I was watching many of the old RWC games that were replayed on Fox Sports in the weeks leading up to the 2011RWC. I must say while I found them entertaining. I can’t really judge which era has better players. One thing that did stand out though was the quality of the scrums.

Just watch the old games a few times and you will notice the distinct lack of scrum collapses and resets compared to the modern game. I think much of this is due to the players being forced to wear jerseys that belong in the Tour de France, and subsequently not being able to achieve a solid bind. But that can’t be the only problem. There appeared to be more of a contest as well. When was the last time you saw a push over try in the modern era? It still happens occasionally, but not very often.

The problem with the jerseys can be easily overcome. Referee are already use thei own discretion when checking studs. have them check jerseys as well.

Just add a single line in the IRB rulebook:
“Player jerseys shall be loose fitting and of durable construction, particularly around the shoulders. Jersey’s must not be skin tight.”
Not only would it go a long way to fixing the scrum, but ex-rugby players with expanding waistlines like myself would be able to buy jerseys again.

Prior to the last World Cup, Fox Sports showed several weeks of previous RWC matches 24 hours a day. One thing that stood out watching the 91, 95 and 99 RWC games was how the scrums were still heavily contested, yet they didn’t collapse. I mentioned this to several forwards and members of the coaching staff at an Australian Super Rugby team during a recent function. Many agreed that a major problem is the jerseys not allowing a proper bind. I remember at my old club rugby team the forwards jerseys were even double-layered and cross-stiched on the shoulders like judo shirts, because of the strain they would be put under during the game.

I hate the modern jersey. It would be a simple matter for the IRB to simply enforce a rule stating, “The jersey shall not be skin tight, and must be loose fitting, and made of a durable material” to solve not only the scrums but the fact that teams can’t sell their glorified cycling outfits to their supporters, most of whom don’t want spray-on clothes.

Bring back the traditional jerseys!

The only option in the current conference system is to add another three teams. It would solve all of SA’s problems, but Australia simply does not have the depth for another team. NZ has the depth but where would another franchise be based? I don’t know of anywhere that springs to mind.

There is always the possibility of adding an Argentinian, Japanese, US, or Pacific Islands team, possibly based in NZ or Aus.

My memory of 10 years ago might be fuzzy (and under the influence of Brains SA) but I do remember being very dissappointed at the crowd size as were many of the Welsh I spoke to after the game (they were also sufferieng from Brains SA disorder).

My apologies to David as this post is off topic, although I thoroughly enjoyed the article. Unfortunately there isn’t an open thread to post this and it isn’t large enough to submit as an article on it’s own. However on the topic of Cardiff, the only Aust v Wales game I went to in Cardiff was 2001 and the Wallabies were unbackable favourites, so Millenium Stadium was mostly empty. I’m looking forward to this game, as an Australian win is far from certain. Australia just doesn’t yet have the consistency needed to threaten for the world cup. On a good day – yes we can beat any team, but it’s also true that on an off day we can be beaten by Scotland, or Italy

(I was originally just going to post this in AFL comments but I’m dropping it in Rugby comments as well to see what my fellow rugby followers think)

First off I’ll point out that I’m a rugby fanatic. But I don’t want to start a code war in comments so I’ll acknowledge the popularity of rugby in Australia has nothing on the popularity of AFL, and on the rare occasions I have played Aussie Rules I’ve thoroughly enjoyed myself…….Now I’ll get to my actual comment.

I’m a strong supporter of the AFL/GAA international rules concept. I enjoy watching the games, and like the idea of Australian and Irish players getting the chance to represent their countries. I think the compromise rules are very well balanced between the two codes judging by how close the scores have been over the years they have been playing. But I think it could be improved with a fairly radical suggestion. But first two facts:

1. The largest crowd ever for an international rules game in Australia was for the 2003 game at the MCG. The simple reason was that the Australia v Ireland rugby game (world cup pool match) was on the following night at the same venue.

2. The largest crowd for an Australia v Ireland rugby game in Australia in the last 15 years was the 2003 game in Melbourne. The main reason was the fact that it was a Rugby World Cup match but it can’t be denied that another reason was that Australia played Ireland in the international rules match the night before…..I think you can guess where I’m going with this.

In addition the Melbourne cup was on that week as well and several Irish horses took part.

In addition to the thousands of Irish expats/backpackers that flocked to Melbourne that week from all over Aust and NZ, thousands flew out from Ireland. Melbourne was painted green for a week as pubs were drenched in Green and Guinness.

So here’s my suggestion: The ARU, IRFU, GAA and AFL call a truce, get together and work out a playing schedule that sees the international rules series played every second year with a corresponding rugby match in the same city (Melbourne cup week would be good for when Australia hosts). Every two years works for AFL as most commentators agree that playing it every year leads to a loss of interest. Every two years works for the ARU as they can alternate between RWC years and Lions tour years. The only hurdle would be bringing the Irish rugby team down for a one-off match at the start of the Autumn series, but it’s only once every four years and money talks.

The Victorian Government, Tourism Ireland and Tourism Australia could market it as a week long festival. What the hell, bring Soccer Australia in on it as well if you want.

I realise that the biggest benefit would be gained by the ARU but nevertheless, both codes would benefit, and neither code’s supporters like to see their national teams play in half-empty stadiums.

Sorry this comment also appears in the “Aussies Win Series” article but I put it in before I read this article and I really suits this one better. (I’m dropping it in Rugby comments as well to see what my fellow rugby followers think)

First off I’ll point out that I’m a rugby fanatic. But I don’t want to start a code war in comments so I’ll acknowledge the popularity of rugby in Australia has nothing on the popularity of AFL, and on the rare occasions I have played Aussie Rules I’ve thoroughly enjoyed myself…….Now I’ll get to my actual comment.

I’m a strong supporter of the AFL/GAA international rules concept. I enjoy watching the games, and like the idea of Australian and Irish players getting the chance to represent their countries. I think the compromise rules are very well balanced between the two codes judging by how close the scores have been over the years they have been playing. But I think it could be improved with a fairly radical suggestion. But first two facts:

1. The largest crowd ever for an international rules game in Australia was for the 2003 game at the MCG. The simple reason was that the Australia v Ireland rugby game (world cup pool match) was on the following night at the same venue.

2. The largest crowd for an Australia v Ireland rugby game in Australia in the last 15 years was the 2003 game in Melbourne. The main reason was the fact that it was a Rugby World Cup match but it can’t be denied that another reason was that Australia played Ireland in the international rules match the night before…..I think you can guess where I’m going with this.

In addition the Melbourne cup was on that week as well and several Irish horses took part.

In addition to the thousands of Irish expats/backpackers that flocked to Melbourne that week from all over Aust and NZ, thousands flew out from Ireland. Melbourne was painted green for a week as pubs were drenched in Green and Guinness.

So here’s my suggestion: The ARU, IRFU, GAA and AFL call a truce, get together and work out a playing schedule that sees the international rules series played every second year with a corresponding rugby match in the same city (Melbourne cup week would be good for when Australia hosts). Every two years works for AFL as most commentators agree that playing it every year leads to a loss of interest. Every two years works for the ARU as they can alternate between RWC years and Lions tour years. The only hurdle would be bringing the Irish rugby team down for a one-off match at the start of the Autumn series, but it’s only once every four years and money talks.

The Victorian Government, Tourism Ireland and Tourism Australia could market it as a week long festival. What the hell, bring Soccer Australia in on it as well if you want.

I realise that the biggest benefit would be gained by the ARU but nevertheless, both codes would benefit, and neither code’s supporters like to see their national teams play in half-empty stadiums.

(I was originally just going to post this in AFL comments but I’m dropping it in Rugby comments as well to see what my fellow rugby followers think)

First off I’ll point out that I’m a rugby fanatic. But I don’t want to start a code war in comments so I’ll acknowledge the popularity of rugby in Australia has nothing on the popularity of AFL, and on the rare occasions I have played Aussie Rules I’ve thoroughly enjoyed myself…….Now I’ll get to my actual comment.

I’m a strong supporter of the AFL/GAA international rules concept. I enjoy watching the games, and like the idea of Australian and Irish players getting the chance to represent their countries. I think the compromise rules are very well balanced between the two codes judging by how close the scores have been over the years they have been playing. But I think it could be improved with a fairly radical suggestion. But first two facts:

1. The largest crowd ever for an international rules game in Australia was for the 2003 game at the MCG. The simple reason was that the Australia v Ireland rugby game (world cup pool match) was on the following night at the same venue.

2. The largest crowd for an Australia v Ireland rugby game in Australia in the last 15 years was the 2003 game in Melbourne. The main reason was the fact that it was a Rugby World Cup match but it can’t be denied that another reason was that Australia played Ireland in the international rules match the night before…..I think you can guess where I’m going with this.

In addition the Melbourne cup was on that week as well and several Irish horses took part.

In addition to the thousands of Irish expats/backpackers that flocked to Melbourne that week from all over Aust and NZ, thousands flew out from Ireland. Melbourne was painted green for a week as pubs were drenched in Green and Guinness.

So here’s my suggestion: The ARU, IRFU, GAA and AFL call a truce, get together and work out a playing schedule that sees the international rules series played every second year with a corresponding rugby match in the same city (Melbourne cup week would be good for when Australia hosts). Every two years works for AFL as most commentators agree that playing it every year leads to a loss of interest. Every two years works for the ARU as they can alternate between RWC years and Lions tour years. The only hurdle would be bringing the Irish rugby team down for a one-off match at the start of the Autumn series, but it’s only once every four years and money talks.

The Victorian Government, Tourism Ireland and Tourism Australia could market it as a week long festival. What the hell, bring Soccer Australia in on it as well if you want.

I realise that the biggest benefit would be gained by the ARU but nevertheless, both codes would benefit, and neither code’s supporters like to see their national teams play in half-empty stadiums.

Unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of having many world-class rugby grounds. Suncorp is currently our only one. Etihad/Docklands, the MCG, ANZ/Stadium Australia, are all cricket grounds, making them excellent AFL grounds but awful League/Union/Soccer grounds.

I find it hard to criticise Deans too strongly for losing to the All Blacks. Last year if you were to honestly go through both teams position by position and chose the better player, the AB’s had the better player in every position. Even an in-form Gits was trumped by Dan Carter, and Gearge Smith was trumped by McCaw.

This year you’d get virtually the same result with Genia possibly being the only exception. You just can’t expect to win from that position no matter who the coach is.

I think it was Bob Dwyer who said that in order to win the world cup a team needed at least 6 players who would be certainties of being selected in a world XV. Right now the wallabies aren’t even close.

I’m not looking forward to the Brumbies match at Homebush. That stadium looks virtually empty when there is less than 30,000. An empty stadium is a terrible advertisement for the game.

With respect I disagree. The codes aren’t completely different. However being a champion in one code doesn’t guarantee success in the other.

I have no problem whatsoever with players switching codes. I just wish it could be done without the media circus, the player managers playing the codes against each other for a bigger pay-packet and the song and dance coupled with the wailing of laments from the CEO’s of the respective codes along with every sports commentator.

The sooner we get to the stage that a player changing from the Storm to the Brumbies gets the same attention as a player switching from the Roosters to the Dragons – the better.

From what I’ve seen, the new interpretation is working, but it’s too early to tell. Give the teams time to adjust, and the referees time to get some consistency and we’ll have a clearer picture.

The one thing I would point out is how the contest at the breakdown isn’t disappearing, it’s just changing back to what it used to be – rucking. With no tacklers hanging onto the ball for dear life, effectively stopping either sides forwards from driving over the ball, most of the turnovers at the breakdowns in the last couple of weeks have come from defending forwards arriving at the breakdown in numbers, forming an old fashioned ruck (which looks more like a mini scrum, and less like a pile of bodies) and then driving over the ball.

Give the new interpretation a chance. They may just work themselves out

I agree to a point. The scrumhalf is the second or third most important player in the squad. The Wallabies just highlighted the importance of a good scrumhalf when Australia suffered from a lack of replacements for Gregan. And for the criticism levelled at Gregan when he was still in a Wallabies jersey in those last years when his game seemed to be slipping (which happens to every player), after George departed we didn’t have a tri-nations standard scrumhalf for a long time – and it really showed. If Chris Whittaker’s career had of started four years ago, he’d be a four year Wallaby veteran as first choice. Now we have at least two choices for world class scrumhalf in Australia.

I still think the most important player on the field is the flyhalf. Don’t we all miss Larkham at the top of his game?

Or as John Mitchell said when he was being asked about how he was going to put together a super rugby team from scratch.
To the question what position will be your top priority – Loose-head prop
To the question what position will be your next priority – Reserve loose-head prop

Yes I agree but remember us Brumbies supporters have the advantage of living in the only area in the entire country where Rugby is the top sport. And before I get shouted down by others, I’m talking about amount of core supporters, not player numbers which, like everywhere else, is dominated by soccer, at least in the under 16’s (due to parents not wanting their precious darlings getting hurt by playing what they actually want to play). And even soccer runs a long second to the most popular sport in Australia by player numbers – which is netball apparently.

We here in the ACT only have to go to the shops to see others wearing Brumbies jerseys and caps, or switch on the local news hear what the Brumbies are doing as the lead sporting item, or pick up the local paper to see the Brumbies latest training run dominating the back page. The other Australian franchises are minority sports in their locations and really need to look after their supporters.

In my experience the Brumbies really do try to look after their supporters, and also go out of their way to support the local ACT clubs. Add to that the fact that you can’t go out on most nights without running into Brumbies players means that if they don’t behave themselves, their support could vanish very quickly.

I’m a Brumbies supporter, and have been since they began. However it may surprise many of my fellow Brumbies supporters (I’m been a Foundation member for years) to know I also support the Waratahs. I used to travel to Sydney regularly for home games when the Brumbies weren’t playing.

I’m assuming Lefty, that it’s not just the lack of success on the field that’s driving you away. I agree that moving the Tah’s most important game to Homebush is a stupid idea (as I hate watching rugby or any other sport at that ground), but can you give non-Waratahs members like myself some examples of how the Waratahs management has betrayed their fans? Was it the “win ugly” ideology, or something else?

PS: After the Brumbies I tend to support The Waratahs, Reds, Force, Wellington (Specifically Taranaki), Otago, and the Stormers (and Boland Cavaliers) in that order.

I didn’t even think about Rupeni, but now that I have, I’d put him above Jason Robinson and Williams.

As much as I’d like to see Australia involved with the NZ provincial comp I can’t see it happening. Unfortunately here in Australia we don’t have an ARC. When it was tried it didn’t work, and looking at our national club rugby comps (in other words Sydney) we wouldn’t be competitive considering the standard of play in the NZ provincial or Currie Cups. Could anyone honestly see The Blue Bulls playing in front of 15,000 people one week in Pretoria then travelling to Eastwood, Sydney in front of 100-200 the next week with the 3rd and 4th grades cooking sausages and steak sandwiches in front of the grandstand?

(Believe it or not, as much as I love seeing the all-blacks beaten, I actually am a bit of a fan of the NPC. I just wish we had something similar in Oz)

Go Taranaki

Blanco was the best fullback I’ve ever seen, So no argument there.

Note: I’m a Brumbies Supporter

I have to disagree with the move to Homebush, I know it seats more people but my two main problems with the move are the problems getting to the game and the stadium itself.

I can’t speak for those who drive up to Sydney for the game and drive straight back the same night, so I don’t know about parking issues etc. However for people like myself who travel to Sydney and stay at a hotel or pub, Homebush is a difficult ground to get to. Even staying at a pub in the Cross, the SFS is walking distance, plus your back ‘home’ 15 minutes after the final whistle.

As for the Stadium, Homebush is the worst rugby stadium in the world, and I’ve been to some shockers. It is an Olympic stadium, designed for oval sports and track and field, not for rugby and soccer. For rectangle-field sports there isn’t a good seat in the house. The Millennium stadium in Cardiff seats almost as many (more if not for one end being chopped short so as not to hang over the Cardiff rugby ground next door) and doesn’t have a bad seat.

However I think the crowning blight in this matter is the treatment of regular season ticket holders. To move to another ground and not give season ticket holders (most of whom purchased tickets in good faith believing the home derby would be included) a ticket to the game is unforgivable. In my experience supporting the Brumbies, in some seasons I’ve found additional events and functions included free of charge that weren’t even mentioned when buying my season ticket. Games that weren’t included (such as finals) were clearly marked as not included before you paid for your membership.

Lefty,

Your first selection of “two words” being “Dunning” and “field goal” brought back some painful memories best forgotten. I’m a passionate Brumbies supporter, but even I was tearing my hair out and shouting expletives watching that one. In that case my choice of two words would have been “Brain” and “Fart”.

People will always show bias toward who the are used to watching. Was Welsh great Barry ‘The King’ John the best flyhalf ever? Quite possibly, but I’ve never watched a full game in which he played. My bias would pick Larkham or Carter, as I’ve seen them play and can form a judgement about them.

How may Super Rugby games do I watch a year? – Almost all of them. How many European club rugby games have I seen in my life? – About 10.

And Rod MacQueen would be coach, not doubt whatsoever.

It’s always difficult to name a team of any particular decade. Is the selection criteria any player who played during the period and if so is it merely based on players at the top of their game? One obvious case is Jona Lomu.

Lomu was still playing in 2000. Many remember his injury-time try in Sydney in 2000 to win the “Greatest Game ever played”. But was he at the top of his game? I think not. He played the majority of his tests in the 90’s and his peak form was also in the 90’s. Is selection for a team of the decade based on form THIS decade.

Another of Mr Zavos’ points is very valid. There will always be a bias towards players you are used to watching. Most Australian rugby supporters just aren’t able to watch enough regular European club rugby to form an educated opinion on which European players would be in the top XV, and vice versa. I remember speaking with Lions supporters during the 2001 tour who were (quite justifiably) talking up their own team pointing out the best European players. Some were surprised at the fact I didn’t know who they were talking about. They were even more surprised to find out that for most Australians at that time, watching their own Super 12 teams wasn’t even an option without pay TV let alone seeing the Heineken Cup.

Maybe a worthwhile feature on this site might be a lengthy debate on the SANZAR team of the year held annually at the end of the Super Rugby season.

Anyway – My XV (based on their peak career form):
1. O Du Randt
2. J Paul
3. P Noriega
4. M Johnson
5. V Matfield
6. R McCaw (I know he’s a 7 but were selecting a team here not just best in position)
7. G Smith
8. B Skinstad
9. A Pichot (only just above Gregan)
10. S Larkham
11. J Lomu
12. T Umaga
13. B O’Driscoll
14. B Cohen (We are talking about peak career form here)
15. M Burke

Jason Robinson, S Williams and others deserve to be in the top 15 but this is my selection for best team not best players.

I watched the Lions series and yes – they were great test matches, but they are the exception, not the rule. They were helped by the fact that South Africa are the best team in the world right now playing a team cromprising the best in Europe. I also watched the 6 nations – I almost fell asleep. Anyone would think the white dust marking the goal line was anthrax the way teams avoided having to go near it.

It isn’t disloyal to the game of rugby to call for change. Just as it wasn’t disloyal for the southern hemisphere to call for change 50 years ago when you could kick out on the full from anywhere on the field. That rule was changed with the addition of the 22 line. Tries used to be worth no points and awarded only an opportunity to “try” to get a point from the conversion, that’s why it’s called a try. But we changed that rule too.

It wasn’t disloyal in 1863 when Blackheath Football club led a group of clubs that withdrew from the Football Association when the FA wanted to ban running with ball in hand (nothing changes in the north). That led them to form the RFU with 20 other clubs, leaving the rest of the FA to develop an awful mutation of rugby called soccer.

Right now the game of rugby as it stands rewards the team not in possession of the football. And before someone drags out the usual rant that we’re only complaining because we’re losing, we’ve been complaining the whole time we were winning as well. It’s just that when we are losing we have more steam to vent.

I remember going to an Australia v France game in 1984 at a time when Australia had a specialist goal kicker in Michael Lynagh. France had a “specialist try-scorer” in Serge Blanco. I recall most of the supporters leaving the ground feeling like we’d lost. The French had, after all, scored 3 tries to our 1. They had the moral victory.

I don’t know why NH rugby supporters see attacking rugby with ball in hand, aimed at scoring tries to be an ugly blight on the game.

I don’t know why they consider the true purpose of the game to be an endless kicking duel between wingers and fullbacks in between the thrilling spectacle of a penalty shootout which decides the match. Maybe that’s why soccer is so popular.

I think the Quins biggest crime was getting caught. The evidence is clear that this sort of act isn’t confined to the Harlequins, or even to England. There might be many ways of addressing the problem to try and eliminate it, but it still won’t eliminate the motive. The only way to do that is to remove the incentive by allowing unlimited substitutions. In other words the reserve bench becomes an interchange bench.

But that creates another problem. Teams could have specialists on the bench and it will eventually turn into gridiron. Maybe we could make the amount of substitutions unlimited but prohibit substituted players from gaining points from kicks.

Oh no – I think I’ve just suggested yet another rule. The official rules of the game are soon going to be larger and more complex than EU trade regulations.