Should South Africa have racial quotas for rugby?

[finbar]

I saw some footage of the Munster game. You didn't have it easy.

With regard to the other business, there are probably three factors at work. First, as I said earlier, you get penisheads in all sports; second, SH-types, and Australians, in particular, are great p*ss-takers and it's sometimes difficult to pick the difference between bigotry and p*sstaking; third, the reality is that there's next to no coverage of NH rugby down here - except on the weekly Fox Sports Rugby Show, where I saw the footage - so anyone who claims to have expert knowledge of NH rugby is, more than likely, a penishead.

PS. My advice? Don't take it so personally.

[Havak]

No worries - I was just venting some steam.

We do have the advantage here of getting Super 12 coverage so even the least clued in casual fan would know you couldn't just dismiss the Super 12 champions as 'easy meat'. We still have plenty of bigoted and close minded Rugby followers though - we call them the Welsh.

(largely joking but on Saturday night I sat through a lecture from a local on why Tigers were not the best side in Europe and why Pontypridd were - who you say? Exactly!!)

No Tigers didn't have it easy. But then the tension was palpable even to me. The final took place in a neutral (big difference!?) 75000 seater stadium in Cardiff though it's fair to say the Welsh locals on the whole were behind the Irish side. Munster are a good solid side who were well up for it after losing in their last final, they had been rested for a month (Tigers had played right up to the previous weekend) and they came out firing on all four. Their game plan was basic (I hardly knew they had wings on the park) and worked well for 30 mins or so. But once Tigers adapted to their game the momentum moved entriely to us and, whilst you may have seen the 'hand' incident (George Smith would be given a medal for doing it by Jones, the Irish want Backy hung by his own coach!) and their "try that never was" you probably missed the scatty French ref disallowing two perfectly good tries for us, penalising our tight head at the scrum when their canny loose head was boring in and even giving them a line out for a ball they kicked out on the full (! I choked on my beer for this).

Believe me I would rather have had Andre Watson than all French officials.

But in essence I'm saying the better side won.

[Caligastia]

Havak-
I thought I made it clear that I wanted you guys to say who you want to win, not who you think will win. *sigh*

Oh well...

Originally posted by Havak
Something else I want to ask you guys - the mailbox on a certain Rugby web site is full of southern fans crowing that they think the Crusaders would walk a clash of Champions tie with Tigers (and there's also the odd Paddy still crying about cheats from last weekend - idiots). It is clear from the rubbish they spout in their dialogue that they have never even seen Tigers play, and yet they are comfortable predicting the outcome of a game having only seen one of the teams in action????

My question is - are these typical of how SH fans see the game - with blinkers on? Do most of your respective countrymen really believe the world begins and ends with Super 12 and that there is no worthy rugby anywhere else?

I would say the same as Finbar, that there are arseholes in every sport. I think the problem with predicting the result of such a match is that where its played would probably make a difference. I have seen both teams play though, and I still think the Crusaders would win, even with a NH ref.

Perhaps we really should get this game together - it would send a real shockwave through SH rugby when Crusaders get turned over at Twickenham - and believe me this is perfectly possible, if not guaranteed (I'm not stupid enough to believe Crusaders are not a threat however).

I think the game would have to be played as soon after the super12 and euro cup finals as possible. How would we decide where to play it though? Perhaps in neutral ground....SA?

[Havak]

I thought I made it clear that I wanted you guys to say who you want to win, not who you think will win. *sigh*

Yes but you are assuming I read carefully and have advanced cognitive skills. I'm still recovering from last weekend.

I have seen both teams play though, and I still think the Crusaders would win, even with a NH ref.

I do value your opinion, as you have seen the teams play, but I would love to see you qualify that statement. I think the Canterbury forwards would stuggle to win quality possession in the set pieces and without that platform Tigers would grind them down. In fact I think it would be a bigger test of their forwards than any team in the Super-12 gave them, and worth seeing for that alone!

And the hemisphere of the official is crucial - I don't think Canterbury would cope with a Celtic ref anywhere near as well as you expect, they tend to be whistle merchants.

I think the game would have to be played as soon after the super12 and euro cup finals as possible

It's tricky, this is mid season for the SH, but close season for the NH - most of our top players have reached the 32 game cap with the Euro final (yep thats right, 32 games, and this is a reduced amount from 2-3 years ago!). The alternative is September when your boys are end of season and we are just setting off again. It's a nightmare, but I think the current suggestion of February is worse than both!

How would we decide where to play it though? Perhaps in neutral ground....SA?

No problems there, but perhaps rotating it between SA and France year on year for balance?

Not that I'm saying it will always be Crusaders and Tigers of course - maybe Blues and Tigers, or Brumbies and Tigers, or Waratahs and Tigers.

I am joking of course - our League is getting more competitive - two teams you will probably not have seen, Sale and Gloucester, are coming really strong - I would peg them as potential S-12 semi contenders. I can't stand them personally though

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
I do value your opinion, as you have seen the teams play, but I would love to see you qualify that statement. I think the Canterbury forwards would stuggle to win quality possession in the set pieces and without that platform Tigers would grind them down. In fact I think it would be a bigger test of their forwards than any team in the Super-12 gave them, and worth seeing for that alone!

I think the Crusader forwards would be up to the challenge, just look at Chris Jack! Winning possession is a strength of the Crusader side as I see it. The Brumbies are the masters of winning possession, and the Crusaders beat them at their own game!

And the hemisphere of the official is crucial - I don't think Canterbury would cope with a Celtic ref anywhere near as well as you expect, they tend to be whistle merchants.

Thats true, but at least a couple of the crusaders s12 games this year were reffed by "whistle merchants" and they still remained unbeaten. Or dont any of the Super12 refs count as "whistle merchants" by NH standards?

It's tricky, this is mid season for the SH, but close season for the NH - most of our top players have reached the 32 game cap with the Euro final (yep thats right, 32 games, and this is a reduced amount from 2-3 years ago!). The alternative is September when your boys are end of season and we are just setting off again. It's a nightmare, but I think the current suggestion of February is worse than both!

I have to agree. If it wasnt for that cap now would be a great time though, considering both competitions end at about the same time. The "champions" title loses its lustre after 9 months or so IMO...

No problems there, but perhaps rotating it between SA and France year on year for balance?

Nah, that doesnt sound very balanced to me. SA is a long way for both teams, but France is only a long haul for the super 12 champs. Oz or NZ would be better than SA in this case (because lets face it, SA might never win the super12).

Not that I'm saying it will always be Crusaders and Tigers of course - maybe Blues and Tigers, or Brumbies and Tigers, or Waratahs and Tigers.

Waratahs? Ha!

Whats the difference between Cinderella and the Waratahs? Cinderella got to the ball...

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia

I think the Crusader forwards would be up to the challenge, just look at Chris Jack! Winning possession is a strength of the Crusader side as I see it. The Brumbies are the masters of winning possession, and the Crusaders beat them at their own game!

The Crusaders' forwards - a very strong, disciplined mob - were the platform that set up everything else. They will supply most of the All Black forwards. Caligastia's right - they did everything the Brumbies were famous for doing only better and more. The Crusaders -v- Leicester debate is academic anyway. It won't happen.

Whats the difference between Cinderella and the Waratahs? Cinderella got to the ball...

There are better lines than that. "What does HSBC (the Waratahs' jersey sponsor) stand for?" "Humiliating Score By Crusaders".

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar


The Crusaders' forwards - a very strong, disciplined mob - were the platform that set up everything else. They will supply most of the All Black forwards. Caligastia's right - they did everything the Brumbies were famous for doing only better and more. The Crusaders -v- Leicester debate is academic anyway. It won't happen.

Yeah, unfortunately I think youre right about that.

There are better lines than that. "What does HSBC (the Waratahs' jersey sponsor) stand for?" "Humiliating Score By Crusaders".

Nice to see you taking the ribbing so good-naturedly. If the All Blacks do badly this year Ill probably have to do the same!

[finbar]

Caligastia, my (and NSW's problems) are minor concerned with Havak's (and England's). Clive Woodward - England coach - called a meeting of all the club directors to ask for an 11-week off-season for his top players. The directors responded by not turning up - en masse - to the meeting.

[Havak]

The directors responded by not turning up - en masse - to the meeting.

This is the latest round in a long long running battle between clubs and the RFU. It's not Woodward they snubbed but mainly Barron and the committee who, how can one out it kindly, are clueless twerps (IMO).

But yeah it looks like our RWC preperation will be messed up again by this.

just look at Chris Jack!

I maybe need to watch a Crusaders game again in detail to really suss them out. I'd like to see a team against them really grind them through the forward mincer - plenty of lovely rolling mauls so beloved of SH teams and coaches alike? Then I'll get a flavour for their strength. None of these breakdowns where southern games look like a bomb has gone off at a disco (bodies everywhere)though all right?

(I trust you both realise I'm just funning here?)

I've read great things about this lock, but you need to keep in mind he will be up against Martin Johnson and Ben Kay in the lineout. That will test him a little more than the likes of Justin Harrison or Tom Bowman (no offence Finbar, just the first names that popped in my mind).

I think my point is that there is no bigger test of a pack at club level in the NH than to take on Tigers, so I don't think we could ever take it as a given that Canterbury could automatically overcome that?

Sadly though Finbar is right, the game will never happen.

The "champions" title loses its lustre after 9 months or so IMO...

Thats a fair point, so your suggested timing was probably best after all.

Nah, that doesnt sound very balanced to me

But how can it be balanced for you to suggest all Tri-nations venues where one side will have much more playing experience?

How about.... The USA!!

The Crusaders' forwards - a very strong, disciplined mob - were the platform that set up everything else. They will supply most of the All Black forwards

Forgive me if I'm wrong but the All Blacks relative poor performance (for them) in the last 5 years or so is because their forwards are no longer the fearsome warriors of old. The pack has not been their strong point for years, whereas I think it has to be the strength of the English forwards that has seen them rise the rankings?

Canterbury are the core of the NZ pack, Tigers are the core of the English pack - hmmm?

Finbar must have noted how England achieved almost 75% possession against Australia in Novemeber and therefore strangled the talented Aussie back line out of the game? Once we get a back line that can fully utilise such dominence in possession we should really be quite good!

Just more grist I add to the mill of our debate. The truth of course is that we really don't know who would win between the club sides, just that it isn't a pre-ordained outcome

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
I think my point is that there is no bigger test of a pack at club level in the NH than to take on Tigers, so I don't think we could ever take it as a given that Canterbury could automatically overcome that?

Probably not, but (in my totally unbiased opinion) the Crusaders are the better team.

Seriously, you are right though, you can never predict the result of a rugby game between two top-notch sides. Who could have predicted the result of the Waratahs-Crusaders slaughter?

But how can it be balanced for you to suggest all Tri-nations venues where one side will have much more playing experience?

Im not balanced

How about.... The USA!!

Sounds good, how about right here in New York?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but the All Blacks relative poor performance (for them) in the last 5 years or so is because their forwards are no longer the fearsome warriors of old. The pack has not been their strong point for years, whereas I think it has to be the strength of the English forwards that has seen them rise the rankings?

Youre right, but I think with Mitchell's coaching and the Crusaders forwards, that will change this year.

Also I would argue that the All Blacks performance has only been poor for the last 2 years, not five. The results of the tri-nations indicates this.

YEAR CHAMPION
2001 Australia
2000 Australia
1999 New Zealand
1998 South Africa
1997 New Zealand
1996 New Zealand

Canterbury are the core of the NZ pack, Tigers are the core of the English pack - hmmm?

Unfortunately England arent playing NZ this year...

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak

Forgive me if I'm wrong but the All Blacks relative poor performance (for them) in the last 5 years or so is because their forwards are no longer the fearsome warriors of old. The pack has not been their strong point for years, whereas I think it has to be the strength of the English forwards that has seen them rise the rankings?

The ABs have been deficient - relative to past performances - all over the park in recent times but I sense a turnaround. The Crusaders have obviously led the way, and their pack is very, very good. Big, mobile, skilled. How it translates into the bigger picture of rep footy is, of course, a different matter. It will be interesting to see.

Finbar must have noted how England achieved almost 75% possession against Australia in Novemeber and therefore strangled the talented Aussie back line out of the game? Once we get a back line that can fully utilise such dominence in possession we should really be quite good!

This gets back to what I was saying the other day. While the last Wallaby touring team was lacking some key players, the opposition were ready for what the Wallabies were going to do. They didn't give the Wallabies the time, space - or the ball, for that matter - to do their thing. And it started with the opposition packs. This is exactly what led to the Brumbies' run of losses this season. The oppo got in their faces, pressured them, and didn't allow them the space and time. And, as I said the other day, it's the big problem the Wallabies face this coming season.

Thankfully, the Australia A -v- Canada match is being televised this afternoon. It's not going to be anything more than a trial match - on paper, anyway - but it will be interesting to see how Matt Rogers fits in at inside centre and how John Eales' protegee handles the (albeit moderate) step up in grade. I would assume that, given the quality of the opposition, Wendell Sailor will probably run rampant in a Lomu-type display. Or, in fact, if he doesn't, there will be a serious question mark against his name.

[Caligastia]

Go Canada!!!!

[finbar]

Australia A 102 -d- Canada 8



Hardly even a trial match. Matt Rogers cut them to absolute ribbons scoring three tries, Wendell Sailor picked up two. John Eales' protegee is big, quick and shows good skills. But the lack of opposition rendered it just about useless as any sort of trial for Wallaby selection. Matt Rogers, though, will certainly make the national team.

[Caligastia]

What a hiding! I would have expected Canada to put up a bit more of a fight than that!

[finbar]

There were a couple of factors at work. There were a number of Wallabies in the Australia A team - so there was plenty of skill - and the Canadians are, apparently, missing a couple of their best men who are playing in Europe. All up, the Canadians just couldn't cope with the speed, strength and skills. But, as I say, Australia A had it so easy that you couldn't really draw any selection conclusions. Eddie Jones said he's going to use the forthcoming Wallaby -v- Maori game as another, much much stronger trial.