In the World of the Blind the ONE EYED Man is King.

Yesterday finally got around to watching the 3 Rd Bledisloe Cup Match from the Reports thought the AB`s played rubbish.
"Quote the worst performance this year"etc.,"AUS dominated physically"".Mc Caw should have been yellow carded".What
match were they watching?

For the first 15 minutes it was all NZ,for there whole match NZ`a set piece was good bar one Scrum in which a player was
tripped.In the first 20 minutes alone Mc Caw was tackled 6 times off the ball.Plus another AB forward was taken out in
the same way.At the time of the third Aus try an NZ player was taken out off the ball and it went on through out the match.

Don`t get me wrong it was a brilliant match ,BOTH sides were getting away with murder,crooked line out throws.jumping
across,crooked Scrum feeds etc..Joubert let the game flow not like some pedantic stop start Refs.

Australia played out of there skins but the fitness levels aren't there twice in 3 games they`ve blown up in the last 15
minutes.Turning point Aus Penalty close to the line a certain 3,kick for touch then a lineout drive instead,commentaters
"Good call keep the pressure on" WRONG the number of tries post 2009 via Line Out Drive are VERY few they defend it
arguably better than any team in the game.

Then the inevitable you just know they have gears in reserve few can match. and this season have defended Yellow card
situations brilliantly.A fabulous game by both sides yet again from both sides BRILLIANT.

The odds on England winning there Group on that performance looks a lot less certain than before.

It's just different opinions Alan.

Some justify the close match by saying the All Blacks were poor and it is not a true reflection of where the teams are at.

Others are just trying to read between the lines.

Some love to suggest it was a dead rubber and hence the All Blacks were not even getting out of third gear.

I think each performance must simply be taken at face value.

WHat have we learnt from the RC this year?

Australia do have good enough forwards, they just need to be committed to 80 minutes, New Zealand under pressure turns their usual aggressive defence into a passive defence and you can force them to doubt themselves.

South Africa is stuck between a rock and a hard place, still struggling to balance attack and percentage plays.

Argentina is starting to surprise teams, they aren't there yet, but better than before.

If an openside isn't on the verge of getting a yellow card every game.... he's not doing his job.

Football is a game of rules.

Rugby is a game of interpretation.

McCaw has based his career like Back, like Brussow, Like Pocock.... on the margins. 1 step too far and he is acting illegal, often that step can be pushed further depending on the referee, the opposition, the standing of the player himself.

Nothing wrong with that as a rule which isn't enforced is not a rule.

If a player knows he threw a forward pass.. does he stop and say "scrum to the opposition"... no, he plays to the ref. This isn't a game of honour and sportsmanship, we're not all Adam Gilchrist.... we stand like Kallis until we're dismissed.

In terms of AUS... they can raise their game sure but England should beat them for the foreseeable future.... big upfront with chaps like Wilson, Corbisiero, Marler, Hartley, Launchbury etc... they will just dominate upfront and squeeze the life out of them.

If A>B and B>C, in rugby A is not always > C.

Wales can beat England, England can beat New Zealand but Wales cannot beat New Zealand. Its just the way it is (current status). Before anyone raises an eyebrow, note the word... can.

I watched the game as well, Alan.

I think that the difference for me was that Australia never lost touch with the game which they often do of late. Interesting points were that the Aussie set piece seemed more solid than I have recently seen it (Slipper had a massive game) and that the backline ran straighter and harder than I have recently seen it.

Lots of good things showed for the Wallabies, particularly as I keep reading about what 'crisis' the team happens to be in each week. In Phipps, there is finally a worthy alternative to Genia, Foley does not have the same razzle dazzle as Cooper but the general skillset seems broader and Kuridrani now seems to be making the shirt his own.

Your All Blacks are still the best, however. That last minute victory against Ireland earlier in the year (or was it last year now?) went further to intimidating opponents than any 50 point thrashing ever could, because the simple truth is that if the ABs are within 7 points in the final 10 minutes, teams are almost waiting for the inevitable late surge to take the game.

It was reffed (and played) like a Baa Baas game.

Some exciting play, loads of mistakes, infringements largely ignored and a bit of end-of-season fun for the fans.

Still very confident that England can beat Aus.

I thought Joubert handled the game by himself and very well. Though one problem I have with him is that when he officiates a NH vs SH game the NH will always lose. He seems to only let the SH play the 'SH way' and the NH team try to adapt then get pinged, being left in the cold feeling clueless.

The Saint wrote:I thought Joubert handled the game by himself and very well. Though one problem I have with him is that when he officiates a NH vs SH game the NH will always lose. He seems to only let the SH play the 'SH way' and the NH team try to adapt then get pinged, being left in the cold feeling clueless.

I think you are being rather unfair with your perception of Joubert.

He started refereeing test matches in 2005.

Matches he refereed for Australia against Six Nation teams.

England won 35-18
France lost 50-23 in 2014
France lost 13-18 in 2008
Wales lost 27-19 in 2012
Wales lost 20-19 in 2012

Consider the fact that AUstralia has been refereed by more NH referees than SH referees, and only 5 times by Craig Joubert.

During this period Australia has had a winning percentage of 83% over Wales, 81% over France, 55% over England, his results aren't contrary to the norm.

As for NZ, well they don't often lose, so his stats for NZ won't be out of the norm either.

I think the results are mostly a fair reflection of the teams form in those matches against Aus. It would be the manner in which the rules are interpreted in those game which some fans have a problem with, including myself. It's difficult enough to get a win over the SH without Joubert applying his own version of the rule book.

Hmmm how many times in the last few years have we heard this. Seems to me Aus are the new France – brilliant, except when they’re not. Or the new Wales – can beat anyone on their day, whenever that is.

So no change there. Except England are playing at home, and have a good record against Aus. The real difficulty in this pool is the desire to win 2 hard games, even before the knock-out stage.

Why Cyril a half way sensible comment quite perceptive for a loon
It seems teams have decided the way to beat the AB`s is run them of there feet,except
you have to do it to the final whistle.

As To SH Refs letting the game flow there is just as many whistle happy ones as in the
NH.Wayne Barnes has NZ`s AI`s v England and Wales and he`s a "Homer"so you`ll
have no cause for complaints.At least 2 Yellow Cards a game I expect

Biltong wrote:

The Saint wrote:I thought Joubert handled the game by himself and very well. Though one problem I have with him is that when he officiates a NH vs SH game the NH will always lose. He seems to only let the SH play the 'SH way' and the NH team try to adapt then get pinged, being left in the cold feeling clueless.

I think you are being rather unfair with your perception of Joubert.

He started refereeing test matches in 2005.

Matches he refereed for Australia against Six Nation teams.

England won 35-18
France lost 50-23 in 2014
France lost 13-18 in 2008
Wales lost 27-19 in 2012
Wales lost 20-19 in 2012

Consider the fact that AUstralia has been refereed by more NH referees than SH referees, and only 5 times by Craig Joubert.

During this period Australia has had a winning percentage of 83% over Wales, 81% over France, 55% over England, his results aren't contrary to the norm.

As for NZ, well they don't often lose, so his stats for NZ won't be out of the norm either.

I have to agree with Biltong. If we just look at the games since the last world cup.
Refereed 0 games for 6 nations sides vs Argentina
Refereed games for 6 nations sides vs Australia. The 1st and 3rd test of Wales 2012 tour down under, the second Lions test and the 1st test and the first test of the French tour. With the exception of the last Welsh test Australia were more heavily penalised. That's despite all these games being played in Australia.
Refereed 2 games against NZ. The 2012 Welsh and 2013 English games. NZ were penalised more in both games (albeit marginally in the Welsh game).

Whilst you might be right regarding style of play. I doubt NZ or Australian fans will agree with you in that he favours southern teams.

emack2 wrote:Why Cyril a half way sensible comment quite perceptive for a loon
It seems teams have decided the way to beat the AB`s is run them of there feet,except
you have to do it to the final whistle.

As To SH Refs letting the game flow there is just as many whistle happy ones as in the
NH.Wayne Barnes has NZ`s AI`s v England and Wales and he`s a "Homer"so you`ll
have no cause for complaints.At least 2 Yellow Cards a game I expect

Barnes can't have got NZ vs England.

Thought that was what was published on Planet Rugby for the AI`s.

I may well be wrong, I haven't checked, but he's English.

I mean that because he's English he can't have got NZ vs England, not that I don't know he's English.

I gather Barnes is the ref most likely to be reffing when the ABs lose. It must be because he is so good.

I gather some can't accept defeat.

It's all about the stats.

Do you have any Walsh stats 7.5?

Nope. I've seen a few games he's reffed NZ in though and he's been fine. Both teams have more influence on a result than the ref it just gets me that some people always look to the ref to blame rather than just accept another team has beaten them.

Come now, stop being all serious

Ha. Fair dos.

That's the way bro. I agree with your sentiment though as it's the reality. Time helps to acknowledge it.

emack2 wrote:Why Cyril a half way sensible comment quite perceptive for a loon

Cheers, Alan Your article almost made sense. Which was nice

Cyril wrote:

emack2 wrote:Why Cyril a half way sensible comment quite perceptive for a loon

Cheers, Alan Your article almost made sense. Which was nice

Reminds me of someone going on a blind date which went quite well and then shyly admits it was quite nice.

emack2 wrote:
The odds on England winning there Group on that performance looks a lot less certain than before.

So that, in context assumes that Australis will win the group.. So you have disregarded Wales all together then...

With Australia, England and WALES in the group, how anyone can make assumptions now on who will top that group beggars belief...

fa0019 wrote:

If A>B and B>C, in rugby A is not always > C.

Wales can beat England, England can beat New Zealand but Wales cannot beat New Zealand. Its just the way it is (current status). Before anyone raises an eyebrow, note the word... can.

I also note the word CANNOT... Ok, we havent beaten the All Blacks since 1953, but the fact we have beaten then 3 times does not make the statement CANNOT correct... Also, we have been very very close on several occasions recently, and there is nothing to say its fact that we cannot beat them this November. I accept it may be unlikely, but the result is not in the record books yet, so please dont state it as if it where fact.


As for Wayne Barnes ref'ing England v All Blacks that CANNOT be right, and if it is and England won just wait for the backlash...

No9 wrote:

emack2 wrote:
The odds on England winning there Group on that performance looks a lot less certain than before.

So that, in context assumes that Australis will win the group.. So you have disregarded Wales all together then...

With Australia, England and WALES in the group, how anyone can make assumptions now on who will top that group beggars belief...

fa0019 wrote:

If A>B and B>C, in rugby A is not always > C.

Wales can beat England, England can beat New Zealand but Wales cannot beat New Zealand. Its just the way it is (current status). Before anyone raises an eyebrow, note the word... can.

I also note the word CANNOT... Ok, we havent beaten the All Blacks since 1953, but the fact we have beaten then 3 times does not make the statement CANNOT correct... Also, we have been very very close on several occasions recently, and there is nothing to say its fact that we cannot beat them this November. I accept it may be unlikely, but the result is not in the record books yet, so please dont state it as if it where fact.


As for Wayne Barnes ref'ing England v All Blacks that CANNOT be right, and if it is and England won just wait for the backlash...

Didn't you read the statement.... "its just the way it is (current status)"...i.e. they don't have the players at the moment to win. 10 years time, who knows. In the past sure.

Wayne Barnes cannot ref England. Although I think Steve Walsh can referee NZ. I think he has run the line for sure in a ENG vs. NZ match.

fa0019 wrote:

No9 wrote:

emack2 wrote:
The odds on England winning there Group on that performance looks a lot less certain than before.

So that, in context assumes that Australis will win the group.. So you have disregarded Wales all together then...

With Australia, England and WALES in the group, how anyone can make assumptions now on who will top that group beggars belief...

fa0019 wrote:

If A>B and B>C, in rugby A is not always > C.

Wales can beat England, England can beat New Zealand but Wales cannot beat New Zealand. Its just the way it is (current status). Before anyone raises an eyebrow, note the word... can.

I also note the word CANNOT... Ok, we havent beaten the All Blacks since 1953, but the fact we have beaten then 3 times does not make the statement CANNOT correct... Also, we have been very very close on several occasions recently, and there is nothing to say its fact that we cannot beat them this November. I accept it may be unlikely, but the result is not in the record books yet, so please dont state it as if it where fact.


As for Wayne Barnes ref'ing England v All Blacks that CANNOT be right, and if it is and England won just wait for the backlash...

Didn't you read the statement.... "its just the way it is (current status)"...i.e. they don't have the players at the moment to win. 10 years time, who knows. In the past sure.

Wayne Barnes cannot ref England. Although I think Steve Walsh can referee NZ. I think he has run the line for sure in a ENG vs. NZ match.

 Didn't you read my reply!!! WHO SAID Wales don't have the current players to win.. Bit of an arrogant comment that isn't it... Unless of course you have a crystal ball that shows you the future. Wales meet the All Blacks on 22nd Nov, and as far as I can see there is no divine right that says the All Black MUST win and Wales fail again. I accept the bookies and favorite tag will go with the New Zealand, but in a 2 horse race either can win and its not over till the fat lady sings... Hence my reply is more accurate than your statement. Until the final whistle, you have no factual reason to say Wales CANNOT win.

Agreed.. But Walsh can ref NZ as he isn't associated to NZRU... I believe they kicked him out for unprofessional conduct or something like that. So in the eyes of the IRB he's actually an Aussie, so cant ref Australia...

No9 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No9 wrote:

emack2 wrote:
The odds on England winning there Group on that performance looks a lot less certain than before.

So that, in context assumes that Australis will win the group.. So you have disregarded Wales all together then...

With Australia, England and WALES in the group, how anyone can make assumptions now on who will top that group beggars belief...

fa0019 wrote:

If A>B and B>C, in rugby A is not always > C.

Wales can beat England, England can beat New Zealand but Wales cannot beat New Zealand. Its just the way it is (current status). Before anyone raises an eyebrow, note the word... can.

I also note the word CANNOT... Ok, we havent beaten the All Blacks since 1953, but the fact we have beaten then 3 times does not make the statement CANNOT correct... Also, we have been very very close on several occasions recently, and there is nothing to say its fact that we cannot beat them this November. I accept it may be unlikely, but the result is not in the record books yet, so please dont state it as if it where fact.


As for Wayne Barnes ref'ing England v All Blacks that CANNOT be right, and if it is and England won just wait for the backlash...

Didn't you read the statement.... "its just the way it is (current status)"...i.e. they don't have the players at the moment to win. 10 years time, who knows. In the past sure.

Wayne Barnes cannot ref England. Although I think Steve Walsh can referee NZ. I think he has run the line for sure in a ENG vs. NZ match.

 Didn't you read my reply!!! WHO SAID Wales don't have the current players to win.. Bit of an arrogant comment that isn't it... Unless of course you have a crystal ball that shows you the future. Wales meet the All Blacks on 22nd Nov, and as far as I can see there is no divine right that says the All Black MUST win and Wales fail again. I accept the bookies and favorite tag will go with the New Zealand, but in a 2 horse race either can win and its not over till the fat lady sings... Hence my reply is more accurate than your statement. Until the final whistle, you have no factual reason to say Wales CANNOT win.

Agreed.. But Walsh can ref NZ as he isn't associated to NZRU... I believe they kicked him out for unprofessional conduct or something like that. So in the eyes of the IRB he's actually an Aussie, so cant ref Australia...

What an arrogant comment to say in your belief at their current status Wales don't have the players to beat NZ???? Arrogance... ask 100 neutrals and I think you'll find the majority will probably agree with me... Its not arrogance. Its experience.

Walsh changing his employer doesn't mean his nationality changes. If you worked for BP would you be automatically British even if you were born, raised and lived elsewhere?

fa0019 wrote:

What an arrogant comment to say in your belief at their current status Wales don't have the players to beat NZ???? Arrogance... ask 100 neutrals and I think you'll find the majority will probably agree with me... Its not arrogance. Its experience.

Walsh changing his employer doesn't mean his nationality changes. If you worked for BP would you be automatically British even if you were born, raised and lived elsewhere?

Good God....

1. Firstly.. You said Wales current status don't have the players to beat NZ, not I.. But I think you know that, its just the way your reply is worded infers I said that... Anyway, assuming that is what you meant... You say that the majority would agree with you and that its experience not arrogance. I said this does not make this a fact. You first statement being "Wales can beat England, England can beat New Zealand but Wales cannot beat New Zealand. Its just the way it is (current status)". I said this is NOT fact, and you cannot say Wales CANNOT beat NZ. I said favorite tag will be with NZ but that doesn't make it fact that Wales CANNOT beat them. So yes, your statement is (IMO) arrogant, and no matter how you twist and turn your statement is incorrect and nothing more than your opinion.

2. Who said Walsh changed his nationality.. I didn't. I said he isnt associate to the NZRU, and hence can under IRB rules referee a NZ game. Its no different to Gareth Anscombe being qualified to play for Wales. Doesn't mean he changes his nationality, but if he does play for Wales he will no longer be eligible to play for NZ. And yes I know that Walsh used to ref under the NZRU flag, but lets not go there... Its just the IRB rules, right or wrong... As for Anscombe, if that is going to open another debate, IMO Wales should have nothing to do with him, why we are recruiting him and fast tracking him is beyond me... Another Granny Gate if we arent careful...

There is no fact in rugby or in life for that matter. Stating San Marino can't beat Germany is not a fact either. But it's as good a prior to event prediction as you'll ever get and no victories in 60 years is as good as fact as ever. It's not arrogance

fa0019 wrote:There is no fact in rugby or in life for that matter. Stating San Marino can't beat Germany is not a fact either. But it's as good a prior to event prediction as you'll ever get and no victories in 60 years is as good as fact as ever. It's not arrogance

No FACTS in rugby or LIFE... EH!!!

Oxford Dictionaries wrote:
fact

NOUN

A thing that is known or proved to be true

A past event, result is FACT, it happened, cannot be changed, ie, is a FACT. So I agree that it is a fact that Wales have a poor record against the All Blacks, it is also a fact that we haven't beat the All Blacks since 1953. They are known, they are facts and cannot be disputed... However, any future event is not a FACT if there is a possibility (no matter how small) that the event can have different outcomes. So you cannot have a FACT on FUTURE EVENTS, hence saying Wales CANNOT beat NZ is not a fact, merely an opinion or as you as say a PREDICTION. My arrogance statement wasn't against this but against your comment that Wales don't have the players to beat NZ, which in my opinion  is a very arrogant comment.

Now as long as the earth orbits the sun (which by the way is a SAFE prediction but not a FACT. The FACT would be that up to know the Earth has orbited the Sun ), I dont believe we will agree on this... So I guess this is where we agree to differ and move on...

(No hard feelings... )

A team is only as good as their next performance. That's a fact.

Last time I saw Wales did pretty good. The statistics say they came fourth in the last World Cup.

You couldn't fit a slice of pastrami between top athletes these days.

I wouldn't put money on Wales, but stranger things happen at sea!

Well Cyril,IF you had an an original thought and half a brain you`d write an article so
that I can WUM you Mustbe the time of year there
letting the inmates out.How is the old electro-convulsion therapy going still the same
old delusions?
Seriously though the article was partly in answer to one on England being Favourites
to win there RWC Group.Wales of course CAN beat anyone BUT will they AI`s or RWC.

Checked Owens has England and Barnes Wales in the AI`s as for using the Ref as an
excuse for losing.Not in my case really since 1976.

BUT NH and SH Refs do tend to have different ideas of letting a game flow as to Wayne
Barnes that`s an in joke.