29 Mar 2005 22:59:58
richie
All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

Setting the scene... as it were

All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions
Played 35
All Blacks ahve won 26 and
Drawn 3 and
Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)
Points for 527
Points Against 305
Winning Percentage 74.29%

wow!

richie




29 Mar 2005 13:34:18
Ali Day
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

> wow!

Exactly, are you doing odds on ET bringing Elvis home in the last test as
well?




30 Mar 2005 15:05:44
Apteryx
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

"richie" <tauponewbie@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xya2e.13741$1S4.1418178@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Setting the scene... as it were
>
> All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions
> Played 35
> All Blacks ahve won 26 and
> Drawn 3 and
> Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)
> Points for 527
> Points Against 305
> Winning Percentage 74.29%

Those stats appear to include the 3 tests played by the 1908 Anglo-Welsh
team (drew 1, lost 2) amongst the Lions stats, but still, Lion's wins in
NZ are kind of rare.

But of course they only play in NZ, and no country has a particularly
happy record against NZ in NZ. The best is Australia, who have won 15
and drawn 1 out of 56 tests in NZ. Even South Africa has won only 7
tests (out of 29) in NZ.

--
Apteryx




30 Mar 2005 11:04:24
JD
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

Apteryx wrote:
> "richie" <tauponewbie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xya2e.13741$1S4.1418178@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>>Setting the scene... as it were
>>
>>All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions
>>Played 35
>>All Blacks ahve won 26 and
>>Drawn 3 and
>>Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)
>>Points for 527
>>Points Against 305
>>Winning Percentage 74.29%
>
>
> Those stats appear to include the 3 tests played by the 1908 Anglo-Welsh
> team (drew 1, lost 2) amongst the Lions stats, but still, Lion's wins in
> NZ are kind of rare.
>
> But of course they only play in NZ, and no country has a particularly
> happy record against NZ in NZ. The best is Australia, who have won 15
> and drawn 1 out of 56 tests in NZ. Even South Africa has won only 7
> tests (out of 29) in NZ.

Home refs and all...

--
"At least we went out and played in that first half. And what have
France done? They've won with kicks from the 10-metre line. It's
bitterly frustrating." - Andy Robinson


31 Mar 2005 19:06:58
Apteryx
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

"JD" <_antipodean_@ubique.com > wrote in message
news:YIv2e.17722$C7.12833@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Apteryx wrote:
> > "richie" <tauponewbie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xya2e.13741$1S4.1418178@news.xtra.co.nz...
> >
> >>Setting the scene... as it were
> >>
> >>All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions
> >>Played 35
> >>All Blacks ahve won 26 and
> >>Drawn 3 and
> >>Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)
> >>Points for 527
> >>Points Against 305
> >>Winning Percentage 74.29%
> >
> >
> > Those stats appear to include the 3 tests played by the 1908
Anglo-Welsh
> > team (drew 1, lost 2) amongst the Lions stats, but still, Lion's
wins in
> > NZ are kind of rare.
> >
> > But of course they only play in NZ, and no country has a
particularly
> > happy record against NZ in NZ. The best is Australia, who have won
15
> > and drawn 1 out of 56 tests in NZ. Even South Africa has won only 7
> > tests (out of 29) in NZ.
>
> Home refs and all...

Of the 5 countires who have won tests in NZ, only France has a
significantly better record against NZ in NZ with neutral refs (3 wins
from 13 matches with neutral refs, against 0 wins from 6 matches with NZ
refs). The records of the Lions, South Africa, and England have
substantially worsened with neutral refs. Australia's record has
slightly improved since they first played in NZ with neutral refs in
1982, from 25% to 29% wins, but most would attribute that to a stronger
performance by Australia against all nations since around that time.

--
Apteryx




31 Mar 2005 19:19:09
richie
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

and of course once neutral refs were introduced against the boks, they
basically stopped winning against NZ.

nuff said really but lirrle salve for the valiant All Black sides cynically
cheated out of series victories by SA referees.

richie

"Apteryx" <a.mutch@deletethistoreply.xtra.co.nz > wrote in message
news:wnN2e.14353$1S4.1481666@news.xtra.co.nz...
> "JD" <_antipodean_@ubique.com> wrote in message
> news:YIv2e.17722$C7.12833@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Apteryx wrote:
>> > "richie" <tauponewbie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xya2e.13741$1S4.1418178@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> >
>> >>Setting the scene... as it were
>> >>
>> >>All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions
>> >>Played 35
>> >>All Blacks ahve won 26 and
>> >>Drawn 3 and
>> >>Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)
>> >>Points for 527
>> >>Points Against 305
>> >>Winning Percentage 74.29%
>> >
>> >
>> > Those stats appear to include the 3 tests played by the 1908
> Anglo-Welsh
>> > team (drew 1, lost 2) amongst the Lions stats, but still, Lion's
> wins in
>> > NZ are kind of rare.
>> >
>> > But of course they only play in NZ, and no country has a
> particularly
>> > happy record against NZ in NZ. The best is Australia, who have won
> 15
>> > and drawn 1 out of 56 tests in NZ. Even South Africa has won only 7
>> > tests (out of 29) in NZ.
>>
>> Home refs and all...
>
> Of the 5 countires who have won tests in NZ, only France has a
> significantly better record against NZ in NZ with neutral refs (3 wins
> from 13 matches with neutral refs, against 0 wins from 6 matches with NZ
> refs). The records of the Lions, South Africa, and England have
> substantially worsened with neutral refs. Australia's record has
> slightly improved since they first played in NZ with neutral refs in
> 1982, from 25% to 29% wins, but most would attribute that to a stronger
> performance by Australia against all nations since around that time.
>
> --
> Apteryx
>
>




31 Mar 2005 19:30:10
Myk Cameron
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:34:18 +0200, "Ali Day"
<Alasdair.Day@NOSPAMcern.ch > wrote:

>> wow!
>
>Exactly, are you doing odds on ET bringing Elvis home in the last test as
>well?

4.618217 million to one.


Myk



31 Mar 2005 19:59:23
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

richie wrote:

> and of course once neutral refs were introduced against the boks, they
> basically stopped winning against NZ.
>
> nuff said really but lirrle salve for the valiant All Black sides cynically
> cheated out of series victories by SA referees.

There are one or two other factors, but the reffing issue is not
insignificant.

I could mention one or incidents involving touch judges as well, in the
days when a reserve from either team acted in that capacity. Seems
unbelievable now, for an international match. But there you go.

-- rick boyd


31 Mar 2005 07:05:48
Uncle Dave
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

>Setting the scene... as it were

>All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions
>Played 35
>All Blacks ahve won 26 and
>Drawn 3 and
>Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)
>Points for 527
>Points Against 305
>Winning Percentage 74.29%

>wow!

Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to
prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination and that New
Zealand are the true world champions, I would venture to suggest that a
more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the
game went pro in 1995.

Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,
battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the
Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash. I've said it
before and I'll doubtless say it again - this deep into the pro era a
well-selected and well-prepared Lions side really ought to not be
beaten in a series whoever it's against. Trouble is they're not always
either of those.

The nack seems to be in bringing the disparate countries together
into a cohesive synergistic (?!) unit which they managed to do in 1997
but failed to achieve in 2001. I'm expecting Lord Woody of Saint
Mary's to wreak vengeance on Graham Henry for 2001 and on New Zealand
in general for crimes against humanity.

We'll see just how good this AB side is. After their 4-yearly
choking fit in 2003, will they rise to the occasion or reach once more
for the fast-emptying tin of Fisherman's Friends? In either case,
sorry to have to tell you that your stats mean nothing in 2005. The
world of rugby has changed...

Cheers

UD



31 Mar 2005 16:05:27
didgerman
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!


"Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de > wrote in message
news:1112281548.084410.75680@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >Setting the scene... as it were
>
>>All Blacks vs The British and Irish Lions
>>Played 35
>>All Blacks ahve won 26 and
>>Drawn 3 and
>>Lost 6 (one loss every 15-20 years)
>>Points for 527
>>Points Against 305
>>Winning Percentage 74.29%
>
>>wow!
>
> Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to
> prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination and that New
> Zealand are the true world champions, I would venture to suggest that a
> more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the
> game went pro in 1995.
>
> Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,
> battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the
> Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash. I've said it
> before and I'll doubtless say it again - this deep into the pro era a
> well-selected and well-prepared Lions side really ought to not be
> beaten in a series whoever it's against. Trouble is they're not always
> either of those.
>
> The nack seems to be in bringing the disparate countries together
> into a cohesive synergistic (?!) unit which they managed to do in 1997
> but failed to achieve in 2001. I'm expecting Lord Woody of Saint
> Mary's to wreak vengeance on Graham Henry for 2001 and on New Zealand
> in general for crimes against humanity.
>
> We'll see just how good this AB side is. After their 4-yearly
> choking fit in 2003, will they rise to the occasion or reach once more
> for the fast-emptying tin of Fisherman's Friends? In either case,
> sorry to have to tell you that your stats mean nothing in 2005. The
> world of rugby has changed...
>
> Cheers
>
> UD
>

But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes tears
from eye....]
Oh, and a wooden spoon.
But they did beat Italy.....




01 Apr 2005 06:55:55
Paul Kendall
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

In article "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de > wrote:

> Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to
> prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination and that New
> Zealand are the true world champions, I would venture to suggest that a
> more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the
> game went pro in 1995.
>
> Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,
> battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the
> Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash.

To the Boks if they had decided to select a recognised goal-kicker.

--
Paul


31 Mar 2005 11:08:57
Brent
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!


didgerman wrote:

> But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes
tears
> from eye....]
> Oh, and a wooden spoon.
> But they did beat Italy.....

The All Blacks beat Wales and France as well, junior. Remind me how
your mob went against them, would you?

Cheers

Brent



01 Apr 2005 07:31:27
Paul Kendall
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

In article "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com > wrote:

> didgerman wrote:
>
> > But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes
> tears from eye....]
> > Oh, and a wooden spoon.
> > But they did beat Italy.....
>
> The All Blacks beat Wales and France as well, junior.

You forget Brent that Wales and France were not the best teams that the
NH had to offer. Oops...

--
Paul


31 Mar 2005 21:59:18
Brent
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:31:27 +1200, Paul Kendall
<paulkendall@paradise.net.nz > wrote:

>In article "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> didgerman wrote:
>>
>> > But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes
>> tears from eye....]
>> > Oh, and a wooden spoon.
>> > But they did beat Italy.....
>>
>> The All Blacks beat Wales and France as well, junior.
>
>You forget Brent that Wales and France were not the best teams that the
>NH had to offer. Oops...

Yeah, lucky we ducked that game against the fourth-best team in the
Northern Hemisphere. That would have exposed the All Blacks as the
wooden-spoon frauds that they really are.

Cheers

Brent


31 Mar 2005 22:05:41
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On 31 Mar 2005 11:08:57 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>didgerman wrote:
>
>> But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes
>tears
>> from eye....]
>> Oh, and a wooden spoon.
>> But they did beat Italy.....
>
>The All Blacks beat Wales and France as well, junior. Remind me how
>your mob went against them, would you?

Well, we're talking about last year here, aren't we?

So, in answer to your question, we beat Wales (by 10), and lost to
France (by 3).

Need reminding of anything else?



31 Mar 2005 22:08:20
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:55:55 +1200, Paul Kendall
<paulkendall@paradise.net.nz > wrote:

>In article "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to
>> prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination and that New
>> Zealand are the true world champions, I would venture to suggest that a
>> more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the
>> game went pro in 1995.
>>
>> Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,
>> battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the
>> Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash.
>
>To the Boks if they had decided to select a recognised goal-kicker.

Or to the Lions if they had scored 100 more tries.

Or to the Boks if they had 25 players on the field.

Or to the Boks if they had played much much better.

Or to the Lions if all the Boks had been poisoned.

This "if" game is pretty easy, isn't it?


01 Apr 2005 05:36:35
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

Uncle Dave wrote:

> Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to
> prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination

Its status in the context of the world game is a figment of your
imagination, Dave, that's for sure.

> and that New
> Zealand are the true world champions,

Well, we are number one, which is a lot harder to maintain than two
knockout wins and a lucky drop goal.

> I would venture to suggest that a
> more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the
> game went pro in 1995.

How many tours to New Zealand does that include then Dave?

> Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,
> battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the
> Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash. I've said it
> before and I'll doubtless say it again - this deep into the pro era a
> well-selected and well-prepared Lions side really ought to not be
> beaten in a series whoever it's against. Trouble is they're not always
> either of those.

They're also usually based on only one first tier team. So it's usually
one first tier team plus add ons v another first tier team with all the
home advantages.

No real advantage to the Lions at all.


> The nack seems to be in bringing the disparate countries together
> into a cohesive synergistic (?!) unit which they managed to do in 1997
> but failed to achieve in 2001. I'm expecting Lord Woody of Saint
> Mary's to wreak vengeance on Graham Henry for 2001 and on New Zealand
> in general for crimes against humanity.
>
> We'll see just how good this AB side is. After their 4-yearly
> choking fit in 2003, will they rise to the occasion or reach once more
> for the fast-emptying tin of Fisherman's Friends? In either case,
> sorry to have to tell you that your stats mean nothing in 2005. The
> world of rugby has changed...

The Lions might find winning a three test series in New Zealand a bit
more difficult than winning a knockout tournament.

But then it all depends which All Blacks team decides to show up. The
hard, incisive men who beat France, or the soft, directionless nancies
who collapsed against South Africa.

-- rick boyd


01 Apr 2005 05:38:26
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

Brent wrote:


> Yeah, lucky we ducked that game against the fourth-best team in the
> Northern Hemisphere. That would have exposed the All Blacks as the
> wooden-spoon frauds that they really are.

Isn't that the team we thrashed 2-0 in New Zealand earlier in the year
though? Now if we played Ireland, then we would have been in trouble. I
mean, look how they destroyed Wales and France, the two teams we did
play....

-- rick boyd


01 Apr 2005 05:40:28
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

DaveyWavey wrote:


> Or to the Lions if they had scored 100 more tries.
>
> Or to the Boks if they had 25 players on the field.
>
> Or to the Boks if they had played much much better.
>
> Or to the Lions if all the Boks had been poisoned.
>
> This "if" game is pretty easy, isn't it?

The "if" game also has the ability to make one person look like they
know what they're talking about, and the other look like a witless ninny
clutching at straws.

Doesn't it, witless ninny?

-- rick boyd


31 Mar 2005 22:03:26
didgerman
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!


"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com > wrote in message
news:japo41pjps8j5epp0q9oiddj7u27cb0he9@4ax.com...
> On 31 Mar 2005 11:08:57 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>didgerman wrote:
>>
>>> But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes
>>tears
>>> from eye....]
>>> Oh, and a wooden spoon.
>>> But they did beat Italy.....
>>
>>The All Blacks beat Wales and France as well, junior. Remind me how
>>your mob went against them, would you?
>
> Well, we're talking about last year here, aren't we?
>
> So, in answer to your question, we beat Wales (by 10), and lost to
> France (by 3).
>
> Need reminding of anything else?
>

How to find his arse with both hands?




31 Mar 2005 22:03:58
didgerman
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!


"DaveyWavey" <davey.wavey@none.com > wrote in message
news:oipo415fo194chtb641sh4na24gfmnppb6@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:55:55 +1200, Paul Kendall
> <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>In article "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Although I have no doubt Rick will provide me with a statistic to
>>> prove that the RWC is actually a figment of my imagination and that New
>>> Zealand are the true world champions, I would venture to suggest that a
>>> more meaningful exercise would be to examine the Lions' stats since the
>>> game went pro in 1995.
>>>
>>> Even Graham Henry managed to get a test win out of a knocked-up,
>>> battered and bruised Lions side in 2001. They pretty much swept the
>>> Boks aside in 1997 - it should have been a whitewash.
>>
>>To the Boks if they had decided to select a recognised goal-kicker.
>
> Or to the Lions if they had scored 100 more tries.
>
> Or to the Boks if they had 25 players on the field.
>
> Or to the Boks if they had played much much better.
>
> Or to the Lions if all the Boks had been poisoned.
>
> This "if" game is pretty easy, isn't it?

If only....




31 Mar 2005 23:15:57
Brent
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:05:41 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com >
wrote:

>On 31 Mar 2005 11:08:57 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>didgerman wrote:
>>
>>> But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes
>>tears
>>> from eye....]
>>> Oh, and a wooden spoon.
>>> But they did beat Italy.....
>>
>>The All Blacks beat Wales and France as well, junior. Remind me how
>>your mob went against them, would you?
>
>Well, we're talking about last year here, aren't we?
>
>So, in answer to your question, we beat Wales (by 10), and lost to
>France (by 3).
>
>Need reminding of anything else?

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you didn't understand how rugby is structured.
You see, basically rugby is played in a 'season'. Rugby teams assess their
success over the course of a 'season'. Now I appreciate that this is a
slightly difficult concept, but a 'season' spans two calendar years in the
Northern Hemisphere. Confusing, isn't it!

Now what happened this 'season', is that England (that's your team) 'lost'
(that's what happens when they 'score' less 'points' than the 'opposition')
to Wales by 2 points, and France by 1 point. Now these are close 'losses'
in rugby - so don't feel ashamed! But they're still 'losses'.

Anyway, earlier this 'season' (but last year - I warned you it was
confusing!) Wales (who are the 6 Nations 'champions' for this 'season')
lost to New Zealand. And also, France, who came 'second' in the 6 Nations
this year, lost to New Zealand.

So! That's the way rugby people look at results! Over the course of a
'season'. All clear now?




By the way, it's good to see you sticking to your guns on this point, Mr
Wavey.

Recent results have shown you to be completely (and increasingly
hilariously) wrong, but it's nice to see someone on usenet who has the
courage to stick to their convictions.

Cheers

Brent


31 Mar 2005 23:08:10
Uncle Dave
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

<Sorry, I wasn't aware that you didn't understand how rugby is
structured. You see, basically rugby is played in a 'season'. >

No it isn't. Whilst not disagreeing with anything you say about
England being the most crap team the world has ever seen, I would have
to say that - unlike league - we don't have A season. We have two.
More actually. And it continues to be one of our biggest problems.
Why you lot can't just play in our winter, I don't know...

UD



01 Apr 2005 08:19:41
Brent
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On 31 Mar 2005 23:08:10 -0800, "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de > wrote:

><Sorry, I wasn't aware that you didn't understand how rugby is
>structured. You see, basically rugby is played in a 'season'. >
>
>No it isn't. Whilst not disagreeing with anything you say about
>England being the most crap team the world has ever seen, I would have
>to say that - unlike league - we don't have A season. We have two.
>More actually. And it continues to be one of our biggest problems.
>Why you lot can't just play in our winter, I don't know...

Nope. Sorry Dave, you're wrong again. You have a domestic season. It
runs from September to May. England/the Lions then have an end of season
tour to the SH, which takes place in June. It's a long season, and whether
its structure is optimal is open to question, but it's clearly a season.

The SH, by contrast, basically runs its domestic season from late February
to October, with a season end tour in November.

And happily I've never called England the most crap team the world has ever
seen. But then, you knew that didn't you, you big silly troll you.

Cheers

Brent


01 Apr 2005 08:46:30
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:15:57 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:05:41 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 31 Mar 2005 11:08:57 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>didgerman wrote:
>>>
>>>> But look at them, for pity's sake man, stats are all they have [wipes
>>>tears
>>>> from eye....]
>>>> Oh, and a wooden spoon.
>>>> But they did beat Italy.....
>>>
>>>The All Blacks beat Wales and France as well, junior. Remind me how
>>>your mob went against them, would you?
>>
>>Well, we're talking about last year here, aren't we?
>>
>>So, in answer to your question, we beat Wales (by 10), and lost to
>>France (by 3).
>>
>>Need reminding of anything else?
>
>Sorry, I wasn't aware that you didn't understand how rugby is structured.
>You see, basically rugby is played in a 'season'. Rugby teams assess their
>success over the course of a 'season'. Now I appreciate that this is a
>slightly difficult concept, but a 'season' spans two calendar years in the
>Northern Hemisphere. Confusing, isn't it!
>
>Now what happened this 'season', is that England (that's your team) 'lost'
>(that's what happens when they 'score' less 'points' than the 'opposition')
>to Wales by 2 points, and France by 1 point. Now these are close 'losses'
>in rugby - so don't feel ashamed! But they're still 'losses'.
>
>Anyway, earlier this 'season' (but last year - I warned you it was
>confusing!) Wales (who are the 6 Nations 'champions' for this 'season')
>lost to New Zealand. And also, France, who came 'second' in the 6 Nations
>this year, lost to New Zealand.
>
>So! That's the way rugby people look at results! Over the course of a
>'season'. All clear now?
>

Thanks. Nice to know that we both understand seasons and years.

>
>
>
>By the way, it's good to see you sticking to your guns on this point, Mr
>Wavey.
>
>Recent results have shown you to be completely (and increasingly
>hilariously) wrong, but it's nice to see someone on usenet who has the
>courage to stick to their convictions.

Thanks again. But of course, in terms of being "hilariously wrong",
this only seems to apply whenever I dare to challenge the one-eyed
view of the absolute unquestionable supremacy of NZ.

The fact remains that the top three international teams in Europe last
year were France, Ireland and England. As demonstrated by both match
results and by the IRB rankings (a common refuge of NZ posters last
year, IIRC).

Sure, the more rabid NZ posters will refuse to accept this, much as
they refuse to acknowledge the validity of the world cup ("novelty
knockout tournament") or the actual positions in the 3N ("three-way
draw"). I have come to expect nothing less.

But the facts still remain. They are only "hilariously wrong" to those
who cannot bear to accept the facts... Based on this I fully expect a
whole load more Kiwi foot-stamping in this thread.



01 Apr 2005 08:54:53
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 05:40:28 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au >
wrote:

>DaveyWavey wrote:
>
>
>> Or to the Lions if they had scored 100 more tries.
>>
>> Or to the Boks if they had 25 players on the field.
>>
>> Or to the Boks if they had played much much better.
>>
>> Or to the Lions if all the Boks had been poisoned.
>>
>> This "if" game is pretty easy, isn't it?
>
>The "if" game also has the ability to make one person look like they
>know what they're talking about, and the other look like a witless ninny
>clutching at straws.
>
>Doesn't it, witless ninny?
>

Ninny. Now there's an old-fashioned word.

Just out of interest, rick, what is the nature of your criticism of me
in this instance? Or have you just accidentally wandered into the
wrong part of the thread, and posted your silly insults by mistake?

There's another bit of this thread where someone has had the timerity
to question NZ's supreme world rugby dominance. You'd be much more at
home there.



01 Apr 2005 09:04:11
Sean Byrne
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

DaveyWavey wrote:

> Thanks again. But of course, in terms of being "hilariously wrong",
> this only seems to apply whenever I dare to challenge the one-eyed
> view of the absolute unquestionable supremacy of NZ.
>
> The fact remains that the top three international teams in Europe last
> year were France, Ireland and England. As demonstrated by both match
> results and by the IRB rankings (a common refuge of NZ posters last
> year, IIRC).
>
> Sure, the more rabid NZ posters will refuse to accept this, much as
> they refuse to acknowledge the validity of the world cup ("novelty
> knockout tournament") or the actual positions in the 3N ("three-way
> draw"). I have come to expect nothing less.
>
> But the facts still remain. They are only "hilariously wrong" to those
> who cannot bear to accept the facts... Based on this I fully expect a
> whole load more Kiwi foot-stamping in this thread.

Yeah the facts remain. The All Blacks beat the best team in Europe last
year by some margin.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Later,
Sean



01 Apr 2005 00:01:31
Uncle Dave
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

<To the Boks if they had decided to select a recognised goal-kicker. >

You cannot be see-ree-us!

UD



01 Apr 2005 09:05:54
Brent
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:46:30 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com >
wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:15:57 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com>
>wrote:

>>By the way, it's good to see you sticking to your guns on this point, Mr
>>Wavey.
>>
>>Recent results have shown you to be completely (and increasingly
>>hilariously) wrong, but it's nice to see someone on usenet who has the
>>courage to stick to their convictions.
>
>Thanks again. But of course, in terms of being "hilariously wrong",
>this only seems to apply whenever I dare to challenge the one-eyed
>view of the absolute unquestionable supremacy of NZ.
>
>The fact remains that the top three international teams in Europe last
>year were France, Ireland and England. As demonstrated by both match
>results and by the IRB rankings (a common refuge of NZ posters last
>year, IIRC).

Let's get back to the season point, please. Who are the top two teams in
Europe THIS SEASON?

Who did NZ play THIS SEASON?

There's also a simple point of logic and fundamental intelligence involved.

All things being equal, only a looney person would look at 6N results from
Feb/Mar 2004 as being more relevant than 6N results from Feb/Mar 2005 when
assessing the strength of teams for games played in November 2004. There's
a rather obvious difference in time (8-9 months versus 3-4), and a closer
correlation in terms of the composition of the team.

You're not a looney person, are you?

Cheers

Brent


01 Apr 2005 09:10:26
Brent
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:04:11 +0100, Sean Byrne
<byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com > wrote:

>DaveyWavey wrote:
>
>> Thanks again. But of course, in terms of being "hilariously wrong",
>> this only seems to apply whenever I dare to challenge the one-eyed
>> view of the absolute unquestionable supremacy of NZ.
>>
>> The fact remains that the top three international teams in Europe last
>> year were France, Ireland and England. As demonstrated by both match
>> results and by the IRB rankings (a common refuge of NZ posters last
>> year, IIRC).
>>
>> Sure, the more rabid NZ posters will refuse to accept this, much as
>> they refuse to acknowledge the validity of the world cup ("novelty
>> knockout tournament") or the actual positions in the 3N ("three-way
>> draw"). I have come to expect nothing less.
>>
>> But the facts still remain. They are only "hilariously wrong" to those
>> who cannot bear to accept the facts... Based on this I fully expect a
>> whole load more Kiwi foot-stamping in this thread.
>
>Yeah the facts remain. The All Blacks beat the best team in Europe last
>year by some margin.

And we beat the best team in Europe this year as well.

But hey, at least we ducked England - third last year, fourth this year.

Cheers

Brent


01 Apr 2005 09:31:51
The Green Phantom
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

Sean Byrne wrote:

[...]

> Yeah the facts remain. The All Blacks beat the best team in Europe last
> year by some margin.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Later,
> Sean

Shome mishtake shurely? They beat them by one point ;o)

regards

The Green Phantom
--
How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!

-- Lewis Carrol, "Alice in Wonderland"



01 Apr 2005 10:17:31
Sean Byrne
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

The Green Phantom wrote:

> Sean Byrne wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Yeah the facts remain. The All Blacks beat the best team in Europe
>> last year by some margin.

> Shome mishtake shurely? They beat them by one point ;o)

No. That was the best team in Europe *this* year.

Later,
Sean



01 Apr 2005 11:29:11
didgerman
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!


"The Green Phantom" <ask@the.right.time > wrote in message
news:424d06e6$0$42314$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Sean Byrne wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Yeah the facts remain. The All Blacks beat the best team in Europe last
>> year by some margin.
>>
>> Thanks for clearing that up.
>>
>> Later,
>> Sean
>
> Shome mishtake shurely? They beat them by one point ;o)
>
> regards
>
> The Green Phantom
> --
> How doth the little crocodile
> Improve his shining tail,
> And pour the waters of the Nile
> On every golden scale!
>
> -- Lewis Carrol, "Alice in Wonderland"
>

The same 'facts' tell us that SA beat NZ, and England beat SA, by some
margin, some mistake indeed.....

I see his 'hair gelness' has been entering church by the back door
recently....
Sorry, if that's old....




01 Apr 2005 22:16:17
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

DaveyWavey wrote:

> Ninny. Now there's an old-fashioned word.
>
> Just out of interest, rick, what is the nature of your criticism of me
> in this instance? Or have you just accidentally wandered into the
> wrong part of the thread, and posted your silly insults by mistake?

Well, Wavey, it's really simple.

It seems that anytime someone poses a hypothetical question and asks
people to actually use whaetver limited imaginations they posses, one of
two things is almost inevitable.

Some twat wonders what their aunt would be if she posessed testicles (a
curious statement that has often puzzled me. No, if your aunt possessed
testicles, she wouldn't be your uncle. She's still be your aunt and
she'd be a fucking freak.)

Or some NINNY starts posing all kinds of wild extremes, as though once
one possible variation to actuality has been considered, all other
variables, no matter how unlikely and irrelevant, are therefore
automatically as valid.

Is it so difficult to imagine that the Springboks could have won if
they'd had a reliable kicker? Much like the All Blacks at home against
England in 2003? What would have happened in Australia in 1989 if David
Campese hadn't passed the ball to Mr Invisible? Or recently if The Plank
hadn't won that last lineout?

Why is that considering possible alternative outcomes amounts to
whingeing and excuse making?

Mmmm?

-- rick boyd


02 Apr 2005 08:01:02
Paul Kendall
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

In article "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de > wrote:

> <To the Boks if they had decided to select a recognised goal-kicker.>
>
> You cannot be see-ree-us!

Check the stats. The Lions selected the Ginga wing-nut at fullback to
accommodate a goal kicker while the Boks used Honiball, who couldn't buy
a successful kick. The 2nd test is a perfect example of that as the
Boks scored 3 tries to 0 and lost 18-15. That series could have just as
easily gone the other way if SA had managed a 50% success rate with
shots at goal.

--
Paul


01 Apr 2005 23:31:04
Mike
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!



Myk Cameron wrote:

>>Exactly, are you doing odds on ET bringing Elvis home in the last test as
>>well?
>
>
> 4.618217 million to one.
>
>
> Myk


Worth a flutter, I'll have a quid on that and roll the winnings onto
england winning the next world cup if you're offering similar or better
odds.

Retirement by 40 whilst I'm still young enough to enjoy the surgically
enhanced starlets throwing themselves at my feet, or similarly prominent
parts of my anatomy.

Mike


02 Apr 2005 09:58:12
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

DaveyWavey wrote:


> But the facts still remain.

They do indeed. Unfortunately you have consistently failed to recognise
them and instead substitute your own fevered imagination.

Your drift toward the lightweight section of the newsgroup appears
inexorable.

-- rick boyd


02 Apr 2005 09:59:34
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

Brent wrote:


> You're not a looney person, are you?

The rhetorical question still has an honoured place in debate, doesn't it?

-- rick boyd


02 Apr 2005 10:51:40
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:04:11 +0100, Sean Byrne
<byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com > wrote:

>DaveyWavey wrote:
>
>> Thanks again. But of course, in terms of being "hilariously wrong",
>> this only seems to apply whenever I dare to challenge the one-eyed
>> view of the absolute unquestionable supremacy of NZ.
>>
>> The fact remains that the top three international teams in Europe last
>> year were France, Ireland and England. As demonstrated by both match
>> results and by the IRB rankings (a common refuge of NZ posters last
>> year, IIRC).
>>
>> Sure, the more rabid NZ posters will refuse to accept this, much as
>> they refuse to acknowledge the validity of the world cup ("novelty
>> knockout tournament") or the actual positions in the 3N ("three-way
>> draw"). I have come to expect nothing less.
>>
>> But the facts still remain. They are only "hilariously wrong" to those
>> who cannot bear to accept the facts... Based on this I fully expect a
>> whole load more Kiwi foot-stamping in this thread.
>
>Yeah the facts remain. The All Blacks beat the best team in Europe last
>year by some margin.

Indeed. No argument there.

>
>Thanks for clearing that up.
>

You're welcome.

>Later,
>Sean



02 Apr 2005 10:55:39
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 09:58:12 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au >
wrote:

>DaveyWavey wrote:
>
>
>> But the facts still remain.
>
>They do indeed. Unfortunately you have consistently failed to recognise
>them and instead substitute your own fevered imagination.
>
>Your drift toward the lightweight section of the newsgroup appears
>inexorable.
>
>-- rick boyd

Welcome to this part of the thread. You'll be much more at home here.

If we're talking about facts (which you claim I have "consistently
failed to recognise"), please provide us with the "facts" about the
IRB rankings of the international teams in Europe last November.



02 Apr 2005 10:59:08
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:05:54 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:46:30 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:15:57 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>By the way, it's good to see you sticking to your guns on this point, Mr
>>>Wavey.
>>>
>>>Recent results have shown you to be completely (and increasingly
>>>hilariously) wrong, but it's nice to see someone on usenet who has the
>>>courage to stick to their convictions.
>>
>>Thanks again. But of course, in terms of being "hilariously wrong",
>>this only seems to apply whenever I dare to challenge the one-eyed
>>view of the absolute unquestionable supremacy of NZ.
>>
>>The fact remains that the top three international teams in Europe last
>>year were France, Ireland and England. As demonstrated by both match
>>results and by the IRB rankings (a common refuge of NZ posters last
>>year, IIRC).
>
>Let's get back to the season point, please.

Let's not. Let's stick to the IRB rankings, and the match results
prior to last November. That is all the information that NZ would have
had to go on when they chose which European teams to play (and which
ones to dodge) last November.




02 Apr 2005 11:03:06
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 22:16:17 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au >
wrote:

>DaveyWavey wrote:
>
>> Ninny. Now there's an old-fashioned word.
>>
>> Just out of interest, rick, what is the nature of your criticism of me
>> in this instance? Or have you just accidentally wandered into the
>> wrong part of the thread, and posted your silly insults by mistake?
>
>Well, Wavey, it's really simple.
>
>It seems that anytime someone poses a hypothetical question and asks
>people to actually use whaetver limited imaginations they posses, one of
>two things is almost inevitable.
>
>Some twat wonders what their aunt would be if she posessed testicles (a
>curious statement that has often puzzled me. No, if your aunt possessed
>testicles, she wouldn't be your uncle. She's still be your aunt and
>she'd be a fucking freak.)
>
>Or some NINNY starts posing all kinds of wild extremes, as though once
>one possible variation to actuality has been considered, all other
>variables, no matter how unlikely and irrelevant, are therefore
>automatically as valid.
>
>Is it so difficult to imagine that the Springboks could have won if
>they'd had a reliable kicker? Much like the All Blacks at home against
>England in 2003? What would have happened in Australia in 1989 if David
>Campese hadn't passed the ball to Mr Invisible? Or recently if The Plank
>hadn't won that last lineout?

All good points. And well made.

>
>Why is that considering possible alternative outcomes amounts to
>whingeing and excuse making?
>
>Mmmm?

No idea. I've never categorised genuinely reasonable consideration of
alternative outcomes as whingeing and excuse making.

But many posters here have. Maybe even you, rick. Or maybe not. I'm
not going to spend the time to check either way.



03 Apr 2005 06:05:59
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

DaveyWavey wrote:


> Welcome to this part of the thread. You'll be much more at home here.

Is this the part where you get to look even more stupid? Oh goody.

> If we're talking about facts (which you claim I have "consistently
> failed to recognise"), please provide us with the "facts" about the
> IRB rankings of the international teams in Europe last November.

As we all know, the IRB rankings are statistics, and statistics are
damned lies. They change slowly and reflect performance over a long
period of time. The very last thing they are likely to do is reflect the
actual merits of international teams in Europe last November.

No, if you want facts, you'll actaully have to look at the games on
their merits, but I know such hard facts will be an anathema to a woolly
thinker like you.

The trouble is, you dug yourself into a big hole early on by avoiding
the facts at all costs, and going for a typically arrogant assumption
based on performances in the previous six nations. You were left with
your foot firmly lodged in your mouth as the performances many of us had
seen telegraphed at the world cup continued to be realised on the field
in November 2004. And have been continually supported since then.

-- rick boyd



03 Apr 2005 06:07:27
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

DaveyWavey wrote:

> No idea. I've never categorised genuinely reasonable consideration of
> alternative outcomes as whingeing and excuse making.

And your "this if game is pretty easy" comment suggested exactly what,
pray tell?

-- rick boyd


03 Apr 2005 04:31:37
Brent
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:59:08 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:05:54 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com>
>wrote:

>>Let's get back to the season point, please.
>
>Let's not. Let's stick to the IRB rankings, and the match results
>prior to last November. That is all the information that NZ would have
>had to go on when they chose which European teams to play (and which
>ones to dodge) last November.

God forbid we use the benefit of hindsight and all the information
available to us. You're not some sort of ivory tower academic are you?

As for the IRB rankings - hah! Did the IRB rankings help France, England
Ireland etc beat Wales? Did they help England in the 6N last year or on
their summer tour? The rankings aren't predictive, they're historic - why
on Earth would anyone but a looney person want to use the rankings at the
time when we have actual results and 20/20 hindsight to go on?

Good grief. Do you tilt at windmills in your spare time?

Oh, and presumably you are aware that NZ were merely following the IRB
touring rotation in playing their fixtures, so I'll ignore the asinine
'dodging' troll.

Cheers

Brent


03 Apr 2005 09:55:06
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 04:31:37 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 10:59:08 +0100, DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:05:54 +0100, Brent <the_1aser@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Let's get back to the season point, please.
>>
>>Let's not. Let's stick to the IRB rankings, and the match results
>>prior to last November. That is all the information that NZ would have
>>had to go on when they chose which European teams to play (and which
>>ones to dodge) last November.
>
>God forbid we use the benefit of hindsight and all the information
>available to us. You're not some sort of ivory tower academic are you?
>

Sure. And, by the very nature of hindsight, all the information that
anyone had last November indicated that the strongest international
teams in Europe were France, Ireland and England.

>As for the IRB rankings - hah! Did the IRB rankings help France, England
>Ireland etc beat Wales? Did they help England in the 6N last year or on
>their summer tour?

Nope. But it did help a lot of NZ supporters on this NG claim that
they were the rightful "world champions" about a year ago.



03 Apr 2005 10:00:56
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 06:05:59 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au >
wrote:

>DaveyWavey wrote:
>
>
>> Welcome to this part of the thread. You'll be much more at home here.
>
>Is this the part where you get to look even more stupid? Oh goody.
>
>> If we're talking about facts (which you claim I have "consistently
>> failed to recognise"), please provide us with the "facts" about the
>> IRB rankings of the international teams in Europe last November.
>
>As we all know, the IRB rankings are statistics, and statistics are
>damned lies. They change slowly and reflect performance over a long
>period of time. The very last thing they are likely to do is reflect the
>actual merits of international teams in Europe last November.
>

And yet quite a few NZ posters were claiming that the IRB rankings
were definitive proof of NZ's worldwide superiority, about this time
last year. You can't have it both ways.

>No, if you want facts, you'll actaully have to look at the games on
>their merits, but I know such hard facts will be an anathema to a woolly
>thinker like you.

So educate me. Go back to last November, and explain to me the "hard
facts" from the merits of the previous encounters between the European
teams that indicated at that point that Wales were stonger than
Ireland and England (despite having lost to them).

>
>The trouble is, you dug yourself into a big hole early on by avoiding
>the facts at all costs,

Nonsense. Match history is fact. How can it not be so?

>and going for a typically arrogant assumption
>based on performances in the previous six nations.

Are you mad? How can the results of latest encounters between the
teams in question be anything other than "fact"?

>You were left with
>your foot firmly lodged in your mouth as the performances many of us had
>seen telegraphed at the world cup continued to be realised on the field
>in November 2004. And have been continually supported since then.
>
>-- rick boyd

Well done on your foresight.



03 Apr 2005 10:08:20
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 06:07:27 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au >
wrote:

>DaveyWavey wrote:
>
>> No idea. I've never categorised genuinely reasonable consideration of
>> alternative outcomes as whingeing and excuse making.
>
>And your "this if game is pretty easy" comment suggested exactly what,
>pray tell?

It suggested that the hypothesis (from Paul) was akin to "if a
different SA team had played in the Lions matches", and was worthless.
Match selection is as important as the actual performance of the team
on the pitch, fuck either of them up and you're in trouble. But you
don't hear people saying "if SA had played much better" and expecting
to be taken seriously.

These was no suggestion of whinging or excuse making. Paul isn't even
a SA supporter, is he?



03 Apr 2005 19:20:42
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

DaveyWavey wrote:

> And yet quite a few NZ posters were claiming that the IRB rankings
> were definitive proof of NZ's worldwide superiority, about this time
> last year. You can't have it both ways.

I am not "quite a few NZ posters" and I don't want it both ways. As I
have said on a number of occasions, New Zealand may be ranked world
number one but I don't rate them as unofficial world champions because
in the most recent season, they could only manage a three-way tie with
Australia and South Africa.


> So educate me. Go back to last November, and explain to me the "hard
> facts" from the merits of the previous encounters between the European
> teams that indicated at that point that Wales were stonger than
> Ireland and England (despite having lost to them).

No, you're still not grasping it, are you? The merits of the teams last
November were established last November. We are not concerned with their
performance the year before or the year after.

And in that time, they put 25 points on New Zealand and 36 points on
South Africa, and demonstrated to anyone with half a working brain that
they were more than just the old Wales make-up-the-numbers easy-beats.


> Nonsense. Match history is fact. How can it not be so?

When it is used to support silly arguments. History is not the present.
Don't use it as such.


> Are you mad? How can the results of latest encounters between the
> teams in question be anything other than "fact"?

The results are fact. Using them out of context to support your looney
theories is not fact. It's just your general silliness.

-- rick boyd


03 Apr 2005 19:27:48
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

DaveyWavey wrote:


> It suggested that the hypothesis (from Paul) was akin to "if a
> different SA team had played in the Lions matches", and was worthless.

Why "worthless"? It is a valid point of view highlighting that one of
the significant factors in the result was one team's deficiency in a
certain area. It would be equally valid to suggest that England would
have won a couple more Six Nations games with a reliable kicker. It
shows that the result was not solely down to one team's dominance but
also to failures of the losing team.

I know it is popular amongst lightweight fans to see a win by their team
as indicative of their total dominance.

You don't want to look like a lightweight, do you?

Or a jingoistic fool who automatically leaps to the defence of his team
when someone dares to suggest that the losing team may have lost the
game more than the winning team won it? Why not discuss it on its merits
instead of flying into ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole. Do you want to
put an "Uncle" in front of your name?

-- rick boyd


03 Apr 2005 21:22:47
DaveyWavey
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:27:48 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au >
wrote:

>DaveyWavey wrote:
>
>
>> It suggested that the hypothesis (from Paul) was akin to "if a
>> different SA team had played in the Lions matches", and was worthless.
>
>Why "worthless"?

Read the rest of my post, which you've snipped, for an explanation.

>It is a valid point of view highlighting that one of
>the significant factors in the result was one team's deficiency in a
>certain area. It would be equally valid to suggest that England would
>have won a couple more Six Nations games with a reliable kicker. It
>shows that the result was not solely down to one team's dominance but
>also to failures of the losing team.
>
>I know it is popular amongst lightweight fans to see a win by their team
>as indicative of their total dominance.

Indeed.

>
>You don't want to look like a lightweight, do you?
>

Nope.

>Or a jingoistic fool who automatically leaps to the defence of his team
>when someone dares to suggest that the losing team may have lost the
>game more than the winning team won it? Why not discuss it on its merits
>instead of flying into ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole.

Seriously rick, you're in no position to lecture others on "flying
into ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole".

>Do you want to
>put an "Uncle" in front of your name?
>

Nope. I am no type of uncle, and my brother is far too ugly to start
procreating any time soon.

Although in the 80s I was informed that I was a god-parent to a
cabbage patch kid. Without even asking me!



04 Apr 2005 05:34:24
rick boyd
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

DaveyWavey wrote:


> Read the rest of my post, which you've snipped, for an explanation.

Read the rest of my post as to why your explanation is not efective.


> Seriously rick, you're in no position to lecture others on "flying
> into ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole".

There is a place for sarcastic hyperbole. Especially when brilliantly
witty, like mine is (you can make up your own mind if this contitutes
sarcastic hyperbole as well). Using it to counter a valid viewpoint is
not the place.


> Nope. I am no type of uncle, and my brother is far too ugly to start
> procreating any time soon.

For that we may probably all be very grateful.

> Although in the 80s I was informed that I was a god-parent to a
> cabbage patch kid. Without even asking me!

Who is now probably Chairman of the RFU.

-- rick boyd



04 Apr 2005 21:52:48
Paul Kendall
Re: All Blacks v Lions - The Stats!

In article DaveyWavey <davey.wavey@none.com > wrote:

> It suggested that the hypothesis (from Paul) was akin to "if a
> different SA team had played in the Lions matches", and was worthless.
> Match selection is as important as the actual performance of the team
> on the pitch, fuck either of them up and you're in trouble. But you
> don't hear people saying "if SA had played much better" and expecting
> to be taken seriously.
>
> These was no suggestion of whinging or excuse making.

And there wasn't from me. I was merely highlighting that UD's claim
that the Lions should have won 3-0 could equally have applied to SA
under different circumstances. History will show the Lions won and good
on them for it.

> Paul isn't even a SA supporter, is he?

Nope. I'm a Kiwi and therefore didn't care who won the series. Being a
neutral doesn't make me wrong. ;-)

--
Paul