30 Jul 2006 13:43:15
Will_S
Australia v AB fulltime

Well I have posted about the 1st half previously. Now for the 2nd half
comments.

I actually thought Australia were just the better side in the 2nd half and
in the end it was only the freakish efforts of McGaw that was the difference
between the teams. We have Smith and Larkham and you have MCGaw and Carter
and without doubt the Carter/McGaw won their respective battles by a
comfortable margin. Magnificent defence by the AB's covered a few flaws in
the 2nd half and in the end they deserved victory based on their 1st half
superiority. To be honest Australia never really looked like winning the
match.

Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make simple
mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points. But if both
sides played to 100% of their ability I think the AB's would come out in
front.

MOM by a country mile was Riche McGaw.....




30 Jul 2006 16:31:36
Sally The Dumptruck
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Will_S" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make simple
> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.

I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several mistakes
in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
Australians still haven't scored a try against them. I think they are at a
loss as to how to beat them at the current time.





30 Jul 2006 06:28:08
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

"Will_S" <[email protected] > writes:

> Well I have posted about the 1st half previously. Now for the 2nd half
> comments.
>
> I actually thought Australia were just the better side in the 2nd half
> and

I just watched the game a second time : and Australia were by far the
better team. Rick would put it best : the best team lost to a freak
score - all their efforts came to nothing due to a mixture of bad luck
and the other team rising to the occasion. The "A" team certainly did
not do themselves proud. They missed Thorne in the ball gathering
scraps. McCaw did indeed show his class : a battler.


30 Jul 2006 16:37:50
oob
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:31:36 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:

>
> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make simple
>> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.
>
> I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
> their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several mistakes
> in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
> Australians still haven't scored a try against them. I think they are at a
> loss as to how to beat them at the current time.

I tend to concur except that you're wrong about the 160 minutes thing. I
think if the Wallabies were honest with themselves they'd admit that they
can't play any better than they did and still came up short.

To add insult to injury, the ABs didn't play particularly well and
obviously have improvements to make and gears to ascend. Worse, the core
Wallabies are all past their sell-by date or close to it, on the downward
incline to retirement. The Wallabies are not going to grow to parity
persisting with their current crop of players and last night is as close
as they're going to get for the foreseeable future.


30 Jul 2006 14:47:04
Matua
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Walter Mitty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Will_S" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Well I have posted about the 1st half previously. Now for the 2nd half
>> comments.
>>
>> I actually thought Australia were just the better side in the 2nd half
>> and
>
> I just watched the game a second time : and Australia were by far the
> better team. Rick would put it best : the best team lost to a freak
> score - all their efforts came to nothing due to a mixture of bad luck
> and the other team rising to the occasion. The "A" team certainly did
> not do themselves proud. They missed Thorne in the ball gathering
> scraps. McCaw did indeed show his class : a battler.


Ha ha ha ha fuck you never stop talking SHIT do you Klittoris ? Get a
fucking grebil up ya pus breath.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



30 Jul 2006 14:48:35
Matua
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Matua" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Walter Mitty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Well I have posted about the 1st half previously. Now for the 2nd half
>>> comments.
>>>
>>> I actually thought Australia were just the better side in the 2nd half
>>> and
>>
>> I just watched the game a second time : and Australia were by far the
>> better team. Rick would put it best : the best team lost to a freak
>> score - all their efforts came to nothing due to a mixture of bad luck
>> and the other team rising to the occasion. The "A" team certainly did
>> not do themselves proud. They missed Thorne in the ball gathering
>> scraps. McCaw did indeed show his class : a battler.
>
>
> Ha ha ha ha fuck you never stop talking SHIT do you Klittoris ? Get a
> fucking grebil up ya pus breath.
>
and a gerbil as well.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



30 Jul 2006 14:46:41
Will_S
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"oob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:31:36 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:
>
>>
>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make
>>> simple
>>> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.
>>
>> I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
>> their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several
>> mistakes
>> in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
>> Australians still haven't scored a try against them. I think they are at
>> a
>> loss as to how to beat them at the current time.
>
> I tend to concur except that you're wrong about the 160 minutes thing. I
> think if the Wallabies were honest with themselves they'd admit that they
> can't play any better than they did and still came up short.


Of course they can improve. Their scrum still needs work and their handling
let them down badly at times as did some of their tactics. Lots of
improvement there.




30 Jul 2006 15:05:39
Matua
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Will_S" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "oob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:31:36 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make
>>>> simple
>>>> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.
>>>
>>> I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
>>> their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several
>>> mistakes
>>> in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
>>> Australians still haven't scored a try against them. I think they are at
>>> a
>>> loss as to how to beat them at the current time.
>>
>> I tend to concur except that you're wrong about the 160 minutes thing. I
>> think if the Wallabies were honest with themselves they'd admit that they
>> can't play any better than they did and still came up short.
>
>
> Of course they can improve. Their scrum still needs work and their
> handling let them down badly at times as did some of their tactics. Lots
> of improvement there.
>

Fuck off idiot Straya busted there arses last night and LOST. On the other
hand the All Blacks played like shit, but look out at Eden Park in two weeks
they'll rip Straya a new one. what happened to the 49 nil and six try hero's
eh Willy ? Giteau is crap!! as well.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



30 Jul 2006 16:09:32
DaveXXL
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

In article <[email protected] >, [email protected]
says...
>
>
>
>"Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>>
>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make simple
>> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.
>
>I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
>their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several mistakes
>in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
>Australians still haven't scored a try against them.

Parochialsim at it's very best.

LOL

>I think they are at a
>loss as to how to beat them at the current time.




30 Jul 2006 19:02:51
Neilsons
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Will_S" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "oob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:31:36 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make
>>>> simple
>>>> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.
>>>
>>> I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
>>> their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several
>>> mistakes
>>> in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
>>> Australians still haven't scored a try against them. I think they are at
>>> a
>>> loss as to how to beat them at the current time.
>>
>> I tend to concur except that you're wrong about the 160 minutes thing. I
>> think if the Wallabies were honest with themselves they'd admit that they
>> can't play any better than they did and still came up short.
>
>
> Of course they can improve. Their scrum still needs work and their
> handling let them down badly at times as did some of their tactics. Lots
> of improvement there.
Agreed - that game will have proved to themselves that they aren't too far
away. There is a concern about a number of players in terms of age but none
that are there now will be significantly worse players by the next WC and
many will be better.

Cheers, aMtt




30 Jul 2006 17:57:25
willsutton
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Neilsons" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "oob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:31:36 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make
>>>>> simple
>>>>> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
>>>> their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several
>>>> mistakes
>>>> in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
>>>> Australians still haven't scored a try against them. I think they are
>>>> at a
>>>> loss as to how to beat them at the current time.
>>>
>>> I tend to concur except that you're wrong about the 160 minutes thing. I
>>> think if the Wallabies were honest with themselves they'd admit that
>>> they
>>> can't play any better than they did and still came up short.
>>
>>
>> Of course they can improve. Their scrum still needs work and their
>> handling let them down badly at times as did some of their tactics. Lots
>> of improvement there.
> Agreed - that game will have proved to themselves that they aren't too far
> away. There is a concern about a number of players in terms of age but
> none that are there now will be significantly worse players by the next WC
> and many will be better.
>
> Cheers, aMtt
>

but the horrible thing is apart from their defence the AB have a lot of
improvement also




30 Jul 2006 19:14:02
Nozza
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Walter Mitty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Will_S" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Well I have posted about the 1st half previously. Now for the 2nd half
> > comments.
> >
> > I actually thought Australia were just the better side in the 2nd half
> > and
>
> I just watched the game a second time : and Australia were by far the
> better team.

You need to watch it a third time then.

> Rick would put it best : the best team lost to a freak
> score

Looked like a pretty well-taken try to me.

> all their efforts came to nothing due to a mixture of bad luck
> and the other team rising to the occasion. The "A" team certainly did
> not do themselves proud.

They looked pretty fucking rock solid to me. They won the cup for the 4th
straight year, have won 20 out of 23 tests and what's that, about 8 tests in
a row. The current side has done me proud.

>They missed Thorne in the ball gathering scraps.

Unless you are referring to his ability as a ball boy at a young age, they
certainly did not.








30 Jul 2006 19:22:53
Brad Anton
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Will_S" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]

> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's

How the hell did you work that one out?
Brad




30 Jul 2006 20:31:03
Will_S
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Brad Anton" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>
> How the hell did you work that one out?
> Brad
>


anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln( z +
[sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )




30 Jul 2006 21:15:12
Rock2006
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Will_S" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>>
>> How the hell did you work that one out?
>> Brad
>>
>
>
> anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln( z +
> [sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )
>

A new hyperbolic function ?





30 Jul 2006 22:20:15
willsutton
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Rock2006" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>>>
>>> How the hell did you work that one out?
>>> Brad
>>>
>>
>>
>> anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln( z +
>> [sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )
>>
>
> A new hyperbolic function ?
>
>
>

yes, the Wallabies will be going into hyper drive




31 Jul 2006 00:33:33
Lindsay
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Will_S wrote:
> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>> How the hell did you work that one out?
>> Brad
>>
>
>
> anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln( z +
> [sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )
>
>

Did all the keytops fall off your keyboard willie?


31 Jul 2006 00:36:10
Lindsay
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

willsutton wrote:
> "Rock2006" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>>>> How the hell did you work that one out?
>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>>
>>> anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln( z +
>>> [sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )
>>>
>> A new hyperbolic function ?
>>
>>
>>
>
> yes, the Wallabies will be going into hyper drive
>
>
don't you mean Hypo ?


30 Jul 2006 22:12:04
Simon H. Garlick
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

DaveXXL wrote:
>
> Parochialsim at it's very best.
>
> LOL

You should have heard Faux Sports News's reporting of the Wallabies'
lemming-like chokefest at "Fortress Suncorp". The piece began something like
"Only a stray pass from the normally-perfect Stephen Larkam denied the
Wallabies victory over the All Blacks last night..."

I didn't know whether to laugh or... well, laugh.

Do you think they'll keep calling it "Fortress Suncorp" once they realise
that the All Blacks haven't lost a game there in... actually, have they EVER
lost a game there?



shg



30 Jul 2006 14:51:29
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Lindsay <[email protected] > writes:

> Will_S wrote:
>> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>>> How the hell did you work that one out?
>>> Brad
>>>
>> anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln(
>> z + [sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )
>
> Did all the keytops fall off your keyboard willie?

What the hell is a keyboard willie?


30 Jul 2006 22:26:23
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Walter Mitty wrote:


> I just watched the game a second time : and Australia were by far the
> better team.

I take it here that we are using the simpleton's version of "better
team" -- i.e. the team that dominated territory and possession.

Do you think this phenomenon was at all connected to the All Blacks'
tactic of playing a low possession game, kicking possession back to
Australia and making them work down the field again and again? And
stopping them cold on all but a very few occasions, to the extent they
failed to score a single try.

It's not a pretty game plan or a high reward one, but it might cause you
to re-evaluate your definition of "better team".

Oh, it's YOU "Walter".

Sorry.

You just like fully suck and you're like totally gay.

-- rick boyd


30 Jul 2006 22:27:29
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Lindsay wrote:

> don't you mean Hypo ?

Hippo Drive if you're talking about Rodney Blake.

-- rick boyd


30 Jul 2006 16:33:31
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

rick boyd <[email protected] > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>
>> I just watched the game a second time : and Australia were by far the
>> better team.
>
> I take it here that we are using the simpleton's version of "better
> team" -- i.e. the team that dominated territory and possession.
>
> Do you think this phenomenon was at all connected to the All Blacks'
> tactic of playing a low possession game, kicking possession back to
> Australia and making them work down the field again and again? And
> stopping them cold on all but a very few occasions, to the extent they
> failed to score a single try.
>
> It's not a pretty game plan or a high reward one, but it might cause
> you to re-evaluate your definition of "better team".

You honestly think that was their game plan? To let the Aussies keep
getting within a gnats knacker of the try line?

Oh puhleaze.

>
> Oh, it's YOU "Walter".
>
> Sorry.
>
> You just like fully suck and you're like totally gay.
>
> -- rick boyd

Miaow.

--


30 Jul 2006 16:31:33
Mike
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Walter Mitty wrote:
> Lindsay <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Will_S wrote:
>>> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>>>> How the hell did you work that one out?
>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>> anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln(
>>> z + [sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )
>> Did all the keytops fall off your keyboard willie?
>
> What the hell is a keyboard willie?

Some kind of USB powered desktop toy for the ladies (& Matua)?

Mike


30 Jul 2006 22:34:27
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

"Ben L" <[email protected] > writes:

> rick boyd wrote:
> <snip>
>> > I just watched the game a second time : and Australia were by far the
>> > better team.
>>
>> I take it here that we are using the simpleton's version of "better
>> team" -- i.e. the team that dominated territory and possession.
>
> Don't be so ungracious. New Zealand rarely look to give up majority
> possession and territory against a team with as strong a backline as
> Australia. The All Blacks looked very quiet in attack, spent long
> periods on the back foot, had a dysfunctional lineout and benefited
> from a Mortlock miss at goal early on that would have put them under
> more pressure..
>
> Defensive efforts of the quality NZ put in can't be dismissed lightly,
> although god knows you among others tried hard when England did it, but
> Australia spent the 2nd half looking far more likely to score.
>
> The All Blacks were predictably clinical with their scoring
> opportunity, but it came against the run of play. They weren't lucky to
> win, but they wouldn't have had much ground for complaint if Australia

I think they were. Very lucky. Certainly not "comfortable winners". I
think they were lucky that the Aussies tripped themselves up a few times
and that their defense was including a certain Mr McCaw.

> had run in a try in the final 20.
>

--


31 Jul 2006 07:19:58
Matua
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Mike" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Walter Mitty wrote:
>> Lindsay <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Will_S wrote:
>>>> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>>>>> How the hell did you work that one out?
>>>>> Brad
>>>>>
>>>> anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln(
>>>> z + [sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )
>>> Did all the keytops fall off your keyboard willie?
>>
>> What the hell is a keyboard willie?
>
> Some kind of USB powered desktop toy for the ladies (& Matua)?
>
> Mike

Give them up centre slapper, they're getting worse, but I bet you have the
USB eh Mikey, U Suck Balls.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



30 Jul 2006 22:10:09
Osbourne Ruddock
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Walter Mitty <[email protected] > wrote in news:[email protected]:

>> The All Blacks were predictably clinical with their scoring
>> opportunity, but it came against the run of play. They weren't lucky to
>> win, but they wouldn't have had much ground for complaint if Australia
>
> I think they were. Very lucky. Certainly not "comfortable winners". I
> think they were lucky that the Aussies tripped themselves up a few times
> and that their defense was including a certain Mr McCaw.

Roco should've had his 2nd try 2 minutes after the first one but Carter
managed to bugger it up. It shouldn't have been as tight a game as it was
but yet again we were hit and miss and had a decidedly average 2nd half. I
don't know why but we can't seem to play for 80 minutes atm.

>
>> had run in a try in the final 20.
>>
>

Funnily enough, even with the Aus pressure in the last 20 I never felt for
one moment that they would score and that we might lose. Dunno why, I'm
normally a nervous wreck.

--

Cheers, Os


31 Jul 2006 08:29:15
Will_S
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"rick boyd" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>
>> I just watched the game a second time : and Australia were by far the
>> better team.
>
> I take it here that we are using the simpleton's version of "better
> team" -- i.e. the team that dominated territory and possession.

well many use that system especially in a close game. Usually a team that
does these things wins the game
>
> Do you think this phenomenon was at all connected to the All Blacks'
> tactic of playing a low possession game, kicking possession back to
> Australia and making them work down the field again and again? And
> stopping them cold on all but a very few occasions, to the extent they
> failed to score a single try.

Australia should have scored except for bad handling but mostly it was
fantasic defence

>
> It's not a pretty game plan or a high reward one, but it might cause you
> to re-evaluate your definition of "better team".

Well I thought Australia was the better team in the 2nd half but in the 1st
half the AB's looked the more dangerous side and all up they were just the
better side. No complaints here this time ( ie. Kaplan ) and just applause
for McGaw and his teams great defence

>
> Oh, it's YOU "Walter".

thats Mr No Body to you

>
> Sorry.
>
> You just like fully suck and you're like totally gay.

you are Matua and I claim my $1.14

>
> -- rick boyd




31 Jul 2006 08:30:10
Will_S
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Osbourne Ruddock" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>> The All Blacks were predictably clinical with their scoring
>>> opportunity, but it came against the run of play. They weren't lucky to
>>> win, but they wouldn't have had much ground for complaint if Australia
>>
>> I think they were. Very lucky. Certainly not "comfortable winners". I
>> think they were lucky that the Aussies tripped themselves up a few times
>> and that their defense was including a certain Mr McCaw.
>
> Roco should've had his 2nd try 2 minutes after the first one but Carter
> managed to bugger it up. It shouldn't have been as tight a game as it was
> but yet again we were hit and miss and had a decidedly average 2nd half. I
> don't know why but we can't seem to play for 80 minutes atm.
>
>>
>>> had run in a try in the final 20.
>>>
>>
>
> Funnily enough, even with the Aus pressure in the last 20 I never felt for
> one moment that they would score and that we might lose. Dunno why, I'm
> normally a nervous wreck.
>
> --
>
> Cheers, Os

I had the same feelings.....must have been the fault of Mr Boag




31 Jul 2006 09:17:43
Matua
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Will_S" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "rick boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I just watched the game a second time : and Australia were by far the
>>> better team.
>>
>> I take it here that we are using the simpleton's version of "better
>> team" -- i.e. the team that dominated territory and possession.
>
> well many use that system especially in a close game. Usually a team that
> does these things wins the game
>>
>> Do you think this phenomenon was at all connected to the All Blacks'
>> tactic of playing a low possession game, kicking possession back to
>> Australia and making them work down the field again and again? And
>> stopping them cold on all but a very few occasions, to the extent they
>> failed to score a single try.
>
> Australia should have scored except for bad handling but mostly it was
> fantasic defence
>
>>
>> It's not a pretty game plan or a high reward one, but it might cause you
>> to re-evaluate your definition of "better team".
>
> Well I thought Australia was the better team in the 2nd half but in the
> 1st half the AB's looked the more dangerous side and all up they were just
> the better side. No complaints here this time ( ie. Kaplan ) and just
> applause for McGaw and his teams great defence
>
>>
>> Oh, it's YOU "Walter".
>
> thats Mr No Body to you
>
>>
>> Sorry.
>>
>> You just like fully suck and you're like totally gay.



> you are Matua and I claim my $1.14

It's going to cost you more than $1.14 to suck me off wee willie wankie.
Do you spit or swallow ? I reckon you swallow you spoof sucking sloth.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



31 Jul 2006 13:53:10
Brad Anton
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

.
"Will_S" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>>
>> How the hell did you work that one out?
>> Brad
>>
>
>
> anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln( z +
> [sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )
>

My God! - the Skasis Paradigm! you've solved it. Shit, and you still can't
get the Wallabies to win.
Brad




31 Jul 2006 16:48:03
Lindsay
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

rick boyd wrote:
> Lindsay wrote:
>
>> don't you mean Hypo ?
>
> Hippo Drive if you're talking about Rodney Blake.
>
> -- rick boyd

I was think of Hypo Dermic.


31 Jul 2006 08:17:53
didgerman
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

oob wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:31:36 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:
>
>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make simple
>>> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.
>> I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
>> their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several mistakes
>> in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
>> Australians still haven't scored a try against them. I think they are at a
>> loss as to how to beat them at the current time.
>
> I tend to concur except that you're wrong about the 160 minutes thing. I
> think if the Wallabies were honest with themselves they'd admit that they
> can't play any better than they did and still came up short.

Still short of a 'drubbing' though wasn't it boob.
Any game that finishes with only 4 points separating the teams could
have gone either way.
I suggest you stop chest beating and pipe down for a bit.....

>
> To add insult to injury, the ABs didn't play particularly well and
> obviously have improvements to make and gears to ascend. Worse, the core
> Wallabies are all past their sell-by date or close to it, on the downward
> incline to retirement. The Wallabies are not going to grow to parity
> persisting with their current crop of players and last night is as close
> as they're going to get for the foreseeable future.


31 Jul 2006 18:40:28
Matua
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"didgerman" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> oob wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:31:36 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:
>>
>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make
>>>> simple
>>>> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.
>>> I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
>>> their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several
>>> mistakes
>>> in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
>>> Australians still haven't scored a try against them. I think they are at
>>> a
>>> loss as to how to beat them at the current time.
>>
>> I tend to concur except that you're wrong about the 160 minutes thing. I
>> think if the Wallabies were honest with themselves they'd admit that they
>> can't play any better than they did and still came up short.
>
> Still short of a 'drubbing' though wasn't it boob.
> Any game that finishes with only 4 points separating the teams could have
> gone either way.

Hey Toss Breath, one things for sure Men Wanting Men wouldn't finish within
4 points of any fucking team Maybe 44 points. XXL reckons that you go either
way as well.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



31 Jul 2006 12:13:01
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

rick boyd <[email protected] > writes:

> Ben L wrote:
>
>> Don't be so ungracious. New Zealand rarely look to give up majority
>> possession and territory against a team with as strong a backline as
>> Australia. The All Blacks looked very quiet in attack, spent long
>> periods on the back foot, had a dysfunctional lineout and benefited
>> from a Mortlock miss at goal early on that would have put them under
>> more pressure..
>
> So what are you saying? They didn't deliberately play a low possession
> game,

LOL. Now I get it : you're on a wind up to see what idiot could actually
believe a team would play a low posession game on purpose! (ps I think
Will and Chucky might .. wink).


31 Jul 2006 12:28:09
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

JD <[email protected] > writes:

> On 31 Jul 2006 00:37:43 -0700, Ben L in
> message<news:[email protected]> wrote:
>> rick boyd wrote:
>>> Ben L wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't be so ungracious. New Zealand rarely look to give up majority
>>>> possession and territory against a team with as strong a backline as
>>>> Australia. The All Blacks looked very quiet in attack, spent long
>>>> periods on the back foot, had a dysfunctional lineout and benefited
>>>> from a Mortlock miss at goal early on that would have put them under
>>>> more pressure..
>>>
>>> So what are you saying? They didn't deliberately play a low possession
>>> game, were beaten in territory and possession by a superior forwrad
>>> pack, and wildly missed all their kicks for touch?
>>
>> You think they meant to play a low possession game? Pull the other one.
>> Was Henry training the All Blacks to kick aimlessly, drop ball and
>> stuff their lineout just to see if the defence could hold up and McCaw
>> really was as good as he has been made out to be?
>
> Then you haven't been watching many AB tests lately. It has become an
> element they have used to their benefit on more than a few occasions - belt
> the ball upfield, make the opposition run it back, trust your defence, turn
> over the ball when possible and counterattack when the opposition are
> defensively fragile. Quite a smart tactic and one that seems to work for
> them. The problem with last night was two excellent displays of
> defence.

That wouldnt be a low possession game. That would be a "put the oppo
under pressure from the air" game. The key being to turn the ball
over. ps, isnt it better (generally) to already have the ball than to
hope to turn it over? Sure, I can see advantages of snaffling it, but really.


31 Jul 2006 10:32:41
didgerman
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Matua wrote:
> "didgerman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> oob wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:31:36 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make
>>>>> simple
>>>>> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.
>>>> I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
>>>> their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several
>>>> mistakes
>>>> in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
>>>> Australians still haven't scored a try against them. I think they are at
>>>> a
>>>> loss as to how to beat them at the current time.
>>> I tend to concur except that you're wrong about the 160 minutes thing. I
>>> think if the Wallabies were honest with themselves they'd admit that they
>>> can't play any better than they did and still came up short.
>> Still short of a 'drubbing' though wasn't it boob.
>> Any game that finishes with only 4 points separating the teams could have
>> gone either way.
>
> Hey Toss Breath, one things for sure Men Wanting Men wouldn't finish within
> 4 points of any fucking team Maybe 44 points. XXL reckons that you go either
> way as well.
>
>
>

That's *thing's*. Ever the shit for brains eh?
I think we finished a few points short of some fucking team last autumn.
Good job the ref' didn't see that Carter forward pass eh? Between him
chucking it forward at the slightest sign of tackling, and your easily
sussed line-out, I'd be fucking worried.
Still, I'm sure the chest beating will continue until the next RWC
semis, or quarters....


31 Jul 2006 22:40:40
oob
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:32:41 +0000, didgerman wrote:
> I think we finished a few points short of some fucking team last autumn.
> Good job the ref' didn't see that Carter forward pass eh?

Must have been too busy counting the notes in the envelope marked "RFU" to
notice.




31 Jul 2006 05:13:15
Ben L
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


JD wrote:
<snip >
> > You think they meant to play a low possession game? Pull the other one.
> > Was Henry training the All Blacks to kick aimlessly, drop ball and
> > stuff their lineout just to see if the defence could hold up and McCaw
> > really was as good as he has been made out to be?
>
> Then you haven't been watching many AB tests lately. It has become an
> element they have used to their benefit on more than a few occasions - belt
> the ball upfield, make the opposition run it back, trust your defence, turn
> over the ball when possible and counterattack when the opposition are
> defensively fragile. Quite a smart tactic and one that seems to work for
> them. The problem with last night was two excellent displays of defence.

Nobody knowingly gives the Australians that much ball. If you think
Graham Henry watched the Sa-Oz game last week and decided to
deliberately play a sit back and see game - knowing how weak the Aussie
forwards are, you're kidding.

I've seen the tactic work a heap of times - but it's far more suited to
a wet day against a team stronger in the forwards than the backs, not a
Brisbane game against Australia's weak pack and strong backline.



31 Jul 2006 12:29:30
didgerman
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

oob wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:32:41 +0000, didgerman wrote:
>> I think we finished a few points short of some fucking team last autumn.
>> Good job the ref' didn't see that Carter forward pass eh?
>
> Must have been too busy counting the notes in the envelope marked "RFU" to
> notice.
>
>

I've seen that ref' in the Celtic League, he misses more forward passes
than Oscar Wilde on a tour of Essex. Face it, you were lucky....


01 Aug 2006 00:50:29
oob
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:29:30 +0000, didgerman wrote:

> oob wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:32:41 +0000, didgerman wrote:
>>> I think we finished a few points short of some fucking team last autumn.
>>> Good job the ref' didn't see that Carter forward pass eh?
>>
>> Must have been too busy counting the notes in the envelope marked "RFU" to
>> notice.
>>
>>
>
> I've seen that ref' in the Celtic League, he misses more forward passes
> than Oscar Wilde on a tour of Essex. Face it, you were lucky....

We were indeed lucky, to have a rugby side so strong that twelve of them
could overcome sixteen opponents in their own backyard.




31 Jul 2006 23:04:27
DaveXXL
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

In article <[email protected] >, [email protected]
says...
>
>
>
>"didgerman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> oob wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:31:36 +1200, Sally The Dumptruck wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's but they cant make
>>>>> simple
>>>>> mistakes like the ones that gave the AB's their 1st 10 points.
>>>> I don't think they can at the moment. I mean they played to the best of
>>>> their ability and still lost. This is with the AB's making several
>>>> mistakes
>>>> in lineout and general kicking play. 160 minutes of rugby and the
>>>> Australians still haven't scored a try against them. I think they are at
>>>> a
>>>> loss as to how to beat them at the current time.
>>>
>>> I tend to concur except that you're wrong about the 160 minutes thing. I
>>> think if the Wallabies were honest with themselves they'd admit that they
>>> can't play any better than they did and still came up short.
>>
>> Still short of a 'drubbing' though wasn't it boob.
>> Any game that finishes with only 4 points separating the teams could have
>> gone either way.
>
>Hey Toss Breath, one things for sure Men Wanting Men wouldn't finish within
>4 points of any fucking team Maybe 44 points. XXL reckons that you go either
>way as well.
>

Wrong XXL matua ! Dunno who you've been talking to...!!




31 Jul 2006 23:44:28
Will_S
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Brad Anton" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> .
> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>>>
>>> How the hell did you work that one out?
>>> Brad
>>>
>>
>>
>> anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln( z +
>> [sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )
>>
>
> My God! - the Skasis Paradigm! you've solved it. Shit, and you still can't
> get the Wallabies to win.
> Brad
>

Well why I would have loved to win, coming 2nd to such a great side has no
shame




31 Jul 2006 21:53:22
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Walter Mitty wrote:


> That wouldnt be a low possession game. That would be a "put the oppo
> under pressure from the air" game. The key being to turn the ball
> over. ps, isnt it better (generally) to already have the ball than to
> hope to turn it over? Sure, I can see advantages of snaffling it, but really.

Yes well you see "Walter", the thing about kicking the ball away, is
that it gives the opposition possession. Since both sides can't have
high possession the side that gives it away generally ends up with low
possession.

-- rick boyd


31 Jul 2006 21:54:34
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Walter Mitty wrote:


> LOL. Now I get it : you're on a wind up to see what idiot could actually
> believe a team would play a low posession game on purpose! (ps I think
> Will and Chucky might .. wink).

Oh God. It'd be easier to teach monkeys to tap dance. You'd think this
was the first game the tactic had ever been used.

-- rick boyd


31 Jul 2006 21:55:19
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Lindsay wrote:
> rick boyd wrote:
>
>> Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> don't you mean Hypo ?
>>
>>
>> Hippo Drive if you're talking about Rodney Blake.
>>
>> -- rick boyd
>
>
> I was think of Hypo Dermic.


Yes, Lindsay, I think we all got that. Got any eggs you want sucked on
the side?

-- rick boyd


31 Jul 2006 16:03:50
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

rick boyd <[email protected] > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>
>> That wouldnt be a low possession game. That would be a "put the oppo
>> under pressure from the air" game. The key being to turn the ball
>> over. ps, isnt it better (generally) to already have the ball than to
>> hope to turn it over? Sure, I can see advantages of snaffling it, but really.
>
> Yes well you see "Walter", the thing about kicking the ball away, is
> that it gives the opposition possession. Since both sides can't have
> high possession the side that gives it away generally ends up with low
> possession.

The giving it away bit is the crux though. Its normally done for a
better reason than to camp on your own try line inviting a back line to
run at you.


31 Jul 2006 16:04:45
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

rick boyd <[email protected] > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>
>> LOL. Now I get it : you're on a wind up to see what idiot could actually
>> believe a team would play a low posession game on purpose! (ps I think
>> Will and Chucky might .. wink).
>
> Oh God. It'd be easier to teach monkeys to tap dance. You'd think this
> was the first game the tactic had ever been used.

Its certainly not the first time a team has constantly kicked to get
themslevs out of the shit, no.


31 Jul 2006 14:31:47
JD
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:28:09 +0200, Walter Mitty in
message<news:[email protected] > wrote:

> JD <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 31 Jul 2006 00:37:43 -0700, Ben L in
>> message<news:[email protected]> wrote:
>>> rick boyd wrote:
>>>> Ben L wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't be so ungracious. New Zealand rarely look to give up majority
>>>>> possession and territory against a team with as strong a backline as
>>>>> Australia. The All Blacks looked very quiet in attack, spent long
>>>>> periods on the back foot, had a dysfunctional lineout and benefited
>>>>> from a Mortlock miss at goal early on that would have put them under
>>>>> more pressure..
>>>>
>>>> So what are you saying? They didn't deliberately play a low possession
>>>> game, were beaten in territory and possession by a superior forwrad
>>>> pack, and wildly missed all their kicks for touch?
>>>
>>> You think they meant to play a low possession game? Pull the other one.
>>> Was Henry training the All Blacks to kick aimlessly, drop ball and
>>> stuff their lineout just to see if the defence could hold up and McCaw
>>> really was as good as he has been made out to be?
>>
>> Then you haven't been watching many AB tests lately. It has become an
>> element they have used to their benefit on more than a few occasions - belt
>> the ball upfield, make the opposition run it back, trust your defence, turn
>> over the ball when possible and counterattack when the opposition are
>> defensively fragile. Quite a smart tactic and one that seems to work for
>> them. The problem with last night was two excellent displays of
>> defence.
>
> That wouldnt be a low possession game. That would be a "put the oppo
> under pressure from the air" game. The key being to turn the ball
> over. ps, isnt it better (generally) to already have the ball than to
> hope to turn it over? Sure, I can see advantages of snaffling it, but really.

Since you're obviously stupid I'll explain it once more: a turn over
results in the most favourable conditions to score tries against quality
defence.


31 Jul 2006 14:33:25
JD
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

On 31 Jul 2006 05:13:15 -0700, Ben L in
message<news:[email protected] > wrote:
> JD wrote:
> <snip>
>>> You think they meant to play a low possession game? Pull the other one.
>>> Was Henry training the All Blacks to kick aimlessly, drop ball and
>>> stuff their lineout just to see if the defence could hold up and McCaw
>>> really was as good as he has been made out to be?
>>
>> Then you haven't been watching many AB tests lately. It has become an
>> element they have used to their benefit on more than a few occasions - belt
>> the ball upfield, make the opposition run it back, trust your defence, turn
>> over the ball when possible and counterattack when the opposition are
>> defensively fragile. Quite a smart tactic and one that seems to work for
>> them. The problem with last night was two excellent displays of defence.
>
> Nobody knowingly gives the Australians that much ball. If you think
> Graham Henry watched the Sa-Oz game last week and decided to
> deliberately play a sit back and see game - knowing how weak the Aussie
> forwards are, you're kidding.

You're deluding yourself if you think that Carter and co are that aimless
with their general play kicking.


31 Jul 2006 17:09:23
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

JD <[email protected] > writes:

> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:28:09 +0200, Walter Mitty in
> message<news:[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> JD <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2006 00:37:43 -0700, Ben L in
>>> message<news:[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> rick boyd wrote:
>>>>> Ben L wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't be so ungracious. New Zealand rarely look to give up majority
>>>>>> possession and territory against a team with as strong a backline as
>>>>>> Australia. The All Blacks looked very quiet in attack, spent long
>>>>>> periods on the back foot, had a dysfunctional lineout and benefited
>>>>>> from a Mortlock miss at goal early on that would have put them under
>>>>>> more pressure..
>>>>>
>>>>> So what are you saying? They didn't deliberately play a low possession
>>>>> game, were beaten in territory and possession by a superior forwrad
>>>>> pack, and wildly missed all their kicks for touch?
>>>>
>>>> You think they meant to play a low possession game? Pull the other one.
>>>> Was Henry training the All Blacks to kick aimlessly, drop ball and
>>>> stuff their lineout just to see if the defence could hold up and McCaw
>>>> really was as good as he has been made out to be?
>>>
>>> Then you haven't been watching many AB tests lately. It has become an
>>> element they have used to their benefit on more than a few occasions - belt
>>> the ball upfield, make the opposition run it back, trust your defence, turn
>>> over the ball when possible and counterattack when the opposition are
>>> defensively fragile. Quite a smart tactic and one that seems to work for
>>> them. The problem with last night was two excellent displays of
>>> defence.
>>
>> That wouldnt be a low possession game. That would be a "put the oppo
>> under pressure from the air" game. The key being to turn the ball
>> over. ps, isnt it better (generally) to already have the ball than to
>> hope to turn it over? Sure, I can see advantages of snaffling it, but really.
>
> Since you're obviously stupid I'll explain it once more: a turn over
> results in the most favourable conditions to score tries against quality
> defence.

I alread acknowledged that the turnover can provide benefits. But you
have to make the turnover first. Duh.

Any team capable of attacking does NOT kick the ball away into their
opponents hands : especially a decent backline like the Aussies.

Jesus guys. Pull the other one. The Aussies had you on the back foot
for nearly all the second half. Against your A team. Yes, I'd be worried
too. It would seem that they're not *that* superior after all.


31 Jul 2006 23:26:02
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Walter Mitty wrote:


> The giving it away bit is the crux though. Its normally done for a
> better reason than to camp on your own try line inviting a back line to
> run at you.

Yes, you give it away so that you can move 60 metres down field and
pressure the opposition in their own half. You're English, you can only
have seen this tactic nine or ten billion times.

No one gives away possession inside their own 22 on purpose. You don't
just hand over the ball for no reason. You hoof it down field and send
the opposition scurrying back to retreive it.

-- rick boyd


31 Jul 2006 23:27:47
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Walter Mitty wrote:
> JD <[email protected]> writes:


> I alread acknowledged that the turnover can provide benefits. But you
> have to make the turnover first. Duh.
>
> Any team capable of attacking does NOT kick the ball away into their
> opponents hands : especially a decent backline like the Aussies.
>
> Jesus guys. Pull the other one. The Aussies had you on the back foot
> for nearly all the second half. Against your A team. Yes, I'd be worried
> too. It would seem that they're not *that* superior after all.

I am genuinely fascinated to find out how Australia gained this feast of
possession. Please explain it to me.

-- rick boyd


31 Jul 2006 23:29:37
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Walter Mitty wrote:


> Its certainly not the first time a team has constantly kicked to get
> themslevs out of the shit, no.

You know that is a nothing answer, don't you?

Tell me that you think Carter, Mauger and MacDonald consistently missed
the touch line, often by as much as 25 metres, by accident. And I'll
have a good laugh at you.

-- rick boyd


31 Jul 2006 17:35:03
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

rick boyd <[email protected] > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>
>> Its certainly not the first time a team has constantly kicked to get
>> themslevs out of the shit, no.
>
> You know that is a nothing answer, don't you?
>
> Tell me that you think Carter, Mauger and MacDonald consistently
> missed the touch line, often by as much as 25 metres, by accident. And
> I'll have a good laugh at you.

They were hoping for a spill and/or needed time for the ABS to
reform. Simple enough really.


31 Jul 2006 17:35:41
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

rick boyd <[email protected] > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>> JD <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>> I alread acknowledged that the turnover can provide benefits. But you
>> have to make the turnover first. Duh.
>> Any team capable of attacking does NOT kick the ball away into their
>> opponents hands : especially a decent backline like the Aussies.
>> Jesus guys. Pull the other one. The Aussies had you on the back foot
>> for nearly all the second half. Against your A team. Yes, I'd be worried
>> too. It would seem that they're not *that* superior after all.
>
> I am genuinely fascinated to find out how Australia gained this feast
> of possession. Please explain it to me.

Well, obviously not through all their turnovers : I mean, the ABs do
them for fun .....


01 Aug 2006 06:52:24
Greig Blanchett
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:35:41 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected] >
wrote:

>rick boyd <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>> JD <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> I alread acknowledged that the turnover can provide benefits. But you
>>> have to make the turnover first. Duh.
>>> Any team capable of attacking does NOT kick the ball away into their
>>> opponents hands : especially a decent backline like the Aussies.
>>> Jesus guys. Pull the other one. The Aussies had you on the back foot
>>> for nearly all the second half. Against your A team. Yes, I'd be worried
>>> too. It would seem that they're not *that* superior after all.
>>
>> I am genuinely fascinated to find out how Australia gained this feast
>> of possession. Please explain it to me.
>
>Well, obviously not through all their turnovers : I mean, the ABs do
>them for fun .....

I take it this is yet another test that Wally didn't see, yet still
feels compelled to comment on.

--
greig


01 Aug 2006 06:56:26
Greig Blanchett
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

On 31 Jul 2006 05:13:15 -0700, "Ben L" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
>JD wrote:
><snip>
>> > You think they meant to play a low possession game? Pull the other one.
>> > Was Henry training the All Blacks to kick aimlessly, drop ball and
>> > stuff their lineout just to see if the defence could hold up and McCaw
>> > really was as good as he has been made out to be?
>>
>> Then you haven't been watching many AB tests lately. It has become an
>> element they have used to their benefit on more than a few occasions - belt
>> the ball upfield, make the opposition run it back, trust your defence, turn
>> over the ball when possible and counterattack when the opposition are
>> defensively fragile. Quite a smart tactic and one that seems to work for
>> them. The problem with last night was two excellent displays of defence.
>
>Nobody knowingly gives the Australians that much ball. If you think
>Graham Henry watched the Sa-Oz game last week and decided to
>deliberately play a sit back and see game - knowing how weak the Aussie
>forwards are, you're kidding.
>
>I've seen the tactic work a heap of times - but it's far more suited to
>a wet day against a team stronger in the forwards than the backs, not a
>Brisbane game against Australia's weak pack and strong backline.

What strong backline? I've seen this line of crap repeated like a
mantra and it's patently wrong. Mortlock, Giteau, Larkham were all
made to look fucking ordinary against a REAL backline. Gerard was
slower than Ralph back in the old days - dragged down by a loosie
who'd already topped the tackle count in heavy traffic. For shame. The
only decent backs the Aussies have got are Latham who has a slight
tendency to flakiness, and Tuquiri, who has absolutely no self
discipline. Sure, they're the strong facet of the Wobblies, but that's
only because their forwards are 7 shades of extra-shite. It's all
relative, see.

--
greig


31 Jul 2006 21:16:31
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Greig Blanchett <[email protected] > writes:

> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:35:41 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>rick boyd <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>>> JD <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I alread acknowledged that the turnover can provide benefits. But you
>>>> have to make the turnover first. Duh.
>>>> Any team capable of attacking does NOT kick the ball away into their
>>>> opponents hands : especially a decent backline like the Aussies.
>>>> Jesus guys. Pull the other one. The Aussies had you on the back foot
>>>> for nearly all the second half. Against your A team. Yes, I'd be worried
>>>> too. It would seem that they're not *that* superior after all.
>>>
>>> I am genuinely fascinated to find out how Australia gained this feast
>>> of possession. Please explain it to me.
>>
>>Well, obviously not through all their turnovers : I mean, the ABs do
>>them for fun .....
>
> I take it this is yet another test that Wally didn't see, yet still
> feels compelled to comment on.
>

Watched it twice actually Greig old chum. And if you think the ABs were
clearly the better team on the day then you didnt waste your money on
your fanboy specs. This was the much vaunted "A" team - and they won by
4 points soaking up wave after wave of attack close to the try
line. Well defended alright, but it was not a great AB performance
whatsoever.


01 Aug 2006 09:33:24
Matua
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


"Walter Mitty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> rick boyd <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Its certainly not the first time a team has constantly kicked to get
>>> themslevs out of the shit, no.
>>
>> You know that is a nothing answer, don't you?
>>
>> Tell me that you think Carter, Mauger and MacDonald consistently
>> missed the touch line, often by as much as 25 metres, by accident. And
>> I'll have a good laugh at you.
>
> They were hoping for a spill and/or needed time for the ABS to
> reform. Simple enough really.

Listen Klitty you worm infested little fuck. I'd worry about the "men
wanting men" if I was you, they are the ones that need help, besides
yourself I've just read a few of your posts and YOU KNOW SHIT You sound
like one jealous' weak little pom. Even though they looked a little flat and
Collins was injured after 16 minutes. I also just found out Woodcock played
with a strained calf muscle. Wait until Eden Park when we play them again,
the Haka Haters will get reamed. How the fuck can you sit there and
criticise the All Blacks when your team is the fucking pits ? 4 points!
that's 4 more than your fucking team can score against anyone. I certainly
didn't see 49 nil or 6 tries, what happened there Klitty mm. You are one sad
little jealous fuck. GET A LIFE CUNT!!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



01 Aug 2006 02:11:35
Walter Mitty
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

"Matua" <[email protected] bro .com.au > writes:

> "Walter Mitty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> rick boyd <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Its certainly not the first time a team has constantly kicked to get
>>>> themslevs out of the shit, no.
>>>
>>> You know that is a nothing answer, don't you?
>>>
>>> Tell me that you think Carter, Mauger and MacDonald consistently
>>> missed the touch line, often by as much as 25 metres, by accident. And
>>> I'll have a good laugh at you.
>>
>> They were hoping for a spill and/or needed time for the ABS to
>> reform. Simple enough really.
>
> Listen Klitty you worm infested little fuck. I'd worry about the "men
> wanting men" if I was you, they are the ones that need help, besides

I do. England are shit. Cant you see the differences in outlook?

> yourself I've just read a few of your posts and YOU KNOW SHIT You sound
> like one jealous' weak little pom. Even though they looked a little
> flat and

Yes. They did. Thanks for admitting it.

> Collins was injured after 16 minutes. I also just found out Woodcock played
> with a strained calf muscle. Wait until Eden Park when we play them again,
> the Haka Haters will get reamed. How the fuck can you sit there and
> criticise the All Blacks when your team is the fucking pits ? 4
> points!

They are the pits. A agree.

> that's 4 more than your fucking team can score against anyone. I certainly
> didn't see 49 nil or 6 tries, what happened there Klitty mm. You are one sad
> little jealous fuck. GET A LIFE CUNT!!
>

I will take your advice on board. Thanks.


01 Aug 2006 13:42:05
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Walter Mitty wrote:
> rick boyd <[email protected]> writes:
>

>>I am genuinely fascinated to find out how Australia gained this feast
>>of possession. Please explain it to me.
>
>
> Well, obviously not through all their turnovers : I mean, the ABs do
> them for fun .....

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

The All Blacks dominated the loose, dominated the scrums, won all but
four of their own lineouts, kept a low error count -- where were the
Australians gaining all this possession and territory? It wasn't from
turnovers, it wasn't from knock ons, it wasn't from intercepts or dopped
balls, it wasn't from Merlin the Wizard magically appearing in the
middle of the pitch and teleporting the ball into the Wallabies' hands.

My goodness, this is a mystery, isn't it?

-- rick boyd


01 Aug 2006 17:43:56
Lindsay
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

rick boyd wrote:
> Lindsay wrote:
>> rick boyd wrote:
>>
>>> Lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>>> don't you mean Hypo ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hippo Drive if you're talking about Rodney Blake.
>>>
>>> -- rick boyd
>>
>>
>> I was think of Hypo Dermic.
>
>
> Yes, Lindsay, I think we all got that. Got any eggs you want sucked on
> the side?
>
> -- rick boyd

Well, I knew there were Ockers on this NG. Had to be explained.
(surprised I didn't get more bites)


01 Aug 2006 17:44:45
Lindsay
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Will_S wrote:
> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> .
>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> "Brad Anton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> "Will_S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>> Well it showed that Australia can beat the AB's
>>>> How the hell did you work that one out?
>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>>
>>> anh(x) = sinh(x)/cosh(x) = ( e^{x} - e^{-x} )/( e^{x} + e^{-x} )+ln( z +
>>> [sqrt](z^{2} + 1) xln( (1+[sqrt](1+z^{2}) )/z )
>>>
>> My God! - the Skasis Paradigm! you've solved it. Shit, and you still can't
>> get the Wallabies to win.
>> Brad
>>
>
> Well why I would have loved to win, coming 2nd to such a great side has no
> shame
>
>
Hey ... Second is also LAST...


01 Aug 2006 13:44:31
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Walter Mitty wrote:


> They were hoping for a spill and/or needed time for the ABS to
> reform. Simple enough really.

Ah, so now we are back-pedalling I see. So the All Black were
deliberately kicking into the field of play. A deliberate tactic. A
tactic which kept the Australians on the back foot but gave them heaps
of possession.

Simple enough for you yet?

-- rick boyd


01 Aug 2006 00:41:22
Ben L
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


JD wrote:
<snip >
> You're deluding yourself if you think that Carter and co are that aimless
> with their general play kicking.

I'm sure they're not - but Australia's tactical kicking was better and
their line out was better.

To repeat: Henry did not intend the all Blacks to lose or give away
cheaply as much possession as they did. I think he expected the Wallaby
lineout to be poorer than it was and while the hoof done the field has
some merits, I fail to believe that against the Australian backline
this was the centrepiece of the All Blacks tactics. It didn't keep the
Wallabies pinned back in their own half and it didn't really see the
ball get kicked back to the All Blacks such that they could open up
play.



01 Aug 2006 00:44:38
Ben L
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


rick boyd wrote:
<snip >
> But tell me, where did you see Australia earning all this territory and
> posssession given that even the Australians are saying that New Zealand
> dominated the loose?

NZ did dominate the loose, to their credit. Or more particularly, McCaw
did.

Where did Australia earn their territory and possession? By going,
Brumbies style, through multiple phases and by disrupting the All Black
line out.



01 Aug 2006 20:14:14
Greig Blanchett
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:16:31 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Greig Blanchett <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:35:41 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>rick boyd <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>>>> JD <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I alread acknowledged that the turnover can provide benefits. But you
>>>>> have to make the turnover first. Duh.
>>>>> Any team capable of attacking does NOT kick the ball away into their
>>>>> opponents hands : especially a decent backline like the Aussies.
>>>>> Jesus guys. Pull the other one. The Aussies had you on the back foot
>>>>> for nearly all the second half. Against your A team. Yes, I'd be worried
>>>>> too. It would seem that they're not *that* superior after all.
>>>>
>>>> I am genuinely fascinated to find out how Australia gained this feast
>>>> of possession. Please explain it to me.
>>>
>>>Well, obviously not through all their turnovers : I mean, the ABs do
>>>them for fun .....
>>
>> I take it this is yet another test that Wally didn't see, yet still
>> feels compelled to comment on.
>>
>
>Watched it twice actually Greig old chum. And if you think the ABs were
>clearly the better team on the day then you didnt waste your money on
>your fanboy specs.

Are you saying they WEREN'T? Nice set of rose coloured glasses
yourself there, Wally.

> This was the much vaunted "A" team - and they won by
>4 points soaking up wave after wave of attack close to the try
>line.

And the problem with this is what? That's what A teams do.

> Well defended alright, but it was not a great AB performance
>whatsoever.

It was pretty fucking good. Yet another way to win, as I count it.
That's about half a dozen different methods of winning I've seen this
team trot out in the last 18 months which makes the
chuck-it-to-Jonny-and-hope-for-the-best one trick pony team that won
the 2003 RWC look extra laughable. And didn't they specialise in
defence? And scrape that final by only 3 points? Yet it was the
beginning of a 1000 year dominance of the sport by England?

Bwahahaha!

--
greig


01 Aug 2006 09:04:25
didgerman
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Greig Blanchett wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:16:31 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Greig Blanchett <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:35:41 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> rick boyd <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>>>>> JD <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I alread acknowledged that the turnover can provide benefits. But you
>>>>>> have to make the turnover first. Duh.
>>>>>> Any team capable of attacking does NOT kick the ball away into their
>>>>>> opponents hands : especially a decent backline like the Aussies.
>>>>>> Jesus guys. Pull the other one. The Aussies had you on the back foot
>>>>>> for nearly all the second half. Against your A team. Yes, I'd be worried
>>>>>> too. It would seem that they're not *that* superior after all.
>>>>> I am genuinely fascinated to find out how Australia gained this feast
>>>>> of possession. Please explain it to me.
>>>> Well, obviously not through all their turnovers : I mean, the ABs do
>>>> them for fun .....
>>> I take it this is yet another test that Wally didn't see, yet still
>>> feels compelled to comment on.
>>>
>> Watched it twice actually Greig old chum. And if you think the ABs were
>> clearly the better team on the day then you didnt waste your money on
>> your fanboy specs.
>
> Are you saying they WEREN'T? Nice set of rose coloured glasses
> yourself there, Wally.
>
>> This was the much vaunted "A" team - and they won by
>> 4 points soaking up wave after wave of attack close to the try
>> line.
>
> And the problem with this is what? That's what A teams do.
>
>> Well defended alright, but it was not a great AB performance
>> whatsoever.
>
> It was pretty fucking good. Yet another way to win, as I count it.
> That's about half a dozen different methods of winning I've seen this
> team trot out in the last 18 months which makes the
> chuck-it-to-Jonny-and-hope-for-the-best one trick pony team that won
> the 2003 RWC look extra laughable. And didn't they specialise in
> defence? And scrape that final by only 3 points? Yet it was the
> beginning of a 1000 year dominance of the sport by England?
>
> Bwahahaha!
>
> --
> greig

Does anyone actually have a reference for that statement?
I suspect it was only NZ fanboys agreeing that they wouldn't beat
England for a thousand years that started the whole thing. Nobody here
has heard of it tbh....


01 Aug 2006 19:20:56
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Ben L wrote:


> To repeat: Henry did not intend the all Blacks to lose or give away
> cheaply as much possession as they did.

This possession they "lost" -- are you referring to the posession
deliberately kicked into the centre of the park? Virtually the only
other possession they lost was in four lineouts. Are you saying the
Wallabies built possession and territorial dominance on four lineouts?

Failing that, you must see that the All Blacks had every intention of
giving the Wallabies the ball in their own half, and defending against
the Australian attack.

> I think he expected the Wallaby
> lineout to be poorer than it was

Or more likely, the All Black lineout to be better than it was. But this
was not a decisive edge, although it was hardly helpful.

> and while the hoof done the field has
> some merits, I fail to believe that against the Australian backline
> this was the centrepiece of the All Blacks tactics.

Then why do you imagine they did it?

Look, I'm a bit lost on this one as well. The only explanation I can
think of for such deliberate tactics was to develop another game plan
knowing that this was a game they could afford to lose, and that game
plan was the low-possession game with low-risk defence -- and if you're
going to do that, why would you use it against England or South Africa,
who have bugger all attack to speak of?

I think Henry deliberately played this game plan to test it out under
extreme duress, although I am certain he expected to reap more dividends
from it in terms of pressuring the Australians and profting from
turnover and counter attack.

It was a plan that could have come unstuck, but on this occasion it didn't.

-- rick boyd


01 Aug 2006 19:22:04
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Ben L wrote:
> rick boyd wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>But tell me, where did you see Australia earning all this territory and
>>posssession given that even the Australians are saying that New Zealand
>>dominated the loose?
>
>
> NZ did dominate the loose, to their credit. Or more particularly, McCaw
> did.
>
> Where did Australia earn their territory and possession? By going,
> Brumbies style, through multiple phases and by disrupting the All Black
> line out.

Look I'm sorry old bean, but you mantain possession through multiple
phases, you don't gain it from there. It must have come from somewhere,
and a lot more than four lineouts.

-- rick boyd


01 Aug 2006 19:24:06
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Lindsay wrote:
> rick boyd wrote:
>
>> Lindsay wrote:
>>
>>> rick boyd wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lindsay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> don't you mean Hypo ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hippo Drive if you're talking about Rodney Blake.
>>>>
>>>> -- rick boyd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was think of Hypo Dermic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, Lindsay, I think we all got that. Got any eggs you want sucked on
>> the side?
>>
>> -- rick boyd
>
>
> Well, I knew there were Ockers on this NG. Had to be explained.
> (surprised I didn't get more bites)

Well, there's your problem right there. Stick with words they
understand, like needle and syringe and cocaine and drug habit. This
fancy Latin hypodermic stuff will only confuse them.

-- rick boyd


01 Aug 2006 05:36:53
Ben L
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


rick boyd wrote:
<snip >
> Look I'm sorry old bean, but you mantain possession through multiple
> phases, you don't gain it from there. It must have come from somewhere,
> and a lot more than four lineouts.

You actually asked where did they earnt it. If you ask an ambiguous
question you'll get an ambiguous answer.

I'm not sure where you get four lineouts from. You are right though,
the Australian possession came from more than four lineouts.

Carter alone kicked the ball out on the full twice - was that part of
this godlike strategy? Collins knocked on. Rokocoko got pinged for
offside. Do I have to keep on?

How many long midfield kicks do you actually think the All Blacks put
in?



01 Aug 2006 06:19:23
Brent Hadley
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


rick boyd wrote:
> Ben L wrote:

> > and while the hoof done the field has
> > some merits, I fail to believe that against the Australian backline
> > this was the centrepiece of the All Blacks tactics.
>
> Then why do you imagine they did it?
>
> Look, I'm a bit lost on this one as well. The only explanation I can
> think of for such deliberate tactics was to develop another game plan
> knowing that this was a game they could afford to lose, and that game
> plan was the low-possession game with low-risk defence -- and if you're
> going to do that, why would you use it against England or South Africa,
> who have bugger all attack to speak of?
>
> I think Henry deliberately played this game plan to test it out under
> extreme duress, although I am certain he expected to reap more dividends
> from it in terms of pressuring the Australians and profting from
> turnover and counter attack.
>
> It was a plan that could have come unstuck, but on this occasion it didn't.

It seems to me that the Australian lineout was a perceived strength,
and thus putting the ball out would be tantamount to giving them the
ball anyway. Plus the Aussies have been mauling the ball well, and
clean ball from the lineout is good for their backs. All up, giving
the Australians lineouts is just a bad idea.

Let the Aussies run it from broken play, get a good line of chasers,
and back your defence and superior ability at the breakdown. All seems
fairly sensible to me.

The inability to win their own lineouts was a separate problem for the
ABs. But letting the skippies mess around with their continuity game
in midfield, rather than give them a setpiece platform, was
fundamentally a pretty good idea, I think. Think about where their
points came from...lineout related infringements if I remember
correctly (or immediately post-lineout). Think about where there one
big break came from...a lineout.

Plus playing the breakdown game is likely to lead to more scrums, where
NZ had an advantage.

Cheers

Brent



02 Aug 2006 01:26:11
oob
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:19:23 -0700, Brent Hadley wrote:

>
> rick boyd wrote:
>> Ben L wrote:
>
>> > and while the hoof done the field has
>> > some merits, I fail to believe that against the Australian backline
>> > this was the centrepiece of the All Blacks tactics.
>>
>> Then why do you imagine they did it?
>>
>> Look, I'm a bit lost on this one as well. The only explanation I can
>> think of for such deliberate tactics was to develop another game plan
>> knowing that this was a game they could afford to lose, and that game
>> plan was the low-possession game with low-risk defence -- and if you're
>> going to do that, why would you use it against England or South Africa,
>> who have bugger all attack to speak of?
>>
>> I think Henry deliberately played this game plan to test it out under
>> extreme duress, although I am certain he expected to reap more dividends
>> from it in terms of pressuring the Australians and profting from
>> turnover and counter attack.
>>
>> It was a plan that could have come unstuck, but on this occasion it didn't.
>
> It seems to me that the Australian lineout was a perceived strength,
> and thus putting the ball out would be tantamount to giving them the
> ball anyway. Plus the Aussies have been mauling the ball well, and
> clean ball from the lineout is good for their backs. All up, giving
> the Australians lineouts is just a bad idea.
>
> Let the Aussies run it from broken play, get a good line of chasers,
> and back your defence and superior ability at the breakdown. All seems
> fairly sensible to me.
>
> The inability to win their own lineouts was a separate problem for the
> ABs. But letting the skippies mess around with their continuity game
> in midfield, rather than give them a setpiece platform, was
> fundamentally a pretty good idea, I think. Think about where their
> points came from...lineout related infringements if I remember
> correctly (or immediately post-lineout). Think about where there one
> big break came from...a lineout.
>
> Plus playing the breakdown game is likely to lead to more scrums, where
> NZ had an advantage.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brent

Superb analysis.



02 Aug 2006 10:25:52
Lindsay
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

rick boyd wrote:
> Lindsay wrote:
>> rick boyd wrote:
>>
>>> Lindsay wrote:
>>>
>>>> rick boyd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lindsay wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> don't you mean Hypo ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hippo Drive if you're talking about Rodney Blake.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- rick boyd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was think of Hypo Dermic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, Lindsay, I think we all got that. Got any eggs you want sucked
>>> on the side?
>>>
>>> -- rick boyd
>>
>>
>> Well, I knew there were Ockers on this NG. Had to be explained.
>> (surprised I didn't get more bites)
>
> Well, there's your problem right there. Stick with words they
> understand, like needle and syringe and cocaine and drug habit. This
> fancy Latin hypodermic stuff will only confuse them.
>
> -- rick boyd
Gotta edukate them sumhow..


02 Aug 2006 10:10:33
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Brent Hadley wrote:

> It seems to me that the Australian lineout was a perceived strength,
> and thus putting the ball out would be tantamount to giving them the
> ball anyway. Plus the Aussies have been mauling the ball well, and
> clean ball from the lineout is good for their backs. All up, giving
> the Australians lineouts is just a bad idea.
>
> Let the Aussies run it from broken play, get a good line of chasers,
> and back your defence and superior ability at the breakdown. All seems
> fairly sensible to me.
>
> The inability to win their own lineouts was a separate problem for the
> ABs. But letting the skippies mess around with their continuity game
> in midfield, rather than give them a setpiece platform, was
> fundamentally a pretty good idea, I think. Think about where their
> points came from...lineout related infringements if I remember
> correctly (or immediately post-lineout). Think about where there one
> big break came from...a lineout.
>
> Plus playing the breakdown game is likely to lead to more scrums, where
> NZ had an advantage.

Avoiding unncessary lineouts was definitely a motivation, given that it
was the Australians' only positive, go-forward possession source.

But that meant playing a low possession game, relying on a cohesive and
consistent defence throughout, and still getting enough positive ball to
score points with. A risky strategy -- and far more risky as it turned
out than I imagine Henry thought it would be.

I'd be interested to know if he still thinks it was worth it.

-- rick boyd


02 Aug 2006 10:11:47
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Ben L wrote:
> rick boyd wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>Look I'm sorry old bean, but you mantain possession through multiple
>>phases, you don't gain it from there. It must have come from somewhere,
>>and a lot more than four lineouts.
>
>
> You actually asked where did they earnt it. If you ask an ambiguous
> question you'll get an ambiguous answer.
>
> I'm not sure where you get four lineouts from. You are right though,
> the Australian possession came from more than four lineouts.
>
> Carter alone kicked the ball out on the full twice - was that part of
> this godlike strategy? Collins knocked on. Rokocoko got pinged for
> offside. Do I have to keep on?
>
> How many long midfield kicks do you actually think the All Blacks put
> in?

Yeah, whatever.

If you can't see the low possession game was a deliberate strategy then
nothing I say will chnage your mind.

-- rick boyd


02 Aug 2006 00:37:06
Ben L
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


rick boyd wrote:
<snip >
> > How many long midfield kicks do you actually think the All Blacks put
> > in?
>
> Yeah, whatever.
>
> If you can't see the low possession game was a deliberate strategy then
> nothing I say will chnage your mind.

You're right. If you can't put even a vague number on the long
mid-field kicks you barely have an argument.



02 Aug 2006 17:12:03
rick boyd
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

Ben L wrote:

>>Yeah, whatever.
>>
>>If you can't see the low possession game was a deliberate strategy then
>>nothing I say will chnage your mind.
>
>
> You're right. If you can't put even a vague number on the long
> mid-field kicks you barely have an argument.

Oh right. So I should go back to the tape and make comprehensive notes
just so I can substantiate what Blind Freddy could see in his sleep.

Have you been taking lessons from Unle Dave?

-- rick boyd



02 Aug 2006 10:21:36
Brent Hadley
Re: Australia v AB fulltime


rick boyd wrote:
> Brent Hadley wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that the Australian lineout was a perceived strength,
> > and thus putting the ball out would be tantamount to giving them the
> > ball anyway. Plus the Aussies have been mauling the ball well, and
> > clean ball from the lineout is good for their backs. All up, giving
> > the Australians lineouts is just a bad idea.
> >
> > Let the Aussies run it from broken play, get a good line of chasers,
> > and back your defence and superior ability at the breakdown. All seems
> > fairly sensible to me.
> >
> > The inability to win their own lineouts was a separate problem for the
> > ABs. But letting the skippies mess around with their continuity game
> > in midfield, rather than give them a setpiece platform, was
> > fundamentally a pretty good idea, I think. Think about where their
> > points came from...lineout related infringements if I remember
> > correctly (or immediately post-lineout). Think about where there one
> > big break came from...a lineout.
> >
> > Plus playing the breakdown game is likely to lead to more scrums, where
> > NZ had an advantage.
>
> Avoiding unncessary lineouts was definitely a motivation, given that it
> was the Australians' only positive, go-forward possession source.
>
> But that meant playing a low possession game, relying on a cohesive and
> consistent defence throughout, and still getting enough positive ball to
> score points with. A risky strategy -- and far more risky as it turned
> out than I imagine Henry thought it would be.

It was more of a low-possession, and riskier, strategy than originally
intended because of the ABs inability to win their own lineout ball.

There is a case for displaying adaptability and hanging onto the ball
more, although this would have resulted in them playing more rugby
inside their own territory, which I know you are a HUGE fan of.

Cheers

Brent



03 Aug 2006 15:12:26
Michael
Re: Australia v AB fulltime

"rick boyd" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Ben L wrote:
>> To repeat: Henry did not intend the all Blacks to lose or give away
>> cheaply as much possession as they did.
>
> This possession they "lost" -- are you referring to the posession
> deliberately kicked into the centre of the park? Virtually the only other
> possession they lost was in four lineouts.

And the kicks into touch on the full. 4 by Carter and 1 by Kelleher that I
can remember. Must've been at least 3 or 4 knock-ons by the ABs too, not to
mention penalites ( > 7) that weren't kickable, and being taken into touch
with the ball(3). I know you qualified it with 'virtually', but we gave
away a shitload of possession, not just from kicking it to them and losing
lineouts.