Upset of the tournament

[mimic]

What about their results in France? Was that luck too?

Yeah, it was lucky for the All Blacks to win against England after having 2 men sent to the bin..

Of course we're kicking penalties now.. We're not naive as to think we can win matches solely on scoring tries.. Test matches is all about taking the points on offer..

The QF will be a stern test for the All Blacks, but hopefully if they can win that.. It will set them up nicely for the SF

One of the problems I see with France/Ireland/Argetina is that, will they be able to keep up with a high level of intensity for 3/4 matches in a row?

 

[Prestwick]

I'm still sticking to my Lora "turncoat" upset idea.

 

[Ripper]

If you say so. Argentina, Ireland and France will all have teams that can beat New Zealand at the World Cup. The second placed team of these three will play an NZ team which has had far easier matches. I could go on...

Doesn't mean I am correct, but then again I made good money in the 1999 World Cup when I put money on France beating New Zealand. I did this after seeing NZ play Scotland in the QF's and France play Argentina (whom everyone thought were crap. lol at that). France looked superb and thanks to them I made myself some easy money.

No double standards used at all btw. The only laughing about NZ at the World Cup has been against the All Blacks. Who else, picked France to win? Who picked Australia to win in 1991 or 2003? Or South Africa in 1995. In all cases NZ were red hot favourites but in all cases lost because they were shut down by their opponents who, like France / Argentina / Ireland, play very different styles of rugby. This tells us that there is a variety of ways to beat New Zealand. The 2004-2006 All Blacks have not been dominating by setting up tries, they have generally been scoring lucky tries and many 50-50 tries after gaining the lead through the Johnny Wilkinson factor, i.e. Carters boot. Without penalties and this luck their results wouldn't read as they do. Look at NZ's win against Argentina in 2006 as an example. The try that won the game happened in a tackle when Nunez Pieosec stopped the All Black only for the ball to roll forward off his leg and enable an try. Without that try Argentina would have won the match. NZ beat England in 2005 thanks to two forward passes, that weren't called, enabling Tana Umaga to score twice. NZ won the game by two points. I could go on. [/b]

Who Picked Aussie to win in 1991 you ask? You do know that they were the favourites leading into it? They smashed us at home in the 1991 Bledisoe Cup cup, which we only retained because we drew the second test. In 1991 the writing was on the wall long before that, what, with the NZRFU appointing two co-coaches who just happened to hate each others guts, it was just the Northern Media were too stupid to see it. 1995? I bet alot of people picked the Springboks to win. And I hardly call losing 15-12 after 100 minutes in a stadium full of 65,000 South Africans riding a wave of national unity for the first time in their history as "choking". If thats choking, than the Australians must've choked when they lost in similar circumstances at home in 2003. 1999 was the only time we really choked, but once again, you do know that 12 months earlier we lost 5 straight tests? I personally still find it a miracle we were in a position to be 14 points ahead at half time in a semi final since we preety much had to rebuild the entire foward pack and most of the backline a year out from the RWC.

And, Actually, you do use double standards. You say to ignore the 47-3 caning the AB's handed out to the French becasue the French weren't full strength, but you say that the 2006 Start of Seasons test's are to be taken as gospel on why the All Blacks won't win. Sadly for your little arguement it kind of goes out the window when its pointed out THE ALL BLACKS PLAYED SECOND STRENGTH TEAMS FOR THOSE 3 TESTS AND STILL WON - THE FRENCH PLAYED SECOND STRENGTH TEAMS AND LOSE BY 44 POINTS. But hey, bring up a couple of away games when Henry was experimenting (which we still won). If you want I can bring up all the games which the All Blacks have dominated and won by 10+ points, because believe it or not I think those games will be vastly in the majority compared to a couple of games which the All Blacks won by slim margins. And LOL at Argentina haveing teams to beat us, you are basing that on what exactly, a game in Benous Aires where Henry played an experimental team? Pathetic. Since you want to use past history, i'll use it as well. The French haven't beaten us since 2000 and Argentina and Ireland have a grand total of 0 wins against us. YAY!

And I don't see how bringing up the English 2005 test is really helping your arguement. a ) It was during Henry's tinkering period when he made 5-10 changes every week. b ) It was 2 seasons ago and c ) We still won despite spending half an hour with less than 15 men. Bring up the foward passes all you want, but I think its kind of offset when all 3 sin binnings were a crock of **** and the referee was horrible and he would be lucky to get Pool game between Portugal and Italy at this years World Cup.

Scoring tries from 60 metres out shows skills, no doubt but this is what NZ have always done and come World Cup time they have always been stopped. In contrast a team like England has lost plenty of games by 6 or under because it hasn't had the same luck. This could all change.

NZ are favourites again and should win again but does this mean they will? You have heard from me. Who knows if it will change how you think. My question to you is, did you eat your hat after the 2003 World Cup semi?
[/b]

What. The. f***? Have you actually watched any Rugby since 2003? How the hell have the Northern Hemisphere got it into their heads that the only way the All Blacks can score is from the counter attack and penalties. The All Blacks under Henry have scored alot of tries from mauling it up and pick and go and what not, we just don't really have to do it as much against the Northern Teams since we crack your defence so easily. And what does 2003 have to do with anything? In 2003 we had a Coach who struggled to speak English, let alone formulate a gameplan that was more complicated than "spread it to Rocokoko and hope for the best" , no foward pack, no captain, half a lineout, no goal kicker and no centre. In 2007 we don't have any of those issues. But if you want to bring up 2003 as an indicator that we won't win - France were wasted by 40 points by us, South Africa were knocked out in the Quarters along with Ireland and Argentina didn't even make it out of the pool play. Scary.

 

[Gay-Guy]

The only way NZ will win is to look at what is in front of them rather than look at what is happening next week. NZ is too obssessed with the final......in '95 they made it but were not fully fit so fair enough....every other year bar '87 they have not kept their eye on the ball in front of their noses.

If they take the cup ONE game at a time and focus EVERYTHING for that game then they should make it to the end. Treat the RWC more like a campaign rather than a tournament. This is what the '95 squad did....they gave each team a colour name rather than a country name.....Fitzxpatrick said they called each team each week the red team, or the green team or the blue.....in this way they did not carry any old presumpti0ons into each match when they played them....it was a new team they were playing rather than old rivals...

 

[shtove]

How the hell have the Northern Hemisphere got it into their heads that the only way the All Blacks can score is from the counter attack and penalties. The All Blacks under Henry have scored alot of tries from mauling it up and pick and go and what not, we just don't really have to do it as much against the Northern Teams since we crack your defence so easily.
[/b]

Pure counter-attack from deep is for losers. It's brilliant and beautiful, but it won't carry the RWC without some headbutting up front. That's why the 03 ABs were so rubbish. And the 99 crowd weren't chokers - they just got outplayed.

What was interesting about the ABs November tour was the strength of their scrum, and the line-out to a lesser degree. But when the lineout worked (and just from the pick-and-go as well), their mauling had some unbelievable moments. There was one maul against the French - strongest set-piece pack in the NH along with Italy - where the ABs looked like they were packing down for a scrum. Serious organisation.

After this year's 6N, I've lost confidence in a NH win. But SA are putting the pieces in place to shove the ABs back into relying on counter-attack.

The RWC match against Italy is going to be really interesting for the ABs. They'll win with a hard struggle, but if they also win the mauling contest, then they're accelerating toward their first real RWC trophy.

GayGuy's point about one match at a time is interesting. I guess that's the supreme attitude. But then Sean FitzP was the supremest captain never to lift the Web Ellis. And when it comes to captains, why is there no comment on McCaw's sad face in the S14 semis?

 

[Ripper]

But those French tests don't count according to Melhor, but games at the start of the AB's season where they use 39 players in 3 tests should be the only indicators we are to use when judging the AB's World Cup chances.

All this talk of the Italians of troubling the All Blacks is amusing to me. They win 2 (out of 5) 6 Nations teams and suddenly they are going to shove the All Blacks around, who have dominated all before them, especially in the fowards (Every year the media hype up some new prop who is going to dominate Carl Hayman - Andy Sheridan and that Aussie fat f*** who got destroyed after being hyped by the Aussie media for 2 straight weeks for example - Rodzilla? Laugh. Out. Out)

 

[shtove]

The point about Italy is if the ABs can shove them around in the maul, then the ABs have a completely dominant team - with maybe just the lineout not measuring up to perfection.

 

[stormmaster1]

Italy will provide a test for the all blacks. The ABs won't struggle to win, they have too much class from 1 to 22, but Italy are by far and away the most physical side in the NH and should help keep the ABs honest and work them hard. Probably one of the best warm up matches for NZ to have before the knockout stages.

 

[Melhor Time]

But those French tests don't count according to Melhor, but games at the start of the AB's season where they use 39 players in 3 tests should be the only indicators we are to use when judging the AB's World Cup chances.

All this talk of the Italians of troubling the All Blacks is amusing to me. They win 2 (out of 5) 6 Nations teams and suddenly they are going to shove the All Blacks around, who have dominated all before them, especially in the fowards (Every year the media hype up some new prop who is going to dominate Carl Hayman - Andy Sheridan and that Aussie fat f*** who got destroyed after being hyped by the Aussie media for 2 straight weeks for example - Rodzilla? Laugh. Out. Out)
[/b]

From reading this it is blatantly obvious that you are talking from the point of view of a NZ rugby fan, not a rugby fan.

You get laughs out of reading people who knwo more about Italy than you say they are good? I see your age listed on this forum and it shows. Be real dude. Your opionion of Italy suggets you don't wtahc enough rugby. Thats prettu rich given your earlier swearing in your reply to me.

Do you know who Martin Castrogiovanni is? Let me tell you, he is a better player than Carl Hayman. You have been warned.

Italy have the World's best scrum. Argentina are second and New Zealand are third.

If you want to understand why France lost so badly in the first November game against NZ, start by analyzing the players they picked and compare this to the players they used to beat Ireland in Dublin, Wales in Paris, Scotland in Paris and Italy in Rome. The differences are enormous to the extent that it is senseless to draw conclusions about the French team from the game against NZ.

In terms of the NZ players used you are talking out of your ass to save yourself from the hole you are in. I have never said that we should judge the All Blacks World Cup chances based on the three June tests from 2006. What I instead pointed out is that it would be foolish to argue that the All Blacks are dominant when they very nearly lost three matches in 2006 against Ireland and Argentina. If you can't see the difference you need to think harder.

NZ can lose at this RWC and going off who the players will be in the squad of 30 and looking at the games against Ireland and Argentina it appears that things are not as safe as people are choosing to think. Argentina played an All Black team with 14 players who are likely to go to the World Cup. That Argentine team featured 1 player who won't go to the World Cup and a second who might not. I'll let you work out who they are. Was it the best Argentine XV? Almost. Ireland picked their virtual first choice 15 and almost won. Now if we evaluate their RWC chances based on this we can see that NZ are ahead by about 10 points on the scoreboard. If this enough to suggest Ireland can't beat NZ? I doubt it.

To beat NZ you need to shut them down. The Lions couldn't at all and NZ looked superb. However in NZ's next test South Africa shut them down and won. If you don't shut down NZ they run wild, esp with lucky tries from inside their own half. I have already documented examples.

From what I have seen from watching all the contenders play I believe that Argentina, Ireland, France and South Africa have the best styles to stop NZ. Australia can also, but I would suggest they are behind. England are also a chance but are a further 5 points behind. NZ are better than all teams, yes, but this is sport afterall. Upsets happen and will occur in this RWC.

 

[Melhor Time]

Shtove

A fantastic post.

Ripper

Another waste of time

Here is MT teaching international rugby to Ripper volume 3.

Who Picked Aussie to win in 1991 you ask? You do know that they were the favourites leading into it? They smashed us at home in the 1991 Bledisoe Cup cup, which we only retained because we drew the second test. In 1991 the writing was on the wall long before that, what, with the NZRFU appointing two co-coaches who just happened to hate each others guts, it was just the Northern Media were too stupid to see it.

You are 17, yet you can remember all this from a World Cup when you were 1 year old?

NZ were favourites despite loses since the previous World Cup. They were expected to win and thats how it was in 1991. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and you can now say with ease that 'NZ weren't favourites' but thats simply wrong.

1995? I bet alot of people picked the Springboks to win. And I hardly call losing 15-12 after 100 minutes in a stadium full of 65,000 South Africans riding a wave of national unity for the first time in their history as "choking"..

NZ were favourites and tipped by all to win leading into the the RWC and during the tournament itself. RSA were certainly far from being favourites and trying to call them that is clutching at straws. NZ smashed England to pieces and were clearly looking like winning the final in their next match. The loss was not expected. If you disagree then please find me people who disagree.

Its quite interesting to see you stuck in this arguement searching for something to write... Look at your argument about NZ not being favourites for 1991 and then compare this to what you say about South Africa being favourites for 1995. It is poorly thought out..... NZ defeated South Africa how many times the previous year? Similarly, RSA defeated NZ how many times the previous year. I suspect you will need to consult the internet to see what exactly happened.....

If thats choking, than the Australians must've choked when they lost in similar circumstances at home in 2003. 1999 was the only time we really choked, but once again, you do know that 12 months earlier we lost 5 straight tests? I personally still find it a miracle we were in a position to be 14 points ahead at half time in a semi final since we preety much had to rebuild the entire foward pack and most of the backline a year out from the RWC.

There is no need to change the subject like this to save your own ass. We are not talking about Australia choking and there is no need to bring it up.

And, Actually, you do use double standards. You say to ignore the 47-3 caning the AB's handed out to the French becasue the French weren't full strength,

Ive covered this already. Its quite clear that you want everyone to agree with you even though you have no idea who the players are.

but you say that the 2006 Start of Seasons test's are to be taken as gospel on why the All Blacks won't win. Sadly for your little arguement it kind of goes out the window when its pointed out THE ALL BLACKS PLAYED SECOND STRENGTH TEAMS FOR THOSE 3 TESTS AND STILL WON - THE FRENCH PLAYED SECOND STRENGTH TEAMS AND LOSE BY 44 POINTS.,

They are different. Compare the players who will go to the World Cup from these countries. Once you have done this you might see the error in your ways. Below I will indicate players from the Argentina match that played 3N rugby. Its a different story regarding France, the 6N and the RWC side as any person who follow French rugby is well aware of. What does this tell us champ.....

And LOL at Argentina haveing teams to beat us, you are basing that on what exactly, a game in Benous Aires where Henry played an experimental team? Pathetic. Since you want to use past history, i'll use it as well. The French haven't beaten us since 2000 and Argentina and Ireland have a grand total of 0 wins against us. YAY!]

Us? So you are an All Black :cheers: . Come one, don't be so pathetic. If you don't acknowledge Argentina as a powerful team then you havea very limited knowledge about test rugby. Your entire paragraph, like your entire post, is ignorant and guess work.

Find me weaknesses in the AB team who played at Velez.... Sam Tuitupou... no he started against the boks shortly afterwards. Toeava... no he also stareted 3N games. Scott Hamilton.... no he started 3N games too. Oliver... no also started 3N games. Masoe... no played 3N. Eaton, Collins, Carter... no played 3N. Woodcock.... no played 3N. Sommerville... again no. There was one player who after being totally outplayed by Gonzalo Longo, missed the 3N. Can you guess his name..... The fact is that of this team only 1 will miss the RWC for reasons other than injury. Arg played 4 players who are not likely to start against France. Thats a pretty good indicator to their ability.

BTW you also forgot to mention the 2002 draw against France and the draw against Arg which I doubt you are aware of. Also the loss against Munster whivh you probably cant even find on a map.

And I don't see how bringing up the English 2005 test is really helping your arguement. a ) It was during Henry's tinkering period when he made 5-10 changes every week. b ) It was 2 seasons ago and c ) We still won despite spending half an hour with less than 15 men.

You are really quite the impartial type, arent you :toss: ..... The game is a useful illustration of NZ-s tendancies that I have covered in detail.

Bring up the foward passes all you want, but I think its kind of offset when all 3 sin binnings were a crock of **** and the referee was horrible and he would be lucky to get Pool game between Portugal and Italy at this years World Cup.

Don-t be so subjective. The players were sin binned because they cheated continuously and got caught. You calling it a ~crock of ****~ only highlights your tunnel vision and interests in yourself and not learning from others. It is no defense for a game that was won by two illegal tries that were awarded. I bet you thought BOD was a whinger but Tuqiri deserved to be suspended.

What. The. f***? Have you actually watched any Rugby since 2003? How the hell have the Northern Hemisphere got it into their heads that the only way the All Blacks can score is from the counter attack and penalties. The All Blacks under Henry have scored alot of tries from mauling it up and pick and go and what not, we just don't really have to do it as much against the Northern Teams since we crack your defence so easily. And what does 2003 have to do with anything? In 2003 we had a Coach who struggled to speak English, let alone formulate a gameplan that was more complicated than "spread it to Rocokoko and hope for the best" , no foward pack, no captain, half a lineout, no goal kicker and no centre. In 2007 we don't have any of those issues. But if you want to bring up 2003 as an indicator that we won't win - France were wasted by 40 points by us, South Africa were knocked out in the Quarters along with Ireland and Argentina didn't even make it out of the pool play. Scary.

No need to sware.

I have watched plenty of rugby, involving all teams going to the RWC except for Namibia. I suspect you dont know who Pedro Leal is, let alone Carlos Nieto. Arg and RSA have improved out of site but its a waste of time trying to communicate this to a kid stuck scraching his head for ideas. Arg missed the QFs thanks to an unlucky draw and game schedule: 4 games in 14 days. They lost to Ireland by one point after having the lead until late in the game. Ireland then lost by one point to Australia who in turn defeated the All Blacks. Yes, since you wanted to mention 2003 it does support my argument very well.

John Mitchell speaks fluent English actually. You are in over your head.

In the meantime tell me who the following play for... lets test your knowledge which appears to be as weak as Namibia-s defense in the 2003 RWC.

Castrogiovanni, Avramovic, Sammy Naulu, Festcucio, Balan, Mike James, Ally Hogg, Leguizamon, Pedro Leal, Rodrigo Capo. They are all players known in the rugby world. They must be if a man in Brasil knows who they are, B)

 

[Juggernaut]

If you don't shut down NZ they run wild, esp with lucky tries from inside their own half.[/b]

So it's nothing to do with Rokocoko's pace or Muliaina's counter-attacking abilities?? They were all just lucky, right?

 

[Melhor Time]

If you don't shut down NZ they run wild, esp with lucky tries from inside their own half.[/b]

So it's nothing to do with Rokocoko's pace or Muliaina's counter-attacking abilities?? They were all just lucky, right?
[/b]

NZ are scoring such tries based on others mistakes not making them themselves. This is not going to win a close game and in the past NZ have lost precisely for this reason.

Go over any footage you have and then respond if you disagree with my analysis. Until then, I challenge and urge you to do so.

Roko and Muli were v good in games in which NZ werent shut down, but when they were shut down they were worthless. The 2003 RWC being the obvious place to look. NZ have better forwards now, but they are earning Carter far more shots at goal than they are tries.

 

[Wellycane]

Roko and Muli were v good...[/b]

I really don't see why some people don't type the whole correct name? I mean what's so hard about it? Anyways the name you typed as 'Muli' means ass or bum in Samoan. :lol:

 

[TRUE LEGND]

NZ are scoring such tries based on others mistakes not making them themselves. This is not going to win a close game and in the past NZ have lost precisely for this reason.
[/b]

What gave you that opinion that NZ win game's on people's mistake's...can you give an example of that???
Ive always known NZ to be the front runner's on scoring try's from anywhere on the field

 

[mimic]

lol Melhor_Time, I thought Sth. Africa were a team that scored from opposition mistakes, rather than creating opportunities themselves.

So what you're implying is that the All Blacks are the best at punishing teams for making mistakes?
Why do those teams make mistakes? Is it cos of the pressure the All Blacks supply?

Also, it would be nice if you defined what a "mistake" is suppose to be

Find me weaknesses in the AB team who played at Velez.... Sam Tuitupou... no he started against the boks shortly afterwards. Toeava... no he also stareted 3N games. Scott Hamilton.... no he started 3N games too. Oliver... no also started 3N games. Masoe... no played 3N. Eaton, Collins, Carter... no played 3N. Woodcock.... no played 3N. Sommerville... again no. There was one player who after being totally outplayed by Gonzalo Longo, missed the 3N. Can you guess his name..... The fact is that of this team only 1 will miss the RWC for reasons other than injury. Arg played 4 players who are not likely to start against France. Thats a pretty good indicator to their ability.[/b]

Sam Tuitupou lacks vision.. He's not even in the squad anymore.. He was never 1st choice #12, and was always 2nd fiddle to Mauger.
Toeava was new to international rugby. He's grown as a player since then. He also wasn't first choice, he was an experiment.
Scott Hamilton, lolz, this guy is crap. He always was. No1 knows why he was selected.
Oliver, well he's 2nd to Mealamu.
Masoe, well, he's a bench player. So what if he's started, if we were to pick the strongest team, he'd be on the bench.
Eaton would probably be a bench player. With Ali you just never know.
Collins is a starter, no1 said he wasn't.
Carter is a starter, same as above.
Woodcock, again, same as above.
Sommerville is a bench player, like Masoe.

We didn't say they were weak, just that some weren't 'first choice' AB's, and they wouldn't have been starting if it was a RWC final.

 

[Ripper]

I HATE QUOTE TAGS!!

 

[Ripper]

You are 17, yet you can remember all this from a World Cup when you were 1 year old?

NZ were favourites despite loses since the previous World Cup. They were expected to win and thats how it was in 1991. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and you can now say with ease that 'NZ weren't favourites' but thats simply wrong.[/b]

Yes... It Must be hindsight. I'm sure when you heard that 2 Men who couldn't even stand being in the same room as each other appointed as Co-Coaches on the eve of the 1991 RWC you tipped the All Blacks all the way. I'm also sure that when the ABs were hammered at home in the Bledisoe Cup in the Months leading up to the RWC you rushed down and placed a large chunk of money on them.

NZ were favourites and tipped by all to win leading into the the RWC and during the tournament itself. RSA were certainly far from being favourites and trying to call them that is clutching at straws. NZ smashed England to pieces and were clearly looking like winning the final in their next match. The loss was not expected. If you disagree then please find me people who disagree.

Its quite interesting to see you stuck in this arguement searching for something to write... Look at your argument about NZ not being favourites for 1991 and then compare this to what you say about South Africa being favourites for 1995. It is poorly thought out..... NZ defeated South Africa how many times the previous year? Similarly, RSA defeated NZ how many times the previous year. I suspect you will need to consult the internet to see what exactly happened..... [/b]

And you have a go at me because my age? You do know that the All Blacks under Laurie Mains had a 50% recording between 1992 and the start of the 1995 RWC? We lost to England in 1993, lost the Bledisoe Cup in 94 and lost a home series that year as well. And the South African/All Black results between their re-entrance to international Rugby and the 1995 Final?

All Blacks 27-24 Ellis Park Johannesburg
All Blacks 22-14 Carisbrook Dunedin
All Blacks 13-9 Athletic Park Wellington
Drew 18-18 Eden Park Auckland

A 3 Point Victory, a 8 point victory and a 4 point Victory with a draw, 3 of those tests at home. The All Blacks have dominated all those before them for 3 years, but because a couple of games were close they are now screwed, but the All Blacks supposedly had the wood on the Boks leading up to the 95 World Cup Final with a draw and 2 victories where the margin was less than a unconverted try?

So in other words, 50% record, losing the BC the year before, struggling to beat the Boks, losing to the French at home and the English, and we were favourites for the 1995 World Cup? :toss:

Ive covered this already. Its quite clear that you want everyone to agree with you even though you have no idea who the players are.

They are different. Compare the players who will go to the World Cup from these countries. Once you have done this you might see the error in your ways. Below I will indicate players from the Argentina match that played 3N rugby. Its a different story regarding France, the 6N and the RWC side as any person who follow French rugby is well aware of. What does this tell us champ.....[/b]

It tells us that the French, after getting a record hammering at home in the wet at the hands of the AB's were forced to scuttle and make widespread changes? Just because they made changes, it doesn't mean jack. I'm supposed to be impressed because they got pushed around such Rugby Superpowers like Scotland and Wales? Believe it or not I think we are on a bit of a different level to the 6 Nations teams they had to face this year.

Us? So you are an All Black :cheers: . Come one, don't be so pathetic. If you don't acknowledge Argentina as a powerful team then you havea very limited knowledge about test rugby. Your entire paragraph, like your entire post, is ignorant and guess work.

Find me weaknesses in the AB team who played at Velez.... Sam Tuitupou... no he started against the boks shortly afterwards. Toeava... no he also stareted 3N games. Scott Hamilton.... no he started 3N games too. Oliver... no also started 3N games. Masoe... no played 3N. Eaton, Collins, Carter... no played 3N. Woodcock.... no played 3N. Sommerville... again no. There was one player who after being totally outplayed by Gonzalo Longo, missed the 3N. Can you guess his name..... The fact is that of this team only 1 will miss the RWC for reasons other than injury. Arg played 4 players who are not likely to start against France. Thats a pretty good indicator to their ability.[/b]

Scott Hamilton... you mean the one who only made the Tri Nations squad because of injuries, and after struggling to make the Crusaders starting 15 is now barely able to make the Junior All Blacks squad? Sam Tuitopou... Sam Tuitopou, I remember him, I heard his name, it was also in the Junior All Blacks squad. Masoe, Weepu, Sommerville, Oliver, MacDonald, Eaton, Tuialili all hardly regular starters (funnily enough, 4 Players who started that game - Tuitopou, Gear, Hamilton and Tuialili failed to even make the 30 man AB squad named this week)

BTW you also forgot to mention the 2002 draw against France and the draw against Arg which I doubt you are aware of. Also the loss against Munster whivh you probably cant even find on a map. [/b]

I'm sorry but what? How are 2 draws (which last time I checked were not classified as defeats), one from 2002 when Mitchell sent a pissweak team over and one from 1981, and a loss in 1978 to a Provinical Team are relevant.

You are really quite the impartial type, arent you :toss: ..... The game is a useful illustration of NZ-s tendancies that I have covered in detail.[/b]

Wow, imagine that, I'm an All Black fan, so I'm not impartial... SHOCK. HORROR. Whats next, your going to tell me that the Right Wingers tend to disagree with left wing politics? And what tendancies have you covered in detail. Last time I checked the All Blacks under Henry don't tend to get 3 players sin binned, please don't tell me you are ignoring the majority of the tests and trying to desperatly zero in on games where Henry was still experimenting and have no bearing on the current AB teams... again?

Don-t be so subjective. The players were sin binned because they cheated continuously and got caught. You calling it a ~crock of ****~ only highlights your tunnel vision and interests in yourself and not learning from others. It is no defense for a game that was won by two illegal tries that were awarded. I bet you thought BOD was a whinger but Tuqiri deserved to be suspended. [/b]

No need to "sware"... and of course BOD was a whinger, he even whinged and made up a bunch of lies about the medical staff, and Tiquri probably shouldn't have been suspended, 10 minutes in the bin would've done me.

I have watched plenty of rugby, involving all teams going to the RWC except for Namibia. I suspect you dont know who Pedro Leal is, let alone Carlos Nieto. Arg and RSA have improved out of site but its a waste of time trying to communicate this to a kid stuck scraching his head for ideas. Arg missed the QFs thanks to an unlucky draw and game schedule: 4 games in 14 days. They lost to Ireland by one point after having the lead until late in the game. Ireland then lost by one point to Australia who in turn defeated the All Blacks. Yes, since you wanted to mention 2003 it does support my argument very well. [/b]

Really? You seem to think that RSA and Arg have improved while the AB's have remained stagent, and that past World Cups should only be used when arguing against the All Blacks, the fact Ireland and Argentina still failed to do anything outside of pool play should be ignored for a bunch of random reasons (Argentina should be excused because they blew a lead? boo frickity hoo :wah:

John Mitchell speaks fluent English actually. You are in over your head.[/b]

Never seen one of his press conferences than

In the meantime tell me who the following play for... lets test your knowledge which appears to be as weak as Namibia-s defense in the 2003 RWC.

Castrogiovanni, Avramovic, Sammy Naulu, Festcucio, Balan, Mike James, Ally Hogg, Leguizamon, Pedro Leal, Rodrigo Capo. They are all players known in the rugby world. They must be if a man in Brasil knows who they are, B)[/b]

Pathetic.

 

[Ripper]

From reading this it is blatantly obvious that you are talking from the point of view of a NZ rugby fan, not a rugby fan. [/b]

:lol2tn: :lol2tn: :lol2tn:

Really? My Oh My that is a real clever peice of dectictive work Holmes, what gave it away?

You get laughs out of reading people who knwo more about Italy than you say they are good? I see your age listed on this forum and it shows. Be real dude. Your opionion of Italy suggets you don't wtahc enough rugby. Thats prettu rich given your earlier swearing in your reply to me. [/b]

Even richer when you said "crock of ****" yourself :bana: And I watch enough Rugby to know that your setting Italy up for a fall. I watched enough to see that they beat 2 out of 5 Six Nations team this year, and that is apparently what your basing it on, of course the All Blacks seem to do ok against the Six Nations teams as well, they usually win more than they lose as well.

Do you know who Martin Castrogiovanni is? Let me tell you, he is a better player than Carl Hayman. You have been warned. [/b]

Oh, he is he? What are you basing it on exactly? Because he outscrummaged the weak Northern Packs?

Italy have the World's best scrum. Argentina are second and New Zealand are third. [/b]

All speculation of course, something that you would never do of course.

If you want to understand why France lost so badly in the first November game against NZ, start by analyzing the players they picked and compare this to the players they used to beat Ireland in Dublin, Wales in Paris, Scotland in Paris and Italy in Rome. The differences are enormous to the extent that it is senseless to draw conclusions about the French team from the game against NZ. [/b]

But drawing conclusions from the time Henry was at times changing the entire Starting XV, and using 39 players for 3 tests is perfectly reasonable.

In terms of the NZ players used you are talking out of your ass to save yourself from the hole you are in. I have never said that we should judge the All Blacks World Cup chances based on the three June tests from 2006. What I instead pointed out is that it would be foolish to argue that the All Blacks are dominant when they very nearly lost three matches in 2006 against Ireland and Argentina. If you can't see the difference you need to think harder. [/b]

And i'm saying its foolish to excuse the French for getting a record hammering for not being "Full strength" but than say we can't ignore 3 All Blacks tests when 39 players were used.

NZ can lose at this RWC and going off who the players will be in the squad of 30 and looking at the games against Ireland and Argentina it appears that things are not as safe as people are choosing to think. Argentina played an All Black team with 14 players who are likely to go to the World Cup. That Argentine team featured 1 player who won't go to the World Cup and a second who might not. I'll let you work out who they are. Was it the best Argentine XV? Almost. Ireland picked their virtual first choice 15 and almost won. Now if we evaluate their RWC chances based on this we can see that NZ are ahead by about 10 points on the scoreboard. If this enough to suggest Ireland can't beat NZ? I doubt it. [/b]

Please, don't talk ****, you actually believe Scott Hamilton is a All Black regular don't you, 4 starters who played that test won't be going to the World Cup, thats not including Eatons who will miss it due to injury. And I don't really see how your arguement works. The weakend Experimental All Blacks are 10 points better than Irelands best XV.. basing on that it is enough to judge that Ireland don't stand much of a chance. Also you say "Now if we evaluate their RWC chances based on this we can see", last time I saw the French play the All Blacks records tumbled.

To beat NZ you need to shut them down. The Lions couldn't at all and NZ looked superb. However in NZ's next test South Africa shut them down and won. If you don't shut down NZ they run wild, esp with lucky tries from inside their own half. I have already documented examples. [/b]

Really? Let me get this straight... to beat the All Blacks you have to.... shut... them... down" :wacko: Could you give me some more examples, because i'm really doubting your theory that the key to beating the All Blacks is to shut them down. And I don't really see how that is a disadvantage to be able to run wild with "lucky" (I would personally call it better players combined with shitty Northern Hemisphere Defences)

From what I have seen from watching all the contenders play I believe that Argentina, Ireland, France and South Africa have the best styles to stop NZ. Australia can also, but I would suggest they are behind. England are also a chance but are a further 5 points behind. NZ are better than all teams, yes, but this is sport afterall. Upsets happen and will occur in this RWC.
[/b]

Oh, so they have the "style" now... Brilliant. With the exception of the Springboks who can only beat us at home (And last year we beat them in South Africa in the game that acutally mattered) those teams have beaten Graham Henry's All Blacks how many times? Australia beat us in 2004... and?

 

[Ickon]

In France 07 I think the following will happen:


and I think the following might happen:


[/b]

In France 07 I think the following will happen:

- Winner of Pool D wins the World Cup - I won't argue with this one Ireland are my dark horse.
- Argentina beating Ireland - It's a possibility but I don't think it will happen this World Cup.
- France beating Ireland - Your most likely prediction to happen.
- New Zealand knocked out in the QF's - Don't you know we only get knocked out in the semis. :lol:
- France Vs South Africa final - I can see this happening. :mellow:
- Italy beating Scotland - Haven't seen Scotland play recently ?? :huh:
- Australia knocked out at the QF stage by Pool A winner (RSA / Eng). Never write the Aussies off in a W.C.

and I think the following might happen:

- Canada beating Fiji - Juggs would be shattered!! :lol: :lol:
- Argentina beating France and going on to win the pool and the RWC. - Not this W.C.
- Wales beating Australia - Being a Kiwi I'm hoping this does happen.
- USA beating Samoa - I'm praying that this never happens. If they put the money they put into American Football then this would definitely happen.
- Japan beating Fiji - Same as Canada game

2003 World Cup - People forget we lost Tana Umaga, would England have won without Jonny or would Australia have gotten to the final without Mortlock?? Im not making an excuse but think about it.... Would New Zealand have gotten as far as they did in the previous 2 World Cups without Lomu, My answers is No. But that's just all specutlation.

Everyone can write the Kiwis off if they want, but regardless of how well we have played in the past(or crap for that matter), we have never had this much depth before. Some people say it could work against us. I guess we will all have to wait and see...... Looking forward to the World Cup. :cheers:

ps. F$#ken EA Sports get your **** together. :rahh:

 

[stormmaster1]

2003 World Cup - People forget we lost Tana Umaga, would England have won without Jonny or would Australia have gotten to the final without Mortlock?? Im not making an excuse but think about it.... Would New Zealand have gotten as far as they did in the previous 2 World Cups without Lomu, My answers is No. But that's just all specutlation.

Everyone can write the Kiwis off if they want, but regardless of how well we have played in the past(or crap for that matter), we have never had this much depth before. Some people say it could work against us. I guess we will all have to wait and see...... Looking forward to the World Cup. :cheers:

ps. F$#ken EA Sports get your **** together. :rahh:
[/b]

England would have won WC2003 without johnny, he didn't have a good tournament at all. Wouldn't have won it without johnno, but could cope without johnny.