Crikey - you're a real misery, aren't you?Englands Team wrote:No we won't. We are far to experienced these days and our legs are far to old.

Redskin in Canada wrote:... Samoa has its own version and in Tonga the Haka is actually named the Sipi'tau. It is an ancestral Polynesian war dance, often practiced to avoid battle in the first place.
Let battle commenceSkinsJock wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:... Samoa has its own version and in Tonga the Haka is actually named the Sipi'tau. It is an ancestral Polynesian war dance, often practiced to avoid battle in the first place.
There is nobody on that All Blacks team that looks like they want to avoid anyone or anything - a great motivator, but it also serves to stir up the opposing team as well - looking forward to some good rugby this weekend with some very different ideas on what it will take to win
Englands Team wrote:No we won't. We are far to experienced these days and our legs are far to old. I can see Argentina beating Scotland and i think France are the only side capable of beating the All Blacks.
Prefare League myself. Go Saints. Let Wigan win the final eliminator and we can do the pies in the final.
I am with you. I will go with France as a sacrificial lamb against South Africa in the Final.SkinsJock wrote:France will not make the mistakes that allowed England to advance and the Springboks are one of the 3 best sides in rugby today.
I hate torain on your parade but BOTH matches had VERY QUESTIONABLE officiating. It is not sour grapes. England and France earned their wins but it would have been better for the game if the refs had not had such a blatant disregard for the rules at key times.UK Skins Fan wrote:So, the All Blacks once more go quietly into the night, their hopes dashed again. Never has such a dominant nation bottled it so many times on the big stage. Oh dear.
So much for the southern hemisphere domination, although only a fool would now back against the Springboks winning the title. Even now, I wouldn't claim that England are one of the top four teams in the world, but it's all about performance on the day - not 15 months before the day, as the New Zealanders keep on finding out, time and time again.
Irn-Bru wrote:I have one question. The commentators on the match kept saying that (X side) needs to / has been "raising / asking questions" as though that were terminology for something in the game. Any help as to what that means? It sounded more technical to me than what that might mean in an American football context.
UK Skins Fan wrote:Irn-Bru wrote:I have one question. The commentators on the match kept saying that (X side) needs to / has been "raising / asking questions" as though that were terminology for something in the game. Any help as to what that means? It sounded more technical to me than what that might mean in an American football context.
Nothing technical about it, as far as I know. "Asking questions" means "posing a problem", "making things difficult for the opponent", or "forcing the opponent to change their gameplan". Just the same kind of question asking as when Gregg Williams sends Laron Landry on a blitz, whilst Sean Taylor plays linebacker, and Rocky drops into coverage.
The game is difficult but not impossible to predict. Jock and I are with the Latin side of the Test. They are more creative than England. Anybody that takes New Zealand out this tournament out deserves great respect. The same could be said about England with respect to Australia. It is an even match. But you never know when these traditional rivals meet on any sport. Your prediction is quite predictable though. You pass the Hognostications test of loyalty.UK Skins Fan wrote:France V England is probably too close to call. It might come down to the comparitive mental fortitude of the respective teams, and that often comes down in England's favour. Blind faith has me going with an England win, and a date with the Springboks in the final.
20 years ago, it wouldn't have been. Rugby union players were still part time players and full time eaters and drinkers. Then rugby union looked at the professional game of rugby league, and saw the levels of fitness and professionalism that existed there. Since then, rugby union players have changed completely, and the level of sheer brutality that these players subject themselves to every game is astounding. Sure, NFL players take hits, they get injured, concussed and some are tragically paralised - it's not a soft game. But rugby union is just barbaric at times in its level of hostility. But still, the players play within the rules (99.9% of the time). Anybody watching any of the Rugby World Cup games over the last month will have seen 30 players on the pitch who exhibit more sheer courage on the field of play than in any other sport I can think of right now. Somebody else will surely come up with another sport to trump it, but I'll take rugby union players as some of the toughest hombres around.GSPODS wrote:UK, this one's for You.
Rugby - Take an in-shape NFL player. Now take away all his padding. Make the game 80 minutes long instead of 60, and eliminate all the stoppages of play, mass substitution, timeouts, etc. An average professional rugby league game involves roughly 500-650 tackles PER GAME. Some players can make 50-60 TACKLES PER GAME (no pads, no endless commercial breaks, no going back to a huddle after each tackle, and playing both offense and defense). Then tack on running 4-7 kilometers per game. Oh, and you have to be able to run, jump, tackle, pass the ball, and kick the ball. Rugby league seasons run at least 24 regular season games, plus playoffs, PLUS international matches.
Fair description?
UK Skins Fan wrote:20 years ago, it wouldn't have been. Rugby union players were still part time players and full time eaters and drinkers. Then rugby union looked at the professional game of rugby league, and saw the levels of fitness and professionalism that existed there. Since then, rugby union players have changed completely, and the level of sheer brutality that these players subject themselves to every game is astounding. Sure, NFL players take hits, they get injured, concussed and some are tragically paralised - it's not a soft game. But rugby union is just barbaric at times in its level of hostility. But still, the players play within the rules (99.9% of the time). Anybody watching any of the Rugby World Cup games over the last month will have seen 30 players on the pitch who exhibit more sheer courage on the field of play than in any other sport I can think of right now. Somebody else will surely come up with another sport to trump it, but I'll take rugby union players as some of the toughest hombres around.GSPODS wrote:UK, this one's for You.
Rugby - Take an in-shape NFL player. Now take away all his padding. Make the game 80 minutes long instead of 60, and eliminate all the stoppages of play, mass substitution, timeouts, etc. An average professional rugby league game involves roughly 500-650 tackles PER GAME. Some players can make 50-60 TACKLES PER GAME (no pads, no endless commercial breaks, no going back to a huddle after each tackle, and playing both offense and defense). Then tack on running 4-7 kilometers per game. Oh, and you have to be able to run, jump, tackle, pass the ball, and kick the ball. Rugby league seasons run at least 24 regular season games, plus playoffs, PLUS international matches.
Fair description?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
JSPB22 wrote:.. Tiddlywinks anyone?
You can say that again and again.UK Skins Fan wrote:... I would certainly not be supporting England in the final, because nobody would claim that their rugby has been pretty to watch. Then again, just how pretty were Australia and France in the last two games?