Rugby - Running Out of Titles

[Havak]

I'm still too happy after the weekend to comment much.

Shall we just say I was pleasantly surprised?

After all Wasps needed bringing down a peg or two.

[finbar]

[Havak]

Bad news about Larkham and Mortlock though.

And France? What can one say - not ideal preperation for the ABs.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak


Bad news about Larkham and Mortlock though.

And Rathbone, not that he's had too many opportunities on this tour. I'd like to see Tuquiri move into 13 with Rogers taking his spot on the wing instead of, as is mooted, Rogers taking over 13 from Mortlock. Giteau and Rogers make a very skilful centre pairing but not all that powerful. Henry Paul has probably already cancelled his appointment with his shrink.

Anyway, hopefully we will provide a contest. Unlike the Boks. They were abysmal, worse than against Ireland. Quite amazing. Oh, and did your telecast feature the slo-mo of AJ Venter trying to tear the face off one of the England players? I think it could have been Corry.

And France? What can one say - not ideal preperation for the ABs.

They're like the proverbial little girl with the curl. I'd also forgotten that the Pumas have quite a good record against them.

[Havak]

I am rather hoping it is another classic confrontation.

I suspect you will target Paul more effectively than the Boks did.

That rush defence is fine when it works - but it leaves gaps for the opposition all the time so I am amazed the Aussies and ABs couldn't exploit it more in the tri nations?

Venter was trying to gouge Grewcock (second row). Good thing too - Corry would have retaliated I suspect - it is a suspect area of his game.

So the Bok Blindside, who has had a shocking tour up north, is the players player of the year? And Jonno gets a 'merit award' whatever that is?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak

That rush defence is fine when it works - but it leaves gaps for the opposition all the time so I am amazed the Aussies and ABs couldn't exploit it more in the tri nations?

We did in the first match and won. In the return match, we played like the proverbial busted a*seholes and handed them the match. The ABs blew it both times because Carlos and their stupid flat backline were sitting ducks for the rush defence. But, on this NH tour, they haven't been 50% of what they were earlier in the year. I have no idea why. Even their terrific back row has been a fizzer.

So the Bok Blindside, who has had a shocking tour up north, is the players player of the year? And Jonno gets a 'merit award' whatever that is?

Obviously it was judged across the whole year, and he was terrific earlier in the year. Although whether it was good enough to earn the title is another matter. His only real stinkers have been on the NH tour. We had the same thing with David Lyons winning Wallaby player of the year and being dropped from the team. He'd earned all his points earlier in the year.

EDIT. I forgot about Henry Paul. I'm sure we will target him. If we can ever find him. I've never seen a centre play so far away from where he might normally be expected to be.

[Havak]

Thats certainly an area I would expect Tuqiri and Giteau to exploit (or is the other 'Tu' in the centre?).

For ourselves I think high balls behind Wendell has to be worth a try - and that front three looks like it could be given a torrid time in the scrum - Young, Paul and Baxter against Wiggy, Lardy and Whitey. Boys against Men?

Second row is interesting - Plank yet again and the Aussie-Bok against the Bath muppets. Can't call that.

Moody, Worseley and Corry againt George, Pitbull and Lyons looks a tasty match up indeed.

Flatley worked wonder in the RWC final for the Aussies - but is his distribution a match for Larkhams?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Thats certainly an area I would expect Tuqiri and Giteau to exploit (or is the other 'Tu' in the centre?).

Morgan Turinui is, indeed, starting at 13. The chap I tried to lease to you on the basis that only injuries would get him a gig! Quick, very strong, not as much of a crash-through type as Mortlock, runs the angles more. He will have a recent photo of H Paul in his pocket. And a GPS system to try to find him.

For ourselves I think high balls behind Wendell has to be worth a try -

Wendell will have plenty of cover from Larkham and Tuquiri. Please kick the ball to our back three.

and that front three looks like it could be given a torrid time in the scrum - Young, Paul and Baxter against Wiggy, Lardy and Whitey. Boys against Men?

Mmmm. Can't argue with that. Paul will match Lardy around the paddock and will throw better than him. You could throw better than him. I could throw better than him. I'm sure we'll be counting on White's ball-handling incompetence to give us plenty of possession.

Second row is interesting - Plank yet again and the Aussie-Bok against the Bath muppets. Can't call that.

Plank hurt his groin against Scotland. I assume he'll be all right. He will lift for the occasion. The Aussie-Bok has had a very quiet tour. Time he stepped up. The lineouts will depend on the throwing, I think.

Moody, Worseley and Corry againt George, Pitbull and Lyons looks a tasty match up indeed.

Could be the decider. Lyons simply has to put in 80 minutes, which he hasn't been doing. Or, if not 80, an exhausting 60 before he's replaced by fresh legs. You can be sure that Smith and Waugh will be keen to see how Hodgson performs under pressure.

Flatley worked wonder in the RWC final for the Aussies - but is his distribution a match for Larkhams?

No, he's not the freak that Larkham is, he's much more conventional, but he's polished. And he can score tries at Twickenham! Who did he run away from again? His problem at the moment is rustiness, having missed just about the whole year with the broken arm. His tour matches have been his only rugby since around March. I would also hope he will alternate with Giteau, letting Giteau's speed and elusiveness test the defence.

Bottom line: if the England forwards dominate, we're behind the eight ball, having to maximise what will be a fraction of the possession England will have. Still, we've done it before. Many times!

[Havak]

Sadly true. One of the most notable things about the June test was how damaging the Wallabies were in the last twenty when they started exceeding their traditional ratio of 30% possession of the pill.

Last time I saw Latham at fullback he had a nightmare. Fingers crossed he hasn't improved - THEN we will pop balls behind Wendell as Tuqiri cannot cover the back three alone.

One thing I haven't troubled the thread with this week is the sad news about our club. For reasons that may make sense to them (though no one else) the Tigers board has jumped into bed with the local Soccer side and proposes to ground share the Soccer stadium from next season. it has not gone down well

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Sadly true. One of the most notable things about the June test was how damaging the Wallabies were in the last twenty when they started exceeding their traditional ratio of 30% possession of the pill.

We did it against the ABs and the Boks as well. We have to do it against any team with a half-decent front row. We're getting very good at it!

Oh, and the England management is now reffing the game before it starts? Telling the ref how to police the scrums? Mmmmmm?

Last time I saw Latham at fullback he had a nightmare. Fingers crossed he hasn't improved - THEN we will pop balls behind Wendell as Tuqiri cannot cover the back three alone.

He's been in fine form recently. Very safe in defence, very dangerous when he joins the line. Which probably only means he's due for a stinker.

One thing I haven't troubled the thread with this week is the sad news about our club. For reasons that may make sense to them (though no one else) the Tigers board has jumped into bed with the local Soccer side and proposes to ground share the Soccer stadium from next season. it has not gone down well

Yes, I read about it. I assumed you would mourn the passing of the old ground. Heavens, how many litres of beer have you spilled on those terraces over the years? Yes, I know, you don't waste a drop - let me have my literary allusions!

[Havak]

Don't forget that Robinson is an ex Bath man (player and coach). Of course he will play games before the match. Even though what he is saying is true enough - the Aussie scrum will get away with murder with an SH ref.

And it is the referee who has a lifetime free supply of Guinness I notice? Perhaps the worst referee in the world? Bodes well...

[ravagon]

Poor old Havak. If I understood correctly the new ground doesn't serve drinks or something? Oh the horror.

Just as a matter of curiosity, can anybody (ie: Havak/Tamerlin) tell me what the local odds are this weekend on the 'SH visitors' versus your respective lot?

If I were to hazard a guess of my own I'd think that the AB's might just be slight favourites to beat France (Although there are apparently 3 French players recalled after last week's hiccup against the Puma's)?

England-Aus though is a little close to call, possibly favouring England slightly, given that a couple of the Wallabies are out injured?

I won't bother guessing Wales-Japan but the Boks-Scotland could be interesting if the Scots bear up. White has been suggesting the Scots are actually the favourites but somehow I'm not so sure that's 'entirely accurate', paticularly given his 'disappointment in the result against England', mentioned , basically, in the same sentence.
Well, not unless one were to concede Scotland as being the better of the two NH sides anyway.

[finbar]

England are about 6/4 on (4/6) with the online bookies here. Australia are about 6/4 against.

[Havak]

Heavens, how many litres of beer have you spilled on those terraces over the years?

I’m not sure I dare work it out.

Just to clarify the bar situation the Walkers Soccer Stadium has bars – but like all violence fueled soccer arena’s you are not able to see the pitch from any of them – the horror! Nor has the stadium been designed with the concept of getting drinks to your seats because you are not allowed to do that at soccer. This needs sorting well before any move as not being able to drink whilst watching the game will cause riots amongst Tigers fans.

I think my biggest problem is I do not trust City – and I do not like the rumours that they are insisting on primacy of tenure (i.e. if they want Saturdays then they get them) despite being junior financial partners.

I need to be careful here but two years ago City should have gone out of business – they were hugely in debt. They avoided it in a very ‘creative’ way and left a string of broken creditors in their wake. We cannot trust them – so I have to hope our board is manouvering so that we get the stadium when they inevitably go broke again (football in this country is financially out of control with nearly 100% of most clubs turnover going straight into players pockets).

If I were to hazard a guess of my own I'd think that the AB's might just be slight favourites to beat France (Although there are apparently 3 French players recalled after last week's hiccup against the Puma's)?

Amazingly enough they do seem to be – cannot imagine why. 10/11 on I have seen for them. Doesn’t matter – France are the better side if they turn up I think. But that is France for you – stuff the Aussies then lose to the Pumas in Marseille (and did I see someone trying to convince the world the Pumas are a top side after that?)

England-Aus though is a little close to call, possibly favouring England slightly, given that a couple of the Wallabies are out injured?

Cannot agree. Australia red hot favourites after the last meeting I would say. I can manoeuvre past Eddie to make us underdogs.

I have a feeling that if we can crock Gregan and Flatley early on they are screwed however – not much depth in the wattle?

I’m also not in Monday so I have recovery time if Finbars mob do turn us over at HQ (and victorious Wallabies have become an endangered species at HQ until now).

White is rating Scotland favourites because they beat the Boks last time they toured there (when the Boks were truly awful on the day). And they are again playing so badly they could lose it – but that is the key expression in that they will have to lose it rather than Scotland win it.

Call them the better side if you like – ‘new’ England has not played them yet so how could I argue?

[finbar]

What are the chances of the move from Welford Road actually happening? And why is the rugby club interested? Apart from a ground with a bigger capacity? I don't know either ground, but the complainers in your link seem to make some very good points.

Doesn’t matter – France are the better side if they turn up I think.

Yes. If. And I think they might.

(and did I see someone trying to convince the world the Pumas are a top side after that?)

Yes, but LDeCesares hasn't seen the Pumas as often as I have. They obviously played out of their boots and the French had one of their stinkers. The thing is, as I said to him, if the Pumas were given more of an opportunity in world rugby, they could become a legitimate power.

Cannot agree. Australia red hot favourites after the last meeting I would say. I can manoeuvre past Eddie to make us underdogs.

If your coach is refereeing, as he seems to want to, you should romp home.

[Havak]

What are the chances of the move from Welford Road actually happening? And why is the rugby club interested

hard to say – it will certainly have to go to shareholders. The Rugby club is interested because we lease our existing ground rather than own it – from a local council that bends over backwards fro Soccer but never for rugger. Gits.

Plus whilst we will not fill 32500 every game we will for some and it will allow us to make more gate money than the 17000 capacity we have now does.

So far so good.

The Soccer club are interested because they are still hugely in debt and do not own their ground either – but as part of this will co-own it for an alledgedly minority outlay. We just cannot trust them.

The thing is, as I said to him, if the Pumas were given more of an opportunity in world rugby, they could become a legitimate power.

I would be happy to see them join the tri-nations to be honest.

If your coach is refereeing, as he seems to want to, you should romp home.

He worked under Clive a LONG time. Not that Eddie is ever guilty of this of course.

[LDiCesare]

Let's just state it that way, the All Blacks just crushed France. Crushed. Reduced to pulp. They were better in combat, advanced on every impact and opened holes in the French defense by applying varied game with strong forwards and fast backs.
The only good points for France is that some players couldn't start the game (thinking Brusque here - Poitrenaud, the full back, has been very bad, with terrible mishandling of the ball leading to a lineout for the Blacks where we'd probably have had a lineout had he stayed clear, and thus one try avoided without him).
The last 20 minutes were almost good by the French, but with only one prop left, there were no scrums pushed so it didn't look like rugby at times.
The most obvious difference was that the Blacks kept the ball alive at all times, while the French tended to go down, risking the loss of the ball (lack of support from fellow players only partially explains that) and slowing their moves, also exposing themselves to tackles and dives from the kiwis. I hope Laporte will learn from this and train his players to keep the ball moving at all times.

[ravagon]

Ireland 21 d Argentina 19.

Would really have liked to have seen this one. Sounded like a very good game with the Irish winning by a drop kick with a minute or so to go. Oddly with the same scoreline as Aus-Eng ...


Australia 21 d England 19.

Wilko wherefore art thou? Any one of the several England penalties would have won it. Even the botched conversion right in front of the pegs would have tied it all up.
England let down by poor discipline it seems, letting the Wallabies nick a couple of penalties near the end to win it.
I don't think the Aussies could have really done much better. England, otoh, just missed too many chances, any of which could have made the difference.


NZ 'lots' d France 'less than lots'

Um. Not much to say really. Possibly a little disappointing from the French?
Basically what LdiC just said.
I cringe under the expectant deluge of about to hit the thread.


RSA 45 d Scotland 10

Rather an expected outcome I think. Lots of physical play from the Boks got them out to an early lead but they really botched it towards the end of the half. Two yellow cards and a penalty try to the Scots. Well, at least NZ referee's won't be in the brightest spotlight this week.


Wales 'just missed the century' d Japan 'just missed the scoreboard'

Again, pretty much expected. Apparently the biggest winning margin in Welsh history since they defeated England 102-11 in 1994.
Hmm, actually that might have been Portugal. I'll check it later and change it.


It probably goes without saying that the really big winner of the weekend, of course, is ravagon, who only saw the highlights.
Might have to get the fox thingy afterall - even though it''s effectively useless for anything in any time zone ahead of me ...

[finbar]

I watched Australia -v- England and France -v- All Blacks, and saw about twenty minutes of the Boks -v- Scotland.

I think L DiCesares summed up the France match very well. The ABs didn't give the French a sniff. It was a textbook example of the ABs in full flight, and they will murder most teams in the world in that form. I really don't know what the French could have done to stop them.

As to England and the Wallabies - yes, if England had kicked straight, they might have won, but it doesn't reflect the realities of the match. England had a purple patch in the second half that put them back into the match. Two classic rolling mauls resulted in tries, the second of which should have been prevented. With a maul that close to the line, having no one guarding the blindside was sheer stupidity on the defence's part. The third try was a beautifully worked backline set piece. Although it renders utterly redundant any England complaints about decoy runners forever more.

The reality is that those rolling mauls were amongst the few times the England forwards ever took charge. For much of the game, the maligned Wallaby pack, while wobbling, dug deep and fought hard in the set pieces, and more than matched their counterparts in the loose. Plank and the Aussie Bok thoroughly enjoyed themselves disrupting the England lineout, and the Australian back row, I thought, left the England lads - Correy aside, who tried hard - for dead. George Smith was devastating with his instincts and sheer strength, and his teaming with Waugh in defence was outstanding.

Nor could England find an answer to Matt Giteau, who turned cracks into holes and exposed frailties in the England defence. Oh, that we had Larkham beside him, giving the opposition two will-o'-the-wisps to worry about.

So, yes, if England had kicked straight they probably would have won, but who knows? We lost fly half Flatley in the first half. If we'd had Larkham, Mortlock and Rathbone, the halftime lead could, arguably, have been greater. Turiniui was nothing much more than competent, and Wendell - well, he drew defenders. Mortlock and Rathbone would both have contributed vastly more.

It was the first half that decided the match. Which brings me to the topic of the England leadership.

1) H Paul was yanked from the field early in the first half. Everyone knew why. He wasn't up to it. But everyone - apart from the England management - knew he wasn't up to it when he was selected. Seeing him yanked was one of the more mind-boggling things I've seen on a rugby field.

2) Why did it take England until the second half to exploit what everyone and their dogs knew was their strength - the forwards. Why weren't they mauling and driving from the outset? Instead, the first half was spent running at an impenetrable Wallaby defence with little planning, either coughing up the ball or turning it over via the strong defence. It's pretty much how England played Canada and the Boks. It worked. Canada's a largely amateur team, and the Boks' idea of defence is to charge at a million miles an hour. When it works, it's tremendous. When it doesn't, there are holes galore, as England discovered the week before. The Wallaby defence, on the other hand, is known to be, arguably, its greatest asset. I thought England wasted the first half of the match, with their lives made even more difficult by some shaky defence close to their line.

3) Simply, I can't imagine an England team under J**** losing the match having fought back as they had.

The Wallabies' first half was probably their best rugby since the World Cup final, which was their best rugby for probably a year before that. Their discipline and commitment later in the second half was also a return to the attitude that used to see them win the majority of close matches. Matt Giteau's return to Twickers after a less than satisfactory debut two years ago was a highlight that bodes well. England's purple patch in the second half was mighty impressive and also bodes well. I don't know what the final possession percentages were, but I suspect that we, yet again, won against the percentages. Unfortunately, until we can find a front row that can do better than, at best, hold its own against strong front rows, winning against the percentages will be the Wallabies' lot.

EDIT. Oh, and for the twenty minutes I saw, the Scots were largely incompetent against the Boks.

ANOTHER EDIT. Forgot to observe that France have gone seriously down the gurgler while Clive has been in the camp.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by finbar

I don't know what the final possession percentages were, but I suspect that we, yet again, won against the percentages. Unfortunately, until we can find a front row that can do better than, at best, hold its own against strong front rows, winning against the percentages will be the Wallabies' lot.

That was rather my impression the game summed up. A win against the grain as it were.

You are of course quite right in again noting the 3 injured Wallabies. If I credit England with the presence of the wonder-boy then I should also credit Australia with the return of their injured.

More fallout from France-NZ - The French injury list reads as the who's who of French rugby. 10 all told. Few of them sound serious but most could miss a game or two.
Of the 3 Toulousians, 2 suffered a few stitches apiece, Michalak a bruised ankle.

http://www.planetrugby.com/Teams/Fra...ry_40264.shtml

[finbar]

Mmmm. Interesting what you find trawling through The Times online:

All Blacks trading on nothing but worn-out myths
By Simon Barnes, Chief Sports Writer

FOR once, the great, implacable, unstoppable All Blacks machine has made an error. Today, New Zealand must take on a half-decent rugby team.

How they managed to allow France on to the schedule of one of those patented All Blacks Soft Rugby Tours, I don’t know. It must have been because they realised that for the tour to have any credibility, they would have to play England or France. So, naturally, they took the softer option — no doubt regretting that they couldn’t play Scotland instead (or San Marino) — and went for France.

I can't wait to find Simon's report of the match.

[Havak]

Oh for a goal kicker eh?

At least we have seen the last of Henry Paul.

For much of the game, the maligned Wallaby pack, while wobbling, dug deep and fought hard in the set pieces, and more than matched their counterparts in the loose

Really? I thought the Wallaby front row was pretty **** and kept in the game at the scrum only by the utterly inept Honiss. Still we have had you four times in a row with SH referees now – the next one has to be NH I would have thought.

The locks did a superb job in the line out. Why the hell was Titterall kept on the bench when lardy's throwing went AWOL? Why was Ben Kay kept on his arse when Grewcock and Borthwick were being outplayed? Some big question marks over Robinson’s coaching for me there. The Wattle did do well in the loose – what do you expect from Waugh and Smith though? Moody was okayish – Worseley looked well off the pace. And Lyons can look impressive but he is a big one dimensional lump at times as well. And yes I do know he at least did not pop a perfect pass to OUR fly half.

Good job the kiwi’s offside goggles were only set to ‘White’ though or we would have stuffed you.

Other than that it was a classic Wallaby performance – winning from a minority of possession (approx 40%) by taking their chances well and having a reserve goalkicker who wasn’t a) useless in his position and b) a Kiwi league player. Not that I’m bitter.

If we'd had Larkham, Mortlock and Rathbone

Yes and another irony – Ollie Smith made his return from injury as a sub and scored a brilliant solo try through a Kafer organised defence – god how we could have done with him instead of Paul for England. VD also had a cracking game – and we could have done with him to get Plank sent off (though he came close to being carded several times as per usual - volatile lad is Justin?).

Seeing him yanked was one of the more mind-boggling things I've seen on a rugby field.

It was one of the best things I have ever seen – but then I was in ‘enemy territory’ sat watching it in the London Welsh club house. The downside of that is that I spent the evening in Richmond. Do you have any idea how many free scarf wearing Aussies there were around Richmond and Kingston (just down the road from HQ) that night – I was in hell!

I was back in hell later on when watching the France game in a pub full of Kiwi students – and being the only one cheering France.

Simply, I can't imagine an England team under J**** losing the match having fought back as they had.

Naturally I agree – it also raises the question of whether you can skipper from fullback? I also thought some terrible options were taken with penalties – your lineout was working well so instead of scrumming from 7M we kept kicking to the line – and lost at least two crucial resulting line outs. Jonno would have scrummed more of them I am sure.

You are of course quite right in again noting the 3 injured Wallabies

*Ahem* Richard Hill, Johnny W, Ollie Smith. Even Louis Deacon. All capable of having made a huge difference in their positions but unavailable due to injury. I Thank you. Hilly could have been crucial given Worseley’s failure to disrupt the deadly Aussie ‘openside’ duo in any meaningful way.

Laugh at Barnes all you like – he has some substance to what he is saying. Australia came up and fronted to the two NH giants – NZ gave themselves only one big game (and won it superbly – not taking that away from them). They do avoid hard tours – and you cannot accuse the Boks or Aussies of ever doing that. Or England – June may have been our low watermark but we didn’t hide from those fixtures…you just know an AB side would not have played three consecutive top class games like that on an end of season tour (they would have fitted in Namibia and Georgia before going to Aus)?

Any forget all this international stuff – in the REAL competition that mattered Wasps lost away to Worcester on Friday and when Tigers turned over Kafer’s mob on Saturday we went eight points clear at the top. Vertigo may become a problem soon (I hope).

*edit* Strange that no one has mentioned how we had to try and last 20 minutes with a scrum half playing at fly half against the Wallabies?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Oh for a goal kicker eh?

At least we have seen the last of Henry Paul.

Two statements not entirely unrelated. Remove Paul from the field and you lose a back-up goal kicker.

Really? I thought the Wallaby front row was pretty **** and kept in the game at the scrum only by the utterly inept Honiss.

We weren't on roller skates. By my reckoning, and the evidence of history, that's an achievement! They weren't going backwards, meaning Gregan wasn't going backwards. That gives us half a chance.

The locks did a superb job in the line out. Why the hell was Titterall kept on the bench when lardy's throwing went AWOL? Why was Ben Kay lept on his arse when Grewcock and Borthwiock were being outplayed? Some big question marks over Robinson’s coaching for me there.

Yes, and who was responsible for the first half tactics? Playing to our strength? Someone in the England camp had to know it would be harder than against the Boks, but they tried it and kept trying. For a whole forty minutes.

I didn't think Gomarsal was all that impressive. Even aside from giving away that mindless penalty that cost you the match. Isn't the young Leicester bloke his back up? Time to try him, I think.

And Lyons can look impressive but he is a big one dimensional lump at times as well.

That can be his problem. Smash, crash and not release the ball. When he's really on song, he can do more. John Roe, the alternative, who was out injured, is quicker, much more versatile, but not as strong.

Good job the kiwi’s offside goggles were only set to ‘White’ though or we would have stuffed you.

Good job his goggles were set to overlook obstruction or a good number of your full back's jinking runs would have been pulled up. It's not his teammates' fault for causing the obstruction. They haven't got a clue which direction he's going to take.

Other than that it was a classic Wallaby performance – winning from a minority of possession (approx 40%) by taking their chances well and having a reserve goalkicker who wasn’t a) useless in his position and b) a Kiwi league player. Not that I’m bitter.

More importantly, having a reserve goalkicker who probably caused the oppo the most problems on the night!

(though he came close to being carded several times as per usual - volatile lad is Justin?).

He'd psyched himself to play well and it worked. Luckily it didn't tip over the edge.

It was one of the best things I have ever seen –

It was also, in honesty, one of the silliest things I've seen. It says they picked Paul and hoped. That's not how you select for Test matches.

Naturally I agree – it also raises the question of whether you can skipper from fullback? I also thought some terrible options were taken with penalties – your lineout was working well so instead of scrumming from 7M we kept kicking to the line – and lost at least two crucial resulting line outs. Jonno would have scrummed more of them I am sure.

I'm absolutely sure. But I don't know whether it means you can't captain from fullback. I think the right person - with the right nouse - probably can. Who's the vice captain? Who was advising him? He was probably seduced by the earlier drives for tries. Fair enough, as long as you capture the ball.

Laugh at Barnes all you like – he has some substance to what he is saying.

I will laugh at him. Yes, as you point out, there's substance to an argument that the ABs avoid tough tours, but he completely undermined it with his silly choice of tone. And, for good measure, foolishly, he set himself up for a very big fall.

Any forget all this international stuff – in the REAL competition that mattered Wasps lost away to Worcester on Friday and when Tigers turned over Kafer’s mob on Saturday we went eight points clear at the top. Vertigo may become a problem soon (I hope).

You know I like to support front runners!

*edit* Strange that no one has mentioned how we had to try and last 20 minutes with a scrum half playing at fly half against the Wallabies?

I mentioned it by implication every time I mentioned the stupidity of selecting a player and yanking him 20 minutes into the game. Wasn't he your back up fly half as well as back up back up goal kicker?

[Tamerlin]

Why am I not receiving any email notification when someone is posting there?

I am back from a foray into real life and things have not improved very much since my last diggings... particularly for the French XV which players must feel like a drunk broke lonely bluesman abandoned by its women and ditched out from the bar.

Very impressive game from the all-blacks... very impressive!

I will just note that since I am posting in this thread I say that the main difference between the NH teams and the SH is not physical but technical. The Blacks have proved that the French are very far away from them on this ground and that while the other NH have improved the French have not.

On a brighter side, the Stade Toulousain has finally produced a good and convincing game against the Sporting Union Agenais winning at home 21-20. I have seen some great Rugby at the Stade Ernest Wallon (before the nightmare), one of those games where the suspense is hovering over the arena until the last second... play it again, sam!

[Havak]

They weren't going backwards, meaning Gregan wasn't going backwards. That gives us half a chance.

Bath locks in the engine room remember?

Yes, and who was responsible for the first half tactics?

Robinson, A. for setting them and Robinson, J. for not adapting on the field.

Isn't the young Leicester bloke his back up? Time to try him, I think.

He is indeed – and he came on later on when we had two scrummies and no fly half. He gave away a penalty straight away almost but after that was okay. He is a lot more ‘plucky’ in adversity than Gomers (who can go AWOL when it gets tough).

Good job his goggles were set to overlook obstruction or a good number of your full back's jinking runs would have been pulled up.

Naaa – it was always Wallabies in front of him surely?

Both backlines got away with a lot of what I would call ‘obstruction’.

More importantly, having a reserve goalkicker who probably caused the oppo the most problems on the night!

Yes you have found another gem there I think. Excellent little player.

He'd psyched himself to play well and it worked. Luckily it didn't tip over the edge.

Teetered on it at times. Silly beard as well.

It says they picked Paul and hoped. That's not how you select for Test matches.

I can only say I never understood the selection – so felt nothing but relief at the subbing. Why he picked him god only knows. Lewsey is still defending him.

He was probably seduced by the earlier drives for tries. Fair enough, as long as you capture the ball.

The Pack senior is Danny Grewcock – who knew he was struggling at the line outs. Poor communication between forwards and Jason as you suggest.

he completely undermined it with his silly choice of tone. And, for good measure, foolishly, he set himself up for a very big fall.

Sorry, yes, he deserves everything he gets from that POV I agree. There was just that little nugget of truth lurking on the tour issue though.

You know I like to support front runners!

You are a Tigers man now then?

Wasn't he your back up fly half as well as back up back up goal kicker?

Oh yes. And having seen him play 10 for Glaws I can tell you that if you think he drifts to strange positions as a centre you ‘aint seen nothing yet’.

Easy to agree that the Paul situation was a FUBAR from start to finish. Can’t wait to see if he gets selected for the Wales game (6N opener).

[Caligastia]

Hey guys,

I actually got to see the last 20 minutes of the NZ-France match. How? Because I was IN FRANCE!


Yes, my wife and I just got back from a long weekend in the South of France. We stayed in Nice, and drove along the Côte-d'Azur between St Tropez and Monaco. What a beautiful place! I hope you've been saving up your s Finbar.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Havak

Laugh at Barnes all you like – he has some substance to what he is saying. Australia came up and fronted to the two NH giants – NZ gave themselves only one big game (and won it superbly – not taking that away from them). They do avoid hard tours – and you cannot accuse the Boks or Aussies of ever doing that. Or England – June may have been our low watermark but we didn’t hide from those fixtures…you just know an AB side would not have played three consecutive top class games like that on an end of season tour (they would have fitted in Namibia and Georgia before going to Aus)?

Barnes is a nong with a memory the size of a rather portly hamsters after its just finished a 30 second burst on its excercise wheel and is trying to remember whether there's any food left in its bowl before it collapses on the floor - too tired to make it to the pile of rags constituting its makeshift bed.

He doesn't even seem to remember the tour just before the WC - Wales-France-England was it not? (And before you say anything I just checked! ).
I seem to remember the English tour of the SH a little after the WC - They lost then because of the 'grueling schedule' they faced - A schedule 'not faced by any other team in world rugby', I believe you stated?
You also added that the AB's only played England when they (England) were 'out of form' as it were.
Now when the AB's choose to take pity on you and give you a break from your 'grueling schedule', not to mention refraining from giving you a hiding (*ravagon deftly predicts the reult of a game that was never played *) while you're not at the top of your game, you whinge about that too!


*And if you take any of that too seriously we'll have to consider mounting an expedition to Welford road to find the lost artifact known as 'Havaks sense of humour'*

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Caligastia

Yes, my wife and I just got back from a long weekend in the South of France. We stayed in Nice, and drove along the Côte-d'Azur between St Tropez and Monaco. What a beautiful place! I hope you've been saving up your s Finbar.

Ooohh, that'll go down well.

Maybe he won't be too put out given that he's heading off to Italy after his raison d'etre in this country came to an end. Yes indeed, sadly that was the final of 'Burke's Backyard' last Friday.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak


Bath locks in the engine room remember?

Mmm. Not that you were ever going to replace J**** straight away, obviously, but the second row's gone from a real strength to, well, fair enough.

He is indeed – and he came on later on when we had two scrummies and no fly half. He gave away a penalty straight away almost but after that was okay. He is a lot more ‘plucky’ in adversity than Gomers (who can go AWOL when it gets tough).

Yes, that's what I meant. Gomersal doesn't exert a lot of authority. Nor really, I think, does Hodgson. They both look like they need a dominant pack going forwards. You could do with a pair of terriers. Wilko will obviously solve one of the problems if he ever reappears.

Teetered on it at times. Silly beard as well.

Care to tell him that?

You are a Tigers man now then?

You've caused me to have to change a lifelong habit of jumping on the frontrunner's bandwagon!

Easy to agree that the Paul situation was a FUBAR from start to finish. Can’t wait to see if he gets selected for the Wales game (6N opener).

I suspect he's gone for good. He can stand up against weak teams like Canada and even an out-of-sorts Boks, but not when real pressure is applied, so why persist? I almost felt sorry for him. His departure under those circumstances must have been humiliating.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Hey guys,

I actually got to see the last 20 minutes of the NZ-France match. How? Because I was IN FRANCE!


Yes, my wife and I just got back from a long weekend in the South of France. We stayed in Nice, and drove along the Côte-d'Azur between St Tropez and Monaco. What a beautiful place! I hope you've been saving up your s Finbar.

Frankly, this whole post has driven me to such a state of apoplexy that I can't see the keys in order to insert a single . Apart from that one, of course. Anyway, as ravagon points out, from next year I'll be able to pop across there on a whim. But next time you go - hire a car and drive west from Marseilles along the coast around to, well, the Spanish border. It's less flash than the stretch you drove, but there are some wonderful little towns.