Rugby - Running Out of Titles

[Havak]

Poor old Morgan will struggle to get a game.

Appreciate the offer – but we should perhaps look for an islander not yet naturalised by a tri-nations side.

They are all related – it’s one huge estrogenic conspiracy.

Yes, I've noticed an absence of Leicester supporters on those forums. Can't they afford computers?

It’s avoided because of the number of West country fans who are considered to be from a far lower class and not worth speaking to.

Well, it's all in the context of the situation, isn't it. Reverse order if she asked.

Do you think it is wise for me to deceive her like that?

Even more troubling, if he was right about that then could he be right about other things too??

Oh Finbar will love that.

Hoeniss is a strange lad – it’s not the first time he has drawn heavy criticism. But the IRB seems to like him.

Ditto for the aftermath. Actions have consequences for players. It shouldn't be any different for officials and that was a particularly horrendous snafu.

They could never do this sadly – no sporting body can encourage witch hunts against it’s appointed match officials. Hoeniss would have been assessed during last weeks game – and the assessment will have been glowing as they always are. Reffing is a club – that is why the two Bok refs speaking up is such a shock. Okay both are retired and both were appalling refs in their own right – but it’s still a shock.


They are all related by the way – it’s one huge estrogenal conspiracy.

Incidentally, do tell who you're supporting in the NZ-Wales game ...

It’s not as hard for me as you might think.

I hope you don’t have the impression I have a huge problem with the ABs as I don’t. I have some specific problems with them when they face us – you will never convince me what Shaw did was worse than Robinson being where he was in the first place for example – and it does concern me when they get carried away about ‘how good they are’ when they clearly are good, but not THAT good. But on the whole I really enjoy watching the ABs. I am sure all rugby fans enjoy watching the AB backlines?

Compare that to Wales who show huge passion and commitment – but little skill. And who hate the English with a passion (broad sweeping national stereotypes are the order of the day in rugger). It’s therefore easy – I’m in the AB corner.
I might threaten to support Wales when I’m annoyed – but it is never a serious threat.

There is a team I could never bring myself to truly get behind and cheer – so you should also note I am in the Scotland corner. And on a hiding to nothing because of that.

Now here is something bizarre - one of our Tigers players has been banned for six months for stamping. And yet he has not played a single first team game for us this season. How weird is that?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak


Appreciate the offer – but we should perhaps look for an islander not yet naturalised by a tri-nations side.

Well, Leicester has one. They could lend him.

Do you think it is wise for me to deceive her like that?

Mmmm. Dutch courage is easy behind their backs, isn't it.

Oh Finbar will love that.

I'll read ravagon's posts when he learns to use the Enter key.

and it does concern me when they get carried away about ‘how good they are’ when they clearly are good, but not THAT good.

Why does that concern you? You know they never deliver when it counts.

(broad sweeping national stereotypes are the order of the day in rugger).

I would never have known from any of your posts.

There is a team I could never bring myself to truly get behind and cheer – so you should also note I am in the Scotland corner. And on a hiding to nothing because of that.

Which is why I'm giggling up my sleeve supporting the Boks.

Now here is something bizarre - one of our Tigers players has been banned for six months for stamping. And yet he has not played a single first team game for us this season. How weird is that?

Was this in the HC match?

EDIT. No, it wasn't. I just looked it up. Oh well, he should keep his boots to himself in whichever league he plays on loan or otherwise.

[Havak]

Well, Leicester has one. They could lend him.

He is Fijian – and of course Fiji is ‘British’.

It is of course only easy behind their backs.

You know they never deliver when it counts.

It concerns me because false optimism reminds me so much of England 1871-2003. For their own sake it needs pricking at every opportunity.

I would never have known from any of your posts.

Naturally. After all the majority of stereotyping of Aussies in these threads does not come from me?

Which is why I'm giggling up my sleeve supporting the Boks.

Surprised I am not.

I don’t now how to call this one at all – we are not very good and I think they are somewhat over rated too. Should be fun.

EDIT. No, it wasn't. I just looked it up. Oh well, he should keep his boots to himself in whichever league he plays on loan or otherwise.

I agree. It wasn’t against Bath after all.

Bizarre situation – he hasn’t made a first team appearance for us yet and still we have to pay hi for six months of doing nought. On your bike orders for sunshine I think?

Now then will Tamerlin get that colloquialism?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak


He is Fijian – and of course Fiji is ‘British’.

Goodoh. So Rokococo and Caucau are eligible for the England team!

It concerns me because false optimism reminds me so much of England 1871-2003. For their own sake it needs pricking at every opportunity.

Fair enough. So if they follow the England pattern, it's false optimism, followed by ten minutes of glory, falling in a screaming heap ten minutes later.

Naturally. After all the majority of stereotyping of Aussies in these threads does not come from me?

I've often regretted that we don't have a stereotypical Australian in our midst for me to carve into pieces.

we are not very good and I think they are somewhat over rated too.

I think you've just about summed it up, although I think their existing potential is greater than England's. By which I mean, I've seen these Boks play outstanding rugby against vastly better teams than Canada.

Now then will Tamerlin get that colloquialism?

He'll get the "sunshine" because we've discussed it before with him. The two-wheeler reference might stump him.

[LDiCesare]

France 14 - 24 Argentina
Deserved and clear victory for the Pumas. They not only wanted it more than the French, they played much better.
The French didn't know how to use the wind. In particular, Michalak in the second half didn't kick half as much as he should have. He played a penalty fast when he would have gained much more by just kicking for a lineout. Peyrelongue played better when Michalak moved to scrum half. I'm really persuaded Michalak would make a much better 9 than 10.
The Argentinans showed a very strong scrum and good backs. I would gladly kill the French journalists that keep pretending that Argentina is not one of the top countries of rugby. I'm sure they are consistently better than Scotland and Wales for instance, and about the same level as the top NH teams. Since their pack would annihilate the Wallabies, they are probably better than Australia too. I think they'll next play against Ireland and the Boks this season.

I didn't see the French Barbarians match so can't comment on it.

I did see the match I played yesterday, though. We crushed Dourdan (8 tries vs. 2). But oh, how tired I was (am). Ask as you may, you will find noone ready to replace a hooker...

One more thing. Avoid drinking Beaujolais at all costs.
It's terrible. The silly winger who ate by my side made me drink some and it really tastes awful. I knew that of course, but couldn't back from the drinking contest for some obscure reason. Rest assured that the sissie ended the night in a much much much poorrer state than I. Not that I was in good shape, but well, he certainly was in no shape at all. He did play well, though, except for one blunder and not letting a friendly flanker take the ball from him.
Now that'll teach him. For those who want a few pieces of rugbystic wisdom, here are the lessons he should have learnt:
1) Don't try to outdrink your front row.
2) When a flanker comes to help you, let him. If you don't, you stand the risk of being reduced to pulp by an opponent forward much heavier than you. (if your forwards are here, then the other forwards must be near too)

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
France 14 - 24 Argentina
Deserved and clear victory for the Pumas. They not only wanted it more than the French, they played much better.
The French didn't know how to use the wind. In particular, Michalak in the second half didn't kick half as much as he should have. He played a penalty fast when he would have gained much more by just kicking for a lineout. Peyrelongue played better when Michalak moved to scrum half. I'm really persuaded Michalak would make a much better 9 than 10.

The result surprises me. (See below)

Oh, and I thought Michalak's kicking against Australia was pretty ordinary both in his choices of when to kick, and the execution.

The Argentinans showed a very strong scrum and good backs. I would gladly kill the French journalists that keep pretending that Argentina is not one of the top countries of rugby. I'm sure they are consistently better than Scotland and Wales for instance, and about the same level as the top NH teams. Since their pack would annihilate the Wallabies, they are probably better than Australia too. I think they'll next play against Ireland and the Boks this season.

I didn't see the match, so I don't know how much France contributed to their own demise, nor do I know how much of a "one off" it was for the Pumas. I can comment on the Pumas up until last season because I've seen them a couple of times a season over the past few years.

They've always been very strong in the forwards - sometimes brutally (illegally) so - but their game has rarely stood up beyond the forwards. They've had talent in the backs, but the backs have never been able to capitalise. Their coordination has fallen apart, usually in their halves. Discipline has also been a major problem. Historically, they've always been very difficult to beat playing at home - I think they beat one of the NH teams (Ireland?) at home last season - and the Wallabies always beat them there but it's always a struggle. But, historically, they've never been as strong away from home. They've never troubled us here in Australia, regardless of the strength of their forwards, because their strength has always started and finished with the forwards.

All of that said, I'm with those who call the Pumas the sleeping giants of world rugby. They're terribly neglected by the rugby world. (As, too, are the Pacific rugby nations) The Pumas never get to play enough Tests against top teams. The excuse seems to be that Argentina's time zone makes scheduling matches and tours difficult. Which I think is crap. There was talk of including the Pumas in the Tri Nations series, which would have been a very good thing for Argentinian rugby. They need to be allowed to play more than the couple of Tests a year they play now.

Anyway, as I said, having not seen them against France, I don't know whether they had a "one off", or whether they've overcome their fundamental historical problem of falling apart outside the forwards.

I did see the match I played yesterday, though. We crushed Dourdan (8 tries vs. 2). But oh, how tired I was (am). Ask as you may, you will find noone ready to replace a hooker...

One more thing. Avoid drinking Beaujolais at all costs.
It's terrible. The silly winger who ate by my side made me drink some and it really tastes awful. I knew that of course, but couldn't back from the drinking contest for some obscure reason. Rest assured that the sissie ended the night in a much much much poorrer state than I. Not that I was in good shape, but well, he certainly was in no shape at all. He did play well, though, except for one blunder and not letting a friendly flanker take the ball from him.
Now that'll teach him. For those who want a few pieces of rugbystic wisdom, here are the lessons he should have learnt:
1) Don't try to outdrink your front row.
2) When a flanker comes to help you, let him. If you don't, you stand the risk of being reduced to pulp by an opponent forward much heavier than you. (if your forwards are here, then the other forwards must be near too)

I can see Havak having fun with this! He, of course, will demand to know why you were drinking with a girlie in the first place.

[finbar]

Wallabies 31 -d- Scotland 17

Oh well, a win is a win, I suppose. But it was the same old Wallaby thing - patches of outstanding rugby undercut by handling errors and missed opportunities. And what seems to be a fractured jaw or cheekbone for Stirling Mortlock put the icing on the cake of disappointment. At least our scrum matched theirs, even if our lineouts were haphazard.

EDIT. Oh dear. The news gets worse. Not only does Mortlock have a broken cheekbone, Steve Larkham has a broken arm, and Clyde Rathbone is likely to miss next week with a groin strain. And Eddie says it was our best Test for the tour. I have no doubt that it was. But it still wasn't good enough. We were patently obviously a class above the Scots, but didn't play like it often enough.

England 32 -d- Springboks 16

England impressive, their job made easier by a very poor Bok effort. The Boks lacked confidence, they mishandled, and their forwards went completely AWOL, not all of it the result of English supremacy. Only briefly, in the last couple of minutes, did the Boks look remotely threatening, and it was interesting to note that England didn't cope all that well. Still, on that effort, England's forwards should have an early Christmas present against the Wallaby forwards next week. What a tragedy it will be if Stirling Mortlock is missing, though, because Henry Paul is a sitting duck in the centres. I can't believe he will stay there.

[LDiCesare]

The argentinans were infact very helped by the wind. There was a strong Mistral blowing, and it prevented long passes, making the typical puma game of "pass the ball to a forward so he charges, repeat ad nauseam" the best tactic. For a change, had the match been in Paris, with less wind, the French could have won. Still, the French underperformed because they didn't want to win as much as their opponents. The typical example: Drop down by the pumas. The ball flies high, crosses the 10 meters line, and falls backwards. It alights inside the 10 meters limit. The pumas play, the French just watch. That's no good.
It's true that if the game had allowed them to play wide, the French could have tired the pumas and probably found holes in their defense. Still, for one try he scored, Marsh made a knock on and lost a perfect opportunity.
I said that currently, they'd beat the Wallabies because their scrum was really awesome. The Australians struggled a little in the world cup against them, but your forwards held fast. Today, comparing this game against France and your game against France, your forwards would have been butchered. As a forward, I don't think the backs would have been able to make much of a difference, but then I mught be slightly biased.

[finbar]

Fair enough. But, historically, the Pumas' problem has always been that their game falls apart once the ball leaves their forwards. In other words, it hasn't mattered how badly they've smashed the opposing pack, they haven't known how to capitalise on possession. A team with a half-decent defence has always been able to stop them elsewhere. And they've often made it even harder for themselves with very poor discipline.

[Tamerlin]

Typical French problem, very good one week, very bad the other...

The French players have been unable to keep the ball in their hands, they did far too many fools that prevented them from developping their game. On the other side, the Argentinians seemed far more motivated than their French couterparts and were in a very good day. But as we say in France: "la chance sourit aux audacieux".

[Tamerlin]

The Beaujolais is generally not considered as a wine by someone who has at least a veneer of "savoir vivre". The Beaujolais is only the result of a successful marketing operation and an example of what the worst aspects of mass consumption can produce.

Spit...

Ding!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Typical French problem, very good one week, very bad the other...

And how typical that they save the good for the game against the Wallabies!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
The Beaujolais is generally not considered as a wine by someone who has at least a veneer of "savoir vivre". The Beaujolais is only the result of a successful marketing operation and an example of what the worst aspects of mass consumption can produce.

Spit...

Ding!

I agree entirely. Modern Beaujolais is a tool of the marketing industry, with, amongst other things, idiotic competitions between restaurants to be the first to offer the latest vintage. LDiCesares should be drummed out of the Front Rowers' Club for even lifting a glass of the stuff.

[ravagon]

Hmm. What's this doing on page four?
Dear oh dear oh dear. Can't have that.

All-Blacks 26 d Wales 25.

Yikes. Wales apparently had a blinder. Sounded like a very good game. Unfortunately for the Welsh they had a bit of a problem with the match clock. Not so much in this game as in their last game against the Boks.
Apparently it wasn't allowing for stoppage time a couple of weeks ago, hence the actual time showed ~88 minutes at the end. The Welsh knew this but apparently hadn't realised that it'd been fixed forthe game against us.
As the clock ticked over to full time, thinking they still had a few minutes of injury time left, they put the ball out - their intention being to try and win the lineout and get into position for a field goal.
The ref then blew the final whistle leaving the Welsh players speechless.


New IRB rankings (and we all know how important these are ) out after last weekend - not a great deal of change in the top 10 by the looks of things. More to the point how did we get the #1 spot back given that we didn't take the 3N this year and we've only played Italy and Wales in the last couple of months?
I'm a bit surprised that the Pumas didn't gain a place or two after their win over Tamerlin's mob? Perhaps the few points they gained wasn't enough to knock the Irish down a peg...

1 (1 last week): New Zealand - 89.66 points
2 (2): England - 87.97
3 (3): Australia - 87.20
4 (4): France - 84.94
5 (5): South Africa - 84.12
6 (6): Ireland - 82.22
7 (7): Argentina - 79.05
8 (8): Wales - 76.91
9 (9): Scotland - 75.27
10 (10): Fiji - 74.17

Apparently if England beat the Wallabies and France beat New Zealand this weekend, Andy Robinson's side will regain the number one position for the first time since June 7, 2004.

Originally posted by Havak
I might threaten to support Wales when I’m annoyed – but it is never a serious threat.

There is a team I could never bring myself to truly get behind and cheer – so you should also note I am in the Scotland corner. And on a hiding to nothing because of that.

I'll bear this in mind the next time I'm tempted to support, well, a certain side not that much different from the one you could never cheer for ...

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon
Hmm. What's this doing on page four?
Dear oh dear oh dear. Can't have that.

All-Blacks 26 d Wales 25.

Yikes. Wales apparently had a blinder. Sounded like a very good game. Unfortunately for the Welsh they had a bit of a problem with the match clock. Not so much in this game as in their last game against the Boks.
Apparently it wasn't allowing for stoppage time a couple of weeks ago, hence the actual time showed ~88 minutes at the end. The Welsh knew this but apparently hadn't realised that it'd been fixed forthe game against us.
As the clock ticked over to full time, thinking they still had a few minutes of injury time left, they put the ball out - their intention being to try and win the lineout and get into position for a field goal.
The ref then blew the final whistle leaving the Welsh players speechless.

Yep. Every other team in the world, at every level, from schoolboy upwards, in that situation, asks the ref how much time is left. Everyone except the Taffys.

New IRB rankings (and we all know how important these are ) out after last weekend - not a great deal of change in the top 10 by the looks of things. More to the point how did we get the #1 spot back given that we didn't take the 3N this year and we've only played Italy and Wales in the last couple of months?
I'm a bit surprised that the Pumas didn't gain a place or two after their win over Tamerlin's mob? Perhaps the few points they gained wasn't enough to knock the Irish down a peg...

1 (1 last week): New Zealand - 89.66 points
2 (2): England - 87.97
3 (3): Australia - 87.20
4 (4): France - 84.94
5 (5): South Africa - 84.12
6 (6): Ireland - 82.22
7 (7): Argentina - 79.05
8 (8): Wales - 76.91
9 (9): Scotland - 75.27
10 (10): Fiji - 74.17

Apparently if England beat the Wallabies and France beat New Zealand this weekend, Andy Robinson's side will regain the number one position for the first time since June 7, 2004.

Yellow card for you for posting the meaningless drivel that is the IRB rankings!