Which Tyler

Having managed to watch (or at least, be in the same room as) every minute of England's RWC, I've seen all of 1 tactic that is both good and repeated, both repeated within single matches, and across multiple matches. Marchant shepherding Farrell away from the ref before he gets penalised for the way he talks to ref.s Obviously, it didn't work every time, but keeping our captain away from the ref was generally a good, much repeated call

That's what I realised, and editted in (simultaneously to your response, so neither of us would have seen the other's). In fairness - I thought you were responding to me because you quoted me.

What? why does it have to be trying to make a particular point? Man wins award IS the point - it's not damning of anything - where are you even getting that from? Other than, "from not reading the article or knowing anything about it" ETA: Or are you asking the wrong person, and meant to quote BFC, who didn't seem to get beyond the headline, and therefore mistook "influence" for "power", and is the only mention of anything damning about anything here.

Influential, not powerful - bloody headline writers! And neither are black - for this award it's specifically African, African-Carribean or African-American

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/25/key-question-britain-2023-why-do-we-put-up-with-this-rubbish

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/oct/20/byelections-live-tamworth-mid-bedfordshire-conservatives-tories-labour-liberal-democrats John Curtice says Labour's byelection performance equivalent to what was happening before its 1997 landslide victory Last night, before the byelection results were declared, CCHQ issued a damage limitation briefing to journalists saying it was normal for governments to lose byelections. A party spokesperson said: These were always going to be challenging by-elections and the rule of thumb is that governments don’t win them. We have seen little to no enthusiasm for Sir Keir Starmer who voters can see stands for nothing and always puts short term political gain first. But Prof Sir John Curtice, the leading elections expert, told the Today programme that these results could not be dismissed as standard byelection losses. He explained: The truth is these were not ordinary government losses. The swing in Tamworth, at just below 24%, is the second biggest swing from Conservative to Labour in postwar electoral history. And at just over 20% the swing in Mid Bedfordshire is also in the top 10. No government has previously lost to the principal opposition party a seat as safe as Tamworth. You have to go back to 1977 and the Ashfield byelection to find an equivalent. If you want to look at the precedent – what’s the last time that we had swings of this order? The answer is the parliament of 92 to 97. There were four byelection in that in which Labour got swings of over 20% from the Conservatives, and we all now how that ended. And, by the way, those swings also occured in byelections in which the fall in turnout was often greater than it was in these two byelections. So the point is we are not looking at ordinary byelection losses. We are looking at exceptional swings, and swings that for the only real precedent is not a very happy one for the Conservatives. Curtice conceded that Starmer is not as popular as Tony Blair was ahead of the 1997 general election. But he pointed out that the 12 point rise in Labour’s vote in the Mid Bedfordshire byelection matches the 12 point increase in Labour’s vote in the national opinion polls. He went on: You can argue maybe there isn’t as much enthusiasm for Labour as there is discontent with the conservatives. But, nevertheless, when Labour have been challenged, they still managed to win that challenge.

That's the killer for me. I can entirely believe that he just didn't see it that way - especially as he isn't using the pound of flesh trope, and it isn't from close to the heart - but once pointed out and rejected, he should have said something along the lines of "shit, sorry, I didn't intend it that way, didn't see it that way; but I'll do you a different one". Refusing to see that others might take it differently to yourself once it's been pointed out, is rather arrogant, and paints him in a really poor light IMO.

Just a note of interest; and according to Wiki... going back at least as far as the 1870s, these are the years where there has been more than 1 by-election prompted by "scandal" 1936 - 2 (both the same scandal - disclosing budget secrets) 2009 - 2 (both the same scandal - expenses) 2019 - 2 2021 - 2 2022 - 3 2023 - 4 and counting

Yeah, the insanely early draw, and subsequent development of various teams, means that we've (likely) sacrificed 2 awesome semi-finals in favour of 4 fantastic quarter finals. This coming weekend though... Unless SA and SA both emotionally played their finals just now, are going to be complete blow-outs.

I don't like criticising refs, so I'm happy to say a full-hearted "well played" to South Africa, and leave it there.

Bugger. Best team on the day won both matches, but... bugger!

IMO all 4 QFs, the NH team is favourite - but not by enough that I have any expectation of a NH clean-sweep. The 2 I've posted should be cracking matches. The other 2... more like cripple fights, that almost completely disinterest me, given what's happening above.

Ireland: 1. Porter 2. Sheehan 3. Furlong 4. Beirne 5. Henderson 6. O'Mahony 7. van der Flier 8. Doris 09. Gibson-Park 10. Sexton (c) 11. Lowe 12. Aki 13. Ringrose 14. Hansen 15. Keenan 16. Kelleher, 17. Kilcoyne, 18. Bealham, 19. McCarthy, 20. Conan 21. Murray, 22. Crowley, 23. O'Brien New Zealand: 1. de Groot 2. Taylor 3. Lomax 4. Retallick 5. SBarrett 6. Frizell 7. Cane (c) 8. Savea 09. Smith 10. Mo'unga 11. Fainga'anuku 12. JBarrett 13. Ioane 14. Jordan 15. BBarrett 16. Coles, 17. Williams, 18. Newell, 19. Whitelock, 20. Papali'i 21. Christie, 22. McKenzie, 23. Lienert-Brown

France: 1. Baille 2. Mauvaka 3. Atonio 4. Woki 5. Flament 6. Jelonch 7. Ollivon 8. Alldritt 09. Dupont (c) 10. Jalibert 11. Bielle-Biarrey 12. Danty 13. Fickou 14. Penaud 15. Ramos 16. Bourgarit, 17. Wardi, 18. Aldegheri, 19. Taofifenua, 20. Cros, 21. Macalou 22. Lucu, 23. Moefana. South Africa: 1. Kitshoff 2. Mbonambi 3. Malherbe 4. Etzebeth 5. Mostert 6. Kolisi (c) 7. du Toit 8. Vermeulen 09. Reinach 10. Libbok 11. Kolbe 12. de Allende 13. Kriel 14. Arendse 15. Willemse 16. Fourie, 17. Nché, 18. Koch, 19. Snyman, 20. Smith 21. de Klerk, 22. Pollard, 23. Le Roux.

Anyone watching The Winter King? I believe it's about 2/3 - 3/4 of the way through its first season. Can anyone report? Is it as shit as the trailer made it look? Does it bear any actual relation to the books? or is it just another Arthurian swords-and-sandals show with some names from Cornwell?

Of course you're allowed your opinion. Of course, we're allowed our opinion on your expressed opinion.

Catching up on some "must watch" TV that I missed first time around, so first view. Generally watching 1 episode most days. Finished Sopranos last week - not my genre, well written, well acted, well shot. Despite my general disinterest in gangster/mob stuff, it mostly held my interest, and did well enough. Obviously, it's overhyped, but genuinely very good. I know there's supposed to be debate about the last episode / scene, but I really don't understand why. Initial angst about the final shot, I understand, but that was truly excellent, and the only bit that actually transcended the genre - but there's no real mystery. About half way through the first season of The Wire, and... I don't get the hype so far. I presume it'll improve but so far, so cliche. I'll allow that showing depth for the criminal side may have novel for the time so may have been setting a new standard there, but I've already lost my resolve to not/barely look at phone whilst it's on. Again, it's also not my genre, but way less interesting to watch than Sopranos.

Middle-aged women are obviously such an over-represented demographic on our screens... We need more younger, hotter fresher actresses... Erm...

Fuck! https://www.fijivillage.com/news/Tuisova-makes-ultimate-sacrifice-after-his-sons-passing-in-Ba-x8r45f/

But... we've already paid them to do the repairs and maintenance. What I'm seeing, is a pretty good example of extortion. Are we absolutely sure that Tony Soprano isn't a water company CEO?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cx067FTt51K/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=5564972d-fb36-4435-87ca-20897a1b8d3e

Yeah, for the first time ever, the possibility of Italy actually beating the All Blacks is worth... about 1+2 seconds of thought before being dismissed.

It's... about more than that though. It's about history and feel (the tiers are accepted, but last time I checked, not officially recognised), but QN and 6N is the closest we've got to somewhere we can place a cutting off point. Argentina or Italy beating most of the other top tier nations wouldn't be a shock. IIRC Argentina have beaten everyone, Italy have beaten everyone but England and New Zealand. I'm pretty sure (but not 100%) that those 10 have never failed to qualify for a world cup either; with only Japan also holding that record - and that down to being the best in Asia, rather than necessarily the best 16/20 teams. By far and away, those 10 nations have the strongest history; and the gap between even Italy and the best tier 2 nation is usually pretty significant. The alternative is to go by rankings - which opens a whole host of problems. ETA: Sorry, some also use the number of votes a nation has at WR council meetings (mostly, it's Japan who use this definition) which is the above 10 + Japan.

It generally means playing in a top tier annual tournament. So all 6Nations and all QuadNations teams are tier 1, everyone else is tier 2. It's getting murkier as the gaps between the tiers reduces, but until recently, they were the only 10 nations with at least 1 fully professional club playing cross-border competitions. Drua in Super Rugby has changed that in the technical, whilst USA and Japan both have professional leagues - even if they don't play cross border.