Jump to content

Talk:England national rugby union team/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Template

Biased

Isn't making this page a featured article today unfair to the South African team? Surely Wikipedia should be more neutral.

I think so too. If it wasn't planned this way, that's one hell of a coincidence... atychiphilia 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Famous players

Can we have some consenus on the "Famous players" issue? Personally I believe that previous entries have been 'top heavy' towards modern day players and we need to agree on which players from the 'modern period' have really influenced England as a team. In fact, I would suggest that "Famous players" is a misnomer and we should retitle it "Influencial players". What do you think?

RichardLowther 12:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard I would prefer that the text refers to famous players and places them in context rather than we include a long list. With lists you always get into a bind over criteria for inclusion and sometimes into rather silly edit wars! PaddyBriggs 18:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Paddy, I agree about including them in context within the article rather than at the end (that is what I have done with the Wakefield RFC page) but the problem I have to some extent, is to define Famous. If a player becames an England player does that make him Famous? Some would say so. We could get to the 'silly' situation where we end up with name checking a high percentage of players on those grounds (probably from the modern era because peoples interest/attention spans only go so far). That is why I suggested the 'Influencial' aspect, in the hope that we could focus more on players that have done something *extra* for England (and maybe the game in general) than just worn the white shirt.

RichardLowther 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be some list of players that were noteable in some way. I agree that 'famous' is perhaps not an ideal word as few rugby players are geniunely famous outside their sport. I think 'noteable' is better than 'influential'.

I don't think there is any objective way of doing this. If you simply list players that were capped x number of times then you are biasing the list in favour of more modern times when more games are played. I think we'll just have to argue who was or was not important on a case by case basis.

The list is biased post-war but you are free to add in pre-war players that you can think of. The list is there to be edited.GordyB 22:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If nobody posts again then I will add the list back in. While Paddy may have a point about a list in context. Until someone writes this there is no point not having a at least a list.GordyB 12:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Gordy, I have been trying to compile a list and reasons for inclusions on such and ensure that it is balanced across the ages. Harder than I thought, but it might give us a starting point for discussion. I will post on here when I finish it.

RichardLowther 15:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy to await Richard's list. But in principle I think that any list is likely to be problematic. For example have you heard of a scrum half called "J.Spencer", He played once in 1966 (I was there). He was incredibly famous, for about 15 minutes (match programme says that he "spends evenings weaving fashion fabrics on a hand-loom"...and..."lives in a converted air-raid shelter" (I kid you not!). Good story lost in the mists of time! PaddyBriggs 16:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Paddy - Is that the same J Spencer that played for Headingley and is now a RFU 'committee' man? I was hoping to refer to a book on England internationals to aide me in my list but I must have loaned it out. This means that it taking me longer than I hoped to compile the list. RichardLowther 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait for the list then.GordyB 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the list back in as I feel that it is better that there is something even if it is imperfect than there is nothing. When the new list / section is finished then by all means replace it.GordyB 10:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

When the 6 nations is over I plan to change the current players section back to this. I'm just putting it here for safe keeping.GordyB 13:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Henry Monelle - Weston-super-Mare as an Elite player - I suspect some one is pulling someone's plonker! Richard Lowther NLI.82.38.211.251 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops didn't see that. The red lined Bristol players are also news to me but rather more plausable.GordyB 02:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Current players

The 2005/06 elite squad is:

</nowiki>

Notable Players

Although there has been a lot of discussion on 'famous players', I have removed all those on the notable list without a wiki article. I'm not going to argue what the criteria should be to be included on the list apart from that they need an article of reasonable quality. Any players who have acceptable articles created about them can be added to the list once thats done. - Shudda talk 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They aren't likely to get articles written on them without a link on a major page. I created the list because the previous one was stated to be biased to post-WW2 players. Wikipedia suffers from a huge bias towards what is current with minor club players having articles but major figures not getting a mention.GordyB 05:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the change. Having a red-link is not criteria for not being a notable player. I very much agree with Gordy as well, without a link(s) from a major article, the player will have less of a chance of being created, and then if it is created, it gets that no links to this article template slappedd on it. I must say, I try to create as many footballer pages as is reasonable, including English players, but in all honesty, I would not know where to start without these notable player lists, which somewhat act as a guide for articles that need creating. I also agree with Gordy in that there is a huge bias towards modern players, there are some clubs/franchises that almost have their whole squad created, whereas there are numerous international captains that do not have articles.Cvene64 12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that if a player is considered notable then they would have an article about them. Removing them from the list until there is an article on them is great motivation for people to create them. However someone unfamiliar with Englands RU team would probably find it interesting that players considered notable don't even have a short article on wikipedia. - 132.181.172.129 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Not everybody knows how to create an article that isn't red-linked and having the link will act as a suggestion to create an article. If nobody else creates them then eventually I will do so but I have a list of things that I consider more urgent.GordyB 08:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That unsigned post was me above, I hate when i get automatically signed out of wikipedia! I think a better idea would be to move the red-linked names to the talk page until articles are written on them. Those that are contributing to this page and probably in the best position to create quality articles on those players anyway. - Shudda talk 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It still means a lower likelyhood of the pages being created. I don't see the problem with red links, there are lots of articles with red links. In any case the idea of a list of significant players shouldn't be dependent on there being an article, Carston Catcheside was a significant figure before I created an article on him yesterday.GordyB 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Red links are not actually a good look. If people want to create the article then they will probably do so regardless of whether their name is in this article. I'd like to know where someone was supposed to get the information for an article on one of those players if they only knew of them because of a red-linked name? There are many many notable players that could be included in the list, and as subjective as the list is it seems making the primary criteria for inclusion that an article (preferably of reasonable quality) on them exists is a fair one. If you looks at the All Blacks and Australia national rugby union team articles the list of notable players omits (bar 1 in the aussie article) players without articles. - Shudda talk 04:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge there is no requirement for articles not to have red links and as for info, it is perfectly simple to make a stub armed only with google. I've created lots of articles on players I've never heard of see Adrian Lungu.GordyB 12:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Could Someone please explain to me how "Jason Leonard OBE, also known as "The Fun Bus", appeared 118 times for England at prop", and yet "The most capped England player is former prop Jason Leonard who made 114 appearances over his 14-year career". So the most capped player played... 4 times less than Jason Leonard? This seems like an error, but I don't know my rugby so i don't want to just run in and correct it haphazardly. Tim 10:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Tim 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It was 114 - has been fixed. - Shudde talk 21:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

History section

The history section here is very large. It needs to be referenced for sure, but I was thinking it be moved into a separate article? Say History of England national rugby team and the information in that main article summarised here? - Shudda talk 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is huge, probably too long for some computers. I don't think it needs to be referenced, because I can't see any massively contestable/dubious statements, and there are a bunch of external links. It would only need to be fully referenced if we want it to be a feature article. I mean sure, if people want to add them, thats a bonus, but yeah, it looks ok. Narrasawa 12:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So you think a separate article is a good idea? Obviously a summarised history would need to be written by someone. As for the referencing, there is a reason that an article can't be FA without it. I think everything under project RU should be well referenced. The main reason is it's hard to verify anything without them, even if the statements aren't considered "contestable/dubious". I would try to reference as much as possible - Shudda talk 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Shudda, the history section used to be split, but no one was editing it/seemed to notice, so I moved it back. But I would agree to moving it again if other people think its a good idea. Might be a good idea for Wallabies as well, and maybe Springboks/All Blacks in the future. Cheers. Cvene64 12:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I think it's a good idea. A summary needs to be written first though. I may get around to it one day! - Shudda talk 22:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Swing Low Sweet Chariot was regularly sung at Twickenham in the mid 80s when England were spectacularly mediocre. The reference to a couple of school boys starting it is at best laughable.......... Dare I suggest someone on an ego trip has edited it????

Laughable or not, it is referenced and that is what counts. If you know different then find a reference and alter the article.GordyB 14:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to try and summarise the history currently on the page. It can be found at my sandbox. Please feel free to help, once it's done I'm going to move the history currently here to a new article History of the England national rugby union team. Currently the history section (remember it's not at all fully referenced) is 40kb, which is bigger then recommended by WP:SIZE. So even the history section itself may need to be split off eventually. - Shudda talk 05:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I reduced the history section from 40kb to about 25kb. However it still needs to be summarised further. Please help with this, should probably aim for about half the current size. - Shudda talk 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Headings etc

There is no need to bold headings, or capitalise subsequent words in the heading. "2007" ---- should not be under a sction that say "2007 fixtures/results" either. Cheers. Cvene64 06:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In the process of getting All Blacks through FA, including the peer-review done before FAC, there was a consensus reached that the recent fixtures and upcoming fixtures list would be removed. They aren't appropriate in any of the articles, and I've no idea who added them to all the national teams articles. However they should almost certainly be removed from this article as well. Another thing, doesn't the records and statistics section need cleaning up? This article seems to be so heavily weighed down with unnecessary lists! - Shudda talk 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the InfoBox have a "last updated" date on it, especially with the Records Points Scored changing on a weekly basis? --Dave. 21:03, 17 February

To do list

I have created a to do list because this article has been getting a lot of contributions lately. It's looking much better then just a week ago. There is still a lot to do though, so please add any suggestions to the todo list. I'm using All Blacks as the standard to aim for for this article. - Shudda talk 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Overall results

I've seen that some editors have added to the overall results table but without completing it or updating the date on there. now if the date is not updated when the rest is updated the table becomes out of sink and incorrect, so in future could anyone updating the Overall results table please add the date they edited it and if you do please edit the whole section (i.e updating the win % and overall win % aswell). Thank you. Noface1 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


History section

Is this huge section needed if we have the history page itself? I agree there should still be a section in this page but I don't think it shoulld be this long as it's almost the intire thing and to reduce this page was part of the point of creating the history page anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noface1 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Agree, most articles dont have more than 10 lines when there is a main Jor70 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Where did you get this info from? Arsenal FC is an example where this is not true, and it's an FA. The history section needs to be summarised further, but that is no reason to delete it all! Rather then removing everything, please help summarise what is already there. It's a work in progress, so please do help. Eventually all the sub sections can be merged into one, but probably not yet. - Shudda talk 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Arsenal, Liverpool, etc have great main articles, extremely long. There are proportional to their respectives summaries. Here, lot of the info is simply duplicated. I said 10 lines before as an example (may be I exemplified too much ) on how the summary need to be. Perhaps a {{cleanup}} tag within the section would led to the people to help Jor70 00:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Help out. Summarise some of it yourself, many hands etc. A lot of the information will be duplicated, but that's because it's a summary. I don't think a cleanup tag is necessary. It's not a huge amount of work to get this done, so just help me out! :-) - Shudda talk 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a reference to a non-existent extra fixture allegedly played by England in Dublin in 1972.

Exile 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

fr:Équipe d'Angleterre de rugby à XV / England national rugby union team

Well I tried to look up information about a list of England national rugby union team notable former players with objective rules, its really hard to find. I need too a list of best top scorers ans a list of best tries scorer. I am looking for economic aspects of England national rugby union team : tv rights, coverture, how many english players in rugby union / football / cricket and other major sports in england...

Do you have some information to better english and french articles to do a featured article ?

Thanks a lot... Dd Ddfree 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about how to construct an objective list of notable players I have a few ideas. With the All Blacks page I had the same problem. I decided that the best way was to have the notbale players list those that had been inducted into the International Rugby Hall of Fame, and maybe also those that had won the IRB player of the year award (although the latter makes the list favour more recent players, the former does not). Then in the record section have the major record holders for the team. So biggest point scorer, most capped player, most capped captain, biggest try scorer. Also maybe record holders at the RWC as well. By the time you add all the players that fit these categories it's a nice number of what I would consider notable players. Hopefully this is what you are asking? - Shudda talk 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, really...
1. An objective list of notable players
that's the good solution... International Rugby Hall of Fame, or biggest point scorer, most capped player, most capped captain, biggest try scorer. Or IRB player of the year award... ::That's what you do very well in All Black Notable Players: is it possible to do the same thing to better english article ?
2. A list of best top scorers ans a list of best tries scorer.
Have you got some information or can you add it in the article ? Have you got a source ? We could add a complementary article like Satistics and recors of All Blacks...
3. Economic aspects of England national rugby union team : tv rights, coverture,...
Have you got some information ? Have you got a source ?
4. Popularity of rugby union...
How many english players in rugby union / football / cricket and other major sports in england... ? Have you got some information ? Have you got a source ?
Dd Ddfree 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
These things are more appropriate at Rugby union in England.GordyB 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right for the third and fourth points, but if we want to have a featured article, it would be better... Dd Ddfree 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, yes I meant for 3 and 4 not 1 and 2 as well.GordyB 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think point 3 may be appropriate with regards to the club vs country debate though. It seems to be a very serious and important topic for the England team. I agree however that the other issues may be more important at either the Rugby Football Union or Rugby union in England articles though. - Shudda talk 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Top try scorer

Anyone has the list (or the source) of try top scorer ? Please ? Dd Ddfree 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

fr:Équipe d'Angleterre de rugby à XV as a feautured article

I think that fr:Équipe d'Angleterre de rugby à XV is able to be a featured article... Dd Ddfree 11:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

training structure, centre

Please, i don't have this information : have you got in England a structure like:


http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_national_du_rugby union rugby http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_technique_national_Fernand-Sastre football

?

And in this case, some source ?

Dd Ddfree 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Entente Cordiale

Nobody wants (or is able) to better this article in order to make a featured aricle... I hope that fr:Équipe d'Angleterre de rugby à XV will be a featured article... and it should be easier if the english article is better... And it is easier to better english article with the help of french model... Dd Ddfree 17:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have recently nommed an article for GA consideration & so I do my duty to review this one.

First impressions were that the article is lengthy, comprehensive, referenced throughout, well presented, and inclusive of appropriate images.

With reference to the Good Article criteria ..
1. Standard of writing.
Clear prose, correct grammar. The lead summarises the article content and provokes interest in the subject matter.
2. Accuracy and verifiability. In this respect, it: Referenced throughout. No reason to doubt any of the unreferenced statements.
3. Breadth of coverage.
Historical coverage comprehensive. Twickenham, the Sweet Chariot song, uniforms and symbols and sponsors, six(five) nations performance, world cup performance, notable overseas tours, current squad, list of coaches, overall test record, origins. It's all there.

It is lacking in not treating the issue of Amateurism vs. Professionalism - particularly the acceptance of professionalism starting from about 1995 and its rejection before then. When did the team accept the issue that players could be paid by clubs and materially rewarded for their performances? It was a heavy issue in the 70s and 80s and before. I'm sure some players were rejected from consideration or even expelled because they accepted sponsors' money at times over the years. It deserves mention.

Passed as Good.

4. Neutral.
Factual and informative. Yes.

5. Stable
Talk and history pages briefly surveyed. No issues.

6. Image content
Images all appropriate and informative.

So, congratulations! If you go for Feature Article status, be mindful that full compliance to Wikipedia:Manual of Style will be enforced; both in writing and referencing. May you prepare well.
NonlisteningFriend 03:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Rugby professionalism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/4392795.stm Timeline ... but it doesn't answer the question of exactly when the English national team did away with the requirement of amateurism.NonlisteningFriend 04:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That decision was not made by the RFU but by the International Rugby Board. It was not a decision made by the England team, but once professionalism was allowed they started getting paid. The club versus country thing is something that can be discussed in this article, but a lot of it is better to be in Rugby union in England as it impacts more then just the national team. - Shudde talk 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I've now added a Club versus country section which covers this in detail. - Shudde talk 04:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for FAC

This article is now a featured article nominee. I've done this after addressing the one concern of the GA reviewer, and having had the article copy-edited (by GringoInChile). You can add your comments here. Thanks. - Shudde talk 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

2003 World cup winning squad

I have removed this. There is already a notable players section, so it's pointless to have this extra section. The 2003 squad would be more appropriate somewhere else (such as a list page 2003 Rugby World Cup squads like 2007 Rugby World Cup squads). I don't see why this squad in particular should be included in the article whilst say the dominant teams of the 1920s are excluded. This is why a notable players section exists, to prevent recentism and point of view additions. - Shudde talk 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Change colours

The picture of the change colours is wrong. The stripe isn't white, it's dark red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.134.118 (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kit Picture

The kit is wrong, the shorts have a red stripe on 'em (home). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.49.57 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rose

I have removed the claim that the rose emblem is the red rose of lancaster, the origin of the red rose is disputed, one legend states that it does indeed come from the red rose of lancaster, another states the rose was intended to be red and white, the royal english rose, but this never came to fruition. the third legend is that the red rose is taken from the crest of Rugby School as a further tribute to the origin of the game. The first standardised rose was desinged by Alfred Wright, this rose was modernised as Nike became the new kit sponsers. Although the colour of the rose may stem from the red rose of lancaster, the design is completly diferent and bears no resemblence (apart from the colour) to the rose of lancaster. The RFU rose has its own history and individual creation, as such I feel it is inapropriate to link it with the rose of lancaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.208.171 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For mainpage on 20 October 2007?

At User_talk:Raul654#Wikipedia:Today.27s_featured_article.2FOctober_20.2C_2007 I have requested this article be the mainpage featured article for 20 October 2007 - the day of the RWC 2007 World Cup Final in Saint-Denis, France. It makes sense to me. Add your support, if you dare. As we all know .. it really does take all 15 men to get the ball over the line.IchiNiSan 10:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mission accomplished. Brilliant! October 20 should be a great day all round. IchiNiSan —Preceding comment was added at 15:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

POV taken to the extreme

I love rugby and it's the perfect day to have a rugby article as today's featured article. Having said that, selecting to feature one of two teams the day a world cup final takes place is one of the biggest mistakes I've ever seen when selecting featured articles for Wikipedia. An article about the world cup or about rugby in general would have been great, having Wikipedia endorse one of the two teams in the final (and don't try to deny that that is what this selection is) is a huge blow to Wikipedia credibility. What's next? Should we start picking our favourite politicans and parties to feature when there's an election around as well? Horribly bad decision. That the suggestion was made by a now indefinitely banned user and that now discussion seems to have taken place about it just makes it all the more deplorable. JdeJ 09:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A tiny bit of an over-reaction. Nominating a favourite politician might influence the way a few people vote. Nominating either England or South Africa will not have any bearing on the game. The nomination had nothing to do with me but perhaps the people concerned thought that being topical was important.GordyB 09:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Nodoby said it's going to influence the result. The issue at hand is that Wikipedia should not endorse specific teams, it undermines its credibility even further. JdeJ 10:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a good situation but I don't think it's a disaster.GordyB 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck England. Yes I can see how South African wikipedians may feel offended by the featured article today!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I agree with JdeJ. But then, I'm a Scot... atychiphilia 17:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you'd have to be very thin skinned to be "offended". I wouldn't have taken offence if the Boks had been the Feature Article.GordyB 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
That is pretty thin-skinned. That said, I do wonder if the tag should be slapped with a "current event" tag, as it is clearly going to have to be amended one way or another in a few hours. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the original poster, selecting this article for today is a horrendously poor choice, not because it will influence the game or seriously 'offend' anyone, but simply because it is entirely unnecessary POV. Putting this up on Monday, no matter how the final ended, would have been the far better decision. EnemyOfTheState 15:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
He said it himself: "it's the 'perfect day to have a rugby article as today's featured article". Prior to today, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union tells that this article, Waisale Serevi and Crusaders are the only Featured Article class rugby union articles. I'm glad that today Wikipedia chose the article for the team that not only is playing in the 2007 final but -still holds- the Rugby World Cup from four years ago. This comes back because all the hardworking editors here rolled up their sleeves and really worked to make it an FA by the end of the Cup. Meanwhile Springboks sits back there as a mere B-class article. So get over it.
Invasion of Poland (1939) and Fighting in ice hockey also stand as former mainpage articles, and such fact is only an -endorsement- of nothing more than the vision and perspicacity of the contributing eds. I couldn't give two turds either whether a version of Springboks was on the front page of the Afrikaans-language Wikipedia today, but I'd understand it and I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Whatever happens in the game or in mainpage-choice bickering, the winner ALL ROUND ... is rugby!NewLabourNewLies 16:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm south african and I can honestly say that I don't give a shit. We'll still win though :D 82.11.220.79 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And so you did.GordyB 21:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Putting up this article as the featured one is bad taste.41.241.170.236 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Didn't help them win...snap! lol. 203.97.237.98 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I think only Australia in 2003 have been closer to retaining the World Cup. We did far better than anyone could have expected but South Africa were better.GordyB 21:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup. I nominated the article for FAC and am a New Zealander, and have no problem with the article being TFA on the day of the World Cup final. At the moment the South African teams article is not FA so it's not a case of choosing between the two! The other two rugby FAs that have not been TFA are Waisale Serevi and Crusaders (rugby) which are not really related to the RWC. England were the reigning champions, and I don't see how having them a TFA today can be seen as Point of View I really can't. It's good to have a rugby union related article TFA on the 20th and this was the best choice available. Raul made a good decision. - Shudde talk 01:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Don' B hatin' on our Raul.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NewLabourNewLies (talk • contribs)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:England_national_rugby_union_team/Archive_1&oldid=1136281562"