>>>>Why is Oz making such a big thing about the apparent lack of skilled
>>>>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
>Foregone conclusions have never been big sellouts in this country.
Very little is except Aussie rules, is it Ian?
>>Surely they should be preparing to take-on
>>the side irrespective of whether or not it abounds with star players or
>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?
>>>>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
>>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.
>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
>>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
>>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.
>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
> 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.
>>Secondly however because the side coming over is not as bad or as short of
>>star names as is being suggested.
Oooh, got me there. I just can't answer the stinging logic of that one, its
simply too well thought out and argued.
>>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
No Lions at all then? Sorry, could have sworn that they were but no, I bow
to your superior knowledge of the facts.
>>Do you really imagine that the average UK fan was as familiar with the
>>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.
>Well, what England has done with its selection is certainly not 'good
>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
>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??