Who will win the Rugby Championship?

First topic message reminder :

Are the people crazy?

Spoiler:

The prestigious webpage Planetrugby.com did a poll asking Who will win The Rugby Championship?
All is ok with the winer, NZ, but the crazy is that Argentina has more votes than Australia!
Me, as Argentine, don't think so.
What is your opinion?

The big thing about the Argies v 2007 is that back then they had a good 22 but they now have much more strenght in debth as shown this summer. That will be key for them for the RC as travel and injuries take their toll.

Italy are getting a better 22 but they still sadly lack the second string team.

I hope so Brendan. If the Pumas get an injury crisis it's comforting to know they have the players that shouldn't get embarrassed. I saw the 93-8 demolition at Athletic Park and when I wasn't holding on for dear life to the railings at the top of the Millard I was hoping for Argentina's sake that this doesn't happen again.

Brendan wrote:The big thing about the Argies v 2007 is that back then they had a good 22 but they now have much more strenght in debth as shown this summer. That will be key for them for the RC as travel and injuries take their toll.

Italy are getting a better 22 but they still sadly lack the second string team.

Strength in depth? I take it you aren't aware of the 2nd fixture versus France this summer? I was also under the impression that Argentina have quite an aging team (well in the forwards anyway, and their best backline player). Can't fault them though. They wear their heart on their sleeve every time they play.

They won the first test against France though.

Please you are remembering the worst result of the Pumas in all their history.
Never before or since have had a fall so serious.
I think a good reference is the last game of the Pumas in the RWC 2011 against blacks.
The first half ended 12 to 7. (Argentina did a try)
Then, they defends the score 18 to 10 until minute 66, from there; the physical exhaustion was noted and the match ended 33 to 10.
This game can be a good reference of what may be the next game against blacks.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:They won the first test against France though.

Yes. But that wasn't the point. Argentina made something like 7 changes for the 2nd test and got absolutely thrashed by a team they have had the better of in recent seasons. It might just be me but I don't think that indicates some strength in depth. If they get a better club structure I'm sure they could build some. They do very well as it is.

Morgannwg wrote:

Brendan wrote:The big thing about the Argies v 2007 is that back then they had a good 22 but they now have much more strenght in debth as shown this summer. That will be key for them for the RC as travel and injuries take their toll.

Italy are getting a better 22 but they still sadly lack the second string team.

Strength in depth? I take it you aren't aware of the 2nd fixture versus France this summer? I was also under the impression that Argentina have quite an aging team (well in the forwards anyway, and their best backline player). Can't fault them though. They wear their heart on their sleeve every time they play.

Again, that team was a Argentina C or maybe Argentina D.
Nobody of our first choice players was there.

C or D? I don't think so. Felipe was there.

Morgannwg wrote:C or D? I don't think so. Felipe was there.

He was pretty much the only one, leading the team in his farewell series before international retirement. The rest of the top players were being rested, to give them some off-season - they'll play the 4N, then go straight to NH club rugby.

The esteemed Naas Botha concurs that the argentinian team in the second test was their C team.

Argentina will gain an Ireland second test motivation after getting thrashed in an away match to have their best chance of winning at home and as Ireland showed it wont matter whos in front of them.

For Argentina its about character this round. There will be a point, probably earlier for argie than the others where they cant win it.

This is far tougher for argie to get up for match after match than anything theyve ever faced in their history, hence the reason for this thread.

How ill they cope after a thrashing?
How will they cope when 5,6,7 leading players are out of the tournament?
How will they cope when their own public and media write them off?
Have they prepared for six of the toughest tests they will have never come close to facing before?

This has happened to all three sides previously so its inevitable at some point with argie.

For the other three getting max points against argie will be a must as they know they wont get them as easily against the others.

It isnt the one offs that makes this difficult for argie...its the entirety of the tournament. Theyll be battered like never before week after week.

I think theyll win one or two at the very most. But theyll go through a hell of a lot to do it.

It's just the B, C or D team term annoys me, because there is no such thing. Arg have an A team (the Jaguars), but that's it.

Don`t just write of Argentina without a thought,there side will be strongest sen since 2007.That includes HernandeZ and he can win games on his own remember 2007.NZ at anything near full strength[whatever that is] I would expect to win all there home games,and are certainly capable of winning away
anywhere.That is not saying that they will,SA and OZ would expect to win at home but willthey?.Both Nz and SA are in rebuild mode and have new Coaching teams.Aus .with all there stars fit have the most settled Coaching/Playing team.
I don`t think Argentina will be thrashed in any game and are quite capable of winning matches at Home or if takenlightly away.

Argentina play SA twice before meeting NZ in Wellington. From these matches they'll likely be very bruised if not carrying injuries already given both sides prioritise through forward play (as similarly will the Boks)

Do they have sufficient back up to replace key players if lost? With their supposed recent B and C efforts this didnt look to be the case.

As Oz (who were extremely lucky to be basically uninjured in key positions for the entire 3N) found out in the World cup and since that its also about squad depth.

The thrashings will certainly come if key players are injured and they dont have world class cover in the position, and all 3 teams have suffered from this over the last two years big time.

NZ have great depth in some positions, not a lot in others where flexibility will be needed- 15's at 14, 7's at 6 etc but generally I think we're strongest on that level of the four.

Hi.Taylorman the AllBlacks have GREAT potential depth but not a lot of experenced ones.Players like Fruen,Guildford,Robbie Robinson,all could step up
or become another Scott Hamilton.Add a cap ot 2 to the CV then off to Japan or NH.Chiefs had a couple of good front rowers playing v the Crusaders but at least one is off for the money.SBW is a gone burger ,ditto Toeva a couple of what might have beens.A lot of key players from all 3 sides likelt to miss some or all 4N.

Yeah thats my point. Do Argentina have players ike Guilford, Fruean, Robinson, Ellison, Andre Taylor, Barrett, Ellis, Kerr Barlow, the Whitelocks, Cruden, Mealamu, B Franks, Vito etc- all potential seconds and thirds.

The other thing is the Pumas havnt been playing the sxv. They need to be to perform at this level at this time of the year.

The SH tours were a virtual whitewash largely because of the form sustained during the sxv where many combinations were already playing together.

Just think 6 matches in 7 weeks against the evergreen 1, 2 and 3 in World rugby is a HUGE ask for the team ranked comfortably behind all the teams that toured the SH without success (Scotland excluded...).

Argentina will improving quickly. It always happens that the game is going to the level near the standard. Which is why competor between "top" teams is always so closely.

For example, Look how much worse Italy getting when they forced to play in 6N all the time! (this is some joke, so please let not start the other thread complain to moderators again). I realisate that Italy in the 6N decry my idea that Argentina will get better quickly but I think Italy start some way behind the standard of Argentina anyway and Argentina have the potentials to reach and improve but Italy lacking depth and infrastructure institutions to training and developing new players.

Sanzar, in his official page sanzarrugby.com did a poll by Twitter asking this:
“Which of the three nations would you pick to win The Rugby Championship - SA, NZ or Aus??”
Come on Sanzar!
We know Argentina has no chance to win the tournament, but they can’t ignore the new guest.
Is a disrespect that in the official page they ask it.

Well it is the SANZAR site Argie fan. That does not include Argentina. I agree the question could be phrased better but in the meantime you are the junior partner in this new championship. I recommend sending it in to your team's management so they can use it for motivation. But sadly until Argentina prove themselves in this championship, get used to this condescending attitude. Doesn't make it right but looking at the NH touring sides, the same principle applies. The best way to get the respect of the big 3 media is by beating sides. You have every chance of doing that, notably at home, so it's up to your side to change these kinds of website polls. Look at France for example. Huge respect for them in NZ but consistently written off by many in the 6N. The same with Australia in the NH even though they command a lot of respect among SA and NZ. Win and you'll find attitudes will change. Struggle and you'll only reinforce that patronising attitude. Sad but true.

There were glimpses of, what I believe to be, unstoppable Bok power in the first two tests angainst England. If they can keep that up for a full 80 mins in every match, they'd win the tournament. That is, however, a very big, and in my opinion, improbable, 'if'.

As is my custom when the Bokke lose to Northern opposition i dissapear from these boards for months,but as the Boks only drew i have returned

The Boks usually come out steaming and it's a pretty intimidating sight for any team. But when they play us, if we're well in the game with 30 gone or even at halftime, I'm confident in our chances. I find a lull usually happens against the Boks, and that's when the ABs usually do serious damage. But you need a physical side to stay in the game with the Boks on the rampage and I am a bit worried that with Kaino and Thorn gone there may be too much to do in those lull periods, especially in Africa.

Dunno disney.For what we lost with kaino and thorn weve gained in other areas. At lock, halfback and several promising youngsters coming through add to our depth i reckon.

South Africa have lost more grunt than us in matfield, burger, to an extent smit and also fourie at centre.

The England series didnt set the world alight and as usual I refuse to accept that a gameplan that denies its backs good ball will beat a full 15 approach where the physicality is similar.

England were still in each of the tests despite the impression that they got mauled. SA always seem to just do enough as their simple bang it up phased approach is usually enough for most teams. But they win the hard way. It hasnt worked against the ABs and I cant see it winning this year.

Like Deans Meyer should have targetted the ABs this year..playing the 'rest will follow' card. But he hasnt. Hes kicked for touch and gone for % wins.
The good old Bok way.

And he may get them.

But if he doesnt his side will look tired very quickly, offering nothing new.Lots of good tough close wins but nothing special.

Its a style that will never dominate world rugby largely because its exclusive in its nature.
Anyway. My views on the subject are nothing new. We'll have our usual ding dong battles and may lose the odd test but it will be disappointing seeing steyn toughing it out again at 10 when there are SA players at home that could offer more variety and promise.

Taylorman wrote:
England were still in each of the tests despite the impression that they got mauled. SA always seem to just do enough as their simple bang it up phased approach is usually enough for most teams. But they win the hard way. It hasnt worked against the ABs and I cant see it winning this year.

Taylorman as much as I agree with you that we need a pivot with more creativity and less predictability, I also believe you protest our gameplan too much.

It hasn't worked against the All Blacks is short sighted. It has worked against the All Blacks more than any other plan has worked against them, the last two years it didn't, but simply because John Smit, Victor Matfield and PDV refused to adapt in any way.

Yes the English were in ever test, yet we missed bucketloads of kicks and when we played to our potential we mauled them. You can be certain of this, we will play better rugby in the Rugby Championship, and Meyer will learn from his mistakes.

We still have players that unfortunately won't be there, but there is nothing we can do about that.

Yes I realise i go on a bit. Partly cos theres not a lot about and its a bit quiet.
But saying that if anything meyers single biggest mistake was not progressing another first choice 10. He hardly even subbed him.
Has he learned from that?
Havnt seen anything from his way suggesting it. He'll see it as a glitch at best.

Whats Meyer said are the areas to improve on since England?

So far there hasn't been too many public announcements.

However he admitted Morne Steyn concerns him, he also said he has to reassess his methodologies and that the Springboks are nowhere near where he wants them to be.

Cool.
Just over four weeks to go. Interesting SA have argie as the first two.
Should find themselves as front runners after round two perhaps.

In between theres a trophy to be won and coaches will be sweating over some heavy tackles hoping their players keep getting up. Injuries could decide the RC.

I think there are advantages and disadvantages of playing Argentina first.

This will be their toughest series of tests in their history, they will be more up for it in the beginning becasue there will be no injuries or fatigue, those teams that play them last could end up playing an Argentinian team hit with injuries and fatigue, but by playing them first it gives SA time to settle on combinations.

The question which is best.

The crucial factor for me is not who have left but there replacements.Matfield Botha,Smit,Steenkamp,Juan Smit,doubts about Burgers fitness,Du Preez.Thats a lot of experience to lose.Never doubt you have the equivalent available BUT at test level they have to prove it.The same with the All Black replacements Thorn for all his qualities was never much of a line out option.Kaino is a loss but he was long term injured anyway,and no single player is irreplaceable.No 9 with much test experience Jimmy Cowan was never a great 9.But he was a crafty little beggar and very strong defensively the inabilitie of NZ 9`s to last more than 60 minutes must be worrying.Tossing a tyro9 to a slavering Bok back row does`nt appeal.Game plan ,what game plan? what works against NH teams may not versus SH.With respect a team playing an injury weakened England[even allowing for your own injured] and a full strength NZ side may be 2 different things.

biltongbek wrote:I think there are advantages and disadvantages of playing Argentina first.

This will be their toughest series of tests in their history, they will be more up for it in the beginning becasue there will be no injuries or fatigue, those teams that play them last could end up playing an Argentinian team hit with injuries and fatigue, but by playing them first it gives SA time to settle on combinations.

The question which is best.

Your view is interesting about injury replacements. But as a team in training, I think they need to play and spend days together training to adjust details, and I think every game they play will be stronger as a team.

Argie, I agree the Argentinian team will gel and get better as a combination as the tournament progresses, yet that same time spent together could be negatively impacted on injuries.

It will be interseting how things develop.

It'll also be interesting to see how SA views the games against Argentina. Aus and NZ will be playing against each other so will SA rest players in view of those games or will they want to get combinations going and play their best squad and then rest players on the bench if they get enough cushion.

For wrong or right, some might view Argentina like a pool match in the World Cup and put out a weaker squad. That's when Argentina might well punish that complacency.

But with that much travel, how teams manage their injuries and rest their key players will play a crucial role for overall honours.

KIa, I hope Meyer goes all out for the bonus point wins, if we can wlak away from those two tests with 10 log points I would be satisfied anything less is unaccpetable, not a slight on Argentina, but if we want any say in the tournamnet we will have to get those bonus points, NZ are certainly going to go for it.

We have scored and average of 5.3 tries per atch against them, and beat them by an average of 20 points per match, now tey ave obviously improved over the years and we haven't played them since 2008, but we need to keep the same standard.

The issue of bonus points is the other side of the coin. It's a good point Biltong. Certainly SA getting 10 points would send out a message of intent as well as applying pressure to do the same. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more these games first up for SA suit them. Providing they win and win well, their confidence will be up and they can apply pressure on Aus and NZ as front runners.

The issue of bonus points is essential.
I think the influence of Argentina in the tournament will be how many bonus points get the others teams when they play against Argentina.
This hypothesis is based on that Argentina will lose all their games, something highly likely.

Looking at the draw you can see the most difficult patches for each team.

Australia plays NZ at home first up and must try to get a win there. They then play NZ away and that has proven beyond them for quite some time. Win that match and their confidence will be sky high. Lose and ideally losing within 7 like they have been for most matches against NZ and the damage will be minimised. Then they play SA at home. SA will have travelled from Argentina but Aus will have had two bruising matches against NZ. It's a key match because you must aim to win all your home games but the physical toll will be starting to tell. Then they play Argentina at home. Really that's four games more or less in the same area so there will be no travel effects for Australia. They must take that advantage and look for maximum points. Then the last two matches are away in SA and Argentina. Given their draw, they must try to target the SA match which will be another key match. Then the last match away in Argentina and their attitude must be right.

NZ start with two games against Australia away and home. If they can win away in Australia first up it'll be ideal. But they have to target the home game as a must win. Then they have two home games against Argentina and SA. If they are in a good position, they can rest a few players in anticipation of SA coming. 5 points against Argentina at home is a must so I'd start my A team, wear Argentina down and then run away with it at the end and empty the bench resting the key players. Then a long trip to Argentina. They must turn up in the right frame of mind. I think this will depend on how many points they have at this stage and how the last game against SA goes. Bonus points would be nice but it's a huge ask playing there. Then SA away and NZ go into the match having the benefit of knowing the results from Australia's match so know exactly what they have to do if they're in a position to win. If SA are within victory they too will know what they have to do to win. Sometimes that can be an advantage or a disadvantage. If you go into the match needing 5 points, it may make you loose and you run the risk of making mistakes pushing things too soon. Go in needing only a few points similarly and you might close up shop and play a defensive game that might let the opposition into the game.

So SA play Argentina home and away first up. Not much travel for them in that respect. Get a great start and they put pressure on NZ and Aus. Conversely, they might get it horribly wrong and they have to play catch up rugby. They must be ruthless and seek maximum points. Then to Australia where they've struggled in recent years. Aus will be tired after two games against NZ. SA have a lot tougher travel schedule. Who can come out on top? A key match for both sides. Then they face NZ away which will be NZ's second home game. If they run away against Argentina their confidence will be up. Another key match. Then Australia and NZ at home to finish. Two tough matches. Will their stamina be enough in the last game. The Australia will no doubt be another key match to see who goes into the last game with enough points to be able to win.

So Argentina might well have wished for Australia in their opening two matches. SA will be just as brutal up front so how will they come out of those matches in terms of injuries? Then a long trip to NZ and I think this could be a blow out. Then again, get a result or at least a good performance in the home match in particular against SA and their confidence will have been greatly boosted. Then a match in Australia and what frame of mind will the teams turn up. Aus have been guilty of losing matches against teams they should dominate. This is a key match for Argentina. Get a result away from home and what a boost. Get spanked twice and their home performances might suffer. So two last games against NZ and Australia and much will depend on these two games for how their tournament is judged. Maybe two away spankings might help them. The opposition might take them lightly and they might regroup as a team and come out with an amazing performance. One thing is for sure, if NZ or Aus don't turn up with the right attitude they run the risk of being embarrassed.

So looking at that draw it's difficult to see who has the favourable draw. I think the travel schedule is well managed for all sides. Normally Australia and NZ and then SA and Argentina are grouped together. Each side has two home games in a row. So I think getting early points is the key and dictating terms early on. Get behind early and you risk making mistakes going for risky plays. Much more exciting than 3 games against two countries. Thank you Argentina for making this competition more interesting. Here's hoping you get some credible performances and a victory or two to make things even more interesting.

I think from a South African perspective we would want OZ to win their home game against NZ and NZ to win their home game against OZ, hopefully with neither team gaining any bounus points.

SA would want their bonus points and it would be ideal for them if after round two the log looks like this.

SA 10
NZ 4
OZ 4
ARG 1

Then SA will go to Perth which is their best venue in OZ and must hope to sneak a win.

NZ will most likely trounce ARG

Log then after round 3

SA 14
NZ 9
OZ 5
ARG 1

This is what SA would need to be in the pound seats.

The reality here is last year doesn't matter much now, SA has a new coach, perhaps a little too conservative, but much better equipped than PDV, hopefully the faith SARU put in Meyer will show.

We will learn a lot from this series as to what direction Meyer is going to go, he is still limited in some of his selection s due to injuires, but gameplan will be an eye opener.

I think our depth in this series might be exposed though.

due to injuries our backrow will be vital not to sustain injuries, our midfield, well simply put there are no replacements.

Yeah your backrow is a huge worry. One of my, if not my favourite Bok player, is Juan Smith. I hope Kieran Read doesn't get the same bad luck. He seems to pick up injuries too often though at least not nearly as long terms as Smith. Gotta feel for him. Burger is another favourite of mine and his absence is probably even more keenly felt as SA at least have had his services and his absence will be noted.

That would indeed be an ideal situation for you but I'm afraid to tell you Eden Park is our home game against Australia mate. We just don't seem to lose there. Sydney is a happier hunting ground for us as Brisbane seems to provide us with more trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if we lost in Sydney but I'd be very surprised if we lost in Auckland.

Plus I think for any side to pick up bonus points in Argentina will be a big coup and may well prove decisive later on.

I laughed last night when I watched TJ and his mates on RE Union.

They were of the opinion that Marcell Coetzee is Schalk Burger - but with skills.

They obviously haven't seen Schalk's performances during last year.

One thing I noted last night on the show though was how absolutely biased TJ can be.

He is quick to complain a refereeing decision going against a NZ team and "deemed foul play" from other teams, but when a decision goes the way of a NZ team, he says it is swings and roundabouts, and on "deemed foul play" well it is rugby after all, isn't it.

Marcell Coetzee was immense though against the Bulls. He made 7 offloads which is just crazy. I think he is certainly the future for the springboks. What are your opinions on him biltong?

I like him a lot Rory, my only concern is which players to combine him with, Willem alberts will be there bar any further injuries, but he has been been injured a lot and might not makeit through the whole tournamnet, Pierre Spies isn't very physical, so Duane Vermeulen and Jean Deysel will hopefully be there as back up.

Marcel must not be encumbered with the hard work in defence, he needs to have the freedom to play his own game if you want the best out of him.

Burger is a beast no doubt. Combinations like you say will be key and SA seem to be struggling in that aspect with all their injuries.

I can't stand him. He's even worse commentating on Blues matches. When they score he sounds like he's having an orgasm in the commentary box. Justin Marshall sounds like he's on a rollercoaster but at least he will cheer any good play on. TJ is like a dog without teeth backed into a corner this year with his beloved Blues playing so poorly. Maybe he's just making up for it with his AB bias. But he rubs me the wrong way and even though Marshall is a simpleton and makes gaffes like he's going to take a s**t a shot now outside the halfway line (classic stuff. He also took half an hour to say a word the other day but I can't remember what it was) but at least he's objective. For the Ellis try he thought BL had got it wrong. TJ would've said, fair enough.

I enjoy Justin Marshall's commentary, he is very fair in his assessments and provides as much an unbaised opinion as you would expect.

He makes me cringe at times but at least he has objectivity going for him. It really bugs me when a commentator shows obvious bias. Of course it happens everywhere. Sadly the days of Bill McLaren are well and truly behind us. But you can forgive someone a little bias if they have a genuine passion for the game. Brian Moore is similar to Marshall in that respect. He makes gaffes and has had the microphone turned off sometimes but you can't fault his passion and knowledge of the game. Skinstad is my favoutrite Bok commentator. Humorous and a good read of the game. Phil Kearns makes me want to punch the screen. His hatred of McCaw blinds him to reason. Any mug who justifies raking a player's face is an idiot.

Some of the SKY rugby commentators annoying me Kiakaha because they are very bias and seem to have no passion for the game. The bias take the form of regurgitate the invalid cliches all the time.

"McCaw penalised for off-side. How many times have we said that over the years?"
"Wilkinson misses the kick! Oh so he is human after all"
"The scrum has collapsed and the referee awards a penalty to Australia. That's hard to understand"
"Was there a forward pass in the build up to that try?"
"Looked like obstruction in the lead up to the Australian try"
"The Scottish Bravehearts" will "battle away" and "never give up"
The south africans are always "imposing"
Ireland are always "plucky"
"NZ should win comfortably, but it is NZ and it is a world cup knock out! Will they choke?"
"Ashton dives over for the try, and when he's in this form he really is the best wing in the world"
"On their day, Wales are unstoppable"

My guess is you can make any sky rugby commentary by rearranging the cliches from any other sky rugby commentary.

Too true AWOP.

To me a commentator is not just there to describe what's happening. That's more important for radio commentary. A good commentator needs to go deeper and offer more insight. Murray Mexted was a clown and notorious for making stupid comments. But he could give you brief moments of clarity and offer up insights into the game you're watching. Too often commentators dip into their tried and tested clichés to make up for their lack of knowledge or ability to read a game.

I am willing to give a pundit a lot so long as he can make me aware of things beyond the call of what is happening at a particular moment. If you can't do that then I may as well watch the thing with the sound off.

I liked Mexted because of those insights. You're right Kia he was a clown and seemed to be seeing how much he could get away with on air at the time but he comes up with gems from a different perspective and his insight really could be put to better use from a coaching point of view.

I like the Aussie commentators as they have a laugh too but Kearns' comment really irked me too. I felt that way about Skinstad on Masaga though. He was biased and way over the top there and I like Skinstad. I like Moore's passion and Greenwood's analysis. Nisbett gets bewildered when things are going awry for NZ which is quite funny and Quinn is too partial. TJ is a tool. Ian Smith actually I like. Some good insightful comments-despite not being an ex player he is a former test cricketer so knows the ins and outs of international sport. Though that Thierry Henry gaffe was cringeworthy.

Wondering what brand of gin Hugh Bladen drinks before calling SA games.

Fair enough Disney. Personally I don't like Smithy. Seems to talk up too much AB tries for my liking. Still when listening to Spain's football commentators they make even the French rugby commentators seem like objectivity personified.

I think they all recognise the audience they're dealing with. It was great to see Michael Lynagh back in his role after his health scare. I have a lot of time for him as a pundit and just relieved to see the guy looking so well. Fitzpatrick overplays his role at times and often seems to be biting his tongue.

Sadly, there is no standout pundit for any country. At least for the game commentary. All are flawed in my opinion. What makes them more palatable for me is their ability to read the game rather than cater to the radio talkback sector.

disneychilly wrote:
Wondering what brand of gin Hugh Bladen drinks before calling SA games.

I don;t think it matters disney, from what I have heard as long as it is wet he'll drink it.

Yeah the French commentators are pretty hilarious.

Biltong maybe you guys should start sponsoring Bladen. "And over to Hugh in the Castle Lager commentary box-how's the sponsor's product doing boet?"