> So why did'nt you beat us iftyou are so great?
> What will you say if we beat you again this month?
> I did'nt know the rain was an excuse?
> What will your excuse be later this month. Will you blame the weather
> again or maybe the altitude.
> Please tell us now why you will not win but that you will still
> be rated No 1.
> Remeber last year's thrasing in SA. Was'nt that a record beating for
> you. What was your excuse then. Static electricity, sun spots or
> whatever. I'm glad you were not my mathematics teacher, I would be
> Try again convincing me that Oz is rated no 1 in the world.
> I beg of you.
> I will cross-post this to some humour groups, it will be great fun.
Let me start off with an explanation for some of the South Africans who have
tripped gaily into rsru in recent weeks, buoyed no doubt by a victory over
Australia and New Zealand. I am not Australian. I am a New Zealander. Neither
do I have any great affection for the Wallabies or Australian sports in
general. Rather strange, you might think, for someone who has lived here for
the last 17 years, but such is the odd relationship that Australia and New
Zealand citizens enjoy with each other.
So I really don't give the proverbial smelly rat's arse whether Australia or
South Africa are number one -- as far as biases go, I am probably inclined to
favour Australia due to the traditional rivalry between South Africa and New
Zealand, but it's a near run thing to decide which is worse: the usual ***
of self-praise and vain sqawking we may immediately expect from what passes
for sports journalists in Australia; or the sullen Luytisms from South Africa
about how they were the greatest team in the history of rugby all along
anyway, would have won all world cups etc etc et vomit cetera.
New Zealand no longer are number one as far as I can see, so having ruled out
suicide as an immediate solution it behoves me to offer an opinion as to the
worthy successor to the title based on the play of the two teams in question.
South Africa have good forwards and good defence but nothing I have seen of
the South African attack in the last three years convinces me they possess
match-winning strike power. If they have a quality, it is that they have a
good attitude and a good team combination.
As for the Wallabies, they have reasonable forwards but this year have
uncovered a combination in the backs that provides not only good defence, and
good service to their world class three quarters, but superb options of
attack in the halves and midfield. They seem, so far, to have a good team
combination and attitude, and they have well organised and effective game
And as for the test in Perth, we all know why South Africa won that game in
which they scored one try to Australia's two, and that is purely and simply
that Burke decided to have an off day with the boot. OK, it's history, the
points are in the books to stay, but let's face reality.
Last year's thrashing in SA was a different team in different circumstances,
and if you think big scores mean anything in the modern game then the only
pulse you have your finger on is in your trousers.
I'm sorry that none of this fits your nationalistic fervour.
And whether or not you wish to cross-post to humour groups or
alt.funny.i.had.nothing.to.say.when.SA.was.losing, I really don't care.
-- Rick Boyd
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://SportToday.org/; Create Your Own Free Member Forum