Jump to content
rllmuk
Rex Grossman

Rugby thread (6 Nations, Heineken Cup etc)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Stigweard said:

:(

 

Well that's, that then. How a team can go out and play like they did against NZ and then not even look like that same team I'll never know. 

They Simply haven’t been allowed to play that well . Credit to SA they have been immense . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The focus will be on England being bad, but really South Africa dominated from start to finish and didn’t allow England a sniff. A few marginals went their way but nothing unjustly, just a supreme delivery on a hugely effective gameplan.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, glb said:

The focus will be on England being bad, but really South Africa dominated from start to finish and didn’t allow England a sniff. A few marginals went their way but nothing unjustly, just a supreme delivery on a hugely effective gameplan.

Definetly.

 

The second half especially, England just kept running at them and South Africa were compressing the England attack so there was no width or room to pass so it was just man after man running into a mass of bodies over and again. That's where the tries came from, by forcing England into that it gave South Africa room when turning the ball over to take advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say well done to SA. They beat us fair and square, the line outs, scrum and defense were exactly what you need in a final and we just didn't have an answer. 

 

But, we beat New Zealand, Australia and Argentina on the way to the final, I think we can hold our heads high and say we were beaten by a better team on the day. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also iirc theyre not talking about straying over the cap, they just didnt declare anything at all. If i got that right, hows that possible? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if I read it right, they're saying that all the things they did which took them over the cap, were not in fact applicable to the cap. They're helping them with investments to give them a source of income after retirement, that sort of thing. I mean, the cynical view on this is pretty obvious so it doesn't look particularly right or good to me either, though I haven't read into it in any depth. I suspect it will come down to what the lawyers can argue rather than actual morals and fairness. Presumably they can afford some pretty good ones too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.