6 Nations

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 15th Mar, '10, 11:44

Of course it would be to you. You're African.

expat yorkshire · Post by **expat yorkshire** » 15th Mar, '10, 11:47

I have to agree with FM , I was in Hanoi last weekend and watched some rugby from South Africa in a bar on Sunday night , the cheetahs and somebody else . Great game open rugby and loads of tries I think the score was 37 -30 but close right up till the end.

The 6 nations is dull in comparison and watching England at the moment is like watching paint dry .

I feel Johnson has to go ....

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 15th Mar, '10, 12:00

Problems do exist in the 6 Nations. Currently attacking rugby seems to be available only to France and Ireland, and Wales in the last 20 mins of the game sometimes. This is not true of the teams in any of the provincial/national leagues and cross-country leagues, the problem is at international level only.

Problems exist in the southern hemisphere. Super 14 contains few if any developing teams. Both cricket (lots to few) and basketball (lots to lots) scores are possible. I couldn't believe the 70-odd v 60-odd results the other week.

England: it's the players, they aren't putting it on for the shirt. If you got rid of Johnson, then who would you bring in? Surely if 3 successive coaches can't do what is required, then it can't be just about the coaches? We don't have the quality we had in 2002-3, and I'm not sure where they are coming from. I can't see what else a coach can do if the players don't follow the game plan and learn from their mistakes. England looked promising against Wales, a let down since.

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 15th Mar, '10, 14:20

expat yorkshire wrote:I have to agree with FM , I was in Hanoi last weekend and watched some rugby from South Africa in a bar on Sunday night , the cheetahs and somebody else . Great game open rugby and loads of tries I think the score was 37 -30 but close right up till the end.

The 6 nations is dull in comparison and watching England at the moment is like watching paint dry .

I feel Johnson has to go ....

Watching England has always been like watching paint dry. Still, if they can hammer France we'll not care, will we?

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 15th Mar, '10, 17:00

Disagree there Burb, England played some of the most exciting rugby in the world during the period 200-2003. Forward domination with some exciting backs. You can't beat the All Blacks, Australia and South Africa back-to-back, 3 weekends in a row, without doing something right!

BFG · Post by **BFG** » 18th Mar, '10, 00:09

Not an excuse - I've been as disappointed with England's performance as the next arrogant, stuffy, up-his-own-a*%e Pom - but if you look at the players there isn't a single leader. In the 2000-2003 era that Bobbity refers to, you had Johnno, Lawrence D, Mike Tindall, Matt Dawson etc...

They are a work in progress and the sooner it's finished the better (he said, gnomically....)

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 18th Mar, '10, 07:24

Fat Bob wrote:Disagree there Burb, England played some of the most exciting rugby in the world during the period 200-2003. Forward domination with some exciting backs. You can't beat the All Blacks, Australia and South Africa back-to-back, 3 weekends in a row, without doing something right!

You mean:

Territory, territory, territory, kick.
Territory, territory, territory, kick.
Territory, territory, territory, kick.
Territory, territory, territory, kick.
Territory, territory, territory, kick.

Hardly the stuff of great drama.

Fresh Mint · Post by **Fresh Mint** » 18th Mar, '10, 07:47

I am a 100 percent dyed in the wool rugby fan and while my preference is for open running rugby a-la hemisphere du sud, I also enjoy a good forward dominated mudbath a la noord.

Blobby is right about England during their RWC winning days: they weren't bad to watch -- particularly if you were Pomeranian -- but they are absolutely dire at the moment.

In fact most of the NH rugby seems to be poor at the moment -- although I am probably being harsh on the French national side and, at times, the Irish. A year out from the RWC, can you honestly see any NH team challenging for the title?

Anyway, I am bound to say that.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 18th Mar, '10, 07:49

Much changed England team. Bugger, I just read Borthwick has gone but I find him still on the team sheet. Backs have had a good shuffle, though think it's too late in the game. Let's see what we can do against Les Bleus. Might not stay up til 3:45am to watch it though!

Agree BFG, no one seems to be taking the team by the balls and showing them how to make a good decision. 2000-3 had loads of leaders or decision makers, Jonny just had to knock the balls over the posts (or chip into the post and gather for the odd try) and allow the rest to do the hard work.

Sweaties for the spoon, and I don't think Italy have gone far enough forward to win away at the Millennium. More than likely three home wins, 10-15 points in it for all three.

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 18th Mar, '10, 08:00

Don't think England can beat France then. Pity. Would rather like to see them win big.

Ireland should do better than 10 points against Scotland, I hope. Gets a triple crown and if some miracle happens in Paris then there might well still be a championship. But I think they need a lot of points. A good day out against the Scots could get a lot of points though.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 18th Mar, '10, 09:16

Burbage wrote:
Fat Bob wrote:Disagree there Burb, England played some of the most exciting rugby in the world during the period 200-2003. Forward domination with some exciting backs. You can't beat the All Blacks, Australia and South Africa back-to-back, 3 weekends in a row, without doing something right!
You mean:

Territory, territory, territory, kick.
Territory, territory, territory, kick.
Territory, territory, territory, kick.
Territory, territory, territory, kick.
Territory, territory, territory, kick.

Hardly the stuff of great drama.

Your tinted specs are great. I'll send you the DVD if you're interested, deffinitely not as you suggest.

Minty, yes, england are awful, France are looking a bit sharp, and Ireland have their moments. Wales give it to Shane, whilst Scotland seem to have a reasonable back row.

Will any of them challenge for the RWC2011? I think none of us expected England to get to the final in 2007, nor France and Argentina to get through to the semis. going on form, then yes, southern hemisphere teams are better, that's clearly shown in the IRB rankings. But being IRB ranked number 1 does not give you the trophy. As kiwis know just too well.

Snaffled · Post by **Snaffled** » 18th Mar, '10, 09:24

This year much of the 6 nations rugby is not very exciting, but I still love it as a competition. I much prefer watching the Tri-Nations than the Super14 though and find the matches where there are huge scores dull as crap. I much prefer an intense game that can end up 6-3, than most of the S14 games. Different things for different people I suppose.
I have started watching a lot more Magners, Guinness Premiership and in particular Heineken Cup games and really like them. They seem to have the same mud soaked intensity but the players are more willing to take a risk now & then.

Not sure on RWC2011 and honestly don't really care after the moronic decision by the farkwits in ties to bring it to NZ.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 18th Mar, '10, 09:37

Setanta *MAY* be coming to Singapore next year. If so, LOADS of rugby on there of that sort snaff. Looking forward to it no end!

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 18th Mar, '10, 11:04

Fat Bob wrote:
Your tinted specs are great. I'll send you the DVD if you're interested, deffinitely not as you suggest.

That was the tactic. the result, eventually, was that the opposition wer so afraid of Wilkinson's boot that they were terrified of giving penalties away. That created mistakes and space for the rest of the team. It wouldn't have worked without someone as deadly as Wilkinson.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 18th Mar, '10, 14:10

So are you saying England's tactics were "Territory, territory, territory, kick" or that England tactics allowed them to create space and play exciting rugby?

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 18th Mar, '10, 14:13

Tactics are not the same as results. It worked then, doesn't work now, because Wilkinson is not the threat he was. I see he's been dropped in fact.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 18th Mar, '10, 16:21

Which is not an answer to my question.

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 18th Mar, '10, 20:52

That's what I'm saying, which is what you asked. Is it not?

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 18th Mar, '10, 21:23

In 2000-3, did England play a 10-man game of rugby or a game where the threat of penalties in the opposition half forced the opposition into making mistakes that England could capitalise upon?

You've said above both. Which is why I'm asking you to clarify.

If you think it's hardly stuff of great drama to be able to create the space in order to score tries, then what do you want from the game?

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 19th Mar, '10, 07:10

Those have been England's tactics for ages. They have only worked on that one occasion, because of the fear of Wilkinson and a very effective pack at the time. And even then, the game was mostly bogged down in midfield as England kept it in the forwards and forced themselves forward an inch at a time. The few breaks lightened proceedings only temporarily.

Don't get me wrong. It worked on that occasion, and it must have been really nice for England fans to see their wingers being used... But it was hardly rivetting.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 19th Mar, '10, 07:21

Hmmm...disagree with your thoughts there. So we'll leave it at that.

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 19th Mar, '10, 07:42

If I was English I would perhaps view the idea differently too. I'd love to see Ireland win a world cup. No matter how dull their rugby, it would be beautiful to me.

Ireland will never have the strength in depth to win a world cup though. Just the way it is.

expat yorkshire · Post by **expat yorkshire** » 19th Mar, '10, 09:48

Burbage wrote:Those have been England's tactics for ages. They have only worked on that one occasion .

We have got to 3 world cup finals Burb

We would have won the final in 1991 if we had stayed with those tactics rather than switching to "open Rugby" at the last minute

Burbage · Post by **Burbage** » 19th Mar, '10, 12:31

True. But then pre the professional era the only sides who really competed in world cups were Australia, New Zealand and England. France occasionally. Not much has changed, France have become better and South Africa joined post Apartheid. Australia have declined a bit since then in relative terms.

expat yorkshire · Post by **expat yorkshire** » 19th Mar, '10, 15:39

I believe Wales came third in the 1987 World Cup

The Singapore Forum

6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations