Quadrant Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 Ok, so we were knocked out the rugby world cup today by France. They played better than us and won. But I just hate it - HATE IT - when the media say "now the inquest begins", or "heads will roll" or "there will have to be an enquiry". Why? Why will there be an inquest? It assumes somebody is to blame for failing to beat all the other countries in the tournament and win the whole thing.This isn't right. It is an English arrogance (which originated from football) that just assumes "England are the best so we will win the world cup, and if we don't we should sack somebody". No - we didn't have the best team; other teams played better on the day; we lost a game. It's nobody's fault, nobody sabotaged anything, nobody didn't try (or refuse to play), nobody threw the game away when we should have won. It is a game and the other team beat us because they played better on the day. That's it. End of. No inquiries necessary for me! Why don't people get this? This blame-game culture makes me mad!! :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 To be fair I agree that if, in a one off game, we were beaten by a superior side then no-one should be held directly responsible BUT the problems were there throughout the world cup in group games where we were clearly superior (as was displayed by the fact that we won) to the opposition and were playing against lowly sides, yet we still made an array of basic errors and played with no real gameplan or self belief. To change the centre pairing in virtually every single game is attrocious management and Johnson should be held responsible and possibly resign after bottling it and playing both Flood & Wilkinson when Wilkinson clearly needed dropping. The thing that is different with Rugby is that the World Cup is every four years, that is (really) the only major tournament and while the six nations and autumn internationals mean plenty, in realistic terms they are all intended to help build a world cup winning side. The process has to start in the next test match to decide who is going to be playing in four years time, who is worthwhile perseveering with (in the hope that they come good for four years time) and who can manage the transition (i.e. senior players who can be retained in the short term to ease the transition). That is where an "inquest" is needed as, more than likely, Wilkinson, Tindall, Shaw, Moody et al will not be required in the future due to their ages. There is too much of an expectation that England will win everything (and should win everything) - this is certainly a massive problem in football. I think in this tournament everyone's disspointment comes from the fact that we made so many basic errors - if, as with four years ago, we had gone out having played well and battled valiantly then there would not be the clamour for a post-mortem but we made so many awful handling errors and missed so many tackles that something does need to be said in order to ensure it does not happen again. We have showed (most notably against Australia twelve months ago) that we can beat the best and play a brand of rugby which can get such results - however throughout this world cup Johnson's innate conservatism and reluctance to gamble (Tulilagi aside) has limited us and dictated that we, ultimately, under-achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 Also - sorry for the essay and seeming to disagree with you a lot lately Quadders - I love you really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.