The Rugby world cup - do the Americans know?

In My Humble Opinion
81

Well, they sort of can. For the past few weeks, baseball has been on from about 4pm until 11pm or midnight almost every day. Early in the playoffs it would sometimes go from 1pm until midnight. Plus, the NFL eats up most of Sunday, and after that it’s more baseball.

The problem is that FOX owns the broadcast rights for the RWC, the baseball playoffs and for half the NFL. There’s no way the RWC gets broadcast instead of either of those, so they show it on obscure channels like Fox Sports World on tape delay.

72 hours really is excessive though. I mean, I could see a few hours, maybe even a day so that people don’t have to stay up until 3 in the morning or something. But three days? I don’t know what’s up with that. Baseball still has another week to go so it’s not like three days is going to keep it from clashing with that. Plus, it’s not like it’s so the RWC can be shown on a major channel in the time between baseball and football since it’s being broadcast on FSW regardless.

So I dunno.

82

Well, the dope server is crawling, and I’ve got to go, so I can’t even read the second page of the posts, but…

I’m an American living in Colorado Springs, which is pretty much as close to the middle of the country as you can get, without entering Kansas. Not only did I know America has a team, but the local paper has actually run small articles on the World Cup. (I don’t know for sure if that is what it’s called!). I know Fiji beat us 19-18, and that it would be a minor miracle for us to win a game, er, match.

However, my brother used to play all the time, until he got too old, and I’ve played a couple of times. (It was too dangerous; my wife was going to shoot me if I played again.) For us lighter, faster guys, rugby is safer than football. You pretty much only get hit when you have the ball. I suppose if you are in the scrum, the two sports are more evenly violent.

83

Go the Wallabies!

I’ll be flying into Sydney on November 2 for a six week visit, so i’ll get to see the second half of the World Cup, including the whole finals series.

I’m currently keeping up with the results on the internet, but it’s a bitch not being able to watch the games.

84

Is this another one of those endeavors involving inflated round things and teams and scores?

85

Nope, it’s one of those endeavours involving inflated ovalthings and teams and scores.

86

Too depressed to contribute to the thread…

87

It was a good game. There was only one real mistake on the defence by either side, and it got exploited. If England’s defence had been as bad as their offence in the first half it would have been very different.

Still, think how irritated you’d be if you’d lost solely because of the relative fly-halfs. Moody’s my hero.

88

Do many people in the USA realise that the US are the current Olympic Rugby Champions? Apparently it was last an Olympic game in 1926, USA won and it has yet to be contested again as an olympic sport!

Oh yeah, GO THE ALL BLACKS!

I was in Sydney recently and all the fans wandering around town in their respective team’s colours made me very very tempted to buy an All Blacks top.

89

I can’t wait for the knock out stages, although it’s not guaranteed that Ireland will be there. I’m heartily sick of the succession of one-sided matches - there’s no way that rugby has enough global coverage to support a 20 team world cup.

That said, England-South Africa was a great game. Maybe it wasn’t one for those who have become bloated on a diet of the high scoring, try-ridden open rugby of the last 5-10 years but this was rugby as I remember it. It was intense, the hits were big and the forwards were too deep in the trenches to get too many illusions about being undiscovered wingers. The rucks were properly contested for a change, as were the scrums and line outs. The differences between the sides were threefold:

[ol]
[li]England could keep up the intensity longer (it’s frightening the amount of times they run away with games in the last 20 minutes)[/li][li]The South African backs couldn’t exploit the possession their forwards won for them, and[/li][li]Jonny Wilkinson.[/li][/ol]
Now, hopefully Paul O’Connell doesn’t cop a suspension after he danced on some Namibian gobshite and let’s go puma hunting.

90

Ok, my two cents…and I can only relate my personal experience with it. I grew up playing soccer right alongside playing baseball…never got into organized basketball or football, and I’m not interested now. Though touch football and flag football are a helluva lot of fun…

But I digress.

Soccer in the US, at least since the late 60’s or so, is very popular among kids, and youth soccer leagues are wildly popular, far more popular than any kids’ sport. But then a curious thing happens in Jr. high and High School: the popularity dwindles and tapers off, on through the college level. And aside from the Olympic team, there’s no pro soccer in the US (though I may be wrong about that). HOWEVER, soccer is even more popular now than ever before, a big surge in popularity started sometime in the 90’s.

IMHO, baseball and soccer are the greatest sports in the world. When all these kids playing soccer now are in charge of things, you can expect America to step into the playing field, now that we’re pretty much the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that doesn’t worship the game.:cool:

Oh yeah, rugby. Strange game, but so is American football. It’s like cricket to me, every time I watch, I try to pick up on the rules but fail miserably.

91

So far . . . so good

But I hardly dare breathe . . .

92

Well these guys would certainly say you were wrong about that.

Pool B seems to be the exception to that rule. No walkovers yet, and the USA made Scotland work for it this morning just as the Japanese did against Scotland and France.

93

I saw most of the France Japan game. The Japanese are not far off being a serious force in this game. As a Welsh supporter, this worries me.

There’s been a lot of nonsense in the press here about England being unimpressive against SA. IMHO, the South Africans played much better than anyone could have expected and England still won pretty comfortably. I’d still back the All Blacks, but England are on track. I can’t even muster the “they play ugly football” thing against them these days. Good luck to 'em.

94

SA never really looked like crossing the try line, when you get to within 5 metres of the try line and don’t make any score either kick or try, that just has to be demoralising.

Any side playing Enlgnad has the problem that they cannot afford penalties or errors inside their own 22metre line and that forces a certain style of play, especially when defending. Seems to me to leave little room for any speculative play for Englands opponents.

It has to be saud though that Wilkinson gets superb protection from the forwards, lots of room and time, plus he always has someone like Jason Robinson who can also operate as a tactical kicker or a great ball carrier. If Wilkinson comes under pressure he know he can offload to Robinson.

I think we missed Dawson somewhat, though Bracken was extremely alert in disrupting the SA scrum half.

95

That’s all very well, but there have been some pretty good crowds watching the first round games. That means money for the appropriate smaller countries. You can hardly call it a world cup if you’ve only got half a dozen countries playing.

V

96

On reflection, I’ve probably been spoiled by the football world cup, where it is genuinely competitive from the start. Watching the great powers of rugby demolish opposition who are becoming increasingly dispirited as the game progresses is not entertainment as far as I am concerned. I would prefer if broadcasters showed more of the matches between the weaker sides, rather than concentrating on the established teams, regardless of the opposition. I’m not necessarily saying that the standard has to be fantastic (I watch Clontarf play on occasion) but it would be nice if there was some doubt about the result.

The Rugby World Cup goes on for nearly six weeks. The early stages have only a few meaningful matches, usually determining the order of qualification rather than who actually qualifies. Then there is a week between each of the knock-out rounds. It both starts and ends slowly. I would prefer to see a twelve team world cup with two six team groups. A shield type competition could be played in advance, with qualification for the tournament proper for the teams who make the latter stages. This would cut down on the number of one-sided games, while allowing the weaker countries a chance to measure their progress against their peers and still have a shot at the big one. At the moment, they only have the opportunity to play a couple of meaningful matches against sides they have a genuine chance to beat.

97

Oh my friend, you better start getting ready for some disappointment. The South African’s demonstrated England’s Achilles heel on Saturday night and both New Zealand and Australia would have taken very, VERY close notice.

What saved England - and remember the game WAS only 6 all at half time - was that South Africa’s forwards showed a shocking lack of match fitness in the final third of the contest. (That period of the game otherwise known as the “business end” of a test match).

Now, in the interests of fairness, it has to be said that no less an authority than former Wallaby captain and “inside centre” legend Tim Horan has openly described young Wilkinson as the finest player in the world at the moment. Very high praise indeed - especially from a man with such an impeccable pedigree.

However, some very close scrutiny has shown England’s achilles heel, and if the Springbok forwards had been fitter, they would have been able to keep up the contest much more powerfully.

Clive Woodward has found himself blessed with a very “southern hemisphere” forward pack at the moment, and England’s current golden era is no accident as a result. They are very fit, fast and mobile. But they’re playing a tactical 4 v 2 pattern which an opposing side with equally fit and fast forward pack will be able to nullify.

Effectively, the tactic is thus - in any given group of phases, 4 forwards join the ruck and two forwards hang back directly behind the ruck to act as two running options to take the ball further up the middle. But at the same time, young Wilkinson hangs back at the same distance - approximately 7 yards or so - and he acts as the 3rd option for England’s half back in terms of ball distribution.

To counter this tactic, the opposition have to stay ultra focused and really mark up on the two forwards who are hanging back behind the ruck. The moment the ball is in the halfbacks hands, the opposition loose forwards also have to adopt the same 4 v 2 defensive pattern and make sure that both of the two roving England forwards are not missed if they end up being the ball carriers.

And yet, at the same time, the opposition back line has to be fit enough to sprint up onto both Wilkinson and the England back line to ensure that Wilkinson’s options are nullified.

Well, for the first 2 thirds of the SA v England match, the Springbok forwards were up to the task - and it was no mistake that the Springbok backline had some frightening attacking options as a result.

But fitness told the key, and the England forwards kept their discipline in the final third of the match much better than the Springbok forwards, and the points started coming home to England as a result.

Mark my words however - both the All Blacks and the Wallabies are far, far fitter than the Springboks. I don’t know quite why, but they are - and they’re more disciplined too in terms of not giving away penalties.

Also, in the final Australia vs New Zealand test match this year, Australia actually out pointed the All Blacks in the 2nd half. This says to me that the Wallabies have purposely been tapering with a very specific game plan and match fitness goal in mind.

This World Cup will definitely NOT be a cakewalk for England come quarterfinal time.

98

That’s a very illuminating explanation of tactics, but England’s problem won’t be in the QFs. If I’ve read it correctly their opponents will probably be Italy (or possibly Wales) . Not much of a problem there.

V

99

As much as I’d like my home team to do well, I must say that team Canada is one of the most gawdawful teams to watch. There is no creativity in the back line (or the front line for that matter), everytime they are even close to some sort of break they bugger it up with a handling error. Did you see them play NZ? It was painful to watch them all bounce off each other in a muddle, not knowing what to do with the ball while the Kiwis just waited patiently for them to tire themselves out.

Even though they are about the same ranking as Japan, Japan is way more fun to watch.

100

15 a side rugby is a bit difficult to follow, because there are no frequent breaks for John Madden to explain/analyse the play. Also American football (like every game) has many standard phrases (zone defence; eligible receiver; post pattern). Once you know the equivalent things in rugby, it becaomes much easier to understand.

But here is the good news: 7 a side rugby!

Because of the limited number of players (hence defenders) this is an all-action version where players continually try to beat the sole opponent near them.
You will see loads of swerves, jinks and players bursting through. There will be a score about every 2 minutes, and the players will be in action non-stop.
Do look out for it!!