| [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072410] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 15:33 |
|
The Wallabies were competent enough to take advantage of a breathtakingly
shithouse performance by the Boks.
Gitteau back at 12 made a BIG different. So did Fava at #8.
Very bizarre game all around though - I mean, Larkham kicks a 43m drop
goal? WTF? The Wallabies out maul and drive the Boks? All too bloody strange.
--
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072429 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 23:31 |
|
I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
"Mike Thompson" <I [at] dontthinkso> wrote in message
news:44b8eeb3$0$1209$afc38c87 [at] news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> The Wallabies were competent enough to take advantage of a breathtakingly
> shithouse performance by the Boks.
>
> Gitteau back at 12 made a BIG different. So did Fava at #8.
>
> Very bizarre game all around though - I mean, Larkham kicks a 43m drop
> goal? WTF? The Wallabies out maul and drive the Boks? All too bloody
strange.
>
> --
> Mike
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072431 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 23:32 |
|
"Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
>I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
>
Let me guess - a NZer?
Rj
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072434 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 23:43 |
|
"Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
>I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
According to Jake the ref won it for Australia
|
|
|
| Re: Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072436 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 00:15 |
|
dechucka wrote:
> "Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
> >I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
>
>
> According to Jake the ref won it for Australia
What for constantly penalising them when they were offside. Dump
trucks didn't learn the Honis was policing the rule. At the beginning
of the game SA were blantently offside and Aus started to also move
offside. When Hineous get out the whistle Aus moved back and SA did
not. Really only themselves to blame.
Well done Aus, a great win. If the scrum worked I'd almost compare it
to Athletic Park in 1996.
Stex
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072439 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 00:24 |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:31:50 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:
> I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
Fabulous!
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072440 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 00:56 |
|
"Mike Thompson" <I [at] dontthinkso> wrote in message
news:44b8eeb3$0$1209$afc38c87 [at] news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> The Wallabies were competent enough to take advantage of a breathtakingly
> shithouse performance by the Boks.
>
> Gitteau back at 12 made a BIG different. So did Fava at #8.
And Smith at 7 where he belongs. I can't understand how the second best
openside in the world got stuck at 6 and 8 for so long.
>
> Very bizarre game all around though - I mean, Larkham kicks a 43m drop
> goal? WTF? The Wallabies out maul and drive the Boks? All too bloody
> strange.
The Wallabies were never too bad at mauling, and their lineout is pretty
good, it is just the scrum that is totally abysmal.
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072445 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 01:57 |
|
"dechucka" <dechucka [at] vomithotmail.com.au> wrote in message
news:44b9619d$0$21699$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
>>I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
>
>
> According to Jake the ref won it for Australia
>
Shock horror .. a team that got owned blaming the ref.
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072447 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 02:02 |
|
Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> The Wallabies were competent enough to take advantage of a
> breathtakingly shithouse performance by the Boks.
>
> Gitteau back at 12 made a BIG different. So did Fava at #8.
It's the influence of the Western Force.
> Very bizarre game all around though - I mean, Larkham kicks a 43m drop
> goal? WTF? The Wallabies out maul and drive the Boks? All too bloody
> strange.
Personally I think the Bokke had food poisoning.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072448 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 02:02 |
|
DBDriver wrote:
> "Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
>
>>I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
>>
>
>
> Let me guess - a NZer?
Let me guess -- an Australian?
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072449 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 02:41 |
|
"rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
news:44b9821c$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> DBDriver wrote:
>> "Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>> message news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
>>
>>>I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Let me guess - a NZer?
>
> Let me guess -- an Australian?
>
> -- rick boyd
Only a NZ with a chip would make the OP's throw away line. The game wasn't
just a give up by SA. They left a channel inside the flyhalf that was
exploited well (2 tries) and were out muscled whenever it got near the wing.
The scrum was never going to match the SAs for size so they tried to match
it with cunning - and largely balanced that negative out.
Put this one down to Connelly and his crew. The old bugger took the NZ
encounter on board and worked around the problems. This is an old cunning
and largely successful coach. No fixed rigid match plan - try to give a
solid platform and let the so-called talent do the rest. His games often
appear scratchy and disorganised but this is the Connelly way from as far
back as I can remember of him. He has 12 months to tune this team and I'd
say he is already moved the ship around a quarter turn.
Rj.
|
|
|
| Re: Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072453 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 02:59 |
|
DBDriver wrote:
> "rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
> news:44b9821c$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> > DBDriver wrote:
> >> "Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in
> >> message news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
> >>
> >>>I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Let me guess - a NZer?
> >
> > Let me guess -- an Australian?
> >
> > -- rick boyd
>
> Only a NZ with a chip would make the OP's throw away line. The game wasn't
> just a give up by SA. They left a channel inside the flyhalf that was
> exploited well (2 tries) and were out muscled whenever it got near the wing.
> The scrum was never going to match the SAs for size so they tried to match
> it with cunning - and largely balanced that negative out.
>
> Put this one down to Connelly and his crew. The old bugger took the NZ
> encounter on board and worked around the problems. This is an old cunning
> and largely successful coach. No fixed rigid match plan - try to give a
> solid platform and let the so-called talent do the rest. His games often
> appear scratchy and disorganised but this is the Connelly way from as far
> back as I can remember of him. He has 12 months to tune this team and I'd
> say he is already moved the ship around a quarter turn.
>
> Rj.
All this in only a week.
Greg
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072460 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 03:56 |
|
"DBDriver" <DBDriver [at] iig3.com.au> wrote in message
news:44b98b1e$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> "rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
> news:44b9821c$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
>> DBDriver wrote:
>>> "Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>>> message news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
>>>
>>>>I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
>>>>
>>> Let me guess - a NZer?
>>
>> Let me guess -- an Australian?
>
> Only a NZ with a chip would make the OP's throw away line.
Or an Australian coach, last week.
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072462 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 04:48 |
|
DBDriver wrote:
> Only a NZ with a chip would make the OP's throw away line. The game wasn't
> just a give up by SA. They left a channel inside the flyhalf that was
> exploited well (2 tries) and were out muscled whenever it got near the wing.
> The scrum was never going to match the SAs for size so they tried to match
> it with cunning - and largely balanced that negative out.
>
> Put this one down to Connelly and his crew. The old bugger took the NZ
> encounter on board and worked around the problems. This is an old cunning
> and largely successful coach. No fixed rigid match plan - try to give a
> solid platform and let the so-called talent do the rest. His games often
> appear scratchy and disorganised but this is the Connelly way from as far
> back as I can remember of him. He has 12 months to tune this team and I'd
> say he is already moved the ship around a quarter turn.
Ah, you Aussies. You're nothing if not optimistic. You go from 40 points
down to 40 points up and the other teams don't get a look in, right?
It's all down to Australia playing badly or well.
This was probably the worst display by any Springbok team that I have
ever seen -- although admittedly I never saw the 50 point hiding in England.
And I'm not talking about the score -- that's an indication of the game
for lightweights only. At this level small differecnes can make for big
scores. If the Springboks play this badly against New Zealand, expect
something close to 100 points -- I thought the Australians let them off
very lightly and didn't play all that well themselves in general --
although better than they did against New Zealand.
Not that I expect the Bokke to play this badly next week, quite the
contrary. I think they will be very angry and bring a lot more focus
into their game. They probably expected an easy game after Australia
lost to New Zealand, and what with all their own internal troubles, just
missed the boat entirely.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072464 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 04:52 |
|
"rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
news:44b9a8f5 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> DBDriver wrote:
>
>
>> Only a NZ with a chip would make the OP's throw away line. The game
>> wasn't just a give up by SA. They left a channel inside the flyhalf that
>> was exploited well (2 tries) and were out muscled whenever it got near
>> the wing. The scrum was never going to match the SAs for size so they
>> tried to match it with cunning - and largely balanced that negative out.
>>
>> Put this one down to Connelly and his crew. The old bugger took the NZ
>> encounter on board and worked around the problems. This is an old cunning
>> and largely successful coach. No fixed rigid match plan - try to give a
>> solid platform and let the so-called talent do the rest. His games often
>> appear scratchy and disorganised but this is the Connelly way from as far
>> back as I can remember of him. He has 12 months to tune this team and I'd
>> say he is already moved the ship around a quarter turn.
>
> Ah, you Aussies. You're nothing if not optimistic. You go from 40 points
> down to 40 points up and the other teams don't get a look in, right? It's
> all down to Australia playing badly or well.
You fail maths at school Rick ?
Typical fucking Kiwi, would rather slash his own throat then praise anything
Australian
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072466 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 05:01 |
|
boyd [at] comswest.net.au says...
> It's all down to Australia playing badly or well.
Hello Mr Pot, my name's Kettle. Why'd you call me black?
Rick, if the All Blacks lose it is, according to you, only ever because
the AB's played poorly not that the other side may have been actually
better, they can only have been lucky.
GM
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072468 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 06:34 |
|
"Michael" <quadhammerNO [at] SPICEDHAM</a<a href="mailto:> [at] hotmail.com" target="_blank">> [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44b99cac$0$22364$afc38c87 [at] news.optusnet.com.au...
> "DBDriver" <DBDriver [at] iig3.com.au> wrote in message
> news:44b98b1e$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> > "rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:44b9821c$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> >> DBDriver wrote:
> >>> "Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in
> >>> message news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
> >>>
> >>>>I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
> >>>>
> >>> Let me guess - a NZer?
> >>
> >> Let me guess -- an Australian?
> >
> > Only a NZ with a chip would make the OP's throw away line.
>
> Or an Australian coach, last week.
>
>
I'm pleased someone picked up on it. I was starting to wonder if I was
amongst rugby followers.
On ya Michael.
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072470 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 06:57 |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:34:01 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:
>
> "Michael" <quadhammerNO [at] SPICEDHAM</a<a href="mailto:> [at] hotmail.com" target="_blank">> [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44b99cac$0$22364$afc38c87 [at] news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "DBDriver" <DBDriver [at] iig3.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:44b98b1e$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
>> > "rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
>> > news:44b9821c$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
>> >> DBDriver wrote:
>> >>> "Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>> >>> message news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
>> >>>
>> >>>>I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Let me guess - a NZer?
>> >>
>> >> Let me guess -- an Australian?
>> >
>> > Only a NZ with a chip would make the OP's throw away line.
>>
>> Or an Australian coach, last week.
>>
>>
>
> I'm pleased someone picked up on it. I was starting to wonder if I was
> amongst rugby followers.
> On ya Michael.
I thought everyone caught the reference. Okay it may have been too subtle
for the 'Strayamericans amongst us but that's a good thing. It's even
funnier when they don't realise that they're being piss taken.
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072471 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 06:57 |
|
Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> Hello Mr Pot, my name's Kettle. Why'd you call me black?
This week's award for the single most thrashed-to-death cliche in rsru
goes to Muldoon, G.
> Rick, if the All Blacks lose it is, according to you, only ever because
> the AB's played poorly not that the other side may have been actually
> better, they can only have been lucky.
Au contraire, my little rock wallaby.
Your parochial cultural conditioning is such that any objectivity is
perceived as anti-Australian bias.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072472 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 06:59 |
|
Will_S wrote:
> Typical fucking Kiwi, would rather slash his own throat then praise anything
> Australian
How the hell would we ever get a word in edgewise? You bloody skippies
are so busy praising yourselves you automatically throw everyone else
onto the opposing side of the debate just to gain some hint of objectivity.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072473 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 07:00 |
|
"rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
news:44b9a8f5 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> DBDriver wrote:
>
>
>> Only a NZ with a chip would make the OP's throw away line. The game
>> wasn't just a give up by SA. They left a channel inside the flyhalf that
>> was exploited well (2 tries) and were out muscled whenever it got near
>> the wing. The scrum was never going to match the SAs for size so they
>> tried to match it with cunning - and largely balanced that negative out.
>>
>> Put this one down to Connelly and his crew. The old bugger took the NZ
>> encounter on board and worked around the problems. This is an old cunning
>> and largely successful coach. No fixed rigid match plan - try to give a
>> solid platform and let the so-called talent do the rest. His games often
>> appear scratchy and disorganised but this is the Connelly way from as far
>> back as I can remember of him. He has 12 months to tune this team and I'd
>> say he is already moved the ship around a quarter turn.
>
> Ah, you Aussies. You're nothing if not optimistic. You go from 40 points
> down to 40 points up and the other teams don't get a look in, right? It's
> all down to Australia playing badly or well.
Well - now actually I didn't say that now did I! The OP denigrates the
performance as basically SA playing badly. You just dive right in with
support for an anti-Aus thread. Now read my reply - slowly. I said I thought
there were improvements made in response to the drubbing from the week
before. I thought it looked more like a coached influence. Nothing in there
at all about denigrating NZ's performance of the week before.
>
> This was probably the worst display by any Springbok team that I have ever
> seen -- although admittedly I never saw the 50 point hiding in England.
>
> And I'm not talking about the score -- that's an indication of the game
> for lightweights only. At this level small differecnes can make for big
> scores. If the Springboks play this badly against New Zealand, expect
> something close to 100 points -- I thought the Australians let them off
> very lightly and didn't play all that well themselves in general --
> although better than they did against New Zealand.
Indeed. As I had mentioned. And no doubt there will be more looks at the
finishing this week.
>
> Not that I expect the Bokke to play this badly next week, quite the
> contrary. I think they will be very angry and bring a lot more focus into
> their game. They probably expected an easy game after Australia lost to
> New Zealand, and what with all their own internal troubles, just missed
> the boat entirely.
>
> -- rick boyd
I seriously don't expect Aus to beat NZ next up. But it is clear there is a
promising trend developing to get us out of our hole of the last 2 years.
Rj.
|
|
|
| Re: Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072480 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 10:14 |
|
rick boyd wrote:
> Mike Thompson wrote:
> >
> > The Wallabies were competent enough to take advantage of a
> > breathtakingly shithouse performance by the Boks.
> >
> > Gitteau back at 12 made a BIG different. So did Fava at #8.
>
> It's the influence of the Western Force.
>
Fork, they've opened a Disneyland in Perth now too
Stex
|
|
|
| Re: Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072481 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 10:19 |
|
Will_S wrote:
> "rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
> news:44b9a8f5 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> > DBDriver wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Only a NZ with a chip would make the OP's throw away line. The game
> >> wasn't just a give up by SA. They left a channel inside the flyhalf that
> >> was exploited well (2 tries) and were out muscled whenever it got near
> >> the wing. The scrum was never going to match the SAs for size so they
> >> tried to match it with cunning - and largely balanced that negative out.
> >>
> >> Put this one down to Connelly and his crew. The old bugger took the NZ
> >> encounter on board and worked around the problems. This is an old cunning
> >> and largely successful coach. No fixed rigid match plan - try to give a
> >> solid platform and let the so-called talent do the rest. His games often
> >> appear scratchy and disorganised but this is the Connelly way from as far
> >> back as I can remember of him. He has 12 months to tune this team and I'd
> >> say he is already moved the ship around a quarter turn.
> >
> > Ah, you Aussies. You're nothing if not optimistic. You go from 40 points
> > down to 40 points up and the other teams don't get a look in, right? It's
> > all down to Australia playing badly or well.
>
>
> You fail maths at school Rick ?
>
> Typical fucking Kiwi, would rather slash his own throat then praise anything
> Australian
Ah, Will I'm a kiwi and I gave the convicts a lot of praise for their
win. On this front I think rick is wrong. Either that or he cannot
speak in such glowing terms of the Bled in 1996. Maybe its the
Australian influence but he looks a little two faced here
Stex
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072486 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 10:59 |
|
In article <44b9c742 [at] quokka.wn.com.au>, boyd [at] comswest.net.au says...
>
>
>Geoff Muldoon wrote:
>
>
>> Hello Mr Pot, my name's Kettle. Why'd you call me black?
>
>This week's award for the single most thrashed-to-death cliche in rsru
>goes to Muldoon, G.
>
>> Rick, if the All Blacks lose it is, according to you, only ever because
>> the AB's played poorly not that the other side may have been actually
>> better, they can only have been lucky.
>
>Au contraire, my little rock wallaby.
>
>My anti-Australian bias is part of my parochial cultural conditioning.
>
>-- rick boyd
Well said.
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072488 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 11:28 |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:57:33 +0800, rick boyd <boyd [at] comswest.net.au>
wrote:
>Geoff Muldoon wrote:
>
>
>> Hello Mr Pot, my name's Kettle. Why'd you call me black?
>
>This week's award for the single most thrashed-to-death cliche in rsru
>goes to Muldoon, G.
>
>> Rick, if the All Blacks lose it is, according to you, only ever because
>> the AB's played poorly not that the other side may have been actually
>> better, they can only have been lucky.
>
>Au contraire, my little rock wallaby.
>
>Your parochial cultural conditioning is such that any objectivity is
>perceived as anti-Australian bias.
>
>-- rick boyd
Careful, Boydo. That's getting awfully close to "paradigm" territory,
and you know what happened last time.
--
greig
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072489 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 12:03 |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:28:52 +1200, Greig Blanchett wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:57:33 +0800, rick boyd <boyd [at] comswest.net.au>
> wrote:
>
>>Geoff Muldoon wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello Mr Pot, my name's Kettle. Why'd you call me black?
>>
>>This week's award for the single most thrashed-to-death cliche in rsru
>>goes to Muldoon, G.
>>
>>> Rick, if the All Blacks lose it is, according to you, only ever because
>>> the AB's played poorly not that the other side may have been actually
>>> better, they can only have been lucky.
>>
>>Au contraire, my little rock wallaby.
>>
>>Your parochial cultural conditioning is such that any objectivity is
>>perceived as anti-Australian bias.
>>
>>-- rick boyd
>
> Careful, Boydo. That's getting awfully close to "paradigm" territory,
> and you know what happened last time.
The guy is a dyed-in-the-wool, drinking-the-Mitchell-cool-aid Western
Force supporter. He'll be telling us about "the journey" retreat for the
complete rugby hippie metaphysical experience by this time next year.
|
|
|
| Re: Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072494 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 13:23 |
|
Stex wrote:
> Ah, Will I'm a kiwi and I gave the convicts a lot of praise for their
> win. On this front I think rick is wrong. Either that or he cannot
> speak in such glowing terms of the Bled in 1996. Maybe its the
> Australian influence but he looks a little two faced here
Or maybe it's just another person's opinion, Freud.
Australia played much better yesterday, but as far as I could see, that
wasn't the deining factor in the outcome.
The absolute crap play of the Springboks was what really shaped the
game, and if the Aussies want to kid themselves that it was all down to
them, more fool them.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072495 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 13:25 |
|
DaveXXL wrote:
> In article <44b9c742 [at] quokka.wn.com.au>, boyd [at] comswest.net.au says...
>
>>
>>Geoff Muldoon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hello Mr Pot, my name's Kettle. Why'd you call me black?
>>
>>This week's award for the single most thrashed-to-death cliche in rsru
>>goes to Muldoon, G.
>>
>>
>>>Rick, if the All Blacks lose it is, according to you, only ever because
>>>the AB's played poorly not that the other side may have been actually
>>>better, they can only have been lucky.
>>
>>Au contraire, my little rock wallaby.
>>
>>My anti-Australian bias is part of my parochial cultural conditioning.
>>
>>-- rick boyd
>
>
> Well said.
>
Typo fixed?
Cutting edge stuff. In kindergarten.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072497 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 13:32 |
|
Greig Blanchett wrote:
> Careful, Boydo. That's getting awfully close to "paradigm" territory,
> and you know what happened last time.
It's all right, they wouldn't have a clue what I'm saying if I used a
pile of coloured blocks and the Sesame Street pre-school colouring-in book.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072498 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 13:34 |
|
oob wrote:
> The guy is a dyed-in-the-wool, drinking-the-Mitchell-cool-aid Western
> Force supporter. He'll be telling us about "the journey" retreat for the
> complete rugby hippie metaphysical experience by this time next year.
Resistance is useless. You WILL be assimilated.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072499 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 13:59 |
|
rick boyd wrote:
> Stex wrote:
>
>
>> Ah, Will I'm a kiwi and I gave the convicts a lot of praise for their
>> win. On this front I think rick is wrong. Either that or he cannot
>> speak in such glowing terms of the Bled in 1996. Maybe its the
>> Australian influence but he looks a little two faced here
>
>
> Or maybe it's just another person's opinion, Freud.
>
> Australia played much better yesterday, but as far as I could see, that
> wasn't the deining factor in the outcome.
>
> The absolute crap play of the Springboks was what really shaped the
> game, and if the Aussies want to kid themselves that it was all down to
> them, more fool them.
>
You're forever putting words into the mouths of Australians. Words which
outrage you.
You're just a bloody looney.
--
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072504 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 14:47 |
|
In article <44ba2218$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au>, boyd [at] comswest.net.au says...
>
>
>DaveXXL wrote:
>> In article <44b9c742 [at] quokka.wn.com.au>, boyd [at] comswest.net.au says...
>>
>>>
>>>Geoff Muldoon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello Mr Pot, my name's Kettle. Why'd you call me black?
>>>
>>>This week's award for the single most thrashed-to-death cliche in rsru
>>>goes to Muldoon, G.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rick, if the All Blacks lose it is, according to you, only ever because
>>>>the AB's played poorly not that the other side may have been actually
>>>>better, they can only have been lucky.
>>>
>>>Au contraire, my little rock wallaby.
>>>
>>>My anti-Australian bias is part of my parochial cultural conditioning.
>>>
>>>-- rick boyd
>>
>>
>> Well said.
>>
>
>Typo fixed?
>
>Cutting edge stuff. In kindergarten.
Granted it is probably so. That does nothing to diminish the point though.
|
|
|
| Re: Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072507 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 16:11 |
|
rick boyd wrote:
> Stex wrote:
>
>
> > Ah, Will I'm a kiwi and I gave the convicts a lot of praise for their
> > win. On this front I think rick is wrong. Either that or he cannot
> > speak in such glowing terms of the Bled in 1996. Maybe its the
> > Australian influence but he looks a little two faced here
>
> Or maybe it's just another person's opinion, Freud.
>
> Australia played much better yesterday, but as far as I could see, that
> wasn't the deining factor in the outcome.
>
> The absolute crap play of the Springboks was what really shaped the
> game, and if the Aussies want to kid themselves that it was all down to
> them, more fool them.
>
> -- rick boyd
So did the Convicts have a bad day in 1996 or was it a sublime AB
performance. Cant have it both ways (unless your name is matua)
Stex
|
|
|
| Re: Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072508 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 16:44 |
|
Stex wrote:
> So did the Convicts have a bad day in 1996 or was it a sublime AB
> performance. Cant have it both ways (unless your name is matua)
Can't have it both ways? Does that imply that no team can ever have a
good performance unless the other team has a bad performance?
You know that is silly, don't you?
You also know that when the All Blacks have a good day, they have the
resources that they rarely lose. There are a few exceptions, but not
many. By contrast, the Australians tend to have deeper troughs than New
Zealand, and can sometimes play to a reasonbale facsimile of their
ability without reaching any great heights.
1996 wasn't one of their best times, and in fact they didn't beat New
Zealand from 1995 until 1998. In the Wellington test they didn't play
particularly badly but that was in the context of game in which the All
Blacks had near total control.
It wasn't a bad Australian team, but not a great one either, with Payne
at half back, Scott Bowen at flyhalf and Joe Roff playing centre. They
didn't really have enough affect on the play to be called awful to the
extent the Boks were yesterday; in effect they were bystanders to a
great All Black performance.
So to answer your question, Australia played fairly average without
being awful, while the All Blacks excelled. The main component to the
result was the All Blacks performance, rather than the lack of
performance from the Wallabies.
Since this opinion does not praise Australia in any way, it is
inherently biased, I accept that.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072509 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 16:45 |
|
DaveXXL wrote:
>>Typo fixed?
>>
>>Cutting edge stuff. In kindergarten.
>
>
> Granted it is probably so. That does nothing to diminish the point though.
I cannot bring myself to disagree. Nothing from zero is still zero.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072510 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 17:03 |
|
In article <1153001711.522444.281210 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Stex" <stex2727 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> dechucka wrote:
> > "Sally The Dumptruck" <sallythedumptruck [at] paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:44b95e4e [at] clear.net.nz...
> > >I didn't think Australia won it. More so South Africa lost it.
> >
> >
> > According to Jake the ref won it for Australia
>
> What for constantly penalising them when they were offside. Dump
> trucks didn't learn the Honis was policing the rule. At the beginning
> of the game SA were blantently offside and Aus started to also move
> offside. When Hineous get out the whistle Aus moved back and SA did
> not. Really only themselves to blame.
>
> Well done Aus, a great win. If the scrum worked I'd almost compare it
> to Athletic Park in 1996.
>
> Stex
The one thing I would say was that Honiss seemed to lose the plot pretty
comprehensively at the scrums. Holmes was constantly boring in on the
Boks' tight heads, enough to destroy several scrums, and getting away
with it. It neutralized the only area of the game where the Boks had
something like parity.
January and van der Westhuizen had to be the worst looking half back
pairing to take the field in a top rank international side in years.
January as slow as molasses, and vdW incapable of catching, running,
passing, or kicking. Ouch!
William Clark
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072511 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 17:06 |
|
In article <4htnviF18llpU1 [at] individual.net>,
"Will_S" <spam [at] ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> "rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
> news:44b9a8f5 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> > DBDriver wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Only a NZ with a chip would make the OP's throw away line. The game
> >> wasn't just a give up by SA. They left a channel inside the flyhalf that
> >> was exploited well (2 tries) and were out muscled whenever it got near
> >> the wing. The scrum was never going to match the SAs for size so they
> >> tried to match it with cunning - and largely balanced that negative out.
> >>
> >> Put this one down to Connelly and his crew. The old bugger took the NZ
> >> encounter on board and worked around the problems. This is an old cunning
> >> and largely successful coach. No fixed rigid match plan - try to give a
> >> solid platform and let the so-called talent do the rest. His games often
> >> appear scratchy and disorganised but this is the Connelly way from as far
> >> back as I can remember of him. He has 12 months to tune this team and I'd
> >> say he is already moved the ship around a quarter turn.
> >
> > Ah, you Aussies. You're nothing if not optimistic. You go from 40 points
> > down to 40 points up and the other teams don't get a look in, right? It's
> > all down to Australia playing badly or well.
>
>
> You fail maths at school Rick ?
>
> Typical fucking Kiwi, would rather slash his own throat then praise anything
> Australian
Well, it didn't take long for this thread to degenerate into a spitting
match in the sandbox, did it?
Any more of it, and someone will have to take the ball away and send you
to bed with no tea.
William Clark
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072512 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 18:01 |
|
rick boyd <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> writes:
> DaveXXL wrote:
>
>>>Typo fixed?
>>>
>>>Cutting edge stuff. In kindergarten.
>> Granted it is probably so. That does nothing to diminish the point
>> though.
>
> I cannot bring myself to disagree. Nothing from zero is still zero.
>
Its not actually. You cant take "nothing" away from zero - therefore it
is undefined. I'm sure "fred" will explain it to you.
> -- rick boyd
--
|
|
|
| Re: [Spoiler] Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072519 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 00:46 |
|
Walter Mitty wrote:
> Its not actually. You cant take "nothing" away from zero - therefore it
> is undefined. I'm sure "fred" will explain it to you.
Yadda yadda yadda.
I can see why you're an expert on "nothing".
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: Boks vs Wallabies [message #1072520 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 00:48 |
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> The one thing I would say was that Honiss seemed to lose the plot pretty
> comprehensively at the scrums. Holmes was constantly boring in on the
> Boks' tight heads, enough to destroy several scrums, and getting away
> with it. It neutralized the only area of the game where the Boks had
> something like parity.
He was just about at right angles half the time. Bill Young lives again.
But we don't expect any better from Honiss.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
