6 Nations - Ireland v England (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

Part 1 - https://www.606v2.com/t68214-6-nations-ireland-v-england-2nd-feb-2019

Details:

Date: Saturday 2nd February 2019
Time: 16:45 GMT
Location: Dublin, Aviva Stadium
Media Coverage: ITV, TV3, BBC (highlights only), Radio 5Live


Officials


Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant 1: Romain Poite (France)
Assistant 2: Alexandre Ruiz (France)
TMO: Glenn Newman (New Zealand)



Teams

Ireland

15 Robbie Henshaw, 14 Keith Earls, 13 Garry Ringrose, 12 Bundee Aki, 11 Jacob Stockdale, 10 Johnny Sexton, 9 Conor Murray; 1 Cian Healy, 2 Rory Best, 3 Tadhg Furlong, 4 Devin Toner, 5 James Ryan, 6 Peter O'Mahony, 7 Josh van der Flier, 8 CJ Stander.

16 Sean Cronin, 17 Dave Kilcoyne, 18 Andrew Porter, 19 Quinn Roux, 20 Sean O'Brien, 21 John Cooney, 22 Joey Carbery, 23 Jordan Larmour


England

15 Elliot Daly (Wasps, 25 caps), 14 Jonny May (Leicester Tigers, 40 caps), 13 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 17 caps), 12 Manu Tuiagi (Leicester Tigers, 27 caps), 11 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 29 caps), 10 Owen Farrell (Saracens, 65 caps), 9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 80 caps); 1 Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 51 caps), 2 Jamie George (Saracens, 32 caps), 3 Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 17 caps), 4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 26 caps), 5 George Kruis (Saracens, 27 caps), 6 Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons, 8 caps), 7 Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, 5 caps), 8 Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 36 caps).

16 Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs, 7 caps), 17 Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers, 5 caps), 18 Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs, 15 caps), 19 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 68 caps), 20 Nathan Hughes (Wasps, 18 caps), 21 Dan Robson (Wasps, uncapped), 22 George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps), 23 Chris Ashton (Sale Sharks, 42 caps).

carpet baboon wrote:

ebop wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:I think it’s fair to say Ireland are a pretty limited side. And England limited their already limited style perfectly. It was one of the few 6Ns games I’ve managed to keep my eyes open for the 80 without using toothpicks so I guess it could be classed as one for the ages. It wasn’t exactly riddled with quality skills and dazzling play though. Just grind and a couple of moments of nice play from England that made the difference. The stakes were high and Ireland choked as they’re wont to do.

It must hurt to be defeated, twice, by a limited side and an even more limited side ranked 7th in the world (South Africa). Lol.

The trolls are back.

To be fair, Ireland were clueless against a pretty boring defensive-minded team like England. It was a battle between two boring sides and Ireland managed to out-boring England for the L. Ireland with the wrap-arounds, box kicks, side-to-side stuff, boring grind and a shoveller for a first five had nothing. Nada.

It must really hurt you knowing that without the money from the far inferior NH, rugby down your way would disappear. All this talk about a league of nations is pretty much just a begging letter from you guys.
Oh the shame.

Haha, get the begging bowl out Kiwis.

You should have a look at the new zealand Herald site if you want a bit of a laugh. I know it's a bit of a joke site like Wales online but there's some really funny take s on there.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You should have a look at the new zealand Herald site if you want a bit of a laugh. I know it's a bit of a joke site like Wales online but there's some really funny take s on there.

I know. I do. Its good value for a laugh, same posters all the time. Some articles are decent enough though.

The Roar in Australia is the same, real antipodean view of the world. Some good authors on that though.

carpet baboon wrote:

ebop wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:I think it’s fair to say Ireland are a pretty limited side. And England limited their already limited style perfectly. It was one of the few 6Ns games I’ve managed to keep my eyes open for the 80 without using toothpicks so I guess it could be classed as one for the ages. It wasn’t exactly riddled with quality skills and dazzling play though. Just grind and a couple of moments of nice play from England that made the difference. The stakes were high and Ireland choked as they’re wont to do.

It must hurt to be defeated, twice, by a limited side and an even more limited side ranked 7th in the world (South Africa). Lol.

The trolls are back.

To be fair, Ireland were clueless against a pretty boring defensive-minded team like England. It was a battle between two boring sides and Ireland managed to out-boring England for the L. Ireland with the wrap-arounds, box kicks, side-to-side stuff, boring grind and a shoveller for a first five had nothing. Nada.

It must really hurt you knowing that without the money from the far inferior NH, rugby down your way would disappear. All this talk about a league of nations is pretty much just a begging letter from you guys.
Oh the shame.

Its a real shame that NH fans talk about rugby in terms of crowds and money because their rugby is so lacking.

The match itself wasnt boring, it was a great test. It was the skill levels that were lacking, and that makes it boring from a technical perspective. Mostly grunt and contact stuff, Makos work rate was inspiring. Both sides were ok to do nothing between the 22’s other than kick and gain possession and chance their arm near the line only.

Farrells pass to set the first try up was the only genuine world class piece of skill in the match, and england took the most of their chances.

Ireland did next to zip. Where a month ago they were told seven or eight would make a world side, none would have got close based on this match. Zero creativity and its confirmed Ireland cannot come from behind because it takes x factor to produce tries against the flow.

That will be concerning but at least the AI honeymoon is over immediately, and Ireland can stop bathing in their successes and get on with it. Schmidt in his last year needs to work out how hes going to add flavour to what is a very reliable but also very predictable gameplan.

If all three of NZ, SA and England decide beating Ireland up is the way to go then they wont last three knockouts. After Chicago the ABs did exacty that where they didnt in Chicago or the last AIs. They tried to play rugby on those occasions and that played into Irelands hands.

Now its obvious how Ireland need to be played. Hard and straight at them, all day, and they cant cope. Theyre not as physically threatening as they would like to think and two can play at that game. Theyre not big scorers in the big matches, especially away, so japan, in september wont give them their home conditions where theyve been most strongest, bar the two occasions the opposition decided to beat them up at their own game.

If Ireland want to threaten at number one they need to be able to play more than one style, something NZ have managed for a long time, and part of the reason theyre still there.

Look forward to seeing what Schmidt does and hed be foolish to think this was down to an anomaly, rustiness, a form slip, complacency etc. england exposed Irelands achilles, and that is to take them on head on...they dont like it.

Taylorman wrote:
Its a real shame that NH fans talk about rugby in terms of crowds and money because their rugby is so lacking.

I agree the game is not about crowds and money however the idea that NH game is lacking compared to the SH is risible.

Three of the four top teams are from the NH. The one top SH team were beaten by one of the NH teams last time out and just scraped past one of the others.

It is pretty clear there is not much to choose between any of the top four teams. I accept that NZ are the best team in the world but they are no longer dominant. In any game I would make them favourite but narrow favourites. That gap is clearly closing.

Taylorman wrote:
The match itself wasnt boring, it was a reat test. It wasthe skill levels that were lacking, and that makes it boring from a technical perspective. Mostly grunt and contact stuff, Makos work rate was inspiring. Both sides were ok to do nothing between the 22’s other than kick and gain possession and chance their arm near the line only.

Mako is at least as skillful as any other prop in the SH.

As for your point about kicking, Ireland and England have learned this tactic from New Zealand who have long adopted the principle that defending in the oppositions half is preferable to attack in their own.

Boring, perhaps. But technically lacking it was not.

You can argue that defensive play is technially inferior to attacking play, but the nuanced play from both sides was pretty good in that area - things like tackle height, the time it takes to put the carrier on the floor, how to secure ruck ball etc. All of those are technical, but often overlooked, skills. For all of England's physical dominance in the tackle at times, and Ireland's inability to mix it up tactically, Ireland were still very much in the game going into the final quarter. It's easy to get carried away and think England battered them in every facet - that's not true.

Everything you write Tman is written with comparison to the ABs. Yes, the ABs are obviously the most skillful attacking team in the world - their second string is probably the second most skilled. Maybe some Fijian players could push them in that area, as well as a few of the best NH players, but by and large there's no doubt that if you play NZ without tactical savvy, most teams will end up losing.

But there's more to technical ability than that. And the NH plays a different brand of rugby to NZ and the SH in general. Whilst the ABs did win the physicality v Ireland in the repeat game in Dublin in 2016, I wouldn't count on it happening too often/again.

NH > SH.

Technically lacking then. Failure to find space on a rugby field is getting more challenging with modern defences and Ireland for one have foregone that challenge and thats why they lost here. In a few movements england were able to expose ireland using clever passing and tactical kicking.

What frustrated was the complete inability to create anything between the 22’s other than pushing the ball for territory. Ireland may have learned some kicking points from the ABs but you will never see an AB test where theres so little effort of individuals to be creative on the ball. We have to kick, because sometimes thats all we can do, but at any point when the sniff of something is on, we are ready to pounce. Ireland chooses not to be on most occasions.

In answer to exiled yes i think the gap is closing but i think thats much more down to oz and SAs demise, not bringing players through. Whens the last time oz produced a world class player? Five years ago?

Theres no coincidence in the NH sides move up the rankings at a time both oz and SA have had their worst sides in the pro era for a whole three years, both at the same time.  Id understand it if they were playing great rugby but when did you ever hear of Italy and japan beating SA? Oz and SA falling off explains the nh improvement more than any other factor.

Nah, NH rugbys still the same as its always been, and I thought with the saturation of SH examples theyd be better by now. And its a pity our coaches need to limit their gameplans to the northern template as they know theyll never get the players to be expansive.

World cup time I can see the same old thing. NH sides falling off when it matters most. One may make the final... theres enough of them, but if oz or SA manage to win a key knockout that may not happen.

Collapse2005 wrote:NH > SH.

Yup, mostly

Re the beat em up game after chicago miaow i think thats exactly what sides will call on if ireland manages to continue beingvsuccessful with its current style, though theres now doubt in that.

NZ produce far bigger and more aggressive players than Ireland do, particularly in the backs and if NZ adopted an all out direct attack on Ireland they would dominate. That they chose not to in chicago and the recent AIs played into irelands hands, and fair enough.

But I dont think for one minute ireland is the bigger side physically when it comes to the boks, ABs or England. If you tjink the same gameplan will take ireland to a world cup final or win then youre dreaming. Ireland has shown everything it has got, its strengths and weaknesses. And if sides decide to knuckle down and take them head on, theyre going to buckle, and theyre going to get injured, and theyre going to stress themselves out if they get behind on the boatd at any time if they dont have a plan b, which weve seen, they dont.

Taylorman wrote:...you will never see an AB test where theres so little effort of individuals to be creative on the ball. We have to kick, because sometimes thats all we can do, bit at any point when the sniff of something is on, we are ready to pounce. Ireland chooses not to be on most occasions.

Which is why bringing up the ABs here is irrelevant.

Schmidt's mantra is literally don't try a miracle ball, don't take risks - trust in a low risk, yet technically accurate, gameplan and we'll minimise errors, which in turn reduces opportunities for opposition and keeps up the pressure on them instead.

England won the game because they kept heaping the pressure on Ireland - through not allowing them to release it via tactical kicking/defensive work, but also through England's aggressive defence, meaning Ireland never really had England under the thumb (a position where they would start cracking under the pressure).

Sport is very simple, and while the ABs are anomalies in many ways, it never really changes. Pressure produces pressure which should produce points. The ABs are ruthless at taking chances, but in terms of pressure, I'd say Australia (when on form) are up there with the world's best, and sometimes rival NZ, although it's all too infrequent these days. They really do play a Rugby League system where, even if they lose the ball, and even if the opposition clears to halfway, they're come straight back at them.

The NH isn't used to this kind of game. Generally speaking, in Britain and Ireland, conservatism seems to be the modus operandi - work hard, be defensively and tactically disciplined, play for territory and hope for mistakes from the opposition. I'd say that's true in just about every ball sport - at least in terms of grassroots/traditional styles. Obiously it's not so prevalent at the top level and is changing all the time, but Ireland are never going to play the game like the Australians. They're not going to create pressure through running rugby - they're probably more 'naturally' conservative than English rugby, in my opinion, and happy to spoil and kick the ball all day. What Schmidt's done is take those core skills (apparently GAA helps) and tactical nous and add his own tactical innovation. A lot of that will be in the minute details, the small things that make keeping hold of the ball a successful way to build pressure or not. Ireland will use individual flair/creativity as and when they need to, but by and large it is going to be infrequent in a game like at the weekend. I think they do need more tactical variety to go to the next level/ensure they can challenge for the RWC, but with players like Ringrose, and Larmour and Stockdale to finish, that's probably not that far away.

Exactly, nothings changed, which is why the demise of the sport in both SA and oz is why the NH is getting higher in the rankings, for it is at the expense of thise two. Irelands two wins vs the ABs is negligible in that respect but if oz and SA are only getting very rare wins vs the ABs, and are coughing up matches in the AIs, and in ozs case the june tours, the rankings are going to change.

So as you say, northern sides are adhering to the status quo, low risk game they have for near on a little over a century. And as a rule, its largely been unsuccessful. Northern and southern tours usually always went the SH way, bar oz, who came into international rugby proper rather late, and the world cup results, 7-1 in SH favour. So its a losing philosophy to date.

now they have better coaching, and are strangling the struggling oz and bok sides.

Which is why i think the world cup will bounce back into SH favour... because the SH sides will call on more resources than they ususlly do, scrape the barrell, turn every stone so to speak.

But as you say, if say Ireland are able to add something additional from a tactical sense, then they have a chance to compete. SA have tried to do that more recently as their set piece dominance isnt as prominent and skills are becoming more a part of their culture, a likely reflection of their changing demographics.

So in a way this loss is the best thing that could have happened as it gives Schmidt more to work with. Better to learn these things now.

Rugby is just about scoring more points than the other guy. Super skills don't matter if you can't impose your game plan, can't control the tempo of the match.

Ireland found a way to play that has been very effective, and taken them to 2nd in the world and arguably the most in form team. Yes they don't have much of a plan B but they have a very effective plan A. Every team that has faced Ireland over the last couple of years have known exactly how they are going to play, and generally they have not found a way past it.

England found a way to beat that strategy. They found a way to beat the Irish stranglehold. It doesn't have to be pretty.

We don't have to try and ape SH teams if we can find our own blend of tactics to win games. If we can control the tempo, stop the other guy playing their game, score when we get a chance, then we can win games.

There is no guarantee that England can keep up the pace they showed vs Ireland through the rest of this tournament, but if we can we will take some stopping.

Taylorman wrote:So as you say, northern sides are adhering to the status quo, low risk game they have for near on a little over a century. And as a rule, its largely been unsuccessful.

By what metric though? Just as Wales/Scotland/NI/ROI have done next to nothing on the biggest stage in football, England have never really been in the top tier of the game with Germany, Brazil, Spain, Argentina, France etc. And those are the most widely played sports in all bar ROI. So too with Rugby - England won a RWC which was a massive achievement, but does that mean NH rugby has been unsuccessful because the SH teams have been historically better? Why do you feel the need to compare the two constantly when there are so many differences?

This is what I think you're failing to realise; the NH teams might have big shiny stadia, their unions more money than the SH, and the fans might come out for internationals en masse, but behind the facade there's a general apathy and mediocrity, or even active exclusion, to most aspects of cultural life in Britain; that is by no means limited to sport, but certainly includes it. And Rugby Union is fairly low down the list of sporting priorities either systemically (schools, govt initiatives) or, for large parts of Western Europe, culturally as well.

Rugby is the number one sport in NZ and (white) SA. It's understandable that they'd be pretty good at it. Australia's #1 sport is League which, for the most part, affords a transfer of skills between the two when playing (not sure if that is the case at amateur level, if only for cultural reasons) as does, to an extent, Aussie Rules, but they're also a nation that prides itself on its sporting prowess in any discipline. It's pretty much their national export (many jokes to be made here but I won't).

You could just about make the case that rugby is the #1 sport in Wales, but not so in any other NH nation bar Georgia. You could say North West England has League, and Ireland Gaelic Football, that are transferrable to some degree, but by and large culture separates the former from my experience, not so sure on the Irish situation but I'd hazard a guess in some places, perhaps less relevant today. In any case - Union just isn't that much of a deal over here, both as a sport to play or as a sport to watch. Certainly not when comapred to NZ where it's like a religion. The club game has died in Wales, the regional game has failed in a way the Irish provincial game has worked, and it would be fair to say football has surpassed it.

You can factor in all sorts of info regarding population, resources, cultural and social dynamics that have paved the way for the SH teams, and NZ in particular, to be so much better for so long. And I'm not dismissing them - everything is valid and deserves to be considered.

But just as UK/GB athletics has benefited from postcolonial immigration - particularly in track events - the ABs have been blessed by the Maori and Aotearoa's proximity to Polynesia and Polynesian immigrants - who by and large are genetically blessed when it comes to rugby in a way East African people tend to be gifted long distance runners, or Peruvians excellent cycling climbers. It's not just genetic of course, it's also cultural, but having Maori, Polynesian, and Melanesian people melded pretty harmoniously (relative to most other nations) into white/European NZ over several centuries has no doubt helped NZ rugby from the 19thC onwards. Also, the economic and cultural industry seemed to help in a way industrialisation in most of Britain, say, almost certainly didn't in creating a relatively strong, healthy population.

There are so many other things to talk about culturally, historically, and economically, but just anecdotally I am adamant that - apart from the traditional strucutres and general apathetic/outdated attitude and approach to sport outside academy/professinal set-ups in the UK - the class-based nature of Rugby in England is holding it back massively. It's definitely changing (look at someone like Genge bringing it up), and I know there's been dramatic changes in the last 8 years even, but the English schools where professional rugby players are produced harbour some atrocious underlying hatred/values that come seeping out in Universities and, later, workplaces that will absolutely ostracise anyone who doesn't conform to these ideals, unless they're so superior that, with support/strength, they can rise above it. I've encountered the classmates of a few current professionals, and experienced both the professional pathway tier including people who went pro (some now at test level) and then the more 'social' teams of Uni rugby, and it's not really that different at the big Welsh Unis either - they are environments that push people away if their face doesn't fit.

Now, of course, the amateur and pro game isn't just a school-to-university thing but it is a big element of where the game is played - and that's part of the problem, and why I say UK culture has issues. In Wales it's the club game and the academies, or perhaps a scholarship to somewhere like Llandovery College; in England it's the traditional schools with all their resources and links to academies as well, although a good portion do make it from outside this through the heartland clubs and dedicated communities as well.

Now SA is obviously the opposite end of the spectrum in many ways to NZ. But then there are reasons for valuing Rugby as a national/cultural expression during apartheid as well - in any case, whilst the political landscape of that country is far from 'good', SA clearly benefits from opening the game to people like Aphiwe Dyantyi or Siya Kolisi, or before then Errol Tobias, Chester Williams, and Bryan Habana. It's not contentious to say white/Euro heritage people aren't genereally blessed with the kind of fast twitch muscle that sub Saharan/West/South African people are, which helps hugely in the explosive game of Rugby. Again, rugby is more than just genetics/the body, but it plays its part.

But the main point I'm trying to make is: there are people whose hearts and souls are into Rugby in the UK, but not really in the way that makes it comparable to the systems and set-ups of the SH giants. It doesn't have the same sense of inclusion, 'passion', and meritocratic competition - sport in comp schools is practically non-existent, and far too much grassroots sport is littered with underfunding and apathy. Rugby Union simply isn't that high on the agenda either - football has struggled massively since the 70s (the 80s seems to be a turning point in the decline of community in the UK and a turn to consumerism and Thatcherite to Blairist individuality). It's also true that, as technology evolves, in a generally cold, wet, and less communal place, you're seeing a drop off in being outside/generall fitness and health in the UK as well - probably true for many industrial countries I'm sure. Add in the fact that parents seem to be much warier of letting their kids off the leash from a young age -tragically, with good reason - and you're losing a fundmanetal part of the soio-cultural fabric of what makes a community fit, healthy and happy, and also encourages sporting excellence.

Anyway, you want someone to succeed in sport? Start them young. Whether that's the Woods or Williams families in golf and tennis respectively, or a healthy, competitive, skills-based environment in a national sport. NZ has the latter in a way no European nation comes close when it comes to Rugby. You can have all the money in the world but unless you can truly 'create' a culture/environment where inclusion, enjoyment, skills, and competition is valued in as large a population base as possible, you're never really going to be tapping into the full talent of a country.

Some caveats though; the SH had the jump on the NH when it came to the game turning professional. SA and NZ handing out 50, 60, 70+ beatings in the 90s was indicative of deep systemic difference between the two hemispheres when it came to running the sport. Now, we're finally seeing the first batch of academy/professional pathway players hit their peak, along with the other offield elements catching up/surpassing the SH, so it's not surprising that the gap has closed somewhat. It's also a case of England/Britain becoming a bit less class obsessed/the old boy network loosening its grip, and so you get players like Genge able to succeed, although by the sounds of it the system did its best to hinder his chances. Wales doesn't really have the population, nor the pop density in mid and north Wales, to really become a big player. Perhaps Scotland too, but maybe their useless football team will help foster an environment like in Ireland.

Anyway, just focusing on the top level and talking about 'underachievement' is meaningless. Relative to what? The NH teams are competing nicely with each other. We've had the best part of a decade where Ire/Eng/Wal have been in and around the same level, with all 3 having decent title success in that time and adding many key players to a successful Lions era. But, again, I feel like you're missing the point entirely. You don't seem to have the faintest idea about the rugby setup and culture in the UK yet talk about it with confidence - as if Bundee Aki or Jared Payne have somehow made Ireland more skillful, or Ben Te'o for England, Parkes for Wales.

Anyway, Ireland clearly didn't have enough variety to beat England. I imagine they will already be preparing something along those lines for the RWC - if they weren't before, they certainly will now.

Well as far as Im concerned youre still dabbling in a large dose of mediocrity. NH seems hellbent on making NH rugby as successful as it can possibly be and that is illustrated by the millions...hundreds of millions you have spent purely on SH players and coaches.

The ONLY reason one would want Schmidt or Gatland or Jones at the helm of the countries they are is to compete successfully with the best. If they delved in the mediocrity that you suggest then they would use local coaches who in general have no idea how to push towards the number one position.

So I doubt you speak for the NH rugby public in general. They want success at both club and international level within the rugby environment. Anything less and youre just kidding yourself or making excuses.

If anything it is we follow the ‘we are happy with our rugby’ stance more than you do, we have our own players, our own coaches, and our own crowds. You get what weve got. We are not the desperate ones trying to buy in every piece of rugby IP internationally that we can lay our hands on to improve. We cant afford to do that so we do the very best with what we have.

Id suggest you get out of that self pity, wallowing in mediocrity mode and start supporting the genuine push your profesional environment is very much invested in. Either way its no skin off my nose but as I said, I doubt you represent the majority, because if you did, Ireland for one wouldnt be at no. 2.

I sure wouldnt have you on any rugby board. The depression woukd kick in real quick.

Well congrats to England. Good game.

I don't really get the point you're trying to make Tman. I accept I've gone off on one with my comment but I'm trying to paint you a picture to help you out with your conception of NH rugby and the wider things that come into play that perhaps you don't 'get' living in NZ.

I'm not arguing for the current state of things, I'm just giving my observations. Don't think I'm in any danger of being involved in any pro rugby board at any time in the near future, so no worries there.

Good luck quantifying the 'hundreds of millions' spent on SH players and coaches If there's a skills/experience gap, as there has been in NH rugby (again, where it isn't the #1 sport in any tier 1 country bar Wales) for a while relative to the SH, would you not employ the best talent, or be employed as the best talent for good money, if the situation arose? Of course you would - just like NZ benefit from people, skills and expertise outside NZ too. But that's a debate that's been done to death and not really worth talking about.

You do seem to have a pretty warped view of NH rugby as some kind of wealthy, talent grabbing syndicate out to rob talent from the pure, rich shores of the SH.

Tbh it sounds a bit like you've broken up with a girlfriend and, yep, you've guessed it - she's going out with NH Rugby now instead. Easy to create this caricature of NH Rugby as the bad guy in such a scenario...but I don't really get it when it comes to the 'real' world situation. What are you so upset about/afraid of?

Yeah there's been a player/coach/talent drain, to an extent. But I wouldn't call the current situation of NH Rugby mediocrity or unsuccessful. What I'm trying to make you understand is that there is no team in world sport that has dominated like the ABs have when it comes to RU: clearly there is something systemic there that has seen the game flourish over many decades of commitment, competition, and passion for and to the game. Bringing this back round to tactics and 'technical' ability again (let's no rehash old arguments about NH v SH) eventually, any truly dominant sporting team or environment gets found out and repllaced. The most obvious recent example for me is Barcelona in football. Effectively Guardiola brought in some very novel, revolutionary ideas to certain aspects of the game, and inspired a whole cultural shift across the world - but eventually they got found out. It took the best part of 8 years, but they were tactically outdone by Bayern Munich at the highest level and from there the whole tiki taka style as it was collapsed, and had to be replaced/updated dramatically.

The ABs are an anomaly in that, by and large, they stay 2 steps ahead of that 'working out' stage because their environments are so good. If players leave, the competition all down the pyramid fosters a skillful all round game in most players that ensures the replacement coming in will do an adequate job to be one of the best players in the world in their position. Obviously there's a limit to this but as far as I can tell it's the way NZ Rugby works. In Wales, that infrastructure simply isn't there. The club game is a farce, the gap between pro and semi-pro absolutely massive, and lack of depth means players with huge deficiencies become key regional players, or even internationals (Cuthbert). You don't create the best flowers by perpetually pumping miracle grow into the buds - in long term planning you need to sort the soil out first and build from there. What I'm saying is that no NH country really comes close to NZ in terms of 'soil quality'. The infrastructure is a lot better in Ireland and (in particular) England than Wales when it comes to standards and depth etc. and we're seeing that now in the top level - there are many, many reasons for that that go beyond SH talent though, it's borderline mental to think EJ has had a profound effect on English Rugby outside the national team. In fact, I think his remit was the opposite of Lancaster's in that he would focus solely on the test team. I'd say England winning the RWC probably inspired a generation outside the heartlands to pick up the game; how that translated into improving standards in the pro game, it's hard to say.

Anyway, my final point about tactics and technical ability. If the NH plays the game in a way that discards the 'conservative' tactical elements that people like Gatland, Schmidt, EJ etc. are employing, and move more towards a (Townsend-esque...from the NH!) creativity and 'space' oriented setup, the chances of competing with and beating NZ, Aus and even France decrease. Not only that, but you're also much more likely to find England and (if they got their act together) France winning almost all the time in the 6Ns as they have the biggest player pools, arguably the most dangerous and/or talented players and both teams could dominate the competition for years to come if everyone agreed to play sort of the same way.

Tactics are what teams use to account for deficiencies relative to an opponent; no team, not even the ABs, can compete with England's physicality when they're fired up in NH conditions. Yes, there's a number of key players with Pacific Islander heritage in their team - just as there is in NZ too. As I said, it's one of the ABs' key strengths. But just as the ABs' technical abilities help them play at a tempo and running game that often beats England's power game, every other team will have their response as well. We know what Wales' and Scotland's are. But this is the bread and butter for the NH: competing against other NH teams and doing their best to win. For some reason you don't seem to think it's valid: a game between Ireland and England is a chance to say 'yeah, but you wouldn't beat the ABs playing that way', despite the fact the winners lost by a point and the losers beat you a few months previously (so clearly a bit misguided as well).

I just don't get why you're unable to drop the antipodean lenses when discussing NH Rugby on a primarily NH Rugby forum? Genuinely?

Funny, don't remember the 70/80s AB fans complaining when they were beating flare teams like France and Australia back then with their up your jumper Fitzpatrick style rugby. And where is all this great skills rugby now in the current crop other than by way of a few of their many Islander imports? Typical delusional AB fan.

Ireland are probably more robotic now than England have ever been in the history of the game. Quite an achievement. Schmidt has so little faith in his team that they can’t make on field decisions for themselves. They can only grind, wrap-around and box-kick. Nothing else is permitted.

ebop wrote:Ireland are probably more robotic now than England have ever been in the history of the game. Quite an achievement. Schmidt has so little faith in his team that they can’t make on field decisions for themselves. They can only grind, wrap-around and box-kick. Nothing else is permitted.

God knows how they beat New Zealand then

Zzzzzz if you don't play in the same way as the Kiwi's you don't have skills? Why do people respond to this tosh?

Scottrf wrote:Zzzzzz if you don't play in the same way as the Kiwi's you don't have skills? Why do people respond to this tosh?

NH teams are riddled with kiwi coaches, players and influence so they’re trying to get a taste of it. Pretty sad really. NH teams are too scared of falling behind rather than trying to figure it out themselves.

Riddled? What's wrong with them - presumably not scurvy? Anyway, hope it's not catching!

Were it not for a dodgy TMO decision the oh so great All Blacks would and should have lost back to back games to the NH, not to mention catastrophically failing to get past the Lions.

Who would have thought that 2 losses in the last few years against Ireland would have developed so much dislike from certain AB fans against Ireland...

I cant remember if England fans received the same grief after Lancaster's team blew the AB's away a few years back.

More the disgraceful behaviour of the Irish rugby community after the ABs won in Dublin a couple years ago. It was off the scale and unprecedented. Really ugly. Lancaster is a gentleman and I applauded his England win and tenure.

ebop wrote:More the disgraceful behaviour of the Irish rugby community after the ABs won in Dublin a couple years ago. It was off the scale and unprecedented. Really ugly. Lancaster is a gentleman and I applauded his England win and tenure.

Wasn’t there a rumour that the Allblacks squad were suffering from a stomach virus prior to the match at Twickenham?

Most kiwi friends have applauded the Irish performance and rightly so.

It was before the Wales game the week before and then carried into the England match. There's always some reason why it's not fair. Now it's because the Irish are too rough apparently. They are to be told to play nicely in the next match.

ebop wrote:More the disgraceful behaviour of the Irish rugby community after the ABs won in Dublin a couple years ago. It was off the scale and unprecedented. Really ugly. Lancaster is a gentleman and I applauded his England win and tenure.

and it was all proven to be absolutely justified criticism as Fekitoa was cited and the ABs went on to throw away a Lions tour over ill discipline in particular in receiving their first red in 50 years. Lol, you couldn't make it up. So funny.

The only disgrace was that Sam Cane didn't get a red for his flying head butt. Maybe Karma served justice on that one.

ebop wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Zzzzzz if you don't play in the same way as the Kiwi's you don't have skills? Why do people respond to this tosh?

NH teams are riddled with kiwi coaches, players and influence so they’re trying to get a taste of it. Pretty sad really. NH teams are too scared of falling behind rather than trying to figure it out themselves.

The main Kiwi coaches Schmidt and Gatland have coached way more in the NH than the SH. They are practically from Wales and Ireland now.

Neither have been involved in NZ rugby in a long long time and that as of right now wont change no matter how desperate you are to somehow direct the credit back to NZ for their teams respective success. You come across as really desperate these days Ebop.

Having watched and played the game all trough my school years, but only watched since due to head injury, I think there is one important factor. History, especially of the Six Nations. The (sometimes justified) vitriol that passes across the boards between the participants is underpinned by social history as well as sporting. It seems to me, many SH supporters just don't get what winning & loosing is like in this most wonderful of competitions. Pre-world cup, the 5 Nations was everything. This, I believe, has led to a "Must Not loose" culture that has seeped into all aspects of our game. Styles of play have evolved to avoid loosing to a "hated" enemy. Hated because of sport, history, culture that has had about 2 thousand years to brew!!!

One thing tman or ebob have chosen to ignore was my point about their survival depending on money flowing down from NH to SH. It's a stark reality that without it NZ would struggle.
Now this is one reason the SH are pushing for this league of nations they see it as an opportunity to milk some more money (such as the 6n having to be on pay TV, more money into the pot for them).

Now if we look at the imbalance in money, and add in the new 5 year rule on being able to represent a country not of your birth, I can see this having a bigger effect on NZ and oz than of any of the NH teams, and the reason I believe this is Charles Piutau.

He moved north for the money. In his own words so he could provide for his family (the same reason a lot of PIs move to NZ and OZ) and in doing so he gave up a probable world cup spot with NZ.
But what did he do next?? Well he looked into representing Samoa in the upcoming world cup ( by playing 7s in a Olympic qualifier or some such).
Now granted that hasn't worked out, but it maybe in a few years if the money imbalance continues, that other players rather than hanging around to get that all blacks cap will choose to represent one of the countries from their Pacific Islands heritage, and move north sooner.
They can still play in world cups whilst providing for there family.
Something to think about.

Taylorman wrote:Exactly, nothings changed, which is why the demise of the sport in both SA and oz is why the NH is getting higher in the rankings, for it is at the expense of thise two. Irelands two wins vs the ABs is negligible in that respect but if oz and SA are only getting very rare wins vs the ABs, and are coughing up matches in the AIs, and in ozs case the june tours, the rankings are going to change.

So as you say, northern sides are adhering to the status quo, low risk game they have for near on a little over a century. And as a rule, its largely been unsuccessful. Northern and southern tours usually always went the SH way, bar oz, who came into international rugby proper rather late, and the world cup results, 7-1 in SH favour. So its a losing philosophy to date.

now they have better coaching, and are strangling the struggling oz and bok sides.

Which is why i think the world cup will bounce back into SH favour... because the SH sides will call on more resources than they ususlly do, scrape the barrell, turn every stone so to speak.

But as you say, if say Ireland are able to add something additional from a tactical sense, then they have a chance to compete. SA have tried to do that more recently as their set piece dominance isnt as prominent and skills are becoming more a part of their culture, a likely reflection of their changing demographics.

So in a way this loss is the best thing that could have happened as it gives Schmidt more to work with. Better to learn these things now.

The trouble with this is that it assume that other teams, including SH teams, have what it takes to overcome Ireland by adopting England's tactics. I do not think they do. It would require a team with the same raw power as England to make it work. Are there any?

If Scotland try this at the weekend they will lose. Scotland can win but only by using tactics that play to their strengths not England's.

The SH teams might come up with a way to beat this Ireland team but they have not really done it yet. They will not do it by copying England.

Earls apparently got injured from the kick-off and forced himself to stay on for 40 minutes.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/keith-earls-i-usually-know-my-body-i-should-have-come-off-earlier-37787194.html

I can see why he did it. I've done it before, picked up a knock in the opening exchanges and just played on. You don't want to let anyone down and you feel you have more to give in the match. Whereas if it had been in the second half, you may have come off straight away.

carpet baboon wrote:One thing tman or ebob have chosen to ignore was my point about their survival depending on money flowing down from NH to SH. It's a stark reality that without it NZ would struggle.
Now this is one reason the SH are pushing for this league of nations they see it as an opportunity to milk some more money (such as the 6n having to be on pay TV, more money into the pot for them).

Now if we look at the imbalance in money, and add in the new 5 year rule on being able to represent a country not of your birth, I can see this having a bigger effect on NZ and oz than of any of the NH teams, and the reason I believe this is Charles Piutau.

He moved north for the money. In his own words so he could provide for his family (the same reason a lot of PIs move to NZ and OZ) and in doing so he gave up a probable world cup spot with NZ.
But what did he do next?? Well he looked into representing Samoa in the upcoming world cup ( by playing 7s in a Olympic qualifier or some such).
Now granted that hasn't worked out, but it maybe in a few years if the money imbalance continues, that other players rather than hanging around to get that all blacks cap will choose to represent one of the countries from their Pacific Islands heritage, and move north sooner.
They can still play in world cups whilst providing for there family.
Something to think about.

Sorry I dont get how nz rugby struggles without nh money? The players get the salaries, nz rugby doesnt get any of it. Yes piutau went for the money because they were paying more. How does that mean without it nz rugby would struggle?

miaow wrote:I don't really get the point you're trying to make Tman. I accept I've gone off on one with my comment but I'm trying to paint you a picture to help you out with your conception of NH rugby and the wider things that come into play that perhaps you don't 'get' living in NZ.

I'm not arguing for the current state of things, I'm just giving my observations. Don't think I'm in any danger of being involved in any pro rugby board at any time in the near future, so no worries there.

Good luck quantifying the 'hundreds of millions' spent on SH players and coaches If there's a skills/experience gap, as there has been in NH rugby (again, where it isn't the #1 sport in any tier 1 country bar Wales) for a while relative to the SH, would you not employ the best talent, or be employed as the best talent for good money, if the situation arose? Of course you would - just like NZ benefit from people, skills and expertise outside NZ too. But that's a debate that's been done to death and not really worth talking about.

You do seem to have a pretty warped view of NH rugby as some kind of wealthy, talent grabbing syndicate out to rob talent from the pure, rich shores of the SH.

Tbh it sounds a bit like you've broken up with a girlfriend and, yep, you've guessed it - she's going out with NH Rugby now instead. Easy to create this caricature of NH Rugby as the bad guy in such a scenario...but I don't really get it when it comes to the 'real' world situation. What are you so upset about/afraid of?

Yeah there's been a player/coach/talent drain, to an extent. But I wouldn't call the current situation of NH Rugby mediocrity or unsuccessful. What I'm trying to make you understand is that there is no team in world sport that has dominated like the ABs have when it comes to RU: clearly there is something systemic there that has seen the game flourish over many decades of commitment, competition, and passion for and to the game. Bringing this back round to tactics and 'technical' ability again (let's no rehash old arguments about NH v SH) eventually, any truly dominant sporting team or environment gets found out and repllaced. The most obvious recent example for me is Barcelona in football. Effectively Guardiola brought in some very novel, revolutionary ideas to certain aspects of the game, and inspired a whole cultural shift across the world - but eventually they got found out. It took the best part of 8 years, but they were tactically outdone by Bayern Munich at the highest level and from there the whole tiki taka style as it was collapsed, and had to be replaced/updated dramatically.

The ABs are an anomaly in that, by and large, they stay 2 steps ahead of that 'working out' stage because their environments are so good. If players leave, the competition all down the pyramid fosters a skillful all round game in most players that ensures the replacement coming in will do an adequate job to be one of the best players in the world in their position. Obviously there's a limit to this but as far as I can tell it's the way NZ Rugby works. In Wales, that infrastructure simply isn't there. The club game is a farce, the gap between pro and semi-pro absolutely massive, and lack of depth means players with huge deficiencies become key regional players, or even internationals (Cuthbert). You don't create the best flowers by perpetually pumping miracle grow into the buds - in long term planning you need to sort the soil out first and build from there. What I'm saying is that no NH country really comes close to NZ in terms of 'soil quality'. The infrastructure is a lot better in Ireland and (in particular) England than Wales when it comes to standards and depth etc. and we're seeing that now in the top level - there are many, many reasons for that that go beyond SH talent though, it's borderline mental to think EJ has had a profound effect on English Rugby outside the national team. In fact, I think his remit was the opposite of Lancaster's in that he would focus solely on the test team. I'd say England winning the RWC probably inspired a generation outside the heartlands to pick up the game; how that translated into improving standards in the pro game, it's hard to say.

Anyway, my final point about tactics and technical ability. If the NH plays the game in a way that discards the 'conservative' tactical elements that people like Gatland, Schmidt, EJ etc. are employing, and move more towards a (Townsend-esque...from the NH!) creativity and 'space' oriented setup, the chances of competing with and beating NZ, Aus and even France decrease. Not only that, but you're also much more likely to find England and (if they got their act together) France winning almost all the time in the 6Ns as they have the biggest player pools, arguably the most dangerous and/or talented players and both teams could dominate the competition for years to come if everyone agreed to play sort of the same way.

Tactics are what teams use to account for deficiencies relative to an opponent; no team, not even the ABs, can compete with England's physicality when they're fired up in NH conditions. Yes, there's a number of key players with Pacific Islander heritage in their team - just as there is in NZ too. As I said, it's one of the ABs' key strengths. But just as the ABs' technical abilities help them play at a tempo and running game that often beats England's power game, every other team will have their response as well. We know what Wales' and Scotland's are. But this is the bread and butter for the NH: competing against other NH teams and doing their best to win. For some reason you don't seem to think it's valid: a game between Ireland and England is a chance to say 'yeah, but you wouldn't beat the ABs playing that way', despite the fact the winners lost by a point and the losers beat you a few months previously (so clearly a bit misguided as well).

I just don't get why you're unable to drop the antipodean lenses when discussing NH Rugby on a primarily NH Rugby forum? Genuinely?

Miaow youre off on your own tangent with this, and does everyone drop their own lenses when commenting here. Aah, that would be ‘no’. And I se Retallick is touted to join Sale next year so at 27, one of our favourite rugby sons os off to join yet another club nobody here knows or cares anything about. Thats great for he and his family but my role here is as a fan so i fail to understand how you dont see how that pees us off. The NH see super and RC rugby as tv shopping and anyone who isnt thick as a plank would know that it would be annoying to see dozens of players tread north every year, so our only reprieve is to laugh at the quality you turn out yourselves.

Taylor man, surely it should be New Zealand that needs not look at itself. NZ is known primarily (only?) on a world scale for rugby. Pay your players what they are worth. If your economy can’t afford it then accept they will go elsewhere.

Cyril wrote:Taylor man, surely it should be New Zealand that needs not look at itself. NZ is known primarily (only?) on a world scale for rugby. Pay your players what they are worth. If your economy can’t afford it then accept they will go elsewhere.

Oh we accept that's the case, there's no other choice, and there's not a lot we can do. But the offspin is that the north continue to create a foundation they now can't sustain with their own resources. 'greed' has kicked in purely because you have a market that is prepared to watch more and more matches. Without the SH players the NH club comp as it is now would collapse overnight, not being able to sustain anywhere near the number of teams at the quality levels they are now.

So while its our issue, there's also an element of greed that is hurting the global game at the international and franchise level below. Its a model that can't continue to be sustained. So yeah I'll guess we'll do something, such as signing everyone who plays the game here to require a massive buy out clause, payable by the new owners. No problem if they can afford it and what we have invested in the player doesn't go to waste. Same argument goes, we might be hurting our own players futures by denying them lucrative overseas careers but at the same time we trained them up, only to see that work go to someone elses pockets. Somethings gotta give, and hopefully that will be the financial collapse of these clubs all out for the dollar regardless of what damage they leave behind. I'll certainly celebrate if any northern club or union keels over.

Taylor - a serious question which I think that the answer to is unclear.

Does the exit of guys like Piutau and (possibly) Retallick weaken or strengthen the national side? They would have been in a first choice All Blacks 23, but other young players will be given their chance as a result. It doesn't seem to have hurt the national team's results in recent years, if you're a NH simpleton like me, but I don't know what the likes of Gregor Paul or the Jedi would say.

Taylorman wrote:I'll certainly celebrate if any northern club or union keels over.

I won't celebrate if anyone keels over. That's why, rather than crowing, I'm concerned about the recent report showing a sharp drop in rugby participation at school level in New Zealand. It's a worry that Auckland is becoming such a union-free zone, that tickets for the Mitre 10 final had to be given away free last year, even when the match was against traditional rivals Canterbury. Why are attendances so poor for the national sport when the overall population has been growing? If New Zealand is supposed to be the gatekeeper of the soul of rugby union, then it's asleep at the wheel.

Rugby sevens is an example of how it's possible to turn things around. When attendances in Wellington fell off a cliff, I kept hearing that sevens isn't regarded as real rugby. Change the location to Hamilton, and improve the marketing, and suddenly we you get sold out crowds, amounting to roughly three times the number going to the last Wellington sevens. It helps that the All Black Sevens side is now coached by a Scot, and is a serious competitor again for the top titles and medals.

You can't afford to take grassroots support for granted. As Miaow points out, Wales is a case study in how fragile that underpinning can be. Also, don't assume when crowds don't turn up, the product must be wrong. You have to keep rivalries stoked, and people engaged. You can't do that purely from the top down.

George Carlin wrote:Taylor - a serious question which I think that the answer to is unclear.

Does the exit of guys like Piutau and (possibly) Retallick weaken or strengthen the national side? They would have been in a first choice All Blacks 23, but other young players will be given their chance as a result. It doesn't seem to have hurt the national team's results in recent years, if you're a NH simpleton like me, but I don't know what the likes of Gregor Paul or the Jedi would say.

Logic says it must weaken the side, regardless of results, simply because we dont have the choice of the former over the newbie. We force super rugby careers onto our players sooner than we need to simply because we need to continually replace players much...and by much, sometimes ten years, in Piutaus worse case scenario.

That means we force players into mitre ten to replace them and so on. We can cope simply because our local standards are higher than others, but that doesnt negate the fact that some players will be pushed into positions before theyre ready.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:I'll certainly celebrate if any northern club or union keels over.

I won't celebrate if anyone keels over. That's why, rather than crowing, I'm concerned about the recent report showing a sharp drop in rugby participation at school level in New Zealand. It's a worry that Auckland is becoming such a union-free zone, that tickets for the Mitre 10 final had to be given away free last year, even when the match was against traditional rivals Canterbury. Why are attendances so poor for the national sport when the overall population has been growing? If New Zealand is supposed to be the gatekeeper of the soul of rugby union, then it's asleep at the wheel.

Rugby sevens is an example of how it's possible to turn things around. When attendances in Wellington fell off a cliff, I kept hearing that sevens isn't regarded as real rugby. Change the location to Hamilton, and improve the marketing, and suddenly we you get sold out crowds, amounting to roughly three times the number going to the last Wellington sevens. It helps that the All Black Sevens side is now coached by a Scot, and is a serious competitor again for the top titles and medals.

You can't afford to take grassroots support for granted. As Miaow points out, Wales is a case study in how fragile that underpinning can be. Also, don't assume when crowds don't turn up, the product must be wrong. You have to keep rivalries stoked, and people engaged. You can't do that purely from the top down.

I dont know about the drop off but Id be looking at more than a report to go there. Wellington simply got bored of the Sevens. I did, and I went to them several times in Wellington. Its more of a novelty for most here, it captured the wider non rugby population through the costumes, music, party atmosphere. It had been in Wellington since 2000 odd. How many times can a city of 240k keep filling the stadium up every year?

Do you have a venue in the NH that supported it full house for fifteen years?

Itll die off in Hamilton as well when the novelty wears off.

And from a players perspective Auckland is by far the best producing city of rugby players in the world in the pro era. Trouble with that is everyone wants a piece of their youth. There are more players in professional rugby originally from Auckland than any other city world wide. By far. Scouts are everywhere. Look at your own club sides. Auckland players everywhere. They also provide a reasonable percentage of the NRL. Rugby players switched to league.

And youre wanting to talk about the take up? When the take away has been far more significant. We can only provide for so much in the rugby world.

No NH union or club would ‘keel over’ even if NZ pulled their players out overnight. They would just move on, adapt and use the money elsewhere.

I know that NZ isn’t a rich nation, but it really needs to find a way of rewarding its players better or find a way of instilling greater loyalty in the younger players. If NH clubs are greedy and self-serving so are NZ players.

Cyril wrote:No NH union or club would ‘keel over’ even if NZ pulled their players out overnight. They would just move on, adapt and use the money elsewhere.

I know that NZ isn’t a rich nation, but it really needs to find a way of rewarding its players better or find a way of instilling greater loyalty in the younger players. If NH clubs are greedy and self-serving so are NZ players.

Thats what McCaw said but you cant pay everyone top dollar here. Pay the first rung and they take the second, pay the second rung and they take the third, and so on until it becomes self defeating.  Youd have to be paying players large sums when they dont even make the cut for super rugby, but might next year. As Luatua said when it came down the salary options, between the All Blacks and Bristol, it was ‘night and day’.

Yes the players are greedy, using your words, and Ive no qualms about that. Every individual should deserve the highest dollar but Im not holding each player for the plight of NZ rugby because they take those positions though someone like McCaw who played Saders and NZ only, deserve a ton of respect. At least he retained one of the core loyalty values of the amateur era which is nice. He said he couldnt do justice playing for a team he knew nothing about. But then financially he will have been in a better position to do that. Piutau wasnt.

Plain and simple, we know how to play and coach the game to high standards, we dont make great watchers, and there aint enough of us for that. Professionalism has both rewarded and punished us. Just the way it is.

And yes the northern club scene would fall over if every SH player and coach upd and left today. They wouldnt be able to replace the quality, and fans woukdnt want to start watching nobodys. Take Bristol, 19 overseas players, many very handy test players. Not the best side but Certainly any success will be largely down to that core group.

Take them and Lam out tonight, and who would Bristol field on the weekend? For one thing not a side that would be worth watching.

Pretty much spot on Cyril, you can hardly blame the NH sides or the players in this instance. If NZRU got close to the amounts offered the players wouldn't leave. Doesn't stop you feeling for the average NZ rugby fan though, it must be rather annoying to say the least!

‘We don’t make good watchers’

Given that NZ has a population pushing 5 million, has rugby as far and away it’s number one sport and is basically known around the world for rugby it’s a bit of an embarrassment if it can’t sustain itself. Sounds like the population need to start getting out there and start pumping money into the sport if they want to keep players at home.

Is the union just resting on its laurels? Could government funding help? Does there need to be a publicity drive to get the nation back in love with its sport? More Hakas? Fewer hakas? Free booze? Extra childcare? Doughnuts for all?

Cyril wrote:Taylor man, surely it should be New Zealand that needs not look at itself. NZ is known primarily (only?) on a world scale for rugby. Pay your players what they are worth. If your economy can’t afford it then accept they will go elsewhere.

Actually, New Zealand is known for a lot more than just Rugby, they are world class in many sports such as cricket, netball, hockey, sailing etc. I would say that along with Australia, they are a naturally sport orientated nation. There is only so much money to be distributed across all these sports and it has to be shared proportionally.

NZ are also always fighting against geography. There is a lot of travel involved for both the 4Ns and SR. Allied to the low population and crowds, especially for international games, can never compare. RFU probably make as much money from a single home game as NZRU do from a whole season.

The drain on playing talent probably hurts NH rugby more than NZ. This sounds stupid, but first it is very rare for the best ABs to leave. Sure there were rumours about Retallick, but these seem to have crashed and burned while the money being discussed is far more likely to have broken Sale than using local players would. Crowds do turn out for superstars, but TBH most of the local population would never have heard of Retallick. Sale are a side who have produced a lot of players and regularly see them leave. For a while Wasps seemed to be using them as an academy, now it is IRFU

So instead of taking the stars, we tend to take the second, third string players and imo overpay for them. Or we take journeymen who are cheap. Either way it ends up weakening the sides and their bonds with the fans. It is my opinion but that very few of the big name signings have provided value for money.

Meanwhile NZ is able to give game time to younger players earlier and they develop to be much better than the largely backup players they replace. I know it is horrible when a bunch of your favourites leave, but you can either wallow in self pity or enjoy the new bunch.

Where NH rugby has really benefitted is the influx of coaches raising the playing standards. Sadly they have not raised the standards of our coaches. Yet NZ have also benefitted. Hanson and Henry returned as better coaches than when they left, and help develop the next generation of coaches. Some of whom will also come and partake in the NH finishing school.

Cyril wrote:‘We don’t make good watchers’

Given that NZ has a population pushing 5 million, has rugby as far and away it’s number one sport and is basically known around the world for rugby it’s a bit of an embarrassment if it can’t sustain itself. Sounds like the population need to start getting out there and start pumping money into the sport if they want to keep players at home.

Is the union just resting on its laurels? Could government funding help? Does there need to be a publicity drive to get the nation back in love with its sport? More Hakas? Fewer hakas? Free booze? Extra childcare? Doughnuts for all?

Really? Five milions a lot is it? First Id heard.