John O'Neill has cost Australia the Tri-Nations

well said sam.

'Onto Pryce, and he basically wasn’t played because he wasn’t good enough.' Conversely, I recall that Walker was good enough, or at least making enough progress to suggest that he would go onto become a good acquisition. However, he left union very quickly and thus must also be considered a failure despite his good form. This reminds me of a league fan (Steffy) suggesting that Dai Young had been a good league player because he had captained the Wales rugby league side, when in fact he had been a shockingly mediocre convert.

The points made by KO are good points. If you can't respond accordingly then it suggests you don't have confidence in your argument. He's right about Flutey. You can't answer whether a convert is a success until you define the term. I was going to say you can only define a successful convert if they are an international, but of course Vainikolo, Farrell and Henry Paul were all internationals, and considered to be unsuccessful, as they produced poor performances for both club and country. Onto Pryce, and he basically wasn't played because he wasn't good enough.

No name calling in the above statement. Geez.. I wish you'd come to this conclusion earlier.

You're just going around in circles which indicates that you don't quite grasp the core tenets of rugby union. Flutey improved with every game and he had a good Lions tour. He played no worse or no better than any England player during the Autumn, however, during the 6N he was one of England's best. As aforementioned he consolidated his position in test rugby on the Lions tour. 'All 3 are successes.' That's a nothing comment until you offer a reasonable definition of success. This comment is similarly unworkable: 'Pryce, Walker and Farrell were slightly earlier converts and in the case of the first two were mishandled. I don’t think either of them were given enough games to learn union, and were expected to be instantly perfect, especially Pryce who hardly played at all and should have been forced to stay. Coaches have been more persistent since.' And then we have this: 'Andy Farrell, there you have one real failure though, an interesting one in that I don’t think his abilities are useful or effective in union, as a union prop forwards aren’t useful in league.' What on earth are you talking about? That is totally illogical. The game's up. We know you're neither a union or league fan. What's the deal?

Who's Chris? "he has only shown good form against weaker teams, and not the likes of New Zealand." Not many players did. In fact, the better players in that match were Easter, Armitage and Flutey (all of which you think are rubbish).

Could you call Hape, Williams and Myler a success? I don't think you can. They have undoubtedly improved as time has gone on, but I would say only Myler has established himself, and that's taken four years of hard graft. I'm sure Hape will become an excellent player, and Williams had a good season last year, but a success?

You just keep rolling the big guns on out.. -- 'I firstly don’t think a performance can be described by statistics' Well that's a very controversial conclusion. If that were necessarily the case then so many rugby coaches wouldn't invest so much weight in statistics. However, if that is true (or at least partially true) then it is basic logic that there is more to a player than a narrow assessment, which suggests that Tindall's worth to England goes further than the fact he allegedly does not offer much in attack in terms of line breaks, thus you are being a typical hypocrite. Regardless, until you can confirm that Tindall does not make many line breaks then it is just subjective opinion that he does not. That England has scored so many tries in the 6N might confirm that something is working well in the backline. -- 'Flutey hasn’t done that yet, or to be precise, he has only shown good form against weaker teams, and not the likes of New Zealand.' That's probably because the NZ game was his 4th test. Flutey has shown his considerable class since then both for England and the Lions. -- 'Knives Out Vainikolo was not selected by Johnson last autumn BEFORE he was injured. He was only injured in january, and was fully available in the autumn.' Why don't you explain the chronology of the EPS selections and Vainikolo's form to that point.. That might help your thought process. -- 'Recent league converts: in England Stephen Myler, Danny Williams and Shontayne Hape.' You forgot Karl Pryce, Chev Walker, Andy Farrell. You also forgot to mention Clinton Shifcoske as an Australian convert. He really tore up the rule book.

Hahha... great stuff, KPM. Why didn't Johnson play Vainkolo?!! Erm.. because he had a ruptured Achilles tendon.. Woot woot! Don't bother, Colin. Waste of everyone's time.

at the risk of being abused for bringing this back to the original topic. the coach and the manager remained the same and only the team selection changed and australia not only won (though thats enough in itself lately) but played with a great deal of enthusiasm and character. given this then - where is the justification for the argument that john O cost australia the tri nations? did they suddenly forget about how their morale has been lowered by tuqiri and vickerman sagas and was the lack of a league fullback and loss of tahu suddenly irrelevent. I earlier suggested that the problem was with the players and I still do. new players and new attitide resulted in a good performance. doesnt mean they will go ahead with success (though if they stick with current crop of young kids it seems more likely than it would with the old selections) but the best thing was the spirit in which they played the game and their self-confidence (eg. genia trying a quick tap and almost scoring) you could blame deans for the team selection (although theres nothing wrong with persevering with some selections to give them time to work or not) but i cant see the argument for John O costing australia the tri nations.

I think he has some pretty good points actually. "You seem unaware that playing New Zealand is more difficult than playing Leicester, that’s why Flutey performed worse at that level." By that logic, that must mean everyone performs worse at international level. It's fine to use that logic, but it must therefore apply to every player. "No statistics can describe Tindall’s ineptitude." Yes they can. If you want to prove your point, go and find them. Finally, you said earlier on that 'most' League converts are successful these days, yet I asked which of these have actually been successful, but you haven't replied (probably because you didn't see it). So, which League converts have been successful?

'Knives Out you might ponder the difference between the words ‘player’ and ‘coach’ and realise that they are not the same, and in Johnson’s case, because he was good at one does not mean is is good at the other. In fact he is the worst coach I have ever seen.' That's because he does absolutely no coaching whatsoever. Yet another intelligent observation to follow these beauties! -England MUST beat Ireland and Wales?! (Ashton lost 3/4 games to Ireland and Wales ) -England have lost 4 of the past 7 games! (No they haven't) -Johnson has ruined the careers of Haskell and Narraway! (Haskell has been involved in every squad under Johnson bar the current one and Narraway featured in the 09 6N. Further, Easter was always selected ahead of Narraway by Ashton) -Johnson ignores real English genius! (Actually JSD was selected in Johnson's EPS squad for the 08 Autumn tests but was removed due to injury which also affected his participation in the 09 6N squad.. Shontayne Hape had only played a handful of games by the 09 6N and Shane Geraghty was involved in the squad..) -The English tactics are rubbish! (which is why England had their best 6N since 2003 ) -Ashton unearthed Care! (no he didn't) -Armitage and Monye and Flutey are bad players! (I'm glad you've cleared that up for me) -Cipriani is a genius! (which is why he was so poor/mediocre for England, Wasps and the Saxons? Must be the players outside of him) -Tindall is rubbish and offers nothing in attack or defence and I require no statistics to confirm that! (Yes you do) -France made so many knock ons against England.. perhaps the most ever.. and I require no statistics to confirm that! (Yes you do) -Johnson demanded that Tait play at fullback (no he didn't) -The England test team in the Autumn interantionals had lots of experience (no it didn't) -And if the English team didn't have any experience it's because Johnson ignored better, older players instead of younger ones.. Yet I demand that Johnson flood his team with youthful genius! Woot woot! Great stuff.

'Johnson’s a joke.' Not half as funny as you, brother. Back to school for you, methinks. When at school pick up a dictionary and look up the word 'contradiction', and then re-read everything you've said. Good luck, brother.