0
Rah-rah boys are now up and running
Philip Derriman | July 19, 2008
SOME rugby fans would say Tests in Australia hit rock bottom as a spectacle when the Springboks played here in 2006. Mark Ella apparently thought so, judging from his comments at the time.
He called the Springboks Test in Sydney that year "the worst game of international rugby I've ever seen". He also had this to say in The Australian about the same match: "Never have I seen the Wallabies play as badly … it was agony watching Stephen Larkham and Chris Latham continually kick the ball away to an opposition which was equally inept at running the football, ensuring the game degenerated into a fantastic advertisement for rugby league. What a waste of a night."
Tonight, the Wallabies play the Springboks again, and this time the response ought to be different. Certainly, the free-to-air broadcaster, Channel Seven, which hasn't had much cheer from rugby lately, seems optimistic the event will pull a sizeable audience.
Why? Because Seven senses interest in the Wallabies is on the rise, thanks in large part, no doubt, to the fact Robbie Deans is coach. Another big plus is the form of the Springboks, who beat the All Blacks last weekend in what everyone seems to think was the most watchable rugby international in years.
Tonight, viewers will be looking not just for entertainment, of course, but for success. How many points will the Wallabies need to score to secure a win? Twenty will probably be enough, according to figures just extracted by the Australian Rugby Union's honorary statistician, Matthew Alvarez.
Alvarez's figures show the Wallabies have won 16 of the 20 matches against the Springboks in which they scored 20 points or more, and the Springboks have won 22 of the 28 matches against Australia doing the same. Moreover, none of the matches the Wallabies and Springboks lost to each other after scoring 20 was played at home. (The All Blacks have an even better record in this respect: they have won 60 of the 64 matches against Australia in which they scored at least 20 points.)
Then there's the question of who's ahead at half-time. Alvarez's figures show that since rugby went professional in the mid-1990s Australia have won 78 of the 87 Tests in which they have led at the break but have won only 14 of the 50 Tests in which they trailed.
What of tonight's entertainment? Here, it's not possible to be so precise. The odd thing is that while we all agree on what makes a rugby game boring - incessant kicking, rolling mauls, reset scrums, frequent stoppages - it seems there is no consensus on what exactly makes a game good to watch.
Geoff Mould, noted coach and student of the game, was questioned the other day on this subject. He said when he coached schoolboy players (the Ella brothers were among his proteges) he would get them to write down what they enjoyed most about playing the game. Ninety-five per cent said running with the ball.
But running with the ball is not, on its own, necessarily all that exciting to watch. There's obviously more to it. Mould's answer to the question was that ballplay made rugby good to watch - deft passing and catching, running on the angles, backing up, keeping the ball alive … the kind of play Mark Ella himself excelled at.
Hard to disagree with that.
Both Seven and Fox Sports (which is providing the visual coverage for Seven) will have the same commentary teams as before. Fox won't offer a high-definition broadcast tonight, but it will for the Bledisloe Cup match next Saturday - a first for a rugby match in Australia.
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/n...163161208.html
Reply With Quote
