NZ team announced

Starts for Dagg, Kahui, Toeaeva and SBW. Nonu slots in at 13 outside DC and Cowan. Forwards include Vito at 8 and Thorn/Williams 2nd row with Boric on bench



All Blacks:
1. Tony Woodcock (76)
2. Andrew Hore (55)
3. Owen Franks (24)
4. Brad Thorn (52)
5. Ali Williams (66)
6. Jerome Kaino (41)
7. Richie McCaw - captain (98)
8. Victor Vito (8)
9. Jimmy Cowan (47)
10. Daniel Carter (83)
11. Isaia Toeava (32)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (7)
13. Ma'a Nonu (60)
14. Richard Kahui (12)
15. Israel Dagg (7)

Reserves:

16. Corey Flynn (14)
17. Ben Franks (11)
18. Anthony Boric (20)
19. Sam Whitelock (18)
20. Piri Weepu (49)
21. Colin Slade (5)
22. Cory Jane (26)

Looks a strong team with an obvious statement of expansion about to be made. Dont think Dagg has wrested the 15 jumper away from Mils yet, but food for thought

Clearly the bigger backs are in there to blunt the Tongan tackling- Smith, Jane and Guilford the lighter 'white boys' moved to the side a bit.

Goes against Henrys insistence that core players will be named- Smith is clearly core and aint injured. SBW's last chance I'd suggest.

Daggs a good move with his pace and is the flyer selected- might keep the big tongans guessing...

Good pack and good to see Boric get on for a run.

Great to see Dagg and SBW get a run. They both need hitouts and I feel Dagg's got a real opportunity here to usurp Mils.

Means Richie will be the first, injury permitting, to reach 100 test caps for the All Blacks. A phenomenal achievement for a number 7 as it is harder to stay world class there than in other positions.

Maybe a halftime shuffle with Toeava or Kahui to 13. Such a physical side though jeepers. Definitely seems like keeping the white boys in cotton wool! Carter aside of course but he's a champion.

11. Isaia Toeava (32)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (7)
13. Ma'a Nonu (60)
14. Richard Kahui (12)

Not sure about this backline. GH putting in the big guys to prevent the Tongans punching holes as easily as the Fijians did?

*EDIT - Taylor, I posted this before reading your post.

I'd rather Kahui get a run at 13 to be honest. Nonu should stick to being the world-class 12 he is.

No real problems , Now that Ramadan is over why not run Sonny Bill at the Tongans and vice versa.
Disney
Baring injury I'd fairly confident that you will see Kahui have a run at centre at some stage.

That's two really good midfields to have. Probably not a popular choice but despite McCalister's erratic form he would have made my AB squad as fly-half cover; Weepu still getting the kicking duties though. Also looking a bit thin at no.8 with two back-row injuries, was it that great an idea to release Rodney So'oialo from his contract? Both players have been at a world cup so I wouldn't have seen at as a bad option.

I also probably would have opted for Sivi or Hosea Gear over Toeava.

I agree Auck - very likely to see Nonu at 2nd five and Kahui at centre in the second half once Jane comes on.

I also expect to see the "full strength" side for the remaining games (whatever that is as far as the wings are concerned) - with the way the draw is I'm sure Ted didn't want to go in to the Q4 with his first team having been rested against Canada.

Also, this might have been a tactic to beth SBW's management team to shut up for a bit.

Can't wait for Friday as I'll be up in Auckland for the game. Luckily I was able to get the misses to agree that if we moved back to NZ and moved near her family that I could go to all the AB's games which, and I await the usual chokers jokes, means I have tickets all the way to the final.

I guess for me the midfield has always been the crux of our exits- Campese and Horan went through there in 91 while ours did nothing.

In 95 we got no one through the midfield, in 99 France tore through with the dropped ball- kick- ahead. In 2003 Mortlocks intercept went through the same gate where again we did nothing.

2007 France kept us out there the entire match while going through it themselves to score.

And Friday we have a second at 12, our first 12 at Centre and a second 13 on the wing. Already we are tampering.

I know its Tonga but if they're going to build a solid combination through the pools the midfield is NOT the area we should be mucking around with. On paper it looks ok, but...

I am ambivalent about this,taking into account injuries the pack looks right.
The backs looks like the old 2006/7 rotation bit and that isn`t good.It`s a fine line between giving game time to fringe players and getting the combinations right.
This looks to much like still tinkering to me,THE first team should be established.Get 3 games under there belt together,then give the stiffs a run against Canada.
Hansen has admitted .priorities this year was ,RWC,Bledisloe,3Ns whether that was his excuse for losses who knows.?
That is a very strong bench,probably looking at players getting a half each.
SBW getting a start maybe to shut his camp up,who knows having a beefy
midfield for Tonga makes sense.
Conrad Smith is woefully short of game time,but is pure class and Smith/Nonu know each others game backwards.Where`s Guildford he should be starting to rebuild his confidence.Toeva?rumour is he`s playing openside prop versus Japan.
RWC winning sides have SETTLED teams by now the AB`s[injuries permitting] should be known and playing.The rotation bit cost 2007 big time.just hope it does`nt happen again.

Yeah Im the same. The Horan, Little combination worked because it was reliable, consistent, ever present. Same with Fourie, jdv etc- you dont break them up.

I think Nonu Smith will be there from next game onwards- at least I'd expect that. Henry has to know by now the 12, 13 combination is the key to open field rugby and 2 or 3 games together just makes them that much more solid.

Maybe Tonga's not the team for Guilford to get his confidence back due to his size but I don't think that matters here. Hes quick and would more likely get around the bigger slower guys- as Dagg will. We have to look at the Island teams differently these days. They used to have all the bulk, passion and fire but not necessarily the technical nouse or even fitness. Now many are seasoned pro's so we've come into new generations of Island teams having many of the requirements of todays Interrnational competition.

9 changes to the side who went down to W. Some are forced: Read, Thompson etc, and Kaino is a regular; but it looks like there are too many changes from just 2 weeks ago. GH should know who is top starting side by now and play it to get the team combinations right. Big mistake I think and the risk is that chopping and changing continues. GH only 2 weeks ago said Nonu is the best 12 and SBW is behind him, then he picks a bunch of blokes for the back line and most of them are out of position to accommodate SBW for a start at 12. Don't get it. In contrast, WDeans has made no changes to the W side from the last match. O'Connor still on the outer. Who would have thought he would not be able to get back into the 15 a year ago?

The team looks good but would have started Wepu in the 9 slot istead of Cowan...Wepu gets the team moving better puts more rythum in, plus IF, Carter is having an off day with the boot Wepu can take over the goal kicking.

If Carter does have an off day, who out of the team will be back up to Carter, without making any subsitution?

Madge apparently Dagg is a brilliant goalkicker. I'm thinking he could take the 11 shirt for the big games anyway.

Here. We. Go. Again.

What was the point of the resting and rotating and generally sacrificing the tri-nations if as soon as we hit the RWC we get this?

11. Isaia Toeava
12. Sonny Bill Williams
13. Ma'a Nonu
14. Richard Kahui

3 guys out of position, while the "specialist" named incumbents sit in the stands going rusty, the combinations stagnate. If Henry wanted bigger, more direct wingers why didn't he pick Gear over Guildford?

If Mils wasn't going to play at all, why was he selected? If he is going to play, why did we persevere with his lack of form in the 3N before chucking Dagg in at FB now? It makes no sense.

I guess his reasoning will be that he's named the "best" team for the opposition in question. But this is just more of his rotating and tinkering by cute stealth.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Here. We. Go. Again.

What was the point of the resting and rotating and generally sacrificing the tri-nations if as soon as we hit the RWC we get this?

11. Isaia Toeava
12. Sonny Bill Williams
13. Ma'a Nonu
14. Richard Kahui

Jeebus there's no pleasing some people. The rest of us wish we had NZ's "problems". You should try being an Irish fan GG....

casper
This is a horses for courses selection, dont dispair. this game will be played in 2 parts, the first 20 - 30 minutes then the rest, we dont want injuries out of this game either, strap yourself in for the start of this because because the going could get rather bumpy.
this team is just fine....

roddersm wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Here. We. Go. Again.

What was the point of the resting and rotating and generally sacrificing the tri-nations if as soon as we hit the RWC we get this?

11. Isaia Toeava
12. Sonny Bill Williams
13. Ma'a Nonu
14. Richard Kahui

Jeebus there's no pleasing some people. The rest of us wish we had NZ's "problems". You should try being an Irish fan GG....

NZ's selection issues in previous RWC's has been the flawed "horses for courses" approach which often sees (a) with rusty combinations in the 1st line up for big games (b) going out while a better selection sits in the stands despairing.

No one can surely help but see that NZ has a cute but foolhardy habit of chosing RWC games to suddenly convert full backs to centers or centers to wings.

If it wasn't so frustrating it would be hilarious that prior to the RWC Henry and his cohorts had the tricky problem of trying to fit so many great options in the outside backs into so few world cup spots. Having gone through many permutations, we suddenly hit the opening game of the world cup and have a center playing wing, the worlds best 12 playing 13. A full back covering the other wing, and guy who has shown no form since last October (and surely wouldn't even be in the squad if his agent didn't stage manage his career so effectively) in the starting 12 channel.

I said throughout 2009 that the ABs problems are not caused by Henry, they're caused by Wayne Smith. And I see his dithering and ineffective hand at play again here.

Laurie,
I think you called this one. The team is fine and the hope is to ride out the tough hits without too many bruises. ABs by at least 60. Sorry for the perceived jinx.

Casper
Kahui: has played a lot of wing in his career,he is an ideal selection to see out the first instalment of this game,Dont worry I'm sure you will see him run at centre later on.
Nonu: was an All Black centre before he was a 2nd 5 8th.
Toeava; By playing him on the wing,brings a solid defender an extra fullback,is defense against wings is excellant.
Hold the faith...........

Doctor;
I'm not so sure about 60 but they will at least do them by 40.

Laurie, I'm not questioning the selection in the context of this game. I'm questioning the selection in the context of the competition.

Kahui may have played wing, but he's certainly not a first choice wing even at S15 level...what does it say about the squad selection that we're improvising before we even start?

NZ are past masters at wiping the floor with the pool phase as witnessed by the fact we hold most RWC records point-scoring wise. But we do tend to find ourselves a little short of coherence later on.

Its about protecting certain players against the unique challenges that Isitolo Maaka,his brother Finau and the tongan team bring, remember a lot of these players know each other out of these two teams. but we definitely wont be coherent in the later stages or even france for that matter if we are all banged up.

I think too much is made of the supposed overt physicality of teams like Tonga.

There was probably more truth to it before the dawn of professionalism, but these days the size and power of athletes in these positions is very similar and has little to do with ethnicity or culture.

In terms of the fear of the "less legitimate", recent history has shown us that we have as much to worry about with cheap shots from guys like Quade Cooper as we might have from Finau or Taniela Moa.

where I come from on the Tonga generalisation is more their approach to this event and game and the physicality will be part of that.
around auckland this week any foreigner would have known that something was on in this town and Tonga was a big part of it. isitolo not only has the support of the whole Island nation with his team but also Ponsonby,Mt.Roskil, Mangere,Otara,Manurewa etc,

Agree GG. Why do people go on and on about the PI tough tackling. Do they really do more damage to the ABs than say a hard out game against SA or ABs.
In reality Tonga etc pose no real threat to the ABs (as long as you are not stupid) and they will spend more time chasing us than tackling us.

I reckon its more of a racist comment about coconut tackling.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the Tongan scrum. Heaps of people have got big wraps on their loosehead so it will be really interesting to see how he goes.

Totally agree with Ghosty about picking Gear if they wanted a bruising wing.

Japan will be the easiest game but I'm wondering if they'll play the top XV there, and in the subsequent two pool games to improve continuity.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I think too much is made of the supposed overt physicality of teams like Tonga.

There was probably more truth to it before the dawn of professionalism, but these days the size and power of athletes in these positions is very similar and has little to do with ethnicity or culture.

I disagree GG, it is a scientifically known fact that pacific islanders are naturally big and powerful with a high percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers. There is nothing rascist about it.

Professionalism has made things a bit more even but ultimately you can lift weights until the cows come home but some countries will still have a natural genetic advantage when it comes to certain aspects of the game. When it comes to physicality the pacific islanders are always going to present a very physical challenge.

Well we will all know in 2 sleeps time, and with that i'm off to bed . night all.

aucklandlaurie wrote: where I come from on the Tonga generalisation is more their approach to this event and game and the physicality will be part of that.
around auckland this week any foreigner would have known that something was on in this town and Tonga was a big part of it. isitolo not only has the support of the whole Island nation with his team but also Ponsonby,Mt.Roskil, Mangere,Otara,Manurewa etc,

A few people from work landed at Auckland Airport about the same time as the Tongans. They said the sight outside, and the initial part of the drive into town, was pretty amazing. By all reports over here it sounds like it's building nicely.

roddersm wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:I think too much is made of the supposed overt physicality of teams like Tonga.

There was probably more truth to it before the dawn of professionalism, but these days the size and power of athletes in these positions is very similar and has little to do with ethnicity or culture.

I disagree GG, it is a scientifically known fact that pacific islanders are naturally big and powerful with a high percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers. There is nothing rascist about it.

Professionalism has made things a bit more even but ultimately you can lift weights until the cows come home but some countries will still have a natural genetic advantage when it comes to certain aspects of the game. When it comes to physicality the pacific islanders are always going to present a very physical challenge.

You've used that word "naturally". I agree on this point. I grew up with guys who liked like bulldozers when I was 8. It's a natural advantage in some cases, undisputed. But with modern training regimes, there's just not a lot of difference between the strength and size of players across the board.

TheGreyGhost wrote:
You've used that word "naturally". I agree on this point. I grew up with guys who liked like bulldozers when I was 8. It's a natural advantage in some cases, undisputed. But with modern training regimes, there's just not a lot of difference between the strength and size of players across the board.

Well yes and no I think. A player can improve his size, strength and power through training by increasing muscle mass and neurological recruitment but he can't increase his bone density or frame.

Ultimately the naturally bigger and more powerful player will have the advantage over the player who's made short term adaptions through training, certainly over the longer term.

A lot of players are getting injured because they are carrying more mass than their frames are suited too. Look at the David Wallace injury when he and Tuilagi colided. they were both a similar size but Wallace knee was the weak link when the collided. Wallace muscles may have been trained to withstand a high impact collision with a 16.5 stone guy but his knees and connective tissue weren't.

Obviously I'm ignoring the age differential and other factors but for me it is a good example of a collision between a player who is "naturally" >16 stone and one who has built himself to that size.

No doubt most professional sides will be able to match the PI teams physically but I would guess that the physicality of the collisions will take their toll more on the non PI than PI players.

roddersm wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:
You've used that word "naturally". I agree on this point. I grew up with guys who liked like bulldozers when I was 8. It's a natural advantage in some cases, undisputed. But with modern training regimes, there's just not a lot of difference between the strength and size of players across the board.

Look at the David Wallace injury when he and Tuilagi colided. they were both a similar size but Wallace knee was the weak link when the collided. Wallace muscles may have been trained to withstand a high impact collision with a 16.5 stone guy but his knees and connective tissue weren't.

Obviously I'm ignoring the age differential and other factors but for me it is a good example of a collision between a player who is "naturally" >16 stone and one who has built himself to that size.

That's a very unfair comparison...the dynamics of that situation was that Tuilagi was the aggressor who went in to make a hit whilst Wallace was largely blindsided and was paying attention to the side line and the ball. If it were a head on collision we would have seen a different result.

Aside from which I'm not aware of any studies showing that Islanders have a genetic predisposition to greater bone density. A higher incidence of stomach cancer and heart disease, yes.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j054614682474425/

I accept that the Wallace and Tuilagi example was a big generalisation because there were numerous other factors in Wallace injury.

Laurie,
I am staying with my 60+. If I am right you owe me a beer, if not I owe you. We have time to figure out the time, beer and place of payment.

"However, after adjustment for body weight, in particular lean mass, no differences were seen between Pacific Island and European children in any bone measure. The larger bone area and BMC of young Pacific Island children can be explained by their greater height and weight. Therefore, this study has shown that prepubertal Pacific Island children do not have greater bone size or BMC for their weight."

That research seems to state that bone mass is a consequence of height and weight (assuming an active life style with sufficient calcium intake and no underlying health issues that may counter the trend). All that is stated is that Pacific Island descent children grow taller and heavier at a younger age to Caucasian children and this is why they have greater BMC. There is no mention of adults.

If you read the abstract and references then you'll see that it has previously been proven in adults.

There is no increase in bone density when the results are corrected for size but the jist of it is that the PI kids were bigger and had greater bone mass than the caucasion kids and the same is true of adults.

No amount of training and holland and barrett protein shakes can compensate for having naturally smaller bone mass and that is the point.

Read a theory that Mils is being rested to get his 100th cap against France and for a fire to be lit underneath him by putting Dagg in the fullback equation so that 100th cap is a memorable one.

Interesting theory. Don´t like how Hosea Gear is out of the equation. He has that punch but in saying that I do like Kahui´s work rate, plus his versatility at centre works in his favour. But for me he´s in the same boat as Sivivatu in terms of his record to break down. In that regard, I´d put Gear ahead of him and Jane on the other wing for the A games.

Woodcock´s hamstring complaint is a concern. Not for this game but the games ahead. Our loosehead stocks are thin and Read is a glaring absence and a fine line will have to be trod by bringing him back too early and bringing him in to get his match fitness back. Richie´s return to form will not be helped by his absence.

So certainly there are concerns. It´s worrying in particular that Henry admits he doesn´t know his A team yet. Wrong selections lately and concern for Super rugby fatigue, particularly the Crusader players, have not helped his cause. By the France game, he hopefully starts putting out his A squad with very few changes, notably Read´s return.

"If you read the abstract and references then you'll see that it has previously been proven in adults."

Why not use an adult paper to prove your point then? The paper (not completely clear form just the abstract and references) suggests that if you have larger mass then you will have a larger BMC regardless of where your ancestry is from. This is born out as PI descent people being bigger and thus having greater BMC and larger bones – the greater BMC is a result of being bigger (NOTE – not because they genetically have greater BMC but simply because they are bigger). A Caucasian human of similar size also has this increased bone BMC to match the humans from PI descent.

"PI kids were bigger and had greater bone mass than the caucasion kids"

True. Their greater average size increased their average BMC; also of note was that a bigger Caucasian kid had a bigger BMC than a smaller Caucasian kid. What was also true was that PI and Caucasian kids of the same comparable size had comparable BMC.

" the same is true of adults."

It is well proven that greater muscle usage/strength increases bone density. Frost (Frost H.M. 1997 Perspective: On our age-related bone loss: Insights from a new paradigm. J. Bone Miner. Res. 12:1539–1546.) stated that “voluntary muscle forces . . . dominate a bone’s postnatal structural adaptations to mechanical usage, modified . . . by body weight and one’s voluntary physical activity.” This has far more to do with training than genetics and it has also been shown that greater strength has the opposite effect of reducing injury incidence.

“No amount of training and holland and barrett protein shakes can compensate for having naturally smaller bone mass and that is the point.”

No it isn’t. The greater muscle mass achieved from training will increase the BMC – nothing to do with genetics and all to do with training. The incidence of injury to professional rugby players does not show trends based on their ethnicity; it does, however, length of recovery time and the position played.

Personally I think the hard running and tackling of Tonga, Fiji and Samoa is more to do with their philosophy of how to play the game as opposed to any genetics.

Not looking to stir up arguments but it is a fallacy often perpetuated that you skeletal system is incapable of supporting your own muscle mass. Increase in muscle mass takes months and your BMC will change to adapt to this. Muscle mass is a problem in Rugby only when your speed and endurance diminish.


However if you wanted to make the case that any member of the Tuilagi family is a man mountain who you do not want to have to one on one tackle, then I think there will be few arguments! I don’t think any of them are typical humans though.

mcrjfNo7, great points well made.

A study it may be but i grew up amongst the single biggest population of all pac. Islanders in the world in south auckland and child for child they were generally the same pre teen but when their growth hormones kicked in as teenagers they were much bigger physically in comparison to the white boys.
Tongans ive heard are by height the tallest on average in the world. Followed by fiji. I think the tongan women boost the average as i have yet to see a 'short' tongan women when compared to their euro equivalents.

mcrjfNo7 wrote:"If you read the abstract and references then you'll see that it has previously been proven in adults."

Why not use an adult paper to prove your point then? The paper (not completely clear form just the abstract and references) suggests that if you have larger mass then you will have a larger BMC regardless of where your ancestry is from. This is born out as PI descent people being bigger and thus having greater BMC and larger bones – the greater BMC is a result of being bigger (NOTE – not because they genetically have greater BMC but simply because they are bigger). A Caucasian human of similar size also has this increased bone BMC to match the humans from PI descent.

"PI kids were bigger and had greater bone mass than the caucasion kids"

True. Their greater average size increased their average BMC; also of note was that a bigger Caucasian kid had a bigger BMC than a smaller Caucasian kid. What was also true was that PI and Caucasian kids of the same comparable size had comparable BMC.

" the same is true of adults."

It is well proven that greater muscle usage/strength increases bone density. Frost (Frost H.M. 1997 Perspective: On our age-related bone loss: Insights from a new paradigm. J. Bone Miner. Res. 12:1539–1546.) stated that “voluntary muscle forces . . . dominate a bone’s postnatal structural adaptations to mechanical usage, modified . . . by body weight and one’s voluntary physical activity.” This has far more to do with training than genetics and it has also been shown that greater strength has the opposite effect of reducing injury incidence.

“No amount of training and holland and barrett protein shakes can compensate for having naturally smaller bone mass and that is the point.”

No it isn’t. The greater muscle mass achieved from training will increase the BMC – nothing to do with genetics and all to do with training. The incidence of injury to professional rugby players does not show trends based on their ethnicity; it does, however, length of recovery time and the position played.

Personally I think the hard running and tackling of Tonga, Fiji and Samoa is more to do with their philosophy of how to play the game as opposed to any genetics.

Not looking to stir up arguments but it is a fallacy often perpetuated that you skeletal system is incapable of supporting your own muscle mass. Increase in muscle mass takes months and your BMC will change to adapt to this. Muscle mass is a problem in Rugby only when your speed and endurance diminish.

https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/2292/4675/15608799.pdf?sequence=1

"After adjustment for height and weight, bone mineral density in pacific Islanders is significantly higher than European and Asian Indian and when adjused for Height and weight bone mineral content was significantly higher for PI's than Europeans"

As I have already said the greater BMD in the PI kids is to do with their larger size, which is the point, they are bigger generally.

There are plenty of articles which support the fact that resistance training can reduce and offset the BMD and BMC losses that occur from aging but it is still not conclusive that weight training can increase BMD and BMC significantly in adults.

Anyone seen the production line of caucasion teens in the Rhonnda??!

I think the Dutch are the tallest and the Americans are the fattest.
Anyway lets not look at the general population but at the players in the team.

Are the Tongan players (and PI in general) bigger, stronger, faster and fitter than the team you support?

I've heard some pretty flimsy defences getting prepared ahead of time to hedge against defeat, but honestly:

"We had no chance! Just look at their bone density compared to ours!"

I have to say is feeble at best.

Perhaps if the dietary habits of the nation were sorted out a little, then you'd feel somewhat less disadvantaged?

"Anyway lets not look at the general population but at the players in the team."

Well said, averages mean nothing when comparing an elite 30. Wish I hadn't done all that research though!

Now now GG no need for the defeatest attitude. I am just pointing out that your claim that the PI sides not having certain physical advantages over many of their opponents is not strictly true.

I agree that training can offset the strength and power advantages but it can't totally negate them. The evidence that you can significantly increase BMD through training is debatable and you can't change what muscle fibre type you are born with although you can make adaptions. No amount of training will turn Mike Tindall into Manu Tuilagi

I said they had a natural advantage at certain aspects of the game not every aspect of the game, for example the flip side to having a predisposition for type 2 fast twitch muscle fibres is that your endurance won't be as great.

There's also far more to rugby than physical power and genetics so I wouldn't be expecting Tonga to turn over the ABs in time soon.

"No amount of training will turn Mike Tindall into Manu Tuilagi"

Just looking on Holland and Barretts website for something but I think you are right!

roddersm wrote:Now now GG no need for the defeatest attitude. I am just pointing out that your claim that the PI sides not having certain physical advantages over many of their opponents is not strictly true.

I agree that training can offset the strength and power advantages but it can't totally negate them. The evidence that you can significantly increase BMD through training is debatable and you can't change what muscle fibre type you are born with although you can make adaptions. No amount of training will turn Mike Tindall into Manu Tuilagi

I said they had a natural advantage at certain aspects of the game not every aspect of the game, for example the flip side to having a predisposition for type 2 fast twitch muscle fibres is that your endurance won't be as great.

There's also far more to rugby than physical power and genetics so I wouldn't be expecting Tonga to turn over the ABs in time soon.

Now you're shifting the goal posts. This whole thing started around me pointing out that the idea that the PI teams were somehow more physically imposing than other nations is a bit of a dated idea. It was nothing to do with someone saying that there was a slight genetic skew around bone density possibly related to diet or culture or whether or not it gave natural advantages in certain areas of the game. To me this idea is right up there with the idea that England *always* play 10 man rugby, that Australia *always* have dangerous backs and a powder puff front row or that a "wounded" side will come back strongly the following week. It's just the kind of meaningless pre-match bunkum that fills endless mindless pages of build up journalist inches when there's nothing to actually write about.

Having said that, did you see the ITV RWC build up programmes last night? A little taster of the shallow cliched coverage those Britain bound are likely to endure for the next few weeks. I couldn't watch it. It was just awful.

mcrjfNo7 wrote:"No amount of training will turn Mike Tindall into Manu Tuilagi"

Just looking on Holland and Barretts website for something but I think you are right!

Well his old mucker Martin Corry might be able to get him something....

No GG I'm not moving the goalposts, my point was always the same maybe I just didn't atriculate it very well. It is not a myth that the PI teams are naturally extremely physical but of course you are right that the top sides are more than a match for them. Certainly though 6 weeks lifting weights in a polish ice chamber will not stop Wales having a very bruising couple of weeks against Samoa and Fiji .

ITV's coverage is always rubbish Did you watch that programme Dallagio's WC over the past few weeks were he and that annoying Irish prettyboy holiday presenter went through each of the top teams analysing their WC history? You'd have liked Lol's pennysworth about why the AB's keep choking!...

roddersm wrote:

mcrjfNo7 wrote:"No amount of training will turn Mike Tindall into Manu Tuilagi"

Just looking on Holland and Barretts website for something but I think you are right!

Well his old mucker Martin Corry might be able to get him something....

No GG I'm not moving the goalposts, my point was always the same maybe I just didn't atriculate it very well. It is not a myth that the PI teams are naturally extremely physical but of course you are right that the top sides are more than a match for them. Certainly though 6 weeks lifting weights in a polish ice chamber will not stop Wales having a very bruising couple of weeks against Samoa and Fiji .

ITV's coverage is always rubbish Did you watch that programme Dallagio's WC over the past few weeks were he and that annoying Irish prettyboy holiday presenter went through each of the top teams analysing their WC history? You'd have liked Lol's pennysworth about why the AB's keep choking!...

I couldn't even start watching the Dayglo show. The way he was staring into the camera and fidgeting made it look like he was on crack. Then when he started down the path of what a great political victory it was for SA in 1995, I myself, was violently ill and had to switch the TV off for fear of throwing it out of the window.