Originally Posted by nosuggestion
“…English anti-rugby style…” Ozzy Biz.
Sir, I feel compelled to interject as your use of the above phase is nonsensical. It is a recognised truth, I think you will find, that if one wishes to know the correct way of doing anything, one only has to observe how an Englishman would go about the task. This is just one of the gifts that we English have, in our infinite modest and charity, selflessly bestowed upon all those misfortunate enough to be born without our shores. As I hardly think anyone with a right mind would wish to contend such an irrefutable fact, I hope you can now see the elementary error of your statement?
Also, I must say, from the tone of some of the posts in this thread, one might infer that England would not be the most popular champion throughout all of the free-thinking nations (South Africa graciously excepted). - Utterly Preposterous!
Next I suppose you will be saying that consistent, aggressive bowling directed to the line of the batsman’s body might somehow be ‘unsportsmanlike’!!
Firstly, I am eternally thankful that I am "misfortunate enough to be born without our shores". Why would I rather live in the nation of (to quote Dennis Farina) "bad food, worse weather" than Australia? I don't know about you, but I'm sitting in my room, sun shining in the window, its about 30 degrees celcius outside doing some study for my exams at uni that are coming up. The only thing I'd like to change is that my exams were over. This "irrefutable fact" you speak of is a certain as the likelyhood of us losing The Ashes any time soon.
The some of you post seems to alie with the phrase "don't hat the player, hate the game". Well, I'm not hating either. But to deny that the world cup from the semis onwards became boring rugby to watch (even though this has been the most profitable cup with $200 million in profit and an average crowd for EVERY game of 37000) is just silly. I watched every game from the quarters onwards and about most of the televised pool matches. Without a doubt, the most exciting games to watch involved Tonga, Fiji and Samoa, plus the France vs NZ match. Why? Because they don't play boring ten-man rugby with 20 phases of pick-and-drive slow-ball followed by a drop goal or penalty kick for goal. When a teams score is divisable by three, if often is lacking in excitement so say the least.
The use of the term "anti-rugby" has been around for a few years now. It is not strictly to do with the English, but rather the style of game they are currently playing. Now, this isn't an attack on the English; they've done quite spectacularly this world cup with a team that was predicted to scrape into the semis and then bow out. England did exactly what they had to do to get as far as they did. I salute Brian Ashton for working to the English strengths (a monster scrum and great counter rucking with JW at fly) as well as they did.
However the fact of the matter was that it is boring rugby to watch. "Anti-rugby" is the non-expansive style which is essentially the game style that Argentina, South Africa, France, and England all use. England seems to be the most extreme of these cases, as Les Bleaus, the Pumas and the Boks all had exciting backline moves (including an Australian move that south africa used; thanks eddie!).
Again, well done the South Africa. Allez Les Boks!