13 Jul 08
Originally posted by LucardoWell, the same could be said of last weeks game. For big periods of last weeks' game the boks did the attacking and a little luck or a 50/50 pass that actually stuck would've seen us at least give the ABs a game.
But i don't nescesarry think SA was the better team, -I think the rugby gods just favoured us yesterday. -It could have gone to any team.
Anyway, our forwards got a kick under the ass through the week apparently and they came to the party, matching the All Blacks all the way. It's weird to see the ABs apparently don't have much depth in lock...
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by Tirau DanLOL, that is pretty funny. I think there were 2 late 'hits' on him: One where he was bumped and didn't even go to ground and once when he kicked he had a defender committed and he fell over.
Henry is complaining that Daniel Carter was targeted with late hits throughout the game. Rubbish!
There wasn't one actual late/dangerous hit on him...
It was weird, for me at least, to see thew All Blacks panic at the end and go for a drop goal. This is not how I'm used to them playing. Usually they would back themselves to work it up field and either score a try or force a penalty.
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by CrowleyI agree. But there will allways be those that have excuses for their teams's loss. Last week the AB's played with a bit more structure than the boks. They had a more definite game plan and stuck to it.- They weren't nescsarry better. -Each team scored 1 try.
Well, the same could be said of last weeks game. For big periods of last weeks' game the boks did the attacking and a little luck or a 50/50 pass that actually stuck would've seen us at least give the ABs a game.
Anyway, our forwards got a kick under the ass through the week apparently and they came to the party, matching the All Blacks all the way. It's weird to see the ABs apparently don't have much depth in lock...
And as for their lock situation. -If you want to run striaght into Schalkie you have to take what's coming your way, -even I know that!
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by CrowleyI again absolutely agree with you.. I was saying Henry's pathetic excuses are a joke, he isn't a coaches back side. Carter wasn't hit late at all he was caught several times legitimately because the distribution was slow and the SA loosies were quick.
LOL, that is pretty funny. I think there were 2 late 'hits' on him: One where he was bumped and didn't even go to ground and once when he kicked he had a defender committed and he fell over.
There wasn't one actual late/dangerous hit on him...
It was weird, for me at least, to see thew All Blacks panic at the end and go for a drop goal. This is not how ...[text shortened]... y they would back themselves to work it up field and either score a try or force a penalty.
The SAs really gelled in a way I don't think we saw at the WC. They looked organised, well drilled and passionate.. can't ask for much more from a world champion team.
When you look at all the world champion teams and the great grand slam winners of yesteryear.. they all had a sixth sense about positional play and back up, always someone on the shoulder always someone in the gap backing up, hits were hard and runners were illusive. Most of all they were dominant in the set play and always won the line outs. Nowadays teams are more even but winning teams do win line outs.
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by Tirau DanThey played much more as a unit, but our support play is not even close to that of the all blacks. Your boys still are the absolute masters at keeping the ball alive.
The SAs really gelled in a way I don't think we saw at the WC. They looked organised, well drilled and passionate.. can't ask for much more from a world champion team.
When you look at all the world champion teams and the great grand slam winners of yesteryear.. they all had a sixth sense about positional play and back up, always someone on the shoulder ...[text shortened]... nd always won the line outs. Nowadays teams are more even but winning teams do win line outs.
The difference was our defense and as you say, our set pieces. You MUST defend hard, stopping the momentum and win all your set pieces to beat the all blacks.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by CrowleyNZ support play seems to be coached as an urgency thing these days.. the been to be on the shoulder looking for the ball is paramount but it leads to a break down of real pattern. In the winning days ab play was about set pattern and the sixth sense was developed by players playing together all the time and touring together for three or four months at a time... we don;t possess that quality now and are always likely to be on the losing end until our teams get the chance to be a fifteen not a thirty.
They played much more as a unit, but our support play is not even close to that of the all blacks. Your boys still are the absolute masters at keeping the ball alive.
The difference was our defense and as you say, our set pieces. You MUST defend hard, stopping the momentum and win all your set pieces to beat the all blacks.
15 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Tirau DanSure, the '6th sense' thing holds some water with your consistency argument, but don't you think that just the way the game has developed since the era before the 80s?
NZ support play seems to be coached as an urgency thing these days.. the been to be on the shoulder looking for the ball is paramount but it leads to a break down of real pattern. In the winning days ab play was about set pattern and the sixth sense was developed by players playing together all the time and touring together for three or four months at a ti ...[text shortened]... ways likely to be on the losing end until our teams get the chance to be a fifteen not a thirty.
In the 'old days' tours went on for months and players weren't rushed in because one guy stubbed a toe.
But also, the game is very hard these days with super-athletes running into each other and a very quick pace.
I know you'll say the previous generation had some hard guys, but today's players are on average seriously fitter and stronger and at the end of the day: It's a professional game now and coaches try to protect their investment.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by CrowleyNo doubt about the fitness today but the pride has gone and can't be bought. In the 60's it was fit farmers that dominated NZ teams and I think the Boks.. Hardened Miners from the valleys of Wales and Steel related workers from Northern England lead by the university toffs.
Sure, the '6th sense' thing holds some water with your consistency argument, but don't you think that just the way the game has developed since the era before the 80s?
In the 'old days' tours went on for months and players weren't rushed in because one guy stubbed a toe.
But also, the game is very hard these days with super-athletes running into each oth ...[text shortened]... d of the day: It's a professional game now and coaches try to protect their investment.
In a team today my first two picks be Colin Meads and Buck Shelford from the sixties and eighties respectively... Pinetree was a farmer, rangey and very very strong, fast, agile and fit to the whistle.. a much harder presence than most on the field today. Wayne was a Navy PT instructor who lived sport and fitness and again was harder than most around.
Third pick: Sid Going at half Back another nugget like farmer fit and fast.. he taught the engergizer battery man how to run.
They were all better players than any since and would be in my team today ahead of the conditioning coaches and woofters of today.
The only thing that would make me think about Sid would be his hot headed obsession with punching out locks and props twice his size.. man he used to go in hard swinging.. very entertaining and I never ever saw him dropped!
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by Tirau DanSure, there have been some hard lads who played the game. What I'm saying is the average player today is much fitter, faster and stronger.
No doubt about the fitness today but the pride has gone and can't be bought. In the 60's it was fit farmers that dominated NZ teams and I think the Boks.. Hardened Miners from the valleys of Wales and Steel related workers from Northern England lead by the university toffs.
In a team today my first two picks be Colin Meads and Buck Shelford from the six ...[text shortened]... ize.. man he used to go in hard swinging.. very entertaining and I never ever saw him dropped!
16 Jul 08
So, the Aussies are ALREADY whining, even before the game.
They are now pissed because Bismarck du Plessis got off lightly for his 'eye gouge' on Adam Thomson.
LOL, it was a little push with a fist - there was no gouging. It was stupid, but there was no real malice in the act.
Good god.
http://www.supersport.co.za/rugby/article.aspx?headline=Bismarck%20let%20off%20lightly%20%e2%80%93%20Aussie%20journo&id=261547
16 Jul 08
Originally posted by CrowleyThe one thing about rugby is eyes are definitely off limits,even if it was a so called push.He got what he deserved,
So, the Aussies are ALREADY whining, even before the game.
They are now pissed because Bismarck du Plessis got off lightly for his 'eye gouge' on Adam Thomson.
LOL, it was a little push with a fist - there was no gouging. It was stupid, but there was no real malice in the act.
Good god.
http://www.supersport.co.za/rugby/article.aspx?headline=Bismarck%20let%20off%20lightly%20%e2%80%93%20Aussie%20journo&id=261547
So bring on the Boks
22-20 to the Wallabies
16 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by boarmanI'm not disputing the fact that he needed to be cited and punished, I'm just laughing at the Aussie (and the judiciary) hypocrisy.
The one thing about rugby is eyes are definitely off limits,even if it was a so called push.He got what he deserved,
So bring on the Boks
22-20 to the Wallabies
Where was the whining about Brad Thorn when he speared John Smit - deliberate, off the ball and after the whistle - hurting him so badly and effectively ruling him out of the rest of the Tri Nations which received a 1 match suspension, but a little scuffle where Du Plessis's fist was close to Thompson's eye gets a 3 match suspension.
Double standards if you ask me.
Eye gouging should be punished very harshly, but I'm sorry, you can't gouge eyes with a bloody FIST! So, does it warrant a 3 match suspension? I don't think so...
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by CrowleyFinally got to see that tackle by Thorn.. there was definitely no downward thrust so it wasn't a spear.. Lifting and dropping isn't a spear.. dangerous yes but not a pile driver. I think the judiciary ruled their was to intent.
I'm not disputing the fact that he needed to be cited and punished, I'm just laughing at the Aussie (and the judiciary) hypocrisy.
Where was the whining about Brad Thorn when he speared John Smit - deliberate, off the ball and after the whistle - hurting him so badly and effectively ruling him out of the rest of the Tri Nations which received a 1 match su ...[text shortened]... ge eyes with a bloody FIST! So, does it warrant a 3 match suspension? I don't think so...
Thompson had the red marks across his face and that's all the proof they needed.
Laugh though... when I first switched from hooker to tight head prop I asked my more experienced mate where to put my left hand.. his reply was: "In that bast'ds (the opp hooker) eyes".. I didn't gouge but often covered his ball side eye .. part of the game and always has been... so is licking him when tied score and 2 mins to go.. smack! they hit ya for doing it and down you go but the penalty wins the game for you he he dirty tricks one o one.
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Tirau DanSemantics.
there was definitely no downward thrust so it wasn't a spear.. Lifting and dropping isn't a spear.. dangerous yes but not a pile driver. I think the judiciary ruled their was to intent.
It was off the ball, after the whistle, retaliatory, deliberate and dangerous. Whether it was a definition spear or not doesn't change the fact that it hurt a player and was centimeters away from something that could have been much worse.
A knuckle grind in the face = 3 match suspension. Harsh, but I can live with it.
Upending a player ending his Tri Nations with the possibility of breaking his neck = 1 match suspension. Double standards.