super 12s

spanner

i have recently got sky sports and started watching super 12s. the standard is so much higher than our equvailent the heniken cup. i know that rugby is played a lot more down under but still how can we raise the standard in the northern hemsphere to reach that of our southern counterparts.

SAXA

I would have to disagree there with you. There would seem to be alot more running rugby in the Super 12's but at a loss to the traditional forwards making the hard yards type of rugby. Northern Rugby has overtaken Southern rugby in some ways. Just look at the world cup. South Africa are no where near the power they were. The All Blacks had one of their poorest packs ever and the Aussie were lucky to beat Ireland. Rugby games are nearly always won in the pack with the backs deciding by how much. Super 12's might look a better type of rugby but looks can be deceiving. How many Super 12 teams would win in Toulouse Thomand, Welford Road or Kingsholm ?
Just because it's prettier doesn't make it better

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by SAXA
I would have to disagree there with you. There would seem to be alot more running rugby in the Super 12's but at a loss to the traditional forwards making the hard yards type of rugby. Northern Rugby has overtaken Southern rugby in some ways. Just look at the world cup. South Africa are no where near the power they were. The All Blacks had one of their poorest packs ever and the Aussie were lucky to beat Ireland. Rugby games are nearly always won in the pack with the backs deciding by how much. Super 12's might look a better type of rugby but looks can be deceiving. How many Super 12 teams would win in Toulouse Thomand, Welford Road or Kingsholm ?
Just because it's prettier doesn't make it better

I wouldn't concede that it's prettier. It'sjust Rugby F***ing League, that's what it is.
And it's because of the 'market conditions' in Australia in particular where League is the sport that has traditionally attracted the most money in sponsorship etc that they have been so keen to change Rugby's Laws. At least in the North we have maintained some semblance of
a multifaceted game instead of the one-dimensional, boring rubbish that pertains down south.

Trojan

Originally posted by daveirl

England are World Champions already and I'd put France ahead of any of the Southern Hemisphere teams at the moment.

And of course, we're de facto World Champions after our recent exploits at Fortress Twickenham...

spanner

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
I wouldn't concede that it's prettier. It'sjust Rugby F***ing League, that's what it is.
At least in the North we have maintained some semblance of
a multifaceted game instead of the one-dimensional, boring rubbish that pertains down south.

yea i would agree with you there the game down there is played like rugby and union is better league because you need a brain to play union.
however super 12 players and much more physical and fitter and their ball handling skills are quite superb. england and france would now be coming to the same standard of fittness as the southern hemphsere teams but the celtic nation really need to improve.

it would be intresting to see hekien cup teams play super 12 teams because they play with two completely different styles and i think its hard to see which one is the best, does the winner of each still play each other?

R33F

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
I wouldn't concede that it's prettier.

Jonah Lomu running over English players in the '95 World Cup was Pretty.
( played Super 12's for the Blues, Chiefs and Hurricanes)

Originally posted by Hairy Homer It'sjust Rugby F***ing League, that's what it is.

Are you saying Super 12 is Rugby League ?? Or are you getting your rugby codes mixed up ??

We have 2 kinds of "boring rubbish" that appear down here.

Rugby Union : Super 12, Shute Shield, Club Championship and the Inaugural Tooheys New Cup.
(this is in Aust. alone, not including NZ and SA)

Rugby League : NRL. (the equal to English Super League)

Originally posted by Hairy Homer And it's because of the 'market conditions' in Australia in particular

Super 12 is played by 3 countries, formed in 1996 by Australia, New Zealand
and South Africa. What do Australian "Market Conditions" have to do with SANZAR ??
(SANZAR = South Africa New Zealand Australian Rugby)

Alot of the Referees from the 3 counrties are also on the RWC panel, and referee RWC games.

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
At least in the North we have maintained some semblance of a multifaceted game instead of the one-dimensional,
boring rubbish that pertains down south.

Looking at the statistics from the RWC, most points, most tries went to New Zealand 1st, Australia 2nd and England 3rd.

How is that one-dimensional ?

England won the World Cup, fair play to them. After 133 odd years of international rugby they deserve to win something.
But, the man who won the match Jonny Wilkinson had 113 points in RWC alone, has 817 test points with only 5 tries to his name.

That is a little one dimensional to me.

I have alot of friends who have played Rugby Union in Ireland and Scotland over the years, both New Zealanders and Australian.
They are all top players (hangovers permitting). Never were they told to sit on the bench because they were "one-dimensional".

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by R33F

Are you saying Super 12 is Rugby League ?? Or are you getting your rugby codes mixed up ??

Me mixed up? How dare you sir!!!!

I know the difference between the two jurisdictions. What I am saying is that the rule changes in Union regarding the ruck and maul a few years ago, (the 'use it or lose it' mentality) and the way the game is refereed down south has led to rugby union becoming more like Rugby League. This is not something that I welcome as I think League is a boring one-dimensional game. Two lines of big beefy bruisers strung across the pitch with little option but to crash bang their way through each other.

I think the convergence of Union and League is deliberate because of the traditional dominance of Rugby League in Australia, the dominance by Australian led corporations of much of the media muscle down south and their determination to turn rugby union into a business by combining the commercial success of League in Australia with the genuine worldwide reach and appeal of Union. I'm all for spreading the game. It's just that I don't want the game to turn into LEague by default.

Looking at the statistics from the RWC, most points, most tries went to New Zealand 1st, Australia 2nd and England 3rd.

How is that one-dimensional ?

Looking closer, most of those tries were scored against the minnow nations. Are you saying Australia's games against Romania and Namibia were compelling rugby? Come off it. Big fit fast professional guys bursting through a bunch of amateurs is not a fair contest and it does not make for compelling viewing. Personally I'd rather watch the grass grow.

England won the World Cup, fair play to them. After 133 odd years of international rugby they deserve to win something.
But, the man who won the match Jonny Wilkinson had 113 points in RWC alone, has 817 test points with only 5 tries to his name.

That is a little one dimensional to me.

People have tinkered about with the rules, increased the value of the try, now want to decrease the value of the dropped goal and what's happened? The kicker is more of a king now than he ever was.

Back in 1959, Don Clarke kicked six penalties for New Zealand to beat a Lions team that had scored four tries. That was hailed as a phenomenal kicking performance. Nowadays six succesful kicks at goal in a match are run of the mill. The only way to curb the goal kicker is to bring back the old style ball or make the current ones heavier or something. Make it harder to kick, in other words.

When was the last team to win the Grand Slam in Europe without kicking a single penalty goal?

I think you'll find it was Ireland back in 1948. When the penalty was worth as much as a try. Why didn't they kick more penalties? Because the ball in those days was like a lump of concrete.

I have alot of friends who have played Rugby Union in Ireland and Scotland over the years, both New Zealanders and Australian.
They are all top players (hangovers permitting). Never were they told to sit on the bench because they were "one-dimensional".

My point is not that the players lack skill. It's that the context in which they play, the style of the game, is becoming a boring one-dimensional game like Rugby League.

And it's all the Aussies fault.

:-)

Trojan

Originally posted by R33F

England won the World Cup, fair play to them. After 133 odd years of international rugby they deserve to win something.

Hehe, that's a bit unfair now. I think you'll find that nobody won the World Cup before 1987

Sorry to pick one statement, but there's a lot of England-slamming going on lately, in the rugby arena as much as anywhere else. I think we as a nation need to "get over it" and move on. I'm as Irish as they come btw, just a little more enlightened

As for the S12 - it's entertaining, and good to watch.

I love playing RL in practice, it's great fun and very entertaining to play. I'm a St. Hs fan btw (they were underdogs when playing Wigan in the first RL game I saw about 10 years ago).

I love State of the Origin!

But there's no line-out, scrum, ruck or maul. And I'm a hooker, so that's removing 3/4 of the fun from rugby for me

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hairy Homer

Watch it you young scamp, or you'll go across my knee. :-)

Actually I think the 'dispensation law' restricting kick outs on the full to your own 22 (or 25 as it was) was brought in some time in the mid 60s. Which is before my recall. Just.

I think the game that finally convinced people that the line out laws of the time were ridiculous was in 1963 when the Welsh scrum half kicked the ball into touch every time he got it in the game against Scotland, producing a match that had more than 100 lineouts. It was just a battle of attrition up the touch line.

R33F

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
What I am saying is that the rule changes in Union regarding the ruck and maul a few years ago,
(the 'use it or lose it' mentality)

Agreed, there were rule changes, I could not find the ammended changes on the web
(searched irb & a few others) for the dates they were changed so I could read the exact
changes.

Do you not think that it makes the game flow more efficiantely ??
Unless they dont "use it" and indeed "lose it"

The appeal of rugby as the "running game" is what brings the spectators, even before the rule changes.
I am not a League fan at all. 5 tackles then kick, each tackle being a break in play.
I have played rugby most of my life, from schoolboys right through to masters
(the polite term for 'old farts'- over 30's) and I would never want the game to be more league
orientated. But am for changes within the game if there are better.

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
Looking closer, most of those tries were scored against the minnow nations.
Are you saying Australia's games against Romania and Namibia were compelling rugby?

I was at "Rugby Zone" for both of those games. (A huge outdoor area outside the Telstra Stadium,
with a enormous big screen). There was a 57m beer tent. I had been drinking "Bad manners and Coke"
for several hours before the Namibia game, and was taking Mrs R33F into watch Scotland v France.

Everything was compelling rugby at that stage.

You are correct, the tries were flowing in both of those games, but if you re watched
the games, you would see fundamental errors that shouldnt be made alot of levels (Professional and Amateur).
These errors were not made by the minnow teams during Qualifying, or they wouldnt have been there.

Originally posted by Hairy Homer Because the ball in those days was like a lump of concrete.

Aahhh... the ol' days. Still have an old "pig skin" in the garage somewhere.
Watching the old games, the players balls were also alot harder as well.

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
And it's all the Aussies fault

No Comment Homer.

Although, I noticed on the web that the BCRU (British Columbia Rugby Union) is looking for
a new V. President...... you could apply, re introduce concrete balls, and change all the rules
back to pre - Bloody Aussie 'use it or lose it' mentality.

Originally posted by Trojan
Hehe, that's a bit unfair now. I think you'll
find that nobody won the World Cup before 1987

Waddya mean ???? I said "fair play'
(and that was hard enough):D

bugler

There's very little comparison between S12 and HC. It's been the subject of much discussion lately (John Mitchell spoke on the topic in the Times last Sunday) and it is increasingly obvious that the approaches in the two hemispheres are worlds apart. S12 can be wonderful to watch, namely because there is an assumption that the team in possession has a god given right to retain its own ball. Plenty of sweeping back-pay follows. But there is little bite in the scrums, and the lineouts are not nearly as well contested as in Euro rugby. Rucking is also less enthusiastic. Of course there are individuals who refused to be party to this, notably some of the sterling opensides of Australia/NZ.

Southern Hemisphere rugby is generally arrogant as a result of its dominant position over rugby's history. Very few of its fans or cheerleaders ever give any due to other countries (either their fellow antipodeans or Northern Hemisphere), so don't expect it to be admitted that S12 lacks intensity. That said Stephen Jones has probably been going overboard a bit in his last few articles, but then thats what he's there for and that's the kind of guy he is.

http://www.planetrugby.com/Opinion/Columnists/Stephen_Jones/story_35535.shtml

http://www.planetrugby.com/Opinion/Columnists/Stephen_Jones/index.shtml

Doc

The difference between the Super League and the Heineken Cup in my opinion is that the teams competing in the Heineken Cup are much more defensively minded then the Super League teams. In the Super League the emphasise is more on scoring trys then just winning the game and the mindset is much more that it doesn’t mater how much we concede as long as we score more ourselves often this leads to the defence suffering. The Heineken Cup teams tend to concentrate more in insuring the other team do not score and taking there points when the opportunities present themselves.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.