The Rugby Thread - Part Deux

lexity said:
I never made that claim.
Click to expand...
So your claim to it not being part of the series is based on your own ignorance of the competition and/or your own faulty logic?

I'll give this to you Lexity, you are consitent across multiple different subjects of discussion.
 
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...
You are taking things way too literally and seriously.

It would only have looked bad if it ended in a 2-2 draw and guys were trying to claim the bokke won 2-1 and the last game didn't count. Which didn't happen.

Way too much internet "debate me bro" energy.
 
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...
Yes old Victor was very vocal when we lead 2-1 and claimed series victory and he was scared of a 2-2 draw. But did he call a 3 match series before it started? No?
I will bet anything that if the AB lead 2-1 Victor would have said the series is not over.
 
Who the hell cares what Victor said. This was always a 4 game series. Says so on any site you look at. Well except the one our resident moron visits
 
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...

Just nope... :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • im01.gif
    im01.gif
    2.3 MB · Views: 2
Cray said:
Dishonesty, thy name is Lexity.
Click to expand...
Let me add to that summation to make it more complete.....

lexity: At least be consistent, guys.... (will be fun to see the next episode with John/Victor).

Bozos United: It wAsN't aN eXhIbiTion maAatCh!!!!!

lexity: [Indulges Bozos United].

Bozos United: [double-, triple- and quadruple-down]
Click to expand...

:sleep:
 
We've had the 4th test discussion already last week...

For me it's quite simple regardless of how the powers that be structured the series....

sand_man

Post in thread 'The Rugby Thread - Part Deux'

NoStepOnSnek88 said:
Sure, those are just opinions, doesn't mean its correct, the fact is the series is four (4) matches, and as I said if the black kants win the series will be drawn, it's really that simple.
Click to expand...
Not just opinion, it's a fundamental on which an away tour is based. Playing 3 tests in South Africa, in an away tour, requires the visiting team to win 2 out of 3 to win the series.

It's been marketed as a 4 test series, it is a 4 test series, but NZ lost the away leg of the series 2-1. The 4th, on neutral ground, is an outlier aka money grab, sport promoting, exhibition match....

It's how...
 
Crowley said:
Everybody: It was a 4 game test series.
Lexity: We won it 2-1. The last test didn't count.
Click to expand...
That's not really what he/we are saying.

Surely some context is required here.

The way the series has been structured is a little nuisanced and unique too.

Purists and pundits alike consider a home series for SA, (an away series for NZ), to be constituted by the 3 tests played on South African soil.

If the 4th test was played in Mbombela for example, we are not having this discussion. The fundamentals of a home series, on South African soil, have been met.

That organizers and unions decided on a neutral venue for the 4th test, deviates significantly from the criteria required to qualify a home series. It's really that simple...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X