This Innes Bui'ness!
Bill Taylor
This Innes buiness is really this HART business, of course. Leaving aside
for the moment the player himself, I have to agree with almost the whole
of the AB-supporter part of rsru, that it's *very* impudent of him to
bring in a ring-in who hasn't played union in yonks, and wasn't really
the cat's pyjamas last time he did. I think we all seem to be agreed
on this, (except for Rick Boyd who is obviously unfamiliar with that part
of the rsru charter where it says that no articles supporting Innes may
ever be posted). And also, he's presumably paid out mucho dollars for
the man, which is all our money, ultimately, in a sense, as we're the
game's taxpayers.
BUT. There's just one thing that stops me from giving slimy John a
total rark-up over this incident... results! Since he took over, we
have had only one loss, (a non-counter), and one draw. That's a pretty
damn fine record for any coach, even if he did take over a built team;
after all, he's done waaaaay better then the builder.
And also, Hart has this habit of really riling up all us rsru-ers, then
backtracking when it seems he's made a blunder, and having it come right
after all. Frustrating for the Hart-shooter, as I used to be in the old
days. Frinstance, he pissed us all off mightily by dropping Josh, but
brought him back soon after. (I didn't notice any difference in his
play, but some claimed an improvement.) Then again, he pissed off all
us non-Dorklanders by keeping Carlos Spendthrift for a while, and just
when we were about to explode with it, back comes Merts *just* at the
time when Carlo seemed to be going off! So Slimy John has sure got some
sweet timing, and the results seem to bear it out. Blowers' tour was
seen to have been a good thing; maybe even Mayerhoffler is being kept
in reserve so that the dreaded furriners don't get too good a look at
him before WC99 ! That would be clever boxing, and he's as good as
said that Mayerhoffler will be an AB one day. The only permanent
blunder seems to be the retention of Mark Carthorse, but maybe the
AB's can stand *one* free-loader.
So then, what about this Innes buinnes? I never liked him, but then I
never liked Hart either. I've given Hart a chance, ever since his
appointment, and he has come up trumps, more or less. So maybe I should
do the same for this leaguie as well? IMHO, Innes *always* belonged to
league, always was headed there, lost us the WC91 semi with his leaguie
crash-balling which was *utterly* predictable & thus useless, and he
cheered me up enormously when he buggered off to the drongo game where he
belonged. But still, I'm prepared to wait and see, and give Hart and
his protege' a chance on this one.
Mind you, Hart is rapidly using up his slack, with me. I'm prepared to
accept (grudgingly) a loss away to the Boks in the 3N, by not too much,
if necessary. BUT THAT IS ALL! Any other game lost this year, and I'll
be leading the petition collection for the "dump JH" campaign.
So then, where are we? I think Frank Bumps is on the way out, sadly.
But McLeod and Iremia (if JH shakes off his Laurie Mains disease) look
like good replacements. Waltzer Little looks good still, and Mark
"the spark" Mayerhoffler is waiting in the wings. We have two prime cut
first 5's, and talent to burn in the back 3. Things look good; so maybe
Innes is being thought of as an impact replacement?
As to Innes himself, I think it's been best summed up by my boy Hadrian,
(temporarily off-group), who some may recall used to post in his own name
with a cute "wall" signature. He observes that Innes is the SH equivalent
of Will Carling. Loved by his supporters, (few though they be), yet seen
by everyone else as basically a reliable but unimaginative stand-in; good
speed, excellent defense, loves to crash, not much spark or imagination.
Seems a good analogy to me!
---------------
Bill; (formerly pattern-recognition expert)
---------------
Incidentally, on the topic of play-alikes; has anyone else noticed that
Neil Jenkins is the NH version of Simon Culhane? - excellent game-winner
with his supremely reliable place-kicking boot, pretty tidy defense, but
no great speed or vision - a good competent stand-in at 1st-5 while we
wait for the experts to recover from injury.
Steve Turner
snip the wind up
He observes that Innes is the SH equivalent
> of Will Carling. Loved by his supporters, (few though they be), yet seen
> by everyone else as basically a reliable but unimaginative stand-in; good
> speed, excellent defense, loves to crash, not much spark or imagination.
Bill, I think Craig Innes surprised many people here in Sydney after a less
than auspicious RL career in the UK. Upon arrival he was given the keys to
both the solarium and the weight room. Playing for Manly Waringah he was
able to go surfing without the annoyance of sandflies. Measures like these
improved his self esteem.
And so Craig became much more than you suggest, in fact he leaves RL as
arguably it's best centre. If he hasn't completely forgotten the game of XV
he's a much better proposition than what you've got. 'spark & imagination'?
Didn't help Carlos Spencer's career path ! Cheers.....Steve
Tony Elson
Bill Taylor wrote:
>
>
>
> Mind you, Hart is rapidly using up his slack, with me. I'm prepared to
> accept (grudgingly) a loss away to the Boks in the 3N, by not too much,
> if necessary. BUT THAT IS ALL! Any other game lost this year, and I'll
> be leading the petition collection for the "dump JH" campaign.
>
> So then, where are we? I think Frank Bumps is on the way out, sadly.
> But McLeod and Iremia (if JH shakes off his Laurie Mains disease) look
> like good replacements. Waltzer Little looks good still, and Mark
> "the spark" Mayerhoffler is waiting in the wings. We have two prime cut
> first 5's, and talent to burn in the back 3. Things look good; so maybe
> Innes is being thought of as an impact replacement?
We have four prime cut 1st fives. The two "incumbents", Culhane (if he
regains his form) and Feeney. On top of that there is that Cantab boy
MacDonald who some think is a 1st five (not myself mind you - yet, but he is
still young). We have some very good depth right now in the backs.
>
--
Tony Elson
_____________________________________________
Before marriage, a man yearns for his woman. After
marriage, the "y" becomes silent.
Tracey Nelson
In article <6bmh9d$h6c$1...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote:
>Incidentally, on the topic of play-alikes; has anyone else noticed that
>Neil Jenkins is the NH version of Simon Culhane? - excellent game-winner
>with his supremely reliable place-kicking boot, pretty tidy defense, but
>no great speed or vision - a good competent stand-in at 1st-5 while we
>wait for the experts to recover from injury.
And they're about as good looking as one another too!! :-)
(Hey!! Who let that girl out of the cupboard!!)
Trace.
rick boyd
Bill Taylor wrote:
>
> This Innes buiness is really this HART business, of course. [...]
Hart is an easy man to dislike. Obviously a back in his playing days, he
is everything the solid NZ rugby fan despises -- urbane, articulate,
intelligent and able to write his own name without the help of a
dictionary. No gruff, bluff unsmiling giant he.
But he is as smart as a fox with a degree in Cleverness from the
University of Cunning Bastards.
Smart enough to know that Innes was drafted into the All Blacks as first
choice centre in 1990 or was it 1991, and a good, strong-running young
centre he was. A pity he was involved in the debacle that was the 1991
world cup when the silly old halfwits that ran the NZRU sent Wiley and
Hart together to co-coach the All Blacks to Europe. What a disaster!
Wiley no doubt had the final say on the game plan because they used the
same tired old crash plan with Auckland drone Bernie McCahill and Innes
to try and break the defence of Horan and Little, the world's best
defensive midfield, by running into them repeatedly.
Innes has done his sentence in Thickhead Crashball and is returning to
the true game a bigger and no doubt wiser man. Like other quality
players (Gibbs, Bateman) who have returned, he will only have developed
to our gain. All going well, I hope and fully expect to see him regain
his place in the All Blacks and take us through to our rightful place as
World Cup Winners (please note Andre and Koos) and hopefully world
champions as well.
I had the pleasure of meaning Innes in 1995 when he played for Perth
Reds. His brother played for my club, Perth-Bayswater that year, when I
was President. He struck me as a thoroughly nice bloke (on the strength
of ten minutes chat on the sidelines, at least).
So there you have it Bill, on this one solitary occasion we may have to
disagree.
And am I to believe you were courageous enough to name your son Hadrian?
* -- Rick Boyd
* Perth-Bayswater Rugby Union Football Club Inc of Western Australia
* http://www.wt.com.au/~boyd/perth-baysw.htm
Justin Mansfield
>(Hey!! Who let that girl out of the cupboard!!)
>
>Trace.
Whaddaya doing out of the kitchen? Obviously the chain's a bit long.
Justin
Justin Mansfield
>Wiley no doubt had the final say on the game plan because they used the
>same tired old crash plan with Auckland drone Bernie McCahill and Innes
>to try and break the defence of Horan and Little, the world's best
>defensive midfield, by running into them repeatedly.
Hang on, this is the coach who had the Ranfurly Shield team that
consisted of Warwick Taylor and Victor Simpson, hardly the crash and
bash midfield plan your attributing to him, plus The Shoe and Smokin
immediately prior to the RWC91, so you can't say that Wylie has a
preiliction for that game plan.
Look again at the semi from 91 and I'm sure you will be amazed, as I
still am that everytime JT got the ball, he never once tried to beat
Campese on the outside, but actually ran at the gap between him and
Little, obviously coming unstuck against the defence of the latter.
This wasn't JT's normal way of playing The Game, so it must have been
given to him as an option, and who was the acknowledged backs coach at
the RWC? Why it was Mr John Hart, who it seems wouldn't know a
backline move if it sidled up to him and invited him home for a drink,
and a bit of how's your father.
Justin
max reid
rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> wrote:
>Bill Taylor wrote:
>>
>> This Innes buiness is really this HART business, of course. [...]
>
>Hart is an easy man to dislike. Obviously a back in his playing days, he
>is everything the solid NZ rugby fan despises -- urbane, articulate,
>intelligent and able to write his own name without the help of a
>dictionary. No gruff, bluff unsmiling giant he.
>
>But he is as smart as a fox with a degree in Cleverness from the
>University of Cunning Bastards.
>
>Smart enough to know that Innes was drafted into the All Blacks as first
>choice centre in 1990 or was it 1991, and a good, strong-running young
>centre he was. A pity he was involved in the debacle that was the 1991
>world cup when the silly old halfwits that ran the NZRU sent Wiley and
>Hart together to co-coach the All Blacks to Europe. What a disaster!
>same tired old crash plan with Auckland drone Bernie McCahill and Innes
>to try and break the defence of Horan and Little, the world's best
>defensive midfield, by running into them repeatedly.
>
>the true game a bigger and no doubt wiser man. Like other quality
>players (Gibbs, Bateman) who have returned, he will only have developed
>to our gain. All going well, I hope and fully expect to see him regain
>his place in the All Blacks and take us through to our rightful place as
>World Cup Winners (please note Andre and Koos) and hopefully world
>champions as well.
>
>I had the pleasure of meaning Innes in 1995 when he played for Perth
>Reds. His brother played for my club, Perth-Bayswater that year, when I
>was President. He struck me as a thoroughly nice bloke (on the strength
>of ten minutes chat on the sidelines, at least).
>
>So there you have it Bill, on this one solitary occasion we may have to
>disagree.
>
>And am I to believe you were courageous enough to name your son Hadrian?
>* -- Rick Boyd
Well said Rick, the proof will be in the pud! Your analysis has the good fortune to be
unblinkered. The Court Jester Bill had a rough night I think, he got to work this
morning & decided to kick shit out of Auckland for a change. God, he hates successful
people. Yeh, well, nice thing about the rsru, is you can call someone a slimy without
getting carried out on a stretcher, and we can't see how slimy he is. I think we are
supposed to think he's hillarious!
Cheers
Maxwell
john cawston
Bill Taylor wrote:
> This Innes buiness is really this HART business, of course.
Rest snipped.
Bill, If you are ever in Rotorua, give us a call. We have an old
Grandmother clock which hasent ticked for years.
I'm sure you could fix this, no trouble!
Cheers
JC
Brett Chapman
Justin Mansfield <mans...@REMOVE.clsasia.com> wrote in article
> Hang on, this is the coach who had the Ranfurly Shield team that
> consisted of Warwick Taylor and Victor Simpson, hardly the crash and
> bash midfield plan your attributing to him, plus The Shoe and Smokin
> immediately prior to the RWC91, so you can't say that Wylie has a
> preiliction for that game plan.
>
> Look again at the semi from 91 and I'm sure you will be amazed, as I
> still am that everytime JT got the ball, he never once tried to beat
> Campese on the outside, but actually ran at the gap between him and
> Little, obviously coming unstuck against the defence of the latter.
> This wasn't JT's normal way of playing The Game, so it must have been
Well said . I was talking to a bloke about Innes today , and he said that
at club level he wasn't a crash it player , but was pushed into this style
to fill the shoes of Stanley in the Auckland team .
Cheers Brett
Rob Wallace
Justin Mansfield wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:49:19 +0800, rick boyd
> <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> wrote:
>
> >same tired old crash plan with Auckland drone Bernie McCahill and Innes
> >to try and break the defence of Horan and Little, the world's best
> >defensive midfield, by running into them repeatedly.
>
> consisted of Warwick Taylor and Victor Simpson, hardly the crash and
> bash midfield plan your attributing to him, plus The Shoe and Smokin
> immediately prior to the RWC91, so you can't say that Wylie has a
> preiliction for that game plan.
>
> Look again at the semi from 91 and I'm sure you will be amazed, as I
> still am that everytime JT got the ball, he never once tried to beat
> Campese on the outside, but actually ran at the gap between him and
> Little, obviously coming unstuck against the defence of the latter.
> This wasn't JT's normal way of playing The Game, so it must have been
> the RWC? Why it was Mr John Hart, who it seems wouldn't know a
> backline move if it sidled up to him and invited him home for a drink,
> and a bit of how's your father.
>
> Justin
Ummmm, Hart wasn't actually the backline coach y'know, just the
assistant/co-coach. Over xmas I reread both of Hart's books due to the
anti-Hart traffic on RSRU. Reading between the lines, Hart and his
supporters promoted him as the messiah of NZ rugby and when
given/offered the job of co-coach for '91WC he prob should have turned
it down, so all the glory or failure fell on Wyllie. But with his ego
and supporters Hart thought he could turn it around. All this did was
give a big mess where Wyllie was the boss, Hart wasn't and the players
had split loyalties between the two and there was real lack of cohesion
in the preparation and planning. If you want to blame someone for the
fiasco of WC'91 blame the NZRFU. Hart clearly values players differently
to others ie Carter but then so did Wyllie [ie Shane Philpott] so
blaming one or two players like McCahill is pointless when the whole
exercise was stuffed from the top due to lack of any coherent policies.
You can compare that to '87 where the 3 selectors were very much in
agreement in the squad [the only player Hart pushed to include was MJ]
and the game plan. Also Hart and Wyllie had very little contact with
Wyllie taking the forwards in the SI and Hart the backs in the north and
Lahore doing both.
Cheers
Rob
john cawston
Rob Wallace wrote:
And, anyway, Mike Brewer makes it plain in his book that a number of
high profile ABs were arrogant and not fully fit for WC91. Innes was a
young AB having to contend with a drifting defence against the two best
centres in the world at the time. He did his best in a team that was
clearly riven with discension and other personal agendas. Indeed, I
wonder if he and other young ABs moved to League because of the eletist
nature of that team, as well as the money and career options. Whatever,
I absolve him of blame for personally losing WC91 :)-.
Now whether he is the right man for the Blues or ABs at 2nd 5 or centre
is another matter altogether. But I have this feeling.....
Cheers
JC
Charles Lever
> Rob Wallace wrote:
> > If you want to blame someone for the
> > fiasco of WC'91 blame the NZRFU.
Yeah.
john cawston wrote
> And, anyway, Mike Brewer makes it plain in his book that a number of
> high profile ABs were arrogant and not fully fit for WC91.
On the field you'd have to look at the captain.
Bill Taylor
rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au>, having the intolerable temerity to
disagree with me on even the slightest detail, writes:
|> Hart is an easy man to dislike.
Q: Why do so many people dislike Hart at first sight?
A: It saves time later.
|> he is everything the solid NZ rugby fan despises -- urbane, articulate,
|> intelligent and able to write his own name without the help of a
|> dictionary.
Hell - he sounds just like a maths lecturer!
|> No gruff, bluff unsmiling giant he.
Yeah, ooh, mmhhggh!
<scratches under armpit with hand previously trailing knuckles along ground>
|> But he is as smart as a fox with a degree in Cleverness from the
|> University of Cunning Bastards.
In Paris.
|> A pity he was involved in the debacle that was the 1991
|> world cup when the silly old halfwits that ran the NZRU sent Wiley and
|> Hart together to co-coach the All Blacks to Europe. What a disaster!
This story has been repeated so often here, that I'm forced to conclude
there may be something in it.
|> Innes has done his sentence in Thickhead Crashball
Yes - I expect he only knows the one whole sentence. He's one of the more
modern style AB:- gruff, bluff, inanely grinning giant. I bet he got on
well with Tim Horan. (And Shane Warne.)
|> All going well, I hope and fully expect to see him regain
|> his place in the All Blacks
With Hart's known bias, I think we can all agree on that prognostiboo.
|> So there you have it Bill, on this one solitary occasion we may have to
|> disagree.
Don't give it a thought, dear chap! (BTW, I assume you weren't hoping for
a legacy from me?)
No but seriously, we don't altogether disagree. If you really hung on my
every word, as you are so wont to do, you will have noticed that I'm
prepared to suspend my old dislike and go with him, till it crashes and
burns. One of us is going to have to eat some rsru crow before the year's
end though, old buddy! :) [Hope the '98 is a tasty year.]
|> And am I to believe you were courageous enough to name your son Hadrian?
Yes, can you *believe* what some pretentious twerps will inflict on their
children! He seems to like it though; has got some mileage out of it, indeed.
With our next son we were kinder. We just named him Mark, being as how
emperor Marcus Anoninus followed after Hadrian. Of course, we should thus
really have spelt it "Marc"; but in view of some of the Marcs around here, I
think we made a very lucky narrow escape!
---------------
Bill; (formerly child therapist)
---------------
rick boyd
Justin Mansfield wrote:
>
>
> Hang on, this is the coach who had the Ranfurly Shield team that
> consisted of Warwick Taylor and Victor Simpson, hardly the crash and
> bash midfield plan your attributing to him, plus The Shoe and Smokin
> immediately prior to the RWC91, so you can't say that Wylie has a
> preiliction for that game plan.
You're joshing me, right?
Smokin' Joe Stanley, the bash 'em barge 'em king. The man single
handedly responsible for the current style of centre play. Well, more or
less. Wiley was a flanker. His game was based on flankers. Bash it up.
Drop it. Ruck it. Run it. Crash again.
> Look again at the semi from 91 and I'm sure you will be amazed, as I
> still am that everytime JT got the ball, he never once tried to beat
> Campese on the outside, but actually ran at the gap between him and
> Little, obviously coming unstuck against the defence of the latter.
> This wasn't JT's normal way of playing The Game, so it must have been
> given to him as an option, and who was the acknowledged backs coach at
> the RWC? Why it was Mr John Hart, who it seems wouldn't know a
> backline move if it sidled up to him and invited him home for a drink,
> and a bit of how's your father.
Don't blame Hart entirely. Even he wouldn't try and change a team's game
plan overnight. Wiley was no doubt calling the shots and his plan was
based on midfield rucks. And where were Hart's key players for an
expansive penetrative game? Gallagher, gone. Schuster, gone. McCahill,
hopeless. Crowley, Zimmer frame. And with Whetton as captain, forget
about onfield tactics. I would give large amounts of money to know what
was said at half time. We won the forward contest. We had the ball. We
wasted it completely. Why didn't they vary the game plan? It must have
been obvious McCahill and Innes weren't making headway against Horan and
Little. Why not give the wings some space? Why not fall back on
positional kicking? Oh, for a few well placed chip kicks over that flat
Australian backline! Having conceded two tries to loose canon Campese it
was always going to be difficult playing catch up rugby, but even with
this team it could have been done. And all we had to do then was beat
the poms in the final. We had already beaten them in the opening game,
how hard could it have been, and they certainly had no Australian
defence. If only the micks had knocked them over in France in the
quarter finals. Jammy bloody Australians. How lucky can you get.
Grumble grumble whinge whinge.
john cawston
rick boyd wrote
Why didn't they vary the game plan? It must have
> been obvious McCahill and Innes weren't making headway against Horan
> and
> Little. Why not give the wings some space? Why not fall back on
> positional kicking? Oh, for a few well placed chip kicks over that
> flat
> Australian backline! Having conceded two tries to loose canon Campese
> it
> was always going to be difficult playing catch up rugby, but even with
>
> this team it could have been done. And all we had to do then was beat
> the poms in the final. We had already beaten them in the opening game,
>
> how hard could it have been, and they certainly had no Australian
> defence. If only the micks had knocked them over in France in the
> quarter finals. Jammy bloody Australians. How lucky can you get.
>
> Grumble grumble whinge whinge.
>
You know what stands out in this and other threads, Rick?
The loss of the little chip kick over the opposing backline to back them
off the off side line. We now hear a mantra that possession must never
be kicked away. This is usually based on the senseless kicking we see
these days. But, God! Stensness, for all his supposed faults, did this
better than most.
In WC91, this lazy bastard would have popped the ball behind Horan and
Little and let the hard men do the business!
I suspect that little chip kicks are a dying art because it requires
precision, thinking and an understanding that it is an excellent form of
attack. These kicks are easily denigrated because of the clumsiness of
execution today. England demonstrates this very well to this day.
Cheers
JC
Justin Mansfield
Mehrtens chips it quite a bit, but he gives me nightmares by also
doing it within his 22.
Justin
Jonathan Chapman
rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> wrote in article
<34E2ADEB...@worksafe.wa.gov.au>...
> Justin Mansfield wrote:
> >
> >
<stuff snipped 'cos Rick's hot on that:-)>
>. And all we had to do then was beat
> the poms in the final. We had already beaten them in the opening game,
I recall from a previous posting that you spent this time indulging in
Irish pubs and loose women or some such thing. Anyway, obviously a bit too
much of the former. You scraped the opening game, after which we got our
shit together - not prettily but effectively - your wheels fell off.
Remember the Italy game? I do, I was there (and the opener - spooky to
think that bloke in front of me with the unfeasible large beard and the
drunken Irish woman might have been Boyd!). Remember your QF "crushing" of
the "mighty" Canada?
> how hard could it have been, and they certainly had no Australian
> defence.
Er - checked out the number of tries we conceded in the tournament?
> If only the micks had knocked them over in France in the
> quarter finals. Jammy bloody Australians. How lucky can you get.
Not much luckier than having your opponents grind their way inexorably to
the final by sticking it up their jumper, getting to the final and then
pissing away the ball they won - a mere 75% of that to be had in the game -
on an attempt to do something they hadn't tried all tournament. As Roger
Uttley said afterwards - "never have I seen a forward pack so dominant yet
so badly let down. I cried for my forwards". This, remember against the
team that had just done you in Dublin. As for Campese not being immediately
taken from the field and shot for his "attempted interception"..
>
> Grumble grumble whinge whinge.
Believe me Rick, we, the humble (may have left you an opening there:-)
pommie fans, have far more to whinge about re. WC91 than you.
--
JC
rick boyd
Bill Taylor wrote:
>
>
> Don't give it a thought, dear chap! (BTW, I assume you weren't
> hoping for a legacy from me?)
What, and cut poor Hadrian and Marcus out of their Empire? Never.
> One of us is going to have to eat some rsru crow before the year's
> end though, old buddy! :) [Hope the '98 is a tasty year.]
And we have some beauties here in Western Australia, I can tell you. Big
black bastards the size of chooks that sit in my lilli pilli tree every
morning and make loud, discordant crowing noises. Much like all
Australians, really. I'll knock one down with a well-aimed golf ball and
ship it over to you in preparation for your impending meal.
> Yes, can you *believe* what some pretentious twerps will inflict
> on their children! He seems to like it though; has got some
> mileage out of it, indeed.
>
> With our next son we were kinder. We just named him Mark, being
> as how emperor Marcus Anoninus followed after Hadrian. Of course,
> we should thus really have spelt it "Marc"; but in view of some
> of the Marcs around here, I think we made a very lucky narrow
> escape!
You never said a truer word. Except it's Marcus Antoninus you mean no
doubt. Ah yes, the golden age of Rome. I was there you know. Official
bottom kisser for Marcus Auralieus. Hold on, I'll just slip over to
alt.get.a.life.you.sad.bastard before I lapse into a diatribe of
resentment against those smelly German barbarians for bringing down the
great and noble Roman Empire.
Have you read Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series? She may be
fat and Australian but by God she knows her stuff.
Yes, I know Ben, I'm way off topic. Now in Rome they knew how to play
rugby. Some of those matches at the Colliseum were beauties. Good news
for Nigel, the Lions nearly always won. Over the Christians anyway. Come
to think of it, that's not a bad name for a rugby team, The Gladiators.
It's a wonder no Super 12 team has picked it up.
Quick nurse, the screens. It's time for my shots.
Bill Taylor
rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> writes:
|> And we have some beauties here in Western Australia, I can tell you. Big
|> black bastards the size of chooks that sit in my lilli pilli tree every
|> morning and make loud, discordant crowing noises.
Shit no probz mate.
We'll just ship over a bunch of keas to sort the buggers out.
|> > being as how emperor Marcus Anoninus followed after Hadrian.
|>
|> it's Marcus Antoninus you mean no doubt.
Actually no. It's Antoninus Pius I *should* have been intending to mean.
But there's already a Tony in the family (my big brother) so that was out,
and anyway Antoninus Pius was a total wimp, and a religious nutter to boot.
HIS successor though was Marcus Aurelius, which was what I meant to say in
the first place.
|> alt.get.a.life.you.sad.bastard before I lapse into a diatribe of
|> resentment against those smelly German barbarians for bringing down the
|> great and noble Roman Empire.
As you say, wrong newsgroup, but in fact there's been a fascinating thread
on soc.history.ancient to the effect that the Goths in Italy were keeping
up the classical traditions well. The view is that it was one of history's
supreme incompetents and criminally christian nutters, east Roman emperor
Justinian, who totally upset the apple cart, reducing southern Europe to
near chaos, and practically inaugurating the dark ages with a one-man effort.
So if you ever name a son Justinian, be warned! I'll be along with some
of my rough mates some time!
|> Have you read Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series?
No, but Alfred Duggan has done a few beauts.
|> Yes, I know Ben, I'm way off topic. Now in Rome they knew how to play
|> rugby. Some of those matches at the Colliseum were beauties. Good news
|> for Nigel, the Lions nearly always won.
Yeah, and they also had trouble with the refs. And football hooliganism,
par excellence. Read about the riots between the blues' and the greens'
supporters! (It was chariot race hooliganism actually, but why spoil a good
story when we can almost stay on topic.)
|>that's not a bad name for a rugby team, The Gladiators.
Damn straight! Helluva lot better than the Crusaders, anyway. Why did
we want to name our noble footy team after one of the wankiest crowd of
lame-brained and bloody-minded religious hooligans the world ever saw
(before the advent of the conquistadores)!
--------------------------
Bill; (M.A. Oxon (failed))
--------------------------
John Bickers
In article <6c301m$k4h$1...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
Bill Taylor <mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Damn straight! Helluva lot better than the Crusaders, anyway. Why did
> we want to name our noble footy team after one of the wankiest crowd of
> lame-brained and bloody-minded religious hooligans the world ever saw
It depends on what Crusaders you talk about, but perhaps, given
their performance last year, you're right and they're named after
the English ones. . .
john cawston
John Bickers wrote:
Hmm, but who gets to play Saladin's part this year?
JC
John Bickers
In article <34E5AD89...@voyager.co.nz>,
john cawston <caw...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
> John Bickers wrote:
> > It depends on what Crusaders you talk about, but perhaps, given
> Hmm, but who gets to play Saladin's part this year?
Those good Christians, the Hurricanes, will cull 'em, I hope.
Bill Taylor
|> > > It depends on what Crusaders you talk about, but perhaps, given
|>
|> > Hmm, but who gets to play Saladin's part this year?
|>
|> Those good Christians, the Hurricanes, will cull 'em, I hope.
GRRRROOOOOOOOOOOAAANNNNNN !!!!!
--------
Anon
--------
rick boyd
Bill Taylor wrote:
>
> Shit no probz mate.
> We'll just ship over a bunch of keas to sort the buggers out.
Ah yes, the mighty kea. I told my girls about keas when I promised them
a visit to New Zealand for Christmas. I told them they stripped the
rubber off car widnscreens and had even been known to eat the bottoms of
sleeping bags while the occupants slumbered unaware.
The girls were horrified. They went around telling everyone about these
horrible New Zealand keas that were going to eat their bottoms while
they were in their sleeping bags!
Well, they are only 6 and 4.
We won't even get to see any snow at that time of year. Or rugby, just
to introduce a vague connection to the newsgroup topic.
Sorry.
rick boyd
Jonathan Chapman wrote:
> I recall from a previous posting that you spent this time indulging in
> Irish pubs and loose women or some such thing. Anyway, obviously a
> bit too much of the former. You scraped the opening game, after
> which we got our shit together - not prettily but effectively -
> your wheels fell off.
> Remember the Italy game? I do, I was there (and the opener - spooky to
> think that bloke in front of me with the unfeasible large beard
> and the drunken Irish woman might have been Boyd!).
No, it wasn't me, fortunately. I only had a moustache then. The All
Blacks weren't very impressive in this tournament, let's face it. And
they still could have won.
> Remember your QF "crushing" of the "mighty" Canada?
Now I was at this game in Lille, in the rain. The All Blacks routed
Canada totally in the first half, and then went into "save our strength
for the semi" mode and cruised on to let Canada back into the game for a
totally flattering final score unconnected with reality.
> Er - checked out the number of tries we conceded in the tournament?
How about the number you scored?
> Not much luckier than having your opponents grind their way
> inexorably to the final by sticking it up their jumper, getting to
> the final and then pissing away the ball they won - a mere 75%
> of that to be had in the game - on an attempt to do something
> they hadn't tried all tournament.
Grind your way inexorably to the final? Gordon Bennett, you came second
in your pool and then you only had to beat Scotland in the quarter
final. France in the semi final was a bit of a mystery, I was there for
that game to see the Frenchmen crying in the stands. "Zee referee (Dave
Bishop, NZ), 'e ess a cheating bastard, mon dieu!"
England kicked away all their ball, straight to the french backs, who
did absolutely bloody nothing with it. I couldn't believe it! And the
French did exactly the same. It was like watching the blind playing the
blind. Eventually the poms put enough dirt in to put the froggies right
off their game and England won on penalties. Meanwhile we had to play
Australia in the real final, which you bastards had rigged up to be a
semi final.
> As Roger Uttley said afterwards - "never have I seen a forward
> pack so dominant yet so badly let down. I cried for my
> forwards". This, remember against the team that had just done
> you in Dublin. As for Campese not being immediately
> taken from the field and shot for his "attempted interception"..
England must have thought they had a real problem after the Dublin semi
final. They could see New Zealand winning the forward battle, so they
must have thought they could beat Australia in the forwards also. But
they would also have seen that there were few penalties in the game, and
Australia's very composed team were obviously not going to be pressured
into mistakes so that England could win with penalties. They should also
have seen that Australia had an exceptionally able defence, not liable
to crumble under a tactical kicking game. Meanwhile Australia could win
with their very sharp attack on just 30% possession.
I thought England deserved praise for trying to take Australia on at
their own game, and run at them full pace. Maybe they thought they would
confuse them. Certainly confused me! With some varied short kicking it
could probably have worked as a New Zealand game plan, but the poms just
weren't used to it, and wore themselves right out in the first half.
All my pommy mates tried to tell me England came second in the 1991
world cup. But seeing as how NZ had already beaten them in the opening
game, I reckon they came third :-)
Bill Taylor
rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> writes:
|> > Remember your QF "crushing" of the "mighty" Canada?
|>
|> Now I was at this game in Lille, in the rain. The All Blacks routed
|> Canada totally in the first half, and then went into "save our strength
|> for the semi" mode and cruised on to let Canada back into the game
Excellent summary.
|> you came second
|> in your pool and then you only had to beat Scotland in the quarter
|> final. France in the semi final
Axshly, it was France in the quarter and Jockland in the semi. And they made
MIGHTY heavy weather of the latter game. Mind you, the Jocks were giving
them a taste of what they'd given the Frogs.
|> that game to see the Frenchmen crying in the stands. "Zee referee (Dave
|> Bishop, NZ), 'e ess a cheating bastard, mon dieu!"
Yes, poor old Dave B came in for a hammering after that, though I thought
he'd done as well as he could under near-impossible conditions. The Frogs
have never forgiven him, even though it was mostly their own fault. I felt
sorry for poor old Blanco though, who copped a gutsful due to the emotional
temperature of the occasion. After that opening incident, there was no
further hope of an untroubled game.
|> England kicked away all their ball, straight to the french backs, who
|> did absolutely bloody nothing with it.
Yes, it was a tedious game, though not even on the same planet compared to
the Culloden to come in the next match.
|> Eventually the poms put enough dirt in to put the froggies right
|> off their game and England won on penalties.
Not quite. It was then that Carling did his one and only GOOD THING in a
vital match - close to time he chased a high ball, caught it while
surrounded by a bunch of garlic steamers, and wrestled it over the line.
Mind you, he made up for it, with massive incompetence in the final.
|> I thought England deserved praise for trying to take Australia on at
|> their own game, and run at them full pace.
Yes, the home and royal crowd might have conned them into trying to play
an entertaining game - not their thing.
|> Maybe they thought they would
|> confuse them. Certainly confused me!
Not half as much as they confused themselves.
|> Meanwhile we had to play
|> Australia in the real final, which you bastards had rigged up to be a
|> semi final.
... ...
|> All my pommy mates tried to tell me England came second in the 1991
|> world cup. But seeing as how NZ had already beaten them in the opening
Poor old poms, high on patriotism, short on logic.
Here is my standard summary; from the C.U.Dept of Creative Statistics...
1991 Dominance graph:-
Aus
|
|
NZ
|
|
Eng
/ | \
/ | \
Sco Fra \
/ | | Ita
Sam Ire Can |
| | | |
Wal Jap Rom |
| | | US
Arg Zim Fiji
(Italy might lay a claim to 4th equal! But is well behind on pt diff.)
---------------
Bill; (formerly Graph-Theoretician Royal)
---------------