Nobody else has started this yet, so I might as well, with the end of the World Cup. I know the first match was last Saturday, but it’s 9 weeks instead of 6 this time, so it’s going to be a long tourney. Predictions? Comments? Mine:
NZ
Australia
South Africa
Why people thought, before Saturday, that Australia would win:
-Australia had great wins against Europe with their best 15.
-NZ had close wins against Europe and Argentina (man, that game against the Pumas was too close).
-NZ’s Tri-Nations team haven’t really played together in more than a month.
Well, apparently NZ is much more united than people gave them credit for. They needed the first half to get used to playing together and basically went to work in the 2nd half.
Of course, Rocky Elsom getting sinbinned for pissing off the referee, the Wallabies underestimating Kevin Mealamu twice (South Africa made that fatal mistake last year), and 20 missed tackles would hurt Australia’s chances.
Wallabies over Bokkes this coming weekend. Australia won’t bow twice and the Bokkes don’t look ready for the tourney. Of course, I could be wrong.
I’m an Aussie, and I was ashamed of our performance against the all blacks. Whenever we had possession we just weren’t agressive enough, and the all blacks defence was insane. As soon as the all blacks got the ball, they had blood lust and went crazy. I think in the tri-nation series we’re all pretty skilled, so it comes down to who wants to win, and NZ have an urgency that us Aussies can only dream of. Also Australia relies to heavily on only a few good players, everyone else seems to be mediocre compared to them.
If Australia has any hope of beating NZ they need to be hungry and aggressive, otherwise there going to be walked over, again.
Ive yet to see the game yet but whats your guys opinions in the SH of expanding the tri nations. You could have your own 5 nations if the IRB got there ass in gear and invited Argentina and a combined pacific island team.
Would be a good move for rugby imo, and i also fancy argentina to turn over one of the big three on home soil!
[quote]supermick wrote:
Ive yet to see the game yet but whats your guys opinions in the SH of expanding the tri nations. You could have your own 5 nations if the IRB got there ass in gear and invited Argentina and a combined pacific island team.
Would be a good move for rugby imo, and i also fancy argentina to turn over one of the big three on home soil![/quote]
Well, rumor has it NZ promised Argentina something of the sort if they voted for them as the world cup host. Dunno what ever came of that.
Anyways. NZ are the strong favourites by far imho. I am still as always cheering the boks on. I am worried about our effectiveness at the breakdown without a specialist fetcher, Jake White could be feeling like an arrogant prick if the aussie flankers show us up at the rucks, and I have a feeling they just might. Luke Watson should be in the squad, he was the best flanker for us in the Super 14, and quite possibly the best flanker in the whole tournament. The lack of Jean de Villiers and Bakkies Botha is gonna hurt us a TON, Jean seems to be the only bloody backline player that can make something happen out there, and his defence with Jacque Fourie is very solid. I am hoping the backline can show some imagination like some of the local teams have been doing in the Currie Cup. I can’t wait till the days of the brain-dead forward smash rugby that many South African coaches seem to favor are over and they realize what backlines are for.
[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
are they showing these matches in the US?
If so - info? [/quote]
The only TV in the U.S. that I know that shows international rugby at all is Setanta Sports. You can subscribe to it if you have DirecTV. $12.99 per month, www.setanta.com. Worth every penny, seriously.
The Fox Soccer Channel used to show those games but stopped last year.
SuperMick, I know you will be more than happy to disagree, but I can’t imagine the Tri Nations expanding to 5 countries. What makes it so special is that only the three best rugby nations in the world play there. I wouldn’t mind if a 4th nation, Argentina, is added ONCE the Pumas reach that level. I’m actually more in favor of an Argentine club being added to the Super 14 (or is it 15 now?).
Ren, what about Bryan Habana? When he’s healthy, he’s the go-to guy. He’s a refreshing change from SA’s usual idea of scoring: drawing penalties and having Percy Montgomery kick the opponent into submission.
[quote]supermick wrote:
Ive yet to see the game yet but whats your guys opinions in the SH of expanding the tri nations. You could have your own 5 nations if the IRB got there ass in gear and invited Argentina and a combined pacific island team.
Would be a good move for rugby imo, and i also fancy argentina to turn over one of the big three on home soil![/quote]
Good points above. I’m a huge rugby fan and I actually believe that there are too many test matches these days, it’s in danger of becoming like one day cricket where most of the tournaments mean nothing.
For example, the British Lions tour only comes around every four years, and even then it only comes to Aus, SA and NZ every 12 years due to the rotation. This makes the tour a very special occasion. Even the Bledisloe Cup didn’t happen every year which had the same effect, you got really fired up for the game because it would be two years before you got another chance.
Now all the tests played in between World Cup years seem to be all about rebuilding for the next WC and thus not as much emphasis is placed on winning the current Test series i.e. how many times do you hear coaches and players say “Yeah, we lost, but we’re on the right track for the World Cup!”
If more tests are going to be played it would be much more beneficial to introduce other countries as suggested. We need to make the WC more competitive, and how can the lower ranked countries improve and gauge themselves if the big boys are all playing each other only and won’t give them a look in to get the experience? The new look Wallaby front row we have will only get better by playing against SA and NZ, likewise the Pacific Islands will only get better by playing Aus, SA NZ etc etc. Oh, and having half of the current All Blacks team playing for their countries of birth would help the likes of Samoa and Tonga as well! (And before I get flamed by the Kiwis the Wallabies are guilty of player poaching also!)
In regards to the Tri-nations this year, NZ are definitely the favourites. As I mentioned above, the Wallaby front row will have to improve, but that will come through experience. Unless our forward pack can dominate and get momentum it’s not much use having the most talented backline in the world at your disposal, as was shown on Saturday. However, Australia did panic under the pressure and kept running across field too much. And how bloody frustrating is it when they keep turning the ball inside for the crash-ball run into the defence!! You’ve got Lote Tuquiri out on the wing and Latham at fullback, USE THEM!!!
I used to be a fervent supporter of the Boks, but I must say that I have given up my Satelite TV (bought specifically to watch rugby) simply because of the state of SA rugby. Th above poster who said that the Currie Cup teams show imagination must have been watching when I wasn’t because honestly I don’t see it.
NZ and Oz will bury the 'Boks. They are unfit and ill prepared. For pete’s sake, the S&C coach is bitching because the top players havn’t had an Accumilation phase in two years (WTF? Linear periodization? At their level?)
We have no drive, no team spirit and no “guts”. It’s sad, but I’ll rather not watch.
[quote]bg100 wrote:
You’ve got Lote Tuquiri out on the wing and Latham at fullback, USE THEM!!!
Ben[/quote]
The Latham/Tuquiri try was SWEET. Latham was Australia’s MVP that night. He and Tuquiri were definitely underused in the offense.
Ben, I see your point about the overelitism of the Tri-Nations, but if I’m not wrong, don’t the Pacific Islanders and Argentina play plenty of tests anyway? Didn’t Argentina play NZ last year as well as a couple of weeks ago? My memory isn’t good, but maybe the redundancy of such tests has something to do with me forgetting…
But yes, for nations to play better rugby, they need to play tests more often. Here in the U.S. our soccer team is overrated because we don’t play overseas enough, and our rugby team, before the Churchill Cup, haven’t played a test in a YEAR. A friggin’ year!!! They’re called “tests” for a reason!
[quote]BFBullpup wrote:
bg100 wrote:
You’ve got Lote Tuquiri out on the wing and Latham at fullback, USE THEM!!!
Ben
The Latham/Tuquiri try was SWEET. Latham was Australia’s MVP that night. He and Tuquiri were definitely underused in the offense.
Ben, I see your point about the overelitism of the Tri-Nations, but if I’m not wrong, don’t the Pacific Islanders and Argentina play plenty of tests anyway? Didn’t Argentina play NZ last year as well as a couple of weeks ago? My memory isn’t good, but maybe the redundancy of such tests has something to do with me forgetting…
But yes, for nations to play better rugby, they need to play tests more often. Here in the U.S. our soccer team is overrated because we don’t play overseas enough, and our rugby team, before the Churchill Cup, haven’t played a test in a YEAR. A friggin’ year!!! They’re called “tests” for a reason![/quote]
Argentina do get a few tests against the big nations, but it is very infrequent, I think Australia only play them every 2 years or so, compared to every year playing 3 each against NZ and SA and usually 2 against England and 1-2 against Ireland, Scotland and France! You can see the difference!
The Pacific Island nations have huge problems with club vs country conflicts. Many of their best players are in the English clubs who put some of the soccer clubs to shame when it comes to not releasing players for tests. Also, many move to NZ or Australia when they are young because there are more opportunities there and then they are lost to their country of birth because they get snapped up by NZ.
Wow, what a difference a week makes, 49-0 to Australia against South Africa! Finally the backline got the chance to show what they can do. Matt Giteau made a big difference, let’s hope he can stay injury free from now on. The forwards deserve a big rap for improving and dominating the game. Should be a better game against NZ in two weeks.
[quote]bg100 wrote:
Wow, what a difference a week makes, 49-0 to Australia against South Africa! Finally the backline got the chance to show what they can do. Matt Giteau made a big difference, let’s hope he can stay injury free from now on. The forwards deserve a big rap for improving and dominating the game. Should be a better game against NZ in two weeks.[/quote]
South Africa went inside Australia’s 22 only twice. Either Australia was really great or SA was really that bad. Next weekend’s NZ-Aus rematch should be a good one.
[quote]BFBullpup wrote:
OARSMAN wrote:
are they showing these matches in the US?
If so - info?
The only TV in the U.S. that I know that shows international rugby at all is Setanta Sports. You can subscribe to it if you have DirecTV. $12.99 per month, www.setanta.com. Worth every penny, seriously.
The Fox Soccer Channel used to show those games but stopped last year.
SuperMick, I know you will be more than happy to disagree, but I can’t imagine the Tri Nations expanding to 5 countries. What makes it so special is that only the three best rugby nations in the world play there. I wouldn’t mind if a 4th nation, Argentina, is added ONCE the Pumas reach that level. I’m actually more in favor of an Argentine club being added to the Super 14 (or is it 15 now?).
Ren, what about Bryan Habana? When he’s healthy, he’s the go-to guy. He’s a refreshing change from SA’s usual idea of scoring: drawing penalties and having Percy Montgomery kick the opponent into submission. :-P[/quote]
I would dearly love for the Tri nations to expand to a 5 nations, Heck you could even have a southern hemispere 6 nations and field the NZ maori’s!
Personally i want England to win at all costs all the time, however secondary i am a rugby fan and want the game to expand. There is far too much of the ‘its our ball your not playing with it’ attitude from some of the elite nations. What a big loss not letting the 2011 world cup happen in Japan. That decision beggars belief.
I can see the tri nations expanding and smaller irrelevant tests being scrapped. That can only be a good thing. Test rugby is special, a great product and should be treated as such.
I know the first match was last Saturday, but it’s 9 weeks instead of 6 this time, so it’s going to be a long tourney. Predictions? Comments? Mine: