to 13, by removing the flankers, instead of tinkering with the laws that only serve to further confuse and alienate the audience that they are trying to entertain. Why?
1) In 100 years of rugby, the field measurements have hardly changed; yet the power of today’s athletes mean that the pressure and timing on decisions, the width of defence, the girth of the front row, the length of the drop punt and the pace have all changed.
We have outgrown the surface. It is a bit like Shaq O’Neil playing on a basketball court where the ring is only 6ft high.
2) The breakdown would open up, as teams would not want to commit so many resources to each breakdown.
Each breakdown may result in the use of more backs, instead of forwards that would enable more space out wide – especially if the opposition gained a turnover. Let’s face it, we all love to see seagulling props have a run.
3) The backs would be given space to move – in particular closer to the ruck – opening up more angled runs.
Hopefully with more space, the backs would opt to run the ball, than simply kick for field position.
4) Players would generally be more fatigued, opening up more space as the game plays out.
5) It keeps the fundamentals of our game front and centre. I.e. the lineout and the scrum – albeit with less power or lift.
More tries could be made at the fringes of scrums where the attacking team is five metres out, instead of performing a drop goal, or Gary Owen.
Yes the pushover would be there, but it would be a confident team to have the backs leave their lines to join in.
My evidence is based around the simple fact that when you look at smaller, less powerful players such as schoolboy rugby levels – without the handling errors – or American high school football, rather than the NFL, the games are more expansive and enjoyable to watch.
I can appreciate that others would argue that this would send us down a path towards mirroring league; or that even league, with 13 players at hand, have built pretty formidable defence structures.
I would counter them by asking: what recent change to the rule books has guaranteed the willingness of teams to run the ball instead of kicking?
I just think it is time we address the elephant in the room and not continue to tinker with rules that I find difficult at times to explain to my wife – who, sadly, has had to support my rugby tragic condition.
We have a great game here. Let’s open it up to a broader audience, not enclose it to the few that appreciate the technicalities of it.
For the league die hards, you aren’t out of the woods either. Yes you had a brilliant year in 2009, but imagine the game with only 11 per side.
Let’s look forward to 2010.
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...
(47)
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 5:50am | Report comment
“Why rugby should be a thirteen man game” – Rugby has been a thirteen man game for over a 100 years.
Can we please have a RU story on the Roar that for once refrains from diverting into the writer’s obvious bias and distate of rugby league.
Just one will do. Just one.
Let’s see if any RU writer on the Roar is up for the challenge.
Paley said | December 5th 2009 @ 6:36am | Report comment
It’s a nonsense isn’t it? We get:
Should rugby be a 13 man game – it already is.
When rugby went professional in 1995 – I have been watching professional rugby for 40 years
Leinster v Munster at Croke Park was the best attended game of club rugby ever – I have been to several better attended games of club rugby. In fact I went to one last year.
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
I heard that Rugby 7s is the rugby game’s salvation. So I can only presume that 7 for RU is the right number, and not 15 and not 13.
rugbyfuture said | December 5th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
only in australia, but by that mark you’re admitting that Rugby is rugby union
Shahsan said | December 5th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
The wirter obviously means rugby union. I thought this was accepted shorthand in Australia? ie rugby means rugby union and league means rugby league?
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Huh? A “league” is a sport?
Shahsan said | December 5th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
I’m not saying it is right, I am just saying that is acceptable parlance in Australia. Look at the tab links at the top of the page, and in every newspaper in Australia, and on every sports show in the country.
Plus, the writer made the distinction in the eighth paragraph above.
rugbyfuture said | December 5th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
yeh, play by home rules when a clear decision cant be applied and home in this case is rugby union as rugby and rugby league as league
Paley said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
The internet is available globally. I don’t live in Australia and my local rugby club plays rugby league.
rugbyfuture said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
so the internets home is the world, and there are more people in the world who speak of rugby as rugby union, than rugby league, and i was speaking of this page as a home before, as in it refers to rugby union as rugby and rugby league as league
Paley said | December 6th 2009 @ 3:23am | Report comment
Accepted by who? When rugby league players were banned from playing union because they were seen as professional rugby players did that not count in Australia?
Dean Pantio said | December 5th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
League is a 13 man game. This article is posted in the Rugby section, not the League section. Hope this helps with your understanding.
Matt Hymers said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:31am | Report comment
Anyone who thinks Rugby Union (the real rugby) should only have 13 men is a fool. If that is what you want then go and watch league. By and large the problem is not game, or the rules it is the way teams are coached to play the game. This is exemplified by the barbarians game last weekend. All it takes is the want to play the game in an attacking manner with the aim of scoring points rather than forcing mistakes to bring the game back to where it should be. Stop your complaining and focus on what is really wrong.
Matt said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:44am | Report comment
Everyone wants to play attractive rugby when there isn’t much on the line. But the Barbarians fixtures was a team of second stringers vs a team of superstars thrown together in a week. It wasn’t a test match and there wasn’t much on the line for winner, hence the attractive style.
If the AB’s had truely wanted to win then they would have played to their strengths, that is they had been drilled as a unit and had better structures in place. They could have played a territory based game and attacked the poorly officiated set pieces and forced the Barbarians to attack from deep and create turnovers. But, they instead played an attractive game themselves and lost.
So to hold the Barbarians game up as an example of why nothing’s wrong is more than a little naive. No one is saying that game CAN’T be attractive if both teams want to play expansively and there isn’t too much riding on the result. But as soon as it becomes a REAL match where teams are genuinely afraid of losing then conservatism reigns supreme as risk taking and attacking endeavour are inevitably punished by the laws and structure of the game.
I do watch some league (admittedly not much though), but just because it has 13 men doesn’t mean it would be the same sport. That’s just silly. If that were the case then 7’s rugby would be like Olympic Handball.
I’m not an advocate of change for changes sake. I genuinely belief that alternative rules need to be invetigated to help the game grow around the world and remain such a great sport to play and watch at all level, including professionally. That is the shop window of our game, the selling point to new fans where the skills and excitement of rugby need to be expressed. Currently the sport it is not meeting that goal as it should.
Gladstone said | December 5th 2009 @ 6:29am | Report comment
A good post, RunRugby, and many people will agree with you. High on the list of those who won’t are the members of most national rugby unions plus the IRU. The idea of lopping off one or two men has been bruited for the last 15 years at least and has been rubbished repeatedly. The 7 spot has now become the glamour position in rugby, and the 6 spot has its supporters because the fans like to see the big guys run the ball (Rocky’s try against Ireland).
There can’t be too many people – outside those conglomerations mentioned above – who don’t want to see the game improved. The laws don’t need tinkering with they need a radical overhaul, but this will only come about in the relatively near future if the RWC becomes a kick fest as may happen. Then you’ll have a world-wide audience tune-out, the sponsors will be mad, and the IRB will probably, at long last, be forced to act. Until then, get ready to crane your neck upwards for all next season. Lobby your local Union for law revisions because removing Richie and Pocock and Moody and Wallace is not gonna fly.
anopinion said | December 5th 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
How about we keep rugby as it is. Instead we play sideways on the field. Thus 60 metres long with 5 metre in goals. 100 metres across.
Barking Glider said | December 5th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
I’d like to see that trialled!
Chris said | December 5th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Would make the sideline conversion attempt pretty hard though!
Corey said | December 6th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
and see the stadiums made for that.
rugbyfuture said | December 5th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
The flankers are probably the best forwards and most attractive parts of the modern game tough, they’re the most competitve, im a prop but its true, the true way to open up the game is by adjusting the rules, the fact is because of the contest at the breakdown, we need the forwards, whereas in league they’re all the same position anyway other than the fullback so it doesnt matter if they drop the flankers or any other position. also they are fairly important to defence and attack at the scrum and lineout
Shahsan said | December 5th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
13-man rugby union has been an idea I have advocated for years. It is usually dismissed because of that dreaded number 13 (not superstition but because of of not wanting to become rugby league, which is riduculous as RL is a significantly different game). But for the ideas mentioend above by runrugby, I agree we shoudl drop two players. I suggest one flanker and one winger.
But at the end of teh day, I have also always argued that it is all about attitude and playing well, as last weekend’s internationals showed. If teams execute well and take the field intending to be positive, the game is still like no other on earth, no matter what the laws are and what the refs do.
rugbyfuture said | December 5th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
but dropping a flanker would mean the scrums would turn so easily, i agree about the attitudes though
Shahsan said | December 5th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
It’s all about the angle at which you push and where the teams place their flanker.
But better still, i shoudl have said “drop one backrower”. The remaning two backrowers can place themsleves at 8 or either flank to suit their needs.
Working Class Rugger said | December 5th 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
I’m for anything that place’s great emphasis on running Rugby. But at the moment the major thing that is hurting Rugby is the influence the ref in the game today. Too often we see the ref all to often. The sign of a good game apart from open play is when I cannot recall seeing the ref anymore than the minimum required. Wayne Barnes is one such ref whilst Jonathan Kaplan at times seems to think we all tune in to see him. The IRB should attempt to reduce their influence on the game before they change the format. Last weekend’s game’s proved there’s in fact nothing to much wrong with the game. Aus vs Wales was fantastic as was the AB’s vs France. Even the Ireland vs SA game was entertaining (thanks largely to the Irish backs and their endeavour). If we can get the ref’s on the same book allowing the game to flow and only intereferring when absolutely necessary then the game will be fine. Oh, and bring back the short arm for everything but Pro-fouls. Though make a couple of changes to it. One, you cannot call a scrum and two, you cannot kick it away. So basically a short arm would become a tap and run weapon.
sheek said | December 5th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
It’s all relative, my dear fellow.
I’m referring to the field dimensions. We have a few more millenium to go before 30 human beings can’t fit inside a current standard size rugby pitch!
And if they’re stronger in defence, they’re also stronger in attack.
The problem is the laws, not the field dimensions, nor number of players. It’s the LAWS!!!
Attacking rugby needs to be encouraged. That means NOT having players fearful of conceding a penalty for God-knows-what…..
rugbyfuture said | December 5th 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
HERE HERE!!!
Shahsan said | December 6th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I think you mean “hear, hear”.
Dean Pantio said | December 5th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
The problem isn’t the laws – the problem is the players and coaches. I’d rather see one magnificent try than a heap of backyard touch football types. It’s about earning the try, not having it gifted to you because you can’t pass, spot the gap or step and need another 20m to get around someone.
sheek said | December 5th 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Dean Pantio,
I’ll argue you here on a technicality. Players & coaches will ALWAYS be contrary, no matter what the laws – it’s in the nature of humans to be contrary.
So it comes back to the laws. Make them so that it minimizes the contrariness of humans. At present the rugby union laws make it too easy for players & coaches to be negative.
So endeth this sermon…..
Paul J said | December 5th 2009 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
runrugby
Nice article and you were not anti league, well done.
I like the idea of 13 players in rugby. I think the problem is that rugby is doing very well o/s, isn’t it? While Aussie rugby fans are screaming for change as rugby struggles against the other 3 codes here, international rugby is growing and there is less desire for change o/s.
bozo said | December 5th 2009 @ 10:58pm | Report comment
May be too much to ask of the contributor but was the reference the to “Gary Owen” as a kicker meant to refer to the Irish rugby team of Garryowen or to the Welsh playwright named Gary Owen, or was it just indicating the contributor was another drop kick?
MyGeneration said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
A ‘Gary Owen’ is an up-and-under. I don’t know the history of the term.
Gladstone said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Bozo – Gary Owen, the writer, lives in Splott. I doubt the editors of The Roar would want any discussion of anybody who lives in Splott even if they lived in Upper Splott which is too close to utter Splott.
sheek said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Garryowen is a rugby club in Limerick, Ireland.
They were reputedly the first club to use the now famous ‘up & under’ kick, hence its nickname ‘garryowen’. This all apparently occurred in the early 1920s.
As further interest, there is an Irish drinking song – ‘garryowen’ – which was the marching tune for the 7th US Cavalry. This is the same 7th US Cavalry that was led into the Little Bighorn disaster by Gen. George Custer in 1876 during the American Indian wars.
Matt said | December 6th 2009 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
I have to say that the Wallabies and All Blacks have almost done the game a disservice by playing such good running rugby last weekend. Many can now argue that the game does not have an issue and that good rugby is merely up to the coaches and players discretion. But the truth is that the Pro game is being strangled by that competitive nature to be conservative in the face of uncertainty and pressure.
Not many people look at tough situations with flair and optimism, we instead take the safe option and minimise the odds; rugby is the same and the conservatism increases the more something is at stake. The pro game suffers the hangover from the obvious tide of professionalism. That is bigger, faster, stronger players and a mood of win at all costs.
Players just don’t have the same time, space or apathetic defense at the top levels and the field is the same size as a 12 year match, or a high school match, or a 5th grade club social match. Does this make sense? Do we just expect players at the professional level to ‘create’ space through magical skills?
Personally I don’t think so and I think that in Australia, as the litmus test for Rugby’s global popularity (due to strong competition in a limited market), that Rugby Union is suffering to capture new audiences and even satisfy the most traditionally dedicated fans.
Many have suggestions for basic tinkering of the laws, from small tweaks or interpretations from the ref that will change the very nature of how rugby is played. I find that a little naive in that surely a seismic change in the attitude of the players and the style they play will require something equally as revolutionary.
I’ve heard (and recommended) this same suggestion, to remove to players from the scrum and let the other positions evolve to fill the gap, and I haven’t yet heard a factual argument against it yet. All I hear is that either “rugby isn’t broken” or “we don’t want to become league”. Personally the only factual negative I can see is that Props might have to get fitter (nothing wrong there IMO) and that it might lead to more fatigue related injury (but the is only suspicion as fatigue also has the positive affect of opening the game up defensively).
Personally I’d like to see it trialled. I think it would allow for more space for backlines and give them greater encouragement to attack (and especially from kicks). I think it would retain the core facets of Rugby (scrum, lineout, contest for position) and would reduce the bodies at the breakdown and make it more dynamic and less cluttered.
There might still be adjustments needed to the laws too, to clear up the tackler laws and the scrum engagement, but the idea of 13 man rugby is an idea that I (as a fellow Rugby tragic) have accepted as being a great one for making the greatest game even better.
Bay35Pablo said | December 6th 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
As long as the IRB don’t see there being a problem, Australia losing supporters won’t matter. League to them doesn’t even register.
It doesn’t take something as radical as losing 2 players. The game was great to watch several years ago, and the last few games have been good. It’s all about the tweaking of the laws and how the ref interprets them. Look at how much difference a ref can make to how a game is played, under the same set of laws!!!
When the IRB finally oulls its head out of its tweed a$$, admits it is in the entertainment industry now, and that it can provide a spectacle without killing tge game, they can get on with it.
stillmissit said | December 6th 2009 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Guys it doesnt matter how many players you have out there. The game will always be about top defence and then attack and never vis versa.
Lets get back to the cricket the rugby ended with the great Barbarians game last night.
nicknelo said | December 7th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
I agree with Matt “But the truth is that the Pro game is being strangled by that competitive nature to be conservative in the face of uncertainty and pressure.” The answer is to inject some “flair and optimism” into the game. The BarBars template shows us the way. When the players play for the BarBars they don’t have the pressure of playing for their country. A mixed team with world class players ensures maximum talent without a conservative attitude, this is the recipe for highly entertaining matches. I think this should be used more often, like a World Cup winning team vs The Rest of the World team, or Super 14 winners vs the REst of the Super 14, or Tri Nations Winner vs The Rest of the Tri Nations etc… this combination team could be used in any competition. It bring top players together in a more stress free environment, an environment we there are encouraged to play with “flair and optimism”. We don’t need to change the rules, we need to change the environment.
See my article on this at:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/12/07/barbarians-success-should-be-used-as-a-template-for-a-world-cup-evolution/
Amband said | December 7th 2009 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
maybe if we went back to the way the game was played, before that dopey slide defence, anddid the basics like run onto passes and use the backline it would be better
Perhaps if the “experts” stoppoed fooling around with the game and left it alone it would be fine
ohtani's jacket said | December 7th 2009 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
Most teams played the way they did this year because they didn’t have the talent to play any better. Creating space is a challenge for any side and the entire reason we see so many ruck contests is because it’s easier to organise team defence than it is to get a side to attack.
Rugby fans ought to bear in mind the following things:
* Bad games happen — in all sports, at all levels
* We’re halfway through the modern four year cycle — you can’t bang on about building for 2011 without accepting that most sides are a work in progress
* No side right now has 15 great players — most sides are compensating for weaknesses in key positions
* Rugby wasn’t better in the past — history repeats again and again
There’s not much that can be done about rugby right now at the end of the season. Next year, they’ll start with a fresh slate and get another crack at it. If we’re being honest, there were a fair number of outstanding attacking performances from sides this year, they just didn’t come from the All Blacks and Wallabies, two sides synonymous with attacking rugby. Had those sides gotten better results this year, there wouldn’t have been so much frustration.
Take a look at the team sheets for the Wallabies and All Blacks and ask yourself is it really the refs, the laws or the number of players on the field, or does my team lack the right players?
Shahsan said | December 7th 2009 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
Spot on.
Matt said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:28am | Report comment
The thing is though OJ, if the Wallabies or AB’s lack the ‘right’ players, where is the world would we look for an example of these players. All nations are struggling with the rules at present.
And to say that the outstanding performances didn’t come from the AB’s or Wallabies (hence our grumbling in NZ and Oz) ignores the fact that journalists and fans across the rugby playing globe have held up the recent Wallabies vs Wales, AB’s vs Frace and Barbarians matches as the highlights of the test rugby season.
The truth is that, despite the criticism from the like of Stephen Jones, the NH is still looking with hopeful eyes towards these shores for the inspiration to bring some excitement back to rugby. Heck, even the English (the bastion of conservatism and slow progress) are admitting that there are serious issues at the pro level now.
I genuinely believe that something has to change. The fact is that in the AB’s vs France match and the Barbarian match that the teams in both games slowed the ball down a lot less and deliberately took risks. But if there had been more at stake in the festival game or if the French decided to grind the AB’s down in Marsielle then I don’t believe the AB’s would have had a choice but to play a conservative match plan too. I also believe that in both of these matches the officials were a lot more lenient on the breakdown laws and allowed teams to play a lot more phases without penalising someone (as has been the IRB stance for most of the season).
The game is about winning. The best way to win at present, regardless of the playing talent you have (and the AB’s must have some talent if they are the No.1 on planet earth right now) is to play conservatively. How will this change without something else changing? The only way a team will be able to play attractive rugby to win is when they have a team of players that are better than the opposition. Is that realistic? I’d say it’s optimistic.
I want a game where teams like Italy and Scotland are encouraged to run the ball at better teams because there is an advantage in doing so. Why should the most risky and most difficult part of the game be the part that we want the most? Should a team need 15 great players to play attractive rugby, surely that would be a failing of the game as a spectacle?
We need to make attack easier to do.
ohtani's jacket said | December 8th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
The French tried to disrupt the All Blacks in the same way that the English and everyone else had done this season — at the base of the ruck.
The All Blacks’ biggest problem this year was that they couldn’t score tries and when you can’t score tries the game becames an arm wrestle. The All Black attack in Marseilles was the best it’s been since June of 2008, before they trialled the ELVs at Test level. There was a real effort to keep the ball in hand and avoid having the ball carrier isolated, and like I said before, they only really had the confidence to do that because they fixed the lineout and were able to secure possession without the need for it to come solely from the ruck.
The All Blacks and Wallabies don’t want to play conservatively, but in order to beat sides who attack them in the set pieces and play tough defence, THEY need to step up. There has never been a point in my lifetime where every side played great attacking rugby. Only the best sides play great attacking rugby. Italy don’t have the backs to do it and neither do Argentina or Scotland. They’re limited sides that play to their strengths. Those sides playing poor rugby is not something that happened overnight.
You’re always going to have low-scoring arm wrestles in rugby because rugby requires such a cohesive effort to score and score well. So, there’s going to be matches next year where the All Blacks and Wallabies are under the pump. That’s why they call it a Test match. If it as easy to score tries in Test match rugby as it is in club competition, you’d soon have people complaining in the other direction, i.e. “what the hell has happened to defence in rugby?”
Great sides do both: they defend well and they attack well. There were a distinct lack of great sides this year. In fact, I don’t think any Test match side can rightly say it’s a great side. It’s happened before in rugby and it’ll happen again.
Nevertheless, it was an interesting season. I don’t think you’ll find many Irish or South African fans calling for 13 man a side. Obviously, the All Blacks and Wallabies don’t like playing second fiddle, but neither side was prepared for this Test season. This was the season we were dealt and in some ways it was impressive. Henry prevented things from going to hell in a handbasket and Deans was able to starve off the wolves at least twice. Rugby may be about winning, but you can’t win all the time, and there’s no point throwing two guys off the side because you couldn’t win all of a sudden.
Here’s the All Black side that lost to France in Dunedin:
Muliaina, Rokocoko, Toeava, Nonu, Jane, Donald, Cowan, Messam, Thomson, Read, Ross, Thorn, Tialata, Hore, Woodcock.
And the team from Marseilles:
Muliaina, Jane, Smith, Nonu, Sivivatu, Carter, Cowan, Read, McCaw, Kaino, Donnelly, Thorn, Tialata, Hore, Woodcock.
Had the latter played from the first Test in Dunedin, the All Blacks probably would’ve had a better season, so I don’t think you can discount how much of a difference players make to performance.
stillmissit said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Good Point OJ. The players ability is a critical point but if you took that Barbarians team and played them against a full strength AB’s side they would most probably have lost. Therefore there is a team aspect to the game and how the team performs together and how good there general is.
Mostly around the world we have first world war generals who don’t want any new ideas. It is less risk (their job) to just stay in the trenches(defence) and fight it out. Good generals see opportunities to win that others don’t.
The truth is Australia and the AB’s do have weaknesses in their teams. The big problem is the generals are lacking in imagination and raw talent for a generals job. Don’t get me wrong Robbie Deans is the best we could get to do our job not sure about Henry, it is just that there is nothing new that is liable to take them above the opposition is coming from either camp. SA seems to have taken trench warfare to a new level and their general seems off with the pixies.
I could argue that all the top teams today are just refining the battle plan put together by McQueen 10 years ago.
Great generals build great armies. We haven’t had a great one for a fair while.
Matt said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
The last great general with a fresh new battle plan was Loffreda to me. He got the Pumas, a team that didn’t honestly have THAT much talent, through to the WC semis using a game of Kick and Chase from anywhere.
And look at what everyone else is doing 2 years on (and blaming the ELV’s for!).
If you look at rugby sides around the world ALL have fairly equally poor talent pools. Scotland and Italy are missing whole chunks of a team. Ireland are fairly good, as are South Africa, Australia and NZ. France are adequate. England are poor and Wales are patchy. Argentina had very little to offer over the Autumn internationals and that round out the top 10 playing nations in the world. Below that there is a HUGE drop in talent.
In fact, the 2nd string AB’s who lost to the BaaBaa’s would beat all but 5 or 6 test playing nations on most days (Aus, RSA, Ire, Fra, Wal, Eng). So to say that the issue with game is that the AB’s have a weakness just doesn’t make sense. If the AB’s have weaknesses then what does that say about EVERY other team in the world. It’s not as if the game suddenly had the top 10% of player leave, so how have skills levels dropped? Or have team always had weaknesses in their teams?
Rugby is no war that will eventually end. It is a series of battles and the generals aim to win as many battles as possible. The game rewards them for using conservative tactics. Wars are usually won by the nations with the best resources and best technology. The problem with using that analogy in Rugby is that the laws of what you can go are fixed. You aren’t allowed to add 5 extra players to boost your scrum or sit waiting in the oppositions backline wearing their jersey as a surprise ambush. You have the same troop numbers as the opposition and quite often your troops are not armed as well as the opposition. In those situations the best tactics in war and rugby are too be conservative and force the opposition into making mistakes by being to confident. Doing nothing doesn’t solve the issue in pro rugby where people are paying to watch you battle.
Spectators having to watch you sit on your hands, waiting for an opposition slip up, is not acceptable.
stillmissit said | December 8th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Matt – I think you could have something about Loffreda but he also seemed to embed in them the idea of winning as well as having some tactic. I was also thinking of world beaters rather than skirmish winners.
If I take your arguement on face value then there is nothing that can be done in the current structure and we may as well do nothing.
The complexity of the game demands that a top coach find a way around this Chinese puzzle of conservatism and defence. The same as McQueen looked at what all the nations were doing and devised a different tack 10 or 12 years ago means we are overdue for another coach to reinvent either running rugby or a way to breach the defences.
The premise of this thread will never happen until Europe, NZ and SA agree to take over a defunct league and adapt their game to encompass league supporters, pretty remote idea really. The possibility that League takes over rugby union in Australia has more legs but is still pretty remote.
steve said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
the first string ABs actually have to win a game against the boks this year