RWC2019: Day 14 Update

Tomas Lavanini

Australia 45-10 Uruguay
This was another one-sided fixture, with the Wallabies winning by 35 points.

Two tries each for Dane Haylett-Petty and Tevita Kuridrani will have helped their case for selection in the Wallaby first-choice side, whilst there was a try for 19 year-old Jordan Petaia on his debut.

England could well face Australia in the quarter-finals – was there anything to learn from this run out?

England 39-10 Argentina
England ran out comfortable winners of this huge clash, which has all but eliminated Argentina.

The game started at a ver high intensity, with Agustin Creevy’s prediction of a war looking accurate. A huge turning point came when Tomas Lavanini was red-carded for a high tackle on Owen Farrell, and after that the sting was taken out of the game, with England looking flat and like they just expected to win.

Two late tries in the first half gave England a comfortable lead and there was no way back for Argentina.

The red card seemed the appropriate sanction given the clampdown on contact with the head, but Manu Tuilagi appeared to get away with a yellow-card offence when he made contact with Emiliano Boffelli before he landed after jumping for a high ball.

As the tournament progresses and the stakes for each match get higher and higher, it seems inevitable that a controversial red card decides the outcome, and we should all brace ourselves I think.

Owen Farrell’s goal-kicking was unusually poor, missing four relatively straightforward attempts in the first half, and that might be concerning as England go further in this World Cup.

The box kicking was also below par in my opinion, with Ben Youngs not having a great game, and Willi Heinz not much better when he came on.

England’s defence was again impressive, although again it’s hard to gauge because Argentina did not really threaten. But in three games, England have conceded just two tries – both after the result had been settled – and a total of just 20 points.

Billy Vunipola disappeared at half-time with an ankle niggle, but it was good to see the return of Mako Vunipola, Henry Slade and Jack Nowell, and Nowell scored a very well-taken try to show what he can add to the squad.

What did you think of the game? Who played well? What would you change for next week’s crucial game with France?

Japan v Samoa
I’ll write up this one later…

100 thoughts on “RWC2019: Day 14 Update

  1. The red card almost made it hard for England; they seemed to switch off and drifted through large parts of the game. BV was poor I thought, maybe his injury really affected him. Though Farrell was poor, apart from his kicking display he seemed very indecisive and was caught a few times behind the line. Good to see the guys back from injury and hopefully BV and Marler not serious.

    1. Would have to disagree with the statement that manu got away with a yellow. Timing was off but the player was about to land and went to ground safely. The playacting by Bofelli clearly fooled you.

      1. Typical. What would you have stated had an Argy tackled Tui in the same manner Jake? Did you actually watch the replay in which the Argentinian was still clearly airborne when contact was made? See it again at 7. The ‘playacting’, as you put it, was irrelevant.

        1. Typical… Don chomping. The classic kiwi bitterness is flowing through a usual from you.
          As I said, it was a penalty and no more. Think the scream from Bofelli was a bit much. Glad you agreed it was playacting though. ?

          1. More typical than typical subjective contention Jake? What on earth do I have to be bitter about? No skin off mine. That I challenged, disagreed with & corrected you are not reasons for yr claim. Perhaps you are also inferring that the ref, officials were bitter too for giving a decision you disagreed with? Utter tosh. Didn’t agree with yr play acting claim. I factually stated that it was irrelevant. Why do you struggle between fact & fiction? Tedious.

            1. I’d argue it was Nigel Owens actually being consistent with his decision making, having let off an Argentinian player early in the game for a late tackle, also a yellow card offence.

      2. Absolutely right.
        Taken in the air (Pen)? Yes
        But no to with force? High? Dangerous? so no further sanction needed

            1. Don I could be wrong but I think that for it to be a yellow he has to land on his side or back, red if its head or neck. In which case it was only a penalty as he landed on his feet. Happy to be proven wrong.

                1. For those who can’t be bothered to click the link:

                  Challenging players in the air – Law 10.4(i)
                  Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on

                  Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing – No pulling down
                  Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
                  Red card – It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position.

                  Pretty clear from the above that Tuilagi’s tackle on Bofelli meets the criteria for penalty only.

                  Do you know what is really starting to piss me off with these challenge-in-the-air situations? It’s the way catchers are deliberately launching themselves into the air and trying to get as much “hang time” as possible, making it practically impossible to legally tackle the bastard. Case in point, Bofelli must have been airborne for about three seconds – looked like he was trying to impersonate Michael bloody Jordan!!

        1. Well, not absolutely right Septimus. As Tui was not challenging & hit the guy in the air, it was foul play under Law 10 & it was therefore a yellow.

          1. Law 10.4 is very clear:
            “ Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing – No pulling down”

              1. Read it and it agrees with what everyone but you is saying. Sanction can vary from pen only to red card based on the framework and this was a pen only

    2. How do you not make contact with the head if ball carrying players are leading low with their heads. It means you cant tackle them almost

      1. Yes, gd pt Joe. As there seems to be no onus on the tackled player If he dips into the tackle, as can quite often be the case, the tackler cops it. May be deemed as mitigating circs regarding the tackler, but it hardly addresses this issue you point out. Needs a law change, amendment IMO.

  2. Also how was the red controversial? Is this implied by the article or am I reading it wrong.
    Lavanini does this all the time and as Owens stated, there were next to no mitigating factors.

    1. I think you’re reading it wrong.
      The red card in this game was appropriate but we should brace ourselves for a more controversial red card deciding future games.

    2. Because it wasn’t as clear cut as you want it to be Jake. Owens’ opinion isn’t infallible as his other controversial decision not to Yellow Tui indicated.

      1. Nothing controversial about the Tuilagi decision Don.

        The interesting part about the Lavinini red was that at first sight Owens called “no foul play”. This was just down to his position on the pitch at the time though and his angle of viewing. The replay was conclusive. Whilst I can sympathise with the relative difficulty for a hulking second row to get low in the tackle, that is what is required and has been clearly communicated, so he just needs to work on his technique.

        The only controversial thing about the Lavinini situation is Jonny May calling a mark where it was not really natural to do so, but to encourage the TMO and Owens to have a look at the incident. As an England supporter, I nodded in appreciation of this smart play, but I must admit that if it was a Frenchman or, perish the thought, a Kiwi pulling that trick I probably would have instantly declared him to be a cynical shithouse.

        1. Hutch disagrees & I never disagree with Hutch! And aren’t you being unfair to cynical shithouses Stroudos? BTW, when I miss-spelled the sh******* word, Spellcheck interpenetrated it as guesthouses. Amusing huh?

    3. Jake, get tagged for trolling, but statements like ‘he does it all the time’, with nothing specific to back it up, get my goat. Subjective stuff otherwise. Also; ‘Owens stated that there were next to no mitigating factors’ is imprecise & is not the same as ‘there were NO mitigating factors’.

      1. in Fairness to Jake Lavanini does have form and has been in the bin a lot in his test career
        8 cards in 50 odd tests is a high ratio

  3. A comfortable win, and at least we are out of the group stages so one step beyond 2015! woo woo…..

    Anyway – back to the game. Hmmm, not reeally sure what I made of it and I don’t feel it has told us much more about this England side and if they are really capable of going all the way. If Argentina had 15 men for the full game I still don’t think they would have proved the ‘test’ that we all feel England need at the moment rather than coasting into the QFs.

    Jonny Wilkinson made a good summary after the game that England looked too controlled, like they knew the win was coming and just went through the motions. However they could come unstuck getting into this mental pattern and when they really need to raise the game and bring it to the ‘edge’ they may not be mentally prepared i.e. big QF/SF.

    However – in a parrallell universe, on board Red Dwarf VI, am I being too pessimistic? is it that his team are the real deal and that they are just swatting aside teams wihtout getting past 3rd gear and that when 4th and 5th gear kicks in they will blow us all away with almighty perfomances??

    1. Darth Maul, I see your points, but if I were an England fan I think I would be a bit concerned. Apart from Jonny May (and of course Nowell near the end), England looked heavy-legged. That certainly applies to BV, who, in the run that seemed to bring about his injury, looked very lumbering and slow, and OF got caught in the headlights several times. I think England’s way forward is much clearer with a true centre pairing; Farrell at 10 (Ford on the bench), Tuilagi at 12, Slade/Joesph at 13. Real pace and cutting edge.

      1. Maybe they’re in in bit of a tail spin then Taliesin? However, with Farrell getting ‘caught in the headlights’, wouldn’t Ford be a better choice at 10?

  4. I am not comfortable with this performance.NZ would have put 60/70 points on Argentina by playing their high speed intense game but more importantly their attitude to constantly trying to improve.Most of the second half we were scrappy when we needed to play efficient rugby.NZ Remain way ahead at the moment and will fear nothing in playing us.Howevet it is rwc and anything can happen-in 2003 we played some crap games

    1. Harlequin absolute bs that New Zealand would’ve put 60-70 ponits on this Argentina side, they didn’t do that to Canada FFS will you lot just not get behind the team!

      1. Canada weren’t down to 14 after 20 were they?
        If you think we can beat NZ on form to date I disagree but as I said anything can happen at rwc and yes we are a great side but too infrequently to give confidence.

        1. Harlequin don’t change the goal posts you said New Zealand would put 60-70 on Argentina not that England would beat New Zealand, England beat Argentina with 14 men 3 yrs ago, stop chatting bollocks.

      2. You don’t call yrself 1eyed for nothing Hastings. Picking an isolated game as indicative is malarkey & do you know the AB team’s composition v Canada? Was it the the ‘A’ team perchance? Could H’quin have a point? Maybe Eddie should get more behind his own team too? Hardly a ringing endorsement in his after match.

          1. No, just correcting 1EH about 70 pts. And the team in ? was Canada, not Arg. Are you angry Pab? Re-read what I stated will you?

          1. Correct 1EH. You stated that NZ couldn’t put 70 on Canada ‘FFS’! They did v Namibia though, whom are listed nxt to them in the rankings. That’s a comparitive pointer I suggest. Won’t know about Argentina now will we? Or am I perhaps I’m just ‘getting behind my team’, as you advised Harlequin to do? BTW what happened in Argentina 3 yrs ago v England is old history. Pretty irrelevant to this present WC isn’t it?

      1. Happens. Bit of an off day like England v Scotland perhaps M? Can’t recall, but was it their 1st game? Dunno how relevant is it now though. Maybe the SA match was?

  5. A pretty boring game overall. On the one hand i don’t care as all that matters is getting to the QFs. But I’m worried it’s going to be hard for them to mentally step up enough when they do play Aus or Wales.

    1. Agreed MB; I think it must have been frustrating playing 15 to 14. They needed a tough challenge ahead of the French game, which will be an uncomfortable step up in intensity. As soon as that card went up, the game was basically over; that’s the trouble with red cards, it often finishes the game as a spectacle. Any alternatives??

      1. Yes allow replacement but forfeit one reserve.
        You can bet your bottom dollar that you are not
        going to be the most popular person in the dressing and forget to be invited to Christmas dinner.

        1. No player does not stay on,but hangs his head in shame because one of his team mates also pays the price for his foul play.
          You no longer have 8 reserves on the bench.
          The coach of the offending has to make the decision, do I keep playing on with 14 or replace the offender and lose a reserve as well.
          So two red cards will will whittle your reserves
          down at an alarming rate and offenders will
          think twice before committing foul play again.
          If I were to be the victim of your foul play
          you can bet your bottom dollar you won’t be invited to any parties.

    2. So enough of the provocative wording Rugby Blog, I feel England would’ve still won this one even without the red card, look at Argentina poor run of form over the last 20 games.

      They looked at Manu’s tackle in the game, it was properly assessed and correctly awarded a penalty for it, no need to analyse it further move on.

      I also take umbridge with the comment about the two late tries like it was a big thing, can I point out to you the amount of chat about humidity and players being tired, so what is the point with the bonus point in the bag and a potential group topping shoot out with France next weekend in pushing the team too hard when the job was done and a massive + points column, in this regard not matterng Jack?

      For me England didn’t look heavy legged, our defence has looked great and regardless of the opposition have only shipped 21 points.

      1. Provocative? Have they played anyone yet Q? How does an arm chair prepare England for suddenly having a stern contest in the 1/4ers? The glaring ? or issue might therefore be, will they qualify for a semi? Maybe the jury’s out ’till the next round?

      2. Agree with not needing to over exert. Probably learnt from needlessly playing on against USA. Maybe drifted a little but then tightened up again after conceding the try. Again hopefully learnt from the six nations Scotland melt down.
        Although the Pumas have had a poor run of form in terms of results, during the rugby Championship they only lost by 4 to NZ and 6 to AUZ. SA were the only ones to put proper points on them, so not so poor then? And they were very close to turning France over.

        Looking forward to the French game. It’s 3-2 at RWCs at the moment, in England’s favour.
        I’d like to see it go to 4-2 obviously. They seem to be performance matching the opposition at the moment and adding enough to win. So the biggest question as everyone alludes to is how more on top have they got.

        1. Are England frightening anyone with these std performances D Stan? Are they improving v mediocre opposition? Is it good enough to keep saying ‘job done, 3×5 bonus pts’? Do they have any more in their locker? Are these performances good enough to win the WC? Maybe, we’ll see, but shouldn’t they be putting more of a marker down? BTW Argentina’s record has been downward, not upward & their narrow NZ loss was home v a rookie team. More discerning read required?

          1. Blimey is there an echo in here?
            Haven’t you just said exactly what I just said???

            Brodie Retallic, Dane Coles, Sam Cane, Ardie Savea, Beauden Barrett, Aaron Smith, Jordie Barrett, Sevu Reece, Ben Smith, Anton Liernet-Bown…

            Some rookies NZ have eh bro…

            1. D Stanley .Tuingafasi, Coles, Taavao, Tuipulotu, Fafita, Savea in the pack, J Barrett, Laumape, L-Brown, Reece & B Smith in the backs were, or some are still, not 1st choices for NZ. Therefore in the Arg test to you retro refer, yeah, an ‘experimental’ team then if you prefer. Improved a bit since maybe, but this still doesn’t fundamentally undermine my original contention. Besides, do you KNOW what the likely AB 1st choice team for the 1/4ers is? I don’t.. know it all. Don’t know about Echoes either? Pink Floyd maybe?

              1. Calm down Don…if you can remember Meddle you shouldn’t be getting you’re BP up high enough to use CAPITAL SHOUTING!!!

                You inferred all the opposition Eng has faced was mediocre. I don’t think a mediocre side should keep within 4 of an AB side regardless of who they field. And then to keep it to within 6 of Aus just reinforces it. An Aus side that went on to demolish the ABs. And yes I know they turned it around next game..
                and as I said they very nearly turned over France.

                Be nice to watch the France game knowing the 1/4 is secure. Will Eng get any further? Like you Don …I don’t know….

          2. They’re more impressive than the French Don P, you love blowing it out your arse don’t you, Rugby Blogs number 1 troll!

            1. Oops, srry C Grayskull. Accidentally dropped my response to the bottom of the pile. And also apologies for forgetting what the C in yr handle stood for. Happy reading.

  6. Not an ideal result from an Irish point of view. Japan can now LOSE against Scotland (if within 7) and progress together with them and if we were to simultaneously lose to Samoa (who have everything to play for – national pride and automatic qualification to 2023), Ireland would go out.

    Ireland must beat Samoa. It’s as simple as that but beating a motivated Samoa who will have a point to prove in the sweltering humid subtropics of Fukuoka is a potential banana peel. It’s still all to play for in Pool A.

    Regarding ENG V ARG, I think England would have steam rolled them anyway. Argentina never do enough to get into a 1 or 2 seed position for qualification to the world cup, and hence are always in with 2 top tier teams in the pools. Sooner or later that’s gonna bite you in the ass. They get no sympathy from me.

    If France beat Tonga with a bonus point, I think we will see two B teams play each other for FRA V ENG. The reason being that there’s no gain in aiming for WAL or AUS in the quarter finals. Either is massive challenge.

    1. What the Dickens are you going on about? Ire lose to Samoa? Samoa are too conservative & go for pens. Lack belief therefore. Also lack creativity & discipline. Dunno about Scot v Japan. Thought the Jocks might turn Japan over like last WC, but with their tails up & table topping, Japan won’t jack confidence or belief. Could even do Ire a favour by giving the porridge gobblers a bit of a trouncing?

      1. Sorry, I can’t see Scotland beating Japan. They are just too quick-thinking as well as quick-moving. Scotland haven’t honestly looked up to very much. Disappointing – I’ll be pleased if they do prove me wrong, because it will be a significant win, but………

  7. You might be right Dickensworth but , I think England would rather face Aus then Wales and May be planning a team for France accordingly.

    1. Not sure that the Wallabies would be somehow easier opponents than Wales.
      Our one big advantage in playing the Taffs is that we do it on an annual basis. We know the players, the coach, the basic playing style.
      To my eyes ,Australia are far more likely to cut us apart in the same way they did to Wales in the second half of the group game and we won’t cope with that as well as the Welsh did.
      Also, setting up a team in order to engineer a meet with a preferred opponent if fraught with pitfalls, particularly when you are up against the capricious Bleus!

    2. I hate this kind of thinking. If you want to win the bastard, you have to beat the best teams on each respective day. Manoeuvring for table position to try and get an “easy” route is extremely disrespectful to the team/s you’ve identified as easy; more importantly it fosters a complete wrong mindset and ALWAYS BACKFIRES.

  8. I certainly get the nerves about playing Wales in the quarters. But let’s kind of ignore that particular subject. Umm…..Tra-la-la-di-dah etc.

  9. 6 & a 1/2 out of 10, a 1/2 up on last time. Routine. V 14, match done, so could England have put more on the board? Jack Nowell caught my eye for his cameo. Bounced 1 off & ran around the rest, tight ropeing the white lines. Eddie more realistic afterwards than prev games, affirming another job done. Not brill, drifted for a bit, awoke at the end. Don’t think anyone had a bad game. Daly wasn’t conspicuous for his misdeeds for a change, at least to a few here? Bit worrying Farrell’s kicking like BB wasn’t it? Were BV & Tui as prominent as they could have been? Solid scrum, ok in the loose & line out. Yes, some kicking was aimless. Tried running it some. A Ref’s match however. At least he wasn’t French I suppose, but could he have given Lav a yellow instead of red? Used his arms, vest to vest initial contact similtaneous with shoulder on neck, not actual head (don’t know if neck is the same as the head?) & Farrell was dipping slightly. Inconsistent, as BV didn’t warrent any colour according to Peyper, even though replays clearly showed an air tackle. Alright so long as it goes yr way I guess. 3×3 max points, so all’s going swimmingly? Hard to argue with stats (Leon’ll no doubt vouch for that) like those isn’t it? Wouldn’t change much for France. Maybe JN & MV could start? Prob full test starting team then. Keep a solid ‘D’, build a lead, but don’t be afraid to score TRIES working more back line moves, improve accuracy.

      1. Just asking JK, just asking. Do you know if there’s a difference relating to head high tackles? No, I’m not a Dr, or a referee either.

  10. once down to 14 a few things change ,… England gain confidence, Argy heads drop, the scrum is not a contest and its a big power shift and every Argy player has to work 5% harder,.. i’m sure England would have won 15 v 15 but as a competition the game was over

  11. And if it had been an Argy on Tui? Tui hit him in the air early. The sanctions are to stop people from falling out of the sky on to their heads. Presumably to prevent broken Gregory Pecks.

    1. Wasn’t my point Don, I think beating a team that your expected to beat anyway took away what could have been a better test for both teams, I think all the home nations would beat the Argies with 14 men for 75% of the game was my point , I watched only the highlights so was not aware there were only 14 Argies playing and took away what looked a huge win , in reality they say a yellow card [10mins] is worth 7 pts on average , if that’s true do your own math

  12. Actually could have stated earlier, but thought that the author’s assessment of the Eng v Arg game was fairly balanced. Seems that sometimes unless you ‘tell’ the punters what they want to ‘hear’, some will put the shoe in. I state this as 1 who, oddly, has occasionally been accused of doing likewise.

  13. Taliesin why on earth would you drop Ford who has been one of our best players for Farrell who has been one of our worst?

    1. Sevegolf – that’s true, and I agree, Ford is excellent. The problem then is really Farrell; has to be on the park because he’s captain (doesn’t he?? Eddie might think different), but he’s really not a centre, too slow. On the other hand, with his fantastic kicking game, and his strong physical presence, he’s a much better proposition at 10 than at 12. Just my view, and then again, there’s a lot to be said for sticking with a winning line-up.

  14. late to the party so If i state the obvious I apologise.
    *Faz going for a fifty yard goal attempt rather than a catch and drive with Argentina just lost a lock?
    Monye banging on about England having 60 odd percent possession after the red card but failing to add they did sod all with it?
    Faz still not canny enough to butter up the Ref with the odd “yes Sir” or similar.
    The first game in which we genuinely had that “all we have to do is turn up ” air about us.
    The umpteenth game in a row where we lacked the ruthlessness to put a depleted side to the sword.
    Top of the group, maximum points, very few tries against ,three wins from three and in the quarter finals. Why , oh why am I finding it so difficult to love this team?

    1. Are you too a troll Acee? Ha, ha. Better watch out that Dark Stan doesn’t get on yr case about getting on board. Yikes! Valid points & ?’s for a team aspiring to lift the Cup BTW.

      1. Cheers Don.
        Love the “circumcised from the neck up ” comment earlier in this thread too, a very cutting remark!

    2. I know exactly how you feel. We’re doing ok aren’t we. Aren’t we? I just don’t know to be honest. On one level I’m ecstatic that we’re not in the same god awful boat we were in last time out; on another the niggly doubts are there. The No9 position remains problematic, I just don’t think however dominant or fast moving the pack is it will compensate for the slow inconsistent delivery. Does the SA tour and Calcutta fragility remain? I’d like to think not, I’d like to think that with the huge resources available lessons have been learnt.

      Whatever ensues,I hope it’ll be as fascinating as the tournament has been up to now…,

  15. Did Farrell get a HIA after the red card tackle? I dont recall he did, which surely if the whole ethos on the head contact/red card rule is player safety he should have gone for HIA? In all seriousness maybe he was slightly concussed & that led to some of his caught in the headlights moments??

    1. Agreed Darth that’s twice now he has taken a red card blow to the head without going for an HIA and this time it seemed to noticeably impact his performance. Personally i would be looking to rest him against France
      WR need to look at immediately introducing a law that if a player is subject to a red card high tackle that they go for an HIA before someone gets seriously hurt.

  16. I’m pretty encouraged by the start we have made to the World Cup. Our results vs Tonga and USA put into context by France’s performances against the same. We’ve achieved this without having to go through the gears. Of course, there are good and bad points to not being properly tested but, sticking my neck out on an opinion, I think in the long run we should benefit from the physical and, perhaps more importantly, mental freshness.

    It was a shame to see Lavanini go off but the red card was the only option. Manu was lucky to stay on the field, given that I thought Owens would have had an element of tit-for-tat thinking in his head having just shown Lavanini a red card after he had initially indicated no foul.

    I wasn’t surprised to see us go flat after the red card – not saying that this was a bit of a disappointment though.

  17. Oh dear Castle Grayskull, is that you again? Are you still unhappy? Yes, they were yr mother’s panties though I’m afraid. Srry about that. But look, it’s ok to come out of the closet now. You don’t have to hide behind my name mask any more. It’s really not yr fault that you were circumcised from the neck up at birth. A well wisher.

  18. A pretty tedious match I thought, lasting well over two hours with stoppages for Owens to make himself heard. England always looked to have enough in the locker to win fairly comfortably whether against 14 or 15. Billy V looked off the pace and Farrell had a poor day at the office, while Daly looked good but remains untested. The squad look powerful, well organised and difficult to beat, but I am not sure that is enough to win a world cup. If they are to persist with their persistent kicking game it needs to be far more accurate. Youngs was once again at fault and Heinz didn´t look much better. However, what worries me more than anything is that there are at least six teams in the competition who play much faster and with more sense of urgency than us. Some of them we can strangle the life out of with powerful forward play and a kicking game, but there seems to be no real urgency to win quick ball from the back of the ruck and recycle it. I suspect this will come back to bite us in the bum.

    1. That’s the issue with having 2 not great scrum halves.
      You just need to look at the speed that the Japanese / South African / Kiwi scrum halves clear the ball and then compare it to Youngs / Heinz to understand why other teams are playing with more urgency

      1. Absolutely, Pablito. Just the point I was making, and it was emphasised by a terrific cameo from Spencer in the Premiership Cup. I would have had Spencer and Care as my two 9´s and tried to play with a lot more pace.

  19. Could ask Dave Gilmour or Roger Waters about Eng’s future progress then Dark Stan (‘Star’, also ring a bell?). They may know as much, or little, as anyone else? And BTW, ‘Meddle’ is the musical = to valium.. so I’m told! Therefore will re-listen pronto! Regards England’s opposition so far, hasn’t it been a bit ordinary? Not England’s fault of course, but couldn’t they have played with some more intent, marker wise? The Oz ‘demolition’ of NZ was v 14 BTW. IMO, Argentina play with energy, intent, vigour etc, but lack ability to score TRIES! Anyway, the red fudged the match, so have to wait & see how England progress. Don’t see France as a real obstacle, so on to the 1/4er’s? Then, who knows? Crystal bollough time? Regds.

    1. Gave it my best shot Leon! Try harder next time. OTOH, I’m TRB’s best customer. Thanks for the heads up. And credit where it’s due, gave you a thumbs up sir! No charge. Oops! Does that make it 42? Catching up.

Comments are closed.