I can't be bothered explaining why sport has quasi-religious undertones: if you haven't noticed that yet, then you probably never will.
so there are quasi-religious overtones? sure. but still a vague throwaway notion of little use. are there no such overtones in ireland, wales, nz, fiji, tonga, etc?
What on earth does that mean? Rugby is political in South Africa for all the right reasons - it's tied up in the ending of apartheid and the truth & reconciliation process. Why would that make a reason for wanting them to lose?
lol: it seems to have taken you all of a couple of days to figure it out with your latest post! pressure has long been on coaches to pick players because of their race. imo sport should remain as divroced from politics as possible. the south african govenrment thinks otherwise. that makes me wan tthem to fail. gordon brown's ugly mug (cheering for team he obviously doesn't support) made me (briefly) want england to lose too! if i were a politician i would not attend such events.
Rugby signifies nothing other than a sport in New Zealand. The most popular sport, sure. In South Africa it's much, much more than that.
drivel. it is simply a sport ine very country. in each country differnet proportions of thos einto it will have differently warped (quasi-religious if you like) perspectives on it. south africa is not unusual in this repsect.
So you've fallen for the All Black propaganda too? No way they were the best team around.
i don't think so. they were the most talented team and had beaten their rivals more often than not which is why their were short odds on favourites. having watched an absolute boatload of rugby in recent years (it is what i do for a living after all) it was clear to me that south africa were the closest team to them and had a decent chance of knocking them off.
clearly they were beatable and i thought beforehand that their odds were too short. at the first decent challenge they fell short. so it goes. many great(er) teams have fallen before them, many will fall again.
South Africa were less showy and spectacular, but superior in every other respect. They score tries when it counts, they defend like maniacs but without losing their discipline, they have a world class player in every position, and they don't choke.
just because sa won (without playing one class team along the way) that doesn't mean they are the best team. would you be saying that england were if they had overcome the south africans? they had just about enough chances to pull it off in the final even though the south africans are a vastly superior team.
superior in every other respect? laughable hyperbole.
not choking is an interesting one. it is easy after the event (afteriming as it is known in the betting community) to accuse some person or team of having choked. the reality was that as firm favourites if they had lost to any team in almost any circumstances they would have been accused of choking. only they really know how much (and it is always a matter of how much rather than whether in any game where concentration is paramount) they choked (rugby not being as simple to read as say snooker: where a player's mental torment can often be all too obvious).
so there are quasi-religious overtones? sure. but still a vague throwaway notion of little use. are there no such overtones in ireland, wales, nz, fiji, tonga, etc?
Yes, but I happen to believe there are more in South Africa. You might not think so, but we're both coming at it from our own subjective experiences.
it seems to have taken you all of a couple of days to figure it out with your latest post! pressure has long been on coaches to pick players because of their race.
Point taken; but I rather think that's a reason to want the team to win! Now that the world cup is won, the quota system might be reconsidered on the basis that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
i don't think so. they were the most talented team and had beaten their rivals more often than not which is why their were short odds on favourites.
They were the most talented set of individuals. But that doesn't mean all that much in sport. India have consistently produced the most outrageously talented sets of individuals to make up their cricket teams down the years, but they never seem to win when it really counts either. Like New Zealand, who excel in the Tri-Nations, India win plenty of test series, but they never translate their obvious superiority into world dominance - simply because there are better teams out there. Like South Africa in rugby union at this world cup, or Australia in cricket generally for the last two decades. Brazil at the last football world cup were also a case in point. All brilliant talents. But once they met a proper team in the shape of France, they couldn't find a way past.
just because sa won (without playing one class team along the way)
Come off it. New Zealand played the same number of really class teams as South Africa did during the tournament: One. South Africa put theirs away with contemptuous ease (Argentina), whereas New Zealand lost to theirs (France).
South Africa had the more difficult group on paper too. Scotland, Italy and Romania do have some pedigree but never the capacity to even challenge New Zealand. Compare that with the group comprising England and Samoa that the Springboks faced.
it is easy after the event (afteriming as it is known in the betting community) to accuse some person or team of having choked.
Eh. At any point in the last section of that game against France the All Blacks could have gone for the drop goal and the job would have been done. But they were too busy choking - just hurling themselves with increasing despair at a strong French defence without any imagination, and without the guts to say "Hey, why not just accept that we can't win by forcing the French to roll over and die like Portugal and Italy did, and just this once try to win ugly?"
They were the most talented set of individuals. But that doesn't mean all that much in sport. India have consistently produced the most outrageously talented sets of individuals to make up their cricket teams down the years, but they never seem to win when it really counts either.
when does it count? they have performed well against australia. they have won a series in england. they have won a world cup in the pas thwich is more than can be said of england. they just won the 20-20 world cup (the ultimate choking arena?) beating the team's i would usually think of as non-chokers in the process. they have in the pas tbeen rathe rlimited because they haven't had decent seam bowlers and don't like the ball bouncing around their ears. they have limitations but i don't think they are chokers.
Like New Zealand, who excel in the Tri-Nations, India win plenty of test series, but they never translate their obvious superiority into world dominance
they should have doen better in the 20-20 cup then?
simply because there are better teams out there. Like South Africa in rugby union at this world cup, or Australia in cricket generally for the last two decades.
australia have had plenty of humiliations during their two decades at the top. so have the all blacks in the last 10-15 years. it just happens most of them have been at the world cup. or maybe that is more than a coincidence. difficult to show though.
Brazil at the last football world cup were also a case in point. All brilliant talents. But once they met a proper team in the shape of France, they couldn't find a way past.
brilliant talents that had never once gelled as a team in a meaningful competition with the majority of those players on show?they only won nine of 18 qualifying matches prior to the 2006 world cup. just because sa won (without playing one class team along the way)
Come off it. New Zealand played the same number of really class teams as South Africa did during the tournament: One. South Africa put theirs away with contemptuous ease (Argentina), whereas New Zealand lost to theirs (France).
Thought you were going to say zero there! SA and NZ are cut above the rest. Doesn't mean that both aren't capable of slipping up against the rest once in a while. Argentina scraped past Scotland. They played a very limited game rather like England, only really turning on the flair against a dejected French team who barely turned up for the 3rd/4th game.
South Africa had the more difficult group on paper too. Scotland, Italy and Romania do have some pedigree but never the capacity to even challenge New Zealand. Compare that with the group comprising England and Samoa that the Springboks faced.
agreed but both groups were a doddle and as i said already new zealand's lack of testing opposition may well have been a disadavantage.
Eh. At any point in the last section of that game against France the All Blacks could have gone for the drop goal and the job would have been done.
agreed, but you could put that down to poor decision making (which could equally have occurred in any other close game rather than one which really mattered) and the fact that their usually cool fly-half had gone off injured. weaknesses were highlighted for sure, but that doesn't necessarily point to choking. then of course they could have missed a drop goal, releiving the pressure and you might be saying the opposite! the biggest blunder in that game was a piece of indiscipline (unnecessary since france weren't going to score at the time) which against the odds was spotted by the ref. s africa seemed to be regularly guilty of similar offences in the final and got away with them. by such small margins are world cups decided.
without the guts to say "Hey, why not just accept that we can't win by forcing the French to roll over and die like Portugal and Italy did, and just this once try to win ugly?"
they have performed well against australia. they have won a series in england. they have won a world cup in the pas thwich is more than can be said of england.
But they've been the most extravagantly talented team for a long time without ever achieving the dominance that the Australians did in the heyday of Warne, McGrath and Ponting - who I think were a more limited team than the Indian side composed of players such as Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar, Ganguly, and Singh should have been.
they should have doen better in the 20-20 cup then?
20/20 is a lottery, which is why it will ultimately die off. A better barometer of India's position was the last world cup, where they were up there with the favourites but imploded in spectacular style.
australia have had plenty of humiliations during their two decades at the top.
When?? The only ones I can think of were the loss against Bangladesh in a meaningless one-dayer before the Ashes in 2005, and the failure in the India tour of, I think, 2002 was it?, when their winning streak was put to an end by one man - VVS Laxman. But that was hardly a humiliation - just confirmation of the fact that winning streaks must inevitably come to an end.
only really turning on the flair against a dejected French team who barely turned up for the 3rd/4th game.
You don't do them enough credit. I think they performed brilliantly against the French - who I don't think were dejected. It seemed to me like the French were well up for that 3rd place play-off. They really went for it.
agreed, but you could put that down to poor decision making
Just continually throwing your forwards at the French defence until you get turned over isn't poor decision making - it's no decision making at all. That's why I think they choked. There was nobody on the pitch with the courage to be a leader and take charge. Instead the All Blacks just went into "rugby default".
But they've been the most extravagantly talented team for a long time without ever achieving the dominance that the Australians did in the heyday of Warne, McGrath and Ponting - who I think were a more limited team than the Indian side composed of players such as Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar, Ganguly, and Singh should have been.
i disagree. they weren't as talented as australia at any point. they have had some stylish players, some flair players if you like but the team has always had inherent weaknesses (can't handle the wrong conditions, poor seam bowling, don't like the ball bouncing around their ears). because they have the largest fanbase they are talked up more than they should be (in a similar way that england's football team is always talked up and for years manchester united were).
20/20 is a lottery, which is why it will ultimately die off. A better barometer of India's position was the last world cup, where they were up there with the favourites but imploded in spectacular style.
it isn't a lottery. talent is less decisive than in test cricket or even odi's though. which means that as well as luck mental fortitude plays a big part.
When?? The only ones I can think of were the loss against Bangladesh in a meaningless one-dayer before the Ashes in 2005, and the failure in the India tour of, I think, 2002 was it?, when their winning streak was put to an end by one man - VVS Laxman. But that was hardly a humiliation - just confirmation of the fact that winning streaks must inevitably come to an end.
let us do them the favour of starting with their big ashes win in england in '89 (ignoring that they had lost their two previous test series). since then:
lost a one-off test in nz 89/90 lost series in the windies 90/91 lost series to windies at home 91/92 drew both home and away series with sa 93/94 lost series in pakistan 94/95 lost one-off test in ind 96/97 lost series in ind 97/98 lost series in sri lanka 99 lost series in ind 00/01 drew 1-1 in home series v india 03/04 (including one humilating defeat iirc) lost ashes in england 05
of course there are umpteen one day international disasters for any team but an obvious humiliation fairly recently was
Just continually throwing your forwards at the French defence until you get turned over isn't poor decision making - it's no decision making at all. That's why I think they choked. There was nobody on the pitch with the courage to be a leader and take charge. Instead the All Blacks just went into "rugby default".
poor decision making. no decision making. same difference. the question is would it have occurred if less were at stake? difficult to say. they have ballsed up the odd lower key game similarly in the last few years.
i disagree. they weren't as talented as australia at any point.
India always had more raw talent - they just never made as much of what they had. Australia were a squad of decent players who maximised their potential. Shane Warne is undoubtedly a genius, one of the true greats. But people like McGrath, Hayden, Gilchrist and Ponting were just reasonably talented guys who made the most of what they had. (All Glenn McGrath really did was bowl perfect line and length over and over again, which is about concentration and practice more than it is about talent.)
lost a one-off test in nz 89/90 lost series in the windies 90/91 lost series to windies at home 91/92 drew both home and away series with sa 93/94 lost series in pakistan 94/95 lost one-off test in ind 96/97 lost series in ind 97/98 lost series in sri lanka 99 lost series in ind 00/01 drew 1-1 in home series v india 03/04 (including one humilating defeat iirc) lost ashes in england 05
Very few of those are real humiliations. Losing a one-off test in India? Failing to win a Pakistan tour? Failing to win a Windies tour when the Windies were actually good?
The only humiliations you've cited are losing to the west indies at home in 90/91 (which is anyway before the period of dominance which we're talking about), drawing 1-1 at home to India in 03/04, and the 2005 Ashes.
so there are quasi-religious overtones? sure. but still a vague throwaway notion of little use. are there no such overtones in ireland, wales, nz, fiji, tonga, etc?
What on earth does that mean? Rugby is political in South Africa for all the right reasons - it's tied up in the ending of apartheid and the truth & reconciliation process. Why would that make a reason for wanting them to lose?
lol: it seems to have taken you all of a couple of days to figure it out with your latest post! pressure has long been on coaches to pick players because of their race. imo sport should remain as divroced from politics as possible. the south african govenrment thinks otherwise. that makes me wan tthem to fail. gordon brown's ugly mug (cheering for team he obviously doesn't support) made me (briefly) want england to lose too! if i were a politician i would not attend such events.
Rugby signifies nothing other than a sport in New Zealand. The most popular sport, sure. In South Africa it's much, much more than that.
drivel. it is simply a sport ine very country. in each country differnet proportions of thos einto it will have differently warped (quasi-religious if you like) perspectives on it. south africa is not unusual in this repsect.
So you've fallen for the All Black propaganda too? No way they were the best team around.
i don't think so. they were the most talented team and had beaten their rivals more often than not which is why their were short odds on favourites. having watched an absolute boatload of rugby in recent years (it is what i do for a living after all) it was clear to me that south africa were the closest team to them and had a decent chance of knocking them off.
clearly they were beatable and i thought beforehand that their odds were too short. at the first decent challenge they fell short. so it goes. many great(er) teams have fallen before them, many will fall again.
South Africa were less showy and spectacular, but superior in every other respect. They score tries when it counts, they defend like maniacs but without losing their discipline, they have a world class player in every position, and they don't choke.
just because sa won (without playing one class team along the way) that doesn't mean they are the best team. would you be saying that england were if they had overcome the south africans? they had just about enough chances to pull it off in the final even though the south africans are a vastly superior team.
superior in every other respect? laughable hyperbole.
not choking is an interesting one. it is easy after the event (afteriming as it is known in the betting community) to accuse some person or team of having choked. the reality was that as firm favourites if they had lost to any team in almost any circumstances they would have been accused of choking. only they really know how much (and it is always a matter of how much rather than whether in any game where concentration is paramount) they choked (rugby not being as simple to read as say snooker: where a player's mental torment can often be all too obvious).
Reply
Yes, but I happen to believe there are more in South Africa. You might not think so, but we're both coming at it from our own subjective experiences.
it seems to have taken you all of a couple of days to figure it out with your latest post! pressure has long been on coaches to pick players because of their race.
Point taken; but I rather think that's a reason to want the team to win! Now that the world cup is won, the quota system might be reconsidered on the basis that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
i don't think so. they were the most talented team and had beaten their rivals more often than not which is why their were short odds on favourites.
They were the most talented set of individuals. But that doesn't mean all that much in sport. India have consistently produced the most outrageously talented sets of individuals to make up their cricket teams down the years, but they never seem to win when it really counts either. Like New Zealand, who excel in the Tri-Nations, India win plenty of test series, but they never translate their obvious superiority into world dominance - simply because there are better teams out there. Like South Africa in rugby union at this world cup, or Australia in cricket generally for the last two decades. Brazil at the last football world cup were also a case in point. All brilliant talents. But once they met a proper team in the shape of France, they couldn't find a way past.
just because sa won (without playing one class team along the way)
Come off it. New Zealand played the same number of really class teams as South Africa did during the tournament: One. South Africa put theirs away with contemptuous ease (Argentina), whereas New Zealand lost to theirs (France).
South Africa had the more difficult group on paper too. Scotland, Italy and Romania do have some pedigree but never the capacity to even challenge New Zealand. Compare that with the group comprising England and Samoa that the Springboks faced.
it is easy after the event (afteriming as it is known in the betting community) to accuse some person or team of having choked.
Eh. At any point in the last section of that game against France the All Blacks could have gone for the drop goal and the job would have been done. But they were too busy choking - just hurling themselves with increasing despair at a strong French defence without any imagination, and without the guts to say "Hey, why not just accept that we can't win by forcing the French to roll over and die like Portugal and Italy did, and just this once try to win ugly?"
Reply
when does it count? they have performed well against australia. they have won a series in england. they have won a world cup in the pas thwich is more than can be said of england. they just won the 20-20 world cup (the ultimate choking arena?) beating the team's i would usually think of as non-chokers in the process. they have in the pas tbeen rathe rlimited because they haven't had decent seam bowlers and don't like the ball bouncing around their ears. they have limitations but i don't think they are chokers.
Like New Zealand, who excel in the Tri-Nations, India win plenty of test series, but they never translate their obvious superiority into world dominance
they should have doen better in the 20-20 cup then?
simply because there are better teams out there. Like South Africa in rugby union at this world cup, or Australia in cricket generally for the last two decades.
australia have had plenty of humiliations during their two decades at the top. so have the all blacks in the last 10-15 years. it just happens most of them have been at the world cup. or maybe that is more than a coincidence. difficult to show though.
Brazil at the last football world cup were also a case in point. All brilliant talents. But once they met a proper team in the shape of France, they couldn't find a way past.
brilliant talents that had never once gelled as a team in a meaningful competition with the majority of those players on show?they only won nine of 18 qualifying matches prior to the 2006 world cup.
just because sa won (without playing one class team along the way)
Come off it. New Zealand played the same number of really class teams as South Africa did during the tournament: One. South Africa put theirs away with contemptuous ease (Argentina), whereas New Zealand lost to theirs (France).
Thought you were going to say zero there! SA and NZ are cut above the rest. Doesn't mean that both aren't capable of slipping up against the rest once in a while. Argentina scraped past Scotland. They played a very limited game rather like England, only really turning on the flair against a dejected French team who barely turned up for the 3rd/4th game.
South Africa had the more difficult group on paper too. Scotland, Italy and Romania do have some pedigree but never the capacity to even challenge New Zealand. Compare that with the group comprising England and Samoa that the Springboks faced.
agreed but both groups were a doddle and as i said already new zealand's lack of testing opposition may well have been a disadavantage.
Eh. At any point in the last section of that game against France the All Blacks could have gone for the drop goal and the job would have been done.
agreed, but you could put that down to poor decision making (which could equally have occurred in any other close game rather than one which really mattered) and the fact that their usually cool fly-half had gone off injured. weaknesses were highlighted for sure, but that doesn't necessarily point to choking. then of course they could have missed a drop goal, releiving the pressure and you might be saying the opposite! the biggest blunder in that game was a piece of indiscipline (unnecessary since france weren't going to score at the time) which against the odds was spotted by the ref. s africa seemed to be regularly guilty of similar offences in the final and got away with them. by such small margins are world cups decided.
without the guts to say "Hey, why not just accept that we can't win by forcing the French to roll over and die like Portugal and Italy did, and just this once try to win ugly?"
guts? nous more like!
Reply
But they've been the most extravagantly talented team for a long time without ever achieving the dominance that the Australians did in the heyday of Warne, McGrath and Ponting - who I think were a more limited team than the Indian side composed of players such as Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar, Ganguly, and Singh should have been.
they should have doen better in the 20-20 cup then?
20/20 is a lottery, which is why it will ultimately die off. A better barometer of India's position was the last world cup, where they were up there with the favourites but imploded in spectacular style.
australia have had plenty of humiliations during their two decades at the top.
When?? The only ones I can think of were the loss against Bangladesh in a meaningless one-dayer before the Ashes in 2005, and the failure in the India tour of, I think, 2002 was it?, when their winning streak was put to an end by one man - VVS Laxman. But that was hardly a humiliation - just confirmation of the fact that winning streaks must inevitably come to an end.
only really turning on the flair against a dejected French team who barely turned up for the 3rd/4th game.
You don't do them enough credit. I think they performed brilliantly against the French - who I don't think were dejected. It seemed to me like the French were well up for that 3rd place play-off. They really went for it.
agreed, but you could put that down to poor decision making
Just continually throwing your forwards at the French defence until you get turned over isn't poor decision making - it's no decision making at all. That's why I think they choked. There was nobody on the pitch with the courage to be a leader and take charge. Instead the All Blacks just went into "rugby default".
Reply
i disagree. they weren't as talented as australia at any point. they have had some stylish players, some flair players if you like but the team has always had inherent weaknesses (can't handle the wrong conditions, poor seam bowling, don't like the ball bouncing around their ears). because they have the largest fanbase they are talked up more than they should be (in a similar way that england's football team is always talked up and for years manchester united were).
20/20 is a lottery, which is why it will ultimately die off. A better barometer of India's position was the last world cup, where they were up there with the favourites but imploded in spectacular style.
it isn't a lottery. talent is less decisive than in test cricket or even odi's though. which means that as well as luck mental fortitude plays a big part.
When?? The only ones I can think of were the loss against Bangladesh in a meaningless one-dayer before the Ashes in 2005, and the failure in the India tour of, I think, 2002 was it?, when their winning streak was put to an end by one man - VVS Laxman. But that was hardly a humiliation - just confirmation of the fact that winning streaks must inevitably come to an end.
let us do them the favour of starting with their big ashes win in england in '89 (ignoring that they had lost their two previous test series). since then:
lost a one-off test in nz 89/90
lost series in the windies 90/91
lost series to windies at home 91/92
drew both home and away series with sa 93/94
lost series in pakistan 94/95
lost one-off test in ind 96/97
lost series in ind 97/98
lost series in sri lanka 99
lost series in ind 00/01
drew 1-1 in home series v india 03/04 (including one humilating defeat iirc)
lost ashes in england 05
of course there are umpteen one day international disasters for any team but an obvious humiliation fairly recently was
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/238200.html
Just continually throwing your forwards at the French defence until you get turned over isn't poor decision making - it's no decision making at all. That's why I think they choked. There was nobody on the pitch with the courage to be a leader and take charge. Instead the All Blacks just went into "rugby default".
poor decision making. no decision making. same difference. the question is would it have occurred if less were at stake? difficult to say. they have ballsed up the odd lower key game similarly in the last few years.
Reply
India always had more raw talent - they just never made as much of what they had. Australia were a squad of decent players who maximised their potential. Shane Warne is undoubtedly a genius, one of the true greats. But people like McGrath, Hayden, Gilchrist and Ponting were just reasonably talented guys who made the most of what they had. (All Glenn McGrath really did was bowl perfect line and length over and over again, which is about concentration and practice more than it is about talent.)
lost a one-off test in nz 89/90
lost series in the windies 90/91
lost series to windies at home 91/92
drew both home and away series with sa 93/94
lost series in pakistan 94/95
lost one-off test in ind 96/97
lost series in ind 97/98
lost series in sri lanka 99
lost series in ind 00/01
drew 1-1 in home series v india 03/04 (including one humilating defeat iirc)
lost ashes in england 05
Very few of those are real humiliations. Losing a one-off test in India? Failing to win a Pakistan tour? Failing to win a Windies tour when the Windies were actually good?
The only humiliations you've cited are losing to the west indies at home in 90/91 (which is anyway before the period of dominance which we're talking about), drawing 1-1 at home to India in 03/04, and the 2005 Ashes.
Reply
Leave a comment