If Wales finished 3rd would you class it as an achievement?

First topic message reminder :

In 2006 Wales finished 5th.
In 2009, Wales finished 4th.

In 2012 Wales showed no bottle or metal out in Australia and played like brainfarts in the autumn.

If they finish 3rd this year (especially after the embarrassing performance vs Ireland), I would consider that an achievement.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:By the way 100% beefy. Are you from Romania?

London

Are you a kiwi fan pretending to be welsh horsey?

mystiroakey wrote:Are you a kiwi fan pretending to be welsh horsey?

Are you from another planet pretending to be human Stroker?

Is he back again?

Yes I am alien to the welsh kiwis.. and the majority of londoners

btw before i get a red type..

apoligies I know its against the rules.. its just minor proding.

welcome horsey whoever you may be?

I am not 'Hersh' or Horse, I am 100%beefy the genuine article and have never even been to Romania, if you have an issue then please report it otherwise get over it and can we talk rugby thanks

I know your not hersh....! I only used that as a ryhme dude..

clueggmiteyawopok


. btw I dont report-and i have no issue as i said welcome dude?

I am happy to call you horse as a nickname.. OK

beshocked wrote:kiakahaaotearoa true about Wales.

I would say you punch above your weight in cricket too. Plus you are decent at rugby league too.

I wouldn't say the same of football though! I didn't even know you had a football side!

Rowing, triathlon, equestrian riding, motorcross. Not usually sports with global participation but we have many World and Olympics champs so I'm always proud of our athletes putting our tiny country on the map. Rugby of course is what really puts us on the global stage even if much of the globe doesn't watch it. At least they know or can recognise the ABs and their funny little dance.

By the way, NZ was the only undefeated team at the last football World Cup. Always a good recommendation for a pub quiz question.

As for 100%beefy, nothing personal mate. Not making fun of a newcomer. More ripping the p out of Findus and its dodgy lasagne meals. Doesn't matter where you're from or who you support. Welcome to the boards.

Ta appreciate it, here for the rugby chat not a WUM

Humour doesn't translate well in the written form because often it's difficult to decipher the intent of the writer. But rugby chat is always a little richer if you throw in some good-natured banter from time to time in my opinion. A matter of getting used to the styles of different posters.

Anyway back to the thread. Wales should not underestimate the importance of breaking the drought in a place where normally they enjoy little success. It counts for nothing though if they lose or don't perform well in their remaining games. Their focus now is to take each game at a time and find a way of winning it. Sometimes we get carried away with beating records for consecutive victories or defeats, tournament hopes or rankings. What matters is the game in hand and doing everything you can to prepare mentally and physically for that game. We as fans can be more flexible and look further down the road and speculate on the future but sometimes players do the same and invariably come unstuck.

If Wales finished 3rd would that be an achievement? If Lulu were 40 years younger would you take her home with you? If the Lions were all English players would they win? Fun to debate it but until it happens, it doesn't do you much good to think about it for too long.

RubyGuby wrote:

damngoodOvalball wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

damngoodOvalball wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Why all the -ves for Wales - we've been the NH most successful team of recent years 3 Grand Slams and a RWC semi-final courtesy of a french ref. What have Wales got to do.

Actually beat a SH team rather than simply claiming you can and stop losing 9 out of every 10 games.

Very presumptuous that we will lose to Italy. What score will it be, so I can lump some money on it?

8 out of 9 then, because that's so much better mr sarky!
For the record, I think Wales will beat Italy this time but it wouldn't surprise me if they lost to them again.

So let me get this right - Having the odd win in the past few years against a SH team ranks higher that winning 3 Grand Slams and a RWC semi-final.
If you want to judge Wales by the shambolic AI's under Howley you carry on, enjoy your odd victory over SH opposition now and again; however I thought England by now should know how difficult it is to win a Grand Slam after the 2011 debacle; lets see if you can win something meaningful for the first time in 10 years - Looking forward to Cardiff

Ruby Guby how come you credit wales with a rwc semi and GS s going back to 2005 but fail to mention our rwc final in the same period i.e going RWC 2007. ?????

oh thats . if you look at england v wales head to head over all time youll find that it is one of if not the most remarkably even two way rivalry ever in any sport. undoubtedly though while uin the last 7 years you have shown greater 6N cvonsistency we have hit higher heights. this gives us hope of more to come. Im not sure where wales are at to be honest. good at beating poor sides only?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Humour doesn't translate well in the written form because often it's difficult to decipher the intent of the writer. But rugby chat is always a little richer if you throw in some good-natured banter from time to time in my opinion. A matter of getting used to the styles of different posters.

Anyway back to the thread. Wales should not underestimate the importance of breaking the drought in a place where normally they enjoy little success. It counts for nothing though if they lose or don't perform well in their remaining games. Their focus now is to take each game at a time and find a way of winning it. Sometimes we get carried away with beating records for consecutive victories or defeats, tournament hopes or rankings. What matters is the game in hand and doing everything you can to prepare mentally and physically for that game. We as fans can be more flexible and look further down the road and speculate on the future but sometimes players do the same and invariably come unstuck.

If Wales finished 3rd would that be an achievement? If Lulu were 40 years younger would you take her home with you? If the Lions were all English players would they win? Fun to debate it but until it happens, it doesn't do you much good to think about it for too long.

Banter is all good, it is just that in my experience banter has to be funny!

I couldn't agree more with the main text about Wales

As for your questions:

1. No
2. Absolutely!
3. Quite likely

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Humour doesn't translate well in the written form because often it's difficult to decipher the intent of the writer. But rugby chat is always a little richer if you throw in some good-natured banter from time to time in my opinion. A matter of getting used to the styles of different posters.

Anyway back to the thread. Wales should not underestimate the importance of breaking the drought in a place where normally they enjoy little success. It counts for nothing though if they lose or don't perform well in their remaining games. Their focus now is to take each game at a time and find a way of winning it. Sometimes we get carried away with beating records for consecutive victories or defeats, tournament hopes or rankings. What matters is the game in hand and doing everything you can to prepare mentally and physically for that game. We as fans can be more flexible and look further down the road and speculate on the future but sometimes players do the same and invariably come unstuck.

If Wales finished 3rd would that be an achievement? If Lulu were 40 years younger would you take her home with you? If the Lions were all English players would they win? Fun to debate it but until it happens, it doesn't do you much good to think about it for too long.

I'd take LuLu home now.

The ONLY problem I have with this thread is it`s the old England v Wales bickering bit.Stats prove head to head and tournament successes there is little between either side.
One thing I have with the 2003 RWC thing,IT was an exceptional achievement and SCW created a great team.BUT with all there advantages in cash /player base etc .More than any other country is 10 years in the wilderness an acceptable price .
My affiliations are well known and I was asked would I rather be THE best team in World [by the record]or win a RWC my answer is the former EVERY time.

That's because you have both.

emack2 wrote:The ONLY problem I have with this thread is it`s the old England v Wales bickering bit.Stats prove head to head and tournament successes there is little between either side.
One thing I have with the 2003 RWC thing,IT was an exceptional achievement and SCW created a great team.BUT with all there advantages in cash /player base etc .More than any other country is 10 years in the wilderness an acceptable price .
My affiliations are well known and I was asked would I rather be THE best team in World [by the record]or win a RWC my answer is the former EVERY time.

1. The wilderness is lonely but England have made it their home

2. Best team ......best at what exactly......NZ have always founded their rep on performances and result and they just got taken out by a side who, by your definition, have been wandering in the wilderness for 10 years

And IF we beat you on the 16th of March, does that make us better than New Zealand because you beat them? Personally I don't think so, even if we pull off a most unlikely win. However, I doubt that will stop the claim being made on here

What a shame some Welsh have to come on here slagging the Welsh team off. Best you leave it rooted in your sad and poorly functioning brain. 1st or last, some of us support the nation through thick and thin rather than just gettingon board for the good times. Pathetic little man.

I'm not little...

The reports in the press state how the players certainly feel the win in Paris got a bogie off their back.

Winning in Rome will be harder than ever. This is the best Italian team I have seen.

They didn't fire against the scots, to be fair the scots played very well, though some over the tries were interceptions that might well not occur at home.

We have the scots two weeks after then, likely, an England team going for a Grandslam.

The tournament only gets tougher here on in.

NO it was the once every 10 years by England versus NZ. What about the 9 defeats mostly by at least 20points or more in the wilderness.?

DID you pick England to beat NZ or are you just wallowing in it?would England have won earlier in the season?
When they do it on a regular basis crow until then

or us anglos could switch allegencies and celebrate nz's 8/10 wins

IF that was true of ME you could BUT I have`nt just jumped on a bandwagon my allegiances have`nt changed in 60 years!!!
This thread is just the old England v Wales one and unlike the train spotters here.I would be quite happy with NZ`s 81+% win record the RWCs you can stick where the sun does`nt shine.
They mean precisely nothing,unless there is no seeding,and everything at each round is settled by lot they are neither fish nor fowl.I say again I would`nt swop NZs overall record for ALL 7 RWCs but that is just me

emack2 wrote:IF that was true of ME you could BUT I have`nt just jumped on a bandwagon my allegiances have`nt changed in 60 years!!!
This thread is just the old England v Wales one and unlike the train spotters here.I would be quite happy with NZ`s 81+% win record the RWCs you can stick where the sun does`nt shine.
They mean precisely nothing,unless there is no seeding,and everything at each round is settled by lot they are neither fish nor fowl.I say again I would`nt swop NZs overall record for ALL 7 RWCs but that is just me

Convenient that!

Emack

emack2 wrote:IF that was true of ME you could BUT I have`nt just jumped on a bandwagon my allegiances have`nt changed in 60 years!!!
This thread is just the old England v Wales one and unlike the train spotters here.I would be quite happy with NZ`s 81+% win record the RWCs you can stick where the sun does`nt shine.
They mean precisely nothing,unless there is no seeding,and everything at each round is settled by lot they are neither fish nor fowl.I say again I would`nt swop NZs overall record for ALL 7 RWCs but that is just me

Interesting point about seedings.

If it were only the previous winner and the home nation that were automatic qualifiers it may well add a lot of spice to the qualification process.

Maybe with the Qualifier Internationals that I guess would have to happen in the IRB autumn and summer slots.

When I became interested in rugby union 1n 1953-4 age 10 we had just started it at School.The AllBlacks that year had to date there worst Tour of Europe to date.Wales and Cardiff beat them that year,the side was one rebuilding.It played mostly 10man Rugby certainly it had great players BUT
like the Boks too.You thought of them as teams rather than individuals unlike Nh sides which was more personalities.
As an Anglo-Scot also support my own sides except when playing the ABs,and was as proud as any.Of Englands achievements under SCW,Rowell,Best,Cooke etc.
Also I am happy the way England are building now ,I DON`Tsee the NZ result as the end for NZ as some here are.
NOR am I stupid enough on a couple of results to expect England to become all powerful.
Also to disrespect a side that has won 3 Grand Slams in the last 10 years.Also if you include the year when 3 sides were 2,3,4 on points difference instead of saying it was a 3 way tie you mislead your public.
For practical cash reasons the RWC can never be a true knock out tournament
where.There are no seedings and after the group stages you get drawn by lot
You then would`nt get the we`ve only got to do so much in the gruop to avoid team x etc.
Why shouldn`t England Australia,Nz,and SA be in the same group except for cash.Or why not cut out a stage only Group winner goes forward that would sort the sheep from the goats.
For obvious reasons it will never happen BUT it would mean a bigger spread of finalists even maybe winners.
The ONLY good thing for me about RWCs is when you get a surprise result like Ireland beating Australia .Then all the preconceived ideas go out the window

t1000advancedprototype wrote:

Biltong wrote:

t1000advancedprototype wrote:We are a small nation punching above our weight.

If you really beleive that, then 4 500 000 New Zealanders must really beleive they are carrying the world on their shoulders.

The problem comparing us to NZ is this:

1. New Zealand is a proper country and has more money. Wales is just an extension of the UK.
2. The domestic game and pro setup in NZ is infinitely more advanced than Wales.
3. FOOTBALL is the national sport of Wales. We are romantically connected with rugby in Wales but ONLY during internationals. More people watch football and more people play football. Also pram pushing, boozing and benefit claiming are the fastest growing sports in Wales.

We are definitely punching above our weight.

NZ were also unbeaten in the last football world cup as well.
NZ are just an extension of Oz- we play in their league, netball, football and...rugby...comps...
Benefit claimings up on our list too. ARE we... the same?

emack2 wrote:When I became interested in rugby union 1n 1953-4 age 10 we had just started it at School.The AllBlacks that year had to date there worst Tour of Europe to date.Wales and Cardiff beat them that year,the side was one rebuilding.It played mostly 10man Rugby certainly it had great players BUT
like the Boks too.You thought of them as teams rather than individuals unlike Nh sides which was more personalities.
As an Anglo-Scot also support my own sides except when playing the ABs,and was as proud as any.Of Englands achievements under SCW,Rowell,Best,Cooke etc.
Also I am happy the way England are building now ,I DON`Tsee the NZ result as the end for NZ as some here are.
NOR am I stupid enough on a couple of results to expect England to become all powerful.
Also to disrespect a side that has won 3 Grand Slams in the last 10 years.Also if you include the year when 3 sides were 2,3,4 on points difference instead of saying it was a 3 way tie you mislead your public.
For practical cash reasons the RWC can never be a true knock out tournament
where.There are no seedings and after the group stages you get drawn by lot
You then would`nt get the we`ve only got to do so much in the gruop to avoid team x etc.
Why shouldn`t England Australia,Nz,and SA be in the same group except for cash.Or why not cut out a stage only Group winner goes forward that would sort the sheep from the goats.
For obvious reasons it will never happen BUT it would mean a bigger spread of finalists even maybe winners.
The ONLY good thing for me about RWCs is when you get a surprise result like Ireland beating Australia .Then all the preconceived ideas go out the window

I remember there was terrible flooding after a storm in the winter of 1953 in England. I also remember going to see Disney's Peter Pan at the Windsor Cinema in Neath, that place was really something to me then.

I grew up on a farm and we didn't have a TV. Just a radio to listen to the game. I was six, my father was a Cardiff RFC fan, he played inside centre or flanker for Glyncorrwg. I listened to Wales and Cardiff beat the All Blacks.

I didnt realise you was so old maest!!!

mystiroakey wrote:I didnt realise you were so old maest!!!

Still fit and healthy though mate...!

emack2 wrote:When I became interested in rugby union 1n 1953-4 age 10 we had just started it at School.The AllBlacks that year had to date there worst Tour of Europe to date.Wales and Cardiff beat them that year,the side was one rebuilding.It played mostly 10man Rugby certainly it had great players BUT
like the Boks too.You thought of them as teams rather than individuals unlike Nh sides which was more personalities.
As an Anglo-Scot also support my own sides except when playing the ABs,and was as proud as any.Of Englands achievements under SCW,Rowell,Best,Cooke etc.
Also I am happy the way England are building now ,I DON`Tsee the NZ result as the end for NZ as some here are.
NOR am I stupid enough on a couple of results to expect England to become all powerful.
Also to disrespect a side that has won 3 Grand Slams in the last 10 years.Also if you include the year when 3 sides were 2,3,4 on points difference instead of saying it was a 3 way tie you mislead your public.
For practical cash reasons the RWC can never be a true knock out tournament
where.There are no seedings and after the group stages you get drawn by lot
You then would`nt get the we`ve only got to do so much in the gruop to avoid team x etc.
Why shouldn`t England Australia,Nz,and SA be in the same group except for cash.Or why not cut out a stage only Group winner goes forward that would sort the sheep from the goats.
For obvious reasons it will never happen BUT it would mean a bigger spread of finalists even maybe winners.
The ONLY good thing for me about RWCs is when you get a surprise result like Ireland beating Australia .Then all the preconceived ideas go out the window

Aw again the ab's lose and there are excuses....never in their history did nz ever lose by being the worse team. Pathetic bunch of arrogant, blinkered supporters. You were beaten fair and square pal...suck it up and accept it.

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I didnt realise you were so old maest!!!

Still fit and healthy though mate...!

Rainbow where`s the excuse`s? it was a fact 1953-4 the the Kiwi`s /Otago based side was growing old together.Wales/France/SA were better at that time BUT by 1956 they were the defacto world champions.Something the contested both home and away until 1981.victory in each case going to the home side.

emack2 wrote:Rainbow where`s the excuse`s? it was a fact 1953-4 the the Kiwi`s /Otago based side was growing old together.Wales/France/SA were better at that time BUT by 1956 they were the defacto world champions.Something the contested both home and away until 1981.victory in each case going to the home side.

I believe the Welsh side were old too. The only fact is / was you were beaten fair and square. Fact is not many Kiwis can stand up and congratulate another side without some painful excuse spluttering out their mouths as well. You just been hammered nay destroyed by England and however painfull that is for me to say it is one thing A FACT.

now now rainbow. Amongst the first to congratulate the English were the kiwis- generally with no excuses. Its only when the win projected England into the stratosphere that it became the usual free for all, as is usually the case.

And are you saying that the (particularly) English and Welsh take all of their losses to lower ranked sides- in context with the ABs- say Italy or Scotland without offering some form of reason beyond that being that the other side was just too good?

Simple answer...no. The boards are littered with every possible reason ever thought of so get off your high horse as as much as you think the word excuse is limited to kiwis...well...it aint....so breathe in, and just be a good kiwi will you.

Taylorman wrote:now now rainbow. Amongst the first to congratulate the English were the kiwis- generally with no excuses. Its only when the win projected England into the stratosphere that it became the usual free for all, as is usually the case.

And are you saying that the (particularly) English and Welsh take all of their losses to lower ranked sides- in context with the ABs- say Italy or Scotland without offering some form of reason beyond that being that the other side was just too good?

Simple answer...no. The boards are littered with every possible reason ever thought of so get off your high horse as as much as you think the word excuse is limited to kiwis...well...it aint....so breathe in, and just be a good kiwi will you.

+ 0.9 (got Welshed on the other 0.1)

I think you can also read these boards and see the exact opposite of what you write. Many Welsh pour masses of scorn on the team especially the last 12 months. I personally have never slammed the Welsh players, what right do I have to do this, I never achieved their standard, not did anyone else on these boards.

Yes I am angry and gutted after a loss but am able to pick up a few days later and look towards the next game. Yes it is terrible to lose against lower ranking sides but what can you do? Stay down or become bitter? Like I say I can pick myself up. Let's face it NZ grounds to a sulking public holiday if the AB's lose.

So just like every other day in Wales then?

rainbow-warrior wrote: Let's face it NZ grounds to a sulking public holiday if the AB's lose.

Well Im assuming you were here when we lost to England. In your opinion did you think NZ, in the press, out on the streets etc 'ground to a sulking public holiday'?

Wasnt the impression I got. In fact I thought the gneral opinion is that it was possibly a good thing to end the year that way. To start the new year with something to resolve and not get ahead of ourselves too much. Obviously not everyone is going to be singing a happy tune but sulking? Naaah. But then you probably found what you were looking for.

Rainbow you don`t get it do you?my comment about 1953-4 was`nt about the relevant sides.It was an explanation how a young lad who`s alliegance was formed by a side that WAS`NT then the greatest.That MY bonafides was not a case of glory hunting then or NOW.