Is NZ rugby in crisis?

First topic message reminder :

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?

Sure SBW is an ex league player but Cane and Dagg aren't, so is it still instinctive for them to lead with the shoulder? Rugby has moved on from the days of stamping, biting and punching the opposition front row in the scrum - if a modern player expects to continuously get away with it they are a couple of forwards short of a pack.

Blinkers?not trying to justify anything but to call recent matches rough compared
to those when I was grown up in.Irony the last player NZ had was redcarded
for was Colin Meads.A Great and hard player many acts he commited on
the field today would have carded probably red.
He stuck out a foot off balance attempting to kick a ball and fell over,Hastie
the Scottish number 9 was rushing into gather. Ruling dangerous play a
softer red you`ll never see.
I`m not trying to justify anything BUT in every match you`ll see incidents
from ALL sides.You can argue should be penalised,carded,etc I use BOTH
eyes and believe what I see.

NO it hasn't the rules of the Front Row Mafia still apply it`s whether it`s
officiated or not isn`t it.IF the officials don`t fix it the law of the jungle ensues.

Comparing the single wide angle 1971 footage in black and white to the modern multi-camera technology is naive in the extreme. It is only a matter of time to when citings could be based on spectator footage so that will be even worse for the ABs. The crisis for NZ rugby is how they are going to play the game when all their gamesmanship is captured on camera. They are still the best in the world by a long way but their insecurity is evident with their natural reversion to physically hurt opponents rather than just play them. Can they adapt?

emack2 wrote:Blinkers?not trying to justify anything but to call recent matches rough compared
to those when I was grown up in.Irony the last player NZ had was redcarded
for was Colin Meads.A Great and hard player many acts he commited on
the field today would have carded probably red.
He stuck out a foot off balance attempting to kick a ball and fell over,Hastie
the Scottish number 9 was rushing into gather. Ruling dangerous play a
softer red you`ll never see.
I`m not trying to justify anything BUT in every match you`ll see incidents
from ALL sides.You can argue should be penalised,carded,etc I use BOTH
eyes and believe what I see.

Back in the day.. even when I was growing up in the 80s players were not muscle bound freaks. Most backs were 85kg if they were proper lumps. Most forwards rarely tipped 17st and if they did it was more a rubber ring around their waist. Most "adult males" today are bigger than rugby players were 40 years ago let alone players. I recall meeting an old boy who was a forward, never more than 13st but played top level rugby in Ireland.

Today chaps are heavier, faster, stronger and fitter. Collisions are far worse than the odd punch up and rake. Concussions are a massive issue in the game. Subs weren't allowed so players couldn't train for 50 mins only.

If I had a choice between a 70s/80s rugby nut punching me in the face or SBW running full pelt with his shoulder aimed to my lower jaw I think I'd rather chose the punch.

Anyhow, sure all sides have one or two nuts in their sides and sometimes honest players like Warburton (and no not just because he's a lion... he's must have Canadian blood... if you punch him he'd probably say "excuse me") get their execution ever so slightly wrong (see RWC11 for details). Yet play is foul play and to even say, oh I've seen worse or everyone does it is just disingenuous. It was reviewed for a minute by the ref, he consulted his TMO and 2 linesman. It was then cited and he was found guilty for 4 weeks.

Times change but the rules are there because hell.... these guys have families. They're not just disposable beings that should sacrifice 30 years taken off their lives because they happened to be good at a physical sport. The game is no less "tough" because world rugby has come down on concussions and head trauma.

So NZ are the only team that play hard Rugby?in your dreams.
The Art of Spotting taking a player out of the game hit him early
hit him late ,on the ball,off the ball,legally or illegally just hit him.
Get real the 9/10 link is the key to the game EVERYONE targets
that area,if you think otherwise you`re very naïve.
As to concussion protocols being strict it should be many of the
great Taranaki 1960s side.Noted for there hard tackling Wolfe,
Briscoe,Ross Brown.
Suffering from Alzheimers linked to concussion issues.

emack2 wrote:So NZ are the only team that play hard Rugby?in your dreams.
The Art of Spotting taking a player out of the game hit him early
hit him late ,on the ball,off the ball,legally or illegally just hit him.
Get real the 9/10 link is the key to the game EVERYONE targets
that area,if you think otherwise you`re very naïve.
As to concussion protocols being strict it should be many of the
great Taranaki 1960s side.Noted for there hard tackling Wolfe,
Briscoe,Ross Brown.
Suffering from Alzheimers linked to concussion issues.

JPR was known for his tough tackling. I'm not blowing my own trumpet here but I reckon I would have gotten right up there in terms of the hit compared during my peak years in 00s as a half decent club player but one who had modern day nutrition, weight training etc in comparison.

Its not to say had JPR wasn't a great nor had he played today he would have been significantly different physicality wise... but if you want to compare actual specimen for specimen then yeah it stands.

JPR was barely 13st if that at all.. I reckon he was probably even lighter.

Its all relative. Watch an U13 match and you'll see some "tough" tackles even the very best players. Forget the samoan kids for a second who look 18 aged 13 and are already 100kg+. But compared its not even close.

In 20-30 years time we will start to see serious issues from pro rugby players of the late 90s onwards. Look at SA, they're already seeing a number of players with significant problems from the early pro eras.

The difference in the physicality of the game doesn't even comprehend from the last years of the amateur 90s let alone the 60s.

* Please note, just want to say if JPR played the game today he would still be amazing and he'd be some 15-16st monster tackler with probably a few inches in height too (given he was born during the post war years, during rationing etc etc).

I`ve had this conversation before given modern nutrition and training
many of the greats could make it todays game.
Weight is relative the 1921 Boks fielded 2 forwards over 18 stone plus.
Don Clarke at his peak in 1960 was16 stone in1964 he was 18 stone
and still the best Goal Kicker I`ve ever seen.

emack2 wrote:So NZ are the only team that play hard Rugby?in your dreams.
The Art of Spotting taking a player out of the game hit him early
hit him late ,on the ball,off the ball,legally or illegally just hit him.
Get real the 9/10 link is the key to the game EVERYONE targets
that area,if you think otherwise you`re very naïve.
As to concussion protocols being strict it should be many of the
great Taranaki 1960s side.Noted for there hard tackling Wolfe,
Briscoe,Ross Brown.
Suffering from Alzheimers linked to concussion issues.

That old chestnut...rugby is hard by definition, NZ play dirty rugby when they are under the cosh. We've seen it time and time again - 11 referrals in 1 game in Dublin last year - and because they can be the best team in the world when playing, we are all expected to swallow their version of hard rugby. Well I say its BS.

Rugby's guiding principle if ever there was one is that you do your best to smash your opponent but you never ever act recklessly or with intent to cause harm to an opponent. Enter Umaga, Fekitoa, SBW, Mealamu and countless other instances of gross violence. In other words NZ lack an understanding of the principle of sportsmanship in rugby terms and consequently for me they are not the best team in the world however they perform. Until they act like sportsmen when under pressure they never will be.

fa0019 wrote:

emack2 wrote:So NZ are the only team that play hard Rugby?in your dreams.
The Art of Spotting taking a player out of the game hit him early
hit him late ,on the ball,off the ball,legally or illegally just hit him.
Get real the 9/10 link is the key to the game EVERYONE targets
that area,if you think otherwise you`re very naïve.
As to concussion protocols being strict it should be many of the
great Taranaki 1960s side.Noted for there hard tackling Wolfe,
Briscoe,Ross Brown.
Suffering from Alzheimers linked to concussion issues.

JPR was known for his tough tackling. I'm not blowing my own trumpet here but I reckon I would have gotten right up there in terms of the hit compared during my peak years in 00s as a half decent club player but one who had modern day nutrition, weight training etc in comparison.

Its not to say had JPR wasn't a great nor had he played today he would have been significantly different physicality wise... but if you want to compare actual specimen for specimen then yeah it stands.

JPR was barely 13st if that at all.. I reckon he was probably even lighter.

Its all relative. Watch an U13 match and you'll see some "tough" tackles even the very best players. Forget the samoan kids for a second who look 18 aged 13 and are already 100kg+. But compared its not even close.

In 20-30 years time we will start to see serious issues from pro rugby players of the late 90s onwards. Look at SA, they're already seeing a number of players with significant problems from the early pro eras.

The difference in the physicality of the game doesn't even comprehend from the last years of the amateur 90s let alone the 60s.

* Please note, just want to say if JPR played the game today he would still be amazing and he'd be some 15-16st monster tackler with probably a few inches in height too (given he was born during the post war years, during rationing etc etc).

Every time I see Sanjay on the ball I think its JPR, same aggression same attacking threat without the sidestep.

fa0019 wrote:Alan

Firstly the rules are the rules. Just because he came from a sport where such rules don't apply doesn't justify it. He's played union off and on for 7 years. No one made him go into union, nobody put a gun to his head.

Remember Ashwin Willemse? Won the world cup in 2007 with SA. If there has been another tier1 rugby player who was brought up in worse conditions I'd be surprised. He grew up in one of the toughest squatter camps in SA, was part of a fearsome gang as a teenage... he was born in the gutter (and that's not an over exaggeration and is true... literally).

Question - would you be more lenient on him on the rugby field because he had a tough childhood, that no one taught him right from wrong?

Of course you wouldn't.. so why with SBW?

As for the act. He charged into a player with zero intention of tackling the player and aimed his shoulder into the guys face. Those are things which causes American footballers, rugby league players, boxers, wrestlers, MMA fighters.. and rugby players serious issues in later life. It was terribly reckless and very dangerous.

Of course it was a red and its pretty bad if you can't call it for what it is. That was 10 times worse than what Mako did (and yes he did wrap his arms around) and many Kiwis were calling for a red for that.

As for the most carded team in rugby... well they haven't received a red card in 50 years. How many retrospective citings have they had... i.e. citing review recommends an actual red. In all those cases where ABs have received bans they've gotten away with it.

You have to take off those blinkers.

Geez, how can he, when you've got them on.

Gwlad wrote:

emack2 wrote:So NZ are the only team that play hard Rugby?in your dreams.
The Art of Spotting taking a player out of the game hit him early
hit him late ,on the ball,off the ball,legally or illegally just hit him.
Get real the 9/10 link is the key to the game EVERYONE targets
that area,if you think otherwise you`re very naïve.
As to concussion protocols being strict it should be many of the
great Taranaki 1960s side.Noted for there hard tackling Wolfe,
Briscoe,Ross Brown.
Suffering from Alzheimers linked to concussion issues.

That old chestnut...rugby is hard by definition, NZ play dirty rugby when they are under the cosh. We've seen it time and time again - 11 referrals in 1 game in Dublin last year - and because they can be the best team in the world when playing, we are all expected to swallow their version of hard rugby. Well I say its BS.

Rugby's guiding principle if ever there was one is that you do your best to smash your opponent but you never ever act recklessly or with intent to cause harm to an opponent. Enter Umaga, Fekitoa, SBW, Mealamu and countless other instances of gross violence. In other words NZ lack an understanding of the principle of sportsmanship in rugby terms and consequently for me they are not the best team in the world however they perform. Until they act like sportsmen when under pressure they never will be.

Oh I see, when the ABs get referred and nothing comes of it, they're dirty players. When SOB gets a red card level citing, there's nothing to answer for.

Righty oh then.

So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get, they're what? Angels?

You make me laugh.

If you can't handle the hard stuff don't play it. Harden up. Rugby's a tough game, as you'll see on the weekend.

You can come over and pick them up tomorrow if you don't want them to get hurt.

Gwlad wrote:

emack2 wrote:So NZ are the only team that play hard Rugby?in your dreams.
The Art of Spotting taking a player out of the game hit him early
hit him late ,on the ball,off the ball,legally or illegally just hit him.
Get real the 9/10 link is the key to the game EVERYONE targets
that area,if you think otherwise you`re very naïve.
As to concussion protocols being strict it should be many of the
great Taranaki 1960s side.Noted for there hard tackling Wolfe,
Briscoe,Ross Brown.
Suffering from Alzheimers linked to concussion issues.

That old chestnut...rugby is hard by definition, NZ play dirty rugby when they are under the cosh. We've seen it time and time again - 11 referrals in 1 game in Dublin last year - and because they can be the best team in the world when playing, we are all expected to swallow their version of hard rugby. Well I say its BS.

Rugby's guiding principle if ever there was one is that you do your best to smash your opponent but you never ever act recklessly or with intent to cause harm to an opponent. Enter Umaga, Fekitoa, SBW, Mealamu and countless other instances of gross violence. In other words NZ lack an understanding of the principle of sportsmanship in rugby terms and consequently for me they are not the best team in the world however they perform. Until they act like sportsmen when under pressure they never will be.

Personally, I don't believe the AB's to an overly dirty side. At least no more dirty than any other team out there. All teams have the odd player/moment where a rush of blood to the head can end up as dangerous play. I honestly do not believe any side in rugby deliberately goes into a game with the tactic of maiming the opposition.

If you do believe the AB's to play dirty, I would love to hear your views on say Tonga, Samoa or even Fiji? They are well known to be hard hitting with extremely bad timing.

Taylorman wrote:

Oh I see, when the ABs get referred and nothing comes of it, they're dirty players. When SOB gets a red card level citing, there's nothing to answer for.

Righty oh then.

So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get, they're what? Angels?

You make me laugh.

If you can't handle the hard stuff don't play it. Harden up. Rugby's a tough game, as you'll see on the weekend.

You can come over and pick them up tomorrow if you don't want them to get hurt.

Oh for goodness sake, here we go. Is there anything as cringeworthy as this "harden up" rubbish the likes of you and aucklandlaurie come out with? Tell me - when somebody "insults" the haka, why do you transform from a tough guy into a sook?

You can barely handle these forums without erupting, never mind the rugby.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Oh for goodness sake, here we go. Is there anything as cringeworthy as this "harden up" rubbish the likes of you and aucklandlaurie come out with? Tell me - when somebody "insults" the haka, why do you transform from a tough guy into a sook?

You can barely handle these forums without erupting, never mind the rugby.

Harden up, unless SOB brushes you, then go off and have extra time off just incase you were hurt even though you passed the HIA.

Its a little strange getting so worked up about someone getting sent off for a team on the other side of the world you have no connection to

Taylorman wrote:...Oh I see, when the ABs get referred and nothing comes of it, they're dirty players. When SOB gets a red card level citing, there's nothing to answer for....

You can flip that around of course. All Black supporters and media were happy to see their own citings dismissed after Dublin but seemed to see O'Brien's citing as clear evidence of his guilt before any ruling had been handed down.

The All Blacks lose so rarely, we don't get a chance to see the response too often but this last week has been illuminating. It demonstrates to me that New Zealand media and supporters are no different to the rest of us. There have been endless complaints about the officiating and alleged illegality of the Lions play. Next time opponents have reason to feel aggrieved about losing to the All Blacks (which could be as soon as Saturday), perhaps their supporters won't be so quick to accuse them of whining. Then again, if they are just like the rest of us, then of course they won't.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Oh I see, when the ABs get referred and nothing comes of it, they're dirty players. When SOB gets a red card level citing, there's nothing to answer for.

Righty oh then.

So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get, they're what? Angels?

You make me laugh.

If you can't handle the hard stuff don't play it. Harden up. Rugby's a tough game, as you'll see on the weekend.

You can come over and pick them up tomorrow if you don't want them to get hurt.

Oh for goodness sake, here we go. Is there anything as cringeworthy as this "harden up" rubbish the likes of you and aucklandlaurie come out with? Tell me - when somebody "insults" the haka, why do you transform from a tough guy into a sook?

You can barely handle these forums without erupting, never mind the rugby.

Good on you for defending Gwlads comments, points for that at least.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...Oh I see, when the ABs get referred and nothing comes of it, they're dirty players. When SOB gets a red card level citing, there's nothing to answer for....

You can flip that around of course. All Black supporters and media were happy to see their own citings dismissed after Dublin but seemed to see O'Brien's citing as clear evidence of his guilt before any ruling had been handed down.

The All Blacks lose so rarely, we don't get a chance to see the response too often but this last week has been illuminating. It demonstrates to me that New Zealand media and supporters are no different to the rest of us. There have been endless complaints about the officiating and alleged illegality of the Lions play. Next time opponents have reason to feel aggrieved about losing to the All Blacks (which could be as soon as Saturday), perhaps their supporters won't be so quick to accuse them of whining. Then again, if they are just like the rest of us, then of course they won't.

Yes I agree with the flip comment, there's no difference, that was actually my point. But I don't agree with your conclusion which seems to be that foul play has something to do with winning. Gwlads inference is that the ABs win because of it, where the red cards stats deliver the complete opposite, that foul play is more aligned with losing, than winning, NZ with the least red cards, win the most.

How it translates to yellows I don't know, but to argue an entire point from an opinion that flies in the face of the facts, is illogical. He even extends that unnecessarily to his 'boys being hurt'...please.

Foul play, and winning, don't go well together, regardless of what your perception is. But I agree theres no different about the whining. Everyone does it.

Surly the debate should be about red cards given in relation to citings and also suspensions. If you're going to go down that route.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Surly the debate should be about red cards given in relation to citings and also suspensions. If you're going to go down that route.

Yes fair enough, hence my comment, I've no idea what that might bring, but at least the reds count are a start, being the 'serious' end of the equation, something Gwlad is alluding to with 'opinion' only.

Taylorman wrote:[I don't agree with your conclusion which seems to be that foul play has something to do with winning.

That wasn't my conclusion. Think you assumed I was responding to Gwlad but I was just making a general point about how media and supporters react to losses.

As an aside , T-man, if the All Blacks do lose at the weekend (odds must still favour a win) what's the most likely way it could happen in your view?

Taylor - I didn't mention Gwlad or his comment, as you well know. I was responding to your usual arrogant rhetoric. Your "anti-rants".

Taylorman wrote:So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get

ABs = 1 red card
Lions = 17 red cards

That's a damning stat for the British and Irish

Matches the shirt.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Taylor - I didn't mention Gwlad or his comment, as you well know. I was responding to your usual arrogant rhetoric. Your "anti-rants".

Oh well, you've lost me now, probably just as well.

Ebop not really understanding that that stat in one way could with some further context actually disprove his own point.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:[I don't agree with your conclusion which seems to be that foul play has something to do with winning.

That wasn't my conclusion. Think you assumed I was responding to Gwlad but I was just making a general point about how media and supporters react to losses.

As an aside , T-man, if the All Blacks do lose at the weekend (odds must still favour a win) what's the most likely way it could happen in your view?

The ABs strength is to move the ball often, and at pace so they have to get a lot more continuity than they did last week and that requires a lot of front foot, fast ball and the Lions prevented a lot of that. If they do that again we're in trouble. Keeping 15 on the field will help.

Rain is expected again so that's not ideal. Comments seem to suggest we have the most pedantic ref in history for this one so that won't help either so it's mainly the same sorts of things as last week that could provide a repeat.

The Sexton Farrell pair if they fire and are able to get the variation of play they did last week with the double around etc they could be dangerous. A few times they found space for their runners so I'd say they are priority for the ABs. The number of times Sexton was able to loop around wouldn't have gone down well with Hansen. It's the sort of play we'd expect to clobber.

So a stop start game due to rain and ref is worst case scenario and if the Lions get a lot of time on the ball on top of that we'll be sunk.

Other than that, ABs will be looking to create a lot more space, be a lot more physical in a Dublin type start, win their own ball for the Laumapes to cart it up and the Barrettbbrothers to use their backyard days as kids to link up and create space. Laumape caused the Lions some trouble last week so they'll be banking on that again.

ebop wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get

ABs = 1 red card
Lions = 17 red cards

That's a damning stat for the British and Irish

Without discussing the merits of what that number actually means, you really should divide that stat by 4 so it would be 4 red cards for the lions. Or perhaps just look at how many reds this squad has had vs how many the NZ has had.

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:[I don't agree with your conclusion which seems to be that foul play has something to do with winning.

That wasn't my conclusion. Think you assumed I was responding to Gwlad but I was just making a general point about how media and supporters react to losses.

As an aside , T-man, if the All Blacks do lose at the weekend (odds must still favour a win) what's the most likely way it could happen in your view?

The ABs strength is to move the ball often, and at pace so they have to get a lot more continuity than they did last week and that requires a lot of front foot, fast ball and the Lions prevented a lot of that. If they do that again we're in trouble. Keeping 15 on the field will help.

Rain is expected again so that's not ideal. Comments seem to suggest we have the most pedantic ref in history for this one so that won't help either so it's mainly the same sorts of things as last week that could provide a repeat.

The Sexton Farrell pair if they fire and are able to get the variation of play they did last week with the double around etc they could be dangerous. A few times they found space for their runners so I'd say they are priority for the ABs. The number of times Sexton was able to loop around wouldn't have gone down well with Hansen. It's the sort of play we'd expect to clobber.

So a stop start game due to rain and ref is worst case scenario and if the Lions get a lot of time on the ball on top of that we'll be sunk.

Other than that, ABs will be looking to create a lot more space, be a lot more physical in a Dublin type start, win their own ball for the Laumapes to cart it up and the Barrettbbrothers to use their backyard days as kids to link up and create space. Laumape caused the Lions some trouble last week so they'll be banking on that again.

Thanks for that. My main fear is the All Blacks getting a good start, and quickly leaving the Lions behind, as happened in 1993.

cascough wrote:

ebop wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get

ABs = 1 red card
Lions = 17 red cards

That's a damning stat for the British and Irish

Without discussing the merits of what that number actually means, you really should divide that stat by 4 so it would be 4 red cards for the lions. Or perhaps just look at how many reds this squad has had vs how many the NZ has had.

Discount the Scotland ones and divide by 3, they arent really a Lions nation are they

Without discussing the merits of what that number actually means, you really should divide that stat by 4 so it would be 4 red cards for the lions. Or perhaps just look at how many reds this squad has had vs how many the NZ has had.

Looks even worse if you do it using the NZ'ers favourite statistical device - per capita...

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Oh I see, when the ABs get referred and nothing comes of it, they're dirty players. When SOB gets a red card level citing, there's nothing to answer for.

Righty oh then.

So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get, they're what? Angels?

You make me laugh.

If you can't handle the hard stuff don't play it. Harden up. Rugby's a tough game, as you'll see on the weekend.

You can come over and pick them up tomorrow if you don't want them to get hurt.

Oh for goodness sake, here we go. Is there anything as cringeworthy as this "harden up" rubbish the likes of you and aucklandlaurie come out with? Tell me - when somebody "insults" the haka, why do you transform from a tough guy into a sook?

You can barely handle these forums without erupting, never mind the rugby.

Gooseberry wrote:

cascough wrote:

ebop wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get

ABs = 1 red card
Lions = 17 red cards

That's a damning stat for the British and Irish

Without discussing the merits of what that number actually means, you really should divide that stat by 4 so it would be 4 red cards for the lions. Or perhaps just look at how many reds this squad has had vs how many the NZ has had.

Discount the Scotland ones and divide by 3, they arent really a Lions nation are they

Last 50 years though. Perhaps we should extrapolate the number based on number of Lions tourists per country, per party against the periods in between. Christ. Perhaps we should stop trying to make comparisons altogether!

cascough wrote:

ebop wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get

ABs = 1 red card
Lions = 17 red cards

That's a damning stat for the British and Irish

Without discussing the merits of what that number actually means, you really should divide that stat by 4 so it would be 4 red cards for the lions. Or perhaps just look at how many reds this squad has had vs how many the NZ has had.

Perhaps, but the numbers were brought up in response to a generalisation that inferred NZ were guilty of ill discipline to the extent that they go out to intentionally injure players, and apply dirty tactics to win, quoting players like Umaga etc.

But even keeping it local even in the test where NZ got the red there was more evidence of ill discipline from the Lions with the ten shot at goal penalty count, and in my opinion, more evidence of intent to injure, certainly in Mako's case than the ABs.

So either way the generalisation is poor, both over the much longer term, or the shortest, I.e. The last match.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:[I don't agree with your conclusion which seems to be that foul play has something to do with winning.

That wasn't my conclusion. Think you assumed I was responding to Gwlad but I was just making a general point about how media and supporters react to losses.

As an aside , T-man, if the All Blacks do lose at the weekend (odds must still favour a win) what's the most likely way it could happen in your view?

The ABs strength is to move the ball often, and at pace so they have to get a lot more continuity than they did last week and that requires a lot of front foot, fast ball and the Lions prevented a lot of that. If they do that again we're in trouble. Keeping 15 on the field will help.

Rain is expected again so that's not ideal. Comments seem to suggest we have the most pedantic ref in history for this one so that won't help either so it's mainly the same sorts of things as last week that could provide a repeat.

The Sexton Farrell pair if they fire and are able to get the variation of play they did last week with the double around etc they could be dangerous. A few times they found space for their runners so I'd say they are priority for the ABs. The number of times Sexton was able to loop around wouldn't have gone down well with Hansen. It's the sort of play we'd expect to clobber.

So a stop start game due to rain and ref is worst case scenario and if the Lions get a lot of time on the ball on top of that we'll be sunk.

Other than that, ABs will be looking to create a lot more space, be a lot more physical in a Dublin type start, win their own ball for the Laumapes to cart it up and the Barrettbbrothers to use their backyard days as kids to link up and create space. Laumape caused the Lions some trouble last week so they'll be banking on that again.

Thanks for that. My main fear is the All Blacks getting a good start, and quickly leaving the Lions behind, as happened in 1993.

Yes these days the defences tend to be too tight for an early lead in a match between two close sides and the start is usually when good defensive structures are in place, fitness and alertness is high. The ABs start...ideally... at high speed with more of a focus in gradually breaking those structures down, getting the opposition, particularly the tight five, working hard around the park to tire them down.

That's why you saw AWJ tiring after twenty in the first test. If the opposition tight five tackle count is high in the first twenty, it means they're being worked hard and the ABs will get gains more and more as the ABs get into the spaces they might usually have covered off in defence and don't have as much power in the scrums, energy in the carries. Early tries are bonuses in that respect. It's more about breaking the structures down, then flooding the holes left by that.

Second test was too stop start to gain any leverage there and with the card and particularly Kaino off, that plan is that much more difficult to achieve, so it became a battle of attrition, something the ABs will be desperately avoiding this weekend. Running the Lions pack around early is the first primary goal. Best way to take the very out of players like Mako is to get him dragging his feet around the field so he doesn't have the energy or even desire to make those big hits.

ebop wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get

ABs = 1 red card
Lions = 17 red cards

That's a damning stat for the British and Irish

Well not really.

Not sure when the cards were issued but right up the 1977 tour all referees were domestic... even for internationals. Club sides often aimed to take out major players and the violence was pretty full on. The 74 lions 99 call was a defence call due to the amount of violence they were getting... it was only used once mind... once was enough.

Think about the last few tours.

01 - What happened to ROG had it been on the street probably would have placed the AUS player in jail for a few years. Then again it was ROG so I don't blame him.
05 - we know what happened here. Nothing happened.
09 - Fitzgerald got his retinas checked over by Schalla. All he got was a yellow.

Then again I do remember the lions dishing it out mind.... remember bone crusher Robert Jones laying the smackdown on NFJ????  Like watching straw-weight boxing.

emack2 wrote:I`ve had this conversation before given modern nutrition and training
many of the greats could make it todays game.
Weight is relative the 1921 Boks fielded 2 forwards over 18 stone plus.
Don Clarke at his peak in 1960 was16 stone in1964 he was  18 stone
and still the best Goal Kicker I`ve ever seen.

Alan - You're a little right but really really wrong.

As we said sure its relative and the hits seemed big... but they were nothing in comparison and this is why you're wrong.

Firstly an 18st man in 1920 won't have the same make up as an 18st professional rugby player today. Even 30 years ago unless chaps were in the army few were musclebound freaks. Few knew about nutrition. Sure some chaps like Dean Richards weighed 18st but sshhh, keep it quiet but he was.... fat (albeit a great fat boy).
Players today are far far stronger, are far far quicker and as they are fitter they can keep going at such intensity for far far longer. What that means is that a chap with say 20% fat weighing 18st in 1920 who trained twice a week and could run a 100m in 13.5 seconds but could only keep up maximum intensity for say 20 mins... workout the force generated from that.
Then work out the same for a 5% fat 18st forward today who trains twice a day and runs a 100m in 11.5 seconds but could keep up maximum intensity for 50 minutes.

and then we that guy gets tired he gets replaced by another cro magnon orc. The game is quicker too, more recycles, more bombardment. Its a very dangerous game today.

We never saw such injuries as we do today, never saw players get knocked out by tackles. Look at George North last year.... when can you honestly say that happened in the past to players?

The reason is that they didn't happen. Some guys could hit, there is no doubt but few were capable of putting in hits which cause major damage to players future health.

Fighting in training, pressure's telling for sure.

Taylorman wrote:

cascough wrote:

ebop wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get

ABs = 1 red card
Lions = 17 red cards

That's a damning stat for the British and Irish

Without discussing the merits of what that number actually means, you really should divide that stat by 4 so it would be 4 red cards for the lions. Or perhaps just look at how many reds this squad has had vs how many the NZ has had.

Perhaps, but the numbers were brought up in response to a generalisation that inferred NZ were guilty of ill discipline to the extent that they go out to intentionally injure players, and apply dirty tactics to win, quoting players like Umaga etc.

But even keeping it local even in the test where NZ got the red there was more evidence of ill discipline from the Lions with the ten shot at goal penalty count, and in my opinion,  more evidence of intent to injure, certainly in Mako's case than the ABs.

So either way the generalisation is poor, both over the much longer term, or the shortest, I.e. The last match.

I don't mind why you've brought the comparison up, I don't believe I've commented on NZ discipline. I was merely pointing out that the way you've presented the stats is disingenuous.

I actually think it is more important for the game of Rugby that the AB's win tomorrow. The Lions are a strange peculiar thing that maddeningly works and simultaneously degrades the game - the opportunity cost of the Lions is just to damned high in relation to the world games development. However as to the AB's, they are Rugby Union, they're not just a queer quad annual black hole circulating our universe, they're the apex of creation, the driving force that feeds the imagination made real.

Lose tomorrow and there is the potential that the AB's might have peaked and is there anyone else to take their place, to do what they do, who needs to do what they do?

kingelderfield wrote:I actually think it is more important for the game of Rugby that the AB's win tomorrow. The Lions are a strange peculiar thing that maddeningly works and simultaneously degrades the game - the opportunity cost of the Lions is just to damned high in relation to the world games development. However as to the AB's, they are Rugby Union, they're not just a queer quad annual black hole circulating our universe, they're the apex of creation, the driving force that feeds the imagination made real.

Lose tomorrow and there is the potential that the AB's might have peaked and is there anyone else to take their place, to do what they do, who needs to do what they do?

Weird WUM.

I can only assume its sarcasm.

Gooseberry wrote:I can only assume its sarcasm.

Not.

cascough wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

cascough wrote:

ebop wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So the ABs have one red in fifty years, and they 'got away with it all that time' yet for the 17 reds the Lions based sides did get

ABs = 1 red card
Lions = 17 red cards

That's a damning stat for the British and Irish

Without discussing the merits of what that number actually means, you really should divide that stat by 4 so it would be 4 red cards for the lions. Or perhaps just look at how many reds this squad has had vs how many the NZ has had.

Perhaps, but the numbers were brought up in response to a generalisation that inferred NZ were guilty of ill discipline to the extent that they go out to intentionally injure players, and apply dirty tactics to win, quoting players like Umaga etc.

But even keeping it local even in the test where NZ got the red there was more evidence of ill discipline from the Lions with the ten shot at goal penalty count, and in my opinion,  more evidence of intent to injure, certainly in Mako's case than the ABs.

So either way the generalisation is poor, both over the much longer term, or the shortest, I.e. The last match.

I don't mind why you've brought the comparison up, I don't believe I've commented on NZ discipline. I was merely pointing out that the way you've presented the stats is disingenuous.

More disingenuous than this?
"Rugby's guiding principle if ever there was one is that you do your best to smash your opponent but you never ever act recklessly or with intent to cause harm to an opponent. Enter Umaga, Fekitoa, SBW, Mealamu and countless other instances of gross violence. In other words NZ lack an understanding of the principle of sportsmanship in rugby terms and consequently for me they are not the best team in the world however they perform. Until they act like sportsmen when under pressure they never will be."

'disingenuous' isn't the word. A lot of BS is more apt. That's why I say compare the reds.

Taylorman wrote:More disingenuous than this?

gwlad wrote:Rugby's guiding principle if ever there was one is that you do your best to smash your opponent but you never ever act recklessly or with intent to cause harm to an opponent. Enter Umaga, Fekitoa, SBW, Mealamu and countless other instances of gross violence. In other words NZ lack an understanding of the principle of sportsmanship in rugby terms and consequently for me they are not the best team in the world however they perform. Until they act like sportsmen when under pressure they never will be.

gwlad gets a lot of practice coming up with bizarre theories like the above to support his sore loser'ness. He can't deal with reality. Kind of feel a little bit sorry for him for being so deluded because none of his logic stacks up even though he tries really really hard. Back to the drawing board champ

ebop wrote:

Taylorman wrote:More disingenuous than this?

gwlad wrote:Rugby's guiding principle if ever there was one is that you do your best to smash your opponent but you never ever act recklessly or with intent to cause harm to an opponent. Enter Umaga, Fekitoa, SBW, Mealamu and countless other instances of gross violence. In other words NZ lack an understanding of the principle of sportsmanship in rugby terms and consequently for me they are not the best team in the world however they perform. Until they act like sportsmen when under pressure they never will be.

gwlad gets a lot of practice coming up with bizarre theories like the above to support his sore loser'ness. He can't deal with reality. Kind of feel a little bit sorry for him for being so deluded because none of his logic stacks up even though he tries really really hard. Back to the drawing board champ

At least I'm not you. Now that would be bad.

Watched the tape again, NZ failed to be tactically aware by constantly using cross kick, and lost the series due to kicking inadequacy both in territorial kicking and penalties - blame Barrett I suppose.

Also the dirty issue, short arm on AWJ, SBW on Watson, Retallick on Lawes is one thing - blatant dirty rugby, while the other issue is unsportsmanlike play such as Read - the Cast no less - taking Williams out off the ball to ship a 3 pointer and Save deliberately knocking the ball down.

The crisis is that a team that used to be lead by sportsmen like Carter and McCaw is now lead by a guy who takes players out off the ball. And we hear so much about the NZ basic skills etc but their passing and unforced error count was off the charts and their tactical nous is creaking.

You can give it a rest now Gwlad, the tour is over.

what no more hakakas?!!