All Blacks vs Wales
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MiketheSnow" data-cid="585517" data-time="1465299520">
<div>
<p>Mate and I are seriously considering laying NZ to rack up +150 pts across the three tests.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The gulf in "skill set under pressure" is so vast that once NZ put width and speed on the game Wales will not be able to cope.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's the sort of win-win situation isn't it? If your team get reamed at least you've got some dosh to go on the piss with and drown your sorrows.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Wish I'd done that in RWC15. :Bang_Head:</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pakman" data-cid="585510" data-time="1465296751">
<div>
<p>Could anyone make out what Foster meant in conference? Sounds like Cruden, Lima and Barrett will start one test each. But at another stage said something about three would be in 23, and then added 'at some point'. On Herald website there was a photo of Fekitoa and Seta T in background -- so maybe midfield. In which case the correction might suggest no recognised midfielder on bench for first?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I took it as: Moving forward all three players will get chances at various points in time due to inevitable injuries or form drops. They won't be picking a single player and giving him 100% of the game time because they need them all to be able to slot in when required.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="585567" data-time="1465340404">
<div>
<p>How can a team that has genuine class players across the board like AWJ, Warburton, Faletau, North, Roberts and Davies be so lowly rated.....are the nine I haven't mentioned shit beyond words ?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Possibly, or perhaps the 6 you have mentioned are not as good as you are making out?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="585567" data-time="1465340404">
<div>
<p>How can a team that has genuine class players across the board like AWJ, Warburton, Faletau, North, Roberts and Davies be so lowly rated.....are the nine I haven't mentioned shit beyond words ?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree, they weren't too bad in the world cup last year either. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I didnt watch any 6 nations this year though.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I thought the 18.5 points head start at the TAB was quite generous for the first test of the year. </p> -
<p>Wales have talked about applying a "siege mentality" which is actually just status quo when it comes to their style of rugby. The imagery is backwards though - Wales are actually the marauders attacking our fortress. I'm pretty sure the "siege mentality" applies to the ones defending their castle and you can't lay siege to a fortress with a siege mentality. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Prospects for the game are a bit grim when their main hope of winning consists of us playing poor, naive rugby. Still, if it's going to happen it will be in the first game. We will actually have quite a bit of experience in our XV running onto the park and any naivety is likely to reside on our bench.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="585582" data-time="1465343677">
<div>
<p>Possibly, or perhaps the 6 you have mentioned are not as good as you are making out?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think it's safe to say all would rate mentions in a "best in the world" discussion. All of them are Lions which is nothing to sniff at.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Just find it rather odd that in less than a year they've gone from a team that did well to get out of a very tough WC pool to taking on ( admittedly the World champs ) who have lost a lot of experience and world class......but it's "only" Wales so the ABs should put 50 on them in each test.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="585589" data-time="1465345011">
<div>
<p>I think it's safe to say all would rate mentions in a "best in the world" discussion. All of them are Lions which is nothing to sniff at.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Just find it rather odd that in less than a year they've gone from a team that did well to get out of a very tough WC pool to taking on ( admittedly the World champs ) who have lost a lot of experience and world class......<strong>but it's "only" Wales so the ABs should put 50 on them in each test.</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't think too many people are expecting 50 points, especially in each test, I think you are stretching things there.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The issue I see is the likelihood of Wales winning a test - it looks very low - let's look at some factors</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- The stats of Wales vs Southern Hemisphere teams under Gatland talked about earlier in the thread, it is woeful.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- The ABs haven't lost at Eden Park since 1994, or in NZ at all since 2009</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- Wales looked poor vs England in the warmup game.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- The ABs have also had an extra week prep than they often normally have at this time of year and they are picking a near full strength team and almost everyone is in decent form. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Having said all that - I sense a bit of an ambush approach from Wales and I expect Wales to come out all fire and brimstone v the ABs on Saturday and the ABs to be a bit slow out of the blocks. I'd be shocked if the ABs don't win relatively comfortably - but I think early on in test 1 it will be a bit of a wakeup call. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="585589" data-time="1465345011">
<div>
<p>I think it's safe to say all would rate mentions in a "best in the world" discussion. All of them are Lions which is nothing to sniff at.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Just find it rather odd that in less than a year they've gone from a team that did well to get out of a very tough WC pool to taking on ( admittedly the World champs ) who have lost a lot of experience and world class......but it's "only" Wales so the ABs should put 50 on them in each test.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I take your point, and I don't think the ABs themselves will be of the "it's only Wales" mindset. They'll know they have some class players and will be hell bent on putting in a good performance.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's the fans that are saying "it's only Wales". And, when you look at their record in NZ, it's a fair enough comment. Their record is 0 from 7 by a combined score of 284-46. Until that changes they will always be rated lowly when playing in NZ.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If the game was in Wales, there'd be a lot more talk about a possible upset.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="585567" data-time="1465340404"><p>How can a team that has genuine class players across the board like AWJ, Warburton, Faletau, North, Roberts and Davies be so lowly rated.....are the nine I haven't mentioned shit beyond words ?</p></blockquote>
<br>
They've had quality players over a number of years but as I wrote on another forum, New Zealand has outscored Wales by 300 points in the last 13 tests, with an average scoreline of 37-14.<br><br><br>
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
<p>I expect a close game decided by a few points at the death where Wales completely fuck up a chance of winning it, a game where the scoreboard flatters the All Blacks as they put on some margin at the end, and one where the Special Victims Unit is called in to investigate.</p>
-
Unless I am missing something here, but have a Wales only played 7 tests in NZ? I thought it would have been more than that.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="585601" data-time="1465350361">
<div>
<p>Unless I am missing something here, but have a Wales only played 7 tests in NZ? I thought it would have been more than that.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Given their results, I don't think they've been in a rush to come back.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="585602" data-time="1465350408">
<div>
<p>Given their results, I don't think they've been in a rush to come back.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That seems like fuck all.....France on the other hand seem to pop over here all the time ( Wikipedia confirms this, 28 tests in all )</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Even the dour, penny pinching Scots have ponied up here more than the "proud" Welsh, 10 tests on NZ soil.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For a nation as into Rugby as Wales are that's a really piss poor effort. Fuck it, let's put 200 on the fluffybunnies over the three tests !</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="585601" data-time="1465350361">
<div>
<p>Unless I am missing something here, but have a Wales only played 7 tests in NZ? I thought it would have been more than that.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>they played 7 tests here during the 2011 world cup. It's probably 7 tests against NZ in NZ. </p> -
The dodgy journo Galagher has a feature on Wales tours/tests in NZ:<br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/brendan-gallagher/26032/brendan-gallagher-looks-at-how-wales-have-never-yet-come-to-terms-with-touring-in-new-zealand/">http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/brendan-gallagher/26032/brendan-gallagher-looks-at-how-wales-have-never-yet-come-to-terms-with-touring-in-new-zealand/</a><br><br>
I found part of the article quite interesting, as 1969 is well before my time, and that was a great NZ team and welsh team about to become great. So it was a lot of new info in there for me.<br><br>
However, I remember the 1988 tour extremely well. and some of the stuff Galagher writes about that tour is just plain stretching normailty to try and make it sound like the extreme, plus a few outrigh untruths, again. So now I doubt if what he has written about 1969 resembes the truth.<br><br>
About 1988:<br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"><p>
"This time they stepped off the plane and went straight into three games in eight days against the then three strongest provincial sides in New Zealand – Waikato, Wellington and Otago."</p></blockquote>
<br>
Well this is wrong. Waikato were only 1 year up from Division 2, wellington were actiually the second best team from the previous NPC (but about to implode that year), Otago were on the way up, and probably were the second best provincial team in NZ in 1988. But the strongest team in NZ from 1987 to 1993 was Auckland, second stongest was Auckand B, third strongest was Ponsonby :-), then Auckland Marist .... etc. Waikato beating Wales was such a shock (at the time, but only for about 3 days until we realised how abysmal they were still in the next match).<br><br>
Also about 1988:<br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"><p>
"Come the first Test in Christchurch – the fourth change of venue and internal flight in ten days, Wales were ripe for the picking." <br></p></blockquote>
Makes it sound like playing a tour of Wed > Sat > Wed > Sat (TEST) was something strange ...... <br><br><br>
Anyway. Interesting article to get a different view, and will be interesting for those who don't remembr the tours. But is full of excuse making, with the caveat of being by a whining journalist whol likes to make stuff up, so keep an open mind.<br><br>
Will be interested in reading any feedback from those old enough to remember 1969. -
<p>At least we know the Welsh will play with passion!</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="585610" data-time="1465354492">
<div>
<p>At least we know the Welsh will play with passion!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>"Passion" is just a kind word that rugby writers bestow on shit teams.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Scots always play with a lot of passion.</p> -
<p>Celtic Passion!</p>
