Gusscot and his "if Ashton played" line.

Never really liked any team including ones i support using excuses when losing, but Jerry Gusscot really took the biscuit when he for the second consecutive week claimed moral victory for England because they would have finished any chances if Ashton played!
But Jerry he didn't! It could easily be said Wales would have won if in Twickers if Adam Jones was fit,etc-etc.
Can i claim victory over any games that Wales lost because of not putting away their chances because Gareth Edwards wasn't playing?

Come on Mr Gusscot and suck it up please,give respect where due.

His actual point was that the two breaks that were made by England was that if Ashton was playing he would have been on the shoulder of both players. It's only a week since England lost to Wales, so not quite sure how it's the 2nd consecutive week he claimed a moral victory. I'm guessing no Welsh fans claimed a moral victory for the match at Twickenham ?

It's Guscott by the way.

I've been a Wales supporter since the mid-1950s but I don't see this as justifiable criticism for Guscott.

Firstly, he's an ex-England player and naturally supports England, though not in a one-eyed way. In this he's the same as other pundits, ex-internationals from different countries, who show which side they want to win. I think that's part of the attraction for tv viewers, who want neutral match commentaries but like a bit of partisanship in the pre-match, half-time and post-match punditry.

Secondly, he consistently says how much he appreciates running back play. He himself used to do it brilliantly, after all, and it's in his blood. Since Ashton is one of the most exciting running backs England have had for years, coming fast off the shoulder of men making initial breaks and often scoring as a result, his point was quite reasonable. Of course it was a matter of "if" Ashton had been playing, but "what ifs" are the basis of a heck of a lot of rugby chat.

Maybe its a semantic issue - how about "if Ashton had been playing he would have been more likely to have been on the shoulder of the player making the break and might have scored" - Of course if Adam and Geth were playing they might not have had the ball to begin with.

optimist wrote:I've been a Wales supporter since the mid-1950s but I don't see this as justifiable criticism for Guscott.

Firstly, he's an ex-England player and naturally supports England, though not in a one-eyed way. In this he's the same as other pundits, ex-internationals from different countries, who show which side they want to win. I think that's part of the attraction for tv viewers, who want neutral match commentaries but like a bit of partisanship in the pre-match, half-time and post-match punditry.

Secondly, he consistently says how much he appreciates running back play. He himself used to do it brilliantly, after all, and it's in his blood. Since Ashton is one of the most exciting running backs England have had for years, coming fast off the shoulder of men making initial breaks and often scoring as a result, his point was quite reasonable. Of course it was a matter of "if" Ashton had been playing, but "what ifs" are the basis of a heck of a lot of rugby chat.

Good response. Yes, it's all if's and but's, and we'll never know, but I'm willing to take Guscott's angle over viewtothegym who just seems to want a pop.

It's true that England's attack is much blunter without Ashton, especially the way he combines with Flood, so it's a fair point, though impossible to prove.

He looked uncomfortable in the pre and post match analysis talking about Wales

He tried to chat up a mate in a club in Bath, he was an arrogant git apparently. My mate said she pretended to not know who he was and it really annoyed him

munkian wrote:He looked uncomfortable in the pre and post match analysis talking about Wales

Guscott is often very complimentary about Wales and appreciates their way of playing. He was recently in the Rugby Paper.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

munkian wrote:He looked uncomfortable in the pre and post match analysis talking about Wales

Guscott is often very complimentary about Wales and appreciates their way of playing. He was recently in the Rugby Paper.

Fair enough, it might just be he likes to have the attention on him then, he wasn't getting a word in over Keith Woods and Inverdale.

munkian wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

munkian wrote:He looked uncomfortable in the pre and post match analysis talking about Wales

Guscott is often very complimentary about Wales and appreciates their way of playing. He was recently in the Rugby Paper.

Fair enough, it might just be he likes to have the attention on him then, he wasn't getting a word in over Keith Woods and Inverdale.

Well, I can't argue that he likes to be the centre of attention

I have to be honest and say that I have met him and he comes across as quite arrogant but i always find his punditry very fair and he has been full of praise for wales ever since 2005. obviously there have been times when he has been negative but there have been plenty of reasons to.

viewtothegym wrote:Never really liked any team including ones i support using excuses when losing, but Jerry Gusscot really took the biscuit when he for the second consecutive week claimed moral victory for England because they would have finished any chances if Ashton played!
But Jerry he didn't! It could easily be said Wales would have won if in Twickers if Adam Jones was fit,etc-etc.
Can i claim victory over any games that Wales lost because of not putting away their chances because Gareth Edwards wasn't playing?

Come on Mr Gusscot and suck it up please,give respect where due.

No, I'm sorry, you can't claim that - we Scots have a patent out on 'moral victories', particularly against the Sassenachs, so pls be careful of infringing our IP

England latching on to the 'moral victory' as per eh view. They should perhaps learn to score tries and win a game with limited posession before they can lay claim to anything.

Where has anyone associated with England claimed a moral victory over Wales over the last game played between the two sides ?

I didnt hear the comment by guscott, but I dont think Ashton is the key to England having a good backline, they need to find two half decent centers, or at least one very good inside center that can release Tuialagi or Tindall outside them.

Joe Simpson might help more too, now that the impressive Danny Care is unfortunately out injured.

Good pack and a great player on good form in Wilkinson but they need more than a top winger to make them score tries relative to the amount of possession and territory they had against Wales.

Wales had few chances against England but they managed to get points from tries or penalties. England didnt capitalise any where near as well.

Still that doesnt mean they cant turn their luck around.

maestegmafia wrote:I didnt hear the comment by guscott, but I dont think Ashton is the key to England having a good backline, they need to find two half decent centers, or at least one very good inside center that can release Tuialagi or Tindall outside them.

Well the reports are that flutey isn't going and, whilst he hasn't been in brilliant form, the idea of Hape and Flood being our two options at 12 is slightly depressing.

Flood, a few shockers aside, has been very good at fly half since he came into the team. I don't like him at 12 at all though. Really can't see what he brings to it.

Well no matter what way you look at Englands midfield options you can only come to one conclusion,
they wont get out of the group stages in this world cup and they won't score many tries

viewtothegym wrote:Well no matter what way you look at Englands midfield options you can only come to one conclusion,
they wont get out of the group stages in this world cup and they won't score many tries

You think Argentina and Scotland will beat England?

yep

on what basis? Stronger forward play/back play/ all round play?

On the basis that Argentina are far more powerful up front and have better attacking backs,

And Scotland have a real habit of making England look average then add the fact Andy Robinson will know the English structure and game inside out,
one but can't put the odds into the favor of Scotland, they have done the double over Argentina beat Australia, beat South Africa just beat Ireland "a team England really struggle with".

Also may i add i have never claimed Wales will get out of the group they are in because they could easily lose three games in that pool,just saying before you real out the same old over used lines on Fiji etc-etc.

But back to England a team that its own Union says top four finish is a must look likely to have egg all over the face after a sharp early group exit.

i can see where you are coming from however I think England have shown enough over the past year to get through the group - I can envisage them maybe losing to scotland, but not argentina. it's hard to judge argentina as they play so few tests but I don't think they'll do as well as four years ago and in my opinion they are likely to finish thrid in the group.

Only time will tell but I really think England have far more to offer than either Scotland or Argentina and will finish top of the group. England's defence will be good and the forwards will win enough posession for wilkinson to ensure that points are taken.

We may have struggled against scotland recently, but still came out on top and think it will be a similar story come the world cup.

Honest opinion i personally think England will lose to Scotland, with the Scotish playing like its their world cup final,
but as you have already said with Argentina who knows?

rugbyfan, I think England can put four tries past Argentina. I see Scot/Arg game being a real slug-fest. When England play Scotland it'll be more of an 'arm-wrestle.'