Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Super Rugby Pick of the Week

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Super Rugby Pick of the Week - Round 18

For various reasons, we haven't had a Super Rugby Pick of the Week clip on here for a few rounds. We'll try and catch up with a dump of the missing ones soon, but for now here's the best tries scored in the final round of pool play, round 18.

We're now into the knock out stages, as the top 6 have been decided. The first round of Qualifiers will take place this coming weekend, with the fourth placed Blues playing the fifth placed Waratahs, in Auckland.

On Saturday the Crusaders, who finished in first place in the New Zealand conference, will host the Sharks, who sprung somewhat of an upset as they beat the Bulls in Pretoria this past weekend. The respective winners of those two matches will then progress to the Semi Finals.

The Queensland Reds finished the tournament in top position overall, so they have a home semi, where they will meet the winner of the lowest placed qualifier. The Stormers, second on the overall table and South African conference winners, will also have a home semi, and host the highest placed qualifier. Those matches will take place in two weeks time.

It can all be a little confusing, but at this stage, it's actually quite straight forward. The final table has been included at the end of this video, and before that, some of the best tries of the weekend.

Qualifiers
Friday, 24 June
19:35 (local time): Blues vs Waratahs - Auckland
Saturday, 25 June
19:35 (local time): Crusaders vs The Sharks - Christchurch

Semi-finals
Saturday, 2 July
19:40 (local time): Reds vs Lowest Placed Qualifier - Brisbane
17:05 (local time): Stormers vs Highest Placed Qualifier - Cape Town

Time: 03:50
Music: I Love you Dude, by Digitalism

1sssstttt!!!!
Yeeeaah boys.

By Anonymous, at June 22, 2011 1:49 pm
at least 2nd

By Anonymous, at June 22, 2011 1:51 pm
3RD!!!

By Anonymous, at June 22, 2011 1:59 pm
4th AND 5TH!

By Anonymous, at June 22, 2011 1:59 pm
I hate all of you

By Anonymous, at June 22, 2011 2:14 pm
Lads you're all a bunch of numptys. Some poor tackling but otherwise some great stuff. Strong, direct lines being run and good support. Last try was a corker.

By Blue Blooded, at June 22, 2011 2:51 pm
was the last guy to score the same guy from the Melrose Sevens????

By Anonymous, at June 22, 2011 3:02 pm
Gio Aplon you beaut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By CAPEFLATS, at June 22, 2011 5:57 pm
yeah anonymous it's Rayno Benjamin

By CAPEFLATS, at June 22, 2011 6:02 pm
SA rugby is boring as fuck. Worse than the Aviva Premiership.

By Anonymous, at June 22, 2011 6:06 pm
^^ Nice try, wally, but both Saffa games on the weekend were absolutely brilliant. The Bulls/Sharks game was easily the best Super15 game of the season.

By katman, at June 22, 2011 6:22 pm
Amazing. I've come to terms that Super Rugby isn't better than european rugby - just different. I enjoy these tries very much as well as enjoying the mongrel shown by sides like Leicester or Cardiff, the flair of Toulouse, the magic of Leinster, impredictable nature of Toulon...

Oh and an advise to the Rebels: along with the services of Beale and O'Connor, purchase some fast moving tackle bags for some serious tackle training as well! Otherwise it's gonna be a long season next time!

Cheers

By Juggernauter, at June 22, 2011 6:30 pm
that was the best pick of the week ive seen yet i think!

By Anonymous, at June 22, 2011 6:34 pm
what is this track!? its great

By tnony, at June 22, 2011 6:48 pm
quote:

^^ Nice try, wally, but both Saffa games on the weekend were absolutely brilliant. The Bulls/Sharks game was easily the best Super15 game of the season.

Indeed, but SA rugby is generally boring. There are good games even in the premiership but overall, it is shit just like SA rugby.

Also, i find it funny when people always say SH teams is better than NH teams. NZ is better than any NH teams. AUS and SA are not. They've been beaten / drawn / narrowly won in recent matches vs. NH teams. They're really just stealing out glory. Ireland, Franch, England and Scotland are definitely on par with the other two Tri Nat teams.

By Anonymouse, at June 22, 2011 6:59 pm
Kiwi troll, please don't choke when the door hits you on the way out :)

By James, at June 22, 2011 7:56 pm
17th oh yeah....

By Anonymous, at June 22, 2011 10:14 pm
For those in NZD and RSA who are complaining that the Reds don't deserve 1st because their schedule and their conference is easier.... POPPYCOCK.

When then, out of the top 6, do the reds have the least amount of bonus points and still finished first???

Surely if their schedule was easier than other teams, they would have lost to bigger teams but been on top from bonus points against lesser teams. NOT THE CASE! They beat all the big teams this year and deserve first place!

My boys Genia, Cooper, and Higgenbotham are going to take it all home this year!!!

By Project_Tyranny, at June 22, 2011 10:50 pm
FUCK I LOVE SA RUGBY!!!!! oh and to the guy saying SA rugby is boring, how come most of these highlights are south african tries?!?!?

By Anonymous, at June 23, 2011 12:13 am
South African rugby is fucking awesome.

I watch every super rugby game, every round.

The Sharks v Bulls game was easily the game of the season so far.

By William Jones, at June 23, 2011 1:47 am
Reds played the MAJORITY of the top teams at home and certainly had a favorable draw. Facing the Rebels, Force and Brumbies twice each is not a terrifying prospect (they are three of the bottom four sides)

The Super rugby format this year is complete shit. Too long and not every team plays each other.

By Anonymous, at June 23, 2011 1:51 am
Hi guys! I just wanted to let you know that I'm heading to play for Bath next season. As you may know I was cut from the latest All Blacks training camp and I think my chances of playing in the World Cup are very little.

I'm a pretty average player and spoke to some other average players from here -Tommy "I'm fat so what" Waldrom, Shontayne "sometimes I pass the ball right without any impact" Hape, Mouritz "how south african can a man be" Botha and Hendre "I'm getting nowhere in SA" Fourie, and they convinced me to go to England to re-launch my international carrer.

I'll start making some research on my heritage -after all, everyone here in these islands is half british- so I can make the paperwork to play for England quicker. Worst case scenario, I'll be going out at Twickenham instead of the best home grown talent fly halves from England (after all, who are Owen Farrell, George Ford or Toby Flood?) in three years time and feature in the England squad come the 2015 world cup.

So I'll see you there! God I'm so glad the english selectors think everthing from the southern hemisphere is better than what they've got. My complete lack of game management, horrible kick from hand, zero goal kicking and average tackles will look like marvels up here.

Cheers mates!

By Stephen Donald, at June 23, 2011 2:14 am
Hey Kiwi, I'm pretty sure South Africa are world champions, and I know that both Australia and South Africa have winning records against every single European team throughout rugby history.
But don't let facts get in the way of your ramblings.

By Anonymous, at June 23, 2011 2:35 am
"Hey Kiwi, I'm pretty sure South Africa are world champions, and I know that both Australia and South Africa have winning records against every single European team throughout rugby history.
But don't let facts get in the way of your ramblings."

Ahahaha.
Good point.

And how many world cups have south africa and australia won?
The pressure is well an truely on this year for NZ.
I can't even fathom what it would do to the moral in NZ rugby if they don't win this one

By Mart, at June 23, 2011 2:52 am
When comparing NH and SH rugby it is worth bearing in mind that there are a lot more SH players in the NH than the reverse. Though michalak played well for the sharks.

By Anonymous, at June 23, 2011 7:49 am
Weirdest competition format...ever.

3 countries, weird divisions, strange playoffs, no away support, a short season and they change it every year. At least they've stopped counting the number of teams every year.

Along with the yearly rule changes it's no wonder rugby is failing to make a big impact on the world.

The Serie A 20, The La Liga 20, The Premier League 20.

By Anonymous, at June 23, 2011 12:48 pm
RSA rugby boring? Possibly but winning is winning and by the looks of the RSA teams in the S15 this year, they're playing more expansive, confident rugby all the time. The wallabies and Boks are on the up and if I wasn't from South Africa I'd put my money on the wallabies as much as I hate to say it... Come on Sharks!!!!

By Beast4president, at June 23, 2011 2:31 pm
This format is certainly not the best but still but I guess it's all about trying things out until you get it right. Ad for the sort season, there is also the the domestic comp and internationals so really not sort at all, unlike wendyball rugby requires a lot more recovery time

By Anonymous, at June 23, 2011 3:08 pm
"Hey Kiwi, I'm pretty sure South Africa are world champions, and I know that both Australia and South Africa have winning records against every single European team throughout rugby history. But don't let facts get in the way of your ramblings."

Haha let's be honest. SA couldn't have had easier opponents. Easiest RWC I've seen. 95 was a good win, but not 07.

You don't have the winning record against us. We have the winning record against you and every other team. Anyway, in recent times you've lost to a fair few European teams. Ireland, England, Scotland, etc.

"FUCK I LOVE SA RUGBY!!!!! oh and to the guy saying SA rugby is boring, how come most of these highlights are south african tries?!?!?"

Did you miss the bit where I said you can have good games. Still boring though compared to AUS teams, NZ teams and Heineken Cup teams.

By Anonymouse, at June 23, 2011 8:49 pm
^ Wow, how embarrassing for you. SA couldn't have had easier opponents? Well um.. NZ and Australia weren't even good enough to make it to the final so, what does that say about them?

As for SA, they beat Argentina easily (who came 3rd overall remember), beat a Fiji side that had beaten Wales, and beat reigning champions England not only once, but twice. England had beaten France, and yes, France had beaten NZ, some time waaay back earlier in the comp.

You can only play who's in front of you. SA did, and won, something New Zealand have shown they simply cannot do when it's needed most.

Regarding your winning record, in the last few years (when SA has won 2 world cups, and NZ zero), NZ have got the better record, sure, but over time it stands at a 42% win rate. SA 33 wins, NZ 45 wins. Until as recently as 10/15 years ago, it was equal and went back and forth for a while.

That is the best record of any other team in the world. Australia, for interests sake, come in second with a 29% win rate.

Genuine rugby fans understand the history, and have respect for their countries greatest and most competitive rivals. Ask Colin Meads who he respects most in rugby.

So lose the arrogance maybe. We all know New Zealand are a brilliant side. A little humility goes a long way though.

By Andy, at June 23, 2011 11:29 pm
Everyone can have a bad day... NZ didn't play their best and the ref didn't help. AUS had a bad day. The best team SA played against. They've been shit for the past few years and during RWC 2007 they were in particularly bad form. Argentina weren't a great side and Fiji are entertaining but aren't particularly good.

So who has more wins? We do. Yeah.

It's not a matter of arrogance. It's just SA and AUS piggy back when it comes to the NH vs. SH debate. NZ are way ahead and the other two teams aren't.

By Anonymouse, at June 24, 2011 12:36 am
Awesome tries there, for me the best is the Cheetah's try - only thing that beats it is Ryno Benjamin's celebration after scoring it!!

By Anonymous, at June 24, 2011 1:50 am
"It's not a matter of arrogance. It's just SA and AUS piggy back when it comes to the NH vs. SH debate. NZ are way ahead and the other two teams aren't."

Have New Zealand won a world cup?
Which is the pinnacle of the sport.

Oh yeah that was over 20 yrs ago.

I think you'll find England has a better record than New Zealand.
Have a bit more success in the big tournaments, and then you can brag.

By Mart, at June 24, 2011 2:11 am
not win one cup out of god knows how many isn't to bad of an effort, our top side my not have won one for a long time but its only a matter of time till they do.

Hopefully we can imulate SA's success in 2007 when they were super rugby, sevens and world champs. Hopefully we can go one better and be womens world champs, under 20's world champs, super rugby champs, tri champs, sevens champs and world cup champs. We have womens and sevens in the bag so its a good start.

SA, OZ and France will always be our biggest rivals. Hopefully in the new future other teams will step up and really challenge the abs, that will make international rugby even more exciting.

By Anonymous, at June 24, 2011 2:59 am
Challenge as in actually beat the abs not this, we almost had you nonsense.

By Anonymous, at June 24, 2011 3:02 am
"Everyone can have a bad day... NZ didn't play their best and the ref didn't help. AUS had a bad day. The best team SA played against. They've been shit for the past few years and during RWC 2007 they were in particularly bad form. Argentina weren't a great side and Fiji are entertaining but aren't particularly good.

So who has more wins? We do. Yeah.

It's not a matter of arrogance. It's just SA and AUS piggy back when it comes to the NH vs. SH debate. NZ are way ahead and the other two teams aren't."

Andy's right.

Everyione acknowledge's that NZ is historically the best team of all time, statisitcally, though not at World Cups.

Everyone has respect for them.

But for you to say that Aus and SA are the equal of European teams now or historically is a joke and suggests you don't know that much about rugby.

Aus and SA both have two world cups each. Aus has the best WC record of any team of all time.

Both teams have winning percentages (usually really big ones) against EVERY SINGLE European team that plays rugby.

Australia recently beat France by the highest margin they've ever been beaten by.

Both SA and Aus are ranked higher on the world rankings than any European team.

Basically what your saying is complete bs.

By Bill, at June 24, 2011 4:00 am
Lol.... The Springboks have been the dominant force of rugby for 90 odd years... they had a better win/loss ratio than NZ until 1992. 90 years of dominance.

Don't try and undermine the Boks 2007 world cup, sour kiwi.

Good teams don't choke.

By Anonymous, at June 24, 2011 6:07 am
^^^^^ If they were so dominant then what were they doing in 2003? having a holiday?

No to mention the shite games they played back in the day!

By Anonymous, at June 24, 2011 7:24 am
^ Weird comment.

@ Bill, I think South Africa actually has the better world Cup record? They've played in 4, won 2. Whereas Australia have played in 5 and won 2.

And there's no piggybacking - the fact is that in general SA and Aus DO have a better record against all opposition, than all opposition against them, if that makes sense. (bar nz)

By Andy, at June 24, 2011 9:24 am
Andy my comment was in reference to the guy saying that SA have been dominant for 90 years..... utter shite...

By Anonymous, at June 24, 2011 12:16 pm
@Bill

I didn't say historically nor did I say they were equal ("NZ are way ahead and the other two teams aren't"). And it is only some European teams such as Ireland, England and France. Just look at their recent matches... but I do think certain European club teams could do well vs. SH club teams too. Even against NZ club teams perhaps.

Percentages count games from years ago. Rugby has changed a lot over the years. If you have to count wins from decades ago to demonstrate your dominance over them, then you really aren't that dominant, are you? You were, but you aren't any longer.

As I said, anyone can have a bad day. AUS played well. They are a good team. But France completely imploded. They are the most mercurial national side in rugby. It's well known.

SA and AUS are much better than most European teams. They are only a little better than some, and that could be debated. So naturally, it's fair enough if the rankings say SA and AUS are above others.

I don't see how it's bullshit. You misread what I wrote and so, missed my point somewhat.

@mart  I think you'll find England has a better record than New Zealand. Have a bit more success in the big tournaments, and then you can brag."

Fair enough, we've only won 1 world cup. Considering it only happens once every four years it's not a very good way to judge a team. Winning a world cup requires a lot of luck as well as a lot of skill. Injuries, referees, form, setting, etc. all play a part. Taking the recent record of one team over another is the most accurate way to judge it's dominance because it minimises the influenced of factors outside the team.

I'm pretty sure we can brag now. What country are you from? Doesn't really matter because we have a winning record against 100% of our opposition.

By Anonymouse, at June 24, 2011 2:48 pm
@anon. June 24, 2011 6:07 AM

Well done. But we have the better record against you historically and recently. Hard luck.

I'm not undermining it. You had an easy run. That's just a fact.

"And there's no piggybacking - the fact is that in general SA and Aus DO have a better record against all opposition, than all opposition against them, if that makes sense. (bar nz)"

There is actually. People from AUS and SA use the Southern Hemi. argument all the time, but both have lost games recently against NH teams. Even against Scotland. I think IRE have one a couple of their most recent ones against SA and I know their most recent lost was narrow. It was also gifted away with an intercept try.

By Anonymouse, at June 24, 2011 2:51 pm
^^^^^^^^^ guys guys guys....

NZ v Scotland in Autumn... scotland hammered!!!!!

SA v Scotland in Autumn.... LMAO never seen scotland send a big team home with their tails between their legs like that!

By Anonymous, at June 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Yeah, perfect conditions one week, with Sonny Bill scaring the sh*t out of the spineless Scots, then torrential downpours the next, with a SA second string side playing awfully in the conditions.

Fair win by Scotland, it was the same as theirs over Australia, but you cant compare the two weekends.

By Anonymous, at June 24, 2011 7:39 pm
@Anonymouse
So whats your argument?
The world cup doesn't count, cause it only comes around every 4 years, your only as good as your last game.
Ha well we beat you.
Sooo.. Aus dominant.

By Mart, at June 24, 2011 11:23 pm
I don't mind kiwi arrogance. It makes it more pleasurable to see them lose during the world cup time.

By chapy, at June 25, 2011 3:03 am
You dumb fuck, 1992 is before 2003. SA DOMINANT for 90 years.

Boks have a 50% win ratio at world cups. The most successful side in world cup history.

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 3:27 am
And in the end, NZ have not won a single world cup (the majority of rugby historians don't count 1987 as a proper world cup)

So it's 2 world cups from 4 attempts to SA.

0 from 6 for NZ. And will be 0 from 7 in a few months. OWnEd.

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 3:29 am
The NH teams are better than South Africa now. They got beaten by leicester lmao!!

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 8:26 am
AHAHAHAHA Scotland beat a second string SA side?!?!? you're loop de fucking loop right? I must have forgotten that matfield is shit and only plays second string... Geez the horseshit is flying once more!

I guess they're right SA is the best and most dominant rugby team ever guys! Even when they lose a game it's because it was a second string side or they didn't care about that game or it's not important or they were cheated by the ref or the other team cheated or pdivvy picked the wrong guy or it doesn't matter because we won a world cup or blah blah blah blah weather conditions!

Saffa fans are the most pathetic one eyed bitter bunch ever to grace a rugby site. It reflects in your shitty monotone I just shat myself commentary... You guys are boring and a good portion of the rest of the world hates you because of your attitude! NH doesnt hate the kiwis or the Aussies because they can at least have a gripe but follow it with a "well done though" (not so much the unbeatable kiwis... Nothing to gripe about lol!)

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 9:50 am
^

Take the dick out of your mouth.

Jealous faggot.

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 11:27 am
Lol, how am I jealous? I have nothing to be jealous about.. Last game my team played against SA we sent them home with their tales between their legs!!!

(:

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 11:44 am
The truth hurts.

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 12:30 pm
Anonymous said...And in the end, NZ have not won a single world cup (the majority of rugby historians don't count 1987 as a proper world cup)

Wrong .. every real rugby historian disagrees with you because SA were officially ineligible and we all know why, live with it.

By ben, at June 25, 2011 1:16 pm
Yeah but anon, if you're sottish your team is clearly inferior in virtually everyway to South Africa.
You may have got one win at home against them, but they usually beat your team. And They are current and two time world champions, ranked third in the world with one of the best rugby histories of any country.

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 2:51 pm
That was not South Africa's first choice team, therefore it is a second choice team. Just because a few of the better players play, doesn't make it the best team on offer?

Anyway, nice job there sounding like a football fan. Classy stuff

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 2:57 pm
@ anon. June 24, 2011 7:39 PM

Last time I checked, there were almost 10 World Cup winners on the squad and some other first choice players. Stop making excuses.

@Anonymouse 

So whats your argument? The world cup doesn't count, cause it only comes around every 4 years, your only as good as your last game. Ha well we beat you. Sooo.. Aus dominant.

@ Mart

My point is that SA and AUS should stop arguing about how dominant SH rugby is over NH rugby. NZ are dominant over SH rugby. SA and AUS are not.

I didn't say it didn't count. Of course it counts. It just doesn't change the fact that we dominate you in rugby.

See, we dominate you in rugby. We do now and we always have. We have a ~70% win record against you. That's why you choose to judge yourself only on the last game. If you're only as good as you're last game, then England are better than you? Good job.

I'd love NZ to win a RWC. There'd be nothing better. But, I'd take dominating every single opposition we play over a RWC any day. You don't have to skew any facts or pick a particular tournament to try and change things in your favour. We can simply quote our win record. Hard luck.

By Anonymouse, at June 25, 2011 6:42 pm
Lol, saffa fans, dont make me pull out last years tri-nation results!!!

HAHAHAHA

Awww da big bad saffas in a moody woooody cos they lost to ickle scotland after fielding a side with plenty world cup winners in it!

Lol, scottish fans can ofcourse realise that SA is generally better than them but at least they have the good grace to admit it, you guys cant even accept your team had a shit day and got out played by the scots!!!! you have to resort to pathetic excuses!

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 7:26 pm
lol at the aussie fan saying you're only as good as your last win. perfect excuse to ignore new zealand demolishing you 3 times in a row during the 2010 tri nats. lol

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 9:05 pm
Lol, surprised it wasnt a saffa...getting dicked in 5 out of 6 games!!! LMAO

By Anonymous, at June 25, 2011 10:07 pm
agree slightly with anonymouse but he's an arrogant prick

By Steve, at June 25, 2011 11:03 pm
Tbh I'm an England fan and I totally agree with anonymouse... Although we as a hemisphere don't have a great track record against the SH big 3 we have beaten them.... The only team that has totally controlled us for a longtime is new Zealand...

So in reality other countries have a collective 'yay we beat them' when in reality it was only NZ that did it....(I know we lost to SA recently)

The other problem with your daft hemisphere argument is you do not include fiji or Argentina or Samoa or tonga etc etc.... And do you really think all the Aussies will have a little cuddle or bum fiddle after they lose a match against England just because NZ comes along later and beats England?!?!

And to the saffas do you really share your world cup with NZ and Aus etc? Surely with that thinking NZ should get to borrow it a couple times because they're in the same hemisphere....

By Anonymous, at June 26, 2011 3:49 pm
"See, we dominate you in rugby. We do now and we always have. We have a ~70% win record against you. That's why you choose to judge yourself only on the last game. If you're only as good as you're last game, then England are better than you? Good job."

They weren't just beaten by england, they were dominated from start to finish. should have been more too. we only lost because of steven duck donald being a retard. Australia couldnt even win the game by themselves.

so MART, if you are only as good as your last game, england shit all over you. do you agree? probably not goin to respond silly aussie cos you know new zealand are better than the kangaroos

By Maui, at June 26, 2011 3:50 pm
@Mart

"@Anonymouse
So whats your argument?
The world cup doesn't count, cause it only comes around every 4 years, your only as good as your last game.
Ha well we beat you.
Sooo.. Aus dominant."

anonymouse responds to all of your points and dismantles each one and you just respond with this? idiot. don't say shit if you can't back it up. he dismantled everything you said and you just disregard it and make another rstupid point. Obviously a Wallaby supporter.

By Anonymous, at June 26, 2011 3:55 pm
Cheers anon.

@ Mart

Throwing as much shit and hoping something sticks doesn't work. How about next time you don't bother responding.

By Anonymouse, at June 26, 2011 6:13 pm
@Anonymouse

why dont you suck on my hairy arsehole!

By Mart, at June 26, 2011 11:28 pm
Hard luck you sad little Aussie. You're an embarrassment to Wallaby fans.

By Anonymouse, at June 27, 2011 1:06 am
Once again, NZ are the best side in rugby, and for much of it's history have been.

But Australia and South Africa have long been better sides than European sides.

Ignoring that is basically intentional ignorance.

SA and Aus both have two world cups. Aus has been in three WC finals.

SA and Aus have won more games than they've lost, usually by a large margin against EVERY SINGLE European team.

Aus has lost one game at home to European opposition in eight years. Just one.

SA beat the Lions recently, and are current world champions. They have an even better record against European teams over the years than Australia do.

Both teams are ranked higher in the world rankings than any European team.

Since 2003 Australia has played European six nations teams 43 times.
They've won 32 games, drawn 2 and lost nine.
Of the losses all but one was away from home.

That's a pretty good record. Not as good as NZ's, but still pretty damn good.

By N, at June 27, 2011 2:45 am
"@Anonymouse

why dont you suck on my hairy arsehole!"

Thanks for your help there fake Mart!?! Mbe you wrote anonymouse to make me sound childish. if so well played.

@Maui
point granted. Englend well and truly beat us at twickers. And pippped us at home, so i can't argue with that. Still just helps my only as good as your last game argument though, cause you've basically agreed by stating this.

To the random anonymous's. Whats the point in posting on a blog if your not gonna put your name to it. Very weak.

@Anonymouse granted NZ are a decent side. But shouldn't they have more world cups to show for it!?!

(the sound of the recast, and the lining winding in)

I'll happily give up a few tri nations for a WORLD CUP.

(more burly)

By Mart (real), at June 27, 2011 3:39 am
@ anonymouse

"@ Mart
My point is that SA and AUS should stop arguing about how dominant SH rugby is over NH rugby. NZ are dominant over SH rugby. SA and AUS are not.

I didn't say it didn't count. Of course it counts. It just doesn't change the fact that we dominate you in rugby.

See, we dominate you in rugby. We do now and we always have. We have a ~70% win record against you. That's why you choose to judge yourself only on the last game. If you're only as good as you're last game, then England are better than you? Good job."

mart responds to all of your points and dismantles each one and you just respond with this? idiot. don't say shit if you can't back it up. he dismantled everything you said and you just disregard it and make another stupid point. Obviously an All Blacks supporter.

By Anonymous, at June 27, 2011 3:43 am
Cheers anon.

@ Anonymouse

Being arrogant and not conceding any of the other points, is not a good way to push your argument. You come across as a simpleton.

It's gonna hurt when you choke again.
But hey who needs to say they are the best in the world when they beat Aus and sth Africa regularly.
Is that what your trying to say?

By Mart, at June 27, 2011 3:51 am
@N you are completely incorrect....

SA have not ALWAYS been dominant against the NH... to even think they have is actually pure ignorance!

SA are renowned for their brute strength but up to their first world cup win they had pitiful scores... since then as with any rugby team they have ebbed and flowed... yet to say they usually win by a large margin is also utter rubbish. last Autumn SA beat England by 10 points... they dominated all game that is true and England were overpowered yet kept the score to only 10 points which is semi comfortable... i mean that by if you lead with 10 points you think "wow this is great, they need a try a conversion and a penalty" until the other team scores a try and kicks it then you shit yourselves!

The world cup final was obviously a bigger gap yet at 6-15 it is one of those "no time to really relax" sort of score lines.

As for beating the Lions. Ofcourse these guys are supposed to be the best of England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland etc... but really, how can you make a team of players from all different clubs and nations gel so quickly?!? im not saying its an excuse, its a reality, yet the lions didn't exactly under perform..

First test 26-21 to the boks, second 28-25 to the boks, third test 28-9 to the lions...
Now ofcourse by the 3rd test it was all over for the lions who had pride to gain, and the saffas who had nothing to lose probably relaxed somewhat, but all those scores bar the 3rd game were close... so again the differences could fall upon refereeing decisions, temperature, what they had for breakfast... really there is nothing in the games...

As for Australia, they have been a bit worn out since 2003 with some greats coming through and most greats retiring... i mean honestly i havent seen a good aus team (as a whole) since the 2003 final...

so really there has been no team consistently good as NZ who have proved since the last world cup who is the most dominant....

i mean if last years tri nations are anything to go by then it shows the saffas were feeling very old and tired...

By Anonymous, at June 27, 2011 4:10 am
I'm sorry, but I presented facts and statistics.
You responded with completely subjective judgement calls and vauge generalised opinions.

Aus have not been at their best since 2003 (their best was probably the nineties).
And yet they have still won 75% of all game played against European opposition.
They have only been beaten once at home by a European team in the eight years since 2003.

So if they are looking poor, how bloody bad must the European teams be?

I mean if they are getting beaten 3 out of 4 times against a team which you describe as 'worn out' and 'not good', the 6 nations teams must be terrible.

And since we are only talking about Aus and Sa in relation to european teams, how is the tri-nations really relevant?

For SA, getting beaten by Aus and NZ is one thing, but they are still better than the 6 nations teams, as shown by results.

And frankly, your efforts to argue that because a team loses by "only" ten points, it's not so bad, is laughable.

Do the same rules apply in reverse? If so I guess Scotland never really beat South Africa at all last season?

By N, at June 27, 2011 4:38 am
IRB World Rankings.. use them. Might shut you all up a bit. They're worked out according to RESULTS. So even if Scotland beats SA randomly, or if France score some points against NZ, the general top 3 will always be better sides, as proven by their history, and their positions on the rankings.

Not sure what else there is to discuss really. When was the last time a NH side made the top 3 of the rankings? I think it might have been briefly around 2003 with England when they won the world cup.

By Wally, at June 27, 2011 8:00 am
Well said Wally

By Mart, at June 27, 2011 8:53 am
N I never said a ten point margin does not equal a win I simply said it does not equal a dominating win... NZ v Scotland was a dominating win and hiwed Scotland were outgunned outmuscled and generally outplayed. Ofcourse Scotland did look pitiful and perhaps they were having a "slow day" however they picked up their game and beat SA who were no doubt having a "slow day" themselves. Yes it was a victory but did Scotland dominate SA? not really... SA always looked threatening. My point is those sort of scorelines ofcourse equal a win yet prov the game could have gone either way.

Right Australian home games... Well let's look at away games... How'd they get on against Scotland a couple years ago? How'd they get on against England last year? I'm not saying it proves thy are terrible and over the hill I am merely saying the Australia of recent has been terrible compared to the wallabies standard we come to expect. You also throw in a mention of the 6 nations teams... Well we ALL know England died after the 2003 cup and insome ways their progression to the final in 2007 was quite unbelievable yet they beat who was in front of them to get there....(Australia).... But as I said we all had a chuckle predicting England not making it out of the quarters... As for the other nations... Scotland don't really have a leg to stand on, they pull out dramatic victories or draws one week and get hammered the next, or vice versa. Italy? Well ofcourse any true SH fan wants the NH fans to include EVERY team in the 6N's but we cannot include tonga or Samoa etc... Anyway Italy has about a quarter of a good team but really lack the depth. Wales are as hot and cold as they ever were. Seem to play wonderful one day and suck the next however they seem unable to fill the spots that were once occupied by their countries "greats". France..... Well.... They beat NZ in 2007 so that's something to write home about... Other than that almost impossible to tell whether France are in a good place or bad place... The team changes too often. Ireland... Unfortunately I think the buck stops with BOD, he is clearly their best player yet they have no one else to fill his boots... In similar ways to Umaga yet NZ ha the foresight to blood younger players... Although I still think Umaga posesses more skill that any of the current NZ centres.

But as the argument stands NZ IS currently better than all of the NH teams... SA and AUS are NOT. They have not won all of their recent games against the NH unlike SA therefore they are not totally dominant... Not to hard to grasp is it!

By Anonymous, at June 27, 2011 12:26 pm
@N

Please read what I said towards the beginning. I am talking presently, not taking games from 5 or 10 years ago into account. Games from 2003 don't demonstrate the ability of a teams in 2010 / 2011 very well? I acknowledge that in the past the gap wasn't so close. Look at the recent matches between the teams and you'll see there is not as much between some European sides and AUS and SA as is claimed (I did not say NH teams were equal or better).

The Lions is not a good representative of the quality of the teams of which it consists and SA had the easiest possible run to the RWC, like it or not.

--------------------

@Mart (real)

It doesn't actually help you're point. Most people are aware AUS are better than ENG (only just) and most people are aware that NZ are better than AUS.

They should. Simple as that. But that doesn't change any of my points.

Also, I responded to each of your points. Maybe I am arrogant, but I am right and your failure to reply to any of my responses shows this. You spewed a load of bullshit, I replied, you move on. Good job.

--------------------

@Wally

It is a maths based system. You can't represent the true abilities of a team using basic equations. It completely disregards everything that happens in the match except the actual touching down of the ball and the ball going through the posts.

Anyway, I've already made my point and clarified it later on for Mart. If you care to find it and respond to it then go ahead, because you appear to have missed it.

--------------------

@Mart

"Well said Wally"

So you're going to piggyback others and continue to fail to respond to any of my responses?

By Anonymouse, at June 27, 2011 12:35 pm
@ anonymouse
Your right. All I heard was blah blah blah, we're the best.
But the best team in the world wins world cups. Of which in the south NZ has the least.
Acknowledging this point when making your statement that NZ carries southern hemisphere rugby may be difficult.

By Mart, at June 27, 2011 2:15 pm
"hard luck"

By Mart, at June 27, 2011 2:17 pm
Mart you do realise that whilst the creme de la creme of rugby is the rugby world cupit is not always a true representation....

I mean for crying out loud England was in the last world cup final and their fans themselves were just as shocked to see that happen....

as for the 2003 SA didnt even make it out the quarter finals....

so is it safe to say their standard of play was the same as scotlands? or wales? etc... or was it just bad luck they ended up facing NZ? i mean had they been facing England maybe they'd have won the 2003 cup as well?

The fact of the matter is that despite not winning a world cup recently NZ has played consistently better that SA and has beaten SA in all their encounters.... as well as remaining unbeaten up north, yet you still react as if SA (who has been beaten by teams up north) is still as dominant as NZ....which is clearly not the case...

By Anonymous, at June 27, 2011 2:29 pm
"Your right. All I heard was blah blah blah, we're the best.
But the best team in the world wins world cups. Of which in the south NZ has the least.
Acknowledging this point when making your statement that NZ carries southern hemisphere rugby may be difficult."

Haha I didn't say NZ carries SH rugby. I said exactly what my point was when you asked and you still failed to comprehend it. You can't really argue with those who can't read or comprehend English so I won't try.

If you beat us in our next 55 games (OK, I'll make it 5 to give you a chance), then I will fully accept that Australia are a better team then the All Blacks. Until then, you should practice some reading comprehensions and hope you don't meet us or England in the RWC.

By Anonymouse, at June 27, 2011 3:53 pm
"I won't try"

By Mart, at June 27, 2011 11:01 pm
And for the sake of NZ rugby. I hope you can win this world cup so you can be on even world status with your inferior southern allies.

By Mart, at June 27, 2011 11:03 pm
you arent not very good at trolling. they won 68% of games against you.

By Wilko, at June 28, 2011 12:12 am
and by the way i think aussie rugby is in much more trouble then new zealand rugby.

By Wilko, at June 28, 2011 12:13 am
"Right Australian home games... Well let's look at away games... How'd they get on against Scotland a couple years ago? How'd they get on against England last year? I'm not saying it proves thy are terrible and over the hill I am merely saying the Australia of recent has been terrible compared to the wallabies standard we come to expect. You also throw in a mention of the 6 nations teams... Well we ALL know England died after the 2003 cup and insome ways their progression to the final in 2007 was quite unbelievable yet they beat who was in front of them to get there....(Australia).... But as I said we all had a chuckle predicting England not making it out of the quarters... As for the other nations... Scotland don't really have a leg to stand on, they pull out dramatic victories or draws one week and get hammered the next, or vice versa. Italy? Well ofcourse any true SH fan wants the NH fans to include EVERY team in the 6N's but we cannot include tonga or Samoa etc... Anyway Italy has about a quarter of a good team but really lack the depth. Wales are as hot and cold as they ever were. Seem to play wonderful one day and suck the next however they seem unable to fill the spots that were once occupied by their countries "greats". France..... Well.... They beat NZ in 2007 so that's something to write home about... Other than that almost impossible to tell whether France are in a good place or bad place... The team changes too often. Ireland... Unfortunately I think the buck stops with BOD, he is clearly their best player yet they have no one else to fill his boots... In similar ways to Umaga yet NZ ha the foresight to blood younger players... Although I still think Umaga posesses more skill that any of the current NZ centres.

But as the argument stands NZ IS currently better than all of the NH teams... SA and AUS are NOT. They have not won all of their recent games against the NH unlike SA therefore they are not totally dominant... Not to hard to grasp is it!"

So I'm sorry, Australia home games don't count?? But when a European team plays at home it does count??

Look Australia has a winning record, even recently, over every team.

The only European team who has had any success over Australia recently is England. They have won the last two games (which is impressive). But they lost the previous 5 games.

I mean European teams are capable of beating Australia, especially when they are at home, but Australia wins those games more than they lose them.

France have lost their last five games to Australia.
Ireland has lost three and drawn one of the last four tests against Aus.
Wales won one game out of the last five, lost the other four.
Scotland won that game famously in 2009, but that was the first time they'd beaten Aus since the 1980s. They lost about ten agmes before that.
Italy of course has never beaten Australia.

How else do you measure it, if not games won and lost?

They have not won virtually every single game like New Zealand, for the simple fact that they aren't as good as NZ.

But that's not what anyone is saying. Just that they are better than the European teams. Which is obvious, since they win most games against European opposition, now and historically. And are consequently ranked no 2 in the world.

By N, at June 28, 2011 2:13 am
Stats.
World cups.
Aus 2
South Africa 2
New Zealand 1

WORLD CUPS!

good luck

By Mart, at June 28, 2011 3:21 am
@anonymouse

"They're really just stealing out glory. Ireland, Franch, England and Scotland are definitely on par with the other two Tri Nat teams."

Check the IRB world rankings.
I think that puts the on par argument to bed.

You can hang onto your 1 world cup, i don't wanna steal your glory.

"It's not a matter of arrogance. It's just SA and AUS piggy back when it comes to the NH vs. SH debate. NZ are way ahead and the other two teams aren't."

I believe that is saying NZ carries sth rugby.

By Mart, at June 28, 2011 3:28 am
"I'm not saying it proves thy are terrible and over the hill I am merely saying the Australia of recent has been terrible compared to the wallabies standard we come to expect."

What do you expect?

I mean they are winning 75% of games against 6 nations teams. Do you expect them to win 90%? 100%?

The truth is that European teams have become more competetive. In the early and late nineties, which are the only times in rugby history that Australia could be considered the dominant force in world rugby, they didn't have as much competition.
At that time they were on the cutting edge of proffesionalism. They embraced alot of techniques and strategies which were then considered innovative in rugby union (everything from sport science, to adopting rugby league tactics, particularly in relation to their defence).
These things are now embraced by virtually all the top international teams.
There was a time not so long ago, that European teams simply weren't physically able to match the SANZAR teams. They didn't train as proffesionally.

Now the only real difference is the philosophy and style employed and the focus on skills training in the south that seperates teams.

Things are evening out a bit.

And yet there still is a gap. Australian players by and large have a higher skills level than the average English or Welsh player.

By Anonymous, at June 28, 2011 8:46 am
@Mart

Last five games IRE vs. SA. Who won more? ENG vs. AUS. ENG won the last two and they're a joke of a team. Shouldn't have even one a single game against you, yet they destroyed you in the last one. So much for the rankings...

No it isn't. Once again, you fail to comprehend what is written in front of you. It is quite clear that I didn't say NZ carries SH rugby. I'll simplify: NZ are much better than AUS. They are better than SA. NZ have a better record against NH teams than AUS or SA. So when a debate about hemispheres arises, AUS and SA fans always refer to the SH, but in reality, it is only NZ that is much better than the NH teams. AUS and SA are not. Hopefully you can understand that.

All you have is that AUS have 2 world cups and NZ have 1. I'd love to have 2, but as I said, I'd rather dominate everyone we play like we dominate Australia. You do know it's been 8 years since you won the RWC. You have to go back that far? Just shows we really are much better than you. You really can't argue with us beating you in ~70% of games. Hard luck buddy. Good luck in the RWC and working on your reading comprehensions. When you come up with a better argument than 2 RWC vs. 1, I might reply again.

By Anonymouse, at June 28, 2011 12:41 pm
agree with anonymouse, south africans and australians do seem to hide behind the southern hemisphere tag. no offense but it happens all the time. american here by the way. we're shit but we're improving lol

By jordan2.0, at June 28, 2011 4:30 pm
Anonymous it appears we're arguing against two people who merely look to see a W or an L next to the fixture list before they pass judgement!

Right N or Mart, if te best aussie team at te moment play the best NZ team at the moment this coming weekend and the score is 14 points to Australia and 15 to NZ with NZ playing their best! Would you say 'wow didn't expect Australia to do so well, they nearly had it!' or is it simply a pitiful loss and Australia should not take anything away from the match?

Really from what you're suggesting Australia and south Africa could effectively not make it out of the pools and NZ could get to the final and lose but still not be as good because they have won less world cups....

Or the England rugby team can sit bak and chill because let's face it, the 2003 squad already won the cup back then so who cares about todays and tomorrow's results...

By Anonymous, at June 28, 2011 7:21 pm
sorry that was supposed to be to "Anonymouse" !!

By Anonymous, at June 28, 2011 9:03 pm
It hurts I know. So superior but just missing this one element.
In future grow a pair and put your name to your arguments. That goes out to all the anons out there.
Squeak

By Mart, at June 28, 2011 11:43 pm
not really mart... as you say "check the irb rankings"....

i see NZ at the top..

By Anonymous, at June 28, 2011 11:47 pm
doesn't matter if you put a name or not, you're still anonymous numbnuts cos you canput whatever name you want. you probably made all the arguments against new zealand with different usernames cos every one was shit

By your name, at June 28, 2011 11:49 pm
haha lol. well spotted anon. so not only does he admit new zealand are better than aus, but he also thinks england are better too

By your name, at June 28, 2011 11:50 pm
@ Mart: you're an idiot.

By Anonymous, at June 28, 2011 11:51 pm
from "your name" by the way

By your name, at June 28, 2011 11:52 pm
Wow, it's funny how people come in with a preconceived idea of what they are gonna say and regardless of what is said back they stick to their guns.

As I said already, about two thousand times, NZ is and probably always has been the best team in rugby. They are better than Australia. I guess you kiwis will probably ignore what I've just said AGAIN, but you can only try.

What I was saying si that currently and histroically Australia has a much better record than European teams. SA does too. That's what I was arguing.

Now I presented stats, games won and lost, world cup statistics.

Every time I did the kiwis and the odd pom or American intentionalyl ingored them, refused to adress that point and just said something like :

"Aus and SA aren't good. I think they are bad."

That's not really an argument. It's just nonsense.

If Australia wins 75% of games against European teams, has a much better World Cup record than them and is ranked higher than them on the world rankings, it would seem a pretty logical next step to assume they are better than those Eruopean teams.

Now if anyone wants to actually dispute these facts with facts of their own, please do so.

By N, at June 29, 2011 1:11 am
Oh and anon guy, if Australia loses to NZ by a couple points or even one point (as has happened many times recently, last year it happened in Sydney, the year before it happened in Brisbane), Australians just say "ah shit, we lost".

To an Aussie a loss is a loss is a loss. We don't do the English thing and go "Well we preformed really well, and didn't really lose by that much, so it was a good effort, and we are not far behind, blah, blah, blah"

If we win we get happy about it, if we lose it sucks, but we don't pretend that just cuz we lost by only a couple points that we have acheived something.

That's a very English way to look at sport, not an Australian way.

By N, at June 29, 2011 1:14 am
Well N youtalk about Others missing the point and you missed it yourself. I was not talking about patting yourselves on the back, having a great party and cheerin in the streets "yeh we lost by 1 point" I was simply saying if you lose by 1 point going into a game against NZ then your performance was admirable to have nearly grasped it. It's nothin to cheer about but it is something to address. Losing by 50 points would need a drastic turn around in the game plan in the next game, 1 point could mean the game plan was very good but perhaps it wasn't executed very well. But ofcourse as an Aussie you probably had a laugh at the scots after they were chuffed with the draw against you... Typical nonsensical Australian

Who actually said SA and Aus were bad? Because I sure didn't. I said their performances of late do not seem to fall in line with a typical SA or Aus performance.

P.s you break out all these great statistics of past games which is fair enough but as I said it means shit o today's team. Like I said the england of today cannot sit BA Krupa WC and say "heck why bother wilko an Jonno's lot won this before so when people look up England they'll see 1 WC and I play for England now so I'm included in that...'

And what if some joker comes into Australian coaching and decides to pick the worst players ever played ever... And Australia lose all matches for the rest of the year... It doesn't matter right? Because statistically they have beaten NH teams blah blah blah... So if everyone in Aus becomes morbidly obese overnight and the team tajes a huge down turn australia is still better right up until that statistic falls into the NH favour... Correct?

By Anonymous, at June 29, 2011 11:26 am