General Rugby talk thread
View Single Post
07-17-2007, 05:54 PM
Ice cream for crow
Join Date: Dec 2003
Originally Posted by
Means the same thing to me. I'm not upgrading it, i'm just stating it differently.
A pick and drive from one metre out was not a result of a defensive lapse? I suppose they just magically appeared one metre out from the line rather than working there way half way down field? In my opinion an excellent defence system would not concede a try so easily.
I'll tell you now for the
time, Australia gave up territory because of poor discipline, loose ball work and technique along with dumb football, and it was unbelievably plain to see. Their defensive efforts kept them in the game and prevented a blowout scorline by halftime. This is a game of territory, rarely does a team make it to the attacking quarter of the field via poor defense from the opposition. They get there because they control the territory game. In other words, if you control the ball, get quick ruck ball (which often leads to penalties for your side) and find open space with your kicking game, you will get attacking opportunities. This is precisely what happened in the opening 30 minutes of that game.
I mean for Christs sake, you said it yourself that the New Zealand team should have scored more than they did that half. Well they didn't. Why? Because the Australians were organized and scrambled in defense.
You can say i'm clutching at straws or that soon ill be agreeing with you, but i'm no closer to agreeing with you now than i was two weeks ago about the Wallabies being 'hands down' the best defensive side in the world.
Then you're no closer to being correct.
I'd also love to know which nation is the better defensive team.
They may not shut down every team to a miniscule score every single game (nobody can), but on most nights, you wont see an international side defend better than the Wallabies.
Last edited by clefty: 07-17-2007 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by clefty