Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:50 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 216 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15388
Location: STRAYA!
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Thomas wrote:
England were very unlucky they weren't 25+ points ahead by that stage.


Eh...no, that's a bit revisionist IMO. The only real bit of bad luck England had was the second disallowed try (mmmaybe Ardie's try, but that was more a mistake rather than bad luck). They played brilliantly, but honestly almost everything that could go right for them did go right.


It's not revisionist at all. It's almost verbatim from AB fans on the match thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16856
Thomas wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Thomas wrote:
England were very unlucky they weren't 25+ points ahead by that stage.


Eh...no, that's a bit revisionist IMO. The only real bit of bad luck England had was the second disallowed try (mmmaybe Ardie's try, but that was more a mistake rather than bad luck). They played brilliantly, but honestly almost everything that could go right for them did go right.


It's not revisionist at all. It's almost verbatim from AB fans on the match thread.


Ok, then it's reactionary. But it's not really accurate - England dominated the match but it's not like they left a bunch of points out there. Other than the second disallowed try, what bad luck did they have?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4896
I think it’s fair to say the score does not reflect how comprehensively they beat us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16856
Wilderbeast wrote:
I think it’s fair to say the score does not reflect how comprehensively they beat us.


Yes and no. I think the scoreline reflects that they closed NZ down comprehensively, but it wasn't really a gameplan that was gonna result in a 25 point thrashing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15388
Location: STRAYA!
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
I think it’s fair to say the score does not reflect how comprehensively they beat us.


Yes and no. I think the scoreline reflects that they closed NZ down comprehensively, but it wasn't really a gameplan that was gonna result in a 25 point thrashing.


You're right. It was more like 26 points. They had 14 points disallowed that could have easily (probably controversially) been awarded.

Apart from the belting Australia gave NZ a few months earlier, it was one of the more comprehensive floggings a NZ side has had in my memory. They never looked like winning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31961
Location: in transit
Yup...

smeshed as.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11740
Location: Melbourne
guy smiley wrote:
Arguing over a single game like this within the context of Stan's 8 year coaching reign is a little irrelevant...

unless we consider that single game as a metaphor for that career.


It was symptomatic though of Hansen's erratic selection policy at times, as you have noted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11740
Location: Melbourne
Thomas wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
I think it’s fair to say the score does not reflect how comprehensively they beat us.


Yes and no. I think the scoreline reflects that they closed NZ down comprehensively, but it wasn't really a gameplan that was gonna result in a 25 point thrashing.


You're right. It was more like 26 points. They had 14 points disallowed that could have easily (probably controversially) been awarded.

Apart from the belting Australia gave NZ a few months earlier, it was one of the more comprehensive floggings a NZ side has had in my memory. They never looked like winning.


Due in part to poor selections, due in (large) part to Steve Hansen's erratic selection policy.

Which is why it's being discussed on here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5403
Thomas wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
I think it’s fair to say the score does not reflect how comprehensively they beat us.


Yes and no. I think the scoreline reflects that they closed NZ down comprehensively, but it wasn't really a gameplan that was gonna result in a 25 point thrashing.


You're right. It was more like 26 points. They had 14 points disallowed that could have easily (probably controversially) been awarded.

Apart from the belting Australia gave NZ a few months earlier, it was one of the more comprehensive floggings a NZ side has had in my memory. They never looked like winning.


The ABs were lucky that two tries were ruled out, because at that point the defence had been badly beaten. Then Ardies try was from a simple mistake from England, so was a bit of a fluke.

The score could easily have been 33 nil, which would have been a fair indication of the pounding they took. Which would have ranked in one of the worst, if not the worst in AB history.

That was on Stans watch. Tarnished every success he'd had before.

And is why Fozzie should not get the job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16856
Thomas wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
I think it’s fair to say the score does not reflect how comprehensively they beat us.


Yes and no. I think the scoreline reflects that they closed NZ down comprehensively, but it wasn't really a gameplan that was gonna result in a 25 point thrashing.


You're right. It was more like 26 points. They had 14 points disallowed that could have easily (probably controversially) been awarded.

Apart from the belting Australia gave NZ a few months earlier, it was one of the more comprehensive floggings a NZ side has had in my memory. They never looked like winning.



It was a comprehensive win, but England weren't playing a game that would win by 26. The first try was created by the obstruction, it wasn't bad luck it was ruled out it was simply an illegal try.

And again - other than the second try, what bad luck did England have that cost them points? Nothing.

Let's not get carried away, it was a comprehensive win in that England completely shut down NZ but it's not like they were running rampant on attack. They dominated up front and took almost all their chances to score points but they weren't playing a game that was gonna score a bunch of tries vs NZ.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11740
Location: Melbourne
obelixtim wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
I think it’s fair to say the score does not reflect how comprehensively they beat us.


Yes and no. I think the scoreline reflects that they closed NZ down comprehensively, but it wasn't really a gameplan that was gonna result in a 25 point thrashing.


You're right. It was more like 26 points. They had 14 points disallowed that could have easily (probably controversially) been awarded.

Apart from the belting Australia gave NZ a few months earlier, it was one of the more comprehensive floggings a NZ side has had in my memory. They never looked like winning.


The ABs were lucky that two tries were ruled out, because at that point the defence had been badly beaten. Then Ardies try was from a simple mistake from England, so was a bit of a fluke.

The score could easily have been 33 nil, which would have been a fair indication of the pounding they took. Which would have ranked in one of the worst, if not the worst in AB history.

That was on Stans watch. Tarnished every success he'd had before.

And is why Fozzie should not get the job.


I wouldn't go that far, but it was an ugly loss. Everyone knows it was a flattering scoreline - to the All Blacks.

Poor selections marred Hansen's tenure post the 2015 RWC win.

I rate him as a very good - but not great - coach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5268
Thomas wrote:
They never looked like winning.


New Zealand were 6 points behind with 20 minutes to go. We have won a truckload of game from worse positions in the last 10 years.

You can get comprehensively outplayed and still win undeservedly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11740
Location: Melbourne
J Man wrote:
Thomas wrote:
They never looked like winning.


New Zealand were 6 points behind with 20 minutes to go. We have won a truckload of game from worse positions in the last 10 years.

You can get comprehensively outplayed and still win undeservedly.


Ireland 2016 anyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4896
J Man wrote:
Thomas wrote:
They never looked like winning.


New Zealand were 6 points behind with 20 minutes to go. We have won a truckload of game from worse positions in the last 10 years.

You can get comprehensively outplayed and still win undeservedly.


What you say is true, but we still never looked like winning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11740
Location: Melbourne
Experienced players in their specialist positions are critical in RWC knock out games.

Will NZ ever learn the lesson?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31961
Location: in transit
jdogscoop wrote:
Experienced players in their specialist positions are critical in RWC knock out games.

Will NZ ever learn the lesson?



NZ have 3 RWCs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39129
guy smiley wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Experienced players in their specialist positions are critical in RWC knock out games.

Will NZ ever learn the lesson?



NZ have 3 RWCs.


Yes but how many could we have had?

;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16856
Kiwias wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Experienced players in their specialist positions are critical in RWC knock out games.

Will NZ ever learn the lesson?



NZ have 3 RWCs.


Yes but how many could we have had?

;)


Would they have 3 if they'd preferred the experienced Mils Muliaina to Israel Dagg in 2011?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3098
Auckman wrote:
Right up there. Probably first due to his longevity. He had to operate in the post-McCaw/Carter era and his assistants dropped in quality post-2017. However, I think Henry's record against the top-tier teams is slightly superior given the Lions results and not losing to quite a few of them. Hansen has a better record against the RC teams.

(1) Steve Hansen - 86% - longevity; world cup; 8/8 Bleds; 6/8 RC;
12-2-1 RSA
18-3-2 Aust
15-0 Arg
6-2 Eng
6-2 Ire
7-0 Wal
3-0 Scot
10-0 Fra
1-1-1 Lions

(2) Sir Graham Henry - 85% - world cup; lions; 8/8 Bleds; 5/8 TN;
12-8 RSA
19-5 Aust
3-0 Arg
9-0 Eng
7-0 Ire
8-0 Wal
4-0 Scot
9-2 Fra
3-0 Lions

(3) Fred Allen - 100% record from 14-0 tests

(4) Sir Brian Lochore - 82% record 9-3 tests


Did I mention how much I miss Sir Graham and his team of All Blacks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11740
Location: Melbourne
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Experienced players in their specialist positions are critical in RWC knock out games.

Will NZ ever learn the lesson?



NZ have 3 RWCs.


Yes but how many could we have had?

;)


Would they have 3 if they'd preferred the experienced Mils Muliaina to Israel Dagg in 2011?


Sure, you can nitpick but I can easily reel off three campaigns - 2003, 2007 and 2019 where inexperienced players were selected over veterans and we came unstuck partly for this reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11740
Location: Melbourne
guy smiley wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Experienced players in their specialist positions are critical in RWC knock out games.

Will NZ ever learn the lesson?



NZ have 3 RWCs.


There's always room for improvement. SA have 3 titles from 7 campaigns. We have 3 from 9.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39129
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Experienced players in their specialist positions are critical in RWC knock out games.

Will NZ ever learn the lesson?



NZ have 3 RWCs.


Yes but how many could we have had?

;)


Would they have 3 if they'd preferred the experienced Mils Muliaina to Israel Dagg in 2011?


Two specialist fullbacks, it came down to form


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4896
jdogscoop wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Experienced players in their specialist positions are critical in RWC knock out games.

Will NZ ever learn the lesson?



NZ have 3 RWCs.


Yes but how many could we have had?

;)


Would they have 3 if they'd preferred the experienced Mils Muliaina to Israel Dagg in 2011?


Sure, you can nitpick but I can easily reel off three campaigns - 2003, 2007 and 2019 where inexperienced players were selected over veterans and we came unstuck partly for this reason.


Yep, stupid to pick Mo’unga at ten and Bridge/Reece on the wings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31961
Location: in transit
jdogscoop wrote:

Sure, you can nitpick but I can easily reel off three campaigns - 2003, 2007 and 2019 where inexperienced players were selected over veterans and we came unstuck partly for this reason.



This should be good.

Name the players...


2003 the Wallabies beat the ABs up at the breakdown.

2007 the French fully engaged the cat gene and just climbed the curtains all over the ABs.

2019 the English hammered them up front and at the breakdown.

Name the individuals who caused that through inexperience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11740
Location: Melbourne
guy smiley wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:

Sure, you can nitpick but I can easily reel off three campaigns - 2003, 2007 and 2019 where inexperienced players were selected over veterans and we came unstuck partly for this reason.



This should be good.

Name the players...


2003 the Wallabies beat the ABs up at the breakdown.

2007 the French fully engaged the cat gene and just climbed the curtains all over the ABs.

2019 the English hammered them up front and at the breakdown.

Name the individuals who caused that through inexperience.


Drop the condescending tone, bellend.

I don't have time to go into detail but:

2003 - Experienced players were left behind who would have been invaluable in the pack. MacDonald played centre ahead of Umaga, who claimed to be fully fit.

2007 - Howlett, Mauger and others were sitting in the stands!

2019 - Cane on bench, SBW on bench, Crotty and Smith in the stands.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31961
Location: in transit
So, you can't name the inexperienced players that you claim were at least partly responsible for the losses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11740
Location: Melbourne
guy smiley wrote:
So, you can't name the inexperienced players that you claim were at least partly responsible for the losses.


I can with a bit more time. Macdonald at 13 is a starter for 10 in 2003 anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 7077
Clogs wrote:
Auckman wrote:
Right up there. Probably first due to his longevity. He had to operate in the post-McCaw/Carter era and his assistants dropped in quality post-2017. However, I think Henry's record against the top-tier teams is slightly superior given the Lions results and not losing to quite a few of them. Hansen has a better record against the RC teams.

(1) Steve Hansen - 86% - longevity; world cup; 8/8 Bleds; 6/8 RC;
12-2-1 RSA
18-3-2 Aust
15-0 Arg
6-2 Eng
6-2 Ire
7-0 Wal
3-0 Scot
10-0 Fra
1-1-1 Lions

(2) Sir Graham Henry - 85% - world cup; lions; 8/8 Bleds; 5/8 TN;
12-8 RSA
19-5 Aust
3-0 Arg
9-0 Eng
7-0 Ire
8-0 Wal
4-0 Scot
9-2 Fra
3-0 Lions

(3) Fred Allen - 100% record from 14-0 tests

(4) Sir Brian Lochore - 82% record 9-3 tests


Did I mention how much I miss Sir Graham and his team of All Blacks.


You mean you miss Jake Whites Springboks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 7077
Kiwias wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Experienced players in their specialist positions are critical in RWC knock out games.

Will NZ ever learn the lesson?



NZ have 3 RWCs.


Yes but how many could we have had?

;)


Would they have 3 if they'd preferred the experienced Mils Muliaina to Israel Dagg in 2011?


Two specialist fullbacks, it came down to form


Bullshit! Mils was injured.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 7077
jdogscoop wrote:
obelixtim wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
I think it’s fair to say the score does not reflect how comprehensively they beat us.


Yes and no. I think the scoreline reflects that they closed NZ down comprehensively, but it wasn't really a gameplan that was gonna result in a 25 point thrashing.


You're right. It was more like 26 points. They had 14 points disallowed that could have easily (probably controversially) been awarded.

Apart from the belting Australia gave NZ a few months earlier, it was one of the more comprehensive floggings a NZ side has had in my memory. They never looked like winning.


The ABs were lucky that two tries were ruled out, because at that point the defence had been badly beaten. Then Ardies try was from a simple mistake from England, so was a bit of a fluke.

The score could easily have been 33 nil, which would have been a fair indication of the pounding they took. Which would have ranked in one of the worst, if not the worst in AB history.

That was on Stans watch. Tarnished every success he'd had before.

And is why Fozzie should not get the job.


I wouldn't go that far, but it was an ugly loss. Everyone knows it was a flattering scoreline - to the All Blacks.

Poor selections marred Hansen's tenure post the 2015 RWC win.

I rate him as a very good - but not great - coach.


There was the loss to Ireland in 2016 but I think we were found out by the Lions in 2017. We battled to an ugly drawn series and after that teams with a strong forward pack and a rush defence seemed to give us problems. I kept hoping Hansen had some cunning 'master plan' he was keeping under wraps for the RWC and after thrashing Ireland my hopes were high. But in reality Ireland were no longer the force they were in 2018 and the blueprint established by the 2017 Lions was expertly utilized by Eddie Jones England.

Se la vie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39129
booji boy wrote:

Bullshit! Mils was injured.


That is beside the point. Assuming both were un-injured, the choice would be between two specialist fullbacks in response to this being used as an example of playing players out of their specialist position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16856
booji boy wrote:

Bullshit! Mils was injured.



http://www.securesites.co.nz/rugbyNews2 ... ticle=5071

Dagg was first choice before the injury.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 7077
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
booji boy wrote:

Bullshit! Mils was injured.



http://www.securesites.co.nz/rugbyNews2 ... ticle=5071

Dagg was first choice before the injury.


But he played and was injured in the knockout match with Argentina meaning he wasn't available for the semi final and final. Not a massive loss given we had such a good replacement in Dagg but we will never know who would have been picked if both had been fit. I still thought Mils was no.1 15 at that point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 7077
Kiwias wrote:
booji boy wrote:

Bullshit! Mils was injured.


That is beside the point. Assuming both were un-injured, the choice would be between two specialist fullbacks in response to this being used as an example of playing players out of their specialist position.


I thought it was more of a discussion of playing experienced vs inexperienced players in key positions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16856
booji boy wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
booji boy wrote:

Bullshit! Mils was injured.



http://www.securesites.co.nz/rugbyNews2 ... ticle=5071

Dagg was first choice before the injury.


But he played and was injured in the knockout match with Argentina meaning he wasn't available for the semi final and final. Not a massive loss given we had such a good replacement in Dagg but we will never know who would have been picked if both had been fit. I still thought Mils was no.1 15 at that point.


Dagg was injured for the 1/4 and Henry said he was first choice 15 as evidenced by his selection in the pool match v France.

We'll never know, but that's pretty good evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 7077
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
booji boy wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
booji boy wrote:

Bullshit! Mils was injured.



http://www.securesites.co.nz/rugbyNews2 ... ticle=5071

Dagg was first choice before the injury.


But he played and was injured in the knockout match with Argentina meaning he wasn't available for the semi final and final. Not a massive loss given we had such a good replacement in Dagg but we will never know who would have been picked if both had been fit. I still thought Mils was no.1 15 at that point.


Dagg was injured for the 1/4 and Henry said he was first choice 15 as evidenced by his selection in the pool match v France.

We'll never know, but that's pretty good evidence.


Fair enough. My memory of the time was that Mils was still 1st choice but was injured out of the tournament and Dagg took his place and performed admirably in the finals. But maybe I'm wrong. Not something I'll die in a ditch over. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8281
obelixtim wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
I think it’s fair to say the score does not reflect how comprehensively they beat us.


Yes and no. I think the scoreline reflects that they closed NZ down comprehensively, but it wasn't really a gameplan that was gonna result in a 25 point thrashing.


You're right. It was more like 26 points. They had 14 points disallowed that could have easily (probably controversially) been awarded.

Apart from the belting Australia gave NZ a few months earlier, it was one of the more comprehensive floggings a NZ side has had in my memory. They never looked like winning.


The ABs were lucky that two tries were ruled out, because at that point the defence had been badly beaten. Then Ardies try was from a simple mistake from England, so was a bit of a fluke.

The score could easily have been 33 nil, which would have been a fair indication of the pounding they took. Which would have ranked in one of the worst, if not the worst in AB history.

That was on Stans watch. Tarnished every success he'd had before.

And is why Fozzie should not get the job.

:lol:

You're either trolling or clearly off your rocker. Very silly thing to say.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5403
Auckman wrote:
obelixtim wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
I think it’s fair to say the score does not reflect how comprehensively they beat us.


Yes and no. I think the scoreline reflects that they closed NZ down comprehensively, but it wasn't really a gameplan that was gonna result in a 25 point thrashing.


You're right. It was more like 26 points. They had 14 points disallowed that could have easily (probably controversially) been awarded.

Apart from the belting Australia gave NZ a few months earlier, it was one of the more comprehensive floggings a NZ side has had in my memory. They never looked like winning.


The ABs were lucky that two tries were ruled out, because at that point the defence had been badly beaten. Then Ardies try was from a simple mistake from England, so was a bit of a fluke.

The score could easily have been 33 nil, which would have been a fair indication of the pounding they took. Which would have ranked in one of the worst, if not the worst in AB history.

That was on Stans watch. Tarnished every success he'd had before.

And is why Fozzie should not get the job.

:lol:

You're either trolling or clearly off your rocker. Very silly thing to say.


Had they lost 33 - 0 (and they were damn lucky not to) everything he´d achieved before would have been forgotten. As it is, since the first loss to Ireland, his record has been patchy, to say the least.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4896
90 what percent?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11740
Location: Melbourne
booji boy wrote:

There was the loss to Ireland in 2016 but I think we were found out by the Lions in 2017. We battled to an ugly drawn series and after that teams with a strong forward pack and a rush defence seemed to give us problems. I kept hoping Hansen had some cunning 'master plan' he was keeping under wraps for the RWC and after thrashing Ireland my hopes were high. But in reality Ireland were no longer the force they were in 2018 and the blueprint established by the 2017 Lions was expertly utilized by Eddie Jones England.

C'est la vie.


:nod: Good post.

"Old wily old Stevo, he's keeping his cards to his chest. He's keeping his powder dry for the RWC."

No. No he was not.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 216 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A5D5E5, Bing [Bot], corentin44, dinsdale, DOB, Fenman, flaggETERNAL, frillage, Jensrsa, LandOTurk, Laurent, Lazer, Lemoentjie, message #2527204, mr flaps, Mr. Very Popular, MungoMan, Sandstorm, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group