Ireland v England, 10/02/13

[smartcooky]

Comments such as ..... Are only designed to **** people off. Go play that pretentious horse-burger attitude on someone else.

No, they are not designed to do anything...

They were made because THEY WERE MY THOUGHTS ON THE MATCH!!

They were MY opinions

And yes I made the same comments on an number of other forums.... YOU are the only one who replied with such invective...

That says more about you than it does about me!!

 

[Teh Mite]

No, they are not designed to do anything...

They were made because THEY WERE MY THOUGHTS ON THE MATCH!!

They were MY opinions

And yes I made the same comments on an number of other forums.... YOU are the only one who replied with such invective...

That says more about you than it does about me!!

Okay, let's look at it another way...
- Why was it "Dire?
- Why was is "Boring"?
- Why was it just like England v Scotland from 10 years ago" (Which was England 40-9 Scotland FYI, with Trys from Cohen, Lewsey and a brace from Robinson).

Making dismissive and factually inaccurate all-sweeping comments is neither big nor clever.

Then arguing a rebuttal with "says more about you then it does I" has about as much debate value as a 12 year old saying "I know you are, but what am I".

2/10 for trolling. Must troll harder.

 

[Conal]

Lads all of this talking about whether Ireland's problem is they're not creative enough or not skillful enough, whether it was Sexton's injury or Heaslip's window licking, is all besides the point. It's like arguing whether a chick with a dick has a cute face or not. Who cares? She's got a dick.

And Ireland have an absence of self-belief, an absence of discipline. They are are not on the same page, they do not believe in the game plan, I'd question whether they believe in their team mates. When England were about to get reeled in and Hask went off at 6-6 - when England squandered a giant lead to let the All Blacks back in - they drew upon a collective strength and belief that allowed them to put their mistakes behind them and put themselves back on top. Ireland have no such thing. There's no doubting their talent and individual hunger; if an opponent shows weakness, the Irish will pour into them with manical energy and destroy them. But against teams like England, like New Zealand in the summer, Wales in the quarter final, teams who have the resilience to weather this and patiently build chances, they are going to come off second best 9 times out of 10. Because Ireland will all too frequently implode. The top four inches just is not there.

The dick in all this is Kidney. He is not capable of good tactical advice, he's not capable of setting out an environment where everyone can flourish. I believe he is presiding over a rotten team culture. He has to go. However, chopping off the dick accomplishes nothing if you leave behind balls and an adam's apple, and I am inclined to believe the theories and stories that the IRFU are tying his hands. What use someone like Conor O'Shea if he doesn't have a full hand, or the money to hire coaching staff as needed?

this!

 

[nickdnz]

Okay, let's look at it another way...
- Why was it "Dire?
- Why was is "Boring"?
- Why was it just like England v Scotland from 10 years ago" (Which was England 40-9 Scotland FYI, with Trys from Cohen, Lewsey and a brace from Robinson).

Making dismissive and factually inaccurate all-sweeping comments is neither big nor clever.

Then arguing a rebuttal with "says more about you then it does I" has about as much debate value as a 12 year old saying "I know you are, but what am I".

2/10 for trolling. Must troll harder.

But it was boring for a neutral...

I stayed up and watched it - and I'd have rather got teeth pulled at a dentist. I'm sure for someone who is emotionally invested in the match, you would find it exciting and interesting. For someone who wasn't emotionally invested - it consisted of:

1). No tries.
2). Pointless box kicking.
3). No running into space.
4). Long pauses between penalties and injuries

You keep ripping into Super Rugby, I suspect secretly out of jelously, but there are plenty of boring matches in that as well. If you look at the results of the last SR competition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Super_Rugby_season#Round_1 you can see that there were plenty of close matches with low scores. You're opperating off a generalization which has long since been outdated. This match was boring. It was tedious. There was no vision or creativity from either team - no real display of skill or flair. No endevor to take any form of risk. It was what it was. All Blacks v Australia 2012 the second test was also fairly boring. Better than that mind you, but probably not that enjoyable from a neautral perspective.

And to be honest - I think these kind of results are actually going to hold England back in the long run. Being happy to show no endevour and win by six points is fine against Ireland, but the talk of England trying to recreate the 2003 form isn't new news. It happened from 2003-2011 - and England sucked. The first time they showed any kind of running game and ambition was against NZ last year, which was the first time they managed to beat them in almost a decade. If England played today against NZ or South Africa, with the same attitude in the same conditions, I'd be suprised to see them finish with 25 points, particularly with the pointless kicks to the back three.

 

[Zed]

Was going to get up for this but decided I'd MySky it and watched the delayed version.

What a great decision that was!

This was a truly awful match to watch for the neutral... dire, boring, just like and England v Scotland game from about 10 years ago. Two teams trying not to lose. What the hell happened to that England team that dismantled the AB's in November?

There is 80 minutes of my life I want back!!

I get what you're saying, it wasn't the best quality rugby game out there, lots of mistakes and very 10 man rugby. But to be fair, this game could almost be viewed as a 6N final, so there was a lot of pressure on both sides and with the horrendous weather, it was always going to be this type of game.I think by itself, the game was boring for a neutral, but the fact that so much was riding on this game for both sides, for me, made it an interesting game. They were both so desperate to win, exemplified by BODs insistence on staying on the pitch when he could barely walk!

 

[McTallshort]

What did everyone expect in those conditions barbarian rugby?

If Im honest it may have been boring to the neutral but it was intense and nail biting for me like the 2003 win over New Zealand or the QF in 2007 against the aussies and the day coaches start worrying about what a neutral thinks is the day we should all pack this rugby lark in.

 

[Joseph14]

This forum is entertaining at times!

 

[lynam1104]

Calmed down and slept on it a bit. It wasn't really down to England being less **** then we were because they weren't and neither were we (in some aspects e.g the backline after ROG was on). The handling erros killed Ireland in the first half along with the 2 or 3 botched lineouts in the first half around the english 22. The maul was once again very good as was the srum in general the forwards wen well Heaslip didn't have the best game and in turn that can't have helped the decsion making, he will learn from it. ROG all that can be aid has been said on him, going to add I really believe that with Johnny on we would of scored tries ROG can't run a blackline anymore. Englandout smarted Ireland good kicking and tactics in general won the game for them. It seems that Ireland have nice expansive game now a absolutely no plan B.

Also I critiqued some of the newer english members early on in this thread which was unfair and it seems your not all that bad after all good luck in your hunt for the Grand Slam.

 

[Patchey]

But it was boring for a neutral...

I stayed up and watched it - and I'd have rather got teeth pulled at a dentist. I'm sure for someone who is emotionally invested in the match, you would find it exciting and interesting. For someone who wasn't emotionally invested - it consisted of:

1). No tries.
2). Pointless box kicking.
3). No running into space.
4). Long pauses between penalties and injuries

You keep ripping into Super Rugby, I suspect secretly out of jelously, but there are plenty of boring matches in that as well. If you look at the results of the last SR competition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Super_Rugby_season#Round_1 you can see that there were plenty of close matches with low scores. You're opperating off a generalization which has long since been outdated. This match was boring. It was tedious. There was no vision or creativity from either team - no real display of skill or flair. No endevor to take any form of risk. It was what it was. All Blacks v Australia 2012 the second test was also fairly boring. Better than that mind you, but probably not that enjoyable from a neautral perspective.

And to be honest - I think these kind of results are actually going to hold England back in the long run. Being happy to show no endevour and win by six points is fine against Ireland, but the talk of England trying to recreate the 2003 form isn't new news. It happened from 2003-2011 - and England sucked. The first time they showed any kind of running game and ambition was against NZ last year, which was the first time they managed to beat them in almost a decade. If England played today against NZ or South Africa, with the same attitude in the same conditions, I'd be suprised to see them finish with 25 points, particularly with the pointless kicks to the back three.

Had you substituted Ireland for New Zealand I think England may have had a different approach, it is a little niave to suggests that England would play two completely different teams with the same attitude.


Despite being a grind at times it was at least a tense, almost exciting match, for those of us with something invested in the game. Granted as a neutral it was probably a bit of a snooze fest, a bit like the final NZ/AUS test last year if I remember correctly. The most important aspect of this for England is the fact that we got a win in Dublin. For my money there isn't going to be a Slam this year and it is more important that the current set of players, young and inexperienced as they are, have shaken off the fear of playing Ireland at home.

Gutted about the Zebo and Sexton injuries from an unbiased standpoint, Sexton is an especially big loss as ROG may start against Scotland...

 

[Big Ewis]

Yoe, I still think you're ever so slightly underestimating the England squad. I don't think Stuart Lancaster is an idiot and Manu was on the bench. Given what he can do to a defensive line, or an attacking line for that matter, under the right circumstances, do you think he would have been out of the reckoning in the other squads? I doubt it to be honest. The thing is though, Rugby IS a team game and while individual brilliance is great that's not what it's all about. As the posters said " Winning is why we are here".

Ever seen the movie 'White men can't jump'. In one scene Woody Harrelson's character has a go at Wesley Snipes'. He basically says the problem with black guys is they'd prefer to loose and look good than win and look bad, or words to that effect. If you're saying you feel much the same you may be a little at odds with some of your countrymen in the French croud who don't always take loosing all that well.

And yes, I am teasing you.

sure I've seen that film. No I'm not saying it's all about the appearance and not about essence, OF COURSE it's about winning in the end. What fool thinks otherwise in sports and competition ?!...
But it reminds me of video game playing, especially fighting games (Mortal Kombat, Tekken...).
Yes, lemme give you the fighting video game analogy (!!):
Some guys really play the game the full way, have real skill, put crazy combos together. Others play it "safe", tactics, cerebral...they'll stick in a corner, guard up, and then land a sweep kick or smt similar the whole way, jump right before you do to kick you in the air, and then go way back in the corner of the screen to throw a projectile attack at you. Some endless loops work, and yes, you win. i.e. before the 60 seconds are over, his energy bar is empty while you still have a little remaining, by default that is called "winning".
Call it inglorious, call it what you want: I don't like it, I'm not saying England do JUST that, but it's similar. It's very tactical, cerebral, simple and pragmatic. "Ugly" rugby, some say, yes.

So at the end of the day, OF COURSE it's better to win than to lose, who the hell questions that ? nobody...but there is, as all things in life, a WAY to do things...and some seem a little less interesting than others, or less honest, or less whole...can't find the right adjective, but you obviously get the point at this stage.

You're confusing talent and flair.

No not really, but I see your point. Owen Farrell is very SKILLED, Dan Carter at the same position is/was TALENTED. A guy like Richie McCaw, I wouldn't call "talented". He's "skilled", in that he's got all the skills for a flanker, but it's all about strength and commitment. Nothing to do with "talent" like Dan Carter, Corey Jane and co...on that team.
I wouldn't call Ben Morgan "talented" for e.g. at the no.8. He carries ball efficiently coz he's huge and bulky and has all that girth, but there's no "talent" there. But he's still a good no.8, he does what he's supposed to.
Kearney, BOD, Gilroy, Zebo...etc..that's TALENT. And flair of course, it just so happens...

The England team don't have a lot of the TALENT other sides have in the 6N, but they certainly have good players who play their position well (esp. the forwards obviously), and play well as a team. It doesn't take any TALENT to play lock down excellent defense, or bulldoze your way into a ruck, it takes hard work, strength and enthusiasm/intensity.

 

[Teh Mite]

No not really, but I see your point. Owen Farrell is very SKILLED, Dan Carter at the same position is/was TALENTED. A guy like Richie McCaw, I wouldn't call "talented". He's "skilled", in that he's got all the skills for a flanker, but it's all about strength and commitment. Nothing to do with "talent" like Dan Carter, Corey Jane and co...on that team.
I wouldn't call Ben Morgan "talented" for e.g. at the no.8. He carries ball efficiently coz he's huge and bulky and has all that girth, but there's no "talent" there. But he's still a good no.8, he does what he's supposed to.
Kearney, BOD, Gilroy, Zebo...etc..that's TALENT. And flair of course, it just so happens...

The England team don't have a lot of the TALENT other sides have in the 6N, but they certainly have good players who play their position well (esp. the forwards obviously), and play well as a team. It doesn't take any TALENT to play lock down excellent defense, or bulldoze your way into a ruck, it takes hard work, strength and enthusiasm/intensity.

I understand the sentiment, however it's a load of ******** what you're saying.


[h=2]tal·ent[/h] <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf" width="17" height="15" id="speaker" align="texttop" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" allowscriptaccess="sameDomain" wmode="transparent" flashvars="soundUrl=http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/audio/luna/T00/T0031600.mp3"> [tal-uhnt] Show IPA
noun1.a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.

2.a capacity for achievement or success; ability: young men of talent.

3.a talented person: The cast includes many of the theater's major talents.

4.a group of persons with special ability: an exhibition of watercolors by the local talent.

5.Movies and Television . professional actors collectively, especially star performers





[h=2]skill[/h]1 ​ <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf" width="17" height="15" id="speaker" align="texttop" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" allowscriptaccess="sameDomain" wmode="transparent" flashvars="soundUrl=http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/audio/luna/S05/S0589300.mp3"> [skil] Show IPA
noun1.the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentrywas one of his many skills.

2.competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity: The dancers performed with skill.

3.a craft, trade, or job requiring manual dexterity or special training in which a person has competenceand experience: the skill of cabinetmaking.

 

[McTallshort]

"It doesn't take any TALENT to play lock down excellent defense, or bulldoze your way into a ruck,"

You seem to struggle at it....

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Had a flick through the match again last night (I wasn't going to watch it in full again) and really all I could come up with is that neither of these teams were/are capable of a grand slam, England may prove me wrong but I don't think they will. If either of those teams were winning teams they'd have gone out and punished the opposition for playing so badly, England won yesterday because they had a simpler and better game plan and they made less unforced errors. Both sides choked really and England stumbled over the line, it was two evenly matched sides playing badly.

Peat, although you had a brilliant analogy I disagree with you in the aspect that the players lack the top 4 inches, I think it has to be blamed on Kidney and the IRFU all of these players have tasted success with their provincial sides, except McCarthy, but when they play internationally they only play to about 80-85% of their ability apart from maybe once or twice a year when they really perform and could beat anyone, except the All Blacks, I think that if the IRFU gave the job to O'Shea, Schmidt or even Elwood and allowed them to pick their own backroom staff and gave them four years Ireland would at least get a championship.

Patchey, I agree with what you're saying, I think that we'll have quite a forgettable championship and either England or Wales will win. I think Wales will win their remaining three matches and England will win all theirs apart from Wales, the championship will come down to PD with both teams on 8 points. I predict that Ireland will lose to Scotland and France with France beating Scotland.

I think it will end like this:

1. England 8
2. Wales 8
3. France/Scotland/Ireland 4
4. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
5. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
6. Italy 2

Exciting times to be an England fan though, the team is getting used to winning, I just think this is a year or two too early for a slam.

Hopefully Deccie realises that his only chance of keeping his job now is to blood some new players and combinations, for one ROG should never be allowed near a green jersey again and he should try a few different back three combo's in the next three games, maybe it will lead to a bit of fight and success for the team. After yesterday the rest of Ireland's championship is a win win either Deccie goes or he has a change of heart and allows the players a bit more freedom and experiments with the team because a team with ROG in it won't win three matches in a row.

 

[smartcooky]

England v Scotland from 10 years ago" (Which was England 40-9 Scotland FYI, with Trys from Cohen, Lewsey and a brace from Robinson).

OK, so maybe it was seven years ago (18-12 all penalty kicks), or five years ago (15-9, all penalty kicks) or three years ago (15-15, all penalty kicks). Whose counting?

Making dismissive and factually inaccurate all-sweeping comments is neither big nor clever.

It wasn't "dismissive" or "sweeping" or "factually innaccurate"... is was my fecking OPINION, and last time I looked, we were free to express them here, unless there is some rule that I haven't heard about that you cannot express your opinion if the Almighty Teh Mite doesn't like it.

I found the match boring to watch because it seemed like I was forever waiting for something to happen, but it never did. I'm afraid that watching 80 minutes of two teams endlessly kicking the ball away, and endlessly playing battering rams, doesn't actually rock my boat.

There were 72 kicks from hand, about one every minute, although if you take account of the fact that the ball was only in play for 36 minutes, its one kick every 30 seconds.

There were half as many kicks as there were passes!!!!

There were only two clean breaks in the entire match, both by Ireland.

There were only two offloads (one each)

There were only 16 defenders beaten (Ire 13-3)

Compare that with the England v New Zealand match from last year, 47 kicks from hand in 49 minutes of actual playing time.... half the frequency of kicking; 17 clean breaks (Eng 10-7), 18 Offloads (NZ 11-7) and 35 defenders beaten (NZ 18-17)

England and Ireland struggled to put 400 running metres together between them, but in the England v NZ match, England managed more than that on their own (438m) , and NZ almost matched them (398m)

Also, set piece mistakes. I don't think I have seen so many set piece mistakes and unforced errors in a test match for a long time. England lost three scrums on their own put in, and four line-outs on their own throw. Ireland were almost as bad in the line-outs.

Now, even Blind Freddy could see what I am talking about as regards how poor the quality of this match was when compared with the England v NZ match, (which was the comparison I was making if you bothered to actually read what I originally posted).

 

[Peat]

The England team don't have a lot of the TALENT other sides have in the 6N, but they certainly have good players who play their position well (esp. the forwards obviously), and play well as a team. It doesn't take any TALENT to play lock down excellent defense, or bulldoze your way into a ruck, it takes hard work, strength and enthusiasm/intensity.

You're wrong though. Technique plays a huge part in both things.

 

[nosevi]

Calm down Smartcooky

I agree with much of the sentiment but for me the most enjoyable bit about the England All Blacks clash........


........was the score line at the end

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

For everyone having a go at Yoe I think I agree with him, I just don't think he is articulating his point very well. Basically to put it simply if you were to pick all the best players from Ireland and England to make one team of them you'd have about a 10-5 split in favor of Ireland but you'd have England's coaching team. (Obviously it's not that simple but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say) England don't have the best players in the 6nations but they have the best team.

 

[Teh Mite]

Ah finally, an answer whioch took effort and consideration:

OK, so maybe it was seven years ago (18-12 all penalty kicks), or five years ago (15-9, all penalty kicks) or three years ago (15-15, all penalty kicks). Whose counting?

Clearly, you are

It wasn't "dismissive" or "sweeping" or "factually innaccurate"... Yes it was. 10 years ago was not a dull game. "Boring" and "dire" are sweeping statements.

is was my fecking OPINION, and last time I looked, we were free to express them here, unless there is some rule that I haven't heard about that you cannot express your opinion if the Almighty Teh Mite doesn't like it... You're always welcome to express an opinion. Expect to be brought up on it though when you pass of opinion as absolute fact.

I found the match boring to watch because it seemed like I was forever waiting for something to happen, but it never did. I'm afraid that watching 80 minutes of two teams endlessly kicking the ball away, and endlessly playing battering rams, doesn't actually rock my boat... You had no interest vested in the game. And have a history of announcing your dis-enjoyment of the northerners playing your beloved loose-'n'pass. You were probably bored before they even kicked off.

There were 72 kicks from hand, about one every minute, although if you take account of the fact that the ball was only in play for 36 minutes, its one kick every 30 seconds.
Nobody keeps the pill when you can't hold onto it. Dunno if you noticed but it was hardly idea conditions for a free flowing barbarians match. Unlike the land of perfection, we have this stuff up here called "rain". Rain is wet stuff which falls from the sky and was deliberately invented to make Smart Cookie hot and bothered about boring Northern hemisphere rugby. Specifically as it means carefree and loose play may cost a match so it may mean neutral fans whom need spoon feeding simplicity when there's no Muncgoball on won't be able to maintain interest.

There were half as many kicks as there were passes!!!!
Rain

There were only two clean breaks in the entire match, both by Ireland.
Rain

There were only two offloads (one each)
Rain

There were only 16 defenders beaten (Ire 13-3)
Rain

Compare that with the England v New Zealand match from last year, 47 kicks from hand in 49 minutes of actual playing time.... half the frequency of kicking; 17 clean breaks (Eng 10-7), 18 Offloads (NZ 11-7) and 35 defenders beaten (NZ 18-17)
Not raining

England and Ireland struggled to put 400 running metres together between them, but in the England v NZ match, England managed more than that on their own (438m) , and NZ almost matched them (398m)
Rain vs Not raining

Also, set piece mistakes. I don't think I have seen so many set piece mistakes and unforced errors in a test match for a long time. England lost three scrums on their own put in, and four line-outs on their own throw. Ireland were almost as bad in the line-outs.
Tom Youngs is poor at the set piece. Shock del horror. Hartley and Best seemed to get their's right.

Oh, and Rain.

Now, even Blind Freddy could see what I am talking about as regards how poor the quality of this match was when compared with the England v NZ match, (which was the comparison I was making if you bothered to actually read what I originally posted).

In ideal conditions (also when kiwis have the shits), the gods conspire to make running rugby an ideal proposition. On sunday, 10th May 2013 in Dublin, these conditions were not met. In fact, this rain stuff made it far from the conditions needed for a high-scoring and flowing game. Some would call it "one for a purest". Maybe old Cookie, you don't realise just how much of this rain stuff there clearly was. Your complete inability to understand what effect it had on the game is is obvious. Even your mate Blind Freddy could see that.

 

[Peat]

Peat, although you had a brilliant analogy I disagree with you in the aspect that the players lack the top 4 inches, I think it has to be blamed on Kidney and the IRFU all of these players have tasted success with their provincial sides, except McCarthy, but when they play internationally they only play to about 80-85% of their ability apart from maybe once or twice a year when they really perform and could beat anyone, except the All Blacks, I think that if the IRFU gave the job to O'Shea, Schmidt or even Elwood and allowed them to pick their own backroom staff and gave them four years Ireland would at least get a championship.

If I gave the impression that the players lack that mentality I apologise; when I was talking about the top four inches, I was talking about them as a team in the green shirt, not as individuals. Ireland the team lacks the composure and winning mentality needed, not the individuals themselves, and the reason Ireland lack it is due to Kidney's complete inability to get them to believe in themselves, each other, and what he is doing. I suspect you wouldn't argue with that.

As for England's tactics in this game, being good enough for a Slam this year, long term effects - England played to the game and to the opposition. The conditions were appalling, the opponents showed signs of nerves and gifted points. Therefore England went into containment mode. Don't let them score. Don't let them build their belief. Chip away at the score board and their morale, they're going to keep giving away chances. And so it worked. It may not be the most entertaining play style, but it works, and I am impressed by the acuity and discipline shown in doing so. England did exactly what they set out to do, albeit maybe not as comfortably or as consistently as one could wish. The game before we were presented with a weak Scotland in perfect conditions, who nevertheless got themselves into the game, so we went for big scores and kept offloading and running. Do not judge us on any one game, that would be a mistake, because every game we are playing according to what we face.

When Woodward came in, one of his first things was to try and instill an all court game. England would attack their opponent's weaknesses, and whatever they were, England would be equipped to do so. The manner of our opening two victories leads me to believe we're heading towards that again. Maybe it won't be the Slam this year, but it won't be because we went for boring in Dublin, and I certainly don't think it's going to stop us winning stuff in the future. Quite the contrary really.

 

[Big Ewis]

I understand the sentiment, however it's a load of ******** what you're saying

I'll pretend like you never insulted me blatantly, and in the most uncalled for possible way (can you imagine saying this to someone's face in real life, when that person's just speaking his mind in a completely harmless way :lol:?); because I understand that since you're English you feel like I've just insulted your side when I'm being as objective as possible...
BUT ANYHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.......ahem..., but anyhow...

Thanks for looking up those words in the dictionary, not sure if it's a coincidence or what, but it happens I actually knew those !
Oh and sorry, playing defense is a SKILL, I really don't care what acceptation of the word "talent" you'd want to use as a counter.

"oh, this guy is TALENTED musically - i.e. he's got potential and originality, he's got that 'something'".
"this dude is a SKILLED musician, he knows how to read notes, build a song and compose textbook counterpoints."

See the difference there ? yeh.

No need to get all English on me and ultra defensive because I'm merely talking about your side; regardless these are just words - it's obviously the essence of what I speak of that's the matter here, and it just so happens it's far from bullshyt.
England fans, if anything relish this:
I'm saying that your work rate, work ethic and mindset overall, with your cold-bloodedness allows you to surpass other sides' more "creative" (if you really hate the word "talent" put there), athletic aspects. This isn't criticism of England, it's just a simple remark on the nature of the sides' game style, and individuals' styles on the team. There is certainly a tendency, and far more than that, for each side. It's obvious, but needs to be said here.
For e.g. Samoan-born Tuilagi has nothing to do in style with England obviously, since he plays with his super athletic, brutal Pac. Isl style.

"It doesn't take any TALENT to play lock down excellent defense, or bulldoze your way into a ruck,"

You seem to struggle at it....

:lol:
no comment !! This is just too weird !!! I'M struggling ?!! Did you read that sentence with your head upside down orr.....?