Rugby - One game to rule them all

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I missed the French game...

The players of both teams were so fair play the game could have been called a " little game between friends". Even Mr Mc Hugh has been rather good.

The game was nevertheless entertaining thanks to the canadians who did not used wicked tactics to hinder the french game as some teams deemed weaker like Italia.

The game was engaged and the french forwards proved once again they are some of the best in the world, if not the best ones. More worrying is the behavior of the backs. Though Merceron showed he is directing the game better than François Gelez as a Half-Fly the backs have generally handled the ball before having held the defence in place thus easying the work of the said defence. This flaw was present against the AB, and certainly did cost us the victory, and need to be fixed before the RWC.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
the french forwards proved once again they are some of the best in the world, if not the best ones.

That's one up against your duckhouse wall, Havak. (Don't ask me to explain that colloquialism, Tamerlin, it's just about impossible!)

the backs have generally handled the ball before having held the defence in place thus easying the work of the said defence.

Not sure what you mean, Tamerlin. Could you have another go?

[finbar]

Mmmm. Just watched the replay of the England -v- Springboks match. Most peculiar refereeing performance by Paddy O'Brien. The send-off of the Springbock lock for a late tackle on Wilkinson was odd. The hit was certainly late and deliberate - and incredibly stupid - but really no different to many I've seen that have received a yellow card at worst. Certainly, Paddy O'Brien was heard to issue a warning to the captains prior to the incident, so I can only assume that - and the fact that Wilkinson was in the air when he was hit late - is what brought out the red. (I suppose, thinking about it, it's not dissimilar to the red card shown to the Springbok for a high tackle on Matt Rogers in our second Tri Nations match against them. The ref, in that case, had warned both captains a number of times. In last night's case, though, it was only 14 minutes into the match and only one warning had been issued)

Anyway, my real point is that Paddy pinged that incident but seemed to be blind to a number of deliberate Springbok swinging arms, high tackles and other highly unsavory methods. They really can play some nasty rugby, unfortunately, and for their coach to imply - as he did, after the match - that England played dirty rugby is outrageous.

I know I've banged on about this before, but the Springboks can play very good rugby when their mind is on the job. They had England really stretched in the opening 10 minutes. Suddenly, the late hit happened, the Springboks were down a man, and the game turned around.

The Springboks can't blame the missing man for the scoreline. England played some terrific rugby - I might have been dreaming, but I actually thought I saw some coordination between England backs and forwards, and, on a couple of occasions, the centres actually played like centres rather than flankers - and the Springboks made the England job easier by giving away their usual ridiculous number of penalties with dreadful discipline.

I really can't see any future for the Springboks if they're just going to run onto the field and get penalised into oblivion.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Not sure what you mean, Tamerlin. Could you have another go?

I knew I would have some problems with this sentence.

What I mean by "holding in place" is when a back (especially a centre) is going to the contact of the defence and handle the ball to the following player when he is about to be tackled or at the moment he is tackled thus preventing the tackling player to defend against the new holder of the ball. The french backs, in my own opinion, have handled the ball too quickly thus allowing the defenders to slide towards the border of the field and prevent the holder of the ball to outflank the defence. A flaw I had already spotted during the AB game.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
That's one up against your duckhouse wall, Havak.

Do you mean this is Havak's turn to answer (shoot at) this one or that there is a trophy ready to be nailed to the wall ?

In the second case, we will have to wait until the Six Nations Tournament and the England-France game, don't sell the bear's skin before you killed it.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
I knew I would have some problems with this sentence.

What I mean by "holding in place" is when a back (especially a centre) is going to the contact of the defence and handle the ball to the following player when he is about to be tackled or at the moment he is tackled thus preventing the tackling player to defend against the new holder of the ball. The french backs, in my own opinion, have handled the ball too quickly thus allowing the defenders to slide towards the border of the field and prevent the holder of the ball to outflank the defence. A flaw I had already spotted during the AB game.

I think I know what you mean. Drawing a defender? Or engaging a defender? Without it you've got a line of backs confronted by a line of defenders. The backs either have to try to crash through, switch the play back in another direction, or - if the defence is sliding - bring in another back running at an acute angle across the direction of the slide which wrong-foots the defence, something the ABs do incredibly well.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Do you mean this is Havak's turn to answer (shoot at) this one or that there is a trophy ready to be nailed to the wall ?

No, it's nothing as literal as that. It's an old Australian expression with very obscure origins. No one, as far as I know, has ever been able to identify where it came from. It's also hard to explain but I'll do my best. Basically, I was pointing out to Havak - in a sort of gleeful way - that you'd delivered him a mighty blow (via English rugby) with your comment.

don't sell the bear's skin before you killed it.

Or, as we say, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
No, it's nothing as literal as that. It's an old Australian expression with very obscure origins. No one, as far as I know, has ever been able to identify where it came from.

Very obscure indeed, my "Petit Ophrys" doesn't know it.

I was pointing out to Havak - in a sort of gleeful way - that you'd delivered him a mighty blow (via English rugby) with your comment.

I would have sworn I heard a Hyena's laugh after your sentence.

Wrong assertion from my part but good conclusion anyway : we will have to wait until England-France to know who has the best forwards.

Or, as we say, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

Drawing a defender? Or engaging a defender?

I think the best way to describe what I have said is, in our case, "engaging a defender".

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Journeyman
Dear oh dear, Andydog and ravagon, you were brave to try but what were you all thinking?

Don't know about Andy but I was thinking about my pot of 10 against a pot of 75 - possibly leading to a win of the kind finbar had one or two threads ago.

At any rate I can take my mind off botching that one with the knowledge that I botched the England-boks game by much more ... Oh ...

And my pot of gold lightens yet again...

Are the Englanders actually favourites yet? Heaven help us if thats the case.

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon
Are the Englanders actually favourites yet? Heaven help us if thats the case.

For the RWC? Despite their good performances over the past fortnight, they still have a few things to prove, IMHO. Can they do it away from Twickenham? Twickers gives them a mighty head-start. And can they do it away from Twickers against full-strength teams? And the answers to those questions are 11 months away.

As I said, based on what happened in the NH over the past couple of weeks, and given full-strength teams, my money is on the All Blacks.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Very obscure indeed, my "Petit Ophrys" doesn't know it.

It's hard to find reference to it in Dictionaries of Australian Colloquialisms, too.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
And the answers to those questions are 11 months away.

No the answer is just a few weeks ago when the Six Nations starts. Allez France...

]As I said, based on what happened in the NH over the past couple of weeks, and given full-strength teams, my money is on the All Blacks.

Better hear that than being deaf...

[Frozzy]

The RWC will be very interesting... however, Australia have a tendancy to put NZ over at home (as we've seen in the Bledisloe Cup for the last few years).

My money is on NZ, but we still have about a year until the contest, and anything can happen in 11 months

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
No the answer is just a few weeks ago when the Six Nations starts. Allez France...

You're quite right, that will be England's first big test. But, in terms of the SH nations, it will be 11 months.

But, in the meantime, Allez France!

[ravagon]

Originally posted by redbull

My money is on NZ, but we still have about a year until the contest, and anything can happen in 11 months

All said and done though, Englands performance over the last few weeks in particular - beating all 3 of the major SH teams - is a good thing, even this far out from the WC.
It throws a ball-bearing into the works as it were and gives the NH sides a serious, and reasonably well-founded hope of actually winning. It can only be a good thing to have a more open field.