• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Burke strikes back

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
The Tahs made twice the number of passes as the Force. They made three times as many metres, and had superior line breaks and better ability to get over the advantage line. They even made more half-breaks

Yet only managed to win by one lucky try from Ryan Cross. No doubt the Tahs were better, the fact that they failed to translate this into dominance is the heart of the problem.

Brumbies trump them in this department. The Brumbies lead just about all of the areas of passing and ball in hand. But it is not translating into wins.

Talking about defeating yourself with your own logic. Reading between the lines, what he is saying is the Tahs stats with ball in hand were better than the Rebels or Force, so you aren't allowed to criticise the style they play, but the Brumbies stats are even better than the Tahs, but you should conveniantly forget that because they haven't been winning many games, so are therefore are a fair target for criticisim.

Aimless passing is no better than aimless kicking.
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I have to rely on memories as to why I used like Burke. With each article, the strength of those memories fades. At least Campo, who is too often the target of criticism, is honest with himself when he writes. Burke is self deluded and wrong.

If the Tahs did understand their problems, did understand the issues they are facing and did understand the frustrations of their fans, they'd forbid Burke from soiling their brand with any more of these execrable articles. The players would also tell him to tone it down.

A strange culture.
 

Bruce Ross

Ken Catchpole (46)
More pearls of perspicacity from the seer of Super Rugby. This week's dissertation is titled: "Tahs must play like Beale or die wondering." As we have come to expect from the great man the article's contents live up to the sheer poetry of that headline.

"Beale was outstanding from fullback and the only one to make a significant impact on the opposition. The ease with which he beats players and the confidence with which he is playing, though, is not rubbing off on others. They need to play with freedom as Beale is, and try their own luck."

Who needs enemies when one of your own coaching staff slags you off so publicly? "Only one of you blokes made a significant impact on the opposition. You need to play with freedom as Beale is, and try your own luck. And yes, I'm looking at you, Benn Robinson."

"The Waratahs need to look at themselves and say, 'I am good - no actually, I am the best,' because by talking yourself up you give yourself a sense of belief. It might be untrue on some occasions (that's a game of cat and mouse the coaches sometimes play) but at least they will run out wearing their imaginary bulletproof vests. I am sure Beale walks out on to the field and says: 'No one will touch me this week and, if they do, well done to them but I will be coming back at you for another crack'."

How powerful are the messages here? "I am good - no actually, I am the best." Muhammad Ali's famous line, "I am the greatest!" would have had so much more resonance had he rephrased it, "I am alright - no actually I am the greatest!"

And then think of the impact if the whole team walked out on the field and said: "No one will touch me this week and, if they do, well done to them." I'm afraid that one's a bit subtle for me but that would be because I never played Super Rugby.

Fifty years ago Norman Vincent Peale wrote the multi-million selling "The Power of Positive Thinking." Negotiations are well advanced for our very own Matthew to write a sequel which has the working title: "The Power of More or Less Semi-Positive Thinking".

"During my time in Britain I played for a team that was all about getting points on the board. Scoring tries. We took the approach in some games that if the opposition would score three tries, we would score four. We might have let in a few, but at least we scored some as well."

And it worked. In the four seasons that our man played for the Newcastle Falcons from 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 their proud record in the English Premiership was 7th, 7th, 9th and 11th.

Surely the Falcons would not take offence if the Waratahs borrowed from them the slogan; "We might let in a few, but at least we score some as well."
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
Could it be that Matt Burke believes only a professional rugby player can understand the intricacies of rugby because; try as he might, the critical aspects of quality journalism, are so absent in his commentary?
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
Everybody is talking up the smarts of Link while most are laughing at what a tool Matt Burke is. Sheds a light on why Link booted his arse out the door.

Keep those creative juices flowing Burkey, if only to provide Bruce with ammo to respond too so we can have a piece to read that is truly entertaining.
 

Cat_A

Arch Winning (36)
I now dream of the day I find a copy of The Power of More or Less Positive Thinking written by M.Burke (with foreword by B.Ross) at my bookstore.

Gold.
 

Bruce Ross

Ken Catchpole (46)
The Great Man asks for my help

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...ting-rugby-up-and-running-20120414-1x02g.html

That towering intellect of world rugby, Matthew Burke, has just asked me to help him. And if you also read the Fairfax press and don’t think his articles are too cerebral for you to read, he's asking you too.

I need some help … help to turn the game of rugby back into having attacking dominance rather than being too defence-oriented. To promote a game that will win back the hearts and minds of the fans with the mantra of running rugby as it was once spoken about.
Personally I’ve always preferred scrums and trench warfare among the forwards to “running rugby” but if that’s what you want, Matt, it would be churlish of me not to give you a hand. Matt is concerned that under the existing laws:

defenders can shut down any attacking play that looks to get wide. Unless your back line stands at 70 degrees depth you just about have no chance of getting the ball to the width
No, I’m not really sure what “getting the ball to the width” means either, but that’s probably because I never played Super rugby. But let’s press on. Matt has a characteristically brilliant solution:

defence from the ruck area should be moved back 5m. In effect, the 1,2,3 defensive positions off the ruck have to retire from that area so the attacking team can play the ball closer to the advantage line.
I am not sure whether that means that only “the 1,2,3, defensive positions” have to stand back 5 metres and the 4,5 and 6 defensive positions can stand where they like but I’m sure that Matt will eventually clear that up. Now we move on to how the Burkean amendment will assist in “getting ball to the width”:

With the eventual slow ball we now have a scenario where the halfback waits with the ball at the back of the breakdown and gets his forwards organised to smash it up only one pass from the previous ruck. I find this part of the game frustrating. Why are you playing slow?
If that question is addressed at me personally my defence would be that I was only on there for the scrums. But getting to the nub of Matt’s solution, presumably he wants to get rid of the “frustrating” situation where the forwards “smash it up only one pass from the previous ruck”. The way to achieve this is apparently to move the defensive line 5 metres further back. Would there not be a temptation for a coach who did not embrace the spirit of Matt’s running rugby to tell his forwards to keep smashing it up on the grounds that they would almost certainly get a metre or two over the advantage line every time with the opposition so far back?

But my main purpose in writing about Matt’s latest article is to draw attention to what is arguably the greatest insight in rugby thinking in the modern era:

“Turnover ball at the breakdown means the defensive team comes up with the advantage.”
You know, I’ve been watching rugby for nearly sixty years and that thought had just never occurred to me. And when you think about it it’s so true. It’s blindingly obvious but no less a product of genius for that. I’m striving to think of even one instance where “turnover ball at the breakdown” led to the attacking team coming up with the advantage.

“Turnover ball at the breakdown means the defensive team comes up with the advantage.”

If you have just read that for the first time pause a moment and imprint on your mind just where you were when you read it because, believe me, in the decades to come, just like with the Moon landing and President Kennedy being shot, you’re going to be asked where you were when you first read that.

Even I wasn’t around when Einstein came up with his General Theory of Relativity but when I was just a toddler my dear old Dad told me that when he first read that E = mc2 he smote himself on the forehead and declared, “Why didn’t I think of that?” For years afterwards whenever I saw Dad smiting himself on the forehead I would say, “I bet you’re thinking about Einstein, Dad.” And I’d always be right.

Thus it may well be with Burke’s General Theory of Turnover Ball at the Breakdown.
.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
But getting to the nub of Matt’s solution, presumably he wants to get rid of the “frustrating” situation where the forwards “smash it up only one pass from the previous ruck”. The way to achieve this is apparently to move the defensive line 5 metres further back. Would there not be a temptation for a coach who did not embrace the spirit of Matt’s running rugby to tell his forwards to keep smashing it up on the grounds that they would almost certainly get a metre or two over the advantage line every time with the opposition so far back?.
My very first thought when I read it!
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
starts to sound a lot like another game where you had to be back 5m from the play the ball...and then they made it 10 because the defence was too dominant: and we all know that in that code they never have forwards cart it up, 1 out, for 5 tackles before kicking it.....
 

vidiot

John Solomon (38)
I didn't think I was allowed to read his articles. I haven't played Super rugby. This is so complicated! I need someone to explain it too me! Can I comprehend this or not?

I was going to watch the Reds play the Stormers this weekend but I fear the experience would be wasted on me. Unless.....

Wait a minute! I could rent-a-Burke! There must be a retired Super player somewhere looking for a few bucks and with lots of time on his hands. Unless they're all writing for the Herald after a few too many Jagermeisters.
 

Nusadan

Chilla Wilson (44)
I did notice in one Six Nations, or was it Heineken Cup, match recently that the whole of both teams kept at least one foot behind the offside line...I remember thinking, how wondrous to see that...how did the ref manage them to do that...???

And it was a belter of a game then!
 

Shiggins

Simon Poidevin (60)
the strange thing is i looked up the stats and he has it all wrong. Well with the force he has anyway. soooooo

Halfback passes
WF - 99
Tahs - 45

Five-Eighth passes
WF - 42
Tahs - 19

Runs

WF - 139 runs for 555m
Tahs - 61 runs for 305 m

Line breaks
WF - 2
Tahs - 1

I got these stats from this page - http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match14935.html

double checked with this page - http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/r...-waratahs-v-western-force-20120317-1vc4u.html
he is write about the rebels though
 

Shiggins

Simon Poidevin (60)
hahaha oh shit this artical was from 2011

Well anyway interesting stats this year then. So he was wrong. They are not the only side trying to play now
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Just police the back foot for fuck's sake. It's been the middle of the ruck all year.


Totally agree - and what its leading to is entry from the side with less risk of detection: that's my feeling anyway. some of the side entries on the weekend would have been penalised in u10s.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Could it be that Matt Burke believes only a professional rugby player can understand the intricacies of rugby because; try as he might, the critical aspects of quality journalism, are so absent in his commentary?

Your avatar is too much. Please change it.

There should be rules against that sort of thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top