Oh dear.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Of all the silly ways to concede a try. SA were actually on top of things. If Mr Boggly Eyes (SA kicker, what's his name?) had had a few more week bixs this morning SA would have been cruising along nicely until that charge-down.
Regardless, I was still impressed with the Bok's play. And less than impressed with the French earlier. By halfway through the French - Japan game everyone in the room had forgotten past allegiances and were cheering those little buggers on for all they were worth. There's a team to look out for in 4 years time.
Yeah... oh dear :<
One of those days that everything goes wrong that can go wrong, against a team that is good enough to capitalise on that.
All I can say is that if England are gonna get away with these spoiling tactics in the world cup, no-one is gonna be able to beat them.
If your opponents can't get quick ball from the rucks, you've got the game in the bag.
The english are gettin away with murder and when we try to clear the ruck, we get blown up for going off our feet....
Robbed, by un-penalised spoiling tactics - watch out kiwis and wallabies, you gotta clean out those rucks and mauls.
Please god, don't let those bloody cheating english take it. Please rugby gods, rather the aussies than the english...
Sorry, Ive' got some JD inme already, gonna go gte drunk now
fcuk
Hey Geezer! At least after todays result we can walk into work on Monday and dish out some stick! (Trying not to laugh). england were poor and very lucky in the first half, but the second half was one way traffic, thank you lord and master for the genius that is Johnny Wilkinson!! 😀
Originally posted by dyllooks like SA will have to face New Zealand in the quarter finals now. Poor b@s+@Rds. That's if there are any Kiwis still standing by that stage.
Oh dear.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Of all the silly ways to concede a try. SA were actually on top of things. If Mr Boggly Eyes (SA kicker, what's his name?) had had a few more week bixs this morning SA would have been cruising along nicely until that charge-down.
Regardless, I was still impressed with the Bok's play. And less than impressed ...[text shortened]... hose little buggers on for all they were worth. There's a team to look out for in 4 years time.
Originally posted by Crowley18 June 2003 who: New Zealand rugby coach John Mitchell
Yeah... oh dear :<
One of those days that everything goes wrong that can go wrong, against a team that is good enough to capitalise on that.
All I can say is that if England are gonna get away with these spoiling tactics in the world cup, no-one is gonna be able to beat them.
If your opponents can't get quick ball from the rucks, you've got the game i ...[text shortened]... than the english...
Sorry, Ive' got some JD inme already, gonna go gte drunk now
fcuk
what: Warns England's "spoiling tactics" could ruin the World Cup
where: Melbourne, Australia
snippet: The All Blacks' coach admitted England's 15-13 win over his side - achieved without an England try - last weekend was "effective", but complained that "if that kind of situation occurs in the World Cup, it will be a pretty boring World Cup, won't it?"
Geez, talk about a prediction coming true.
Crowley, when I said Jonny Wilkinson would win it for England you said it takes more than one man to make a rugby team. Seeing he scored 20 of England's 25 points, I'm not so sure about that.
Originally posted by shougiCampese, a long-time critic of English rugby, said England's game had not "moved on a jot over the past 10 years", complaining it was little more than 10-man rugby.
18 June 2003 who: New Zealand rugby coach John Mitchell
what: Warns England's "spoiling tactics" could ruin the World Cup
where: Melbourne, Australia
snippet: The All Blacks' coach admitted England's 15-13 win over his side - achieved without an England try - last weekend was "effective", but complained that "if that kind of situation occurs ...[text shortened]... to make a rugby team. Seeing he scored 20 of England's 25 points, I'm not so sure about that.
advertisement
June 20, 2003. David Campese:
"The game against New Zealand showed all the strengths and all the weakness of the English game," Campese told BBC Online.
"How close did they get to scoring a try? Not once did they look likely to. They are completely reliant on the boot of (five-eighth) Jonny Wilkinson - even when they get into the opposition 22."
Can one man make a team?
I still stand by that Shougi, England won the game (albeit by their illegal, un-penalised tactics), not just Jonny Wilkinson. You see that alot in low-scoring games where both sides are defending well, that the goal-kicker scores all the points.
The only thing that irratates me, is that the boks played so badly. I haven't seen that many mistakes made by a South African rugby team since my high school days, when I was playing for the schools' first team and we had a record defeat against our biggest rivals.
There were just too many handling errors and bad discipline by the boks (although we know why the boks conceded so many penalties around the rucks)
And yes, if the English continue to get away with this, they're gonna keep on winning low-scoring matches with Wilkinson at the helm, including the RWC final.
60 minutes of boks playing decent rugby and 20 minutes of panic.the difference between the sides was composure. we need a decent freekin psychiatrist,oh and maybe a place kicker,i'd have played hougaard from the start.but we found out that the english aren't unbeatable,new zealand should beat em at least.
SA played well and got stuck in. England by their own admission played badly, the making of a good team is one who grinds out the victories even when playing badly. All the great teams have SA on their 17 game unbeaten run, Australia '91 the ABs throughout 80s and most of 90s.
If England 'get away with spoiling' at the break down!? Australian dummy runners? The boks didn't try and slow down English ball? The ABs never break a law?
And why do we get back to England playing boring rugby, beating the Aussies earlier this year we out scored them in tries. Against NZ in the rain it was never going to be pretty. And at the end of the day in none of these 'boring' games have England been out scored on tries - so who exactly is being boring?
Did SA ever look like scoring a try - oh yes a rolling maul from a line out expansive stuff! England's backs got very close twice in the first half. SA defense was very good though. Also surely it was just a matter of time before a kick was charged down second half that is all SA did.
As for Johnny WIlkinson being England it has an awful lot to do with the platform the pack give him, but yes he is a brilliant player, but what would the ABs have been without Lomu in the previosu world cups? Having a player head and shoulders above everyone else in the world in a certain position is great - jealousy is a horrible trait.
England certainly didn't look world beaters on Saturday but I think the ABs might be in for a shock in QFs.
Right thats my rant over hopefully I haven't insulted anyone and just remember the winner of all previous world cups have been the team with the best defensive record not the best offensive record. The Aussies in 99 were not pretty.
Any side with a decent backline will be able to beat England if they weren't able to slow down the ball so much.
The only reason no-one can out-score the english is because the are able to get some of their forwards into good defensive positions while the other forwards are slowing the ball down and in the process pulling in more opponent forwards to clean out the ruck.
I'm not saying SA, NZ etc. are little angels, Mat, I'm saying that England has perfected this spoiling strategy without them being penalised.
I thought the kiwis and wallabies were just being sore losers when they said that the english rugby team is a "10 man rugby, spoiling side".
Now that my boys have been on the receiving end, I can see their claims have merit.
Maybe this is once again an interpretation difference between Northern and Southern hemisphere sides....?