This is the reason England got was bungled out in the quarter finals

[Tomsey]

Defeat will haunt me for years: England star

Fullback Ben Foden reflects on his side's ignominious exit from the World Cup.
This defeat is going to haunt me for a long, long time. I will always remember this day and think to myself: ''If I had tried a bit harder, or done something a bit better then things might have turned out differently.'' But it was not to be.
It will be really tough to watch France play Wales in the World Cup semi-final on the television.
It should have been us playing Wales. It is one thing to be beaten by a better side, but France weren't a better side than us. We just didn't perform as we know we can.
<small style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-style: inherit; font-size: 12px; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; ">Advertisement: Story continues below</small>
We are much better than that and that is what is so frustrating. We've worked hard for five months now just to throw it away on that game. I am absolutely livid. We had a massive opportunity and we blew it. I'm frustrated in our performance and my own personal performance.
The French were there for the taking and to go 16 points down by half-time, well, we were always going to struggle to get back from that. We will no doubt look at a few things over the next few days but we have all got to hold our hands up as a team and take responsibility.
I hope Martin Johnson stays on. You could see how disappointed he was, he looked as though he had played the game with us. You can't fault his passion and commitment.
There weren't many nerves in the changing room beforehand. Perhaps one of the problems was that we were overconfident as we had trained so well and were expecting a big performance.
We knew if we gave France a sniff then it would allow them to pick themselves up after the problems they have had, and that is exactly what happened. Both their tries were sloppy by us. For the first, I had to decide whether Ben Youngs had Vincent Clerc lined up. I should have hit him to finish off the tackle but I chose to hit his support runner. Clerc shrugged off the tackle and scored.
Desperation cost us their second try. You couldn't fault the commitment of the players but Ashy [Chris Ashton] and Manu [Tuilagi] were so desperate to make sure that Alexis Palisson wouldn't score in the corner, not knowing that I had him covered, and he was able to turn the ball inside for Maxime Medard.
The changing room was a horrible place to be afterwards. Hopefully we will remember the pain of this defeat and use it to inspire us, just as the 2003 side did when they won the World Cup four years after the quarter-final defeat by South Africa.
Telegraph, London
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/r...ngland-star-20111009-1lfrz.html#ixzz1aNiAFRTo

This is some of the worst attitude I have ever seen. The fact that he thinks its alright to think things such as "It should have been us playing Wales. It is one thing to be beaten by a better side, but France weren't a better side than us." is disgusting, but then he has the audacity to write it in a newspaper. He then goes on to blame his team mates for all his defensive gaffs. This just proves that what rugby followers and journalists around the world where thinking when they watched the English players getting blind, abusing hotel staff, cheating on their wives and endangering their lives by jumping of boats, was correct: arrogant wankers.
You can't possibly expect a group of people with attitudes like that to be successful at anything... except maybe American Football...

 

[McTallshort]

or soccer players

 

[slowprop]

Maybe some of these players need to concentrate a bit more on playing Rugby and a bit less on writing crap in newspapers !

 

[ZeFrenchy]

That's obviously not written by him. I think it is anwers to specific questions by a journalist, that the newspaper decided to redact as if it was a column. This is common practice by newspapers, something that should not be done, imo.

 

[Wooderz]

I very much doubt those were the words that he used, probably just the telegraph twisting things as usual, same thing happened with James Haskell a couple of weeks ago. And pretty much all of the England players said either on twitter or to the press that the best team won on the day. The English media will always be our downfall.

 

[smb64]

Maybe I'm biased here as Foden's one of my favorite players and I am English. However I don't think it's as bad as it sounds, as ZeFrenchy said often what you read in the papers is not really the context they said it in.

France deserved their place in the Semi's because they won the match and that's all that matters. But when he says "It should have been us playing Wales. It is one thing to be beaten by a better side, but France weren't a better side than us." Imo the more accurate statement should have been "France shouldn't have been a better side than us" - They lost 2 from 4 games, whereas Eng won 4 from 4. Taking nothing away from France's tries but they shouldn't have happened in that manner, Eng's defense should have stopped them. Plus Eng's previous form before the tournament just never flourished in the tournament. Despite some selection issues *cough* Wilkinson *cough* Deacon *cough* Easter. That team can and should have performed much better than that. They have only themselves to blame.

On a lighter note France and Wales probably have more chance of beating NZ in the final than us anyway.

 

[Peat]

*yawn*

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Don't agree with this whatsoever. Tomsey you sound like a Daily mail columnist which is not something I'd wish on anyone.

Maybe Foden is as arrogant as you say, and maybe he's not, but what I get from that is the (correct) opinion that France were hardly sublime on the day. They were above average. But England were awful. He;s just disappointed that they couldnt put in the performance. he's blaming no single person, he criticises his own failures and for example his own missed tackle on clerc. It's a whole teams disappointment he's talking from. When he says it should be us playing Wales, he doesn't mean its our inherent right to be in that game, he's just thinking about what could have been

Rugby fans like you Tomsey need to stop giving lip service to self-righteous journalists who think that because taxpayers money is distantly involved with the people in question - in this case rugby players - they have no right whatsoever to a normal life where they don't have to answer to the tabloid press. People are repeatedly making a link between off the field conduct such as the Tindall crap, and the bad performances on the field. Gonna tell you now, there is no connection between them whatsoever. A team can play badly with no scandal( See England 2004 - 2008 to start with), but if you give the tabloid press room to swing a cat, they will find someone to be indignant about.

P.S Ashton, Haskell and Hartley were being complete wankers to that girl. Thats what some men are like. But that doesnt mean they don't try hard on the field. Also, Tuilagi wasn't putting his life in danger.

 

[gingergenius]

blah blah blah let's write more crap on the England team.

I'm angry with the RFU, England management and England players for underachieving, but I couldn't give a **** about all the off-field antics. Let's keep focussed on the rugby.

And why shouldn't Foden say that England should have beaten France? We beat them earlier this year, we are Six Nations champions, and we put in some good performances in the Summer and Autumn of 2010. We also beat everyone in our group. France, on the other hand, have been **** ever since they won the Grand Slam in 2010, in which time they've been battered by Australia at home, and lost to Italy and Tonga (the latter the week before the QF). Including world cup history between the two nations, on paper you'd have to be an incredibly brave gambler to have put any money on the French to win.

Even looking at the match, England were asleep until we went 16 points down, but then were the dominant side in the game. So, England certainly should have won. The fact that they didn't is because they've developed no clinical edge in attack, they've been massively inconsistent, and they didn't want it enough on the day. Which is England's and England's fault alone. The French played well, yes, but Wales, the 3N and probably Ireland as well would have put them away, and England couldn't.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Don't agree with this whatsoever. Tomsey you sound like a Daily mail columnist which is not something I'd wish on anyone.

I actually met/hung around with one of the Daily Mail Rugby Union writers at Pennyhill - really nice guy and knew his rugby. They must have a right d**k head of an editor or something

 

[Canucks]

This is some of the worst attitude I have ever seen. The fact that he thinks its alright to think things such as "It should have been us playing Wales. It is one thing to be beaten by a better side, but France weren't a better side than us." is disgusting, but then he has the audacity to write it in a newspaper. He then goes on to blame his team mates for all his defensive gaffs. This just proves that what rugby followers and journalists around the world where thinking when they watched the English players getting blind, abusing hotel staff, cheating on their wives and endangering their lives by jumping of boats, was correct: arrogant wankers.
You can't possibly expect a group of people with attitudes like that to be successful at anything... except maybe American Football...

As someone who has been on an underachieving team only to come back and win it all the next year, I think Foden's attitude is perfectly acceptable. I'd be more upset if he just said "oh well we lost." There is nothing wrong analysing your mistakes and accepting that you lost to inferior opposition. As someone pointed out beforehand, France played above average and prior to this game, was an inferior team (see difficult games vs Japan, Canada and loss to Tonga.) Foden was not blaming anyone else, you win as a team and you lose as a team, accountability is important. He didn't say Youngs missed a tackle and lost us the game, he took responsibility and made it sound like it was his decision that was bad.

Tomsey, you seem to have an unhealthy hate for England. I suggest you take the Wallaby blinders off and be objective about what occurred. Who would of thought a group of famous Rugby players would get plastered and have women hang off them? Or ask someone for an "australian kiss" in jest? Can't defend Tuilagi, that one was thoughtless but hardly the behaviour of an "arrogant ******."
I mean really, don't throw bricks in a glass house.
My high school rugby tour was worse than anything these players did and we were 16-18 year olds. We almost got thrown into a paddy wagon in Carmarthen, Wales for brawling in front of a church and we went on a parade with roughly 20 Irish people at 2 am from University Road to Lisburn Road in Belfast singing the Hockey Song and the Canadian National anthem.

And then you go on to insult American Football players as if you understand anything about the sport or the type of people who play it. Sounds like someone is a bit on the xenophobic side.
Like I said bricks in a glass house.

 

[Tomsey]

There is nothing wrong with analysing your mistakes but there is something wrong with not accepting that you are responsible for those mistakes. There is also something wrong with the term "loosing to an inferior opposition", its an oxymoron. If they where inferior they would not have won. This seems to be the sticking point, England's players not taking responsibility for the loss. Sure England won more games than the French in the lead up to the quarter final but everyone knows that means absolutely nothing in a world cup.
I do not have an "unhealthy hate for England" or its rugby and you have absolutely no grounds on which to make that statement, or the ones about me being an arrogant ****** or a xenophobe for that matter, because you have only read a few paragraphs of my thoughts and know nothing else about me. Following that idiotic logic i could assume that you are a violent, alcoholic, anti-religious bigot and a criminal because of your pretentious story about your visit to Ireland.
I have lived and played rugby in England, admire quite a few English players and am of the opinion that their competition is one of the best in the world. I am not, however, in admiration of the national sides attitude to this World Cup. They have a lot of quality players and they should have done better than they did. It is evident that their attitude is part of the reason for their early exit. Your anecdote about your loutish antics in Ireland is irrelevant because you where on a schoolboy on a rugby tour and these players are professionals at a world cup. They are not there to get on the **** and do stupid **** so they have a few good stories when they get home, they are there to win the competition. They seemed to think they had a divine passage into the final and all they had to do is turn up to games and have a good time in between. I don't think I am the only one that finds that a little disappointing.

 

[Peat]

I have zero problem with Foden saying they underperformed (they did), that he feels that France aren't a better side (the balance of results between the two nations over recent years suggests we're about even) or saying that he'll be watching it and thinking that could/should have been us (because they should be regretting that opportunity). At worst the article displays a little overconfidence.

In fact, its probably one of the more sensible things to come out of the England camp at the moment.

We've got plenty of problems at the moment, but ghostwritten columns like that isn't one of them.

 

[Canucks]

There is nothing wrong with analysing your mistakes but there is something wrong with not accepting that you are responsible for those mistakes. There is also something wrong with the term "loosing to an inferior opposition", its an oxymoron. If they where inferior they would not have won. This seems to be the sticking point, England's players not taking responsibility for the loss. Sure England won more games than the French in the lead up to the quarter final but everyone knows that means absolutely nothing in a world cup.
I do not have an "unhealthy hate for England" or its rugby and you have absolutely no grounds on which to make that statement, or the ones about me being an arrogant ****** or a xenophobe for that matter, because you have only read a few paragraphs of my thoughts and know nothing else about me. Following that idiotic logic i could assume that you are a violent, alcoholic, anti-religious bigot and a criminal because of your pretentious story about your visit to Ireland.
I have lived and played rugby in England, admire quite a few English players and am of the opinion that their competition is one of the best in the world. I am not, however, in admiration of the national sides attitude to this World Cup. They have a lot of quality players and they should have done better than they did. It is evident that their attitude is part of the reason for their early exit. Your anecdote about your loutish antics in Ireland is irrelevant because you where on a schoolboy on a rugby tour and these players are professionals at a world cup. They are not there to get on the **** and do stupid **** so they have a few good stories when they get home, they are there to win the competition. They seemed to think they had a divine passage into the final and all they had to do is turn up to games and have a good time in between. I don't think I am the only one that finds that a little disappointing.

There is nothing wrong with analysing your mistakes but there is something wrong with not accepting that you are responsible for those mistakes. There is also something wrong with the term "loosing to an inferior opposition", its an oxymoron. If they where inferior they would not have won. This seems to be the sticking point, England's players not taking responsibility for the loss. Sure England won more games than the French in the lead up to the quarter final but everyone knows that means absolutely nothing in a world cup.
I do not have an "unhealthy hate for England" or its rugby and you have absolutely no grounds on which to make that statement, or the ones about me being an arrogant ****** or a xenophobe for that matter, because you have only read a few paragraphs of my thoughts and know nothing else about me. Following that idiotic logic i could assume that you are a violent, alcoholic, anti-religious bigot and a criminal because of your pretentious story about your visit to Ireland.
I have lived and played rugby in England, admire quite a few English players and am of the opinion that their competition is one of the best in the world. I am not, however, in admiration of the national sides attitude to this World Cup. They have a lot of quality players and they should have done better than they did. It is evident that their attitude is part of the reason for their early exit. Your anecdote about your loutish antics in Ireland is irrelevant because you where on a schoolboy on a rugby tour and these players are professionals at a world cup. They are not there to get on the **** and do stupid **** so they have a few good stories when they get home, they are there to win the competition. They seemed to think they had a divine passage into the final and all they had to do is turn up to games and have a good time in between. I don't think I am the only one that finds that a little disappointing.

It looks like to me that Foden was accepting his mistakes, part of that is accepting that you lost a game you should have won. What should he do to satisfy you that he's sorry, die his hair black and sit in a corner for a week listening to "Hurt" by Nine Inch Nails. And yes, France is inferior opposition and no it's not an oxymoron. An oxymoron is using to contradictory terms, losing and inferior opposition are not contradictory, they denote that you lost to an inferior team. A team that you should have beat and was not as good as you and it does happen to a majority of people that play sports.

I do have grounds to make that statement when you sound like you write for the Sun. You made this thread to crap on England's players and rile up a few of their fans. Your focus on the supposed antics that the media is blowing out of proportion also denotes that all you want to do is troll. If you don't enjoy being called out on it, then don't make this thread.

While I agree that England was a disapointment, but I feel the errors lie at the top in terms of squad selection, not with having a team night out. To be successful you have to play like a team and be close. Nights out are team building and necessary and every team of the world cup did it. If anything I'd prefer England to have more nights out so at least they'd play like a team. Martin Johnson's bizarre squad selection and favortism are what led to England's demise as well as a lack of leadership from Wilkinson/Tindall/Moody. Nothing is more demoralising than a coach who benches you for no good reason and starts a player who has not performed well ie. Lawes and Haskell on the bench while Easter was on the field.

 

[NgatiDread]

pretty typical response from a player who just had his dreams of a world cup shattered by a pathetic performance on his part.

 

[racingmetrofan]

Perhaps one of the problems was that we were overconfident as we had trained so well and were expecting a big performance.

If he actually said this then this is probably the reason why they lost. How can an experienced rugby player possibly think that training well would lead to a big game, given the poor form that England showed in the group stages. England should have been very aware that they were playing a team that were there absolute equals and a team that could easily knock them out.

Given that they couldn't beat Ireland in the 6n, couldn't beat a second string SA team last Autumn and only managed to beat a rather dubious french team by 10 points in the 6n, as well as almost being beaten by both Argentina and Scotland, it is amazing that a player seems to find optimism and confidence in training well, to the extent that it takes the nerves and the will to play really really well on the day away.

I think MJs 'just win' attitude is the biggest problem. When the most talented players in England are picked and train together consistently, and play very well consistently, the meaningful wins will come. The playing well and the consistency is what matters, playing well is something that England have only managed to do imo against Italy and France 2011, and Australia and perhaps NZ in 2010. That's 4 games in 2.5 years.

Again, their game against France in the ^ nations is perhaps the best example of the futility of Englands 'positive wins'. Glancing over two rugby commentrys and from what I remember of the game, France didn't turn up at all and played badly in the second half. After the try in the 4nd minute, all England managed to achieve was 3 points, from a penalty, 47 meters out. England should have gone into this game aware that they could lose, but confident that if they played a clinical accurate game, they could win. Sadly they only seemed to go on with the 'we can win' part

 

[Saintjay]

If he actually said this then this is probably the reason why they lost. How can an experienced rugby player possibly think that training well would lead to a big game, given the poor form that England showed in the group stages. England should have been very aware that they were playing a team that were there absolute equals and a team that could easily knock them out.

Given that they couldn't beat Ireland in the 6n, couldn't beat a second string SA team last Autumn and only managed to beat a rather dubious french team by 10 points in the 6n, as well as almost being beaten by both Argentina and Scotland, it is amazing that a player seems to find optimism and confidence in training well, to the extent that it takes the nerves and the will to play really really well on the day away.

I think MJs 'just win' attitude is the biggest problem. When the most talented players in England are picked and train together consistently, and play very well consistently, the meaningful wins will come. The playing well and the consistency is what matters, playing well is something that England have only managed to do imo against Italy and France 2011, and Australia and perhaps NZ in 2010. That's 4 games in 2.5 years.

Again, their game against France in the ^ nations is perhaps the best example of the futility of Englands 'positive wins'. Glancing over two rugby commentrys and from what I remember of the game, France didn't turn up at all and played badly in the second half. After the try in the 4nd minute, all England managed to achieve was 3 points, from a penalty, 47 meters out. England should have gone into this game aware that they could lose, but confident that if they played a clinical accurate game, they could win. Sadly they only seemed to go on with the 'we can win' part

You have picked and chosen your results rather well, you misssed the fact they beat Ireland and Wales in the warm up's, had decent games against Australia who won the tri-nations and beat South Africa to the semi-finals. You might want to add that England went into the world cup as six nations champions and only missed out on a grandslam due to a good Irish team. That they also were unbeaten in there group and about to face a team who had already lost two games.

Of course he is going to feel happier about feeling good and training well, would it have been better for him to say "We are training rubbish, we are rubbish". Most people thought England would win the game, why would Foden be any different. We were not playing great but going into the match we were still unbeaten in the groups and despite playing terrible we were not playing as bad as the french in the run up to the big game.

 

[racingmetrofan]

I have zero problem with Foden saying they underperformed (they did), that he feels that France aren't a better side (the balance of results between the two nations over recent years suggests we're about even) or saying that he'll be watching it and thinking that could/should have been us (because they should be regretting that opportunity). At worst the article displays a little overconfidence.

In fact, its probably one of the more sensible things to come out of the England camp at the moment.

We've got plenty of problems at the moment, but ghostwritten columns like that isn't one of them.

Apart from a good start to a Autumn tour in 2010 where we played well against NZ and Aus, there has been no performances to indicate that we 'should have won or that we underperformed'. We haven't consistently gone up against teams and fronted up for 80 minutes, or 60, or in some cases even 40, and we have completely struggled to put points on the board and take advantage of other teams weaknesses (e.g.the last 38 minutes of France-England in the 6 nations). On previous form, the only reason England should have 'not lost' is France's terrible form.

 

[berikson]

one of the best playaaas not on the pitch but off lol

 

[Peat]

Apart from a good start to a Autumn tour in 2010 where we played well against NZ and Aus, there has been no performances to indicate that we 'should have won or that we underperformed'. We haven't consistently gone up against teams and fronted up for 80 minutes, or 60, or in some cases even 40, and we have completely struggled to put points on the board and take advantage of other teams weaknesses (e.g.the last 38 minutes of France-England in the 6 nations). On previous form, the only reason England should have 'not lost' is France's terrible form.

*shrugs* I disagree but don't care enough to argue about it. There's been plenty of results and performances to me that says we underperformed. The 'should' bit is what will be going through Foden's mind, not mine, but I have no problems with it.