Mike Brown is a top, top bloke. The fact you’re vilifying him based on an interview moments after agonisingly losing a crucial World Cup match which England had been targetting for three years is proof yet again that you just don’t get top level sport*, fella.
[quote=“caoimhaoin, post:672, topic:20980, full:true”]Brian ashton exposed these bluffer’s today in one of the London rags. Years of dreadful coaching. The drill sergeant plague of modern sport.
[/quote]
Including the Brian Ashton years?
*Apologies for the phraseology to those offended by it.
On the contrary I think English rugby has got its coaching structures very much in order in recent years as shown by the emergence of a large number of very exciting young players.
What they’re missing is a Johnson/Dallaglio John Bull-type figure. Those figures take time to emerge. Even the Johnson/Dallaglio team coached by Woodward lost three Grand Slam deciders in a row from 1999 to 2001, were well beaten in the quarter-finals of the 1999 World Cup and were touted as serial bottlers before they showed the merit of that argument by winning the Grand Slam and the World Cup in 2003.
England may be one game away from going out of the World Cup but they’re also potentially one game away from winning the group, which they probably will if they beat Australia.
Even if England do go out on Saturday they have the nucleus of a team who will challenge very strongly in 2019.
England’s priority for a few years has been to try and make themselves hard to beat, which they have largely succeeded in doing in that whilst they are not actually that good, a team will generally feel it the next day. I doubt this will win them the WC though.
Clive Woodward makes my teeth ache, and is up there with Bono as one of the more insufferable people in the public eye. And that’s saying something.
Talented young players is not a sign of good coaching. Its a sign of a decent structure. The coaching is an element within that structure. And it also has to do with wealthy private schools paying for the children of immigrants to attend their schools due to soorting talent. Then due to underage dominance usually due to physical advantages nobody corrects their flaws or helps their decision making. When physical advantages even out at the elite level the likes of the Kiwis destroy them tactically and game management wise. Even Wales and Ireland are superior in this aspect. How many times in the last 15 years has ireland beaten a physically better and faster and more technically gifted English team?maybe 7/8 times. Thats because the irish team is smarter and better prepared mentally.
This is not solely a english rugby thing. Many sports are suffering with certain coaching methods. Technical coaches of note don’t travel up the ladder like they used to and many of the best coaches stay in obscure clubs or with underage teams. The people getting the big jobs have loads of courses done but little experience, often a high level player as well.
New Zealand and Ireland are hardly examples to be comparing favourably to England given that New Zealand are serial World Cup chokers with an inferior record to England in the competition over the last 25 years, and Ireland have never even progressed beyond the quarter-final, have crashed and burned at the group stages in two of the last four tournaments and, bar 1991, have been well beaten in all the quarter-finals they did reach.
I thought the interviewer was quite patronising and asked very inane questions, Brown gave him about the level of respect he deserved. Interviewer botched it just as much as Brown did.
Mike Browne, not a sore loser, this was his post match after the last round of this years 6 Nations
Massive credit to the French for the way they fronted up for this game and for the way they played, compared to a few other countries. Fair play to France, they played a game. I don’t need to saying anything else. Everyone knows it. It was fast paced, end to end. We played good rugby, they played good rugby. France turned up and made a game of it. They could have easily folded, so it was great to see that from them, from a spectator point of view.
I’m sorry, so your response is semantics. Taking the word “law” literally in a sporting context. Brilliant.
They completely died, blatantly, really,” said Magic vice president Pat Williams, who was general manager of the Sixers at the time. “Tanking is not new. That was the ultimate case.”
Williams points out that it was the behavior of the Rockets in the final 20 games that season that inspired the league, under the leadership of new commissioner David Stern, to put in a draft lottery and prevent teams from tanking down the stretch.
The draft is over, and the owners meeting is in June of 1984 and they are not happy,” Williams said. “The talk of the meeting is this Houston nosedive, and even though the coverage then is far from what it is today, what Houston did was enough of an eyesore for the NBA that they jumped to action — they did not put together a task force, they did not have a long, drawn-out period of careful consideration.
The FACT is it was introduced to stop tanking. You going on about its effectiveness is like you going on about its effectiveness in the RWC. Irrelevant. The intention is the point. You dancing around to justify your hatred of rugby football doesn’t change that fact.
It’s not semantics. Even if you had said rule you’d still be wrong. The lottery was introduced as a disincentive to tanking, statistically mitigating the #1 pick. Intention is grand, but its ineffective at the #1 end to the point that it might as well exist, and encourages lower-mid tier tanking to a greater extent than existed before. I didn’t enter the fray to talk shit about rugby, just to call you up on your spoofing. You’ve backtracked from definitively and sweepingly stating that American sports have anti tanking regulations/rules/laws/whatever to arguing the intention of an ineffective attempt to curb the concept in a single code.
You’re badly rattled and you’ve deviated significantly from your initial claim. Doing more or the perceived duty to do such has nothing to do with it. We’re talking about the (non)existance of anti-tanking rules, which you’ve shown to have been talking shite about. You’re clinging to the argument that the draft lottery is a rule/regulation. It isn’t. It’s the way the draft is set up (ostensibly to deter tanking, but not in reality). You can’t be in violation of the draft lottery. You can’t be punished for not following it, because compliance is mandatory.
Maybe a soothing perusal of the “quality bants” on Joe.ie will calm your troubled soul.
You can’t be in violation of the losing bonus point either. It’s aimed at encouraging teams to play to the end keeping as many games competitive. The draft lottery was set up to try and stop teams tanking to get the top pick in the draft, to try and keep as many games in a year as competitive as possible. The NFL and others have salary floors and enforced eating of bad contracts for many reasons, one being competitiveness Attempting to stop teams from taking the riches of a professional league whilst not putting out a competitive product. The NBA have fined teams for giving up on games. As I said, certainly more could be done, but there are measures there.
What does joe.ie have to do with what I have been posting? I have always called joe.ie and the people that read it, morons of the highest order. Good to see you’re resorting to reverting to discrediting tactics because you have nothing to come back with.