Six Nations 2018
Discussion
The Mad Monk said:
Regrettably all that matters is what it says in the record book. Is it a 'W' or an 'L'?
It will (sadly) record England as losing. There won't be an asterisk that points to a footnote which says 'England won really, but they were beaten by a dodgy Welsh ref'.
Nearly is not good enough and doesn't count.
The snipped quote was a response to a post regarding the level of performance, not the result. You don't finish within one score of the best team on the planet without a good performance .It will (sadly) record England as losing. There won't be an asterisk that points to a footnote which says 'England won really, but they were beaten by a dodgy Welsh ref'.
Nearly is not good enough and doesn't count.
DocJock said:
The Mad Monk said:
Regrettably all that matters is what it says in the record book. Is it a 'W' or an 'L'?
It will (sadly) record England as losing. There won't be an asterisk that points to a footnote which says 'England won really, but they were beaten by a dodgy Welsh ref'.
Nearly is not good enough and doesn't count.
The snipped quote was a response to a post regarding the level of performance, not the result. You don't finish within one score of the best team on the planet without a good performance .It will (sadly) record England as losing. There won't be an asterisk that points to a footnote which says 'England won really, but they were beaten by a dodgy Welsh ref'.
Nearly is not good enough and doesn't count.
However, may I respectfully point out for your attention the first line of my response above?
The Mad Monk said:
Kermit power said:
Assuming you're referring to the Scotland match, then how on earth can you possibly think that Owens reffed it anything other than fairly and well?
I was just going by what everyone in my rugby club who was watching it on telly was shouting.As others have said, Scotland played very well and had clearly identified a big England weakness at the breakdown. Watching it was very frustrating and it did seem that a few of our key players had a poor game. Mako, despite his high number of tackles, did appear to get caught out a fair bit and not his usual self. Farrel was very muted during the game also.
MYOB said:
Ructions said:
Jamie Heaslip has announced his retirement from rugby on medical advice and says the time is right for the next chapter of his life.
The 34-year-old had a second operation on the lower part of his back last November, but has failed to make the desired recovery and has made the decision with immediate effect to ensure his "future well being".
Heaslip won 95 caps for Ireland after making his bow in 2006, winning three Six Nations titles, two Triple Crowns and a Grand Slam in 2009.
I didn't quite realised he was 34. A fine ambassador for Ireland and he will be missed.The 34-year-old had a second operation on the lower part of his back last November, but has failed to make the desired recovery and has made the decision with immediate effect to ensure his "future well being".
Heaslip won 95 caps for Ireland after making his bow in 2006, winning three Six Nations titles, two Triple Crowns and a Grand Slam in 2009.
In saying that things do move on, and Conan is the future I think
Not sure what Owens really got wrong on Saturday? He probably should have signalled advantage for Launchberry's slowing down of the ball at the ruck rather than retrospectively pulling it back when England got the interception from the resulting slow ball. But other than that...?
Glen f
king Jackson (as he will henceforth be known in my house) on the other hand...
This is a more coherent and considerably less sweary version of what I spent Saturday afternoon shouting at the telly:
https://gwladrugby.wordpress.com/2018/02/26/play-t...
Glen f
king Jackson (as he will henceforth be known in my house) on the other hand...This is a more coherent and considerably less sweary version of what I spent Saturday afternoon shouting at the telly:
https://gwladrugby.wordpress.com/2018/02/26/play-t...
It's been a long time between drinks
. It's ironic that many were reciting the standard 'Scottish false dawn' mantra after the poor performance against Wales. I'll concede I was worried but one bad performance doesn't make them a bad side, and they proved that in style last weekend. In the same way I can see England coming back from this even stronger. However Scotland have exposed a significant weakness in their loose forwards and at the breakdown. England really need a natural 7 to counter teams with elite loose forwards. Barclay, Watson and Mcinally had their wicked way with England on Saturday.
On a separate note I'd like to raise the fact that the Scottish front row have been nothing short of heroic throughout the tournament. They've really stepped out to the occasion of the tournament. In respect to Huw Jones, well he has well and truly announced his arrival to international rugby. It's amazing to think he's only 24.....
It's fantastic that this is the most open and competitive 6 Nations in living memory (3 maybe 4 sides can still win it) and is testament to the standard of rugby being played in the British and Irish isles.
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Not sure what Owens really got wrong on Saturday? He probably should have signalled advantage for Launchberry's slowing down of the ball at the ruck rather than retrospectively pulling it back when England got the interception from the resulting slow ball. But other than that...?
Glen fking Jackson (as he will henceforth be known in my house) on the other hand...
This is a more coherent and considerably less sweary version of what I spent Saturday afternoon shouting at the telly:
https://gwladrugby.wordpress.com/2018/02/26/play-t...
The man makes many, many reasonable points. As a neutral, I thought the reffing was horribly biased in Ireland's favour.Glen f
king Jackson (as he will henceforth be known in my house) on the other hand...This is a more coherent and considerably less sweary version of what I spent Saturday afternoon shouting at the telly:
https://gwladrugby.wordpress.com/2018/02/26/play-t...
Joey Ramone said:
Nah. I think Stuart Barnes was correct when he said this England team has gone as far as it can
Ask yourself who the All Blacks would swap for an England player in their team. Maybe Launchbury, maybe Lawes and possibly Farrell at 12.
That is pretty much it.
Losing that game WAS a big deal. Top teams don't fail in that manner when there's a trophy at stake. Last year the Ireland game could be passed off as a blip. This was a bit more than that. They just seem to lack rugby instincts in the way that the best teams have it in spades, and they do stupid things when they shouldn't. They are not a particularly bright bunch, Farrell excepted.
I agree, but I'd go further than that - the wins against both Italy and Wales weren't really emphatic in nature either. Ask yourself who the All Blacks would swap for an England player in their team. Maybe Launchbury, maybe Lawes and possibly Farrell at 12.
That is pretty much it.
Losing that game WAS a big deal. Top teams don't fail in that manner when there's a trophy at stake. Last year the Ireland game could be passed off as a blip. This was a bit more than that. They just seem to lack rugby instincts in the way that the best teams have it in spades, and they do stupid things when they shouldn't. They are not a particularly bright bunch, Farrell excepted.
Italy was the first game and on foreign soil. It was also Italy so there's an argument that they were happy to take their time. But I'm not sure that's how Jones would want to play it - he seems more ruthless than that to me.
Wales could easily have gone the other way. As soon as the Welsh twigged the game plan, we were stopped in our tracks...
Bonefish Blues said:
Joey Ramone said:
They just seem to lack rugby instincts in the way that the best teams have it in spades, and they do stupid things when they shouldn't.
It looks almost overcoached such that when a scenario arises which hasn't been covered, they go into "does not compute" mode.IIRC the England team in the run up to 2003 didn't have the smoothest of run ins to the actual WC competition. So it's far from all lost. We have some good quality players, possibly better on balance than in 2003. But I'm not sure we have a bonafide leader who can make them gel on the pitch. And when the going gets tough, or the pre-defined plan starts to go awry, that's exactly what you need. I think all three games thus far have shown elements of that lacking, culminating in the loss to the sweaties
Murph7355 said:
...which makes me think this is a possibility.
IIRC the England team in the run up to 2003 didn't have the smoothest of run ins to the actual WC competition. So it's far from all lost. We have some good quality players, possibly better on balance than in 2003. But I'm not sure we have a bonafide leader who can make them gel on the pitch. And when the going gets tough, or the pre-defined plan starts to go awry, that's exactly what you need. I think all three games thus far have shown elements of that lacking, culminating in the loss to the sweaties
I'm not sure this lot come close, sadly.IIRC the England team in the run up to 2003 didn't have the smoothest of run ins to the actual WC competition. So it's far from all lost. We have some good quality players, possibly better on balance than in 2003. But I'm not sure we have a bonafide leader who can make them gel on the pitch. And when the going gets tough, or the pre-defined plan starts to go awry, that's exactly what you need. I think all three games thus far have shown elements of that lacking, culminating in the loss to the sweaties
Yes, they've had some decent results, and when they get to turn on the flamboyance, they can look like world beaters, but I think they flatter to deceive.
Were it not for the French in Marseilles, '03 England would've gone into the World Cup on a massive record run of victories, including holding the All Blacks scrum up with two in the bin to win in New Zealand. Can you imagine this lot doing that?
What this lot lack is the ability to turn round to the better team on the day and just say "We're going to win because f
k You".Edited by Kermit power on Monday 26th February 20:29
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Not sure what Owens really got wrong on Saturday? He probably should have signalled advantage for Launchberry's slowing down of the ball at the ruck rather than retrospectively pulling it back when England got the interception from the resulting slow ball. But other than that...?
I've gone through the match a couple of times. Not everything in detail, just the rucks and mauls. A comment from a coach who has never, in living memory, criticised a ref said of the match - The ref did you (he's not English) no favours. My thought was that this was a hint so I opened the recording.
There were a few knock-ons that were missed, one that I noticed during the match. This goes on in most, probably all, matches (I video all my club's first team matches, and have done for 17 years, going through the play because I haven't seen the match. I know what I'm talking about) and has to be accepted. It's rugby. However, I didn't see one England clear knock on which didn't give rise to a scrum. Scotland, on the other hand, got away with three, with two in critical positions. And that was the obvious ones.
There were other bits of play which went unnoticed. No ref is perfect and I'm certain he did his best and played fair, as he always does. But he wasn't, perhaps, as sharp as his reputation suggests he normally is.
I've got no argument about the result of course. Scotland deserved the win and England deserved to lose. Scotland played well enough to win and England played badly enough to lose. However, the ref missed a bit here and there and the bits he did miss hurt England most.
As I say, that's rugby. But the ref did us no favours.
Derek, now come on. Not again.
He’s the best ref in the Tournament. Wholly unbiased, and is recognised as such by his peers.
England lost at the breakdown. Scotland played better in most areas and stifled England. They didn’t play ‘badly’ as quoted ....they weren’t allowed to play.
Can’t stand it when a supporter of a team state their team played ‘badly’ when they have simply been ‘outplayed’. Wholly disingenuous. It’s not oikball.
He’s the best ref in the Tournament. Wholly unbiased, and is recognised as such by his peers.
England lost at the breakdown. Scotland played better in most areas and stifled England. They didn’t play ‘badly’ as quoted ....they weren’t allowed to play.
Can’t stand it when a supporter of a team state their team played ‘badly’ when they have simply been ‘outplayed’. Wholly disingenuous. It’s not oikball.
rb26 said:
Cheers for that. I agree! The Mad Monk said:
DocJock said:
The Mad Monk said:
Regrettably all that matters is what it says in the record book. Is it a 'W' or an 'L'?
It will (sadly) record England as losing. There won't be an asterisk that points to a footnote which says 'England won really, but they were beaten by a dodgy Welsh ref'.
Nearly is not good enough and doesn't count.
The snipped quote was a response to a post regarding the level of performance, not the result. You don't finish within one score of the best team on the planet without a good performance .It will (sadly) record England as losing. There won't be an asterisk that points to a footnote which says 'England won really, but they were beaten by a dodgy Welsh ref'.
Nearly is not good enough and doesn't count.
However, may I respectfully point out for your attention the first line of my response above?
The Mad Monk said:
That's interesting. They called it in the commentary at the time, but when the ref asked them what the handbags was all about, both Wilson and Hughes just shuffled their feet, looked down at the ground and said "I don't know, Sir!" 
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff