Beating the odds or cheating yourself?

Last night I watched with some Spanish friends the Barcelona Chelsea match. Now given I live in Madrid and there is no more intense rivalry than Barcelona and Madrid in Spanish football, all my friends were supporting Chelsea. But it quickly became apparent that Chelsea were hell bent on protecting their lead.

Now I must admit to being bored stiff for most of the match. Near the end there was vague interest like watching an animal cross a highway and wonder if it'll reach the other side without being run over. Not even putting money (stupidly) on Barcelona to win made it more interesting.

So my mind couldn't help wander throughout the game to drawing parallels with my beloved sport of rugby. Now I'm not averse to watching the big games of football. I think when it is played well it can sometimes approach the 'beautiful game' they speak of when referring to football. But this was more the 'ugly game' last night. It was anti-football.

But then when the stakes are so high what choice did Chelsea have. Engage in the open passing game of Barcelona and the final score would have been 5 - 0 probably. Why not shut up shop and defend and hope for a mistake to occur to capitalise on. In the end, this is more or less what happened.

So I couldn't help but think of the top teams in rugby and the tactics other teams employ against those top teams. If you replace Barcelona with the ABs and tiki-taka with total rugby and bear in mind everyone is happy to see the downfall of the top team then the situation appears to be identical. To beat the ABs is generally very difficult to outscore them in a points bonanza. The games the ABs tend to lose is where the defence is rock solid and where AB mistakes are punished and capitalised on. Obviously there are a few sides able to beat the ABs in their own right and their own way. But for many teams, it seems more realistic to go for a conservative game plan and hope you can catch them on an off day rather than go for an all out attack gameplan and hope to score more points.

In NZ we often label this conservative game plan as anti-rugby, which I realised last night is too harsh. It's a fallacy to say NZ always plays attractive rugby (whatever that is supposed to mean) or always uses a running game (whatever that is). But many who watched the World Cup final last year for example, thought that other than the result it didn't make for a great spectacle. But are there people out there who thinks that anything other than the result is important? In sport, do you have to weigh up your best chances of winning and then try to execute that plan, regardless of the spirit of which you employ those tactics? Is going into the game with a defensive mindset rather than an attacking one giving you the best chance of success or is it limiting yourself and cheating yourselves and your fans? Are the stakes too high in the big matches to go out with an attacking mindset? To take another example, Italy in the 6N is often trying to punch above its weight. Instead of thinking it can employ the tactics that work for the other teams in order to beat Italy, it looks to find a way to play the game that plays more to its own strengths.

But Italy has limited strings to its attacking bows. What of the teams that have more options. Let's take Wales, Ireland and England for example who have some very challenging matches ahead of them. Would you be happy to see them going in with their heads in their shells so to speak and looking at giving away few chances and feeding off the scraps the opposition give. Or would you like to see more variety and hope that your team pulls off a victory? A similar thing could be said of Scottish fans who wanted to break out from this defensive mindset and embark on something more adventurous in terms of acquiring points. Do you want to see the latter on your SH tour this summer or do results matter more?

Kia,

From an Irish point of view I'd like to see us attack.

HOWEVER this is only because I think it is our best chance of winning matches.

We don't play well inside our shells right now.

I agree Stag. I think in recent times generally your best performances have been in NZ rather than at home (with the exception of your last home match against NZ).

But hypothetically, if you ground out a so-called ugly win, would it matter to you?

Not in the slightest. It truly amazes me that we need to have an articule on this (though I know there are others who will disagree but I can't fathom it). You do what you can to win. Right now for Ireland that means more attacking play than we are doing.

Reults matter, but ultimately I would like to see the results being won by playing attractive rugby. That does not necessarily mean running the ball in from anywhere. The forwards pick and go's etc can be just as effective. Ultimately I want to see my team go out and score as many points as they can, not just sit back and defend.

I have no interest in football at all, and only watched the match last night because after we were both singing at a memorial service my housemate and I went to a nearby pub to cheer her up after a really stressful day of lab-work going horribly wrong and it was on. I thought it was highly exciting despite the generally appalling foulplay and diving and I really do not find football interesting. I personally think that one team in all out attack and the other in all out defence is more interesting in any sport in the world than both teams in all out attack just in terms of a spectacle. I knew I liked this in sports I understand and play and therefore watch and generally enjoy (rugby, tennis, cricket) but only discovered recently that it seems to be a generally applicable rule for myself. Games with lots of attack from both sides are fine as long as the sides defend well enough that the attack has meaning. Attack against a weak defence is dull, because it is predictable and there is no drama.

That's my opinion on the matter

Some 3-0 results have happened when both sides have played with endeavour but met stern defences or just lacked a clinical edge. Enjoyable none the less.

A win is a win. But a win in the SH however, gained would be an achievement for any NH side.

But in terms of as an England supporter, I think our best chance of beating the Boks is trying to gain parity in the pack and playing patiently until we can secure quick ball then throwing it about, so an attacking game is more likely to succeed than a defensive one, at which I cannot see SA losing

I don't mean to say that rugby should be played only one way. But is it better to lose using all the players on the field effectively than win but play in a very one dimensional way selling yourself short and not using all your attacking options? I don't mean throwing the ball around willy nilly and running in tries from any part of the park. But not being so transparent in your game plan.

Take England for example with their tour in SA. They have had an impressive 6N and take some new talent there who shouldn't have an inferiority complex. But what does SL do against a side that has similar strengths to those of England. i.e. a very solid set piece and a very useful defence. Does he go for the conservative approach and try to grind out wins with a good defence and scoring when the opportunities arise. Or does he go for the bolder approach and try to take the game more to the SA team and test their line more with a bit more variation on attack? A team like Chelsea with the amount of money they have spent on their team could do something a bit bolder than shove everyone in their goal and try to shut out the game. England have enough cutting edge on attack to at least vary things up. Losing sucks but is losing while playing within yourself even worse?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I don't mean to say that rugby should be played only one way. But is it better to lose using all the players on the field effectively than win but play in a very one dimensional way selling yourself short and not using all your attacking options? I don't mean throwing the ball around willy nilly and running in tries from any part of the park. But not being so transparent in your game plan.

Take England for example with their tour in SA. They have had an impressive 6N and take some new talent there who shouldn't have an inferiority complex. But what does SL do against a side that has similar strengths to those of England. i.e. a very solid set piece and a very useful defence. Does he go for the conservative approach and try to grind out wins with a good defence and scoring when the opportunities arise. Or does he go for the bolder approach and try to take the game more to the SA team and test their line more with a bit more variation on attack? A team like Chelsea with the amount of money they have spent on their team could do something a bit bolder than shove everyone in their goal and try to shut out the game. England have enough cutting edge on attack to at least vary things up. Losing sucks but is losing while playing within yourself even worse?

As I've said above, against SA we try more variation on attack, because they are better equipped (IMO by a large degree) to play defensively and grind out a victory than we are whilst I think we can compete far better playing aggressively. However, sometimes, like against Australia, an approach more in line with using the set-piece and opportunistic strikes, seems more likely to succeed. There is no black and white approach unless you think that your players are good enough in one area to always dominate all opposition using it. Ours aren't so the correct way to play will vary from match to match, and even within matches

I would prefer a dour 3-0 snoozefest win over a 42-37 entertaining loss if that's what the game called for and as long as it didn't become a habit. Sure, fans love a winner but you won't get get them turning up in droves season after season to watch a glorified game of force-em-backs. Eventually the money will dry up and the sport will go nowhere. It's a delicate balance.

I agree with what you say Chequered. I think it's in England's best interests to adjust their game plan to the opposition they're playing.

But what I'm wondering is whether it is possible in rugby, regardless of the opposition and the strengths they have and the strengths that your own team have, to play always the same way against the big sides and for that way to be low risk, defensively minded and win on a consistent basis? And is this something you'd want for your own team?

Well, on the Club board at the moment there's a bit of debate about Sarries doing this. This seems to be the plan until it becomes clear it won't work in a match and they are forced to play catch up (and against Tigers and Quins they started attacking too late and ended up losing) so I think it probably cannot be done. As for whether I'd like it, I'm not sure. I don't think so, but most importantly I do not think it would work

Defence wins you games and attack wins you fans. But is there a worrying trend to go within your shell to win games through defence rather than vary up your attack in order to cut down on mistakes?

Take France for example? Sure they can play great attacking rugby against sides like Italy. But Phillipe Saint-Andre seems more conservative when it comes to the big matches and trusts in his sides' ability to defend and force mistakes and turnover ball.

Meyer seems to be surrounding himself with Bulls support staff in the SA set up and it does appear he will be returning to what he knows SA can play and be very effective at. But with so much more talent at their disposal who are capable of so much more, is that not selling yourself short?

Many Irish fans tend to be disheartened or much worse with Kidney over his conservative style and wish they were more adventurous than kicking the leather off the ball.

England performed above expectations but their attack most would say was still very limited. Their ascendancy in the scrum against Ireland didn't spread further out wide for example.

Even sides like Wales, Australia and NZ who are capable of a more total attacking minded game seem to be in recent times focusing on things that work well for them (Wales for example cutting out Priestland and getting Roberts to punch through the defensive line or NZ in the RWC final).

Am I being affected by the lousy weather here too much or is rugby getting more predictable?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Defence wins you games and attack wins you fans. But is there a worrying trend to go within your shell to win games through defence rather than vary up your attack in order to cut down on mistakes?

Take France for example? Sure they can play great attacking rugby against sides like Italy. But Phillipe Saint-Andre seems more conservative when it comes to the big matches and trusts in his sides' ability to defend and force mistakes and turnover ball.

Meyer seems to be surrounding himself with Bulls support staff in the SA set up and it does appear he will be returning to what he knows SA can play and be very effective at. But with so much more talent at their disposal who are capable of so much more, is that not selling yourself short?

Many Irish fans tend to be disheartened or much worse with Kidney over his conservative style and wish they were more adventurous than kicking the leather off the ball.

England performed above expectations but their attack most would say was still very limited. Their ascendancy in the scrum against Ireland didn't spread further out wide for example.

Even sides like Wales, Australia and NZ who are capable of a more total attacking minded game seem to be in recent times focusing on things that work well for them (Wales for example cutting out Priestland and getting Roberts to punch through the defensive line or NZ in the RWC final).

Am I being affected by the lousy weather here too much or is rugby getting more predictable?

Yeah, and their 6N sucked. And ours was criticised and we know that this approach won't work against better teams. Hopefully coaches will stop being so conservative when they realise it doesn't actually work

I love discussions like this because it is so pertinent to why we love rugby.

I don't like matches that looks like a free for all and that has no structure.

I want a match to have structure and teams must play proper rugby.

They must execute their set pieces correctly, they must have well organised defences and control proceedings. Then once they have achieved all that, may the best team then win.

Tries are beautiful to see, but the reason why most people look at tries and say well there were 6 tries in the match and hence it was a great game is a fallicy.

You find matches where teams have run 400 metres each and there was only 1 try a piece. It is still a brilliant match, it doesn't mean becuase one run of 50 metres resulted in a try it was a greater run than 50 metres by another player who may have beaten more defenders but eventually the move was stopped by brilliant defence.

So I enjoy all aspects of a game.

One thing that I can't stand though, is when SA lead and Morne Steyn starts kicking possession away in the last 10 minutes.

I like games were it is tight but quick moving weather it be fast pick and drives or throwing the ball.

What I hate is get ball - ruck - formations in place - do plan - back to ruck

It is the slow game I hate but I have watched some great low games

connacht v Quinns this year had hardly any scores in the second half it was high tempo desparate tackles.

Having the ball thrown around is fine but not if it ends like Scotland or Wales a few years ago where they move around but stay at the same game line

That's right. The Australia NZ semi final last year was not a try fest by any stretch of the imagination. But it was such a powerful shut out where NZ just didn't allow Australia into the game. Then in the final it seemed like we just wanted to kick possession away and go for the mistakes. I think that favoured more the French. Obviously the stakes were high but it wasn't pretty.

What I would find tough from a Bok perspective is that guys like Fourie were never utilised properly. M Steyn is a kicking machine but when he plays the backline tends to become predictable and one-dimensional. I don't think it's in the interests to turn the Bok backline into one like Australia or NZ but it's not unreasonable to see a few wrap-arounds, chips or grubbers in behind the line or the forwards ranging out wider and linking up with the backs? Tries are by no means a guarantee to success or attractive rugby but going only for increments of three by the same token isn't doing yourself justice I think. (Not that I'm saying this is what SA does. Like eating, it´s all about balance for reaching that healthy state)

I don't think it's in the interests to turn the Bok backline into one like Australia or NZ but it's not unreasonable to see a few wrap-arounds, chips or grubbers in behind the line or the forwards ranging out wider and linking up with the backs?

Exactly correct Kia, just a little imagination and variation is needed.

Maybe a Genia-esque defensive chip kick straight into the hands of the opposition every now and then?

Steyn did enough of those in 2010 thanks. Even though they weren't always chip kicks.

What about a Matt Dunning style accidental field goal?

All good entertainment but not exactly attractive rugby particularly the last one. Attractive. and Dunning can't even go in the same sentence It won't let me put the full stop in the right place!

I remember a period when we (Wales) had Steve Hansen in charge, we were playing some good rugby but were still loosing, like the England and New Zealand games in the 2003 world cup. We were on a ten game loosing streak but everybody was saying "at least our performances were better. I will tell you now, that it did my nut in, all I wanted was a win !!!! At the same time I saw England lift the world cup and be ranked no.1 in the world with boring rugby. If you look at the history now, Wales have nothing for their performances, but England have a world cup. So, I know what I would rather, a win at any cost, and I do not care how we get it, I bet the Scotts didn't care how they beat South Africa and Australia a few years back.

On a sustained basis though LordDowlals? Is it okay to keep winning that way though?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:On a sustained basis though LordDowlals? Is it okay to keep winning that way though?

South Africa have made a good living out of it. Seriously though, give me the win any day. Kia, what would you rather, loosing all the time and chucking the ball about willy nilly, or grinding a result out and winning every time. The thing is for you though, you have a nation that can win both ways.

LordDowlais wrote:At the same time I saw England lift the world cup and be ranked no.1 in the world with boring rugby.

Oh, do behave. Do you really believe that England were playing boring rugby during that period? This tired old cliche surely needs to be put out of its misery.

sugarNspikes wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:At the same time I saw England lift the world cup and be ranked no.1 in the world with boring rugby.

Oh, do behave. Do you really believe that England were playing boring rugby during that period? This tired old cliche surely needs to be put out of its misery.

Well, you certainly were not setting the world on fire were you . What England were good at was keeping the ball and tiring out the opposition, they would then run in the try's with their backs after the forwards demolished all in front of them.

I was more concern about players jumping to the ground pretending all the time they are in last few minutes of they life whenever they get touch by another player. It remind me why I chose watch rugby instead.

LordDowlais wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:At the same time I saw England lift the world cup and be ranked no.1 in the world with boring rugby.

Oh, do behave. Do you really believe that England were playing boring rugby during that period? This tired old cliche surely needs to be put out of its misery.

Well, you certainly were not setting the world on fire were you . What England were good at was keeping the ball and tiring out the opposition, they would then run in the try's with their backs after the forwards demolished all in front of them.

I guess it all depends on whether you can't appreciate good rugby when England are the ones producing it. There are many, many aspects to good play but I guess some don't see that or choose not to when certain sides are doing it.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I was more concern about players jumping to the ground pretending all the time they are in last few minutes of they life whenever they get touch by another player. It remind me why I chose watch rugby instead.

Every challenge, Barcalona do my swede in. Then you have Drogba, a man who would give Matfield and Botha a run for their money with his size, going down with the slightest touch, I swear I brushed past my tele and he dived about ten feet and rolled around with his face all chewed up like he had just been kicked in the naggers.

sugarNspikes wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:At the same time I saw England lift the world cup and be ranked no.1 in the world with boring rugby.

Oh, do behave. Do you really believe that England were playing boring rugby during that period? This tired old cliche surely needs to be put out of its misery.

Well, you certainly were not setting the world on fire were you . What England were good at was keeping the ball and tiring out the opposition, they would then run in the try's with their backs after the forwards demolished all in front of them.

I guess it all depends on whether you can't appreciate good rugby when England are the ones producing it. There are many, many aspects to good play but I guess some don't see that or choose not to when certain sides are doing it.

Excuse me , when have I said that I did not appreciate it ? I was actually very impressed with England during that time, and held them in the same esteem as the All Blacks. You had the best 1-8 in the world which gave Greenwood, Robinson, Wilkinson, and the rest a huge platform to play off, in fact we could put a back line together with people on this board behind that pack, and we would beat the All Blacks.

England team from 2000-2003:


That squad beat South Africa (admittedly not at their strongest ever) in 2002 53-3

They won the Grandslam in 2003 scoring over 170 points and 18 tries.

3 members of that team are in the top 30 International try-scorers ever and additionally 2 of the top International try scoring forwards.

The team averaged nearly 40 points per match

so... yeah. No attacking rugby there

LordDowlais wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:I was more concern about players jumping to the ground pretending all the time they are in last few minutes of they life whenever they get touch by another player. It remind me why I chose watch rugby instead.

Every challenge, Barcalona do my swede in. Then you have Drogba, a man who would give Matfield and Botha a run for their money with his size, going down with the slightest touch, I swear I brushed past my tele and he dived about ten feet and rolled around with his face all chewed up like he had just been kicked in the naggers.

And then in order to balance out the histrionics of the "simulating" players, you have Terry kneeing people in the spine.

He didn't make much of contact i'm afraid. it was all so pathetic to me. soccer players really are so precious

LordDowlais wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:At the same time I saw England lift the world cup and be ranked no.1 in the world with boring rugby.

Oh, do behave. Do you really believe that England were playing boring rugby during that period? This tired old cliche surely needs to be put out of its misery.

Well, you certainly were not setting the world on fire were you . What England were good at was keeping the ball and tiring out the opposition, they would then run in the try's with their backs after the forwards demolished all in front of them.

I guess it all depends on whether you can't appreciate good rugby when England are the ones producing it. There are many, many aspects to good play but I guess some don't see that or choose not to when certain sides are doing it.

Excuse me , when have I said that I did not appreciate it ? I was actually very impressed with England during that time, and held them in the same esteem as the All Blacks. You had the best 1-8 in the world which gave Greenwood, Robinson, Wilkinson, and the rest a huge platform to play off, in fact we could put a back line together with people on this board behind that pack, and we would beat the All Blacks.

Yeah, sure.

You also said it was boring. It's amazing when people manage to praise the English forwards of that era but only do it so that they can insult the backs and call the side boring. It's an odd mentality.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:I was more concern about players jumping to the ground pretending all the time they are in last few minutes of they life whenever they get touch by another player. It remind me why I chose watch rugby instead.

Every challenge, Barcalona do my swede in. Then you have Drogba, a man who would give Matfield and Botha a run for their money with his size, going down with the slightest touch, I swear I brushed past my tele and he dived about ten feet and rolled around with his face all chewed up like he had just been kicked in the naggers.

And then in order to balance out the histrionics of the "simulating" players, you have Terry kneeing people in the spine.

It's happening again in tonight's game as well.

anotherworldofpain wrote:He didn't make much of contact i'm afraid. it was all so pathetic to me. soccer players really are so precious

Yeah but the foul was pretty vicious and stupid and unnecessary and unfair to his own team-mates

Wether boring or not any one with knowledge of rugby have to celebrate the england achievement in that era. They achieve so much and show all northern teams that it is possible to break out of the small pond and treat the world like equals. A pity that first it went so wrong since then and hopefully england can fixing this now. Also a pity that no others from northern home unions or france could really stand up there too and still have this feeling like just being good enough here is the best they can hope.

sugarNspikes wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:At the same time I saw England lift the world cup and be ranked no.1 in the world with boring rugby.

Oh, do behave. Do you really believe that England were playing boring rugby during that period? This tired old cliche surely needs to be put out of its misery.

Well, you certainly were not setting the world on fire were you . What England were good at was keeping the ball and tiring out the opposition, they would then run in the try's with their backs after the forwards demolished all in front of them.

I guess it all depends on whether you can't appreciate good rugby when England are the ones producing it. There are many, many aspects to good play but I guess some don't see that or choose not to when certain sides are doing it.

Excuse me , when have I said that I did not appreciate it ? I was actually very impressed with England during that time, and held them in the same esteem as the All Blacks. You had the best 1-8 in the world which gave Greenwood, Robinson, Wilkinson, and the rest a huge platform to play off, in fact we could put a back line together with people on this board behind that pack, and we would beat the All Blacks.

Yeah, sure.

You also said it was boring. It's amazing when people manage to praise the English forwards of that era but only do it so that they can insult the backs and call the side boring. It's an odd mentality.

Christ sake man, really what is your problem ? If you bother to understand what I am saying, I am actually saying that I think England were "the" best team then, I have not insulted anybody, so please give it a rest. I actually think that the team of that era will never be matched in ability again as they were so goo, all leaders, all of them. The fact of the matter is, that you seem blinkered in the fact that England did not play boring rugby, well sorry they did, and no matter how many stats people post on here, you cannot tell me that a side that would rolling maul from one try line to the other is not boring. It's not a bad thing, it was the best way to win during that era and it got you to no. 1 in the world and deservedly so to.

We'll agree to disagee. Go back to watching your football game Dowlais.

Kia Ora Kia,this is an excellant subject.

I dont mean to go off topic here, but are we not looking how the gradual progression of players individually and the sum total of the parts combining together to form the Perfect game?

An Example being the mindset where a team like the Crusaders are slowly improving every week of the Super xv,with the objective that when the business end of the competition comes around they will have momentum.
Every player has the responsibility each week that he will play a better game than he did the week before,and over a period of say one month the whole team is playing at a higher standard than they were a month ago.

For this to work the list of elements that a player has to address is endless,and often these are seemless across the positions in the team, by that I mean not only does the First 5 8th have to have to work on his vision and decision making but also the front rowers.to the point where the team as a whole are carrying out their duties with the highest level of accuracy,whether it be Defence,the physicality,ball handling,finishing,the set pieces, etc etc, and the attack will just evovle from all these demands being carried out better than the opposition.

ChequeredJersey wrote:England team from 2000-2003:


That squad beat South Africa (admittedly not at their strongest ever) in 2002 53-3

CJ that record has been stricken from the history books, due to all the pain and sffering we undergo every time we see it, read about it or hear about.

Yeah, well we didn't particularly like being shut out 36-0 in 2007 either

Kia,nowadays it is all about money in big matches TV rights etc.IF you`re winning all the benefits are there Crowds,TV rights,plus the marketing bit shirts
etc.If you`re losing ,fans don`t turn up,media calls for axing players and coaches.Let me give you some examples,in 1949 a team based around Otago,Southland forwards and Backs who were from the famous Kiwi`s it was a very strong side.It was going to revenge 1937.THAT at least was the theory,they had good forwards,good loosies,good backs.They tried to play Kiwi style which had wowed them in Europe.Problem 1 the Scrum,they did`nt have one.Problem 2 the Boks played limited,WINNING Rugby tackled anything that moved.The AllBlacks scored all the tries in 2 tests,but lost due to penalties .Okey Geffin kicked them Bob Scott a reliable kicker usually did`nt.
!956 the position was reversed the Boks tried to run,The AllBlacks tackled Don Clarke kicked the goals.Ditto versus the 1959 Lions,every one wants to beat the best.Wales with Neil Jenkins,France with the Camberero ,father and son,England with Wilkinson.NZ and the Boks with any number of Goal kickers,even Australia who traditionally use the running game.Based there successes on the Goal kicking of Michael Lynagh too.England during there successful period when they won 12 games on the trot versus SH home and away.Did the fans CARE how they won as long as they won,Great Brutal Forwards not afraid to get stuck in plus JW.They lost an awful lot of games whilst Woodward was building the team,BUT in the end they were a GREAT team.We[England]have been living in the shadow of it for 9 years,this year to date.They have been relatively successful moving the ball,play that way versus the Boks they will be slaughtered.The sides that regularly beat the AllBlacks the Boks and Australia do it by playing to there strengths respectively.Home wins for them are common relatively speaking.Teams these days analyse every move,IF the team scores tries by Charge downs or intercepts or kics goals does it matter the win is a win.RWCs are different the AllBlacks with injuries,and the chokers tag around there necks at home.NO WAY were they going to lose,the Semi-final IF all there goal kicks had gone over would have been a gap of many more points.IT was THE best performance by them since 1987.awesome to watch a REAL win.The Final was rivetting the tension and "Beaver "doing the business in the end.I question the thinking about Piri Weepu taking the goal kicks after straining a groin in the warm up.Dagg,and Cory Jane are both accomplished Goal kicks those missed kicks COULD have been the difference.Do you REALLY care how you win ,IF you win EVERYONE wants an ALLBLACK HEAD on a plate[A WIN not literally.]Boring Rugby is Winning Rugby and has been for all of my long Rugby life watching.

I think retribution will be served if we can win these upcoming three tests as well and make it a clean 10 wins in a row.

What do you think?

For me, I don't mind how the ABs win, as long as it's accurate and not full of silly mistakes and penalties. A so called 'boring' style, and by that I think it's meant forwards and kicking, can be a spectacle if the game flows. For instance, the recent stormers v crusaders game was a great watch despite plenty of kicking/rumbling, it was just that it flowed, both teams didn't fumble insessantly and the ref also played his part.

Too true EBOP, thats why a referee that manages the game rather than controls the game is more likely to get you closer to a perfect game.In saying that however the referee cant be blamed for things like weather which can impact more on the game than the participants.

I don't want to get into a boring and attractive rugby debate. I think that's too subjective.

What I'm more interested in is when a team that is capable of so much more limits itself deliberately to a specific range of tactics in order to play low percentage rugby and make the fewest mistakes. Admittedly in football it´s easier to play this way. That´s largely why NZ was unbeaten in the football World Cup!

For me the best team isn't the one that plays all the pretty patterns, it's the one that scores the most points (or goals, as this applies to football as well) and wins the game. Applying this, Chelsea were the better team over the 2 games against Barcelona, I would love for England to be the better team against South Africa over 3 games this summer, however we were to achieve it.

I happen to think, as others have mentioned, that the best way for England to beat South Africa would be to play a more "positive" brand of rugby and the focus is on quick ball and the backs attacking wide. That doesn't mean this is the only way to play, were it Australia I'd say we need to focus on forward domination and were it New Zealand I'd say we first and foremost have to be solid in defence and pull out a "Chelsea-like" performance, as we're not on their level (I'll optimistically throw out a yet at this point!) when it comes to moving the ball. The best chance would be to attack with the defence, force turnovers and errors and play from there.

But in general, however you want to play can in the end be justified if it ends with you scoring more points and picking up the win.