Post: #51

BBC is reporting that we are set to drop Ford for the Wales game, replace him with Farrell, and start Burgess alongside Barritt.

Farrell, Burgess, Barritt looks like a very one dimensional back line to me, trying to beat the Welsh at their own game. I would rather see Ford, Slade, and Burgess, although I'd worry that the likes of Roberts would simply run over the top of them. Farrell, Burgess, Barritt seems very negative, and limiting.

Post: #52

But oh so English rugby.

As I alluded to earlier on the thread, I have had a lifelong issue with rugby in this country; the constant obsession with size and strength over all other factors.

It starts at U12 and never goes away.

Post: #53

(09-22-2015 07:17 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  But oh so English rugby.

As I alluded to earlier on the thread, I have had a lifelong issue with rugby in this country; the constant obsession with size and strength over all other factors.

It starts at U12 and never goes away.

Ye it's very disappointing. I also think it is a terrible idea to chop and change your fly half, so that neither knows they are the first choice.

With a Welsh team that has so many injuries, I'd have loved Lancaster to pick a team with some real flair and genius in it that could just overwhelm the Welsh with quality. I really think Ford, Slade and Burgess could be a world class back line, full of invention and excitement. Farrell, Barritt and Burgess is just a blunt force lineup that'll try to out-grind the Welsh.

Post: #54

Anyone making bets on WC matches?

I went with Romania +40.5 pts against France and Australia to win 2nd half against Fiji by 12 points or more.

Post: #55

(09-23-2015 05:00 AM)whoishe Wrote:  I went with Romania +40.5 pts against France

Really ? And what are the odds of that ?

Post: #56

(09-23-2015 07:48 AM)kaeru Wrote:  

(09-23-2015 05:00 AM)whoishe Wrote:  I went with Romania +40.5 pts against France

Really ? And what are the odds of that ?

+40.5 means they will defend handicap - won't lose more than by 40 points.

So odds were standard, in 1.8 range.

Post: #57

(09-23-2015 08:02 AM)whoishe Wrote:  +40.5 means they will defend handicap - won't lose more than by 40 points.

So odds were standard, in 1.8 range.

Thanks for the clarification, I'm not really into betting so I thought you were betting that Romania would win with a 40.5+ points margin.

Post: #58

What an interesting result that was in the Wales vs England game - so pleased

Post: #59

Romanian player proposes to this girlfriend

These public proposals are so cringe worthy.

Post: #60

Great WC so far with some upsets! South Africa, to lose to against Japan was the biggest one so far.

England losing against Wales at home didn't surprise me. Wales dominated England over their past 10 meetings, winning 6 of the past 10 matches against them and in the process winning 5 times the 6 Nations Trophy. England if they lose against Australia, which is very likely, are going to be out in the first round. First time for a hosting country to do so in a WC.

Can't say I feel sorry for the English tough!

Allez les Bleus!!!

Post: #61

Big day for England today. Maybe the most important game for England since the 2007 World Cup final. If they lose against Australia today it would be all over and England would become the first host nation not making the pool stages. My prediction Australia by 3.

The other interesting game this afternoon is South Africa vs. Scotland. The South African team seems to have stabled now after the shock loss in the first round to Japan. So expecting a solid victory against the Scots.

Post: #62

The Boks still don't look right to me. Having said that NZ aren't exactly looking amazing at the moment either. Let's hope they both peak in a couple of weeks.

England will most likely lose tonight and to be honest we deserve to.

Our coach is insane.

Post: #63

What's wrong with the English coaching?

Post: #64

(10-03-2015 01:34 PM)nek Wrote:  What's wrong with the English coaching?

Well, lots of things but the main, glaring issue is going into a WC with no idea what your starting fly half and centre partnership is.

Centres need time to gel and learn each other's game. None of these guys have played together at all.

It's a complete mess.

Post: #65

I felt the 'Boks looked a bit unorganised in the first 15 minutes but England aren't doing too well...

...If England go out tonight, will the England RWC-specific adverts stop showing on TV? Would be kind of bad for O2 to say "make them giants" when England would be out.

Post: #66

Why I said "'Boks" and not "Wallabies" I'm not too sure

Post: #67

Well I thought we'd lose but not be outplayed so badly.

Hopefully the entire coaching team will be dismissed and Farrell and Robshaw banished to the wilderness.

Farrell is just a kicker and nothing more, which isn't enough at this level.

Robshaw was humiliated today by the Aussie back row; he's too big to be a 7 and just isn't good enough at the breakdown.

Post: #68

(10-03-2015 04:06 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  Well I thought we'd lose but not be outplayed so badly.

Hopefully the entire coaching team will be dismissed and Farrell and Robshaw banished to the wilderness.

Farrell is just a kicker and nothing more, which isn't enough at this level.

Robshaw was humiliated today by the Aussie back row; he's too big to be a 7 and just isn't good enough at the breakdown.

Who would you say the England MotM was? (if any)

I'd probably go with Joseph, but I'm not sure if that's just because he had one or two really good runs.

Post: #69

(10-03-2015 04:08 PM)Pareto Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 04:06 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  Well I thought we'd lose but not be outplayed so badly.

Hopefully the entire coaching team will be dismissed and Farrell and Robshaw banished to the wilderness.

Farrell is just a kicker and nothing more, which isn't enough at this level.

Robshaw was humiliated today by the Aussie back row; he's too big to be a 7 and just isn't good enough at the breakdown.

Who would you say the England MotM was? (if any)

I'd probably go with Joseph, but I'm not sure if that's just because he had one or two really good runs.

Ford.

Post: #70

(10-03-2015 04:12 PM)Cyr Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 04:08 PM)Pareto Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 04:06 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  Well I thought we'd lose but not be outplayed so badly.

Hopefully the entire coaching team will be dismissed and Farrell and Robshaw banished to the wilderness.

Farrell is just a kicker and nothing more, which isn't enough at this level.

Robshaw was humiliated today by the Aussie back row; he's too big to be a 7 and just isn't good enough at the breakdown.

Who would you say the England MotM was? (if any)

I'd probably go with Joseph, but I'm not sure if that's just because he had one or two really good runs.

Ford.

Yeah I agree with this.

Which makes the fact that he was dropped from the team before the cup, after over a year starting, even more ridiculous.

Post: #71

Its always easy to keyboard jockey, particularly if you played the sport at a fairly high level, but there were a lot of baffling decisions.
#1. Farrell over Ford. Lancaster should have picked Ford. That much was obvious to anyone that watched the game today/ watched England over the last couple of years. But if he was going to pick Farrell he should have made his mind up before the tournament instead of switching between the two.
#2. Barrett shouldn't be starting. Apart from defence he just doesn't offer enough.
#3. Subbing Burgess on for Barett when you're chasing a game? When Barrett was injured, I was hoping Slade would finally get a chance at the RWC. Didn't make sense to bring on a player whose strongest feature is defence.

Also how did things go so badly at the scrum?

Post: #72

Great tournament for Japan so far!

They keep adding new records to the RWC´s history books.
They are now the first team in RWC history to have beaten not only one, but two teams ranked above them in the pre-RWC World Rugby Rankings.
Also considering they only won one game in RWC history before this year´s tournament (1991 against Zimbabwe), the two they already managed to win this year are even more impressive.
This could also be the year where they, for the first time, get out of the group stage and advance to the Quarter Finals.

Post: #73

The warning signs were there in the France warm up game re the scrum.

I played 8 at a relatively high representative level but have never really understood the scrum well enough to really pinpoint where the problems ever lie.

Swapping Ford for Farrell so close to the tournament just sends all the wrong messages about how we intend to go about our business; to the fans, the opposition and the players themselves. It not only smacks of inherent negativity but makes the coaches seem indecisive and unsure of themselves. Couple that with the strange decisions on the field to go for tries over penalty kicks and it's all disjointed and incongruent.

Ultimately the problem comes down to the same old thing; lack of creativity and game management intelligence amongst the players. Other than Woodward's team, this has always been a problem for England.

It's a culture issue within the game and extends all the way down to literally U12 representative teams; counties and whatever. I remember as a kid, the flair players, the game managers were always not chosen ahead of a Farrell like player or a big, unintelligent brute.

This continued all the way up to the highest level I played, U18 Midlands; I was always baffled by the selections and to be honest the way that the game was approached by these guys (the coaches) was the main reason I stopped playing for 10 years. It was rugby by numbers; boring and conservative. Gym work over skill work.

Basically the total opposite of how NZ approach the game. My hero as a kid was Zinzane Brooke...I modelled my game on him and to be honest, if he'd been English all the flair would have been coached and beaten out of him by 15 years old.

Post: #74

Just thinking further.

The breakdown was appalling tonight. Yet the best English 7 by a country mile, Armitage, was excluded for the same reason that the Aussie coach rejected when picking Giteau.

Would any other nation have not found a way to have Manu in the squad, despite the nonsense with the policewoman?

Would any other nation on earth treat the country's highest skilled flair player, Cipriani, so badly?

Winners bend and break rules. That's why they're winners.

Post: #75

(10-03-2015 05:51 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The warning signs were there in the France warm up game re the scrum.

I played 8 at a relatively high representative level but have never really understood the scrum well enough to really pinpoint where the problems ever lie.

Swapping Ford for Farrell so close to the tournament just sends all the wrong messages about how we intend to go about our business; to the fans, the opposition and the players themselves. It not only smacks of inherent negativity but makes the coaches seem indecisive and unsure of themselves. Couple that with the strange decisions on the field to go for tries over penalty kicks and it's all disjointed and incongruent.

Ultimately the problem comes down to the same old thing; lack of creativity and game management intelligence amongst the players. Other than Woodward's team, this has always been a problem for England.

It's a culture issue within the game and extends all the way down to literally U12 representative teams; counties and whatever. I remember as a kid, the flair players, the game managers were always not chosen ahead of a Farrell like player or a big, unintelligent brute.

This continued all the way up to the highest level I played, U18 Midlands; I was always baffled by the selections and to be honest the way that the game was approached by these guys (the coaches) was the main reason I stopped playing for 10 years. It was rugby by numbers; boring and conservative. Gym work over skill work.

Basically the total opposite of how NZ approach the game. My hero as a kid was Zinzane Brooke...I modelled my game on him and to be honest, if he'd been English all the flair would have been coached and beaten out of him by 15 years old.

Perhaps Lancaster thought the game would be won through kicking, and therefore picked Farrell over Ford because, in his opinion, Farrell is a better kicker.

But even then, Ford is still a really good kicker and should have started.

RE the scrum: it's probably the place on the pitch where the rules change most often. It is difficult to see where the failures are. I only played at U16's for my county and still failed to see some of the decisions even in training.

Remember getting told that the reason why NZ are so good is because they only use contact in the last 30 minutes of their training sessions. This means they devote more time to handling and the basics, and their contact gets more precise.

Whether that is true or not, I obviously can't say.