I thought Moody was very, very good all match and totally blitzed Smith who was invisible. I thought Palu had another stormer and I don’t understand why Deans subs him so early …. leave him on and make him play longer minutes. He was awesome in defence.

I thought Robinson was the best prop on the ground and he is making serious inroads into becoming the best No 1 in world rugby.

Of the backs I liked Cooper and he played 10 rather than 12. Giteau in my mind had a poor game and took many wrong options, especially close to the line.

KO you were right about Banahan …. too slow for his position but he can unload nicely.

Unfortunately I think I was right when I said that the Wallabies would win by 9 but it should have been far more …. overall they were the better side but they also absolutely murdered multiple try scoring opportunities. Next week to Ireland and I’m not as confident as I was this week.

P.S. I didn’t mean the use of Rumpelstiltskin to be taken seriously. I was trying to defuse a situation but I suppose that doesn’t come across well.

- France changed their team from NZ for Australia (and its spine). I agree. I think this was always their intention. Different horses for courses, and of course some players were tired! Lievremont loves rotating his players around. The new team were all combinations that had been used before, with experienced players(except Puricelli). The team was not ridiculous, and the Wallaby win had merit.

- I was not being sarcastic. You had mentioned a hangover. I assumed you would watch a replay of the match.

- I don’t think I have ever misquoted you, and actually agree with many of your points, but obviously not all.

- When did I ever insult you?!! On the other hand, I think you’ve called me various names ranging from “champ”, used sarcastically, to “Rumplestiltskin”, as well as questioning my “credentials” and even my “pedigree”. I have read many of your threads, and you often get both personal, and defensive, with those who disagree with you, for no apparent reason.
Why question someone’s credibility or pedigree on a common rugby blog – its somewhat absurd, no?

I’ve always responded calmly and quite happily. Perhaps you have mis-interpreted some of my threads, but your latest reply suggests you are taking this all far more personally and seriously than me. To reassure you, I think you make many good points and contributions, I always enjoy reading them, but if I should disagree, don’t get upset, I’ll be happy to defend my opinions in a friendly and non-threatening way.

Now can we all move on? By the way, I too enjoy Guinness and sausage, but separately! I too love boxing, and I mentioned earlier you are welcome to visit me at my boxing club in Paris for a training session followed by a cold drink!
In good spirit, yours sincerely, best regards, etc etc

What would you like me to say to that? I’m confused by what your point is?
–
“Rugby union fans know that the spine of the team drives the team. Please explain to me why having drawn a series in NZ and maintained the same side for two tests in a row why France decided to completely remove Servat, Picamoles, Dupuy, Trinh-Duc, Traille and Medard?”
- Did you have time to look at the team sheet I pasted above (and on an earlier thread as well)? – Szarwesky is a great hooker, more mobile than Servat and usually picked ahead of him; Picamoles was sent home after the Bastereaud incident and also had an injury; Yachvili is as good a half back as Dupuy, has more caps, different style, probably picked for his kicking abilities; Trinh Duc appeared exhausted after NZ, but Beauxis is an excellent experienced 10 with a great kicking and running game, and as for Traille and Medard – they played, and well!! Did you watch the game?’

I really don’t think you comprehend what I’m saying. France changed the entire spine of their team. The entire spine that had just won in NZ. Whether or not you think the new players are good or not is totally and completely irrelevant. Anyhow, If these players are so good then why were they not selected to start the two tests in NZ against a far superior team?

Beauxis does not have a great running game nor is he especially experienced. Do you watch rugby? How many caps does he have?
–
“Why did Lievremont pick a team to kick when a) France has superior running backs to Australia” – BOTH CLAIMS DEBATABLE! Medard, Heymans, Fritz and Mermoz, with Vincent Clerc on the bench all provide plenty of running options.

Yachvili, Beauxis and Traille are all kickers. Medard was a full back selected to play on the wing. That conservative selection further consolidates my point. Clerc was on the bench. I repeat… Clerc was on the bench.
–
” Australia plays a kicking game ” -gross generalisation, but one you like to repeat. Yes, they have kicked more often under Deans, usually poorly, but for arguably good reasons against NZ and SA. I don’t think they are a boring kicking team as you like to say. Have you watched the England -Wallabies game yet by the way? Two trys to zero. The stats showed England kicked more as well… You like to tell us that they play brilliant running rugby, where was it? Not all the fault of injuries and replacement players. The coaching? lack of talent? The lack of go-forward from the forwards?…Could it be because the Wallabies played better?

Australia likes to kick the ball… something that has long been discussed on The Roar and something that you actually admit. Were they a running side then we would have seen more tries over the past two seasons. One game where England kicked more than Australia does not dilute that point. I have noticed that a handful of SH Roarers were surprised by how much ball England ran. I can’t comment on that for obvious reasons. Btw, why would you ask me if I watched the game when you have referenced the fact I was drunk at the time? Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit – especially when it is constructed poorly.

Does two tries scored by Australia reflect a decade of laissez-faire, loose Harlem Globetrotter rugby or does it reflect a game where one team scored two tries and the other scored none? I have never said that England play brilliant running rugby. Please follow the threads accurately and do not misquote me. It is tiresome and undermines any potential point you might think you have. What I have said is that England have played with ball in hand a lot more under Johnson and Smith than they did under Ashton and Robinson.
–
“Do you think that Lievremont thought France would kick their way to victory ” NO

Why did he pick a backline of kickers that was far more conservative than the selections in NZ? You have asserted that Yachvili was selected due to his kicking abilites and that France needed kicking options. Why if the coach didn’t specifically pick players to kick?
–
“or do you think that the majority of the French players were physically drained and therefore the coach took the option of damage limitation?”- NO, but needed the kicking cards at his disposal.

But you have already suggested that Trinh-Duc was ‘rested’ because he appeared physically drained. If that is the case do you think that he was the only tired player? How many weeks and games of rugby had the french squad played last year?
–
Not all the fault of injuries and replacement players. The coaching? lack of talent? The lack of go-forward from the forwards?…Could it be because the Wallabies played better?

What is the relevance of this statement? I could offer myriad reasons why England lost but I fail to see what England has to so with Australia v France.
–
You said most specifically on another thread that the French team picked to play the Wallabies was “ridiculous” Have you forgotten? You even said it twice. Is it it the hangover blurring your memory?

I have said this consistently have I? Have I? I’m not sure twice counts as consistent or continuous.
–
Anyway, this has gone on long enough. From me at least, end of subject.

Ii should certainly hope so. You have attempted to start a boring internet argument where there is no need for one and on occasion you have resorted to personal insults. That is a sad state of affairs.

But also made more passes.

“You like to tell us that they play brilliant running rugby, where was it? Not all the fault of injuries and replacement players. The coaching? lack of talent? The lack of go-forward from the forward?”

I don’t think KO said that. He said England generally like to keep the ball in hand, which they did, but there was a lack of invention. That could be down to the injuries. The backline against France was Care, Flood, Monye, Flutey, Tindall, Cueto, Armitage. So the fact that the coaches had to work with a completely knew backline, with very little time could have affected things. I’m not saying it definitely did, but it is possible.

Also, England struggled to get quick ball. The front five was slow and plodding and generally slow to support. Things improved when Haskell and Lawes came on.

there’s nothing mysterious or curious about right to reply missing from some people’s posts. There’s five sub-levels of reply from each anchor post. This is the first sub-level.

When you hit the fifth level, you use the reply button from the previous post so that it sits directly under the fifth sub-level – the system doesn’t create a sixth sub-level.

“Why did Lievremont pick a team to kick when a) France has superior running backs to Australia” – BOTH CLAIMS DEBATABLE! Medard, Heymans, Fritz and Mermoz, with Vincent Clerc on the bench all provide plenty of running options.

” Australia plays a kicking game ” -gross generalisation, but one you like to repeat. Yes, they have kicked more often under Deans, usually poorly, but for arguably good reasons against NZ and SA. I don’t think they are a boring kicking team as you like to say. Have you watched the England -Wallabies game yet by the way? Two trys to zero. The stats showed England kicked more as well… You like to tell us that they play brilliant running rugby, where was it? Not all the fault of injuries and replacement players. The coaching? lack of talent? The lack of go-forward from the forwards?…Could it be because the Wallabies played better?
“Do you think that Lievremont thought France would kick their way to victory ” NO
“or do you think that the majority of the French players were physically drained and therefore the coach took the option of damage limitation?”- NO, but needed the kicking cards at his disposal.

“4. Where do I constantly assert that the France team was ridiculous? ”
- You said most specifically on another thread that the French team picked to play the Wallabies was “ridiculous” Have you forgotten? You even said it twice. Is it it the hangover blurring your memory?

Anyway, this has gone on long enough. From me at least, end of subject.

The last two years? What has Johnson to do with the last two years? When have I mentioned the last two years? The cynic in me would suggest that people who list the names of publications (whic,h btw, is a woefully nascent list – there are more than two papers in the UK media) are people who need the legitimisation of specific ‘pundits’ as opposed to being able to offer anything of note themselves.

‘An Australian team steadfastly conservative since 1999? In some games yes, in others no, like most teams.
Thats right, you believe that the tradition of Australian running rugby is a myth began in 1984. Well, you had only just been born so we can’t hold it against you for not knowing more. It goes back much further and its based on real rugby history, acknowledged by all except hardened English fans like yourself with an axe to grind.’

Acknowledged by all except hardened English fans … and most people on The Roar. What an utterly juvenile statement.

2. End of season victories over the NH teams mean nothing. The 3N is allegedly the biggest and best tournament in world rugby so in contrast what is the value of playing sides like a 3rd string Italian side and a 2nd string French side who have just come off a 45+ week season? What value does that game have? What credit is due for winning games like that?

3. Rugby union fans know that the spine of the team drives the team. Please explain to me why having drawn a series in NZ and maintained the same side for two tests in a row why France decided to completely remove Servat, Picamoles, Dupuy, Trinh-Duc, Traille and Medard? Why did Lievremont pick a team to kick when a) France has superior running backs to Australia b) Australia plays a kicking game and c) the game was being played on dry, hard turf? Do you think that Lievremont thought France would kick their way to victory or do you think that the majority of the French players were physically drained and therefore the coach took the option of damage limitation?

4. Where do I constantly assert that the France team was ridiculous?

I’m still dead set against ACC at 15 …. his kicks in the first half were dumb and embarrassing …. he should be banned from kicking altogether.

The lineout is a disgrace but seemingly more so when Moore is throwing. The throws are either going to the wrong spot, they are too slow, someone is telegraphing the receiver or …… bugger, I don’t know.

I though Moody had a brilliant game and totally blitzed Smith. On that effort Smith will be sitting out next week again.

P.S.: After that I don’t want to hear Wallaby supporters complain about how other teams go off their feet and roll onto the wrong side of the ruck.