Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
International Team of the Decade
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gingergenius" data-source="post: 297457"><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Jan 9 2010, 02:11 PM) <a href="http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=431013" target="_blank"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div></p><p></p><p>I could say that if you did a team of the decade for the 90s England would (along with France) still be right up there and streets ahead of the rest of the NH. The tour of hell was, in fairness, the equivalent of the Saxons also. Fact is, England won 3 grand slams and one other 5 Nations in the 90s, plus coming second in most other years. They also reached a world cup final, semi and quarter... and were competing with the SH in the AIs toward the end of the decade.</p><p></p><p>As far as Argentina are concerned - they've achieved a lot considering where they came from, but so have Wales. In total though they've not done very much at all.</p><p></p><p>The thing about England is that we, our media, and the rest of rugby say we're crap when we're not performing at the top of the international tree. The last 3 years have been the first time in my lifetime when England have been such a long way off the best international sides. But actually, the lowest we go is mid-table 6N and stuffings from the Springboks. If you do a comparison - we still give the SH a good game most of the time, even now. If we lose a game to Wales/ Scotland/ Ireland, it is nearly always a close run thing hinging on a few small errors/ bits of outstanding opposition play. Contrast that to low points for other teams, and you'll see them getting absolutely battered - when we do beat Wales, for example, we usually put 40 points on them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gingergenius, post: 297457"] <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Jan 9 2010, 02:11 PM) [url='index.php?act=findpost&pid=431013']<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div> I could say that if you did a team of the decade for the 90s England would (along with France) still be right up there and streets ahead of the rest of the NH. The tour of hell was, in fairness, the equivalent of the Saxons also. Fact is, England won 3 grand slams and one other 5 Nations in the 90s, plus coming second in most other years. They also reached a world cup final, semi and quarter... and were competing with the SH in the AIs toward the end of the decade. As far as Argentina are concerned - they've achieved a lot considering where they came from, but so have Wales. In total though they've not done very much at all. The thing about England is that we, our media, and the rest of rugby say we're crap when we're not performing at the top of the international tree. The last 3 years have been the first time in my lifetime when England have been such a long way off the best international sides. But actually, the lowest we go is mid-table 6N and stuffings from the Springboks. If you do a comparison - we still give the SH a good game most of the time, even now. If we lose a game to Wales/ Scotland/ Ireland, it is nearly always a close run thing hinging on a few small errors/ bits of outstanding opposition play. Contrast that to low points for other teams, and you'll see them getting absolutely battered - when we do beat Wales, for example, we usually put 40 points on them. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
International Team of the Decade
Top