Australia vs New Zealand, September 11 2010, Sydney.

[skittles]

It's called a heavy handed defence. I think Woodward does it because smart ass attack comes first. I've yet to see him go off running down other nations rugby teams without ours being mocked first. So, it's thrown our way first and he's throwing back. He hasn't gotten personal about posters here, he's having a go back at the rugby teams. Whereas you told him to personally "get off his high horse".

And nowhere did I mock the All Blacks. I was making a statement about public perception of the All Blacks' (and, to a lesser extent, the Wallabies') performance in the 07 World Cup, and he sarcastically asks me if I'm proud of having an inferior national team to his? Little uncalled for, in my opinion.

 

[Shaggy]

Umm, what does that have to do with ANYTHING? I was merely pointing out that the Wallabies weren't supposed to dominate the competition, and as such, weren't choking in the same way the All Blacks were perceived to be. I know it's a long way up there on your high-horse, but it can't be too hard to climb down, can it?

I think both teams and their fans were expecting that they both would progress further than the quarter finals though ... it certainly didn't make feel any better that the Wallabies were knocked out as well ... could kinda understand if the Wallabies had done better than the ABs

 

[skittles]

I think both teams and their fans were expecting that they both would progress further than the quarter finals though ... it certainly didn't make feel any better that the Wallabies were knocked out as well ... could kinda understand if the Wallabies had done better than the ABs

I definitely didn't engage in any of the "choke" taggery that many did; in fact, I remember my Kiwi mate and I just mentioning how anti-climatic things had turned when two of the favourites went out at the quarter-finals and leaving it at that, but I think it's the fact that the ABs are installed as favourites every single time yet have only won once that get people jumping straight on the choke calls, no matter the manner of the result or how their own team performed. It's not smart, per se, but I can see where people get the idea from.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

And nowhere did I mock the All Blacks. I was making a statement about public perception of the All Blacks' (and, to a lesser extent, the Wallabies') performance in the 07 World Cup, and he sarcastically asks me if I'm proud of having an inferior national team to his? Little uncalled for, in my opinion.

Well state more fully what you meant. That post straight after a thread full of Australians denying the All Black win was fair was hardly going to be viewed as anything but a sarcastic dig. I've looked back on your other posts and you don't seem like the kind of unfair Aussie who's been acting like the win is a sham, but to be fair your post was vague enough to seem like a clear dig at New Zealand.

He never said you had an inferior nation to his. He asked "cos they weren't as good. Are you proud of that?". Which is a little different from nation bashing.


Also, about choke taggery, New Zealand fans don't tend to install themselves as World Cup favourites, that's done by media, column writers and pundits the world over. So, not our fault that others do that I'm sorry.

 

[skittles]

Well state more fully what you meant. That post straight after a thread full of Australians denying the All Black win was fair was hardly going to be viewed as anything but a sarcastic dig. I've looked back on your other posts and you don't seem like the kind of unfair Aussie who's been acting like the win is a sham, but to be fair your post was vague enough to seem like a clear dig at New Zealand.

He never said you had an inferior nation to his. He asked "and your proud of that?". Which is a little different.

Well, he did say the Wallabies weren't as good. But, I'll put that to one side, and re-state what I mentioned in my post above, about the fact that the All Blacks are perennial favourites for the World Cup, whereas no other team is put in that position. As I said, to say the ABs choked, but the Wallabies (who were meant to reach the semis at a bare minimum) didn't isn't a smart idea, but I see where people are coming from.

And I'm not the type of person to pin a match on one event. Refereeing calls balance themselves out in the end, and the players can't make the referee make a call, so they have to win regardless of what the referee is doing. A match goes for 80 minutes, not 240 separate sets of 20 seconds.

Edit: Whilst making a sandwich, I thought I'd best clarify my 80 minutes v sets of seconds point, by explaining that you can't pinpoint a win or loss on one passage of play, and that things don't happen in a bubble. Even if it's a last-second penalty right in front from 15m that shouldn't have been given with the score at 17-17, it doesn't in and of itself decide the match. Both teams had 79 minutes previous to avoid being in that position.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes I guess that's all true 3 years ago. Mind you kiwi fans were going off about something that happened at the time, much like all these complaints from Aussie fans about Richie McCaw detaching early, which is certainly a much closer run thing as far as being provable compared to the forward pass to the French player. Still as I said, that's all in the past. Those most living in that lovely dreamland of 3 years ago are from other countries, not New Zealand.

The Poms still whinge about the "Hand of God", the Germans still gripe about Geoff Hurst's match winning World Cup goal in 1966 (now there goes a bunch of World Cup chokers if ever their were some... 44 years since their last World Cup......and counting

Maybe in 3 years people will stop complaining about Richie McCaw being the excuse for all losses too, but can't see it. Sure kiwi's complain, but we actually stop at some point. :lol:

Things are shaping up well. I can't wait for the "McCaw's a cheat!!!" whinges that emanate from North of the Equator to turn into "Pocock's a cheat!!!" whinges.... in fact, I'll get the ball Rolling......

 

[woodward]

Skittles I was just saying it's strange to criticize a team by saying how good they are. I mean having the favourites tag doesn't actually help them at all does it? they hardly choked also it's not as though we had a penalty right out in front in the last minute that could of won us the game

 

[Haysie]

Yes, the All Blacks have suffered from the choking phenomenon terribly as they have been the favourites in every world cup since their victory in 1987. (So 91, 95, 99, 03 and 07). This is a fact. Sorry.
Granted in 03 we did steal the home advantage from you, but still! ^_^

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Yes, the All Blacks have suffered from the choking phenomenon terribly as they have been the favourites in every world cup since their victory in 1987. (So 91, 95, 99, 03 and 07). This is a fact. Sorry.
Granted in 03 we did steal the home advantage from you, but still! ^_^

I'm fine with people from other countries saying that, but the fact is that you'll never convince a large number of New Zealanders of that. How effective is a tag or name-calling if people on the receiving end don't choose to absorb it?

Choking is a tag given by outsiders that have labelled a team "favourites" and it's there to try and bring that team down, because those saying it have always wanted to get the better of that team, but haven't been able to. It's like someone laughing at you because someone beat you at something that you usually kick ass at. The fact remains that the person saying it isn't as good as you are....period. :lol:

There is of course a percentage of people over here who care about choking at world cups, but really most New Zealanders have heard this sad little chant so many times that really it's starting to make those sending it pretty childish.

As I said earlier, many New Zealanders would like the World Cup again, but we'd all much rather be the team that's generally more often than not...the top of the world.

You can scream "choke" all you like, but please scream loudly, it's hard to hear you from up here. :lol:

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, the All Blacks have suffered from the choking phenomenon terribly as they have been the favourites in every world cup since their victory in 1987. (So 91, 95, 99, 03 and 07). This is a fact. Sorry.

Utter horse's cock!!

As you can see from the graphic below (acknowledgements to Lassen's pick and go site for this)

1991: Australia were favourites. New Zealand's ranking was in free-fall as the fatal mistake of combining two men who had little respect for each other, John Hart & Grizz Wyllie, as co-coaches Meanwhile, Australia and England were on the rise, and they played the final. Australia won.

1995: New Zealand were equal favourites with South Africa, with both teams climbing in the rankings at the time.

1999: Australia were the hot favourites to win. New Zealand was on the end of their worst ever losing streak (five in a row in 1998). Australia were on the rise and won it easily in the end

2003: England were the top team and were favourites to win, even at the NZ TAB, even though NZ were on the rise in the rankings

2007: NZ could and should have won, but for the worst 40 minutes by a refereeing in test rugby history (aside from the corrupt affairs in South Africa pre-92) and the decision by Henry and co to build a squad instead of a team. There should have been a plan for a dropped goal, and there wasn't until iut was too late

 

[Haysie]

 

[skittles]

Skittles I was just saying it's strange to criticize a team by saying how good they are. I mean having the favourites tag doesn't actually help them at all does it? they hardly choked also it's not as though we had a penalty right out in front in the last minute that could of won us the game

Well, the penalty situation is simply a hypothetical.

 

[Shaggy]

Yes, the All Blacks have suffered from the choking phenomenon terribly as they have been the favourites in every world cup since their victory in 1987. (So 91, 95, 99, 03 and 07). This is a fact. Sorry.
Granted in 03 we did steal the home advantage from you, but still! ^_^

Well for me I can't accept that all of those cups could be considered choking, on the basis that you'd have to be considered the favourite going in to the tournament ... 91, yes the ABs had a string of victories and the Bledisloe I think, but 95 Australia were the reigning champs and had the form going in and they were the ones that got eliminated in the quarter finals (NZ lost two home tests to France in 94), 99, Definitely under achieved, so fair enough, 03 we weren't the favourites - england were, and we were bundled out due to poor selection in the no. 13 jersey and a team that exploited that well, rather than choking, 07, sure, hard to argue the point ... A case could just as easily be argued that Australia choked in 1987 and 1995 as they were the favourites and were at least expected to contest the finals

 

[Amobokoboko]

I don't get it why everybody is moaning about the AB's.
The fact is that SA had a horrible form this series and the AB's and Wallabies just played better.
The Wallabies really surprised me and I'm really looking forward to the RWC but this series they had the bad luck of playing one really good first half and not succeeding in keeping the same level up during the second part of the game.

The best team won.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Utter horse's cock!!

As you can see from the graphic below (acknowledgements to Lassen's pick and go site for this)

1991: Australia were favourites. New Zealand's ranking was in free-fall as the fatal mistake of combining two men who had little respect for each other, John Hart & Grizz Wyllie, as co-coaches Meanwhile, Australia and England were on the rise, and they played the final. Australia won.

1995: New Zealand were equal favourites with South Africa, with both teams climbing in the rankings at the time.

1999: Australia were the hot favourites to win. New Zealand was on the end of their worst ever losing streak (five in a row in 1998). Australia were on the rise and won it easily in the end

2003: England were the top team and were favourites to win, even at the NZ TAB, even though NZ were on the rise in the rankings

2007: NZ could and should have won, but for the worst 40 minutes by a refereeing in test rugby history (aside from the corrupt affairs in South Africa pre-92) and the decision by Henry and co to build a squad instead of a team. There should have been a plan for a dropped goal, and there wasn't until iut was too late

I hadn't wanted to say for certain earlier (as I wanted to dwell on my other points), but I was pretty certain that Australia were the narrow favourites in 1991. I knew for sure we weren't favourites by a good little margin in 1999. In 2003 England were still a very powerful force and it's no surprise that they were number one.

I think a hell of a lot of the expectation for New Zealand comes from media and fans overseas who just want the underdog tag for themselves.

 

[Haysie]

Shh! Don't use logic against me, that's not fair.

 

[Larksea]

I'm pretty sure SA were fav's for the before the 1995 WC considering it was in SA. It was only when the WC was underway that the AB's became clear favorites. And they didn't choke that year either because losing in extra time when more than half the team has food poisioning was a pretty awesome effort, pretty much reflects how good that team was. Can be pretty sure if they hadn't been sick the result would likely have been different.

 

[nickdnz]

I'm pretty sure SA were fav's for the before the 1995 WC considering it was in SA. It was only when the WC was underway that the AB's became clear favorites. And they didn't choke that year either because losing in extra time when more than half the team has food poisioning was a pretty awesome effort, pretty much reflects how good that team was. Can be pretty sure if they hadn't been sick the result would likely have been different.

Wrong. SA were not clear favourites. Their team had lost a run of matches prior to the RWC, and they had only recently come out of isolation.

 

[Sam Owen]

Wrong. SA were not clear favourites. Their team had lost a run of matches prior to the RWC, and they had only recently come out of isolation.

Yeah the 'boks couldnt believe how well they were doing when they got to the '95 world cup final. It's all in that movie Invictus, not a bad movie about Mandela, sports and politics.

 

[Jer1cho]

And they didn't choke that year either because losing in extra time when more than half the team has food poisioning was a pretty awesome effort, pretty much reflects how good that team was. Can be pretty sure if they hadn't been sick the result would likely have been different.