 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
Next international is SA v Wales on the 8th - any predictions guys? I suppose SA will probably win...
NZ v Italy also on the 8th *yawn*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
Can we clear up something here? Is the question - who would you like to see win? or who do you think will win? |
Who would you like to see win.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Havak
|
 |
Swing Low, Sweet Chariots.
Aug 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
New Zealand v Italy – Go Go Go Italiano! No, only kidding – NZ easily.
South Africa v Wales – The Boks. I’d like to see Wales do it but they are simply awful these days – juts slightly more so than the Boks.
New Zealand v Ireland – Heart says Ireland, head says NZ 
Canada v Scotland – Scotland by a whisker but echo the North America sentiment.
Australia v NZ Maori Perth – well, Wallabies second XV?
New Zealand v Ireland – see above
Australia v France – France are probably the better side right now, but with the Wallabies you just never know…
USA v Scotland – The tartan boys quite comfortably (sorry mate)
South Africa v Argentina – Pumas!
Australia v France – depends who wins the first test – series will be 2-0 I feel.
Canada v USA – Canada, despite the off the field turmoil, as the stronger side I feel.
The Barbarians - yes they won, but it was far from convincing against the worst national team in the British Isles. On the plus side Kronfeld was simply towering, and the young Tigers lad Ollie Smith scored a cracking try for them. One celtic team left to turn over, and I'm looking for a much better performance from McQueens men
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Havak
|
|
Swing Low, Sweet Chariots.
Aug 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
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?
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).
Sorry to "go off on one" guys but this has really annoyed me. Sure Crusaders are a fantastic team, but compare the personnel and there is little overall difference. Canterbury's half backs are better - one has to admit that - but their pack isn't even close IMO - Tigers field a second row of Johnson and Kay - Englands second row -and it has been a long time since the ABs have matched England for locks. Both our English flankers are the English opensides and they are complimented by a certain Mr Kronfeld (yes he shares blindside with Moody at times) who, to my mind , is still the superior flanker to either AB incumbent. Our number 8 is Martin Corry who is simply superb, and he is backed up by Adam Balding, the England A number 8.
(I would mention our front row but only 2 out of 3 are England regulars these days - the third having retired from Intl last season). 
Back lines, well I guess Crusaders have the edge, but Tigers have talent there - Kafer and Smith are a workhorse and mercurial talent respectively - Tuilagi, Lloyd and Murphy are class wings and the fullback is Tim Stimpson - England fullback this summer.
Oh yes - and we have Healey, who whilst not Mr popular, is a real game breaker whoever the opposition.
So...for SH fans to dismiss this team is frankly ludicrous. Don't talk a good game - come and play it! I would imagine Jonno is rubbing his hands at the over-confidence of Canterbury fans.
And one last point - Tigers four League titles have been consecutive and achieved over a much longer league program than super 12, and their two European cups have been consecutive as well. They are not a patsy team to anyone, however good.
I look forward to your thoughts chaps! 
Last edited by Havak on 30-05-2002 at 15:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:19
|
|
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
|
|
Swing Low, Sweet Chariots.
Aug 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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!
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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!
quote:
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?
quote:
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...
quote:
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).
quote:
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...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Havak
|
|
Swing Low, Sweet Chariots.
Aug 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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!!
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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?
quote:
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
quote:
How about.... The USA!! |
Sounds good, how about right here in New York?
quote:
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.
quote:
YEAR CHAMPION
2001 Australia
2000 Australia
1999 New Zealand
1998 South Africa
1997 New Zealand
1996 New Zealand
|
quote:
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
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
What a hiding! I would have expected Canada to put up a bit more of a fight than that!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-05-2002 13:29
|