Space Invaders

Most of us are urban creatures. We live piled on top of one another. Moving around is difficult in a city. Traffic jams, finding a park, fighting the bustle of public transport, we feel trapped in our urban jungles and spend the majority of the year craving open spaces. The problem is, when we do finally escape, we quickly find out we're not alone. No wonder Julie Andrews burst into spontaneous song when she found herself skipping gleefully through the Austrian Alps: she'd finally found some elbow room. Skip to the current day and Pharrell Williams is writing songs about feeling happy about rooms without a roof.

The modern rugby player is no different. The professional era has brought about a marked improvement in defence. Generally if a team rushes up in a straight line, it makes life very difficult for the opposition to make inroads on attack. Closing down space is the single biggest obstacle to getting over the advantage line. You can recycle ball and shift the point of attack from side to side, but generally if a team can keep that straight defensive line and smother a team's space in possession, it's very difficult to be dominated on the scoreboard. Even if a break is made, all efforts are made by the cover defence to shut down that open space and tie the ball down in the contact area.

It's like discovering a new holiday destination. I can't believe this place. There was nobody there. Everything was so cheap and it was so easy to get around. Fast forward to a few years and prices have gone through the roof and a feeling of claustrophobia sets in. So we look for new ways to finding those elusive open spaces.

In rugby there are various ways to find open space. Which do you think is over/under-utilised in today's game?

1) The lineout. Penalty opportunity. You opt for the lineout instead of going for the three? When points are scarce or hard to come by, why take this option? You might lose the throw. The defence might hold out and you come away with nothing. The eyes light up in the captain's eyes as the lineout has so many options for creating space. Keep it in tight and make a rolling maul. Split the lineout and then drive up the middle. Keep the opposition forwards in one area and take on the backs with no clutter.

2) The scrum. Like the lineout, the risks are there but depending on the effectiveness of your scrum, it can be used as a great attacking weapon. You can split the backs and use your 8 to create an extra man in the line. A wiper's kick is more likely to succeed if you narrow down the number of players who are able to compete for the ball.

3) Sucking in fringe players. If a team doesn't commit great numbers to a ruck, it is more likely to keep its defensive shape. The more players you have to tackle, the less likely you will be exposed on defence. The pick and go, the rolling maul, the offload are all designed to commit further players to the tackle area. The more players you commit to the tackle area, the more chance you have of finding open spaces away from the tackle area. How many times do we see a team utilise the rolling maul, it works well for them and then they don't use it for the rest of the game?

4) Running lines and support play. A pass is quicker than a man. A man going sideways is easier to deal with than a man going forward. All teams are guilty of being too lateral at times. When the play calls for a straightening up of attack, a player moving inside away from the touchline, a player running a good angle at the weak shoulder of the defender, a simple draw and pass, communication can break down and opportunities for space can be clamped down. A player makes a break but seeks contact without thinking of getting the arms free and continuing the attack. A player makes a break and finds himself isolated. A kick is made and there are no chasers in support of the man who claims the ball back. All teams are guilty of it: hanging on too long, 'numbers' cries Jiffy and the ball gets passed too quickly to the outside shutting down the space that was available, running into one another as opposed to running into space.

5) The kick. The chip over, the grubber, the wiper's kick. If a team rushes up on defence and shuts down the centre pairing thus blocking off the space outside, the kick is seen as a tempting method to shake free from the shackles of oppression and find freedom. Too often it's telegraphed or cover defences are better adept at reading the intent of the playmaker. It did surprise me that for all the talk of Folau's aerial supremacy, I can't recall many times, if any, where he was given an opportunity to demonstrate that ability against NZ. If something doesn't come off once, there seems to be an unwritten rule not to repeat the exercise. We've all seen the wing flailing his arms in open spaces. If a pass can't be made, then a kick is an effective way of finding space. Are we so afraid of looking like rugby league players on the 5th tackle and bombs away that we keep this option in check?

6) The counter-attack. If you place great faith in your defence and ability to get the opposition ball, the counter-attack is an extremely effective way of finding open spaces. When a team is aligned for attack, it's very difficult to realign your line for defence. Players will often not be in a line but jagged. That is like discovering Croatia in the 1980s. Why is nobody here? This is incredible! How many times though do we see a poor kick with no chasers putting players on-side and players back in the line able to form an attack and a kick is sent back. Even if it goes out and you gain metres, is it not worth sometimes retaining possession and having a crack at the opposition line that is not yet defensively set?

Feel free to add to the list, or argue against the case of finding open spaces. Today is the last day of July and we're heading into the peak season of August. Are rugby players the same as holidaymakers? Are they too predictable in their choices or not determined enough to find a little corner to themselves? Are they too traditional in their approach and not innovative enough or do they over-think things and don't choose the simple option before their very eyes?

First up, great little article   it made me start thinking, and hopefully we'll get a pretty technical debate going.

With regards to space creation, it is all dependant on the plan, and attitude. Lets take each as examples...

The Lineout - This is space creation, but only for the outside backs, and the risk of getting the ball out there on first phase is way too great, if we take SA for example they give not a jot about creating space, infact the opposite, they know that their 8 will outpower any other 8 in world rugby, so they literally base that weapon on 8 v 8, and the fact the defencive backs don't have the stones to join in, I suspect if they did SA would still not throw the ball wide.

The scrum - much more about space creation, but depending where on the park it is, if deep it locks in chasers and pushers back backs for a kick out, if close to opponents line it offers a forwards carry option and set up in a great position. If wide space isn't the key, it's more a set up for phase play. If central then this is the space creation tool so underated in world rugby, splitting your backs etc is common place, but defences are able to spoil at the scrum through offside 9's, flankers, and back rows specifically allowed to leave the scrum early doors. I still think an attacking team with the likes of Folau, Cuthbert, Savea and co would be best off allowing these boys a 1 on 1, infact i'd do it anywhere on the park if the scrum is central I beleive it would be that succesfull, of course youd have to rely on a solid scrum and sharp 9.

I'm also a big advocate of players thinking before action, there is no need to stand hands on hips while your forwards set up phase play for your line you know is coming. If you want space you have to look for it, go and line up in it, then ensure your teammates know you have it, wether it be unmarked on the wing, or finding a tight 5 in a wider position.

Saying that although I give my wingers carte blanche it's only ever 1 allowed to roam at a time in attack, and it's always only the blindside winger, the open winger has to touch the touch line at all times. Theres nothing worse than a drifting defence allowing 20 metres of space out wide because theres no reason to stretch any further, with the defencive winger confident he'll be quick enough to cover. Not only does the defence relax on their inside man, the winger is always facing the ball, allowing him to structure defencive patterns. If the attacking winger is outside the defencive winger he's automatically turning his head, calling confusing instructions to the men inside him, and opening his body up for an easier inside break on his created weak shoulder.

I cannot add to this as I am a dumbass but in terms of articles written, this one is up there on the podium. Nice one Kia, I truely enjoyed reading that.

Oh I do have one thing to add, Nick Williams, he'll be breaching defences all year......I hope. The brute strength of being able to burst straight through tacklers and then offloading over the gainline is my very favourite method of making spaces in defensive lines. So often the only way through modern defences.

Thank you, in turn, for your erudite contribution Neutralee.

What is your opinion by chance on the role of the roving fullback as a creator of space. Is a fullback like opening yourself up to true love and, therefore, the potential of being exposed and hurt? We all fear rejection and if we get caught up in the line saying I love you and we not only have our ball(s) taken away but have our trousers pulled down and humiliated in public, are we all not justified in holding in that line and not exposing ourselves? Or once we put ourselves out there and take on the prospect of failure, we realise the limitless possibilities and our room for personal growth?

Or do I sound too much like Eddie Butler and seem to have fallen off my rocking chair and taken a nasty bump to the head?

Cheers Pete. That's a good one to add. If I can't go round them, I'll go through them approach. We can add that one to running lines and support play I guess.

Kia

I wear my heart on my sleeve, and despite getting my pants pulled down in public on numerous occasions, I decided not to change (rigidity in coaching is just what you want I know lol).

First time it ever happened to me was with my first ever team, an U16's. I spent all pre season convincing the boys that making the big kid pass from 13 on a regular basis it would free up space for him elsewhere. The winger and 12 were truly filler type players, so we tried to work on the FB joining the line, of course first time they ran the play ball was fumbled, kicked and opposition scored. Boys were dispondant for a while, and I tended to revert to a more concervative mop up style FB play. However it didn't take long before the FB got a taste for hitting the line and wanted to do more of it.

A few seasons later when coaching a senior team I noticed the FB was a strong straightline runner, but to take the ball he switched places with the 12, who dropped to FB to cover, this did not go down well and I decided to utilise the running from 15, it worked a treat with him hitting gaps inside and out, 10/12/13 channell were his all day and then he could even loop outside the wide channells. He was given the player of the season award in his debut senior season.

On the international stage it is a different kettle of fish, passing is or should be accurate enough to not need cover at FB, on the other hand counter attacks are such a threat cover never hurts. It really does depend on opposition, NZ must love FB's such as Dagg and Smith, knowing continuity is so great and the chances of counters so low.

If I were to coach professionally (you never know) my ethos will be that if the ball is attacking that wide, there is space created to get in behind, and once in the wide chanell, or in behind the key is to keep the ball off the ground, keep it live and keep the defence turned until score time. Therefore my FB would join in attack at every opportunity the ball goes out there from deep, in the knowledge that he wouldn't die with it and get trapped at the bottom of a ruck, and that the blindside winger, with no shot at getting the ball for at least 3 phases would drop into a deep central roll.

So the answer to your question, is heartbreak every time baby.

Just with regards to Nick Williams, decent ball carrier he is the bosh through and offload style is extremely risky, and often unnecesary.

Nick Williams tends to make half chances at breaks instead of breaks, he'll hit contact stay on his feet and offload in the tackle, but 90% of the time the receiver has a tackler either already there or in the way. He is predictable, and rarely effective. Give me someone like Falatau any day, who uses footwork and power through holes. If you look at both players Williams makes way more half breaks through contact, and probably makes more yards for his team in general, but Falatau's line break and putting people into space is a far better % per carry.

The difference being:

Nick Williams - Receives ball, 5 metres out, looks to smash someone, holds the ball out looking to try to offload, then resets the ruck when it doesn't work out.
Results - Wins contact 90%, offloads 50%, clean line breaks 10%, defence usually shuffles a few metres and resets.

Toby Falatau - Decides what his best option is, takes the ball flat to reset/at pace to bust/deep to distribute, then impliments his decision pretty accurately.
Results - Wins contact 20%, offloads 20%, resets 20%, distributes 20%, Clean line breaks 20%. Defence sometimes gets on top, sometimes handle him, sometimes are beaten.

I know which outcome i'd prefer, and generally it's a kiwi outcome similar to a Falatau style decision making pre action that beats teams, the rest of us tend not to be able to have that 'instinct'.

I know Nick has been found out by opposition defences and without doubt needs to evolve a little if he's to be anywhere near as effective as he had been when first joining Ulster. He may not have been the best example of the Godzilla approach to breaking defences but being an Ulsterman myself he's the one player I've enjoyed watching do it the most.

My all time favourite player is not a bosh merchant, Christian Cullen was the magician who could find space where others never could. A fullback like him who can read a game and have a sixth sense about what's going to happen next is hellish for defences, the kind of player you cannot take your eye off for a split second. One break of the line through a gap that was never there and the defence has to scramble at which point it is more often than not in the hands of the rugby gods.

I think Nick thrives at Ulster due to the tight 5 being dominant more often than not, any opportunity where the defence is shifting backwards then a destructive ball carrier can thrive.

Lets be honest who doesnt enjoy watching a defender get sat down, or an offload out the back door, its a raw talent that the PI players are designed for, when they truly become classy is when theyre brought through good junior systems like Falatau, Tuilagi and countless Nz internationals.

I'm still amazed by UK's attitude to junior coaching in todays world, essentially allowing dads to do what they want until they reach 16 or so then good quality coaches can take over, by then the damage is done.

Just an example of space that could possibly be exploited is that which NZ leaves when they sense a turnover. They don't commit unless they scent blood but when they do they all pile in. If they are unsuccessful in turning it over and the opposition 9 can get the pill it's a great opportunity to strike. If NZ's backs know what's going on they'll get narrower and some quick fast passes can exploit space on the flanks. If they aren't a couple of quick pop up passes to big men going flat out at gaps in the fringe could really cause havoc.

Having a 10 that has a variety of kicks is great as the wingers always leave space depending on where they are. Either passing it wide or putting it behind them-but you need the vision to be able to do that as well as the kicking skill.

disney

I remember hearing Johnstone talk about exploiting the NZ counter ruck system before, and it does make sense, however there are so few occasions where they pile in and don't take the ball it's really diffucult to look at as an option.

The system has generally been mimic'd worldwide now, but for me it's just more proof of NZ players making decisions and acting quicker than anyone else.

It's the beauty of the NZRFU set up, continuity from the age of 2 to international rugby. Every NZ child learns to play the way NZ play, they then develop that game and impliment it better and better until one day they fit into the all black machine as a small cog.

I think Gatland has been instilling similar in Wales, the continuity in the national team has been impressive over the last few years, and when that continuity is interupted Wales struggle.

Your smack on with the kicking game though, a rounded kicking game and showcase early on puts doubt in back 3's minds, a few chips, grubbers early on can disrupt a rush defence. It only takes one players to stutter for the players around him to lose confidence.

Neutralee that's why we're so stoked to have SBW back. Not for his kicking game, but for his offloading which destroys rush defences.

I guess it's not just a 10 who can put it on a dime. If a kick occurs in an organic way as opposed to a set move, the player receiving the kick has to be in tune with what the kicker is trying to do. Take Cruden's stab through with his left boot for Savea against Ireland in the first half last year. To fully exploit the open space behind, Savea had to anticipate what was coming to come infield rather than head outside in search of a wiper's kick.

Which I guess leads to a point I didn't make originally: the set piece. I remember the set piece move against Australia was a thing of orchestrated beauty. It made number two in the Aussie TOP 5 segment one week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-qTk9RCF0Q At least their own effort at number one had some definite thinking behind it. I do like number 5 rushing with my hands on the head saying I'm not touching the ball.

Are we so paranoid about opposition spies discovering our set piece moves that we don't prepare for them anymore? It does seem the lineout or scrum in today's game is the best opportunity to see a set piece move worked. But it's generally phase play setting up space from movement around the park. It's extremely rare to see a move worked from first phase play. Is that because defences are more savvy or does phase play disguise more the end goal?

Firstly I need to point out that the kiwi try at number 2 is hands down the best set peice try ever scored, followed by the Welsh 15 man lineout.

The problem with score plays on the first phase from set peice is that they come off so little, and are so high risk noone wants to try it anymore.

It's true defences have changed, become much more organised and agressive, but I definately still think theres room for the score play from first phase, infact Warren Gatland has brought it back with Wales. He runs a set play that looks originally like set up for phases, but turns into a North/Cuthbert bust, and it works pretty well.

I think you'd be amazed also by what look to be open play to us is generally routine play to the players, any grubber or chip kick has a signal, and has been practiced to within an inch of its life

Players train for certain scenarios, and they run set 'open' plays over and over, which is why at times even though there is an opportunity and a gap the decision maker has done something different, because his instinct is to run the scenarion they are running, instead of reacting to whats there.

I'm a bit of a geek of the game and the similarities of todays Wales and the all blacks is amazing, Gatland has really worked on changing instincts of Welsh players. You watch the 6N and see England IReland and Scotlands outisde backs look so lacklustre at times, then compare them to Wales who throughout have gone from inside their own 22, virtually unheard of in todays game. I'm not saying Wales is a better team than the other 3, but they have the best back 3 and centres of the lot, and have transformed from where they were to where they are quite amazingly under Gatland. It's no surprise that Gatlands been given a long term contract, I honestly beleive he's turning Wales into a potential world contender.

Anyway my point is that virtually everything on the pitch is structured, there is so little that is organic these days, but thats where the best teams stand out, their ability to react to a given situation and capitolise o it

I certainly take your point that what looks like open play is rehearsed. Teams train for scenarios and are looking for openings. But I do think there are teams that react well to what's happening around them and have an awareness of the players and spaces around them. This is what NZ excel at. Take last year's test. SA have possession and the lead with the half time hooter about to sound. They chance their arm thinking NZ will never pass.

Take a look at 6:10 in this video: http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_9401689,00.html It almost pays off but the tackler Kieran Read gets to his feet and flings the ball out. If you pause at 6:18 the AB line is bunched in the middle of the field well behind the ball. There is space out on the left flank and Cruden gives it to Messam who really should've been bundled into touch at 6:25. The NZ line suddenly has shape and Retallick takes it into contact. Dagg gets the ball and gives a wide pass to Nonu who straightens up and takes it over the advantage. 6:43 ball almost gets ripped from Smith but now it's shifted again to Retallick to suck in defenders. Now you might well say that's all standard stuff and part of the patterns and what happens next is just a continuation of that. At 6:53 you see Bismark move out to the fringes and Smith spots that and moves off to his left to suck him back in. Conrad Smith sees that and gets a pass away before contact and Cruden now knows quick hands will release the player on his outside into space. Savea does the same as Conrad and moves towards his man to release the player on his left into space. Hore sees two players in front of him and Kirchner running towards the touch line and passes but keeps running towards his men. Messam knows he just has to cut inside.

It's something you prepare for but it takes awareness of what's around you at that time. You can only train for so much so I think you need a combination of both. I'm sure they train for scenarios like the Ireland test last year. Last chance saloon, keep patience and find that hole to exploit. You can certainly drill that into your players but it's also instinctual to know when to strike. To sniff out opportunities for space you have to know when to react and in what manner. So I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph.

Your right, NZ are the best, and it's because they are trained to a differing level as juniors. The weight class system allows juniors those precious few seasons where their size isn't a disadvantage, and the only way to succeed is to mentally devise new ways to beat a man. This gives them an instinct, or a thirst to develop that instinct to react to whats in front of them.

I use walking touch a lot, generally in the warm up to get rid of speed, size or strength advantages of players. You should see the difference in players attitudes, wingers aren't afraid to come infeild to take and distribute the ball without the fear of being smashed, forwards aren't afraid to stay in the line in wider areas, without the threat of being skinned they can practice and execute 2 on 1's etc.

The amount of times international front rows see a bouncing ball and either plant their feet and pass or pick up and put their heads down for contact is crazy. You see the Franks pick up a ball take it to the line and offload or play someone in, and you wonder how they are able to do it but 99% of other front rowers can't or won't!

I also don't allow my teams to play touch, you know in the warm up 45 players take to the field and play 22 on 23, HOW THE HECK IS THAT GOING TO HELP ANYONE!!! I do allow them to play small sided touch however, 4 on 4 max teams with small pitch sizes, allowing players to handle the ball nearly every play, and have to think of ways to beat the others with no strength or speed advantage.

Touch is a great tool for teaching how to create space. People can dismiss other forms of the game but a combination of growing up with touch, sevens and weight division rugby ensures an optimum breeding ground for learning how to use or create space. No doubt about that.

I'm a dumbass as well. But is the humble 'up and under' a good method for corrupting structure and creating haphazard space? It's a bit of a lottery where the ball ends up, and if the team gets it back there's random space and it's up to them to negotiate it at a pace that the opposition can't recover from. Reckon that's why the ABs do the midfield bomb as they like to wing it a bit.

On the contrary, the bomb is a very effective tool, and not risky at all.

You generally see NZ, and now Wales (sorry to keep referencing both) perform this in their own half outside of the 22.

Worst case scenario someone is in front of the kicker, and gives a pen, or ball goes dead on the full. That aside the very worst scenario is the ball isn't won by your team and you get a good territory position.

If your confident in your defence, structure and chase there is no reason any kick infield should be risky, and thats the point.

Infact Wales have taken to kicking from their own 22 long AND deep, they are that confident in their kick chase. I find that amazing.

It's definitely a good point ebop. Relieve pressure inside your own half and if you reclaim it, you don't have the defensive line up in your face. Sorry to reference it as well but in the Ellis Park test a bomb was put up by Barrett, Kirchner came forward and knocked it on, advantage was played and NZ realised they had numbers (not easy to do with one man in the bin, hence a good policy of using the bomb) and it gets passed out to the flank and ends up with Savea coming in off his wing to run towards his marker and passes inside to Read who outpaces Etzebeth and it was game over.

That is a best case scenario, it's only risky with a dud kick, an splintered chase, or a non compete, all of which are not opposition effected. So as long as no unforced error occurs it simply is a posession for territory trade.

It's actually getting harder for the opposition fielding a bomb to claim it. Provided the kick gives the chasing players to put everyone on side, often what happens is people stand around where the ball is going to land and make life difficult for the person calling for the ball to jump up cleanly and go for the ball. If he comes up against another player in the air at the same time, it's very difficult to ensure the other player doesn't interfere before or after with the catch. Even if you do claim possession, your line needs a few phases to regather its shape.

It used to be keep the ball and win the game. Now it's I just want the ball when it's quality ball and I can exploit the spaces. Keep it out of goal kicking range and force your opponent to make the play. But it better be mistake-free play or...

It's a pretty interesting philosophy though. Kicking a lot to change the opposition's defensive line, and backing both your ability to regain possession and ability in broken play to take serious advantage of said kicking.

Obviously NZ get stick for kicking it more than other teams now in the wake of SH criticism of the NH kicking too much. But the defense is that it's an aggressive tactic which is made easier by teams' awareness of the threat of the Kiwi backline. Aussie is the same-it's not the only approach. The class of kicker is evident though. If Dagg, the Smiths and whoever is 10 can all kick really well (see SA in 09 for a great example too) then it's a great option-and I think it's constructive as you're trying to get the ball back.

Your right, momentum is a big part of it, like you said if the kick is good, a man challenges, and the line is quick then even if the defender takes the ball cleanly, and sets the ruck the defence is on him and set before the team who received can get back onside, let alone set and ready for the next phase.

Sometimes it heralds a pile in and turn over, other times the defence is just happy to set, ready for linespeed and get on top for a few phases. The team received doesn't want to stay on the backfoot for long, they'll want to get clear ASAP, and on the backfoot that allows for a poor kick and chase, and possibly a counter attack.

The downside is that the best way out of a bomb scenario is performing another bomb scenario, so it sometimes ends up as a kicking battle to try to wrestle superiority.

I'm glad you didn't mention Nonu dc. That boy couldn't kick to save himself. Now he puts in the grubber, kicks for touch thinking he's Zinzan!   

I think it's an admission that keeping the ball in your own half with the laws as they stand makes it difficult to recycle the ball. Especially if you're pulling players away from the ruck area and you lose your options to protect the ball. It's a trade off as to when and where you expend your energy. You can't play at a high intensity for 80 minutes. You can only manage it in small bursts. So when you do decide to do it, you need to find space and put points on the board to place pressure on your opposition. If you can restrict NZ in their scoring and tick the scoreboard over yourself, you make them force the play and that's where mistakes can come. If you give them a cushion, they don't care about possession and are happy to bide their time and not panic even if they concede points. Put points on them early though and close down their space and you're well on the way to success. Just make sure it doesn't knacker you out though because 80 minutes can turn into 84...

SA have probably been the most efficient team at this in recent years, flooding the breakdown realising when NZ ramp up the intensity is key.

You see the way NZ react on turnover, or when they get behind you, and you have to do something to stop them dead, SA have been good at doing that.

Well you'd have to say SA and England have been the most efficient teams at doing that Neutralee. They have the pack to do that for one. The defeat in 2012 at Twickenham being a prime example of it.

But really all teams have figured out what they have to do. It's just what they have to do - limit NZ's scoring opportunities - is difficult to do. All of NZ's November matches were tough affairs with not much in it. If Sexton had made that kick in the second half, we were goneburgers. It's just rare for NZ to go through a game and not make one or two opportunities count. Piutau made that offload against France, Nonu to Savea against England and Coles to Crotty against Ireland. 3 small opportunities that proved the difference in those games. For all of SA's effectiveness, they haven't been able to shut out NZ at key times under Meyer.

Thats the key though, those abilities to nail that last pass, or to finish the more they create, it all comes from an innate ability the learn in their early teens. Everything else is matched by every tier 1 nation, tactical nous, physicality, athletic ability etc...

PS that demolishing at Twickers in 2012 although down in the history books will always have a small asterix next to it in my view, although every nation in the world would take it, the fact that there was a bug going around, and so many lacklustre performances by NZ players...

Doesn't matter. They don't put asterisks in history books. Only Asterix and the history of Gaul and that wasn't really history though Gerard Deapardieu is a modern day equivalent of Obelix and Serge Blanco is his rugby equivalent. The only difference is that neither is renowned for their strength.

When you lose you own up to your defeats and pay respect to your rivals. Putting asterisks is not the way to do the latter. You can't win every game. As a NZ fan by all means cherish your victories. But stand by your team when they lose and tip your hat to your rivals. Many do this in NZ but it's always the ones who show no grace in victory or defeat who get noticed the most.

Asterisks should probably only be used for drugs cheat atheletes and maybe (for rugby) some games against SA when Maori were not allowed to play, IMO. The ABs lost against England fair and square and they deserved it. It hurts, but it is liberating to admit it. I'm sure teams have won before with stomach bugs and those don't have asterisks beside them.

Well in the years of Lance Armstrong, everybody needs to have an asterisk beside them ebop!

1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2012 etc. We were matched and bettered. Outthought and outplayed. No excuses. It hurts but that's what happens the times we win. You can't say b applies but a doesn't. Take it on the chin and Kia Kaha.

  I would like to express my utter disgust at this article!

When I saw the title "space invaders", I thought we were finally going to have a discussion on the tasty corn snack with the little alien on the fornt of the packet! Along with it's partner in half time munch provision, the spicey biker!

Oh well!

I'll have a proper read through this article and come back with some rugby related discussion!

I did say to me though, as a non England or NZ fan I won't ever remember that game without considering the poor performance from some world class players, and unforced errors, as a byproduct of a known virus, in which some rumours are pretty horrific of players being sick and dehydrated within minutes of KO.

Similarly to the SA tea lady...

Similarly I will remember little things like the World cup final as a horror pro NZ display by the ref, and whenever I think of RWC 2011 I'll think that the final shouldve been Wales v NZ, but France should have been world champs, as I said previously the history books won't consider these things, but they will always have an asterix in my view.

Neutralee wrote:I did say to me though, as a non England or NZ fan I won't ever remember that game without considering the poor performance from some world class players, and unforced errors, as a byproduct of a known virus, in which some rumours are pretty horrific of players being sick and dehydrated within minutes of KO.

New account, same shoite.

Why are you pretending not to be a Kiwi?

Now now Cyril. Neutralee has made a positive contribution to this thread with his tactical knowledge. I've drawn a line in the sand with asterisks and will hear no more on the matter.

If we could return to the OP please and any digressions will be along the lines of tiger tattle as he has peaked my curiosity. I am familiar with monster munch but have no idea what he's on about. Space Invaders was the arcade game that occupied much of the 80s along with Moon Patrol, PacMan and Double Dragon.

Just before I ignore you for following and keep insinuating i'm a ghost or troll, why is it I say something pro NZ, which any self respecting rugby fan would have to do on occasion, you quote it and say I'm a NZ fan, however when I say some negative things about them it is ignored?

If you wanted to quote the whole post in the thread you'd find a pretty hefty comment about a World cup final which I have taken a lot of flak for being anti NZ in the past.

You can't have it both ways, your either upset i'm pro NZ, or your offended i'm anti NZ, either way I couldn't give a jot.

To get back to the original train of thought, please see kia I never questioned the history books, just that I will always remember occasions as what happened that I liked or disliked, as well as the result.

tigertattie wrote:  I would like to express my utter disgust at this article!

When I saw the title "space invaders", I thought we were finally going to have a discussion on the tasty corn snack with the little alien on the fornt of the packet! Along with it's partner in half time munch provision, the spicey biker!

Oh well!

I'll have a proper read through this article and come back with some rugby related discussion!

Those were Space Raiders, not space invaders!!!

BamBam wrote:

tigertattie wrote:  I would like to express my utter disgust at this article!

When I saw the title "space invaders", I thought we were finally going to have a discussion on the tasty corn snack with the little alien on the fornt of the packet! Along with it's partner in half time munch provision, the spicey biker!

Oh well!

I'll have a proper read through this article and come back with some rugby related discussion!

Those were Space Raiders, not space invaders!!!

What do you mean 'were', I still buy loads of them (for my son of course) in the pickled onion variety

I google imaged Space Raiders and Space Invaders. Some very disturbing images with the former.

I'm sorry but Space Raiders are off the menu. I will never know their variously flavoured corn delights. I have been tarnished by what I've seen. Please, no more. I beg of you...

Space Raiders are amazing, not only are they a bit like monster munch you could fit the peices together!!!

That's a yellow card my friend...   

Sometimes you get a space raider that has missed out on the corn and is a solid ball of pickled onion flavour. Bonus!!!

How good is that pete??? It's like getting a 7th chicken nugget yahoo!!!!

 It's the simple things.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, space raiders!!!

Either way, those and spicey bikers are just nom nom   

Neutralee wrote:I did say to me though, as a non England or NZ fan I won't ever remember that game without considering the poor performance from some world class players, and unforced errors, as a byproduct of a known virus, in which some rumours are pretty horrific of players being sick and dehydrated within minutes of KO.

Similarly to the SA tea lady...

Similarly I will remember little things like the World cup final as a horror pro NZ display by the ref, and whenever I think of RWC 2011 I'll think that the final shouldve been Wales v NZ, but France should have been world champs, as I said previously the history books won't consider these things, but they will always have an asterix in my view.

 
Did you find it funny that there were some perfectly fit and healthy players on the bench though?
 
For instance
 
Apparently Jeff Wilson threw up on the pitch not that I can recall the moment myself. Well Eric Rush made an online testimony years later as one of the guys who DIDN'T get sick because he skipped lunch at the site of the infamous incident as he sneaked out with a few buddies hours earlier to get a pizza.
 
So why was Eric Rush not put in the team? He was a terrific player and there is no doubt in my mind that he was easily superior to a Jeff Wilson at 80%.
 
The best thing NZ should have done that day was to acknowledge the problem and play the players who weren't affected. There were a number of them (notably the 6-7 who like Rush had gone and got a pizza outside the hotel).
 
Thats the coaches fault not the poisoning. If he wasn't brave enough to make the big but necessary calls then he didn't deserve to be named a world cup winning coach.
 
Anyhow you can say that for every final, every tournament almost
 
87 - asterix (SA were not involved and had smashed the Cavaliers in 86)
91 - asterix (SA were not involved)
95 - asterix (a number NZ players got sick before the final)
99 - can't actually think of one.. Rolf Harris singing perhaps, that was a crime in itself!!!!
03 - 16th man in pool vs. Samoa, Josh lewsey should have been carded in final. Then again AUS front row should have been carded too.
07 - Cueto's non try.... ENG should have got a penalty try for Burger holding up the ball which would have given ENG a quicker release at the incident.
11- Joubert viva NZ decisions... perhaps he's looking to emigrate to NZ like many Saffas do already?
 
In essence though I can't see when the best team didn't win either tournament. In 2011 NZ were the best team by a country mile, for them to have lost would have been a travesty for rugby. Just like in 95... SA beat France, the beat AUS.. they were a terrific side and NZ relied on Lomu heavily to patch up their actual deficiencies... without Lomu that side lost half their attacking prowess... Bunce and Little looked reborn in that tournament. Not surprised when you had a kid smashing holes in the defence in the previous breakdown.... and Lomu never scored a try vs. SA in career of matches.

The woman in #3 is my image of a spicy biker tigertattie: http://aaronallen.com/blog/restaurant-marketing/restaurant-branded-delivery-vehicles.

Fa

There are a number of those incidents I just don't know about, sorry, but the only sentence that worried me was 'In 2011 NZ were the best team by a country mile, for them to have lost would have been a travesty for rugby'

That is extremely worrying, as in the tournament should be decided by form before it starts, and rugby is ultimately not the same without the all blacks. It reminds me of the huge criticism Argentina got when they finished 3rd for their limited tactics, the whole game has this problem, the top 8/9 countries do not have any divine right on the game whatsoever, and should be doing more to include more nations.

That is not to say I disagree with you, NZ were the best team in the world by a mile, and the best team in the tournament until the final where they were not the best team, and rightfully or wrongfully should've been beaten. Thats sport for you, better teams don't always win, unless it's rugby where better teams are given the rub of the green a lot of the time, just through referee perception .

You do make solid points re coaches decisions to play sick/non sick players, but we don't know who was effected, by how much etc, how that effected the build up, squad morale, preperation etc something like that will always have a detrimental effect on a team despite personel or decisions.

It may just be a personal thing, but I will never be able to not think of the NZ thrashing, 2011 world cup, or SA's tea lady without thinking about the situation and having a mental asterix.

its worries you that from 2005-2011 NZ were the undoubted kings of rugby?
 
That in that 7 year period they won the 3N five times... and it would have been 6 had they not played a weakened team in 2011. During that 7 year period they played NH teams 46 times, they won 44 of them. That is unchartered dominance of any side in any era.
 
What would it have told you if the history books had said
 
07 - SA
11 - France
 
What it would have said is that they were the best teams of the era and over time that is what would have been believed as memories fade.
 
NZ deserved the RWC in 2011, they were and still are so dominant and it would make a mockery of the RWC if the best team in the world wasn't the holder.

Say the best teams didn't win, what would that say of the RWC? It would say its quite simply not an indicator to who the real world champions are.

Had France won that day it would have been deserved on that given day's performance (but that often happens in most close matches anyhow) but overall? Well they didn't show any world class moments prior or after.
 
What is what I would want from a rugby perspective for any future rugby world cup....
 
that no team gains an unfair advantage
that no referee has a significant hand in anyone's victory
that no team cracks under pressure
that the best teams win
  
Its nothing to do with the top teams dominating. If Tonga comes out and proves themselves in the future and wins the RWC, excellent but I hope its deserved and not given to them/robbed from someone else.

Sorry I have to comment as I read, forgive the poor structure...

Firstly if the history books said 2007 SA - 2011 France it would tell me that in 2007 SA won the world cup, and in 2011 France won it, absolutely nothing more!

In 2009 SA were the best team on the planet, and that lions series was the most amazing rugby ive ever seen in my life, if not the most pleasing to the eye. I can honestly say I don't think any team on the planet would've beaten that lions team except for that particular SA team playing the brand they played.

I care not a jot what people think, and neither does sport, it's the reason they call it a cruel mistress sometimes when the best and most deserving team doesn't win.

It would make a mockery of nothing if the best team in the world wasn't the holder, for 3 years England were't the best team in europe let alone the world and they were holders until 2007, had they won it in 2007 they wouldve been back to back winners, with the worst RWC winning record between world cups, it would've been brutal to NZ, Aus and SA, not to mention France and Wales who were all better than them between the 2 cups.

For all Nz's dominance over the NH teams, the international season does favour SH teams, so it is widely regarded that the RWC is the only true acid test of who is better, the only true even playing field between NH and SH. I'm not saying thats how I feel, but you can't argue the semantics of why that is viewed.

Essentially what your saying you want from RWC's in the furture is for it to be ring fenced for those nations who have entry to top tournaments, for no mistakes to be made by anyone playing or officiating, and that no team underperforms?

I say I want the opposite, I want smaller nations to get the bounce of the ball, to get the scheduling in their favour for once, for NZ to crack under pressure and lose to the likes of Samoa now and then, for a refereeing mistake to finally go to the supposed underdog who is playing better, and that the team who wins wins no matter how much better or worse either team is regarded.

I don't want Tonga to have to start beating 6N and RC teams on a regular bases before winning the RWC is perceived as deserved, I want to see them in a shock vioctory, or have a fortunate run to the final.

This is the beauty of sport, every team in every RWC given the same chance by scheduuling, and refereeing deserving the position they end up in, wether thats England being knocked out of their group or USA avoiding big teams and contesting the final.

But then my opinion comes from a purely rugby perspective, a view where the outcome of a tournament is totally based on performance on the day, and where a 2nd tier nation reaches 3rd place by playing to their strengths, and winning games, Argentina in your view then would not have deserved their 3rd place because they weren't 3rd place material going into the RWC.

Not at all Neutralee
 
Argentina proved themselves in that tournament, played some great rugby and got what they deserved. They ran out of steam against a better opponent in the boks but deserved their 3rd place.
 
Its not saying "team ranked 1 comes up against team ranked 5, team 1 must win".
 
France played dire rugby in the entire tournament, they were lucky to qualify from their group owing to Tonga getting beat by Canada in their first match. Turning up for 1 match, even 1 half isn't world cup winning material.
 
For those without actual memories of an era we rely on stats and testimony's into prior greatness.
 
How about the Hungarians of 1954? Without doubt the best team never to win the FIFA world cup but take a poll of 100 people today and I'd be surprised if they got more than 5 votes. Why because memories fade.
 
Had they won the world cup they would have cemented themselves in history but they fell at the final hurdle for a number of reasons.
 
It would have been a genuine shame for rugby not to have had this AB team seen as RWC champs. Their efforts would have been forgotten and their achievements dismissed. You can imagine a bar-room discussion right now
 
"How do you mean not great, they won 5 out of 7 3N titles and won 44 out of 46 games vs. all NH opponents losing only to France, AUS & SA in the era, they were the best".

"Well did they win that RWC final match vs France.. no, case closed"...

"they were playing their 4th choice flyhalf"

"whatevers"