Kiwis Win Four Nations.

[Radman]

The World Champs staked their claim as World Champions by stepping up in the big occasion and winning this years Four Nations against a great Australian side.

Great stuff boys.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Only turned it on just as the Kiwis got their second try, thought the missed conversion would cost them big but that nock on....must be kicking himself!

 

[Sam Owen]

What a game.

WOOHOO the Kiwis (fistpump).

 

[nickdnz]

It was glorious at the pub during this game. I think it marks New Zealand becoming a genuine World Champion, rather than a lucky win.

 

[azeli]

Union will always be my first game but League isn't far behind. Awesome win from the Kiwis and Benji...DA MAN!!!

Like to pose a question/s though;

Are the Kangaroos the All Blacks and the Kiwis the Wallabies...? The similarities are uncanny. Absolutely dominate the world in their respective codes year in year out bar 1 or 2 important games yet still be regarded as the worlds best team.

 

[Saints1]

I knew New Zealand were going to win today. Australia's halo has slipped since the world cup final loss. Not even the most optimistic Kiwi fan would have expected that and I don't think the Aussies have been the same team since. Their air of invincibility has gone.

I agree that the backs lacked creativity, but on the flip side the Kiwis monstered the forwards and backs struggle to get into the game if their forwards don't make ground. Selection issues aside, whilst losing subs didn't help (and I hope Tate and Lewis are back playing soon) I still think the Kiwis would have won it. Their forwards were superb. How many times did Archer shout "dominant" when they were tackling?

Benji Marshall had a superb match as well, always on the front foot, always probing and his kick through for the second try from Nightingale was Lockyer-esque. It was a superb all round package from the Kiwis, in spite of some stupid knock ons. However, in spite of all this, they still nearly lost. The Aussies took a pasting but stood tall and proud, in spite of running out of players. And fair, fair play to them. They just got undone by a bit of brilliance by Marshall.

 

[Sam Owen]

I knew New Zealand were going to win today. Australia's halo has slipped since the world cup final loss. Not even the most optimistic Kiwi fan would have expected that and I don't think the Aussies have been the same team since. Their air of invincibility has gone.

I agree that the backs lacked creativity, but on the flip side the Kiwis monstered the forwards and backs struggle to get into the game if their forwards don't make ground. Selection issues aside, whilst losing subs didn't help (and I hope Tate and Lewis are back playing soon) I still think the Kiwis would have won it. Their forwards were superb. How many times did Archer shout "dominant" when they were tackling?

Benji Marshall had a superb match as well, always on the front foot, always probing and his kick through for the second try from Nightingale was Lockyer-esque. It was a superb all round package from the Kiwis, in spite of some stupid knock ons. However, in spite of all this, they still nearly lost. The Aussies took a pasting but stood tall and proud, in spite of running out of players. And fair, fair play to them. They just got undone by a bit of brilliance by Marshall.

Good post, good points but Im not sure about that sentence in bold. Many of my friends around me tell me the same thing and they're Rugby League purists but me Im not so sure.

 

[RoosTah]

Union will always be my first game but League isn't far behind. Awesome win from the Kiwis and Benji...DA MAN!!!

Like to pose a question/s though;

Are the Kangaroos the All Blacks and the Kiwis the Wallabies...? The similarities are uncanny. Absolutely dominate the world in their respective codes year in year out bar 1 or 2 important games yet still be regarded as the worlds best team.

Yeah absolutely. If you look at the way the last couple years have been as well the similarities are even greater. The Roos won a fair few in a row and had some big wins among them, but in an important game the kiwis snatch a victory right at the death (funnily enough the wallabies won their game against the ABs not 2 weeks before in a very similar way).

 

[RoosTah]

Good post, good points but Im not sure about that sentence in bold. Many of my friends around me tell me the same thing and they're Rugby League purists but me Im not so sure.

It's true in so far as the Kangaroos have been beaten and therefore are clearly not "invincible" anymore, but they still remain the standard. The test last night was nail bitingly close and full credit to the kiwis, but the Roos couldn't be said to have had their best team out there (seriously, they looked so much better with Carney at 6 ... Lockyer has become a passenger) and playing most of the match with 15 men was a bit of a handicap.

 

[Saints1]

How long are Australia going to be allowed to be lauded as "the standard" despite the fact that they aren't the 4 Nations champions and they aren't world champions? They may have a deeper pool of talent but I'm sorry Dan, New Zealand are the standard.

 

[Saints1]

Good post, good points but Im not sure about that sentence in bold. Many of my friends around me tell me the same thing and they're Rugby League purists but me Im not so sure.

Honestly, their air of invincibility has gone.

In the past, so many teams turned up against Australia and knew they were beaten before the game had even kicked off, New Zealand included. Great Britain would win here and there until it counted when we were hammered, New Zealand would be competitive for 60 minutes before fading off. There is of course nobody else, league's big problem.

However, that 2008 world cup final has changed things. Australia might have a deeper pool of talent but as I've said above, I think it's grossly unfair to call the Aussies the best team in the world. New Zealand have, for me, earned that right.

 

[RoosTah]

How long are Australia going to be allowed to be lauded as "the standard" despite the fact that they aren't the 4 Nations champions and they aren't world champions? They may have a deeper pool of talent but I'm sorry Dan, New Zealand are the standard.

I just don't think they are yet... they've managed to build a bit of a rivalry now, but it's still one in which they win in boil overs after a string of Kangaroo Victories. It's good for international league and all, but the Kiwis haven't beaten the kangaroos in an ANZAC test since 1998.

That's more my point. Australia have won the major tourneys every other year still, and they dominate New Zealand in the in between periods, whereas New Zealand generally lose all their games to Australia until they finally win a final in a boil over.

I personally don't think you can justifiably call New Zealand the standard on the basis of that. Particularly when - and this will sound like excuses, but the kiwis will admit its true - Australia just barely lost the final after playing most of the match with a handicap and were missing several top line players. I'll happily admit the kiwis are getting there, but to me they'll be the "standard" when they can consistently win the in between matches as well. When they start winning the mid year ANZAC tests we'll know they've truly arrived.

 

[Saints1]

I just don't think they are yet... they've managed to build a bit of a rivalry now, but it's still one in which they win in boil overs after a string of Kangaroo Victories. It's good for international league and all, but the Kiwis haven't beaten the kangaroos in an ANZAC test since 1998.

That's more my point. Australia have won the major tourneys every other year still, and they dominate New Zealand in the in between periods, whereas New Zealand generally lose all their games to Australia until they finally win a final in a boil over.

I personally don't think you can justifiably call New Zealand the standard on the basis of that. Particularly when - and this will sound like excuses, but the kiwis will admit its true - Australia just barely lost the final after playing most of the match with a handicap and were missing several top line players. I'll happily admit the kiwis are getting there, but to me they'll be the "standard" when they can consistently win the in between matches as well. When they start winning the mid year ANZAC tests we'll know they've truly arrived.

I know the importance on the ANZAC test to you all down there, but to me that's no different to when England play France in our mid-season international. I know ANZAC day is very important and I'm not playing down the test, but I reckon the Kiwis would take losing every ANZAC game until 2098 if they kept winning the big prize at the end of the season. Ironically enough, England win that test every time as well...

I agree the Aussies were missing a lot of players and held on, heroically in my book, at 6-6 and 12-6 up, especially with personnel running out and there was some poor officiating (but that goes for both teams) going against them, but is any team at full strength come the end of the season? I'd argue every team is missing a key player come that stage. England lost our two big props and captains, for example, not that it's an excuse, we're garbage.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Kiwis seem to win when it matters. They've beaten the Aussies in 3 out of the last 5 finals now, it's not like it's rare. They are slowly building an enormous pool of talent. The Aussies unquestionably have the pool of talent, but they aren't beating the Kiwis on the big occasions anymore. Losing group games etc means nothing mate if you're winning the final. If that mattered, England's record against Australia might be approaching respectable but it's not. It's all about getting over that finishing line. Australia can't do that currently, the Kiwis can and are doing so on what you have to call a regular basis.

For me, the Kiwis deserve to be labeled the best team in the world right now. If England had won it, I wouldn't dream of saying we're the best team in the world as it would be patently not true. But this isn't a fluke, to me it's not a shock, as you can see, I expected it. As far as I am concerned, as world champions and as 4 Nations winners 2010, with 3 wins in the last 5 years in finals over the "invincible" Kangaroos, I would say it's an enormous injustice to say the Kiwis aren't the best team in the world.

(I love this debate.)

 

[Sam Owen]

I love reading it.

 

[RoosTah]

I know the importance on the ANZAC test to you all down there, but to me that's no different to when England play France in our mid-season international. I know ANZAC day is very important and I'm not playing down the test, but I reckon the Kiwis would take losing every ANZAC game until 2098 if they kept winning the big prize at the end of the season. Ironically enough, England win that test every time as well...

I agree the Aussies were missing a lot of players and held on, heroically in my book, at 6-6 and 12-6 up, especially with personnel running out and there was some poor officiating (but that goes for both teams) going against them, but is any team at full strength come the end of the season? I'd argue every team is missing a key player come that stage. England lost our two big props and captains, for example, not that it's an excuse, we're garbage.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Kiwis seem to win when it matters. They've beaten the Aussies in 3 out of the last 5 finals now, it's not like it's rare. They are slowly building an enormous pool of talent. The Aussies unquestionably have the pool of talent, but they aren't beating the Kiwis on the big occasions anymore. Losing group games etc means nothing mate if you're winning the final. If that mattered, England's record against Australia might be approaching respectable but it's not. It's all about getting over that finishing line. Australia can't do that currently, the Kiwis can and are doing so on what you have to call a regular basis.

For me, the Kiwis deserve to be labeled the best team in the world right now. If England had won it, I wouldn't dream of saying we're the best team in the world as it would be patently not true. But this isn't a fluke, to me it's not a shock, as you can see, I expected it. As far as I am concerned, as world champions and as 4 Nations winners 2010, with 3 wins in the last 5 years in finals over the "invincible" Kangaroos, I would say it's an enormous injustice to say the Kiwis aren't the best team in the world.

(I love this debate.)

Yeah, fair point, but it's still very much *** for tat in my opinion. The RL WC is basically a glorified version of the TN or FN, so it really belongs in the same category and if you look it that way it's been very much a case of NZ win one, the Australia win one, but with the Kangaroos winning all the other matches in between. So I know what you mean in terms of the ***les at the moment, but in terms of sheer over all consistency I still think the roos have got it over the kiwis.

Look at it this way:
Aus had won the TN/FN/WC every time for a long time until 2005 when the kiwis knocked them off 24-0. After that it looks like this:
2006 TN Winners: Australia
2007 no tournament, but the "All Golds" tour was a disaster for the kiwis with them losing to Aus and then all three matches to GB
2008 Kiwis come back and win WC
2009 Aus win inaugural FN
2010 Kiwis win FN

To me that's the beginning of a good tradition of rivalry, but it's not "kiwi dominance" by a long shot and I'm willing to bet the Kangaroos will come back pretty strong next year and will win up North. In some ways it reminds me of Rugby back in the 90s when Australia and NZ were much more *** for tat. The All Blacks would lose some crucial matches and didn't hold the bledisloe as consistently as they do now, but they were still generally considered the most feared team in the world.

(btw, it's good to be back having these debates after my long TRF hiatus lol)

 

[Saints1]

Any chance I can get you to un-hiatus? Permanently? With your old job back?

I wouldn't say it's a period of Kiwi dominance. You could say that Australia for about 25 years were dominant and arguably some years the State of Origin (the less I say about "the most competitive tournament in the sport the better to a NSW fan, right?) teams would wipe the floor with GB/England/Kiwis as well as the Kangaroos, should they ever have met.

The gap has closed between New Zealand and Australia, whereas England are as far behind as they have been for about 30 years. My mate is working on an article to explain why, it's going to make a fascinating read.

At the end of the day Dan there's so little to choose between the two teams, but the fact they have won again means they deserve to be recognised as the best team in the world. It might only be for a year but I think they've earned it. They don't seem to do too well up in England though, I will accept that. That is definitely the domain of the Kangaroo. It ain't the domain of the lion, that's for sure.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Sanzar is one of the great Aussie posters of old on here. Doesn't bite back with spite when his teams questioned. Just good old fashioned reasoning. Makes me almost like an Australian, lol.

 

[RoosTah]

Any chance I can get you to un-hiatus? Permanently? With your old job back?

I wouldn't say it's a period of Kiwi dominance. You could say that Australia for about 25 years were dominant and arguably some years the State of Origin (the less I say about "the most competitive tournament in the sport the better to a NSW fan, right?) teams would wipe the floor with GB/England/Kiwis as well as the Kangaroos, should they ever have met.

The gap has closed between New Zealand and Australia, whereas England are as far behind as they have been for about 30 years. My mate is working on an article to explain why, it's going to make a fascinating read.

At the end of the day Dan there's so little to choose between the two teams, but the fact they have won again means they deserve to be recognised as the best team in the world. It might only be for a year but I think they've earned it. They don't seem to do too well up in England though, I will accept that. That is definitely the domain of the Kangaroo. It ain't the domain of the lion, that's for sure.

I actually think we basically agree here Dan, and at this point think our argument is more a question of semantics. I'll concede the point though: with NZ winning the FN and still holding the RLWC, they do indeed deserve the ***le of best team in the world. I suppose my point would just be that when they play again in next years tournament, Australia will likely still enter as favourites in terms of betting if you know what I mean.

As for the old job, well over the past few months my life has somewhat been turned upside down and I've found myself with a bit more time on my hands. I'm not sure how long this will continue, but I'd certainly happy to consider becoming more involved again. Send me a PM with details of what you'd like me to do though Dan, and I'll let you know .

P.S Thanks CA, best backhanded compliment to an Aussie ever hahaha.

 

[Wally]

How long are Australia going to be allowed to be lauded as "the standard" despite the fact that they aren't the 4 Nations champions and they aren't world champions? They may have a deeper pool of talent but I'm sorry Dan, New Zealand are the standard.

No mate. Queensland are the standard.

 

[Saints1]

Feel the Origin burn!