Moral victories.

Don't these count anymore?

The RWC was full of them for NH teams.


IMHO England had the moral victory today

Better, please don't have a dig again.

Fine line now HERSH...

On our day we can beat anyone morally

Wales score the most points out of any NH team today so we rock.

I think all the victories were with the SH teams. Morally as well as factually.

But England had the smallest losing margin so I giving the winning loser moral victory to them. Well done England

welliamwibb wrote:Wales score the most points out of any NH team today so we rock.

Against a 2nd string Wallabies featuring the last fly-half still standing in the country. Apparently they all caught the flu in the test match they played earlier in the week as well.

Rava wrote:I think all the victories were with the SH teams. Morally as well as factually.

Yep, all 3 SH teams deserved their wins this week.

Hopefully there will be an improvement next week.

Unfortunately, I doubt it.

Ireland have 0 chance. They will be very lucky not to concede more point than this week if NZ go all out for it again.

England will be at altitude and didn't create enough today, the SA pack bullied them - I can't see where the change is going to come from in this England side. That first test was their best chance, at sea level against a new look, rusty SA 15. Flood at 10 may help England, but they need to play a more attack driven game, and I don't have confidence that Lancaster and Ashton can get them playing one on a weeks notice (if ever)

Wales perhaps have the best chance to bounce back. They will be underdogs, but they didn't play to their potential this week and will be disappointed. Hopefully Gatland will return and give them some motivation, they will also get some reinforcements in the pack with the return of the Ospreys on-form locking duo. It will be difficult, but they will be desperate to salvage this tour.

Could end up being 3 - 0 for everyone at this rate :/ (except the plucky Scots )

I am worried a bit that if Wales not make the win on this latest "best chance" then there is possibility that latest "new dawn" become another dark night.

And then we will have to read about smug new zealand journalist write about "village idiots" again. And this Wales are actually some substance and deserve more than that ridicule.

So is very important for reputation about NH teams to make some victories next week.

wales606 wrote:

Rava wrote:I think all the victories were with the SH teams. Morally as well as factually.

Yep, all 3 SH teams deserved their wins this week.

Hopefully there will be an improvement next week.

Unfortunately, I doubt it.

Ireland have 0 chance. They will be very lucky not to concede more point than this week if NZ go all out for it again.

England will be at altitude and didn't create enough today, the SA pack bullied them - I can't see where the change is going to come from in this England side. That first test was their best chance, at sea level against a new look, rusty SA 15. Flood at 10 may help England, but they need to play a more attack driven game, and I don't have confidence that Lancaster and Ashton can get them playing one on a weeks notice (if ever)

Wales perhaps have the best chance to bounce back. They will be underdogs, but they didn't play to their potential this week and will be disappointed. Hopefully Gatland will return and give them some motivation, they will also get some reinforcements in the pack with the return of the Ospreys on-form locking duo. It will be difficult, but they will be desperate to salvage this tour.

Could end up being 3 - 0 for everyone at this rate :/ (except the plucky Scots )

NExt week should be interesting,i wont right of the Irish but their chances of upsetting the Blacks are bleak at best. For Wales well they need to get stuck in at the ruck.As long as they keep allowing Pocock the freedom to do what he wants they wont beat the Wobblies. Next week will be a better chance than this week imo i said it all week,Brisbane is a no go area for all teams besides the All blacks and the Wallabies proved me right. Melbourne is Wales best chance with the Wallabies not as fired up as they were today. And one more thing, Mike Philips needs to stop looking for contact and take the fight to Genia. I was wondering where Philips was when Genia was dictating the entire game , he's another one Wales need to shut down very quickly or he gets into his stride and starts dominating .

Finally Boks v Poms at Ellis Park. Lancaster played into Boks hands by playing two fullbacks, i thought that was a mistake rather than a tactical plan . the moment you decide to counter the Boks kicking plan by bringing in another kicker you're in trouble because you wont beat them by kicking.England should have fielded the kicks and ran them back each time , thats what works .Next week England need to be more creative ,play flood at 10 and an attacking 12 not Barritt. Obviously thats going to leave them defensively frail when Willem Alberts and Bismarck come a-calling but they'll force the Boks to defend more than they did today. If England try to contain the Boks by defending not attacking they wont win at the highveldt . my two cents anyway

Good point bullsbok, as soon as England change the team to match the SA tactics then the SA tactics have already worked.

Browns defense was terrible and make them weak in two places to the power game and they had no option on counter attack.

Is important to make the opponent play to your strength and not concede a defeat before you start like that.

NZ play two full backs in Jane and Dagg but they both more complete rugby players than Foden and Brown.

Yep, England need to attack SA.

Can JJ play 12?

If so, they need to start with Flood, JJ and Tuilagi - that would be the most threatening combination. Probably best to return Foden to FB to counter-attack and bring Strettle onto the wing (although Brown is the better player unfortunately)

However, I can't see Lancaster changing it. He has too much faith in certain players, Barrett and Farrell especially.

Put Young and Flood together, JJ is the best runner you have in midfield and Tuilagi is the biggest threat if he can get some ball - and Ashton and Foden and proven finishers.

............

As for Wales, I agree that they need Phillips to have an on-day - if they can contain Genia and Pocock, they will win - and that starts up-front, which is why I hope the Ospreys trio is brought into the starting line-up, they have been out muscling the best in the pro12 for the last few months and won't fear Australia. Hopefully North and S.Williams will recover and we can actually field a stronger team than this week.

"Moral Victory" is simply a term and rationale associated with losing:

When I was in Iraq, after losing a bunch of lads in a running fight, an officer told me this was a moral victory. After this fight, I spent more than 24 hours straight trying to save or fix up a bunch of fine men in a field with shells all around, and still fighting to simply survive. In response to that inane comment, my fist accidentally splattered his nose and then the other broke his cheekbone. He was sent home with injuries sustained 'in battle'. We stayed. However, at that specific point in time I believe he gained the utter clarity that moral victories do not exist and the term is not worth the air expended is using the term. That frames my feeling about the term. Sorry for going off.

England played well. But not enough. Close, no cigar. But enough to learn from and do better the next time. Which I fully expect. The Boks learned less about England than England did about the Boks.

Wales played well and almost nosed in front. Unfortunately they were undone by a more clinical outfit. Wales could have won, but came up short. They have a real good shot next week. I don't think they are patient enough at this point in their development to have withstood the Boks. But maybe soon.

I feel for Ireland. The scoreline could have been worse, and their try was against the run of play. Sadly, the worst of the NH teams playing today. In dire need or a real overhaul. Don't think they were man-for-man better at any position, except for Sean O'Brien, who was clearly one of the best players on the pitch, maybe one of the best playing today.

Bullsbok wrote:Finally Boks v Poms at Ellis Park. Lancaster played into Boks hands by playing two fullbacks, i thought that was a mistake rather than a tactical plan . the moment you decide to counter the Boks kicking plan by bringing in another kicker you're in trouble because you wont beat them by kicking.England should have fielded the kicks and ran them back each time , thats what works .Next week England need to be more creative ,play flood at 10 and an attacking 12 not Barritt. Obviously thats going to leave them defensively frail when Willem Alberts and Bismarck come a-calling but they'll force the Boks to defend more than they did today. If England try to contain the Boks by defending not attacking they wont win at the highveldt . my two cents anyway

I agree about England needing to select better playmakers and attack through them more, but I don't think selecting Brown & Foden was an attempt to kick more. Foden kicked the ball just once and Brown ran the ball back a fair bit more than he kicked. The primary reason both FBs were selected was that Strettle who started all the 6N games was injured and Lancaster (rightly or wrongly) didn't fancy giving a first cap to Joseph or Wade on the wing, so went with the attacking minded and more experienced Foden.

doctor_grey wrote:"Moral Victory" is simply a term and rationale associated with losing:

When I was in Iraq, after losing a bunch of lads in a running fight, an officer told me this was a moral victory. After this fight, I spent more than 24 hours straight trying to save or fix up a bunch of fine men in a field with shells all around, and still fighting to simply survive. In response to that inane comment, my fist accidentally splattered his nose and then the other broke his cheekbone. He was sent home with injuries sustained 'in battle'. We stayed. However, at that specific point in time I believe he gained the utter clarity that moral victories do not exist and the term is not worth the air expended is using the term. That frames my feeling about the term. Sorry for going off.

England played well. But not enough. Close, no cigar. But enough to learn from and do better the next time. Which I fully expect. The Boks learned less about England than England did about the Boks.

Wales played well and almost nosed in front. Unfortunately they were undone by a more clinical outfit. Wales could have won, but came up short. They have a real good shot next week. I don't think they are patient enough at this point in their development to have withstood the Boks. But maybe soon.

I feel for Ireland. The scoreline could have been worse, and their try was against the run of play. Sadly, the worst of the NH teams playing today. In dire need or a real overhaul. Don't think they were man-for-man better at any position, except for Sean O'Brien, who was clearly one of the best players on the pitch, maybe one of the best playing today.

Can't really argue with any of this.
Well I could but I won't

timhen wrote:

welliamwibb wrote:Wales score the most points out of any NH team today so we rock.

Against a 2nd string Wallabies featuring the last fly-half still standing in the country. Apparently they all caught the flu in the test match they played earlier in the week as well.

That's definitely reason to worry. The daily regime of your average Welshman is wake up, ice chamber, breakfast, shower, ice chamber, work (bringing a portable ice chamber), home, dinner, ice chamber, bed. And you don't hear us complaining about flu

Less ice chamber and more training might help it seems.
I was a little suprised at the lack of passion in the Welsh team.
Ireland at least tried so hard in the rucks and mauls and got a bit of turnover ball. Wales could have done better. Ireland I think might have been at their best unfortunately.

Do Wales still believe in ice chambers?

What do you mean Hersh?

They bought the polar ice caps.

HERSH wrote:Do Wales still believe in ice chambers?

Of course, we didn't use any before this tour which is the sole reason we lost. Keep up Hersh

Yeah, come on Hersh, keep up with the program.

biltongbek wrote:What do you mean Hersh?

They bought the polar ice caps.

It was a flawed investment from the start.

Were losing gallons of investment every year and can't control the heat on the accounts.

No wonder our regions are broke...

wales606 wrote:

biltongbek wrote:What do you mean Hersh?

They bought the polar ice caps.

It was a flawed investment from the start.

Were losing gallons of investment every year and can't control the heat on the accounts.

No wonder our regions are broke...

sorry I shouldn't laugh, but perhaps you need to get green peace to assit with the global warming, or is it just wales being so hot?

biltongbek wrote:

wales606 wrote:

biltongbek wrote:What do you mean Hersh?

They bought the polar ice caps.

It was a flawed investment from the start.

Were losing gallons of investment every year and can't control the heat on the accounts.

No wonder our regions are broke...

sorry I shouldn't laugh, but perhaps you need to get green peace to assit with the global warming, or is it just wales being so hot?

Yeah...its boiling here in Wales, its always a lot hotter than out in SA.

well thankfully we have lots and lots and lots of sunshine.

So everyone agrees that England had the moral victory this weekend.

HERSH wrote:So everyone agrees that England had the moral victory this weekend.

I thought the All Blacks scored both actual and moral victories

And I know which one is actually worth something

Gosh, what is wrong with some people when you have to start inventing moral victories!

The moral, if anything, over the last week is that Scotland did what no other European team could do...win a game south of the Equator. There’s your moral victory Hersh.

Strewth, what is wrong with these cashed up northern teams...they plough millions of £ into their teams and justify their performances with moral victories!

That was an actual win Mintie, nothing moral about it. Well if you ask the Ozzies anyway.

Ah Biltong, the moral was in the win!

The whole NH moral victory thing was started during the non event that was the RWC, it was a method for some teams to celebrate playing a game even if they lost to SH teams.

The moral of the SH victories, is that there still appears to be a gap, no? We shall see how wide in the coming weeks.

HERSH wrote:The whole NH moral victory thing was started during the non event that was the RWC, it was a method for some teams to celebrate playing a game even if they lost to SH teams.

Moral victory start when England lose to NZ in the last grand slamming tour and England beat Australia and RFU target was two wins then then say we beat Australia and have moral victory because not lost by too many against NZ and then is a moral victory and we make the target. It come from the end of year review for RFU and was then report on about RFU be a bit messy internal. Then become a joke about "moral victory".

EBOP wrote:The moral of the SH victories, is that there still appears to be a gap, no? We shall see how wide in the coming weeks.

Can't believe I said that, give myself an uppercut, sorry NH that was a silly thing to say

Actually think we're in for a couple of interesting weeks and nothings a foregone conclusion. Hope the ABs haven't peaked, they had a lot to prove with the new coaching regime/WC. Will be interesting to see if they can maintain that edge for the next two games. Actually thinking there may be a tighter game this week, especially if there's 'rotation'.

HERSH wrote:The whole NH moral victory thing was started during the non event that was the RWC, it was a method for some teams to celebrate playing a game even if they lost to SH teams.

Really now? I wonder if you'd be firm enough by your belief to tell the All Blacks final XV that they won a non-event. Btw, what did make it a non-event? The fact that England did worse than predicted?

No, the term "moral victory" came into regular use long before this RWC as you should know being the one who has always used it most frequently. Think now and answer truthfully, who else uses or instigates the use of the term?

I for one consider it as such: you win or you lose. There is no middle ground. At best you can allow yourself some pride if, for example, you were a heavy underdog but gave all you had and tested the opposition all the way, maybe losing by much less than expected. But in no way is that a victory. It's encouragement to keep giving your best and hopefully get the real victory next time.

I consider thinking of a loss as a moral victory to be a strong indication of low standard. You might as well settle for being gallant losers in every game, yes it's a better standard of losing but it's still losing nonetheless.

The real meaning about "moral victory" is not really one very much you like to get anyway. Is really some pejorative term. Maybe some poster like to use it because like it has the word "victory" in there. But really it is meaning has connotation worse than about admit just losing! So means I don't have any problem with poster use this term about their own team!

"Really now? I wonder if you'd be firm enough by your belief to tell the All Blacks final XV that they won a non-event. Btw, what did make it a non-event? The fact that England did worse than predicted?"

The standard of rugby through out the tournament was poor when compared to other years, the stadiums weren't full there was a lack of atmosphere in the ones that were.

The 2011 RWC was designed to allow the All Blacks to win the cup, Rugby needs to grow as a global sport therefore it shouldn't have been in NZ, the IRB made a big mistake.

So summing up IMO it was a non event and I'd happily tell any of the NZ players that to their face, let’s face it Donald won the world cup!

and as for England we can't make the final every year it was our time to sit on the sidelines and allow the other teams to play.

France were never meant to win the final even though NZ were shocking and made about a billion high tackles that were unnoticed by the ref.

Half the ice goes in the players' baths. The other half in Gatland's gin and tonics.

Allegedly.

Who remembers the football WC in Japan? That was a non-event that lacked passion and vibe. That'll be a good indication of what a rugby WC will be like in one of these 'developing' countries. The majority of locals in these developing countries won't even know its on. Grow the game? Unlikely.

That was a great world cup

anotherworldofpain wrote:

HERSH wrote:The whole NH moral victory thing was started during the non event that was the RWC, it was a method for some teams to celebrate playing a game even if they lost to SH teams.

Moral victory start when England lose to NZ in the last grand slamming tour and England beat Australia and RFU target was two wins then then say we beat Australia and have moral victory because not lost by too many against NZ and then is a moral victory and we make the target. It come from the end of year review for RFU and was then report on about RFU be a bit messy internal. Then become a joke about "moral victory".

I thought moral victories started when NZ choked horribly against South Africa in 1995 and then tried to blame it on food poisoning, thus the actual defeat but moral victory through alleged sabotage. They then followed that up with another "moral victory" in 2007, after defeat against France, but only because of a poor refereeing decision.

Always difficult to "morally" defeat New Zealand.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

HERSH wrote:The whole NH moral victory thing was started during the non event that was the RWC, it was a method for some teams to celebrate playing a game even if they lost to SH teams.

Moral victory start when England lose to NZ in the last grand slamming tour and England beat Australia and RFU target was two wins then then say we beat Australia and have moral victory because not lost by too many against NZ and then is a moral victory and we make the target. It come from the end of year review for RFU and was then report on about RFU be a bit messy internal. Then become a joke about "moral victory".

I thought moral victories started when NZ choked horribly against South Africa in 1995 and then tried to blame it on food poisoning, thus the actual defeat but moral victory through alleged sabotage. They then followed that up with another "moral victory" in 2007, after defeat against France, but only because of a poor refereeing decision.

Always difficult to "morally" defeat New Zealand.

No, actually it was carbon date to 1978 the same point as the inception of Andy Haden LineOut Dive Myth when Wales claim moral victory and try to blame all blacks for dive from the lineout. When in reality the penalty to winning the game was award for offside.

Which surprise me because my mind was it start when my country of England celebrate the moral victory of lose to all blacks by small number with a victory lap at manchester (before someone brings up this sore topic)

anotherworldofpain wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

HERSH wrote:The whole NH moral victory thing was started during the non event that was the RWC, it was a method for some teams to celebrate playing a game even if they lost to SH teams.

Moral victory start when England lose to NZ in the last grand slamming tour and England beat Australia and RFU target was two wins then then say we beat Australia and have moral victory because not lost by too many against NZ and then is a moral victory and we make the target. It come from the end of year review for RFU and was then report on about RFU be a bit messy internal. Then become a joke about "moral victory".

I thought moral victories started when NZ choked horribly against South Africa in 1995 and then tried to blame it on food poisoning, thus the actual defeat but moral victory through alleged sabotage. They then followed that up with another "moral victory" in 2007, after defeat against France, but only because of a poor refereeing decision.

Always difficult to "morally" defeat New Zealand.

No, actually it was carbon date to 1978 the same point as the inception of Andy Haden LineOut Dive Myth when Wales claim moral victory and try to blame all blacks for dive from the lineout. When in reality the penalty to winning the game was award for offside.

Which surprise me because my mind was it start when my country of England celebrate the moral victory of lose to all blacks by small number with a victory lap at manchester (before someone brings up this sore topic)

I'm pretty sure that FES has hit the nail on the head there AWOP but clearly your rugby knowledge has improved since your greyghost days, although your written English is marginally worse.

Huh, so you're saying the ABs invented the moral victory? We do like to win mind you

Although we started it, according to FES, some teams up north have certainly made an art form of it in an attempt to save face when it's clear to all, they were just well and truly spanked by a far superior team (usually SH). I see it on here week in week out, the old refs a cheat syndrome. May as well start a thread now for this weekends games, SoS, different day, get ready for it lads

Well I feel like a rant in response to a couple of posters....

No atmosphere at the world cup in NZ. Different atmosphere I would say. If you were in NZ you new the world cup was on. Sure the stadiums aren't large and we are a long way from anywhere. The atmosphere of the games that I went to was great (3 pool games, none with NZ, a semi with Wales and the final). They all had atmosphere as did the towns that hosted them. The flatest was the final (the game was sureal, the fan walk from down town wellington was an amazing atmosphere). There have been two world cups with very little atmosphere, where if you weren't a rugby fan you would struggle to know a tournement was on, 1991 and 1999. Lets hope they finally get it right in 2015.

NZ world cup was a set up. Maybe, but anymore than other tournements I doubt it. If you want to see clear unequivelent evidence for non-objective decision making involving bartering, there are 3 great examples, 1999, 2007 and 2015. All tournemnts awarded to one country with payoff games to unions for their votes. A big problem is the British press and sensationalist journalism.A case of only hearing one side of the story if there ever was one. It's not as straight forward as it seems. There wasn't uniform supprt within japanese rugby for the tournement (e.g. the godfather of japanese rugby, Shiggy Konno, thought it was a bad idea). There was a philosophical split in rugby that came to a head with the awarding of the cup. Awarding Japan the cup was seen by some unions as setting a precident for the tourment based soley on the basis of the size and economic power of the host nation, which would have effectively excluded a number of voting unions from hosting future cups. I could go on. The point is, it's not as obviously one sided as some people think.

Poor quality games. I agree somewhat. I think that this is an IRB issue. Very few nations were able to put together a running game under pressure. New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and Wales come to mind. The IRB sets the framework, it's biased towards defence and real average attacking sides struggle under pressure. Expect more of the same 10 man rugby in 2015. The high school level KPI analysis undertaken by the IRB following each tournement doesn't help. If they are going to do such an poor attempt, why not just pump the money into a developing nation.

Gifting New Zealand the world cup by the referee. Yep it could have gone the other way and to some extent we were lucky. Most Kiwi's feel that the game could have gone the other way, and that a referees call. Part of the assessment he was really biased was terrible analysis by some journo's (e.g. rte I think). Penalties tended to go with possession (e.g. NZ got many in the first half when they often dominated, France got many in the second). Some of the inconsistencys are down to poor analysis of the offence rather than a lack of consitency of the ref (e.g.offside offences). In the end the ref game them an achievable penalty shot at goal that could have won them the match.

That's not to say he could have gone the otherway. No different from many other games in the past. the IRB was formed in the 19th century because debates of the refereeing. It's all the way through. look at SA v Australia at the world cup, or Wales v Australia last week. The reality is we are prepared to accept a completely 1 sided penalty count i.e. one side being penalised and the other dominant side not at all for the final 2/3rds of a game. There are few, if any matches, that meet that most obvious of indicators of potential bias puts every other game into perspective.

That's it feel much netter now......