 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
Currently, in all seriousness, there's very little between the top international teams, certainly in the southern hemisphere. The Wallabies (Australia) and the All Blacks (New Zealand) would have it over the Springboks (South Africa), with the Pumas (Argentina) bringing up the rear.
It's hard to know how the southern hemisphere teams currently stack up against some of the top northern hemisphere teams - England and France - when they're at full strength. Australia and New Zealand both tour there in November, so we'll know more then.
Just have a look at the game if you get a chance, Sneak. It is, IMHO, the most interesting, unpredictable - and potentially most rewarding for the spectator - game going around. It's a very tactical game and all the richer for it. It's also a bit schizophrenic in that it is, essentially, a very simple game, but it does contain some of the most obscure laws ever invented which are often the cause for great debate.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SuperSneak
With soccer and hockey, I pretty much gave up because the offsides rule would stop play every time it got interesting. |
In fact, the offside rule - in any sport in which it features - is the greatest guard against a team taking cheap advantage. Ultimately, it stops a player simply positioning him or herself permanently beside the goal (or, in rugby, the try line) their team is attacking.
quote:
I must admit that the scrum in rugby is fascinating...don't quite know what they are trying to accomplish though.  |
The scrum is, effectively, a duel for possession of the ball.
I suppose it's a rough equivalent of the jump ball in basketball. The difference, though, is that the team that puts the ball into the scrum retains the advantage - technically - because the odds are they should win the scrum. As is only right, because a team is awarded a put-in to a scrum when the opposition has breached a law.
Having won the ball from the scrum, the team then controls the ball, and, therefore, the play. But a team putting the ball into the scrum can lose control of the ball. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's the result of great play by the opposition.
Scrums look like a test of pure muscle but they're much more than that. A truly great scrum outfit (called "the pack") deals (as well as in strength) in the timing of their drive against the opposition pack, the coordination of the drive (given that their 8 players in a pack), the angles at which they drive, and so on. So winning an opposition ball in a scrum is a massive achievement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Havak
|
 |
Swing Low, Sweet Chariots.
Aug 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
If it makes you feel better, I could go either way between Russell and Robinson |
It makes me feel much better thanks. 
quote:
what are you calling a first-class game? Do you include the Zurich Cup? |
I use First-class to represent any competition officially endorsed by the RFU, so yep the Zurich Premiership (league) and Championship (play off) are included. Given Eddie was saying only last week he was concerned some of his players were approaching the likelihood of 25 games in a season you can see what a major problem we have! You’ve seen we are trying to face it head on however.
quote:
Stuff ups and problems are always someone else's fault |
You know Alan Jones does almost sound like he could be Jack Rowell’s brother – not that I’m suggesting Jack has been anywhere near a public lavatory recently of course… 
quote:
When your lad can kick goals; when he has skippered his team to a WRC win; when he has been the only class player in an average side and has constantly risen to the occasion; and, most important of all, when he doesn't have a major question mark alongside his temperament, then I'll entertain a discussion on the matter. |
A lock kicking goals is not concentrating on his core business, which is why JE lacked in the set pieces compared to Martin. WRC win – be serious he plays for England!! There is no question mark over Jonno rising to the occasion, but he has had the misfortune to be a class player in a below average side that’s true (witness when his team is diluted by celts) . And there’s no question mark over his temperament – get in his face and you go down. You always know, therefore, where you stand with him (the tree hugger always looked like he might kiss you?).
Now then were JE still playing he would have several things to achieve to even get into the same league – series wins in South Africa, a grand slam in the tri-nations (to match Johnsons in the five nations) and, perhaps most importantly, to have achieved something (anything?) domestically instead of being tucked away in a team that will never achieve anything like the Reds. International rugby is the peak of the sport but the truly great players have been successful at club level too – JE wasted his club career don’t you think?
In case you were wondering that was all written with a large smile on my face.
quote:
You can only beat whomever lines up against you in whatever shape they're in. |
 So true. So go back and look at exactly what you did beat in 99 perhaps – neither semi nor final set the world afire or did anything to showcase Union?
quote:
I would suggest S. Mortlock for A. Healey solved your goal kicking problem in the first place and, most importantly, without breaking up the precious half-back/5-8 combination? |
But it costs me a proven game winner for a lad who seems to be improving into one? I want proven quality, and if I need to shed another Aussie for that then so be it.
Seriously whilst Healey will never get a break from any Aussie after refusing to roll over for the uber-patriots his qualities as a rugby player are beyond doubt. Fast, smart strong, not Australian. What more does he need?
By the way did I really see you correct the Tri-nations XV and put Smith at blindside Finbar? Surely not!?
quote:
If you need that long to come up with a half-decent reason, that's fine. |
Heck no – I just didn’t want to be spending my own money stating the utterly obvious.
It was certainly close enough not to argue with.
quote:
It's hard to know how the southern hemisphere teams currently stack up against some of the top northern hemisphere teams |
Really? I think we can take a stab if we try.
England hasn’t lost to Australia since 1999 after all. But at least they are prepared to play us – the All Blacks have been the invisible opponents since 1999.
Okay having upset everyone now I’ll get some work done.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
Given Eddie was saying only last week he was concerned some of his players were approaching the likelihood of 25 games in a season you can see what a major problem we have! You’ve seen we are trying to face it head on however. |
Your mob need to do something about the problem in a hurry. Here, it includes Tests, S12s, Australia A matches, club footy, etc, so it's pretty much the same calculation. The magical number here, as I said, has been set at 30. The clubs and the ARU here have been doing their sums over the last week or so deciding which players can play club footy before the tour and which are in mothballs.
quote:
You know Alan Jones does almost sound like he could be Jack Rowell’s brother – not that I’m suggesting Jack has been anywhere near a public lavatory recently of course… |
I honestly can't believe anyone walking the earth could be as vile as Alan Jones.
quote:
In case you were wondering that was all written with a large smile on my face. |
I naturally assumed that on the basis that you couldn't possibly have been serious with any of it.
quote:
So go back and look at exactly what you did beat in 99 perhaps – neither semi nor final set the world afire or did anything to showcase Union? |
I don't think setting anything on fire or showcasing anything is the point. You get what you get on the day. If you want to showcase the game, play nothing but Barbarians matches.
quote:
But it costs me a proven game winner for a lad who seems to be improving into one? |
Methinks you should locate some tapes of some of his performances in S12 and Tests this season.
quote:
By the way did I really see you correct the Tri-nations XV and put Smith at blindside Finbar? Surely not!? |
Yeah, I know. You jam 'em in where they fit in those silly best-of combos.
quote:
Okay having upset everyone now I’ll get some work done. |
Anyone else notice that he skipped over explaining what he got up to on his Bank Holiday weekend? Obviously painting the kitchen for Mrs Havak.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
I suppose it's a rough equivalent of the jump ball in basketball. The difference, though, is that the team that puts the ball into the scrum retains the advantage - technically - because the odds are they should win the scrum. As is only right, because a team is awarded a put-in to a scrum when the opposition has breached a law.
Having won the ball from the scrum, the team then controls the ball, and, therefore, the play. But a team putting the ball into the scrum can lose control of the ball. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's the result of great play by the opposition.
|
You forget to say that a scrum is a lot of pushing. This means if you push the scrums (which is done a lot in France, and probably in NH in general), there are 2 consequences:
Immediate:
If your scrum pushes the opponent scrum 1 foot and they still keep the ball, their attack is strongly compromised because the scrum half will have trouble with his pass, and defenders will make contact sooner. This means the attacking team may have to resort to kicking or a maul in the center of the field instead of attakcing wide.
Longer-term (less true when lots of coaching come around, but that can force coaching):
You tire the opponent scrum. This results in their being late in other phases of the game, making more errors and so on. Consequences of the scrum are also big on morale. Get grinded once in a scrum, and you will remember it for the rest of the play. It takes some guts to play at your top when you are suffering in the scrum.
quote:
Scrums look like a test of pure muscle but they're much more than that. A truly great scrum outfit (called "the pack") deals (as well as in strength) in the timing of their drive against the opposition pack, the coordination of the drive (given that their 8 players in a pack), the angles at which they drive, and so on. So winning an opposition ball in a scrum is a massive achievement.
|
I cannot agree more. I'd add the way you link together is very important, and the way props link with their vis-a-vis is also very important. Looking at front rows in a scrum is always very interesting if you can read the game. Sometimes after the first scrum, you know that a player will be penalized soon because he won't be able to withstand the facing prop, or that the prop won't last the whole game... But it is hard to see when you haven't played in the front row.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
One major problem is that clubs and the RFU are not on the best of terms. |
Yes, I'm aware of that. I reckon it's your biggest problem of all. We have our ARU -v- S12 (and club) skirmishes, but nothing like the crap that happens over there.
BTW, can you elaborate on that thought you had about Kafer not winning your fans to the extent that his predecessor did? I remember Rod Kafer could be a surly, provocative character. Or were you talking in purely football terms? There's certainly nothing flash or particularly exciting about Mr Kafer's play.
quote:
Well you know what they say about assumption – it’s the mother of all mis-understandings. |
The Mothers of Invention. I remember them well. Poor old dear, departed F. Zappa.
quote:
Oh you mean like England-NZ or NZ-France in the self same tournament? |
Yep. Touch football, I think they call it.
quote:
It’s likely, with Dan Luger injured yet again, you will see a wing-fullback combination of Cohen-Robinson-Healey against all the SH sides in November. That’s strength, pace and unpredicatability in that order. Should be fun. |
We shall see, we shall see.
quote:
*skip* |
A-ha! That's telling. I've got it! You spent the entire Bank Holiday weekend standing on the coffee table doubling as a dress dummy while Mrs Havak pinned up her hems! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
You forget to say that a scrum is a lot of pushing. This means if you push the scrums (which is done a lot in France, and probably in NH in general), there are 2 consequences:
Immediate:
If your scrum pushes the opponent scrum 1 foot and they still keep the ball, their attack is strongly compromised because the scrum half will have trouble with his pass, and defenders will make contact sooner. This means the attacking team may have to resort to kicking or a maul in the center of the field instead of attakcing wide.
Longer-term (less true when lots of coaching come around, but that can force coaching):
You tire the opponent scrum. This results in their being late in other phases of the game, making more errors and so on. Consequences of the scrum are also big on morale. Get grinded once in a scrum, and you will remember it for the rest of the play. It takes some guts to play at your top when you are suffering in the scrum. |
Good one, LDiCesare, very well explained. I hope SuperSneak reads it.
Oh, and contrary to rumor, there's a hell of a lot of pushing in SH scrums too. In fact, I can recall seeing a couple of tight-heads this season.
quote:
I cannot agree more. I'd add the way you link together is very important, and the way props link with their vis-a-vis is also very important. Looking at front rows in a scrum is always very interesting if you can read the game. Sometimes after the first scrum, you know that a player will be penalized soon because he won't be able to withstand the facing prop, or that the prop won't last the whole game... But it is hard to see when you haven't played in the front row. |
I'm sure that's true. Actually, I'm hoping Havak will soon regale us with some of his tales of life in the front row.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
Okay, Cal, here we go. I've done exhaustive research. And, gee, I have to tell you, this is a whole lot more fun - not to mention more useful and productive - than work.
I've taken the 10 years from 1993 to 2002, including the recently concluded Tri-Nations. I've counted Wallaby and All Blacks matches against the following teams:
Each other; Springboks; England; France; Lions; Ireland; Scotland and Wales.
In those 10 years, against those teams, the Wallabies have played a total of 77 matches. The All Blacks have played a total of 76 matches.
The Wallabies have won 49, the All Blacks have won 52. The variables - number of matches against, um, weaker teams - tend to cancel themselves out. For example, the All Blacks have played 3 more matches against Scotland, but the Wallabies have played 3 more matches against Wales.
There are some interesting stats along the way. The All Blacks have done much better in that period against the Springboks - 15 wins, 6 losses, 1 draw - than the Wallabies have - 10 wins, 9 losses, 1 draw.
(Edit. I went back and checked the respective performances against the Springboks in matches played in South Africa and it underlines the Wallabies' bugbears about playing there. The All Blacks played 11 matches in South Africa for 4 losses, while the Wallabies played 8 there for 7 losses.)
OTOH, the Wallabies have performed better against the French - 8 wins, 2 losses - than the All Blacks have - 4 wins, 5 losses.
OTOH, the All Blacks have performed better against England - 5 wins, 1 loss, 1 draw - than the Wallabies have - 4 wins, 3 losses, 1 draw. But it is roughly one month short of 3 years since you played them, so slip up there and give them a belting?
Very, very interesting.
Last edited by finbar on 29-08-2002 at 07:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Havak
|
|
Swing Low, Sweet Chariots.
Aug 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
We have our ARU -v- S12 (and club) skirmishes, but nothing like the crap that happens over there. |
No surprises – it is all down to money (and therefore power). The RFU negotiated some very nice TV deals in the late nineties and then pretty much spent the money on the RFU. The clubs, who assets were securing this money for the Union, were seeing very little of it. You can see why that went down well. Lots has been resolved and it’s a relatively peaceful period but war is only ever one Francis Baron or Rob Andrew comment away.
It’s a damn good job our clubs are getting so professional as left to the RFU I’m sure we would still be in the era of boot money.
quote:
I remember Rod Kafer could be a surly, provocative character. Or were you talking in purely football terms? There's certainly nothing flash or particularly exciting about Mr Kafer's play. |
I was talking both. He does not interact with the crowd whereas Pat did. This is down to personal player choice – some do, some don’t – but it was his bad luck to follow a lad that did – it made for a very marked difference. Yes Rod is a very different kind of player indeed and your description is quite accurate. Rod will never break the line with a silky ‘step and go’ I think
Surly and provocative can’t be an issue. Tigers don’t tolerate locker room prima donnas so he must have settled in well. Mind you Rod is currently struggling with a groin injury he picked up in training and is out for four to five weeks. It’s hard work up here in the NH.
Of course we never wanted pat to leave and if ACT are mis-using him we will have him back anytime please. He only left because he wanted to push for the green and gold again and that seems miles off?
quote:
The Mothers of Invention |
My mis-quotations are usually deliberate. Usually.
quote:
Yep. Touch football, I think they call it. |
I dread to think what that says about Australia when both touch rugby NH sides shoved them off the park last time out?
quote:
We shall see, we shall see. |
No trust me – one way or the other it will be fun. I just don’t know which way.
And I don’t think I have ever been accused of being a dress dummy before.
I do love reading the stuff from LDiCesare – he knows his forward play all right. I think my playing tales would send you to sleep to be honest.
By the way Finbar – I’m impressed you restricted the analysis to the professional era. It would have flattered the Wallabies more to go back beyond 95 (we didn’t play you between 91-95 so going from 93 makes no difference). And, as we know, the All Blacks don’t play us enough. If you check the last 25 fixtures it takes you back to the 30s!
Statistics are all well and good but they do what you want them to. I could point out Australia never beat Wales for eight years in the seventies, or that they only scored 3 points against them in that time. I could mention that the Wallabies haven’t beaten England this century. It’s all meaningless – in November we find out what is what. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
Of course we never wanted pat to leave and if ACT are mis-using him we will have him back anytime please. He only left because he wanted to push for the green and gold again and that seems miles off? |
He's miles away from a Wallaby guernsey. In fact, further away than before he left to go to you, unless they consider him as a back-up fly-half, but I haven't heard his name mentioned. I've always liked him as a player. He was stiff that he matured as a player about the same time as Larkham was making his mark and (from memory) Horan and Little were still around. At another time, I think he would have had more chances.
quote:
My mis-quotations are usually deliberate. Usually. |
You didn't misquote. I just deftly changed the subject to off-beat 60s bands.
quote:
I dread to think what that says about Australia when both touch rugby NH sides shoved them off the park last time out? |
Listen, Havak, if you're expecting wit and logic, you've got a dang long wait!
quote:
No trust me – one way or the other it will be fun. I just don’t know which way. |
My thoughts exactly.
quote:
And I don’t think I have ever been accused of being a dress dummy before. |
*Meanwhile, Havak skips the question yet again*
quote:
I do love reading the stuff from LDiCesare – he knows his forward play all right. I think my playing tales would send you to sleep to be honest. |
I love reading him too. I have a mental image of him as a short, gnarled individual with shoulders eight feet (buggered if I know what that is in these new-fangled metrics) wide and cauliflower ears. (Maybe I'd better put a couple of s there just to make sure he knows I'm joking! )
But don't think you're getting off that lightly, Havak, we're awaiting your anecdotes from the front row.
quote:
By the way Finbar – I’m impressed you restricted the analysis to the professional era. It would have flattered the Wallabies more to go back beyond 95 (we didn’t play you between 91-95 so going from 93 makes no difference). And, as we know, the All Blacks don’t play us enough. If you check the last 25 fixtures it takes you back to the 30s! |
It's pointless going further back because the results would skew all over the place. As I said the other day, the last 10 years only proves how much the Wallabies have improved. When they bloody well had to.
quote:
Statistics are all well and good but they do what you want them to. I could point out Australia never beat Wales for eight years in the seventies, or that they only scored 3 points against them in that time. I could mention that the Wallabies haven’t beaten England this century. It’s all meaningless – in November we find out what is what. |
I thought you'd appreciate that I hadn't mentioned that minor defeat England suffered in Brisbane 4 years ago. Obviously stats can mean whatever you want them to, but there were some interesting things - the Wallabies' problems with the Boks, the All Blacks' problems with the French.
Tomorrow morning, I think I'll make it a priority to dig up England's stats over the last 10 years.
Edit. I couldn't wait. Out of interest, I looked at England -v- Wallabies since 1948. What I hadn't realised - and is quite extraordinary - is that they played so rarely back then. They played in '48, '58, '63, '67, etc. You wouldn't have wanted to pull a hammy the day before the match, would you.
BTW, 24 matches. Wallabies won 15, England 8, with 1 draw.
Last edited by finbar on 29-08-2002 at 17:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
Okay, Cal, here we go. I've done exhaustive research. And, gee, I have to tell you, this is a whole lot more fun - not to mention more useful and productive - than work.
I've taken the 10 years from 1993 to 2002, including the recently concluded Tri-Nations. I've counted Wallaby and All Blacks matches against the following teams:
Each other; Springboks; England; France; Lions; Ireland; Scotland and Wales.
In those 10 years, against those teams, the Wallabies have played a total of 77 matches. The All Blacks have played a total of 76 matches.
The Wallabies have won 49, the All Blacks have won 52. The variables - number of matches against, um, weaker teams - tend to cancel themselves out. For example, the All Blacks have played 3 more matches against Scotland, but the Wallabies have played 3 more matches against Wales.
There are some interesting stats along the way. The All Blacks have done much better in that period against the Springboks - 15 wins, 6 losses, 1 draw - than the Wallabies have - 10 wins, 9 losses, 1 draw. |
I think it was in 96 that NZ beat SA 4 games out of 5 as we had a test series and tri-nations matches. Revenge for the RWC? It was the first time NZ won a test series in SA, and conicidentally the first time a NZ tour of SA had been refereed by non-SA refs.
quote:
(Edit. I went back and checked the respective performances against the Springboks in matches played in South Africa and it underlines the Wallabies' bugbears about playing there. The All Blacks played 11 matches in South Africa for 4 losses, while the Wallabies played 8 there for 7 losses.) |
Its amazing to think that there are still stadiums in SA (Jo-burg) where the Wallabies have never won. (Is that really never or just a really long time?:hmmm Im sure they will crack it eventually though, just as they cracked Carisbrook last year.
quote:
OTOH, the Wallabies have performed better against the French - 8 wins, 2 losses - than the All Blacks have - 4 wins, 5 losses. |
The french are usually tough for the All Blacks to beat, but sometimes NZ will thrash them.
quote:
OTOH, the All Blacks have performed better against England - 5 wins, 1 loss, 1 draw - than the Wallabies have - 4 wins, 3 losses, 1 draw. But it is roughly one month short of 3 years since you played them, so slip up there and give them a belting? |
Hopefully, yes. Has it really been 3 years?? My God! Thats ridiculous! How long has it been since England toured NZ?
Thanks for doing all that research Finbar, it was very interesting and I appreciate your effort.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Havak
|
|
Swing Low, Sweet Chariots.
Aug 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
At another time, I think he would have had more chances. |
I have heard it said he lacks that little bit of pace, to go with the undoubted skills, that could have pushed him into international contention? At club level that isn’t so critical of course, particularly at both ACT and Tigers where he has quick men linking either side?
I still really like the guy I have to say.
quote:
I just deftly changed the subject to off-beat 60s bands. |
So deftly it sailed right over my head (okay so that isn’t too hard!)
quote:
Listen, Havak, if you're expecting wit and logic, you've got a dang long wait! |
No worries. As an Englishman you tend not to expect both in a debate.
quote:
But don't think you're getting off that lightly, Havak, we're awaiting your anecdotes from the front row. |
Well given I was a thoroughly clean player I’m guessing you want to hear about the many ways in which I was humiliated around the park? Strangely I don’t recall any.
I never faced a RFU disciplinary hearing myself but I do have some tales of foul play and my manful efforts to break it up. Have to keep it for another day those – very busy day ahead of me (and behind you? The time difference freaks me out sometimes)
quote:
the Wallabies' problems with the Boks, the All Blacks' problems with the French. |
England’s problems with everyone Yeah thanks for not mentioning Brissy. I was just thinking about that the other day – some of those young lambs who were thrown to the Wallaby wolves have grown into very good players (OTOH some have never recovered). Were that fixture played again I think it would be pretty close. Bizaree isn’t it that such a drubbing could have resulted in some good?
quote:
BTW, 24 matches. Wallabies won 15, England 8, with 1 draw. |
Sadly I was ware of this. It might take us another seven years to take the lead (fingers firmly crossed).
Having remarked before how you punch above your weight there is no denying we have historically punched below ours. It’s a crying shame and I point the finger firmly at the RFU – they fought tooth and claw against the idea of leagues in the eighties and then the same against Professional status in the nineties. Now to hear them talk you would think they proposed both ideas.
quote:
Hopefully, yes. Has it really been 3 years?? My God! Thats ridiculous! How long has it been since England toured NZ? |
Yes three years it is. And four since we toured as Finbar pointed out though that was the ‘tour of death’ – no senior players were involved at all. However it isn’t our fault it’s been so long – we tried to get a series against you this summer but your Union chose Ireland instead – perfectly understandable when you wanted gentle warm up games for the tri-nations but disappointing for both of us I think?
quote:
I imagine Havak must have a couple of the biggest cauliflowers in existence! |
I went to great lengths to protect my ears and they look pretty normal thank goodness. My nose is extremely flat however, and my hairline definitely suffered.
Okay news from England on the dawn of the new season – Tigers have signed Joseph Naufahu from Canterbury (the club side) as cover for the back line crisis. He appears to have left after not being drafted by Crusaders in 02 (he was in 01 apparently). Do you know anything about him Caligastia?
It was announced yesterday our play offs have been reformed – no longer will the top 8 contest QF, SF and Final rounds. Now the team that tops the league stage at the end of 22 games goes straight into the play off final and the second and third placed teams play each other for the right to meet them. This is an effort to reduce the number of games for most clubs, and seems sensible to me. Following this reform the play off winner be get top seeding for Europe (unless the holders retain the cup) but the league winners remain champion club as far as I know – i.e. league and play off remain separate competitions unlike in S12.
*edit* I was wrong - the play off winners will be labelled "champion club". Makes no difference - it will still be us I hope.
And in other news not only do I get to see Tigers opening league game (away to Leeds) on Sky tomorrow they are also showing the Canterbury NPC game live in the morning.
And finally the ARU is enticing the Bok under 21 captain to move to Australia and quailfy whilst with ACT. More despicable border hopping - Australians should play for Australia!! 
Last edited by Havak on 30-08-2002 at 14:08
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-08-2002 05:28
|