Is NZ rugby in crisis?

Red cards, ill disciplined, lack of composure at key times, no goal kicker and NO TRIES, I repeat NO TRIES....... and they get beaten by a bunch of un-coached blokes thrown together at the end of a very long season.

Is NZ rugby in crisis?

No.

I'm sure it's already been said but by far the main reason the Lions didn't concede any tries was because they were serving up kickable penalties to NZ any time they came near the 22.

If today was a sign that referees are going to officiate NZ properly then it certainly could be.

Of course not but at the same time Barretts performance showed that its dangerous to play without a top of the line kicker.

NZ during the Spencer years showed that they couldn't win the big one. AUS only succeeded with Larkham by accomodating a kicker somewhere else on the field...first it was Burke, then unbelievably Eales, Flately and finally Mortlock.

I don't doubt NZ with Barrett will continue to win 8-9/10 encounters but when the big games came, muscles tightened and pressure grew, 20 point winning margins became 5 point margins.

Barrett can improve... hell if anyone doubts that just see Rob Andrew pre 1993 and post 1993. That may have been down to number of hours spent given he was an amateur but he was an amateur from 93-95 and yet he turned his technique around completely.

Kicking is often a mental issue. See Charlie Hodgson for details. He was a better kicker, better runner, passer than JW ever was. But he simply couldn't deal with the big moments and would freeze during test matches.

fa0019 wrote:Of course not but at the same time Barretts performance showed that its dangerous to play without a top of the line kicker.

NZ during the Spencer years showed that they couldn't win the big one. AUS only succeeded with Larkham by accomodating a kicker somewhere else on the field...first it was Burke, then unbelievably Eales, Flately and finally Mortlock.

I don't doubt NZ with Barrett will continue to win 8-9/10 encounters but when the big games came, muscles tightened and pressure grew, 20 point winning margins became 5 point margins.

Barrett can improve... hell if anyone doubts that just see Rob Andrew pre 1993 and post 1993. That may have been down to number of hours spent given he was an amateur but he was an amateur from 93-95 and yet he turned his technique around completely.

Kicking is often a mental issue. See Charlie Hodgson for details. He was a better kicker, better runner, passer than JW ever was. But he simply couldn't deal with the big moments and would freeze during test matches.

I am not sure you are right about Hodgson. He was a better kicker from hand, better runner and passer than Wilkinson but he was not as good a place kicker or tackler. He only learned to tackle once he went to Sarries by which time his England career was virtually over until his late call back as charge down Charlie.

Exiledinborders wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Of course not but at the same time Barretts performance showed that its dangerous to play without a top of the line kicker.

NZ during the Spencer years showed that they couldn't win the big one. AUS only succeeded with Larkham by accomodating a kicker somewhere else on the field...first it was Burke, then unbelievably Eales, Flately and finally Mortlock.

I don't doubt NZ with Barrett will continue to win 8-9/10 encounters but when the big games came, muscles tightened and pressure grew, 20 point winning margins became 5 point margins.

Barrett can improve... hell if anyone doubts that just see Rob Andrew pre 1993 and post 1993. That may have been down to number of hours spent given he was an amateur but he was an amateur from 93-95 and yet he turned his technique around completely.

Kicking is often a mental issue. See Charlie Hodgson for details. He was a better kicker, better runner, passer than JW ever was. But he simply couldn't deal with the big moments and would freeze during test matches.

I am not sure you are right about Hodgson. He was a better kicker from hand, better runner and passer than Wilkinson but he was not as good a place kicker or tackler. He only learned to tackle once he went to Sarries by which time his England career was virtually over until his late call back as charge down Charlie.

Never said he was a better tackler. His tee kicking at Sale and then Sarries was class. For England it was dire.

In a word yes

Hansen is the chief architect.

When SBW went off and he traded Kaino he lost the game.

No point having parity in the backs if you hand an advantage up front. Dreadful tactical error by Hansen.

Gwlad wrote:In a word yes

Hansen is the chief architect.

When SBW went off and he traded Kaino he lost the game.

No point having parity in the backs if you hand an advantage up front. Dreadful tactical error by Hansen.

I agree. Give me a six over a back any time.

I thought the same originally, but with the amount of kicking that was done by both teams, and the weather, could you really afford to play without a winger?

It's a tough call, but NZ scrum went ok, they weren't beaten up up front, i'm not sure risking dropping a back would've been the better call with the way the lions play

Reality is no matter who he subbed to play 45minutes with only 14 men was
never going to be enough.
All the factors media was saying for the Lions to win happened
The Weather,a more physical approach,a NH Ref,a Card,Barrett to
have an off day with and without the boot.
Normally I would say there will be a Blacklash,BUT weather likely to be
wet again.NO Ben Smith,Crotty,SBW,Naholo,options very limitedForwards
no change,but midfield Fekitoa and ALT,or Ioane to centre.
Sopanga as backup 10?or Jordie Barrett to 15,Dagg to wing.
Just as likely a card will decide the final game very depressing whoever
wins let it be 15 versus15.

A card won't have to decide anything if both teams play fair. I agree that a red card ruins games, that's why players shouldn't be stupid enough to earn themselves one. SBW was a silly boy and should get a citing for his dirty play. At least he didn't tell the referee to "f*** off" this time though.

SBW should stick to boxing.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:If today was a sign that referees are going to officiate NZ properly then it certainly could be.

Gee bod cuts real deep with this one. It's never ending. Lions committed far move off the ball shots and you blindly focus on the same, ever recurring thing. Yet do we moan on the mega scale that you do?

'It's not your fault'
'It's not your fault'
'It's not your fault'...

Rory_Gallagher wrote:A card won't have to decide anything if both teams play fair. I agree that a red card ruins games, that's why players shouldn't be stupid enough to earn themselves one. SBW was a silly boy and should get a citing for his dirty play. At least he didn't tell the referee to "f*** off" this time though.

Anything on the rugby then?

The goalkicking comment is a bit lame. Barrett kicked seven from 10 at 70% where the Lions got 83%.

Barrett got 100% last week to the Lions 67%.

How is that reflective of not having a good kicker?

Poor analysis.

Taylorman wrote:The goalkicking comment is a bit lame. Barrett kicked seven from 10 at 70% where the Lions got 83%.

Barrett got 100% last week to the Lions 67%.

How is that reflective of not having a good kicker?

Poor analysis.

good job he was so good at kicking as the New Zealand team never looked like scoring a try

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:A card won't have to decide anything if both teams play fair. I agree that a red card ruins games, that's why players shouldn't be stupid enough to earn themselves one. SBW was a silly boy and should get a citing for his dirty play. At least he didn't tell the referee to "f*** off" this time though.

Anything on the rugby then?

Yeah, there was a red card and it ruined the game. Good on Garces though for ignoring the rest of the clowns in his officiating team.

Anyway, I think you need to lie down Taylorman. You boys need to learn to take a few punches if you dish them out yourselves.

And yes, mods, that was entirely metaphorical...

Nearly beat the best of 4 countries with 14 men. Decent crisis to have.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:A card won't have to decide anything if both teams play fair. I agree that a red card ruins games, that's why players shouldn't be stupid enough to earn themselves one. SBW was a silly boy and should get a citing for his dirty play. At least he didn't tell the referee to "f*** off" this time though.

Anything on the rugby then?

Yeah, there was a red card and it ruined the game. Good on Garces though for ignoring the rest of the clowns in his officiating team.

Anyway, I think you need to lie down Taylorman. You boys need to learn to take a few punches if you dish them out yourselves.

And yes, mods, that was entirely metaphorical...

Have to say you come in really hot with your wums. Ever thought of dialling them down a notch or saying something sensible every now and then? They'd be more effective imo.

ebop wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:A card won't have to decide anything if both teams play fair. I agree that a red card ruins games, that's why players shouldn't be stupid enough to earn themselves one. SBW was a silly boy and should get a citing for his dirty play. At least he didn't tell the referee to "f*** off" this time though.

Anything on the rugby then?

Yeah, there was a red card and it ruined the game. Good on Garces though for ignoring the rest of the clowns in his officiating team.

Anyway, I think you need to lie down Taylorman. You boys need to learn to take a few punches if you dish them out yourselves.

And yes, mods, that was entirely metaphorical...

Have to say you come in really hot with your wums. Ever thought of dialling them down a notch or saying something sensible every now and then? They'd be more effective imo.

Coming from ebop that must be a compliment!

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

ebop wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:A card won't have to decide anything if both teams play fair. I agree that a red card ruins games, that's why players shouldn't be stupid enough to earn themselves one. SBW was a silly boy and should get a citing for his dirty play. At least he didn't tell the referee to "f*** off" this time though.

Anything on the rugby then?

Yeah, there was a red card and it ruined the game. Good on Garces though for ignoring the rest of the clowns in his officiating team.

Anyway, I think you need to lie down Taylorman. You boys need to learn to take a few punches if you dish them out yourselves.

And yes, mods, that was entirely metaphorical...

Have to say you come in really hot with your wums. Ever thought of dialling them down a notch or saying something sensible every now and then? They'd be more effective imo.

Coming from ebop that must be a compliment!

It just seems like you're really angry all the time. Mix it up a bit. Throw a compliment out there every now and then. You'll feel better. We'll feel better. Win win

New Zealand score some really nice tries. The haka is fun to watch when not performed every five minutes. That better?

No, because your timing was terrible. And you just need to work on your sincerity a little bit.

No NZ arent in crisis but it is good to see them finally get a red because I personally feel they have had the rub of the green over the years.

NZ are still easily the best side in the world but they arent unbeatable. They do evolve quickly. In the first test v the Lions it looked like NZ had taken some lessions from the Ireland tests in terms of narrow attack and breakdown and gainline dominance. They played fairly like Ireland played against them.

I think they spend too much time practicing the piece of pantomime pre game.

The Haka has never looked so good but, really!

No it's not in crisis. They'll just as likely pump us next week. Just nice to see a few players show they can live with AB intensity...albeit only 14 of them. I hope next week is close, I think it'd be good for rugby and the Lions.

The problem is no team no matter who they are can lose over a 1000
caps experience.Then just carry on as if nothing has happened Woodcock,Mealamum,McCaw,Thrush,Ben Franks,Carter,Slade,Conrad
Smith,Tom Taylor,Nonu.Elllis.
The replacements are good but not yet of the same calibre,Crotty for
example excellent but as injury prone as JW was.
The 12,13 is the problem a lot of good individuals but not yet a settled
combo.
There is a very real feeling the Lions can take this now there riding high
AB`s need to fire 1=23 to win this doubt they will now.

emack2 wrote:The problem is no team no matter who they are can lose over a 1000
caps experience.Then just carry on as if nothing has happened Woodcock,Mealamum,McCaw,Thrush,Ben Franks,Carter,Slade,Conrad
Smith,Tom Taylor,Nonu.Elllis.
The replacements are good but not yet of the same calibre,Crotty for
example excellent but as injury prone as JW was.
The 12,13 is the problem a lot of good individuals but not yet a settled
combo.
There is a very real feeling the Lions can take this now there riding high
AB`s need to fire 1=23 to win this doubt they will now.

No offence but most teams could lose Tom Taylor, Thrush, Slade, B Franks and Ellis and be just fine. Prime Woodcock, Nonu and Meaalamu would be a miss but they'd been on the slide, their replacements are at least as good. McCaw and C Smith are a big miss, Carter less so with the emergence of Barrett.

The question was; is question is New Zealand Rugby in crisis?

The answer is, not currently on the field, they are the best team in the world. However the underlying position is not so healthy. Their business model is based on two things:

• South African Super Rugby audiences
  These must be in doubt in the long term because:
  
  
  
  • South Africa is looking towards Europe for both financial and time zone reasons.
    
  • The Australian leg of the stool looks very dodgy
    
  
  
  
• Exploiting the All Blacks brand
  This is dependent on continuing on field success. Should the All Blacks fail to be dominant for a year or two then foreign TV broadcasters will be unlikely to want to pay a premium for TV rights. If the money disappears the players will leave en masse for Europe
  

In summary I think New Zealand rugby will struggle to maintain its position of dominance because of the lack of a sufficiently large home market and the requirement to constantly be the dominant team which is unsustainable.

TightHEAD wrote:I think they spend too much time practicing the piece of pantomime pre game.

The Haka has never looked so good but, really!

it is true, the NZ set piece never looks better than just before the game

Loving the article in NZ herald about Lions Rispict for hakaka, NZ saying its the most iconic thing in rugby. They have to find their win somehow I suppose. I actually think in about 20 years the game will be decided by how a team Rispiscts the hakakaka and not the 80 minutes that follows.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:A card won't have to decide anything if both teams play fair. I agree that a red card ruins games, that's why players shouldn't be stupid enough to earn themselves one. SBW was a silly boy and should get a citing for his dirty play. At least he didn't tell the referee to "f*** off" this time though.

Anything on the rugby then?

Yeah, there was a red card and it ruined the game. Good on Garces though for ignoring the rest of the clowns in his officiating team.

Anyway, I think you need to lie down Taylorman. You boys need to learn to take a few punches if you dish them out yourselves.

And yes, mods, that was entirely metaphorical...

So you have the rant, I ask about the rugby and you have another rant, then suggest I lie down?

Okay then.

Exiledinborders wrote:The question was; is question is New Zealand Rugby in crisis?

The answer is, not currently on the field, they are the best team in the world. However the underlying position is not so healthy. Their business model is based on two things:

• South African Super Rugby audiences
  These must be in doubt in the long term because:
  
  
  
  • South Africa is looking towards Europe for both financial and time zone reasons.
    
  • The Australian leg of the stool looks very dodgy
    
  
  
  
• Exploiting the All Blacks brand
  This is dependent on continuing on field success. Should the All Blacks fail to be dominant for a year or two then foreign TV broadcasters will be unlikely to want to pay a premium for TV rights. If the money disappears the players will leave en masse for Europe
  

In summary I think New Zealand rugby will struggle to maintain its position of dominance because of the lack of a sufficiently large home market and the requirement to constantly be the dominant team which is unsustainable.

Geez I'm glad we don't hold such a pessimistic view of our game then.

NZ rugby isn't in trouble because it depends how you define trouble.

If you think it's about making money the world over and being famous then good luck to you.

We love this game and if we are the only ones playing it we'll just play each other at home.

We were playing it before professionalism and we'll play it after it if your overloaded pessimism is actually realised.

We aren't like the north. We don't put money before all else in this game. That's why you struggle on the field. You've let your love for the game get swallowed by entrpreneurial greed, let the Clubs dictate terms, buy in players in coaches to satisfy the 'paying' public.

Don't worry about NZ rugby. We still play it, our way, and always will.

Basing our future on a few paragraphs with so many five syllable words shows how you now talk money, not rugby.

At least we still know the difference.

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:A card won't have to decide anything if both teams play fair. I agree that a red card ruins games, that's why players shouldn't be stupid enough to earn themselves one. SBW was a silly boy and should get a citing for his dirty play. At least he didn't tell the referee to "f*** off" this time though.

Anything on the rugby then?

Yeah, there was a red card and it ruined the game. Good on Garces though for ignoring the rest of the clowns in his officiating team.

Anyway, I think you need to lie down Taylorman. You boys need to learn to take a few punches if you dish them out yourselves.

And yes, mods, that was entirely metaphorical...

So you have the rant, I ask about the rugby and you have another rant, then suggest I lie down?

Okay then.

I'm not sure you understand what a rant is. Does the word have a different meaning in New Zealand?

Amazing the game ever went professional at all over there

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:A card won't have to decide anything if both teams play fair. I agree that a red card ruins games, that's why players shouldn't be stupid enough to earn themselves one. SBW was a silly boy and should get a citing for his dirty play. At least he didn't tell the referee to "f*** off" this time though.

Anything on the rugby then?

Yeah, there was a red card and it ruined the game. Good on Garces though for ignoring the rest of the clowns in his officiating team.

Anyway, I think you need to lie down Taylorman. You boys need to learn to take a few punches if you dish them out yourselves.

And yes, mods, that was entirely metaphorical...

So you have the rant, I ask about the rugby and you have another rant, then suggest I lie down?

Okay then.

I'm not sure you understand what a rant is. Does the word have a different meaning in New Zealand?

Obviously, only one of us doing the swearing, declaring stupidity, putting down players, calling the officials clowns and apologising to the mods in advance.

Pretty much how we'd describe a rant yep.

Considering that I try not to swear either on this forum or in real life (are you referring to the SBW quote above?) I think that you might be telling fibs or twisting what I say. I'm giving my opinion on something, Taylorman. It doesn't become a rant just because you don't like it.

As I've said before, I think that you are the overly flustered party here. But hey, whatever you say. I'm going to leave you to it.

Taylorman wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:The question was; is question is New Zealand Rugby in crisis?

The answer is, not currently on the field, they are the best team in the world. However the underlying position is not so healthy. Their business model is based on two things:

• South African Super Rugby audiences
  These must be in doubt in the long term because:
  
  
  
  • South Africa is looking towards Europe for both financial and time zone reasons.
    
  • The Australian leg of the stool looks very dodgy
    
  
  
  
• Exploiting the All Blacks brand
  This is dependent on continuing on field success. Should the All Blacks fail to be dominant for a year or two then foreign TV broadcasters will be unlikely to want to pay a premium for TV rights. If the money disappears the players will leave en masse for Europe
  

In summary I think New Zealand rugby will struggle to maintain its position of dominance because of the lack of a sufficiently large home market and the requirement to constantly be the dominant team which is unsustainable.

Geez I'm glad we don't hold such a pessimistic view of our game then.

NZ rugby isn't in trouble because it depends how you define trouble.

If you think it's about making money the world over and being famous then good luck to you.

We love this game and if we are the only ones playing it we'll just play each other at home.

We were playing it before professionalism and we'll play it after it if your overloaded pessimism is actually realised.

We aren't like the north. We don't put money before all else in this game. That's why you struggle on the field. You've let your love for the game get swallowed by entrpreneurial greed, let the Clubs dictate terms, buy in players in coaches to satisfy the 'paying' public.

Don't worry about NZ rugby. We still play it, our way, and always will.

Basing our future on a few paragraphs with so many five syllable words shows how you now talk money, not rugby.

At least we still know the difference.

Hmm. I stand corrected. The All Black players stay in New Zealand for the love of the game. And yet NZ Rugby find it necessary to pay million pound salaries to keep hold of players.

Your image of NZ rugby as exemplars of the Corinthian spirit is nonsense. New Zealand rugby was professional long before rugby in the NH. It is still professional. The All Blacks play for money. They stay in NZ just so long as it pays them to do so.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Considering that I try not to swear either on this forum or in real life (are you referring to the SBW quote above?) I think that you might be telling fibs or twisting what I say. I'm giving my opinion on something, Taylorman. It doesn't become a rant just because you don't like it.

As I've said before, I think that you are the overly flustered party here. But hey, whatever you say. I'm going to leave you to it.

Ooh, another rant, you're the one doing all the talking here buddy. I'm just paraphrasing your comments like any good counsellor should.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:The question was; is question is New Zealand Rugby in crisis?

The answer is, not currently on the field, they are the best team in the world. However the underlying position is not so healthy. Their business model is based on two things:

• South African Super Rugby audiences
  These must be in doubt in the long term because:
  
  
  
  • South Africa is looking towards Europe for both financial and time zone reasons.
    
  • The Australian leg of the stool looks very dodgy
    
  
  
  
• Exploiting the All Blacks brand
  This is dependent on continuing on field success. Should the All Blacks fail to be dominant for a year or two then foreign TV broadcasters will be unlikely to want to pay a premium for TV rights. If the money disappears the players will leave en masse for Europe
  

In summary I think New Zealand rugby will struggle to maintain its position of dominance because of the lack of a sufficiently large home market and the requirement to constantly be the dominant team which is unsustainable.

Geez I'm glad we don't hold such a pessimistic view of our game then.

NZ rugby isn't in trouble because it depends how you define trouble.

If you think it's about making money the world over and being famous then good luck to you.

We love this game and if we are the only ones playing it we'll just play each other at home.

We were playing it before professionalism and we'll play it after it if your overloaded pessimism is actually realised.

We aren't like the north. We don't put money before all else in this game. That's why you struggle on the field. You've let your love for the game get swallowed by entrpreneurial greed, let the Clubs dictate terms, buy in players in coaches to satisfy the 'paying' public.

Don't worry about NZ rugby. We still play it, our way, and always will.

Basing our future on a few paragraphs with so many five syllable words shows how you now talk money, not rugby.

At least we still know the difference.

Hmm. I stand corrected. The All Black players stay in New Zealand for the love of the game. And yet NZ Rugby find it necessary to pay million pound salaries to keep hold of players.

Your image of NZ rugby as exemplars of the Corinthian spirit is nonsense. New Zealand rugby was professional long before rugby in the NH. It is still professional. The All Blacks play for money. They stay in NZ just so long as it pays them to do so.

Agree, you stand corrected. While you're head is spinning around all dollars and no sense it will remain that way.

99% of all NZ players play rugby for the love of the game, and always will.

If you think all pro rugby paths for NZ lead to the NH then you're dreaming. No one actually wants to play there. Why would they? Solutions to keep pro rugby going in the SH will always be there. Neither you nor I know what the future is, it's just about how much you want to spin it.

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Considering that I try not to swear either on this forum or in real life (are you referring to the SBW quote above?) I think that you might be telling fibs or twisting what I say. I'm giving my opinion on something, Taylorman. It doesn't become a rant just because you don't like it.

As I've said before, I think that you are the overly flustered party here. But hey, whatever you say. I'm going to leave you to it.

Ooh, another rant, you're the one doing all the talking here buddy. I'm just paraphrasing your comments like any good counsellor should.

Just want to note that I didn't report your comment. I'm not too bothered by what you have to say.

Another thing, Read, poor Captain. His backchat to Garces about being tackled in the air was like something you'd expect from a teenager and another sign of the fact that the New Zelanders just dont like it when the tables are turned on them. McCaw he isn't.

For sure it must be in crisis Wellington, hardly saw a Black shirt in the crowd and certainly didn't hear them.

Gwlad wrote:Another thing, Read, poor Captain. His backchat to Garces about being tackled in the air was like something you'd expect from a teenager and another sign of the fact that the New Zelanders just dont like it when the tables are turned on them. McCaw he isn't.

Na he had a good point.

Scottrf wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Another thing, Read, poor Captain. His backchat to Garces about being tackled in the air was like something you'd expect from a teenager and another sign of the fact that the New Zelanders just dont like it when the tables are turned on them. McCaw he isn't.

Na he had a good point.

Yes he did, but thank goodness his halfbacks don't throw out lollies so they have to jump.

Is this board in crisis?

Yes.

emack2 wrote:The problem is no team no matter who they are can lose over a 1000
caps experience.Then just carry on as if nothing has happened Woodcock,Mealamum,McCaw,Thrush,Ben Franks,Carter,Slade,Conrad
Smith,Tom Taylor,Nonu.Elllis.
The replacements are good but not yet of the same calibre,Crotty for
example excellent but as injury prone as JW was.
The 12,13 is the problem a lot of good individuals but not yet a settled
combo.
There is a very real feeling the Lions can take this now there riding high
AB`s need to fire 1=23 to win this doubt they will now.

What happened to the unbeatable All Blacks

I have a lot of time for the NZ posters on here who are hurting, but I must take the opportunity to do this ..

emack

If only the ABs have a Kiwi version of Jeremy Corbyn.

We didn't have as many points as them but we actually won the game because we didn't lose by as many points as we should have playing with 14 men. We are winners, history awaits, immortality becons..........

Pete330v2 wrote:If only the ABs have a Kiwi version of Jeremy Corbyn.

We didn't have as many points as them but we actually won the game because we didn't lose by as many points as we should have playing with 14 men. We are winners, history awaits, immortality becons..........

As opposed to the Lions fans who seem to think we are winning 1-1?