Steve Hansen - Rugby's Getting Boring

First topic message reminder :

For those who may not have seen this I thought I'd share a link to an interview Hansen did for Wales Online. I'm sure some of us will sympathise with his thoughts whilst others might see a little posturing before the WC? What do you think?

As a life long passionate follower of rugby, I personally struggle with the direction the game is going. I would like to see key areas of the game like the scrum and breakdown revert to a less complex environment where interpretation is minimised. I enjoyed rugby more when forwards were so busy rucking and mauling they didn't get in the way!

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/steve-hansen-qa-fears-modern-day-8767052

SecretFly wrote:The point is that the SH sides will always try to 'goad' the pride of NH sides and hit them with this theory that their game is muck and that they should come out and be loose to make the game entertaining.

How many times have the All Blacks showed up to play the Welsh and in the pre-week publicity were all praise for the Welsh open-game mentality, how the Welsh were the ABs of Europe, etc etc.   It's a draw-out courtship designed to create a game that they can punishingly exploit.

So too now in advance of the WC.  Hanson is trying to goad Schmidt out of his box.  "Come on Joe - be a man - play it the real way, the entertaining way - if you can - show us how good a coach you are"

Joe for now seems to be good enough not to listen to the taunts and insinuations and challenges and dares.

And thats where things make me nervous, one day Joe is going to come out of his box and  " Maybe shag is onto something? - lets do what Shag says - in the interests of World Rugby lets play entertaining Rugby- and Wola, Ireland have their victory over the ABs" and all us stunned Kiwis  will be saying "F--k I didnt see that coming".

I think Ireland will beat NZ quite soon. Next 4 years.

For the last twenty years, before every NZ Ireland test I always think this is Ireland's time, they are going to beat the ABs ...been wrong every time.

This is really disappointing from Hansen. As a voice that people will listen to he should have some responsibility for what he says. Since when has rugby been just about scoring tries? The very name 'try' came from the time when it wasn't worth anything other than it secured an attempt at goal.

If people want tries they can watch sevens and get their fill. Having more tries per game actually cheapens them and they become less special. So where does that end - 10, 20, 30... how many tries are acceptable per game? Where is the evidence that people are leaving the game due to boring rugby - there isn't any. So Hansen should try thinking before he speaks about something he is obviously misinformed about.

OTOH maybe he is very informed and is running scared that the mighty All Blacks don't have the creativity to break down the defences he knows he will be up against and that leveler will keep the opposition teams within range. Surely he should be showing the way in this rugby void by running in dozens of tries to get all the bored disenfranchised rugby fans to buy black shirts?

Anyone care to list the tally of tries scored by Tier 1 teams over the last calendar year? I'd do it but it's not easy on a smartphone. I had a quick squizz, and I don't think the ABs not scoring tries is Hansen's problem. I truely think, he just finds some games boring as a neutral.

Maybe he's in the wrong profession?

No doubt he's just stirring the pot Aukster. The ABs are pretty good at playing boring rugby for 75% of the game.

The reality is that Ireland is not particularly good at the game of rugby per se. It may be good at a perverted version of it, but that's it.

England, Wales and France are just worse at it.

And South Africa and Australia aren't that far behind it with some extra twiddle and brute force to make them look better - but not much.

In short, New Zealand are the only team that can actually play the game of rugby union.

It's a competition of one.

If rugby is boring in one way at all is NZ's domination through fair means and foul. What i hate about the like sod Hansen is that if the attritional style he loathes was keeping him in Wins he would not be lamenting it.

The Great Aukster wrote:This is really disappointing from Hansen. As a voice that people will listen to he should have some responsibility for what he says. Since when has rugby been just about scoring tries? The very name 'try' came from the time when it wasn't worth anything other than it secured an attempt at goal.

If people want tries they can watch sevens and get their fill. Having more tries per game actually cheapens them and they become less special. So where does that end - 10, 20, 30... how many tries are acceptable per game? Where is the evidence that people are leaving the game due to boring rugby - there isn't any. So Hansen should try thinking before he speaks about something he is obviously misinformed about.

OTOH maybe he is very informed and is running scared that the mighty All Blacks don't have the creativity to break down the defences he knows he will be up against and that leveler will keep the opposition teams within range. Surely he should be showing the way in this rugby void by running in dozens of tries to get all the bored disenfranchised rugby fans to buy black shirts?

So I presume from what youve written there, is that you prefer to have as few tries as possible or in other words a game that is designed, played, legislated and adjuducated to favour the defence over attack, which is exactly what rugby Union currently is.

No what I prefer is to see a contrast between attack and defence. Devaluing tries by making them easier to score is just going to end up like basketball where teams score from nearly every restart. If Hansen can't appreciate the skills and teamwork that make good defence than maybe he really is in the wrong profession.

No doubt Hansen is stirring, however it is obvious to any impartial observer that the game needs opening up.

Here are my ideas that could be trialled;

No scrum penalties, just free kicks, (except penalty tries) but with the penalty of an immediate 5 minute penalty card.

Ruck/maul penalties also to recieve an immediate 5 minute penalty card, no second chances, immediate!

Penalties and drop kicks to reduced in value from 3 to 2 points

Penalty kicks at goal to be taken within 30 seconds of the referee asking the question - count down clock

Substitutes to be reduced from 8 to 4 (2 props and hooker plus 1 other only)

And perhaps, as a last, would be to lose the number 6 flanker reducing the pack size to a total of 7, 14 players in total per side.

The ramifications of these changes I believe would be increased availble pitch space, more open ball in play time and a move away from the gym monkey towards a skills based player.

Finally the introduction of immediate 5 minute tecnical penalties would revolutionise the attitude of coaches/players

I think Hansen has a point on players being offside. At the time I thought Ireland were miles offside all the time against England. I think Guns or Secretfly thought the opposite. When i watched back a bit calmer, it seemed like we were offside a fair bit, and Ireland a fair bit too, maybe slightly less? But actually a lot was also just being so close that it's as good as offside - at least in terms of providing a suffocating defence. I think in that regard Hansen has a point, is there a way to push the defence back slightly without turning it into a whistle-fest or making it even more a game of crash, bang, wallop and big guys with momentum hitting one another?

Other things that frustrated me. England do not go 'through the gate'. On some occasions, it's not even close. Ireland weren't much better. That is bad refereeing, surely. The way we get away with it is by sort of hitting from a diagonal and swinging our bodies around as we make contact. I don't think it's remotely legal, personally.

On Ireland's side, and the ABs do this too - rucking WAY past the ball and holding onto players for an extra second or so is infuriating. It actually may be a logical way to open up that space around the fringes to attack come to think of it, so maybe it should be allowed more? But if one team is doing it, and the other like England is too brain-dead to cotton on, it's frustrating to watch.

The final thing from Ireland, I may have imagined this and it's probable we do it just as much. Players tackling and then positioning their bodies in a sort of long curve, whereby players have to go miles around them or get caught up going over them. It makes players take an extra half a second to get to the ruck but it often means a turnover is conceded. The huge Toner is a prime example (i accept his height is the issue and not really his fault!) Refs, everyone, needs to find a way to get tackling players out of the way very quickly and safely and let a genuine competition happen at the breakdown. In my opinion.

The Great Aukster wrote:No what I prefer is to see a contrast between attack and defence. Devaluing tries by making them easier to score is just going to end up like basketball where teams score from nearly every restart. If Hansen can't appreciate the skills and teamwork that make good defence than maybe he really is in the wrong profession.

Just because you cant see the adavantages that defence has over attack, doesnt mean that Hansen (and many others) cant and are wrong.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at such condescension, as obviously the only people who can see such subtlety in rugby are kiwi. It was presumptuous of me to expect any debate on the matter, and I should have realised that Comrade Hansen is always right.

The Great Aukster wrote:I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at such condescension, as obviously the only people who can see such subtlety in rugby are kiwi. It was presumptuous of me to expect any debate on the matter, and I should have realised that Comrade Hansen is always right.

No I understand what you're saying. Tries must be earned. I don't think Hansen is advocating your basketball scenario, and yes that would be bad. But while tries are not being scoring the game can still be exciting. The mega collapsing and restring of scrums IS boring.

The relentless one ups for 10 plus phases while making no ground, ending with a knock on or turnover can be very boring if it persists for entire matches.

Today's matches have long periods where not a lot happens. The sense of occasion, pressure to win can make passages of play exciting, which when viewed with the external importances removed, are actually very boring viewing.

At its heart rugby defines itself by being a game where players are able to run with the ball in hand, and tackle those that do. scrums, line outs, breakdowns all have their purpose, the main being simply a vehicle to restart play.

I think we are moving away from that concept and that the restart mechanisms themselves dominate the time the ball is in play more and more.

GunsGerms wrote:I think Ireland will beat NZ quite soon. Next 4 years.

So they should, and if they're as good as the 3rd ranking they are currently at, it should be sooner than that. We always lose to the 3rd ranked side well inside 4 years, the last four being our best ever four years.

Since 2010 the Boks and oz have beaten NZ twice, England once. All 3 have been to no. 2 or 3 in that time.

The other side at 3 is Ireland so they really need to to justify that ranking. They almost did, but also showed why they weren't quite ready. Perhaps now they are.

I would shake up the scrum- give the team with put in the option to use a uncontested scrum, and control the configuration. We should teams to use different scrum set ups from history to speed it up and and create more attacking options.

Its currently half time, 15-9 to Wales versus Ireland, and the referee has done pretty much everything he can to free up the brake down with both sides on a final warning and a yellow card already shown......

The game of rugby Union must be opened up and positive play rewarded. Sides should be dis-incentivised to kick penalty and dropped goals (by reducing their worth to 2 points) and incentivised to play positive not cynical negitive rugby (by the issuing of an immediate NO WARNING 5 minute technical card).

Open the game up!

Reduce the number of replacements, tired players create space that skillful players with vision utilise.

kingelderfield wrote:Its currently half time, 15-9 to Wales versus Ireland, and the referee has done pretty much everything he can to free up the brake down with both sides on a final warning and a yellow card already shown......

The game of rugby Union must be opened up and positive play rewarded. Sides should be dis-incentivised to kick penalty and dropped goals (by reducing their worth to 2 points) and incentivised to play positive not cynical negitive rugby (by the issuing of an immediate NO WARNING 5 minute technical card).



Rugby is

So your answer is to incentivise the defending team to foul since they will only be giving up 2 points instead of 5 or possibly 7 if they concede a try.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:Its currently half time, 15-9 to Wales versus Ireland, and the referee has done pretty much everything he can to free up the brake down with both sides on a final warning and a yellow card already shown......

The game of rugby Union must be opened up and positive play rewarded. Sides should be dis-incentivised to kick penalty and dropped goals (by reducing their worth to 2 points) and incentivised to play positive not cynical negitive rugby (by the issuing of an immediate NO WARNING 5 minute technical card).



Rugby is

So your answer is to incentivise the defending team to foul since they will only be giving up 2 points instead of 5 or possibly 7 if they concede a try.

And if you read my post you will see that i would immediately remove them from the field for 5 minutes.

27 tries this weekend? See what happens when attacking rugby is the focus.

Exactly ebop. It's only when it becomes a 'choice' that they aren't scored. Strange isn't it?

It can be choice to cover up swagger with dollops of 'bore' yes.  But then NZ showed some of that in their November series as they pretended they were being 'beaten' or 'challenged' a few times only to turn up the heat at the end....

Meanwhile, the only reason three sides created that weekend was because of some more cautious and cute rugby beforehand.

If Steve Hansen watched the games this week end. How could he say that was boring is beyond me.

I'd love to see the ABs show the way on this matter - they are after all the best side in the world and surely it should be down to them to show the rest of us how to play? In this WC I therefore expect to see the AB's play exciting open rugby from the start, and win the competition playing this style. Anything else will be simple failure as well as hypocrisy.

Cowshot wrote:I'd love to see the ABs show the way on this matter - they are after all the best side in the world and surely it should be down to them to show the rest of us how to play? In this WC I therefore expect to see the AB's play exciting open rugby from the start, and win the competition playing this style. Anything else will be simple failure as well as hypocrisy.

So your spouting hypocracy before it even happens? The ABs always try to play it open but the opposition and conditions do everything to negate it in the NH. So the ABs will do what they can to win, running the ball one if those options.

On the weekend you had scenarios that forced everyone to run the ball, because the thinking was that running the ball is more likely to lead to more points.

Now how is the norm over the not the epitome of hypocracy. Teams generally don't run it because they think that's not the way to win matches, yet when they must score points they find they can score much more than they normally would. How is that not a learning point?

majesticimperialman wrote:If Steve Hansen watched the games this week end. How could he say that was boring is beyond me.

He would love it maj...trouble is, it's the complete opposite of the norm. The scoring of 30 odd tries across the weekend must be a first, and coincidentally just happened to be when four sides needed a lot of points. Isn't that strange?

I mean just imagine...if sides had to score points every time they played?

Taylorman wrote:

Cowshot wrote:I'd love to see the ABs show the way on this matter - they are after all the best side in the world and surely it should be down to them to show the rest of us how to play? In this WC I therefore expect to see the AB's play exciting open rugby from the start, and win the competition playing this style. Anything else will be simple failure as well as hypocrisy.

So your spouting hypocracy  before it even happens? The ABs always try to play it open but the opposition and conditions do everything to negate it in the NH. So the ABs will do what they can to win, running the ball one if those options.

On the weekend you had scenarios that forced everyone to run the ball, because the thinking was that running the ball is more likely to lead to more points.

Now how is the norm over the not the epitome of hypocracy. Teams generally don't run it because they think that's not the way to win matches, yet when they must score points they find they can score much more than they normally would. How is that not a learning point?

Risk.  It's about weighing risk.  I repeat what I said above somewhere (this thread or another) - If that was France and England in a World Cup final - needing only a win.  Caution would be the order of the day - win would be essential.  Just look back at the history of WC finals.  Biggest events in the world of rugby union - a chance to show what rugby union is all about to the world, two top sides - small scores.

If the NH doesn't lend itself to safe and secure running rugby always, then why would sides always play it any more than SH sides try to do it when they come north?

The games yesterday were about balancing risk - risking scoring more by loosening up defensive duties.  But only done because nothing to lose by trying and everything to lose by simply going for boring wins.

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Cowshot wrote:I'd love to see the ABs show the way on this matter - they are after all the best side in the world and surely it should be down to them to show the rest of us how to play? In this WC I therefore expect to see the AB's play exciting open rugby from the start, and win the competition playing this style. Anything else will be simple failure as well as hypocrisy.

So your spouting hypocracy  before it even happens? The ABs always try to play it open but the opposition and conditions do everything to negate it in the NH. So the ABs will do what they can to win, running the ball one if those options.

On the weekend you had scenarios that forced everyone to run the ball, because the thinking was that running the ball is more likely to lead to more points.

Now how is the norm over the not the epitome of hypocracy. Teams generally don't run it because they think that's not the way to win matches, yet when they must score points they find they can score much more than they normally would. How is that not a learning point?

Risk.  It's about weighing risk.  I repeat what I said above somewhere (this thread or another) - If that was France and England in a World Cup final - needing only a win.  Caution would be the order of the day - win would be essential.  Just look back at the history of WC finals.  Biggest events in the world of rugby union - a chance to show what rugby union is all about to the world, two top sides - small scores.

If the NH doesn't lend itself to safe and secure running rugby always, then why would sides always play it any more than SH sides try to do it when they come north?

The games yesterday were about balancing risk - risking scoring more by loosening up defensive duties.  But only done because nothing to lose by trying and everything to lose by simply going for boring wins.

Exactly SF but my point has always been the perception of what risk is. You perceive risk as running the ball unnecessarily. The ABs perceive risk as not running it more. That concept is the entire difference between the mindset of the two lines of thinking. The AB's think by failing to exploit the benefits of time and space to the max constitutes higher risk. We risk losing matches if we fail to take opportunities that present themselves.

So our coaches put our teams out with the aim of exploiting those opportunities...fitness, skills, variation, a number of plays available at any given time.

Your concept of risk is in doing the opposite of those exact things. Going for things means a higher chance of losing. We find that concept staggering. I mean at what point in the game does one learn that concept over there? Age 8? 10? 15? Of is it specifically reserved for internationals?

The weekend provided a contradiction in terms. The thinking was obviously that to score more points than you would normally need to get the desired outcome was to run it more. Yet that very concept- what you perceive as risk- surely undermines the thinking...it's too 'risky' to run it, hence we will lose by more. But all that goes out the window?

Just doesn't make sense. That's why you had so many teams doing things they wouldn't do...all due to an effort to score more points, the result being that they all scored more than they normally would. So why not do it all the time...because of that perceived risk...like a virtual noose hanging around the neck waiting to tighten? It's not about sacrificing defence for attack necessarily, it's more about increasing the merits of one with minimal impact on the other.

But you won't see it that way.

There's nothing wrong with teams who have good defence. Going into yesterday's game, France were the best defensive team but England made a mockery of that coming back wonderfully in the second half, mirroring what Wales, Ireland and, lest we forget, the Canterbury Crusaders achieved earlier in the day.

There are many games, however, when the offside line is not being policed and instead of operating in space, the collision is used to set up phase play rather than line breaks. Teams drift off rucks for fear of being penalised and together with creeping up offside, it makes it very difficult to make inroads especially if fullbacks or wings are sitting back waiting for a chip or a grubber kick.

The fear of losing cripples many matches' creativity. As SF alludes to, sometimes the stakes are too high or sometimes a coach depends on results and goes for the low-risk-miminimal return style of rugby because the high-risk-high-reward style can see huge losses as well as huge gains.

I don't think Hansen is advocating teams run out with the mindset England, Wales and Ireland did in the second half yesterday. However, I think he is trying to give teams the choice to play the game they want to play it and not stack the odds in one style's favour.

The laws are there concerning the offside, but much like the scrum feed, they are invariably not enforced. The breakdown is a refereeing lottery and sadly there's a big difference between say how Owens and Barnes interpreted that area over the past two rugby weekends.

Let's not kid ourselves that teams will play with the attacking intent we saw this weekend in the upcoming World Cup. That goes for any side. I don't have an issue with that. Knockout rugby is different to pool rugby. Wholesale changes are not needed. Just a few tweaks at the breakdown with issues such as sealing off ball, cleaning out legally and the offside line and a few areas properly enforced as they stand now.

The World Cup knockouts are a different story though Kia. The 6n sides are playing once every week of two. Knock out time is after pool matches of high intensity and pressure. I think low scoring in knockouts due to pressure is a red herring. I think it's that the sides are more fatigued. And fatigued sides don't attack well. Don't have that edge when they need it to break defences ad easily.
So they all settle into an almost agreed sense of slugging it out in the mud.

I think that's what Hansens aim is this year. Forget pool play. Get the side into peak fitness for the knockouts and run sides ragged for the knockouts. The ABs are the only side that can 'arrange' to come out of pool play fresh. Wales, England and Aus will find things the toughest.

It's a similar scenario to 07 bug I think he's learned from that and surely we aren't going to get a Barnes episode again. I expect the ABs to use opposition fatigue as our greatest ally this year.

The six nations is more or less knock out rugby because the only way to guarantee winning the trophy is to be unbeaten so therefore each game is played like a cup match.

GunsGerms wrote:The six nations is more or less knock out rugby because the only way to guarantee winning the trophy is to be unbeaten so therefore each game is played like a cup match.

And a cup match means not taking'risks'?

Man it's like banging your head against a brick wall. Honestly.

GunsGerms wrote:The six nations is more or less knock out rugby because the only way to guarantee winning the trophy is to be unbeaten so therefore each game is played like a cup match.

Well that's the attitude NZ take in the RC, although bonus points mean that not only do you have to win but preferably with four tries. Even though there are no bonus points it is much the same in the Six Nations with the points differential as Grand Slams are usually hard to come by, which means a greater likelihood of teams being tied on points.

The problem is that it seems there are teams who only wake up to this idea in the final game and then moan about the unfairness of the home and away system or the state of the pitch in one game instead of taking ownership of the fact that they did ruck all in some games they should have come out with a much more positive attitude in the first few games.

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The six nations is more or less knock out rugby because the only way to guarantee winning the trophy is to be unbeaten so therefore each game is played like a cup match.

And a cup match means not taking'risks'?

Man it's like banging your head against a brick wall. Honestly.

How did NZ play in the world cup final? What was the score? Can you remember?

Cup matches bring extra pressure and a cautious approach is inevitable. Home and away games would solve this as pre the antipodean cup but it isn't a runner in the 6N.

The All Blacks use their 80 minutes more accurately and have the right attitude in saying "we'll trust ourselves to score more than you"

That's the ABs.  Fine for them, with their history, their ingrained player producing systems from youth, their coaching imbued with all the old knowledge from schools up.

That's the ABs.

Other sides haven't all those luxuries (yet) but still want to win.  In order to do that, they have to play to their strengths.  They still have a right to play rugby and they still have a right to win a game within the rules.  That means a side with limitations in attack can try to win by playing plodding, protective, containing rugby.  They have no obligation to give a laser like running side, such as New Zealand, the game on a plate by trying to open up themselves and play a game more suited to a natural running side.

Risk are relative to the ability you have.  England have natural strike runners all over the field, they can afford to play a loose game.  But they can't afford to risk too much of a loose game against a side like Ireland that might punish them for the spaces they leave and then kill them off with tight defence.

So it's risk.  The purpose is to win the game usually.  Ireland, Wales and England were prepared to risk a win for a bigger goal of a title.  They were against considered lesser sides so the risks were cut substantially but still - they decided they risk a close fought win and go for broke to win a title.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The six nations is more or less knock out rugby because the only way to guarantee winning the trophy is to be unbeaten so therefore each game is played like a cup match.

Well that's the attitude NZ take in the RC, although bonus points mean that not only do you have to win but preferably with four tries. Even though there are no bonus points it is much the same in the Six Nations with the points differential as Grand Slams are usually hard to come by, which means a greater likelihood of teams being tied on points.

The problem is that it seems there are teams who only wake up to this idea in the final game and then moan about the unfairness of the home and away system or the state of the pitch in one game instead of taking ownership of the fact that they did ruck all in some games they should have come out with a much more positive attitude in the first few games.

Yeah absolutely. As long as the perception of 'trying things' is seen as losing it will always be this way. I mean last weekend suddenly everyone realises they have to actually play the game to win this tournament. Happened with the Boks two years ago. They needed a win and four tries, which for them versus the ABs rarely happens. Yet they got the four tries inside 50 minutes, just failing to steal the win and title. But had they played that way earlier...

GunsGerms wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The six nations is more or less knock out rugby because the only way to guarantee winning the trophy is to be unbeaten so therefore each game is played like a cup match.

And a cup match means not taking'risks'?

Man it's like banging your head against a brick wall. Honestly.

How did NZ play in the world cup final? What was the score? Can you remember?

Cup matches bring extra pressure and a cautious approach is inevitable. Home and away games would solve this as pre the antipodean cup but it isn't a runner in the 6N.

Like I said guns...because they were stuffed. France took it to them after 6 weeks of intense pressure rugby. To play the open game you need to be at peak, and my reasoning is that U.S. why finals are usually close affairs. Compare pool in 07 SA versus England...then the final. Compare France vs NZ in 2011 in pool, then the final.

Both thrashings then only weeks later, marginal. Fatigue does that more than anything.

That is Hansens learning from last time. How he manages his side into the knockouts is what he needs to work on to avoid any close matches. Acknowledge and take full advantage of the fatigue if other sides.

SecretFly wrote:The All Blacks use their 80 minutes more accurately and have the right attitude in saying "we'll trust ourselves to score more than you"

That's the ABs.  Fine for them, with their history, their ingrained player producing systems from youth, their coaching imbued with all the old knowledge from schools up.

That's the ABs.

Other sides haven't all those luxuries (yet) but still want to win.  In order to do that, they have to play to their strengths.  They still have a right to play rugby and they still have a right to win a game within the rules.  That means a side with limitations in attack can try to win by playing plodding, protective, containing rugby.  They have no obligation to give a laser like running side, such as New Zealand, the game on a plate by trying to open up themselves and play a game more suited to a natural running side.

Risk are relative to the ability you have.  England have natural strike runners all over the field, they can afford to play a loose game.  But they can't afford to risk too much of a loose game against a side like Ireland that might punish them for the spaces they leave and then kill them off with tight defence.

So it's risk.  The purpose is to win the game usually.  Ireland, Wales and England were prepared to risk a win for a bigger goal of a title.  They were against considered lesser sides so the risks were cut substantially but still - they decided they risk a close fought win and go for broke to win a title.

Teams can do whatever the ruck they want within the rules. The problem is the rules aren't being enforced. So a team can't operate in space if they so choose to because the opposition is allowed to encroach at ruck time and rush up on defence with a head-start. The laws already prohibit that but they're not being enforced. Like Joubert didn't enforce the offside line for both teams in the RWC final and allowed a free-for-all at ruck time.

Taylorman wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The six nations is more or less knock out rugby because the only way to guarantee winning the trophy is to be unbeaten so therefore each game is played like a cup match.

Well that's the attitude NZ take in the RC, although bonus points mean that not only do you have to win but preferably with four tries. Even though there are no bonus points it is much the same in the Six Nations with the points differential as Grand Slams are usually hard to come by, which means a greater likelihood of teams being tied on points.

The problem is that it seems there are teams who only wake up to this idea in the final game and then moan about the unfairness of the home and away system or the state of the pitch in one game instead of taking ownership of the fact that they did ruck all in some games they should have come out with a much more positive attitude in the first few games.

Yeah absolutely. As long as the perception of 'trying things' is seen as losing it will always be this way. I mean last weekend suddenly everyone realises they have to actually play the game to win this tournament. Happened with the Boks two years ago. They needed a win and four tries, which for them versus the ABs rarely happens. Yet they got the four tries inside 50 minutes, just failing to steal the win and title. But had they played that way earlier...

Yesterday's events inspired me to write an article on that very topic Tman. Of course no point in posting it here...

SecretFly wrote:The All Blacks use their 80 minutes more accurately and have the right attitude in saying "we'll trust ourselves to score more than you"

That's the ABs.  Fine for them, with their history, their ingrained player producing systems from youth, their coaching imbued with all the old knowledge from schools up.

That's the ABs.

Other sides haven't all those luxuries (yet) but still want to win.  In order to do that, they have to play to their strengths.  They still have a right to play rugby and they still have a right to win a game within the rules.  That means a side with limitations in attack can try to win by playing plodding, protective, containing rugby.  They have no obligation to give a laser like running side, such as New Zealand, the game on a plate by trying to open up themselves and play a game more suited to a natural running side.

Risk are relative to the ability you have.  England have natural strike runners all over the field, they can afford to play a loose game.  But they can't afford to risk too much of a loose game against a side like Ireland that might punish them for the spaces they leave and then kill them off with tight defence.

So it's risk.  The purpose is to win the game usually.  Ireland, Wales and England were prepared to risk a win for a bigger goal of a title.  They were against considered lesser sides so the risks were cut substantially but still - they decided they risk a close fought win and go for broke to win a title.

Yes but don't you think the weekend proved that there is more scope for the type of gameplan on offer as opposed to what is normally dished up? That perhaps the risk assessment is a little too hard on the actual possibilities...I.e. That the true potential of those sides lies somewhere between what happened on the weekend and what happened the previous weeks?

The risk pendulum didn't need to swing as wildly as it did if sides assessed that risk better from the start. If one of the teams incorporated some of what happened into their game earlier, they might just have wrapped it up without needing the weekend with the odd extra try of two herd and there.

Agree with your points re the ABs and we have had that attitude for a long time but there's surely no denying that given the right motivation these sides can score tries.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The All Blacks use their 80 minutes more accurately and have the right attitude in saying "we'll trust ourselves to score more than you"

That's the ABs.  Fine for them, with their history, their ingrained player producing systems from youth, their coaching imbued with all the old knowledge from schools up.

That's the ABs.

Other sides haven't all those luxuries (yet) but still want to win.  In order to do that, they have to play to their strengths.  They still have a right to play rugby and they still have a right to win a game within the rules.  That means a side with limitations in attack can try to win by playing plodding, protective, containing rugby.  They have no obligation to give a laser like running side, such as New Zealand, the game on a plate by trying to open up themselves and play a game more suited to a natural running side.

Risk are relative to the ability you have.  England have natural strike runners all over the field, they can afford to play a loose game.  But they can't afford to risk too much of a loose game against a side like Ireland that might punish them for the spaces they leave and then kill them off with tight defence.

So it's risk.  The purpose is to win the game usually.  Ireland, Wales and England were prepared to risk a win for a bigger goal of a title.  They were against considered lesser sides so the risks were cut substantially but still - they decided they risk a close fought win and go for broke to win a title.

Teams can do whatever the ruck they want within the rules. The problem is the rules aren't being enforced. So a team can't operate in space if they so choose to because the opposition is allowed to encroach at ruck time and rush up on defence with a head-start. The laws already prohibit that but they're not being enforced. Like Joubert didn't enforce the offside line for both teams in the RWC final and allowed a free-for-all at ruck time.

BOTH sides benefit from the encroaches at ruck time. The fleet foots and the sloggers. The myth is that only the sloggers engage - therefore the implication is that the sloggers slow games, turn away prospective fans and churn out the garbage Hansen was referring to.
But BOTH sides engage in that trickery. If fleet foot sides want faster games, don't be hypocrites and stay away from the ruck messing

Stop giving us yellow cards for engaging at ruck time and seal off the ball.

Of course neither side is any saint and will try to get away with what they can. The fact is the minimalists are winning at the moment and events like yesterday are an exception. Hansen's just saying why can't we even things up a little so we get to see a little more of those types of games on a more regular basis.

New Zealand, the greedy bastards!  That's the only response I can make Kia.

"Oh why don't yis give us more rules to help us open up the game even more for us.... oh, I mean, I mean the little people what do love watching lovely rugby on TV the world over.   "

Are you lot not sick of winning anyway without trying to get even more rules to keep you on your toes and keep the opposition in the gutter?

You never get tired of winning. You certainly get tired of losing. Welcome to the pointy end of the rankings my friend. None of this underdog shoite now. You're supposed to win all your fecking games now against any side and you're a pack of gobshoites if you don't and nobody gives a rucking damn about any excuses.

People just want to play rugby without having others finding endless ways to stop it as a rule of thumb, a gameplan.
What is the game if it's based on not letting anyone play.
At some point people are gonna turn off it.

It's like putting the tennis net up a foot. Sure the serves won't be 200 km/ hr anymore and it's a great leveller and a challenge, but who's going to watch it...or play it.

Were the matches enjoyable on the weekend? Why does it take the concept if needing 20, 26 or whatever it was to win to actually get out and play the game?

Nobody's going to wanna watch endless resetting of scrums, endless bodies on bodies on the ground forever and a day.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:You never get tired of winning. You certainly get tired of losing. Welcome to the pointy end of the rankings my friend. None of this underdog shoite now. You're supposed to win all your fecking games now against any side and you're a pack of gobshoites if you don't and nobody gives a rucking damn about any excuses.

Yeah exactly. At this end of the rankings Ireland need to take the lead in the game, and being risk averse is not the way to do it. South Africa get away with it because they actually have better players to deal with it.

Schmidt knows that and he'll be looking to continue to find ways of gaining an advantage, the obvious door for Ireland through better back play.

Ireland needs to start scoring tries to stay where it is. Simple as that.

Taylorman wrote:People just want to play rugby without having others finding endless ways to stop it as a rule of thumb, a gameplan.
What is the game if it's based on not letting anyone play.
At some point people are gonna turn off it.

It's like putting the tennis net up a foot. Sure the serves won't be 200 km/ hr anymore and it's a great leveller and a challenge, but who's going to watch it...or play it.

Were the matches enjoyable on the weekend? Why does it take the concept if needing 20, 26 or whatever it was to win to actually get out and play the game?

Nobody's going to wanna watch endless resetting of scrums, endless bodies on bodies on the ground forever and a day.

I'd suggest you stop your players a) slowing the ball down in the ruck and b) smashing the bones of key opposition players. You'll find the opposition open up much more if you do these things. Why don't you? It would make the game so much more free flowing and open.

Really. "Play the game we want you to play, that suits us best. You have to because we're the All Blacks and we'll do anything, anything at all to win a game."