Now the smoke has cleared,comments on RWCs.

First topic message reminder :

I have been silent of late,not really much to be excited about but have read some rather interesting comments,some good, some bad,some sour,and some plain stupid.
Most here know me,and my ethos on RWCs so they will know where i`m coming from.Firstly I congratulate Nz for a well organised RWC,and also winning it,as a All Blacks
fan.I am glad for the many kiwi fans here ,a monkey of your back,for myself don`t care a flying F*** about the win,just another All Black win.Hopefully they can continue
to win more matches,and hopefully the 4Ns.
This brings me to the point about small minded ,and sour comments re the win,IRB fixed it for them to win? ludicrous IRB is heavily weighted in favour of the NH,with a French
President.If anything it would have been fixed for france to win,if that was the case,Ref won it for them? nearly EVERY RWC has that ephiphet thrown at it,several matches
were effected in this one.BUT Joubert was by common consent THE best Ref in the Tournament,BEFORE the final,England and France both had decisions go for [France]and Against
England in 2007.France may well have won there Semi in 1995,a disputed try not given,Cueto`s not given etc.Paddy O `Brien fixed it so they won,RUBBISH The IRB set the rules and interpratations NOT Paddy O`Brien.
Only won because they were at home,can`t argue that one to be honest,fact is now 3 home teams have won them,and 5 home teams been the finalist`s so home advantage certainly helps.It`s really only there first win,because the Boks were`nt there,and not won this one because the Ref one it for them,THAT presupposes ANY team that enters a RWC will win it.
Boks 1986 had a 3-1 test win over the Cavaliers,who also lost one provincial match on tour,IF you are aware of the relevant touring history of the two sides,you would know.
That was very much BETTER than par for the course,and 1991 which some how never draws the same derision,on performances 1992-4.Boks would`nt have had a prayer.
As to a BOK Ref giving a RWC to an All Black side?that is in the realms of fantasy,He called it a he saw it,YES he missed stuff but on both sides.When the French Defence coach said we are not afraid of McCaw ,someone may just stamp on his bad leg!!.It was probably said tongue in cheek BUT the French were doing just that.
How do you win a RWC?,luck with injuries and a squad good enough to cope,a rub of the green,AND be the most consistent team in the Tournament,The All Blacks were that they won
EVERY MATCH.
AS has EVERY RWC winning team to date others have ,historically only a team winning there group has won .Teams qualifying without doing so have Always ended up second.
Some positives have been taken care of already,TMO`s will have more say in the game,ALL teams will now play midweek games. Citing window will now be increased,to cover incidents in a RWC final.HERE it should be NOTED Neither France or NZ cited anyone.
A few comments about seeding the Change using IRB ratings instead of the previous method of 4 Semi -finalists.Ob voiusly because for THE only time NZ the host nation would have been unseeded.Presumeably another method will be needed IF England fail to reach number 4 in the seedings for 2009.
The introduction of a new ball in 2007,and 2011 was criticised in both RWC`s ,from the Manufacturers Concerned the kudos for an exclusive Ball is obvious.BUT they should be available for
goal kickers PRE RWC.So they can practice with them then there can be no excuses.
The idea that the RWC should be hosted by the current little cabal should be abandoned,places with Stadia like Argentina,Italy,Usa or Canada should be considered too.
Though I do not like RWCs or knockouts in general and RWC is neither fish nor fowl but a hybrid,idea that only one way to win is negative safety first ,especially in knockout stages.
Go`s against the idea of a feast of Rugby,when Fiji versus Samoa resort to setpiece,kick penalties rather than there natural flair one despairs.Watching it was like a bad NH Club Game,on a wet wednesday afternoon,with two men and a dog watching.
The fact as early as the second game at group level,tier 2 sides were fielding weakened sides versus tier one sides,every one commented after first game.
How much the tier2 sides had come on ,but after the first match it was back to square one,understandable.BUT it meant that there were few surprises as in previous RWCs.
Of course having to play sometime 3 games in 7 days meant they had little hope in this RWC.
The season Pre RWC needs seriously looking at in 2009 especially in SH with extended S15,and 4Ns commiments,finishing 2 tournaments a week or 2 weeks before a RWC is ludicrous,
hopefully it will be addressed.
It`s catch 22 you need more money to finace the game,therefore more matches,but more games means more injuries,longer recovery times,more resting of key players and so on.

So maj it was fixed for NZ this time. Clearly it was fixed for someone else last time. How does this fixing occur anyway in a practical sense?

The IRB sit down with the referees and say you make sure NZ win cos we need them too. Not sure why we need them too but we just do.

So Joubert to a part tries to do his bit and so, apparently does Lawrence who was also at the meeting.

And did I hear 'time to put the 2011 World cup behinds up?" After 3 months? from those who squeezed every single drop out of the 2003 result for now on 8 years? Really?

Yes you could look at it like that..geez I wonder what will be said when we're sitting on a hat trick in 2019?

Taylorman wrote:So maj it was fixed for NZ this time. Clearly it was fixed for someone else last time. How does this fixing occur anyway in a practical sense?

The IRB sit down with the referees and say you make sure NZ win cos we need them too. Not sure why we need them too but we just do.

So Joubert to a part tries to do his bit and so, apparently does Lawrence who was also at the meeting.

And did I hear 'time to put the 2011 World cup behinds up?" After 3 months? from those who squeezed every single drop out of the 2003 result for now on 8 years? Really?

Yes you could look at it like that..geez I wonder what will be said when we're sitting on a hat trick in 2019?

Make sure you ducks as those flying pigs go past

Taylorman wrote:So maj it was fixed for NZ this time. Clearly it was fixed for someone else last time. How does this fixing occur anyway in a practical sense?

The IRB sit down with the referees and say you make sure NZ win cos we need them too. Not sure why we need them too but we just do.

So Joubert to a part tries to do his bit and so, apparently does Lawrence who was also at the meeting.

And did I hear 'time to put the 2011 World cup behinds up?" After 3 months? from those who squeezed every single drop out of the 2003 result for now on 8 years? Really?

Yes you could look at it like that..geez I wonder what will be said when we're sitting on a hat trick in 2019?

taylorman two tings.

Bryce Lawrence's dad Keith Lawrence chaired the meeting., but it was only himself and his son there. It was really more like a one on one. Joubert wasn't there.

The other thing is A HATRICK?

Geez, bud, I am happy for you guys that the monkey is off the back after 24 years, but let's keep on sharing the trophy here in the south. OK.

majesticimperialman wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:

emack2 wrote:As I wrote prior to the RWC,the Semi was going to be THE Final for the both sides[at the time I was anticipating a All Black vBok ] semi.
So it proved,the Semi was THE best All Black display in a decade,the final as I feared a relative anti-climax.They won but they were a tired team hanging on at the final whistle.

Hi all, new poster motivated to comment on the long running attack on New Zealand's long over due world cup win.

I can agree with you that the ABs peaked for the semi-final. To me, it was the most brutal and focussed 80 minutes of AB rugby I've witnessed since the 1996 SA tour.

But I'm offended by the continued suggestion that NZ were somehow lucky to win the final. I suggest that most of this is friendly rivalry showing its competitive head. So rather than debate some of the petty criticisms of the refereeing (which was outstanding in comparison with previous finals adjudication), I'd rather just point out that the score engineered by New Zealand was 8-7. Given New Zealand's ownership of opposition teams not just in the tournament, but in the preceding four years, surely it's more likely that this scoreline was a salute to Graham Henry's 87 victories?. It's just too much of a coincidence, and I can't see it any other way.

You could look at the fact that NEW ZEALAND WAS AT HOME, and the fact that every New Zealander( fan)that is , believed that New Zealand should of won the Rugby World Cup in 2007. You could also look at the possibilty that tournament was fixed by the IRB so that New Zealand would win by hook or by crook( the Referree's) being to lenient in the punishment stakes (Mc Caw going off his feet at the breakdown, entering the rucks fromn the wrong side) you get the picture. The Fact is New Zealand have been the best, or almost the best rugby team between rugby world cups, that they was bown to win it one day.

It is now time to put the 2011 Rugby World Cup behinds up and move on to the 2015 Rugby World Cup and the build up to it.

Come on Maj, get a life mate, if sports were fixed poor England should be banging at the door in footie... 1966 and all that aye. Let's not mention men's sibles tennis haaha.

NZ as I have stated deserved the WC 2011 'just'. They could have been found out in the final without a doubt but held on and no one should deny them the victory.

If you live in NZ you would know that NZ should win EVERY world cup, to not do so means that NZ were bad and the eventual winners were lucky, but thats the Kiwi mentality and it's a good one to have. I am Welsh and I get more enthusiasm for Welsh rugby from my mates over here than I read on this board by Welsh people. NZ has 4 mill population but hit above their weight in sport and Rugby Union is their baseline for every other sports person rugby or not. Rugby is a national sport in NZ and throughout the nation you will see rugby posts overwhelm football goals. You can not say that about the UK not even in Wales where it is also the national sport.

The only FIXING here Maj is NZ FIX their kids mentality at an early age and its EGG shaped mate.

Actually in re reading maj's comments mine were misplaced a little. He makes some good points. However, a hat trick would be nice now i think about it.
Who knows. We may have found the holy grail.
Wishful thinking biltong. Seems it now feels possible when it hasnt for a long long time.
'Something' just seemed to keep getting in the way that often had nothing to do with the abilities of our blokes.
Anyway. Onward and upward. A new era awaits i feel. Are we going to see comebacks from wounded boks or englishmen? Or is the the up and coming youth of oz and wales?
Or perhaps the tried and true of ireland and NZ.
Then throw in the french as the ultimate enigma and we have a smorgasbord of options ahead of us.
Who will it be?

The reaction to New Zealand's victory is quite understandable.

For most of the professional era the perennially threatening aura of that All Blacks and their domination of the world rankings (not to mention most trophies, matches and point scoring records) could be offset by pointing at their failure to pick up a professional era World Cup troph with a full complement of tri-nations teams participating.

The style with which NZ won the 2011 world cup was largely unquestionable and frankly a bit frightening to consider. They wiped the floor with their group, including eventual co-finalists France, and scored their usual record number of points and a record number of tries.

They then went on to win the final and finally shoo the back-monkey, despite a attritional injury crsis that saw them having to recall the outcast figure of national ridicule Stephen Donald from fishing exile, captain McCaw play through what must have been extreme discomfort if not agonising pain, the loss of key back line specialists saw yet another bizarrely unpredictable world cup AB back line.

Given the variety of styles played and the complete dominance NZ showed throughout the tournament, particularly in their breathtaking demolition of Australia thrown into a "southern" side of the draw - really left few straws to grasp at.

The thought that the World Cup winning side was probably at 80% at best, and casting a nervous eye down the list of players who *weren't good enough* (Fruean, Gear ) to make the tournament side, or who made the side and couldn't get on the pitch (Guildford, SBW, Vito) in all honesty is a bit frightening.

We now reluctantly look forward with trepidation to age of AB dominance which may rival the Australian Cricket team of the 90's, or the Australian League side of erm, ever, or the Canadian women's curling team of the late 60's.

For us, the one chink in the armour, the one glimmer of hope for we poor wayward supporters of other sides here in the cold of the northern winter, is that at least the final was close. And we all know we can beat France, probably.

So. Given the seemingly impenetrable, vast and threatening aura of the seemingly inevitably approaching new age of All Black invincibility, a few sticks and stones in the nature of criticism of a couple of debatable refereeing calls backed up with anecdotal evidence and a whiff of conspiracy seem like just about the best armoury some of us up here can muster.

Forgive us. I'm sure it's coming from a place of respect.

miteyironpaw wrote:The reaction to New Zealand's victory is quite understandable.

For most of the professional era the perennially threatening aura of that All Blacks and their domination of the world rankings (not to mention most trophies, matches and point scoring records) could be offset by pointing at their failure to pick up a professional era World Cup troph with a full complement of tri-nations teams participating.

The style with which NZ won the 2011 world cup was largely unquestionable and frankly a bit frightening to consider. They wiped the floor with their group, including eventual co-finalists France, and scored their usual record number of points and a record number of tries.

They then went on to win the final and finally shoo the back-monkey, despite a attritional injury crsis that saw them having to recall the outcast figure of national ridicule Stephen Donald from fishing exile, captain McCaw play through what must have been extreme discomfort if not agonising pain, the loss of key back line specialists saw yet another bizarrely unpredictable world cup AB back line.

Given the variety of styles played and the complete dominance NZ showed throughout the tournament, particularly in their breathtaking demolition of Australia thrown into a "southern" side of the draw - really left few straws to grasp at.

The thought that the World Cup winning side was probably at 80% at best, and casting a nervous eye down the list of players who *weren't good enough* (Fruean, Gear ) to make the tournament side, or who made the side and couldn't get on the pitch (Guildford, SBW, Vito) in all honesty is a bit frightening.

We now reluctantly look forward with trepidation to age of AB dominance which may rival the Australian Cricket team of the 90's, or the Australian League side of erm, ever, or the Canadian women's curling team of the late 60's.

For us, the one chink in the armour, the one glimmer of hope for we poor wayward supporters of other sides here in the cold of the northern winter, is that at least the final was close. And we all know we can beat France, probably.

So. Given the seemingly impenetrable, vast and threatening aura of the seemingly inevitably approaching new age of All Black invincibility, a few sticks and stones in the nature of criticism of a couple of debatable refereeing calls backed up with anecdotal evidence and a whiff of conspiracy seem like just about the best armoury some of us up here can muster.

Forgive us. I'm sure it's coming from a place of respect.

Whew mitey... Thats a pretty big statement. I dont think the situations that one sided. ABs are still just a rugby team like most others. They tick the right boxes in most areas and get the most out of what resources they have.

We as fans know we are lucky in that respect. Some teams dont get to choose their best players, coaches etc through either politics, other sporting codes etc.

We know theres a niche in there that we take maximum advantage of and are lucky in that respect.

The AB's are a special lot as a sporting entity and havr a proud tradition. Thats part of what keepd them there. In the pro environment money is also a consideration but that also makes it hardet to be competitive. We dont have as much of it.

But they're still just a rugby team. Beatable but constantly aware of the need to stay one step ahead at all times.

Some might think it might be better not having them at all but I think they give the sport itself a good profile amongst the cut throat environment of all sports.

Once teams like SA and Oz and perhaps one or two NH sides sort their traditional issues out we'll be in trouble again but as always itll be another challenge, another test.

I for one see things a changing over the next 24 months at the top end. I dont expect this air of dominance you refer to. In fact I think we'll be knocked off the top by years end such are the winds of change in some quarters.
At least its better that we think that way...

miteyironpaw wrote:The reaction to New Zealand's victory is quite understandable.

For most of the professional era the perennially threatening aura of that All Blacks and their domination of the world rankings (not to mention most trophies, matches and point scoring records) could be offset by pointing at their failure to pick up a professional era World Cup troph with a full complement of tri-nations teams participating.

The style with which NZ won the 2011 world cup was largely unquestionable and frankly a bit frightening to consider. They wiped the floor with their group, including eventual co-finalists France, and scored their usual record number of points and a record number of tries.

They then went on to win the final and finally shoo the back-monkey, despite a attritional injury crsis that saw them having to recall the outcast figure of national ridicule Stephen Donald from fishing exile, captain McCaw play through what must have been extreme discomfort if not agonising pain, the loss of key back line specialists saw yet another bizarrely unpredictable world cup AB back line.

Given the variety of styles played and the complete dominance NZ showed throughout the tournament, particularly in their breathtaking demolition of Australia thrown into a "southern" side of the draw - really left few straws to grasp at.

The thought that the World Cup winning side was probably at 80% at best, and casting a nervous eye down the list of players who *weren't good enough* (Fruean, Gear ) to make the tournament side, or who made the side and couldn't get on the pitch (Guildford, SBW, Vito) in all honesty is a bit frightening.

We now reluctantly look forward with trepidation to age of AB dominance which may rival the Australian Cricket team of the 90's, or the Australian League side of erm, ever, or the Canadian women's curling team of the late 60's.

For us, the one chink in the armour, the one glimmer of hope for we poor wayward supporters of other sides here in the cold of the northern winter, is that at least the final was close. And we all know we can beat France, probably.

So. Given the seemingly impenetrable, vast and threatening aura of the seemingly inevitably approaching new age of All Black invincibility, a few sticks and stones in the nature of criticism of a couple of debatable refereeing calls backed up with anecdotal evidence and a whiff of conspiracy seem like just about the best armoury some of us up here can muster.

Forgive us. I'm sure it's coming from a place of respect.

speak for yourself!

Bit too much dribble to take for you at one time isnt it gatts. Probably proves his point. Even i thought it a bit over the top but interesting. Good way to start the year

The way I look at it, no other side in the world, with possibly the exception of South Africa have such apparent depth in every department.

NZ's set piece is solid and experienced. The back line is terrifying, and young.

Which ever angle you look at New Zealand at the moment there is a world class incumbent in position, and a promising contender snapping at his heels. We even saw a seamless transition at full back mid world cup, with Israel Dagg becoming a star of the tournament. Awesome stuff to view from afar, hard to see the foot slip from the accelerator unless the coaching change turns out to be disasterous.

SA and Oz will be tougher this year. For different reasons. Wales must go on in their improvement and not constantly compare themselves to the 6N sides un the same way that France do their own thing.

NZ will take a step back this year. We always do in a rebuild period. It might be a single loss to ireland or argentina but we dotend to need the proverbial kick up the b#¡¿m to check us back to reality.

Jurys out on hansen. His media approach is my biggest worry. Henry always had the AB tradition as first consideration. Hansen im concerned will get personal and therefore divisive and protective. Not a good place to be.

Taylorman wrote:Bit too much dribble to take for you at one time isnt it gatts. Probably proves his point. Even i thought it a bit over the top but interesting. Good way to start the year

Ha ha....you absolutely loved it, got your silver fern out and gave it a polish didn't you...careful don't do it too much it will turn all black

Geez howd you know. Was like a breath of fresh air i have to say...

Taylorman wrote:SA and Oz will be tougher this year. For different reasons. Wales must go on in their improvement and not constantly compare themselves to the 6N sides un the same way that France do their own thing.

NZ will take a step back this year. We always do in a rebuild period. It might be a single loss to ireland or argentina but we dotend to need the proverbial kick up the b#¡¿m to check us back to reality.

Jurys out on hansen. His media approach is my biggest worry. Henry always had the AB tradition as first consideration. Hansen im concerned will get personal and therefore divisive and protective. Not a good place to be.

My understanding is there is some concern over the assistant coaching staff in NZ, and the feeling is that picking Hansen might have been an overly conservative option. In comparison to England's meltdown at HQ and yet another dabble with an "interim" coach with conflicting motivations, continuity and conservativism seems like a blessed luxury.

As for the Aussies - well at some point Deans' poor record and failure to win anything of note (other than the watered down 3N last year against rotated opposition), must weigh him down somewhat. Will he be able to escape the headlock the AB's currently have him in? And the Springboks, it's all going to pivot on who (if anyone) is the new coach.

It'll be an interesting year.

Don't knock Lancaster...the ONLY good thing to come out of England's 2011 Stag Do seems to be him and his approach.

Gatts wrote:Don't knock Lancaster...the ONLY good thing to come out of England's 2011 Stag Do seems to be him and his approach.

Well other than the naming of the EPS with mixed reviews, I'm not sure what his approach is as yet. I'm worried about the need to balance immediate results with reconstruction, and whether an apparent change in emphasis to embrace a less rigid and set piece oriented game plan can be dove tailed effectively with the need to improve the shocking discipline record both on and off the field.

Interesting, refreshing views gents...have a good day...work beckons...

Morning folks,
Some interesting points aired while I was asleep.

Taylorman:
I really am not all that worried about how Hansen gets on with the media,he has been around the International scene long enough to know how to use them,a little like Gatty he doesnt really care if he gets a blood nose off the press, its on the field that counts - not in the editorial columns.

Mitey
I know it sounds like im peeing in your pocket, but I agree with alot of your observations,its just that Im not brave enough to voice them on this website because I know the hail of rocks I would get in reply if I ever did.
I too see the support staff as being an area of grave concern with ABs,and Im not confident that these guys come close to the some of the recent backroom personel.
From this point onwards the only thing that they should be addressing is Ireland in June,this will be a huge challenge coming from the Irish and the ABs have to hit the ground running getting their preparation right after leaving their Super xv camps 7 days prior to the first test.

Yep agree there too Laurie (had a pe*e myself).

Still think Hansen's been under a bit of a hold under GH and the real test is how he handles a loss to the Irish or similar....

"OMG...the first AB team and coach to lose to the Irish in a hundred and fifty thousand million years....you must be gutted...the tradition...the players gone before who defended that record...tell me Mr Hansen...how does it feeeeel....I mean as ...head coach...to be in your position..."?

Gawww...can you imagine it.. GH's typical response would be to utterly and lavishly praise the Irish until everyone got sick of hearing it, to make not one excuse, not one grumble but to welcome a new era of Irish rugby and to be proud to be right there at the front to see it... majestic and typical of the great man

Hansen? Can't see it... there'd be a grumble here or there... a bit of praise...a 'had to happen sometime" a panned look on his face while looking for the nearest exit, maybe the accidental bumping of a camera man or two on the way out.. he wouldnt have to do much to make us look like real plonkers

Oh I better stop there, enjoying this too much...and Laurie i'd love to be wrong...

Agree with the Irish...first up will be typically tough- EVERY first up test is. But hopefully Hansen leaves no stone unturned by then...

grunt,growl,"taught that Greg feek everything he knows" grunt,growl.spit,throws microphone out window......

miteyironpaw wrote:The reaction to New Zealand's victory is quite understandable.

For most of the professional era the perennially threatening aura of that All Blacks and their domination of the world rankings (not to mention most trophies, matches and point scoring records) could be offset by pointing at their failure to pick up a professional era World Cup troph with a full complement of tri-nations teams participating.

The style with which NZ won the 2011 world cup was largely unquestionable and frankly a bit frightening to consider. They wiped the floor with their group, including eventual co-finalists France, and scored their usual record number of points and a record number of tries.

They then went on to win the final and finally shoo the back-monkey, despite a attritional injury crsis that saw them having to recall the outcast figure of national ridicule Stephen Donald from fishing exile, captain McCaw play through what must have been extreme discomfort if not agonising pain, the loss of key back line specialists saw yet another bizarrely unpredictable world cup AB back line.

Given the variety of styles played and the complete dominance NZ showed throughout the tournament, particularly in their breathtaking demolition of Australia thrown into a "southern" side of the draw - really left few straws to grasp at.

The thought that the World Cup winning side was probably at 80% at best, and casting a nervous eye down the list of players who *weren't good enough* (Fruean, Gear ) to make the tournament side, or who made the side and couldn't get on the pitch (Guildford, SBW, Vito) in all honesty is a bit frightening.

We now reluctantly look forward with trepidation to age of AB dominance which may rival the Australian Cricket team of the 90's, or the Australian League side of erm, ever, or the Canadian women's curling team of the late 60's.

For us, the one chink in the armour, the one glimmer of hope for we poor wayward supporters of other sides here in the cold of the northern winter, is that at least the final was close. And we all know we can beat France, probably.

So. Given the seemingly impenetrable, vast and threatening aura of the seemingly inevitably approaching new age of All Black invincibility, a few sticks and stones in the nature of criticism of a couple of debatable refereeing calls backed up with anecdotal evidence and a whiff of conspiracy seem like just about the best armoury some of us up here can muster.

Forgive us. I'm sure it's coming from a place of respect.

Are you after a job at the NZ Herald?

I don't think you New Zealanders have much to worry about. As far as Ireland go, they are most definitely a strong contender in world rugby these days and their successes at Heineken cup attest to that.

however I doubt that Ireland will win on New Zealand soil, even if New Zealand is rebuilding. The raw talent on case in the world cup and then having to win a world cup with your fourth best flyhalf who has never really fitted into the gameplan new Zealand plays shows that New Zealand is not easily going to fall at home.

australia is always a threat, and Robbie Deans has shown glimpses of stringing good performances together, but we have to also realise that things didn't go well for them in the world cup. Quade Cooper was found out, his brilliance can be undone by youthful exuberance and that is a problem. New Zealand and Ireland in the World cup last year, as well as even SA in the quarter final showed Australia can be put under enough pressure that their forwards cannot control the game.

south Africa even if the stars align are unlikely to perform well this year. A new Coach who ever that may be is crucial, if it is a proper coach then he will realise he needs to rebuild a team, our tight five as a whole is up for revamping. The only players that might keep their positions in the backline is JP Pietersen.

So from a South African perspective 2012 will be a rebuild. I suspect a very new look team if the right coach is appointed.

I suggest the Ireland tour will unfold like this:

Giant fanfare from Ireland shooting off their mouths about how they have recently turned over the *tri-nations champions* on the biggest stage of all, the *rugby world cup finals* on *New Zealand soil*, and are clearly the favourites to win the test series.

9th June, Eden Park : NZ wipe the floor with them in the first game, something like 36-10. Ireland will claim that one as jet lag and a learning experience and say they will be better the next week.

16th June, (probably not CHCH) : A series of negative cynical infringements from Ireland, keeping the score to a respectable 21-12 loss. With NZ running away at the end with a late try whilst Ireland are down to 14 men.

23rd June, Hamilton : A full strength NZ side run rampant over an "exhausted" ireland team . Running out 64-8. Ireland management claim that the tour was too long and the players just aren't used to that sort of thing.

Reckon the Ireland tour will go something like;

Test 1 -

Journo's ask Irish player 'why are you even showing up for this thrashing?'. Irish player responds that a game is between two teams and anything can happen. Press and fans go OTT.

Journo's ask NZ mgt will it be a disaster if NZ don't put 100 points on Ireland and will they all resign if it does happen. NZ mgt try to be realistic in their response. Press and fans go OTT.

Game is played. Ireland are better than 'plucky'. NZ are less than 'the best team to ever wear the jersey'. Game is won by NZ (probably less than 10 points in it) but look rusty. Ireland rue missed penalties, indiscipline and a sinbinning.

Test 2 -
Journo's turn on NZ mgt. Ireland struggle to get all players through bumps and bruises of first Test.

Game is played. NZ, no longer rusty, run Ireland ragged. Ireland's defense looks good for most the game but buckles to the waves of NZ attacks and Ireland end up losing by 14-20 points.

Test 3 -
NZ mgt give the rest of their squad a run out. Ireland cap a couple of new players. The game is close for a long period but NZ win by 7-10 points.

Journo's wax lyrical about the end of the BOD era and consider what he could have achieved if he played for one of the bigger nations.

Journo's are critical of NZ mgt and question NZ chances in the 4N (vodacom-debeers-tui championship league cup competition).

Might as well throw my oar in the mix. I happen to agree that luck has a lot to do with winning world cups. Most teams needed an element of luck to win. Australia only just headed Ireland in 91, SA were run close by France and hit NZ on the back of food poisoning (the generic meaning of sickness as I'm not casting any aspersions) in 95, Australia won through to the final on the back of a drop goal in 99. There's luck involved in draws etc.

I think refereeing is a bugbear for rugby. The problem is it's so subjective. I actually think the French adapted better and got the rub of the green in the final (that's going to put me at logger heads with many other pundits). Yes, McCaw could have been penalised for a number of offences as could have several other all blacks, but so could the French.

To my mind the entered the match with nothing to lose and played that way. The French pack as a whole drove in lower and made much less attempt to stay on their feet than the AB's at the start. That enabled them to maintain possession and set the tone for this facet of play. Whilst McCaw was up to his usual, so was Dusautoir. He spent much of the match competing for the ball illegally (as often as Pocock in the quarter final IMO). Meanwhile Harinordoquy set the early standard for offside at the ruck and maul. To my mind the ref only penalised in this facet of play when the ball came out, and a defensive player was up too far, and he thought he would interfere with play. The AB's were probably wondering why the French weren't at least penalised, and possibly a player down in the first 10 minutes after one blatant block of a chasing player in the first 10 minutes.

I guess the point is it's a matter of perspective. The ref could have called it differently and France could have won, he could have also called it differently and they could have lost by a bigger margin. Unfortunately we don't have any meaningful assessment to help us, just the media who thrive on controversy.

As a sport we've set the standard in '07 quarterfinal. As a sport we are prepared to accept one side being refereed out of a game to a far greater extent than any game at this world cup. That has to be a concern for any supporter going forward.

I'd like to see more use of post match sanctions using video analysis. I think if this was done the game would be cleaned up. For example: I understand that experience top level props can tell 90%of the time why a scrum has collapsed. The ability to suspend a player for match for deliberately dropping scrums might clean up scrummaging. The same goes for high tackles, illegal work at the breakdown, etc (obviously there'd have to be some sort of threshhold). It might allow the refs to ref in real time and clean up the game at the same time. I think it's worth a trial.

I'm not sure about that one BC. The last thing we want is games to linger on for days afterwards. Post match analysis and sanctioning is likely to be just as much of a nightmare. Imagine bad post match analysis that sees a key player excluded between matches in a tour, mid-way through a Lion's series, half way through the 6N, because whoever decided a prop was deliberately taking the scrum down made one of those 10% errors?

We might just have to realise it's a sport and that refs make as many errors as players do. Maybe it's just all a part of it. I'm not saying that blantantly poor refereeing shouldn't be called out, or that we shouldn't strive for improvement. But maybe it's better to keep improving what we have rather than trying to introduce endless new systems.

As I understand it, the guilty parties in the McCaw eye gouge/stomping could have been called to account under the existing laws, they were just mis-applied by those responsible.

miteyironpaw wrote:I'm not sure about that one BC. The last thing we want is games to linger on for days afterwards. Post match analysis and sanctioning is likely to be just as much of a nightmare. Imagine bad post match analysis that sees a key player excluded between matches in a tour, mid-way through a Lion's series, half way through the 6N, because whoever decided a prop was deliberately taking the scrum down made one of those 10% errors?

We might just have to realise it's a sport and that refs make as many errors as players do. Maybe it's just all a part of it. I'm not saying that blantantly poor refereeing shouldn't be called out, or that we shouldn't strive for improvement. But maybe it's better to keep improving what we have rather than trying to introduce endless new systems.

As I understand it, the guilty parties in the McCaw eye gouge/stomping could have been called to account under the existing laws, they were just mis-applied by those responsible.

Fair comments. I'm not really worried about the McCaw incident as such, and I agree re: the length of time. I'm thinking along the lines eliminating the worst first, hence a threshhold, e.g. 4 collapsed scrums by an individual player. I think leagues does it with tackles, the NRL grade them on the basis of type and danger and they have set bans. It seems to work (it's not perfect, and the feeling is that State of Origin and Kangeroo players tend to get some preferential treatment heading into rep matches). I'm sure this has curbed much of the excesses. IMO players, and clubs, are more careful if it affects their ability to play.

League still has it's fair share of controversies, I'm not sure I'd use that particular sport as a basis. I'm thinking of Issac Luke's "cannonball" tackles in the recent 4-nations.

I think a lot of this so-called smoke is caused by the fact that NZ had such a dry spell when it came to the World Cup. When we finally won it again, there were inevitable calls of the trophy being gifted to the ABs. If we had won convincingly though with a proper kicker from the get go (Weepu should´ve given the responsibility to Cruden if he had pulled up lame in practice) then inevitably we would still have claims of being gifted the trophy because the GFrench were the worst finalists in the history of the comp. That´s what happens when you´re favourites and I don't have an issue with it.

I still think you need a bit of luck whether it be with not getting injuries, or a bounce of the ball or a side being taken out by another team or whatever. When it comes to the final, the pressure is so great and the top teams are so even now, it´s very difficult to dominate a side and play a more positive brand of rugby.

NZ has a huge ask against Ireland. That's an impressive record against them and no player wants to be the first AB team to lose to the Irish so the motivation works both ways. I think we have the core of the 2011 team still in operation with one or two changes. The key will be how the new coaching staff go and the style in which the ABs play. People like Mike Cron did wonders for the AB set piece and their absence may well be evident. Ireland have largely overcome their scrumming deficiencies so if we´re not right in the scrum or lineout, they will punish us.

The pressure from having to win the Cup though is behind us and now we might be more adventurous in our game particularly in the backs. NZ is notoriously a slow starter but the Irish might well bring out the best iof our backs because this is where I think we have the edge. Particularly if Carter is fit and in form.

I think there is a certain element amongst teams who face such a record (Ireland I mean in this example), where they feel that losing, given the record is no particularly bad thing provided they make a good account of themselves and engineer a potential winning position. How many times have NH sides got into a good position and blown it in the last 10? Is this really all about fitness in the professional age? or is there a psychological factor at play? Personally I give Ireland very little chance. They haven't won anything of note in recent times and tend to falter when the pressure is on. They seem to be more spoilers than champions. Able to win against the odds when it doesn't really make much difference.

Perhaps they might win the third match when the series is already lost.

Frankly based on the players and the emerging talent, I can't see it unless NZ are injury wracked or pick a development team; or get very bored.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

The pressure from having to win the Cup though is behind us and now we might be more adventurous in our game particularly in the backs. NZ is notoriously a slow starter but the Irish might well bring out the best iof our backs because this is where I think we have the edge. Particularly if Carter is fit and in form.

I am sorry Kia, but how much more adventurous do you want them to be?

Running out of their own twenty two like they did in 2009?

Haha mate, I should've qualified a bit more adventurous than in the final.

2009 was definitely not a vintage year and our tactics you allude to certainly fell right into the hands of the Boks.

The semi final against Australia was clinical but apart from the Nonu score courtesy of some Dagg brilliance, it was very controlled. The Argentinians were monsters on defence and made us work hard for our money. The adventure came in the pool matches. Now that´s behind us, I´d like to see Foster - who did well with the now defunct Junior ABs - pay back the faith placed in him and get these ABs working to a new level. If you're not innovating constantly, the opposition will find you out and break you down. Hansen´s support staff is thin on international experience. I can forgive that if they´re thick on creativity.

I don't see anyhting wrong with NZ tactics.

They have the ability tocompete and often dominate at scrum time. They are masters (albeit very offside at times) in the loose and rucks, they have very fast runners at the back and carter knows how to control a game.

New Zealand back lines over the past couple of years have proven that the individual players has good vision and can anticipate well especiaaly on defence against a predictable attack.

Only two areas of improvement I can point out for the All Blacks is line out and scrum half, and to be honest they aren't that bad either.

The Boks of course has a number of issues. We need some intelligent players with vision, we need a running fly half with his wits about him, and then yeas of course a new coach not afraid to embrace some variety in attack.

Yes I have to second Biltong's point there. The thing I thought was most impressive about NZ in 2011 RWC was their adaptability.

Against the minnows they just ran riot with precision. Against France in the pool they were just sublime in counter-attack.

In the knock outs, they became very controlled. Especially the Argentina game which reminded me (in a good way) of the style played against France in 2007 (with the exception of a referee who had a whistle on him). The way Weepu controlled the first half through the injury crisis at fly-half was just an immense piece of tactical nous under pressure.

Against Australia NZ played the game plan they'd perfected and honed over the previous run of victories similarly to the almost-come-back second half in Australia where they kept in tight and stayed patient...then as you say, had the killer razor edge to finish off the opportunities. Dagg is just a ridiculous talent.

The final - and the all the pressure of 24 years - and injuries all over the place and NZ stayed calm and seemed composed. The last 10-15 minutes show some of the best "thinking defense" you could hope to see. No penalties, no missed tackles and then a brilliant turn over when the one opportunity arose. It was so quick that old doubting Dallaglio in the Sky commentary box missed it and had to watch the replay to convince himself it was legitimate. Richie McCaw actually moving faster than LD could see.

So many different game plans, so seamlessly strung together. It wasn't just a matter of a single winning style such as the strangling style England played in 2003 or South Africa played in 2007.

True enough mate. But really I can't remember the last time I saw a well-worked set piece moe in the backs. The Woodcock try in the final looked pre-meditated (and with some dark side blocking to boot!). I agree scrum half is worrying. Cowan is a donkey and passes like one. Weepu stood up thankfully but he is far from perfect. I think our lineout has performed well recently. Certainly this has been a big weakness in the past but along with the scrum, this has been greatly improved in recent times.

My biggest concern is when teams operate a rush defence and strangle the NZ attack. We struggle to get on top or unlock defences when the ball is slowed down for us or we fail to get over the advantage line.

For the Boks, I think the ball in hand is an attacking weapon that has been grossly underused by the Boks. To have beasts like Burger getting the ball from over the advantage line and running at the line is very difficult to defend against. Too often, PDV believed in the lineout of Matfield and Botha and the Boks didn't recycle enough ball and attack with it. A coach that can get some much needed dynamism in Bok general play and a halfback and backrow like Brussow, Smith who are not injured and the return of F Steyn and someone like De Jongh to replace Fourie and a better management of players with the skill of Lambie and that´s a very frightening prospect. There has been a comparatively larger exodus of Bok players but a shift in attitude with the ball in hand and the replacements are more than qualified to make SA a terrifying prospect to play against. The fact that hasn't been the case in recent times is all the sadder. Please let common sense prevail and Puff Divvy to return to 1970 cop movies and Beastie Boy music videos.

now its all died down a bit and emotions are not running so high, looking back with an objectivity difficult to manage during the tournament i feel quite sure, that it was never a red!

We need a violin emoticon.

It will come in handy when responding to those posters that like to bring up ALL THOSE TIMES that Wales were robbed over the last century

robbed i tell you. we wuz robbed

You got lucky to get that far

New Zealand, were, in my humble opinion the best side by a mile in the last World cup and put in the performance of the decade to destroy Australia, but, and its a very big but!! they were 2nd best in the final and only won the Webb-Ellis through some disgraceful reffing and some blatant favouritism from said officials.

England weren't as bad as some people said, while Wales were no-where near as good as their hype suggests. Ireland and others were there to make up the numbers with only France putting in a great performance from an NH side.

All in all the last WC shows that the power within Rugby is still primarily in the SH, as a ratio of 6-1 does not lie, but also they seem to have the refs in complete thrall to them.

So not a vintage WC, but a good and workmanlike one, 7 out of 10 for me!

C'mon mate. We have to be gracious about this one. France were pretty lucky to get to the final. And NZ did well to come out of it on top with their injury crisis. CJ was the best ref in the tournament by a country mile. Maybe a couple of decisions went NZ's way. But a few probably went France's way too. I thought they were lucky in the lead up to the come-back try for instance. Or for a better example - check out Conrad Smith being taken out from a French defender in an off-side position about 15 minutes into the game with the try line open. The ref calls a knock on, if any of the assistants had seen it France would have been lucky not to be another 7 points down with 14 men on the field.

I was a bit irked by the commentary here on Sky who seemed fresh off inciting riot in the Wales/France semi over the red card debacle and seemed intent on another French upset to ease the NH agony at another cup going south. You can ignore that nonsense that came out of Oz on Green&Gold. It's similar to the Welsh kicking off about how boring and old we were in 2003. Pure envy. All and all those in NZ were gracious winners and after the ribbing they've taken for the last few years I was a little surprised at that. Relief and typically introspective and restrained joy. Hard to complain about that.

..that man deserves a DB...

He deserves better than a DB mate. Give him a Monteiths.

Yeah but in the advert its gotta be a db.
Cant stand the stuff myself but the ads are good. Or were good.

Thinking about it, this world cup reset the world standings back to default for me, and thus gets a 7/10. I shall explain.

Firstly, it was the year of the no-bogeys. Wales beat both Fiji and Samoa, France overcame England, then New Zealand overcame France.

No bogeys really happened - Ireland and Wales was an even contest pre-match, as was SA v Australia, with no history skewed in any one direction to either match. The only close bogey I can cite is Scotland losing to Argentina for the 2nd world cup in a row when arguably they shouldn't have - but I think it's more to do with Scotland's tradition of losing the tight matches against opposition with the same talent.

Which brings me to the next point - tradition. New Zealand have historically been the best rugby nation, and even without their talismanic fly half they reset the world back to the inaugural world cup of 1987, where they won, they finally lifted the trophy again. That's 2/7 for New Zealand.

More telling, that's 6/7 for the Southern Hemisphere, or the big three. Only one world cup has been won by the Northern Hemisphere collectively, which was England in 2003. Strangely, 1 for 7 is the same success rate of NH v SH in this world cup, with Ireland scalping Australia in the pool stages.

The other notable scalp was Tonga's over France's, surely Tonga's biggest win in their history. However, I call bluff, because France were already through to the next stage and nothing Tonga could do short of a 5-0 drubbing in terms of league points would change that France were up next against England. I think this reflects the history of the Pacific Nations and other minnows in world rugby as well - able to pull off the victories again the NH and sometimes even the SH, but not when it matters the most.

It feels like the pecking order has been restored again. The Southern Hemisphere hold the Webb Ellis trophy for yet another 4 years, and New Zealand are up there again with the big boys, 2 a piece. The Northern Hemisphere are still looking for that consistent breakthrough to the same standard, and the minnows, whilst improving, still have much development to go through before more results come.

As if to re-iterate how things might not have changed at all, but been restored, the 2 finals were the identical fixture list as the first world cup in 1987. New Zealand's performance was effectively perfect, and it was good to see them win again, finally.

I look forward to the next 24 years of rugby, and wonder whether in another 24 years, I'll be writing the same summary? Hopefully not - world rugby could do with a shakeup some time soon.

Kick and Chase - am I to take from that that you reckon Ireland beating Australia wasn't a shock result

At the time it might have been, but then Ireland were knocked out at the quarters anyway and no other team beat the big 3 for the remainder of the tournament. SO what was a shock victory remained at that ... and that's how rugby has been since the first world cup. England beat the world in 2003, but their golden period lasted in the year or two leading up, and no more - it's like Ireland's victory over Australia was a metaphor for NH v SH since the inaugural tournament.

red_stag wrote:Kick and Chase - am I to take from that that you reckon Ireland beating Australia wasn't a shock result

Australia sans Pocock and Moore was always going to struggle with Ireland - it meant Ireland's ball carrying back row were free to play their A game without having to worry about conceding turnovers.

Kiwireddevil wrote:
Australia sans Pocock and Moore was always going to struggle with Ireland - it meant Ireland's ball carrying back row were free to play their A game without having to worry about conceding turnovers.

Ugh, Ugh. Enter an over excited Bruce Lawrence for the Ireland vs Australia match up, and then a demure Bruce Lawrence, wrapped over the knuckles by te Ozzie press for the SA vs Australia match up.

Also the Irish victory changed the draw to a battle of the SH against SH and NH against NH in the quarters and semis. That removed a lot of the bogey probability. If SA vs NZ and Australia vs France or Wales had happened, then things might well have been different.