Fatties going to take the ball and not give it back for 80mins

Gatlands recent comments on the Springboks not playing any rugby are pretty much true,
The score some good tries off the lineout, they employ a great kick chase game and the forwards can really ruck and maul a team into submission but they hold nothing spontaneous or dynamic.

This style will crush Wales,Gatland knows it P Divvy knows it we all know it,
Gatlands comments are an attempt to get the South Africans to play a more lose game, will they fall for it?not a chance,the squad are far to long in the tooth to fall for it.

I see the fatties taking the ball and starving Wales of possession and ideas,im talking something on 70% possession stat by the time the game is over.
This will frustrate Wales tremendously causing infringement after infringement tapping 3 points over after 3 points.

Wales to me have shown plenty of reasons to optimistic on a narrow win but in honest reflection they have shown nothing on dealing with a monster pack rucking and mauling to convince me of handling the championship style rugby South Africa can bring.

For me this can go either way, first Wales can sneak it or second South Africa show us real big boys rugby and humble us.

Head says South Africa
Heart says Wales.

Wales could nick it to be sure, but they have to focus on what they do best and run the Saffer "fatties" off the park.

The major problem, as you've identified, will be competing at the breakdown and getting the ball off them.

The last team to change it's strategy after this kind of baiting was England for their WC final against Australia in 1991, the record shows where that got them, SA will NOT fall for it.

I expect a number of teams to be setting their stalls out to win ugly during this World Cup, England will be one of them, SA will be another.

Much will depend on whether or not Warburton can snaffle enough ball to really move the SA forwards around, personally, as much as I really admire the bloke, I think he'll get smashed the first time he looks interested in SA ball and how he reacts to that will be the key to Wales' chances.

Good luck, I'd love to see a Wales win.

A lot will also depend on how Wayne Barnes enforces the break down area,
if he think the way South Africa pick and go with a man going off his feet with a lazy attempt to set up the ruck is illegal Wales will have a chance but if he thinks that this sealing off is okay and legit Wales will struggle to get near the ball.

The truth of the matter is the only thing we lack is creativity in our back line. I will concede to that any time.

The perception that we do not play rugby comes from only that reason, nothing else. I showed the statistics of comparing the gameplays by the Tri Nation teams a week or so ago, and the pure facts were that there is only a marginal difference between what we do with the ball and the Ozzies and New Zealanders.

THe only marked difference between us and them is offloads of which they have twice as many offloads which results in twice as many linebreaks.

In a recent report provided by SARU to the SA sports committe there was specifically mentioned that the current crop of springboks have a fear of playing risky rugby, now the fact is although offloads do create more opportunities (which I am all for, obviously not in our half) it is also more risky due to the 50/50 chances it creates.

These are facts Wales will hve to deal with.

Our tight five comprising of Beast Mtawarira, Bismarck du Plessis/John Smit, Jannie du Plesses, Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha wins 85% of their test matches, and that is taking into consideration that as a combination (20 tests, 17 won) half their matches are against Tri Nation teams.

The likely back row for the match vs Wales will be Schalk Burger, Heinrich Brussouw and Pierre Spies, although a relatively less tested combination (5 tests, won 4) is still a very potent one.

Fourie du Preez and Morne Steyn may well not be in their best form, but are both experienced enough, and with a pack of forwards like they well might have vs Wales, will have enough front foot ball to control most of the match.

Our back line combination likely to face Wales, with center pairing fourie and de Villiers (41 tests, 71% win ratio) and our likely back three, Habana, Pietersen and Frans Steyn (24 tests, won 20 for 83% win rate) will as most expect not be the most exciting backline, but as solid as the day is long.

In those 24 tests, SA scored 72 tries of whcih the back 3 scored 25 tries. For a team not known for playing outwide not a bad return. The rest of the back line scored a further 30 of those tries.

As you said, Gatland will only succeed in focusing these boys more.

PJHolybloke wrote:I expect a number of teams to be setting their stalls out to win ugly during this World Cup, England will be one of them, SA will be another.

Can you explain to me what win ugly means.

Can someone explain to me what "only one side is playing rugby" means ? There are many facets to the game. Scrums, lineouts, ruck, mauls, pick and drive, running the ball, etc, etc. Which one of those is rugby ? Or is it all of them ?

Sounds like Gatland's foot and mouth are occupying a similar geographical area again.

If I was a Welsh player I'd want FatGat to keep his cakehole closed. Everytime he opens it Wales tend to get stuffed. I thought it was talking on the field time but I guess he couldn't quite help himself.

SA's try scoring record against Wales is pretty good, isn't it?

For me Bakkies and Matfield are the ones that will impose on Wales, if them two don't play i would up Wales chances by 20%

That 20% being on top of the cat in hells chance everybody seems to be giving us.

biltongbek wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:I expect a number of teams to be setting their stalls out to win ugly during this World Cup, England will be one of them, SA will be another.

Can you explain to me what win ugly means.

I think so.

The beautiful side of the game is the ladies chucking the ball about with gay abandon from one side of the field to the next, outside breaks, wingers at full steam turning markers inside then out, centres stepping and jinking and creating half a yard of space for another lady to exploit.

The ugly side is the big boys playing to their strengths and getting to the breakdowns fustest with the mostest, picking and going, wearing down the opposition through relentless battering until they're breathing through their a££holes, using the set pieces where they feel they have a physical advantage to further denegrate their opponents ability to defend in an organised manner until they are within 10 yards of the "white line" when they will either toss the ball to one of the ladies to score, or failing that force the opposition to concede a desperate penalty and take the 3 on offer.

I'm not fussed either way to be honest, a win is a win and that's why God invented points.

PJHolybloke wrote:
I think so.

The beautiful side of the game is the ladies chucking the ball about with gay abandon from one side of the field to the next, outside breaks, wingers at full steam turning markers inside then out, centres stepping and jinking and creating half a yard of space for another lady to exploit.

The ugly side is the big boys playing to their strengths and getting to the breakdowns fustest with the mostest, picking and going, wearing down the opposition through relentless battering until they're breathing through their a££holes, using the set pieces where they feel they have a physical advantage to further denegrate their opponents ability to defend in an organised manner until they are within 10 yards of the "white line" when they will either toss the ball to one of the ladies to score, or failing that force the opposition to concede a desperate penalty and take the 3 on offer.

I'm not fussed either way to be honest, a win is a win and that's why God invented points.

i dont see this interview with gatland anywhere, only thing i saw is edwards saying he is wary of the SA backrow

nottins wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:
I think so.

The beautiful side of the game is the ladies chucking the ball about with gay abandon from one side of the field to the next, outside breaks, wingers at full steam turning markers inside then out, centres stepping and jinking and creating half a yard of space for another lady to exploit.

The ugly side is the big boys playing to their strengths and getting to the breakdowns fustest with the mostest, picking and going, wearing down the opposition through relentless battering until they're breathing through their a££holes, using the set pieces where they feel they have a physical advantage to further denegrate their opponents ability to defend in an organised manner until they are within 10 yards of the "white line" when they will either toss the ball to one of the ladies to score, or failing that force the opposition to concede a desperate penalty and take the 3 on offer.

I'm not fussed either way to be honest, a win is a win and that's why God invented points.

Tru-dat.

PJHolybloke wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:I expect a number of teams to be setting their stalls out to win ugly during this World Cup, England will be one of them, SA will be another.

Can you explain to me what win ugly means.

I think so.

The beautiful side of the game is the ladies chucking the ball about with gay abandon from one side of the field to the next, outside breaks, wingers at full steam turning markers inside then out, centres stepping and jinking and creating half a yard of space for another lady to exploit.

The ugly side is the big boys playing to their strengths and getting to the breakdowns fustest with the mostest, picking and going, wearing down the opposition through relentless battering until they're breathing through their a££holes, using the set pieces where they feel they have a physical advantage to further denegrate their opponents ability to defend in an organised manner until they are within 10 yards of the "white line" when they will either toss the ball to one of the ladies to score, or failing that force the opposition to concede a desperate penalty and take the 3 on offer.

I'm not fussed either way to be honest, a win is a win and that's why God invented points.

Exactly right.
Winning is Beautiful Rugby.
Losing is Ugly Rugby.
There is no winning ugly, just winning and losing.
This is the World Cup: The goal is to win, no style points awarded.
- Philosophy according to your good doctor.

PJHolybloke wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:I expect a number of teams to be setting their stalls out to win ugly during this World Cup, England will be one of them, SA will be another.

Can you explain to me what win ugly means.

I think so.

The beautiful side of the game is the ladies chucking the ball about with gay abandon from one side of the field to the next, outside breaks, wingers at full steam turning markers inside then out, centres stepping and jinking and creating half a yard of space for another lady to exploit.

The ugly side is the big boys playing to their strengths and getting to the breakdowns fustest with the mostest, picking and going, wearing down the opposition through relentless battering until they're breathing through their a££holes, using the set pieces where they feel they have a physical advantage to further denegrate their opponents ability to defend in an organised manner until they are within 10 yards of the "white line" when they will either toss the ball to one of the ladies to score, or failing that force the opposition to concede a desperate penalty and take the 3 on offer.

I'm not fussed either way to be honest, a win is a win and that's why God invented points.

Sadly my friend, if this is your perception and you have never seen the beauty of a Jonah Lomu pulverising Mkie Catt on his way to a try line, or Jaque fourie powering his way through Ronan O'Gara, or Ollie le Roux taking the ball wide to run through and score, then you have been watching rugby League, and this RWC might just be your chance to see some real rugby.

No need for sadness biltong, I didn't invent the term - just explained it as requested.

I particularly liked Scott Gibbs flattening Os Du Randt by the way.

Like I said, not fussed either way as a win is a win.

Scott Gibbs flattening Os Du Randt was awesome, as was John Bentley destroying James Small.

There is only winning and losing (ignoring the occasional draw). Score more points and you win. It really is that simple. So what if a team loses having outscored the victors by 3 tries to 1. They have still lost. There is no moral victory there. After the RWC in 2003, there was a movement on Oz to downgrade the drop goal to 2 points. This was simply because they had lost by a drop goal (note they still would have lost if it was 2 points). It was more to do with the fact that England had won the RWC in their own backyard and so they got all 'toy throwing' about it. SA have two fully deserved RWC wins under their belt, the first was won by a similar late drop goal, and the second without even threatening to score a try. Does that make those victories hollow? Of course not. A win is a win....

PJHB and dgob, will you please stop talking sense.

nottins wrote:PJHB and dgob, will you please stop talking sense.

Sorry.

On second thoughts you should get extra points from an impartial judging panel based on the artistic impression and style with which you cross the try line.... or somethin'?

You should get 5 points for a try, then -2 if you get the conversion.

Ive been waiting for Gatland to say something, although this isnt anywhere near as bad as i was expecting....

....I still think hes got some beautys up his sleeve to rile up S.Africa some more, along with some nice fresh socks to wear when he inserts his foot back into his mouth.

damngoodOvalball wrote:You should get 5 points for a try, then -2 if you get the conversion.

Genius! Sack the IRB and put dgob in charge, I like the cut of yer jib mate.

on second thoughts perhaps no points for the conversion but a punch in the face for being boring if you get it, and a pat on the back for being exciting if you miss.

additional points to be awarded depending on the flambuoyancy of the try-scoring dive? maybe the TMO could help with this? he'd get a fair few angles of the score.....

"Ashtons through, hes going for it, there it is, THE SPLASH.......

.....Well Jim, as you can see on the replay, he's pointing to his nan in the crowd, what a proud day for her it is, only problem though, hes not quite hoizontal, hes a fair few degrees off it in fact, the TMO wont like that.....

.... and the TMO's given him an extra 2 points, not Chris's best effort, but its his take on a classic."

I saw Gatland's interview, and he made his 'SA don't play any Rugby' comment more as a throw-away comment amidst many other thoughts: It seemed to slip out rather than being a deliberate attempt to provoke Bok ire.

With regards to 'ugly' and 'beautiful' rugby: as far as I'm concerned, the big forwards bashing each other about is the most beautiful aspect of rugby! If all I wanted to watch was people running really fast around a field, I'd watch athletics. So to my mind, the Boks do play 'beautiful' rugby!

Mr Fishpaste wrote:I saw Gatland's interview, and he made his 'SA don't play any Rugby' comment more as a throw-away comment amidst many other thoughts: It seemed to slip out rather than being a deliberate attempt to provoke Bok ire.

With regards to 'ugly' and 'beautiful' rugby: as far as I'm concerned, the big forwards bashing each other about is the most beautiful aspect of rugby! If all I wanted to watch was people running really fast around a field, I'd watch athletics. So to my mind, the Boks do play 'beautiful' rugby!

Thanks Mr fishpaste, a true believer

Jonah Lomu pulverising Mkie Catt

Why does every one pick on poor old Mike Catt?

Mr Lomu must have trampled every back three in the world at some point or other. I'm sure I saw him in a Scottish game turn back (with the tryline open in front of him) and run back upfield to bulldoze over a couple of people he missed on his original charge.

He did like running into targets with white shirts though

TrailApe wrote:
He did like running into targets with white shirts though

that reminded me of some TV games, you run over certain designated "blotches" and collect bonus points.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:I saw Gatland's interview, and he made his 'SA don't play any Rugby' comment more as a throw-away comment amidst many other thoughts: It seemed to slip out rather than being a deliberate attempt to provoke Bok ire.

With regards to 'ugly' and 'beautiful' rugby: as far as I'm concerned, the big forwards bashing each other about is the most beautiful aspect of rugby! If all I wanted to watch was people running really fast around a field, I'd watch athletics. So to my mind, the Boks do play 'beautiful' rugby!

Fatties going to take the ball and not give it back for 80mins


As a forward myself many moons ago, I do miss those days.

In the '95 game we should have selected Ian Hunter opposite Lomu rather than Anthony Underwood. Then we would have won the cup I reckon

PJHolybloke wrote:

I'm not fussed either way to be honest, a win is a win and that's why God invented points.

I thought god was Welsh though, wouldnt he have given them a few more?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

I'm not fussed either way to be honest, a win is a win and that's why God invented points.

I thought god was Welsh though, wouldnt he have given them a few more?

You're a very naughty boy Peter.

I have enjoyed reading through this thread, some good banter

In the '95 game we should have selected Ian Hunter opposite Lomu rather than Anthony Underwood. Then we would have won the cup I reckon.

Aye - mebbes if you give Mr Hunter a FlickHammer.

My two lads and myself have been wtching 'Big Lol's' RWC on ITV4 over the past few nights and Lomu has cropped up in a few. Why can't they just drag him down asked my eldest (Lomu was ambling through a crowd of Les Bleues fanct pants backs) then a French second row just hurled himself at the black cladded one - and bounced off.

I think he was so well balanced - his body angle was very good - and so powerful it was really hard to take him straight on - try for the legs and you got a big shoulder through your sternum, try to go higher and you got a shovel of a hand in your face.

Scary.

However I remember when he played some club rugby in Wellington and he got flattened every time but the Samoan fullback.

Remember in NZ club rugby is very low level amatuer stuff

Yes it's great to watch the fatties pound their way with the ball for 80 minutes or more in a RWC final.

Tony Daley's 1991 winning try at Twickers takes 1st Prize closely followed by Owen Finegan's short burst late in the '99 Final to seal Australia's second Webb Ellis Cup. To achieve that on foreign soil was simply brilliant stuff to watch.

That's what it's all about folks - Prime Aussie fat v the soft European variety!

Do you non NZ fans think that because we like to chuck it around that our fatties can't handle the hard stuff.
I seem to see a lot of stuff about how NZ don't know how to do the forward stuff because we play too much super rugby. Is that how the NH fans really see us?

Is that how the NH fans really see us?

I think as usual we're all looking for any crumb of possible comfort while desperately hoping the ABs implode. Or that referees will finally notice Mr Invisible McCaw.

So do you really believe McCaw breaks the rules more than other number 7s? and if so that he gets penalised less than other 7s?

I can accept that may be as a kiwi fan I don't see some of his indiscretions but I find it harder to accept that international referees are unwilling to penalise him.

Linebreaker wrote:Owen Finegan's short burst late in the '99 Final to seal Australia's second Webb Ellis Cup.

Not that short a burst as I recall it - he took the ball just outside France's 22, didn't he?

You noticed my little joke, lucky. Yes, it was around 30-35m from memory.

36.456 metres to be exact.

nganboy wrote:So do you really believe McCaw breaks the rules more than other number 7s? and if so that he gets penalised less than other 7s?

I can accept that may be as a kiwi fan I don't see some of his indiscretions but I find it harder to accept that international referees are unwilling to penalise him.

He's better than pretty much all the others nganboy, and from my recollection of playing 7 that tends to suggest that apart from his natural talent (of which there is plenty) there is a high level of chicanery going on.

I wouldn't refer to it as cheating (although some do) because if you're not bending the laws, you've no right pulling on the 7 shirt. 7's are born to be offside and "no hands" is just short for "no hands unless you're a 7", nowhere in the laws does it state that you have to make way for an opponent but on occassions one can gain a significant advantage for ones team-mates by standing in a specific place or just being a bit slow around the fringes.

I think there are very few people who actually think McCaw is a "serial cheater" with the vast majority accepting the fact that he's just cuter at the art than his so-called peers. You're not on your own for not seeing it though, as most people (including the refs) miss a lot of his "indiscretions" - which is what makes him so outstanding in my book.

I think it's fair to say that all captains get a little more leniency from the referee, and whilst that includes McCaw, he's no different from any other captain but probably uses it to his own advantage much better than the others do, and that's just clever to be fair.

For the sake of Rugby - I hope Wales hammer them. Negative rugby.

Blah, blah, blah. You don't nail a 10 inch nail with a little hammer, you need something proper.

biltongbek wrote:Blah, blah, blah. You don't nail a 10 inch nail with a little hammer, you need something proper.

Hey biltong, that England win today was the "ugly" I was talking about.

But it was on the grotesque side of ugly to be honest...

:shameface: