Lancaster Loses Plot

First topic message reminder :

Stuart Lancaster. Care-taker coach. Largely seen as a stable if unspectacular stop gap whilst England courted an international coach of class who wouldn't shudder at the prospect. Possibly Jake White, Eddie Jones or Wayne Smith?

But with a surprise victory over an off-colour All Blacks he found himself in the position of a little known band hitting the #1 spot with a surprise novelty song.  Like the DJ Psy of the rugby world, the Gangnam Style England galloped to an unlikely success over NZ and now Stuart Lancaster finds himself in the unfortunate spot of having to concoct that difficult second album.

He came close to a 6N triumph, but ultimately his backing singers revealed their innate lack of harmonic dexterity and were well out of key as they were thumped by a passionate Wales and brought back to Earth with a resounding thud that still echoes today from the wide stellar orbit that their accidental trajectory had propelled them to.

Lancaster needs to look to the very values that made him the right man in the right place all those months ago. His grounded, back to basics approach and rigorous attention to disciplining the out of control England set up. Frankly this astral nonsense that he has allowed himself to be carried away with: flying half way around the world for a rugby lesson from teams with vastly more proficient resources to call upon, visiting NZ to "absorb the culture of success" and interrogating Brian Lochore for insight into the AB mindset is an absurd exercise in unchecked self delusion of Woodwardian proportion.

Someone at RFU HQ needs to pull the guy aside and put a flea in his ear: He didn't base his "revolution" in English rugby on whimsy and wishing on a falling star, he did it by grounding a flailing outfit who's collective personality had become so over-blown that it had obscured its own judgement.

""I want to do more work with the players on the culture and identity of England, to talk about it with them and see it grow".

Leave it out Stu. Just get the scrum ready for the new engagement rules, the defense aligned and prepare the back line with some set piece moves.

i made the point that kiwi disrespect of maori (historical and present day) is a greater evil than whatever GE's impression of perceived disrespect of the haka is at the beginning of an international rugby match.

you asked me to back it up. i said i would do so using media from NZ rather than let u create a strawman out of whatever i might say. hence the links.

are you really defending GE? thats a bold move.

We just banter the haka thats all. We don't disrespect it.All european teams do it. We respect the kiwi anthem , we aren't bantering the haka as in insult to Maoris

Maybe we have actually uncovered a sensitive side to GG

My opinions have nothing to do with GE so not sure what you're going on about there buddy.

Thing is, you didn't need to counter GEs clearly tongue in cheek poke in your guys' ribs about disrespecting the haka with a retort implying that 'kiwis disrespect Maori' no matter how many google articles you find to try and back it up. These opinions are dime a dozen. I know the history of 'my' country and present day kiwis are attempting to right the wrongs of land theft by 'British' colonists through the waitangi tribunal (google it and tell me that's disrespectful).

Ok, how about I type in UK and EDL in Google and see what I get. I wouldn't then imply that England is a country full of white supremacists, now would I?

talk about the pot calling the kettle black. (you countered his counter in regards to the british!!)

"present day kiwis are attempting to right the wrongs of land theft by 'British' colonists through the waitangi tribunal (google it and tell me that's disrespectful)."


oh my gawd- you still can't work out that these colonists are know kiwis can you!!


You have the land not the british.


Its like trying to teach children.. jesus. Oh yeah lets just blame the british. And we are saving the country from what the evil brits did..Talk about delusional

ebop wrote:What's your point again?

I think his point seems to be that because NZ has some race relations issues as reported by some media outlets. It's completely ok to jump on the right wing nationalist bandwagon bash and disrespect the Haka at twickenham. Seems to be the gist.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

ebop wrote:What's your point again?

I think his point seems to be that because NZ has some race relations issues as reported by some media outlets. It's completely ok to jump on the right wing nationalist bandwagon bash and disrespect the Haka at twickenham. Seems to be the gist.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

LOL. there is absolutely zero chance of you being able to wind me up GE. i highlighted a hypocrisy nothing more nothing less. expressed no opinion about either.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

ebop wrote:What's your point again?

I think his point seems to be that because NZ has some race relations issues as reported by some media outlets. It's completely ok to jump on the right wing nationalist bandwagon bash and disrespect the Haka at twickenham. Seems to be the gist.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Could I suggest the use of the popcorn icon in response to anything the terminally dull GE posts?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Two wrongs don't make a right.

agreed.

but i didnt agree that people disrespect the haka. it is a device to give an edge in a sporting competition. how people choose to counter it is up to them.

if it wasnt supposed to have an effect on opposition why isnt it done in the changing rooms? if it is supposed to have an effect, all teams can respond to this device however they choose to, without it meaning anything whatsoever about anything other than winning a rugby game.

so its only one wrong as far as i'm concerned.

 

I don't care for steinlager...

Breadvan wrote:I don't care for steinlager...

Yus, it's puss

Hang on a minute, Quins you post a couple of google links (which I didn't need to read) and you've somehow highlighted an hypocrisy and think it gives you the right to say 'kiwis' disrespect Maori? I'm a kiwi and I don't disrespect Maori. You can't make sweeping statements like that, pat yourself on the back, and then say let's boo the haka because even kiwis don't respect the culture. By the way, boo the haka as much as you want, that is your choice.

Lol, mystri, once again you missed the point by a country mile and then tried to put words in my mouth (remember your issue with GE the other day, ironic a bit).

Sorry, can't do a popcorn thingee on mobile, shame really.

ebop wrote:Hang on a minute, Quins you post a couple of google links (which I didn't need to read) and you've somehow highlighted an hypocrisy and think it gives you the right to say 'kiwis' disrespect Maori? I'm a kiwi and I don't disrespect Maori. You can't make sweeping statements like that, pat yourself on the back, and then say let's boo the haka because even kiwis don't respect the culture. By the way, boo the haka as much as you want, that is your choice.

Lol, mystri, once again you missed the point by a country mile and then tried to put words in my mouth (remember your issue with GE the other day, ironic a bit).

Sorry, can't do a popcorn thingee on mobile, shame really.

and i've never booed the haka

 

Good for you buddy, embrace it, as SL will have you doing it soon with all the intel he got

Popcorn

And another GE thread succeeds in sucking people into ridiculous bickering.

It would be interesting to see who are the most prolific respondents to GEs discussions.

ebop wrote:Hang on a minute, Quins you post a couple of google links (which I didn't need to read) and you've somehow highlighted an hypocrisy and think it gives you the right to say 'kiwis' disrespect Maori? I'm a kiwi and I don't disrespect Maori. You can't make sweeping statements like that, pat yourself on the back, and then say let's boo the haka because even kiwis don't respect the culture. By the way, boo the haka as much as you want, that is your choice.

Lol, mystri, once again you missed the point by a country mile and then tried to put words in my mouth (remember your issue with GE the other day, ironic a bit).

Sorry, can't do a popcorn thingee on mobile, shame really.

 

 

"And another GE thread succeeds in sucking people into ridiculous bickering. "

I will admit to being sucked in by him.. and then he brings the worst out of me.. BUt i haven't been on the Rugby boards for yonks so i have only just witnessed his posting style.. And i have learnt my lesson. Ebop apologies, I have no problem with your posts at all on the whole..

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Two wrongs don't make a right.

agreed.

but i didnt agree that people disrespect the haka. it is a device to give an edge in a sporting competition. how people choose to counter it is up to them.

if it wasnt supposed to have an effect on opposition why isnt it done in the changing rooms? if it is supposed to have an effect, all teams can respond to this device however they choose to, without it meaning anything whatsoever about anything other than winning a rugby game.

so its only one wrong as far as i'm concerned.

 

Not much of an argument is it? Are you saying its valid to respond in any way you see fit to anything designed to give an advantage in a sporting competition? Really? Are you sure?

What about national anthems? Would it be acceptable for fans to boo and hiss and jeer and chant over god save the queen? Or say,  urine on a sponsors logo in the ground? Or desecrate a national flag at the ground?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Two wrongs don't make a right.

agreed.

but i didnt agree that people disrespect the haka. it is a device to give an edge in a sporting competition. how people choose to counter it is up to them.

if it wasnt supposed to have an effect on opposition why isnt it done in the changing rooms? if it is supposed to have an effect, all teams can respond to this device however they choose to, without it meaning anything whatsoever about anything other than winning a rugby game.

so its only one wrong as far as i'm concerned.

 

Not much of an argument is it? Are you saying its valid to respond in any way you see fit to anything designed to give an advantage in a sporting competition? Really? Are you sure?

What about national anthems? Would it be acceptable for fans to boo and hiss and jeer and chant over god save the queen? Or say,  urine on a sponsors logo in the ground? Or desecrate a national flag at the ground?

i have never been at a match and heard the crowd boo the haka. at twickers all the fans are nicely mixed up. is one of the reasons we dont get problems like that in my experience.

i am referring to the players on the pitch, hence my use of the word team. in fact i eagerly watch to see how opposition teams will respond to the haka. how what they do can be considered disrespectful i dont know. they're all psyching themselves up.

try not to be so precious GE.

i knew this was going to be the problem if i got drawn into anything other than direct quotes. cant keep from making stuff up in an attempt to inflame, huh.

 

goneagain wrote:And another GE thread succeeds in sucking people into ridiculous bickering.

It would be interesting to see who are the most prolific respondents to GEs discussions.

dont worry goneagain, there is no chance of GE managing to wind me up. Inspire feelings of pity, and a hard-to-resist urge to correct the least clever statements, yes. Draw me into anything emotional or untoward, not a chance.

i have noticed that the serial wummers, once they get blocked by individuals, resort to opening threads to satisfy their urge to offend. several examples just in the last week!

It's not booing per se. There's a protocol to respect and a respectful rugby fan would be mindful of it. In the past the British haven't...I'm
Merely wondering if Lancaster intends to educate them since he's on a cultural binge.

GloriousEmpire wrote:It's not booing per se. There's a protocol to respect and a respectful rugby fan would be mindful of it. In the past the British haven't...I'm
Merely wondering if Lancaster intends to educate them since he's on a cultural binge.

  

ebop wrote:Disrespect for the native Maori? You mean when the British colonised NZ back in the 1800s?

Didn't the Brits just colonise the colonisers? Weren't they just the last in a line of colonisers? I'm pretty sure sure I read somewhere that the Maori are not indigenous to NZ.

Biltong wrote:I think GE is simply just bored out of his mind.

Let's discus the chicken or the egg first?

OK bilt....egg was first...

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:I think GE is simply just bored out of his mind.

Let's discus the chicken or the egg first?

OK bilt....egg was first...

That is...if you believe in the theory of evolution...

3 correct answers below(there are also more) but it depends on how you interpret the question!


egg, eggs existed before chickens did!!

chicken- chicken is just a domesticated wild animal originally known as something else!!

Egg (based on the evolution theory -that species cannot change design throughout there own lifetime)- will suggest that another species laid the egg and then the egg mutated to create the chicken(or two different species mated(that do not exist today) to create the chicken)

Taylorman wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:I think GE is simply just bored out of his mind.

Let's discus the chicken or the egg first?

OK bilt....egg was first...

That is...if you believe in the theory of evolution...

Assuming the chicken evolved in the same way as man did from the monkey, its fair to assume the chicken evolved from a non chicken form, but also safe to assume that the last non chicken form prior to the first chicken, was most likely hatched from an egg.  

why do you keep replying to yourself mate!!

mystiroakey wrote:3 correct answers below(there are also more) but it depends on how you interpret the question!


egg, eggs existed before chickens did!!

chicken- chicken is just a domesticated wild animal originally known as something else!!

Egg (based on the evolution theory -that species cannot change design throughout there own lifetime)- will suggest that another species laid the egg and then the egg mutated to create the chicken(or two different species mated(that do not exist today) to create the chicken)

Correct mysti.similar thinking to...if a bear travels south one km to look for food and doesn't find any...then gets frustrated and travels east to look again...and finds none...then in desperation forages north only to find he's at the same place he started and gives up...what colour is this hungry and depressed bear?

mystiroakey wrote:why do you keep replying to yourself mate!!

Early morning here..the thread looked like it was being derailed ...anyway ...awake and up now...

ermm.

A polar bear that is white -but the reality is the polar bear isn't white- it's just how the sun reflects on the hollow hairs that are on the polar bear

Which comes first the culture vulture or his eggs?

Yeah they're actually black without the fur...

GloriousEmpire wrote:Which comes first the culture vulture or his eggs?

That one is too easy GE.

neither

That's right. They're both third.

how do you cook a culture vulture?

Which came first...Lancaster, his eggs or the basket?

basket

case

mystiroakey wrote:case

 

Cheers...off to work...

which you are,

but still the basket came first, unless lancasters eggs predated the basket and was a gift from the physic welsh dragon keepers. You know like those dragon eggs that Kalisi hatched by offering a blood sacrifice and walking them into the fire but no else before her could because she is clearly the mother of dragons.

But then the lancasters(renamed lannisters for effect) also took control of kings landing at that point and did have a long history. I will have to check up in the history books!

I'm going to have to refer you all to the site rules shortly. You should look to add something to a thread which is on topic with each post. 

I don't see how this flagrant side tracking is constructive.

Ok just for you.  

Lancaster also lost kettle

Chicken...egg...basket...Lancaster losing plot...putting all his eggs in one basket, losing it then being consigned to the north pole where polar bears happen to reside is all directly relevant to the op GE..how can you not see that?

Agree with the kettle mysti...he'll need to find it before he gets there.

he may have lost his kettle but he hasnt lost his bottle, and as the great man always says "i'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotamy"