Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[McLaren]

First topic message reminder :

Super

I saw the first two sets and a bit, then went out to get dinner. Wish I had stuck around to watch it.

[McLaren]

A well known term in golf actually, in fact maybe exclusively to golf.

[puligny]

Oh Darren! Better to have people think you're a fool than open your mouth and prove it!
On the other hand I reckon he was just having a laugh?

[McLaren]

This will sound like something from super, but we should maybe stop expecting our sports stars who are essentially uneducated to come out with particularly interesting or insightful comments.

[navyblueshorts]

SAF yes, Woodward, not really. All he did was win a Rugby World Cup and he's not especially inspiring, and Rugby means nothing to the Europeans.

What??? Of all the dumb comments....
Your latter bit about rugby and what it means to continental Europeans at least makes some sense.

[super_realist]

Yes Navy, What I mean is that although winning the world cup might be seen as an achievement, there are only a tiny number of countries capable of doing it.  90% of the rugby world cup is pure dross with meaningless matches, processions, embarrassing thrashings and dead rubbers, and they really ought to go straight to the QF stage instead of trying to gerrymander a competition with disinterested countries just to call it a "World" cup. Most countries in it are of an abominable standard, even worse than the drivel in the Football World Cup at that level.

[incontinentia]

Clarkson sacked!!

[super_realist]

Clarkson sacked!!  

No doubt the BBC will see this as an opportunity to shoehorn in a women in a presentation role just for "diversity"

[navyblueshorts]

Yes Navy, What I mean is that although winning the world cup might be seen as an achievement, there are only a tiny number of countries capable of doing it.  90% of the rugby world cup is pure dross with meaningless matches, processions, embarrassing thrashings and dead rubbers, and they really ought to go straight to the QF stage instead of trying to gerrymander a competition with disinterested countries just to call it a "World" cup. Most countries in it are of an abominable standard, even worse than the drivel in the Football World Cup at that level.

I take that point but to look at Woodward's career solely for the weeks of the '03 RWC is daft. He was an exceptional centre who was under-capped because he was a bit 'exciting', went and played (and coached I think) in Australia, well before any other English players were doing it and he utterly changed the whole ethos of the RFU during his time there. He took England from also rans to utter dominance leading into the '03 RWC.
I think he's a bit of an egotistical, my-way-or-the-highway, plonker much of the time, but that seems to be a common theme amongst the best sports people. He's been there, done it and made the T-shirt.

[navyblueshorts]

Clarkson sacked!!  

No doubt the BBC will see this as an opportunity to shoehorn in a women in a presentation role just for "diversity"

:yawn: Are you suggesting Suzi Perry knows nothing about motor sport, for example?

[navyblueshorts]

Clarkson sacked!!  

That's brightened up my day, it has to be said.

[super_realist]

Clarkson sacked!!  

No doubt the BBC will see this as an opportunity to shoehorn in a women in a presentation role just for "diversity"

:yawn: Are you suggesting Suzi Perry knows nothing about motor sport, for example?

I'm sure she does, but I think the entire dynamic would be changed. I can't see it working with anyone replacing Clarkson, better off canning it and starting something entirely new and different, it was already tired and contrived.

Top Gear is hardly ever about motor sport anyway, it's primarily an entertainment show played out within the car genre.

[navyblueshorts]

Clarkson sacked!!  

No doubt the BBC will see this as an opportunity to shoehorn in a women in a presentation role just for "diversity"

:yawn: Are you suggesting Suzi Perry knows nothing about motor sport, for example?

I'm sure she does, but I think the entire dynamic would be changed. I can't see it working with anyone replacing Clarkson, better off canning it and starting something entirely new and different, it was already tired and contrived.

Top Gear is hardly ever about motor sport anyway, it's primarily an entertainment show played out within the car genre.

Agreed. Time to pension it off. I'm sure it'll re-appear on Sky shortly in any case.

[super_realist]

Yes Navy, What I mean is that although winning the world cup might be seen as an achievement, there are only a tiny number of countries capable of doing it.  90% of the rugby world cup is pure dross with meaningless matches, processions, embarrassing thrashings and dead rubbers, and they really ought to go straight to the QF stage instead of trying to gerrymander a competition with disinterested countries just to call it a "World" cup. Most countries in it are of an abominable standard, even worse than the drivel in the Football World Cup at that level.

I take that point but to look at Woodward's career solely for the weeks of the '03 RWC is daft. He was an exceptional centre who was under-capped because he was a bit 'exciting', went and played (and coached I think) in Australia, well before any other English players were doing it and he utterly changed the whole ethos of the RFU during his time there. He took England from also rans to utter dominance leading into the '03 RWC.
I think he's a bit of an egotistical, my-way-or-the-highway, plonker much of the time, but that seems to be a common theme amongst the best sports people. He's been there, done it and made the T-shirt.

The suggestion of Woodward as an inspirational figure though wouldn't be due to his playing career, it would be due to his perceived success in the World Cup, for a start the foreign players wouldn't have a clue who he is, and the British guys would probably see him for what he is, an aloof, self satisfied smuggard who I doubt they could relate to, not to mention how long he's been dining off winning a tournament where there are only 4 countries capable of winning. We've produced better, more inspirational figures than him and more recently.

[McLaren]

The rugby world cup is basically a 3 team event.

[JAS]

The rugby world cup is basically a 3 team event.

So how come 4 countries have won it ???

[McLaren]

The rugby world cup is basically a 3 team event.

So how come 4 countries have won it ???

That is a strange way to look at it. In most years it is all about the Southern Hemisphere teams.

[I'm never wrong]

Clarkson sacked!!  

Not yet, click here

[Roller_Coaster]

Clarkson sacked!!  

Not yet, click here

What, you mean the media have made a mistake reporting something that hasn't happened yet...

[Roller_Coaster]

The rugby world cup is basically a 3 team event.

So how come 4 countries have won it ???

That is a strange way to look at it.  In most years it is all about the Southern Hemisphere teams.

Much as it is unusual, I'd tend towards Mac's intent here (or what I think Mac's intent is). There's usually only 1 northern hemisphere team anywhere near good enough and whichever one it is usually get's dispatched (except the last minute drop goal jobby in 2003). I'd suggest it's arguably perceived by most of the general public as being predominantly an ANZAC dominated affair despite SA winning the same amount as either Aus or NZ!

[I'm never wrong]

What, you mean the media have made a mistake reporting something that hasn't happened yet...

....or they're just reporting what they hope will happen, in order to make it happen.

[JAS]

Essentially it's a 20 team event where about 4-5 have a chance of winning but realistically when it gets to the sharp end, at least one of 3 teams will almost inevitably be in the mix. Only a closed mind would describe that as a 3 team event.

[McLaren]

Jas

If the RWC started at the quarterfinal stage would it really change the outcome? The earlier rounds just seem to dilute the event.


Would 2 groups of 4, where each team plays each other twice and then a best of 3 final not make a lot more sense. It would be a very different format to the football world cup and would be a much more interesting spectacle.

[super_realist]

I see the RWC a bit like i'd see a Darts or Snooker World Cup.

[MustPuttBetter]

The Snooker World Cup
Held at entirely random intervals and won 10 times out of 13 by a British/Irish country

[beninho]

Is there any world cup that is completely open, and not likely to be dominated by the select few.

[super_realist]

THe thing about the RWC is that there are a large number of token teams there, only there to justify it to be named a "world" cup.

Some of the teams (Georgia, Namibia, Canada etc) are so hopeless, they make San Marino, Andorra and LIechtenstein as footballing giants.

There's a case for not calling the RWC so, and just calling it the Rugby Cup of Nations or something.

[McLaren]

The rugby world cup presumably only has meaning because it is the sole chance for the southern hemisphere teams to play competitively against the best six nations teams. So why complicate matters with the duffers that super mentioned above?

[I'm never wrong]

Is there any world cup that is completely open, and not likely to be dominated by the select few.  

The World Series in baseball.

[pedro]

Is there any world cup that is completely open, and not likely to be dominated by the select few.  

The World Series in baseball.

[Roller_Coaster]

What, you mean the media have made a mistake reporting something that hasn't happened yet...

....or they're just reporting what they hope will happen, in order to make it happen.

Just on the telly now, contract not being renewed so not technically sacked, but effectively sacked.

Expect a motoring based show to appear on (probably) Sky within 12 months called POWERRRRR or something of that ilk.

[I'm never wrong]

Wonder if Captain Slow and the Hamster will carry on without him? (I think they need a third person to feed off) Or join him on his next show?

[I'm never wrong]

I've just listened to Lord Halls' statement re Clarkson. Apart from saying that Clarkson has "crossed a line", his words for him are all praise and thank you. But I note they haven't sacked him, just not renewed his contract. As Roller says, that is effectively a sacking but I just wonder if that is a legal technicality to avoid an employment tribunal, or a difficult process of sacking.
I get the impression that Clarkson has been put on gardening leave until his contract expires. (If it is a time related one. What if it was related to the number of shows he had to appear in?). Reminds me of the pre-Bosman days in football when a club held a players contract.

[JAS]

Did he actually have a "contract of employment" with the BBC or did Big JC Ltd (guess ) have a contract with the BBC to supply the services of an automotive journalist. (Clarkson)

Given that his contract is not being renewed it suggests that the arrangement is more likely to have been the latter .

[navyblueshorts]

The rugby world cup is basically a 3 team event.

WUM :yawn: Zzzzzzzzzz.....

[navyblueshorts]

Re Clarkson. Who cares? Sod off you potty mouthed, offensive berk. I'm not sure what's worse - Clarkson or the fact so many seem to support him.

[super_realist]

No problem with someone being "offensive".

[McLaren]

navy

You are ignoring the continuation of the conversation, in regards to the RWC.


As for Clarkson, it seems a rather simple case considering he seems to have physically assaulted someone.

[super_realist]

navy

You are ignoring the continuation of the conversation, in regards to the RWC.


As for Clarkson, it seems a rather simple case considering he seems to have physically assaulted someone.

Shame they didn't sack Jimmy Saville eh?

[Mad for Chelsea]

sorry but only someone who knows nothing about rugby would lump Georigia in with Canada, and both of them with Namibia.

Georgia are currently ranked above Italy, pushed Scotland very close in the last WC (lost by less than a score, can't remember the exact scoreline), and Ireland in the one before that (lost 14-10 IIRC). They're a nation on the up, and you could argue they shouldn't be too far off joining the 6N in the near future.

Canada have played in pretty much all the WCs, and won a few games, most notably beating Tonga last time around, which had rather wider repercussions for the tournament as a whole (since it meant Tonga still didn't knock France out in the group stages despite beating them, and France went on to make the final and very nearly win the thing).

Namibia are fairly rubbish, I'll give you that.

The thing is, rugby as a sport tries to be as inclusive as possible, hence making the "World Cup" a proper world-wide tournament, even if it includes a few teams who mightn't be very good now (the idea being that exposure will drive interest and playing numbers up, etc.). It's a sound strategy, and has worked pretty well (apart from Georgia, other teams like Romania and more impressively Japan are much more competitive than they used to be).

To say it's a three-man tournament is rubbish. As pointed out, England have won it (only once, but the South teams have equally only won it twice each), made several other finals, France have made three finals too, Wales, Scotland and Argentina the odd semi. Ireland are very strong at the moment, and should make the semis next year fairly easily. Overall it gets the structure of the tournament right I think (unlike say cricket which gets it hopelessly wrong).

[McLaren]

MFC

I did clarify that I accept the RWC is really about the best teams from each hemisphere being given the chance to play it each other in a competitive environment. I just don't see the need for more than 6 or 8 teams to accomplish this.

If the event consisted of NZ, AUS, SA, Ire, Wales, Eng and france would any team likely to make the quarter finals be missing?

[super_realist]

Of course Canada have played in most of the world cup, they're begging countries to be in it to make it less of a laughingstock.

England haven't made "several" finals, they've made a few, 3 specifically.

[navyblueshorts]

navy

You are ignoring the continuation of the conversation, in regards to the RWC....

Not really Mac. I just can't be bothered with it. It's a World Cup. Some people will have to get over it.
It doesn't have the pathetic attitudes and corruption of the football World Cup. Doesn't have the doping (yet!) of any athletics or cycling event. I'm sure the money will corrupt it but, for now, give me the RWC any day.

[navyblueshorts]

Of course Canada have played in most of the world cup, they're begging countries to be in it to make it less of a laughingstock.

England haven't made "several" finals, they've made a few, 3 specifically.

Oh FFS. Get over it. Your argument stinks and you're WUMming as bad a Mac normally does. Only a WUM would split hairs over "several" vs. "3".

[super_realist]

Actually, the football world cup has some pretty weak teams in it. England for one

Navy, the argument was originally that winning a singular Rugby World Cup wasn't an especially massive achievement in light of the real lack of depth and strength within it, so that was the basis for excluding Clive Woodward from any Ryder Cup role, that and half the team not knowing or caring who he is, not to mention it being yonks ago.

I don't think that's too unreasonable.

[westisbest]

sorry but only someone who knows nothing about rugby would lump Georigia in with Canada, and both of them with Namibia.

Georgia are currently ranked above Italy, pushed Scotland very close in the last WC (lost by less than a score, can't remember the exact scoreline), and Ireland in the one before that (lost 14-10 IIRC). They're a nation on the up, and you could argue they shouldn't be too far off joining the 6N in the near future.

Canada have played in pretty much all the WCs, and won a few games, most notably beating Tonga last time around, which had rather wider repercussions for the tournament as a whole (since it meant Tonga still didn't knock France out in the group stages despite beating them, and France went on to make the final and very nearly win the thing).

Namibia are fairly rubbish, I'll give you that.

The thing is, rugby as a sport tries to be as inclusive as possible, hence making the "World Cup" a proper world-wide tournament, even if it includes a few teams who mightn't be very good now (the idea being that exposure will drive interest and playing numbers up, etc.). It's a sound strategy, and has worked pretty well (apart from Georgia, other teams like Romania and more impressively Japan are much more competitive than they used to be).

To say it's a three-man tournament is rubbish. As pointed out, England have won it (only once, but the South teams have equally only won it twice each), made several other finals, France have made three finals too, Wales, Scotland and Argentina the odd semi. Ireland are very strong at the moment, and should make the semis next year fairly easily. Overall it gets the structure of the tournament right I think (unlike say cricket which gets it hopelessly wrong).

Good post.

[pedro]

Actually, the football world cup has some pretty weak teams in it. England for one

Navy, the argument was originally that winning a singular Rugby World Cup wasn't an especially massive achievement in light of the real lack of depth and strength within it, so that was the basis for excluding Clive Woodward from any Ryder Cup role, that and half the team not knowing or caring who he is, not to mention it being yonks ago.

I don't think that's too unreasonable.

[Davie]

Navy, the argument was originally that winning a singular Rugby World Cup wasn't an especially massive achievement in light of the real lack of depth and strength within it, so that was the basis for excluding Clive Woodward from any Ryder Cup role, that and half the team not knowing or caring who he is, not to mention it being yonks ago.

I don't think that's too unreasonable.

Still can't agree with this. The fact is that no matter how weak you consider the RWC, England were always going to be 3rd or 4th favourites behind the southern hemisphere sides - and don't forget it was in Australia so knocking down further their chances. Throw in at least one of France, Ireland and Wales - each of which could challenge in a RWC with a fair wind and a particularly strong team.

Woodward WAS inspirational to them. OK at the end of the day it was the 15 (or squad of 20 odd or whatever) that produced the goods - but it was still a MASSIVE achievement and the coach's contribution surely cannot be ignored. Woodward also has quite a pedigree in terms of being "inspirational" (whatever that means). Fergie was a success in being and inspirational speaker to previous RC teams ... not sure why to be honest as all he was, was a successful football manager and wine drinker

I also don't buy this "the team wouldn't know him" idea. Certainly the British members of the team would know him. So to would French and Italian players if they feature in the team. Germans, Scandinavian and Spanish may not be so familiar, but does that really matter? If someone is inspirational as a speaker and motivator, they could be Outer Mongolian for all it matters (is there an Inner Mongolia?)

Woodward would fit the bill perfectly IMO should such a speaker be needed. Personally I'm not a fan of this sort of business approach to a sporting event - but remember .. this whole conversation started with Slippy G being mooted as a potential speaker (I'm still not convinced that wasn't a joke anyway)

[pedro]

But why highlight Woodward?? I'm sure the Jamaican bobsleigh coach would fit the bill also then? Or Otto Rehhagel (who led Greece to the EC victory). It's just because you're British and know him. But objectively he doesn't stand out.

Fergie was on top (EPL & CL) for over a decade and - let's not forget - knew how to tackle complacency. (And no, I'm not a ManU fan.)

[Davie]

Why not go all the way and suggest Eddie the Eagle?

[pedro]

Why not go all the way and suggest Eddie the Eagle?

I would't be surprised if he made tons of money touring as motivational coach.

[Sponsored content]