Clive Woodward Mentions World Cup

First topic message reminder :

England's searing form against Wales has led Clive Woodward to break his long term silence on the rugby World Cup.

http://nzh.tw/11217572

England's sole World Cup winning coach is renowned for being reticent to mention that he led England to a World Cup once, and so the fact that he has brought it up now is a clear sign that England are contenders for 2015, experts have said.

I personally was relived that his long term silence has been broken because I, and I imagine others had forgotten his involvement in 2003 and it is of such relevance to the game now, tht these things shouldn't be forgotten.

He also broke another of his traditions in refusing on comment on rival coaches when he (without any hypocrisy at all) accused warren Gatland of being a bit gabby about Welsh prowess.

+1 Barney

Barney McGrew did it wrote:He's a RWC-winning coach who's milking it a bit. Pfftt who cares. I'm looking forward to Gats' punditry in a few years time. Let's face it his whole world revolves around 2003, but why not, he reached the top for a brief period. He's less boring than Guscott, less biased than JD, less whiney that that Scottish guy, but not as amusing as Brian Moore. So there we have it, a little bit less of Clive and lots more of Brian.

A lot of coaches get huge kudos, more so than him for arguably less achievements.

Henry is listed as one of the great coaches of all time. But his record with Wales was probably below average, bought on the fact he used grannygate to get much of his success, was poor with the lions and with NZ sure it was impressive but he had players who were standout better than anyone else throughout his tenure.

Frank Hadden would have got NZ to at least 1 RWC final had he been coach of them for 2 bites of the cherry. With NZ its not rocket science.

In the end he's done it all, capped by his country, capped by the Lions, coached his country to GS, SH and RWC success... but because his lions tour was disasterous people rule him out.

Well NZ is the toughest place to tour and the players available were well below the calibre of yesteryear. 2001 failure was bigger IMO and 1993 was equally divided (and it had one of the finest sides ever to put on Lions jersey's too).

Guys like him and Telfer earnt their opinion both as players and coaches. He's an optimist, was always akin to those motivational speakers you see at middle manager camps (you know the ones you want to send through the glass door)... but more often then not, they do talk a bit of sense and are paid what they are paid for a reason.

Howl at the moon, fa0019.  

It's the only way to psychobable your way to a middle-management book signing deal and a place on Oprah, explaining all about the interconnectednes of the Three special Principles - data, transfer of self - and recalibrating of Being using the 12 simple steps to Universification that is in all of us.

Buy the book ($79.60 plus shipping), throw it in the bin and you'll succeed in any business venture you set out on.

We all know it's true...we just haven't PlaceSaved* it in our conscious capacitators just yet.

The slogan PlaceSaved belongs to FlyCorpThinking, owned by SecretFly*
The name SecretFly belongs to the Secret guy who waffles for Non-Profit Reasons*
Non-Profit Reasons is a For-Profit Charity based Humanist Animal Rights Arms Dealing Company.

No wums were harmed in this Infomerical.

As already said, SCW is on the BBC because of his 2003 achievement.  It is probably also the case that he is directed to mention 2003, to compare and contrast.

The comparison is still valid, so are others e.g. Wales' 6N achievements.  But with RWC 2015 not far away, the 2003 comparisons will not go away.

SCW does comment in other ways as well, and in recent days, I've noticed how panellists and commentators of many allegiances have been quite even-handed in their reflections.  For example watch Scrum V post Eng V Wal match.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Cringeworthy moment was when Clive said England should look to beat Italy by 50 points in Italy as if it is such a simple task.

It's ambitious, but actually, doable. England are going well, Italy are not, and whilst they are no pushovers these days, England's momentum and form could secure a big win out there. In fact, i'd be surprised if England didn't put at least 40 on Italy, why should England fare worse than Ireland did against the same team?

Is that you Clive? Clive meant a 50 point margin - that means if Italy get 10 we need 60!

Why we should fare worse? We have two wingers who can't finish at the moment. The game is away from home in Italy.

Crucially for Italy they'll have their best player back - Sergio Parisse.

20 point margin, even 30 margin I could see if England play very well but 50? No way.

The headline grabber would be:SCW doesn't mention 2003.

or McGeechan mentioning his lions miracles.

They all do it. They all look at the good points and ignore the bad.

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Cringeworthy moment was when Clive said England should look to beat Italy by 50 points in Italy as if it is such a simple task.

It's ambitious, but actually, doable. England are going well, Italy are not, and whilst they are no pushovers these days, England's momentum and form could secure a big win out there. In fact, i'd be surprised if England didn't put at least 40 on Italy, why should England fare worse than Ireland did against the same team?

Is that you Clive? Clive meant a 50 point margin - that means if Italy get 10 we need 60!

Why we should fare worse? We have two wingers who can't finish at the moment. The game is away from home in Italy.

Crucially for Italy they'll have their best player back - Sergio Parisse.

20 point margin, even 30 margin I could see if England play very well but 50? No way.

Home or away, and no matter how dire England have been, they've never lost to Italy. And, this England team has the potential (both in terms of skill or attitude) to put a big score on Italy, regardless whether Parisse plays or not. A 50 point margin is stretching credibility, but it is doable, of course it is. Why do you need wingers that can finish, if your centre partnership can create and score for fun, or your pack is carrying the ball very well, your full back can part the Red Sea, and your Number 10 has a kicking percentage that would be the envy of any professional team?

Never say never, it is possible.

The team has been beaten by France by 30 points and Ireland by 40 points.... this England team are playing decent attacking rugby to rival those 2 so I don't see why 40+ is not achievable.

Italy never play England with any serious thought of winning. Just like when they face NZ they often simply don't put in a fight.

If England score a couple of tries in first 20 I thnk the flood gates will open and Italy will self-destruct.

fa0019 wrote:The team has been beaten by France by 30 points and Ireland by 40 points.... this England team are playing decent attacking rugby to rival those 2 so I don't see why 40+ is not achievable.

Italy never play England with any serious thought of winning. Just like when they face NZ they often simply don't put in a fight.

If England score a couple of tries in first 20 I thnk the flood gates will open and Italy will self-destruct.

Precisely.

Yep thats pretty much exactly whats happened the last few times England went there right?


  

Fa0019, McGeechan is another one................................

aren't we all... don't we all tend to re-live our greatest triumphs?

Goran Ivanesevic - he will dine out his Wimbledon victory for the rest of his days. No one remembers his 4 odd losses in the finals beforehand.

England 0-52?
England 0-65?

Yeah...most doable.

You underestimate your own team. Of course it's doable to do enough.

But give Ireland a target then. And we'll then see if we have enough 'doable' in us

fa0019 wrote:aren't we all... don't we all tend to re-live our greatest triumphs?

Goran Ivanesevic - he will dine out his Wimbledon victory for the rest of his days. No one remembers his 4 odd losses in the finals beforehand.

No, no, no, fa. Come on now. You know in the world of...well anything from fashion, to movies, to Tv, to sport...there are a distinct selection of achievers who can seldom shut the hell up about their achievements and another majority of people who can glide by without anyone getting sick-bags.

No, not everyone is the same. It's a unique human character trait to always feel the need to link yourself to your achievements.

SecretFly wrote:England 0-52?
England 0-65?

Yeah...most doable.

You underestimate your own team.  Of course it's doable to do enough.

But give Ireland a target then.  And we'll then see if we have enough 'doable' in us

It'll be irrelevant since France will probably turn up and rip Ireland a new one...

Jimpy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:England 0-52?
England 0-65?

Yeah...most doable.

You underestimate your own team.  Of course it's doable to do enough.

But give Ireland a target then.  And we'll then see if we have enough 'doable' in us

It'll be irrelevant since France will probably turn up and rip Ireland a new one...

Thanks for the mutual declaration of respect, Jimpy.

I've now changed my mind and the crystal ball now sees Italy stalling the Lancaster bus and breaking its headlights.

Ireland can now lose to France and still come second.

All England can do is heap on the pressure to Ireland.

England will need to win by more than 50 before they make Ireland jittery.

Put on say 60 points in difference and then Ireland will have to win by more than 12 and thats when the jitters will come.

Say they win by 50 then all Ireland have to do is to win the match... but 2 wins in 43 years (the last 14 years ago) doesn't make me think form is a good indicator on who will win in Paris.

To be fair England beat Italy by 46 points only 3 years ago, and have beat them by more than 50 twice. But they havent won by more than 15 in Rome since 2002.

Chances of a 50 point victory are pretty slim especially if they dont pick Bergamasco at scrum half.


Honestly England havent got a cat in hells chance of winning this on points difference over Ireland, France will decide the title.

Given Italy have lost quite badly to France and Ireland I think a score with 40 points is realistic. With a target its a lot easier than just going through the motions.

It will be interesting though. How good an attacking team are England in truth... we'll wait and see.

SecretFly wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:England 0-52?
England 0-65?

Yeah...most doable.

You underestimate your own team.  Of course it's doable to do enough.

But give Ireland a target then.  And we'll then see if we have enough 'doable' in us

It'll be irrelevant since France will probably turn up and rip Ireland a new one...

Thanks for the mutual declaration of respect, Jimpy.

I've now changed my mind and the crystal ball now sees Italy stalling the Lancaster bus and breaking its headlights.

Ireland can now lose to France and still come second.

Oh... I think there's more chance of France beating Ireland than England being derailed by Italy...

no way italy will concede 50 if they know thats what england are targetting.

conceding 50 requires italy to display some adventure and leave some gaps.

Jimpy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:England 0-52?
England 0-65?

Yeah...most doable.

You underestimate your own team.  Of course it's doable to do enough.

But give Ireland a target then.  And we'll then see if we have enough 'doable' in us

It'll be irrelevant since France will probably turn up and rip Ireland a new one...

Thanks for the mutual declaration of respect, Jimpy.

I've now changed my mind and the crystal ball now sees Italy stalling the Lancaster bus and breaking its headlights.

Ireland can now lose to France and still come second.

Oh... I think there's more chance of France beating Ireland than England being derailed by Italy...

Fly - reel it in reel it in!

fa0019 wrote:All England can do is heap on the pressure to Ireland.

England will need to win by more than 50 before they make Ireland jittery.

Put on say 60 points in difference and then Ireland will have to win by more than 12 and thats when the jitters will come.

Say they win by 50 then all Ireland have to do is to win the match... but 2 wins in 43 years (the last 14 years ago) doesn't make me think form is a good indicator on who will win in Paris.

Why not?  One day you're behind an Iron curtain, the next day you're part of a United Germany living in Capitalist heaven.  

No wonder you think Woodward speaks only the truth.  England putting 40 here and 70 there and winning the WC in 2003 has absolutely nothing - zilch - to do with this present England side.

This present English side have the potential to put 50 plus points on Italy even in Rome.  I have no doubt that it is a team with that ability - not based on the history of English rugby but based on this team, playing through these weeks with the present coaching set-up.

Ireland could be shafted and it'll go down as yet another year in the history books of What Always Happens.  Or, it could be an Iron curtain coming down.  We'll see.

bookies have Ireland as favourites by an incredibly small margin

ladbrokes paying evens for france win, 5/6 for ireland win

it's all about Paris, not Rome

Jimpy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:England 0-52?
England 0-65?

Yeah...most doable.

You underestimate your own team.  Of course it's doable to do enough.

But give Ireland a target then.  And we'll then see if we have enough 'doable' in us

It'll be irrelevant since France will probably turn up and rip Ireland a new one...

Thanks for the mutual declaration of respect, Jimpy.

I've now changed my mind and the crystal ball now sees Italy stalling the Lancaster bus and breaking its headlights.

Ireland can now lose to France and still come second.

Oh... I think there's more chance of France beating Ireland than England being derailed by Italy...

There's certainly more chance of England beating Italy than you relaxing and enjoying the fun, Jimpy

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:All England can do is heap on the pressure to Ireland.

England will need to win by more than 50 before they make Ireland jittery.

Put on say 60 points in difference and then Ireland will have to win by more than 12 and thats when the jitters will come.

Say they win by 50 then all Ireland have to do is to win the match... but 2 wins in 43 years (the last 14 years ago) doesn't make me think form is a good indicator on who will win in Paris.

Why not?  One day you're behind an Iron curtain, the next day you're part of a United Germany living in Capitalist heaven.  

No wonder you think Woodward speaks only the truth.  England putting 40 here and 70 there and winning the WC in 2003 has absolutely nothing - zilch - to do with this present England side.

This present English side have the potential to put 50 plus points on Italy even in Rome.  I have no doubt that it is a team with that ability - not based on the history of English rugby but based on this team, playing through these weeks with the present coaching set-up.

Ireland could be shafted and it'll go down as yet another year in the history books of What Always Happens.  Or, it could be an Iron curtain coming down.  We'll see.

I don't think England will put on loads of points because of what they did so 10 years ago. I think that its likely because they have looked pretty dire all season and are never up for a fight they think they have no choice of winning. Given they have lost badly to similar teams like England would suggest 30+ is probable.

Whereas France continually have beaten Ireland (or not lost crucially) at home when often they should have been favourites.

There is a difference.

I think England will win by 40+ myself. I think its a toss up who wins in Paris.

England have to go all out on the attack to reduce the points difference with Ireland. There is no point in them not doing so and this may give gaps for Italy to score or provide interceptions etc which may make it an even bigger task.

If England can score enough and over take the Irish points advantage then pressure falls back on Ireland, but at the beginning the pressure will be on England.

I think I would rather be in Irelands position, scores on the board and knowing what they need to do v France. Ireland are very good at controlling matches and tight score lines and knowing that they either just have to win or win by say 5 is a great advantage, but if, and its a huge if, England win by say 65 then the pressure is on Ireland to beat France by 16 (I think my maths are correct) as this will not be easy. IMO anymore than 10 will be difficult.

The day should be set for some tense and interesting rugby. England going hammer and tongs against Italy, who have something to prove, France and Ireland possibly both fighting for the championship and Scotland and Wales both wanting to show their fans they can do better.

i would settle for england winning by 1 point against italy and then settling in to enjoy the france v ireland decider.

and i would be genuinely pleased for the irish if they win. fair play. great send-off for BOD. and the eng v ire game was one of the cleanest most competitive matches i have seen in a long time. great advert for rugby.

fa...they have never won by 50 points in Rome. You could argue that England losing is as likely as that happening. Indeed theyve come as close to as they have to putting more than 50 difference on Italy away from home. The biggest win in the last decade was 5 points.

Honestly, lets not get carried away here...they have a better chance of winning the world cup than getting sufficient margin to trouble Irleand.

fa0019 wrote:

I don't think England will put on loads of points because of what they did so 10 years ago. .....

......Whereas France continually have beaten Ireland (or not lost crucially) at home when often they should have been favourites.

There is a difference.

There is no difference.  That's you again saying the past isn't a factor and yet at the same time saying it very much is a factor.  England can put 40 on Italy because they're good enough... but because France have 'continually beaten' Ireland, that past presumes they can beat an Irish team in much better form than them?

Now again, I'm not denying the truth that France could well win...but I do continue to question your premise that it's the past informing that truth.  It's the present that will decide which side wins.  If France are good enough, they'll win.