The Rugby Championship

First topic message reminder :

It starts again tomorrow. As ever the interest will wane quickly if the ABs resume their usual dismantling of all opposition. They look extremely strong with Retallick and Whitelock back in harness. Their strength in depth at 10 is frightening. The Aussies do have Pocock back, but hard to look beyond another comfortable AB win.

Argentina away in SA will be interesting I think. SA look like they are improving and Argentina play some good rugby - one to watch I think.

Hoping that somebody pushes the ABs and an Aussie win tomorrow would be the perfect tonic for the tournament, however unlikely that is.

Though I may be thinking the wrong guy? You mean scott? I don't know the other just copied the name!

Its about points true,its also about fitness,the ABs bench at full strength is very strong,most could start
without wakening the team.Scott Barrett is very young but in impressive form Ireland will be pushed
to stay with them in the last 20 minutes.
Argentina have very powerfull Scrum so saturday sans Jpe Moody will be interesting to say the least,
Scrums are for creating attacking plays not trying to milk penalties,Barrett would be a good option at 6
too.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

alanmackie6 wrote:Rattue talks utter bilge at times,if every one`s fit Nz have the best pack in world rugby,England please
not that myth again.Ireland it`s arguable but given parity up front they`ll kill you incidentally despite
not having won so many trophies.Ireland currently is NOT the best Ireland side i`ve seen in my65
plus years.

Yes well that's the point, under Schmidt NZ have yet to kill Ireland. Their biggest win is by 12 points which is below their average win tally (1 point win and a loss make up the tally). Based on watching those games, scoreboard and general match stats I reckon Ireland have got the better hand over NZ in for forwards lately. Not suggesting all Irish forwards are better than NZs, some are, but rather as a unit including subs Irelands forwards have been stronger.

The win loss ratios suggest that this is the best Ireland side of all time if you define side as a side for the duration of a coaching ticket.

Yes though all three were offshore. Play another three here and it would certainly be more than 12. But hes done well, but until hes won a match of note... a world cup semi or better, or a test in NZ would qualify in my book, hes yet to prove himself. The loss in 2015 to last RC placed Argie is inexcusable in my opinion. That was either a coach, or a team, or both under pressure from Irelands poor record in quarter finals.

And looking at 2016 results.....

There were five losses and a draw. They got the win against the ABs but that doesn’t seem like a good year of results. Some games were close losses but a loss is a loss. An AB coach would get fired on the spot for drawing with Wales and losing to France and England in consecutive games.

And this highlights the difference in what is expected from the ABs and what they no doubt demand from themselves. It drives them on and on. A loss against a single NH team in November would be the proverbial pebble under the beach towel. Unpleasant but tolerable. Anything more is a disaster and serious questions would get asked.

alanmackie6 wrote:...best Ireland side the 1959 side which wasback bone of the lions tour to NZ...

Difficult to see how a side which lost in Dublin to England during that year's Five Nations can rank up with the three Irish Grand Slam winners. That's the same Irish team which, with broadly similar lineups, finished last in the Five Nations in both 1958 and 1960. If you are selecting a team for greatness, rather than just players, then surely they need to have done something notable together as a team.

I don't think you can really say the Irish were the backbone of the 1959 Lions either. That touring side is famous for scoring a hatful of tries but there were only two Irishmen in the regular Test backline (O'Reily and Hewitt) alongside mainly Welsh and English. Englishmen Risman and Jeeps were the first choice halfbacks. In the pack, Irishman Ronnie Dawson was the captain but there were usually no more than two or three Irish alongside him in the scrum.

The Irish certainly played a big role on tour but it was a fairly even spread of talent, as the Test side composition shows. The Irish had the most players in two Tests, and the Welsh had more in the other two.

First Test - 5 Irish (4 Welsh, 3 Scots, 3 English)
Second Test - 4 Irish (5 Welsh, 2 Scots, 4 English)
Third Test - 4 Irish (5 Welsh, 3 Scots, 3 English)
Fourth Test - 6 Irish (5 Welsh, 2 Scots, 2 English)

And you can win points with scrums. If you have an area of strength or the opposition are woeful make them pay. There is more than 1 way to skin a cat.

Rugby Fan wrote:

First Test - 5 Irish (4 Welsh, 3 Scots, 3 English)
Second Test - 4 Irish (5 Welsh, 2 Scots, 4 English)
Third Test - 4 Irish (5 Welsh, 3 Scots, 3 English)
Fourth Test - 6 Irish (5 Welsh, 2 Scots, 2 English)

yeah but...no but.....

...the Welsh always gets most players into a side. It's in the small print of their contracts each time. So if we all agree to ignore the Welsh (yes, everyone happy to do that??? Good) ---- you can clearly see that Irish players DOMINATED De Lions. Black and White rugby is always the best rugby.

In 1959 France won the 5Ns ,it was a 3 way split for 2nd Ireland getting it on points difference
there were 10 irishmen in the Lions squad.Each of 3 way teams lost 1 match that year.

The Scrum is a minefield the Front Row mafia dictate trying to con refs,as they go along
NOT dominance just plain cheating or playing the ref is a euphmism.

Of course back then the didn't distinguish it on points decision simply split between the teams. What? Rugby players try to bend the rules? Surely not. Where do I write to?

IRONY?nice

Well come off it. When did you ever see the breakdown fairly contested? When have people not closed the gap in the lineout. Etc etc

alanmackie6 wrote:In 1959 France won the 5Ns ,it was a 3 way split for 2nd Ireland getting it on points difference
there were 10 irishmen in the Lions squad.Each of 3 way teams lost 1 match that year.

That's the point. It's hard to credit that 1959 team with the mantle of "greatest Irish side ever" when the best they managed was finishing joint second place in the Five Nations. If might be different if the players in that team were icons of Irish rugby, or had brought the country together in some way. Or if they were the culmination(or the early beginnings) of a tight band of brothers. But they weren't.

One of the reasons the 1959 Lions are held in reasonable regard by New Zealanders is precisely because all the Home Nations were mediocre at best that year, which meant expectations at home and abroad were low, and they outperformed them. That doesn't square with the idea that the Lions were sending out the formidable core of an all-time Irish great side.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

alanmackie6 wrote:Rattue talks utter bilge at times,if every one`s fit Nz have the best pack in world rugby,England please
not that myth again.Ireland it`s arguable but given parity up front they`ll kill you incidentally despite
not having won so many trophies.Ireland currently is NOT the best Ireland side i`ve seen in my65
plus years.

Yes well that's the point, under Schmidt NZ have yet to kill Ireland. Their biggest win is by 12 points which is below their average win tally (1 point win and a loss make up the tally). Based on watching those games, scoreboard and general match stats I reckon Ireland have got the better hand over NZ in for forwards lately. Not suggesting all Irish forwards are better than NZs, some are, but rather as a unit including subs Irelands forwards have been stronger.

The win loss ratios suggest that this is the best Ireland side of all time if you define side as a side for the duration of a coaching ticket.

Yes though all three were offshore. Play another three here and it would certainly be more than 12. But hes done well, but until hes won a match of note... a world cup semi or better, or a test in NZ would qualify in my book, hes yet to prove himself. The loss in 2015 to last RC placed Argie is inexcusable in my opinion. That was either a coach, or a team, or both under pressure from Irelands poor record in quarter finals.

If NZ go into a quarter final missing their 4 best players and captain Id expect there would be a good chance they would lose too whether you like to admit it or not. NZ have serious depth in the backs but not such great depth in the forwards particularly at hooker and at 7. I would find it hard to believe that they wont struggle if Barrett or Read go down too as good as their replacements may be.

Richie Mo'unga only has 1 cap as a sub and McKensie is exciting and still very young but quite error prone and not particularly frightening in defence. Id fancy Ireland's chances in Nov v NZ if either those guys start at 10 but they wont unless Barrett gets injured.

Two of NZs last losses they were missing key men.

Barrett v Australia
Retallick v Ireland

Dawson,Mulcahy,Millar,Murphy,Hewitt,Heinz57,English,etc.all good players,Ireland WAS top rated
that`s why by tradition Dawson was captain.Bryn Meredith was the best 5 NsHooker.
As to depth Coles and Taylor are very good Hookers,the rest arn`t bad and Nz usually have
back ups who can do a job seam lessly.
Ireland won deservedly in USA ,BUT were hanging on for life at the end of the game when Nz
came back at them

alanmackie6 wrote:Dawson,Mulcahy,Millar,Murphy,Hewitt,Heinz57,English,etc.all good players,Ireland WAS top rated
that`s why by tradition Dawson was captain.Bryn Meredith was the best 5 NsHooker.
As to depth Coles and Taylor are very good Hookers,the rest arn`t bad and Nz usually have
back ups who can do a job seam lessly.
Ireland won deservedly in USA ,BUT were hanging on for life at the end of the game when Nz
came back at them

I agree re Coles and Taylor but Coles is quite injury prone lately and there is a big drop after Taylor which is why I highlight hooker as a potential problem area.

No convinced Ireland were hanging on for life in Chicago, it was an 11 point win with Ireland scoring the last try. Does that not mean they finished stronger?

Whatever happens only time will tell we all have opinions that`s what this site is all about.
Can`t log in so this may be my last word.

alanmackie6 wrote:Dawson,Mulcahy,Millar,Murphy,Hewitt,Heinz57,English,etc.all good players,Ireland WAS top rated
that`s why by tradition Dawson was captain.Bryn Meredith was the best 5 NsHooker.

You haven't been arguing that Ireland was the best Home Nations side in 1959 - which is very dubious, to say the least - rather, you've been making the more outrageous claim that the 1959 team was the best Irish side of all time.

In 1957, England won the Grand Slam. In 1958, England won the Five Nations , and Ireland got the wooden spoon. There's little doubt that England were top dogs for two years and then slipped off in 1959. In 1959, France won, while Ireland, Wales, and England shared second place (points difference was not taken into account back then). By 1960, England were joint champions again with France, and Ireland once more had the wooden spoon.

How on earth is that the trajectory of the all-time greatest Irish side?

If you think Dawson was selected as Lions captain because Ireland was regarded as the best Home Nations team, then I can only say your memory, and understanding of Lions politics, have failed you.

Why mention Syd Millar? He became a great rugby figure, but he only featured in one of the four tests against New Zealand. O'Reilly was the Irish stand-out during that tour. Hewitt impressed everyone because his position was expected to be a weakness after Jeff Butterfield suffered a thigh injury and couldn't tour.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

alanmackie6 wrote:Rattue talks utter bilge at times,if every one`s fit Nz have the best pack in world rugby,England please
not that myth again.Ireland it`s arguable but given parity up front they`ll kill you incidentally despite
not having won so many trophies.Ireland currently is NOT the best Ireland side i`ve seen in my65
plus years.

Yes well that's the point, under Schmidt NZ have yet to kill Ireland. Their biggest win is by 12 points which is below their average win tally (1 point win and a loss make up the tally). Based on watching those games, scoreboard and general match stats I reckon Ireland have got the better hand over NZ in for forwards lately. Not suggesting all Irish forwards are better than NZs, some are, but rather as a unit including subs Irelands forwards have been stronger.

The win loss ratios suggest that this is the best Ireland side of all time if you define side as a side for the duration of a coaching ticket.

Yes though all three were offshore. Play another three here and it would certainly be more than 12. But hes done well, but until hes won a match of note... a world cup semi or better, or a test in NZ would qualify in my book, hes yet to prove himself. The loss in 2015 to last RC placed Argie is inexcusable in my opinion. That was either a coach, or a team, or both under pressure from Irelands poor record in quarter finals.

If NZ go into a quarter final missing their 4 best players and captain Id expect there would be a good chance they would lose too whether you like to admit it or not. NZ have serious depth in the backs but not such great depth in the forwards particularly at hooker and at 7. I would find it hard to believe that they wont struggle if Barrett or Read go down too as good as their replacements may be.

Richie Mo'unga only has 1 cap as a sub and McKensie is exciting and still very young but quite error prone and not particularly frightening in defence. Id fancy Ireland's chances in Nov v NZ if either those guys start at 10 but they wont unless Barrett gets injured.

Two of NZs last losses they were missing key men.

Barrett v Australia
Retallick v Ireland

If NZ went into a quarter with Argie in 2015 without mccaw carter ben smith and nonu they would not have got thrashed by twenty points. Its not just the loss its the fact that ireland capitulated to the point they did nothing for and entire second half.

And unlike when we last played Ireland this side is much stronger. Using your own timid excuse we lost over 600 caps from 2015 including two of the best of all time. And still won 2 of 3, when ireland had their better players in.

This side is stronger, ireland, by scraping past an obviously poor oz is considerably weaker.

If New Zealand go into a quarter v Ireland, SA or England missing their 4 best players there is a good chance they will lose.

In 2015 Schmidt had been in the job just over a year. He didnt have time to build the squad that we have now and Argentina finished 3rd in the rugby championship that year winning away in SA. One of their best seasons in a while. In the same year NZ only managed a 7 point win v SA less than Argentinas win.

For some reason you seem insistant on down playing how good they were at that point.

Also in the same period that you say that NZ have lost some of their best players the exact same can be said of Ireland. Paul OConnell, Brian ODriscoll, Gordan Darcy, David Wallace, etc etc.

NZs 10 point win v Argentina in the pool stages with a full strength side is hardly a convincing win against a side you claim werent very good.

Oh wait Hanson must have been intentionally sabotaging his own side or so the story goes.

Collapse2005 wrote:NZs 10 point win v Argentina in the pool stages with a full strength side is hardly a convincing win against a side you claim werent very good.

Oh wait Hanson must have been intentionally sabotaging his own side or so the story goes.

So youre in denial over that still even though he announced that before the tournament and reiterated it during pool play?

And a 30 point swing is significant between the two results dont you think?

Collapse2005 wrote:If New Zealand go into a quarter v Ireland, SA or England missing their 4 best players there is a good chance they will lose.

In 2015 Schmidt had been in the job just over a year. He didnt have time to build the squad that we have now and Argentina finished 3rd in the rugby championship that year winning away in SA. One of their best seasons in a while. In the same year NZ only managed a 7 point win v SA less than Argentinas win.

For some reason you seem insistant on down playing how good they were at that point.

Also in the same period that you say that NZ have lost some of their best players the exact same can be said of Ireland. Paul OConnell, Brian ODriscoll, Gordan Darcy, David Wallace, etc etc.

Ok, you go withthat logic. As usual the ABs will leave their talking for on the field. And as usual, Ireland have an issue at both World cup time and with the ABs. All thats been sorted by Schmidt has it.

I doubt it very much.

In any case a loss in the nov matches isnt a biggie and like ireland abs might use them for World cup development, which has priority. Two losses however would be unnacceptable, something that hasnt happened in nearly a hundred years going north from memory.

Ireland or England might take one, but both wont, as the second side will get a dublin like backlash. Hasnt wont wont two NH wins on his cv.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:NZs 10 point win v Argentina in the pool stages with a full strength side is hardly a convincing win against a side you claim werent very good.

Oh wait Hanson must have been intentionally sabotaging his own side or so the story goes.

So youre in denial over that still even though he announced that before the tournament and reiterated it during pool play?

And a 30 point swing is significant between the two results dont you think?

4 key players including captain and 10 is a significant swing too. Thats the point you conveniently gloss over.

Ireland have an issue with the World Cup and the ABs because they simply haven't been good enough.  It isn't rocket science.  You can't be good enough until you're good enough.

Are Ireland good enough now to handle both sets of problems better than before?  Well who is to say.  Time happens and centuries come and go.  This is a new century still and Ireland seem to be getting deeper and deeper in love with this old game called rugby that was once, and not all that long ago, the preserve of a special brand of Irish sportsman - the rich and well healed sons of professional rich and well healed high earning mommas and poppas.  

Now rugby is finding its way down the channels to more ordinary sorts and there are more of them to go round, and they are bringing a different kind of dog attitude too that comes from having to try harder to prove yourself and succeed.

The one thing that nobody can claim is that Ireland since the century began have remained static, unimpressive and decidedly a journeyman Nation of the game.  Nope, they've taken to the professionalism lark pretty smoothly and have become pretty cagey exponents of getting perhaps the most bang per limited supply of player and buck of all the top Nations to date.  

Coming from our culture we have no right to have such a distinguished history in European club rugby... but the record is there.  Coming from our history we have no right to be possibly the most consistently competitive Nation in 6N rugby.... a lot of the time in the top three position, rarely so bad to be dogging it out for a spoon.
So Ireland are certainly at present going in a direction - long term.  We get hiccups along the way of course, we still struggle with the heat of battle at the very highest levels (WC) but the direction since professionalism began is UP.  It can't be denied by any observers that the direction is UP.  So where will UP take us?  Like I say, who knows.  But I've enjoyed the trip so far.

Ireland still haven’t beaten NZ though. Not in a proper Test. That Soldier Field game was an exhibition game put up to grow rugby abroad.

Cyril wrote:Ireland still haven’t beaten NZ though. Not in a proper Test. That Soldier Field game was an exhibition game put up to grow rugby abroad.

Yeah, and the result was planned in advance by the PRL at their secret headquarters under Lake Geneva. I like the choreography. More of the same at the next WC and we take rugby to a new plateau!

Typical reply from a Trump supporter!

SecretFly wrote:Ireland have an issue with the World Cup and the ABs because they simply haven't been good enough.  It isn't rocket science.  You can't be good enough until you're good enough.

Are Ireland good enough now to handle both sets of problems better than before?  Well who is to say.  Time happens and centuries come and go.  This is a new century still and Ireland seem to be getting deeper and deeper in love with this old game called rugby that was once, and not all that long ago, the preserve of a special brand of Irish sportsman - the rich and well healed sons of professional rich and well healed high earning mommas and poppas.  

Now rugby is finding its way down the channels to more ordinary sorts and there are more of them to go round, and they are bringing a different kind of dog attitude too that comes from having to try harder to prove yourself and succeed.

The one thing that nobody can claim is that Ireland since the century began have remained static, unimpressive and decidedly a journeyman Nation of the game.  Nope, they've taken to the professionalism lark pretty smoothly and have become pretty cagey exponents of getting perhaps the most bang per limited supply of player and buck of all the top Nations to date.  

Coming from our culture we have no right to have such a distinguished history in European club rugby... but the record is there.  Coming from our history we have no right to be possibly the most consistently competitive Nation in 6N rugby.... a lot of the time in the top three position, rarely so bad to be dogging it out for a spoon.
So Ireland are certainly at present going in a direction - long term.  We get hiccups along the way of course, we still struggle with the heat of battle at the very highest levels (WC) but the direction since professionalism began is UP.  It can't be denied by any observers that the direction is UP.  So where will UP take us?  Like I say, who knows.  But I've enjoyed the trip so far.

Yep, get what youre saying and I guess Im falling back on the age old discussion that ‘this time...’ and when youve heard it over and over again, firstly it isually never happens, and secondly if it does it all falls to pices within 12-14 months. Every.... single.... time.

Ireland might be the one that somehow does what few or no one else have. I just dont think the shape, direction and depth suggests that. History is dead against them.

But I guess we’ll see.

Facts are, the only side that have smashed the old guard of rugby (NZ, SA and Aus) home and away were England in 2000 to 2003. And won a World Cup. The Irish winning the odd 6Ns doesn’t mean much in the SH.

Cyril wrote:Facts are, the only side that have smashed the old guard of rugby (NZ, SA and Aus) home and away were England in 2000 to 2003. And won a World Cup. The Irish winning the odd 6Ns doesn’t mean much in the SH.

2000 to 2003.

Well, maybe that 3 years will happen again for England...who is to say, as I keep repeating here. But they had a pretty good chance at starting that process three years ago - at home with their state-of-the-art megabucks training headquarters..... and blew it dramatically.
So again, it's always a case that France and England SHOULD be smashing the old guard so often that the term 'old guard' as it refers to NZ, SA and Aus shouldn't even be a Heading that people are familiar with. But it doesn't happen.

That 2000-2003 period is becoming a bit of a Legendary Era as it moves deeper and deeper into the ancient past - a bit like 1966. If you have to go back almost 20 years to highlight where England should be on a four yearly basis due to resources..... well then, I think Ireland can shout a little bit louder still about its modest efforts at climbing the rugby hills in front of it.

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:Facts are, the only side that have smashed the old guard of rugby (NZ, SA and Aus) home and away were England in 2000 to 2003. And won a World Cup. The Irish winning the odd 6Ns doesn’t mean much in the SH.

2000 to 2003.

Well, maybe that 3 years will happen again for England...who is to say, as I keep repeating here.  But they had a pretty good chance at starting that process three years ago - at home with their state-of-the-art megabucks training headquarters..... and blew it dramatically.
So again, it's always a case that France and England SHOULD be smashing the old guard so often that the term 'old guard' as it refers to NZ, SA and Aus shouldn't even be a Heading that people are familiar with.  But it doesn't happen.

That 2000-2003 period is becoming a bit of a Legendary Era as it moves deeper and deeper into the ancient past - a bit like 1966.  If you have to go back almost 20 years to highlight where England should be on a four yearly basis due to resources..... well then, I think Ireland can shout a little bit louder still about its modest efforts at climbing the rugby hills in front of it.

True, makes an interesting next 14 months for that alone.

Cyril wrote:Facts are, the only side that have smashed the old guard of rugby (NZ, SA and Aus) home and away were England in 2000 to 2003. And won a World Cup. The Irish winning the odd 6Ns doesn’t mean much in the SH.

Go easy Cyril, it was only 2002-2003.

Cyril wrote:Ireland still haven’t beaten NZ though. Not in a proper Test. That Soldier Field game was an exhibition game put up to grow rugby abroad.

At least we didn't give them norovirus in order to win.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:NZs 10 point win v Argentina in the pool stages with a full strength side is hardly a convincing win against a side you claim werent very good.

Oh wait Hanson must have been intentionally sabotaging his own side or so the story goes.

So youre in denial over that still even though he announced that before the tournament and reiterated it during pool play?

And a 30 point swing is significant between the two results dont you think?

4 key players including captain and 10 is a significant swing too. Thats the point you conveniently gloss over.

Ok lets not gloss over it then...

This weekend we go in against Argie, who have just thumped the Boks, and are playing one of the next most important matches outside a World cup, without the following key players:

B Barrett- World POTY x2
R Ioane- World POTY nominee and possibly the number one winger currently
S Whitelock- half of the best locking pair
A Smith- arguably, with Murray, the best 9 around
Crotty- one of our first choice 12s
SBW- the other of our first choice 12's
Sam Cane- our first choice 7
Joe Moody- our first choice loosehead
Coles- our first choice hooker

In any world cup quarter all would currently be selected bar possibly either Crotty or SBW who knock eachother out.
Some are injuries, most are selections but we still expect to win the match, and if we lose... it wont be by 20.

We'll just see how it goes...

To be fair South Africa arent as good now as they were when Argentina beat them in 2015. They also beat them away as opposed to a home win this time around.

However yes I agree although this Argentina team arent as good as the 2015 version a convincing win for NZ albeit a home win given the number of changes to the side would be impressive.

That said Ireland have never lost to Argentina at home either.

Collapse2005 wrote:To be fair South Africa arent as good now as they were when Argentina beat them in 2015. They also beat them away as opposed to a home win this time around.

However yes I agree although this Argentina team arent as good as the 2015 version a convincing win for NZ albeit a home win given the number of changes to the side would be impressive.

That said Ireland have never lost to Argentina at home either.

They might without 8 certain starters, your original point. I dont think Argie are as good in 2015 either but theyre hard to read. We are placing a lot on Mouaga with only one brief test appearance.
Same with Karl T, goodhue is still raw and Milner skudder gets a rare third chance, gotta be the slowest wing around over fifty but he has the best step around, or did have. An upsets not impossible but would be a first ever win for argie so hansen is once again putting it out there, he didnt have to rest so many key players at once. Few coaches would push the boat that far out, despite the depth.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:To be fair South Africa arent as good now as they were when Argentina beat them in 2015. They also beat them away as opposed to a home win this time around.

However yes I agree although this Argentina team arent as good as the 2015 version a convincing win for NZ albeit a home win given the number of changes to the side would be impressive.

That said Ireland have never lost to Argentina at home either.

They might without 8 certain starters, your original point. I dont think Argie are as good in 2015 either but theyre hard to read. We are placing a lot on Mouaga with only one brief test appearance.
Same with Karl T, goodhue is still raw and Milner skudder gets a rare third chance, gotta be the slowest wing around over fifty but he has the best step around, or did have. An upsets not impossible but would be a first ever win for argie so hansen is once again putting it out there, he didnt have to rest so many key players at once. Few coaches would push the boat that far out, despite the depth.

Yes I agree its is a massively changed team from NZ and it will be impressive if they record a big win but would be even more impressive if they had to travel Argentina for the win. Not sure the rugby championship fixtures are fair on anyone bar NZ but that's a different story. Im mean you have to go to round 5 before NZ have to do a long haul flight and by that stage its all over.

Hanson claimed in his last presser that he was going to make changes but not to be disrespectful to Argentina but rather because he needs to rotate the squad. 8 changes is a lot though so it is borderline disrespectful. There is no way they would play this side against Ire, SA, Eng or Aus.

This disrespect thing goes around in circles.  To assume Hanson is being disrespectful (if such might be the feeling in Argentina) is I presume in turn disrespectful to the AB players chosen to do a job and win a game.... they're not sent out to lose.  It's up to Argentina to prove the theory of disrespect (if they indeed feel it) by making Hanson pay the price in a loss.

SecretFly wrote:This disrespect thing goes around in circles.  To assume Hanson is being disrespectful (if such might be the feeling in Argentina) is I presume in turn disrespectful to the AB players chosen to do a job and win a game.... they're not sent out to lose.  It's up to Argentina to prove the theory of disrespect (if they indeed feel it) by making Hanson pay the price in a loss.  

Yes Hansen covered that very point off in the Press conference, in saying it wasnt that they disrespected Argie but rather theyve a long campaign, need to manage their players and cover injuries, and maximise their potential for nexts years world cup. And in saying that the expectation is that those selected step up as All Blacks in every way.

Its part of what weve known to expect from Hansen. He likes to involve the wider squad as much as possible and has always built better depth well beyond the 23 that way. Its crucial he gets Mo’unga out there as if Barrett goes down weve only Mckenzie at 10 with experience after Carter, Sapoaga and Cruden have all gone north. Mo’unga needs to be world cup final able within a year. Few 10s have had that asked of them.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:To be fair South Africa arent as good now as they were when Argentina beat them in 2015. They also beat them away as opposed to a home win this time around.

However yes I agree although this Argentina team arent as good as the 2015 version a convincing win for NZ albeit a home win given the number of changes to the side would be impressive.

That said Ireland have never lost to Argentina at home either.

They might without 8 certain starters, your original point. I dont think Argie are as good in 2015 either but theyre hard to read. We are placing a lot on Mouaga with only one brief test appearance.
Same with Karl T, goodhue is still raw and Milner skudder gets a rare third chance, gotta be the slowest wing around over fifty but he has the best step around, or did have. An upsets not impossible but would be a first ever win for argie so hansen is once again putting it out there, he didnt have to rest so many key players at once. Few coaches would push the boat that far out, despite the depth.

Yes I agree its is a massively changed team from NZ and it will be impressive if they record a big win but would be even more impressive if they had to travel Argentina for the win. Not sure the rugby championship fixtures are fair on anyone bar NZ but that's a different story. Im mean you have to go to round 5 before NZ have to do a long haul flight and by that stage its all over.

Hanson claimed in his last presser that he was going to make changes but not to be disrespectful to Argentina but rather because he needs to rotate the squad. 8 changes is a lot though so it is borderline disrespectful. There is no way they would play this side against Ire, SA, Eng or Aus.

In terms of earliest to travel its Oz that benefit the most but its swings and roundabouts on the order of play. Fact is SA is the most remote so nothing you can do about the geography and SA are normally slow starts to this comp, have lost to Argie several times first or second up. If NZ and oz travelled first and NZ won away people will be saying everyones hopes rely on oz being able to beat NZ after theyve already done the hard work and travel and have their squad hardened and fine tuned for the home matches so its just as easily as over.

Cant win either way. Its a perceived advantage that may be the same either way because the ABs tend to travel best anyway. Look at the end of year tours. From memory its Oz that pushed this order from the start.

Thrashed Cyril?winning by 2 and 3 points respectively a decent goalkicker in the first match and the
AB`s would have cruised home.two men in the bin England resorted to constantly collapsing Scrums.
A penalty try under todays laws.second match JW scored all the points HE was the difference

Wah wah wah scrums aren't fair. Wah wah wah people kicking pens isn't fair. Wah wah.

Just pointing out it was`nt thrashing

Smash you mean. Ni you were just making excuses again. You'd be much happier not having to justify your plastic fandom you know.

alanmackie6 wrote:Just pointing out it was`nt thrashing

Yes Alan ABs will get typically smashed by 3 or 4 points, totally crushed up front blah blah then will win by 40 because they ‘got away’ in the last 20 mins in an otherwise a close battle that was actually very close. Quite humorous the adjectives that get applied. Happens aaaaaaallll the time.

Off to South Africa for the first time in a few weeks. Are there any South Africans left here?

Collapse2005 wrote:Off to South Africa for the first time in a few weeks. Are there any South Africans left here?

Kingraf is often spotted lurking on the off-topic section, try the Trump thread.

Thanks

Taylorman wrote:

Ireland might be the one that somehow does what few or no one else have. I just dont think the shape, direction and depth suggests that. History is dead against them.

But I guess we’ll see.

History is against them alright but logic is on Ireland side. We've a fairly youthful squad these days. Sure, Murray and sexton are not young but the style of play will evolve.


The standard of the pro14 has gone up massively in recent years and the technical ability of players too. So even though Ireland are playing a concervative game plan, I think we'll see the attacking side of things evolve in the next few years.


Btw, I don't mind NZ's success especially this side. They play skill based rugby and so their success is good for the game overall.

Really liking how Argentina are playing. Ledesma has them playing an exiting brand. Some sublime tries against the ABs. Great attacking mindset and foot on the pedal for 80. Just need to sort their scrum out. Pool C at the RWC will be interesting and can see France or England getting bumped early.