 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
I think the worst culprit you have now, my thoughts on Williams aside, is a chap called Troy Flavell? I guess Grewcock takes that role for England? For the Aussies McCrae remains the dirtiest player I have ever seen from those shores. Boks? Their former captain Krige for Novemebr 2002 alone.  |
Richard Loe makes Troy Flavell look sane, rational, sensible and very fair, too. Loe was a strange character. Farmer, trained on his own, quietly spoken. On the paddock, he was a marauding monster. Players like Troy Flavell "lose it". They have brain fades. Loe didn't. As soon as the game started, he was dangerous. I remember he was suspended for a very long time for either biting or stomping or gouging one of his AB teammates in a provincial match. I saw him break a Wallaby winger's jaw with a premeditated swinging forearm. The winger was near the end of quite a long, jigging run with the ball. Loe stalked him, and hit him. Richard Loe was psychotic.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
Congrats Cali.
quote:
It's not part of rugby to be taken out off the ball. It's dangerous, the guy's not expecting it. It shouldn't be part of rugby, |
This is something I kind of agree with. I remember when GRenoble in France was the first club playing that way, and everyone thought they were just brutes and nothing more. The following year they were champions... I think in the rucks and mauls players should focus on the ball and pushing. Of course, it means the ball would be harder to get if you can't throw people out of it the way it's currently done, and the ball would take more time to get out, but frankly the rules today are more and more about preventing players to contest the ball in rucks and allowing to clear them away by pushing them out of the way then saying "Ruck!" and it's over you can't fight anymore. The single fact that we now have rules that say you have to stop fighting for the ball, even by pushing, is a shame. Give me our old rucks and mauls back!
...Just let me grab the ball in a ruck without being penalised...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
Laporte is apparently happy of the French tour, with 2 defeats and one null.
In times past, such tours would have been an objective unto themselves but now they are mostly seen as preparation for the World Cup.
Considering the null was apparently a top-level match and the match against the Wallabies developped good rugby, Laporte's stance can be understood. We didn't bring all the usual players (mainly lacking Betsen imo, but also Dominici and Pelous) and Laporte gave their chance to many players (Szarszewski, Candelon, Martin...).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Andydog
|
 |
London
Jan 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
A better Lions performance. Shame they couldn't do much with the pill once they got it. I thought Fat Guts Thompson played fairly well, although his flabby gob tainted his performance somewhat. I felt sorry for Wilkinson - a shadow of his former self, with Carter completely outshining him in all aspects of play.
I almost wept when Umaga scored the first All Black try. If ever there was an 'up yours sir spastic', this was it. (Yes am I still a bit bitter about the spin - especially when you hear that the All Blacks requested BoD's phone number, and were not given it for 24 hours, by which time 4 press conferences had been given lambasting Umaga for not apologising or getting in touch. Tossers. ).
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
I do wish Clive would shut his gob sometimes – talk of “not understanding the tour” and “wrapped in cotton wool” helps no one to be honest. Suck it up Clive – the better side won. |
Aye. Here are some more of Woodentop's wonder lines:
quote:
Chinless Woodentop's post game comments:
We weren't beaten by a better team but we were beaten by the score board. The score didn't reflect the Lions effort. We just came up against an outstanding team...
...it was a key, key moment when Wilkinson hit the post [early in the 1st half], we could have had momentum then...
[On being asked where it all went wrong] ...we were missing key players, big players on this tour - the likes of Dallaglio, Simon Taylor, Richard Hill... |
So yes, more of the usual bloody nonsense from a character whose stock continues to fall. He needs to face facts - England and now the Lions have been thumped in consecutive years by a side who he doesn't rate as the better team.
The ABs put down a serious marker for the World Cup and they did their talking on the pitch. Fair play to them.
quote:
It wasn’t perfect by them of course – and having been treated to a Sky Sports post mortem program that analysed the game in detail I could mention a few things that will no doubt annoy the Kiwi boys – but I’ll save that for later and just leave it at the fact that they were pretty damn good on Saturday for now. |
Yes, I must admit our performance was tainted somewhat by the ABs being involved in a lot of blocking, pulling back and tackling off the ball.
There were numerous occasions when they got away with this. I know every international side does it, but the ABs got away with it blatantly time and time again on Saturday. For example, Carter's grubber kick and chase, Shane Williams was taken out by Soialo'o. Now, I don't believe Williams would have got near Carter, but that's not the point.
Robinson was taken out from one of his kicks ahead. Lewsey was similarly taken out on a number of occasions. Soialo'o blocked Moody on every restart.
I don't think any of this changed the match however, even if the ref had picked up on it, the Lions still would not have won. Nor are they whiter than white - they also committed infringements as well.
But this is what will constitute the whinging this week. Personally, I think it's a shame that NZ felt they wanted to resort to those kinds of tactics, we just didn't need to.
Having said that, it was interesting to see that the swinging handbags on the pitch came from the boys in red.
Julian White put a very nasty stomp on Byron's arm. I do hope he rung him afterwards to apologise, he could have broken that arm.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
I do wish Clive would shut his gob sometimes – talk of “not understanding the tour” and “wrapped in cotton wool” helps no one to be honest. Suck it up Clive – the better side won. |
Yes, he talks as though this is the first time a Lions tour has ever happened. I'd've thought the problems were obvious:
(1) The squad was too large. The likely A team combinations never got enough playing time together.
(2) But even if they had, a lot of them - mainly England players - had been pre-selected anyway, based on past feats and Clive's confidence in them, and they were found wanting. It's not their fault. Wilko shouldn't have toured. Under his circumstances, it was a totally unreasonable demand.
(3) Regardless, at this point in time, as per the fairly crap 6-Nations, rugby in that corner of the world isn't strong. In some part cyclical, but also, probably, related to the stupid amount of rugby they have to play.
(4) And the ABs, at this point in time, are obviously very damn good.
Thus Clive was probably always on a hiding to nothing. His methods only exacerbated an already perilous situation. Thus he makes all the excuses under the sun.
It's also interesting to ponder G Henry's contribution to this ABs' effort. It's not a vastly different team, manpowerwise, to the one left behind by the ex-coach. Carter has matured incredibly in the last season and a half. He was available to the ex-coach, but didn't have the game he has now. So, in a sense, it's a stroke of good fortune and timing for G Henry.
quote:
I could mention a few things that will no doubt annoy the Kiwi boys – but I’ll save that for later and just leave it at the fact that they were pretty damn good on Saturday for now. |
I'd already read them ad infinitum on the BBC forum. 
quote:
I guess it is also worrying that Umaga will be 34 in 2007? By conventional wisdom that is too old for a centre? |
It's been interesting watching him since his recovery from the WRC knee injury. He's lost some of his speed, part of the ageing process, too, but he's lost none of his strength and guile. If he stays fit, I can see him still being a force in 2007.
quote:
He’s pretty good isn’t he – easy to see why Carlos was dispensed with. Shame he is now injured – does that mean Mehrtens? |
He's not in the squad, unless they add him. They've added Luke McAlister who seems to be able to play anywhere from 10 to 15.
quote:
The running game simply doesn’t work when the opposition are better at it. |
Bigger, stronger, more skilled, faster = better.
quote:
I see Australia made hard work of their Rugby match – |
It was, apparently, as though the teams agreed beforehand to go out and play Sevens. Non-stop running and passing out of their ar*eholes. 
quote:
and lost some key players to injury including the Centre who has been their best weapon against the ABs recently? Any idea how bad Mortlock’s injury is Finbar? Gregans sounded like just a knock? |
They say Mortlock is 50:50 but I'm sure he won't play. Turinui will replace him. There hasn't been any more reference to Gregan so I assume he'll be all right. Nice to see Steve Larkham awarded man of the match by a wide margin. In sublime form, apparently. M'sieur Michalak apparently told everyone to bear Larkham in mind when talking about Carter as the best 10 in the world.
Still, the Boks, this week, won't be playing Sevens. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Andydog
|
|
London
Jan 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
His behaviour on the 2001 Lions tour was clearly less than mature as too many players have told a similar story about him. |
To this day, I find it hard to believe the 2001 Lions lost. Despite the Aussies having a good number of world class players throughout the team, I recall their front row stocks were decimated. By the time the first test came around every first choice super 12 prop in Australia was injured. Against the front row that the Lions put out, this tour had disaster written all over it for Aussie. Yet somehow they won..
Plenty of theories have been advanced as to why this happened - as most recently over-training is cited as the key reason - the point being that Woodenhead’s response, which was to under-train, was perhaps equally flawed, possibly even more so. Knowing what I do about Henry I can see a couple of reasons why he would have flogged the 01 Lions on the training pitch.
Firstly - a composite team needs to build combinations and in that regard there is no substitute for hard work. Secondly - team bonds are formed in adversity and hard work should bring a team together (I can't see Henry going for the ice-breaking games and visualisation exercises that Waywood came up with). Third - to beat Australia the Lions basic skill levels had to be high - and they were not. That’s a hard one to address in a short time but Henry had to try.
To do this he had to be tough and he had to be dictatorial. I don't think he would have cared whether the players liked him - just as long as they respected him and if they did dislike him, that could only unite them - because that was what they needed. He expected international rugby players to put the team ahead of themselves - subordinate their egos to the cause, get angry and get on with it.
This is where I think he got it wrong (and where I think he now knows he got it wrong). The English players who dominated the touring party were used to a different style of management. They were used to be able to have their say and became petulant when they didn't get what they wanted. Witness Healey and Dawson - did their public complaints contain anything that a southern hemisphere rugby player would have thought was too unusual? I know my reaction at the time was “what a bunch of prima donnas” - rugby is a team game and if you are going to piss and moan about training hard and not getting picked then bugger off home. Send someone who is prepared to do the work and contribute to a win for the team, even if they don't get on the field. Where I played my club rugby if you didn't get picked for firsts you didn't sulk, you either supported your mates or worked the BBQ or did something else useful. Otherwise you didn't get invited back.
So I guess where I am going with this is that the 01 Lions should probably have won but imploded somewhat. Henry has copped a lot of criticism for this and some of it may be justified. But if his players had the humility and discipline that he was used to in the southern hemisphere (and probably in a young Welsh side) he probably would have won.
Wood**** wanted Henry's job in 01, and has been none too subtle over the years about pointing the finger at Henry for the defeat - but maybe if Clive hadn't established a "soccar culture" amongst the English players, where they became a bunch of petulant prima donnas who thought they were bigger than the team and the coach, I think the Lions may well have won.
It may be unfair to say Woodworm is completely responsible for the Lions defeat this time around - I did think NZ would win, probably 2-1, and injuries to Dallaglio in particular have not helped. But I certainly think the finger of blame for the manner of the defeats can be pointed at him. His management of this tour has been abysmal. However, following the line of thought above, he may also have been a significant factor in the Lions losing in 2001 - where did the English players get the idea that is was acceptable to slag off their teammates and coaches in the media if it was not reflective of the culture that they were used to?
So why does everyone rate Sir Clive - the man did coach a world cup winning team - albeit one that was so much more talented and experienced than the one that they drew with after 80 minutes in the world cup final that it was laughable. I reckon my mum could have nearly coached England to a win in regulation time given the disparity in the forwards (Noriega, Darwin, Finnegan, Kefu, Giffen all out injured or recently injured so that they could not be picked) and Larkam hobbling off injured after a few minutes to be replaced by a very young Giteau (and it showed). They should have been slaughtered.
Lets not forget that he also oversaw the all of the worst defeats ever suffered by England (and now the Lions). No other England coach has ever conceded 50 points. Clive has a couple of times - and on one occasion by a lot (76-0). Choking was elevated to an art form over half a decade of six nations competition - being denied a grandslam by every team in the competition in turn, except Italy, when in each case England should have won in a canter.
He then has the temerity to constantly insist that his team was best, no matter how great the flogging, and if he specifically compliments you after the game its a sure sign you have had a shocker. Ronan O'Gara, Jason Robinson, Jonny Wilkinson on this tour alone. And the last week's exercise against Umaga was a disgrace.
I'm sure the English fans won't be disappointed to see him go to soccer. I really feel for the Lions players and fans who, with the benefit of hindsight, were not even given a chance. Graham Henry, by comparison, has behaved with dignity for four tough years and has done his talking where good coaches should.
Now bring on the tri-nations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
No, Finbar, he just said that they won. Since England hasn't been doing that for a while, when he sees someone doing it, he thinks it's somewhat familiar, so it can't be completely new.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2005 15:37
...
Attachment: 
|
