• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Should the Pumas stay in the RC, for the next seasons. Yes or No? Argue

They have all their best players plying their trade in Europe they don't have a strong domestic competition. They need to embrace professionalism, they need to get in to super rugby. They have world class players in Albacete, Fernandez lobbe and Figallo, but overall they just are not good enough to compete week in week out. They lack depth, having a greater number of players playing in a higher level of competition will improve depth.

Munster nearly beat the AB's a couple of years ago they lost 16-18 it can happen it is sport. People need to stop harping on about 07, thats a long time ago. Its not going to help them win a rugby championship game next year. Argentina haven't beaten two of the 3 teams in the Rugby Championship and they haven't beaten the other this millennium. Surely you can concede that it is going to be a mental hurdle they will have to face. These close games will get harder to win if they don't win one soon.

Do you agree it is unlikely Argentina will do as well as Italy have done in terms of results?. That was my argument, it didn't have anything to do with the relative strength of competition. Over the last decade I would put Argentina slightly above Scotland and Scotland haven't done much better than Italy in the same competition.

You've avoided answering the question (probably because you can't). I'll try again.

"How then do you explain beating all the 6 Nations sides in a 2 year period 2005-07, reaching 3rd at the RWC, and coming closer to beating the All Blacks than the Europeans in that same period, all achieved without pro domestic teams?"

And stop bringing Italy into this. They are truly irrelevant in comparison of results. The only thing to take from their experience in the 6 Nations is that regular higher level rugby undoubtedly improves teams.
 
Last edited:
they also need games they can win now to keep morale up. That's all I'm saying. Test windows should be used to play against any of the 6 nations sides regularly.
Thats a valid point. The problem, as far as i am concerned, is that since the best players are being used for the RC, we agreed with european clubs no to use them in many of the test matches played during the other windows. Thats why we have been fielding the second and third tier of players in some test windows.
 
You've avoided the question (probably because you can't). I'll try again.

"How then do you explain beating all the 6 Nations sides in a 2 year period 2005-07, reaching 3rd at the RWC, and coming closer to beating the All Blacks than the Europeans in that same period, all achieved without pro domestic teams?"

And stop bringing Italy into this. They are truly irrelevant in comparison of results. The only thing to take from their experience in the 6 Nations is that regular higher level rugby undoubtedly improves teams.

I will say that they had a good period in their history where they punched above their weight, I don't see a victory against the AB's or South Africa or even Australia during that period can you explain that to me?

They won't be able to consistantly beat those teams as a mostly amateur system. Their players do play a majority of their domestic games in Europe so they feel familiar with the 6 nations players, so that may be a reason for greater success against those nations. Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship are arguably the strongest competions in the world so its not a coincidence that the 3 most successful nations play in these comps. Argentina have had some close games but they have also been thrashed a few times, overall they have performed worse this year than last, did you see an improvement?

Why do you think they can compete as things are? They haven't been winning anything to prove they are capable yet? Do you think they will win a comp as things are?

Italy comparison might be harsh/pointless to you but posters on this site have said Argentina would have more success than Italy. They are plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
They won't be able to consistantly beat those teams as a mostly amateur system. Their players do play a majority of their domestic games in Europe so they feel familiar with the 6 nations players, so that may be a reason for greater success against those nations. Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship are arguably the strongest competions in the world so its not a coincidence that the 3 most successful nations play in these comps. Argentina have had some close games but they have also been thrashed a few times, overall they have performed worse this year than last, did you see an improvement?

It's not to do with the amateur system. It's simply the players aren't as good as before playing under a worse coach. I can say with pretty good confidence that some previous Argentina sides such as Loffreda's team would have won a number of games playing them in this quantity they do now. This despite playing in the same system.

Why do you think they can compete as things are? They haven't been winning anything to prove they are capable yet? Do you think they will win a comp as things are?

They already are "competing". Not sure what point you are trying to make. They already are competing and could well have 2 or 3 wins in the tournament had things gone their way, thos despite playing under a sub standard coach and with a new generation (with wins over Australia and South Africa U20 at level) coming through under the new coach things will pick up. Especially with imminent admittance to Super Rugby in 2016.

Italy comparison might be harsh/pointless to you but posters on this site have said Argentina would have more success than Italy. They are plain wrong.

Still going about this? You have a dodgy interpretation of "success" by the way. I would much rather be in Argentina's shoes in 2013 than Italy's equivalent after their 2nd year in 2001.

I will say that they had a good period in their history where they punched above their weight, I don't see a victory against the AB's or South Africa or even Australia during that period can you explain that to me?

Yes I can. They played those 3 sides barely at all over the past decade. They would have beaten Australia had they not had a 9 year gap of playing them, and would have done so in 2002 but for some shocking goal kicking. They were very unlucky not to beat South Africa away in 2003 (try controversially disallowed) and New Zealand in 2006 (AB's survived through a fortunate try) as well.
 
They should stay in. Last year they brought some awesome footie with a draw against the Boks as a highlight. This year was a bit less impressive but even the Boks, Wallabies and AB's have moments where they don't peak.
 
Silly question. Can't expect a side to start beating the Top 3 sides n the world in 2 years. Especially when the Pumas' system isn't anywhere as strong as SA/NZ's. Heck, it's probably the weakest amongst the Top 10 countries.

Let's start to question this once Argentina actually gets a good local system and/or SR system, and has been in the TRC for at least 10 years. Right now, we should be able to cmfortably dismiss this.
 
It's not to do with the amateur system. It's simply the players aren't as good as before playing under a worse coach. I can say with pretty good confidence that some previous Argentina sides such as Loffreda's team would have won a number of games playing them in this quantity they do now. This despite playing in the same system.



They already are "competing". Not sure what point you are trying to make. They already are competing and could well have 2 or 3 wins in the tournament had things gone their way, thos despite playing under a sub standard coach and with a new generation (with wins over Australia and South Africa U20 at level) coming through under the new coach things will pick up. Especially with imminent admittance to Super Rugby in 2016.



Still going about this? You have a dodgy interpretation of "success" by the way. I would much rather be in Argentina's shoes in 2013 than Italy's equivalent after their 2nd year in 2001.



Yes I can. They played those 3 sides barely at all over the past decade. They would have beaten Australia had they not had a 9 year gap of playing them, and would have done so in 2002 but for some shocking goal kicking. They were very unlucky not to beat South Africa away in 2003 (try controversially disallowed) and New Zealand in 2006 (AB's survived through a fortunate try) as well.

If they did sort out their local system surely it should be beneficial I don't know why you are so against it. Either way they wont be challenging for the ***le anytime soon but surely it would help them develop quicker. I can't see their current set up winning a ***le ever, too much polish from the other nations.

Winning = success thats fair enough I think

Argentina needs a genie imo, you sound like they're the most unlucky nation out. I don't remember any lucky tries the AB's scored in 06 they were nicely worked, conditions weren't the best though and they did play poorly and still won.
 
Last edited:
If they did sort out their local system surely it should be beneficial I don't know why you are so against it.

I'm not against it you plonker. Of course added professionalism will boost several things. However you saying that they can't possibly win any games and get themselves from the bottom place under the current system is nonsense. Especially given that they very well could have and were in position to win a couple of games in both years.

Winning = success thats fair enough I think

No it's not, as you're not comparing like for like. 6 Nations is completely different opposition to the Tri Nations.

Who's the more successful team? Georgia who barely lose a game in the ENC or Italy who's win rate in the 6 Nations is comparably much lower. You have no clue about commensurability.

Argentina needs a genie imo, you sound like they're the most unlucky nation out. I don't remember any lucky tries the AB's scored in 06 they were nicely worked, conditions weren't the best though and they did play poorly and still won.

No they weren't. One try was from a flukey bounce of a falling Argentine player's boot. Another was from an awful error by Gonzalo Tiesi under no pressure. There were 2 tries that were fortunate.
 
I'm not against it you plonker. Of course added professionalism will boost several things. However you saying that they can't possibly win any games and get themselves from the bottom place under the current system is nonsense. Especially given that they very well could have and were in position to win a couple of games in both years.



No it's not, as you're not comparing like for like. 6 Nations is completely different opposition to the Tri Nations.

Who's the more successful team? Georgia who barely lose a game in the ENC or Italy who's win rate in the 6 Nations is comparably much lower. You have no clue about commensurability.



No they weren't. One try was from a flukey bounce of a falling Argentine player's boot. Another was from an awful error by Gonzalo Tiesi under no pressure. There were 2 tries that were fortunate.

Yes the gap between the trinations and 6 nations is the same as 6 nations and and ENC, the former are both tier 1 competitions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpYC8J4xgsk

Even the 3rd try wasn't lucky he would have scored easier if it didnt hit that blokes boot
 
Silly question. Can't expect a side to start beating the Top 3 sides n the world in 2 years. Especially when the Pumas' system isn't anywhere as strong as SA/NZ's. Heck, it's probably the weakest amongst the Top 10 countries.

Let's start to question this once Argentina actually gets a good local system and/or SR system, and has been in the TRC for at least 10 years. Right now, we should be able to cmfortably dismiss this.

agreeeeed.
 
Yes the gap between the trinations and 6 nations is the same as 6 nations and and ENC, the former are both tier 1 competitions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpYC8J4xgsk

Even the 3rd try wasn't lucky he would have scored easier if it didnt hit that blokes boot

Not necessarily. Tiesi was there covering and the try was made far easier by the stray boot than otherwise as well. Hardly a "well worked try" either, it was a very fortunate one. Loffreda's Argentina only played New Zealand three times during a 7 year reign, and came within a score twice, the latter against a star studded All Blacks side on a long winning streak. I think it's fair to say they "competed" despite being in the same system with virtually all the players in Europe and they could have won a few matches playing at the current frequency. If they had a better domestic system the chances increase higher.

Also just stop talking about the Italy thing. You have no clue what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. Tiesi was there covering and the try was made far easier by the stray boot than otherwise as well. Hardly a "well worked try" either, it was a very fortunate one. Loffreda's Argentina only played New Zealand three times during a 7 year reign, and came within a score twice, the latter against a star studded All Blacks side on a long winning streak. I think it's fair to say they "competed" despite being in the same system with virtually all the players in Europe and they could have won a few matches playing at the current frequency. If they had a better domestic system the chances increase higher.

Also just stop talking about the Italy thing. You have no clue what you're talking about.

That happened so close to the tryline no way he gets stopped, you cant argue the other tries weren't good tries. The All Blacks also had a bad day and still won, if they played like that against SA, AUS, ENG or FRA they would have been beaten.
 
Silly question. Can't expect a side to start beating the Top 3 sides n the world in 2 years. Especially when the Pumas' system isn't anywhere as strong as SA/NZ's. Heck, it's probably the weakest amongst the Top 10 countries.

Let's start to question this once Argentina actually gets a good local system and/or SR system, and has been in the TRC for at least 10 years. Right now, we should be able to cmfortably dismiss this.

Agreed. It takes time to build up any sport. Look at the US and soccer. Kids have been playing soccer as an organized school sports since forever (at least since the 70s), and yet the sport is just getting to a point where it has competitive leagues and a national team that is just starting to gain a name for itself (though I think most Americans have no idea there even is a national team).

Rugby in Argentina has a slightly better footing than soccer in America so it shouldn't take decades to create a great team, but it's still going to take time. I think the most positive thing here is that they are now getting good international attention. This may make some young men think twice before pursuing football (soccer) as a career and as a ticket to the world stage. As has been said many times, if they can develop good talent early on, and create a good club system, then the team can only get stronger.

That said, I am most curious to see how the Pumas compete against other top teams after this RC go-round. Are they developing any killer SH techniques that will make them a formidable foe against the top NH teams? Or will it still take them a year or three before they're a real threat to the likes of England and France and Wales?


das
 
Last edited:
That happened so close to the tryline no way he gets stopped, you cant argue the other tries weren't good tries. The All Blacks also had a bad day and still won, if they played like that against SA, AUS, ENG or FRA they would have been beaten.

No, Tiesi was pretty close and could have made the tackle. The 2nd try was fortunate in that the chance only appeared thanks to inexplicable error by Tiesi, 99 times out of 100 Tiesi wouldn't fumble the ball. So one try through a lucky deflection that could have gone anywhere but just so happened to bounce nicely in the path for the AB's, and the other from a once in a while abomination of a mistake.

I also dispute your claim about the other sides as well. England played New Zealand about 10 times with Graham Henry in charge and only got within a score once. Argentina played once and came short via a fortunate deflection. I don't think it's fair to imply that England and France were all that much stronger at the time also, especially given they both lost more often than not to Loffreda's Pumas in the 2004-2007 quad anyway.

So your point that Argentina can't compete with the setup is a weak one, they palpably can and have done in the past nearly beating one of the best All Black sides. Just currently they have lessened players/coaching which despite being weaker than before could well have bar for a choke of a charge down, cheating by Polota-Nau and referees reluctance to award penalty tries have had 2 or 3 wins.
 
Agreed. It takes time to build up any sport. Look at the US and soccer. Kids have been playing soccer as an organized school sports since forever (at least since the 70s), and yet the sport is just getting to a point where it has competitive leagues and a national team that is just starting to gain a name for itself (though I think most Americans have no idea there even is a national team).

Rugby in Argentina has a slightly better footing than soccer in America so it shouldn't take decades to create a great team, but it's still going to take time. I think the most positive thing here is that they are now getting good international attention. This may make some young men think twice before pursuing football (soccer) as a career and as a ticket to the world stage. As has been said many times, if they can develop good talent early on, and create a good club system, then the team can only get stronger.

That said, I am most curious to see how the Pumas compete against other top teams after this RC go-round. Are they developing any killer SH techniques that will make them a formidable foe against the top NH teams? Or will it still take them a year or three before they're a real threat to the likes of England and France and Wales?


das
Good points.

The way I see it, Argentina's main, tangible weakness is their attack, or lack of imagination. That Bosch try was a brilliant individual effort. But apart from that, they lack the imagination. Now wether that's a personnel (talent) issue or a coaching one? Not sure. I do know they have handy enough players to be able to threaten. But don't often enough. I would rate Imhoff, Bosh, and maybe Agulla as their top attacking threats. They just need someone to guide them around the park. Hernandez maybe? I just don't see Sanchez as that guy.

They don't need a Carter to beat sides, but they certainly need to expand their mindset in terms of how they approach attack.


Which leads me to their other perceived weakness - which is mental/physical stamina. There are times when they have a team under the pump, and close to victory, but don't have either the mental resolve or the physical reserves to be able to pull it off. Plus I think they give up too much when a game goes slightly out of reach. They need to keep hope and trust their systems - this takes time, I know.

Hopefully Henry stays on and continues to give them a hand.

And I hope they seriously change their approach when it comes to attack/counter attack.
 
Kick the Wallabies out and replace them with Spain. I'm sick of us playing NZ and South Africa so much, we need to go back to the old 4 year trip...
 
Good points.

The way I see it, Argentina's main, tangible weakness is their attack, or lack of imagination. That Bosch try was a brilliant individual effort. But apart from that, they lack the imagination. Now wether that's a personnel (talent) issue or a coaching one? Not sure. I do know they have handy enough players to be able to threaten. But don't often enough. I would rate Imhoff, Bosh, and maybe Agulla as their top attacking threats. They just need someone to guide them around the park. Hernandez maybe? I just don't see Sanchez as that guy.

They don't need a Carter to beat sides, but they certainly need to expand their mindset in terms of how they approach attack.


Which leads me to their other perceived weakness - which is mental/physical stamina. There are times when they have a team under the pump, and close to victory, but don't have either the mental resolve or the physical reserves to be able to pull it off. Plus I think they give up too much when a game goes slightly out of reach. They need to keep hope and trust their systems - this takes time, I know.

Hopefully Henry stays on and continues to give them a hand.

And I hope they seriously change their approach when it comes to attack/counter attack.

You know what Argentine rugby needs? It needs it's very own Eva Peron.

;)


das
 
Fun fact: Did you know in the History of tri/5/6 Nations and The Rugby Championship some 130 years of rugby 13-73 is the largest ever defeat?
Fun Fact no2: Argentina will now have the record for taking the most games to register their first win, Ireland hold the current record of 11 matches Argentina is now at 12 matches and counting, (Technically 13 because they would have to win their next match to register a W)

France took five matches in the five nations to get their first win (it was against Scotland, by 1 point in 1910) but they took another 9 years/18 matches to register another win (this time against Ireland in 1920) and it wasn't until 1928, eighteen years after they joined, that they managed to have completed least east one win over all four teams.

And in any case, Argentina already have four wins against Australia... 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1997!
 
Kick the Wallabies out and replace them with Spain. I'm sick of us playing NZ and South Africa so much, we need to go back to the old 4 year trip...

Are you crazy?
 

Latest posts

Top