Did Argentina Target NZ 1st Five Eighths?

First topic message reminder :

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?

The fractional terms actually came from England (those Eton boys with their slide rules, right?), and it was the English who actually changed to follow the Welsh method of naming scrum half and fly-half, inside/outside centers. I'm lead to believe the decision came about due to commentaries on televised broadcasts because they felt it was less confusing for an audience who may not be so familiar with the "complicated" system of using fractions.

Ghost I know I have been working very hard to make you the poster you are today, and believe me when i say there is a lot of pride for the growth and psychological advances you have made during this process.

But really these sensical and mature threads of yours do sometimes need a little variety, don't you think?

I refer you to the "Was Cooper fathered by a horse?" thread Biltong.

doctor_grey wrote: But 500ml ain't a pint.

that's true : 500ml is more than a pint so much better

TheGreyGhost wrote:I refer you to the "Was Cooper fathered by a horse?" thread Biltong.

wello be fair you needed a little push into the right direction there.

A UK pint is 568 ml (approx) and a US pint is 473 ml so it really depends on which side of the Atlantic you're on.

biltongbek wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:I refer you to the "Was Cooper fathered by a horse?" thread Biltong.

wello be fair you needed a little push into the right direction there.

Look it was a team effort out there. When one guy does good, it's easy to lose sight that the team set that up, and if you're lucky enough to be on the end of the thread then it makes you look real good aye? but nah, full credit to the other posters, they put in a good game and they never gave up and they did some good things out there. Sometimes on the day it just comes down to getting a lucky break on a topic and that aye? or maybe not getting pulled up by the mods. It's about playing to the mods, and then getting away with what you can to win those tight battles. I'm real proud. But remember it was a team effort.

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

The "jumper" term is the NZ word for I guess would be commonly called a jersy. They were talking about the plaing shirt.

Since I get confused by NH commentators It must go both ways.

Prop, Hooker, Prop
Lock, Lock
Flanker, No 8, Flanker

HalfBack
1st 5/8ths
2nd 5/8ths
Centre
Left Wing Right Wing
FullBack

Loose forwards are the flankers and No 8. (I think NH call them back three or something, that gets confusing as that would be our Wings and FullBack

TheGreyGhost wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:I refer you to the "Was Cooper fathered by a horse?" thread Biltong.

wello be fair you needed a little push into the right direction there.

Look it was a team effort out there. When one guy does good, it's easy to lose sight that the team set that up, and if you're lucky enough to be on the end of the thread then it makes you look real good aye? but nah, full credit to the other posters, they put in a good game and they never gave up and they did some good things out there. Sometimes on the day it just comes down to getting a lucky break on a topic and that aye? or maybe not getting pulled up by the mods. It's about playing to the mods, and then getting away with what you can to win those tight battles. I'm real proud. But remember it was a team effort.

I sense a bit of a metaphor in that message.

If that is the case, we have been modded.

kiwi4ever wrote:

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

The "jumper" term is the NZ word for I guess would be commonly called a jersy. They were talking about the plaing shirt.

Since I get confused by NH commentators It must go both ways.

Prop, Hooker, Prop
Lock, Lock
Flanker, No 8, Flanker

HalfBack
1st 5/8ths
2nd 5/8ths
Centre
Left Wing Right Wing
FullBack

Loose forwards are the flankers and No 8. (I think NH call them back three or something, that gets confusing as that would be our Wings and FullBack

Thanks kiwi4ever, but i am merely joking around, my team is out of the world cup and my therapist said i need to face 606v2 head on, so making light of the situation whilst angry enough to hit the plausable deniability out of someone is my way of coping with a huge sense of disappointement.

It is either this or becoming a WUM.

biltongbek wrote:

Thanks kiwi4ever, but i am merely joking around, my team is out of the world cup and my therapist said i need to face 606v2 head on, so making light of the situation whilst angry enough to hit the plausable deniability out of someone is my way of coping with a huge sense of disappointement.

Well speaking as a kiwi the best way to deal your problem is to throw you toys out of the cot and go into denial for about 6 months, then turn to anger at ref/cheating/coach and everything else for the next 3 years. This is much much easier than having to admit you weren't good enough.

biltongbek wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:I refer you to the "Was Cooper fathered by a horse?" thread Biltong.

wello be fair you needed a little push into the right direction there.

Look it was a team effort out there. When one guy does good, it's easy to lose sight that the team set that up, and if you're lucky enough to be on the end of the thread then it makes you look real good aye? but nah, full credit to the other posters, they put in a good game and they never gave up and they did some good things out there. Sometimes on the day it just comes down to getting a lucky break on a topic and that aye? or maybe not getting pulled up by the mods. It's about playing to the mods, and then getting away with what you can to win those tight battles. I'm real proud. But remember it was a team effort.

I sense a bit of a metaphor in that message.

If that is the case, we have been modded.

You certainly have had some lucky breaks GG...

...but full marks to you from the 'mod' team for always being at the cutting edge of rugby debate and not getting your sharp wit blunted on the hard rock of the past 6 months or so.

Softer rock up ahead - the battle is almost won! We couldn't have asked for a better team effort but still some more work to do.

Biltong, I couldn't help but notice that some of the Springboks we're looking a bit off colour during the game. Is it possible that they might have eaten something that didn't agree with them prior to the game?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Biltong, I couldn't help but notice that some of the Springboks we're looking a bit off colour during the game. Is it possible that they might have eaten something that didn't agree with them prior to the game?

Thanks for the opportunity to use suzie as an excuse, that is mighty big of you. but I think there were perhaps one perosn on the field who didn't have all his vegetables the previous evening.

kiwi4ever wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

Thanks kiwi4ever, but i am merely joking around, my team is out of the world cup and my therapist said i need to face 606v2 head on, so making light of the situation whilst angry enough to hit the plausable deniability out of someone is my way of coping with a huge sense of disappointement.

Well speaking as a kiwi the best way to deal your problem is to throw you toys out of the cot and go into denial for about 6 months, then turn to anger at ref/cheating/coach and everything else for the next 3 years. This is much much easier than having to admit you weren't good enough.

Yeah, for me denial is a perpetual state of being in limbo. doesn't really work for me. I prefer to accept that we were good enough to dominate but not good enough to win, that doesn't mean I am not rather upset about some decisions or unlucky bounces during the game.

But once you get to accept you really should have won the worst is over.

I would still hit the plausable deniability out of someone if I were to meet that someone in a dark alley with no eye witnesses around.

Just back t the 5/8th thing, does this mean that wingers that drop back to provide cover to their fullbacks (Cueto, Armitage) should be 7/8ths, or perhaps 0.875s for the decimally minded?

dummy_half wrote:Just back t the 5/8th thing, does this mean that wingers that drop back to provide cover to their fullbacks (Cueto, Armitage) should be 7/8ths, or perhaps 0.875s for the decimally minded?

well that is the conundrum in my opinion, if they round off to the first decimal it will become 0.9 and if new zealanders then decide to drop the 0. it becomes nine, so that means the winger becomes 9 and the half backs are out of a job.

That just made me realise you will then only have fourteen players on the field, if NZ and OZ have their way they will find another method to remove one more player and then we can truly embrace rugby league rules.

doctor_grey wrote: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.

hi doc...
I remember the 25 becoming a 22.
Reason I remember is because at our school the idiot caretaker drew up new lines across the field 3 yards (or in his mind meters probably) closer to tbe goal line. I remember the argument he had with the headmaster.

All season i still remember seeing 2 clear lines across the 25 (and the 22!) at both ends.

I was about 5 then i think.
We could have done with rugby as a subject then alright.

And dummy_half dont forget once doc implements his new system you will from thrn on be referred to as dummy_point five.

If Cooper plays flat on attack at 1st 5/8 and on defense at full back.

Then that surely makes him:

(1/2) x (10/16) x (1/2) x ( 15/15 ) = five thirty secondths and also a cross-eyed mule faced dick head.

Or just 'dummy' if biltongs rounding functionailty is incorporated into docs solution.

Geez are they causing trouble or what?

Coopers photo speaks for itself gg.

Taylorman wrote:Or just 'dummy' if biltongs rounding functionailty is incorporated into docs solution.

Geez are they causing trouble or what?

Or hooker, i can think of a number of hookers that would enjoy facing the cross eyed rat arse face in a scrum.

Linebreaker wrote:
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.

Hear hear, been a while since I heard those terms!!

Taylorman wrote:
hi doc...
I remember the 25 becoming a 22.
Reason I remember is because at our school the idiot caretaker drew up new lines across the field 3 yards (or in his mind meters probably) closer to tbe goal line. I remember the argument he had with the headmaster.

All season i still remember seeing 2 clear lines across the 25 (and the 22!) at both ends.

I was about 5 then i think.
We could have done with rugby as a subject then alright.

And dummy_half dont forget once doc implements his new system you will from thrn on be referred to as dummy_point five.

Taylor, Thats a funny story. I rmemeber when we changed to metric, I was at a club where the groundkeepers had to ask exactly where to put the 22. We told him to leave it at the 25 and not worry. Just call it the 22. I think they finally moved the lines a few seasons later, since the 22 is a bit closer to the try line than the 25. What year did this horrible event take place? I can't recall.

Metrics i think 68?
At least thats when we went to dollars and cents rather than pounds.

I've forgotten what the original post was now?

Although I am delighted that the 5/8th debate has occured... ashamed to say I have heard the terms for years but never understood them.

what was the question?

biltongbek wrote:
Or hooker, i can think of a number of hookers that would enjoy facing the cross eyed rat arse face in a scrum.

I thought England got some unfair press but Quade Cooper is practically a figure of hatred in NZ... why?

Can't be just because he's a NZer playing for Oz surely?

Metal Tiger wrote:

biltongbek wrote:
Or hooker, i can think of a number of hookers that would enjoy facing the cross eyed rat arse face in a scrum.

I thought England got some unfair press but Quade Cooper is practically a figure of hatred in NZ... why?

Can't be just because he's a NZer playing for Oz surely?

It's more to do with a cheap shot on McCaw during the 3N.

I'm pleased to see NZ scientists are working on our 5/8ths problems - see here. Though if Mehrts is in NZ, surely he'd be a better replacement than Donald

Metal Tiger wrote:

biltongbek wrote:
Or hooker, i can think of a number of hookers that would enjoy facing the cross eyed rat arse face in a scrum.

I thought England got some unfair press but Quade Cooper is practically a figure of hatred in NZ... why?

Can't be just because he's a NZer playing for Oz surely?

Don't rightly know mate, I am just going with the flow, got nothing to lose.

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?

What like the All Blacks did to BOD in 2005 you mean?

Well BOD isn't quite in Cruden's league, never having played in a world cup semi-final, so I think that was probably just an unfortunate accident.

Slade was rubbish GreyGhost and cracked under the pressure as I said he would.

Any side using numbers is a bit woofterish imo. Rugby really hasn't been the same since Leicester Tigers had to stop using letters because tv viewers wouldn't understand it.

Bring back the ABC club, I say!

'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'

They've got their own separate rules
They've got their own separate referees
Why can't they have their own separate positions?

english_osprey wrote:'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'

They've got their own separate rules
They've got their own separate referees
Why can't they have their own separate positions?

It's called tradition mate. The terms have worked perfectly well for us for decades - when they were coined accurately reflected a certain style of play. For that matter, any time Wales fields Hook at 12 or England Flood there they're playing a "2nd 5/8th" in the back-line rather than an "inside centre" so the terms still work.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Slade was rubbish GreyGhost and cracked under the pressure as I said he would.

Well, he was injured after about 5 minutes. Still managed to get through 40 minutes on the winning team. Sounds like mental toughness and hard graft. Finding a way to win. I don't see what's cracking under pressure about that. I would've thought cracking under pressure was more about shooting your mouth off for 4 years about your world cup pedigree and then behaving like a bunch of 14 year olds on their first summer camp away from mummy before going out limply in the first knock out game to the French who couldn't even beat a third tier team from an island with a population of just 100,000 a week earlier.

You know what they say? A win is a win. And winning ugly when you're not playing well is the mark of a champion side. Who said that again?

We call a flip-flop a jandal. The Aussies a thong. Bathing suits are togs, unless you´re out of sight from the beach and then they become undies.

If you object to the term first or second five eighth then by all means feel free to use flyhalf, outside half, or whatever takes your fancy.

Argentina didn´t target Slade. They targeted the breakdown and the rucks. In every ruck, there were more hands than a foam party. No backline is going to look good with slow ball.

I never rated England’s chances of winning the world cup.

But Slade was poor as I said he would be before he got injured (sorry taken out by those good for nothing Argies) as for shooting off mouths please try and practice what you preach Grey!

But enjoy the rest of the comp

He was injured after about five minutes. In which time he didn't have time to do much. He did drop a pass, but I recall JW dropping a pass early on against Australia in 2003, and no-one concluded that he had a poor game at the time.

Frankly there was insufficient evidence to come to any conclusion other than that he was injured early on. If you want to point at a poor performance we saw plenty of evidence of that from England throughout 80 minutes in each of their games.

GreyGhost this is about NZ not England.

So will Donald start?

I have a feeling Aus are going to do it again so my money is now on a NH winner.

The final is this weekend, make no mistake.

Didn't some kiwi's say that in 2003?

Enjoy watching Donald.

Bath. You have to leave 2003 in the past. England will never move on if they keep harping on about 2003.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Bath. You have to leave 2003 in the past. England will never move on if they keep harping on about 2003.

Have to agree there. There are some lessons that can be learned from 2003 sure, but some things must be let go and consigned to the past in order to evolve. That's what the other teams did. It's tragic that so many things are done using 03 as a reference point when teams have moved on so much.

Do the ospreys still use the 16/16ths position?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Do the ospreys still use the 16/16ths position?

I see what you did there. You mean the position pioneered by England in the World Cup?