Am I the only person here who thinks they can do it?
OK, Wales would have to lose at home to Ireland but this is new territory for Wales - look how long it took England to defeat the GS hoodoo. I would say that the psychological incentive for Wales to win is somewhat less than it is for Ireland. Ireland will be desperate to ensure this campaign finishes on a high note whereas Wales will probably win the championship anyway and have already surpassed expectations.
Although players might say the Grand Slam is the be all and end all (which as regular readers of my tripe will know I believe it most definitely ISN'T), the results seem to indicate otherwise. In the pro era it has proven to be both elusive and irrelevant.
If Ireland win by, say, ten points and France throw off their new found shackles and thump Italy then Robert, as they say etes votre Oncle my son.
Stranger things have happened. Like Wales being up for a Grand Slam in the first place
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:1110888087.532823.113690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Am I the only person here who thinks they can do it?>
OK, Wales would have to lose at home to Ireland but this is new> territory for Wales - look how long it took England to defeat the GS> hoodoo. I would say that the psychological incentive for Wales to win> is somewhat less than it is for Ireland. Ireland will be desperate to> ensure this campaign finishes on a high note whereas Wales will> probably win the championship anyway and have already surpassed> expectations.>
Although players might say the Grand Slam is the be all and end all> (which as regular readers of my tripe will know I believe it most> definitely ISN'T), the results seem to indicate otherwise. In the pro> era it has proven to be both elusive and irrelevant.>
If Ireland win by, say, ten points and France throw off their new found> shackles and thump Italy then Robert, as they say etes votre Oncle my> son.>
Stranger things have happened. Like Wales being up for a Grand Slam in> the first place >
Cheers>
It's still a three horse race it's true, and Italy did look shagged out against England.
Uncle Dave wrote:> Am I the only person here who thinks they can do it?
Not at all.
Despite the euphoria, it is perfectly possible for Wales to come third in this championship. It isn't even hugely unlikely. A 13-point defeat to Ireland would hardly be unprecedented; they've done better than that against Wales four times in this century. It's hardly stretching things to imagine France getting the 42-point victory they would need over a demoralised Italian side.
If it does come down to points difference, two teams will feel fairly stupid. France might regret their pathetic showing against Scotland; perhaps Ireland will rue their inability to bury an Italian side even the Scots had no trouble with; and Wales may yet kick themselves for going to sleep at Murrayfield.
<and Wales may yet kick themselves for going to sleep at Murrayfield.>
Yeah, I meant to comment on that. They seem to have this blitz thing where they go hell for leather for about twenty minutes and then just sort of, well, keep things going for the rest of the time.
It seemed that way in every game so far. I guess the question is, can they play at the intensity required against Ireland. Their win against England was hardly convincing so it will be very interesting...
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:1110895749.389816.124200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It seemed that way in every game so far. I guess the question is, can> they play at the intensity required against Ireland. Their win against> England was hardly convincing so it will be very interesting...
The win was totally convincing. There was never a moment when England looked like winning it. Small margin on the scoreboard but a sound beating in reality. Let's face it, if you can't beat this present English side you have to be very poor.
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<1110888087.532823.113690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...> Am I the only person here who thinks they can do it?>
OK, Wales would have to lose at home to Ireland but this is new> territory for Wales - look how long it took England to defeat the GS> hoodoo. I would say that the psychological incentive for Wales to win> is somewhat less than it is for Ireland. Ireland will be desperate to> ensure this campaign finishes on a high note whereas Wales will> probably win the championship anyway and have already surpassed> expectations.
The best case scenario for France is Ireland winning by either 12 or 13 points (both leave Ireland or Wales plus 50 in points for/against). Even if that happens, France has to win by *41* or more. And if Ireland win by more or less than 12 or 13, France's margin over Italy must increase point for point.
And that's assuming the Irish can beat Wales, which is highly unlikely. A week ago, I thought Wales need only play it close and lose. But forget that nonsense; they'll close it out in style.
Wales have played four strong and very different games so far: a close game of muscle against England, a romp over Italy, a fast-paced pasting of France, and a statement of dominance and class over Scotland. They seem capable of playing any style that Ireland can throw at them.
Although players might say the Grand Slam is the be all and end all> (which as regular readers of my tripe will know I believe it most> definitely ISN'T), the results seem to indicate otherwise. In the pro> era it has proven to be both elusive and irrelevant.
I have a suggestion for you: Tell a Greek soccer fan that winning Euro 2004 wasn't important. Tell me what sort of reaction you get. ^_^
For smaller nations like Scotland and Wales who might have no chance in the World's, this *is* the be all and end all. Let them have their moment of glory; watching the same teams win the big tournaments every time is boring.
That's what made watching England win the rugby WC so much fun, or the French winning the soccer WC, the US choking at the basketball WC, or Donovan Bailey winning gold in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics. Nothing is more fun than watching an underdog humiliate the favorite in front of everybody.
If Ireland win by, say, ten points and France throw off their new found> shackles and thump Italy then Robert, as they say etes votre Oncle my> son.>
Stranger things have happened. Like Wales being up for a Grand Slam in> the first place
Where's the surprise in that? Like a sprinter peaks for the Olympics, not the time trials before, the Welsh were peaking for this tournament. Ireland have played their best already and have little left, and the French haven't had one truly impressive game. Italy's first round performance against Ireland was better than most of the French's efforts this year.
Tim Fitzmaurice 16 March 2005 11:54:46 [ permanent link ]
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Mees Roelofs wrote:
Uncle Dave schrijft:>
If Ireland win by, say, ten points and France throw off their new found>> shackles and thump Italy then Robert, as they say etes votre Oncle my>> son.>
France have never trashed Italy, not even in their best form. For some> reason, they have never seemed to bother.
I've always put it down to similar styles and temperaments getting in the way of total desctruction.
Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568
<Interlingua pedant mode "on"> Robert, as they say "est" votre Oncle <Interlingua pedant mode "off">
Ha ha! I thought about that as I wrote it and wondered whether I should correct it but I consider mine - albeit inaccurate - to be more effective and certainly more amenable to the Anlgo-Saxon tongue.
Je travail avec les buggers so je sais bien my old mate, ne worriez vous pas.
I wasn't saying anything about smaller nations not getting their chance simply that it's my belief that the GS is no big deal. The important thing is to win the championship. I would say that at this stage of their development (assuming that they aren't actually about to rule the world which of course they might be) that winning the GS might do Wales more harm than good.
I argued at the time that England were "missing out" on them that it was a good thing. Which it was. They did it in the RWC year which is all you want. Sure, it's nice to have but it doesn't mean a lot.
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:39oogmF63g70nU1@individual.net...
Tell me Nigel, have you ever considered reading the post you're replying > to> BEFORE you reply? I say nothing about Welsh fans or indeed Wales other > than> the simple fact that they have surpassed expectations.
You've just said it again ! "They have surpassed expectations." Whos bloody expectations ? Not mine, that's for sure. You have been surprised because you believed that England would stay number one forever. I don't think any sensible observer can say that they were surprised to see this season's results in view of the performances of the last one.
Wales have played four strong and very different games so far: > a close game of muscle against England, a romp over Italy, a > fast-paced pasting of France,
Wales *pasted* France? What, by going 15-0 down and then eking out a 6 point victory?
It's a good win, all the more so given where it happened and how Wales came back. But a pasting it most definitely was not.
"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com> wrote in message news:grse31lh7lrh9h2sb5h21g9bq14h1naqs4@4ax.com...
It's amazing how a thread about the relative points-differences of> France, Wales and Ireland can be turned into an irrelevant troll about> England.
You must ask Uncle Dave for his reasons.
You seem to be emulating (the late) Bluetit: you have nothing positive> to say about your own team, only one-eyed negative fixations about a> competitor.
I will say positive things about my own team when they are due to be said. I have criticised the coaches and mangement for many years. Now we are rid of the fools, our performances have improved. Is this a coincidence ?
Out of interest - how can a calculation be "childish"?
When mentioned only as way of denigrating the performances of teams other than England. Uncle Dave does not want anybody to win the Six Nations tournament other than England. He is seeking to diminish the importance of the Championship this year because England cannot win it. For him it's a face saving effort. Firstly, he makes out that that there is not a great difference in standard between the teams as it is possible now for three teams to come out on top. Then, he will point to relatively small winning margins in certain games. Finally, he will say that England are rebuilding. Together these three points turn England's season from catastrophe to "milk and honey". The reality is far different. England are a poor team with scant resources available to them. Any sensible person will wait until this coming weekend's games are played before crowing about his own team's performance.
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:1110960735.048097.87530@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I would say that at this stage of> their development (assuming that they aren't actually about to rule the> world which of course they might be) that winning the GS might do Wales> more harm than good.
Are you suggesting that losing four or five games is a better option ? Do you think England have some sort of "cunning plan" ? I've seen Wales win Grand Slams and Triple Crowns and I can't remember any of them doing us any harm.
"Ben L" <bjlongman@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fca12aed.0503160037.e5f3cfa@posting.google.com...> <snip>>
Wales have played four strong and very different games so far:>> a close game of muscle against England, a romp over Italy, a>> fast-paced pasting of France,>
Wales *pasted* France? What, by going 15-0 down and then eking out a 6> point victory?>
It's a good win, all the more so given where it happened and how Wales> came back. But a pasting it most definitely was not.
It was a "pasting". Don't believe me, just ask the French,and that's what they will tell you themselves.
On 15 Mar 2005 16:04:10 -0800, bg12345@apexmail.com (Bob Dog) wrote:
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<1110888087.532823.113690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
That's what made watching England win the rugby WC so much >fun, or the French winning the soccer WC, the US choking at >the basketball WC, or Donovan Bailey winning gold in Atlanta >during the 1996 Olympics. Nothing is more fun than watching >an underdog humiliate the favorite in front of everybody.
England?
Underdogs?
Well, that's a bit of a different spin than most of the rest of the rugby world (which had them at worst second favourites going into the tournament, and favourites for the final)...
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<1110960735.048097.87530@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...> Bob, or Dog if you prefer.>
I wasn't saying anything about smaller nations not getting their chance> simply that it's my belief that the GS is no big deal. The important> thing is to win the championship. I would say that at this stage of> their development (assuming that they aren't actually about to rule the> world which of course they might be) that winning the GS might do Wales> more harm than good.
That's possible. To speak of the round ball, South Korea's success in the WC of soccer certainly did more harm. (I was here before the WC, so I saw this.) Everyone thinks Hiddink was a genius, but reality is he got an advantage for his team that no other had (except their third place opponents Turkey, interestingly enough). Now everybody gets on their case every time they lose, which is often.
Most nations brought their best players together at the last second to create "all star" teams with talent and no cohesion. Hiddink got all 30 players he wanted away from their club teams *four* *months* before the tournament and they played together with the familiarity of a professional team. Similarly, the Turks took the core of Galatasaray's UEFA championship team and built around it.
I argued at the time that England were "missing out" on them that it> was a good thing. Which it was. They did it in the RWC year which is> all you want. Sure, it's nice to have but it doesn't mean a lot.
Oh, it did. It meant SANZA had to shut up, even if only for five minutes, and admit they weren't the best. A year full of an invincible but humble English team was beautiful.
Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vftf31pt9bi1dbh2jc1nm0ja18tajknfof@4ax.com>...> On 15 Mar 2005 16:04:10 -0800, bg12345@apexmail.com (Bob Dog) wrote:> >"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<1110888087.532823.113690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...>
That's what made watching England win the rugby WC so much > >fun, or the French winning the soccer WC, the US choking at > >the basketball WC, or Donovan Bailey winning gold in Atlanta > >during the 1996 Olympics. Nothing is more fun than watching > >an underdog humiliate the favorite in front of everybody.>
England? Underdogs?>
Well, that's a bit of a different spin than most of the rest of the rugby> world (which had them at worst second favourites going into the tournament,> and favourites for the final)...
Okay, I didn't spell out each and every single case differently, but as I say in response to Uncle Dave, wasn't it nice to see a team with some humility knock of two of the three southerners? France were a favorite and that didn't detract from how beautiful was their demolition of Brazil in 1998's WC of soccer. Like I said, nothing is as fun as seeing arrogant people and teams lose.
I bet SANZA breathed a collective sigh of relief in 2003 when it worked out the semifinals would be France v. England and New Zealand v. Australia. That prevented England from beating all three in the same tournament.
"Bob Dog" <bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote in message news:4fa573de.0503160705.be97323@posting.google.com...> Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<vftf31pt9bi1dbh2jc1nm0ja18tajknfof@4ax.com>...>> On 15 Mar 2005 16:04:10 -0800, bg12345@apexmail.com (Bob Dog) wrote:>> >"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message >> >news:<1110888087.532823.113690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...>>
That's what made watching England win the rugby WC so much>> >fun, or the French winning the soccer WC, the US choking at>> >the basketball WC, or Donovan Bailey winning gold in Atlanta>> >during the 1996 Olympics. Nothing is more fun than watching>> >an underdog humiliate the favorite in front of everybody.>>
England? Underdogs?>>
Well, that's a bit of a different spin than most of the rest of the rugby>> world (which had them at worst second favourites going into the >> tournament,>> and favourites for the final)...>
Okay, I didn't spell out each and every single case differently,> but as I say in response to Uncle Dave, wasn't it nice to see a> team with some humility knock of two of the three southerners?> France were a favorite and that didn't detract from how beautiful> was their demolition of Brazil in 1998's WC of soccer. Like I> said, nothing is as fun as seeing arrogant people and teams lose.>
I bet SANZA breathed a collective sigh of relief in 2003 when it> worked out the semifinals would be France v. England and New> Zealand v. Australia. That prevented England from beating all> three in the same tournament.>
Nigel Evans <nigel@tingtongfarang.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:4237ee52$0$32612$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...>
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message> news:39oogmF63g70nU1@individual.net...>
Tell me Nigel, have you ever considered reading the post you're replying> > to> > BEFORE you reply? I say nothing about Welsh fans or indeed Wales other> > than> > the simple fact that they have surpassed expectations.>
You've just said it again ! "They have surpassed expectations." Whos
bloody> expectations ? Not mine, that's for sure. You have been surprised because> you believed that England would stay number one forever. I don't think any> sensible observer can say that they were surprised to see this season's> results in view of the performances of the last one.
What I'm suggesting is that rugby is a business now and teams, unions even, have business objectives. England exceeded theirs in 2003 because, IIRC correctly, their aim was to reach the final. I would be interested to see what Wales's objectives for this year are but I doubt somehow that they would include winning the Grand Slam. I've searched their site but it appears the WRU are rather more coy about what they expect to achieve than England.
Although you obviously expected them to win a GS - shame you never shared that with us earlier - I don't recall Wales being odds-on to win the championship at the beginning of the 6N. So I would say they have surpassed expectations and although you, from your lofty perch above we mere mortals, were obviously not impressed the players and fans evidently were with the wins over England and France. They certainly didn't act as though they thought these were foregone conclusions as you seem to suggest.
You talk bollocks when your team is losing and you talk bollocks when your team is winning Nigel, don't try and tar the rest of us with the same brush. Oh, and when I started a thread about potential for a GS this year nobody had Wales down for it. Ah, you wouldn't know would you as you came back when? Oh yes, a day or two after Wales started winning again...
Bob Dog wrote:> Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vftf31pt9bi1dbh2jc1nm0ja18tajknfof@4ax.com>...
England? Underdogs?> >
Well, that's a bit of a different spin than most of the rest of the
rugby> > world (which had them at worst second favourites going into the tournament,> > and favourites for the final)...>
Okay, I didn't spell out each and every single case differently,> but as I say in response to Uncle Dave, wasn't it nice to see a> team with some humility knock of two of the three southerners?
I'm afraid you obviously know the parties involved much more intimately than I do. I couldn't possibly comment as to the humility or otherwise of the respective parties.
Except for Clive Woodward, who comes across as the most arrogant man on the face of the Earth, an impression that is supported by anecdotal evidence from people I know who've dealt with him.
Which leads me to believe that you probably have no idea what you are talking about and are spouting total bollocks.
Uncle Dave wrote:> You talk bollocks when your team is losing and you talk bollocks when> your team is winning Nigel, don't try and tar the rest of us with the same> brush.
Actually Dave, I think his brush probably suits you quite well on that basis.
Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111000933.585734.72860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>
Except for Clive Woodward, who comes across as the most arrogant man on> the face of the Earth, an impression that is supported by anecdotal> evidence from people I know who've dealt with him.
This would be the definition of "arrogance" which for some tortured souls = "being English" I assume?
Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111001010.202372.48250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
Uncle Dave wrote:> > You talk bollocks when your team is losing and you talk bollocks> when> > your team is winning Nigel, don't try and tar the rest of us with the> same> > brush.>
Actually Dave, I think his brush probably suits you quite well on that> basis.
I support my team through thick and thin. I never call for the coach's head or players for that matter. Google away but you will find that I am an England fan and - though this will probably be seen as "arrogance" in your twisted view of the universe - quite proud of it actually. Whoever puts on the white shirt with the rose is OK by me as are the people charged with helping them achieve their goals.
Thick and thin, rain or shine. And my God there's been a lot more thin than thick and I have yet to get a suntan basking in England's reflected glory...
Uncle Dave wrote:> Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:1111001010.202372.48250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> >
Uncle Dave wrote:> > > You talk bollocks when your team is losing and you talk
bollocks> > when> > > your team is winning Nigel, don't try and tar the rest of us with
same> > > brush.> >
Actually Dave, I think his brush probably suits you quite well on
that> > basis.>
I support my team through thick and thin. I never call for the
coach's> head or players for that matter. Google away but you will find that I am an> England fan and - though this will probably be seen as "arrogance" in your> twisted view of the universe - quite proud of it actually.
Not at all, Dave. You've never struck me as arrogant. The brush I was referring to above was the 'talking bollocks' brush.
Although the 'trolling the newsgroup' brush - or at least the NZ part of it in your case - might apply equally as well.
How can the Grand Slam be irrelevant? It is the sign that EVERYTHING has come together for the tournament including luck. I am glad there is a chance of someone being able to do the grand slam this year.
The match should be entertaining though!
Mr.Will
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:1110888087.532823.113690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Am I the only person here who thinks they can do it?>
OK, Wales would have to lose at home to Ireland but this is new> territory for Wales - look how long it took England to defeat the GS> hoodoo. I would say that the psychological incentive for Wales to win> is somewhat less than it is for Ireland. Ireland will be desperate to> ensure this campaign finishes on a high note whereas Wales will> probably win the championship anyway and have already surpassed> expectations.>
Although players might say the Grand Slam is the be all and end all> (which as regular readers of my tripe will know I believe it most> definitely ISN'T), the results seem to indicate otherwise. In the pro> era it has proven to be both elusive and irrelevant.>
If Ireland win by, say, ten points and France throw off their new found> shackles and thump Italy then Robert, as they say etes votre Oncle my> son.>
Stranger things have happened. Like Wales being up for a Grand Slam in> the first place >
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:1110960537.197454.280900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> <Interlingua pedant mode "on"> Robert, as they say "est" votre Oncle> <Interlingua pedant mode "off">>
Ha ha! I thought about that as I wrote it and wondered whether I> should correct it but I consider mine - albeit inaccurate - to be more> effective and certainly more amenable to the Anlgo-Saxon tongue.>
Je travail avec les buggers so je sais bien my old mate, ne worriez> vous pas.>
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote 'Complete bollox' in message news:1110888087.532823.113690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Am I the only person here who thinks they can do it?
After all I've done for the b*gger - (tix for Twickers, etc, etc), he just can't stop letting those lonely nights in Brussels affect his thinking...
France to win 6N ?
- Why ? They played well, or something ???????
OK, Wales would have to lose at home to Ireland but this is new territory > for Wales -
Yep, right - 25 years new territory...
look how long it took England to defeat the GS hoodoo
Is there a correlation betwween 6N success (consistent or otherwise) and global success, i.e does England's 6N success relate to a certain knock-out thing in Oz 2003 ???
I would say that the psychological incentive for Wales to win is somewhat > less than it is for Ireland.
Same for both countries. Your comment may well be uttered by a professor of not-very-important-bollox-psychology (Hull Uni) in 25 years time when he feels the need to comment (because no-one else gives a toss). Do you really think that either country has a lesser incentive than the other ?
Ireland will be desperate to ensure this campaign finishes on a high note > whereas Wales will> probably win the championship anyway and have already surpassed > expectations.
When has a team not been desperate to 'finish on a high note' ?
Although players might say the Grand Slam is the be all and end all
Players don't - media and fans do
(which as regular readers of my tripe will know I believe it most > definitely ISN'T)
You're a fan...but then again, aren't you Andy Ripley's love-child ?????
the results seem to indicate otherwise. In the pro era it has proven to be > both elusive and irrelevant.> If Ireland win by, say, ten points and France throw off their new found > shackles and thump Italy then >Robert, as they say etes votre Oncle my > son.
AKA, If Ireland do what they normally do and France do what they.......normally do, etc, etc,etc....
Like Wales being up for a Grand Slam in the first place
I sincerely hope that the Welsh team take this wonderful opportunity to take the Grand Slam. After 25 years, the country has been gaggin for it, etc, etc...(much like their ladies - who I cannot be with this year ))
I do, however, regret that on Sunday evening in Edinburgh, many Welsh seemed more intent on us (Scotland) beting England on Sat. FOR F*CKS SAKE - you have the chance of winning a GS on Sat - don't worry about what happens at Twickers !! Enjoy this season for as long as you can !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers> UD
And to you,
Pablo (enjoy the game...)
PS. C u in Embra nxt yr - Pete Devlin is buying a beer....
"Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1111000933.585734.72860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...> Bob Dog wrote:> > Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:<vftf31pt9bi1dbh2jc1nm0ja18tajknfof@4ax.com>...>
England? Underdogs?> > >
Well, that's a bit of a different spin than most of the rest of the> rugby> > > world (which had them at worst second favourites going into the> tournament,> > > and favourites for the final)...> >
Okay, I didn't spell out each and every single case differently,> > but as I say in response to Uncle Dave, wasn't it nice to see a> > team with some humility knock of two of the three southerners?>
I'm afraid you obviously know the parties involved much more intimately> than I do. I couldn't possibly comment as to the humility or otherwise> of the respective parties.>
Except for Clive Woodward, who comes across as the most arrogant man on> the face of the Earth, an impression that is supported by anecdotal> evidence from people I know who've dealt with him.>
Which leads me to believe that you probably have no idea what you are> talking about and are spouting total bollocks.
That's what some in this group were saying about me a month ago.
It's a sorry sign when everything requires a caveat to prevent others from jumping to conclusions. Using your argument, since Woodward was arrogant, that must mean Johnny Wilkinson was as well.
Perspective, humour, and forethought are lost arts.
"Bob Dog" <bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote in message news:4fa573de.0503162030.622dc6fb@posting.google.com...> "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<1111000933.585734.72860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...>> Bob Dog wrote:>> > Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:<vftf31pt9bi1dbh2jc1nm0ja18tajknfof@4ax.com>...>>
England? Underdogs?>> > >
Well, that's a bit of a different spin than most of the rest of the>> rugby>> > > world (which had them at worst second favourites going into the>> tournament,>> > > and favourites for the final)...>> >
Okay, I didn't spell out each and every single case differently,>> > but as I say in response to Uncle Dave, wasn't it nice to see a>> > team with some humility knock of two of the three southerners?>>
I'm afraid you obviously know the parties involved much more intimately>> than I do. I couldn't possibly comment as to the humility or otherwise>> of the respective parties.>>
Except for Clive Woodward, who comes across as the most arrogant man on>> the face of the Earth, an impression that is supported by anecdotal>> evidence from people I know who've dealt with him.>>
Which leads me to believe that you probably have no idea what you are>> talking about and are spouting total bollocks.>
That's what some in this group were saying about me a month ago.>
It's a sorry sign when everything requires a caveat to prevent> others from jumping to conclusions. Using your argument,> since Woodward was arrogant, that must mean Johnny Wilkinson> was as well.>
Perspective, humour, and forethought are lost arts.>
But your comment on the draw preventing England beating NZ as well was just a laugh - no arrogance there of course, very convenient.
<After all I've done for the b*gger - (tix for Twickers, etc, etc), he just can't stop letting those lonely nights in Brussels affect his thinking... >
Ho'd yo'r wisht.
<Is there a correlation betwween 6N success (consistent or otherwise) and global success, i.e does England's 6N success relate to a certain knock-out thing in Oz 2003 ???>
Although we have little evidence to go on given that only one team from the 5/6N has actually won the RWC, I would say that yes, there is. Consistency seems to be the key to success at the RWC and it was only when England managed to beat everybody else on a consistent basis that they really looked like RWC contenders. You have to be able to win games you should lose, which, incidentally, seems to be what France are finding how to do at long last.
<Do you really think that either country has a lesser incentive than the other ? >
Well, as you know, I set rather more store by the psychological aspects than most here. My reasoning is that the motivation for Ireland to finish on a high note outweighs that of Wales to win the Grand Slam. Nigel gave me a bollocking for intimating that Wales entered this championship as anything other than run away odds-on favourites to win it but I would say that whilst there was expectancy in the camp that it had yet to be translated into results. So they've probably done better than they might have expected. They won't sit on their laurels but you never know...
Anyway, my little be-kilted chum, you might have forgotten but I recall only too well the unashamed delight shown by your countrymen when they beat England in 2000 despite the fact that they had sod all reason to do so except pride and the delights of schadenfreude. I got very wet indeed. It seems to me that for the Celtic nations - probably because they rarely get the chance to go for one compared to England and France - the chance to destroy other's GS hopes is actually quite a big motivator. They all did it to England in recent times and took great delight in it, so why not Ireland delighting in doing it to Wales?
<When has a team not been desperate to 'finish on a high note' ? >
I refer my provincial friend to the losers of the runners-up game in evirtually very RWC thus far.
< do, however, regret that on Sunday evening in Edinburgh, many Welsh seemed more intent on us (Scotland) beting England on Sat.>
Why am I not surprised by this?
<PS. C u in Embra nxt yr - Pete Devlin is buying a beer.... >
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:39reuuF61pf8eU1@individual.net...
What I'm suggesting is that rugby is a business now and teams, unions> even, have business objectives. England exceeded theirs in 2003 because,> IIRC correctly, their aim was to reach the final. I would be interested > to> see what Wales's objectives for this year are but I doubt somehow that > they> would include winning the Grand Slam. I've searched their site but it> appears the WRU are rather more coy about what they expect to achieve than> England.
Rugby players are not racehorses. They cannot be laid out for two years in preparation for a World Cup. Every coach has to do his best with players available to him at any given moment. It would be very surprising if any of the home nations had the audacity to suggest that they win a grand slam this year. Each nation does its best.
Although you obviously expected them to win a GS - shame you never> shared that with us earlier - I don't recall Wales being odds-on to win > the> championship at the beginning of the 6N. So I would say they have > surpassed> expectations and although you, from your lofty perch above we mere > mortals,> were obviously not impressed the players and fans evidently were with the> wins over England and France. They certainly didn't act as though they> thought these were foregone conclusions as you seem to suggest.
I din't expect them to win a Grand Slam but I was fully entitled to expect a series of very good performance from them following on from last season. Wales is a very young team and is developing. England were very old and many of the players had to go. The same could be said about Ireland. Saturday's game will be the last International for many of them. I cannot predict if they will be run ragged by the much younger, fitter Welsh boys or if they'll spoil and grind their way to a win. The retiring players will be keen to finish on a high. On balance, I think Wales will win.
You talk bollocks when your team is losing and you talk bollocks when> your team is winning Nigel, don't try and tar the rest of us with the same> brush. Oh, and when I started a thread about potential for a GS this year> nobody had Wales down for it. Ah, you wouldn't know would you as you came> back when? Oh yes, a day or two after Wales started winning again...
I returned immediately prior to the last World Cup. We weren't beating anybody at that stage. We were still under the control of Henry. Then, we had to endure Hansen. It seems your memory is somewhat selective.
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:39ri9jF62lmevU1@individual.net...> Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I support my team through thick and thin. I never call for the coach's> head or players for that matter.
I have been relentless in calling for the removal of Graham Henry and Hansen. I am not the least bit ashamed of that. The New Zealanders can find out how good they really are. I cannot recall urging for the removal of any player other than Arwel Thomas. He was the puppet of the worst coach Wales has ever had. His name was Evans too.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:11:38 +0100, "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote:
Except for Clive Woodward, who comes across as the most arrogant man on>> the face of the Earth, an impression that is supported by anecdotal>> evidence from people I know who've dealt with him.>
This would be the definition of "arrogance" which for some tortured>souls = "being English" I assume?>
Pah!>
UD
I would truly love to know how SCW is seen as arrogant. Although he has something to be arrgant about, unlike the OP who seems to me to qualify much better for the title
I would truly love to know how SCW is seen as arrogant.
That's what I've heard from a couple of English media types who have had dealings with him - one's words, in particular, were that he was the most arrogant man they'd ever met.
My own opinion of him is formed by what I've seen of him in the media - the way he talks about himself, his own players, and the opposition including the opposition coaching staff. It's a general view formed over a long period of time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to support it with evidence, but would venture to suggest I am not alone in holding the view on this group.
Although he> has something to be arrgant about, unlike the OP who seems to me to> qualify much better for the title
Is 'I know you are but what am I' really the best you can do?
That's what made watching England win the rugby WC so much > fun, or the French winning the soccer WC, the US choking at > the basketball WC, or Donovan Bailey winning gold in Atlanta > during the 1996 Olympics. Nothing is more fun than watching > an underdog humiliate the favorite in front of everybody.
So that would be the less well-known "favourite" underdog, I take it?
Seeing that England had actually beaten all the top five, home and away, before the world cup.
The Green Phantom 18 March 2005 04:20:01 [ permanent link ]
Pablo
Uncle Dave wrote:
[...]
<PS. C u in Embra nxt yr - Pete Devlin is buying a beer.... >>
Not unless you promise to improve your spelling
Devvers has yet to show to pay for ANY beer. I can say that the Kinloss bous are quite generous though.
regards
The Green Phantom -- And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones
On 17 Mar 2005 09:44:28 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
I would truly love to know how SCW is seen as arrogant.>
That's what I've heard from a couple of English media types who have>had dealings with him - one's words, in particular, were that he was>the most arrogant man they'd ever met.>
Ah from what you've heard. Have you met him ? He is currently working 1 day a week in my wife's school and gaining his soccer coaching ticket. Most people are struck by his humility. My own experience is that he is substantially less arrogant than most, coaches I've met, and with more reason. Of course the fact that they are journalists might just colour their perception. Perhaps he just didn't fawn all over them. But if you believe journalists
My own opinion of him is formed by what I've seen of him in the media ->the way he talks about himself, his own players, and the opposition>including the opposition coaching staff.
And that is a valid impression coloured by the filter applied by, oh yes journalists.
It's a general view formed>over a long period of time. I have neither the time nor the>inclination to support it with evidence, but would venture to suggest I>am not alone in holding the view on this group.>
Is that because you have no valid evidence apart from some sound bites anf dconversations with , oh yes journalists. ?
Although he>> has something to be arrgant about, unlike the OP who seems to me to>> qualify much better for the title>
Is 'I know you are but what am I' really the best you can do?
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:39:52 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
That's what made watching England win the rugby WC so much >> fun, or the French winning the soccer WC, the US choking at >> the basketball WC, or Donovan Bailey winning gold in Atlanta >> during the 1996 Olympics. Nothing is more fun than watching >> an underdog humiliate the favorite in front of everybody.>
So that would be the less well-known "favourite" underdog, I take it?>
Seeing that England had actually beaten all the top five, home and away, >before the world cup.>
-- rick boyd
But they weren't the perrenial favourite. (or is that chokers ?)
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:08:48 +0000, John Hill <john@recruitcrm.co.uk> wrote:
Although he>>> has something to be arrgant about, unlike the OP who seems to me to>>> qualify much better for the title>>
Is 'I know you are but what am I' really the best you can do?>
Is hearsay and prejudice the best you can.
I don't know, John, they seem to be your stock in trade. Tell us again how you dislike all NZers as a matter of principle.
One piece of - in my view - fairly objective evidence regarding Woodward's arrogance is this whole soccer coaching expedition. It takes a pretty arrogant man to believe he can be a successful football manager without any real understanding or experience of the game. He obviously has a remarkably high opinion of his own abilities.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:15:37 +0000, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although he>>>> has something to be arrgant about, unlike the OP who seems to me to>>>> qualify much better for the title>>>
Is 'I know you are but what am I' really the best you can do?>>
Is hearsay and prejudice the best you can.>
I don't know, John, they seem to be your stock in trade. Tell us again how>you dislike all NZers as a matter of principle.
Really Brent. You can't even pay attention on that. I have met very few NZs who have done anything to disprove much of what I say. It is based on personal experience. I started out happy to regard New Zealanders as part of the Brotherhood of man, equally good or bad as anybody else. Unhappily they continue to prove that is not true.
For a Kiwi to accuse anybody of arrogance is an ultimate irony. Yet you continue to compound the irony and prove my position is not only correct, but also valid and appropriate. >
One piece of - in my view - fairly objective evidence regarding Woodward's>arrogance is this whole soccer coaching expedition. It takes a pretty>arrogant man to believe he can be a successful football manager without any>real understanding or experience of the game. He obviously has a>remarkably high opinion of his own abilities.
He is an entrepeur, not just a coach. As a breed entrepeneurs have a degree of belief in their own ability. Even when proven wrong. What Woodward wants to do is illustrate that the principles he applied in bringing England the World Cup are transferable across other sports.
But then some people believe you have to be a successful technician to run a business. Or that IT contractors should rule the world
Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:1111001010.202372.48250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>>
Uncle Dave wrote:>> > You talk bollocks when your team is losing and you talk>> > bollocks>> when>> > your team is winning Nigel, don't try and tar the rest of us with>> > the>> same>> > brush.>>
Actually Dave, I think his brush probably suits you quite well on>> that basis.>
I support my team through thick and thin. I never call for the> coach's head or players for that matter.
Of course you don't... it makes it pretty difficult to troll Kiwi's when you actually start commenting on the rugby.
Really Brent. You can't even pay attention on that. I have met very> few NZs who have done anything to disprove much of what I say. It is> based on personal experience. I started out happy to regard New> Zealanders as part of the Brotherhood of man, equally good or bad as> anybody else. Unhappily they continue to prove that is not true.
Forgive me for being an arrogant New Zealander, JH, but why is it get this sneaking feeling that this perception is based on the lack of "humble" Kiwis who freely put aside their "arrogance" to admit that, yes, England actually were a better team than New Zealand.
John Hill wrote:> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:15:37 +0000, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I don't know, John, they seem to be your stock in trade. Tell us
again how> >you dislike all NZers as a matter of principle.>
Really Brent. You can't even pay attention on that. I have met very> few NZs who have done anything to disprove much of what I say. It is> based on personal experience. I started out happy to regard New> Zealanders as part of the Brotherhood of man, equally good or bad as> anybody else. Unhappily they continue to prove that is not true.>
For a Kiwi to accuse anybody of arrogance is an ultimate irony. Yet> you continue to compound the irony and prove my position is not only> correct, but also valid and appropriate.
I think that is about the most I have ever seen you write, John.
You are entitled to your opinion. I fail to see how stating my opinion of Woodward's arrogance makes me arrogant in turn, and a bad person to boot, but no doubt you will enlighten me.
One piece of - in my view - fairly objective evidence regarding
Woodward's> >arrogance is this whole soccer coaching expedition. It takes a pretty> >arrogant man to believe he can be a successful football manager without any> >real understanding or experience of the game. He obviously has a> >remarkably high opinion of his own abilities.>
He is an entrepeur, not just a coach. As a breed entrepeneurs have a> degree of belief in their own ability. Even when proven wrong.
This would seem a not unreasonable description of arrogance to me. Belief in one's abilities out of line with reality.
In my experience many entrepreneurs are arrogant. Not just English ones either.
What Woodward wants to do is illustrate that the principles he
applied> in bringing England the World Cup are transferable across other> sports.
I know. In my view it is an arrogant assumption to believe that your personal and organisational skills were so key to the performance of the English rugby team that they will have a similar effect in other codes.
But then some people believe you have to be a successful technician
run a business. Or that IT contractors should rule the world
Both are silly as a general rule, although the first is not unhelpful. What's your point?
But they weren't the perrenial favourite. (or is that chokers ?)
As far as I can see there has not been a perennial favourite for the World Cup, pexcept perhaps in the eyes of the bookies, who merely reflect public opinion -- the public in question being the general public, the public who actually know sod all about rugby but have been influenced by a century of great product branding by the All Blacks, which is now sadly out of touch with reality.
This whole choking thing is such a laughable farce. Any number of games have been won or lost on a few variables and in a knock out tournament there are bound to be a few games that go astray.
In reality, England should hold as their dearest hope the ambition that they regularly get close enough to be "chokers".
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:00:39 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
Really Brent. You can't even pay attention on that. I have met very>> few NZs who have done anything to disprove much of what I say. It is>> based on personal experience. I started out happy to regard New>> Zealanders as part of the Brotherhood of man, equally good or bad as>> anybody else. Unhappily they continue to prove that is not true. >
Forgive me for being an arrogant New Zealander
One thing that I think you are not. Hell you even have a sense of humour, slightly weird maybe, but it exists
, JH, but why is it get >this sneaking feeling that this perception is based on the lack of >"humble" Kiwis who freely put aside their "arrogance" to admit that, >yes, England actually were a better team than New Zealand.>
Ah the rarities Rick. Exceptions, unfortunately, that prove the rule.
On 18 Mar 2005 05:05:26 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Hill wrote:>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:15:37 +0000, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com>>> wrote:>
I don't know, John, they seem to be your stock in trade. Tell us>again how>> >you dislike all NZers as a matter of principle.>>
Really Brent. You can't even pay attention on that. I have met very>> few NZs who have done anything to disprove much of what I say. It is>> based on personal experience. I started out happy to regard New>> Zealanders as part of the Brotherhood of man, equally good or bad as>> anybody else. Unhappily they continue to prove that is not true.>>
For a Kiwi to accuse anybody of arrogance is an ultimate irony. Yet>> you continue to compound the irony and prove my position is not only>> correct, but also valid and appropriate.>
I think that is about the most I have ever seen you write, John.>
That does not surprise me. It is difficult to see much with your eyes shut. My replies to you may well be brief, that might be indicative of what I am replying to
You are entitled to your opinion. I fail to see how stating my opinion>of Woodward's arrogance makes me arrogant in turn, and a bad person to>boot, but no doubt you will enlighten me.>
One piece of - in my view - fairly objective evidence regarding>Woodward's>> >arrogance is this whole soccer coaching expedition. It takes a>pretty>> >arrogant man to believe he can be a successful football manager>without any>> >real understanding or experience of the game. He obviously has a>> >remarkably high opinion of his own abilities.>>
He is an entrepeur, not just a coach. As a breed entrepeneurs have a>> degree of belief in their own ability. Even when proven wrong.>
This would seem a not unreasonable description of arrogance to me.>Belief in one's abilities out of line with reality.>
Out of what reality - sounds much more like Mitchell or Henry to me
Arrogance Aggressively assertive or presumptuous.
IMHO your comments about Woodward were presumptuous and your tone aggressive
Confident Self assured or bold.
So it see. ISTM that you are confusing justified self confidence with unjustified arrogance
In my experience many entrepreneurs are arrogant. Not just English>ones either.>
Or self confident maybe
What Woodward wants to do is illustrate that the principles he>applied>> in bringing England the World Cup are transferable across other>> sports.>
I know. In my view it is an arrogant assumption to believe that your>personal and organisational skills were so key to the performance of>the English rugby team that they will have a similar effect in other>codes.>
Well they exceeded their objectives, sounds like a good reason to me
But then some people believe you have to be a successful technician>to>> run a business. Or that IT contractors should rule the world>
Both are silly as a general rule, although the first is not unhelpful.>What's your point?>
Well you raised Woodward's soccer experience. Of course the whole thing may just be a feint, or an attempt to live out a boyhood dream
John Hill wrote:> On 18 Mar 2005 05:05:26 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
This would seem a not unreasonable description of arrogance to me.> >Belief in one's abilities out of line with reality.>
Out of what reality - sounds much more like Mitchell or Henry to me
Possibly. Mitchell's an arsehole, IMO. Arrogance might come into that. Have never noticed arrogance in what I've heard from/about Henry, but then am well aware of his anti-Christ status in your eyes.
Arrogance> Aggressively assertive or presumptuous.>
IMHO your comments about Woodward were presumptuous and your tone> aggressive
Why? Because I had formed a view based on available evidence, supported by the views of others?
You can't call someone arrogant everytime they express a view that you disagree with. Not unless you wanted to look pretty foolish...
By the way, my definition of arrogant would be something more like:
Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others.
So it see. ISTM that you are confusing justified self confidence with> unjustified arrogance
Confidence would be justified (in retrospect) for rugby. Although, Woodward did ask to be judged on the 1999 World Cup!
Not so in football.
Also you can be arrogant and still successful. One definition of arrogance might be that you consider yourself naturally superior to others because of your success, and able to extend your success to largely unrelated fields simply because you're naturally better than everyone else...
In my experience many entrepreneurs are arrogant. Not just English> >ones either.> >
Or self confident maybe
There is not a clear line, I agree.
What Woodward wants to do is illustrate that the principles he> >applied> >> in bringing England the World Cup are transferable across other> >> sports.> >
I know. In my view it is an arrogant assumption to believe that
your> >personal and organisational skills were so key to the performance of> >the English rugby team that they will have a similar effect in other> >codes.> >
Well they exceeded their objectives, sounds like a good reason to me
Exceeded? Really?
But then some people believe you have to be a successful
technician> >to> >> run a business. Or that IT contractors should rule the world> >
Both are silly as a general rule, although the first is not
On 18 Mar 2005 06:27:17 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Hill wrote:>> On 18 Mar 2005 05:05:26 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:>
This would seem a not unreasonable description of arrogance to me.>> >Belief in one's abilities out of line with reality.>>
Out of what reality - sounds much more like Mitchell or Henry to me>
Possibly. Mitchell's an arsehole, IMO. Arrogance might come into>that. Have never noticed arrogance in what I've heard from/about>Henry, but then am well aware of his anti-Christ status in your eyes.>
Arrogance>> Aggressively assertive or presumptuous.>>
IMHO your comments about Woodward were presumptuous and your tone>> aggressive>
Why? Because I had formed a view based on available evidence,>supported by the views of others?>
You can't call someone arrogant everytime they express a view that you>disagree with. Not unless you wanted to look pretty foolish...>
By the way, my definition of arrogant would be something more like:>
Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or>self-importance.>Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority>toward others.>
So it see. ISTM that you are confusing justified self confidence with>> unjustified arrogance>
Confidence would be justified (in retrospect) for rugby. Although,>Woodward did ask to be judged on the 1999 World Cup!
Another mis quote
Not so in football.>
Also you can be arrogant and still successful. One definition of>arrogance might be that you consider yourself naturally superior to>others because of your success, and able to extend your success to>largely unrelated fields simply because you're naturally better than>everyone else...
That is not by any dictionary definition., or any other of which I am aware. You refer to self belief
In my experience many entrepreneurs are arrogant. Not just English>> >ones either.>> >
Or self confident maybe>
There is not a clear line, I agree.>
What Woodward wants to do is illustrate that the principles he>> >applied>> >> in bringing England the World Cup are transferable across other>> >> sports.>> >
I know. In my view it is an arrogant assumption to believe that>your>> >personal and organisational skills were so key to the performance of>> >the English rugby team that they will have a similar effect in other>> >codes.>> >
Well they exceeded their objectives, sounds like a good reason to me>
Exceeded? Really?
Their target was the final of RWC 2003 with a win for 2007
But then some people believe you have to be a successful>technician>> >to>> >> run a business. Or that IT contractors should rule the world>> >
Both are silly as a general rule, although the first is not>unhelpful.>> >What's your point?>> >
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:14:44 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
But they weren't the perrenial favourite. (or is that chokers ?)>
As far as I can see there has not been a perennial favourite for the >World Cup, pexcept perhaps in the eyes of the bookies, who merely >reflect public opinion -- the public in question being the general >public, the public who actually know sod all about rugby but have been >influenced by a century of great product branding by the All Blacks, >which is now sadly out of touch with reality.
Such a wondeful ting ignorant public opinion. It shows in the governments we get
This whole choking thing is such a laughable farce. Any number of games >have been won or lost on a few variables and in a knock out tournament >there are bound to be a few games that go astray.>
Not for the winners
In reality, England should hold as their dearest hope the ambition that >they regularly get close enough to be "chokers".
IIRC as many finals and as many cups as, say , the All Blacks
John Hill wrote:> On 18 Mar 2005 06:27:17 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
Confidence would be justified (in retrospect) for rugby. Although,> >Woodward did ask to be judged on the 1999 World Cup!>
Another mis quote
Cite.
Also you can be arrogant and still successful. One definition of> >arrogance might be that you consider yourself naturally superior to> >others because of your success, and able to extend your success to> >largely unrelated fields simply because you're naturally better than> >everyone else...>
That is not by any dictionary definition., or any other of which I am> aware. You refer to self belief
Nope. Self belief is belief in your abilities in your chosen field. Not a belief in your abiility to do anything, and your superiority in general.
"Sean Byrne" <byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d1eatu$e4d$2$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...> Uncle Dave wrote:>
<Although the 'trolling the newsgroup' brush - or at least the NZ part> > of it in your case - might apply equally as well.>> >
Yeah well, they give you the shits with all this "nothing that's> > happened since 1902 counts" crap don't they?>
And the Six Nations isn't important this year because England are> 'rebuilding' right?
It's always important but you can't expect to win it every time, there are, after all six teams in it and I should imagine the chance of a six way tie are mathematically possible but somewhat unlikely.
I didn't expect a lot of my team this year. And I haven't been disappointed
"Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1111151126.507597.119600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You are entitled to your opinion. I fail to see how stating my opinion> of Woodward's arrogance makes me arrogant in turn, and a bad person to> boot, but no doubt you will enlighten me.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:44:29 +0000, John Hill <john@recruitcrm.co.uk> wrote:
On 18 Mar 2005 08:42:09 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:>
That is not by any dictionary definition., or any other of which I am>>> aware. You refer to self belief>>
Nope. Self belief is belief in your abilities in your chosen field.>>Not a belief in your abiility to do anything, and your superiority in>>general.>>
And sport is not Woodward's chosen fields.
Soccer's not, no.
FFS have you never come>across the concept og transferable skills
Of course. Woodward's organisational skills (and some of his personal skills) will translate. Comes back to my original point though - in my view it's pretty arrogant to believe that those skills are apparently so key to the performance of his previous teams that they will allow him to succeed in another sport.
I believe players and technical/tactical coaching are far more important, as is selection. He can't guarantee the first (and is unlikely to have an eye for soccer talent), has no clue about the second (beyond doing a coaching skills course!), and has always had a reputation for being a bit of a looney about the third. He won't have 4 years to settle on his best team as he did for England.
The Green Phantom 20 March 2005 03:57:21 [ permanent link ]
pete devlin wrote:
[...]
Is anybody going to be at the HC Final? I fancy that for a sesh. I was> going to be in Romania for it but that is postponed now till Oct. I have> also refused the opportunity to go to Edmonton, Canada so I can take Mrs> D to T in the Park. Therefore I should have enough smartie points in the> bank to get weekend pass for H Cup weekend.
Could be tempted to join you for a beer. No real wish to see the game though.
regards
The Green Phantom -- But you who live on dreams, you are better pleased with the sophistical reasoning and frauds of talkers about great and uncertain matters than those who speak of certain and natural matters, not of such lofty nature. -- Leonardo Da Vinci, "The Codex on the Flight of Birds"
In message <423cbb65$0$39343$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, The Green Phantom <ask@the.right.time> writes>Could be tempted to join you for a beer. No real wish to see the game >though.
Tell you what then, you bring YYF and I'll give you a couple of quid to go to the pictures or something. :O) -- Pete Devlin [{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}] "Mind the oranges Marlon!"
The Green Phantom 20 March 2005 15:14:30 [ permanent link ]
pete devlin wrote:
In message <423cbb65$0$39343$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, The> Green Phantom <ask@the.right.time> writes>>Could be tempted to join you for a beer. No real wish to see the game>>though.>
Tell you what then, you bring YYF and I'll give you a couple of quid to> go to the pictures or something. :O)
She's interested to know about the best thirty seconds of her5 life - including foreplay it's true, though I'd have to say I think she's used to a far higher standard.
I'll see what we can do and drop you an e-mail ;o)
regards
The Green Phantom -- Mother is far too clever to understand anything she does not like. -- Arnold Bennett
"Sean Byrne" <byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:d1eatu$e4d$2$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...>> Uncle Dave wrote:>>
<Although the 'trolling the newsgroup' brush - or at least the NZ>> > part of it in your case - might apply equally as well.>>> >
Yeah well, they give you the shits with all this "nothing that's>> > happened since 1902 counts" crap don't they?>>
And the Six Nations isn't important this year because England are>> 'rebuilding' right?>
It's always important but you can't expect to win it every time,> there> are, after all six teams in it and I should imagine the chance of a> six way tie are mathematically possible but somewhat unlikely.>
I didn't expect a lot of my team this year.
I didn't expect a lot from England this tournament either.
And I haven't been disappointed
How woefully inept they managed to be at times and the collective lack of responsibility shown by some of the senior players was surprising however.
