England vs USA

[pageski]

Match interressant, difficult pool with good equipes but England will have difficulties has to finish 2eme.

 

[RC]

A post typed up in Frenglish...first time i've seen that on this forum.

 

[An Tarbh]

I thought it was franglais not frenglish. :bleh!:

Certainly a worrying start for England and by the sounds of it we could get a pretty decent game, for the neutral that is, between Samoa and England, however an awful lot depends on the performance they put in today against the Springboks and what sort of level they're at.

 

[candybum]

i reckon if they smash every english player, every time they touch the ball, they'll have a v.good chance of beating them coz they scared! lol

 

[Bullitt]

I think there is far too much over excitemet in this thread, especially when people are harping on that "England won't qualify etc.

To put things back into perspective, a sub-standard England, using a pretty crap XV it has to be said, still won by a comfortable margin against the USA who made a good name for themselves, punching well above their weight.

Now, Samoa and Tonga will be much easier opposition then the USA were yesterday; Both sets of islanders won't have fitness levels anywere near England which will be a huge factor, the skill levels of the England squad is vastly superior to either of the men from the Pacific rim and while Samoa are widely accepted to be better then Tonga, the Samoans can barely beat a 2nd tier clubs reserves and youngsters (as the full match report here explains).

Not to take anything away from the USA for what was a guttsy performance, but Englamd will happily finish 2nd in the group and get to the Q-F, where they will be unseremoniously dumped out of the tournament by the Ouzzies. Again.

 

[llanelliscarlets]

i dont think its overexcitement by any stretch of the imagination. if every english fan is being totally honest they would have expected a result similar to that of the kiwis and the aussies. The fact is that englands set piece disintegrated. there breakdown work was lazy. and there was a lack of pace and creativity there. to put it into perspective they did look like a veterans team. Its not overeacting i think to say that this england side will find it extremely tough to qualify. you mention the crap xv surely that was englands best team apart from maybe wilkinson who could come in at 10. what other players could come in to make a difference???

 

[Bullitt]

******** was it, put Richards, Wilkinson, Hipkiss, Sackey, Freshwater & Easter in there, dropping Perry, Barkley, Noon. Vickery, Tait, Cueto and Horrible Italian c***.

Then you have to remember the best players who were left at home for some unforfivable reason; eg. Flood, Geherety, Clarke, Hartley, Tindall, ***terall, Haskell, Forrester, Barnard, Cipriani and Abamanamanamanamanamananon.

That was a **** England side selected first and formost by the ITV bosses and RFU bigwigs as "big names" which a casual fan may recodnise thus bring in the dolla-dolla, not a team selected from the best availible talent thoughout the country.

 

[llanelliscarlets]

yeah seems strange that guys like cipriani werent given more time in the warm ups to press a claim. England do have some talent there, but unfortunately this current crop are gunna find most games hard i think.

 

[Fa'atau82]

I think Samoa and Tonga will improve on recent outings against England. England are unpredictable and could well be a different team vs SA.

Personally, i think Samoa have nothing to lose, they know their weaknesses, and the best they can hope for is like the last RWC where they took the game to England but ultimately couldn't hold out.

This time, they have that experience and will try to not let it happen again.

The warm-up games are purely for that purpose. You can't read into that Teh Mite, as could you really say that it actually meant anything..? it was to see how players coped and weed out the weaknesses as much as possible.

If Samoa have a flaw, it is that their fitness and overall squad cohesion lack against the heavyweights, plus the fact that they are arent known for impressive ball retention.

What they do have however is a very strong will to win, tough defence and an ability to break the line and run from deep. They don't really have a kicking game.

A poor England team should still beat a top Samoa team.. the question is, how much have Samoa gained on England since they last met, and have they gained the technical ability and nerve to get a lead and hold it?

If USA can hold England yesterday, Samoa can. Its just Samoa have that punch that the USA lacked and i think it will be a very interesting match-up. Both sides will get embarrassed, but personally, if Samoa get anything out of the game, they will all be heroes.



If you dismiss team because you think they are ****, then you end up eating humble pie occasionally. I think Samoa can get a draw.

 

[AllezWasps]

Weird thing is, whenever England look poor, and they come up against South Africa, we seem to win. Remember last Autumn the (basically 2nd string) England side who lost to Argentina suddenly turned it on against the Boks.

I can see South Africa trying to play a fluent game, but England just playing the right way, and grabbing a win.

Samoa cannot play 80 minutes of international rugby.

 

[Fa'atau82]

No, you are right there.. they just play 60-70 minutes leading the eventual champions.

 

[Bullitt]

But still loose...

I know it's not fair to dismiss at team and it's a world cup year so anything can happen blah-blah-blah, but when you face the facts it will take a monumental performance from either set of islanders while England severly underperform to see an upset in either fixture. It's not wishful thinking, there is just that much of a gulf between the nations.

 

[Triniquint]

But still loose...

I know it's not fair to dismiss at team and it's a world cup year so anything can happen blah-blah-blah, but when you face the facts it will take a monumental performance from either set of islanders while England severly underperform to see an upset in either fixture. It's not wishful thinking, there is just that much of a gulf between the nations. [/b]

I hope you're right, Teh Mite. Like I said in an earlier thread, I watch England's matches with hope, and keep giving them the benefit of the doubt. This ran out whilst watching that match against the USA, and I was gutted. Each time I saw Worsley, he ran two paces and dropped to the floor. They seemed to fanny about with the ball, and it was slow, slow, slow coming out, and as they fannied about the Eagles were smashing them off it. And when it did come out, they fumbled it like nervous girls as if they didn't know what to do with it! I honestly couldn't believe my eyes. In truth, I still don't especially rate the Boks. Yes, they have Habana; yes they are meant to have rampaging forwards, and a solid pack etc - but somehow they don't - for me - carry the danger the Aussies, ABs, Pumas, or Ireland have. However, unless England start to perform to their capabilities, they look at this stage in big trouble. It may well be, though, that the all the NH teams are going to perform like this given France's loss to Argentina, Italy's battering off the All Blacks, and England's ineptitude against USA. The Aussies cricket score against Japan doesn't bode well either - so I sincerely hope you're right.



It'll be interesting to see how Scotland does against Portugal, and Ireland against Namibia, and Wales v Canada today. These too ought to be cricket scores. I wonder what the reaction will be if they're not?

Canada may be a surprise. That's the good thing about this tourney so far. It's uncertain.

 

[O'Rothlain]

In that case, don't use stupid arguements to defend what was a deliberate attempt to end another mans career. [/b]

Seriously...I can watch that tackle over and over again and it does not look deliberate. If you've ever played Rugby you'd realize that sometimes things just go that way. It's body mechanics. Seriously, watch it in replay and notice that he does not follow through with the true spear tackle. He releases him once he goes upside-down. If it was purposeful he would have completed it and slammed him on his neck.

In that case, don't go back editing previous posts to make yourself not look like a scumshite.

And by the way, since when have you supported the Eagles? Last time I checked, you thought you were Irish. [/b]

Ah, c'mon Mite...we all "support" the Eagles, is just hard sometimes to take it seriously when you play your own club Rugby against these guys or with them. So, yes, we support them, but sa lot of us have set down and had a pint with these guys and talked about the brilliance of Brian O'Driscoll and watched the 6 Nations with them. Those are our friends out there (save the few guys that play over in the UK or wherever) and it makes us proud to see them do so well. BUT, yeah, we all support Ireland or whoever. Several of those guys are imports that qualify, but if you still break it down are going to support the All Blacks or Somoa until it is they pull on that red white and blue shirt and become the Eagles that gave the "Reigning World Cup Champions" a beating and a wake up.

ps. I'm glad we took the **** out of Dallagliolio...he is a horrible ____.

 

[Prestwick]

Mate, that was a spear tackle. They've been banned as a dangerous tackle for over two years now. There are no excuses for a spear tackle....unless you're an All Black in which case its perfectly fine and to cite an All Black for a spear tackle is to offend the Maori culture.

Anyway, what that American did was very very very naughty and was just plain wrong. It spoiled what was an excellent game for the yanks.

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotemain'> In that case, don't use stupid arguements to defend what was a deliberate attempt to end another mans career. [/b]

Seriously...I can watch that tackle over and over again and it does not look deliberate. If you've ever played Rugby you'd realize that sometimes things just go that way. It's body mechanics. Seriously, watch it in replay and notice that he does not follow through with the true spear tackle. He releases him once he goes upside-down. If it was purposeful he would have completed it and slammed him on his neck. [/b][/quote]

I have played and I have had neck badly injured while playing because of dirty ******* tatics like that which eventually forced me to give up, so don't give me this BS that "sometimes things just go that way". Emerick knew exactly what he was doing, and using Vickery's trip as an excuse to defend tatics like that is both unacceptable and insulting.

 

[RC]

I'm of the opinion that it didn't look intentional.
It was a clumsy tackle, but i didn't get the impression that when he picked him up he had nothing on his mind but to dump Barkley on his head. I got the feeling he just really wanted to dump him...hard. But he lost control of the man and that was entirely his fault.
He should face punishment for it, but i can't say it looked intentional.

 

[klinthicum]

Kaplan and his touchjudges saw the game through one eye.

Emerick was the victim of two dangerous tackles(not called);

The first by Jason Robinson earlier in the match where he grabbed Emerick by the collar then tripped him with his leg.

The second, Vickery's pathaetic trip.

At least Emerick's dangerous tackle resembled a rugby tackle.

I hate to say it but International Rugby is beginning to look like the NBA, with referees making calls based on the player's status.
Two internationalists from the defending world cup champions got away with blatant penalties, while an american is sin binned for a tackle that two Kiwis got away with on the same day.

 

[Substitute]

Asides from missing the Vickery trip you can't really allege there had been any bias. If it had been a US guy who made the trip they'd have got away from it too because Kaplan was too far away from the game and it was tough to spot (raises the question as to the job of touch judges). He will now be duly cited so you can have no complaints there.

The Emerick tackle on the other hand was hideous. Originally I thought it was just the angle of Barkley's run. But watching the video, Emerick lifted the shoulder away from the player before the one nearer. This only produces the spear effect and is naive if not deliberate. Worse bit is though that the IRB state if someone is illegally sper tackled they must be retuned to ground safely. Whenever would that constitute dropping them on their head. At the end of the day both Vickery and Emerick should face the repurcussions of their actions.

As for the Kiwis at times they must wear invisibility cloaks. I'd like to say they've developed the experience to only do such things when the ref can't see, but they do it when the ref can see it, and get away scot-free. Bizaare.

 

[ozzy]

Amusing how many poms slip in a bit of kiwi bashing in a USA vs England thread. Why bother it's not like you'll get far enough in this competition to worry about your poor little roses ever playing those big bad ABs and their nasty mean tackles that your sweet innocent english roses have never and would never dream of doing.

Wake up guys foul play is not the sole province of the team you feel most threatened by and the English have dished out their fair share of dirty play over the years so quit whinging about it and focus on something more relevant like how poor England has looked in it's past couple of matches and what the heck they can do to gain some credibility.

They've been pretty disgraceful as World Champions and hopefully a more worthy and consistent team will attain that ***le this year.