Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
06-11-2019, 14:43   #826
Yeah_Right
Registered User
 
Yeah_Right's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by P.Walnuts View Post
Where did you pull that Heaslip comment from?
He said it live on TV pre-match. I can't remember his exact words but it was something along the lines of he wouldn't swap any of the Irish team for any of the ABs.
Yeah_Right is offline  
Advertisement
07-11-2019, 12:44   #827
TheCitizen
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Podge_irl View Post
What, exactly, is wrong with that statement?
Are you serious, the statement where they thought they could beat S Africa or Wales at 70%? You don't see anything wrong with that

Very strange attitude round here.
TheCitizen is offline  
07-11-2019, 13:00   #828
Podge_irl
Registered User
 
Podge_irl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,454
The performance against NZ was phenomenal. One of the best performances I've seen. Saying performing at 70% of that could be enough to beat SA or Wales doesn't seem like a huge stretch to be honest.
Podge_irl is offline  
(3) thanks from:
07-11-2019, 13:11   #829
TheCitizen
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Podge_irl View Post
The performance against NZ was phenomenal. One of the best performances I've seen. Saying performing at 70% of that could be enough to beat SA or Wales doesn't seem like a huge stretch to be honest.


As a matter of interest how did you think NZ performed in the semi final? I think they froze completely. Yes Eng;land were much the better team but NZ had several chances to get back in the game but they never got that purple patch they got v South Africa. In hindsight NZ weren't at all what they were cracked up to be and South Africa were the worthy World cup winners when they defeated England with ease.

England at 70% could have been good enough to win a World Cup Final? You're havin a laugh. A stupid and foolish comment indicative of the folly that routinely overcomes the English when they have a team that wins a game or two. Watching them get carried away and then come up short is tremendous fun.
TheCitizen is offline  
07-11-2019, 13:23   #830
sydthebeat
Subscriber
 
sydthebeat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 25,992
i love entrenched arguments about hyperbole and subjectiveness
sydthebeat is online now  
Advertisement
07-11-2019, 14:02   #831
Yeah_Right
Registered User
 
Yeah_Right's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCitizen View Post


As a matter of interest how did you think NZ performed in the semi final? I think they froze completely. Yes Eng;land were much the better team but NZ had several chances to get back in the game but they never got that purple patch they got v South Africa. In hindsight NZ weren't at all what they were cracked up to be and South Africa were the worthy World cup winners when they defeated England with ease.

England at 70% could have been good enough to win a World Cup Final? You're havin a laugh. A stupid and foolish comment indicative of the folly that routinely overcomes the English when they have a team that wins a game or two. Watching them get carried away and then come up short is tremendous fun.
Jerry Flannery was saying that NZ had more offloads, line breaks and metres made than England but the Poms were desperate, scrambled brilliantly, made vital tackles that stopped any momentum. I think most people felt they wouldn't need to play at that level beat SA or Wales (based on how those teams had performed to that point). Turns out England did need to be near that level in the final.

I just don't understand why you think only English media and fans make hyperbolic statements before matches. Every country does it. I've given you examples.
Yeah_Right is offline  
(2) thanks from:
07-11-2019, 16:22   #832
TheCitizen
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Right View Post
Jerry Flannery was saying that NZ had more offloads, line breaks and metres made than England but the Poms were desperate, scrambled brilliantly, made vital tackles that stopped any momentum. I think most people felt they wouldn't need to play at that level beat SA or Wales (based on how those teams had performed to that point). Turns out England did need to be near that level in the final.

I just don't understand why you think only English media and fans make hyperbolic statements before matches. Every country does it. I've given you examples.
They all do to a certain extent yeah but the English beat the band at it. To say that a 70% performance would be enough to beat S Africa or Wales was really stupid.
TheCitizen is offline  
08-11-2019, 10:57   #833
hahashake
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 318
How anyone can say the 70% comment wasn't stupid is beyond me. It completely ignores the fact that there are two teams playing. No team is a given level, if England can play at 70% then who says NZ weren't? Or SA weren't vs Wales or NZ?
hahashake is offline  
Thanks from:
08-11-2019, 15:47   #834
TheCitizen
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by hahashake View Post
How anyone can say the 70% comment wasn't stupid is beyond me. It completely ignores the fact that there are two teams playing. No team is a given level, if England can play at 70% then who says NZ weren't? Or SA weren't vs Wales or NZ?
Thank fook, I thought I was going mad there for a moment that I was the only one on this thread who thought that the 70% comment in the British press was ridiculously arrogant and really really stupid.
TheCitizen is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
09-11-2019, 05:03   #835
Ardillaun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,441
Analysis of one game by an occasional viewer of the sport may have some limitations but when did that stop anyone? The final reminded me of the first Lions test match in SA in 2009 when, if I recall directly, Vickery came to grief in the scrum against the same Mtawarira while Julian White was left at home. The critical challenge against SA is to to match them up front in the set pieces; forward mobility in the loose is slightly less vital than against NZ. Losing Sinckler (who was excellent in this WC and really upped his discipline) was just bad luck but I think they should have started with Marler rather than Mako at loosehead. The scrum stabilised after he came on. Perhaps England didn’t modify their gameplan enough?

Regarding the backs, I have never been a fan of Farrell at 12 but he was behind a losing scrum and Cheslin was in a mood to make anyone look silly in that run for the try. Youngs had a bad game.
Ardillaun is offline  
16-11-2019, 17:04   #836
Ardillaun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,441
Here’s Jones second-guessing himself. I agree that Marler and Ford should not have started but I don’t see the point of him saying that in public now. In a way, it’s blaming them for the loss and a coach should not do that:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...orld-cup-final
Ardillaun is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet