English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Jacques Visse » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00


Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled players
touring in the English side ? Surely they should be preparing to take-on the
side irrespective of whether or not it abounds with star players or not ?

If this is a watered down side, then England stand to lose (somewhat, though
it is still good for the younger players to get some good experience ?), not
OZ or NZ or SA.

I think maybe we would be quite surprised, who nows maybe they can beat the
AB's?

Cheers

    Jac

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Justin Mansfie » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

On Wed, 13 May 1998 08:08:24 -0700, "Jacques Visser"

Quote:

>Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled players
>touring in the English side ? Surely they should be preparing to take-on the
>side irrespective of whether or not it abounds with star players or not ?

>If this is a watered down side, then England stand to lose (somewhat, though
>it is still good for the younger players to get some good experience ?), not
>OZ or NZ or SA.

The problem the Aussie have, and quite rightly is that it is hard to
sell the games to the public. They are not going to get the crowds
into the stadiums, meaning that the money inflows are less than
budgeted for. Compare to how the 3 SH teams filled the stadia in
Britain last Autumn.

Justin

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Karl Nixo » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>On Wed, 13 May 1998 08:08:24 -0700, "Jacques Visser"

>>Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled
players
>>touring in the English side ? Surely they should be preparing to take-on
the
>>side irrespective of whether or not it abounds with star players or not ?

>>If this is a watered down side, then England stand to lose (somewhat,
though
>>it is still good for the younger players to get some good experience ?),
not
>>OZ or NZ or SA.

>The problem the Aussie have, and quite rightly is that it is hard to
>sell the games to the public. They are not going to get the crowds
>into the stadiums, meaning that the money inflows are less than
>budgeted for. Compare to how the 3 SH teams filled the stadia in
>Britain last Autumn.

The other problem is that England actively pursued the annual Cook Cup games
with Australia in order to improve its barganing position with the Celtic
Nations during their dispute over the 5N television rights.

Now that dispute has been resolved the RFU seem to be pandering to the clubs
and allowing players to drop out due to fatigue. IMO Australia has been
taken for a ride.

Unfortunately I think we are just seeing the beginning of the problem with
the RFU and clubs, with player availability and burn out being a real thorn.

-----------------------
Karl (Oz_Stomper)
Please remove NOSPAM from email address

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Jonathan Chapma » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>On Wed, 13 May 1998 08:08:24 -0700, "Jacques Visser"

>>Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled
players
>>touring in the English side ? Surely they should be preparing to take-on
the
>>side irrespective of whether or not it abounds with star players or not ?

>>If this is a watered down side, then England stand to lose (somewhat,
though
>>it is still good for the younger players to get some good experience ?),
not
>>OZ or NZ or SA.

>The problem the Aussie have, and quite rightly is that it is hard to
>sell the games to the public. They are not going to get the crowds
>into the stadiums, meaning that the money inflows are less than
>budgeted for. Compare to how the 3 SH teams filled the stadia in
>Britain last Autumn.

Different situation, Justin - if any of the 3 SH teams had come here last
year as "de***d" as this England squad is, then the stadia would still have
been packed. Firstly because there are more rugby fans here (demographics)
and (not flamebate this, but agreement with an observation made by several
SH friends who have been to big games here) more passionate.

Secondly however because the side coming over is not as bad or as short of
star names as is being suggested.

The squad includes 10 British and Irish Lions, and another for christ's
sake, let alone England first team and age group players and those like
Grewcock, Ravenscroft and Wilkinson who are a toss-up with the incumbents at
worst.

Do you really imagine that the average UK fan was as familiar with the whole
of the three touring parties that came over last year?

JC

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Jonathan Chapma » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled
players
>touring in the English side ? Surely they should be preparing to take-on
the
>side irrespective of whether or not it abounds with star players or not ?

>If this is a watered down side, then England stand to lose (somewhat,
though
>it is still good for the younger players to get some good experience ?),
not
>OZ or NZ or SA.

>I think maybe we would be quite surprised, who nows maybe they can beat the
>AB's?

Thanks Jac for some common sense. It is much appreciated.

JC

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Ian Diddam » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Karl Nixon replied to various arguments:

Quote:

> >>Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled
> >>players touring in the English side ? Surely they should be
> >>preparing to take-on the side irrespective of whether or not it
> >>abounds with star players or not ?
> >The problem the Aussie have, and quite rightly is that it is hard to
> >sell the games to the public. They are not going to get the crowds
> >into the stadiums, meaning that the money inflows are less than
> >budgeted for. Compare to how the 3 SH teams filled the stadia in
> >Britain last Autumn.

That's the bottom line, and I feel a fair concern for the ARU.  I'm not
sure what the answer is though (genuinely) - perhaps the ARU have an
idea of how to get these allegedly bludging pommy players in the
paddock.  I would suggest a big stick is not going to work.

Quote:
> The other problem is that England actively pursued the annual Cook Cup > Now that dispute has been resolved the RFU seem to be pandering to the
> clubs and allowing players to drop out due to fatigue.

"Pandering" is hardly the word that I'd use Karl.  I'll accept "selling
out", but not "pandering".

Quote:
>IMO Australia has been taken for a ride.

If the RFU could have the scenario they'd like, I'm sure a "full" ticket
would be available.  But whether we like it or not, they have not got
the choice they want, and we (as in supporters) do not have a full
ticket.  IMO Australia has been let down...  but not "taken for a ride".
That would imply some form of deliberate long term policy.

Quote:
> Unfortunately I think we are just seeing the beginning of the problem
> with the RFU and clubs, with player availability and burn out being a
> real thorn.

Huh!  You think the ARU have got problems over it?  C'mon down... (or
up).  the price probably ain't quite right....

:-(

Despondant of Devizes

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by max rei » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Unfortunately I think we are just seeing the beginning of the problem with
>the RFU and clubs, with player availability and burn out being a real thorn.

>-----------------------
>Karl (Oz_Stomper)

That's why NZ lost Zinzan Brooke. He played the S12 & tri-nations in 97. He then asked
to be excused the NPC but still qualify to go to England with the ABs. He was told
that he must play NPC. So he did, but he finally quit. I believe you will see more of
this.
Cheers
Maxwell
 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Ian Dale » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>>>Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled
>players
>>>touring in the English side ?

To answer this one must expore the Australian Psyche. Down here, we enjoy a
good fight, not a thrashing.
We wish to see England's best, and if we win, hooray, if not, at least it's
good Rugby.

Foregone conclusions have never been big sellouts in this country.

Quote:
>Surely they should be preparing to take-on
>the side irrespective of whether or not it abounds with star players or not

?

It is considered a waste of time and money by many of the Australian Rugby
fans. Either the real deal
or not at all seems to be the sentiment.

Quote:
>>>If this is a watered down side, then England stand to lose (somewhat,
>though it is still good for the younger players to get some good experience
?),
>not OZ or NZ or SA.

Do you think we wish to risk injury and fatigue to OUR star players so you
guys can *** some newbies?

Send your U21 team, ours needs a good workout.

Quote:
>>The problem the Aussie have, and quite rightly is that it is hard to
>>sell the games to the public. They are not going to get the crowds
>>into the stadiums, meaning that the money inflows are less than
>>budgeted for. Compare to how the 3 SH teams filled the stadia in
>>Britain last Autumn.

And no one wants to watch a walkover. On TV yes, at the grounds.. no.
Especially since all International games of Rugby in Australia are
Free-to-air.

Quote:

>Different situation, Justin - if any of the 3 SH teams had come here last
>year as "de***d" as this England squad is, then the stadia would still
have
>been packed. Firstly because there are more rugby fans here (demographics)
>and (not flamebate this, but agreement with an observation made by several
>SH friends who have been to big games here) more passionate.

Lest me see. Could you say 95% of England is Rugby fanatic? 95% of NZ are,
and they think your team is a***weak joke. Come to think of it, most
people down here think it is a***weak joke.

Quote:
>Secondly however because the side coming over is not as bad or as short of
>star names as is being suggested.

Bullshit.

Quote:
>The squad includes 10 British and Irish Lions, and another for christ's
>sake, let alone England first team and age group players and those like
>Grewcock, Ravenscroft and Wilkinson who are a toss-up with the incumbents
at
>worst.

more bullshit

Quote:
>Do you really imagine that the average UK fan was as familiar with the
whole
>of the three touring parties that came over last year?

I thought you were all rugby fanatics and passionate about your Rugby?

Well, what England has done with its selection is certainly not 'good rugby'
and it remains to be seen what the rugby bodies have to say about the deal.

Personally, I am not going to buy a ticket to the game, as I was going to,
if the side isn't changed.

Ian

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Ian Diddam » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Could you say 95% of England is Rugby fanatic? 95% of NZ are,
> and they think your team is a***weak joke. Come to think of it,
>  most people down here think it is a***weak joke.

But surely this is the standard perception of any NH rugby team (with
the possible exception of France, depending on how long ago it was they
blew up an atoll or three) in the SH, irrespective of it's makeup?

Didds.

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Jonathan Chapma » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>> Could you say 95% of England is Rugby fanatic? 95% of NZ are,
>> and they think your team is a***weak joke. Come to think of it,
>>  most people down here think it is a***weak joke.

>But surely this is the standard perception of any NH rugby team (with
>the possible exception of France, depending on how long ago it was they
>blew up an atoll or three) in the SH, irrespective of it's makeup?

Nail/Head collision there Didds.

They don't tend to let reality get in the way of a good old perception
either, do they?

JC

Quote:

>Didds.

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Jonathan Chapma » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>>>>Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled
>>players
>>>>touring in the English side ?

>To answer this one must expore the Australian Psyche.

How true.

Quote:
>Down here, we enjoy a
>good fight, not a thrashing.
>We wish to see England's best, and if we win, hooray, if not, at least it's
>good Rugby.

>Foregone conclusions have never been big sellouts in this country.

Very little is except Aussie rules, is it Ian?

Quote:
>>Surely they should be preparing to take-on
>>the side irrespective of whether or not it abounds with star players or
not
>?

>It is considered a waste of time and money by many of the Australian Rugby
>fans. Either the real deal
>or not at all seems to be the sentiment.

Someone forcing you to watch then?

Quote:
>>>>If this is a watered down side, then England stand to lose (somewhat,
>>though it is still good for the younger players to get some good
experience
>?),
>>not OZ or NZ or SA.

>Do you think we wish to risk injury and fatigue to OUR star players so you
>guys can *** some newbies?

If that is what you perceive we are doing, then don't. Simple.

Quote:
>Send your U21 team, ours needs a good workout.

>>>The problem the Aussie have, and quite rightly is that it is hard to
>>>sell the games to the public. They are not going to get the crowds
>>>into the stadiums, meaning that the money inflows are less than
>>>budgeted for. Compare to how the 3 SH teams filled the stadia in
>>>Britain last Autumn.

>And no one wants to watch a walkover. On TV yes, at the grounds.. no.
>Especially since all International games of Rugby in Australia are
>Free-to-air.

>>Different situation, Justin - if any of the 3 SH teams had come here last
>>year as "de***d" as this England squad is, then the stadia would still
>have
>>been packed. Firstly because there are more rugby fans here (demographics)
>>and (not flamebate this, but agreement with an observation made by several
>>SH friends who have been to big games here) more passionate.

>Lest me see. Could you say 95% of England is Rugby fanatic? 95% of NZ are,

Let me see, does 95% of that comparison employ an iota of logic or bear any
relevance to what I said? Err..no.

Quote:
>and they think your team is a***weak joke.

Do they? Funny, your e-mail address doesn't suggest that you are in fact 95%
of New Zealand although of course if you really feel qualified to make a
rather sweeping statement on behalf of 2,850,000 New Zealenders, who am I to
stop you?

Quote:
> Come to think of it, most
>people down here think it is a***weak joke.

Do you? So NZ drew with a***weak joke, Oz were put out of the last WC by
a***weak joke and SA lost a home test series last year to a***weak
joke. Right-oh then.

Quote:
>>Secondly however because the side coming over is not as bad or as short of
>>star names as is being suggested.

>Bullshit.

Oooh, got me there. I just can't answer the stinging logic of that one, its
simply too well thought out and argued.

Quote:
>>The squad includes 10 British and Irish Lions, for christ's
>>sake, let alone England first team and age group players and those like
>>Grewcock, Ravenscroft and Wilkinson who are a toss-up with the incumbents
>at
>>worst.
>more bullshit

No Lions at all then? Sorry, could have sworn that they were but no, I bow
to your superior knowledge of the facts.

Quote:
>>Do you really imagine that the average UK fan was as familiar with the
>whole
>>of the three touring parties that came over last year?

>I thought you were all rugby fanatics and passionate about your Rugby?

Did you? S'funny, because I don't. If I did, I probably would have said that
in my post. Instead of what I actually did say.

Quote:
>Well, what England has done with its selection is certainly not 'good
rugby'
>and it remains to be seen what the rugby bodies have to say about the deal.

Not too much they can say is there? In the light of the facts, I mean.
Of course, they could come out with an ill-informed, ill-thought out and
inaccurate rant like you, but then they would look a tad stupid, wouldn't
they?

Quote:

>Personally, I am not going to buy a ticket to the game, as I was going to,
>if the side isn't changed.

***y hell, Armageddon tactics. Can England stand firm in the face of Ian
Daly's refusal to buy a ticket??

Err.. probably.

JC

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Booni » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
>8 Snip...
>>Lest me see. Could you say 95% of England is Rugby fanatic? 95% of NZ are,

>Let me see, does 95% of that comparison employ an iota of logic or bear any
>relevance to what I said? Err..no.

>>and they think your team is a***weak joke.

>Do they? Funny, your e-mail address doesn't suggest that you are in fact 95%
>of New Zealand although of course if you really feel qualified to make a
>rather sweeping statement on behalf of 2,850,000 New Zealenders, who am I to
>stop you?

er, I thought 95% of New Zealanders were sheep.

Quote:
>>>The squad includes 10 British and Irish Lions, for christ's
>>>sake, let alone England first team and age group players and those like
>>>Grewcock, Ravenscroft and Wilkinson who are a toss-up with the incumbents
>>at
>>>worst.

You forgot George Shuter-ter-ter-ter-ter.

Boonie -
Darts,Beer,Saracens Fez Boys - The Official Sponsors of Tony Copsey.
Saracens - The 1998 Tetley Bitter Cup Winners.

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by William A. T. Cla » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> >>>Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled
> >players
> >>>touring in the English side ?

> To answer this one must expore the Australian Psyche. Down here, we enjoy a
> good fight, not a thrashing.
> We wish to see England's best, and if we win, hooray, if not, at least it's
> good Rugby.

> Foregone conclusions have never been big sellouts in this country.

> >Surely they should be preparing to take-on
> >the side irrespective of whether or not it abounds with star players or not
> ?

... snip, snip ...

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> Bullshit.

> >The squad includes 10 British and Irish Lions, and another for christ's
> >sake, let alone England first team and age group players and those like
> >Grewcock, Ravenscroft and Wilkinson who are a toss-up with the incumbents
> at
> >worst.

> more bullshit

> >Do you really imagine that the average UK fan was as familiar with the
> whole
> >of the three touring parties that came over last year?

> I thought you were all rugby fanatics and passionate about your Rugby?

> Well, what England has done with its selection is certainly not 'good rugby'
> and it remains to be seen what the rugby bodies have to say about the deal.

> Personally, I am not going to buy a ticket to the game, as I was going to,
> if the side isn't changed.

> Ian

I seem to remember a lot of similar comments about this time last year
concerning the British Lions party to SA.

We'll see.

William Clark

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS*
 Pursuant to US Code,Title 7,Chapter 5,Subchapter II,227,all nonsolicited
 commercial Email sent to this address is subject to a download & archival fee
 in the amount of $500US. E-mailing to this address for commercial purposes
 denotes acceptance of these terms.  Violators will be prosecuted to the
 maximum extent of the law.

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Aidan Philip Heerdeg » Thu, 14 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Karl Nixon replied to various arguments:

> > >>Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled
> > >>players touring in the English side ? Surely they should be
> > >>preparing to take-on the side irrespective of whether or not it
> > >>abounds with star players or not ?
> > >The problem the Aussie have, and quite rightly is that it is hard to
> > >sell the games to the public.
> That's the bottom line, and I feel a fair concern for the ARU.  I'm not
> sure what the answer is though (genuinely) - perhaps the ARU have an
> idea of how to get these allegedly bludging pommy players in the
> paddock.  I would suggest a big stick is not going to work.

According to Sports Tonight (sports show in Ch.10 here in Aus), the ARU
Chairman chappie had a letter from Newcastle to it's players detailing
how they would require 50% of their England match payments and some
other stuff which seemed fairly odd - like basically telling them they
shouldn't play for England .. I think .. not sure, it was all a little
fuzzy. Is this an old document? Whatever the status of the letter, it
adds to the perception here that the clubs are the ones holding the
reins. The ARU also had a problem with players who were declared unfit
seen to be still playing for their clubs (Johnson, Dilly-dally).  Looks
sort of suspicious I guess. The case of Martin Johnson is fairly stupid
IMO, what have Leicester got to gain from not allowing him to rest and
possibly have surgery now, *except* to stop him from touring. Odd. I'd
have thought a tour like that could only improve a players ability, and
make him a more marketable commodity to the club. Fer chrissakes, even
the LEAGUE teams here whinge when their players *aren't* picked for rep
sides. They see it as prestige to get their players selected, an
acknowledgement of their success as a club and I think they also see
the benefit of having high-profile players in their teams ..

On the other hand, as people here have pointed out, this is not a weak
team, though depth is a problem in some areas I would think. I think
the ARU would help it's ticket sales a helluva lot more by shutting up
about the perceived weakness of the England team and perhaps start
promoting the positive aspects, as posters here have done.

Just thought I'd point out where these Aus perceptions are coming from ..

Cheerio

Aidan

 
 
 

English controversy of touring side ? What gives ?

Post by Tony Elso » Fri, 15 May 1998 04:00:00

anayone rembember 1973.  I do - I was ten.  England lost every game on tour and
were written off as about as good as a Frenchman at a beer fest, then they won
the test.

Lets not count our chickens.  However, I am predicting that England will win
only one game - against the Academy.  They may give the Maori's a push but only
because they will have a shadow test side for that one.

--

Tony Elson
_____________________________________________
My advice to you is to drink heavily.
John Belushi (Animal House 1979).