On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:34:49 +1100, "Alan Luchetti" <not@home> wrote:
There's no truth in the rumour than some teams are considering tanking their >round results in order to angle for the softer semi - against NZ.
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.
"TomV" <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message news:sl3q21dr9c98mq5nq7ruekc1cuc9rape3e@4ax.com...> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:34:49 +1100, "Alan Luchetti" <not@home> wrote:>
There's no truth in the rumour than some teams are considering tanking >>their>>round results in order to angle for the softer semi - against NZ.>
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to> play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to> play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.>
...tom
I assume you are talking about a round robin because if it was a knockout you would only play one game. -)
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:37:01 +1100, "dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk> wrote:
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to>> play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to>> play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.>>
...tom>
I assume you are talking about a round robin because if it was a knockout >you would only play one game. -)
Well we can only play 3 of them as non eare in our pool, but the 2007 RWC will be notable for the ABs winning every game by 14+. You heard it here first
"TomV" <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message news:449q211ko112advgsrajd4crmkk00c6pvn@4ax.com...> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:37:01 +1100, "dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk>> wrote:>
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to>>> play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to>>> play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.>>>
...tom>>
I assume you are talking about a round robin because if it was a knockout>>you would only play one game. -)>
Well we can only play 3 of them as non eare in our pool, but the 2007> RWC will be notable for the ABs winning every game by 14+. You heard> it here first>
..tom
If I could only remember this comment in 2007. Of course if/when this occurs this will show that the RWC proves that a country is the World Champs, if this does not occur it will show that the RWC is an irrelevant knock out competition.
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:06:56 +1300, TomV <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:37:01 +1100, "dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk>>wrote:>
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to>>> play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to>>> play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.>>>
...tom>>
I assume you are talking about a round robin because if it was a knockout >>you would only play one game. -) >
Well we can only play 3 of them as non eare in our pool, but the 2007>RWC will be notable for the ABs winning every game by 14+. You heard>it here first>
Why bother? It's only a meaningless novelty knockout competition after all
"TomV" <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message news:449q211ko112advgsrajd4crmkk00c6pvn@4ax.com...> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:37:01 +1100, "dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk>> wrote:>
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to>>> play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to>>> play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.>>>
...tom>>
I assume you are talking about a round robin because if it was a knockout>>you would only play one game. -)>
Well we can only play 3 of them as non eare in our pool, but the 2007> RWC will be notable for the ABs winning every game by 14+. You heard> it here first>
"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com> wrote in message news:n1nq21hpkv9mdeohmvkbkv1ae6j9vm3n3i@4ax.com...> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:06:56 +1300, TomV <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz>> wrote:>
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:37:01 +1100, "dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk>>>wrote:>>
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to>>>> play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to>>>> play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.>>>>
...tom>>>
I assume you are talking about a round robin because if it was a knockout>>>you would only play one game. -)>>
Well we can only play 3 of them as non eare in our pool, but the 2007>>RWC will be notable for the ABs winning every game by 14+. You heard>>it here first>>
Why bother? It's only a meaningless novelty knockout competition after> all
not if NZ wins of course!!! than they are world champions superior to every nation for EVER............
"dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk> wrote in message news:2gdXd.322$pS3.3629@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com> wrote in message > news:n1nq21hpkv9mdeohmvkbkv1ae6j9vm3n3i@4ax.com...>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:06:56 +1300, TomV <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz>>> wrote:>>
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:37:01 +1100, "dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk>>>>wrote:>>>
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to>>>>> play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to>>>>> play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.>>>>>
...tom>>>>
I assume you are talking about a round robin because if it was a >>>>knockout>>>>you would only play one game. -)>>>
Well we can only play 3 of them as non eare in our pool, but the 2007>>>RWC will be notable for the ABs winning every game by 14+. You heard>>>it here first>>>
Why bother? It's only a meaningless novelty knockout competition after>> all >
not if NZ wins of course!!! than they are world champions superior to > every nation for EVER............
Simon Stovin-Bradford 8 March 2005 14:40:36 [ permanent link ]
"TomV" <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message news:449q211ko112advgsrajd4crmkk00c6pvn@4ax.com...> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:37:01 +1100, "dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk>> wrote:>
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to>>> play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to>>> play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.>>>
...tom>>
I assume you are talking about a round robin because if it was a knockout>>you would only play one game. -)>
Well we can only play 3 of them as non eare in our pool, but the 2007> RWC will be notable for the ABs winning every game by 14+. You heard> it here first>
..tom
England won every game except the final by 10+ last time, but apparently we just squeeked through.
Australia and Wales in the same pool could be interesting on current form to > see who comes out on top
Another triumph the IRB imagination department.
South Africa and England AGAIN. New Zealand and Scotland AGAIN.
We can only hope that certain NH teams sustain their recent growth so that of the four pools, only the New Zealand-Scotland pairing is a doddle -- although why anyone should consider that as a favour to New Zealand is a mystery. We won't be meeting them in the quarter finals, will we?
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:40:36 +0100, "Simon Stovin-Bradford" <Simon.Stovin-Bradford@nospooge.cern.ch> wrote:
Well we can only play 3 of them as non eare in our pool, but the 2007>> RWC will be notable for the ABs winning every game by 14+. You heard>> it here first>>
..tom>
England won every game except the final by 10+ last time, but apparently we >just squeeked through.
"Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> wrote in message news:395bvkF5v4t5lU1@individual.net...>
"dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk> wrote in message > news:2gdXd.322$pS3.3629@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>
"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com> wrote in message >> news:n1nq21hpkv9mdeohmvkbkv1ae6j9vm3n3i@4ax.com...>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:06:56 +1300, TomV <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz>>>> wrote:>>>
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:37:01 +1100, "dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk>>>>>wrote:>>>>
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to>>>>>> play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to>>>>>> play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.>>>>>>
...tom>>>>>
I assume you are talking about a round robin because if it was a >>>>>knockout>>>>>you would only play one game. -)>>>>
Well we can only play 3 of them as non eare in our pool, but the 2007>>>>RWC will be notable for the ABs winning every game by 14+. You heard>>>>it here first>>>>
Why bother? It's only a meaningless novelty knockout competition after>>> all >>
not if NZ wins of course!!! than they are world champions superior to >> every nation for EVER............>
Good to see you've come around.
they actually have to win the WC before this can be claimed>
yes, I'm afraid they couldn't make it any easier for the side that> consistently gets the armchair ride in the group stages. Sooner or later
have to play someone good.
Who give's a f*ck about a tough group game? Any decent team has an amrchair ride through to 1/4s. You lose 1 game in groups you're ok. In fact, I'd prefer the top 4 teams in NZ's group. We'd have a better chance that way. Knocking 2 out, and then being on the other side of the draw than the other.
"Alan Luchetti" <not@home> wrote in message> Ireland gets Argentina yet again along with France in group D (for death).
yes argentina were unlucky that group c didn't draw any americas team. it would have been interesting for example if americas 2 was drawn in group c. in that case it would have been well worth it for argentina to throw a game or two, allowing canada or the usa the dubious honour of topping the americas group. in exchange (going on scotland's current form), argentina would have a had a relatively easy walk into the quarters by beating scotland. it would also have exposed what a sham the world cup seeding system is.
TomV <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message news:<449q211ko112advgsrajd4crmkk00c6pvn@4ax.com>...> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:37:01 +1100, "dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk>> wrote:>
I hoep they do. The worst part about the RWC is you never manage to> >> play everyone you want to. If people stack their results so we get to> >> play Aus, England, France and SA, all the better.> >>
...tom> >
I assume you are talking about a round robin because if it was a knockout > >you would only play one game. -) >
Well we can only play 3 of them as non eare in our pool, but the 2007> RWC will be notable for the ABs winning every game by 14+. You heard> it here first>
Simon Stovin-Bradford 9 March 2005 14:49:00 [ permanent link ]
"Hamish" <h.dean@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:RzpXd.7977$1S4.850759@news.xtra.co.nz...>> yes, I'm afraid they couldn't make it any easier for the side that>> consistently gets the armchair ride in the group stages. Sooner or later> you>> have to play someone good.>
Who give's a f*ck about a tough group game? Any decent team has an > amrchair> ride through to 1/4s. You lose 1 game in groups you're ok. In fact, I'd> prefer the top 4 teams in NZ's group. We'd have a better chance that way.> Knocking 2 out, and then being on the other side of the draw than the > other.>
the aim is to get to the 1/4's injury free, which looks a lot more likely for the AB's than say Ireland, France and Argentina for example. Having said that, one could argue that a few more competetive games in the last RWC might have seen the AB's win it.
dechucka wrote:> "Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> wrote in message > news:395bvkF5v4t5lU1@individual.net...>>"dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk> wrote in message >>news:2gdXd.322$pS3.3629@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>>"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com> wrote in message >>>news:n1nq21hpkv9mdeohmvkbkv1ae6j9vm3n3i@4ax.com...
Why bother? It's only a meaningless novelty knockout competition after>>>>all >>>
not if NZ wins of course!!! than they are world champions superior to >>>every nation for EVER............>>
Good to see you've come around.>
they actually have to win the WC before this can be claimed
1987 newbie. -- "At least we went out and played in that first half. And what have France done? They've won with kicks from the 10-metre line. It's bitterly frustrating." - Andy Robinson
"Hamish" <h.dean@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message> news:RzpXd.7977$1S4.850759@news.xtra.co.nz...>>> yes, I'm afraid they couldn't make it any easier for the side that>>> consistently gets the armchair ride in the group stages. Sooner or>>> later>> you>>> have to play someone good.>>
Who give's a f*ck about a tough group game? Any decent team has an>> amrchair>> ride through to 1/4s. You lose 1 game in groups you're ok. In fact,>> I'd prefer the top 4 teams in NZ's group. We'd have a better chance>> that way. Knocking 2 out, and then being on the other side of the>> draw than the other.>>
the aim is to get to the 1/4's injury free, which looks a lot more> likely for the AB's
How so? Most injuries are chance occurences equally as likely against the smaller teams as the larger.
Simon Stovin-Bradford 9 March 2005 17:18:20 [ permanent link ]
"Sean Byrne" <byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d0mn9b$l1m$1$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk...> Simon Stovin-Bradford wrote:>
"Hamish" <h.dean@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message>> news:RzpXd.7977$1S4.850759@news.xtra.co.nz...>>>> yes, I'm afraid they couldn't make it any easier for the side that>>>> consistently gets the armchair ride in the group stages. Sooner or>>>> later>>> you>>>> have to play someone good.>>>
Who give's a f*ck about a tough group game? Any decent team has an>>> amrchair>>> ride through to 1/4s. You lose 1 game in groups you're ok. In fact,>>> I'd prefer the top 4 teams in NZ's group. We'd have a better chance>>> that way. Knocking 2 out, and then being on the other side of the>>> draw than the other.>>>
the aim is to get to the 1/4's injury free, which looks a lot more>> likely for the AB's>
How so? Most injuries are chance occurences equally as likely against> the smaller teams as the larger.>
Umaga a case in point.>
Later,> Sean>
not sure I agree, although I do with Umaga and Hill for example - but in general I think that the high intensity games will lead to more injuries. They certainly lead to more wear and tear, match fitness and sharpness.
"JD" <_antipodean_@ubique.com> wrote in message news:YeBXd.190712$K7.13244@news-server.bigpond.net.au...> dechucka wrote:>> "Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> wrote in message >> news:395bvkF5v4t5lU1@individual.net...>>>"dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk> wrote in message >>>news:2gdXd.322$pS3.3629@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>>>"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com> wrote in message >>>>news:n1nq21hpkv9mdeohmvkbkv1ae6j9vm3n3i@4ax.com...>
Why bother? It's only a meaningless novelty knockout competition after>>>>>all >>>>
not if NZ wins of course!!! than they are world champions superior to >>>>every nation for EVER............>>>
Good to see you've come around.>>
they actually have to win the WC before this can be claimed>
1987 newbie.> -- > "At least we went out and played in that first half. And what have France > done? They've won with kicks from the 10-metre line. It's bitterly > frustrating." - Andy Robinson
Oh but that doesnt count apparently ... Rugby only started in 1995 you see ;)
"JD" <_antipodean_@ubique.com> wrote in message news:YeBXd.190712$K7.13244@news-server.bigpond.net.au...> dechucka wrote:>> "Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> wrote in message >> news:395bvkF5v4t5lU1@individual.net...>>>"dechucka" <dechucka1@spew.com.uk> wrote in message >>>news:2gdXd.322$pS3.3629@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>>>>"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com> wrote in message >>>>news:n1nq21hpkv9mdeohmvkbkv1ae6j9vm3n3i@4ax.com...>
Why bother? It's only a meaningless novelty knockout competition after>>>>>all >>>>
not if NZ wins of course!!! than they are world champions superior to >>>>every nation for EVER............>>>
Good to see you've come around.>>
they actually have to win the WC before this can be claimed>
1987 newbie.
actually as this is a thread about the upcoming WC I was making the point about that one as were the others in the thread
-- > "At least we went out and played in that first half. And what have France > done? They've won with kicks from the 10-metre line. It's bitterly > frustrating." - Andy Robinson
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:06:24 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
At a dinner last night, I was discussing rugby with a soccer fan. We both>> agreed the rugby WC was stupid. We both agreed a top8 tournament>> (roundrobin) would be far more interesting. And produce the most worthy>> winner. The remaining 3 years are (amongst 6N and 3N) have the odd>> qualification game for top8. 9-16 can have their own 2nd teir WC. With>> perhaps the winner getting the right to auto-qualify for the next top8 WC.>
I don't think there's anything wrong with the world cup format -- what >needs to be changed is the media-driven unhealthy obsession with the >tournament, lapped up by a lot of people who should know better.>
The purpose of the Rugby World Cup was never to find the "best team in >world rugby". That's why the term "world champion" was never applied to >it by anyone but the tabloid press
I don't have an issue with World Champs applying the RWC holder. Cricket WC and Soccer WC holders are referred to as World Champs. As long as people are clear that the title world champs means holders of the RWC then there's no problem.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:29:51 +1300, "Hamish" <h.dean@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
At a dinner last night, I was discussing rugby with a soccer fan. We both>agreed the rugby WC was stupid. We both agreed a top8 tournament>(roundrobin) would be far more interesting. And produce the most worthy>winner. The remaining 3 years are (amongst 6N and 3N) have the odd>qualification game for top8. 9-16 can have their own 2nd teir WC. With>perhaps the winner getting the right to auto-qualify for the next top8 WC.
Pretty much what the RFU proposed, but was rejected by all and subdry
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:29:51 +1300, "Hamish" <h.dean@xtra.co.nz>> wrote:>
At a dinner last night, I was discussing rugby with a soccer fan. We>>both agreed the rugby WC was stupid. We both agreed a top8 tournament>>(roundrobin) would be far more interesting. And produce the most>>worthy winner. The remaining 3 years are (amongst 6N and 3N) have the>>odd qualification game for top8. 9-16 can have their own 2nd teir WC.>>With perhaps the winner getting the right to auto-qualify for the next>>top8 WC.>
Pretty much what the RFU proposed, but was rejected by all and subdry>
Right idea, wrong country perhaps?
Even if they keep the current format, I'd like to see a plate competition run mid week to keep the momentum of the tournament going.
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:39bjg6F619hj3U1@individual.net...> rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote in message> news:422f728c$1@quokka.wn.com.au...>>
Worthy and admirable -- but not really what the game's all about.>
What the game WAS all about, Rick, WAS. A minor difference but a> significant one I think.>
Try telling the players that. You can fool yourself but you can't fool> the All Blacks - for example - not one of whom would agree with you.>
It's a pro game now, the players want to be the best on the world > stage,> and that means the RWC. Deal with it. >
Cheers>
They wouldn't let Dingo Boyd near the All Blacks now, he doesn't even wear lip gloss.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 05:35:33 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
What must be impressed upon these people is that winning rugby series >remains the (a) more important, and (b) more difficult, and (c) more >enjoyable achievement, rather than the lottery of winning two knockout >games in a big, showy tournament.
You must hope like mad NZ do well against the Lions then, because NZ won't have another series for 12 years.
You must hope like mad NZ do well against the Lions then, because NZ> won't have another series for 12 years.
What are you talking about man? Get this faxationout of your mind that a series has to be a full-blown three or four test tour with provincial games.
The Tri Nations contains two series every year, as well as being part of the competition with its bonus points and associated malarkey. We played a series against England last year.
"rick boyd" <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote in message news:422f728c$1@quokka.wn.com.au...> Hamish wrote:
I don't think there's anything wrong with the world cup format -- what > needs to be changed is the media-driven unhealthy obsession with the > tournament, lapped up by a lot of people who should know better.
Stop complaining ! It's only the fault of New Zealanders that they cannot win the Cup. Perhaps, your great grandchildren will be lucky to see it happen ?
No, the 3Ns aren't series, they are just home and away games. they> aren't related to each other because of the passage of time and> different location. You know if you miss one fixture, the return will> be around very soon, and you will have lost nothing other than a> potentially good game to watch. If you miss a game in a series (until> perhaps it is decided), you have missed something important as the> series develops.
That may be your definition of a series, but it isn't mine. As far as I'm concerned, any matches between two nations within a calendar year constitutes a series.
What is a series but a number of matches between two sides designed to find an overall winner? One year is the right period to assign to such a contest.
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 07:02:15 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
John Williams wrote:
No, the 3Ns aren't series, they are just home and away games. they>> aren't related to each other because of the passage of time and>> different location. You know if you miss one fixture, the return will>> be around very soon, and you will have lost nothing other than a>> potentially good game to watch. If you miss a game in a series (until>> perhaps it is decided), you have missed something important as the>> series develops.
That may be your definition of a series, but it isn't mine. As far as >I'm concerned, any matches between two nations within a calendar year >constitutes a series.
If you can't see the difference between back-to-back games in similar circumstances and with a clear knock-on between one game and the next, and games separated by up to a month or more, that's fine by me.
What was common between the two test series last June between SA and Ireland, and the one-off test last November? Not a lot - far too much time separated them.
The same could be said between the NZ v Aus 3Ns games in 03, let alone the WC semifinal on top of that.
Your one year cycle for showing the "best team" is an artifact which suits your annual retention, but don't force it down everyone else's throat.
What is a series but a number of matches between two sides designed to >find an overall winner? One year is the right period to assign to such a >contest.
The 3Ns are not designed to find the individual winners of three different series, they are designed to find the winner of a mini-league competition. No wonder you are in denial that SA were the most successful 3Ns team last season, as proved by their win in the competition.
"John Williams" <tigerphileNOSPAM@THANKSntlworld.com> wrote in message news:m894315iaphmjb91sjcb9vi5b68qs38roe@4ax.com...> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 07:02:15 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au>> wrote:>
John Williams wrote:>
No, the 3Ns aren't series, they are just home and away games. they>>> aren't related to each other because of the passage of time and>>> different location. You know if you miss one fixture, the return will>>> be around very soon, and you will have lost nothing other than a>>> potentially good game to watch. If you miss a game in a series (until>>> perhaps it is decided), you have missed something important as the>>> series develops.>
That may be your definition of a series, but it isn't mine. As far as>>I'm concerned, any matches between two nations within a calendar year>>constitutes a series.>
If you can't see the difference between back-to-back games in similar> circumstances and with a clear knock-on between one game and the next,> and games separated by up to a month or more, that's fine by me.>
What was common between the two test series last June between SA and> Ireland, and the one-off test last November? Not a lot - far too much> time separated them.>
The same could be said between the NZ v Aus 3Ns games in 03, let alone> the WC semifinal on top of that.>
Your one year cycle for showing the "best team" is an artifact which> suits your annual retention, but don't force it down everyone else's> throat.>
What is a series but a number of matches between two sides designed to>>find an overall winner? One year is the right period to assign to such a>>contest.>
The 3Ns are not designed to find the individual winners of three> different series, they are designed to find the winner of a> mini-league competition. No wonder you are in denial that SA were the> most successful 3Ns team last season, as proved by their win in the> competition.>
-- >
Regards,> John Williams
Boys boys, we can't have such an argument going on here, not between such pillars of the newsgroup, on the one hand the venerable J Williams, and on the other hand, oh, wait a minute, as you were....
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:34:41 +1100, "Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> wrote:
England won every game except the final by 10+ last time, but apparently >> we just squeeked through.>
It probably had something to do with almost being beaten by Samoa and Wales >and Australia. Good thing Samoa aren't on the Calender this year huh?>
We all know about "almosts". Like the "almost" defeat of NZ by Wales last year.
At the end of the day, in this context, "almost" means "not". England were "not" beaten by anyone in RWC2003, the same as NZ were "not" beaten by Wales last year.
"rick boyd" <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote in message news:423222ac$1@quokka.wn.com.au...> John Williams wrote:>
No, the 3Ns aren't series, they are just home and away games. they>> aren't related to each other because of the passage of time and>> different location. You know if you miss one fixture, the return will>> be around very soon, and you will have lost nothing other than a>> potentially good game to watch. If you miss a game in a series (until>> perhaps it is decided), you have missed something important as the>> series develops.>
That may be your definition of a series, but it isn't mine. As far as I'm > concerned, any matches between two nations within a calendar year > constitutes a series.>
What is a series but a number of matches between two sides designed to > find an overall winner? One year is the right period to assign to such a > contest.
Frequently the teams are very significantly different. For example the> Ireland team that played in the autumn had spent a prolonged period in> squad training. Something ridiculous like 8 weeks if I remember. Teams> can change rapidly in a very short period of time owing to injury or> retirement, and can undergo immediate changes when coaches leave or> start. The name is the same, but the team is constantly changing to a> greater or lesser extent.
That can happen anytime. I think you're just quibbling.
Perhaps so, but the whole point about a series is it isn't designed to> be fair. It is a prolonged test of two teams, particularly the touring> one as a rule (end of season, etc). Imposing any time limit is> problematic. My own is that the last game (games if a series) and the> next are the only important ones between two teams.
And you are quite welcome to your opinion.
Any start or end period of a year is likely to show significant> changes to either or both teams. That is the problem with any form of> ranking or pigeonholing of teams - they are not static and may be> going up or down. You often end up measuring noise in internationals,> there just are too many changes between tests outside series. The last> year has shown a distinct improvement to Wales, a drop for France, a> large rebuild for England, a lot of fine tuning for Ireland (a team> particularly susceptible to changes based on the presence or absence> of a couple of key backs, O'Driscoll and D'Arcy). Scotland and Italy> I'm not so sure about. SA underwent a big transformation between home> and away 3Ns games (so did Aus and NZ to a lesser degree). All the> teams were very different on the end of year tour compared with the> 3Ns. In fact, it's very hard to find a team that has remained similar> over a six month period, let alone a year.
And yet you have to chose a period, so I like to go for the one that club competitions go for -- the rugby season (or calendar year which is the same thing in the SH).
I disagree. All that's stayed the same is the label on the team.
Fine with me. You take the high road and I'll take the low road and the last one to the pub is an old speckled hen.
You consistently refuse to accept Aus may have been focusing on the> WC, a tournament in their own country, and for them the 3Ns was of> secondary importance. I doubt that will change after this thread, but> it's what lots of people think. The coaches have a habit of saying> "Judge us on the WC," after all.
I do refuse to accept it because that would be bollocks. The Australians didn't have the capacity to "focus" on the world cup. They wanted to win everything just like we did. They set out to give the Tri Nations their very best shot. If you suggest that they set out to go soft in the Tri Nations with the aim of peaking for the World Cup, I'd suggest you've been smoking some very strange substances.
Both teams aimed to "peak" for the world cup, inasmuch as they wanted to win everything else as well but aimed to be at their best for the big tournament, a silly aim in my opinion, but Mitchell did asked to be judged by the world cup so that's doubtless where he was headed.
What happened was absolutely nothing to do with Australia's superior planning or ability to peak at the right time. This is exactly the sort of hindsight nonsense that is read into things after the event and demonstrates, in my opinion, nothing more than wishful thinking and an attempt to give a lot more credit to largely variable circumstances than is ever deserved.
Australia didn't plan to be caned by 50 points in the first tri nations game, neither did the All Blacks plan to do it to them. That is what unfolded when the All Blacks caught fire and the Wallabies dozed off. The Wallabies woke up a little for the second test and it was a lot closer. Nonetheless New Zealand went into the world cup thinking they had the measure of the Australians but on the day they were far from their best, were caught with their pants down early when Mortlock intercepted, and played a witless game of catch up rugby for the remainder of the game. Australia held possession and choked the life out of the game.
I don't believe for a second there was any brilliant plan that made the difference. Australia were hurting badly after losing the Bledisloe Cup and were highly motivated to play their game of the year. The All Blacks thought they were the team in control and had a shocker. It doesn't really matter whether that game was a world cup semi final or a Perth fifth grade game, that scenario could be played out anywhere and the result would be the same.
Anyway this is all getting far too War and Peace so I think we'll give this one a rest.
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:06:08 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
John Williams wrote:
Frequently the teams are very significantly different.
[...]
That can happen anytime.
Erzaktly my point.
I think you're just quibbling.
They don't call me quibbling wibbling Williams for nothing.
[...]
You consistently refuse to accept Aus may have been focusing on the>> WC, a tournament in their own country, and for them the 3Ns was of>> secondary importance. I doubt that will change after this thread, but>> it's what lots of people think. The coaches have a habit of saying>> "Judge us on the WC," after all.
I do refuse to accept it because that would be bollocks. The Australians >didn't have the capacity to "focus" on the world cup. They wanted to win >everything just like we did. They set out to give the Tri Nations their >very best shot. If you suggest that they set out to go soft in the Tri >Nations with the aim of peaking for the World Cup, I'd suggest you've >been smoking some very strange substances.
The whole point was Aus introduced a number of new players with the hope they'd be up to scratch by the time of the WC. In addition, they nursed their significant injury concerns to maximise their chances of being back in action for the WC. Or maybe the injuries just resolved themselves by then. It doesn't really matter - my point is Aus (along with the other examples) changed a lot from June to November 03.
[...]
Anyway this is all getting far too War and Peace so I think we'll give >this one a rest.
"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com> wrote in message news:fae431hs124367jqv7pp8dltlis032dm04@4ax.com...> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:34:41 +1100, "Uncle Bully"> <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> wrote:>
England won every game except the final by 10+ last time, but apparently>>> we just squeeked through.>>
It probably had something to do with almost being beaten by Samoa and >>Wales>>and Australia. Good thing Samoa aren't on the Calender this year huh?>>
We all know about "almosts". Like the "almost" defeat of NZ by Wales> last year.>
At the end of the day, in this context, "almost" means "not". England> were "not" beaten by anyone in RWC2003, the same as NZ were "not"> beaten by Wales last year.
Yeah so we just 'squeeked' though against Wales, just as England 'squeeked' through some of it's RWC games.
