B
Bullitt
Guest
So if it was a freak result, why is Super 14 rugby "so much more entertaining because there are so many tries"?
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
S
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Mar 6 2010, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
In the Guinness Premiership, this is takes the form of Stuart Barnes and Dewi Morris hyping any and every 20 and 21 year old in the league as being potentially world class. Courtney Lawes is the current flavour of the week. England are tripe so Murdock's Sky is selling a positive future.
Out of interest, did you watch the 72-65 game? I didn't; all I saw were some highlights.
Rupert Murdock is trying to sell his product and his TV stations are well known for hyperbole. That's why Super 14 comes with that tagline. Sheep buy into that nonsense and pay their subscriptions. I do find Super 14 entertaining but I don't emotionally invest in it because the team I support is based out of Dublin.
In the Guinness Premiership, this is takes the form of Stuart Barnes and Dewi Morris hyping any and every 20 and 21 year old in the league as being potentially world class. Courtney Lawes is the current flavour of the week. England are tripe so Murdock's Sky is selling a positive future.
Out of interest, did you watch the 72-65 game? I didn't; all I saw were some highlights.
B
Bullitt
Guest
i did watch it indeed. it was like watching rugby league only with less intensity.
E
erwanseb
Guest
16-Jun-2001 South Africa 23-32 France
23-Jun-2001 South Africa 20-15 France
9-Nov-2002 France 30-10 South Africa
25-Jun-2005 South Africa 30-30 France
2-Jul-2005 South Africa 27-13 France
26-Nov-2005 France 26-20 South Africa
24-Jun-2006 South Africa 26-36 France
13-Nov-2009 France 20-13 South Africa
France Win 5 Draw 1 Lost 2
Includes 2 away win and 1 away draw
23-Jun-2001 South Africa 20-15 France
9-Nov-2002 France 30-10 South Africa
25-Jun-2005 South Africa 30-30 France
2-Jul-2005 South Africa 27-13 France
26-Nov-2005 France 26-20 South Africa
24-Jun-2006 South Africa 26-36 France
13-Nov-2009 France 20-13 South Africa
France Win 5 Draw 1 Lost 2
Includes 2 away win and 1 away draw
F
feicarsinn
Guest
Pah hemispheres, I'm more of a semi kind of man. Anyway the world ain't a circle so this debate is founded on lies. I couldn't give a toss really about the others up here, I support Ireland and Leinster with asoft spot for Oz, France and Wales. The only thing that grings my gears is the collective arrogance of the SH towards the 6 nations teams. We havve some really good players too you know and its not like our teams are a million miles away from yours, just look at the 2009 results.
L
lynam1104
Guest
to me most not all of the SH poster think they are witout adouth the greatest people in the world and none comesclose to tem they thik there like the **** and thier thems are unstopale let's look at resulsts as feicarsinn said. Ireland and france beat the trinations winners by SH locic we are now an ustopable force in rugby(ok france win or lose deping on how they feel and can crush the best teams in the world on their day. ok now jst to make mt point clear both the NH and SH are = The IRB says other wise but there the IRB.
F
feicarsinn
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Leinsterrock @ Mar 6 2010, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Hey don't get me involved in your pesky hemisphere arguements. I'm just here to give a completely one-eyed, biased, Irish view of world rugby. The French, English, Welsh, Scottish and Italians can shag off for all I care(no offence guys). I like the SH posters, them good guys, but I fail to see how they can't recognise Ireland's status as the greatest team to ever grace the field.
Hey don't get me involved in your pesky hemisphere arguements. I'm just here to give a completely one-eyed, biased, Irish view of world rugby. The French, English, Welsh, Scottish and Italians can shag off for all I care(no offence guys). I like the SH posters, them good guys, but I fail to see how they can't recognise Ireland's status as the greatest team to ever grace the field.
L
lynam1104
Guest
well
N
Nickdnz
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Leinsterrock @ Mar 7 2010, 04:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
I all most understood that post...
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
F
feicarsinn
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nickdnz @ Mar 6 2010, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
[/b][/quote]
Aye the gap is closing, well actually maybe not. T'was closing in 03 by the look of things only for it to reopen again. Fact of the matter is the tri nations teams will probably always be stronger than the majority of their Northern rivals. France and England should be on that level with the resources they have available to them and indeed France appear to be going in the right direction, but the smaller nations such as Wales and Ireland just don't have the numbers to be performing at the highest level consistantly. While I believe that professionalism has brought and increased competitiveness between the two hemispheres, it's probable that Oz, South Africa and New Zealand will more often than not on a higher level than any 6N teams aside from the big two (if they get off their arses and fulfill their immense potential).
Oh, and the whole thing about Ireland never beating New Zealand, well we'll see come summer/winter(?)
I all most understood that post...
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
[/b][/quote]
Aye the gap is closing, well actually maybe not. T'was closing in 03 by the look of things only for it to reopen again. Fact of the matter is the tri nations teams will probably always be stronger than the majority of their Northern rivals. France and England should be on that level with the resources they have available to them and indeed France appear to be going in the right direction, but the smaller nations such as Wales and Ireland just don't have the numbers to be performing at the highest level consistantly. While I believe that professionalism has brought and increased competitiveness between the two hemispheres, it's probable that Oz, South Africa and New Zealand will more often than not on a higher level than any 6N teams aside from the big two (if they get off their arses and fulfill their immense potential).
Oh, and the whole thing about Ireland never beating New Zealand, well we'll see come summer/winter(?)
N
Nickdnz
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Mar 7 2010, 12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
[/b][/quote]
Aye the gap is closing, well actually maybe not. T'was closing in 03 by the look of things only for it to reopen again. Fact of the matter is the tri nations teams will probably always be stronger than the majority of their Northern rivals. France and England should be on that level with the resources they have available to them and indeed France appear to be going in the right direction, but the smaller nations such as Wales and Ireland just don't have the numbers to be performing at the highest level consistantly. While I believe that professionalism has brought and increased competitiveness between the two hemispheres, it's probable that Oz, South Africa and New Zealand will more often than not on a higher level than any 6N teams aside from the big two (if they get off their arses and fulfill their immense potential).
Oh, and the whole thing about Ireland never beating New Zealand, well we'll see come summer/winter(?)
[/b][/quote]
Yeah...it's probably my most anticipated match All Blacks vs Ireland. We don't get much time to prepear but it should be very good. Never beating NZ is my fisher line, so if they do win, I'll be very disapointed.
I all most understood that post...
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
[/b][/quote]
Aye the gap is closing, well actually maybe not. T'was closing in 03 by the look of things only for it to reopen again. Fact of the matter is the tri nations teams will probably always be stronger than the majority of their Northern rivals. France and England should be on that level with the resources they have available to them and indeed France appear to be going in the right direction, but the smaller nations such as Wales and Ireland just don't have the numbers to be performing at the highest level consistantly. While I believe that professionalism has brought and increased competitiveness between the two hemispheres, it's probable that Oz, South Africa and New Zealand will more often than not on a higher level than any 6N teams aside from the big two (if they get off their arses and fulfill their immense potential).
Oh, and the whole thing about Ireland never beating New Zealand, well we'll see come summer/winter(?)
[/b][/quote]
Yeah...it's probably my most anticipated match All Blacks vs Ireland. We don't get much time to prepear but it should be very good. Never beating NZ is my fisher line, so if they do win, I'll be very disapointed.
B
Bullitt
Guest
1. Ireland couldn't beat the All Blacks in a month of Sundays
2. if it wasn't for the All Blacks, 'Southern Hemisphere rugby' would be weak as ****.
3. Test rugby is presently of such a low standard worldwide, the top half of any league in the world would more then likely do a number on everyone (except perhaps New Zealand and France).
4. SH sides may score a million tries per match against each other where the lines between union and league are blurred, but they don't against their northern, forward-orintated counterparts. different region, different mentality.
5. Compared to 5-10 years ago, super rugby is poor. compared to 5-10 years ago, HEC/Premiership/French rugby is a lot more competitive. (celtic reserves didn't exist)
2. if it wasn't for the All Blacks, 'Southern Hemisphere rugby' would be weak as ****.
3. Test rugby is presently of such a low standard worldwide, the top half of any league in the world would more then likely do a number on everyone (except perhaps New Zealand and France).
4. SH sides may score a million tries per match against each other where the lines between union and league are blurred, but they don't against their northern, forward-orintated counterparts. different region, different mentality.
5. Compared to 5-10 years ago, super rugby is poor. compared to 5-10 years ago, HEC/Premiership/French rugby is a lot more competitive. (celtic reserves didn't exist)
F
feicarsinn
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nickdnz @ Mar 7 2010, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
[/b][/quote]
Aye the gap is closing, well actually maybe not. T'was closing in 03 by the look of things only for it to reopen again. Fact of the matter is the tri nations teams will probably always be stronger than the majority of their Northern rivals. France and England should be on that level with the resources they have available to them and indeed France appear to be going in the right direction, but the smaller nations such as Wales and Ireland just don't have the numbers to be performing at the highest level consistantly. While I believe that professionalism has brought and increased competitiveness between the two hemispheres, it's probable that Oz, South Africa and New Zealand will more often than not on a higher level than any 6N teams aside from the big two (if they get off their arses and fulfill their immense potential).
Oh, and the whole thing about Ireland never beating New Zealand, well we'll see come summer/winter(?)
[/b][/quote]
Yeah...it's probably my most anticipated match All Blacks vs Ireland. We don't get much time to prepear but it should be very good. Never beating NZ is my fisher line, so if they do win, I'll be very disapointed.
[/b][/quote]
Getting the excuses in early eh? I don't blame you, I hear they're quaking in their boots Taranaki.
I all most understood that post...
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
[/b][/quote]
Aye the gap is closing, well actually maybe not. T'was closing in 03 by the look of things only for it to reopen again. Fact of the matter is the tri nations teams will probably always be stronger than the majority of their Northern rivals. France and England should be on that level with the resources they have available to them and indeed France appear to be going in the right direction, but the smaller nations such as Wales and Ireland just don't have the numbers to be performing at the highest level consistantly. While I believe that professionalism has brought and increased competitiveness between the two hemispheres, it's probable that Oz, South Africa and New Zealand will more often than not on a higher level than any 6N teams aside from the big two (if they get off their arses and fulfill their immense potential).
Oh, and the whole thing about Ireland never beating New Zealand, well we'll see come summer/winter(?)
[/b][/quote]
Yeah...it's probably my most anticipated match All Blacks vs Ireland. We don't get much time to prepear but it should be very good. Never beating NZ is my fisher line, so if they do win, I'll be very disapointed.
[/b][/quote]
Getting the excuses in early eh? I don't blame you, I hear they're quaking in their boots Taranaki.
N
Nickdnz
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Mar 7 2010, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
[/b][/quote]
Aye the gap is closing, well actually maybe not. T'was closing in 03 by the look of things only for it to reopen again. Fact of the matter is the tri nations teams will probably always be stronger than the majority of their Northern rivals. France and England should be on that level with the resources they have available to them and indeed France appear to be going in the right direction, but the smaller nations such as Wales and Ireland just don't have the numbers to be performing at the highest level consistantly. While I believe that professionalism has brought and increased competitiveness between the two hemispheres, it's probable that Oz, South Africa and New Zealand will more often than not on a higher level than any 6N teams aside from the big two (if they get off their arses and fulfill their immense potential).
Oh, and the whole thing about Ireland never beating New Zealand, well we'll see come summer/winter(?)
[/b][/quote]
Yeah...it's probably my most anticipated match All Blacks vs Ireland. We don't get much time to prepear but it should be very good. Never beating NZ is my fisher line, so if they do win, I'll be very disapointed.
[/b][/quote]
Getting the excuses in early eh? I don't blame you, I hear they're quaking in their boots Taranaki.
[/b][/quote]
Only the people that live close to a pub.
I all most understood that post...
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
[/b][/quote]
Aye the gap is closing, well actually maybe not. T'was closing in 03 by the look of things only for it to reopen again. Fact of the matter is the tri nations teams will probably always be stronger than the majority of their Northern rivals. France and England should be on that level with the resources they have available to them and indeed France appear to be going in the right direction, but the smaller nations such as Wales and Ireland just don't have the numbers to be performing at the highest level consistantly. While I believe that professionalism has brought and increased competitiveness between the two hemispheres, it's probable that Oz, South Africa and New Zealand will more often than not on a higher level than any 6N teams aside from the big two (if they get off their arses and fulfill their immense potential).
Oh, and the whole thing about Ireland never beating New Zealand, well we'll see come summer/winter(?)
[/b][/quote]
Yeah...it's probably my most anticipated match All Blacks vs Ireland. We don't get much time to prepear but it should be very good. Never beating NZ is my fisher line, so if they do win, I'll be very disapointed.
[/b][/quote]
Getting the excuses in early eh? I don't blame you, I hear they're quaking in their boots Taranaki.
[/b][/quote]
Only the people that live close to a pub.
F
feicarsinn
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nickdnz @ Mar 7 2010, 12:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
[/b][/quote]
Aye the gap is closing, well actually maybe not. T'was closing in 03 by the look of things only for it to reopen again. Fact of the matter is the tri nations teams will probably always be stronger than the majority of their Northern rivals. France and England should be on that level with the resources they have available to them and indeed France appear to be going in the right direction, but the smaller nations such as Wales and Ireland just don't have the numbers to be performing at the highest level consistantly. While I believe that professionalism has brought and increased competitiveness between the two hemispheres, it's probable that Oz, South Africa and New Zealand will more often than not on a higher level than any 6N teams aside from the big two (if they get off their arses and fulfill their immense potential).
Oh, and the whole thing about Ireland never beating New Zealand, well we'll see come summer/winter(?)
[/b][/quote]
Yeah...it's probably my most anticipated match All Blacks vs Ireland. We don't get much time to prepear but it should be very good. Never beating NZ is my fisher line, so if they do win, I'll be very disapointed.
[/b][/quote]
Getting the excuses in early eh? I don't blame you, I hear they're quaking in their boots Taranaki.
[/b][/quote]
Only the people that live close to a pub.
[/b][/quote]
Well, you know what they say, stick to what you're good at.
Anyway we'll probably win by a good 30 or 40 points. I'm predicting a reverse of the 05' result, except more sexy.
I all most understood that post...
No, their not equal. There is a gap. It's closing and 2009 was a good year for NH teams, but to say they are "=" is ********, at least at this stage. And it's delusional to think otherwise. I don't think NH players are bad. There are some unbelievable players. Despite this the standard of international players from the Southern Hemisphere is greater then that of the North Hemisphere. The IRB says the top three teams are NZ, SA and Aus. They didn't pull these names out of a hat, it is based on a ranking system which is pretty sound. To prove a point, New Zealand is not equal to Ireland. This has been proven as Ireland has never beaten NZ (though feicarrsin is glorius). As i said the gap may be closing, but there remains a gap none the less.
[/b][/quote]
Aye the gap is closing, well actually maybe not. T'was closing in 03 by the look of things only for it to reopen again. Fact of the matter is the tri nations teams will probably always be stronger than the majority of their Northern rivals. France and England should be on that level with the resources they have available to them and indeed France appear to be going in the right direction, but the smaller nations such as Wales and Ireland just don't have the numbers to be performing at the highest level consistantly. While I believe that professionalism has brought and increased competitiveness between the two hemispheres, it's probable that Oz, South Africa and New Zealand will more often than not on a higher level than any 6N teams aside from the big two (if they get off their arses and fulfill their immense potential).
Oh, and the whole thing about Ireland never beating New Zealand, well we'll see come summer/winter(?)
[/b][/quote]
Yeah...it's probably my most anticipated match All Blacks vs Ireland. We don't get much time to prepear but it should be very good. Never beating NZ is my fisher line, so if they do win, I'll be very disapointed.
[/b][/quote]
Getting the excuses in early eh? I don't blame you, I hear they're quaking in their boots Taranaki.
[/b][/quote]
Only the people that live close to a pub.
[/b][/quote]
Well, you know what they say, stick to what you're good at.
Anyway we'll probably win by a good 30 or 40 points. I'm predicting a reverse of the 05' result, except more sexy.
F
feicarsinn
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Mar 7 2010, 12:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
1) Quite possibly. A match lasting that long would probably go the way of the All Blacks, due to their superior fitness levels.
2) Poppycock. South Africa, despite a poor Autumn tour, showed in 09' that they're a quality team
3) Further Poppycock. Club rugby is slightly overrated, I have no doubt Ireland for example could beat Leinster, Munster and Ulster, what with the national team having all of their players. Oh, and the Premiership and Top14 teams too.
4+5) Meh, alot of truth there.
1) Quite possibly. A match lasting that long would probably go the way of the All Blacks, due to their superior fitness levels.
2) Poppycock. South Africa, despite a poor Autumn tour, showed in 09' that they're a quality team
3) Further Poppycock. Club rugby is slightly overrated, I have no doubt Ireland for example could beat Leinster, Munster and Ulster, what with the national team having all of their players. Oh, and the Premiership and Top14 teams too.
4+5) Meh, alot of truth there.
F
Fa'atau82
Guest
I'd compare rugby and basketball because for one reason they are dead similar in regards to the best team in the world.
In basketball, if you have a team, you hire american players. If those players suck, you replace them with more americans. To the point most euro teams can have 4/5 americans. They completely flood the game, yet they don't always win the World Championships. The same goes for rugby. In most euro teams you will find kiwis as the standout imports. If you want to be successful, use kiwis, if they suck, replace them with a kiwi with a better attitude.
All the home nations do it and have done it.. and this is my point, when it comes to the point we have kiwis, saffas and aussies in our national teams, it shows the real problem.. we aren't good enough because we have fallen into some kind of SH 'worship'.
Flutey is not good enough for the All Blacks, so why is he good enough for England? He's good, obviously, but is he that good? It's already making a statement that we are happy to have AB rejects to make us remotely competitive. Like a long shot.
Notice that apart from the AB's (who have a sweet deal with the pacific islands), SH teams have homegrown players only.. and you can count islanders for NZ because if they hadn't have been taught in NZ, they wouldn't be AB's.
There is nothing special about SH teams apart from in our own minds, we assume we are going to lose because they have amazing skills.
In every RWC there has never been a SH on SH final apart from 1995. NZL-FRA 87, AUS-ENG 91, RSA-NZL 95, AUS-FRA 99, ENG-AUS 03 and ENG-RSA 07.
I don't think Super Rugby is that good. If it was, the players would gravitate there, and it'd be a bigger thing than it is. But what it does do is develop clinical attacking because there is so much of it, and in the NH we are happy to defend. **** hot fast kiwi wingers are 10 a penny. They say defence wins championships, but not when you have a toothless attack. In '03 England did not have a toothless attack. This is why at the end of the day, the All Blacks lose.. yet we still think up in the NH they are the biz.
I think France are the only team on their day i would bet money on beating any team in the world, no bias, no fear. It's a question of if they turn up and how passionate they feel, so for me, Les Bleus are the best team in world rugby, pound for pound.
In basketball, if you have a team, you hire american players. If those players suck, you replace them with more americans. To the point most euro teams can have 4/5 americans. They completely flood the game, yet they don't always win the World Championships. The same goes for rugby. In most euro teams you will find kiwis as the standout imports. If you want to be successful, use kiwis, if they suck, replace them with a kiwi with a better attitude.
All the home nations do it and have done it.. and this is my point, when it comes to the point we have kiwis, saffas and aussies in our national teams, it shows the real problem.. we aren't good enough because we have fallen into some kind of SH 'worship'.
Flutey is not good enough for the All Blacks, so why is he good enough for England? He's good, obviously, but is he that good? It's already making a statement that we are happy to have AB rejects to make us remotely competitive. Like a long shot.
Notice that apart from the AB's (who have a sweet deal with the pacific islands), SH teams have homegrown players only.. and you can count islanders for NZ because if they hadn't have been taught in NZ, they wouldn't be AB's.
There is nothing special about SH teams apart from in our own minds, we assume we are going to lose because they have amazing skills.
In every RWC there has never been a SH on SH final apart from 1995. NZL-FRA 87, AUS-ENG 91, RSA-NZL 95, AUS-FRA 99, ENG-AUS 03 and ENG-RSA 07.
I don't think Super Rugby is that good. If it was, the players would gravitate there, and it'd be a bigger thing than it is. But what it does do is develop clinical attacking because there is so much of it, and in the NH we are happy to defend. **** hot fast kiwi wingers are 10 a penny. They say defence wins championships, but not when you have a toothless attack. In '03 England did not have a toothless attack. This is why at the end of the day, the All Blacks lose.. yet we still think up in the NH they are the biz.
I think France are the only team on their day i would bet money on beating any team in the world, no bias, no fear. It's a question of if they turn up and how passionate they feel, so for me, Les Bleus are the best team in world rugby, pound for pound.
