A Temporary Rugby Thread

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
The problem is I now have this strange mix of the Fat Cow thumb nail, Winston and John Lennon stuck in my minds eye. Bizarre.

I'll take the John Lennon component and you can keep the rest, thanks.

I meant to mention it last time actually – how about foreign talent. Buck Shelford is available I believe. A man who can play on after having a happy sack stitched up could be just what the Wallaby coaching set up needs right now.

I can just imagine the reaction if a foreigner were appointed, nutless or otherwise.

I am sure you are right. The front row is definitely the problem you identified it as. I think playing the two opensides wasn’t a disaster but I can’t help but feel a more physical presence like Owen would help get that ball being carried forward.

Yes, that's one of the downsides of having two opensides. OTOH, there are plenty of other brutes in the team capable of taking it forward and they haven't been.

Just like World+Dog is at the moment. JJH was unlucky in suffering a serious injury fairly soon after his much hyped move – but it’s very clear he was never really going to worry Wallaby selectors even if he had stayed fit down there – a very over hyped player.

He made an impression for NSW, but it wasn't as if he was being touted as the next great thing. There were plenty of good players in front of him. The ARU cracked the sh*ts more on principle, as I recall.

I rather suspected chemicals were involved after that amazing little Anglo-French patriotic montage he posted the other day.

I wonder if you can overdose on Viagra.

Is that margin a start of 9.5 to the Wallabies? Or have I misread that? The Wallabies are my favourites for the home leg so a start for them makes a Bok bet worthless?

As Finbar says we need to make it worthwhile for punters to back both sides or no one wins anything.

No, it was 9.5 to the Boks. They've made another six changes. But I don't know if anyone will invest on the Boks with a 9.5 start. Perhaps someone will.

Public locker rooms as found in many a Park perhaps?

As far as the betting goes Finbar how about we reset after the Tri-nations concludes – giving everyone a fresh pot ready for the Warm up games and RWC itself?

Is there a good reason to reset? I don't mind either way, and I'm the one looking like going out backwards.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
As the old try line gag has been recycled here is another old favourite I got sent again this week.

A lot funnier than the try line gag.

[Havak]

John Lennon it is then.

I can just imagine the reaction if a foreigner were appointed, nutless or otherwise.

Yes even with my brief experience of your homeland I think I can anticipate what the reaction might be.

OTOH, there are plenty of other brutes in the team capable of taking it forward and they haven't been.

The locks are certainly not performing in this regard – Kefu Snr has the odd try but not enough? What you need I hate to say is a Hilly, a Jonno or a Dally. A Moody would work wonders for you.

The ARU cracked the sh*ts more on principle, as I recall.

And the IRB ruling was basically “don’t tell other Unions to do as you say not as you yourself do” I believe?

I wonder if you can overdose on Viagra.

Strangely I have no great desire to find out.

But I don't know if anyone will invest on the Boks with a 9.5 start. Perhaps someone will.

They did really well against you last time – disrupting the forward hugely. But this is a Wallaby side burning with shame and on home ground – the margin is nowhere near enough to tempt me to bet on the Boks.

Is there a good reason to reset? I don't mind either way, and I'm the one looking like going out backwards.

No compelling reason to reset for me – though I don’t mind if we do. I think people skipping betting on an entire tournament (or two) and sitting on pots of gold should possible be nationalised by the consortium though?

A lot funnier than the try line gag.

The England pay off line used to be “complain that everyone else beats them at it” of course. The new line has less comic impact - after all only SH types have the mistaken impression the ABs are better.

*Ding Ding* round three – Kiwis to come out swinging again.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
John Lennon it is then.

My hero was murdered on my wedding anniversary. The marriage only lasted another 18 months. There's a message in there somewhere.

They did really well against you last time – disrupting the forward hugely. But this is a Wallaby side burning with shame and on home ground – the margin is nowhere near enough to tempt me to bet on the Boks.

That's my point. Anyway, I think we left it too late to organise a margin. You and Frozzy distracted everyone with your duelling salvos.

No compelling reason to reset for me – though I don’t mind if we do. I think people skipping betting on an entire tournament (or two) and sitting on pots of gold should possible be nationalised by the consortium though?

I still maintain that Andydog is Tamerlin's DL and should be nationalised forthwith.

[Havak]

There's a message in there somewhere.

It reads to me as “don’t get married”. I’ll explain that Finbar told me not to.

You and Frozzy distracted everyone with your duelling salvos.

What duelling salvos?

I still maintain that Andydog is Tamerlin's DL and should be nationalised forthwith.

He never did deny this one did he?

[LDiCesare]

Finally found that trhead...

The French will declare they have new scientific evidence that the opposition are in fact all mad. They will then park lorries across the halfway line, let sheep loose in the opposition half and burn the officials.

Actually, I know one French team which performs a kind of haka before their matches. Thing is, that peculiar form of Haka requires the 15 players to have a glass with whatever alcoholized beverage they like most (usually beer, probably 'cause it's lighter than wine). The words are not particularly terrifying, nor is the dance, but they may still cripple the enemy team, since it is quite hard not to laugh. Maybe I should write Laporte so he could learn from them.

Havak, do you have to quote Will "I will not pass the ball" Carling? Even if he's saying sensible things?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak


It reads to me as “don’t get married”. I’ll explain that Finbar told me not to.

No, it reads as "don't get married if one of the century's more interesting people is going to be assassinated on your eighth wedding anniversary for it shall doom the marriage". Given that there are no interesting people in this century, and nor are there likely to be, you're not off the hook. Sorry.

He never did deny this one did he?

Still working through the paydirt he hit in the Paris warehouse.

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Havak, do you have to quote Will "I will not pass the ball" Carling? Even if he's saying sensible things?

Havak and Carling are kindred spirits. Havak never once passed the ball in his tighthead days.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Havak
This seems a flawed argument. People travel a lot therefore they should be able to choose what nationality they are on some kind of ad hoc fast track basis? I went to Australia two years ago – I’ve never been capped for England – can I put myself up for Wallaby selection?

If you stayed for a couple of years (current IRB requirements IIRC?) and were granted Australian citizenship and were willing to give up future eligibility to play for England? Absolutely.
Thats a lot of ifs there already.

But you see under my suggestion for eligibility he would still be able to play for us because the lad was born in England. Also under my suggestion he could also choose to be Scottish should he so wish (were he insane enough!).
Your analogy would catch me out more if he had been born in Scotland to Scottish parents then moved south at 16 to play for Newcastle and from thence get selected for England. In such a scenario I would expect him to wait and qualify however much it harmed England – seven whole years so he would be 23 before he could play (the age he is now bizarrely enough).

I was under the impression that for one to be eligible to play for, Scotland for example, one had to actually reside there for a considerable period as well - thus effectively giving up any right to play for England, for example, until he'd spent the required time in residence in England after leaving Scotland?

My whole point about people travelling more is basically a reference to the fact that NZ is just over 160 years old. England, as it stands now is pretty much nearly 1000. NZ has, effectively, a far higher population growth rate per capita than does England - largely due to immigration.
Because of the rather relaxed immigration laws wrt other Pacific Island nations (not quite as non-existent as between Aus-NZ whereby one can change country at will 3 times a day if one wishes, but still fairly relaxed) many of said Pacific Islanders, who are regarded as having NZ citizenship by the rest of the country, wouldn't technically qualify under a new set of laws imposed from without.
Similarly, by virtue of having resided in NZ on and off over a period of years, they are probably not technically eligible to play for their birth country either.
Would you really wish to condemn 10% of NZ's population to dreary rugbyless lives? Think of the children!

**Gets down off his huge soapbox which is threatening to collapse at any moment. **

I understand your wish to prevent the same sort of professional merry-go-round that dominates many club-level sports from occurring in National teams, but trying to implement a single system on a number of entities with completely different cultural/legal structures isn't a good way to do it IMO.

The England pay off line used to be “complain that everyone else beats them at it” of course. The new line has less comic impact - after all only SH types have the mistaken impression the ABs are better.

*Ding Ding* round three – Kiwis to come out swinging again.

Round three won't start until the ME checks out that concussion of yours old chap.

Is that margin a start of 9.5 to the Wallabies? Or have I misread that? The Wallabies are my favourites for the home leg so a start for them makes a Bok bet worthless?

Erm, it was supposed to be. I have a knack for putting things in a rather muddled fashion lately. I also imagined that there might be other suggestions.
It looks like a no-go in any event as the game starts in < 4 hours.

[finbar]

Wallabies 29 -d- Springboks 9

Well, a step in the right direction for the Wallabies, with evidence of system and structure. Good to see Matt Rogers attacking and defending well at outside centre, and very good to see Lote Tuquiri revealing what he's capable of when given an ounce of opportunity. Brendan Cannon turned in another very strong effort, and Phil Waugh constantly amazes me. Where on earth does he get the energy? If he doesn't kill himself with his courage, and if his game continues to develop the way it is, he could end up one of the great flankers.

Gregan lifted his game when he had to - notice how few times he stepped backwards? notice how much closer the backline was aligned? - and he showed some of the variety of old, even if some of the choices were dubious. And I don't mean the choice not to kick for goal on half time. Sure it was a Test match, sure the easy three points would have put them in front, but there's a bigger picture called the World Cup, our set plays have been one of our major weaknesses, and we need all the practice under pressure we can get.

The downsides - Steve Larkham continues to struggle, particularly with his field kicking; Noriega is now a liability in the front row and wouldn't be in the team if there were a replacement available; George Smith's move to blindside has diminished his effectiveness; and the forwards, while better than last week, still aren't generating the necessary drive.

Everything is relative. We played 150% better than we did against them in South Africa, which is great. The real test, though, will be against the ABs in two weeks time. Last night's effort wouldn't have beaten the ABs, so we're going to have to improve even more.

The biggest downside of the match, of course, was the Boks' foul tactics. Kempson's cowardly late hit on Kefu defies description. Watch the replay and you'll notice he pats Kefu just after he hits the ground as if to say "no hard feelings". Then watch the replay as Kefu is driven off the ground on the MediCab - Kempson, embarrassed, obviously feeling guilty, joins in the crowd's sympathetic applause for Kefu. Kempson was cited. The only question has to be the length of the suspension.

Also cited was reserve lock Botha for biting and eye-gouging Brendan Cannon. How far this charge gets depends, I suppose, on the available video evidence.

Edit. I've since seen footage of the Botha-Cannon incident. The bite is plain to see, the eye-gouging less so.

Coach Straeuli, typically, denied any foul play, demanding the Australians back up their claims with evidence. The video evidence that will sink Kempson should do for starters. Straeuli also claimed that the team came with the intention of playing fair rugby. The Bok's flanker, van Niekerk, who, prior to the match, boasted that he was looking forward to thumping some Wallabies, puts paid to that. Corne Krige has claimed that he saw nothing untoward on the field and that he would definitely not encourage his players to adopt foul tactics. Turn it up, Corne, the only surprise was that you weren't leading the charge. Which, surprisingly, he wasn't.

[Frozzy]

If my mathmatics are not wrong, New Zealand has won the Tri-Nations before the New Zealand legs.

NZL: 10 pts
RSA: 4pts
AUS: 4pts.

[finbar]

The Wallabies have 5 points because they picked up a bonus point against the Boks in South Africa. Theoretically, the Wallabies could win the Tri Nations, but it would require:

1. The ABs to lose both remaining matches;

2. The ABs not to pick up any bonus points;

3. The Wallabies to score 31 points - one point more than the current points differential between them and the ABs - against the ABs plus whatever the ABs score against the Boks and against the Wallabies. For example, if the ABs score 50 against the Boks, and 30 against the Wallabies, the Wallabies have to score 111 points against the ABs to win the Tri Nations by one point on points differential.

Theoretically, you're wrong. In every other sense, you're quite right.

[Frozzy]

How do you get bonus points then?

I thought it was 4 tries or losing by less than 7, ala Super 12?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Frozzy
How do you get bonus points then?

I thought it was 4 tries or losing by less than 7, ala Super 12?

It is. We lost 22-26 to the Boks in South Africa, fewer than 7, so it's a bonus point. The ABs have picked up their two bonus points for twice scoring more than four tries.

[finbar]

The SANZAR judiciary strikes again. Kempson suspended for 4 weeks for the late high shot on Kefu, Botha suspended for 8 weeks for eye-gouging Brendan Cannon. In reality, both suspensions amount to one week bans from international rugby because the Boks play only one Test - next week against the ABs - during the period of the suspensions and prior to the World Cup.

For some bizarre reason, the biting (of Cannon) charge wasn't pursued because the biter apparently couldn't be identified. It's bizarre because Cannon has made it perfectly clear that the gouging followed as a direct result of him retaliating after being bitten. Ergo, Botha eye-gouged Cannon after he bit him. Presumably there was video evidence of the gouging but not the biting. The photo in this morning's press of the bitemark on Cannon's shoulder is ugly indeed. Botha obviously had a fine old chew and suck.

Still, at least some action has now been taken against them, unlike their escape after their foul efforts against England at Twickers last year. Coach Straeuli, typically, maintains the foul play is a figment of people's imaginations. Corne Krige - publicly identified by George Gregan as the ringleader - also denies any deliberate foul play. Accused of spitting, Krige denies it, before acknowledging he did spit to clear his mouth of blood, that some of it landed on Phil Waugh, for which he immediately apologised.

Hands up anyone who wants to be on the bottom of a ruck next time the Wallabies play the Boks?