Rugby World Cup 2003 - Crunch Time!

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Havak
The Kiwi’s rate Ma'a Nonu highly. After Umaga most of them make him the best centre in the world no doubt? But then Kiwi’s rate everyone in the black shirt ‘best in position’ generally, and certainly when we are looking at back lines.

blah blah blah you'd do better to dangle a hook baited with a piece of old shoe leather. Just listen to the poms blather on about Wilko and Johno being the 'best that's ever been' ya de ya de ya.

I have no doubt you are right on both counts. I look forward to your last pool game – Wales are finally playing some rugby but I feel by then you may be somewhat too sharp for them – 53-3 in the summer wasn’t it?

It was 55-3. And the team named for this weeks clash against Canada is not too different from the team that faced Wales then. Mitchell has retained just 6 of the players that started against Italy last weekend. Daniel Carter gets another go at 2nd 5 and the Predator another go at Centre, Muliaina and Caleb Ralph are the wingers with MacDonald playing fullback. Hoeft, Hammett and Meeuws form the front row, and Chris Jack, Brad Thorn, Reuben Thorne, and Spencer remain unchanged, Rodney So'oialo the number 8 and Steve Devine as scrum half.

Bitter = nectar of the gods. Pure and simple.

Simple yes, but pure? Forget it!

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
IMO, the Game of Rugby played by the All Blacks (you know, this Rugby League pudding played with 15 players) relies too much on the individual qualities of the players and their ability to win the duels. Their beautiful organization could well fall apart against a team that is challenging them on this ground.

There appears to be a train of thought within NZ that the game has changed over the last year or so. Some believe that the days of tight defence-orientated percentages type play, and a game based around patience and control (similar to that which the Crusaders employed) are over.

It is now widely believed within NZ circles that firepower is key. You now need a style of play that has flair and skill, and that NZ oozes this more than any other rugby nation.

Is this the correct philosophy to adopt? Time will tell...

[Havak]

Elastic must be better than yet more tautology though?

I assume you took today off work to watch Argentina -v- Namibia? I was feeling particularly perverse tonight, so I insisted Mrs finbar watch it with me.

Actually I’m at work but it was on ITVs digital channel so I caught a brief glimpse of it here and there on TVs around the place.

Just listen to the poms blather on about Wilko and Johno being the 'best that's ever been'

The difference being that’s actually true?

Interesting team changes – but then he knows he doesn’t need to risk the entire first XV against a side Wales beat handily.

Simple yes, but pure? Forget it!

Strangely it really is. Lager is the chemical soup of the alcohol world – bitter is mainly natural ingredients just given a little help in the brewing process. Damn now I fancy a beer!

Is this the correct philosophy to adopt? Time will tell...

It’s certainly an arrogant philosophy don’t you think? Though I recognise the phrasing was carefully chosen by yourself.

Can’t quite put my finger on it – who are the defending World Champions again? And who is the number one ranked side in the world? Hmmm – grist for the mill there methinks…

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
It's a line he's used many times before! It doesn't get any funnier with the telling! Jacques Tati just somersaults once more in his grave!

I know I have used and overused this line before but it was only a reminder (it was in parenthesis) of what I am thinking about the Rugby played this side of the Hemisphere... just in case you would have forgotten.

And any line that is generating an is not a useless line.

I assume you took today off work to watch Argentina -v- Namibia? I was feeling particularly perverse tonight, so I insisted Mrs finbar watch it with me. Gee, the Pumas have left their A game back on the Pampas.

It is a shame but the su*ke*s at France Télévision are only broadcasting the week end games involving the major teams.

[academia]

It is a shame but the su*ke*s at France Télévision are only broadcasting the week end games involving the major teams.

Thanx God, ESPN+ will broadcast every single game of the world cup!!!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
I know I have used and overused this line before but it was only a reminder (it was in parenthesis) of what I am thinking about the Rugby played this side of the Hemisphere... just in case you would have forgotten.

I could probably more easily forget my own name!

[finbar]

Great Moments In Oz Humour And How To Deal With It!

Former Wallaby great Mark Ella is working with the Japanese squad, helping them with backline play. After the Scotland -v- Japan match, and the praise heaped on the Japanese backs' efforts, Mark opined that the Wallaby backline "didn't stack up" against the Japanese backs.

Response #1. Former Wallaby prop, now Wallaby assistant coach, Ewen McKenzie, cracked the sh*ts, saying he knew which backline he'd rather have.

Response #2. Eddie Jones rang up Mark and inquired about possible player swaps.

Wake up, Ewen!

[Havak]

Australian humour - it's almost as hard to grasp as German humour?

Only kidding Finbar - Eddie nailed this one.

The Fiji-USA game is putting Fiji's reputed strength into perspective even as I write - it's not good stuff? No worries for Les Bleus from the Eagles here.

Interesting piece from John Inverdale I found here

Okay it is going to offend Kiwi's (particularly our friends who saw the forward passes against Georgia but kept totally silent on the ones against Italy) but John is a level headed guy and fairly astute normally. Perhaps Finbar can tell us if League and AFL are out to ridicule the tournament?

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
Interesting piece from John Inverdale I found here

Glad to see I am not the only one to denounce the SH practices.

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Havak
Strangely it really is. Lager is the chemical soup of the alcohol world – bitter is mainly natural ingredients just given a little help in the brewing process. Damn now I fancy a beer!

Chemicals Schmemicals.

[Havak]

Glad to see I am not the only one to denounce the SH practices.

Well he is certainly doing that – but I think his net is cast over England and France on this one too.

Nice image Andydog!

In actual fact Caffreys is a smooth light brown ale and invokes that colour so it’s a fair accusation. But it's a lovely drink for what is effectively a keg beer (beer confused into thinking it's lager). It will also blow you head off - it's not a session drink.

And as for Guiness – well avoid strong curries after drinking it okay?

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Havak
It’s certainly an arrogant philosophy don’t you think? Though I recognise the phrasing was carefully chosen by yourself.

I wouldn’t call it arrogant. The reasoning behind the philosophy appears to be this:

'99 we suffocated in the semi against a hell bent French side. In '95 we lost in the final against South Africa. In '91 we had the strongest players in the world but they didn’t play as a team and so got beaten by Aussie in another semi.

Thus it was decided approach wasn’t working and so we tried something different - Mitchell was appointed with a brief to win the World Cup and was given a free hand to make whatever changes he felt would be necessary to achieve that goal. He has mixed things up and introduced a lot of new faces. The changes were controversial but the result was a fresh, hungry squad with plenty of firepower.

The clean sweep of the Tri-Nation showed that this All Blacks side is on track to achieve that goal. (We did lost to England in June but nobody really considered that a failing because of the factors that I’ve already written about).

So it will come down to the NZ philosophy vs the England tried and tested formula. I ask again, which will prevail? I’m tending towards the NZ approach, but still haven’t quite made up my mind..

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
Well he is certainly doing that – but I think his net is cast over England and France on this one too.

Don't tell me these practices are not coming from the SH and that our two nations are only adapting their game in order to compete on the same ground as the SH heretics bending the rules to their own purposes.

Needless to say I strongly disagree with these changes.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Andydog
So it will come down to the NZ philosophy vs the England tried and tested formula. I ask again, which will prevail? I’m tending towards the NZ approach, but still haven’t quite made up my mind..

Havak, if England wins this B***** F****** World Cup I pay you a pint of ale at the Frog&Rosbiff at the first opportunity.

On the other side, if England does not make some kiwi juice out of those All Blacks, the French custom officers won't allow you to even think about entering the French territory.

[Havak]

(We did lost to England in June but nobody really considered that a failing because of the factors that I’ve already written about).

You lost – and no one thought it was even worth thinking about because there were ‘factors’ that forgave it?

I'd have thought the failure to push over a six man scrum on it's own line might have given cause for a question or two about the uber team?

Can we assume the earlier loss in November and the awful game against France are also wiped from the memory?

Rugby is such a cyclical game - you are in great form right now but I think we forget that has not been the case very long this time around?

So it will come down to the NZ philosophy vs the England tried and tested formula.

Um – this England team is at least as radically different in style from our 91, 95 and 99 sides as the AB one is – so I kind of lost your point in their somewhere.

I see Mitchell has changed players – and switching to an attacking fly half has been great for you – but what sweeping style changes has he made?

Though I loved the description of the three RWC losses. Sometimes we lose to better sides on the day – France certainly were against you, sadly the Boks were against us and in 91 the ‘Strongest’ side is surely the one that beat England in the Final – mentally at least? I will not cite 95 as it still holds bad memories for the ABs – food poisoning was it not?

Personally I think the thing that failed you in 91 was the overt support of Dame Kiri - imagine letting someone who married an Aussie sing before your games.

Tamerlin

Sure those factors came from the SH – but we are adapting our game around them, we can’t deny that. It’s wrong – but to beat the devil you have to become the devil.

And frankly your offer is very fair – I’ll be there should we win. If we lose I’ll just pop back here and say we were the strongest team in the tournament but lost to a better side on the day.