Have the All Blacks become sore losers...

All this whinging, about the referee, just accept it, you had to lose sometime...

Take heart from being the side that everyone in the world wants to beat, and take it on the chin when you are beaten ... as it is inevitable now and again...

BUT ... and that's a big BUT don't forget that on November 22nd its Wales's turn to beat you.

We've run you close so many times in recent years, but as part of the Cymru/Kiwi participation agreement of 2008 (and the predated one of 1998-2004) we agreed to train your up and coming international coaches in the best rugby tournament in the world (6 Nations for those who didn't know), and then during any test match between Wales and New Zealand, we agreed to let you look good by keeping with you for 60-65 mins and letting you riot in the last 20 or so, with you giving us the occasional thumping from the start to avoid any loss of All Black moral. However, the Cymru/Kiwi participation agreement (of 2008) is due for renegotiation this Autumn, with the first modification to this agreement being Wales's turn to win the November 2014 test.

So guys, just remember this and don't be a sore loser when we beat you on 22nd November 2014... a day to go down in history with 16th December 1905, 21st December 1935 and 19th December 1953.


Dont forget All Blacks... Its WALES turn next... We'll still be on your side on the 8th when you play England 

No9 wrote:16th December 1905, 21st December 1935 and 19th December 1953.


Dont forget All Blacks... Its WALES turn next... We'll still be on your side on the 8th when you play England 

Seems like you need to play them in December and their need to be a 5 somewhere in the year.

So no, I don't think 22 November is going to work for you guys. Maybe schedule next year for the 5th December 2015 at 5 o'clock

I'll be at the game and I agre with FerN.

South Africa's better than Wales my friend-you've got some work to do to knock NZ off-though it is possible fur sure. We don't want a red carpet welcome in Nov though-rather just some grass that doesn't cut up when you look at it. You boyos have that fixed yet?

Who`s whinging?look at the NZ newspapers taking it as one of those things.Maybe it
is Wales turn.England are due again 2022,hopefully the best Stadium and worst playing
surface in UK will be ready for it.

You might even face a full strength Nz team then unlike most of RC ,just as SA and Aus
might be too.

Yeah, injuries had a big impact on the RC this year, but I am not complaining, we got to see new halfbacks which otherwise would not have happened.

Think the injuries cancelled themselves out with the NZ SA games-we both were missing people that could have made a difference.

NZ should always be underdogs at Ellis Park.

The hallmark of the recent Bok vs All Black tests has been the magnificent sportsmanship of both teams: magnanimous in victory and defeat.

...As for some of the AB fans: well, they're not used to responding to a loss, so we'll just have to be patient with them

Think almost every Kiwi poster on here has been pretty sporting and accepting of the defeat and even the penalty. Try not to tar us all with the same brush fellas.

I thought the best rugby comp in the world was the Heineken.

Yeah, agree with you Disney, I have seen very few kiwi's being not being gracious. Most have been complimentary and happy for us poor Bok supporters.

Cheers Bilt. Hope you had a few Windhoeks. Games like that are great for rugby, even if your own side happens to lose. You guys deserved a little luck too-which often happens to the side playing the better rugby and there's no doubt you deserve it.

Kiwis are sore when the ABs lose-especially the team itself. That's why no stone will be left unturned for next time. Hope we can make another statement against Australia, and on tour.

Even despite the intense rivalry, hope SA is enjoying sitting at the top of the tree with us. We'll keep arm wrestling for the highest branch, but for the minute let's crack open a cold one, toast each other and enjoy the view. Our teams earned it, and we'll have to keep earning it.

Can't wait to bliksem those Welsh.

Injuries are part of the game. Period!

Teams should be more than your best available XV players. In club rugby sometimes it is as a smaller and smaller roster means that you could be forced to play some academy kid with zero hairs on his chest let alone game time in professional rugby.

But test rugby is different. There should and nearly every tier 1 team should have ample reserves of similar quality.

Scotland only has 2 pro sides so in that respect its difficult for them. The league below is not up to pro scratch so any major injuries in certain areas could mean apparent weakness is a genuine issue.

I would say though that NZ do have an interesting take on losses mind.

I recall Sean Fitzpatrick on why NZ would choke all the time pre 2011.

91 - We were complacent
95 - Poisoned
99 - We were complacent
03 - We were complacent
07 - We were complacent

In essence his theory was that NZ were superior in every era, that no one was simply better at the time but rather NZ did not take the opponents seriously at the time.

From poisoning to single players getting injured (Umaga 03) to grey strips there have been many reasons.

I don't think being a sore loser is necessarily a bad thing. Jonny Wilkinson took off his RU medal in 2007 within a second of having it placed on his neck. Why because he is a winner, that it didn't matter that getting England to the final and being a big toe away from possible victory was one of the  greatest achievements in pro rugby... it wasn't good enough, not for ultimate competitors.

Watch Michael Jordan's HoF speech. Most arrogant speech ever, worst loser ever... and he acknowledged it too.

I would say something else too

When NZ lost to England at Twickenham in 2012 you didn't see one player, one coach or one NZ online media/newspaper say it was a hollow victory.

The only people who did were fans from rivals who were probably envious that England beat them.

In that match sure they were tired.... but they knew the schedule way in advance. They knew their toughest match would be at the end of the tour. NZ always have put their best side out for England, always geared towards the big games.

Illness hit the camp too, but not to all and you saw how they responded post half time that illness wasn't that big a factor.

The only thing I ever read in NZ papers were a) how good England were, b) how good tuilagi was and c) it was a timely reminder for NZ never to think they were better than they were.

The only time I felt they got a little pathetic was in 1995 when they complained of getting sick.

In essence, NZ had players who were not affected. Eric Rush was one of them, testified that he didn't get sick because he went to Pizza Hut rather than at the infamous meal. He was one of 6-7 players who didn't eat with the team.

Now then you saw Jeff Wilson vomit on the pitch. He was apparently not fit. Then why not play Eric Rush? Why was the team not changed. Eric Rush was a superb player and a Rush at 100% was better than a Wilson at 90%, no question.

So why was their not a single change?

The reason, either the coach dismissed the issue (either to his lack of understanding or player power forcing decisions a la Ronaldo in SWC 98) or it was actually only a petty excuse. Either way it was no one else's fault bar NZ's. Had they lost with some lesser players like rush then fine, perhaps it was a worthy excuse. Lomu didn't score in the final either (from 8 in 5 previously or something) yet he never scored vs. the boks in 12 matches.

Calm down all...

I had hoped that you saw this as a joke, banter, laugh as intended and thought obvious by my Cymru/Kiwi participation agreement of 2008 comment.

Anyway, as FerN stated...

FerN wrote:

Seems like you need to play them in December and their need to be a 5 somewhere in the year.

So no, I don't think 22 November is going to work for you guys.  Maybe schedule next year for the 5th December 2015 at 5 o'clock

... so I'm going for 31st October 2015 as the day Wales will beat the All Blacks...

Date not ringing bells...:

... our results against the SpringBoks is actually worse than that against the All Blacks, and we've come so annoying close recently, just cant cross the line. so I'll take a win over the Boks this Autumn. Mind you, being the dreaded 4th International and outside of the IRB window, not exactly sure who we will be able to field.

A serious point wrapped in humour.

It's a decent call. But for me, I don't begrudge South Africa the win. They were good for it. Maybe I didn't make that clear. They've certainly been good enough to beat nz in the recent past and come away with a loss. Fair is fair.

My complaint is just at this level with very little between the top teams, the difference is all too often poor refereeing and I hate to see it besmirch the game.

Now if wales do beat nz, let's hope it's because they summon the spirit of 1952 (or whenever) and not the spirit of that other welsh win when the referee disallowed that try...and let's hope the referee certainly doesn't take a straw poll of home supporters to decide the outcome as Wayne Barnes did last weekend.

NZ fans are generally a decent bunch.

It sometimes seems like there are quite a few sore losers among their ranks but strangely only one at a time. What do you reckon, 'Richard'?

Biltong wrote:Yeah, injuries had a big impact on the RC this year, but I am not complaining, we got to see new halfbacks which otherwise would not have happened.

Thing is I think you have always had them Biltong, they were just playing to the wrong tune. Hougaard for one - a winger that can play half back, or vice versa. Now in my book, that looks like a dangerous cocktail in a positive way, the assumption being that he:

1   can pass
2   can run

The way he has been used in the past- of all things to do those ridiculous box kicks doesnt really align with 1 or 2 above.

Another example of the Boks having the players yet playing to the wrong tune.

Look at him with a bit of freedom and license last weekend. That combination with Pollard is easily the best I've seen in 10 years, and to have Reinach and Lambie, a similar pair in terms of the style and one who can knock over 50+ penalties at the death, how can Meyer possibly even think of changing that setup. Its perfect. Over the next year change them round for experience but right there is a World cup winning quartet.

Bringing FDP into that mix with that energy out there is just silly and in watching Meyer watch Pollard and Hougaard go in for their tries, knowing that he's responsible for establishing the pair, how can he move away from that?

He'd have to be insane.

Agree completely Tman, wrote an article about exactly that for the roar, not sure when they will publish it though.

Richard wrote: the difference is all too often poor refereeing and I hate to see it besmirch the game.

.

But as has been pointed out to repeatedly by a variety of posters

The decision was right

It was done within both the letter and spirit of the laws

Your understanding of the laws is wrong.
This was good refereeing.

fa0019 wrote:I would say something else too

When NZ lost to England at Twickenham in 2012 you didn't see one player, one coach or one NZ online media/newspaper say it was a hollow victory.

The only people who did were fans from rivals who were probably envious that England beat them.

In that match sure they were tired.... but they knew the schedule way in advance. They knew their toughest match would be at the end of the tour. NZ always have put their best side out for England, always geared towards the big games.

Illness hit the camp too, but not to all and you saw how they responded post half time that illness wasn't that big a factor.

The only thing I ever read in NZ papers were a) how good England were, b) how good tuilagi was and c) it was a timely reminder for NZ never to think they were better than they were.

The only time I felt they got a little pathetic was in 1995 when they complained of getting sick.

In essence, NZ had players who were not affected. Eric Rush was one of them, testified that he didn't get sick because he went to Pizza Hut rather than at the infamous meal. He was one of 6-7 players who didn't eat with the team.

Now then you saw Jeff Wilson vomit on the pitch. He was apparently not fit. Then why not play Eric Rush? Why was the team not changed. Eric Rush was a superb player and a Rush at 100% was better than a Wilson at 90%, no question.

So why was their not a single change?

The reason, either the coach dismissed the issue (either to his lack of understanding or player power forcing decisions a la Ronaldo in SWC 98) or it was actually only a petty excuse. Either way it was no one else's fault bar NZ's. Had they lost with some lesser players like rush then fine, perhaps it was a worthy excuse. Lomu didn't score in the final either (from 8 in 5 previously or something) yet he never scored vs. the boks in 12 matches.

Glenn Osbornes reasons were that no one was going to deny them the rightful start in the biggest match of their lives...where you say just change them all so flippantly like its nothing. None of them were going to admit to being crook before the match even though it was generally agreed 6 or 7 shouldnt have taken the field and the day before they wouldnt have had a team. They were recovering but it is hardly ideal compared to the prep the Boks would have had.

And who's to say a fit Rush would have been better than an ill but improving in health Wilson? plus add to that 6 more players of similar change who had hardly played the big matches or prepped for a start? Plus despite all that they nearly pulled it off. And the Boks, despite all that, still needed extra time. The matches leading up to the final clearly had the AB's as the standout side, the Boks nearly going down to the French while the AB's grand slamming and adding a 145 pointer.

Had there been absolutely no illness its obvious who would have won, the AB's prep AND on field performance affected.

Not saying it wasn't NZ's fault, but am saying if not for the illness NZ would have won. Without reservation.

TJ wrote:

Richard wrote: the difference is all too often poor refereeing and I hate to see it besmirch the game.

.

But as has been pointed out to repeatedly by a variety of posters

The decision was right

It was done within both the letter and spirit of the laws

Your understanding of the laws is wrong.
This was good refereeing.

Ah - not really. Advantage was had and technically over. There is no current provision for the use of the TMO in general play UNLESS the referee already believes there is some suspicion of foul play, which can ONLY be reported by one of the two on field assistants. Those are the laws.

Barnes went outside them when he used a replay on the basis of (a) fans reaction (b) an unsolicited replay (c) the opposition captain asking he take a look.

Now I don't begrudge JdV anything, he's a gentleman and a fine player and captain. He did what he did and he got away with it. Good on him.

Barnes is in the wrong for using the initial replay and suggestion/crowd reaction as evidence and secondly in my opinion the decision was a poor one. I don't think there was any intent from Messam. Burger merely fell into him. That's subjective though and beyond the point.

Barnes is clearly in the wrong for even considering it.

The only legal recourse should've been a post match citing - of which tellingly, there has been none.

fa0019 wrote:I would say something else too

When NZ lost to England at Twickenham in 2012 you didn't see one player, one coach or one NZ online media/newspaper say it was a hollow victory.

The only people who did were fans from rivals who were probably envious that England beat them.

In that match sure they were tired.... but they knew the schedule way in advance. They knew their toughest match would be at the end of the tour. NZ always have put their best side out for England, always geared towards the big games.

Illness hit the camp too, but not to all and you saw how they responded post half time that illness wasn't that big a factor.

The only thing I ever read in NZ papers were a) how good England were, b) how good tuilagi was and c) it was a timely reminder for NZ never to think they were better than they were.

The only time I felt they got a little pathetic was in 1995 when they complained of getting sick.

In essence, NZ had players who were not affected. Eric Rush was one of them, testified that he didn't get sick because he went to Pizza Hut rather than at the infamous meal. He was one of 6-7 players who didn't eat with the team.

Now then you saw Jeff Wilson vomit on the pitch. He was apparently not fit. Then why not play Eric Rush? Why was the team not changed. Eric Rush was a superb player and a Rush at 100% was better than a Wilson at 90%, no question.

So why was their not a single change?

The reason, either the coach dismissed the issue (either to his lack of understanding or player power forcing decisions a la Ronaldo in SWC 98) or it was actually only a petty excuse. Either way it was no one else's fault bar NZ's. Had they lost with some lesser players like rush then fine, perhaps it was a worthy excuse. Lomu didn't score in the final either (from 8 in 5 previously or something) yet he never scored vs. the boks in 12 matches.

Did England really beat NZ? I thought we would've heard more about it.

Richard wrote:Did England really beat NZ? I thought we would've heard more about it.

If one of your previous accounts hadn't 'left' the forum soon after the last time it happened you could have heard more about it. You've got to be in it to win it

Sorry?! Who are you talking to?

Richard wrote:Sorry?! Who are you talking to?

Same old

Sorry mate, you've lost me.

Anyway let's agree to disagree on that one. It's a shame such a quality spectacle was so utterly overshadowed by the whole debacle but let's reflect on what a great math it was for 79 minutes.

NZ in the first half just reminded me of what I was saying pre-game. They are susceptible to ball in hand, direct running. Without Retallick that was exposed massively. Credit to SA and Meyer for spotting and exploiting it. I just wonder why they changed tactics in the second spell? It looked like the subs were poorly timed and broke the cohesion.

Richard wrote:It's a shame such a quality spectacle was so utterly overshadowed by the whole debacle

What debacle? Unless you think it should have been a yellow as well as a penalty. In which case I agree Barnes was lenient, but no debacle.

Taylorman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I would say something else too

When NZ lost to England at Twickenham in 2012 you didn't see one player, one coach or one NZ online media/newspaper say it was a hollow victory.

The only people who did were fans from rivals who were probably envious that England beat them.

In that match sure they were tired.... but they knew the schedule way in advance. They knew their toughest match would be at the end of the tour. NZ always have put their best side out for England, always geared towards the big games.

Illness hit the camp too, but not to all and you saw how they responded post half time that illness wasn't that big a factor.

The only thing I ever read in NZ papers were a) how good England were, b) how good tuilagi was and c) it was a timely reminder for NZ never to think they were better than they were.

The only time I felt they got a little pathetic was in 1995 when they complained of getting sick.

In essence, NZ had players who were not affected. Eric Rush was one of them, testified that he didn't get sick because he went to Pizza Hut rather than at the infamous meal. He was one of 6-7 players who didn't eat with the team.

Now then you saw Jeff Wilson vomit on the pitch. He was apparently not fit. Then why not play Eric Rush? Why was the team not changed. Eric Rush was a superb player and a Rush at 100% was better than a Wilson at 90%, no question.

So why was their not a single change?

The reason, either the coach dismissed the issue (either to his lack of understanding or player power forcing decisions a la Ronaldo in SWC 98) or it was actually only a petty excuse. Either way it was no one else's fault bar NZ's. Had they lost with some lesser players like rush then fine, perhaps it was a worthy excuse. Lomu didn't score in the final either (from 8 in 5 previously or something) yet he never scored vs. the boks in 12 matches.

Glenn Osbornes reasons were that no one was going to deny them the rightful start in the biggest match of their lives...where you say just change them all so flippantly like its nothing. None of them were going to admit to being crook before the match even though it was generally agreed 6 or 7 shouldnt have taken the field and the day before they wouldnt have had a team. They were recovering but it is hardly ideal compared to the prep the Boks would have had.

And who's to say a fit Rush would have been better than an ill but improving in health Wilson? plus add to that 6 more players of similar change who had hardly played the big matches or prepped for a start? Plus despite all that they nearly pulled it off. And the Boks, despite all that, still needed extra time. The matches leading up to the final clearly had the AB's as the standout side, the Boks nearly going down to the French while the AB's grand slamming and adding a 145 pointer.

Had there been absolutely no illness its obvious who would have won, the AB's prep AND on field performance affected.

Not saying it wasn't NZ's fault, but am saying if not for the illness NZ would have won. Without reservation.

Taylorman

Then that's a great example of a bad team ethic.. A team full of individuals. Yes it was the greatest game of their lives but the coaches knew who was ill, the doctors knew. You can't cover up a medical unless the doc is in on it.  Big example of not what to do. Do you think SCW or Henry would have not dropped jonno or mccaw if in similar situations? Of course they'd drop them, guys hated them personally but they were winners and they answered to the board not the players.

Ever tried training with food poisoning? I think I would max be able to do a brisk jog. And just because these guys were athletes means nothing. If they were hit that bad then yes a fully fit rush would be ten times as effective. And given these guys weren't literally on their knees, the impact of it has been slightly overblown.

To be honest I'm not so sure had NZ been fully fit as suggested that they would have won. I don't think NZ were that much better than SA. Lomu was instrumental to NZ's game. Without him the team were back to losing to France, Australia and England like they did over 93-94. He gave NZ such an advantage.... And yet the boks learnt how to play him. They forced him inside every ball, never gave him the outside and in 9 starts and 12 tests he never scored vs the boks. Take out lomu and you destroyed NZ platform.

That Bok pack was massive though and again took away NZ front foot. NZ were still a better team but with SA at home after beating AUS and France they were no push overs and I would still back then got the win. Partly because sometimes teams are simply destined to win a rugby match whatever the costs, players etc.... They could have faced 15 Jonah's and they still win. It was just written that way.

fa0019 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I would say something else too

When NZ lost to England at Twickenham in 2012 you didn't see one player, one coach or one NZ online media/newspaper say it was a hollow victory.

The only people who did were fans from rivals who were probably envious that England beat them.

In that match sure they were tired.... but they knew the schedule way in advance. They knew their toughest match would be at the end of the tour. NZ always have put their best side out for England, always geared towards the big games.

Illness hit the camp too, but not to all and you saw how they responded post half time that illness wasn't that big a factor.

The only thing I ever read in NZ papers were a) how good England were, b) how good tuilagi was and c) it was a timely reminder for NZ never to think they were better than they were.

The only time I felt they got a little pathetic was in 1995 when they complained of getting sick.

In essence, NZ had players who were not affected. Eric Rush was one of them, testified that he didn't get sick because he went to Pizza Hut rather than at the infamous meal. He was one of 6-7 players who didn't eat with the team.

Now then you saw Jeff Wilson vomit on the pitch. He was apparently not fit. Then why not play Eric Rush? Why was the team not changed. Eric Rush was a superb player and a Rush at 100% was better than a Wilson at 90%, no question.

So why was their not a single change?

The reason, either the coach dismissed the issue (either to his lack of understanding or player power forcing decisions a la Ronaldo in SWC 98) or it was actually only a petty excuse. Either way it was no one else's fault bar NZ's. Had they lost with some lesser players like rush then fine, perhaps it was a worthy excuse. Lomu didn't score in the final either (from 8 in 5 previously or something) yet he never scored vs. the boks in 12 matches.

Glenn Osbornes reasons were that no one was going to deny them the rightful start in the biggest match of their lives...where you say just change them all so flippantly like its nothing. None of them were going to admit to being crook before the match even though it was generally agreed 6 or 7 shouldnt have taken the field and the day before they wouldnt have had a team. They were recovering but it is hardly ideal compared to the prep the Boks would have had.

And who's to say a fit Rush would have been better than an ill but improving in health Wilson? plus add to that 6 more players of similar change who had hardly played the big matches or prepped for a start? Plus despite all that they nearly pulled it off. And the Boks, despite all that, still needed extra time. The matches leading up to the final clearly had the AB's as the standout side, the Boks nearly going down to the French while the AB's grand slamming and adding a 145 pointer.

Had there been absolutely no illness its obvious who would have won, the AB's prep AND on field performance affected.

Not saying it wasn't NZ's fault, but am saying if not for the illness NZ would have won. Without reservation.

Taylorman

Then that's a great example of a bad team ethic.. A team full of individuals. Yes it was the greatest game of their lives but the coaches knew who was ill, the doctors knew. You can't cover up a medical unless the doc is in on it.  Big example of not what to do. Do you think SCW or Henry would have not dropped jonno or mccaw if in similar situations? Of course they'd drop them, guys hated them personally but they were winners and they answered to the board not the players.

Ever tried training with food poisoning? I think I would max be able to do a brisk jog. And just because these guys were athletes means nothing. If they were hit that bad then yes a fully fit rush would be ten times as effective. And given these guys weren't literally on their knees, the impact of it has been slightly overblown.

To be honest I'm not so sure had NZ been fully fit as suggested that they would have won. I don't think NZ were that much better than SA. Lomu was instrumental to NZ's game. Without him the team were back to losing to France, Australia and England like they did over 93-94. He gave NZ such an advantage.... And yet the boks learnt how to play him. They forced him inside every ball, never gave him the outside and in 9 starts and 12 tests he never scored vs the boks. Take out lomu and you destroyed NZ platform.

That Bok pack was massive though and again took away NZ front foot. NZ were still a better team but with SA at home after beating AUS and France they were no push overs and I would still back then got the win. Partly because sometimes teams are simply destined to win a rugby match whatever the costs, players etc.... They could have faced 15 Jonah's and they still win. It was just written that way.

No they couldnt have have faced 15 Jonahs and won, because there arent 15 Jonahs so that makes no sense. And like I said, not saying it wasnt their fault taking the field, or that the Boks werent the best side on the day.

But given the illness was a fact, it must be accepted that they were affected. And that scenario is unprecedented in all of test rugby that I know of, let alone a World cup final.

What I can say is without it, or, with the Boks affected in the same situation where the AB's weren't, a draw in extra time certainly would not have been the result.

Plus they came back a year later to whitewash them. Too much evidence to suggest a win wasnt likely if not for the illness. Nothing you can say will change that. Just the way it is written.

Of course 15 jonahs wouldn't work... its a figure of speech. I.e. 15 of the some of the best players of all time in one side.

NZ being more healthy as it is alleged wouldn't have meant they would have won just because they only lost by 3 points... all it means if the players would have reacted differently was that the game would have been different.

That doesn't mean SA would have played the same either, they took apart AUS for instance in the pools who were the tournament favourites. Players aren't machines, they react.

That year SA beat AUS by 11 points, NZ post world cup played AUS and beat AUS by 11 points and 12 points in 2 BC tests.

People have mentioned SA lost the 96 tour 2-1 as evidence to suggest they would have lost. Well 1 year on is very different and if you look at the tour itself it was far closer than made out. It wasn't one sided. NZ were on their knees and had never put in such an effort before or after. They had extra incentive to win after their RWC disappointment and it was a marker to achieve a series win which no other NZ team had done.

Added to that the scorelines in those tests were very close. SA lost the first 2 tests by 4 and 7 points. NZ scored 9 tries, SA scored 7. NZ only scored 1 point more over the 3 games. Those teams were far closer than some make out.

There is no definitive answer into who would have won if NZ were ill and if they weren't at peak fitness. All we can say is the game would have been different. I look at the figures, recall the matches from memory and the 96 tour and I still come to the conclusion that NZ still would have been in an almighty battle had things been different and I don't see it being more different.

Perhaps NZ would have won by 6, perhaps the boks would have won by 6.... we can only speculate but the only game which matters said that SA won by 3.

That's the worst excuse for logic I've ever encountered to be fair.

Cyril wrote:NZ fans are generally a decent bunch.

It sometimes seems like there are quite a few sore losers among their ranks but strangely only one at a time. What do you reckon, 'Richard'?

Funny how they always tend to have a thing about Wayne Barnes too.

Richard wrote:That's the worst excuse for logic I've ever encountered to be fair.

yawn.. petty remark but no support behind it. Typical ghost.

In the end, NZ chose to ignore the issue. They could have mitigated against it... but chose not to. If it was so extreme as they allege then their were clear things they could have done to improve their chances of victory, yet they ignored them.

All that tells you is that a) it was less extreme then they made out or b) the camp was full of individuals and weak coaches. Either way in a team sport that's not the best mix and another reason why SA won that day.

Quick note-Lomu was a peripheral figure on the 96 SA tour. Glen Osborne was the left wing. Cullen and Wilson were the stars of that show. So I dispute FA's point that NZ would have been back to losing ways.

disneychilly wrote:Quick note-Lomu was a peripheral figure on the 96 SA tour. Glen Osborne was the left wing. Cullen and Wilson were the stars of that show. So I dispute FA's point that NZ would have been back to losing ways.

Forgive me for not understanding but what does that have to do with it?

I said that the 96 tour was heavily fought and very very close. It was not one sided at all.

All I said was that NZ even if they weren't at 100% in Ellis Park the year before the figures and memory suggest those 2 sides were very very close.

A 3 match series where the largest margin of defeat was 7 points.

The 96 tour was used by others to suggest how superior NZ were. What I said was that NZ were better 1 year after (with different players on both sides) but the differences were marginal.

in any case its hardly a definitive example to show how one team is better than another. Take England post RWC03 for instance. Only Jonno retired.

"To be honest I'm not so sure had NZ been fully fit as suggested that they would have won. I don't think NZ were that much better than SA. Lomu was instrumental to NZ's game. Without him the team were back to losing to France, Australia and England like they did over 93-94. He gave NZ such an advantage.... And yet the boks learnt how to play him. They forced him inside every ball, never gave him the outside and in 9 starts and 12 tests he never scored vs the boks. Take out lomu and you destroyed NZ platform.."

That was what I was refuting.

There really hasn't been a team that has whipped all and sundry, test rugby teams have never been apart from each other. The 37 Boks lost the first test vs NZ, the 56 ABs lost the 2nd against SA, the 71 Lions lost one and drew one, the 87-90 ABs had a draw and a few scares in there (Scotland in 90), the Aussies lost a few in the early 90s and split some Bledisloe series at the turn of the century, SA had to come back from 23-5 to win as part of their 17 game run, England won their NZ games by 2 and 3 points up to 03, NZ lost to SA in 05 and 06, SA had a mare of a tour in 09, NZ had nailbiters in their last two runs including being behind at the bell in Dublin.

And the World Cup? Well NZ in 87 were the only side that weren't taken to the wire.

So any streaks of consistency should be lauded as teams aren't that far apart.

Ok I see.

Take a look at NZ in 1995. He was instrumental to the attack. Lomu not only scored many tries, he also gave NZ the frontfoot ball and I recall Kronfeld himself getting a few off sitting on his shoulder.

So NZ beat SA without Lomu 1 year later and lost with him a year before is a reason to say he wasn't important to NZ attack?

Well he almost on his own beat England in the SF, Scoring and setting up most tries and I don't think I ever witnessed such tackling in defence either... I recall Ben Clarke of Lions fame and all 115kg of him saying it was the hardest hit he ever took when getting flattened on the line.

It was the same vs. Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Lomu gets the ball around halfway... barnstorms and if he didn't get to the try line himself he was literally tackled near the end where he simply popped it up for Kronfeld, Bunce etc to touch down in the corner.

SA stopped Lomu from scoring and more importantly moving. In the tournament everything good almost always came from him initially. They did it throughout his whole career. NZ never scored a try and didn't even ever look close from memory.

It was probably the lack of a plan B from the coaches as well-you get carried with one thing and not really do your homework if it doesn't come off. That has haunted NZ at World Cups. NZ did have some great players other than Lomu in that team (I wish Michael Jones had been there too) who also stayed on for 96 and 97. Hart had some tricks up his sleeve and Lomu wasn't the be all and end all of the attack. Christian Cullen was arguably the most devastating player on the team in 96 and 97.

I think half the problem for NZ was that the NH teams had no response and it was easy to think that it was the norm. Sa on the other hand were made of tougher stuff and were able to contain him throughout his career.

I think your lack of plan B is very valid. They spent an entire tournament with 1 plan, it worked sublime bar the final and truth be told... SA never fell for the strategy throughout the era either.

No that final and the subsequent couple of games brought NZ and the rest of the world back up to speed with how good South African rush defence is. Wilkinson didn't do anything revolutionary with his defensive technique, Honiball was already smashing people in his channel. Mehrtens just stood off because he didn't want to kill anyone

NZ had a try drought vs SA from 94 to 96. They had from memory an 18 all draw in the 3rd test in 94, lost the tryless final, won the 1st test 15-11 in NZ and then broke the drought in Durban with Osborne's try. They eventually cracked it and Cullen and Wilson ran amok but it took a lot of good coaching to find the cracks and NZ can be thankful that Mehrtens was so good. Mind you if he'd have made that one droppie...

Does it really help to debate a point that cannot be proven?

It does when you're sitting in a office bored out of your mind

Sorry I'm a sad guy-was enjoying the digression from the original topic

ME too, it is hot, and a quiet day in the office, I have been going through Scrum stats.

I see SA still has a superior record over every team bar NZ, they have a 59% overall win rate against us, I pretend not to look at the PRo era in isolation as that one looks bad.

BUt nice to see we still ahead of the rest.

Em...think the IRB rankings seems to tell that story much quicker over the years, Bilt

Anyway on the All Blacks becoming sore losers?  I just think it must be because the Loser Handbook of 2014 hadn't been posted out to them in time for the recent loss.  They simply don't know what the rules are around the laws of losership.  They're out of practice, give them time.

SecretFly wrote:Em...think the IRB rankings seems to tell that story much quicker over the years, Bilt

You should know by now FLy that I don't hold much value to the ranking system, head to head tells me all I need to know

Now now Fly, even Bilt says we've been pretty good on here about the result.