 |
| |
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
Wallabies 34 -d- Scotland 13
Cripes. A re-run of last week. Well, in fact, Scotland were better than last week and we were poorer. If the Scots had anyone half-decent on the outside, they could have finished very much closer. They enjoyed a heap of the ball and we let them have it. Yet again we sputtered and creaked, mixing some sublime play with some immensely average stuff. Apart from one magnificent shunt which had our pack winning a tight head, the scrummaging was average in the extreme. And our field kicking was abysmal. The optimists have it that Eddie has cards up his sleeve and is hiding them from Clive for next week. 
Boks 26 -d- Ireland 17
Boks impressive, Ireland a real mixture. The Boks were too big, too strong, too quick, too committed and too cohesive. Their young blindside, Burger, looks very impressive. Ireland, obviously looking forward to a holiday, looked good whenever O'Driscoll got the ball, but it didn't happen enough. And whomever sent O'Driscoll to Mam'zelle Labit's hairdresser should be shot! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
Yes, well, Shaw seems to have the the same problem. Wasn't he pulled up by the ref a few times in the first test against NZ? |
Was he? I remember Jones being cautioned for punching people.
The unfortunate thing to come out of all of this, I think, is the smokescreen behind which Clive can now hide. He's now claiming England were "the better team on the day". The score obviously says otherwise. And any claim that losing Shaw contributed to the scoreline is silly. Yes, it's hard to compete one man down at Test level, but England were, again, cut to pieces by the Kiwi backline. A backline minus a massively potent force in Howlett. Muliaina, in Howlett's spot, barely cut the mustard. England's outside defence was marginally better than last week, but nowhere near good enough. At the same time, most outside defences in world rugby will struggle to contain that backline.
Clive should keep things in perspective. England were better than the All Blacks in that they played very much better than last week, and all credit to them. They re-discovered some spirit and commitment. At the same time, the All Blacks were down on their performance from last week. They missed McCaw dreadfully - that's why the England halves had the time and space they did this week - and, obviously, Howlett.
Just to underline the importance of the Celts flying the NH flag on the weekend - the Maori beat England in the Churchill Cup final. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
Was he? I remember Jones being cautioned for punching people. |
I'm not totally sure to be honest. The commentator made a comment that suggested he had.
quote:
The unfortunate thing to come out of all of this, I think, is the smokescreen behind which Clive can now hide. He's now claiming England were "the better team on the day". The score obviously says otherwise. And any claim that losing Shaw contributed to the scoreline is silly. Yes, it's hard to compete one man down at Test level, but England were, again, cut to pieces by the Kiwi backline. A backline minus a massively potent force in Howlett. Muliaina, in Howlett's spot, barely cut the mustard. England's outside defence was marginally better than last week, but nowhere near good enough. At the same time, most outside defences in world rugby will struggle to contain that backline. |
Also, discipline is an important factor in determining how good your team is. Speculation on what might have happened if Shaw hadn't been sent off has no bearing on how good they are because the fact is that England are a team with a discipline problem. Not only was Shaw sent off, but there were also plenty of other instances of foul play - i.e. tackling players without the ball.
quote:
Clive should keep things in perspective. England were better than the All Blacks in that they played very much better than last week, and all credit to them. They re-discovered some spirit and commitment. At the same time, the All Blacks were down on their performance from last week. They missed McCaw dreadfully - that's why the England halves had the time and space they did this week - and, obviously, Howlett. |
Yep, things started off well for England, but you could say the same of their start in the first test. Personally I don't rate England's performance in the second test as being much better than their performance in the first. No doubt things would have been different if Shaw hadn't been sent off, but unfortunately that incident cannot be ignored in an evaluation of their overall performance.
quote:
Just to underline the importance of the Celts flying the NH flag on the weekend - the Maori beat England in the Churchill Cup final. |
Nice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andydog
|
 |
London
Jan 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
Jeepers Havak, what a load of utter codswallop. I assume you wrote that with a guts full of bitter?  Watch the game again, and this time take off your rose tinted glasses!
England couldn’t dominate NZ legally so they resorted to bully boy tactics and it backfired on them. It’s as simple as that. Grewcock was too busy trying to be a tough guy, as was Borthwick, the front rowers all far too interested in a bit of biffo as opposed to proper hard rugby. Clive says that Shaw isn’t a dirty player. Well perhaps he wasn’t, but he is now, either that or he’s just plain stupid. Dallaglio looked to be on the verge of cracking up throughout the test, even before Shaw's dismissal. At one point he was more concerned with unleashing a verbal tirade at the touch judge than with providing the leadership his side so desperately needed. He seemed intent on stamping his physical presence on the game, regardless of the situation. His on-edge feistiness and clearly rattled demeanour contrasted sharply with the strong leadership being delivered to the All Blacks by CapTana.
Which brings me to Clive Woodhead. I don’t think the guy could have done any better to demonstrate to the world what a class A pr!ck he is. The sending off was harsh (yet another bullshit decision from Dickheadson – this guy has to be the worst ref in rugby), but good god Clive, keep it professional please. Why bring up Ali’s reckless rucking, which happened a year ago. Someone should explain to him that rucking is part of the game, kneeing someone in the back isn’t, and then tell him to get the fark over it. How ironic that Grewcock then gets suspended for stomping on Daniel Carter’s head. Clive still believes the poms are a better side. Very intelligent Clivey, zero tries to eight clearly demonstrates vast superiority. His abuse of the ref was just childish. Sorry but he deserves all the derision he gets.
I thought England did well to keep the ABs at bay in the first half. They had little chance to win with only 14 men but battled valiantly. Their performance was up 100% from last week, they forced a few errors and did not allow the ABs to repeat their dominance of the first test, until they slowly got on top of the tiring England side in the second half, waltzing through that poor excuse for a backline.
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
Just to underline the importance of the Celts flying the NH flag on the weekend - the Maori beat England in the Churchill Cup final. |
Poor old Havak, what a crap weekend he must have had!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Andydog
Which brings me to Clive Woodhead. I don’t think the guy could have done any better to demonstrate to the world what a class A pr!ck he is. |
Agreed. He can't be gracious in victory, he can't be gracious in defeat, regardless of the circumstances. He's adrift from reality.
quote:
I thought England did well to keep the ABs at bay in the first half. They had little chance to win with only 14 men but battled valiantly. Their performance was up 100% from last week, they forced a few errors and did not allow the ABs to repeat their dominance of the first test, until they slowly got on top of the tiring England side in the second half, waltzing through that poor excuse for a backline. |
I think that pretty much sums it up. Although they were never going to win anyway, even with 15 men. The All Blacks are just too strong in the areas in which England is weakest at the moment.
EDIT. Gee, there are times when I really really miss J****!
The Nose to skipper the Lions? Say what?
FURTHER EDIT. And a step in the right direction for English rugby, although I don't know how they'll fit league, Heineken Cup, 6 Nations and Tests into 32 matches a season.
Last edited by finbar on 21-06-2004 at 17:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Getting away from the red card for a bit...
I thought Marshall's performance was pretty far below par. How many forward passes does he have to throw before they bring Kelleher on? IMO Marshall's passing is generally too slow and inaccurate. Did you guys see Dawson get a steal and turnover off him in the scrum late in the second half because Marshall was pissing about and wouldnt pass it? What a joke.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Andydog
I like the way Dallaglio tries to poo poo Henry's dream start as coach:
"I remember when he took over Wales they won their first 10 test matches. They swept all before them ... He knows things can change very quickly in a test environment."
Quite right, Lawrence. Things change indeed. Like the world champions losing four of their last five matches, and staring down the barrel of another loss in Brisbane on Saturday night. |
The way we're playing? I wouldn't be so sure.
But I also like the way Larry allows that the All Blacks "played well in parts" during the series. Lucky they didn't play well in more than parts, Larry, or the scorelines would have been 100-3 and 100-12. Larry and Clive as a double act are a real worry. They have the same tendency towards petulance and churlishness. Perish the thought of a Lions outfit under their joint guidance.
In other matters, NSW rugby is yet again proving itself a unique commodity. Earlier this month, as I think I reported, the Waratahs were deperate to sign Andrew Johns from L***** as the solution to their problems at 5/8. Johns is said to be the best L***** player in the world, possibly one of the best ever. Immensely gifted, incredibly creative. Carlos has modelled his game - his kicking game, in particular - on Johns' methods. In their first attempt to sign Johns, NSW were thwarted by elements within the ARU, who thought Johns - at 30, never having played rugby, and with a recent history of serious injuries - wasn't a good investment in terms of the approximately $500,000 a season he would cost. The ARU declined to provide the top-up funds, and relations between NSW and the ARU reached an all-time low.
That, we thought, was the end of the matter. Not so. A group of well-heeled Sydney businessmen - anonymous apart from having been dubbed "Friends of the Waratahs" - put their heads and their wallets together with a view to bankrolling NSW rugby's purchase of Johns. Avoiding, in the process, the need for any ARU funds. Of course, NSW rugby denied any official knowledge, but everyone knew it was happening. Now, it appears, Johns is about to sign with the Waratahs for next season. It will be genuinely fascinating to see what sort of fist he makes of rugby.
It's also known that there was division within the ARU about Johns' worth, that the decision not to fund him wasn't unanimous. Eddie was known to be interested, but had real - and understandable concerns - about the player's age, fitness, familiarity with the game, et al. If Johns does sign with the Waratahs, it will be a win for those in the ARU who were interested in him. He will be available for the Wallabies, and won't have cost the ARU a cent. Whether he makes the transition successfully is an entirely different matter.
One interesting thing to come out of all of the above is the detail of the basic S12 contract. Apparently, a franchise can pay no more than a total of $160,000 a season - $110,000 as a base fee, $50,000 in match payments. Funds above and beyond those figures must come either from the ARU or, as in Johns' case, private sources. The Johns case has set a precedent.
Last edited by finbar on 22-06-2004 at 05:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
One interesting thing to come out of all of the above is the detail of the basic S12 contract. Apparently, a franchise can pay no more than a total of $160,000 a season - $110,000 as a base fee, $50,000 in match payments. Funds above and beyond those figures must come either from the ARU or, as in Johns' case, private sources. The Johns case has set a precedent. |
Interesting, although I'm not so sure I like the implications of back-door money deals. How many ways are there to get around salary caps by keeping "private funds" officially out of a franchise?
I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few.
In any case I wish him well - Haven't seen him play as I don't watch RL but the name does wander into a headline or two on a semi-regular basis - enough at least to raise the profile of the game - if he can bring a bit of inspiration for a season or two so much the better.
quote:
Where is Havak anyway? Purging his memory with endless re-runs of England's RWC victory?
|
I'm guessing that, in the light of day with his hangover cured (well, as much as it is ever cured in the case of a chap who drinks as much as Havak reputedly drinks ) he might possibly be having second thoughts about his earlier outburst?
I might be wrong though - found this little gem in the planetrugby feedback.
quote:
"It has all become clear to me now. This series in New Zealand is all part of a great conspiracy by the colonials against the Grand Old Imperial Mother Country.
"In the first test in Dunedin, the referee wasn't stern enough with the All Blacks; in the second, he was harshly unjust to England: evidently a plot between the colonial Welsh and the colonial Kiwis.
"Sir Clive Woodward was utterly correct; if the gentle giant, Simon Shaw, the victim of a miscarriage of justice, had not been sent off, England would have won by at least 25 points. More, probably.
"That All Black Robinson is equally obviously a thug, daring to use his brute force against decent English lads; a character totally different from England's hero, Martin 'Johnno' Johnston, 'The Enforcer', who used his bulk and fists over the years to control unruly opponents in appropriate and acceptable ways.
"No, this was clearly a rigged game. The fact that the All Blacks managed to score a try when the teams were level at 14 players each doesn't change that incontrovertible fact.
"They deliberately left out Doug Howlett and Richie McCaw, two of their best players, to create confusion among the decent chaps from the Mother Country. And then they bring in this Fijian to score most of their tries.
"I ask you - when will these fellows learn the lessons of fair play, decency and rectitude and learn to take their victories in the same spirit that the England manager takes his defeats?"
|
Havak under a pseudonym?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ravagon
Interesting, although I'm not so sure I like the implications of back-door money deals. How many ways are there to get around salary caps by keeping "private funds" officially out of a franchise?
I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few. |
Yes, it's what Havak and I were chattering about a week or so ago. It gets called various things - personal sponsorship, expenses for attending sponsorship events, that sort of thing. Mostly they're undeclared in the scheme of things. At least in the Johns case it will recorded in the same way the ARU's top-up funding of other players is recorded.
quote:
In any case I wish him well - Haven't seen him play as I don't watch RL but the name does wander into a headline or two on a semi-regular basis - enough at least to raise the profile of the game - if he can bring a bit of inspiration for a season or two so much the better. |
I don't watch L***** either, but I've made a point in the past of checking him out. As I said, Carlos has very much based his game on Johns. There's absolutey no doubt Johns is wonderfully talented, and also intelligent. Given time, I have no doubt he would adapt to rugby. The question is whether, at 30, and unfortunately injury prone, he might have left it a couple of years too late. Regardless, it will be fascinating to watch him.
quote:
I'm guessing that, in the light of day with his hangover cured (well, as much as it is ever cured in the case of a chap who drinks as much as Havak reputedly drinks ) he might possibly be having second thoughts about his earlier outburst? |
It was nothing compared to some of the stuff I've been reading on some of the rugby forums. OTOH, it's been interesting to read some Englishmen who take quite a different view of what happened.
quote:
Havak under a pseudonym? |
Thank God for a sense of humour.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
In other news...
FIELD TO BE SHORTENED FOR ENGLAND
22nd June 2004
Brisbane
Australian Rugby Union officials have agreed to a request from England coach Sir Clive Woodward to shorten the length of Suncorp Stadium for Saturday’s rugby test match against the Wallabies.
The field will be shortened only on the Australian side of each half so that ‘England have a better chance of scoring a try’.
ARU chief executive Gary Flowers said in the interests of giving the tourists something to take home in the final of their three match tour of New Zealand & Australia, such as the memory of a ‘solitary try’, that the tryline would be brought forward to the 22 metre line.
“Look, we are doing this in the hope of creating the spectacle of a real game of rugby. We’ve listened to what England have had to say and we’ve responded to it. So today I’ve advised match officials of our decision to shift the tryline.
“If an England player finds himself in the unusual situation of having the ball in hand across the Australian 22 metre line then a try shall be awarded. Hey, he doesn’t even have to press the ball down, we’ll just give him the points. In addition, no conversion will be necessary, they will be automatically awarded the two points for conversion.
“As an added bonus, if the England player with ball in hand is say a couple of metres short of the 22 metre line then we might even consider awarding a try… if they appear to have given it their all or, they’ve run out of ideas. However I must stress this is entirely up to the referee’s discretion. Now you can’t get much fairer than that in my book.”.
Flowers also suggested that if an England player accidently threw the ball over the sideline and it was caught by a spectator wearing a white & red jersey and with a forlorn look on their face then the ball could be thrown back into the field of play to that player with no questions asked.
Sir Clive was understandably delighted with the ARU’s offers which he said would now give his players ‘a real sense of worth’.
“It’s been a long time since we’ve crossed the tryline, we sometimes take turns crossing the tryline on practice nights but that isn’t nearly as much fun.
“In return I’ve asked the players to lay off the thuggery, all cheap shots are to be kept to a minimum and should be concealed to the bottoms of rucks, knees to the backs of heads should be done with the weaker leg and stomping on heads carried out only by players with numbers on their backs above 5. That excludes number 5 by the way.”
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
Turn it up, chaps, I'm absent for one night and everyone's getting narky with each other. I'm just glad that my conscience is clear, that I contributed absolutely nothing to the situation that provoked the narkiness.
Now listen, Havak. I've been giving thought to your plight as the sole Englishman in these threads. It can really be a bastard for you. In fact, I was prompted to give consideration to your plight after I happened to turn on Wimbledon last night. Super Tim had just lost the first set to some swarthy character who had never set foot on a grass court until 10 days ago, and whose match against Super Tim was his first ever competitive game on grass. Of course I immediately turned the television off again. I couldn't bear to watch poor Super Tim struggle under the expectations of however many Britons there are. (I'm assuming the Celts and others claim Super Tim as their own in the absence of anyone called Iestyn or Paddy or Hamish who would recognise a tennis racquet let alone know which end to hold and whose idea of new balls would be as an alternative to a change of underpants )
Which brings to me to my point. Expectation. Englishmen have expectations. Their rugby team can play, as can their s***** team, apparently. Their cricket team is on the improve, and even their curling team shines - when the sun doesn't shine - during the Winter Olympics.
Englishmen aren't alone. Australians also have expectations. Their rugby team bludges along until it really counts, when they produce efforts that demand the question - why didn't you bastards play like this before!? We don't have a s***** team - well, we do, but the best of them earn more than our country's GDP in a week playing elsewhere and mostly think of their wallets before they think of playing for their country. Our cricket team, obviously, for a bunch of fairly loathsome individuals, can play a bit. Curling is unknown here, except in hairdressing salons. (See Tamerlin? You knew if you kept reading you'd find a reference to grenouille rugby) But we have swimmers who raise our expectations - the main one being the hope that our best swimmer will eventually give up the pretence and admit that he's gay. We also have cyclists who raise our expectations - the main one being the hope they don't puncture their tyres in the process of injecting themselves with equine growth hormones.
Which brings me to my real point. Expectation brings hope, which, in turn, invites disappointment. You and I live with the potential for disappointment every time one of our sportsmen or sporting teams enters the fray. Why do we do this to ourselves?
The solution?
Move to Italy.
Their rugby team is crap. No expectation, no disappointment. Their s***** team, as they've just proved in the Euro-whatever-it-is-thing, is crap. Ditto expectation and disappointment. They don't even play cricket. Curling, as in Australia, is confined to hairdressing salons. (I hope you kept reading Tamerlin!) They don't swim, they don't cycle - in fact, they do nothing that could be even remotely definied as capable of raising expectation, and, hence, inviting disappointment.
They just have stunning food, wonderful wine, terrifically idiosyncratic people, damn fine beer, and even, relatively and remarkably speaking, a Prime Minister who's to the left of both your President and our Prime A*sehole.
So there's the solution to your plight of being the sole Englishman in these threads. Join me in Italy as the only two Italians in these threads. No expectations, ergo, no disappointments, just a blissful life.
Mmmmm. I wonder if Super Tim knew what he started in my tiny brain when - having already declared in the media that he would win Wimbledon this year - he lost the first set to the swarthy grass-court novice.
Last edited by finbar on 23-06-2004 at 07:12
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-06-2004 09:40
Attachment: 
|
