Hansen needs his head read
-
@jegga said in Hansen needs his head read:
@canefan said in Hansen needs his head read:
@dogmeat said in Hansen needs his head read:
I reckon NZ were favourites in 07/11 and 15. 2/3 aint so bad.
We def weren't overwhelming favourites in any of the other years although we would have been close to that in 91. Don't think anyone was favoured in 99 - bit like this year....
We were not great in the year preceding 2015 if I recall. Laurie failed to settle on his combinations
I'm pretty sure the aussies were favourites in 87 and 95 .
I'd call 1999 a choke, the other losses I don't think really stack up as chokes . Its quite odd to see every ab rwc loss considered to be a choke but if it means the teams are undeserving pretenders I'm cool with it I guess. Hard to argue with that logic.
1995 we were outsiders.
There's a really good article on the front page that explains it:
https://www.thesilverfern.com/posts/booboo/2019-08/best-of-rwc-episode-5
Very astute the bloke who wrote that.
New Zealand 45 v England 29
In retrospect it may surprise many that I include this match as an upset, but given the level of favouritism in the year leading up to the tournament where New Zealand were considered 5th placed outsiders at best, justifiably written off following a disappointing 1994 (a 2-nil loss to France at home, a disappointing draw in the third test against the Boks, albeit in a 2-nil series win, and the Gregan-Wilson Bledisloe loss), and England entering the tournament on the back of (unsurprisingly) massive Fleet Street hype as Five Nations Grand Slam champions this result surprised many.
-
@booboo said in Hansen needs his head read:
@jegga said in Hansen needs his head read:
@canefan said in Hansen needs his head read:
@dogmeat said in Hansen needs his head read:
I reckon NZ were favourites in 07/11 and 15. 2/3 aint so bad.
We def weren't overwhelming favourites in any of the other years although we would have been close to that in 91. Don't think anyone was favoured in 99 - bit like this year....
We were not great in the year preceding 2015 if I recall. Laurie failed to settle on his combinations
I'm pretty sure the aussies were favourites in 87 and 95 .
I'd call 1999 a choke, the other losses I don't think really stack up as chokes . Its quite odd to see every ab rwc loss considered to be a choke but if it means the teams are undeserving pretenders I'm cool with it I guess. Hard to argue with that logic.
1995 we were outsiders.
There's a really good article on the front page that explains it:
https://www.thesilverfern.com/posts/booboo/2019-08/best-of-rwc-episode-5
Very astute the bloke who wrote that.
New Zealand 45 v England 29
In retrospect it may surprise many that I include this match as an upset, but given the level of favouritism in the year leading up to the tournament where New Zealand were considered 5th placed outsiders at best, justifiably written off following a disappointing 1994 (a 2-nil loss to France at home, a disappointing draw in the third test against the Boks, albeit in a 2-nil series win, and the Gregan-Wilson Bledisloe loss), and England entering the tournament on the back of (unsurprisingly) massive Fleet Street hype as Five Nations Grand Slam champions this result surprised many.
One thing that impressed me about the poms in that semi was that they didn’t give up and from memory even outscored us in the second half .
-
@jegga said in Hansen needs his head read:
@booboo said in Hansen needs his head read:
@jegga said in Hansen needs his head read:
@canefan said in Hansen needs his head read:
@dogmeat said in Hansen needs his head read:
I reckon NZ were favourites in 07/11 and 15. 2/3 aint so bad.
We def weren't overwhelming favourites in any of the other years although we would have been close to that in 91. Don't think anyone was favoured in 99 - bit like this year....
We were not great in the year preceding 2015 if I recall. Laurie failed to settle on his combinations
I'm pretty sure the aussies were favourites in 87 and 95 .
I'd call 1999 a choke, the other losses I don't think really stack up as chokes . Its quite odd to see every ab rwc loss considered to be a choke but if it means the teams are undeserving pretenders I'm cool with it I guess. Hard to argue with that logic.
1995 we were outsiders.
There's a really good article on the front page that explains it:
https://www.thesilverfern.com/posts/booboo/2019-08/best-of-rwc-episode-5
Very astute the bloke who wrote that.
New Zealand 45 v England 29
In retrospect it may surprise many that I include this match as an upset, but given the level of favouritism in the year leading up to the tournament where New Zealand were considered 5th placed outsiders at best, justifiably written off following a disappointing 1994 (a 2-nil loss to France at home, a disappointing draw in the third test against the Boks, albeit in a 2-nil series win, and the Gregan-Wilson Bledisloe loss), and England entering the tournament on the back of (unsurprisingly) massive Fleet Street hype as Five Nations Grand Slam champions this result surprised many.
One thing that impressed me about the poms in that semi was that they didn’t give up and from memory even outscored us in the second half .
Couple of dodgy tries against a team slacking off.
-
@jegga said in Hansen needs his head read:
@booboo said in Hansen needs his head read:
@jegga said in Hansen needs his head read:
@canefan said in Hansen needs his head read:
@dogmeat said in Hansen needs his head read:
I reckon NZ were favourites in 07/11 and 15. 2/3 aint so bad.
We def weren't overwhelming favourites in any of the other years although we would have been close to that in 91. Don't think anyone was favoured in 99 - bit like this year....
We were not great in the year preceding 2015 if I recall. Laurie failed to settle on his combinations
I'm pretty sure the aussies were favourites in 87 and 95 .
I'd call 1999 a choke, the other losses I don't think really stack up as chokes . Its quite odd to see every ab rwc loss considered to be a choke but if it means the teams are undeserving pretenders I'm cool with it I guess. Hard to argue with that logic.
1995 we were outsiders.
There's a really good article on the front page that explains it:
https://www.thesilverfern.com/posts/booboo/2019-08/best-of-rwc-episode-5
Very astute the bloke who wrote that.
New Zealand 45 v England 29
In retrospect it may surprise many that I include this match as an upset, but given the level of favouritism in the year leading up to the tournament where New Zealand were considered 5th placed outsiders at best, justifiably written off following a disappointing 1994 (a 2-nil loss to France at home, a disappointing draw in the third test against the Boks, albeit in a 2-nil series win, and the Gregan-Wilson Bledisloe loss), and England entering the tournament on the back of (unsurprisingly) massive Fleet Street hype as Five Nations Grand Slam champions this result surprised many.
One thing that impressed me about the poms in that semi was that they didn’t give up and from memory even outscored us in the second half .
Yes. Will Carling in particular.
-
@booboo said in Hansen needs his head read:
@rotated said in Hansen needs his head read:
@dogmeat said in Hansen needs his head read:
I reckon NZ were favourites in 07/11 and 15. 2/3 aint so bad.
Bookies had us marginal favourites in 1999 and 2003 too, but nowhere near evens. But 'public' teams, like the ABs are always going to get the edge with the bookies so that may be deceiving.
Every loss in the tournament (perhaps with the exception of the 1999 bronze game) has been an upset.
Which bookies? NZ TAB? England were clear favs in '03.
Nah, I can't find the pretournament odds but this article after England beat Australia (the week after Wellington) still shows the UK bookies having us narrow $3 favourites.
The ABs hardly would have drifted out after putting 50 on the Boks and Wallabies and then winning the Bledisloe back.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=3508808
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Crucial said in Hansen needs his head read:
Scotland (yeah right)
Anyone but England after that but …
Japan
France (you never know with these guys at a RWC)
I'd go for Argentina but the thought of the World champs playing 4 years of friendlies irritates me
Not Australia….actually I don't want anyone else to win
Agreed.
If pushed Boks.
Wouldn't respect anyone else in the morning!
-
England.
France because 3 finals and no cup.
Wales because they’ve been playing well and despite the fact we’ll never hear the last of it.
Ireland.
No SH big 3, you’ve had it often enough. -
@Catogrande said in Hansen needs his head read:
England.
France because 3 finals and no cup.
Wales because they’ve been playing well and despite the fact we’ll never hear the last of it.
Ireland.
No SH big 3, you’ve had it often enough.It’s not a fucking participation award.
-
@Catogrande said in Hansen needs his head read:
England.
France because 3 finals and no cup.
Wales because they’ve been playing well and despite the fact we’ll never hear the last of it.
Ireland.
No SH big 3, you’ve had it often enough.Anyone NH but Scotland?!
-
@Crucial said in Hansen needs his head read:
@Catogrande said in Hansen needs his head read:
England.
France because 3 finals and no cup.
Wales because they’ve been playing well and despite the fact we’ll never hear the last of it.
Ireland.
No SH big 3, you’ve had it often enough.It’s not a fucking participation award.
May I refer you to a previous post that didn’t want the Boks to win ‘cos they’d be catching NZ up? Stop picking on me.
-
@pakman said in Hansen needs his head read:
@Catogrande said in Hansen needs his head read:
England.
France because 3 finals and no cup.
Wales because they’ve been playing well and despite the fact we’ll never hear the last of it.
Ireland.
No SH big 3, you’ve had it often enough.Anyone NH but Scotland?!
Yeah, sort of, which is odd as I usually have a soft spot for Scotland but in recent years I’ve got a bit sick of them talking themselves up without anything to support it. Caveat: “Them” = mainly former players.
-
@Catogrande said in Hansen needs his head read:
@pakman said in Hansen needs his head read:
@Catogrande said in Hansen needs his head read:
England.
France because 3 finals and no cup.
Wales because they’ve been playing well and despite the fact we’ll never hear the last of it.
Ireland.
No SH big 3, you’ve had it often enough.Anyone NH but Scotland?!
Yeah, sort of, which is odd as I usually have a soft spot for Scotland but in recent years I’ve got a bit sick of them talking themselves up without anything to support it. Caveat: “Them” = mainly former players.
I don’t begrudge them , look how excited @MN5 gets when they don’t get a wooden spoon in the 6n or finish second to last .
-
I've thought long and hard about this, and it's easier to work backwards, and start with the ones that you don't want to win
Aussie: Nope I live here, i would have to put up with dickheads who have been silent for a decade suddenly piling on, and trying bring back the old "AB Choke" memes. And 4 years of shit shouldn't be disguised by 6 weeks of competent rugby.
South Africa: Nope Old enemy, same amount of cups as us, quotas and internal politics. Thugs, cheats, and wannabe tough guys
Ireland: Nope. Floggy fans of the highest order. A sense of entitlement built on fuck all. I could have doid. Boring rugby. Sexton is a diving sook.
France. No Way. That would justify that their current structure can work.
England. Nope. Poncey royals looking dopey in the stands all happy and shit. Eddie's smug little face. The endless braying. Something about it coming home. The fans are bad enough about that 2003 team, give them another set of heroes and it will be never ending.
Argentina and Scotland don't have a hope.
So that leaves Wales. Proper rugby country. Fans have suffered so much. Their mouthy coach is the Chiefs coach now, so infinitely more tolerable. Can actually play some brilliant rugby at times. AWJ lifting the trophy would look pretty good. #1 in the World too.
-
@mariner4life said in Hansen needs his head read:
Thugs, cheats, and wannabe tough guys
Isn't that what the Fern's built on?
-
@pakman said in Hansen needs his head read:
@mariner4life said in Hansen needs his head read:
Thugs, cheats, and wannabe tough guys
Isn't that what the Fern's built on?
i am not a thug
-
@mariner4life The Fern takes all sorts.
-
The only team I want to win, after the ABs, is Wales. My logic is this:
- Needs to be a that has a chance, otherwise I would choose Namibia or something
- Not Oz or SA so they don't equal our tally.
- Ditto not England, I have too many Eng friends and family, it was bad enough living there in 03
- Not Ireland because of the way they have moaned so much about tackles and crap, and still moan about BoD, and they've beten us recently
- Wales are not to beat us in their winning run so we can still point that out and say Word Champs but not World's best.
- Not France, cos they're French.
- No one else is in with a realistic chance.
There you go.
-
@mariner4life said in Hansen needs his head read:
South Africa: Nope Old enemy, same amount of cups as us, quotas and internal politics. Thugs, cheats, and wannabe tough guys
Reminds me of a saffa golf pro my dad met on the GC years ago. They got to talking about rugby, and I think my uncle made some glib comment about us getting shafted in the 1995 cup. This guy sparks up with "We play hard but we don't cheat!!"
Fast forward to CF Jnr's weekend football in house comp. One team, managed by a saffa dad, fully schooled in the dark arts; shoving off the ball, shirt pulling, the whole bit. And to top it off this Saffa dude turns a blind eye and even worse cheats on throw in calls. It's farken 8 year olds FFS. We don't cheat?
