Beating yourself with an AB measuring stick

In the modern era, most top-tier teams are familiar with facing NZ. If a NH team doesn't face them in June, it's likely they face them in November. If they don't face them one year, they only have to wait until the next one.

There is one team that faces them more than any other. Sure this year England will face NZ four times - one more than Australia - but how about facing them three times per year (and twice at least in a RWC year)? Players want to measure themselves against the top teams. Playing in SA and NZ is a daunting task but it's not that common an experience.

The way Australia's season is set up is artificially slanted towards the NZ matches. Every year the RC starts with 2 games against NZ. It doesn't matter what has happened in the autumn tour. Usually the Wallabies have strung together quite a few good performances and their confidence is high. Add in a good S15 season and it's little wonder you get the comments from Wallaby players that their confidence is high and they're looking forward to the challenge. Subtext: it doesn't matter what we achieved last November, it doesn't matter how well we did in the S15, you guys aren't going to think much of us until we start NZ.

The rest of the RC plays out and last year Australia put in a commanding away performance in Argentina that made up for their lacklustre performance in Perth. What was the reward for winning that game in such style? A match one month later in Dunedin. And they scored 4 tries in that game. But who won? We played really well in Europe. You lost all your games against SA and NZ. We won the S15. But have you beaten NZ?

I always admire Australian rugby. They have a proud record and punch above their weight when rugby, as it does in Ireland, struggles to make the back page or the front pages (depending on the size of the paper) of the sports section. They are champions at focusing on their strengths and nullifying their weaknesses. I can't help but think though that their drought against NZ is turning into an unhealthy obsession and instead of focusing on where they are in world rugby - currently third in the rankings - they dwell far too much on where they stand against NZ.

We all want to measure ourselves against the top. But when we measure ourselves disproportionately against the top team, does it become unhealthy. Is it like a teenaged girl comparing herself to the photoshopped models she sees in her magazines? Does she lose sight of her true sense of worth? Come on Wallabies. You're not knockout material but I wouldn't kick you out of ...

I think Lancaster has an unhealthy love affair with all things Kiwi aswell....

I love Kiwifruit.

Its shi*t!

GF that's understandable this year and in the context of 2012. When you play the best and give them a hiding, it's tempting to think you can conjure up that type of game in the future. In a way it's harder for England to do what Australia does because you have that 2012 performance as a yardstick and that was a day where everything clicked for England and it's difficult to find yourselves in a game where that happens.

Scrumpy if you love kiwifruit then you love Zespri. All the rest are like comparing sex to masturbation. It produces the same result but the satisfaction is incomparable.

It's a purple patch all right for NZ-save for 2009 and one debacle they've been at the top of the tree. It's been longer than usual though so there must be something NZ is doing right with succession plans-and the longer it goes on the more impatient the others are getting to knock them off their perch. They're pretty much the best team in sport at present, much like the Aussie cricket team was in the late 90s and early 00s-maybe teams of that era focused on how to knock Australia off too much and didn't maybe look enough at how they travelled as a team to improve enough not just to beat Aussie, but to get to the top of cricket themselves.

In a way the RWC is a great leveller as the highest profile event in the sport also happens to be a knockout comp. Sure every team should build towards it but not at the expense of other test matches as I feel every one is important-teams should look to build consistently. That's what England did from 2000-2003 and hey the World Cup came along and they were solid enough to win it. Australia are good enough to dump any team out of it and thus get the glory. They should accept they're good enough to do this as well as knock NZ over (NZ certainly know this), so just keep trying to win every test and improve their systems. They're like my Blues in the Origin-it got into their heads and they couldn't buy a series. But those Queensland teams were among the best ever.

The whole "But have you beaten NZ?" question only comes into play when you play the All Blacks. There are plenty other teams in the world. Australia is as good as any of them. With a pack on the rise they'll be a huge threat once they get selections consistent-can't help but think the Boks will be the same here.

Sure, learn from the best, but go about becoming the best in your own way. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but it won't necessarily get you where you want to be. Leave the judgment of your teams to impossible standards to the media (even NZ are well used to this) and ignore them.

First you like Coldplay and now you support the Blues in Origin?!

Mate that's two yellows and you're out of here.

There is also the commercial factor to consider. I know from England's perspective that games against the ABs always draw the biggest revenue, so is that the same with Australia and other countries?

I don't think they have difficulty in selling tickets to NZ games. 85 dollars on average to a Boks game in Perth might see a few SA expats turn up but I don't think it'll find the same reception there as they would in Sydney. NZ always play Australia first up in Sydney. I'm not sure whether that's a missed opportunity to expose that market to a different team. This year NZ plays the 3rd Bledisloe fixture in Brisbane and Australia will always fancy their chances there.

It's the timing of the matches that I think hurt Australia. Always playing NZ first up twice to open the RC and then once after the RC. If the RC games were spread elsewhere in the tournament and they dropped the 3rd Bledisloe (in return for keeping the Bledisloe a one-off fixture) I'd think their season wouldn't be so geared towards NZ. But I feel the ARU want those Bledisloe games to be their cash cow as well as their centrepiece and I think that's to the detriment of the Wallabies.

Ha yeah most Kiwis support Queensland. I'm one of a persecuted few. Probably deserve said persecution for liking Coldplay though. Being from the Hutt Valley and all.

I agree with you about Sydney being to the detriment of the Wallabies too. It might get stale too so they could end up with the same revenue they'd get after a Boks test in Sydney if it goes on too long. NZ in Perth would be something different-but logistics could mean that would mess up the whole schedule.

Good on ya mate for standing strong on shaky ground. Respect!

NZ could easily play in Perth and then SA away. In terms of travel it's probably less punishing than Argentina and SA away.

I just think Australia is not well served by always starting off this tournament with a home game against NZ. On paper it sounds good when they're still building and to catch them off guard. It worked this year but then they just came back stronger the next week. Now compare their confidence to after the French series when they'd built up that run of victories.

NZ's run won't last forever. It's definitely in a purple patch. But Australia dropped to fourth and reclaimed that third spot. They're sitting behind SA and NZ and I admire their confidence for pushing for that top spot as all good teams should. Look at Meyer: two superb performances against NZ last year and yellow cards stopped an enthralling contest at Eden Park. SA won all their remaining games. They feel those two losses against NZ more than they do those victories against the rest. Again, as all top teams should. But you have to concentrate on building for every game and seeking improvement, regardless of the opposition.

Woodward put it succinctly: "If you want to beat the best, you have to play the best."

I don't think England are obsessed with the ABs; it's just the way the calendar has panned out. The RFU announced back in 2010 that they were going to aim for longer summer tours to give more players exposure to touring and to the top sides. In 2012 it was SA, 2013 was a Lions year (so England went to Argentina), this year it was the ABs, next year is the RWC, 2016 will be Oz and then it all starts again. Many of the kids who went on tour this year will still be there when the next one comes around (2018?) and maybe it will help them to perform better.

This article is really about Australia rather than England, poor four.

Woodward also had the good fortune of playing the best teams when England was peaking. I don't think playing NZ, SA, Australia made them a great team but, rather, it helped confirmed in their eyes that they were a great team. But not even England at that time played against NZ three times in a calendar year year in year out.

This is the problem I see for Australia at present. They play too much against NZ and it detracts from what they achieve in their other games.

Yeah England beat whoever was in front of them. You've still got to do that no matter what the opposition is-and no team has ever been so far ahead of the others that you can take tests against other tier one teams for granted. Have read some things slagging off the standard of other teams to belittle NZ's achievements. It didn't happen for England, nor Australia at the turn of the millenium, doubt it did for the 37 Boks either. So you have to applaud their consistency.

I admit sometimes I get less than enthused about the SH comp, Argentina has been a tonic. It's probably something a global season can help with-spreads the NZ (and Aussie) love around a bit. It wouldn't be the end of the world for me if the Bledisloe wasn't annual. But Aussie need their gates that's for sure to stay afloat.

These things come in cycles. Australia had an iron grip on the Bledisloe in the late 90s with Eales kicking penalty goals and Gregan spilling the ball in a tackle. We probably wondered back then how we would ever get the blasted thing back. Now I'm sure the Wallabies and their fans are thinking the same thing.

A global season with regular contact between tier-one and tier-two sides and progressively down is the way to go. Familiarity breeds contempt. I'm not talking about the tournaments like the RC and 6N. But I think these need to be played in a wider context with also representation from the tier-one sides in competitions like the Pacific Cup, Africa Cup, South America Cup and reinstate the Churchill Cup. The games outside the big tournaments can be revenue collectors but also have some meaningful context. At the moment the rugby calendar is a lot like the royal families of Europe: too much in-breeding and not enough diversity.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:These things come in cycles. Australia had an iron grip on the Bledisloe in the late 90s with Eales kicking penalty goals and Gregan spilling the ball in a tackle. We probably wondered back then how we would ever get the blasted thing back. Now I'm sure the Wallabies and their fans are thinking the same thing.

A global season with regular contact between tier-one and tier-two sides and progressively down is the way to go. Familiarity breeds contempt. I'm not talking about the tournaments like the RC and 6N. But I think these need to be played in a wider context with also representation from the tier-one sides in competitions like the Pacific Cup, Africa Cup, South America Cup and reinstate the Churchill Cup. The games outside the big tournaments can be revenue collectors but also have some meaningful context. At the moment the rugby calendar is a lot like the royal families of Europe: too much in-breeding and not enough diversity.

No just no, I've had a drinky poo and well it sounded funny in my head, but it definately will offend!

Edit: If that offends I am really honestly sorry, and will remove in a second if i'm the only one who found it funny.

Putting things in perspective SCW`s reign England played NZ 9 times winning 2 and
drawing one.Australia 11 times winning 6 drawing 1.SA 11 times winning 9 in
contrast NZ same period played SA 17 times winning 11 and Aus 19 winning 9.
The great Nz players of Fitzys reign all going out at the same time.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

Scrumpy if you love kiwifruit then you love Zespri. All the rest are like comparing sex to masturbation. It produces the same result but the satisfaction is incomparable.

what...you can get a baby that way?

Touché.

You've just alerted me to the unintentional double entendre of the OP title...

emack2 wrote:Putting things in perspective SCW`s reign England played NZ 9 times winning 2 and
drawing one.Australia 11 times winning 6 drawing 1.SA 11 times winning 9 in
contrast NZ same period played SA 17 times winning 11 and Aus 19 winning 9.
The great Nz players of Fitzys reign all going out at the same time.

He did take a average England and make them the best in the world though. I'd argue long term planning was absent but he did a very fine job.

Period 1997-2004 was to,me a closed book to busy nursing a dying mother and working so have
checked on the net.SCW average player,great Manager/organiser first to use the Head Coach
money no object Specialist Coach for every thing approach.
Seems from my research team most of the players JW aside were inherited from Jack Rowell.
Rowell had a 73% win record compared to SCW 71%.BUT Period 2000-3lost 5 games out of
40 odd around 94% win stats.
played 82,won 57,drew,2,lost23 amended and corrected above lost 6,drew1.won 2 NZ
Australia Played 12 won 5,drew 1,lost 6.SAplayed 11 won 9 lost 2,France Played 10
won 5 lost 5,similar numbers for Ireland,Scotland, Wales,Ire land won2,the others 1each.
For comparison NZ 82 matches v 3Ns.6Ns Argentina only France played 11 won 6 lost 5
v SA 17 matches 11 wins 6 losses,v Aus 19 matches won 9,lost10.
From these stats OVER the whole period Australia 1999-2001 and England RWC winners
2000-3 were the dominant sides for that short period.
BUT England only dominated SA and 6N rivals,France excepted over the whole period
France equals and Aus and Nz overall superior.
THOSE of course are just stats in ANY match,ANY team can win and it is arrogance to
assume otherwise.
By the end of this year expect all 3 SH sides will be formidable and Sa currently lead the
RC anything can happen next.

A photoshopped model is by definition - a fraud - that is the logic of the analogy. Therefore...................... do we really want to go there?

emack2 wrote:...England RWC winners 2000-3 were the dominant sides for that short period. BUT England only dominated SA and 6N rivals,France excepted over the whole period
France equals and Aus and NZoverall superior.

Not sure what you are saying. After the South Africa loss on tour, England didn't lose to any southern hemisphere side in the period you mention. How can you say they dominated Ireland, when they lost once to them in that time, but somehow didn't dominate Australia or New Zealand, despite not losing to them at all?

Unlike many here most of the comments and stats come from my head NOT GOOGLED.
I DON`T comment usually on areas I am unaware of,nor rubbish other sides my point
was.
That the 1999 and 2003 RWC`s were won by the dominant teams of there era,that you
measure a teams/coaches successes on his WHOLE career not just cherry pick the best bits.
For the record I remember the AB`s FIRST 17 match run 1995[last game]-1999 which was
a 100% record under Freddie Allen.[THE BEST TEAM i`ve ever SEEN in 60 years.
Having said that England 2000-3 lost just one game each year in that period 2 to France
once to SA and once to Ireland.SA was the only SH win during the period of about 14 matches.Ireland won twice period 1997-2004.
IF you are using the All Blacks as your measuring stick your never happy you don`t
think about next RWC .
You think about the next game only,losing isn`t an option when it happens they go back to
basics.Put it right if they can the Team is more important individuals and the Shirt is
the important thing.
The so called gap exists only in the mind as a famous SA Coach once said it`s a game
of Chess,15 against 15.

You judge on what you see though not just on stats. As you point out, not that I ve checked, Rowell is statisically better thab CW. I have my opinion who was better.

Both Geoff Cooke 50 matches,and Jack Rowell 29 matches had a 1 percent better average
than SCW.
In the case of Rowell nearly all the names back and forward were in Rowells squad too
the Team JW apart were the same.
Both Cooke and Rowell were coaches in the traditional sense NOT Head of a TEAM of
Coaches.
Both were arguably better Coaches and would given the same resources over the
same period been as successful overall as SCW.
Given that of the games JW played in mostly won his importance was the equal of
DC to the AB`s until 2011.
Incidentally all 3 sides were very good from matches I`ve seen and SCW`s decision
to drop JW .From the side to play the Boks Qtr final 1999 when they were bombed
out by a stream of Jannie De Beer Drop Goals.
Was very controversial at the time as was his judge me on my RWC results in 1999
comment.NO All Black Coach would or did until Graham Henry have survived that.
From what have read SCW was highly rated as a Manager/Selector but it was rumoured
he was not a great Coach in the traditional style.

Like I said relying on stats limits things a bit.

Even if you were exclusively relying on statistics rather than personal experience of watching the games, you shouldn't end up making the strange claim that Woodward inherited pretty much all of his squad from Rowell except Wilkinson. Most of the 2003 World Cup Squad got their first caps under Woodward:

Wilkinson, Will Greenwood, Phil Vickery, Jason Robinson, Josh Lewsey, Dan Luger, Joe Worsley, Iain Balshaw, Ben Cohen, Mike Tindall, Lewis Moody, Ben Kay, Steve Thompson, Stuart Abbott, Julian White, Trevor Woodman, Dorian West.

You also have to take into account that Rowell thought Neil Back was too small for international rugby, and it was only under Woodward that he prospered. It's also arguable whether you can say Woodward inherited Richard Hill and Danny Grewcock. Neither were fixtures of Rowell's teams, and only featured in games right at the end of his tenure.

I do not profess to be an expert on the SCW era just that most of the usual suspects
in 1997 first match v NZ.Were included in the squad that played regular starters or not
in that match of course 1997 and 2003 would have included changes in between.
Grewcock,Johnson.Back,Hill,Bracken,Catt,Dallgio,Robinson,Greenwood,De Glanville,
Healey all were on the team sheet that day.

emack2 wrote:Grewcock,Johnson.Back,Hill,Bracken,Catt,Dallgio,Robinson,Greenwood,De Glanville,
Healey all were on the team sheet that day.

I've no idea what that list of names represents, since Jason Robinson (first cap 2001) never played in the same side as De Glanville (last cap 1999).

I think when you see that ten of Woodward's starting XV in the 2003 final won their first caps under him, while two others - Hill and Back - won over 90% of their caps playing under him, then the idea that Woodward inherited most of his squad, except Wilkinson, from his predecessor, becomes hard to justify.

disneychilly wrote:...They're pretty much the best team in sport at present, much like the Aussie cricket team was in the late 90s and early 00s-maybe teams of that era focused on how to knock Australia off too much and didn't maybe look enough at how they travelled as a team to improve enough not just to beat Aussie, but to get to the top of cricket themselves...

That's a good point.

One other thing I've noticed, is the tendency of Australian fans to see Super Rugby match-ups as something of a proxy for Test performance. We heard a lot about how McKenzie "knows how to beat New Zealand teams" when he led Queensland to the title. I'm not sure how useful that thinking is.

The club model means you are far less likely to hear people in the North talking about knowing how to beat England or France on the back of wins against English or French teams. The Irish provinces are perhaps a better proxy for the national side but Wales certainly aren't.

Everyone knows in principle that Test rugby is a step up from Super Rugby but you sometimes get the impression Australian fans forget that when they assess their players.

It's because there's been no domestic comp in Oz. With the NRC, that may change over time but the Super comp has always been a means for Australia to blood players and expose them to NZ and SA teams. There simply has been no equivalent of Currie Cup or ITM, which may well be why so much emphasis is placed on Super rugby. Australia without Super rugby would be much like Argentina as it stands now. Which makes their achievements in world rugby all the more noteworthy.

emack2 wrote:Both Geoff Cooke 50 matches,and Jack Rowell 29 matches had a 1 percent better average
than SCW.
In the case of Rowell nearly all the names back and forward were in Rowells squad too
the Team JW apart were the same.
Both Cooke and Rowell were coaches in the traditional sense NOT Head of a TEAM of
Coaches.
Both were arguably better Coaches and would given the same resources over the
same period been as successful overall as SCW.
Given that of the games JW played in mostly won his importance was the equal of
DC to the AB`s until 2011.
Incidentally all 3 sides were very good from matches I`ve seen and SCW`s decision
to drop JW .From the side to play the Boks Qtr final 1999 when they were bombed
out by a stream of Jannie De Beer Drop Goals.
Was very controversial at the time as was his judge me on my RWC results in 1999
comment.NO All Black Coach would or did until Graham Henry have survived that.
From what have read SCW was highly rated as a Manager/Selector but it was rumoured
he was not a great Coach in the traditional style.

Had Cooke or Rowell played the SH teams more they would have ramped up the losses. In those days they would play perhaps 1 SH giant a season.

In 6 years Cooke managed 8 games vs. the SH giants, He won 3 albeit all at home. In 3 years Rowell only played 5 matches winning 2. However in SCW 7 year era they played 26 matches with only 14 at home so he wasn't afraid to travel either.

The era's were like chalk and cheese and whilst Cooke and Rowell got respectable results often... they were in truth divisions down from being at the same level as AUS, NZ and SA were.

The England squad in total v Nz [first match]Nov 1997[SCW had just replaced Rowell
LEONARD
COCKERILL
GARFORTH
JOHNSON
ARCHER
HILL
DALLAGIO
DIPROSE
BRACKEN
CATT
ADEBAYO
DE GLANVILLE
GREENWOOD
REES
PERRY
LONG
ROWNTREE
GREWCOCK
BACK
HEALEY
GRAYSON
It seemed to follow that most of those if not all were inherited from Rowell
that is the start of his reign.The TEAM took 7 or 8 years to build for example
the Nz side in there last great year.
Included there great pack minus Fitzy ,plus Lomu,Jeff Wilson,Cullen and Merts.
a long way different from the 2000-3 squad.
At World level Aus peaked with 1999 RWC side but was dominant in SH for
a further 2 years.

Alan

There will always be players who cross over. SCW didn't quite have a blank canvas but it was pretty sparse.

Of those in that side Leonard, Johnson, Catt and Bracken were settled.

Greenwood never was capped under Rowell, Hill only that year and Dallaglio first season was in 1996 where Rowell used him as an openside (goes to show Rowell in that very selection).

England always had talent, Rowell wasn't a complete numpty but in terms of actually nuturing talent for the world stage he was pretty limited.

Also note how Graham Henry is revered as a rugby god around the world. Did he turn around NZ?

Mitchells last match was the following

New Zealand: M Muliaina; D Howlett, L MacDonald, A Mauger, J Rokocoko; C Spencer, J Marshall; D Hewett, K Mealamu, G Somerville; C Jack, A Williams; R Thorne (capt), R McCaw, J Collins.


Well Muliaina, Howlett, MacDonald, Mauger, Marchall, Mealamu, Jack, Williams, McCaw & Collins (9) all started the 1st Lions test in 2005 and chaps like Umaga, Carter, Rokocoko were also around the 2003-2005 side.

Sometimes teams perform badly for a number of reasons... whether it be a lack of quality players, choosing the the wrong players or choosing the right players but coaching them wrong.

For Henry it was the coaching and direction which need to be changed. For SCW it was a mix of all 3 of the above. Both should be held as excellent coaches of the highest accord for differing reasons.

I reckon Henry changed the culture more than anything. Sure the forwards had a soft underbelly from 98 to when he took the reins but he took over and by and large eliminated the drinking culture in the team and established the leadership group of seven senior players to foster more dialogue, accountability and problem solving at an early stage.

Fao hi,the 1997 All Black side in that match except for Fitzy was the strongest in the world
at that time.
Only Marshall played in 2003,the parallel between SCW is apt both had two shots at an
RWC.Henry was the only AB Coach reselected after a loss had Deans not been involved
in 2003.
I think he would have been the AB`s coach from 2008 on.

Just goes to show that a bit of faith, patience and support can be a great thing.