The Rugby Thread

[idlap]

I remeber the welsh side of the 70's and early eighties. World class names, JPR Williams, Phill Bennet,Gareth edwards,Barry John were all world class players.
Rugby as a child involved playing for Medway until illness and injury forced an abrupt stop in 1987.

I still remember the Barbarian sides of the 70's, fabled names and fabled matches.

Who do I support? With a name like Jenkins it has to be Wales. Rugby is arguably the Welsh national sport, and Llanelli is /was the club I supported. I still remeber going to Strady park to see them play NZ in 1979.

Rugby has always been played with passion in Wales, like France. I'd rather see an open game with flair than a closed ugly game.

Ireland look good though, perhaps the grand Slam is overdue? Certainly Wales V Ireland looks like a crunch match. But will scotland spoil the party?


So I can really say
Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau.

Surprisingly I support England for cricket and football, but in Rugby I've never felt comfortable when they win! Such a strange thing is nationality!

[Chuck Palumbo]

Originally Posted by Rachael

That said... the second thing to note is that the England side that won the world cup was not actally that good and didn't really deserve that title - the only reason they reached the final was the most diabolical conditions for the semi final against the French (a far superior side at the time) and in all honesty the only reason they got anywhere was front row strength and a freaky kicker.

Surely if France were as good as you were making out, they would have beat England in any conditions?

Now I'm not the biggest fan of rugby but surely the mark of a great team is to adapt to any sort of adverse conditions they may face. For example, Australia recently proved they were a great cricket team by going to the subcontinent and compriehensively beating SL and India in what was not ideal conditions for them and in Tennis, Andre Agassi and Roger Federer have won titles on every surface possible...there are going to be some surfaces that they don't find to their liking as much as others but they still find a way to win.

England deserved to win the world cup because they won every game....it doesn't matter how you win these games its the winning that counts.

[Andy Mellon]

Yes Chuck, it seemed to me at the time that the very fact that France still came out trying to play an attractive game in conditions wholly unsuitable for the free flowing rugby they wanted to play. You always have to adapt to the conditions, and France failed to do so and were punished.

In cricketing terms, it would be like playing two spinners on a green-top because that's what you always do. Or even Australia's second innings batting in the last test vs. India recently where they went on the attack when the conditions were difficult for batting.

A question for Rachael. Has there even been an England team that ever deserved to win anything?

Also, how often does the 'deserving' team actually win? How many people enjoy it when the minnows turn over the 'deserving' premiership team in the FA cup despite the minnows playing on occasions wholly unattractive football?

Also, I would point out that I support Wales at rugby and not England - my heritage is distinctly welsh.

[Milo]

Amazing Rachael. Now you claim that attacking open play and flair is what attracts you to rugby but the very opposite could be said about your apprecitaions of crikcet. And before you remind me that you like Gower and Laxman, they are mere exceptions to your rule. How you can come on here and extol the greatness of Atherton and Boycott and then lambast the England rugby team is beyond me. So you like the French of Blanco and Sella but have no real time for Viv, Botham and Flintoff.

Finally, if England (who won Grand slams against above all the French and beat the three Southern Hemisphere sides over a dozen time in the previous 3 years before the World cup) didn't deserve to win the thing, I really don't know who the hell should have. Personally, I'm a league man and really don't give a damn for the sport but to see your post really made me wonder what it really is you look for in sport.

One final thought. In all World team sport, no other team in history has ever beaten the holders at home in a final. Ever. England did it at Rugby and all you can do is criticise. Typical.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

What? No French? Surely everyone who loves rugby loves the French lot first: even as a kid I was told "now this is how rugby SHOULD be played. No different now: even when they suck they still try open attrative rugby. Usually suicidal but hey.. it's great to watch :-)

What Rachael, what is special about the French at least in recent times, even when on the top of the game, they where the equivalent of kick and rush football in soccer.

Rugby unlike cricket soon changes, who is poor today, can be great next season..

No better feeling than England in full flow, to the cry of "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot", takes a lot for a English Person to beat that.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Milo

Amazing Rachael. Now you claim that attacking open play and flair is what attracts you to rugby but the very opposite could be said about your apprecitaions of crikcet. And before you remind me that you like Gower and Laxman, they are mere exceptions to your rule.

The first thing to note is that I'm not overly proud of my appreciation of rugby: I know full well that I should have a lot more time for rucking and mauling and forward play than I do have.. and that I should reserve the highest reverence for Hill.. but I've always liked the little fellas who do their own thing in their own inimitable way.. especially when that involves being inventive.

I'm very appreciative of the defensive work of any rugby team.. simply on the grounds Alan Hanson uses to insist on the importance of good defending in soccor: it's what stops formulaic attacks succeeding.

The second thing to note is that I'm not THAT dissimilar on cricket: sure, I grew up thinking the world of Gower... and have huge regard for Atherton.. but actually my preference remains the same sorts of figures: I'd rather watch the ideosyncracies of Jack Russell, Johnty Rhodes, Neil Fairbrother or even Dermott Reeve or Chris Read than I would an orthodox player like Tendulkar (who I admire hugely but who leaves me a bit cold).

Can one not admire the tenacity of essentially limited players who make the best of that talent (like Boycott, Hussain and Richardson) and love the fragile character of those who just can't completely get it together (Ramps, Caddick: both favourites of mine) without contradiction? Or simultaneously feel unmoved by the success of others who just don't seem to have ever needed to face those hurdles (Stewart, Gough, Flintoff... but also Shearer... Martin Johnson... Roddick.. none of whom I've liked)?

As to the celebration of British success... my posts in this thread are full of enthusiasm for this Welsh rugby side... and I'm a lifelong cheerleader with regard to the barbarians... I've loved every minute of recent Ryder Cup success... and have never done anything other than root for the likes of Faldo, Montgomerie, Coulthard, Redgrave, Radcliffe, Roger Black, Johnathon Edwards and so on - I'm just picky :-)

Originally Posted by Ernest

No better feeling than England in full flow, to the cry of "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot", takes a lot for a English Person to beat that.

Speak for youself: the bbc report on the game on Saturday (where the French lost) notes that the French were "Rampant at times and running with devastating fluidity" for one try - there's far more appeal, for me, in that.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Teatime FatCat

Watch it, learn about it and enjoy it Zainub. It's a fascinating game, still played with a modicum of honour and a little respect for the rules and the referee.

I try and watch when I'm free, it all depends on what ESPN show us down here, they don't always broadcast all the games. I have great admiration for sports having respect for rules and referees, it happens to be one of the reasons why I'm such a massive cricket fan, although in even cricket, one has to note (rather sadly) that things are not the same as they once use to be, far better then tennis or footy still though.

All standards and performances are cyclical and all teams in world rugby have at times resorted to negative tactics, but this is no different to Arsenals' 0-0 draws of the 80's and men's tennis being dominated by big servers and no rallies.

The debate of the attrative vs the affective is one that will never end, what ever the sport is. I tend to think that if you know the game well enough and love it even the so called unattractive (technically speaking that is) can prove to be entertaining, I enjoy for instance seeing Rahul Dravid bat (lesser so against Pakistan!!).

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Perfectionist Wilkinson will not play for england unless its against someone like Canada while ever there's a hole in my ****. Is he injured ? Or is reluctant to be associated with anything but a world cup ? He cant go anywhere but down now and he wont like it. Except him playing for the New England patriots within 2 years.

[Occasional Fan]

I think he's just had a series of injuries, RBLC. He hasn't played for England since the world cup final, but he did put in a few games for Newcastle and was expected to captain England in this year's Six Nations until he was sidelined again. It's the shoulder, I think.

[Moss]

It's great to see Wales playing well. Saturday's match against France was frightening though!

Although I'm half Welsh/half English, and sound very English, I consider myself to be 51% Welsh and 49% English!

Dw I'n caru Cymru.