-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Official Rugby Thread
- Thread starter KennyD
- Start date
No, my friend (and only person from *** ******* I respect). What I have been doing is reading David Campese's autobiography On a Wing and a Prayer. Here are three quotes:
The opening line of the book... "In that short, abbreviated hour between the fading of the winter's afternoon sun and the onset of that bitter night cold which persuades me that I could never live in the British Isles..." (p. 11)
"I don't think I am being rude in saying that without rugby, there wouldn't be much going for *** *******..." (p. 102 - censor added by me)
"I left the room feeling hurt and humiliated. I did something I virtually never do, as I said much earlier: I went out and got drunk. Outside in the Dunedin night the rain was tricking down the windows and the wind was blowing. I was cold and horrible, which exactly reflected my mood. The drops of rain on the windows could have been tears in my soul." (p. 158)
When somebody writes your autobiography, YOU NEED TO PROOF READ IT!
----
As far as *** ******* is concerned, the rugby being played by Australia and South Africa is disgusting. They need to raise it up a level.
The opening line of the book... "In that short, abbreviated hour between the fading of the winter's afternoon sun and the onset of that bitter night cold which persuades me that I could never live in the British Isles..." (p. 11)
"I don't think I am being rude in saying that without rugby, there wouldn't be much going for *** *******..." (p. 102 - censor added by me)
"I left the room feeling hurt and humiliated. I did something I virtually never do, as I said much earlier: I went out and got drunk. Outside in the Dunedin night the rain was tricking down the windows and the wind was blowing. I was cold and horrible, which exactly reflected my mood. The drops of rain on the windows could have been tears in my soul." (p. 158)
When somebody writes your autobiography, YOU NEED TO PROOF READ IT!
----
As far as *** ******* is concerned, the rugby being played by Australia and South Africa is disgusting. They need to raise it up a level.
Zinzan, here's a question. Who are the five greatest rugby union nations of all time? We know that South Africa and *** ******* comprise the top two. But who comes after that? Who is 3, 4, 5?
It's hard. The Welsh have an amazing history. They had great sides in the 1950s and 1970s. But they haven't beaten *** ******* since then. Australia were a joke in the 1970s until Greg Cornelson scored four tries and started the Bledisloe rivalry. They really don't have the best rugby history before then. England are a weird one. They don't have the history that Wales has, but they have some success against SA and *** *******. France have beaten New Zealand on a couple of occasions - in '79 when Codroniou debuted, in '86 when Shelford had his scrotum ripped apart, twice in '94, in the World Cup in '99, in 2000 they won, in 2007 they won fair and square, and in 2009 they took a Test off *** *******. But they don't have a World Cup like England.
I think I'm going to go with...
3. England
4. Wales
5. Australia
It's hard. The Welsh have an amazing history. They had great sides in the 1950s and 1970s. But they haven't beaten *** ******* since then. Australia were a joke in the 1970s until Greg Cornelson scored four tries and started the Bledisloe rivalry. They really don't have the best rugby history before then. England are a weird one. They don't have the history that Wales has, but they have some success against SA and *** *******. France have beaten New Zealand on a couple of occasions - in '79 when Codroniou debuted, in '86 when Shelford had his scrotum ripped apart, twice in '94, in the World Cup in '99, in 2000 they won, in 2007 they won fair and square, and in 2009 they took a Test off *** *******. But they don't have a World Cup like England.
I think I'm going to go with...
3. England
4. Wales
5. Australia
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Without giving it too much thought, I'd have said
3. Australia
4. France
5. England
6. Wales
But that's probably more to do with how those teams have travelled against the ABs.
I know Wales were awesome in the 70s of course, but we're talking all-time right?
I'd need to look at the some stats on rugby's statsguru site before I lock them in stone.
Australia haven't travelled that well against *** ******* though. They went from 1949 to 1979 without winning the Bledisloe Cup. From 1979 onwards, or maybe since Cornelson onwards, they've been competition. But you couldn't they haven't even been that great competition since 2004. The golden era of Australian rugby, for me, is 1984-2004 - starting with the Grand Slam and terminating in 2004, when they were last ranked the World #1.
Wales haven't beaten *** ******* since the 1950s, but you have to factor into account that rugby tours were less frequent in those days. What if *** ******* played Wales regularly in the 50s and 70s?
England have at least beaten *** ****** a couple of times - in 2002 and a few years back I remember, and 1993, and 1973, etc.
Wales haven't beaten *** ******* since the 1950s, but you have to factor into account that rugby tours were less frequent in those days. What if *** ******* played Wales regularly in the 50s and 70s?
England have at least beaten *** ****** a couple of times - in 2002 and a few years back I remember, and 1993, and 1973, etc.
Niall
International Coach
Happy now?
Is it fair to say this NZ side looks as good as it was without Richie and erm Drug Cheater
?Absolute beatdown that.
The final score really doesn't disclose how well contested that Test was for the first 60 minutes.
I don't know what to think about that disallowed try that would have made the scores 15-15 with the conversion to come. Savea was never going to stop that try, and he was only a tiny bit obstructed. You're allowed to run shoulder-to-shoulder.
Australia continued to play well and then Foley missed that penalty almost right in front, and that was it, really.
The All Blacks killed the Wallabies on the counter-attack, and took all their chances.
I don't know what to think about that disallowed try that would have made the scores 15-15 with the conversion to come. Savea was never going to stop that try, and he was only a tiny bit obstructed. You're allowed to run shoulder-to-shoulder.
Australia continued to play well and then Foley missed that penalty almost right in front, and that was it, really.
The All Blacks killed the Wallabies on the counter-attack, and took all their chances.
As I think about it: We have that intercept attempt - if it came off the Wallabies would be up the other end under the posts. Then we have the kick that was charged down. Phipps threw a Sydney Harbour Bridge pass to a right-footer, that cuts down his angle. Then we have the disallowed try from an obstruction. Then we have Foley missing that easy penalty.
Really the Wallabies had their chances. 37-10 was not an accurate reflection of the closeness of that Test for the first 60 minutes.
I haven't followed much rugby this year, but the Wallabies eightman was excellent. Moore was back to running good angles and offloading. Kepu was good in the loose, although his scrummaging wasn't great.
In the backs I thought Foley took the ball up the line, straightened up, held the ball in his hands up until the end , and got over the gain line again and again.
Really the Wallabies had their chances. 37-10 was not an accurate reflection of the closeness of that Test for the first 60 minutes.
I haven't followed much rugby this year, but the Wallabies eightman was excellent. Moore was back to running good angles and offloading. Kepu was good in the loose, although his scrummaging wasn't great.
In the backs I thought Foley took the ball up the line, straightened up, held the ball in his hands up until the end , and got over the gain line again and again.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Australia played well in the first 60 mins and the ABs looked like they had unconsciously won before the game started and didn't respect the ball well enough.
No doubt that non-try decision was a bad one but like Cheika said, you can't really claim it was that crucial when the end margin is 27 points. Also, thought the AB's were a little stiff on one of their trys being disallowed due to a fwd pass. Possibly for marginally fwd, but when are those line-ball ones ever called.
Btw - Here's the Cheika/Moore press conference.
No doubt that non-try decision was a bad one but like Cheika said, you can't really claim it was that crucial when the end margin is 27 points. Also, thought the AB's were a little stiff on one of their trys being disallowed due to a fwd pass. Possibly for marginally fwd, but when are those line-ball ones ever called.
Btw - Here's the Cheika/Moore press conference.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Other than it being over, the best thing that can be said about the Wallabies' season is that we have blooded many new players and you'd hope that one or more might turn into stars of the future.
Reality is that we've been thrashed by the Abs, beaten easily by a developing England, lost away to the worst Springbok team in living memory, still dont seem to be any closer to finding our best combination and the game itself is being overrun by other codes in Australia with the ARU in complete denial
Really is a mess
Reality is that we've been thrashed by the Abs, beaten easily by a developing England, lost away to the worst Springbok team in living memory, still dont seem to be any closer to finding our best combination and the game itself is being overrun by other codes in Australia with the ARU in complete denial
Really is a mess
The better team won. But it was a crucial decision. There's a big difference between 17-15 and 10-15. A big reason the All Blacks pulled away in the last 20 minutes was that the shape of the Test turned once they made it 22-10. The Wallabies had to play differently.
But the Wallabies weren't good enough to make that intercept. They weren't good enough to prevent that kick being chased down. They weren't good enough to make that penalty. If they were good enough to do all those things, they might have had a lead greater than a converted try. But they simply weren't good enough.
That's got to be a pretty hard loss to take for the Australians, for all their territory and possession and 'go forward'. The Wallabies were very good as making it beyond the advantage line, holding the ball out in front, threatening to offload, etc.
I honestly think they can win the Grand Slam based off that performance... although England will be tough!
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I understand 17-15 would have made a slight difference at that time, (and I like how you assume he would have kicked that wide-ish conversion btw, given all kickers struggled on the night 
), but if you've watched the ABs in recent times, you'll know full-well the main thing that sets them apart from other sides is the last 20 minutes, as they have proved time and time again in recent years when games are tight going into the last quarter, so I don't think psychologically it would have been such a big deal if they were down 17-15 prior to half-time, but sure, the final score-line might have been closer.
Also, on the other side of the coin, the ABs did hand Australia several opportunities in that first half by not looking after the pill, and of course Barrett is proving such a poor goal kicker at this level, which also cost us 5-7 points at half-time.
I do think Australia have made some slight progress since the English tests at the beginning of the season, but not sure it will be enough to turn it around to beat England at Twickers. Should be interesting.
), but if you've watched the ABs in recent times, you'll know full-well the main thing that sets them apart from other sides is the last 20 minutes, as they have proved time and time again in recent years when games are tight going into the last quarter, so I don't think psychologically it would have been such a big deal if they were down 17-15 prior to half-time, but sure, the final score-line might have been closer.Also, on the other side of the coin, the ABs did hand Australia several opportunities in that first half by not looking after the pill, and of course Barrett is proving such a poor goal kicker at this level, which also cost us 5-7 points at half-time.
I do think Australia have made some slight progress since the English tests at the beginning of the season, but not sure it will be enough to turn it around to beat England at Twickers. Should be interesting.