"No team in the world would have lived with them on Saturday" - S Barnes

First topic message reminder :

Would that performance have been enough to beat NZ?

Source:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbynation/rugby-news/2013/03/18/stuart-barnes-says-wales-would-ve-beaten-the-all-blacks-on-saturday-91466-33014559/

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:It is axtually sad to think we can now comment on the fact that one team team played the referee better than another team, don't you think?

It suggests that rugby is no more just rugby, the hits, the physical battle, the skills and everything else that is part of this great game, is now sullied by the impact referees have on a game, whether it is marginal or enough to change the course of a game is irrelevant.

But Biltong...is it really the case that refs are now more compromised and 'workable' by certain teams who know their ways or is it just that in the good old days nobody had an opinion on refs because 1 - they didn't have the outlets to talk about them like we do now and 2. we couldn't see much or hear much of what they were doing as TV was pretty basic?

Is reffing troubles really a new phenomenon or just an old one that we've finally been given the tools to discuss it with?

+1

And I'd add criticism has become rife as stakes have grown monatary wise too!!

I'd go a step further. The players in the old days didn't (as far as I remember) complain too much about reffing decisions that they might have felt went against them in a tough fought game. (and they were the only ones then with the close-up views)

And the same is mostly true today, players keep their thoughts to themselves about reffing decisions. They blame other things in a game but I don't hear much belly aching about a ref.

So - the only real difference about then and now is not the players, and very often not the coaches either - but us. Us mouthpieces who seldom shut up about the little intricacies of their every move.

Ireland could moan and groan about a lot of things too ref-wise, if I cared to look at games closely. Scotland could, Wales could...But the thing is Wales won the Championship on merit, not on deception - on merit. And some of the other sides (like Ireland) are bottom because they've done little to deserve anything better.

Well said, Biltong. Whatever Walsh did or didn't do, he had nothing to do with Wales' very physical and aggressive defence, strong set pieces, line speed, tactical and place-kicking, individual brilliance, and try-finishing.

SecretFly wrote:I'd go a step further. The players in the old days didn't (as far as I remember) complain too much about reffing decisions that they might have felt went against them in a tough fought game. (and they were the only ones then with the close-up views)

And the same is mostly true today, players keep their thoughts to themselves about reffing decisions. They blame other things in a game but I don't hear much belly aching about a ref.

So - the only real difference about then and now is not the players, and very often not the coaches either - but us. Us mouthpieces who seldom shut up about the little intricacies of their every move.

Ireland could moan and groan about a lot of things too ref-wise, if I cared to look at games closely. Scotland could, Wales could...But the thing is Wales won the Championship on merit, not on deception - on merit. And some of the other sides (like Ireland) are bottom because they've done little to deserve anything better.

Again +1

And if I was to add again it would be player reactions, slow motion shots of exhagorated confused faces, players surrounding the ref ala BOD and POC a few years ago etc

Perhaps I'm the only one, Perhaps I'm wrong, but when I read threads like this I get the feeling that a lot of Welsh supporters are very jealous of English fans because England has more success against the ABs and the Springboks.

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:It is axtually sad to think we can now comment on the fact that one team team played the referee better than another team, don't you think?

It suggests that rugby is no more just rugby, the hits, the physical battle, the skills and everything else that is part of this great game, is now sullied by the impact referees have on a game, whether it is marginal or enough to change the course of a game is irrelevant.

But Biltong...is it really the case that refs are now more compromised and 'workable' by certain teams who know their ways or is it just that in the good old days nobody had an opinion on refs because 1 - they didn't have the outlets to talk about them like we do now and 2. we couldn't see much or hear much of what they were doing as TV was pretty basic?

Is reffing troubles really a new phenomenon or just an old one that we've finally been given the tools to discuss it with?

mate, I don't really care whether it is something we recently "adapted" to or not.

This is not what rugby is supposed to be about.

If I want to watch something that plays up to judges or referees, I will watch ballet or platform diving, there I can see how subjectivity provides points and medals.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Perhaps I'm the only one, Perhaps I'm wrong, but when I read threads like this I get the feeling that a lot of Welsh supporters are very jealous of English fans because England has more success against the ABs and the Springboks.

Yes but Barnes is English so it aint the Welsh touting this, its more Barnes saying the All Blacks would have done no better than his England...

I was going more on the comments in the body of the thread, rather than the title of the thread.

Biltong wrote:mate, I don't really care whether it is something we recently "adapted" to or not.

This is not what rugby is supposed to be about.

If I want to watch something that plays up to judges or referees, I will watch ballet or platform diving, there I can see how subjectivity provides points and medals.

I'm simply saying there was never an old way of playing rugby only a way we (viewers who chat) couldn't really see clearly.

Players were as wise to using a ref then as now. Nothing pure about the past. Games were won on as much subterfuge as now.

So, where do we want to get back to by simplifying or modifying? There'll be no back to the old days because the old days were as crooked as these new days...we just couldn't see it happening. And we'll still have tons to complain about no matter how the rules change.

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:mate, I don't really care whether it is something we recently "adapted" to or not.

This is not what rugby is supposed to be about.

If I want to watch something that plays up to judges or referees, I will watch ballet or platform diving, there I can see how subjectivity provides points and medals.

I'm simply saying there was never an old way of playing rugby only a way we (viewers who chat) couldn't really see clearly.

Players were as wise to using a ref then as now. Nothing pure about the past. Games were won on as much subterfuge as now.

So, where do we want to get back to by simplifying or modifying? There'll be no back to the old days because the old days were as crooked as these new days...we just couldn't see it happening. And we'll still have tons to complain about no matter how the rules change.

No, I dn't think we must consider going back to the past.

But by simplifying the ruck for example, and allowing the players to "compete" for the ball with less laws that "interferes" with the actual competingof the ball and hence allowing rugby to be celebrated rather than a guy with a whistle.

But can you imagine the hellfire between two sets of fans from Wales and England or South Africa and New Zealand if the melee was being watched in brilliant close up as the ref stood off and let the best men win. The best men would win but it'd be a pretty brutal mess at times and somebody somewhere on forums like these are going to say something of a penalty nature happened!!

I mean the loser is always going to see something wrong, and where better to see something wrong than in an area of relaxed refereeing.

I know what you desire Biltong, and I love the idea of a battle myself, and its technically messy at breakdowns yes, but relaxing the rules of battle ain't going to stop moans here about what a ref did or in your case didn't do and should have done.

Not relaxing mate, simpllifying.

There needs to be four rules at the breakdown.

Enter the gate
If you touch the ball be on your feet
Respect the offside line.
The team that took it in, loses it if it doesn't comevout, same as maul.

Everything else is semantics.

Can we add straight put in at scrum time, with no pushing until the ball is in to have a proper contested scrum and hooking please?

I'm with Biltong on this one. Not rose tinted glasses for some non-existant golden age just a commonsense application of simplified laws.

Biltong wrote:It is axtually sad to think we can now comment on the fact that one team team played the referee better than another team, don't you think?

It suggests that rugby is no more just rugby, the hits, the physical battle, the skills and everything else that is part of this great game, is now sullied by the impact referees have on a game, whether it is marginal or enough to change the course of a game is irrelevant.

You mean like Aus v SA RWC 2011

100%beefy wrote:

Biltong wrote:It is axtually sad to think we can now comment on the fact that one team team played the referee better than another team, don't you think?

It suggests that rugby is no more just rugby, the hits, the physical battle, the skills and everything else that is part of this great game, is now sullied by the impact referees have on a game, whether it is marginal or enough to change the course of a game is irrelevant.

You mean like Aus v SA RWC 2011

i love how you seek my posts out just to make a comment on a thread.

It strokes my ego.

Biltong wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

Biltong wrote:It is axtually sad to think we can now comment on the fact that one team team played the referee better than another team, don't you think?

It suggests that rugby is no more just rugby, the hits, the physical battle, the skills and everything else that is part of this great game, is now sullied by the impact referees have on a game, whether it is marginal or enough to change the course of a game is irrelevant.

You mean like Aus v SA RWC 2011

i love how you seek my posts out just to make a comment on a thread.

It strokes my ego.

you actually believe that don't you.

trust me, your ego is bigger than anything i would consider stroking biltong

100%beefy wrote:

Biltong wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

Biltong wrote:It is axtually sad to think we can now comment on the fact that one team team played the referee better than another team, don't you think?

It suggests that rugby is no more just rugby, the hits, the physical battle, the skills and everything else that is part of this great game, is now sullied by the impact referees have on a game, whether it is marginal or enough to change the course of a game is irrelevant.

You mean like Aus v SA RWC 2011

i love how you seek my posts out just to make a comment on a thread.

It strokes my ego.

you actually believe that don't you.

trust me, your ego is bigger than anything i would consider stroking biltong

Fortunately I was speaking figuratively, I wouldn't want you to stroke anything literally.

Biltong wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

Biltong wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

Biltong wrote:It is axtually sad to think we can now comment on the fact that one team team played the referee better than another team, don't you think?

It suggests that rugby is no more just rugby, the hits, the physical battle, the skills and everything else that is part of this great game, is now sullied by the impact referees have on a game, whether it is marginal or enough to change the course of a game is irrelevant.

You mean like Aus v SA RWC 2011

i love how you seek my posts out just to make a comment on a thread.

It strokes my ego.

you actually believe that don't you.

trust me, your ego is bigger than anything i would consider stroking biltong

Fortunately I was speaking figuratively, I wouldn't want you to stroke anything literally.

Oh really...so disappointed. Quite sure its big enough to stroke where i am but i'll pass

mikey_philVIII wrote:The intensity Wales showed in that game is the same intensity the SH show in every single game.

true .

England , wales and france can only do it 1 in 5 at best.. NZ do it 4 in 5 , SA and aus probally 3 in 5.

Best point on the subject I've seen.

Does sum a lot up, and shows that anyone can get knocked off when it happens. You just never know when either...

Wales find that special intensity ~ 1:8 matches, when they meet England.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:That guy is an idiot... how did he get a job in the public eye off the back of being rob andrews minion for 10 years.

Harsh. He was a decent out half IMO. Quite like him as a pundit too even if he does get a little over excited sometimes. At least he isnt a complete wall flower like Wood and Wallace.

Pretty much everyone hates him, nothing is ever as bad or good as he says it is.

Biltong wrote:It is axtually sad to think we can now comment on the fact that one team team played the referee better than another team, don't you think?

It suggests that rugby is no more just rugby, the hits, the physical battle, the skills and everything else that is part of this great game, is now sullied by the impact referees have on a game, whether it is marginal or enough to change the course of a game is irrelevant.

As long as there are "laws" in rugby, rather than "rules" we are always going to have different interpretations and each game will be slightly different depending on whos refereeing.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Whoa whoa whoa, lets get this straight, no part of that Walsh performance was a disgrace in any shape or form!!

A bested scrum got pinged once or twice maybe unfairly, but they were clearly bested and thats the way it goes sometimes!!

The breakdown was a bit more loosely contested than other games, but easily for both sides.

I'm starting to find a fair few comments as really poor taste now!

It's a bit like treading on thin ice this! No ones saying that Wales didn't play well and thoroughly deserved their win, but to say that there were one or two dodgy decisions is a gross understatement - Wales have admitted to dropping 6 times, when England got pinged, let alone Hibbard popping up and Youngs being continually penalised. Wales well and truly outplayed England in the 2nd half, but don't forget how easy it is to become dispirited when every time you'e in a good field position, you concede 3 points or 40 meters territory by decisions that appear to be completely out of your hands.

So I take it after Saturday England are not going to take up that kind offer from our chief exec about using our stadium if you wanted it in 2015

maybe they'll just make your match with AUS outside of the MS to spite you guys. Got to play along to get along!!!

Wales were pumped for this game and I'm sure if NZ were wearing white shirts with red roses on it they'd have beaten NZ. Maybe you need hatred of the opposition sometimes to ensure sufficient motivation for a great performance. Wales don't have that against SH sides-maybe they waste emotions on thinking about the mindf*ck they have about not being able to knock them over instead of letting raw aggression take over which could help them over the full 80. For better or worse, it's there for a lot of teams against the English, so credit to the Poms for fashioning the record they have in the last 25 years despite the motivations of their opposition.

Well done to Wales on the most commanding performance I've seen from them in a dog's age. England are a damn good scrummaging team and to get that ascendancy is very impressive. The front row stocks of the Lions look healthy and raring to go and paste the Aussies.

Maybe you need hatred of the opposition sometimes to ensure sufficient motivation for a great performance.

Disney - those old fashioned stereotypes do a great disservice to this current welsh team - The likes of Jamie, Warburton, JD etc etc are balanced intelligent lads who enjoy their rugby - your reference is more for some fans than the players and I think that is such a huge distinction to make - Both sets of players always remain dignified in defeat.

Not necessarily Ruby-I see what you're saying though. My point comes from Richard Hadlee actually-his four word mantra walking back to his mark was "Rhythm, off stump, hate, Lillee". He spoke about his need to hate the batsman in order to motivate himself to get the guy out.

It's all intrinsic though so we'll never know exact motivations for some, but people do go to dark places to gee themselves up and I'm sure some feelings are not of the politically correct variety lol. You're right though in that fans, and media especially, contribute to it.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Perhaps I'm the only one, Perhaps I'm wrong, but when I read threads like this I get the feeling that a lot of Welsh supporters are very jealous of English fans because England has more success against the ABs and the Springboks.

I am jealous of the success. I would dearly love Scotland and Wales to beat New Zealand. Nothing wrong with wanting to beat the best. 2004 was the closest I have ever seen Wales get and I was left with such a hollow feeling after thinking all the way through that we might win. one day it will happen and I hope it's not another 50 years...not sure for Scotland. 1925 was their best chance and they blew it!

disneychilly wrote:Wales were pumped for this game and I'm sure if NZ were wearing white shirts with red roses on it they'd have beaten NZ. Maybe you need hatred of the opposition sometimes to ensure sufficient motivation for a great performance. .

Not having that. I don't think the Wales players hate the English players at all. Some of the fans might but that's a totally different thing. I think they rose to the expected challenge rather than the opposition. They were expecting England to come out and be aggressive and so they prepared for that. England weren't as aggressive as expected and so they were blown away. simple

"Listen here gents...before tea break, I must confess I am about to dashedly hate most of you chaps in order to get on the up, so to speak. So don't be offended now, it's just for show...and morale, what!

Now...let's be 'avin' yis Basterauds!!!!!!!!"

Yeah. Yeah... it might work

All joking aside though disney is right...it's game warfare...it's not hate...but it acts like it until game is over. Lots of teams feel the emotions of combat in a combat like game.

Hate is the incorrect word to describe a players motivation

Intense determination maybe but not hate

RubyGuby wrote:Hate is the incorrect word to describe a players motivation

Intense determination maybe but not hate

It's creative metaphorisation....... and yep, that final word is neologism.... I say I hate people like Simon Cowell all the time.... I don't though.

RubyGuby wrote:So I take it after Saturday England are not going to take up that kind offer from our chief exec about using our stadium if you wanted it in 2015

Nah, thanks, but we can use the new West Ham stadium, which is much nearer to HQ, and also has proper tranport links to the World.

gregortree wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:So I take it after Saturday England are not going to take up that kind offer from our chief exec about using our stadium if you wanted it in 2015

Nah, thanks, but we can use the new West Ham stadium, which is much nearer to HQ, and also has proper tranport links to the World.

That means you'll be blowing bubbles after 80 mins instead of blowing out your arxx

We don't like the Millie any more

gregortree wrote:We don't like the Millie any more

That's a funnny post

"“It was the most complete team performance of my career."

Read more: Wales Online http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbynation/rugby-news/2013/03/21/wales-prop-adam-jones-i-never-doubted-myself-after-french-nightmare-91466-33036272/#ixzz2OGvPXtKg

You don't have to have that McKay-it's just conjecture. Hate is a strong word though with all its implications-I get that. Would you rather me describe it as anger then? I listen to some heavy metal bands sometimes. People ask me why I listen to such hateful music. It's not hate they're expressing, it's anger. You can create something positive out of anger whereas hate I don't think you can. But because the motivations are so intrinsic and personal we'll never know. I don't think the players hate their counterparts at all and the emotions are used to construct something positive-in this case winning a test match. But white line fever always takes over and maybe you have to find ways to exaggerate such emotions to reach peak arousal levels.

Yes it's Friday afternoon and I typed arousal. Giggle giggle snort snort.

disneychilly wrote:You don't have to have that McKay-it's just conjecture.

O but now I want it...

Barnes is always wrong!

The title sounds like Barnes trying to console himself. Maybe he was wearing his customised "England: Grand Slam 2013" t-shirt while watching the game

It's called "emotional content" ask Bruce Lee

Knackeredknees wrote:In a word no

but you would have scared the bejesus out of them.
NZ would never have played as bad as we did on Saturday, the times we had the ball we were clueless as what to do with it. NZ always look composed even when being beaten.

If you had played like that in Oz you would have come back with 3W to your name

Just wanted to assure you that we realise how lucky we were that England played so poorly. The title is of course devalued as a result and we will just have to learn to live with it. Its not easy

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Perhaps I'm the only one, Perhaps I'm wrong, but when I read threads like this I get the feeling that a lot of Welsh supporters are very jealous of English fans because England has more success against the ABs and the Springboks.

Yes you are

No laurie, some cannot accept the good grace the majority have given Wales on their victory and still trot out the tedious devalued, arrogant etc line. Sore winners indeed...

["aucklandlaurie"]
Perhaps I'm wrong[

You got that part right Laurie - I think they call it projection in the trade