Rugby - The Game They Play In Heaven II

[LDiCesare]

In terms of the replacement England hooker, I'm utterly gobsmacked that he wasn't cited. Bakkies has done exactly the same thing and gone.

There are some things which are legal when you are a psychopath hooker.

[finbar]

Jeez, you psychopaths stick together. Tell us something about some of these French selections. One's ex-L*****. I didn't know they even played that silly game in France.

Good win for the baby Wallabies last night. Best part about it was their strength in the set pieces and breakdowns against a team - understrength, obviously - that's usually strong in those areas. Although two-thirds of the Leicester front row had a modicum of experience. A better #10 than Twelvetrees might have made life more difficult for the Wallabies. Barnes at #10 controlled the game intelligently even if his goal kicking was dire. In fact, the very best part of it all was hearing commentator VD's less than objective squealing about the ref. Kaplan had one of his classic shockers but both sides benefited (or suffered, however you want to look at it).

The ABs hooker gets four weeks. The England psychopath gets a run-on start. Go figure.

[Havak]

League was very popular in France until the Second World War - afterwards it was thwarted at every turn by Union as it tried to re-establish itself (I saw a documentary on this once you see).

Interesting reading of the game Finbar - saving face in the last eight minutes against a very weakened club side is not something I would take huge positives from myself. The game was only sealed with the try at the death as Tigers threw chance to the winds. That said the wattle boys scored all the tries so they did deserve the victory. I wouldn't go as they were charging £30 a ticket. To see Australia live again they would need to pay me that - the yellow nazis follow them everywhere (there was even a small pocket of them last night in rugby's heartland!).

Yes Hartley should have been cited Finbar - but that does not take from the fact that the disciplinary panel found Mealamu has a case to answer. And he needs to be careful with what he is saying to the media or the IRB will come down on him much harder - talking about taking the panel's decision personally is not helpful to him - the headmaster should have a quiet word? Appeal, make your case to the panel and then take it on the chin - don't conduct your defence via the press son.

Can you guess what bit the Irish lads have picked up on?

"I've played more than 100 Super games and 82 Tests and never had any foul play against me.

"I do take it personally. I'm not that sort of person."

Except the panel clearly disagrees lad.

Hartley is there to provoke the Aussie front row into doing something rash Finbar - so it is intertesting that you expect Moore to achieve the exact reverse case. Frankly I think it could go either way - if you first scrum holds it grounds Hartley would be my favourite for red. If however you go backwards at a rate of knots it could be any one of your front rowers.

[finbar]

I don't have the slightest problem with Mealamu's result. It was thuggery. Probably deserved more. And he should button his lip. It's the inconsistency that's ridiculous. But then the judiciary is famous for being consistently inconsistent. Won't stop me from railing, but.

It was the showing in the set pieces and at the breakdown that satisfied me, particularly from a fairly inexperienced and cobbled-together set of forwards. They committed themselves and stuck at it, not something they're always terribly good at. It wasn't an entirely second-rate Leicester pack, after all, even if the back row seemed wonky in its set up. There seemed to be a lot of bulk.

[Havak]

Nor should it (stop you from railing that is).

Conspircy theorists have already pointed out that the citing oficial was an irishman (and Hartley has yet to trouble the Irish psyche).

Well it was a scracth pack in the sense it was the two locks left on their feet - but they are decent lads. And Chuter and White know the ropes - though the latter is laregyl retired. Did De Robertis get on? He is the Puma prop we signed as cover after Stankovich got injured. And the Tigers first year Academy lads in the forwards (16 yr olds) have a lot of bulk. Clearly the boys last night needed a bit more art to match the brawn.

Actually it was a fairly strong Tigers side. Aus did well. There I said it.

I honestly have no idea how Saturday will go. I think both sides are capable about winning handsomely. I mean at HQ - Murrayfield and the Millenium are clear away wins.

[Havak]

Steve hansen weighs in:

"He is not a dirty player, he never has been. This is a case we'll go to the death on. Everyone knows it's not in his nature to do that and everyone knows if Kevvy says he didn't do it, he didn't do it."

Well everyone except John West and Lorne Crerar (and his two colleagues on the panel) anyway Steve.

A simply "we support Kev and will appeal" would probably have been sufficient?

[finbar]

... now that you mention it ... Geordan Murphy ... Scott Hamilton ... Matt Smith ... Anthony Allen ... Billy Twelvetrees (admittedly playing out of position) ... Jordan Crane ... Craig Newby ... Thomas Waldrom ... George Skivington ... Julian White ... George Chuter ... more than a sprinkling of A team chaps. Someone replaced White, probably the Argie. Hard to tell. The letters on the back from days of yore were confusing. To the officials too. Ref to linesman: "Did you get a number?" Linesman to ref: "No, he's got the letter (whatever it was) on his back".

I'd like to hear Kevin's explanation for grabbing Moody's shirt and using it to launch himself on a horizontal plane, headfirst, at Moody's head. I also wonder why they didn't cite Hartley or can't that be done anymore?

[kittenOFchaos]

Steve hansen weighs in:

"He is not a dirty player, he never has been. This is a case we'll go to the death on. Everyone knows it's not in his nature to do that and everyone knows if Kevvy says he didn't do it, he didn't do it."

Spearing BOD into the ground wasn't particularly sporting...headbutting Moody, wasn't particularly sporting, but apart from that, I wouldn't call him a dirty player.

I'm just surprised that he doesn't think he has a case to answer, he was lucky with just 4 weeks.

Hartley should have been banned for a week or two, Johnson should chew him up, in a vital game that sort of nonsense will see England lose by even more.

[LDiCesare]

About the French selection, well, it's quite a change from the usual team, due to 2 factors:
1) The coaches want to see many players, it's "only" Fiji, and so they play second rate players.
2) There are many injuries out there (fly half, hooker, second row...).

The result is a team which is centered around a Biarritz players core (8,9,10, plus a lock) with a mostly Perpignan front row (2 out of 3). I guess they tried to put together players who knew each other in key positions so the team would be able to play fluently despite the many green players.

Here's a short review of the players:
Full backs: Porical is from Perpignan. Not a bad player, but his kicking is erratic. Médard would probably be a better choice in my opinion, but I think, and many toulousains too, that Poitrenaud should have been ahead of those two on form alone. Maybe Porical can become the full back France has been looking for for a while, but I wouldn't bet too much on this. Palisson might be a better choice long term and might start the next match?
Wingers: Arias and Médard. Solid club players. Médard can be more than this but hasn't excelled this season. Palisson is replacement so maybe he'll play a bit there too? I'd rather see more of Andreu, but that will be for the next matches. Huget is in the group but I don't know him.
Centers: Marty . Estebanez also plays 10 but his club is rather bad. He's been almost selected for a year or so but always fell short for various reasons. I don't know him much. He's a former League player, and League is indeed played in France, but outside Toulouse and Perpignan almost noone ever saw a match of it. It's pretty obvious that Jauzion/Rougerie is the pair the coaches want to see in big tests.
Fly half: Traille. If you forget the fact he's been hurt and hasn't played much, this may be a good choice, but this is not the future. The first option was Trinh-Duc, who's injuried, and the following one is hurt too, so they called Skrela back to stay on the bench. I expect Traille to start the next match too.
Scrummy: Yachvili has been selected because with Traille and Harinordoquy this will be a strong experienced set of players used to working together. He's obviously second choice behind Parra in the coaches' mind but he's playing very well for Biarritz right now. I think one problem with Yachvili, along with Parra and Dupuy, is that they are too hot-tempered and they can probably manage to get the referee mad at them in big matches if they're under pressure. I wish we had more level-headed scrum halves available. Parra's probably the best out there now, although there were other options (in Montpellier in particular, especially now that Galthié is coaching them).
Back row: Harinordoquy for captain since Dusautoir is rested makes sense. Lapandry and Ouedraogo have both played a bit in France but not been seen much in one case, and not recently because of injuries in the second case. Chabal on the bench will be fun to see, I hope we'll see him come in for 8 and run into some Fijian high tackle. Could be fun to see who falls backward. Apart from the basque, this is a light back row, who needs some matches as the players are far from being top-class or top-form right now. Should be enough against Fiji, and having a runner like Ouedraogo certainly makes sense against them.
Locks: Good players, there are some injuries but I'd say the top French locks are quite close of each other.
Front row: Well, very young. Third choice hooker is being given a chance. Domingo on the bench is an excellent prop. Ducalcon is very good in club but has only one cap, and Schuster is a strong prop, but 0 cap and is from Perpignan, so I don't know whether he's afflicted with the impredictability of his team (great one day, pitiful the next - did I mention Porical?).

[finbar]

Excellent run down. I saw a bit of Porical in the HC. Good player, capable of a glorious mistake or two. But I think that's a requirement for a French full back. I thought Medard was supposed to be a better full back than winger.

I suspect that what's really driving the ABs' problematic Kevin crusade is the fact that, without Kevin, their hooking ranks are thin indeed. Andrew Hore, back from injury and has hardly played, backed up by Elliot, a complete novice. I think one of the props was talked about as a back-up hooker if things went wrong.

[LDiCesare]

Medard's indeed more of a full back than a winger, but Poitrenaud is just better right now at Toulouse, and Porical is 'only' a full back so Medard ends up on the wing. I still prefer Andreu and Heymans.
Why Poitrenaud isn't selected is a bit of a mystery. I believe it may be to spite him and force him to try to play even better so he doesn't stop working by believing he is the best and therefore has no competition in the full back slot for France. Knowing the guy is more than a little imbued with himself, that could make sense.

[Havak]

Ah yes the letters Finbar - only those of us who recall the amateur era will be au fait with them. Ourselves and Bristol used to use them, though in a slightly different convention of ascending and descending alphabetical assignment.

Jonno - the best D I have ever seen live.

The letters had to go with the Professional era - they were a barrier to bringing new fans into the sport. Though frankly I think it was just that fans of London sides lacked the brain cells for the mental conversion required for 'J = ten'.

[Havak]

The noise paid off incidentally - the ban being halved.

That is rather bizarre when you think about it - it means the appeal panel still considered him guilty of foul play but not as guilty as the original panel. So what was the new mitigation I wonder? Lewis guilty of being provocative as he was prone there on the ground?

[finbar]

P*ssweak IRB strikes again. They found that it wasn't an intentional act. Meaning, in their view, that the contact was accidental. Careless instead of premeditated. The original panel saw it differently. The AB management can claim a moral victory - their man didn't deliberately head butt. His name has been cleared.

[Havak]

For Kiwis maybe.

Certainly never in Ireland.

Very poor of the IRB - if entirely accidental why ban him at all? Still the precedent is set - just have the coaching team bleat about what a great guy someone is and get the punishment halved. Or does it - like some would say the IRB does - only work for Kiwis?