Beating the odds or cheating yourself?

First topic message reminder :

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?

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?

Kia how about we grind them down for 70 minutes kicking our boring penalties, playing the boring way that everyone knows england play, no tries please were english, and then with only 10 left on the clock and say a 15 point margin we go for broke and score some pretty tries playing pretty rugby and wake our wingers up. Sound

Now now Triangulation let´s not get defensive Triangulation... like your rugby team.

Of course I'm not saying England is a boring side. Like I said, 'boring' rugby is subjective. Believe it or not, I do like to see forward battles and teams being technically outclassed. Unfortunately, there was a patch in the 90s when that used to be the ABs!

I just hope that SL progresses from the very good start he made this year and develop a bit more attack and by that I don´t just mean in the backs. Nothing wrong with a driving maul or a move out from a ruck to the centre of a park where the forwards are split and the ball is dummied to one side and then fed to the other. I'm not saying the key to victory in SA is all out attack. England have to be smart about how they play. But I also hope they don't fall into the trap of thinking they can hold out and win a game through defence alone. Look at Scotland, Ireland, France in the games against England for example. I'm by no means saying England are guilty of it. As I said earlier, I've seen it from every rugby team in recent times.

I have been thinking about this post overnight so I will add a few points,once I was interested in Soccer too.THE 2 best European Soccer sides i`ve seen 1953
Hungarians,and the Dutch of the Cruyff era with total football .Never won a RWC the West Germans won on botth occassions pragmatic over brilliant.You quote Barcelona versus Real Madrid.THE BIG European Soccer prize is the European Cup,Spanish and Italian Clubs showed the way.BUY the best players available and take it from there.About 10 years ago Chelsea first then others Liverpool,Manchester United ,Arsenal went the same route.Result they BOUGHT ALL the prizes,Clubs with lesser purses suffered.Top14 is the Best Club comp in Europe possibly the World.Only 55% of the players are France Qualified with the standard of that League France should be in the top 3 IRB ratings all the time.
They are barely the Best side in Europe on results by less than one percent.
The Most successful Super sides over the past few years have been SA,the Boks dominated by Bulls players and the Stormers.Meyer is unlikely to change his pattern now he is Bok Coach.RWCs are never in the knock out stages flowing games,there is a magic formula.Strong defence,tactical/goal kicking very few tries.THAT isn`t going to change.You want England to be successful in SA,fine strong defence.Strong Lineout/Maul defence,cut out the clever stuff,don`t concede penalties kick your goals.Get to SA as early as possible before the tour starts,train at altitude,get hold of as many Super match videos you can.Analyse what the Refs are ,or arn`t allowing and adjust your game accordingly.That isn`t a matter of styles that is common sense.

You have to relate games importance when comparing different sports.

A cl semi final to a club team is as important a game as a semi final RWC to an international rugby team.

Its only about the win.

I wouldnt mind england trying out a few different things in the up and coming test series v south africa.

Just like most chelsea fans wouldnt mind there team playing a different way in a league cup.

However that isnt really the football way of doing things- they would rather put a reserve team out instead. Whereas with an international rugby side they cant really do that due to the lack of games. Winning is important , but style can also be important for a long term perspective.

Both sports are so differnt, its tough to compare. But at the end of day if your team does enough to win under any circumstance. Then they become the best.

If your team is winning all of the time or even the majority of the time, against all kinds of opposition, it cannot possibly be boring. Sustained success is not boring.

If Scotland or Italy ground out 3-0 victories for a grand slam next year, nobody would call that, in general, boring, even if the matches were. "Somebody counter it then" would essentially be the gauntlet thrown.

Conclusion: winning is what matters.

KickAndChase wrote:If your team is winning all of the time or even the majority of the time, against all kinds of opposition, it cannot possibly be boring. Sustained success is not boring.

If Scotland or Italy ground out 3-0 victories for a grand slam next year, nobody would call that, in general, boring, even if the matches were. "Somebody counter it then" would essentially be the gauntlet thrown.

Conclusion: winning is what matters.

Here, Here, Win at all costs, that is my motto. People say how they love to watch Fiji with the ball in hand, but where as it got them.

Actually Fiji in recent times have been a lot more structured and they've actually performed worse. It's worked for Tonga and Samoa but not so much for Fiji.

Hypothetically Scottish fans would be delirious with a set of 3 - 0 victories. But the reality is they have been losing playing the way you describe so it's time to have a few more options. You don't have to attack all the time but it's good to have those options to keep the opposition guessing. Scotland are capable of pulling off the odd upset playing that way but realistically they need to be able to test the opposition defence more if they're going to win against the major teams.

Winning is indeed what matters but so does being able to put yourself in a winning position.

Wales last beat the all blacks in 1953.....If we could beat you 3-nil I'd be happy....Oh well...There's always the autumn..!

But in reality, it would probably be an 5 try game as in 2004 when we nearly had you. I think you have to play to your nation's advantages, whilst tightening up on your weaknesses. This is where Gatland has been fantastic, along with Shaun Edwards. Our fitness is up there and our defence is faultless (most of the time).

I think this year could be it!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Actually Fiji in recent times have been a lot more structured and they've actually performed worse. It's worked for Tonga and Samoa but not so much for Fiji.

Hypothetically Scottish fans would be delirious with a set of 3 - 0 victories. But the reality is they have been losing playing the way you describe so it's time to have a few more options. You don't have to attack all the time but it's good to have those options to keep the opposition guessing. Scotland are capable of pulling off the odd upset playing that way but realistically they need to be able to test the opposition defence more if they're going to win against the major teams.

Winning is indeed what matters but so does being able to put yourself in a winning position.

Hmm. Scotland have tried playing open and tight and lost matches both ways. Laidlaw at 10 isn't exactly the most structured nor kicking game plan by any means. We just suck at getting over the line

My mind if all this "style" of play is silly nonesense.

Teams must play a style for the match. Aim to winning. Play at their own ability and try to take away the strength for the other team and find a way for victory. Might be change the approach six times in 80 minutes and adapting. Saying just "running style" or "forward style" or "kicking style" is so simplistic even for the school boy. Not a professional team.

Scotland played so close to the tackle and keep at set piece for so many years and never use the backs to go out and fast like they had allergy to the side lines. But then suddenly change and want to running everywhere with always deep backs. Both ways just predictable, easy to defend and easy to breakdown and beat if is always the same same.

Must be important to be dynamic and have skilled in lots of different ways.

nice thread.

It's funny. Here in NZ we have the attitude of our attacking, exciting style of play compared to the dour, forward based NH viewpoint which often ends with a try-less game. Yet at the World Cup, Aus V Ireland would fall into the latter category but it was one of the most exciting games of the cup. The more positive gameplans don't always result in better games.

You play to win. And if it is "attractive" then that's a bonus