Rugby Union

[rockershovel]

Amazing what you learn in this forum..

http://ninetynineyards.com/2019/05/03/great-british-football-teams-the-leicester-panthers/

 

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, BoD said:

I thought the Ireland Wales match would have been a closer result and but for one very close TMO decision in might have been.
 

The later match just reinforced England’s inability to think on the field.

 

No names mentioned but 
 

Ooh - He’s just kicked long and the wind has taken it straight into touch.

Ohh - He’s just done it again.

 

Ooh - I’ve just kicked it long and it went straight into touch.  I wonder why that happened.

 

Initially I thought England had done well in the first half against the wind and would pile on the pressure in the second half but no, Scotland adapted and kept pressing only running out of steam (and forward replacements) in the last quarter.  I suppose it is a squad game now.

 

And now the English commentators saying England’s six nations hope are alive and kicking. No the wonder the rest don’t like us and think us arrogant.

 

 

I wouldn’t write England off, by any means. In the professional era, they have made “underperforming at great expense” into something of an art form. The scrum looked good today, so did the maul, which is pretty much the sum of England tactical thinking; they made a lot of tackles including running down a couple of Scottish breakaways. They definitely had the better of the line outs, and didn’t give away much in the way of penalties. 

 

Let’s see what follows..

[caradoc]

15 hours ago, BoD said:

And now the English commentators saying England’s six nations hope are alive and kicking. No the wonder the rest don’t like us and think us arrogant.

 

 

I agree that English commentators often are arrogant, especially in soccer, but I don't think that is the case here; Assuming (ha-ha !) that England beat Ireland and Wales they certainly could win the Six Nations, depending of course on other teams results too.

 

[dvdlcs]

As a Scotland supporter, I saw yet another game that we could have won, and perhaps should have done.

 

But for me the Calcutta Cup game could be summed up by English mistakes kept Scotland in the game, until the try was scored and that was that.

 

I liked Vern Cotter as the coach, and we were playing some interesting and exciting rugby for a while. The weather yesterday didn't suit that sort of game, but I am starting to see signs of Scotland slipping back to how they once were - could gain possession and territory, but could not convert that to points. Too often possession was lost when it should have been retained.

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

I agree that English commentators often are arrogant, especially in soccer, but I don't think that is the case here; Assuming (ha-ha !) that England beat Ireland and Wales they certainly could win the Six Nations, depending of course on other teams results too.

 

 

I can’t comment on football commentators, don’t watch it. England’s round-ball team are consistently, embarrassingly bad, but that’s not what they pay commentators to say, is it? So it probably doesn’t pay to be too closely in touch with reality, in that line of work. 

 

The BBC were crying up Scotland for all they were worth, beforehand... when they weren’t promoting the women’s team, or broadcasting a recorded interview in which Eddie Jones was attacked by the usual BBC “monstrous regiment” . You’d hardly have known who the other team playing actually were, until they came on the pitch. 

 

 

 

[tigerburnie]

6 Nations again, some key games this weekend, some hearts will be broken, I think Wales will be beat France at home, I hope England can raise their game at home to beat Ireland, controversially I think Italy will win at home.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, tigerburnie said:

6 Nations again, some key games this weekend, some hearts will be broken, I think Wales will be beat France at home, I hope England can raise their game at home to beat Ireland, controversially I think Italy will win at home.

 

I don't see that as controversial. Italy have been pretty good in the last couple of years and unlucky not to win any games.

 

Difficult to back against Ireland at the moment. And they may be getting better. Happened on some Irish schools rugby on BT Sport last week. Frighteningly good for teenagers!!!, The front rows and back rows were both skilful and hugely physical. And there was a full back to watch for in the future, Cosgrave.

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I don't see that as controversial. Italy have been pretty good in the last couple of years and unlucky not to win any games.

 

Difficult to back against Ireland at the moment. And they may be getting better. Happened on some Irish schools rugby on BT Sport last week. Frighteningly good for teenagers!!!, The front rows and back rows were both skilful and hugely physical. And there was a full back to watch for in the future, Cosgrave.

 

Italy v Scotland is often the “wooden spoon playoff”. Scotland sometimes tend to give the impression of having “shot their bolt” after playing England, and they tend to be prone to mistakes under pressure, which might be regarded as “bad luck”. Italy are a big strong side with a solid, if limited defence, which can produce some strong running on occasion, and that might be enough against Scotland. 

 

I think the 5-point Championship scoring system has changed the dynamic of the tournament. Teams come on wanting the “bonus win” which involves scoring four tries and keeping a margin of at least eight points, whilst avoiding injuries if possible. France visibly lost interest against Italy after the first half, then sparked into life in the last quarter to preserve the margin. Teams are no longer interested in maximising the score, or holding trailing teams to “nil points”  because cumulative points differences aren’t as important these days. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by rockershovel

[rockershovel]

One thing I will predict, is that if England persist with their common habit of kicking away possession for no obvious reason, they won’t profit from it. 

 

 

[iak]

We will get "lasagned..."

Bye bye Gregor; great player, shite coach...

[tigerburnie]

Well Scotland avoided the embarrassment, but that was far from convincing, Italy were game but predictable and got slower and slower as the game went on, but a win is a win. Wales were a handful but France were deserving of their win.

[The Johnster]

I think it was a game that Wales lost as much as France won.  France very rapidly realised that there was an advantage to be had in kicking high and provoking our handling errors, and pounced effectively at every opportunity.  They deserved their win, and we were lucky not to lose by a greater difference in points. 
 

At least it wasn’t England...

[dvdlcs]

Pleased with the result of the Scotland game, plus the feat of holding Italy to zero points, and in Rome, but the game itself wasn't the best to watch. But we won, and that is the main thing at this point.

 

Out of interest, with the losing bonus point being given if the gap is 7 or less, is there a requirement that the losing team must score points? e.g. if the game finishes 3-0 or 5-0, would the losing team still pick up a bonus point for the game despite having scored no points on the pitch?

 

France and Ireland the two unbeaten teams at the time of writing...

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 21/02/2020 at 09:08, iak said:

We will get "lasagned..."

Bye bye Gregor; great player, shite coach...

 

I would not go that far. He has some big shoes to fill as Scotland have had some great coaches down the years.

 

They do need to address the Finn Russell situation somehow. Adam Hastings is a solid enough 10 but nothing like the flair of Russell that can be a game changer.

[Joseph_Pestell]

56 minutes ago, dvdlcs said:

Pleased with the result of the Scotland game, plus the feat of holding Italy to zero points, and in Rome, but the game itself wasn't the best to watch. But we won, and that is the main thing at this point.

 

Out of interest, with the losing bonus point being given if the gap is 7 or less, is there a requirement that the losing team must score points? e.g. if the game finishes 3-0 or 5-0, would the losing team still pick up a bonus point for the game despite having scored no points on the pitch?

 

France and Ireland the two unbeaten teams at the time of writing...

 

Yes, so far as I know, you still get the bonus point.

[rockershovel]

So... England in second place, ahead of Ireland by a narrow points differential. 

 

My best prediction at this stage - France to go on to a narrow Grand Slam, England to beat Wales for the Triple Crown...... England v Italy, low-scoring England win in a dead rubber, followed by a protracted, tedious period in which Italy remain because the “money men” insist on having six teams, but the tournament management can’t identify a credible alternative. 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by rockershovel

[tigerburnie]

England played quite well and Sexton had a game that will haunt him for a long time, if England ever get the right players in the right place, someone is going to take a beating.

[teaky]

53 minutes ago, tigerburnie said:

England played quite well and Sexton had a game that will haunt him for a long time, if England ever get the right players in the right place, someone is going to take a beating.

They did "get the right players in the right place" in the world cup match against New Zealand.  They just haven't managed it since.  Several good performances today but still looking for consistency.

 

England v Wales and France v Ireland are going to be interesting.

[rockershovel]

20 minutes ago, teaky said:

They did "get the right players in the right place" in the world cup match against New Zealand.  They just haven't managed it since.  Several good performances today but still looking for consistency.

 

England v Wales and France v Ireland are going to be interesting.

 

I think they could have picked positions with a pin, in the dark, against South Africa and made no difference. The Boks had a very similar game plan and much better execution. 

[dvdlcs]

With reference to the calls for Italy to be dropped from the tournament and/or replaced with another, something to consider is that it is not just about the mens senior team these days.

 

I don't know how the Under 20s team is performing, but I believe that the Italian ladies finished second in their competition last year. I don't follow the ladies competition, or the under 20s, so don't know if this result was typical or a one-off, but I can't see a country being removed because only one of their teams is not performing.

 

I would assume that an even number of teams would be the norm from now on, if only so that everybody is playing each weekend. I can remember the Five Nations tournament with two games and one team resting - but even that is not even as if your 'by' is the first or last game, you would be expected to play four consecutive games whereas others would have a mid-tournament break.

 

I believe that when France joined the Four Nations, it took them some time to establish themselves. Italy did strike me as an odd choice but in terms of other European countries that play rugby, only Romania and Georgia come readily to mind. Presumably Italy had the highest ranking of the contenders at the time.

[teaky]

Italy are still the best of the rest at present unless you look beyond Europe.  Although they are ranked just below Georgia they have won two out of two matches against them this century.  Romania used to be one of the better sides several decades ago but rugby, along with everything else in the country at the time, suffered a lack of investment and their national side fell behind.  They currently rank amongst reasonable tier 2 sides like Spain and Portugal.  Italy are constant wooden spoon contenders but don't forget that they have beaten everyone except England in the Six Nations.  Georgia haven't beaten any of the Six Nations teams.

 

As with most things these days, there are commercial angles to consider too.  Business opportunities in Italy are greater than Georgia so it is easier to attract sponsorship, TV coverage etc.

 

I sympathise with Georgia's position but even though they top the European tier 2 competition each year, they are still not going to trouble the teams in the tier 1 Six Nations competition.  I can see the value in a play off each year between the bottom tier 1 side and the top tier 2 side, but Italy would probably win it each time and there appears to be little appetite for this idea.

 

[88D]

On 22/02/2020 at 23:38, The Johnster said:

I think it was a game that Wales lost as much as France won.  France very rapidly realised that there was an advantage to be had in kicking high and provoking our handling errors, and pounced effectively at every opportunity.  They deserved their win, and we were lucky not to lose by a greater difference in points. 
 

At least it wasn’t England...

Unfortunately, Johnster, that’s next up. I reckon we’ll come fourth- which I thought at the beginning of the 6N- so we may as well start bringing in new blood, even at the expense of tried and tested old-timers. When we were on top, Our decision making was crap, and could have meant winning the match if it were better. Hey ho, I liked the look of France. Dai

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that we should move to seven European nations so that there are three home and three away matches. The two "extras" should be selected by way of an Autumn series of matches, with a trophy for the winner of the match between the two qualified teams..

 

I don't think that Italy have done themselves any favours by moving to the Olympico. They had a better atmosphere at the old stadium or they could move north to the "homeland" of Italian rugby.

[teaky]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I think that we should move to seven European nations so that there are three home and three away matches. The two "extras" should be selected by way of an Autumn series of matches, with a trophy for the winner of the match between the two qualified teams..

 

I don't think that Italy have done themselves any favours by moving to the Olympico. They had a better atmosphere at the old stadium or they could move north to the "homeland" of Italian rugby.

It's an appealing idea.  I wonder though about opposition from Premiership players and teams who disliked the idea of compressing the Six Nations and losing the fallow weeks or any suggestion of increasing the number of weeks without players.  I fear that the "extras" would be Italy and Georgia for some time but it might spark other nations to invest.

 

Moving North eh?  Excellent idea.  Are you going to volunteer to negotiate whose ground gets the internationals? 

 

As a slight aside, it has always puzzled me a little why rugby isn't more popular in northern european nations.  I know they all play it but you'd have thought that countries with statistically bigger humans might have seen the appeal.  Yes, I know rugby union is for all sizes but you can't compete without some heft in the middle of the pack at least which is why there is a tendency to import South African second row players (Dutch ancestry).

 

[rockershovel]

8 hours ago, teaky said:

It's an appealing idea.  I wonder though about opposition from Premiership players and teams who disliked the idea of compressing the Six Nations and losing the fallow weeks or any suggestion of increasing the number of weeks without players.  I fear that the "extras" would be Italy and Georgia for some time but it might spark other nations to invest.

 

Moving North eh?  Excellent idea.  Are you going to volunteer to negotiate whose ground gets the internationals? 

 

As a slight aside, it has always puzzled me a little why rugby isn't more popular in northern european nations.  I know they all play it but you'd have thought that countries with statistically bigger humans might have seen the appeal.  Yes, I know rugby union is for all sizes but you can't compete without some heft in the middle of the pack at least which is why there is a tendency to import South African second row players (Dutch ancestry).

 

 

Rugby Union is a socially polarised sport, played and supported by the professional and technical middle classes, with the notable exceptions of South Wales and Cornwall. The working classes show more interest in simpler versions like League (a game which makes soccer look complex) or the Antipodean kicking game played on cricket fields. The Americans have embraced a gladiatorial spectacle only distantly related, and while Union makes progress in Universities over there, no one else is interested. 

 

Theres also the matter of the philosophy of the game. Rugby Union is essentially a sport governed by the notion that the spirit in which the game is played, is more important than strict adherence to the rules, such as they are; that some actions are clearly unacceptable, while others are not (even though, strictly speaking, illegal). Neil Back’s “grab it” put-in for Leicester  would be a classic example, or the contentious try by Johnny Wilkinson in his last international (against Scotland) which was generally felt to “be worth a try”. 

 

This isn't a Germanic concept, although the French are comfortable with a game in which elan and “gamesmanship” are valued. Ve (don’t) haff vays of making you scrum down!