Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:37 am  

Stephen Fry lets us in on his thoughts on both codes of rugby. Rugby. Never quite got into the northern code, although Colin Welland once kindly took me to a match. But Rugby Union can cause a spectator to stand and rip his vocal cords to shreds like no other game. Its peaks of excitement are higher and more intense than you will find in any other. The offsides, infringements, rulings and strategies are all but incomprehensible, but the blend of brute force, balance, speed, wit and stamina that the game demands cannot be matched in any other than I know.

Stephen Fry lets us in on his thoughts on both codes of rugby. Rugby. Never quite got into the northern code, although Colin Welland once kindly took me to a match. But Rugby Union can cause a spectator to stand and rip his vocal cords to shreds like no other game. Its peaks of excitement are higher and more intense than you will find in any other. The offsides, infringements, rulings and strategies are all but incomprehensible, but the blend of brute force, balance, speed, wit and stamina that the game demands cannot be matched in any other than I know.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:36 pm  

I see England's foreign nations team did well again.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:55 am  

He might have been a good player, but Martin Johnson is taking England nowhere.
Why do we persist with him.
It's almost as though we are deliberately wasting the talent of a generation.

Can someone please put a case forward for him that might cheer me up and give me some hope for the future?

I am pretty sure that if any other home nation had at their disposal the players England have, they would be pretty much unbeatable.
Yet England are less than the sum of their parts.
We are having to rely on penalties and drop goals to even compete.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:50 am  

Stand-Offish wrote:

He might have been a good player, but Martin Johnson is taking England nowhere.
Why do we persist with him.
It's almost as though we are deliberately wasting the talent of a generation.

Can someone please put a case forward for him that might cheer me up and give me some hope for the future?

I am pretty sure that if any other home nation had at their disposal the players England have, they would be pretty much unbeatable.
Yet England are less than the sum of their parts.
We are having to rely on penalties and drop goals to even compete.

It would seem to me that Johnson is trying to reproduce the game plan that Woodward employed in the 2003 triumph. He has a strong forward pack that can dominate a lot of teams up front and two good goal kicking fly half’s. I don’t think the outside backs of England 2011 are anywhere as good as the 2003 variety

The backline for the World Cup final was Lewsey, Robinson, Greenwood, Tindall and Cohen

Tindall is still there but has always been a one dimensional centre who’s grunt was complemented by Greenwood. Maybe Hape can play the same game as Greenwood but he still seems on a different wavelength to his team mates

Only Chris Ashton can be described as world class in the England backs and I doubt anybody would suggest he is better than Robinson (at least yet)

The problem that Johnson has is that the international game is different today to what it was in 2003 and I don’t think you can win a World Cup through dominating up front and grinding out the points from the boot – NZ and Australia at least (and probably a full strength SA) would have too much firepower for that

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:28 am  

Leave Johnson alone. He's doing just fine.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:42 pm  

England are entirely a counter-attacking side. With Foden, Ashton and Cueto they can cut you to pieces if you kick poorly or don't chase well.

Present them with a well organised defensive line however, and the midfield partnership of Flood/Wilkinson, Tindall and Hape has all the cutting edge of a rubber knife. The bash and barge nature of the Premiership has led to a generation of centres happy to take the contact rather than look to do something creative.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:37 am  

So I'm not the only one who's worried. http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011 ... pe=article Kitson even gives rugby league a mention

So I'm not the only one who's worried. http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011 ... pe=article Kitson even gives rugby league a mention

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:16 am  

Catalancs wrote: So I'm not the only one who's worried. http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011 ... pe=article Kitson even gives rugby league a mention What the article does not take into account there is not a great deal between Eng/Fr/Ire/Wales, the inconsistency Australia and poor form of RSA they could quite possibly lose to Ireland and Wales respectively, that is before even taking into account the WC history between NZ and france. Similar things were said about previous world cups arguably only in 1987 and 1999 have the favourites won. Taking 2007 as an example Wales were knocked out by Fiji, Ireland (the best European team at the time) outclassed against france and argentina, whilst very fortunate to beat georgia and struggled against Namibia. England suffered their heaviest world cup defeat (ranked 7th at the the start of the tournament) and came very close to failing to make the quarters yet they beat the number 2 side and the hosts in Paris to play the 3rd ranked team in the final. Then there is what happened to NZ in the final. There are more shocks and surprises in that tournament than 20 years of the FIFA world cup. The article looks like a filler article without much substance, rankings are mentioned but england Ireland and France all changed places based on the weekends tests with England having had an opportunity to overtake RSA in 3rd so using the rankings in the argument would indicate unpredictability. The only group that looks clear cut as pool winners is Pool A and even that is not a given.

Catalancs wrote: So I'm not the only one who's worried. http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011 ... pe=article Kitson even gives rugby league a mention What the article does not take into account there is not a great deal between Eng/Fr/Ire/Wales, the inconsistency Australia and poor form of RSA they could quite possibly lose to Ireland and Wales respectively, that is before even taking into account the WC history between NZ and france. Similar things were said about previous world cups arguably only in 1987 and 1999 have the favourites won. Taking 2007 as an example Wales were knocked out by Fiji, Ireland (the best European team at the time) outclassed against france and argentina, whilst very fortunate to beat georgia and struggled against Namibia. England suffered their heaviest world cup defeat (ranked 7th at the the start of the tournament) and came very close to failing to make the quarters yet they beat the number 2 side and the hosts in Paris to play the 3rd ranked team in the final. Then there is what happened to NZ in the final. There are more shocks and surprises in that tournament than 20 years of the FIFA world cup. The article looks like a filler article without much substance, rankings are mentioned but england Ireland and France all changed places based on the weekends tests with England having had an opportunity to overtake RSA in 3rd so using the rankings in the argument would indicate unpredictability. The only group that looks clear cut as pool winners is Pool A and even that is not a given.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:58 pm  

I thought it was a fair a valid article. Looking at the group stage I'm struggling to get excited and not just because this England team are bereft of ideas once they move away from the training ground set plays.
The IRB rankings are similar to the FIFA ones, pointless and only good for arguments down the pub. You could throw a blanket over France, England, Wales and Ireland at the moment but they are a long way off the big three. I've read people saying that Scotland could punch above their weight and not to forget the Argies but the truth is that they aren't going to get anywhere near the final. Argentina seem to have gone backwards after years of impressive progress but I still think they'd have too much for Scotland.
Pool A will see the All Blacks followed by France. Pool B England then for me Argentina. Pool B could be the worst in terms of entertainment. Pool C the Wallabies and Ireland with South Africa and Wales coming through from pool D. With the exception of Argetina or Scotland I can't see any dramas in terms of qualyfying.

Oh, and a New Zealand v Australia final with the All Blacks to finally get their second rugby union world cup.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:23 pm  

40 group games is an awful lot when there is typically only two or three big games per group – at least half of the group games will be relatively poor quality with no real significance on which teams progress to the quarter finals

You can assume that if these games were played in the RL or cricket World Cups there would be a negativity from the fans and the media although I suspect that a positive spin will be placed on this tournament from the UK media at least – we will see one sided contests praised for ‘plucky losers’ fighting against the big boys and poor skills excused as teams learning their new game... what will go unsaid is that these type of statements have been thrown around for the last two decades at least