All Blacks less and less dominant under Hansen

by GunsGerms Tue 10 Mar 2015, 2:49 pm

First topic message reminder :

• In 2012 The All Blacks averaged 33 points with a differential of 20
• In 2013 The All Blacks averaged 31 points with a differential of 13
• In 2014 The All Blacks averaged 28 points with a differential of 11

Are they heading towards a fall?

Is Hansen the coach the New Zealand public think he is?

http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/12/03/blacks-setting-world-cup-tumble/

by Taylorman Thu 12 Mar 2015, 10:10 pm

Yeah saw that one. Score was 19-16 at Athletic park so I think it was 19 -3, ABs coming back to 16.

by Taylorman Thu 12 Mar 2015, 10:15 pm

So to win the World Cup Ireland, based purely on rankings, first have to beat Argie, France, England, then NZ in the final. Four matches in succession where they must play their best side. Huge ask in terms of injury, pressure and sustainability. That is where the heavy reliance in key players will be put to the test and where Ireland's limited resources might count against them.

by **Pal Joey** Thu 12 Mar 2015, 10:46 pm

SecretFly wrote:
disneychilly wrote:
SecretFly wrote:That would be some bizarre Headline the next day after Ireland capitulates to NZ due to too much 'desperation' in trying to get that one ever elusive win:

Ireland CHOKES against the All Blacks!!!!.

I think I'd take that as a victory of sorts considering how often the great Blacks themselves have been accused of it.

Ah doesn't every side that loses choke?

No...that's an 'honour' title given to sides that should have won. I always used to laugh at AB fans that often got annoyed at their side being called 'chokers' - to me it represented the snivelling, grumbling regard of the taunters. It was a badge of honour the goaders couldn't claim for themselves. It was saying that the only side that beat the ABs was themselves.

Other sides that lose are simply either 'thrashed', 'well beaten, 'shamed', 'blasted', 'scr*wed', 'shafted', 'bullied', 'crucified' etc etc.

You forgot "smashed" and "destroyed", fly, which to some folk means a 1 to 5 point win.

I'd love to see a NZ-Ireland Final. As a sort of neutral... I'd be thrilled to bits if Ireland could create history in either a sf or the final.

by Taylorman Thu 12 Mar 2015, 10:52 pm

The Loaded Dog wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
disneychilly wrote:
SecretFly wrote:That would be some bizarre Headline the next day after Ireland capitulates to NZ due to too much 'desperation' in trying to get that one ever elusive win:

Ireland CHOKES against the All Blacks!!!!.

I think I'd take that as a victory of sorts considering how often the great Blacks themselves have been accused of it.

Ah doesn't every side that loses choke?

No...that's an 'honour' title given to sides that should have won. I always used to laugh at AB fans that often got annoyed at their side being called 'chokers' - to me it represented the snivelling, grumbling regard of the taunters. It was a badge of honour the goaders couldn't claim for themselves. It was saying that the only side that beat the ABs was themselves.

Other sides that lose are simply either 'thrashed', 'well beaten, 'shamed', 'blasted', 'scr*wed', 'shafted', 'bullied', 'crucified' etc etc.

You forgot "smashed" and "destroyed", fly, which to some folk means to a 1 to 5 point win.

I'd love to see a NZ-Ireland Final. As a sort of neutral... I'd be thrilled to bits if Ireland could create history in either a sf or the final.

Hi LD,
I'd certainly rather Ireland than anyone else if it aint us thats for sure. Plus I get to fulfil my promise of going down to Molly Malones on Courtney place to celebrate the first Irish win- been waiting to do that for a long time now.

Though if the final is the first win don't see my chances of getting anywhere near the place!

by **Pal Joey** Thu 12 Mar 2015, 11:03 pm

Taylorman wrote:
The Loaded Dog wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
disneychilly wrote:
SecretFly wrote:That would be some bizarre Headline the next day after Ireland capitulates to NZ due to too much 'desperation' in trying to get that one ever elusive win:

Ireland CHOKES against the All Blacks!!!!.

I think I'd take that as a victory of sorts considering how often the great Blacks themselves have been accused of it.

Ah doesn't every side that loses choke?

No...that's an 'honour' title given to sides that should have won. I always used to laugh at AB fans that often got annoyed at their side being called 'chokers' - to me it represented the snivelling, grumbling regard of the taunters. It was a badge of honour the goaders couldn't claim for themselves. It was saying that the only side that beat the ABs was themselves.

Other sides that lose are simply either 'thrashed', 'well beaten, 'shamed', 'blasted', 'scr*wed', 'shafted', 'bullied', 'crucified' etc etc.

You forgot "smashed" and "destroyed", fly, which to some folk means a 1 to 5 point win.

I'd love to see a NZ-Ireland Final. As a sort of neutral... I'd be thrilled to bits if Ireland could create history in either a sf or the final.

Hi LD,
I'd certainly rather Ireland than anyone else if it aint us thats for sure. Plus I get to fulfil my promise of going down to Molly Malones on Courtney place to celebrate the first Irish win- been waiting to do that for a long time now.

Though if the final is the first win don't see my chances of getting anywhere near the place!

You may as well go down there and get it over and done with. The good thing is that their euphoria only last a few hours/days. Smile

by Taylorman Thu 12 Mar 2015, 11:19 pm

The Loaded Dog wrote:

You may as well go down there and get it over and done with. The good thing is that their euphoria only last a few hours/days.

I probably wouldn't understand a word- I struggle with the accent when they're fast and a bit excited! But you couldn't mistake the booming smiles!

Irish and south African accents my fave...

btw (a bit off topic) going up to see if the Blues and JK can finally win one tonight.

Gutted I didn't get tickets to the Eagles playing in Auckland this weekend.

Would love to hear Don Henley sing one more time... furious

oh well

by **Pal Joey** Fri 13 Mar 2015, 12:05 am

Just can't understand how the Blues are struggling so much. Must admit, I'm finding some matches too hard to watch.
Hope they do well for your sake though.

The Eagles would be great to see live. Henley is a decent performer.
For a moment I thought you were talking about my NRL team which is in the process of being shredded!

by Taylorman Fri 13 Mar 2015, 12:38 am

Matt ridges old team? Whew, been a while for them. Was over there for the bledisloe in 87 and I think they were top dogs that year...

by blackcanelion Fri 13 Mar 2015, 3:05 am

Oops. AB's scored 13 points in the second half. I think this was Campese's first tour and he was on fire with ball in hand.

by **Pal Joey** Fri 13 Mar 2015, 3:20 am

Taylorman wrote:Matt ridges old team? Whew, been a while for them. Was over there for the bledisloe in 87 and I think they were top dogs that year...

Yes, I used to bump into him in the queue at a pie shop in Manly on a regular basis... with his ex-girlfriend of the time.
They've won the GF about 8 times since the late70s; the last one being as recent as 2011.
They should have held on against the Chooks in 2013 too if it weren't for a slightly suspect off-side pass. But hey, I'm not that greedy! Smile

by Guest Fri 13 Mar 2015, 4:14 am

Eh, you were with Ridgie's ex girlfriend LD? No doubt she was a stunner. Sometimes I read things and I get the context wrong. I presume you're saying Ridge and his ex. Not, me and Ridges ex used to bump into him. Awkward!

Anyways, rocky start last week mate. And the DCE thing has been a bit of a circus. Wonder if this guy is worth it and you guys flick him now rather than wait out the year. Are you fans behind DCE? He better have a good year.

by **Pal Joey** Fri 13 Mar 2015, 5:16 am

ha... yes, the ex-girlfriend being the indirect object of the subject - Ridge. She was well above my pay grade, mate.

Just a mess with DCE. One of the greats going round... one can never trust all the gossip which was said to be going on at the club but they certainly stuffed things up for him. He says he will play out the season but the club must feel embarrassed. Hard to believe they've lost G Stewart, Choc Watmough, DCE (pending) and now Foran... who is a similar class to DCE.

by disneychilly Fri 13 Mar 2015, 1:16 pm

Cheers for the info though BCL. Makes sense-I can't remember any side doing that in my lifetime-was still crapping in nappies in that last game you mentioned.

Ah well that phase of my life is thankfully over. Or is it? NURSE?!

by emack2 Fri 13 Mar 2015, 10:04 pm

A few thoughts,firstly Biltong`s knowledge of SH rugby is profound almost as good as mine
which is saying something.
As to DC`s query can`t give chapter and verse but only 3 sides in the history of test rugby
had come back from a 19-0 deficit up to 2013.Had the penalty been converted there was
no way back.In discipline the early charge cost Ireland dear and the game.

IRB rankings show a 8 point differential between Ireland and France so on that form
France would play NZ in the qtr-finals.England /Aus v SA on current form irb 1and 2
would make the semi`s.

by aucklandlaurie Sat 14 Mar 2015, 12:22 am

ebop wrote:Eh, you were with Ridgie's ex girlfriend LD? No doubt she was a stunner. Sometimes I read things and I get the context wrong. I presume you're saying Ridge and his ex. Not, me and Ridges ex used to bump into him. Awkward!

Anyways, rocky start last week mate. And the DCE thing has been a bit of a circus. Wonder if this guy is worth it and you guys flick him now rather than wait out the year. Are you fans behind DCE? He better have a good year.

haha I read it that way too, LD its good thing that you got rid of Sally shes high maintenance mate, she just lost a court case here where she tried to take a slice of Adam Parore's empire.

on the DCE thing I cant help but think a team would be better off taking Foran instead, at least you wouldnt lose him for most of the month of May/June to Origin.

by Taylorman Sat 14 Mar 2015, 2:05 am

emack2 wrote:A few thoughts,firstly Biltong`s knowledge of SH rugby is profound almost as good as mine
which is saying something.
As to DC`s query can`t give chapter and verse but only 3 sides in the history of test rugby
had come back from a 19-0 deficit up to 2013.Had the penalty been converted there was
no way back.In discipline the early charge cost Ireland dear and the game.

IRB rankings show a 8 point differential between Ireland and France so on that form
France would play NZ in the qtr-finals.England /Aus v SA on current form irb 1and 2
would make the semi`s.

Yep the last pool match is Ireland France so both will likely be playing to avoid the ABs. Just not sure who the ABs would rather play despite Frances poor form. France have on multiple occasions defied the odds against NZ where Ireland face the dilemma of never having beaten the ABs. Ireland bring as much predictability as France bring the opposite.

The sensible position is take France but we have said that before.

I've a feeling France will win the Ireland pool game. Cos that's what they do.

by Taylorman Sat 14 Mar 2015, 6:02 am

Miracles might prevail with Dan Carter actually playing a good game at 12 today for the Crusaders, possibly his best outing for a couple of years. Didn't get the ref interpretations for the actual match and the Saders look to have been helped out there with the scrum and Wyatt Crocketts 'technique'.

But DC did look pretty good out there, nothing startling, but ran the show well. Interesting days ahead.

by asoreleftshoulder Sat 14 Mar 2015, 12:38 pm

Taylorman wrote:
emack2 wrote:A few thoughts,firstly Biltong`s knowledge of SH rugby is profound almost as good as mine
which is saying something.
As to DC`s query can`t give chapter and verse but only 3 sides in the history of test rugby
had come back from a 19-0 deficit up to 2013.Had the penalty been converted there was
no way back.In discipline the early charge cost Ireland dear and the game.

IRB rankings show a 8 point differential between Ireland and France so on that form
France would play NZ in the qtr-finals.England /Aus v SA on current form irb 1and 2
would make the semi`s.

Yep the last pool match is Ireland France so both will likely be playing to avoid the ABs. Just not sure who the ABs would rather play despite Frances poor form. France have on multiple occasions defied the odds against NZ where Ireland face the dilemma of never having beaten the ABs. Ireland bring as much predictability as France bring the opposite.

The sensible position is take France but we have said that before.

I've a feeling France will win the Ireland pool game. Cos that's what they do.

Only if they've lost to Italy and have to pull a big performance out of the bag.If they have the safety valve of knowing they've qualified no matter what I don't see France busting a gut like they do when the heat is on.

by TheRugbyMaster Sat 14 Mar 2015, 1:21 pm

I think it says something about just how unprecedented successful this team has been when we are clutching at straws about slightly decreasing margins of domination!

Surely this side who have won a World Cup and then consistently dominated the next four year cycle - only losing twice - and once with a dodgy stomach; are the uncontested most successful side ever - if not the greatest side, which I would still suggest was the great Welsh side of the 70's, just man for man based on talent.

by Taylorman Sun 15 Mar 2015, 2:52 am

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Taylorman wrote:On Ireland, the challenge for the World Cup is massive.

They've not made a semi in seven tournaments
If they do they will almost certainly be playing a nation that has played 3 finals...NZ, Fra, Oz, Eng, SA all have won 3 semi finals previously.

All but France have one it, three twice.

So in making the semi, it will be a first. In winning one, huge.

The other issue for Ireland is their reliance on Sexton. Of all the sides Ireland probably rely on Sexton more than anyone else relies on any single player.

He is the type of player that should he be injured and out of the tournament by the time that semi is played, Irelands chances would plummet. And with his slight build, and the fact that any side playing Ireland know if he is off the field, their chances improve considerably.

So expect Sexton to be targeted, for certain. So how Schmidt manages Sexton this year is critical.

And should he play the semi, the pressure on Sexton particularly will be immense, and we've seen versus the ABs that the occasion can get to him.

Eh

Said above that Ireland rely on Sexton, who is susceptible to nerves on big occasions, heavily and that he would be targeted- due to his slight build. He's thin in an athletic since and it shows.

Seems all 3 happened for this match. Sexton got dumped, played poorly, and Ireland succumbed.

Didn't expect it all to happen in the next match though...but it was inevitable at some point.

by TheRugbyMaster Sun 15 Mar 2015, 9:29 am

Sexton was clearly not 100%. I suspect he was rushed back because of exactly the sort of reliance (mentally even) on him for hopes of victory. I think your point was made yesterday.

Ireland also seem mentally fragile - capitulation against NZ when history beckoned, capitulation yesterday after comfortably defeating england.

My guess is the pressure of a World Cup will be just too much for them.

by Taylorman Sun 15 Mar 2015, 10:23 am

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Sexton was clearly not 100%. I suspect he was rushed back because of exactly the sort of reliance (mentally even) on him for hopes of victory. I think your point was made yesterday.

Ireland also seem mentally fragile - capitulation against NZ when history beckoned, capitulation yesterday after comfortably defeating england.

My guess is the pressure of a World Cup will be just too much for them.

Saw the game in full again and it wasn't too bad. Great match. The Welsh defence and determination was something else. I just thought Ireland was starting to believe in their own press a bit with the successive wins, similar to England when they won vs the ABs in 2012, when underneath it all it only takes a small shift to throw it all off, and that happened to be those I mentioned.

If Sexton wasn't right that's the managing him part that Schmidt needs to own. As good as Sexton is, he's a tendency to be fragile...at times. Versus SA last year he was right where Ireland need him. Getting those sort of games out of him needs some smarts.

Good thing is they find this sort of thing out now. A lot of questioning going on I see in terms of alternative attack methods etc. when before it was a bit too much back patting. Continuing to learn when you're winning is ten times harder than when you're losing.

by TheRugbyMaster Wed 18 Mar 2015, 7:46 pm

If sexton doesn't have the mettle for big games, what would Ireland's options be?

by disneychilly Thu 19 Mar 2015, 12:28 pm

TheRugbyMaster wrote:I think it says something about just how unprecedented successful this team has been when we are clutching at straws about slightly decreasing margins of domination!

Surely this side who have won a World Cup and then consistently dominated the next four year cycle - only losing twice - and once with a dodgy stomach; are the uncontested most successful side ever - if not the greatest side, which I would still suggest was the great Welsh side of the 70's, just man for man based on talent.

That Welsh side was bloody good, but my rebuttal to their being the greatest is that they beat neither NZ or SA in that decade.

by Taylorman Thu 19 Mar 2015, 1:13 pm

disneychilly wrote:
TheRugbyMaster wrote:I think it says something about just how unprecedented successful this team has been when we are clutching at straws about slightly decreasing margins of domination!

Surely this side who have won a World Cup and then consistently dominated the next four year cycle - only losing twice - and once with a dodgy stomach; are the uncontested most successful side ever - if not the greatest side, which I would still suggest was the great Welsh side of the 70's, just man for man based on talent.

That Welsh side was bloody good, but my rebuttal to their being the greatest is that they beat neither NZ or SA in that decade.

Yes which is odd because that AB side wasn't a very good one. Especially 70- 76 which saw the Boks win twice, lions in 71 where the Welsh contingent formed the heart and main talent of the side. England won here in 73 after losing all 3 tour matches even. Even our own Juniors won from memory beat the ABs in an internal tour.

Wales toured in 69 and looking at that side it had a large number of the eventual Lions stars to return victorious two years later so perhaps too early. But the ABs were still strong from Lochores side at that point.

1972/73 tour was probably the match Wales needed to win as it wasn't good days for the ABs and Wales probably were at peak about then. Looking at Wales 6N results for the 70's I can't believe they didn't win one. 78 with Hadens foolish antics maybe but Wales weren't quite the same team by then with the JPRs, Davies, Edwards, john, etc having retired by then.

by disneychilly Fri 20 Mar 2015, 8:44 pm

Haden definitely deserved every bit of stick he got for that. It's not how I want my team to play the game. Thankfully the ref wasn't looking as he penalised Geoff Wheel quite legitimately. Would say maybe the Boks were the (only just) pre-eminent team of the 70s, then Wales and NZ together. Though didn't count the Lions as they would have come out on top-having captured the imagination of the rugby world and the results to go with it.

by Taylorman Sat 21 Mar 2015, 8:01 am

I thought the 74 Lions were the best side to come out of the 4 home unions, England in 2003 included. Look at the tour scores...scary...

by TheRugbyMaster Sat 21 Mar 2015, 12:17 pm

Agree, I think the history of rugby has produced 5 really "great" teams that stand above the rest.

That would be Wales early 70's
NZ circa 1988-1990
John Eales' Wallabies
South Africa 95
NZ under Richie McCaw

by Taylorman Sat 21 Mar 2015, 12:43 pm

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Agree, I think the history of rugby has produced 5 really "great" teams that stand above the rest.

That would be Wales early 70's
NZ circa 1988-1990
John Eales' Wallabies
South Africa 95
NZ under Richie McCaw

England 03 fits in there ahead of SA in 95 and I's say ahead of John Eales side and much of McCaws era. 40 from 43 finishing with an away world cup is phenomenal with something like 15 straight versus all three SH sides. I just thought the 74 side was more complete.

SA was really the one match. Take that away and there wasn't much else. 87-90 for the Ab's. And 67-69.

Lions not Wales. If they didn't beat either the ABs or Boks then doesn't count. Boks 17 run in 97 was good.

And not all McCaws era were up there. 09 was all the Boks.

by quinsforever Sat 21 Mar 2015, 1:24 pm

TheRugbyMaster wrote:Agree, I think the history of rugby has produced 5 really "great" teams that stand above the rest.

That would be Wales early 70's
NZ circa 1988-1990
John Eales' Wallabies
South Africa 95
NZ under Richie McCaw

those teams may well have shared 2nd place.

but for total dominance, i agree that England 2001-2003 take it hands down.

by TheRugbyMaster Sat 21 Mar 2015, 2:08 pm

quinsforever wrote:
TheRugbyMaster wrote:Agree, I think the history of rugby has produced 5 really "great" teams that stand above the rest.

That would be Wales early 70's
NZ circa 1988-1990
John Eales' Wallabies
South Africa 95
NZ under Richie McCaw

those teams may well have shared 2nd place.

but for total dominance, i agree that England 2001-2003 take it hands down.

I've never rated that 2003 team. They were a flash in the pan - and boring. Exploited a lack of professionalism in refereeing and adjudication. Simply cheated their way to dull victories in multiples of 3. Absolutely on their last legs in 2003 and statistically the worst World Cup holders in the history of the sport.

No claim whatsoever to being a "great" team.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 21 Mar 2015, 2:12 pm

by quinsforever Sat 21 Mar 2015, 2:29 pm

LOL. that argument of his is so familiar, it can only belong to one person..... ghost

pretty big, 3 year long, flash in the pan that England team. as Tman said, 15 games on the trot vs SH sides.

reason we scored so many penalties is that all sides had to cheat to stop us spreading the ball to wilko, greenwood, cohen, robinson, lewsey. most dangerous backline of the era unquestionably. scored more tries than any other sides in world rugby. puts the lie to the boring england label which did not apply then.

All Blacks less and less dominant under Hansen - Page 3 1347041234

All Blacks less and less dominant under Hansen - Page 3 1347041234

by Gwlad Sat 21 Mar 2015, 2:34 pm

quinsforever wrote:
TheRugbyMaster wrote:Agree, I think the history of rugby has produced 5 really "great" teams that stand above the rest.

That would be Wales early 70's
NZ circa 1988-1990
John Eales' Wallabies
South Africa 95
NZ under Richie McCaw

those teams may well have shared 2nd place.

but for total dominance, i agree that ~~England~~ Jonny Wilkinosn's kicking 2001-2003 take it hands down.

by quinsforever Sat 21 Mar 2015, 2:44 pm

anyway, the point i was trying to make is...

ghost

is back...

All Blacks less and less dominant under Hansen - Page 3 1347041234

by TheRugbyMaster Sat 21 Mar 2015, 2:48 pm

quinsforever wrote:LOL. that argument of his is so familiar, it can only belong to one person.....

pretty big, 3 year long, flash in the pan that England team. as Tman said, 15 games on the trot vs SH sides.

reason we scored so many penalties is that all sides had to cheat to stop us spreading the ball to wilko, greenwood, cohen, robinson, lewsey. most dangerous backline of the era unquestionably. scored more tries than any other sides in world rugby. puts the lie to the boring england label which did not apply then.

Not sure of that statistic, but I do recall Woodwards desperation to arrange endless matches against Z-list opposition to bolster such meaningless stats.

Agree that england in that era stood out from the mediocrity of Northern hemisphere rugby, but compare Englands patchy victories against major opponents to things such as the ABs going ten years without losing to a northern side, and completing entire NH grand slams on consecutive weekends without conceding a try and it starts to look pretty feeble.

by Steve_rugby Sat 21 Mar 2015, 2:54 pm

Gwlad wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
TheRugbyMaster wrote:Agree, I think the history of rugby has produced 5 really "great" teams that stand above the rest.

That would be Wales early 70's
NZ circa 1988-1990
John Eales' Wallabies
South Africa 95
NZ under Richie McCaw

those teams may well have shared 2nd place.

but for total dominance, i agree that ~~England~~ Jonny Wilkinosn's kicking 2001-2003 take it hands down.

Some people really do let the facts get in the way of a good story.

From 2001 to 2003, England kicked more conversions than they did penalties and drop goals. thumbsup

They also scored 175 tries which was an average of nearly 5 tries per match.

by TheRugbyMaster Sat 21 Mar 2015, 2:57 pm

Against whom though? 127 tries against Georgia and Portugal, Spain and Tunisia B women's baskellball reserve catering squad.

No, sorry but England 2001-2003 might've been good for an England side, but compared to the greats of world rugby, nothing more than a blip.

by Steve_rugby Sat 21 Mar 2015, 3:05 pm

I'm sure England scored tries against New Zealand ? Even Wilkinson scored one against them and then 2 weeks later England scored 7 against South Africa ?

by Steve_rugby Sat 21 Mar 2015, 3:19 pm

quinsforever wrote:
reason we scored so many penalties is that all sides had to cheat to stop us spreading the ball to wilko, greenwood, cohen, robinson, lewsey. most dangerous backline of the era unquestionably. scored more tries than any other sides in world rugby. puts the lie to the boring england label which did not apply then.

Indeed, a prime example was the 2nd half of 2003 1/4 final.

by Gwlad Sat 21 Mar 2015, 4:42 pm

Steve_rugby wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
TheRugbyMaster wrote:Agree, I think the history of rugby has produced 5 really "great" teams that stand above the rest.

That would be Wales early 70's
NZ circa 1988-1990
John Eales' Wallabies
South Africa 95
NZ under Richie McCaw

those teams may well have shared 2nd place.

but for total dominance, i agree that ~~England~~ Jonny Wilkinosn's kicking 2001-2003 take it hands down.

Some people really do let the facts get in the way of a good story.

From 2001 to 2003, England kicked more conversions than they did penalties and drop goals. They also scored 175 tries which was an average of nearly 5 tries per match.

they played 35 games in 2 years?!

by Steve_rugby Sat 21 Mar 2015, 5:35 pm

Should have been end of 2003, which is the time period everyone knows we were discussing about England.

by Gwlad Sat 21 Mar 2015, 7:34 pm

Still wouldn't have won anything without jonny though.

by quinsforever Sat 21 Mar 2015, 7:45 pm

you're right. if we had had a sh1t kicker, then teams would have felt free to infringe against us and slow ball down all day long.

as it was, with the best kicker in the world at that time, teams STILL infringed against us because they preferred to concede 3 points than 7.

by Steve_rugby Sat 21 Mar 2015, 8:15 pm

Gwlad wrote:Still wouldn't have won anything without jonny though.

Why not ?

by Gwlad Sat 21 Mar 2015, 8:29 pm

Steve_rugby wrote:
Gwlad wrote:Still wouldn't have won anything without jonny though.

Why not ?

Um, because he was the best 10 of his generation. While England were by no means a 1 man outfit his contribution was disproportionate and he was head and shoulder and tackle above the other 10s of the period. Jonny is the reason England were dominant in that period, nothing to be ashamed of. i would have loved to see him play for Wales, think we had Iestyn Harris then!

by Steve_rugby Sat 21 Mar 2015, 8:32 pm

I'm sure there were another 14 people on the pitch.

by Gwlad Sat 21 Mar 2015, 8:41 pm

Steve_rugby wrote:I'm sure there were another 14 people on the pitch.

whose names and impact on England rugby largely pale by comparison with Jonny

by Taylorman Sat 21 Mar 2015, 8:41 pm

TheRugbyMaster wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
TheRugbyMaster wrote:Agree, I think the history of rugby has produced 5 really "great" teams that stand above the rest.

That would be Wales early 70's
NZ circa 1988-1990
John Eales' Wallabies
South Africa 95
NZ under Richie McCaw

those teams may well have shared 2nd place.

but for total dominance, i agree that England 2001-2003 take it hands down.

I've never rated that 2003 team. They were a flash in the pan - and boring. Exploited a lack of professionalism in refereeing and adjudication. Simply cheated their way to dull victories in multiples of 3. Absolutely on their last legs in 2003 and statistically the worst World Cup holders in the history of the sport.

No claim whatsoever to being a "great" team.

Well you just lose all credibility there, whoever you are. A flash in the pan does not win 40-43 and 15 straight versus the 6N. That England side had two versions of the game. One for the easier sides where they ripped into 15 man rugby in a way even the ABs would be envious of. They had huge victories over the lesser sides and one versus the Boks, where the full side ran with enterprise and genuine attacking play.

But quins is also wrong. Versus the top SH sides they adopted an attrition approach where they went back into the forwards, and opted for a game that relied upon pressure and extracting penalties that Wilkinson could kick.

That is clearly demonstrated by the rate of tries versus penalties versus the number of penalties that make up the points.

Except for the Bok thrashing England scored something like 11 tries in 14 matches versus the SH three. And that wasn't because other sides stopped them spreading the ball, it was because that was the gameplan in those matches to win the matches.

That is what made that side a great side. They could adapt their game from match to match in a way that ensured the victory the best way possible. They would not have won all those matches versus the SH sides if they had gone full 15 man for all of them, and any side that recognises that as part of its DNA Deserves all the success it got.

Yes they were generally boring against the major sides, but who's fault was that?

by Taylorman Sat 21 Mar 2015, 8:57 pm

Steve_rugby wrote:I'm sure England scored tries against New Zealand ? Even Wilkinson scored one against them and then 2 weeks later England scored 7 against South Africa ?

Aside from the SA game where they scored scored 7 in a rout, England's tries were versus the SH wins in that period:
0,1,1,0,1'3,2,0,3,1,1.

And on only 3 of those occasions did England score more tries. Even the 2and one 3 they scored less.

In no way shape or form can it be deduced that those matches were won playing 15 man rugby, and it also supports a relative 'boring' factor.

Compare that to an AB run of more than 10 consecutive matches. Hell would freeze over before those were the number of tries scored.

Did that English team lay 15 man rugby? Yes, but not against the top sides. Wilko was great during that period for a reason. And it wasn't for 15 man rugby.

by Sponsored content