Who should have contested the RWC final, on form shown?

JKLever wrote:

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:

Finally, and for what it's worth, I'm totally against the idea of a player/athlete representing another country via the residency rule. Especially if they have represented the country of their birth at international level. If there was a rule in place along the lines of them being eligible to play if they came to a new country as a minor then all well and good. Therefore imho Fa'asavalus inclusion in the GB squad is totally out of order.

I'd like to know how long NZ's pacific islanders have been Kiwi residents in both codes actually and how that system works.

Do NZ just get to pick anyone they think is any good - how does that work?

FWIW, on Fa'asavalus, I agree with you - although I thought he had not played RL anywhere else but in this country?

The residency rule is 3 years - but since so many Pacific Islanders go to NZ to play in the Super 14s, yes NZ do just pick anyone they think is any good.

It's funny you know.

20 years ago Rugby Union was more exciting to watch than Rugby League (in Australia at least anyway).

Defence was king in Rugby League. The five metres was being policed at three metres and matches were dour affairs.

At the same time, Rugby Union was all about attack. The style of play made famous by Alan Jones and the Ella brothers influenced many at club level. It was a more thrilling spectacle.

Rugby League then decided to change the rules to encourage more attacking play.

In the meantime Rugby Union went professional and has been now for over a decade. Some backs are actually learning how to tackle. Scoring tries isn't as easy as it was in the amateur era yet we still have out-dated rules holding the game back.

Rugby League is a more consistent game than Union. You might not get a sensational game, but you know it won't be a shocker.

When Rugby Union is good it's sensational. When Rugby Union is bad it is a sin against humanity.

Cheers.

RL suffers in the UK because basically it is played in only 2/3 of around 80 counties

Therefore it's hardly ever going to grab national attention. Thats a distinct opposite to RU which is played nationwide and is therefore a national sport in the UK

Whats the situation in Oz?

How many of the states consider it their top sport alongside cricket & aussie rules?

And where does RU get a look in?

League and Union are both only played seriously in NSW and Queensland. Aussie rules in Vic, SA, WA and Tassie.

How does a sport that is only played in one country get such a big following?

Ask the Americans . . .

Wondered about them, too... though Australians seem to be more aware that there is a world beyond their borders.

mynah wrote:Wondered about them, too... though Australians seem to be more aware that there is a world beyond their borders.

There simply was little rugby or league in those states back in the late 1800s and the locals took to the bastardized game the cricketers had created as a way of keeping over winter.

JKLever wrote:
Whats the situation in Oz?

How many of the states consider it their top sport alongside cricket & aussie rules?

And where does RU get a look in?

Rugby League is the main code of football in New South Wales and Queensland (which is roughly half the country in terms of population).

Rugby Union is the number two code in these states but doesn't really have widespread support except for when the Wallabies play. Most of its support comes from members of the 'upper class'. Most of its players come from top-quality private schools.

Aussie Rules has a limited following in these states but has a greater presence than the Rugby codes have in Victoria/South Australia etc.

Cricket is the number one summer sport in every state and is the country's true national sport.

Cheers.

Hass wrote:Rugby Union is the number two code in these states but doesn't really have widespread support except for when the Wallabies play. Most of its support comes from members of the 'upper class'. Most of its players come from top-quality private schools.

I hear that all the time. It's ironic really considering how in England it used to be really like that, and has changed a lot in the last decade. It's the same thing as with cricket - as the schools stop playing it (and in rugby's case, apart from the fee-paying schools they rarely did anyway) the clubs have stepped in and broadened the base.

Hass wrote:

JKLever wrote:
Whats the situation in Oz?

How many of the states consider it their top sport alongside cricket & aussie rules?

And where does RU get a look in?

Rugby League is the main code of football in New South Wales and Queensland (which is roughly half the country in terms of population).

... ... ...

Aussie Rules has a limited following in these states but has a greater presence than the Rugby codes have in Victoria/South Australia etc.

All true ... however ... even the rugby league crowds are poor in NSW and Queensland, barring the SoO games and the finals (outside tests, rugby crowds are almost non-existent, barring players' families). The best attended League games cannot match the worst attended AFL matches. Rugby (both codes) is at crisis point in Australia, through lack of interest even in its traditional strongholds. Most AFL roster games attract large crowds and the final will typically attract close to 90,000. The punters are voting with their feet and wallets.

The japies were deserved champions.

Was England good enough to have been in the final? Yes.

Was the England "no try" decision correct? Absolutely - his left toe touched the line before the ball was grounded.

How can the game as a spectacle be improved?

* By reducing the number of players on the field to 12
* By only allowing front row replacements
* By reducing the value of a drop goal to 1
* By reducing the value of any try scored from a kick to 3
* No "free territory" kicks out on the full from inside the quarter
* By reintroducing real rucking & feck the soccermums

Phurt. Just ban Northern Hemisphere sides...

Invader Zim wrote:Phurt. Just ban Northern Hemisphere sides...

And crush the real joy of RWCs?

We'd still have the Kiwi choke.

Invader Zim wrote:We'd still have the Kiwi choke.

That's a given anyway mate I was over there when it happened - it was the champagne flavoured Mylanta to treat my stomach acid following our loss. Fack I had fun that morning.

"It was Rod McQueen. Australia are the ones who are pushing it, because it's being tried in the Australian Rugby Championship at the moment, and it's John "I hate the English" O'Neill who has been badgering the IRB to implement them."

FFS - the rule review commitee was something put in place by the IRB, not the ARU.

MacQueen was one of number of internationally respected thinkers who were appointed to strip the laws back to their basics. At the current time they are a dogs breakfast. The biggest "problem" with the game is that the laws resemble the tax act and that referees play too significant a role in a match. The breakdown laws are a nightmare and given that they are well over a hundred tackles made each game the intervention of a referee, as required by the laws, at so many is a massive pain in the arse for all involved.

I've heard MacQueen say that from the outset they did not wish to tamper with the basic fabric of the game. That it's a game where possession is to be contested and that it's a game for all body types.

It's wrong, utterly wrong to imply that this is some form of Australian conspiracy because we have "weak forwards".

Mick Sawyer wrote:It's wrong, utterly wrong to imply that this is some form of Australian conspiracy because we have "weak forwards".

You don't?

More 'shit', than 'weak'.

Invader Zim wrote:More 'shit', than 'weak'.

They looked quite weak to me.

Mick Sawyer wrote:"It was Rod McQueen. Australia are the ones who are pushing it, because it's being tried in the Australian Rugby Championship at the moment, and it's John "I hate the English" O'Neill who has been badgering the IRB to implement them."

FFS - the rule review commitee was something put in place by the IRB, not the ARU.

MacQueen was one of number of internationally respected thinkers who were appointed to strip the laws back to their basics. At the current time they are a dogs breakfast. The biggest "problem" with the game is that the laws resemble the tax act and that referees play too significant a role in a match. The breakdown laws are a nightmare and given that they are well over a hundred tackles made each game the intervention of a referee, as required by the laws, at so many is a massive pain in the arse for all involved.

I've heard MacQueen say that from the outset they did not wish to tamper with the basic fabric of the game. That it's a game where possession is to be contested and that it's a game for all body types.

It's wrong, utterly wrong to imply that this is some form of Australian conspiracy because we have "weak forwards".

It is, as I said, the Australians who are pushing it. I don't really see how you can dispute that. The South Africans are equivocal, the Northern Hemisphere somewhat uneasy. Paddy O'Brien recently talked about the disappearance of props as a specialist position, and the likelihood of an increase in the prevalence of loose forwards in the game. Now, you can deny that it is part of an agenda if you like, but the removal of penalty offences at the scrum will certainly have the effect of depowering that scrum, to the advantage of sides who are weaker up front.

You may think that's a good thing - it's a fair enough position. But if you expect us to believe that the international side with the weakest scrum is pushing an agenda which will decrease the value of a powerful front five for purely selfless reasons, then forgive us our scepticism.

taipan wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:It's wrong, utterly wrong to imply that this is some form of Australian conspiracy because we have "weak forwards".

You don't?

Making it clear;

Our scrum is less than ordinary

Mick Sawyer wrote:

taipan wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:It's wrong, utterly wrong to imply that this is some form of Australian conspiracy because we have "weak forwards".

You don't?

Making it clear;

Our scrum is less than ordinary

So, you'll forgive a bit of northern hemisphere scepticism about rule changes designed to negate the influence of the scrum.

Hass wrote:When Rugby Union is good it's sensational. When Rugby Union is bad it is a sin against humanity.

Perfect summation.

Shoeshine - thanks for the reply - couple of comments on your own remarks;

"It is, as I said, the Australians who are pushing it."

There may be some Australians who capture media attention in your part of the world who favour further trialling, but I can't agree that it's Australia carrying it on their own. Weren't the original trials conducted in SA? Do you really believe that Australia would hold sway over reluctant parties from NZ, SA & the IRB for the trialling to be extended to S14 level? I suspect that media reporting in the UK had a “sour grapes Australia are England bashing” slant imposed by editors & that’s not to say that the same garbage journalism doesn’t happen here.


“but the removal of penalty offences at the scrum will certainly have the effect of depowering that scrum”

A strong scrum should always remain a strong scrum. What it might achieve is a change in the way the game is played around the world. I have a problem with an outlook that says that keeping it tight, make no errors & win a game exclusively off the boot is somehow acceptable & not detrimental to the game. Webb-Ellis picked the ball up, he didn’t place it on a kicking tee. Scrums/lineouts are and should always be hard-fought contests for possession, but they were only intended as a restart to the wider game that involves 15 players. They should never be the game in themselves. Please don’t misunderstand , I don’t want the fatties to disappear - good scrums deserve to be rewarded with quality possession, but it’s the most effective use of that possession, ball in hand (flashing backs or a rumble from the forwards, I don't care) that should determine the result of the game. However, for too long and as a direct result of current laws we’ve had teams selected with the objective of winning via the boot. That’s not the game. Take the penalty from the scrum away and we rid ourselves of those negative game plans. The reality at scrum time is that both teams are breaking the laws and one team is kicking for goal when it just as easily could have been jogging to a lineout 30 metres back down field. The England team of 2003, particularly their performances in Australia & NZ prior to the RWC were a magnificent exponents of how the game was intended to be played,