2022 Bledisloe Cup. Wallabies vs All Blacks

[Dismal Pillock]

If Aus win the Bledisloe Cup then NZ might finally get shot of Fozzie.

VS

If Aus win the Bledisloe Cup then NZ no longer have the Bledisloe Cup.

 

[Pfitzy]

No danger of that. NZ to win in Melbourne then hand out an Eden Park fisting as usual

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Injury concerns in Camp Wallaby:

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[Derpus]

Yeah its looking like Foley at 10. Snowflakes chance in hell with no Tupou, Kerevi, Quade, Hooper, Lolesio, Paisami, etc.

Id like to see Arnold dropped for Frost with Swain starting. Arnold has been shite.

 

[LeCheese]

Me looking at the Wallabies a few months ago: "Finally! Our best chance to win a Bledisloe and TRC in years!"

Me looking at the Wallabies now:

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Frizell out with a rib injury & Ardie staying home to await the birth of his child. Luke Jacobsen replaces Frizell but no replacement has been named for ASav. Sotutu to start & ScoBar at six?

Aidan Ross, Angus Ta'avao & Roger Tuivasa-Sheck released for NPC, Josh Dickson released from squad.

Per @Dismal Pillock's premonition above, Nepo & Ofa are back in the 33.

Two key All Blacks to miss Wallabies test

The All Blacks will be without two starting players for the upcoming Melbourne test.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Edit: @Dismal's premonition of Fozzie starting Nepo, Taylor & Ofa must've been on a different thread. If I wasn't such a lazy cnut I'd go look for it but I am so I won't

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

With the Points Table being so tight the Hurld have done a piece on how the tie-breaker(s) work:

1. Games won
2. Most wins v team(s) tied with
3. Series points differential
4. Points differential v team(s) tied with
5. Most Series tries scored
6. Series shared

You'd think that if two or more teams finish with the same Points they'll likely have had the same number of wins so PD & tries scored will decide it.

How tightest ever Rugby Championship could be decided

A week is a long time in the Rugby Championship.

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[KiwiM]

Frizell out with a rib injury & Ardie staying home to await the birth of his child. Luke Jacobsen replaces Frizell but no replacement has been named for ASav. Sotutu to start & ScoBar at six?

I wonder if they might rest ScoBar (his workload has been big) and run Akira at 6 (given how well he went vs Wallabies last year), Whitelock and Retallick at lock and Vaai off the pine. Sotutu must play 8 otherwise what's he doing in the squad.

 

[Derpus]

I wonder if they might rest ScoBar (his workload has been big) and run Akira at 6 (given how well he went vs Wallabies last year), Whitelock and Retallick at lock and Vaai off the pine. Sotutu must play 8 otherwise what's he doing in the squad.

I fucking knew you bastards wouldn't play your best 8 until you came up against us. Not fair.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Roger Tuivasa-Sheck released for NPC

.....yet they keep Braydon Ennor in the All Black squad.....

 

[Dan54]

.....yet they keep Braydon Ennor in the All Black squad.....

Think they figure it better for RTS (Roger Tuivasa-Sheck) to get some experience at 12, they already got Tupaea there, so preobably figure just in case, let Ennor hold tackle bags and cover 13 and let RTS (Roger Tuivasa-Sheck) learn to play a bit more.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ makes sense to me.

 

[Mr Pilfer]

With the Points Table being so tight the Hurld have done a piece on how the tie-breaker(s) work:

1. Games won
2. Most wins v team(s) tied with
3. Series points differential
4. Points differential v team(s) tied with
5. Most Series tries scored
6. Series shared

You'd think that if two or more teams finish with the same Points they'll likely have had the same number of wins so PD & tries scored will decide it.

How tightest ever Rugby Championship could be decided

A week is a long time in the Rugby Championship.

www.nzherald.co.nz

This just seems over complicated and stupid to me.

If teams are tied on points it should then just be points difference. e.g. Springboks should currently be 2nd, not Wallabies.

 

[Slim 293]

This just seems over complicated and stupid to me.

If teams are tied on points it should then just be points difference. e.g. Springboks should currently be 2nd, not Wallabies.

It's been games won > points differential for yeeeeeeeaaaaaars...

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't understand how the Wallabies are currently second. That doesn't seem to make sense based on the tie breakers.

Edit: nevermind. I get it.

 

[Wilson]

This just seems over complicated and stupid to me.

If teams are tied on points it should then just be points difference. e.g. Springboks should currently be 2nd, not Wallabies.

I don't think it makes any sense to judge tie breakers on how they apply to the mid competition table - the Wallabies have to advantage there at the moment because they have played both teams they're even with on points, whereas SA and Argentina have only played the Wallabies. That won't be the case at then end.

Final positioning only matters once it's all said and done, so that's what tie breakers are designed for.

 

[Wilson]

I don't understand how the Wallabies are currently second. That doesn't seem to make sense based on the tie breakers.

It's the team with the most wins against teams they are equal with - so Wallabies have 2 wins (1 v Argentina and 1 v South Africa). South Africa and Argentina only have one relevant win (both against the Wallabies). The wins against New Zealand don't apply because they are not even on points with the rest.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree it's pretty dumb currently but in general I think most wins vs teams tied with makes sense.

The team with more wins should beat the team with more bonus points. It's more relevant in Super Rugby over a longer period of time. Here it's unlikely to come into play as it's hard to be tied with another team and have a different number of wins when it's only 6 games.

 

[Pfitzy]

I don't understand how the Wallabies are currently second. That doesn't seem to make sense based on the tie breakers.

Edit: nevermind. I get it.

I am struggling with the logic. So we're saying:

Australia on 9 beat both South Africa on 9 and Argentina on 9.
Meanwhile South Africa haven't played Argentina, therefore neither has a W against the other, therefore Australia is ahead of them?

That is about as dumb as a the dumb shit produced if a dumb shit ate another dumb shit and shit out that dumb shit.

I mean, I can see why they're doing it that way because you can only beat the team in front of you, but in a series like this, I'm not sure it works.

 

[Braveheart81]

I am struggling with the logic. So we're saying:

Australia on 9 beat both South Africa on 9 and Argentina on 9.
Meanwhile South Africa haven't played Argentina, therefore neither has a W against the other, therefore Australia is ahead of them?

That is about as dumb as a the dumb shit produced if a dumb shit ate another dumb shit and shit out that dumb shit.

I mean, I can see why they're doing it that way because you can only beat the team in front of you, but in a series like this, I'm not sure it works.

It's fine at the end of the competition because everyone will have played everyone.

Currently it breaks a tie unfairly because we have 2 wins from 4 games against South Africa and Argentina who we are tied with but both of them only have 1 win from 2 games.