New Zealand conference
I'm a little perturbed about the self-congratulatory reporting and comments about the New Zealand conference and teams over the last week or so.<br><br>
The comms going on about the Chiefs v Blues as being a massive step up and kind of sneering at the other conferences and teams I found unnecessary and somewhat condescending.<br><br>
Comments like Mehrts going on about the Chiefs rolling the Aussie "golden boys" the Brumbies just left me uncomfortable. <br><br>
It's still early days in the comp. And as evidenced by results over the weekend most teams are capable of beating the others.<br><br>
When you think about it:<br>
- Chiefs have stunning ability to attack but aren't dominating possession or territory (sure they don't have to ...)<br>
- Saders backline has questions hanging over them (liking their forwards generally <br>
... still haven't watched the farce at the Force tho)<br>
- Clan have been average at best last couple of games v Rebels and Farce ... and apparently less than average v Reds<br>
- Canes ... strangely difficult to pick on them ...<br>
- Blues just not quite there <br><br>
And remember how everyone thought Marto was on drugs for suggesting the Reds might get up over the Clan?<br><br>
Let's just dial back the celebrating after round 7 and wait until August.
raznomore last edited by
I dont know. There has been some average stuff that is less palatable for my eyes in the other conferences. NZ conferences and games involving NZ teams have generally been more enjoyable games to watch. Forget home bias, just enjoyed the style of rugby more. Maybe media and comms agree.<br><br>
Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk
Oh for sure. Much more enjoyable footy.
Nepia last edited by
<p>Booboo - I assume you've been watching the Oz feeds of these games, even the Oz tv presenters were going on about how good the NZ conference is and how the Chiefs took apart the Brumbies. Mehrts was correct. They showed the stats on how many points the NZ conference had.</p>
<p>Marto gets things right on occasion - what's the saying about a stopped clock - what is really funny with him is listening to him go on about how good Cruden is these days after his 2011 RWC meltdown.</p>
kiwiinmelb last edited by
This kind of football is very different to test football,<br><br>You would have to compare it more to comps like NRL and AFL, where playing week in and week out , it can be difficult to maintain high standards ,<br><br>All teams are expected to have their off days,<br><br>Overall I think we are in the much better position
<p>You just have to look at the stats. There were 3 rounds in a row where New Zealand teams didn't lose. I'm all for not getting carried away and I think it means nothing when it comes to international rugby, but our conference is easily the strongest and most interesting.</p>
taniwharugby last edited by
<p>GUess one way to look at it is how many wins the bottom teams have.</p>
<p>Blues & Hurricanes have 6 wins</p>
<p>Reds and Force have 2 wins</p>
<p>Kings & Jaguares have 2 wins</p>
<p>Sunwolves and Cheetahs 1 win</p>
<p>Kings and Sunwolves 1 win</p>
<p>Reds & Force 2 wins</p>
ACT Crusader last edited by
The NZ conference is killing it. The rugby is by and large good quality. There is great physicality between the teams and many points scored. <br><br>
Means not much when it comes to test rugby but right now I'm enjoying it.
Two games last night were awesome and reinforced that yes the NZ conference is better.<br><br>
But I stand by the point of my original post - I'd prefer not to be getting too big headed about it.
ACT Crusader last edited by
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="572657" data-time="1460765101"><p>Two games last night were awesome and reinforced that yes the NZ conference is better.<br><br>
But I stand by the point of my original post - I'd prefer not to be getting too big headed about it.</p></blockquote>
Do you really think that what a few commentators and fans say really means anything? I think it has little if any impact on what the coaches and players are feeling.
No. It's just a bad look (or sound) and feels wrong. Gives ammo to the NZ haters.
mariner4life last edited by
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="572665" data-time="1460768878"><p>
No. It's just a bad look (or sound) and feels wrong. Gives ammo to the NZ haters.</p></blockquote>
Fuck those jealous fluffybunnies
Rancid Schnitzel last edited by
While it's lovely to see the NZ teams kicking arse (although the Landers literally dropped the ball last week), I can't help think about the last time NZ really dominated in this way, i.e. 1998. Ironically that was also a year following the loss of several senior players plus the captain.<br><br>
Hopefully Shag is able to turn this Super dominance into AB success better than Hart. Although tbf, we would have won both games against SA if the tmo had been around.
Chris B. last edited by
<p>Its not a very good look for the expansion teams beyond the original Super 12 teams.</p>
<p>4 wins Rebels</p>
<p>1 win Force, Cheetahs, Jaguares, Kings</p>
<p>0 wins Sunwolves</p>
<p>Rebs having a good year so far, Reds having a shit year - otherwise the expansion teams are propping up the ladder.</p>
pukunui last edited by
It's a pity everyone is so far apart because splitting the whole comp into two divisions would result in two pretty interesting comps. However the travel factor kills that as a viable option.