From today's Daily Telegraph.
How England's 'violent and absorbing' World Cup encounter against France in 1991 compares to today
Because too many refuse to heed Government advice, it appears we head for ever tighter restrictions in activity. I, like thousands of others, have been bemoaning the absence of live sport on our TV screens this week as it has only just occurred to us what a central role it plays in our lives. Indeed, there is serious consideration being given to try to get sport back to the screens, even if played behind closed doors, simply to bolster the mental health of supporters during these trying times.
It appears that World Rugby has also recognised the need for morale-raising measures as it is releasing several old classic games, the first of which happened to be one of my favourite games and certainly the most memorable. The France vs England quarter-final of the 1991 World Cup was an intense, violent and absorbing encounter and for a bit of fun, I agreed to live tweet throughout the game, which was shown via Facebook and then YouTube.
I made the gesture because I thought it would be a bit of fun and something different for my followers, I seriously underestimated the power of memory and the significance of that game in my life.
To start with, Saturday morning passed slowly, even accounting for the self-imposed lockdown. Yet as it progressed, I found myself getting increasingly agitated and that wasn’t just to do with the activities of my young twin girls. It wasn’t the full pre-match nausea I used to feel before games, but nor was it just a bit of anxiousness. As it came to the moments before kick-off and I saw the pictures of us standing facing the French in the tunnel, I got the full shudder down my spine. The run onto the pitch was something, but the experience of the anthems was that notch more intense.
As the game ebbed and flowed I found the memories I had from pitch-level flooded back and I tried to give an honest insight into my perspective of a game that, if refereed to modern norms, would have seen France playing with nine men at the end of the game. It was so much more than a bit of fun and I was pleased that most followers found it rewarding.
What was unexpected were the judgments made by followers on many aspects of that game in relation to what goes on today.
Universal agreement on the line out – today’s clean lifting is preferable to the dockyard brawl of the past, when often the ball was won by the last man standing up in a prolonged wrestling match. Scrums are clearly a modern bone of contention and this old game merely emphasised how that set piece has regressed. The 35 scrums in that game took about as long as the average 12 per games today. Nor were scrums non-competitive, as many like to claim today.
The absence of six substitutions for both sides throughout the second half also drew applause as did the fact that rucking was still in place. No need for neck or crocodile rolls or dangerous charges into players exposed backs, just quick ball that allowed Richard Hill, the former England scrum half, to sweep the ball off the floor with laser-like speed and accuracy. The violence and too much kicking didn’t take away from the absorbing and claustrophobic atmosphere that ran throughout the match and what I had always thought of the tenseness of the ambience came across remarkably well on the screen.
Which rugby is better is an entirely subjective view. The modern common wisdom is that the game is almost unrecognisable from that period and that is propagated purposely to protect the interests of various parties and also to avoid having to answer difficult questions. ‘Why can’t we bring back rucking? - ‘The game has moved on since your day.’ ‘Why can’t have the ball put in straight?’ ‘You don’t understand modern scrums; the players are much more powerful.’ You see, seemingly irrefutable answers without actually answering the question or providing any evidence that addresses the point.
Some people said they thought the game seemed quicker back then – this isn’t the case but there is an explanation for this perception. Today’s passages of play are played out at breakneck speed, far faster than back then. However, these frenetic periods are broken up by long period where nothing goes on. The rhythm today is heading towards that of NFL games. The game back then had more a feel of rugby league with the game being restarted quickly from lineouts and scrums that didn’t have a committee meeting before each one. If the modern game wanted to it could recapture its old rhythm and have the best of both worlds – if it wanted to.
"The absence of six substitutions for both sides throughout the second half also drew applause as did the fact that rucking was still in place. No need for neck or crocodile rolls or dangerous charges into players exposed backs, just quick ball that allowed Richard Hill, the former England scrum half, to sweep the ball off the floor with laser-like speed and accuracy." I quite agree. I've always said there are far too many subs. Rugby is an eighty minute game and some of the modern players can only manage 50 - 60 minutes. As for rucking - bring it on.
Topic: Old vs New by Brian Moore. (Read 1558 times)
Always a Wasp