Rebels vs. Waratahs - 2011R01

[Groucho]

As others have said, it is as conservative as the Crusaders and Bulls, just not as well executed.

I agree. Rugby isn't a progression from conservatism to radicalism, with radicalism 'better'; it is a progression from low-quality to high-quality, with high-quality better.

If the Waratahs can combine a solid forward platform, with a low mistake rate and electrifying backline moves in order to win, then that sounds like high-quality to me.

 

[DPK]

It's not so much "conservative" as clinical, pragmatic rugby. Completely overwhelming tactics like those used by the Crusaders and Bulls may not be as entertaining to some viewers as a Reds style set-piece move, but I reckon the way the Bulls and Crusaders have completely overwhelmed and out-thought their opposition is high-quality rugby.

 

[Gagger]

I agree. Rugby isn't a progression from conservatism to radicalism, with radicalism 'better'; it is a progression from low-quality to high-quality, with high-quality better.

Don't agree with that bit Groucho

The Boks in 2009 and the Poms under any sort of pressure play(ed) high quality conservative/defensive rugby - largely played through 10 man field position. It may be high quality (see Boks win 3N) but it's boring as batshit. Thank fuck the interps changed. The Tahs also played a fair bit of this in the first half of 2010.

Then there is attacking rugby. The Reds played (mostly) one brand of it in 2010, the Bulls the other. Played at high quality both are entertaining - see the Tahs doing that vs the Rebels on Friday. Played at low quality either are fucking awful - see the Reds tonight