RugbyRebels

Just FYI, your defence coach’s son is currently debuting for the New Zealand cricket team.

Lizard wrote:Just FYI, your defence coach’s son is currently debuting for the New Zealand cricket team.

I can hardly contain my apathy.

Puja

Oh come on. This is fascinating. First son of an All Black (non-tests only, admittedly) to play cricket for NZ (T20 only so far, admittedly).

I’m sure this will be a huge distraction and the English teams tremendous defence (based on being always offside, admittedly) May fade away this week.

Lizard wrote: (based on being always offside, admittedly)

no idea where Mitchell got that idea from.

Really didn't look offside all that often to me. In fact, I'd be quite impressed if someone could give 3 examples of us being "clearly" offside from the match. Even more impressed if it was the 2m or so that some folks seem to be trying to claim.

Lizard wrote: May fade away this week.

You're Enya and I claim my £5

There was a piece in yesterday's Times about the effect Mitchell and Wisemantel have had since coming in. It was an interesting read. I can quite easily see how new coaches can bring a fresh impetous to the same players, maybe this particular homeymoon period could turn out to be perfect timing in the now short run up to the WC?

Guatard was quoted as saying that in last year's 6N the "boys were knackered". They were being routinely flogged at the time, which resukted in poor displays. Obv this year they're not being tortured to the same degree. Et voila; a vibrant agressive cohesive performance. Who'd have thunk it?

Raggs wrote:Really didn't look offside all that often to me. In fact, I'd be quite impressed if someone could give 3 examples of us being "clearly" offside from the match. Even more impressed if it was the 2m or so that some folks seem to be trying to claim.

You've made Liz's evening!

Beasties wrote:There was a piece in yesterday's Times about the effect Mitchell and Wisemantel have had since coming in. It was an interesting read. I can quite easily see how new coaches can bring a fresh impetous to the same players, maybe this particular homeymoon period could turn out to be perfect timing in the now short run up to the WC?

Guatard was quoted as saying that in last year's 6N the "boys were knackered". They were being routinely flogged at the time, which resukted in poor displays. Obv this year they're not being tortured to the same degree. Et voila; a vibrant agressive cohesive performance. Who'd have thunk it?

The Times also noted in essence Eddie has given up on the idea he should develop English coaches, other than Borthwick of course

Tbf, Gustard and Teague both resigned, Farrell turned down a job offer and Sanderson made clear he wasn’t interested.
After that there aren’t many options. Worsley is going well at Bordeaux and I think King and Walder should’ve been of interest for the for the attack job but, one year out from the tournament, I’m not bothered if we just get best available.

Digby wrote:

Beasties wrote:There was a piece in yesterday's Times about the effect Mitchell and Wisemantel have had since coming in. It was an interesting read. I can quite easily see how new coaches can bring a fresh impetous to the same players, maybe this particular homeymoon period could turn out to be perfect timing in the now short run up to the WC?

Guatard was quoted as saying that in last year's 6N the "boys were knackered". They were being routinely flogged at the time, which resukted in poor displays. Obv this year they're not being tortured to the same degree. Et voila; a vibrant agressive cohesive performance. Who'd have thunk it?

The Times also noted in essence Eddie has given up on the idea he should develop English coaches, other than Borthwick of course

Well, he kind of has...Gustard got more experience. Enough experience that he wanted an HC role. Which is good for England in the future.

We could have some interesting options going forward. As mentioned, there's Worsley, Walder and King, plus Vesty, Catt, Farrell...plenty of coaches getting good experience elsewhere who could step up for England in the future.

bowler, batsman or all rounder?

I'm not saying Eddie should be developing English coaches, merely the RFU indicated he would be doing so, and now he mostly isn't

Digby wrote:

Beasties wrote:There was a piece in yesterday's Times about the effect Mitchell and Wisemantel have had since coming in. It was an interesting read. I can quite easily see how new coaches can bring a fresh impetous to the same players, maybe this particular homeymoon period could turn out to be perfect timing in the now short run up to the WC?

Guatard was quoted as saying that in last year's 6N the "boys were knackered". They were being routinely flogged at the time, which resukted in poor displays. Obv this year they're not being tortured to the same degree. Et voila; a vibrant agressive cohesive performance. Who'd have thunk it?

The Times also noted in essence Eddie has given up on the idea he should develop English coaches, other than Borthwick of course

Not hugely bothered. I'd like English coaches, but our aim right now should be the World Cup and for that we need the best available, not people with a load of potential.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:Tbf, Gustard and Teague both resigned, Farrell turned down a job offer and Sanderson made clear he wasn’t interested.
After that there aren’t many options. Worsley is going well at Bordeaux and I think King and Walder should’ve been of interest for the for the attack job but, one year out from the tournament, I’m not bothered if we just get best available.

Steve Diamond has said that England made an approach for Deacon at the end of last season.

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Tbf, Gustard and Teague both resigned, Farrell turned down a job offer and Sanderson made clear he wasn’t interested.
After that there aren’t many options. Worsley is going well at Bordeaux and I think King and Walder should’ve been of interest for the for the attack job but, one year out from the tournament, I’m not bothered if we just get best available.

Steve Diamond has said that England made an approach for Deacon at the end of last season.

That confused me - I thought you meant Louis there for a minute.

Puja

p/d wrote:bowler, batsman or all rounder?

All-rounder. He averages about 34 in both disciplines in proper (i.e. First Class) cricket. Last night he batted at 4, and was part way into his 3rd over when he dismissed the last Indian batsman. Looks like his old man but darker features and a beard.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Really didn't look offside all that often to me. In fact, I'd be quite impressed if someone could give 3 examples of us being "clearly" offside from the match. Even more impressed if it was the 2m or so that some folks seem to be trying to claim.

You've made Liz's evening!

I didn’t say they were “clearly” off-side. That’s the genius of it.

Raggs wrote:Really didn't look offside all that often to me. In fact, I'd be quite impressed if someone could give 3 examples of us being "clearly" offside from the match. Even more impressed if it was the 2m or so that some folks seem to be trying to claim.

Slade looked offside for his first try and every time I look at it, it still looks dodgy:

WaspInWales wrote:

Raggs wrote:Really didn't look offside all that often to me. In fact, I'd be quite impressed if someone could give 3 examples of us being "clearly" offside from the match. Even more impressed if it was the 2m or so that some folks seem to be trying to claim.

Slade looked offside for his first try and every time I look at it, it still looks dodgy:

He's just very quick.

Puja

Lizard wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Really didn't look offside all that often to me. In fact, I'd be quite impressed if someone could give 3 examples of us being "clearly" offside from the match. Even more impressed if it was the 2m or so that some folks seem to be trying to claim.

You've made Liz's evening!

I didn’t say they were “clearly” off-side. That’s the genius of it.

Quite right, my apologies. In that case allow me to change my challenge to suit your actual claim.

Please provide evidence of England being offside 136 times ("always"). My ruck marks have the times of all the Irish rucks to help.

Raggs wrote:

Lizard wrote:

Banquo wrote: You've made Liz's evening!

I didn’t say they were “clearly” off-side. That’s the genius of it.

Quite right, my apologies. In that case allow me to change my challenge to suit your actual claim.

Please provide evidence of England being offside 136 times ("always"). My ruck marks have the times of all the Irish rucks to help.

Liz is ‘clearly’ fishing

Geez Raggs, normally it's me that's the gullible one!

Puja

I wanted to see if I could get him to do something! For the sake of a few lines of typing it's worth a try. Little chance of that now.