Rugby - Running Out of Titles

[Caligastia]

Sorry I left this one a bit late guys. I was busy celebrating my 30th birthday this weekend.

I see France managed to beat Australia rather convincingly. As I said, none of the matches are being shown on FSW so I'll have to read your comments to get an idea of how the match went.

[Caligastia]

Good on the Irish for their defeat of the Boks. What do you guys think about the controversy over that Irish try? I presume one of you saw the game.

[Havak]

I saw it. I can see both points of view as it happens - but then my views on Hoeniss have been expressed before.

I think ultimately it comes down to this - you should not turn your back on the opposition when they have a penalty on your 5M line.

And even with the ref wired for sound I did not hear the 'time off' comment the Bok skipper thought he had (admittedly he was closer - but Hoeniss denies saying it in any case).

Mind you if Hoeniss was bad you should have seen Scott Young the Aussie we got saddled with. Must have cost us 12 tries - oh no, sorry, that was the way we played that cost us that wasn't it?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
I saw it. I can see both points of view as it happens - but then my views on Hoeniss have been expressed before.

I think ultimately it comes down to this - you should not turn your back on the opposition when they have a penalty on your 5M line.

That's what I was thinking myself. As Hoeniss said, what kind of world-class team turns their backs on the opposition 5 metres from the try-line?

Mind you if Hoeniss was bad you should have seen Scott Young the Aussie we got saddled with. Must have cost us 12 tries - oh no, sorry, that was the way we played that cost us that wasn't it?

What did Scott Young do wrong?

[Havak]

He didn't use advantage in the way I would normally expect an Aussie to - and this hurt Canada as well as us (they kept having to scrum and were struggling somewhat in that area).

[finbar]

I would assume you can spot a Welsh accent so it sounds like you may have got a world service feed instead?

There wasn't a Welsh accent to be heard. Two commentators - one male, one female. Regardless of Leicester's standing as the leading club team in the entire Milky Way, I can't imagine there'd have been special commentary teams sent to the game. Is Radio Leicester part of the BBC chain?

But did you notice that was after Hodgson was subbed and Henry moved to stand off? In other words Tinders returned to a conventional 12 when Paul move to half back – Greenwood slotting in at outside centre.

Yes, I saw that, but I also thought Tindall seemed to fill in for Paul as a receiver prior to the change.

It’s a huge gamble to play Paul against the Boks – I’m not sure I am convinced.

Are there no other options in the centres? I just find it odd that they've waited this long to test out Paul at Test level. Or, in fact, to give him another chance. Anyway, I think the Bok centres will be licking their lips. And Stirling Mortlock, too.

I watched an analysis of his distribution by the Sky pundits and even in the nightmare games from June they showed some very good work from him (that I totally missed at the time). What bothers me more is I don’t think he is strong in the contact situation – and his defence is certainly shaky. Neither of those bode well against the Boks.

My recollection is that he looked all right when he had space and time. When he didn't, which was often, he was overpowered. And his defence was immensely suspect. He doesn't seem to be a tough nut.

Yes Tinders passing was very lazy wasn’t it? He had better sort that because we need to have perfectly timed passing to beat the next two opponents. I really don’t know how to call the next two games – we certainly could win both but I’m not confident we will do so.

Well, we'll see. Canada was an exhibition game. It was pressure and aggressive defence that sank England down here. Along with their own crap defence. And lack of inspiring leadership. The Boks are going to be stung by last week. It might have been better for England if Ireland had lost. The Wallabies were severely embarrassed in Paris, so they're going to bounce back, too. Hopefully. Interestingly, this morning, Eddie observed that our backline management failed in Paris, too. He's quite right. Too many wrong options were taken, apparently against orders. It's hard to know where the fault lay - Gregan or Larkham - but I suspect Gregan.

That said, France looked awesomely good. Even if M'sieur Michalak lacks a kicking game. Still, I'm sure Tamerlin will be happy to give him some tips.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I saw it. I can see both points of view as it happens - but then my views on Hoeniss have been expressed before.

I think ultimately it comes down to this - you should not turn your back on the opposition when they have a penalty on your 5M line.

And even with the ref wired for sound I did not hear the 'time off' comment the Bok skipper thought he had (admittedly he was closer - but Hoeniss denies saying it in any case).

I think Hoeniss got it badly wrong. He blew the whistle for the penalty, then told Smits to talk to his players:

"South Africa were giving away penalties close to the line and I told John that if he didn't talk to the players, I would have to use other means to sort it out," he said.

"I expected him to remind the players of discipline, but never said I would give him a minute to talk to the players.

"The Irish guys came to me and said 'what now?' I told them 'time on' and play was continuing.

Hoeniss had blown the whistle to stop play: (1) to award the penalty; and (2) to talk to Smits. He can't restart play without blowing the whistle again. Tappe Henning quotes the relevant rule:

"The rule says: 'When he (the referee) stops play for a contravention under rule 1.26(3) ... he should blow the whistle a second time when he awards a penalty try (not applicable on Saturday), or a penalty'."

Hoeniss can't just say "time on, play is continuing". He had stopped play. O'Gara wasn't entitled to tap and go until the whistle was blown the second time. Hoennis forgot the basics. To suggest, as he did, that it's the Boks' fault for turning their backs on a team five metres from their line is not only disingenuous, it's trying to cover his own fundamental error.

[Havak]

Is Radio Leicester part of the BBC chain?

Part of the family yes – but never the less you did receive a secondary commentary team – Radio Leicester’s coverage was by Bleddyn Jones (Male) and Steve Johnson (Male). Aunty clearly putting our licence fee money to good use doubling up the teams.

Yes, I saw that, but I also thought Tindall seemed to fill in for Paul as a receiver prior to the change.

He probably did – he was considerably more mobile around the paddock?

Anyway, I think the Bok centres will be licking their lips. And Stirling Mortlock, too.

And so they should – he is by far the biggest obvious weakness. The other options – Abbott (injured), Smith (injured), Van Gisbergen (Kiwi until next summer), Noon and Stephenson (not good enough), Greenwood (in awful form). Lloyd (injured and not good enough), Hipkiss (talented but can’t get a club start ahead of foreigners)

Centre is a problem – too many top clubs have Foreigners filling those roles. Including Tigers of course.

And his defence was immensely suspect. He doesn't seem to be a tough nut.

I think that is fair enough. That’s why I want to see Ellis pair with him against the Wallabies – Ellis is one tough little scrummy and the clash between him and Gregan will be fascinating.

That said, France looked awesomely good. Even if M'sieur Michalak lacks a kicking game. Still, I'm sure Tamerlin will be happy to give him some tips.

At home I would make them the number one side in the world. Away from home they might be as much as five places lower than that. They remain an enigma – they should achieve so much more than they do. I think perhaps there is an issue with complacency when they win Slams up here – as they never convert that into series wins against SH sides – or even sequential wins. I’m sure the boys will have their own views…

So Eddie will presumably be looking for a compliant back line against the Scots? One has to love Scotland – one huge win over a Japan side that rested it’s Kiwi players and they suddenly talk about beating Australia. In their dreams perhaps – but nowhere else.

To suggest, as he did, that it's the Boks' fault for turning their backs on a team five metres from their line is not only disingenuous, it's trying to cover his own fundamental error.

So, accepting for the moment that he messed up to the letter of the law, would you say the Irish lads did absolutely nothing wrong either then? They obeyed a referee’s instruction after all?

And it is also a little disingenuous for the Bok coach to complain about the Irish killing ball and encroaching offside – his side were no better behaved in those areas.

And in all of this what excuses Watson and Henning for criticising a fellow referee? I would suggest again these comments will draw IRB attention on the Bok Union.

It would be Hoeniss of course – the ultimate ‘homer’ referee for the SH sides normally.

Oh and White has fully fallen off the ‘quiet and sensible’ wagon at last – check the BBC sport site for a long list of his whines and moans about how unfair the world is to Bok sides. His inner Clive is going public at last.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
And so they should – he is by far the biggest obvious weakness. The other options – Abbott (injured), Smith (injured), Van Gisbergen (Kiwi until next summer), Noon and Stephenson (not good enough), Greenwood (in awful form). Lloyd (injured and not good enough), Hipkiss (talented but can’t get a club start ahead of foreigners)

Cripes. Want to borrow a centre?

At home I would make them the number one side in the world. Away from home they might be as much as five places lower than that. They remain an enigma – they should achieve so much more than they do. I think perhaps there is an issue with complacency when they win Slams up here – as they never convert that into series wins against SH sides – or even sequential wins. I’m sure the boys will have their own views…

I understand that they can be, um, enigmatic. It's that damn esprit de clocher. Which, of course, isn't going to hurt them in the next World Cup, is it?

So Eddie will presumably be looking for a compliant back line against the Scots?

That, or he'll have to supply Clyde Rathbone with mittens, ear muffs and a parka. I think he had one and a half touches on Saturday night.

One has to love Scotland – one huge win over a Japan side that rested it’s Kiwi players and they suddenly talk about beating Australia. In their dreams perhaps – but nowhere else.

Well, they made us look average in the second half the other week. As did France on Saturday night. Is a pattern emerging?

So, accepting for the moment that he messed up to the letter of the law, would you say the Irish lads did absolutely nothing wrong either then? They obeyed a referee’s instruction after all?

I don't blame the Irish in the slightest. What were they supposed to do? Tell the ref to blow his whistle? Hoeniss stuffed up. He suffered brain fade. The Irish benefited. How many times have we all seen a ref call back a quick tap because it was taken before the whistle? You can't blow the whistle, stop the game to talk to the captain, then claim the game hasn't stopped. It's not just the letter of the law.

And it is also a little disingenuous for the Bok coach to complain about the Irish killing ball and encroaching offside – his side were no better behaved in those areas.

Utterly disingenuous. His team has specialised in that stuff. The Bok defence was offside significantly more often than they were onside throughout the Tri-Nations. Obviously coached that way. Jake White is, unfortunately, letting himself down. Pity. He was shaping to be better than that. I think he's now through his honeymoon period of (as it were) glory for resurrecting the team, and he's finding himself neck-deep in the hurly-burly and pressure of Test rugby. He might learn. He might not.

And in all of this what excuses Watson and Henning for criticising a fellow referee? I would suggest again these comments will draw IRB attention on the Bok Union.

Watson's and Henning's words are the truly interesting things to come out of all this, I think. Refs never criticise each other. They're a club. I suspect it's the national (Bok) paranoia at work. Even if I think they're right. Factually. I'd imagine the IRB will have something to say.

Oh and White has fully fallen off the ‘quiet and sensible’ wagon at last – check the BBC sport site for a long list of his whines and moans about how unfair the world is to Bok sides. His inner Clive is going public at last.

See above.

[Havak]

Work eating into rugby time yet again for me.

Tamerlin and LDiCesare - were the French Barbarians as poor as it sounded they were? Galthie, Bernat-Salles, Brouzet, Califano - it was looking good on paper - until I saw the name Townsend.

*edit* A belated happy birthday Caligastia. Missed that one. Of course it is all downhill after 30...

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Work eating into rugby time yet again for me.

For the last time - get your priorities right!

Tamerlin and LDiCesare - were the French Barbarians as poor as it sounded they were? Galthie, Bernat-Salles, Brouzet, Califano - it was looking good on paper - until I saw the name Townsend.

I don't know what Tamerlin and LDiCesares think, but all reports indicate that the Barbs were in the match for a long time. Their pack did exactly the same thing to the Oz A pack that the French did to the Wallaby pack, which would have depressed Eddie. A barrage of second-half Oz A tries resulted in a flattering scoreline. The positives from the match for Eddie were David Lyons' barnstorming return to form and a strong debut from backrower Hoiles. Thus Lyons replaces the injured John Roe against the Scots, and Hoiles is elevated to the bench.

*edit* A belated happy birthday Caligastia. Missed that one. Of course it is all downhill after 30...

Hear hear!

[Havak]

Cripes. Want to borrow a centre?

Is that Mortlock fellow available?

Abbott has just started playing for Wasps A after injury – but to be honest I think he has fallen behind Ollie Smith in the pecking order when both are fit - Abbott was one of many found wanting on the tour (and coincidentally the back rower Chris Jones has never even benched for the side again after the humiliation he suffered in NZ).

The BBC forums are still providing me endless amusement as the Sale and Glaws muppets try to reason the six Tigers lads out of the side – particularly those trying to usurp Corry who is in magnificent form.

Which, of course, isn't going to hurt them in the next World Cup, is it?

That, or he'll have to supply Clyde Rathbone with mittens, ear muffs and a parka

he will need those at Murrayfield even if he is involved in every play – the wind whistles through that ground and chills to the bone. Take my word for it – it is based on experience.

Is a pattern emerging?

Hope so. Although average is probably too good – could you manage ‘well below average’ for Twickers please?

You can't blow the whistle, stop the game to talk to the captain, then claim the game hasn't stopped. It's not just the letter of the law.

Still look on the bright side – the Boks can claim to be victims for another ten years now?

I think he's now through his honeymoon period of (as it were) glory for resurrecting the team, and he's finding himself neck-deep in the hurly-burly and pressure of Test rugby. He might learn. He might not.

I think you are spot on there. Lets see how he reacts if one of his players gets binned for trying to kill Hodgson?

The IRB are being very quiet about the Referee debacle?

For the last time - get your priorities right!

Beer, Rugby, Apolyton, Work and she who can do no wrong. Maybe not in that exact order?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak


Is that Mortlock fellow available?

Sorry, no, but I'm willing to lease you Morgan Turinui. He played in the A side on Tuesday. Strong, quick, runs great angles, knows where the try line is. He can't displace Mortlock, and our inside centre these days is usually a bona fide second 5/8. Poor old Morgan will struggle to get a game.

The BBC forums are still providing me endless amusement as the Sale and Glaws muppets try to reason the six Tigers lads out of the side – particularly those trying to usurp Corry who is in magnificent form.

Yes, I've noticed an absence of Leicester supporters on those forums. Can't they afford computers?

The IRB are being very quiet about the Referee debacle?

They are a bit. They've jumped up and down for less before this.

Beer, Rugby, Apolyton, Work and she who can do no wrong. Maybe not in that exact order?

Well, it's all in the context of the situation, isn't it. Reverse order if she asked.

[finbar]

Hey Tamerlin. The Australian L***** team is playing the French L***** team in your town! Why haven't you put a stop to it!?

[ravagon]

Havak's not the only one losing time to infernal work!
There ought to be a law against it!

Caught a bit of that RSA-Ireland debacle. Ouch. Somebody please tell me that idiot ref isn't a Kiwi. Even if he is.

Hmmm. Wasn't he the one Tamerlin zapped with a plethora of 's not so long ago?
Could he have been right??!!
Even more troubling, if he was right about that then could he be right about other things too??


I can understand Hoeniss making a mistake and allowing the Irish to play on, but as soon as he realised the Boks were still following his instructions he should've disallowed the try and come back for the penalty.
There wasn't an advantage nor was there any need to stop the game or anything else. It had already stopped.
Not reversing it at that point was inexcusable. He screwed up and tried to blame it on the Bok skipper.
Kudo's to the Boks for handling it so calmly. If it'd been me out there I would've been absolutely livid.

Ditto for the aftermath. Actions have consequences for players. It shouldn't be any different for officials and that was a particularly horrendous snafu.

Beer, Rugby, Apolyton, Work and she who can do no wrong. Maybe not in that exact order?

She who can do no wrong, eh? I know a she who is always right. I wonder if they're related?

Incidentally, do tell who you're supporting in the NZ-Wales game ...
Please bear in mind though that your first choice, a sinkhole opening up underneath the stadium and swallowing both teams, has rather long odds.

[Havak]

Poor old Morgan will struggle to get a game.

Appreciate the offer – but we should perhaps look for an islander not yet naturalised by a tri-nations side.

They are all related – it’s one huge estrogenic conspiracy.

Yes, I've noticed an absence of Leicester supporters on those forums. Can't they afford computers?

It’s avoided because of the number of West country fans who are considered to be from a far lower class and not worth speaking to.

Well, it's all in the context of the situation, isn't it. Reverse order if she asked.

Do you think it is wise for me to deceive her like that?

Even more troubling, if he was right about that then could he be right about other things too??

Oh Finbar will love that.

Hoeniss is a strange lad – it’s not the first time he has drawn heavy criticism. But the IRB seems to like him.

Ditto for the aftermath. Actions have consequences for players. It shouldn't be any different for officials and that was a particularly horrendous snafu.

They could never do this sadly – no sporting body can encourage witch hunts against it’s appointed match officials. Hoeniss would have been assessed during last weeks game – and the assessment will have been glowing as they always are. Reffing is a club – that is why the two Bok refs speaking up is such a shock. Okay both are retired and both were appalling refs in their own right – but it’s still a shock.


They are all related by the way – it’s one huge estrogenal conspiracy.

Incidentally, do tell who you're supporting in the NZ-Wales game ...

It’s not as hard for me as you might think.

I hope you don’t have the impression I have a huge problem with the ABs as I don’t. I have some specific problems with them when they face us – you will never convince me what Shaw did was worse than Robinson being where he was in the first place for example – and it does concern me when they get carried away about ‘how good they are’ when they clearly are good, but not THAT good. But on the whole I really enjoy watching the ABs. I am sure all rugby fans enjoy watching the AB backlines?

Compare that to Wales who show huge passion and commitment – but little skill. And who hate the English with a passion (broad sweeping national stereotypes are the order of the day in rugger). It’s therefore easy – I’m in the AB corner.
I might threaten to support Wales when I’m annoyed – but it is never a serious threat.

There is a team I could never bring myself to truly get behind and cheer – so you should also note I am in the Scotland corner. And on a hiding to nothing because of that.

Now here is something bizarre - one of our Tigers players has been banned for six months for stamping. And yet he has not played a single first team game for us this season. How weird is that?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak


Appreciate the offer – but we should perhaps look for an islander not yet naturalised by a tri-nations side.

Well, Leicester has one. They could lend him.

Do you think it is wise for me to deceive her like that?

Mmmm. Dutch courage is easy behind their backs, isn't it.

Oh Finbar will love that.

I'll read ravagon's posts when he learns to use the Enter key.

and it does concern me when they get carried away about ‘how good they are’ when they clearly are good, but not THAT good.

Why does that concern you? You know they never deliver when it counts.

(broad sweeping national stereotypes are the order of the day in rugger).

I would never have known from any of your posts.

There is a team I could never bring myself to truly get behind and cheer – so you should also note I am in the Scotland corner. And on a hiding to nothing because of that.

Which is why I'm giggling up my sleeve supporting the Boks.

Now here is something bizarre - one of our Tigers players has been banned for six months for stamping. And yet he has not played a single first team game for us this season. How weird is that?

Was this in the HC match?

EDIT. No, it wasn't. I just looked it up. Oh well, he should keep his boots to himself in whichever league he plays on loan or otherwise.

[Havak]

Well, Leicester has one. They could lend him.

He is Fijian – and of course Fiji is ‘British’.

It is of course only easy behind their backs.

You know they never deliver when it counts.

It concerns me because false optimism reminds me so much of England 1871-2003. For their own sake it needs pricking at every opportunity.

I would never have known from any of your posts.

Naturally. After all the majority of stereotyping of Aussies in these threads does not come from me?

Which is why I'm giggling up my sleeve supporting the Boks.

Surprised I am not.

I don’t now how to call this one at all – we are not very good and I think they are somewhat over rated too. Should be fun.

EDIT. No, it wasn't. I just looked it up. Oh well, he should keep his boots to himself in whichever league he plays on loan or otherwise.

I agree. It wasn’t against Bath after all.

Bizarre situation – he hasn’t made a first team appearance for us yet and still we have to pay hi for six months of doing nought. On your bike orders for sunshine I think?

Now then will Tamerlin get that colloquialism?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak


He is Fijian – and of course Fiji is ‘British’.

Goodoh. So Rokococo and Caucau are eligible for the England team!

It concerns me because false optimism reminds me so much of England 1871-2003. For their own sake it needs pricking at every opportunity.

Fair enough. So if they follow the England pattern, it's false optimism, followed by ten minutes of glory, falling in a screaming heap ten minutes later.

Naturally. After all the majority of stereotyping of Aussies in these threads does not come from me?

I've often regretted that we don't have a stereotypical Australian in our midst for me to carve into pieces.

we are not very good and I think they are somewhat over rated too.

I think you've just about summed it up, although I think their existing potential is greater than England's. By which I mean, I've seen these Boks play outstanding rugby against vastly better teams than Canada.

Now then will Tamerlin get that colloquialism?

He'll get the "sunshine" because we've discussed it before with him. The two-wheeler reference might stump him.

[LDiCesare]

France 14 - 24 Argentina
Deserved and clear victory for the Pumas. They not only wanted it more than the French, they played much better.
The French didn't know how to use the wind. In particular, Michalak in the second half didn't kick half as much as he should have. He played a penalty fast when he would have gained much more by just kicking for a lineout. Peyrelongue played better when Michalak moved to scrum half. I'm really persuaded Michalak would make a much better 9 than 10.
The Argentinans showed a very strong scrum and good backs. I would gladly kill the French journalists that keep pretending that Argentina is not one of the top countries of rugby. I'm sure they are consistently better than Scotland and Wales for instance, and about the same level as the top NH teams. Since their pack would annihilate the Wallabies, they are probably better than Australia too. I think they'll next play against Ireland and the Boks this season.

I didn't see the French Barbarians match so can't comment on it.

I did see the match I played yesterday, though. We crushed Dourdan (8 tries vs. 2). But oh, how tired I was (am). Ask as you may, you will find noone ready to replace a hooker...

One more thing. Avoid drinking Beaujolais at all costs.
It's terrible. The silly winger who ate by my side made me drink some and it really tastes awful. I knew that of course, but couldn't back from the drinking contest for some obscure reason. Rest assured that the sissie ended the night in a much much much poorrer state than I. Not that I was in good shape, but well, he certainly was in no shape at all. He did play well, though, except for one blunder and not letting a friendly flanker take the ball from him.
Now that'll teach him. For those who want a few pieces of rugbystic wisdom, here are the lessons he should have learnt:
1) Don't try to outdrink your front row.
2) When a flanker comes to help you, let him. If you don't, you stand the risk of being reduced to pulp by an opponent forward much heavier than you. (if your forwards are here, then the other forwards must be near too)

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
France 14 - 24 Argentina
Deserved and clear victory for the Pumas. They not only wanted it more than the French, they played much better.
The French didn't know how to use the wind. In particular, Michalak in the second half didn't kick half as much as he should have. He played a penalty fast when he would have gained much more by just kicking for a lineout. Peyrelongue played better when Michalak moved to scrum half. I'm really persuaded Michalak would make a much better 9 than 10.

The result surprises me. (See below)

Oh, and I thought Michalak's kicking against Australia was pretty ordinary both in his choices of when to kick, and the execution.

The Argentinans showed a very strong scrum and good backs. I would gladly kill the French journalists that keep pretending that Argentina is not one of the top countries of rugby. I'm sure they are consistently better than Scotland and Wales for instance, and about the same level as the top NH teams. Since their pack would annihilate the Wallabies, they are probably better than Australia too. I think they'll next play against Ireland and the Boks this season.

I didn't see the match, so I don't know how much France contributed to their own demise, nor do I know how much of a "one off" it was for the Pumas. I can comment on the Pumas up until last season because I've seen them a couple of times a season over the past few years.

They've always been very strong in the forwards - sometimes brutally (illegally) so - but their game has rarely stood up beyond the forwards. They've had talent in the backs, but the backs have never been able to capitalise. Their coordination has fallen apart, usually in their halves. Discipline has also been a major problem. Historically, they've always been very difficult to beat playing at home - I think they beat one of the NH teams (Ireland?) at home last season - and the Wallabies always beat them there but it's always a struggle. But, historically, they've never been as strong away from home. They've never troubled us here in Australia, regardless of the strength of their forwards, because their strength has always started and finished with the forwards.

All of that said, I'm with those who call the Pumas the sleeping giants of world rugby. They're terribly neglected by the rugby world. (As, too, are the Pacific rugby nations) The Pumas never get to play enough Tests against top teams. The excuse seems to be that Argentina's time zone makes scheduling matches and tours difficult. Which I think is crap. There was talk of including the Pumas in the Tri Nations series, which would have been a very good thing for Argentinian rugby. They need to be allowed to play more than the couple of Tests a year they play now.

Anyway, as I said, having not seen them against France, I don't know whether they had a "one off", or whether they've overcome their fundamental historical problem of falling apart outside the forwards.

I did see the match I played yesterday, though. We crushed Dourdan (8 tries vs. 2). But oh, how tired I was (am). Ask as you may, you will find noone ready to replace a hooker...

One more thing. Avoid drinking Beaujolais at all costs.
It's terrible. The silly winger who ate by my side made me drink some and it really tastes awful. I knew that of course, but couldn't back from the drinking contest for some obscure reason. Rest assured that the sissie ended the night in a much much much poorrer state than I. Not that I was in good shape, but well, he certainly was in no shape at all. He did play well, though, except for one blunder and not letting a friendly flanker take the ball from him.
Now that'll teach him. For those who want a few pieces of rugbystic wisdom, here are the lessons he should have learnt:
1) Don't try to outdrink your front row.
2) When a flanker comes to help you, let him. If you don't, you stand the risk of being reduced to pulp by an opponent forward much heavier than you. (if your forwards are here, then the other forwards must be near too)

I can see Havak having fun with this! He, of course, will demand to know why you were drinking with a girlie in the first place.

[finbar]

Wallabies 31 -d- Scotland 17

Oh well, a win is a win, I suppose. But it was the same old Wallaby thing - patches of outstanding rugby undercut by handling errors and missed opportunities. And what seems to be a fractured jaw or cheekbone for Stirling Mortlock put the icing on the cake of disappointment. At least our scrum matched theirs, even if our lineouts were haphazard.

EDIT. Oh dear. The news gets worse. Not only does Mortlock have a broken cheekbone, Steve Larkham has a broken arm, and Clyde Rathbone is likely to miss next week with a groin strain. And Eddie says it was our best Test for the tour. I have no doubt that it was. But it still wasn't good enough. We were patently obviously a class above the Scots, but didn't play like it often enough.

England 32 -d- Springboks 16

England impressive, their job made easier by a very poor Bok effort. The Boks lacked confidence, they mishandled, and their forwards went completely AWOL, not all of it the result of English supremacy. Only briefly, in the last couple of minutes, did the Boks look remotely threatening, and it was interesting to note that England didn't cope all that well. Still, on that effort, England's forwards should have an early Christmas present against the Wallaby forwards next week. What a tragedy it will be if Stirling Mortlock is missing, though, because Henry Paul is a sitting duck in the centres. I can't believe he will stay there.

[LDiCesare]

The argentinans were infact very helped by the wind. There was a strong Mistral blowing, and it prevented long passes, making the typical puma game of "pass the ball to a forward so he charges, repeat ad nauseam" the best tactic. For a change, had the match been in Paris, with less wind, the French could have won. Still, the French underperformed because they didn't want to win as much as their opponents. The typical example: Drop down by the pumas. The ball flies high, crosses the 10 meters line, and falls backwards. It alights inside the 10 meters limit. The pumas play, the French just watch. That's no good.
It's true that if the game had allowed them to play wide, the French could have tired the pumas and probably found holes in their defense. Still, for one try he scored, Marsh made a knock on and lost a perfect opportunity.
I said that currently, they'd beat the Wallabies because their scrum was really awesome. The Australians struggled a little in the world cup against them, but your forwards held fast. Today, comparing this game against France and your game against France, your forwards would have been butchered. As a forward, I don't think the backs would have been able to make much of a difference, but then I mught be slightly biased.

[finbar]

Fair enough. But, historically, the Pumas' problem has always been that their game falls apart once the ball leaves their forwards. In other words, it hasn't mattered how badly they've smashed the opposing pack, they haven't known how to capitalise on possession. A team with a half-decent defence has always been able to stop them elsewhere. And they've often made it even harder for themselves with very poor discipline.

[Tamerlin]

Typical French problem, very good one week, very bad the other...

The French players have been unable to keep the ball in their hands, they did far too many fools that prevented them from developping their game. On the other side, the Argentinians seemed far more motivated than their French couterparts and were in a very good day. But as we say in France: "la chance sourit aux audacieux".

[Tamerlin]

The Beaujolais is generally not considered as a wine by someone who has at least a veneer of "savoir vivre". The Beaujolais is only the result of a successful marketing operation and an example of what the worst aspects of mass consumption can produce.

Spit...

Ding!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Typical French problem, very good one week, very bad the other...

And how typical that they save the good for the game against the Wallabies!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
The Beaujolais is generally not considered as a wine by someone who has at least a veneer of "savoir vivre". The Beaujolais is only the result of a successful marketing operation and an example of what the worst aspects of mass consumption can produce.

Spit...

Ding!

I agree entirely. Modern Beaujolais is a tool of the marketing industry, with, amongst other things, idiotic competitions between restaurants to be the first to offer the latest vintage. LDiCesares should be drummed out of the Front Rowers' Club for even lifting a glass of the stuff.

[ravagon]

Hmm. What's this doing on page four?
Dear oh dear oh dear. Can't have that.

All-Blacks 26 d Wales 25.

Yikes. Wales apparently had a blinder. Sounded like a very good game. Unfortunately for the Welsh they had a bit of a problem with the match clock. Not so much in this game as in their last game against the Boks.
Apparently it wasn't allowing for stoppage time a couple of weeks ago, hence the actual time showed ~88 minutes at the end. The Welsh knew this but apparently hadn't realised that it'd been fixed forthe game against us.
As the clock ticked over to full time, thinking they still had a few minutes of injury time left, they put the ball out - their intention being to try and win the lineout and get into position for a field goal.
The ref then blew the final whistle leaving the Welsh players speechless.


New IRB rankings (and we all know how important these are ) out after last weekend - not a great deal of change in the top 10 by the looks of things. More to the point how did we get the #1 spot back given that we didn't take the 3N this year and we've only played Italy and Wales in the last couple of months?
I'm a bit surprised that the Pumas didn't gain a place or two after their win over Tamerlin's mob? Perhaps the few points they gained wasn't enough to knock the Irish down a peg...

1 (1 last week): New Zealand - 89.66 points
2 (2): England - 87.97
3 (3): Australia - 87.20
4 (4): France - 84.94
5 (5): South Africa - 84.12
6 (6): Ireland - 82.22
7 (7): Argentina - 79.05
8 (8): Wales - 76.91
9 (9): Scotland - 75.27
10 (10): Fiji - 74.17

Apparently if England beat the Wallabies and France beat New Zealand this weekend, Andy Robinson's side will regain the number one position for the first time since June 7, 2004.

Originally posted by Havak
I might threaten to support Wales when I’m annoyed – but it is never a serious threat.

There is a team I could never bring myself to truly get behind and cheer – so you should also note I am in the Scotland corner. And on a hiding to nothing because of that.

I'll bear this in mind the next time I'm tempted to support, well, a certain side not that much different from the one you could never cheer for ...

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon
Hmm. What's this doing on page four?
Dear oh dear oh dear. Can't have that.

All-Blacks 26 d Wales 25.

Yikes. Wales apparently had a blinder. Sounded like a very good game. Unfortunately for the Welsh they had a bit of a problem with the match clock. Not so much in this game as in their last game against the Boks.
Apparently it wasn't allowing for stoppage time a couple of weeks ago, hence the actual time showed ~88 minutes at the end. The Welsh knew this but apparently hadn't realised that it'd been fixed forthe game against us.
As the clock ticked over to full time, thinking they still had a few minutes of injury time left, they put the ball out - their intention being to try and win the lineout and get into position for a field goal.
The ref then blew the final whistle leaving the Welsh players speechless.

Yep. Every other team in the world, at every level, from schoolboy upwards, in that situation, asks the ref how much time is left. Everyone except the Taffys.

New IRB rankings (and we all know how important these are ) out after last weekend - not a great deal of change in the top 10 by the looks of things. More to the point how did we get the #1 spot back given that we didn't take the 3N this year and we've only played Italy and Wales in the last couple of months?
I'm a bit surprised that the Pumas didn't gain a place or two after their win over Tamerlin's mob? Perhaps the few points they gained wasn't enough to knock the Irish down a peg...

1 (1 last week): New Zealand - 89.66 points
2 (2): England - 87.97
3 (3): Australia - 87.20
4 (4): France - 84.94
5 (5): South Africa - 84.12
6 (6): Ireland - 82.22
7 (7): Argentina - 79.05
8 (8): Wales - 76.91
9 (9): Scotland - 75.27
10 (10): Fiji - 74.17

Apparently if England beat the Wallabies and France beat New Zealand this weekend, Andy Robinson's side will regain the number one position for the first time since June 7, 2004.

Yellow card for you for posting the meaningless drivel that is the IRB rankings!