[2015 RWC] Pool C: New Zealand vs. Argentina (20/09/2015)

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Jeepers @Cruz_del_Sur, you sure like a good old debate dont you Seriously take a look at your list of posts and check out the tone and content.... Unfortunately your posts read like someone with a chip on their shoulder and you are more interested in arguing than rugby.

I'll say one more thing about this and (unless you want to continue) i'll drop it: you should really take a step back see how some of the nzers sound to the rest of the world. As someone already eloquently posted: "usually think McCaw walks on water and they get surprised when quite a few fans somehow find that hilarious"

Don't take me too seriously, i'm quite amicable most of the time!

Regarding the rest, i see Argentina going second in their group without much trouble. After that, it's either France or Ireland. I'd prefer Ireland to be honest. I see the Irish on an avg day better than the French on an avg day, but the French on their best day are better than the Irish on their best day. Some might disagree with this, i presume. France tends to punch above their weight on World Cups while Ireland tends to do the opposite. Got a lot of Irish friends here, so i won't enjoy going with them to the pub to support opposing teams, but that is how i see it.
In either case, i think we have a reasonable shot. Odds will be against us but we're used to that and it tends to play on our favour.
After that i guess it'd be Australia. We need to have a very tight game to win that one. I'd say 3/10 are fair odds for that scenario.

Argentina played very dumb when we had 2 extra men. Not only that, but you would expect a team that had to play with 1 less for 20 minutes (two yellows) to be the one paying for it later in the game. Clearly wasn't the case.

A lot of people have pointed out the pumas's late game problems. Not just in this game but in general. I don't believe it is, at least not only, a physical thing, but a psychological one. That is why the wins vs South Africa this year and Australia last year were so important. Our players were getting used to what we call "worthy" loses (gets a tad lost in translation). It means it was a good effort, you gave it all, blablabla, and even if you lost you should feel ok. That is the worst possible spot for a team to be at. It is understandable for a while, but if you get stuck there, mentally, it's very hard to get out. We were there.

I think the game vs New Zealand gave us a lot to hope for. We played against the best and gave them a fair run for their money. I'm a bit scared about Hernandez thou. He does all this nice tricks and stuff, but whenever he ****s up it always costs us dearly.

 

[Horacito]

Argentinian players can't handle SBW, not because he is a better player than Nonu, simply because he is not the kind of player you get to defend in Europe or Arg. SBW has a history of being very good against NH sides as well.

 

[Mcfadden]

Jones Boy
On the booing of McCaw - that may well stem from how the English supporters him. I have one English mate who has moved over to NZ to live. On most aspects of rugby we agree and have knowledgable conversations. However on McCaw we just have to leave it. He'll begrudgingly acknowledge he's a good player, but predominantly he thinks McCaw is nothing but a cheat, who continually has the ear of the referee. No matter which ref it is. There is no moving my friend past this mindset. He is fixated on it, so I have just given up and circumnavigate it in our discussions.

Your friend sounds like a good guy, but having the ear of the referee isn't a bad thing. You know who use to be great at that? Probably the best in my life time? George Gregan. People use to hate him as well (most for his 4 more years boys remark in '03, not his actual game playing like McCaw) but he was intelligent, and read the game well and was acknowledged as such. So why can't people do the same for McCaw? Any compliment they give is through gritted teeth. Intelligent people spew out some really bizarre opinions on Richie and go into denying-facts mode.

I think your approach with your friend is probably one we should adopt on the forum. Just stay away from certain topics as much as we can. Otherwise people like Cruz del Sur just have a reason to go off the rails and perpetuate xenophobia and gigantic double standards. Just like with the referees. Other nations can whinge and moan up a storm, but if NZ mention Barnes .. uh-oh, excuses excuses! Pretty sure it wasn't a New Zealander who dedicated an entire thread on the ability of Romain Poite or goes on about the 2011 final. 07 keeps being brought up because people have very selective memories around here. So as soon as you counter history with more history the other side goes "hey! why did you bring that up for!? it's in the past!"

 

[Cookies]

Let's be honest; people don't hate McCaw because he cheats, they hate him because he's good at cheating. All other teams and supporters would kill to have someone like that on their team. If McCaw was a Wallaby, the Australians would herald him a hero. If McCaw was with the English, the English would cheer his name every game.

 

[ABs2011]

I'll say one more thing about this and (unless you want to continue) i'll drop it: you should really take a step back see how some of the nzers sound to the rest of the world. As someone already eloquently posted: "usually think McCaw walks on water and they get surprised when quite a few fans somehow find that hilarious"

Don't take me too seriously, i'm quite amicable most of the time!

Regarding the rest, i see Argentina going second in their group without much trouble. After that, it's either France or Ireland. I'd prefer Ireland to be honest. I see the Irish on an avg day better than the French on an avg day, but the French on their best day are better than the Irish on their best day. Some might disagree with this, i presume. France tends to punch above their weight on World Cups while Ireland tends to do the opposite. Got a lot of Irish friends here, so i won't enjoy going with them to the pub to support opposing teams, but that is how i see it.
In either case, i think we have a reasonable shot. Odds will be against us but we're used to that and it tends to play on our favour.
After that i guess it'd be Australia. We need to have a very tight game to win that one. I'd say 3/10 are fair odds for that scenario.

Argentina played very dumb when we had 2 extra men. Not only that, but you would expect a team that had to play with 1 less for 20 minutes (two yellows) to be the one paying for it later in the game. Clearly wasn't the case.

A lot of people have pointed out the pumas's late game problems. Not just in this game but in general. I don't believe it is, at least not only, a physical thing, but a psychological one. That is why the wins vs South Africa this year and Australia last year were so important. Our players were getting used to what we call "worthy" loses (gets a tad lost in translation). It means it was a good effort, you gave it all, blablabla, and even if you lost you should feel ok. That is the worst possible spot for a team to be at. It is understandable for a while, but if you get stuck there, mentally, it's very hard to get out. We were there.

I think the game vs New Zealand gave us a lot to hope for. We played against the best and gave them a fair run for their money. I'm a bit scared about Hernandez thou. He does all this nice tricks and stuff, but whenever he ****s up it always costs us dearly.

All good my friend! I'm not that interested in the opinions of the odd knob. There are d!cks from all counties and unsurprisingly they are way more vocal on anonymous internet forums. Most regular posters on this forum whether they are from NZ or any other country provide a lot of useful information and opinion, anything else I think it better to just disregard. I personally think McCaw is a Rugby God and is perhaps the greatest player to ever take the field. That being said his yellow card moment was an embarrassment and a disgrace - BUT ***** happens. He got punished for it and deserves it, and will likely get booed for the rest of the cup as a result. No-one to blame but himself.

I agree with pretty much everything you have said re Argentina. I think you are spot on with the QF matchup but I'd give you a slightly better chance of winning, regardless of the opposition.

In terms of that last 20minutes, I don't get to watch a lot of NH rugby, but my understanding is that the pace of it is significantly slower than SH stuff. Would that be fair? If so, all out players are used to that fast game for the full 80 in both the ITM cup and Super Rugby. Perhaps with all the Arg players up in the NH domestic comps, they are just not ready to play that kind of rugby week in week out. Physical, Physiological? mmm probably both. The way the game went on, it certainly looked like the ABs had a fitness edge, but maybe (as you say) it was simply a drop off in mental application.

Lastly, I fully agree, if Arg is to improve, the primary comments from pundits that should be taken in by the players and coaching staff should be the critical ones. They blew a grand chance to upset the Kiwis and regardless of whether the drop off in the last 20 is metal or physical it needs to be addressed quick smart.

Oh and Argentina should be very wary of Tonga. Tonga were downright average vs Georgia in game one, but they have the players in Piutau, Vainikolo and Veainu to break things open in a huge hurry, and have enough structure and experience from the likes of Morath Takula Ma'afu Latu etc to trouble Argentina if things fall their way. I went to the game last world cup when they beat France so have seen what they can do on their day,

 

[Five Meters Out]

Yep McFadden and Cookie
The truth of the matter is that every flanker plays the game right on the edge of the law. That's their job. If they don't then they won't get selected in any team.
And every Captain needs to be in the ear of the Ref. That's their job.

And Barnes - well he's been around for 8 years now, so he must be doing something right. Who'd be a referee?

 

[Mcfadden]

He ain't no saint, that's for sure. His execution is a lot more poor than what it use to be (well duh, he's older now! like all of us are!) and the trip thing was perhaps the dumbest thing I've seen him do, ever. I'm just glad he hasn't done that his whole career. The two yellow cards aren't just about Conrad and Ricchie - to me it represented that the whole team of All Blacks need to be more disciplined going forward. Because other nations like South Africa and England have excellent goal kickers who will surely punish us. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the tournament. I think it's pretty "up for grabs" to an extent. I don't think anyone will coast in.

 

[Kiwi_]

I'm pretty much done with the McCaw cheats thing. It always results in the same comments "every good flanker cheats" etc etc. I think it's best left alone rather than rehashed in different shades of grey. There will be no changing the English view of McCaw and it doesn't need to be changed, his record speaks for itself, in time respect will be given and his achievements will be celebrated even by his greatest critics, right now they just want to beat him and they hate the way he wins, he represents a NZ Rugby dynasty and era of domination.

 

[ABs2011]

He ain't no saint, that's for sure. His execution is a lot more poor than what it use to be (well duh, he's older now! like all of us are!) and the trip thing was perhaps the dumbest thing I've seen him do, ever. I'm just glad he hasn't done that his whole career. The two yellow cards aren't just about Conrad and Ricchie - to me it represented that the whole team of All Blacks need to be more disciplined going forward. Because other nations like South Africa and England have excellent goal kickers who will surely punish us. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the tournament. I think it's pretty "up for grabs" to an extent. I don't think anyone will coast in.

I think you are right in general, but for me, more importantly it is what happened in the lead up to the yellows and for the most part it was a period of play where the ABs getting dominated by the Argy forwards. We were either missing our first up tackles or not making strong enough contact, Argentina as a result were comfortable and consistently making and crossing the adv line. All in all were looking pretty average and were certainly on the back foot for that period. I guess what I am saying is I don't think either yellow card would have eventuated if we were on our game a little more and I hope that is what the coaches are focussing on moving forward.

McCaws yellow was a really dumb and disappointing reflex thing, Conrad's to be honest was quite calculated (I think). I don't believe any amount of discipline coaching would have stop either occurring to be honest.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty much done with the McCaw cheats thing. It always results in the same comments "every good flanker cheats" etc etc. I think it's best left alone rather than rehashed in different shades of grey. There will be no changing the English view of McCaw and it doesn't need to be changed, his record speaks for itself, in time respect will be given and his achievements will be celebrated even by his greatest critics, right now they just want to beat him and they hate the way he wins, he represents a NZ Rugby dynasty and era of domination.

Lets be honest, anyone who focuses on McCaws indiscretions without giving him credit as one of the best to ever play the game really doesn't deserve much attention to be honest. I've never really entered into that conversation because I find it a bit pathetic to be honest. Yes he pushes the boundaries, yes he gets caught a lot, yes he gets in the refs ear. So what? So do a lot of players! After all, as you say it is part of the game. End of story

 

[Dizzy]

Wow!.. McCaw gets a yellow card and it becomes this HUUUGGEE topic of "SEE, I TOLD YOU HES A CHEAT!"...

Everyone always comes down on New Zealand fans when we defend Richie and try to make it seem as if we are blindly bias.
When making a statement, speak on FACTS!.. not your shared opinion with the majority,.. FACTS!!!!
Did McCaw try to trip Fernandez Lobbe? YES!.. Does that make him a cheat? NO! and here's some reason why...

Yes the trip was a stupid thing to do, but this one isolated incident doesnt mean he is a cheat..
If you are offside does that make you a cheat?.. No, just means you may have wrongly determined where the offside line is..

What McCaw did with the trip,.. was illegal, but not cheating..
Let's say the All Blacks got a penalty and wanted to go for a quick tap but the Argentinian player threw the ball away, is that cheating?.. No,
Or what if, say the shoe was on the other foot and the All Blacks tried to go for a quick tap and someone like Matera illegally tripped Smith as he tapped the ball, No one would give two ****s..

I think now that there is a valid reason to say something bad about McCaw, the world has decided YASSS, lets eat this **** up..

And if you disagree,.. present me some facts on McCaw cheating,.. not your anti-McCaw/NZ opinion,... give me your anti McCaw/NZ Facts

 

[ABs2011]

What constitutes "cheating" in rugby anyway?

 

[Cookies]

Getting caught.

 

[Mcfadden]

I dunno mate, that's a whole other discussion that this forum has been over a few times now lol. Best just stay away from it (but if you're interested theres a thread somewhere - General Discussion section I think - by thegoodnumber10 about cheating in rugby where some posters make good philisophical contributions. But in a thread like this it'll probably just lead to more arguing.) Hope that helps.

 

[smartcooky]

On the Barnes matter - He refs with tunnel vision, while officiating something like the breakdowns very intensely, he can often be oblivious to offsides, he also lets his consistency slip in his rulings with the breakdown, giving players no real indication of how to approach the breakdowns.

To be fair to Barnes, its really the job of his ARs to call in offsides out wide, especially when the ruck/maul is well to one side of the pitch and the whistle referee has his back to the open side.

However, it was Barnes' job to adjudicate offside on the short blind in those situations and around the fringes of the ruck, and I don't think he did a very good job of that.

He's not alone in that either... Clancy and Pollock are other ones who seems a bit slack on offside pillars (thankfully we Kiwis don't ave to worry about the latter.)

 

[InsaneAsylum]

What constitutes "cheating" in rugby anyway?

my opinion of what constitutes "cheating" is use of banned substances. ie. lance armstrong

What McCaw does in Rugby is like appealing for caught behind in cricket when you heard a noise and knew it wasn't off the bat, but the umpire gives the batsman out anyway. I'd call that 'opportunistic' more than cheating.

 

[ABs2011]

Getting caught.

Yeah, so that's my point really. Not sure there isn't a single person that has ever played rugby that isn't a "cheater" then huh!

- - - Updated - - -

I dunno mate, that's a whole other discussion that this forum has been over a few times now lol. Best just stay away from it (but if you're interested theres a thread somewhere - General Discussion section I think - by thegoodnumber10 about cheating in rugby where some posters make good philisophical contributions. But in a thread like this it'll probably just lead to more arguing.) Hope that helps.

Cheers mate, nah not really interested. Perhaps just trying to make the point that calling a rugby player a cheater because he infringes a lot is a bit silly. Anyway, I've posted on this too much as it is

- - - Updated - - -

my opinion of what constitutes "cheating" is use of banned substances. ie. lance armstrong

What McCaw does in Rugby is like appealing for caught behind in cricket when you heard a noise and knew it wasn't off the bat, but the umpire gives the batsman out anyway. I'd call that 'opportunistic' more than cheating.

Yup in games like rugby, basketball, soccer, rugby league, netball etc where breaking the on field rules happens all the time, labelling someone a cheater is a bit bloody pointless if you ask me. I'd argue cricket is a little different but I get the point you are making.

 

[smartcooky]

What constitutes "cheating" in rugby anyway?

For mine, with a few exceptions, cheating only applies to those things covered by Law 10.2 UNFAIR PLAY

[TEXTAREA]10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
Sanction: Free Kick

(c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line if the offence is between the 15-metre line and the touchline, or, at the place of infringement if the offence occurred elsewhere in the field of play, or, 5 metres from the goal line and at least 15 metres from the touchline if the infringement occurred in in-goal.

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored[/TEXTAREA]

Pretty much, cheating is intentionally infringing the Laws. Being offside, putting hands in the ruck, committing high-tackles etc are not cheating unless you are doing so intentionally.

There are a couple of exceptions IMO; pulling back a would-be receiver of a pass is cheating. Its not listed in 10.2, but I can't see how it can ever be accidental. Same applies to crooked scrum feeds, eye-gouging and bag-snatching. And sorry McCaw fans, but tripping an opponent the way he did is cheating. He had to know what he was doing.

However, what McCaw usually does at the breakdown is not cheating. What he does is test the limits of what the referee will tolerate at the breakdown, and then back-off to try to stay inside those limits. Its something that he is very good at; arguably, still the best in the world at it.

The reality is that if opposing fans of players like Richie McCaw, David Pocock, Michael Hooper, Heinrich Brussouw and George Smith are not accusing them of cheating, then those players are not doing their jobs.

 

[Tony Manx]

Let's be honest; people don't hate McCaw because he cheats, they hate him because he's good at cheating. All other teams and supporters would kill to have someone like that on their team. If McCaw was a Wallaby, the Australians would herald him a hero. If McCaw was with the English, the English would cheer his name every game.

Absolutely correct!!

 

[Shaggy]

@Shaggy. Thanks for the level headed response.

I think you got this upside down. Factually i'll give it to you: people want to see you lose. But several of your nzers comments make it sound and if literally there was some malice towards new zealand or something. The statement is correct in the fact that people want to see you lose, but the key question here is why. It is NOT because people are out to get NZers or because they hate your and your country but because, whether people admit it or not, you are in most people's eyes #1 and any game where someone beats the best it is, way more often than not, a good game. We love the sport, regardless of our colours, and good games are something we all look for. Happens in every single sport.

If Australia or South Africa were the # 1, people would be doing the same with them as targe. The criticism towards new zealand is not personal. The responses from new zealanders, more often than not, are.

And just as you play the card "just because we are paranoid, it doesn't mean you guys aren't all out to get us" i'll double down: even if people are out to get you that doesn't mean the points they are raising are not valid.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim there is a conspiracy against you the burden of proof is on you.


That would be a valid point if and only if Barnes had screwed you again. I, and i'm pretty sure i'm with the vast majority here, don't think he did. If we can agree on that, then bringing that up is irrelevant at best, trolling at worst.

You used the example of the french to relativize your case. Every country has examples like that, every single one. Most do not bring them up as often as your countrymen do.

Again, thanks for the response. Cheers!

Yep, my response was a bit tongue in cheek, I'm not implying really that anyone is out to get us, or that people hate us as a people, or any of that; I get that people want to see the top sides get defeated, and that it's not just the ABs they want to see lose. We saw that with South Africa already with the Japanese game, I'm more than okay with people being happy Japan won, but, where I personally struggle (these days anyway) is people getting enjoyment out of South Africa's misery (there are a few out there).

Your point about taking things personally is a good one; it's okay in my book to have differing points of view, we don't have to agree as a group, just address the points and not get emotive about it, however, some posters, in this case we are talking about my countrymen, may be so far entrenched in there love of the team, that they can't always see things objectively, and still others may feel the need to be defensive, when you lump us all in together with "most NZ posters", "several of NZers comments" etc ... I hope I'm making sense, what I mean is, where you previously have been disagreeing with a radical few, your suddenly dealing with a lot more, moderate posters ... it's effectively stereotyping, based on a few peoples comments, then applying your comments to the whole group you have just stereotyped.

My comments regarding the Paranoid thing was meant as a joke, I'm not deigning that there are some NZ posters that might feel that some refs etc are against us, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority of us think that way. I could find posters from just about any nationality on here, that feel there's some sort of bias, and draw the same conclusion about that country's posters as a whole. I may need to clarify my French/Joubert comment here, in that I expect some lively discussion from SOME French posters if/when Craig Joubert refs one of their games, because I've experienced it first hand on here already. When you say I brought it up to revitalise my case etc, the point you make about every country having examples like that, is exactly my point, and there are elements in every country that will constantly revisit this stuff (not just NZers). As for the frequency we raise these topics, most of us would rather put it behind us, so we don't often talk about, 2007, Mr Barnes, food poisoning in 1995, choking, etc, but there's probably more than a few that will respond/share our opinion if someone else brings it up.

Lastly, on the whole Wayne Barnes stuff, yes, I agree, the vast majority said he did alright in this match, however, given the combination of, that the All Blacks struggle when he referees us, the past history, and that this thread was opened prior to the match, it seems reasonable that he'll draw some comment on his performance. As you said, the vast majority (including us NZers) thought he went alright, but that doesn't mean we can't be critical of some aspects of his performance; we do the same with the players.

 

[austingtir]

They had been making heavy tackles on Nonu for a large part of the game, as well as Savea who was coming inside, they were getting to the point of being worn out, not to diminish SBWs performance, but this is the type of game that gets him praise and hype, only for him to go missing in the big fixtures vs Australia in Sydney etc. So I'm cautious to do a complete flip on him, and even Conrad Smith started to penetrate a lot more in the 2nd half to reinforce the fact they were tiring. Aaron Smith was excellent and MotM for me, not SBW.

I think SBW needs another chance against Australia. For me that game was an out of the ordinary in many ways. I just dont buy that Giteau (or the rest of any other Australian backline combination) could contain him two games in a row provided we got our share of possession (the right tactics) and the rest of the team actually turning up/ not being stiffled by Barnes.

Problem is he likely will never get that chance which is silly of him imo (olympic sevens is a load of ****...). He should of been convinced to stick around until the lions tour he would be very useful against them.