Cringeworthy Kearns/Martin moments.....minutes......hours......

[Inside Shoulder]

From the beginning of the 80's until the end of 1988 the wobblies won 62.5% of their matches.
Kearns debuted in 1989.
Australia's overall winning percentage is 52.25%.
Australia had risen from its rugby grave long before Kearns appeared on the scene.

 

[I like to watch]

I prefer the kiwi commentators, except mad Murray who reminds me of good old Rex Mossop. I used to think Kearns was slightly amusing, until i realised he only had a very limited range. He must have short term memory loss, he trots out the same jokes at the same scenarios several times a game, and still chortles like he has never heard such wit before. I am sure the younger guys could make a drinking game out of his 'witticisms'

 

[The Red Baron]

Maybe it is because I am all drugged up at the moment, due to a persistent strain of flu, but I had the most horrible nightmare last night. I dreamed that Ray Hadley was partnering Marto and Kearns and Cannon in the commentary box.

 

[wamberal]

Maybe it is because I am all drugged up at the moment, due to a persistent strain of flu, but I had the most horrible nightmare last night. I dreamed that Ray Hadley was partnering Marto and Kearns and Cannon in the commentary box.

Ra-a-a-a-a-a-ay would fit right in. Sadly.

 

[Waylon]

From the beginning of the 80's until the end of 1988 the wobblies won 62.5% of their matches.
Kearns debuted in 1989.
Australia's overall winning percentage is 52.25%.
Australia had risen from its rugby grave long before Kearns appeared on the scene.

When Kearns started, Australian rugby was a laughing stock. He was plucked from Randwick second grade which made the QLDers pretty happy. Dwyer could spot a talent. Two years later they won a world cup.

case closed

 

[The Red Baron]

When Kearns started, Australian rugby was a laughing stock. He was plucked from Randwick second grade which made the QLDers pretty happy. Dwyer could spot a talent. Two years later they won a world cup.

case closed

So I take it guys like Farr-Jones, Campese, Horan, Lynagh, Poidevin, Eales, McCall, Roebuck, etc were superfluous to the 1991 world cup effort eh?

And wasn't Kearns in 2nd grade at Randwick because Eddie Jones was the 1st grade hooker?

 

[Set piece magic]

Hugh Bladen is my favourite, unbiased to an extent and always makes it really exciting. Calls whats going on instead of looking into a crystal ball. Good stuff

 

[Inside Shoulder]

When Kearns started, Australian rugby was a laughing stock. He was plucked from Randwick second grade which made the QLDers pretty happy. Dwyer could spot a talent. Two years later they won a world cup.

case closed

In 1988 Australia's winning percentage was 56.25
In Kearns first season it was 33%, in his second 57.14 - i.e. back to where it had been before he rode in on his charger to save us.
You're either dreaming or confused.

Are you going to blame him for 1995 - 42.85%

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So I take it guys like Farr-Jones, Campese, Horan, Lynagh, Poidevin, Eales, McCall, Roebuck, etc were superfluous to the 1991 world cup effort eh?

And wasn't Kearns in 2nd grade at Randwick because Eddie Jones was the 1st grade hooker?

correct

 

[Waylon]

Kearns was a good player and arguably the best in his position 1991 - 1994-5. He was one of the best maulers in Australian rugby. His rolling and splinter mauls would inevitably end up with Kearns making a 20 m break downfield.

I'm not interested in stats that you googled.

Kearns was a good player and has my respect.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Kearns was a good player and arguably the best in his position 1991 - 1994-5. He was one of the best maulers in Australian rugby. His rolling and splinter mauls would inevitably end up with Kearns making a 20 m break downfield.

I'm not interested in stats that you googled.

Kearns was a good player and has my respect.

Your lack of interest in the facts is obvious.
I agree with you that he was a very good player it's your unfounded claim that he saved Australian rugby from the grave that is wrong.
Are stats that are googled (which is not what I did) inferior to other stats or is it stats in general that you refuse to let interfere with your view of history?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sully]

The try Kearn's scored against the New Zealanders was a turning point for Australian Rugby and he should always be remembered for that.

 

[Waylon]

I agree with you that he was a very good player

Good. Get over yourself

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Good. Get over yourself

I will - when you make a claim based on fact.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The try Kearn's scored against the New Zealanders was a turning point for Australian Rugby and he should always be remembered for that.

In what way?
It certainly wasn't a long term turning point because the Wallabies played as poorly after that, from time to time, as they had before it, from time to time.
Yet again the figures sugest that this is wishful thinking, hero worship, selective memory or all 3.
In the 10 years after the "finger" Australia beat NZ 38.35% of the time; In the 10 years before it 38.63%.
In terms of a contribution to the welfare of Australian rugby its impact was about the same as a huge centre field hit: it got the peanut gallery going but it had no other affect. And it certainly was not the end of Sean Fitzpatrick or the All Blacks.
There are 2 candidates based on results for the title of the "modern turning point in Australian rugby": one is 17 June 1978: up to that time australia's winning percentage against all comers was 33.17% - since that day our record has been 64.64% against all comers.
An alternative date would be 28 July 1979: prior to that date the winning rate was 33.17%. Since it 65.23%.
The second is a more savoury candidate. For the 10 years following this date Australia won 60.76% against all comers whereas in the 10 years before their winning ratio was 38.63%. Against NZ for the same periods it was 16% before and 36.11% after.
22% v -0.28%.
Turning point versus statistical irrelevance.
The work done by Amateurs in the late 70s and early to mid 80's in this country paved the way for the change in australia's fortunes. Kearns too was an amateur but to credit him with changing the course of the history of Australian rugby is to do a grave disservice to those who came before him and made it so that no Aussie team would fear anyone, including those from across the ditch.

 

[Waylon]

Stats don't mean much.

The only stat that means anything is wins against the best teams eg allblacks

You're obviously still wet behind the ears so I'll take you back to a time when the wallabies played a 3 test tour in NZ. Australia got belted in the first two tests and were about 1000000000000000:1 to win the third test (I know you like stats so you can google the official odds you belter.....and don't forget it will vary between bookies)

Kearns was thrown into an allblack test series from second grade in Sydney. He got sledged, niggled and raked. They hit him. They raked him. Fitzpatrick gouged him, sledged him, bit him, head butted him in scrums, popped him, collapsed him, sledged him for 80 minutes for each test.

The video clip showed Kearns letting Fitzpatrick know he had accepted his haka and had 50 each way on the wallabies in the third test. That try made sure the wallabies would win one of the biggest boilovers in rugby history. Kearns was part of a team but the V for victory was was a symbolism of the arrival of a new team that would stick it right up them

 

[Epi]

Kearns was a great player and I like him... He's just a shit commentator and so are the rest of them except maybe Kafe (maybe).

They don't do the game they love any favours...

 

[cyclopath]

Time to move on, I think.
I removed one unnecessarily provocative bit, next post in the same spirit will be nuked.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Stats don't mean much.

The only stat that means anything is wins against the best teams eg allblacks

You're obviously still wet behind the ears so I'll take you back to a time when the wallabies played a 3 test tour in NZ. Australia got belted in the first two tests and were about 1000000000000000:1 to win the third test (I know you like stats so you can google the official odds you belter.....and don't forget it will vary between bookies)

Kearns was thrown into an allblack test series from second grade in Sydney. He got sledged, niggled and raked. They hit him. They raked him. Fitzpatrick gouged him, sledged him, bit him, head butted him in scrums, popped him, collapsed him, sledged him for 80 minutes for each test.

The video clip showed Kearns letting Fitzpatrick know he had accepted his haka and had 50 each way on the wallabies in the third test. That try made sure the wallabies would win one of the biggest boilovers in rugby history. Kearns was part of a team but the V for victory was was a symbolism of the arrival of a new team that would stick it right up them

I may have misunderstood this post, but:

There was no 3 test tour to NZ in 1988 or 1989.

Kearns debuted in Auckland in 1989 in a one off test, from reserve grade - the Wallabies lost: http://www.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/match/22177.html

The 3 test tour NZ to Aus was in 1988 - Tommy the turtle Lawton was the hooker in all 3:
http://www.espnscrum.com/statsguru/...=1085;template=results;type=team;view=results

The 3 test tour you may be thinking of was in 1990:
http://www.espnscrum.com/statsguru/...ass=1;template=results;type=player;view=match

By then Kearns was, by the measure of the times, an established test player. He was not thrown infrom reserve grade, in fact he played all 3 tests on this tour.
Great player: yes.
Saviour: no
Commentator: maybe
This is where stats can help.

 

[Waylon]

I have misunderstood this post

yep

move on