Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ripper" data-source="post: 117943">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.  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.</blockquote>

Verification