RWC 2011

First topic message reminder :

IMO those teams that will advance form their pool make this RWC fairly predictable, everyone thinks it is the ABs turn but past world cups have taught us that there is almost always an upset, 1995 SA v NZ, 1999 FR v NZ, 2007FR V NZ.

Some crucial games which might spice it up a bit

Pool A
NZ v Fr
Obviously Fr v NZ become a crucial game, I just can't see Fr turning them over but if there is one team in the world who could just come together on the day it is the french. Tonga Canada and Japan will present no problem to either team.

NZ to win group Fr ru.

Pool B
Scot v Arg
Is it possible that Scotland could beat either Eng or Arg. If England lose to ireland on Saturday the Scots will know that the last key game in the group may decide everything....Scots always raise their game v Eng. Scot v Arg game seems to be the most interesting with the potential for either team to win but the Argentines are lacking up front and without Hernandez. Georgia and Romania, whilst physical, will not worry anyone.

Eng to win group Scot ru

Pool C
Aus v Ire
This fixture will be very close...both teams knowing they can avoid SA if they win the group. We will know a lot more about both of these teams come Saturday; Ireland really need to start their RWC campaign with a confidence boosting win against England this weekend as they only play USA after the weekend before facing Australia. Their next real test will be versus italy who may feel they have a sniff at Ire in the last game of the group. USA and Russia make up the group.

Aus to win group Ire ru

Pool D
Wales v Fiji
Well Wales are definitely in the group of death; the history v Samoa and Fiji is well documented but I think Wales are much more dangerous in possession than they have been for some time, fitter, well lead and with a well organised defence. Where Wales lack is the front row, which explains Jenkins travelling; pray Jones stays fit. Forward domination in general worries me. Our 2nd row must also stand up and the new back row must fulfill its potential. They must also be careful not to talk it up against SA as their performance v NZ last week showed they are back in the groove. Had Wales had a dismal warm up run I would have gone for Fiji but i think they are justifiably confident to get out of the group.

SA win group Wales ru


Knockout
SA v Ire - SA
This fixture illustrates just how important winning the group is! SA all the way.
Aus v Wales - Aus
Best back line in the world v a young confident Welsh side...upset possible but unlikely.
Eng v Fr - Eng
based on experience at RWC and playing leicester rugby
NZ v Scot - NZ
I can't see an upset here

Semi
Eng v Aus- Eng
Tough one to call but my feeling is that if Eng have got this far they will be brimming with confidence and have found a way to grind out a win. i.e. slow, setpiece forward domination and Jonny.

NZ v SA - NZ
The real final! I go with NZ but lets face it the hosts have a peculiar habit of C%^&*$G.

Final
Eng v NZ

Home advantage , the best 10 and 7 in recent history if not ever versus the expectation they will could fail again against a side that has had significant success at RWC, lead by a winner and with a points machine at 10. Recent performances by England suggest even if they get there with the easy draw they have they just don't have the rugby brains from 9-15 to do it....but since they have picked a battering ram for a squad and know how to win ugly then if they make the final, whilst underdog, they have a chance.

I think NZ will do it but I thought they would win in 1995 and that Aus would win in 2003.

Bullsbok

Can Steve Walsh officiate a NZ match given he's technically a referee for Australia?

Are you French.. Jaysus?

Gatts wrote:

..I repeat NZ would rather face , in a RWC final, teams that they play regularly rather than France who they have played occasionally and have made NZ look foolish at RWC.

and i repeat gatts. Rubbish. You dont know the abs and you dont know your rugby.
You sit as a rugby fan in a world of who can and cant beat who and apply as you see fit. In this case on two one off results.
We don't.
We would rather play france tham SA or Oz for one reason.
Oz and SA are both better teams. You may presume to think otherwise but i was referring to your original comment that WE would absolutely hate...
As an ab fan iam saying you are wrong. Is this not a simple concept to grasp?

emack2

Given that when Carter went off in 07 NZ fell to pieces even though they have players like McAllister & Evans to fall back on...do you then think its a mistake for NZ to be heading to another RWC without a genuine class 2nd choice 10.

Slade was very hit & miss the other week.... RWC are won by consistent performances which I doubt he could string together if required.

Do you think it was/is a mistake not to have a viable plan B (i.e. no Carter).

Surely GH should have thrown evans a lifeline... policy or not... IMO he should have thrown him a lifeline... got him used to the setup during the 3N and keep him in reserve during the RWC in case disaster struck. GH will look very stupid if Carter gets injured and he plays Slade and calls up Cruden or Donald in reserve.

nottins_jones

I'm English/French.

I know France will find it hard to get past England and Australia in the play offs (if results go to form), but if anyone can do it is the French. It's just out of my two teams (yes I know i'm a lucky guy to have two teams) I think France has the best chance of stopping the All Blacks and winning the world cup.

To be honest I think it is New Zealand's cup to loss, more so now than never since they are playing at home. I just want the world cup to be interesting and for England or France to win it.

Jaysus, Gatt,

Apologies for my last rant as I've not had a good morning.

It seems you are both applying selective theories and coming up with assumptions.
First you say the 2 knockout wins directly relate to us not wanting to meet France then dismiss our beating France on the same ground.

Regardless of how long ago it was neither has any relevance this year.

All I am saying is the AB's play who is in front of them. If I, and would probably be correct in saying, most NZers had to pick who we would rather play in a final of the 3 France would generally be first.

The reason is is because we believe we have a better chance of beating them. No other reason. Nothing historical, nothing complex. They just rate 3rd behind the other 2 to us.

You may not agree with it and might 'warn' us to think otherwise but that is how it is for us. We play who is in front of us, as should everyone.

So I don't know how to explain it but I was merely commenting on the fact that you presume to think what we should think and base it on fairly flimsy logic.

What I think is firstly,realistically there is no other FH he can call on,because
NZRFU policy won`t let him.Secondly NZRFU is the correct one,and all
Sanzar nations transcribed to it.SA picking a few from Europe to date has been a mistake to date they just did`nt perform..
IF you change then ALL domestic NZ and by due process SA,and AUS would
follow suit .If you can play abroad and still be capped there would be a mass leaving for the cash.
I think the team is bigger than one man,Dan Carter/McCaw are a big part of the current AB side.BUT I think they have the resourcesto still win without him.Certainly and i`ve been banging my head against a wall here there
should be a plan B ,the side picked could play many styles if they wished.
Finally Slade,Crudon et al are the future ,last Saturday he was playing behind a pack going backwards.
It was his first serious start,had he the First choice pack in front of him,and
first choice back line outside him I think either could cope.
Weepu is also more than capable as a FH,if it cost them a RWC cest la vie?

Fair play Taylorman. I never said the NZ would hate playing France myself, just started out by pointing out that France having NZ in the group maybe a blessing in disguise, and that come the final if it was NZ v Fra you maybe over confident, of course if your beat France in the pools . Don’t get me wrong I wouldn't begrudge NZ winning (God knows they deserve it for their performances throughout the years), I’d just rather England or France won

emack - I saw Slade play against Fiji and he was average. I said months ago that he, Cruden and whoever else weren't suitable back-up to Carter. However, since we're talking about the All Blacks they won't have to just rely on their fly-half; there's another 14 guys on the pitch each capable of making something happen. Agree that it is a smart choice to bring in Piri Weepu to the world cup squad.

emack2

There's never going to be cover for someone like Dan Carter, and I agree that they can’t let the flood gates open and allow all their players to play in Europe. However in Nick Evans they have an excellent replacement, they’ve already made an exception for Dan Carter when he went to Perpignan. I’d of thought for this world cup on home soil they might make another exception, dodgy ground maybe but possibly worth it in the end.

All good Jaysus, I overeacted as I normally do anyway. I'd picked France to win ahead of us in the other poll as theyve been by far the best performers from those who havnt won it with 2 finals- no one else havning made one. They are also the only team to beat us at Eden park in any match since 1986- some statistic.

I personally think France might be on the end of a big one in pool play for 2 reasons. The first because (though more subconsciously) because of 2007 and secondly because it is crucial we get a big hit out before the knockouts.

In 2007 pool we won:
76-14
108-13
40-0
85-8

The 40-0 was supposed to be our big hit out before the French match. But Scotland gave it away by fielding their second team. Its no excuse but we would have got more out of playing our seconds in the car park to be honest.

So we'll be hoping the French front as if they don't our last big match before the quarters will be tonights.

Chances are by the last match France and NZ will probably already be through and if they decide they'll settle for runners up we'll be in the same position- playing seconds. So for that reason, its not the type of game France will win against us- its not do or die.

Jaysus,1987 was I assure you taken VERY seriously,only the Boks were missing.The assumption on the basis of a defeat of the NZ Cavaliers in
1986.When they were taking on 20 odd teams in SA that the Boks would win it was a big IF.
They certainly would`nt have won it in 1991,it was 1995 before they won
RWC and that was VERY close.
To think players of the Amateur era,couldnt compete in the pro era is ludicrous.The law changes,training regimes,etc .would have been managed
they would perhaps played different positions but they would of adapted.
1995 was amateur,1996 pro the same AB side of 95 beat the same Bokside in 96 4-1,only one off the matches were played in NZ that year.
Many of the 1987 players were playing until just before 1998,Jonah Lomu first played in 1991 but for his illness he would have been an outside chance in 2003 RWC.
Your youth means you are commenting on things you only read about so is flawed,mine is from nearly 60 years experience watching and playing.
Nothing is as clear cut as black and white,all are shades of gray.

when i say picked France- meant if we didnt win it who would we want to win it...

Yes Fitzy was in the 87 squad. He played against Tana in mid 90's and Tana was playing sxv this year so only 2 careers span 87- now.

Get this one. Pity OConnor isnt playing tonight against Brad Thorn in Brisbane. OConnor was living in Brisbane and was 4 when Thorn debuted for the Brisbane Bronco's in the NRL- amazing.

emack2 wrote:Jaysus,1987 was I assure you taken VERY seriously,only the Boks were missing.The assumption on the basis of a defeat of the NZ Cavaliers in
1986.When they were taking on 20 odd teams in SA that the Boks would win it was a big IF.
They certainly would`nt have won it in 1991,it was 1995 before they won
RWC and that was VERY close.
To think players of the Amateur era,couldnt compete in the pro era is ludicrous.The law changes,training regimes,etc .would have been managed
they would perhaps played different positions but they would of adapted.
1995 was amateur,1996 pro the same AB side of 95 beat the same Bokside in 96 4-1,only one off the matches were played in NZ that year.
Many of the 1987 players were playing until just before 1998,Jonah Lomu first played in 1991 but for his illness he would have been an outside chance in 2003 RWC.
Your youth means you are commenting on things you only read about so is flawed,mine is from nearly 60 years experience watching and playing.
Nothing is as clear cut as black and white,all are shades of gray.

I understand what you are saying, and like I said there is no reason why amateur players before the game became professional couldn’t have competed today with the same training etc.

But my point still stands one victory 24 years ago doesn’t dictate future results, nor does France’s two victories, but I never said they would win.

By your reasoning I should ignore everything I learned at school about science, maths, English and history because I wasn’t there when they wrote it.

Nothing is black and white but it is fun to discuss it.

PS I never mentioned SA in the 1987 RWC by the way, Someone else did.

Jonah didnt play in 91 Alan. Way too early- debuted 94.
Has scored what could be an unbeatable record for a very long time- 15 tries in World cups. No ones even close.

At 19 stone 6'5 and 10.8 for the 100m a freak for a wing. (Carlings words)

Jaysus- "But my point still stands one victory 24 years ago doesn’t dictate future results"- absolutely correct- how can it.

The only sort of thing you can count on is if team A beats team B 100 nil 3 times in a row- chances are they'll win the 4th. Not because they won 3, but because theres sufficient difference in the scoreline to suggest that ANY scenario will result in another win.

For a team to upset a favourite as underdog twice in some past match when they lose 95% of many other encounters since means zip if they meet again and are again underdogs. Its too much to assume they'll win again- relying only on the Choke tag to do so. Bit too much to presume a win.

Taylorman wrote:Jaysus- "But my point still stands one victory 24 years ago doesn’t dictate future results"- absolutely correct- how can it.

The only sort of thing you can count on is if team A beats team B 100 nil 3 times in a row- chances are they'll win the 4th. Not because they won 3, but because theres sufficient difference in the scoreline to suggest that ANY scenario will result in another win.

For a team to upset a favourite as underdog twice in some past match when they lose 95% of many other encounters since means zip if they meet again and are again underdogs. Its too much to assume they'll win again- relying only on the Choke tag to do so. Bit too much to presume a win.

I never said France would win, I just said that when France has beaten NZ in the past that has been like their final, so playing NZ in the final would play into their hands since they wouldn’t have to beat anyone after the final. That said the possible England and Australia games might be like finals to them anyway.

If memory serves the last three games have been 2-1 to NZ.

So, Bon Chance!

emack they may not be world champions in your book but as long as they hold the Webb Ellis in their home country they R world champions regardless of who they are. Whether u like it or not. Im sick of some Kiwis trying to devalue the World Cup just cause your boys choke constantly.

and believe it or not winning the World Cup is much more highly valued than beating the All blacks.They may be the best team in World rugby but they victory against them is not the most important!!!

Taylorman,my statement was ambiguos.Jonah Lomu represented NZ under 17s at age 1991,debut via NZ sevens 1994,just under 20.
Jayjus,France beat an injury riddled NZ in early 2009 ,much chirruping was made about it in NH press.The following week they Lost to NZ[again injury weakened]NH press was quiet,an All Black side WINNING isn`t news.
Then came Marseille,i`ll draw a veil over that one lets just say the All Blacks had a point to prove.
France had TWO great RWC victories over NZ but the effort was such they did`nt turn up in thenext round.
France are a Jekyll and Hyde,beat a NZ or Bok side one minute,leak large number of points versus OZ or lose to Italy.
It is a misnomer to call NZ favourites in ALL the RWCs,before most of them they had a t least two recent losses pre RWC,certainly 2003 ENGLAND had to be favourites.
Being favourites means nothing in RWC ,you have to get out of the group to win.With due respect NO WAY can I fail to see NZ getting out of there group.Same cannot be said of some of there rivals.
France indeed beat the All Blacks in 2007,capitulated to England,lost TWICE to Argentina.
Just as a win 20 odd years ago is no pointer,nor is two past defeats by France either,A loss to the Boks or Aus.
By the way it is GREAT Jayjus to debate Rugby with someone new Welcome here.

Bullsbok wrote:emack they may not be world champions in your book but as long as they hold the Webb Ellis in their home country they R world champions regardless of who they are. Whether u like it or not. Im sick of some Kiwis trying to devalue the World Cup just cause your boys choke constantly.

and believe it or not winning the World Cup is much more highly valued than beating the All blacks.They may be the best team in World rugby but they victory against them is not the most important!!!

Bullsbok. Alan has a different view of the WCup than most Kiwi's. He has a purists view of the way rugby should be played and the world cup doesnt fit that view. He's entitled to his opinion and I've often taken him up on it. My view is you can't support a team yet at the same time not support the very goals of it, no matter what the reasons.

I can assure you we value the World cup very highly. It is the one thing that is not part of our recent legacy and we are desperate to make it so. Until 23 October the Boks remain world champs and rightfully so. We have no reservation on that matter. I have waited 24 years to see that trophy held up at my home ground again if we do, just as we will respect the next winner if we don't.

Bullsbok i`m not a Kiwi,THE most important battle is,and always will be between All Blacks and Boks.THE greatest rivalry in the History of the game.
I don`t seek to devalue it,I just see things from another perspective IF
you win another RWC great well done to you.It still does`nt change my opinion .Most BOK supporters I know would kill for the All Blacks win stats
especially against your side in the pro era around 70% isn`t it.
You can win every RWC from now to doomsday which in my case may well
be this one at my age.
I don`t subscribe to the theory of a Super side whatever stats say,AB or Bok Home advantage will decide it most of the time.
YOU may thing the RWC is the big one,I consider the 3Ns more difficult to win[4Ns now] ask Victor Matfield its his view too.
So let my boys keep on choking,as long as they keep beating you i`ll be happy.

Fair enough Alan, its an interesting point of view nontheless. Not being a Kiwi is a big difference, or more to the point, living in NZ as we have ex-pats now supporting the AB's on a regular basis.

As you'd expect with other countries the AB's are part of our heritage and nation and we sink or swim with them often. Our pubs, clubs, workplaces, homes etc have the AB's as conversation on a regular basis, particularly at this time.

Of course the 3N is harder to win but not for NZ it aint, again regardless of the reason. We've won many of those. And one world cup. No one knows off the top of their head the moment that sealed each 3N but everyone sure knows each of the winners from 1987, often with intimate detail.

The world cup also gives us that moment to celebrate in a way that no other tournament does. Its the pinnacle of our sport and as No.1 rated regulars... WE WANT THE DAMN THING...

Taylorman

No probs you bit i bit.

Stand by what i said, doesn't mean i don't know anything about rugby any more than you think you know about rugby. just opinions.

facts are facts though...nz struggle at RWC v France and have failed to fulfill obvious potential which baffles everyone...must be something going on at rwc and they clearly crack under pressure and twice to fr...of course that record will tell in their prep and if it doesn't it should. If they aren't examining why then how will they correct it. NZ psyche at RWC is it's weakness, not the skills of its team.

People who say RWC has no value often seem to be Kiwis, a result i suspect of this failure to fulfill potential and i dispute that any player who has ever played for any team would not bite his right arm off to play for his country at rwc.

Now youre talking. For me its not necessarily the french but rather our inability to perform in some world cups as other than 5 or 6 matches weve won every match. Convincingly most.
The other thing people say its the gameplan. No back up. Drop goals etc. Again i disagree.
Our gameplan works nearly every time outside world cups. So either other teams are playing differently in cups or we are not executing our gameplan at world cups.
I believe in 2003 and 07 we froze. Choked.
We were ineffective and failed to breach defences at all. By the main for some reason we failed to execute our gameplan.
Obviously largely due to the opposition but specifically those two matches and not many others against the same 2 teams.
Challenge for our coach is to ensure the gameplan is executed fully and with precison.
If it is. I think we'll win. If not. More of the same.

Gatts,if you are refering to me,i`m an Anglo-Scot, I don`t rate them because
of teams in RWCyear devaluing every thing I hold dear.
By fielding weak teams and hiding players in case they get injured
I was bought up in the era was every shirt was precious and had to be earned,and to lose if you were an All Black or a Bok was something to be ashamed off.
My opinion and point of view maybe unique ,I do not decry the Tournament
but the way people go about trying to win it.but they are as valid as any here.I defy you to find a more passionate All Black Supporter than me,the team is bigger than that.You NEVER cheapen the shirt.

Be interested in hearing which kiwis say the cup isnt important.
Ive not seenany other than those that dont like rugby anyway.??

You see there alan you are referring to henry. He selected and was responsible for the team that in your opinion cheapened the shirt.
I might suggest that henry is a more passionate ab supporter than you as he has lived his entire last 8 years doing nothing else but live and breathe the abs.
He is THE person who has personally ensured the integrity and quality of the ab name held in high esteem over the last 100 years has been preserved. His success as an ab coach is second to none and im sorry but every cheap shot on the shirt is a cheap shot on the coach.
If its not henry the just who is doing this shirt cheapening you keep regularly referring to?

Its not the tournament .Ihate just the way people go about trying to win it.
FOR Your sake and all the other KIWIs I hope they do win one soon to get the monkey off your back.
Just to me its just another set of matches to win,AND if they approached them with the same philosphy PSYCHOLOGICALLY it may well mean the difference.
How often have the ABs recently going in behind in a match suddenly up
rated there game and won.
How often have they been in a similar position in a RWC match and frozen I rest my case.

You don`t get it do you Taylorman,ITS not Just THE ALL BLACKS it everyone
doing it now .In an effort to win the RWC,because Jake White got away withit in 2007 does`nt mean it wil work in the future for ANYBODY.

Emack, i wasn't specifically. What is your allegiance to NZ based on as you clealry hold your views very passionately? I am afraid your views, whilst admirable, hold little water in the professional era. It is all about the W and in a tournament of course you protect players...its a squad game and the injury rate is now so startling in modern rugby that i cannot see that to do so is somehow cheapening the shirt, whatever the nation

I can't name names taylorman but there are detractors and they are usually Kiwi because they get hacked off with being told they are chokers and not World Champs repeatedly ad nauseam.

Its still a test. Its still a tournament. Its because its the biggest tournament of the sport that extra attention is given to it. Things get put aside, sacrificed PRIORITISED for the purposes of having the best chance to succeed at it.
Thats sport. For you its more about acceptance. Change.

Not the tournament. Nothing wrong with it. In fact for the abs its the most important because theyve done everyhing else
anyway. 6-7 odd hours to go. Off to the club to prepare and watch the match.

Good luck...if NZ lose here their RWC favourite status has to be severely brought under scrutiny

Generally, in 3N, home teams win so its not really relevant to the world cup and the AB's arent treating it as such.

We've done enough to suggest that we have the wood on both SA and Oz at this point in time having beaten OZ convincingly here, thrashed the Boks B team and fronted in SA with a second team- with 23 line breaks from a backline where none are present tonight.

So we're in a pretty good position regardless. If anything we should win by 10 or so. It could be more, at worst a close loss. But certainly nothing more.

This is very true Gatts,I fully understand. I have stated my case many times
it is ONLY my opinion.I am not knocking ANY coaches for doing it.and they certainly are`nt cheap shots.
I really am afraid teams will just consider the RWC the only thing in Test Rugby that matters.Because with every year there are more and more matches Test or otherwise.
Once it was maybe 6 a year maybe 20 matches at Provincial level[tours excluded].NOW your talking maybe15 Tests a year maybe a total of 40.
Wear and tear on the players ,means more injuries,bigger squads to cope with them.the temptation to field weaker teams .
Which may mean you might end up even in a RWC with a squad with several back up players not of the same calibre.
What eventually happens you have players playing 12 months of the year.
fine you`re professionals its a job.
BUT there will come a time when ONLY certain tournaments will matter you will be targetting them.
More so than now the richer clubs get the trophies ,the crowds,the rest go to the wall.
The RWC is supposed to be a moneyspinner this Year the NZ are expecting a record loss.So it will go around the same little circle.
The AIM was supposed to be the spread of Rugby Union a feast of Rugby skills. It has degenerated into a so called match winning Formula Forward
domination,solid defence,goal kicking,tactical kicking.
WHY can`t places like Italy,USA,Canada,Argentina,host RWCS,they have all the Stadia and infrastucture to support them .
MONEY,so it go France,SA,Australia, England ad infinitum,in the cause of
keeping the club happy.
IN ITM and Currie Cup feeder clubs for Super and test Rugby crowds are falling,Finances struggling.Players following the money.
This will be the last NZ based RWC,soon all your best players will follow the money.SH has the players.Japan and the NH the money,RWCs happen once every 4 years.The reality is only 5 teams can win it,for the rest it is a matter of competing.
Myself for what its worth i`d like maybe a Plate,and a Shield as well to give the others something to aim at.
NZ has some of the shrewdest Coaches who have ever lived,some have gone overseas to Coach with some success.
None of these have subscribed to the world cup winning formula preferring the runnning game[for want of a better word].
Maybe,just maybe it isn`t Knock out Rugby winning style,in a tournament when RWC finals have been won by NO tries.
Maybe,just maybe the All Blacks have`nt choked justfailed to adapt to therealities of Knockout Rugby.
But there again i`m no coach and know nothing abut wining Rugby do i?

Maybe not alan. But gh does.
Because he does it. Repeatedly. Hes coached more test wins than anyone. By miles.

You evidently know a lot about rugby because ultimately it is now big business and money talks.

It's all about winning.

Alan its just two differing points of view.
You say theres a world cup formula. Gh- who i happen to agree with says its about execution.
In test rugby there are no experts. Oz have won two. SA have won two and us one.
None of the 3 play a lot of knockout rugby.
England can hardly claim to be experts as they won one in extra time.
So if there are no experts and SA play a ten man game anyway. And oz won through playing their own game, where is this magic formula. It doesnt exist.
We play knockout in sxv and itm. Have for years. We still play the same way. Yet weve won more super titles. No formula there.
Just a myth. Doesnt exist.

If there is a key to RWC success it surely has to be about timing. You've got to be hitting your straps at the quarters, playing 95% plus for 3 games straight, sounds easy right?

Well we had 300 points for 35 odd against in 4 pool games going into the quarters last cup so how much straps can you hit more than that?
But yes come quarters our execution was well below 95%. Especially the second half. Sure not helped by the inability to be awarded penalties but you have to make your own luck in this game and we were pitiful.
But agree, if we dont execute we wont win. Why should we?
But if we do..bye bye all. Simple as that for us really.

What I have said is "There appears to be a magic formula,not that there is!"
Sadly with the exception of maybe 1991,the finals have been settled by teams that were able to win ugly.
As the man said,it`s not how you win BUT about winning,Graham Henry and co are Great Coaches,No one least of all me doubts it.
Certainly His sides won many Tests,BUT not as yet a RWC most Great sides,have an alternative game plan when Plan A does`nt work.
I cannot believe a Coach of his calibre,has`nt an ace up his sleeve this time.The sudden discovery of Dan Carter,Drop Goal ACE may just be part of that lets hope it works.
On another sun subject the New All Black Coach,what do you think of John Kirwan as an outside bet.?

VERY true Taylorman but it was a woefully weak group,and versus Scotland in that awful Grey Strip,players were complaining they were passing the Ball to the OTHER side.
Scotland was the biggest test,but they played as if all they wanted was to get out of the group.
Talk about being woefully undercooked versus France.

emack2,

Did you go to school or are you still THERE ? Please also try some relevant and appropriate punctuation, and some proper sentences would be good to try and understand your point(s) !

and 87 Im assuming...because that certainly could not be called ugly.

Yes Im ok with drop goals but I just think theres only one way we'll win it

good chat anyway...

Kirwan is my pick. Have the biggest respect for him. Is my age and played him during schoolboy rugby when he was at De la Salle.

Hes not likely as hes not coached at either ITM, SXV and his international experience isnt with major nations. Hes therefore not strong on the either the local or top of the international scene (he did win the Pacific cup though) and he'll have his knockers here.

Not being familiar with either the NZ scene or the likely NZ foes in a way say Larsen, Gatland, Deans, Pat Lam, Glenn Cooper have been will count against him.

I'd say Larsen will get it. I don't like the idea as media wise he'll be one of those snarky types that reacts all the time- bit like I do!

I prefer the Henry persona as a coach. Doesnt give a lot away but has full control of his thoughts and emotions. You always know theres something brimming under that straight face and with Larsen he'll be wysiswyg- what you see is what you get, the type that will really get posters here wanting our heads.

Henry was on fire on the Rugby Club via linkup the other night, marginally better than 1 word answers and when it was over he said thanks and walked off leaving the camera staring into space, much to the amusement of the hosts.

Ive always thought that Graham henry would get on well with Wayne Bennett.

AS previously explained,I suffer a form of Dyslexia with PCs,don`t worry Hobo i don`t do personal insults .
SO 21 st schizoid man I am 68,and hold both Gce and Cse s in English language and literature.
As I have said to others I cannot help it,I am here to debate Rugby
not my English Prose style.
If you do not like it then please avoid mine and read someone elses!!!
I have changed my style several times to try and ease the problem .
My Pc skills and Dyslexia as far as PCs is concerned have precluded it.
FRANKLY,I am getting a little tired having to keep justifying my self.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Ive always thought that Graham henry would get on well with Wayne Bennett.

Wouldn't that be a riveting conversation.

Taylorman,here is a little story about a feeling of being let down.
In 1964 ,I was 21 the job I had was poorly paid,BUT I saved up to
see my Heroes in the local park.Tickets were expensive[relatively].
Also hard to to obtain,anyway 10 years after seeing the 1953-4 side
when I first started supporting them.
It was versus Southern Counties who were willing but no big names
except maybe an English International called Sykes[I think]
Any way ithe AB side was the usual touring mix,a wednesday side really
but included John Graham and Don Clarke.
Both heroes of mine,the match was awful ,the weather poor,BUT I wanted to see the BOOT kick goals live.
He was still suffering the effects of a Hamstring injury pulled against Wales
His attempts were nearer the corner flag than the goal,he was taken off
what a let down for me.
The match was won 9-6 .3 penalties to 2 exciting it was not!!!
It was the ABs worst match of the tour,fortunately the 1967 tour made
up for the 1963 side.They scored tries right out of the coaching manual.
The 1963 side was the last of "The Unsmiling Giants" as a journalist once disecribed them.
That team could win ugly,man could`nt they just. BUT the matches by and large were by no means unexciting.Score like 6-0,or 6-5 were excepted a win was a win no matter how.
The 1963 side came to avenge the defeats of 1953,beat Cardiff,Wales,A French Selection,and France they did it very effectively.
BUT Pretty it wasn`t,in the first two matches Don Clarke had kicked a load of points,in the third match.Versus Newport he did`nt get a kikable chance at goal.
He finished the Tour with 136 points,not bad for the 1960`s. In SA he kicked
209 and was lauded by SA fans they love a big kicker there.
He was the most feared weapon of his age,but he stifled all creativy in the back line.
They were there to tackle or chase kicks ahead,any where from his own 10 yard line.Place or Drop. He was deadly,in the age of old leather balls,no kicking tees,sometimes sopping wet.He did the Bizzo time after time but
truly as J.W. Mackenzie wrote
In his book "All Blacks in Chains" winning was enough not how it was done.
In Nz you are lucky you have a dedicated Rugby channel I would love that.
By the way,John Kirwan has done a good job with both Italy and Japan so he would make a good All Black Coach at some point.