• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England v France

S

shazbooger

Guest
Jesus where do I start, with your hypocrisy? Your exercise in creative writing or your continued references to Irelands performance (or lack of) in this world cup. Most of what you wrote has no real relevence, but while I'm loath to respond at all, theres just too much bullshit.

because I congratulated France on a superb victory[/b]
and I said well done England. What is your point? You went in and said well done France, then slate the NZ for being Chokers. I did the exact same thing. Yet somehow you're right and I'm wrong? Stop wasting my time here.

It has everything to do with it. [/b]
Nope. As I said, and I thought I was quite clear. It's the fact that this team has admitted publicly and privately that they are incapable of playing anything close to creative rugby. They are content to kick the ball long, don't put pressure on the receiver and rely on their defence. Admirable trait's if you're an English fan, dull to watch for any neutral.

I even pointed out the important bit. Here hold on I'll highlight it for you………. Unfortunately, now that England have gone through, we can be sure that the final will at best be 98% attrition, 2% rugby, at worst it will be another 36-0 hammering.

Your re-interpretation is just an exercise in creative writing. I think it's something you would like to believe I would think, as it gives you a straw or two to grasp onto. It's no where near correct. In fact you effectively agreed when you said you dont think England have much left in the tank. Again you say it and it seems okay, I say it and I get berated for being an anti-English turd (amongt other things).

Now you pay attention, because basically when I see... [/b]

Sorry I kind of lost interest after your first reference to Ireland. Jesus you're an admin here yeah? At least try to police yourself to stay on topic will you?

And you said you didn't belittle France with your stupid screaming and stomping? Care to revise that statement?[/b]
Nope. I can't revise what I didn't feckin say. Jesus do you actually read peoples posts before you begin preaching or do you prefer to just make it up as you go along. Show me where I said I didn't belittle France's performance. I thought it was quite fecking obvious.

Don't you dare be lazy and play the victim card. [/b]
Eh …………. Hold on, last time I checked I said I was disappointed you guys qualified and you went on two continued rants about Ireland. Explain to me again how the performance of the Irish team has anything to do with England's style of rugby? Explain to me again why you brought it up?

It was actually an abstract way of saying "stop being a miserable turd and congratulate both sides on a match well fought." Close mate but no cigar. [/b]
Ahhh I see. So because it's an England victory, we should only express select opinions, and ignore the facts that it was 1) a fecking horrible match to watch 2) It sgoing to give us a fairly **** final?
 
P

Prestwick

Guest
Jesus where do I start.[/b]

Being quiet might be a good start...

and I said well done England. What is your point? You went in and said well done France, then slate the NZ for being Chokers. I did the exact same thing. Yet somehow you're right and I'm wrong? Stop wasting my time here.[/b]

You said that somehow I belittled France in the NZ vs France game. I was just answering your question and I say again that they are two totally different things.

Your re-interpretation is just an exercise in creative writing.[/b]

Says the person who says that I belittled France in the NZ vs France game and then changed your story to say that I belittled New Zealand instead.

Sorry I kind of lost interest after your first reference to Ireland. Jesus you're an admin here yeah? At least try to police yourself to stay on topic will you?[/b]

Says the person who started going on about me being "Anti-Irish". I am staying on topic by pointing out how irrationally silly your whole argument is.

Eh …………. Hold on, last time I checked I said I was disappointed you guys qualified and you went on two continued rants about Ireland. Explain to me again how the performance of the Irish team has anything to do with England's style of rugby? Explain to me again why you brought it up? [/b]

No, you hang on. You said that this match had ruined the World Cup. You were not "disappointed", you said you were "angry". And wait a second, wern't you saying just now that you had congratulated us? Oh, yes, congratulated us winning in the Quarter Finals! You didn't say you were disappointed and you're a little muddled mate.

I said that the poor performance of Ireland and other teams at various stages should be your ammunition for your argument that this World Cup is ruined, at no point did I say that it had anything to do with England's style of rugby. For gods sake, you don't even remember why you wrote your little rant in the first place did you?!

You can express whatever opinion you want, but just don't be a total arse when you express them. Maybe if you had phrased your original post in the following way:

While one cannot argue that both teams played with passion and with such physicality that it would make you wince, the match was not as good as either of the Quarter Finals. Maybe as a result therefore, if South Africa do get through to the final, it might be as a result lose some of its tension and excitement in the middle of either an overwhelming South African triumph or a grinding England win.[/b]

..then maybe you wouldn't have looked like a raving lunatic shouting something about the World Cup being ruined.

In any case, that is the bottom line. Just watch the game and enjoy it. This was and still is an excellent and exciting World Cup. Don't write anyone out just yet, I said that England may not have enough in the tank but then again, who gives a crap? If South Africa wins, then it just wasn't meant to be, I'll shake Quinte's hand and enjoy my beer and look forward to watching the highlights of this wonderful World Cup.

Next time you feel the urge to suddenly rage forth onto the forum, just relax, sit back down and crack open a cold one. Its just not worth it y'know! banana.gif
 
S

shazbooger

Guest
I am staying on topic by pointing out how irrationally silly your whole argument is.[/b]
I dont have an arguement. I have an opinion. Your the one that took exception to it. Take your own advice and ........ "Next time you feel the urge to suddenly rage forth onto the forum, just relax, sit back down and crack open a cold one. Its just not worth it y'know!"

While one cannot argue that both teams played with passion and with such physicality that it would make you wince, the match was not as good as either of the Quarter Finals. Maybe as a result therefore, if South Africa do get through to the final, it might be as a result lose some of its tension and excitement in the middle of either an overwhelming South African triumph or a grinding England win.[/b]
So its the prose you took exception to?

Either way, thats not what I felt. At no point in the game did I wince, I yawned a bit here and there, and cringed a bit. Nope, I much prefer the way I put it.

Unfortunately, now that England have gone through, we can be sure that the final will at best be 98% attrition, 2% rugby, at worst it will be another 36-0 hammering.

As for the rest. Nope, not in a tizzie at all. I know full well what I said. Read the thread cause I aint interested in an arguement over pedantics.
 
S

stormmaster1

Guest
My two cents:



Great victory. Character, courage, guts and glory. Pretty much sums up Englands win. I watched the game in a pub with my Brother, great atmosphere.



As a game, it was fairly poor to watch, a few exciting moments throughout, but the action only really started with 15 mins to go. Most of the excitement was simply because of what was at stake. It was very heavy on arial ping pong, and while England have got heavily criticised for this, TBH i thought it was how the French decided to play. At one point in the second half they had enjoyed 65% territory (according to some stats in the Times). The reason they were ahead was because their lineout just had an edge, but they were kicking better. Robinson kicked ok from fullback, but Traille consistantly made 10-15 yards more. France were mostly in control, not trying to be too adventurous. England stopped them from getting decent attacking possession though and the territory wasn't turned into points. They brought replacements on at 50mins. too early in my opinion given that they were controlling things. Michalak started the attacking game more, but the English defence held on. France broke through once and were denied first by Worsley's fingertips and later after a 5m scrum by some strong tackling and pressure on the ruck. Michalak tried a chip to the in-goal area, but all came to nothing. 50m out, France still played rugby, but were knocked back turned over or tackled out of play and England finally had attacking chances. And they scored. Twice.



England won because they had the guts to win it, to score points when it counted. Wilkinson wasn't great, but it a game like that he's the guy you want to slot goals in the last 10 mins. If i wanted to choose a fly half to win games i'd choose Carter. If the games are important i'd choose Wilkinson.



Most things have been discussed to death here, but some points for the 10 man rugby flame war:



1. France instigated the arial ping pong. According to the times partway through second half they had 65% territory. Their kicking game was controlling things, but England hadn't succumbed to the pressure so France didn't have a lead. Don't blame a boring style solely on England as France were didctating the style and pace of the match



2. 50 mins Michalak comes on and ups the pace. France nearly capitalise, but don't. More runing in own half gives England back the ball. This isn't 10 man rugby. This is great defence.



3. England attacked. Crazy i know, but Hipkiss broke the line, Robinson broke the line. Resulted in opportunities for tries. Unfortunately they weren't finished off. Earlier in the match England attacked out wide whenever space was there. Unfortunately passing let them down and they stopped the runners hitting the line at pace to take advantage. Desire to play was there. Execution was not.
 
N

Niue

Guest
IMO England won because they wanted it more than France, their tactics were marginally better, and they had Wilkinson, who came through when it mattered having been off-colour in his kicking all the way through.

A few years ago, in football, Cantona was a talisman (over-used word, I know) for Man United, Vaughan did it for the cricket team, and Wilkinson still has that galvanising effect on England.

The team's confidence level rises, players try a little harder, the backs handling gets a touch slicker.

Anyway, cograts to England from an Ulster fan. Hope the new Boer War makes a good final. (joke)
 
S

stormmaster1

Guest
IMO England won because they wanted it more than France, their tactics were marginally better, and they had Wilkinson, who came through when it mattered having been off-colour in his kicking all the way through.

A few years ago, in football, Cantona was a talisman (over-used word, I know) for Man United, Vaughan did it for the cricket team, and Wilkinson still has that galvanising effect on England.

The team's confidence level rises, players try a little harder, the backs handling gets a touch slicker.

Anyway, cograts to England from an Ulster fan. Hope the new Boer War makes a good final. (joke)
[/b]



The Talisman thing is key. he called the drop goal routine, and the team knew what they needed to do to get him that position. They also knew he would slot it. He may have missed a couple by a whisker, but with minutes left he would get it right. The self belief thing is so important. When Michalak came on, France carved out a few opportunities. They weren't taken. After England resisted the 5m scrum i though for the first time we were definitely going to win. After that it was evident in our defence. France were slower, we knocked them backwards harder than before and they failed to hang on to their one point lead.



Earlier in the match i worried. In the first minute the bunce of the ball went our way. After that, a near charge down by Moody fell for France and led to a penalty. The bounce and 50:50 calls were going Frances way. Wilko missed the touchline conversion, missed a 54m penalty and a difficult drop goal. Easter conceded a penalty which was very soft. Later Wilko struck the posts with another drop. The passes from hand were just stopping the backs flying full tilt. Small margins of inprecision all of them, but i kept thinking: if we want to be world champs, we have to aim for perfection and get those things right. I hope we get more precision and some clinical finishing against SA, because they are gong to be tough.
 
M

MartinJohnson

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
The ab's choked, aussie had a shite front 5 (for years they have covered this with illegal tactics)
[/b]
Yes, they had a very bad tight 5 but illegal tactics? Obviously you see something no other analyst in the world of rugby has ever seen....

[/b][/quote]

Taking the pressure off the scrum and collapsing it. That is illegal isn't it? The only option when you have a powder puff front five. Watch a replay of the last world cup final if a you need a refresher.

The refs have sussed it now. Aussie will never again beat a decent scrummaging side. Not until they change the rules of course. Best stick to 7's until then.
 
B

Brodizzle

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
The ab's choked, aussie had a shite front 5 (for years they have covered this with illegal tactics)
[/b]
Yes, they had a very bad tight 5 but illegal tactics? Obviously you see something no other analyst in the world of rugby has ever seen....

[/b][/quote]

Taking the pressure off the scrum and collapsing it. That is illegal isn't it? The only option when you have a powder puff front five. Watch a replay of the last world cup final if a you need a refresher.

The refs have sussed it now. Aussie will never again beat a decent scrummaging side. Not until they change the rules of course. Best stick to 7's until then.
[/b][/quote]
The problem with this is whenever they actually put up a good scrum with all the fuss that is caused after the 2005 tour about the Aussie scrum it is pulled down by the opposition and Australia is penalised, it's a good tactic undoubtedly. Also, how is being weak at scrummaging in general illegal? Why would they pull down thier own scrum if they know that they would most likely be penalised, because of it being common knowledge our scrum is terrible...if our scrum was actually benefiting from what they were supposedly illegally doing then I would agree...tactics are created to benefit the side, getting constantly penalised in the scrums doesn't seem very beneficial to myself...
 
F

Fushitsusha

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
The ab's choked, aussie had a shite front 5 (for years they have covered this with illegal tactics)
[/b]
Yes, they had a very bad tight 5 but illegal tactics? Obviously you see something no other analyst in the world of rugby has ever seen....

[/b][/quote]

Taking the pressure off the scrum and collapsing it. That is illegal isn't it? The only option when you have a powder puff front five. Watch a replay of the last world cup final if a you need a refresher.

The refs have sussed it now. Aussie will never again beat a decent scrummaging side. Not until they change the rules of course. Best stick to 7's until then.
[/b][/quote]
The problem with this is whenever they actually put up a good scrum with all the fuss that is caused after the 2005 tour about the Aussie scrum it is pulled down by the opposition and Australia is penalised, it's a good tactic undoubtedly. Also, how is being weak at scrummaging in general illegal? Why would they pull down thier own scrum if they know that they would most likely be penalised, because of it being common knowledge our scrum is terrible...if our scrum was actually benefiting from what they were supposedly illegally doing then I would agree...tactics are created to benefit the side, getting constantly penalised in the scrums doesn't seem very beneficial to myself...
[/b][/quote]


So true.

More often than not it's the opposition teams using illegal tactics against Australia because they know they can milk a penalty.

Sheridan tried this a number of times the other week and was penalised for it until he opted to use his strength. In the last Bledisloe Cup match, Tony Woodcock repeatedly bored into the side of Shepherdson when Australia's scrum was holding up.

Australia doesn't have the strongest scrum, but I don't think it has the smartest scrum at the moment either.
 
S

Sirius

Guest
Hello, I'm in the north of France (a region without rugby, or a little) and I want to congratulate English players and staff for the great game they played. It was rugby, with a lot of intelligence ! I'm not happy that England won this game, but it was really a tactical lesson. France will never win a world cup with this style.

Now, it's time to play South Africa, and it will be a hard fight !


England won because the Froggy full-back *****d it up.
[/b]
Traille made an error at the beginning of the game but I think that any player in the world can make this kind of error, rugby ball will always make capricious rebounds, and this is delicious !

Sorry for my bad english
 
J

John Bull

Guest
Hello, I'm in the north of France (a region without rugby, or a little) and I want to congratulate English players and staff for the great game they played. It was rugby, with a lot of intelligence ! I'm not happy that England won this game, but it was really a tactical lesson. France will never win a world cup with this style.

Now, it's time to play South Africa, and it will be a hard fight !


<div class='quotemain'>
England won because the Froggy full-back *****d it up.
[/b]
Traille made an error at the beginning of the game but I think that any player in the world can make this kind of error, rugby ball will always make capricious rebounds, and this is delicious !

Sorry for my bad english
[/b][/quote]

Traille's error was caused by a lack of confidence, he lost it on the big occasion. Perhaps due to Brian Moore's comments to the French media prior to the game, did you catch them? If you did then you should apply for the vacant position of full back to the Frog XV.

Your English is indeed rather poor, are you Olivier Roumat?

Brian Moore speaks http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtm...2/srmoor112.xml

And you are more than welcome to the Rugby Forum.
 
S

stormmaster1

Guest
Hello, I'm in the north of France (a region without rugby, or a little) and I want to congratulate English players and staff for the great game they played. It was rugby, with a lot of intelligence ! I'm not happy that England won this game, but it was really a tactical lesson. France will never win a world cup with this style.

Now, it's time to play South Africa, and it will be a hard fight !


<div class='quotemain'>
England won because the Froggy full-back *****d it up.
[/b]
Traille made an error at the beginning of the game but I think that any player in the world can make this kind of error, rugby ball will always make capricious rebounds, and this is delicious !

Sorry for my bad english [/b][/quote]



Can't forgive you for bad English untill you display some bad English like what we done.
 
I

ikvat

Guest


You know why i love Russian football now! :p
 
J

John Bull

Guest
Yes, I understand that the metrosexuals have been involved in something dainty recently.
 
B

Bullitt

Guest
Yes, I understand that the <strike>metrosexuals</strike> poofs have been involved in something dainty recently. [/b]

Please remember you were refering to poofball.
 
Top