• 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.

Wallabies 31 Man Squad

Status
Not open for further replies.
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
The reason that the fans deserted the Tahs was simply because their execution was so dreadful.

I am with FP here, it does not matter how we win, as long as we win. If we lose three Tests playing open, running, rugby it will be better for the game than losing by playing crap rugby. But, frankly, if we play open, running, rugby without earning the right to, we will deserve to lose all three Tests.

Watch the ratings dive if we start losing, no matter how prettily.
 
Scotty

Scotty

David Codey (61)
PS the All Blacks barely ever win ugly, and I guarantee their supporters would be up in arms if all they did was win ugly.
 
jollyswagman

jollyswagman

Ron Walden (29)
Win or lose, ugly or pretty, when we start performing to our potential we won't have anything to worry about as the results will follow and the crowds will come back. As with the Tah's, I believe their supporters (me included) got sick of watching them under perform week in week out. 2013 has been different though. They have a coach that is not afraid of taking a chance and sticking to style of rugby that they believe in and want to play.
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
With our W/L record overall in recent years, I am somewhat surprised we are debating the manner in which we may, or may not win.
If we win this series, it will be a good achievement. It will take tough rugby to win it, and if we play tougher rugby than the Lions, pretty or ugly, that'll do me!!
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
cyclopath said:
With our W/L record overall in recent years, I am somewhat surprised we are debating the manner in which we may, or may not win.
Click to expand...

You aren't suggesting we debate the manner in which we lose? That would be a little defeatist wouldn't it cyclo?
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Athilnaur said:
There was nothing ugly about how the ABs won last week.
Click to expand...

Mainly because their execution was good. That's where our teams often fall down. Buggered if I know why, maybe it is just the fact that rugby in New Zealand is far more competitive from the earliest junior days right through.
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Scotty said:
You simply can't play 'open running rugby' without earning the right in the first place, so it is superfluous statement.
Click to expand...


Plenty of Australian teams at various levels, over many years, have tried to throw the ball around without doing the hard graft.

Frankly, the hard graft, executed well, can be just as entertaining (if that is what we are talking about), as a series of scintillating backline movements.


I exclude the Queensland 13 man maul, a blight on the game, no matter how well it is executed. How do you feel about it?
 
Hardtackle

Hardtackle

Charlie Fox (21)
wamberal said:
Snip


I exclude the Queensland 13 man maul, a blight on the game, no matter how well it is executed. How do you feel about it?
Click to expand...


I like it if it's only us doing it. ;)

There is an element of risk. Be interesting to see how long it would be persisted with should it result in a couple of length of the field tries to the defenders if they stole the ball from the lineout or maul.
 
The_Brown_Hornet

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Zander said:
What do you guys term as ugly?
Click to expand...


Ugly to me is constant aimless kicking (especially games of aerial ping pong and forcing back), passing the ball to stationary pods of forwards who get no go forward, skill errors, crash ball after crash ball, killing the ball at the breakdown, copious scrum resets and driving mauls that go nowhere.

Attractive rugby to me contains any combination of the following: set pieces that actually restart the game, good handling/passing, kicks that find their mark and generally advance the cause of the attacking team, good hits in defence, quick ball from the breakdown, big forwards smashing it up at pace around the fringes (also known as good pick and drive), backline moves that break the line, driving mauls that advance the pill down the paddock and running play that involves all fifteen players in a team.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I'll think of other things later.
 
Gnostic

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
fatprop said:
I disagree with the basic premise that the Wobs are/were mirroring the "Foley" Tahs

As for "winning ugly", it is how the ABs have beaten us in many games over the last few years. We have been close or coming back, and they have flipped the switch and started keeping it in the forwards with tight driving play; and won the game.

Not once have I heard the Kiwi supporters complain, or the that crowds were being affected because they won the game "ugly".

Or when the Reds play pick and drives endlessly for a match while kicking for field position, as the usually do against sides like the Chiefs, nary a complaint

As far as I care, if the Wobs need to reduce errors and frustrate the Lions to get the win I will be happy.

Winning is the key in the end, you don't get extra points for a try with artistic merit.
Click to expand...

FP I think you are confusing a well executed conservative game plan with the rubbish that was played by the pre-2013 Tahs (and the Wallabies). The ABs have played poorly on occasion but they have NEVER approached a game with a "try not to lose" mentality. They go out with the will and belief to win. The game plans from the Tahs and in my opinion from the Wallabies just do not seek to win in and of themselves, they seek to minimise the points an opponent can score, hoping that the "X players" can create some opportunity for the Wallabies. Nothing is created by team work in game plans employed to date.

And therein lies the difference between a true conservative game plan, it still seeks to win by domination of the field position, as the 2003 English RWC side did. They had safe dominant forward play and a sublime kicker from the hand and the tee. The Boks of 2008 has perfected the attacking kick chase game and again had a sublime kicker from hand and tee. See the differences.

The Wallabies kick out of danger, but all too often it is poorly executed. Do they have a kicker of international class?

As Gagger posted it has much to do with execution, and execution is heavily influenced by factor such as team balance and tactics and not just the individual skill sets of the players.

Do not confuse a conservative plan with a negative plan.
 
Gnostic

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
The funny thing is nobody equates the Macqueen game plans of 1998-1999 with "ugly" but to me it certainly wasn't that attractive and even then I thought it was illegal (nearly every ruck the Wallabies went to ground and sealed the ball off and prevented counter ruck. But back to topic, how can grinding the ball over the line after 26 Phases (Burke V ABs Wellington 1998) be attractive when most phases gained 1 metre at most by single runners? Simply by execution and the fact that the whole game plan was designed to dominate the opposition by complete team play and score points, while at the same time bringing in the brick wall defensive line.

What made that game plan so effective and successful, and by extension attractive to watch was how well it was executed. From1 to 22 every player filled their position and executed the plan.
 
Bowside

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
Ugly rugby is not executing your skills. Shit kicks, dropped ball, static runners, being held up in the tackle. The stuff the wallabies do far too often.

Any form of rugby when executed well is attractive. Even when the score ends up being multiples of 3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top