@nevorian said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
Well, it's now been confirmed. £200K severance payment too :anguished_face:
Gee the Bulls must be thinking they got out of that one well
Probably would gladly have paid £200K to get rid.
@nepia said in NH International Rugby:
@mikethesnow said in NH International Rugby:
@machpants said in NH International Rugby:
Imagine the ego smashing that's going to go on with Eddie and Mitchell, who hasn't been an assistant for years
He's been Eddie's assistant though
Are you referring to 2003 when he assisted the Wallabies into the final of the RWC?
@jegga said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
@mikethesnow Gimp. I think the word you're looking for is gimp.
I’ll have you know he’s a deep thinker . It says so here.
Bwahahahahaha
"the results have been sub-par with the exception of his short stint at the helm of the All Blacks."
Fuck off. Par is 1st, not 3rd.
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@jegga said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
@mikethesnow Gimp. I think the word you're looking for is gimp.
I’ll have you know he’s a deep thinker . It says so here.
Bwahahahahaha
"the results have been sub-par with the exception of his short stint at the helm of the All Blacks."
Fuck off. Par is 1st, not 3rd.
As much as I hate to say it, par for 2003 WC would really have been second. England results in the run-in to that tournament were very hard to argue against.
However, big difference between 2nd and 3rd. We had the cattle to get over the line in that semi, just not the whole package. I don't think we had the cattle to win it though.
@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@jegga said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
@mikethesnow Gimp. I think the word you're looking for is gimp.
I’ll have you know he’s a deep thinker . It says so here.
Bwahahahahaha
"the results have been sub-par with the exception of his short stint at the helm of the All Blacks."
Fuck off. Par is 1st, not 3rd.
As much as I hate to say it, par for 2003 WC would really have been second. England results in the run-in to that tournament were very hard to argue against.
However, big difference between 2nd and 3rd. We had the cattle to get over the line in that semi, just not the whole package. I don't think we had the cattle to win it though.
I do agree generally, although I do think we could have beaten England. I gave us a 40% chance.
I felt we had outmuscled them in the forwards in Wellington* but they did enough to win. We were especially effective in thst game (and the two big scoring games in SA and Aus) when we kept it very close to the forwards (pick and gos, one off runners etc). When we tried to go a little wider v Aus in the semi we got picked off and shut down. I was expecting (hoping for) similar forward dominance in the final. Shame there was no final in 03 ...
But it would have been an injustice (one I coukd have lived with) if England had lost that.
*Don't start me on the 6 man scrum thing: that was a penalty try to Rodders all day long.
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
*Don't start me on the 6 man scrum thing: that was a penalty try to Rodders all day long.
Talking about injustices, poor Rodders copped a lot for that non try when, in reality he was robbed.
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@jegga said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
@mikethesnow Gimp. I think the word you're looking for is gimp.
I’ll have you know he’s a deep thinker . It says so here.
Bwahahahahaha
"the results have been sub-par with the exception of his short stint at the helm of the All Blacks."
Fuck off. Par is 1st, not 3rd.
As much as I hate to say it, par for 2003 WC would really have been second. England results in the run-in to that tournament were very hard to argue against.
However, big difference between 2nd and 3rd. We had the cattle to get over the line in that semi, just not the whole package. I don't think we had the cattle to win it though.
I do agree generally, although I do think we could have beaten England. I gave us a 40% chance.
I felt we had outmuscled them in the forwards in Wellington* but they did enough to win. We were especially effective in thst game (and the two big scoring games in SA and Aus) when we kept it very close to the forwards (pick and gos, one off runners etc). When we tried to go a little wider v Aus in the semi we got picked off and shut down. I was expecting (hoping for) similar forward dominance in the final. Shame there was no final in 03 ...
But it would have been an injustice (one I coukd have lived with) if England had lost that.
*Don't start me on the 6 man scrum thing: that was a penalty try to Rodders all day long.
Fair, we definintely could have. One thing that England had, regardless of ability, by that stage was big match temperance. The semi showed that was one thing we didn't have.
I never believed we got as smashed in Wellington as the UK press would have you believe. The superlatives used to describe how the forwards beat us up in that game were off the scale bullshit. One 6 man scrum, does not dictate 80 minutes of rugby.
All heresay anyway ... the bastards won, we came 3rd, and I got laid.
Every rose, etc.
@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@jegga said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
@mikethesnow Gimp. I think the word you're looking for is gimp.
I’ll have you know he’s a deep thinker . It says so here.
Bwahahahahaha
"the results have been sub-par with the exception of his short stint at the helm of the All Blacks."
Fuck off. Par is 1st, not 3rd.
As much as I hate to say it, par for 2003 WC would really have been second. England results in the run-in to that tournament were very hard to argue against.
However, big difference between 2nd and 3rd. We had the cattle to get over the line in that semi, just not the whole package. I don't think we had the cattle to win it though.
I do agree generally, although I do think we could have beaten England. I gave us a 40% chance.
I felt we had outmuscled them in the forwards in Wellington* but they did enough to win. We were especially effective in thst game (and the two big scoring games in SA and Aus) when we kept it very close to the forwards (pick and gos, one off runners etc). When we tried to go a little wider v Aus in the semi we got picked off and shut down. I was expecting (hoping for) similar forward dominance in the final. Shame there was no final in 03 ...
But it would have been an injustice (one I coukd have lived with) if England had lost that.
*Don't start me on the 6 man scrum thing: that was a penalty try to Rodders all day long.
Fair, we definintely could have. One thing that England had, regardless of ability, by that stage was big match temperance. The semi showed that was one thing we didn't have.
I never believed we got as smashed in Wellington as the UK press would have you believe. The superlatives used to describe how the forwards beat us up in that game were off the scale bullshit. One 6 man scrum, does not dictate 80 minutes of rugby.
All heresay anyway ... the bastards won, we came 3rd, and I got laid.
Every rose, etc.
Soon ended when Tuilagi and Cipriani came on the scene
@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@jegga said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
@mikethesnow Gimp. I think the word you're looking for is gimp.
I’ll have you know he’s a deep thinker . It says so here.
Bwahahahahaha
"the results have been sub-par with the exception of his short stint at the helm of the All Blacks."
Fuck off. Par is 1st, not 3rd.
As much as I hate to say it, par for 2003 WC would really have been second. England results in the run-in to that tournament were very hard to argue against.
However, big difference between 2nd and 3rd. We had the cattle to get over the line in that semi, just not the whole package. I don't think we had the cattle to win it though.
I do agree generally, although I do think we could have beaten England. I gave us a 40% chance.
I felt we had outmuscled them in the forwards in Wellington* but they did enough to win. We were especially effective in thst game (and the two big scoring games in SA and Aus) when we kept it very close to the forwards (pick and gos, one off runners etc). When we tried to go a little wider v Aus in the semi we got picked off and shut down. I was expecting (hoping for) similar forward dominance in the final. Shame there was no final in 03 ...
But it would have been an injustice (one I coukd have lived with) if England had lost that.
*Don't start me on the 6 man scrum thing: that was a penalty try to Rodders all day long.
Fair, we definintely could have. One thing that England had, regardless of ability, by that stage was big match temperance. The semi showed that was one thing we didn't have.
I never believed we got as smashed in Wellington as the UK press would have you believe. The superlatives used to describe how the forwards beat us up in that game were off the scale bullshit. One 6 man scrum, does not dictate 80 minutes of rugby.
All heresay anyway ... the bastards won, we came 3rd, and I got laid.
Every rose, etc.
Aaaand any of that happened since?
@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:
One of them has.
And we haven't come 3rd since, England haven't won.
Well may I be the (probable) first to congratulate you and also to register my surprise.
SOme fair points from Mr Barnes!
@machpants Barnes is the proverbial stopped clock - he will be right every now and then. Sadly (from and England perspective) all valid points.
Warren Gatland spends a lot of his year in New Zealand. It doesn't stop him being a superb coach for Wales.
Cueball is a tough guy and an excellent training ground coach. He'll do a lot to develop the English players especially their backrow players.
A tip though, Eddie, don't let the man who picked Ben Atiga ahead of Christian Cullen anywhere near team selection.
Stephen Welshenglish Jones is unhappy too
@booboo Didn't Justin Marshall pull a hamstring in that game when he had a clear run to the line?
Carlos kicked like shit.
We didn't manage to score when they were down to 13 men.
We had a stronger team at the RWC than in that game. I think we had a reasonable shot at toppling England if we'd made the final.
Unfortunately....
As World XV will be playing Japan XV, I'll post this here:
@stargazer Top 12 teams? What will the Wallabies be doing?
It sounds like someone explained how the RWC works to Pichot. Stupid idea.
dumb idea. but we can get rid of the World Cup and it's cycle that allows coaches of shit teams to have ready made excuses.
Not a fan on first reaction.
I'd prefer more development matches v the likes of Georgia, Romania, the PIs, Japan, US, Canada, Uruguay. Only 3 of them currently in top 12.
We've already got a RWC. Why have one every year?
Also restricts ability for teams to okay revenue matches.
My reaction is the same. I fear it will reduce the meaning of the RWC if you have a tournament like this every year and what effects will it have on the countries that miss out? Not a positive one, that's for sure.
Machpants said:
Stephen Welshenglish Jones is unhappy too
Two fat obnoxious English rugby trolls are upset, I am doubly pleased now .
Has anyone asked Woodward for his thoughts yet ?
I think I heard it was the Samoan coach saying they would need to relax eligibility criteria for the new proposal to work.
Maybe this is just Pichot looking at undermining the AB dominance but undermining the RWC?
What would be better would be if the IRB funded this comp for those outside the top 6/8 so they get regular international matches while the big nations are on EOYT.
But it still hits the snag of the club vs country argument many of the lesser nations encounter anyway.
I wouldn't be in favour of an annual world league.
I would possibly be in favour of a world league that spanned over several years.
Back in the 80s/90s the Rugby League world cup used to do a qualifying process over 4 years where the last test of each 3 match series doubled as a world cup qualifier. (The RLWC in those days was just then a one-off world cup final).
For modern rugby union. If they could make something work where the results over an x year period resulted in an actual trophy, I'd be interested in looking at it. I think it would need to be over a 3 year period, as world cup year is a write-off for internationals, plus you wouldn't want to detract from the RWC that year.
I'm trying to think of a way that they could create a credible multi-year test league, that has integrity (even-ness of competition and geographical symmetry).
This is my back of the envelope effort.
A 3 year league.
So 14 teams play a competition over 3 years. 32 games each (10.7 of their 12 tests per year over the 3 years are part of the world league).
The 32 games consistent of 3 each v same hemisphere participants, and 2 each v inter-hemisphere.
I can't work out a way to include Japan, USA and Canada that is geopgraphically acceptable to me. You could add a North Pacific Conference but it would make the league uneven. Or re-work it some way.
The other disadvantage of my proposal is it locks out the other T2 and T3 countries (Romania, Spain, Uruguay, Zimababwe, Namibia etc) to scrapping for those 1.3 tests per year the 'big 14' play that aren't world league, plus world cup warm up friendlies in RWC year.
Financial hurdles:
a) a 7th team in the expanded 6 Nations is an extra week compared to their current schedule. Good luck getting that past the clubs without some serious compromise (e.g. money)
b) The TRC expanded to include the PIs.
c) Doesn't expand into the Japanese, American and Canadian markets.
Extra note. I haven't taken into account the British Lions tour every 4 years.
That must have taken time 
The biggest hurdle is Club v Country which would undermine selection and distort results.
The big question is, do we need more rugby? And yeah I understand that we are not necessarily talking about any more games, just more structured International comps. But. Do we need that?
I hear many on here bemoaning the long drawn out death of NPC/Mitre 10. NTA choking on his cornflakes most mornings due to the ARU looking at more ways of increasing the $$$ at the expense of grass roots. More of the (increasingly) same international rugby will, IMO take us further down those paths.
Another big problem with the proposal is that it pretty much permanently ring fences the top 12 between world cups. The only way you can increase your ranking is to take points of those teams above you. 13 and lower won't be playing in the RC or six nations, or in the league so they'll not get much chance to get those points. Also if you don't make the semis you play less games meaning less money. And the costs and/or money lost going to some of the crap top 12 countries, or hosting them at home with little interest from punters won't be good for unions. World Rugby already pays millions to cover lost revenue in RWC years, so they'll have to do that every year. It's a really shit idea as reported, there gotta be more to it than reported.
You normally in such cases have promotion-relegation.
Why should Georgia and Tonga, both of which run hot and cold, get to play -- whereas Romania and Canada, who've both been good in the past, don't?
The key change I'd like to see is doing a away with the Third Bledisloe.
The other change I'd make is to turn the June and November tests into mini-competitions. Three teams play each other twice.
This June the All Blacks could have played France twice and Samoa twice. In November it could be the All Blacks against Ireland twice and England twice.
@machpants Yeah, and I specifically mentioned another, better, way of doing it.
Apart from the US, which has its professional sports kept in a situation of unnatural scarcity and systems to prop up the perennial losers, the rest play with promotion-relegation leagues. They reward success and punish failure, which fixed leagues do not.
World Rankings, even if you accept they are accurate, change all the time. As noted above, once put in a non-propomotion league the ability of teams to get out is almost zero, because they only play low ranked sides.
The other thing about promotion-relegation is that it brings intense interest at the end of the season to teams at the bottom. They are still playing for something. I watched Waikato's games at the end of last year, albeit with dread, because of that.
My brother used to reckon that play-offs for the old Div 2 in rugby were as intense as playing for the Div 1 championship. I went to North Harbour vs Waikato to go up (a long time ago) and it was as intense as any game I have ever been to. Winning that game meant something.
13 days later
So it looks like not much change, with tours/6N/RC counting for points, then a couple of semis/final at the end some where? Good luck getting the NH clubs to sign up to an extension of any season for those two weekends or, if it is done during official 'tours' window, that makes everyone's games outside the top 4 totally pointless!
Still the ABs will make it to the semis pretty much every year, it's not knock out, and if that's more money for NZR all good. A test is a test I don't need some league to make me interested, fucking friendlies my arse.
