England v France,23/02/13

[dullonien]

The problem with this years tournament has been the form of some sides. France have turned up for about 10min in total, Wales didn't realise the 6 nations had started until 40min in, Ireland have only put together 40min of good rugby at the start and Italy were good in the first game and have been poor since. Only Scotland and England have put in consistent performances so far.

The 6 nations is all but over as a contest now, because England's is too far ahead on points difference. They don't look unbeatable though, and I can see Wales beating them on the last weekend, but England will still claim the ***le, and deservedly so. It's just left me a little flat I suppose.

 

[Largejanner]

Are you sure it's not just that the likes of England and France are just nowhere near as dominant as they used to be? That includes the World cup by the way.

The Celts have well and truly caught up and you're finding it difficult to handle, i get that. Here's a Hankie, to clean up the cream you clearly still have over yourself from 2003.

I won`t speak for the French, but you Celts have`nt caught up with England because if you had you would have carried on where England left off in winning a world cup and beating all and sundry in 2003. The over riding factor in Wales three grand slams in recent years is that England have been intrinsically sh*te for ten years.
A grand slam in an annual NH tournament is not even 50% of the way toward being a truly world class side, the Welsh tour of Oz last year certainly proved that.

 

[dullonien]

I won`t speak for the French, but you Celts have`nt caught up with England because if you had you would have carried on where England left off in winning a world cup and beating all and sundry in 2003. The over riding factor in Wales three grand slams in recent years is that England have been intrinsically sh*te for ten years.
A grand slam in an annual NH tournament is not even 50% of the way toward being a truly world class side, the Welsh tour of Oz last year certainly proved that.

:zzz:

 

[Jbobo]

I won`t speak for the French, but you Celts have`nt caught up with England because if you had you would have carried on where England left off in winning a world cup and beating all and sundry in 2003. The over riding factor in Wales three grand slams in recent years is that England have been intrinsically sh*te for ten years.
A grand slam in an annual NH tournament is not even 50% of the way toward being a truly world class side, the Welsh tour of Oz last year certainly proved that.

I wrote a reply to your argument, but then realised you were talking nonsense and decided pose you this question instead: Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you'd had enough oxygen at birth?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Celts have`nt caught up with England [...] Wales three grand slams in recent years [...] England have been intrinsically sh*te for ten years.

Erm...?

 

[Largejanner]

You Welsh chaps are totally delusional are`nt you?
The situation is best summed up like this, in the professional era history shows that England, when it gets its act together can be world class.
When Wales is at it`s best, as was the case last year it did`nt reach the heights required to be considered as world class.
Beating England and France in the 6N`s is not enough fella`s!

 

[dullonien]

You Welsh chaps are totally delusional are`nt you?
The situation is best summed up like this, in the professional era history shows that England, when it gets its act together can be world class.
When Wales is at it`s best, as was the case last year it did`nt reach the heights required to be considered as world class.
Beating England and France in the 6N`s is not enough fella`s!

Who are you arguing with? Where has anyone suggested Wales were world class last year? All you are doing is trying to wind people up, and it's bloody obvious, so jog on.......

 

[Largejanner]

Erm...?

Not you as well?
England slipped rather than Wales and Ireland caught up.

 

[Conal]

Not you as well?
England slipped rather than Wales and Ireland caught up.

yes as of course any results going against england in the northern hemisphere is down to england under-preforming,
no matter of the time scale.

the competition is far closer nowadays just a fact, yes each year certain teams over and under preform and it even varies from game to game .

but you cannot just say that for just under a decade england have under-preformed, maybe your expectations are just high, but taking a high-water mark (2003) just doesn't work as a a measure. e.g. should canada be considered under-preforming as they haven't reached another world cup 1/4final?

if your going to be a wum at least be smart about it

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

You Welsh chaps are totally delusional are`nt you?
The situation is best summed up like this, in the professional era history shows that England, when it gets its act together can be world class.
When Wales is at it`s best, as was the case last year it did`nt reach the heights required to be considered as world class.
Beating England and France in the 6N`s is not enough fella`s!

Good lord.
Then how about the period of 2004-2011 where Ireland won 7 out of 8 matches?

 

[j'nuh]

You Welsh chaps are totally delusional are`nt you?
The situation is best summed up like this, in the professional era history shows that England, when it gets its act together can be world class.
When Wales is at it`s best, as was the case last year it did`nt reach the heights required to be considered as world class.
Beating England and France in the 6N`s is not enough fella`s!

England have been world class for about 2-3 years of the professional era and have been crap for a much longer time. Hardly compelling.

Especially when it happened 10 years ago and Wales have been "closer to world class" on many more separate occasions since. For Wales - 2005, 2008 and 2011 grand slams. Unlucky not to make the 2011 world cup final. England lucked their way to the 2007 final, no way were we one of the better teams of that tournament. 2012-13 is the first time England have had anything to shout about in the last ten years, and we're not even close to world-class.

 

[nosevi]

And yet anyone who doesn't see potential in England is clearly not looking very hard or has already made up their minds about England. Yoe, you keep saying things like "and England are just England...." What, you mean pitching up, working out how to beat an opponent and executing that game plan successfully? Yes, that's right - Successfully. It sounds so much like sour grapes on the back of your guys form and loosing 3 on the bounce. In this thread and the last you've said some not totally negative things about England, but it always comes over as grudging, while you then say they're flat, unimaginative, slow, unathletic, have worse players than the other teams, as well as many other comments. Get over it. England are doing what they need to do to win. If that's boring you I think I care about as much as the England team would. If you're bored by it, fine. Stop watching, no one's forcing you to.

The history lesson everyone is providing is all very interesting but the truth is we are all where we are. England have definitely moved forwards over the autumn and the start of this 6 Nations. If that's upsetting some some other fans, you know what, I think I can live with that. The truth is the other teams are not so far behind but so far in the tournament they've just been a little behind which has proved enough. Roll on Italy, think that'll be a feisty encounter.

 

[Triniquint]

We playing Scotland again, then? Perhaps you mean Italy, eh?
I think that since the game became professional, and adopted a lot of RL tactics, it was a great leveller. As was once said, it all boils down to 15 men versus 15 men on a football field. Individually, in each position, they are all much of a muchness. All similar in height, weight, speed, strength, and so on. The work is to create the positive synergy required to make the whole (the team) greater than the sum of its parts. This takes time, patience, and a culture - such as NZ have. Stuart Lancaster is achieving this, quietly and without trumpeting fanfare. Such that even the much vaunted ABs got beat at their own game. Weather also plays a great part in all of this - and I have found this 6N no real different to any other, to be honest. France languishing at the bottom of the table isn't surprising given their own glorified ideas of their "champagne rugby" that they seem to think is unique to only them. They also have been indifferent and argumentative, as a team, and appear to rank individuality above the team. Had any other team such as France, Wales, Scotland, or Ireland won the RWC, they'd be understandably cock a hoop, and forever replaying it. England's fond memories at having done so in 2003 is no different.

 

[Peat]

First off, commiserations to the French.

Secondly, I kinda agree with Yoe91's point. This England team does not have beautiful attacking flair, or razor sharp try-scoring instincts. It works on morale, team ethic, ferocious defence and piling pressure on opponents - now combined with some excellent rucking which can create so much fast ball we're bound to score. Unfortunately, when pressure doesn't work, or our rucking is nullified, we look a little lost. Care I think was simply the recipient of the better ball in that game. Fortunately, we have the composure to ride those bad moments and find the way back to our good points. But yeah, we are plenty beatable, I'm just not certain anyone in this tournament is currently organised to do it. He's right that we lack athletes too, by and large, outside of our front five and scrum-half.

The bad news for everyone else is that now that Lancaster's established a system and a culture, he will be seeking to graft on the players with the extra attacking x to make the real deal. We're a work in progress and so far the progress is satisfactory. God knows how nasty we'll be if he can graft those superior talents on - and in a lot of cases, I'm not wishlisting "Oh I'd like a so-and-so", but thinking about guys like Freddie Burns or May or Croft who are around the squad and it's just about fitness and the right time.

 

[Tony Manx]

I hope against Scotland and Wales we see 36 starting in the 12 jersey with Tulagi at 13.

I think it has been very interesting and, yes, entertaining 6N but then I am probably much older than most of you young guys.........

I do not believe that 36 and Manu will be as feasome a combination or will they be seen together unless Barritt is injured as Barritt is the brains and co-ordinator in the backs...I wondered what Barritt did to deserve his place but have come to see him as one of the most imprtant people on the park - and that is not just my view but one also shared by many commentators and better placed people than me..

 

[jaunard06]

I was almost satisfied of the result as I was expecting a real thrashing...I overestimated that english team a lot based on their fair display on the previous matches and their ability to reign on the rucks as never before, even in front of Ireland.
In the end it looks like both teams were a little bit overexcited and the handling errors and more globally poor attacking abilities ended up in a very average match.

Fofana's try is awesome but remains an individual piece of art, not a constructed plan. In the end France did not progress since Lievremont eras as I anticipated and we're going straight to our first wooden spoon since a long time.

Of course there's that ruck offence just before Tuilagi's try build-up, that try should'nt have ever occured, but anyways France didn't raise enough its level of play to deserve a victory. England on the other side could well cruise to the GS and that new generation of players seems to be very promising !

My only regret is that PSA did not put in place that team since the beginning of the 6N as everybody was expecting. We may have got at least one victory.

 

[nosevi]

Peat, although reading through your posts I often agree with you, not sure I totally do on this one. England haven't just had one game. Oddly they've played in a way pretty much mirroring their opposition in each of the last 4 matches - they've just somehow managed to beat what's put in front of them each time. Do you really think they played the same game against the ABs as they did, or even tried to do, against Ireland? Or were as frantic (guess that's the right word) against Scotland as they were against France? No they aren't the finished article - far from it, but they are moving forwards, they are far from just being England, or however Yoe wants to put it.

Regarding athletes (or I guess you mean kind of stars - all these guys are athletes these days) I'm not sure that's the only way forward. I'm not harking back to 2003 saying they're that good, but it makes an interesting comparison. Where I personally think we're a tad behind that particular 'high point' is really in the back 3 but that's about it. The guys we've got are far from 'weak links' in the chain, but I'm not sure they have the all round game that combines defence AND attack that the likes of Ben Cohen (in his day) Jason Robinson and Josh Lewsey had. I think the forwards are pretty good now (when they play in their correct positions - Lawes is a far better lock than flanker). In the back row I'd like to see Tom Croft back in the fray as his work rate is awsome (and he really is an athlete) but I think we've got a fairly useful open side at the moment. Oposition teams seem to be rating Ben Morgan pretty highly - they're not tackling him too successfully anyway. The scrum halves aren't bad and can completely hold their own, seen some good brakes, not bad delivery at times and invariably taking out the opposing 8 if he picks up. We've got a few decent 10s, debatable if the best is on the park but he's not half bad and his hits in defence are a bonus. Centres, no we haven't quite found a 'Greenwood' with the rugby brain to put those outside him in space but in Manu you frankly don't need to. Did anyone else notice him blast through Bastareaud on more than one occasion. If you're looking for an 'athlete' look no further. As a team they're pretty good but as individuals they're not too shabby either.

I think the only place that England differ from some other teams is that they build based on a strong defence and move on from there, they're also out thinking the opposition. Barritt is a strong part of that ideal. It's not a bad way of building a rugby team, it seems to be working so far anyway.

My only regret is that PSA did not put in place that team since the beginning of the 6N as everybody was expecting. We may have got at least one victory.

And then, when he did and it looked like coming together, he took it off again. I'm no rugby Guru but he had me completely baffled tbh.

The difference is that you can lose to a team because they were better while not being utterly shite yourself or lose because you are utterly shite. I think, and this is a generalisation of course, that English rugby fans spent too much of the period when we were being spanked by all comers bemoaning coaching, form etc without admitting that other teams were simply better than us.

m.....myth ?!
:roflrol:

Oh yes yes, so the French are inconsistent and unpredictable, the Celts are hot-blooded, bu the English are just ordinary people with no particular trait besides their obvious qualities. Right, mm hmm. Their arrogance is but a myth, mmmmyes...
:lol: get ouuuuuuuutta here !!!

Yup. We're not arrogant we're just better than you

 

[Patchey]

I can understand that but Lancaster and Co do not seem to think so......



I am not knocking Brown as a 15....I think he has been excellent for Quins although not really translated that into the English 15?

However, just as Michalak and Fofana have shown, when you play people out of their positions, they tend not to be the same player!

Unfortunately, Lancaster sees Brown as the only alternative for the wing because he is a good defensive full back and can make dazzling runs from there and Lancaster can not see anyone combining those qualities? Personally, I would prefer to play him at 15 instead of Goode but who would Lancaster deem capable to fill the gap with at wing..........

Exactly. I'm not saying Brown is a better winger than Full-Back but if, for example, Wade was played in his place on the wing we would be a lot weaker defensively at the back, despite having more go forward. If I'm honest I'd much rather see Ashton dropped from the wing berth than Brown, Sharples is in better form and have been better when he has got in an England shirt over the last year.


On the point of the 6N V the World Cup, while the World Cup may sometimes have better rugby and gives us all the chance to watch the Northern and Southern hemisphere nations at the same time the passion of the Six Nations makes it much more exciting in my opinion.

 

[Largejanner]

Then how about the period of 2004-2011 where Ireland won 7 out of 8 matches?

Yes, a period when England were broadly speaking crap.
As I`ve said before beating a **** poor England is all well and good, but it`s not enough if you want to considered a 1st tier rugby nation.

 

[Patchey]

England weren't just beaten, we were repeatedly out performed between 2004-2011. The occasional 'blips' such as the 2007 World Cup or the Autumn Internationals in 2010 weren't fluke performances per se but showed that England were not in fact '**** poor' and had the potential to win against top quality international oppo. And yet this never consistently occurred because of A) Bad team selection/coaching, B) Some unfortunately injuries to key players and C) Ireland, Wales and France were consistently better than us over that period, hence no Grand Slam, winds over Ireland etc. I'm not saying that the England teams of 2004-2011 were as good as the vintage' of 2003 but we certainly weren't poor.

The whole English arrogance myth comes largely from failing to admit that we lost because teams were better than us rather than we were worse than them. There is a difference.