New Zealand v England 3rd test & the 2nd test review

by blackcanelion Sun 15 Jun 2014, 7:23 am

First topic message reminder :

1000 posts and the 2nd test thread is blocked time to move onto the 3rd test in Hamilton.

What are England's chances of securing a win?
Could NZ win convincingly?
Will it be close again?
Who will play?
How much will the referee affect the game?

Let the banter begin..................

Oh, and feel free to discuss test's 1 and 2.

by sickofwendy Thu 19 Jun 2014, 7:26 pm

Just read that Corey Jane has broken the record for being nz oldest ever winger

by englandglory4ever Thu 19 Jun 2014, 7:52 pm

SL is showing clear signs of muddled thinking. He still has no idea who is his best 12.

Its true that 36 had a poor game. To drop him now should mean 36 has been sidelined for good or it is panicky thinking by the coaches.

Also to not select Lawes and big Billy last week was another example of muddled thinking. To leave your best players on the bench in the hope they will make a match winning impact is stupid. You should always start with your strongest team. The game could be over by the time the subs come on.

by Taylorman Thu 19 Jun 2014, 8:08 pm

sickofwendy wrote:Just read that Corey Jane has broken the record for being nz oldest ever winger

...and its showing... Sad

by sickofwendy Thu 19 Jun 2014, 8:17 pm

Apparently he hasn't been dropped,he is injured and always was which poses a whole heap of questions
1:why risk him when we had other options
2:does Lancaster not have faith in other options
3:was he seen as integral to the gameplan
4:was he risked because of doubts over farrells fitness

by quinsforever Thu 19 Jun 2014, 8:25 pm

dont mean to re-quote myself, but i was fairly vehement as soon as i watched sarries lose to toulon, that farrell was injured and needed a break, billy v needed a break, and i would also have not risked players carrying injuries (ie care and 36) on an AB tour and instead given them all the summer off to rest and get 110% right.

instead we have undermined our own confidence in those players by playing them when they were certainly below 100%, and failed to give other players a proper shot at 3 or 4 straight matches...burns/cips, youngs/dickson, morgan, eastmond, etc. and also given the ABs a boost by them beating our best lineup, more or less, who werent at 100%.

by Taylorman Thu 19 Jun 2014, 10:52 pm

Agree with Hansen here. I think he's generally outsmarted SL in getting them to go wide in this series. Suits us down to the ground. Be interesting if they try the same this weekend. I think theyve lost confidence. And with Read out there amongst the highlanders Smith x2, Nonu and Fekitoa...feels ominous now I have to say...

9, 10 and 12 really look fragile- just can't say it enough. Young's out of form and 7 tests between the other two... Other than the first test I don't remember when a major side has taken on the AB's with that sort of inside combo.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11277546

by quinsforever Thu 19 Jun 2014, 11:17 pm

laughable. the fact you even paste that cycloptic article here reveals more about you than it does about Hansen or SL.

i think you will find that 9, 10 and 12 look the same as they did in the first test, except they've got their first game under their belts playing together.

Read should retire from rugby. anyone who is having concussion related issues 8 weeks after an incident should not be allowed to play rugby again. the fact you rejoice at his playing is also pretty tawdry. and if he gets run over by billy v and goes into a coma? that is not something that should be allowed to happen to Read or anyone he plays against.

as far as the scoreline, done worry, without smith in the middle, and with jane "out wide", where Hansen is trying his mindgames again to stop England targeting, there are going to be plenty of tryscoring opportunities.

by sickofwendy Thu 19 Jun 2014, 11:47 pm

Articles like that just confirm to me that England have won a bit of respect whether admitted or not.
We are running them close and with better tactics and execution we may be level or better but alas we are not
Everyone is banging on about NZ's magic 30 minutes of which 10 England were down a man and twelvetrees gave possession away to lose us the momentum,that we came back and scored twice says something about the squad.
In the first test with 5 minutes left and England with possession in NZ half we give the ball away and fail to clear and NZ score,small margins.
NZ are a great side,one of the best ever but for large periods in both matches so far England have matched or even bettered them.
I'm sure in private Hansen is seething about leaking those late tries last week because it showed that you may have beaten us but we are far from beaten.
Can't wait for saturday

by robbo277 Fri 20 Jun 2014, 12:06 am

Cowshot wrote:NZ as usual favourites imo. A lot of shattered Englishmen out there. We'll do well to stay within a score and 18 or more wouldn't surprise me, but I'm still hoping we'll manage a win.

Do I think it will affect our belief that we can beat the All Blacks? No. We know that the ABs at full throttle WILL score. That's never been in doubt. But we had our chances in this series and may do again tomorrow and we all know it. We also know this has been a mess of a tour and we will get better. A lot of good has come out of this tour in terms of the B and C and even D side players putting their hands up and the experience alone has been valuable for many of these young players.

It may seem odd to NZers, used to a steady diet of victory, that we can be so positive about a (likely) 3-0 defeat, but we're used to our team playing dreadfully and then getting to a WC Final. We've been amazingly erratic over the last decade, so anything that looks like steady progress is wildly exciting. We also have a sort of idea of what it takes to beat ABs in NZ - the 2002 side laid down a benchmark - and this side isn't there yet. But I do think it has the talent to get there and nowadays, a good structure to support the talent.

You may be positive about a 3-0 defeat, but I definitely wouldn't be. The players went down looking for a series win, failing that a test win would have been a satisfactory return. Failing in all 3 tests would not show any progress, it would just show that Lancaster's England has once again failed to cross the line. A good team moving forward, but seem to be losing the game that matters each series.

I think England have a real chance of winning this third test, just as they did the previous two. But if we lose this one as well can we call ourselves valiant losers (again), or do we just admit that we aren't quite at their level?

by Taylorman Fri 20 Jun 2014, 12:07 am

quinsforever wrote:laughable. the fact you even paste that cycloptic article here reveals more about you than it does about Hansen or SL.

i think you will find that 9, 10 and 12 look the same as they did in the first test, except they've got their first game under their belts playing together.

Read should retire from rugby. anyone who is having concussion related issues 8 weeks after an incident should not be allowed to play rugby again. the fact you rejoice at his playing is also pretty tawdry. and if he gets run over by billy v and goes into a coma? that is not something that should be allowed to happen to Read or anyone he plays against.

as far as the scoreline, done worry, without smith in the middle, and with jane "out wide", where Hansen is trying his mindgames again to stop England targeting, there are going to be plenty of tryscoring opportunities.

Quins, I have stopped the personal comments. That is my view and I am entitled to it. If you read your posts about our 'lame' excuses how is it now that you are able to list every excuse under the sun and not be considered 'lame' what is it:

'this one needed a break, this one wasnt over an injury, this one was tired, this one was blah blah.

Talk about lame, thats all youve posted since.

I'm not worried about anything. and if you think the inside 3 will have a good game 'because they played well in the first test' then you 'simply do not know All Black rugby".

That is all I have for your endless quivering. Enjoy the match. My prediction is 18 plus. Do you have one or do you just have a barrell of excuses?

by sickofwendy Fri 20 Jun 2014, 12:26 am

robbo277 wrote:
Cowshot wrote:NZ as usual favourites imo. A lot of shattered Englishmen out there. We'll do well to stay within a score and 18 or more wouldn't surprise me, but I'm still hoping we'll manage a win.

Do I think it will affect our belief that we can beat the All Blacks? No. We know that the ABs at full throttle WILL score. That's never been in doubt. But we had our chances in this series and may do again tomorrow and we all know it. We also know this has been a mess of a tour and we will get better. A lot of good has come out of this tour in terms of the B and C and even D side players putting their hands up and the experience alone has been valuable for many of these young players.

It may seem odd to NZers, used to a steady diet of victory, that we can be so positive about a (likely) 3-0 defeat, but we're used to our team playing dreadfully and then getting to a WC Final. We've been amazingly erratic over the last decade, so anything that looks like steady progress is wildly exciting. We also have a sort of idea of what it takes to beat ABs in NZ - the 2002 side laid down a benchmark - and this side isn't there yet. But I do think it has the talent to get there and nowadays, a good structure to support the talent.

You may be positive about a 3-0 defeat, but I definitely wouldn't be. The players went down looking for a series win, failing that a test win would have been a satisfactory return. Failing in all 3 tests would not show any progress, it would just show that Lancaster's England has once again failed to cross the line. A good team moving forward, but seem to be losing the game that matters each series.

I think England have a real chance of winning this third test, just as they did the previous two. But if we lose this one as well can we call ourselves valiant losers (again), or do we just admit that we aren't quite at their level?

We might not be at their level yet but we are not far away,England are the only team to beat them in nearly 3 years and this series has shown us where we are lacking:
Decision making and execution

by yappysnap Fri 20 Jun 2014, 6:55 am

lostinwales wrote:Having all these options is however a perfect opportunity for lots of 'I told you so' threads when it goes wrong.

I love those threads!!

Got my next Tom Wood one all planned out for Sunday... Wink

by yappysnap Fri 20 Jun 2014, 7:14 am

sickofwendy wrote:
robbo277 wrote:
Cowshot wrote:NZ as usual favourites imo. A lot of shattered Englishmen out there. We'll do well to stay within a score and 18 or more wouldn't surprise me, but I'm still hoping we'll manage a win.

Do I think it will affect our belief that we can beat the All Blacks? No. We know that the ABs at full throttle WILL score. That's never been in doubt. But we had our chances in this series and may do again tomorrow and we all know it. We also know this has been a mess of a tour and we will get better. A lot of good has come out of this tour in terms of the B and C and even D side players putting their hands up and the experience alone has been valuable for many of these young players.

It may seem odd to NZers, used to a steady diet of victory, that we can be so positive about a (likely) 3-0 defeat, but we're used to our team playing dreadfully and then getting to a WC Final. We've been amazingly erratic over the last decade, so anything that looks like steady progress is wildly exciting. We also have a sort of idea of what it takes to beat ABs in NZ - the 2002 side laid down a benchmark - and this side isn't there yet. But I do think it has the talent to get there and nowadays, a good structure to support the talent.

You may be positive about a 3-0 defeat, but I definitely wouldn't be. The players went down looking for a series win, failing that a test win would have been a satisfactory return. Failing in all 3 tests would not show any progress, it would just show that Lancaster's England has once again failed to cross the line. A good team moving forward, but seem to be losing the game that matters each series.

I think England have a real chance of winning this third test, just as they did the previous two. But if we lose this one as well can we call ourselves valiant losers (again), or do we just admit that we aren't quite at their level?
We might not be at their level yet but we are not far away,England are the only team to beat them in nearly 3 years and this series has shown us where we are lacking:
Decision making and execution

Just remember we're giving away about 300 caps (edit i have no idea the actual number but with one player at over 50 caps it's going to be a lot!), so to have run them so close twice is an incredible achievement. If we lose tomorrow but play well I won't mind.

To my mind this tour is a season or two too early to expect a series win. We must expect to win in the Autumn though, home wins are far more important now as we try to turn Twickenham into a fortress for the RWC.

by Geordie Fri 20 Jun 2014, 7:21 am

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:An interesting conundrum for England now to overcome is with all this depth in the team, it will be difficult to forge solid combinations, as the temptation to dabble with partnerships is great, particularly if the team finds itself unable to perform consistently.

To date with England, this hasn't been an issue. Injury has forced the changes from SL more often than not but the time is coming where these players will settle down and start to accumulate caps and inevitably that means certain players start missing out on selection. It's great to have this much depth but it's impossible to accommodate all of them. Eventually you have to narrow that list down and that's when you need to have made the right choices.

In all honesty i think Lancaster does have a 1st choice lineup that if possible he would look to play. BUt these are constantly hampered by injuries of cup / league finals

Indeed i would say his forwards pick themselves when fit.

The problem has been the backs and he has been plagued by loss of form or injury.

by Guest Fri 20 Jun 2014, 7:25 am

Is SL foxing by playing different styles in each test to keep teams guessing? Probably a good way to practice what works and what doesn't to come up with a hybrid on the big stage. Or was T2 really the New England?

by Geordie Fri 20 Jun 2014, 7:34 am

That article just says to me the AB's are in danger of becoming the more ungracious winners than the Aussies. Confidence is essential...but arrogance isnt a good thing.

by HammerofThunor Fri 20 Jun 2014, 7:43 am

Is Gregor Paul an All Black? I thought he was Scottish. It pisses me off when people equate Media with 'England'. No reason it shouldn't be the same for the All Blacks.

We couldn't play at that pace. We tried offloads to keep it going and we couldn't. We weren't to compete at the breakdowns at that pace, couldn't arrive and keep their feet, etc. So what Hansen said was fine.

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri 20 Jun 2014, 7:52 am

Quins Read is in the same medical hands as Richie McCaw and Conrad Smith who both suffered serious concussion cases. I prefer their expert opinion to yours on whether Read is fit to play.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 20 Jun 2014, 8:18 am

Well Parling out injured and Lawes in. Lawes/Launchbury can go on to one of Englands best lock pairings for me so hopefully Launchbury can raise his game a bit and show it.

by emack2 Fri 20 Jun 2014, 8:18 am

Forget the hype,and the soundytes ifs,buts,and maybes, if history means anything in these series of June games the third is a blowout.
In my opinion England or any teams chance to win in NZ is the First test,both sides have
a lot to prove.
Seven or eight changes in any team no matter how well they played before for club,
test,or in training is a lot.
England selection is almost last man standing one at the moment as opposed to
fine tuning the squad for RWC.
NZ changes one forced one anticipated maybe a bit risky but there is adequate bench
cover except at Lock.
Read has been well managed by the medical team soon as any thing risky he will be
off and benched forever if that`s what it takes.[McCaw had concussion problems
couple of seasons a go]
Tuilagi is very dangerous but not well utilized,better he commit a tackler then
pass to faster supports.
Aron Smith is the area I`d target hit him early,late,anytime without the ball
you can`t score.
Kick not down the throat but stitch up the touchline and trust your lineout.
IF Nz are behind heavily they don`t care there comfortable they can claw
back about 20 points.Either side of half time and last 5 minites or so are
the danger times.
Prediction NZ by 1-10

by Jimpy Fri 20 Jun 2014, 8:18 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:That article just says to me the AB's are in danger of becoming the more ungracious winners than the Aussies. Confidence is essential...but arrogance isnt a good thing.

Arrogance isn't a bad thing either.... arrogance = self belief. A great deal of those in sport at the top of their game dispaly degrees of arrogance. It might not endear them to the gentle hearted, but reaching the top and staying at the top of the pile isn't a popularity contest.

by quinsforever Fri 20 Jun 2014, 8:33 am

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Quins Read is in the same medical hands as Richie McCaw and Conrad Smith who both suffered serious concussion cases. I prefer their expert opinion to yours on whether Read is fit to play.

well the rugby authorities havent exactly covered themselves in glory as far as concussion goes, so i am very happy to not have the same opinion as someone employed by the game of rugby.

by quinsforever Fri 20 Jun 2014, 8:36 am

Taylorman wrote:
quinsforever wrote:laughable. the fact you even paste that cycloptic article here reveals more about you than it does about Hansen or SL.

i think you will find that 9, 10 and 12 look the same as they did in the first test, except they've got their first game under their belts playing together.

Read should retire from rugby. anyone who is having concussion related issues 8 weeks after an incident should not be allowed to play rugby again. the fact you rejoice at his playing is also pretty tawdry. and if he gets run over by billy v and goes into a coma? that is not something that should be allowed to happen to Read or anyone he plays against.

as far as the scoreline, done worry, without smith in the middle, and with jane "out wide", where Hansen is trying his mindgames again to stop England targeting, there are going to be plenty of tryscoring opportunities.

Quins, I have stopped the personal comments. That is my view and I am entitled to it. If you read your posts about our 'lame' excuses how is it now that you are able to list every excuse under the sun and not be considered 'lame' what is it:

'this one needed a break, this one wasnt over an injury, this one was tired, this one was blah blah.

Talk about lame, thats all youve posted since.

I'm not worried about anything. and if you think the inside 3 will have a good game 'because they played well in the first test' then you 'simply do not know All Black rugby".

That is all I have for your endless quivering. Enjoy the match. My prediction is 18 plus. Do you have one or do you just have a barrell of excuses?

i havent made a single excuse for England. not one. my observations on farrell carrying an injury, care also, etc, were ENTIRELY TO DO WITH RESTING PLAYERS FOR THE WHOLE SUMMER TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE OF BEING 100% FOR RWC. I made these points about 5 weeks ago you muppet. nothing to do with playing against NZ.

by Geordie Fri 20 Jun 2014, 8:37 am

Launchbury is in for the injured Parling.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 20 Jun 2014, 8:38 am

quinsforever wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Quins Read is in the same medical hands as Richie McCaw and Conrad Smith who both suffered serious concussion cases. I prefer their expert opinion to yours on whether Read is fit to play.
well the rugby authorities havent exactly covered themselves in glory as far as concussion goes, so i am very happy to not have the same opinion as someone employed by the game of rugby.

On their way though. Don't know if anyone watched the footy last night but a uruguayan was knocked out, doc was trying to sub him and he stamped his feet and was allowed back on. Coach happy and ref happy. Nothing made of it by commentators or anyone. Bit shocking.

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri 20 Jun 2014, 8:45 am

quinsforever wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Quins Read is in the same medical hands as Richie McCaw and Conrad Smith who both suffered serious concussion cases. I prefer their expert opinion to yours on whether Read is fit to play.
well the rugby authorities havent exactly covered themselves in glory as far as concussion goes, so i am very happy to not have the same opinion as someone employed by the game of rugby.

There have been some lamentable incidents concerning concussion but as far as those 3 high profile cases I mentioned the doctors have erred on the side of caution. That is why Read did not play in the first two tests and was rested after making a brief return to S15 so your comment holds no water.

by Jimpy Fri 20 Jun 2014, 8:57 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Quins Read is in the same medical hands as Richie McCaw and Conrad Smith who both suffered serious concussion cases. I prefer their expert opinion to yours on whether Read is fit to play.
well the rugby authorities havent exactly covered themselves in glory as far as concussion goes, so i am very happy to not have the same opinion as someone employed by the game of rugby.

On their way though. Don't know if anyone watched the footy last night but a uruguayan was knocked out, doc was trying to sub him and he stamped his feet and was allowed back on. Coach happy and ref happy. Nothing made of it by commentators or anyone. Bit shocking.

Knocked out? Don't you mean 'play acting' to get a himself and his team a breather in the true manner of Wendyball gamesmanship. The mere fact that not ten minutes later he was begging to be let back on proves how slightly he was hurt in the first place. At least when a rugby player goes down, you know he's injured and not stretching the limits of acting credibility.

by Guest Fri 20 Jun 2014, 9:02 am

Quins, with respect to player welfare, Read has been rested for several weeks but an injured Farrell played last week. And you have a go at the NZRU?

by Geordie Fri 20 Jun 2014, 9:03 am

Theres a difference between head injuries / concussion and other injuries Ebop.

by Geordie Fri 20 Jun 2014, 9:05 am

Jimpy wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Quins Read is in the same medical hands as Richie McCaw and Conrad Smith who both suffered serious concussion cases. I prefer their expert opinion to yours on whether Read is fit to play.
well the rugby authorities havent exactly covered themselves in glory as far as concussion goes, so i am very happy to not have the same opinion as someone employed by the game of rugby.

On their way though. Don't know if anyone watched the footy last night but a uruguayan was knocked out, doc was trying to sub him and he stamped his feet and was allowed back on. Coach happy and ref happy. Nothing made of it by commentators or anyone. Bit shocking.

Knocked out? Don't you mean 'play acting' to get a himself and his team a breather in the true manner of Wendyball gamesmanship. The mere fact that not ten minutes later he was begging to be let back on proves how slightly he was hurt in the first place. At least when a rugby player goes down, you know he's injured and not stretching the limits of acting credibility.

Im a huge football critic in regards to the play acting...but to be fair the Uruguayan took a full knee to the head at pace...i think that one was pretty genuine.

by Guest Fri 20 Jun 2014, 9:10 am

True Geordie, that's why Read has been rested for so long and is why Dr Quin medicine man is talking out of his ring hole.

by Jimpy Fri 20 Jun 2014, 9:20 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Quins Read is in the same medical hands as Richie McCaw and Conrad Smith who both suffered serious concussion cases. I prefer their expert opinion to yours on whether Read is fit to play.
well the rugby authorities havent exactly covered themselves in glory as far as concussion goes, so i am very happy to not have the same opinion as someone employed by the game of rugby.

On their way though. Don't know if anyone watched the footy last night but a uruguayan was knocked out, doc was trying to sub him and he stamped his feet and was allowed back on. Coach happy and ref happy. Nothing made of it by commentators or anyone. Bit shocking.

Knocked out? Don't you mean 'play acting' to get a himself and his team a breather in the true manner of Wendyball gamesmanship. The mere fact that not ten minutes later he was begging to be let back on proves how slightly he was hurt in the first place. At least when a rugby player goes down, you know he's injured and not stretching the limits of acting credibility.

Im a huge football critic in regards to the play acting...but to be fair the Uruguayan took a full knee to the head at pace...i think that one was pretty genuine.

I watched it too (90 minutes of my life I wont get back) and I did at first think the incident looked pretty serious - but then had t been really serious would the guy have been begging to come back on 10 minutes later? I think not.

I actually thought at the time that England should have been getting into Uraguay like that all match because it looked like they were simply bullied all match....Uraguay were more than willing to be physical.

by yappysnap Fri 20 Jun 2014, 9:23 am

Could be a bit of luck that Launchberry is back starting, the Lawes/Parling combo was the one real area of concern for me.

Hopefully Launchberry can find enough in the tank to put in one of his trademark performances for the final test, he might find it easier playing alongside a more dynamic player like Lawes then alongside Parling.

Big test for the English lineout now though, Webber and Parling have set the bar in the these last two Tests. Now Lawes and Hartley need to beat that.

by Geordie Fri 20 Jun 2014, 9:38 am

Ah i have no worries about the lineout Yappy. They have been immense.

I just hope as you say Launchbury has one last big game in the tank before a well deserved holiday.

Also i really hope we see the real Dylan hartley as he was for Saints and in the 6n. We need his carrying and breakdown work.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:03 am

Jimpy wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Quins Read is in the same medical hands as Richie McCaw and Conrad Smith who both suffered serious concussion cases. I prefer their expert opinion to yours on whether Read is fit to play.
well the rugby authorities havent exactly covered themselves in glory as far as concussion goes, so i am very happy to not have the same opinion as someone employed by the game of rugby.

On their way though. Don't know if anyone watched the footy last night but a uruguayan was knocked out, doc was trying to sub him and he stamped his feet and was allowed back on. Coach happy and ref happy. Nothing made of it by commentators or anyone. Bit shocking.

Knocked out? Don't you mean 'play acting' to get a himself and his team a breather in the true manner of Wendyball gamesmanship. The mere fact that not ten minutes later he was begging to be let back on proves how slightly he was hurt in the first place. At least when a rugby player goes down, you know he's injured and not stretching the limits of acting credibility.

Im a huge football critic in regards to the play acting...but to be fair the Uruguayan took a full knee to the head at pace...i think that one was pretty genuine.

I watched it too (90 minutes of my life I wont get back) and I did at first think the incident looked pretty serious - but then had t been really serious would the guy have been begging to come back on 10 minutes later? I think not.

I actually thought at the time that England should have been getting into Uraguay like that all match because it looked like they were simply bullied all match....Uraguay were more than willing to be physical.

The choice shouldn't be in the hands of the player at all. He was out cold.

by Jimpy Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:16 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Quins Read is in the same medical hands as Richie McCaw and Conrad Smith who both suffered serious concussion cases. I prefer their expert opinion to yours on whether Read is fit to play.
well the rugby authorities havent exactly covered themselves in glory as far as concussion goes, so i am very happy to not have the same opinion as someone employed by the game of rugby.

On their way though. Don't know if anyone watched the footy last night but a uruguayan was knocked out, doc was trying to sub him and he stamped his feet and was allowed back on. Coach happy and ref happy. Nothing made of it by commentators or anyone. Bit shocking.

Knocked out? Don't you mean 'play acting' to get a himself and his team a breather in the true manner of Wendyball gamesmanship. The mere fact that not ten minutes later he was begging to be let back on proves how slightly he was hurt in the first place. At least when a rugby player goes down, you know he's injured and not stretching the limits of acting credibility.

Im a huge football critic in regards to the play acting...but to be fair the Uruguayan took a full knee to the head at pace...i think that one was pretty genuine.

I watched it too (90 minutes of my life I wont get back) and I did at first think the incident looked pretty serious - but then had t been really serious would the guy have been begging to come back on 10 minutes later? I think not.

I actually thought at the time that England should have been getting into Uraguay like that all match because it looked like they were simply bullied all match....Uraguay were more than willing to be physical.

The choice shouldn't be in the hands of the player at all. He was out cold.

He looked to be and I absolutely agree with you. However, the choice apparantly is with the player in Wendyball. Still couldn't have been that serious considering his subsequent miraculous recovery.

by Barney McGrew did it Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:19 am

The scary thing was that the player over-ruled the medic. Even the buffoon Blatter couldn't sanction that.

Reminds me of Monty P & the Holy Grail - "'It's just a flesh wound!"

by No 7&1/2 Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:21 am

I disagree about the seriousness. It's not determined by whether you get up straight away. The ref still has powers over player safety but the powers that be are more involved in fire fighting allegations than making changes to improve safety and the game. The rugby version is apparently still open to fiddling concusion results but it's several steps ahead at the moment.

by Geordie Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:22 am

I think he was out cold Jimpy. The reaction of his team mates showed that. Normally they dont bother whilst people are rolling around like they've been hit by a snipper in the stands.... but a few of his team mates looked very concerned in this case.

by Gunner Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:24 am

Probably wont be online before game tomorrow.
Enjoy all.
Be nice to each other eh! Lets all play nicely. Thats YOU posters!

by quinsforever Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:25 am

ebop wrote:True Geordie, that's why Read has been rested for so long and is why Dr Quin medicine man is talking out of his ring hole.

concussion damage is cumulative. you are obviously unaware of this. the rules go nowhere near far enough for me. and its a racing certainty that the rules are going to get tougher and tougher in this particular regard. long term player welfare is obviously the most important thing. check out recent nfl lawsuits and settlements if you are not aware of current developments.

go talk to a doctor about it, like i have done, and then maybe we'll discuss it.

by Guest Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:29 am

quinsforever wrote:
ebop wrote:True Geordie, that's why Read has been rested for so long and is why Dr Quin medicine man is talking out of his ring hole.
concussion damage is cumulative. you are obviously unaware of this. the rules go nowhere near far enough for me. and its a racing certainty that the rules are going to get tougher and tougher in this particular regard. long term player welfare is obviously the most important thing. check out recent nfl lawsuits and settlements if you are not aware of current developments.

go talk to a doctor about it, like i have done, and then maybe we'll discuss it.

You are pretty condescending Quins

by milkyboy Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:41 am

Quins has a point... 'punch drunk' boxers are now recognised as not the only long term sporting casualties of brain trauma. I suspect they will really tighten up on concussion injuries in many sports. However, IF the medics are following current guidelines, its hard to be critical. They're between a rock and a hard place if they do anything outside current regs:guidelines on these things.

by quinsforever Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:46 am

ebop wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
ebop wrote:True Geordie, that's why Read has been rested for so long and is why Dr Quin medicine man is talking out of his ring hole.
concussion damage is cumulative. you are obviously unaware of this. the rules go nowhere near far enough for me. and its a racing certainty that the rules are going to get tougher and tougher in this particular regard. long term player welfare is obviously the most important thing. check out recent nfl lawsuits and settlements if you are not aware of current developments.

go talk to a doctor about it, like i have done, and then maybe we'll discuss it.
You are pretty condescending Quins

that's often how it appears to the person with less information about the topic. i'm sorry if it upsets your sensibilities. but generally people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones and your comment above is not the politest i have ever read Wink

by Jimpy Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:47 am

ebop wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
ebop wrote:True Geordie, that's why Read has been rested for so long and is why Dr Quin medicine man is talking out of his ring hole.
concussion damage is cumulative. you are obviously unaware of this. the rules go nowhere near far enough for me. and its a racing certainty that the rules are going to get tougher and tougher in this particular regard. long term player welfare is obviously the most important thing. check out recent nfl lawsuits and settlements if you are not aware of current developments.

go talk to a doctor about it, like i have done, and then maybe we'll discuss it.
You are pretty condescending Quins

He is right though, perhaps it's the only way he thought he could explain it to you...

by Guest Fri 20 Jun 2014, 10:58 am

quinsforever wrote:
ebop wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
ebop wrote:True Geordie, that's why Read has been rested for so long and is why Dr Quin medicine man is talking out of his ring hole.
concussion damage is cumulative. you are obviously unaware of this. the rules go nowhere near far enough for me. and its a racing certainty that the rules are going to get tougher and tougher in this particular regard. long term player welfare is obviously the most important thing. check out recent nfl lawsuits and settlements if you are not aware of current developments.

go talk to a doctor about it, like i have done, and then maybe we'll discuss it.
You are pretty condescending Quins
that's often how it appears to the person with less information about the topic. i'm sorry if it upsets your sensibilities. but generally people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones and your comment above is not the politest i have ever read

Ok, good luck tomorrow thumbsup

by Geordie Fri 20 Jun 2014, 11:09 am

ebop wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
ebop wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
ebop wrote:True Geordie, that's why Read has been rested for so long and is why Dr Quin medicine man is talking out of his ring hole.
concussion damage is cumulative. you are obviously unaware of this. the rules go nowhere near far enough for me. and its a racing certainty that the rules are going to get tougher and tougher in this particular regard. long term player welfare is obviously the most important thing. check out recent nfl lawsuits and settlements if you are not aware of current developments.

go talk to a doctor about it, like i have done, and then maybe we'll discuss it.
You are pretty condescending Quins
that's often how it appears to the person with less information about the topic. i'm sorry if it upsets your sensibilities. but generally people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones and your comment above is not the politest i have ever read
Ok, good luck tomorrow

Oh Ebop...you call Quins condescending...then reply with that? Rolling Eyes

by andyi Fri 20 Jun 2014, 11:14 am

Realistically only the most one eyed optimist would "expect" a series win in NZ. England have only ever won twice in NZ and NZ haven't lost a series to a NH touring side since France in 1994.
England were 16/1 to win the series. That tells a story!

Winning one test would be an achievement and Running them close thus far is not to be underestimated either.

by Guest Fri 20 Jun 2014, 11:22 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:
ebop wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
ebop wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
ebop wrote:True Geordie, that's why Read has been rested for so long and is why Dr Quin medicine man is talking out of his ring hole.
concussion damage is cumulative. you are obviously unaware of this. the rules go nowhere near far enough for me. and its a racing certainty that the rules are going to get tougher and tougher in this particular regard. long term player welfare is obviously the most important thing. check out recent nfl lawsuits and settlements if you are not aware of current developments.

go talk to a doctor about it, like i have done, and then maybe we'll discuss it.
You are pretty condescending Quins
that's often how it appears to the person with less information about the topic. i'm sorry if it upsets your sensibilities. but generally people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones and your comment above is not the politest i have ever read
Ok, good luck tomorrow

Oh Ebop...you call Quins condescending...then reply with that?

Nah mate, that is me saying good night and good luck tomorrow thumbsup

by Geordie Fri 20 Jun 2014, 11:44 am

Okey dokey then Wink

by Sponsored content