Posts
All Comments
It is largely unknown to players and followers of the modern game rugby, that in the very early days it started off purely as a contest for forwards in opposition in line-outs, scrums, rucks and mauls.
This pitted eight men of statuesque physique, of supreme fitness and superior intelligence in packs against one another.
In those days, the winner was the pack that had gained most set pieces. The debasement of the game began when backs were introduced. This occurred because a major problem was where to locate the next scrum or line-out. Selecting positions on the ground for these had become a constant source of friction and even violence.
The problem was resolved through a stratagem of employing forward rejects, men of small stature and limited intelligence, to select positions on the field from where, when in receipt of the ball they could be guaranteed to drop it in a random pattern but usually, as far
from the last set piece as possible. Initially these additional players were entirely unorganised but with the passing of time they adopted positions.
For instance, the half-back (also known as the scrum-half). He was usually the smallest and least intelligent of the backs whose role was simply to accept the ball and pass it on. He could easily (given his general size) have been called a quarter forward or a ball monkey but then tolerance and compassion are the keys to forward play and the present inoffensive description was decided upon.
The fly-half plays next to the half-back and his role is essentially the same except that, when pressured he usually panics and kicks the ball. Normally, he is somewhat taller and slightly better built than the scrum-half and hence his name. One-eighth less and he would have been a half-back, three-eighths more and he might well have qualified to become a forward.
The centres were opportunists who had no specific role to play but who were attracted to the game by the glamour associated with forward packs. After repeated supplication to the forwards for a role in the game they would be told to get out in the middle and wait for the ball. Thus, when asked where they played, they would reply "in the centre". And they remain to this day, opportunists and scroungers, men so accustomed to making excuses for bad hands and errant play that most become lawyers or real estate agents.
You may ask, why wingers? The answer is simple. Originally these were players who had very little ability and were the lowest in the backline pecking order. They were placed far from the ball and given the generally poor handling by the inside backs, were rarely given the opportunity to even touch the ball. This is basically why, through a process of natural selection, they became very fast runners and developed the ability to evade tackles.
But to get back to the name. The fact that they got so little ball led to the incessant flow of complaints from them and the eventual apt description "whingers". Naturally, in the modern game, the name has been adapted to become more acceptable.
Lastly, the full-back. This was the position given to the worst handler, the person least able to accept or pass the ball, someone who was always in the way.. the name arose because, infuriated by the poor play invariably demonstrated by that person, the call would come "send that fool back" and he would be relegated to the rear of the field.
So there you have it. The fact is that if a side does not have eight men of statuesque physique, of supreme fitness and superior intelligence then they might as well play soccer.
They say Jonathan Sexton is a big game player, but the reality is he hasn't produced a big performance since the Heineken Cup final (and that was only for 40 minutes). The word is that he's kicking well in practice, but he doesn't seem comfortable under any sort of match pressure, even with relatively straightforward penalty kicks. Take for example the badly missed (and meaningless) conversion near the end of the Russia game. 5 from 13 says it all. O'Gara is 10 from 12. Which of the two is better at passing, or running, or tackling is incidental (and subjective) - there's so little in it to really matter (Quade Cooper "can't tackle", so he drops back to full back when Australia are defending). You can't argue with the stats. Start the player who will get points on the board early, and worry about tries later. Missing those kicks means forcing the game, spreading the ball wide, offloading in the tackle, penalty kicks to touch etc. This will only lead to mistakes, turnovers and growing frustration. It boils down to: with which outhalf are you more likely to close out the game? Every match is a cup final from here, Kidney simply has to pick the form players, in all positions. Therefore the only decision is whether to play Sexton at 12 from the start, or use him as impact (cover for 10 and 12) off the bench. And if they both start - which I'd say is highly unlikely - it should be clear from the start that O'Gara takes all kicks at goal, all penalty kicks to touch and all restarts. Mallet baiting us on the stronger Italian front row shows he wants to drag us into an ugly arm wrestle, but I think we'll beat the Italians reasonably comfortably. Assuming Kidney does the right thing and starts O'Gara.
Just had a look at the schedule for the Rugby WC and realised that the tournament isn’t really starting until second week in October (at the quarter final stage). At a push, there are 5 southern hemisphere teams and 6 northern teams in the shake up for the quarter finals. So there are 40 pool games to eliminate 3 teams with realistic chances of qualifying. OK, we’ll all have a look at Ireland v Australia, but really the only interest in the pool stages is to see whether teams qualify as winners or runners up in their group.
What’s the deal with 20 teams? Totally agree there should be opportunities for ‘weaker nations’ – but bulking up the tournament for the sake of it – and allowing 4 extra teams take a hammering in every game is going to do nothing to promote the game. 4 extra teams – 16 ‘dead rubbers’ – hardly a compelling spectacle. 16 teams (max) would allow the best 5/6 ‘weaker nations’ qualify on merit and perhaps cause an occasional upset (possibly look at Fiji for automatic spot given their record).
Given the physical nature of the game, and the fact teams will need 5/6 days recovery this is adding weeks onto the tournament. This is definitely not ideal preparation for the competitive teams with realistic chances of progressing, and of no interest for neutral spectators (except perhaps can NZ beat the 70 point handicap they will have over Japan and Canada).
It’s also interesting to note that the only teams that have to play on 4 days rest are Tonga, Canada, Scotland, Georgia, Romania, USA (twice), Namibia (twice) and Samoa. So, the draw obviously ensures that the weakest teams have the disadvantage of playing on limited rest – making it more difficult for them to cause an upset.
Suppose it means less 6am mornings during September – and a feast of competitive games over 2 weeks in October.
