Rugby - See You In Ten!

[ravagon]

Sshhhh! Havak doesn't need to know that!

[finbar]

Havak's not a dill. Even he can tell that the imposter has a command of English.

[st_swithin]

Sewer rat might taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know because I'd never eat the filthy beasts.

[Andydog]

Originally posted by finbar
Okay, call me a pedant again, but given that he's more often than not flat on his back on the bar floor, I'd've said ceilings rather than roofs.

That's precisely what I meant of course. And everyone knows the only way to get puked pork pie in the eye is to heave it up on the parallel.

I see that NZ captain Reuben Thorne thinks France pose a bigger threat to the All Blacks' chances of winning the World Cup than England.

[England are] very professional and very efficient at what they do and a very strong and powerful side but I think France is going to be extremely dangerous because they're so multi-talented.

People are also talking Australia down but playing at home with the talent they've got, they're a real contender.

Doug Howlett also nominated France as the team to beat because of their 'unpredictability', saying England's forward-based game was easier to read:

I look at the French with their style of play and type of play and I think they'll be a real threat.

With the English, you know exactly what they're going to do, so you can prepare for what they're going to do in this part of the field or another part of the field.

Sounds like we’ve got England pegged Havak!

[edit: spelling]

[Frozzy]

Sorry, but Doug and Rueben need to look at the results in the previous 12 months, and redirect their priorities. If they think they should be preparing to beat France than England, then it looks like Thorne and John Mitchell with be having an Uber long Aussie holiday.

England > France, England > All Blacks.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by finbar
Even he can tell that the imposter has a command of English.

If I had a command of English I might realise that I'd just been insulted. As it is though ...


I don't much like the sound of planning to beat France while letting beating England take care of itself. That's what this new attitude sounds like to me.
That might've been applicable a few years ago but the English today are, all jokes aside, a much more capable outfit.
True they've always bolstered their own chances, (hasn't everybody?) but this time they do seem to be a real contender.
France I could see pulling off an upset or two but to actually win the RWC itself would take an effort they have not yet demonstrated.

[Andydog]

It sounds to me like they have already done the planning and know what they must do against England, but are worried about France because they can be unpredictable and can pull it off when they want to, as was demonstrated in the last world cup against NZ in the semi. Which I was at btw.

Anyway, the draw shows that England will likely face France before we face either team and I agree that it will more likely be England beats France. This weekend's game between the two will be worth watching.

[Havak]

knowing full well that it'd been almost 4 years since they'd last faced off.

Old news.

Try that we have beaten you twice in seven months. There is no wriggle room in that – whatever you Kiwis try to say that remains a fact.

More worrying for you is that despite what you may have convinced yourself we didn’t play very well in either victory.

perhaps a little more accepting of the concept of losing after electing to field a second string side ... ?

The quote isn’t from an Englander worth the name – I suspect a foreigner in disguise - and the Kiwis did not field a second string side in June – boy do the kiwis love to revisit history with their own unique (all black) spin. Reminds me of me in fact.

We fielded an under strength side and paid for it. I took some positives from the performance but I’m not sitting here saying “we won the game really” am I?

To quote Ming - "Case closed!"

Twelve out of a squad of thirty plus he used? Hardly closed!

But to stop us being side tracked here I’ll admit my (rather pointless) baiting on this one will stop. It’s hardly necessary given even their ‘first’ team can’t beat us – should they ever admit to fielding one that is

*is this subtle enough Finbar?*

Sounds like we’ve got England pegged Havak!

Filed away ready to beat you over the head with should you fail to beat us – for that’s the only test that counts isn’t it?

France are a good side – and their mercurial schizo nature is well documented – but do you really buy they are a bigger threat, baiting aside?

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
France are a good side – and their mercurial schizo nature is well documented – but do you really buy they are a bigger threat, baiting aside?

I fear that saturday's test match at Twickenham will show that the French threat is largely overestimated... IMO we are on for a "déculotée" (come on Finbar, have fun with this French colloquialism).

Havak, I hope I will have the opportunity to show you the Frog and Rosbiff ceiling this year.

[Havak]

I hope to take you up on that Tamerlin.

Lets put it this way for England - they are a damn good side and can beat anyone in the world. Doesn't mean they will. What I am prepared to stick my neck out and say is that NZ are no better - they too are a damn good side capable of beating anyone but they don;t necessarily do so...

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
IMO we are on for a "déculotée" (come on Finbar, have fun with this French colloquialism).

Sounds a bit like our "de-pantsed" and equivalents.

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Havak
Lets put it this way for England - they are a damn good side and can beat anyone in the world. Doesn't mean they will. What I am prepared to stick my neck out and say is that NZ are no better - they too are a damn good side capable of beating anyone but they don;t necessarily do so...

Agreed. But how capable would England be of beating anyone in the world without their two star players? We came within 3 of beating the number 1 team in the world with none of our star players.

(dammit my brain was saying "don't say it! don't say it!" but my fingers carried on typing and pressed Submit anyway!)

[Havak]

heh no problem.

How quickly we forget that England second and third strings have beaten everyone they faced except France over the last two years. In fact only France have beaten England at test level in two years - and only in France at that. We've lost three games in the last three years - how about you?

On a more serious note we are perfectly capable of beating teams without either Jonno or Wilko - but we tend to look a lot better with both on the field that is for sure.

France have named a fairly understrength side for the return game - so I'm not sure you'll see the 'big two' for us even on Saturday now.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
More worrying for you is that despite what you may have convinced yourself we didn’t play very well in either victory.

...and New Zealand played slightly worse than England...we must have played horribly!!

If you are prepared to admit that getting points on the board despite being down two players cannot be described as "not playing very well", then I will concede that the AB team England played this year was not "second string".

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
But to stop us being side tracked here I’ll admit my (rather pointless) baiting on this one will stop. It’s hardly necessary given even their ‘first’ team can’t beat us – should they ever admit to fielding one that is

*is this subtle enough Finbar?*

*sighs, shakes head at hours of tuition wasted*

Edit. It's nice to see the IRB has looked after England by giving them 3 SH refs out of 4 for the pool matches. The fourth being a Welshman! And I wonder how many of England's stars will feature in the match -v- Uruguay in Brisbane on November 2nd? None, I hope. The temp will be in the 30s with 85% humidity. It's sheer madness asking anyone to play rugby in those conditions.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Andydog
It sounds to me like they have already done the planning and know what they must do against England, but are worried about France because they can be unpredictable

Having now read Thorne and Howlett's remarks, that's exactly what they were saying. England is a known quantity - and a very good one - whereas the French style, by comparison, is unknown.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

I fear that saturday's test match at Twickenham will show that the French threat is largely overestimated...

France have named a fairly understrength side for the return game - so I'm not sure you'll see the 'big two' for us even on Saturday now.

Sounds as though France is going to "pull an England". ie: Field the second string team fully accepting the possibility of a loss (the reason being, of course, the fact that it was a second 15) and then come away with the one all draw.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Havak

How quickly we forget that England second and third strings have beaten everyone they faced except France over the last two years.

How quickly we forget the winning margins of those two English wins over the AB's.


It looks as though Kefu, the Wallaby vc is now out of the Australian wc squad. Apparently due to some sort of a cracked shoulder blade injury that sounded quite nasty - sustained in the last game against the AB's.

[finbar]

Yes, unfortunately, he cracked the shoulder blade running into the AB #8 in the return Tri Nations match. That's it for Totai's rugby in this country. From next season, he'll be finishing his career playing club rugby in Japan.

Of course it throws a spanner in the works for Eddie. Kefu has been the only bona fide #8 for a long time, even if he hasn't been as productive this season. The obvious replacement would seem to be young David Lyons - big, strong, good skills, can run - but the lack of someone of Kefu's experience back there is going to hurt us.

There are all sorts of rumours doing the rounds about the make up of the squad. The latest is that Owen Finegan will miss out on the basis that he's only good for a half these days. Youngsters like the Reds' John Roe are mooted, along with the experienced Matt Cockbain, who can do the job at lock and breakaway. If Eddie does go with youth, it's just a pity he didn't do it last season. Or even earlier this season.

[Havak]

...and New Zealand played slightly worse than England...we must have played horribly!!

Haven’t seen you play well against class opposition all year actually.

You played badly in June, we played badly too. England won. There’s little more to say.

If your backs fire you could destroy us – if our forwards fire we could destroy you. But it’s more likely any game would be a close and tense affair with the outcome utterly unpredictable. Better for world rugby if we win I think – breaking open the supposed SH elitist hold on the sport is vital to grow the world game in the long run. If France survive England in the tournament I’ll have to back them – only after they also exit will I ship allegiance to the ABs (they remain my personal pick of the big SH three)

If you are prepared to admit that getting points on the board despite being down two players cannot be described as "not playing very well", then I will concede that the AB team England played this year was not "second string".

But you see that’s the point I’m making – the team did not play well. The forwards were towering in defence in that period but over the whole game nothing really worked for us. Fifteen men on the park, a decent referee for once, and the forwards firing and you will see a lot better than that.

And it’s continued teasing about the touring side excuse – nothing more. Like I would believe my own baiting?

Touching on refs – I was hugely annoyed Saturday that that idiot with the Currie cup record for cardings was not warning the French for persistent and significant offside – by the time our fly half got sacked for the umpteenth time the instant he took ball from the scrummy at the scrum I was ready to kill both him and the French offenders. However fast you are you can’t do that consistently from an onside position – but he wasn’t policing that at all on Saturday.

I bet it’s another dodgy SH official Saturday (we are trying to acclimatise fro RWC so seem to have had nothing else for a year!)

And cue Tamerlin and the parade.

Edit. It's nice to see the IRB has looked after England by giving them 3 SH refs out of 4 for the pool matches. The fourth being a Welshman!

It’s a conspiracy!

To be honest I’m more worried about the taff…

I suspect you will only see the big guns against the Boks in the Pool stage – and some of them against Samoa. So yes some could only play the one game if we mess up the QF! With respect to Georgia and Uruguay we are talking second XV time – but in that humidity it may backfire on us?

How quickly we forget the winning margins of those two English wins over the AB's.

History tends to record only the results.

The loss of Kefu is catastrophic Finbar – he is the only forward I can recall carrying much ball forward for you in the tri nations!

[Havak]

Its a pretty strong side:

J Robinson (Sale); D Luger (Perpignan), S Abbott (Wasps), W Greenwood (Harlequins), B Cohen (Northampton); J Wilkinson (Newcastle), K Bracken (Saracens); T Woodman (Gloucester), S Thompson (Northampton), J White (Leicester), M Johnson (Leicester, capt), B Kay (Leicester), R Hill (Saracens), N Back (Leicester), M Corry (Leicester).

Replacements: D West (Leicester), J Leonard (Harlequins), S Shaw (Wasps), L Moody (Leicester), M Dawson (Northampton), P Grayson (Northampton), I Balshaw (Bath).

It's not quite a first team - Dallaglio, Phil Vickery, Mike Tindall all having minor injuries (as do some backup players). Healeys lack of presence does his RWC chances no good at all - but Corry's presence suggests he will be Dallys understudy. Abbott is the Bok lad and this is his big chance to stake a claim as Tindalls backup in the centres.

Oh yeah - and five Tigers in the pack, two more on the bench and not a tigers back in sight...

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
With respect to Georgia and Uruguay we are talking second XV time – but in that humidity it may backfire on us?

It's in the mid-20s in Brisbane now! I realise the games have to be spread around the place, and that Queensland is a rugby stronghold, but it's crazy playing up there at that time of year. I think there's even a minnows match scheduled for somewhere like Townsville, which is even further north.

The loss of Kefu is catastrophic Finbar – he is the only forward I can recall carrying much ball forward for you in the tri nations!

And, unfortunately, he wasn't the Kefu of old. In fact, he did a lot of his best work in the lineouts.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak


Haven’t seen you play well against class opposition all year actually.

You played badly in June, we played badly too. England won. There’s little more to say.

I would like to add that England won by a very small margin over a second string team. Other than that, you're right, there's little more to say.

If your backs fire you could destroy us – if our forwards fire we could destroy you. But it’s more likely any game would be a close and tense affair with the outcome utterly unpredictable. Better for world rugby if we win I think – breaking open the supposed SH elitist hold on the sport is vital to grow the world game in the long run.

Call me old-fashioned, but I happen to think it would be best for the game if the best team won (even if it's a *gasp* SH team).

Oh, wait. You mean if the best team happens to be a NH team it would be better for the game. I see your point, but I prefer not to dwell on the possibilty of an AB loss for too long.

But you see that’s the point I’m making – the team did not play well. The forwards were towering in defence in that period but over the whole game nothing really worked for us. Fifteen men on the park, a decent referee for once, and the forwards firing and you will see a lot better than that.

If only our team had kicked arse...we would have kicked your arse!

And it’s continued teasing about the touring side excuse – nothing more. Like I would believe my own baiting?

Perish the thought.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I would like to add that England won by a very small margin over a second string team. Other than that, you're right, there's little more to say.

Hey kids, don't you think there are better things to talk about than that:

- It's you!
- No, It's you!
- But, you started!
- No, it's you!
- ...

How many times do I have heard "a win is a win" from the southern hemisphere lads?

Oh, wait. You mean if the best team happens to be a NH team it would be better for the game. I see your point, but I prefer not to dwell on the possibilty of an AB loss for too long.

As far as I m concerned, yes I think it would be better for the game of Rugby if a NH team wins this RWC. The SH Rugby is overexposed on our televisions, you are already changing the rules through your incompetent referees and the complicity of both the IRB and the television networks striving for more and more audience. The victory of a SH team would accelerate the change and would bring us closer again to a Rugby L***** pudding played by fifteen players.

The nations that don't want to play by the rules as they are written should create their own union and leave the others play Rugby (you know, the game with off-sides, with pass forwards, big forwards and not-so-bigger backs, scrums and mauls...)

Very
Really very, very

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Hey kids, don't you think there are better things to talk about than that:

- It's you!
- No, It's you!
- But, you started!
- No, it's you!
- ...

He started it. ...

How many times do I have heard "a win is a win" from the southern hemisphere lads?

A win is a win when my team wins.

As far as I m concerned, yes I think it would be better for the game of Rugby if a NH team wins this RWC. The SH Rugby is overexposed on our televisions, you are already changing the rules through your incompetent referees and the complicity of both the IRB and the television networks striving for more and more audience. The victory of a SH team would accelerate the change and would bring us closer again to a Rugby L***** pudding played by fifteen players.

The game as we play it is nothing like l*****, and it never will be. The reason it's so popular is because it's more entertaining to watch. It's the free market mon ami.

The nations that don't want to play by the rules as they are written should create their own union and leave the others play Rugby (you know, the game with off-sides, with pass forwards, big forwards and not-so-bigger backs, scrums and mauls...)

That's the game we play down here. There's only so much a ref can do to police the offside rule though, and NH refs are far from perfect.

[jlanaway]

Hi all,

I'm in NYC this weekend...

Does anyone know of anywhere that might be showing the England vs. France rugby match - kick-off 1pm??

All help would be appreciated,

J

[Caligastia]

Question answered

[Havak]

I would like to add that England won by a very small margin over a second string team.

Not under strength in the June match. No way Jose!

Call me old-fashioned, but I happen to think it would be best for the game if the best team won (even if it's a *gasp* SH team).

You kind of saw my point with your qualifier - the best team arguably didn’t win in 91, 95 or 99 but it probably moved the world game further forward in each case than if the ABs had won all three.

And the best team will win anyway – why I mean England of course.

If only our team had kicked arse...we would have kicked your arse!

Sounds very similar to “we lost because it wasn’t out first team” don’t you think?

If and buts and could nots and did nots…

The nations that don't want to play by the rules as they are written should create their own union

They did Tamerlin – it’s called SANZAR.

He started it.

But…”you started it”…surely…

The reason it's so popular is because it's more entertaining to watch. It's the free market mon ami.

Ah the free market – well if that is to dictate Rugby then you’ll be playing to France and England’s tune within a few years – far more commercially successful you see.

And it’s only more entertaining in your opinion – I find the NH style of truly XV man rugby (where 8 are not there simply to feed the other 7 as quickly as possible) far more ‘interesting’ myself. And I’m far from alone in that view.

That's the game we play down here. There's only so much a ref can do to police the offside rule though, and NH refs are far from perfect.

I’m not sure I could be quite so proud of playing a blatantly completely illegal style – even under the sanitised modern laws. But fair play to you for backing what you believe in.

Refs could do far more to police offside – actually use their assistants for example. But NH refs are far from perfect as you say – not flawed in the same ways but in different ways. Still to see an SH crowd get angry with a ref who is punishing constant infringing after issuing clear warnings is still a sight that make me shake my head in despair for those fans…when players are warned they should adapt not keep playing what they normally ‘get away with’.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
And the best team will win anyway – why I mean England of course.

You can count on me to back England (to the exception of a France-England of course).

They did Tamerlin – it’s called SANZAR.

But…”you started it”…surely…

Next step: "de-pantsed" spank kids...

Ah the free market – well if that is to dictate Rugby then you’ll be playing to France and England’s tune within a few years – far more commercially successful you see.

And it’s only more entertaining in your opinion – I find the NH style of truly XV man rugby (where 8 are not there simply to feed the other 7 as quickly as possible) far more ‘interesting’ myself. And I’m far from alone in that view.

This is what I am thinking myself too. The problem is that the SH style appeals to the "uneducated" of the Northern Hemisphere, those that are only looking a Rugby game when it is the final of a championship or the S***** crowd that has never bothered to understand the rules and spirit of the game. The simplified version of Rugby played in the SH is made to appeal to the masses and to satisfy the needs of those who believe Rugby is limited to the act of scoring a try, those that are satisfied when a replay only shows the moment a player is crossing the try-line. As far as I am concerned a replay that does not show the action from the beginning is worth nothing as, in Rugby, the way a try is conceived is far more beautiful than the mere act of diving to score the try.

Refs could do far more to police offside – actually use their assistants for example. But NH refs are far from perfect as you say – not flawed in the same ways but in different ways. Still to see an SH crowd get angry with a ref who is punishing constant infringing after issuing clear warnings is still a sight that make me shake my head in despair for those fans…when players are warned they should adapt not keep playing what they normally ‘get away with’.

IMO the NH referees are already not good, so when they are asked to police the game in the SH way... they are terrible.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak


Not under strength in the June match. No way Jose!

*scoops bitter drinking fish into net*

You kind of saw my point with your qualifier - the best team arguably didn’t win in 91, 95 or 99 but it probably moved the world game further forward in each case than if the ABs had won all three.

Further forward in 91, and perhaps 99, but not 95. 95 was a farce.

And the best team will win anyway – why I mean England of course.

We shall see...

Ah the free market – well if that is to dictate Rugby then you’ll be playing to France and England’s tune within a few years – far more commercially successful you see.

You think so? I will certainly be interested to see if that happens. I have my doubts though...

And it’s only more entertaining in your opinion – I find the NH style of truly XV man rugby (where 8 are not there simply to feed the other 7 as quickly as possible) far more ‘interesting’ myself. And I’m far from alone in that view.

I think that's an exaggeration of the SH style. Our forwards do far more than you give them credit for.

I’m not sure I could be quite so proud of playing a blatantly completely illegal style – even under the sanitised modern laws. But fair play to you for backing what you believe in.

It's not that I believe in an illegal style. SH teams have beaten NH teams while being refereed by NH refs who are better at policing the offside law. Are you going to claim that they did this by playing a more NH style?

Refs could do far more to police offside – actually use their assistants for example. But NH refs are far from perfect as you say – not flawed in the same ways but in different ways. Still to see an SH crowd get angry with a ref who is punishing constant infringing after issuing clear warnings is still a sight that make me shake my head in despair for those fans…when players are warned they should adapt not keep playing what they normally ‘get away with’.

It a problem with consistency. As is often pointed out here.