Autumn Internationals 2009

Possible, but he'll be 34 by then, and although he's good in the loose, he remains woefully ill-disciplined a lot of the time.

Cueto played quite well today, he's head an shoulders above all the other backs. Plank Moody has a bit of drive and passion, and God knows they need it, and while Wilkinson may have had an off-day today, remains world class.

The bit that infuriates me is that the support coaches have been there for years, and in ALL that time, the same problems have been apparent, that England are slow and ponderous, with no cohesion between forwards and backs. When the players change but the problem remains exactly the same, you have to say it's the coaches.

What's your feeling on Ugo Monye? He had an absolute howler today; looked out of his depth and didn't know whether he was coming or going.


Moody set him up at one point and he failed to capitalise. Not excusing England's overall performance but I feel if a few players had connected at the right moments, they could have won by atleast 7 more points.

Despite all this, I still wanted Argentina to win. It's always a problem when that last man can't hold on!


Happened for Samoa last night, and for Italy on many occasions in the Six Nations.

Monye is a winger not a full back. He was bombarded with high balls when he's simply not used to it. And then his confidence was shattered.

That's a symptom of the injury crises really, but Cueto is a season international and has played there before, and is solid under the garryowen. So it isn't surprising that the balance improved when he was switched.

England do lack quality, there's no doubt about that. They just don't have the players they had a few years back, but equally they are way below the sum of their parts.

Who are you expecting to return to the squad?


Cipriani? Strettle? Sackey?

Cipriani has been treated appallingly over the last year. Whether at centre or fly-half, the boy's a real talent, and God knows we need that right now.

Strettle has just been shafted by endless injuries, there's little doubt he'd be in the side, and same with Sackey really.

England rugby in crisis.


heh.

Shoeshine wrote:Cipriani has been treated appallingly over the last year. Whether at centre or fly-half, the boy's a real talent, and God knows we need that right now.

Hasn't he been injured for most of the last year? Not sure if he's back to full fitness now. Hope he does eventually fulfil his potential at international level, but you can't give away a charge-down try every game which is what he was doing when he had a run in the England side.

Wasn't he tipped as a Great Prospect?

beamer wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Cipriani has been treated appallingly over the last year. Whether at centre or fly-half, the boy's a real talent, and God knows we need that right now.

Hasn't he been injured for most of the last year? Not sure if he's back to full fitness now. Hope he does eventually fulfil his potential at international level, but you can't give away a charge-down try every game which is what he was doing when he had a run in the England side.

Nope. He was fit and available for the tour of Argentina, a tour where the better England players were on the Lions tour to South Africa. And he wasn't selected - a decision that can only be viewed as a calculated snub, because it was saying he wasn't the 5th best fly-half in England, which is palpable nonsense.

The charge-down issue was something that affected him, and can be (and was) sorted out fairly quickly. He doesn't have that problem at club level, and he's a baby anyway. Anyone who's watched club rugby will tell you the boy's a serious serious talent.

Shoeshine wrote:

beamer wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Cipriani has been treated appallingly over the last year. Whether at centre or fly-half, the boy's a real talent, and God knows we need that right now.

Hasn't he been injured for most of the last year? Not sure if he's back to full fitness now. Hope he does eventually fulfil his potential at international level, but you can't give away a charge-down try every game which is what he was doing when he had a run in the England side.

Nope. He was fit and available for the tour of Argentina, a tour where the better England players were on the Lions tour to South Africa. And he wasn't selected - a decision that can only be viewed as a calculated snub, because it was saying he wasn't the 5th best fly-half in England, which is palpable nonsense.

The charge-down issue was something that affected him, and can be (and was) sorted out fairly quickly. He doesn't have that problem at club level, and he's a baby anyway. Anyone who's watched club rugby will tell you the boy's a serious serious talent.

Question answered.

Hey Smerky, I thought I'd respond to your post on the "wogball" thread over here because it's relavent to the discussion from a few pages ago...

DJ_Smerk wrote:Rugby Union has facets of both, running and kicking. It's just down to the coaching and/or individual player where they decide to do what and where. It has the ability to provide entertaining phases with both elements, depending on the situation.

Union, is naturally a game of territory and every yard counts; hence why no-one will argue with the referee in fear of being pushed 10 yards back, and vice versa.

I just don't see the enjoyment in one touch, roll behind rugby.

Of course the potential is there, but it seems to be hidden away in a vault only to be brought out once every blue moon. Where are the coaches encouraging players to keep the ball in hand and to chance their arm?

The 1984 Grand Slam was a triumph not just for the Wallabies, but for exciting Rugby. Alan Jones realised he had a backline with amazing skills and encouraged them to keep the ball in hand. Obviously the Wallabies couldn't have been successful if their forwards didn't do their job up front, but the forwards merely provided the platform for their backs. It was 15 man Rugby, not the 10-man crap most teams are subjecting us to today.

Rucks are no longer the contest that they once were. 90% of rucks these days are won by the team with possesion going into the breakdown. The defence has responded by committing less and less men to the breakdown and putting more and more men into the defensive line (making the breakdown less of a contest once again). This makes breaking the defensive line even more difficult, prompting teams to resort to kicks. All I can say is thank goodness we no longer allow players to kick out on the full from anywhere these days.

Rugby League suffered a similar problem a few decades ago. The play-the-ball (which initially worked as a kind of impromtu scrum) became a less even contest and more forwards moved into the defensive line. The defensive line became extremely hard to penetrate, resulting in endless recycling of the ball and/or kicking.

In the 1950s the League responded by intsituting a three-yard rule, then a five-yard rule (which is now a ten metre rule). In the 1960s it introduced limited tackles.

But any effort to change the rules in Rugby Union is met with stubborn opposition by the home unions. It has always been so, with the recent debate over the ELVs being no exception.

Rugby League has been prepared to embrace rule changes. As a result it has maintained a relatively open game - and the forwards still have to be as tough as nails. I haven't agreed with all the changes (the move to a ten metre rule has only encouraged one-out running and uncontested scrums are a travesty) but the authorities have been proactive in keeping the game flowing and making tries the ultimate prize.

I find Rugby League anything but one dimensional. I treat those claims with the same respect I give to people who say that nothing happens in cricket.

How good was that last 25 minutes from the Kangaroos today?

Still trying to work out what happened.

Bradman wrote:You are so farked Mick. They are gonna cruel us.

Mate. I don't do the reverse wolfing nonsense but there's a bunch of tries in this team, bursting to get out.