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
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
Who could claim an upset win?
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="goodNumber10" data-source="post: 733184" data-attributes="member: 71068"><p>Not really, you challenged my points, so i backed them up with more data that further illustrates and proves what i'm saying. </p><p></p><p>You on the other hand countered with a diatribe of anecdotal rhetoric that you justified with the laughable "my opinion should be enough".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well I clearly understand it way better than you seem to. Especially considering I've just proven your point about England forward dominance creating chances for the backs to be fallacious at best. </p><p></p><p>Additionally I've just told you how many were scored in less than one phase. That's what 0 (zero) means. What didn't you understand? </p><p></p><p>Did you actually watch this years 6 Nations, because if you had you'd have seen the vast bulk of those tries were scored from in or around England's own half with Multiple men beaten.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No more than any other side do. It's well documented that the vast majority of tries in the modern game come in low phase sequences or from Counter attack ball.</p><p></p><p>Wales are no more efficent with the ball on low phases than any other tier 1 team - in fact they are markedly less efficent.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As i've just proven, no they don't.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course why would you hang yourself out to dry like that by proving yourself wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>do you actually watch any rugby other than wales vs XXXX?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As we saw with the NZ maori you don't take Fiji on at the open game you grind them down and play territory, make the game set piece and slow until they lose their shape, because their defence is actually pretty good.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're making things up (again). I haven't said anything about England being impervious to defeat, i said it's more likely Wales lose to Fiji than England will because history illustrates that Wales struggle with Tier 2 nations more than England do, and precisely because England have the up front game (your lamenting) to suffocate the Fijians.</p><p></p><p>That's vastly different to what you're claiming i said.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>France tier 1, Samoa and Japan tier 2. /the end.</p><p></p><p>BTW, England have only lost to France once since the last world cup, Wales have lost to England twice..</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, you managed 2 ***les, not 2 ***les and a grandslam - you won a grandslam in 2012, and won the ***le on maths 2013, then came 3rd twice... there is no stats to this it's fact.</p><p></p><p>What's England 2003 got to do with it? Talk about irrelevant points.</p><p></p><p>Time to block you again i think.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="goodNumber10, post: 733184, member: 71068"] Not really, you challenged my points, so i backed them up with more data that further illustrates and proves what i'm saying. You on the other hand countered with a diatribe of anecdotal rhetoric that you justified with the laughable "my opinion should be enough". Well I clearly understand it way better than you seem to. Especially considering I've just proven your point about England forward dominance creating chances for the backs to be fallacious at best. Additionally I've just told you how many were scored in less than one phase. That's what 0 (zero) means. What didn't you understand? Did you actually watch this years 6 Nations, because if you had you'd have seen the vast bulk of those tries were scored from in or around England's own half with Multiple men beaten. No more than any other side do. It's well documented that the vast majority of tries in the modern game come in low phase sequences or from Counter attack ball. Wales are no more efficent with the ball on low phases than any other tier 1 team - in fact they are markedly less efficent. As i've just proven, no they don't. Of course why would you hang yourself out to dry like that by proving yourself wrong. do you actually watch any rugby other than wales vs XXXX? As we saw with the NZ maori you don't take Fiji on at the open game you grind them down and play territory, make the game set piece and slow until they lose their shape, because their defence is actually pretty good. You're making things up (again). I haven't said anything about England being impervious to defeat, i said it's more likely Wales lose to Fiji than England will because history illustrates that Wales struggle with Tier 2 nations more than England do, and precisely because England have the up front game (your lamenting) to suffocate the Fijians. That's vastly different to what you're claiming i said. France tier 1, Samoa and Japan tier 2. /the end. BTW, England have only lost to France once since the last world cup, Wales have lost to England twice.. No, you managed 2 ***les, not 2 ***les and a grandslam - you won a grandslam in 2012, and won the ***le on maths 2013, then came 3rd twice... there is no stats to this it's fact. What's England 2003 got to do with it? Talk about irrelevant points. Time to block you again i think. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
Who could claim an upset win?
Top