Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

It's more the leaving it to the last minute which is nonsense. It is appalling business practice for the buyer to do this, as the seller knows they can keep the price high.

What is the point in the window being open for two months if nothing gets done until the last day? Just make it a day long, the opposite of a DFS sale.

[GunsGerms]

Of course its not good. You should win all your home games in rugby

Not saying I disagree as I know nothing about rugby but this comment seems an odd one. Can anyone explain to me why you should win all your home games in rugby?

First of all it isnt an odd comment at all especially given England are playing the WC at home. How can they possibly win the tournament if cant win matches at home?

England are a very good team. They are ranked 3rd in the world for good reason. They have won the most games in six nations history and the only northern hemisphere side to win a world cup. If you want to compete for a world cup you have to at the very least be able to beat everyone at home particularly when the WC is at home for you. If it isnt then at the very least you will be on neutral ground so having a good home record is at the very least a good platform for a decent run.

In the lead up to the 2003 world cup Clive Woodward went a step further by targeting beating everyone away from home too. He achieved this with a very rare away series win vs New Zealand and Australia just prior to the 2003 Australia world cup. This stood England in very good stead mentally going into the '03 WC.

In rugby upsets are much rarer than other sports. If one team keeps winning against another it often becomes increasingly difficult to reverse the cycle. Wales record vs Australia is a good example. In the last 10 games the record is 10-0 to Australia even though most of these games have been very close and Wales are an excellent side. Consistently winning against Wales in Cardiff has given Australia a clear mental edge over Wales.

[GunsGerms]

Of course it's an odd one

Two teams with world rankings very close in positions 3 and 4 and he thinks a team should always win at home

Given that playing at home is an advantage when two teams of similar ability meet surely the advantage is with the home team? If you look at head to head records between all teams in world rugby practically all teams have a better home record against any given team than their away record.

[MustPuttBetter]

I get what you're saying about England being a good side etc
But I read your comment as not referring to England. Just that you (ie anyone) should win all your home games in rugby. That's why it seemed an odd comment

[Davie]

MPB - his original comment was that England would struggle as both Wales and Aus have a good record at Twickers. I just pointed out England also have a good record at Twickers and have nothing to fear, especially from Wales, against whom we have a 2:1 win ratio at home in recent years. Apparently that isn't a good enough home record

[GunsGerms]

MPB - his original comment was that England would struggle as both Wales and Aus have a good record at Twickers. I just pointed out England also have a good record at Twickers and have nothing to fear, especially from Wales, against whom we have a 2:1 win ratio at home in recent years. Apparently that isn't a good enough home record

It isnt you're right. It means the odds are against England to top their group because there is a high probability that England will lose at least one game in their group and come 2nd.

If they top the group they will likely play Scotland in the quarters. However, if they come second they will play South Africa, a team they havent defeated in Twickenham in their last 5 tests there.

If Lancaster was offered a free pass to play Scotland now are you really telling me he wouldnt take it?

[McLaren]

Only New zealand (87) and South Africa (95) have won as host nations. Is home advantage that crucial?

(home wins are 2/7)

[GunsGerms]

Only New zealand (87) and South Africa (95) have won as host nations.  Is home advantage that crucial?

(home wins are 2/7)

Yes it clearly is because only once (2007 France made the Semis) has the home team failed to make the final. Once you get to a final all bets are off due to the unique pressure and dynamics of a final and also because you are up against the best of the best.

[Davie]

Well finishing first OR second we may have to face Japan so it's all moot really.

Once you get to a final all bets are off due to the unique pressure and dynamics of a final and also because you are up against the best of the best.

Well that's possibly the most sensible thing you've said. And it's not just the final but any of the final stages. Your stats about last 6 meetings at Twickenham are fairly irrelevant given the increased importance of these games.

[GunsGerms]

Well finishing first OR second we may have to face Japan so it's all moot really.

Once you get to a final all bets are off due to the unique pressure and dynamics of a final and also because you are up against the best of the best.

Well that's possibly the most sensible thing you've said. And it's not just the final but any of the final stages. Your stats about last 6 meetings at Twickenham are fairly irrelevant given the increased importance of these games.

So I take if you were offered a free pass to play Scotland now you wouldnt take it?

For someone so sure that I'm not making sense you don't seem to be offering a lot of arguments against the points I have made.

Clive Woodward himself constantly talks about the importance of beating everyone in the lead up to the '03 world cup

Here is a piece by Will Greenwood on it where highlights the importance of England's grand slam and Aus and NZ series win before the '03 WC.

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/rugby-100-days/index.html

[Davie]

I'm dizzy. You're arguing in circles.

Of course I'd take a last 16 place against Scotland

And of course beating everyone in the lead up to '03 was important. I don't believe I've ever said otherwise.

My stance all along has been that England have a pretty good home record (though of course I'd like it to be better). You seem keen on providing links .. can you find a link to suggest that England's home form is anything other than good (though not perfect).

From what I remember of your original statistics (I can't be bothered to look back now) England have won 4 of the last 6 home matches against Wales. They were presumably all 6N matches though maybe one or two were "friendlies". That alone makes England favourites to beat Wales - though the importance of the match will probably make the last 6 games irrelevant. You also said (I think) England have won 3 of the last 6 home games against Australia. So pretty level pegging on that score (though they were presumably all autumn internationals - a far cry from the pressure of a WC match.

You've run me so dizzy now I've forgotten what we were debating

[GunsGerms]

For some reason I thought it was you who said that you would not take a bye to the quarters. looking back it was Navy.

Overall England's home form is good however, my point from the start is that unfortunately for England they have drawn two teams in their group who have a decent record in Twickenham so that doesnt help their cause because they could end up on the other side of the draw and play SA in the quarters and potentially NZ in the semis both of whom have outstanding records in Twickenham.

To make it to the final IMO England simply have to win their group and that wont be easy. They probably have one of the toughest draws of any team.

[navyblueshorts]

For some reason I thought it was you who said that you would not take a bye to the quarters. looking back it was Navy....

No, it wasn't. At least, not so explicitly. I think I implied that (or, I was trying to) that it is better to get to the 1/4s having had a tough group than getting a free ride. If the options were a) a bye or b) getting KO'd in the groups, of course I'd say take a bye. I don't think those were the options on the table though. Were they?

[GunsGerms]

Should cut straight to the quarters, too many gash games which makes the tournament far too long.

England would love to do that. Unfortuantely they have to get past Fiji, Wales and Australia in the group stages first.

No they wouldn't. They'd be half-baked when they come up against one of the big guns in a winner take all KO round.

Fair enough, thats how it read to me.

[navyblueshorts]

OK. You're right. Should have thought a bit more carefully about what I meant!

A side taking a bye and then coming up against, say, NZ or Australia in the KO stages who'd come out of a decent group workout would get panned, no matter who they were.

[GunsGerms]

OK. You're right. Should have thought a bit more carefully about what I meant!

A side taking a bye and then coming up against, say, NZ or Australia in the KO stages who'd come out of a decent group workout would get panned, no matter who they were.

Yes probably. In all likelihood I believe England will face SA or Scotland in the quarters. They may also come up against Japan or Samoa but that's unlikely.

[GunsGerms]

England's home record v Wales doesn look as good now...

Seriously though, I reckon England will still squeeze through as I fancy them to shade Australia.

[navyblueshorts]

England's home record v Wales doesn look as good now...

Seriously though, I reckon England will still squeeze through as I fancy them to shade Australia.

True, unfortunately. Intense game but, England threw that away pretty badly. No-one to blame but themselves. Huge guts and never say die from the Welsh - great win. I hope you're right re. Australia etc but they're on the up, we won't squash their pack as in the recent past and their backs are much slicker.

[GunsGerms]

The thing with Australia is they have improved their usually very creaky scrum beyond recognition. Often England are able to beat Australia by destroying their set piece. That will be very hard to do now as Oz have with the help of Argentina scrum coach Mario Ledesma one of the best scrums in the tournament. I say England will still try anyway probably with limited success.

I think England can still win though by grinding Australia down and by keeping the scoreboard ticking over with penalties. I actually think that England for the first time in a long time with the exception of Folau have the better back 3 than Australia so I can see England using cross field kicks and back moves to get the ball to the wings and try and release May, Watson and Brown.

[navyblueshorts]

Yep. Agree with all that and England have to tie in the Aussie breakaways somehow - quite a tall order but if they don't at least match Hooper et al, we may as well pack it in now.
Still, I suppose a host failing to get out of the groups had to happen sometime...

[GunsGerms]

Yeah Hooper and Pocock will be a nightmare task. Feel bad for Robshaw who may have a tough time which sucks as he has already copped a lot of flack for the Wales loss. The kickers should share the blame. A good kicker should be begging to take the kick if they believe they will get it. I also think Parling and Youngs deserve blame as when England chose to kick for a lineout they choose one of the most rudimentary lineout moves to 2 in the lineout. This was the worst decision of all because it made it so easy for Wales to drive them into touch. Such a basic call.

I still think England are going to find a way. Mainly because they are at home, its their world cup and national pride will be such that they will do anything to win. That should raise them the couple of percent they need to squeeze through somehow.

Did you see Mike Brown's wierd interview? Why did they send him out to face the media, he just comes across as a moany pants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuSQEsVgnWE

[navyblueshorts]

Gotta love Mike Brown. I mean, what in God's name do these idiot reporters expect? They ask some of the most banal questions of someone whose obviously going to be seriously peed about what had just happened. How soon after the full time whistle was that conducted? The sooner this kind of non-interview is dispensed with, the better. They never yield any insight or anything other that trite responses. Pointless.

[GunsGerms]

To be honest Brown isnt the most media savvy guy. To me he comes across as a sulk. Of course he is going to be upset but suck it up and get through it. This isnt the first time he has come across this way.

On the last day of the six nations when England were pipped to the post by Ireland he was sent out to face the media. In his interview he blamed England coming second on Scotland and Italy who didnt play as well against Ireland and Wales than they did against England.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3006594/Mike-Brown-hails-France-refusing-fold-unlike-countries-England-finish-second-Six-Nations-points-difference.html

If I was Lancaster I'd send someone else out to face the media.

[navyblueshorts]

Maybe, but those interviews and the questions asked are pathetic and a waste of time. Wish they'd dump them all together.

[Be_the_ball]

I think Lancaster knows exactly what he's doing sending Brown out. They know they're gonna get panned by the press so perhaps "get your retaliation in first" is the objective.

[westisbest]

Lets go Canada, lets have another world cup shock.

[westisbest]

Good first half.

DTH Van der Merwe is a decent player.

Looking forward to the second half.

[kwinigolfer]

Situations vacant in Sunderland and Liverpool - two poisoned chalices if ever you saw them.

[I'm never wrong]

I think Jurgen Klopp will get Liverpool, but as for Sunderland....

[kwinigolfer]

I don't think FSG have the faintest idea about Football; this isn't Boston.

As for Sunderland, who the hell makes decisions there?

I reckon Rodgers will be back in a decent job, but he'll never get a Top Four job again unless he gets a club there himself. Kinda shocked at FSG ineptitude, and a little surprised Rodgers didn't jump before he was tossed overboard.

[Davie]

Rodger's problem was he had a massively over inflated opinion of himself. Not necessarily a bad thing in the top flight of managers but he didn't really have anything to back that opinion up

[kwinigolfer]

Agree with that Davie, a little humility might have gone a long way, but no denying his good results at most of his other stops, plus arguably unlucky in '13/'14, albeit mostly with players he inherited.
But then that team was dismantled and replaced with players many of whom didn't even get to play. Did he make those decisions? Or did that ridiculous transfer committee eff it up? Five year contract for Sakho - whose idea was that??!!

Hope Saints come shopping for Lallana.

[McLaren]

Anyone who thinks Jordan Henderson is a top 10 let alone top 4 standard central midfielder doesn't warrant a whole lot of respect.


(PS lets not mention Man Utd's debacle )

[super_realist]

Situations vacant in Sunderland and Liverpool - two poisoned chalices if ever you saw them.

One yo yo club, one team living in the past. Doubt either could attract a big name to manage them

[MustPuttBetter]

Super!
Liverpool are living in the past that's true but you don't think they are a massive club who can attract a big name?! Of course they are

If I was a decent manager and had aspirations to come to England I'd jump at the chance to manage LFC right now.
Expectations could not be lower, they have the makings of a good side and clearly a tonne of money will be available in January. The only way is up for that club

[Davie]

(PS lets not mention Man Utd's debacle    )

Oh please can we?

[super_realist]

LIverpool are the perfect example of a deluded team. A team that is somewhere between 8th and 5th in the pecking order, I'm sure they could get an AVB or some oaf like that, but they're not a top team and look unlikely to ever be so.

Rodgers spent 300m, and achieved nothing at all. What could a new manager hope to do? Spend another 300m and still achieve nothing? Anyone could do that.

Lot's of teams think they are "big teams" but it doesn't matter how many "glory hunters" you have, they don't have any top players and only have a bunch of pipe dreaming sycophantic fans who think they are special.

Doesn't make them so, and doesn't give them a right to achieve anything.

[navyblueshorts]

Anyone who thinks Jordan Henderson is a top 10 let alone top 4 standard central midfielder doesn't warrant a whole lot of respect.


(PS lets not mention Man Utd's debacle    )

Oh, I think we should. Wasn't that awesome defensive midfielder Michael Carrick playing? Some player that. Nice to know you don't respect me, but I think I already knew that....

[MustPuttBetter]

Liverpool are a massive side, no doubt about that whatsoever, deluded or not (which they probably are I agree)
Yes, they are in the 5th to 8th area but could easily be higher given some good management. I doubt they can get much lower. A good opportunity for any decent manager.

Comparing what Rodgers did with his £300m is a) broadly irrelevant now, he wasn't good enough, got the sack - doesn't mean someone else couldn't spend £300m and easily turn that side into a challenging one, I can see that happening, and b) is a bit unfair, as yes he was given money but also had his 3 best players taken out of selection, probably all somewhat against his will.

[hend085]

what was his net spend?
he must have sold 150m ish of players too?

[MustPuttBetter]

Looks like he recouped £192m, so net spend from £291m laid out is £99m - over 3 years

[kwinigolfer]

Who knows who bought and who sold at Anfield?
The FSG are used to the American model of a Manager being stuck with the players others in the organization have wheeled and dealed for.
I suspect there's been a lot of that at LFC.
Also, Liverpool still arguably the second biggest worldwide fan base of the British clubs, market potential is huge.

[hend085]

as far as i know Liverpool operate with a transfer committee. Brendan was a member of it but didn't have the casting vote.

[pedro]

Of course super is wumming. LFC is huuge outside UK. They have reasonable chances of playing CL and tons of money. Most players or managers would love going there. Main obstacle is, as Gerrard writes in his book, that their WAG's would prefer London, Paris etc..

[super_realist]

They aren't anywhere near as big as they think they are, they might have a lot of plastic fans, but so do tinpot deadbeat teams like Celtic and Rangers, and no one wants to go there either.

No footballer in the prime of their career with ambitions to win big tournaments like the League or Europe would go anywhere near Liverpool, so someone like Rodgers is about the level for a team like Liverpool. They don't deserve big managers or big players simply because half of Thailand consider them something worth buying counterfeit shirts and watching on a hooky sky link.

Liverpool, is a selling team for emerging talent or retiral homes for has-beens.

[MustPuttBetter]

Let's not confuse 'big' with 'successful'
Liverpool are exactly as big as they think they are. However, their recent success doesn't not match the stature of the club, that is certain.

We'll soon see if a big manager would go near Liverpool.
It looks like being Klopp or Ancelotti, two of the biggest and best managers currently available

[beninho]

Liverpool are massive, alongside Manchester United, by far the two biggest clubs in England. Though this all depends on what you base it on. Overall success and fan base I would say. There are going through a lean period, but did win the champions league 10 years ago, and made the final a few years after that.

Can they attract the best in the world, probably not, but the best in the world, only want to play for 3 teams it seems. Barcelona, Real Madrid or Bayern. The players they do not want or need, are then picked up by the rest. Would Cesc or Pedro be at Chelsea if Barca wanted to keep them, no chance, same with Di Maria when he went to Man Utd, or Scheweinsteiger.

If Klopp goes to Liverpool, it could be interesting, he did wonders at dortmund, and turned bargain buys into world superstars, like Lewandoski, Goetze.

[super_realist]

I disagree, plastic fans contribute nothing to the club. The number of "followers" they have is largely irrelevant. Liverpool are an average club in an over-rated league, have no class players, an outdated stadium and nothing but history to carry it along, bit like TOC.

[McLaren]

I am with super on this, there is no way a player joins Liverpool with the realistic prospect of winning the league. I assume Liverpools pitch to new players is possible CL and decent wage packet.

[Bob_the_Job]

Not a huge football fan.. but surely it's all about cycles? Who would have joined Chelsea in the early 90s when they languished around mid table at best? Who would have joined Man City then either when they were ranked even lower? I suspect most clubs go through periods when they struggle and need change, then fall down for a bit, get some new money and new blood and get back on the upward trajectory.

[MustPuttBetter]

No one's said Liverpool can attract the best players in the world. The question was can they attract a big name to manage them. The answer will be yes

[Sponsored content]