Article: The Original Rugby Championship - Six Nations 2016
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cookie" data-cid="566392" data-time="1458582118">
<div>
<p>Yes it was a weird one. Felt more relief than joy. The way we kept allowing the French back in always left me with a nagging doubt about the temperament of the team.<br><br>
Having said that, before the start of the campaign a lot of us (me included) were backing Hartley to elbow/bite/butt/gouge at least one of the opposition so I am very pleased he managed to keep a lid on it. Some of the newer players have really stepped up and most importantly, Cowan-Dickie has lost his mullet, so all told there is much to be pleased about.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>My opinion on England is that it looks very promising.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't think your back row mix is correct, in particular I don't rate Haskell as a 7, and Robshaw is a bit meh. You also need to look at why you couldn't turn mountains of possession and territory into more points against the Celts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But there is the makings of a very competitive team.</p> -
-
<p>From the parts of games in the 6N that I watched it is still massively obvious that even in the moments the teams look to play at speed they simply don't have the same speed of thought that SH teams have. The spotting of opportunities and transition from defence to attack is much slower and good ball is often killed by good defence simply because of hesitation or waiting for players to put themselves in effective places. </p>
<p>Unless players play at speed most of the time (eg Super Rugby) they will never get those instincts but one area that can be trained is upping the skillsets of forwards.</p>
<p>The beauty of Rugby is that teams don't all have to play the same way though and there is room for a NH team to trouble a SH team with tactics.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="566424" data-time="1458599680">
<div>
<p>From the parts of games in the 6N that I watched it is still massively obvious that even in the moments the teams look to play at speed they simply don't have the same speed of thought that SH teams have. The spotting of opportunities and transition from defence to attack is much slower and good ball is often killed by good defence simply because of hesitation or waiting for players to put themselves in effective places. </p>
<p>Unless players play at speed most of the time (eg Super Rugby) they will never get those instincts but one area that can be trained is upping the skillsets of forwards.</p>
<p>The beauty of Rugby is that teams don't all have to play the same way though and there is room for a NH team to trouble a SH team with tactics.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Crucial, do you think your assertion regarding speed and Super Rugby is true of Argentinian players or South African players? I don't buy the notion that all SH teams play one way/one speed and NH teams play another.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A more relevant contrast that has been much commented on is the speed/type of game played in Round 1 vs Round 5 of the Six Nations - which is largely a contrast due to weather, conditions, pitch surface. There is a growing voice for the tournament to even shift by four weeks that would effect a change to conditions for matches, but inevitably that gets mixed up into the whole global game argument and gets mired.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="566445" data-time="1458611786">
<div>
<p>Crucial, do you think your assertion regarding speed and Super Rugby is true of Argentinian players or South African players? </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes. Argentina have embraced playing at speed almost too much if you watch the Jaguares. They know they can't rely on a forward based game to get wins and it actually looks like they always had the talent, just didn't use it enough.</p>
<p>SA teams have changed a lot over the last few years and are no longer leaving their outsides to simply look for intercepts and field bombs. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree that my post was a generalisation but that is kind of my point. Generally the 6N teams (and their players) do not play with the same speed and speed of thought as their TRC counterparts.</p> -
<p>Jaguars? Pumas surely?</p>
-
<p>Not that it matters, we know who you meant.</p>
-
<p>Well that will teach me for being a nit picking twat.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="566554" data-time="1458639255">
<div>
<p>Well that will teach me for being a nit picking twat.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Well I don't think it's nit-picking. The Argentine test team do play at more speed, but not because they've been playing Super Rugby - the Jaguares only started this season. All of Argentina's players - up to this new season - played their club rugby in European clubs for the most part.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Crucial asserted that "<span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">Unless players play at speed most of the time (eg Super Rugby) they will never get those instincts". To date, Argentina have only got to develop their style through playing 4N matches, and June and November internationals.</span></p> -
<p>I know next to nothing about domestic rugby in Argentina and probably always assumed it consisted of massive forward dominated games with a BBQ afterwards.</p>
<p>I suspect though, that they are more like the France of the 80s and early 90s where among the love of scrummaging there is flair to burn in the backs if it is set free.</p>
<p>I would be interested if anyone that knows could enlighten us as to whether the ball is given room to breath in general rugby in Argentina.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cookie" data-cid="566771" data-time="1458759362">
<div>
<p>In other news Marler will now face independent hearing with World Rugby regarding his gypsy comment. Has someone been tweeting Brett Gosper again?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>It has been a massive mess from the start. First they tried to wave it away as banter, had to quickly backtrack on that, tried again to calm it all down but WR issued a please explain and have stepped in.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The best path would have been to make him accountable straight away and issue a suspended sentence based on remorse and acceptance of the rapid apology. That way the message of it being unacceptable would have stuck.</p> -
<p>This thread in the RugbyRefs forum <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19622-Ongoing-fall-out-from-Marler-decision'>http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19622-Ongoing-fall-out-from-Marler-decision</a> has some further links etc that explain the situation better. </p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="566772" data-time="1458760045">
<div>
<p>It has been a massive mess from the start. First they tried to wave it away as banter, had to quickly backtrack on that, tried again to calm it all down but WR issued a please explain and have stepped in.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The best path would have been to make him accountable straight away and issue a suspended sentence based on remorse and acceptance of the rapid apology. That way the message of it being unacceptable would have stuck.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>First off who is the 'they' that have passed it off as banter. Lee has said he accepts it as banter and the Gatland has said it was banter, subsequently backing down. Neither the England management or the 6N judiciary has suggested it was just banter.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, leaving that aside it could have been handled a lot better. The England management could have been more emphatic in their statement and so could the 6N. But the thing is that this is no big deal but it is being mad so. I realise that this will wise hackles in some quarters on here, but for anyone who does feel this way, I would refer you to the T20 thread where in several instances the Pakistani team have been referred to as Pakis with no-one batting an eyelid. Paki is seen as a pejorative term in most of the English speaking world. Pakistani is not.. Gyppo is seen as pejorative as is Pikey. Gypsy is not. Like Pakistani it is a statement of fact. I have little doubt that those on the T20 thread using the term Paki were not being pejorative and likewise I'm pretty sure Marler did mean it that way, but that is a meter of opinion, not fact.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What next? You can't call someone a fat fluffybunny? Aussine bastard? Sheep shagger (applies to NZ, Aus, Wales and some of the better looking Scots).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's political madness gone correct.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="566806" data-time="1458769865">
<div>
<p>Cato, paki is in no way offensive in NZ. You English are just loony. Kiwis just love an abbreviation.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I did say most of the English speaking world and to be honest you lot are borderline in this area along with the seppos.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Am I allowed to say seppos?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="566807" data-time="1458770010"><p>I did say most of the English speaking world and to be honest you lot are borderline in this area along with the seppos.<br><br>
Am I allowed to say seppos?</p></blockquote>
Only if you're talking about Australians, wannabes. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="566806" data-time="1458769865">
<div>
<p>Cato, paki is in no way offensive in NZ. You English are just loony. Kiwis just love an abbreviation.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>N&&**er is no way offensive when some texans speak amongst each too I imagine.</p>
