Discussion
The last comment above re size and sticking a back into the forwards if he was just a bit bigger reminded me of this:
At Last a Rational explanation of the Game:
It is largely unknown to players and followers of the modern game that rugby started off purely as a contest for forwards in opposition in line-outs, scrums, rucks and mauls. This pitted eight men of statuesque physique, supreme fitness and superior intelligence in packs against one another. In those days, the winner was the pack that won the most set pieces. The debasement of the game began when backs were introduced. This occurred because a major problem was where to locate the next scrum or line-out. Selecting positions on the ground for these had become a constant source of friction and even violence.
The problem was resolved by employing forward rejects, men of small stature and limited intelligence, to run aimlessly around within the field of play. Following a set piece, the ball would be thrown to one of them, who would establish the next location either by dropping it or by throwing it to another reject for dropping. Very occasionally, a third reject would receive the ball before it would be dropped, and crowds would wildly cheer on these rare occasions.
Initially these additional players were entirely disorganized but with the passing of time they adopted set positions.
For instance, take the half-back. He was usually one of the smallest and least intelligent of the backs whose role was simply to accept the ball from a forward and to pass it on to one of the other rejects who would drop it, providing the new location for the forwards to compete. He could easily (given his general size) have been called a quarter forward or a ball monkey but then tolerance and compassion are the keys to forward play and the present euphemism was decided on.
The five-eighth plays next to the half-back and his role is essentially the same except that when pressured, he usually panics and kicks the ball. Normally, he is somewhat taller and slightly better built than the half-back and hence his name. One-eighth less and he would have been a half-back, three-eighths more and he might well have qualified to become a forward.
The centres were opportunists who had no expertise but wanted to share in the glamour associated with forward packs. After repeated supplication to the forwards for a role in the game they would be told to get out in the middle of the field and wait for instructions. Thus, when asked where they played, they would reply "in the centre". And they remain to this day, parasites and scroungers who mostly work as lawyers or used car dealers.
You may ask, why wingers? The answer is simple. Because these were players who had very little ability and were the lowest in the backline pecking order, they were placed as far away from the ball as possible. Consequently, and because the inside backs were so diligent in their assigned role of dropping the ball whenever they received it, the main contribution to the game made by the winger was not to get involved. Their instructions were to run away as quickly as possible whenever trouble appeared, and to avoid tackles at all costs. The fact that the game was organised so that the wingers didn't get to touch the ball led to an incessant flow of complaints from them and eventually the apt description "whingers" was applied. Even though the "h" dropped off over the years, the whingeing itself unfortunately has not.
Lastly, the full-back. This was the position given to the worst handler, the person least able to accept or pass the ball, someone who was always in the way. The name arose because the forwards would understandably become infuriated by the poor play invariably demonstrated by that person, and call out "send that fool back". He would then be relegated well out of everyone's way to the rear of the field. So there you have it. Let's return to the glory days of a contest between two packs of eight men of statuesque physique, supreme fitness and superior intelligence. The rest can go off to where they will be happier – playing soccer.
Reading this again just made me chuckle once more!
At Last a Rational explanation of the Game:
It is largely unknown to players and followers of the modern game that rugby started off purely as a contest for forwards in opposition in line-outs, scrums, rucks and mauls. This pitted eight men of statuesque physique, supreme fitness and superior intelligence in packs against one another. In those days, the winner was the pack that won the most set pieces. The debasement of the game began when backs were introduced. This occurred because a major problem was where to locate the next scrum or line-out. Selecting positions on the ground for these had become a constant source of friction and even violence.
The problem was resolved by employing forward rejects, men of small stature and limited intelligence, to run aimlessly around within the field of play. Following a set piece, the ball would be thrown to one of them, who would establish the next location either by dropping it or by throwing it to another reject for dropping. Very occasionally, a third reject would receive the ball before it would be dropped, and crowds would wildly cheer on these rare occasions.
Initially these additional players were entirely disorganized but with the passing of time they adopted set positions.
For instance, take the half-back. He was usually one of the smallest and least intelligent of the backs whose role was simply to accept the ball from a forward and to pass it on to one of the other rejects who would drop it, providing the new location for the forwards to compete. He could easily (given his general size) have been called a quarter forward or a ball monkey but then tolerance and compassion are the keys to forward play and the present euphemism was decided on.
The five-eighth plays next to the half-back and his role is essentially the same except that when pressured, he usually panics and kicks the ball. Normally, he is somewhat taller and slightly better built than the half-back and hence his name. One-eighth less and he would have been a half-back, three-eighths more and he might well have qualified to become a forward.
The centres were opportunists who had no expertise but wanted to share in the glamour associated with forward packs. After repeated supplication to the forwards for a role in the game they would be told to get out in the middle of the field and wait for instructions. Thus, when asked where they played, they would reply "in the centre". And they remain to this day, parasites and scroungers who mostly work as lawyers or used car dealers.
You may ask, why wingers? The answer is simple. Because these were players who had very little ability and were the lowest in the backline pecking order, they were placed as far away from the ball as possible. Consequently, and because the inside backs were so diligent in their assigned role of dropping the ball whenever they received it, the main contribution to the game made by the winger was not to get involved. Their instructions were to run away as quickly as possible whenever trouble appeared, and to avoid tackles at all costs. The fact that the game was organised so that the wingers didn't get to touch the ball led to an incessant flow of complaints from them and eventually the apt description "whingers" was applied. Even though the "h" dropped off over the years, the whingeing itself unfortunately has not.
Lastly, the full-back. This was the position given to the worst handler, the person least able to accept or pass the ball, someone who was always in the way. The name arose because the forwards would understandably become infuriated by the poor play invariably demonstrated by that person, and call out "send that fool back". He would then be relegated well out of everyone's way to the rear of the field. So there you have it. Let's return to the glory days of a contest between two packs of eight men of statuesque physique, supreme fitness and superior intelligence. The rest can go off to where they will be happier – playing soccer.
Reading this again just made me chuckle once more!
^^^^Funny^^^^
Goode, he's just too fricking slow to be a FB and doesn't look too comfortable under the high ball when put under pressure. When he sets off on a run he looks like he's got lead boots and he's running through porridge.... He did have a good game on Saturday, he jinked about and beat a couple of defenders with ball in hand but doesn't have the gas from that sort of position so gets snagged pretty easily.
France have announced their side with Bastareaud and Fofana starting. I would like to have seen Bastareaud running at Burgess, I know who I'd have money on to end up on their arse.....
Goode, he's just too fricking slow to be a FB and doesn't look too comfortable under the high ball when put under pressure. When he sets off on a run he looks like he's got lead boots and he's running through porridge.... He did have a good game on Saturday, he jinked about and beat a couple of defenders with ball in hand but doesn't have the gas from that sort of position so gets snagged pretty easily.
France have announced their side with Bastareaud and Fofana starting. I would like to have seen Bastareaud running at Burgess, I know who I'd have money on to end up on their arse.....
Australia 31 man squad announced.
Highlights are Horwill left out (thought he played well in the Rugby Championship as well as he has for a couple of years). Nick White also left out and they're only taking two hookers. Odd and risky.
Hookers
Stephen Moore [captain] (96 Tests)
Tatafu Polota-Nau (53 Tests)
Props
Greg Holmes (17 Tests)
Sekope Kepu (56 Tests)
Scott Sio (9 Tests)*
James Slipper (66 Tests)
Toby Smith (uncapped)*
Locks
Kane Douglas (15 Tests)*
Dean Mumm (36 Tests)
Rob Simmons (52 Tests)
Will Skelton (11 Tests)*
Backrow forwards
Scott Fardy (24 Tests)*
Michael Hooper - VC (45 Tests)*
Ben McCalman (40 Tests)
Sean McMahon (3 Tests)*
Wycliff Palu (55 Tests)
David Pocock (50 Tests)
Scrumhalves
Will Genia (59 Tests)
Nick Phipps (31 Tests)
Five-eighths
Quade Cooper (55 Tests)
Bernard Foley (17 Tests)*
Inside backs
Kurtley Beale (52 Tests)
Matt Giteau (95 Tests)
Matt Toomua (25 Tests)*
Outside backs
Adam Ashley-Cooper - VC (108 Tests)
Israel Folau (33 Tests)*
Rob Horne (26 Tests)
Drew Mitchell (65 Tests)
Henry Speight (3 Tests)*
Joe Tomane (15 Tests)*
Tevita Kuridrani (24 Tests)*
Highlights are Horwill left out (thought he played well in the Rugby Championship as well as he has for a couple of years). Nick White also left out and they're only taking two hookers. Odd and risky.
Hookers
Stephen Moore [captain] (96 Tests)
Tatafu Polota-Nau (53 Tests)
Props
Greg Holmes (17 Tests)
Sekope Kepu (56 Tests)
Scott Sio (9 Tests)*
James Slipper (66 Tests)
Toby Smith (uncapped)*
Locks
Kane Douglas (15 Tests)*
Dean Mumm (36 Tests)
Rob Simmons (52 Tests)
Will Skelton (11 Tests)*
Backrow forwards
Scott Fardy (24 Tests)*
Michael Hooper - VC (45 Tests)*
Ben McCalman (40 Tests)
Sean McMahon (3 Tests)*
Wycliff Palu (55 Tests)
David Pocock (50 Tests)
Scrumhalves
Will Genia (59 Tests)
Nick Phipps (31 Tests)
Five-eighths
Quade Cooper (55 Tests)
Bernard Foley (17 Tests)*
Inside backs
Kurtley Beale (52 Tests)
Matt Giteau (95 Tests)
Matt Toomua (25 Tests)*
Outside backs
Adam Ashley-Cooper - VC (108 Tests)
Israel Folau (33 Tests)*
Rob Horne (26 Tests)
Drew Mitchell (65 Tests)
Henry Speight (3 Tests)*
Joe Tomane (15 Tests)*
Tevita Kuridrani (24 Tests)*
- Uncapped at a Rugby World Cup
Interesting choices. Agreed about Horwill, also thought Nick White was one of their better players lately - especially in comparison to Quade Cooper who has a habit of falling apart under pressure and getting sent off for dirty cheapshots.
If its NZ vs Oz in a playoff game I'll be quite happy for them to have Cooper on the field!
If its NZ vs Oz in a playoff game I'll be quite happy for them to have Cooper on the field!
on 30mins Eng 54 tackles France 4.... SERIOUSLY?????
What is interesting is that I rather think that there are a few people who thought that they were out of it who could well be rapidly coming back into it. Poor old Cips must be wondering who he pissed off in a previous life as this really does not seem to be the game for anyone to shine
What is interesting is that I rather think that there are a few people who thought that they were out of it who could well be rapidly coming back into it. Poor old Cips must be wondering who he pissed off in a previous life as this really does not seem to be the game for anyone to shine
Edited by irocfan on Saturday 22 August 20:38
Looking at the other game tonight, Scotland's 1st and 2nd XV won 16-12. Some poor passing, notably from scrum half Sam Hidalgo-Clyne. Italy looking more physical in the back-line but the handling and passing was even worse than Scotland's tonight.
Positives for Scotland:
Solid scrum (makes a change)
Excellent line out
Great physicality at the break down
Great attacking running from the backs
Negatives:
Poor handling of the ball from a few players
Penalties (5)
Passing at times was sketchy
Overall a decent result for an underpowered Scotland, looking forward to seeing how Scotland do when they play their 1st XV next weekend.
Positives for Scotland:
Solid scrum (makes a change)
Excellent line out
Great physicality at the break down
Great attacking running from the backs
Negatives:
Poor handling of the ball from a few players
Penalties (5)
Passing at times was sketchy
Overall a decent result for an underpowered Scotland, looking forward to seeing how Scotland do when they play their 1st XV next weekend.
k me this is bad!! FFS SL empty your bench!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Not a good game.
I am npt particularly worried as its a blydi abhoration - but not representative of their ability. If it was I'd be more worried, but get it out the system now.
Cipriani needs to be 'on the plane' now, I will freely admit. Not literally...but y'know
Dan George was good.
I am npt particularly worried as its a blydi abhoration - but not representative of their ability. If it was I'd be more worried, but get it out the system now.
Cipriani needs to be 'on the plane' now, I will freely admit. Not literally...but y'know
Dan George was good.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff