The mind games begin
3 Jul 2006
The off-field hype begins as Wallabies coach John Connolly admits that he has spies within the All Black camp.
“Oh we have our spies,” Connolly told The Australian when asked how he knew who New Zealand would play on Saturday in the first of three Bledisloe Cup matches.
Connolly also told The Daily Telegraph that he learned of the All Blacks team composition late last week.
“Let’s just say we heard it through the grapevine,” he said. “It was named a couple of days ago to the (New Zealand) players.”
The wily Aussie coach also claims to have known in advance about the England side who played Australia twice last month, commenting, “it’s very easy to get a bloke up a tree with a camera.”
It is speculated that Connolly’s bragging may instigate an internal investigation within the camp in an attempt to disrupt the All Blacks’ preparation ahead of Saturday’s encounter.
New Zealand coach Graham Henry and his management team are yet to comment.
69 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
3 Jul 2006, 16:25 pm
stan
agree, thats why i also mentioned wc 2003, where from a standing start and already tackled, he broke a few tackles and went over to score.
3 Jul 2006, 17:15 pm
Whatever is said between now and the match on Saturday is irrelevant. Would rather spend my energies preparing the players. Guess it’s probably part of the psychological mind games being played before the physical wargame.
3 Jul 2006, 19:33 pm
“Lets just say that it is hard for a country to come up with a manager who is more out of his tree than Eddie Jones but Australia have done it”
3 Jul 2006, 19:36 pm
Perhaps the Wallabies managed to get the Aussie Wheat Board to install an Al Qaeda cell in the AB hotel.
3 Jul 2006, 19:49 pm
Spy’s… we already know the obvious ones.. Russell Crowe and Winston Peters but unless Connolly sent a guy in a large white Polar Bear suit then who the f%#$ is going to spot a spy with so many poeple at training. You would think that someone up a tree may be a little obvious.
Perhaps George Gregan straped to the back of a dingo hanging around the changing rooms is an option.
3 Jul 2006, 23:12 pm
leeanthonyw;
Post #40
You have one of jake whites problems in thinking that rugby is a super-size-me competition, were the winner is the team who breaks the scales at weigh in time.
If that were the case Samoa would be worls champs every time (playing Tonga in the finals!)
The game involves a little bit more than lard
4 Jul 2006, 00:28 am
post 40
You forget that everything starts up-front and no back will admit to that, weight has nothing to do with who is going to win, agree with ricanes comparisons.
On a wet dewy Jade Stadium pitch, it will come down to the tight 5 tussle and loose forward scamble. New game, new systems to play against.
4 Jul 2006, 00:53 am
Agreed with the previous 2 posts about size and context.
Question – Has Mils ever had a problem at 15 with being monstered? He has been the last line of defense for a number of years now and has not had a problem.
While I don’t buy into the size argument, as it is far too simplistic and logically inconsistent, let’s see if it has reality. While the Aussie backline has a taller combination, the total weight of both expected backlines is pretty much the same…
Aussie – 654 kgs
AB’s – 650 kgs
The biggest weight descrepancy is Mils vs Mortlock. However, put Nonu in 13 and you would add 17 kgs to the AB total (which would also make him bigger than Stirling).
Would this extra weight automatically make the AB team stronger, since they would be larger than the Wallabies?
I think the answer is obvious!
4 Jul 2006, 00:54 am
I should say backline, not team
4 Jul 2006, 01:57 am
After what I read about this match, I still have no idea who’d I call favourates. Aus looks impressive, but the All Blacks are, well the All Blacks!
*Guessing* this one right just might reveal some psychic ability!
4 Jul 2006, 07:35 am
The Wallabies, after a horror 2005, have discarded their useless coach Eddie Moans and are now back as a VERY serious threat to All Black supremacy.
The Boks will come third.
As usual.
4 Jul 2006, 08:02 am
careful tackler
that is almost a compliment to a team other than the Crusaders or the AB’s
You’re in danger of growing a second eye!
4 Jul 2006, 08:04 am
http://www.dieburger.com/Stories/News/11.0.812213892.aspx
4 Jul 2006, 08:27 am
ricane, only one thing bigger than his love for the AB’s and that is his hate for the Boks…think he was kicked out the country!
4 Jul 2006, 09:18 am
sheer size has nothing to do with winning, unless you’re playing club rugby, professionals are far too organised defensively to be out muscled by a bunch of oafs. if that was the case then South Africa would have a great chance of claiming the title, as this crop of Boks is the biggest ever to wear the green and gold. Mils wont have a problem containing Stirling, besides Richie McCaw will be covering his behind!
4 Jul 2006, 09:40 am
It’s like I never posted. Dosn’t anyone follow politics?
4 Jul 2006, 09:44 am
65 agree. Size of back line players will not decide tri-nations. leeanthonyw how long have you been using this technique of predicting rugby wins….your not going to get rich son.
4 Jul 2006, 09:59 am
61 Tacker… be nice to our fellow rugby nation (no not Australia, I said rugby nation). Also did you not read the article above …they have replaced Eddie the Idiot with Connolly the C&%khead (this is not an anti-Aussie comment, just referring to the individual and who could deny me based on the comments in the article above).
“All Black supremacy” hmmm. No. I expect them to win. I think they should win. But based on current SH form I don’t think we have ‘supremacy’. We are just better
4 Jul 2006, 10:27 am
Not only will the size of backs not decide anything, but the size of the forwards is not the most important criterion either!
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.