Rugby!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

The question is : will the Aussies be too tough for these two young bloods ?
I hope not.

The consensus here seems to be that our backs will be too big, strong and quick. That's assuming, of course, that the ball gets to them often enough.

[Havak]

His family is oldish-money but he's a pretentious ****er, to boot.

our backs will be too big, strong and quick. That's assuming, of course, that the ball gets to them often enough.

Caution is advised - we expected our forwards to dominate possession in Paris this year and our backs to be "too big, strong and quick" and it didn't quite work like that.

Of course there are some abuse, but I like this.

I had forgotten about De Villiers, he has helped bring a more disciplined approach to the French forwards I think?

I would ask you to consider that removing this nation-hopping rule in Rugby would affect the All Blacks and Wallabies a lot more than it would France. It is of course pure coincidence that I support getting rid of it.

I don't mind qualifying through residency but I think the qualifying period needs to be 7 years plus (to stop Islanders signed to Kiwi clubs at 17 being in an All Black jersey by 20)

will the Aussies be too tough for these two young bloods ?

If their media has taken the position Finbar suggests then you have every chance of smashing them I would say. Over-confidence is an occassional problem for the men in Green and Gold?

Finbar - I am still just funning okay, I'm looking forward to a great game whatever the result but - Vive La France!!!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar

In fact, because we have no South Africans posting in this thread, how about we blame them for everything that's wrong with rugby?

What a gret idea! They are to blame really anyway.

The South Africans are known for being cheats. Remember in 96 when the All Blacks won a test series in South Africa for the first time? Well it was also the first time they used a non-south african referee. Coincidence? I think NOT!

and dont even get me started on the 95 world cup final...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar
The ABs - let's just call them the Crusaders? - are going to have to improve, but they should still win comfortably. It will be interesting to see if their combinations improve.

Thats what I am hoping for. No doubt Mitchell will have given them a good bollocking after the last game, so hopefully that and more practice will give us a better performance from them this week.

I also would like to see the USA beat scotland. Unfortunately I wont get to see the match though, they arent showing it for some reason... You would think they would show it considering that its this country's national team. They showed The USA vs SA last year, and the scotland match is being played in San Francisco, so its not like they couldnt show it...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Caligastia : no, it's not always your fault. The SH have given a new breath to the game of Rugby (in my own opinion of course), I'am only criticizing the changes brought by the new rules or the referees when they threaten to change the nature of the game and moreover when these changes are ordered by TV channels in order to make more money out of our favorite sport. I know there would be no professional high level Rugby without money but we should not go too far and create a new game.

I agree. Every rule change should have the interests of the game in mind, not just money. God forbid rugby ever gets as commercialized as american footbal.

[Caligastia]

Havak & Finbar-

Lets keep politics out of the discussion guys because I have been happy with the friendly atmosphere in our rugby threads so far and would hate that to change.

[Tamerlin]

Thanks again for your support Havak, I promise to sing "Swing low" the next time I see the English team playing and winning.

Caligastia : the 95 world cup, do you mean the world cup which final should have been New Zealand - France with a decent referee in our rainy semi-final against South-Africa...
About money in sport, you could have added "or soccer" after "God forbid rugby ever gets as commercialized as american football."

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Caligastia : the 95 world cup, do you mean the world cup which final should have been New Zealand - France with a decent referee in our rainy semi-final against South-Africa...

Yes, I remember that game. It was a titanic struggle.

My problem with the RWC final is that they added so much extra time on the game when the score was still tied. They should have just made it full-time after the first period of extra time and the All Blacks would have won on points from previous games. New Zealand were the best team of the 95 RWC, and deserved to win. Especially when you consider that they managed to keep the score tied agasinst SA even when half the team had food poisoning.

About money in sport, you could have added "or soccer" after "God forbid rugby ever gets as commercialized as american football."

Yeah, but soccer hasnt got as bad as american football. In american football they interrupt the game every few minutes to play commercials.

[LDiCesare]

Tony Marsh is not australian, he is kiwi, isnt't he? And De Villiers was born in South Africa (although he is not playing).But then the Irish play with players whose great-grandmother was born on a boat in the Irish channel so it can count as being irish, and the AB count many players who could have played for the Samoa if I am not mistaken.
I also believe Ibanez being on the bench is hard on him, though Azam is a real fine player too. Of course Laporte has the World Cup in mind, but Brusque was quite good, so dropping him is a bit hard, particularly considering Laporte said his first choice as a full back was Toulouse player Poitrenaud, who somehow hurt himself out of the tour.
As for Keith Wood, he is probably the best hooker I ever saw. If you want to see some fighting spirit, don't go look any further.

[LDiCesare]

New Zealand were the best team of the 95 RWC, and deserved to win. Especially when you consider that they managed to keep the score tied agasinst SA even when half the team had food poisoning.

As Tamerlin pointed out rightly, France should have been finalist, and it would have won, too. Considering the half final referee refused a perfectly valid try by Galthie under the fallacious pretext the ball hadn't been hooked in the scrum (how did it get past the number 8 then?) and the fact that crumbling scrum after scrum on one's line ought to get a penalty try, I think we can agree the South Africans have a fair unfair reputation.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

As Tamerlin pointed out rightly, France should have been finalist, and it would have won, too.

If the All Blacks hadnt been food poisoned, then I doubt it.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Havak & Finbar-

Lets keep politics out of the discussion guys because I have been happy with the friendly atmosphere in our rugby threads so far and would hate that to change.

But we're agreeing with each other! And I honestly can't think of any more damning broadside to level against the Poms than Mrs T. But you're right. No more politics. Rugby's way more important than politics anyway. It's way more important than Stem Cell Research. It's way more important than ...

Hmmm. I wonder if there's anything more important than rugby?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak

If their media has taken the position Finbar suggests then you have every chance of smashing them I would say. Over-confidence is an occassional problem for the men in Green and Gold?

Finbar - I am still just funning okay, I'm looking forward to a great game whatever the result but - Vive La France!!!

In fact, there's no over-confidence at all. The observation about the Wallaby backs was more a theory about the difference between the two sides. It's widely held here that the team were pretty ordinary last week. The great unknown is how the French will respond to the loss to the Pumas and the team reshuffle. Phil Kearns observed that the French are famous for reshuffling the team and coming out and playing a blinder. Those locals who think the Wallabies will win are also thinking it won't be by much.

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Tony Marsh is not australian, he is kiwi, isnt't he?

You're quite right, LDiCesare. Mental blowout on my part.

And De Villiers was born in South Africa (although he is not playing).But then the Irish play with players whose great-grandmother was born on a boat in the Irish channel so it can count as being irish, and the AB count many players who could have played for the Samoa if I am not mistaken.

I've also wondered about the number of Pacific Islanders who make it into the AB side so rapidly.

[Havak]

I promise to sing "Swing low" the next time I see the English team playing and winning

Thank you. I hope we give you the chance Saturday when we beat the Pumas.

RWC95 I remember Lomu single handedly destroying us there even though we played decent 'rugby' on the whole. Tony Underwood just didn't have the size to counter the bulldozer. Even so the try of the game was the England captain Will Carling (also up himself big time incdientally) popping the ball over the AB fullback in the corner.

Mind you we were amateur back then and, try as you might, with your players already contracted to the ABs back then you cannot claim you were.

RWC99 was different. We gave you too much respect and space and paid for it. France showed how you should be played - pop balls behind the wide men because when they turn they look far less impressive in defence?

the Irish play with players whose great-grandmother was born on a boat in the Irish channel so it can count as being irish, and the AB count many players who could have played for the Samoa if I am not mistaken.

This would be true if we were looking at Soccer, although the Irish have got better in the last decade. But in rugby their record is much better. Despite one or two "shamrocked Kiwis" (and those guys get everywhere anyway) the Irish squad is exactly that - Irish.

And the ABs count anyone of any nationality on grandparent and residency basis. They compete with Austrlaia to sign the best young players from the entire Oceania area as young as possible so they can be qualified ASAP. It's something I don't like but with such small populations it is something they have to do.

I doubt the lads could name the last time their teams fielded 22 born and bred Aussies or Kiwis in a game?

The observation about the Wallaby backs was more a theory about the difference between the two sides.

In compostion, ah right I see. Keep in mind France are comtemproary in terms ability with England at the moment - they simply cannot be taken lightly at any point, even after a loss (I know you understand this of course).

It's like if England lose to the Pumas tomrorow it means little for November, with only five senior squad men in the starting line up. Oh yeah and no - oh damn I'm not aloud to mention him am I?

And Caligastia - I promise no more politics - although I too was confused as Finbar and I were not arguing at all!

Damn - run out of time for now - later guys.