All Blacks V Wallabies, Hong Kong, October 30th

[nickdnz]

You see, I just can't begrudge players for behaving that way... I actually agree with you that he's a dick, but in terms of using the League thing to get more money I don't really have a problem with it. I've been around long enough to see clubs really screw otherwise loyal and reliable players, just so they could make room for some freak or money spinner. So I actually think that sports organisations as a whole have bred this attitude and if they want to get upset at someone then they have only to look into a mirror. The ARU is far from blameless here - just look at the number of talented people that were never given a shot so they could fork out millions for a dud like Sailor. You're only going to be playing for a very short stint in terms of your whole life, so if you don't have a good career waiting for you at the end, you better make your time at the top level worth it.
I hate to say it, but it's another game in of itself and you have to play it for your own good.

Just read this post, and fair point.

Funny how lots kiwis are going postal/petty on this thread because of one loss...I've known you a more civil poster Cooky...

Makes you happy the AB don't lose often aye...

In fairness, I think it was actually pretty good up until the last few posts. I don't think this is especially a kiwi thing. Regardless, I think most people will admit Australia were the better team, and I've yet heard "the refs were bias", "it's a conspiracy", "Pocock's a cheat" or "australia are sh*t, shouldn't have won", that could be found during the Tri Nations. More people are annoyed by their own teams performances than anything else. Sweeping generalisations are beneath you Charles.

As it is, it sucks our winning streak has been ended, but it's hardly the big decline in our chances for the RWC. We had a somewhat mixed performance from the All Blacks, against an Australian side that looked lethal, and both showed plenty of room for imporvement. One loss is good, it can give reason for the All Blacks to not be over confident going into the Tri Nations and World Cup next year, and you always learn more from a loss than a victory. Let's hope we get a grand slam, and that the loss against Australia is experienced now, than during the RWC.

 

[Charles]

Yeah I know Nick...pretty much everybody behaved on the thread, true. Still, you ge the feeling some guys are not used to losing, and I just waned to be a bit cheeky coz I know you Kiwis are a touchy lot.

Just a bit of banter, that's all...

 

[nickdnz]

Yeah I know Nick...pretty much everybody behaved on the thread, true. Still, you ge the feeling some guys are not used to losing, and I just waned to be a bit cheeky coz I know you Kiwis are a touchy lot.

Just a bit of banter, that's all...

Haha, I have to admit I go mental when the All Blacks lose, especially when it's an important match, and a player is playing especially poorly. I was hitting the ground in front of the TV, while this match was playing, and I'll note it was in a pub. Still, that's nothing compared to 2007.

I do think that when there is such a dominant winning culture for a sport team, every loss is blown out of proportion. When the All Whites lose, I can continue my day more or less uneffected. When the Hurricanes lose, it will get me annoyed for a good half hour. When the All Blacks lose, it ruins the week, and for the first 5 minutes, I go mental.

 

[Haysie]

Like I said.....

No Cook, I think you mis-interpreted what I said.
I'm not trying to debate the issue with you, I'm telling you how you should act.
There is no debate about it.
Whilst it's fair game to judge someone's rugby ability or athletic ability based upon what you have seen, it is NOT fair game to cast aspersions on someone's integrity or their adherence to the law.
We are all mates here and I respect you a great deal, but in this day and age (particularly so on the internet) it's not really appropriate.

What did you think of the scrum contest, anyhow? Was the referee taking too long with the calls in your opinion, or was it largely the packs' fault for not being able to adjust?

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Bit of a random question, anyone know what the name of the song that is played when O'Connor goes over for the important try?

 

[nickdnz]

No Cook, I think you mis-interpreted what I said.
I'm not trying to debate the issue with you, I'm telling you how you should act.
There is no debate about it.
Whilst it's fair game to judge someone's rugby ability or athletic ability based upon what you have seen, it is NOT fair game to cast aspersions on someone's integrity or their adherence to the law.
We are all mates here and I respect you a great deal, but in this day and age (particularly so on the internet) it's not really appropriate.

What did you think of the scrum contest, anyhow? Was the referee taking too long with the calls in your opinion, or was it largely the packs' fault for not being able to adjust?

Can't speak for smartcooky, but I can redirect you -

I guess I like the 1960's look of the hairstyle, but then, who's looking at the hairstyle?

IMO, the slow engagement is a big contributing factor in the mess at scrum-time. This is not Rolland's fault, its IRB policy, made up by some dumb-fvck who has never packed in the front row of a scrum in his life.

I have never been a fan of the four-step engagement sequence. Why on earth is there a pause, before you say pause, and another pause after you say pause?

effectively, what they are doing is

"CROUCH" -- pause -- "TOUCH" -- pause -- "PAUSE" -- pause -- "ENGAGE"

What they should be doing is have the -- pause -- as an unspoken action between the TOUCH and the ENGAGE. so

"CROUCH" -- pause -- "TOUCH" -- pause -- "ENGAGE" ("engage being a two syllable word, the "en" becomes the warning and the front rows come together on the "gage")

This makes much more sense to me than the shamozzle we have at the moment

Bit of a random question, anyone know what the name of the song that is played when O'Connor goes over for the important try?

Ugh, I recognize the beat, but I can't put my finger on the song. Played quite far afterwards is Land Down Under by Men at Work, but I'm sure you know that. Wish I was more helpful :S

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Ugh, I recognize the beat, but I can't put my finger on the song. Played quite far afterwards is Land Down Under by Men at Work, but I'm sure you know that. Wish I was more helpful :S

Ye got the Men at Work, not that I want :lol: ... but cheers!

 

[Haysie]

Champion Nick, thanks mate. Can't expect backs like myself to know too much about scrumtime, we've got to rely on knowledge of the hard workers up front!
You push the pianos and we'll play them

 

[nickdnz]

Champion Nick, thanks mate. Can't expect backs like myself to know too much about scrumtime, we've got to rely on knowledge of the hard workers up front!
You push the pianos and we'll play them

Haha no problem. As I've unwillingly played prop for the last few seasons, I hate slow calls. They will always mean either one side will push too early, or both. The big problem I have, is when the delay gets too much. Between "pause" and "engage" I've noticed roughly a four second pause, which is roughly the time it takes a frag grenade to explode. Because you're always wanting to get a good hit on, that means that if any of the eight people in the scrum, get anxious and go early, the entire scrum goes early, which will result often in a free kick, and the props get dirty looks. The "crouch" position, isn't a naturalistic position either, and from the beginning of "crouch" till midway of the "engage", I like to slightly fall forward, as it means my push during engage will be more effective, however with a long interval between "pause" and "engage", I either get slighlty off balance or have to check myself.

I'd much rahter have a "Crouch"-"Touch"-EnGage" system, as it means both sides can get one with it.

 

[Shaggy]

Bit of a random question, anyone know what the name of the song that is played when O'Connor goes over for the important try?

"It's now or never" ?

 

[smartcooky]

I'm not trying to debate the issue with you, I'm telling you how you should act.
There is no debate about it.
Whilst it's fair game to judge someone's rugby ability or athletic ability based upon what you have seen, it is NOT fair game to cast aspersions on someone's integrity or their adherence to the law.

So I'm not entitled to my opinion because YOU say so? So who made you the Headmaster then?
LMFAO

Anyway, I am not going to debate this, I am merely going to state some facts, you can make up your own mind.

FACT: Cooper was witnessed stealing property (a fact in evidence that was heard in Court at his December 11, 2009 hearing).

FACT: The charges were dropped after mediation between Cooper and the victims, conducted through the DofJ and the Attorney General. The details were kept secret. (I wonder why that is?)

FACT: Cooper apologised for his actions (if he didn't do it, what is he apologising for?)

FACT: The ARU then conducted an internal review. As a result, Cooper was fined AU$7500, which was for this action, as well as failing to report that he had been charged for an earlier traffic offence.

Draw your own conclusions, I have.

Obviously Donald's copped a lot of flack. Maybe he did have a chance to win the game with that kick he missed but I think it's unfair to blame him for the result, I didn't see the first half but I heard Carter Missed his first two kicks and Aussie Missed their first two kicks. I would have expected Donald to get that, he's been kicking ~97% in ITM cup - the kick just looked like it curved the wrong way, if it had gone with his natural curve it would have gone over, gutted he didnt' get it though.

When he didn't hit touch initially I was pretty missed off then I saw the clock and there was a lot of time left of time left. Given that if he did hit a long touch Aussie would have had an easy quick throw in. make sure of a set lineout it would have to have been kicked out a lot closer and there was lots of time for an Aussie lineout in good field position. So in the end a long kick wasn't a bad call - I think actually the best option may have been to run it and try and hold posession till the hooter but there weren't many forwards around the ruck to support the halfback.

I contest this point.

Long kick and then a quick throw-in by Australia
It is by no means certain that Australia would have been able to take a quick throw-in. Keep in mind that as soon as the ball crosses into touch, there is no longer any offside under the 10m Law. When Donald kicked, most of his team-mates were offside under the 10m Law, and could not advance until he, or another onside player, overtook them. As soon as the ball goes into touch, all those (previously offside) players can then rush up and make it difficult to take a quick throw-in, or at the very least, they could have set up a defensive line further upfield.

Short kick out deep so that a quick throw in was no possible.In this case, the time taken to form the line-out would ensure that the clock wound down past 80 min. Also there would have been an opportunity for the All Blacks to contest for the ball at the throw-in; for Australia's throw-in to be not straight, or for some other line-out infringement. Also there was the chance for the All Blacks to get their defensive screens set up.

Long kick straight downfield.
This simply handed Australia the ball back with no chance to contest, with the All Black defence not set, and with Australian broken field runners able to easily get into position to mount an attack.

The short kick deep into touch was the highest percentage of the kicking options, the long kick downfield was the lowest, and the long kick to touch was somewhere in between.

When you are five points in front with just seconds to go on the clock, taking the lowest percentage option is plain dumb rugby. IMO, he panicked!

I agree that what he probably should have done was to run it up, ball in hand, and back his forwards to support him. All they needed was two or three quick pick and drives into pre-set rucks, and then when the hooter went, kick it out.

 

[Haysie]

So I'm not entitled to my opinion because YOU say so? So who made you the Headmaster then?
LMFAO

Anyway, I am not going to debate this, I am merely going to state some facts, you can make up your own mind.

Already have matey! You can throw facts at me all day, facts that are made publicly available through the media, and I'll still say that it's ethically wrong to scrutinise what you haven't seen and therefore only know about second-hand. It was Mark Twain that said "Believe nothing that you hear, and only half of what you see".
If you had been with Quade on the night in question, or in Surfers, or in fact even in the same country, I might be more inclined to follow your line of thinking.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, I just think that your opinion is wildly innaccurate.
Just as if I'd have said that the 95 All Blacks clearly weren't poisoned and there is no evidence to suggest such a thing, you would say that there was.
(Not saying that there was or there wasn't, that's a debate I don't want to get involved in :lol: )

 

[smartcooky]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ............................

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Gotta agree with Cooky here, the media aren't allowed to lie, they can be fined for doing so. They can stretch the truth as much as they want, but they can't downright lie.

 

[Haysie]

Good response Cook

I didn't mean that they were lying... just sensationalising everything, as they usually do.
Can't you just tell that I love the media

 

[Charles]

Gotta agree with Cooky here, the media aren't allowed to lie, they can be fined for doing so. They can stretch the truth as much as they want, but they can't downright lie.

Are you 8 years old?

Thanks for the laugh anyway...

 

[ranger]

Gotta agree with Cooky here, the media aren't allowed to lie, they can be fined for doing so. They can stretch the truth as much as they want, but they can't downright lie.

haha do you still believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy too?

 

[Haysie]

Come on guys, let's not gang up on him. He's right, the media aren't allowed to lie per se'. There are fined imposed for that sort of thing. But more often than not media cases are settled outside the courts and judicial system, where the profiteers don't mind spending money to make money (ie. making something up to sell papers)

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Are you 8 years old?

Thanks for the laugh anyway...

haha do you still believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy too?

You're aware that if the media say anything that's non-truthful, and harmful to a person, said person can sue, unless the media provide reasonable evidence to say they were informed otherwise?

 

[Charles]

What about the lies about economy/politics? Who's gonna sue them then, the economy?