Did Argentina Target NZ 1st Five Eighths?

Two minutes after Aaron Cruden ran out on to Eden Park on Sunday he was met by a high swinging arm in the face.

He was replacing Colin Slade, who five minutes into the match had his legs twisted in two different directions by two different Argentinian defenders.

Argentina would have fancied their chances against the AB pack, but feared the AB back line.

They are a crafty bunch and would have seen DC's absence as a point of weakness.

If we know anything about Argentina, it's that they will identity a point of weakness and hammer away at it relentlessly and repetitively until they turn a weakness into a defect, a defect into a tear, a tear into a rip and a rip into a destructive flaw.

Was there a deliberate ploy to injure the AB 1st five eighths to tip the game in their favour?

Don't be daft.

They may have targetted the 10 to put him off his game, as anyone would faced with an inexperienced 10.

Cruden was most definitely not targetted for a swinging arm to the head. He was slipping already when contact was made which made it look worse. Had he not have slipped the arm would have been across his chest.

You starting to get a bit paranoid as the prize gets closer GG?

Not at all Oz. Trying to drum up some controversy to deflect attention from the various scandals facing the departing England players. You know, doing my bit for my adopted country and all that.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Not at all Oz. Trying to drum up some controversy to deflect attention from the various scandals facing the departing England players. You know, doing my bit for my adopted country and all that.

So you have had a change of heart then?

No, Absolutely not.

Argintina were playing hard and deliberately putting pressure on Slade... as any team would facing an inexperianced FH... but to say they were trying to injure players deliberately is a little unfair.

They had nothing to lose and came out all guns blazing. I thought Argintina had done their homework on the AB's and played exceptionally well.

The AB's experiance told in the end but the score line flattered and made NZ win look a lot more comfortable than it was.

I really hope Argentina can keep this kind of form when they join the 3N as it will make for a far better competition.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Two minutes after Aaron Cruden ran out on to Eden Park on Sunday he was met by a high swinging arm in the face.

He was replacing Colin Slade, who five minutes into the match had his legs twisted in two different directions by two different Argentinian defenders.

Argentina would have fancied their chances against the AB pack, but feared the AB back line.

They are a crafty bunch and would have seen DC's absence as a point of weakness.

If we know anything about Argentina, it's that they will identity a point of weakness and hammer away at it relentlessly and repetitively until they turn a weakness into a defect, a defect into a tear, a tear into a rip and a rip into a destructive flaw.

Was there a deliberate ploy to injure the AB 1st five eighths to tip the game in their favour?

Targeting. Shudder the thought. I mean who would do that?

Mealamu and Umaga for example. They would never target a player would they.

Quit bleating like a NZ lamb.

Stop snorting like a Badger.

Right B@ll@cks to this, what in the hell are 1st Five Eighths. The position you are talking about is outside half, isnt it ? The number for his position is 10. Where on god's green earth do you get 1st five eighths out of that ? I am fed up of listening to New Zealand comentators making up their own versions for positions. Use the same one's everybody else on the world uses ffs.

LordDowlais wrote:Right B@ll@cks to this, what in the hell are 1st Five Eighths. The position you are talking about is outside half, isnt it ? The number for his position is 10. Where on god's green earth do you get 1st five eighths out of that ? I am fed up of listening to New Zealand comentators making up their own versions for positions. Use the same one's everybody else on the world uses ffs.

It's code LordDowlais, it is supposed to make us feel inferior.

also i am not sure whether the metric system has reached the islands yet.

5/8....between a half and the three quarters. Does what it says on the tin.

But you know, if it's easier for you just to read the big number painted on the back of the shirt then you keep doing that, Brick Tamland.

In his defence it doesn't say 5/8 on the back of his shirt.

o.k then GreyGhost, humor me, using "1st five eigths" as a starter for ten . Work out what all the other positions should be called in the superior New Zealand way of thinking. Oh and can you please give a reason why you all think these new phrases should be coined, please ?

LordDowlais
Have you never heard of the 1st and 2nd 5/8ths position in rugby/ Are you kidding me?

I have wondered about this myself.

A quarter fraction is 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4.

But a three quarter actually should be 3/4 only.

So having 12,13,14,11,15 left.

How do you explain their numbers then.

Or a three quarters just a cllective noun for the bal line excluding the inhalf and out half?

Nz a 10 is a first five eigths. Its fractions gone mad.
Half back. Full back
between the two come the the 3/4s (centre and wings).
Between half and 3/4 using lowest common denominator cane the 5/8ths.
Half = 4/8ths, 3/4s = 6/8ths. Between the two = 5/8ths.
Because we have two of them and as it was ridiculous to go to 16ths we call them first 5/8ths and second 5/8ths.
Simple?
The NH just got lazier than us with the fractions earlier.
I mean, where does 'out half' fit in the half/ centre/fullback equation.
It doesnt. The naming is just about the point at which you decided fractions should be dropped as the positions were introduced.

See. Easy when you understand...

Maybe that is why our rugby is so simple, we only learnt about vectors and numbers at school.

You get the ball, you run the shortest possible distance from a to b.

You pass to number 2, who will set up a ruck, 9 will clean the ball and distribute to 10 who will make sure it doesn't go past 12.

Maybe if we used fractions we would understand approaching angles better and have learnt some tryginomotry in the process.

Also we don't like sharing, so cutting a cake into 8 pieces and having to share 5/8ths of a cake isn't custom back here in the RS of A.

aucklandlaurie wrote: LordDowlais
Have you never heard of the 1st and 2nd 5/8ths position in rugby/ Are you kidding me?

Of course I have heard of them before, it just grinds my gears to here them being used when the rest of the world uses a different term. Why do New Zealanders find the need to be so different, it is almost as if, because the fact that you are the best in the world, that you should be re-naming and re-branding the whole sport differently.

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: LordDowlais
Have you never heard of the 1st and 2nd 5/8ths position in rugby/ Are you kidding me?

Of course I have heard of them before, it just grinds my gears to here them being used when the rest of the world uses a different term. Why do New Zealanders find the need to be so different, it is almost as if, because the fact that you are the best in the world, that you should be re-naming and re-branding the whole sport differently.

well they are trying to change the game to be similar to rugby league, have you not heard about that either?

Biltong
Did you know that rugby is now a recognised subject in New Zealand schools.

LordDowlais wrote:o.k then GreyGhost, humor me, using "1st five eigths" as a starter for ten . Work out what all the other positions should be called in the superior New Zealand way of thinking. Oh and can you please give a reason why you all think these new phrases should be coined, please ?

I am still waiting for an answer GG.

Lorddowlais
Sounds to me like you're gears are pretty easily ground.

Trivia question. Am I right in thinking that if NZ win the tournament, Cruden will be the first player ever to win two world cups in a year?

aucklandlaurie wrote: Lorddowlais
Sounds to me like you're gears are pretty easily ground.

Well it does wind me up a just a little bit when certian people on here call me thick when they do not even know me

tomathy
what other world cup?you got me.

Taylorman wrote:Nz a 10 is a first five eigths. Its fractions gone mad.
Half back. Full back
between the two come the the 3/4s (centre and wings).
Between half and 3/4 using lowest common denominator cane the 5/8ths.
Half = 4/8ths, 3/4s = 6/8ths. Between the two = 5/8ths.
Because we have two of them and as it was ridiculous to go to 16ths we call them first 5/8ths and second 5/8ths.
Simple?
The NH just got lazier than us with the fractions earlier.
I mean, where does 'out half' fit in the half/ centre/fullback equation.It doesnt. The naming is just about the point at which you decided fractions should be dropped as the positions were introduced.

See. Easy when you understand...

Taylorman, outside half doesn't fit into fractions. However, it fits nicely into the diagram/schematic of the team lineups: Scrum half, outside half (i.e. stands outside the scrum half), centres are in the middle of the pitch/in the centre of the backs, wings are on the wings, full back is behind them all at the back. Makes perfect sense to me!

Anyway, my two pence worth is that I actually like the New Zealand system, just as I like the SA way of the openside being 6 and blind side 7. It adds to the rich tapestry that is rugby, with different traditions, sayings, etc. Love it. Long may it continue.

Lorddowlais
Maybe you shouldn't give them any opportunity.to think you're thick.

aucklandlaurie wrote: tomathy
what other world cup?you got me.

urgh. The news report I saw said that he was part of the u20 side that beat england in the final this year but on searching it I've found that it was 2009. Apologies.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong
Did you know that rugby is now a recognised subject in New Zealand schools.

well there you have it, we are still struggling to understand fractions and you guys teach rugby subjects at school.

Taylorman wrote:Nz a 10 is a first five eigths. Its fractions gone mad.
Half back. Full back
between the two come the the 3/4s (centre and wings).
Between half and 3/4 using lowest common denominator cane the 5/8ths.
Half = 4/8ths, 3/4s = 6/8ths. Between the two = 5/8ths.
Because we have two of them and as it was ridiculous to go to 16ths we call them first 5/8ths and second 5/8ths.
Simple?
The NH just got lazier than us with the fractions earlier.
I mean, where does 'out half' fit in the half/ centre/fullback equation.It doesnt. The naming is just about the point at which you decided fractions should be dropped as the positions were introduced.

See. Easy when you understand...

Taylorman, outside half doesn't fit into fractions. However, it fits nicely into the diagram/schematic of the team lineups: Scrum half, outside half (i.e. stands outside the scrum half), centres are in the middle of the pitch/in the centre of the backs, wings are on the wings, full back is behind them all at the back. Makes perfect sense to me!

Anyway, my two pence worth is that I actually like the New Zealand system, just as I like the SA way of the openside being 6 and blind side 7. It adds to the rich tapestry that is rugby, with different traditions, sayings, etc. Love it. Long may it continue.

tomathy
whew thats a relief I thought you wrere going to tell me played in the Womens World cup or something.

Taylorman wrote:Nz a 10 is a first five eigths. Its fractions gone mad.
Half back. Full back
between the two come the the 3/4s (centre and wings).
Between half and 3/4 using lowest common denominator cane the 5/8ths.
Half = 4/8ths, 3/4s = 6/8ths. Between the two = 5/8ths.
Because we have two of them and as it was ridiculous to go to 16ths we call them first 5/8ths and second 5/8ths.
Simple?
The NH just got lazier than us with the fractions earlier.
I mean, where does 'out half' fit in the half/ centre/fullback equation.
It doesnt. The naming is just about the point at which you decided fractions should be dropped as the positions were introduced.

See. Easy when you understand...

Good explanation Taylor.

What about the forwards?
Growing up here in Oz - we never had 2 locks, No.8 and Flanker. A flanker was a wing! It was Second Row (lock), Lock (No.8) and Breakaway (Flanker). Also after Half-Back and 5/8 (never fly half until about 1990?... as with all the above) came Inside Centre, Outside Centre...Wings, Fullback.

It really doesn't bother me what people call them... I'm used to hearing both ways.

LordDowlais wrote:Right B@ll@cks to this, what in the hell are 1st Five Eighths. The position you are talking about is outside half, isnt it ? The number for his position is 10. Where on god's green earth do you get 1st five eighths out of that ? I am fed up of listening to New Zealand comentators making up their own versions for positions. Use the same one's everybody else on the world uses ffs.

Thats a bit rich considering we come from a country which insists on two words for everything, one of which is utter gibberish to the rest of the world

Maybe tehy should make the shirts dual language and have the 10 and 5/8s written on it

Yes griff the naming originates from the half back full back naming.
Forwards are forward. Backs are described by their level of "backness" full being all the way back. The rest came as they were introduced after the game went global.
We were stupid enough to try and fractionise the names logically in relation to where they fit between half and fullback.
Clearly no original thinking back then.
Surprised someone had the nouse to pick up the ball!
Imagine the meeting of those who came up with half back and full back.
Must have been accountants and clearly sponsors werent at the meeting!

i like the Australian system,they just grab a jersey out of the bag,dont even look at the number, and just go out and play.
I think it stems from their criminal background.

Lorddowais those commentators werent making the names up. Weve called a 10 a first 5/8ths forever.
Right back to bert cookes 1924 days who was a 2nd 5/8ths.
You are just not used to hearing it.
In my day flanker was 'breakaway' and no. 8 (another gem of originality dont you think! No....8) was 'last man down' (again equally as original).

Linebreaker im not sure about the forwards but other than no 8 at least they got meaningful names. The backs were clearly an afterthought so they just gave them fractions.
How hooker came about would be interesting?
Maybe the committe comedian!

aucklandlaurie wrote: i like the Australian system,they just grab a jersey out of the bag,dont even look at the number, and just go out and play.
I think it stems from their criminal background.

Or the fact that they really want 15 backs on the field.

Hey...steady on laurie!

My Mum used to wash those convict jerseys (we used to call them 'jumpers' ) ... and she is a free settler Kiwi.

My favourite number was 10 or Five-Eighth closely followed by 11 and 12 inside and outside centres respectively.

If I was feeling tough - I might put on a "4" for the afternoon. I could then run through brick walls.... almost.

Linebreaker
And my mum was an Aussie,true.
But I remember all those years that Waugh and Smith were the Wallaby flankers,I dont think they ever worried about open or blind or numbers they just ran around tackling any thing,and if there was a ascrum they just packed down on whatever side was closest.

Ay?

Is jumper not a normal word either?

Geez another kiwi myth destroyed.

Matfield is a jumper (in the line out) and I suppose he is a second row.

But tat will only be applicable in the scrums, what is he when he is in the lineout, a queue?

Another thing before NZ adopted the 3-4-1 scrum, what were the forwards called then.

Cant remember.what.

Well gents it could be worse.

With the advent of the metric system, and the unbelieveable over-regulation some of us are subject to from the EU, soon all will go metric. 5/8 and 3/4 will all go away. The 5/8 will become the 0.625. The 3/4 will become the 0.75. The consideration about the naming of the Halfback and Fullback will be turned over to a commission who will select a task force to evaluate new and proper names. This process will take about 4 years and cost 17,000,000 Euro. Of course, one recommendation will be to 'simplify' the names of the forward positions by describing them numerically, as well. This means the Front Row will be the Zero (a second task force will consider the term 'null'). Locks will be the 0.167 and the back row will be the 0.333.

We have already gone down the rathole to perdition with the use of metres (or meters, depending where one is). 500 ml of beer simply ain't a pint and never will be.

The end of the species as we know it crystallized in a Rugby debate. For everyone else blissfully living outside the EU's loving embrace, prepare for battle. You may be all thats left to protect humanity.

Gee Doctor, I hope that the kids that take rugby as a subject in New Zealand schools know what they are in for.

biltongbek wrote:Matfield is a jumper (in the line out) and I suppose he is a second row.

But tat will only be applicable in the scrums, what is he when he is in the lineout, a queue?

Another thing before NZ adopted the 3-4-1 scrum, what were the forwards called then.

There were 2 props (no hooker), and the "wing forward" fed the 2-3-2 scrum. I think the 2nd and back row forwards were interchangeable, don't know what they were called, though the back 2 and the middle man of the 2nd row were all "locked" in the scrum.

According to http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/positions.html the term "fly-half" was invented in Cardiff in 1878, while NZ was using 5/8ths as early as the 1880s. "Number 8" was coined in NZ post WW2, derived from the South African term "8th man".

doc the problem is they could decide to go with only one decimal point.

Then a 5/8th will become a 0.6
a 3/4 will become a 0.8
a lock will become a .2 and a back row a 0.3.

If you leave it up to the New Zealanders pretty soon those number will evolve where they simply remove the 0. and then there will be even less numbers on the field of play.

2, 3, 6 and 8.

Laurie,
We are doomed as a species...............

Semi-seriously, do you remember when Rugby changed from English measure to metric? Growing up, we all used yards, then, so it seemed, overnight, the 25 became the 22. But I have a black hole in my memory as to when it was.

But 500ml ain't a pint.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Matfield is a jumper (in the line out) and I suppose he is a second row.

But tat will only be applicable in the scrums, what is he when he is in the lineout, a queue?

Another thing before NZ adopted the 3-4-1 scrum, what were the forwards called then.

There were 2 props (no hooker), and the "wing forward" fed the 2-3-2 scrum. I think the 2nd and back row forwards were interchangeable, don't know what they were called, though the back 2 and the middle man of the 2nd row were all "locked" in the scrum.

According to http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/positions.html the term "fly-half" was invented in Cardiff in 1878, while NZ was using 5/8ths as early as the 1880s. "Number 8" was coined in NZ post WW2, derived from the South African term "8th man".

now why would you want to spoil my drivel with some serious conversation?

We also used to call the number 8,"last man down"

Biltong
We're being nice to you because we're a bit scared of you at the moment.

Comedy central calls it "last comic standing"