• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Lions again

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    I know, I know, but I expected Australia to be quite good.
    They were for a few mins around half time, I think the Lions showed good spirit and didn't buckle at 16-19. Halfpenny was awesome.
    But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the younger

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by Gibbon View Post
      They were for a few mins around half time, I think the Lions showed good spirit and didn't buckle at 16-19. Halfpenny was awesome.
      Lions front row was brilliant. Finally we saw a ref that cares about scrummaging and Aus were rightfully torn to shreds.
      And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
        Lions front row was brilliant. Finally we saw a ref that cares about scrummaging and Aus were rightfully torn to shreds.
        For me, this was always the way the Lions were going to beat Aus, brawn and grunt all around the park. It was unlikely to be an O'Driscoll (or other) sleight of hand or moment of brilliance in the backline that was going to win the game for them. Continued physicality all around the park and set piece dominance was the way forward which is why I thought they'd win irrespective of whether BOD played or not. Agree re the ref.

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by oracleslave View Post
          For me, this was always the way the Lions were going to beat Aus, brawn and grunt all around the park.
          Plus three running, passing tries. All in all a good rugby performance I'd say.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by AtW View Post
            It might shock some people but I am not actually an expert on rugby so I will not be sharing my views on the lions at this time.

            HTH
            Why is rugby any different from anything else you seem to have an opinion on?

            To be accepted into the upper middle class social circles that your standing as a "nouveau (nearly nouveau to be accurate) riche" entrepreneur requires in modern society will need some basic understanding of:

            the rules of rugger
            the rules of cricket
            One end of a horse from another
            when when/when not to tuck your shirt in
            how to use something called cutlery
            how to sneer at football whilst having your own team to support

            Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
              Why is rugby any different from anything else you seem to have an opinion on?

              To be accepted into the upper middle class social circles that your standing as a "nouveau (nearly nouveau to be accurate) riche" entrepreneur requires in modern society will need some basic understanding of:

              the rules of rugger
              the rules of cricket
              One end of a horse from another
              when when/when not to tuck your shirt in
              how to use something called cutlery
              how to sneer at football whilst having your own team to support

              [pedant]



              laws


              [/pedant]
              And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

              Comment


                #47
                Anyway, I shall now state publicly that although I still think BOD should have played, it has been confirmed to me that I don't have a bloody clue what anyone with a shirt number greater than 9 actually does, so in future I shall refrain from saying anything about the selection of backs.

                The forwards were bloody brilliant; well done to the backs for not screwing it up. Highlights; Jones, Hibbard and Corbisiero pissing all over Australia's attempt at a front row, a ref who cares about the fine art of scrummaging and Geoff Parling's diving tap tackle.
                And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                  Anyway, I shall now state publicly that although I still think BOD should have played, it has been confirmed to me that I don't have a bloody clue what anyone with a shirt number greater than 9 actually does, so in future I shall refrain from saying anything about the selection of backs.
                  That's only half an admission, I think admin should replace your avatar with a hat or pie for a week and a title saying " I was very wrong Mr Gatland, sorry."
                  But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the younger

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by Gibbon View Post
                    That's only half an admission, I think admin should replace your avatar with a hat or pie for a week and a title saying " I was very wrong Mr Gatland, sorry."
                    I wasn't wrong; BOD could have scored even more.

                    And there's something I just don't like about Gatland; dunno what it is.

                    Where I was wrong was in assuming that Australia would actually be good.
                    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                      Anyway, I shall now state publicly that although I still think BOD should have played, it has been confirmed to me that I don't have a bloody clue what anyone with a shirt number greater than 9 actually does, so in future I shall refrain from saying anything about the selection of backs.

                      The forwards were bloody brilliant; well done to the backs for not screwing it up. Highlights; Jones, Hibbard and Corbisiero pissing all over Australia's attempt at a front row, a ref who cares about the fine art of scrummaging and Geoff Parling's diving tap tackle.
                      You forgot to mention Alun Wyn Jones, also immense as captain.

                      Nobody else even in the media seems to have mentioned that tackle by Parling but it was brilliant, and probably a try-saver.

                      Incidentally, wasn't it Alexander that kept winning penalties off Vinupola? What goes round comes around!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X