<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tommowins @ May 20 2009, 09:26 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ May 20 2009, 01:28 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
NH - The Future
SH - 1987[/b]
:lol: :lol: :lol:
NH - 2003
SH - 1987,1991,1995,1999,2007,2011,2015...
[/b][/quote]
1987 - Past
1991 - Past
1995 - past
1999 - Past
2003 - Past
2007 - Nearest to now;
All Blacks: Out in 1/4s
Australia: Out in 1/4s
England: **** but still further ahead of Oussie and ABs
Boks: Win a mismatched group game against England, Squeek past a still **** England in final
France: No chuffing clue about selection, still beat All Blacks despite McAlistairs try from a forward pass.
Argentina: Finish 3rd with a squad entirely based in the NH.
In the mean time:
Northampton Wanderers 23 - 3 Western Force - 23/8/2008
Northampton Wanderers 24 - 6 NSW Waratahs - 2/10/06
Ah, the SHs finest, spanked by academy players and reserves...
And finally:
2011 - Counting chickens are we?
2015 - Still counting chickens?
Face it, your powers are weak, old men.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ May 20 2009, 09:41 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Teh Mite you are such a **** stirrer. We need the NH just as much as you need the SH. 2 Different brands of rugby make this game even better.[/b]
Damn right, but I'm pretty sure the original point made was "the NH are all ******* blah blah chip-on-my-shoulder blah...".
I think that means I'm not the
only stirrer... Maybe the original point and 'witty' responses should have been worded better!