All Blacks Struck by Norovirus

First topic message reminder :

http://soc.li/EquR5Kd

This wasn't the World Cup final... If a player wasn't fit he would have been replaced... There were no changes to the side.

Hansen is a very professional coach... He would not allow egos to control his side... If he played an unfit messam let's say when you had a fit vito on the bench I think he would get sacked and rightly so.

Weren't the whole squad effected? I don't doubt at all that it had an impact. It may well have been the reason for the All Blacks iffy start. But they really didn't look fatigued in the final few minutes, which is when you'd expect to see the biggest impact.

fa0019 wrote:I doubt it had that much difference.

In 95 you had near all the players down and some were even vomiting on the pitch mid match.... And yet they didn't concede a try and almost won.

This one sounds like it was rather mild compared... Something every man and his dog gets at this time of year.

Mccaw plays half the season with a dozen broken bones each year no doubt... A little dose of the flu ain't going to hit that old warhorse.

95 was much worse and as McCaw said it happened earlier in the week. 95 was the day before the match. From all Ive seen the ABs havnt raised it and nor should they. If anything the last match of a very hard season in which theyve managed to fight everyone off might be a factor but too bad too sad. They werent good enough.

I'm not saying the virus was the issue, i'm just saying Ive heard a number of players were struggling after the game.

Oh and from a physiological standpoint a touch of the flu has been proven to effect endurance athletes and decrease performance by up to 18%, and psycological tests have shown much higher again, focus and decision making becoming hugely impaired without notice of the individual at all. Lets not disrespect any viral infection!!!

Ive never seen Mccaw so ineffectual at the breakdown, or so lacklustre there either, Ive never seen Carter so off his game, and Smith looked like an 18 yr old amateur at times.

I would never expect the AB's to say a word about anything, too much pride and I don't blame them.

History books will state the kiwi's were beaten on the day by the better side, and it will be right, however I didn't enjoy the game personally and felt compassion, and deep down I guarentee every English player will feel similar, they will be extatic right now, and take the adulation but in the future will look back and query what happened, I know I would.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I'm not saying the virus was the issue, i'm just saying Ive heard a number of players were struggling after the game.

Reference?

thebluesmancometh wrote:Oh and from a physiological standpoint a touch of the flu has been proven to effect endurance athletes and decrease performance by up to 18%, and psycological tests have shown much higher again, focus and decision making becoming hugely impaired without notice of the individual at all. Lets not disrespect any viral infection!!!

Influenza is completely different to the noravirus. One lasts a day, maybe two. Another lasts for a week, maybe two. I don't see the relevance to that.

RFU development officer works at Twickers, rumours flying around about the AB's post game apparently (although again he hasn't witnessed anything first hand just heard from other staff)

All rumours hammer, but from what I saw on the pitch half beleivable?

yeah yeah, heard it before: it wasn't England playing well, it was because NZ were tired/ill/off their game. Couldn't be because England made them play badly through their intensity and such-like could it?

funny how every NZ poster on here has been utterly gracious in defeat (as indeed were Hansen and McCaw), and just said "congrats, England were the far better team on the day", the only people questioning England's win appear to be our Celtic cousins...

Influenza is not what I'm talking about, the term 'flu' or 'touch of the flu' refers to any viral infections lasting up to and including 10 days.

Studies have been conducted up to 1CM after ecovery of flu like sympton virus's!!

Mad

I think you better go and re read my posts, I havn't taken anything away from England, congratulated them and complimented their performance.

I just stated that as a neutral (who was actually supporting my neighbour before the game kicked off (see my posts regarding Englands chances and prediction of England winning))

I didn't enjoy watching the AB's with such a cloud of uncertainty and observed possible effects that effected performance!!

You can claim that suggesting the result is under a 'cloud of uncertainty' because illness could have affected the All Blacks performance isn't taking anything away from England all you like, but it is.

But it isn't. As I stated if Wales had won this way I would be very happy too, would enjoy the result too, a job had to be done over a very good side and England were the better team, they deserve the credit for beating the all blacks!!!

I'm just saying the uncertainty of an illness effecting a large number and then a lot of very sub par performances from modern day legends like Carter and Mccaw is very perculiar, and from what I have heard from an aqcuatance (unsubstantiated rumour) it seems some of the kiwis were very poorly post game.

thomh thats not to say England doesn't deserve the win, on their death bed that all black performance would've been enough against most teams!!

Where did they find the energy to score the two quick tries?
If England had not replied straight away I'm sure the AB's would have moved up a gear and taken the initiative, instead they looked down and shell struck and tried to force the game making further errors.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I'm not saying the virus was the issue, i'm just saying Ive heard a number of players were struggling after the game.

Oh and from a physiological standpoint a touch of the flu has been proven to effect endurance athletes and decrease performance by up to 18%, and psycological tests have shown much higher again, focus and decision making becoming hugely impaired without notice of the individual at all. Lets not disrespect any viral infection!!!

Ive never seen Mccaw so ineffectual at the breakdown, or so lacklustre there either, Ive never seen Carter so off his game, and Smith looked like an 18 yr old amateur at times.

I would never expect the AB's to say a word about anything, too much pride and I don't blame them.

History books will state the kiwi's were beaten on the day by the better side, and it will be right, however I didn't enjoy the game personally and felt compassion, and deep down I guarentee every English player will feel similar, they will be extatic right now, and take the adulation but in the future will look back and query what happened, I know I would.

it's this post I take particular objection too if you must know. The first sentence is bizarre: if you're not saying the virus was the issue that means the players struggling after the game is down to the sheer intensity of the contest? in which case it's all to England's credit?

The last paragraph is even worse: suggesting the English will look back on the day "feeling compassion" (I imagine that's what you're refering too, as I think it's unlikely the English players "didn't enjoy the game"). You then go on to say the English should "in the future look back and querry whay happened": again, why? English players should rightfully right now be extremely proud of having soundly thrashed the greatest rugby team of all time...

I think if you re-read some of the posts you've made this evening you'll realise that some of them come across as a touch bitter. I know you don't intend them to come across that way, but I'm sure you'll understand why some of us England fans don't like it very much...

I know you weren't saying that England didn't deserve to win, or that we shouldn't be happy about it, but suggesting that the result was at least partly down to illness on the opposition's part simply is taking something away from England - there's no way around that.

EDIT: I should add that it's perfectly possible that you view is correct. I doubt it myself, but I'm not arguing that point - just the separate claim that you're not taking anything away from England by expressing that opinion.

Each England player played with a broken pinky, apparently it was a makeup accident. They were all in pain after the game.

My mates dog is a friend of the burger vans owners who was in the car park at Twickenham told me so.....

Theres no bitterness here because as I have said plenty of times, I wanted England to win, and enjoy watching teams beat NZ!!

After the welsh game finished I checked the England score and was excited to see the game, watched it straight away but didn't enjoy it, a lot of NZ players were not at the races, Mccaw especially, watching him flounce off England players at the breakdown wasn't very nice to watch, seeing Carters focus all over the place wasn't good either, and Conrad Smith looked like he was half drunk most of thed game.

From a NH fan of the last 4 weeks I personally don't enjoy watching NZ at half pelt, I want to see teams out play them, outmscle them and outscore them when they are at their best, and virus or not that was the poorest NZ have played in years.

How can any self respecting England fan claim NZ were just beaten by a better team is beyond me, reports of a virus come out days before that perfrormance, and flu like virus's can effect players in different ways. We all know the difference between teams at the top table is 2%, that was certainly not there from NZ and then another 5% missing also.

I've given all the credit too England they deserve, and once again if it was Wales I would definately be saying the same things, just because I'm welsh doesn't mean I dislike England (I keep that for the week before and after we beat you every year ) You can check any post Ive made regarding England this AI (Shouldve beaten Aus, even predicting a NZ win)

yep i knew we would win it;.;. and i also new it would be devalued by other fans..

what a suprise!!

Whos devaluing it myst?

I claimed you'd win too, I also supported you!!!

bluesman,

Is it really so difficult to acknowledge a fantastic performance by England?

AND I HAVE!!!

If your going to keep regurgatating the same old whinge guys don't bother, lets just call this England team top of the pile with 1 good victory over the big 3.

England to win the world cup 2015 now then

That's not what people are saying though. It's just you deciding to downgrade the performance with little digs about NZ not being up to standard because they had the sniffles.

It's a shame how some people react to the success of others. Still, that's what you get on here.

Bluesy dude. come on you dont have to go the other way it doesnt sound honest.

Fact is we battered them- we didnt get a lucky win and we outplyed them in every facet- we may not have got the results this AI's however we have played well. We outplayed the saffas and the kiwis.. And thats all- None of us will claim to be the best of the pile! but we have have shown we can compete. Thats it, we have a great chance in 2015 if we keep it up

thebluesmancometh wrote:Whos devaluing it myst?

I claimed you'd win too, I also supported you!!!

You are, by calling into question the quality of the opposition. NZ fans haven't done that, and it doesn't endear you to either set of supporters.

To be honest guys, bluesman is right in one sense - New Zealand were very poor by their standards. I happen to believe this was partly down to our intensity, but watching Read throw an intercept and various players shovel bad ball back, plus the two knock ons near the end. Seemed surreal.

It could just be an awful day at the office, that's what I'll choose to believe, but I see the point that it didn't feel like watching their best against our best. I think we know at this stage that would mean a very different result.

Bluesman, maybe just think of it this way - New Zealand were due a bad game where things didn't stick, but that was compounded by an England team that really stood up. If another team playing slightly worse than England had played them, the ABs would have won. So it's worth treating as a very well deserved victory.

Anyone downgrading any sort of virus knows little of the effects of foreign entities on the bodies ability to perform.

Even 1% drop in hydration can effect the bodies ability to perform sports at near 10% according to studies!!!

It isn't meant to be endearing, it isn't meant to insult, I am just being honest in what I saw and have heard, it's tough titties if you don't like it.

I can't keep highlighting that I support England v the SH teams, I can't keep highlighting that I PREDICTED ENGLAND TO WIN after reading about a virus, I can't keep highlighting the sub par performances from world class players, and I can't keep highlighting how this result came from nowhere and England couldn't put a performance anywhere near this standard against what are essentially weak Aus and SA teams!!

No self respecting NZ fan will talk about a virus, and no self respecting player would mention it, but it doesn't make it any less so. Anyone who truly beleives NZ were at 100% yesterday and just bested by the better team is fully deluded, take the win, enjoy the win (I would) but know that NZ weren't at the races for whatever reason, it's sad because I really wanted England to win, I just didn't enjoy watching that AB performance!!

If another team playing slightly worse than England had played them, the ABs would have won. So it's worth treating as a very well deserved victory.

Hood

That is exactly my point, Wales wouldve been beaten, and I suspect SA and Aus too!!!

bluesman, what you're saying just sounds bitter whcih is a shame as most posters have been respectful and honest.

It also appears you don't really understand sports performance from what you post on here. Do you get it from wikipedia?

Cyril you legend

putting the wumeth into cometh!

tigerleghorn wrote:Where did they find the energy to score the two quick tries?
If England had not replied straight away I'm sure the AB's would have moved up a gear and taken the initiative, instead they looked down and shell struck and tried to force the game making further errors.

Whether it was the virus or the price of custard you yourself note that the all blacks were off their game for most of the match. In the same way they dropped intensity against Wales once the game was won.

England bought their a game but were sliced apart worryingly easily at times when the all blacks panic mode set in. To believe they are suddenly the better team on an average day is delusional. Certainly not by 17 points.

It's still a step forward from two years ago when the all blacks didnt turn up and won by 9. Coupled with other recent results it shows England can give a game to any of the sanzars on any form.

And on our day we can beat anyone.

Guys please have some balance and realise that what bluesman is saying and what you're generally arguing are not mutually exclusive. I am an avid fan of English rugby, and delighted by yesterday's result, but can realise a fortuitous set of circumstances when I see them. It does not affect the result of the result, but it takes nothing to produce a more balanced, reasonable view of yesterday as the victors.

It is a fact that we outplayed NZ - that was great to watch. Clearly a few mental switches were flicked during the week as there was a fluency and panache to add to the sustained commitment we've seen against AUS and SA that resulted in a win rather than a loss this time.

It is, however, a fact that NZ are a better side than SA or AUS. SA especially brought a tightness and physicality that we couldn't quite overcome, but we also prevented much of their attacking fluency, such as it is. Hence, a close game. NZ have demonstrated immense technical skill and commitment in defence throughout 2011/12, which was entirely absent yesterday, compared even to the previous week. How can this be purely explained by the disruptive effort an England side who, honestly, could only have been marginally more committed and organised as they have been the past two weeks? Clearly individuals (Wood) made a difference, and we got Manu involved, but also a sub-par NZ let this happen.

What differences have there been this week? The NZ camp nearly to a man got Noro. I had it recently. The V and D lasted only 9 or so hours, but I felt crap for a week. To me this was obvious from the first whistle.

NZ played horribly at times. I was genuinely surprised. Their purple patch in the second half was a reflection of how they've played all tour. It was, in my view, all they could manage, as shown by the final quarter England put in. But it is true that no NZ player or supporter would dream of mentioning Noro as a factor. They couldn't even if one or two might have had the inclination to do so. It's just not the ABs.

No doubt, England came at this game in a new and refreshing way, played brilliantly with a fluency and proficiency to add to their physicality that has thus far eluded them. This coincided with an awful ABs performance.

Why is balance so hard to achieve? None of the above makes me any less pleased or encouraged by the result.

I got Norovirus or something similar once at the start of a ski-tour. It came on really suddenly at about 7pm. By morning I was dehydrated but able to get to a pharmacy and down some immodium. I skied the day but was feeling really week. By the following day I was still about 5% off and the 3rd day I felt fine.

Based on that, by about Saturday the All Blacks should have been feeling fine, but could perhaps lack a bit in endurance. They will also have missed some training. Also, it could be that an illness in the week slows down recovery? Then again, I expect the team would have been on the optimum dietry products to negate the effects.

The way England played though would have been too good for anyone on Saturday - except perhaps France on their once in a decade miracle days.

I didn't see the game. I couldn't believe the result when I saw it. And the scoreline was just astounding. So I have to say, my genuine reaction was that it simply couldn't have been a fully primed All Blacks side.

But like I said, I haven't even seen the game. But that scoreline is just so unbelievable.

Norovirus' most debilitating effects usually last 3-4 days though it's contagious a bit after that so England had better watch out! Undoubtedly it affected the ABs preparation and left them less than 100% for the match but in professional sport excuses don't carry and I'll still take that win

When you look at the match stats there isn't much difference between the England match and the Wales match that NZ have played.

In both cases NZ had about 50% of the ball.

England were just much more effective than Wales.

Alex, sounds like you were relatively lucky with your infection. Just because it didn't affect you too badly has little bearing on how it affects others especially given the variety in viruses and strains out there

capt. rapido, what an unusually balanced post for 606v2!

Well done England, S Lancaster picks form players England got their just rewards as did the AB's. I wish the Wales coaches followed Lancaster, with Gatland in charge the Lions will be losing with Preistland at 10 kicking away the ball with 30 seconds to go, he has had enough practice.

glamorganalun wrote:Well done England, S Lancaster picks form players England got their just rewards as did the AB's. I wish the Wales coaches followed Lancaster, with Gatland in charge the Lions will be losing with Preistland at 10 kicking away the ball with 30 seconds to go, he has had enough practice.

Well done England brilliant result, only time will tell how much the ABs were weakened by spending most of the week sat on the pan, but England beat what was in front of them, which is all you can ask.

I suspect that Glam'alun is a Hook or Biggar fan for his snipe about Priestland who had a very good game yesterday. It wasn’t his fault that Wales did not have any lineout forwards, or that a lock got caught out of position in the 80th minute. Don’t forget just a few weeks ago the same Australia side that relied on some generous refereeing to stay in the game against Wales, gave All Black conquering England a bit of a thumping.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Norovirus' most debilitating effects usually last 3-4 days though it's contagious a bit after that so England had better watch out! Undoubtedly it affected the ABs preparation and left them less than 100% for the match but in professional sport excuses don't carry and I'll still take that win

Is the right answer

Rapido

I think our opinions are very similar, theres no taking away from Englands performance, they did what I suspect Wales Aus and SA wouldn't have been able to.

However anyone compairing a jaunty ski, or a jog to top flight international rugby, where the strains and stressors on the body are some of the toughest the human body has ever seen is just deluded. Feeling fine is a worrying thing for a top athlete, if your feeling fine your either not pushing yourself hard enough or your having some sort of synapses failure and are in a state of collapse!!!

Any virus can effect a top level athlete for up to and incliding a month after first contraction, and it doesn't have to be a big issue, a simple flu like symptom for less than 6 hours can dehydrate the body enough to effect performance up to 20% 2 weeks later!!! Not that I'm saying thats what happened but from studies Ive read and seen this is fact!

So i take it that people are thinking that every player on the team got this virus!! or just the few that actually did!!

seriously - england will never get credit foir this- aww well.

mystir

Go wum elsewhere!

Although if I was an England supporter I would be worried by comments as above...

"The way England played though would have been too good for anyone on Saturday - except perhaps France on their once in a decade miracle days."

dont call me a wum- you got a problem you are free to get lost- go on off you trott!

and what is this crazy myth about france being invincible sometimes- that has allways been complete hyperbole- NZ can be beaten!! most of us teams have proved that- just because the rest of you cant do it!!

i love the fact that when france do it- its due to them, when england do it its because the game was devalued- You can jog on if you want!

mystiroakey wrote:So i take it that people are thinking that every player on the team got this virus!! or just the few that actually did!!

seriously - england will never get credit foir this- aww well.

Only Savea and Hika Ellliot didnt come down with the bug. Coincidence that Savea was their best player?

BTW - norovirus is a debilitating and very infectious condition that will have you projectile vomitting and pooing liquid for at least 3 days and you cannot eat or drink anything witout it triggering it again. The pooster above that was alright after a day and went sking did not have norovirus. He had a mild tummy upset.

So Oakley I take it you think England woke up and suddenly realised they were all billy twelvetrees and are now by far the best team in the world ever?
Yes they played well...bit regardless of the cause nz played badly by their standards. Carter woefully so.
I doubt it was related to the soaring price of custard that put them off their game but who knows. Virus or not they were still a sack of cack and England aren't going to beat them by 17 points every time they play even on a good day.

Teams have off days...England had an on day ...the planets aligned and they got their bi annual result that sends optimism soaring and least to unrealistic expectations.

When they beat Ireland by 77 points I'll accept it wasn't an outlier. Till then I'll believe they are a decent side capable of pushing the sanzars and improving further

Mystir

personal attack removed. When France beat Australia it was mainly due to Australia not being very good at all mixed with France being very competitive kind like England v NZ wiothout the issues.

Ive given credit to England for plenty of performances, including this one, but from what I saw, what I've heard and the considerable knowledge I have I have to deduce that any sort of virus caught by a rugby team within 28 days of an international will effect performance. The million and 1 variables will decide by how much (and noone can quantify that exactly) but I can say with 100% certainty that any minor virus contracted within 7 days of a major rugby union international game will have some effect (some, not definately major, not definately minor but some#!)

I am attempting to put the game through my analysis software to determine NZ player stats (not subjectives but cold hard facts) namely ground covered. I am willing to bet that the kiwi team comes out at below their season average stats per game. Anyone want to take that bet?