That is why origin > tests

[Fast Eddie]

Lets break this down.

Some = 3 out of 4 AND your one win came in golden point
Plenty = 3 out of 7

Got those around the wrong way I think.

Last 50 point blow out? 2007 I think of the top of my head when we were a rabble that year due to the coach, other then that last year at Newcastle was the worst. Around 36 points, similar to QLD beating NSW 30-0 in the same time period.

 

[Shorty]

Um yeah ok
Head to head Aus 90 NZ 29.
Got a ways to go before you're 'slightly' behind.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-match-preview/australia-v-new-zealand-20120419-1x9kh.html

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

90 to 29? :lol: international rugby league

 

[Fast Eddie]

:lol: so for current era teams to be compared to each other what happened 20+ years ago matters? Typical Shorty.

 

[Clifferd]

:lol: like every Australian who dodges the fact that in a tournament they are hardly if any better than the Kiwis.

You win one off Tests in the middle of the season against us, we win finals against you. I'm alright with that for now.

I just quickly looked it up.

Australia has won 9 RLWC'S compared to NZ 1. (The most important one)

Australia has won 4 Tri-nations/Four Nations finals compared to NZ 2. We hold the current one too


Not to mention all the tests we've flogged you in.


I'm alright with that too

 

[Fire]

...this thread is still going?

 

[Fast Eddie]

I just quickly looked it up.

Australia has won 9 RLWC'S compared to NZ 1. (The most important one)

Australia has won 4 Tri-nations/Four Nations finals compared to NZ 2. We hold the current one too


Not to mention all the tests we've flogged you in.


I'm alright with that too

Yup 4-3 in tournaments since the Tri Nations kicked in properly, for apparently an all conquering dominant team I wouldn't be happy with that but each to their own.

 

[Fast Eddie]

...this thread is still going?

I'm reviving it nicely.

 

[Shorty]

:lol: so for current era teams to be compared to each other what happened 20+ years ago matters? Typical Shorty.

Ok.
2000s Aus 20 NZ 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_vs_New_Zealand_in_rugby_league

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

20-4 :lol:

International strength!!!!

 

[Fast Eddie]

Ok.
2000s Aus 20 NZ 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_vs_New_Zealand_in_rugby_league

Thats better. I think we can all agree now with the stats provided that the Kangaroos are without a doubt the biggest chokers in the history of world sport.

 

[Clifferd]

Yup 4-3 in tournaments since the Tri Nations kicked in properly, for apparently an all conquering dominant team I wouldn't be happy with that but each to their own.

I never said we were the dominant team. The head to head speaks for itself really

 

[Shorty]

Thats better. I think we can all agree now with the stats provided that the Kangaroos are without a doubt the biggest chokers in the history of world sport.

Whatever helps you sleep at night:roll:

 

[Fast Eddie]

Whatever helps you sleep at night:roll:

Well I think it really is pretty hard to dispute that fact.

 

[Shorty]

I'm pretty sure choker is for teams that underachieve and constantly underperform - Shall I quote the amount of WC, Tri Nations and Test trophies Aus has?

Up until recently, I would imagine NZ are the chokers.

 

[Fast Eddie]

I'm pretty sure choker is for teams that underachieve and constantly underperform - Shall I quote the amount of WC, Tri Nations and Test trophies Aus has?

Up until recently, I would imagine NZ are the chokers.

:lol::lol::lol: yes this is brilliant. I think you need to get a clue on what the term choker means in sports.

Old wiki does a pretty good job of explaining the general idea of it

"In sports, a "choke" is the failure of an athlete or an athletic team to win a game or tournament when the player or team had been strongly favored to win or had squandered a large lead in the late stages of the event"

At least you learnt something today.

 

[Shorty]

By your logic, Australia shouldn't lose, ever.
You're a pretty dim troll.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Not at all, but they shouldn't lose 3 out of 4 finals when they are overwhelming favorites. Definition of chokers.

And you're an extremely dim 'moderator' for what its worth. As shown very recently by you having no clue what the term choking means in sports.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Lets break this down.

Some = 3 out of 4 AND your one win came in golden point
Plenty = 3 out of 7

Got those around the wrong way I think.

Why? 3-4 is still some and 3-7 is still plenty. English your 2nd language?

Last 50 point blow out? 2007 I think of the top of my head when we were a rabble that year due to the coach, other then that last year at Newcastle was the worst. Around 36 points, similar to QLD beating NSW 30-0 in the same time period.

lol you're right, I apologise. Getting 40 odd put on your fantastic national team is so much more respectable

 

[Cliffhanger]

That's a pretty shit definition of choking to be honest, the term 'choking' in sport is generally poorly understood and as a result often misused.

It's a lot more complex than a favourite losing. If someone is simply outplayed by their opponent without actually performing badly, then the term choking does not describe what has happened.

It's pretty hard for an entire team choke, because it is a primarily psychological response to pressure. Players chokes when their psychological arousal is too high and thus their focus is all over the place, their body responds by becoming increasingly tense, this is why when a player chokes their performance tends to progressively deteriorate throughout the match.

Basically, if Australia 'choked' in those tests, then you're taking credit away from your own national team, because you're saying that the Australians played below their ability because they weren't focused on the game and not that they played as well as their opponent allowed them.