In article <447ac210$0$7856$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Larry de Silva <larrydesilva@ozemail.com.au> writes:>England too good, talented, professional, too classy>SL depend far too much on just Murali and Vaasy!
Going by the first two Tests, though, England depends far too much on Pietersen. Without his contribution, England would probably be 1-0 down rather than 1-0 up. -- John Hall "I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly, will hardly mind anything else." Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)
On 29 May 2006 03:02:47 -0700, "Fred" <longhop2005@hotmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Thank God SL didn't get a few more - Murali could have had us in all>sorts of trouble! Why am I feeling that if SL & Eng have parity after>the 1st innings in T3 SL will romp home...
Because you're an England fan conditioned to fear the worst?
Because it would indicate that England were playing poorly and SL were playing well if they were still on level terms at half time?
That second is the more serious point: England have a better side and home advantage and should not be letting SL get anywhere near parity by halfway through.
Walter Mitty 24 February 2008 02:00:35 [ permanent link ]
Uncle Dave <davidcovey@t-online.de> writes:
On Feb 23, 10:42 pm, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
But seriously, how crap are our backs?
Is that irony or do you mean it? I never know with you...
UD
I mean it. The kept taking the wrong decisions opting for short ball which they fumbled frequently. A few good distributions but generally clueless. My favorite moment was when that Kiwi chap with the braids got the ball back in his own half and huffed and puffed and growled like a steam train starting up only to get tackled at first contact. Not one for the future.
On Feb 23, 9:42 pm, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
But seriously, how crap are our backs?
Bit of an improvement from Vainidollar, looks like he's been reminded
that his contractual obligations extend past just appearing for
England (to prevent him ever appearing against them).
He's doing what he's told. For Gloucester he stays out on the wing
and runs in tries and that, I suspect, is what he's been toldto do for
England. He'll develop and needs some games to start realising his
potential. People were just as scathing about Jason Robinson...
I would like to object to this thread in the strongest possible terms. There has been no mention of the All Blacks and frankly THAT IS JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
On Feb 23, 10:42 pm, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
But seriously, how crap are our backs?
Is that irony or do you mean it? I never know with you...
UD
I mean it. The kept taking the wrong decisions opting for short ball
which they fumbled frequently. A few good distributions but generally
clueless. My favorite moment was when that Kiwi chap with the braids got
the ball back in his own half and huffed and puffed and growled like a
steam train starting up only to get tackled at first contact. Not one
for the future.
He was probably so surprised to get the ball, he panicked.
New dawn anyone?
-- rick boyd
You are mistaking engalnd for wales - sure if this was an unexpected welsh win and I was Nige I'd be proclaiming a new dawn (and a miserable welsh git) but I'm not. I, as do most England supporters acknowledge that this was a poor performance but an improvement on the last two.
I'm glad you said that. It seems to me, from watching some S14 and
France yesterday, that the main problem with so-called "attractive"
rugby is that the aspirations are always higher than the ability to
implement them. If you look at the effective sides over the years,
they have been the ones who played within their capabilities. Wales,
for example, were knocking on wholesale in the bits I watched
yesterday and the S14 I've seen thus far has been error strewn - you
hear the crowd rising to a crescendo and then a collective groan and
this happens more often than not. The closest anyone has got to the
holy grail of being both attractive and effective were the ABs last
year and we know what happened to them. So long as teams try and play
beyond their means, teams which are able to <cliche mode ON> do the
basics right <cliche mode OFF> such as England and, lately, South
Africa will capitalise on those errors one way or the other. Becaue
of their more conservative nature their own errors are less likely to
result in disaster.
Rugby can - and still does, just - accomodate all styles and all
shapes and sizes which seems to really get up the noses of some of
your compatriots.
Rugby can accommodate all styles to a point, but sooner or later one should start asking the question: what is rugby all about? Is it running with the ball and scoring tries, or it trying to twist the laws and doing everything possible to ruin the other team's game? Should negative rugby be encouraged, knowing that it be destructive to the global game?
You can only work with what you've got, that is understood, and if England and South Africa are locked into tight, ten man rugby because they can't find a functioning back line then they are always going to opt for a more conservative game plan.
But I would contend that both countries could profit from a change of attitude about how to play their game, even with the players they have -- particularly South Africa -- and the new rules should certainly nudge them in that direction.
You are mistaking engalnd for wales - sure if this was an unexpected
welsh win and I was Nige I'd be proclaiming a new dawn (and a
miserable welsh git) but I'm not.
I, as do most England supporters acknowledge that this was a poor
performance but an improvement on the last two.
Yeah but Michael, France! I mean, FRANCE! It's not like beating Italy or
Scotland -- surely there must be a glimmer of pearl on the eastern
horizon?!
-- rick boyd
Engalnd have had the measure of france for centuries, sure they win one now and again but no matter how bad things are engalnd are always likely to beat them.
I'm glad you said that. It seems to me, from watching some S14 and
France yesterday, that the main problem with so-called "attractive"
rugby is that the aspirations are always higher than the ability to
implement them. If you look at the effective sides over the years,
they have been the ones who played within their capabilities. Wales,
for example, were knocking on wholesale in the bits I watched
yesterday and the S14 I've seen thus far has been error strewn - you
hear the crowd rising to a crescendo and then a collective groan and
this happens more often than not. The closest anyone has got to the
holy grail of being both attractive and effective were the ABs last
year and we know what happened to them. So long as teams try and play
beyond their means, teams which are able to <cliche mode ON> do the
basics right <cliche mode OFF> such as England and, lately, South
Africa will capitalise on those errors one way or the other. Becaue
of their more conservative nature their own errors are less likely to
result in disaster.
Rugby can - and still does, just - accomodate all styles and all
shapes and sizes which seems to really get up the noses of some of
your compatriots.
Rugby can accommodate all styles to a point, but sooner or later one
should start asking the question: what is rugby all about? Is it running
with the ball and scoring tries, or it trying to twist the laws and
doing everything possible to ruin the other team's game? Should negative
rugby be encouraged, knowing that it be destructive to the global game?
You can only work with what you've got, that is understood, and if
England and South Africa are locked into tight, ten man rugby because
they can't find a functioning back line then they are always going to
opt for a more conservative game plan.
Indeed. Although I would contend that SA have a "functioning" back line at the moment. So for them it is more about caution than ability.
But I would contend that both countries could profit from a change of
attitude about how to play their game
England don't need a change of attitude. Merely a change of talent.
This laboured perennial charge against England just didn't wash for 2000- 2003. Whether they can produce a similar back-line over the next couple of years is to be seen ...
Although I would contend that SA have a "functioning" back line at the
moment. So for them it is more about caution than ability.
A functioning back line? You must be joking. They can't decide on a half combination from one minute to the next, their centres penetrate less often than Will Sutton on Ugly Stupid Fat Shielas Night and poor old Habana is reduced to searching high and low for intercepts to score. They stand offside all day and tackle themselves to a standstill, hoping to gain penalties from retaliations to cheap shots.
England don't need a change of attitude. Merely a change of talent.
This laboured perennial charge against England just didn't wash for 2000-
2003. Whether they can produce a similar back-line over the next couple
of years is to be seen ...
You must be joking part two. England had a better back line in 1991 than 2003. What England had in 2003 was tons of experience, a very well drilled, settled team playing a seamlessly combined tight game plan, with heaps of cheating nous in the forwards AND Jonny Wilkinson. I can't recall them ever scoring one half decent try against proper opposition. I mean, Tindall and Greenwood? Either of them would have been pushing Nigel Evans uphill for a spot in any of New Zealand's five super 14 teams. Lewsey was the only half decent running back you had.
You should be looking for a lot better back line than 2003 if you want to get back in the Big Five.
Although I would contend that SA have a "functioning" back line at the
moment. So for them it is more about caution than ability.
A functioning back line? You must be joking. They can't decide on a half
combination from one minute to the next, their centres penetrate less
often than Will Sutton on Ugly Stupid Fat Shielas Night and poor old
Habana is reduced to searching high and low for intercepts to score.
They stand offside all day and tackle themselves to a standstill, hoping
to gain penalties from retaliations to cheap shots.
In the RWC it looked good enough to me. Conservative, definitely. But IMHO due to coaching/tactics rather than talent.
England don't need a change of attitude. Merely a change of talent.
This laboured perennial charge against England just didn't wash for 2000-
2003. Whether they can produce a similar back-line over the next couple
of years is to be seen ...
You must be joking part two. England had a better back line in 1991 than
2003. What England had in 2003 was tons of experience, a very well
drilled, settled team playing a seamlessly combined tight game plan,
with heaps of cheating nous in the forwards AND Jonny Wilkinson. I can't
recall them ever scoring one half decent try against proper opposition.
My "proper opposition" do you mean :
1. NZ 2. SH sides
Whichever you mean, the England backs (Wilkinson, Cohen, Tindall, Robinson etc) scored tries against them
Of course, you may then claim that said tries were not "half decent" . Others may beg to differ.
You should be looking for a lot better back line than 2003 if you want
to get back in the Big Five.
Nah, given that 2002-3 was enough to get England to #1, no need to try too hard on that front. Give them too high a bar and they might actually reach it. And we wouldn't want England miles ahead of the rest, would we ...
Walter Mitty 24 February 2008 18:02:04 [ permanent link ]
Uncle Dave <davidcovey@t-online.de> writes:
On Feb 23, 11:00 pm, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> writes:
On Feb 23, 10:42 pm, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
But seriously, how crap are our backs?
Is that irony or do you mean it? I never know with you...
UD
I mean it.
Leaving aside the fact that I can never understand how people can't
just get behind their team, whoever's playing, 100% you seem to be
Huh? I always am behind England. It does not mean I have to pretend they are great.
ignoring the role they were forced into for much of the game, namely
defenders. They did that admirably with one or two hiccups, which is
only to be expected. They beat France in Paris FFS, that's an
achievement that was down to the entire team...
Yes. And a better team would have done it more comfortably. Our opening try was a fluke and not the result of backs doing attacking backs things. No issues with the defence, but they are still as clueless at distribution. The ball seemed like it was a hot potato for some.
On Feb 23, 11:00 pm, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> writes:
On Feb 23, 10:42 pm, Walter Mitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
But seriously, how crap are our backs?
Is that irony or do you mean it? I never know with you...
UD
I mean it.
Leaving aside the fact that I can never understand how people can't
just get behind their team, whoever's playing, 100% you seem to be
Huh? I always am behind England. It does not mean I have to pretend they
are great.
ignoring the role they were forced into for much of the game, namely
defenders. They did that admirably with one or two hiccups, which is
only to be expected. They beat France in Paris FFS, that's an
achievement that was down to the entire team...
Yes. And a better team would have done it more comfortably. Our opening try was
a fluke and not the result of backs doing attacking backs things.
It could've gone wrong, but it was no fluke. Noon lined the guy up well and timed his tackle perfectly. Sackey followed up, correctly elected hoof the ball over the try line and jump on it. If he'd tried to collect it he'd have got mullered. More skill than fluke imo, although a bad bounce could've knackered it.
No
issues with the defence, but they are still as clueless at
distribution. The ball seemed like it was a hot potato for some.
This laboured perennial charge against England just didn't wash for 2000-
2003. Whether they can produce a similar back-line over the next couple
of years is to be seen ...
It wasn't so much about the backline in that period. The only shining light no longer present was Will Greenwood - an exceptionally intelligent player. The biggest difference was a back row which included Moody/Hill/Back for long periods, some of the best flankers England has ever produced. Quick quality ball, endless shameless cheating and great continuity in attack.
On Feb 24, 2:25 pm, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
You must be joking part two. England had a better back line in 1991 than
2003.
Ha! Years ago I was singing the praises of that team and you said
they couldn't score tries to save their lives. In fact, they used to
run in tries wholesale and would have won the RWC i they hadn't
changed to match the boring style of Australia (who had learned it
from NZ) in the final.
They COULDN'T score tries to save their lives. And they were still a better backline than the 2003 team.
And let's face it, England lost twice in that tournament, to New Zealand and Australia, and you lost to Australia in June that year as well, and if South Africa had been there you probably would have lost to them as well. The only reason England even made the final is because of the rigged draw where you had the terrifying prospect of facing Scotland in the semi-final in Edinburgh while the real finalists, Australia and New Zealand, fought it out in Dublin.
Nigel Evans 25 February 2008 18:18:20 [ permanent link ]
"didgerman" <didgerman@rfu.com> wrote in message news:J%zwj.3700$ab5.132@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Holding your breath is not asphyxia, your sentence above is an oxymoron,
try and obtain a better grasp of English please.
Next......
If he holds it for long enough, asphyxia is the result. Tell him to try it and get back to us later with a detailed account of what transpired ( or expired ). Please do not allow yourself to get involved in discussions relating to English grammar. This will only cause more distress to other English supporters who will not know what you are talking about. And, for your own benefit, please see
Please do not even contemplate a discussion of gerunds. Professor Smith says they no longer exist. Personally, I think he'd be better suited as an English rugby coach but that's how things are, I'm afraid.
Nigel Evans 25 February 2008 22:39:17 [ permanent link ]
"Peter Twydell" <peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message newsncJnHSoKwwHFwh3@twydell.demon.co.uk...
You don't speak Welsh? Letting the side down there, aren't you?
Andere talen zijn ook mogelijk, wat mij betreft.
It's very similar to German isn't it ? My friend Joris speaks Dutch, German, French, Flemish, Thai, English, Spanish, Italian, all fluently and, I think, Maltese now. My friend Brian from Pontypridd speaks Spanish, Polish, English, and speaks both Japanese and French as do the natives. So, I don't boast too much about my language skills. Young Joris works on computers which do automatic translations for the EEC and Brian was quite prepared to learn Russian in order to work in Mongolia in his job in the Diplomatic Service. Unluckily for him he was sent to the Bahamas instead. Many of my friends are immensely talented. Sadly, none is a plumber.
