The object of any game is to win. Scores may or may not be remembered in a win, but the fact that a win was chalked up is – even if it’s the tough, boring and broken play of the ‘ugly win’.
An ugly win tends to come about when neither teams can seem to break the other’s line and score. Each team is trying to play to their game plan but they cannot seem to get any flow going and revert to kicking for territory or taking the points on offer when a penalty is blown.
The Sharks’ win over The Cheetahs is the most recent game where boredom started to take over. There were the odd line breaks, but generally the plays were predictable, boring and lacked the electricity of running rugby. The weather conditions were perfect for rugby and the chances were available, but scrappy ball and nervous youngsters disrupted the flow.
The Sharks eventually came away with the win, thanks to a sole try and the boot of Morne Steyn. At the end of the game, the cameras focused on John Smit, former player now CEO, and he looked disappointed.
But why the disappointment? It’s a win. The team didn’t perform well on the field and frustration was setting in towards the end of the game. Spectators and supporters want to witness magic on the field but what they are sometimes given is a horses’ rear end treatment. A spectator cannot really cheer for a game that has a stop-start dynamic. Sure, a few beers can liven the time and dull the boredom but people start to turn away and get on with something else.
As a spectator, this type of match is boring, but as a player, the focus has to remain through the scrappy play. The game may not be going as planned, but if a team can buckle down and secure a win, there isn’t much more that you can ask for, especially when leading a fairly tough competition and doing it with new players and regular starters out for the season.
Wins are especially important in a competition as tough as Super Rugby, so even if it takes water drawn from a rock to secure a win, a hard fought win builds character. If a team plays badly and still gets a win, then there is something to take from that.
jason8
Guest
The reason why ugly wins are unpopular is that a good team, playing correctly and to their abilities will seldom have to win ugly. Winning ugly shows that although you may have heart, you may not have other necessary components to your game.... hence i am a worried supporter of the Sharks this week as their wins have become progressively uglier over the last few weeks.
Midfielder
Guest
Warren Question without notice .... Assume the following .... I am a casual fan and am brought along by a mate or for some corporate thing ... assume also I am a sports person ... further assume I have kids and follow another code... So if I watch a ugly win do I come away with I must go another game or watch this team on TV ... or do I go away with what a poor game I will never watch that and tell mates about how bad it was ???? To the rusted on hard core the win is all that counts ... but in the broader scheme of things does win ugly grow a code...
wre01
Roar Guru
Absolute nonsense. For 15 guys running around during a pub league game on Sunday it might only be about winning because nobody pays to watch them, nobody pays to sponsor them and nobody is trying to convince their kids to follow in their foot steps. If you play unattractive rugby there is a massive flow on effect, especially in Australia where there is a crowded sporting market. If you need proof look no further than the Waratahs who have been in steady decline over the past 10 years and even had to hold a 'fan forum' to explain why their rugby was so boring! Folau has come along and changed all of that as part of a game plan where ball in hand is king. It isn't just rugby either- look at West Ham in the premier league. Will finish mid-table but are struggling to attract new membership, can't attract high profile players and most fans want to sack their coach.
In Brief
Guest
You cannot force a player up period. What you are describing is a penalty offence: 20.8 (h) Lifting or forcing an opponent up. A front row player must not lift an opponent in the air, or force an opponent upwards out of the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards. This is dangerous play. Penalty: Penalty Kick If you are saying the lifting was unintentional, than neither team gets a penalty, it is simply a re-set: 20.3 (i) Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air, or is forced upwards out of the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.
Colin Kennedy
Roar Guru
Agree, perhaps -- and I have resisted the idea - but perhaps just the top 3 or 4 teams in each domestic competition contest a Super rugby competition - cream of an Australian competition, the Currie Cup and ITM Cup.
Normally I would whole heartedly agree with you. I suppose people see bring or ugly in different ways, after all they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But when you look at what some may deem ugly or boring (kicking) it depends very much on the purpose and intent of kicking. In other words, looking at the Sharks and Cheetahs, neither team showed any intent to achieve anything with their kicking, it was purely going from one end of the field to another, into the hands of a waiting player, who would then return it with the same mindless attempt. Every aspect of rugby union to me is beautiful, as long as there is an end goal in mind.
Agree mate, we need less teams, a shorter format and high end games.
Chan Wee
Guest
@ biltongbek , Colin Kennedy : and i will tell u for the countless time - super shud go back to 10/ 12 teams. as colin says it looks like some teams are going thru the motions. too many matches with the same opposition IMO does not get some of these teams off the block. (not general to SA - even Blues were pathetic in their home match) if super wants a big table make it 2-tier and have a relegation promotion system. say 18 teams (6 from each country. 2 tables of 9 playing on home n away basis. so everything ill be equal bar the conditions on matchday "force major"). best example was seen this weekend footy in England. Table topper Liverpool vs table propper Norwich. untill the 90+ minute Norwich fought for a draw and Liverpool hung on to win 3-2 . the match mattered to both. Liverpool lose it or draw and the next teams below may win the cup with 3 games to go. Norwich lose and they are like to be relegated to championship. (too bad) without such pressure in super, also rans will never work hard for betterment. at half way stage, i'm sure despite the retoric, few teams know they have no chance to be in top 6.
Colin Kennedy
Roar Guru
Agree BB, I thought neither the Sharks or the Cheetahs really wanted to be there. Must have been in Easter weekend mode.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Why not exciting and winning?
jeznez
Roar Guru
Warren - just a tip the Editors gave me when I started submitting stories. The first time a team or person is mentioned in the article they want the full name. If you submit just a nickname or surname then the Eds will try to correct and it does open itself to error as the Frans/Morne examples show (as has all the mentions of James Kingston in other artcles of late). If you follow that rule and populate it yourself you'll cut down the risk of error. Subsequent mentions can be abrreviated so first up Frans Steyn and subsequently just Steyn - or first up Springboks and later on juts Bokke is fine.
Clark
Guest
Agree completely. I would rather play boring and win than play excitingly and lose.
Hi mate, the difference for me between the Sharks match vs the match you are talking about was that even though there was a lot of kicking in both matches, the NZ match showed there was intent with each kick and the defences was near impossible to breach. The SA match showed a lot of kicking with no real intent to achieve anything other than to make the other team play and waiting for errors. Plus our attacks were mindless and uninspiring. Hence the NZ game for me was a true contest of pure rugby, whereas the Sharks game was worryingly unimaginative rugby.
Chan Wee
Guest
@ biltongbek : the period when Chiefs hammered "Saders one meter from the line for 25 phases was one of the best defensive efoorts seen this season. not cenceeing a penalty or try under so much pressure was a fantastic effort. must congratulate the ref too. except for missing the hit on Read , he managed the game well and gave both teams ample time to play. and certainly , despite playing for MIB together, there is no love lost among those big boys in both teams :)
Chan Wee
Guest
Heinrich Brüssow is stated at 5' 11".and 102kg. there are and have been several flankers of simillar size , especially in OZ like George Smith, David Pocock, Michael Hooper. Also England had Neil back and I believe legendary MIBs like Michael Jones and Josh Kronfeld were not really big men. Marty Holah certainly was small compared to Mccaw. SA seem to prefer big men in the pack all over. Present flank Flow is stated at 6'2" and 112kg.
Warren Adamson
Roar Pro
Well put Hoy. You have a point that I failed to see. Playing ugly would be a more appropriate approach to the game that I watched.
Hoy
Roar Guru
There is a difference between winning ugly and playing ugly. Winning ugly can be in an arm wrestle game that is still a good game, and you fall over the line. Playing ugly and winning is a different beast, and much, much worse. I could watch rugby all day every day. I love it. But if I watch a terrible game... it is a terrible game, win, lose or draw. Winning won't make up for the dross of continued terrible decisions, pointless kicking, and poor handling.
Common Sense
Guest
I dunno, that lions wing - number 14 I think - looked like an exciting prospect. He looked agile, good hands and he looked pretty damn fast too. I hope to see more of him over the coming weeks.
Who Needs Melon
Roar Guru
I felt like I'd fallen through a wormhole reading the headline. Waratahs scrape a win and we immediately see something saying winning ugly is just fine. But I see the article is more about the Sharks than the Tahs so... phew. As I think someone above pointed out - and as was pointed out ad nauseum when the term was appplied to the Waratahs in years gone by - winning ugly is fine... as long as you are winning. Too often this term is applied retrospectively to explain away a poor performance.
Die hard
Roar Rookie
I agree about rewarding a strong scrum However I dislike seeing a scrum that has stalled being held and held until someone breaks early. If you gain a few yards the opposing backline is vulnerable to your ball rather than their posts are vulnerable to your goal kicker. I would also like to see the opposing half behind his front row. The feeding team should be properly rewarded for the error and allowed to play the ball when it becomes free. If the other scrum is good enough they can disrupt by shoving hard and sending them backwards and spoiling.