[EOYT] Ireland vs New Zealand 24/11/13

[neiliog93]

In this particular instance I don't see how an informed, reasonable, objective viewer could say NZ were the better team overall, no. That doesn't mean that I'm against "free thought". Who do you think you are, Voltaire? It just means you lack one of those three things things, or you're being deliberately dishonest or a troll. As Hansen said, often the better team doesn't win the match.

AB's showed great composure to take their chance at the end but as McCaw said, "they were barely in the game". Yes, they were better in the second half, especially the last 20 minutes, but nowhere near as dominant as Ireland in the first half, especially physically.

As for your suggestion that McCaw was insincere in the post-match interview, I disagree completely. He's brutally honest when opposition teams play poorly and does not give credit when they play well, unless they truly were brilliant (he gave no credit to Ireland after the 22-19 loss last year, for example).

 

[William18]

In this particular instance I don't see how an informed, reasonable, objective viewer could say NZ were the better team overall, no. That doesn't mean that I'm against "free thought". Who do you think you are, Voltaire? It just means you lack one of those three things things, or you're being deliberately dishonest or a troll. As Hansen said, often the better team doesn't win the match.

AB's showed great composure to take their chance at the end but as McCaw said, "they were barely in the game". Yes, they were better in the second half, especially the last 20 minutes, but nowhere near as dominant as Ireland in the first half, especially physically.

As for your suggestion that McCaw was insincere in the post-match interview, I disagree completely. He's brutally honest when opposition teams play poorly and does not give credit when they play well, unless they truly were brilliant (he gave no credit to Ireland after the 22-19 loss last year, for example).

Tell me then if Ireland were so dominant in the first 60 minutes why they could only score 3 points from the 17th minute mark to the 60th minute mark? Either they were not dominant in that time or they had poor finishing. If the All Blacks were barely in the game as you say for all that time then Ireland should have put 30 or 40 points on us. As it stood we defended well, Ireland could not score significantly in their so called period of dominance and we ended up winning many statistical categories.

You still don't see that I can see something differently from you without being objectively wrong. Note - I have not said that you are wrong. All I have said that under my definition of "deserving" which I apply fairly and consistently across all sports Ireland did not deserve to win. I don't see how I am nonobjective when I apply it to all teams I support such as Manchester United, the Wellington Phoenix and even the All Blacks in past games. I also don't see why my definition of deserving does not make sense. Why do you deserve to win a game if you can't score more points than your opposition? Dominating your opponents physically is merely a means to an end. There's no point dominating physically if it doesn't help you score points and win. The goal of the game is to score points and the All Blacks did that better than Ireland. I would be willing to accept that Ireland had more of the running of the game but that doesn't translate into deserving unless you actually use your opportunities.

 

[FlukeArtist]

^
^
^
Well said William18.
I'm still very interested to hear Heineken's alternative view of "deserving to win"

 

[smartcooky]

Tell me then if Ireland were so dominant in the first 60 minutes why they could only score 3 points from the 17th minute mark to the 60th minute mark? Either they were not dominant in that time or they had poor finishing. If the All Blacks were barely in the game as you say for all that time then Ireland should have put 30 or 40 points on us. As it stood we defended well, Ireland could not score significantly in their so called period of dominance and we ended up winning many statistical categories.

We often hear the expression, "it was a game of two halves", but in this game, I think it would be fairer to say it was a game of three thirds.

1st Third, minute 0 to 27 - Clearly Ireland. They were all over the All Blacks, beating them up at the breakdown, and playing with skill, passion and fire. Ireland won 19-7 in this third.

2nd Third, minutes 28 to 54 - The All Blacks managed to stem the tide, and begin to gain a bit of the upper hand. Honours even at 3-3 in this third. (there was an interesting approach from Shag at half-time which I'll describe later).

3rd Third, minutes 55 - 81 - Clearly the All Blacks. Their superior fitness increasingly had an effect, as well as the higher quality of their substitutes (interestingly, Aaron Smith played the whole 80. I can't remember that last time an All Black scrum half did that). All Blacks won this third 14-0

[TEXTAREA]Steve Hansen resisted urge to fly off the handle

Steve Hansen had a decision to make at halftime of this defining test, with his All Blacks in a 15-point hole and getting played off the park by a passionate and committed Irish side.

He could light the fuse and explode on a team getting beaten to the punch in all facets of the game. Or he could keep it cool and calm and trust that his men had the big-match experience to fall back on as they mounted a comeback.

"The main message was: we've got to have faith that we can do this," Hansen said of his halftime spiel.
"They've scored 22 points so I just said we can't allow them to score any more and we've got to score 23 if we want to win the game. I said we're more than capable of doing that as long as we trust each other and ourselves to do the job we had to do.
"It was pretty calm, and there wasn't a lot of finger-pointing from anybody. The whole group were nice and calm and we knew we had to stay connected to get the job done."[/TEXTAREA]

Those sorts of moments define you as a coach. A lesser coach might have read them the riot act.

Full article

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/9438771/Hansen-resisted-urge-to-fly-off-the-handle

 

[donmcdazzle]

In this particular instance I don't see how an informed, reasonable, objective viewer could say NZ were the better team overall, no. That doesn't mean that I'm against "free thought". Who do you think you are, Voltaire? It just means you lack one of those three things things, or you're being deliberately dishonest or a troll. As Hansen said, often the better team doesn't win the match.

AB's showed great composure to take their chance at the end but as McCaw said, "they were barely in the game". Yes, they were better in the second half, especially the last 20 minutes, but nowhere near as dominant as Ireland in the first half, especially physically.

As for your suggestion that McCaw was insincere in the post-match interview, I disagree completely. He's brutally honest when opposition teams play poorly and does not give credit when they play well, unless they truly were brilliant (he gave no credit to Ireland after the 22-19 loss last year, for example).

William18 has provided a very good reply. I'll just add in something I mentioned before. I think it is being overblown how well Ireland played in the first half, and I think that is because of expectations. Everybody expected Ireland to get battered (following a poor performance against Oz). However they came out and played very well and were the better side, which is almost the polar opposite of what was expected. Were they light years ahead of the AB's? No. We had several attacking opportunities in the Ireland 22, and almost scored on 3 occasions. Now obviously Ireland defended well and we didn't score, but people are talking as if we never even had the ball in the first half or made any play. We had numerous linebreaks, the difference was Ireland finished two good tries and got lucky on a third whereas we only finished off one of our chances and didn't get any lucky opportunities. So two well constructed tries v one well constructed try in the first half is hardly the story being painted by the majority.

Also, swap the jersey colours (i.e. NZ were up 19-0 rather than Ireland) and there is no chance in hell that people would be saying Ireland didn't deserve to win. The story would be how brilliant they were to weather the early AB pressure and fight back, what courage and character etc.. None of you Ireland fans would be saying your side didn't deserve the win, and if the AB's had been chased down like that I highly doubt the (rational) NZ posters would be saying that we had deserved it either. All comes back to what people expected.

 

[Chikwa]

In this particular instance I don't see how an informed, reasonable, objective viewer could say NZ were the better team overall, no. That doesn't mean that I'm against "free thought". Who do you think you are, Voltaire? It just means you lack one of those three things things, or you're being deliberately dishonest or a troll. As Hansen said, often the better team doesn't win the match.

AB's showed great composure to take their chance at the end but as McCaw said, "they were barely in the game". Yes, they were better in the second half, especially the last 20 minutes, but nowhere near as dominant as Ireland in the first half, especially physically.

As for your suggestion that McCaw was insincere in the post-match interview, I disagree completely. He's brutally honest when opposition teams play poorly and does not give credit when they play well, unless they truly were brilliant (he gave no credit to Ireland after the 22-19 loss last year, for example).

McCaw is a gentleman.When asked about the refereeing in the game against England.His reply was well it took us while to understand what he wanted.His body language on the pitch said something different .And yes New Zealand did not play well they under estimated the Irish.Their strategy was wrong.They were not initially committing numbers to the breakdown and trying to run the ball from everywhere.They seemed to bracket the Irish in the same category as the Japanese.But their victory was no fluke they believed ,regrouped and delivered a coup de grace to the weltering Irish !

 

[Sam Owen]

As for your suggestion that McCaw was insincere in the post-match interview, I disagree completely. He's brutally honest when opposition teams play poorly and does not give credit when they play well, unless they truly were brilliant (he gave no credit to Ireland after the 22-19 loss last year, for example).

Yeah he's good on and off the field. A real class act and a true professional. When his sides been through a hell of a game, he'll tell you that.

McCaw is a gentleman.When asked about the refereeing in the game against England.His reply was well it took us while to understand what he wanted.

Its that quality I respect about most of the All Blacks. Classy gentlemen type not the "4 more years" Gregan type (Im a big fan of everything else Gregan does on the field). Its a good way to lead an apex group. Cruden was classy after he kicked the winner, you watch the replay and you see him he had that look like he just dodged a mack truck.

 

[nickdnz]

I love people thinking McCaw gives his honest opinion after every game. I could write the script for everyone of his interviews and I know what he'll say before he says it.

"Yeh it was a heck of a performance out there, XXXX really came out to play. We got lucky some of the times, but part of it was just trusting our systems and playing out the 80 minutes".

"You know, you feel a tad unlucky that some of the calls weren't going our way, but at the end of the day thats test rugby and its about adapting to the referee's interpretation".

It's all generic BS designed not to annoy anyone.

The reality is yes he's a classy guy so he's not going to make excuses and he tends to give teams plenty of credit - but like most captains such as de Villiers, Mortlock, Matfield - there is really nothing to gain by being candid in a post match interview - particularly if its critical of a referee or another team.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I often take exception with what you write because I don't agree with it.
I don't know you personally so it's not a personal attack. Don't try to make out that it is.

If it isn't a personal attack, then why do you go out of your way to always reply on my posts?? Just mine?? How can I then not take it as a personal attack?

I'll say it again Heineken as you have failed to make this clear: Why did Ireland deserve to win, and not NZ?

Why should I keep on explaining myself to you?? Do have some sense of authority over me?? Is my opinion so much disheartening towards you?? Do you feel personally attacked when I say your team didn't deserve to win?? If so, then so be it, move on. I'm not going to explain myself to you, as you seem content on trying to get your message through, without seeing the views or opinions of others on this forum. And by saying I'm not sharing my opinion, is also false!! That's all I have been doing on this thread FFS!!

 

[The Jones Boy]

You made a radical statement and you were asked to explain it several times, you have chosen not to, fair enough.
Trouble is, your input is lees likely to be taken seriously every time you post when you have that attitude.
I' sure you're ok with that though...

If Ireland deserved to win, how come they lost?

They had the majority of possession and opportunities.
They played wonderful attacking rugby and they defended manfully.
But, they didn't put the points on the board.
It's a game.
You win the game by having more points than the other team at the end of the game.
Ask Johnny Sexton if he thought Ireland deserved to win and I bet you he would say no.
They sure had their chances but they didn't take them and if you don't convert your chances you don't win and you don't deserve to win until you take your chances.
It's the harsh reality of sport.
The All Blacks were put under huge pressure to survive off scraps in the first half but they still managed to put crucial points on the board and take their chance to have a foothold in the game at half time. Something, not much, but better than nothing, to build on on the second half.

I could argue that the Springboks didn't deserve to win the 1995 RWC semi final against France, or the Final against the AB's, but history and the scoreboards will tell me otherwise.

 

[TRF_heineken]

You made a radical statement and you were asked to explain it several times, you have chosen not to, fair enough.
Trouble is, your input is lees likely to be taken seriously every time you post when you have that attitude.
I' sure you're ok with that though...

If Ireland deserved to win, how come they lost?

They had the majority of possession and opportunities.
They played wonderful attacking rugby and they defended manfully.
But, they didn't put the points on the board.
It's a game.
You win the game by having more points than the other team at the end of the game.
Ask Johnny Sexton if he thought Ireland deserved to win and I bet you he would say no.
They sure had their chances but they didn't take them and if you don't convert your chances you don't win and you don't deserve to win until you take your chances.
It's the harsh reality of sport.
The All Blacks were put under huge pressure to survive off scraps in the first half but they still managed to put crucial points on the board and take their chance to have a foothold in the game at half time. Something, not much, but better than nothing, to build on on the second half.

I could argue that the Springboks didn't deserve to win the 1995 RWC semi final against France, or the Final against the AB's, but history and the scoreboards will tell me otherwise.

Deserving to win and actually winning are different things... How difficult is that to accept?

Here's another example: NZ vs France during the 2007 world cup... France didn't deserve to win that, but the scoreboard tells a different story...

 

[The Jones Boy]

France won, they deserved to win, end of story.
NZ deserved a better referee.

 

[William18]

Deserving to win and actually winning are different things... How difficult is that to accept?

Here's another example: NZ vs France during the 2007 world cup... France didn't deserve to win that, but the scoreboard tells a different story...

You will note in my first post I said that the team that wins always deserves to win unless there are refereeing factors involved. New Zealand deserved to win against France in 2007 because Barnes had a poor day and that affected us more than France. The same way South Africa deserved to beat Australia in the 2011 World Cup quarterfinal.

 

[TRF_heineken]

You will note in my first post I said that the team that wins always deserves to win unless there are refereeing factors involved. New Zealand deserved to win against France in 2007 because Barnes had a poor day and that affected us more than France. The same way South Africa deserved to beat Australia in the 2011 World Cup quarterfinal.

So, a team doesn't deserve to win when the ref has an influence only? Ok, got it.

So then, just to open the can of worms, the SA vs NZ in NZ comes to mind... But I guess you NZ guys will find another reason to justify the whole "deserving" issue...

Point is, you comment on this thread with a subjective point of view, because it's directed at your team. Myself, as a neutral, approaches this more objectively.

By the way, did you see the article where the bookies paid out the people that betted on Ireland? They also felt that Ireland deserved the win...

 

[William18]

So, a team doesn't deserve to win when the ref has an influence only? Ok, got it.

So then, just to open the can of worms, the SA vs NZ in NZ comes to mind... But I guess you NZ guys will find another reason to justify the whole "deserving" issue...

Point is, you comment on this thread with a subjective point of view, because it's directed at your team. Myself, as a neutral, approaches this more objectively.

By the way, did you see the article where the bookies paid out the people that betted on Ireland? They also felt that Ireland deserved the win...

Well the referee always has an influence. If the referee unfairly favours one team and that team loses because of that then of course that team deserved to win. A team can't control the referee.

The SA vs NZ game in NZ is indeterminate. Poite made a bad decision but so did Bismarck when he had already been given a yellow card. I think if the game had continued we would have won but who knows? Two bad decisions from player and referee spoiled the game. I think we all said at the time we will find out who is better at Ellis Park.....and we did.

I think you still miss my point after all this time. For me there is no subjectivity here. The All Blacks won and therefore under my definition they deserved to win. I have quite clearly outlined this in several posts. I have then quite clearly stated that I objectively apply this to all sports. Wellington Phoenix, Manchester United, All Blacks, New Zealand cricket team etc.

As for your last point, once again I don't think you have read my posts. I have said that I'm happy to disagree with other people. People are welcome to have alternative points of view and bookies should be allowed to do as they like with their own business. I think it is right stupidity to say "oh, look, other people thought Ireland deserved to win so I'm going to think that too" because of some sort of group think. Nah, I'm happy to be in a minority (if that's what I'm in). I judge things based on what I see with my own two eyes, not just go by what other people think. As long as I'm not called cocky for having an alternative opinion, I really don't mind.

Also have you not realised that your definition of deserving is a subjective one? Also that you have no way of proving whether a team deserved to win because of this? On the other hand, my definition is objective and fits with well defined criteria. I don't see how I can be biased when I use objective criteria. Your definition of who deserved to win is similar to "which is better right wing or left wing politics?" In essence, it is a pointless discussion that will go nowhere. I don't have time for that - I like discussing objective things which can accurately be measured.

 

[Amiga500]

The All Blacks won and therefore under my definition they deserved to win.

Just to test your definition; lets consider the France v NZ game in the world cup final.

The supposedly one-eyed Joubert (according to a kiwi not 2 pages from this post) whistled France out of it.

I assume then that you'd agree with me that France deserved it?

 

[FlukeArtist]

(1) If it isn't a personal attack, then why do you go out of your way to always reply on my posts?? Just mine?? How can I then not take it as a personal attack?

(2) Why should I keep on explaining myself to you?? Do have some sense of authority over me?? Is my opinion so much disheartening towards you?? Do you feel personally attacked when I say your team didn't deserve to win?? If so, then so be it, move on. I'm not going to explain myself to you, as you seem content on trying to get your message through, without seeing the views or opinions of others on this forum. And by saying I'm not sharing my opinion, is also false!! That's all I have been doing on this thread FFS!!

(1) I'll say it again: BECAUSE I OFTEN DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU WRITE. It is not a personal attack. Have I called you names? Called your parentage into question? Demeaned you in any way? NO.
All I have done is disagree with you.
I have replied to many many other posts as well, not just yours- check my profile.

(2) Cry me a river.
All I have done is ask you to explain your position that NZ DID NOT deserve to win.
That's all.
If you can't back up your opinions/points, you should probably think twice before clicking the "post reply" button.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Deserved is a stupid term for this context in my opinion, the referee and the TMO had little impact on the result and therefore NZ deserved the win.

To put it simply should Ireland have won this game? Yes. Should NZ have lost? Yes.

Did Ireland deserve to win? No, we didn't close it out and missed what Richie McCaw admitted was a match winning opportunity in that kick.

Did NZ deserve to win? Yes, the 65 meter 82nd minute try proves this, they had the winning instinct we did not!

 

[big ginger 8]

Deserved is a stupid term for this context in my opinion, the referee and the TMO had little impact on the result and therefore NZ deserved the win.

To put it simply should Ireland have won this game? Yes. Should NZ have lost? Yes.

Did Ireland deserve to win? No, we didn't close it out and missed what Richie McCaw admitted was a match winning opportunity in that kick.

Did NZ deserve to win? Yes, the 65 meter 82nd minute try proves this, they had the winning instinct we did not!

You just want more rep!

You could quite easily attach the term deserve to either team in this match you can say that NZ won so they deseved it and you can argue that you don't always get what you deserve. It's something which people are defining differently and just like with the laws and everyone having different interpetations about it there's no point flogging a dead horse by going on about it.

 

[The Jones Boy]

It was a cracking game, it was NZ versus the rest of the world, because any neutral watching that game would have been rooting for Ireland, and why not, they played the first half like men possessed and apart from a couple of errors they played the second half strongly as well. It was a rare and special sporting cliff hanger.
Bloody Irish, they took years off my life...