The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything

First topic message reminder :

Firstly my Bonafides I`m an Anglo-Scot and proud of my Countries teams,BUT my Primary team is the All Blacks since 1953-4.
I`m Alan/aka Emack/aka Emack2 and have profound knowledge of Rugby,especially SH in General ,NZ in particular. I don`t
follow Club/Provincial/or even NH tests except at a peripheral level.
I have been sickened by the media witch hunt,tweets by players,both in or not in the Squad and the cries for Coaches Blood
when everyone should get behind the team.
As an All Black fan who road the halcyon days 1950-69 when they lost one series in 20years,the dark days of the 70`s,slow
recovery in the 80`s patchy 90`s.1998,2009 .I can emphasize "Chokers","4 more years""Home Town Bullies" etc.
In 2004 they lost a squad,,in 2008 a whole squad they rebuilt and moved on NZ have the best team and the worst media in
Rugby.John Hart,Grizz Wyllie,Robbie Deans all great coaches dumped in knee jerk reactions.Graham Henry only being re-elected
because Deans was tainted by 2003.
In 2009 in an injury riddled year lost 3 times to SA and a trophy to France "The Gang of three were under fire the reaction
Thrashing the French at the end of the year,a 6-0 2010 campaign a loss to OZ in Hong Kong,and 2 in 2011,a solid RWC win
v Oz,2012 =6-0 again.England loss 2012,followed an unbeaten 2013.Each loss an inspiration to settle the score.
Under Lancaster England had a good record v NH sides the last 3 -6Ns being decided by points difference so there was
little between most NH sides.
Injuries to some extent and off field activies effected selections BUT the style that had proved successful in most games
2012-15.Suddenly became a defensive no loss rather than try to win attitude which probably cost the Wales game.
This RWC has shown that teams with nothing to lose can be a handful especially if the offside law isn`t applied the
standard is such 150 points thrashing don`t happen.
The unfair 4/5 day turnaround has increased injuries ,reduced recovery times,has cost points/matches.
The laws exist in black and white BUT every Ref I`ve seen so far has applied them differently.
England v Australia injuries to both sides may have affected the result to some extent and Hooper not
seeing Yellow at half time.Was huge 7 man Scrum,key man from breakdown when England were
firing.
Media expectations that purely on Home advantage England would win the Group,then reach the
final was naïve at best.That SH well organised sides wouldn't be able to play a running game in
the NH,.The pressure to pick a league Prop/6 still learning his trade in the centre instead of
dedicated 12 beggars belief[what ever his undoubted skills.
As to the Aus match,congratulations to them by the way,personally when given penalties would have
kicked for goal to slow things down.Been in the Refs ear about Scrum going early and deliberate
bodies at the base of every breakdown.Would have pulled Marler after the first Scrum Penalty
if the Ref thinks your at it he`ll do it every time[Steve Walsh]
The future get a settled game plan,select players who can execute it,one game at a time a more
mobile back row.More care to be seen to be legal at the set piece,better discipline.
I`d be inclined to Keep Lancaster but look at the other coaches and aim to win 6Ns and
thrash Aus next time they meet.

LordDowlais wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:Really? That's not the impression you gave in your previous posts.

What, did I say that England picked the schedule ?

No, and I didn't suggest that you did. I was replying to your claim that you didn't say it was purposely done for England, when clearly you did. In case you've forgotten:

LordDowlais wrote:Those are all factors that were arranged AFTER the draw was made. No one else were given such graces. This group was arranged to give the hosts the most advantage to qualify after the cards were dealt. Even you should be able to see this.

But if you want to backtrack then crack on

LordDowlais wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:And this benefits England how? The players weren't happy about the late starts yet you seem to think they benefited from it, why?

It benefits England because they have the same timing for every game, it is a set fixture for them with the same amount of time between each game.

That's ridiculous. Consistency works if it's something you are happy with. An afternoon kick off would have been preferred by the players, anything outside of that is not an advantage, even more so when they have to do it 4 times.

Going to Bristol if he's not bought out his contract. Though I think it would be disappointing if he goes there as I don't think coaching a championship club is the best way to build up top coaching experience. Could be a gamble that pays off if Bristol get promoted I guess though.

You've got to start somewhere I suppose.

To be fair to England, historically over RWC history they’ve had very difficult pools to deal given they’ve been one of the top 5 nations over the same period (since RWC creation they’ve won eight 5 or 6N titles… 2nd only to France with 10), appeared in 3 RWC finals, won 1 and had the best record vs. 3N opposition of all NH nations.
Yet they’ve faced 3N opposition in 6 of the 8 tournaments with only 95 & 11 being the exception.

87 – AUS
91 – NZ
95 – first exception
99 – NZ
03 – SA
07 – SA
11 – second exception
15 – AUS

NZ, AUS & SA have faced 3N or ENG & FRA only 3 times and FRA have only been in with likewise pool opposition once (in 2011.. perhaps why they do so well in RWCs).
So whilst they had an arguably better schedule then some this time around (albeit not really) they have really been dealt a tough deal throughout the ages. Didn't help this time mind but interesting viewpoint anyhow.

Changed my viewpoint of why the French tend to do so well though.

fa0019 wrote:To be fair to England, historically over RWC history they’ve had very difficult pools to deal given they’ve been one of the top 5 nations over the same period (since RWC creation they’ve won eight 5 or 6N titles… 2nd only to France with 10), appeared in 3 RWC finals, won 1 and had the best record vs. 3N opposition of all NH nations.
Yet they’ve faced 3N opposition in 6 of the 8 tournaments with only 95 & 11 being the exception.

87 – AUS
91 – NZ
95 – first exception
99 – NZ
03 – SA
07 – SA
11 – second exception
15 – AUS

NZ, AUS & SA have faced 3N or ENG & FRA only 3 times and FRA have only been in with likewise pool opposition once (in 2011.. perhaps why they do so well in RWCs).
So whilst they had an arguably better schedule then some this time around (albeit not really) they have really been dealt a tough deal throughout the ages. Didn't help this time mind but interesting viewpoint anyhow.

Changed my viewpoint of why the French tend to do so well though.

Interesting reading, though it does make me feel even worse that they've gone out so early.

Borthwick is obviously a very good coach if you consider what he has done with the Japanese set piece. He was an England stalwart and captain, if he was offered a coaching job with England he would probably rip their arm off for it.

Hoonercat wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:Really? That's not the impression you gave in your previous posts.

What, did I say that England picked the schedule ?

No, and I didn't suggest that you did. I was replying to your claim that you didn't say it was purposely done for England, when clearly you did. In case you've forgotten:

LordDowlais wrote:Those are all factors that were arranged AFTER the draw was made. No one else were given such graces. This group was arranged to give the hosts the most advantage to qualify after the cards were dealt. Even you should be able to see this.

But if you want to backtrack then crack on

LordDowlais wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:And this benefits England how? The players weren't happy about the late starts yet you seem to think they benefited from it, why?

It benefits England because they have the same timing for every game, it is a set fixture for them with the same amount of time between each game.

That's ridiculous. Consistency works if it's something you are happy with. An afternoon kick off would have been preferred by the players, anything outside of that is not an advantage, even more so when they have to do it 4 times.

Ah, seen what you've done there, cherry picked parts of what I have said to suit your argument. The facts remain the same though. England had the best schedule out of all the teams in the group and they frigged it up.

Back to back big games aren't ideal.

LordDowlais wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:Really? That's not the impression you gave in your previous posts.

What, did I say that England picked the schedule ?

No, and I didn't suggest that you did. I was replying to your claim that you didn't say it was purposely done for England, when clearly you did. In case you've forgotten:

LordDowlais wrote:Those are all factors that were arranged AFTER the draw was made. No one else were given such graces. This group was arranged to give the hosts the most advantage to qualify after the cards were dealt. Even you should be able to see this.

But if you want to backtrack then crack on

LordDowlais wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:And this benefits England how? The players weren't happy about the late starts yet you seem to think they benefited from it, why?

It benefits England because they have the same timing for every game, it is a set fixture for them with the same amount of time between each game.

That's ridiculous. Consistency works if it's something you are happy with. An afternoon kick off would have been preferred by the players, anything outside of that is not an advantage, even more so when they have to do it 4 times.

Ah, seen what you've done there, cherry picked parts of what I have said to suit your argument. The facts remain the same though. England had the best schedule out of all the teams in the group and they frigged it up.

Sorry I forget we're in LordDowalsLaLaLand where directly quoting someone to show how their stance has changed is 'cherry-picking'.
BTW, facts aren't facts when they are just your opinion, especially when you can't even recognise that the schedule is made for maximum viewer coverage rather than a bias towards the host nation.

Hoonercat wrote:BTW, facts aren't facts when they are just your opinion, especially when you can't even recognise that the schedule is made for maximum viewer coverage rather than a bias towards the host nation.

Where have I said this ? I have said it was set up to suit the host nation, and it was, they were given game times on the primest(is that a word) time of the week to get the biggest audience, 8pm every Saturday, and a full week in-between games, no other country in pool a was given that privilege. And that is a FACT.

LordDowlais wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:BTW, facts aren't facts when they are just your opinion, especially when you can't even recognise that the schedule is made for maximum viewer coverage rather than a bias towards the host nation.

Where have I said this ? I have said it was set up to suit the host nation, and it was, they were given game times on the primest(is that a word) time of the week to get the biggest audience, 8pm every Saturday, and a full week in-between games, no other country in pool a was given that privilege. And that is a FACT.

Plenty have pointed out where they think you are wrong but you still insist it is fact. You're either hard of reading of just ignoring the replies of others.

Maybe the 8pm England games clashed with LD's social life and he's just disappointed to miss them. It's annoying, but possibly understandable that World Rugby didn't check with him first.

Other than that, I don't see an issue. I think we all agree that the England coaches and players are to blame for an early exit and the scheduling is largely immaterial.

I'd post 'FACT' and 'End Of', but it's just my opinion

Hoonercat wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:BTW, facts aren't facts when they are just your opinion, especially when you can't even recognise that the schedule is made for maximum viewer coverage rather than a bias towards the host nation.

Where have I said this ? I have said it was set up to suit the host nation, and it was, they were given game times on the primest(is that a word) time of the week to get the biggest audience, 8pm every Saturday, and a full week in-between games, no other country in pool a was given that privilege. And that is a FACT.

Plenty have pointed out where they think you are wrong but you still insist it is fact. You're either hard of reading of just ignoring the replies of others.

Hey girls...get a room why doncha ?

I'd have preferred Australia's run in. End of FACT.

LordDowlais wrote:

Heaf wrote:And Australia faced Fiji after they'd only had 4 days off (arguably a more important match)

FFS mun....

Yes we all know what the scheduling was like for the group, we know how we were all hamstrung with short turnarounds, but England were not. This is what we are saying. They knew that they would have all their games at the same time each week after a full weeks preparation and rest, and the coaches still messed up.

I've repeatedly said the coaches messed up big time ... I'm just saying I don't think the scheduling was so bad for Aus or Wales either ...

And England like everyone had short turnarounds for games

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Because you are on the wind up fella.

No I aint, of that I can assure you. Everything I have said is a matter of fact. I cannot help it if you fail to acknowledge it.

Sorry not trying to pick a fight but I think you're confusing opinions with facts ... it's not a fact that the schedule couldn't have been better for England as several people have pointed out ways it could have been.

Poor old LD is obsessed with England threads. Someone put him out of his misery....tell him the wicked witch is out of the tourney and that he can relax now. LD...you can relax now mate this one is about England's future not yours.

gregortree wrote:Poor old LD is obsessed with England threads. Someone put him out of his misery....tell him the wicked witch is out of the tourney and that he can relax now. LD...you can relax now mate this one is about England's future not yours.

Nice to see you Gregorius - can we all move on now? There is a silver lining here for England trust me. The best thing in retrospect was Wales losing to Fiji in 2007. Sometimes it takes a seismic disaster to create the change that's necessary . I'm already worried about England having a SH coach!!!!

Now Ruby is following England, but then he does live here. Nice to chat on here with you Ruby keep up the good work coaching England's future young stars for our next SH coach to build a kickass team from.

gregortree wrote:Now Ruby is following England, but then he does live here. Nice to chat on here with you Ruby   keep up the good work coaching England's future young stars for our next SH coach to build a kickass team from.

My reason for starting this thread was to promote debate and it`s certainly done that.My dislike of RWCs is well known but this one I`m
enjoying.Maybe because at my age can`t expect to view to many more,in my opinion the draw was to early post 2011.This one apart
from the 4 day turn around,for me is the Refereeing/TMO.
There is no standard interpretation for offences in areas like Scrum/Breakdown where the Ref could ping EITHER side for something
at Everyone.I hope that simplification in these areas will be looked at by the lawmakers,standard application for each offence
set down.Also maybe short arm penalties [freekicks or taps] instead as now.

There are far to many penalties in the game today a couple of seasons ago I watched a Scotland v Wales match,Wales won by
something like 8 or 9 to 6.There were also several misses by both sides afterwards someone said it was a World record for
Penalties, awarded.The Game such as it was went from just one whistle to the other a spectacle it wasn't.
England weren't helped by there schedule but in that Group it was always going to happen to someone.When England were
planning there Campaign surely they must have analysed there Groups teams and selected the Squad accordingly.
Australia`s form and the "Pooper"and strong Scrum must have been known and thoughts of countering it surely.Wales are
well known and were as likely to win as lose in that match anyway.Injuries was always going to be a problem but the Wales
match for both sides was extraordinary.
Usually some Squad members of most countries retire Post RWC any England players going?here`s to a big finish v Uruguay
to get the fans cheering.

My only gripe at on the whole an excellent world cup has been the refereeing. Its not that its been biased. On that front its been good. Few controversial moments stemming from that.

However 3 things annoy me.

Firstly over refereeing. Take Nigel Owens, awesome ref.. even my vrou sees this. He doesn't ping at first ruck offence, he gives players the chance to drops the ball.. "hands away". Him aside, take the England Wales game. If a finger was on ball, Ping! It meant for a heavily penalised game, very stop start. Neither side benefited ref was equally harsh on both sides but it sort of ruined the contest. Same in other matches.

If they wanted to do this fine... don't suddenly impose it on a world cup. Do it in the lead up season. It takes getting used to whatever anyone says.

Then the TMO nightmare. How long was the Namibia Georgia 1st half... something like 65 mins. In the end whats the point of having a ref and assistants if they can't make decisions and rely on video confirmation.

Then there was Tuilagi's 5 wk ban for his drive into a Japanese player.. literally what was wrong with that. He and Samoa should feel very upset about that.
Hoopers ban was probably fair but the crazy thing was that the referee and the TMO looked at it and gave only a penalty. How can the citing judge think it was a beyond yellow charge if 2 referees at game time carefully viewed it? Its loco.

Refs like Nigel Owen are the reason the ruck is in such a sorry state. If you can get away with hands on, then taking them off when he says, you've slowed the ball down. Not harsh enough, lets players get away with murder. That's ignoring the times he says "hands off, hands off...ok it's a turnover".

HammerofThunor wrote:Refs like Nigel Owen are the reason the ruck is in such a sorry state. If you can get away with hands on, then taking them off when he says, you've slowed the ball down. Not harsh enough, lets players get away with murder.  That's ignoring the times he says "hands off, hands off...ok it's a turnover".

Well we might as well then say back to the pre ELV rules then. No hands. tackler can't compete in ruck.

HammerofThunor wrote:Refs like Nigel Owen are the reason the ruck is in such a sorry state. If you can get away with hands on, then taking them off when he says, you've slowed the ball down. Not harsh enough, lets players get away with murder.  That's ignoring the times he says "hands off, hands off...ok it's a turnover".

This bit in bold is infuriating.

I don't know whether Owens has got worse as a ref or if he's always been the same.

Having amusing mannerisms and so-called good communication with the players is no substitute for actually making good refereeing decisions. Often the attitude of "letting the game flow" means you're just not penalising sides for slowing the ball down.

fa0019 wrote:My only gripe at on the whole an excellent world cup has been the refereeing. Its not that its been biased. On that front its been good. Few controversial moments stemming from that.

However 3 things annoy me.

Firstly over refereeing. Take Nigel Owens, awesome ref.. even my vrou sees this. He doesn't ping at first ruck offence, he gives players the chance to drops the ball.. "hands away". Him aside, take the England Wales game. If a finger was on ball, Ping! It meant for a heavily penalised game, very stop start. Neither side benefited ref was equally harsh on both sides but it sort of ruined the contest. Same in other matches.

If they wanted to do this fine... don't suddenly impose it on a world cup. Do it in the lead up season. It takes getting used to whatever anyone says.

Then the TMO nightmare. How long was the Namibia Georgia 1st half... something like 65 mins. In the end whats the point of having a ref and assistants if they can't make decisions and rely on video confirmation.

Then there was Tuilagi's 5 wk ban for his drive into a Japanese player.. literally what was wrong with that. He and Samoa should feel very upset about that.
Hoopers ban was probably fair but the crazy thing was that the referee and the TMO looked at it and gave only a penalty. How can the citing judge think it was a beyond yellow charge if 2 referees at game time carefully viewed it? Its loco.

inconsistencies between different refs are inevitable given the nature of the game and the rule book. The loco bit is how the same referees in the same game can look at the farrell and hooper incidents and think one is a yellow and the other isn't. Had they done it the other way round, there might be room for debate... one is a split second decision on a dummy run, one a premeditated cheap shot.

milkyboy wrote:

inconsistencies between different refs are inevitable given the nature of the game and the rule book. The loco bit is how the same referees in the same game can look at the farrell and hooper incidents and think one is a yellow and the other isn't. Had they done it the other way round, there might be room for debate... one is a split second decision on a dummy run, one a premeditated cheap shot.

That's true. I think if Farrell had used his arms the penalty may well have gone the other way, as the man he tackled was clearly shepherding the man Burgess tackled.

...Burgess 'tackled'... around the head!



So the fact Farrell didn't use his arms meant that there were 2 cheap shots almost simultaneously.

Anyway, that's all history now. Let's move on.

Fair points.

Made for spectacular viewing though, wasn't it?

Good in a way that Hooper kept standing (eyes even more crossed than usual; head buzzing), Burgess escaped and poor OF was scapegoated.

Oh the drama of rugby!

The Loaded Dog wrote:Made for spectacular viewing though, wasn't it?

Good in a way that Hooper kept standing (eyes even more crossed than usual; head buzzing), Burgess escaped and poor OF was scapegoated.

Oh the drama of rugby!

Re: Owens, I've never seen an occasion where I thought he was overly lenient on a player in the ruck, he's very sharp. Giving a player a verbal warning before blowing a penalty is correct imo.

Worst thing about RU these days is referees who look at every scrum and ruck as an opportunity to award a penalty.

Is there a law regarding using a ball that is available in a scrum, rather than hanging around for a penalty yet? I've noticed some referees telling the 9 to 'use it', but not sure if it's law. If it's not it should be....winds me up watching 9s looking at an available ball but just waiting for an infringement....England have been particularly bad for this.

"What for, Sir?"

poor bugger....

Nigel Owens is one of the worst refs around. It is because of refs like him the scrum and the breakdown are a mess. Give me Wayne Barnes over him any day of the week.

LordDowlais wrote:Nigel Owens is one of the worst refs around. It is because of refs like him the scrum and the breakdown are a mess. Give me Wayne Barnes over him any day of the week.

Barnes gets a lot of stick for one miss when TMO's didn't exist and he was 20 metres behind trying to ref a break.  He's a good ref now.

I think Barnes came in for criticism for a whole lot more than a single missed forward pass, if we are talking about the same game. But I agree he's a good ref now.