Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tokyo Calling - Rugby 2019

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Flynnie
    replied
    No, because it wasn't forward.

    The guidance for years has been that a pass is only forward when a player's hands are tilted towards the attacking tryline, because the Galilean Transformation exists and anything remotely close to a flat pass is forward if not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogin the Armchair fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Cesar Rodriguez View Post

    Yeah and another curious stat was their opening try was their first in any of their 3 RWC finals.

    And what a try it was too - blindside action, two nifty passes, a cute kick, a good bounce and then a catch and pass in stride.

    A try involving multiple passes, a kick, a bounce where the ball sits up pefectly and good support running is essentially rugby nirvana.
    Is 'nifty' the new word for 'forward'?

    Leave a comment:


  • Flynnie
    replied
    The Gwijo Squad is a new development though, and very cool.

    You also do have those weirdo Cape Crusaders which is why New Zealand's played one test at Newlands this millennium, although I can't tell if there's a reason behind it other than gloryhunting. Most "black" Springboks have been Cape Coloured, which is the constituency of that fanbase.



    Leave a comment:


  • G-Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
    It appears that support for the Boks In South Africa now transcends race and, perhaps, class. That is wonderful to see.
    It was like that in 2007, too. Even in 1995, but then we were all still in the afterglow of national post-apartheid love-making. But after 2007 came Jacob Zuma and then the rise of black populism. We had a moment of sports-induced unity in 2010, but that's a long time ago. So now it feels new, but it isn't really new. Of course, we'll soon be back to division.

    Black South Africans always support the Springboks. Black South Africans also heartily sing the part of the national anthem that used to be the oppressor's anthem. They've made rugby and the anthem their own.

    Leave a comment:


  • G-Man
    replied
    Well, the Springboks lost two players two injury in the first half. The game didn't turn on injuries.

    Eddie Jones' confusion points to the absence of a Plan B. The only plan was to run at SA who'd try (and fail) to absorb the pressure. You could see the confusion of England's players when SA attacked high from the kick-off. But I reckon what really destroyed England's morale was when SA did absorb the pressure in the attack of endless phases a metre from the tryline.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    I felt dreadfully sorry for Sinckler but his presence wouldn't have affected the outcome one bit. The Boks pack was going to crush whoever was in front of them, having Sinckler at tight-head wasn't going to change that.
    Last edited by Ray de Galles; 04-11-2019, 10:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flynnie
    replied
    It was a blow, especially because Cole was just awful, but SA did a textbook "you've got to earn the right to go wide" game plan. And if England's game plan was to dominate the set piece, then they're insane, because you are not dominating a Springbok set piece.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vicarious Thrillseeker
    replied
    Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
    Interesting comment from one my most Welsh rugby friends on Facebook ;

    Just watched the highlights again and it reminded me of the 30-3 game. Lots of scrum penalties, building the lead and then two tries at the end (even down to one where a flanker releases the right wing to score in the corner).
    Until the last fifteen, I think it was a closer game than people are now making out. Sinckler going off early was a massive blow for England - Cole just isn't the force he once was, and with a scrum going backwards all the time, England couldn't dominate the set pieces and get on the front foot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diable Rouge
    replied
    Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post
    He certainly hasn't inherited the balding genes from Charles. hmmmm
    Hewitt would have thought it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    Interesting comment from one my most Welsh rugby friends on Facebook ;

    Just watched the highlights again and it reminded me of the 30-3 game. Lots of scrum penalties, building the lead and then two tries at the end (even down to one where a flanker releases the right wing to score in the corner).

    Leave a comment:


  • Cesar Rodriguez
    replied
    Originally posted by Antepli Ejderha View Post
    Just read that South Africa are yet to concede a try in three RWC finals.

    Eddie Jones also has been quoted as saying he didn't know how South Africa had beaten England which strikes me as an odd thing to say.
    Yeah and another curious stat was their opening try was their first in any of their 3 RWC finals.

    And what a try it was too - blindside action, two nifty passes, a cute kick, a good bounce and then a catch and pass in stride.

    A try involving multiple passes, a kick, a bounce where the ball sits up pefectly and good support running is essentially rugby nirvana.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray de Galles
    replied
    [URL]https://twitter.com/theblitzdefence/status/1190992627929354242?s=21[/URL]

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    It appears that support for the Boks In South Africa now transcends race and, perhaps, class. That is wonderful to see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antepli Ejderha
    replied
    Just read that South Africa are yet to concede a try in three RWC finals.

    Eddie Jones also has been quoted as saying he didn't know how South Africa had beaten England which strikes me as an odd thing to say.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    He should have ingested some Carling.

    Leave a comment:


  • anton pulisov
    replied
    He certainly hasn't inherited the balding genes from Charles. hmmmm

    Leave a comment:


  • G-Man
    replied
    When Harry Met Faffy...




    This is how you treat royals: Greet them wearing only your novelty underpants. No bowing and scraping and yourroyalhighnessing. Then Frans Steyn made Mr Harry down a beer, on camera. To his credit, Mr Harry seems to be cool with all that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bordeaux Education
    replied
    I completely forgot that, in the summer, I sat next to Francois Louw in a pub and he was such a sweetheart with his kids that he changed my mind about South African/non-Welsh Bath players.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
    Carter and the ice hockey team was the lead story on CBS:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK1f-RZZJCU
    Yeah, but it wasn’t really planned-for and the government played no role in their success. Sure, he tried to tie his struggling campaign to their success after the fact - and if he hadn’t invited them to the White House, it would have looked like a snub - but it wasn’t part of a coordinated program. Nobody would ever accuse USA hockey of being well-organized, especially in those days.

    Carter wasn’t in Lake Placid. I don’t recall him or Reagan attending any sporting events. I distinctly recall ABC setting up a call between him and the team in the locker room after the Finland game. The audio quality was patchy. Nowadays, if it looked like an Olympic team was going to generate a photo op, they’d send a member of the president’s family or the Vice President, at least. You all have the royal family for that.

    The team going to the White House was news because that wasn’t so common back then.

    Now every winner of every remotely major sporting event gets an invite, so it’s only news if they don’t go.

    I’d forgotten about Tim Thomas*. But that was rare in those days. Now it seems every winning team has some no-shows.

    *I respect his decision not to go. Nobody should feel obligated to “respect the office.” I just don’t respect his reasons for not liking Obama.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Carter and the ice hockey team was the lead story on CBS:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK1f-RZZJCU

    Leave a comment:


  • Snake Plissken
    replied
    Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
    It was never controversial before 2016.
    Tim Thomas refused to go to the WH following the Bruins Stanley Cup win in 2011.

    My favourite Down Goes Brown joke:

    Tim Thomas: "Damn foreigners, coming here to take our jobs"
    Tuukka Rask: "I'm standing right here, dude."

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Originally posted by Cesar Rodriguez View Post

    Carters Olympic boycott of 1980 was a prime example of a politician using sport as a political tool.

    The US protested an invasion of a country it invaded 21 years later.
    Correct. But that wasn’t about the hockey. IIRC, the game against the USSR wasn’t even on live TV. That whole thing was unexpected and excitement about it built organically among fans and then ABC made the most of it.

    The US government has not historically done a lot with US national teams. They’ve left that to corporate sponsors and TV networks. There’s still plenty of jingoism and at times it’s really ugly, but our federal government doesn’t really support sports like other governments do. There’s public money for sports through the schools, but that’s not the same thing. It’s not necessarily better this way, but it’s different.

    The tradition of championship teams visiting the White House is relatively new, I think. I think it really started in the 80s and back then it was just the big pro sports. Now even teams like the NCAA women’s lacrosse champions come to the White House.

    It was never controversial before 2016.

    Leave a comment:


  • G-Man
    replied
    Originally posted by tee rex View Post
    I don't know if we're all seeing the same TV pictures, but that shot of the trophy being engraved before full time was a kicker. "South Africa" was already on, must have started before the last try.
    I was laughing out loud when I saw that. But then, I was in a really good mood.

    I think SA did surprise England by attacking them from the off. I guess the idea was that England would attack and SA try to smother their attacks, as they did against Wales. England had no idea how to respond to that, which surprised me. Of course, SA played a perfect game; there were so many breathtaking performances. Vermeulen was a wall and deserved is MOTM. Faf de Klerk was incredible; his positional play was a thing of beauty. When he came on, Kitshoff destroyed England's scrums. There was no weak link.

    And what makes me happy is that most of the players came from basic backgrounds. I was especially glad for Cheslyn Kolbe, whose father was a highly talented rugby player who plied his trade in the anti-apartheid league in the 1980s.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diable Rouge
    replied
    If only we could revoke Irish passports!

    https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1190582469218775046

    Leave a comment:


  • Cesar Rodriguez
    replied
    Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post

    I don’t recall Jimmy Carter really exploiting the Miracle on Ice. ABC did.
    Carters Olympic boycott of 1980 was a prime example of a politician using sport as a political tool.

    The US protested an invasion of a country it invaded 21 years later.
    Last edited by Cesar Rodriguez; 02-11-2019, 18:56.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X