Aren’t you blokes posting in the wrong thread?

While we have your attention, Jim, could you please deal with the utmost severity with whoever was responsible for the removal of historical information from your website? If you go to:

http://www.nswrugby.com.au/TooheysNewShuteShieldSydneyGrade/PastCompetitions/PastCompetitions.aspx

under the heading “Past Competitions” appears the message:

“Some of the past competitions to have been played under the auspices of NSWRU have been the Tooheys New Cup, Trevor Allan Cup and John Thornett Cup.

“Shortly, we will provide a list of winners of past competitions and further information.”

I don’t know how long “shortly” is in Driver Avenue but that message has been there for a seriously long time. It gets worse. If you Google “Shute Shield history” for example, one of the first entries is titled,”Tooheys New Shute Shield :: NSW Rugby – The Home of the HSBC Waratahs.” Here there is a link to a cached version of the page which very probably contained links to historical information. But if you click on the link you get the message:

“The requested URL /TooheysNewShuteShieldSydneyGrade/MainPage/TooheysNewShuteShieldSydneyGrade.aspx was not found on this server.”

It appears that Mr Shortly has not only not got around to updating the historical records but he has also removed those that previously existed.

NSWRU should be very proud of its rich history rather than electronically binning it.

Over to you, Jim.

“That’s completely unacceptable,” Joubert said to Horwill and Byrnes.

“If I see it it’s a red-card.”

Wish we had more referees like Craig, prepared to take a weally tough line on finger amputations. No cautions; no yellow cards. Banished from the match!!

And it worked. As far as we know Byrnes, though probably sorely tempted, didn’t bite another finger for the rest of the match.

Wouldn’t it be great, Ads, if we could go back in and edit our posts?

As you say PastHis, “if the scrum wheels to the blind Waugh will find himself miles from the next breakdown.” And if Phil is just leaning on the scrum with his head out of it looking to break, there is very little that will stop the scrum wheeling.

Thanks for the clarification, Brett.

“‘Sometimes you actually get away from eight because you are not pushing, whereas when you are on the side of the scrum your first job is to push,’ Hickey said.”

Please tell me the coach of the team I support didn’t say that. Or at least that his scrum coach Michael Foley doesn’t subscribe to such nonsense.

At eight “you are not pushing”?? No wonder Australian scrums have been such a laughing stock if the 8 is told not to bother pushing. The ‘Tahs finally get a dominant scrum and the coach wants to depower it.

Who is supposed to maintain the shape of the scrum and control the wheeling tendency if the bloke at the back is just leaning on the scrum, Jone Tawake style?

“On the side of the scrum your first job is to push.” Does anyone at the ‘Tahs know the first thing about biomechanics and the application of force? On the side you are pushing with one shoulder from a body position where you cannot possibly deliver effective force straight ahead. Compare that to the 8 where both shoulders are engaged and the natural force direction is through the centre line of the scrum. Think barbell squat.

What Hickey seems to be trying to say is that ‘Sometimes you actually get away from eight [quicker than] on the side of the scrum”. But even if this were true, the only way that Waugh could get to the ball carrier quicker from 8 than from 7 is if he is defending behind the advantage line.

“sometimes a ball carrier will quite often run backwards before running sideways, or passing it along. ”

The net result of which in a 15-man game would be that the team attempting to play this style would be forced back metres on each phase.

Interesting whenever the Waratahs are discussed how much attention is given to the perceived deficiencies of Tom Carter.

This time Spiro leads off by mentioning that “the coaching staff is into its second season and has a better understanding of what it takes to complete a successful Super 14 ‘journey.” And the sole example he gives of what they have learnt: “that playing a battering ram at inside centre like Tom Carter does not help the continuity game the Waratahs are aspiring to play.” At least Spiro has the virtue of consistency. He has made the same observation on a number of occasions.

Carter has now been shifted to 13 and so we have a new focus for his faults as spotted by Brett McKay:

“I know Carter is talking up his versatility, but the way he defended at 13 in the Brumbies-Tahs trial didn’t fill me with confidence.”

“I never really thought much of Carter at 12, he just didn’t have that creative element you want from a 12, in much the same way Mortlock, Cross, Ashley-Cooper and Tyronne Smith look lost at 12 too. 13 seems to be the right spot for Carter’s game, but I was really surprised how much trouble he had in defence, given that was one of his strong points at 12.”

Against the Brumbies Carter played 40 minutes with a player inside him who had played precisely how many Super 14 games at 12? He readily acknowledges that he was stood up by Franky Fainifo in what I understand was a counter attack situation. Fainifo is a very capable broken field runner.

So if we are to believe Spiro, Carter can’t play 12 because of his deficiencies in attack, while Brett has concluded that he can’t play 13 because of his weak defence.

But are we entitled to write Carter off already as an outside-centre defender on the basis of just 120 minutes of trials?

Let’s look at the percentage of missed tackles for every Australian back in the 2009 Super 14 who made at least 40 tackles during that competition:

Carter 6.7
Turner 12.0
O’Connor 14.5
Fairbanks 14.5
Tuqiri 15.0
Giteau 15.6
Burgess 15.7
Sheehan 16.4
[b]Cross 19.0[/b]
Vaalu 19.1
Lealifano 19.4
Hynes 19.5
Valentine 19.5
Phibbs 20.6
Lucas 21.2
Halangahu 23.1
Faingaa 25.0
Tatupu 25.0
[b]Ashley-Cooper 25.0[/b]
Ioane 25.6
Barnes 25.7
McLinden 27.3
Staniforth 27.7
Toomua 28.9
Horne 29.2
[b]Smith 29.8[/b]
Holmes 31.8
Mitchell 33.3
Beale 33.3
Tahu 37.5
[b]Mortlock 38.0[/b]
Cooper 42.0

In order to take the comparison a step further let’s also look at the number of tackles attempted per 80 minutes played for players who attempted at least 80 tackles during the season:

Carter 12.7
Lealifano 10.7
Giteau 10.0
Valentine 10.0
Burgess 9.7
Barnes 9.6
Cooper 8.8
[b]Smith 8.6[/b]
[b]Cross 7.9[/b]
[b]Ashley-Cooper 7.2[/b]
Tuqiri 6.5

So, on the basis of last season, Tom Carter was far and away the busiest of the Australian backs in defence and also made vastly fewer mistakes.

But, of course, it can be argued that he was playing at 12 in 2009. I have taken the trouble to highlight the defensive performances of each of the players that Brett mentioned as 13s who also “look lost at 12”. Each of the four are Wallabies. Looking at their defensive efficiency it can be seen that Tom Carter could be much less effective defending one position further out and still be a greatly superior defender to any of the four Wallabies.

It is interesting how different people perceive the same situation so differently. John allyne, a Brumbies supporter who also watched the trial, “thought Carters defence was outstanding, including three try saving tackles.” None of us leave our preconceptions behind when we watch a game.

I have to be honest, Damo, and admit that I see absolutely no reason why the various sporting bodies should concern themselves with athletes’ use of recreational drugs. After all, they are not performance enhancing and if anything may be performance diminishing. I am personally affronted by athletic performances being turbo-charged but couldn’t care less about how sports people or anyone else get their kicks.

Let the wallopers worry about enforcing the arbitrary distinction between legal and illegal mood changers. And by the way, if they were really concerned about catching out people who should be role models, a good place to start looking for nose candy aficianados would be the CBD.

Mister Football concedes that his comments are “a bit off topic”. “A bit”??? The only possible connection between news of a change to English rugby’s drug policy and a thread about the viability of the Melbourne Super 15 rugby franchise is the word “rugby”.

So why has he chosen to enlighten us in such spectacularly irrelevant fashion? His avatar gives it away. A photo of a stalky big bloke doing a can-can kick would be seen as tres gay north of the Murray but has always had great fascination for the southerners who are disturbingly impressed by their bean poles’ ability to elevate their kicking foot skywards.

Obviously Mister Football’s real purpose was to breathlessly inform us that “English rugby is about to adopt the AFL policy on the use of recreational drugs”. Wow!! How about that? Who would have thought that the antipodean game of kick-it-to-me would have become such a force in world sport that the crusty old farts of English rugby would pinch a key element of the colonial game, namely the issue of two “Get out of jail free” cards to every player with respect to recreational drugs?

Of course, it could be argued that anyone dumb enough to be sprung three times by the narks for wandering into nighclubs with wacky baccy in their pockets might be able to claim lack of mental capacity to plead. Still, the fact that no one has yet accumulated three strikes is clear evidence that the policy is working and that AFL players have been terrified into switching to chewing gum as a stimulant and relaxant.

Feel free to come back to the Rugby section of the site, Mr F, when you have more updates on the relentless march of your strange little offshoot of football to world domination.

“I wouldn’t say that the current All Blacks backline is a pointer to the future as the future has already arrived. ”

I would agree with you, Sam, if the article was intended to be just about player size. The title that I submitted for this article was “A glimpse of rugby’s future – physical imposition by big, fast backs”. For some reason Roar’s sub-editors don’t like the titles I choose and frequently change them, with the occasional result, as in this case, that the focus of what I have written is obscured.

The main point is not that the All Blacks backs were big but rather that they have taken the advantage available from superior size and power to its logical conclusion. For 80 minutes they physically imposed themselves on the French, looking for heavy engagements rather than aimlessly kicking possession away or throwing pointless cut-out passes. Eventually the French backs were worn out and ground down.

By contrast the Springboks have achieved short term success by using tactics which are not really suited to their big players. Putting up high kicks with long hang times could be exploited by great chasers like Habana and Pietersen but it tended to take their big powerful backs out of the game. Once opposing teams learnt how to cope with the bombing raids the ‘Boks no longer looked a super side.

“I also remember taking a shower with stripes of missing skin down my back and chest when I wasn’t able to get clear in time.”

The rake marks were always a matter of pride under the showers. I don’t think anyone ever gave the game away because they were worried about being rucked.

One of the most important aspects of using the slipper was that it encouraged people to stay on their feet. Flopping is completely out of control.

Unfortunately rucking with intent will remain just a fond memory.

Fair point, Jim.

“the reliance on pompous private school boys coming through the grades”. The current malaise in Australian rugby has much to do with the current tendency for school boys, whether “pompous private” or not, not “coming through the grades” where they would learn their craft over several years, but instead being immediately rushed into professional football with a very limited skill and knowledge set.

whodares, you include among your list of coaches who have taken a “team of also rans” and turned them into “world beating champions” “Bob Dwyer (at Randwick), Gus Hiddick (Australian soccer)”.

I don’t remember in which year Dwyer first coached Randwick (1978?) but given that the Club won five Premierships throughout the ‘Seventies I hardly think he started off with “also rans”.

I don’t follow soccer but am surprised to learn that under Guus Hiddink the Socceroos became “world beating champions”.

A great gutsy win against the odds to Scotland.

One very blatant tactic adopted by the Australian scrum was to prematurely wheel on Scotland’s feeds.

Law 20.1 (k) states:

Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines.

The Australian pack was systematically shifting left meaning they were neither stationary nor parallel before the ball was put into the scrum. That this was a deliberate tactic was made obvious by the fact that the Wallabies stayed square whenever the referee moved to the non-feed side of the scrum.

sam, if you believe that the total elimination of goals, penalty goals and field goals as well as allowing marks to be claimed anywhere on the field plus the virtual elimination of kicking out on the full within your own 22 are “(extremely) minor tweaks to the rules”, then you and I have very different perceptions.

Would you still regard them as “(extremely) minor” if they were introduced into the 15-a-side game? They are certainly much more drastic than what was encompassed in the ELV proposals.

I also have absolutely no doubt that narrowing the field by 40% would produce a very different dynamic than what currently applies under the Tens rules.

Pablo

As I understand it, most 10-a-side tournaments follow fairly closely the Laws used for Sevens games, while some others basically adhere to those applying to 15-a-side. Distinctive features of what I propose include:

1. Narrowing the field in the same proportion as the reduction in the number of players so that the structure and dynamics of play are similar to that of the full game.

2. Having tries as the only method of scoring.

3. Provisions to virtually ensure that 5-player contested scrums are maintained throughout the match.

4. Allowing marks to be claimed anywhere on the field of play.

5. Dispensing with the advantage gained from kicking out on the full from a team’s own 22.

6. Speeding up the game by requiring the ball to be thrown quickly into lineouts.

Because of the vast open spaces on the field Sevens rugby is only really suited to fast backs and loose forwards. The same applies to some extent to the Tens variation. The regulations I am proposing for 9-a-side probably bias the game towards the tight forwards. Because of this, as I pointed out, Nines and Sevens can be viewed as complementing each other in terms of the type of players and supporters they would appeal to.

In terms of style of play I anticipate that a Nines game would have much more in common with the full version of the game than a Tens game.

Tommy, as I understand it Dan was paid considerably less than quite a few of the backs on national contracts. He entered into negotiations on his own account, i.e., without an agent, with the ARU but was not satisfied with what was offered to him and therefore took up the option of studying at Cambridge. And he wouldn’t have been making unreasonable demands. The issue was really about respecting his importance to Australian rugby.

There is no doubt that serious negotiations over contract renewal did take place. On January 22, 2008, the Daily Telegraph commented, “Vickerman is undoubtedly in a position of power in negotiations with the ARU,” and mentioned that he was “being pursued by clubs in Europe and Japan offering as much as $500,000 a year.” Then in April Ewen Mckenzie was quoted as stating that “he was not involved in the machinations of what took place in Vickerman’s contract negotiations.”

I wouldn’t have thought that rating him as “one of the two best second rowers in the world” was a particularly controversial statement, OJ. The other one that I had in mind was obviously Victor Matfield. In 2008 who else would you have rated ahead of Vickerman?

The clearest example I can think of of the short-sightedness of Australian rugby officialdom was the disrespect shown to Dan Vickerman, and I know that Robbie Deans can’t be blamed for that. Just because he was a second rower rather than a twinkle-toes or a night-clubbing Leaguie expected to lure their supporters to rugby, he was taken for granted.

I can’t think of another rugby nation that wouldn’t have done whatever was necessary to keep him. Not only was he one of the two best second rowers in the world but you also got your lineout coach and real team leader thrown in for nothing.

A very comprehensive article, pothale, which was worth being up at 3.30 am to read.

That’s an extraordinary stat, Vented. An increase of about 40% in around 120 years! Some of that could be attributed to better nutrition; some more to changes in the gene pool from the migration of the post-WW2 years; and the remainder to modern training methods.

Looking at the height of soldiers from WW1, there would have also been very substantial gains in players’ heights, with better nutrition and the effects of migration perhaps the causal factors.

We are in total agreement, Robbo.

And the man who carried three Poms at least 10 metres to score the Wallabies’ second try was the 98 kg Adam Ashley-Cooper, demonstrating that the combination of size, strength and speed can provide an advantage.