Haskells take on things

While hardly setting the world on fire with the highlanders Haskell has embedded himself in NZ rugby as much as one can do in a few months but I agree with his take on things.
Perhaps more NHers need to do a SXV stint.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/7096109/Haskell-says-England-Boks-must-follow-ABs

For me England and SA are adamant the NZ, or rather attacking style will not suit their game, their players...they 'don't do it that way, never have, never will'.

For me its Why not? How do they really know until they try. How can you emphatically rule something out without ever actually experimenting with it, but instead 'assume' that its not the way to go- despite the obvious advantages.

NZ used to be primarily forward oriented with 'skilled backs' in roughly the same way SA are now. It was our forward play which generally set us in good stead and lead the way.

But we've changed, adapted and generally lead the way in the way the game should be played. Oz have taken things a step further as their strength is based around highly skilled, pacy athletes on hard fast grounds. It epitomises their style of pushing the limit in the way they do all sport, resourcing being their main problem.

Understand the SA and English opinion that forward oriented play has dominated their game for a long period but thats no grounds for denial. You cant rule something out if you havnt tried it, no matter how strong the argument is. Its as simple as that really...

I'm beginning to understand some of the posts i read earlier about Haskell enjoying the sound of his own voice

I just skim read and it and the only thing he says about the Boks, that I saw, was that the Bulls and Stormers have a very physical games that, although predictable, is very difficult to stop.

He said England need to be more like the All Blacks but doesn't say the Boks should be....Unless I missed a bit

Yeah,
Its another one of my 'push the AB methodology' out there regardless of the cynics, doubters, sceptics, faint hearted, ill informed, nostalgic, conservatives etc out there.

It usually falls on deaf ears but no reason not to keep putting it out there...

Gee just went to check the England midweek game write up specifically to see how Haskell went and, to see whether he got yellow carded...sure enough...he did!
Is there a record for number of yellow cards in a season?

Taylorman wrote:Gee just went to check the England midweek game write up specifically to see how Haskell went and, to see whether he got yellow carded...sure enough...he did!
Is there a record for number of yellow cards in a season?

Surprisingly prior to his 4 game ban for thumping (entirely warranted but stupidly) the Cheetahs flanker Haskell had only had been yellow carded only once in his entire professional career! The citing commissioner said he would have been banned for 6 weeks if it wasnt for his clean record. I can only presume that Jamie Joseph had been tutoring him in the art of thuggery during his time in Dunedin! After all Jamie was one of the last of thugs All Black rugby has really produced! (For the record I liked Jamie as a player. Tough and brutal!)
Most Highlander supporters thought Haskell played ok for us BUT had a tendency to give away needless penalties.

Yeah was only kidding- he just seemed to get them every time I watched him play. One I think was his first game back- and off he went again. Hard case...

I thought Haskell was abit hard done by yesterday to be honest.
He looked for me that he was supporting his own wait and moving forward trying to win the ball.

I guess Referrees have a different opinion to every one els.

Bullsbok wrote:I'm beginning to understand some of the posts i read earlier about Haskell enjoying the sound of his own voice

The carnivore prefer meat.

Not surprise there.

It is some interesting watch two things about Haskell.

ONE that he made the choose to play in SXV for less money than he get in a club and make difficult his selection to England combinator in near time. This show to me that he put first his ability and skills and second just money or famous. So I think criticise him as empty vessel make the rattling sound is unfair.

TWO how he was managed in NZ by coaching staff. This show the source of difference between NH and SH. And why so much NZ at the top.

Yes, Haskell was first in the squad and bring to the systems. Then he start from the bench on impact only last 20 minutes to use his raw physical and the English style game. Then more time spending to bring up the skills and pattern and he makes it to the first starting team. Then they add to him more responsibilty for the game plan. Very clever technical and man managing. And show in develop the player more. Now he is wound up like a tight coil and watch him go for England and you will see he is make a true sense about what he saying.

AWOP – although your point is nearly lost in translation, we should make clear that Haskell played under an extremely tough coach and one who is all about playing for your team mates. OK, Haskell may not have set the world on fire in NZ, but he clearly fitted in to the team culture at Otago which probably says a lot about Haskell the person. Jamie Joseph wouldn’t tolerate a prima donna if that’s waht Haskell ‘was’....

majesticimperialman got to agree fully, he was a touch unlucky with that as he seemed to be doing his best to support his weight under the number of opposition players jumping on his back. I actually thought Robson was a tad lucky because he was lying there blocking the SA Baabaas getting at the ball and could have easily been the one going to the bin instead. I think Haskell mainly got it because he'd given a penalty away minutes before and the ref presumed it was him slowing the ball down illegally.

Don't know about that Taylorman. Sounds dangerously close to peddling only one style of how to play rugby. I think it'd be fairer to say SA and England could incorporate a more varied style of play rather than throwing out their gameplan altogether and plumping for a style that is unfamiliar to them.

I don't think anyone would deny both teams could improve their attack and create more doubt in the opposition defence with a more varied approach but 2009 for example lose 3 times to the Boks doing what suited them just fine. I think variety is the key and an ability to adapt rather than play a certain way.

kiakahaaotearoa - I agree completely. There was a time in the early 90's (granted - a very different era in rugby terms) when England alluded to be like the All Blacks - not in playing style, just in efficiency and execution - but they simply were always going to be just a poor imitation rather than the real thing. I don't think you beat NZ by playing them at their own game. Sure, the points scoring capacity of the current NZ team is both incredible and pleasing on the eye, but other teams need to adapt to meet that challenge, not try and imitate it.

This is the ONLY quote in that article that relates the South Africa

"South African rugby, especially the Bulls and Stormers, is more about physical attrition. You know what's coming, there's a certain predictability, but you have to be on top of your game to stop it," he said.

"If you don't match their intensity then they'll boss the gain-line and then play from there"

It's not saying the Boks should change to follow the All Blacks.