dailywaffle wrote:triage, I think there may be a genuine misunderstanding here. I am referring to the England team before the 2003 RWC.
As already observed, England were going backwards by the summer of 2003 and Clive was unable (or unwilling) to play the brand of rugby that he had previously built towards.
pre 2003 there were times when you played good rugby (actually a bad choice of words......entertaining would be probably a better word as your forward play was still good rugby) for example the 60 point drubbing of the welsh (i believe we actually scored the first two tries in that match aswell ) however the majority of the time you did revert to type IMO.......nothing wrong with that as I have said...you were very good at it and had excellent forwards.....but I wouldn't have said creative and imaginative would have been the words to use. Perhaps more creative and imaginative than other England sides however against the top sides of the world you were still a forward orientated team rather than the mythical "total rugby" type if side (IMO).
perhaps one of the reasons you could play running rugby against the welsh for instance is because we were absolute pants...we couldn't win ball and our defence was shocking (a bit like last saturday against S.A but thatis another story ).
edit please note I am not intentionally trying to wind anyone up or diss England...at the end of the day they were world number 1 and had an ability to beat sides and grind out a win. I just think that a majority of time they did not play champagne rugby (tbh they didn't need to).
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
Just been reading the stats of 6 natins games and one thing i can say is that you scored a hell of a lot of tries pre 2003.
on a slightly different note i have been reading stats on the 1999 and 2003 world cups.......I had forgotten about the south africa incident where they dropped 5 goals to beat england.....there was a lot of press at the time complaining about drop goals yada yada yada...can i just say it must have been a great feeling to win the final with a drop goal not only because you won but because you used it towards your advantage...slightly ironic after all the complaints by the media but still it shows that what goes around comes around. (although the lions had already done it to south afirca in 1997 to win the series with neil jenkins boot and a drop goal by mr guscott sealing it).
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
Just been reading the stats of 6 natins games and one thing i can say is that you scored a hell of a lot of tries pre 2003.
on a slightly different note i have been reading stats on the 1999 and 2003 world cups.......I had forgotten about the south africa incident where they dropped 5 goals to beat england.....there was a lot of press at the time complaining about drop goals yada yada yada...can i just say it must have been a great feeling to win the final with a drop goal not only because you won but because you used it towards your advantage...slightly ironic after all the complaints by the media but still it shows that what goes around comes around. (although the lions had already done it to south afirca in 1997 to win the series with neil jenkins boot and a drop goal by mr guscott sealing it).
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
To pick up on Daily's comments about a limited game plan and just to check my own memories I had a look on you tube for video's of the argentinian tries in the RWC.
Perhaps it's just me but what i see is players (both forwards and backs) running at pace, offloading from the tackle to the players in support and the forwards winning quick ruck ball, which is hardly consistent with a limited gameplan.
Mr_Ben wrote:To pick up on Daily's comments about a limited game plan and just to check my own memories I had a look on you tube for video's of the argentinian tries in the RWC.
Perhaps it's just me but what i see is players (both forwards and backs) running at pace, offloading from the tackle to the players in support and the forwards winning quick ruck ball, which is hardly consistent with a limited gameplan.
I'm glad to see someone else picked up on this. It only endorses how good ML got the Argies going. Shame he has gone - missed opportunity
Whoever said "one person cannot change the world' never ate undercooked bat
(Haven't followed the link; I am at work and get blocked. However...)
You could take the South African game (Semi Final) and say, "phew, dodged a bullet there" because they weren't terrific in the really BIG one that mattered.
John
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".
I was just reflecting on the loss to Wasps. Clearly we were out-coached as well as out-played.
SO how do we make up the difference next season. They have McGeechan and Edwards who are experienced and savvy.
We are apparently going to have Gibson (never coached), Cockerill (who didn't even have the brains to wait till it was all over to stick the knife in) and Back (who has presided over a sharp decline in the quality of our defence).
Can anyone else see the gap getting wider rather than narrower?
1. DW, you're right.. Peter Tom was correct not to give any further information. But remember, prior to that interview the only official news was the statement which I feel was poorly worded. Like I said in other posts, I personally feel a little better having watched the interview. I am still interested to know more, but I doubt much more will come out.
2. I also agree that England were on the down slide prior to the 2003 World Cup. In my opinion, England developed a pragmatic playing style during the 90's and have stuck with it ever since. Probably since they lost the Grand Slam game vs Scotland in 1990. If you remember that season we were by far the dominant team, playing outstanding running rugby. Then we lose to the Scots.. and it all changes. The team develop a forwards dominated method for grinding out wins, which becomes the fall back plan when everything else fails, or when they get tired, or when they run out of ideas. Thankfully we had Mike Catt on the field when we played the Welsh, otherwise the story would have been a different one.
3. The Pumas adopted that same pragmatic winning style in their victories over the Irish and the French during the pool games. What else did people expect? Its the same game plan and strategy that England would have used. Play the territorial game, force them to make mistakes in thier own half and then wait for the opportunity for your talented backs to score some tries.
4. Did anyone watch the 3rd place play off game? That for me showed the Puma's true potential. The pressure was a little less.. they mixed it up with the French and put 34 points on them (something that England haven't been able to do for quite some time).
So, in short.. I believe ML had much more to give. Anyone that criticises the Pumas tactics and strategies during the world cup must also see many of the Northern Hemisphere teams in the same light. Further, if you watched any of the Kiwis pool games (especially vs Italy) you would have noticed that the high up and under was a large part or their game plan too.
If you haven't seen the 3rd place play off game, I'd reccommend that you try to. It's one of the best games of rugby I've seen (especially the hit on Chabal that effectively nullified his influence in the game).
) however the majority of the time you did revert to type IMO.......nothing wrong with that as I have said...you were very good at it and had excellent forwards.....but I wouldn't have said creative and imaginative would have been the words to use. Perhaps more creative and imaginative than other England sides however against the top sides of the world you were still a forward orientated team rather than the mythical "total rugby" type if side (IMO).
