Australia V England

[Juggernaut]

Seriously though, England need to play that dreaded ugly 10-men rugby to win. Attack the Aussie scrums and put pressure on Gregan. ****le them all day and keep it tight. Play a territorial game and let Jonny do his magic.
[/b]

Dear Mr.Ashton, Mr. Andrew & to all RFU officials,

I take this time to thank you for reading my posts here at the TRF. I dont mean to boast but it pleases me to see my game-plan being put into action.

Now if you're still reading this, dont use the same M.O against the Froggies. They have a very good counter-kicker in Traille & Beauxis. What you need to do is target their scrawny half-back and apply as much pressure as you can on him...he'll fold like a pack of cards. Also this would be a good time to bring Grewcock back into the squad and partner him with Borthwick in the second-row. You'll need all the thugs you have to counter the sly testicle-grabbing, eye-gouging Froggies. Put Mike Catt at 10 and shift Wilkinson to 12, it's for Wilko's own safety. I know Jason Robinson has been tremendous from fullback but I feel that against the French, you need him on the wing and shift Lewsey to fullback (threaten to cut off his balls if he drops any high-balls or misses a tackle).

Keep Dallaglio & Flood on the bench. Bring them on in the last 20 mins to rub more salt in the frog-soup.

Failing this will result in a French win by 15 points.

Cheers and Good Luck.



Your Friendly Islander,

Juggernaut



P.S: Do come around the Islands for a test or two in the next 4 years..it will greatly help. cheers cuz.

 

[melon]

Hey Juggernaut, you better watch out when you end a letter to the English with "Cuz", particularly to any of the RFU officials. They'll throw their bikkies and spit their tea at you. It may wreck their tea party though so you can never be 100% sure. :sex011:

 

[Juggernaut]

eh...OK!!!! :huh:

 

[melon]

They may even point their finger at you and call you an "unruly chap".

 

[Wally]

Loved watching every minute of that game! Twice now the Aussies haven't beaten us in a World Cup [/b]

Three times, actually.

 

[DireAustralia]

Despite England's win, I don't think they stood any real chance. Never exactly looked threatening. Nonetheless Australia failed to beat them still.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Despite England's win, I don't think they stood any real chance. [/b]

You don't think England stood a chance after they've won? How does that work? :huh:



They clearly stood a very real chance as it turns out. Unexpected mabye, but there you go.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

Is this any good? Can't work out if it's good or just lame :

 

[Brodizzle]

Is this any good? Can't work out if it's good or just lame :

[/b]

Why is it upside down?

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

<div class='quotemain'>
Is this any good? Can't work out if it's good or just lame :

[/b]

Why is it upside down? [/b][/quote]

'cause it applies specifically to a land down under.

 

[melon]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
Is this any good? Can't work out if it's good or just lame :

[/b]

Why is it upside down? [/b][/quote]

'cause it applies specifically to a land down under.
[/b][/quote]
Yes, a land down under, not a land upside down.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
Is this any good? Can't work out if it's good or just lame :

[/b]

Why is it upside down? [/b][/quote]

'cause it applies specifically to a land down under.
[/b][/quote]
Yes, a land down under, not a land upside down.
[/b][/quote]

You are upside down to me though....also the weekend's games turned the form book on it's head!

 

[melon]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
Is this any good? Can't work out if it's good or just lame :

[/b]

Why is it upside down? [/b][/quote]

'cause it applies specifically to a land down under.
[/b][/quote]
Yes, a land down under, not a land upside down.
[/b][/quote]

You are upside down to me though....also the weekend's games turned the form book on it's head!
[/b][/quote]

 

[TheBokke]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
Is this any good? Can't work out if it's good or just lame :

[/b]

Why is it upside down? [/b][/quote]

'cause it applies specifically to a land down under.
[/b][/quote]
Yes, a land down under, not a land upside down.
[/b][/quote]

You are upside down to me though....also the weekend's games turned the form book on it's head!
[/b][/quote]



:lol2tn: :lol2tn: :lol2tn:

 

[Rusty]

Great game, great entertainment and proof that you don't need a try-fest

Cheers!
[/b]

You're kidding aren't you!! It's comments like that that explain why Southern Hemishpere people hate watching Northern Hemisphere teams play rugby. This game was ****. It was dull, boring and uneventfull. The only time the game came to life was when the Wallabies kept ball in hand and tried to run it, which England did all of 7 times in the whole match. England may well win this world cup, but if they do I put it to you they go QF, SF and F without scroting a try.

This game was a reverse repeat of the 91 final. Australia tried to beat England at their own game and couldn't. They should have commited more to the breakdown, kept ball in hand and built pressure. Instead they kicked it away when they had momentum and numbers and tried to run it when they didn't. Basically, Aust were slightly more rubish than England, and if we, like England, were a one man team and had a decent kicker then we may well have won by 5 or 7.

A nill all draw would have been a fitting result for this game, which in Australia was a great advertisment for Rugby League.

PS;
Q: What's the difference between he English football team and English rugby team??
A: The English rugby team can win a penalty shootout!

 

[stormmaster1]

<div class='quotemain'>

Great game, great entertainment and proof that you don't need a try-fest

Cheers!
[/b]

You're kidding aren't you!! It's comments like that that explain why Southern Hemishpere people hate watching Northern Hemisphere teams play rugby. This game was ****. It was dull, boring and uneventfull. The only time the game came to life was when the Wallabies kept ball in hand and tried to run it, which England did all of 7 times in the whole match. England may well win this world cup, but if they do I put it to you they go QF, SF and F without scroting a try.

This game was a reverse repeat of the 91 final. Australia tried to beat England at their own game and couldn't. They should have commited more to the breakdown, kept ball in hand and built pressure. Instead they kicked it away when they had momentum and numbers and tried to run it when they didn't. Basically, Aust were slightly more rubish than England, and if we, like England, were a one man team and had a decent kicker then we may well have won by 5 or 7.

A nill all draw would have been a fitting result for this game, which in Australia was a great advertisment for Rugby League.

PS;
Q: What's the difference between he English football team and English rugby team??
A: The English rugby team can win a penalty shootout!
[/b][/quote]



Which team had the most try scoring opportunities on saturday? I'll give you a clue, they were wearing white. So the Aussies pulled down mauls before they got over the line, so Mike Catt knocked on with the line beckoning, so what? We didn't score a try but the opportunities were there. In the second half we didn't play too open. Why would you when the pack is so dominant and clearly going to win the match? Clearly you have no appreciation of many aspects of the game to call the game boring. If you don't enjoy watching players destroy each other physically maybe you're watching the wrong game.

 

[Brodizzle]

Which team had the most try scoring opportunities on saturday? I'll give you a clue, they were wearing white. So the Aussies pulled down mauls before they got over the line, so Mike Catt knocked on with the line beckoning, so what? We didn't score a try but the opportunities were there. In the second half we didn't play too open. Why would you when the pack is so dominant and clearly going to win the match? Clearly you have no appreciation of many aspects of the game to call the game boring. If you don't enjoy watching players destroy each other physically maybe you're watching the wrong game.
[/b]

Nah mate, that's why they invented league, Union is about the running game....

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

Which team had the most try scoring opportunities on saturday? I'll give you a clue, they were wearing white. So the Aussies pulled down mauls before they got over the line, so Mike Catt knocked on with the line beckoning, so what? We didn't score a try but the opportunities were there. In the second half we didn't play too open. Why would you when the pack is so dominant and clearly going to win the match? Clearly you have no appreciation of many aspects of the game to call the game boring. If you don't enjoy watching players destroy each other physically maybe you're watching the wrong game.

[/b]

The thing you are missing it that Australia are the only team who are allowed to play to their strengths...England must play quixotic suicide rugby or forfeit any credit whatsoever.

 

[Triniquint]

<div class='quotemain'>
Which team had the most try scoring opportunities on saturday? I'll give you a clue, they were wearing white. So the Aussies pulled down mauls before they got over the line, so Mike Catt knocked on with the line beckoning, so what? We didn't score a try but the opportunities were there. In the second half we didn't play too open. Why would you when the pack is so dominant and clearly going to win the match? Clearly you have no appreciation of many aspects of the game to call the game boring. If you don't enjoy watching players destroy each other physically maybe you're watching the wrong game.
[/b]

Nah mate, that's why they invented league, Union is about the running game.... [/b][/quote]



I think you've got that ass backwards buddy. One major difference between league and union IS the scrum. It is what Union is about, and (to me) offers greater tactics and stratagems. It's like the difference between draughts and chess. It's all very well having prancing backs, if they can't get the ball they are useless. It's also all very well having a dominant scrum that is not too happy about giving it to backs who may lose it. You play to your strengths, and the ideal is to have a dominant scrum AND dominant backs. However, to be honest, I watched the ABs play Canada a few months back, and they had both dominant backs and scrum, and the result was so predictable and boring with the ABs running tries in at will etc, and so one sided, I switched it off.



However, when one side has an advantage over the other side, it becomes far more interesting.



Of course, the same could be said of two well matched teams, both with good forwards and good backs. But if th is happens, and they cancel each other out, it can become the kicking game we all dread.



If you think league is more about scrumming than Union, then your'e in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Brodizzle]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
Which team had the most try scoring opportunities on saturday? I'll give you a clue, they were wearing white. So the Aussies pulled down mauls before they got over the line, so Mike Catt knocked on with the line beckoning, so what? We didn't score a try but the opportunities were there. In the second half we didn't play too open. Why would you when the pack is so dominant and clearly going to win the match? Clearly you have no appreciation of many aspects of the game to call the game boring. If you don't enjoy watching players destroy each other physically maybe you're watching the wrong game.
[/b]

Nah mate, that's why they invented league, Union is about the running game.... [/b][/quote]



I think you've got that ass backwards buddy. One major difference between league and union IS the scrum. It is what Union is about, and (to me) offers greater tactics and stratagems. It's like the difference between draughts and chess. It's all very well having prancing backs, if they can't get the ball they are useless. It's also all very well having a dominant scrum that is not too happy about giving it to backs who may lose it. You play to your strengths, and the ideal is to have a dominant scrum AND dominant backs. However, to be honest, I watched the ABs play Canada a few months back, and they had both dominant backs and scrum, and the result was so predictable and boring with the ABs running tries in at will etc, and so one sided, I switched it off.



However, when one side has an advantage over the other side, it becomes far more interesting.



Of course, the same could be said of two well matched teams, both with good forwards and good backs. But if th is happens, and they cancel each other out, it can become the kicking game we all dread.



If you think league is more about scrumming than Union, then your'e in cloud cuckoo land.
[/b][/quote]
You didn't mention scrummaging once, I was referring more to the comment of rugby is where 'players destroy each other physically', which I assumed wasn't aimed towards scrumming in particular but more towards the pretty unattractive ten man rugby many nations seem to play...where much of the flair union is usually known for is noticably absent....my bad...

EDIT: I think I explained that terribly....