Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
john6767

Rugby World Cup 2019

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, churchward said:

I have a little WiFi tonight being on the boat in a Marina.  I watched the final this morning and came away disappointed not just because England did not win but it was rather an anti-climax to a great world cup in Japan.  It has been a super tournament and deserved better. 

 

Prior to the match I was worried it may turn into a kicking fest and although it was better than that it was still not the game I was hoping for. There was so much promise from the NZ semi-final that England had found a high level of play making a world cup final win more likely than it has ever been. That they would have a game plan to out manoeuvre the physical blitz defence and deep play of the SA's . SA played much better than previously but if England did have a game plan they where unable to deploy it. The style of game was quite old fashioned at times and somewhat frustrating.

 

The NZ semi would have made a better final match.

 

You have to hand it to the SA's though they did have a game plan and executed it very well and dictated the game in style and where the game was played. They need to be congratulated it was a good win against the favourites. It will do a lot for their country outside of rugby too.

 

Whilst I am pleased that the result will give a boost to a country with some problems at the moment, I was also disappointed in the actual match.

 

I said previously that I  thought it would be brutal and with Sinckler unconscious inside 3 minutes that certainly seemed to be the case. The South Africans played to  their game plan but as another poster commented, it's not pretty rugby, but it works. Sadly the message it sends is that what you need is the biggest, heftiest bods you can find in the scum and make the scrum your game plan. I am not comfortable with this idea of getting a scrum for the purpose of forcing a penalty from the opposition, to me it seems along the same lines as in football falling to the ground if anyone comes near to you in the penalty area, not pretty football but if it gets you penalties that is a score on the board and if that wins games, that is what people will do. From my playing days of many years ago (and things have clearly moved on) the purpose of the scrum then was to win the ball, that is no longer the case, the purpose of the scrum is to win a penalty and everyone pats each other on the back when that outcome has been achieved. It seems odd to me that the purpose of the changed rules of scrummaging was to reduce the scrum collapses to prevent life changing neck injuries, and yet that seems to be exactly what the scrums themselves are now trying to achieve, a collapsed scrum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, churchward said:

 

 

The NZ semi would have made a better final match.

.

 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎03‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 11:58, Sir Nibble said:

Most unhappy with the removal of the medals thing. That has not given a good impression.

 yes that was very much aganst the spirit og the game i thought.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dharl said:

 yes that was very much aganst the spirit og the game i thought.        

If they have no respect for second place then they don't deserve first. It was against the whole tone of the competition.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/11/2019 at 23:03, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Whilst I am pleased that the result will give a boost to a country with some problems at the moment, I was also disappointed in the actual match.

 

I said previously that I  thought it would be brutal and with Sinckler unconscious inside 3 minutes that certainly seemed to be the case. The South Africans played to  their game plan but as another poster commented, it's not pretty rugby, but it works. Sadly the message it sends is that what you need is the biggest, heftiest bods you can find in the scum and make the scrum your game plan. I am not comfortable with this idea of getting a scrum for the purpose of forcing a penalty from the opposition, to me it seems along the same lines as in football falling to the ground if anyone comes near to you in the penalty area, not pretty football but if it gets you penalties that is a score on the board and if that wins games, that is what people will do. From my playing days of many years ago (and things have clearly moved on) the purpose of the scrum then was to win the ball, that is no longer the case, the purpose of the scrum is to win a penalty and everyone pats each other on the back when that outcome has been achieved. It seems odd to me that the purpose of the changed rules of scrummaging was to reduce the scrum collapses to prevent life changing neck injuries, and yet that seems to be exactly what the scrums themselves are now trying to achieve, a collapsed scrum. 

It can be a bit boring but I do not think the SA team win will stop other flavours of the game.  It just means there needs to be different tactics employed to null it.  

 

Scrums and other set plays have always been important. It is very hard if not impossible to win if these areas are not working for any team.

 

Forwards and the whole team in general have been getting bigger and heavier over time.  The famed Pontypool front row playing for Wales in the 1970s when the team was so dominant would not get a look in these days.  Jonny Wilkinson had to beef up to keep playing when you compare him or Owen with someone like Barry John who would be unlikely to be selected as being too slight and unwilling to tackle, Gareth Edwards just as unlikely.  There are exceptions of course even in the SA team.

 

The modern scrum is a problem area and has been for some years but I don't think the SA win will make everyone play like them.

1 minute ago, Sir Nibble said:

If they have no respect for second place then they don't deserve first. It was against the whole tone of the competition.

I agree. I thought that was an unsporting finish shown by some.  I can understand their disappointment but they needed to express that after leaving the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, churchward said:

I do not think the SA team win will stop other flavours of the game.  It just means there needs to be different tactics employed to null it.  

 

Scrums and other set plays have always been important. It is very hard if not impossible to win if these areas are not working for any team.

 

Arguably the most important games are played by ordinary folk in muddy fields. It is vital that rugby continues to be a game for everyone, whether a gangly 17 year old weakling who is consigned to the outer reaches of the wing, or a 45 year old 18 stone prop forward with a maximum speed of 2mph. Or the equivalents in the women's game. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

A, or a 45 year old 18 stone prop forward with a maximum speed of 2mph. Or the equivalents in the women's game. 

How many stone would the woman equivalent weigh?

2 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

If they have no respect for second place then they don't deserve first. It was against the whole tone of the competition.

I missed this story about "medals". What happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Athy said:

How many stone would the woman equivalent weigh?

 

I have no idea, but the women's game doesn't have many 45-year-olds in it anyway. Yet.  

Someone who knows more about it than me would be able to comment (such as my niece, who plays for a prominent Scottish club) - hence my use of the word "equivalent" for a mature old-stager who hasn't given up playing yet. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Athy said:

How many stone would the woman equivalent weigh?

I missed this story about "medals". What happened?

The team did not wear their second place silver medals, those who had put them on, took them off. It has been seen as an act of petulance and bad sportsmanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Athy said:

I missed this story about "medals". What happened?

Once the England Team had collected their runner up medals they then took them off straight away.  In fact one player (I missed who it was) didnt even allow the offical to place the medal around his neck but just took in his hand and walked off.    Seemed to be a bit of poor sportsmanship in having lost the match.    The English Fans (as always) were much better behavouired and cheered and appludid the winners and didnt just rush off as their team had lost!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Athy said:

How many stone would the woman equivalent weigh?

I missed this story about "medals". What happened?

Virtually all the England players took their medal off straightaway.  I would agree with what others have said that it did not look good, and even though it was not the medal that were wanting, they should still be proud to have a silver medal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Athy said:

I missed this story about "medals". What happened?

 

Me too. I smell meejah sensationalism.

Just now, Dharl said:

Seemed to be a bit of poor sportsmanship in having lost the match. 

 

 I disagree. An alternative interpration might be that the player felt he hadn't played well enough to warrant even a runners-up medal.   It doesn;t detract from the fact that the better team won, which I doubt any of the England 23 would dispute.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was indeed a poor show. Did the captain take his off too? That would be even more reprehensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Athy said:

That was indeed a poor show. Did the captain take his off too? That would be even more reprehensible.

The team are probably in the running for the best team performance of 2019 at the Sports Personality of the Year but I think what they did with the medals detracted from their achievements and sets a very bad example to youngsters who tend to idolise and copy star players. For that reason, it might be better if they don't win the team award at SPOTY. 

Just my thoughts

 

haggis

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Arguably the most important games are played by ordinary folk in muddy fields. It is vital that rugby continues to be a game for everyone, whether a gangly 17 year old weakling who is consigned to the outer reaches of the wing, or a 45 year old 18 stone prop forward with a maximum speed of 2mph. Or the equivalents in the women's game. 

Completely agree. As of yet Rugby is still good sport and has not yet been destroyed by money anything like as badly as the girlie game with the round ball. Soccer is now only  money and as boring as formula one which again is simply money. Grass roots football is still ok if thats what you like but Rugby luckily has yet to be destroyed by money. Time will tell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the England team had put in a winning performance and lost narrowly with a late penalty or a contentious decision (as in 2007) then you might, just might, excuse the attitude towards the medals.  But that final was boys against men and the England squad should have shown some dignity and respect to their opponents who were far and away the best team in the tournament.   

 

I'm surprised that the coach hasn't had more flak in the media for his risky strategy of taking only two scrum halves and two tight head props.  There was so much talk about how well prepared this squad were, yet in the two most important positions on the pitch they were on a wing and a prayer.    

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

 

 

 I disagree. An alternative interpration might be that the player felt he hadn't played well enough to warrant even a runners-up medal.   It doesn;t detract from the fact that the better team won, which I doubt any of the England 23 would dispute.

 

Well thats a possible reason, accepet as the entire team, include coaching staff, as far as I could see, took their medlas off or at the very least tucked them inside their tops so wasnt on show.    Its seems like it was a little pre-planned for that?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Me too. I smell meejah sensationalism.

 

 

Not just a media story but fact.  It was shown on live TV at the medal ceremony.  Maro Itoje refused to have the medal put round his neck and others removed it immediately afterwards.

 

Not a huge issue but it did not show individuals or the team in a good light and seemed a bit petulant and disrespectful to the game and the tournament.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want players to be happy with second place or devastated after having lost first place ? 

I don't see the issue really if it's just medals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Completely agree. As of yet Rugby is still good sport and has not yet been destroyed by money anything like as badly as the girlie game with the round ball. Soccer is now only  money and as boring as formula one which again is simply money. Grass roots football is still ok if thats what you like but Rugby luckily has yet to be destroyed by money. Time will tell?

Whilst agreeing with the general gist of what you are saying, your comment," ....the girlie game with the round ball...." is certainly open to misunderstanding (I certainly did at first reading. The actual real 'Girlie' game, the Women's World Cup earlier this year was a whole lot more entertaining to watch than the usual suspect Premier League Prima Donna's throwing themselves to the floor feigning injury and appealing for a penalty. I only started watching it out of curiosity and was certainly impressed by the enthusiasm of the teams and would certainly watch the next one.

 

Going back to Rugby, what has always impressed me (although I suppose football was like it back in the 1950's early 1960's) is the total absence of crowd segregation, all supporters all in together, and it creates a brilliant atmosphere.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Whilst agreeing with the general gist of what you are saying, your comment," ....the girlie game with the round ball...." is certainly open to misunderstanding (I certainly did at first reading. The actual real 'Girlie' game, the Women's World Cup earlier this year was a whole lot more entertaining to watch than the usual suspect Premier League Prima Donna's throwing themselves to the floor feigning injury and appealing for a penalty. I only started watching it out of curiosity and was certainly impressed by the enthusiasm of the teams and would certainly watch the next one.

 

Going back to Rugby, what has always impressed me (although I suppose football was like it back in the 1950's early 1960's) is the total absence of crowd segregation, all supporters all in together, and it creates a brilliant atmosphere.

Yep, still vastly superior and safe to take your kids to. I policed Elland road many times and every time we had massive amounts of serious trouble in the late 70s and all through the 80s. Needed hundreds of us. During the same time I police some big matches of rugby at Castleford, the crowd numbers were less but even with a crowd of a few thousand we still needed not much more than a handful of police and no segragation. Often there were no arrests whatsoever, fat chance of that at a poxy soccer game.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Whilst agreeing with the general gist of what you are saying, your comment," ....the girlie game with the round ball...." is certainly open to misunderstanding (I certainly did at first reading. The actual real 'Girlie' game, the Women's World Cup earlier this year was a whole lot more entertaining to watch than the usual suspect Premier League Prima Donna's throwing themselves to the floor feigning injury and appealing for a penalty. I only started watching it out of curiosity and was certainly impressed by the enthusiasm of the teams and would certainly watch the next one.

 

Going back to Rugby, what has always impressed me (although I suppose football was like it back in the 1950's early 1960's) is the total absence of crowd segregation, all supporters all in together, and it creates a brilliant atmosphere.

 

6 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Yep, still vastly superior and safe to take your kids to. I policed Elland road many times and every time we had massive amounts of serious trouble in the late 70s and all through the 80s. Needed hundreds of us. During the same time I police some big matches of rugby at Castleford, the crowd numbers were less but even with a crowd of a few thousand we still needed not much more than a handful of police and no segragation. Often there were no arrests whatsoever, fat chance of that at a poxy soccer game.

I went to a rugby playing school and since age 11 it's been my favourite sport to watch, not least because of the attitude of players and spectators alike which is sportsmanlike, fair minded and good natured almost without exception.  This is the reason why I worry about the reaction of the England squad re award of medals, it's symptomatic of the winning is everything attitude that has crept into the game during the professional era.  As the Irish used to say it's desperate, but never serious and we certainly don't want to slide towards the tribalism and bad humour of football.  Once, cricket used to be a "gentlemanly" game but has already sold its soul and no longer has any appeal for me, I do hope rugby doesn't go the same way.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Whilst agreeing with the general gist of what you are saying, your comment," ....the girlie game with the round ball...." is certainly open to misunderstanding (I certainly did at first reading. The actual real 'Girlie' game, the Women's World Cup earlier this year was a whole lot more entertaining to watch than the usual suspect Premier League Prima Donna's throwing themselves to the floor feigning injury and appealing for a penalty. I only started watching it out of curiosity and was certainly impressed by the enthusiasm of the teams and would certainly watch the next one.

 

Going back to Rugby, what has always impressed me (although I suppose football was like it back in the 1950's early 1960's) is the total absence of crowd segregation, all supporters all in together, and it creates a brilliant atmosphere.

I agree with your comments on the Woman's football world cup. It was entertaining and played in a true sporting style.

 

In terms of Rugby I very much enjoyed the Olympics Rugby 7s Woman's tournament.  It was entertaining and because the players were not large and muscle bound they played a different but entertaining style.  

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.