One of the main things Union has going for it is how competitive teams can be who play very different styles and in some cases ability. For example, its almost impossible for an RL team can win a game with vastly inferior backs but a better pack, as for roughly 50% of the time the opposition will have the ball, often in attacking situations. In Union it's quite possible for a team with a better pack to almost starve the opposition backs of possession. That doesn't make the skills necessarily entertaining (certainly to RL fans), but the closeness of the game itself makes it a spectacle.
That's why it frustrates the heck out of me when RL - including its own fans - seem to want to push for mythical purity in rules and interpretations which will benefit the better team every time. Even more bizarrely, then allow said best team to enforce its rule interpretations on the weaker teams.
We seem to have lost sight at international level that in the end all that matters is the contest and the result. IMO Union rightly fights any attempts to push international rules towards Super 15 (or however many teams there are). It might be more "entertaining" but would make it very much harder for England or Wales to compete.
Having said that, some of the media stuff is annoying - note how often the "plucky losers" are cited in reference to the Union WC when a minnow gets hammered. The same thing in RL last year was simply evidence that there is no international competition etc.
One of the main things Union has going for it is how competitive teams can be who play very different styles and in some cases ability. For example, its almost impossible for an RL team can win a game with vastly inferior backs but a better pack, as for roughly 50% of the time the opposition will have the ball, often in attacking situations. In Union it's quite possible for a team with a better pack to almost starve the opposition backs of possession. That doesn't make the skills necessarily entertaining (certainly to RL fans), but the closeness of the game itself makes it a spectacle.
That's why it frustrates the heck out of me when RL - including its own fans - seem to want to push for mythical purity in rules and interpretations which will benefit the better team every time. Even more bizarrely, then allow said best team to enforce its rule interpretations on the weaker teams.
We seem to have lost sight at international level that in the end all that matters is the contest and the result. IMO Union rightly fights any attempts to push international rules towards Super 15 (or however many teams there are). It might be more "entertaining" but would make it very much harder for England or Wales to compete.
Having said that, some of the media stuff is annoying - note how often the "plucky losers" are cited in reference to the Union WC when a minnow gets hammered. The same thing in RL last year was simply evidence that there is no international competition etc.
Agree with this. I said the same on a thread on the VT, it's why I'm in favour of bringing back competitive scrums as a means of where the "lesser" team can find a way of competing with the "better" team. Currently we only have 2 ways of competing, in attack or in defence. Occasionally the kicking game is a factor but that's usually only between 2 well matched teams. Union has attack, defence, scrums, lineouts and the breakdowns all as areas where teams can compete. So your attack might not be brilliant, your defence could be a bit shaky but if you're bang on with your scrums, lineouts and breakdowns you'll cause the opposition a few problems. In League if a teams attack and defence aren't up to scratch they'll get 40-50 points shoved up em.
On the same thread Smokey made some other good suggestions of maybe altering the 40-20 to a 30-30 and having the game as 4 quarters rather than 2 halves so it breaks up some of the dominant periods a team may have.
Union is only competitive because it has 30 players on the pitch, as opposed to 26. There simply is not the room to do anything, whether you have best backs or not. That is the exactly reason it is crap to watch. It is ok having a competitive game, but if it is boring as hell, which it is, then what is the point?
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Union is only competitive because it has 30 players on the pitch, as opposed to 26. There simply is not the room to do anything, whether you have best backs or not. That is the exactly reason it is crap to watch. It is ok having a competitive game, but if it is boring as hell, which it is, then what is the point?
Not sure I agree with that - agree its boring to watch - the problem with union is the focus is on territory so the first option is always to kick deep and gain position that way - it would be like RL kicking over the dead ball line all the time. There seems little incentive for the backs to run the ball - bizarre game. The differential for a try isn't big enough - Farrell kicked 8 penalties and the Welsh guy 9 in one game - only 2 trys!!
Not sure I agree with that - agree its boring to watch - the problem with union is the focus is on territory so the first option is always to kick deep and gain position that way - it would be like RL kicking over the dead ball line all the time. There seems little incentive for the backs to run the ball - bizarre game. The differential for a try isn't big enough - Farrell kicked 8 penalties and the Welsh guy 9 in one game - only 2 trys!!
Agree. Despite there being more players on the pitch there is often a lot more space. It's the nature of the game and the different ways of competing that make it more even. And as you say the points for penalties are too high. It's boring but I don't blame teams at all for taking penalties. I've often wondered why teams even bother going for tries. I'd just recruit a top drop goal specialist and every time we're within 30-40m of the posts I'd go for a drop goal. And obviously take every penalty available.
Interesting piece on the England-Wales game from former England coach Brian Ashton. Lessons for those involved in RL coaching on the need to coach players to be able to adapt to changing game situations and respond accordingly.
Interesting piece on the England-Wales game from former England coach Brian Ashton. Lessons for those involved in RL coaching on the need to coach players to be able to adapt to changing game situations and respond accordingly.
The England v Wales game was just a game of penalty lottery.
Should anyone applaud a team for beating another by being able to win more penalties than thier opponents. Which more often than not is at the whim of the referee.
England lost (as I expected) because they were forced to infringe at the breakdown to be competitive with Wales. Non of the English back row have any pace or skill at the tackle. England also, as they have done consistently under this coaching team, stopped playing anything resembling positive rugby after 60 minutes.
England lost (as I expected) because they were forced to infringe at the breakdown to be competitive with Wales. Non of the English back row have any pace or skill at the tackle. England also, as they have done consistently under this coaching team, stopped playing anything resembling positive rugby after 60 minutes.
And yet, as Ashton's piece points out, they had managed to control the breakdown well enough for the first 60 minutes to be ahead of the game.
Once Wales went up a gear towards the end though, the one-dimensional nature of Wood, Robshaw and Haskell was exposed and they were left having to infringe because they couldn't think on their feet quickly enough to control the game. Had England, rather than kicking ball away in that final quarter, had the confidence to keep it, go through the phases and run some time off the clock they may well have still been able to grind out the win.
Still, that's what happens when you cut your nose off to spite your face and don't pick your best back row player because of where he plays his club rugby.
And yet, as Ashton's piece points out, they had managed to control the breakdown well enough for the first 60 minutes to be ahead of the game.
Once Wales went up a gear towards the end though, the one-dimensional nature of Wood, Robshaw and Haskell was exposed and they were left having to infringe because they couldn't think on their feet quickly enough to control the game. Had England, rather than kicking ball away in that final quarter, had the confidence to keep it, go through the phases and run some time off the clock they may well have still been able to grind out the win.
Still, that's what happens when you cut your nose off to spite your face and don't pick your best back row player because of where he plays his club rugby.
The coaching decisions made in the last 25 minutes were awful. Bringing on Ford smacked of weakness in the coach. There was no need to take Burgess off, he was actually solid the whole game. England make too many changes and appear to be poorly prepared when they happen. Clive Woodward wrote about the team England finished with being totally inappropriate for the critical last 20 minutes of the match. It's happened time and time again and the only people to blame are the coaches.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bigndaft, Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 146 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...