Mike Brown applauds France for not folding, unlike..................

by MissBlennerhassett Mon 23 Mar - 21:43

First topic message reminder :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3006594/Mike-Brown-hails-France-refusing-fold-unlike-countries-England-finish-second-Six-Nations-points-difference.html

Is he right? France definitely played their best game by a mile against England, but as England fans, we're used to that for all opponents, but did Italy and Scotland play with a proper spirit to win or lose as honourably as they possibly could?

I think they probably did, but England fell short on points difference again due to all our opponents being on their ""A game against us as usual. This factor should be largely negated at the RWC, as that in itself is a big enough motivation for all teams and so the playing field will be leveled. This is why of course, England does rather well at world cups compared to our NH comrades, irrespective of recent 6N results. Bring it on!!!!

by SecretFly Fri 27 Mar - 0:44

I talk truth and you don't want to hear it. Wink

Nothing much wrong with England at all as I've said on other posts. But Ireland will have enough 'nous' when the time comes to be competitive. To paraphrase you, you worry about England before crap talking about Ireland...

by Gwlad Fri 27 Mar - 2:40

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You don't half talk a load of old sh7t.

Bravo!

by Gwlad Fri 27 Mar - 2:43

gregortree wrote:
Gwlad wrote:England's management of this 6 Nations result is interesting. Fact is they know within themselves that they let another opportunity go begging. And it wasn't italy or scotland's responsibility but their own for poor showings v Ireland and Scotland and a meander v Italy.

The fact is that they are hiding behind every excuse to conceal an institutional problem. There is obviously an insufficient sense of pressure coming from within the camp and from without. Ritchie is apparently turning the screw but it is , IMO, a sound byte.

What happened to the last 4 years? England may look better in some areas, 10 for example. But they still don't have a 12 without which the midfield will never truly fulfill its potential. Joseph is a brilliant find, as is Ford but the glut of individual brilliance is part of the problem. They have not built familiarity as a TEAM, not stuck with a 23 for long enough for them to gel, find systems, know each other's habits.

Who can say what the first XV is? Who owns their shirt apart from Robshaw. Where is the pressure to keep it and the pressure from outside to perform in it if the selection policy seems so liberal. There is so much rotation of players and tweaking that i cannot believe there is any sense of familiarity between players.

4 x 2nds in the last 4 6 Nations indicates a serious problem and there is now no time to resolve it. The pressure of the last RWC caused an England implosion of dwarf like proportions. One hopes that at home we can at least ban the players from such establishments!

Thank you for the analysis and deep interest. Too late to get 3 yrs residency before the RWC but check for English grandparents as you might qualify that way..

My interest is only to prevent another embarassing stain on Home Countries rugby.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 2:47

Stop posting then Gwlad?

by gregortree Fri 27 Mar - 2:54

No need to p!ss your pants about it though.

by Gwlad Fri 27 Mar - 12:43

Gregortree, as usual you are barking up the wrong one.

by The Saint Fri 27 Mar - 20:39

Well at least fans have stopped clinging on to England's moral 6 Nations victory.

by gregortree Fri 27 Mar - 21:13

The Saint wrote:Well at least Welsh fans have stopped ~~clinging~~ banging on about to England's moral 6 Nations victory.

Fixed

by aqualung71 Fri 27 Mar - 21:33

I must miss something.. a loss by 20 conceding 55 points and credit to France? How many other times has France conceded 55 points? how many other times England has beat France by 20? Ok, we're just the whipping boys, but France conceding 55 points isn't exactly something to e applauded about. Unless the point to prove is England are too good while Ireland and Wales aren't and were just benefitted by Scotland and Italy's surrender...

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 21:37

It's about performance not result aqua. Scotland were poor from their 2nd game for me. Italy's second half performance was a 'humiliation'.

by aqualung71 Fri 27 Mar - 21:54

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's about performance not result aqua. Scotland were poor from their 2nd game for me. Italy's second half performance was a 'humiliation'.

yes, but French defense was ridicolous

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 22:02

Had a lot to do with England finally clicking and taking most of their chances. That was France's best overall performance anyway. It wasn't a great performance. Were you happy with the 2nd half against Wales?

by aqualung71 Fri 27 Mar - 22:12

No 7&1/2 wrote:Had a lot to do with England finally clicking and taking most of their chances. That was France's best overall performance anyway. It wasn't a great performance. Were you happy with the 2nd half against Wales?

no of course, but probably has a lot to do with Wales finally clicking..If I were Welsh I'd feel hurt, pretty derespectful

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 22:16

Well I think if they're disrespected they obviously feel Italy were playing to their peak, as must you. If they really were then I'm not surprised some people question their place in the 6Ns.

I still go with they weren't at the races and have proved they can play much better.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 27 Mar - 22:16

No 7&1/2 wrote:Had a lot to do with England finally clicking and taking most of their chances. That was France's best overall performance anyway. It wasn't a great performance. Were you happy with the 2nd half against Wales?

England capitalised well, but can you honestly say with a straight face that wasn't possibly the worst defensive performance you have ever seen by France? I struggle to think of anything worse.

And England should be annoyed at the ease with which France scored their tries.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 22:21

Best performance France put up in this 6Ns. I just don't think they're great. I can say thet currently England are very good with ball in hand.

by aqualung71 Fri 27 Mar - 22:30

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's about performance not result aqua. Scotland were poor from their 2nd game for me. Italy's second half performance was a 'humiliation'.

I'm dizzy now. When we forced England to the final whistle of an hard-fought game, all we get is a pat on shoulders and we're told it's all about result, not performance

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 22:33

You had a decent performance against England a couple of years back. A performance that didn't deserve a victory but good for Italy. That's what I'm saying you're capable of having performances like that still. I believe that. Even if you played at 100% had Wales played as they did in the 2nd half you would have lost by a pretty big score. You were no where near the level you can play.

by R!skysports Fri 27 Mar - 22:40

No 7&1/2 wrote:Had a lot to do with England finally clicking and taking most of their chances. That was France's best overall performance anyway. It wasn't a great performance. Were you happy with the 2nd half against Wales?

That certainly was not the best performance by France - they lost and shipped 55 points!

That game was like an extended game of 7's - if that was normal both sides would be very worried about their defenses - however it was just a weird and wonderful game

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 22:41

What game were they better?

by aqualung71 Fri 27 Mar - 22:41

No 7&1/2 wrote:You had a decent performance against England a couple of years back. A performance that didn't deserve a victory but good for Italy. That's what I'm saying you're capable of having performances like that still. I believe that. Even if you played at 100% had Wales played as they did in the 2nd half you would have lost by a pretty big score. You were no where near the level you can play.

fixed and I agree. As you know, the players as well confessed they went panicking in a strange mental way. It happened, was awful to watch at, but at least we scored 20 points and kept Wales from winning.
p.s: we pushed England hard two years in a row and only our poor, poor kicking rate bailed you out, both on 2013 and above all 2012.

by R!skysports Fri 27 Mar - 22:45

No 7&1/2 wrote:What game were they better?

Overall most of their games were better - as they had defense and attack -

The game is about both remember

The defense of both teams was amateur during that game

It was an exciting d good game to watch

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 22:46

Yes you did. So you can start to see Brown's point especially after that 1st half.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 22:48

Riskysports wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:What game were they better?

Overall most of their games were better - as they had defense and attack -

The game is about both remember

The defense of both teams was amateur during that game

It was an exciting d good game to watch

I watched all their games they were poor in all. Their best performance was against England. They looked to be going through the motions against others, you can't say that for the England game. They came to play and try and spoil the day.

by sensisball Fri 27 Mar - 22:58

Italy unfortunately didn't go through the motions at Murrayfield. They played with a belligerence that belies their status, in some people's eyes, as perennial whipping boys. Yes they rode their luck but never stopped playing and got the win in the end off some magnificent driving play by the forwards. No doubt you will say that Scotland don't count as they are pants as well.
However if Scotland are so poor why couldn't England rack up 50 against us?
Also, how did Italy mange to score three tries against England's magnificent defense?
Answers on a post card please.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 27 Mar - 23:06

Riskysports wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Had a lot to do with England finally clicking and taking most of their chances. That was France's best overall performance anyway. It wasn't a great performance. Were you happy with the 2nd half against Wales?

That certainly was not the best performance by France - they lost and shipped 55 points!

That game was like an extended game of 7's - if that was normal both sides would be very worried about their defenses - however it was just a weird and wonderful game

Completely agree.

by R!skysports Fri 27 Mar - 23:14

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Riskysports wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:What game were they better?

Overall most of their games were better - as they had defense and attack -

The game is about both remember

The defense of both teams was amateur during that game

It was an exciting d good game to watch

I watched all their games they were poor in all. Their best performance was against England. They looked to be going through the motions against others, you can't say that for the England game. They came to play and try and spoil the day.

Of course it was - it was only against England that they played - hence England played the best - hence England are the best

It was not a real game of Rugby - it was touch rugby, with a bit of beach rugby thrown in

Very entertaining - but very limited in one HUGE aspect of the game - defence

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 23:48

Riskysports wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
Riskysports wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:What game were they better?

Overall most of their games were better - as they had defense and attack -

The game is about both remember

The defense of both teams was amateur during that game

It was an exciting d good game to watch

I watched all their games they were poor in all. Their best performance was against England. They looked to be going through the motions against others, you can't say that for the England game. They came to play and try and spoil the day.

Of course it was - it was only against England that they played - hence England played the best - hence England are the best

It was not a real game of Rugby - it was touch rugby, with a bit of beach rugby thrown in

Very entertaining - but very limited in one HUGE aspect of the game - defence

Ireland were the best they finished 1st. All I'm saying is France turned up against England, Scotland didn't against Ireland as they hadn't turned up from 10 min in against Italy and Italy didn't turn up in the 2nd half.

by R!skysports Fri 27 Mar - 23:54

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Riskysports wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
Riskysports wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:What game were they better?

Overall most of their games were better - as they had defense and attack -

The game is about both remember

The defense of both teams was amateur during that game

It was an exciting d good game to watch

I watched all their games they were poor in all. Their best performance was against England. They looked to be going through the motions against others, you can't say that for the England game. They came to play and try and spoil the day.

Of course it was - it was only against England that they played - hence England played the best - hence England are the best

It was not a real game of Rugby - it was touch rugby, with a bit of beach rugby thrown in

Very entertaining - but very limited in one HUGE aspect of the game - defence

Ireland were the best they finished 1st. All I'm saying is France turned up against England, Scotland didn't against Ireland as they hadn't turned up from 10 min in against Italy and Italy didn't turn up in the 2nd half.

And all I am saying shipping 55 points after only shipping a couple of tries in all their games - is IMO NOT showing up

by No 7&1/2 Fri 27 Mar - 23:56

That's why I think you need to judge performance and not just look at stats.

by R!skysports Fri 27 Mar - 23:57

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's why I think you need to judge performance and not just look at stats.

And thats why you need to judge performance that includes attack and defense - rather than just attack :-)

by R!skysports Fri 27 Mar - 23:59

In all honesty - I would argue that France turned up less than Scotland and Italy - as they did not care about how many points they shipped - and became even less professional about how they played

(PS - Not saying Scotland were anything but pants - we were)

by No 7&1/2 Sat 28 Mar - 0:02

Fair enough. I don't think France will have been thinking could we do anymore that's all.

by SecretFly Sat 28 Mar - 0:03

It was a great game. But almost everyone now also admits it was a Mad game. The whole day was mad. The adrenaline was surging that day and it created the fire.

Neither side could afford to be so cavalier with defence again. Both sides know it. It was simply a mad, mad day of rugby that exploded like a fireworks. Back to the damp squibs for the WC Wink

by fa0019 Wed 1 Apr - 22:54

I have to say Scotland's performance vs. Ireland was one of the lowest points in its history. They literally bent over for what ever reason be it low morale or simply not giving a s***. I didn't see Ireland play with great intensity nor amazing play. Forward dominance yes but at home the diff should be no more than 15 points let alone 30. A lot of players should take a long look in the mirror and probably never play for them again. Embarrassing is not the word.

Italy are famed for it though.

by SecretFly Wed 1 Apr - 23:26

fa0019 wrote:I have to say Scotland's performance vs. Ireland was one of the lowest points in its history. They literally bent over for what ever reason be it low morale or simply not giving a s***. I didn't see Ireland play with great intensity nor amazing play. Forward dominance yes but at home the diff should be no more than 15 points let alone 30. A lot of players should take a long look in the mirror and probably never play for them again. Embarrassing is not the word.

Italy are famed for it though.

They bent over due to pressure exerted. Ireland had at least two more opportunities to score when Bowe tapped back frustratingly close to the line when the better option would have been to hold on and recycle fast.

Why is it such a surprise that Ireland (looking for scores) can score four tries against Scotland (being 3rd in the world) and not a surprise that England (looking for scores) can score seven against France (world cup finalists last time), who also had a criminally porous defence?

France had the excellent game that will be written about in the annals, and Scotland had the one to be ashamed about to eternity?

by The Great Aukster Wed 1 Apr - 23:35

France were the most disappointing and the most exhilarating at the same time. The players were obviously putting up an unspecified number of fingers to PSA and trying to play off the cuff rugby like they used to do in la belle epoch. Throwing all professionalism to the wind like they did was a free pass to see if they could selfishly garner some kudos from the hitherto disaster of a tournament.

Maybe Scotland and Italy should have done the same... or then again maybe they were trying to?

by fa0019 Wed 1 Apr - 23:38

SecretFly wrote:
fa0019 wrote:I have to say Scotland's performance vs. Ireland was one of the lowest points in its history. They literally bent over for what ever reason be it low morale or simply not giving a s***. I didn't see Ireland play with great intensity nor amazing play. Forward dominance yes but at home the diff should be no more than 15 points let alone 30. A lot of players should take a long look in the mirror and probably never play for them again. Embarrassing is not the word.

Italy are famed for it though.

They bent over due to pressure exerted. Ireland had at least two more opportunities to score when Bowe tapped back frustratingly close to the line when the better option would have been to hold on and recycle fast.

Why is it such a surprise that Ireland (looking for scores) can score four tries against Scotland (being 3rd in the world) and not a surprise that England (looking for scores) can score seven against France (world cup finalists last time), who also had a criminally porous defence?

France had the excellent game that will be written about in the annals, and Scotland had the one to be ashamed about to eternity?

The reason is that France left the door open yes but with intent to score and did. They knew they were outmuscled and out of form but still went to get some scalps and things could have been very different come 60mins. Scotland left the door open and offered literally nothing. They literally bent over.

Not saying they did it intentionally what so ever. But it was quite possibly the most embarrassing performance by Scotland in a very long time because they literally gave up.

by fa0019 Wed 1 Apr - 23:40

remember prior to this Ireland had scored 4 tries in 4 matches and had struggled upfront. It wasn't simply because everything clicked. I reckon the Scotland players would have been happier to watch countryfile on bbc then come back for the 2nd half such was their interest.

by the-goon Wed 1 Apr - 23:49

If ireland can beat South Africa by 14 points, why is it a surprise that we can beat Scoland by 30 (whilst searching for tries)?

Scotland were outclassed by a far better rugby team that day, but fought right up to the end. Sure Hogg could and should have scored in the 75th or so minute. There is no shame being well beaten by a better team, it's just that the better team hasn't historically been the stronger rugby playing nation....

France, bar a few baabaa's tries were lazy, unprofessional and frankly rubbish. But hey, if England 9and French) fans choose to believe the spin to gloss over their teams' shortcomings, go for it. The table doesn't lie.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 1 Apr - 23:53

Wasn't a good Scotland performance, they won't be sitting back and thinknig we could give no more.

by Jimpy Wed 1 Apr - 23:55

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wasn't a good Scotland performance, they won't be sitting back and thinknig we could give no more.

I was left sitting back and thinking 'Scotland aren't that bad, why didn't they give more?'.

I'll get my conspiracy theory coat....

by No 7&1/2 Wed 1 Apr - 23:57

I've said before that they didn't turn up to any match after ten min of the Italy game. That includes the England game. I'm not going to sit here and arrogantly claim anything of the sort.

by The Great Aukster Thu 2 Apr - 0:10

the-goon wrote:If ireland can beat South Africa by 14 points, why is it a surprise that we can beat Scoland by 30 (whilst searching for tries)?

Some might say the Boks lost that day because they didn't rate Ireland. They arrived in the Aviva with the intention of practicing their back play, picked Pollard & Le Roux and kicked for touch rather than goal. They were the ones searching for tries, so who knows what the score would have been if SA had afforded Ireland full SH respect or indeed if Ireland had been searching for tries against them!

Given there was nothing on that game, the comparison is tenuous.

Scotland on the other hand in the build up to their last game were talking themselves up. They didn't want to win the Spoon, and their performances were better than the table showed, and they had to do it for Vern, and Glasgow were good in the Pro12 etc. etc. All they had to do was win to finish above Italy, but they couldn't put their money where their mouth was - or maybe they weren't allowed to?

by fa0019 Thu 2 Apr - 0:19

The Great Aukster wrote:
the-goon wrote:If ireland can beat South Africa by 14 points, why is it a surprise that we can beat Scoland by 30 (whilst searching for tries)?

Some might say the Boks lost that day because they didn't rate Ireland. They arrived in the Aviva with the intention of practicing their back play, picked Pollard & Le Roux and kicked for touch rather than goal. They were the ones searching for tries, so who knows what the score would have been if SA had afforded Ireland full SH respect or indeed if Ireland had been searching for tries against them!

Given there was nothing on that game, the comparison is tenuous.

Scotland on the other hand in the build up to their last game were talking themselves up. They didn't want to win the Spoon, and their performances were better than the table showed, and they had to do it for Vern, and Glasgow were good in the Pro12 etc. etc. All they had to do was win to finish above Italy, but they couldn't put their money where their mouth was - or maybe they weren't allowed to?

the 6N is the priority for any team involved. the AIs is a hard slog after a 9 month season for SH teams. Its a little different.

by the-goon Thu 2 Apr - 2:43

fa0019 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
the-goon wrote:If ireland can beat South Africa by 14 points, why is it a surprise that we can beat Scoland by 30 (whilst searching for tries)?

Some might say the Boks lost that day because they didn't rate Ireland. They arrived in the Aviva with the intention of practicing their back play, picked Pollard & Le Roux and kicked for touch rather than goal. They were the ones searching for tries, so who knows what the score would have been if SA had afforded Ireland full SH respect or indeed if Ireland had been searching for tries against them!

Given there was nothing on that game, the comparison is tenuous.

Scotland on the other hand in the build up to their last game were talking themselves up. They didn't want to win the Spoon, and their performances were better than the table showed, and they had to do it for Vern, and Glasgow were good in the Pro12 etc. etc. All they had to do was win to finish above Italy, but they couldn't put their money where their mouth was - or maybe they weren't allowed to?

the 6N is the priority for any team involved. the AIs is a hard slog after a 9 month season for SH teams. Its a little different.

Wouldn't that also mean that Ireland brought their A game to Scotland, 6Nations being the priority and all? And Ireland's A game is at a level that can put a team like Scotland to the sword no matter how Scotland play? I guess that wouldn't make England the moral 6Nations champions though...

by fa0019 Thu 2 Apr - 2:46

the-goon wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
the-goon wrote:If ireland can beat South Africa by 14 points, why is it a surprise that we can beat Scoland by 30 (whilst searching for tries)?

Some might say the Boks lost that day because they didn't rate Ireland. They arrived in the Aviva with the intention of practicing their back play, picked Pollard & Le Roux and kicked for touch rather than goal. They were the ones searching for tries, so who knows what the score would have been if SA had afforded Ireland full SH respect or indeed if Ireland had been searching for tries against them!

Given there was nothing on that game, the comparison is tenuous.

Scotland on the other hand in the build up to their last game were talking themselves up. They didn't want to win the Spoon, and their performances were better than the table showed, and they had to do it for Vern, and Glasgow were good in the Pro12 etc. etc. All they had to do was win to finish above Italy, but they couldn't put their money where their mouth was - or maybe they weren't allowed to?

the 6N is the priority for any team involved. the AIs is a hard slog after a 9 month season for SH teams. Its a little different.

Wouldn't that also mean that Ireland brought their A game to Scotland, 6Nations being the priority and all? And Ireland's A game is at a level that can put a team like Scotland to the sword no matter how Scotland play? I guess that wouldn't make England the moral 6Nations champions though...

Ireland were the best team in the 6N and deserved their title. England were the best attacking but their defence was woeful for much of the tournament and Ford's kicking isn't good enough.

Scotland kept hold of Wales, France, England who were stronger attacking wise than Ireland yet couldn't be bothered vs. Ireland.

by the-goon Thu 2 Apr - 3:32

fa0019 wrote:
the-goon wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
the-goon wrote:If ireland can beat South Africa by 14 points, why is it a surprise that we can beat Scoland by 30 (whilst searching for tries)?

Some might say the Boks lost that day because they didn't rate Ireland. They arrived in the Aviva with the intention of practicing their back play, picked Pollard & Le Roux and kicked for touch rather than goal. They were the ones searching for tries, so who knows what the score would have been if SA had afforded Ireland full SH respect or indeed if Ireland had been searching for tries against them!

Given there was nothing on that game, the comparison is tenuous.

Scotland on the other hand in the build up to their last game were talking themselves up. They didn't want to win the Spoon, and their performances were better than the table showed, and they had to do it for Vern, and Glasgow were good in the Pro12 etc. etc. All they had to do was win to finish above Italy, but they couldn't put their money where their mouth was - or maybe they weren't allowed to?

the 6N is the priority for any team involved. the AIs is a hard slog after a 9 month season for SH teams. Its a little different.

Wouldn't that also mean that Ireland brought their A game to Scotland, 6Nations being the priority and all? And Ireland's A game is at a level that can put a team like Scotland to the sword no matter how Scotland play? I guess that wouldn't make England the moral 6Nations champions though...

Ireland were the best team in the 6N and deserved their title. England were the best attacking but their defence was woeful for much of the tournament and Ford's kicking isn't good enough.

Scotland kept hold of Wales, France, England who were stronger attacking wise than Ireland yet couldn't be bothered vs. Ireland.

That is simply untrue, England broke the line at will, they just couldn't finish for toffee. Ireland broke down Scotland as well, they just finished better.

by The Great Aukster Thu 2 Apr - 7:05

Yes. Ireland attacked Scotland better than England had but then all the last games were different to everything that had gone before, because everyone knew exactly what they had to play for.
Ironically France were the only team with nothing to play for in terms of winning the Championship or avoiding the Wooden Spoon.

by Sponsored content