The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Englands Team wrote:No we won't. We are far to experienced these days and our legs are far to old.

Crikey - you're a real misery, aren't you?

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

SkinsJock 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

Let battle commence

Well done England! - They played very well and deserved to win this match. I was very disapointed in the fact that Australia had many scoring opportunities and could not seem to pull this out but the real decider was the mistakes and especially by Gregan in his last match - oh well, it's now up to the All Blacks to see if they can withstand this fantastic English squad

BTW - the officiating was atrocious in this match - the English were obviously affecting the scrum and if you are the ref and you want to penalize each team until they behave then do that, but to keep penalizing the Aussies was embarrasing to watch for any true rugby fan - I hope England can see if they can get this ref for the next 2 games because that is the only chance they will have to go and play against what looks to me will be the Springboks, in the WC final.

Personally, I hope that the All Blacks really punish the English boys for not alowing us all to see the fantastic game that would have been with the Wallabies and the All Blacks

very embarrassing to lose a match against a team like this - the Aussies did not play at all well - kind of reminds me of another of my favorite sports teams - hopefully they will play up to their abilities this Sunday at 1 against the Lions

Credit to you to Jock, for showing up so soon after what must be a crushing experience for any Aussie sports fan. I'm sure you are disappointed with the performance of your team, but you should remember that they weren't allowed to play well, by a team that was playing with real passion today. Hard luck to Australia - you've still got the best cricket team in the world.

I wasn't able to see any of the game except for the last 15 minutes - I'll enjoy watching a recording later, safe in the knowledge that we won. What I do know about this game is that the win was the result of a herculean effort from the English pack, backed up by solid tackling from every player all over the park. Vindication for a team that most had written off, and a team of which I certainly didn't have high expectations before the game. Not for a moment do I think that England are about to retain the World Cup, but any English sports fan will simply be glad to know that the Aussies are facing a long, miserable flight home.

I can't comment directly on the officiating until I've watched the game, but I'd like to remind any Aussies out there that scrummaging is part of the game, every bit as much a part of the game as those fancy running manouevres that everybody likes. I suspect that the England pack was utterly destroying the Aussies in the scrum, and the Aussies just couldn't cope. Remember, if it wasn't for some truly bizarre refeering of the scrum during the last World Cup final, then Australia would not have been awarded the penalty that took that game into overtime!

I don't do gloating, because next week will be a different game, and England might be on the wrong end of a beating, because they will have put every last ounce of energy into this week. But English eyes are smiling tonight.

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.

And I hope you're feeling suitably foolish tonight? Unfortunately for Australia, their forwards would also prefer rugby league, where the scrummaging is a joke.

I-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E

I destroyed all hopes for Australia and New Zealand with the mini-Hognostications. I did not like the Wallabies v. England match at all.

Les Blues played with great courage but again, this was a game lost by New Zealand.

I-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E

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.

Without further ado - Ill go with France over England and South Africa over Argentina.

France will not make the mistakes that allowed England to advance and the Springboks are one of the 3 best sides in rugby today.

While we were watching the Redskins game, my dad told me that a local cable channel had been picking up the rugby World Cup games. So, I check the listings and sure enough, an hour after watching the Redskins tear apart the Lions, I got to watch the France v. New Zealand match. Talk about a good Sunday. . .

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.

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 am with you. I will go with France as a sacrificial lamb against South Africa in the Final.

I wish it had been a more interesting final. RSA will have it way too easy from now on. Congrats in advance Springboks!

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.

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.

France played great defense. It is a very creative side. England planning and courage got them ahead. They rightfully earned their place among the last four.

Interestingly, Australia and New Zealand could have won their games during the last five minutes of their games. See you at the nest Cup guys.

No worries RiC - my parade remains dry and sunny, thanks very much.

Unfortunately, my technology failed me, and I haven't been able to watch a recording of the England game in full. In any case, any comments I read in the English press about the officiating would suffer from a rose red glow. All I have read about it is the suggestion that it took the referee a long time before he worked out that the only side with any self interest in turning the scrum into a farce was the Aussies, simply because they were being destroyed in a fair fight. Of course, there are no on-pitch officials in world rugby who have played in the front row of a scrum, and very few have any idea how to officiate it. The same can be said of most fans, and I include myself in that.

If the Aussies had won, it would have been daylight robbery, just as it would have been four years ago.

Anyway, my money is still on the Springboks, but England has improved in each of their last three games (from a very low base). My concern for England is that they played their big game on Saturday, and have nothing left in the tank. Any team out of France, South Africa and England could win this now though.

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.

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.

Ah, thanks. Actually, I had never heard the phrase used in that way. I assumed it meant something nearly opposite: not posing a problem for your opponent, but just trying something out (as if asking yourself "can I do this?").

As a certain poster/mod would say:

What can brown do for you?

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.

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: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.

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.

Good luck.

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?

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.

UK Skins Fan wrote:

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?

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.

Tiddlywinks anyone?

JSPB22 wrote:.. Tiddlywinks anyone?

Most NFL players who are mean't to know how to tackle someone could learn some tackling skills from rugby players.
All rugby players (not just certain defensive players) have to learn how to tackle (and strip the ball if possible) and bring someone down to the ground hard (without the benefit of protective equipment or armor like the NFL players wear)

Congratulations UK!

YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!


Mental fortitude, my friends, mental fortitude. I felt pretty comfortable about the match-up against France, because England knows how to beat them, plain and simple. France came into the game off of that huge win against the All Blacks, and suddenly they are the favourites. That's a tag that just doesn't sit well with them, and they are always likely to come up short. Having said that, they still played a heck of a tough game, and were not exactly outplayed by England. But England were able to turn this game into exactly what they wanted, a tough brutal game of possession and field position.

I am under no illusions here. Four years ago, England were clearly the best team in the World. This time around, they have reached the final by sheer will power, and playing purely to the strengths that they have. If I was a neutral (or an Aussie or Frenchman), 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? This is the rugby union equivalent of smashmouth, grind it out power football. And I love it. There are 15 players on the pitch for a reason, and if your strength is in the eight forwards, why wouldn't you use that?

It doesn't matter to me who England play in the final. This team has come so far that they can beat anybody. I still wouldn't make them the favourites in the final if South Africa get through the second semi final, but England are not about to roll over and die like they did a month ago against that same team.

And don't rule out Argentina in the second semi either. They have similar strengths and limitations to England, and can win if they succeed in doing what England did yesterday.

I'm one proud Englishman this morning. And yes, I do feel accursed I was not there.

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here"

Certainly time to quote Shakespeare.

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?

You can say that again and again.
You did not mention the value of having good kickers in your team. If Susham falters in the future ... naaaaahhhh!