England V Wales Coverage

First topic message reminder :

...is 23 seconds old and we've revisited Jonny Wilkinson's 2003 final drop goal.

Twice.

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's odd to see "England" and "fell by the wayside" in the context of 2003, rather than the more traditional context of everything that transpired post 2003.

Surely you mean NZ "fell by the wayside" in every RWC since 1987 ? One final in all that time comparec to other sides who've managed it more than once ? And some whio have managed it 3 times. There, there, never mind.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Nottins
I cant remember Carlos Spencer playing for Wellington,....
Horowhenua and Auckland yes,

Sorry, what is your point ? Where did I say Spencer played for Wellington ? In fact where did I even mention Wellington ?

I think you are alone in expanding your definition of "couldn't live with" to include teams that they didn't actually play. The expression itself when correctly used evokes the imagery of a very dominant performance against humbled opposition, even at the peak of their powers England merely managed two hard fought close victories against NZ, one against a development side.

you said "in 2003 England were in their pomp and no one could live with them. Including NZ inside and outside the RWC".

Now this is clearly wrong since NZ didn't play England either inside or outside the RWC in 2003. But following the RWC NZ did play a two match series against England which NZ comprehensively won 36-3, 36-12. I guess England just couldn't live with them...

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Now this is clearly wrong since NZ didn't play England either inside or outside the RWC in 2003.

England played NZ on 14th June 2003. So, it's you that's clearly wrong. Again.

But not when ranked #1 as we'd established. Unless you are saying the height of their "pomp" was when they weren't ranked #1?

You can't have it both ways Nottins.

Please enlighten me to all of these mysterious times were England were in their "pomp" that NZ "couldn't live with England" ?

I still thought the game in June 2003 was played in Wellington.

TheGreyGhost wrote:But not when ranked #1 as we'd established. Unless you are saying the height of their "pomp" was when they weren't ranked #1?

You can't have it both ways Nottins.

Please enlighten me to all of these mysterious times were England were in their "pomp" that NZ "couldn't live with England" ?

Where did I say England were at the height of their "pomp" in 2003 and that NZ "couldn't live with England" ? It appears that you really should get your facts right before you continue your incessant wumming.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I think you are alone in expanding your definition of "couldn't live with" to include teams that they didn't actually play. The expression itself when correctly used evokes the imagery of a very dominant performance against humbled opposition, even at the peak of their powers England merely managed two hard fought close victories against NZ, one against a development side.

you said "in 2003 England were in their pomp and no one could live with them. Including NZ inside and outside the RWC".

Now this is clearly wrong since NZ didn't play England either inside or outside the RWC in 2003. But following the RWC NZ did play a two match series against England which NZ comprehensively won 36-3, 36-12. I guess England just couldn't live with them...

Nottins has butted his nose into the debate I was having with you, Greyghost. I used the phrase "England in their pomp" - no point in asking someone else to defend it. And you've quoted me incorrectly, which may be leading to your failure to comprehend my point. I said: "England in 2003 were in their pomp with whom no team could live, including New Zealand - both inside and outside the RWC." I included NZ in the statement along with other teams they had played - both inside and outside the RWC in 2003." Your re-writing of what I actually said changes the meaning.

I didn't mention No. 1 ranking at all. That was introduced by you. But it's a good point - England were ranked No. 1 by dint of their period of dominance and results on 9 Sep 2003. NZ were a close second and Ireland ranked a distant third.

NZ played England in Wellington in June 2003, no? And lost if I recall correctly. That's what I meant by outside the RWC. But you're right, NZ didn't play them in the RWC. Australia beat NZ to go through to the final against England and couldn't live with them - again.

I don't know why you say I'm including teams they didn't play. England had won the 6 Nations in 2003 with a Grand Slam, so none of those teams could live with them either in that period. I've used the expression correctly. And they had beaten SA, Aus and NZ in that period too as I outlined earlier. So that's 9 of the top teams in rugby who couldn't live with them in that period.

And yes, you're right. England fell apart in 2004, losing to France and Ireland in the 6 Nations and then subsequently to NZ in the two matches you cited. Clearly teams could live with England in the period that followed.

aucklandlaurie wrote: I still thought the game in June 2003 was played in Wellington.

What has that got anything to do with you saying that I said Spencer played for Wellington ?

At 10.57 pm you said that Carlos Spencer was on his home ground.

sorry 9.57

Home, as in New Zealand

Taffineastbourne wrote:Anyone read the match report in the Mail on Sunday?Who were England playing?Interesting piece of "journalism"!

Cant expect anything from a rag like that and I am sorry but if you were reading it I cant say there is much hope for you either

The only bright side is that at least the message was on topic. Skimming through the Independent coverage was also pretty depressing. The only thing our old mate James Lawton had to say on Saturday was that Tuilagi would have been sent to jail for his thump on Ashton had it occurred anywhere else.

Urm nottins... What's it like not having a social life?

nottins wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:But not when ranked #1 as we'd established. Unless you are saying the height of their "pomp" was when they weren't ranked #1?

You can't have it both ways Nottins.

Please enlighten me to all of these mysterious times were England were in their "pomp" that NZ "couldn't live with England" ?

Where did I say England were at the height of their "pomp" in 2003 and that NZ "couldn't live with England" ? It appears that you really should get your facts right before you continue your incessant wumming.

It's not about what you said Nottins frankly, because I wasn't debating this point with you at all, you merely jumped in ill-advisedly into the middle of a discussion I was having with some one else, and then tried to turn the Wales v England thread into Nottins v New Zealand. What we were discussing was the semantics of the phrase "team A couldn't live with team B". My contention is that the phrase "Couldn't live with" it is not appropriate to describe a victory by a few points, and that the phrase is better suited to a situation where one side utterly dominates the other.

And rugbydreamer I started the thread, the game is long over, there is another thread discussing next week's game. Is it really going to hurt if we have a bit of a long running discussion about something maybe a little trivial? does it really require moderation? Would you prefer if we ended this thread and started a "What does *Team A Couldn't Live With Team B* mean Thread?"

Personally The GG I would rather there not be the same old tired arguments between England and NZ cropping up all the time that just end up going round and round in circles with posters trying to score points off each other. It's incredibly tedious.

By all means start up your own thread about it if you feel you must. That argument has no place on this thread.

nottins_jones wrote:Urm nottins... What's it like not having a social life?

You tell me.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Tuilagi not penalised for blatantly tackling Shane William's head.

I wonder if he was wearing the Blue of Samoa rather than the Black of erm, England if he would have got a yellow for that?

Tackling Shane Williams head hardly counts as a high tackle does it???

Will do in future dreamer; for now just pretend I sent that to your inbox so you can consider taking action.

okie dokie

Nice work shutting down Miaow's brief incursion by the way. That was quality moderation.

Patient build up work, absorbed the ferocity of his early barrage and then clinical in the execution on the counter attack. Remarkable coordination and understanding between you and Hobo there too. Showing signs of consolidating a formidable duo. At the risk of shamelessly sucking up to a moderator, it was classic work that I think anyone could be proud of. If you can continue that form into the world cup, I think you'll be a shoe in for moderator of the tournament, at least.

lostinwales wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Anyone read the match report in the Mail on Sunday?Who were England playing?Interesting piece of "journalism"!

Cant expect anything from a rag like that and I am sorry but if you were reading it I cant say there is much hope for you either

The only bright side is that at least the message was on topic. Skimming through the Independent coverage was also pretty depressing. The only thing our old mate James Lawton had to say on Saturday was that Tuilagi would have been sent to jail for his thump on Ashton had it occurred anywhere else.

What is wrong in reading as many reports as possible about the game?Think that your judgemental standpoint speaks volumes about you.

Personal view...

Life is short and so is time - and although I think newspapers are a valuable part of our national culture there are one or 2 I for one would not miss.

For rugby coverage there are papers I might read although I have no interest in their general politics. The Mail on Sunday isnt one of them.

Arguably The Mail on Sunday in 2003 was in its pomp with whom no paper could live, including the New Zealand Herald - both inside and outside coverage of the World Cup.

rugbydreamer wrote:As delightful as it's been for me to read the petty squabbling (again) between all of you regarding England and NZ, this is in fact the England v Wales thread. Please keep it on topic if you're going to continue posting on this thread.

I agree with comment about squabbling but this is not really a Wales v England post it is GG taking the "P" out of the English media in going back to Jonny's winning drop goal in 2003 RWC just like the scoccer WC showing 1966 over and over again. It just happens the media showed England winning the RWC with a drop goal prior to a Wales RWC warm up, if it was any of the other 6N sides that won the RWC e.g., Wales it would not be shown (unlikely it will ever happen in Wales case).

Given that this is a thread about the TV coverage can I stick my oar in and say that SKY's coverage was shamelessly Anglophile and considering that they were broadcasting to a British audience couldn't they have left off the "Jam and Jerusalem" for just 90 minutes and given us a reasonable commentary on the game that was fair to both sides and discussed the merits of both teams play over the course of the game?

Some of the stuff that was said made me wanna

Was on a par with "Creamy England!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7ETRbd_GKU

Totallybiasedscarlet wrote:Given that this is a thread about the TV coverage can I stick my oar in and say that SKY's coverage was shamelessly Anglophile and considering that they were broadcasting to a British audience couldn't they have left off the "Jam and Jerusalem" for just 90 minutes and given us a reasonable commentary on the game that was fair to both sides and discussed the merits of both teams play over the course of the game?

Some of the stuff that was said made me wanna

Was on a par with "Creamy England!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7ETRbd_GKU

Isn't Sky's TV deal with England and the RFU? No surprises really.

England/RFU only agreed to play Ireland in Lansdowne on the basis that Sky got exclusive coverage - so Ireland should expect to receive the same jingoistic treatment with lots of replays from England beating Ireland in eh, eh, 2011, no 2010, no, 2009, 2007? (No that involved he who must not be mentioned) 2006?

I know! 2003 - when incidentally England were in their pomp and no one could live with them and they won the World Cup. Johnson, Moody, Wilkinson, World Cup Year, Grand Slam Year, Ireland were thrashed in Dublin to give England the elusive Grand Slam - that'll suit Sky perfectly. Must send Stuart B an email....

Pot Hale wrote:

Totallybiasedscarlet wrote:Given that this is a thread about the TV coverage can I stick my oar in and say that SKY's coverage was shamelessly Anglophile and considering that they were broadcasting to a British audience couldn't they have left off the "Jam and Jerusalem" for just 90 minutes and given us a reasonable commentary on the game that was fair to both sides and discussed the merits of both teams play over the course of the game?

Some of the stuff that was said made me wanna

Was on a par with "Creamy England!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7ETRbd_GKU

Isn't Sky's TV deal with England and the RFU? No surprises really.

Indeed, I must get down to WRU HQ and shout like a madman outside - SKY SUCKS BIG TIME! NO MORE TELLY DEALS WITH SKY!

You would have thought though that it would be polite when broadcasting to two constituent British Nations that a balanced commentary could be provided wouldn't you?

I think it'll be pictures by SKY commentary by BBC Radio Cymru this Saturday!

Ah well with any luck Scott Quinnell will take the mickey out of Dewi Morris' hilarious grasping middle england pronounciation of his own name again

The Anglocentricity of Sky's coverage wasn't a surprise. It was the same when they had the rights to England's home Five / Six Nations matches. They have a deal with the RFU, why wouldn't the coverage come from an English viewpoint? That said, I thought it was quite funny that they showed highlights of England beating Australia and New Zealand away in the build-up to the 2003 World Cup. Those matches were relevant because they were also warm-up matches, but playing Wales at home isn't quite in the same league. Still. any excuse to show them!

Agreed luckless - makes it very dissapointing that the next is to be screened on sky - that is the case isn't it?

Come on WRU you make enough money - keep it on the Beeb.

I'd take Brian Moore over Morris & Barnes ANYDAY!

Money talks, TBS. It will actually be interesting to see whether Sky's coverage on Saturday will be noticeably different considering it's a home game for Wales.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Money talks, TBS. It will actually be interesting to see whether Sky's coverage on Saturday will be noticeably different considering it's a home game for Wales.

True - unfortunately. I wouldn't bet on anything other than Barnes and Morris embarrassing themselves trying to show how English they are.

You're welsh you pair of ninnies!

All papers, just like us are biased and that's life so I guess we all have to live with it. What I did find a little disconcerting reading my wifes Mail on Sunday was the picture with a headline of Moody being helped from the field with what looked like a knee injury and a mild grimace followed by one line at the end of the article about Stoddard breaking his leg. That's just the way it goes I'm afraid; I'm sure the Western Mail made up for it