Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

RWC 2015 final - All Blacks vs. Wallabies - Saturday 4pm

Options
1…2223242527

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    philstar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭philstar


    ^^^^^^

    well he did miss it if he had to ask Barnes

    you could see on TV it was a mile forward, and he wasn't far away from it


  • Options
    #783
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    philstar wrote: »
    ^^^^^^

    well he did miss if he had to ask Barnes

    you could see on TV it was a mile forward, and he wasn't far away from it

    Barnes had a better view of it and that's what he's there for. The referee can't be in the perfect position 100% of the time, that's why he's got assistants.


  • Options
    #784
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,972 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    philstar wrote: »
    ^^^^^^

    well he did miss it if he had to ask Barnes

    you could see on TV it was a mile forward, and he wasn't far away from it

    He had a bunch of players between him and where the ball was. It's no surprise he couldn't see if it was forward. Barnes was a couple of yards behind Kaino and said it was good. Not Owens fault at all.


  • Options
    #785
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    I'm still not convinced that pass from NMS was forward but I haven't seen it since the initial replay.


  • Options
    #786
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,604 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    pickarooney wrote: »
    I'm still not convinced that pass from NMS was forward but I haven't seen it since the initial replay.

    Tv3 did it with superimposed lines. It was several metres forward.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    errlloyd wrote: »
    Tv3 did it with superimposed lines. It was several metres forward.

    You can pass several metres forward without it being a forward pass.

    This pass was forward, however.


  • Options
    #788
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,604 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Basil3 wrote: »
    You can pass several metres forward without it being a forward pass.

    This pass was forward, however.

    I know Yeah, but he only passed it a few metres. So the fact it went forward a few metres is a good indicator it was more than momentum.


  • Options
    #789
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Don't go trying to pass off Italy as a threat while writing off Japan, Samoa and Tonga. And still writing off Scotland despite them being a 6N team who finished bottom, but had a -55 points difference (30 of which were against us) compared to Italy's -120 and are higher in the world rankings.

    You're being very disingenuous here, and it's why nobody is taking you seriously.


    On the contrary Scotland played well this tournament. Samoa, Tonga and Fiji did not contest the big sides. When South Africa came up against the All Blacks or when Australia came up against the All Blacks we all knew who would win. That was because up to that point they had played poorly.

    Back to my initial point the 6Nations sides concentrated too much on beating the minnow nations then playing to contest in the finals. From the very beginning I wanted New Zealand to be tested by a good side. That did not happen. England was that potential side or even Wales.

    You can't tell me given England's rugby tradition and all the top clubs they have not to mention being at home they would not make a game out of the All Blacks being at Twickenham. Wales against the All Blacks could have been a great game to watch.


  • Options
    #790
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    From the very beginning I wanted New Zealand to be tested by a good side. That did not happen. England was that potential side or even Wales.

    NZ were tested by 3 'good sides' during the tournament. The other 3 sides that also made it to the semi finals.

    NZ would have wiped the floor with either England or Wales, but we didn't have to, because AUS and RSA had them eliminated before they got anywhere near us! But don't let that put you off continuing to indulge in this delusion that England, who failed to emerge from their pool, were somehow a better side than AUS and RSA who came 2nd and 3rd in the tournament!


  • Options
    #791
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    On the contrary Scotland played well this tournament. Samoa, Tonga and Fiji did not contest the big sides. When South Africa came up against the All Blacks or when Australia came up against the All Blacks we all knew who would win. That was because up to that point they had played poorly.

    Back to my initial point the 6Nations sides concentrated too much on beating the minnow nations then playing to contest in the finals. From the very beginning I wanted New Zealand to be tested by a good side. That did not happen. England was that potential side or even Wales.

    You can't tell me given England's rugby tradition and all the top clubs they have not to mention being at home they would not make a game out of the All Blacks being at Twickenham. Wales against the All Blacks could have been a great game to watch.
    Uh, yeah I can. For all that 'tradition' and all those 'top clubs' they lost by to Australia. They lost by 20 points to Australia. England beat Fiji by 24 points, so by your logic, England couldn't even contest the Aussies - never mind just losing. Fiji even came closer to the Aussies on the scoreline, with a 15 point loss.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    NZ were tested by 3 'good sides' during the tournament. The other 3 sides that also made it to the semi finals.

    NZ would have wiped the floor with either England or Wales, but we didn't have to, because AUS and RSA had them eliminated before they got anywhere near us! But don't let that put you off continuing to indulge in this delusion that England, who failed to emerge from their pool, were somehow a better side than AUS and RSA who came 2nd and 3rd in the tournament!

    England won all their matches before the world cup. The English and Welsh were 6Nations champions over the last few seasons. They were clearly in contention to reach the final. As for the Bok's and Australia. I watched the Bok's play and they never stood out as world champions. They made the opposition look good.
    As for Australia they had a superb defence just like us and that is great when it comes to keeping the score low but really bad when it comes to winning games. Ireland, Argentina and England were denied a showdown with the All Blacks in a major world cup match. Instead the Bok's and Australia were unimpressive.


  • Options
    #793
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    KingBrian2 are you Stuart Lancaster in real life?


  • Options
    #794
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    England won all their matches before the world cup. The English and Welsh were 6Nations champions over the last few seasons. They were clearly in contention to reach the final. As for the Bok's and Australia. I watched the Bok's play and they never stood out as world champions. They made the opposition look good.
    As for Australia they had a superb defence just like us and that is great when it comes to keeping the score low but really bad when it comes to winning games. Ireland, Argentina and England were denied a showdown with the All Blacks in a major world cup match. Instead the Bok's and Australia were unimpressive.
    How many 6 Nations teams got even to the semis? By the way even ignoring that, the last time England won the 6N was before the last world cup, and the last time before that was all the way back in 2003, when BOD & Wilkinson were exciting young players just hitting their primes!

    Amazing how you include those 'credentials' and completely ignore the fact that Australia won the Rugby Championship only three months ago, completing a clean sweep of all the other teams in this years WC semi final including NZ by 8 points.

    I'm really beginning to suspect you're just on a wind up here, to be honest.


  • Options
    #795
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    England won all their matches before the world cup. The English and Welsh were 6Nations champions over the last few seasons. They were clearly in contention to reach the final. As for the Bok's and Australia. I watched the Bok's play and they never stood out as world champions. They made the opposition look good.
    As for Australia they had a superb defence just like us and that is great when it comes to keeping the score low but really bad when it comes to winning games. Ireland, Argentina and England were denied a showdown with the All Blacks in a major world cup match. Instead the Bok's and Australia were unimpressive.

    Whatever about success in the 6 Nations, there is a whole other competition that's played at the other end of the world, where another 4 nations compete for the Rugby Championship on another level altogether. Success in the 6 Nations means diddly squat when those teams are thrown among you in the World Cup!

    England were 'denied a show down with the All Blacks' because they didn't make it out of the pool stage! What part of that sentence do you not get? You may continue to say that AUS and RSA were unimpressive, but despite their alleged unimpressiveness, those two teams are the reason why England, Wales and Argentina were prevented from meeting the All Blacks!


  • Options
    #796
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    KingBrian2 are you Stuart Lancaster in real life?

    Going into the world cup we know who the major powers were. Many of them did not show up or they did at stages in the tournament but faded away. Bok's loosing to Japan was a disaster. The Welsh decided to unscrew the English chariot and the Puma's mauled the Irish.

    These teams now out of the running New Zealand cruised into the final and I go back to what I said neither Australia was good against Scotland, rewatch that match they were poor. The Bok's against Wales I saw moments of creakiness from them. If I remember correctly one of the South Africans was injured badly at the beginning of the tournament further weakening the entire side against the All Blacks.


  • Options
    #797
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    The English and Welsh were 6Nations champions over the last few seasons.

    Seriously?


  • Options
    #798
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Going into the world cup we know who the major powers were. Many of them did not show up or they did at stages in the tournament but faded away. Bok's loosing to Japan was a disaster. The Welsh decided to unscrew the English chariot and the Puma's mauled the Irish.

    These teams now out of the running New Zealand cruised into the final and I go back to what I said neither Australia was good against Scotland, rewatch that match they were poor. The Bok's against Wales I saw moments of creakiness from them. If I remember correctly one of the South Africans was injured badly at the beginning of the tournament further weakening the entire side against the All Blacks.

    NZ did not 'cruise' to the final. It's fair enough to say that they cruised through their pool, but they certainly didn't cruise to the final. Had they played either England or Wales in the semi instead of RSA however, I'd have to agree with you!


  • Options
    #799
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    I don't think NZ "cruised" to the final either but is it really that surprising that the best team in the world would find it "easier" to get to the final than the other teams?

    It's like in tennis when people complain that Serena Williams cruised to another title. She's the World #1, she can't play anyone better than her.


  • Options
    #800
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Whatever about success in the 6 Nations, there is a whole other competition that's played at the other end of the world, where another 4 nations compete for the Rugby Championship on another level altogether. Success in the 6 Nations means diddly squat when those teams are thrown among you in the World Cup!

    England were 'denied a show down with the All Blacks' because they didn't make it out of the pool stage! What part of that sentence do you not get? You may continue to say that AUS and RSA were unimpressive, but despite their alleged unimpressiveness, those two teams are the reason why England, Wales and Argentina were prevented from meeting the All Blacks!

    The reason I mention it is because I believe England would have been more of a formidable opponent to the All Blacks then either the Bok's or Wallabies. I am not a follower of the Rugby Championship in the Southern Hemisphere but am very well informed of the standard of that competition.

    You could say the Rugby Championship challengers played poor and still did better than any of the 6Nations teams and I would completely agree with you. Now why that was I could not tell you, however what I do know is that a strong England, Ireland or Wales can test any All Black or Aussie side.


  • Options
    #801
    Digifriendly
    Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭Digifriendly


    [QUOTE=KingBrian2;97594014England won all their matches before the world cup. The English and Welsh were 6Nations champions over the last few seasons. They were clearly in contention to reach the final. As for the Bok's and Australia. I watched the Bok's play and they never stood out as world champions. They made the opposition look good.
    As for Australia they had a superb defence just like us and that is great when it comes to keeping the score low but really bad when it comes to winning games. Ireland, Argentina and England were denied a showdown with the All Blacks in a major world cup match. Instead the Bok's and Australia were unimpressive.[/QUOTE]

    No they didn't. They lost to France in Paris in a warm up pre RWC.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Digifriendly wrote: »
    No they didn't. They lost to France in Paris in a warm up pre RWC.

    Yes, but France are an unbeatable machine that New Zealand were lucky to avoi- oh, wait.


  • Options
    #803
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Yes, but France are an unbeatable machine that New Zealand were lucky to avoi- oh, wait.

    Not sure what point you trying to make. If your being sarcastic your coming across more smug than anything else.


  • Options
    #804
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,972 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    I have to admire the persistence of KingBrian2. No matter how often his arguments are destroyed with facts, he keeps going. He sticks to his guns.
    Much like the Welsh team against 13 man Australia. They kept going with the same plays again and again and again because they knew they would eventually get the desired result.


  • Options
    #805
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    I have to admire the persistence of KingBrian2. No matter how often his arguments are destroyed with facts, he keeps going. He sticks to his guns.
    Much like the Welsh team against 13 man Australia. They kept going with the same plays again and again and again because they knew they would eventually get the desired result.

    Or the mighty English against a 14 man, injury decimated Wales. :pac:


  • Options
    #806
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Or the mighty English against a 14 man, injury decimated Wales. :pac:

    Yes but if Wales hadn't have beaten them in that game they would have cruised through the 1/4's, semis and gone on to win the tournament. Then the SH teams would have met their match rather than playing the finals between their unimpressive selves.


  • Options
    #807
    Bridge93
    Registered Users Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭Bridge93


    I'm lost for words at this point. This is the most ridiculous idea I think I've heard on here possibly ever unless it's a windup. There are literally no facts or stats that back up anything KingBrian2 is saying. Not one. total disregard for any that point this out and then pulls nonsense from all sorts of places.


  • Options
    #808
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    England bossed that match for so long, its amazing they managed to lose. Hard to know where they'd have gone after a win. Momentum is huge particularly at home. All that said, Lancaster wasn't sure who his best 10 or centres were so probably nowhere


  • Options
    #809
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Yes but if Wales hadn't have beaten them in that game they would have cruised through the 1/4's, semis and gone on to win the tournament. Then the SH teams would have met their match rather than playing the finals between their unimpressive selves.

    You keep saying that England or Wales are the sides that would have won the tournament I did not say that but what I did say was that South Africa and Australia were poor during the entire competition. The English Welsh match was a really good game in comparison to the Australian New Zealand game. Yes I saw a brave Australia come out and score two tries but the English would definitely have tested the All Blacks or so would have the Welsh or Irish.

    In any case the All Blacks won with little in the way of opposition. They were miles ahead of any of the other teams. Kick to the corners, win your line outs and lets not forget the Australian were defending too deep if they were defending from a position up in the All Blacks half they could have pinned them back. The All Blacks looked suspect at the scrum a decent scrumming side with attacking flare could have breached their lines. You not going to beat them defending so deep.


  • Options
    #810
    Bridge93
    Registered Users Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭Bridge93


    Did you or did you not see Australia humiliate England by 20 points on their home pitch!?

    Also: the English scrum was demolished by Australia


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #811
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Yes but if Wales hadn't have beaten them in that game they would have cruised through the 1/4's, semis and gone on to win the tournament. Then the SH teams would have met their match rather than playing the finals between their unimpressive selves.

    The Australians were defending way too deep. Had they kicked their corners, won their lineouts they would have been able to keep the All Blacks pinned back who's scrum was suspect.


Advertisement