England & Eddie
-
@canefan said in England & Eddie:
@junior I think his intensity allows him to get the best out of a squad for a while, but eventually they will tune him out because it becomes too tiring
You do wonder if he's all that good with team culture.
Just a thought, but you do sense that England don't enjoy their rugby as much as say, NZ, Wales or SA.
@Victor-Meldrew said in England & Eddie:
@canefan said in England & Eddie:
@junior I think his intensity allows him to get the best out of a squad for a while, but eventually they will tune him out because it becomes too tiring
You do wonder if he's all that good with team culture.
Just a thought, but you do sense that England don't enjoy their rugby as much as say, NZ, Wales or SA.
Which also goes with my “rugby guy” theory ... there’s too much which goes with rugby over to here to really focus on what it’s supposed to be about.
A few strong blokes with a ball
-
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
Is this a troll post? No English here to troll....
Last night showed how tough it is to win a World Cup. If you look at the three tournaments South Africa have won, they haven't been very good in any of them.
- 1995 they beat Samoa, France and New Zealand.
- 2007 it was Fiji, Argentina and France.
- 2019 it was Japan, Wales and England.
Relatively speaking those are very easy runs. In the two most recent cups we won we had off performances in the knock outs. 2011, it was the final. 2015, it was the semi. We could have lost either game.
Before this game people clearly discounted the effect that England's tougher run had had. It's exceptionally tough to win a World Cup having had three tough knock out games. In 2015, we beat Australia in the final who had a much easier draw. However, Australia were much worse than us. England and South Africa are generally closely matched so the tough run was always going to be a factor.
People also discounted how South Africa were a much different team to us. We didn't try to take England on up front; South Africa were always going to. If Sinckler doesn't get injured, England could have won. Maybe if the first couple of minutes of how semi had happened differently, we could have won as well.
Eddie Jones is a great coach who has achieved great things with England over the last four years. I would still have him as coach of the year.
Not sure about this and commented on it earlier.
England's schedule was tough on paper - and I wrote before the tournament started that England wouldn't win the WC because they had Argentina, France, Wales/Australia, SA/NZ, SA/NZ on the trot - but the reality was very different.
They comfortably beat a 14-man Argentina; the France match was cancelled; and they comfortably beat an average Australia side who'd already lost to Wales.
They produced one of the performances of the decade by dismantling NZ in the SF but really that was their only serious challenge prior to the Final.
Conversely SA had to play NZ first up; then a very good Japanese side who were unbeaten with wins over Ireland and Scotland, in the QF; then Wales who were also unbeaten, in the SF.
For me, SA had the harder path - admittedly losing to NZ didn't derail their progress.
Eddie has done wonders with England but he made some fatal flaws this tournament and in the years leading up to it.
-
Sinckler.
Great tournament. But if his best back up is Dan Coles then you're always going to struggle if Sinckler gets a YC or an early injury. -
Youngs
Great going forward. Shithouse going backwards. I would have yanked him at half-time. Spencer couldn't have been any worse. -
Daly
Great athlete, average full-back. Exposed badly today. Willie looked like Cullen in comparison. -
May
He was carrying an injury. Barrett caught him ffs. No way Barrett was catching Watson. -
Slade
Not match fit and made significant mistakes in the games he played in -
Ford
This was not the match to start Ford -
No nasty fluffybunny in the forwards
England have great, technical athletes in all positions but no real hard bastard in the Martin Johnson mould who can bollock them.
Lawes was stuffed twice by Kolbe ffs
How's that for starters?
Strongly disagree with this. Pool play is a bit of an irrelevancy unless you have a tough pool. The New Zealand vs South Africa game happened a long time ago and both teams were going to beat Wales. Japan had had two very good victories but were unlikely to have the physicality to beat South Africa in that game. Japan had already played their final. Wales may have been unbeaten but they were exceptionally poor in the semi final and couldn't threaten the South African line.
Not for the first time today I've questioned whether posters watched the SA v Wales SF.
We scored a try. A good one. England couldn't today, despite 20 odd stabs at it in one passage of play.
It was 16-16 going in to the last 10 minutes.
We had two opportunities to take the lead and blew both.
SA had one chance in the last 5 minutes and took it.
So if we were exceptionally poor, then SA were just poor.
SA didn't do much different tonight, so England lost to a poor team.
Not buying it.
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
Is this a troll post? No English here to troll....
Last night showed how tough it is to win a World Cup. If you look at the three tournaments South Africa have won, they haven't been very good in any of them.
- 1995 they beat Samoa, France and New Zealand.
- 2007 it was Fiji, Argentina and France.
- 2019 it was Japan, Wales and England.
Relatively speaking those are very easy runs. In the two most recent cups we won we had off performances in the knock outs. 2011, it was the final. 2015, it was the semi. We could have lost either game.
Before this game people clearly discounted the effect that England's tougher run had had. It's exceptionally tough to win a World Cup having had three tough knock out games. In 2015, we beat Australia in the final who had a much easier draw. However, Australia were much worse than us. England and South Africa are generally closely matched so the tough run was always going to be a factor.
People also discounted how South Africa were a much different team to us. We didn't try to take England on up front; South Africa were always going to. If Sinckler doesn't get injured, England could have won. Maybe if the first couple of minutes of how semi had happened differently, we could have won as well.
Eddie Jones is a great coach who has achieved great things with England over the last four years. I would still have him as coach of the year.
Not sure about this and commented on it earlier.
England's schedule was tough on paper - and I wrote before the tournament started that England wouldn't win the WC because they had Argentina, France, Wales/Australia, SA/NZ, SA/NZ on the trot - but the reality was very different.
They comfortably beat a 14-man Argentina; the France match was cancelled; and they comfortably beat an average Australia side who'd already lost to Wales.
They produced one of the performances of the decade by dismantling NZ in the SF but really that was their only serious challenge prior to the Final.
Conversely SA had to play NZ first up; then a very good Japanese side who were unbeaten with wins over Ireland and Scotland, in the QF; then Wales who were also unbeaten, in the SF.
For me, SA had the harder path - admittedly losing to NZ didn't derail their progress.
Eddie has done wonders with England but he made some fatal flaws this tournament and in the years leading up to it.
-
Sinckler.
Great tournament. But if his best back up is Dan Coles then you're always going to struggle if Sinckler gets a YC or an early injury. -
Youngs
Great going forward. Shithouse going backwards. I would have yanked him at half-time. Spencer couldn't have been any worse. -
Daly
Great athlete, average full-back. Exposed badly today. Willie looked like Cullen in comparison. -
May
He was carrying an injury. Barrett caught him ffs. No way Barrett was catching Watson. -
Slade
Not match fit and made significant mistakes in the games he played in -
Ford
This was not the match to start Ford -
No nasty fluffybunny in the forwards
England have great, technical athletes in all positions but no real hard bastard in the Martin Johnson mould who can bollock them.
Lawes was stuffed twice by Kolbe ffs
How's that for starters?
Strongly disagree with this. Pool play is a bit of an irrelevancy unless you have a tough pool. The New Zealand vs South Africa game happened a long time ago and both teams were going to beat Wales. Japan had had two very good victories but were unlikely to have the physicality to beat South Africa in that game. Japan had already played their final. Wales may have been unbeaten but they were exceptionally poor in the semi final and couldn't threaten the South African line.
Not for the first time today I've questioned whether posters watched the SA v Wales SF.
We scored a try. A good one. England couldn't today, despite 20 odd stabs at it in one passage of play.
It was 16-16 going in to the last 10 minutes.
We had two opportunities to take the lead and blew both.
SA had one chance in the last 5 minutes and took it.
So if we were exceptionally poor, then SA were just poor.
SA didn't do much different tonight, so England lost to a poor team.
Not buying it.
Well, Mike, I get your point, but where does that leave England's performance against us, given that we beat RSA and then spanked Wales? Perhaps England weren't that great after all and, in fact, we were just really shit...?
-
Eddie Jones? My two cents.
Been telling people for a while I've had a suspicion he inherited a promising team Lancaster had put together and built on it, but would crash at the final hurdle as he has done in the past. He was uber-successful for a couple of years but the wheels started coming off about 18 months ago and I always thought England would struggle in tournaments like the RWC as they have in the last 2 6N's.
They were good against a woeful Oz and beat us well in the SF, but they were really, really poor today. That performance was, at times, embarrassing for an English supporter. Probably the poorest I've seen from a side in a RWC Final - during the game and after the whistle.
Seems to me a lot of the players have a serious attitude problem - if the players are a reflection of the coach, then he needs to take some of the blame
@Victor-Meldrew said in England & Eddie:
Eddie Jones? My two cents.
Been telling people for a while I've had a suspicion he inherited a promising team Lancaster had put together and built on it, but would crash at the final hurdle as he has done in the past. He was uber-successful for a couple of years but the wheels started coming off about 18 months ago and I always thought England would struggle in tournaments like the RWC as they have in the last 2 6N's.
They were good against a woeful Oz and beat us well in the SF, but they were really, really poor today. That performance was, at times, embarrassing for an English supporter. Probably the poorest I've seen from a side in a RWC Final - during the game and after the whistle.
Seems to me a lot of the players have a serious attitude problem - if the players are a reflection of the coach, then he needs to take some of the blame
Yep, Lancaster was putting together a great team, very capable of lifting Bill at home, were it not for Sam Burgess and the RFU's meddling. Couple that in with the pipeline of talent coming through their successful junior programs, and even Blind Freddie could see that the raw ingredients were there for a very successful team - it didn't take Eddie Jones' "genius" to turn them into serious contenders.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in England & Eddie:
Eddie Jones? My two cents.
Been telling people for a while I've had a suspicion he inherited a promising team Lancaster had put together and built on it, but would crash at the final hurdle as he has done in the past. He was uber-successful for a couple of years but the wheels started coming off about 18 months ago and I always thought England would struggle in tournaments like the RWC as they have in the last 2 6N's.
They were good against a woeful Oz and beat us well in the SF, but they were really, really poor today. That performance was, at times, embarrassing for an English supporter. Probably the poorest I've seen from a side in a RWC Final - during the game and after the whistle.
Seems to me a lot of the players have a serious attitude problem - if the players are a reflection of the coach, then he needs to take some of the blame
Yep, Lancaster was putting together a great team, very capable of lifting Bill at home, were it not for Sam Burgess and the RFU's meddling. Couple that in with the pipeline of talent coming through their successful junior programs, and even Blind Freddie could see that the raw ingredients were there for a very successful team - it didn't take Eddie Jones' "genius" to turn them into serious contenders.
@junior said in England & Eddie:
Yep, Lancaster was putting together a great team, very capable of lifting Bill at home, were it not for Sam Burgess and the RFU's meddling
I've heard a number of stories on the Burgess saga - none of which, if true, prefect well on Rob Andrew
-
@junior said in England & Eddie:
Yep, Lancaster was putting together a great team, very capable of lifting Bill at home, were it not for Sam Burgess and the RFU's meddling
I've heard a number of stories on the Burgess saga - none of which, if true, prefect well on Rob Andrew
@Victor-Meldrew said in England & Eddie:
@junior said in England & Eddie:
Yep, Lancaster was putting together a great team, very capable of lifting Bill at home, were it not for Sam Burgess and the RFU's meddling
I've heard a number of stories on the Burgess saga - none of which, if true, prefect well on Rob Andrew
Yeah, I find it quite astonishing how England's progress prior to then seems to have been forgotten completely and, instead, England's progress since 2015 has been attributed almost entirely to Eddie Jones' "genius"
-
@Bones said in England & Eddie:
I'm unsure just why you are defending their attitude, very odd. But hey if you're happy with it then I'm sure it would be the kind of attitude you'd like to see really bed in down at club level too. I mean fuck everyone and everything else, the player should only care about himself. I'm pretty sure that's a drum you've been banging through all your years looking after clubs right?
I think you've been drinking from the "Custodians Of The Game" chalice again.
No, I wouldn't take that shit at my club, but we're amateurs playing for the fun of it. Anyone showing petulance in victory or defeat is pulled aside on the occasions it happens. And it DOES happen, because humans. Can't stop outbursts or bad behaviour, but you can talk to them afterwards and go over why it isn't right.
The moralising on here gets a bit tiresome, TBH. The high horse memes I saw today about "Look at how happy we are with our bronze medals!" is mostly irrelevant IMHO - the ABs had just won, and sent out a bunch of guys on a high note. The Poms had just lost and weren't in the mood. Why is it a big deal to you?
Its the same as the comments "How DARE they smile and carry on and laugh with the opposition after that loss!" nonsense.
@NTA said in England & Eddie:
@Bones said in England & Eddie:
I'm unsure just why you are defending their attitude, very odd. But hey if you're happy with it then I'm sure it would be the kind of attitude you'd like to see really bed in down at club level too. I mean fuck everyone and everything else, the player should only care about himself. I'm pretty sure that's a drum you've been banging through all your years looking after clubs right?
I think you've been drinking from the "Custodians Of The Game" chalice again.
No, I wouldn't take that shit at my club, but we're amateurs playing for the fun of it. Anyone showing petulance in victory or defeat is pulled aside on the occasions it happens. And it DOES happen, because humans. Can't stop outbursts or bad behaviour, but you can talk to them afterwards and go over why it isn't right.
The moralising on here gets a bit tiresome, TBH. The high horse memes I saw today about "Look at how happy we are with our bronze medals!" is mostly irrelevant IMHO - the ABs had just won, and sent out a bunch of guys on a high note. The Poms had just lost and weren't in the mood. Why is it a big deal to you?
Its the same as the comments "How DARE they smile and carry on and laugh with the opposition after that loss!" nonsense.
Oh right so you're just being good old nta and deciding to fight the good fight against an imaginary foe. Sorry if me thinking that what they did is shit was way overboard of me, but you know how much I like to moralise, being a game custodian and all.
You carry on being contrary, us kiwis sure need putting in our place eh.
-
So after being thoroughly outplayed by SA last night (phew), a few observations.
Does his inability to coax a peak performance when required - indeed England clearly played their final in the semi final, almost re-defining the cliche - cast a shadow over Jones' credentials, again? I believe so. Careful what you wish for, Wallabies fans.
The petulance, immaturity and indignity shown by Itoje and Sinckler in snubbing their losers' medals leaves a sour taste in the mouth and England fans should be really disappointed with this behaviour.
Are England chokers? Lost finals in 1991, 2007 and now 2019. That's a very, very ordinary record, now levelling France (1987, 1999 and 2011), although England have at least won one. Still, chokers.
@shark said in England & Eddie:
The petulance, immaturity and indignity shown by Itoje and Sinckler in snubbing their losers' medals leaves a sour taste in the mouth and England fans should be really disappointed with this behaviour.
They should have accepted them then tossed them in the crowd immediately like SBW in 2015?
-
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
Is this a troll post? No English here to troll....
Last night showed how tough it is to win a World Cup. If you look at the three tournaments South Africa have won, they haven't been very good in any of them.
- 1995 they beat Samoa, France and New Zealand.
- 2007 it was Fiji, Argentina and France.
- 2019 it was Japan, Wales and England.
Relatively speaking those are very easy runs. In the two most recent cups we won we had off performances in the knock outs. 2011, it was the final. 2015, it was the semi. We could have lost either game.
Before this game people clearly discounted the effect that England's tougher run had had. It's exceptionally tough to win a World Cup having had three tough knock out games. In 2015, we beat Australia in the final who had a much easier draw. However, Australia were much worse than us. England and South Africa are generally closely matched so the tough run was always going to be a factor.
People also discounted how South Africa were a much different team to us. We didn't try to take England on up front; South Africa were always going to. If Sinckler doesn't get injured, England could have won. Maybe if the first couple of minutes of how semi had happened differently, we could have won as well.
Eddie Jones is a great coach who has achieved great things with England over the last four years. I would still have him as coach of the year.
Not sure about this and commented on it earlier.
England's schedule was tough on paper - and I wrote before the tournament started that England wouldn't win the WC because they had Argentina, France, Wales/Australia, SA/NZ, SA/NZ on the trot - but the reality was very different.
They comfortably beat a 14-man Argentina; the France match was cancelled; and they comfortably beat an average Australia side who'd already lost to Wales.
They produced one of the performances of the decade by dismantling NZ in the SF but really that was their only serious challenge prior to the Final.
Conversely SA had to play NZ first up; then a very good Japanese side who were unbeaten with wins over Ireland and Scotland, in the QF; then Wales who were also unbeaten, in the SF.
For me, SA had the harder path - admittedly losing to NZ didn't derail their progress.
Eddie has done wonders with England but he made some fatal flaws this tournament and in the years leading up to it.
-
Sinckler.
Great tournament. But if his best back up is Dan Coles then you're always going to struggle if Sinckler gets a YC or an early injury. -
Youngs
Great going forward. Shithouse going backwards. I would have yanked him at half-time. Spencer couldn't have been any worse. -
Daly
Great athlete, average full-back. Exposed badly today. Willie looked like Cullen in comparison. -
May
He was carrying an injury. Barrett caught him ffs. No way Barrett was catching Watson. -
Slade
Not match fit and made significant mistakes in the games he played in -
Ford
This was not the match to start Ford -
No nasty fluffybunny in the forwards
England have great, technical athletes in all positions but no real hard bastard in the Martin Johnson mould who can bollock them.
Lawes was stuffed twice by Kolbe ffs
How's that for starters?
Strongly disagree with this. Pool play is a bit of an irrelevancy unless you have a tough pool. The New Zealand vs South Africa game happened a long time ago and both teams were going to beat Wales. Japan had had two very good victories but were unlikely to have the physicality to beat South Africa in that game. Japan had already played their final. Wales may have been unbeaten but they were exceptionally poor in the semi final and couldn't threaten the South African line.
Not for the first time today I've questioned whether posters watched the SA v Wales SF.
We scored a try. A good one. England couldn't today, despite 20 odd stabs at it in one passage of play.
It was 16-16 going in to the last 10 minutes.
We had two opportunities to take the lead and blew both.
SA had one chance in the last 5 minutes and took it.
So if we were exceptionally poor, then SA were just poor.
SA didn't do much different tonight, so England lost to a poor team.
Not buying it.
Well, Mike, I get your point, but where does that leave England's performance against us, given that we beat RSA and then spanked Wales? Perhaps England weren't that great after all and, in fact, we were just really shit...?
@junior said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
Is this a troll post? No English here to troll....
Last night showed how tough it is to win a World Cup. If you look at the three tournaments South Africa have won, they haven't been very good in any of them.
- 1995 they beat Samoa, France and New Zealand.
- 2007 it was Fiji, Argentina and France.
- 2019 it was Japan, Wales and England.
Relatively speaking those are very easy runs. In the two most recent cups we won we had off performances in the knock outs. 2011, it was the final. 2015, it was the semi. We could have lost either game.
Before this game people clearly discounted the effect that England's tougher run had had. It's exceptionally tough to win a World Cup having had three tough knock out games. In 2015, we beat Australia in the final who had a much easier draw. However, Australia were much worse than us. England and South Africa are generally closely matched so the tough run was always going to be a factor.
People also discounted how South Africa were a much different team to us. We didn't try to take England on up front; South Africa were always going to. If Sinckler doesn't get injured, England could have won. Maybe if the first couple of minutes of how semi had happened differently, we could have won as well.
Eddie Jones is a great coach who has achieved great things with England over the last four years. I would still have him as coach of the year.
Not sure about this and commented on it earlier.
England's schedule was tough on paper - and I wrote before the tournament started that England wouldn't win the WC because they had Argentina, France, Wales/Australia, SA/NZ, SA/NZ on the trot - but the reality was very different.
They comfortably beat a 14-man Argentina; the France match was cancelled; and they comfortably beat an average Australia side who'd already lost to Wales.
They produced one of the performances of the decade by dismantling NZ in the SF but really that was their only serious challenge prior to the Final.
Conversely SA had to play NZ first up; then a very good Japanese side who were unbeaten with wins over Ireland and Scotland, in the QF; then Wales who were also unbeaten, in the SF.
For me, SA had the harder path - admittedly losing to NZ didn't derail their progress.
Eddie has done wonders with England but he made some fatal flaws this tournament and in the years leading up to it.
-
Sinckler.
Great tournament. But if his best back up is Dan Coles then you're always going to struggle if Sinckler gets a YC or an early injury. -
Youngs
Great going forward. Shithouse going backwards. I would have yanked him at half-time. Spencer couldn't have been any worse. -
Daly
Great athlete, average full-back. Exposed badly today. Willie looked like Cullen in comparison. -
May
He was carrying an injury. Barrett caught him ffs. No way Barrett was catching Watson. -
Slade
Not match fit and made significant mistakes in the games he played in -
Ford
This was not the match to start Ford -
No nasty fluffybunny in the forwards
England have great, technical athletes in all positions but no real hard bastard in the Martin Johnson mould who can bollock them.
Lawes was stuffed twice by Kolbe ffs
How's that for starters?
Strongly disagree with this. Pool play is a bit of an irrelevancy unless you have a tough pool. The New Zealand vs South Africa game happened a long time ago and both teams were going to beat Wales. Japan had had two very good victories but were unlikely to have the physicality to beat South Africa in that game. Japan had already played their final. Wales may have been unbeaten but they were exceptionally poor in the semi final and couldn't threaten the South African line.
Not for the first time today I've questioned whether posters watched the SA v Wales SF.
We scored a try. A good one. England couldn't today, despite 20 odd stabs at it in one passage of play.
It was 16-16 going in to the last 10 minutes.
We had two opportunities to take the lead and blew both.
SA had one chance in the last 5 minutes and took it.
So if we were exceptionally poor, then SA were just poor.
SA didn't do much different tonight, so England lost to a poor team.
Not buying it.
Well, Mike, I get your point, but where does that leave England's performance against us, given that we beat RSA and then spanked Wales? Perhaps England weren't that great after all and, in fact, we were just really shit...?
They were very good on the day, but we were also really shit. Some pundits seem to think that if a team plays shit, then it's 100% because they were forced to play shit but obviously that isn't true. Likewise its possible to play well when the opponent also plays well.
-
@junior said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
Is this a troll post? No English here to troll....
Last night showed how tough it is to win a World Cup. If you look at the three tournaments South Africa have won, they haven't been very good in any of them.
- 1995 they beat Samoa, France and New Zealand.
- 2007 it was Fiji, Argentina and France.
- 2019 it was Japan, Wales and England.
Relatively speaking those are very easy runs. In the two most recent cups we won we had off performances in the knock outs. 2011, it was the final. 2015, it was the semi. We could have lost either game.
Before this game people clearly discounted the effect that England's tougher run had had. It's exceptionally tough to win a World Cup having had three tough knock out games. In 2015, we beat Australia in the final who had a much easier draw. However, Australia were much worse than us. England and South Africa are generally closely matched so the tough run was always going to be a factor.
People also discounted how South Africa were a much different team to us. We didn't try to take England on up front; South Africa were always going to. If Sinckler doesn't get injured, England could have won. Maybe if the first couple of minutes of how semi had happened differently, we could have won as well.
Eddie Jones is a great coach who has achieved great things with England over the last four years. I would still have him as coach of the year.
Not sure about this and commented on it earlier.
England's schedule was tough on paper - and I wrote before the tournament started that England wouldn't win the WC because they had Argentina, France, Wales/Australia, SA/NZ, SA/NZ on the trot - but the reality was very different.
They comfortably beat a 14-man Argentina; the France match was cancelled; and they comfortably beat an average Australia side who'd already lost to Wales.
They produced one of the performances of the decade by dismantling NZ in the SF but really that was their only serious challenge prior to the Final.
Conversely SA had to play NZ first up; then a very good Japanese side who were unbeaten with wins over Ireland and Scotland, in the QF; then Wales who were also unbeaten, in the SF.
For me, SA had the harder path - admittedly losing to NZ didn't derail their progress.
Eddie has done wonders with England but he made some fatal flaws this tournament and in the years leading up to it.
-
Sinckler.
Great tournament. But if his best back up is Dan Coles then you're always going to struggle if Sinckler gets a YC or an early injury. -
Youngs
Great going forward. Shithouse going backwards. I would have yanked him at half-time. Spencer couldn't have been any worse. -
Daly
Great athlete, average full-back. Exposed badly today. Willie looked like Cullen in comparison. -
May
He was carrying an injury. Barrett caught him ffs. No way Barrett was catching Watson. -
Slade
Not match fit and made significant mistakes in the games he played in -
Ford
This was not the match to start Ford -
No nasty fluffybunny in the forwards
England have great, technical athletes in all positions but no real hard bastard in the Martin Johnson mould who can bollock them.
Lawes was stuffed twice by Kolbe ffs
How's that for starters?
Strongly disagree with this. Pool play is a bit of an irrelevancy unless you have a tough pool. The New Zealand vs South Africa game happened a long time ago and both teams were going to beat Wales. Japan had had two very good victories but were unlikely to have the physicality to beat South Africa in that game. Japan had already played their final. Wales may have been unbeaten but they were exceptionally poor in the semi final and couldn't threaten the South African line.
Not for the first time today I've questioned whether posters watched the SA v Wales SF.
We scored a try. A good one. England couldn't today, despite 20 odd stabs at it in one passage of play.
It was 16-16 going in to the last 10 minutes.
We had two opportunities to take the lead and blew both.
SA had one chance in the last 5 minutes and took it.
So if we were exceptionally poor, then SA were just poor.
SA didn't do much different tonight, so England lost to a poor team.
Not buying it.
Well, Mike, I get your point, but where does that leave England's performance against us, given that we beat RSA and then spanked Wales? Perhaps England weren't that great after all and, in fact, we were just really shit...?
They were very good on the day, but we were also really shit. Some pundits seem to think that if a team plays shit, then it's 100% because they were forced to play shit but obviously that isn't true. Likewise its possible to play well when the opponent also plays well.
@mofitzy_ said in England & Eddie:
@junior said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
Is this a troll post? No English here to troll....
Last night showed how tough it is to win a World Cup. If you look at the three tournaments South Africa have won, they haven't been very good in any of them.
- 1995 they beat Samoa, France and New Zealand.
- 2007 it was Fiji, Argentina and France.
- 2019 it was Japan, Wales and England.
Relatively speaking those are very easy runs. In the two most recent cups we won we had off performances in the knock outs. 2011, it was the final. 2015, it was the semi. We could have lost either game.
Before this game people clearly discounted the effect that England's tougher run had had. It's exceptionally tough to win a World Cup having had three tough knock out games. In 2015, we beat Australia in the final who had a much easier draw. However, Australia were much worse than us. England and South Africa are generally closely matched so the tough run was always going to be a factor.
People also discounted how South Africa were a much different team to us. We didn't try to take England on up front; South Africa were always going to. If Sinckler doesn't get injured, England could have won. Maybe if the first couple of minutes of how semi had happened differently, we could have won as well.
Eddie Jones is a great coach who has achieved great things with England over the last four years. I would still have him as coach of the year.
Not sure about this and commented on it earlier.
England's schedule was tough on paper - and I wrote before the tournament started that England wouldn't win the WC because they had Argentina, France, Wales/Australia, SA/NZ, SA/NZ on the trot - but the reality was very different.
They comfortably beat a 14-man Argentina; the France match was cancelled; and they comfortably beat an average Australia side who'd already lost to Wales.
They produced one of the performances of the decade by dismantling NZ in the SF but really that was their only serious challenge prior to the Final.
Conversely SA had to play NZ first up; then a very good Japanese side who were unbeaten with wins over Ireland and Scotland, in the QF; then Wales who were also unbeaten, in the SF.
For me, SA had the harder path - admittedly losing to NZ didn't derail their progress.
Eddie has done wonders with England but he made some fatal flaws this tournament and in the years leading up to it.
-
Sinckler.
Great tournament. But if his best back up is Dan Coles then you're always going to struggle if Sinckler gets a YC or an early injury. -
Youngs
Great going forward. Shithouse going backwards. I would have yanked him at half-time. Spencer couldn't have been any worse. -
Daly
Great athlete, average full-back. Exposed badly today. Willie looked like Cullen in comparison. -
May
He was carrying an injury. Barrett caught him ffs. No way Barrett was catching Watson. -
Slade
Not match fit and made significant mistakes in the games he played in -
Ford
This was not the match to start Ford -
No nasty fluffybunny in the forwards
England have great, technical athletes in all positions but no real hard bastard in the Martin Johnson mould who can bollock them.
Lawes was stuffed twice by Kolbe ffs
How's that for starters?
Strongly disagree with this. Pool play is a bit of an irrelevancy unless you have a tough pool. The New Zealand vs South Africa game happened a long time ago and both teams were going to beat Wales. Japan had had two very good victories but were unlikely to have the physicality to beat South Africa in that game. Japan had already played their final. Wales may have been unbeaten but they were exceptionally poor in the semi final and couldn't threaten the South African line.
Not for the first time today I've questioned whether posters watched the SA v Wales SF.
We scored a try. A good one. England couldn't today, despite 20 odd stabs at it in one passage of play.
It was 16-16 going in to the last 10 minutes.
We had two opportunities to take the lead and blew both.
SA had one chance in the last 5 minutes and took it.
So if we were exceptionally poor, then SA were just poor.
SA didn't do much different tonight, so England lost to a poor team.
Not buying it.
Well, Mike, I get your point, but where does that leave England's performance against us, given that we beat RSA and then spanked Wales? Perhaps England weren't that great after all and, in fact, we were just really shit...?
They were very good on the day, but we were also really shit. Some pundits seem to think that if a team plays shit, then it's 100% because they were forced to play shit but obviously that isn't true. Likewise its possible to play well when the opponent also plays well.
I have to agree - without taking away from England's performance one bit.
Had one or two decisions been different, a bit more discipline from a few players we could have stolen that game. The 2015 team would have done that I think.
-
@junior said in England & Eddie:
Yep, Lancaster was putting together a great team, very capable of lifting Bill at home, were it not for Sam Burgess and the RFU's meddling
I've heard a number of stories on the Burgess saga - none of which, if true, prefect well on Rob Andrew
@Victor-Meldrew said in England & Eddie:
@junior said in England & Eddie:
Yep, Lancaster was putting together a great team, very capable of lifting Bill at home, were it not for Sam Burgess and the RFU's meddling
I've heard a number of stories on the Burgess saga - none of which, if true, prefect well on Rob Andrew
Little does
-
@mofitzy_ said in England & Eddie:
@junior said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
Is this a troll post? No English here to troll....
Last night showed how tough it is to win a World Cup. If you look at the three tournaments South Africa have won, they haven't been very good in any of them.
- 1995 they beat Samoa, France and New Zealand.
- 2007 it was Fiji, Argentina and France.
- 2019 it was Japan, Wales and England.
Relatively speaking those are very easy runs. In the two most recent cups we won we had off performances in the knock outs. 2011, it was the final. 2015, it was the semi. We could have lost either game.
Before this game people clearly discounted the effect that England's tougher run had had. It's exceptionally tough to win a World Cup having had three tough knock out games. In 2015, we beat Australia in the final who had a much easier draw. However, Australia were much worse than us. England and South Africa are generally closely matched so the tough run was always going to be a factor.
People also discounted how South Africa were a much different team to us. We didn't try to take England on up front; South Africa were always going to. If Sinckler doesn't get injured, England could have won. Maybe if the first couple of minutes of how semi had happened differently, we could have won as well.
Eddie Jones is a great coach who has achieved great things with England over the last four years. I would still have him as coach of the year.
Not sure about this and commented on it earlier.
England's schedule was tough on paper - and I wrote before the tournament started that England wouldn't win the WC because they had Argentina, France, Wales/Australia, SA/NZ, SA/NZ on the trot - but the reality was very different.
They comfortably beat a 14-man Argentina; the France match was cancelled; and they comfortably beat an average Australia side who'd already lost to Wales.
They produced one of the performances of the decade by dismantling NZ in the SF but really that was their only serious challenge prior to the Final.
Conversely SA had to play NZ first up; then a very good Japanese side who were unbeaten with wins over Ireland and Scotland, in the QF; then Wales who were also unbeaten, in the SF.
For me, SA had the harder path - admittedly losing to NZ didn't derail their progress.
Eddie has done wonders with England but he made some fatal flaws this tournament and in the years leading up to it.
-
Sinckler.
Great tournament. But if his best back up is Dan Coles then you're always going to struggle if Sinckler gets a YC or an early injury. -
Youngs
Great going forward. Shithouse going backwards. I would have yanked him at half-time. Spencer couldn't have been any worse. -
Daly
Great athlete, average full-back. Exposed badly today. Willie looked like Cullen in comparison. -
May
He was carrying an injury. Barrett caught him ffs. No way Barrett was catching Watson. -
Slade
Not match fit and made significant mistakes in the games he played in -
Ford
This was not the match to start Ford -
No nasty fluffybunny in the forwards
England have great, technical athletes in all positions but no real hard bastard in the Martin Johnson mould who can bollock them.
Lawes was stuffed twice by Kolbe ffs
How's that for starters?
Strongly disagree with this. Pool play is a bit of an irrelevancy unless you have a tough pool. The New Zealand vs South Africa game happened a long time ago and both teams were going to beat Wales. Japan had had two very good victories but were unlikely to have the physicality to beat South Africa in that game. Japan had already played their final. Wales may have been unbeaten but they were exceptionally poor in the semi final and couldn't threaten the South African line.
Not for the first time today I've questioned whether posters watched the SA v Wales SF.
We scored a try. A good one. England couldn't today, despite 20 odd stabs at it in one passage of play.
It was 16-16 going in to the last 10 minutes.
We had two opportunities to take the lead and blew both.
SA had one chance in the last 5 minutes and took it.
So if we were exceptionally poor, then SA were just poor.
SA didn't do much different tonight, so England lost to a poor team.
Not buying it.
Well, Mike, I get your point, but where does that leave England's performance against us, given that we beat RSA and then spanked Wales? Perhaps England weren't that great after all and, in fact, we were just really shit...?
They were very good on the day, but we were also really shit. Some pundits seem to think that if a team plays shit, then it's 100% because they were forced to play shit but obviously that isn't true. Likewise its possible to play well when the opponent also plays well.
I have to agree - without taking away from England's performance one bit.
Had one or two decisions been different, a bit more discipline from a few players we could have stolen that game. The 2015 team would have done that I think.
@Victor-Meldrew said in England & Eddie:
@mofitzy_ said in England & Eddie:
@junior said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
Is this a troll post? No English here to troll....
Last night showed how tough it is to win a World Cup. If you look at the three tournaments South Africa have won, they haven't been very good in any of them.
- 1995 they beat Samoa, France and New Zealand.
- 2007 it was Fiji, Argentina and France.
- 2019 it was Japan, Wales and England.
Relatively speaking those are very easy runs. In the two most recent cups we won we had off performances in the knock outs. 2011, it was the final. 2015, it was the semi. We could have lost either game.
Before this game people clearly discounted the effect that England's tougher run had had. It's exceptionally tough to win a World Cup having had three tough knock out games. In 2015, we beat Australia in the final who had a much easier draw. However, Australia were much worse than us. England and South Africa are generally closely matched so the tough run was always going to be a factor.
People also discounted how South Africa were a much different team to us. We didn't try to take England on up front; South Africa were always going to. If Sinckler doesn't get injured, England could have won. Maybe if the first couple of minutes of how semi had happened differently, we could have won as well.
Eddie Jones is a great coach who has achieved great things with England over the last four years. I would still have him as coach of the year.
Not sure about this and commented on it earlier.
England's schedule was tough on paper - and I wrote before the tournament started that England wouldn't win the WC because they had Argentina, France, Wales/Australia, SA/NZ, SA/NZ on the trot - but the reality was very different.
They comfortably beat a 14-man Argentina; the France match was cancelled; and they comfortably beat an average Australia side who'd already lost to Wales.
They produced one of the performances of the decade by dismantling NZ in the SF but really that was their only serious challenge prior to the Final.
Conversely SA had to play NZ first up; then a very good Japanese side who were unbeaten with wins over Ireland and Scotland, in the QF; then Wales who were also unbeaten, in the SF.
For me, SA had the harder path - admittedly losing to NZ didn't derail their progress.
Eddie has done wonders with England but he made some fatal flaws this tournament and in the years leading up to it.
-
Sinckler.
Great tournament. But if his best back up is Dan Coles then you're always going to struggle if Sinckler gets a YC or an early injury. -
Youngs
Great going forward. Shithouse going backwards. I would have yanked him at half-time. Spencer couldn't have been any worse. -
Daly
Great athlete, average full-back. Exposed badly today. Willie looked like Cullen in comparison. -
May
He was carrying an injury. Barrett caught him ffs. No way Barrett was catching Watson. -
Slade
Not match fit and made significant mistakes in the games he played in -
Ford
This was not the match to start Ford -
No nasty fluffybunny in the forwards
England have great, technical athletes in all positions but no real hard bastard in the Martin Johnson mould who can bollock them.
Lawes was stuffed twice by Kolbe ffs
How's that for starters?
Strongly disagree with this. Pool play is a bit of an irrelevancy unless you have a tough pool. The New Zealand vs South Africa game happened a long time ago and both teams were going to beat Wales. Japan had had two very good victories but were unlikely to have the physicality to beat South Africa in that game. Japan had already played their final. Wales may have been unbeaten but they were exceptionally poor in the semi final and couldn't threaten the South African line.
Not for the first time today I've questioned whether posters watched the SA v Wales SF.
We scored a try. A good one. England couldn't today, despite 20 odd stabs at it in one passage of play.
It was 16-16 going in to the last 10 minutes.
We had two opportunities to take the lead and blew both.
SA had one chance in the last 5 minutes and took it.
So if we were exceptionally poor, then SA were just poor.
SA didn't do much different tonight, so England lost to a poor team.
Not buying it.
Well, Mike, I get your point, but where does that leave England's performance against us, given that we beat RSA and then spanked Wales? Perhaps England weren't that great after all and, in fact, we were just really shit...?
They were very good on the day, but we were also really shit. Some pundits seem to think that if a team plays shit, then it's 100% because they were forced to play shit but obviously that isn't true. Likewise its possible to play well when the opponent also plays well.
I have to agree - without taking away from England's performance one bit.
Had one or two decisions been different, a bit more discipline from a few players we could have stolen that game. The 2015 team would have done that I think.
Yeah, and to me that is really the little straw that broke the camels back.
We know through experience that playing 3 knockout games at your peak hasn't been achieved by anyone even us. You have to try your best to get your run to the final right (while actually getting there).
After having to face Ireland in the quarters we couldn't go with the option of stepping up in increments. We had to go hard first week. The obvious next plan was to back your systems and abilities in the semi without getting so psyched up as to make getting to the final a waste of time. It didn't work for two reasons. First because England threw all their eggs into our basket and second because we lacked the maturity to deal with that. If there was a game for the old heads to be used it was that semi. Enforce the discipline and cut down the small errors and we could well have scraped through, which is all we needed to do. -
@MajorRage said in England & Eddie:
Blimey. Talk about looking for things to get upset about.
I had doubts over England's ability to win a world cup as I honestly thought they were too big - I thought going Argentina, France, QF, SF, F would be too much for them. Hence, when the France game was cancelled, I really thought it was theirs. The showing vs NZ was them at their absolute peak.
But it all crashed down in the final. But it wasn't just the forwards, I thought the backline was woeful. They couldn't seem to pass to each other and the SA rush defence just put them under all sorts of pressure and they couldn't cope.
Tuilagi barely saw the ball, and the final was much worse off because of it.
Eddie prepared them for the NZ game, not to win the world cup. I think he didn't really realise it. He was so obsessed with us, had mentioned us so many times. He barely spoke about SA. And hence, they got completely ambushed.
He's still a great coach and has achieved great things with his squad. But it was one step too far today.
I kinda have mixed views about Eddie and his coaching legacy.
No doubt he's a good coach, especially with his analysis and his ability to break down a stronger opposition and prepare a perfect game plan to get a win for a weaker team. Indeed, his greatest achievements are the surprise victories that he's masterminded against stronger opposition (2003 Wallabies, 2015 japan and, now, 2019 England).
But, I'm not sure he's the kind of coach who can put together the kind of dynastic team, with sustained success and a crowning glory. You look at all of his major achievements and the striking thing is that none of them resulted in silverware (in Japan's case they failed to make it out of their pool, despite beating the Boks).
So, for me, I'm not sure where this leaves Eddie in the pantheon of great coaches.
(As an aside, my view is that he's under-achieved somewhat with this England team. In 2018, they beat all and sundry and should have gone on to dominate world rugby for the next 4 years given the talent available. Instead, they've been a muddling and inconsistent team, lacking in composure when the heat really went on.)
@junior said in England & Eddie:
(As an aside, my view is that he's under-achieved somewhat with this
EnglandAll Blacks team. In20182016, they beat all and sundry and should have gone on to dominate world rugby for the next 4 years given the talent available. Instead, they've been a muddling and inconsistent team, lacking in composure when the heat really went on.)Wise words....
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in England & Eddie:
@mofitzy_ said in England & Eddie:
@junior said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
@MiketheSnow said in England & Eddie:
@hydro11 said in England & Eddie:
Is this a troll post? No English here to troll....
Last night showed how tough it is to win a World Cup. If you look at the three tournaments South Africa have won, they haven't been very good in any of them.
- 1995 they beat Samoa, France and New Zealand.
- 2007 it was Fiji, Argentina and France.
- 2019 it was Japan, Wales and England.
Relatively speaking those are very easy runs. In the two most recent cups we won we had off performances in the knock outs. 2011, it was the final. 2015, it was the semi. We could have lost either game.
Before this game people clearly discounted the effect that England's tougher run had had. It's exceptionally tough to win a World Cup having had three tough knock out games. In 2015, we beat Australia in the final who had a much easier draw. However, Australia were much worse than us. England and South Africa are generally closely matched so the tough run was always going to be a factor.
People also discounted how South Africa were a much different team to us. We didn't try to take England on up front; South Africa were always going to. If Sinckler doesn't get injured, England could have won. Maybe if the first couple of minutes of how semi had happened differently, we could have won as well.
Eddie Jones is a great coach who has achieved great things with England over the last four years. I would still have him as coach of the year.
Not sure about this and commented on it earlier.
England's schedule was tough on paper - and I wrote before the tournament started that England wouldn't win the WC because they had Argentina, France, Wales/Australia, SA/NZ, SA/NZ on the trot - but the reality was very different.
They comfortably beat a 14-man Argentina; the France match was cancelled; and they comfortably beat an average Australia side who'd already lost to Wales.
They produced one of the performances of the decade by dismantling NZ in the SF but really that was their only serious challenge prior to the Final.
Conversely SA had to play NZ first up; then a very good Japanese side who were unbeaten with wins over Ireland and Scotland, in the QF; then Wales who were also unbeaten, in the SF.
For me, SA had the harder path - admittedly losing to NZ didn't derail their progress.
Eddie has done wonders with England but he made some fatal flaws this tournament and in the years leading up to it.
-
Sinckler.
Great tournament. But if his best back up is Dan Coles then you're always going to struggle if Sinckler gets a YC or an early injury. -
Youngs
Great going forward. Shithouse going backwards. I would have yanked him at half-time. Spencer couldn't have been any worse. -
Daly
Great athlete, average full-back. Exposed badly today. Willie looked like Cullen in comparison. -
May
He was carrying an injury. Barrett caught him ffs. No way Barrett was catching Watson. -
Slade
Not match fit and made significant mistakes in the games he played in -
Ford
This was not the match to start Ford -
No nasty fluffybunny in the forwards
England have great, technical athletes in all positions but no real hard bastard in the Martin Johnson mould who can bollock them.
Lawes was stuffed twice by Kolbe ffs
How's that for starters?
Strongly disagree with this. Pool play is a bit of an irrelevancy unless you have a tough pool. The New Zealand vs South Africa game happened a long time ago and both teams were going to beat Wales. Japan had had two very good victories but were unlikely to have the physicality to beat South Africa in that game. Japan had already played their final. Wales may have been unbeaten but they were exceptionally poor in the semi final and couldn't threaten the South African line.
Not for the first time today I've questioned whether posters watched the SA v Wales SF.
We scored a try. A good one. England couldn't today, despite 20 odd stabs at it in one passage of play.
It was 16-16 going in to the last 10 minutes.
We had two opportunities to take the lead and blew both.
SA had one chance in the last 5 minutes and took it.
So if we were exceptionally poor, then SA were just poor.
SA didn't do much different tonight, so England lost to a poor team.
Not buying it.
Well, Mike, I get your point, but where does that leave England's performance against us, given that we beat RSA and then spanked Wales? Perhaps England weren't that great after all and, in fact, we were just really shit...?
They were very good on the day, but we were also really shit. Some pundits seem to think that if a team plays shit, then it's 100% because they were forced to play shit but obviously that isn't true. Likewise its possible to play well when the opponent also plays well.
I have to agree - without taking away from England's performance one bit.
Had one or two decisions been different, a bit more discipline from a few players we could have stolen that game. The 2015 team would have done that I think.
Yeah, and to me that is really the little straw that broke the camels back.
We know through experience that playing 3 knockout games at your peak hasn't been achieved by anyone even us. You have to try your best to get your run to the final right (while actually getting there).
After having to face Ireland in the quarters we couldn't go with the option of stepping up in increments. We had to go hard first week. The obvious next plan was to back your systems and abilities in the semi without getting so psyched up as to make getting to the final a waste of time. It didn't work for two reasons. First because England threw all their eggs into our basket and second because we lacked the maturity to deal with that. If there was a game for the old heads to be used it was that semi. Enforce the discipline and cut down the small errors and we could well have scraped through, which is all we needed to do.Yep. I really thought after the close games and wins against SA, England etc, they were building experience to tough out exactly the sort of game the SF was.
Sadly, I was wrong.
-
@NTA said in England & Eddie:
@Bones said in England & Eddie:
I'm unsure just why you are defending their attitude, very odd. But hey if you're happy with it then I'm sure it would be the kind of attitude you'd like to see really bed in down at club level too. I mean fuck everyone and everything else, the player should only care about himself. I'm pretty sure that's a drum you've been banging through all your years looking after clubs right?
I think you've been drinking from the "Custodians Of The Game" chalice again.
No, I wouldn't take that shit at my club, but we're amateurs playing for the fun of it. Anyone showing petulance in victory or defeat is pulled aside on the occasions it happens. And it DOES happen, because humans. Can't stop outbursts or bad behaviour, but you can talk to them afterwards and go over why it isn't right.
The moralising on here gets a bit tiresome, TBH. The high horse memes I saw today about "Look at how happy we are with our bronze medals!" is mostly irrelevant IMHO - the ABs had just won, and sent out a bunch of guys on a high note. The Poms had just lost and weren't in the mood. Why is it a big deal to you?
Its the same as the comments "How DARE they smile and carry on and laugh with the opposition after that loss!" nonsense.
Oh right so you're just being good old nta and deciding to fight the good fight against an imaginary foe. Sorry if me thinking that what they did is shit was way overboard of me, but you know how much I like to moralise, being a game custodian and all.
You carry on being contrary, us kiwis sure need putting in our place eh.
-
Yesterday I was simultaneously happy for the victorious Boks, and pissed off at the manner of England's defeat. Last night I watched "Building Jerusalem", though, and felt relatively sanguine about the loss. Winning Bill is hard, there's a thousand things that need to go right in execution and even then you need a dollop of good fortune along the way; in contrast only a few things need to go awry, or the breaks don't fall your way, and you're farked. I don't believe in fate, I think , but I do like Terry Pratchett's idea of the narrative imperative - that some stories are just so good they have to happen. History loves a good narrative, and Kolisi's was just a great story! England will rise again, and win it again - 2023 looks a good shout given the age of the current squad and the quality of the age group cohorts coming through.
A couple of other random thoughts (before I forget my Silver Fern password until at least the 6N):
Japan - excellent hosts, honoured by their gallant and exciting national team.
Medalgate - I don't care how pissed off the England players were, awarding medals to the losers is part of the ritual - flush it down the hotel bog afterwards for all I care, but whilst you're at the ceremony suck it up and play your part with grace. Given the politeness of Japanese culture I thought that it was poor show by those who balked at the medal. But it's equally poor show that some will take this incontrovertible evidence as an opportunity to trot out all the tired old xenophobic tropes about arrogant hateful English rugby, the bane of the global sport. Hey ho.
-
Yesterday I was simultaneously happy for the victorious Boks, and pissed off at the manner of England's defeat. Last night I watched "Building Jerusalem", though, and felt relatively sanguine about the loss. Winning Bill is hard, there's a thousand things that need to go right in execution and even then you need a dollop of good fortune along the way; in contrast only a few things need to go awry, or the breaks don't fall your way, and you're farked. I don't believe in fate, I think , but I do like Terry Pratchett's idea of the narrative imperative - that some stories are just so good they have to happen. History loves a good narrative, and Kolisi's was just a great story! England will rise again, and win it again - 2023 looks a good shout given the age of the current squad and the quality of the age group cohorts coming through.
A couple of other random thoughts (before I forget my Silver Fern password until at least the 6N):
Japan - excellent hosts, honoured by their gallant and exciting national team.
Medalgate - I don't care how pissed off the England players were, awarding medals to the losers is part of the ritual - flush it down the hotel bog afterwards for all I care, but whilst you're at the ceremony suck it up and play your part with grace. Given the politeness of Japanese culture I thought that it was poor show by those who balked at the medal. But it's equally poor show that some will take this incontrovertible evidence as an opportunity to trot out all the tired old xenophobic tropes about arrogant hateful English rugby, the bane of the global sport. Hey ho.
This post is deleted! -
Yesterday I was simultaneously happy for the victorious Boks, and pissed off at the manner of England's defeat. Last night I watched "Building Jerusalem", though, and felt relatively sanguine about the loss. Winning Bill is hard, there's a thousand things that need to go right in execution and even then you need a dollop of good fortune along the way; in contrast only a few things need to go awry, or the breaks don't fall your way, and you're farked. I don't believe in fate, I think , but I do like Terry Pratchett's idea of the narrative imperative - that some stories are just so good they have to happen. History loves a good narrative, and Kolisi's was just a great story! England will rise again, and win it again - 2023 looks a good shout given the age of the current squad and the quality of the age group cohorts coming through.
A couple of other random thoughts (before I forget my Silver Fern password until at least the 6N):
Japan - excellent hosts, honoured by their gallant and exciting national team.
Medalgate - I don't care how pissed off the England players were, awarding medals to the losers is part of the ritual - flush it down the hotel bog afterwards for all I care, but whilst you're at the ceremony suck it up and play your part with grace. Given the politeness of Japanese culture I thought that it was poor show by those who balked at the medal. But it's equally poor show that some will take this incontrovertible evidence as an opportunity to trot out all the tired old xenophobic tropes about arrogant hateful English rugby, the bane of the global sport. Hey ho.
@Disgusted-of-TW said in England & Eddie:
Yesterday I was simultaneously happy for the victorious Boks, and pissed off at the manner of England's defeat. Last night I watched "Building Jerusalem", though, and felt relatively sanguine about the loss. Winning Bill is hard, there's a thousand things that need to go right in execution and even then you need a dollop of good fortune along the way; in contrast only a few things need to go awry, or the breaks don't fall your way, and you're farked. I don't believe in fate, I think , but I do like Terry Pratchett's idea of the narrative imperative - that some stories are just so good they have to happen. History loves a good narrative, and Kolisi's was just a great story! England will rise again, and win it again - 2023 looks a good shout given the age of the current squad and the quality of the age group cohorts coming through.
A couple of other random thoughts (before I forget my Silver Fern password until at least the 6N):
Japan - excellent hosts, honoured by their gallant and exciting national team.
Medalgate - I don't care how pissed off the England players were, awarding medals to the losers is part of the ritual - flush it down the hotel bog afterwards for all I care, but whilst you're at the ceremony suck it up and play your part with grace. Given the politeness of Japanese culture I thought that it was poor show by those who balked at the medal. But it's equally poor show that some will take this incontrovertible evidence as an opportunity to trot out all the tired old xenophobic tropes about arrogant hateful English rugby, the bane of the global sport. Hey ho.
I do agree with your post but would also point out that those very cliched tropes do have a basis to feed off and that actions like those the other night will keep stoking the fires.
There is no denying that rugby in England is a sport propped up by the 'entitled'. Yes, you may have gone a long way to spreading the player base away from elite schools but the financial support and administration is still mainly 'moneyed'.
I'm not saying they are bad people, just that there are attitudes that flow down and a certain level of arrogance that many don't like. Many in England itself don't like it either so this isn't just us poking you.
So, you can either embrace it as part of who you are and wear the barbs of others or try and change the fabric of the game there. I think the first option is easier. -
@Disgusted-of-TW said in England & Eddie:
Yesterday I was simultaneously happy for the victorious Boks, and pissed off at the manner of England's defeat. Last night I watched "Building Jerusalem", though, and felt relatively sanguine about the loss. Winning Bill is hard, there's a thousand things that need to go right in execution and even then you need a dollop of good fortune along the way; in contrast only a few things need to go awry, or the breaks don't fall your way, and you're farked. I don't believe in fate, I think , but I do like Terry Pratchett's idea of the narrative imperative - that some stories are just so good they have to happen. History loves a good narrative, and Kolisi's was just a great story! England will rise again, and win it again - 2023 looks a good shout given the age of the current squad and the quality of the age group cohorts coming through.
A couple of other random thoughts (before I forget my Silver Fern password until at least the 6N):
Japan - excellent hosts, honoured by their gallant and exciting national team.
Medalgate - I don't care how pissed off the England players were, awarding medals to the losers is part of the ritual - flush it down the hotel bog afterwards for all I care, but whilst you're at the ceremony suck it up and play your part with grace. Given the politeness of Japanese culture I thought that it was poor show by those who balked at the medal. But it's equally poor show that some will take this incontrovertible evidence as an opportunity to trot out all the tired old xenophobic tropes about arrogant hateful English rugby, the bane of the global sport. Hey ho.
I do agree with your post but would also point out that those very cliched tropes do have a basis to feed off and that actions like those the other night will keep stoking the fires.
There is no denying that rugby in England is a sport propped up by the 'entitled'. Yes, you may have gone a long way to spreading the player base away from elite schools but the financial support and administration is still mainly 'moneyed'.
I'm not saying they are bad people, just that there are attitudes that flow down and a certain level of arrogance that many don't like. Many in England itself don't like it either so this isn't just us poking you.
So, you can either embrace it as part of who you are and wear the barbs of others or try and change the fabric of the game there. I think the first option is easier.@Crucial said in England & Eddie:
@Disgusted-of-TW said in England & Eddie:
Yesterday I was simultaneously happy for the victorious Boks, and pissed off at the manner of England's defeat. Last night I watched "Building Jerusalem", though, and felt relatively sanguine about the loss. Winning Bill is hard, there's a thousand things that need to go right in execution and even then you need a dollop of good fortune along the way; in contrast only a few things need to go awry, or the breaks don't fall your way, and you're farked. I don't believe in fate, I think , but I do like Terry Pratchett's idea of the narrative imperative - that some stories are just so good they have to happen. History loves a good narrative, and Kolisi's was just a great story! England will rise again, and win it again - 2023 looks a good shout given the age of the current squad and the quality of the age group cohorts coming through.
A couple of other random thoughts (before I forget my Silver Fern password until at least the 6N):
Japan - excellent hosts, honoured by their gallant and exciting national team.
Medalgate - I don't care how pissed off the England players were, awarding medals to the losers is part of the ritual - flush it down the hotel bog afterwards for all I care, but whilst you're at the ceremony suck it up and play your part with grace. Given the politeness of Japanese culture I thought that it was poor show by those who balked at the medal. But it's equally poor show that some will take this incontrovertible evidence as an opportunity to trot out all the tired old xenophobic tropes about arrogant hateful English rugby, the bane of the global sport. Hey ho.
So, you can either embrace it as part of who you are and wear the barbs of others or try and change the fabric of the game there. I think the first option is easier.
I'll take the unlisted option C, "neither" - I'm too long in the tooth to lose sleep over the situation one way or another. It was a passing thought, nothing more.
-
Yesterday I was simultaneously happy for the victorious Boks, and pissed off at the manner of England's defeat. Last night I watched "Building Jerusalem", though, and felt relatively sanguine about the loss. Winning Bill is hard, there's a thousand things that need to go right in execution and even then you need a dollop of good fortune along the way; in contrast only a few things need to go awry, or the breaks don't fall your way, and you're farked. I don't believe in fate, I think , but I do like Terry Pratchett's idea of the narrative imperative - that some stories are just so good they have to happen. History loves a good narrative, and Kolisi's was just a great story! England will rise again, and win it again - 2023 looks a good shout given the age of the current squad and the quality of the age group cohorts coming through.
A couple of other random thoughts (before I forget my Silver Fern password until at least the 6N):
Japan - excellent hosts, honoured by their gallant and exciting national team.
Medalgate - I don't care how pissed off the England players were, awarding medals to the losers is part of the ritual - flush it down the hotel bog afterwards for all I care, but whilst you're at the ceremony suck it up and play your part with grace. Given the politeness of Japanese culture I thought that it was poor show by those who balked at the medal. But it's equally poor show that some will take this incontrovertible evidence as an opportunity to trot out all the tired old xenophobic tropes about arrogant hateful English rugby, the bane of the global sport. Hey ho.
@Disgusted-of-TW said in England & Eddie:
Yesterday I was simultaneously happy for the victorious Boks, and pissed off at the manner of England's defeat. Last night I watched "Building Jerusalem", though, and felt relatively sanguine about the loss. Winning Bill is hard, there's a thousand things that need to go right in execution and even then you need a dollop of good fortune along the way; in contrast only a few things need to go awry, or the breaks don't fall your way, and you're farked. I don't believe in fate, I think , but I do like Terry Pratchett's idea of the narrative imperative - that some stories are just so good they have to happen. History loves a good narrative, and Kolisi's was just a great story! England will rise again, and win it again - 2023 looks a good shout given the age of the current squad and the quality of the age group cohorts coming through.
Without planning on winding you up - at what point do you think not winning will become a monkey on the back for England? I'm interested in what people think in general.
For us, I think it was after 1999. 1991 was you can't win them all. 1995 we got poisoned. 1999 was WTF is wrong with these guys!
By 2003, we were getting Gregan's "Four more years" taunt - one of the greatest sledges in sport, but it has turned into the "Curse of the Bambino" for the Aussies - because they're going to do at least the same 24 year drought we did.
Thought South Africa started with a lot more composure than England on Saturday - perhaps under less pressure because they weren't favourites but maybe because their drought was shorter.
A couple of others who didn't manage to face down their demons were Ireland, who didn't look like getting past their QF and Wales, who had a chance to go to the big dance, but that Patchell (?) dropkick was a terrible option.
