Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Got to be in with a big shout after the Boks have overhauled their team with 10 changes!


South Africa: Kirchner (Bulls); Ndungane (Sharks), Fourie (Lions), Olivier (Bulls), Nokwe (Cheetahs); M Steyn (Bulls), Du Preez (Bulls); Mtawarira (Sharks), Ralepelle (Bulls), Smit (Sharks), Muller (Sharks), Matfield (Bulls), Brussow (Cheetahs), Smith (Cheetahs), Kankowski (Sharks).


Replacements: B du Plessis (Sharks), Steenkamp (Bulls), Carstens (Sharks), Sykes (Sharks), Spies (Bulls), R Pienaar (Sharks), F Steyn (Sharks).


Their coach has criticised the Lions media over their coverage of the Burger incident.


"We had negative media from Britain in 1974 and 1980 and now I've allowed it again in 2009, I've learnt that if they can't win on the field then they will try to win anywhere else they can."

Hope Vickery has more of a chance this time. No expert on forward play but presume Shaw's bulk will help. See they've changed to a 5/2 split on the bench. Would have liked for Earls to have had a chance. I'm not convinced by either of our wings. What happened to Fitzgerald? Is he injured or dropped?

This De Villiers character is a bit of a joke, he?s that drunk guy you meet in the pub who thinks he?s an expert on everything but just ends up embarrassing himself. Apparently he isn?t even involved in the training that much. I suspect his appointment is more political than anything else.


He does have a point about the British press though. Their sense for, often ill-informed, sporting melodrama is second to none. All the press has to say about rugby at the moment is, eye-gouging this and eye-gouging that when the IRB has been quite clear that no eye-gouging occurred. Then there is the, ferocious test this and brutal match that. Have these journalists ever watched a match between the Springboks and the All Blacks and seen how ferocious proper rugby is?

I have to admit I always thought eye gouging meant sticking the finger(s) into and under the eye ball - but from the reaction assumed this had by Rugby Law now been extended to cover stroking finger on face beneath eye socket.. or was Burger yellow carded more for intent?


Who is right and who is wrong?

IMO whether he actually got his fingers in Fitzgerald's eyes or not, it seems clear that is what he intended/hoped to do. He deliberatley went for Fitzgerald with his fingers in the eye area and the ball was nowhere near them. It looked like a nasty move, whether he was successful in actually gouging or not.


I have never seen such an obvious attempt at gouging on television before. Bad advert for rugby. As O Driscoll says if parents are considering whether or not to encourage their kids to play rugby, they would have their minds made up for them right there.

Maybe he was just helping Fitzgerald re-adjust a contact lense? I see they SA's have now accused O'Gara of gouging. I can only presume they are being sarcastic give his contribution of missing a tackle and giving away the winning penalty which surely wouldn't have happened if there wasn't some self abuse of the eyes involved.
as much as you're all just joshing, i got gouged on the field years back (well, attempted - I still have my eye). It's fecking painful and extremely dangerous. If i was playing now and felt finger "stroke cheek under eye" i'd instantly let go of the ball and protect my face, even if he "didn't really mean it", and using that to your advantage even if you don't actually intend to scoop out someones eye is a professional foul and unsportsmanlike. Burger was pretty obviously aiming for the eye. he is, therefore, a c&nt, and deserves to be cited.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No - apparently he was found guilty of a lesser

> charge, not guilty of gouging.

>

> Cleared


Interesting the press here still refer to it as gouging. I think Quinlin got a longer ban for possibly a lesser offence!

I'm at a BBQ today Matt - so not around in ED - but I will be watching it - I lost interest after last week but have regained my enthusiasm today - would be good to win one.


I have worked out that they have 54 points so far and we have 46 - so a >8 point win for the Lions and we can take a minor moral victory home with us. However unlikely that may be.


But in truth today I think we will get beten confortable today, too many big players have gone from the Lions team.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • A Google search brought up eleven Chango  branches, although they don't all seem to be listed on their website. In the order they came up: East Dulwich, Clapham Common, Mayfair, Wandsworth, City of London, Wimbledon,  Parsons Green, Kensington, Highgate, Richmond, Hampstead. I think it is the positioning of this new branch that has mostly got to me. I accept that they would have to go for where a space became vacant, but Lordship Lane is pretty long, even just the part with shops in,  and choosing to  open a stone's throw away from Chacarero seems mean, to say the least. I wonder if they have made contact with Chacarero. It would be nice to think they had (in a friendly way, obviously!)
    • I like empanadas. I don't think Chango is a massive chain - it's got a few stores all in London I believe (stand to be corrected if I've got that wrong). I don't see a problem with them opening on the Lane personally. I really like Chacarero, but that doesn't mean that they should be immune from competition - if they're successful and open a couple more stores, are we then meant to stop supporting them for being a 'chain'?  That opening post does sound a lot like marketing spiel though. Is the OP perhaps connected to the new business I wonder?
    • According to what I can see online, Dynamic Vines and Cave de Bruno sell totally different kinds of wine to each other.  Dynamic Vines  "work with independent winemakers who produce outstanding wine using sustainable practices in the vineyard and minimal intervention in the cellar".  Cave de Bruno specialises in French wines and spirits from small independent producers. So two different USPs, and no doubt two different but overlapping customer bases who can afford these wines. Probably different again to the people mainly  shopping for wine at Majestic or the Co op. On the other hand, the two empanada shops appear on the face of it to be selling virtually identical products. But time will tell, won't it? Let's see how they are both doing in - say - a couple of years' time. Impossible, of course, to compare that with how they would have done if there had been only one of them. I just feel more  sorry for the original one than for  the one which can apparently already afford to have a number of shops in places like Mayfair and Highgate. I'm tempted to buy something there every week, and I don't even like that kind of pastry 🤣
    • Not only can he turn olive oil into Vermouth, but also water into a wine. A true miracle worker.  I wouldn't say a wine shop sells a wide variety of things - and there are two right next to each other.  And once upon a time, upmarket pizza shops were very specific. So were burritos etc. These Argentinian cornish pasties are clearly becoming mainstream; we should consider ourselves lucky to be witnessing this exciting upward trend within our lifetimes and on OUR HIGH STREET. We can tell our grandkids that we remember when there was no internet and no empanadas.  I'm sure that if the family empanada people have a good business head, they'll be able to ride this wave of competition, just like Bruno has. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...