Andrew stresses the need for English talent
Uncle Dave
Whilst I can understand the desire behind this, I'm not at all
convinced that 1) the talent really is there and 2) is being held back
by "average" overseas players. The implication is that an "average"
overseas player can be as good as a "talented" Englishman and that
clubs would rather field an average foreign player rather than a
talented Englishman.
I think the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of those
playing the game in England have no intention or desire to turn
professional and, ergo in today's game, will never aspire to play for
England. I don't think things have changed so much that the
traditional English middle-class rugby playing base has been replaced
by hungry young working class blokes for whom the money would be a
real factor.
I doubt that such stats are available, but I'd be interested to see
how many of the substantial English playing population would actually
consider a pro career...
UD
Andrew stresses the need for English talent
Thursday 28th August 2008
Rob Andrew hopes new incentives will encourage clubs to avoid
football's over-reliance on overseas imports by producing more English
qualified players.
Twickenham's Director of Elite rugby believes the progress of future
England internationals has been blocked by the number of average
foreign signings in the Guinness Premiership.
As part of their new agreement with the clubs, the Rugby Football
Union have introduced a scheme whereby teams will be financially
rewarded for developing and selecting Englishmen.
The composition of the Premiership is currently 35 per cent foreign -
the direct opposite to its footballing counterpart which contains the
same percentage of domestic players.
The ills of England's football team are frequently blamed on the lack
of options available to their coach and Andrew is eager for rugby to
tread a different path.
"There will always be foreign players and coaches and we don't have an
issue with that if they're of high quality," he said.
"What we do have an issue with is the run of the mill foreign player
who is standing in the way of the development of some very good
English youngsters.
"The balance is shifting back to English players now and that's
something we need to protect because long term if that starts to fall
then we're in trouble.
"If you don't have the number of players coming through the English
system that are qualified then that will affect the performance of the
England team.
"There's no doubt about that and we're seeing it happen in football."
From next year clubs can earn £15,000 per annum for each English
player they select if their matchday squad contains a minimum average
of 14 throughout the season.
Larger numbers yield greater rewards and Andrew pointed to the
examples of Wasps and Leicester - the Anglo-centric superpowers of
English club rugby - as an example of what can be achieved.
"In time the scheme will have the desired affect because you will have
chief executives looking at the figures and asking why aren't their
academies producing good quality players?" he said.
"Clubs such as Wasps and Leicester have seen the benefits of relying
on English qualified players, while Gloucester and Harlequins are
moving in that direction.
"If you rely too much on foreign players who come for the money they
will take the money and go two years down the line, but what have they
left behind?
"That's one of the big lessons the clubs have learnt over the last
five years.
"We need to work with the schools, clubs and academies because if
we're providing better qualified English players the clubs will
benefit.
"They will benefit because the players are cheaper initially but those
players are also generally very loyal, driving a culture within a club
like we've seen at Leicester and Wasps."
While Andrew has been working to improve the prospects of the England
team, the RFU have been confronting a growing menace at the other end
of the game.
Poor behaviour, including the abuse of players and officials, by
parents at midi and mini rugby has proliferated in line with the
increase in the sport's popularity post-2003.
To combat the problem, the RFU have drawn up a code of conduct that
will be distributed among clubs with child exclusion the ultimate
sanction for offending parents.
At Thursday's RFU media briefing, Andrew also stressed there would be
no more big-money signings from rugby league and highlighted the
growing role of agents in the game.
Charles
<david...@t-online.de> wrote:
>http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_4061896,00.html
>
>Whilst I can understand the desire behind this, I'm not at all
>convinced that 1) the talent really is there and 2) is being held back
>by "average" overseas players. The implication is that an "average"
>overseas player can be as good as a "talented" Englishman and that
>clubs would rather field an average foreign player rather than a
>talented Englishman.
>
>I think the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of those
>playing the game in England have no intention or desire to turn
>professional and, ergo in today's game, will never aspire to play for
>England. I don't think things have changed so much that the
>traditional English middle-class rugby playing base has been replaced
>by hungry young working class blokes for whom the money would be a
>real factor.
>
>I doubt that such stats are available, but I'd be interested to see
>how many of the substantial English playing population would actually
>consider a pro career...
>
Not many, particularly if you consider rugby playing graduates who
want to enter the professions with financially secure long-term career
prospects.
Good post; you make some very valid points.
Have a great weekend - you know I intend to! ;o)
TFIF!
Nigel Evans
"Uncle Dave" <david...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:3b1111a3-ec1e-4958...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_4061896,00.html
I think the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of those
playing the game in England have no intention or desire to turn
professional and, ergo in today's game, will never aspire to play for
England. I don't think things have changed so much that the
traditional English middle-class rugby playing base has been replaced
by hungry young working class blokes for whom the money would be a
real factor.
Absolutely right ! Why has it taken you so long to realise this ? Those who
wanted professional rugby made sure that England would only be a good team
under exceptional circumstances. They won the World Cup because they had a
great pack at that time. There is no conveyor belt of talent because there
are very few men who want to get on to that belt. They play rugby for fun
and follow their own careers. If you look at any Seventies Wales side, you
will see the parallel. The difference was that the players did not have to
play boring professional style rugby week in week out then before being
considered for selection by their country.. Any young man who wants to be a
professional rugby player has to be a complete idiot.
Ben L
> http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_4061896,00.html
<snip>
Excellent idea. Rob Andrew should heed his own advice and resign
immediately so a *talented* Englishman can take his job.
Mike
>
> "Uncle Dave" <david...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:3b1111a3-ec1e-4958...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_4061896,00.html
>
>
> I think the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of those
> playing the game in England have no intention or desire to turn
> professional and, ergo in today's game, will never aspire to play for
> England. I don't think things have changed so much that the
> traditional English middle-class rugby playing base has been replaced
> by hungry young working class blokes for whom the money would be a
> real factor.
>
>
>
> Absolutely right ! Why has it taken you so long to realise this ? Those
> who wanted professional rugby made sure that England would only be a
> good team under exceptional circumstances.
As opposed to wales who can barely put two performances together in a row.
Mike
Stephen Doyle
"Uncle Dave" <david...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:3b1111a3-ec1e-4958...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
UD
What English talent? I thought all talent for the Lions etc was Celtic?
Cheers
Stephen
simon s-b
I know a lot of players who would consider turning pro too much of a
pay cut.
Nigel Evans
"Mike" <mikelovescham...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:g992l3$nu6$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
If that's the case, how did we win the Grand Slam ?
Mike
A bit of luck - wales are not good enough and are un-likely to ever be
consistent enough to win a RWC.
rick boyd
> A bit of luck - wales are not good enough and are un-likely to ever be
> consistent enough to win a RWC.
Fortunately neither are required. If they're in the right place at the
right time, even Wales could beat England and Argentina.
-- rick boyd
lord shineything
Lord Shiney wonders whether this might be because their pro salary
would be exactly zero. In any event, as Lord Shiney's indirect
experiences attest, significant opportunity costs are hardly unique to
England.
Mike
True but they need to win at least 3 pool games (4 is better as an
easier run in is probable), a quarter, a semi and of course the final to
become world champions and Wales have shown themselves incapable of
coming close. The AB haven't done too well for a while but with the
home advantage they should cope!
I'm sure TMWG will deem the RWC irrelevant along with the HC, which I
suspect is because Wales' form is so dismal in those competitions. I'm
sure had Wales been competitive in those competitions then his opinion
would be different.
Mike
neo...@canada.com
> considered for selection by their country.. Any young man who wants to be a professional rugby player has to be a complete idiot.
I have to disagree becuase you're comparing Apples with Oranges as
life was very different in the 70's and Corporate greed was not at the
levels it is today
In the 70's a Welsh player or any player for that matter could get
three months off (paid by the Company) to play for the Lions and the
Company was behind it and they were proud of that player
and to have a national team member in the department.
Today that wouldn't happen as it is all about profit and bottom line.
A regular job today where you have to put up with office politics and
the boss, the bills and the same weekly routine is the same boring
professional style stuff - same sh1t different pile
Anyone who is Athletic and a good sportsman and can see that they
could have two mortgages fully paid off AND a pile of cash on top of
that by the time they are 30 would chose the sport
over an office job. Any young man who (is good at the game) and
*doesn't* want to play professional rugby or any sport is an idiot
Secondly if you brought your Welsh stars like JPR, JJ or Gareth Davies
into the modern era - I would bet you anything they would play Rugby
full-time especially since they could be Financiually secure
at 30 (assuming they don't blow it all) and would not be allowed to go
on tours as a full time employee of a Corporation.
BrritSki
Rubbish, you don't need to be any good, just capable of fluking a couple
of consecutive results...
Dave Keegan
> >>news:g992l3$nu6$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>> Nigel Evans wrote:
>
> >>>>news:3b1111a3-ec1e-4958...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_4061896,00.html
>
> >>>> I think the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of those
> >>>> playing the game in England have no intention or desire to turn
> >>>> professional and, ergo in today's game, will never aspire to play for
> >>>> England. I don't think things have changed so much that the
> >>>> traditional English middle-class rugby playing base has been replaced
> >>>> by hungry young working class blokes for whom the money would be a
> >>>> real factor.
>
> >>>> Absolutely right ! Why has it taken you so long to realise this ?
> >>>> Those who wanted professional rugby made sure that England would
> >>>> only be a good team under exceptional circumstances.
>
> >>> As opposed to wales who can barely put two performances together in a
> >>> row.
>
> >>> Mike
>
> >> If that's the case, how did we win the Grand Slam ?
>
> > A bit of luck - wales are not good enough and are un-likely to ever be
> > consistent enough to win a RWC.
>
> Rubbish, you don't need to be any good, just capable of fluking a couple
> of consecutive results...
The irony meter gave a little flicker there, but it's actually quite
true. You may not need to fluke two results, it may only need to be
one. Or others may fluke those results for you.
Take England and South Africa in 2007. In the knockout stages South
Africa got to play Fiji and Argentina before the final. England got to
play Australia and France. You tell me who had the hardest row to hoe
there, and by quite some margin. It's not South Africa's fault, they
can only play who is put in front of them, but the vagaries of a
knockout tournament are likely to produce oddities such as this. Based
on the knockout results I felt England deserved to be RWC Champs
again, much as it pains me to say it, but the third hurdle was one too
many. I'm sure Wales could one day find themselves in South Africa's
position and win the RWC, it's both the attraction and the flaw of
such a tournament.
Keegan...
Uncle Dave
>
> The irony meter gave a little flicker there, but it's actually quite
> true. You may not need to fluke two results, it may only need to be
> one. Or others may fluke those results for you.
>
> Take England and South Africa in 2007. In the knockout stages South
> Africa got to play Fiji and Argentina before the final. England got to
> play Australia and France.
That's because SA won the group and England came second. All such
tournaments (that I know of anyway) reward the group winners with an
"easy" first knock out round against another group second placed
team. Of course, some of those "easy" ties can be buggers, but mostly
not. I know I'm not allowed to mention "New Zealand" (though I notice
Rick is continuing to make digs against England every chance he gets),
but IMHO the biggest factor against NZ in the last 2 (maybe 3, can't
recall) RWCs was their weak opposition at the group stage.
UD
Uncle Dave
>
> Secondly if you brought your Welsh stars like JPR, JJ or Gareth Davies
> into the modern era - I would bet you anything they would play Rugby
> full-time especially since they could be Financiually secure
> at 30 (assuming they don't blow it all) and would not be allowed to go
> on tours as a full time employee of a Corporation.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. How would JPR combine the long
training required to be a doctor with the demands of pro rugby? I
doubt there are many pro rugby players who earn more than GPs do
nowadays - the average salary for a GP in the UK being £110k last
year, with one well publicised (and underworked) Jock in the Highlands
getting £300k. OK, he would earn more than that as he would doubtless
be at the top but, as the medical profession is usually seen as a
vocation would he make that choice? I doubt it myself...
UD
rick boyd
> I know I'm not allowed to mention "New Zealand" (though I notice
> Rick is continuing to make digs against England every chance he gets),
Oh that's just ridiculous.
They're already buried.
-- rick boyd
Dave Keegan
New Zealand and South Africa both won their pools. New Zealand got
France, South Africa got Fiji. Not an excuse, you have to win all your
games at that stage to be Webb Ellis knockout trophy winners, but
hardly equitable opponents. That's a luck factor, and the point is you
often need the luck or fluke factor to win knockout tournaments.
Keegan...
DC
professionals rugbby players today for some time, and not combine it
with being doctors.
Anyway, in the age of age discrimination being illegal, I can see the
point of a good rugby player who is also academically bright enough to
enter a profession, playing professional rugby first for a couple of
years, say until 25/27, and then starting his studies.
Cobus Visagie is a Chartered Accountant but still playing (or at least
played last year).
didgerman
Firstly, many many Kiwi fan boys wept whilst typing that the pool games
were too soft. You can't have it both ways. Secondly, Fiji were there on
merit: if we take the Australian view that per capita is what counts
{although this view is subject to change with no notice....}, then Fiji
are the greatest rugby nation on earth. IIRC, Fiji pushed SA some way
before getting overpowered, New Zealand overpowered France for the
majority of the game before, well, you know.....
>
> Keegan...
Dave Keegan
You miss my point, which is that both teams had similar records yet
one ended up with a softer QF, and as it turned out a very soft run to
the final where they won without scoring a try. This is the nature of
a knockout tournament, and how weird shit happens when it's kill or be
killed. It's all about the punchers chance, Rocky looking for one big
swing to bring him to fame. Teams get that in their heads and watch
the upsets roll. We were talking about Wales's chance of winning the
RWC, which could easily be envisioned. Being ranked the world #1is,
however, out of their grasp.
Keegan...
Russell
Keegs, come on, stop making excuses!
France was not the powerhouse you are imagining. NZ got France because
Argentina beat them (twice.) Argentina was there on merit after beating
Ireland as well, clearly the stronger of the sides in that pool. SA
played Fiji, 2nd place in their pool, as expected.
Both sides had what should have been an ‘easy’ QF. Mind you I can’t
imagine any match at that level is easy.
Russell
Dave Keegan
This conversation is about whether Wales, or a team like it, can
ever win a RWC, not defend NZ's early exit. Stay on topic. Perhaps I
should have called NZ and SA Team A and Team B for the obsessed minds
out there.
Argentina beat France twice at the RWC? Really? I saw the first
game, missed the second, feel free to bring me up to speed on that
one.
In the Arg-FRance game I saw, which was the opening game of the
RWC, I thought Argentina played like they had a punchers chance and
France played like they were out late the last 4 nights before the
game. Punchers chance, unsuspecting opponent, 80 minutes later the
Argies win ugly. That won them the pool as both them and france had
similar results against the other opponents. This backs up what I am
saying about the nature of the tournament and a team like Wales's
chances of winning it.
Keegan...
didgerman
It was the game for 3rd place, you know, the one NZ played last time,
but didn't quite make it this time....
>
> In the Arg-FRance game I saw, which was the opening game of the
> RWC, I thought Argentina played like they had a punchers chance and
> France played like they were out late the last 4 nights before the
> game. Punchers chance, unsuspecting opponent, 80 minutes later the
> Argies win ugly. That won them the pool as both them and france had
> similar results against the other opponents. This backs up what I am
> saying about the nature of the tournament and a team like Wales's
> chances of winning it.
It may or my not back up what you're saying, but the fact remains that
2/3 of the top SH sides were put out by NH teams. And you won't find
anyone in England or SA that didn't think the final was pretty close....
The reason NZ are ranked number one is because SA are in hangover mode,
and you've just played them 3 times. If you look at the maths, the IRB
rankings are totally skewed by the 3 team tournament in the SH, and the
6 team tournament in the NH, even moreso now you play each other 3
times..... Add to that the fact that big NH nations never bother to send
full teams south, and it leaves the SH looking artificially good in the
rankings.
To get back on topic, Wales could win the RWC, and there's every chance
they'd beat a big SH team or two on the way. They may have to wait a
while before they have the team to do it, but it'll probably happen
within the next 20 years.....
>
> Keegan...
>
>
>
Russell
Fine. Go back and look what you wrote, you specifically are complaining
about having to play France. I am merely pointing out the two teams you
used as an example both had what should have been 'easy' matches. The
team with the less than soft QF was Australia, use them. NZ had a
'soft' pool, don't use them.
Yes you need to use hypothetical teams, because everyone (except NZ'rs)
are tired of the excuses.
>
> Argentina beat France twice at the RWC? Really? I saw the first
> game, missed the second, feel free to bring me up to speed on that
> one.
Third place.
>
> In the Arg-FRance game I saw, which was the opening game of the
> RWC, I thought Argentina played like they had a punchers chance and
> France played like they were out late the last 4 nights before the
> game. Punchers chance, unsuspecting opponent, 80 minutes later the
> Argies win ugly. That won them the pool as both them and france had
What about Ireland?
> similar results against the other opponents. This backs up what I am
> saying about the nature of the tournament and a team like
Quite honestly, Argentina have played in the last three opening matches
and should have won all three. Even though the score in 2003 did not
reflect it, the referee (Paul Honis) blew the Argies out of the game.
Russell
>
> Keegan...
>
>
>
Dave Keegan
You should to come to America, John McCain needs a man of your
talents to tell the voters why he would be a better President than
Barak Obama...
Keegan...
Dave Keegan
No, I was comparing the two QF's and noting the disparity. The
perception of complaint was yours.
> Yes you need to use hypothetical teams, because everyone (except NZ'rs)
> are tired of the excuses.
>
Russell, this is why people get fed up and end up leaving RSRU,
because everything in here is about National Penis Measuring. I was
talking about the possibility of a team like wales winning the world
cup, you turn it into a thread about NZ whining. Thanks.
Keegan...
Russell
That he will be, way better.
didgerman
He couldn't afford the salary I'd need to work with him.
Although it seems he can afford an un-heard of 'young' Alaskan...
>
> Keegan...
didgerman
Sure he will, he has the 'hand of god' with him....:
'I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand
Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.
John McCain'
And what's a credit cunt?
Dave Keegan
She's a hooker..?
Keegan...
Walter Mitty
Wow. Talk about getting owned Keegan!
And the score was a wopping 34-10 to the Argies.
Dave Keegan
Lol...the ultimate in meaningless games for the french, a very
important game for the argies. I'm sure you watched it....
Keegan...
Walter Mitty
3 out of 10 for the side step. Or were you only talking about games you
watched when you disputed they had played twice? As Didge said, you were
probably under the impression the RWC had closed down that fine day when
France (who lost to the Argies twice ....) beat NZ.
didgerman
Potential VP.
>
> Keegan...
Dave Keegan
To include the only game played at the RWC that has absolutely no
bearing on who wins the RWC is disingenuous. It defined meaningless.
The fact remains that one finalists (team A) road to the RWC final
was much easier than the other finalist team's (team B) is
indisputable. And that would include not only comparing team A's to
team B's Quarter final but also team C's ( who had the same pool
record as team A) quarterfinal. Then consider the bearing this has on
the chances of a team like Wales eventually winning the RWC.
Isn't it simpler when we leave out nationalities?
Keegan...
Moo
news:3b1111a3-ec1e-4958...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_4061896,00.html
Whilst I can understand the desire behind this, I'm not at all
convinced that 1) the talent really is there and 2) is being held back
by "average" overseas players. The implication is that an "average"
overseas player can be as good as a "talented" Englishman and that
clubs would rather field an average foreign player rather than a
talented Englishman.
I think the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of those
playing the game in England have no intention or desire to turn
professional and, ergo in today's game, will never aspire to play for
England. I don't think things have changed so much that the
traditional English middle-class rugby playing base has been replaced
by hungry young working class blokes for whom the money would be a
real factor.
I doubt that such stats are available, but I'd be interested to see
how many of the substantial English playing population would actually
consider a pro career...
----------------
Wow, for the first time ever I find myself agreeing with Rob Andrew? I
think he is right on this one, and think the provisions designed to reward
financially teams favouring English players are sensible. In English
football the tired old cliche about how the English players get better
because of the influx of quality foreigners is clearly bullshit. Beisdes,
when you only have one English player in the squad, just how good can he
get. In rugby we have already been exposed by excessive reliance on
foreigners in some key positions, like half backs and FB.
Russell
WTF are you on about?
rick boyd
> Keegs, come on, stop making excuses!
>
> France was not the powerhouse you are imagining. NZ got France because
> Argentina beat them (twice.) Argentina was there on merit after beating
> Ireland as well, clearly the stronger of the sides in that pool. SA
> played Fiji, 2nd place in their pool, as expected.
>
> Both sides had what should have been an ‘easy’ QF. Mind you I can’t
> imagine any match at that level is easy.
Russ, you're dreaming. France has beaten the All Blacks twice in the
last five years alone. Wales has not beaten the All Blacks since 1953.
Get real man.
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
> You should to come to America, John McCain needs a man of your
> talents to tell the voters why he would be a better President than
> Barak Obama...
That's easy. Because he's not black.
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
> 3 out of 10 for the side step. Or were you only talking about games you
> watched when you disputed they had played twice? As Didge said, you were
> probably under the impression the RWC had closed down that fine day when
> France (who lost to the Argies twice ....) beat NZ.
"Walter" weighs his giant brain into the argument. Game, set and match
to Keegs.
-- rick boyd
Russell
No, not really, current form indicated that Argentina was better than
France. Winning the 'pool of death', not an easy task. They (Arg) need
a little credit.
Russell
Dave Keegan
and he's not a muslim, with ties to Chicago gangland-connected
politicians.....
Keegan...
rick boyd
> No, not really, current form indicated that Argentina was better than
> France. Winning the 'pool of death', not an easy task. They (Arg) need
> a little credit.
Argentina might be able to beat the French but they also have never
beaten the All Blacks.
There is a reason The Big Four are not called the Small Seventeen. Any
one of New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and France can beat each
other on the day. This is not true of other teams, and the rare
exception merely proves the rule.
Each had a pool to themselves and should have had a quarter final to
themselves. The French fucked up by losing to Argentina, their bogey
team, in their pool and ended up creating very unequal quarter finals.
It should have been a New Zealand-Argentina quarter final and a
France-Scotland quarter final, making for a New Zealand-England
semi-final and a South Africa-France semi-final, making for a proper New
Zealand-South Africa final, or at least a NZ-France final. NZ might have
lost both those games depending on the performance of the day, but it
would be a fitting conclusion rather than a mismatch between SA and some
B division also-ran.
That's the problem with knockout tournaments, they are as much about
variables as quality performance.
Which is not a problem as long as that is understood, and they are not
stupidly elevated to some sort of ultimate world pecking order decider
for four years, which is just such nonsense.
-- rick boyd
Neilsons
"DC" <---@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LCtuk.192463$ah4.1...@newsfe15.ams2...
> Uncle Dave wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 12:46 pm, neo...@canada.com wrote:
>>> Secondly if you brought your Welsh stars like JPR, JJ or Gareth Davies
>>> into the modern era - I would bet you anything they would play Rugby
>>> full-time especially since they could be Financiually secure
>>> at 30 (assuming they don't blow it all) and would not be allowed to go
>>> on tours as a full time employee of a Corporation.
>>
>> I wouldn't be so sure about that. How would JPR combine the long
>> training required to be a doctor with the demands of pro rugby? I
>> doubt there are many pro rugby players who earn more than GPs do
>> nowadays - the average salary for a GP in the UK being £110k last
>> year, with one well publicised (and underworked) Jock in the Highlands
>> getting £300k. OK, he would earn more than that as he would doubtless
>> be at the top but, as the medical profession is usually seen as a
>> vocation would he make that choice? I doubt it myself...
>>
>> UD
>>
> I think neoleo was arguing that JPR et al would be full time professionals
> rugbby players today for some time, and not combine it with being doctors.
>
> Anyway, in the age of age discrimination being illegal, I can see the
> point of a good rugby player who is also academically bright enough to
> enter a profession, playing professional rugby first for a couple of
> years, say until 25/27, and then starting his studies.
>
> Cobus Visagie is a Chartered Accountant but still playing (or at least
> played last year).
And Conrad Smith is a barrister and solicitor - still playing as well.
Cheers, aMtt
didgerman
Google it. A clanger right up there with Bush's best, and that's saying
something.
didgerman
> Russell wrote:
>
>
>> No, not really, current form indicated that Argentina was better than
>> France. Winning the 'pool of death', not an easy task. They (Arg)
>> need a little credit.
>
> Argentina might be able to beat the French but they also have never
> beaten the All Blacks.
Given the structure of Argentinian rugby, that's terrible example. They
have drawn with the ABs, and beat plenty of teams that regularly beat NZ.
>
> There is a reason The Big Four are not called the Small Seventeen. Any
> one of New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and France can beat each
> other on the day. This is not true of other teams, and the rare
> exception merely proves the rule.
I'll just point out that nobody else talks about 'the big four', it only
exists in Boyd's head. England knocked half of the 'big four' out of the
last RWC, and another member of the 'big four' didn't even make the cut.
How big is that?
>
> Each had a pool to themselves and should have had a quarter final to
> themselves. The French fucked up by losing to Argentina, their bogey
> team, in their pool and ended up creating very unequal quarter finals.
Is this another excuse? A year later and they're still rolling out.....
>
> It should have been a New Zealand-Argentina quarter final and a
> France-Scotland quarter final, making for a New Zealand-England
> semi-final and a South Africa-France semi-final, making for a proper New
> Zealand-South Africa final, or at least a NZ-France final. NZ might have
> lost both those games depending on the performance of the day, but it
> would be a fitting conclusion rather than a mismatch between SA and some
> B division also-ran.
So, the performance on the day makes the RWC irrelevant, but the
performance on tour, is always relevant, even though a fraction of the
preparation goes into tour sides as it does RWC sides. Not to mention,
far more games are played at the RWC, reducing the chance of fluking it.
Amazing......
>
> That's the problem with knockout tournaments, they are as much about
> variables as quality performance.
You can't apply that to the RWC and not tours, it just doesn't work.
>
> Which is not a problem as long as that is understood, and they are not
> stupidly elevated to some sort of ultimate world pecking order decider
> for four years, which is just such nonsense.
You seem greatly confused about this {and a long list of other things no
doubt} SA are the World Champions until the next RWC, that doesn't mean
they are to be regarded as the best team in the world for 4 years, it
just means they won the world cup. The world cup is where all the teams
in the world turn up in tip top condition and play their balls off, but
if you think a 2 match series against one other country is a better
marker, you carry on. If it were me, I'd keep that opinion to myself.
>
> -- rick boyd
The Old Fellow
If that Bush is George W - about the same IQ as George III- must be a
connection there somewhere) It is a real clanger - although maybe
accidental.
Walter Mitty
> Russell wrote:
>
>
>> No, not really, current form indicated that Argentina was better
>> than France. Winning the 'pool of death', not an easy task. They
>> (Arg) need a little credit.
>
> Argentina might be able to beat the French but they also have never
> beaten the All Blacks.
>
> There is a reason The Big Four are not called the Small Seventeen. Any
> one of New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and France can beat each
Tsk! You naughty little boy you!
Geoff Muldoon
> > rugbby players today for some time, and not combine it with being doctors.
> >
> > Anyway, in the age of age discrimination being illegal, I can see the
> > point of a good rugby player who is also academically bright enough to
> > enter a profession, playing professional rugby first for a couple of
> > years, say until 25/27, and then starting his studies.
> >
> > Cobus Visagie is a Chartered Accountant but still playing (or at least
> > played last year).
>
> And Conrad Smith is a barrister and solicitor - still playing as well.
John Roe IIRC retired to finally finish his medical studies, being right
on the verge of completing it during his S12/14 career but deferring when
picked for the national squad.
Geoff M
didgerman
Joe Roff?
Man, he was a total pain.....
>
> Geoff M
didgerman
Yeah well, always talk slower when using the word continue, he should've
known that.....
Greig Blanchett
[...]
>
>Given the structure of Argentinian rugby, that's terrible example. They
>have drawn with the ABs, and beat plenty of teams that regularly beat NZ.
>
Define "regularly".
--
greig
Uncle Dave
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:00:15 GMT, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >Given the structure of Argentinian rugby, that's terrible example. They
> >have drawn with the ABs, and beat plenty of teams that regularly beat NZ.
>
> Define "regularly".
Allow me:
Adverb
regularly (comparative more regularly, superlative most regularly)
Positive
regularly
Comparative
more regularly
Superlative
most regularly
1. With constant frequency or pattern.
2. normally; ordinarily.
Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/
UD (Here to help)
Greig Blanchett
A pilot is flying a small, single-engine, charter plane with a couple
of really important executives on board into Seattle airport. There is
fog so thick that visibility is 40 feet, and his instruments are out.
He circles looking for a landmark and after an hour, he is low on fuel
and his passengers are very nervous. At last, through a small opening
in the fog he sees a tall building with one guy working alone on the
fifth floor. Circling, the pilot banks and shouts through his open
window: "Hey, where am I?". The solitary office worker replies:
"You're in an airplane.". The pilot immediately executes a swift 275
degree turn and executes a perfect blind landing on the airport's
runway five miles away. Just as the plane stops, the engines cough and
die from lack of fuel. The stunned passengers ask the pilot how he did
it. "Elementary," replies the pilot, "I asked the guy in that building
a simple question. The answer he gave me was 100% correct but
absolutely useless; therefore, I knew that must be Microsoft's support
office and from there the airport is three minutes away on a course of
87 degrees."
Do you work for Microsoft these days then, Dave?
--
greig
Uncle Dave
>
> Do you work for Microsoft these days then, Dave?
Unfortunately, for the past five months I've worked for no one :-(
UD