That’s the appetiser done, now for the main course
By Brett McKay, 1 Jun 2010 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- bulls stormers, England, Fiji, Ireland, Rugby Union, springboxs, Super Rugby, Test rugby, wallabies
107 Have your say
As far as appetisers go, the last ever Super 14 final was a beauty. The Bulls and Stormers went at it in a good old-fashioned battle of attrition that just happened to be one of the best games of rugby of the season.
Such was the pace of the game, that the kettle boiled pre-game in my kitchen didn’t produce the intended cup of tea until the 26-minute mark. At which point Murphy’s Law took over and I missed the first try of the game to Bulls winger Francois Hougaard.
The noise of the nomadic Pretoria-to-Soweto crowd at Orlando Stadium was unbelievable. The din of who-knows-how-many thousand plastic bugles was as constant as it was deafening, with the buglers only seeming to take a breath whenever Bulls superboot Morne Steyn was lining up a kick at goal. When Stormers flyhalf Peter Grant lined his kicks up, the volume increased to such an extent that I think I could hear it outside my lounge room.
Just as I predicted last week, Bulls scrumhalf Fourie du Preez turned on a master class in game management. From the early exchanges, du Preez was in everything, controlling where the Bulls played their game, and unleashing his backs when the time was right. Between his own pinpoint kicking from behind the ruck, and Steyn’s unwavering accuracy, du Preez controlled the game like a maestro, and you just knew it was a matter of time until he produced the big play.
And so he did from just inside the Stormers half, where du Preez drifted to his right with quick ruck ball and superbly put the flying Hougaard through a yawning gap. Stormers fullback Joe Pietersen was no match in the last line, and before he knew it, Hougaard was launching himself under the posts. The Bulls were looking ominous as they went into the break with a 16-3 lead.
To the Stormers great credit, they fought back in the second half with yet another intercept try to winger Bryan Habana. It was a calculated risk from Habana, with three unmarked Bulls outside him, and it could well have been a 14-point turnaround had the pass found its intended mark.
At 16-10, and with a little over twenty minutes left, the title was there for the taking. Despite the best efforts of Grant and Springboks outside centre Jaque Fourie though, the Stormers just couldn’t make the big play when it was required. All the while, the Bulls played the percentages as they waited for the Stormers to err within Steyn’s prodigious kicking range.
Sure enough, giant Stormers lock Andries Bekker provided the necessary brain-explosion by attempting a rather crude ruck cleanout, gifting Steyn three more points. Two more penalty goals in the last ten minutes gave Steyn 20 points for the match, and a third Super Rugby title to the Bulls. Ricky Januarie’s 78th minute consolation try for the Stormers only briefly delayed the Bulls’ celebrations.
As I snuck back to bed at a touch before 3am, I couldn’t help but wonder what this might mean for the Springboks, as the southern hemisphere season now looks toward the main course: the Internationals.
Like those curious progressive dinners, the main course is broken into two segments, with the European nations first heading this way in June, before the SANZAR partners retreat back into their national guises, returning in July to belt seven shades out of each other during the Tri-Nations.
The June tours will see South Africa head to Cardiff firstly to take on Wales, before returning to the Republic to take on France and Italy. The home Tests shouldn’t pose much problem for the Springboks, but the trip to Wales could be a real danger game for them so soon after the Super 14 Final and more so given they’re resting several of their big names from this quick trip in favour of a handful of European-based fill-ins.
New Zealand host Ireland and then two Tests against Wales, and you’d expect the All Blacks to come out and prove all the current criticisms and concerns about depth are unfounded.
Australia host England for a two-Test Cook Cup series, followed by Ireland, of which I’d like to see three wins, but recognise that playing England in Perth might bring the same dangers as playing South Africa over in the west. Before these though, the Wallabies take on Fiji, in one of the cruellest pieces of rugby scheduling I can think of.
You see, the Fiji Test represents a return to Canberra Stadium, following last year’s successful hosting of Italy in the nation’s Capital. But Canberra in June can be a bit well, fresh, to put it mildly. The corresponding match last year saw the Italians having to deal with temperatures as low as -4. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that we’ve got another Test in town, but Fiji, in Canberra, in June? It just doesn’t seem very sporting to me.
Come July, the Tri-Nations begins and The Roar has already been abuzz with South Africans, New Zealanders and especially Australians all bullish about their teams’ chances. And fair enough too, Super Rugby form and recent rugby history can create some compelling arguments.
For what it’s worth, South Africa would have to be a big chance, with the draw seeing them finish with three home games up on the Highveld where they’re rarely beaten. Should they manage a win or two away from home first though, they’ll be short-priced favourites by the time they return home.
The All Blacks are always dangerous of course, and will be especially hard to beat at home, as they always are. Only playing one game in South Africa is a big plus too, and playing in Australia has presented few challenges in recent seasons.
The Wallabies, on the other hand, will be buoyed by not having to play New Zealand at Eden Park in Auckland, plus two home Bledisloe Cup Tests. If they can snare one win in South Africa, well you just never know.
However it pans out, we’re easily looking at one of the more evenly contested Tri-Nations tournaments in the last few years.
A tip? Don’t be silly, that’s how arguments start…
Recommend this story.
Follow Brett McKay on Twitter: @BMcSport
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
The Crowd Says (107) | Page 2 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- ALAN JONES: We have the players, it’s the coaches that are to blame (161)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (158)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- A Kiwi’s advice to Wallaby supporters
- Confessions of a rugby union traitor
- Brumbies vs Reds: a lesson for the other provinces (7)
- Chiefs vs Bulls: Super Rugby live scores, blog (14)
- Rocky Elsom axed from Wallabies (62)
- The burning question: Beale at 15 or 10? (122)
- Hola Argentina, and welcome to the Rugby Championship! (21)
- A Kiwi’s advice to Wallaby supporters (0)
- Confessions of a rugby union traitor (0)
- Brumbies vs Reds: a lesson for the other provinces (7)
- Chiefs vs Bulls: Super Rugby live scores, blog (14)
- Hola Argentina, and welcome to the Rugby Championship! (21)
- Irish coaches looking to head Western Force (15)
- Dull Super Rugby coaches equal dull rugby (50)
- Explore:
- bulls stormers, England, Fiji, Ireland, Rugby Union, springboxs, Super Rugby, Test rugby, wallabies



June 1st 2010 @ 12:57pm
Armchair-critic said | June 1st 2010 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
15. Kurtley Beale
14. Digby Ioane
13. Rob Horne
12. Matt Giteau
11. Adam Ashley-Cooper
10. Quade Cooper
9. Luke Burgess
8. Richard Brown
7. David Pocock
6. Rocky Elsom
5. Nathan Sharpe
4. Dean Mumm
3. Salesi Ma’afu
2. Huia Edmonds
1. Ben Alexander
June 1st 2010 @ 1:41pm
Willy said | June 1st 2010 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Tasty, tasty, tasty backline that one.
Potentially the best running backline since 1991? (1999-2001 was a great side, but limited somewhat in running backline play)
If they can get their share of front foot ball it could get spectacular… I’m less convinced about their ability to win an arm wrestle though.
June 1st 2010 @ 9:17pm
Chris said | June 1st 2010 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
Comparison between 2010 backline and 2000 backline:
15: Burke vs. Beale – not even a contest. 1999 1, 2010 0.
14. Tune vs. Ioane – closer than FB but Tune by a mile. 1999 2, 2010, 0.
13. Herbert vs. Horne – no contest. 1999 3, 2010, 0.
12. Giteau vs. Horan – Mouthwatering matchup – I’ll call it a tie. 1999 3.5, 2010 .5
11. Roff vs. Ashley-Cooper – Interestingly both of these players are actually fullbacks. Roff, by a fair margin. 1999 4.5 to 2010 .5
10. Larkham vs. Cooper – Muhammad Ali vs Gandhi would be a closer contest. 1999 5.5 2010 .5
9. Gregan vs. Burgess. Both have a “slow” pass. The difference is that Gregan can defend, has a better kick, has a better running game, better leadership skills, more accurate pass and is George Gregan. 1999 6.5, 2010 .5
Not even close between 1999 and 2010 I am afraid.
June 1st 2010 @ 9:55pm
jiggles said | June 1st 2010 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
Chris,
“12. Giteau vs. Horan – Mouthwatering matchup – I’ll call it a tie. 1999 3.5, 2010 .5″
Now thats just plan insulting my friend! Horan was one of the best inside centres to play the game, Giteau while a good 12, is no where near the standard of Helmet! 3 extra points to 99 on this position!
June 1st 2010 @ 9:59pm
Justin said | June 1st 2010 @ 9:59pm | Report comment
Yep, spot on.
Lets judge the rest of them in 10 years. I think Horne could be anything as could DI, WG and QC
June 1st 2010 @ 10:06pm
Mr Saunders said | June 1st 2010 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
I’m English and I have no qualms in stating that Horan’s performance v SA in the 99 WC SF was one of the greatest individual sporting performances I have ever witnessed. Giteau has been a great Wallaby, and often a lone voice in an attacking wilderness, but Horan was super special.
June 1st 2010 @ 10:46pm
jiggles said | June 1st 2010 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
Thank you Mr Saunders,
I do believe that Horan was a once in a life time sort of player, well for Australia anyway, and does deserve to be mentioned in the league of Ella, Campo, Eales and Far-jones as greats of the modern era for Australia. something which Giteau does not deserve
June 2nd 2010 @ 7:54am
John said | June 2nd 2010 @ 7:54am | Report comment
In fairness to Giteau he is usually pretty bloody good whenever he actually plays 12. Plus he has a kicking game that Horan didn’t.
June 1st 2010 @ 12:59pm
Jimmy said | June 1st 2010 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
The secret to beating the Boks is simple – keep the ball when we get it and don’t kick it back to them or into touch. Just keep them running, tackling and running.
And, oh Yes, prayer might be helpful as well.
June 1st 2010 @ 10:24pm
sixo_clock said | June 1st 2010 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
Hallelujah (except the bent knees bit)!
Any side that goes out to play with the understanding that it takes more energy to defend than it does to attack is, with judiciousness, armed to win. Use up the opponents energy for minimum exposure of our own means that 15-10 minutes from the end of each half opportunities will present themselves. That is as far as science impacts on the game. Skills application under pressure is the only other variable. Go Boys!!
June 1st 2010 @ 1:37pm
Harry said | June 1st 2010 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
I am happy to see the starting backline in the team above. But that forward pack … thank heavens we aren’t playing SA, NZ or even a full strength France this weekend! Huia Edmonds starting hooker, Brown, Mumm and Sharpe, Ma’afu … don’t think too many teams are going to be too worried about that lineup.
June 1st 2010 @ 1:49pm
Brett McKay said | June 1st 2010 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
Harry, I agree with you that the forwards look a touch light in my mind, but admittedly most likely dictated by injury. The bench line-up doesn’t really improve the situation either..
Run on reserves:
16. Saia Faingaa (Queensland Reds)
17. Pekahou Cowan (Western Force)
18. Mark Chisholm (Brumbies)
19. Matt Hodgson (Western Force)
20. Josh Valentine (Western Force)
21. Drew Mitchell (NSW Waratahs)
22. James O’Connor (Western Force)
And what’s with “Run on reserves” (the ARU’s wording, not mine)?? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms, like ARU marketing, and Vinay’s current favourite, Betfair??
June 1st 2010 @ 2:10pm
Harry said | June 1st 2010 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Run-on reserves … Gawd. Spose its for when Sharpe and Mumm run-off the field when its time to stand up to Bakkies and Brad. Having spend plenty of time riding pine in my rugby career, I guess its better than being referred to as a “fresh” reserve.
Very underwhelming list of forward reserves by the way. Cowan for instance gets rolled by his opponent when he’s playing for the Rats, let alone the Wallabies.
June 1st 2010 @ 4:34pm
Apelu Tielu said | June 1st 2010 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
Harry, Edmonds will acquit himself; i’m quite confident of that. He’s the most skilful hooker we have; yes, more skilful than TPN and Moore, though TPN is a more powerful runner and probably faster.
The other forwards? It’s almost a joke. I’d say Humphries and Samo would have provided more in the tight.
June 1st 2010 @ 2:08pm
JK said | June 1st 2010 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Has anyone seen our depth? I know we talked about a few weeks ago, but I just can’t find it or remember where we put it, any help would be greatly appreciated
June 1st 2010 @ 2:13pm
Harry said | June 1st 2010 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Have faith in Pek Cowan and Huia Edmonds JK!
June 1st 2010 @ 2:29pm
Tutu said | June 1st 2010 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Two good Mozzies there
June 1st 2010 @ 2:38pm
Go_the_Wannabe's said | June 1st 2010 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Maori-Aussies? I like it!
June 1st 2010 @ 2:26pm
Tutu said | June 1st 2010 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Out of Curiosity when people are making their predictions are they taking into account who’s playing who and where?
South Africa start of the Tri-Nations this year in NZ with two games in Auckland and Wellington before crossing the ditch to play Australia in Brisbane. While South Africa won away in NZ last year it was only by three points and everyone knows how notoriously slow starters the Boks are especially when their campaigns start on the road.
Australia start with the Boks in Brissy then have the AB’s in Melbourne who will be rested maybe a good thing or maybe not. They then dart across the Tasman to play the ABs in Christchurch before heading to South Africa to play the Boks in Pretoria and Bloemfontein after nearly a month off.
The ABs seem to have a slight edge with starting their campaign at home have a weeks rest before taking on the Aussies in a home and away scenario. Then it’s two weeks off before Playing the Boks in Jo’Burg then another couple of weeks off before taking on the Wallabies in Sydney who will have only been back in the country for 5 or 6 days max. Jet lag will be a big factor in this game I believe. Not to mention that they will be recovering from two physical encounters in the republic.
Unlike the Super 14 this year the Draw is with the NZ side
June 1st 2010 @ 2:34pm
Brett McKay said | June 1st 2010 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
“..South Africa would have to be a big chance, with the draw seeing them finish with three home games up on the Highveld where they’re rarely beaten. Should they manage a win or two away from home first though, they’ll be short-priced favourites by the time they return home.”
Tutu, I take your point about NZ’s draw, but I think the last month has proved the advantage of South African teams playing at home. And three home games to finish, in Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Jo’burg, is as good a draw as the Boks could hope for in my mind….
June 1st 2010 @ 3:43pm
Tutu said | June 1st 2010 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
I see what your saying but I still think the ABs have the better draw.
I think we all too quickly forget that the Stormers and Bulls make up the majority of the Springbok sides and this was a huge factor in their success this year not to mention a extremely favorable draw for both teams.
Where the boks have a home run I believe the Wallabies and the ABs will have started to hit their straps.
I think you can read far too much into a super season
June 1st 2010 @ 3:46pm
Brett McKay said | June 1st 2010 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Tutu, even ignoring the S14 form, I think the three homes games to finish – all at altitude – are still a plus. Of course it all means nothing in June, as the TNs are rarely won this time of year…
June 1st 2010 @ 6:47pm
Tutu said | June 1st 2010 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
South Africa have to try and get it together away this year first and history proves they are not good when they start away from home.
June 2nd 2010 @ 7:15am
pothale said | June 2nd 2010 @ 7:15am | Report comment
Particularly in Wales.
June 2nd 2010 @ 10:45am
Rusty said | June 2nd 2010 @ 10:45am | Report comment
touche Pothale touche
June 2nd 2010 @ 10:48am
Rusty said | June 2nd 2010 @ 10:48am | Report comment
minor point but the Bulls also won it last year with the draw reversed…
June 3rd 2010 @ 9:30am
Tutu said | June 3rd 2010 @ 9:30am | Report comment
That you are right rusty however as normal the South African teams Bulls and Stormers always start the season with 3 to four home games and a bye before heading south, after there games in Australasia they are back in the republic with 4 weeks remaining in the competition.
I do not remember the last time a South African team started their campaign away from SA or finished out of South Africa. But strangely there is always an Australasian team in SA come round 14 and in R13 there are a few more.
Be it what it may but the draw does help in some regards so it would be foolish to ignore this. Yes the Bulls played some teams at home last year but the Bulls and other South African teams are not playing away from their country at the end of the tournament. Unlike the Australasian teams.
From week 12 in 09 all SA teams were back in the republic where as 5 Australasian teams were still in Africa, by week 14 this was down to just the Waratahs. I can understand travelling has a factor in it but why should all the SA teams ber back in SA with weeks to go in the tournament and not still be on the road as are the Australasian teams?
Anyway rant over
June 3rd 2010 @ 9:37am
tutu said | June 3rd 2010 @ 9:37am | Report comment
I would like to know why both in 09 and 10 the South African teams are always back in the republic with 4 weeks to run yet the Australasian teams are still clocking up the miles?
Yes the schedule was reversed but time wise it is always in the South Africans favour.
The Bulls started with four games at home in 09 then a bye then start their trip south, and finished with four games at home
Stormers played 5 at home in SA a bye then head south.
Bulls are home by week 11 and the Stormers by week 12
Say what you like but the SA teams have had some great draws lately, I’m not saying tha’ts why the bulls won but it does and has given them a significant advantage especially when the Australasian teams are still travelling and some are still in the Republic in the last rounds of Super 14 yet all the SA teams are home tucked up
June 3rd 2010 @ 9:28pm
Photon said | June 3rd 2010 @ 9:28pm | Report comment
Tutu
The reason the South African sides get to have the last few and first few weeks at home is to counter the disadvantage of having to tour for 4 or 5 weeks as opposed to 3 like the Australasian sides
June 1st 2010 @ 2:34pm
johnny-boy said | June 1st 2010 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Deans will be relying on an up tempo high skill Australian style game similar to the Reds for sure (1st 3/4 of season anyway).
Wonder how Barnesy reckons that move to NSW is going …..
June 1st 2010 @ 2:45pm
Justin said | June 1st 2010 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
At least he got game time in NSW, he might have been on the bench behind Ant Faianga in QLD
June 1st 2010 @ 4:47pm
drop kick said | June 1st 2010 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Barnes will be back in the test side, my guess is for the tri-nations where every back will need to have good defence.
My guess is he will captain the Aust Barbarians next week.
Qld supporters should get over him leaving the Reds and recognise him for the great player he is. Remember Deans picked him as VC only seven months ago.
June 1st 2010 @ 8:45pm
Red Rooster said | June 1st 2010 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
J-B if he is relying on that then why did he only pick two Reds players in the starting XV. Interesting that the two highest finishing teams in Australia have the least representation -
June 1st 2010 @ 3:01pm
johnny-boy said | June 1st 2010 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Burgess must surely get only 40 mins to prove whether or not he has learnt (since his last couple of Super 14 games – ha) to pass under pressure and quickly. You cant have a halfback that cant pass ! What’s the point !
June 1st 2010 @ 4:43pm
Justin said | June 1st 2010 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
Agree JB. If LB is having a shocker then hook him before half time and put in the “never to be selected again” bin.
June 1st 2010 @ 3:11pm
Behind Enemy Lines said | June 1st 2010 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
I’m not getting too excited about the test against Fiji. I predict the set piece will be poor, the passing from Burgess to remain as it has all Super 14 and Cooper to be put under a lot of pressure as a result. I will be surprised if the talent of the outside backs gets anywhere near the amount of ball we would usually expect. The only saviour will be the disjointed game the Fijians like to play. Wallabies by 15.
June 1st 2010 @ 4:58pm
Tim Reardon said | June 1st 2010 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
In recent years, when I find that quite moment and attempt to channel Robbie Deans to imbibe him with my rugby wisdom, I’ve struggled to find a role for Mark Chisholm in the Wallabies.
He has all the size, strength and agility to be a world class player. He even puts together the stats on field (hit ups, tackles etc) to demonstrate his quality.
But with 32 test chaps he has not yet emerged as a first choice or even world class lock.
As a line out jumper he seems to lack the vertical jump required to compete even at S14 level. The Brumbies used Elsom as their second choice lineout jumper with Chisholm collecting only a hand full of line out wins each game. In his defence, he does start with a height disadvantage to most international line out specialists. He does make up for this with strength, which then translates to mass and I suspect is one of the reasons his feet stay so close to the ground.
The last two European tours have shown him to be a solid performer, highly mobile and busy around the field, but never a dominant enforcer. He does all the heavy work, he is well positioned, rarely misses a tackle but is not able to put in those game changing hits or runs.
I have been wondering, would he serve the Wallabies better as a number 8?
I suspect Chisholm, given more space and time afforded to a player standing a little wider from the ruck area could play a similar big running game to that of the Springbok number 8 Pierre Spies. Chisholm and Spies are of similar height and weight.
Whilst Richard Brown would dominant Chisolm on criteria such as ‘speed to ball’ and ‘turnovers’, the new rules at the ruck area seem to have reduced the role of the fetcher style player. The previous ruck interpretations resulted in the Wallabies experimenting with three fetchers on the field at once (playing both Waugh and Smith). But those days appear over.
As a fourth lineout jumper (after Elsom and the two first choice locks) Chisholm would provide a valuable distraction for defending lineouts. I also recall seeing Chisholm out run some Welsh backs a few years ago in a sprint to the try line and I think he could play havoc as the extra forward in the backline.
Perhaps the greatest benefit for the Wallabies of playing Chisholm as a number 8 is that it provides the flexibility for the Wallabies to select a lock, as they did in 1982 with Steve Cutler, a lineout specialist or a player like Brad Thorn as a roving ‘enforcer’.
It is at this point in the conversation that Robbie Deans asks, “So who would be your Steve Cutler or Brad Thorn that would replace Chisholm as a lock in the Wallabies squad?”
Sharpe has had a great season, but he is a one man band held together with string. In my opinion Mumm fits the same mold as Chisholm. Good all round skills but …
“Robbie, Im worried about the lineout and agression in the forwards but I do not have the solution.”
June 1st 2010 @ 9:16pm
Harry said | June 1st 2010 @ 9:16pm | Report comment
I’m normally deadset against these positional switches but Chisolm at 8 just MAY have some merit. Won’t happen at the Brumbies though so would have to be in tests only.
June 2nd 2010 @ 8:08am
Brett McKay said | June 2nd 2010 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Tim, funnily enough, Mitch Chapman has made this very move for the Brumbies. After starting the year at 6 when Elsom was out (might only have been the first game), he’s played from the bench, at No.8 in stages, before finishing the season at lock. And he played pretty well in all positions, too, providing all the size, strength and agility you could hope for.
I’m glad he made the BaaBaas squad, but in all honesty, my first impression of the 30-man squad was that the wrong Brumbies lock was there.
If anyone could make a fist of No.8, I think Chapman could be the one…
June 2nd 2010 @ 11:38pm
Ben J said | June 2nd 2010 @ 11:38pm | Report comment
Sorry Tim, are you seriously comparing Mark Chisholm with Pierre Spies? Pierre Spies is a muscled freak athlete who is a premier strike weapon for the Boks and Bulls. Chisholm, with all due respect, is not. To say they are the same height and weight is to say that…they are the same height and weight.
June 3rd 2010 @ 10:22am
Go_the_Wannabe's said | June 3rd 2010 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Chisholm at 8? I like it. He’s serviceable at lock but 8 he could be sensational similar (but not as good) to Spies.
Especially with Palu out, we need all the size we can get to counter the BokBlacks.
Hey Robbie, how about giving Marky Mark a run at 8?
C’mon, you know it makes sense……..
June 1st 2010 @ 7:06pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2010 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
I won’t believe the Wallabies are any good until they pry the Bledisloe Cup from my cold dead hands, but I think it’s important to note that the only people capable of changing perceptions of the Wallabies are the Wallabies themselves. Not Robbie, not Super 14 results, not soundbytes for the Sydney Morning Herald. No team has wasted more copy talking about being on the up than the Wallabies; think about what they’re doing to the rain forrests.
Sick of hearing about it, sick of reading about it, sick of playing these guys and beating them match after match. They ought to have loser leaves town matches in rugby. Please Wallabies, if you’re on the up, win a godamn match this year.
June 1st 2010 @ 8:12pm
Harry said | June 1st 2010 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Agree. Sadly. And watch em rabbit on ceaselessly when they roll Fiji on Saturday.
But won’t happen (winning Bledisloe or 3N) with Saturday’s pack of forwards.
June 1st 2010 @ 8:30pm
Who Needs Melon said | June 1st 2010 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
Love it OJ. Thank you.
By the way, what do you think the All Blacks chances are at the next World Cup?
June 1st 2010 @ 10:23pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2010 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
I think New Zealand could field four teams and all of them would make the semis. Then they’d choke against each other! It would be glorious.
June 1st 2010 @ 11:05pm
sixo_clock said | June 1st 2010 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
Enjoy the simplistic argument. The ‘Boks are the main game this year and last year and mayhaps next year – any comments!?
You employed 5 teams in the Super 14, how did they go?
Pride cometh before the fall into rugby obscurity. You could field a good sevens side, will that do?
June 2nd 2010 @ 10:55am
Go_the_Wannabe's said | June 2nd 2010 @ 10:55am | Report comment
OJ – This is an Aussie site (hence the au at the end) and we can be as positive as we damn well like.
If the Wannabe’s get over their injury woes and put their best team on the track, then I think we have a right to be optimistic about our chances this year – and why not? Has to better than the previous 4 or 5 years, right?
And yes, I would look forward to prising the Bledisloe from your cold dead hands!
June 2nd 2010 @ 4:24pm
warrenexpatinnz said | June 2nd 2010 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
GTW the line will be a long one but never trust a dead kiwi unless they are actually dead and buried, ABs will still be difficult no matter the injuries and unless we get that win belief like the very late nineties and early 2000′s we do talk up a good game without closing the deal.
Maybe this year? and better be next year!
June 2nd 2010 @ 6:05pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 2nd 2010 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
Since when was this site a newspaper. I’m worried about the forests.
June 3rd 2010 @ 9:07am
mickh said | June 3rd 2010 @ 9:07am | Report comment
OJ,
How are people going to talk about the coming games if we are not supposed to express our opinions until we know the result. Sounds a bit soft to me to wait until you win or lose to express an opinion. I didn’t think you were that kind of bloke.
“Sick of hearing about it, sick of reading about it, sick of playing these guys and beating them match after match. They ought to have loser leaves town matches in rugby. Please Wallabies, if you’re on the up, win a godamn match this year.”
I want you to picture this image OJ. Me standing on the shores of Bondi Beach with my bare pimply ar*se pointed across the Tasman after we prise the Bledisloe Cup from your “cold dead hands”. Trust me, with the type of smugness you ooze onto these pages you must be prepared for the barage of brown eye’s heading your way.