Paul Ackford says "The best two teams in the world at the moment? No debate. New Zealand and Leinster. The rest are playing catch-up..."!

First topic message reminder :

By Paul Ackford

The reason is simple. Both outfits are set up to play, which sounds simple, but isn’t. It requires intention, fitness, understanding, organisation, unbelievably high skill sets across the entire squad, a positive attitude to risk, and courage. It also assumes a commitment to be multidimensional in approach rather than the one-trick pony nonsense which some teams get by on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9576371/England-must-look-to-the-flair-players-if-they-want-to-mix-it-with-the-All-Blacks-at-rugbys-top-table.html

I dont think the article does compare the two teams in so far as saying they are at the same level. I read it to understand that within their various realms both teams are ahead of everyone else. Any comparision made between the two teams is in the context of their own leagues or tournaments.

I think it is probably fair to draw similarities on "fitness, understanding, organisation, unbelievably high skill sets across the entire squad, a positive attitude to risk, and courage" and other similarities without ever trying to imply that Leinster are capable of playing rugby to New Zealand's lofty standards or even an international standard even if Leinster are because we all know its a moot point.

It does smack of snobbiness that some Kiwis would be offended if their national team is compared to a club team especially given the comparision isnt meant to be a "whose better comparasion".

GunsGerms wrote:I think it is probably fair to draw similarities on "fitness, understanding, organisation, unbelievably high skill sets across the entire squad, a positive attitude to risk, and courage" .

No it isn't. International rugby is a completely different, and vastly higher standard.

Aside from which why write an article about just international rugby and the HC and then use the phrase "EVERYONE else". There is a suggestion of an invalid comparison there which is purely designed to "big up" Leinster. In a frankly embarrassingly parrochial way.

International is a completely different and vastly higher standard?

Well..., I never. I thought the argument was always that it was only a vastly higher standard south of Libreville? I thought any decent Super 15 side could have a decent crack at the rest of them there International sides?

The plotline ever changes to keep the never-changing story going.

So wait ... you are offended about any suggestion that a SXV side might have a crack at an international side?

How do you reconcile that apparently contradictory viewpoint with your assertion that it's fair to say Leinster are right up there with the All Blacks?

Oh no!! Your argument is unravelling as it turns out you DO harbour parrochial views...

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I think it is probably fair to draw similarities on "fitness, understanding, organisation, unbelievably high skill sets across the entire squad, a positive attitude to risk, and courage" .

No it isn't. International rugby is a completely different, and vastly higher standard.

Aside from which why write an article about just international rugby and the HC and then use the phrase "EVERYONE else". There is a suggestion of an invalid comparison there which is purely designed to "big up" Leinster. In a frankly embarrassingly parrochial way.

Once again the comparisons are being made in the context if each teams tournaments and playing environments. Surely if you read my post properly you might have offered a more Intellegent response.

I'm having fun pain... fun deconstructing your 'any-argument-in-a-storm-of-too-much-reason-will-do'.

Fun.

You go high tailing after contradictions and miss the irony of my comment all you like. I'll continue to have fun with you shape-shifting through your rigid arguments that glide wherever the wind takes them. Carry on though, by all means.

I believe that club sides don't play at the same levels of intensity and pressure as internationals. However, there are club teams that have the resources and ability to raise their game to international level, be they Leinster, chiefs, Crusaiders, Ospreys (they more or less won a grand slam about 5 years ago for Wales)

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I think it is probably fair to draw similarities on "fitness, understanding, organisation, unbelievably high skill sets across the entire squad, a positive attitude to risk, and courage" .

No it isn't. International rugby is a completely different, and vastly higher standard.

Aside from which why write an article about just international rugby and the HC and then use the phrase "EVERYONE else". There is a suggestion of an invalid comparison there which is purely designed to "big up" Leinster. In a frankly embarrassingly parrochial way.

The context is lost when he says "EVERYONE else". This implies. Wales, England, Crusaders, Bulls, New South Wales, Tokoroa Boys High. EVERYONE. That's what it means.

No I don't think it is really though you are free to interpret it whatever way you wish.

If the writer just wanted to say Leinster were playing well, why not just write about it? Why imply some ridiculous comparison?

I don't see how Leinster and NZ are related at all.

It's like writing an article about some really tasty cheese and some really effective chalk.

anotherworldofpain wrote:If the writer just wanted to say Leinster were playing well, why not just write about it? Why imply some ridiculous comparison?

I don't see how Leinster and NZ are related at all.

It's like writing an article about some really tasty cheese and some really effective chalk.

The similarities are pretty obvious if you have seen both team play. Both are very dominant in their respective competitions, both have a similar approach to the game. It's not rocket science. You're just choosing to take offense because you don't think anyone is worthy to be discussed in the same breath as the ABs. That's pretty sad to be honest.

The article is just hideously parrochial.

It ignores all other clubs in all other club competitions and is particularly offensive to fine international sides like SA or Australia or Argentina or France who have recently come close to defeating NZ.

The direct comparisons between Leinster (I'm sorry but it does draw such - and you now admit it) are just cringe worthy.

anotherworldofpain wrote:The article is just hideously parrochial.

It ignores all other clubs in all other club competitions and is particularly offensive to fine international sides like SA or Australia or Argentina or France who have recently come close to defeating NZ.

The direct comparisons between Leinster (I'm sorry but it does draw such - and you now admit it) are just cringe worthy.

How can it be parochial when the author isn't from either NZ or Leinster. He is English. Yes I am admitting there are similarities relative to each teams playing environment. I fail to see how it is offensive to anyone. You must be a fairly sensitive soul?

Perhaps research what parrochial means first, then come back on that.

anotherworldofpain wrote:The article is just hideously parrochial.

It ignores all other clubs in all other club competitions and is particularly offensive to fine international sides like SA or Australia or Argentina or France who have recently come close to defeating NZ.

The direct comparisons between Leinster (I'm sorry but it does draw such - and you now admit it) are just cringe worthy.

So let me get this straight. An Irish team nearly beat Nz (second test) with a high portion of leinster players and yet they would get schooled by the lowly lions and force.

Leinster are kiing of the Hill at European Club level which requires a greater set of skills to win it as you only get one second chance if you're lucky. To win the S15 you don't need to be at the top all the time as shown by the Sharks this year.

NZ are at the top of the international hill. but as has been shown when it comes to a format akin the the HC they have only ever won it at home.

There is not much between SA, Aus, Eng, Fra, Wales and Ireland as shown in results. If international teams can compete and there are fewer regional teams per country up north that says by logic they would be as good as the S15 sides.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Perhaps research what parrochial means first, then come back on that.

Not sure why Im bothered to respond to this stupid comment but here goes:

pa·ro·chi·al/pəˈrōkēəl/Adjective:
1.Of or relating to a church parish.
2.Having a limited or narrow outlook or scope
_____________________

1.Paul Ackford is not from the same church parish as Leinster players nor any of the New Zealand team.
2.Considering Paul Ackford is English, played for England and Harlequins with no affinity to either New Zealand nor Ireland or Leinster then writing an article about two non English teams referencing other rugby nations and teams around the world represents a fairly broad outlook in a rugby article. Certainly a lot broader then most Kiwi pundits I have come accross half of who probably have never heard of Leinster.

Seriously, ave you have transformed back to your eastern european alter ego beacuse your grasp of English is pretty poor or are you being intentionally obtuse?

2.Having a limited or narrow outlook or scope

Exactly. So presumably this answers your question : "How can it be parochial when the author isn't from either NZ or Leinster."

The article demonstraes a limited outlook in considering success in the HC as equivalent grounds of comparison to NZ whilst disregarding fine club competitions in other parts of the world geographically remote form the author. Hence it is parrochial. You are clearly within the bounds of the parrochialsm hence you are unable to see it for it's cringe worthy nature.

Thanks for playing.

anotherworldofpain wrote:2.Having a limited or narrow outlook or scope

Exactly. So presumably this answers your question : "How can it be parochial when the author isn't from either NZ or Leinster."

The article demonstraes a limited outlook in considering success in the HC as equivalent grounds of comparison to NZ whilst disregarding fine club competitions in other parts of the world geographically remote form the author. Hence it is parrochial. You are clearly within the bounds of the parrochialsm hence you are unable to see it for it's cringe worthy nature.

Thanks for playing.

Firstly its spelt parochial not "parrochial". Secondly the Heineken cup can hardly be considered parochial itself as it encompasses 7 different nations with a wide variety of very different cultures, opinions and approaches to rugby. 8 if you include matches played in Spain.

The article doesnt disregard other clubs around the world there just arent any clubs that are suitably dominant in their respective leagues to draw similarities with to gulf that has opened up between NZ and other international teams.

If anything your attitude is representive of the parochial nature of the NZ rugby media in their ignorance of anything that falls outside their banal existance.

I didn't say the HC was parrochial. I said the article was parrochial.

Just because Leisnter dominate the HC doesn't mean Leinster is a "great side" worthy of comparison with NZ; it could equally suggest the competition is weaker than other club competitions around the world.

The conclusion that Leinster dominate the HC because they are "just like NZ" is parrochial. Which was my point.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I didn't say the HC was parrochial. I said the article was parrochial.

Just because Leisnter dominate the HC doesn't mean Leinster is a "great side" worthy of comparison with NZ; it could equally suggest the competition is weaker than other club competitions around the world.

The conclusion that Leinster dominate the HC because they are "just like NZ" is parrochial. Which was my point.

You bore me now. Slán.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I didn't say the HC was parrochial. I said the article was parrochial.

Just because Leisnter dominate the HC doesn't mean Leinster is a "great side" worthy of comparison with NZ; it could equally suggest the competition is weaker than other club competitions around the world.

The conclusion that Leinster dominate the HC because they are "just like NZ" is parrochial. Which was my point.

There is no comparison with NZ,keep working on your English comprehension and you'll get it someday.

Thanks for the compliment asoreleftshoulder. I don't think the gap is so wide as you claim but certainly it's been an impressive run this year.

Yes there is. Keep working on your perception and logic

AWOP......was about to say 'just please stop'. But actually come to think of it you are making me laugh and have made me post for first time in ages so please continue.

How you can have such a problem with this article and fail to see the actual meaning of it I don't know. Oh and before you come back with "Oh but how can you say Leinster is as good as NZ?", that's not what the article is saying

Irishhoneymonster wrote:AWOP......was about to say 'just please stop'. But actually come to think of it you are making me laugh and have made me post for first time in ages so please continue.

How you can have such a problem with this article and fail to see the actual meaning of it I don't know. Oh and before you come back with "Oh but how can you say Leinster is as good as NZ?", that's not what the article is saying

your wasting your time, you might aswell be talking to a wall.

Yeah I realise that may be the case LF4L but couldn't help myself, prob cause I have been drinking

Anyway I should probably give me opinion quickly because I have entered the conversation.

For me, this article is simply looking at a winning formula and mentality that for the moment, seems to be possessed by NZ and Leinster in their respective fight with their peers. If it wasn't looking specifically at Rugby playing styles then the article could have been about teams in completely different sports, say Manchester United at a certain time and NZ. Therefore, really nothing for anyone to be offended by!

it's like comparing the greyghost with awop........one was an erudite witty and worthy opponent the other a poor imitation.

Whether the article claims Leinster are As Good As NZ is not the point.

You say the article claims that Leinster dominant the HC in the same way NZ dominate internatiOnal rugby and the author uses that as a basis for comparison.

I'm saying it is insulting to NZs achievements to liken them to Leinster in the HC. The HC is a much lower class of competition and Leinster have achieved far far far vastly less in their few victories.

If you cant see that the how hole basis for reference is parochial and an exercise in self aggrandisement then you are horribly blinkered.

If anything I'd be insulted if Leinster were being compared to new Zealand. In winning the Heineken cup Leinster played very entertaining attacking rugby. New Zealand fell over the line in the world cup winning pretty ugly by a point at home. Probably the least convincing winners ever in the world cup.

How come when Ulster were compared to the Boks no one takes offence?

... oh yeah maybe because we were literally... the boks..... .....

GunsGerms wrote:If anything I'd be insulted if Leinster were being compared to new Zealand. In winning the Heineken cup Leinster played very entertaining attacking rugby. New Zealand fell over the line in the world cup winning pretty ugly by a point at home. Probably the least convincing winners ever in the world cup.

That's not a bad attempt-I did happen to stifle a giggle at work

GunsGerms wrote:If anything I'd be insulted if Leinster were being compared to new Zealand. In winning the Heineken cup Leinster played very entertaining attacking rugby. New Zealand fell over the line in the world cup winning pretty ugly by a point at home. Probably the least convincing winners ever in the world cup.

Guns...settle...down...
I can see why Ireland are 26 and zip over a century if that's a representation of rugby brains, or lack of it...up there.

You need to throw the toys further to be convincing... or ask someône from France to do it.

This thread does raise an interesting point between the virtues of club and international rugby.

It appears that some believe club rugby can be judged in its own right whereas others believe only international rugby can be judged in a global sense in every sense of the word global.

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:If anything I'd be insulted if Leinster were being compared to new Zealand. In winning the Heineken cup Leinster played very entertaining attacking rugby. New Zealand fell over the line in the world cup winning pretty ugly by a point at home. Probably the least convincing winners ever in the world cup.

Guns...settle...down...
I can see why Ireland are 26 and zip over a century if that's a representation of rugby brains, or lack of it...up there.

You need to throw the toys further to be convincing... or ask someône from France to do it.

Think you stumbled onto the wrong thread? Nothing to do with Ireland here. I was just applying AWOP logic to my comments because Im bored trying to explain myself. I think this might have been lost on you if perhaps you hadn't read all prior posts? It clearly offended you though which doesn't surprise me given that some other Kiwi supporters (AWOP) are particularly over sensitive and parochial when it comes to the ABs.

There must be a reason why Leinster are the second best team in the world, but Ireland suck though!

All I can think is it must be all those retired and "not good enough" ex-SANZAR players that bolster Leinster...right?

anotherworldofpain wrote:There must be a reason why Leinster are the second best team in the world, but Ireland suck though!

All I can think is it must be all those retired and "not good enough" ex-SANZAR players that bolster Leinster...right?

Read the article again,it doesn't say Leinster are the 2nd best team in the world.English comprehension letting you down again.

It says the "best two teams in the world" are NZ and Leinster.

The rest are "playing catch up".

It defines an order where Leinster and NZ are ahead and everyone else is behind. That means the worst Leinster can be is the second best team in the world.

Just logic.

No a lack of reading comprehension

GunsGerms wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:If anything I'd be insulted if Leinster were being compared to new Zealand. In winning the Heineken cup Leinster played very entertaining attacking rugby. New Zealand fell over the line in the world cup winning pretty ugly by a point at home. Probably the least convincing winners ever in the world cup.

Guns...settle...down...
I can see why Ireland are 26 and zip over a century if that's a representation of rugby brains, or lack of it...up there.


You need to throw the toys further to be convincing... or ask someône from France to do it.

Think you stumbled onto the wrong thread? Nothing to do with Ireland here. I was just applying AWOP logic to my comments because Im bored trying to explain myself. I think this might have been lost on you if perhaps you hadn't read all prior posts? It clearly offended you though which doesn't surprise me given that some other Kiwi supporters (AWOP) are particularly over sensitive and parochial when it comes to the ABs.

No. Not offended and I did read the posts before. I just think one stupid post deserves another. ABs the least convincing winners ever?
Were the two drop goals in extra time that much more convincing that it requires such a lame comment?

Are the ABs, on occasion, allowed to have the odd, unconvincing win?
Do Leinster always win as convincingly...and...have they been as convincing over 100 years? Or only since they got a NZ coach?

Good selective reasoning guns.

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:If anything I'd be insulted if Leinster were being compared to new Zealand. In winning the Heineken cup Leinster played very entertaining attacking rugby. New Zealand fell over the line in the world cup winning pretty ugly by a point at home. Probably the least convincing winners ever in the world cup.

Guns...settle...down...
I can see why Ireland are 26 and zip over a century if that's a representation of rugby brains, or lack of it...up there.


You need to throw the toys further to be convincing... or ask someône from France to do it.

Think you stumbled onto the wrong thread? Nothing to do with Ireland here. I was just applying AWOP logic to my comments because Im bored trying to explain myself. I think this might have been lost on you if perhaps you hadn't read all prior posts? It clearly offended you though which doesn't surprise me given that some other Kiwi supporters (AWOP) are particularly over sensitive and parochial when it comes to the ABs.

No. Not offended and I did read the posts before. I just think one stupid post deserves another. ABs the least convincing winners ever?
Were the two drop goals in extra time that much more convincing that it requires such a lame comment?

Are the ABs, on occasion, allowed to have the odd, unconvincing win?
Do Leinster always win as convincingly...and...have they been as convincing over 100 years? Or only since they got a NZ coach?

Good selective reasoning guns.

That's why awop's articles get so many responses.

Noits because I'm though provoking and compelling

anotherworldofpain wrote:There must be a reason why Leinster are the second best team in the world, but Ireland suck though!

All I can think is it must be all those retired and "not good enough" ex-SANZAR players that bolster Leinster...right?

Who are these players you are talking about and who are they not good enough for?

woohoo...outta here...

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:There must be a reason why Leinster are the second best team in the world, but Ireland suck though!

All I can think is it must be all those retired and "not good enough" ex-SANZAR players that bolster Leinster...right?

Who are these players you are talking about and who are they not good enough for?

Well to begin with Isa Nacewa. Tried for years to get an AB call up...gave up, played for Fiji, then found himself in the cold Super rugby-wise because of all the competition for eligible AB players so took himself off to leinster to earn some Euros. He must be fully bummed that the euro is worth diddly arse now...

The best two teams in the world at the moment? No debate. New Zealand and Leinster. The rest are playing catch-up.

The reason is simple. Both outfits are set up to play, which sounds simple, but isn’t. It requires intention, fitness, understanding, organisation, unbelievably high skill sets across the entire squad, a positive attitude to risk, and courage.

It also assumes a commitment to be multidimensional in approach rather than the one-trick pony nonsense which some teams get by on.

Quins have tucked themselves in behind Leinster and New Zealand in terms of aspiration. Saracens haven’t been nearly as ambitious. They have scored just five tries from their four outings and have been as sterile and programmed as Quins have been as fluent.

Sarries are very good at what they do. It’s just that they could be so much better if they stretched themselves.

This is England’s problem too. It’s not merely a matter of finding a midfield, or throwing a young magician like Gloucester’s Freddie Burns into the mix, although some fresh blood might help.

One or two players, however gifted, do not make a team. It’s about integration, moving forward as a squad which is comfortable challenging itself.

England could probably be competitive in the autumn against South Africa and Australia by staying where they are, a team who rely on a high work-rate, a strong return from primary possession, tight defence, good field positions and accurate goal-kicking. But that won’t beat the All Blacks, and it won’t get them further than a semi-final (at best) in the next World Cup.

Nacewa was just turned 21 when he was selected for Fiji in the RWC 2003. He was used as a sub in one match, making him eligible for Fiji. In 2006, he sought to have it changed, and quit Fiji, so he could be eligible for NZ, but IRB wouldn't budge. He was playing for Blues in Super Rugby, and was voted player of the Air NZ tourney in 2007 when Auckland won Air New Zealand Cup for third time.

Fine player for all the teams he's played for.

Nacewa would obviously be playing super rugby if he wasn't playing for Leinster. Leinster "rely" on overseas players less than most NH and even some SH teams.

What are you talking about? At least you finally recognise and admit Leinster do rely on retIred and not good enough SANZAR players! We are making some progress!

I agree with Clive Woodward. You can't call a team great until they've won a world cup. Nz just have, so Leinster don't belong in their company until they have a world cup of their own!

anotherworldofpain wrote:What are you talking about? At least you finally recognise and admit Leinster do rely on retIred and not good enough SANZAR players! We are making some progress!

I agree with Clive Woodward. You can't call a team great until they've won a world cup. Nz just have, so Leinster don't belong in their company until they have a world cup of their own!

Are you trying to wind us up or are you just that clueless?