Official Rugby Thread

[BoyBrumby]

Was there a game on then? Glad I didn't struggle up with a hangover to watch it or anything.

 

[Somerset]

LOL. I dare say your English side wasn't worth getting up for Brumby.

 

[BoyBrumby]

LOL. I dare say your English side wasn't worth getting up for Brumby.

Worse than last week. At least we were in that game for about 20 mins. Today was all about damage limitation. Mind you, Noon was brought in for his defensive qualities & the tackle he missed for your first try was positively Hodgsonesque.

 

[Somerset]

Yup your midfield was no better than last week. However, to be fair Tait bombed a certain try and the left winger (Vardan or a name similar) went within a frame of scoring when it was referred to the TMO so they presented a bit more on attack than at Auckland.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yup your midfield was no better than last week. However, to be fair Tait bombed a certain try and the left winger (Vardan or a name similar) went within a frame of scoring when it was referred to the TMO so they presented a bit more on attack than at Auckland.

Varndell. Clear knee in touch tho.

& I suppose you're right, but there was never any sense of us standing toe-to-toe with your blokes like we did (however briefly) last week. Today was always going to be damage limitation exercise that we try to take positives out of rather than a real test.

 

[Francis]

BoyBrumby Whoo! Voltman Whoo! I am pumped for this upcoming Test between Yama-boko-boko and the All Blacks!

South Africa v New Zealand is the greatest rivalry in rugby history. It is of course one that South Africa is ahead in, but since readmission I'd say the Blacks have bridged the gap somewhat.

And now we have the game where all the bragging rights are on the line. Could South Africa have won the World Cup if they played New Zealand? We don't know, but one thing's for sure, they wouldn't want to win the World Cup and then lose to New Zealand.

Are New Zealand still the best side in the world? Will their shakey line-out hold up. There's a new backrow trio with the best player of the 00s in Richie McCaw sitting out this one due to injury.

Whoo! I haven't been this excited over a game of rugby in a long time. SOUTH AFRICA V NEW ZEALAND! RUGBY'S GREATEST RIVALRY!

What a good thing to happen after the tragic news about rugby's greatest ever coach yesterday.

 

[Smudge]

South Africa v New Zealand is the greatest rivalry in rugby history. It is of course one that South Africa is ahead in, but since readmission I'd say the Blacks have bridged the gap somewhat.

Troll. Read some stats and get back to me.

 

[Francis]

Stats?

4 Grand Slams

2 World Cups

Only series losses at home during the 20th century in 1961 (vs France), 1974 (British and Irish Lions), New Zealand (1996 - took enough time)

Granted New Zealand are ahead in one on one battles vs South Africa, but South Africa win the big games. Plus its an unfair stat. Before their banning, South Africa were ahead in the one on one battle with New Zealand. What if the amount of rugby that's played today was played back in the amateur era? I think that would excentuate the number of wins South Africa would have over New Zealand, just as New Zealand's number of wins has been excentuated by playing in an era where (1) more games are played; and (2) they have been superior to SA for most of the past 15 years.

There's no drawn game in a Grand Slam tour with South Africans. They're big match performers. They don't rely on Andy Hayden taking a dive, and they just don't choke in world cups.

But you focused on a small portion of my post. Do you all share my enthusiasm for this upcoming game?

[edit]

I just wanted to make the point that if you feel New Zealand is the greater rugby nation than South Africa, then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, I feel I made some valid points and used some facts that indicate that's it's not unreasonable to deduct that South Africa - the grand rugby country that it is - might be in fact greater than New Zealand in terms of rugby accomplishments. That said, I don't appreciate being called a 'Troll' for expressing an opinion. But... to smooth things over, here is my combined all-time XV of New Zealanders and South Africans.

1. Chris Koch (South Africa)
2. Uli Schmidt (South Africa)
3. Ken Gray (New Zealand)
4. Colin Meads (New Zealand)
5. Frik "The Greatest Rugby Player Of All Time" du Preez (South Africa)
6. Hennie Muller (South Africa)
7. Michael Jones (New Zealand)
8. Zinzan Brooke (New Zealand)
9. Danie Craven (South Africa)
10. Daniel Carter (New Zealand)
11. Carel du Plessis (South Africa)
12. John Gainsford (South Africa)
13. Danie Gebrer (South Africa)
14. John Kirwan (New Zealand)
15. Christian Cullen (New Zealand)

subs: Sean Fitzpatrick (New Zealand), Boy Louw (South Africa), Johan Classen (South Africa), Jan Ellis (South Africa), Sid Going (New Zealand), Nass Botha (South Africa), George Nepia (New Zealand)

 

[ohtani's jacket]

France beat them in '58 (not '61) and they also lost to the Lions in '97. There were also more drawn series in South Africa than NZ in the 20th century

You can talk about Grand Slams all you like, but their record against the Lions is nowhere near as good as ours and they have an awful record against England. They've also lost to Ireland and Scotland. Their record against Wales is better than ours, since Wales had the edge on us up until '67, but their record against Australia is worse & their Tri-Nations record is abysmal.

Grand Slams have never really meant much in rugby history. They've never been as meaningfully organised as Lions tours.

The Test probably won't be as great as people are hoping, due to the weather and the ELVs, but whoever wins is gonna take it as a damn good Test victory.

 

[Smudge]

Stats?

4 Grand Slams

2 World Cups

Only series losses at home during the 20th century in 1961 (vs France), 1974 (British and Irish Lions), New Zealand (1996 - took enough time)

It was nice of South Africa to finally allow Maori and Pacific Islanders players into South Africa. Kinda evened up the playing field didn't it? Sure, NZ still had to deal with the crooked refs...

Granted New Zealand are ahead in one on one battles vs South Africa, but South Africa win the big games. Plus its an unfair stat. Before their banning, South Africa were ahead in the one on one battle with New Zealand. What if the amount of rugby that's played today was played back in the amateur era? I think that would excentuate the number of wins South Africa would have over New Zealand, just as New Zealand's number of wins has been excentuated by playing in an era where (1) more games are played; and (2) they have been superior to SA for most of the past 15 years.

How is it an unfair stat? Because NZ have been superior for the last 15 years? THe fact is there wasn't the same amount of rugby played back then - deal with it.

There's no drawn game in a Grand Slam tour with South Africans. They're big match performers. They don't rely on Andy Hayden taking a dive, and they just don't choke in world cups.

Nice try - the penalty in the Wales game had NOTHING to do with Andy Haden's dive. If you look at the video you will clearly see the referee Roger Quittendon pointing at Geoff Wheel, who is using Frank Oliver's shoulder as a springboard, which of course was illegal. That was a pretty rubbish AB team and they still managed the Grand Slam - not a bad effort really.

We didn't actually attempt any grandslams between our successful ones in 1978 and 2005 (although we managed a unique one at the World Cup in 1995). In 1967, I've no doubt they would have beaten Ireland but they were unable to go to Ireland due to foot and mouth disease; Scotland were still holding a grudge in 1924 after 1905 and wouldn't allow an utterly dominant Invincibles side to play at Murrayfield. There's two right there that we might have achieved, but ifs and buts are pointless - just like pontificating about more tests in the amateur era.

But you focused on a small portion of my post. Do you all share my enthusiasm for this upcoming game?

I'm sure you will be disappointed to hear I'm in the same city as the test, but I'm not going. I simply don't have enough money.

That said, I don't appreciate being called a 'Troll' for expressing an opinion.

Oh diddums.

But... to smooth things over, here is my combined all-time XV of New Zealanders and South Africans.

1. Chris Koch (South Africa)
2. Uli Schmidt (South Africa)
3. Ken Gray (New Zealand)
4. Colin Meads (New Zealand)
5. Frik "The Greatest Rugby Player Of All Time" du Preez (South Africa)
6. Hennie Muller (South Africa)
7. Michael Jones (New Zealand)
8. Zinzan Brooke (New Zealand)
9. Danie Craven (South Africa)
10. Daniel Carter (New Zealand)
11. Carel du Plessis (South Africa)
12. John Gainsford (South Africa)
13. Danie Gebrer (South Africa)
14. John Kirwan (New Zealand)
15. Christian Cullen (New Zealand)

subs: Sean Fitzpatrick (New Zealand), Boy Louw (South Africa), Johan Classen (South Africa), Jan Ellis (South Africa), Sid Going (New Zealand), Nass Botha (South Africa), George Nepia (New Zealand)

How can you have Nepia in there when he was never given the chance to play South Africa in South Africa? Ironic as it comes, I reckon.

 

[Francis]

Sure, NZ still had to deal with the crooked refs...

You might find a few South Africans have a few things to say about the 1956 series and how the scrums were refereed. You may also find that the 1981 series would have been drawn if not for a penalty being given (which Hewson kicked) that shouldn't have been given.

Isn't it interesting that France didn't seem to have the same problem with refs in South Africa? Neither did Australia when they won two games in a row in SA...

How is it an unfair stat?

It's an unfair stat because South Africa were the dominant side in an era where less games were played. You can easily argue South Africa would be ahead on that scoresheet if more rugby was played.

Nice try - the penalty in the Wales game had NOTHING to do with Andy Haden's dive. If you look at the video you will clearly see the referee Roger Quittendon pointing at Geoff Wheel, who is using Frank Oliver's shoulder as a springboard, which of course was illegal.

You keep telling yourself that.

That was a pretty rubbish AB team and they still managed the Grand Slam - not a bad effort really.

Erm didn't that side have Graeme Mourie, Cowboy Shaw, Murray Mexted and Dave Loveridge? What about Stu Wilson?

(although we managed a unique one at the World Cup in 1995).

That doesn't count because you didn't beat them at home.

In 1967, I've no doubt they would have beaten Ireland but they were unable to go to Ireland due to foot and mouth disease;

It's quite a common New Zealand excuse. In 1980 Stu Wilson claimed the team suffered from food poisoning before the deciding Bledisloe Cup Test. In 1995 the All Blacks claimed they were deliberately poisoned before the final as well. I'm sure they were, but these conspiracy theories that these events occur deliberately by people trying to prevent New Zealand from winning are lame. Tim Horan had food poisoning in 1999 and then he played the game of his life. Horan - not looking to make excuses!

Lets not forget how well New Zealand did when they needed to beat Ireland in the 70s for the Grand Slam!

Don't forget Scotland were a GUN team around 1924, renowned for their attacking genius. They were the masters of running rugby and oh... they happened to win a grand slam in 1925... so it's hardly cut and dried that they'd beat Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(rugby_union)

There's two right there that we might have achieved, but ifs and buts are pointless - just like pontificating about more tests in the amateur era.

That's true, it's ifs and buts and you can't prove New Zealand would have won any of those Grand Slams. THe fact is South Africa won 4 Grand Slams back in the day - deal with it.

I'm sure you will be disappointed to hear I'm in the same city as the test, but I'm not going. I simply don't have enough money.

So you are interested in the game, you simply can't go.

Oh diddums.

Troll

How can you have Nepia in there when he was never given the chance to play South Africa in South Africa?

Because I didn't want to offend you by picking a superior South African fullback like Gerry Brand, HO de Villiers, Andre Joubert, Johan Heunis, Gysie Pienaar etc. Another reason I think the Boks are superior. They have a factory line of legendary fullbacks which flog the likes of Nepia, Clarke, Scott, Cullen etc.

 

[Smudge]

You may also find that the 1981 series would have been drawn if not for a penalty being given (which Hewson kicked) that shouldn't have been given.

That match was refereed by the world's leading ref at the time, Clive Norling of Wales. How that corresponds to my point about crooked refs (of South African origin in the days before neutral refs) is beyond me.

Isn't it interesting that France didn't seem to have the same problem with refs in South Africa? Neither did Australia when they won two games in a row in SA...

NZ is the old enemy - Craven hated losing to NZ - you work it out from there.

You keep telling yourself that.

Watch the video. It's obvious, is backed up by Quittendon's actions ie. his pointing, and is backed up by him after the game too.

Erm didn't that side have Graeme Mourie, Cowboy Shaw, Murray Mexted and Dave Loveridge? What about Stu Wilson?

It also had Bill Bush, Leicester Rutledge, Clive Currie, Gary Seear, Doug Bruce and Brad Johnstone.

That doesn't count because you didn't beat them at home.

I know. Still, not a bad effort the margins we put on them.

It's quite a common New Zealand excuse. In 1980 Stu Wilson claimed the team suffered from food poisoning before the deciding Bledisloe Cup Test. In 1995 the All Blacks claimed they were deliberately poisoned before the final as well. I'm sure they were, but these conspiracy theories that these events occur deliberately by people trying to prevent New Zealand from winning are lame. Tim Horan had food poisoning in 1999 and then he played the game of his life. Horan - not looking to make excuses!

How on earth is a clearly recognised outbreak of foot and mouth in Britain in 1967 - an epidemic no less - an excuse equitable to the All Blacks' claim of food poisoning in 1995? The clear facts is NZ could not travel to Ireland in 1967 because of the restrictions in place - they comfortably took care of England (23-11), Wales (13-6) and Scotland (14-3).

Lets not forget how well New Zealand did when they needed to beat Ireland in the 70s for the Grand Slam!

So they could only manage a draw - at least we still haven't lost to them...

Don't forget Scotland were a GUN team around 1924, renowned for their attacking genius. They were the masters of running rugby and oh... they happened to win a grand slam in 1925... so it's hardly cut and dried that they'd beat Scotland.

Now you're just indulging in guesswork.

So you are interested in the game, you simply can't go.

Yes.

Troll

GAGFC

Because I didn't want to offend you by picking a superior South African fullback like Gerry Brand, HO de Villiers, Andre Joubert, Johan Heunis, Gysie Pienaar etc. Another reason I think the Boks are superior. They have a factory line of legendary fullbacks which flog the likes of Nepia, Clarke, Scott, Cullen etc.

Why am I bothering with you when you genuinely believe Nepia and Cullen are "flogged" by their South African equivalents?

 

[Francis]

That match was refereed by the world's leading ref at the time, Clive Norling of Wales. How that corresponds to my point about crooked refs (of South African origin in the days before neutral refs) is beyond me.

Clive Norling was a terrible referee – rugby’s version of Darrel Hair. He was the type of referee who liked to occupy centre stage. Here’s something quoted from Michael Lynagh’s autobiography, Lynagh is talking about the 2nd Test between France and Australia in 1990:

“Welsh referee Clive Norling had given only thirteen penalties, ensuring the continuity needed by sides with the attacking flair of France and Australia. A close study of the video replay shows that Norling made at least six major mistakes, five of which led to points being scored. Nevertheless he was hailed as a hero for his willingness to let the players be the stars.
Norling, though, is quite an eccentric and by no means looks a streamlined sportsman. A tall man with thin white legs, which holds up a belly of ample proportions, he pranced around the field at Ballymore looking like a proud rooster than an international rugby referee. His concentration technique included giving himself a running commentary on how each try was scored. That was all very well for him, but somewhat disconcerting for the goalkickers. As Lynagh lined up for goal, there was Norling nattering away in the background. ‘Great swerve by Campese. Good advantage played there, boyo.’
Norling awarded a penalty try after French forward Oliver Roumat dived into an Australian scrum that justified the decision to himself as Lynagh prepared to kick for goal. ‘I have no doubt it was a professional foul. It was the right decision,’ muttered Norling. Down on one knee, lining up the shot, Lynagh turned to the gregarious Welshman. ‘And a pretty amateur professional foul it was too.’ Behind the goal line, the French must have guessed at a conspiracy as the referee and the Wallaby sharpshooters enjoyed a laugh.” – “Noddy” The Authorised Biography of Michael Lynagh (p. 196-97)

In fact Norling was a referee who quite enjoyed giving penalty tries away. Here’s something from Simon Poidevin’s book. Poidevin is talking about a match between Australia and Argentina from 1983:

“A remarkable aspect of this Test was the penalty try awarded to Australia by that showman among showmen, Clive Norling. Twenty-two metres from Argentina’s line, Mark Ella was passing the ball to me when it was knocked down by their breakaway Tomas Petersen. The next instant the Welsh referee was running from the spot across to the goalposts. I looked at Mark. He looked at me. Neither of us knew what was happening, but Norling had ruled that by intentionally knocking the ball forward Petersen had prevented me from scoring a try. Suddenly we realised what had happened. A penalty try! Awarded 22 metres out! Unbelievable! The Pumas went crazy. There has been much written and much analysis done about that try in such unusual circumstances. The ruling may have been technically correct, but it was a real showman’s effort by Norling and we didn’t really deserve it.” – Simon Poidevin ‘For Love Not Money’ (p. 74)

So basically Norling was a referee who liked to occupy centre stage and create some controversy. He did that in the deciding game between New Zealand and South Africa… and du Plessis never forgave him for that! I’m not saying New Zealand hired a crooked ref or anything… just that South Africa have taken the brunt of some bad decisions against New Zealand.

If you want a great leading ref from that era, you want Derek Bevan! Louis Luyte thought highly of him!

NZ is the old enemy - Craven hated losing to NZ - you work it out from there.

That's an incredibly weak argument and you know it. I can just imagine Danie Craven walking into the room and saying, "OK listen fellas, we're not playing New Zealand today. I hate losing to New Zealand more than anybody, so keep in mind I wont be bothered if you lose to France or Australia. No I don't mind if we lose, so long as it's not to New Zealand." Terrible argument Voltman.

It also had Bill Bush, Leicester Rutledge, Clive Currie, Gary Seear, Doug Bruce and Brad Johnstone.

You're underestimating how great Mourie was. You couldn't beat New Zealand in those days unless you separated the back-row trio of Shaw-Mourie-Mexted from Loveridge. Brilliant tactician that Mourie. Andy Hayden was also the best line-out exponent of that era as well. Stu Wilson reigned as the best winger in the world in those days. That's six classy players.

I know. Still, not a bad effort the margins we put on them.

And then you lost to South Africa in the final, which goes back to what I was saying about South Africa winning the matches that count, and being better in world cups. New Zealand could do all that, but they couldn't beat number #1.

Now you're just indulging in guesswork.

No, I'm saying Scotland had a great team in 1924 and that we CAN'T GUESS who would have won between New Zealand and Scotland. You, however, are indulging in guesswork by saying you think the Invincibles would have beaten Scotland.

GAGFC

That's just rude! I haven't insulted you! All I've done is express an opinion, but you don't seem to want to accept that somebody has a different opinion to you.

Why am I bothering with you when you genuinely believe Nepia and Cullen are "flogged" by their South African equivalents?

No, I said that I think South Africa's legacy of fullback greats outweighs (or "flogs" if you will) New Zealand's lineage of fullback greats. All the fullbacks I mentioned from both countries were seldom bettered throughout their careers.

 

[Somerset]

Anyway, getting back to tonight's game..

Weather looks very poor in Wellington from the coverage on the news, so hardly expecting a free-flowing match. Credit to the fans that actually decide to attend!

Will be particularly interesting to see how the AB loose trio cope against the South African loose forwards with McCaw absent. With conditions as they are, that aspect, and the tight forward pack will be crucial to winning the game IMO.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Couple of questions:

a) are you allowed to pull an opponent down by his shirt? Thought you had to have a clean grip around him?
b) is this ref rubbish?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Couple of questions:

a) are you allowed to pull an opponent down by his shirt? Thought you had to have a clean grip around him?
b) is this ref rubbish?

a) - Yes, provided your grip is below shoulder level
b) - No (IMHO), the players are trying to take too many liberties

 

[Magrat Garlick]

a) - Yes, provided your grip is below shoulder level
b) - No (IMHO), the players are trying to take too many liberties

Ta.

Doesn't look like SA can make any legal tackles tbh.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Dickinson showed a slight lack of testes going upstairs for that try; I'm all for checking with the TMO if there's any conceivable doubt, but really, what was the possible issue with that?

Nice work from de Villiers tho & Habana's always the favourite from there.

 

[chalky]

When did booing the goal kicker become the norm?

 

[chalky]

Couple of questions:

a) are you allowed to pull an opponent down by his shirt? Thought you had to have a clean grip around him?
b) is this ref rubbish?

Think these new rules are bit rubbish TBH