Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Rugby: Henry best off without tarnished trophy

  1. #1
    Legend Contributor Flamethrower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Shit Creek
    Posts
    5,097
    vCash
    5000000

    Rugby: Henry best off without tarnished trophy

    He got his wish


    Rugby: Henry best off without tarnished trophy
    7:04AM Tuesday October 23, 2007
    By Peter Bills
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/4/...0471494&pnum=0



    Graham Henry said before the World Cup he would rather not win it if it meant playing defensive rugby. Photo / Brett Phibbs


    England were brave and courageous, South Africa disciplined and dedicated to defence. So was this a World Cup final to put before the planet via global television? You must be joking.

    What South Africa and England churned out in Paris was - in a technical sense - poor, unadventurous, defensive-minded rugby, littered with aimless kicking.

    But this isn't rugby as we know it. Nor is it the rugby most people want to see played now or in the future. Sure, the South African nation will celebrate and claim all is well in their land now the mighty Bokke rule the world once again. They'll be deluding themselves if they believe that.

    Never mind the frightening crime levels in their country, the nagging poverty and the alarming divisions between whites and blacks, between rich and poor. Winning a World Cup in such an ugly manner hardly reflects well upon either the ultimate champions or the game itself.

    South Africa have now played in two Rugby World Cup finals, won them both and not scored a single try in either.

    We are surely entitled to ask not only what that tells us about the Springboks' approach, but also about what is wrong with the modern game. Do people pay anything up to 1000 euros ($1925) or more to watch a match of penalty goals, as well as interminable kicking up in the air?

    This was one of the most boring Rugby World Cup finals in history. Neither side wanted to risk anything; consequently, they kicked the ball away and invited the opposition to make mistakes with it.

    England did, conceding five penalties in the first hour that were all translated into points. Those acts of transgression decided the game.

    And that was all it took to win the trophy. No attacking-minded play, no inventiveness, little skill behind the scrum, scant originality in the play.

    The formula was dire and depressing. Only England's Mathew Tait offered a glimpse of back-line creativity and cunning.

    So is this what rugby has come to, circa 2007? Is all that matters the fact that World Cup officials can sanction outrageous sums for tickets to the final, demand 15 euros ($29) for a program and 30 euros ($58) for a couple of bags of fries and two beers? Just a cynical exercise in how to fleece the public? Never mind the product; sure, that's garbage and we all know that. But throw in a few fireworks after 80 minutes of mind-numbing boredom and hope the pundits will go home happy.

    The fools might have done; any with a brain would have known that what they saw was complete rubbish.

    About 12 months ago, All Blacks coach Graham Henry told me frankly "If winning a World Cup means we have to play defensive rugby, we have to kick the ball away and not play, then I'd rather not win it."

    I have to tell you this: I believe Henry was dead right. Why would you want to win a World Cup playing no rugby, focusing entirely on defence and keeping the other lot out?

    If this is what it takes to win a World Cup, New Zealand is better off without the tarnished trophy.

    This glittering World Cup is no trophy of excellence. It's been dumbed down to a trophy of the basics ... who can deny longest, who can strangle the opposition, who can stop opponents playing, who can force mistakes from their rivals? That is what is required to win a World Cup in the modern game and New Zealand rugby is better off without such a devalued ambition.

    New Zealand got a lot wrong in their campaign, but playing no rugby, kicking the ball up in the air and just trying to keep out the other lot, were not their failings.

    This once-great game is at a crossroads, post the 2007 World Cup. Unless serious steps are taken to reward attacking play, to negate the incessant kicking and find some way to marginalise those who just don't want to play, we can forget all about rugby as it once was.

    In Paris in front of 80,000 people, we had a foretaste of what this game will become in the future unless urgent action is taken to address its failings. Frankly, if this was a vision of the future, it was frightening.

    - Peter Bills is chief rugby correspondent for Independent News & Media in London

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Posted via space



    Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

  2. #2
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Ummm, that sounds like a big bowlof sour grapes. I'm not totally disagreeing with the sentiment, but really! I wouldn't want a world cup by playing defensively, that's pretty easy to say after being smashed in the qf I would just shut up about it until I'd won it right. The simple fact is, teams play to their strengths, England (and less so) South Africa have an imbalance towards their pack and their kickers. They use this to the best advantage and who can blame them, sure I wish they could pass the football! Sure I would like to see the sniping runs and slick passing game we all love to watch, but you can't seriously suggest that a team will use tactics that aren't going to help them win a game in a tournament final, even if they hate what it's doing to the game themselves.

    What needs to happen is, someone needs to show the world how to do the job. ELVs or not, someone has to develop a running game of rugby that's just going to be unstoppable by the three point focussed teams. Is this possible? I don't know! the Ella boys seemed to be OK at it, but maybe it's just too hard these days!

    IMHO

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  3. #3
    Veteran Contributor JediKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Perth (West Leederville)
    Posts
    4,710
    vCash
    5000000
    Anyone know what nationality Peter Bills is?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    CHEERLEADERS ROCK!!!


Similar Threads

  1. Ballymore to become $25m academy
    By Burgs in forum Front Page News
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-09-23, 09:30
  2. Commonwealth Games Sevens
    By Burgs in forum International Rugby
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-04-09, 09:31
  3. I Play Rugby
    By Mtbeaver in forum Rugby
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 16-11-07, 10:35
  4. Rugby in Canada
    By Burgs in forum Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-06-07, 13:58
  5. 100 years of South African rugby
    By Burgs in forum Articles
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 18-11-06, 09:17

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •