Post by hhsussex on Feb 12, 2017 11:30:41 GMT
Two very narrow England wins so far, but two very different matches. The game against France was the worst of the old England performances, complacent and falling back so often on to set piece plays that creaked like a rusty gate hinge. In the end they were saved because a new French side was not yet sure of how to play as a unitto dashes, like swirls of cream in the top of a cup of coffee. The Wales game though was a thoroughly nail-biting affair, with both defences strained to their utmost against some very powerful multi-phase play, and though the Welsh overwhelmingly exceeded the English tackle count and regularly stole the ball from turnovers they were not quite capable of driving home those advantages. In the end the better side won, but it was a very narrow thing.
What both games have in common is to reflect the positive changes that have been introduced into Rugby in the last decade or so. The game is now a highly profesional affair, reliant on squads to carry out agreed strategies rather than a single selection of a team with a few odd replacements. Ben T'eo's contribution to this game was immense, as was that of Jamie George. They had different personal attributes than the men they replaced, but these did not predominate. They played to a team ethic and soaked up the huge physical demands of the modern game. Stars who exhibit flair and personal magnetism, such as Itoje, Brown and Farrell blend well with those who have on imporftant key role which they fulfil superbly, like Nathan Hughes, and with the stalwarts who create the platform for attack and defence, such as Launchbury and Lawes.
I wonder how Rob Andrew, who as both player and negotiator helped to bring about these very positive changes that have transformed Rugby for the spectator into a superb, enthralling spectacle of skill allied to determination, views the opportunities for cricket? I believe there is every chance that the game can get the same kind of impetus provided that there is a recognition that some things must change irrevocably. The old style semi-amateur nature of the top sides, at both club and international level, has to be replaced with something modern, fit for purpose. The crowds will come, new loyalties will be engendered, and new generations will enjoy the introduction to a fascinating game that many will pursue themselves at the level that works for them.
What both games have in common is to reflect the positive changes that have been introduced into Rugby in the last decade or so. The game is now a highly profesional affair, reliant on squads to carry out agreed strategies rather than a single selection of a team with a few odd replacements. Ben T'eo's contribution to this game was immense, as was that of Jamie George. They had different personal attributes than the men they replaced, but these did not predominate. They played to a team ethic and soaked up the huge physical demands of the modern game. Stars who exhibit flair and personal magnetism, such as Itoje, Brown and Farrell blend well with those who have on imporftant key role which they fulfil superbly, like Nathan Hughes, and with the stalwarts who create the platform for attack and defence, such as Launchbury and Lawes.
I wonder how Rob Andrew, who as both player and negotiator helped to bring about these very positive changes that have transformed Rugby for the spectator into a superb, enthralling spectacle of skill allied to determination, views the opportunities for cricket? I believe there is every chance that the game can get the same kind of impetus provided that there is a recognition that some things must change irrevocably. The old style semi-amateur nature of the top sides, at both club and international level, has to be replaced with something modern, fit for purpose. The crowds will come, new loyalties will be engendered, and new generations will enjoy the introduction to a fascinating game that many will pursue themselves at the level that works for them.
