Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Saracens

Confused

  • Please log in to reply
215 replies to this topic

#1 Scubby

Scubby
  • Coach
  • 3,799 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 02:33 PM

How can a side that hardly ever scores tries be constantly challenging for top honours?

That is all.

#2 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,867 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 02:52 PM

Saracens play a very cynical and boring brand of rugby. At the moment they are looking like they are going to beat Quins at home whereas Quins have been the more exciting side and played the better rugby. :(
Fides invicta triumphat

#3 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,383 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 03:08 PM

Saracens play a very cynical and boring brand of rugby. At the moment they are looking like they are going to beat Quins at home whereas Quins have been the more exciting side and played the better rugby. :(


Exactly my point from the other thread. The evolution of RU has produced a game that gives advantages to cynical and boring rugby over attractive and exciting expositions of the strengths of the game.

To me , it's not constructive or attractive as a game. They would probably prefer to play RL with contested scrums but can't be seen to ape a rival game which bolted from the stable of boring conservative rugby a long time ago.

#4 Scubby

Scubby
  • Coach
  • 3,799 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 03:16 PM

Saracens play a very cynical and boring brand of rugby. At the moment they are looking like they are going to beat Quins at home whereas Quins have been the more exciting side and played the better rugby. :(

It is something that badly needs looking at. When someone who doesn't watch the game is expecting every Saracens update to be divisible by 3 then there must be something wrong?

In the last four league games they have scored 1 try and kicked 19 penalties - yet they have won 2 and drawn one of those games.

#5 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,867 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 03:53 PM

Yeah it can happen. Horses for courses I suppose.
Fides invicta triumphat

#6 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,917 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 05:55 PM

Exactly my point from the other thread. The evolution of RU has produced a game that gives advantages to cynical and boring rugby over attractive and exciting expositions of the strengths of the game.

To me , it's not constructive or attractive as a game. They would probably prefer to play RL with contested scrums but can't be seen to ape a rival game which bolted from the stable of boring conservative rugby a long time ago.

and its a valid point, but irrelevant to that thread.

There are union fans who will be content with that: good for them if they are enjoying themselves
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#7 longboard

longboard
  • Coach
  • 2,359 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 08:23 PM

How can a side that hardly ever scores tries be constantly challenging for top honours?

That is all.


Scubby, old chap- now there's a RU nickname if I ever heard one- they haven't been constantly challenging for honours.

That being dealt with, the Sarries/Saffas approach appears to be based on making the team pretty difficult to beat, with a plan based on forward domination and a kicking game that can be sustained with a squad of mainly physical, workmanlike players who are paid wages within a pretty tight structured salary cap. It seems to be easier to sign big South African forwards, for not too much money than it does to find some talented RU backs from England, SA, the Isle of Man, or elsewhere. ;) So, they dominate the opposition in the forwards and take few risks and acquire penalties as a result of their dominance and also when harrying the opposition when they do not have the ball.

Given the progress they have made with acquiring a new base and the development in terms of wins in the last three years, they seem to have a decent chance of being successful in the future. They seemed to have established pretty clear development plans when Brendan Venter was there.

I went with a mate to watch one of their games last season. I've had better afternoons in Batley on a Wednesday in November with the rain peacing it down. :) Of course, they may have become more attractive to watch since then, unlike the views in Batley....

#8 Gosman

Gosman
  • Coach
  • 1,149 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 02:53 AM

Exactly my point from the other thread. The evolution of RU has produced a game that gives advantages to cynical and boring rugby over attractive and exciting expositions of the strengths of the game.


This view does not explain why the most successful team of the Professional era in the sport has generally been the one that has played the most open and attractive style of play.In short the evidence is against your proposition.

#9 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,383 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 03:04 AM

This view does not explain why the most successful team of the Professional era in the sport has generally been the one that has played the most open and attractive style of play.In short the evidence is against your proposition.


I don t know which team you are talking about so I can t comment but I did see the England v South Africa World Rugby Union Cup final in which both teams were as negative as could be and both had won through to the final playing like that. That game did prove my point.

#10 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,867 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:53 AM

I don t know which team you are talking about so I can t comment but I did see the England v South Africa World Rugby Union Cup final in which both teams were as negative as could be and both had won through to the final playing like that. That game did prove my point.

Perhaps a more recent example will disprove your point. New Zealand have just won the Rugby Championship and are current holders of the Rugby World Cup and play an exciting brand of rugby.
Fides invicta triumphat

#11 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,142 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:15 AM

Oh god, Sev, please don't let the board know that that thing down under is called the Rugby Championship.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#12 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,069 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:39 AM

WHAT? WHYOHWHYOHWHY NOT THE RUGBY UNION CHAMPIONSHIP?

#13 Scubby

Scubby
  • Coach
  • 3,799 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:54 AM

Perhaps a more recent example will disprove your point. New Zealand have just won the Rugby Championship and are current holders of the Rugby World Cup and play an exciting brand of rugby.

I did see some of the NZ v Arg match and the AB thworing the ball around actually prompted Argentina to play in the same way as there was little point playing for penalties at 32-8 etc.

The problem does seem to be penalties and DGs. If you reward technical offences with 3pts a go then not going for tries is a viable option. You can score 20 points in a game by simply squeezing the opposition out of it. Are the IRB worried about blow out scores with smaller nations if you can't give them 9-12 points a game with friendly refereeing decisions?

#14 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 666 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:35 AM

I don t know which team you are talking about so I can t comment but I did see the England v South Africa World Rugby Union Cup final in which both teams were as negative as could be and both had won through to the final playing like that. That game did prove my point.


Define negative? By the same token you would have to say the Kangaroos are negative as they could be. In close games they rarely take chances and invariably play the percentages and play off the other mistakes. That is exactly what RSA rugby union team do difference is there is no pretence with it. The England team in that game were out of their depth but they did take risks that few RL teams would do let alone in a close World Cup final.

#15 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,142 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:55 AM

WHAT? WHYOHWHYOHWHY NOT THE RUGBY UNION CHAMPIONSHIP?


Thank you. :D
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#16 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,917 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 10:01 AM

Define negative? By the same token you would have to say the Kangaroos are negative as they could be. In close games they rarely take chances and invariably play the percentages and play off the other mistakes. That is exactly what RSA rugby union team do difference is there is no pretence with it. The England team in that game were out of their depth but they did take risks that few RL teams would do let alone in a close World Cup final.


if you play the game to win, then of course you are not 'negative'

rather than negativity perhaps lack of enterprise is a better term.

In Union it is possible not just to win a game, but to win an entire competition by not being enterprising.

'Taking chances' doesn't come into it. If you are highly skilled in playing enterprising rugby as say the kangaroos are then chance doesn't come into it.

It's one of the differences betweeen the sports. Rugby is structured in favour of teams that show enterprise. In union being 'conservative' is a major and often taken option.

It's sometimews shoiwn in the smallest of ways. Can you imagine a rugby player picking up the ball in his or her own in goal and not doing their damndest to bring it into play? Not doing so in Union is par for the course. Same with running the ball into touch. A Rugby player will fight tooth and nail to stay in play, and the defenders will do the same to stop him/her. This tends not all to often to be the case in union.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#17 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,867 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 10:11 AM

if you play the game to win, then of course you are not 'negative'

rather than negativity perhaps lack of enterprise is a better term.

In Union it is possible not just to win a game, but to win an entire competition by not being enterprising.

I would say that the Rugby Championship, the Rugby World Cup, the Aviva Premiership, the Heineken cup were all won by enterprising sides. So doesn't this contradict your point?

It's sometimews shoiwn in the smallest of ways. Can you imagine a rugby player picking up the ball in his or her own in goal and not doing their damndest to bring it into play? Not doing so in Union is par for the course.

That doesn't really mean anything apart from the laws are different. I don't see how a RL player seeking to avoid giving possession to the opposition in an attacking area is being enterprising.

Same with running the ball into touch. A Rugby player will fight tooth and nail to stay in play, and the defenders will do the same to stop him/her. This tends not all to often to be the case in union.

Again, its just the difference in the laws (they are different games afterall). A RU winger will probably chance their arm on an outside line in the 5m channel whereas their RL counterpart will play it safe.
Fides invicta triumphat

#18 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,142 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 10:16 AM

It's almost like they're different sports that reward different things in different ways.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#19 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,917 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 10:22 AM

I would say that the Rugby Championship, the Rugby World Cup, the Aviva Premiership, the Heineken cup were all won by enterprising sides. So doesn't this contradict your point?

That doesn't really mean anything apart from the laws are different. I don't see how a RL player seeking to avoid giving possession to the opposition in an attacking area is being enterprising.

Again, its just the difference in the laws (they are different games afterall). A RU winger will probably chance their arm on an outside line in the 5m channel whereas their RL counterpart will play it safe.


I don't know to be honest. I'm pointing out the options: Saracens seem to be succeeding by not being enterprising. Wasn't there some ribaldry on here a while back about Bath, then doing very well, not scoring a try for monthds on end.

I do, since it's an attempt to keep the ball in play

I can't remember the last time a rugby league player, winger or otherwise ran the ball out of play unopposed. I can't rememeber ever seeing a rugby league player not put their body on the line insdide their own in goal or near it to keep the ball in play when in possession.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#20 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,917 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 10:24 AM

It's almost like they're different sports that reward different things in different ways.


of course.
I don't think there's confrontation going on here, apart from 'Keighley's' stuff. We're just talking as far as I'm concerned,
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users