Hey, sorry for the very delayed reply, I don't get to post here too often. A lot of rugby has happened in the meantime..
Axver said:
Yeah, I'd agree with that. It's interesting to note the differences between the Aussie and Kiwi media. In Australia, even SBS slips into "uber-Aussie-pride" mode sometimes, and the commercial channels are just hysterical in their coverage of Australian teams. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, there's no hyper-promotion; there's hyper-expectation. One of the few worthwhile comments a Channel 10 commentator has made this RWC, though it's a repeat of what people have said before, is that for the All Blacks, the expectation isn't that they try their best. The simple instruction from the general public is "don't lose". When they win, they're heroes; if they lose, we're merciless. Hell, note even my language there: "when" they win, but "if" they lose. We simply don't expect the All Blacks to do anything but win. It must be hard for the players.
Yeah those folks across the Tasman take their status as rugby top dogs seriously, no doubt, and for new players coming into the squad it must give them the most satisfying sense of achievement and honor to make the grade at the same time as nearly overwhelming them with the expectation. That's professional sport though isn't it, and the cream of the crop relish the challenge to lift when it counts.
I remember during previous World Cups the news taglines of "national mourning" and "counselling crisis" when the All Blacks didn't bring home the cup, such were the expectations. No doubt there was also an element of schadenfreude from the non-NZ media in reporting that, though..
Axver said:
Heh, I seem to recall Carter's minders weren't so happy about the soccer. It certainly goes some way to explaining why he's so good with his feet though. Speaking of soccer-to-rugby skills, watching Argentina is always good because the soccer influence is clear in their gameplay and makes them a unique quantity in the top flight. I think what helps soccer for young children in New Zealand is that many schools prohibit rugby for the younger grades. At my primary school, we weren't allowed to play contact rugby until standard two, which is your fourth year, when you're eight years old. Before that, if you want to play sport, it's soccer or netball or whatever.
Even eight years old seems fairly young to be thrown into rugby, with the scrums and rucking and whatnot. Not to mention some kids can grow to be quite big at a young age. I guess that's a perfect time though to teach them the old tackling lesson that no matter how big they are they can't run without legs..
Axver said:
That tactic seems to have some efficacy though. When I moved to Australia in 1997, I would have had a hugely difficult time finding anyone born here who gave a shit about soccer beyond playing it as a young kid. Suddenly, last year, it seemed like everyone was a soccer fan and if A League attendance is indicative of anything, that effect is lasting. I wonder if this new ARC provincial rugby thing will have an impact. When I moved to Australia, I loathed that there was no equivalent of New Zealand's NPC.
Completely agree on the A League thing, it has been like a juggernaut here. I'm one of those who's wanted to care about soccer but just couldn't be enthusiastic about our domestic comp given the relatively poor standards in previous years. These days though after catching some of the odd game I've been pleasantly surprised, and am keen to see more. After all they play just up the road from me! Of course it depends on your tastes, but I think that soccer is one of those games that, when played at reasonably high levels, can really wow the viewers with some of those spectacular skills. When it's not played at a high level, and unfortunately sometimes even when it is, it can be a bit dull.
You're right in that they are trying to do the same thing with rugby here in the form of the ARC, yet I'm not sure that the same grassroots interest is there. So many people have never looked sideways at the game let alone play it or know what the rules are. I'd hope that the ARU would also be looking to increase participation at the junior level, and the interest might gradually swell over the space of a newer generation.. Oh but meanwhile I do think that the ARC comp is a good thing, it should encourage a higher level of play at the Australian domestic level.
Axver said:
While I would agree with the assessment that it reveals a lack of depth, I think there were two other important factors at play behind the rush to include league converts in Super 12 teams and the Wallabies. You mention one, marketing - scoring Rogers, Sailor, et al was a big scoop every time and sure to draw a crowd. And the other is simply that the ARU didn't want its investment to appear to be wasted: why have Sailor rocking around in lower grades learning skills rather than in the top flight? Would the league guys even switched codes if they hadn't been assured of a place in the Wallabies? I mean, would you go from being in the national league team to a low grade of union that nobody notices?
Very true, fair point - no way would those league guys have switched codes if there had been very little prospect of them playing at the highest level. I think the lure of competing in a more genuine World Cup was strong. They probably had enough of the fundamental skills to almost hold their own in Super 12's, yet there is still quite a difference between the way that the games are played. In the case of Sailor, it really showed yet somehow not long after there he was in his Wallaby jersey. How is it so? It's not like there would have been a secret clause in his contract that he must be fast-tracked into the green & gold.. surely not? Yet he made it and he was nowhere near ready.. The other guys must have been piss-weak. Anyway enough about that guy..
Axver said:
I think that in 2006, a fair World Cup final would have been the All Blacks vs the Junior All Blacks. We could field one team and win by ~40 points over Wales in Cardiff, then field a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT team the next week and win by ~40 points over Ireland in Dublin. What does that tell you? Probably the biggest point against including the All Blacks, Junior ABs, and New Zealand Maori is that only Kiwis want to see all three of them in the top four!
I just find it so hard to comment on the talent gulf. You look at how New Zealand dismembered Italy, the Maori thumped the US, and South Africa gave Samoa a lesson, but then you look at how England only just scraped through against the US and Ireland unconvincingly beat Namibia. Is Southern Hemisphere rugby really that dominant that the minnows who can't even lay a finger on us are competitive with the Northern greats? How does that explain the fact that games between Northern and Southern teams are usually competitive? I don't know what to make of this. I see arguments both ways. There does need to be a limit, though. Portugal should NOT be at this World Cup. I keep saying it, but Portugal vs New Zealand should not happen. If I were the Portuguese, I'd forfeit. This is a pointless game.
Yep the stats do make it difficult to draw conclusions, especially once you throw into the mix the fact that so often teams will field second-string teams against lesser ranked opponents, not even necessarily minnows, eg. South Africa v Tonga. I think the fact that they can afford to do that to save the best players for the marquee clashes suggests that there is a gulf there and you can't blame them (although maybe the entry fee paying spectators can) as it is usually the smart thing to do. Yet as you say how often have we also seen those surprisingly close fought matches between the Southern and Northern Hemisphere teams when they ARE fielding their best players? I hope that that will be the case with New Zealand versus Scotland, by the way. The Kiwis could do with a tough(ish) match before meeting up with (I think?) France..
Axver said:
I just feel that league defence simply lacks the imposing force of union. I can't say I've ever found a league team with a forward pack nearly as intimidating as an All Blacks forward pack. Half of those guys look like they run into brick walls every day and win, while the other half are built like tanks. I just cannot fathom how league forwards would even hope to hold up in a union scrum. League scrums are a laughing stock. When was the last time a league forward was poached? I'd be very curious how they coped in scrums, rolling mauls, and simply clearing the ball from a tackle situation far less conducive to easy clearances than league.
For sure, body bulk means a lot more in rugby due to the scrums (pushing power and pack weight) and rucking, and having some taller players for the lineouts doesn't hurt either yet in league a tall player is mostly damaging as an offloader. With the effective removal of scrum pushing in league there has been a shift away from heavy, hulking players, and that's opened up the game to a quicker, more agile style of play. I too used to scratch my head at how seemingly pointless the league scrums had become yet on reflection it still serves a purpose to open up attacking options in the backline, and the increase in the speed of the game is well worth the sacrifice of the big bulldozers. It's healthy to have more differences between otherwise similar sports. Mind you there are still plenty of imposing guys on the paddock (110kgs plus) in most league comps so it's not as if they are tackling lightweights out there..
Anyway, for both codes the players know the ideal body type for their position and they adapt their diet & gym regime accordingly. Except for Matt Dunning, who is secretly in training for some other sport or profession altogether. If it's body weight and skills training, and not ability that's the primary difference between the two codes then I really don't think it's a big obstacle. The general skills of passing, tackling, sliding across to cover attackers, running decoy angles, etc translate very closely between the games otherwise we would never see any sign of dual internationals, and there have been plenty. Some unwarranted or premature though, as mentioned earlier.
Er so anyway.. geez how'd we get onto this in the first place? Oh, right.. I think this related back to the apparent gulf in skills between some international rugby teams. As with the NZ Maori and Junior All Blacks, it would be fun to train up (properly) some of the league guys and throw them into a rugby World Cup to see how they might fare. Look out Namibia.
Axver said:
You're quite right: the soccer World Cup's lack of diversity in winners is not that illustrative of just how competitive the tournament is. Perhaps a better indicator would be how many unique runners-up and third placed teams there have been. The soccer World Cup always has so many worthy teams vying to get in, and it's that much harder to predict who will be a semi-finalist. However, with the RWC, the teams who should be there always are, joined by a contingent of no-hoper minnows, and picking the semi-finalists usually isn't that hard. Group D may throw a spanner in the works this time around; my prediction of Australia vs NZ is still likely but France vs South Africa is looking unlikely right now. Argentina vs South Africa would not only be interesting, but would do the world of good for Argentine rugby. And if the IRB succeeds in getting SANZAR to open the Tri-Nations up to including Argentina as early as next year, that would be even better. Argentina are to rugby what Sri Lanka were to cricket about 2.5 decades ago, and look at how far Sri Lanka has come - even a World Cup win.
No doubt, Argentina would love to ascend as a rugby nation as much as Sri Lanka has in cricket. Rugby needs to have that shake-up at the very top.
And don't get me wrong with this whole discussion of the competitiveness (or sometimes otherwise) of some of the rugby matches - there are still plenty of drool-worthy matchups to hope for.
Yeah, Argentina v South Africa as you mentioned, don't think SA would be fielding a second string team for that encounter. It would have to be the grand final or the playoff, I think? My bro-in-law is Welsh so the Aus v Wales clash was good fun, although the up and down form of both teams was not too encouraging. By the way Axver you were spot on with your prediction of that result. I'd love to see Wales take down South Africa if they do end up meeting. Dreaming, you think?
Axver said:
And, you know, I'd love to discuss the cricket, but for the sake of brevity, maybe we should rock on over to the cricket thread?
Well I would post in the cricket thread but some people are mistakenly posting about some "20/20" "sport" in there at the moment..
