RugbyRebels

Len wrote:

Puja wrote:

Len wrote:All Blacks to win it again. Especially if SA and Australian rugby don't improve.

Gods, I hope not. Quite apart from the fact that I'm hoping we'll be good enough to win it by that point, the game really does need a different champion for 2019. Plus the Kiwis are insufferable when winning.

Puja

And you lot aren't? At least we have a reason to be arrogant. Majority of your fans reckon England are shit hot when they are just in fact shit.

Whatever pal. The only conclusion you could accurately draw from the rest of this thread is that we are all cautiously optimistic at best.

I would say every England fan on here recognises that we're some way behind NZ but we're clearly not shit.

You have, however, clearly underlined why we generally dislike a certain type of Kiwi fan.

Quick scan of the possible outcomes in "The Times". Would'nt we be better off coming 2nd in the Pool? We'd likely meet Oz in the Qtrs instead of Wales and instead of NZ we'd probably get the winner of SA vs Ireland in the semis. It seems to me that coming 2nd is better than first in Pool C - unless NZ fail to top Pool B.. But it wont be the first time RWC pools and seeding are unbalanced.

Which Tyler wrote:

Len wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:so... define "fans"

People who watch England

Then the majority of fans don't have an opinion on how good or otherwise are, and would struggle to name more than 3 players from the last decade.

Yes. And despite to Eddie Jones' being appointed England were hilariously shithouse and they couldn't see it. You're getting there.

I never said anything about the posters on here. God knows how they came into it.

Lizard wrote:If you can't beat France and Argentina, you do not deserve to win a World Cup. Every Champion has beaten one or both of them in the course of winning the tournament.

In fact, playing them is a pretty good sign. No sides have been beaten more often at World Cups by eventual champions. (See Stats thread on SHMB for more).

You sound like Eddie.

Play rugvy.

<ironydies. jpeg<

Len wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Len wrote:
People who watch England

Then the majority of fans don't have an opinion on how good or otherwise are, and would struggle to name more than 3 players from the last decade.

Yes. And despite to Eddie Jones' being appointed England were hilariously shithouse and they couldn't see it. You're getting there.

I never said anything about the posters on here. God knows how they came into it.

Yawn. You've got a few good bites, but the bait's getting a little stale now.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Len wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Then the majority of fans don't have an opinion on how good or otherwise are, and would struggle to name more than 3 players from the last decade.

Yes. And despite to Eddie Jones' being appointed England were hilariously shithouse and they couldn't see it. You're getting there.

I never said anything about the posters on here. God knows how they came into it.

Yawn. You've got a few good bites, but the bait's getting a little stale now.

Puja

Defeatist. Just like the English rugby side come RWC year.

Gosh. This is painful.

Mikey Brown wrote:Gosh. This is painful.

Well, you did ask for it. For what it's worth,...stay fit. Lions has a habit of going strange and wonderful.

Puja wrote:

Len wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Then the majority of fans don't have an opinion on how good or otherwise are, and would struggle to name more than 3 players from the last decade.

Yes. And despite to Eddie Jones' being appointed England were hilariously shithouse and they couldn't see it. You're getting there.

I never said anything about the posters on here. God knows how they came into it.

Yawn. You've got a few good bites, but the bait's getting a little stale now.

Puja

Says the man who started the bullshit with "kiwis are unbearable if they win".

Len wrote: Obviously the well informed on here are the minority.

Very much this

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Puja wrote:

Len wrote:
Yes. And despite to Eddie Jones' being appointed England were hilariously shithouse and they couldn't see it. You're getting there.

I never said anything about the posters on here. God knows how they came into it.

Yawn. You've got a few good bites, but the bait's getting a little stale now.

Puja

Says the man who started the bullshit with "kiwis are unbearable if they win".

To be fair, I think everyone's fans are unbearable when they're top of the pile, but the problem is that no-one else has been top of the pile for nearly a decade now and 10 years of the Kiwis honing their, "Awww, it's adorable that you lot think you can compete with us. It's so cute that you keep trying," attitude is starting to wear a little bit thin. I'd take a few years of Bok supremacy, or even Australian if needs must.

Puja

My theory is that the same proportion of all nations' fans are ignorant and boorish. Most, however, get their comeuppance often enough so it doesn't matter. Crowing kiwis seldom get their just desserts. I kind of wish nz players had an entitled attitude because then there'd be more hope that other nations will catch them.

You have to admit that the NZ management team has done a pretty good job of preventing that sort of sense of entitlement creeping in (as it did with past All Blacks teams). This decade they have won 85 tests, lost 7 and drawn 2. Only two of those losses I would say were down to a lack of focus by NZ and, not coincidentally, both of those were Sponsors' junket tests on neutral territory (Aust in HK 2010, Ireland in Chicago, 2016).

As for the fans, I guess the results justify high expectations. Mind you some of the press coverage after the RWC draw was rather hubristic, being of the "Who will NZ meet in the final" variety. All a bit too 2007 for my taste.

Lizard wrote:You have to admit that the NZ management team has done a pretty good job of preventing that sort of sense of entitlement creeping in (as it did with past All Blacks teams). This decade they have won 85 tests, lost 7 and drawn 2. Only two of those losses I would say were down to a lack of focus by NZ and, not coincidentally, both of those were Sponsors' junket tests on neutral territory (Aust in HK 2010, Ireland in Chicago, 2016).

As for the fans, I guess the results justify high expectations. Mind you some of the press coverage after the RWC draw was rather hubristic, being of the "Who will NZ meet in the final" variety. All a bit too 2007 for my taste.

That's the bit that's most annoying though - you genuinely are as good as your most annoying fans think you are. If you could just cut that out, just for a little bit, just to give someone else a chance, then I think we'd all be very grateful.

Puja

An Anglo-Welsh podcast I listen to called for a new rule that any country can only field one Barrett brother, because otherwise it's "just unfair."

Looking at our current injury situation, I think we will see some unhelpful retirements soon (Read, Coles).I'm not sure we will maintain the current level of dominance through to 2019.

Lizard wrote:An Anglo-Welsh podcast I listen to called for a new rule that any country can only field one Barrett brother, because otherwise it's "just unfair."

On the other hand, I think that identical twins should only count as one name on the team sheet; so if you had a pair, you could play with 16 men on the pitch...

Which Tyler wrote:

Lizard wrote:An Anglo-Welsh podcast I listen to called for a new rule that any country can only field one Barrett brother, because otherwise it's "just unfair."

On the other hand, I think that identical twins should only count as one name on the team sheet; so if you had a pair, you could play with 16 men on the pitch...

Seriously though, is it just the Dean Richards in me wondering who's going to notice when we switch them at half time every game.

Sale's and England's mistake was letting anyone know there are even two Currys in the first place.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Lizard wrote:An Anglo-Welsh podcast I listen to called for a new rule that any country can only field one Barrett brother, because otherwise it's "just unfair."

On the other hand, I think that identical twins should only count as one name on the team sheet; so if you had a pair, you could play with 16 men on the pitch...

Seriously though, is it just the Dean Richards in me wondering who's going to notice when we switch them at half time every game.

Sale's and England's mistake was letting anyone know there are even two Currys in the first place.

I'm having a fairly shitty day, and that's amused me no end.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Lizard wrote:An Anglo-Welsh podcast I listen to called for a new rule that any country can only field one Barrett brother, because otherwise it's "just unfair."

On the other hand, I think that identical twins should only count as one name on the team sheet; so if you had a pair, you could play with 16 men on the pitch...

Seriously though, is it just the Dean Richards in me wondering who's going to notice when we switch them at half time every game.

Sale's and England's mistake was letting anyone know there are even two Currys in the first place.

And The Prestige has been over a decade by now - you'd think SOMEONE would have watched it!

Lizard wrote:An Anglo-Welsh podcast I listen to called for a new rule that any country can only field one Barrett brother, because otherwise it's "just unfair."

Looking at our current injury situation, I think we will see some unhelpful retirements soon (Read, Coles).I'm not sure we will maintain the current level of dominance through to 2019.

permanent retirements? or just out of the Lions series?

Must admit I hadn't clocked that Coles was 30- late developer.

Banquo wrote:

Lizard wrote:An Anglo-Welsh podcast I listen to called for a new rule that any country can only field one Barrett brother, because otherwise it's "just unfair."

Looking at our current injury situation, I think we will see some unhelpful retirements soon (Read, Coles).I'm not sure we will maintain the current level of dominance through to 2019.

permanent retirements?

They would have offers for a sabbatical

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Lizard wrote:An Anglo-Welsh podcast I listen to called for a new rule that any country can only field one Barrett brother, because otherwise it's "just unfair."

Looking at our current injury situation, I think we will see some unhelpful retirements soon (Read, Coles).I'm not sure we will maintain the current level of dominance through to 2019.

permanent retirements?

They would have offers for a sabbatical

I think he's referring to the repeated concussions.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: permanent retirements?

They would have offers for a sabbatical

I think he's referring to the repeated concussions.

Puja

I'd heard about a thumb injury, a shame if it's more serious.