Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Best tries of the Top 14

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Best tries of the Top 14 - Round 19

It’s been a while, but we have another Best Tries of the Top 14 video for you, this time from Round 19 as the tournament reaches the last few rounds, with relegation battles and places at the top becoming a tight affair.

There’s a few excellent tries in this round, with superb build up play being a feature of many, as well as great inter-passing and support play.

Fulgence Ouedraogo once again showed his quality as a flanker with turning up in the right place at the right time once again, followed by some finishing that a wing would be proud of.

Australian Rugby League convert Mark Gasnier got on the end of an excellent Stade Francais try that was started deep in their own half by Lionel Beauxis, then had some excellent exchanges amongst various players before finding Gasnier. A classic try at number four on the list.

Johan Dalla Riva’s try for Montauban also came from excellent lead up work, culminating in Dalla Riva collecting the neat chip over the top.

The number one try, as chosen in this compilation, comes from former All Black prop Carl Hoeft. It’ll make the front row fraternity proud as Hoeft showed that the big boys can also be up in support and take scoring passes nicely.

Nice collection of tries. We hope you enjoy.

Time: 04:23

Are these sorted in terms of a ranking? Is #1 the best? (I don't speak French).

Great to see the video end on a prop-forward try.

By Anonymous, at March 17, 2009 6:02 pm
All present and correct for a French vid-

1. Funky drum music
2. Excitable commentary
3. Some great tries
4. Lots of bloody awful kits

What is it with French domestic rugby kits? The national squad look great but the domestic strips are all horrible polyester things in dreadful designs. Oh and Mauntabon seem to be playing in Scotland's woeful grey and blue thing.

Is it a bit gay to care about these things?

By Anonymous, at March 17, 2009 6:10 pm
it's comforting to watch top 14 video
a lot of young and skill players

Lievremont should have a look at some.

By Flooz, at March 17, 2009 6:41 pm
some unreal tries in top 14 every month, is it anything to do with bad defence or is that just great rugby???

By Anonymous, at March 17, 2009 6:50 pm
Some great tries (some great skill and some poor defence there I'd say).
Gotta love the French commentary though. Everything is always très bien joué!!!

By Anonymous, at March 17, 2009 9:15 pm
Ted: Yes.

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 2:03 am
cheyanqui : the cut is done by the TV channel Canal+. And we all wonder here how they are choosing the ranks.

Every week some greatest tries are scored but they often don't appears on Top10. Some others are awful and well ranked.

In fact, as it's a private and crypted channel, with no commercials, it's just a halftime program imo.

The shame is we don't have any cheeleaders in french championship yet to see anything else that this curious thing.

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 8:46 am
Ted: No .. I think they look crap too.

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 8:52 am
Ted : yes. Wanna have some?

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 10:21 am
Ted : yes it is.

For you my gay friend :

http://www.zuneo.net/2007/06/calendrier-dieux-du-stade.html

By K, at March 18, 2009 10:26 am
Ted : another one...but this one looks better for you. Real powerful gay pictures.

http://fiuuu.com/index.php?gallery/General/calendrier-dieux-du-stade-2004

By K, at March 18, 2009 10:35 am
Ted – I still agree with you about the French kits, but you seem to have attracted a bit of response from individuals interested in other matters.

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 1:48 pm
From a neutrals point of view this is a hundred times better than s14. Mostly not bad defence, mostly great off loading and and staying strong in the tackle to offload.

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 2:20 pm
This is not the level of the S14. To say anything else is absurd. The French league produces the French national team, not exactley impressive right now. The S14 produces the All Blacks, the Wallabies and the Sprinboks. You know, the top three countries, including the world champion and with five world cups between them.
But yeah, the French league is great, well done.

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 2:31 pm
You're not right, the french ligue doesn't produces the french national team. Top 14 is composed of 43% player who came from an other country...

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 2:38 pm
Well it's certainly better to watch

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 3:01 pm
It's so stupid to compare the two championships. THey're both awesome that's all.

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 3:25 pm
I love how people keep bigging up the Super 14, if it's so great why are are attendances down AGAIN (even befrore the economic downturn) for another year even with ticket prices being so insaenly low?

Attendances haven't increased in "Super" rugby for over 5 years, and when was the last time a Super 14 game attracted 80,000+ for a regular round game? (ala some of the big Stade Francais games).

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 4:12 pm
Wow. Arnaud, I appreciate the gesture mate, but not really my thing.

I have to say I am fascinated by the kit thing - who's in charge of these things? Who decided Stade would wear pink?

On a related note, what's the worst kit of all time? My top 5 worst,

1. Current England Kit
2. The Australian one that had turquoise on it a while back (late 90s?)
3. The current Scotland kit
4. The new Leicester away kit
5. Almost anything from the Super 14 or French league

Best kits

1. All Blacks, by a mile
2. Harlequins
3. The old Adidas French kit with the three stripes down the arm
4. Lions '97
5. Anyone who still plays in hoops

There, I've said it. Call me gay if you like - me and Arnaud, we don't care.

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 5:32 pm
My favourite two are the old school England and New Zealand one's. All white with just a red rose on a cotton jersey, now thats a rugby shirt (or black for nz). Keep it simple, it's not a fashion show.

Yes the Top 14 kits are horrendous and by far worse than englands current terrible one. Doesn't seem to affect their rugby though.

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 5:39 pm
What exactly is wrong with Englands current jersey?

Seems odd people would pick it out as a terrible jersey when it's better than most professional rugby jerseys.

By Jennifer, at March 18, 2009 6:16 pm
It's that swirly red strip then joins the shorts i don't like

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 6:38 pm
The old adidas French blue jersey with a big golden rooster in a red blazon is awesome.

http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/Blanco160.jpg

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 6:50 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10481227

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 6:52 pm
anon #1.. how you figure poor defence in super 14 and great handling in top 14? that's funny!!!

anon #2.. Look at France's over all population vs. NZ.. 65 million vs 4 million, respectively.. that means it would take France just .00123% to fill up an 80,000 seat arena and NZ .02%.. that's a big chunk..

low attendance has to do with its small population not level of play

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 8:46 pm
It's still funny to read some parallel between countries, and jerseys....

65m people in France, 4m in NZ! You're write guy. Everybody knows AB will be always a reference in the rugby world.
I'm french, and i think Top 14 is a shit. A lot of money in the clubs but where are the french teams in the Heineken Cup final? Not enough young french players in the teams. Presidents prefer to buy some foreigners.... how the Federation wants to win W.Cup or 6N? During the tournament there are national match in the same time than the competition: to much playing dates!

1 french team: 26 days in the championship (2 more if it's a finalist... and international players can't go to play the SH tour) + 6 days in Heinekencup (2 more if it's a finalist)
and if he's a international player + 5 days in 6 Nation and 4 days for tours

I don't know exactly how is it in SH and in Great Britain.

See you

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 9:10 pm
islandstylin > That's a piss poor argument. Rugby's not even in the top 3 sports of France. Whereas it's the national sport of New Zealand. It's not that the attendances are low, they're REALLY low.

Scotland has a similar population to New Zealand and Celtic and Rangers attract over 50,000 fans to their football league games!!

Wales has a lower population than New Zealand and still Cardiff and Swansea attract 20,000 fans a week to league games.

On top of that, tickets to see those football matches cost 5x the price of New Zealand Super 14 rugby matches, and there are more games per season.

In Ireland, more people attend Gaelic football games than Super 14 matches in New Zealand.

Footballs the number one sport in both countries, Rugby's the number one sport in New Zealand, equal comparison with equal populations.

So with the poor excuses out of the way, we're back to the original statement, if Super 14's as good as people say, why are more and more fans failing to show up to watch games?

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 9:20 pm
magners league is the best, simple fact we have the highest precentage of internationals, the no.1 team in Europe 9munster0, the ospreys and leinster FACT by the way attendence so low in super 14 beceause games are boring, 3 national sides are great but clubs are boring.

By Anonymous, at March 18, 2009 9:55 pm
Islanstylin :

Really poor argument you show here.

In Serbia, basket ball is one of the top sports and it's every night game 25 000 people in Belgrade arena.

Croke Park, Ibrox Park, Celtic Park in both Ireland and Scotland are fulled by 80 000 people.

Low population = low attendance.
I've never read such a silly argument.

By K, at March 18, 2009 10:46 pm
Lower populations and less strong economies. Obviously that's a contributing factor.
Equally there are alot of teams to support in NZ, five S14 plus all the NZ club teams, who often get as large or larger crowds as the S14 sides.
In terms of crowds, the quality of rugby is immaterial to that, NZ has always had some of the best rugby in the world, if you can't recognise that you're mentally retarded. If you think it has nothing to do with their domestic rugby you're also an idiot.
There are a number of reasons for reductions in crowds, as there are reasons for the boost in crowds in France.
The recent French world cup would certainyl have helped the french comp, just as the Aussie S14 sides saw a boost in corwds for a while after 2003. I'm certain that we'll see a similar boost in crowds and popularity in NZ after the 2011 WC.
Lots of things boost or lower crowds, eg SA is enjoying huge crowds in S14, because they jsut won the world cup and the game has therefore seen a rise in popularity.
Either way it's irrelevant to the quality of rugby on display in the S14 and T14 respectivley. Only the most one-eyed supporter of French or Euro rugby would say the T14 is a superior comp to the S14. You activley recruit dozens of S14 players, without whom your comp would be irrecovably shitter, then when they star in your comps, you trumpet the greatness of the T14. It's absurd. Alot of those players are only average at S14 level and go on to dominate in your league. Meanwhile the S14 continues to produce great players by the truckload. It also produces the three best teams in the world, in the tri-nations, including the world champs, and the winners of all but one world cup in history.
For you to suggest your comp is better because you get bigger crowds is not only absurd, it's a testiment to your ignorance of rugby.
The NH will never compete on the same level as the SH if you refuse to accept that your game needs improving.
Compare the speed of play (passing, offloading, clearing the ruck) in this T14 video to the S14 video below. It's obviously faster down south.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 1:27 am
"Lower populations and less strong economies. Obviously that's a contributing factor."

You keep bringing that up but Scotland has 12 teams in it's Premier football League with another 30 professional sides in the divisions below, on TOP of it's professional rugby teams.

Rangers and Celtic as already mentioned CONSTANTLY fill their grounds with crowds in excess of 50,000 people. All this with a population the size of New Zealand and multiple sports vying for the punter along with more expensive ticket prices.

So with the Super 14 in New Zealand, you have 1 real national sport and ticket prices so cheap you could buy 5-6 for every ticket bought in Scotland.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 1:43 am
I just noticed someone said the Magners league is the best league in the world. That person should not breed.
What a ridiculous statement.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 2:58 am
you took into account one thing i said, which is that lower populations and weaker economies does play a role in crowd sizes. NZ is the worst hit of the three SANZAR countries by the economic crisis, which is a factor.
Now you make a facile comparison to the SPL. Firstly outaside of the Old Frim and possibly Hibs and Hearts, the SPL attendences are quite low. Secondly, those clubs are some of the oldest most famous football clubs in the world, in a sport that is far more popular generally and with alot moremoney than rugby. (Hail, hail by the way)
Anyway, the NZ S14's crowds are a bit of a worry at the moment, but these things happen, the crowds will pick up, you'll see a massive boost after the 2011 Cup, particularly if NZ finally win another cup.
More important than all that though, is the point that crowd sizes do not equal better rugby. Full stop, end of story. NZ have the best team in the world at the moment, directly drawn from those very S14 teams. You know, guys like Carter, Mcaw, Nonu etc.
Whether theres 100,000 people watching or 20 these are still the best players in the world.
By the way I'm not even a kiwi, I'm just pointing out the obvious. There's no logic to the argument that French rugby is better because of the better crowds, otherwise it would translate to the international scene.
Not only that, but there'd be no reason for French rugby to constantly recruit S14 players if their comp was better.
The whole thing is patently stupid.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 3:06 am
Brazil has always had a strong national side too but their league blows goats. The original point was another post bumming Super 14, a league so great New Zealanders don't even show up to watch regardless of the fact that most tickets cost just a few dollars. The UK and the US are the two countries worst hit by the economic criss (with 70% of business being consumer spending).

Rugby is New Zealands national sport, football is Scotlands national sport and even outside of the old firm derbies, attendances are a LOT higher than any Super 14 games in New Zealand or Oz.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 3:13 am
It's not a reasonable comparison. The fact that you keep comparing rugby to football points to your lack of background in the game.
The S14 produces the best rugby in the world. The world's best players still ply their trade there. It is still the best production line of talent in the world for rugby players. It produces the best national teams, including the world cup winner and the winners of all but one world cup in the game's history. These teams continue to be ranked the top three in the world, year after year and their players are certainyl not drawn from European leagues, but the S14.
Hence logically, due to those factors, you'd be a fool to see the Euro leagues as superior.
Not only that, but just by observing the rugby, particularly the speed of play (focus on the passing speed, the speed of decision making, the clinical finishing and the speed with whcich the ball is cleared from the ruck) you can actually clearly see the better standard of play.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 3:41 am
It's not a reasonable comparison. The fact that you keep comparing rugby to football points to your lack of background in the game.

Why is that? They're the national sports of the two aforementioned nations. Not to mention the historical relationship between the sports.

Ok, the Super 14 is the best league in the world. Just that nobody shows up to watch at the grounds and the amount of money generated by the league is miniscule. Gotcha.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 3:56 am
Roll up roll up, come see the greatest league on earth, with the other 7 New Zealanders.

Where is everybody when these games are taking place anyway? Playing football?

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 4:00 am
Knowing kiwis, they're probably off drinking piss, combing their mullets and just generally being bogans.
Not that it matters, as i said, they'd be the first to admit they're having problems with crowds in the S14 this season (although Australia are about the same and SA are actually up on crowds).
Doesn't change a thing though, they still produce the best players in the world and the S14 is still the best league in the world.
I notice that you refuse to actually talk about rugby itself, but focus on crowds.
More of an inditmenet on your argument than anything else, I'd say.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 4:05 am
The S14 is three countries. SA is in rude health, they have wages comparible to Europes' and crowds as big as any European league.
Australia has high wages for top players, but not for what'd be called club players.
NZ is the same as Australia.
Economically we'll never compete with Europe, Europe's one of the biggest markets in the world, there's alot more money around.
Doesn't matter though, cuz we don't buy foreign players to boost our leagues, we produce great players and retain the vast amjority of them in the S14.
Again your crowd argument is facile, there's no logic to it, it's the argument of a petulant child.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 4:13 am
lol South African ticket prices are £3 each. A ticket to even a game in the Magners League costs more than 6x that price. And good luck finding a football match that charges that for entrance, you'll just about get to see a game at your local park for amount.

Resorting to insults, guess that was you conceding.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 4:18 am
The rugby's already been discussed, the Super 14 clubs are feeder clubs for Europe. Muchlike the Brazilian football league. Great national sides, terrible league, so terrible in fact they have to spread it over three countries.

Why don't the South African sides just play in a South African league. The population is not far off the UK and it has a larger player base. Instead they play in a league where away fans are virtually non-existant when in NZ and Oz, great way to create 0 atmosphere.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 4:27 am
You have proven again your ginoranc eof rugby. You're a football fan it sounds like.
It's called the Curry Cup mate, it's one of the most popular domestic comps in the world.
I don't think you are a petulant child, I think your argument lacks logic.
A feeder league by definition would draw the majority of it's national team from the leagues to which it is apparently feeding talent.
The opposite is true, in fact NZ and Aus refuse on principle to ever cap any player who is currently outside their own domestic sides. Yet somehow they still manage to maintain their status as top three sides.
Wonder how they do it? Must be that they draw all their players from the S14, you know, the best league in the world.
But you're right, S14 is a feeder league, that's why Tuqiri, Habana, Botha, Carter, De Villiars, Mcaw, Nonu, Mortlock and a hundred other of the best player in the world play in it. Cuz it's terrible.
Once again, argue with logic, or your just being ignorant.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 4:43 am
lol you've shot yourself in the foot again.

It's the "Currie Cup" not the Curry Cup. So much for your ignorance statement. And you say I know nothing about rugby?

I've watched it but it's not their main focus, they've been squabbling over Super 14 TV rights due to Currie Cup commitments for a long time.

Overall the numbers speak for themselves, New Zealanders and Australians have voted with their feet, the Super 14 is so enthralling that some games attract only 5,000 fans and the only compeition they can drum up is by playing against teams from a country that's located thousands of miles away.

If it's as great as you say the attendances would be higher, and furthermore there would be no need for cheerleaders at half time to "entertain" the crowd.

Just for the record, I follow rugby, football, cricket and other sports, you can love more than one you know, get behind your mighty All Whites.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 5:07 am
Yeah it is the Currie Cup, way to be pedantic and argue based on semantics.
The Tahs average crowd is about 20,000, the Burmbies is about 17,000, the Reds about 15,000 and the Force about 15,000.
Again, it doesn't matter if the crowds are less, the rugby's better than in the north.
We beat you constantly, you've won 14 out of 87 test matches against us since the 2033 WC.
The S14 has the best players in the world.
You know deep down that what I'm saying is true, you know that NH rugby is worse. Or alternativley your delusional.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 5:12 am
this is a great argument - i had nothing to do with it by the way

i try and argue about the actual game mostly - and get hate blogs in return !!

whoever is anonymous - supporting SH is talkin the truth

take of your English Rose coloured glasses ...

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 6:33 am
ok to the anonymous that's backing me.. thanks but as you can see you are wasting your time.. if these guys can't see that population plays a role in attendance then that's beyond me to help them comprehend.. for goodness sake their talking about football attendance when we're talking about rugby

and for those who said that low attendance equates to boring play.. umm now that is a piss ppoor argument.. bring some facts not opinions

FACT: Scotland and Ireland have simliar pop. as NZ FACT: NZ has a more land then both COMBINED.. and if you don't think population density is a
contributing factor to the economy and ultimately rugby attendance, then you need to go talk to your economics professor.. he or she will break it down for you

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 10:21 am
S14 produces the best rugby in the world.

At lesat, I had a big laugh at the wake up.

Just a reminder for you, poor ignoratns from Australia and NZ : Top 14 teams that are not strong enough go to the lower division the following.

That means something to you? No...Because it doesn't exist in S14.
Even the worst team of the S14 don't care about its quality of play because at the end the season, it will still be in the S14.

Try to imagine one second the economical pressure on clubs. Who do you hire? Young french fellow, 18 years with no experience? Or 30 years old guy from SH?
I can tell you you'll choose the second one.

Another reminder : some blacks only play in France. Most of the foreigner legacy come from England, Pacific Island, Argentina or Italy.
Dan Carter and Jason Collins play in France.
Who else?

Best players are not needed most of time for the clubs. Experiences players are. And best players gathered does not mean best team.

If you like a S14 that has been shown for the moment, with player staring at each other, that's your problem.

Another idea : perhaps SH should avoid tackling. It would make more tries.

Anyway, with these no pressure we learned something in France : NZ is really in elimination game in world cup. Perhaps the S14 the best league in your mind but I'll always remember Umaga and the whole NZ team dominated in 1999 and aslo the face of Carter and this poor Collins leaving the ground after being tackled by Dusautoir in 2007.

This is the result of your best league? Keep it for you dude, here in old Europe, we'll continue to play a fighting rugby, I hope because this is the basic of the game.

Hope to meet you in NZ in 2011 when we'll meet the Blacks.

(Also this feeling must be the same for Australian Superpower that has been trampled by English weak old european rugby of the weakest league in the world...)

By K, at March 19, 2009 11:27 am
14 out of 87 games Frenchy, the stats don't lie. SH is clearly better, faster, better skills.
Six world cups, SH - 5 NH - 1.
Who won that last World Cup? Was it a SH team, who's players come from the S14?
It's staring you in the face mate, for all the self-importance, NH is off the pace.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 1:40 pm
blablabla
Big frustration from aussies and kiwis...

Let s wait for 2011...

By K, at March 19, 2009 1:45 pm
Super 14, the greatest league on earth, that nobody shows up to watch.

From 2008:

It's a familiar tale for Chiefs chief executive Gary Dawson who has watched crowds for the Waikato-based franchise plummet by 25 per cent this year.

There were 10,273 at Waikato Stadium when the Chiefs played the Waratahs, a few hundred more for the Cheetahs, and a few hundred less for the Stormers.

When the Chiefs travelled to Rotorua over Easter only 6400 were there to watch them play the Bulls but a slightly healthier 11,495 were in Hamilton for last week's win against the Highlanders.

"We are very disappointed with the crowds," Dawson admitted. "We were expecting much bigger crowds than that."

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 2:31 pm
The Australian rugby media, which is more of a private school cheer squad, led by the likes of Jim Tucker, always carries on about what a religion rugby union is in New Zealand. They are invariably too busy sprouting such nonsense to mention the dire state of the game on the ground.

A crowd of about 4000 turned up to Carisbrook on Friday night to see the Highlanders lose in the last minute to the Brumbies in the opening game of the Super 14.

I knew the Reds got terrible crowds in Brisbane, but I had no idea that crowds were so bad at the House of Pain.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 2:34 pm
Just joined this argument, don't really want ot get involved. But can we all agree that jamestheconvict is a fucking tosser

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 2:39 pm
4000 fans? wtf

Thats dreadful.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 2:52 pm
yeah, it's funny that despite the fact the crowds are lower, the rugby's way better.
But you know, I guess if I lost all the time I'd get bitter and twisted about it as well.
Still 14 wins in 87 attempts, that must really hurt the pride of the NH... ouch.

By Anonymous, at March 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Why are you bringing up internationals? The talk was about the leagues, and how nobody in NZ goes to league games. Funny how they always show up for internationals though ;)

It would be like a Brazilian football fan bringing up the achievments of the Brazilian nationl sides of the past when someone insulted the Brazilian national league.

And you mentioned bitter?

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 2:34 am
All this rubbish about the relationship between current crowd numbers and the quality of the rugby. Crowd numbers will always be affected by social and economic factors that will ebb and flow and change with time and might be totally different in a few years. Just what this has to do with the quality of the rugby being played is not clear and is not made clear by any post I have seen here on the subject. As for who's playing the best rugby and where the best players are coming from, the win % stats and the on-field play speak for themselves.

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 3:19 am
"All this rubbish about the relationship between current crowd numbers and the quality of the rugby. Crowd numbers will always be affected by social and economic factors that will ebb and flow and change with time and might be totally different in a few years"

The quality of Scottish football is low and the crowds at Celtic and Rangers games are still incredibly high.

Football attendances in the UK are unaffected, with the top teams selling out every week, a national sport fulfilling national expectations.

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 3:51 am
lol how can the economic crisis be affecting the super 14? ticket prices are almost free, i know people from the southern hem are poor but surely not that poor?

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 3:56 am
The comment was originally about what league produces the best rugby, but since it was so obvious that the S14 has the better players and the higher standards, the NH lot resorted to repeating ad nasueam that NZ has a problem with attendences this season. Which of course has nothing to do with the quality of the rugby, but that apparently won't stop them, since they have nothing else to rely on.

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 4:21 am
Anon said: "The quality of Scottish football is low and the crowds at Celtic and Rangers games are still incredibly high."
What does this have to do with the quality of SH rugby or how crowds reflect that quality?

Another Anon said: "lol how can the economic crisis be affecting the super 14?"
I didn't say anything about the "economic crisis", I said that a complex of changing social factors can affect crowd numbers, maybe but not necessarily including economic ones.
As for the rugby itself (the point, I thought), I repeat that the reality speaks for itself. As others keep saying, the crowd numbers are a different issue, even the Scot above says that crowd numbers are no reflection on the quality of the play.

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 4:53 am
So the logic of this is that players like Gitaeu, Carter, Nonu, Mortlock, De Villiars, Habana, Tuqiri, George Smith, Mcaw and dozens more are all awesome at internationl level but crap at club level. Apparently there is no correclation between S14 players dominating at international level and the rugby they play week in week out for their provinces.
Yeah, that makes heaps of sense, you NH types are retarded at all.

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 5:36 am
roland let it be.. we're dealing with irrational minds.. to them low attendance DOES correlate to poor rugby quailty..

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 8:30 am
Can I just point out that not all us NH types think crowd numbers and quality of rugby correlate? I'm English and I love watching Super 14 and Tri Nations - I don't see how anyone who likes rugby could not.

Surely the point is that the style of rugby people enjoy is entirely a subjective matter; one style can't be proven to be more enjoyable than another. I think the vast majority of people who use this site just love rugby and don't care where it comes from.

Now, let's get back to the more important issue: what's your favourite kit of all time?

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 10:52 am
Yes of course originally it was about rugby attendance but with the example of soccer in Scotland, he wanted to show that crowded stadium are not coralated to economic situation or show displayed in a stadium.

And about the NH SH conversation, I would like to know what elements make you feel that Super 14 is the top league in term of quality. Makes me smile... :o)))

By K, at March 20, 2009 11:25 am
Super 14 is awesome.. so awesome nobody wants to see it..

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 11:48 am
@Arnaud.
"he wanted to show that crowded stadium are not coralated to economic situation"
I don't know what the correlation is and no post on here tells me that anyone else knows either, so his opinion seems as good as any other, no problem.

"he wanted to show that crowded stadium are not coralated to show displayed in a stadium"
Exactly what I've been saying, if the crowds are currently down in the S14 it's no reflection on the quality of the rugby. So I agree with that too.

In fact clarifying those two points is pretty much why I entered this discussion, so I'll smile with you Arnaud :D

@Ted.
good post, and as for the kits, it's going to be influenced by where you come from but even if I wasn't a NZer I'd still think the ABs had one of the great kits of any sports team. But I always liked the classic English white strip and the all gold jersey of earlier Wallabies sides. I'm also fond of the old NZ provincial hooped jerseys like Taranaki and Hawkes Bay and the blue and black of my old club.

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 1:46 pm
Ticket prices are a couple of dollars, the rugby's great there's no other sport to watch in New Zealand. So why aren't people going to games?

By Anonymous, at March 20, 2009 3:43 pm
Ted you're being far too diplomatic

By Anonymous, at March 21, 2009 4:26 am
someone said there's no other sport to watch in New Zealand - - when I was there they seem to be following or playing every sport you can think of. Maybe that's one of the reasons why the rugby crowds are surprisingly small except for test matches.

By Anonymous, at March 21, 2009 8:48 am
losing track of which Anon agrees with which Anon... mind you they all sound alike... bitch bitch moan

Anyway... back to the vid... my picks were no. 10 & no. 3 - that kick was sweet.

Ted: Its only gay if your balls touch.

By boomshanka, at March 22, 2009 4:57 am
ball in touch = you're out, apparently

By Anonymous, at March 23, 2009 3:15 am