England U-18s on tour in South Africa

First topic message reminder :

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.

Neutralee wrote:......

No matter how much you twist and turn the goalposts you can't trip me up because I only say what I see, and what I see is usually black and white.

If everything is so black and white then why do so many of your answers come out brown?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd say the problem England had in the past was judging players too soon and not giving them the chance. You're still not using the English defintiion of underdog then and have you got the quotes from England saying they were favourites as the only ones I've seen were very balanced mentioning nothing of who was likely to win? Problem with seeing in black and white is it can't be neutral as there are so many shades of grey.

I am using every definition put infront of me by you, and the Oxford English dictionary! Provide me with your definition and I'll explain to you why England were not underdogs, underdogs do not go an entire season undefeated do they?

You would've made a really bad mighty ducks movie!

Course you can depends on your opponents and where you play.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The arugement is slightly flawed anyway.

1) Theres only 15 places on a pitch for a team nad only so many in the squad....so however many you bring through only a few will progress.

2) The best international teams are built over years with high caps...thus changing the side every year to accomodate a newbie from the recent U20 World Cup win is not a good idea. Build a nice experienced quality team and change positions individually when its required....as the AB's do and are the best in the world at.

3) I will agree that we have been woeful at bringing through the players from the age groups into the seniors....and whilst still not great i think it is improving rapidly.
Much of this due to the good work by the Age group coaches where they're teaching the players skills not just that being big is an advantage.

Im not sure how much input Lancaster has had in this, but possibly quite a bit.

GF

This pretty much mirrors what I've been saying over the course of the thread, England have made great progress over the last few years.

Neutralee wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd say the problem England had in the past was judging players too soon and not giving them the chance. You're still not using the English defintiion of underdog then and have you got the quotes from England saying they were favourites as the only ones I've seen were very balanced mentioning nothing of who was likely to win? Problem with seeing in black and white is it can't be neutral as there are so many shades of grey.

I am using every definition put infront of me by you, and the Oxford English dictionary! Provide me with your definition and I'll explain to you why England were not underdogs, underdogs do not go an entire season undefeated do they?

You would've made a really bad mighty ducks movie!

Duh!

Cyprus's current unbeaten record stands i think at 42 international matches. It entirely depends who you play against. Did England u18's record include any matches against SH teams before they played SA? Nope.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/cypriots-unaware-of-the-worldrecord-feats-of-its-rugby-team-20131210-2z3c8.html

quinsforever wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd say the problem England had in the past was judging players too soon and not giving them the chance. You're still not using the English defintiion of underdog then and have you got the quotes from England saying they were favourites as the only ones I've seen were very balanced mentioning nothing of who was likely to win? Problem with seeing in black and white is it can't be neutral as there are so many shades of grey.

I am using every definition put infront of me by you, and the Oxford English dictionary! Provide me with your definition and I'll explain to you why England were not underdogs, underdogs do not go an entire season undefeated do they?

You would've made a really bad mighty ducks movie!

Duh!

Cyprus's current unbeaten record stands i think at 42 international matches. It entirely depends who you play against. Did England u18's record include any matches against SH teams before they played SA? Nope.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/cypriots-unaware-of-the-worldrecord-feats-of-its-rugby-team-20131210-2z3c8.html

But your forgetting one thing, which is your favourite mighty duck?

You avoiding the point now GE by talking kids films? Or do you really believe the 2 teams were 50 50 even with 1 team at home?

No 7&1/2 wrote:You avoiding the point now GE by talking kids films? Or do you really believe the 2 teams were 50 50 even with 1 team at home?

mate i've lost the will to live with you, if you knew anything about age grade rugby you would know travel and home team advantage means little, a lot of these boys are 16/17, it doesn't matter how they travel it's how they settle into the team, surroundings etc...

Ive had teams look good together 500 miles from home, and teams who struggled in their own city centre, there are just too many factors for travel to be an advantage to anyone!

What is the biggest advantage about playing at home?

What a load of utter tosh......


Yes, there's no advantage to playing at home internationally

Sgt_Pooly wrote:What a load of utter tosh......


Yes, there's no advantage to playing at home internationally

Give me 1! If it's so easy why be afraid to enter into it?

Better facilities you ll be used to familiar routines less travel more support from fans and staff. Always harder going away from home let alone a foreign country. You could also point to form on this 1 with respective scores against Wales. Dont think many people woulld be looking and thinking toss of a coin.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Better facilities you ll be used to familiar routines less travel more support from fans and staff. Always harder going away from home let alone a foreign country. You could also point to form on this 1 with respective scores against Wales. Dont think many people woulld be looking and thinking toss of a coin.

Better facilities - Stellenbosch is a lovely little town, with a very good grade pitch and training centre, matches what an Englsih 17 yr old has.

Familiar routines - What part of international rugby is familiar for any 17 yr old, they meet each other once every few months, familiarity is college and their clubs academy.

Less travel - SA is 1600km long, they have representation from all over the country, meaning a lot of their boys had to jump on flights to meet the squad, Englands flights at least were a bonding exercise. Also the teen body doesn't get effected by travel as full maturity bodies do, the effects are minimal.

more support - Support at this agr grade is tiny, there may be a few hundred people pitchside, but a fair whack of them would be part of the England set up, and parents. Stellenbocsh isn't a rugby mecca so neutral fans would be tiny in number.

Difficult in a foreign country - Pretty much the only part that holds up, however when have 16/17 yr old boys ever worried about a rugby tour, a lot of these boys will have travelled before, Poland and U16 tours, Cape town is very touristy, and not much of a culture shock!

Form - Englands form had been great, they made a few changes and struggle against a resurgant Wales team but that would have added to their confidence and mood going into the France game, where they looked better. So form was actually improving throughout.

Next...

Used to the Conditions perhaps being quite a big one???

Knowing a stadium/pitch. Home support. Home bias from referees? No need to acclimatise, potential jet lag. Home comforts and familiar game build up (could potentially travel from home or training facility?). Familiar training facility???

To be honest there's loads, especially when playing in a different hemisphere!

What do you mean next? I disagree with each of your points.Think you d be ver hard pressed to find a team who wouldn t prefer to play any SA side at home. It is an advantage no matter how you try to make out it isnt.

First time a lot of these boys will have travelled so far etc.

I cannot believe you're suggesting there is no advantage for a home team. You're either a wum or a little simple.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:First time a lot of these boys will have travelled so far etc.

I cannot believe you're suggesting there is no advantage for a home team. You're either a wum or a little simple.

The boys were in Poland, bigger culture shock and tougher conditions, some were also present the year before in SA!

I never said there was no issue, but at age grade rugby being the away side means little, there are even stats to show how age grade sport is effected far less by venue!

Lets use our heads, debate or go away, stop the name calling, or dismissing of points you dislike.

Go and ask any 17 yr old English rugby player if they'd prefer to play a tournament in a city in England of their choosing, or SA!

It would be England if they wanted an advantage.

So far from our neutral friend we ve had you can t be slight underdogs or at least England cant. Also you cant be underdogs if you reunbeaten Fair enough both teams were unbeaten SA for 4years.

There's zero information to back your points up, it's complete bile. Ask ANY professional/non professional rugby player where he feels more comfortable playing......

It's like debating with a child to be honest. Why, why, why.

Home advantage counts no matter what age you are and this is only heightened if playing in another hemisphere.......that's double gen.

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.

Yet he starts off saying unbeaten SA were slight underdogs. Im quite puzzled by his flip flapping.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It would be England if they wanted an advantage.

So far from our neutral friend we ve had you can t be slight underdogs or at least England cant. Also you cant be underdogs if you reunbeaten Fair enough both teams were unbeaten SA for 4years.

Possibly if the boys were looking for an advantage, but at 17 they don't think like that, and travelling together is one of the best bonding experiences you can have (unless your the coach then it can become a nightmare)

I havn't once said England can't be underdogs at all, Englands national teamare underdogs when they travel south just about every time, and when SA and NZ come to Twickers England are probably still slight underdogs. What I said was this England U18 team, who have been together a while, won every game they have played, can not by the very definition of the word be underdogs! The game was always going to be tight, with both sets of coaching staff and media probably fancying the win, the Englands team domination of the game kind of highlights who was right.

Again you've mentioned SA being unbeaten for 4 years, which is great but anything before this season has nothing to do with this SA team.

PS for the record we disagree, I take your points at to why we disagree, in reality we're probably not going to change each others minds, but at least you've made solid points, backed them up and shown a lot of knowledge about the game, without reverting to name callings and insults unlike Sgt Pooly, for that I thank you.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

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.

Yet he starts off saying unbeaten SA were slight underdogs. Im quite puzzled by his flip flapping.

Because of what both sets of coaches, media, and what I'd seen of the both teams so far. SA were very powerfull, but were reliant on a certain few players to create that go forward, Wales were unlucky to concede so many points in reality, and as I said before the game England have too much across the park, and once the SA power men had been nullified they would struggle. Whos flip flapping?

Contradicting yourself a fair bit now Im afraid. you always shine through eventually.

Can't be GE. GE was a lot smarter, and certainly far far funnier.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Contradicting yourself a fair bit now Im afraid. you always shine through eventually.

Show me where I've contradicted myself?!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Contradicting yourself a fair bit now Im afraid. you always shine through eventually.

If there was some continuity to his argument it would be a good debate but some of the flitting about is bizarre.

It's certainly not Ghost/GE anyway, as Quins says he was quite a knowledgeable poster under the wumming.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Contradicting yourself a fair bit now Im afraid. you always shine through eventually.

If there was some continuity to his argument it would be a good debate but some of the flitting about is bizarre.

It's certainly not Ghost/GE anyway, as Quins says he was quite a knowledgeable poster under the wumming.

Back up your accusation or leave it...

Blimey don't know what all the above was about but the the lads done well

quinsforever wrote:...Did England u18's record include any matches against SH teams before they played SA? Nope...

Of course, England did play South Africa in Cape Town at U18 level in the same tournament last year and lost 19-14. And they also played them in 2012 in Cape Town and lost 36-29.

The England coaches were confident that they could compete with the South Africans, and the opposition coaches considered the England match to be the toughest, but those last two results, and the fact South Africa remained unbeaten against all opposition at this level for four years, meant that no-one considered England to be favourites. The odds were on a South Africa win before the tournament and England's narrow squeak against Wales seemed to indicate they hadn't travelled so well, and were a bit out of nick.

Ye this thread is done, theres only so much delusion that can be spewed, England U18's were rubbish and definately went into every game last season as underdogs, it makes their victory the most special victory there has ever been in world rugby..

Yea there's certainly some delusion on here, strangely from only one poster though. Everyone else seems to agree which is good to see, not often you see that.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Yea there's certainly some delusion on here, strangely from only one poster though. Everyone else seems to agree which is good to see, not often you see that.

Really, I get the feeling the 3/4 of you all agree on every matter English, well if some dirty foreigner dare chime in anyway.

If there was only one fact to prove me wrong...

You're trying to say there's some racism or prejudice going on? Thought you didn't really believe in nationalities and tied yourself to no one so how could anyone suggest you're foreign?

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're trying to say there's some racism or prejudice going on? Thought you didn't really believe in nationalities and tied yourself to no one so how could anyone suggest you're foreign?

I didn't mention racism, just a few passionate fans who close ranks on someone who dare not agree. Who said I didn't beleive in nationalities?!

Where do you get this stuff your spewing, it's almost as if you can't handle the debate and just want to twist and turn until free, stop moving the goalpoasts, and provide me with the shred of evidence that the England U18 team were underdogs.

Why do I need to provide evidence as you haven't to support your assertion SA were 'slight favourites'! By saying we don't agree with you as you're a 'dirty foreigner' is too far. I don't agree with you as your argument changes all the time. England couldn't be underdogs because they were unbeaten. You say you can'tbe slight underdogs. Yet you say SA were slight underdogs despite being unbeaten. Doesn't add up. Confused to say the least.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why do I need to provide evidence as you haven't to support your assertion SA were 'slight favourites'! By saying we don't agree with you as you're a 'dirty foreigner' is too far. I don't agree with you as your argument changes all the time. England couldn't be underdogs because they were unbeaten. You say you can'tbe slight underdogs. Yet you say SA were slight underdogs despite being unbeaten. Doesn't add up. Confused to say the least.

Your only confused because you making things up in your head!

I have stated all along, and before the game that SA's power players wouldn't be enough to beat England. Backed up by an extremely confident England coach, and a media that highlights every England age grade team from the age of 15 to 18 is undefeated this season, that the U20's are back to back JWC winners. In a system that dominates at every level, every single level, how can you argue that the U18's were underdogs.

Lets really simplify this...

Do you beleive England U18 to be at a disadvantage to SA schools?

Do you beleive the English U18 has little status in the rugby society?

Did you think before hand England U18 had little or no chance of winning?

They are the Oxfords meaning of the word underdog, England have proved themselves as the best junior system in the world, the best structured, participated in and funded, Englands junior rugby system is the envy worldwide, and Englands U18's went in with a very strong chance of winning, I called them too strong for SA after Wales heavy lost to them.

Whats difficult about just agreeing your wrong, by the very definition of the word you are.

SA were unbeaten weren't they? You said you couldn't be slight underdogs but you also said SA were slight underdogs. Post a link to the quotes from Englands coach suggesting they were favourites would you please. Where did you state that England were too strong before the game, may have missed that.

There's only one person continually wrong on this thread. You've provided zero evidence and nothing to backup any of your bizarre points.

Everybody on the thread disagrees with you. I do admire your stubbornness and you do genuinely think you're right........but you're wrong.

Neutralee wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Contradicting yourself a fair bit now Im afraid. you always shine through eventually.

If there was some continuity to his argument it would be a good debate but some of the flitting about is bizarre.

It's certainly not Ghost/GE anyway, as Quins says he was quite a knowledgeable poster under the wumming.

Back up your accusation or leave it...

Hhhhhmmm back up the accusation that GG/GE was quite a knowledgeable poster......................might have to think hard about that.

Definitely not up to the old standards though, maybe it is lack of practice as neither has been seen for a while.

Neutralee wrote:They are the Oxfords meaning of the word underdog, England have proved themselves as the best junior system in the world, the best structured, participated in and funded, Englands junior rugby system is the envy worldwide, and Englands U18's went in with a very strong chance of winning, I called them too strong for SA after Wales heavy lost to them.

How have they done that when they keep losing to South Africa? Two years running.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Neutralee wrote:They are the Oxfords meaning of the word underdog, England have proved themselves as the best junior system in the world, the best structured, participated in and funded, Englands junior rugby system is the envy worldwide, and Englands U18's went in with a very strong chance of winning, I called them too strong for SA after Wales heavy lost to them.

How have they done that when they keep losing to South Africa? Two years running.

Simple, 15 - 18 yr agre grade undefeated this season, U20's back to back JRWC winners = As an Englishman would you swap those results for any other countries junior age grade systems results?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:There's only one person continually wrong on this thread. You've provided zero evidence and nothing to backup any of your bizarre points.

Everybody on the thread disagrees with you. I do admire your stubbornness and you do genuinely think you're right........but you're wrong.

If your so sure prove it! Go and vanswer my 3 questions above, I know you won't because you can't without proving me right.

This has gone crazy out of hand because 2 posters are deluded, once you prove me wrong I will put my hands up and congratulate you.

I'll have a crack and see if you finally go over the points I've put to you but seem to dance around. England U18s were at a disadvantage travelling to SA in comparison to SA U18s playing at home due to the reasons I've stated previously.

England U18s are doing rather well at the moment, and were doing well before the SA game although not as well as the SA U18s.

I don't believe too many people would have had England down as favourites so (and probably a bit due to where it was being played) were slight underdogs.

Now my points if you may.

Not sure how that proves them to be the best. The last couple of years has shown them about par with South Africa. Previous two years the U18 and U20 lost to South Africa. This year both the U18 and U20 beat south Africa. Personally I don't put much stake on a single year to prove anything, certainly for things like structure. They've consistently been the best in Europe (although still lose games to France and Ireland).

If we tell Neutralee that he's won the internet do you think he'll go away?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'll have a crack and see if you finally go over the points I've put to you but seem to dance around. England U18s were at a disadvantage travelling to SA in comparison to SA U18s playing at home due to the reasons I've stated previously.

England U18s are doing rather well at the moment, and were doing well before the SA game although not as well as the SA U18s.

I don't believe too many people would have had England down as favourites so (and probably a bit due to where it was being played) were slight underdogs.

Now my points if you may.

Of course...

England did have to travel further than SA to play the game, but you are not just overestimating the 'away factor' you are underestimating the tour. Firstly, are NZ automatically underdogs v Scotland if they play in Scotland? Secondly traveling squads use tours as a great bonding exercise, this England team was in Poland recently, being succesfull, they are used to travelling together, and to more difficult subcultures than Capetown.
As Ive mentioned travel to an 18 yr old is totally different to a fully pro player, their bodies react differently, they acclimatise differently, and they generally travel far better. I am willing to bet that U18 age grade teams away results are far higher than pro away results, because of the multitude of other factors that effect U18 games.

So although it is an inconvenience, no travelling to SA isn't a disadvantage, at best it's an inconvenience, but as proved above, it is no deciding factor.


How can you SA were playiong better, did you watch the Wales and France games? Did you identify strengths and weaknesses of SA? I did and SA were not looking like they could handle this England team, and they never competed with them until the yellow card. England were dominant!

Your right, I concede not many people wouldve expected an England win, howeve that'll be through ignorance, not intimate knowledge of the groups of boys. People generally generalise, and see England as weaker than SA, which in the pro sport is probably true, however these U18 teams get little exposure, little is known about them and not many people know their strengths and weaknesses, if you have fallen into that bracket I'm sorry, but I watched the games played in SA, and despite SA having a number of very physical boys, they weren't particularly well structured, and there were a few players who were plugging gaps. England were far better organised, and they were always going to have the ability to shut down the SA powermen.

Now answer my 3 questions...

Cone on now just answer my points, stop ducking. You said England couldn't be classed as underdogs because they were unbeaten. You said you couldn't be a 'slight' underdog.

Yet you say that unbeaten SA were a slight underdog. You move from saying you don't really know the players to having intimate knowledge. You say you watched all the games yet you didn't know SAs other results initially. You say that Englands coach said they were favourites, and I'm still waiting for a link to these quotes.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cone on now just answer my points, stop ducking. You said England couldn't be classed as underdogs because they were unbeaten. You said you couldn't be a 'slight' underdog.

Yet you say that unbeaten SA were a slight underdog. You move from saying you don't really know the players to having intimate knowledge. You say you watched all the games yet you didn't know SAs other results initially. You say that Englands coach said they were favourites, and I'm still waiting for a link to these quotes.

You are now just making stuff up after Ive proved your points null in void. Your not interested in debate, just he who attacks more ferociously, why are you afraid to answer my 3 simple questions after I debunked yours?

Do you beleive England U18's were at a disadvantage to SA? Were they underfunded? Underprepared? Understructured? Under participated?

Do you beleive Englands U18's have no presence in rugbys society? They are not world players? The envy of world age grade rugby of late?

Do you really beleive England had little or no chance of winning? Were they suppose to shell 50 points? Were they suppose to hang on?

Time to put up or shut up...

You haven't touched upon my points at all. Please try.

I've answered your points. Anyone playing away is at a disadvantage.
England do have a presence of course, as do SA. They and SA at U18 level have done really well.

England stood a decent chance but probably weren't favourites.

You going to continue to duck the questions? You said England couldn't be classed as underdogs because they were unbeaten. You said you couldn't be a 'slight' underdog.

Yet you say that unbeaten SA were a slight underdog. You move from saying you don't really know the players to having intimate knowledge. You say you watched all the games yet you didn't know SAs other results initially. You say that Englands coach said they were favourites, and I'm still waiting for a link to these quotes.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You haven't touched upon my points at all. Please try.

I've answered your points. Anyone playing away is at a disadvantage.
England do have a presence of course, as do SA. They and SA at U18 level have done really well.

England stood a decent chance but probably weren't favourites.

You going to continue to duck the questions? You said England couldn't be classed as underdogs because they were unbeaten. You said you couldn't be a 'slight' underdog.

Yet you say that unbeaten SA were a slight underdog. You move from saying you don't really know the players to having intimate knowledge. You say you watched all the games yet you didn't know SAs other results initially. You say that Englands coach said they were favourites, and I'm still waiting for a link to these quotes.

I see so your unwilling to debate the Oxfords dictionaries term 'underdog' you'd prefer to twist words I have said previously to try to discredit me.

You've become tiresome now, only a defeated man resorts to the debator over the issues, sorry you have felt the need to be like this.

If you show me where I have said I didn't know the players, and where I have claimed to have intimate knowledge of the players this debate is over, you win.

Hang on I just realised, that last sentence is useless, you didn't know what Underdog meant theres no way you'll know the meaning of 'intimate'