>> Well the Sharks certainly mauled the Moolooos 60 odd some thing to 20
>> something, I thought I would add a few comments on a vintage pergormance by
>Please I know that everybody else has said it - but I beg of you, please
>don1t call them mooloos. Do you have any idea how it feels to have been
>raised to be a Waikato supporter ever since you were old enough to hold a
>cow bell and then watch silently as another team sacrilegiously destroys
>it, to know that there are more Waikato players playing for other teams,
>than the team from your own province? (Sorry, I got carried away a bit).
Carried away? By what? An overwhelming sense of justifiable outrage?
Although there *are* more Waikato players in the chiefs side than in
the competition - about 7 players to five in the rest of the
competition, or something like that.
>> Bunce personally gave away 2 tries by throwing his toys consistantly out the
>> cot, he just couldn't keep his mouth shut and is very lucky not to get his
>> marching orders for dissent.
Who was captain? If Bunce was the captain (and he's captained before),
could/would the ref send him off, given that the captain can generally
ask the ref for reasons? What exactly was he saying?
>Apart from 5 seconds of highlights on the news last night (which I wasn1t
>actually trying to watch), I haven1t seen much of the game. However, I
>believe most of Bunce1s 3temper tantrums2 were aimed at bizarre calls from
>the Referee. Graham Henry was on the radio this morning, spurting on
>about how there should be neutral referees for games. An interesting
>idea, but I think it has something more to do with the Ref1s inability to
>put up with Akld1s ***on the weekend, then a thought-out, rational idea.
<grin> someone said to me the other day, 'look at Wellington and
Otago. A lot of players with little talent (especially Wellington),
yet their coaches have made them play to their potential and win games
well. And look at Henry. He's taken a lot of extremely talented
players and turned them into something extremely mediocre'.
And aren;t the refs neutral anyway? I don't know how it is in the
other provinces, but we don't have any Waikato refs reffing any of the
Chiefs games (just ***y Wahlstrom! - although he has seemingly
learnt about the offside rule in recent months)
>From all accounts, it seems that Natal played their best rugby in years
>(next time could you do it against a different team?).
Come on, Susan, you know the rules.
s579 (b) (ii) of the International rugby rule-book specifically states
that nothing good shall ever happen to any team bearing the name
'Waikato'. Glenn Wahlstrom, an Auckland ref, has his own proposed
amendment, 579 (c), which states that any team whose name starts with
the syllable "Wai" shall never get the feed to any scrum after the
ball has been trapped in a ruck. While its not yet law, he's been
practising it with almost ruthless abandon. :-)
>The Chiefs were
>wiped out in every facet of play, with the idea of spinning the ball wide
>and quickly, deflating faster then Australia1s cricket hopes.
I said it here first, folks, we would get shafted up front. And once
that happens, the rest almost happens by neccesity (with some
> It would
>appear (that after having seven tries scored against them) their defensive
>effort has not improved (dare I suggest that McLeod in the midfield may
>help remedy this). The funny thing about North Harbour is that they are
>one of those teams that may come right for no apparent reason - passes
>might stick, balls might go where there supposed too, but then again that
>could just be the vallium I had for breakfast.
No, its not valium, its one of the exceptions to the point above; how
many times has Waikato lost to Harbour despite beating them in all
facets of forward play? (Damn! 579 (b) (ii) AGAIN! :-) )
>> Interesting to note that most newspapers and it seems coaches/managers
>> have only cottoned on now that the Kiwi sides (and Aus?) are not provincial
>> but invitation sides and that Tvl are beginning to winge that they were the
>> guineapigs for a touch 4 away game start.
Yes, the Ocker sides too (tho I think only ACT have made use of this -
Troy Coker made his comeback in the game against Auckland the other
weekend). Although technically, they are not 'invitation' sides; the
NZRFU hired an awful lot of players after the World Rugby Competiton
thingy, and they were to be spread amongst the IPC squads, with the
teams getting first dibs on the players from their area; players not
chosen for their area could be hired by other NZ teams. Players who
were not selcted for any team are on standby with full pay (damn! What
a life!) - there are still about seven players yet to be drafted into
an IPC team. The players play for the IPC side throughout the whole of
the competition and then head off home.
BTW, do Transvaal complain about things? I thought they were paragons
of stiff-upper-lippedness? :-)
> cheers, Susan
>> anyway enough ramblings from the LAST OUTPOST
>> Sahle Gahle