Rugby - See You In Ten! - Page 9

st_swithin · August 29, 2003, 23:50

At least it's not the knapsack on my back song. That was much worse.

The guy who wants to do it with Madonna shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on music in general, seeing that he wouldn't know a complete lack of talent if he slept with it.

Tamerlin · August 30, 2003, 00:23

Believe me St_swithin Finbar is not the kind of guy that listens Madonna. Someone who knows Grand Funk Railroad can't be that bad.

st_swithin · August 30, 2003, 01:50

Play that funny music, white boy.

Caligastia · August 30, 2003, 11:36

Wellington 46 - Auckland 42

What an action-packed game! Many great tries scored, and a great attempt at a comeback by Auckland towards the end. Wellington deserved to win, however, as they consistently dominated throughout the game.

LDiCesare · August 30, 2003, 15:54

France - England half time: 14 -13.
The fun thing here is that the English coaches have license to run in front of the payer who is kicking a conversion. Odious lack of sportsmanship here. The referee should have asked to retry the conversion IMO.

For the moment, the French pack looks good, particularly the front row and in lineouts. They are not able to prevent the mobile English back row to play very well, though. The English backs are very dangerous, but so is Dominici in particular. French defense, and protection of the 10 when kicking is a bit weak.

With their usual forwads, the English would be terrifying.

LDiCesare · August 30, 2003, 16:56

France England 17 - 16
Wheeew...
It was close. The English suffered more in the second half than the first, but their defense was very strong.
There were many knocks on, because of the weather (hot, heavy, sweating).

Overall:
The English lineout was catastrophic.
The French kicker missed 2 penalties and one conversion (but this one would allow us to spend several days speaking about it - let's hear what Havak thinks of it), whereas Grayson was very good at kicking (except the last second drop-goal, but given the pressure, it was extremely hard). Overall, Michalak suffered a lot from the pressure.
Any mistake in defense is extraordinarily dangerous.
Most importantly for the French, Galthie played well.
The French scrum was stronger than the English. They took one ball if I'm not mistaken, and generally proved stronger. However, they were penalized because the English managed to trick them a bit. In particular, the English turned (wheeled?) every scrum they had before the scrum half inroduced the ball. To counter that (?), the French put some pressure, resulting in their pushing before the introduction, and a kick for the whites.

Now, with Johnson and Wilkinson, that would have been different. Till next week in Twickenham. I'm afraid the English may have a big win there, considering they should have a stronger pack. It will depend on who Woodwards wants to see play.

spartak · August 30, 2003, 17:59

Bah!

England were pants and I'm surprised that France didn't do better than that. Is that really the best number 10 France have? Some of his decisions were really dubious.

As for England, rubbish discipline and we would have won if there had been less penalties against us. Healy didn't look match sharpe and the line out throwing was utterly awful. can someone explain to me why English hookers can't throw?

Overall this was a poor England side and Franch struggled to put them away at home.

I'm not sure that augers well for France in the WC.

I wonder whether losing the winning streak will take a monkey off the teams back.

Final point, can't agree more about the interferance on the kick. Its not as if he needed any help missing the target anyway. Very poor show and I hope England apologise.

spartak · August 30, 2003, 18:44

Quote:

"We can only apologise to the French. It wasn't meant, and I apologise profusely," Woodward said.

st_swithin · August 30, 2003, 19:30

mercy buckets.

Frozzy · August 30, 2003, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia
Wellington 46 - Auckland 42

What an action-packed game! Many great tries scored, and a great attempt at a comeback by Auckland towards the end. Wellington deserved to win, however, as they consistently dominated throughout the game.

Where are the night rugby critics?

st_swithin · August 30, 2003, 21:34

Rugby, American football - it's too obtuse for me.

Tamerlin · August 30, 2003, 22:14

Quote:

Originally posted by st_swithin
Rugby, American football - it's too obtuse for me.

You can't compare Rugby to American Football but I must admit you somehow have to grow up with it to appreciate it.

IMO the French performance was weak and I am afraid this is almost the best they can do. Struggling to win by one point against an English B-team is far from a performance. Poor France...

Frédéric Michalack has certainly played his worst game of the year (really far from his real level) and Fabien Galthié really started playing in the second half (he was even a bit slow and hesitating in the first half). All in all the game was poor, not really constructed and no player stood out from the others. The game looked like a kind of amorphous pudding... really poor. The only good point came from the lineouts and Yannick Bru's throws.

The referee was not very consistent and did not applied some parts of the laws, as always, but at least he has not interrupted a game that was already poor in itself.

Very disappointing... I even regret that the English have interrupted their victory record on such a game.

st_swithin · August 30, 2003, 22:15

English sminglish - it's all greek to me.

Tamerlin · August 30, 2003, 22:19

And BTW... welcome Spartak!

Alexander's Horse · August 30, 2003, 22:23

who let the mad woman in here?

st_swithin · August 30, 2003, 22:24

I let myself in, thank you very much.

Alexander's Horse · August 30, 2003, 22:26

good - let yourself out again

st_swithin · August 30, 2003, 22:29

If I knew where else to go, I'd go there.

Alexander's Horse · August 30, 2003, 22:31

any cliffs near your home?

st_swithin · August 30, 2003, 22:32

I ain't leading no lemmings to no cliff. This ain't the White Cliffs of Dover, you know.

finbar · August 31, 2003, 02:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Very disappointing... I even regret that the English have interrupted their victory record on such a game.

Still, Tamerlin, there is a bright side. Havak's every fear has been realised - England is a two-man team.

LDiCesare · August 31, 2003, 02:28

Quote:

Is that really the best number 10 France have?

Mmm... Given his performance today, one would hope not. He's still young and probably not in the best of shape. His kicking in particular was awful, giving the ball to Balshaw far too often.

Quote:

The referee was not very consistent and did not applied some parts of the laws, as always

You forgot to say he was a SH ref

. I agree he could have whistled once or twice when players dove instead of staying on their feet.
Tamerlin, I disagree about the game being poor. The lineouts and the scrums were very good for the French. It's after the ball left the hands of the 9 that things started to get bad. The scrums in particular were great. On their own scrums, the French would always make some progress, usually with Harinordoquy taking the ball, fixing the English back row before the ball was released to the backs, whereas the English scrum struggled, lost a ball and often delivered it poorly to Healey (or he couldn't get it out right), causing them to attack with very poor balls.

I agree that defense was much stronger than offense, and there were too many knocks on. The French backline in general was quite poor and should work its set pieces a bit.

As for France in the Cup, based on this game, I'm quite confident. France will have more domination against any other team's pack, which should free our back row that was quite invisible this evening. The only team we won't be able to beat is a full strength England. Other teams packs will disintegrate.

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 02:52

Maybe France is out of its deppth.

spartak · August 31, 2003, 02:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Tamerlin
And BTW... welcome Spartak!

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 02:55

That's right - blame it on the guy with one eye!!

spartak · August 31, 2003, 02:57

Quote:

Originally posted by finbar
Still, Tamerlin, there is a bright side. Havak's every fear has been realised - England is a two-man team.

Any team is going to miss the best number 10 in the world. The whole point here is not that England were missing two players but that we were missing 12 from our first choice. It is inevitable that the team would stutter and make mistakes. Especially when they were playing for their WC places and Healy wasn't ready for a match of this kind. I can't claim to be a Grayson fan but you do have the remember that Wilkinson's ccepted stand in is injured and will miss the WC.

I really think France should have done better then that given how woeful England were!

LDiCesare · August 31, 2003, 03:11

France should have been able to do better in order to have a changce in the World Cup, but face it, we don't have the level. The French backline is too weak. The back row also needs to get better, as Grayson didn't suffer much pressure.
And I'm not sure it's Wilko that the English missed most. Overall, the England backs and Grayson's kicking were good, and that's where the danger (and the try) came. A good thrower or jumper in the pack would have made the difference. Not to say the whole first-team pack, for that matter.

spartak · August 31, 2003, 03:17

To my mind the real killer was the amount of turnover ball and the lack of discipline in tight. Far too many penalties given away and far too many good positions thrown away by losing the ball.

LDiCesare · August 31, 2003, 05:31

From planet-rugby:

Quote:

With both sides bedecked in their bizarre new skin-tight kits, the sets of players looked more like cyclists, sprinters or rave dancers than rugby players, and with a whole host having to go off for running repairs on their figure-hugging attire, it seems work still needs to be done by the manufacturers.

It's true those new shirts are ugly, lose the numbers in their back, and generally tear themselves apart for no reason. Ugly stuff. Give me back the old shirts anyday.

spartak · August 31, 2003, 07:06

I can't say the shirts bothered me. I was more concerned by the performance of the team. I am expecting a serious inprovement next week.