Wales in denial about their Australian results

Stillmatic1, I have responded to you at the end of the thread.

Stilmatic1, I have shifted my response to you onto the end of the thread, as its getting crowded above. "mike, pretty sure it doesnt say “wallabies b-side lost to samoa, scotland”anywhere in the books" You really need to read a thread and follow its context before commenting. Ben S wants to put down Wales because they have had the temerity to win the 6N, and then push his beloved England out of 4th spot on the rankings. Therefore he has been trying to put down the Wallabies, since Wales have obviously played well against them. (He is doing the same thing on another thread with the Boks, trying to denigrate them down because they have beaten England yet again… but I digress!). He asserts that no team can be called "good" if it loses a couple of matches to teams ranked 8-9 below it. When I pointed out that the Wallabies have won 2 out of their last 4 matches against New Zealand (ranked No 1 in the world) and 6 out of their last 7 matches against the Springboks (ranked No 3 in the world), he dismisses this as irrelevant. Its all outweighed by the losses to Samoa and Scotland. A kindergarten argument. Now you chime in with the same unsustainable argument, and your motivation is the usual – you hate Robbie Deans and you want to put down the Wallabies in order to support your personal issue. Well, get over it. "and not to really back ben s up or anything, when was the last time a team that he mentions lose to a team 8-9 rankings lower? you have failed to answer that, simply due to the fact that the answer is apparent and disputes your idea of what “good” teams should or shouldnt do." On the contrary, Ben S has failed to answer my question, as have you. How does a loss to Samoa or Scotland outweigh winning two out of last 4 matches against New Zealand, or 6 out of our last 7 matches against the Boks? I am still waiting for a response to that one, but we all know there won't be one, because it is unanswerable. And then, to top it all off, you and Ben S put forward England as a "good" team! By my definition, yes, England is a good team. But by your definition it fails abysmally: It has lost its last 9 matches to New Zealand and its last 9 matches to the Springboks. "nobody would ever discount a wallaby team against the boks or the Abs, no matter what the form guide says, but would consistancy be a pre-requisite to calling them “good”?" So once again you put down England which has lost its last nine matches to the ABs and its last nine matches to the Boks. Don't you think its about time you started to think these things through before putting finger to keyboard? "the boks waxed the abs in 09 but still didnt finish the year off at no.1 due to having a poor end of year tour, so does this makes the boks good, or the abs, or both?" Why are you asking me? I think that all of the top 10 or so teams are good. Its you and Ben S who are arguing that the No 2 team in the world is not a good team. Basic English lesson for you: "Good" does not mean the same thing as "excellent" or "best". "(not too many floggings in the abs 10 in a row win streak if i recall!!)" Now you really are putting finger to keyboard without thinking first – you think every one of those losses to New Zealand was a "flogging"? Buy some DVDs and watch the matches. While you are at it, try and work out why a 10-match winning streak by the best team in the world makes Australia not a "good" team, yet England are a "good" team when they have 9-match losing streaks against the ABs AND against the Boks. In fact, the Boks probably don't make it either (on your argument) because they have lost 6 out of their last 7 matches against the Wallabies who according to you are not a good team. You go on about consistency, but you ignore the fact that the Boks lose consistently against us. In fact the only thing that is really consistent here is the utter inconsistency in your arguments! I want to emphasise that I think the above arguments by Ben S and yourself are utter illogical drivel. In my view, the Boks, Australia, England and Wales are all "good" teams. I'll reserve "the best" for the ABs.

likewise dean. its been an entertaining test season, not neccesarily due to oustanding rugby but due to the contest itself. the little bits that ive watched of the eng v sa series seems to be the best of the lot, but having a rabid home crowd will always get the juices flowing!

mike, pretty sure it doesnt say "wallabies b-side lost to samoa, scotland"anywhere in the books, now does it? and if thats the case, then the same should be said for NZ/SA last year when they sent b squads into battle in the 3nations!! you cant have it both ways. either the wins accorded to samoa/scotland last year hold the same weight as the wallabies and the 3nations, or they dont. make up your mind. and not to really back ben s up or anything, when was the last time a team that he mentions lose to a team 8-9 rankings lower? you have failed to answer that, simply due to the fact that the answer is apparent and disputes your idea of what "good" teams should or shouldnt do. good teams should not lose to weak nations as par for the course and certainly shouldnt make a habit of it either. further to the point, i watched a lot of the minnow games at the WC which i found to be quite good games overall, but you wouldnt consider georgia and romania good, would you? context is vital. and the matches between wales and the wallabies have been enjoyable for the intangibles of sport, not necessarily the great play by either team.again, context is vital. both are at a similar level at the moment and this is reflected in the play. we may well be looking at it differently come 4nations time. in the end mike, your argument is flawed due to not holding a comparative (not same) weighting to the losses as you do the victories. losing to scotland, samoa etc is poor for a team that you rate as good any which way you want to twist it, and i think you'll find its more australian rugby followers that find this hard to accept more than you would find other nations supporters having a laugh at you. nobody would ever discount a wallaby team against the boks or the Abs, no matter what the form guide says, but would consistancy be a pre-requisite to calling them "good"? the boks waxed the abs in 09 but still didnt finish the year off at no.1 due to having a poor end of year tour, so does this makes the boks good, or the abs, or both? this deans era, and perhaps longer, will boil down to being one in which there was a heap of unfulfilled potential, and horribly inconsistant. world beaters one day, bottom feeders the next but never to be taken lightly ( not too many floggings in the abs 10 in a row win streak if i recall!!).

You have misquoted me regularly, as I have regularly pointed out. You even misquote me right there. Either read what I write and pay attention or don't waste yours and my time. All over the place and frankly a little peculiar. Btw, Australia don't regularly beat the best sides in the world... but anyway. Have a nice day.

"Aside from that I would suggest that the Welsh franchise system like the Australian does not allow private owners, which [saves a game already riven with politics from being further subject to the petty whims of billionaires]" Sorted that typo out for you.

Hmmm Ben S, seems like I can't win – if I respond to each of your assertions, I am "picking on" poor little you. If I don't respond to any your points, then I am giving up, haven't watched the 6N etc, etc! Anyway, its all just an attempt by you to avoid the issue. I have never misquoted you, just called you out on some of the sillier things you have said. You keep insisting that Australia is not a "good" team because their B-side lost a match to Samoa, and you compare them to England who haven't done that. The fact that Australia is regularly beating the best teams in the world doesn't count for anything. Now, if you don't like being called "pathetic", fine. How about "doesn't know what he's talking about" – is that better?

agree, it is obviously Wales best effort touring here for a while. Wlaes have competed well and I have enjoyed the 2 tests.

anyone who says thing like 'I call a spade a spade' and 'I tell it like it is' is usually full of it. Sorry wre01 but you're proving this to be true. Never seen so many contradictions in my life.

This really is pretty simple: clearly you didn't watch the most recent 6N. In that case don't comment on it. If you didn't watch the 6N then it's likely that you don't watch much European rugby. Wales are not a good side. They are an erratic side. They haven't beaten a SH side since 2008. They have some excellent players, but are one-dimensional in attack, tactically naive, mentally weak, poorly selected and poorly coached. The same can be applied to Australia. You might like to think that winning the 2011 3N makes Australia worth of some great praise, but it doesn't, just like NZ didn't deserve any huge praise for winning the 2007 3N. Sides rest players, and patterns and tactics are tested out. Australia are erratic, and most actual rugby fans would agree that a mark of a good side is consistency. Good sides don't garner losses like Australia has in recent seasons, so come to terms with that. That isn't an original concept on the Roar. You might have noticed that I'm far from the first person to espouse that thought publicly. Stop contradicting yourself, misquoting me and being so childish. If you want to discuss rugby then great, go ahead, but clearly you want to bicker for some reason. I have no interest in that, so keep it to yourself please.

“No they don’t. No they don’t. When was the last time SA, England, Ireland or NZ lost to a side ranked 8-9 places lower than them?” 'Ah the repetition of the school playground. So let me get this straight – you have decided that Australia just CAN’T be a good side because it’s B-side lost a match to Samoa, where England has to be a good side because it didn’t.' Can you stop misquoting me please. How many times have I asked you to stop doing that now? If you can't follow basic prose then stop stalking me and/or construct a sensible and coherent argument. 'This is the same England that hasn’t beaten New Zealand since 2003, whereas Australia has won two of its last four matches against the ABs?' The same England that has lost its last nine matches against South Africa, whereas Australia has won six out of its last seven matches against SA?' Typically disingenuous. I think you know why. 'But Australia is not good, despite all its victories against truly good teams, because our B-side lost a match to Samoa…! You really are pathetic, Ben S!' First you misquote me, then you insult me. Odd. You really do yourself no favours. You stated that good sides lose to teams ranked 8-9 places below them. Please justify that statement or just stop harassing me with this cringeworthy material. 'So you admit that it does happen, even quite recently. Get over yourself.' Twice in 4 years? “Again, stop being childish. It’s actually cringeworthy to read. I have criticised England at length on the Roar, so it’s evident I have no agenda.” 'You have very rarely criticized England on the Roar (and only lightly) and you always try and drag down any nations that are close to England on the ladder. Sorry, but that’s what you do.' That's utter dross. I have critcised England at length for seasons now, and I have been overtly positive about other nations. I have had various conversations with Pothale, for example, about the excellence of various Irish players, likewise with OJ & Jerry re: NZ, Rusty re: SA. Not sure what you're gaining from this, but it's not fun to read.

"No they don’t. No they don’t. When was the last time SA, England, Ireland or NZ lost to a side ranked 8-9 places lower than them?" Ah the repetition of the school playground. So let me get this straight – you have decided that Australia just CAN'T be a good side because it's B-side lost a match to Samoa, where England has to be a good side because it didn't. Sorry, but I couldn't write for a minute for laughing! This is the same England that hasn't beaten New Zealand since 2003, whereas Australia has won two of its last four matches against the ABs? The same England that has lost its last nine matches against South Africa, whereas Australia has won six out of its last seven matches against SA? But Australia is not good, despite all its victories against truly good teams, because our B-side lost a match to Samoa…! You really are pathetic, Ben S! "The only modern upset I can think of is Wales losing to Fiji in 2007 and France losing to Tonga in 2011." So you admit that it does happen, even quite recently. Get over yourself. "Again, stop being childish. It’s actually cringeworthy to read. I have criticised England at length on the Roar, so it’s evident I have no agenda." You have very rarely criticized England on the Roar (and only lightly) and you always try and drag down any nations that are close to England on the ladder. Sorry, but that's what you do.

'Good sides can easily lose to sides ranked 8-9 places lower than them.' No they don't. No they don't. When was the last time SA, England, Ireland or NZ lost to a side ranked 8-9 places lower than them? The only modern upset I can think of is Wales losing to Fiji in 2007 and France losing to Tonga in 2011. 'Yes, England didn’t win and therefore the competition was bad, we do understand your sour grapes!' Again, stop being childish. It's actually cringeworthy to read. I have criticised England at length on the Roar, so it's evident I have no agenda. You haven't stated that you did watch the most recent 6N, so I can only infer that you didn't. In that case stop commenting on things you don't know about. ' “Talking of one- eyed… Scotland managed to beat Samoa with a B-side, as has Ireland, England and France in recent years.” So what?' Does Scotland have great player depth? Does Ireland? You made reference to Australia fielding a weakened side, and yet other sides have managed to avoid that banana skin. 'I haven’t misquoted you, its just that you don’t like attention being called to your errors.' You've misquoted me numerous times. I gave no definition of good, nor did I ever state that England were good. All over the place.

"I’ve simply stated that good sides don’t lose to sides ranked 8-9 places lower to them." No you didn't actually. But if that is what you mean, then its just as childish as your comments before. Good sides can easily lose to sides ranked 8-9 places lower than them. They can also beat the best in the world. "Pointlessly gib and childish." Now, now, don't take it too harshly. "No sides particularly impressed." Yes, England didn't win and therefore the competition was bad, we do understand your sour grapes! "Talking of one- eyed… Scotland managed to beat Samoa with a B-side, as has Ireland, England and France in recent years." So what? "Do stop misquoting me." I haven't misquoted you, its just that you don't like attention being called to your errors.

Agree with you stilmatic, don't quite know what players/coaches are supposed to say post-match. Neither do I see how 1 person's remarks speak for a whole squad/nation. Saturday night was the best night's rugby I've seen for some time. Been a bit bored with Super 15 this year to be honest. Thats not a sleight on the tournament or the Southern Hemisphere before somebody comes on here and starts the whole north/south thing again, I just haven't really enjoyed as much as last year. It was great to see 2 bone-crunching close tests. Personally, I'd rather see a close fought contest with a bit of niggle and passion than a forty point walloping.

But neither is there any point in being illogical about it. Your definition of “good” means that nobody is any “good” except NZ, and in the process you drag them down also. I'm not being illogical, nor have I offered a definition of good, so don't misquote me. I've simply stated that good sides don't lose to sides ranked 8-9 places lower to them. Hardly a difficult concept to grasp. 'Translation: “No side is good unless I Ben S agree that they are good”. Sorry, but this is just a waste of time. Wales were worthy 6N champions because they were the best of those 6 teams this season. That’s hard for a one-eyed England supporter to take, I know, but its the truth.' Pointlessly gib and childish. You either watched the 6N or you didn't. I'm presuming you didn't. No sides particularly impressed. Being the best of a mediocre bunch is not a natural adjunct of quality. “Not really. Losing to teams like Samoa and Scotland is not the same as losing to the 2nd and 3rd ranked sides in the world.” 'Of course it isn’t the same, since our sides that lost to them lacked our best players. We don’t have the depth of players of NZ. So thank you for a statement of the bleeding obvious. But we remain just where we should be: 2nd in the rankings. SA rightly comes 3rd, Wales 4th and the others behind.' Talking of one- eyed... Scotland managed to beat Samoa with a B-side, as has Ireland, England and France in recent years. “That aside, I think there is NZ and then a pool of the others, all of whom could beat each other on any given day.” 'Precisely, but you then have another of your brain snaps and decide that nobody is allowed to call anyone except NZ and England ‘good’.' Do stop misquoting me. 'Whatever, but since they are good sides and they were good matches, you don’t have to worry. “The quality of the games wasn’t especially high, and both sides have serious flaws. There’s no point in glossing over that fact.” The only person “glossing over” anything is you: Demanding that no-one can call Wales or Australia ‘good’ just demonstrates your lack of understanding of the game.' Please stop misquoting me and try and construct an argument.

But neither is there any point in being illogical about it. Your definition of "good" means that nobody is any "good" except NZ, and in the process you drag them down also. "Being the 6N champions doesn’t necessarily mean you are a good side." Translation: "No side is good unless I Ben S agree that they are good". Sorry, but this is just a waste of time. Wales were worthy 6N champions because they were the best of those 6 teams this season. That's hard for a one-eyed England supporter to take, I know, but its the truth. "Not really. Losing to teams like Samoa and Scotland is not the same as losing to the 2nd and 3rd ranked sides in the world." Of course it isn't the same, since our sides that lost to them lacked our best players. We don't have the depth of players of NZ. So thank you for a statement of the bleeding obvious. But we remain just where we should be: 2nd in the rankings. SA rightly comes 3rd, Wales 4th and the others behind. "That aside, I think there is NZ and then a pool of the others, all of whom could beat each other on any given day." Precisely, but you then have another of your brain snaps and decide that nobody is allowed to call anyone except NZ and England 'good'. "I enjoyed the games too, but that doesn’t mean they are good sides, and they were good matches." Whatever, but since they are good sides and they were good matches, you don't have to worry. "The quality of the games wasn’t especially high, and both sides have serious flaws. There’s no point in glossing over that fact." The only person "glossing over" anything is you: Demanding that no-one can call Wales or Australia 'good' just demonstrates your lack of understanding of the game.

'I don’t think you’d find a sane man anywhere outside of the Welsh valleys who would take Warburton at 7 ahead of Pocock match fit or not.' I wouldn't like to claim I speak for anybody beyond myself, however, the fact is the first time they met Warburton had the edge. That you don't seem to recall that match is rather informative. “I really think I’m going to have to work on our tackler gettng back up on his feet and competing for the ball because it’s clearly evident you are allowed to do that down here whereas maybe where we are you would get penalised for that,” Talking about the differences in breakdown interpretation? Not a whinge. Lydiate isn't match fit. He needs surgery on an ankle injury, so I suspect he was being managed. Likewise Warburton. Regardless, that comment is hardly a whinge. “The northern hemisphere teams only have a week to prepare usually and so the World Cup is the only time we have equal preparation. “If you look at the win-loss ratio at the World Cup, you will notice the northern hemisphere teams do substantially better than they do in the autumn series and in the end-of-season fixtures in June. “Our guys have been playing non-stop for 12 months.” Again. Not a whinge.

Good post, Dean. Seconded.

'I don’t think Wales are “poorly coached, poorly selected, tactically inflexible and largely overrated”. They are a good side , the 6N champions, and came close to upsetting us.' Being the 6N champions doesn't necessarily mean you are a good side. The context is vital. If you watched the 6N then you know what I'm saying rings true. 6Ns post-WC and Lions tours tend to be turgid affairs. 'The problem with that reasoning is that no team in the world can be rated as “good” except New Zealand.'' Actually even NZ will fail the test, because suddenly the various losses which it has sustained over the last few years to Australia, SA and others are now against teams that are not “good”.' Not really. Losing to teams like Samoa and Scotland is not the same as losing to the 2nd and 3rd ranked sides in the world. That aside, I think there is NZ and then a pool of the others, all of whom could beat each other on any given day. 'The fact is that both Wales and Australia are good teams, and that showed in the quality of the rugby, even though neither team has played entirely at their best. I had a very enjoyable time watching it, and I am grateful to both teams for the entertainment they gave.' I enjoyed the games too, but that doesn't mean they are good sides, and they were good matches. The quality of the games wasn't especially high, and both sides have serious flaws. There's no point in glossing over that fact.