Are there any NH players better than SH?

[Bullitt]

One game doesn't make or break player. You can't base your opinion of a player soley on one game, whether it be a positive result or a negative result. You can only judge a player based on a string of performances. [/b]

Explain to me Ronan O'Gara then please; He'll have a string of good games when they don't matter, but put him under the spotlight when it counts and he crumbles like a house of cards near a Parkinsons victim.

Being able to perform when the pressure is really on seperates an above average player and a truely great player.

 

[Prestwick]

Insert mindlessly opinionated drivel here. [/b]

Yup, not arrogant at all huh? Do you gentlemen ever learn?

Seriously, this is an absolutely pointless discussion. Not even two compelling defeats will change your minds over this. You will still insist that any SH player will conquer all and you will still insist that anyone contradicting that statement either doesn't know their rugby or is frankly mad.

Enjoy your little world. I'll be off to watch the Worlds best XV play the Springboks along with the rest of the rational folk in the rest of the world outside of Australasia.

 

[shazbooger]

One game doesn't make or break player. You can't base your opinion of a player soley on one game, whether it be a positive result or a negative result. [/b]

No no no no. Sorry I wasnt saying that all NZ players are shite all of a sudden. I'm just saying that we can all fall victim to the hype around certain teams (Ireland are a more extreme example). Players become rated by association. In other words, because they play for NZ they must be the best, I dissagree with that assumption.



Before you all freak out. I'm not trying to get at you, its just my opinion. I actually sympathise with you over the defeat. I havent a clue how much it hurts, but considering the nightmare month I've had watching the Irish implode, I assume its that kind of pain multiplied by 20.

Being able to perform when the pressure is really on seperates an above average player and a truely great player. [/b]

It would be foolish to ignore this.

 

[fcukernaut]

Seriously, this is an absolutely pointless discussion. Not even two compelling defeats will change your minds over this. You will still insist that any SH player will conquer all and you will still insist that anyone contradicting that statement either doesn't know their rugby or is frankly mad[/b]

Two compelling defeats? Let's start with the France/NZ game. NZ dominated every single facet of play. The All Blacks forward pack demolished the French. They beat them up and down the park, at srum time and won 5 balls against the throw. The AB's had 66% possession, 77% territory and forced France to make over 130 more tackles then them. Nine times out of ten a team plays with that kind of ball and territory they get handily beat down. That's why it's so shocking that they lost and why the NZ public is so up in arms about a 1m forward pass. (On a side note, I find it interesting that Wayne Barnes is not refereeing another game this tournament. Coincidence? I think not). As I have said previously, the players for the All Blacks who were considered the best showed up and played well.



As for England I'm not convinced that after 3 years of horrible rugby, including 4 poor test matches this tournament and thrashed 36-0 by SA, that they are suddenly a spectacular team. What I saw on Saturday was a mamoth effort by the forward pack and a performance from one of the best first-fives to ever walk the earth. I have long since thought that this was not one of the Wallaby teams for the ages, certainly not up to any recent vintage as of '99 or '03. England played exceptionally well, but I can't ignore the fact that these players have played so poorly both recently and long term. Are these not the same players that two/three weeks ago you were cutting a new asshole and are now kissing up to?

 

[melon]

Seriously, this is an absolutely pointless discussion. Not even two compelling defeats will change your minds over this. You will still insist that any SH player will conquer all and you will still insist that anyone contradicting that statement either doesn't know their rugby or is frankly mad[/b]

Two compelling defeats? Let's start with the France/NZ game. NZ dominated every single facet of play. The All Blacks forward pack demolished the French. They beat them up and down the park, at srum time and won 5 balls against the throw. The AB's had 66% possession, 77% territory and forced France to make over 130 more tackles then them. Nine times out of ten a team plays with that kind of ball and territory they get handily beat down. That's why it's so shocking that they lost and why the NZ public is so up in arms about a 1m forward pass. (On a side note, I find it interesting that Wayne Barnes is not refereeing another game this tournament. Coincidence? I think not). As I have said previously, the players for the All Blacks who were considered the best showed up and played well.



As for England I'm not convinced that after 3 years of horrible rugby, including 4 poor test matches this tournament and thrashed 36-0 by SA, that they are suddenly a spectacular team. What I saw on Saturday was a mamoth effort by the forward pack and a performance from one of the best first-fives to ever walk the earth. I have long since thought that this was not one of the Wallaby teams for the ages, certainly not up to any recent vintage as of '99 or '03. England played exceptionally well, but I can't ignore the fact that these players have played so poorly both recently and long term. Are these not the same players that two/three weeks ago you were cutting a new asshole and are now kissing up to?

[/b]

Exactly! England have been sub-standard for far too long and as soon as they pull off one great performance (which I wholeheartedly applaud and its certainly deserved), the overwhelming happiness experienced by English rugby followers has driven those same people to spiral in to a state of delusion.

 

[KZNSharksFan]

Yeah, in my suggestions, I wasn't saying these guys are the best in the world. You'd have to be seriously arrogant if you think that to be the best of the world you'd have to be better than the elite in the Southern Hemisphere...

...especially when it comes to forwards.

But yeah, I don't really agree with people pushing Vickery, especially when chaps like Matt Stevens are far better.

[/b]

Matt Stevens Is Actually south african

 

[KZNSharksFan]

Nah, the big games are what matter. That's when the "string of perfomances" gets distilled in to a moment of glory.

I'd say the one guy left with the biggest reputation on the line is Schalk Burger - and he was a leel beet shakey at #8 against Fiji.


[/b]

Burger was being tried at no 8 experimentally. No player can adopt the subtle nuances of the 8th man position overnight, he is still one of the worlds premiere flankers.

The All Blacks didnt convert their statistical superiority into points because they abandoned what has given them their most success over the past 3 years: The pod's system whereby the forward pack is split into 2 groups which hit the line independently and have support en-tow from the three other forwards in the "pod". After watching the game again, this becomes clear as one can observe players trying to break the french line by themselves with insufficient support.

Seems like idiocy doesnt it?

 

[scuubasteve]

Madness!

 

[KZNSharksFan]

As for England I'm not convinced that after 3 years of horrible rugby, including 4 poor test matches this tournament and thrashed 36-0 by SA, that they are suddenly a spectacular team. What I saw on Saturday was a mamoth effort by the forward pack and a performance from one of the best first-fives to ever walk the earth. I have long since thought that this was not one of the Wallaby teams for the ages, certainly not up to any recent vintage as of '99 or '03. England played exceptionally well, but I can't ignore the fact that these players have played so poorly both recently and long term. Are these not the same players that two/three weeks ago you were cutting a new asshole and are now kissing up to?
[/b]

Excellent point, really hit it on the head mate.

One cannot sanely say that the NH is now on a firm road to world dominance after 2 shock wins. Two unexpected defeats just simply aren't grounds for such sweeping statements. I think every one in this forum will accept that 4/5 of the time, quarter finals between France and the AB's would be won by the NZers( on recent form)
I'm not trying to detract from the French performance, it was truly outstanding and I have much respect for the French.

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotemain'>
Yeah, in my suggestions, I wasn't saying these guys are the best in the world. You'd have to be seriously arrogant if you think that to be the best of the world you'd have to be better than the elite in the Southern Hemisphere...

...especially when it comes to forwards.

But yeah, I don't really agree with people pushing Vickery, especially when chaps like Matt Stevens are far better.

[/b]

Matt Stevens Is Actually south african [/b][/quote]

Was South African. The UK is a fully multicultural nation and so we welcome the huddled masses from anywhere to excel under one roof.

Matt Stevens is British through and through. Same as Kevin Pietersen. You can't dump a man in the crap and then wail and whinge when he comes good elsewhere.

And I don't think anyone is saying what fcukernaught or KZNSharksFan are suggesting are saying, i.e. "the Northern Hemisphere is now the dominant force in World Rugby."

I mean, how difficult can it be to understand the concept of "this is a totally pointless conversation with no correct or incorrect answer to the stupid question posed in the ***le"? Nobody hit anything on the head mate because this is a completely stupid and pointless conversation. One of those conversations which just confuses fans from the non traditional nations like Portugal and Argentina and Japan who just look on in horror while people from the Home Nations and the SH's big three unzip and whack their c*cks on the table to see whose is bigger!

Rubbish, pointless and pathetic? You bet mate!

Seriously? How hard is it to comprehend that statement? Because there are allot of you who refuse to understand such words and continue to do so.

I am in a good mind just to close this thread because circles and roundabouts just doesn't do it justice. Seriously, can we just agree that a world class rugby player can be born and developed anywhere and that nobody really gives a toss about where they come from so long as they dazzle the crowds with entertaining rugby? Please?

EDIT: In fact, sod it. I'm taking the ball kids, now go away and let my migraine subside. Complaints on the back of a stamp addressed envelope to the address of Blue Peter please.