Would we accept losses if the Wallabies were running the ball?

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.

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.

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.

"…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.

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??

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.

...and it isn't a game style that will win you a world cup.

"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?

Me too! I hope we win a few cos like Vented relief I'm just hanging out for a good season at the reds! I'll take a few dreary wins. But McKenzie is such a prop in every way. I'm worried.

Yup. The 'tahs were dire.

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.

If its any consolation, I definitely preferred watching the Reds to the Tahs, even if the Reds lost more often than not. They were one of the most enjoyable teams to watch and made the competition lively. I dread what Ewen McKenzie will do to them.

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.

VR - I said last year the Reds would make the finals and some of the old roarers laughed, with good reason as it turned out. I think I was a year out, McKenzie has fallen on his feet as I think the Reds are the fast improver's. The only issue is McK can get you to the finals but he cant win one as he always takes the conservative route. Bring in Alfie Langer as coach for the finals. Not for coaching, just to focus on what it takes to win and keep McKenzie out of it.

It's a good point you raise, and an interesting one for a part time rugby fan as I am. It's very hard to compare to AFL, because we're all aware just how unstructured it is (which means coaches have carte blanche to experiment in any way they want - and often do with mixed results - but as soon as someone latches onto a good idea - absolutely everyone is onto it like sheep, or at least working out something new to counter it) - there's this constant battle of trying out new things, of countering it, and for the learned fan that in itself can be quite absorbing. Rugby is very structured. No problem there - that's the game - but I sometimes wonder whether innovations are still possibile within this structure, or whether coaches are being lazy in not trying something new. There remains a bewildering array of methods of moving the ball from one end of the field to the other - but for a team to be comfortable with even half of these methods takes an enormous amount of training effort from coaches and players alike - one missing detail, and the risks are huge - 7 pointers don't come easily, so you don't want to give them away easily. Anyway, as an uneducated observer, I am often struck by how strictly teams stick to given structures - when in fact - there are many scenarios where the structures do not necessarily apply - where there's a bit more room to do things differently - I'm dissappointed sometimes that these opportunities aren't explored further to do something innovative.

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.

As a Reds supporter, I would give my left arm to see the team win as many games as the Waratahs have recently. You're right though, in that the style we played with this year did help, but only in allowing us some pride.... it did not make the losses any easier to swallow.

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.

All sports evolve based on the players and coaches in the game. And the differences of each, give sports their entertainment value. For some reason, bar NZ and France, international Rugby teams have all adopted similar playing styles over the last few years effectively nullifying each other and bringing the game to its knees. Just look at the diversity of playing strategies of AFL teams, and recall the dimension Parramatta brought for the NRL. I feel like we're playing in response to the rules more than anything else.

Footy fans from many backgrounds will often claim that they would be happier with a loss, or string of losses, if their teams was doing this or that, or having a dip, or whatever. But personally, I don't really believe it, or at least it only helps to a marginal extent (fans not going off the deep end after a string of losses). In some respects, a string of very close losses can be every bit as devastating as a string of shellackings.