Time stands still for no one but it made an exception for Jonny Wilkinson 10 years ago on Friday. How long did that drop goal seem to hang in the Sydney night sky, lazily spinning end over end, bound for its momentous destination? Everything was in slow motion, the stadium tableau like something out of an HM Bateman cartoon entitled: “The Man Who Pissed In The Vegemite”.
There is a saying that you do not beat New Zealand – you just get more points than them at the final whistle.
The Telegraph’s giving me 00.00 which I know ain’t right.
So, us v. Oz, what time’s kick off, UK time?
The American defenders came back from an 8-1 deficit last week to win eight consecutive races and claim victory in the first-to-nine series.
Bit of a blinder, wasn\’t it?
But one will.
Those Oz kickers, eh?
Not for any reason other than that very English one of taking joy in seeing the underdog win.
I tend to think that Italy were the better team on the pitch today. Unlucky not to win that.
And I admit to wanting Italy to beat England at some point. I think would would be good for the Six Nations in the long run as and when Italy become proper competitors for the title.
But not this year, eh? Please? Not with a Grand Slam match to come against Wales…
Of course, it matters only a little that England wins. Far more important that France loses.
Not just about rugby of course, as a general rule for life.
But until the Frogs started changing their team around, sending on the replacements, I thought they were going to win. They certainly looked the better team for the first half.
Former Italy and Stade Francais fly-half
Tired? Tired of what? Tired because they have to put up with three hours of training a day and one match a week? What about a working-class guy who has to slog away 10 hours a day to feed his kids? A bit of dignity, please. It’s shameful. Professional rugby players are really privileged and they’d do well to remember that
The Sunday Telegraph’s rugby correspondent, Paul Ackford, was presented with a Harlequins shirt at half-time as the club recognised his retirement from the paper after 20 years. Ackford said: “It was fitting that I ended my writing career at the same place as my playing career.”
And I can remember when he first joined the paper too. I can even remember thinking, after the first few columns, blimey, this copper/ex-international can write, can\’t he?
Tempus fugit etc.
But we’re also keen that players, especially Academy players, do refereeing courses to enhance their understanding. The RPA has even talked about making this compulsory for young players.
Refereeing union is bloody difficult.
Getting the players to understand how difficult sounds like a damn good idea to me.
\”Compulsory\” always worries me. But a general expectation that anyone playing professionally should be, at the same time, working towards a certain level (obviously, not entirely all the way to test level) of refeering competence seems reasonable.
Right. So which damn gremlin in the management of the universe had to have the one decent match of the autumn series while I was on a aeroplane?
Is that our Tim Newman there, third photo from the bottom? Looks very vaguely like him. But why he would be wearing Aussie colours at a cricket match in Thailand I\’m not sure. I mean we know he\’s got a base in Thailand.
If it is maybe he can tell us more about John Bell?
But, but, traditionally, the Tour victor doesn\’t take any prize money. It all goes to his team mates. And everyone knows this.
So, are they going to demand that all the members of his team repay Armstrong so that he can repay the Tour?
Paula Radcliffe is likely to be among the British athletes who miss out on Lottery funding for next season when UK Athletics announces a reduced list of competitors on Monday.
Why is she getting a penny of it at all?
I can just about understand (although oppose) the idea that skint athletes might get a bit to aid them in being able to compete. But why in hell is a multi-millionairess getting any of it?
Fairytale of New York: Murray beats Djokovic to taste grand slam glory
The Scot wins his first grand slam at the fifth attempt,
Well done to the lad and all that. I\’m talking though purely about words here.
I was always under the impression that the Big Four were the slams (US, French, Oz Opens plus Wimbledon).
A career slam was to have won each of these events once (or more) in a career.
A Grand Slam was holding all four titles at the same time: a much, much, rarer event, obviously.
Could be that I\’m entirely mistaken of course but that\’s how I remember it. Meaning that Murray has won his first slam event (Hurrah! Congrats etc.) but is nowhere near anything like a grand slam.
Which leaves me with my question(s).
Am I right and The Guardian simply wrong here? Am I wrong? Or have the words/phrases been changing meanings over the years?
….was filling the broadcasting void by standing outside on the roof interviewing the heroic former England captain Ted Dexter, who was holding an umbrella as the elements crashed above.
“Ted,” said Peter, “what do you think of the game so far?”
“You’ll have to excuse me for a moment, Peter,” came the reply, “but I think I’ve just been struck by lightning.”
Armstrong’s attorneys sent a letter to USADA today saying he won’t fight drug allegations by the agency that the cyclist called part of an “unconstitutional witch hunt.”
“We will have an official release tomorrow, but he will be banned for life and loss of results since Aug 1, 1998,” Annie Skinner, a USADA spokeswoman, said in an email.
The cyclist’s attorneys sent a letter to USADA today saying they wouldn’t seek arbitration in the case. His decision comes three days after a federal judge in Armstrong’s hometown of Austin, Texas, rejected the cyclist’s request to block USADA from proceeding with its case.
“If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA’s process I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and — once and for all — put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance,” Armstrong said in a letter. “But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair.”
No court case, no hearing, presentation of and potential rebuttal of the evidence.
So for evermore one side can say \”We got \’im!\” and the other can say \”We wuz railroaded\”.
For as far as I can see at present there is no actual physical evidence, just testimony from some possibly disgruntled ex-team mates.
No idea what the truth is here but it\’s a sad way to end it all I feel.