The Rugby Thread - Part Deux

lexity said:
Geez but there are some naive supporters in this thread.
Click to expand...

An exhibition match is a sporting event where the outcome, prize money, and impact on official player or team rankings are zero or greatly reduced

By the team Rassie put out it was clearly not an exhibition match for SA. I have no issue with matches played in the US if the crowds turn up and if its a reasonable time so both nations playing can actually watch. (If kick off was 19:00 or even 21:00 would have been much better for SA supporters)
 
L-Dog said:
An exhibition match is a sporting event where the outcome, prize money, and impact on official player or team rankings are zero or greatly reduced

By the team Rassie put out it was clearly not an exhibition match for SA. I have no issue with matches played in the US if the crowds turn up and if its a reasonable time so both nations playing can actually watch. (If kick off was 19:00 or even 21:00 would have been much better for SA supporters)
Click to expand...
It was an official test... that was clearly designed to be a part of a series specifically and deliberately to exhibit and showcase the game of ruby to a new audience and massive new market.

You can see that from the stats I posted earlier.... if you are having trouble spotting the pattern of incentives that drive the decision-makers at this level.

Anyone else capable of nuance, here today?
 
lexity said:
The boks won the series 2 - 1.

Anyone disagree?
Click to expand...
It was officially part of the series and they only awarded the trophy affter the 4th Test.

It was also an official Test match with ranking points and pride on the line. So yeah, pretty much completely disagree.
 
lexity said:
It was an official test... that was clearly designed to be a part of a series specifically and deliberately to exhibit and showcase the game of ruby to a new audience and massive new market.

You can see that from the stats I posted earlier.... if you are having trouble spotting the pattern of incentives that drive the decision-makers at this level.

Anyone else capable of nuance, here today?
Click to expand...
No sorry. i have an office job and my break is finished.
 
Cray said:
It was officially part of the series and they only awarded the trophy affter the 4th Test.

It was also an official Test match with ranking points and pride on the line. So yeah, pretty much completely disagree.
Click to expand...
And you're being consistent, right?

You didn't change your tune because 3 - 1 sounds much better than 2 - 1.

Am I right?
 
lexity said:
It was an official test... that was clearly designed to be a part of a series specifically and deliberately to exhibit and showcase the game of ruby to a new audience and massive new market.

You can see that from the stats I posted earlier.... if you are having trouble spotting the pattern of incentives that drive the decision-makers at this level.

Anyone else capable of nuance, here today?
Click to expand...
Are you capable of seeing beyond your blind ignorance at all? Strange hill to die on, given all the evidence that it wasn’t an exhibition match.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

L-Dog said:
An exhibition match is a sporting event where the outcome, prize money, and impact on official player or team rankings are zero or greatly reduced
Click to expand...

Did any of those happen with Saturdays game?
 
lexity said:
And you're being consistent, right?

You didn't change your tune because 3 - 1 sounds much better than 2 - 1.

Am I right?
Click to expand...
Nope, am being consistent, this game was always part of the tour and people calling it an exhibition should probably refer to the official series website.

https://greatest-rivalry.com/

1789374074436.png
 
Crowley said:
Are you capable of seeing beyond your blind ignorance at all? Strange hill to die on, given all the evidence that it wasn’t an exhibition match.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.



Did any of those happen with Saturdays game?
Click to expand...
By that definition I agree. But are you capable of seeing the distinction between substance and form?

The bigger pic most often exposes the official story as a fairy tale.

Take a few steps back, if you will.
 
Crowley said:
Open your eyes, realize it wasn’t an exhibition match and admit you were wrong.

Consistently wrong is still wrong.
Click to expand...
This is a silly semantics argument over nothing.

Even if it is a exhibition match it was still part of the series and the Victor Matfield cope or whatever from before the game was just silly.

The point of an Exhibition match is to go showcase rugby to a USA audience and just make money.
It was still a real match part of the series, that counted.

It is both. An exhibition match and legit game part of the greatest rivalry series. It is stupid to have a 4 match series because that can end in a draw. But luckily it didn't
 
lexity said:
If you don't see it in the press, it's obviously incorrect/inaccurate....
Click to expand...
That's not an argument, come on, out with it. It doesn't have to be in the press, just point me to the evidence that the Boks, the All Blacks, any of the coaches or players said/thought that this was an exhibition match. Take your time, i'll wait.
 
rietrot said:
This is a silly semantics argument over nothing.

Even if it is a exhibition match it was still part of the series and the Victor Matfield cope or whatever from before the game was just silly.

The point of an Exhibition match is to go showcase rugby to a USA audience and just make money.
It was still a real match part of the series, that counted.

It is both. An exhibition match and ligit game part of the greatest rivalry series. It is stupid to have a 4 match series because that can end in a draw. But luckily it didn't
Click to expand...
That is probably the best take , it was an actual part of the series but also served the goal of showing off the game to the Yankees.
 
If I were John Kirwin, I would be pressing Victor Matfield on his take on whether it was a 2 - 1 victory vs a 3 - 1 series victory.

My take is that Victor was correct, before the 4th match in calling it a 3-test series, and that if he now calls it a 3 - 1 victory, that would be hypocritical.

Let's see what happens.
 
Cray said:
That's not an argument, come on, out with it. It doesn't have to be in the press, just point me to the evidence that the Boks, the All Blacks, any of the coaches or players said/thought that this was an exhibition match. Take your time, i'll wait.
Click to expand...
I never made that claim.

Keep up.
 
lexity said:
Snek and Werner you guys are missing the bigger pic.... besides my original point this morning, that one should at least be consistent from a few days ago.

It was an exhibition match.... decided not by the players or the coach, but by the higher-ups.

That is where the money is controlled.... not at the player or coach level.

I can think of 23 billion reasons why it was made to be a 4-test series, and that is not even the concerning thing i.e. the control ceded is waaaay more of a concern than money for advancing the sport per se.

What matters is the substance. Substance over form.

The series was won by the boks, 2 - 1, who then went on to win a 4th test (3 in a row).
Click to expand...
It was even called a Four-test series by the All Blacks themselves, before the series commenced. Nowhere was it said that the 4th match was an exhibition match. As per screencapture below: "South Africa will host rugby’s fiercest battles — before a historic fourth Test in Baltimore, USA."
1789375079052.png
 
lexity said:
If I were John Kirwin, I would be pressing Victor Matfield on his take on whether it was a 2 - 1 victory vs a 3 - 1 series victory.

My take is that Victor was correct, before the 4th match in calling it a 3-test series, and that if he now calls it a 3 - 1 victory, that would be hypocritical.

Let's see what happens.
Click to expand...
If Victor changes his tune just because we won the 3rd test then I would agree that he was being hypocritical. Always disliked the idea of giving up home ground advantage for the 4th test but that is the way the series was planned so for me, it was always about the series the result going down to the 4th test.

2-2 would have been a horrible result though....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X