RugbyRebels

That's it then, let the annals of history reflect it so, the ABs are really 4 times world champs.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=11632939

Laurie "Taggart" Mains will be projecting a wry smile at these latest revelations.

An historically important early example of quality reality TV.

Pathetic excuses by the world's most incecure, self-absorbed little nation. If they Kiwis were even a fraction as manly as they thnk they are they would have put this behind them a long time ago. Even Lomu conceded the Springboks won because of their outstanding defence. They stopped him in his tracks, and the All Blacks had no plan B.



& remember that NZ were pros competing in an amateur competition in 1987, while the reffing in 2011 not only had a major bearing on the final, but cheated the Boks out of a semis (and possble final) spot to boot.

Wumtastic.

It's brilliant.

Its just not the same without Beefy.

This tells us nothing new. I want names. NAMES.

Forget this. We still need Justice 4 Deans #Remember1905

This won't rest until autopsies are performed on the '95 team, some decades hence. Books will be written.

Even Keith Quinn, one of the most biased Kiwis you'll ever meet,& who was closer to the All Blacks team than just about anyone not directly involved in the squad at the time, had the good grace to concede the story was a hoax, and pretty much a lame excuse by a nation which has never been able to face up to defeat on the rugby paddock: http://keithquinnrugby.com/quinns-news- ... -occasion/

Come on Rowan, surely you can find some fresher bait than that.

Speaking of which, why did this guy take 21 years to come out with this? Short of cash, perhaps?

We all already knew this. Sad thing is if the final were so important to South Africa as a nation the All Blacks probably would have thrown the game if they'd been asked. They didn't need to poison us!

There have been many controversial results in sports, but even when the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the "victim" (and I'm not holding the 1995 RWC final up as an example, because I personally don't think it is) teams, fans and nations have eventually put it behind them and just moved on. What goes around comes around, and I saw the All Blacks win a few games they probably shouldn't have. Steve Tuynman's ludicrously disallowed late "match-winner" against the All Blacks in Wellington 30 years ago springs to mind. It was all that separated the All Blacks from what would have been a first and only series whitewash at home. And do you think the Scots will still be whinging about the 2015 RWC quarterfinal loss to Australia 20 years from now? But when the All Blacks lose in controversial circumstances you simply never - ever - hear the end of it. They were still talking about Bob Deans in 1905 when I was a youngster, for heaven's sakes! & ever since 1995 it's been about that final.

NZ's not the only one. Wales with the Andy Haden line out for instance. Mind you we and the Welsh probably care more about rugby than most. South African and All Blacks fans probably have equal memories of "home" refs on tour in the old days.

The media love dragging it up but for your man in the street '95 is probably history now (unlike the underarm incident in cricket) especially now we've won another away RWC.

Still, at least the NZRU never insisted that the Springboks leave players out of tours here due to their race.

Poisoned or not, the ABs were obviously sick and unable to play at their best. I expect that if the Boks had turned up crook for the final the ABs would have insisted that the final be postponed a week. The mana of that group of players would have demanded it.

The NZRU should demand a rematch.

zer0 wrote:The NZRU should demand a rematch.

With as many of the original players as are still alive.

Lizard wrote:NZ's not the only one. Wales with the Andy Haden line out for instance. Mind you we and the Welsh probably care more about rugby than most. South African and All Blacks fans probably have equal memories of "home" refs on tour in the old days.

The media love dragging it up but for your man in the street '95 is probably history now (unlike the underarm incident in cricket) especially now we've won another away RWC.

Still, at least the NZRU never insisted that the Springboks leave players out of tours here due to their race.

That's true about the Welsh. After video replays proved the All Blacks had cheated to win, Welsh TV news even went as far as to announce that Wales had actually won

Yes, the 1995 controversy was dragged at by the media on this occasion, and we can't blame the Kiwis for that, but it did appear to get a great deal more attention there than it warranted - and evidently accepted without question by many, despite the highly dubious circumstances of the security guard having kept it quiet for over two decades.

The NZRFU, and other unions which sent teams to South Africa during the Apartheid era, were just as guilty as the SARFU, in my view, agreeing to discount non-white players right up until the 1970s, in fact.

Poisoned or not, the ABs were obviously sick and unable to play at their best. I expect that if the Boks had turned up crook for the final the ABs would have insisted that the final be postponed a week. The mana of that group of players would have demanded it.

There were a few sick players, but others in the squad who could have replaced them. That's why you take a squad to a tournament and not just 21 or 22 players. I saw nothing to indicate that any of the All Blacks on the pitch were ill or significantly below par. The possible exception might have been Lomu, who couldn't break through the Springboks D, but he himself attributed this to great defence. Coming to think of it, he never did manage to score again them - not in that match nor any other. I also doubt the All Blacks would've demanded a rematch. Where was their "mana" after Haden admitted to having cheated against Wales? No offer of a rematch then, and that result helps the Kiwis to their very first grandslam.

canta_brian wrote:

zer0 wrote:The NZRU should demand a rematch.

With as many of the original players as are still alive.

And they can't use any ring-ins.

rowan wrote:Speaking of which, why did this guy take 21 years to come out with this? Short of cash, perhaps?

he wrote it in his autobiography in 2000, it's only coming up again now because he's on a speaking tour.

So he wrote an autobiography? Ok, now it all starts to make sense. He actually has a vested interest in this.