Remember my prediction?
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
LOL youâre complaining about calls as an Australian fan? You should have watched last week. Stop over exaggerating, it didnât look like the refs missed any knock ons,
[/quote]
One of the commentators mentioned them.
Yeah well, I guess youâre a little excited because this is the first time NZ has EVER beaten Aus in a RWC match. Donât let it go to your head sonny.
Itâs not. I didnât express myself well. I meant the league test match yesterday where Australia utterly humiliated NZ was a more exciting game yesterdayâs union test match.
Not in Australia.
[quote]
The rest of your post can be explained by country size: Aus 22.5m NZ 4m.
Nice troll attempt anyway though.[/quote]
Actually population size has nothing to do with it. Itâs the size of the pool of rugby players that each country has to draw from the matters. As I have shown, NZ has over 145,000 registered union players and Aus has only 85,000.
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Must of been because the average team doesnât understand the offside rule. Or the multiple imaginary knock-ons. Or the moon phase was wrong, or jupiter wasnât in uranus, or an IRB conspiracy.
[/quote]
Joking aside it was a well deserved win. Aus played poorly. ABs got off to a great start in the first five minutes too. Although I did see Joubert making some sort of secret signals or something come to think of it. Makes you wonderâŠ
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Must of been because the average team doesnât understand the offside rule. Or the multiple imaginary knock-ons. Or the moon phase was wrong, or jupiter wasnât in uranus, or an IRB conspiracy.
[/quote]
Joking aside it was a well deserved win. Aus played poorly. ABs got off to a great start in the first five minutes too. Although I did see Joubert making some sort of secret signals or something come to think of it. Makes you wonderâŠ[/quote]
Joubert is a known freemason.
GO THE MIGHTY ALL BLACKS !!! Anyone else going to the final to see the French get thumped ??
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Actually population size has nothing to do with it. Itâs the size of the pool of rugby players that each country has to draw from the matters. As I have shown, NZ has over 145,000 registered union players and Aus has only 85,000.[/quote]
New Zealand has 22,000 registered league players (2010 stats) and Australia has 423,584 (2008 stats) and also ARLD schools programs had directly involved more than 1,000,000 children in Rugby League-based physical activities by 2008.
Using your logic, this may account for why we are shit at league and why not too many of us really care.
So really, you have a larger pool to draw on for union than we do for league.
The Wallabies may have sucked arse last night, but are still of course a top quality team so you donât need excuses and stupid disclaimers like this.
BTW, good to see you have finally learnt how to use the sites quote function properly.
As a Canadian (Canada? What the fuck are they doing here?) I will borrow a(nother) quote from ARCâs Jed-âFuck you France.â
Come on the All Blacks.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
blah blah blah[/quote]
Youâre acting as though the All Blacks are just some âaverage teamâ when actually theyâve been the best side in the world for the last, what, 30 odd years? Okay, theyâve choked in some RWCs but the tournament itself is extremely young compared to some other world championships. The Boston Red Sox went like 100 years before winning a World Series. The Cubs still canât win one.
The talent has always been there but itâs a win or go home tournament, you only get one chance. Thereâs no doubt, and Iâve said this before that if the QF, SF and Finals were a best of 3 structure, the ABs would have a lot more of those trophies. Obviously because of the nature of rugby this will never happen, and it shouldnât but yeah, ABs have always been bosses.
Actually I wasnât the one who said they are an âaverage team.â In fact I disputed the poster who said that. And yes you make a very good point there about league Cheeky, touche. I look forward to watching the ABs make some creme froggy on Sunday BTW.
I am all for NZ to take the title. They well deserve it unlike the French, who have been playing in their typical French style: play like shit for the whole game and win through penalties and sheer luck.
Hope they get trounced. If they donât it will be a crime in the sport of rugby.
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Actually population size has nothing to do with it. Itâs the size of the pool of rugby players that each country has to draw from the matters. As I have shown, NZ has over 145,000 registered union players and Aus has only 85,000.[/quote]
New Zealand has 22,000 registered league players (2010 stats) and Australia has 423,584 (2008 stats) and also ARLD schools programs had directly involved more than 1,000,000 children in Rugby League-based physical activities by 2008.
Using your logic, this may account for why we are shit at league and why not too many of us really care.
So really, you have a larger pool to draw on for union than we do for league.
The Wallabies may have sucked arse last night, but are still of course a top quality team so you donât need excuses and stupid disclaimers like this.
BTW, good to see you have finally learnt how to use the sites quote function properly.
[/quote]
What an interesting comment??? Pretty sure that New Zealand are the rugby league world champsâŠyep 100% positive on that one !! With about 50% of the players coming either from that Australian pool of players or from the UKâŠ
[quote]Peasticks wrote:
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Actually population size has nothing to do with it. Itâs the size of the pool of rugby players that each country has to draw from the matters. As I have shown, NZ has over 145,000 registered union players and Aus has only 85,000.[/quote]
New Zealand has 22,000 registered league players (2010 stats) and Australia has 423,584 (2008 stats) and also ARLD schools programs had directly involved more than 1,000,000 children in Rugby League-based physical activities by 2008.
Using your logic, this may account for why we are shit at league and why not too many of us really care.
So really, you have a larger pool to draw on for union than we do for league.
The Wallabies may have sucked arse last night, but are still of course a top quality team so you donât need excuses and stupid disclaimers like this.
BTW, good to see you have finally learnt how to use the sites quote function properly.
[/quote]
What an interesting comment??? Pretty sure that New Zealand are the rugby league world champsâŠyep 100% positive on that one !! With about 50% of the players coming either from that Australian pool of players or from the UKâŠ
[/quote]
What an interesting rebuttal ???
We have won once out of thirteen tournaments, Oz has won it 9 times GB 3 times.
So yes, we are the current champs, but 1 out of 13 isnât exactly setting the world on fire is it?
50% of players coming from either OZ or GB???
Where the fuck did you get that stat from?
Go online to the NZRL website and look at the current player profiles. Out of 23 players, 19 are born in and are from NZ (one in tonga but is NZ citizen) and 4 are from Aussie with none from GB.
Not exactly 50% is it?
Thanks for playing but my point still stands.
We have a much smaller pool of talent to draw on and ALOT LESS people give a shit about league in NZ âŠCOMPARED to union.
Your points are solidâŠ
I am simply saying that we are far from shit at league
Born in New Zealand yes but where do they live and play ?? I think you will find it is fairly close to 50% of the players are off shoreâŠ(backs up you point really as that increases the size of the pool of players)
[quote]supa power wrote:
I am all for NZ to take the title. They well deserve it unlike the French, who have been playing in their typical French style: play like shit for the whole game and win through penalties and sheer luck.
Hope they get trounced. If they donât it will be a crime in the sport of rugby.
[/quote]
Iâm french and i have to agree with this.
I fully take back my previous comment. The ABâs forwards were unreal on Sunday. Best display Iâve seen in a long time. Will definitely be cheering them on Sunday (not that theyâll need it against the French!).
The media here have slamming Quade so much I am almost starting to feel sorry for him.
AlmostâŠ
Hereâs the problem with the French IMO. They are completely inconsistent. And this makes for a more dangerous opponent, simply for the fact that no one has any idea what they will do.
Just a different look at things thats all.
[quote]backyardleopard wrote:
Hereâs the problem with the French IMO. They are completely inconsistent. And this makes for a more dangerous opponent, simply for the fact that no one has any idea what they will do.
Just a different look at things thats all.[/quote]
Including them! This is what we are all secretly worried about of course.
Mind youâŠthe teams that have in the past denied us were far superior to this one and if the ABs bring the ruthless determination that they displyed against the Aussies it shouldnât matter which french team shows up.
This whole talk about the French being the âx-factorsâ (whether they show up or not) is just construed rhetoric to try and make the game more competitive. Like CheekyKea said, it shouldnât really matter what French team shows upâŠ