6N 2016: England v Wales, 12 March

First topic message reminder :

  
ENGLAND v WALES
12 March 2016
KO: 16:00 GMT
Twickenham, London

Live on ITV, RTE, SC4, FR2, DMAX / BBC (H)

Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

119 Played 119
53 Won 54
12 Drawn 12
54 Lost 53
1,428 Points 1,371

B. Recent Form

26 September 2015: Twickenham, London
25 – 28 to Wales
2015 Rugby World Cup Pool A

6 February 2015: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
16 – 21 to England
2015 Six Nations

9 March 2014: Twickenham Stadium, London
29 – 18 to England
2014 Six Nations

16 March 2013: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
30 – 3 to Wales
2013 Six Nations

25 February 2012: Twickenham Stadium, London
12 – 19 to Wales
2012 Six Nations

13 August 2011: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
19 – 9 to Wales
2011 Rugby World Cup warm up test

6 August 2011: Twickenham, London
23 – 19 to England
2011 Rugby World Cup warm up test

C. Teams

ENGLAND

[tbc]

WALES

[tbc]

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For me, it's not downplaying that game as there was still a good chance for England to qualify against Aus. The context of the matches is the key for me, WC there was the 2nd chance, there is no 2nd chance here.

I've heard this a lot from English fans/friends, especially when trying to rile them up about Wales knocking England out, rather than Australia. I have to disagree. It was always far more likely for England to beat Wales than it was for them to beat Australia, and I think the players knew that. You could sort of tell, even in those dying minutes, with the desperation with which they chased the win.

I was expecting to win one of those matches given the recent history, I was deperately disappointed vs Wales, not as much vs Aus as we were massively 2nd best. England have a pretty decent record against Aus. Like I said when Wales beat England it was awful but there was hope on the horizon, the winner on Saturday takes the prize basically though. Why are you trying to down play the 6 nations over a group game?

I agree about the Manu and only 20 minutes thing. I don't like it. If hes not fit then he shouldn't be there. I have a horrible feeling that in his enthusiasm to make an impact he will clatter someone and get sent off for being late or something else stupid like that. His 20 mins may only be 10 minutes.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For me, it's not downplaying that game as there was still a good chance for England to qualify against Aus. The context of the matches is the key for me, WC there was the 2nd chance, there is no 2nd chance here.

I've heard this a lot from English fans/friends, especially when trying to rile them up about Wales knocking England out, rather than Australia. I have to disagree. It was always far more likely for England to beat Wales than it was for them to beat Australia, and I think the players knew that. You could sort of tell, even in those dying minutes, with the desperation with which they chased the win.

I knew after we lost to Wales we would not beat the Aussies. Was confident before the RWC but not during the tournament itself.


Hoonercat I've said it before. I would start both Itoje and Clifford.

Joubert will be licking his lips at the prospect of penalising Haskell again like last year.

englandglory4ever wrote:I agree about the Manu and only 20 minutes thing. I don't like it. If hes not fit then he shouldn't be there. I have a horrible feeling that in his enthusiasm to make an impact he will clatter someone and get sent off for being late or something else stupid like that. His 20 mins may only be 10 minutes.

Even worse than that, if he's not 100% he could come on, get bulldozed by Roberts and we'd never here the end of it on 606

Hoonercat wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:This feels like the best 23 England have fielded for many a year. The bench is very good with many arguments about who should and should not start. That gives the whole thing an air of solidity from 1 - 23. The pack are pretty much all carrying well and the backs can score tries. If the backs can actually maximise the use of the ball they create then scores will flow. (Should have scored at least 2 tries in 1st half against Ireland). However, they haven't really put their foot on the gas yet in this tourney and it may not happen against a very good defensive Wales but the potential is there in spades. These are new exciting times for England. They must start to deliver.

I agree that the bench has the potential to make a big difference, it also has the potential to suck big time if the game is going against us. There are some very inexperienced (Internationally) players on that bench and a centre who's apparently only got 20 minutes in him and hasn't played for England since 2014.
Guardian has Itoje to start, I'll be surprised if he does. He's a better bench option that Launchbury in a game that could be very attritional in the forwards. Launchbury and Clifford on the bench against Wales doesn't strike me as a better option than Itoje and Clifford.

Hooner I disagree about the bench. I can only see positives from it. Take Care for example. He has hardly had a mention on these boards but if you watch the second try against Ireland it was his speed to the breakdown and his speed of pass that really created the space out wide for the score. He really upped the tempo of the game and played at a warp speed Ben Youngs could only dream about. If Wales are at all tired after 60 minutes they will face a maelstrom. Or, Manu comes on late tackles Biggar/Roberts and gets sent off and we lose.

I hope we target Biggar, take him out of the game and likelihood of us winning go up.

Rugby is a simple game sometimes.

beshocked wrote:

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For me, it's not downplaying that game as there was still a good chance for England to qualify against Aus. The context of the matches is the key for me, WC there was the 2nd chance, there is no 2nd chance here.

I've heard this a lot from English fans/friends, especially when trying to rile them up about Wales knocking England out, rather than Australia. I have to disagree. It was always far more likely for England to beat Wales than it was for them to beat Australia, and I think the players knew that. You could sort of tell, even in those dying minutes, with the desperation with which they chased the win.

I knew after we lost to Wales we would not beat the Aussies. Was confident before the RWC but not during the tournament itself.


Hoonercat I've said it before. I would start both Itoje and Clifford.

Joubert will be licking his lips at the prospect of penalising Haskell again like last year.

Don't be so bloody ridiculous.

TightHEAD wrote:I hope we target Biggar, take him out of the game and likelihood of us winning go up.

Rugby is a simple game sometimes.

Classy.

"I hope we target Biggar, take him out of the game and likelihood of us winning go up."

Gatland has already said that Ford is going to be busy defending. Same nonsense really. The trouble with Gatland's statement is that it assumes Wales will get the ball.

In other news, this might be fun:-

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/25335/im-relishing-clash-with-spiky-mike-brown-says-liam-williams/

Watching these two lunatics hit each other will be a soap opera all in itself.

beshocked wrote:

Joubert will be licking his lips at the prospect of penalising Haskell again like last year.

I just hope he watches out for Lydiates no arms chop tackle.

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I hope we target Biggar, take him out of the game and likelihood of us winning go up.

Rugby is a simple game sometimes.

Classy.

But its the truth, lets not pussyfoot around it, teams will do anything to win.

Scummy comment.

TightHEAD wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I hope we target Biggar, take him out of the game and likelihood of us winning go up.

Rugby is a simple game sometimes.

Classy.

But its the truth, lets not pussyfoot around it, teams will do anything to win.

But you hope it happens. That says a lot about you really.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Scummy comment.

But it happens every weekend, you can't hide from the truth

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For me, it's not downplaying that game as there was still a good chance for England to qualify against Aus. The context of the matches is the key for me, WC there was the 2nd chance, there is no 2nd chance here.

I've heard this a lot from English fans/friends, especially when trying to rile them up about Wales knocking England out, rather than Australia. I have to disagree. It was always far more likely for England to beat Wales than it was for them to beat Australia, and I think the players knew that. You could sort of tell, even in those dying minutes, with the desperation with which they chased the win.

I knew after we lost to Wales we would not beat the Aussies. Was confident before the RWC but not during the tournament itself.


Hoonercat I've said it before. I would start both Itoje and Clifford.

Joubert will be licking his lips at the prospect of penalising Haskell again like last year.

Don't be so bloody ridiculous.

Jimpy I hope you're right. I hope it is indeed me just being ridiculous. I don't want to be mentioning Haskell's discipline after the Wales game.

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I hope we target Biggar, take him out of the game and likelihood of us winning go up.

Rugby is a simple game sometimes.

Classy.

But its the truth, lets not pussyfoot around it, teams will do anything to win.

But you hope it happens. That says a lot about you really.

Yes I do hope we target Biggar, have any of you ever played the game?

I don't think there's anything I see in regards to teams trying tot deliberately injure the opposition.

TightHEAD wrote:Yes I do hope we target Biggar, 

No. You hope Biggar will get taken out, there is a difference.

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Yes I do hope we target Biggar, have any of you ever played the game?

No. You hope Biggar will get taken out, there is a difference.

Re-read my original comment!

TightHEAD wrote:Re-read my original comment!

ok. 

"I hope we target Biggar, take him out of the game and likelihood of us winning go up.

Rugby is a simple game sometimes."




The bit in bold, a very classy statement. But it's only the Welsh who de-rail threads with idiotic comments.

Why do some people bother?

I expect they start a fight with themselves when they look into the mirror!

So are you telling me you think your chances of winning with Biggar off the field are the same as if he was on it?

Deliberately going out to injure players isn't something that I want to see. Wanting to see someone injured is disgusting.

TightHEAD wrote:Why do some people bother?

I expect they start a fight with themselves when they look into the mirror!

So are you telling me you think your chances of winning with Biggar off the field are the same as if he was on it?

No our chances go down with him off the field, just like our chances would go up if Joseph "was taken out" but would I hope him to get purposely injured ? No I would not.

I'd be a lot more confident knowing the in-form Fly half in the NH wasn't playing at Twickers on Saturday.
But he will be, so as far as I'm concerned the more times Billy V runs into him the less chance there is that Biggar will be on the field for 80mins, our chances of winning improves dramatically imo, which at the end of the day is what I want.

No wonder Eddie got annoyed with the press!

Cool so what are we aiming for? Broken arm? Concussion? Spinal injury?

beshocked wrote:miaow B.Youngs and Billy.V were two of our most influential players, even you acknowledge Billy was struggling with injury, of course you say it was to England's advantage as a timeout but still. At least a mention.

Definitely worth a mention, yeah. Was Youngs also brought off as a tactical substitution as well?

beshocked wrote:Sorry I don't buy the argument that it was a Welsh tactic to let England get a lead then reel them in and win with superior fitness.

It's not so much a tactic of 'letting' a team build a lead. England earned that lead, and Wales would not have wanted to concede those points. But the latter part- winning with superior fitness- certainly is part of the plan. Wales hope to keep the score down (which they didn't do in the RWC), to trust their defence early in the game, and then win the match in the latter stages, relying on that fitness and discipline to either earn them penalties as result of sustained pressure, or to score tries. If teams score 20+ points against Wales, they tend to beat them, as it's usually too high a lead to claw back late one (which makes the RWC victory even more special for Welsh fans). It's why I think England's best chance is to play with width, and look to score tries around the second and third quarter, to get an unassailable lead.

beshocked wrote:You say Wales turned the tide in the 2nd half, England were still 7 points with 10 minutes to go. Not good enough to not close it.

Definitely partly, but also Wales have a history of doing this. Admittedly, they wouldn't want the deficit to be so big, indeed they wouldn't want one at all, at this stage in the game. But they don't panic. They kept playing, risked the wide game that led to the try. England closed up a little, tried to nullify rather than play (Emphasised in the aerial ping pong in the aftermath of the Welsh try. Ford, on halfway, kept putting it in the air. Wales eventually ran it back through Priestland, and it led to the winning penalty.). I'd say that there is a slight mental grip that Wales have over England, knocking your point below. England always seem very fired up, and that either transpires into ill discipline, or the kind of win they got in 2014. Wales seemed pretty calm in the WC. It was only on the final whistle did that emotion come pouring out.

beshocked wrote:You didn't lose Biggar though did you? Probably the players who have been the beating heart of that Welsh team were all fully fit.

I'm not sure what this is in reference to? Vunipola and Youngs going off? Wales were playing without Halfpenny, and Biggar's performances in that World Cup gained him the status as a key Welsh player. Prior to that game, there were still question marks over whether he would perform, and be as reliable on goal as Halfpenny. The fact he was so emphatic in answering them doesn't diminish the fact that he had only recently become the first choice outside half. The reputation/hype he received was not there before this game. People thought 1/2P was a a bigger loss for his kicking accuracy.

beshocked wrote:At home yes England should be beating Wales.

Wales have won two of the last three at Twickenham. I disagree, and I think home advantage is almost immaterial.

beshocked wrote:Wales haven't been hard for England to beat - see 2011,2014 and 2015. It's not as if Wales are like NZ or the Springboks. Good side but haven't had that mental hold over England. The win over England in the RWC gives Wales currently bragging rights but a loss would give the edge back to England.

Again, I disagree. As well as England played in that second half of last year's 6N, they only just got past them on the scoreboard. I do believe there is a tension to the England team when they play Wales. I think a few factors come into play; the Welsh 6N titles, the status they gained from the final Lions Test, certainly the 2013 win. 2014 alleviated some of that, but each time they play, England seem to be too pumped up, too tetchy; Mike Brown epitomised it in the World Cup, going after Warburton, where Wales were very calm. You can read it in the body language, and it's part of the reason England lost in the World Cup. I wouldn't call it 'choking' as such, as Wales had to play well to win in 08 and 15, but there's an element of it there. Gone are the days of stupid Welsh penalties at the breakdown, or cheap yellow cards. It's not the case for England, particularly at ruck time against Wales. They don't inspire the same fear as SA or NZ because they're not as good, but I still think this English team has something of a mental block playing Wales. I do also agree, however, that beating them to (effectively) win a 6N title would go a good way to dispelling it. It's not as entrenched as the knowledge of what to expect when facing the All Blacks, but it's definitely there, in my opinion.

beshocked wrote:Lancaster was not a decent coach, he was a coach who won nothing, there are worse coaches out there but he wasn't good enough.

Ridiculous assessment. He turned around a woeful and misguided team that had bombed and embarrassed England in the 2011 WC. He got a good win against NZ, and whilst the All Blacks certainly had an off day, he gave the team an element of confidence to go and play. He instilled a straight laced system that I think benefited England. Your club rugby isn't set up to benefit the national team as well as Wales' is; just look at the way the RFU handled the Burgess saga. You can be sure Gatland had more of a say bringing Gareth Anscombe to Wales than Lancaster did with Burgess. The media in the World Cup also built him and his team up undeservedly, only to tear him apart. He got England playing consistently well, if not outstandingly, and he didn't win 6N titles because Wales and Ireland were better teams in those years. I will agree that he wasn't top drawer: he should have been able to get England to a title/win one of those key games at least once. But what is him, and what is the players? Robshaw at 7 was clearly a mistake, his captaincy perhaps less so. But other than that, he's been your most successful/best coach since Woodward, even if Johnson won you a 6N title. Lancaster perhaps wasn't good enough, but what was the alternative? Once the RFU opted for him over Nick Mallett, they made their bed, and he was never bad enough to sack during his tenure. I think you need some perspective here; it could have been a lot worse. I think question marks can be asked over the support he was given after his initial appointment; he wasn't qualified to do the job, but made a good go of it anyway, and by the looks of it relied too much on Andy Farrell by the end. He's laid the foundation for England with his good base of players.

beshocked wrote:A potential title winning game isn't anticlimatic. There hasn't been media build up because Eddie Jones has rightly shut his mouth. Focus on doing the talking the pitch is what I want to see. If Wales lose it will be the 3rd loss in a row to England in the 6 nations, would that not matter to you?

I don't think the build up to this game is less intense purely because Eddie Jones isn't talking to the media. I think that's giving him more credit than he's due; as much as the media can be a bit of a circus, they cannot fabricate expectation to that extent purely from what a coach says in a press conference. Honestly, I don't think this game has nearly as much fan expectation as the WC did, and I've yet to hear a case from anyone that makes me feel otherwise.

That said, of course I would be disappointed if England won. Wales were probably favourites going into this tournament, and with the most settled side, they can be disappointed if they don't win, even if the fixtures haven't really favoured them. Still, I don't think that diminishes the importance the RWC game was given in the lead up to it, nor does it augment the hype of this 6N game. But I think we might be going round in circles here discussing that point. By the sounds of it, English fans are placing more importance on this game than Welsh fans, understandably I suppose with what is at stake, but don't run down the impact of the RWC game in order to make that point.

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Why do some people bother?

I expect they start a fight with themselves when they look into the mirror!

So are you telling me you think your chances of winning with Biggar off the field are the same as if he was on it?

No our chances go down with him off the field, just like our chances would go up if Joseph "was taken out" but would I hope him to get purposely injured ? No I would not.

btw lord where did I say I hoped Biggar gets injured?

I said 'I hope we target Biggar'

Get it right fella.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Deliberately going out to injure players isn't something that I want to see. Wanting to see someone injured is disgusting.

I agree, I suggest you read what I said.

'Taking someone out of the game' doesn't necessarily mean injuring them. It can mean rattling a player (usually an outside half) to the extent that it puts him off his game, This is common practice, surely?

So by take him out the game you didn't mean injure him?

By saying have Vunipola run into him so he doesn't last 80 isn't trying to injure him?

By saying teams will do anything it takes you didn't mean injure him?

Whaat did you mean?

TightHEAD wrote:btw lord where did I say I hoped Biggar gets injured? 

I said 'I hope we target Biggar' 

Get it right fella.

No you did not, that was only part of what you said, stop backtracking, this is what you said:-

TightHEAD wrote:I hope we target Biggar, take him out of the game and likelihood of us winning go up.

Rugby is a simple game sometimes.

So by that you mean you want the England players to target bigger and take him out of the game,sounds pretty straight forward to me.

Think you're a bit nervous for Saturday miaow!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:'Taking someone out of the game' doesn't necessarily mean injuring them. It can mean rattling a player (usually an outside half) to the extent that it puts him off his game, This is common practice, surely?

You would think wouldn't you!

hence why I said 'I hope we target Biggar' or maybe we should allow him the freedom to play his very developed game and execute his game management skills to the max!

I get the feeling some people come on here to cause trouble.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For me, it's not downplaying that game as there was still a good chance for England to qualify against Aus. The context of the matches is the key for me, WC there was the 2nd chance, there is no 2nd chance here.

I've heard this a lot from English fans/friends, especially when trying to rile them up about Wales knocking England out, rather than Australia. I have to disagree. It was always far more likely for England to beat Wales than it was for them to beat Australia, and I think the players knew that. You could sort of tell, even in those dying minutes, with the desperation with which they chased the win.

I was expecting to win one of those matches given the recent history, I was deperately disappointed vs Wales, not as much vs Aus as we were massively 2nd best. England have a pretty decent record against Aus. Like I said when Wales beat England it was awful but there was hope on the horizon, the winner on Saturday takes the prize basically though. Why are you trying to down play the 6 nations over a group game?

As the cliche goes, Australia always seem to get it right for World Cups. I too thought that England might beat Australia a few months before the tournament, but as it drew closer/kicked off, you could tell there was a significant gap between the two teams, and it sort of brought everything back into perspective; of course Australia were going to harder to beat than the scratch side they tended to bring up to the NH in the the Autumn.

I'm definitely not trying to down play it. I'm not sure how this came about, I think I was just asking it generally; as in why does this feel less stressful or tense in the lead up to it than the World Cup did? So far I've only heard from English fans on this board. Certainly people I know agree/it's far less visible or vocal, but I'd like to hear from Welsh fans as well to see if they feel the same. Perhaps there was something truly special about the manner and context of knocking England out, that this sort of pales in comparison. That sounds really snide, and I'm not going to lie, I do take some glee from how Wales beat England in their own WC, but equally I'm not trying to downplay the achievement of this upcoming game. If England win this game and 6N, well done. Equally, I'd be delighted if Wales win. It's more the hype in the build up that I'm commenting on. I think a few posters have perhaps misinterpreted what I've been trying to say on that matter.

Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
Assistant referees: Jérôme Garcès (France), Mathieu Raynal (France)
TMO: Ben Skeen (New Zealand)

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:'Taking someone out of the game' doesn't necessarily mean injuring them. It can mean rattling a player (usually an outside half) to the extent that it puts him off his game, This is common practice, surely?

Then if that is what he meant, which I do not think he did given his posting history, then he should have said it, he should have said "target Biggar and put him off his game" not "Target Bigger and take him out", but I think you have just given him a get out clause now that he will activate and start backtracking.

Again England generally do well against Aus in the WC as well miaow. Again Wales didn't knock England out by themselves.

You want to clarify those comments Tight?

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:btw lord where did I say I hoped Biggar gets injured? 

I said 'I hope we target Biggar' 

Get it right fella.

No you did not, that was only part of what you said, stop backtracking, this is what you said:-

TightHEAD wrote:I hope we target Biggar, take him out of the game and likelihood of us winning go up.

Rugby is a simple game sometimes.

So by that you mean you want the England players to target bigger and take him out of the game,sounds pretty straight forward to me.

or

I hope we target Biggar,


Long pause............. or I could us a comer, like I did!

take him out of the game and likelihood of us winning go up

FFS pathetic attempt to cause a stir, roll on Saturday

No 7&1/2 wrote:You want to clarify those comments Tight?

Re-read my original comment without your premeditated anger towards me.

How do some people get through the day?

Any clarity at all. You weren't talking about injuring him?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So by take him out the game you didn't mean injure him?

By saying have Vunipola run into him so he doesn't last 80 isn't trying to injure him?

By saying teams will do anything it takes you didn't mean injure him?

Whaat did you mean?

Have a go Tight!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Any clarity at all. You weren't talking about injuring him?

Injuries happen in contact sport.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Again England generally do well against Aus in the WC as well miaow. Again Wales didn't knock England out by themselves.

Of course they didn't, but of the two, it would probably be fairer to say Wales played a bigger part in knocking England out that Australia did. Don't judge Australia on the unsettled, alcoholic-disrupted, mutinous, coach-baiting group of players they have sometimes been since Robbie Deans was in charge. They got it right for the World Cup, and as proved, were a good shot at winning the tournament out right.

So you weren't talking about trying to deliberately injuring people? Your wording is very strange if not.

Yup England still had a chance, a good one, of beating Aus though and that's the reason why Saturday is more important.

On the subject of taking out Biggar, I have no issue with TightHead's comments. You look to smash players, that's what rugby is about. Eddie Jones seems to be encouraging that sort of legal aggression in the team. The problem is when you have an incident like Haskell's, where it crosses the boundary of what is legal, or even worse if it descends into really dirty play like gouging, pulling fingers when a man's prone in a ruck etc. Nothing wrong with trying to smash a player, even if it's borderline; the referee should penalise or judge it correctly. If it's worthy of a yellow card, put him in the bin. Biggar's teammates are responsible for giving it back, either in terms of getting in their faces, or hammering them legally as well. If it descends into that kind of macho bravado, I'd hope Wales have the greater discipline to get the edge from it.

miaow wrote:On the subject of taking out Biggar, I have no issue with TightHead's comments. You look to smash players, that's what rugby is about. Eddie Jones seems to be encouraging that sort of legal aggression in the team. The problem is when you have an incident like Haskell's, where it crosses the boundary of what is legal, or even worse if it descends into really dirty play like gouging, pulling fingers when a man's prone in a ruck etc. Nothing wrong with trying to smash a player, even if it's borderline; the referee should penalise or judge it correctly. If it's worthy of a yellow card, put him in the bin. Biggar's teammates are responsible for giving it back, either in terms of getting in their faces, or hammering them legally as well. If it descends into that kind of macho bravado, I'd hope Wales have the greater discipline to get the edge from it.

As I said 'rugby is a very simple game'

With a destructive player like Billy V in the team I'd like to think/hope he would run at Biggar (best NH fly half and Wales best chance of winning the game for them imo) all day long.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup England still had a chance, a good one, of beating Aus though and that's the reason why Saturday is more important.

You've completely ignored my above posts about what I wasactually talking about, and seem to be more intent on petty one upmanship, or getting the last word in. Either address the point in hand or leave it, everyone needs to just take a step back. This is why, by the looks of it, most threads descend into 'he said she said', or are posts about why users are leaving the board entirely. Just relax, I have no axe to grind, and cannot be bothered being confronted with this childish 'in your face attitude'. I assume you're not a WUM, and I get that this game is highly charged, but come on, don't pick a fight where there isn't one?