NAtal Mooloos, quick observation

NAtal Mooloos, quick observation

Post by Ian Wrig » Tue, 19 Mar 1996 04:00:00


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
Natal.

Well it was punted that it would be a close game with 9 AB's and Bokkes per
team it should have been much closer, but then again ask any side, Natal is no
ush over at home.  A few bservations that I saw:

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.

After onr of Bunces tantrams Nata l took a quick penalty to which Small easily
out stripped Rush in a run that went 2/3 of the field.  Small is disploaying
his talent of old but will have to sort out his high tackles if he is going to
dent Lomu.

Natals lock pairing of Andrews and Slade did very well against Jones and
Larsen winning the count on the day.

The new laws created a bit of confusion with the ref comming up with some real
crackers, to be fair to him he consistently***ed up to both sides.

All in all a most entertaining match to follow (especiially if you are a
sharks fan:).

Interesting to note that most newspapers and it seems coaches/managers from SA
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.  Romour has it that King Louis is to
mee with Steve Tweche (sp) sports minister in a last minute ditch to save the
Springbok emblem by reinstating Edward Griffiths  back to his original job.  
Steve should go one further by firing the fat egotistic berk!!

anyway enough ramblings from the LAST OUTPOST
Sahle Gahle
Ian

 
 
 

NAtal Mooloos, quick observation

Post by Paul Kenda » Tue, 19 Mar 1996 04:00:00


Quote:
> Well the Sharks certainly mauled the Moolooos 60 odd some thing to 20
> something                            ^^^^^^^^

I can't let you get away with this Ian.  Mooloos implies that the Waikato
provincial team was playing when they weren't.  There were only 3 Waikato
players in the Chiefs side that played Natal.  A more accurate description
of the team was North Harbour in red, yellow and black.

Quote:
> All in all a most entertaining match to follow (especiially if you are a
> sharks fan:).

I've only seen a few highlights on the TV and from all accounts the Chiefs
were thrashed by a Natal side that may have played their best game for
some time.

So who played well for the Chiefs and who didn't?  Clearly Brad Meurant
has to make changes before the Transvaal game and the question is who will
be dropped.  I have feeling even more Harbour players will be chosen like
Burton when clearly if any player isn't performing they should be axed
regardless of their reputation.

Paul
(a Highlanders convert)

 
 
 

NAtal Mooloos, quick observation

Post by F. Jacot Guillarm » Tue, 19 Mar 1996 04:00:00


[...]

Quote:
>Interesting to note that most newspapers and it seems coaches/managers from SA
>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.

These journalists all seem to be about as sharp as bowling balls, and
this sudden enlightenment must rank up there with the idea that
Transvaal was one of the top two or three teams in the competition.

But not all the scribes are total dingbats.  The Sunday Independent had
a story about this very topic in their 21st January edition (well before
the competition even started).

Kitch Christie was quoted as saying that NZ had made a smart move to have 5
All Black trial teams practicing together under match conditions.  There was
also a quote saying that "the format of the competition is valid for
this year only" and that it's no use whinging about the set up at this
stage.

So, not all coaches or newspapers were caught napping... but so far,
only Natal and Northerns seem to have an even chance of waving the flag
a bit.

Personally, I think SA should climb on the bandwagon of having regional
rather than provincial teams.  I don't know how this could be arranged,
but it seems silly to have a few Springbok incumbents (such as Os du
Randt and Chris Badenhorst), and quite a few Springbok possibles
whiling away the next few months playing low key matches against
Zimbabwe and Namibia on Friday nights.

--

  Computing Services     Grahamstown 6140   \      /      Fax: +27 461 25049
  Rhodes University        South Africa      ;___*/     Phone: +27 461 318284
   The views expressed above are not necessarily those of Rhodes University

 
 
 

NAtal Mooloos, quick observation

Post by Susan Phillip » Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

> 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
> Natal.

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).

Quote:
> 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.
> The new laws created a bit of confusion with the ref comming up with
some real
> crackers, to be fair to him he consistently***ed up to both sides.

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.

From all accounts, it seems that Natal played their best rugby in years
(next time could you do it against a different team?).  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.  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.

Quote:
> Interesting to note that most newspapers and it seems coaches/managers
from SA
> 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.  Romour has it that King Louis
is to
> mee with Steve Tweche (sp) sports minister in a last minute ditch to save the
> Springbok emblem by reinstating Edward Griffiths  back to his original job.  
> Steve should go one further by firing the fat egotistic berk!!

If I was Transvaal, I wouldn1t be particularly worried about their loosing
past at the moment - don1t be surprised if that all ends this weekend.

Cheers, Susan

Quote:
> anyway enough ramblings from the LAST OUTPOST
> Sahle Gahle
> Ian

 
 
 

NAtal Mooloos, quick observation

Post by Peter Willia » Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


>Subject: NAtal Mooloos, quick observation
>Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:05:09
>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
>Natal.

Mooloos????? There are more Harbour players than mooloo players. If you were
going to call them anything then it would be Chiefs.

Later

 
 
 

NAtal Mooloos, quick observation

Post by Peter Willia » Wed, 20 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


>Subject: Re: NAtal Mooloos, quick observation
>Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 21:43:31 +1200

>> Well the Sharks certainly mauled the Moolooos 60 odd some thing to 20
>> something                            ^^^^^^^^
>I can't let you get away with this Ian.  Mooloos implies that the Waikato
>provincial team was playing when they weren't.  There were only 3 Waikato
>players in the Chiefs side that played Natal.  A more accurate description
>of the team was North Harbour in red, yellow and black.
>> All in all a most entertaining match to follow (especiially if you are a
>> sharks fan:).
>I've only seen a few highlights on the TV and from all accounts the Chiefs
>were thrashed by a Natal side that may have played their best game for
>some time.
>So who played well for the Chiefs and who didn't?  Clearly Brad Meurant
>has to make changes before the Transvaal game and the question is who will
>be dropped.  I have feeling even more Harbour players will be chosen like
>Burton when clearly if any player isn't performing they should be axed
>regardless of their reputation.

Choker Burton?? The Chiefs are really desperate if they choose this loser.

Later

 
 
 

NAtal Mooloos, quick observation

Post by Paul Wai » Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:00:00


says...

Quote:
>>the Referee.  Graham Henry was on the radio this morning, spurting on
>>about how there should be neutral referees for games.  An interesting
>>idea..

It's been my opinion since before the Super-12 kicked off that the
refereeing should be neutral. The competition has grown (from the
Super-10 days) into something big enough to justify this.

Cheers,
Paul.

 
 
 

NAtal Mooloos, quick observation

Post by Reub » Fri, 22 Mar 1996 04:00:00

Quote:



>> 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
>> Natal.
>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.

Quote:
>> 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?

Quote:
>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)

Quote:
>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. :-)

Quote:
>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
exceptions).

Quote:
> 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! :-) )

Quote:
>> Interesting to note that most newspapers and it seems coaches/managers
>>from SA
>> 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? :-)

Quote:
> cheers, Susan
>> anyway enough ramblings from the LAST OUTPOST
>> Sahle Gahle
>> Ian

Cheers,
Reuben
 
 
 

NAtal Mooloos, quick observation

Post by Rob Lo » Sat, 23 Mar 1996 04:00:00


Quote:


>says...

>>>the Referee.  Graham Henry was on the radio this morning, spurting on
>>>about how there should be neutral referees for games.  An interesting
>>>idea..

>It's been my opinion since before the Super-12 kicked off that the
>refereeing should be neutral. The competition has grown (from the
>Super-10 days) into something big enough to justify this.

>Cheers,
>Paul.

Given the money being thrown around and the fact that referees are
being paid for their time there is no excuse not to have nuetral Refs.
A lesson to be taken into next years competition perhaps.

Cheers, Rob.