All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions Played 35 All Blacks ahve won 26 and Drawn 3 and Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years) Points for 527 Points Against 305 Winning Percentage 74.29%
"richie" <tauponewbie@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xya2e.13741$1S4.1418178@news.xtra.co.nz...> Setting the scene... as it were>
All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions> Played 35> All Blacks ahve won 26 and> Drawn 3 and> Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)> Points for 527> Points Against 305> Winning Percentage 74.29%
Those stats appear to include the 3 tests played by the 1908 Anglo-Welsh team (drew 1, lost 2) amongst the Lions stats, but still, Lion's wins in NZ are kind of rare.
But of course they only play in NZ, and no country has a particularly happy record against NZ in NZ. The best is Australia, who have won 15 and drawn 1 out of 56 tests in NZ. Even South Africa has won only 7 tests (out of 29) in NZ.
"JD" <_antipodean_@ubique.com> wrote in message news:YIv2e.17722$C7.12833@news-server.bigpond.net.au...> Apteryx wrote:> > "richie" <tauponewbie@yahoo.com> wrote in message> > news:Xya2e.13741$1S4.1418178@news.xtra.co.nz...> >
Setting the scene... as it were> >>
All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions> >>Played 35> >>All Blacks ahve won 26 and> >>Drawn 3 and> >>Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)> >>Points for 527> >>Points Against 305> >>Winning Percentage 74.29%> >
Those stats appear to include the 3 tests played by the 1908
Anglo-Welsh> > team (drew 1, lost 2) amongst the Lions stats, but still, Lion's wins in> > NZ are kind of rare.> >
But of course they only play in NZ, and no country has a
particularly> > happy record against NZ in NZ. The best is Australia, who have won
and drawn 1 out of 56 tests in NZ. Even South Africa has won only 7> > tests (out of 29) in NZ.>
Home refs and all...
Of the 5 countires who have won tests in NZ, only France has a significantly better record against NZ in NZ with neutral refs (3 wins from 13 matches with neutral refs, against 0 wins from 6 matches with NZ refs). The records of the Lions, South Africa, and England have substantially worsened with neutral refs. Australia's record has slightly improved since they first played in NZ with neutral refs in 1982, from 25% to 29% wins, but most would attribute that to a stronger performance by Australia against all nations since around that time.
and of course once neutral refs were introduced against the boks, they basically stopped winning against NZ.
nuff said really but lirrle salve for the valiant All Black sides cynically cheated out of series victories by SA referees.
richie
"Apteryx" <a.mutch@deletethistoreply.xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:wnN2e.14353$1S4.1481666@news.xtra.co.nz...> "JD" <_antipodean_@ubique.com> wrote in message> news:YIv2e.17722$C7.12833@news-server.bigpond.net.au...>> Apteryx wrote:>> > "richie" <tauponewbie@yahoo.com> wrote in message>> > news:Xya2e.13741$1S4.1418178@news.xtra.co.nz...>> >
Setting the scene... as it were>> >>
All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions>> >>Played 35>> >>All Blacks ahve won 26 and>> >>Drawn 3 and>> >>Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)>> >>Points for 527>> >>Points Against 305>> >>Winning Percentage 74.29%>> >
Those stats appear to include the 3 tests played by the 1908> Anglo-Welsh>> > team (drew 1, lost 2) amongst the Lions stats, but still, Lion's> wins in>> > NZ are kind of rare.>> >
But of course they only play in NZ, and no country has a> particularly>> > happy record against NZ in NZ. The best is Australia, who have won> 15>> > and drawn 1 out of 56 tests in NZ. Even South Africa has won only 7>> > tests (out of 29) in NZ.>>
Home refs and all...>
Of the 5 countires who have won tests in NZ, only France has a> significantly better record against NZ in NZ with neutral refs (3 wins> from 13 matches with neutral refs, against 0 wins from 6 matches with NZ> refs). The records of the Lions, South Africa, and England have> substantially worsened with neutral refs. Australia's record has> slightly improved since they first played in NZ with neutral refs in> 1982, from 25% to 29% wins, but most would attribute that to a stronger> performance by Australia against all nations since around that time.>
and of course once neutral refs were introduced against the boks, they > basically stopped winning against NZ.>
nuff said really but lirrle salve for the valiant All Black sides cynically > cheated out of series victories by SA referees.
There are one or two other factors, but the reffing issue is not insignificant.
I could mention one or incidents involving touch judges as well, in the days when a reserve from either team acted in that capacity. Seems unbelievable now, for an international match. But there you go.
"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote in message news:1112281548.084410.75680@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> >Setting the scene... as it were>
All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions>>Played 35>>All Blacks ahve won 26 and>>Drawn 3 and>>Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)>>Points for 527>>Points Against 305>>Winning Percentage 74.29%>
wow!>
Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to> prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination and that New> Zealand are the true world champions, I would venture to suggest that a> more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the> game went pro in 1995.>
Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,> battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the> Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash. I've said it> before and I'll doubtless say it again - this deep into the pro era a> well-selected and well-prepared Lions side really ought to not be> beaten in a series whoever it's against. Trouble is they're not always> either of those.>
The nack seems to be in bringing the disparate countries together> into a cohesive synergistic (?!) unit which they managed to do in 1997> but failed to achieve in 2001. I'm expecting Lord Woody of Saint> Mary's to wreak vengeance on Graham Henry for 2001 and on New Zealand> in general for crimes against humanity.>
We'll see just how good this AB side is. After their 4-yearly> choking fit in 2003, will they rise to the occasion or reach once more> for the fast-emptying tin of Fisherman's Friends? In either case,> sorry to have to tell you that your stats mean nothing in 2005. The> world of rugby has changed...>
Cheers>
But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes tears from eye....] Oh, and a wooden spoon. But they did beat Italy.....
In article "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote:
Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to> prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination and that New> Zealand are the true world champions, I would venture to suggest that a> more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the> game went pro in 1995.>
Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,> battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the> Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash.
To the Boks if they had decided to select a recognised goal-kicker.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:31:27 +1200, Paul Kendall <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
In article "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:>
didgerman wrote:>>
But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes>> tears from eye....]>> > Oh, and a wooden spoon.>> > But they did beat Italy.....>>
The All Blacks beat Wales and France as well, junior. >
You forget Brent that Wales and France were not the best teams that the >NH had to offer. Oops...
Yeah, lucky we ducked that game against the fourth-best team in the Northern Hemisphere. That would have exposed the All Blacks as the wooden-spoon frauds that they really are.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:55:55 +1200, Paul Kendall <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
In article "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote:>
Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to>> prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination and that New>> Zealand are the true world champions, I would venture to suggest that a>> more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the>> game went pro in 1995.>>
Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,>> battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the>> Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash. >
To the Boks if they had decided to select a recognised goal-kicker.
Or to the Lions if they had scored 100 more tries.
Or to the Boks if they had 25 players on the field.
Or to the Boks if they had played much much better.
Or to the Lions if all the Boks had been poisoned.
Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to> prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination
Its status in the context of the world game is a figment of your imagination, Dave, that's for sure.
and that New> Zealand are the true world champions,
Well, we are number one, which is a lot harder to maintain than two knockout wins and a lucky drop goal.
I would venture to suggest that a> more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the> game went pro in 1995.
How many tours to New Zealand does that include then Dave?
Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,> battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the> Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash. I've said it> before and I'll doubtless say it again - this deep into the pro era a> well-selected and well-prepared Lions side really ought to not be> beaten in a series whoever it's against. Trouble is they're not always> either of those.
They're also usually based on only one first tier team. So it's usually one first tier team plus add ons v another first tier team with all the home advantages.
No real advantage to the Lions at all.
The nack seems to be in bringing the disparate countries together> into a cohesive synergistic (?!) unit which they managed to do in 1997> but failed to achieve in 2001. I'm expecting Lord Woody of Saint> Mary's to wreak vengeance on Graham Henry for 2001 and on New Zealand> in general for crimes against humanity.>
We'll see just how good this AB side is. After their 4-yearly> choking fit in 2003, will they rise to the occasion or reach once more> for the fast-emptying tin of Fisherman's Friends? In either case,> sorry to have to tell you that your stats mean nothing in 2005. The> world of rugby has changed...
The Lions might find winning a three test series in New Zealand a bit more difficult than winning a knockout tournament.
But then it all depends which All Blacks team decides to show up. The hard, incisive men who beat France, or the soft, directionless nancies who collapsed against South Africa.
Yeah, lucky we ducked that game against the fourth-best team in the> Northern Hemisphere. That would have exposed the All Blacks as the> wooden-spoon frauds that they really are.
Isn't that the team we thrashed 2-0 in New Zealand earlier in the year though? Now if we played Ireland, then we would have been in trouble. I mean, look how they destroyed Wales and France, the two teams we did play....
"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com> wrote in message news:oipo415fo194chtb641sh4na24gfmnppb6@4ax.com...> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:55:55 +1200, Paul Kendall> <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:>
In article "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote:>>
Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to>>> prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination and that New>>> Zealand are the true world champions, I would venture to suggest that a>>> more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the>>> game went pro in 1995.>>>
Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,>>> battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the>>> Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash.>>
To the Boks if they had decided to select a recognised goal-kicker.>
Or to the Lions if they had scored 100 more tries.>
Or to the Boks if they had 25 players on the field.>
Or to the Boks if they had played much much better.>
Or to the Lions if all the Boks had been poisoned.>
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:05:41 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com> wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 11:08:57 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:>
didgerman wrote:>>
But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes>>tears>>> from eye....]>>> Oh, and a wooden spoon.>>> But they did beat Italy.....>>
The All Blacks beat Wales and France as well, junior. Remind me how>>your mob went against them, would you?>
Well, we're talking about last year here, aren't we?>
So, in answer to your question, we beat Wales (by 10), and lost to>France (by 3).>
Need reminding of anything else?
Sorry, I wasn't aware that you didn't understand how rugby is structured. You see, basically rugby is played in a 'season'. Rugby teams assess their success over the course of a 'season'. Now I appreciate that this is a slightly difficult concept, but a 'season' spans two calendar years in the Northern Hemisphere. Confusing, isn't it!
Now what happened this 'season', is that England (that's your team) 'lost' (that's what happens when they 'score' less 'points' than the 'opposition') to Wales by 2 points, and France by 1 point. Now these are close 'losses' in rugby - so don't feel ashamed! But they're still 'losses'.
Anyway, earlier this 'season' (but last year - I warned you it was confusing!) Wales (who are the 6 Nations 'champions' for this 'season') lost to New Zealand. And also, France, who came 'second' in the 6 Nations this year, lost to New Zealand.
So! That's the way rugby people look at results! Over the course of a 'season'. All clear now?
By the way, it's good to see you sticking to your guns on this point, Mr Wavey.
Recent results have shown you to be completely (and increasingly hilariously) wrong, but it's nice to see someone on usenet who has the courage to stick to their convictions.
On 31 Mar 2005 23:08:10 -0800, "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote:
<Sorry, I wasn't aware that you didn't understand how rugby is>structured. You see, basically rugby is played in a 'season'. >>
No it isn't. Whilst not disagreeing with anything you say about>England being the most crap team the world has ever seen, I would have>to say that - unlike league - we don't have A season. We have two.>More actually. And it continues to be one of our biggest problems.>Why you lot can't just play in our winter, I don't know...
Nope. Sorry Dave, you're wrong again. You have a domestic season. It runs from September to May. England/the Lions then have an end of season tour to the SH, which takes place in June. It's a long season, and whether its structure is optimal is open to question, but it's clearly a season.
The SH, by contrast, basically runs its domestic season from late February to October, with a season end tour in November.
And happily I've never called England the most crap team the world has ever seen. But then, you knew that didn't you, you big silly troll you.
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:15:57 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:05:41 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com>>wrote:>
On 31 Mar 2005 11:08:57 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:>>
didgerman wrote:>>>
But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes>>>tears>>>> from eye....]>>>> Oh, and a wooden spoon.>>>> But they did beat Italy.....>>>
The All Blacks beat Wales and France as well, junior. Remind me how>>>your mob went against them, would you?>>
Well, we're talking about last year here, aren't we?>>
So, in answer to your question, we beat Wales (by 10), and lost to>>France (by 3).>>
Need reminding of anything else?>
Sorry, I wasn't aware that you didn't understand how rugby is structured.>You see, basically rugby is played in a 'season'. Rugby teams assess their>success over the course of a 'season'. Now I appreciate that this is a>slightly difficult concept, but a 'season' spans two calendar years in the>Northern Hemisphere. Confusing, isn't it!>
Now what happened this 'season', is that England (that's your team) 'lost'>(that's what happens when they 'score' less 'points' than the 'opposition')>to Wales by 2 points, and France by 1 point. Now these are close 'losses'>in rugby - so don't feel ashamed! But they're still 'losses'.>
Anyway, earlier this 'season' (but last year - I warned you it was>confusing!) Wales (who are the 6 Nations 'champions' for this 'season')>lost to New Zealand. And also, France, who came 'second' in the 6 Nations>this year, lost to New Zealand.>
So! That's the way rugby people look at results! Over the course of a>'season'. All clear now? >
Thanks. Nice to know that we both understand seasons and years.
By the way, it's good to see you sticking to your guns on this point, Mr>Wavey.>
Recent results have shown you to be completely (and increasingly>hilariously) wrong, but it's nice to see someone on usenet who has the>courage to stick to their convictions.
Thanks again. But of course, in terms of being "hilariously wrong", this only seems to apply whenever I dare to challenge the one-eyed view of the absolute unquestionable supremacy of NZ.
The fact remains that the top three international teams in Europe last year were France, Ireland and England. As demonstrated by both match results and by the IRB rankings (a common refuge of NZ posters last year, IIRC).
Sure, the more rabid NZ posters will refuse to accept this, much as they refuse to acknowledge the validity of the world cup ("novelty knockout tournament") or the actual positions in the 3N ("three-way draw"). I have come to expect nothing less.
But the facts still remain. They are only "hilariously wrong" to those who cannot bear to accept the facts... Based on this I fully expect a whole load more Kiwi foot-stamping in this thread.
Thanks again. But of course, in terms of being "hilariously wrong",> this only seems to apply whenever I dare to challenge the one-eyed> view of the absolute unquestionable supremacy of NZ.>
The fact remains that the top three international teams in Europe last> year were France, Ireland and England. As demonstrated by both match> results and by the IRB rankings (a common refuge of NZ posters last> year, IIRC).>
Sure, the more rabid NZ posters will refuse to accept this, much as> they refuse to acknowledge the validity of the world cup ("novelty> knockout tournament") or the actual positions in the 3N ("three-way> draw"). I have come to expect nothing less.>
But the facts still remain. They are only "hilariously wrong" to those> who cannot bear to accept the facts... Based on this I fully expect a> whole load more Kiwi foot-stamping in this thread.
Yeah the facts remain. The All Blacks beat the best team in Europe last year by some margin.
In article "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote:
<To the Boks if they had decided to select a recognised goal-kicker.>>
You cannot be see-ree-us!
Check the stats. The Lions selected the Ginga wing-nut at fullback to accommodate a goal kicker while the Boks used Honiball, who couldn't buy a successful kick. The 2nd test is a perfect example of that as the Boks scored 3 tries to 0 and lost 18-15. That series could have just as easily gone the other way if SA had managed a 50% success rate with shots at goal.
Exactly, are you doing odds on ET bringing Elvis home in the last test as >>well? >
4.618217 million to one.>
Myk
Worth a flutter, I'll have a quid on that and roll the winnings onto england winning the next world cup if you're offering similar or better odds.
Retirement by 40 whilst I'm still young enough to enjoy the surgically enhanced starlets throwing themselves at my feet, or similarly prominent parts of my anatomy.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:04:11 +0100, Sean Byrne <byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com> wrote:
DaveyWavey wrote:>
Thanks again. But of course, in terms of being "hilariously wrong",>> this only seems to apply whenever I dare to challenge the one-eyed>> view of the absolute unquestionable supremacy of NZ.>>
The fact remains that the top three international teams in Europe last>> year were France, Ireland and England. As demonstrated by both match>> results and by the IRB rankings (a common refuge of NZ posters last>> year, IIRC).>>
Sure, the more rabid NZ posters will refuse to accept this, much as>> they refuse to acknowledge the validity of the world cup ("novelty>> knockout tournament") or the actual positions in the 3N ("three-way>> draw"). I have come to expect nothing less.>>
But the facts still remain. They are only "hilariously wrong" to those>> who cannot bear to accept the facts... Based on this I fully expect a>> whole load more Kiwi foot-stamping in this thread.>
Yeah the facts remain. The All Blacks beat the best team in Europe last>year by some margin.
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 09:58:12 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
DaveyWavey wrote:>
But the facts still remain.>
They do indeed. Unfortunately you have consistently failed to recognise >them and instead substitute your own fevered imagination.>
Your drift toward the lightweight section of the newsgroup appears >inexorable.>
-- rick boyd
Welcome to this part of the thread. You'll be much more at home here.
If we're talking about facts (which you claim I have "consistently failed to recognise"), please provide us with the "facts" about the IRB rankings of the international teams in Europe last November.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:05:54 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:46:30 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com>>wrote:>
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:15:57 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com>>>wrote:>
By the way, it's good to see you sticking to your guns on this point, Mr>>>Wavey.>>>
Recent results have shown you to be completely (and increasingly>>>hilariously) wrong, but it's nice to see someone on usenet who has the>>>courage to stick to their convictions.>>
Thanks again. But of course, in terms of being "hilariously wrong",>>this only seems to apply whenever I dare to challenge the one-eyed>>view of the absolute unquestionable supremacy of NZ.>>
The fact remains that the top three international teams in Europe last>>year were France, Ireland and England. As demonstrated by both match>>results and by the IRB rankings (a common refuge of NZ posters last>>year, IIRC).>
Let's get back to the season point, please.
Let's not. Let's stick to the IRB rankings, and the match results prior to last November. That is all the information that NZ would have had to go on when they chose which European teams to play (and which ones to dodge) last November.
Welcome to this part of the thread. You'll be much more at home here.
Is this the part where you get to look even more stupid? Oh goody.
If we're talking about facts (which you claim I have "consistently> failed to recognise"), please provide us with the "facts" about the> IRB rankings of the international teams in Europe last November.
As we all know, the IRB rankings are statistics, and statistics are damned lies. They change slowly and reflect performance over a long period of time. The very last thing they are likely to do is reflect the actual merits of international teams in Europe last November.
No, if you want facts, you'll actaully have to look at the games on their merits, but I know such hard facts will be an anathema to a woolly thinker like you.
The trouble is, you dug yourself into a big hole early on by avoiding the facts at all costs, and going for a typically arrogant assumption based on performances in the previous six nations. You were left with your foot firmly lodged in your mouth as the performances many of us had seen telegraphed at the world cup continued to be realised on the field in November 2004. And have been continually supported since then.
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 04:31:37 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:59:08 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com>>wrote:>
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:05:54 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com>>>wrote:>
Let's get back to the season point, please.>>
Let's not. Let's stick to the IRB rankings, and the match results>>prior to last November. That is all the information that NZ would have>>had to go on when they chose which European teams to play (and which>>ones to dodge) last November.>
God forbid we use the benefit of hindsight and all the information>available to us. You're not some sort of ivory tower academic are you?>
Sure. And, by the very nature of hindsight, all the information that anyone had last November indicated that the strongest international teams in Europe were France, Ireland and England.
As for the IRB rankings - hah! Did the IRB rankings help France, England>Ireland etc beat Wales? Did they help England in the 6N last year or on>their summer tour?
Nope. But it did help a lot of NZ supporters on this NG claim that they were the rightful "world champions" about a year ago.
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 06:05:59 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
DaveyWavey wrote:>
Welcome to this part of the thread. You'll be much more at home here.>
Is this the part where you get to look even more stupid? Oh goody.>
If we're talking about facts (which you claim I have "consistently>> failed to recognise"), please provide us with the "facts" about the>> IRB rankings of the international teams in Europe last November.>
As we all know, the IRB rankings are statistics, and statistics are >damned lies. They change slowly and reflect performance over a long >period of time. The very last thing they are likely to do is reflect the >actual merits of international teams in Europe last November.>
And yet quite a few NZ posters were claiming that the IRB rankings were definitive proof of NZ's worldwide superiority, about this time last year. You can't have it both ways.
No, if you want facts, you'll actaully have to look at the games on >their merits, but I know such hard facts will be an anathema to a woolly >thinker like you.
So educate me. Go back to last November, and explain to me the "hard facts" from the merits of the previous encounters between the European teams that indicated at that point that Wales were stonger than Ireland and England (despite having lost to them).
The trouble is, you dug yourself into a big hole early on by avoiding >the facts at all costs,
Nonsense. Match history is fact. How can it not be so?
and going for a typically arrogant assumption >based on performances in the previous six nations.
Are you mad? How can the results of latest encounters between the teams in question be anything other than "fact"?
You were left with >your foot firmly lodged in your mouth as the performances many of us had >seen telegraphed at the world cup continued to be realised on the field >in November 2004. And have been continually supported since then.>
And yet quite a few NZ posters were claiming that the IRB rankings> were definitive proof of NZ's worldwide superiority, about this time> last year. You can't have it both ways.
I am not "quite a few NZ posters" and I don't want it both ways. As I have said on a number of occasions, New Zealand may be ranked world number one but I don't rate them as unofficial world champions because in the most recent season, they could only manage a three-way tie with Australia and South Africa.
So educate me. Go back to last November, and explain to me the "hard> facts" from the merits of the previous encounters between the European> teams that indicated at that point that Wales were stonger than> Ireland and England (despite having lost to them).
No, you're still not grasping it, are you? The merits of the teams last November were established last November. We are not concerned with their performance the year before or the year after.
And in that time, they put 25 points on New Zealand and 36 points on South Africa, and demonstrated to anyone with half a working brain that they were more than just the old Wales make-up-the-numbers easy-beats.
Nonsense. Match history is fact. How can it not be so?
When it is used to support silly arguments. History is not the present. Don't use it as such.
Are you mad? How can the results of latest encounters between the> teams in question be anything other than "fact"?
The results are fact. Using them out of context to support your looney theories is not fact. It's just your general silliness.
It suggested that the hypothesis (from Paul) was akin to "if a> different SA team had played in the Lions matches", and was worthless.
Why "worthless"? It is a valid point of view highlighting that one of the significant factors in the result was one team's deficiency in a certain area. It would be equally valid to suggest that England would have won a couple more Six Nations games with a reliable kicker. It shows that the result was not solely down to one team's dominance but also to failures of the losing team.
I know it is popular amongst lightweight fans to see a win by their team as indicative of their total dominance.
You don't want to look like a lightweight, do you?
Or a jingoistic fool who automatically leaps to the defence of his team when someone dares to suggest that the losing team may have lost the game more than the winning team won it? Why not discuss it on its merits instead of flying into ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole. Do you want to put an "Uncle" in front of your name?
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:27:48 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
DaveyWavey wrote:>
It suggested that the hypothesis (from Paul) was akin to "if a>> different SA team had played in the Lions matches", and was worthless.>
Why "worthless"?
Read the rest of my post, which you've snipped, for an explanation.
It is a valid point of view highlighting that one of >the significant factors in the result was one team's deficiency in a >certain area. It would be equally valid to suggest that England would >have won a couple more Six Nations games with a reliable kicker. It >shows that the result was not solely down to one team's dominance but >also to failures of the losing team.>
I know it is popular amongst lightweight fans to see a win by their team >as indicative of their total dominance.
Indeed.
You don't want to look like a lightweight, do you?>
Nope.
Or a jingoistic fool who automatically leaps to the defence of his team >when someone dares to suggest that the losing team may have lost the >game more than the winning team won it? Why not discuss it on its merits >instead of flying into ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole.
Seriously rick, you're in no position to lecture others on "flying into ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole".
Do you want to >put an "Uncle" in front of your name?>
Nope. I am no type of uncle, and my brother is far too ugly to start procreating any time soon.
Although in the 80s I was informed that I was a god-parent to a cabbage patch kid. Without even asking me!
Read the rest of my post, which you've snipped, for an explanation.
Read the rest of my post as to why your explanation is not efective.
Seriously rick, you're in no position to lecture others on "flying> into ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole".
There is a place for sarcastic hyperbole. Especially when brilliantly witty, like mine is (you can make up your own mind if this contitutes sarcastic hyperbole as well). Using it to counter a valid viewpoint is not the place.
Nope. I am no type of uncle, and my brother is far too ugly to start> procreating any time soon.
For that we may probably all be very grateful.
Although in the 80s I was informed that I was a god-parent to a> cabbage patch kid. Without even asking me!
