The Rugby thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
JustAsk said:
Well we don't really have to win them either.

Technically we already won the cup. Arg will have to win us with 38 odd points + bonus point to take the cup.
Click to expand...
The tie breaker may be results between the two sides rather than PD. Not sure.
 
Firstly, the CC final. Sharks were better if you look at the onfield stats. They managed their game better and that kick at the end in foul weather - they deserved to win.
But Lions, wtf? You lead on the scoreboard and time is up. You win possession in the lineout. What to do next? Kick the ball out right? Noooo, we're gonna show you how macho we are are by mauling you into submission. Oops, we lose possession and the Sharks win. Brainless. Nee man!!!!!

Then the Bokke. Up 17-0 after almost 20 min. Debatable yellow card but the Argies cash in. And they cash in big.
Where did it go wrong? Many things -:
- Some players being passengers in this team. Yes, I am looking at you Salmaan and Manie.
- Some players out of form? Marx - could not find his jumpers with a cane and a guide-dog. Also, no steals from the opposition as we know he can.
- Piss poor defense.
- Poor lineouts - this is becoming a regular problem.
- Stupid basic errors - Kicking out on the full, knock-ons at crucial times, poor discipline, giving away soft penalties.
- Tonyball maybe not really suiting us?
- Too many aimless kicks.
But I also have to give the Pumas credit. They came at us hard and in the end they deserved the win - they scored more tries and if they didn't miss some kicks, could have won even further.
 
Last edited:
Kosmik said:
I understand the yellow but it feels harsh there.
Click to expand...
No more than a penalty. 11 didn't even go for a HIA. Just milked it, got the yellow and was flying down the wing, the very next move.

The over zealous handing out of cards in rugby is really starting to get on my tits....
 
Last edited:
Whright said:
Once again just Thinking out loud here… but how weak has Aus and NZ rugby become.
Click to expand...
Both are probably at record lows. It's disappointing cause it cheapens our 4 in a row against them. The 3-0 against NZ by the 2009 Boks was a proper beating of a proper AB side, one of the best!! 2009 ABs were the foundation of the all conquering 2011-2015 ABs.

So yes, ABs have beaten no one of any significance this season so far, except Argentina in the 2nd round.
 
netstrider said:
He should not be on the field. Rassie has given him enough rope.

I think he finally hung himself with it now.

59m goal kicker now plays for the Sharks. Better to get him and SFM involved.
Click to expand...
The question is whether he is dynamic enough or good enough to be selected while not being the primary goal kicker. So, in effect, every time Manie is playing you have to have a reliable goal kicker on the field too. The frustrating thing is Manie can kick, just not to win test matches. His nerves get the better of him. Lack of self belief. BMT some might call it. I guess you either have it, or you don't. Can it be coached? No. A sports psychologist is the only person that can fix Manie.

Hindsight is an exact science but Pollard should have moved to 12, Am to 13, Jessie to 14 and KLA off. KLA probably had one of his least impactful performances since being capped.

Hendrickse's CC winning kick was fantastic but he's not necessarily the 10/15 the Boks are looking for. He's earned a test cap and was less than convincing.
 
Kosmik said:
It seems to really be a silly system
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is ridiculous. Ireland scored points on the table without playing a match. I have no idea of the algorithms or methodology behind how the system works but it's almost worthless.

What does count significantly is rankings before the fixture. So when a 6th ranked side beats 1st ranked side, 6th ranked side benefits significantly. But wouldn't the losing 1st ranked side drop points? So if the Boks were on 93 before, they would be on 91 after. And Argentina on say 85 points, should move to 87 points? Or something to that effect?

I think the system is designed the way it is not to prejudice teams that play fewer tests annually.

If the only way you can gain or lose points is through test wins or losses, teams playing 4 or 5 tests a year wouldn't factor as much.

I think any system is going to be flawed. There's no perfect system and perhaps the current one is the most practical...

Anyway, fck it...
 
sand_man said:
Yeah, it is ridiculous. Ireland scored points on the table without playing a match. I have no idea of the algorithms or methodology behind how the system works but it's almost worthless.

What does count significantly is rankings before the fixture. So when a 6th ranked side beats 1st ranked side, 6th ranked side benefits significantly. But wouldn't the losing 1st ranked side drop points? So if the Boks were on 93 before, they would be on 91 after. And Argentina on say 85 points, should move to 87 points? Or something to that effect?

I think the system is designed the way it is not to prejudice teams that play fewer tests annually.

If the only way you can gain or lose points is through test wins or losses, teams playing 4 or 5 tests a year wouldn't factor as much.

I think any system is going to be flawed. There's no perfect system and perhaps the current one is the most practical...

Anyway, fck it...
Click to expand...
I think there should be a degradation penalty though ie: if no game played for X months ( 4 or 6? ), than a point is penalized or if no matches played with respective opponents ie: those within two places above or below, similar concept maybe half a point.

In that way, a team can't just sit on thier laurels AND cannot "defend" by only playing much lower sides.
 
I'm not so clued up with the rugby these days but was that not the whitest Bok team in years? Then that was maybe the problem?
 
This is the first time I've felt let down by Rassie but hey he also has to fill the quota's right...........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X