Discussion
Welshbeef said:
johnfm said:
LOL. You scraped a win against the English and barely beat Fiji.
Maybe Aus will put their 2nd team out for a run again.
Hey - you lost to Wales and also Oz it means your out of the World Cup already. Maybe Aus will put their 2nd team out for a run again.
Bit of respect please.
Wales beat you away with massive injury list
5 day turnaround with additional injuries facing a 10 day turnaround Fiji who only had a 3rd place auto qualification to play for all for broke. They secured the win.
Uraguay 5 points lots of tries.
England going home.
Wales v Oz wl be very interesting I've a feeling it will be strongest side possible to put out and no holding back going for he clean sweep. Oz might hold back for longer tournament options.
How's it like exiting at the pool stage of your own RWC? Not good I guess hmm lots for you to consider.
TheAngryDog said:
sidicks said:
Symbolica said:
If only England had a superb openside playing in France.
Not having him in the squad was madness, the Aus backrow steamrollered them for the entire first half tonight.
I guess with Lancaster gone, this policy could change?Not having him in the squad was madness, the Aus backrow steamrollered them for the entire first half tonight.
You get the same issue from a different angle with countries like Italy. Because they've never had a decent club level, the occasional diamond in the rough like Parisse and Castrogiovanni will immediately end up playing abroad, so the Italian RFU never gets the chance to start building a decent player development engine around them.
Sure, England might've performed better in ONE World Cup with ONE French based player - I wouldn't rate Delon Armitage above Brown or Chris Pennel - so it's easy to call for the rule to be changed now, but in the long term I think it would be a disaster.
Bottom line, how often do you hear calls for the All Blacks to start selecting foreign based players? It's not bringing in foreign based players that would solve the problem. It's fixing the RFU management and coaching structure so that no England player in their right mind would ever want to play overseas!
Whatever happens, Rob (Teflon) Andrew will keep his job.
By God, you have to admire him, that man is fireproof!
A website said (clip)
"On 6 January 2011, Andrew's role as director of elite rugby at the Rugby Football Union was scrapped in an overhaul of the organisation's structure. It was reported that Andrew was invited to apply for one of the new roles created by this process, that of operations director.[7] At a press conference on 16 November 2011 Andrew's position was described as Director of Elite Rugby and he reportedly took several attempts to (inconclusively) describe his responsibilities".
By God, you have to admire him, that man is fireproof!
A website said (clip)
"On 6 January 2011, Andrew's role as director of elite rugby at the Rugby Football Union was scrapped in an overhaul of the organisation's structure. It was reported that Andrew was invited to apply for one of the new roles created by this process, that of operations director.[7] At a press conference on 16 November 2011 Andrew's position was described as Director of Elite Rugby and he reportedly took several attempts to (inconclusively) describe his responsibilities".
£215 to watch a pretty dismal display - the Fijians and Japanese are a lesson to us on heart and spirit.
England get the penalty count down but only by not playing. We never looked like getting close last night.
I'm not sure I understand the policy of not selecting players playing abroad, and I totally agree with those who say play the best players we have for the system we want to play. Doing anything else is daft.
I don't see that persisting with Lancaster is wise or will reap anything. Though to be fair to him we were at least as bad in 2011 and IMO we flattered ourselves in 2007 too.
England get the penalty count down but only by not playing. We never looked like getting close last night.
I'm not sure I understand the policy of not selecting players playing abroad, and I totally agree with those who say play the best players we have for the system we want to play. Doing anything else is daft.
I don't see that persisting with Lancaster is wise or will reap anything. Though to be fair to him we were at least as bad in 2011 and IMO we flattered ourselves in 2007 too.
Welshbeef said:
a311 said:
Lancaster needs to go. Throughly decent guy but not up to this level of coaching. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but he got this wrong pre six nations not giving talented players enough of a crack to get some caps under their belts.
Any arm chair coach could see that the bench was unbalanced very nieve. It didn't cost us the game in the end but just highlights the issue.
Unfit and out of form players carried. Ben Morgan is a class player but at no point has he looked match fit in this World Cup. The back row has been my main gripe under Lancaster. Lack of carrying and a real 7, I'm not not going to hang Robshaw out to dry as he's been one of the most consistent England players over the last 4 years but a 7 he is not. A solid player but I don't think I'd have him at 6 either just doesn't excel in any particular attribute I'd want to see in a blind side.
Most of the squad should be able to come back in so long as they're chosen on form. Barritt can be binned for good, whoever comes in needs to decide on a style of play and build a team to suit or pick a team with a bit of intelligence to adapt to what's in front of them. Fazlet is suited to a 10 man game and don't think he is the future at 10. Again pick on form but Ford will take this team forward. I wouldn't rule out being second string behind Cipriani or start giving Slade some game time.
Australia tonight showed the value of having something other than a big lump at 12 there are plenty of players kicking about that could do that job for the England side.
I'm pretty gutted England are out, last whinge on it but the group of death should never have happened.
Onwards and upwards anyhow can enjoy the rest of the tournament for what it is now.
What do you mean the group of Death should never have happened?Any arm chair coach could see that the bench was unbalanced very nieve. It didn't cost us the game in the end but just highlights the issue.
Unfit and out of form players carried. Ben Morgan is a class player but at no point has he looked match fit in this World Cup. The back row has been my main gripe under Lancaster. Lack of carrying and a real 7, I'm not not going to hang Robshaw out to dry as he's been one of the most consistent England players over the last 4 years but a 7 he is not. A solid player but I don't think I'd have him at 6 either just doesn't excel in any particular attribute I'd want to see in a blind side.
Most of the squad should be able to come back in so long as they're chosen on form. Barritt can be binned for good, whoever comes in needs to decide on a style of play and build a team to suit or pick a team with a bit of intelligence to adapt to what's in front of them. Fazlet is suited to a 10 man game and don't think he is the future at 10. Again pick on form but Ford will take this team forward. I wouldn't rule out being second string behind Cipriani or start giving Slade some game time.
Australia tonight showed the value of having something other than a big lump at 12 there are plenty of players kicking about that could do that job for the England side.
I'm pretty gutted England are out, last whinge on it but the group of death should never have happened.
Onwards and upwards anyhow can enjoy the rest of the tournament for what it is now.
It's based on rankings so let's say Wales were in the top 8 which side would have been pushed into tier3?
1NZ
2Wales
3Oz
4Ire
5SA
6France
7England
8Pumas
9Scotland
10Fiji
11Samoa
12 Georgia
13 Italy
14 Tonga
15Japan
16Namibia
17uraguay
18USA
19Canada
20 Romania
Logically it would be Scotland how would England have felt about
Oz
eng
Scotland
Fiji
Uraguay
Not that different really
Whereas there used to be eight first tier teams in the Five Nations and the Tri Nations, Argentina's third RWC place and them joining the latter means there are now nine.
And if you're Scotland, there are ten - Italy being the tenth.
Kermit power said:
That's all well and good until you end up with no best players to pick in the next generation. As the most obvious example, Wales are playing exceptionally at the moment, but how are they going to get the next lot of world beaters when every decent player at the moment buggers off to France for the money? If the Welsh regions carry on imploding and failing to win anything, then how does the new blood make it to the top table in the first place?
You get the same issue from a different angle with countries like Italy. Because they've never had a decent club level, the occasional diamond in the rough like Parisse and Castrogiovanni will immediately end up playing abroad, so the Italian RFU never gets the chance to start building a decent player development engine around them.
Sure, England might've performed better in ONE World Cup with ONE French based player - I wouldn't rate Delon Armitage above Brown or Chris Pennel - so it's easy to call for the rule to be changed now, but in the long term I think it would be a disaster.
Bottom line, how often do you hear calls for the All Blacks to start selecting foreign based players? It's not bringing in foreign based players that would solve the problem. It's fixing the RFU management and coaching structure so that no England player in their right mind would ever want to play overseas!
I agree completely, and a big part of the improvement in the Irish team in recent years is the central contracting scheme and keeping our best current and young players at home in the Irish provincial set-up. The IRFU got a huge shock when Sexton left for France (and TBF I think his time spent there being coached by O'Gara has improved him in certain aspects of his game) but they saw the error of their ways and not only got him back but stopped the flow of other important playersYou get the same issue from a different angle with countries like Italy. Because they've never had a decent club level, the occasional diamond in the rough like Parisse and Castrogiovanni will immediately end up playing abroad, so the Italian RFU never gets the chance to start building a decent player development engine around them.
Sure, England might've performed better in ONE World Cup with ONE French based player - I wouldn't rate Delon Armitage above Brown or Chris Pennel - so it's easy to call for the rule to be changed now, but in the long term I think it would be a disaster.
Bottom line, how often do you hear calls for the All Blacks to start selecting foreign based players? It's not bringing in foreign based players that would solve the problem. It's fixing the RFU management and coaching structure so that no England player in their right mind would ever want to play overseas!
Paul O'Connell may be off to Toulon for his pension after RWC, but his Irish days are over now anyway. For the likes of a Sean O'Brien or Conor Murray to leave for a French club would be a disaster for our international game IMO. While they would be financial better off going to a Clermont or Racing Metro, they are still well looked after in Ireland and know the importance of playing frequently with and against their international teammates
here's a question for you all then...
If not Robshaw as captain, who? I'm honestly struggling to pick someone out. IMO the only certainties are (currently) Brown, Watson, Launchbury, Lawes, Hartley the only choice there seems to be the walking penalty machine - plus is it really a good idea to have you captain go off @ 55/60 minutes every game?
If not Robshaw as captain, who? I'm honestly struggling to pick someone out. IMO the only certainties are (currently) Brown, Watson, Launchbury, Lawes, Hartley the only choice there seems to be the walking penalty machine - plus is it really a good idea to have you captain go off @ 55/60 minutes every game?
Blackpuddin said:
Mrs B and I noticed very few fat blokes on the Aus team, unlike the English who still seem to think that having an enormous beer belly is the way forward.
There was an attempt to move away from that in early 2000s but it never caught on 
from my point of view as one of the 'modern props' capable of power as well as as speed it was a clash between 'old school' coaching stuck in their ways and those who were more progressive. Seeing which way the wind was blowing I switched to playing centre / wing (dropping down to 14 stone from 16 to make it).
Crush said:
There was an attempt to move away from that in early 2000s but it never caught on from my point of view as one of the 'modern props' capable of power as well as as speed it was a clash between 'old school' coaching stuck in their ways and those who were more progressive.
Seeing which way the wind was blowing I switched to playing centre / wing (dropping down to 14 stone from 16 to make it).
14stone is light as a centre now. from my point of view as one of the 'modern props' capable of power as well as as speed it was a clash between 'old school' coaching stuck in their ways and those who were more progressive. Seeing which way the wind was blowing I switched to playing centre / wing (dropping down to 14 stone from 16 to make it).
Jamie Jaw Robers is mid 17stone
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff