Strewth!

Strewth!

Post by David Cove » Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:00:00


Odds to win tournament:

4-7 New Zealand

3-1 Australia
^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I'd get some of that while it's going if I were you...

4-1 South Africa

16-1 France

 
 
 

Strewth!

Post by Ken Walli » Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:00:00

David Covey wrote

Quote:
>Odds to win tournament:

>4-7 New Zealand

>3-1 Australia
>^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    I'd get some of that while it's going if I were you...

>4-1 South Africa

>16-1 France

But what you don't understand is that all us Aussies KNOW how rarely the
Wallabies beat South Africa.  We beat NZ more often than we beat SA.

Get through this w/e against SA and we can beat NZ if the ball bounces well
for us, but if SA beat us this w/e NZ will clean 'em up in the final.  I
know it doesn't make sense, but ...

Cheers,

Ken

 
 
 

Strewth!

Post by David Tutsse » Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

>Odds to win tournament:

>4-7 New Zealand

>3-1 Australia
>^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    I'd get some of that while it's going if I were you...

>4-1 South Africa

>16-1 France

Australia are under -priced , my moneys on the boks at 4's , and New Zealand
have been odds on since before the first match , although they were 4-9
before the scotland match. What's the price on a SA - NZ final BTW?

 
 
 

Strewth!

Post by Roger Kippenberge » Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
> Odds to win tournament:

> 4-7 New Zealand

> 3-1 Australia
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     I'd get some of that while it's going if I were you...

> 4-1 South Africa

> 16-1 France

From an NZ'er (team to take out semi #1); Head says Aussie, heart says the
boks.
 
 
 

Strewth!

Post by Sol » Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:00:00

yeah i totally think the same way!!  it's funny but we just can't beat SA....
but can beat NZ....  *Shrugs shoulders as well**
Quote:

> David Covey wrote

> >Odds to win tournament:

> >4-7 New Zealand

> >3-1 Australia
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >    I'd get some of that while it's going if I were you...

> >4-1 South Africa

> >16-1 France

> But what you don't understand is that all us Aussies KNOW how rarely the
> Wallabies beat South Africa.  We beat NZ more often than we beat SA.

> Get through this w/e against SA and we can beat NZ if the ball bounces well
> for us, but if SA beat us this w/e NZ will clean 'em up in the final.  I
> know it doesn't make sense, but ...

> Cheers,

> Ken

 
 
 

Strewth!

Post by Shane Weie » Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

>Odds to win tournament:

>4-7 New Zealand

>3-1 Australia
>^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    I'd get some of that while it's going if I were you...

>4-1 South Africa

>16-1 France

Prescience.   Wish I'd listened

Shane

 
 
 

Strewth!

Post by David Cove » Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Quote:


> >Odds to win tournament:

> >4-7 New Zealand

> >3-1 Australia
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >    I'd get some of that while it's going if I were you...

> >4-1 South Africa

> >16-1 France

    ^^^^^^^^^^^
    Mind you, you would have been better off with that each way
wouldn't you?  At a quarter the odds that would 4/1.   I dunno -
I haven't placed a bet for a zillion years...   ("No Major, that
particular avenue of pleasure has been closed to me, hasn't it
Sybil?"  "Yes, and we don't want it opening up again do we Basil?"

Quote:
> Prescience.   Wish I'd listened

    Don't worry, just make a note of the name "Covey" and do whatever
I tell you.  It's easy.

Prescient Dave

 
 
 

Strewth!

Post by Bjor » Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:00:00

But what you don't understand is that all us Aussies KNOW how rarely the
Wallabies beat South Africa.  We beat NZ more often than we beat SA.
Get through this w/e against SA and we can beat NZ if the ball bounces
well for us, but if SA beat us this w/e NZ will clean 'em up in the
final. I know it doesn't make sense, but ...
Cheers,
Ken

You are right it doesnt make sense. Check your facts. Since S.A. has
been playing against all nations again i.e. from 1992 until now the
record is thus. Aust vs SA (including WRC99 semi) played 14, 7 wins
apiece. Aust vs NZ played 17 Aus 7 NZ 10. It is tine to stop thinking
back to the the bad old days. If we keep it together and don't get
arrogant then we can dominate the SH (and the world) of rugby.

Please don't take this as arrogance and rude but we can do it so I say
GO THE WALLABIES - World Champions

I just wish I had seen this post prior to the semis.

A Proud Aussie.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

Strewth!

Post by Bjor » Wed, 10 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Ken Wallis wrote

I'm another proud Aussie, and I'll proudly say 'GO THE WALLABIES -
Twice World Champions', but if you'd looked at the statistics prior to
the semis and taken only recent history (say from the last WC) I think
the win/loss against SA would have been worse, and that against NZ
would have been better.

 - Actually 37.5% against SA (3/8) vs 33.3% against NZ (4/12)

Irrespective of statistics against NZ, my view was, and still is, that
the Wallabies had worked out how to beat this NZ team - turn them
around and make Mehrtens go backwards:  he'll always kick the ball away.

 - Even though I have been quoting statistics I actually agree with you
that I feel more confident of a positive outcome when we play NZ than
when we play SA.

I'm hugely pleased that Australia worked out how to beat this SA team
too.

- Agree wholeheartedly though I think Mallett's/De Beer's tactics
worked in our favour. Don't they teach 5/8's how to pass ?

They haven't seemed to have a good plan for how to do that any time
recently. I'd love to see the Wallabies taking this RWC attitude into
the next 3N series, but there will be major changes to the team by
then. As I understand it, Blades, Crowley and Kearns have all retired.
Horan is seriously considering pulling the pin, as must be Wilson.
Word is that Larkham may be off getting operations on his knee and
shoulder next year, so we're in no better position than SA and NZ
regarding player injuries and retirements.  Happily we have a stronger
situation regarding the coaching team, but an injection of life into
the AB coach position is well overdue, and could be all it will take to
get the ABs firing again. I think there are ready replacements for the
front row players who are retiring, we don't have any shortage of back
rowers if Wilson  drops out, nor of centres if Horan does, but we do
desperately need to find a high calibre fly half and get him into the
squad if Larkham is out because Kafer simply didn't cut the mustard
IMO.  Has Whittaker ever played 10 successfully?

- I agree with all that except that I think that given a bit more time
Kafer may well do the job. It is a bit *** him comparing him to
Larkham who I think is a freak. For someone had not played that much
5/8 he has done a remarkable job. Remember the controversy when McQeen
wanted to play himthere when he was playing fullback for the Brumbies ?
Talk about a coaching masterstroke. If Larkham is unavailable he might
have to pull another one like that.

As for Whittaker I would really like to see him get a bit more time on
the field at half for the Wallabies. As good as Gregan is I think
Whittaker gives better service to the backs. Then gagain pretty hard to
argue with the decisions McQueen has been making.

Regards
Bjorn

* Sent from RemarQ http://SportToday.org/ The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

Strewth!

Post by Ken Walli » Thu, 11 Nov 1999 04:00:00

Bjorn wrote

Quote:

>>But what you don't understand is that all us Aussies KNOW how rarely the
>>Wallabies beat South Africa.  We beat NZ more often than we beat SA.
>>Get through this w/e against SA and we can beat NZ if the ball bounces
>>well for us, but if SA beat us this w/e NZ will clean 'em up in the
>>final. I know it doesn't make sense, but ...
>You are right it doesnt make sense. Check your facts. Since S.A. has
>been playing against all nations again i.e. from 1992 until now the
>record is thus. Aust vs SA (including WRC99 semi) played 14, 7 wins
>apiece. Aust vs NZ played 17 Aus 7 NZ 10

[snip]

Quote:
>I say GO THE WALLABIES - World Champions

>I just wish I had seen this post prior to the semis.

>A Proud Aussie.

I'm another proud Aussie, and I'll proudly say 'GO THE WALLABIES - Twice
World Champions', but if you'd looked at the statistics prior to the semis
and taken only recent history (say from the last WC) I think the win/loss
against SA would have been worse, and that against NZ would have been
better.

Irrespective of statistics against NZ, my view was, and still is, that the
Wallabies had worked out how to beat this NZ team - turn them around and
make Mehrtens go backwards:  he'll always kick the ball away.

I'm hugely pleased that Australia worked out how to beat this SA team too.
They haven't seemed to have a good plan for how to do that any time
recently.

I'd love to see the Wallabies taking this RWC attitude into the next 3N
series, but there will be major changes to the team by then.  As I
understand it, Blades, Crowley and Kearns have all retired.  Horan is
seriously considering pulling the pin, as must be Wilson.  Word is that
Larkham may be off getting operations on his knee and shoulder next year, so
we're in no better position than SA and NZ regarding player injuries and
retirements.  Happily we have a stronger situation regarding the coaching
team, but an injection of life into the AB coach position is well overdue,
and could be all it will take to get the ABs firing again.

I think there are ready replacements for the front row players who are
retiring, we don't have any shortage of back rowers if Wilson drops out, nor
of centres if Horan does, but we do desperately need to find a high calibre
fly half and get him into the squad if Larkham is out because Kafer simply
didn't cut the mustard IMO.  Has Whittaker ever played 10 successfully?

Cheers,

Ken