2015 Rugby World Cup thread

[Slava]

Originally Posted by adc

The game itself will be exciting, although I think the ABs win fairly easily, but from a favorites make it to the final and the same teams making it is boring.

I have seen Australia-New Zealand a ton of times and seen both these teams in the finals a ton as well. I would have preferred seeing an Ireland, South Africa, Wales, Scotland or Argentina in there instead. I think it is more exciting seeing upsets or a unexpected team make it. A chalk final, in almost any sport is boring to me.

Plus I hate Australia and am a little tired of hearing about the All Blacks so my personal bias comes into play here.

I'm partly with you, but in some ways I dread the Cinderella story making it to a final because they can blow their brains out to get there and then get destroyed. Not saying that was the Pumas fate if they had win today, but that's my fear in general if that makes sense?

Today I thought it played out as expected. It's a long process to get parity, and hopefully the rugby world is moving in that direction. Teams like Argentina, Italy, and even Japan and the US are improving (not all at the same level, but all getting better). I had higher hopes for Canada and plan to write a bigger post on some of their problems, maybe later this week.

[KiwiFlame]

If the Pumas had pushed with the forwards from the get-go instead of trying to run it, they'd have been a lot more successful I reckon. They're definitely a quality side and have beaten both Aus and Sth Africa before to prove it.

Aus vs NZ games never fail to please. There's always a lot of running and ball-skill on display. I guess I would say that though...

[FireGilbert]

Awesome effort by the Pumas, they had an amazing world cup and have shown they can compete with the best in the world. The Wallabies and Pocock were just too good today though.

It should be a great final between the two best teams in the tournament. It is interesting this is the fourth final for the All Blacks and Wallabies but the first time they have played each other. It is also interesting that this will be the third game between the two teams this year with the Wallabies winning in Sydney and the All Blacks winning in Auckland. There is no better way to have a tiebreaker than the world cup final in Twickenham.

[St. Pats]

The tournament, other than Japan, was very predictable. Top two teams meeting in the final not a surprise. They really look like the only two teams in the competition capable of playing the game in any fashion. The Japanese were the only team to step outside of the box. The rest played the usual pound away game. They stay in games with their defense and just try to wear down opponents on offense.

Only problem for them is it does not work against the top teams. They could almost use a new scoring system that really puts the emphasis on scoring a try rather than the penalty kick.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

The tournament, other than Japan, was very predictable. Top two teams meeting in the final not a surprise. They really look like the only two teams in the competition capable of playing the game in any fashion. The Japanese were the only team to step outside of the box. The rest played the usual pound away game. They stay in games with their defense and just try to wear down opponents on offense.

Only problem for them is it does not work against the top teams. They could almost use a new scoring system that really puts the emphasis on scoring a try rather than the penalty kick.

You can't say the Cup was predictable then add other than Japan. The horribleness of England and the all Southern semis were also interesting twists. I will add that although teams like South Africa and England played a boring style the Irish, Welsh and Pumas looked much more aggressive and expansive.

Your proposal for a new scoring system sounds interesting though. I wouldn't hate going to 6 for the try and 1 for the conversion. My change however would be to not allow kicks at goal for minor penalties such as ruck infractions.

[adc]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

You can't say the Cup was predictable then add other than Japan. The horribleness of England and the all Southern semis were also interesting twists. I will add that although teams like South Africa and England played a boring style the Irish, Welsh and Pumas looked much more aggressive and expansive.

Your proposal for a new scoring system sounds interesting though. I wouldn't hate going to 6 for the try and 1 for the conversion. My change however would be to not allow kicks at goal for minor penalties such as ruck infractions.

Horribleness of England? They lost to Australia which was to be expected, lost to Wales by 3 points in a game where Wales got every single break and call and whipped the lesser teams they played. I think the RWC was a huge disappointment but not sure it was horrible.

I agree with changing when to allow for teams to go for kicks. It seems now teams get into the other teams half and then try to get a penalty rather than trying to score a try. I understand why with the way kickers can basically hit any kick within the half but it makes more a much more boring game at times.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Your proposal for a new scoring system sounds interesting though. I wouldn't hate going to 6 for the try and 1 for the conversion. My change however would be to not allow kicks at goal for minor penalties such as ruck infractions.

I hate monkeying around with the rules, but this isnt a bad idea, something needs to change because in the semi-finals we saw two teams basically not even bother with tries.

Maybe limit when you can kick for goal or reduce the value of kicking for goal, or maybe even just limit the number of times per game you can kick for goal.

Because I think on two occasions I saw kicks being made from about 53 metres and anything in the 44-48M range was made regularly and only Foley seemed to have trouble with anything closer than that so teams were just getting into the opposition half, working for a penalty and kicking for goal.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

I hate monkeying around with the rules, but this isnt a bad idea, something needs to change because in the semi-finals we saw two teams basically not even bother with tries.

Maybe limit when you can kick for goal or reduce the value of kicking for goal, or maybe even just limit the number of times per game you can kick for goal.

Because I think on two occasions I saw kicks being made from about 53 metres and anything in the 44-48M range was made regularly and only Foley seemed to have trouble with anything closer than that so teams were just getting into the opposition half, working for a penalty and kicking for goal.

Laws


I suggest looking to League, devalue the penalty and drop kick. Perhaps make them only worth 1 pt. Keep the try the same 5 + 2.


I have other thoughts, but will say that Pocock is currently the best player at the breakdown, it isn't even close. I don't believe that NZ can match Pocock at the breakdown, he is just too good.

[KiwiFlame]

That's the nature of knock-out rugby though, tries are hard to come by. If points are available, you take them. It's not that South Africa and Argentina weren't going for tries, it's just they couldn't get them against such tight defense from teams that were better on the day.

Saturday, NZ will hopefully run at Pocock and wear him down, he won't be able to work from the bottom of a ruck

[Locke]

Originally Posted by KiwiFlame

That's the nature of knock-out rugby though, tries are hard to come by. If points are available, you take them. It's not that South Africa and Argentina weren't going for tries, it's just they couldn't get them against such tight defense from teams that were better on the day.

Saturday, NZ will hopefully run at Pocock and wear him down, he won't be able to work from the bottom of a ruck

While true, it was rampant in the group stages as well.

Pocock is a beast, but I dont think the Wallabies have the depth to handle the All Blacks. They're going to grind Pocock into dust.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by KiwiFlame

That's the nature of knock-out rugby though, tries are hard to come by. If points are available, you take them. It's not that South Africa and Argentina weren't going for tries, it's just they couldn't get them against such tight defense from teams that were better on the day.

Saturday, NZ will hopefully run at Pocock and wear him down, he won't be able to work from the bottom of a ruck

Argies, lacked finish. I said to my mate at the end of the first half that the break they didn't convert would come back to haunt them. That will change as the team gets older.

Boks, they play a Blue Bulls game. It is a horrible style and one that relies on mistakes by the option rather than quality work by themselves.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

While true, it was rampant in the group stages as well.

Pocock is a beast, but I dont think the Wallabies have the depth to handle the All Blacks. They're going to grind Pocock into dust.

Time will tell Locke, but I think you are wrong. This is a Aussie team that, IMO believes in themselves. Pocock was sitting against the Scots and look what happened.

He will decide if they win or lose.


I just looked at his stats. 6'2" and 253lbs.

[undercoverbrother]

double post


really nothing I say is worth saying 3 times

[undercoverbrother]

triple post

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Time will tell Locke, but I think you are wrong. This is a Aussie team that, IMO believes in themselves. Pocock was sitting against the Scots and look what happened.

He will decide if they win or lose.


I just looked at his stats. 6'2" and 253lbs.

I'm not saying hes not a big guy or not as good as you proclaim him to be, I'm saying he doesnt have enough help which allows the Kiwis to key in on him.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm not saying hes not a big guy or not as good as you proclaim him to be, I'm saying he doesnt have enough help which allows the Kiwis to key in on him.

A few years ago I might agree, but for me this is how the back row break down:


Fardy > Kano
Pocock > Reid
GOAT > Hopper


If I was the Aussie coach I would drop Mitchel and get Beale on the field.


The comment about his size was more for me. I always forget how huge he is, cuz in that "world" he isn't a tall man.

[Locke]

Great article on the inimitable Nigel Owens.

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/119147

[Slava]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Laws


I suggest looking to League, devalue the penalty and drop kick. Perhaps make them only worth 1 pt. Keep the try the same 5 + 2.


I have other thoughts, but will say that Pocock is currently the best player at the breakdown, it isn't even close. I don't believe that NZ can match Pocock at the breakdown, he is just too good.

Sorry but I can't take a guy seriously who insists on calling Argentina "Argies" when its clearly "Pumas"!

[FireGilbert]

I have to agree with UCB. Pocock might be the best player in the world right now and that X factor at the breakdown and advantage over McCaw gives the Wallabies a great chance to win.

Just to compare in the Bledisloe this year with Pocock in the lineup the Wallabies dominated the breakdowns and won by 8 points. A week later with Pocock resting the All Blacks won by 28 points.

[undercoverbrother]

This really sums up my thoughts on SA rugby in general

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/det...-was-a-failure

I hope they take a look at the structure of rugby in SA. I honestly believe they need to bring in an outside coach. I have a buddy that is friends with John Mitchell and he was offered the job. He turned it down when he was told that he didn't have carte blanche to run it how he wanted.