Another Myth about England....

First topic message reminder :

We keep hearing it over and over again especially from Welsh supporters who just continually run our team down...on the basis of 2 matches played in terrible conditions.

While tripping (AWJ style) over themselves to slate England they attack our front row as being weak.

What?!

It is the one unit of our side that is holding up well.

This is the usual untruth perpertated by welsh...

"Our front row will be our first choice so we should get yteh (sic) edge on what yesterday was a very ordinary England scrummage until castrogiovanni went off. "

Complete rubbish.

eirebilly wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Well i am leaving this thread as miteyironpaw is going to turn what was a good thread into a mess.

Last thoughts are that England should not feel to bad, i cant say it enough, 2 wins in 2 away games at very difficult places to play. Not too bad and i would take that as an Irishman. Also, as luckless said, the English pack may not be what it once was but that does not mean that its weak.

translation : [ I can't argue with the inherent and obvious logic of miteyironpaw's reposte, so rather than admit he has a point I will pretend to be too lofty for debate ]

No, its because you have no idea how to discuss the subject at hand and that generally leads to good threads being ruined. Good luck with that, you obviously enjoy what you are doing.

I'm just responding to points made. Conversation and debate naturally evolves eirebilly. It'd be pretty dull if we just spent all day saying "England's front row is pants"/"No it isn't"/"Yes it is"/"No it isn't"/"yes it is..."

What am I supposed to do? Just ignore responses? That would be rude.

I'm continuing to debate rugby, you are once again ruining the thread by making a personal attack just because the majority don't agree with you. My advice is that if you want to "leave a thread", you just leave rather than making disruptive posts making belittling and personal attacks on others.

Mitey, do you accept that it is possible for a player in a poor team to be better than his counterpart in a good team? Or does the fact that he's in a poor team make him a poor player?

I will be very interested to see how Morgan goes should he be given the start. He looked very good when he came on against Italy but that was partly due to a tired Italian defence i feel. He certainly does look like he could fit in very well to the England set up.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Mitey, bo you accept that it is possible for a player in a poor team to be better than his counterpart in a good team.

Yes I agree with you there luckless. Some players do stand out in otherwise poor teams. But it is also true that sometimes it is easier to stand out in a poor team. There are certain players who have big reputations that possibly they would not if they played in a better team, and the converse is probably also true. Just because Italy base their game around their forward pack doesn't mean that they have the best forward pack in the world, it just means they have few other options.

But having accepted that, you still dismiss the claims of O'Driscoll of being a great player because he hasn't won a World Cup-winner's medal.

None seem particularly out of their depth though, even young Farrell is keeping his head which is impressive for a 19 year old. What is worrying is that their is no creative plan in attack, there's just a crash ball run from different areas of the pitch depending on how many miss passes are thrown. There's no slight of hand, no backs moves and only one line of runners. In the amateur days teams were coming up with more than this, it's like a really bad Rugby League team's game plan. Smash it up, smash it up, smash it up, smash it up and then kick.

All of those players (apart from Farrell Jnr the most boring AP fly half) show more than that for their clubs, all are clearly more interested in running the ball then they are doing. Some instructions from the management seem to be holding them back as their isn't really another reason for the lack of attacking backs play.

Yep, agree that's all we've seen so far. And should have said 12 and 13 haven't yet adjusted - Charlie is giving everything he's got and you can't ask for more than that, and Youngs has lost his mojo, at least for the time being. But worth remembering that this side has played very little together and hopefully with more time 9-15 will have a better understanding of what eachother are doing and what option shoud be taken.

I like Farrell's composure. I've seen very little of Barritt and know less. He's seemd ok so far to me. Good defence but little else seen so far. I'd bring in Tuilagi for Barritt when Tuilagi has got back from injury - not sure he'll be ready for the Wales game (ditto Flood) but we shall see.

Cowshot wrote:
I like Farrell's composure. I've seen very little of Barritt and know less. He's seemd ok so far to me. Good defence but little else seen so far. I'd bring in Tuilagi for Barritt when Tuilagi has got back from injury - not sure he'll be ready for the Wales game (ditto Flood) but we shall see.

This may sound harsh on Hodgson, but if Flood is not fit or in form. What about Farrell 10, Barritt 12 and Tuiliagi 13?

eire
I'm not convinced that Morgan looked good because the defence was tired - he came on at about 52 minutes, and really shone for the initial 10 to 15 minutes while England played aggressively to establish a solid lead. He appeared to have the knack of good number 8s to be in the right place to receive kicks and find the weakness in the cover defence that allowed him to build up some speed before taking contact (something Dowson doesn't do so well).

I'd certainly like to see how he does as a starter in the next game - I think his two replacement performances have shown enough to merit promotion.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Mitey, by your logic, Jonah Lomu must have been gash because he doesn't have a World Cup-winner's medal , but Ben Cohen is an all-time great because he does have a World Cup-winner's medal.

And absolutely correct...

miteyironpaw wrote:
Objectivity you see, that's the key. It's the great leveller: reality.

Objectivity on these boards is a rare thing.

Morgan is going to be a quality player for England. It won't be long before your whole game is based around him.

by the way...what were the other myths about England?

eirebilly wrote:

Cowshot wrote:
I like Farrell's composure. I've seen very little of Barritt and know less. He's seemd ok so far to me. Good defence but little else seen so far. I'd bring in Tuilagi for Barritt when Tuilagi has got back from injury - not sure he'll be ready for the Wales game (ditto Flood) but we shall see.

This may sound harsh on Hodgson, but if Flood is not fit or in form. What about Farrell 10, Barritt 12 and Tuiliagi 13?

What has Hodgson done wrong Eirebilly? he seems to be managing and reading the game well, clearly he's in rich form to reading and executing those charge down tries. If Priestland had done that, we'd never hear the end of it. Flood hasn't played well since the early starges of last years 6N. Farrel I don't rate at all. He's clearly there for just one reason.

dummy_half, i just feel that there is a difference in coming on after a bruising 52 minutes than there is starting the game. Morgan looked absolute quality when he came on and deserves a start for sure, i will just be interested to see how he performs from the start of an International match.

miteyironpaw wrote:

Amazing isn't it. Christian Cullen? TanaUmaga? Dan Carter? .

Dan Carter?? disasterous example. He's won a world cup!

He got a winners medal on a technicality. He didn't even play in a knock out game, and had to be sent home from the squad due to tournament rules.

Now Cullen, Umaga are fine players and were part of very successful All Black Teams with very high win ratios who won a lot of tournaments for NZ and grandslams and Lions series victories and what have you. But any one in NZ would surely admit that these players didn't quite have enough to bring home the big one and so must admit they weren't the best in the world.

What exactly has BOD done? a good player, but "best in the world"? please.

This is just trolling ^

eirebilly wrote:

Cowshot wrote:
I like Farrell's composure. I've seen very little of Barritt and know less. He's seemd ok so far to me. Good defence but little else seen so far. I'd bring in Tuilagi for Barritt when Tuilagi has got back from injury - not sure he'll be ready for the Wales game (ditto Flood) but we shall see.

This may sound harsh on Hodgson, but if Flood is not fit or in form. What about Farrell 10, Barritt 12 and Tuiliagi 13?

You know i could actually go with that...brutal def, good territory kicking from 10...and offensive ability in different methods from12 and 13...

It may be harsh on Hodgson...but theres no room for sentiment in pro rugby these days.

PS Does anyone see a resemblance in playing style between Farrell and a certain Johnny W...limited offensively...but controlling, strong kicker and tackler?

This may sound harsh on Hodgson, but if Flood is not fit or in form. What about Farrell 10, Barritt 12 and Tuiliagi 13?.

The centres will not matter if Farrell is playing 10 as they will not see the ball, he kicks it more that O'Gara and Wilkinson combined.

Yep, agree that's all we've seen so far. And should have said 12 and 13 haven't yet adjusted - Charlie is giving everything he's got and you can't ask for more than that, and Youngs has lost his mojo, at least for the time being. But worth remembering that this side has played very little together and hopefully with more time 9-15 will have a better understanding of what eachother are doing and what option shoud be taken.

I like Farrell's composure. I've seen very little of Barritt and know less. He's seemd ok so far to me. Good defence but little else seen so far. I'd bring in Tuilagi for Barritt when Tuilagi has got back from injury - not sure he'll be ready for the Wales game (ditto Flood) but we shall see..

Barritt is holding the midfield together, his defence and organisation is telling I'd certainly not remove him and then play a centre pairing with a combined age of less than 40. I'd drop Farrell as other than kick for goal he hasn't shown up so far. The midfield should not need to adapt as it's the same backs coach and same 10,11,12,13 that play week in week out at Sarries. Either Hodgson is bottling it and no playing attacking rugby (defensive rugby has always been his issue) or the coaching team are restricting them by their tactics.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Cowshot wrote:
I like Farrell's composure. I've seen very little of Barritt and know less. He's seemd ok so far to me. Good defence but little else seen so far. I'd bring in Tuilagi for Barritt when Tuilagi has got back from injury - not sure he'll be ready for the Wales game (ditto Flood) but we shall see.

This may sound harsh on Hodgson, but if Flood is not fit or in form. What about Farrell 10, Barritt 12 and Tuiliagi 13?

You know i could actually go with that...brutal def, good territory kicking from 10...and offensive ability in different methods from12 and 13...

It may be harsh on Hodgson...but theres no room for sentiment in pro rugby these days.

I think that Hodgson has played very well but if i was England, i would be looking to start Farrell at 10 with Dickson at 9. That with Barrit and Tuilagi you get a balance of good defence and decent attack.

Well two HC wins isn't bad for BOD.

I repeat my comment by this logic it is impossible for a Russian to be a World Calss player and George Best was not a World Class soccer player - that is silly.

Sorry I have to say it but anyone who says Ben Cohen has a claim to be World Class but BOD isn't lacks anything approaching credible judgement.

As for past players - Ireland were never the best in the World when Jack Kyle played, they were not the best in the world when Mike Gibson played, or Willie John McBride. By the warped logic being employed here none of them were World Class.

This all is starting to look like a WUM plying his trade.

Mods can we have an IQ test for posters going forward it might help

I think that Hodgson has played very well but if i was England, i would be looking to start Farrell at 10 with Dickson at 9. That with Barrit and Tuilagi you get a balance of good defence and decent attack. .

Still the problem with your logic remains that Farrell doesn't pass from first receiver he kicks pretty much constantly.

Billy/Geordie
I've been wondering that myself, could bring Flood off the bench if Farrel starts to waver. Like you say tough on Hodgson but in reality he's only ever been a stop gap for club and country.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Cowshot wrote:
I like Farrell's composure. I've seen very little of Barritt and know less. He's seemd ok so far to me. Good defence but little else seen so far. I'd bring in Tuilagi for Barritt when Tuilagi has got back from injury - not sure he'll be ready for the Wales game (ditto Flood) but we shall see.

This may sound harsh on Hodgson, but if Flood is not fit or in form. What about Farrell 10, Barritt 12 and Tuiliagi 13?

You know i could actually go with that...brutal def, good territory kicking from 10...and offensive ability in different methods from12 and 13...

It may be harsh on Hodgson...but theres no room for sentiment in pro rugby these days.

PS Does anyone see a resemblance in playing style between Farrell and a certain Johnny W...limited offensively...but controlling, strong kicker and tackler?

Yes, I do. I haven't dared even to whisper it yet, though.

I think the Tuilagi, Barritt, Farrell idea is definitely interesting and may be very good. But has Farrell ever played 10? And is a 6N game the place to experiment with a 19 year old out of position?

Personal suspicion is that Morgan and Dickson are the only changes we'll see. But I really don't know what Lancaster is up to and I could well be wrong!

Personally, I've been disappointed with England's set piece play in general, but - as the more important set piece - the lineout in particular. I think Welsh or English fans who anticipate a major advantage to their team in either of these areas is a bit deluded, to be honest, and I expect it to come down to individual performances on the day as to which team achieved the set piece ascendency.

Frankly - and it will probably be treated as sacrilege to say it - I can't see the scrum being of pivotal importance to the result Saturday week. If teams will not be frightened by the young English front row, then they have at least proven that they can hold their own against top class oppo. Equally, whilst the Welsh love to talk about their 'Lions front row', an admittedly impressive unit of Gethin/Rees/AJ would be prized more for what it brings around the park and in experience than as a truly destructive front row who will win you matches in the set piece. Granted, it's all about inches, but let's face it: the scrum will be a side show that will not ultimitely determine the outcome of the game.

Here's the best thing about the claim that only World Cup winners can be considered for World Call consideration the best 2 Outside Centres in the 00's were Jacque Fourie and wait for it, Mike Tindall Brilliant absolutely Brilliant

Now Jaque Fourie is an excellent rugby player. Mike Tindall, on the other hand, is... a former England captain.

Carpe Diem wrote:Billy/Geordie
I've been wondering that myself, could bring Flood off the bench if Farrel starts to waver. Like you say tough on Hodgson but in reality he's only ever been a stop gap for club and country.

Hodgson has done a grand effort and it would be a tad harsh but as you say, he was only a stop gap solution. I say it is worth the shot at trying Farrell at 10, even against Wales, his defencive abilities will proove key i feel. Flood or Hodgson can always come on if things arent going well but i like the look of Farrell and think that he will be very solid, maybe not spectacular but solid.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Now Jaque Fourie is an excellent rugby player. Mike Tindall, on the other hand, is... a former England captain.

Aw give Tindall some credit...whilst limited skills wise .....during the early 2000's he was a class performer, working nicely with Greenwood.

It was laterly that he was kept in the team when he had well and truly outstayed his welcome.

Can i remind all posters that as Mike Tindall (Gawd bless 'im!) is now a royal you must use the suffix '(Gawd bless 'im!)' whenever writing his name. Thank you.

But has Farrell ever played 10?

Most of last season for Sarries and 1 game for England at the JWC (where after he was put at 12 as his lack of creation was killing the side). Hence why I have the opinion about him kicking! Check out last years AP final, Farrell was ice cool under pressure but kicked the ball pretty much everytime he got it. Sarries created no line breaks from set backs moves.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

But has Farrell ever played 10?

Most of last season for Sarries and 1 game for England at the JWC (where after he was put at 12 as his lack of creation was killing the side). Hence why I have the opinion about him kicking! Check out last years AP final, Farrell was ice cool under pressure but kicked the ball pretty much everytime he got it. Sarries created no line breaks from set backs moves.

That is the only worry that i have with him but i am sure that if he is given the role then he will be under stricht instructions to not kick the ball away. Anyway, who knows what Mr Lancaster will do.

Most of last season for Sarries and 1 game for England at the JWC (where after he was put at 12 as his lack of creation was killing the side). Hence why I have the opinion about him kicking! Check out last years AP final, Farrell was ice cool under pressure but kicked the ball pretty much everytime he got it. Sarries created no line breaks from set backs moves.

Ah, thank you. If he lacks that spark of creativity at 10 then I prefer Flood and swap Barritt for Tuilagi. I'm not actually sure why I am so keen on Farrell, but I think he's definitely got something, even if I don't know what it is.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Now Jaque Fourie is an excellent rugby player. Mike Tindall, on the other hand, is... a former England captain.

Aw give Tindall some credit...whilst limited skills wise .....during the early 2000's he was a class performer, working nicely with Greenwood.

It was laterly that he was kept in the team when he had well and truly outstayed his welcome.

That's the thing, he wasn't a world great but he was what the team needed.

Although according to some, he must have been a world great because he was part of a World Cup-winning team.

miteyironpaw wrote:

Amazing isn't it. Christian Cullen? TanaUmaga? Dan Carter? .

Dan Carter?? disasterous example. He's won a world cup!

Now Cullen, Umaga are fine players and were part of very successful All Black Teams with very high win ratios who won a lot of tournaments for NZ and grandslams and Lions series victories and what have you. But any one in NZ would surely admit that these players didn't quite have enough to bring home the big one and so must admit they weren't the best in the world.

What exactly has BOD done? a good player, but "best in the world"? please.

So you have to win the world cup to be the best in the world? Does that mean that every single England player in 2003 was the best player in their position?

That is the only worry that i have with him but i am sure that if he is given the role then he will be under stricht instructions to not kick the ball away. Anyway, who knows what Mr Lancaster will do. .

That happened in the JWC, it was an experiment that lasted less than 60 minutes and resulted in Ford playing 10 for every other minute of the tournament. Farrell has ice cool calm, great defence and an excellent boot. Not a hint of that creative spark if it's not off the boot though (see the grubber vs Gloucester).

That's the thing, he wasn't a world great but he was what the team needed.
Although according to some, he must have been a world great because he was part of a World Cup-winning team

Yeah luckless...every team needs a couple of those who are grafters, tough as an old boot and do the donkey work....Tindall did that, which allowed others around him to flourish...

Ah, thank you. If he lacks that spark of creativity at 10 then I prefer Flood and swap Barritt for Tuilagi. I'm not actually sure why I am so keen on Farrell, but I think he's definitely got something, even if I don't know what it is.

You simply CANT take Barritt out. He must stay at 12...with Tuilagi at 13...and use either Hodgson or Flood as kicker.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:

Amazing isn't it. Christian Cullen? TanaUmaga? Dan Carter? .

Dan Carter?? disasterous example. He's won a world cup!

He got a winners medal on a technicality. He didn't even play in a knock out game, and had to be sent home from the squad due to tournament rules.

Now Cullen, Umaga are fine players and were part of very successful All Black Teams with very high win ratios who won a lot of tournaments for NZ and grandslams and Lions series victories and what have you. But any one in NZ would surely admit that these players didn't quite have enough to bring home the big one and so must admit they weren't the best in the world.

What exactly has BOD done? a good player, but "best in the world"? please.

This is just trolling ^

He contributed heavily to the pool defeat of France which determined the path to the final though. That's a valid contribution and he deserves his credit.

There's no trolling there at all. Unless you define "trolling" as people posting opinions contrary to your own.

killer938 wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:

Amazing isn't it. Christian Cullen? TanaUmaga? Dan Carter? .

Dan Carter?? disasterous example. He's won a world cup!

Now Cullen, Umaga are fine players and were part of very successful All Black Teams with very high win ratios who won a lot of tournaments for NZ and grandslams and Lions series victories and what have you. But any one in NZ would surely admit that these players didn't quite have enough to bring home the big one and so must admit they weren't the best in the world.

What exactly has BOD done? a good player, but "best in the world"? please.

So you have to win the world cup to be the best in the world? Does that mean that every single England player in 2003 was the best player in their position?

See my earlier post about logical inference. You can't reverse a proposition like that. It's a well known invalid argument construction both philosophically and mathematically.

Are we saying that you have to be in a winning team to be the best in the world or world class because they are different things.

I do agree that BOD isn't the best 13 in the world but not with the logic used to back it up

I won't tolerate this distortion of the truth about Mike Tindall, even if he does occassionally like to drink himself senseless, chuck a few dwarves around and get kissed on the head by mystery blondes (who doesn't?).

Tindall was never a subtle, guileful type of centre so if you want to judge him on his hands and vision then you will conclude that he was a bit of a donkey. But you'd be forgetting that at the top of his game he represented almost a new breed of centre: certainly one of if not the most powerful, hardest running, physical centres of his generation and an integral part of a world-beating side.

And yes, he played a good number of England games when he was past his best, but even in this period when the England midfield was crying out for some young blood, I still don't remember any woeful performances out of Tindall: creatively limited as he always was, but always hard tackling, commited and physical. Let's not forget that as recently as the resurgant France game in the 2010 6 Nations it was Tindall's hard running and consequent midfield platform that was lauded as the key to England's future attacking game following the failed experiment of the underpowered Flutey/Tait combo.

Wilkinson was limited, but at his best he was undoubtedly world class at what he did. So was Tindall, and you insult removed - KRD shouldn't let press slander change that.

mckay1402 wrote:Are we saying that you have to be in a winning team to be the best in the world or world class because they are different things.

I do agree that BOD isn't the best 13 in the world but not with the logic used to back it up

What I'm saying is that making baseless claims about Catrogiovanni being the best prop in the world, or BOD being the best mid fielder is subjective until you introduce an agreed basis for comparison. Granted my deference to the world cup as a default indicator of the worlds best is flawed on the basis of individuals, I concede this point. However I was using it as an arbitrary example, not intending it as a straw man to deconstruct the validity of the underlying argument.

But you would expect (would you not?) a "world's best" to consistently achieve great things by comparison with his peers, otherwise what is the basis of the claim? and what is the benefit of being "the world's best" if you suspiciously never win anything? Therein lies the rub with evaluating individuals in a team sport I agree.

Anyway, the whole topic was only introduced because I wanted to make the further point that Castrogiovanni tends to get a bigger reputation than he deserves because he tends to stand out in a generally poor team with one or two stars; whereas a world class England prop in a team of world class players tends to get less attention. I can recall many bested Italian scrums including the man in question turning over ball, but no one has tried to use that as a basis to slate the Italian team or claim that their front 5 aren't up to it.

Anyway, just because England conceded scrum ball against the feed against Italy, doesn't mean they will struggle against Wales. So the original argument is nonsense to begin with.

This site was once a really good place to come and talk about rugby, but certain posters on here, you all know who you are, are just out to cause friction. Why post an article saying that the Welsh supporters are all calling the English front row rubbish when that is clearly not true. I am Welsh, and I have never called any part of anyone's side rubbish, we all have idiots from each country on this site but to be honest there are a couple of Englsh one's on this post who come accross as arrogant and are really letting the sound, good debating English posters down. Look we can all tease each other and poke fun at each other, and I am sure the bragging rights that will come with the forth comming game will be fun, but lets just all debate and have a laugh about the game we all love without the arrogance and bitterness.

You come on to deride those causing friction and not discussing then throw in the old chestnut about the English fans being "arrogant" because they defend the prowess of their pack?

If you want people to discuss rugby and not get into personal stand offs then why not talk rugby and set an example instead of getting personal.

I haven't seen anything but English posters talking rugby, and getting attacked for doing so. It seems that you are the one diverting and causing friction on this occassion.

miteyironpaw wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:Are we saying that you have to be in a winning team to be the best in the world or world class because they are different things.

I do agree that BOD isn't the best 13 in the world but not with the logic used to back it up

What I'm saying is that making baseless claims about Catrogiovanni being the best prop in the world, or BOD being the best mid fielder is subjective until you introduce an agreed basis for comparison.

Did someone say Castro was the best prop in the world ?. Unless I missed a post I do not believe anyone made such a claim.

As the one who brought BOD up I did not say he was the best midfielder in the World what I said was that he was the best 13 in the world through the '00's - that is not the same thing.

One is with reference to the here and now the other is with reference to the entire past decade.
One is with respect to both 12 and 13 whilst my statement only referred to Outside Centre - again a different thing.

For someone hot on logical inference that is very sloppy.

miteyironpaw wrote:I haven't seen anything but English posters talking rugby, and getting attacked for doing so.

You haven't read any posts by English Warrior then.

LordDowlais

I had better reply to this since you have questioned the OP. I was genuinely annoyed at welsh comments running down our front row's ability to scrum. More than that though i was starting to see as one sometimes does throw away lines gathering something bordering on legitimacy through repetition. I'm not having it. Simple.

There has been a hell of a lot of talk from the welsh about how big they are. I believe Gatland and Edwards have recently been in print talking up this aspect of Wales team.

Then we get Jonathan Davies mouthing off slating almost every unit in our side and saying that were going to be "smashed" at forward and that Wales could really "go to town on us ".

So please forgive me if i pull up one of two of your compatriots for getting too big for their boots (pun intended)

I did not say that ALL welsh supporters were guilty of this and in fact went out of my way to single out an example.

miteyironpaw wrote:You come on to deride those causing friction and not discussing then throw in the old chestnut about the English fans being "arrogant" because they defend the prowess of their pack?

If you want people to discuss rugby and not get into personal stand offs then why not talk rugby and set an example instead of getting personal.

I haven't seen anything but English posters talking rugby, and getting attacked for doing so. It seems that you are the one diverting and causing friction on this occassion.

No I say it becuase the origonal poster declared that the "Welsh" posters on here are claiming it. I am Welsh and I have always thought that your forwards were your stregnth, that is why I am always impressed when an English club signs a Welsh forward, because I think the English know there onions when it comes to how forward's play. As for you quote about English posters getting attacked for talking rugby, I think that might either be an inferiority complex or you might have chip on your shoulder as I have always had really good debates with the English one here when we talk about rugby.

[quote="geoff998rugby"][quote="miteyironpaw"]

mckay1402 wrote:
As the one who brought BOD up I did not say he was the best midfielder in the World what I said was that he was the best 13 in the world through the '00's - that is not the same thing.

They are the same in that both are untrue.

You really, honestly think that BOD was better than any other 13 for the entire of the 00's ? You really think that? Really?

Yes, and many people do think he was the best 13 of the 00s. So by your logic, Mike Tindall is better?

Mike Tindall certainly achieved more.

Although their different styles make them hard to compare.

I must say though it's a bold and brave claim.

Casting your mind out side the home nations though, you don't think anyone in the southern hemisphere matched him, at any point in the entire '00s despite a SH world cup, a full house of lions defeats? and numerous grandslams by the big three from the south?

Triangulation wrote:LordDowlais

I had better reply to this since you have questioned the OP. I was genuinely annoyed at welsh comments running down our front row's ability to scrum. More than that though i was starting to see as one sometimes does throw away lines gathering something bordering on legitimacy through repetition. I'm not having it. Simple.

There has been a hell of a lot of talk from the welsh about how big they are. I believe Gatland and Edwards have recently been in print talking up this aspect of Wales team.

Then we get Jonathan Davies mouthing off slating almost every unit in our side and saying that were going to be "smashed" at forward and that Wales could really "go to town on us ".

So please forgive me if i pull up one of two of your compatriots for getting too big for their boots (pun intended)

I did not say that ALL welsh supporters were guilty of this and in fact went out of my way to single out an example.

Tri you have devoted a whole thread to attack me because I hold a different opinion to you. I have clearly stated in my posts about the English team what I feel are fair and balanced points based upon rugby. I have openly praised English players in my posts and their potential. I have kept any bickering and banter to the thread I created because Im always happy to discuss rugby. I have openly criticised my team and said what their weaknesses are. In all my posts I have said nothing about the result is a certainty. I havent resroted to personal attacks and I think there are enough posters on here who would vouch that Im not a wum. So why the attack? Ive disagreed with you, Im entitled to and Ive kept it to the rugby.