I feel this is going to be a long post ...
Zihua said:
Agreed with the earlier post about the lousy Australian commentary. At least we won't have to watch or listen to Gordon Bray, who somehow manages to make the basic act of talking look like hard work. He had the especially annoying habit of becoming overly excited when Wallaby (Australian) players - some in particular - were running at a defence line which had them easily covered. It seemed a disappointing surprise to him every time that they didn't bust through..
Truer words about Aussie commentary have not been spoken! I particularly hate how they rope in a token Kiwi for Bledisloe Cup games, but it usually tends to be the least intelligent and articulate Kiwi in the entire country. And when it's not a woefully thick one, it's somebody who's weak-willed and just lets the Aussie commentators jabber on with their nonsense.
Channel 10 really were hilarious after the NZ vs Italy game. I loved how they were trying to talk down the All Blacks' victory by pointing out that Australia didn't let in any tries against Japan. Hmm, wonder why? Probably has something to do with the fact Italy's 9th in the world and Japan's 18th, below even Romania and Georgia!
I can see how Australia is competitive to a point at the international level, having some degree of domestic competition, yet the number two ranking has me a little baffled, or otherwise fearing the worst for the international state of the game.
I have concerns for the international game too, mainly due to the complete dominance New Zealand manages to apply (post-1987 World Cup semi-finals excluded). Unless you're South Africa and maybe Wales, you really can't say you've ever been consistently competitive with the All Blacks. Australia's current success makes a bit more sense when considered in historical context. I maintain the Wallabies at the moment are a flash in the pan and are already showing signs of serious decline.
Australia was not at all a rugby force until the 1980s, partly due to the fact that they got continual experience in the Bledisloe Cup. If you spend decades playing quality opposition and have a decent albeit class-exclusive base, you're eventually going to hit a patch where good coaching combines with enough quality players. Australia's largely had that for the last couple of decades. But note the lack of depth. If they lose Latham, they're stuck with Huxley. Ashley-Cooper is a starting winger despite being shit. MATT FUCKING DUNNING IS ACTUALLY IN THE TEAM! When Australia had a string of injuries a couple of years ago, they lost 8 out of 9 games (I think the lone win was over Italy - just). Now people like Gregan, Mortlock, and Latham are reaching the end of their careers. Nobody of comparable ability really seems to be coming through. I'm sure Australia will linger around the top ten, I'm not saying they're about to become a Portugal, but I expect that in 2-3 decades' time, we'll still be talking about Kiwi and Springbok dominance, while Australia will be around where England and Scotland are nowadays.
Speaking of league, poaching players such as Tuqiri, Rogers (I know), Sailor, and Tahu, and throwing them into the mix of a union squad won't work anywhere near as well as throwing in some talented play makers and changing the way that the whole team plays around them; the league converts are genuinely talented ball runners, but are most effective when capitalising on broken play situations, or charging into space created by a clever play maker.
Yeah. I think the only good league convert was Rogers and losing him back to league was quite possibly the worst thing to hit Australian rugby since Sailor and Dunning were picked for the Wallabies. Sailor was a hack, I've already made my thoughts clear on that. Tuqiri took far too long to become a solid player, though nowadays he's become one of the better Wallabies.
The new ARC should hopefully go some way to helping the development of real union players. Though with horrible team names like the Sydney Fleet and East Coast Aces, I can see why people would stay away ...
- Is this a World Cup in name only, much like the cricket? It seems that a lot more work needs to be done to develop the game in "strong" countries such as Australia, let alone the nations which are competing in the World Cup yet on the whole barely look sideways at the game of rugby. Is the gulf widening? Just as with cricket, should the number of teams be reduced?
While this is the case, I don't think it's as severe as in cricket. I mean, in cricket, outside of the big eight, you might as well just not bother unless Bangladesh has a good day or Mugabe finally fucks off in Zimbabwe. In rugby, if you don't talk about the All Blacks for a minute, teams as far down as #12, Fiji, can be competitive (hell, Fiji are the best 7s team in the world except possibly for New Zealand!). Even #13, Canada, has been a quarter-finalist before and I think has a degree of potential. A 16-team World Cup is fair. It gives the top 10-12 a good bash, and brings in some minnows who can give the top teams a run, especially those currently in a slump (looking at you, Scotland). 20 teams ... well, it's questionable. I'm still in favour of it. You couldn't go to 24 though.
Shootouts will decide matches
Thoughts? How about the idea hinted at where players could progressively be removed from each side, to create more space and opportunity for scoring? I would be interested to see how this might apply in other games, such as soccer..
I doubt any rugby game would end in that, but if it does, I question its fairness. Think of a game that ends tied at 30-30. Team A scored six tries but converted none of them; team B landed ten out of ten penalties. While that's an extreme example, it shows that a team whose defence leaks like a sieve and whose attack is insipid could nonetheless win due to having a quality kicker. Reducing players would be an interesting idea, but I haven't really thought about it.
- Drop-goals: 3 points too much? [...]
- Likewise penalties, is 3 points too much for them?
I think 3 for a penalty is fair, as it should be worth more than a conversion. Maybe conversions from right out front should be worth only one, but definitely a conversion from the sideline deserves two, so three for penalties. However, drop goals are harder than either conversions or penalties, so I actually advocate four points for a drop goal. There is the problem of teams structuring their play around drop goals, but a good defence should make that less of a threat, and an offence based on drop goals will never be an equal substitute for an offence based on scoring tries.
Geez!
I thought Italy really picked their game up after the initial stage fright... not that it did them much good.
That was pretty horrific, we can't even hope to progress to the next round if we continue to play like that. I have a horrible feeling South Africa are going to slaughter us on Friday 
