Australia v New Zealand, 8 August

First topic message reminder :

Surprised there's no thread yet ...

Just started watching - did anyone else think the Oz no. 10 was tap tackled without the ball as he broke through with nobody in front of him just before the ABs got the penalty for diving on the player on the ground?  Unlucky for Oz if I saw it right.

wales606 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

wales606 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

wales606 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I've read Aus have won the RC, so I think i've missed something. Are there less fixtures this year because of the RWC?

Yep, only 3 games each. There is a 4th match next week, but those don't count and are more world cup warm-ups.

Australia had SA and NZ at home, so it's not too surprising they won.

Regardless of the fact that they played at home, this RC shoud dispell the perception that OZ is there for the taking by Wlaes and England.

It is the quality lf their play that is important here come rwc.

Yeah no doubt, not sure if England or Wales would have beaten NZ at home today, probably not.

Australia are peaking at the right time and appear to have finally found a good coach who is getting the most out of his players.

Goal kicking is their weakness, and they need to sort it out before the World cup which will be on slower pitches.

They do have other weaknesses as well, their line out is inconsistent and they don't have good tactical kicking, Toomua is a must at 12.

Yeah, it would/will be interesting to see how they do against a strong blitz defence like the Welsh defence against Ireland in the 6Ns - then they will be forced to kick and it might shift them from their favourite game plan.

The Aus and NZ attacking game plan is similar which is why I think Aus are often able to compete with NZ even when not playing well as they are not really being stopped from playing the running game.

The big mistake NZ made in this game was not competing in the breakdown, to slow the OZ attaxking breakdown is key, and that never happened. Tactically you would expect NZ to adapt and bring more numbers which they never did.

Biltong wrote:

wales606 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

wales606 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I've read Aus have won the RC, so I think i've missed something. Are there less fixtures this year because of the RWC?

Yep, only 3 games each. There is a 4th match next week, but those don't count and are more world cup warm-ups.

Australia had SA and NZ at home, so it's not too surprising they won.

Regardless of the fact that they played at home, this RC shoud dispell the perception that OZ is there for the taking by Wlaes and England.

It is the quality lf their play that is important here come rwc.

Yeah no doubt, not sure if England or Wales would have beaten NZ at home today, probably not.

Australia are peaking at the right time and appear to have finally found a good coach who is getting the most out of his players.

Goal kicking is their weakness, and they need to sort it out before the World cup which will be on slower pitches.

Yes, the line out had issues td

They do have other weaknesses as well, their line out is inconsistent and they don't have good tactical kicking, Toomua is a must at 12.

Yes, the lineout had issues today with Moore throwing a couple of shockers. Maybe because Simmons was missing? But the scrum was great. I realise they weren't competing against the Springboks or England but tonight, the Wallaby scrum performed the best it had for years. They dominated the AB's imo. The Argentinian scrum coach is certainly earning his money. I would like to see Matt Toomua at 10 and Giteau at 12 next week. Does this win take Australia to 4 in the rankings?

Have no idea Icu, I don't pay attention to the rankings

Biltong wrote:Have no idea Icu, I don't pay attention to the rankings

Me too usually but being ranked well often seems to give some street cred. It's put us up to 3rd ( i have been told) from 6th only a few weeks ago. Not convinced at all they are the 3rd best team though. Nevertheless, 2 wins on the trot against out 2 biggest rivals just before the WC is great. What i find encouraging is that the Wallabies can improve. They were poor in patches tonight - 9 and 10 especially. Hopefully tonight wasn't a one-off. I don't think so but we will see. I like what Micheal Cheika is doing with this side.

Icu I punched the figures into this http://rugby.alfred-wallace.com/

If that rankings calculator is accurate then Australia are currently ranked 2nd. However Ireland will go 2nd if they beat Wales in a 2nd string practice match; the score is currently 25-7 to Ireland.

I'd say Ireland's ranking is slightly inflated due to the fact that they haven't played any of the big three away from home in quite a while, but all the same it'll be a good achievement by the Irish to reach second for the first time.

Yes Phipps and Foley did not have good games, I think Foley especially do not have tactical kicking game, Toomua and White made a big difference.

Return of the Biltong!

A good but expected [at least by me]win for Aus they wanted it more,Sydney there
fortress.Woodcock is both short of form and gametime,Crockett is form LH in NZ,
Joe Moody close behind him.
Crotty the best midfield back up option at 12,13,Osborne the form one not
even on bench.
IF the can repeat the dose at Eden Park.THEN they should be RWC favourites,or
will it be 2014 again.A BLACK OUT 50 points conceded we will see NZ haven't lost
two matches consecutively since 2011 maybe an omen.?

Sorry, mate - gotta disagree.
I absolutely refuse this 'wanting to win more' concept.  This is a fans concept for the most part.  These are professionals at the absolutely highest level of their sport in an important match.  They get there by being nut-cutting aggressive and having an unrelenting desire with win.  If they are caught short 'wanting to win', it is a shock.  

Yes, I know the counterpoint:  these are still humans with all the frailties and the ups and downs which affect all people.  Nice - but it doesn't wash here.  This was an important match and the Wallabies were simply better.  They were smarter at the breakdown and more incisive in attack.  And, from time to time, faster on the defensive side of the ball.  Not that the ABs were bad, the Aussies were better yesterday.

And the ABs scrum was eaten for dinner like soft porridge.

I'm not sure on Woodcock being short of game time, he's just a poor prop these days. Bad times for NZ bring hammered off a low class Aus outfit, it could be a real issue for them come WC time.

doctor_grey wrote:Sorry, mate - gotta disagree.
I absolutely refuse this 'wanting to win more' concept.  This is a fans concept for the most part.  These are professionals at the absolutely highest level of their sport in an important match.  They get there by being nut-cutting aggressive and having an unrelenting desire with win.  If they are caught short 'wanting to win', it is a shock.  

Yes, I know the counterpoint:  these are still humans with all the frailties and the ups and downs which affect all people.  Nice - but it doesn't wash here.  This was an important match and the Wallabies were simply better.  They were smarter at the breakdown and more incisive in attack.  And, from time to time, faster on the defensive side of the ball.  Not that the ABs were bad, the Aussies were better yesterday.

And the ABs scrum was eaten for dinner like soft porridge.

Yeah...but porridge is best served at breakfast - not dinner.  The ABs will I assume wait for WC breakfast time before expending all the energy, ideas and potential tricks they'll have up their sleeves by then.  They realise everyone is watching.  It's a phoney war period.  There'll be a bit of playing injured bird in the lead in for some sides, I'm sure.

You see the purity of trying 110% in each and every game is for fairytales.  It doesn't happen.  If it did happen we'd have Super Saturday Six Nation rollercoaster stuff every week.  We don't.  Players are selfish.  They have seasons on their minds, the have hopes and dreams on their minds, they have trophies on their minds.  Australia are in the position of having to play themselves into form, going on their disappointing few seasons.  They have no options and no room for subterfuge.  They have to hit the ground running as quickly as possible.  The ABs can afford a little foot off the gas in preparation for what's to come.

I think there is a feeling of the ABS being a very good side but one in decline. Most importantly one that can still find outrageous ways of winning matches that possibly they shouldn't, but still doing so through force of will rather than shear brilliance.

Regardless of what they do at the RWC we all know that the AB's are better and faster at reinventing themselves than any other team in world rugby

Thought both teams were really poor particularly in the first. In fact the first 40 was the worst rugby I've seen in test rugby in a while. Credit to Australia and in particular Cheika. Its no surprise to me that he was won the super 15 and rugby championship. He is a really good coach.

Some good points made by everyone.

SecretFly, I'm thinking like you, but time will tell whether the ABs have been holding back or whether they've actually hit the wall. SA are in the same boat. I think they will unleash come the RWC and I'm pretty sure we'll be the same. But there is some doubt now isn't there?

That was a horrible ABs performance in the weekend. Many players seemed disinterested. I'm not sure if was Wallabies pressure that made them look so poor or not. It may well have been.

Well deserved win so good on them. This weekend will be interesting as there is no way the ABs will want to give up the Bledisloe Cup and if we do playing like we did last weekend there will be hell to pay.

The problem of these games in RWC games is are they relevant to the RWC or not?
Take Australia all this season we`ve had generalities thrown at us Number 5 in IRB
ratings,No Scrum,the Hooper farce etc.
Now IF you except that there position in IRB ratings were down to a toxic eniviroment
in 2014.Then analyse there results 2014 Bledisloe 1 a draw and a last minute DC dropgoal
to do it.A thrashing in Bledisloe2 in NZ in Bledisloe 3 a last minute win for AB`s by a point.
Conclusions Aus at Home are very hard to beat especially in Sydney with Wayne Barnes
officiating.[NZ have lost most of there games with him in charge]
Was yesterday the start of the fall of NZ or not?Aron Smith had his worst game ever
for AB`s his Yellow Card was one of the turning points.Ben Smith getting concussed
did`nt help.Some of the players seemed to believing there irreplaceable a dose
of cold water has been thrown over them.
I wonder if the attitude was if subconsciously well even if we lose so what,we`ll
turn it around next week.
For the stats freaks NZ actually won the breakdown battle 19-17,and the Lineouts
but were mullered at Scrumtime.
One things for sure NO ONES place is certain[McCaw excepted he was his usual self]
with the Bledisloe on the line.Theres a dart board on the wall with Wallabies on it
other sides count there wins NZ`s there losses.The incentive is there to prove there
not yet past it.
Argentina have been playing weakened sides till yesterday then you saw the real deal
Hernandez starting for the first time.
SA have a horrendous injury time losses all 3 this year,Wales,Ireland last year that`s
not the SA. I know and come RWC may well see Fourie Du Preez and Morne Steyn
play ther traditional game.
One things for sure Heynek Meyer is under more pressure than Hansen.

SecretFly wrote:You see the purity of trying 110% in each and every game is for fairytales.

 Mate, do you really believe I think like that?  In such a naive manner?  If so, come with me in the Operating Theatre some time and see how we have to want it every damn minute of every damn day.  Let alone the crap we endure on army or 'peacekeeping'  assignments in the crap end of somewhere (which I hope is at it's end soon).  I simply saw an important match and the Wallabies were better on the day.  As a unit, the Wallabies were smarter, quicker, and more aggressive.  It happens.  

I agree there are a billion reasons why people have ups and downs, but I can't believe the 'wanting' is one of the primary reasons for the outcome in a game like that.  To one of your points, I agree the Wallabies need to play themselves into better form, but, to me, it wasn't going to happen unless they played smart, fast, and aggressive.  And if they didn't have the players or the coaching staff to give them the potential to win (potential is the key here), no amount of 'wanting' was going to get them there.  Doesn't mean they will will their next match against the ABs, but shows they have the horses to do so.  The pro athletes I treat usually consider this a fan's concept too, and one the sportswriters use when they can't see a reason for a perceived upset.  

Sorry for going off, usually love your posts whether we agree or not.  Maybe I need some porridge.  For breakfast.  

Cheika isnt getting enough credit IMO. He is brilliant at taking a good team and really ironing out all their most obvious weaknesses.

Australia's two biggest weaknesses over the last 20 years has been their scrum and the bad attitude of a large contingent of their players.

Early on in his tenure Cheika flagged the need for Australia to improve technically in the set piece particularly after the loss to England in Nov. Hey presto he apointed Mario Ledesma and Australia slaughter NZ in the scrum to take their maiden rugby championship victory.

http://en.espn.co.uk/australia/rugby/story/252535.html

Secondly, Cheika has a notoriously low tolerance for players with bad attitudes. There are many of them associated with Australia rugby yet he seems to have a knack for keeping them under control rather than having to thrown them on the scrap heap. In this years campaign where his predecessors have failed Cheika managed to make room for 3 of Australia's most notorious trouble makers, Giteau, Cooper and Beale and yet the Aussie team seems more of a unit than ever.  

He is a really thoughtful coach who specialises in turning teams with a soft edge around and getting results. While they arent the finished article yet. They made lots of errors v NZ and goal kicking is poor, Australia have however, now become a real contender for the WC.

Whoever thought Cheika wouldn't get those guys into a tidy and functional unit come the WC was living in dreamland. But that was the attitude that was surprisingly doing the rounds earlier.

They'll be as hard as nails for their pool. As indeed will England (in much better lead in form anyway) and Wales (fire, blood, real competition to get passionate about and acres of science doing the Duracell battery stuff behind the scenes).

Just look at his prize list. The WC is probably the only thing he hasnt won yet. I wouldnt be surprised if Australia win and then he goes and coaches France or Italy to a six nations title later in his career.

GunsGerms wrote:Just look at his prize list. The WC is probably the only thing he hasnt won yet. I wouldnt be surprised if Australia win and then he goes and coaches France or Italy to a six nations title later in his career.

He could try coming back to Ireland when Schmidt inevitably goes (home). That would be funny. Schmidt honed Cheika's already potent side to his liking. Cheika could return the favour and come back to the Ireland International now and add his ingredients to harden the diamond Schmidt has been building.

SecretFly wrote:Whoever thought Cheika wouldn't get those guys into a tidy and functional unit come the WC was living in dreamland.  But that was the attitude that was surprisingly doing the rounds earlier.

They'll be as hard as nails for their pool.  As indeed will England (in much better lead in form anyway) and Wales (fire, blood, real competition to get passionate about and acres of science doing the Duracell battery stuff behind the scenes).  

I'm totally convinced that Australia will top the pool and England will be runners up but it will be close between those two. Just can't see Wales beating either, unless England crumble under the weight of expectation.

Doc...not sure about your viewpoint on some sides wanting it more. I think it actually does happen despite how professional and well prepared all the teams are now. I think it happens when the fear factor comes into play and a side is 'backs to the wall' and ready to defend themsleves at all costs for fear of getting thrashed. I remember Wasps beating Leicester in a final when the Tigers had won both league matches. Wasps just would not let the Tigers over the gain line and kept smashing them back. If both sides played a series then Leicester would have won but in a one off game some teams have the ability to raise their game. Call it fear or wanting it more, but it does seem to be more a mind set than suddenly becoming better players. Complacency for the superior team can also be a factor.

This weekend there will be no such issues between the sides and the better team will win.....I cannot see beyond a NZ win as they will not want to lose 2 in a row and with home advantage that should be enough. Australia may find it tough to regain the same intensity, but it should be fun watching.

hugehandoff wrote:Doc...not sure about your viewpoint on some sides wanting it more. I think it actually does happen despite how professional and well prepared all the teams are now. I think it happens when the fear factor comes into play and a side is 'backs to the wall' and ready to defend themsleves at all costs for fear of getting thrashed. I remember Wasps beating Leicester in a final when the Tigers had won both league matches. Wasps just would not let the Tigers over the gain line and kept smashing them back. If both sides played a series then Leicester would have won but in a one off game some teams have the ability to raise their game. Call it fear or wanting it more, but it does seem to be more a mind set than suddenly becoming better players. Complacency for the superior team can also be a factor.

This weekend there will be no such issues between the sides and the better team will win.....I cannot see beyond a NZ win as they will not want to lose 2 in a row and with home advantage that should be enough. Australia may find it tough to regain the same intensity, but it should be fun watching.

I remember that Heineken Cup final between Wasps and Leicester. What a fantastic match. A tough, massively tough, game between two very good teams. Ibanez had that great try off the lineout to put Wasps really up and Leicester couldn't come back. I didn't see it live, only on a replay later that night but I remember I was driving (ie. sitting stationary) down the M1 listening on radio.............

I am not sure I would put that down to wanting it more. Those were two blood and guts teams.

I can certainly agree many teams are better prepared than their opponents, and also teams (and people!) who are more mentally tough. We see that is all walks of life. Where I differ with the context of how 'wanting' was used, as that was the difference between the teams playing last weekend. To me, that was a cop out and a refusal to admit Australia was a better team on the day. This also happens. They hit the breakdowns harder and smarter. The ABs did not seem prepared for this. They also measured their aggression, so not over-committing. I thought this was the key.

Personally, ever since Australia played us last Autumn I've rated them highly. We took a 17-0 lead but after that they really played us off the park for long periods like no other team has in Schmidt's tenure.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Whoever thought Cheika wouldn't get those guys into a tidy and functional unit come the WC was living in dreamland.  But that was the attitude that was surprisingly doing the rounds earlier.

They'll be as hard as nails for their pool.  As indeed will England (in much better lead in form anyway) and Wales (fire, blood, real competition to get passionate about and acres of science doing the Duracell battery stuff behind the scenes).  

I'm totally convinced that Australia will top the pool and England will be runners up but it will be close between those two. Just can't see Wales beating either, unless England crumble under the weight of expectation.

Wales have some pretty good wins in England over the last few years. The record between the two is fairly even Steven over the last ten years. I reckon that that group will be like the six nations with three teams finishing top with the same points. Australia will top the group, England second and Wales to drop out after having defeated England in Twickers in a classic.

Everyone knows Wales cant beat Australia anyway. That's a given so they will probably target England.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm not sure on Woodcock being short of game time, he's just a poor prop these days. Bad times for NZ bring hammered off a low class Aus outfit, it could be a real issue for them come WC time.

This comment beggars belief.

England beat Australia last year and this leads you to conclude that they are a low class outfit. But you conveniently ignore the fact that they managed to beat opponents at home that England couldn't get the better of. God forbid you might say Australia played well. I'm not saying just because Australia beat NZ that they are the best thing since sliced bread. That'd be like saying SA are a spent force after their defeat to Los Pumas. But despite a scrappy performance they came out on top. They deserve some praise rather than a sniping remark.

I still think NZ can retain the Bledisloe. The front five for NZ had a poor game and Hansen's tactics were naive. The likes of England would've fared much better by flooding the breakdown and not allowing Australia to get a roll on. NZ were not helped in terms of continuity of selections. These are not excuses for their loss as Australia outplayed NZ notably in the final quarter where NZ have lately excelled. I only mention it to say NZ can turn around their performance. Julian Savea had a game to forget much like Woodcock but that doesn't mean he'll be dropped.

The Argentinian scrum coach has helped improve this Wallaby scrum and the right selections have helped. They had a few yips against SA and Argentina who have scrums the equal of England and they did not fold. England still have a game that can trouble Oz but they are no pushovers in the scrum like they were last year. They had a favourable RC draw but they are deserving RC winners for the first time. I for one am intrigued to see what kind of performance they put in this weekend as much as the NZ one.

To some extent it's paper-scissors-stone. Wales don't seem to be able to cope with Australia's inventiveness, especially in the dying moments. Australia have been struggling to contain England's power game. England struggled against the penalty machine that was the Walsh, sorry Welsh, scrum, which became a vehicle to break down the English defensive system.

Australia look more dangerous now that Cheika has had time to work his magic. But by the same token, England's attack has improved a lot since they last met and I don't think the Aussie scrum has improved enough to nullify English advantage there.

Wales' big problem is that with sketchy strength in depth they have to hope that Samson Lee will get and stay fit, and they don't lose any centres or halfbacks. Gatland's first XV has a chance against anyone - though a bit less of one now that they can't create scrum penalties on demand for Halfpenny to kick. A couple of injuries? Not so much.

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Whoever thought Cheika wouldn't get those guys into a tidy and functional unit come the WC was living in dreamland.  But that was the attitude that was surprisingly doing the rounds earlier.

They'll be as hard as nails for their pool.  As indeed will England (in much better lead in form anyway) and Wales (fire, blood, real competition to get passionate about and acres of science doing the Duracell battery stuff behind the scenes).  

I'm totally convinced that Australia will top the pool and England will be runners up but it will be close between those two. Just can't see Wales beating either, unless England crumble under the weight of expectation.

Wales have some pretty good wins in England over the last few years. The record between the two is fairly even Steven over the last ten years. I reckon that that group will be like the six nations with three teams finishing top with the same points. Australia will top the group, England second and Wales to drop out after having defeated England in Twickers in a classic.

I agree, Wales will defeat England in a twickers classic

Australian fans are on a high. Just listened to the Green and Gold podcast, and the site had its best ever traffic during and after the match. That's quite something, given they would have soon good numbers during the World Cup and Lions tour.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm not sure on Woodcock being short of game time, he's just a poor prop these days. Bad times for NZ bring hammered off a low class Aus outfit, it could be a real issue for them come WC time.

This comment beggars belief.

England beat Australia last year and this leads you to conclude that they are a low class outfit. But you conveniently ignore the fact that they managed to beat opponents at home that England couldn't get the better of. God forbid you might say Australia played well. I'm not saying just because Australia beat NZ that they are the best thing since sliced bread. That'd be like saying SA are a spent force after their defeat to Los Pumas. But despite a scrappy performance they came out on top. They deserve some praise rather than a sniping remark.

I still think NZ can retain the Bledisloe. The front five for NZ had a poor game and Hansen's tactics were naive. The likes of England would've fared much better by flooding the breakdown and not allowing Australia to get a roll on. NZ were not helped in terms of continuity of selections. These are not excuses for their loss as Australia outplayed NZ notably in the final quarter where NZ have lately excelled. I only mention it to say NZ can turn around their performance. Julian Savea had a game to forget much like Woodcock but that doesn't mean he'll be dropped.

The Argentinian scrum coach has helped improve this Wallaby scrum and the right selections have helped. They had a few yips against SA and Argentina who have scrums the equal of England and they did not fold. England still have a game that can trouble Oz but they are no pushovers in the scrum like they were last year. They had a favourable RC draw but they are deserving RC winners for the first time. I for one am intrigued to see what kind of performance they put in this weekend as much as the NZ one.

Kia, I dont think Australia and NZ are poor overall but you have to admit that the first half in particular was full of mistakes from both sides and in general a fairly poor 40 minutes of rugby.

I'll happily admit that both sides played scrappily and left points out on the park going into halftime. All the more reason, in my opinion, to applaud Australia. They had problems notably at 9 and 10 and still came away with a win. That shows mettle which previously hasn't been there against NZ. You could see the pride with the players belting out the anthem. This enthusiasm and vigour is what Cheika has brought with sound tactics. Let's see how they fare this weekend in much more hostile conditions.

What I can't accept is this chest beating ignorance saying Woodcock is poor - was he poor when he smashed Billy off the ball last year - and that Australia is some low class outfit. Woody was not the only one to have a poor game for NZ but that does not make him poor. Fine if you rate other props over him and fine if you take joy in seeing NZ lose but such lazy comments are the very thing that riles NH posters when the SH media or posters bring out the cliches for a Sunday drive.

NZ looked a little tired to me. Read for example. I mean still a class side and all that but something missing and Carter is just a shadow. Much as i admire Carter and Richie i think they are pretty cooked now.

Heaf wrote:Whatever happens in Pool A the only thing we can be sure of is one of England, Wales or Australia will be out during the pool stages - given the teams that will go through from the other pools this just looks wrong to me.  The fact that it could also come down to one piece of luck/bad luck or one poor bit of officiating makes it even worse.

Wales are in the pool they are in because of their results at the time when the pools were drawn.

Who out of the other pool teams should be making way for them that looks "just wrong" to you?

Scotland, Samoa, Argentina, France, Ireland, SA or New Zealand?

If a draw was done now on the current rankings, you could potentially have NZ, SA and Samoa in one pool.

The rankings are nonsense; England haven't won a single trophy for 12 years!

Ok I will bite.
Wales only have themselves to blame they were ranked 9th when the draw took place mainly due to their inability to beat the big 3 & in particular 7 straight losses against Australia.
The same weekend when Wales lost to Oz again England beat NZ.


Interestingly, to me anyway, another potential combination could have been

NZ,Ireland,Wales just as tasty

Gwlad wrote:The rankings are nonsense; England haven't won a single trophy for 12 years!

WUMs are best when they have truth in them.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:The rankings are nonsense; England haven't won a single trophy for 12 years!

WUMs are best when they have truth in them.

ZZZZzzzzzz

Pot Hale wrote:

Heaf wrote:Whatever happens in Pool A the only thing we can be sure of is one of England, Wales or Australia will be out during the pool stages - given the teams that will go through from the other pools this just looks wrong to me.  The fact that it could also come down to one piece of luck/bad luck or one poor bit of officiating makes it even worse.

Wales are in the pool they are in because of their results at the time when the pools were drawn.

Who out of the other pool teams should be making way for them that looks "just wrong" to you?

Scotland, Samoa, Argentina, France, Ireland, SA or New Zealand?

If a draw was done now on the current rankings, you could potentially have NZ, SA and Samoa in one pool.

I know why the pools are as they are but I just think it's daft to draw them so far in advance.

I'm also not assuming Wales will be the ones knocked out.

What I do believe is that all three of England, Wales or Australia are better than Scotland, Samoa, Argentina & France. Others may not agree but that's just my opinion.

Gwlad wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:The rankings are nonsense; England haven't won a single trophy for 12 years!

WUMs are best when they have truth in them.

ZZZZzzzzzz

Get it right then. You re either lying or you really dont know your facts. You re detracting from your aim.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:The rankings are nonsense; England haven't won a single trophy for 12 years!

WUMs are best when they have truth in them.

ZZZZzzzzzz

Get it right then. You re either lying or you really dont know your facts. You re detracting from your aim.

Oh i forgot, do you mean the single Triple crown or Calcutta Cups!!?

You are so full of it 7.5, you're nearly an 8.

Nope I dont.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nope I dont.

I am almost in anticipation…what trophy has england won int he last 12 years except for the triple crown and calcutta cup?

Gwlad, are you being purposely obtuse (not sure why I'm even asking that!) or were you asleep when England won the 6Ns in 2011?

I think we all admit it's not a very good return for the last 12 years but credit where credit is due, eh?

Anyway, I've no idea what all this has to do with Aus vs NZ?

THEY ACTUALLY WON IT!!

Brilliant.

And how many second places have there been

oh i crack myself up

Gwlad wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nope I dont.

I am almost in anticipation…what trophy has england won int he last 12 years except for the triple crown and calcutta cup?

Oh Lordy.... in the last 12 years, they've won:

Rugby World Cup 22 Nov 2003
Calcutta Cup - '04, '05, '07, '09, '11-'15
Millennium Trophy '08, '12-1'14
Triple Crown - 2014
Six Nations - 2011

Did you really need to have this pointed out to you?

In the same period, Wales have won these trophies

Six Nations 2005, '08, '12, '13
Triple Crown '05, '08, '12.


Rankings are based on results against all teams, not just those in the Six Nations.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Ok I will bite.
Wales only have themselves to blame they were ranked 9th when the draw took place mainly due to their inability to beat the big 3 & in particular 7 straight losses against Australia.
The same weekend when Wales lost to Oz again England beat NZ.


Interestingly, to me anyway, another potential combination could have been

NZ,Ireland,Wales just as tasty

I wonder if it would have been possible for a pool to include England, Ireland, and Wales.
These boards, likely the entire internet, and possibly the entire world, would explode into tiny bits of poop.  
I almost wish it happened.

doctor_grey wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Ok I will bite.
Wales only have themselves to blame they were ranked 9th when the draw took place mainly due to their inability to beat the big 3 & in particular 7 straight losses against Australia.
The same weekend when Wales lost to Oz again England beat NZ.


Interestingly, to me anyway, another potential combination could have been

NZ,Ireland,Wales just as tasty

I wonder if it would have been possible for a pool to include England, Ireland, and Wales.
These boards, likely the entire internet, and possibly the entire world, would explode into tiny bits of poop.  
I almost wish it happened.

Yes what a thought! - no it wouldn't have happened Doc

Ireland and England were both tier 2 at the time Wales tier 3.
NZ,Oz,SA & France tier 1.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Ok I will bite.
Wales only have themselves to blame they were ranked 9th when the draw took place mainly due to their inability to beat the big 3 & in particular 7 straight losses against Australia.
The same weekend when Wales lost to Oz again England beat NZ.


Interestingly, to me anyway, another potential combination could have been

NZ,Ireland,Wales just as tasty

I wonder if it would have been possible for a pool to include England, Ireland, and Wales.
These boards, likely the entire internet, and possibly the entire world, would explode into tiny bits of poop.  
I almost wish it happened.

Yes what a thought! - no it wouldn't have happened Doc

Ireland and England were both tier 2 at the time Wales tier 3.
NZ,Oz,SA & France tier 1.

Yeah, you're right.
Besides, the world is probably safer this way.............