molman
Jim Lenehan (48)
"Should've started me instead
ya stupid f***** **** ****s."
-Wallabies reserve halfback Nic White
Ha. That one actually made me laugh. Thanks.
"Should've started me instead
ya stupid f***** **** ****s."
-Wallabies reserve halfback Nic White
Kerevi, Arnold, Latu, Pocock all losses.
Hooper has been playing well and has kicked a gear. Ditto Pocock.
Id say Latu cemented himself as Australia's best hooker this tournament so a massive loss. I well and truly ate my words regarding his involvement.
Thread turning ugly way too early into the night...
Thinking about it.. exact same result as last 6 times we played England. Same strategy, and same result.
Wallabies nice effort, but poor strategy, and your never going to win against England playing catch-up rugby.
Thank you linesman..thank you ball-boys...thank you TGC, now f@#k off!
I think that this game has shown once and for all that the Pooper is not a winner in test matches. Hooper won a couple of turnovers on the back of excellent tackling by others, but otherwise he might have just as well have been here at home watching the game. He is not a No 7, nor a No 6 nor a No 8. Playing him at 7 has forced the Wallabies to play one of the world's best No 7s out of position. For all the Hooper fans, I ask, is he really as good as Pocock as a traditional No 7? And if not, what sort of game does he actually play? He is more like an extra back than a forward and his presence at No 7 over the past 4 years has completely unbalanced every forward pack that he has been part of.
I think that this game has shown once and for all that the Pooper is not a winner in test matches. Hooper won a couple of turnovers on the back of excellent tackling by others, but otherwise he might have just as well have been here at home watching the game. He is not a No 7, nor a No 6 nor a No 8. Playing him at 7 has forced the Wallabies to play one of the world's best No 7s out of position. For all the Hooper fans, I ask, is he really as good as Pocock as a traditional No 7? And if not, what sort of game does he actually play? He is more like an extra back than a forward and his presence at No 7 over the past 4 years has completely unbalanced every forward pack that he has been part of.
haha, I'd say it's at about Defcon 4 at the moment
Moderator C.Yclopath, seen here evaluating forii combustibilty activity
Two sides mate - posts might not read well but recognise the forum posted on as we are not submitting ministerial submissions so to attack someone for Grammar, wording on here with mobile postings and all its joys let alone those with language issues means we could spend all day on that - yes my post was out of line but Adam’s post was out of line imo - move on here
I think that this game has shown once and for all that the Pooper is not a winner in test matches. Hooper won a couple of turnovers on the back of excellent tackling by others, but otherwise he might have just as well have been here at home watching the game. He is not a No 7, nor a No 6 nor a No 8. Playing him at 7 has forced the Wallabies to play one of the world's best No 7s out of position. For all the Hooper fans, I ask, is he really as good as Pocock as a traditional No 7? And if not, what sort of game does he actually play? He is more like an extra back than a forward and his presence at No 7 over the past 4 years has completely unbalanced every forward pack that he has been part of.
To be frank, I'm not sure the Pooper is what lost it for us. A lot of other areas you could look at first before those two players being on the field.
So Genia, Kepu, Foley, Lealifano, Arnold, Coleman and possible Kerevi have all played their last game in gold.
I'm pretty sure the eventual winner (when not NZ) have only also beaten the ABs once.