SANZAR sign off 1,2,3

The AI's are over and normality has resumed, with a resurgent Australia seeing off Wales for the ninth consecutive time, NZ gaining revenge over England and collectively the SANZAR nations dropping only one game - the controversial loss to England after two serious mistakes by the officials.

What it has probably shown us is that the gap between the SH and the NH remains as wide as it has been since the dawn of professionalism. England's brief forray into the top three has been revealed to be an inconsequential product of statistics moving around them - having encroached thanks to NZ beating Australia and having dropped out thanks to Australia beating Ireland (neither game actually featuring England, that is.)

The NH sides collectively lack both the mental strength, composure and game management skills to close out a game when in front. England and Ireland fell to dramatic come backs by NZ, Wales failed to keep the foot on Australia's throat similarly.

France aside, the attacking structures north of the equator lack creativity. England particularly look to be a team bereft of ideas for players with more than one figure on their jumpers. A very complete tight five, but nothing beyond that. For some reason, the European teams don't seem able to produce, foster and develop players with the skill sets of Folau, Savea, Piutau, Cooper, Cruden, Smith, Le Roux or Lambie.

Perhaps it's the pitches they are forced to play on? The Stade de Paris, Edinburgh, Cardiff are all sub-international standard; with only the Irish or English able to boast a quality surface. A particular worry for 2015 orgnaisers with games scheduled for evening kick offs rather than the customary mid afternoon slots. The evening damp will make the beat bogs thicker and the slippery surface at Twickenham more perilous. Will we see a RWC devoid of stars in the closing stages as the inevitable pitch related injuries take their toll?

All in all, it looks as though the house is well in order for the SH. NZ managed to blood a host of new players, and the cabinet is now full (of both trophies and players) according to AB coaching staff. SA have test driven their more expansive game against the NH with great success, even though the talk from the coaches foxed the opposite. Australia, despite being unfairly hounded at Twickenham seem to have a scrum that can compete and a backline with the zing of the great Wallaby sides with Cooper and Genia running the show.

The European teams will need to lick their wounds now and spend the next months going back to the drawing board. Hopefully for them the 6N will be a chance to test new theories and players because time is running out if they seek to avoid yet another SH whitewash at the 2015 RWC.

The structure of the season suits the SH teams much better. The NH sides will not meet up now until the 6 nations, then again in the summer. The SH teams are together for half a year.

England and France are the only teams capable if beating the SH. Perhaps Scotland if it's raining and the SH fields a second string team. The rest should give up.

Toast wrote:England and France are the only teams capable if beating the SH. Perhaps Scotland if it's raining and the SH fields a second string team. The rest should give up.

 

The new challenge is to get Argentina to shore up the #4 position. I believe we can get them there, but they need some super rugby - having their best players play in HC and then make the step up to RC is a recipe for disaster

Looks like the HC is falling apart anyway.

That's effectively why argie havent won a game. They need to be competing in the sxv so the step up isn't so severe. Why they never pushed for it in 07 when the RC idea was sprung i'lll never know. Rebels and kings have joined since then...dumb.

".... yet another SH whitewash at the 2015 RWC."

???

When exactly did the SH win every game?

Heaf wrote:".... yet another SH whitewash at the 2015 RWC."

???

When exactly did the SH win every game?

There's only one game that counts - the final. By my counting the entire of Europe have only managed one in quarter of a century of trying.

That doesn't constitute a whitewash though does it ...

Heaf wrote:That doesn't constitute a whitewash though does it ...

Yep, it does.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Heaf wrote:That doesn't constitute a whitewash though does it ...

Yep, it does.

er no it doesn't

Whitewash is inappropriate for a Tournament

A series perhaps

Oh and wouldn't a Blackwash be more suitable

As far as i recall anyway, there were 2 SH and 2 NH in the semi's, 1 SH and 1 NH in the final and 1 bloody point between the 2

Hardly a White/Black wash in anyones's book except yours

"whitewash
ˈwʌɪtwɒʃ/
noun
1.
a solution of lime and water or of whiting, size, and water, used for painting walls white.
antonyms: exposé
2.
informal
a victory by the same side in every game of a series.
"the Lions went downhill to a 4–0 whitewash"
verb
verb: whitewash; 3rd person present: whitewashes; past tense: whitewashed; past participle: whitewashed; gerund or present participle: whitewashing
1.
paint (a wall, building, or room) with whitewash.
"a suntrap surrounded by trees and whitewashed walls"
deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about (a person or organization).
"his wife must have wanted to whitewash his reputation"
synonyms: cover up, sweep under the carpet, hush up, suppress, draw/pull a veil over, conceal, camouflage, keep secret, keep dark, cloak, screen, veil, obscure; More
antonyms: expose
2.
informal
defeat (an opponent) in every game of a series.
"Ireland were whitewashed 5-0"
"

You can only whitewash someone in a series against a constant opponent by winning every match. Even if you argue that the SH play the NH at world cups as opponents, the SH did not win every match. Either only the final counts, in which semantically it is impossible for if to be a whitewash, or every match does in which case it does not fulfil the criteria. There is no way that GE's sentence can be made to make sense and be accurate at the same time. It is demonstrably false.

"a victory by the same side in every game of a series."

From your own post.  

Only one team can do that at a RWC, the champions. In a quarter of a decade it's only been one european side to manage it.

The rest have been a whitewash by one of the SANZAR teams, who all come from South of the equator.

It's embarrassing for a purportedly global sport that such a small set of countries have such a monopoly on the biggest prize.

Glorious, it was only a SH whitewash if SH won every game they played in

So why don't you toddle off and check.

Scratch wrote:Glorious, it was only a SH whitewash if SH won every game they played in

So why don't you toddle off and check.

Please don't let me have to explain this again. Surely you guys have enough experience being whitewashed by SH sides to know what it looks like? For goodness sake.

You can't ignore the one NH victory and claim it's a Whitewash... It's like me saying England whitewashed the SH this Autumn if we just happen to ignore the All Blacks match. The fact that it hasn't been every World Cup makes it not only a whitewash but impossible for it to ever be a whitewash. The exception you are trying to make is completely contradictory to the definition of whitewash

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Scratch wrote:Glorious, it was only a SH whitewash if SH won every game they played in

So why don't you toddle off and check.

Please don't let me have to explain this again. Surely you guys have enough experience being whitewashed by SH sides to know what it looks like? For goodness sake.

Your quote

SH whitewash

Please answer this question

Did SH - big 3- win every game they played in (leaving Argentina out)

Eh, Football is a far more global sport and the first 7 football world cups were split amongst only 4 countries too, with a 2,2,2,1 split. 7 repetitions isn't really enough to establish a trend, though the fact that SANZAR play each other has clearly made them all stronger for it

Scratch wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Scratch wrote:Glorious, it was only a SH whitewash if SH won every game they played in

So why don't you toddle off and check.

Please don't let me have to explain this again. Surely you guys have enough experience being whitewashed by SH sides to know what it looks like? For goodness sake.

Your quote

SH whitewash

Please answer this question

Did SH - big 3-  win every game they played in (leaving Argentina out)

I was referring to a whitewash by A SH team. It is possible to win the RWC without winning every game.

The fact that SH teams have completed such at almost every World Cup is the point being made - I would've thought it was obvious and didn't need remedial explanation.

Don't dispute that the SH have been and are stronger, just think people should not post things that are demonstrably incorrect

Ah i see you are revising your original assertion of an SH whitewash

It was a NZ whitewash not an SH whitewash

Glad that came out in the wash

I think you're deliberately reading it in a way it wasn't intended, ie creating a straw man to burn.

Fact is all but one won by SH sides and all but one with a 100% record.

It's obviously not possible for more than one team to win every game in a knock out tournament.

But look, NZ completed a grandslam over the home nation opposition at a RWC by themselves. Can't imagine any of the European nations managing that over the SANZAR teams to win the cup.

A tournament isn't a series... A series implies homogeneity between games...

SH whitewash...

is that what happened to GE's TV after ABs scored their try and conversion vs Ireland?

And well done to them. Let us hope things change in 2015

ChequeredJersey wrote:A tournament isn't a series... A series implies homogeneity between games...

Someone call Fibonacci and let him know that it's NOT a series unless the numbers are all the same.

Huh? Your argument is an utter fallacy. And you're trying to dodge the point.

I accept your point, I don't care about your point with regards to the past and I accept that the SH is rightfully 1,2,3 in the world and playing better than the NH in the present, all I object to is you misusing terms in order to try and make your point colourful because being wrong should never be encouraged.

A series in a sporting context has a specific meaning, and you know this. Hence the Lions series refers to the Lions vs the test side they play not anyone else. The World Series is between 2 sides. The Stanley cup is a series. The Ashes is a series. A World Cup is a tournament.

I have also never heard the Fibonacci sequence (which does aptly describe what it actually is) called a series before, but I guess that's differences in region then.

I'm not trying to avoid your point because contrary to what you seem to want to believe, it doesn't bother me. We don't play you lot again for months. Why should I care now about what cannot be changed? Why should I care about the entire NH vs SH conflict? I'm British and English but I don't think of myself as "Northern Hemispherean".

"series
ˈsɪəriːz,-rɪz/
noun
noun: series; plural noun: series; modifier noun: series
1.
a number of events, objects, or people of a similar or related kind coming one after another.
"the explosion was the latest in a series of accidents"
synonyms: sequence, succession, string, chain, concatenation, train, run, chapter, round, progression, procession; More
a set of books, periodicals, or other documents published in a common format or under a common title.
"the first four books in the Toybox Science series"
a set of games played between two teams.
"the Test series against Australia"
a set of stamps, banknotes, or coins issued at a particular time.
"a series of five stamps issued today to mark the 14th World Orchid Conference"

"a number of events, objects, or people of a similar or related kind coming one after another."

Are you reading these definitions before you post them?

Surely a RWC is a number of events (matches) of similar and related nature (rugby matches related by the tournament) coming one after another? Therefore a series by the definition you've posted?

Ever heard a team who've won talk about their series of victories?

Crikey. You're doing your best to disprove your own point here with a series of disasterous posts.

don't worry about it CJ.

GE's from here

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/New_Zealand

GE, you can see the specific sporting definition, which links up to the specific reference to series in Sports in the whitewash definition. You know you are just being obtuse because you like to argue with people on the Internet which explains approximately 95% of your posting here. I do not particularly like arguing on the Internet, especially with people who are not actually setting any aim in their arguments especially as their aim is just to have an argument, a frankly spectacular phenomenon. Hence by arguing with you at all you win, so I don't care what you post. I'm done arguing. I know I'm right and I know you know I'm right, and that's enough for me. Have fun with your Internet games, I've got to be up in 4 hours to do something constructive. I shouldn't have risen to the bait, should have known better and only have myself to blame. Have a nice night

Remind me which tournament Kerry packer instigated?

I rest my case.night!

gloriously smelling of cheeses

Challenge for the ABs is to use the tired Madonna cliche..re- invent themselves. They took it one step further than last year introduced more players and reigned in all the remaining trophies. Unfortunately, new learnings are more difficult for a winning side. Unlike last year, we don't have a loss to pinpoint the main weaknesses. All we can do is look at why we had a few close ones, two three we could have lost if not for showing huge resolve.

I still see new players coming through. In fact 10 is going to get very congested with guys like ihaia west, Benji and the mako's guy- can't recall his name. Kaino bolsters the 6 position and hooker and 13 remain our priority fill positions.

I think we need a loss next year to remain grounded but can also see another unbeaten run. SAs move to an open game could take longer than expected to extract an AB win. We all said argie would win one after their very first match and we are still waiting for it.

What will Hansen focus on? Further developing the newbies is a given but tactically our kicking is proving too random for my liking and obviously the scrums need work. But other sides will start targetting the AB strengths...the restarts, use of width, defences. Its possible we are peaking mid W cup again and we need to go through that hard loss and rebuild phase to regain the edge- we need to operate from a desperation to win position rather than an expectation to win.

Just humour GE. Up until a couple of years ago Nz had only won once and that wasn't even in the professional era. Really they've only won once when it counts. Oh and France should've won that one too. Basically they're still a bunch of chokers underneath all GEs chest puffing. Just ignore him.

I can see your deep inner hurt englandsorry4ever, don't worry; if you keep importing Samoans at this rate one day you'll have a decent team!

englandglory4ever wrote:Just humour GE. Up until a couple of years ago Nz had only won once and that wasn't even in the professional era. Really they've only won once when it counts.    Oh and France should've won that one too. Basically they're still a bunch of chokers underneath all GEs chest puffing. Just ignore him.

True. The 100% record, setting right of england, try of the year vs Ireland, and every trophy on sale in the cabinet...all excellent indicators of choking...just clarifying your statement for you.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I can see your deep inner hurt englandsorry4ever, don't worry; if you keep importing Samoans at this rate one day you'll have a decent team!

 

Who would be low enough to actually import PI's eh?

No. I can't think for one minute another team would ever contemplate inducing Samoans, Tongans, Fijians, etc to play for them.

Taylorman wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Just humour GE. Up until a couple of years ago Nz had only won once and that wasn't even in the professional era. Really they've only won once when it counts.    Oh and France should've won that one too. Basically they're still a bunch of chokers underneath all GEs chest puffing. Just ignore him.

True. The 100% record, setting right of england, try of the year vs Ireland, and every trophy on sale in the cabinet...all excellent indicators of choking...just clarifying your statement for you.

Still only won one RWC in the pro era. Still chokers really.

Yes englandsorry4ever, as I said just the one World Cup for the entire northern hemisphere you are right. I'm not sure it makes you chokers though, just lacking talent at the top level.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/25172089

South still "a step ahead" according to the bbc.

18 heartbreaks in a row for Wales.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL to express that in popular L notation.

I still only make it one proper RWC for Nz. Can't make it anymore no matter what you say. The Nz record of choking is well documented. How France lost to them I don't know.

englandglory4ever wrote:I still only make it one proper RWC for Nz. Can't make it anymore no matter what you say. The Nz record of choking is well documented. How France lost to them I don't know.

Well at least the numbers still believing that has been reduced to a single entity. Thats gotta be some progress.

Heres how France lost to them...they scored 7...NZ scored 8....its not really that difficult. (though how they beat England in the quarters after losing to Tonga is beyond me...whew...dont know how I'd get over that...)