Refereeing analysis of the 2011 RWC final.

First topic message reminder :

There has been a lot of talking about referees and quite a bit of damnation for some of them.

I found this Video Clip on another site and it is an analysis (quite biased in my view) on the 2011 RWC, it is definitely Frnech produced as you can find the Rench version on youtube as well, and the lady commenting on this clip is certainly french from her accent.

Anyway it is not for the faint hreated or those with quezzy stomachs, so I suggest you get yourself a cup of coffee, or a few beers if you are that way inclined and sit back, the video clip is 30 minutes long.

Note that the analysis criticises Richie McCaw heavily and rips Craig Joubert apart, according to the analysis the Frnach missed out on 27 points potentially, but there is little if any shown of what the French did wrong.

It is propoganda that shows one side of a story, still rather interesting.

Its the only plausible outcome for having the views you do if you have given the efforts of both refs the same level of analysis.

Did you somehow miss the French backs sitting in amongst the AB's that day as well.

I'm not after your respect Blues. And its not about dignity. My only conclusion from your summation of the two referees performances is that its acceptable to be rubbish in an AB loss but not in an AB win.

Sorry if you don't like it, but opinion is something everyone gets to have, and your vitriolic attack on Joubert is in my opinion excessive, especially while at the same time accepting Barnes performance as 'par for the course' is misguided and needs balance.

Biltong wrote:Kingraf, Prior to the tounament I thought we would win.

Our team had been poor in 2010 and in the Tri nations of 2011, but the focus was the RWC.

John Smit and his chronies knew what they had to do, and up to that QF did it, it wasn't pretty, but they were on track.

Maybe that's why I was so angry about it.

You see, I don't buy any of that at all.

You admit that they were poor in the 2 years leading up to it but somehow they would focus on the RWC? Sorry mate but that's deluded nonsense. I'm guilty of that too sometimes but that's where blue's 'what happens, happens' comes into it. Agree with you about better, more consistent rulings at the breakdowns and not allowing players to lie down over the ball on the wrong side of the ruck.

Australia had a better game plan that day. Sure, they were less naive about the ref's interpretations, took their chances and won. They were there to win it - whatever it took - and did. It was their final in a way. They had nothing left in them for the next game, right Kiwi bros?

On another day, in another place with another ref it may well have turned out in your favour. I still think NZ would have won the final if you had got through.

Taylorman wrote:Its the only plausible outcome for having the views you do if you have given the efforts of both refs the same level of analysis.

Did you somehow miss the French backs sitting in amongst the AB's that day as well.

I'm not after your respect Blues. And its not about dignity. My only conclusion from your summation of the two referees performances is that its acceptable to be rubbish in an AB loss but not in an AB win.

Sorry if you don't like it, but opinion is something everyone gets to have, and your vitriolic attack on Joubert is in my opinion excessive, especially while at the same time accepting Barnes performance as 'par for the course' is misguided and needs balance.

Whats funny is that you are so ungracious you fell the need to agressively defend the final shambles of 2011 against a guy wearing NZ shorts, and who went into the final with one clear winner in mind, the deserving team, the best team, and one of his favourite teams (this is meant to elude to me not mJoubert)

Your opinion on this matter like I said I will categorise with the french womans, now lets move on and I'd like to hear opinions from better placed people to comment, but thanks for chatiing

I bet you haven't washed them since your previous comment.

Linebreaker wrote:

Biltong wrote:Kingraf, Prior to the tounament I thought we would win.

Our team had been poor in 2010 and in the Tri nations of 2011, but the focus was the RWC.

John Smit and his chronies knew what they had to do, and up to that QF did it, it wasn't pretty, but they were on track.

Maybe that's why I was so angry about it.

You see, I don't buy any of that at all.

You admit that they were poor in the 2 years leading up to it but somehow they would focus on the RWC? Sorry mate but that's deluded nonsense. I'm guilty of that too sometimes but that's where blue's 'what happens, happens' comes into it. Agree with you about better, more consistent rulings at the breakdowns and not allowing players to lie down over the ball on the wrong side of the ruck.

Australia had a better game plan that day. Sure, they were less naive about the ref's interpretations, took their chances and won. They were there to win it - whatever it took - and did. It was their final in a way. They had nothing left in them for the next game, right Kiwi bros?

On another day, in another place with another ref it may well have turned out in your favour. I still think NZ would have won the final if you had got through.

We'll just have to disagree on that.

Australia had a gameplan that day? Yeah, they used the advantage John O'Neill have created in the press by pressurising the referee to the point where he didn't want to get involved.

We were the better team on the field that day, I have no doubt about that, there were a number of things that conspired to that loss.

Injury to Frans Steyn who was our talisman on attack, so he was out.
Brussow hit in the rib cage in the 24th minute and out for the game (our only pilferer)
The Ozzie try.
The referee
His attititude towards John Smit onfield, by dismissing him and refusing to discuss anyhting.
Two marginal forward passes which is given half the time.

For me the biggest anomoly was the fact that Australia under all that pressure for the majority of the match never conceded one penalty within their 22. Wehreas we were penalised a couple of time in their red zone whilst on attack.

We had a 5/6 win record against NZ during that period. you beleive whatever you want to beleive.

Last thing Lawrence admitted the ruckus John O'Neill did in public influenced him.

Well, we'll just have to disagree there then.

John O'Neill? That's a good one. He's a pushover.

I'm watching the Blues right now, does that count???

PS Anyone see Gear really struggling defencively everytime the ball goes his way???

Blues??? Why have I typed that???

Highlanders v Brumbies!!!

Raf and Biltong, I reckon you could well have beaten us in the 2011 final, but there was no way in hell we were going to lose to anyone in that semi. If the way the draw had panned out had been different we could have been saluting the Boks as they did look good on occasion. Actually you guys can also blame Barnes for something-he kept you on that side of the draw with the decision on that kick going over

Bluesman, you can catch the Blues in about 24 hours time, versus The hurricanes at Eden Park.
And I agree with your comments on Hosea Gear,

Savea and Ranger on the wings for mine at the mo...

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Its the only plausible outcome for having the views you do if you have given the efforts of both refs the same level of analysis.

Did you somehow miss the French backs sitting in amongst the AB's that day as well.

I'm not after your respect Blues. And its not about dignity. My only conclusion from your summation of the two referees performances is that its acceptable to be rubbish in an AB loss but not in an AB win.

Sorry if you don't like it, but opinion is something everyone gets to have, and your vitriolic attack on Joubert is in my opinion excessive, especially while at the same time accepting Barnes performance as 'par for the course' is misguided and needs balance.

Whats funny is that you are so ungracious you fell the need to agressively defend the final shambles of 2011 against a guy wearing NZ shorts, and who went into the final with one clear winner in mind, the deserving team, the best team, and one of his favourite teams (this is meant to elude to me not mJoubert)

Your opinion on this matter like I said I will categorise with the french womans, now lets move on and I'd like to hear opinions from better placed people to comment, but thanks for chatiing

The scenarios are identical yet you accept that only one ref is a fault. For me Joubert didnt even have a bad game, the ABs deserved the win and held off the French well late in the second half. After all, that is ACTUALLY what happened. There was no ref in NZ shorts so its a childish comment.
What happened, happened. Simple as that.

In both occasions you wanted the French to win, and as such only have issue with the one they didnt.

I cant even be bothered watching the video, in the same way as you'll not entertain the plethora of errors made by Barnes. Because it serves no purpose.

Except I'm the only one admitting it.

Taylorman wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Its the only plausible outcome for having the views you do if you have given the efforts of both refs the same level of analysis.

Did you somehow miss the French backs sitting in amongst the AB's that day as well.

I'm not after your respect Blues. And its not about dignity. My only conclusion from your summation of the two referees performances is that its acceptable to be rubbish in an AB loss but not in an AB win.

Sorry if you don't like it, but opinion is something everyone gets to have, and your vitriolic attack on Joubert is in my opinion excessive, especially while at the same time accepting Barnes performance as 'par for the course' is misguided and needs balance.

Whats funny is that you are so ungracious you fell the need to agressively defend the final shambles of 2011 against a guy wearing NZ shorts, and who went into the final with one clear winner in mind, the deserving team, the best team, and one of his favourite teams (this is meant to elude to me not mJoubert)

Your opinion on this matter like I said I will categorise with the french womans, now lets move on and I'd like to hear opinions from better placed people to comment, but thanks for chatiing

The scenarios are identical yet you accept that only one ref is a fault. For me Joubert didnt even have a bad game, the ABs deserved the win and held off the French well late in the second half. After all, that is ACTUALLY what happened. There was no ref in NZ shorts so its a childish comment.
What happened, happened. Simple as that.

In both occasions you wanted the French to win, and as such only have issue with the one they didnt.

I cant even be bothered watching the video, in the same way as you'll not entertain the plethora of errors made by Barnes. Because it serves no purpose.

Except I'm the only one admitting it.

Your really showing yourself up now mate, I have at no point said there was no blame or no mistakes from Barnes, why you suggest I am a French fan I am not sure, and why you claim you to be the oracle of rugby I am not sure as your knowledge is lacking. Your opinion is clearly biased, and means little to me with regards to anything kiwi (directly or indirectly), youve shown yourself as a poor loser and an ungracious winner, I just hope most kiwi fans would be more dignified,I suggest you leave it for now, maybe go and have a cup of tea and calm down.

I get the fact that neutrals invariably champion the underdog and when the favourite wins the contest there is less intrigue. No one can take away your opinion that the French should've won in the 2011 final. That is your right. But given that the ABs won the 2011 RWC and the game is done and dusted, these retrospective views of what should've happened are as pointless as hypothesising as to what might have happened if a team like SA or Wales had reached the final. They didn't and France lost in the final. That is how it turned out. In Spain some separatist extremists have the slogan Catalonia is not Spain. That view may suit your agenda but it does not reflect reality. You are denying what has actually happened just as many AB fans denied they had made their earliest RWC exit in 2007. Write to the IRB to have Joubert struck off the elite panel (the thought occurred to me after the Scotland Wales match this year) but devaluing a team's achievement is just as bad as ignoring a team's failure.

disneychilly wrote:Savea and Ranger on the wings for mine at the mo...

Easily I'd say. Perenara will claim the 9 spot by years end if not early on. Miles more confidence than Smith who did do well after being benched.

Jeez Kia what did you have for breakfast?

Same as always mate.

No Jane on the right wing? Have no problem with Ranger taking up the utility back spot on the bench but wouldn't want to see Hummer (no bigger fender in the game) benched just yet. Or is he injured and I've missed something?

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Its the only plausible outcome for having the views you do if you have given the efforts of both refs the same level of analysis.

Did you somehow miss the French backs sitting in amongst the AB's that day as well.

I'm not after your respect Blues. And its not about dignity. My only conclusion from your summation of the two referees performances is that its acceptable to be rubbish in an AB loss but not in an AB win.

Sorry if you don't like it, but opinion is something everyone gets to have, and your vitriolic attack on Joubert is in my opinion excessive, especially while at the same time accepting Barnes performance as 'par for the course' is misguided and needs balance.

Whats funny is that you are so ungracious you fell the need to agressively defend the final shambles of 2011 against a guy wearing NZ shorts, and who went into the final with one clear winner in mind, the deserving team, the best team, and one of his favourite teams (this is meant to elude to me not mJoubert)

Your opinion on this matter like I said I will categorise with the french womans, now lets move on and I'd like to hear opinions from better placed people to comment, but thanks for chatiing

The scenarios are identical yet you accept that only one ref is a fault. For me Joubert didnt even have a bad game, the ABs deserved the win and held off the French well late in the second half. After all, that is ACTUALLY what happened. There was no ref in NZ shorts so its a childish comment.
What happened, happened. Simple as that.

In both occasions you wanted the French to win, and as such only have issue with the one they didnt.

I cant even be bothered watching the video, in the same way as you'll not entertain the plethora of errors made by Barnes. Because it serves no purpose.

Except I'm the only one admitting it.

Your really showing yourself up now mate, I have at no point said there was no blame or no mistakes from Barnes, why you suggest I am a French fan I am not sure, and why you claim you to be the oracle of rugby I am not sure as your knowledge is lacking. Your opinion is clearly biased, and means little to me with regards to anything kiwi (directly or indirectly), youve shown yourself as a poor loser and an ungracious winner, I just hope most kiwi fans would be more dignified,I suggest you leave it for now, maybe go and have a cup of tea and calm down.

First its about respect, dignity, now its 'showing yourself up'.
Which is it? I'm an ungracious winner yet you are spouting off about the ref in kiwi shorts who blatantly wanted a kiwi win, oh so coincidentally just after watching a side that just dumped Wales out of the tournament.

Yes I can fully understand how you were seathing at such a neutral event.

You introduce your argument under the supposed veil of a neutral then progress on to take any possible positive from NZs victory and expect no retort? Sorry Blues...doesnt work that way... Your envy is bursting off the page

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Same as always mate.

No Jane on the right wing? Have no problem with Ranger taking up the utility back spot on the bench but wouldn't want to see Hummer (no bigger fender in the game) benched just yet. Or is he injured and I've missed something?

When you say same as always, you are supposed to tell us what it is.

Banana, yoghurt, milk and a blended cereal mix of oats and wheat.

Were you really dying of suspense?

Game on game France should have won the match... but thats rugby.

But if NZ hadn't won the title I think there would have been a lot of injustice about the whole thing.

Fact - NZ have been the best team or round abouts since 05. Bar a 2 year gap when SA briefly overtook them thats very very impressive and had they lost another RWC it wouldn't have felt right, esp. a home final.

Do you need to be the best side to win the match on the day. Of course not, it happens all the time, so many times in fact we don't need to list the various big matches where lesser performing sides have ended up on top.

England were the worse side in 03 vs. Samoa and Wales... yet they still won. Sometimes teams have bad days at the office, sometimes it just doesn't quite click and sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce the way you'd expect/hope.

Had France won it would have been the biggest upset in RWC history and their defence of the title would have been ranked below ENG in 03 and beyond... i.e. dreadful. All in all I don't think they could have too many complaints.. They lost to Tonga, were lucky vs. Wales so even being there was fortuitous and the luck they experienced throughout the tournament finally wore thin.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Banana, yoghurt, milk and a blended cereal mix of oats and wheat.

Were you really dying of suspense?

Yeah!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Banana, yoghurt, milk and a blended cereal mix of oats and wheat.

Were you really dying of suspense?

Well yes, now I know what I need to eat to enable me to write a good post.

Kia Jane's done his knee. Out for the season. He'd be my pick in a world XV so it goes without saying who'd play 14 if we had a full complement.

I was expecting SA to dominate in 08 which they didn't-I'd say NZ were still the best side then. They definitely played like the champions they were in 09 though-beating the Lions and thumping us on the way to the 3N. But somehow the wheels fell off in the end of year tour and for myriad reasons they never really got it back before the Cup. They were starting to look ominous but then the QF happened.

Expect this year's 4N to be a humdinger. The ABs had luck with injuries last year and those two did not.

Listening to the SBW show at the mo. The Bulldogs crowd sounds pretty passionate. Can't fathom why...

SBW's just starting carving up his old Bulldogs side with a try enabling pass out wide with his first touch.
This whole match is the SBW roadshow. Love him or hate him he sure commands attention.

Yup. I don't like the Roosters (no good reason I just don't) but I find myself following them and hoping he and the team do well.

theres a lot of New Zealanders in this game..

Missed that piece of news. Jane is such a great player. Sounds like medial ligament damage and players are never the same after that kind of injury. Devastating.

Ranger is a good call in that case. He offers something on attack that complements well what Savea can offer on the other wing.

See Hansen has announced after his reappointment that certain senior players won't make it to the 2015 tournament and now is the time to build for that. Read worryingly hasn't resigned yet and think he is planning to maximise his next deal. Will be interesting to see what happens to players like Woodcock, McCaw, Hore, Nonu etc and how Hansen uses them. Still hold out hope that SBW and Kaino can be back for 2015.

Taylorman wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Its the only plausible outcome for having the views you do if you have given the efforts of both refs the same level of analysis.

Did you somehow miss the French backs sitting in amongst the AB's that day as well.

I'm not after your respect Blues. And its not about dignity. My only conclusion from your summation of the two referees performances is that its acceptable to be rubbish in an AB loss but not in an AB win.

Sorry if you don't like it, but opinion is something everyone gets to have, and your vitriolic attack on Joubert is in my opinion excessive, especially while at the same time accepting Barnes performance as 'par for the course' is misguided and needs balance.

Whats funny is that you are so ungracious you fell the need to agressively defend the final shambles of 2011 against a guy wearing NZ shorts, and who went into the final with one clear winner in mind, the deserving team, the best team, and one of his favourite teams (this is meant to elude to me not mJoubert)

Your opinion on this matter like I said I will categorise with the french womans, now lets move on and I'd like to hear opinions from better placed people to comment, but thanks for chatiing

The scenarios are identical yet you accept that only one ref is a fault. For me Joubert didnt even have a bad game, the ABs deserved the win and held off the French well late in the second half. After all, that is ACTUALLY what happened. There was no ref in NZ shorts so its a childish comment.
What happened, happened. Simple as that.

In both occasions you wanted the French to win, and as such only have issue with the one they didnt.

I cant even be bothered watching the video, in the same way as you'll not entertain the plethora of errors made by Barnes. Because it serves no purpose.

Except I'm the only one admitting it.

Your really showing yourself up now mate, I have at no point said there was no blame or no mistakes from Barnes, why you suggest I am a French fan I am not sure, and why you claim you to be the oracle of rugby I am not sure as your knowledge is lacking. Your opinion is clearly biased, and means little to me with regards to anything kiwi (directly or indirectly), youve shown yourself as a poor loser and an ungracious winner, I just hope most kiwi fans would be more dignified,I suggest you leave it for now, maybe go and have a cup of tea and calm down.

First its about respect, dignity, now its 'showing yourself up'.
Which is it? I'm an ungracious winner yet you are spouting off about the ref in kiwi shorts who blatantly wanted a kiwi win, oh so coincidentally just after watching a side that just dumped Wales out of the tournament.

Yes I can fully understand how you were seathing at such a neutral event.

You introduce your argument under the supposed veil of a neutral then progress on to take any possible positive from NZs victory and expect no retort? Sorry Blues...doesnt work that way... Your envy is bursting off the page

You can spin and twist my words all you like, but the more you dig the worse your coming off!

So Wales were dumped out by France, and with every ounce of anger I went and supported them in the final? Do you listen to yourself speak? France were awfull in the tournament, didn't deserve to get out of the group, didn't deserve to make the semi, didn't deserve to win the semi, yet amazingly deserved to win the final, where in my mindset is the pro France anti NZ thought process?

Your arguing with a neutral, because you don't like the fact that there is a question mark on the final by everyone outside of NZ, just relax mun, it's over, you have the trophy, and Joubert has his picture in the hall of NZ fame.

I'm not going to waste my time responding anymore with such an angry and ungracious 'fan', catch you on another subject

Bluesman, Is there any possibility that you would have felt satisfaction had France won the final, because they were the team that beat Wales? in other words it would have shown Wales in a better light.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Bluesman, Is there any possibility that you would have felt satisfaction had France won the final, because they were the team that beat Wales? in other words it would have shown Wales in a better light.

Not at all mate, I wanted NZ to win it, I picked NZ as champs pre tournament, they thouroughly deserved it for being the best team on the planet for 2 years. I have no gripe about NZ winning it, and went into the final hoping and expecting NZ to win (France deserved to go out of the group stage similar to England 2007) but the only reason I gripe about the ref performance is that it is single handedly the most one sided performance I had ever seen.

I watched the game in an English pub, quite a few Englishman were wearing NZ shirts for fun etc, the whole pub was rallying for NZ, but by the 70th minute everyone in the pub was cheering for France... FOR FRANCE!! The English are certainly not French favourable, and to watch a pub full of them cheering France on???

thebluesmancometh wrote:but the only reason I gripe about the ref performance is that it is single handedly the most one sided performance I had ever seen.

And that is simply the NZ point. In no way was it as bad as Barnes. So while you were influenced by the swirling emotions of some drunken louts in a pub, perhaps some cold hard analysis of both matches would have provided some balance.

Taylorman wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:but the only reason I gripe about the ref performance is that it is single handedly the most one sided performance I had ever seen.

And that is simply the NZ point. In no way was it as bad as Barnes. So while you were influenced by the swirling emotions of some drunken louts in a pub, perhaps some cold hard analysis of both matches would have provided some balance.

TM, while bluesman might have been influenced by his environment, he's at least coming from a neutral background (although there is not really such thing like pure unbiaised neutrality ).what about you? beeing a new zealander watching the game in new zealand doesnt qualify as being naturally influenced and perhaps a little biaised? There is no harm in recognising it.

Its called analysis, whocares. Its about having the ability to look at the facts. Its about putting aside the emotion and looking at the evidence. Its what NZers do and are good at, and I would say part of why NZ keeps finding itself at the top. Because we analyse the game better than most.

We dont get stuck in the dredge of trudging through win, loss, loss, loss, win like everyone else because we generally find more ways to win a match than anyone else.

For me, and after considering the performances of both refs, Barnes was by far the poorest. But then its easy to sit back without doing the analysis and saying 'perhaps your a little biased' isnt it?

Naa, we dont do easy...

Wow so much for humility! Everyone is biaised TM, its part of being a human and not a robot like having feelings and such.
Anyway nice little wum here

yep...I thought so. Getting bored with the subject anyway...and a new day here...perhaps I was a little grumpy...

I think anyone who thinks Joubert's performance was worse than Barnes' has already lost all credibility in their ability to analyse refereeng.

"Refereeing analysis of the 2011 RWC final" Narrated by Le Anal Sis.

[quote"Taylorman"]Its called analysis, whocares. Its about having the ability to look at the facts. Its about putting aside the emotion and looking at the evidence. Its what NZers do and are good at, and I would say part of why NZ keeps finding itself at the top. Because we analyse the game better than most.
[/quote]



Point made, NZ rocks everyone else sucks, if you are not a kiwi you don't count... good to know emotionless, evidence using god you.

Jeez you have really done a number on yourself, I have just forwarded your quote to a couple of kiwi mates, I cannot wait for their response!!

Cmon blues you really dont need to go to all that bother...but thanks for caring. You really need the opinion of others to actually have an opinion...fair enough...?

Though I am interested Blues...what, in your opinion, is the primary reason NZ consistently finds itself at no. 1 in the rankings. Bragging rights and all that aside, how do two similar countries in population, with similar passion for the game, have such a vast difference in results?

Love to hear your thoughts on this, and understand how your ability to analyse the game works with your thoughts on the matter. A simple question really.

It's quite simple IMO.

The NZRU is a governing body with the right priorities, it values the game at every level as highly as the international game.

The junior system is far more effective at producing large numbers of rounded players in every position, coupled with the geographical adavantage of receiving large numbers of PI migration (with their physiological attributes lending them to rugby) coupled with a brand that has been carefully nurtured over 100 years.

Factors such as competition through other sports are lesser, and the structure of the game is far superior to anything in Wales.

In comparison the WRU have always been run by the wrong people doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons, todays bunch of morons are all about paying off stadium debt even if it means winding up club rugby to do so!! They care nothing of the game below International (cash cow) level and are contributing to the death of rugby union in Wales.

Being in such close proximity and contributing to the largest football league in the world too isn't helping, the FAW/WFT have got their act together in recent years and football prticipation in juniors is at an all time high!!

The school system junior development programmes are outdated and unstructured, and despite knowing todays scientific techniques and process's refuse to spend money on such an un lucrative structure!!

The WRU and Regions are at loggerheads at every turn, players are itching to get out of Wales, and regional rugby in all it's forms have all but failed.

The only reason the numptys in charge of the WRU still have jobs is because a kiwi is at the helm and steadying the international ship (for now)

In conclusion the NZRU and WRU are either end of the scale in efficiency, caring, passion and professionalism, quite how Wales are still considered a rugby nation I don't know, because IMHO it isn't on the whole!!

See you two boys can get along when you want to!

Thats pretty much it except none of that directly explains why we are consistently no. 1. They are contributing factors. I agree. In terms of the onfield approach and particularly since the 80's we've adopted a very open and attacking style of play based on the fact that we love to run and pass the ball, and place enjoyment of the game at all levels as a priority. In being able to do that we like to keep things simple, stick to the basics but do them very well.

That thinking prevents any chance of getting bogged down by bureaucracy in the game because ultimately if the enjoyment of watching the AB's not only win, but win in style and win well is removed from the public eye then that is where the accountability for our game starts, immediately.

That is what keeps us at the top. The public expectation of the AB's on the field. And nothing is allowed to compromise that concept.

The downstream impacts are huge for our youth...'we all want to play like the All Blacks' sets everyone on the right path through school, age, club and higher honours.

My point simply being, and you seem to be validating it with the influences on Welsh rugby- outdated programmes and structures etc that in general, we tend to think about the game better than most, particularly in terms of what it takes to maintain a competitive advantage over others.

So in another news, understand that McCaw has prolonged his sabbatical and wont play the summer tests against France. So whats next, hope a recall of Donald is not on the cards !

thebluesmancometh wrote:

I must be bored today... Such a long time to see any tests as well. Snooker worlds starts next week thank goodness. Ding for me. Ronnies my fave but hes done a McCaw so wont be ready.

whocares wrote:So in another news, understand that McCaw has prolonged his sabbatical and wont play the summer tests against France. So whats next, hope a recall of Donald is not on the cards !

McCaw was never going to play France which is why Read was being groomed for the captaincy. No France, no sxv. More Letterman.

Taylorman wrote:

whocares wrote:So in another news, understand that McCaw has prolonged his sabbatical and wont play the summer tests against France. So whats next, hope a recall of Donald is not on the cards !

McCaw was never going to play France which is why Read was being groomed for the captaincy. No France, no sxv. More Letterman.

Reading that Hanson as decided to try and bring in some new talent for the 2015 Rugby World Cup. I did wander if Mcaw had played his last game for NZ in the Ais when they lost too England...NZ dont like losing games especialy to NH teams and especialy England.

How many of that NZ team that played against England will be playing for NZ this year?...The likes of Conrad Smith, Manonu, Mcaw, Whitelock, Thompson, Hore. Have they played their last game for NZ?

Taylorman wrote:Thats pretty much it except none of that directly explains why we are consistently no. 1. They are contributing factors. I agree. In terms of the onfield approach and particularly since the 80's we've adopted a very open and attacking style of play based on the fact that we love to run and pass the ball, and place enjoyment of the game at all levels as a priority. In being able to do that we like to keep things simple, stick to the basics but do them very well.

That thinking prevents any chance of getting bogged down by bureaucracy in the game because ultimately if the enjoyment of watching the AB's not only win, but win in style and win well is removed from the public eye then that is where the accountability for our game starts, immediately.

That is what keeps us at the top. The public expectation of the AB's on the field. And nothing is allowed to compromise that concept.

The downstream impacts are huge for our youth...'we all want to play like the All Blacks' sets everyone on the right path through school, age, club and higher honours.

My point simply being, and you seem to be validating it with the influences on Welsh rugby- outdated programmes and structures etc that in general, we tend to think about the game better than most, particularly in terms of what it takes to maintain a competitive advantage over others.

It's like banging your head against an arrogant brick wall...

majesticimperialman wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

whocares wrote:So in another news, understand that McCaw has prolonged his sabbatical and wont play the summer tests against France. So whats next, hope a recall of Donald is not on the cards !

McCaw was never going to play France which is why Read was being groomed for the captaincy. No France, no sxv. More Letterman.

Reading that Hanson as decided to try and bring in some new talent for the 2015 Rugby World Cup. I did wander if Mcaw had played his last game for NZ in the Ais when they lost too England...NZ dont like losing games especialy to NH teams and especialy England.

How many of that NZ team that played against England will be playing for NZ this year?...The likes of Conrad Smith, Manonu, Mcaw, Whitelock, Thompson, Hore. Have they played their last game for NZ?

Whitelock? He's only just started. Agree with the rest for the World cup 15 and perhaps a couple of others though thev England game itself will have no bearing on this. Thats long gone. Player form nearer the French and RC matches will and McCaw has taken a calculated risk that rest over playing will actually extend his career. Jury's out on that one.