kegasaurus
I smell BBQ
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2001
- Messages
- 1,413
C'mon, we never saw Australia v Wales, best attackers v the best defenders. We all know Oz would have won, I mean look at the league game.
Rugby - formerly 6Nations, formerly WRC
- Thread starter Jacquin
- Start date
kater
Filthy Assistants!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,547
I was at that league game and it was a farce, not one of the 17 players in the Wales team would have made it if all players were available. Clearly Wales would have beaten Australia in the union WC, we were the best team there and so the refs were told by the aussie organisers to get rid of us by any means possible, they created an England vs OZ final for the hype but never banked on Watson not taking a dive for them 
kegasaurus
I smell BBQ
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2001
- Messages
- 1,413
Just to quote me:
If we have to pay people off we'll do it, especially those potato eaters (He got us in the end though.). Look at Darrell Hair when SA were over here in '93. Beautiful.
Poms v Oz, it works like the US v the USSR.
I must ask though, should there be a pro bowl type scenario at the end of teh WC? North v South?
If we have to pay people off we'll do it, especially those potato eaters (He got us in the end though.). Look at Darrell Hair when SA were over here in '93. Beautiful.
Poms v Oz, it works like the US v the USSR.
I must ask though, should there be a pro bowl type scenario at the end of teh WC? North v South?
Last edited:
kater
Filthy Assistants!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,547
North =
15.) G.Thomas
14.) J.Robinson
13.) B.O'Driscoll
12.) I.Harris
11.) S.Williams
10.) J.Wilkinson
9.) F.Galthie
8.) L.Dallaglio
7.) S.Betsen
6.) R.Hill
5.) P.O'Connell (?)
4.) M.Johnson
3.) P.Vickery
2.) K.Wood
1.) J.J Crenca
South =
15.) M.Muliaina
14.) D.Howlett
13.) S.Mortlock
12.) A.Mauger
11.) L.Tuqiri
10.) C.Spencer
9.) J.Marshall
8.) J.Collins
7.) R.McCaw
6.) K.Krige
5.) V.Matfield
4.) C. Jack
3.) K.Meeuws
2.) F.Mendez
1.) O.Hasan
For the North England were obviously the dominant team and thus have six players in the team, being anything but unbiased I have the three Welsh backs who I felt performed best, I'd have loved to squeeze mark taylor in aswell but Brian O'Driscoll is special. I thought Dawson had a good WC but Galthie would be my general. There wasn't really an outstanding open-side for me in the North, Magne is too loose for me so I went with Betsen to complement Mr Quiet and Mr Noisy I thought Johnson aside O'Connell was the outstanding lock in the North just edging out Sidoli. There wasn't much to choose between the props imo and no Northern side would have been complete without Mr Potato head.
For the South despite OZ getting to the final its hard to look past NZ as the basis of the team. I preferred Tuqiri over Rokocoko who went AWOL when needed against the aussies and relies on the brilliance inside him to score tries for NZ. Mortlock is an obvious choice ater his displays against England and NZ. Latham hasn't done enough in this tournament to convince me he should replace the genius of Spencer, likewise Gregan seems burdened by the responsibility of leadership and V.D.Westhuizen's service isn't what it used to be and neither are his legs. I may have a positional bias but outside of JW Richie Mccaw was man of the tournament for me and Krige is my type of blind-side. Matfield just edged out Giffin and aside from Jack I don't really rate the southern hemisphere locks. It would have been the height of folly to not include a predominantly Argentinian front row in which they are clearly the best in the world.
It'd be nice to see and give me the chance to hold on for just a little longer
15.) G.Thomas
14.) J.Robinson
13.) B.O'Driscoll
12.) I.Harris
11.) S.Williams
10.) J.Wilkinson
9.) F.Galthie
8.) L.Dallaglio
7.) S.Betsen
6.) R.Hill
5.) P.O'Connell (?)
4.) M.Johnson
3.) P.Vickery
2.) K.Wood
1.) J.J Crenca
South =
15.) M.Muliaina
14.) D.Howlett
13.) S.Mortlock
12.) A.Mauger
11.) L.Tuqiri
10.) C.Spencer
9.) J.Marshall
8.) J.Collins
7.) R.McCaw
6.) K.Krige
5.) V.Matfield
4.) C. Jack
3.) K.Meeuws
2.) F.Mendez
1.) O.Hasan
For the North England were obviously the dominant team and thus have six players in the team, being anything but unbiased I have the three Welsh backs who I felt performed best, I'd have loved to squeeze mark taylor in aswell but Brian O'Driscoll is special. I thought Dawson had a good WC but Galthie would be my general. There wasn't really an outstanding open-side for me in the North, Magne is too loose for me so I went with Betsen to complement Mr Quiet and Mr Noisy
I thought Johnson aside O'Connell was the outstanding lock in the North just edging out Sidoli. There wasn't much to choose between the props imo and no Northern side would have been complete without Mr Potato head.For the South despite OZ getting to the final its hard to look past NZ as the basis of the team. I preferred Tuqiri over Rokocoko who went AWOL when needed against the aussies and relies on the brilliance inside him to score tries for NZ. Mortlock is an obvious choice ater his displays against England and NZ. Latham hasn't done enough in this tournament to convince me he should replace the genius of Spencer, likewise Gregan seems burdened by the responsibility of leadership and V.D.Westhuizen's service isn't what it used to be and neither are his legs. I may have a positional bias but outside of JW Richie Mccaw was man of the tournament for me and Krige is my type of blind-side. Matfield just edged out Giffin and aside from Jack I don't really rate the southern hemisphere locks. It would have been the height of folly to not include a predominantly Argentinian front row in which they are clearly the best in the world.
It'd be nice to see and give me the chance to hold on for just a little longer
Kater if you want Krige (that's Corné and not Korné btw - the one with a K is reserved for girls) you can have him - the man doesn't rate very high in my books - never have and never will, he's never been what I consider to be a good captain, even in the domestic competition.
Oh and congratulations to England for taking the cup - a well deserved victory and a really good game IMO.
Oh and congratulations to England for taking the cup - a well deserved victory and a really good game IMO.
kegasaurus
I smell BBQ
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2001
- Messages
- 1,413
Would've put the Fijian winger in the south team, but Kater you've done a good job.
kater
Filthy Assistants!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,547
Yeah a friend on DrosGemmell pointed that out also, its a good point although I wasn't convinced by his discipline I see there is a proposition for a nine nations tournament every two years starting in 2006, I assume with the tri-nations teams joining the six nations - any thoughts?
I see there is a proposition for a nine nations tournament every two years starting in 2006, I assume with the tri-nations teams joining the six nations - any thoughts?IMO that would just serve to further the gap between the stronger nations that already participate in the six & tri nations tournaments and the smaller nations. Perhaps the IRB should focus more on getting the smaller nations, such as USA, Georgia, Ukraine, Romania, Fiji and Samoa and even Canada more involved in international tests against the big guns. That way they won't be humiliated time after time after time when they enter the World Cup.
Take the USA for instance, they have everything in place to become a really strong rugby nation - money, infrastructure and a rather large pool to draw players from, yet they struggle all the time because they simply do not have the exposure at international level.
We all know that the top 8 nations basically dictate to the IRB in terms of tournaments played against each other and even in this past WC the smaller nations were forced to play all of their group games in the first 14 days, with only 2 or 3 days rest in between, where the bigger nations played with 5 - 7 days rest between matches. How fair is that to the minnaughs?
So to me it would make more sense to involve the teams like USA, Canada, Ukraine, Romania, Japan & Georgia in the six nations, on invitation. And by the same token expand the tri nations (also on invitation) to involve Argentina (not a small rugby nation by any means, yet they are excluded from most major tournaments), Namibia, Tonga, Ivory Coast and even Kenya, as well as Samoa and Fiji - all these teams take part in the sevens tournaments, so why should they be excluded from 15 man tournaments?
Take the USA for instance, they have everything in place to become a really strong rugby nation - money, infrastructure and a rather large pool to draw players from, yet they struggle all the time because they simply do not have the exposure at international level.
We all know that the top 8 nations basically dictate to the IRB in terms of tournaments played against each other and even in this past WC the smaller nations were forced to play all of their group games in the first 14 days, with only 2 or 3 days rest in between, where the bigger nations played with 5 - 7 days rest between matches. How fair is that to the minnaughs?
So to me it would make more sense to involve the teams like USA, Canada, Ukraine, Romania, Japan & Georgia in the six nations, on invitation. And by the same token expand the tri nations (also on invitation) to involve Argentina (not a small rugby nation by any means, yet they are excluded from most major tournaments), Namibia, Tonga, Ivory Coast and even Kenya, as well as Samoa and Fiji - all these teams take part in the sevens tournaments, so why should they be excluded from 15 man tournaments?
kater
Filthy Assistants!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,547
Yeah I totally agree with you there. To me it would undermine the WC too much and mean that the smaller teams would never get a chance to catch up, nine teams would mean without Argentina, as you said, which is about the most ridiculous thing I've heard given they are a top eight team easily. A nice idea if you don't think about it too hard, but with Lions tours halfway through each WC gap aswell I don't think it'll get off the ground and probably rightly so. There's too much of a gap between the top and bottom teams (and there aren't really that many international rugby teams anyway) already so to widen it and isolate slowly developing countries would be wrong.
P.S - American infrastructure = its a myth They have a loooooooooong way to go imo.
P.S - American infrastructure = its a myth
They have a loooooooooong way to go imo.Who do the smaller nations play against to get entry to the World Cup? Each other....and what good is that really? Sure, they get a bit of compition, but in the end it doesn't really matter all that much when they get to the WC and they are trounced by the big teams.
The only way the WC would ever be a true representation of rugby strength and a real compitition is if the smaller nations could enter on an equal footing with the rest. The way to get them to that footing is to develop the game - sure it's up to their governments etc to boost the development with cash etc, but it will mean nothing if they are not afforded the opportunity to play against teams like England, Australia, New Zeeland or the other big nations.
Also, I mentioned allowing these teams to join the six and tri nations on invitation basis - so let them have tests against each other to qualify for the invitation (this will prevent the tournaments from getting too big & lasting too long, which would interfere with the usual touring programmes). The team that qualifies will gain a lot of experience which will be worked into their improvement - forcing the other small nations to improve when playing against them again.
Probably sounds like a silly idea to some people, but if it were refined and reworked it might just do the trick in the long run.
Another way that might be considered (in the Souther hemisphere at least) would be to include teams from Argentina especially in the Super 12. Instead of having four provincial teams from SA, NZ and Aus (erm, now I'm a bit confuzzled - is it four each or does NZ have 5 and Aus 3? Can't remember...anyway, that's not really the point), reduce the number to 3 teams each and include 3 from Arg. then.
The only way the WC would ever be a true representation of rugby strength and a real compitition is if the smaller nations could enter on an equal footing with the rest. The way to get them to that footing is to develop the game - sure it's up to their governments etc to boost the development with cash etc, but it will mean nothing if they are not afforded the opportunity to play against teams like England, Australia, New Zeeland or the other big nations.
Also, I mentioned allowing these teams to join the six and tri nations on invitation basis - so let them have tests against each other to qualify for the invitation (this will prevent the tournaments from getting too big & lasting too long, which would interfere with the usual touring programmes). The team that qualifies will gain a lot of experience which will be worked into their improvement - forcing the other small nations to improve when playing against them again.
Probably sounds like a silly idea to some people, but if it were refined and reworked it might just do the trick in the long run.
Another way that might be considered (in the Souther hemisphere at least) would be to include teams from Argentina especially in the Super 12. Instead of having four provincial teams from SA, NZ and Aus (erm, now I'm a bit confuzzled - is it four each or does NZ have 5 and Aus 3? Can't remember...anyway, that's not really the point), reduce the number to 3 teams each and include 3 from Arg. then.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Messages
- 1,712
Re: Six Nations
I think so- what people tend to forget is the strength of the team surrounding Wilkinson, giving him room to maneuver. Granted England won't be able to play the kicking game quite so well, but there's still quite a few players left to play an agressive rolling game.
I think so- what people tend to forget is the strength of the team surrounding Wilkinson, giving him room to maneuver. Granted England won't be able to play the kicking game quite so well, but there's still quite a few players left to play an agressive rolling game.
Jacquin
Shovelly Joe
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 1,925
It is indeed the remains of my once glorious thread...
As to whether England can hold onto the cup, of course.
Johnson is out now and it would be foolish to say that this won't have an affect on the team as a whole, after all England simply didn't lose with him on the field. Dallaglio is however imho the right choice as replacement. Ok he is hardly the towering intellect that Johnson quite surprising turned out to be but he has exactly the right presence on the field. He is big, he is strong, he is fearless and he is experienced enough to not get fazed. With Woodward's input he'll do just fine I'm sure. He was always my choice as a replacement.
Wilko however is a bit of a different matter. He is truly a golden boy. Every time he touches the ball something marvelous happens, he makes plays as well as scoring points. He is a joy to have on the team, but he is injured... Can Grayson replace him? Not a chance, but I'm sure he can do enough.
I think we'll see some more of Henry Paul soon enough and with talent like his, Lewsey's and Greenwood's along with Dallaglio's leadership we can certainly do it.
May I once more draw your attention to the original title to this thread.
The future looks Rosy.
J
As to whether England can hold onto the cup, of course.
Johnson is out now and it would be foolish to say that this won't have an affect on the team as a whole, after all England simply didn't lose with him on the field. Dallaglio is however imho the right choice as replacement. Ok he is hardly the towering intellect that Johnson quite surprising turned out to be but he has exactly the right presence on the field. He is big, he is strong, he is fearless and he is experienced enough to not get fazed. With Woodward's input he'll do just fine I'm sure. He was always my choice as a replacement.
Wilko however is a bit of a different matter. He is truly a golden boy. Every time he touches the ball something marvelous happens, he makes plays as well as scoring points. He is a joy to have on the team, but he is injured... Can Grayson replace him? Not a chance, but I'm sure he can do enough.
I think we'll see some more of Henry Paul soon enough and with talent like his, Lewsey's and Greenwood's along with Dallaglio's leadership we can certainly do it.
May I once more draw your attention to the original title to this thread.
The future looks Rosy.
J
kater
Filthy Assistants!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,547
Ahahahahahahaha - delusional still J So it begins again. Wales are gonna win the 6 Nations for several simple reasons. Of all the nations we are the only team to retain all members of the team which did so well in the WC. England without Johnson, Wilkinson and about ten others are going to shock everyone with their ineptitude especially if they put Grayson at fly-half. Ireland will miss Wood a lot and with the talismanic influence now resting on a crock Brian O'Driscoll they won't be a major factor. If Scotland play as well as they did in the WC they'll lose every game They need to find a new style of play. Italy are much better than in previous years and will give all the teams good games but their lack of depth and a consistent fly-half will let them down. Lastly France who are two different teams - one of brilliance and control with Galthie and one lacking balance without. He has retired - do the math Bring it on
So it begins again. Wales are gonna win the 6 Nations for several simple reasons. Of all the nations we are the only team to retain all members of the team which did so well in the WC. England without Johnson, Wilkinson and about ten others are going to shock everyone with their ineptitude especially if they put Grayson at fly-half. Ireland will miss Wood a lot and with the talismanic influence now resting on a crock Brian O'Driscoll they won't be a major factor. If Scotland play as well as they did in the WC they'll lose every game They need to find a new style of play. Italy are much better than in previous years and will give all the teams good games but their lack of depth and a consistent fly-half will let them down. Lastly France who are two different teams - one of brilliance and control with Galthie and one lacking balance without. He has retired - do the math Bring it on
Jacquin
Shovelly Joe
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 1,925
Originally posted by kater
Ahahahahahahaha - delusional still J
Oh come on.. still deluded? If you mean in the way I was deluded when I said that England would win the world cup then yes, I'm afraid I am deluded in a predicting the truth kind of way.
Johnson we will miss, Dallaglio is about as good as a replacement as we could hope for, but we will miss him. Not having JW in the team is another blow, but that simply puts us in the position of having to play more of a running game with the best team in the world against second rate opposition. Wales will do pretty well, their hay-day has unfortunately passed some time ago and so pretty well in a small championship is about as much as they can hope for... I agree that if nothing out of the ordinary happens this will be a Wales v England contest. I honestly think though that it will be not much of a contest.
Yes we have new players, our main problem at the moment is that we have more brilliant players than we have spaces on the team. Any team that can afford to leave Paul, King and Barkley out of the starting line up is not short of talent. Yes we have a lot of work to do. Yes we are the best people to do it.
Trust me, I was right last time wasn't I?
J
P.S.
Sponsors
We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon
Your ad here.