Roly wrote:Having only had the benefit of highlights (and only seeing some of those) it appears I may be mistaken. However, I am now under the impression that Tigers scored that try very quickly after the sin-binning - didn't they have plenty of time to get just another two during that period?
From memory Tigers had about 8 minutes, during which they got frustrated at some very good (and legal) clock winding down by Sale.
This frustration led to Tiger's players straying offside, hands in the ruck etc. trying to get the ball back so they could make use of the man advantage.
It was shrewd play by Sale that deprived us of the ball.
And poor Tigers discipline by the sounds of it.
Sale aren't a team one associates with shrewd play - or at least, they didn't used to be associated with it.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
You're missing my point. Surely more tries in a game makes it more entertaining?
This is what I mean when I say I'm confused. Do you want an entertaining game with lots of tries or not? Do you think Tigers should be the ones scoring loads of tries every game without conceding any?
Do you not believe a 34-30 scoreline with 7 tries is entertaining?
Would you have preferred a win by Tigers with a 6-3 scoreline?
I'm not talking about Tigers defence being weak as this has been covered elsewhere but actually by having a weak defence it means more tries meaning a more entertaining game, does it not?
I couldn't care less how entertaining it is. I'd take a 3-0 victory with very boring play every week. I am just wondering what exactly people expect.
ellis9 wrote:You're missing my point. Surely more tries in a game makes it more entertaining?
This is what I mean when I say I'm confused. Do you want an entertaining game with lots of tries or not? Do you think Tigers should be the ones scoring loads of tries every game without conceding any?
Do you not believe a 34-30 scoreline with 7 tries is entertaining?
Would you have preferred a win by Tigers with a 6-3 scoreline?
I'm not talking about Tigers defence being weak as this has been covered elsewhere but actually by having a weak defence it means more tries meaning a more entertaining game, does it not?
I couldn't care less how entertaining it is. I'd take a 3-0 victory with very boring play every week. I am just wondering what exactly people expect.
By definition professional sport is designed to be entertaining. Remember when Wimbledon was a serve and volley fest and boring as hell. They made the balls slower and now it's more like the rest of the surfaces. The laws and format are shaped so that entertainment is the a natural by product of the game. That is why the introduced the bonus point system.
Contradicting myself when you get to the very very top the entertainment tails off because the encumbents are close to perfection, rarely make mistakes, are very professional and ruthless. Think Sarries, ABs in rugby recently, think Djokovic and Sampras in tennis, Schumacher in F1, and so on.
Entertainment is an entirely disputable term in itself.
Iain wrote:The beauty of rugby union is that entertainment comes in many different shapes and sizes.
A well executed backs move resulting in a nippy little blighter darting through is entertaining.
A well executed line out call and a collossal shove for the line is entertaining.
A pack nailing its opponents with a monumental push that results in a penalty try is entertaining.
A tight game won by a well worked drop goal is entertaining.
A huge hit breaking up a promising move is entertaining.
It's a bit of a misnomer to talk about entertainment only in terms of free flowing back play.
Totally agree again (as I often do on the FB page)
I also agree it is the defence that worries me.. But not only that when we concede tries we seem to let our heads drop, both tries against Bath I thought we didn't respond very well for 10 minutes after..
There seems to be a perception that by improving our attack we must accept we cannot defend, I do not see why that should be the case..
Ourla, you say "Professional sport is designed to be entertaining" - no it isn't. All it means is that it is someone's profession. Nowhere does it say they are entertainers.
They are professionals at playing rugby just like a doctors profession is being a doctor.
The OP sets up a straw man/ false dichotomy. Entertaining versus winning. Doesn't have to be either or. He also implies there are lots of people complaining, viz:
"For the past couple of seasons all I have seen and heard from a number of Tigers fans is how boring the rugby was and how they just want to see some entertaining rugby."
I have seen few complaints about us being boring but lots about us losing. In the amateur days, players were not in any business at all but now they are part of the sports/entertainment industry. Yes, winning is key but grinding out a sour, dour win and failing to garner bonus points and having a dreadful points difference so making life harder for ourselves at the end of the season does not fill supporters with cheer. First aim - win; then--- win well.
You obviously didn't see the posts last season about how Tigers were playing boring rugby.
Also, you say win then win well but that's what I'm saying, people do want both. The Gloucester, Wasps and the Sale games were entertaining but we lost two of them and people have been criticising the team.
What I am asking is what do you want? 4 of our 5 games have been entertaining games but we have lost 2 of them. Is this acceptable?
Would it be acceptable if we had won all of those games where neither team scored tries but we won 9-0 in a boring kick fest where the ball hardly made it past the fly halves?
ellis9 wrote:Ourla, you say "Professional sport is designed to be entertaining" - no it isn't.
Totally disagree. It absolutely has to be. If it isn't entertaining, people won't pay to watch (telly or at the game), then sponsors won't sponsor and the sport won't stay professional for long.
I would disagree slightly on the entertainment factor. The game must be played at a good competitive level to attract the sponsors. An arm wrestle defensive game could be as good as a try fest match for the rugby purist. Entertaining can be very subjective.
ellis9 wrote:Ourla, you say "Professional sport is designed to be entertaining" - no it isn't.
Totally disagree. It absolutely has to be. If it isn't entertaining, people won't pay to watch (telly or at the game), then sponsors won't sponsor and the sport won't stay professional for long.
Professional sport has to be entertaining - it's a spectator sport, after all. Looking at some of the rules we have, professional rugby union is not designed to achieve a consistently high level of entertainment.
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
ellis9 wrote:Ourla, you say "Professional sport is designed to be entertaining" - no it isn't.
Totally disagree. It absolutely has to be. If it isn't entertaining, people won't pay to watch (telly or at the game), then sponsors won't sponsor and the sport won't stay professional for long.
Professional sport has to be entertaining - it's a spectator sport, after all. Looking at some of the rules we have, professional rugby union is not designed to achieve a consistently high level of entertainment.
Rugby Union was not designed to be a professional sport. However, it could be entertaining and since going professional, many of the law changes have been made to make it more entertaining while attempting to keep the game recognisable as Rugby Union.
ellis9 wrote:Ourla, you say "Professional sport is designed to be entertaining" - no it isn't. All it means is that it is someone's profession. Nowhere does it say they are entertainers.
They are professionals at playing rugby just like a doctors profession is being a doctor.
Sorry missed this earlier in the week - although I see others have taken up the gauntlet. The very definition entertainment is that it's something people want to watch. A play, a film, a band, a sports league can exist as nothing more than a fun exercise. But once you cross the line and do it professionally, by luck or by judgement it has to be entertaining. For to do something professionally means you derive your income by it. People pay to watch, hear, play it. The less entertaining it is, the fewer people will come to see it, the less income you can derive from it.
There is the added dimension of "support" aka being "a fan". That is to say some, maybe a lot, of the entertainment is from supporting a person or team. In fact clubs cultivate that side of the entertainment in order to rely less on the "core product". Hence the concept of the "match day experience".
