RugbyRebels

There was an article in the NZ Herald today reminding us that the All Blacks got smacked by Sydney by about the same score in 1992 (40-17).

And I don't need to remind you lot about Welsh clubs wins against touring oppo.

Lizard wrote:There was an article in the NZ Herald today reminding us that the All Blacks got smacked by Sydney by about the same score in 1992 (40-17).

And I don't need to remind you lot about Welsh clubs wins against touring oppo.

Newport did the treble.

See?

In fact the only time Newport were crushed by international opposition was vs the All Blacks in the late 80s.

Waikato has beaten at least the Springboks (1956), France (1961 & 1979), Australia (1972 & 1990), Fiji (1974), Wales (1988), Canada (1989, 1990 & 1992), Argentina (1989), Lions (1993), Scotland (1996), Italy (2003).

I don't believe we've ever played Ireland or England.

I definitely recall attending a Waikato win against an American national side but I think it was a USA "B" tour, must have been late '80s/early '90s

We've done Tonga and Uruguay as well. In fact, Uruguay was the last international game and that was a fair while ago.

Its a great thing as a kid to walk into the club house and see the Springbok antlers hanging on the wall.

Horns. Antelope have horns, deer have antlers.

Did Wales give the Chiefs a trophy? An inflatable leek perhaps? Or maybe Warren's spangly red cowboy hat?

Lizard wrote:Horns. Antelope have horns, deer have antlers.

Did Wales give the Chiefs a trophy? An inflatable leek perhaps? Or maybe Warren's spangly red cowboy hat?

Pie coupons. Good for 6 months.

Pies. Awesome. That's just given me an idea for morning tea...

Glad I missed this one.

UKHamlet wrote:Glad I missed this one.

I was almost going to use some flexi time and spend another £7 to watch it. Fracking glad I didn't.

Sandydragon wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:Glad I missed this one.

I was almost going to use some flexi time and spend another £7 to watch it. Fracking glad I didn't.

I watched it and it wasn't as bad as the scoreline suggests, we had the majority of possession and territory but couldn't score.

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:Glad I missed this one.

I was almost going to use some flexi time and spend another £7 to watch it. Fracking glad I didn't.

I watched it and it wasn't as bad as the scoreline suggests, we had the majority of possession and territory but couldn't score.

Which is something that all the reports Ive read have suggested. But in its own way, thats even more frustrating. If we have been on the back foot throughout and got stuffed then its bad, but somehow throwing away chances is even worse.

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:Glad I missed this one.

I was almost going to use some flexi time and spend another £7 to watch it. Fracking glad I didn't.

I watched it and it wasn't as bad as the scoreline suggests, we had the majority of possession and territory but couldn't score.

That is as bad as suggested! Possession isn't an aim in itself. If you score quickly every time you have the ball you'll have terrible possession and territory stats but rather a lot of points.

Sandydragon wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I was almost going to use some flexi time and spend another £7 to watch it. Fracking glad I didn't.

I watched it and it wasn't as bad as the scoreline suggests, we had the majority of possession and territory but couldn't score.

Which is something that all the reports Ive read have suggested. But in its own way, thats even more frustrating. If we have been on the back foot throughout and got stuffed then its bad, but somehow throwing away chances is even worse.

I can't see your reasoning on this, surely it's better to have competed in most facets rather than being walked over.

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Numbers wrote:
I watched it and it wasn't as bad as the scoreline suggests, we had the majority of possession and territory but couldn't score.

Which is something that all the reports Ive read have suggested. But in its own way, thats even more frustrating. If we have been on the back foot throughout and got stuffed then its bad, but somehow throwing away chances is even worse.

I can't see your reasoning on this, surely it's better to have competed in most facets rather than being walked over.

A close game that is competitive but we lose I can live with. This is a game that by all accounts were could have been in the lead at half time, but managed to squander opportunities and then lose by a cricket score. At least if we had been outclassed then I could accept that we were soundly beaten by a superior team. But in this case we appear to have been largely the architects of our own destruction.

Sandydragon wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Which is something that all the reports Ive read have suggested. But in its own way, thats even more frustrating. If we have been on the back foot throughout and got stuffed then its bad, but somehow throwing away chances is even worse.

I can't see your reasoning on this, surely it's better to have competed in most facets rather than being walked over.

A close game that is competitive but we lose I can live with. This is a game that by all accounts were could have been in the lead at half time, but managed to squander opportunities and then lose by a cricket score. At least if we had been outclassed then I could accept that we were soundly beaten by a superior team. But in this case we appear to have been largely the architects of our own destruction.

No. The Chufs were the better team. That is why they, you know, scored more points.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Numbers wrote:
I can't see your reasoning on this, surely it's better to have competed in most facets rather than being walked over.

A close game that is competitive but we lose I can live with. This is a game that by all accounts were could have been in the lead at half time, but managed to squander opportunities and then lose by a cricket score. At least if we had been outclassed then I could accept that we were soundly beaten by a superior team. But in this case we appear to have been largely the architects of our own destruction.

No. The Chufs were the better team. That is why they, you know, scored more points.

Yes the Chiefs took their chances better, but we clearly had plenty of scoring opportunities which we squandered. That annoys me more then the loss. If the Chiefs had utterly dominated for 80 minutes and we had lost by such a large score then fair enough. But we had plenty of possession and plenty of opportunities so our own incompetence led to the embarrassing scoreline. Squandering 3 tries by not passing to a player in space for example is just shyte. We might still have lost, but at least we would have been efficient when we had the opportunities.

I'm not sure which formula for "utterly dominate" fits your narrative, but 40-7 suggests some degree of daylight between the teams. Yes, Wales are useless at using the ball, but that record is getting old now.

morepork wrote:I'm not sure which formula for "utterly dominate" fits your narrative, but 40-7 suggests some degree of daylight between the teams. Yes, Wales are useless at using the ball, but that record is getting old now.

We normally fail to create any opportunities, yet on Tuesday we wasted several obvious ones. We still might have shipped 40 odd points, but we might have scored a few more ourselves. By all accounts we deserved to lose, but when we screw up this badly that is even more annoying than just a straight forward loss.

Being utterly dominated would be similar to England Wales games in the 90s where we didn't even get the opportunities to score a try, let alone win the game.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:I'm not sure which formula for "utterly dominate" fits your narrative, but 40-7 suggests some degree of daylight between the teams. Yes, Wales are useless at using the ball, but that record is getting old now.

We normally fail to create any opportunities, yet on Tuesday we wasted several obvious ones. We still might have shipped 40 odd points, but we might have scored a few more ourselves. By all accounts we deserved to lose, but when we screw up this badly that is even more annoying than just a straight forward loss.

Being utterly dominated would be similar to England Wales games in the 90s where we didn't even get the opportunities to score a try, let alone win the game.

I think "utterly dominated" is going too far, but we were certainly "outclassed" and "soundly beaten by a superior team".

40-7 is a thrashing, however it came about (unless via a crooked ref of course).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:I'm not sure which formula for "utterly dominate" fits your narrative, but 40-7 suggests some degree of daylight between the teams. Yes, Wales are useless at using the ball, but that record is getting old now.

We normally fail to create any opportunities, yet on Tuesday we wasted several obvious ones. We still might have shipped 40 odd points, but we might have scored a few more ourselves. By all accounts we deserved to lose, but when we screw up this badly that is even more annoying than just a straight forward loss.

Being utterly dominated would be similar to England Wales games in the 90s where we didn't even get the opportunities to score a try, let alone win the game.

I think "utterly dominated" is going too far, but we were certainly "outclassed" and "soundly beaten by a superior team".

40-7 is a thrashing, however it came about (unless via a crooked ref of course).

I'm not suggesting it wasn't.

All I am suggesting is that it's easier to accept a thrashing when you have been totally outclassed and haven't even had the opportunities to score. I this game we had plenty of opportunities which we squandered. That I find more frustrating than getting spanked by England repeatedly in the 90s when it was clear that most of our team weren't u t that standard.

Just watching the extended highlights. 3 great tries so far. That lock had no right to score from there. Amazing finish!

Nutmegging Tom James!

That was some performance from a Chiefs side missing so many players. Immense effort with some lovely tries too.

Huge overlap ignored in the first half by Williams. Wales were in.