Rugby - Who? Me, Sir? Offside?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I think Woodward handles this role himself now. I’m sure that explains quite a lot?

Does he? How odd. Most teams have specialists these days. One of the Ellas - I forget which - is our backs coach. Which reminds me - I'd totally forgotten that Tim Lane (ex-Wallaby assistant coach) has been looking after the Boks backs for the last year or so. Very talented, the Australians were sorry to lose him. I suspect he's had a big hand in their improvement in the backs - or, at least, the shift from the dependence on hulking packs. I also gather he's led the push for the smaller, speedy backs.

I think after RWC we may well go shopping for both key playing and coaching talent from yourselves and the Kiwis.

The English game seems to be heading in that direction anyway, so you might as well.

Personally I will have a side bet with you that if we do very badly in RWC Woodward falls on his sword and Dean Richards and John Wells take the England helm – Rod will have a real chance of being backs coach then.

What would you consider a failed campaign? Which stage - minimum - would they have to reach for you to consider it successful?

I’ve also got a book of Rugby’s strangest stories that amongst other things reveals that for their first few decades the Welsh rugby team consisted almost entirely of English middle class professional types studying or working in Wales. Something of a gem that I threw about in Cardiff a little last May.

I remember something to that effect in the doco I saw. It was repeated recently and I completely forgot to watch it.

Risking a red card – the entire concept of superiority through birth is so ridiculous only the Brits could still cling to it at all.

Frankly, the whole notion makes me want to commit murder. The ABC here has just finished running a series called The Edwardian House. It probably ran there a while ago. An Edwardian household was recreated in its class-structured entirety with Edwardian working and living conditions. I couldn't watch the first ep because it made me so angry. I actually ended up finding it fascinating watching the 21st century people trying to deal with the appalling - downstairs - situation. Which isn't to say I became any less angry with the upstairs situation.

Not at all – I’m just an edumacated man.

Fair enough. So these days you'd be lining up in the backs in the Vets Comp?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
One game to rule them all…that’s almost sig material.

Can I change my vote?

We all seem to be ok with "Balls out", but I think I like "One game to rule them all" better. Does anyone mind if we use that instead? We could still use "Balls out" for another thread later on...

[Havak]

Does he? How odd. Most teams have specialists these days

He only took in on when Brian Ashton left earlier this year.

Thanks for the tip on Tim Lane. If the Bok backs look okay we might want him ourselves.

The English game seems to be heading in that direction anyway, so you might as well.

And curiously the two most successful sides of recent years have English coaches and a strong English player base – even if Gloucesters roster still has too many of Saint Andre’s foreign legion in place.

It’s clubs like Saracens that lost the plot – great player roster – no team spirit whatsoever.

What would you consider a failed campaign? Which stage - minimum - would they have to reach for you to consider it successful?

Anything less than semi-finals would be abject failure I think.

. I couldn't watch the first ep because it made me so angry

I couldn’t watch it at all for similar reasons. The artificial social structures so loved by the Victorians and Edwardians leave me cold.

And etiquette – as long as I am polite no one tells me exactly how to address another mammal. I’ll never get a knight hood you know.

Fair enough. So these days you'd be lining up in the backs in the Vets Comp?

Well the team would have to be desperate but yep I could fancy a loiter on the wing. As long as they don’t expect any running. Or tackling.

Go with your call Caligastia – we expect you to remember them all for later use anyway.

[LDiCesare]

One game to rule them all is quite nice.
I think Woodward might even need a final. I still remember how Berbizier managed to get France in half final in South Africa, where the match was lost for reasons I won't comment, and the poor Berbiz', who had managed an excellent record with his teams (2 victories in 2 tests in NZ, a half final in the World Cup) was cast down by the powers that be. Now if Woodward has the favours of the English board, he might need only half-final.
I wonder if modern-era rugby will see coaches who last more than 4 years. We used to have the same coach for many many years long ago (Jacques Fouroux - until the federeation president got angry against him), but afterwardss they changed quite frequently.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Frankly, the whole notion makes me want to commit murder. The ABC here has just finished running a series called The Edwardian House. It probably ran there a while ago. An Edwardian household was recreated in its class-structured entirety with Edwardian working and living conditions. I couldn't watch the first ep because it made me so angry. I actually ended up finding it fascinating watching the 21st century people trying to deal with the appalling - downstairs - situation. Which isn't to say I became any less angry with the upstairs situation.

I agree with you, though it has produced one of the more fascinating piece of history this era had some inhuman features, considering someone as superior to the others because he is simply born in the right place at the right moment is absolutely unbearable. But where is the difference when you consider those born nowadays in a rich family with political and financial power? The main difference is that the so called superior ones are not usually claiming it overtly.

The living conditions are far better today but the social gap between the upper classes and the lower ones is getting more and more important. The same can be said about the educated and the uneducated or the backs and the forwards...

As far as France is concerned any result other than a won Final would be considered as a failure.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Can I change my vote?

We all seem to be ok with "Balls out", but I think I like "One game to rule them all" better. Does anyone mind if we use that instead? We could still use "Balls out" for another thread later on...

Sorry, I think The Ball's Out is far superior. It's pithy, intriguing, and continues a theme we've established.

[Caligastia]

That makes it 4 votes "One game to rule them all" and 2 votes "Balls out". (Im assuming Bearcat would vote for his own suggestion)

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Thanks for the tip on Tim Lane. If the Bok backs look okay we might want him ourselves.

He's just been appointed coach of the Cats for the 2003 S12 season. I suspect that's the first step on the road to coaching a national team, though which one would be the interesting question.

His departure for SA left the Wallabies with more than the obvious problem. He knew all the Wallaby plays and their codes. The codes all had to be changed.

Anything less than semi-finals would be abject failure I think.

Fair enough. Makes the pool matches very, very interesting.

I couldn’t watch it at all for similar reasons. The artificial social structures so loved by the Victorians and Edwardians leave me cold.

As I say, despite my fury, I managed to find interesting behavioural things along the way. The most interesting was the unmarried sister of the wife of the head of the household. She was somewhere in her early 40s, a successful professional person in her 21st century life. In the Edwardian scheme of things, she was the spinster sister-in-law of the head of the household, which relegated her to virtual non-existence. She struggled with her role to the extent that she had to leave the house - and the series - for a little while.

And etiquette – as long as I am polite no one tells me exactly how to address another mammal. I’ll never get a knight hood you know.

Arise, Sir Tight-Head!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
But where is the difference when you consider those born nowadays in a rich family with political and financial power? The main difference is that the so called superior ones are not usually claiming it overtly.

Yes, we have a different sort of class structure these days - haves and have nots - and I think it's much more dangerous than what went before. It is, I would venture to say, the basis of much of the "terrorism" that's plaguing the world.

Actually, I vividly remember the first time I set eyes on some of France's chateaux. I couldn't fathom why the Revolution hadn't happened sooner.

The same can be said about the educated and the uneducated or the backs and the forwards...

Tautology!

As far as France is concerned any result other than a won Final would be considered as a failure.

The pressure is already building. I suppose there's something to be said for being a Namibia supporter - just running onto the field for a group match will amount to a massive achievement.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
That makes it 4 votes "One game to rule them all" and 2 votes "Balls out". (Im assuming Bearcat would vote for his own suggestion)

Where were the votes counted? Florida? Which way did the hanging chats fall?

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I wonder if modern-era rugby will see coaches who last more than 4 years.

I doubt we will. Professionalism has brought with it so many demands, such need to stay one step ahead and, consequently, so much pressure.

[Bearcat]

Originally posted by finbar




Where were the votes counted? Florida? Which way did the hanging chats fall?

I agree. I demand a recount!

[Caligastia]

Fine, "Balls out" it is.

[finbar]

Thanks, Jeb.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Where were the votes counted? Florida? Which way did the hanging chats fall?

Who said the decision of a referee is never to be contested ?