The Rugby Championship

First topic message reminder :

It starts again tomorrow. As ever the interest will wane quickly if the ABs resume their usual dismantling of all opposition. They look extremely strong with Retallick and Whitelock back in harness. Their strength in depth at 10 is frightening. The Aussies do have Pocock back, but hard to look beyond another comfortable AB win.

Argentina away in SA will be interesting I think. SA look like they are improving and Argentina play some good rugby - one to watch I think.

Hoping that somebody pushes the ABs and an Aussie win tomorrow would be the perfect tonic for the tournament, however unlikely that is.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

alanmackie6 wrote:Actually it isn`t arrogance Ireland lost 3 games in 2017.NZ 1 until they play again they remain
at number 2.IF they sustain several defeats this year there rating will drop 6Ns home advantage
seems to decide it.Even in defeat Nz matched ireland try for try,Ireland deserved the win I was the first
to congratulate them.
IF Aus had kicked goals from penalties to reduce the score with 15minutes to go plus a 1 man advantage
they could have won.keep the score board ticking by whatever means.

Few too many ifs and buts there for my liking. 3 losses isnt a lot and thats last year. Nz lost 2 games and drew 1 in 2017. Not sure there is a big difference there. Both sides have lost 1 game this year. Not seeing a huge difference Alan. Are you sure its not arrogance?

Not sure I get your point on six nations home advantage. Its fairly well known that Ireland find it harder to win the six nations (like this year) with France and England away. Do you know how often a grand slam has been won in Twickenham?

The Lions vs Scot/ Wales? Not sure theres a difference? Ok then. It slso happened to be the worst AB yrars for a while. ‘3 losses isnt a lot’?

Geez, in your world maybe.

Yes there isnt much difference. Wales are 3rd in the world. Scotland are probably better than Australia and SA at the moment. By your logic Ireland are better therefore than NZ this year because they have lost to a team ranked 3rd at the time whereas NZ lost to the team ranked 7th.

No three is not a lot when you compare it to two and a half. Duh. Do you see a big difference between 3 and 2 and a half. Did you drop out of school?

As an almost neutral this argument is daft. Both new Zealand and Ireland are great teams. There's no doubting Ireland's quality and to dismiss them is just puerile and disrespectful. However looking at the wider picture new Zealand have it all double world champs , championship winners and boy can they entertain so trying to compare the two is slightly optermistic. Perhaps both sets of posters can have some respect for one another and enjoy the match in the autumn. Wishing both teams the best of luck , may the best team win. Hopefully we can also put a good shift in if any of us are still uninjured.

Yea just some good competitive games this autumn would be great.

NZ are the best team in the world, England were just below them but suddenly nose dived, Ireland are a brilliant side but the exact same can easily happen.

Chill, enjoy the rugby, and try to show some respect.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

alanmackie6 wrote:Actually it isn`t arrogance Ireland lost 3 games in 2017.NZ 1 until they play again they remain
at number 2.IF they sustain several defeats this year there rating will drop 6Ns home advantage
seems to decide it.Even in defeat Nz matched ireland try for try,Ireland deserved the win I was the first
to congratulate them.
IF Aus had kicked goals from penalties to reduce the score with 15minutes to go plus a 1 man advantage
they could have won.keep the score board ticking by whatever means.

Few too many ifs and buts there for my liking. 3 losses isnt a lot and thats last year. Nz lost 2 games and drew 1 in 2017. Not sure there is a big difference there. Both sides have lost 1 game this year. Not seeing a huge difference Alan. Are you sure its not arrogance?

Not sure I get your point on six nations home advantage. Its fairly well known that Ireland find it harder to win the six nations (like this year) with France and England away. Do you know how often a grand slam has been won in Twickenham?

The Lions vs Scot/ Wales? Not sure theres a difference? Ok then. It slso happened to be the worst AB yrars for a while. ‘3 losses isnt a lot’?

Geez, in your world maybe.

Yes there isnt much difference. Wales are 3rd in the world. Scotland are probably better than Australia and SA at the moment. By your logic Ireland are better therefore than NZ this year because they have lost to a team ranked 3rd at the time whereas NZ lost to the team ranked 7th.

No three is not a lot when you compare it to two and a half. Duh. Do you see a big difference between 3 and 2 and a half. Did you drop out of school?

I don't really care where they're all ranked, 1 or 7 makes no diff to us, we don't keep these ongoing tallies like you do...'ooh, wonder who's creeping up on us, oooh! we just past Wales at 4, number 3 beckons.... Wow...hurrah!

Let them all fall over themselves I say...

And this is possibly the toughest ranking model to remain at number 1 for so long. Win ten in a row against number 2, then lose 1 and you could lose it. Another system would have that side having to win another 9 to be its equal. (Geez, be about 80 years for Ireland to win 20 something).

Imagine winning 10 golf tourneys in a row then losing one and a novice that hasn't won all year wins the next and goes to number one. Hilarious.

The world rankings don't work anything like that.

I think what most Irish fans are saying is we want respect for what we have achieved. We aren't saying we are as good as the ABs nor do we expect to win the WC. But when certain posters state that Ireland are rubbish because we lost the rematch v the ABs (find me a team who has won two in a row v the ABs in the last 10years). That we lost the Argentina 3 years ago when most Irish people will agree we were poor (even if atleast 1/3 of our current team weren't even playing). That we lost to Wales 2.5 years ago.

It seems from an NZ prospective that there is only allowed to be 1 good team (2 if SA are better). Same happened when England went on their run. Yes the last WC was all SH semis but results since implies that the "Home Nations" have caught up to and surpassed all except NZ.

In the last 2 years what is the win/loss for Aus SA & Arg against home nations.

I dont think I said anything at all controversial or disparaging about the ABs. I acknowledge that they are currently number 1. No issues with that. The one regret is calling Alan a turncoat.

What upset the Kiwi fans was I said last weekends rugby in the rugby championship was poor rugby which it was. NZ beat a weak Argentina in 1st gear while SA v Oz was a horror show of errors and tactical puacity. Argentinas set piece was dreadful.

In response I was told that we shouldnt believe the hype around Ireland because we lost 3 games away in 2017 to which I pointed out that NZ themselves lost 2 games and drew one and both NZ and Ireland have just lost one this year.
The obvious old chestnut of RWC quarters was also predictably rolled out.

I sense some Kiwis dont like facts when they threaten their own lofty or immortal view of themselves.

Brendan wrote: (find me a team who has won two in a row v the ABs in the last 10years).

South Africa, 2009, three in a row.

Followd by the AI`s from hell,when NZ regained the number 1title by the end of the year.

Brendan wrote:I think what most Irish fans are saying is we want respect for what we have achieved.  We aren't saying we are as good as the ABs nor do we expect to win the WC. But when certain posters state that Ireland are rubbish because we lost the rematch v the ABs (find me a team who has won two in a row v the ABs in the last 10years).  That we lost the Argentina 3 years ago when most Irish people will agree we were poor (even if atleast 1/3 of our current team weren't even playing). That we lost to Wales 2.5 years ago.

It seems from an NZ prospective that there is only allowed to be 1 good team (2 if SA are better).  Same happened when England went on their run.  Yes the last WC was all SH semis but results since implies that the "Home Nations" have caught up to and surpassed all except NZ.

In the last 2 years what is the win/loss for Aus SA & Arg against home nations.

Didnt say they were rubbish inthe return match my point is they need to win the ones that count.
For me, Chicago was a great win but there was also a certain unpreparedness to the ABs for that game.
In Dublin both teams equally... brought it.

Irelands loss in 2015 was the other match that had to be won, regardless of why it was lost.

Those were the two biggest games for ireland last three years. The dublin vs a focussed no. 1 ranked side and the world cup knockout.

The rest in that period were either the 6N, and they had notable losses and close wins there, and a close tour of Oz, winning both tests in close battles, the third not really worth worrying about.

Ireland have still yet to prove itself on the biggest of occasions. SAs win over NZ in NZ is one example of that. It surpasses anything Ireland have done in the last three years. Up against it, written off, and against an AB side ready to take them out, they climbed above it all in a match that meant a lot in its context to both sides.

So all this who beat who is irrelevant. Gotta win the big ones.

And thing about SA is theyve got the results, have the history, theyve won two world cups, beaten nz three straight. Northern fans have written them off long ago where we know better. Riding on the so called ‘high’ of the last what is it, 18 months? Is the basis for a big turnaround?

World cup is it now. Its the only time the four SH sides have a chance of fielding their best sides, so all im seeing is southern coaches and players being the single biggest difference to the fortunes of both the NH and SH teams. Sure you can insist its central contract etc etc but the quality is no better. Backplay is still average. You just dont have as many weakened SH sides to consistently point that out any more, because theyre resource constrained.

Biltong wrote:

Brendan wrote: (find me a team who has won two in a row v the ABs in the last 10years).

South Africa, 2009, three in a row.

Yep sure did biltong. And we certainly learned from that. Only reason for the stirring here is its on a woe is the RC thread again.

The problem for Argentina they are effectively 3 seperate sides,the side that contests the America`s
league.The Europe based team and the Jaguars on saturday a very inexperienced NZ side beat
them comfortably.Remember this same side beat both Aus and SA so not so dusty in RWC is the
only time they are at full strength.
The Ai`s will change what we know about these sides,as too how many grand slams were
decided at twicken ham,what about other sides.I`ll tell you this Ireland may not have won
many grand slams BUT they`ve ruined a fair few by winning the settling game.

I have learnt there is little to read into any performance these days.

The Springboks are either woefully pathetic and cant beat the blindschool, or they pick the selves up to unexpected heights.

The former being the one most expect these days.

alanmackie6 wrote:The problem for Argentina they are effectively 3 seperate sides,the side that contests the America`s
league.The Europe based team and the Jaguars on saturday a very inexperienced NZ side beat
them comfortably.Remember this same side beat both Aus and SA so not so dusty in RWC is the
only time they are at full strength.
The Ai`s will change what we know about these sides,as too how many grand slams were
decided at twicken ham,what about other sides.I`ll tell you this Ireland may not have won
many grand slams BUT they`ve ruined a fair few by winning the settling game.

Yes world cup time theyll be strong, again.

Ireland have either SA, if they and NZ top their pools, or NZ.

In a one off match I know who Ill be backing in either. And if they win that theyll need to back up semi and finals time in unchartered waters. Lets hope they havent peaked because if oz series was their best then hmmm...

Taylorman wrote:

Brendan wrote:I think what most Irish fans are saying is we want respect for what we have achieved.  We aren't saying we are as good as the ABs nor do we expect to win the WC. But when certain posters state that Ireland are rubbish because we lost the rematch v the ABs (find me a team who has won two in a row v the ABs in the last 10years).  That we lost the Argentina 3 years ago when most Irish people will agree we were poor (even if atleast 1/3 of our current team weren't even playing). That we lost to Wales 2.5 years ago.

It seems from an NZ prospective that there is only allowed to be 1 good team (2 if SA are better).  Same happened when England went on their run.  Yes the last WC was all SH semis but results since implies that the "Home Nations" have caught up to and surpassed all except NZ.

In the last 2 years what is the win/loss for Aus SA & Arg against home nations.

Didnt say they were rubbish inthe return match my point is they need to win the ones that count.
For me, Chicago was a great win but there was also a certain unpreparedness to the ABs for that game.
In Dublin both teams equally... brought it.

Irelands loss in 2015 was the other match that had to be won, regardless of why it was lost.

Those were the two biggest games for ireland last three years. The dublin vs a focussed no. 1 ranked side and the world cup knockout.

The rest in that period were either the 6N, and they had notable losses and close wins there, and a close tour of Oz, winning both tests in close battles, the third not really worth worrying about.

Ireland have still yet to prove itself on the biggest of occasions. SAs win over NZ in NZ is one example of that. It surpasses anything Ireland have done in the last three years. Up against it, written off, and against an AB side ready to take them out, they climbed above it all in a match that meant a lot in its context to both sides.

So all this who beat who is irrelevant. Gotta win the big ones.

And thing about SA is theyve got the results, have the history, theyve won two world cups, beaten nz three straight. Northern fans have written them off long ago where we know better. Riding on the so called ‘high’ of the last what is it, 18 months? Is the basis for a big turnaround?

World cup is it now. Its the only time the four SH sides have a chance of fielding their best sides, so all im seeing is southern coaches and players being the single biggest difference to the fortunes of both the NH and SH teams. Sure you can insist its central contract etc etc but the quality is no better. Backplay is still average. You just dont have as many weakened SH sides to consistently point that out any more, because theyre resource constrained.

Equally NZ failed in their biggest test in the last few years, the Lions tour. Their dicipline let them down. The warning signs were there but they failed address the issues in advance. Same with Barretts kicking for the loss v SA. Everyone knew Barrett cant kick but the problem hasnt been addressed. As good as they are NZ arent immune to failing in big moments either.

The Lions led NZ for 3 minutes in 3 test matches the series was drawn.Barrett can`t kick?sometimes
he kicks 100%.Dan Carter had his bad matches too.

alanmackie6 wrote:The Lions led NZ for 3 minutes in 3 test matches the series was drawn.Barrett can`t kick?sometimes
he kicks 100%.Dan Carter had his bad matches too.

He missed 4 from 6 in the loss v SA and bottled it when he had a chance for a drop goal. Yes I dont think he kicks well enough.

Who cares how long the Lions lead for the point is NZ failed at home to a scratch side in their biggest test of the last few years

New Zealand has proven over time they are the real deal 85% of the time.

Ireland want to be the real deal, they might become the best in the workd, but they aren't there yet.

In my opinion measuring who's is the longest means New Zealand's is the longest 85% of the time, any comparison is moot.

The rest of us fight in the bundle for a moment of glory now and then.

Thinking a debate of who is better than New Zealand is a lonely argument you aint going to win.

Not for a long time anyway.

Biltong wrote:New Zealand has proven over time they are the  real deal 85% of the time.

Ireland want to be the real deal, they might become the best in the workd, but they aren't there yet.

In my opinion measuring who's is the longest means New Zealand's is the longest 85% of the time, any comparison is moot.

The rest of us fight in the bundle for a moment of glory now and then.

Thinking a debate of who is better than New Zealand is a lonely argument you aint going to win.

Not for a long time anyway.

I dont think anyone is arguing that any team is as good as New Zealand. They are undeniably the best team in the world. In some cases I have been pointing out that the reasons given for Ireland not being considered a good side can be applied to NZ too not to say NZ arent good but rather to challenge that the reasons for Ireland not being good dont stand up to much scrutiny:

Ireland have lost 3 games in 2017 - NZ lost 2.5
Ireland lost to Scotland last year - NZ came within a whisker of losing to Scotland too
Ireland lost to Wales last year - Well Wales are a good side ranked 3rd in the world (NZ lost to the 7th ranked side this year)
Ireland lost to Australia this year - NZ lost to SA at home
Ireland lost their biggest test in recent years v Argentina in the RWC - NZ failed in one of their biggest tests too the Lions tour.
Ireland have a lot of "no name players" - NZ have 7 one capped players and a few 2 cap players in the last 18 months that arent that well known too.

Collapse2005 wrote:

alanmackie6 wrote:The Lions led NZ for 3 minutes in 3 test matches the series was drawn.Barrett can`t kick?sometimes
he kicks 100%.Dan Carter had his bad matches too.

He missed 4 from 6 in the loss v SA and bottled it when he had a chance for a drop goal. Yes I dont think he kicks well enough

In tight matches, Barrett's kicking has crumbled on multiple occasions. Of course NZ have been so dominant (in no small part due to his excellence elsewhere) that it hardly matters. With the pressure off he slots some excellent goals but that does not make him a good goal kicker.

It would be to NZ great benefit if some teams can pressure them this Autumn and force them to win ugly as right now there must be that nagging doubt in their own minds about their ability to close out such tight games. It can easily be argued that in their 3 unsuccessful matches over the last 15 months they were the better side in all of them. Yet they failed to secure the wins.

Since Mick Byrne  left as skills coach,the drop goal has been neglected by them,Grant Fox surely
could teach them.What was weird with 2 dead eye dicks on the team why continue with BB?a
Jordie at 12 and Crotty at 13 an old Crusaders formation maybe there best bet

Good win for Europe in the Ryder Cup (are you Europe at the moment emack?). Don’t forget to support Barca tomorrow night. Must be good getting behind Lewis Hamilton after a few years of Vettel. Australia in Rugby League. Now it’s becoming Autumn, I guess Summer has lost your support too #chameleon

With respect only interested in RU now,so don`t follow other sports.lost interest when they turned
cricket into a game for clowns,Soccer when they buy titles.RL i can remember it before 5th tackle
rule can you?Clubs being millionares tax losses does`nt appeal either.
Crawl back under your rock my little troll bate someone else

I agree with you on soccer Alan. Not a sport anymore, its more a money laundering operation or a dodgy business than a sport particularly in England where they will accept money from anyone.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Brendan wrote:I think what most Irish fans are saying is we want respect for what we have achieved.  We aren't saying we are as good as the ABs nor do we expect to win the WC. But when certain posters state that Ireland are rubbish because we lost the rematch v the ABs (find me a team who has won two in a row v the ABs in the last 10years).  That we lost the Argentina 3 years ago when most Irish people will agree we were poor (even if atleast 1/3 of our current team weren't even playing). That we lost to Wales 2.5 years ago.

It seems from an NZ prospective that there is only allowed to be 1 good team (2 if SA are better).  Same happened when England went on their run.  Yes the last WC was all SH semis but results since implies that the "Home Nations" have caught up to and surpassed all except NZ.

In the last 2 years what is the win/loss for Aus SA & Arg against home nations.

Didnt say they were rubbish inthe return match my point is they need to win the ones that count.
For me, Chicago was a great win but there was also a certain unpreparedness to the ABs for that game.
In Dublin both teams equally... brought it.

Irelands loss in 2015 was the other match that had to be won, regardless of why it was lost.

Those were the two biggest games for ireland last three years. The dublin vs a focussed no. 1 ranked side and the world cup knockout.

The rest in that period were either the 6N, and they had notable losses and close wins there, and a close tour of Oz, winning both tests in close battles, the third not really worth worrying about.

Ireland have still yet to prove itself on the biggest of occasions. SAs win over NZ in NZ is one example of that. It surpasses anything Ireland have done in the last three years. Up against it, written off, and against an AB side ready to take them out, they climbed above it all in a match that meant a lot in its context to both sides.

So all this who beat who is irrelevant. Gotta win the big ones.

And thing about SA is theyve got the results, have the history, theyve won two world cups, beaten nz three straight. Northern fans have written them off long ago where we know better. Riding on the so called ‘high’ of the last what is it, 18 months? Is the basis for a big turnaround?

World cup is it now. Its the only time the four SH sides have a chance of fielding their best sides, so all im seeing is southern coaches and players being the single biggest difference to the fortunes of both the NH and SH teams. Sure you can insist its central contract etc etc but the quality is no better. Backplay is still average. You just dont have as many weakened SH sides to consistently point that out any more, because theyre resource constrained.

Equally NZ failed in their biggest test in the last few years, the Lions tour. Their dicipline let them down. The warning signs were there but they failed address the issues in advance. Same with Barretts kicking for the loss v SA. Everyone knew Barrett cant kick but the problem hasnt been addressed. As good as they are NZ arent immune to failing in big moments either.

Failed? They drew. And the ABs scored more points, and played with 14 men for sixty minutes in the only loss, and missed more kicks at goal. Yet drew the series. Failed?

What did the Lions do then ? Succeed? By not losing perhaps?

So a draw is a sucessful series for NZ? I think you are a bit deluded Taylorman. A drawn series away from home is definitely better than drawing a series at home which no team aspires to. As such the Lions would have been satisfied with the result, NZ not so much.

LondonTiger wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

alanmackie6 wrote:The Lions led NZ for 3 minutes in 3 test matches the series was drawn.Barrett can`t kick?sometimes
he kicks 100%.Dan Carter had his bad matches too.

He missed 4 from 6 in the loss v SA and bottled it when he had a chance for a drop goal. Yes I dont think he kicks well enough

In tight matches, Barrett's kicking has crumbled  on multiple occasions. Of course NZ have been so dominant (in no small part due to his excellence elsewhere) that it hardly matters. With the pressure off he slots some excellent goals but that does not make him a good goal kicker.

It would be to NZ great benefit if some teams can pressure them this Autumn and force them to win ugly as right now there must be that nagging doubt in their own minds about their ability to close out such tight games. It can easily be argued that in their 3 unsuccessful matches over the last 15 months they were the better side in all of them. Yet they failed to secure the wins.

Barretts not a good goalkicker. Fullstop. No top shelf kicker kicks four in a row to the right of the posts.
Barrett has terrible technique, and little consistency. Doesnt know why he misses enough to correct adequately.

Taylorman wrote:Failed? They drew. And the ABs scored more points, and played with 14 men for sixty minutes in the only loss, and missed more kicks at goal. Yet drew the series. Failed?

Is this a proposal that a drawn series should be decided by who scores the most points? I seem to recall that's what happens with the David Gallaher Cup, which New Zealand famously lost in 2009 because the team forgot that was how the cup was awarded, and assumed it was like the Bledisloe.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Brendan wrote:I think what most Irish fans are saying is we want respect for what we have achieved.  We aren't saying we are as good as the ABs nor do we expect to win the WC. But when certain posters state that Ireland are rubbish because we lost the rematch v the ABs (find me a team who has won two in a row v the ABs in the last 10years).  That we lost the Argentina 3 years ago when most Irish people will agree we were poor (even if atleast 1/3 of our current team weren't even playing). That we lost to Wales 2.5 years ago.

It seems from an NZ prospective that there is only allowed to be 1 good team (2 if SA are better).  Same happened when England went on their run.  Yes the last WC was all SH semis but results since implies that the "Home Nations" have caught up to and surpassed all except NZ.

In the last 2 years what is the win/loss for Aus SA & Arg against home nations.

Didnt say they were rubbish inthe return match my point is they need to win the ones that count.
For me, Chicago was a great win but there was also a certain unpreparedness to the ABs for that game.
In Dublin both teams equally... brought it.

Irelands loss in 2015 was the other match that had to be won, regardless of why it was lost.

Those were the two biggest games for ireland last three years. The dublin vs a focussed no. 1 ranked side and the world cup knockout.

The rest in that period were either the 6N, and they had notable losses and close wins there, and a close tour of Oz, winning both tests in close battles, the third not really worth worrying about.

Ireland have still yet to prove itself on the biggest of occasions. SAs win over NZ in NZ is one example of that. It surpasses anything Ireland have done in the last three years. Up against it, written off, and against an AB side ready to take them out, they climbed above it all in a match that meant a lot in its context to both sides.

So all this who beat who is irrelevant. Gotta win the big ones.

And thing about SA is theyve got the results, have the history, theyve won two world cups, beaten nz three straight. Northern fans have written them off long ago where we know better. Riding on the so called ‘high’ of the last what is it, 18 months? Is the basis for a big turnaround?

World cup is it now. Its the only time the four SH sides have a chance of fielding their best sides, so all im seeing is southern coaches and players being the single biggest difference to the fortunes of both the NH and SH teams. Sure you can insist its central contract etc etc but the quality is no better. Backplay is still average. You just dont have as many weakened SH sides to consistently point that out any more, because theyre resource constrained.

Equally NZ failed in their biggest test in the last few years, the Lions tour. Their dicipline let them down. The warning signs were there but they failed address the issues in advance. Same with Barretts kicking for the loss v SA. Everyone knew Barrett cant kick but the problem hasnt been addressed. As good as they are NZ arent immune to failing in big moments either.

Failed? They drew. And the ABs scored more points, and played with 14 men for sixty minutes in the only loss, and missed more kicks at goal. Yet drew the series. Failed?

What did the Lions do then ? Succeed? By not losing perhaps?

Put that way probably correct, though, we cant win em all, and are probably the only ones that can say that with a straight face.

Lions are always an away team it`s there raison d`etre,if you apply the now universal bonus points system
NZ would win series on losing bonus point,or if on points difference again they would win.
Point is it`s only the second series to Nz that did`nt end in defeat.

Their.

Don’t be throwing stones 7.5. Many of your posts are illegible. You’re either drunk 50% of the time, don’t read what you write or a five year kid has stolen your identity. Back to rugby. Now that England have cut-snake-crazy Jones and space-cadet Mitchell in charge, do you reckon things are on the up? It’s a pretty unique duo but why not make it a trio and draft PDivvy?

Lol good one ebop.

Jones, Mitchell, PDivvy. Imagine it, the holy trinity of whatever planet they’re from.

I have no idea who pdivvy is. I'm imagining you're placing yourself in the fold.

He used to go out with Jennifer Lopez.

Not quite. He’s actually a famous SA poet that coached their national rugby team. Think about it. Jones + Mitchell + PDivvy. Surely I’m not the only one that thinks this would be great for English rugby? Jones is crazy, Mitchell is crazy and PDivvy is crazy. They’re from Aus, NZ and SA so there’s pedigree there.

I'm not sure any of them have mental health issues though I'm still unclear who pdivvy is?

I doubt they have mental health issues but they are crazy. Anyways, do you reckon the Aussie and kiwi are a good fit for England? Have to say it’s a weird mix.

Crazy how?
Jones clearly is good for England done a fab job. Mitchell who knows. There's more to a good team than past experience or even how they are perceived from people outside the environment.
Who is pdivvy?

Peter de Villiers

Oh. He had a hard job but not sure he showed enough at international level for me overall. Not really sure why ebop rates him so highly.

Didn’t say I rated him highly. I enjoyed his eloquence. He does have a better winning percentage against the best team in the world than Jones though. I just thought he’d make a good fit with Jones and Mitchell at England.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Crazy how?
Jones clearly is good for England done a fab job. Mitchell who knows. There's more to a good team than past experience or even how they are perceived from people outside the environment.
Who is pdivvy?

As an England fan do you really think Jones is still the man for the job?

You have lost a good few coaches during his tenure and significantly some have left a year out from the RWC.That normally doesnt happen when all is good in the hood. He does have a tendancy to fall out with people in part because he isnt great at controlling emotion and managing situations.

It’s abundantly clear he is highly strung and that rubs most people in existence up the wrong way

PETER DE VILLIERS,wrong colour for many Bok supporters,4 wins out of 9 v Nz
including 3 on the bounce in 2009.Had a pretty good record and a good team too.

He's a class coach collapse. There's been very little change in gatlands team and I'd prefer jones tbh.

That’s because you’re a sycophant 7.5. And to be fair you have to back your man even though most people see the writing on the wall and saw it when Jones was appointed. Gatland doesn’t have the resources that Jones does. And when Gatland did have resources with the B/I Lions he got results. Keep blindly following 7.5. Jones is part class part charlatan and that’s why he’s brought in Mitchell, lol.

Coming from someone like yourself ebop who admits his knowledge of nh rugby is lacking and doesn't know who plays for ireland that means very little!

Lol, good one 7.5