| Munster v Crusaders [message #1037324] |
So, 28 Mai 2006 12:04 |
|
35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
(if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
do they have?
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037325 ] |
So, 28 Mai 2006 12:14 |
|
"hamishd" <Hamish.Dean [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148810640.683651.218900 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> do they have?
>
without doubt the Crusaders are the best side other then National sides.
Actually I reckon they would beat most national sides
btw: I hate the Crusaders but you have to admit they are a pretty awesome
team
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037338 ] |
So, 28 Mai 2006 12:59 |
|
"hamishd" <Hamish.Dean [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148810640.683651.218900 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> do they have?
Who actually gives an honest answer on an Internet Poll? I always thought it
was a competition to pick the most ludicrous answer.
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037345 ] |
So, 28 Mai 2006 13:14 |
|
hamishd wrote:
> 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> do they have?
Sorry? 35% of voters on Planet Rugby think that Munster would beat the
Crusaders?
And presumably 65% think the Crusaders would win?
How is this surprising?
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037359 ] |
So, 28 Mai 2006 14:30 |
|
rick boyd wrote:
> hamishd wrote:
> > 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> > (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> > do they have?
>
> Sorry? 35% of voters on Planet Rugby think that Munster would beat the
> Crusaders?
>
> And presumably 65% think the Crusaders would win?
>
> How is this surprising?
This probably represents the geographical distribution of the voters
too. The Irish will start piling in after the pubs shut tonight.
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037364 ] |
So, 28 Mai 2006 17:16 |
|
Martyn W wrote:
> rick boyd wrote:
>> hamishd wrote:
>>> 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
>>> (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
>>> do they have?
>> Sorry? 35% of voters on Planet Rugby think that Munster would beat the
>> Crusaders?
>>
>> And presumably 65% think the Crusaders would win?
>>
>> How is this surprising?
>
> This probably represents the geographical distribution of the voters
> too. The Irish will start piling in after the pubs shut tonight.
>
Who will they vote for?
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037393 ] |
Mo, 29 Mai 2006 02:23 |
|
On 28 May 2006 03:04:00 -0700, "hamishd" <Hamish.Dean [at] gmail.com>
wrote:
>35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
>(if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
>do they have?
I'd bet a lot of money that the Crusaders would beat Munster on
neutral soil.
Nik
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037394 ] |
Mo, 29 Mai 2006 02:23 |
|
On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:14:14 +1000, "Will_S" <spam [at] ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
>"hamishd" <Hamish.Dean [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1148810640.683651.218900 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
>> (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
>> do they have?
>
>without doubt the Crusaders are the best side other then National sides.
>Actually I reckon they would beat most national sides
>
>
>btw: I hate the Crusaders but you have to admit they are a pretty awesome
>team
Bobsy boy isn't admitting that though...
Nik
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037401 ] |
Mo, 29 Mai 2006 02:59 |
|
Well I would have assumed much higher in favour of the Crusaders. But,
it's only a poll i guess. Not TAB odds.
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037462 ] |
Mo, 29 Mai 2006 11:36 |
|
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy wrote:
> On 28 May 2006 03:04:00 -0700, "hamishd" <Hamish.Dean [at] gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> >(if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> >do they have?
>
> I'd bet a lot of money that the Crusaders would beat Munster on
> neutral soil.
>
> Nik
I think you'd probably be right to do so, but those Munster guys have
something about them, particularly their forwards and the Crusaders
would do well to get much ball. If the match were held at the home
ground of either side, I'd have to go with the home side.
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037553 ] |
Di, 30 Mai 2006 04:31 |
|
hamishd wrote:
> 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> do they have?
Were the game played home and away, I (as an utterly partial observer)
reckon Munster would have a chance, but at a neutral (i.e.
non-European) venue, I'd go for the Crusaders.
Munster's key strengths are a strong lineout (locks are the Lions Test
2nd row, not that that's much of a recommendation this time 'round),
superb defence - only 7 tries conceded in the Heineken Cup this year, a
solid possession game (a lot of credit there must go to Jim Williams as
Continuity Coach) and a very good kicking 10.
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037561 ] |
Di, 30 Mai 2006 05:33 |
|
Mike Whooley wrote:
> hamishd wrote:
> > 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> > (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> > do they have?
>
> Were the game played home and away, I (as an utterly partial observer)
> reckon Munster would have a chance, but at a neutral (i.e.
> non-European) venue, I'd go for the Crusaders.
>
> Munster's key strengths are a strong lineout (locks are the Lions Test
> 2nd row, not that that's much of a recommendation this time 'round),
> superb defence - only 7 tries conceded in the Heineken Cup this year, a
> solid possession game (a lot of credit there must go to Jim Williams as
> Continuity Coach) and a very good kicking 10.
A good kicking 10? How's his running? The Cuntabs only have a nobody as
a 10. Dunno if you've heard of Daniel Carter.
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037562 ] |
Di, 30 Mai 2006 05:35 |
|
Martyn W wrote:
> Post.Post.Colonial.Boy wrote:
> > On 28 May 2006 03:04:00 -0700, "hamishd" <Hamish.Dean [at] gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> > >(if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> > >do they have?
> >
> > I'd bet a lot of money that the Crusaders would beat Munster on
> > neutral soil.
> >
> > Nik
>
>
> I think you'd probably be right to do so, but those Munster guys have
> something about them, particularly their forwards and the Crusaders
> would do well to get much ball. If the match were held at the home
> ground of either side, I'd have to go with the home side.
Yes, because the Cuntabs only have 13 or 14 All Blacks in their run on
team. Obviously they'd struggle.
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037564 ] |
Di, 30 Mai 2006 05:52 |
|
hamishd wrote:
> 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> do they have?
Here's those filthy Cuntabs, and their team for the final
15 Leon MacDonald - long time All Black
14 Rico Gear - All Black
13 Casey Laulala - Played a test for the AB's and has been selected
again
12 Aaron Mauger - long term All Black
11 Scott Hamilton - just selected for the AB's
10 Daniel Carter - AB star
9 Kevin Senio - played a game for the AB's
8 Mose Tuiali'i - All Black
7 Richard McCaw (captain) - All Black captain and star
6 Reuben Thorne - Former AB captain and henchman of the Invisible Man
5 Ross Filipo - Okay, he's quite average
4 Chris Jack - long time AB lock who raped the Lions
3 Greg Somerville - AB prop
2 Corey Flynn - All Black
1 Wyatt Crockett. - Looks like a good up and comer
I mean, really. Considering a third string AB team totally raped the
Irish in Ireland, I'm sure this team (which is probably of equal
strength to a 3rd string AB team) can beat Munster anywhere. Unless
Munster are better than Ireland? Are they?
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037580 ] |
Di, 30 Mai 2006 07:31 |
|
"Mike Whooley" <google [at] whooley.utvinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1148956306.175864.138490 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> hamishd wrote:
> > 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> > (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> > do they have?
>
> Were the game played home and away, I (as an utterly partial observer)
> reckon Munster would have a chance, but at a neutral (i.e.
> non-European) venue, I'd go for the Crusaders.
>
> Munster's key strengths are a strong lineout (locks are the Lions Test
> 2nd row, not that that's much of a recommendation this time 'round),
> superb defence - only 7 tries conceded in the Heineken Cup this year, a
> solid possession game (a lot of credit there must go to Jim Williams as
> Continuity Coach) and a very good kicking 10.
Continuity Coach - ye gods! Is he the bloke who fills in any dead air time
over the PA System during the match?
Andrew
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037584 ] |
Di, 30 Mai 2006 07:59 |
|
Bobs wrote:
> hamishd wrote:
> > 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> > (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> > do they have?
>
> Here's those filthy Cuntabs, and their team for the final
>
> 15 Leon MacDonald - long time All Black
> 14 Rico Gear - All Black
> 13 Casey Laulala - Played a test for the AB's and has been selected
> again
> 12 Aaron Mauger - long term All Black
> 11 Scott Hamilton - just selected for the AB's
> 10 Daniel Carter - AB star
> 9 Kevin Senio - played a game for the AB's
> 8 Mose Tuiali'i - All Black
> 7 Richard McCaw (captain) - All Black captain and star
> 6 Reuben Thorne - Former AB captain and henchman of the Invisible Man
> 5 Ross Filipo - Okay, he's quite average
> 4 Chris Jack - long time AB lock who raped the Lions
> 3 Greg Somerville - AB prop
> 2 Corey Flynn - All Black
> 1 Wyatt Crockett. - Looks like a good up and comer
>
> I mean, really. Considering a third string AB team totally raped the
> Irish in Ireland, I'm sure this team (which is probably of equal
> strength to a 3rd string AB team) can beat Munster anywhere. Unless
> Munster are better than Ireland? Are they?
Yes
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037585 ] |
Di, 30 Mai 2006 08:00 |
|
Bobs wrote:
> hamishd wrote:
> > 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> > (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> > do they have?
>
> Here's those filthy Cuntabs, and their team for the final
>
> 15 Leon MacDonald - long time All Black
> 14 Rico Gear - All Black
> 13 Casey Laulala - Played a test for the AB's and has been selected
> again
> 12 Aaron Mauger - long term All Black
> 11 Scott Hamilton - just selected for the AB's
> 10 Daniel Carter - AB star
> 9 Kevin Senio - played a game for the AB's
> 8 Mose Tuiali'i - All Black
> 7 Richard McCaw (captain) - All Black captain and star
> 6 Reuben Thorne - Former AB captain and henchman of the Invisible Man
> 5 Ross Filipo - Okay, he's quite average
> 4 Chris Jack - long time AB lock who raped the Lions
> 3 Greg Somerville - AB prop
> 2 Corey Flynn - All Black
> 1 Wyatt Crockett. - Looks like a good up and comer
>
It's interesting that a team full of so much talent can look so shite
on the day.
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037600 ] |
Di, 30 Mai 2006 09:41 |
|
On 29 May 2006 20:33:52 -0700, "Bobs" <mcaulaymj [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Mike Whooley wrote:
>> hamishd wrote:
>> > 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
>> > (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
>> > do they have?
>>
>> Were the game played home and away, I (as an utterly partial observer)
>> reckon Munster would have a chance, but at a neutral (i.e.
>> non-European) venue, I'd go for the Crusaders.
>>
>> Munster's key strengths are a strong lineout (locks are the Lions Test
>> 2nd row, not that that's much of a recommendation this time 'round),
>> superb defence - only 7 tries conceded in the Heineken Cup this year, a
>> solid possession game (a lot of credit there must go to Jim Williams as
>> Continuity Coach) and a very good kicking 10.
>
>A good kicking 10? How's his running? The Cuntabs only have a nobody as
>a 10. Dunno if you've heard of Daniel Carter.
Daniel Carter is the best 1st Five in the world.
Nik
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037611 ] |
Di, 30 Mai 2006 10:09 |
|
Andrew Dunford wrote:
> "Mike Whooley" <google [at] whooley.utvinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1148956306.175864.138490 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > hamishd wrote:
> > > 35% of voters on planet-rugby thinkt hat Munster would be the Crusaders
> > > (if game played on neutral territory). Are they really that good? Who
> > > do they have?
> >
> > Were the game played home and away, I (as an utterly partial observer)
> > reckon Munster would have a chance, but at a neutral (i.e.
> > non-European) venue, I'd go for the Crusaders.
> >
> > Munster's key strengths are a strong lineout (locks are the Lions Test
> > 2nd row, not that that's much of a recommendation this time 'round),
> > superb defence - only 7 tries conceded in the Heineken Cup this year, a
> > solid possession game (a lot of credit there must go to Jim Williams as
> > Continuity Coach) and a very good kicking 10.
>
> Continuity Coach - ye gods! Is he the bloke who fills in any dead air time
> over the PA System during the match?
>
Yeah but with this game in mind, hows the form of their incontinence
coach?
Stex
|
|
|
| Re: Munster v Crusaders [message #1037651 ] |
Di, 30 Mai 2006 18:08 |
|
Sean Byrne wrote:
> Wasn't that much of a strength in the final... Biaritz had it all over
> them at lineout time.
Can't argue with you there, it wasn't a great performance. I wonder
though if O'Connell's ankle injury wasn't flaring up during the game,
he did go off before the end; and even while he was on the Sky
commentators noted he was only winning his own ball when he didn't move
before the throw in, possibly indicating a lack of mobility.
That said, whatever state he was in, Harinordaquy (spelling?!?) was
superb on the day.
|
|
|
