England U-18s on tour in South Africa

Strong start by England in this annual competition between France,Wales,England & SA with wins against Wales & France big one coming up against SA.
Good that all the lads have got a run out.

http://www.fifteenrugby.com/pro-rugby/news/england/england-u18-keen-to-impress-for-the-future-with-south-africa-showdown/

Italy also sent out a team & played the SA academy.

Very dissapointing to see no-one from up here in the squad.

But looks like they have a strong squad...the U20's should have a good crop coming through.

Watched the Wales v England game great to watch, then watched the Wales v SA game, what a power advantage the SA players had, it was literally men v boys at times.

No wonder we are behind the 8 ball with the youth. An under 18 tour of South Africa? Along with an under 20's 6 nations...we're not doing something right...

I heard from the commentators the U18 Boks have been unbeaten for four years now.

Hope they continue that streak this weekend

Biltong wrote:I heard from the commentators the U18 Boks have been unbeaten for four years now.

Hope they continue that streak this weekend

Sounds right, those 2 Gerber (6) and the left winger, they mustve had stubble while still in nappies, they don't look particularly big but by god they take stopping!!!

Yeah, there is some talent in that team.

Biltong wrote:Yeah, there is some talent in that team.

How have their other results gone?

We beat France by 28 - something, convincing, 4 tries to us, I think they scored one try, we beat Wales by 30 something 15 or so, also convincing.

I haven't seen England play yet, but they beat Wales just.

SO looking forward to the match.

Proeblem is we have so much rugby on I have to record it today.

We now have three Currie CUp matches and then the Boks, wall to wall rugby today.

Is the England v SA match going out live anywhere?

It should it is played at 16h00 in SA live on Super Sport, so maybe Sky will show it?

Game about to kick off, anthems are being sung at the moment.

Size wise the English team doesn't look smaller than the Boks though.

England scores first, try down the left hand touch by the left wing.

All thanks to a very strong scrum, putting the Boks under pressure.

not being shown anywhere live into europe as far as i can see. On SS8 in SA only. annoyingly.

3-19 to England after 20mins. 3 tries apparently. good start for the underdogs.

22-30 to England after 65 minutes.

Good comeback by South Africa but England managing to stay more than one score ahead so far.

England have scores 4 tries to South Africa's 3 so far.

22-30 is the final score apparently.

quinsforever wrote:not being shown anywhere live into europe as far as i can see. On SS8 in SA only. annoyingly.

3-19 to England after 20mins. 3 tries apparently. good start for the underdogs.

Why do you keep insisting on trying to make Englands victories all the more meaningfull by claiming they are underdogs, England U18's have won the last 3 FIRA/AER tournament, and pretty much dominate U18 rugby. They are always favourites.

Beating A in SA is acheivement enough, especially with some of those players, but SA were slight underdogs, to the succesfull triple champs.

Good win for England. I would say SA would be favourites at home.

It's been a good couple of weeks for English rugby with the women's triumph too.

Aye congrats U18's boys, there was some great age grade rugby played this year, looking forward to the highlights of this game.

Neutralee wrote:

quinsforever wrote:not being shown anywhere live into europe as far as i can see. On SS8 in SA only. annoyingly.

3-19 to England after 20mins. 3 tries apparently. good start for the underdogs.

Why do you keep insisting on trying to make Englands victories all the more meaningfull by claiming they are underdogs, England U18's have won the last 3 FIRA/AER tournament, and pretty much dominate U18 rugby. They are always favourites.

Beating A in SA is acheivement enough, especially with some of those players, but SA were slight underdogs, to the succesfull triple champs.

because SA u18s are unbeaten in 4 years perchance? and they are playing at home? and england beat wales with the last kick of the match while SA crushed them?

you're obviously upset about something i have said else why are you constantly spoiling for a fight. maybe change your handle to neutral-not to reflect reality a bit more closely?

Whos spoiling for a fight, I asked you a quetion, based on the evidence England have won now 4 titles in a row, I don't see how quadriple champs can be claimed as underdogs. And by the sounds of it they were the best side. England didn't play very well V Wales, and with all respect to the Welsh boys England are at least a step or 2 ahead of them!

It seems to be a trend with Englands women being claimed underdogs on here despite the world and their dog having them as huge favourites to win the WRWC after Ireland beat NZ.

I simply asked the trend? You can answer why you do it, or you can start an argument its up to you, depends how precious you are.

FIRA/AER has nothing to do with this summer tour to SA. SA do not play in FIRA/AER.

it's a bit like claiming that the 6Ns winner should be favourite in a competition held in SA. won't hold much water.

SA u18s are unbeaten in 4 yrs. SA u18s are playing at home. SA do not play FIRA/AER. SA whipped Wales, England scraped by.

All of those are valid reasons for England to correctly be called underdogs.

And the trend, which seems to hold a fascination for you, is that England have lost their last several encounters against SA u18s.

And England were not favourites to win the womens RWC, but NZ falling over against Ireland meant an underdog was always going to be the winner once that had happened.

facts, man. neutrality.

quinsforever wrote:FIRA/AER has nothing to do with this summer tour to SA. SA do not play in FIRA/AER.

it's a bit like claiming that the 6Ns winner should be favourite in a competition held in SA. won't hold much water.

SA u18s are unbeaten in 4 yrs. SA u18s are playing at home. SA do not play FIRA/AER. SA whipped Wales, England scraped by.

All of those are valid reasons for England to correctly be called underdogs.

And the trend, which seems to hold a fascination for you, is that England have lost their last several encounters against SA u18s.

And England were not favourites to win the womens RWC, but NZ falling over against Ireland meant an underdog was always going to be the winner once that had happened.

facts, man. neutrality.

Well when you put those 'facts' to the test they seem to fall down...

U18 rugby is pretty rotational, a kid gets 1 season, 2 if he's talented to compete at this level, so past results outside of this group are not applicable.

So when you say SA are unbeaten in 4 years it highlights consistency of the SA system not ability of this current crop.

The fact is this England crop have already won a tournament this year, easing past Wales, and then beat the teams down in SA. Infact the fixture list was designed for the 2 favourite to meet last up. England were heavily fancied to go undefeated down under, including being the goal by their coach!

Englands women were 2nd favourites to win the WRWC, behind NZ, as I clearly said after NZ were knocked out England were heavy favourites, Canada were in no way in with a chance, especially as England saw fit to ret 6 players in the group stage in their 13 all draw.

These are facts, sorry they don't suit you.

you are clearly just trying to get up peoples noses.

congratulations i shall leave you to argue with yourself. eventually you will get bored.

quinsforever wrote:you are clearly just trying to get up peoples noses.

congratulations i shall leave you to argue with yourself. eventually you will get bored.

Except that all I do is discuss rugby on it's merits, until attacked for being a ghost by you when you have no answer.

Neutralee wrote:Whos spoiling for a fight, I asked you a quetion, based on the evidence England have won now 4 titles in a row, I don't see how quadriple champs can be claimed as underdogs. And by the sounds of it they were the best side. England didn't play very well V Wales, and with all respect to the Welsh boys England are at least a step or 2 ahead of them!

It seems to be a trend with Englands women being claimed underdogs on here despite the world and their dog having them as huge favourites to win the WRWC after Ireland beat NZ.

I simply asked the trend? You can answer why you do it, or you can start an argument its up to you, depends how precious you are.

Lets just repeat the stat that England women were all amateurs unlike their final rivals.

England were very much underdogs going into todays game.

Cracking result though, seems like we have another great bunch of kids coming through the system.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:England were very much underdogs going into todays game.

Cracking result though, seems like we have another great bunch of kids coming through the system.

Not according to their coach, the media, or the South Africans.

Great acheivement by the English boys, a whole eason undefeated, that is definately worth celebrating, and not trying to rewrite history on how the English team have played as huge underdogs all year.

Why is it you can not just celebrate victories and success's? Why do you have to try to add to them?

Why do you feel the need to pick up on something so trivial???

England were obvious underdogs, but it matters little. I'd prefer these teams to be favourites at this level as it would show we are superior/dominant at a certain level of rugby, much like NZ are the top level.

Neutralee wrote:Why do you keep insisting on trying to make Englands victories all the more meaningfull by claiming they are underdogs, England U18's have won the last 3 FIRA/AER tournament, and pretty much dominate U18 rugby. They are always favourites.

Neutralee wrote:So when you say SA are unbeaten in 4 years it highlights consistency of the SA system not the ability of this current crop

Do you not see the hypocrisy here? England won a European competition, and therefore should be favourites against a South Africa team in South Africa? Not great logic there I'm afraid.

This is why you get called a WUM.

It's only trivial if noone care, and as there are now 3/4 people trying to convince an England team who have just gone unbeaten for the whole season, won 2 tournaments this year and is pretty much renowned as the stronget schoolboy side on the planet are underdogs...

You see the FIRA/AER was this season, they strolled it and went to SA with good odds to go unbeaten, they underperformed a touch, and rotated players well but pretty much acheived what their coach, and the media expected /aimed for.

I'm only called a wumwhen people can't argue against facts, I go and criticise NZ and peop;le debate my points, I criticise Euope and the new tournament and most people debate issues, and in a lot of cases open my eyes to the intracacies I have missed, not being directly involved. Why is it then when I criticise anything English, or even indirectly English related the certain few all pop up all defencive and agressive.

Pleae by all means take my points and explain why you feel I'mwrong, but from here on in any accusations of me being the former poster ghost will be a sign of a waving white flag, it's just logical.

What has England winning a NH tournement have to do with touring SA????

No English team of any age grade would be favourites playing SA in SA. Even the recent WC winning U20 side would go in as underdogs and they've just recently beat SA in NZ.

Why does it annoy you so much that England we're slight underdogs? I didn't expect us to win but was pleasantly surprised we managed to turn the home favourites over.

Boks have been at immense at this level for a long time and it takes a good team to beat them on their own patch.

See now England being an underdog, as they were at RWC 2011, and I'd go as far to say that they were slight underdogs at the U20 WC in NZ recently, depite being one of the tournament favourites with SA and NZ, is pretty rare, as they have an extremely efficient and affluent system, but to keep highlighting how Englands women/U18's etc are total underdogs defying the odds 'Rocky' style is a tad obnoxious.

maybe I'm being a bit techy, and not allowing for people not quite understanding the term underdog, if you go into a tournament as joint or 2nd favourites the tag underdogs is pushing things just a touch.

I'm thinking the term has popped up for a one of match, in this case SA v Eng.

It doesn't neccisarily mean anything but in betting circles you obviously have a favourite and an underdog.

England being underdogs in that game means very little imo, it was a case of where the game was being played than actual teams. If it would have been at Twickers or the NH id have had us a favourites.

Matters little end of the day.

Underdog means. That South Africa were favourites rather than England. The fact that England won a European competition doesn't mean squat to how they would do against South Africa. As shown last year when England won it and still lost to South Africa.

It's hardly an outrageous comment to suggest South Africa would be favourites at home. Certainly not enough to justify the rant, unless you have an agenda.

Underdogs means - with slight to no chance of winning / person with little status in society.

I'd suggest England had a fairly high chance of winning, as their coach said they were favourites to win, and the RFU has a pretty hefty status in rugby union.

Like I said, maybe I'm being techy about others not understanding the meaning.

Person or team least likely to win. You can argue the toss of who s favourite or check the betting I suppose but you can be slight underdogs or big underdogs

No 7&1/2 wrote:Person or team least likely to win. You can argue the toss of who s favourite or check the betting I suppose but you can be slight underdogs or big underdogs

Nope, the official meaning is 'little or no' chance of victory. Not a person or team who has a decent shout but not quite favourites, little to no chance!

England had a very good shout at victory, even if I conceded they weren't favourites, which would contradict their coach and media, it still wouldn't allow the tag underdogs.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself. Antonym of underdog is favourite. Nothing to do with degree. Don't get tetchy with everyone else when it is your lack of understanding that is the problem.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=underdog

Specifically, the collins English dictionary suggestion, given that I am, and speak, English

Lets go with yours, just for giggles...

1. One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics.
2. One that is at a disadvantage.

In what way was this England team at a disadvantage? And how exactly were England expected to lose?

This England team have been chosen from the largest playing pool in the world, and supported with as much if not more support than any other U18 team in the world.

They were also unbeaten, were regarded as one of the strongest teams worldwide, and as stated numerous times were expected to finish the season undefeated!

Please explain how your definition makes any difference?

This is getting really boring......

Does anybody except you really care if England were underdogs or not???

Sgt_Pooly wrote:This is getting really boring......

Does anybody except you really care if England were underdogs or not???

At least 3/4 Englishmen, I personally think they've had a great season and deserve their acheivements, I don't need to add to them by pretending they were underdogs and it is a total shock they have gone undefeated.

Yes you've said that about 20 times..........yawn.

I ve told you the definition you ve had a link to an English definition why be difficult? I could nt tell you personally whether they were or not as I see the odd game of U18s.

Fact is, England u18 (and senior team for that matter) are always going to be underdogs playing SA in SA, irrespective of the results England have achieved in the fira/aer or 6N. At least until we string several wins together against SA there.

It's just like Wales, 2 time 6N champs in a row, were underdogs against most SH opposition whenever they played them during that period. Correctly as it turned out. Not having a go at welsh results, just highlighting the absurdity of your argument.

The achievement of beating SA is not changed by whether England were viewed as favourites or underdogs for that match. It's not a way of bigging up the result except in your over-sensitive ABE mind.

Quins

You hve just proven my point...

England underdogs to SA yes, Wales underdogs to SA yes, neither have much of a shot at winning in South Africa, so by every definition of the term they are both underdogs.

However the form, odds and opinions gave England U18 as much chance if not more of winning their last game against SA.

If this is so boring why are you all fighting a battle that has been proved by yourselves lost?

In what way were England;

1/ At a disadvantage?

2/ Expected to lose?

3/ Given little chance of winning?

1/ From where i'm sitting the game being on SA soil means nothing as it's an age grade game, no crowds, everyone travels, all squads are brought together for a similar time to prep. In every other phacet England are on par with, if not ahead of every other team on the planet.

2/ Their coach, media and SA coach all claiming England were one of the best teams around, and would be a huge challenge to be beaten by anyone.

3/ They were declared as favourites by their own party, and were odds on to go the season unbeaten.

Yaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnn

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Yaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnn

Intelligently put, evidence used, backed up with facts...

I concede.

And yaaaawwnnnn.....