Re: Mr David Kirk
- From: don.z.nathan@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:25:42 -0700
On Oct 23, 8:49 am, neo...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Its also pretty easy for him to shout his mouth off but he seems to
forget that in 1987 France did his side a *huge* favour by getting
Australia out of his hair and the Boks with the likes of Naas Botha
and some exciting backs and powerful forwards (who had disposed of the
Cavaliers 3-1 the previous year) were not even there.
Had the All Blacks played Australia, SA, or an on-form France (as per
the week before) maybe his final would have been a very conservative
one too.
I am not saying that had SA been there they would have won nor that
the AB's did not deserve to win in 87. All I am saying is that it is
easy for Kirk to make comments and fall back on his victory when in
fact the exact same kicking and forward battle may have ensued had his
team had similar opponents in terms of strength as they were in all
honesty expecting a close one had Australia gone through.
The "winning style" of penalties and drop goals was like that in the
pre 1990's when teams were more closely matched - the scorelines of
tests back then clearly shows that and Kirk should know that very
well. So instead of requesting the rules be changed maybe he should
admit that other teams and their defence have possibly got better.
Rugby does cycles too - maybe we are moving into one focused on
defences.
On Oct 22, 2:53 am, Jake <an...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Larry Olivier wrote:
Rhodes Scholar,Captain of WC winning team etc.
And a graceless, biased prick.
Read his latest comments on the WC final.
It may suprise you to hear his faint praise, for example, of the Boks
'defensive lineouts' and the fact that they cannot produce athletic loose
forwards!He regards Burger and Smith merely as 'battering rams'.Matfield
would be astonished to be viewed as a 'defensive' line out forward.
His snide references to England are truly pathetic.
And of course, the disallowed try should have been allowed!
What a sore loser.
Says you.
Most would prefer to make up their own minds on what he wrote,
it's noticeable you didn't have the guts to cite to back your
claims:
Boks master 'no-risk' approach
By DAVID KIRK - RugbyHeaven | Monday, 22 October 2007
"Two good teams tried desperately not to lose the sixth Rugby World Cup final. One of them succeeded.
England and South Africa employed virtually identical tactics in a match, that while absorbing for
its importance, was mostly dull.
The match was all about managing risk. Both teams had decided that tries were going to be virtually
impossible to score, given the quality of the defence.
Therefore both teams decided the best approach was to play for position on the field and hope
something happened from there. Given the only thing that could happen was a drop goal or a penalty,
in effect the teams said to the referee: "you decide who will be world champion".
There was so little difference between the teams that refereeing interpretations and luck decided
the outcome of the match. England was very unlucky not to have a try awarded. It seemed everyone in
the ground upon watching the video replay reached the opposite conclusion to the video-referee, who
ruled Mark Cueto just touched the line before he grounded the ball.
England shaded South Africa in the scrums but South Africa played it smart. They wheeled a bit, they
cleared quickly and generally did not allow the scrum to descend into an out and out physical contest.
The lineout was the one area of the game in which one team achieved a significant advantage. The
Springbok defensive lineout was excellent. They had the courage to compete on England throws even
close to their own line. As a result they won or disrupted just enough England ball to stifle their
dangerous driving maul.
South Africa also competed very effectively at the breakdown. England progressed to the final on the
back of massive physical presence at the breakdown. Arriving in numbers and blowing the opposition
off their ball with physical power. The South African inside backs are big and together with the
total physical commitment shown by the whole team, they neutralised this English strength.
So it was a game of managing risk and neutralising strengths. Both teams played not to lose and
hoped for an opportunity to kick for goal or counter-punch from an opposition error.
Very few errors came. I don't know how many kicks went up - 30 or 40 - but I can only recall two
being dropped and many were taken under extreme pressure.
It remains for the game's administrators to decide whether the style of rugby that has become the
style needed to win a World Cup is good for the game.
The two teams who contested the final are not to blame for the dull, no-risks approach that has
predominated at the business end of the tournament. This is the style that has proven to be a
winning style and above all teams are at the World Cup to win.
However the corollary of the "winning style" we now have in world rugby are fewer tries, more
matches decided by penalties and drop goals, and more intense pressure on the referees.
Neither Australia nor New Zealand is particularly well placed to prosper with this style of rugby.
Australia especially does not have the assembly line of 120kg props and second rowers that come out
of England and South Africa. And both countries produce athletic loose forwards with ball skills and
vision, not the 110kg battering rams that we saw at Stade de France in the World Cup final.
Backs continue to get bigger and bigger. Matt Giteau and Dan Carter are now at the extreme small end
of the range of size and weight for test match backs. They are rightly acknowledged as two of the
most skilful players in world rugby. I doubt however that either would have been more effective than
the far less skilful kicking and tackling machines that played in the World Cup final.
When the Wallabies and All Blacks dropped out of the tournament early, northern hemisphere
commentators where quick to pinpoint the Super-14 as a weakness in the southern hemisphere game.
Compared to the European Cup, they believe the Super 14 lacks physical intensity and the format does
not prepare players for the sudden death environment of a World Cup.
As the Australian and New Zealand Rugby Unions lick their wounds and regather for the next four year
slog to the World Cup, they would do well to start by thinking about how they can work together to
influence the laws, the international playing season and ultimately the style of rugby that is
winning rugby."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Maybe, the Springboks would have kicked their asses. But, I've got
serious doubts for the following reasons.
The Springboks have won 1 test out of 16 in New Zealand since
aparthied ended.
The Cavaliers record is meaningless. They were not the All Blacks.
John Kirwan, David Kirk, Michael Jones the three stars of the World
Cup were not in the team.
That team, irregardless, of it's World cup win is easily our best
team since the 1960's
The All Black team was based on easily our greatest ever provincial
team, and they knew how to win ugly
They were playing at home
I've written this and realaised I'm wasting my time. It doesn't matter
what I write...
Cheers Don
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mr David Kirk
- From: Peter Ashford
- Re: Mr David Kirk
- References:
- Re: Mr David Kirk
- From: Jake
- Mr David Kirk
- From: Larry Olivier
- Re: Mr David Kirk
- From: neoleo
- Re: Mr David Kirk
- Prev by Date: Re: Eurosport's World Cup XV
- Next by Date: Re: O'Neil says 'learn from League.'
- Previous by thread: Re: Mr David Kirk
- Next by thread: Re: Mr David Kirk
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
