Japan 2019 - Pool B Canada Italy Namibia New Zealand South Africa

First topic message reminder :

Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost	Tries	PF	PA	+/-	BP	Points
Italy	2	2	0	0	14	95	29	66	2	10
New Zealand	1	1	0	0	2	23	13	10	0	4
South Africa	1	0	0	1	13	23	-10	1	0	0
Namibia	1	0	0	1	3	22	47	-25	0	0
Canada	1	0	0	1	1	7	48	-41	0	0

New Zealand 23 South Africa 10
Italy 47 Namibia 22
Italy 48 Canada 7                       

28 September 2019     South Africa v Namibia                   City of Toyota Stadium, Toyota
2 October 2019           New Zealand v Canada                   Oita Stadium, Ōita
4 October 2019           South Africa v Italy                        Shizuoka Stadium Ecopa, Fukuroi
6 October 2019           New Zealand v Namibia                  Tokyo Stadium, Chōfu
8 October 2019           South Africa v Canada                    Kobe Misaki Stadium, Kobe
12 October 2019         New Zealand v Italy                        City of Toyota Stadium, Toyota
13 October 2019         Namibia v Canada                           Kamaishi Recovery Memorial Stadium, Kamaishi

Guns, Hansen didn’t applaud the decision, he said it was a ‘no brainer’. Probably because he realised it was a significant typhoon that has the potential to cause carnage and endanger human life. Besides, he would have liked to have seen the ABs pump a Parisse-led Italy by a cricket score one last time so he’ll be just as disappointed as the Italians.

Geez such an obtuse view. He was saying that in light of the storm, he didn't directly lambast Italy in the manner parisse did. Did he say 'oh if Italy nad a chance they should play it, but they don't, so good decision' cos thats the equivalent.

With all you rugby mads out there coming up with play at all costs ideas, someone has to make the tough decisions, and fortunately some stand up for them.

Will say this though,parisse hasn't done the ABs quarter opponents any favours.

Taylorman wrote:Will say this though,parisse hasn't done the ABs quarter opponents any favours.

No world rugby have done them no favours by cancelling this game. Im afraid as much as I enjoyed being there this is a big black mark against this tournament for me.

It is a big black mark indeed and it’s a shame

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Will say this though,parisse hasn't done the ABs quarter opponents any favours.

No world rugby have done them no favours by cancelling this game. Im afraid as much as I enjoyed being there this is a big black mark against this tournament for me.

I agree, but Hansen also said you can look at it two ways, the positives and negatives and the positives for us is that we are through. Our negative is we dont get to play a reasonable side before the quarters. It would have been great to watch Italy needing to win to qualify. The tournament has been robbed of that, as it has the England France pool topper, and the worst possibly still to come, Scotland vs Japan, where a higher seed could go out to a lower- thats unacceptable in my books.

There arent any positives for Italy and possibly Scotland if that's called off. Hopefully they get to play and then I think out of this mess you will get the most likeliest outcome had they all played.

Certainly to blame any team for winning this is poor and will just come across as sour- but that's what will happen no matter who wins, because everyones already lining up behind it.

Don't think people are blaming teams. Teams live with the conditions given to them, play when they are allowed, accept a cancellation when imposed. I mean, even if annoyed, they can't turn up and play a cancelled game.

People seem to be blaming/criticising the organisation... and suggesting the following rounds lose a certain legitimacy that comes from fully played pools. Everyone would have to admit such a view has a logical foundation.

Yes its true there are pros and cons. Im my view though the pros to having a game off way out weigh the cons especially where the break is right before the KO rounds. Ireland lost 4 players and 1 suspension in their last pool game v France in 2015.

Not saying NZ would lose anyone but it could happen and attrition is one of the bigger world cup challenges.

Pretty clear Hansen wouldn't be calling it a 'no brainer' if they were in Italy's position i.e. knocked out before the final game is played.

In which case, you have to ask the question, is he a reliable source of opinion? No. Is this a case of Kiwis keeping the media machine/narrative ticking over? Yes.

As Fly says, not Hansen or NZ's fault, but terrible, terrible way to go through. Would have been better placed keeping his mouth shut or at least passing some anaemic, symathetic words to Italy and their plight. Strange not to do so. Unsporting, even.

Agree that the pros outweigh the cons. Massively so. NZ and England have missed out on playing a tier 1 team in the groups. That's fortune in and of itself. As you say, injuries, but also fatigue, is one of the deciding factors late in the tournament. It would be incredible if NZ or England don't win it on that basis alone. It is a huge, huge bonus - any 'undercooked' possibilities can be mitigated by coaches etc. and if they're not, then that's a failure on their part. To have a 10 day break is huge in terms of letting small knocks heal for an extra few days, being able to do X more days of recovery. It outweighs the negatives, for sure.

Injuries and suspensions could happen and because they can no-longer happen because the game has been cancelled are the only positives. These are only ‘maybe’ things that ‘might’ have happened.

On the flip side, the ABs no longer have the opportunity to implement their RWC plan going into the quarters, give meaningful game time to returning injured players (Retallick, Goodhue), refine the game plan against a meaningful opponent, use up the pent-up physical and emotional energy of game week preparation, opportunity to gain momentum by putting on a good performance etc etc

Yes but you are assuming the NZ position incorrectly. First of all. It is NOT fortunate that we dont play Italy. We would rather play them to get the competition we desperately need to turn up ready for a quarter. We are not avoiding anything.

You just dont 'get' that position, and would rather spin your own. Well, you don't know what makes the AB's tick because of you did, you would in no way hold that view. Cos its wrong. Plain and simple.

Having a break is not a good thing for NZ. We are practically injury free so don't have the attrition thing guns is talking about. Could we lose four vs Italy. I doubt it.

Agree its bad, just dont agree with all the finger pointing at teams. Hansen, AB's blah blah. They're 'victim's of this too.

Both England and NZ will be way undercooked, and , could well lose because of that.

SecretFly wrote:Don't think people are blaming teams.  Teams live with the conditions given to them, play when they are allowed, accept a cancellation when imposed.  I mean, even if annoyed, they can't turn up and play a cancelled game.

People seem to be blaming/criticising the organisation... and suggesting the following rounds lose a certain legitimacy that comes from fully played pools.  Everyone would have to admit such a view has a logical foundation.

yes true fly and the medias spinning it our way as Italy is 'sour' at NZ because of something the 'believe' they would get. Doesnt help the melting pot thats already been created.

Taylorman wrote:Yes but you are assuming the NZ position incorrectly. First of all. It is NOT fortunate that we dont play Italy. We would rather play them to get the competition we desperately need to turn up ready for a quarter. We are not avoiding anything.

You just dont 'get' that position, and would rather spin your own. Well, you don't know what makes the AB's tick because of you did, you would in no way hold that view. Cos its wrong. Plain and simple.

Having a break is not a good thing for NZ. We are practically injury free so don't have the attrition thing guns is talking about. Could we lose four vs Italy. I doubt it.

Agree its bad, just dont agree with all the finger pointing at teams. Hansen, AB's blah blah. They're 'victim's of this too.

Both England and NZ will be way undercooked, and , could well lose because of that.

I wasnt making any assumptions because neither of us know if Hansen wants the game cancelled or not. However, his response suggests he does. Eddie Jones' response definitely suggests he is glad the game is cancelled. I think all coaches would be because it is in my view favorable to have a break before the quarters.

'You don't understand because I'm a Kiwi and so I understand the ABs so I am right'.

Ok...

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Yes but you are assuming the NZ position incorrectly. First of all. It is NOT fortunate that we dont play Italy. We would rather play them to get the competition we desperately need to turn up ready for a quarter. We are not avoiding anything.

You just dont 'get' that position, and would rather spin your own. Well, you don't know what makes the AB's tick because of you did, you would in no way hold that view. Cos its wrong. Plain and simple.

Having a break is not a good thing for NZ. We are practically injury free so don't have the attrition thing guns is talking about. Could we lose four vs Italy. I doubt it.

Agree its bad, just dont agree with all the finger pointing at teams. Hansen, AB's blah blah. They're 'victim's of this too.

Both England and NZ will be way undercooked, and , could well lose because of that.

I wasnt making any assumptions because neither of us know if Hansen wants the game cancelled or not. However, his response suggests he does. Eddie Jones' response definitely suggests he is glad the game is cancelled. I think all coaches would be.

From what I heard hansen said he wanted the game. He applauded the wider decision due to the storm, not because it suited his sides chances. That is un AB like to talk about avoiding a match, especially when theyre needed for prep.

miaow wrote:Pretty clear Hansen wouldn't be calling it a 'no brainer' if they were in Italy's position i.e. knocked out before the final game is played.

In which case, you have to ask the question, is he a reliable source of opinion? No. Is this a case of Kiwis keeping the media machine/narrative ticking over? Yes.

As Fly says, not Hansen or NZ's fault, but terrible, terrible way to go through. Would have been better placed keeping his mouth shut or at least passing some anaemic, symathetic words to Italy and their plight. Strange not to do so. Unsporting, even.

Agree that the pros outweigh the cons. Massively so. NZ and England have missed out on playing a tier 1 team in the groups. That's fortune in and of itself. As you say, injuries, but also fatigue, is one of the deciding factors late in the tournament. It would be incredible if NZ or England don't win it on that basis alone. It is a huge, huge bonus - any 'undercooked' possibilities can be mitigated by coaches etc. and if they're not, then that's a failure on their part. To have a 10 day break is huge in terms of letting small knocks heal for an extra few days, being able to do X more days of recovery. It outweighs the negatives, for sure.

Both NZ and England have played the same amount of Tier 1 teams as Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Australia etc ...

While this is true, Fiji and Japan have been tougher opponents than Argentina and, of course, 'no one'. Which is the whole point here.

Japan (even before RWC) and Scotland are ranked around the same level as Argentina, Italy and France and are probably around the same level. England in particular have had it ridiculously easy given their 1 tier 1 game was against 14 men.

miaow wrote:While this is true, Fiji and Japan have been tougher opponents than Argentina and, of course, 'no one'. Which is the whole point here.

Made to look like tougher opponents than Argentina, because they didn't play England. England have never made Fiji look that good.

It’s worth remembering that none of this is England’s fault. Let’s just take a moment to relax in that thought.

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:While this is true, Fiji and Japan have been tougher opponents than Argentina and, of course, 'no one'. Which is the whole point here.

Made to look like tougher opponents than Argentina, because they didn't play England. England have never made Fiji look that good.

Lol, England made Scotland look pretty good in Twickers this year and in Murrayfield the year before. Everyone can underperform against lower ranked sides.

Cyril wrote:It’s worth remembering that none of this is England’s fault. Let’s just take a moment to relax in that thought.

Its probably also worth remembering no one said it was Cyril.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:While this is true, Fiji and Japan have been tougher opponents than Argentina and, of course, 'no one'. Which is the whole point here.

Made to look like tougher opponents than Argentina, because they didn't play England. England have never made Fiji look that good.

Lol, England made Scotland look pretty good in Twickers this year and in Murrayfield the year before.

Ireland made Japan look good, and England just before the world cup. Hope you enjoyed going back into the history books for your examples.

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:While this is true, Fiji and Japan have been tougher opponents than Argentina and, of course, 'no one'. Which is the whole point here.

Made to look like tougher opponents than Argentina, because they didn't play England. England have never made Fiji look that good.

Lol, England made Scotland look pretty good in Twickers this year and in Murrayfield the year before.

Ireland made Japan look good, and England just before the world cup. Hope you enjoyed going back into the history books for your examples.

No I just fed you some of your own medcine, I didnt exactly have to go far into the history books. How did it taste?

I held the mirror up to you and you didnt like it.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Yes but you are assuming the NZ position incorrectly. First of all. It is NOT fortunate that we dont play Italy. We would rather play them to get the competition we desperately need to turn up ready for a quarter. We are not avoiding anything.

You just dont 'get' that position, and would rather spin your own. Well, you don't know what makes the AB's tick because of you did, you would in no way hold that view. Cos its wrong. Plain and simple.

Having a break is not a good thing for NZ. We are practically injury free so don't have the attrition thing guns is talking about. Could we lose four vs Italy. I doubt it.

Agree its bad, just dont agree with all the finger pointing at teams. Hansen, AB's blah blah. They're 'victim's of this too.

Both England and NZ will be way undercooked, and , could well lose because of that.

I wasnt making any assumptions because neither of us know if Hansen wants the game cancelled or not. However, his response suggests he does. Eddie Jones' response definitely suggests he is glad the game is cancelled. I think all coaches would be because it is in my view favorable to have a break before the quarters.

Yes that was to Miaow. Oh I know he doesnt want the game cancelled, we have players that need urgent match time Retalick, Goodhue. Thats how he thinks. Not playing it versus the small risk of losing it and waiting for nearly two weeks is bad prep for a knockout. they go in cold and pool play is meant to prepare you for the knockouts. With this its done nothing like that.

But anyway we have to consider ourselves fortunate but at the same time, unlike Italy and Scotland, did take the bad luck element out of the equation well enough to do so. They were both hammered in pool play.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:While this is true, Fiji and Japan have been tougher opponents than Argentina and, of course, 'no one'. Which is the whole point here.

Made to look like tougher opponents than Argentina, because they didn't play England. England have never made Fiji look that good.

Lol, England made Scotland look pretty good in Twickers this year and in Murrayfield the year before.

Ireland made Japan look good, and England just before the world cup. Hope you enjoyed going back into the history books for your examples.

No I just fed you some of your own medcine, I didnt exactly have to go far into the history books. How did it taste?

I held the mirror up to you and you didnt like it.

Nah yours was irrelevant as nobody was talking about the difficulty of playing Scotland.

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:While this is true, Fiji and Japan have been tougher opponents than Argentina and, of course, 'no one'. Which is the whole point here.

Made to look like tougher opponents than Argentina, because they didn't play England. England have never made Fiji look that good.

Fiji certainly look like they're a better team than Argentina on the basis of performances so far. Fiji probably better than Scotland and maybe on par with Japan as well - just different styles of playing.

They backed up what they did v Australia against v Wales. England struggled against a much poorer Fijian side 4 years ago. They'd have a rough time if they played them this time around. Strange point to make. You're deflecting. The issue is clearly how many games each team has played to get to the knockouts, and when you consider quality of opposition as well, it makes it even worse. France, England and NZ have only played one real test, whereas Wales, Australia, Ireland, and whoever else qualifies will have played 2. South Africa - like England v Argentina - mitigated by a red card. You can't complain about that with regard to cancellations but we're talking about the state of playing leading in to the knockouts.

As said, it would be very, very interesting to see what happened were it one of the heavyhitters in Italy's position.

Rightfully so it looks like this is going to boil over for the next few days. Think we are all saying the same thing in the end, the whole deal sux and some who have worked really REALLY hard over the past 2-3 years will be hard done by.

I just hope the Scotland Japan match goes ahead because then I think we will likely get those that should and looked like they were going to qualify, through.

Who plays who is largely irrelevant, everyone should just be thankful they are there.

Can you enlighten me what relevance Fiji of four years ago has today? I'd much rather play Fiji or Japan to Argentina.

I think its fairly likely there will be no more cancellations fingers crossed.

I'm just saying you can't call them a tougher test because they've played different opponents. England tend to dispatch second rate opponents better than others do.

Argentina were only 4 points off NZ and 6 off Australia in the Rugby Championship, 2 points off France here. When did Fiji get that close to those sorts of teams in a year?

Soul Requiem wrote:Can you enlighten me what relevance Fiji of four years ago has today? I'd much rather play Fiji or Japan to Argentina.

I think Argentina won their first game in about 10 games v Tonga last week. In all fairness they have been weak enough and even worse when they have 14 men. Since the last RWC their win loss ratio has been very low and the Jaguares super rugby form didnt seem to translate. Also they didnt even have Sanchez at 10 v England so were even worse than usual. Creevy didnt start either, they were poor enough.

I’d still rather beat Argentina by around 30 points than lose to Japan. Maybe that’s just me though.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Can you enlighten me what relevance Fiji of four years ago has today? I'd much rather play Fiji or Japan to Argentina.

I think Argentina won their first game in about 10 games v USA this week. In all fairness they have been weak enough and even worse when they have 14 men. Since the last RWC their win loss ratio has been very low and the Jaguares super rugby form didnt seem to translate. Also they didnt even have Sanchez at 10 v England so were even worse than usual.

What's Fiji and Japans record against tier 1 nations in the same perioid?

We get it Miaow - you've made lots of posts about how England have benefitted from this - presumably getting ready to play the 'devalued' card if England happen to win it. Personally I'd be happy to swap pools with Wales even now and just have to beat France and probably SA to get to the final, even with Uruguay to deal with first (which would give much-needed game time to some of our players).

Soul Requiem wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Can you enlighten me what relevance Fiji of four years ago has today? I'd much rather play Fiji or Japan to Argentina.

I think Argentina won their first game in about 10 games v USA this week. In all fairness they have been weak enough and even worse when they have 14 men. Since the last RWC their win loss ratio has been very low and the Jaguares super rugby form didnt seem to translate. Also they didnt even have Sanchez at 10 v England so were even worse than usual.

What's Fiji and Japans record against tier 1 nations in the same perioid?

Feel free to look it up, check how they have done in games with only 14 men while you are at it.

Cyril wrote:It’s worth remembering that none of this is England’s fault. Let’s just take a moment to relax in that thought.

Don't think anyone's blamimng, just pointing out the sheer unfairness of the situation.

Collapse2005 wrote:
Feel free to look it up, check how they have done in games with only 14 men while you are at it.

As Martin Johnson once said, “It’s not us that’s giving away the penalties.”

It's unfair now and it will be unfair in 10 days or so when I think there will be some very missed results after this disruption. I know for one NZ were banking on getting their full side out versus Italy plus perhaps Goodhue and Retallick which is why we had Jordie starting last match.

Now its going to be about who can get the most of non test match training. There are some that say their sides train at levels higher than test match level but that doesnt mean a lot. Its the recent experience of a hard fought test that needs to be kept fresh.

Some sides are going to get bounced because theyll be flat. They wont be able to up the tempo to extreme test match levels quickly enough. And unfortunately the AB's tend to be in that category, they need to get in, before they can dominate so how Hansen, and others will manage their sides next week or so will be interesting.

England on the other hand, tend to start well. From memory they usually hit the ground running at 6N time and then taper off. So a good bet for Quarters not so good for final.

Soul Requiem wrote:Can you enlighten me what relevance Fiji of four years ago has today? I'd much rather play Fiji or Japan to Argentina.

Scottrf wrote:Made to look like tougher opponents than Argentina, because they didn't play England. England have never made Fiji look that good.

England barely play Fiji, and last time they did at a RWC, they rode their luck. This team is quite obviously significantly better, chock full of Olympians and 7s stars, nearly all of them playing for some of the best club teams in the world, and they hammered at Australia and Wales for 60 minutes, which is more than can be said for Argentina, whose tepid 40 v France was followed by a role reversal, and then an overpumped, under-trained team came flying out of the blocks against England and killed the contest in 17 minutes.

The point is by cancelling these games, Australia and Wales have played each other and a Fijian team that are on par if not better than the lower end of 'tier 1' teams like Argentina and Italy. Same goes for Ireland - if Scotland and Japan goes ahead, same for them. England, NZ and France will only play one tier 1 or tier 1 equivalent opponent, but, again the real issue - and let's not forget this -is they're not playing anyone at all for the 4th game. They've played 3 games where others play 4.

Hope that clears it up.

I don't remember England scoring 58 points against Argentina in recent memory.

When a 24 point win is used as ammo against you, you know you've made it.

Heaf wrote:We get it Miaow - you've made lots of posts about how England have benefitted from this - presumably getting ready to play the 'devalued' card if England happen to win it.  Personally I'd be happy to swap pools with Wales even now and just have to beat France and probably SA to get to the final, even with Uruguay to deal with first (which would give much-needed game time to some of our players).  

It's not a contentious point. Of course they have, and unfortunately, whatever happens, including teams being undercooked who haven't played, it is/will be tainted and therefore, sadly, devalued. It's a rough old decision to take and, personally, I believe delaying the competition by up to a week would/should have been an option more seriously considered than it perhaps has. No doubt that's not helped by rugby's relatively fringe standing and importance in Japan, as well as other factors.

Have to hope that the typhoon's impact is minimal now and any damage - human and structural - is negligible. But yes, as a tournament, this decision is a bad one, and it creates a divide between those who benefit, and those who don't. If the rested team fail to 'get up' for their QFs for their rest periods, ofc you say that it's not solely beneficial, that there are knock on effects in terms of lack of proper test matches etc. But by and large this tournament will be about who can keep going in that final quarter now, who can keep mistakes to a minimum, who can keep running that extra burst of speed, drive that extra yard in the tackle, land a pass perfectly in the hands of your outside man etc. Fine margins. Fatigue is a huge factor in that.

Soul Requiem wrote:I don't remember England scoring 58 points against Argentina in recent memory.

I don't remember Fiji having a team in Super Rugby and blah blah blah - yep, we get it, you're trolling.

miaow wrote:

Heaf wrote:We get it Miaow - you've made lots of posts about how England have benefitted from this - presumably getting ready to play the 'devalued' card if England happen to win it.  Personally I'd be happy to swap pools with Wales even now and just have to beat France and probably SA to get to the final, even with Uruguay to deal with first (which would give much-needed game time to some of our players).  

It's not a contentious point. Of course they have, and unfortunately, whatever happens, including teams being undercooked who haven't played, it is/will be tainted and therefore, sadly, devalued. It's a rough old decision to take and, personally, I believe delaying the competition by up to a week would/should have been an option more seriously considered than it perhaps has. No doubt that's not helped by rugby's relatively fringe standing and importance in Japan, as well as other factors.

Have to hope that the typhoon's impact is minimal now and any damage - human and structural - is negligible. But yes, as a tournament, this decision is a bad one, and it creates a divide between those who benefit, and those who don't. If the rested team fail to 'get up' for their QFs for their rest periods, ofc you say that it's not solely beneficial, that there are knock on effects in terms of lack of proper test matches etc. But by and large this tournament will be about who can keep going in that final quarter now, who can keep mistakes to a minimum, who can keep running that extra burst of speed, drive that extra yard in the tackle, land a pass perfectly in the hands of your outside man etc. Fine margins. Fatigue is a huge factor in that.

I think you're overstating the fatigue element versus the lack of match readiness - especially for England who have strong depth in the squad plus a couple of players that really needed more game time. There may or may not be an advantage but if there is I don't believe it's as big as you seem to be suggesting.

All World Cups are ‘devalued’ according to your preference. Don’t forget that England were cheated out of 2007 by a dodgy touch call

We'll never really know, Heaf, but I look at the most successful teams since 2007 - or even going back further, but that and 2011 felt like the periods when rugby when almost 'totally' professional across the board for tier 1 - and the teams that get to the latter stages are the ones who can grind it out thanks to strength and fitness more than anything else.

Look at the teams that make the SFs -

2007: Argentina (wildcard), France, England, South Africa (all 3 beefy)
2011: Wales (fit), France (strong), NZ (fit and strong), Australia (fit)
2015: SA (strong and got past Wales due to fitness), NZ, Australia, Argentina (same again, a mix of fitness and strength for all 3)

It's why Ireland are likely to struggle as although they're strong-ish, they don't look fit, and can't do what Argentina did in 07 and 15, or Australia in 11 and 15.

You look at England's gameplan and it's all about explosivity - the 5 game test match streak they were facing is now 'gone', and it helps them massively, probably morethan most, although that's no fault of their own.

I suppose Wales will be hurting the most as we've played a 'proper' test match the most recently, with a 3 day turnaround until our next game, with some doubling up and having to play 3 games in 10 days on the day of the QF.

However, depending on who gets through out of Japan and Scotland, if that game goes ahead, they'll be suffering even more.

I think you're being a bit naive about how much skills under pressure and fatigue, as well as squad depth which is a knock on effect, determines who wins the RWC or at least gets to the latter stages.

Cyril wrote:All World Cups are ‘devalued’ according to your preference. Don’t forget that England were cheated out of 2007 by a dodgy touch call

Not really relevant, is it?

Utterly relevant, Miaow. You accept the decisions and/or tournament rules. Or chaos.

I think a marginal ref call is different to games being cancelled tbh. There aren't 'alterantives' to a foot in touch for starters. You can't agree on the best option as and how you see fit - well, boys, close enough, so let's give them 5 points but no conversion.