RWC Final 2019 - Match Thread - ENGLAND v SOUTH AFRICA - Spill Over/Match Reaction Thread

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

other one's getting full

[Guest]

Well done to South Africa, they did what they need to win but it was no tactical masterclass.

England however well and truly bottled the final though and it's become a trend under Jones that a top class performance is followed by a turgid one against a lesser opponent, the amount of handling errors was insane for a team that should have been winning that game. In hindsight the team selection was wrong and watching the game it was clear that Kruis and Marler needed to be on from the start, screamed of not wanting to change things and be seen to be worried about the opposition.

Why? How?

[TightHEAD]

Well done to South Africa, they did what they need to win but it was no tactical masterclass.

England however well and truly bottled the final though and it's become a trend under Jones that a top class performance is followed by a turgid one against a lesser opponent, the amount of handling errors was insane for a team that should have been winning that game. In hindsight the team selection was wrong and watching the game it was clear that Kruis and Marler needed to be on from the start, screamed of not wanting to change things and be seen to be worried about the opposition.

SA were not a lesser opponent. I don't think you'll find anyone who thought that, well not anyone who has actually played or watched the game for many years.

[Old Man]

Well done to South Africa, they did what they need to win but it was no tactical masterclass.

England however well and truly bottled the final though and it's become a trend under Jones that a top class performance is followed by a turgid one against a lesser opponent, the amount of handling errors was insane for a team that should have been winning that game. In hindsight the team selection was wrong and watching the game it was clear that Kruis and Marler needed to be on from the start, screamed of not wanting to change things and be seen to be worried about the opposition.

SA were not a lesser opponent. I don't think you'll find anyone who thought that, well not anyone who has actually played or watched the game for many years.

That is most likely what England thought going into the game, perhaps not as arrogant as thinking lesser opponent, but out of form opponent. It became clear pretty quickly they weren’t off form

I have wondered whether Rassie was planning the “out of form ruse” to surprise their final opponent.

[Collapse2005]

I doubt it, dangerous game to play given that they only won v Wales by 3 points. Every good team has a big game in them every now and then.

[Collapse2005]

Looks like DeAllende and Snyman have been signed by Munster

[milkyboy]

Honestly, you hear this, ‘underestimated the opponent’ stuff in sport all the time. These guys are professionals. You don’t underestimate anyone in a World Cup final. Felt the pressure of the occasion? Almost certainly. Felt the pressure of being favourites? Maybe.

England were nervous, they made mistakes, they panicked, lost confidence and South Africa’s confidence grew.

At least that’s what the view from my couch told me.

[Scarpia]

Okay, so I'll say this.  Only really noticed this during the final...and only saw the first half (had to go work before the second half began).  

But a good few of the England forwards..... so dead eyed, heavy lidded, slow blinking........ are they on a lot of pain medication or something, getting them through to the final they all dreamed about?

Well if I had to spend much time with Eddie Jones, I'd be on very strong drugs too!

[SecretFly]

For me, and despite the final scoreline, Japan was SA's toughest game. The SA players looked cooked by the efforts in the first half to keep Japan at bay, and keep them out.  Japan ran out of steam and ideas but it was SA doing that to them.  People still underestimate just how good Japan were.  I don't.  SA had a game on their hands and needed high energy to break Japan's threat.

The game against Wales was lethargic and perhaps evidence of the efforts put in against Japan.  Yes, maybe Rassie had one eye on the final, just as I'm sure Gatland had.  Rassie was saying that part of SA's eventual success was in keeping his forwards relatively fresh for the final...so perhaps the foot wasn't fully down against Wales but I agree with Guns - if so, it was a bloody dangerous act.

Against England seemed to be methodical and serene; a team putting all the elements together, with no next game to worry about.

[Old Man]

Perhaps not underestimated, but I think they didn’t expect that physicality.

[Heaf]

There were two decisions that in isolation aren't wrong but combined make no sense; South Africa won a penalty for holding on despite Vermuelen turning the ball over while South Africa also got the put in at a scrum despite Etzebeth holding on when Itoje was trying to turn the ball over?

Yep commented on that in the match - usual inconsistency from Garces.

[Taylorman]

For me, and despite the final scoreline, Japan was SA's toughest game. The SA players looked cooked by the efforts in the first half to keep Japan at bay, and keep them out.  Japan ran out of steam and ideas but it was SA doing that to them.  People still underestimate just how good Japan were.  I don't.  SA had a game on their hands and needed high energy to break Japan's threat.

The game against Wales was lethargic and perhaps evidence of the efforts put in against Japan.  Yes, maybe Rassie had one eye on the final, just as I'm sure Gatland had.  Rassie was saying that part of SA's eventual success was in keeping his forwards relatively fresh for the final...so perhaps the foot wasn't fully down against Wales but I agree with Guns - if so, it was a bloody dangerous act.

Against England seemed to be methodical and serene; a team putting all the elements together, with no next game to worry about.

hmmm, for me, NZ was SA's toughest game...(being the only one they lost )

[Scottrf]

It's a funny world when a 23 point win is harder than a 3 point win or a 10 point loss.

[SecretFly]

For me, and despite the final scoreline, Japan was SA's toughest game. The SA players looked cooked by the efforts in the first half to keep Japan at bay, and keep them out.  Japan ran out of steam and ideas but it was SA doing that to them.  People still underestimate just how good Japan were.  I don't.  SA had a game on their hands and needed high energy to break Japan's threat.

The game against Wales was lethargic and perhaps evidence of the efforts put in against Japan.  Yes, maybe Rassie had one eye on the final, just as I'm sure Gatland had.  Rassie was saying that part of SA's eventual success was in keeping his forwards relatively fresh for the final...so perhaps the foot wasn't fully down against Wales but I agree with Guns - if so, it was a bloody dangerous act.

Against England seemed to be methodical and serene; a team putting all the elements together, with no next game to worry about.

hmmm, for me, NZ was SA's toughest game...(being the only one they lost )

Sure they planned on losing that one .

[majesticimperialman]

Posted on wrong thread again.

[Taylorman]

For me, and despite the final scoreline, Japan was SA's toughest game. The SA players looked cooked by the efforts in the first half to keep Japan at bay, and keep them out.  Japan ran out of steam and ideas but it was SA doing that to them.  People still underestimate just how good Japan were.  I don't.  SA had a game on their hands and needed high energy to break Japan's threat.

The game against Wales was lethargic and perhaps evidence of the efforts put in against Japan.  Yes, maybe Rassie had one eye on the final, just as I'm sure Gatland had.  Rassie was saying that part of SA's eventual success was in keeping his forwards relatively fresh for the final...so perhaps the foot wasn't fully down against Wales but I agree with Guns - if so, it was a bloody dangerous act.

Against England seemed to be methodical and serene; a team putting all the elements together, with no next game to worry about.

hmmm, for me, NZ was SA's toughest game...(being the only one they lost )

Sure they planned on losing that one .

I know, it worked too. Had we lost that we could have had:

- quarters: a tier 2 side that we had never scored less than 50 against
- semis: an injury plagued Wales side we haven't lost to in 30 straight tests
- final- a Bok side that would have beaten England in 'their final'

..and who needs planning when you can use hindsight?

[milkyboy]

.... wouldn’t have done you any good Taylorman ... we were going to chuck the french game, giving us an easy qf against the Welsh. We’d have drubbed you in the semis anyway.... before winning a free flowing try fest in the final against the Aussies.

[Taylorman]

.... wouldn’t have done you any good Taylorman ... we were going to chuck the french game, giving us an easy qf against the Welsh. We’d have drubbed you in the semis anyway.... before winning a free flowing try fest in the final against the Aussies.

aha! a trap for new players, while all thats going on Uruguay found their way to the title through applying record levels of complacency to opposition sides unheard of before.

[Mr Bounce]

I am still amazed that Jones didn't start with Marler at LH. Scrummaging has always been Mako's weakness and he does have a habit of dropping down. Malherbe had him for breakfast, and he was HUNGRY.

I am sure that most coaches would have kept the same team on after England's excellent semi-final result against the ABs, but I think that this is where Jones went wrong. I would have started with Farrell, Tuilagi and Slade in the midfield and put Marler in to weather the storm in the front row with Kruis back in place of Lawes. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I have to admit to being a bit surprised when the team was announced.

Still South Africa were well-drilled and brought a highly physical but effective game-plan. SA physical? Who on Earth would've thought that...

[yappysnap]

Our other mistake was kicking at the posts, two or three times we opted to kick the pen and close the lead, which then gave the ball back to SA and almost immediately lead to a scrum and SA pen to then extend that lead. We ended up playing the gameplan SA wanted, rather then sticking to ours, backing ourselves and scoring tries. We were never going to beat SA with 3 pointers, that became apparent to everyone watching, but unfortunately not to Farrell (the only person who mattered).

I understand the building pressure and game plan point but i think it’s about game and scoreboard management. I think there’s an element of hindsight to this. If he’d kicked for the corner and we’d messed up the line out people would be shaking their heads. There’d been a mini-momentum shift. If Farrell kicks the points its back to a three point game. Misses and we get the ball back - in theory.  You can’t build a game plan around not taking three points because we’ll give a penalty away at the restart. The fact that we messed up restart’s, dropped balls, gave penalties away all day long is hard to legislate for in any game plan. We can’t kick to touch because of their line out and rolling maul, we can’t have scrums because it’s a penalty every time, we can’t take penalties because they’re winning the restart! It limits your options a bit.

I agree in general with this, and with keeping pressure on the opposition. But there's more then one way to keep a team under pressure. SA thrived on being in front and keeping the game going at a speed that suited them, that is tight and very stop start, moving from set piece to set piece. They looked far more fragile for that period at around 30 mins when we attacked like we had all tournament, lots of short passes, power runners and moving from side to side, only exceptional defence and the referees interpretation at the breakdown kept us out. I can't help but think if even after that attack was knocked back, if we had gone for touch and tried again, at least potentially at worst it would have been 3-9 (i think that was the score at the time?) instead we kicked, and then they scored two more in the last few mins of the half to make it 6-15 (I think).

[Taylorman]

I think its a simple fact of England putting their eggs in one basket and focussing on NZ as their 'key to a successful world cup'.

This match wasnt lost on these things or those things, incidentals that occurred during the match, I mean the England team even released 'whiteboard' session s of how they were going to overcome NZ.

Eddie said they were 'also' ready for SA but theres night and day in terms of England 'ready' for the ABs and the Boks. In no way, shape or form were they ready. Where one week they looked focussed, prepared, almost telepathic in terms of the way the game needed to play out, the next they looked just as lost, disorganised, unprepared, as NZ did the week before.

England got exactly what they did to NZ. It mattered not who they played in the 15/23, or what they did, they were simply unprepared. That was true for Ireland vs NZ, for NZ vs England, and certainly true for England vs SA.

In the end, their structure collapsed, and they leaked tries, the sign of a team resigned to defeat, same as Oz vs NZ in 2015.

SA meanwhile, lost to NZ in pool, that was their wake up call, their resolve. Between NZ and England, they never got one. They never got truly tested, not even England by NZ. Too much homework, too much prep made sure of that. NZ were out of it by the time they took the field.

As were England.

In the end it pitted an over confident and unprepared England side against a Bok side who had previously been told theyd better lift their game or theyll be toast.

They listened.

[Pie]

I see the usual hatred towards England is still going strong, it's a medal big deal, my grandfather never took his WW2 Medals out of the box.

Why, couldn't undo the 'Sold on Ebay' wrapper?

[Pie]

Well done to South Africa, they did what they need to win but it was no tactical masterclass.

England however well and truly bottled the final though and it's become a trend under Jones that a top class performance is followed by a turgid one against a lesser opponent, the amount of handling errors was insane for a team that should have been winning that game. In hindsight the team selection was wrong and watching the game it was clear that Kruis and Marler needed to be on from the start, screamed of not wanting to change things and be seen to be worried about the opposition.

SA were not a lesser opponent. I don't think you'll find anyone who thought that, well not anyone who has actually played or watched the game for many years.

Agreed, the fact is England flattered to deceive until NZ and then shot their bolt. Gatland had their number.

Boks were by no means lesser, they were in fact far, far superior in very facet but up front England were embarassing. And the dreadful sportsmanship of England players not wearing their medals is frankly shocking. We've gone from too humble under Bomber to way too arrogant under mr Arrogant. England's problem was they were polishing their medals before they'd even won them.

[Taylorman]

Well done to South Africa, they did what they need to win but it was no tactical masterclass.

England however well and truly bottled the final though and it's become a trend under Jones that a top class performance is followed by a turgid one against a lesser opponent, the amount of handling errors was insane for a team that should have been winning that game. In hindsight the team selection was wrong and watching the game it was clear that Kruis and Marler needed to be on from the start, screamed of not wanting to change things and be seen to be worried about the opposition.

SA were not a lesser opponent. I don't think you'll find anyone who thought that, well not anyone who has actually played or watched the game for many years.

Agreed, the fact is England flattered to deceive until NZ and then shot their bolt. Gatland had their number.

Boks were by no means lesser, they were in fact far, far superior in very facet but up front England were embarassing. And the dreadful sportsmanship of England players not wearing their medals is frankly shocking. We've gone from too humble under Bomber to way too arrogant under mr Arrogant. England's problem was they were polishing their medals before they'd even won them.

First time I agree with you, assuming you mean Jones had their number. He did, big time.

Problem with that is...it was the only number he did have.

[Soul Requiem]

Why would any player care about wearing a runners up medal? Let me guess Pie is Welsh?

[Scarpia]

In the end it pitted an over confident and unprepared England side against a Bok side who had previously been told theyd better lift their game or theyll be toast.

They listened.

Unprepared?
I thought Eddie Jones said (before the match of course) that they had been working towards the RWC final for the last four years!

[Scarpia]

Agreed, the fact is England flattered to deceive until NZ and then shot their bolt. Gatland had their number.

First time I agree with you, assuming you mean Jones had their number. He did, big time.

No. He means Gatland - when he said that England had "played their final" against New Zealand.

[Guest]

Don't. You start picking at the logic and it'll be back to the hemispherical stuff again.

I do admire that about EJ. Watched the story of Eddie Jones by Sky and it was surprisingly good. In it he gives the time and date of the kick off for the RWC final back in 2016, clear in his mind what the focus is. He did it. He got them there. With almost minimal fuss from August through to November of this year. You look at it in the context of a 'streak' and, still, as the dust's settling...England were really in prime position to lift the trophy. We'll likely never know what the key factors were, the professional environment seems to discourage the leaking and 'tell all' stories that were commonplace 20 years ago. We'll probably only hear the watered dwn and guess work or platitudinal stuff from ex players. But my bet was it was partly mental - which is different to choking - stemming from the 'wtf have we just done' feeling of smashing NZ, and the failure of EJ to prepare specifically for the Boks. I think the assumption was they'd eventually get parity up front and their backs and half backs would do the rest. No powerhouse lock starting, no front-loading the best props in the scrum. No return to Farrell at 10, Tuilagi at 12 for solidity and taking on de Allende, Vermeulen carrying, and ofc forcing more pressure on Pollard, who played well on the front foot. That week must have gone so, so quickly for everyone in the England camp, and now it will probably weigh heavily on all of them for the rest of their lives, playing it back over and over, wishing they could change something, do something, differently. All that focus, all that prep of the four years leading to the final - they got there, and yet they'll be wishing for the fnal few days to come back, to be changed, to be different.

Tough break.

[Scarpia]

All that focus, all that prep of the four years leading to the final - they got there, and yet they'll be wishing for the fnal few days to come back, to be changed, to be different.

Tough break.

If making the final was the achieved aim then they would have worn their medals with pride.

[No 7&1/2]

It was the exact opposite of over confident for some.english players. Froze in the headlights. I expect they'll be moved on and the rest will be keen to make up for it.

[Big]

I think Taylorman's summary is pretty fair.  I do think England were better prepared for the semi than the final - I suspect playing at that intensity for the semi took a lot out of them physically as well.  I would also add though that I think the mental pressure that comes with being favourites affected both England in the final and New Zealand in the semi (particularly given that both are relatively young sides).  

The relative youth of England and NZ probably bodes well for the next world cup.  Will need to wait and see though.  Whether the teams can build and improve and use the experience well really depends on who ends up coaching them between now and then - and sadly I suspect NZ are more likely to get that right than the RFU.

I really couldn't give a hoot about players removing the medals. 2nd place in a world cup is pretty meaningless, and nobody is going to want to celebrate losing, especially in the immediate aftermath.

[Old Man]

I personally think accepting the silver medal is a lesson in humility/graciousness.

but that’s just me.

I don’t judge them for not wanting the medal, or their behaviour around it. It is a personal issue each individual must work out for himself.

[dyrewolfe]

Immensely disappointing. England were never really in the game from the kick-off.

SA started like a train and we had to absorb a lot of pressure. Conceded far too many penalties. England had a couple of decent spells of possession, where it looked like we might score a try...but that was all in the entire 80 minutes. Didn't have the creativity or control to break through SA's defence.

Spent most of the game trying to play SA's kick and rush game...which the Boks were clearly better at. Gave away so much possession & territory through poor kicking and handling. Even our scrummaging & lineouts weren't as effective as usual.

Credit to SA - they had a game plan, stuck to it and made it work. Even when nerves may have been jangling a bit when England converted their penalties. Took their chances at the end when England were tiring, suddenly going expansive and scoring a couple of good tries.

So disappointing that England had no plan to deal with this, or try to turn the game so they could play the kind of rugby they did against NZ. Eddie Jones said before the game that he knew how he expected SA to play...so why did England struggle so badly?


I believe England were more than good enough to win the final...they just failed to get their game plan right and/or adapt to what SA threw at them.

[bluestonevedder]

Can we just highlight the point that not every England player took their medal off? All this guff in the media about it and suddenly people are talking about it like it was some planned move by the England team and how it makes them a terrible group of people, showing a complete lack of magnanimity, blah blah blah. Total rubbish. Yes, some players took them off or refused to wear them, but for god sake don't tarnish the entire team by the actions of the few. Being gracious in defeat extends beyond just wearing the silver medal. Shaking hands with the victors and  applauding your supporters are far more reflective of a gracious loser. 

South Africa win the world cup with an absolutely outstanding performance that extends far beyond the rugby pitch, and the media/some clowns on social media are focusing on bashing England using whatever little detail they can extrapolate to support their idea that England are the epitome of arrogance. What a sad time to be alive!

[SecretFly]

I really couldn't give a hoot about players removing the medals.  2nd place in a world cup is pretty meaningless, and nobody is going to want to celebrate losing, especially in the immediate aftermath.

So refuse to walk up to the podium altogether.

But if you bother to walk up and have a silver medal placed around your neck....well, they're not that heavy; why not just let them linger there for 15 or 20 minutes until the ceremony is over?

But for some the symbolism of whipping them off is more important to be 'seen'.  Maybe we should tell them about how meaningless the gesture is.  We don't care how unwilling to accept the concept of defeat is in them.  We know who won and we know who didn't.  The medal removing ceremony doesn't change the fact.

People get it wrong too though.  They blame England for lack of respect etc.... It wasn't England.  It was certain players that eventually removed them, and one coach/official that I witnessed removing the medal the moment he got it.  I saw other players strolling around, comfortable with them still around their necks.
And look at Eddie - ambitious, single minded Eddie - look at how he did it.  All smiles, accepted his medal... all smiles.  Maybe he knows more about their worth than some of the players.

[Scarpia]

I really couldn't give a hoot about players removing the medals.  2nd place in a world cup is pretty meaningless, and nobody is going to want to celebrate losing, especially in the immediate aftermath.

So refuse to walk up to the podium altogether.

But if you bother to walk up and have a silver medal placed around your neck....well, they're not that heavy; why not just let them linger there for 15 or 20 minutes until the ceremony is over?

But for some the symbolism of whipping them off is more important to be 'seen'.  Maybe we should tell them about how meaningless the gesture is.  We don't care how unwilling to accept the concept of defeat is in them.  We know who won and we know who didn't.  The medal removing ceremony doesn't change the fact.

People get it wrong too though.  They blame England for lack of respect etc.... It wasn't England.  It was certain players that eventually removed them, and one coach/official that I witnessed removing the medal the moment he got it.  I saw other players strolling around, comfortable with them still around their necks.
And look at Eddie - ambitious, single minded Eddie - look at how he did it.  All smiles, accepted his medal... all smiles.  Maybe he knows more about their worth than some of the players.

Eventually? Synckler hadn't even stepped away from Beaumont and Itoje didn't even allow Beaumont to place it around his neck! They should all have put on their medals and kept them on until the ceremony was over. No excuses.

[Soul Requiem]

I really couldn't give a hoot about players removing the medals.  2nd place in a world cup is pretty meaningless, and nobody is going to want to celebrate losing, especially in the immediate aftermath.

So refuse to walk up to the podium altogether.

But if you bother to walk up and have a silver medal placed around your neck....well, they're not that heavy; why not just let them linger there for 15 or 20 minutes until the ceremony is over?

But for some the symbolism of whipping them off is more important to be 'seen'.  Maybe we should tell them about how meaningless the gesture is.  We don't care how unwilling to accept the concept of defeat is in them.  We know who won and we know who didn't.  The medal removing ceremony doesn't change the fact.

People get it wrong too though.  They blame England for lack of respect etc.... It wasn't England.  It was certain players that eventually removed them, and one coach/official that I witnessed removing the medal the moment he got it.  I saw other players strolling around, comfortable with them still around their necks.
And look at Eddie - ambitious, single minded Eddie - look at how he did it.  All smiles, accepted his medal... all smiles.  Maybe he knows more about their worth than some of the players.

Eventually? Synckler hadn't even stepped away from Beaumont and Itoje didn't even allow Beaumont to place it around his neck! They should all have put on their medals and kept them on until the ceremony was over. No excuses.

Why?

[Scottrf]

Their medals to treat how they wish. Sorry they didn't celebrate losing to make the professionally offended happy.

[SecretFly]

Eventually? Synckler hadn't even stepped away from Beaumont and Itoje didn't even allow Beaumont to place it around his neck! They should all have put on their medals and kept them on until the ceremony was over. No excuses.

I saw Syncler and Itoje. But rather than go through each act individually, I thought I'd put them in one box, where many players who walked off the podium with them on eventually just did the same as Synckler and whipped them off.

[Old Man]

Their medals to treat how they wish. Sorry they didn't celebrate losing to make the professionally offended happy.

It is about public behaviour though. Setting example for kids.

[SecretFly]

Their medals to treat how they wish. Sorry they didn't celebrate losing to make the professionally offended happy.

Maybe some of them should have tested out that theory too.  Let's see what fines might have come from them dropping the medals to the ground, spitting on them and digging them into the dirt with their boots.

They can do mostly what they want to do of course, you're right there.  But it has its limitations when Repute of the Game is in the air at WR Headquarters.

Anyway, here's another thought then.  If they didn't want their medals because it was the wrong colour, why didn't they go to the English crowds and in a perfect act of Thank You for the support, do a SBW and offer the medals to some kids?

That would have been nice.

I'll go further, now that I'm on a roll - maybe even now some of the players could be approached and asked to give their medals that they don't want to a few good causes.  It would be interesting to find out which players behind the scenes might protest the attempt to separate them from said unwanted medals.

[LondonTiger]

Their medals to treat how they wish. Sorry they didn't celebrate losing to make the professionally offended happy.

It is about public behaviour though. Setting example for kids.

What about Faf's behaviour. Posing in his budgie smugglers has left some people scarred for life.

[Old Man]

Their medals to treat how they wish. Sorry they didn't celebrate losing to make the professionally offended happy.

It is about public behaviour though. Setting example for kids.

What about Faf's behaviour. Posing in his budgie smugglers has left some people scarred for life.

Yeah that was just nasty, but he was wearing his medal around his neck

[SecretFly]

Their medals to treat how they wish. Sorry they didn't celebrate losing to make the professionally offended happy.

It is about public behaviour though. Setting example for kids.

What about Faf's behaviour. Posing in his budgie smugglers has left some people scarred for life.

Yeah that was just nasty, but he was wearing his medal around his neck

Where did you want him to wear it? It's a family show!

[LondonTiger]

He looked as if he had hidden Itoje and Sincklers medals in the pouch.

[Soul Requiem]

Their medals to treat how they wish. Sorry they didn't celebrate losing to make the professionally offended happy.

It is about public behaviour though. Setting example for kids.

Like purposefully trying to take a player out in a game because you're scared he's going to beat you in the group stage, that kind of example?

[Scarpia]

In a professional sport there are things which have to done even when it may seem unpalatable. Losing captains and coaches have to face the media when it's the last thing they want to do. Players have a responsibility to show that you should accept defeat graciously (which is not of course, "celebrating" it)

[bluestonevedder]

In a professional sport there are things which have to done even when it may seem unpalatable. Losing captains and coaches have to face the media when it's the last thing they want to do. Players have a responsibility to show that you should accept defeat graciously (which is not of course, "celebrating" it)

Like getting voted man of the match after your country is dumped out of its own world cup? 

Poor big Joe.

[Scottrf]

In a professional sport there are things which have to done even when it may seem unpalatable. Losing captains and coaches have to face the media when it's the last thing they want to do. Players have a responsibility to show that you should accept defeat graciously (which is not of course, "celebrating" it)

It's your opinion that taking off a medal is not accepting defeat graciously. That isn't fact.

[SecretFly]

In a professional sport there are things which have to done even when it may seem unpalatable. Losing captains and coaches have to face the media when it's the last thing they want to do. Players have a responsibility to show that you should accept defeat graciously (which is not of course, "celebrating" it)

It's your opinion that taking off a medal is not accepting defeat graciously. That isn't fact.

And neither is it fact that people assume players are 'celebrating' defeat when they keep them on.

[Scottrf]

In a professional sport there are things which have to done even when it may seem unpalatable. Losing captains and coaches have to face the media when it's the last thing they want to do. Players have a responsibility to show that you should accept defeat graciously (which is not of course, "celebrating" it)

It's your opinion that taking off a medal is not accepting defeat graciously. That isn't fact.

And neither is it fact that people assume players are 'celebrating' defeat when they keep them on.

Not saying it is. People can keep them on if they wish. The morally superior ranting on social media about how other people should behave is ridiculous though.

[Sponsored content]