The Dew Drop Inn Virtual Rugby Pub

First topic message reminder :

Welcome to the virtual rugby pub - a place where you can come in for a sly beverage and discuss whatever's on your mind, or just eavesdrop on the regulars if you fancy a break from all the rugby chat.

The only rule in this pub is one of mutual respect for everyone in it, oh and no defacing the David Pocock photo on the bar. That's a banning offence

So pull up a chair....what'll it be?

Every RWC has been a moral victory for Scotland - we don't care about the manner of said moral victory tho

As. Did you get my text this morning??

You're all philistines!

Maybe a better way of explaining it would be by comparing the 2005 and 2008 Grand Slams. I was chuffed when we won it in 2008, but I wasn't thrilled like I was in 2005. In 2005 we played some brilliant rugby to watch, in 2008 it was a more pragmatic brand of rugby. Both are equal as Grand Slams but one was won by a more attractive brand of rugby. That does count for something. Unless you're a philistine.

Winning is everything at the top level of sport.

Going back to a conversation in here last night about the development of young English football talent, the problem in this country in a lot of sport is that winning is also everything at junior level, which is wrong.

Morning all

Luckless I suspect that was more to do with the fact the 2005 was the first one. Similarly if Ireland won 2012 Grand Slam playing great rugby the 2009 one would still mean more to us.

It counts for something yes. I mean if you win its better to win and play pleasing rugby. However I have no interest in watching my team lose.

hughie1986 wrote:As. Did you get my text this morning??

Did you not get my reply? Not much planning done as yet, probably v quiet

LDCPete wrote:Winning is everything at the top level of sport.

Going back to a conversation in here last night about the development of young English football talent, the problem in this country in a lot of sport is that winning is also everything at junior level, which is wrong.

But is that really true, Pete? Arguably the best two countries in world rugby in history (NZ & SA) instill an incredibly competitive attitude from the youngest players upwards?

Well that's my point really, Stag. I'm not arguing that an attractive loss is preferable to an ugly win. Winning is the prime objective, but a win with style is more... stylish.

Morning, Pete.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:I'm not arguing that an attractive loss is preferable to an ugly win.

Apologies I thought you were.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

hughie1986 wrote:As. Did you get my text this morning??

Did you not get my reply? Not much planning done as yet, probably v quiet

LDCPete wrote:Winning is everything at the top level of sport.

Going back to a conversation in here last night about the development of young English football talent, the problem in this country in a lot of sport is that winning is also everything at junior level, which is wrong.

But is that really true, Pete? Arguably the best two countries in world rugby in history (NZ & SA) instill an incredibly competitive attitude from the youngest players upwards?

Quiet, yeah ok ill believe that when it happens

Asbo it seems a bit different though. It seems about individual competition there - i.e. every player striving to be the best, where as I know guys coaching underage soccer say some coaches get great results without teaching skills - i.e. long ball and a physicality.

As

There is a difference between instilling a competitive edge and making winning everything. You still have to develop players core skills, and there is an argument that for a top player that competitive edge is a core skill, although I don't know how much of that is nature and how much is nurture.

What I am talking about in terms of making winning everything is the teams in whatever sport, that have one player who is bigger, stronger, faster than everyone else, so rather than teaching him to play and others to play around him, the coach instructs him to use his physical attributes to win the game.

Great, you win everything using this method at U12 level, then when you reach U14 the physical attributes of the kids have evened out and none of your team can play at all because they've never been taught.

It goes on a lot, particularly in junior football.

Also they play weight categories in NZ rugby don't they which stops this happening.

There's a pal of mine Pete coaching U16 football. He said they won the League at U12 and U13 level without losing too many of that bunch. He said that lack such basic skills and he has had to teach them basics of the game all over again at U16 when he'd hoped they had moved onto systems and tactics to use these skills.

Okay, so if results are all that matters, then does that mean that the best team always wins if results are the only barometer of performance?

Don't know if anyone has read the Grauniad and listened to a podcast discussing home nations team (GB) for the RWC. Haven't had time to listen yet but, from reading the comment blog, apparently Brendan FAnning (who he?) wheeled on to discuss Ireland's chances which, according to him, are zero. Then goes on to advise all opposition teams to target BOD's shoulder in every ruck and maul. Don't think he's heading for Freedom of the City of Dublin anytime soon. Fanning that is, not BOD.

No because you don't have to be the best to win. Sport would be terrible if the best team always won.

But then your argument that results are the only thing that matters is flawed.

Not in my eyes. We are all trying to win the match first and foremost. You can achieve that by playing well or playing badly.

The ultimate - as Luckless alluded to - is to both win AND play well.

However they are separate entirely.

Yeah you do try to play well but winning is the most important thing between that and playing well so that means the better team always wins.

I think in rugby the best team generally does win. Very rarely do I see a match and think the losing side deserved to win. Ultimately the game is about scoring points, so its difficult to see a team who scored less points than their opponents as more deserving.

MBTGOG wrote:Okay, so if results are all that matters, then does that mean that the best team always wins if results are the only barometer of performance?

It's all relative Munsty, while one team may look to be playing better but the defence would have to ne great from the other team to stop them from scoring.


So where it may look like Team Red are the better team but Team Blue defended better and therefore managed to win. They may not have been the better team but in a very important facet of them game they were better and got the win

MBTGOG wrote:Yeah you do try to play well but winning is the most important thing between that and playing well so that means the better team always wins.

I disagree. I've explained my point above already. I don't buy into this "they DESERVED to win" thing that gets trotted about a lot though.

However I do believe it is possible to win and not be the better team.

Hello again (dropped in yesterday but was ignored )

how's everyone

MICKEY T


HOW THE HELL ARE YOU BUDDY!!!!

Take the hint, Micky!

I think people mistake aesthetics for being the better team.

Its not a mistake Munsty. Just a different interpretation.

No munsty, a team could have the better scrum, better lineout, ruck like demons and have a solid attack for eighty minutes. But the other team could just defend amazingly and take a couple a chances

So having been beaten off the park still manage to pull off a win. So in a situation like that I could say the better team lost

So do you take back that the result is the only thing that matters?

Micky,

Love your face.


My friend has left Chester. Feels pretty weird that he won't be back. Will be seeing him in 24 hours time.

hughie1986 wrote:No munsty, a team could have the better scrum, better lineout, ruck like demons and have a solid attack for eighty minutes. But the other team could just defend amazingly and take a couple a chances

So having been beaten off the park still manage to pull off a win. So in a situation like that I could say the better team lost

But is it about having a better scrum/lineout/attack/breakdown or scoring more points?

Also, a solid defence is just as valuable as having a good attacking game.

MBTGOG wrote:So do you take back that the result is the only thing that matters?

No why would I?

Performance over all munsty. What's with the confusion Munsty??

Just like to say, I would always want my team to play positively.

hughie1986 wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:Okay, so if results are all that matters, then does that mean that the best team always wins if results are the only barometer of performance?

It's all relative Munsty, while one team may look to be playing better but the defence would have to ne great from the other team to stop them from scoring.


So where it may look like Team Red are the better team but Team Blue defended better and therefore managed to win. They may not have been the better team but in a very important facet of them game they were better and got the win

In that scenario, surely they were the better team. Their defence was great, presumbably red teams defence wasn't as good and they scored more points off the back of it.

hughie1986 wrote:Performance over all munsty. What's with the confusion Munsty??

Because you said results are the only thing that matters, so the performance to get a result doesn't.

red_stag wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:So do you take back that the result is the only thing that matters?

No why would I?

Because it goes against what you believe.

Now that's the response a guy needs to keep coming back to this place..

Thanks folks..

Feeling better now, Micky?

Got to carry lots of crap back to mine now, then go to mature student mentor training then pack, then off to Luton, via Euston.

MBTGOG wrote:

red_stag wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:So do you take back that the result is the only thing that matters?

No why would I?

Because it goes against what you believe.

No it doesn't. I believe most important thing is to get the result, however you don't need to be the best team to do that. Similarly you can play better and still not win.

hughie1986 wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:I've been thinking about this, the results v performance thing. Looking at it rationally, yes, the result is all that matters; but none of us is rational when it comes to sport, and to rugby in particular. What if France won the World Cup but played a flair-free, fundamentally un-French game in the process ? That just wouldn't be right, would it? The manner of victory is important too, even though the victory is the prime objective.

That would matter to you Luckless, but I promise you no one in France would care less. "uuuuugggghhhh wwweeeeee wwwwoooonnnn zzzeeeeee Worrld Kup, mais we zid not do it in ze French way. Puhh Zend it back"

Nah don't think so

They would do 2 things, they would say that, but they would also keep the cup.

True Glas. Apparantly quite a large number of French fans are unhappy to see Lievremont go and SaintAndre come in.

Not too bad Luck.. working from home today so that's helping. not much energy but the virus is gone.

although I did ring for the results of the blood test and receptionist told me all clear.

but the doctor rang me after asking could I come in and have a chat about them. so I am a little worried about that.

going to go up after lunch

The problem with deciding who's best is that people seem to think that a good attack is 'better' than a good defence, which isn't true.

This is a Flip joke:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-14820797

EDIT: hope it's good news, Micky!

Ah T you'll be grand I'm sure

Hope it goes well Mick. Watching NZ v France 1987 final. Good game.

The France v Australia semi final that year was a great match.

This is great!

https://www.606v2.com/t13322-welsh-response-to-maori-welcome