 |
| |
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tamerlin
Somehow, Rugby is doomed to be the second game after this sport named S*****. 
I hate S*****.  |
I have a very simple solution to the problem that S***** offers us. Australia just has to export our national S***** administrators. They are, without doubt, the most petty, fiscally incompetent, faction-riven collection of human DNA ever to walk the earth. For competence, they make the NZRFU look like genii. Thus, if Australia were to export one national administrator to each of the world's leading S***** countries, the game would, worldwide, implode immediately.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tamerlin
When I say it needs to be corrected I mean the simple translation of a common french sentence is often inadequate. In the part of my sentence "this kinds of things" the equivalent of "kind" is rarely used in its plural form in the french language.
"This kinds of things" can be litteraly translated as "ces genres de choses" but we almost always say "ce genre de choses" |
That's interesting. We say "this kind of thing" (singular) or "these kinds of things" (plural). So, in French, in this case, you don't bother about matching the plurals as you normally would. I keep running into those sorts of little traps in my Italian lessons.
quote:
French is indeed a very different language if you compare it with english, I think they each have their own advantages and their own flaws. French is clearly more refined when it comes to feeling or mood but english is much more adequate when it comes to songs (Hard Rock music with french words is truly terrible).  |
Yes, I'm not sure how "Dirty Deeds (Done Dirt Cheap)" would sound in French. 
At least, in French, you don't have a combination of letters like "ough", which, in English, can be pronounded:
1. off
2. owe
3. ow
I would hate to have to learn English as a second language.
quote:
Actually I like English as much as I like French.  |
 That's good. Frankly, I prefer the mellifluous quality of French.
Last edited by finbar on 16-11-2002 at 10:01
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bearcat
|
|
Oregonia
Dec 1999
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
At least, in French, you don't have a combination of letters like "ough", which, in English, can be pronounded:
1. off
2. owe
3. ow
|
Try German. Once you learn how to pronounce the letters and sounds, you'll never have a problem again.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
Well the Tigers win over Gloucester is worth talking about.They scored within 90 seconds and Havak clutched his beer thinking "here we go". But it was a false dawn for them, our forwards quickly took the upper hand and they never really looked in the game until near the death.
Gloucesters lack of cover in crucial positions may give us
all the edge we need to stop them becoming champions. Their scrum was a mess and their lineout barely functioned for large periods. The score flatters them because they got a cheap interception score at the end as we were pushing for the fourth try bonus point.
At the moment I say it is all to play for still.  |
Bugger! 
quote:
And Twickers? Another superb game for the neutral I suspect? Thanks to Finbar's countrymen for a superb game of rugby. Can anyone answer me why every team, without exception, seems able to lift their game against us? Are we really that hated? |
It's as much the venue, the tradition, the crowd, the atmosphere, I suspect.
What can I say? If the Wallabies were horses they'd be swabbed. They produced the commitment, passion and intensity that had been utterly nonexistent for the whole tour. And, yes, it can be argued that they lifted for the occasion - and that it's an admirable capacity to be able to do it - but a quality rugby team shouldn't have to rely on that sort of thing.
With a 32-31 result, the stats out of the game are extraordinary. Australia had only 37% possession of the ball - a figure consistent over the whole game - but the scoreline only ever really flattered them during the first 35 minutes. What it meant was:
1. On that percentage figure, Australia maximised their scoring opportunities. Yet, at the same time, their handling was, overall, dreadful with 8 knock-ons in the first half alone. The handling improved in the second half but they still blundered more than they should. Of course it can be argued that English pressure contributed to some of the errors, which it did, but the majority of the cockups were self-inflicted.
2. England 63% possession was (relatively speaking) nullified by some extraordinary Australian defence. I have to say, I've never seen a more committed, ferocious, disciplined defensive effort from them. They occasionally let it slip around the fringes, which allowed England to get some rapid movement going.
Other thoughts:
1. The Wallabies' carelessness - stupidity - in giving away so many penalties made a hard job even harder. Against a kicker like Wilkinson, you're commiting suicide. They did the same thing against the Pumas and against Ireland. It's beyond me.
2. I wish Australia had stuck with their original plan of playing Larkham and Flatley together instead of swapping Larkham (to fullback) and Burke (into the centres). Who was instrumental in setting up the Sailor try? Larkham. When did the Australian attack look most potent? When Larkham was involved. Flatley is a compotent 5/8, nowhere near as creative as Larkham, and his defence is suspect - he fell off two key tackles in the first half.
3. Losing Jeremy Paul in the last 10 minutes, replaced by Adam Freier, brought about a couple of bungled lineouts in the crucial closing minutes when we desperately needed possession. And bringing on Matt Giteau - 20 years old, he's now played his first Test before he's even played a S12 match - in the closing minutes was a huge gamble. I assume he replaced Flatley. It was a big ask of the kid and he took some very wrong options under immense pressure.
4. I was very proud of the Wallaby forwards' efforts. They were pushed around a couple of times but more than held their own against a very, very strong outfit. Their work around the paddock was a 250% improvement on what they'd done on the tour. Jeremy Paul, about 80% fit, did a fine job. I think he finished up with our highest tackle count even though he didn't see out the game. The forwards' finest moment, I thought, was when they appeared to reverse an England rolling maul; or, if not reverse it, stop it before it got started. (Dan Vickerman steamrolling J**** in a clean-out warmed my heart just a tad, too. )
5. George Gregan should be applauded for his decision not to take the penalty kick in the closing seconds of the first half. The try was a fitting reward.
Downside:
Apart from the negatives mentioned above, Steve Larkham has two broken bones in his hand and is on his way home, as is Jeremy Paul with his buggered hammy. It was extraordinary that he was as potent in the game as he was on one and a half legs.
quote:
The positives? I admire that they didn't panic, and I enjoyed the character in coming back. the forwards, as ever, gained us plenty of the pill. |
They were always dangerous. The comeback didn't surprise me. The Wallabies' tackling effort - which, while something to be proud of, is really only an indication that the oppo had the ball more than they did - had taken a toll.
quote:
The negatives? The backs continually taking bad options when
they got space. The Wallabies should have been buried well before the end of the first half. All credit to them for coming back the way they did. |
Agreed. As I said, the scoreline only flattered us in that period of the first half. The concern would be that the same thing happened against the ABs. I thought your backs actually looked more organised against the ABs - last night they not only took wrong options but seemed, at times, under pressure, not to have a clue. I remember one instance where they almost did a ring-a-rosy with the ball behind the advantage line.
quote:
The defensive pattern - absolutely fell apart in the first
ten minutes of the second half. Shockingly bad. |
Flatley ran through a yawning chasm of a gap for his first try too. It was sliding defence which is always vulnerable to angles. From memory, it caught you out with the Sailor try too.
quote:
Robinson - His pace seems to have gone. There is no way Flatley should have had the gas to burn him off like he did (though as you well know there were gold hands on the floor to get him that ball). |
Robinson's chase of Flatley was bizarre. I gave Flatley no hope. Elsewhere in the game, before and after, Robinson was greased lightning so he hasn't lost his pace. Watch it again - Robinson was never balanced in running. In horseracing parlance, he was over-racing, trying too hard. If he'd relaxed and run, I think he'd have caught Flatley.
Hands on the floor? There was offside and obstruction all over the place that Honiss missed. The clearing of the ball by England that led to the first-half penalty against Kefu within 20 yards of goal and dead in front was thanks only to loitering England players clearly obstructing Wallaby defenders.
quote:
The entire team - for letting Finbar eternally remind me that the dire Sailor scored his first try against us! And by got he looked well out of place on the field the whole game except his try! |
You see what I mean? Rugby doesn't come naturally to him. He thrived on the one-dimensional nature of L***** but the complexities of this game befuddle him. I would classify him as a very poor man's Jonah. That said, it was his best effort in his short career - he tried hard, worked hard. But Ben Tune, he ain't, and never will be. If Tuquiri can play rugby, I think Wendell will finish up back in L*****.
quote:
Okay - character is all well and good and our forwards remain the possession grabbers we know and love but it's hard to feel optimistic. We have a lot of work to do to become a complete rugby team still, and I think we would have to be happy making the semis in RWC. |
IMHO, you're exactly where you were after last week. You need someone - and maybe it's not your current coach - who can weld together the backs and the forwards instead of having two separate units that happen to have something in common. Once you have a unit, IMHO, you need an inspiring backs coach to build the backs' confidence, to help them develop trust (or faith) in each other - I think trust (or faith) is so important amongst backs, because, so often, they're ad libbing and counting on each other - and, finally, with confidence, to be inventive.
quote:
I suppose a win is a win is a win and all that - but I was hoping to see a more complete perfomance than that. And realistically both teams we have beaten this month will destroy us down under. |
Put it this way, with 63% of possession over the course of the game, you should have won by more. Put it another way, if the Wallabies can maintain that passion and those commitment levels - which, to be a top team, they must - and if we fix the handling errors, stop giving away stupid penalties, and we can get our best players on the same paddock at the same time ... 
quote:
Also I need to take the time here to say well done Scotland. A super win. The Boks will need to emulate Australia and improve 500% to compete next week. And I am sure they wil just for us. |
This match was being shown on FoxSports at the same time as the England match was on Channel 7. I watched some of it during the breaks in the England match. The Scots played very well - great passion - and the Boks looked like a rabble. Whatever ground they gained during the Tri-Nations seems to have disappeared again.
quote:
Btw Finbar my mate Justin had anohter blood rush and tried to punch Robinson in the first half. What does he have against small guys?
Oh and Vickerman looks solid although he should have been yellow carded at 28 mins for cynically going in at the side in front of your posts. So a very promising lad all round if he is invisible to the officials like that. |
Of course, with only one eye open, you missed J**** applying his boot to the back of a Wallaby player on the ground after the ball had moved on. Not to mention Dawson - I think it was - cynically going offside to reach into the Australian pack for the ball in what became the lead up to our first try. 
Seriously, I was very happy with Vickerman's effort. Justin's too, for that matter.
quote:
The officials? The irish touch judge was solid. And Honiss was not too bad by his standards I suppose. Only blind in phases. |
I thought Honiss missed things on both sides. Watching the game, though, I was taken back to your comment about refs deciding early on which part of the game they were going to police - last night Honiss had obviously pre-determined to obsess about the lineout tunnel.
France -v- ABs. Scores level at half time, scores level at full time. I know nothing more about the match than that. Sounds like it must have been exciting. I look forward immensely to our amis' reports on the match.
Wales -d- Canada. Ho hum.
Agrentina -d- Italy. Unsurprising.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-11-2002 06:13
Still don't like the way the Wallabies played with the discipline of the Boks, it was all that damn Wilkinson needed. He was the only back who counted though, England has its forwards in good order.
|