Mythbusters

First topic message reminder :

I ain't afraid of no myth

Simple concept. One liners that debunk rugby myths.

E.g.

The man of the match can be chosen from the losing team.

The high tackle law should apply to South Sea Island teams.

Professional rugby players should be able to demonstrate a core set of skills irrespective of their position (no slack cut for forwards)


Share your mythbusters with me.

Busting makes me feel good.

Joihn Inverdale doesn't want to have Wilkinson's children.

No he wants a full on passionate affair, but not the responsibility kids would bring.

Liking the posts about earning the right to go wide. Think Lomu may have put that to bed with his first try in the 95 semi. Looked like that ball was crazily being thrown wide willy nilly until he picked up the thing. Then it was a collective knowing 'Aaaahh', well for most. Keith Quinn I don't know who he had in the combox with him...

'The Australian scrum's becoming a real weapon' gives me the giggles even though the rest of their play scares me.

Glas a du wrote:SCW is not the messiah.

He's just a very naughty boy?

Warren Gatland respects his opposition.

Leinster aren't actually a one man side

WRU is and always has been fully committed to developing rugby in North Wales.

Hobo wrote:

Glas a du wrote:SCW is not the messiah.

He's just a very naughty boy?

Thank you Hobo, you got there in the end!

rhino-dragon wrote:Warren Gatland respects his opposition.

Leinster aren't actually a one man side

Rhino, who’s the one man that makes Leinster then?

Mickado wrote:

rhino-dragon wrote:Warren Gatland respects his opposition.

Leinster aren't actually a one man side

Rhino, who’s the one man that makes Leinster then?

Jennings. Rubbish in Cardiff till he came on.

Mickado wrote:

rhino-dragon wrote:Warren Gatland respects his opposition.

Leinster aren't actually a one man side

Rhino, who’s the one man that makes Leinster then?

If you listen to some fans its Schmidt!

It makes no sense to throw a group game against your strongest opposition to concentrate on wining the other matches.

The Haka is the quaint last bastion of amateurism.

Wales lost fair and square after being beaten by a better side in a game fairly and correctly controlled by match officials, they'd named the strOngest side - all were injury free and on top form and Wales and their fans have no complaints.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Wales lost fair and square after being beaten by a better side in a game fairly and correctly controlled by match officials, they'd named the strOngest side - all were injury free and on top form and Wales and their fans have no complaints.

In 1991/1995/1999/2003/2007 New Zealand lost fair and square after being beaten by a better side in a game fairly and correctly controlled by match officials, they'd named the strongest side - all were injury free and on top form and New Zealand and their fans have no complaints

New Zealand lost fair and square after being beaten by France in a game fairly and correctly controlled by match officials

red_stag wrote:
In 1991/1995/1999/2003/2007 New Zealand lost fair and square after being beaten by a better side in a game fairly and correctly controlled by match officials, they'd named the strongest side - all were injury free and on top form and New Zealand and their fans have no complaints

Great minds Staggy 8)

TheGreyGhost wrote:Wales lost fair and square after being beaten by a better side in a game fairly and correctly controlled by match officials, they'd named the strOngest side - all were injury free and on top form and Wales and their fans have no complaints.

I remember that game! It was a while ago now. Mind you it was a long time after New Zealand had given up trying to follow rather than bend the laws of the game.

The Home Nations unions have a proud history of success against their southern hemisphere rivals.

Especially against NZ.

Llanelli and Swansea beat Australia on the same tour!

Gavin Henson is a rugby player.

All Blacks are never dirty.

Pierre Spies is a great player.

leinsterbaby didn't arrive late and repeat 3 posts that were already made several days ago.

Thought you were banned?

ABs are never guilty either

England are consistent under-achievers.

England "win when it matters".

Syd Going and Grant Batty were among the most relaxed rugby players you could ever come across

Mike Phillips is a vegetarian and loves nothing more than a quiet night on the sofa with a good book and his pipe and skippers!

manofgwent wrote:Mike Phillips is a vegetarian and loves nothing more than a quiet night on the sofa with a good book and his pipe and skippers!

rofl!

The disaster which is the RFU will effect the on field performance of the English rugby team at the 2011 World cup.

Wayne Barnes holidays in NZ for free every year by invitation of the NZRFU

Martin Corry's England side frequently were, in his own words, 'awesome'

Shane Williams is feared for his ferocious tackling

Shane Williams is an average finisher

Charlie Hodgson rose to the occasion every time he wore the England shirt

France are the epitome of consistent, predictable efficiency

Home advantage at Croke Park didn't help the Irish much against England

Australia always fancy taking it to England in the front five

Scotland are forever 5 Nations Champions.

Oops - sorry - that last one is actually true.

It's easy to recognise the All Blacks, they're the ones with New Zealanders in the team wearing all black.

With a little White feather on their chests.

Oops - I fear that one went over Glas's head...

Au contraire is was such a subtle riposte it flew over your head. GG is many things and intelligent is one of them. He will have seen it and decided to keep his own Counsel, knowing that a: "What! It's a fern and it's silver!" type of response would give me the satisfaction, n'est pas?

Aha - got you, double bluff (...I think).

Anyway, if we're talking about England wearing black as their second kit in NZ this autumn, I agree it's a bit provocative. A bit like making the President of your hosts' country walk across muddy turf in her killer heels because you refuse to change the side you're lined up on before a Grand Slam decider. I wonder if these 'two fingers to you, I don't care' decisions are in any way linked to the same individual - perhaps a former player, now a national manager?

Perhaps you should read the official comment from the RFU before making "two fingers to you" accusations.

nottins,

Calm it, Kermit! I made no 'accusations'. My comment was to illustrate what I saw as the singlemindedness behind them, of which I totally approve: ie 'if you have a problem with this, it's your problem, not ours - we've done nothing wrong".

England didn't become World Champions in 2003 by backing down and being nice to people, nor did they do so by being deliberately objectionable. They did it by being hardnosed and appropriately pragmatic, whilst not being pushed around or paying undue heed to some others' (over)sensitivites. I am well aware both of the official NZ position and of less official comments from some other quarters banging on about the alleged lack of respect (y-a-w-n) behind England choosing to wear black.

Well done England for clearing their lines officially with those who really matter, and ignoring the whinges from others who don't.

Simon, stop the personal insults. The way you wrote it sounds as though you were having a dig at MJ, hence my reply.

No personal accusations: I think you're reading in to my words a bit more than is there. Following a bit of a discussion between GreyGhost and Glas, I chipped in to suggest that MJ had an admirably singleminded approach. That's all.

SimonofSurrey wrote:No personal accusations: I think you're reading in to my words a bit more than is there. Following a bit of a discussion between GreyGhost and Glas, I chipped in to suggest that MJ had an admirably singleminded approach. That's all.

That's the way I read it too. And somehow, I dont think the black jerseys will turn England into NZ. And I dont think they needed to ask NZ's permission either. They dont own black.

Bit of pre-RWC psychology from MJ & Co. Its what made him a great captain. If they do manage to make the Final v NZ - who will wear black then? Toss for it?

It's amazing the great lengths and energy some English fans are going to in order to justify this apparently trivial and unimportant matter of the colour of an away jersey. Suddenly it's all about 2003 again (yawwwwnnnn). If it's really so insignificant, why so much talk? It's like the foreigners in the team issue.

Engfans spent a lot of energy attemping to justify how English all of the foreign selections were and calling everyone who suggested otherwise a racist. Then the team, non-selected and ex-players and coaches come out and say "yes we have a lot of foreigners" and the line of argument changes to match...

The line on this ridiculously provocative new strip is the same. First it was a non-issue, and now suddenly it's about proving a point about English pride and not backing down and the spirit of 2003?

Give me a break.

TGG, the one comment from one English fan and you chose to attack England rugby again. Have you really nothing else in your life than continually trying to find fault with anything English. Time to take a long hard look at yourself and your continued racist comments.

As has been pointed out to you time and time again, the non English born players are English through grandparent, parent or qualification, just like the non NZ born players in the NZ squad are. Also, it's just a shirt that's black, it's only the NZers like yourself getting all upset about it, just like you did with France prior to RWC 2007.

How's about giving everyone else on here a break GG? Your like a stuck record. I cannot fathom how a team having a change strip as black can get ppl so wound up. If Georgia decided to do this no one would give a flying flip but England? Ohhh no!

Jebus!

Well said nottins and Breadvan,

I accidentally got one person's blood up by mistake and so I backed down. That is very different from coming on here to moan away at one country again and again and again.

Some New Zealanders (read those last two words slowly GG) got a bit uppity about England wearing black. Many non-English commentators have grumbled about England, with our large domestic and unarguably indigenous player base, choosing further players whose ties to England were less obvious.

English comments on all this have tended to be in response to what others have raised, not proactive. But enough - God forbid that this Board go the way of the old BBC 606 Board.

The problem with that type of psychologics is that it may make the players think "why are we wearing this? We are not the All Blacks!" and play accordingly.

Nice try Glas, but England tend to think that whatever colour they are wearing.

PS: thank goodness they've ditched that appalling purple effort. Yeuch!

nottins wrote:As has been pointed out to you time and time again, the non English born players are English through grandparent, parent or qualification, just like the non NZ born players in the NZ squad are.

Brrrrb. Not true. There is one non NZ born player in the NZ squad, and he moved to NZ when he was 3 (or 4), nothing to do with long lost relatives at all.

What is "brrrrb" ? It was a collective grouping as in the IRB regulations. Also, you don't need a "," preceding "and". I never realised parents or grandparents were long lost relatives, I guess it's just a NZ thing ?

Ok then, name, the, New Zealand, representative, in, this, years, squad, who, is, there, through, grandparent, qualification?

You have said that one NZ player has qualified for NZ as they meet one of the criteria of "parent, grandparent or residency" Those are the clearly laid down rules by the IRB to qualify to play for a country and the point I was making about grouping.