"England would win Rugby World Cup if played tomorrow", says prop Joe Marler?

The Media have made a theme of very slightly mis quoting players and coaches recently...!

Read for yourselves, I certainly don't think Marler actually says England would win the RWC if it were to start tomorrow.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9873482/England-would-win-Rugby-World-Cup-if-played-tomorrow-says-prop-Joe-Marler.html



Talk of England lifting the Webb Ellis Cup in over two years' time is clearly premature but Marler and team-mate Owen Farrell admit the tournament is on their mind in the long term.

"If it was to start tomorrow, we'd back ourselves to win it," Marler said.

"It's a little bit of an English thing in most sports, getting ahead of ourselves somewhat."

"But we're on a journey. We're on a journey as a team and each time we pull on that shirt it's another step towards that ultimate goal of a home World Cup in front of your own fans."

"That's our main goal. But we'll be focusing on the process in between then and now because it's still two and a half years away, so we've got lots to do before then."

Stellar fly-half Farrell is similarly cautious but also well aware of the side's long-term ambitions.

"The World Cup is a long way away," he said.

"There's obviously loads of rugby to be played before then but that's when everyone wants to peak and that's what we want to build towards.

"As long as we keep going in the right direction, we'll be in good stead."

The quote in your article title isn't a quote. To have it in quotation marks is misleading. Since I'm sure that wouldn't be deliberate do you fancy changing it? It's not in quotation marks in the original.

All he said that came close is that they would back themselves to win. Doesn't every team that enters?

good one Joe...give an inch...

The quote in the original article is in fact a quote from the Telegraph, hammer, so Maesteg is correct. What is journalistic drivel is the paper's attempt to extrapolate that headline from the fairly run-of-the-mill, dull opinions proffered by England's prop. Maesteg himself says as much in his preamble.

No need for anyone to be so sensitive on this one. British sports journalism meanwhile continues its vertiginous descent from quality to dross, all within two decades.

Well, after having actually read the column Marlers comments are great and are reflective of a growing confidence in the side, and theres a maturity there thats slightly worrying in all honesy.

SLs influence is coming through I reckon. Its not the usual English style.

Agree its a stupid money grabbing headline though.

captain carrantuohil wrote:The quote in the original article is in fact a quote from the Telegraph,

No, it isn't. The words used in the article headline are the same as the headline in the telegraph - but amended by the OP with the insertion of the speachmarks. This then makes it look like it is a direct Joe Marler quote rather than shoddy journalism. Any lazy posters will then post based on the headline and the myth of the England team being arrogant continues.

Only the OP knows why he chose to amend and sensationalise what was already a sensationalised (and dumb) headline.

Splitting hairs, LT. It is technically correct to put quotation marks as far as the end of the word Marler, rather than the word tomorrow, but as the OP goes on to say that the media have a habit of misquoting players, I think it's quite clear what he means. It is to me, anyway, and I'm at least partly an England fan.

People will see what they want to see, of course; all too often on this board, that comes through the prism of subjectivity and partisanship and is navel-contemplation of the highest order.

I am sadly not impartial, as I have a history with the OP. I feel the article would be better served by a more accurate and certainly more neutral headline.

Can't see what the fuss is about. Joe's about right isn't he? Well spotted maesty, it had to be said.

captain carrantuohil wrote:The quote in the original article is in fact a quote from the Telegraph, hammer, so Maesteg is correct. What is journalistic drivel is the paper's attempt to extrapolate that headline from the fairly run-of-the-mill, dull opinions proffered by England's prop. Maesteg himself says as much in his preamble.

No need for anyone to be so sensitive on this one. British sports journalism meanwhile continues its vertiginous descent from quality to dross, all within two decades.

Thank you Captain,

I have added a question mark hoping that that would aid those who do not have a comprehensive grasp of grammar. Though I don't doubt that the same nefarious members on this board will now question the question mark rather than the subject.

Maes, don't let it bother you. As for the sentiments expressed these are what you would hope for, a growing belief that they can get there but no illusion as to needing to develop to achieve it. They are going to hurt a lot when they do get beaten and that too is as it should be. They are getting there.

maestegmafia wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:The quote in the original article is in fact a quote from the Telegraph, hammer, so Maesteg is correct. What is journalistic drivel is the paper's attempt to extrapolate that headline from the fairly run-of-the-mill, dull opinions proffered by England's prop. Maesteg himself says as much in his preamble.

No need for anyone to be so sensitive on this one. British sports journalism meanwhile continues its vertiginous descent from quality to dross, all within two decades.

Thank you Captain,

I have added a question mark hoping that that would aid those who do not have a comprehensive grasp of grammar. Though I don't doubt that the same nefarious members on this board will now question the question mark rather than the subject.

It what way do the quotation marks help people who do not have a comprehensive grasp of grammar? Other than make them think it was a quote from Marler?

I assume you meant quotation mark rather than question mark.

aitchw wrote:Maes, don't let it bother you. As for the sentiments expressed these are what you would hope for, a growing belief that they can get there but no illusion as to needing to develop to achieve it. They are going to hurt a lot when they do get beaten and that too is as it should be. They are getting there.

I was chatting with a kiwi friend the other night who thinks that this emerging England team have the excellent benefit of emerging in an era with good competition around them. This is possibly the strongest six teams the Six nations has provided to date in one sitting.

It is surely beneficial to grow together in a tough environment. I think Marler reinforces that in his quotes rather unfairly portrayed by the Telegraph's Sports editors. As mentioned above the article breaths sincerity, not the arrogance the title suggests.

captain carrantuohil wrote:The quote in the original article is in fact a quote from the Telegraph, hammer, so Maesteg is correct. What is journalistic drivel is the paper's attempt to extrapolate that headline from the fairly run-of-the-mill, dull opinions proffered by England's prop. Maesteg himself says as much in his preamble.

No need for anyone to be so sensitive on this one. British sports journalism meanwhile continues its vertiginous descent from quality to dross, all within two decades.

Absolutely, 100%, spot on. Utter bunkum unworthy of the term 'journalism'.

To be honest if they didn't back themselves and believe they have a chance of winning... for any team in any game... you shouldn't be putting on the bloody shirt.

It's good that Lancaster can make these guys believe they are world beaters, but is Marler really that stupid to put petrol on Jim Telfer's fire?

The Great Aukster wrote:It's good that Lancaster can make these guys believe they are world beaters, but is Marler really that stupid to put petrol on Jim Telfer's fire?

Did you actually read what he said?

One day a player will be asked one of these stupid leading questions and reply "nah we're proper $hit - couldn't beat them!"

A real story then!

Marler`s comment was "IF the RWC was played tomorrow we`d back ourselfs to win".The air of confidence in the team group is obvious what`s the point of saying "We`ve no chance ".You have to beleave in yourselves what`s wrong with that?It`s along way from saying we WILL win it what`s the point of competeing if you don`t think you can win?

Good to see Cleary already has a 100 comments of 'can you please stop talking sh1t'; this is blatant hackery even for him.

If you want to hear Marler talk about the 6N, the atmosphere and attitude in the England camp just to go listen to a few of his interviews on his club site. The interviewer is a little sycophantic, but at least he isn't completely mis-quoted for an agenda driven, sensationalistic piece-of-crap article like this.

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:It's good that Lancaster can make these guys believe they are world beaters, but is Marler really that stupid to put petrol on Jim Telfer's fire?

Did you actually read what he said?

Probably not - but he read the headline here and perhaps on the article. If only the question mark had saved him

I will have to find the sources, but there is plenty of research to show that a newspaper headline (and by extension an article headline here?) has by far the biggest influence on whatthe reader takes from a story. Even if they read the story, it is the headline that stays with them.

Shall we put Marlers comment in a little file with Gatlands?

thebluesmancometh wrote:Shall we put Marlers comment in a little file with Gatlands?

Only if it is the "comments they did not actually make" file.

This is a rather apt comparison. Too often the press sensationalise what Gatland says through false headlines.

Of course it is LT Anyone who claims otherwise is trolling IMHO, as Mister was in the Gatland thread.

The press can sometimes really sensationalise interviews and comments. Or delete references or context which can change meanings. After all, news reporting is a competitive business. And some companies play much faster and looser than others (a polite statement, that).

A number of years ago, I gave what I thought was a fairly benign interview from Afghanistan in one of the combat zones. Was supposed to be a puff piece about how we were building bridges with the local residents, and how they were grateful for our assistance - which was all true. The report was so twisted, our guys sounded like criminals and thugs (absolute zero truth!), and I was dangerous. There was a lot of misreporting at the time and although this piece created a minor stir if you read that kind of thing, it rang a lot of bells with all allied troops and with the government. We were all exonerated (and later honoured), in part because we had a couple of reporters from other outlets with us, both of whom backed us to the hilt. Point is I really dislike the irresponsible reporting, but it is commonplace. Shame.

They would definitely beat NZ. It takes one day of travel time and you lose effectively a day with the time difference.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Shall we put Marlers comment in a little file with Gatlands?

Quite, he is obviously thinking if he makes outlandish comments he will get picked by the Master of outlandish comments

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:They would definitely beat NZ. It takes one day of travel time and you lose effectively a day with the time difference.

doctor_grey wrote:The press can sometimes really sensationalise interviews and comments. Or delete references or context which can change meanings. After all, news reporting is a competitive business. And some companies play much faster and looser than others (a polite statement, that).

A number of years ago, I gave what I thought was a fairly benign interview from Afghanistan in one of the combat zones. Was supposed to be a puff piece about how we were building bridges with the local residents, and how they were grateful for our assistance - which was all true. The report was so twisted, our guys sounded like criminals and thugs (absolute zero truth!), and I was dangerous. There was a lot of misreporting at the time and although this piece created a minor stir if you read that kind of thing, it rang a lot of bells with all allied troops and with the government. We were all exonerated (and later honoured), in part because we had a couple of reporters from other outlets with us, both of whom backed us to the hilt. Point is I really dislike the irresponsible reporting, but it is commonplace. Shame.

I've worked with national journalists (broadsheet as well as tabloid) for many years and I can safely say that bar a few decent ones the majority are pondlife - arrogant, self-important, bull shi**ers. Hey ho, that's our great free press.

nobbled wrote:One day a player will be asked one of these stupid leading questions and reply "nah we're proper $hit - couldn't beat them!"

A real story then!

Michalak gave an interview/article in this month's rugby world saying he didn't think the French were consistent enough to win the 6N this year!

But they have been consistent.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Of course it is LT Anyone who claims otherwise is trolling IMHO, as Mister was in the Gatland thread.

nooooooooooooooo.

gatlands problem is entirely different..

Gatland voiced concern over media sensationalism in the media!!!..

yes the headlines are equally 'money grabbing' by the media.. but what marley said is just typical confidence.. gatlands subject material was ironic to the core..

Weren't Gatland's comments deliberately ironic?

Offcourse not. What sense would that make?

ChequeredJersey wrote:Weren't Gatland's comments deliberately ironic?

Irony and sarcasm do seem to feature very highly in his sense of humour.

Invariably "mis" or "re" - interpreted, by headline hungry journos...!

You dont say that part of your team are hated by other countries and that there will be loads more pressure on your shoulders if you pick them.. He is just opening himself up for future abuse from every single side..

Forget the headlines lads.. Both were equally reinterpreted by the media..

I was arguing gatlands actual subject.. not the ridiculas headlines ..

(wheres the troll symbol?)

I tend to ignore much of what Mister says, he likes being fed

I think you are all over-estimating the intellects and ambitions of these two.
Cleary equates reader response with successful journalism.
Gats is a part-time buffoon.

Mind you, I'd rather have a drink with the clown than the snide.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:They would definitely beat NZ. It takes one day of travel time and you lose effectively a day with the time difference.

Or we could just pick our locals kia. Evans to start with...

I think Marler is 100% right, England mullered the Kiwis in every facet of the game, then went on to beat World cup finalist regulars Scotland and Ireland.

Lets also take into account Farrell is a WINNER! the kid is a WINNER!
I would say Farrell is even more a WINNER than Courtney Lawes is a NATURAL ATHLETE.

Also take in to account Marlers hair cut, it's a hair cut of a hard man champion not of a child who wants to project a tough attitude out of insecure fear,
a real hair cut all he needs now is a bright red leather cod piece to wear out side of his shorts to show how much of a real hard man he is.

Taylorman wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:They would definitely beat NZ. It takes one day of travel time and you lose effectively a day with the time difference.

Or we could just pick our locals kia. Evans to start with...

15- Payne
14- Rokocoko
13- Laulala/King
12- McAlister
11- Howlett
10- Evans (k)
9- Cowan
8- Tulou
7- Poff
6- Masoe
5- ?
4- ?
3- Hayman/Afoa
2- de Malmanche
1- Taumoepeau

With


Donald, Budgen, Botica, Hamilton, Bowden, Sam Tuitupou, Sivivatu, Reihana, Blair, Paterson, Atiga, Johnstone all options (can't find any locks though) and Schmidt as the manager is a decent team even without any training together

Sorensen. Not amazing but a kiwi

LondonTiger wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:It's good that Lancaster can make these guys believe they are world beaters, but is Marler really that stupid to put petrol on Jim Telfer's fire?

Did you actually read what he said?

Probably not - but he read the headline here and perhaps on the article. If only the question mark had saved him

I will have to find the sources, but there is plenty of research to show that a newspaper headline (and by extension an article headline here?) has by far the biggest influence on whatthe reader takes from a story. Even if they read the story, it is the headline that stays with them.

FYI I can read and did read the article, perhaps I need to explain the question for those who didn't understand it? Professional players get media training, ergo Marler must be incredibly stupid to fuel the recent arrogance claims, because that is exactly the angle the media are going to be probing and their spin is entirely predictable.

Marler said about the World Cup: “If it was to start tomorrow, we’d back ourselves to win it”
In other words Marler would back England to beat anyone right now. Coincidentally there just happens to be a Six Nations tournament in progress therefore Joe is obviously backing England to win it. Considering the 6N is less than half way through and purely based on what he said, it is not unreasonable that some might construe his words as arrogant when publicly reported rather than kept inside the dressing room. So to rephrase the question, if Marler isn't stupid, why did he think it was a good idea to provide a nice soundbite for opposition dressing room walls?

Not backing your team to win a competition in which you are partaking dooms you to defeat before you have begun. If I don't back myself and my colleagues as a player/singer/performer/person, why the hell should anyone else? Half the battle with anything in life is convincing yourself you can succeed.

Also, nobody needs any dressing room fuel to want to beat England in the 6N!

ChequeredJersey wrote:Not backing your team to win a competition in which you are partaking dooms you to defeat before you have begun. If I don't back myself and my colleagues as a player/singer/performer/person, why the hell should anyone else? Half the battle with anything in life is convincing yourself you can succeed.

Obviously.

If Marler had said nothing would that mean he wasn't backing the team? What about say Robshaw - he didn't say he'd back England to win the world cup so does that mean he is a beaten docket? None of the guys playing Test rugby are without inherent self-belief, but declaring publicly they will beat all-comers smacks of arrogance, and sets the team up for a fall. Maybe Marler's comments are for the England dressing room wall so that everyone knows what they have to live up to?

I suppose The Great Aukster also felt the same way about Sergio Parisse, Gareth Jenkins, Stirling Mortlock, Michael Owen, Ryan Jones, Sean Lamont, Stephen Ferris, Chiliboy Ralepelle and Fabie Pelous. He just forgot to evicerate them at the time.

A cursory google search shows all those players saying publicly that their teams can beat anybody (and not just "on the day"), including at World Cups.

I don't know of any All Black who goes into a single match, let alone a World Cup, without the belief they are good enough to win.

I still remember when the North of England beat the All Blacks in 1979. Amidst a lot of home town joy, one local reporter did mention what everyone had been happily ignoring - the visitors were on a punishing schedule and had little chance to be at their best for a midweek game.

Stu Wilson was having none of it. I can only paraphrase, but he replied that anyone taking to the field in an All Black shirt expected to win every time, no matter the circumstances.

Wilson's comments were rightly seen as very gracious and it's unfortunate that some in rugby these days, mainly journalists, spend their time playing "spot the arrogance" instead of celebrating players who are prepared to play the game with the confidence that their skills and teammates will produce a win.

Rugby Fan wrote:I suppose The Great Aukster also felt the same way about Sergio Parisse, Gareth Jenkins, Stirling Mortlock, Michael Owen, Ryan Jones, Sean Lamont, Stephen Ferris, Chiliboy Ralepelle and Fabie Pelous. He just forgot to evicerate them at the time.

A cursory google search shows all those players saying publicly that their teams can beat anybody (and not just "on the day"), including at World Cups.

I don't know of any All Black who goes into a single match, let alone a World Cup, without the belief they are good enough to win.

I still remember when the North of England beat the All Blacks in 1979. Amidst a lot of home town joy, one local reporter did mention what everyone had been happily ignoring - the visitors were on a punishing schedule and had little chance to be at their best for a midweek game.

Stu Wilson was having none of it. I can only paraphrase, but he replied that anyone taking to the field in an All Black shirt expected to win every time, no matter the circumstances.

Wilson's comments were rightly seen as very gracious and it's unfortunate that some in rugby these days, mainly journalists, spend their time playing "spot the arrogance" instead of celebrating players who are prepared to play the game with the confidence that their skills and teammates will produce a win.

Who's eviscerating anyone? As already mentioned every Test player thinks they can win otherwise they don't become Test players. However not all of them have the temerity to say it publicly in the midst of "arrogance" accusations - AFAIK none of the others have.