Can Mike Tindall Count?

First topic message reminder :

"New Zealand are in good form... but they don't have a great record in the tournament. England do have a great record."

Erm.

Maybe you're not a complete lost cause.

Great White wrote:

Scoped wrote:Not a WUM. Just a hot headed poster who easy bites a baited post.

(correct use of baited, just so you know)

'Bites at a baited post'

(Correct use of grammar, oh and capitalisation, just so you know)

Unfortunately it was an incorrect use of easy. So -1.

And the semantics are clearly contradicted by reality. So -2.

*easily

Damn. See kids this is why you should check what you have written after changing your mind mid-sentence.

And wear condoms.

i heard he can make 21 if hes naked......

I can count to 144 using my fingers (I'm not from Norfolk or the West Country)

Your mum isn't also you sister is she, Thor? There are areas like that in Fife but they changed the law 6 months ago to stop brother and sister getting married.

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Your mum isn't also you sister is she, Thor? There are areas like that in Fife but they changed the law 6 months ago to stop brother and sister getting married.

Of course not. I already said I wasn't from Norfolk or the West Country.

HammerofThunor wrote:

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Your mum isn't also you sister is she, Thor? There are areas like that in Fife but they changed the law 6 months ago to stop brother and sister getting married.

Of course not. I already said I wasn't from Norfolk or the West Country.

Not fair Hammer, we stopped all that nonsense down here weeks ago!

Carpe Diem wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Your mum isn't also you sister is she, Thor? There are areas like that in Fife but they changed the law 6 months ago to stop brother and sister getting married.

Of course not. I already said I wasn't from Norfolk or the West Country.

Not fair Hammer, we stopped all that nonsense down here weeks ago!

My bad.

I did live in Bath for a year in 2000-2001. Is it contagious?

By the way, for the actual method turn you hands palm up. Use your thumb to count out the segments on each finger on one hand. 3 segments, 4 fingers gives you 12. With your other hand you count the number of 12s. I think it was originally Babylonian and their counting system was sexagesimal (base 60 rather than our base 10).

Jaysus, that's a bit much for this time of day. I don't even get depth perception till 10.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Great White wrote:Grey, you can twist comments and argue your point endlessly, it will not alter the fact that the AB are chokers. Live with it.

Chokers who've won the world cup as many times as England.

My point is not whether NZ are chokers or not. But whether England "have a great record" whereas NZ "have a bad record".

Tindall is making this claim. And I'm saying it's not true, based on simple facts based in logic and maths.

In fact, I'd even go as far as to say his statement is the kind baseless obvious WUMMery that would have been moderated under 606 rules for being provocative and based on untruths.

Perhaps he meant to say "New Zealand referees do not have a great record in the RWC, but then neither to English referees". There's something I could agree whole heartedly with.

You know for someone who always calls us the whinging poms, you sure do get through some whinging yourself!

You are such a little victim greyghost. It must be awful.
No wonder you are always feeling so sorry for yourself!

Try growing a spine dude

I'm just trying to figure out why England are so obsessed with NZ.

First they're worried NZ might be tired after the 3N.

Then they're worried about NZ's record.

Perhaps NZ is just a topic that keeps popping up in the team camp, what with some many Kiwis being there.

NZ are the best team in the world and with a RWC coming up, its hardly surprising that a journalist might ask an England player about the AB's.

Jonah Lomu commented on the Irish team. How obsessed with Ireland is he?

There are a few Kiwis in the England squad of course. I wouldnt say "some many kiwis" because it doesnt make sense, but some rather than many would be accurate.

Lastly, if you want to gain an understanding of obsessiveness then I suggest that you read through your own posting history. Its astonishing how obsessed you are with England, and to a lesser extent Wales.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I'm just trying to figure out why England are so obsessed with NZ.

I'm just trying to figure out why you are so obsessed with England.

I see Henry is getting his excuses in early, "Henry wary of New Zealand burnout". He's also obsessed with Wales, "Henry backs Wales to have edge."

Nottins you could say De Villiers is doing the same-he said his players are knackered and took them out of the 3N.

Obsessed with Wales eh? I wouldn't lose interest in a team I'd coached just because I am coaching one of their rivals.

He's just obsessed with the one thing he hasn't won with NZ yet that's all.

"Henry backs Wales to have edge."

I got the wrong end of the stick on that one then, I didn't read the article and thought Wales had called up David Evans in desperation for cover at first five eighths.

Off topic but I feel a little sad that GG has found his way on to here and is up to his old tricks slagging everything and anything English. I joined awhile back and stated that it was to be hoped that GG would have expired along with the old 606 but sadly that isn't the case.

I haven't posted much as I wanted to see which direction this forum would take first.

Ive no idea how strict the Mods are on here but it seems that this place is going in the same direction as the last one.....shame

Just how do you manage to post so much about England GG? I bet over 80% of your missives ridicule the country in which you reside.

Can Mike Tindall count....i doubt he can...he's from the wrong side of the pennines

Boooooring, and further proof that 606v2 isn't quite the upgrade we hoped it would be.

Tindall was gassing off to a journo desperate for some tub-thumping hyperbole, New Zealand are a better team than England for the vast majority of the time. There, are you happy now? Excellent.

Please.dear.God can we stop the baiting. There's a fine line between being the biggest swinging d*ck in the room and just the biggest d*ck

Thanks for that scintillating contribution.

Love the mathmatics,here SA 4 tournaments 2 finals win 100 %.Australia 6 tournaments 3 finals 2 wins 66.666%.NZ 6 tournaments 2 finals 1 win 50%
England 6 tournaments 3 Finals 1 win 33.333%.
New Zealand have actually won more RWC matches than England,and never been beaten by them in a RWC. and RWC wins stand at one each.
cut it.any way you like only SA and Aus are the only sides with a better RWC record than NZ NOT England.

England three finals, 50%, NZ two finals 33.3%. Cut it any way you want, England have a better record than NZ.

Sorry Nottins one out of 3 is 33.333 %.NOT 50 % until England can meet and beat the All Blacks in a RWC there record is inferior.
The object of the exercise is to win,second as George Gregan said is four more years.
Be honest neither record is very good,BUT with NZ there overall record is so good its a let down.With Englands well?

Where exactly did I say one out of three ? The fact is, that England have appeared in three out of the 6 RWC finals, which is 50%. New Zealand have reached two out of the six finals, which is 33.3% Yes, the objective is to win it, but if you can't even make the final, then you have 0% of winning it. NZ's record is so good that they haven't made a final since 1995 ?

I was referring NZ`s overall record since 1987,outside of RWCs ,so I say there record is poor in a RWC.I can`t be bothered to enumerate it but 31
losses total since 1996 ,and not that many 87-96.
Englands record over the same period go on astound me,?

emack2 wrote:I was referring NZ`s overall record since 1987,outside of RWCs

<cough>bollox</cough>

TheGreyGhost wrote:Thanks for that scintillating contribution.

--------------------------------------

Err, pot, kettle....

Come on GG even you must be bored of this sort of stuff now surely. Did you see Easter's comments the other day on the fact New Zealand might suffer burnout? I thought it was a pretty stupid way to poke the ABs but then i think GH came out with something which alluded to the same scheduling issue. Surely the issue you have here is not that you feel Tindall is technically wrong but that in being so he's somehow besmirched the ABs...

a) I'm pretty certain that Tindall has a healthy respect for the ABs, but it's less newsworthy to hear him quoted saying 'They're a brilliant team' - we all know that.
b) England are average, as you keep reminding us, why not let this one play out and see who is laughing at the end. My bet is on you guys.

It's depressing you can't see this for what it is - a deliberately provocative piece of journalism that has teased out a good nugget of a quote from Tindall. If this riles you i can only imagine how you're going to react when the redtops (what's left of them) start to get behind 'our brave boys' at WC time. I'd save your ire for then.

No, it;'s that he was just plain wrong. It the same silly way that a lot of English posters on here are.

England's record is virtually indistinguishable from New Zealands, it's a matter of debate and how you look at it...and yet England fans try to mock and ridicule NZ over it. It's just so ... lame, silly, illogical, wrong.

From a punter with a keyboard I can understand it, but from members of the England team? do they honestly think this way? I really hope it's just an attempted wind up, otherwise he's a daft boy indeed.

TheGreyGhost wrote:No, it;'s that he was just plain wrong. It the same silly way that a lot of English posters on here are.

England's record is virtually indistinguishable from New Zealands, it's a matter of debate and how you look at it...and yet England fans try to mock and ridicule NZ over it. It's just so ... lame, silly, illogical, wrong.

From a punter with a keyboard I can understand it, but from members of the England team? do they honestly think this way? I really hope it's just an attempted wind up, otherwise he's a daft boy indeed.

Look, that's the point i was clearly making above. No, they probably don't honestly think this way, ok Tindall isn't the sharpest tool in the box but i don't think he thinks the Kiwis will magically crumble at home at a WC. I could be wrong of course, but why do you constantly race to assume the worst i.e. all England players (and probably fans) think the AB WC record is terrible compared to England's and what a terrible insult this is rather than the likely i.e. this is a piece of opportunistic journalistic baiting an England player to say something provocative about the home team and favourites. You've lived here, you know our press always talks up our chances ridiculously. You should also know most of us don't share the same views and are a little more constrained with our expectations.

Your a proud Kiwi ,we get it, you're proud of the ABs, rightly so - but rushing to defend them at every perceived slight comes across as incredibly precious mate.

So in answer to the original question. No, i don't think Tindall can count

As long as they keep saying stupid things, I'll keep commenting on it.

TheGreyGhost wrote:As long as they keep saying stupid things, I'll keep commenting on it.

Think you better be prepared to be on this 24/7 then GG. It always amazes me how little media training a lot of the England lads seems to have. As a person who's been in PR (i know, i know) i regularly shake my head at the lack of media savvy of England players. No doubt it plays into the concept that rugby has a nice Corinthian attitude and players are more open and frank, but the RFU press team must have kittens when they hear some of the comments...or maybe not, anything to sell a few shirts eh.

TheGreyGhost wrote:As long as they keep saying stupid things, I'll keep commenting on it.

and I'm certain that the AB players really appreciate you bravely weeping tears, hurling biggoted insults, and winding yourself up into a frothing nonsenical rage in their defence. You should get a medal in a televised ceremony so the whole of NZ can see how you have sacrificed your sanity for your heroes...

TheGreyGhost wrote:As long as they keep saying stupid things, I'll keep commenting on it.

I think it is the exact same reasoning that sees us respond to you... you seem to spend an awful lot of time saying things that turn out not to be true, even about your "home" country as we saw yesterday - knowing the head of state is pretty basic.

On reflection should`nt really be dragged into this thread but I started it so i`ll finish.
Matches overall England versus France 54.26 %[79.41]
Scotland 53.13% [92.86%]
Ireland 56.45% [95.83]
Argentina 66.67%[92.31%]
Australia 40%[67.86%]
New Zealand 17.65%[79.41]
South Africa 37.5%[55.56]
Wales 45.83%[66.67%]
figures in parentheses are All Blacks equivalent.
RWCs New Zealand p 36 w 30 l 6 83.33%
England p35 w 25 l10 71.43 %
" cough[Bollox]cough" ?
Nottins your name is CYRIL and I claim my £5-

On reflection Tindalls comment was an ill informed sound bite,as demonstrated above. Three RWC final not withstanding,I should`nt have risen to the bait but I did.
As an Anglo-Scot i also care for them after the All Blacks,I dislike RWC`s because many people consider them THE only matches that count.
Dumbing down established tournaments with weakend side disgusts me in search of a trophy 2007 was a bad precedent,though it may have been practiced before.
England are moving in the right direction,developing depth at A and Junior level.
Martin Johnson quite legally has packed his squad with Overseas players all qualfied under IRB rulings fine.
I don`t know how large the squad is and if it will be trimmed down.,I have read that many Dissenters have no problem with these players being picked,
But that in several cases players coming through the England Academy style system are as good or better than the Overseas players picked.
I do not care about how NZ or England do in the RWC,I do care passionately that both sides continue to improve.
If you want an informed opinion on recent England results vSH sides,I consider both Australian matches away were lost.England did`nt deserve to win that second test and but for a goal Kicker missing a sitter in front of the posts would have.
Englands 6Ns performance and the AI win v Oz were good,v NZ and SA not so good.IF England reach a final and the other side is France or Australia I would give them a 45% chance of winning. Versus NZ or SA no chance at all.

snoopster wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:As long as they keep saying stupid things, I'll keep commenting on it.

I think it is the exact same reasoning that sees us respond to you... you seem to spend an awful lot of time saying things that turn out not to be true, even about your "home" country as we saw yesterday - knowing the head of state is pretty basic.

You guys really make me laugh. You think if you just keep claiming black is white is will eventually be true (although in the case of England's new kit that is becoming the case as England slowly metamorphose into New Zealand).

You sit over here in England and think you know everything about New Zealand politics and history. And your only evidence is something you googled up on the internet. It's so....British.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

snoopster wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:As long as they keep saying stupid things, I'll keep commenting on it.

I think it is the exact same reasoning that sees us respond to you... you seem to spend an awful lot of time saying things that turn out not to be true, even about your "home" country as we saw yesterday - knowing the head of state is pretty basic.

You guys really make me laugh. You think if you just keep claiming black is white is will eventually be true (although in the case of England's new kit that is becoming the case as England slowly metamorphose into New Zealand).

You sit over here in England and think you know everything about New Zealand politics and history. And your only evidence is something you googled up on the internet. It's so....British.

This has gone way off topic and now has absolutely nothing to do with rugby. If you want to talk about the respective WC records of New Zealand and England and the ill-informed comments of rugby players, great. If you want to point score and slag off 60 million people on the back of a few internet posters, please think about how ludicrous that is.

I'm not trying to take the moral high ground, i'm sure i've done the same on occasion, but 606v2 was meant to get rid of this sort of stuff.

So, on rugby, i think Tindall's comments are interesting in so much as these comments always pop up at WC time but rarely in other years. I'd put a bet on that there is at least one international player who is quoted as saying the ABs 'choke' at world cups. Probably a player in a team that subsequently loses to them. Surely it's all par for the course, and in a way part of the fun of the WC build up?

Will someone remove this idiot GG or what?

emack2 wrote:On reflection Tindalls comment was an ill informed sound bite,as demonstrated above. Three RWC final not withstanding,I should`nt have risen to the bait but I did.
As an Anglo-Scot i also care for them after the All Blacks,I dislike RWC`s because many people consider them THE only matches that count.
Dumbing down established tournaments with weakend side disgusts me in search of a trophy 2007 was a bad precedent,though it may have been practiced before.
England are moving in the right direction,developing depth at A and Junior level.
Martin Johnson quite legally has packed his squad with Overseas players all qualfied under IRB rulings fine.

Packed? How many players is that then? Are you including people who came over as kids? If not then Botha, Wauldrum, Hape, Fourie and Flutey. So that's 5 out of 45, is that really your definition of packed?

I don`t know how large the squad is and if it will be trimmed down.,I have read that many Dissenters have no problem with these players being picked,
But that in several cases players coming through the England Academy style system are as good or better than the Overseas players picked.

Who? There are plenty of arguments over players regardless of how they qualified. People usually think someone's a world beater after a couple of good months.

I do not care about how NZ or England do in the RWC,I do care passionately that both sides continue to improve.
If you want an informed opinion on recent England results vSH sides,I consider both Australian matches away were lost.England did`nt deserve to win that second test and but for a goal Kicker missing a sitter in front of the posts would have.

Wilkinson missed an easy kick as well. Does that not count? If a side picks a kicker who is unreliable but better in open play can they then say they didn't really lose if he misses any kicks? Does it work the other way "We won really because we went with a steady eddy at 10 and he didn't create anything"?

Englands 6Ns performance and the AI win v Oz were good,v NZ and SA not so good.IF England reach a final and the other side is France or Australia I would give them a 45% chance of winning. Versus NZ or SA no chance at all.

ALL the players are qualified by birth residence or whatever I have NO problem with that.
I do not profess to watch or be an expert on the English club scene,I am repeating comment from various websites and former England players.
obviously a squad that size wil be pared down.
I want England to do well, but I genuinely think this RWC is to early for most of the England squad.
IF the All Blacks don`t win the RWC I would love to see England or Scotland win it.
But at the present time i don`t think either will,an SA v Aus seems most likely to me.

emack2 wrote:ALL the players are qualified by birth residence or whatever I have NO problem with that.
I do not profess to watch or be an expert on the English club scene,I am repeating comment from various websites and former England players.
obviously a squad that size wil be pared down.
I want England to do well, but I genuinely think this RWC is to early for most of the England squad.
IF the All Blacks don`t win the RWC I would love to see England or Scotland win it.
But at the present time i don`t think either will,an SA v Aus seems most likely to me.

emack, think you're right. I suspect we're a bit undercooked and it remains to be seen if some of the promising younger players really do fulfil their potential. Cheers on making us your joint second team though! A rare thing indeed.

We're a decent-ish side about the level of Ireland and France. Ireland have a more settled side and I think they're generally better than us (obvious they keep beating us over and over but I mean in general). We're capable of playing well if every happens to click on the day but no where near consistent enough. Maybe the world cup will be the needed experience for our more junior players and then we can the replace the not-so-goo-but-experienced players with talented inexperienced players

TheGreyGhost wrote:"Tindall says coming down under holds no fear for England. He believes England's pre-World Cup success against the All Blacks in 2003 was instrumental to their title triumph."

He must be suffering from a knock to the head surely, or just has problems with rudimentary logic, perhaps the journalist could have used some ground-breaking journalistic skills and asked a question like.."but Mike, you didn't beat NZ last year."

Odd thing for a bloke to say who has lost six in a row.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

snoopster wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:As long as they keep saying stupid things, I'll keep commenting on it.

I think it is the exact same reasoning that sees us respond to you... you seem to spend an awful lot of time saying things that turn out not to be true, even about your "home" country as we saw yesterday - knowing the head of state is pretty basic.

You guys really make me laugh. You think if you just keep claiming black is white is will eventually be true (although in the case of England's new kit that is becoming the case as England slowly metamorphose into New Zealand).

You sit over here in England and think you know everything about New Zealand politics and history. And your only evidence is something you googled up on the internet. It's so....British.

And again - lost the argument so you lash out with nasty bigotry

TheGreyGhost wrote:

snoopster wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:As long as they keep saying stupid things, I'll keep commenting on it.

I think it is the exact same reasoning that sees us respond to you... you seem to spend an awful lot of time saying things that turn out not to be true, even about your "home" country as we saw yesterday - knowing the head of state is pretty basic.

You guys really make me laugh. You think if you just keep claiming black is white is will eventually be true (although in the case of England's new kit that is becoming the case as England slowly metamorphose into New Zealand).

You sit over here in England and think you know everything about New Zealand politics and history. And your only evidence is something you googled up on the internet. It's so....British.

So, who in your little dream world is the head of state of New Zealand ?

Graham Henry.

Correct. And Ritchie McCaw when Henry is on the toilet or out of the country on holiday.

New Zealand - 2 finals
England - 3 finals.

3>2. Shouldn't Tindall be studying at Oxford?