Thread: Tri Nations 2009

Fok off.

Bledisloe is more important than the 3N.

^ Another one who deems the WC as unimportant.

Why's that?

The World Cup is important, arguably too important these days what with all the rebuilding and 'World Cup cycle' focus.

But perspective is needed and at the end of the day it's simply a knock-out tournament that's held every 4yrs; the draw, a goodly amount of luck and other vagaries play as much of a role as anything else.

Anyone else?

Myself and most of the Aussies you've spoken to in the last 6yrs not enough for you?

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

^ Another one who deems the WC as unimportant.

Why's that?

Didnae say that Mr Dog. Said the Bledisloe's more important than than the 3N. Bragging rights amongst our closest cousins. Bragging rights against the Poms is a given. (Unless you're AusTRALian)

The biggest rugby tournament in term of your average Aussies mentality is the Bledisloe. In cricket, the Ashes. In League, the State of Origin is much bigger than any international.

The RWC 'rebuilding' focus makes sense though- it's not like Deans or anyone else can clap his hands and turn the Wallies back into a scratch outfit overnight. Personally, I just don't see that we have the depth of player talent right now, certainly lacking in tall forwards. It doesn't help that in Oz, Union plays third fiddle to Aussie Rules and League, and that a lot of the (non- Pacific Islander) recent immigrants are into soccer.

I agree with Ant that too much importance placed on the World Cup has harmed other parts of the game, traditional tours are a thing of the past other than the British and Irish Lions. The magic of a touring team for me was one of the great parts of my youth. I saw several games that Mouries Eighth's played in Wales and it was truly exciting. Every SH team visits the UK every year now and often with reduced squads (that they still win (apart from Straya) is a testement to their strength, but none the less still reduces the spectacle).

However thinly disguised attempts to belittle England's World Cup win are pathetic. Next we'll hear how Australia weren't trying or how they never met New Zealand on the way to victory.

Funny you never hear this sort of nonsense from the SH's one true power house the Springboks who know the true value of a RWC win.

Originally Posted by sabang

Personally, I just don't see that we have the depth of player talent right now, certainly lacking in tall forwards. It doesn't help that in Oz, Union plays third fiddle to Aussie Rules and League, and that a lot of the (non- Pacific Islander) recent immigrants are into soccer.

It's true you don't, again a marvellous testement to how good your sides were with such small resources.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

However thinly disguised attempts to belittle England's World Cup win are pathetic. Next we'll hear how Australia weren't trying or how they never met New Zealand on the way to victory.

Funny you never hear this sort of nonsense from the SH's one true power house the Springboks who know the true value of a RWC win.

Who is saying that on here though? Or do you mean just in general? I also don't quite get what you mean by SA being "the SH's one true power house"?

In 2003 England were clearly the best team at the tournament and deserved winners. I doubt however that even their most ardent supporter would say they were genuine and deserved finalists in 2007 though. South Africa were hardly setting the world alight either for that matter.

Interestingly enough there's a table on the Wikipedia World Cup page that ranks the teams based on WC wins, Runner-up, Third and Fourth appearances.

Can't cut n' paste it on here because the formatting's screwed but the rankings are:

1. Australia (2 wins, 1 runner-up, 1 fourth)
2. SA (2 wins, 1 third)
3. England (1 win, 2 runner-up, 1 fourth)
4. NZ (1 win, 1 runner -up, 2 thirds, 1 fourth)

Then France; Wales; Argentina; and Scotland (in that order).

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Who is saying that on here though

That would be me Ant and based upon my observations of global Rugby over the last decade. Some have agreed with me and other have not but the fact is most teams adopted Woodward's methods and in an attempt to win games and particularly those from the NH (apart from the occassional flash of brilliance from France and Wales and during that period) .

Woodward's tactics and to concentrate on rolling rucks and graft their way and to good field positions meant that Johny could kick penalties and field goals to his hearts delight.

His defence plan was also based upon slowing down the play and I think that is when the commentator's invented the term "Killing the Ball" which Woodward's teams were skillful at.

Yes he won England a World Cup, which they just fell over the line in winning but the fact that major rule changes were introduced soon after and in an attempt to quicken up the game kind of backs my sentiments. Whether these rules have achieved their purpose can also be debated but the fact that the rules were implemented because of Woodward's coaching style goes a long way to confirming the collective boring view of his methods.

Complete and utter tosh again.

most teams

...just laughable. Name names .

Killing the ball was around long before as an art and as a term........

Woodwards teams scored far more tries than you choose to give them credit for, even the stats I produced are just ignored to enable you to continue with your nonsensical mantra. Jack Rowell most certainly played that way and wasn't that good at it either. Woodward (for all his many other faults) wanted and tried hard to play running rugby, but his team on the field were experienced enough to know what to do and when to win games.

None of us liked them winning, but those are the facts.

I am no traditionalist. At the end of the day, it is the audience that is the boss- they bring the advertisers, who bring the money. The game brings the audience, and if tweaking the rules makes for a more entertaining spectacle, so it should be. In fact, as history shows, so it will be. Every game changes a bit over time, that I can think of.

This is not a knock at teams that win, I should add.

I ain't no rugby/sport fundi, but I enjoy the game. For what it's worth, here's my tuppence worth re the decline of the Ozzies generally.

In a word, self-aggrandisement. They have followed the American way of talking themselves up too much over the past few decades. Arrogance has slowly replaced hard effort, seeking excuses for failures. Whinging and whining about refs etc. doesn't help. Commentators, like all media, play a huge role in this.

In my humble view, the average Ozzie has changed from a generally honest, hard competitor to a weak whinger of late. One of the sad things I have had to accept lately. Maybe my age is catching up with me.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

even the stats I produced are just ignored to enable you to continue with your nonsensical mantra

I have responed to most of your posts Bob and you in-turn have not responed with your back up statistics.

I did respond too you and by asking a question, and when you quoted how many tries Woodward's English backs scored, and that question was how many they scored against SH sides and you conveniently ignored to respond. Do yourself a favour and go back to that period and see how many tries they put past the lesser 5 nations opposition and Argentina before posting your own brand of tosh.

Seems I have a better memory and when compared to your's Bob and when watching Rugby during that period!

Originally Posted by Loy Toy

and you conveniently ignored to respond.

No I didn't.

I responded with the statistics of Ben Cohen and how he had a greater strike rate against SH teams than the rest.

I'm not becoming your research boy, I did point out to you when they beat SA, NZ and Aus on consequitive weekend they ammassed well over 100 points, I know you'd love to believe that it was 35 penalties from Jonny.

Hell, why should I point this stuff out to you, you must have watched these games, it's just your bitterness at defeat seems to have closed one of your eyes Cantabarian style.....555555

Now then......Wales playing like Woodward, enlighten me about that.....examples???

Originally Posted by FlyFree

In a word, self-aggrandisement. They have followed the American way of talking themselves up too much over the past few decades. Arrogance has slowly replaced hard effort, seeking excuses for failures. Whinging and whining about refs etc. doesn't help. Commentators, like all media, play a huge role in this.

I disagree the Wallabies with the exception of Tiquiri, Henjak, Sailor and Dunning are a very professional outfit.

The media though is truly pathetic, but you can't blame that on the players.

I can't say I've been following the Aussie media much on rugby lately, but I'm not aware of much whinging. Have I missed something? Graham Henry took a bit of a swipe at the boks for 'boring play', which I don't think was warranted.

The main commentary seems to be that our forwards are still not up to scratch, and some recent (and utterly premature) criticism of Robbie Deans.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

4. NZ (1 win, 1 runner -up, 2 thirds, 1 fourth)

Can we limit this to professional rugby and events where the world's teams actually turned up?

Originally Posted by Loy Toy

Yes he won England a World Cup, which they just fell over the line in winning but the fact that major rule changes were introduced soon after and in an attempt to quicken up the game kind of backs my sentiments. Whether these rules have achieved their purpose can also be debated but the fact that the rules were implemented because of Woodward's coaching style goes a long way to confirming the collective boring view of his methods.

Just goes to show how much those southern tossers are presently trying to ruin the game by trying to tip the balance in favour of NZ rugby.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

None of us liked them winning,

*cough*

Originally Posted by FlyFree

In my humble view, the average Ozzie has changed from a generally honest, hard competitor to a weak whinger of late.

Gotta agree.

Just ironed my England shirt for tonights game.....still dont know who to support.

Originally Posted by Thai Pom

Just ironed my England shirt for tonights game.....still dont know who to support.

You in Aus, right? Gotta go with the Yarpies. At least they play rugby like it should be played and will wipe the floor with the Wannabees anyway.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

4. NZ (1 win, 1 runner -up, 2 thirds, 1 fourth)

Can we limit this to professional rugby and events where the world's teams actually turned up?

Gee, that never gets old.

Anyways, limit it to what you want. It doesn't change the fact that the first World Cup was held in 1987.

Originally Posted by Thai Pom

.....still dont know who to support.

your in brissy mate and your a pom,, its easy GO LIONS!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Gotta go with the Yarpies. At least they play rugby like it should be played and will wipe the floor with the Wannabees anyway.

Quote of the century!

21- 6 to the Wallabies, and most would say that score flatters the Boks.

Good game- they'll certainly be celebrating in NZ.