SA in white against Leicester: another tradition going?
DC
Mike
> Why didn't the home team play in white, as is the usual tradition in rugby?
Mike
Two Dogs
wrote:
Certainly they kept their best players clean..
Two Dogs
Mike
We've already established that it was SA 2nd team vs a Leicester 3rd team.
Mike
Two Dogs
wrote:
Are you saying it was a meaningless game, Mike?
Two Dogs
Mike
> On Nov 9, 2:45 am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> Two Dogs wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> DC wrote:
>>>>> Why didn't the home team play in white, as is the usual tradition in rugby?
>>>> SA probably wanted to keep their best kit clean.
>>>> Mike
>>> Certainly they kept their best players clean..
>>> Two Dogs
>> We've already established that it was SA 2nd team vs a Leicester 3rd team.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Are you saying it was a meaningless game, Mike?
>
> Two Dogs
It had the same significance of a Lions team playing an NZ, SA or Aussie
club/franchise.
Mike
William Clark
Mike <mikelovescham...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Which, of course, we never hear the end of if the Lions get beaten.
Ian Jennings
Not quite. The quota of locals in any NZ, SA or Aussie franchise would
be slightly higher, I'd guess...
Ian
Two Dogs
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <hd9t96$ho...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>
>
> Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Two Dogs wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 2:45 am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Two Dogs wrote:
> > >>> On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> DC wrote:
> > >>>>> Why didn't the home team play in white, as is the usual tradition in
> > >>>>> rugby?
> > >>>> SA probably wanted to keep their best kit clean.
> > >>>> Mike
> > >>> Certainly they kept their best players clean..
> > >>> Two Dogs
> > >> We've already established that it was SA 2nd team vs a Leicester 3rd team.
>
> > >> Mike
>
> > > Are you saying it was a meaningless game, Mike?
>
> > > Two Dogs
>
> > It had the same significance of a Lions team playing an NZ, SA or Aussie
> > club/franchise.
>
> > Mike
>
> Which, of course, we never hear the end of if the Lions get beaten.
I think it's a very important game, William. I'm all in favour of
touring teams playing provincial teams. It's good for the game. I love
tours that aren't fly in, play two tests, go home. The fans of today
are missing out.
And I'm thrilled Leicester won. Put it up there with Llanelli-NZ in
72 and Munster-NZ 1976- legendary...
Two Dogs
Two Dogs
78 for that Munster ganme
TD
Greig Blanchett
How about Munster? They've made a friggin'industry out of beating the
All Blacks way the hell back in last century. Are you saying they
SHOULDN'T? Fair play to Leicester, I say, and in 30 years time nobody
will remember whether a team was A, B or C (see what I did there? A
little nod to the proud Leicester heritage ...), at the end of the day
they've got themselves an international scalp.
--
greig
Mike
They probably wouldn't loose so many players to an international the
next day.
Mike
Ian Jennings
wrote:
Huh? I know you think the SH national teams are shite, but I thought
you'd at least realise that their players come from local
franchises...
Ian
Andrew Dunford
"Ian Jennings" <idjen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7af5f575-dc5d-4139...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
I think the point Mike is making is that if Leicester had their England
players available, they wouldn't have needed to plug all the gaps with
foreign imports.
Andrew
Mike
My point being that the Lions woudln't play a SA franchise and so the
franchise wouldn't be stripped of it's major players. Had England not
had a match that weekend Leicester would have put out a far stronger
team and one that has played together before.
> I think the point Mike is making is that if Leicester had their England
> players available, they wouldn't have needed to plug all the gaps with
> foreign imports.
>
> Andrew
Nottingham isn't foreign - although they are pretty dodgy types!
Mike
William Clark
Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
Exactly - my point is why try to denigrate the achievement of a club or
provincial side in beating a touring team? It's just sad to have to do
it.
Ian Jennings
wrote:
> Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> > "Ian Jennings" <idjenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Why wouldn't the Lions play a SA franchise? They quite clearly did on
the last tour (and those franchises were - disappointingly - in fact
stripped of their SA players).
And there's no way those guys I watched last Saturday against Oz would
have *improved* the Leicester team. Stick with the Bok-beaters!;)
Ian
Andrew Dunford
"William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wclark2-0528CA...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Amen. I attended Canterbury beating the Lions in 1983 and none of the
one-eyed inbred Cantabrian crowd gave a toss that the Lions had fielded
their reserve team owing to having a Test match the following Saturday.
Of course in those days there were four Canterbury players who backed up and
played the Test on the weekend as well. From memory it was the same for
Munster in 1978.
Andrew
Maxx
No. As I pointed out when the touring squad was announced - the core
of the Real Boks are there for the big Tests against France and
Ireland - the rest are weakened "development" players. Who knows what
they're there for.
It was a non-game.
Leicester calling it a Bok "scalp" is the equivalent of the Inglorious
Basterds scalping a German librarian in Nazi uniform on his way to a
fancy-dress party, and celebrating the fact - instead of realising
their mistake.
Klitty
Only those totally bored of rugby or so totally full of themselves that
they the feel others views beneath them would judge these games as
"unimportant" or "boring". They are a spectacle and the crowds prove
that.
--
Rum, Sodomy And The Lash. Join The Royal Navy.
Maxx
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> writes:
> > "William Clark" <wcla...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:wclark2-0528CA...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> In article <liphf554b287t70b9q2q2ufingf5543...@4ax.com>,
> >> Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:35:58 -0500, William Clark
> >>> <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
Definitely, *if* this was a Bok "2nd", "midweek" or "dirt-tracker"
team on tour.
It wasn't.
It was a non-game. The only big news would be if this "team" actually
won.
Which they almost did.
Andrew Dunford
"Maxx" <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote in message
news:8d31adae-9029-415c...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Nine members of the Tri Nations squad in the 22 but it's not a South African
side. Interesting.
Andrew
Stephen Doyle
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:7m13tvF...@mid.individual.net...
Poor old Maxx is so totally in Egypt, it's all a little pathetic.
Cheers
Stephen
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4597 (20091111) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Two Dogs
Leicester 1 South Africa 0
Two Dogs
Klitty
All I know is that an English club team beat the World Champions in
front of a record crowd ....
Lodi
Don't quite get the Egypt reference but if it means fair weather fans
jumping on and off the band wagon then I tend to agree with you.
The Springboks won the 3N. Congrats to the Springboks.
The Springboks lost to Leicester. Congrats to Leicester.
Lodi
Stephen Doyle
"Lodi" <lo...@ccr.com> wrote in message
news:hdfqdg$4v9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
In denial mate, :) de Nile geddit?
Two Dogs
I saw the same thing...how odd....
Two Dogs
Mike
Leicester's team was barely their third team, between injuries and
international callups their squad was so short that they borrowed a
second row from a neighbouring 2nd tier club.
At least SA had their second string team available and didn't have to
ask the AB or the Aussies to borrow a player.
If we're making excuses for not winning Leicester's would have been
better, if they had needed it.
Mike
BrritSki
William Clark
<8d31adae-9029-415c...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Maxx <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
You need to get a life.
Mark (newsgroups)
wrote:
[...]
> >> Only those totally bored of rugby or so totally full of themselves that
> >> they the feel others views beneath them would judge these games as
> >> "unimportant" or "boring". They are a spectacle and the crowds prove
> >> that.
>
> > Definitely, *if* this was a Bok "2nd", "midweek" or "dirt-tracker"
> > team on tour.
> > It wasn't.
>
> > It was a non-game. The only big news would be if this "team" actually
> > won.
> > Which they almost did.
>
> Leicester's team was barely their third team
How many of the usual match 22 were playing?
> At least SA had their second string team available and didn't have to
> ask the AB or the Aussies to borrow a player.
>
> If we're making excuses for not winning Leicester's would have been
> better, if they had needed it.
There are no excuses despite what fanboys say. Those guys wore the
green and gold, they were Springboks, and in 30 years time, the record
books and people who were there will still say :
Leicester 22
Springboks 17
(If you want my opinion on individual players I'd be happy to give it)
Maxx
Of course it was a South African side. Just a hugely kak one.
Maxx
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote in message
Mate, like I said when the squad was announced:
"All the main World Cup-winning, Lions-scalping, Tri-Nations-winning,
Currie Cup-winning and S14-winning (BULLS) Boks are in the Bok squad
for the EOYT. All the talk of a "weakened" squad really just meant
an
expanded, development section for the Leicester/Saracens/Italy games.
*I don't even mind if we lose those* (not the Italy one, of course).
I don't give a shit either way - record loss, record win, record
crowd, whatever. Bring on the Frogs.
Maxx
and?
Maxx
Well that pretty much sums you up doesn't it Klitty.
Maxx
Do you think the Springboks that won the 3N would've lost to
Leicester?
Maxx
another inglorious basterd.....
Maxx
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <8d31adae-9029-415c-8442-fa48c92b8...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Mate I was flying high in Coffe Bay with my lady and a whole lot of
tourists this weekend, which is about as good as any life can get .
Rugby was the last thing on my mind. I didn't even see the non-game.
Maxx
wrote:
> On Nov 12, 8:20 am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Maxx wrote:
> > > On Nov 11, 11:36 pm, Klitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >> Only those totally bored of rugby or so totally full of themselves that
> > >> they the feel others views beneath them would judge these games as
> > >> "unimportant" or "boring". They are a spectacle and the crowds prove
> > >> that.
>
> > > Definitely, *if* this was a Bok "2nd", "midweek" or "dirt-tracker"
> > > team on tour.
> > > It wasn't.
>
> > > It was a non-game. The only big news would be if this "team" actually
> > > won.
> > > Which they almost did.
>
> > Leicester's team was barely their third team
>
> How many of the usual match 22 were playing?
>
>At least SA had their second string team available and didn't have to
>ask the AB or the Aussies to borrow a player.
Nope sorry that wasn't a second string SA side. More like a
development side with sticky tape.
> > If we're making excuses for not winning Leicester's would have been
> > better, if they had needed it.
>
> There are no excuses despite what fanboys say. Those guys wore the
> green and gold,
err, apparently they actually they wore white Mark.
they were Springboks, and in 30 years time, the record
> books and people who were there will still say :
>
> Leicester 22
> Springboks 17
And the librarian was still in fancy dress.
> (If you want my opinion on individual players I'd be happy to give it)
Apparently Ashley Johnson was about the only guy to have a decent
game?
William Clark
<c45d470c-f21e-4987...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Maxx <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
> > > Poor old Maxx is so totally in Egypt, it's all a little pathetic.
> >
> > > Cheers
> > > Stephen
> >
> > Don't quite get the Egypt reference but if it means fair weather fans
> > jumping on and off the band wagon then I tend to agree with you.
> >
> > The Springboks won the 3N. Congrats to the Springboks.
> > The Springboks lost to Leicester. Congrats to Leicester.
>
> Do you think the Springboks that won the 3N would've lost to
> Leicester?
You know, thee is a reason that they play the game on the pitch, and not
on the internet.
Two Dogs
And it's still Leicester 1 South Africa 0
For a guy who called it a "non game" and is professing not to care at
all you sure are posting a lot.
Where there's smoke there's a saffer in denial..
Two Dogs
Greig Blanchett
<sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
[...]
>
>Do you think the Springboks that won the 3N would've lost to
>Leicester?
Nope. Who would've expected it? But they did. What a turnip for the
books, eh?
--
greig
alvey
>
> Do you think the Springboks that won the 3N would've lost to
> Leicester?
Yep.
alvey
Charlie Pearce
>Why didn't the home team play in white, as is the usual tradition in rugby?
You could have asked that question when New Zealand hosted France in
June.
Charlie
--
Email killed by spammers - please ask for the real one.
Mike
> On Nov 11, 3:34 am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> Andrew Dunford wrote:
>>
>>> "Ian Jennings" <idjenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7af5f575-dc5d-4139...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Nov 10, 2:58 pm, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ian Jennings wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 9, 3:15 pm, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Two Dogs wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 2:45 am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Two Dogs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Mike
>>>>> <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why didn't the home team play in white, as is the usual
>>>>> tradition >>>>>>> in rugby?
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>>> Certainly they kept their best players clean..
>>>>>>>>>> Two Dogs
>>>>>>>>> We've already established that it was SA 2nd team vs a Leicester
>>>>> 3rd >>>> team.
>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>> Are you saying it was a meaningless game, Mike?
>>>>>>>> Two Dogs
>>>>>>> It had the same significance of a Lions team playing an NZ, SA or
>>>>>>> Aussie
>>>>>>> club/franchise.
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>> be slightly higher, I'd guess...
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>> They probably wouldn't loose so many players to an international the
>>>>> next day.
>>>>> Mike
>>>> Huh? I know you think the SH national teams are shite, but I thought
>>>> you'd at least realise that their players come from local
>>>> franchises...
>> My point being that the Lions woudln't play a SA franchise and so the
>> franchise wouldn't be stripped of it's major players. Had England not
>> had a match that weekend Leicester would have put out a far stronger
>> team and one that has played together before.
>
> Why wouldn't the Lions play a SA franchise? They quite clearly did on
> the last tour (and those franchises were - disappointingly - in fact
> stripped of their SA players).
They wouldn't play a franchise the day before a test.
> And there's no way those guys I watched last Saturday against Oz would
> have *improved* the Leicester team. Stick with the Bok-beaters!;)
>
> Ian
Andrew Dunford
"Maxx" <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote in message
news:3520f412-5913-451a...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
You should care about every match played in the national colours, unless
you're a plastic fan.
Andrew
Ian Jennings
wrote:
> Ian Jennings wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 3:34 am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> >>> "Ian Jennings" <idjenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:7af5f575-dc5d-4139...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On Nov 10, 2:58 pm, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Ian Jennings wrote:
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Two Dogs wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 2:45 am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Two Dogs wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Mike
> >>>>> <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> DC wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why didn't the home team play in white, as is the usual
> >>>>> tradition >>>>>>> in rugby?
> >>>>>>>>>>> SA probably wanted to keep their best kit clean.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>>>>> Certainly they kept their best players clean..
> >>>>>>>>>> Two Dogs
> >>>>>>>>> We've already established that it was SA 2nd team vs a Leicester
> >>>>> 3rd >>>> team.
> >>>>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>>> Are you saying it was a meaningless game, Mike?
> >>>>>>>> Two Dogs
> >>>>>>> It had the same significance of a Lions team playing an NZ, SA or
> >>>>>>> Aussie
> >>>>>>> club/franchise.
> >>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>> be slightly higher, I'd guess...
> >>>>>> Ian
> >>>>> They probably wouldn't loose so many players to an international the
> >>>>> next day.
> >>>>> Mike
> >>>> Huh? I know you think the SH national teams are shite, but I thought
> >>>> you'd at least realise that their players come from local
> >>>> franchises...
> >> My point being that the Lions woudln't play a SA franchise and so the
> >> franchise wouldn't be stripped of it's major players. Had England not
> >> had a match that weekend Leicester would have put out a far stronger
> >> team and one that has played together before.
>
> > Why wouldn't the Lions play a SA franchise? They quite clearly did on
> > the last tour (and those franchises were - disappointingly - in fact
> > stripped of their SA players).
>
> They wouldn't play a franchise the day before a test.
No they wouldn't. Doesn't alter the fact that the franchises were
devoid of Boks, though. (Not that I approve of this, I hasten to add.
I much prefer real confrontations between two fired-up teams - which
last Friday was a good example of).
Ian
Ian Jennings
> On Nov 9, 10:15 pm, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Two Dogs wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 2:45 am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Two Dogs wrote:
> > >>> On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> DC wrote:
> > >>>>> Why didn't the home team play in white, as is the usual tradition in rugby?
> > >>>> SA probably wanted to keep their best kit clean.
> > >>>> Mike
> > >>> Certainly they kept their best players clean..
> > >>> Two Dogs
> > >> We've already established that it was SA 2nd team vs a Leicester 3rd team.
>
> > >> Mike
>
> > > Are you saying it was a meaningless game, Mike?
>
> > > Two Dogs
>
> > It had the same significance of a Lions team playing an NZ, SA or Aussie
> > club/franchise.
>
> of the Real Boks are there for the big Tests against France and
> Ireland - the rest are weakened "development" players. Who knows what
> they're there for.
>
> It was a non-game.
>
> Leicester calling it a Bok "scalp" is the equivalent of the Inglorious
> Basterds scalping a German librarian in Nazi uniform on his way to a
> fancy-dress party, and celebrating the fact - instead of realising
> their mistake.
Oh fuck off Max. You're an embarrassment. The only smidgen of truth in
your ungracious comments is that the defeat is not a reason for Bok
supporters to slit their wrists. But it certainly is a reason for
Leicester fans to celebrate.
Ian
northshoreguynz
Nicely said Ian. We all have our crosses to bear. God knows there are
enough AB fanboys out there.
Cheers
Stephen
Mark (newsgroups)
> On Nov 12, 3:08 pm, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
[...]
> > > If we're making excuses for not winning Leicester's would have been
> > > better, if they had needed it.
>
> > There are no excuses despite what fanboys say. Those guys wore the
> > green and gold,
>
> err, apparently they actually they wore white Mark.
You've stumped me there Maxx, apparently my whole argument is moot.
> > (If you want my opinion on individual players I'd be happy to give it)
>
> Apparently Ashley Johnson was about the only guy to have a decent
> game?
Yes, if you like to focus on 3 minutes of an entire game then he
played well.
If you want to look at his work rate in the tight and why his head was
continually up like a meercat in the scrums while his team mates were
being shoved backwards then you might, like me, prefer a grafter.
Neilsons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lucky you don't care about the result - because I'd hate to think how many
mesages there would be if you were upset ...
Cheers, aMtt
didgerman
>
>
> "William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-0528CA...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> In article <liphf554b287t70b9...@4ax.com>,
>> Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:35:58 -0500, William Clark
>>> <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>>
I saw the AB's on that tour.
One of the main reasons I will never grow a moustache......
>
> Andrew
didgerman
> Definitely, *if* this was a Bok "2nd", "midweek" or "dirt-tracker"
> team on tour.
> It wasn't.
What was it then? A come-back tour from Boney M?
>
> It was a non-game. The only big news would be if this "team" actually
> won.
Yeah, of course it didn't count because it wasn't at home, played at
altitude, against players that had just finished an 11 month season.
Your usual ingredients for ensuring a win.
> Which they almost did.
Almost? Fucking nowhere near, your Boks were raped by part-timers.
Pfffft.
Mark (newsgroups)
wrote:
> On Nov 12, 8:20 am, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Maxx wrote:
> > > On Nov 11, 11:36 pm, Klitty <mitti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >> Only those totally bored of rugby or so totally full of themselves that
> > >> they the feel others views beneath them would judge these games as
> > >> "unimportant" or "boring". They are a spectacle and the crowds prove
> > >> that.
>
> > > Definitely, *if* this was a Bok "2nd", "midweek" or "dirt-tracker"
> > > team on tour.
> > > It wasn't.
>
> > > It was a non-game. The only big news would be if this "team" actually
> > > won.
> > > Which they almost did.
>
> > Leicester's team was barely their third team
>
> How many of the usual match 22 were playing?
Anyone?
William Clark
"Neilsons" <matt.n...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
Amen.
Klitty
Not really since I didn't watch it. As I said I only heard that an
English club team beat the World Champions. No one mentioned the team
make up. Tough titty Max Fanboi.
--
Rum, Sodomy And The Lash. Join The Royal Navy.
Maxx
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <c45d470c-f21e-4987-ae4b-4f46819c2...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Guaranteed 100% the Real Boks would win mate.
Maxx
Beast
Bismark
Smit
Botha
Matfield
Brussouw
Burger/Smith
Spies
du Preez
M Steyn
Habana
de Villiers
Fourie
Petersen
F Steyn
Any of these guys remotely near Leicester during the game?
Maxx
lol
Maxx
Green & Gold are SA's national colours.
Maxx
For sure, I don't deny Leicester fans their celebrations. Just as I
wouldn't deny the Basterds their celebrations - how would they know
the librarian is not a real Nazi?
Maxx
> Maxx wrote:
> > Definitely, *if* this was a Bok "2nd", "midweek" or "dirt-tracker"
> > team on tour.
> > It wasn't.
>
> What was it then? A come-back tour from Boney M?
lol
> > It was a non-game. The only big news would be if this "team" actually
> > won.
>
> Yeah, of course it didn't count because it wasn't at home, played at
> altitude, against players that had just finished an 11 month season.
> Your usual ingredients for ensuring a win.
>
> > Which they almost did.
>
> Almost? Fucking nowhere near, your Boks were raped by part-timers.
> Pfffft.
lol
Maxx
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <hdj6qc$o9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you.
Maxx
So that's still all you know.
Well summed up again mate.
Greig Blanchett
<sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
Well they didn't. Go figure, huh?
--
greig
Greig Blanchett
<sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
No idea. What about these guys?
Percy Montgomery
Joost van der Westhuizen
Paul Roos
Gerhard Morkel
Bennie Osler
Danie Craven
Hennie Muller
Hennie van Zyl
Moaner van Heerden
Francois Pienaar
Frik du Preez
Morne du Plessis
Naas Botha
Danie Gerber
I suspect they weren't playing either. So what?
--
greig
Klitty
Did you take a knock as a kid?
What more do I need to know? Leicester are not my team and SA are a
waning force. All I know is that they lost to the club team. I hope they
do better against Saracens ....
--
What is New Zealands contribution to carbon emisions? Dropping off the Wallabies on the way home.
alvey
>
> You should care about every match played in the national colours, unless
> you're a plastic fan.
Maxx has the same cutting edge as the blades of Mr Dyson's new plastic fan.
http://www.dyson.com.au/fans/?gclid=CO-EyuKui54CFQMupAodEykUqw
alvey
Maxx
lol
Maxx
lol. Idiot.
Maxx
and your point is?
Maxx
Still all you know then. Not exactly a sponge are you mate?
> I hope they do better against Saracens ....
15 Earl Rose, 14 Odwa Ndungane, 13 Juan de Jongh, 12 Wynand Olivier,
11 Jongi Nokwe, 10 Ruan Pienaar, 9 Heini Adams, 8 Ashley Johnson, 7
Jean Deysel, 6 Dewald Potgieter (c), 5 Andries Bekker, 4 Danie
Rossouw, 3 CJ van der Linde, 2 Adriaan Strauss, 1 Wian du Preez.
Subs: 16 Bandise Maku, 17 Heinke van der Merwe, 18 Alistair
Hargreaves, 19 Davon Raubenheimer, 20 Francois Hougaard, 21 Meyer
Bosman, 22 Riaan Viljoen.
Guaranteed.
Maxx
lol
Greig Blanchett
<sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
>On Nov 14, 8:48�pm, Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:00:10 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>>
[...]
>>
>> >Guaranteed 100% the Real Boks would win mate.
>>
>> Well they didn't. Go figure, huh?
>
>lol. Idiot.
What don't you get Max? This isn't rocket surgery. The Boks played
Leicester and lost. Not only that, it was a third rate Leicester with
players borrowed from lower division clubs. The Boks took a chance and
fucked up. They underestimated the opposition. It wasn't the Sharks;
it wasn't the Bulls; it was the Boks, and the blew it. It doesn't
matter how much you scream and gnash your teeth and stamp your tiny
feet, that WAS the Springboks. Now you can argue about how "real" they
were until you're blue in the face, but it won't change a thing. In
fact, I'd love to see you tell one of them, to their face, that they
weren't "real" Springboks. Please try it and report back on how they
handle it. If you can still talk with all your teeth missing.
--
greig
Greig Blanchett
<sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
Same as yours. A bunch of guys weren't playing. The Boks lost. Would
it have helped if these guys had been playing? Possibly. People still
say "Bring Back Buck"in New Zealand. But if we lose, we don't say it's
because Buck wasn't playing. At least most of us don't.
--
greig
Andrew Dunford
"Greig Blanchett" <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote in message
news:irn1g5pdiie8codfe...@4ax.com...
Besides, the Great Brussow played and you'd think he could win it on his
own.
Andrew
Mark (newsgroups)
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:44:49 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>
>
> <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
> >On Nov 14, 8:48 pm, Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:00:10 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>
> [...]
>
> >> >Guaranteed 100% the Real Boks would win mate.
>
> >> Well they didn't. Go figure, huh?
>
> >lol. Idiot.
>
> What don't you get Max? This isn't rocket surgery. The Boks played
> Leicester and lost. Not only that, it was a third rate Leicester
Leicester had 44 players not available?
Two Dogs
Was at a game in Washington DC yesterday and saw a Bring Back Buck T
shirt...
Two Dogs
Klitty
>
> Was at a game in Washington DC yesterday and saw a Bring Back Buck T
> shirt...
>
> Two Dogs
Did the perpetrator sport a mullet?
Maxx
Umm, no.
I mentioned *the Boks that won the 3N*.
I then listed *the Boks that won the 3N*.
You pulled a whole lot of *random players* out your arse.
You said *the Boks that won the 3N* played against Leicester.
*None of them did*
Maxx
Umm, no he didn't Andy. Sorry.
> and you'd think he could win it on his own.
He almost did against France, you're right.
Maxx
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:44:49 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>
>
>
> <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
> >On Nov 14, 8:48 pm, Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:00:10 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>
> [...]
>
> >> >Guaranteed 100% the Real Boks would win mate.
>
> >> Well they didn't. Go figure, huh?
>
> >lol. Idiot.
>
> What don't you get Max? This isn't rocket surgery.
lol, did you mean rocket science or brain surgery mate?
>The Boks played
> Leicester and lost. Not only that, it was a third rate Leicester with
> players borrowed from lower division clubs. The Boks took a chance and
> fucked up. They underestimated the opposition. It wasn't the Sharks;
> it wasn't the Bulls; it was the Boks, and the blew it. It doesn't
> matter how much you scream and gnash your teeth and stamp your tiny
> feet, that WAS the Springboks. Now you can argue about how "real" they
> were until you're blue in the face, but it won't change a thing. In
> fact, I'd love to see you tell one of them, to their face, that they
> weren't "real" Springboks. Please try it and report back on how they
> handle it. If you can still talk with all your teeth missing.
Mate, there's a difference between a Springbok Test team and a
"midweek, dirt-tracker" team (and this midweek team is even scraping
the barrel of that definition). Every idiot knows that if New
Zealand, Australia, the Lions, England, South Africa, or whoever, lose
to some mid-week provincial team it's not the same as the "World Cup
winning", "Six Nations Winning" or "Tri-Nations winning" team losing
to them - because they're quite obviously *not the same teams
playing*.
Every idiot but you, apparently.
Neilsons
On Nov 16, 7:13 am, Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:44:49 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>
>
>
> <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
> >On Nov 14, 8:48 pm, Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:00:10 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>
> [...]
>
> >> >Guaranteed 100% the Real Boks would win mate.
>
> >> Well they didn't. Go figure, huh?
>
> >lol. Idiot.
>
> What don't you get Max? This isn't rocket surgery.
lol, did you mean rocket science or brain surgery mate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wow - you're quick - although being a genius that shouldn't surprise us ...
cheers, Matt
Two Dogs
Yes, that Maxxie was very quick indeed to pick that up. Anyone have
a lollie they can give him a a reward? Just don't point out that he
missed the obvious, he'll lol himself into a lobotomy..
Two Dogs
Greig Blanchett
<sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
So this other Bok imposter team - who is the coach? Are they
sanctioned by SARU? Somebody should be told.
--
greig
Greig Blanchett
<sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 7:13�am, Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:44:49 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>>
>>
>>
>> <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
>> >On Nov 14, 8:48�pm, Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:00:10 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> >Guaranteed 100% the Real Boks would win mate.
>>
>> >> Well they didn't. Go figure, huh?
>>
>> >lol. Idiot.
>>
>> What don't you get Max? This isn't rocket surgery.
>
>
>lol, did you mean rocket science or brain surgery mate?
How much did you pay for your Mensa badge? Just askin' like ...
--
greig
Andrew Dunford
"Maxx" <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote in message
news:08cd0acd-131f-485d...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Oops. Apparently I can't read.
Andrew
Stephen Doyle
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:7mds7kF...@mid.individual.net...
Well there goes your Mensa certificate then, unless its fron The University
of Old Brunswick...
Cheers
Stephen
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4613 (20091116) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Mark (newsgroups)
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4613 (20091116) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
Fair point, but not sure I agree.
Klitty
Start Maxipad with a one word catalyst for that gay game he likes. Here
I'll provide it:
"whoosh"
Lets see how far his genius can take him ...
Maxx
Or perhaps you missed the obvious.
Maxx
Men of South Africa? I got it for free when I climbed Table Mountain.
Maxx
If you mistook Rossouw for Brussow, fair enough. Otherwise it does
explain quite a bit.
Maxx
> "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote in message
I dount Andy has ever been as far as Cape Town.
Maxx
> Two Dogs <nzre...@aol.com> writes:
> > On Nov 16, 1:53 pm, "Neilsons" <matt.neil...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> "Maxx" <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote in message
>
> >>news:eb283241-672a-4bd7...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Nov 16, 7:13 am, Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:44:49 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>
> >> > <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote:
> >> > >On Nov 14, 8:48 pm, Greig Blanchett <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote:
> >> > >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:00:10 -0800 (PST), Maxx
>
> >> > [...]
>
> >> > >> >Guaranteed 100% the Real Boks would win mate.
>
> >> > >> Well they didn't. Go figure, huh?
>
> >> > >lol. Idiot.
>
> >> > What don't you get Max? This isn't rocket surgery.
>
> >> lol, did you mean rocket science or brain surgery mate?
>
> >> Wow - you're quick - although being a genius that shouldn't surprise us ...
>
> >> cheers, Matt
>
> > Yes, that Maxxie was very quick indeed to pick that up. Anyone have
> > a lollie they can give him a a reward? Just don't point out that he
> > missed the obvious, he'll lol himself into a lobotomy..
>
> > Two Dogs
>
> Start Maxipad with a one word catalyst for that gay game he likes. Here
> I'll provide it:
>
> "whoosh"
wind
Greig Blanchett
Andrew Dunford
"Maxx" <sc...@executivemail.co.za> wrote in message
news:92627f27-3f7f-4877...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Indeed it explains that I read the original team - in which Brussow was
named - but didn't know he was subsequently withdrawn. Nothing to do with
Rossouw:
Some nice quotes there from your esteemed coach e.g.
"This is a full-on Springbok side and we chose the best combinations to
ensure we keep the momentum going from a very successful season."
"We don't want to just struggle along and play all the new guys together."
Andrew
Maxx
genius
Maxx
>
> Some nice quotes there from your esteemed coach e.g.
>
> "This is a full-on Springbok side and we chose the best combinations to
> ensure we keep the momentum going from a very successful season."
Aah a full-on Springbok side. Thought John Smit & co. might be in
the mix for that.
Quoting PdV of all people doesn't exactly strengthen anyone's case,
Andy.