Maori All Blacks unbeaten run

The Maori All Blacks have set a new record, extending their unbeaten run to 19 consecutive matches.

The Maori All Blacks have not been beaten since 2003 - and their narrow 27-26 come back win over Fiji extended the record yesterday.

Amongst others the side have beaten first tier teams Ireland, England, Samoa and The British and Irish Lions on the way to setting the record.

The ethnically selected side has been a vital proving ground for All Black hopefuls and currently includes notable up-and-comers Otere Black and Reiko Ioane.

A proud record and worthy team - but is ethnic exclusion just racist?

Leicester beat them a couple of years ago didnt they?

Tigers 32 Maoris 24 12 November 2012

Recognised international tests - friendlies against club teams are not included in the official record.

PrichardThatcher wrote:Recognised international tests - friendlies against club teams are not included in the official record.

By that measure you should discount the matches with Saxons and Wolfhounds as they are not test matches.

Yeah you need to rejig your original post. Not sure your first tier side post is correct unless your talking full teams either. Don t detract from the Maori s by embellishing needlessly.

And let's face it their record is fantastic. Oh and they lost in 2007 to Saxons, so unbeaten run does not go back to 2003.

LondonTiger wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:Recognised international tests - friendlies against club teams are not included in the official record.

By that measure you should discount the matches with Saxons and Wolfhounds as they are not test matches.

I have discounted those matches - I'm merely reporting on the official record of sanctioned World Rugby matches. As reported by World Rugby.

Not sure why there is petty quibbling over the published record. It's available for all to see!

19 consecutive wins against FIRST international teams - excludes Saxons/wolfhounds victories, summary of results :

://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_All_Blacks

right so it is an unbeaten run, excluding the games they were beaten in.

Which is fine but change your post to reflect that.

LondonTiger wrote:right so it is an unbeaten run, excluding the games they were beaten in.

No, it's an unbeaten run in all sanctioned tests against national first squads (the games that count)

The run, is a matter of World Rugby fact and not something subject to the fickle presumably envy driven whining of a couple of posters on a forum! Wow, can't believe the tiny minded sensibilities of some of the egos on this forum! What have I come to? No wonder the member list is dwindling!

Well, I'm off to the more adult forums, where members aren't petty squabbling kiddies.

Bye!

PrichardThatcher wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:right so it is an unbeaten run, excluding the games they were beaten in.

No, it's an unbeaten run in all sanctioned tests against national first squads (the games that count)

The run, is a matter of World Rugby fact and not something subject to the fickle presumably envy driven whining of a couple of posters on a forum! Wow, can't believe the tiny minded sensibilities of some of the egos on this forum!  What have I come to? No wonder the member list is dwindling!

Well, I'm off to the more adult forums, where members aren't petty squabbling kiddies.

Bye!

Well you ve quoted England in the original post which if you re actually counting doesnt make your figures correct. Just redo it correctly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:right so it is an unbeaten run, excluding the games they were beaten in.

No, it's an unbeaten run in all sanctioned tests against national first squads (the games that count)

The run, is a matter of World Rugby fact and not something subject to the fickle presumably envy driven whining of a couple of posters on a forum! Wow, can't believe the tiny minded sensibilities of some of the egos on this forum!  What have I come to? No wonder the member list is dwindling!

Well, I'm off to the more adult forums, where members aren't petty squabbling kiddies.

Bye!

Well you ve quoted England in the original post which if you re actually counting doesnt make your figures correct. Just redo it correctly.

Correct England were beaten, it wasn't the Saxons.

Www .theguardian.com/sport/2010/jun/23/england-new-zealand-maori

Suggest you check your facts and apologise,

England's five-match tour ended with defeat to the New Zealand Maori after an enthralling clash in Napier.

Martin Johnson's men dominated the first half and led 28-17 at the interval with tries from Steffon Armitage, Danny Care and Chris Ashton plus 12 points from the boot of Charlie Hodgson.

But the Maori had already served notice of their intent by hitting back from 13-0 down to take the lead with two brilliant tries from Hosea Gear and captain Liam Messam. And Gear completed his hat-trick as the hosts kept England scoreless in the second half to celebrate their centenary with another famous victory. The Maori beat England in 1998, the British and Irish Lions in 2005 and they overhauled Ireland in Rotorua last Friday.

Advertisement

England arrived in Napier on a high after their famous 21-20 victory over Australia in Sydney sealed a 1-1 Test series draw with the Wallabies. Johnson had branded this clash as the unofficial third Test and England made a fast start, playing expansive rugby from the outset with Delon Armitage to the fore.

England's early dominance was rewarded with a Hodgson penalty and then a try from Steffon Armitage as the tourists surged ahead. Hodgson stabbed a grubber kick in behind the Maori defensive line and the Northampton winger Ashton showed brilliant footballing skills to flick the ball back into play with his right foot just before it landed in touch. Steffon Armitage was already on the charge and the London Irish flanker dived on the loose ball to give England a 10-0 lead, with Hodgson landing the touchline conversion.

Hodgson slotted a second penalty as England succeeded where they had failed against the Australian Barbarians, by turning early pressure into points. But the Maori then turned the tables spectacularly with two brilliant counter-attacking tries.

McAlister got the Maori onto the scoreboard with a penalty but Hodgson wasted the chance of an immediate response by hitting the post. Maori full-back Robbie Robinson countered from the rebound and quickly left England's defence in disarray before fly-half Stephen Brett released Gear, who swatted David Strettle and Mathew Tait aside to score.

Maori scrum-half Aaron Smith then pilfered the ball from the back of an England scrum and launched another incisive break, with Brett drawing in three defenders before releasing Messam. Hodgson tracked back to make the tackle but the Sale fly-half could not drag Messam into touch. The try was given and McAlister's conversion edged the Maori into a 17-13 lead.

Advertisement

England were under pressure at the breakdown but returned to their point of strength in the scrum to win a kickable penalty and get back into the game. The tourists then scored twice in the last minute before half-time to storm back into the lead.

When Referee Craig Joubert awarded England a penalty at the ruck, Care spotted the opportunity to exploit a disorganised Maori defence, took the quick tap and beat lock Jarrad Hoeata to score. The Maori sought a response but Hodgson intercepted a pass from McAlister on halfway and sent Ashton over for the try.

England had dominated the breakdown and the tackle count in the first half but their lead was tentative – and within eight minutes of the restart it had been scrubbed out. Tait and Brad Barritt both fell off McAlister and when the ball was spread wide, Gear charged through a gaping hole in the England defence to score his second try.

The Maori then pounced again after another mistake at the breakdown and the ball was spread left to Gear, who capitalised on a major overlap to complete his hat-trick.

McAlister converted both tries to edge the Maori into a 29-28 lead after 48 minutes.

England's pack remained on top but Delon Armitage missed their only penalty shot of the second half with a skewed effort from long range.

The Maori closed out the game with two penalties from replacement Willie Ripia, which left England requiring a converted try to win – and they blew two golden chances.

Geraghty's attempted kick for touch went dead and when Ben Foden launched a searing break, he chose to chip ahead instead of passing to Armitage and the ball again slid over the dead ball line.

PrichardThatcher wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:right so it is an unbeaten run, excluding the games they were beaten in.

No, it's an unbeaten run in all sanctioned tests against national first squads (the games that count)

The run, is a matter of World Rugby fact and not something subject to the fickle presumably envy driven whining of a couple of posters on a forum! Wow, can't believe the tiny minded sensibilities of some of the egos on this forum!  What have I come to? No wonder the member list is dwindling!

Well, I'm off to the more adult forums, where members aren't petty squabbling kiddies.

Bye!

Well you ve quoted England in the original post which if you re actually counting doesnt make your figures correct. Just redo it correctly.

Correct England were beaten, it wasn't the Saxons.

Www .theguardian.com/sport/2010/jun/23/england-new-zealand-maori


Suggest you check your facts and apologise,

I apologise you ve hidden that into the bluff nicely done.

Bluff? Grow up dude. Bye.

Yeah throw a couple of falsehoods in there with some truths hope people dont pick up. hands up I didnt remember the England game. Dude? Good riddance to you!

://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GRNlJ8sVT94

And the Ireland game, NOT wolfhounds.

What false hoods?

It's 19 international wins against national first sides in a row. Some record. Why don't you engage in the actual point instead of dissembling about irrelevancies and calling me a liar?

You did say bye, dont make yourself a liar.

Tell me which "falsehoods" ? Back up your aggressive accusation - or take it back.

More highlights from the 19 run spree:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LqtkqItVH0o

PrichardThatcher wrote:Tell me which "falsehoods" ? Back up your aggressive accusation - or take it back.

1st line. 19 consecutive matches. You ve already admitted its not true, just change it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:Tell me which "falsehoods" ? Back up your aggressive accusation - or take it back.

1st line. 19 consecutive matches. You ve already admitted its not true, just change it.

I've published the record above - it's all fact. You tell me what "falsehoods"

PrichardThatcher wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:Tell me which "falsehoods" ? Back up your aggressive accusation - or take it back.

1st line. 19 consecutive matches. You ve already admitted its not true, just change it.

I've published the record above - it's all fact. You tell me what "falsehoods"

They ve not gone 19 matches unbeaten as you ve already admitted. Change that to however you like to get the unbeaten run in but that 1st statement is incorrect. Thats what detracts from your post.

19 consecutive matches against national first teams.

Since when have mid-week matches or run outs against second stringers counted in an international record? They don't. Never have, never will. Why would you want the double standard to apply to the Maori?

PrichardThatcher wrote:19 consecutive matches against national first teams.  

Since when have mid-week matches or run outs against second stringers counted in an international record? They don't. Never have, never will. Why would you want the double standard to apply to the Maori?

So you re also going back on the recognised international tests statement earlier or are you?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:19 consecutive matches against national first teams.  

Since when have mid-week matches or run outs against second stringers counted in an international record? They don't. Never have, never will. Why would you want the double standard to apply to the Maori?

So you re also going back on the recognised international tests statement earlier or are you?

Why are you being obtuse and argumentative? It's clear that of the last 19 recognised internationals against national first representative teams the Maori All Blacks have won all 19.

Since only internationals against national first representative teams are only ever considered in international tests records, then all of these statements equate to the same thing.

You also claimed the Ireland and England wins were against the Saxons and wolfhounds - they weren't, they were against England and Ireland first teams.

I've not said anything untrue. Merely pointed to the internationally acknowledged record.

PrichardThatcher wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:19 consecutive matches against national first teams.  

Since when have mid-week matches or run outs against second stringers counted in an international record? They don't. Never have, never will. Why would you want the double standard to apply to the Maori?

So you re also going back on the recognised international tests statement earlier or are you?

Why are you being obtuse and argumentative?  It's clear that of the last 19 recognised internationals against national first representative teams the Maori All Blacks have won all 19.

Since only internationals against national first representative teams are only ever considered in international tests records, then all of these statements equate to the same thing.

You also claimed the Ireland and England wins were against the Saxons and wolfhounds - they weren't, they were against England and Ireland first teams.

I've not said anything untrue.  Merely pointed to the internationally acknowledged record.

Well the England game wasnt a test and isnt counted as such so as you say shouldnt be counted as its double standards. You just need to be more precise in your opening post.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:19 consecutive matches against national first teams.  

Since when have mid-week matches or run outs against second stringers counted in an international record? They don't. Never have, never will. Why would you want the double standard to apply to the Maori?

So you re also going back on the recognised international tests statement earlier or are you?

Why are you being obtuse and argumentative?  It's clear that of the last 19 recognised internationals against national first representative teams the Maori All Blacks have won all 19.

Since only internationals against national first representative teams are only ever considered in international tests records, then all of these statements equate to the same thing.

You also claimed the Ireland and England wins were against the Saxons and wolfhounds - they weren't, they were against England and Ireland first teams.

I've not said anything untrue.  Merely pointed to the internationally acknowledged record.

Well the England game wasnt a test and isnt counted as such so as you say shouldnt be counted as its double standards. You just need to be more precise in your opening post.

None of the games the Maori all blacks play are counted as tests, this is because of the status of the Maori themselves, rather than the opposition.

I applying the same standards to the opposition of the Maori that would apply if they did have test status themselves. Jeez, how can you not get this seemingly simple point.

Are you really trying to claim England aren't a test playing nation?

"The Maori All Blacks have not been beaten since 2003 - and their narrow 27-26 come back win over Fiji extended the record yesterday."

They have been beaten since 2003.

NZ Maori v Ireland A/XV was how the match was designated in 2010. It was not against an Ireland first team.

In fact, the listed matches in Statsguru has just Canada, USA and Fiji as recognised matches since 2003.

The matches against Ireland and England were arranged as part of the centenary celebration of Maori rugby.

"Geordan Murphy is relishing skippering his country for the first time as Ireland take on New Zealand Maori in their centenary match."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/irish/8745402.stm

Better tell Murphy he never captained his country!

you guys really are a bunch of bitter dissembling whining babies aren't you?

You try to deny the reality in front of you and documented by the global governing body!

The Maori side are good very good, love watching their entertaining play, however, how Maori do you have to be to be Maori? Some players have only a 64th part Maori so the race is being diluted to get some of the boys in. I am not trying to detract from the side but you have to stand back and ask the question why they still play games, I dread to think what the media would think of a Pakeha side only!

The Lions victory in 2005 was amazing, I was there it was a great game.

Have to question the strength of the sides Maori play sometimes but again you can only play what's put in front of you.

PritchardThatcher 27 posts and making friends by the score, mind you with a name like that he has to be a pratt

PrichardThatcher wrote:The matches against Ireland and England were arranged as part of the centenary celebration of Maori rugby.

"Geordan Murphy is relishing skippering his country for the first time as Ireland take on New Zealand Maori in their centenary match."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/irish/8745402.stm

Better tell Murphy he never captained his country!

you guys really are a bunch of bitter dissembling whining babies aren't you?

You try to deny the  reality in front of you and documented by the global governing body!

Still jumping around. Amend your original mistakes definew hat you re counting. Simple.

If everything pans out well this saturday, then Im off to Eden Park to Watch the Maori All Blacks, personally I think they are going to get a flogging.

Should they be beaten this will not impact on their unbeaten run of 19 consecutive victories against International sides (I think the Lions qualify as an international side) as the New Zealand Barbarians are not an International side.

Apparently the Maoris have not been beaten by a Pacific island team since Tonga in 1973.

The thread is a WUM. It's also a lie. Maori are not unbeaten though I guess technically any side could be unbeaten if you discount enough matches!

Pot Hale wrote:"The Maori All Blacks have not been beaten since 2003 - and their narrow 27-26 come back win over Fiji extended the record yesterday."

They have been beaten since 2003.

NZ Maori v Ireland A/XV was how the match was designated in 2010.  It was not against an Ireland first team.

In fact, the listed matches in Statsguru has just Canada, USA and Fiji as recognised matches since 2003.

Interesting! We are talking about the game at Rotorua on the 18 June 2010 arent we? you remember the week after the test against the ABs, when the the ABs shoved  nearly 70 points up Ireland. I never heard of that game being designated as a Ireland A/xv, it was the touring Irish team. Or correct me if Im going completely mad.........It was a stunning Haka as well. Final score 31 / 28.

Has anyone got the full list of results?

Well this was an interesting read...

With a representative side such as the Maori team, why would you exclude games v clubs, or 2nd tier sides, surely if full national teams play under strength friendlies v the Maori's and count , then the under strength Maoris who play clubs should also count?

It's the old boxer debate though, if you only want to accept wins as official contests then everyone's a champion lol

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:"The Maori All Blacks have not been beaten since 2003 - and their narrow 27-26 come back win over Fiji extended the record yesterday."

They have been beaten since 2003.

NZ Maori v Ireland A/XV was how the match was designated in 2010.  It was not against an Ireland first team.

In fact, the listed matches in Statsguru has just Canada, USA and Fiji as recognised matches since 2003.

Interesting! We are talking about the game at Rotorua on the 18 June 2010 arent we? you remember the week after the test against the ABs, when the the ABs shoved  nearly 70 points up Ireland. I never heard of that game being designated as a Ireland A/xv, it was the touring Irish team. Or correct me if Im going completely mad.........It was a stunning Haka as well. Final score 31 / 28.

Apologies, it was an uncapped match designated NZ Maori v Ireland XV. http://www.irishrugby.ie/rugby/fixturesandresults/8564.php. The Ireland A matches were a couple of years earlier.

If you Google "NZ Maori v Ireland XV", you'll see the references.

Fanster wrote:Well this was an interesting read...

With a representative side such as the Maori team, why would you exclude games v clubs, or 2nd tier sides, surely if full national teams play under strength friendlies v the Maori's and count , then the under strength Maoris who play clubs should also count?It's the old boxer debate though, if you only want to accept wins as official contests then everyone's a champion lol

The reason clubs arent included is because the Maori All Blacks arent a club. Theyre the native  race of people from the nation of New Zealand. All Maoris play for clubs in New Zealand, When they are playing for their club then that would be a club game. ie Super xv as in Highlanders, Blues etc or provincial ie Otahuhu, Posonby etc. However When they are playing for their Country then they are doing just that.

There is nothing wrong with including clubs in "the list", however that then would not be "a list" of games against other nations.

When the Maoris field an under strength side, its not be because they disrespect the opposition or dont take the game seriously its more because their top line players are playing for the All Blacks. As in last week the All Blacks were in Samoa whilst the Maoris were in Fiji. in turn take  players like say Dan Carter, Cory Jane, Liam Messam, TJ Perenara etc rarely get to play for the Maori All Blacks.

Does anyone have a list of which games are included/excluded for the run then?

PrichardThatcher wrote:A proud record and worthy team - but is ethnic exclusion just racist?

It's an interesting question. Does any other nation have a side based purely on ethnic background?

Cyril wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:A proud record and worthy team - but is ethnic exclusion just racist?

It's an interesting question. Does any other nation have a side based purely on ethnic background?

You guys are so PC, Not only do we have the Maori All blacks but each Province has a Maori team ie Auckland Maoris etc.

Its got nothing to do with racism its about Mana (respect).

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:A proud record and worthy team - but is ethnic exclusion just racist?

It's an interesting question. Does any other nation have a side based purely on ethnic background?

You guys are so PC, Not only do we have the Maori All blacks but each Province has a Maori team ie Auckland Maoris etc.

I wasn't criticising or being 'PC'. Just wondering. SA gets a lot of criticism over its proposed quota system. When does discrimination kick in?

I would imagine a Pakeha-only side would be frowned upon?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Does anyone have a list of which games are included/excluded for the run then?

1. Canada...65-27.
2. Canada...30-9.
3. USA....69-31.
4. Fiji...29-27.
5. British and Irish Lions...19-13.
6. USA....74-6.
7. Canada...59-23.
8. Tonga...20-9.
9. Fiji...11-7.
10. Samoa...17-6.
11. Japan...65-2.
12. Ireland...31-28.
13. England...35-28.
14. Canada...32-19.
15. Canada...29-19.
16. USA....29-19.
17. Japan...61-21.
18. Japan...20-18.
19. Fiji...27-26.


On the 13th November 2012, Leicester defeated the Maori All Blacks 32-24.

Cheers laurie, impressive list even if it's manufactured slightly.

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:A proud record and worthy team - but is ethnic exclusion just racist?

It's an interesting question. Does any other nation have a side based purely on ethnic background?

You guys are so PC, Not only do we have the Maori All blacks but each Province has a Maori team ie Auckland Maoris etc.

I wasn't criticising or being 'PC'. Just wondering. SA gets a lot of criticism over its proposed quota system. When does discrimination kick in?

I would imagine a Pakeha-only side would be frowned upon?

Its about respecting the original people (natives) of the Land, Its very hard to put in Anglo saxon sense. i dont think anyone would ever think of having a Pakeha team as its not some competition between the different ethnicities based on "because theyve got one, we want one too"

Impressive list of wins! If any of those other games are as good as the England match then the Maori must be a great team to follow. If you haven't seen the highlights of the MaorivEngland game then check them out.

As to the whole ethical side of things I think we Europeans can't really have a say in it. NZ culture is in some ways completely alien to ours, and to them the Maori team is part of that culture. We have nothing g like that, so we shouldn't try and judge it by our views.

I guess the nearest would be a native American sports team or Aborigine team.

Cyril wrote:

PrichardThatcher wrote:A proud record and worthy team - but is ethnic exclusion just racist?

It's an interesting question. Does any other nation have a side based purely on ethnic background?

South Africa used to....