Match Fixing in the 6 nations?

First topic message reminder :

Apologies in Advance for the somewhat sensationalist piece.

This I know is rather controversial, but merits discussion I feel. First off, let me say that Italy v France was an emphatic win and truly heartening to watch. I believe Italy deserved the win, and that France were just shellshocked into submission. Yet, on the way into town this morning I heard reports about recent match fixing being uncovered in Football, and was intrigued, after all why couldn't this happen in Rugby?

Rugby has become more and more bureaucratic in recent times, with the recent Heineken cup fiasco a case in point. Is it that hard to fathom that there could be back room deals taking place? The sport of rugby had everything to gain, as well as the 6 nations as the world's leading competition. Looking at the Italy game, Italy made ground with almost every carry. France were standing off alarmingly in defence, inviting the Italian attack to run at them. As a result, France were always on the back foot. In addition, France's breakdown work was almost non existent, giving Italy quick and clean ball.

The game highlights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-AxnGxNnbY show three examples of either French standing off, or Italian brilliance. For Parisse's try, Fofana (no slouch) is comprehensively outpaced by the great man. Fofana doesn't even touch Parisse it seems. Another incident involves Maxime Machenaud's break (not in the video), after which he simply threw the ball foreward, turning a promising French attack into an impressive Italian counter. Furthermore (in the video), the build up to Casto's try see's france stack 8 players in a 10 metre channel near the touchline, all lined up to defend a solitary Venditti, and Favaro. Not necessary at all when the touchline is there as yet another available line of defence.

Another incident can be examined at the final whistle (in the video). First Parra gives a dreadful pass to Michalak, next Trinh Duc, and then Mermoz can be seen actually shoving the ruck into touch, very sloppy play which ends the game. Now, having said all this, I will concede that France are France, and thus always an unknown entity. It is absolutely more likely that France imploded due to Italian pressure. I do not wish to demerit the Italian win, I believe it was a fully deserved. I am merely examining the possibility that things may not be as they seem to us supporters.

Match fixing may be putting things to strongly but home town referees. Or politically motivated ones were common place during the amateur game.
What is the most common complaint from fans if there side suddenly loses even if odds on.
THE REF are they all bent?of course not but most in a Test match in a hostile enviroment.Tend to give the 5o/5o decisions to the Home side etc.

... and the scandal continues

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21363100

Look like a lot of PED's & Allegations of match fixing have hit Australia. At the moment accusation seem to be with Aussie rules football & Rugby League. I think it would be naïve to think that there hadn't at least been approaches or small scale tampering with Union as well.

Aussies were drugged into beating England.

Sadly I bet peds are around in top level rugby.

The other sad thing is, once there is the taint on the air, rumours start, eg' how did the Queensland Reds go from whipping boys to champs in just a season or 2?'. For many reasons of course but any rumours just drag the game down.

Bathman_in_London wrote:Sadly I bet peds are around in top level rugby.

The other sad thing is, once there is the taint on the air, rumours start, eg' how did the Queensland Reds go from whipping boys to champs in just a season or 2?'. For many reasons of course but any rumours just drag the game down.

I'd be amazed if there aren't peds around in most teams at the top level, whether it's a couple of individuals on the sly or more widespread and organised. The Aussie anti-doping agency is definitely one of the better ones and rather than criticising the Aussies for what has been found I'd rather congratulate them for making the effort to tackle it. I suspect other nations would find the same widespread problems if they made the effort to look.

I would agree with that BIg.

The more honest proactive nations end up becoming the villians because they actually uncover the truth.


Its the same with the prem and racism.. We actually charge players and fans with racism.. Other nations dont!

This is all starting to make sense to me.

RBS are the main sponsors of the 6N and Scotland. Scotland have been guff since the RBS started sponsoring the 6N and even more guff since they started sponsoring Scotland.

Maybe they are betting heavily against Scotland and using the winnings to try and get themselves out of debt?

Rugger got ta be honest-- you would make more money giving your money to Nick leeson than you would from the odds you gain from scotland winning a rugby game

I'm not a betting man so have a question - is it possible to spot bet on things in rugby such as time of 1st scrum, 1st to get yellow carded, missing kicks at goal? i.e. the kind of things that could be 'arranged'.

mr_stonelea wrote:I'm not a betting man so have a question - is it possible to spot bet on things in rugby such as time of 1st scrum, 1st to get yellow carded, missing kicks at goal? i.e. the kind of things that could be 'arranged'.

Why would you want to bet on sh1t like that?

GunsGerms wrote:

mr_stonelea wrote:I'm not a betting man so have a question - is it possible to spot bet on things in rugby such as time of 1st scrum, 1st to get yellow carded, missing kicks at goal? i.e. the kind of things that could be 'arranged'.

Why would you want to bet on sh1t like that?

Precisely because they can be easily arranged by a subtle fumble, a mis-kick or foul play.

Like in cricket where the bowler can choose to bowl a no-ball whenever he wants.

Wales' up and down form in the 6N's must attract some interest!

GunsGerms wrote:

mr_stonelea wrote:I'm not a betting man so have a question - is it possible to spot bet on things in rugby such as time of 1st scrum, 1st to get yellow carded, missing kicks at goal? i.e. the kind of things that could be 'arranged'.

Why would you want to bet on sh1t like that?

That is precisely the sort of thing that the betting rings target. First player to get a yellow card, a no ball in the first over etc. Much easier to rig than who wins.

There are people who bet on anything. But I don't think we have a big problem in Rugby. There are simply too many people who need to be involved.

I am not sure how good the Australians are at investigating PEDs. There have been strong rumours for well over a decade that their Rugby League guys are using in significant numbers. Also that the NRL did not want to investigate since it could damage the league which grew in part by having built up athletes playing. Similar in some way to what American Baseball went through. In their case, however, there is little competition, either by any summer sport or by any similar sport. So the sport rebounded swiftly. In the case of the NRL, they are in a very competitive landscape.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

mr_stonelea wrote:I'm not a betting man so have a question - is it possible to spot bet on things in rugby such as time of 1st scrum, 1st to get yellow carded, missing kicks at goal? i.e. the kind of things that could be 'arranged'.

Why would you want to bet on sh1t like that?

Precisely because they can be easily arranged by a subtle fumble, a mis-kick or foul play.

Like in cricket where the bowler can choose to bowl a no-ball whenever he wants.

The Ryan Tandy scandal in the NRL was around fixing the 1st scoring play market.

At the TAB in NZ you can bet on what the 1st stoppage in play will be for rugby games (scrum/lineout/penalty/try/mark etc - a mark usually pays about 200:1) and you can also bet on the method of 1st score.

Taylorman

Most of what you say is fine as you are a New Zealander (except the inference that I was possibly suggesting match fixing as I think all my posts made it clear I was not).

However I am not a New Zealander or for that matter a Frenchman and I was only commenting on the 2011 match in isolation as I am not inclined to go back through each NZ / Fra match in history compiling a spreadsheet on wrongs and whether they were later righted / balanced.

For me the 2011 match was disappointing because:

a) It was the final.
b) It was played in NZ.
c) The result was compromised by the performance of the referee who one would hope was the best available given the occasion and well above 'freezing' especially given previous experiences.
d) The general view that regardless of what happened it was the right result because NZ were the best team in the competition and the best rugby playing nation in the world not to win the WC since 1987.

And the fact is that even had France been given a penalty they may not have scored it or indeed NZ may have come up the other end and scored again. Who knows?

All I wanted was a compelling, fair contest where the best team on the day won and not one where the 'right' team won.

Why is it when NZ lose they have a S**t excuse .

GunsGerms wrote:

mr_stonelea wrote:I'm not a betting man so have a question - is it possible to spot bet on things in rugby such as time of 1st scrum, 1st to get yellow carded, missing kicks at goal? i.e. the kind of things that could be 'arranged'.

Why would you want to bet on sh1t like that?

I'm not wanting to bet on things like that - I was asking if such a thing existed in betting circles that's all

glamorganalun wrote:Why is it when NZ lose they have a S**t excuse .

Because no-one beats us on our day

And it's our day 4 days out of every 5 on average ...

Why is it when NZ lose they have a S**t excuse

Because they have such little practice at it???

MunsterMac wrote:Taylorman

Most of what you say is fine as you are a New Zealander (except the inference that I was possibly suggesting match fixing as I think all my posts made it clear I was not).

However I am not a New Zealander or for that matter a Frenchman and I was only commenting on the 2011 match in isolation as I am not inclined to go back through each NZ / Fra match in history compiling a spreadsheet on wrongs and whether they were later righted / balanced.

For me the 2011 match was disappointing because:

a) It was the final.
b) It was played in NZ.
c) The result was compromised by the performance of the referee who one would hope was the best available given the occasion and well above 'freezing' especially given previous experiences.
d) The general view that regardless of what happened it was the right result because NZ were the best team in the competition and the best rugby playing nation in the world not to win the WC since 1987.

And the fact is that even had France been given a penalty they may not have scored it or indeed NZ may have come up the other end and scored again. Who knows?

All I wanted was a compelling, fair contest where the best team on the day won and not one where the 'right' team won.

You dont need a spreadsheet to add one more game to a list. This was the last match NZ had lost in a world cup. We lost that match due to poor reffing. Did you see that result as unfair? Perhaps, because it was NZ, not.

So you are disappointed with jouberts performance? Disappointment is obviously in the eye of the beholder.

Tough. We've learned that thats the way it is- we were told that you need to overcome poor reffing, something that neither France, nor SA managed to do in 2011 either. It seems this time, we did.

In any case as far as I'm concerned, and assuming Jouberts performance was poor, two wrongs do make a right. Why? Because thats just the way it is.

MM I also dispute your idea that the best team on the day lost the final too.

France dominated from the time of Dusautoir's try to roughly the 72nd minute. Should they have been rewarded for it? Yes. But they were in that they had two shots at goal that missed anyway. Then NZ dominated the possession stakes and shut France out of it. The 50 mins beforehand NZ were not at all dominated, they'd just gone out to 8-0 and whilst not comfortable had the upper hand. Of course momentum can reverse in a split second and that's all it took when Weepu had his brain fart and chipped that ball away.

I'm more disappointed in Carter's injury. Because France wouldn't have gotten close and the best 10 of his generation would have gotten to play a final. Let's hope he can in two and a half years time.

Nobody criticised Joubert's performances before the final so that 'one would hope' quip is inaccurate. He was widely recognised as deserving of the final. I'm sure if the NZ Aussie game had been the final I'm sure some detractors would have bleated at him not penalising NZ enough there. But sadly for Mr Jones and company Wayne Barnes wasn't deemed good enough to take the game.

As for being disappointed the final was in NZ? Since the whole tournament was there you must have had an inkling. I'm assuming you'd rather Japan had hosted it? Well they'll get their chance and I hope they put on a great tournament.

Your last quote reminds me of the 95 final.

doctor_grey wrote:There are people who bet on anything. But I don't think we have a big problem in Rugby. There are simply too many people who need to be involved.

I am not sure how good the Australians are at investigating PEDs. There have been strong rumours for well over a decade that their Rugby League guys are using in significant numbers. Also that the NRL did not want to investigate since it could damage the league which grew in part by having built up athletes playing. Similar in some way to what American Baseball went through. In their case, however, there is little competition, either by any summer sport or by any similar sport. So the sport rebounded swiftly. In the case of the NRL, they are in a very competitive landscape.

Individual sports probably aren't - but no sporting authority is, they either assume they don't have a problem or have a vested interest in keeping it hidden. But, the anti doping agency there are much better than most. They have introduced athlete biological passports for all elite athletes under their jurisdiction (not sure if that means literall all, or just the power to enforce it on any sports/individuals they are suspicious of). Identifying who has a suspicious profile means they can focus their resources with other investigations and testing, and even ban directly if the profile is sufficiently suspicious that it cannot be natural. It isn't a huge surprise that a few months after introducing this we get the current news. I maintain that most countries would find the same if they bothered to introduce a similar level of testing and investigation.

league may be a bigger offender, but given the number of players and coaches crossing over I'd be surprised if there isn't at least some in the union teams there as well. And that's ignoring any that originated on the union side of the divide.

disneychilly wrote:MM I also dispute your idea that the best team on the day lost the final too.

France dominated from the time of Dusautoir's try to roughly the 72nd minute. Should they have been rewarded for it? Yes. But they were in that they had two shots at goal that missed anyway. Then NZ dominated the possession stakes and shut France out of it. The 50 mins beforehand NZ were not at all dominated, they'd just gone out to 8-0 and whilst not comfortable had the upper hand. Of course momentum can reverse in a split second and that's all it took when Weepu had his brain fart and chipped that ball away.

I'm more disappointed in Carter's injury. Because France wouldn't have gotten close and the best 10 of his generation would have gotten to play a final. Let's hope he can in two and a half years time.

Nobody criticised Joubert's performances before the final so that 'one would hope' quip is inaccurate. He was widely recognised as deserving of the final. I'm sure if the NZ Aussie game had been the final I'm sure some detractors would have bleated at him not penalising NZ enough there. But sadly for Mr Jones and company Wayne Barnes wasn't deemed good enough to take the game.

As for being disappointed the final was in NZ? Since the whole tournament was there you must have had an inkling. I'm assuming you'd rather Japan had hosted it? Well they'll get their chance and I hope they put on a great tournament.

Your last quote reminds me of the 95 final.

Hi ya disney...its all old ground as we know and its just more the way MM put his point together than what he actually meant, which I agree with in terms of Referees as a whole- spoiling an occasion. For me the SA match was interesting in this respect because until that day poor reffing hadnt significantly cost them in a tournament.

In the basking of glory in 07 SA couldnt have given a toss about the ref's performance in the NZ France game yet when having their own intestinal fortitude tested probably wondered why no one gave a toss about their claims re BL- least of all NZ fans who admittedly felt compensated in some morbid way for 07.

But in the end no one really wins. We play an imperfect game with imperfect rules and in terms of reffing this is THE most difficult sport to referee, such is the potential for interpretation, missed calls etc.

That is the issue here, and in terms of match fixing, a rugby referee in a hugely important match must be one of the most vulnerale positions in sport- so easy would it be for a ref to play bias to another side. No eveidence of it yet, but from whats coming out of Australia, it seems like no one is off limits.

What gets my goat is that so much of it is down to interpretation that there are grounds to give a penalty, or not, at almost every situation. So the ref could get bagged every match. There needs to be uniformity in interpretations as well as the law and this just doesn't happen and I'm sure I'm not the only one at a loss how to rectify it. You have to play the ref. McCaw is a champion and good enough to make an influence no matter how the rules are being interpreted so I doubt any changes would affect him, Pocock et al as much. But that and scrums are really becoming a hindrance to rugby again being recognised as one of the great sports to watch. Hell cricket has a million rules but the interpretation is a lot clearer!

I didn't feel payback for 07 about Lawrence, the only thing was I felt that now SA had an inkling of what we experienced at Cardiff. Thing was, like us, there was no guarantee of them winning after that as the semi was NZ's best game of the Cup.

doctor_grey wrote:There are people who bet on anything. But I don't think we have a big problem in Rugby. There are simply too many people who need to be involved.I am not sure how good the Australians are at investigating PEDs. There have been strong rumours for well over a decade that their Rugby League guys are using in significant numbers. Also that the NRL did not want to investigate since it could damage the league which grew in part by having built up athletes playing. Similar in some way to what American Baseball went through. In their case, however, there is little competition, either by any summer sport or by any similar sport. So the sport rebounded swiftly. In the case of the NRL, they are in a very competitive landscape.

I think thats one of the things that has really made me sit up and look, as this story has been evolving over the last 24 hours, especially the huge involvement of the medical proffession (including paying nurses at Essendon to administer the injections), scientists and the undeground industry of manufacturing/selling peds and growth hormones.

BL's ruling would have been the same for both teams, wouldn't they? Richie said when BL was reffing the S15 final in his non-penalty manner that BL justified it by saying it was the same for both teams. So shouldn't the Springboks have adjusted their game plan to cope with BL's interpretations?

Exactly Dallym, SA wont see it that way as theyre not and flexible as some teams. They base their game on pressure and sides giving way to it, and the ref duly penalising it. Things have to go a particular way in other words.

But the upshot is Pocock took the most advantage of BL's failure and in their defence SA did try things- the marginally forward pass to JDV (in looking at it 20 times I's say no more than a yard- maybe 2 feet) and the dropped ball on the line just didnt go their way.

For me the diff between that and 2007 was 'luck being the residue of hard work' also went against both sides when perhaps the AB's- who did do the hard work up to the quarter final, deserved better, despite the refs failings.

Where SA's pass was correctly picked up, the French one (and more blatant one) wasnt. Where SA got some, but not all the rulings they should have, NZ got none, every single possible ruling going against them.

Theyre all moot points and merely the level of injustice or unfairness thats 'at stake'. but in the end nobody wins, and in both cases not even the sides that gained from the ref- both losing next round.

I've got to say the OP is highly circumstantial.

If you want to detect match fixing in rugby, like any sport, the way to do it is via betting patterns. Unless you can prove an unusually large amount of money was paid out as a result of Italy winning you don't really have a case.

The current aussie problem just makes it 'less unlikely' than previously. Individuals, teams, meds and illegal syndicates are all indicated.

We'd be naive to think we're squeaky outside of Oz. Perhaps they just have a better investigation crew than most?

Taylorman wrote:We'd be naive to think we're squeaky outside of Oz. Perhaps they just have a better investigation crew than most?

Yeah, it would be naive. Something that needs to be guarded against. I think you catch it the other way though, by following the money.

Odd how Cooper has come out saying he's nervous about endorsing 'supplements'. Wouldnt be surprised if theres more to that.

disneychilly wrote:What gets my goat is that so much of it is down to interpretation that there are grounds to give a penalty, or not, at almost every situation. So the ref could get bagged every match. There needs to be uniformity in interpretations as well as the law and this just doesn't happen and I'm sure I'm not the only one at a loss how to rectify it. You have to play the ref. McCaw is a champion and good enough to make an influence no matter how the rules are being interpreted so I doubt any changes would affect him, Pocock et al as much. But that and scrums are really becoming a hindrance to rugby again being recognised as one of the great sports to watch. Hell cricket has a million rules but the interpretation is a lot clearer!

I didn't feel payback for 07 about Lawrence, the only thing was I felt that now SA had an inkling of what we experienced at Cardiff. Thing was, like us, there was no guarantee of them winning after that as the semi was NZ's best game of the Cup.

The reason i raised the 07 game wasn't because I think it was corrupt or biased (although obviously I feel that the refereeing was poor). It's debate and the integrity of our sport. We are all biased an important role of the media is to bring and structure debate. One of the complaints about Armstrong was that the majority of the media avoided the potential issue of drug taking.

In tems of this game. All I am saying is that a healthy media would have debated this game. Much in the same way it has with the 2011 semi final between SA and Australia and the NZ France final. In both instances the quality of the refereeing was questioned. In terms of objective stats (e.g. penalties conceded) rather than subjective (e.g. offenses committed) this match set many world bench marks that still stand today. It should be debated (just as the Mealamu/Umaga tackle on BOD was). If the media don't debate it and look at the issues what does it say about the state of journalism and the sport.

On another note this was a game where the question of unusual betting patterns was raised with the IRB. I personally doubt that it's an issue (I would like to believe it isn't). However, I also expect that the IRB would as a matter of course investigate betting patterns on all major tournaments as a matter of course. I'm not sure whether they did this.

In terms of match fixing. I think we have to occur it either has happened or could happen (e.g. http://www.epma-conference.net/Download/22012009/SalfordREPORT_Feb08.pdf). It's a professional sport like any other. It looks like it's wide spread in sports and internationally. As others have pointed out the key indicators are probably unusual betting patterns, it describes gambling pressure relative to the sport and provides the authorities with someone to investigate.

In terms of PED's. We know that international athletes have used used, school and college athletes use them. It would be naive to think that issue wasn't potentially greater professional sports and affected the teams we cherish and players we respect. I'm sure Mark Ellis's biography states that Warriors players used PED's whilst he was there. If I'm right, you'd have to assume that there is a potential issue in NZ and Australian rugby. I know there have been issues in SA and if I look at the muscularity of European players my mind automatically asks questions. I guess we'll never know for certain if there is an issue.

Taylorman wrote:The current aussie problem just makes it 'less unlikely' than previously. Individuals, teams, meds and illegal syndicates are all indicated.

We'd be naive to think we're squeaky outside of Oz. Perhaps they just have a better investigation crew than most?

Too true Tayloman, and at the moment the last people to be complacent should be us Kiwis with so many New Zealanders playing in Australian competitions either as individuals or as teams. we were also involved in the Canterbury Bulldogs/North Queensland Cowboys situation as a lot of the money went on on the New Zealand TAB.

Yep, we're everywhere. Wouldn't be surprised if the NZ Breakers, presently cruising at the top of the Oz NBL are being looked at as well.

Like C Jane and Z Guilford who finish before they start this season, there could be more for even more ignominious reasons... what a year we might be in for...and worst of all, its us ticket buying, pay view purchasing, jersey spending fans that are getting kicked in the teeth for doing...none of it...Wouldnt want to be any of this lot...

Notch wrote: I think you catch it the other way though, by following the money.

It's our national Crime Commission that is ripping things apart here currently so you may well be righ Notch. The ACC are the federal agency responsible for targeting organized crime. ASADA, our drug bunch, test and test and despite what is said above, I have no doubt they would be as effective as any other nations anti-drug agency, but they did not uncover what the ACC have reportedly uncovered.

boomeranga wrote:

Notch wrote: I think you catch it the other way though, by following the money.

It's our national Crime Commission that is ripping things apart here currently so you may well be righ Notch. The ACC are the federal agency responsible for targeting organized crime. ASADA, our drug bunch, test and test and despite what is said above, I have no doubt they would be as effective as any other nations anti-drug agency, but they did not uncover what the ACC have reportedly uncovered.

Fair enough. I thought the biological passports may have led to the current findings, but perhaps it was the other way round and with the additional testing an early response from ASADA when they realised how widespread the ACC were finding PED usage. Still, puts them ahead of many others though. Between this and the current football scandal in Europe I think everyone is going to have to sit up and take note.

One of the things I am curious about is how this will affect historic results. It's much easier in individual sports where you find out someone cheated and you strip them of all results in the period that you know they were cheating. Much harder to decide what to do in a team sport. It would seem OTT to strip a team of a result if say one person was cheating, and obviously sensible to strip results if it was organised by the team management and everyone was at it. But where do you draw the line? If 5 or 6 players got together and set up their own programme would it be right to strip the rest of the team of their achievements. I don't really know what happens there. The only parrallel I can think of is the 4 x 100m sprints - where the entire team are stripped of titles if one is caught doping, so I assume that's what happens. Could get very messy though if it is.

Apologies Big as you may well be right. Since posting this afternoon I have been reading the report and ASADA are heavily involved with this as well as the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Customs, and "other agencies". The introduction states that the ACC recieved info from ASADA in 2011 and that triggerred the ACC to start investigating. It sounds like the ACC have been the central body coordinating the investigation, but all of them have been involved in putting it together.

Speaking of fixing, I smell some serious BS about Sonny Bill's fight being cut from 12 to 10 rounds. I wanted him to win and he did a hell of a lot better than I thought, but another 90 seconds and he would have been horizontal.

As for being disappointed the final was in NZ? Since the whole tournament was there you must have had an inkling. I'm assuming you'd rather Japan had hosted it? Well they'll get their chance and I hope they put on a great tournament.

Really? That's what you thought I meant?

You didn't think I meant that it was all the more disappointing the way the match panned out given it was played in NZ?

I apoligise for not being clearer but now that I'm aware I''l try harder in the future.

disneychilly wrote:Speaking of fixing, I smell some serious BS about Sonny Bill's fight being cut from 12 to 10 rounds. I wanted him to win and he did a hell of a lot better than I thought, but another 90 seconds and he would have been horizontal.

What about poor old Botha he thought there were 2 more rounds to go..

I see the NZ TAB is refunding bets.

Kidney, Kiss and crew are now multimillionaires

When you all think we're going to lose, we'll win. When you all think we'll win, we organise things to lose. When you talk us up, we'll do the maths to ensure we play in the gutter. When you say we're a bunch of old has-beens, we'll pour protein drinks into the geriatrics, show them some violent movies and let them loose on the opposition.

If it makes ya feel better Fly then yeah ok..

England players are to confident to match fix- they all got a nice 7/1 on an england GS...

Not bothered about throwing a game .. not good enough odds..

mystiroakey wrote:If it makes ya feel better Fly then yeah ok..

England players are to confident to match fix- they all got a nice 7/1 on an england GS...

Not bothered about throwing a game .. not good enough odds..

Explain point?

Me making excuses for Ireland? Me not giving credit to England?

Truth is me, as I do a lot in recent years, being oh so satiric about the merits of our coaching unit (such as it pretends to be) linked to Irish players who can do so much better. Just taking yet another swipe at a something I want changed.

SecretFly wrote:Kidney, Kiss and crew are now multimillionaires

When you all think we're going to lose, we'll win. When you all think we'll win, we organise things to lose. When you talk us up, we'll do the maths to ensure we play in the gutter. When you say we're a bunch of old has-beens, we'll pour protein drinks into the geriatrics, show them some violent movies and let them loose on the opposition.

which explains Healy's uncharacteristic "lapses"...

Ermm , nah dont take it so seriously- i was just continuing your sharade..Its all BS. right!

Healy ain't a geriatric... so less protein powder and less sense are his issues.

He deserves to get cut out for a duration. I won't be complaining.

Oakey..I wasn't being 'serious', I was verbally dancing with my team and our coaches... I thought your reply a little testy though, so I replied to the reply. Glad to see we both took each other up wrongly

aye...