|
Sports » rec.sport.rugby.union » 2006 Tri Nations
| 2006 Tri Nations [message #1071734] |
Tue, 13 June 2006 07:12 |
|
I'm getting pissed off with all the moaning about Australia's
"horrific" year in 2005, and how they are really up against it to prove
themselves in the 2006 tri nations. Because it's a load of shit.
Yes, as far as results go, as far as the history books are concerned,
2005 was a bad year for them.
But not as far as play is concerned. Just like most years since 1997,
the Wallabies were fully competitive in the tri nations, although they
had a few problems in the scrum area.
They lost to South Africa 22-19 and 22-16 -- within the 7 point margin
on both occasions. They lost to New Zealand 34-24 and 30-13 but both
games were close until the final stages, and Australia played as big a
part, if not bigger, in their own demise as the opposition (thanks
Brendan Cannon and Matt Dunning -- we couldn't have done it without
you).
If anyone (including the All Blacks themselves) thinks that the 2006
tri nations will be a cakewalk (and the predictable fanboys are already
crowing in advance) they should think again.
Of the 25 games between the tri nations teams since the last world cup,
17 (or 68 per cent) have been by less than the magic seven point
margin. The three nations are usually thereabouts, and Australia was
no exception in 2005, it's just one of those cyclical things that now
and then one of the nations strings a few defeats together. But that
doesn't make them suddenly and mysteriously crap. (Australia's
"greatest ever" era in the early years of this period is equally
mythical. The same cycle strung them some wins together but that
doesn't make them any more than competitive, which they have been all
along).
I asked the master of the grey area, Thommo Pavlov, to pick a winner
for this year's tri nations so he could demonstrate his marvellous
advance hindsight whch has so accurately forecast all world cup winners
to date (after the event). He wisely declined to answer, knowing full
well that the series will be too close to call, as ever, and doubtless
fearing that his prediction would come back to haunt him in perpetuity
should he get the toss of the three-sided coin wrong.
There are some things you can probably predict:
1. New Zealand will be solid in the forwards, occasionally dominant in
the loose, inconsistent in the backs but with the occasional brilliant
try.
2. Australia will struggle in the forwards but be near enough to
compete, be competitive in the loose, and solid in the backs with
regular well constructed tries.
3. South Africa will be strong in the forwards, occasionally dominant
in the loose, defend well in the backs (mostly by being constantly
offside) but be pedestrian in attack apart from the occasional breakout
by some coloured gentleman.
But a winner? Who knows.
New Zealand will probably have to shoulder the burden of favouritism
and I'd be happy to give them the nod based on the best all around
potential of the three teams, but they are too inconsistent to put
anything but pocket money on. South Africa are quite capable of
grinding out any number of wins and Australia have the back line
firepower to win any match on the day.
It's in the lap of the Gods, let's face it.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: 2006 Tri Nations [message #1071735 ] |
Tue, 13 June 2006 07:20 |
|
rick boyd wrote:
> I'm getting pissed off with all the moaning about Australia's
> "horrific" year in 2005, and how they are really up against it to prove
> themselves in the 2006 tri nations. Because it's a load of shit.
>
> Yes, as far as results go, as far as the history books are concerned,
> 2005 was a bad year for them.
>
> But not as far as play is concerned. Just like most years since 1997,
> the Wallabies were fully competitive in the tri nations, although they
> had a few problems in the scrum area.
>
> They lost to South Africa 22-19 and 22-16 -- within the 7 point margin
> on both occasions. They lost to New Zealand 34-24 and 30-13 but both
> games were close until the final stages, and Australia played as big a
> part, if not bigger, in their own demise as the opposition (thanks
> Brendan Cannon and Matt Dunning -- we couldn't have done it without
> you).
>
> If anyone (including the All Blacks themselves) thinks that the 2006
> tri nations will be a cakewalk (and the predictable fanboys are already
> crowing in advance) they should think again.
>
> Of the 25 games between the tri nations teams since the last world cup,
> 17 (or 68 per cent) have been by less than the magic seven point
> margin. The three nations are usually thereabouts, and Australia was
> no exception in 2005, it's just one of those cyclical things that now
> and then one of the nations strings a few defeats together. But that
> doesn't make them suddenly and mysteriously crap. (Australia's
> "greatest ever" era in the early years of this period is equally
> mythical. The same cycle strung them some wins together but that
> doesn't make them any more than competitive, which they have been all
> along).
>
> I asked the master of the grey area, Thommo Pavlov, to pick a winner
> for this year's tri nations so he could demonstrate his marvellous
> advance hindsight whch has so accurately forecast all world cup winners
> to date (after the event). He wisely declined to answer, knowing full
> well that the series will be too close to call, as ever, and doubtless
> fearing that his prediction would come back to haunt him in perpetuity
> should he get the toss of the three-sided coin wrong.
>
> There are some things you can probably predict:
>
> 1. New Zealand will be solid in the forwards, occasionally dominant in
> the loose, inconsistent in the backs but with the occasional brilliant
> try.
You forgot to mention: NZ will hopeless in lineouts in approximately
50% of their games.
>
> 2. Australia will struggle in the forwards but be near enough to
> compete, be competitive in the loose, and solid in the backs with
> regular well constructed tries.
>
> 3. South Africa will be strong in the forwards, occasionally dominant
> in the loose, defend well in the backs (mostly by being constantly
> offside) but be pedestrian in attack apart from the occasional breakout
> by some coloured gentleman.
>
> But a winner? Who knows.
>
> New Zealand will probably have to shoulder the burden of favouritism
> and I'd be happy to give them the nod based on the best all around
> potential of the three teams, but they are too inconsistent to put
> anything but pocket money on. South Africa are quite capable of
> grinding out any number of wins and Australia have the back line
> firepower to win any match on the day.
As long as they get over whatever they had on the weekend. Their back
play was surprisingly bad for most of that match.
>
> It's in the lap of the Gods, let's face it.
>
> -- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: 2006 Tri Nations [message #1071745 ] |
Tue, 13 June 2006 08:33 |
|
"JohnO" <johno1234 [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150176007.328102.10860 [at] h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> rick boyd wrote:
>> I'm getting pissed off with all the moaning about Australia's
>> "horrific" year in 2005, and how they are really up against it to prove
>> themselves in the 2006 tri nations. Because it's a load of shit.
>>
>> Yes, as far as results go, as far as the history books are concerned,
>> 2005 was a bad year for them.
>>
>> But not as far as play is concerned. Just like most years since 1997,
>> the Wallabies were fully competitive in the tri nations, although they
>> had a few problems in the scrum area.
>>
>> They lost to South Africa 22-19 and 22-16 -- within the 7 point margin
>> on both occasions. They lost to New Zealand 34-24 and 30-13 but both
>> games were close until the final stages, and Australia played as big a
>> part, if not bigger, in their own demise as the opposition (thanks
>> Brendan Cannon and Matt Dunning -- we couldn't have done it without
>> you).
It doesnt matter if we lost by 5 or 50, we lost all the games so thats
fucked and no matter what you say its "winning" that counts
|
|
|
| Re: 2006 Tri Nations [message #1071746 ] |
Tue, 13 June 2006 08:43 |
|
rick boyd wrote:
> I'm getting pissed off with all the moaning about Australia's
> "horrific" year in 2005, and how they are really up against it to prove
> themselves in the 2006 tri nations. Because it's a load of shit.
>
> Yes, as far as results go, as far as the history books are concerned,
> 2005 was a bad year for them.
>
> But not as far as play is concerned. Just like most years since 1997,
> the Wallabies were fully competitive in the tri nations, although they
> had a few problems in the scrum area.
>
> They lost to South Africa 22-19 and 22-16 -- within the 7 point margin
> on both occasions. They lost to New Zealand 34-24 and 30-13 but both
> games were close until the final stages, and Australia played as big a
> part, if not bigger, in their own demise as the opposition (thanks
> Brendan Cannon and Matt Dunning -- we couldn't have done it without
> you).
You must be Eddie Jones' Mum. In assessing the 2005 Wallabies, why
did you choose to completely ignore the most disastrous and inept
Wallaby tour in living memory? Why did you choose to ignore published
statistics which showed the Wallabies ranked as low as 10th in basic,
critical areas of the game.
You make that Goofy Iraqi Information Minster look like a poster boy
for truth and balance.
>
> If anyone (including the All Blacks themselves) thinks that the 2006
> tri nations will be a cakewalk (and the predictable fanboys are already
> crowing in advance) they should think again.
From members of this news group? Other than that idiot "oob" some time
ago, I haven't seen much crowing WRT the Wallabies. Surely you don't
count him?
>
> Of the 25 games between the tri nations teams since the last world cup,
> 17 (or 68 per cent) have been by less than the magic seven point
> margin. The three nations are usually thereabouts, and Australia was
> no exception in 2005, it's just one of those cyclical things that now
> and then one of the nations strings a few defeats together. But that
> doesn't make them suddenly and mysteriously crap. (Australia's
> "greatest ever" era in the early years of this period is equally
> mythical. The same cycle strung them some wins together but that
> doesn't make them any more than competitive, which they have been all
> along).
This is juuuuust ridiculous.
Being "competitive" and winning is a bit different to "not really competitive"
and loosing. And that's the difference between the 2000 Wallabies and
the 2005 Wallabies.
If you can't see that give up.
>
> I asked the master of the grey area, Thommo Pavlov,
Happy to be Pavlov if you insist. I believe that makes you
Fido Rick. Feeling hungry Fido? Ding.
> to pick a winner
> for this year's tri nations so he could demonstrate his marvellous
> advance hindsight whch has so accurately forecast all world cup winners
> to date (after the event). He wisely declined to answer, knowing full
> well that the series will be too close to call,
Out comes a Goofy Information Minster interpretation.
> as ever, and doubtless
> fearing that his prediction would come back to haunt him in perpetuity
> should he get the toss of the three-sided coin wrong.
Yeah, yeah. The Americans have NOT taken the airport. They have been
repulsed and then CRUSHED and DESTROYED. And they're not within 100 miles
of Baghdad anyway. We know.
>
> There are some things you can probably predict:
>
> 1. New Zealand will be solid in the forwards, occasionally dominant in
> the loose, inconsistent in the backs but with the occasional brilliant
> try.
>
> 2. Australia will struggle in the forwards but be near enough to
> compete, be competitive in the loose, and solid in the backs with
> regular well constructed tries.
>
> 3. South Africa will be strong in the forwards, occasionally dominant
> in the loose, defend well in the backs (mostly by being constantly
> offside) but be pedestrian in attack apart from the occasional breakout
> by some coloured gentleman.
>
> But a winner? Who knows.
>
> New Zealand will probably have to shoulder the burden of favouritism
> and I'd be happy to give them the nod based on the best all around
> potential of the three teams, but they are too inconsistent to put
> anything but pocket money on. South Africa are quite capable of
> grinding out any number of wins and Australia have the back line
> firepower to win any match on the day.
>
> It's in the lap of the Gods, let's face it.
>
--
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: 2006 Tri Nations [message #1071747 ] |
Tue, 13 June 2006 09:07 |
|
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:12:54 -0700, rick boyd wrote:
> Of the 25 games between the tri nations teams since the last world cup,
> 17 (or 68 per cent) have been by less than the magic seven point
> margin. The three nations are usually thereabouts, and Australia was
> no exception in 2005, it's just one of those cyclical things that now
> and then one of the nations strings a few defeats together. But that
> doesn't make them suddenly and mysteriously crap.
Love the buffoon math. Step aside Deliverance boy and let someone who can
actually count assist you.
Since the last RWC, there have been two rounds of the 3N and two Mandela
Plate matches, for a total of fourteen games.
Of those 14, 8 have been decided within the 7 points that Boyd thinks is
so critical, 57%.
|
|
|
| Re: 2006 Tri Nations [message #1071748 ] |
Tue, 13 June 2006 09:31 |
|
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:43:31 +1000, Mike Thompson wrote:
> rick boyd wrote:
>> If anyone (including the All Blacks themselves) thinks that the 2006
>> tri nations will be a cakewalk (and the predictable fanboys are already
>> crowing in advance) they should think again.
>
> From members of this news group? Other than that idiot "oob" some time
> ago, I haven't seen much crowing WRT the Wallabies. Surely you don't
> count him?
Actually my prediction was that, in the time honoured tradition of
'Strayan sport, the Wallabies would find new ways to cheat now that
they've been found out in the scrums.
I predicted that 'Straya will continue to feign injuries to front row
players in order to gain uncontested scrums as they did at Twickenham in
November and nothing I've seen from the Wallabies so far this year has
convinced me that they'll do otherwise; The deficiencies are still there
in the scrum and the 'Strayan propensity for underhanded tactics is, as
always, present.
I also proposed an addition to the laws of the game, called the "Play the
game, Convict" rule, to punish sides that deliberately feign injury to
gain uncontested scrums. My pick is that there will be a lot of people in
world rugby calling for it by the end of the season in response to the
disrepute the Wallabies will bring to the game.
|
|
|
| Re: 2006 Tri Nations [message #1071760 ] |
Tue, 13 June 2006 10:37 |
|
Mike Thompson <I [at] dontthinkso> writes:
> rick boyd wrote:
>> I'm getting pissed off with all the moaning about Australia's
>> "horrific" year in 2005, and how they are really up against it to prove
>> themselves in the 2006 tri nations. Because it's a load of shit.
>> Yes, as far as results go, as far as the history books are concerned,
>> 2005 was a bad year for them.
>> But not as far as play is concerned. Just like most years since 1997,
>> the Wallabies were fully competitive in the tri nations, although they
>> had a few problems in the scrum area.
>> They lost to South Africa 22-19 and 22-16 -- within the 7 point
>> margin
>> on both occasions. They lost to New Zealand 34-24 and 30-13 but both
>> games were close until the final stages, and Australia played as big a
>> part, if not bigger, in their own demise as the opposition (thanks
>> Brendan Cannon and Matt Dunning -- we couldn't have done it without
>> you).
>
> You must be Eddie Jones' Mum. In assessing the 2005 Wallabies, why
> did you choose to completely ignore the most disastrous and inept
> Wallaby tour in living memory? Why did you choose to ignore published
> statistics which showed the Wallabies ranked as low as 10th in basic,
> critical areas of the game.
>
> You make that Goofy Iraqi Information Minster look like a poster boy
> for truth and balance.
Because then the ABs dont come out looking quite so wonderful as
Rick would like.
>
>
>> If anyone (including the All Blacks themselves) thinks that the 2006
>> tri nations will be a cakewalk (and the predictable fanboys are already
>> crowing in advance) they should think again.
>
> From members of this news group? Other than that idiot "oob" some time
> ago, I haven't seen much crowing WRT the Wallabies. Surely you don't
> count him?
>
Havent seen any Aussie fanyboyz at all. Rick is erecting strawmen in
order to set fire to them at a later date. There were, however, a good
few posters who reckoned Ireland were flattered by a piss poor AB
team. As frequently asked : has any team ever got close to or even
beaten a "good AB performance"?
|
|
|
| Re: 2006 Tri Nations [message #1071763 ] |
Tue, 13 June 2006 10:40 |
|
"Will_S" <spam [at] ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
> It doesnt matter if we lost by 5 or 50, we lost all the games so thats
> fucked and no matter what you say its "winning" that counts
>
Possibly you qualify for the RB "unbeaten" stamp of quality?
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fri Jan 9 19:15:27 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.25849 Sekunden |
