Where you underwhelmed by the Autumn internationals?

I was. I've been watching rugby religiously for most of the last 40 years and occasionally there are periods where the quality of the game is dire. I like competition, contest for the ball, the variety of ways teams can break down the opposition. The competition between brawn and skill, power and endurance. Occasionally, I find the game one dimensional. For most of my life I've supported Waikato and the Chiefs (I now support Wellington due to the kids growing up here). Ironically, with the current All Black selector Ian Foster at the helm I got bored. I struggled even though Fossie went to the same University hostel as me. They were so so so boring. I got to the point where I turned down free tickets to games.

I find myself having the same thoughts this autumn. I can usually watch most rugby games. I can still watch the AB's, but most of the autumn internationals  have left me cold. Reading Paul Hayward's column in the Telegraph I see I'm not the only one.

So was it a feast of rugby from Nov 8-29? No, and the sport needs to do more to encourage skill and enterprise if it is to hook fans outside the cognoscenti. You can cram as many punters as you like into the Ruck & Maul bar, and keep the post-match gig going so long it feels like a package holiday, but without good rugby the game will not draw a new congregation.

My feeling is we've stepped back in time about 5 years. It's basically dominated by defence and kicking. Better policing of the ruck and offside line would improve the game pretty quickly. Discuss......

Just for interest here's JK's comments prior to the series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5rNBCISQUY

Yep, the Boks left me cold this tour. Compared to the attacking rugby the Boks played last November their play was poor this year.

Biltong wrote:Yep, the Boks left me cold this tour. Compared to the attacking rugby the Boks played last November their play was poor this year.

take yesterdays games. dull and non eventful at Millenium, not a lot better at twickers. Our games were similar. Only a bit of spark in the last 10 versus Wales, a forward bash to beat England and a feisty Scot side putting paid to our hopefuls.

Much of this is due to the NH sides fronting more physically and going for wins regardless of how they got them but I wouldn't want to be watching matches like that all the time. NH fans will probably only see the positives, the gap closing etc and thats all good, but even as a supporter of a side that won all its matches it was still very dour.

All I can say is the RC teams has some work to do in regards to their breakdowns, they need to combat the way it is played up north.

Pretty underwhelming alright. I've got a sneaking suspicion the ABs were just doing enough and didnt really put too much effort in this year. We weren't peaking for this years' AIs. You guys were probably the same Biltong. Probably the NH sides to (except Ireland). Who knows? All I know is that it was pretty dire watching the ABs.

Yep, the team gaining the most momentum this tour was Ireland, none of the others really enhanced their position.

Surely nothing to do with the fact that the SH teams either lost more games or didnt play as well as they hoped?

This attitude really gets my goat, its like when Wales used to win a GS it was 'not a vintage year'. It is crap, for me the games were their usual physical enthralling encounters, that (in welsh games in particular) we defended so well to make the SH sides make unforced errors does not concern me whatsover,

ask Irish fans if they were underwhelmed

Got to say I felt the same. Quality wasn't particularly high from any side. Didn't see all their games but Ireland seemed decent in the bits I did see.

Taylorman wrote:

Much of this is due to the NH sides fronting more physically and going for wins regardless of how they got them

I think this is the key. I am afraid we dragged you down to our desperate win at all costs situation. Leading me to two thoughts, one that the RWC will be a pretty boring affair, that the SH teams still all have the skills to play exciting rugby and win.

GavinDragon wrote:Surely nothing to do with the fact that the SH teams either lost more games or didnt play as well as they hoped?

This attitude really gets my goat, its like when Wales used to win a GS it was 'not a vintage year'. It is crap, for me the games were their usual physical enthralling encounters, that (in welsh games in particular) we defended so well to make the SH sides make unforced errors does not concern me whatsover,

ask Irish fans if they were underwhelmed

I don't get why this is now seen as an attitude.

From a South African perspective we played poorly, I can recite you a number of reasons for it, but instead of boring you with details let's look at the SA performances.

We struggled against Ireland to adapt to the way they negated our maul, we kept on doing the same thing over and over, you can give credit ti Ireland for turning it up, but you have to criticise SA for not changing tactics, not kicking their goals.

Hence poor by SA.

Against England we were kicking away possession, had a few brilliant individual moves our pack got pummeled and conceded a yellow card after just being warned not to pull the maul down.

Again a poor team performance.

Against Italy we struggled badly, possibly our worst performance of the tour, stuggling to eke out a win against them is just plain pathetic.

Against Wales we had no focus, unforced errrors, taking quick taps then kicking directly into touch, missed touch on penalties, kicked out on the full on restarts.

It was a comedy of errors.

Biltong wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:Surely nothing to do with the fact that the SH teams either lost more games or didnt play as well as they hoped?

This attitude really gets my goat, its like when Wales used to win a GS it was 'not a vintage year'. It is crap, for me the games were their usual physical enthralling encounters, that (in welsh games in particular) we defended so well to make the SH sides make unforced errors does not concern me whatsover,

ask Irish fans if they were underwhelmed

I don't get why this is now seen as an attitude.

From a South African perspective we played poorly, I can recite you a number of reasons for it, but instead of boring you with details let's look at the SA performances.

We struggled against Ireland to adapt to the way they negated our maul, we kept on doing the same thing over and over, you can give credit ti Ireland for turning it up, but you have to criticise SA for not changing tactics, not kicking their goals.

Hence poor by SA.

Against England we were kicking away possession, had a few brilliant individual moves our pack got pummeled and conceded a yellow card after just being warned not to pull the maul down.

Again a poor team performance.

Against Italy we struggled badly, possibly our worst performance of the tour, stuggling to eke out a win against them is just plain pathetic.

Against Wales we had no focus, unforced errrors, taking quick taps then kicking directly into touch, missed touch on penalties, kicked out on the full on restarts.

It was a comedy of errors.

Good learning experience though Bill.

Managed to see some fringe lads under pressure, Le Roux will practice his catching a bit more and you'll be there or there abouts.


The obvious conclusion to these internationals is that NZ are still miles ahead of everyone else in world rugby. But come the RWC, the pack behind NZ are going to improve and be a close fought highly competitive bunch.

maestegmafia wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:Surely nothing to do with the fact that the SH teams either lost more games or didnt play as well as they hoped?

This attitude really gets my goat, its like when Wales used to win a GS it was 'not a vintage year'. It is crap, for me the games were their usual physical enthralling encounters, that (in welsh games in particular) we defended so well to make the SH sides make unforced errors does not concern me whatsover,

ask Irish fans if they were underwhelmed

I don't get why this is now seen as an attitude.

From a South African perspective we played poorly, I can recite you a number of reasons for it, but instead of boring you with details let's look at the SA performances.

We struggled against Ireland to adapt to the way they negated our maul, we kept on doing the same thing over and over, you can give credit ti Ireland for turning it up, but you have to criticise SA for not changing tactics, not kicking their goals.

Hence poor by SA.

Against England we were kicking away possession, had a few brilliant individual moves our pack got pummeled and conceded a yellow card after just being warned not to pull the maul down.

Again a poor team performance.

Against Italy we struggled badly, possibly our worst performance of the tour, stuggling to eke out a win against them is just plain pathetic.

Against Wales we had no focus, unforced errrors, taking quick taps then kicking directly into touch, missed touch on penalties, kicked out on the full on restarts.

It was a comedy of errors.

Good learning experience though Bill.

Managed to see some fringe lads under pressure, Le Roux will practice his catching a bit more and you'll be there or there abouts.


The obvious conclusion to these internationals is that NZ are still miles ahead of everyone else in world rugby. But come the RWC, the pack behind NZ are going to improve and be a close fought highly competitive bunch.

Maes, not sure Meyer is going to take to learning very easily.

His selection philosophy has been biased by his love for experienced players.

If you look at the players who played in the 2007 and 2011 RWC's he cannot let go.

He has given few opportunities to other props and virtually tested no other hookers apart from Schalk Brits who is getting on as well, so no new blood there, and only one or two caps for props.

Our locks have been severely effected by injuries this year, but it does not excuse previous years where Meyer have exposed only PS du Toit and Lewies who each has only a couple of caps. So not enough experienced players created apart from Etzebeth as a youngster

OUr backrow he stuck to Willem ALberts, Louw and Vermeulen religiously and the newbies got no shot.

It took injuries to du Preez and Pienaar before he gave Reinach as start.

At flyhalf it was only midway through this year where he dropped Morne Steyn.

OUr midfield is stuck with de Villiers and he was going to put Fourie as a starter in the RWC, no FOurie just retired and we have only Serfontein experienced at 13 and he isn't a 13.

OUr wings is a mess, JP PIetersen as completely lost form, Habana is getting on, and no real wing back up.

WIllie is our only hope at 15.

SO from where we were last year Meyer has completely flopped this year.

Well from a Scotsman, it was refreshing

To see our team try to win games and not just try not to lose them - a huge step in the right direction

Still a long way to go and skill levels and squad not there - but for me it was refreshing and exciting

What I find really underwhelming is the quality of the spelling


(Sorry BC..)

I wasn't underwhelmed by the Autumn Internationals. There's no denying, though, that the World Cup has changed a great deal in our sport. These wins and losses mean nothing if they don't get reflected in performances at the tournament next year. Ireland, Australia and New Zealand all had reason to think they'd do better in 2007. England, Ireland and South Africa were the same in 2011.

When Richie McCaw wondered about the wisdom of not playing first choice teams in some of the 2011 Tri-Nations matches, Henry told him that no-one cares who won it in 2007 (it was the All Blacks).

I do care about the Six Nation winner but there's no denying it also gets trumped by the World Cup. England's only win since Woodward was in 2011 but many forget about it, or don't think much of it, because of the lacklustre performances later that year in New Zealand,

The weather was quite bad... I think 2 Twickenham games, the IRE vs SA match also were particularly poor for that. Even the NZ vs SCO match suffered.

The MS didn't have that worry but their pitch is dire. They really need to go to Murrayfield and find out exactly what surface is needed.

You can be the most attacking minded team out there but if the weather is bad you're not going to put on a great show.

Dire series for AUS and SA.

AUS lost to Ireland, France, England.
SA lost to Ireland and Wales.

In the SH you usually see big scores amongst the 3N but less so in the NH and those teams are dragging the 3N into old 1980s scraps.... and lets be honest, its sort of working.

Certainly wasn't a classic series mind... perhaps the best game was IRE vs AUS although maybe because Ireland went screaming ahead and AUS came back.

The more I think about the AI's the more I am convinced that Gatland used these games to experiment, as the series went on, the more defence minded Wales became, and I think he will do the same in the upcomming 6N as well, I think that Gatland will sacrifice the next 6N and use them to try out different aspects of the game, we will see, but I think that Wales might peak, just at the right time for the World cup and take some people by surprise.

Not so sure about this theory of peaking.

From a form perspective Ican understand it if coaches pick their form players, and conditioning is something that can be controlled, but injuries and poor form is not something you can control.

I suspect each team has their own challenges ahead of the RWC, and the best you can hope for is to be as well prepared as possible, and then you need luck to go your way.

Unfortunately I see next RWC to be severely affected by referee interpretations and the bounce of the ball.

LordDowlais wrote:The more I think about the AI's the more I am convinced that Gatland used these games to experiment, as the series went on, the more defence minded Wales became, and I think he will do the same in the upcomming 6N as well, I think that Gatland will sacrifice the next 6N and use them to try out different aspects of the game, we will see, but I think that Wales might peak, just at the right time for the World cup and take some people by surprise.

One win and Gatland has you drinking from the cup of optimism huh LD???

I think Wales' approach is what may kill them in the WC myself. Their strategy of utter intensity means if the opposition is in touch or even slightly ahead at 60 mins they nearly always run out of steam. The weekend saw them get their SH monkey off their backs but if SA and Wales were to meet again in the RWC I would heavily fancy the boks in 12 months time still. But they are no more a side with the chances of victory being "maybe if the planets are all aligned crap" against the big sides, they are contenders now in every match they participate in.

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:The more I think about the AI's the more I am convinced that Gatland used these games to experiment, as the series went on, the more defence minded Wales became, and I think he will do the same in the upcomming 6N as well, I think that Gatland will sacrifice the next 6N and use them to try out different aspects of the game, we will see, but I think that Wales might peak, just at the right time for the World cup and take some people by surprise.

One win and Gatland has you drinking from the cup of optimism huh LD???

I think Wales' approach is what may kill them in the WC myself. Their strategy of utter intensity means if the opposition is in touch or even slightly ahead at 60 mins they nearly always run out of steam. The weekend saw them get their SH monkey off their backs but if SA and Wales were to meet again in the RWC I would heavily fancy the boks in 12 months time still. But they are no more a side with the chances of victory being "maybe if the planets are all aligned crap" against the big sides, they are contenders now in every match they participate in.

Not optimism, Gatland usually leaves me with a feeling anything but optimistic. It is intensity that we need though, and if we can get our players whipped up into shape perhaps we could keep that intensity up for the whole 80mins, the difference against the AllBlacks was our bench, we did not have players good enough to keep the intensity up, and the difference on Saturday was, we had players in the backs who could tackle, thats why I saw George Norths injury as a blessing in disguise, because I knew that in Liam Williams we had somebody who can catch, takle and pass. Yes we are contenders, I always saw us as contenders, but we all have the same problem, and that is, how are any of us going to beat NewZealand ?

To be honest I think NZ were far stronger in 07 and 11 then they will be in 15. Results don't say so but the manner of their wins suggest that teams are getting closer.

SA beat them this year, AUS drew and also should have won in the 3rd test. Scotland drew them very close (albeit with a 1.5 side out), England with all their injury problems got them close too and had Wales not blown the doors down in the first 30 I think they could have come home.

Their draw... France potentially in the QF will get them nervous, SA will be a massive game and with them bring out their first XV I think it would be only 55:45 in favour of NZ.. and if England put together some results and get to the final then who would bet against them??

Favourites yes but I would have been more confident running up to 2007 and 2011 then I would be now if I were a kiwi.

From an All Black perspective I've gotten the sense of the NH having studied our game plan well and working out how to nullify it each autumn. Gives me the thought that Hansen et al set out a blueprint of how NZ are going to play at the start of each year, so maybe the RC teams and the NH team we play are caught on the hop by any innovations. The rugby world is obviously more familiar with those by the time the SH heads north so without further innovation NZ has tended to struggle to impose itself fully during that time.

I have an inkling that Hansen is keeping some powder dry. I write this with as much hope as expectation, but the way we played didn't seem to offer anything new.

I don't think the rugby was dire, there were some sublime moments in fact. Australia was responsible for a few of those so whatever noises are made about them being in dire straits, it'd be best for England and Wales to ignore them. They'll be in the mix next year no doubt about it. But in general I agree that it wasn't of vintage standard. No team really stood up and stamped their mark all over the AIs-Ireland were the most impressive but their set piece faltered a bit against the Boks. I tell you if that had've worked like clockwork they could have put down a marker that would have scared the bejeesus out of everybody.

Rugby's a sport where if you play well you stop the other team from doing so-generally eliminating the other's strengths. So I think it was an even set of contests-both SH and NH teams cancelling each other out and games never really opening up. Maybe for expansive teams and fans of that rugby it seemed uninspiring. But for Wales they didn't care. They had to get a win against one of the big three and a tryless slugfest was welcome, as long as they got the win. I said I'd take a one pointer ahead of the 11 final and I was happy to at the end of it for sure.

I think the biggest movers were Scotland and Ireland. Scotland are gaining rapid belief and Laidlaw has been very impressive. Cotter's getting them into a side that will trouble the best-looking forward to seeing how they go in the 6N. Dark horse? We'll see. Whereas the cat's out of the bag with Ireland and the semi is definitely a minimum target. They are one of the form teams and are definitely good enough to send NZ and Argentina home in their QF. Wales I don't really count from a rugby perspective-they've been there or thereabouts for a long time-but they moved up mentally in the last game getting the monkey off their back. Expect them to have a powerful 6N with that belief but it's coming up against the Aussies next time that will be the true litmus test.

Aussie and SA both sh*t the bed really. The Wobblies obviously had a massively disrupted tour, would have been worse last week as the events in Sydney cut me up pretty badly so goodness knows how those guys felt, but they failed to get over the line in their tight contests more often than they succeeded, which is very worrying for them as Aussie mental strength is something to be lauded.

SA never got going and it seemed that they were worked out by the NH too. JDV will be a loss but I suspect Biltong feels it will be a blessing in disguise as he wanted JDV to be replaced, albeit in a much less painful fashion. There just seemed to be a bit too much tinkering and not enough faith in Pollard. However they will be the side most likely to dump NZ out of the World Cup and will be a force to be reckoned with once Meyer puts all his cards on the table.

It's probably in everyone's interest to do the bare minimum at the moment knowing damn well there will be a big push next year. Why stick your head up too soon. Ireland may have played their cards. Come RWC, no one will take them lightly, and you'll see teams playing 'their' final against ireland. Will they have enough in them to play team after team that will treat them as the team to beat. Ireland will probably go in as favorites in most games now. When have they been in that position before? Can they hack that pressure, game after game, will be interesting to see.

Where you under whelmed by the autumn internationals?

Yes I was, normally I really look forward to the 6 nation warm up act but this year I struggled with it, true I didn't get to watch too many games but normally I make time to see them.

Hopefully the 6 Nations will re-ignite my love of the international game.

You sure you wouldn't be better off watching league?

As far as the SH are concerned, in my opinion only SA were disappointing - if this is rugby from the #2 side, then we would be in trouble. I guess that less strength in depth than they believed is probably responsible, plus a suspect attitude. And where did you find that SH?

The ABs were decent although their handling in the 1st half of the Wales game was very poor - I'm sure Wales pressing them so hard in this period had a lot to do with that.

Don't get me started on Aus - the most over-rated side since France

The NH sides all had their moments, but only Ire were consistently good.

The results suggest that there wasn't that great a difference between the 2 hemispheres this time - maybe that's your gripe.

As far as the SH are concerned, in my opinion only SA were disappointing - if this is rugby from the #2 side, then we would be in trouble. I guess that less strength in depth than they believed is probably responsible, plus a suspect attitude. And where did you find that SH?

Frustratingly this is not how they have been playing the previous 18 months, I think there are a number of reasons for it, but suffice to say Meyer has work to do and if he is going to continue with his selection of older players he will need to get cooperation from the Franchise coaches

When the NH starts to develop plans to keep the SH close you know what's right behind the corner....

Rule change imminent.

Biltong wrote:All I can say is the RC teams has some work to do in regards to their breakdowns, they need to combat the way it is played up north.

I think Australia were pretty good at the break down. Missed the England game but didnt they dominate most teams here?

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:All I can say is the RC teams has some work to do in regards to their breakdowns, they need to combat the way it is played up north.

I think Australia were pretty good at the break down. Missed the England game but didnt they dominate most teams here?

At times they were, but there were also times where they were dominated in turn, it is a consistency issue more than anything else

I think its the first time in history that each home nation side has taken a win vs. the RC teams. You can stretch that to the old 5N too with France beating AUS.

Whenever the north does well, the south complain its to the detriment of the game.

Scoring tries isn't the be all and end all. Remember SR around 2000-2001. Some of it was great, but sometimes the huge scoring just wanted you to watch anything but.

There is a WC next year.  I know, that'll come as a big shock to some but there you go, it's about time someone mentioned it

Anyway, there's my take on the AIs - there's something big a comin' and all sides are jostling for position, cagey and trialing.

I think every professional side knows there is little to be gained from giving everything now and wilting into irrelevance come next Autumn.

And, yet, who wasn't trying?  And who was plumb knackered mentally?

Pragmatism wins out in the end when sides are serious. It seems England realised they needed a confidence booster win and allegedly went back to old forward crunch values (I say 'allegedly' because that's what I'm hearing and I didn't see the game).  So Pragmatism got the better of a side that might originally have wanted to try to go toe to toe with Australia in the entertaining stuff?

Pragmatism certainly got to New Zealand.  They have the leisure of not having to try too much and 'try' they didn't on this tour.  Oh they made the right grunts and groans of effort, but when they needed their wins in the end, they somehow knew incrementally what mili-percentage they'd need to go up in gear terms to get there.  If anyone tells me the ABs were trying hard and being stiffly challenged I'll simply say that's being economical with the truth.  They won everything they came for playing well beneath themselves - and what need was there to show anything else?  They're not obliged to use more energy than is necessary.

South Africa.  I think they came with a genuine view that they'd be too strong, much too strong, for any of the NH opponents.  They were familiar with each other in International camp, the opponents were rusty.  They had beaten the 1st rankers and if they kept up their standards, they'd do enough in cold Europe.  So in a sense I think SA got caught in a complacency daydream and were forced to wake up quickly and revise their comfort zone attitudes.  But I think that can be hard to do when at the end of a long season together and looking forward to a break.  I think, by the end, they were in a mood to just end the trip and re-charge the batteries - an organised retreat with a design of coming back strong when it matters.

The NH sides were a mixed bag.  Wales improved over their term (as usual)  Warburton in particular always needs warming up to International standard and then he starts doing his Crabantics in the breakdown and anything becomes possible.
England seem to be of the opinion that they've found and consolidated at least one of the ingredients they'll need in formidable forwards that virtually every opponent (NH and SH) will have to go away and think seriously about.
Scotland feel they've genuinely turned a corner with their new guy, Cotter.  They'll be hoping it's more grounded than simply an enthusiasm bounce that often comes with new coaches.
Ireland are problematic actually.  They won against SA and Australia with a few of their heavy hitters missing so might feel pleased with themselves.  But their method is highly energy sapping and attritional.  They'll have to find easier ways to win than the highly charged defensive game they're using now.  It's much too dangerous a method to take a side a long way though a WC.  Something more needs adding and I suppose the comfort is that a guy like Schmidt doesn't need telling on that score.

So all sides for their own reasons maybe 'underperformed' on the entertainment side of things - but this period is a lead in to something bigger.  It was a phoney war of sorts.

The gap between hemispheres was the main talking point from these matches. The big 3 are no more but only NZ out on their own. There's been a big shift on the rugby landscape the past month.

The SH were traditionally always a few steps ahead. They took to the professional game quicker, they had better coaching, better player development structures, were fitter and better conditioned etc. The NH (except France) has caught up in many of those areas now and in the JWC U20 tournament of the past 3 or 4 years, games have been tight. A sign of things to come.

Playing styles is the big difference. The weather plays a big part in the NH style. Its more defensive and can prevent good rugby. I like watching NZ and Oz play and from a rugby point of view I hope a good attack can more often than not beat a good defence.

fa0019 wrote:I think its the first time in history that each home nation side has taken a win vs. the RC teams. You can stretch that to the old 5N too with France beating AUS.

Whenever the north does well, the south complain its to the detriment of the game.

Scoring tries isn't the be all and end all. Remember SR around 2000-2001. Some of it was great, but sometimes the huge scoring just wanted you to watch anything but.

You are spot on. It was for that reason that the ELVs were introduced post '07 WC, mainly because Graham Henry piped up a lot cause NZ got dumped out by France.

I think the ABs were a bit flat - they seem to be just keeping things in the tank for the RWC and just doing enough to win.

Surprised really at how successful the NH teams were based on the quality of the RC - maybe the SH were tired but I wouldn't have picked Australia to lose 3 or SA two a month ago.

Other than that I thought it was a fantastic November - much more competitive than I expected.

It's going to go down in History as the Biggest False Dawn Ever!

THE NORTH RISES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (teaser trailer available on Youtube)

.............*ahem*................. oh no it didn't.

profitius wrote:The gap between hemispheres was the main talking point from these matches. The big 3 are no more but only NZ out on their own. There's been a big shift on the rugby landscape the past month.

The SH were traditionally always a few steps ahead. They took to the professional game quicker, they had better coaching, better player development structures, were fitter and better conditioned etc. The NH (except France) has caught up in many of those areas now and in the JWC U20 tournament of the past 3 or 4 years, games have been tight. A sign of things to come.

Playing styles is the big difference. The weather plays a big part in the NH style. Its more defensive and can prevent good rugby. I like watching NZ and Oz play and from a rugby point of view I hope a good attack can more often than not beat a good defence.

In rugby having a good attack is usually dependant on having a good defense as most tries come from turn overs.

I enjoy all parts of the game. Teams play to their strengths based on the types of players available to them. I dont have any issue with that.

I read threads like this and wonder if I'm expecting too little from the sport I love?  Have people now become so fickle and conditioned as to demand some sort of "reality show entertainment" every time there's a test match?  It certainly seems to me that many in the crowd would be better off watching a live episode of big brother - they would certainly be more knowledgeable.

This AI series has been thoroughly competitive test rugby (often played in foul weather) where it is clear that most of the NH sides have stepped up in physicality, defence, and set piece.  The AB's have proven heads and shoulders better even when put under considerable pressure. If SA and Aus go home thinking that they didn't play well rather than they weren't allowed to play well - that's up to them.

There have been some moments of great rugby and some facinating arm-wrestle stuff too - just as entertaining to the knowledgeable fan.  I'm looking forward to a great 6N's, possibly the most open for a while and then a WC to savour.

Simply too many unforced errors. Poor passing, poor catching (not under pressure), brain-fart penalties. I'm kind of used to it now from England...but we played like that and we still competing with the teams we played. They all seemed a bit naff, bored and not really up for it.

Wray doesn't like people like you offload!  Too much tradition and love of the dark grimy arts of slog play!  Wharrabout them young boys that need to be stolen away from watching football????

I think the introduction of a round ball might drag more casual football fans over.  Oh and coaches addressing their players as "The Lad, Ford" and "The Lad, Warburton", "The Boy, POC"

offload wrote:I read threads like this and wonder if I'm expecting too little from the sport I love?  Have people now become so fickle and conditioned as to demand some sort of "reality show entertainment" every time there's a test match?  It certainly seems to me that many in the crowd would be better off watching a live episode of big brother - they would certainly be more knowledgeable.

This AI series has been thoroughly competitive test rugby (often played in foul weather) where it is clear that most of the NH sides have stepped up in physicality, defence, and set piece.  The AB's have proven heads and shoulders better even when put under considerable pressure. If SA and Aus go home thinking that they didn't play well rather than they weren't allowed to play well - that's up to them.

There have been some moments of great rugby and some facinating arm-wrestle stuff too - just as entertaining to the knowledgeable fan.  I'm looking forward to a great 6N's, possibly the most open for a while and then a WC to savour.

I agree. This series was as good as it has ever been really.

GunsGerms wrote:

profitius wrote:The gap between hemispheres was the main talking point from these matches. The big 3 are no more but only NZ out on their own. There's been a big shift on the rugby landscape the past month.

The SH were traditionally always a few steps ahead. They took to the professional game quicker, they had better coaching, better player development structures, were fitter and better conditioned etc. The NH (except France) has caught up in many of those areas now and in the JWC U20 tournament of the past 3 or 4 years, games have been tight. A sign of things to come.

Playing styles is the big difference. The weather plays a big part in the NH style. Its more defensive and can prevent good rugby. I like watching NZ and Oz play and from a rugby point of view I hope a good attack can more often than not beat a good defence.

In rugby having a good attack is usually dependant on having a good defense as most tries come from turn overs.

I enjoy all parts of the game. Teams play to their strengths based on the types of players available to them. I dont have any issue with that.

This is something that is wrong. Counter attacking is and always should be a vital part of the game, but if you just rely on turnovers then there is no requirement to develop a structured attack, all you do is kick the ball back and apply pressure. In an ideal world the majority of points should come from keeping possession.

It wasn't particularly high quality but it was entertaining. Much like the 6 Nations.

Secretfly wrote:South Africa. I think they came with a genuine view that they'd be too strong, much too strong, for any of the NH opponents. They were familiar with each other in International camp, the opponents were rusty. They had beaten the 1st rankers and if they kept up their standards, they'd do enough in cold Europe. So in a sense I think SA got caught in a complacency daydream and were forced to wake up quickly and revise their comfort zone attitudes. But I think that can be hard to do when at the end of a long season together and looking forward to a break. I think, by the end, they were in a mood to just end the trip and re-charge the batteries - an organised retreat with a design of coming back strong when it matters.

I think that is pretty much spot on.

SecretFly wrote:There is a WC next year.  I know, that'll come as a big shock to some but there you go, it's about time someone mentioned it

Mentioned above, SF.

SecretFly wrote:It's going to go down in History as the Biggest False Dawn Ever!

THE NORTH RISES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (teaser trailer available on Youtube)

.............*ahem*................. oh no it didn't.

Interesting..... a more cynical man than me might even suggest that this years AIs have all been a rouse by the SH to generate interest in the RWC, and to give hope that there could be a NH winner.... the only question for me is whether or not the RFU and indeed the other northern Unions are part of the rouse or not...... if they aren't then the sanzar have pulled off a masterstroke....

lostinwales wrote:

This is something that is wrong. Counter attacking is and always should be a vital part of the game, but if you just rely on turnovers then there is no requirement to develop a structured attack, all you do is kick the ball back and apply pressure. In an ideal world the majority of points should come from keeping possession.

Like I said good teams will play to their strengths. I think you would be surprised how often a team with less possesion wins in rugby. Even New Zealand win quite regularly without dominating all areas other than the scoreboard which is all that counts. New Zealand also statistically kicks more than most teams.

Rugby like all team sports is a tactical sport. Only naive coaches believe that if they dominate posession and terrority that should be enough to win most games in professional rugby. Thankfully that isnt the case and brains are as important as brawn.

IRFU conspired with the ARU and SARU to let us win??????????????????

This is despicable. This is worse than FIFA! Sack them all and move everyone to Cambodia for truly unbiased rugby that only thinks of paychecks!

GunsGerms wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

This is something that is wrong. Counter attacking is and always should be a vital part of the game, but if you just rely on turnovers then there is no requirement to develop a structured attack, all you do is kick the ball back and apply pressure. In an ideal world the majority of points should come from keeping possession.

Like I said good teams will play to their strengths. I think you would be surprised how often a team with less possesion wins in rugby. Even New Zealand win quite regularly without dominating all areas.

Rugby like all team sports is a tactical sport. Only naive coaches believe that if they dominate posession and terrority that should be enough to win most games in professional rugby. Thankfully that isnt the case.

This is very true and it came up here the other day. You contain/ frustrate the other team by always forcing them to play deep in their own half. This leads to them having much better stats for possession despite losing.

I just think we should be in a position where teams that attack in the right areas of the pitch and keep hold of possession should be able to turn that into points.

GunsGerms wrote:
Rugby like all team sports is a tactical sport. Only naive coaches believe that if they dominate posession and terrority that should be enough to win most games in professional rugby. Thankfully that isnt the case and brains are as important as brawn.

Correct of course.  A lot of games are won on least possession and territory.  But they do require seismic degrees of faith in defensive systems and they also tie that faith seriously to a belief in stamina, fitness and strength.
In my opinion, the thing about attacking rugby is not so much that it 'wins games' - but moreso that it actually can often relieve pressure on the defence, it can give brains a break by changing the texture of the goals.  The more you attack, even without gaining too many points, the less time in 80 you're forced to defend.  I suppose balance is the word, and getting that balance right.