Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Scotland The Brave upset the Wallabies at Murrayfield

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Scotland The Brave upset the Wallabies at Murrayfield

The Murrayfield faithful turned out to witness what has been described as Australia's worst Test defeat in decades as Scotland beat them 9-8 on Saturday.

The Wallabies, ranked third in the world, lost to a ninth ranked Scottish team who picked up their first win over the Australians in 27 years.

With supposed saviour Robbie Deans in charge, the Wallabies have reached new lows according to their media, as they’ve lost for the seventh time in Test rugby this season.

"It may be the worst Test loss by Australia since the 1973 crash to Tonga in Brisbane," the Sunday Telegraph's Jim Tucker said.

"Certainly, no Test played by the Wallabies since has been frittered away with such dominance of possession, territory and genuine chances."

Greg Gowden of the Sunday Herald said: "The Wallabies had untold attacking opportunities to defeat a second-rate Scotland team who basically just defended and defended all night to win this game.

"This is one of the most inexplicable moments in Australian rugby history and without doubt their worst moment of the professional era,” he added.

Scotland defended like trojans as they kept out a determined Aussie outfit who had the better share of the possession and had a chance to win it but for a missed kick by Matt Giteau at the death.

Scotland coach Andy Robinson was ecstatic with the win, praising his team, calling it the most courageous performance he’s ever been involved in.

"The effort that has been put in, the way the team got off the floor and defended - and credit to Graham Steadman for the way he's put this defence together - was incredible.

"The amount of ball that we gave Australia to play with throughout the game and the courage that the players had to get up and keep knocking them over.

"We needed a bit of luck, I thought the guys worked hard to establish that luck. If we can perform like that, with that same courage every time we go on the pitch, then we can grow a team and that's what we're about now.

"I'd like us to play with a little bit more ball and want to keep hold of it a little bit more," joked Robinson. "But that's the levels that we've got to improve and it just shows you we do have to improve with our ball in hand. That's a platform now for us to be able to do that."

Time: 08:44
Extra: Discuss the match here or indepth on the forum.

First!! YES

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 3:12 pm
well done.

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 3:16 pm
Scotland totally deserved the win with the way they defended!

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 3:18 pm
Who cares if you're first. This is a rugby website. Comment on the rugby.
Well done Scotland, always good to see the cocky Aussies lose.

By Kember, at November 22, 2009 3:21 pm
Jealous because I beat you, don't cry!

As far as the game goes, well it was boring.

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 3:23 pm
what's happened to the game of union??? how can a side win without ever looking like scoring tries? mate they need to revert back to the elvs as theres no way scotland deserved to win. un-bloody-believable how a team that plays blatant negative rugby can cheat a victory and rob us of a win. this is why league is and always will be superior to the union code. mate i bet the kangaroos wouldn't lose a game of union ever.

that ref needs a ban how dare he call cooper's pass forward? is be bloody blind? mate australia's been robbed all season and this is the last straw.

By Syd_Bazza, at November 22, 2009 3:23 pm
Put your sour grapes away and learn to lose like a man mate.

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 3:27 pm
Why was Paterson on bench?

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 3:27 pm
Dont cry Bazza

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 3:43 pm
Syd Bazza. How pathetic. I watched the game, i'm not scottish or aussie. Quite frankly if you have that much posession and territory and fail to convert into points then you deserve to lose. Well done the scots, hard as nails and defended amazingly.

Don't worry too much Australia, come world cup time i reckon you'll have one of the best teams.

By Andy, at November 22, 2009 3:47 pm
^ the french team is going to win the world cup not the aussies!

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 4:00 pm
you must all admit that something needs to be done about the rules of the game. the elvs were a good start but then the old fools in england were resistant to change. the elvs would bugger up the british 10 man rugby thats why we are back to these archaic laws. quite frankly i am sick seeing teams that score tries lose. did scotland look like scoring a try once? no mate they didn't come close, yet they still win? something needs to be done before the spectacle has completely vanished. no wonder people are flocking to league.

By Syd_Bazza, at November 22, 2009 4:00 pm
Bazza

i agree totally about the ELVs, its a 15 man game so give / force teams to use the 15 men. The short arm penalties and quick taps the ELVs allow make for amazing rugby.

I'm an Aussi and watched the game at 4am and was still on the edge of my seat the whole time. Full credit to the scots, their defence was tenacious! At the same time should have crossed more then twice (Rocky was robbed by the video ref) and Coopers pass to Mitchell was a good few meters forward (fair call).

These rebuilding stages suck for the supporters (better come good for the world cup)

Well done Scotland.

By Unknown, at November 22, 2009 4:15 pm
"Second rate Scotland team?" Cheeky fucking Aussie journalist.

By Jonny, at November 22, 2009 4:39 pm
That pass was shown on the reply several times to be at least 2m forward. The Ozzies were clearly shown on the video several times to not even nearly ground the ball both the times they went over. Do you Ozzies get different TV footage or are you just really really bad losers? Ur commentators are the most Bias in the super14, I guess they take after ur idiot fans! I can understand tho, sport means alot to you guys, its not like you've ever given the world anything else of note...except The Crocodile Hunter!

By dr, at November 22, 2009 4:51 pm
settle down champ, its a rugby forum go to youtube if you want to bash an entire people

By Unknown, at November 22, 2009 4:58 pm
Keep it clean please folks. No need to get personal on here. Follow the commenting guidelines and everyone will play nice.

By GMC, at November 22, 2009 4:59 pm
I know jonny, its not like australia played all that badly...its just that scotland wouldnt let them play the game that they wanted to play. And that is part of the game, a second rate team would not have been capable of that, they would have kept it up for 20 mins or so until the floodgates opened and the tries started to stream freely. But that didnt happen!

By gt, at November 22, 2009 5:00 pm
agree with Reds, Elsoms try should have been given.

SCOTLAND WERE AWESOME!!! Its so great to get the aussie curse of our backs. THREE IN A ROW HERE WE COME!!!

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 5:17 pm
SCOTLAND du du du SCOTLAND du du du SCOTLAND du du du SCOTLAND du du du SCOTLAND!!!!

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 5:21 pm
Actually Scotland did come pretty close to scoring, the kick through and it was 3 scots on one about 5m out

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 5:26 pm
FUCK Bazza you are such a tool!!!

I watched the game! Australia had the most posession and the most territory.....hence a huge advantage over the scots! now if the aussies couldnt get through the scots defence that says a lot!

I thought it was a damn exciting game, every break was brought down just short every inch counted and i think scotland deserved the win more than australia did.

To play a game on the back foot against a much better ranked team and to not concede a huge number of tries shows what the game is about!

Scotland would have gone into that match to try and hopefully win, but realistically play a game which builds up their confidence and shows they put in heart to try and limit the score and to come out on top is fantastic for them!

Like i said before is the aussie team couldnt make anything of a pretty much 95% possesion then they dont deserve to win.

SCOT FAN: 'So bazza good game?'

BAZZA: 'No, it was unfair, we had all the posession and still lost!!! i think the rules of rugby should be changed to make it more fair so we can win!!'

thats what you sound like to me bazza!

By No.7, at November 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Firstly I am an Aussie and I believe that full credit should be given to the Scots, as much as people may not enjoy it, rugby is built around defense and the Scottish team defended admirably and Australia didn't have enough ingenuity to score. I also believe that Australia will still put together a strong side for the world cup and there are some exciting young Australian players getting there chance. As for dr's comment about Aus fans being idiots and Aus giving nothing to the world u are a mouthy git and why a comment like that which blatantly commits nothing to this site is allowed on I am not sure.

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 6:09 pm
Bazza

as someone has already pointed out it wasn't that Australia didn't use running rugby and play reasonably well it was the fact scotland defended fantastically.

Do we want a situation in rugby where we change the rules every year just for the sake of points or do we want to applaud scotland for one of the best true rugby performances i have seen in years. they stopped australia from being able to score not the rules of the game.

well done scotland.

By Gary, at November 22, 2009 6:09 pm
Wow wow wow, insult the Australian team all you want, but leave their great commentators out of it. Firstly, all commentators are bias, thats acceptable, most of them are ex players. They also provide great entertainment, and I think once its a great game of 'footie' they couldn't give 2 shits whether its their team winning or not. Which to be fair, for the Aussies has been alot this season.

Great win Scotland, now take that into the 6N and be competitive for once.

By Huh!! the 3rd, at November 22, 2009 6:40 pm
was it a really good match??

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 7:28 pm
i think the elv's helped thed the smaller teams more than the bigger teams as they gave a route to by pass the harder skills of scrums and rucking etc and brought the game back to the basics of just running. So by bringing the old way back it should hand the initiative back to the likes of the bigger teams. just cus you go out to play running rugby doesnt give you the right to win. better execution and continuety is needed from the aussies!

By Shannon, at November 22, 2009 8:49 pm
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

By terence, at November 22, 2009 9:01 pm
well the elvs ere first researched after england won the world cup as teams couldnt live with their play. they needent of bothered of course as they dissintegrated right after that [:-)]. the point is that talking about rule changes is a roundabout way of saying your team isnt good enough at the game they are currently playing. both teams played in the same conditions with the same set of rules and scotland won as they played the conditions and rules better. its not surprising that the aussie backs had trouble since the weather was awefull in edinburgh and it still is. if it was nice and sunny then the aussies would have found the going easier... maybe

By sam, at November 22, 2009 9:04 pm
great result. so happy i was there.
Here's Godmans penalty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLsl_zKqsRk

By GLove, at November 22, 2009 9:22 pm
Interesting to see that both Shannon and Sam have said the same thing that i did!

It is a very valid point....and sam also commented on the conditions being the same for both teams (another valid point!) Yes scotland may have had the upper hand with it being the same conditions they most likely train in but the same could be said when NH teams or Eng, Wales, Scot, Ire (wet weather nations) play in the SH in places where its 30 odd degrees of blazing sunshine!

Sorry Aus, you lost, live with it!

By No.7, at November 22, 2009 9:37 pm
Great to see the Northern Hemisphere showing the Southern Hemisphere that maybe they are not so all-mighty. Not to mention the second string southern nations (there's nothing new on that front), the wallabies and the springboks have both lost to NH teams. Nice to see rugby growing all over the globe. Each year there's more and more teams touring, and Its awesome to see Itally standing up bravely in their games against the SH sides. And that's just one example

By Xavier, at November 22, 2009 10:01 pm
Giteau had an absolute shocking game. Horwill and Chisholm were terrible in the line outs. Palu and Elsom continue to impress. Although I heard Palu is out of the tour because of that neck injury. Great try by Elsom though for some reason it didn't change the scoreboard...

Epic defence by the Scots. I'm disappointed by the loss but I'm happy for them.

By Creatine Junkie, at November 22, 2009 10:10 pm
Scotland didn't win this game, the Aussies lost it!

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 10:12 pm
ummmm....to the above, how did you work that one out?

Surely scot fans could say, scotland nearly lost the game themselves.....by letting australia through their enormous defence....

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 10:18 pm
Shannon, are you actually serious? The ELVs helped only Australia, New Zealand and possibly South Africa. They created a pace to the game where no one would be able to last 80 mins except for the fittest possible people. Saying that some amateur Portugese lad would be helped by the ball being constantly run, instead of getting breaks for penalties, against the top rugby teams, is simply outrageous.

And anyway ELVs just meant that you could cheat as much as you wanted at the breakdown and all you gave away was a free-kick. So they ruined the continuity of the game completely, cos everyone just cheated whenever they were under pressure. And they messed up mauls and lineouts big-time as well. Please don't start asking for them back.

By Kearney for tests, at November 22, 2009 10:34 pm
P.S. fair play to Scotland. I wasn't expecting that at all. Just don't do it against Ireland in the next Six Nations.

By Kearney for tests, at November 22, 2009 10:35 pm
LOL ^^^^ that made me laugh!

By :), at November 22, 2009 11:06 pm
WORST. GAME. EVER.
I would rather watch paint dry.
Union is a boring game these days, dominated by the sound of the ref's whistle.
He must have blown his whistle every thirty seconds on average.

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 11:30 pm
The ELVS just meant more rugby got played. You had to play, you couldn't just kick it away and wait for the ref to blow the whistle.
But the NH wouldn't know about that, they never trialled them.

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 11:32 pm
......um i think you'll find we did......

also, back to the same old chestnut, you want to change the game of rugby to suit you.....

By Anonymous, at November 22, 2009 11:43 pm
cheers for removing my comment RD, kinda out of context there after his was removed...and probably rather rude too....

By No.7, at November 22, 2009 11:52 pm
One win and the scots go crazy, lol. Welcome to RD scotland, you have officially made it.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 12:11 am
this isnt counted as a Scotish win in my books because they didnt score a try. infact dare I say it, its a wallabies win because they actually crossed the white wash and didnt play negative rugby!!!

agree with bazza the rules defo need to be changed back to the ELVs and maybe they need to get rid of a few of the not so key players (like hooker and maybe a flanker) they need to cut it down to about 28 players on the field to create more space so we can see more tries

I think the wallabies defo missed Benny Robinson in the scrums (Kepu is a young prosperous talent but he must be taken under Benny's wing and learn from the best)

but once again i said it before and ill say it again the NH ELEMENTS equal the playing field i mean you cant seriously think that Ireland or scotland have as much talent as the Wallabies? James o'connor is already a better player than most in the north and he made an imediate impact as he came on with his slipper little legs and wonderful sidestepping.

By Cameron Maxted, at November 23, 2009 12:13 am
Cameron Maxted.....(sorry RD here i go again!) you're are an ass hole!

Go play something else.....im guessing Aus didnt lose the 2003 world cup either cos JW got a drop goal!

seriously Aus lost, deal with it!

By No.7, at November 23, 2009 12:21 am
i regret to say this wallabies side is slowly killing rugby down under

By 12, at November 23, 2009 12:32 am
No.7 no need to personally insult me just because I expressed my opinion.

If you play negative rugby you dont deserve to win.

the wallabies were really trying to entertain this crowd that payed good money to see them play!!!

By Cameron Maxted, at November 23, 2009 12:33 am
Syd_Bazza, i thought that ausies were alright!

whilst in the stadium all the aussies were saying how much Scotland Deserved the win, i didn't meet one who said Scotland didn't deserve a win,

get a grip "mate"

By no9, at November 23, 2009 12:35 am
Hahahahahaha...
HAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahaaa
I knew there would be aussie fans on here making up the most absurd situations possible to give reason to the loss!!!! It's so funny. Such denial over losing! Get over it, australia are crap. Also, if you don't like rugby union why don't you just watch league. Nobody is forcing you to watch union.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 12:37 am
Well cameron you deserve it, since when was rugby about those who watch it?

im sorry i thought its those who play it that count....

australia had posession 95% of the time and still did f'all with it, so that to me shows they didnt deserve to win!

p.s looks like a lot of people agree that you're a knob!

By No.7, at November 23, 2009 12:41 am
oh yeh cameron i just thought, seeing as it was a scottish home game, i will make an assumption that most supporters were scottish.....

I think most people who supported scotland found this to be one fantastically entertainig match, and no doubt there was a smile on every scotsman/woman/child's face after that game......not to mention anyone else who was fed up of reading your comments after the ireland game!

By No.7, at November 23, 2009 1:12 am
No team with that amount of possession that does not turn it into points deserves to win.

The game was riveting from a neutral perspective.

By Wessel, at November 23, 2009 1:13 am
mate, you scots can celebrate a cheap win if ya want, we all know its gonna be another 30 years before you beat us again. we are still in the rebuilding phase and will peak during the world cup. there we'll have a wallabies and all blacks final and show the world what real running rugby is all about.

like kearnsey said, the scotish didnt deserve that win. they did nothing on attack and if more teams chose to play like that well then mate i feel sorry for the code.

By Syd_Bazza, at November 23, 2009 1:34 am
Lol sore losers, im pretty sure if it was 9-8 to aus you guys would say.... 'Well you can talk trash about neeearly beating us, the fact is WE still won!'

So basically you cant take it, you guys lost, you are sore losers, and its actually hilarious how you talk down another teams victory.

Its like no.7 and wessel said....any team with that much posession that cant turn it into points doesnt deserve to win!

Oh yeh and another thing. England is suffering from injuries and has a young team, any SH team that beats them wouldnt take 'eng are young etc' as an excuse!

YOU GUYS LOST!

By Mr. anonymous, at November 23, 2009 1:49 am
just saying it like i see it mate. union is so lucky greg inglis doesnt play union, mate he'd continuously cut gaping holes in teams backlines. imagine if we also had darren lockyer at 10, he'd make carter look like a school kid.

By Syd_Bazza, at November 23, 2009 2:16 am
As an Australian I take no pleasure in seeing the Wallabies lose again this season. The Scots were not and never will be a better side than the Wallabies. They did however outplay the Wallabies. Not by piling up the stats on posession, phases, territory etc.

So what if the Wallabies had a better back line or more attacks. The Scots got on the score board and defended their lead. Good on them.

Giteau missed relatively easy shots at goal. He had a bad night overall. Rock scored a try but was denied. That happens.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 2:25 am
At the end of the day Scotland won. It was a fascinating contest and very exciting.

Were Australia unlucky to lose? Absolutely. Should they have converted more than one of their 57 trips into the Scotland 22 into a try? Absolutely.

But at the end of the day it was a terrific "never give in" defensive performance from Scotland. I think all Scots would agree that Australia are the better team, but on Saturday Scotland won. Aussies should accept they lost, be gracious and learn from it!

By Ally, at November 23, 2009 2:29 am
^yeah THE ROCK went over for his try but the cheating NH ref dint allow it oh-mg??

oh and when gits was going for the final conversion the scottish players started running before he even moved!!! that calls for a re-kick and is blatant cheating on the scottish players part!!!! disgusting!!!

By Cameron Maxted, at November 23, 2009 2:33 am
hahahaha
haaaaaahahahahahaha
ha
hahahahahhahahaha
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahah
hahahahaha
cameron maxted = SORE LOSER
hahahaha
haaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 2:34 am
Wallabies were terrible.
Ref was terrible.
Scotland was negative, but they can tackle (not much else though).
The game itself was f-ing terrible.
seriously 9-8? One try scored and the team that scored it lost?
Blah.
Last year was so much mroe entertaining, tries being scored, good poitive attacking rugby.
This year, teams are happier without the ball than with it.
There's something wrong witht he game when teams don't want the ball anymore and would rather kick it to the other team so they can defend some more.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 2:47 am
Cameron Maxted mate get over it lol. We lost.

By Creatine Junkie, at November 23, 2009 2:49 am
The north never trialled the short arm ELVs, and that was the rule that opened up the game.
I laugh my arse off when I hear northerners whinging about how rugby is played these days.
This is how you wanted it!
You all got in a huff when the IRB tried to open the game up again! Refused to even trial the rules.
So this is what you get. The ref becomes the most important person on the pitch and teams spend thwe whole game desperatley kicking the ball away because the way the game is, you're better off not having the ball.
Can you imagine a game of soccer or basketball (or virtually any sport) where the offence intentionally turns it over so they can get back to tackling and don't have to use the ball?

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 2:50 am
Maxted,

You seriously defy belief. I mean, anyone that genuinely considers hookers and flankers less than important is obviously pretty fucking deranged.

I watched all the tries multiple times, and all the disallowed ones were correctly so. Interesting that the only try that was actually scored came from about 15 phases of the very rugby that you find so abhorrent - skilled, slow teamwork, gradually making the way to the line six inches at a time.

If you can't appreciate good defence, then you probably just can't do it yourself; if you can't accept that the Aussies squandered all their chances and so didn't deserve to win then you're obviously less a rugby supporter than a one-eyed football fan; if you can't take losing with dignity then I'd rather you got out of my sport, you selfish asshole.

By HM, at November 23, 2009 2:57 am
Woah.. whats with the name calling mate? once again i just express my opinion and i get insulted!?!

Flankers and hookers arent crucial to the game mate (especially flankers) as they dive over and slow the ball down all the time. without them there would be way more space and lots of tries! dont you pay to watch the game an be entertained mate? i know close matches are exciting but imagine close matches but with 30-40 points being scored on a regular basis.

the game of rugby must be changed else i fear that we will be getting more and more poor spectacles like this game.

By Cameron Maxted, at November 23, 2009 3:07 am
I for one don't have a problem with name calling - some people deserve it.

By Prop3, at November 23, 2009 3:10 am
Sure prop3, but it's also usually a sign of losing your cool.
Usually means you don't have a great argument either.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 3:52 am
^^^ LOL and you think cameron does have a good argument? He says things like "this isnt counted as a scottish win..."!!!!!!!! Hilarious, he's such a sore loser that he has lost his marbles.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 4:47 am
either that or he's 14 years old

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 4:47 am
I didn't say Cameron had a good argument. Just that name calling on the interent is pretty pointless, detracts from whatever point it is you might be trying to make.
Don't worry about it.
BTW, this game was boring as batshit. 9-8? Come on.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 5:20 am
to the anon above, could not agree it was as boring as watching the Melbourne marathon (but at least that has some RUNNING in it)

All i can say is the Wallabies did NOT lose. Rugby LOST. I think the IRB should ban Scotland from playing rugby if thats the way they're going to try and play the game. It is total spoiling tactics/not in the spirit of the game and shows bad sportsmanship on Scotlands part!!!

By Cameron Maxted, at November 23, 2009 5:24 am
Seriously, if this is modern rugby, the game is in trouble.
Team wins by just tackling, never has the ball, never runs the ball, just kicks and tackles. Wins 9-8.
Jesus wept.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 5:32 am
I'd rather live in the hills of Scotland than be anywhere near Australia.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 5:41 am
Certain people on here should take a leaf out of Scotland fans book of how to loose well.

Scotland didn't deserve to win for playing negative rugby? What was so negative about the way they defended for 80 mins. Using the same moronic line of arguing, you could argue it was the Australians who played negative rugby - for 80 mins they have the ball and don't score once! Also, make more attempts at goal and miss!

And as for the argument that the honourable Wallabies were trying to entertain the crowd, please just listen to yourself and think for 5 seconds whether the crowd being entertain even crossed the mind of these players / management!

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 5:44 am
People say the dumbest things on these blogs.
You'd rather live on a hill in Sctoland than be near Australia?
uh... ok pal, go for it... Thanks for sharing...
I'm from England, but I agree about the game.
Boring.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 5:59 am
Great game, glued to the TV for the whole 80 mins!

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 7:34 am
People are saying "if this is modern rugby then it isn't looking good" stuff like that. It just shows how professional the teams are now, the defense is just so solid. Scotland deserved to win because of there defensive work. Australia looked like scoring more, but they still couldn't finish.

I was at the game and it was just as good as the 15 - 9 against endland in 2008!, that kick at the end was so amazing, when he missed the whole crowd went mental, great atmosphere, great game ! ! !

By YeahMan, at November 23, 2009 8:19 am
Look, I'm sure it's great for the Scottish team.
But if that's rugby these days, jesus.
Scotland didn't really ever have the ball, never really threatened to score a try, no backline moves, in fact they desperately wanted to get rid of the ball and give it back to Australia as much as they could.
The whole game was kicking and Scotland tackling (and tackling well, don't get me wrong the defence was very good).
Teams have no reason to attack with the ball, none at all, if anything most of the time it is disadvantageous.
There's little scoring, tries are ridiculously rare, and usually only come from luck or defensive pressure.
All the advantage is with the defending team.
The refs dominate everything. This game the ref must have blown his whistle on average at least once a minute.
This is not rugby as it used to be, not at all. There was a time when the game was open, free-flowing, and exciting.
Now it is dour, defensive and involves an insane amount of kicking.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 8:57 am
Cameron Maxted ur a petty confused little boy,take your defeat like a MAN,every time you write something its either a ridiculous excuse as to why AUS lost or an even more ridiculous excuse as to why AUS lost,well done scotland,it was'nt champagne rugby but it was rugby none the less,fair play

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 9:32 am
mate spot on the bloody mark. rugby just aint what it used to be, too much bloody defending and negative play. why should the attacking team keep ball in hand when there's a 50 percent chance they'll be penalized at the next ruck? imagine mate if the aussies mimicked the scotish play? can you imagine what a disaster that would be? these northern hemisphere fans dont understand because union is all they have. mate here in aussie we have afl and nrl (best and hardest comp in the world) so we know what entertaining footy looks like. rugby i'm afraid is on its deathbed. aussies deserved that game but were cheated out of victory, how fair is that? you work it out.

By Syd_Bazza, at November 23, 2009 9:36 am
In fact Scotland played rugby as it is played most successfully today.
Defensively.
South Africa have built their recent reputation on a simple game plan of kick-chase-bash.
The way the game is, it works.
All teams are trying to do it now, all the historically great running sides, the French, the Kiwis, the Welsh, The Aussies, play (or are trying to play) a dour kicking, defensive game.
That's the way the game is, and truth be told, Australia aren't very good at that type of game.

By Jon, at November 23, 2009 9:39 am
All i hear is

'whinge cry whinge what if whinge cry imagine whinge!'

and thats from aussie fans!

Who here was wanting scot to win?

please answer this!

out of those who wanted scotland to win, how many of you were on the edge of your seats and enjoyed the game?

Also how many people feel that a team that has 95% posession throughout a game and does not turn it into significant amounts of points does not deserve to win?

How many of you are laughing because some Australian fans cannot take the fact that they lost?

Also, how many aussie fans feel that they did not lose the 2003 RWC to england? because Eng got kicks and drop goals etc?

By No.7, at November 23, 2009 10:19 am
oh yeh, i seem to recall australia was playing a bit of kicking rugby.....or did the ball lamont dropped just fall out the sky by itself?

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 10:25 am
no.7

Game stats said that Wallabies had only 53% possession not 90% learn your facts mate. its not that scotland was kicking all the time, when they had the ball they would form a ruck and just sit there for a good 30 seconds... I literally saw a few of their players just looking at the clock on the big screen (this is from the first minute of the game) they were trying to kill the time because they new that the Wallabies on their day are the best team in the world and would make mince meat out of them if they actually tried to play rugby!!!

there has to be some sort of punishment for this unsportsmanlike behavior from scotland! their style of play encourages crowds to not come back!!! WE PAY TO BE ENTERTAINED and this match was a disgrace to the greats of the game - Mark Ella and Campese must feel so sick thanks to Scotland's negative style of "PLAY". Wow am i glad i dont care to watch the 6 nations

By Cameron Maxted, at November 23, 2009 10:33 am
Cameron, you're making a fool of yourself mate.

It was 9-3 with three minutes left in the match. Aus couldn't score thanks to the Scottish defence. When they finally did, Gits fluffed the kick. That's sport man. Show some class and take it on the chin.

By FrankyH, at November 23, 2009 10:56 am
Australia did play a fairly boring brand of rugby too, they have been all season. Alot of kicking.
Problem is that Australia have never been good at that type of game.
Well done to Scotland though, very brave, great defending.
Australia were woeful too, butchered so many opportunities.
Pretty shitty game though, seriously 9-8 is a slow game.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 10:59 am
I wish these Australian posters would go back to theroar.com.au

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 11:02 am
Cameron you're a prat. I'm a complete neutral and I was on the edge of my seat watching this.
There are different skills to rugby it's not just running and passing. If you're too stupid to understand and appreciate those other things then go create you're own game or watch league. Rugby is rugby, don't change it. It wasn't negative, Australia are a better side so Scotland were just being made to defend. Good on them, and exciting stuff.

By Andy, at November 23, 2009 11:06 am
jeezo,

I assume the Aussies on here haven't watched the Scotland Fiji game where we attacked? Different opposition require different tactics, and when you come up against a team like Australia who are supposed to be very good in attack (and are supposed to have an outstanding flyhalf in Giteau), you set yourself up to defend for 80 minutes.

If you don't convert pressure into points you don't win, and if you don't take your chances at goal you'll also not win (just like when Scotland lost to SA last year, but clearly we won that game because we scored a conversion and SA didn't...)

Anyone who disagrees with the try being disallowed for the forward pass should be taken out and shot at dawn! The other one we were undecided in the pub, the main TV angle looked like no try, but the one that gave the deadball area was too far out to be conclusive (my brother and I thought it looked like a try from that angle, but not 100% sure).

At the end, when Cross scored, I felt that we were unlucky not to hold on for the win, but that Australia deserved the win due to the teritory dominance. However, no-one deserves to win unless you ACTUALLY score more points, so hell mend them!

I find it amusing that its the Australians that are calling for flankers/hookers to be removed - historically a position that you've struggled with... In this case, i call for the removal of the flyhalf...

International rugby (as all international sport) is a results driven business, not performance like national competition. However, I thought it was a riveting match. 3-3 at HT and 9-3 nearing full time scream dull match; it was anything but.

Lastly, if you think that performance was bad for kicking, just be glad Dan Parks wasn't playing. You can have him back now!

By Niall, at November 23, 2009 11:11 am
Is it possible to get the epic intro display before the match with the anthems, that was some quality entertainment and built up the match really well.

Congrats to scotland!

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 11:12 am
Interseting that the aussies here don't seem to like a defensive game which is what "WON" them the 1999 world cup. Ah, must be short memories. Giteau buckled under pressure (or he was totally knackered) what was a chip shot for him, Elsom try 50/50 (can't see grounding and its all about the question asked of the TMO). I admit I'd like to see more ball in hand, we came close to a try on kick through to opposite end of the park, but hey, shit happens, and thats why we play the game!

By Unknown, at November 23, 2009 11:44 am
Never have I heard so much blame being put on the rules, the defence, the lack of tries, etc for the best team not to win a match.
Put on your big girl panties and deal with it. It's rugby and anything can happen.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 11:50 am
Cameron Maxted , very very bad loser , end of the day it's points on the scoreboard that count , not the number of tries. I suggest you read over your comments posted , and then offer a) an apology for allowing yerself to talk our of yer ersehole and the b) congratulations to Scotland for an outstanding defense performace. As has been said so many tiem , if a team can dominate posession/field converage and NOT score then they deserve to lose , and lose they did.

Your comments about Scotland running down the clock , was the exact same tactic the Aussies did with 2 mins to go , the run down the clock with constant "pick and go's" , then scored leaving Scotland no time to retaliate.

You my friend have a lot of growing up to do , accept your team lost fair and square.

By Cragdoo, at November 23, 2009 11:58 am
Supporting Scotland over the years you don't get many results to get excited about. This result has been a long time coming and thoroughly deserved, despite how ugly it was!

It wasn't pretty but a win is a win. That means more to a Scotland team than anyother team, as winning is something they have failed to do for a number of years. It will be good for their development under a new coach and heading into the 6 nations next year.

Australia are a good team but came undone on this occasion. Take it on board and move on to the next game.

Well done Scotland but a more comprehensive attacking display against Argentina is needed. Hopefully that will shut the critics up!

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 12:01 pm
ok ive said what i had to say, this game is history. mate it might be a big deal for the scotish, but us aussies have moved on and are now focusing on the upcoming test against wales at the croke. no doubt putting on a clinical performance and dazzling the world wide audience with our running rugby will make this a successful tour. i predict wallabies by 30.

By Syd_Bazza, at November 23, 2009 12:02 pm
"Your comments about Scotland running down the clock , was the exact same tactic the Aussies did with 2 mins to go , the run down the clock with constant "pick and go's" , then scored leaving Scotland no time to retaliate."

lol they weren't trying to wind down the clock. They were desperately minnowing it up and doing everything possible to get over the try line. It was hilarious. AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE haha

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 12:06 pm
Bazza , agreed it is now history , and history will show that the Aussies turned up and lost , they dominated field position and possession , but they couldn't beat the boys in the blue shirts. You Aussies need to learn to handle defeat better , buy going by recent performance , you'll get more and more chances to learn from experience ... ;)

By Cragdoo, at November 23, 2009 12:08 pm
Mighty defense from the scots, shame about the prats booing giteau on the kick

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 12:19 pm
These highlights have been updated to include a bit of a the pre-match stuff, as well as the Elsom non-try and the forward pass by Cooper.

By GMC, at November 23, 2009 12:21 pm
"Don't worry too much Australia, come world cup time i reckon you'll have one of the best teams."

As a die-hard Bok supporter it kills me to say this - but I agree. Australia will keep building from a lousy 2009 season and probably be the team to beat NZ in the 2011 final - provided they keep Deans and regain the killer instinct Aus teams are known for. They should never have drawn against Ireland, for example - that game game theirs for the taking.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 12:24 pm
No, sorry. The Springboks will win 2011 for their 3rd title from 5 attempts and be the first team to ever defend their championship - comfortably.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 12:36 pm
Disagree. South Africa has a young team and are still improving. Matfield, the oldest player in the squash, is not too old for a lock and Smit is still in his early 30s. the play makers (such as FdP and Habana) are still young (26-ish).

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 12:37 pm
squad, not squash wtf

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 12:38 pm
Guys, I think everyone knows now that Cameron Maxted is a joker from NZ or RSA and he just posts here for fun to make us Australian fans look like fools - don't take him seriously, we don't!

By Gavin, at November 23, 2009 12:43 pm
Pretty funny how as soon as the Aussie rugby team (Union that is) starts getting a few bad results they begin claiming rugby is on its "deathbed" and that they have plenty other sports like AFL and NRL which iss more entertaining....Yet you know as soon their Union team starts picking up again and improving they be all on the badwagon...

Learn to lose like men because at the moment all other nations are laughing at you're pathetic excuses...

You's have a very young team so dont be worrying you's should be fine for the next WC and will probably do very well...

By themull, at November 23, 2009 1:45 pm
Rugbydump, PLEASE STOP THE COMMENTING ON THIS VIDEO!!! IT'S NOT ABOUT THE RUGBY ANYMORE.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 1:50 pm
@ themull

the rest of the world is not laughing at the Aussis because of trolls on one internet site. All the talk in Australia is at the wallabies for failing to complete attacks, simple errors and the brilliant scottish defence.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 1:54 pm
Cameron,

Two weeks in a row you complain about the opponent, should you not look at your own game plan? Scotland had a great game plan and that was defend, defend, defend and go from there. Might not be the most beautiful rugby in your eyes but it worked.

As for the weather in NH that's a lame excuse, both teams have to face it and it's not like the NH players have different hands that are completely adjusted to wet balls. My advise for you guys for next time, train ion the f*cking shower if the weather impacts your game plan that much!

And last what try you talking about with Rocky? The footage does not show a grounded ball. I could have gone on and on last week about Tommy Bowe scoring a try that was disallowed. Face you guys had to high expectations or just didn't play to your level, not the fault of Ireland and not the fault of Scotland!

On another note for the Scots, when you speak to Tim Visser tell him to be a real man and start playing for the Netherlands!

By Herbie, at November 23, 2009 2:06 pm
Cameron im sorry my facts werent correct but i think i make a good point, i watched the game and as the figures show australia had more posession and from what i watched im pretty sure the figures dont do justice to the amount of posession they had!

and like i stated before RUGBY ISNT FOR THOSE WHO WATCH IT!

have you ever played a match? if you have do you think, 'ah lets substitute a winning tactic for our team and try and make the game LOOK better!'

Im sorry but you are being a prat and you sound like such a sore loser!

What you are suggesting is a fucking movie (i suggest you watch the one thats out or coming out soon about SA winning the WC final back in the day! because that is fucking entertainment!) THIS IS A SPORT ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE AN ENTERTAINMENT, if it entertains then its killing two birds with one stone!

personally i dont see how anyone on either side could not find it entertaining, id rather see a close fought match that try after try after try! and ofcourse tries would be nice but they dont always happen!

I also suggest that anyone who comments on the score line and says 'come on boring game' etc then i dont think you saw the game!

who thought the RWC in 2003 exciting? i did because it was close fought and every inch counted!

Funny how some of the aussie supporters say 'we are over it now, we are focussing on the next game' Sounds like you cant admit that you lost fair and square in this game!

im pretty sure had the score been 9-3 to aus that they would have tried to run down the clock so, once again, you lost, take it on the chin, pat scotland on the back and grow up!

and to all the aus supporters that have been gracious its been nice to actually have some decent comments and to you i say i wouldnt worry too much, you have a young side that looks promising!

By No.7, at November 23, 2009 2:42 pm
Scottish fans are getting vocal, watch out!

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 2:55 pm
To anon above what I meant was that it is those trolls we are laughing at not the whole of the Aussies...I was gonna make it clearer but didnt want to make my comment too long ha....

By themull, at November 23, 2009 3:28 pm
To the guys saying rugby isn't what it used to be, how can the team that scores the less tries win, etc...

I am french and for a big chunck of the 80s and 90s we would score more tries than england and still lose because we were ill disciplined, they were methodical...

Hell, one of the best tries scored ever was by saint andré in 91 at Twickenham and we lost while scoring 3 tries to 1 !

That's the game... Scores like 35-30 haven't ever been the norm, they have happened in the last few years, but they are like 5-4 in soccer...

Honestly the ELVs were death for Union, it meant turning it into league. That's just another sport. Forwards fighting hard for possesion so that backs can try to score are what makes union.. If Australia wanted Scotland to stop defending so well, they should and could have opened up the score line by scoring a couple of dropshots easily.. They were stubborn and inefficient, they can blame noone but themselves.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 3:48 pm
Scotland beat Australia, that's something Ireland couldn't do. Does that mean Scotland's better than Ireland? I'd say so.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 4:07 pm
YEEEEESSSSS!!! wanted scotland to lose but after seeing poor old cameron maxted (who was so proud about oz's DRAW against ireland!) squirm on these forums i am so happy! not even joking i searched cameron maxted just to get some pleasure out of his discomforted excuses. Thankyou scotland! and thankyou cameron maxted for making a dull monday afternoon fun again

By scotland1cameronmaxted0, at November 23, 2009 4:09 pm
NH rankings based on end of year tour performances:

1. France
2. Scotland
3. Wales
4. Ireland
5. Italy
6. England

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 4:39 pm
Think thats a bit presumptuous to make a list like that.....i dont think italy is particularly ahead of England at the moment....are they? and ireland and wales....and scotland....really after a couple weekends of games its a bit too soon to make that.....

unless you are just predicting....

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 4:47 pm
The idea that Scotland are the second-best team in Europe based on one victory is absurd. I'm delighted for them and I'm half Scottish myself but anyone who watches NH rugby a lot knows that every few years the Scots turn up a result like this. It's generally at home, it's generally raining and the game is generally low-scoring and more notable for defence than attack.

I'm not saying the victory is not valid, I'm just saying I can't remember the last time Scotland beat one of the Top 5 sides by playing expansive rugby. If a side is lured into playing the kind of game that Scotland want them to play, as Australia were, then they quite often lose.

England are awful at the moment but the worst in Europe? Let's just say I don't think the 6 Nations table will end up looking like that 'unofficial' ranking.

By Ted, at November 23, 2009 4:49 pm
Although to be honest, who cares what the IRB rankings are? If your team win tournaments, who cares what their ranking is in between?

By Ted, at November 23, 2009 4:55 pm
Scotland beat Wallabies, how are they not number 2? Ireland could only manage a draw, Wales lost to ABs, Italians and England haven't done much.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 5:00 pm
just want to reply to Kearney for tests
th example you gave of a portugese fella not being fit enough for the ball to be in so muc....just backs my point as the type of fitness the poorer teams struggle with is the physical usually cus well obviously every team is different but thats the case usually. anyone can run but not many countries have the resources to build a team to meet the physical attributes of a proffesional player.

By Shannon, at November 23, 2009 5:49 pm
Anonymous - if Scotland beat Ireland and Wales in the 6 Nations then I will agree that they are better. Until that happens, a 1 point victory over the Wallabies means relatively little. Rankings are decided over a series of matches, if you'd like to suggest the other Scottish results that warrant Scotland being second, please go ahead.

By Ted, at November 23, 2009 7:40 pm
cameron maxted is an absolute ret*rd."scotland should be banned for unsportsmanlike behaviour".are you FU*KING SERIOUS?please ban him or something RD,he's exactly the sort of person who ruins this great website's reputation,not to mention his county's.

p.s cameron maxted is an absolute ret*rd(needs to be pointed out as much as possible)

By Ireland for WC 2011, at November 23, 2009 8:09 pm
agree with the guy above

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 8:12 pm
agree with the guy above

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 8:13 pm
Cameron,

Sorry mate but the Aussies lost. Simple as that. Scotland scored 9 points, Australia scored 8. 9 is the bigger number, which means Scotland wins. Doesn't matter who kicked more, who held the ball more, who had more territory. The Scots got more points on the board.

Hard luck.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 8:13 pm
agree with the guy above

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 8:13 pm
HAHAHAHAHA i can't belieeeeeeeeeeeeeve this... finally scotland aren't boring and uninspiring to watch. FINALLY.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 8:18 pm
Well done SCOTLAND!!! And thanks Oz and your supporters for taking some of the heat off us Saffa's...

By HAYI WEMAJONGOSI, at November 23, 2009 8:19 pm
lets be honest, scotlands defence was great stopping wave after waves of austrailian attacks, credit were due. they also kicked a few penalties and a drop goal. but i can't remeber scotland attacking or do anything better than they have done before.they have always had decent defence but poor attacking flair. all they did was practically defend for 70 so minutes aginst a relatively new aussie backline who were at best,rubbish in attack, running predictable lines. not taking anything away from scotland though, they defend like it was the world cup final at stake.
scotland did everthying they normally do but defended better, but we will really see how much they have improved when they play argentina, who will definetly not waste time throwing forward pass, mindlessly running and missing penallties like the aussies.

some aspects of the aussies were good though, adam ashley cooper has been pretty good all autumn running most balls from deep, unlike so many other fullbacks.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 8:28 pm
Just read some of camerons comments and im loling:)
Im welsh and i was more excited watching scotland defend their hearts out then watching my country win:)
I was actually praying that giteau missed:P Well done scotland:D!!!!!!!!!

By mm, at November 23, 2009 9:25 pm
Well actually i think the aussie defence was fantastic when it counted, they stopped scotland numerous times, and scotland also tripped themselves up in attack!

but it was won fair and square. the drop goal was fantastic! (lucky paterson came off the bench!!!)

WOOOOO SCOTLAND!

By (:, at November 23, 2009 9:25 pm
SHIT THE GUY ABOVE ME IS SHANE WILLIAMS!!!!! i just checked the wales comments and someone put:

'shane williams = mm = mullet midget'

Hey shane!

By (:, at November 23, 2009 9:28 pm
I am not Shane Williams... mm are my initials.

By mm, at November 23, 2009 9:49 pm
Yeah, this is rugby union.
Team has no real possession never looks like scoring a try, spends the whole game kicking the ball away, wins anyway.
Score is 9-8.
For all you football fans, that may sound like a decent scoreline, but in rugby, it aint.
The ELVs were not the death of the sport. In fact before this game all the talk was of how there were no tries in the GP, how rugby was arial ping pong.
This game simply confirms that notion.
It wasn't this way at all under the ELVs (look up the statistics before you start moaning - more tries, more running, more scrums, more tackling, more playing rugby).
And I'm a kiwi, so it's not about the Aussies.
But seriously, games like these should be taken out back and given a mercy bullet.

By Anonymous, at November 23, 2009 10:27 pm
^^^^^ Ah right, and there was me thinking that rugby was about scrums, rucks, mauls, lineouts, tackling, kicking and running....

silly me, why not get rid of mauls, and scrums (who needs flankers.....)

so a game of rugby consists of 13 players who just run at each other...might as well get rid of rucks too because they slow things down to much...

what do we have.....13 people on each team, no rucks, lots of running, occasional kicking.....

......nope doesnt sound like rugby league to me.....

im pretty sure richie mccaw would love you to get rid of his position!

All the ELV's did was allow players to fuck up the ball and not get penalised for it!

By Nathan, at November 23, 2009 11:06 pm
I think what people are forgetting is that scotland are just getting used to playing under a new manager, with a new captain, and some newly capped players. We had a really bad few six nations, scraped through to the quarters of the world cup and we have a long long way to go before we are winning consistently.

however, what these past two games showed was that we do have the ability to attack (fiji) and against a team like australia, we have the ability to defend - for the whole 80 mins. It used to last about forty to sixty on a really good day. Winning this game doesn't really make us much better - but what it does do is give us a good defensive base on which to stand. Keep that up, get the evans brothers back, utilise their speed, attack more, and it could be a really exciting six nations.

I don't care how we won - we've had so many bad tries and decisions given against us in the past, it all comes round again for every team. Great atmosphere, great confidence boosting game - thats what we need right now. And against argentina, if we don't attack I will be more than disappointed.

By audrey, at November 23, 2009 11:38 pm
Nathan the ELVS resulted in more kicking, more scrums, more rucks, more line-outs, more tries, more tackles, more runs, more passes, you know, more rugby.
The only thing there was less off was penalties, mauls and walking around not playing any rugby.
It's a statistical fact, but you can bury your head in the sand if you want I guess.
Anyway, I guess if your happy with the game becoming more and more a game of arial ping pong (and that is what is happening, and will continue to happen), fair enough.
Anyway, fair play to Scotland, heroic defending.
But this kind of turgid, grinding kickathon is like Chinese water torture for someone who loved rugby the way it used to be played, the way it was supposed to be played.

By Bill, at November 24, 2009 12:10 am
did anybody think to change kickers, well done scotland, tied us up the whole game

By zacaria, at November 24, 2009 12:13 am
"Anonymous - if Scotland beat Ireland and Wales in the 6 Nations then I will agree that they are better. Until that happens, a 1 point victory over the Wallabies means relatively little. Rankings are decided over a series of matches, if you'd like to suggest the other Scottish results that warrant Scotland being second, please go ahead."

> NH rankings based on end of year tour performances

nothing to do with 6-nations.

By Anonymous, at November 24, 2009 12:21 am
someone should be shot, if we had all the ball and all the territory and didnt win,

By zacaria, at November 24, 2009 12:22 am
oh ok bill, sorry i thought the whole point you guys were bitchi about the ELV's was because you were fed up with kicking, but yes as you point out the ELV's made more kicking.......oh wait, that doesnt make much sense.....

ah im guessing its to do with more scrums....oh wait, you have to actually stop the game get the forwards together set for a scrum, when the Scrum H cant put it in cos the scrum is moving reset it, then repeat....yeh thats quicker...

Oh yeeeeah, and there i was thinking mauls were a skill in rugby and the hard graft by the forwards was skillful and well worked, but yeh lets get rid of those because every forward knows collapsing a maul isnt dangerous....im sure all you locks like me are aware that having your head up another players arse and someone stepping on your balls is a fantastic asset when someone collapses a maul!

oh and more rucks....you mean like the ones scotland was defending against....(dying minutes of the game on scot try line...)

so yeh, more rugby, well the last i heard rugby had a rule book, but you obviously want to change it to make it more 'fair' on your team....

and like no.7 has stated a billion times since when was rugby about the people watching it?

By Nathan, at November 24, 2009 12:25 am
isnt the elvs, supposed to be an experiment, how can you give up trying so quickly

By zacaria, at November 24, 2009 12:25 am
Roll on six nations
and England are coming to murryfield :)

By Anonymous, at November 24, 2009 12:29 am
Bill i have to add i do agree in one respect that ping pong rugby is boring as fuck to watch, and as a forward playing when the backs are kicking the bloody ball back and forth sometimes you end up standing still on the halfway line after you have run back and forth 3 or 4 times. but the fact is, as a player you go out there to give it your all and hopefully win, if i give it my all in the scrums lineouts and rucks and my team wins via ping pong and penalties i come off the pitch feeling satisfied because i know i gave 100% and we came out with a win....im a forward, like hell im interested in a pretty game....if neat passes and offloads come into it im all game but im just as much into any game if its anything but that!

By Nathan, at November 24, 2009 12:29 am
Australia had a bad game,so what.
but remember they are still 3rd on the IRB rankings,and not by chance.
they had a long season...more than 9 months,so yeah...they lost,big deal.
and to the people who reckon france will win the next world cup...catch a wake up...it aint gonna happen.
from a bok fan !!!!

By J.p, at November 24, 2009 12:29 am
well its a big deal to scot fans whose team hasnt performed well for a while now......and its obviously a big deal to aussies otherwise there wouldnt be sore losers commenting.....

and it is a big deal seeing as how the SH fans came up to the NH spouting pearls of wisdom about how 'the SH wont lose a single match to the NH' .......

so yeh, its a big deal.

By Nathan, at November 24, 2009 1:11 am
also i forgot to mention, as you appear to think that the irb rankings mean a lot you also confirm that it is a big deal.....

a team that ranks 9th beat a team that is ranked 3rd.......

so yeh....is it still not a big deal?

so yeh if thats not a big deal what is?

By Nathan, at November 24, 2009 1:16 am
Nathan, the IRB did a study post 2003 WC.
The study was by an independent auditor. A big part of it was to determine where the game stood in developing, struggling or non-rugby markets in particular.
The study found alot of negatives. One of the big things was (and ironically this has been exacerbated in recent seasons, not reduced) that the ball was in play less than 50% of the 80 minutes. In play includes everything , set pieces, kicking, everything. That means that more than half the time players are walking around or watching the ref blow his whistle.
The ELVs changed that, the nature of the game wasn't fundamentally different (most of the rules were the same, it was the punishments meted out that were the biggest change).
What heppened is that players still kicked quite alot (not as much as now though - and as a percentage not one bit more than they did before the ELVS), there were actually alot more scrums proportionatley or as a percentage, there were many more rucks, many more tackles, more runs, more passes. This resulted in defences being streched, offenses getting periods of play where they kept the defenders backpedalling and could gain some ascendancy, and defences getting more tired as they're asked to make more tackles. This in turn resulted in more line breaks, more croken tackles and of course more tries and end to end play.
The tri-nations 2008 was the most entertaining in many years, exciting, open and lots of tries, tackles, kicks, scrums, you know rugby and stuff.

Oh and that thing with cheating at the ruck, I'm afraid it didn't really happen, in fact the ball came out quicker and there was less of a problem at ruck time. Why is open for debate, perhaps refs were slightly more leniant, perhaps because defences were often on the back foot they couldn't commit numbers to the breakdown.

What I'm saying is great defence, tackling, kicking and playing for field position certainly has a place in rugby. At the moment though, it's pretty much all that matters.
No one wants to run the ball anymore, it's too dangerous, there's no advantage in it.
kicking is everything. Kick, chase, bash. That's everyone's game plan, and it's mind numbing.
I remember Lomu storming down the wing, Larkham cutting thru the middle, Robinson dancing thru defences, the great backline moves of the old days. You don't see it muych at all these days. Just grinding boring rugby, ball up the jumper stuff.
And it's more that way than it's ever been.

But agin, I'm discussing this because it came up in the blog.

No disrespect to Scotland, they tackled their hearts out, and Australia was disgustingly wasteful with chance after chance.

But if this kind of game is the new norm of rugby, the game is in trouble in alot of countries.

By Bill, at November 24, 2009 2:14 am
Oh, and Nathan, I'm a forward too mate.
But I watch the game too.
An pro rugby is most certainly about the people watching are you kidding?
Park rugby might be about the team playing, but when entire pro leagues are set up, tv deals signed, player paid huge wages, stadiums built and massive global events are organised, it is very much about the people watching (you know, the ones ultimatley paying for all this).
If you drive away the fans (it's happening in some of rugby's oldest and historically strongest markets) you kill the game proffesionally in that country.

By Bill, at November 24, 2009 2:59 am
mate i had another look at the game and elsom scored that try, it was as clear as day. and i think people need to learn the laws of union because that supposed forward pass left the hands in a backward motion.

By Syd_Bazza, at November 24, 2009 3:31 am
Ok bill you sound like you know your stuff and you sound like a great chap. Im aware lots of money is at stake but the game is not about those that watch, and if those that watch find it boring then hopefully they'll sod off......

By Nathan, at November 24, 2009 3:39 am
Bazza

Not true mate. Rugby (union at least - I don't know about league) has not got a momentum law. If you pass the ball, and it lands on the ground or is caught by another player in front of where you passed it from, then it has gone forwards.

The direction that it starts in, either relative to the passer, receiver or to the goal-lines is irrelevant. It could initially go backwards according to all those planes of reference, but if, for example, it was then blown forwards, a scrum would still be awarded.

By HM, at November 24, 2009 4:02 am
Actually no Hm, I'm afraid not.
The rule is strange and refers to the action the player uses to pass. he has to make a passing motion backwards. Technically (and it's open to interpretation, which is the problem) that could mean if it then travels forward thru the air it might still be considered legal.
But this was a forward pass, by a meter or two.
Elsom did score though, and to be fair, Australia got very little of anything from the ref the whole game.
It happens when you play away from home though.
It would have been nice if the ref had not blown his whistle quite so much though.

By Bill, at November 24, 2009 4:33 am
Nathan I'm not worried so much about the money mate.
The issue is that in some countries (in my country and a couple other where rugby has long held an important place in people's minds) fans are losing interest in huge numbers.
Not just fair-weather fans either, true rugby fans, people who grew playing and watching the game.
Because it's not the game we all grew up watching and playing anymore.
It's cynical, defensive, dominated by kicking and refs, and at times incredibly boring.
It's a real problem mate, maybe not in your country, but certainly in mine.

By Bill, at November 24, 2009 4:41 am
AGREED, its a sad prospect but its true Rugby is slipping.

By Anonymous, at November 24, 2009 8:06 am
Under the ELV, the ball spent more time in play because they're in the air rather being being booted into touch. I'm open minded about the it tbh, but I think the IRB totally screwed up the trial.
Scotland has always been able to throw the bath tub at you when least expect it. Few years ago when they beat France in the 6 nations they made well over 200 tackles (back row contribute 54) Now they have a beefed up pack as well.

By vinniechan, at November 24, 2009 9:10 am
nathan mate I suggest you stop your shouting of how great the NH rugby is mate. i tried to enjoy some magners league the other day and mate i have never disliked rugby as much as i did when i was watching. mate the game ended up having 0 tries. 0!!! how can you enjoy such a travesty to the game? it seems like the whole mindset up north is to get into the oppos 22 not to score a try but to kick a penalty. there has to be something done about this. IRB to make penalties worth 1 point? I THINK SO. They also need to start upping the anti with yellow cards (except its not 10 minutes its 2 minutes) so anyone who infringes gets an instant yellow and repeat ingringers get a red. Imagine the space and the tries.

By Cameron Maxted, at November 24, 2009 9:14 am
Cameron you're an idiot if you think a good rugby match has to have tries. Get off this site and go to a rugby league one. You obviously aren't a proper rugby player.Sometimes the best games have no tries. Muppet.

By Anonymous, at November 24, 2009 10:59 am
Bill you are so wrong, pro rugby is about the team. When there's money, jobs, livelihoods at stake you play to your strengths, to win any way you can (hence fake blood incidents etc). Becasue you need to win matches to get places in the cups, higher up the leagues and therefore keep your job. To those people complaining about rugby dying i'd appreciate it if you stopped complaining and didn't wtch it then, because being a rugby player i can appreciate all aspects of rugby union not just the skills involved in running. Yes there are skills involved in tactical kicking (Carte is brilliant at this), there are skills in malling, and picking and driving to retain posession for a drop goal is also fantastic to watch, thats rugby. If you don't like it then why are you on here?

By Andy, at November 24, 2009 11:10 am
Lol at giteau

By Anonymous, at November 24, 2009 1:15 pm
So Scotland never looked like scoring a try then? Not even when Genia held onto the ball on his own try line with 3 Scotland players standing over him trying to rip it?

Scotland were lethal with the ball. We had 4 scoring opportunities and took 3 of them. Then we eased off the gas and hung back knowing we could soak up the Aussie pressure. Let them make a game of it.

By Alistair Hutton, at November 24, 2009 1:31 pm
andy, others.
Sure, look, Scotland should be happy.
They played the game well, good on them.
Australia played badly.
I'm talking about the game more generally.
You'd apreciate me not watching it?
Well, that's nice.
I keep watching, I care about the game, played it for 20 years, still coach the game.
And you know what I teach my players at the moment?
To kick the ball, smash the guy when he catches it, try to win penalties.
It's a damn shame, cuz I'd love to encourage them to pass, run, hang onto the ball. You know, play rugby.
But I don't because we'll lose.
And if you think pro rugby is about the handful of players good enough to get to that level, you're kidding yourself.
You think pro rugby would exist, or even matter without the fans?
Of course it wouldn't.
In Aus and NZ the game is dying a sad death.
If you are happy about that, great.
I think it's a goddamn shame, and I'd like to see it stopped.
In terms of the ELVs, the irony is that the NH happily voted for the vast majority of the rules they bothered to trial.
The one that mattered, that made the game open, entertaining and a game of skill again, that's the one they didn't bother to even trial.
Again, that's a damn shame.
In terms of the amount of kicking, I'll say it one more time, hopefully this time it might sink in.
Their was slightly less kicking as a percentage of balls played under the ELVS, thought the percentage was almost exactly the same.
It meant that while there was as much kicking (in other words, the game was basically the same) there was an increase of all kinds of play. More running, kicking, tackling etc. This meant defenses were asked to do more, it resulted in more line breaks, broken tackles and tries. End to end play, the way the game was for decades.
The irony is that the NH voted in rules, that without the free kick rule, actually mean more kicking.
But hey, if you want to see arial ping pong, you'd be happy with the way it all turned out.
But don't dare complain about there not being enough tries in comps like the GP.
This is the way you wanted it.

By Bill, at November 24, 2009 1:55 pm
Bill, I suggest you give up your coaching job because you don't understand the game. Those experimental laws made for an atrocious, scrappy "spectacle" and the quick tap nonsense made the sport feel too similar to that league garbage. It's a shame you can't appreciate rugby... maybe when (if) the Wannabies start winning again you'll see the light?

By Capey, at November 24, 2009 2:42 pm
Well cameron i was not suggesting the NH rugby is fantastic actually, i personally think this hemisphere thing is bullshit, the fact is you SH supporters come up here, like i said, spouting this SH will not lose a match to the NH bullshit, and then SA lose some midweek games and lose to france, Australia draw with ireland and lose to scotland........im sorry but what do you expect?

you come up here with your chests puffed out trying to look and act like gods gift and talking down everyone else in sight, what do you think is gonna happen? if you lose do you think people will just say 'aww unlucky' or do you think they will say 'im glad you cocky bunch of lads lost....!'

i mean, NZ cried last year over wales standing up to the haka. i only bring this up because i watched it recently and thought, well no wales have all the right too, NZ come up to their HOME ground and put up a challenge, and wales stand there ground!

JUST AS US NH SUPPORTERS ARE STANDING OUR GROUND!!!

Yes its not pretty but we won!

its not all about tries anyway, but then i guess if you have ever played a game you would know that!

playing club rugby, some of the best games i've ever played have had little or no tries, because they were close fought and hard worked. We played a team 2 leagues above us and the final score was 6-3. it was fantastic, because we were playing out of our league and even the opposition agreed it was a great game.

you however are still stuck in your little world where 'if it doesnt work for you, change it!'

and what is this business with 2 min yellow cards? bloody hell. why dont you create your own sport and go away, im sure you and your mates will have fun playing it, whilst the rest of us enjoy rugby!!.

As for the ELV's i dont like them, i think the rules that have been introduced now are fine, as for the rest...why change the game?!?

By Nathan, at November 24, 2009 3:19 pm
Here's an idea - you can only kick the ball in the 22.

Think about it, you are allowed to kick to clear your lines and you are allowed to kick penalties if they occur in the oppo's 22. Otherwise no kicking in between.

Could it work?

By Ted, at November 24, 2009 3:24 pm
Bill im sorry, you are now talking rubbish, yes PRO rugby might not exist but it wont stop nation playing nation......you look at the old games of rugby (back in the day before lifting in the lineouts etc) there are players there that have it as a part time career. so really its not the fact that the game has changed, just the players. it has become a pro sport.....and really it wont die a death if money isnt flooded into it.......

so i will say rugby is about a handful of players who got to that level....its just 'that level' has increased because players are taking the game as a career!

you telling me that without the money those players wouldnt play the sport?

By Nathan, at November 24, 2009 3:24 pm
Ted your idea is ok, although i prefer the idea of not changing the game! what is wrong with chipping and chasing, what is wrong with up and unders.....think about it, if a team clears their lines from inside their 22 and the ball doesnt go out and you are a lone fullback with the opposition hammering it back towards you and your team running back, are you just going to run the ball back at them? like hell, if you want to end up on the wrong end of things 90% of the time, you are going to kick it back, i dont see why people cant understand that?!?! that is a simple concept no? and so you cant start saying 'no kicking' or yes you can kick sometimes but not others, because otherwise you end up with a grey area like when someone is lying on the ball, the old days (now im talking about 3-4 years ago? or less? a quick show of studs and 'hey presto' they were suddenly able to move, now i have been carded by some refs because i (this is hand on heart honesty) put a boot on someone who was killing the ball with little very little weight and that is not allowed......then another game i do it, and the ref is next to me, no questions asked or anything.....

im not saying its a bad change, we have all been genuinely stuck when the front row decide to clean their studs on you...(not nice) but it happened and you didnt worry until after the game....

I dunno, im getting bored with all of this, personally i dont think anything should be changed because then you end up with ridiculous experimental laws like 'lets pull down mauls' (yeh great fun until you lose a testical or break your neck!)

By Nathan, at November 24, 2009 3:55 pm
" Cameron Maxted said...
to the anon above, could not agree it was as boring as watching the Melbourne marathon (but at least that has some RUNNING in it)

All i can say is the Wallabies did NOT lose. Rugby LOST. I think the IRB should ban Scotland from playing rugby if thats the way they're going to try and play the game. It is total spoiling tactics/not in the spirit of the game and shows bad sportsmanship on Scotlands part!!!"

Typical SH, and more specificly, typicly Australian. You lost, period. You probably couldn't defend like that even if you wanted. Congratulations are in order for Scotland for such great heart, courage, hard work and perseverance. As it has been said before by some, some of the best games I ever played were games with very few points, but where you grinded the other team for those points. The values rugby has teached since the beggining have been camaraderie, honor, chivalry, flair, but also perseverance, courage and hard work.
Plus, someone that would here you speak would think that you're team is the best in the world, and is currently on a winning streak and producin one quality, entertaining and thrilling game after another, instead of being bled to death by the other tri nation teams.

"Oh but rugby is boring nowadays and all that crap". Be that as it may, there's still some emotion left, aparently. I bet you weren't expecting to loose to Scotland, were you? Ain't that a kick in the head?!?!?!

By Xavier, at November 24, 2009 4:01 pm
honestly, not one hemisphere is better than the other.

any team could win in any given match.

DUH...

By Anonymous, at November 24, 2009 4:15 pm
You must remember Australia only has sport. The country has no culture and no history, sport is everything. So when they lose they take it really personally.

I also love it how these fools brag about their mighty league team. Yeah, your team is so dominant because you only compete against Northern England and South Auckland!!

By The Art of Rugby, at November 24, 2009 4:35 pm
Let's not tar all the Aussies with the same brush just because there's a couple of kids on here shooting their mouths off. I know lots of Aussies and they're all good blokes who like their rugby. Slagging off a whole country is just dumb.

By Kev, at November 24, 2009 6:01 pm
Yeh have to agree. as bad as some of the aussie fan commes are, there is no need to insult cultures etc.

By No.7, at November 24, 2009 7:13 pm
Look, I was discussing the game generally, because it came up in the blog.
But I can't recall a rugby fan from the NH seeing it the way I do since the ELVs came about.
That's fine, I guess that's just the way it is.
I can only talk from my perspective though. From where I'm sitting, the game is struggling, but that's just my part of the world.
I think it is interesting though that even though you get the odd person who puts forward a sound rational argument, when it comes to the ELVs alot of the stuff from NH rugby fans is either irrational or emotive.

In terms of this game, Scotland defended very, very well all game and Australia was ridiculously wasteful, and Gitaeu horribly inaccurate with the boot. Australia deserved to lose.
Scotland have a very solid team, very good at the fundamentals.

Aus are struggling to adapt to Deans' game plan.
He has them playing a type of rugby they are not familiar with.
Basically he wants them to play what's in front of them, play instinctively.
Traditionally Australia have always had a very structured approach to the game, with many rehearsed backline moves and different strategies prepared to test the opposition defense.
To go to the kiwi style of trusting your instincts in every situation and relying on your teammates to understand what you're doing and support you is very hard for these players.
Let's be honest, the kiwis have always had better players (than anyone really) and the way Australia has competed with countries like them is to out-think them and out-plan them before the game even starts.

By Bill, at November 24, 2009 10:48 pm
Hey the Art of rugby, we've also got the most resilient economy in the western world.
Sport and the best economy.
So even when the wallabies lose, at least we can still afford to drink ourselves stupid.

By Anonymous, at November 24, 2009 10:51 pm
I think rucking should be brought back as it will speed up the game no end. It will stop players lying in the way at the breakdown and the game will be come quicker as a result. As long as it is refereed properly to make sure there's no rucking of peoples heads then why not?

Oh and congratulations to Scotland - you did what Ireland didn't quite manage and England could only dream of. Nice work there too Mr Giteau. Do you have any Scottish ancestry?

http://studsonthe22.blogspot.com/

By Bamberio, at November 25, 2009 12:11 am
To the anon above... you are kiding, right?

resillient does not equal best. largest, most dominant, vibrant, dynamical and a load of other adjectives combined may equal best.

If you have the best economy in the world, you guys got to be the most humble country in the world, for "allowing" London, New York, Tokio and all those the economic centers of the world. What does herr... Sidney, Camberra (I dont know, eventhough trying to follow world economics I dont really notice Aus) have?

All the other Aussies dont take this personally, just wanted to shut this guy up.

Hey, Ill give you this, the funny vids Rugby Dump plays from the Aussie TV show The Rugby Club are hilarious, so you have your rugby AND rugby related humour

By Xavier, at November 25, 2009 1:03 am
Bringing back rucking would have a threefold effect, all good.

Firstly, it would remove one of the reasons for an attacking team to be penalised (i.e. using the boot to free the ball). This would reduce the number of penalties.

Secondly, in the 'sub-penalty' region, where the defender lying on the ball isn't quite there for long enough to give away a penalty, it would speed up the ball for the attacking side, increasing the chances of tries being scored.

Thirdly, by allowing players to take matters into their own hands, it would reduce the number of penalties given to attacking sides (i.e. before the ref had to blow, the offender would be removed, and would be dissuaded from doing it in the first place).

In addition, it would give us some good old fashioned stud marks to compare in the bar afterwards, with the guys that gave them to us!

If anyone has a counter-arguement I'd love to hear it.

By HM, at November 25, 2009 1:30 am
definately agree here about using the studs, i've had similar incidents to the ones described where some refs sort of allow some use of studs sometimes......and some dont, so its so grey and messy!

I completely agree that it will reduce slower game play....

By No.7, at November 25, 2009 1:55 am
Well Xavier, I guess I rate us the best because we're the only western nation not to go into recession in the last couple years.
But I was only joking around anyway.
It's stupid to attack a whole country over a game of rugby.

By Anonymous, at November 25, 2009 3:13 am
Sadly, rucking is gone for good.
In this day and age they just don't want everyone seeing guys get rucked out of the way.
Back in the old days rucking did help clear the rucks, but there was alot more taking the law into your own hands generally.
The thing about rucking is that it could be pretty brutal, nothing life-threatening, but ears getting torn off and alot of blood injuries.
It didn't look good on tv, so they got rid of it.
I doubt they'll bring it back now.

By Bill, at November 25, 2009 3:19 am
This is a good article on rugby atm :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/owen_slot/article6929501.ece

By Anonymous, at November 25, 2009 3:27 am
Yeh bill i know what you mean, but the thing is, if rucking was brought back you could still have the laws in place nowadays which would result in SEVERE (and hopefully the IRB would uphold them) penalties if players put boots on head and necks.....

i mean i remember before sticking boots on chumps was removed they did the whole stepping on joints laws....but there is nothing wrong with those...

Players end up cut and bleeding happens nowadays anyway....

I think the real issue here is 'lets put on a pretend match for people who cant handle the real thing'

rucking is removed....we lose the speed of the ball....then we introduce ELV's which i think are bad, and eventually we end up with a different game!

By No.7, at November 25, 2009 5:04 am
Sure, but the game is always changing anyway No7.
The game today is very different from what it was 20 years ago for example.
That's not inherently a bad thing, it just depends on what changes you're talking about.
The game seemed basically the same to me under the ELVs, just more open and exciting. Alot faster too. The ref didn't have as much sway on the outcome of the game, it came down to what the players were doing.
I mean the 2008 Tri-nations were definitely still rugby union, and exciting rugby at that.
The other thing, that people seem to repeatedly ignore, is the the NH trialled alot of the ELVs, then proceeded to vote in the majority of those. The only ones they really ended up having a problem with was the maul rule.
I can't help think what might have been had they not been so pig-headed and had bothered to trial the main rule, the free kick ELV.
After all, they ended up embracing 90% of the rules they bothered trialling.
With rucking, enforcing a no heads or joints rule is damn near impossible. What happened last time will happen this time, ie refs will start blowing more and more penalties for illegal rucking, until no one does it for fear of getting pinged, and eventually we drop it again altogether.
Rucking is not the answer to all the problems anyway, definitely not. There would be just as much kicking. Defensive dominance at ruck time is usually quite legal under the current rules. Defenses are rarely on the back foot these days and can commit large numbers to the breakdown.

By Bill, at November 25, 2009 8:37 am
Yes, bring back rucking. Botha will have a field day

By McBull, at November 25, 2009 9:16 am
oh come on bill, how many times have you watched an international match and seen a scrum half having to dig out a ball from under someone...not long ago if there was a defensive player anywhere near the ball he was launched out the way, and quite often he did it himself!..rucking is the answer!

ok forget about the joints rule, but you can enforce it because look at the camera's nowadays, you will just get citings left right and centre! and that isnt a bad thing......'you follow the rules or you sit out!'

and if you have heavy laws for contact with head then players will no doubt still do it, as they do it today, but the more heavy penalties the more discouraged they will be!

I dont like the free kick rule either, it gives defensive players the chance to slow things down without the risk of penalty points!

now if you however feel that maybe penalty kicks should be reduced to 2 points then i will be more inclined to agree, because then to you would have to score 3 kicks to be safe from a try (no conversion) which will make players less likely to take the points!

By No.7, at November 25, 2009 10:55 am
I think rucking might help a bit, though not a great deal.
The reason being the problem isn't as much players lying over the ball as it is that teams are leaglly dominating the breakdown area on defence.
The free kick ELV freed up the game. There was basically the same contest at the breakdown as there is now but two things occurred which meant the offense was able to get on the front foot.
one was that refs were much quicker to blow for ruck infringements. They didn't feel any pressure not to give penalties since free kicks weren't as significant in the overall outcome of the game. It meant defenses weren't getting away with as much as they are now. It also allowed the game to restart quickly, and gave the offense the chance to get a roll on.
The other thing is that refs still gave penalties at ruck time, for repeated infringements or foul play.
The other thing is that because the game itself was quicker under the ELVs, the defenses were more easily stretched, and weren't able to commit large numbers to the breakdown or tackle as they do now.
With the speed of the game atm, you're seeing gang tackles of four or five players, who quickly swamp the ruck.
Offenses are going backwards, hence the kicking to get the ball away.

With rucking, I wouldn't mind at all if it came back, though I doubt it ever will. It's just not PC enough.

By Bill, at November 25, 2009 11:46 am
sounds like elv's are just put in place to help the offence to me......

and i dont think that the team that has the ball needs any more help. If its a strong and quality enough team then they will make something of it.

If they cant they dont deserve it! (Aus-Scot)

By No.7, at November 25, 2009 2:17 pm
Why do the SH teams always bring up this North vs South issue anyway? It ain't really a big deal to us in the NH. Do they have an instinctive desire to take revenge on their former colonial masters?
Its OK guys, you cant drop the inferiority complex ... we are all equal :)

By Anonymous, at November 25, 2009 8:12 pm
On the 5th of July 2008, the All Blacks played South Africa in Wellington. The All Blacks won 19-8. However, Jimmy Cowan played that test as a reserve but did not get that test. So on the All Blacks website, it says he got 31 tests instead of 32. I wish this to be fixed immediately as it is misleading.

By Anonymous, at November 25, 2009 11:50 pm
The SH vs NH is actually more prevelant in NH newspapers and media than it is down south.
It has been going for decades. It is a bit inane, but most sporting rivalries are. It's because the game has traditionally been very different south and north.
There has also been alot of resentment up north, as for many decades the SH teams were damn near unbeatable. These days it's alot more competetive. SH fans tend to be pretty patronising about it, it's kind of sport to wind NH fans up I guess. Pretty juvenile, for sure.
No7, if you don't want to help the offense, what you'll see is more and more kicking, less attacking play and games decided by penalties and the ref's whistle.
If you're happy with that, than fine.
I personally think that would be terrible, and I know it's killing the game's popularity in my part of the world. When you consider that my part of the world has traditionally been one of rugby union's strongest markets, that's a real concern.
See down south, fairly or not, we tend to see the NH unions as draggin their feet on change to the detriment of the game.
Do you know that most NH unions opposed proffesionalism?
That most opposed the World Cup?
It's easy to see how the ELVs have been rejected the samew way.
IE a reactive and instinctive rejection of change because it's been proposed by the SH.
Burying your heads in the sand is the term that sprongs to mind.

By Bill, at November 26, 2009 12:34 am
Bill im not sure you had your facts right with this NH SH debate, i havent yet read anything from the NH regarding a NH SH debate.....prove me wrong, give me something to read.....and as i recall it isnt often that NH fans are actually NH fans, we tend to support our own teams.....it is only of late that i have seen NH fans turn around and say 'yaaay congratulations france, im happy you won against SA' etc because SH fans came onto this site with comments like 'SH wont lose a single match to the NH' so what happened when leicester beat SA and scot beat Aus, and ire got a draw with Aus, the NH fans loved it because it was a chance to group together and laugh!

yes we all know leicesters win was against a lower class SA team, and NH fans would probably be more inclined to have agreed with SA fans over that fact, but because of the cockyness, we all reverted to the 'im sorry, were they not wearing the SA rugby jersey, therefore representing SA' which i might add is true, but the score would have probably been different had it been the SA team that played france etc...

Anyway....i personally dislike the free kick rule in the ELV's.....i think if anything i would still stay with reducing penalties to 2 points.

By No.7, at November 26, 2009 1:04 am
http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyunion/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rugby/09/11/24/RUGBYU_Wales_Nightlead.html
That's Gatland tlaking about "taking a southern hemisphere scalp"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/3099484/All-Blacks-reject-French-lack-of-respect-claims
The interesting thing in this one is Henry repeatedly being asked about the 'hemisphere battle' by french media
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/ireland-primed-to-claim-southern-hemisphere-scalp-1820460.html
More talk of 'claiming a southern hemisphere' scalp - a running cliche it seems.

But look, it happens both in the south and the north.
It doesn't matter.

Here's a more relevant article to the discussion we're having :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/nov/26/irb-six-nations-tri-nations-strategy

It points out quite succinctly that winning rugby at the moment means low-risk, up the jumper, defensive, kicking rugby.
It's getting worse and worse.

By Bill, at November 26, 2009 2:14 am
Wet game in rainy conditions...fantastic tackling. I'm a back and usually enjoy great running over slowly working up the field, but this game was just brilliant...not every minute of it, mind you, but the defense by Scotland was top class.

Haha, and Nathan Hines didn't lose it and punch anyone (that I'm aware of) for once....so good for him.

Shocker from Giteau. Normally, I'd put my money on the little guy, but this was awful. Almost as bad as Steyn's game - except SA won in the end.

I don't know what all this talk of league is about. I'm pretty sure the packed stadiums are proof union isn't in any trouble (at least in the NH, maybe it is in the SH where the ANZ Cup final was almost empty and I've never seen or heard of an internationally-televised Aussie domestic competition).

By Flapjack, at November 26, 2009 3:42 am
Also, as a back, I never really got much difference from the ELVs. I had no problem with them, but no problem with the majority being abandoned. The only ones I actually appreciate were kept - with the quick lineout going backwards and the bringing it into the 22 rules. I liked the idea of being able to pull down the maul (keeps it rolling and the ball moving hands), but I'm not a forward, so if they say it's worse, then they're probably right.

By flapjack, at November 26, 2009 3:45 am
flapjack, you're in the north, so you never actually tiralled the main ELV.
The one that actually made the difference.
And that's the irony, because the game is doing well in Europe off the back of the WC, it is going down the tubes in the Pacific, a part of the world where it was traditionaly very strong.
It may sound conceited, and I apologise for that, but in the south we tend to be a few years ahaead of you guys in the effects of proffesionalism.
We went pro before you lot (hence our dominance in the early years of proffeisonalism). We too had the heady days, where rugby seemed to be expanding at a never ending, exponential rate, crowds getting bigger every year, revenue pouring into the game.
Then it started slowing down and going into reverse. My belief is the same thing is happening in Europe, you're just in a different stage of that cycle.
Just a short example, the Wartahs averaged 35,000 per home gate six years ago, and were talking about moving permanently to the 80,000 seater Olympic Stadium in Sydney.
These days they average 20,000 and are struggling just to get them coming back.
The funny thing is you're starting to see the rumblings now in the north, the agitation for change is just begining.
Down south we don't knwo whether to laugh or cry. We've been talking about it for 6 years, and you guys are just starting to pick up on it.
Just like going pro, took the north about a decade of us hammering away with the logic of it before you embraced. Look at the game now as a result, atronomically bigger than it was.
The world cup is another example. It took Australia dn NZ about ten years of badgering before the NH lot agreed (with France as a notable exception - historically they have been the only NH nation open to change and opportunity).
And look at the WC now, the biggest thing in the sport and the driver of the game.
I'm old enought to remember having incredibly frustrating conversations with NH fans about how they felt the WC was thwe wrost thing for the game ever and would ruin it.
I'm having the same conversations now about the ELVs.

By Bill, at November 26, 2009 3:56 am
Oh and Flapjack, the vast majority of the ELVs were accepted, not rejected.
Which is dumb, because without the free kick ELV, the rest don't iopen the game up at all.

By Bill, at November 26, 2009 4:10 am
Just to clarify, I'm in the US, Bill. So, if you're saying the NH is years behind the SH (which I'm neither agreeing with nor disputing - though I suspect you're right in some cases), we're decades behind then, a lot of the time.

For example, I'm just proud as a peach to have two players from the US national team playing for top-level teams abroad (Clever at the Lions and Ngwenya at Biarritz).

If you say the NH didn't trial all of the ELVs, we trialled even less - at least at college club level where many times, half the players on either side could be confused about the rules of the game.

It's a weird debate, and it might just be stronger where League actually has a presence (it's pretty never played here, unless I'm mistaken) -- an argument against the ELVs was that it would "turn the game into rugby league!" but then when there's a game like this with a score of 9-8, people call it stale and say that fans are "flocking to league"...then it would stand that the ELVs would improve union....but people blame the ELVs for the recent jump in mid-field ping-pong kicking back and forth because you can't bring it back into the 22 to kick out on the full, so they just lob it down the field to make some territory...I dunno.

We've been struggling to even get rugby rolling here in the US - and probably will forever do so - so I don't think we worry about whether or not fans are more interested in another version of the same game...

By flapjack, at November 26, 2009 8:08 am
I have no idea what people didn't like Scotland vs Australia. Most exciting international since Lions vs Boks, Test 2.

By Anonymous, at November 26, 2009 8:18 am
Well Bill.............not much i can say.......

The only thing i will say though.... remember where Gatland comes from....couldnt read it either cos it says its not there anymore :-/

Anyway, i have no more to say, im happy with the ELV's that are in place at the moment, if any change its still the 2 point penalty!

By No.7, at November 26, 2009 7:05 pm
i'm from a SH nations, not going to say which but in my opinon, a NH team beating a SH team is just embarrassing. Come on Australia your letting the team down!

By Anonymous, at November 27, 2009 10:14 am
200!!

ELV's were rubbish. Leave the game alone.

By Anonymous, at November 27, 2009 3:54 pm