29 May 2007 10:33:05
didgerman
Henry slams understrength teams......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm

So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.

Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?


29 May 2007 03:57:00
ruggeryoda
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 29, 12:33 pm, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com > wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>
> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
> Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
> scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
> nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>
> Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?

I would've at least held back until after the match if I were him. He
would look awfully silly saying that if, erm, if, you know, hell
freezes over on Saturday?

-R



29 May 2007 03:58:23
Brent Hadley
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 29, 11:33 am, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com > wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>
> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
> Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
> scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
> nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.

Didn't he basically do exactly that in the article? I mean, he
doesn't write the BBC headlines...

Cheers

Brent



29 May 2007 04:00:30
Brent Hadley
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 29, 11:57 am, ruggeryoda <ruggery...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 29, 12:33 pm, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>
> > So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
> > in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
> > Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
> > scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
> > nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>
> > Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?
>
> I would've at least held back until after the match if I were him. He
> would look awfully silly saying that if, erm, if, you know, hell
> freezes over on Saturday?

Not really. His point is that bringing clearly understrength teams is
not showing what he considers due respect to the international game.

The result is sort of irrelevant.

Cheers

Brent



29 May 2007 04:24:55
couchpotatoe
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 29, 11:00 pm, Brent Hadley <the_1a...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 29, 11:57 am, ruggeryoda <ruggery...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not really. His point is that bringing clearly understrength teams is
> not showing what he considers due respect to the international game.


NZ is not blameless. Bitchel did the same in 2002 EOYT and Father Ted
during the 2005 GS tour by switching team personel around between
games.



29 May 2007 11:51:11
didgerman
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

Brent Hadley wrote:
> On May 29, 11:57 am, ruggeryoda <ruggery...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 29, 12:33 pm, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>>> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
>>> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
>>> Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
>>> scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
>>> nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>>> Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?
>> I would've at least held back until after the match if I were him. He
>> would look awfully silly saying that if, erm, if, you know, hell
>> freezes over on Saturday?
>
> Not really. His point is that bringing clearly understrength teams is
> not showing what he considers due respect to the international game.

But it's scheduling that is the problem, and the people who presumably
get their heads together and come up with these Herculean schedules.
You could argue that England have sent their best team to SA, at least
for the 1st test. Look at the state of the Leicester players in the HC
final, out on their feet after an hour. They'd have been worse if they'd
gone to SA the next day...
And what about this mythical 'C' team that seems to be fielded any time
NZ lose, hmmmm?

>
> The result is sort of irrelevant.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brent
>


29 May 2007 05:01:36
simon s-b
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On 29 May, 11:33, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com > wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>
> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
> Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
> scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
> nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>
> Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?

I agree with what he's saying. For me, internationals should represent
the top of the game. By sending under-strength sides, they devalue
them. Surely the RFU and other unions can see that in the long term
this policy plays into the hands of their main opponents, the clubs?
All they have is the internationals, and if they don't make them at
least competetive, they don't have much. Personally, I'm tired of
seeing caps handed out as if they mean nothing as well. Judging by
some performances of late, it would be hard to argue that it devalues
the pride associated with the shirt.



29 May 2007 06:10:58
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

Totally agreed and I have raised this point twice already.

Test Rugby has become somewhat of a joke when it should be the
pinnacle for every player and nation - the tail wags the dog right now
and thy should not have tests if International Rugby is an ad hoc
after thought.

Only the best should play test rugby too otherwise the record books
also get skewed.

Sure, I totally agree that it is a scheduling issue in the pro era but
these tours and competitions are arranged years in advance so why
would we schedule
a domestic final and tour at the same time? There seems to be a total
disrespect of calendars somewhere that needs to be addressed with
people getting fired or at the very least fined.

That is what Graham Henry is pointing to as it is also a waste time
for him and his team in a World Cup Year too - I would also be annoyed
if I was him.
On that note, SANZAR teams could have rather had the Tri Nations
earlier or rested their players as we also have a busy calendar.

Its like one CEO arranging a meeting with the other years in adavance
and then the visiting CEO sends his VP of Marketing at the last minute
and goes on holiday himself after double booking. Its not very polite
in a Professional era if Professionalism is what we claim it is all
about.

Leonard

On May 29, 8:01 am, simon s-b <baitt...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 29 May, 11:33, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>
> > So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
> > in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
> > Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
> > scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
> > nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>
> > Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?
>
> I agree with what he's saying. For me, internationals should represent
> the top of the game. By sending under-strength sides, they devalue
> them. Surely the RFU and other unions can see that in the long term
> this policy plays into the hands of their main opponents, the clubs?
> All they have is the internationals, and if they don't make them at
> least competetive, they don't have much. Personally, I'm tired of
> seeing caps handed out as if they mean nothing as well. Judging by
> some performances of late, it would be hard to argue that it devalues
> the pride associated with the shirt.




29 May 2007 06:19:18
simon s-b
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On 29 May, 14:10, neo...@canada.com wrote:
> Totally agreed and I have raised this point twice already.
>
> Test Rugby has become somewhat of a joke when it should be the
> pinnacle for every player and nation - the tail wags the dog right now
> and thy should not have tests if International Rugby is an ad hoc
> after thought.
>
> Only the best should play test rugby too otherwise the record books
> also get skewed.
>
> Sure, I totally agree that it is a scheduling issue in the pro era but
> these tours and competitions are arranged years in advance so why
> would we schedule
> a domestic final and tour at the same time? There seems to be a total
> disrespect of calendars somewhere that needs to be addressed with
> people getting fired or at the very least fined.
>
> That is what Graham Henry is pointing to as it is also a waste time
> for him and his team in a World Cup Year too - I would also be annoyed
> if I was him.
> On that note, SANZAR teams could have rather had the Tri Nations
> earlier or rested their players as we also have a busy calendar.
>
> Its like one CEO arranging a meeting with the other years in adavance
> and then the visiting CEO sends his VP of Marketing at the last minute
> and goes on holiday himself after double booking. Its not very polite
> in a Professional era if Professionalism is what we claim it is all
> about.
>
> Leonard
>
> On May 29, 8:01 am, simon s-b <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 29 May, 11:33, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>
> > > So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
> > > in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
> > > Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
> > > scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
> > > nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>
> > > Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?
>
> > I agree with what he's saying. For me, internationals should represent
> > the top of the game. By sending under-strength sides, they devalue
> > them. Surely the RFU and other unions can see that in the long term
> > this policy plays into the hands of their main opponents, the clubs?
> > All they have is the internationals, and if they don't make them at
> > least competetive, they don't have much. Personally, I'm tired of
> > seeing caps handed out as if they mean nothing as well. Judging by
> > some performances of late, it would be hard to argue that it devalues
> > the pride associated with the shirt.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If Henry had simply wanted some practice prior to the 3N, he could
have had a better game by playing the remaining members of his own
squad.



29 May 2007 13:19:41
oob
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On Tue, 29 May 2007 04:24:55 -0700, couchpotatoe wrote:

> On May 29, 11:00 pm, Brent Hadley <the_1a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 29, 11:57 am, ruggeryoda <ruggery...@gmail.com> wrote: Not
>> really. His point is that bringing clearly understrength teams is not
>> showing what he considers due respect to the international game.
>
>
> NZ is not blameless. Bitchel did the same in 2002 EOYT

..a team which drew with France and lost by a measly three points at HQ
in a game they should have won but were denied due to Kaplan having a
mare.

> and Father Ted during the 2005 GS tour by switching team personel
> around between games.

..but won all four games regardless, three of them by massive margins and
one despite Lewis's officiating, the most one-sided seen since
introduction of neutral referees to RSA.

NZ has right now the depth to rotate and win, even win by convincing
margins. Even in '02, they were still competitive. There's a big
difference between this and sub-standard NH sides that get walloped.



29 May 2007 13:22:59
oob
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:01:36 -0700, simon s-b wrote:

> On 29 May, 11:33, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>>
>> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
>> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok. Henry
>> might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that scheduling
>> seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which nobody
>> would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>>
>> Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?
>
> I agree with what he's saying. For me, internationals should represent
> the top of the game. By sending under-strength sides, they devalue them.
> Surely the RFU and other unions can see that in the long term this
> policy plays into the hands of their main opponents, the clubs? All they
> have is the internationals, and if they don't make them at least
> competetive, they don't have much. Personally, I'm tired of seeing caps
> handed out as if they mean nothing as well. Judging by some performances
> of late, it would be hard to argue that it devalues the pride associated
> with the shirt.

Chris Moller was on Re:Union tonight, pointing out that various domestic
competitions in the NH have been expanded and that, unlike the S12/S14,
these competitions are finishing later rather than beginning earlier.

The fact is this; the NH unions have allowed their clubs to schedule
clashes with international matches.


29 May 2007 06:27:03
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

There is also the strong probablity of an element of gameship going on
here where
teams like England and France have possibly already decided to focus
on September so do not want to expose those players and plans to the
SANZAR teams
nor do they want the injuries to go with it.

So they will leave them out and send some outsiders on tour where they
can have a good peek
at the SANZAR teams whilst testing some fringe players grit and then
have a go in September.

That way there are no psychological victories now that can give the
upper hand in September.
England did not even fly any first rate players for the second test
who are rested now so this could be
the plot.

Remember too that Super 14 players can travel thousands of miles for
an away game whereas
worst case an Irish team may take a 80 minute flight to France, play
the game and be home that evening.

Thats a big difference - yet we still made our end of the bargain with
a final the week before.








On May 29, 6:33 am, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com > wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>
> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
> Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
> scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
> nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>
> Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?




29 May 2007 15:27:36
Walter Mitty
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

didgerman <didgerman@rfu.com > writes:

> Brent Hadley wrote:
>> On May 29, 11:57 am, ruggeryoda <ruggery...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 29, 12:33 pm, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>>>> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
>>>> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
>>>> Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
>>>> scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
>>>> nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>>>> Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?
>>> I would've at least held back until after the match if I were him. He
>>> would look awfully silly saying that if, erm, if, you know, hell
>>> freezes over on Saturday?
>>
>> Not really. His point is that bringing clearly understrength teams is
>> not showing what he considers due respect to the international game.
>
> But it's scheduling that is the problem, and the people who presumably
> get their heads together and come up with these Herculean schedules.
> You could argue that England have sent their best team to SA, at
> least for the 1st test. Look at the state of the Leicester players in
> the HC final, out on their feet after an hour. They'd have been worse

Rubbish. Professional players are not "out on their feet". They had
plenty of rest. If they cant lift themselves for a final or an
International then they are in the wrong game. Like Cohen making himself
"unavailable" it makes a mockery of the professional sport by depriving
fans who PAY these players of the chance to see them in the sport which
made them wealthy.

You can say what you want about NZ, but they still ripped the NH a new
one even with 2 full teams and plenty of rotation. By rights they should
have played, by Henrys standards, his first XV in all
Internationals.

Internationals have become a bit meaningless since this "resting" became
the norm.

It's a joke and I agree with Boyd that more emphasis needs to be put on
real tours with test rugby and midweek "jollies" for the club teams to
come up against the best.


> if they'd gone to SA the next day...
> And what about this mythical 'C' team that seems to be fielded any
> time NZ lose, hmmmm?
>
>>
>> The result is sort of irrelevant.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Brent
>>

--


29 May 2007 13:34:31
didgerman
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

Brent Hadley wrote:
> On May 29, 11:33 am, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>>
>> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
>> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
>> Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
>> scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
>> nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>
> Didn't he basically do exactly that in the article? I mean, he
> doesn't write the BBC headlines...
>
> Cheers
>
> Brent
>


I only read the article after posting tbh, I just couldn't wait.....

I don't disagree with him, but he's maybe blaming the wrong people.
And besides, having just held players back from the Super14, and having
all the convenience that central contracts bring, it's easy for him to
moan.....


29 May 2007 06:58:47
simon s-b
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On 29 May, 14:27, neo...@canada.com wrote:
> There is also the strong probablity of an element of gameship going on
> here where
> teams like England and France have possibly already decided to focus
> on September so do not want to expose those players and plans to the
> SANZAR teams
> nor do they want the injuries to go with it.
>

You give us too much credit. We don't appear to have a clue what the
players will be, or what the plan is.



29 May 2007 22:43:03
rick boyd
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

ruggeryoda wrote:
> On May 29, 12:33 pm, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>>
>>So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
>>in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
>>Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
>>scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
>>nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>>
>>Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?
>
>
> I would've at least held back until after the match if I were him. He
> would look awfully silly saying that if, erm, if, you know, hell
> freezes over on Saturday?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel there Yoda me old Jedi master.

All he's saying is exactly what everyone already knows -- that it's an
understrength French team. If the All Blacks get horrendously complacent
and lose the game, it would be majorly embarrassing because it's an
understrength French team, and that won't get any better or worse
because the All Black coach stated the obvious.

-- rick boyd


29 May 2007 14:44:39
didgerman
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

oob wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:01:36 -0700, simon s-b wrote:
>
>> On 29 May, 11:33, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>>>
>>> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
>>> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok. Henry
>>> might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that scheduling
>>> seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which nobody
>>> would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>>>
>>> Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?
>> I agree with what he's saying. For me, internationals should represent
>> the top of the game. By sending under-strength sides, they devalue them.
>> Surely the RFU and other unions can see that in the long term this
>> policy plays into the hands of their main opponents, the clubs? All they
>> have is the internationals, and if they don't make them at least
>> competetive, they don't have much. Personally, I'm tired of seeing caps
>> handed out as if they mean nothing as well. Judging by some performances
>> of late, it would be hard to argue that it devalues the pride associated
>> with the shirt.
>
> Chris Moller was on Re:Union tonight, pointing out that various domestic
> competitions in the NH have been expanded and that, unlike the S12/S14,
> these competitions are finishing later rather than beginning earlier.

Well done Chris, good work reading that calendar 'an all.....

>
> The fact is this; the NH unions have allowed their clubs to schedule
> clashes with international matches.

Not it isn't, because the fact is, the clubs don't have to do what the
union says.


29 May 2007 22:45:47
rick boyd
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

couchpotatoe wrote:
> On May 29, 11:00 pm, Brent Hadley <the_1a...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> NZ is not blameless. Bitchel did the same in 2002 EOYT

Yes, he did, but to be fair it was a very competitive development team
that came within an ace of winning all games. Hardly an insult.

> and Father Ted
> during the 2005 GS tour by switching team personel around between
> games.

You can't really complain when it's a second string side that can still
win all games though, can you?

-- rick boyd


29 May 2007 22:48:17
rick boyd
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

simon s-b wrote:


> If Henry had simply wanted some practice prior to the 3N, he could
> have had a better game by playing the remaining members of his own
> squad.

And it's been done before, too. The All Blacks once went on an internal
tour of New Zealand.

-- rick boyd


29 May 2007 16:39:16
Walter Mitty
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

oob <oobapalula@spam.no > writes:

> On Tue, 29 May 2007 04:24:55 -0700, couchpotatoe wrote:
>
>> On May 29, 11:00 pm, Brent Hadley <the_1a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 29, 11:57 am, ruggeryoda <ruggery...@gmail.com> wrote: Not
>>> really. His point is that bringing clearly understrength teams is not
>>> showing what he considers due respect to the international game.
>>
>>
>> NZ is not blameless. Bitchel did the same in 2002 EOYT
>
> ..a team which drew with France and lost by a measly three points at HQ
> in a game they should have won but were denied due to Kaplan having a
> mare.

Which column is that in in your usually succinct googled stats?

>
>> and Father Ted during the 2005 GS tour by switching team personel
>> around between games.
>
> ..but won all four games regardless, three of them by massive margins and
> one despite Lewis's officiating, the most one-sided seen since
> introduction of neutral referees to RSA.
>
> NZ has right now the depth to rotate and win, even win by convincing
> margins. Even in '02, they were still competitive. There's a big
> difference between this and sub-standard NH sides that get walloped.
>

--


29 May 2007 08:12:51
simon s-b
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On 29 May, 15:48, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au > wrote:
> simon s-b wrote:
> > If Henry had simply wanted some practice prior to the 3N, he could
> > have had a better game by playing the remaining members of his own
> > squad.
>
> And it's been done before, too. The All Blacks once went on an internal
> tour of New Zealand.
>
> -- rick boyd

The other thing nobody has mentioned about all of this is the
rankings. Personally, I was probably more proud of the time that
England spent at #1 in the IRB list than I was of the RWC. Sending
weak sides to play in fixtures makes the rankings pretty worthless
too, and I've always thought they were a good indicator of the world
order.



29 May 2007 10:18:58
Mike
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 29, 11:33 am, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com > wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>
> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
> Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
> scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
> nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>
> Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?

I have to agree with him here, but it's hardly BA or the players at
fault, scheduling a tour to start a week after the end of season was
always likely to have a significant impact on selection. They were a
little unlucky that so many players were ruled out but it wasn't a
totally unlikely scenario.

The tour has become meaningless beyond blooding a few new players,
further depressing england fans and getting one or two fanboys over
excited.

I recorded the match but someone blurted out the result and I couldn't
watch it after that ...

Mike



30 May 2007 05:24:28
Greig Blanchett
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On 29 May 2007 04:24:55 -0700, couchpotatoe <pandd@actrix.co.nz >
wrote:

>On May 29, 11:00 pm, Brent Hadley <the_1a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 29, 11:57 am, ruggeryoda <ruggery...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not really. His point is that bringing clearly understrength teams is
>> not showing what he considers due respect to the international game.
>
>
>NZ is not blameless. Bitchel did the same in 2002 EOYT and Father Ted
>during the 2005 GS tour by switching team personel around between
>games.

I don't think you can blame NZ or the NZRU for Mitchell's megalomania.
He wasn't flavor of the month with his bosses for quite a while before
the RWC and the NZ public was NOT behind his resting of key players
for that tour. They are (to a degree) behind Henry's resting players
for the S14 in order to maintain strength for the internationals. His
experiment with fielding different test sides in the UK would possibly
have been seen as frivolous if the ABs had LOST anything, but they
didn't and I for one am pretty happy we've now got more than one
seasoned player for every position. As Henry said on the news last
night, it's rugby and guys get hurt. If they were bank tellers, maybe
they wouldn't. But we've now got the depth to cover for them. Apart
from Mitchell's tour, I don't think NZ has ever disrespected
internationals enough to send out cannon fodder, KNOWING they would
lose.

--
greig


29 May 2007 12:46:26
Uncle Dave
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 29, 12:33 pm, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com > wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
>
> So, England leave their best players on the massage couch after victory
> in Europe, and that's bad. But skiving off of Super14 duty is ok.
> Henry might have looked less dopey here if he'd just stressed that
> scheduling seems to be totally stupid at present, something with which
> nobody would disagree except a few fat cats whom we could all live without.
>
> Jesus that bastard doesn't get any better looking does he?

I think the problem is that he comes from a country where rugby is
everything and so he has to make noises like this in order that the
great unwashed New Zealand public can carry on believing that because
*they* think rugby is everything then it is. In fact, with the advent
of professionalism and the RWC (both of which we can blame New Zealand
for) non-competitive internationals have become progressively less
important until they are appaently now even less important than a
third rate club competition (European Challenge, Parker Pen whatever
they call it now).

Of course, the idea of opponents not fielding their best sides lies in
the face of the fantasy that rugby, particularly games involving the
ABs, is the be all and end all of life *outside* of NZ. If the NZ
public cottoned on to the fact that the rest of us would rather watch
the League Two play-offs than our brave lads being hung drawn and
quartered again by a bunch of drug crazed South Sea Islanders, they
might stop paying 20% of GDP to the NZRU.

Hoist by their own petard and a jolly good show too.

UD




29 May 2007 12:49:21
Uncle Dave
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 29, 3:19 pm, oob <oobapal...@spam.no > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 04:24:55 -0700, couchpotatoe wrote:
> > On May 29, 11:00 pm, Brent Hadley <the_1a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 29, 11:57 am, ruggeryoda <ruggery...@gmail.com> wrote: Not
> >> really. His point is that bringing clearly understrength teams is not
> >> showing what he considers due respect to the international game.
>
> > NZ is not blameless. Bitchel did the same in 2002 EOYT
>
> ..a team which drew with France and lost by a measly three points at HQ
> in a game they should have won but were denied due to Kaplan having a
> mare.

Bingo!

Jeez, it's along time since we've heard the old "Ref Beats New Zealand
Single-Handed" excuse, but then they haven't lost much lately. Well
done, you old traditionalist you. It's nice to see you're keeping
your hand in.

UD



29 May 2007 12:49:21
didds
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 29, 2:22 pm, oob <oobapal...@spam.no > wrote:

> The fact is this; the NH unions have allowed their clubs to schedule
> clashes with international matches.

I would be interested in seeing the schedule of English, Welsh and
Irish club/franchise/provincial matches that were played last weekend
ie when the three nations were playing a test match.

There appear to be no match reports for those games available.

Didds



29 May 2007 12:55:09
Brent Hadley
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 29, 8:46 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de > wrote:

<snip >

> Hoist by their own petard and a jolly good show too.

Well done Dave. Excellent variety, nice form. A solid 9.5, although
the Russian judge marked you down because he didn't like your book.

Cheers

Brent



29 May 2007 21:17:11
The Green Phantom
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

Brent Hadley wrote:
> On May 29, 8:46 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Hoist by their own petard and a jolly good show too.
>
> Well done Dave. Excellent variety, nice form. A solid 9.5, although
> the Russian judge marked you down because he didn't like your book.

ROFL

regards

The Green Phantom


29 May 2007 20:27:59
DC
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

didgerman wrote:

> You could argue that England have sent their best team to SA, at least
> for the 1st test. Look at the state of the Leicester players in the HC
> final, out on their feet after an hour. They'd have been worse if they'd
> gone to SA the next day...

England could easily have sent Leicester and Wasp players since it is
only an overnight flight to SA with hardly any time zone difference --
if you have a business class seat then you can actually have a night's
sleep.

The Boks from the Bulls and Sharks played in the S14 final and
semi-final during the 2 weeks before the test, so they also have had a
heavy schedule.

The only argument could be that Ashton wouldn't have had much time with
the Leicester and Wasps players -- but neither did White have much time
with Bulls and Sharks players.

And, IIRC, "research shows" that if you are going to play at altitude
then it is better to stay at the coast and flight up right before the
games, unless you have many (at least 3?) weeks to acclimatise at
altitude. The England team could have flown direct to Cape Town and
trained there, and then flown up to Bloemfontein on Friday.

However, the scheduling of the French tour to NZ at the same time as
French club finals is clearly daft.


29 May 2007 20:44:25
didgerman
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

didds wrote:
> On May 29, 2:22 pm, oob <oobapal...@spam.no> wrote:
>
>> The fact is this; the NH unions have allowed their clubs to schedule
>> clashes with international matches.
>
> I would be interested in seeing the schedule of English, Welsh and
> Irish club/franchise/provincial matches that were played last weekend
> ie when the three nations were playing a test match.
>
> There appear to be no match reports for those games available.
>
> Didds
>

Well, can't speak for the ginger brigade, not our fault they didn't get
to the HC finals...
But if you wanted to send the England 1st team to SA last weekend, you'd
have had to have loaded up at least 20 guys that had just played the
European final on the Saturday, fly them down to SA on the Monday, and
let them get used to altitude and each other by Saturday.
In short, bollocks.


29 May 2007 13:50:56
didds
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On 29 May, 21:44, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com > wrote:

>
> >> The fact is this; the NH unions have allowed their clubs to schedule
> >> clashes with international matches.
>
> > I would be interested in seeing the schedule of English, Welsh and
> > Irish club/franchise/provincial matches that were played last weekend

> Well, can't speak for the ginger brigade, not our fault they didn't get
> to the HC finals...
> But if you wanted to send the England 1st team to SA last weekend, you'd
> have had to have loaded up at least 20 guys that had just played the
> European final on the Saturday, fly them down to SA on the Monday, and
> let them get used to altitude and each other by Saturday.
> In short, bollocks.

But they hadn't actually scheduled any matches to clash as described,
you are sayoing?

funny that.

didds




30 May 2007 07:52:45
Uncle Bully
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......


"simon s-b" <baittrap@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1180451571.516411.272370@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 May, 15:48, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>> simon s-b wrote:
>> > If Henry had simply wanted some practice prior to the 3N, he could
>> > have had a better game by playing the remaining members of his own
>> > squad.
>>
>> And it's been done before, too. The All Blacks once went on an internal
>> tour of New Zealand.
>>
>> -- rick boyd
>
> The other thing nobody has mentioned about all of this is the
> rankings. Personally, I was probably more proud of the time that
> England spent at #1 in the IRB list than I was of the RWC. Sending
> weak sides to play in fixtures makes the rankings pretty worthless
> too, and I've always thought they were a good indicator of the world
> order.

Hey, that's our argument...




30 May 2007 07:56:52
Uncle Bully
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......


"didgerman" <didgerman@rfu.com > wrote in message
news:Jg07i.2102$VS.606@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> didds wrote:
>> On May 29, 2:22 pm, oob <oobapal...@spam.no> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact is this; the NH unions have allowed their clubs to schedule
>>> clashes with international matches.
>>
>> I would be interested in seeing the schedule of English, Welsh and
>> Irish club/franchise/provincial matches that were played last weekend
>> ie when the three nations were playing a test match.
>>
>> There appear to be no match reports for those games available.
>>
>> Didds
>>
>
> Well, can't speak for the ginger brigade, not our fault they didn't get to
> the HC finals...
> But if you wanted to send the England 1st team to SA last weekend, you'd
> have had to have loaded up at least 20 guys that had just played the
> European final on the Saturday, fly them down to SA on the Monday, and let
> them get used to altitude and each other by Saturday.
> In short, bollocks.

You mean exactly like the SANZAR teams do year in year out in the S14 and
3N?
Soft.












29 May 2007 22:13:05
DC
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

didgerman wrote:

> But if you wanted to send the England 1st team to SA last weekend, you'd
> have had to have loaded up at least 20 guys that had just played the
> European final on the Saturday, fly them down to SA on the Monday, and
> let them get used to altitude and each other by Saturday.

Most of the SA team played in the S14 final on the same Saturday as the
HC final (and the semis the week before).

It is an overnight flight to SA, only 1 hour time difference. No jet-lag.

They could have flown to Cape Town and trained there and only flown up
to altitude within 24 hours of the game, which is better unless you have
at least 10 days to acclimatise.

See eg.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport.cfm?id=640662003
"In the Super 12 this year, all the visiting teams from New Zealand and
Australia trained in Durban and then flew up to Jo’burg on the night
before the match. The best way to combat the effects of altitude is to
either arrive on the high veldt at least ten days before the game and
acclimatise, or just get in within 24 hours of kick-off."



30 May 2007 07:25:38
rick boyd
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

Uncle Dave wrote:


> I think the problem is that he comes from a country where rugby is
> everything and so he has to make noises like this in order that the
> great unwashed New Zealand public can carry on believing that because
> *they* think rugby is everything then it is. In fact, with the advent
> of professionalism and the RWC (both of which we can blame New Zealand
> for) non-competitive internationals have become progressively less
> important until they are appaently now even less important than a
> third rate club competition (European Challenge, Parker Pen whatever
> they call it now).
>
> Of course, the idea of opponents not fielding their best sides lies in
> the face of the fantasy that rugby, particularly games involving the
> ABs, is the be all and end all of life *outside* of NZ. If the NZ
> public cottoned on to the fact that the rest of us would rather watch
> the League Two play-offs than our brave lads being hung drawn and
> quartered again by a bunch of drug crazed South Sea Islanders, they
> might stop paying 20% of GDP to the NZRU.
>
> Hoist by their own petard and a jolly good show too.

And you might have the slightest, tiniest morsel of a point if New
Zealand, rugby obsessed as it is, always sent full strength teams on
every tour, while you languid sophisticates from civilised climes
despatched any rag tag XV because the game just didn't rate compared to
Burnley v Aston Villa.

Alas, we pioneered the development XV, just like pretty much everything
other innovation in world rugby, and the mix and match test team -- even
in peak season -- and you poor sods just followed suit.

The only difference is, our development teams beat your full strength
teams, and your development teams lose 76-0.

So we don't really mind what sort of team you send us, as long as its
competitive. Unfortunately, that may mean you should not send a team at all.

-- rick boyd


30 May 2007 05:27:22
oob
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On Tue, 29 May 2007 08:12:51 -0700, simon s-b wrote:
> The other thing nobody has mentioned about all of this is the rankings.
> Personally, I was probably more proud of the time that England spent at
> #1 in the IRB list than I was of the RWC. Sending weak sides to play in
> fixtures makes the rankings pretty worthless too, and I've always
> thought they were a good indicator of the world order.

"Ah Sunday, November 23 between midnight and 1am, those were the days.."


30 May 2007 05:50:30
oob
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:48:17 +0800, rick boyd wrote:
> And it's been done before, too. The All Blacks once went on an internal
> tour of New Zealand.

1972. Wins over the Juniors, Malborough, Mid-Canterbury, Southland,
Wanganui, Counties, North Auckland, Wairarapa-Bush and Manawatu.

In '73 they played the Juniors, Presidents XV and Maori, not quite the
same.

They've played the odd provincial match in NZ over the years but in terms
of regular fixtures amounting to a tour, that pretty much stopped at the
end of the 1920's.

In terms of losses;

to Auckland in 1897, 1924 and 1947.
to Wellington in 1903, 1905, 1914, 1925, 1926 and 1932*
to Canterbury in 1957,
to the Juniors and the Presidents' XV in 1973.

Additionally, they drew with Otago/Southland in 1905 and Auckland in 1920.

(*) Three teams in the world have beaten the ABs more times than
Wellington has; Australia, France and South Africa.


29 May 2007 23:51:47
Uncle Dave
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On 29 May, 21:55, Brent Hadley <the_1a...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 29, 8:46 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Hoist by their own petard and a jolly good show too.
>
> Well done Dave. Excellent variety, nice form. A solid 9.5, although
> the Russian judge marked you down because he didn't like your book.

Nice to know I haven't lost it. Well not in that particular sense
anyway ;-)

UD



29 May 2007 23:52:30
Uncle Dave
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On 30 May, 01:25, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au > wrote:
>
> > Hoist by their own petard and a jolly good show too.
>
> And you might have the slightest, tiniest morsel of a point if New
> Zealand, rugby obsessed as it is, always sent full strength teams on
> every tour, while you languid sophisticates from civilised climes
> despatched any rag tag XV because the game just didn't rate compared to
> Burnley v Aston Villa.
>
> Alas, we pioneered the development XV, just like pretty much everything
> other innovation in world rugby, and the mix and match test team -- even
> in peak season -- and you poor sods just followed suit.
>
> The only difference is, our development teams beat your full strength
> teams, and your development teams lose 76-0.
>
> So we don't really mind what sort of team you send us, as long as its
> competitive. Unfortunately, that may mean you should not send a team at all.

So basically... you agree with me then?

UD



30 May 2007 00:45:33
couchpotatoe
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 30, 1:19 am, oob <oobapal...@spam.no > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 04:24:55 -0700, couchpotatoe wrote:
> > On May 29, 11:00 pm, Brent Hadley <the_1a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 29, 11:57 am, ruggeryoda <ruggery...@gmail.com> wrote: Not
> >> really. His point is that bringing clearly understrength teams is not
> >> showing what he considers due respect to the international game.
>
> > NZ is not blameless. Bitchel did the same in 2002 EOYT
>
> ..a team which drew with France and lost by a measly three points at HQ
> in a game they should have won but were denied due to Kaplan having a
> mare.

The principle is the same regardless of the result. Having said that
Father Ted nearly got his arse kicked when fielding a experimental
selection against Wales in Cardiff some years back. Just like Woddy
against France prior to the World Cup. No respect to the Jersey in
either case.





30 May 2007 01:22:17
simon s-b
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On 30 May, 08:45, couchpotatoe <p...@actrix.co.nz > wrote:
> On May 30, 1:19 am, oob <oobapal...@spam.no> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 May 2007 04:24:55 -0700, couchpotatoe wrote:
> > > On May 29, 11:00 pm, Brent Hadley <the_1a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 29, 11:57 am, ruggeryoda <ruggery...@gmail.com> wrote: Not
> > >> really. His point is that bringing clearly understrength teams is not
> > >> showing what he considers due respect to the international game.
>
> > > NZ is not blameless. Bitchel did the same in 2002 EOYT
>
> > ..a team which drew with France and lost by a measly three points at HQ
> > in a game they should have won but were denied due to Kaplan having a
> > mare.
>
> The principle is the same regardless of the result. Having said that
> Father Ted nearly got his arse kicked when fielding a experimental
> selection against Wales in Cardiff some years back. Just like Woddy
> against France prior to the World Cup. No respect to the Jersey in
> either case.

Except that if Grayson had slotted the kick against France, England
would have won with their second team on a ground where the French
were undefeated. It would have devastated them for the RWC.



30 May 2007 10:02:28
Sean Byrne
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

didgerman wrote:
> didds wrote:
>
>> On May 29, 2:22 pm, oob <oobapal...@spam.no> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact is this; the NH unions have allowed their clubs to schedule
>>> clashes with international matches.
>>
>>
>> I would be interested in seeing the schedule of English, Welsh and
>> Irish club/franchise/provincial matches that were played last weekend
>> ie when the three nations were playing a test match.
>>
>> There appear to be no match reports for those games available.
>>
>> Didds
>>
>
> Well, can't speak for the ginger brigade, not our fault they didn't get
> to the HC finals...
> But if you wanted to send the England 1st team to SA last weekend, you'd
> have had to have loaded up at least 20 guys that had just played the
> European final on the Saturday, fly them down to SA on the Monday, and
> let them get used to altitude and each other by Saturday.
> In short, bollocks.

That sounds suspiciously like what the S14 teams have to do, but with
the advantage of not having to cross any time zones.

Later,
Sean


30 May 2007 11:09:22
mg
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......


"didgerman" <didgerman@rfu.com > wrote in message
news:HZV6i.425$uU4.12@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

> I only read the article after posting tbh, I just couldn't wait.....

lol




30 May 2007 11:13:00
mg
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......


"simon s-b" <baittrap@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1180451571.516411.272370@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 May, 15:48, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>> simon s-b wrote:
>> > If Henry had simply wanted some practice prior to the 3N, he could
>> > have had a better game by playing the remaining members of his own
>> > squad.
>>
>> And it's been done before, too. The All Blacks once went on an internal
>> tour of New Zealand.
>>
>> -- rick boyd
>
> The other thing nobody has mentioned about all of this is the
> rankings. Personally, I was probably more proud of the time that
> England spent at #1 in the IRB list than I was of the RWC. Sending
> weak sides to play in fixtures makes the rankings pretty worthless
> too, and I've always thought they were a good indicator of the world
> order.


*cough* bullshit.




30 May 2007 12:18:20
The Green Phantom
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

mg wrote:
> "simon s-b" <baittrap@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1180451571.516411.272370@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29 May, 15:48, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>>> simon s-b wrote:
>>>> If Henry had simply wanted some practice prior to the 3N, he could
>>>> have had a better game by playing the remaining members of his own
>>>> squad.
>>> And it's been done before, too. The All Blacks once went on an internal
>>> tour of New Zealand.
>>>
>>> -- rick boyd
>> The other thing nobody has mentioned about all of this is the
>> rankings. Personally, I was probably more proud of the time that
>> England spent at #1 in the IRB list than I was of the RWC. Sending
>> weak sides to play in fixtures makes the rankings pretty worthless
>> too, and I've always thought they were a good indicator of the world
>> order.
>
>
> *cough* bullshit.

And here we have your problem. An almost amusing response, if only it
had been in relation to another poster/comment.

regards

The Green Phantom


30 May 2007 11:25:42
mg
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......


"Mike" <mikeloveschampagneandrugby@googlemail.com > wrote in message
news:1180459138.735391.270790@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 11:33 am, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm

> I have to agree with him here, but it's hardly BA or the players at
> fault, scheduling a tour to start a week after the end of season was
> always likely to have a significant impact on selection. They were a
> little unlucky that so many players were ruled out but it wasn't a
> totally unlikely scenario.
>
> The tour has become meaningless beyond blooding a few new players,
> further depressing england fans and getting one or two fanboys over
> excited.
>
> I recorded the match but someone blurted out the result and I couldn't
> watch it after that ...

lol




30 May 2007 04:38:00
Mike
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 30, 12:25 pm, "mg" <nosp...@home.okayz > wrote:
> "Mike" <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180459138.735391.270790@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 29, 11:33 am, didgerman <didger...@rfu.com> wrote:
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6699775.stm
> > I have to agree with him here, but it's hardly BA or the players at
> > fault, scheduling a tour to start a week after the end of season was
> > always likely to have a significant impact on selection. They were a
> > little unlucky that so many players were ruled out but it wasn't a
> > totally unlikely scenario.
>
> > The tour has become meaningless beyond blooding a few new players,
> > further depressing england fans and getting one or two fanboys over
> > excited.
>
> > I recorded the match but someone blurted out the result and I couldn't
> > watch it after that ...
>
> lol

I am glad my discomfort amuses you O Well Hung One.

Mike



30 May 2007 12:09:25
didgerman
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

Sean Byrne wrote:
> didgerman wrote:
>> didds wrote:
>>
>>> On May 29, 2:22 pm, oob <oobapal...@spam.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact is this; the NH unions have allowed their clubs to schedule
>>>> clashes with international matches.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would be interested in seeing the schedule of English, Welsh and
>>> Irish club/franchise/provincial matches that were played last weekend
>>> ie when the three nations were playing a test match.
>>>
>>> There appear to be no match reports for those games available.
>>>
>>> Didds
>>>
>>
>> Well, can't speak for the ginger brigade, not our fault they didn't
>> get to the HC finals...
>> But if you wanted to send the England 1st team to SA last weekend,
>> you'd have had to have loaded up at least 20 guys that had just played
>> the European final on the Saturday, fly them down to SA on the Monday,
>> and let them get used to altitude and each other by Saturday.
>> In short, bollocks.
>
> That sounds suspiciously like what the S14 teams have to do, but with
> the advantage of not having to cross any time zones.

Hmm, between the four of you I'm almost beginning to see that...
But isn't that scheduling crap as well?
And as Mr McCaw said, as he got knocked out of the Super14, it's not
test rugby.....

>
> Later,
> Sean


30 May 2007 20:48:03
rick boyd
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

Uncle Dave wrote:


> So basically... you agree with me then?

No. And if I do, I'm changing my argument to the opposite of whatever
you said.

-- rick boyd


30 May 2007 13:19:14
Uncle Dave
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 30, 2:48 pm, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au > wrote:
> Uncle Dave wrote:
> > So basically... you agree with me then?
>
> No. And if I do, I'm changing my argument to the opposite of whatever
> you said.

Yes you are.

UD



31 May 2007 07:11:56
rick boyd
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

Uncle Dave wrote:
> On May 30, 2:48 pm, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Uncle Dave wrote:
>>
>>>So basically... you agree with me then?
>>
>>No. And if I do, I'm changing my argument to the opposite of whatever
>>you said.
>
>
> Yes you are.

No I'm not. So there.

-- rick boyd


31 May 2007 00:34:13
Uncle Dave
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On 31 May, 01:11, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au > wrote:
> Uncle Dave wrote:
> > On May 30, 2:48 pm, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>Uncle Dave wrote:
>
> >>>So basically... you agree with me then?
>
> >>No. And if I do, I'm changing my argument to the opposite of whatever
> >>you said.
>
> > Yes you are.
>
> No I'm not. So there.

Ah, the simple pleasures of having a superior intellect. Re-read it
and weep.

UD



31 May 2007 22:46:21
rick boyd
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

Uncle Dave wrote:
> On 31 May, 01:11, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Uncle Dave wrote:
>>
>>>On May 30, 2:48 pm, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>Uncle Dave wrote:
>>
>>>>>So basically... you agree with me then?
>>
>>>>No. And if I do, I'm changing my argument to the opposite of whatever
>>>>you said.
>>
>>>Yes you are.
>>
>>No I'm not. So there.
>
>
> Ah, the simple pleasures of having a superior intellect. Re-read it
> and weep.

Will not!

-- rick boyd


31 May 2007 13:58:09
Uncle Dave
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On May 31, 4:46 pm, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au > wrote:
> Uncle Dave wrote:
> > On 31 May, 01:11, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>Uncle Dave wrote:
>
> >>>On May 30, 2:48 pm, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>>>Uncle Dave wrote:
>
> >>>>>So basically... you agree with me then?
>
> >>>>No. And if I do, I'm changing my argument to the opposite of whatever
> >>>>you said.
>
> >>>Yes you are.
>
> >>No I'm not. So there.
>
> > Ah, the simple pleasures of having a superior intellect. Re-read it
> > and weep.
>
> Will not!

I'm pretty much pissed and am going to bed.

UD



01 Jun 2007 07:20:04
rick boyd
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

Uncle Dave wrote:


> I'm pretty much pissed and am going to bed.

Fascinating. Any other vital information you want to share with us?

-- rick boyd


31 May 2007 23:59:46
Uncle Dave
Re: Henry slams understrength teams......

On Jun 1, 1:20 am, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au > wrote:
> Uncle Dave wrote:
> > I'm pretty much pissed and am going to bed.
>
> Fascinating. Any other vital information you want to share with us?

I survived. Actually, "pissed" isn't the right word - I simply can't
drink very much at all nowadays and sleep badly afterwards. Two
glasses of wine and a large brandy. Pathetic isn't it?

That's my last word on the subject. No, my last word on the subject
is bollocks.

(To Graham Henry. His head will roll too. E-ven-t-u-a-lly.)

UD