It’s Game On for NH v SH rugby bragging rights
By Spiro Zavos, 5 Nov 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, England rugby, Jonny Wilkinson, Rugby Union, Wales rugby, wallabies
170 Have your say
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- England Rugby Union news
- 2011 Wallabies squad news

New Zealand's Jerry Collins, center, attempts to get past Wales' Stephen Jones, left, and Robert Sidoli, right obscured, during their international rugby union match at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. AP Photo/Matt Dunham
On Saturday night, the Wallabies play England and the All Blacks play Wales, two intriguing Tests that have their origins back in the 1900s when New Zealand (1905), South Afrrica (1906) and Australia (1908) made their first tours of what was then, and even now unfortunately, called the Home Unions.
I say ‘unfortunately’ because this title of the Home Unions denotes a sort of proprietary and benevolent control over the rugby game, which the unions concerned, England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, have not honoured.
Wales (the exception) in several different decades of the the last 100 years, Scotland in the 1920s, Ireland in the late 1940s and again in the last couple of years, and England between 2001 and 2003, fielded national teams that graced the rugby fields with their expansive, skillful rugby.
But most of the time their rugby has been what the veteran British rugby journalist, John Hopkins, described Gloucester’s play as being going down to the Wallabies last night: “Honest endeavoiur, plodding play and a lack of skill.”
Much the same sort of comment could have been made about Gloucester when they played the then Rabbits who later on the tour became the Wallabies in the first match of the 1908 Australian tour of the United Kingdom.
Aside from the Southern Hemisphere powers leading the way for rugby on the field (with 5 wins out of 6 in the Rugby World Cup tournament), they have also pioneered virtually every improvement in the game off the field.
In 1895, the Rugby Football Union (the English union) expelled the strong rugby counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire from the RFU because they wanted to pay their players, who were mainly miners, compensation for rugby injuries.
This injustice to the players led directly to the creation of the rugby league code, and destroyed rugby union’s strong chance of becoming the world football game.
It was the NSWRU in 1995 with its unilateral declaration that as far as it was concerned rugby was now a professional game that prompted the IRB to redress the 1895 decision and allow rugby union to become a dynamic world sport with a place (with Sevens Rugby) in the Olympics.
Many readers of The Roar with Northern Hemisphere allegiances get quite angry with me when I bring up all this history before the Spring Tours of the Southern Hemisphere rugby powers.
But there is a reason for continually re-stating this history.
The sad fact is that the reluctance of the Northern Hemisphere powers to embrace needed reforms in the laws and the way rugby is played has had a recent manifestation in the rejection of the IRB’s carefully designed and trialled experimental law variations (the ELVs).
It is up to the Northern Hemisphere teams in the coming Tests with their Southern Hemisphere rivals to demonstrate that at the Test level, the lack of the full ELVs regime is no impediment to them playing modern, attacking, skillful and successful rugby.
Mick Cleary, the experienced rugby writer for the (UK) Daily Telegraph, has stated in a recent article that it is time for the “European nations to front up.”
For Wales and Ireland, teams that are full of players who did well on the British and Irish Lions tour of South Africa, “there are no get out clauses.”
Cleary insists that “anything less than a clean sweep of victories would rate as a disappointment” for Wales and Ireland. Wales has three coaches who were involved in the Lions tour and there should be “some spin-off” from this.
As for Ireland, they are the Grand Slam Six Nations title holders, something that was last achieved by Ireland (in a Five Nations tournament) 61 years ago when the great five-eighths Jackie Kyle was at his mesmeric best. According to Cleary, Ireland “can’t afford to lapse now” if they want to be genuine contenders for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
For England, Cleary insists that anything less than two victories out of the Tests against Australia, Argentina and New Zealand is unacceptable for their coach Martin Johnson. His position must be under threat if England, with its huge reservoir of players, can’t achieve a two-out-of-three result.
Cleary just accepts that Scotland, which wields far too much power within the IRB in my opinion, will probably lose all its matches to the touring sides.
England are greatly strengthened by the return of Jonny Wilkinson.
Wilkinson, like Morne Steyn for the Bulls (again in the Currie Cup final against the Cheetahs) and the Springboks, has the skills and the rugby nous of taking points, either through penalties, dropped goals and the occasional try, virtually every time his team is within goal-kicking distance of the opposition posts.
It was Wilkinson who turned around England’s fortunes in the 2007 Rugby World Cup.
The side was thrashed by South Africa in the pool round, when Wilkinson was out injured. When the champion returned, he kicked (literally) Australia out of the quarter-finals, France out of the semi-finals and then kept England in the tight final against against South Africa.
If Wilkinson is on his game, England have a chance against the Wallabies on Saturday. Hopefully, Robbie Deans will devise tactics to place the utmost pressure on England’s best player.
As for Wales against New Zealand, the All Blacks have not lost in Europe, aside from the quarter-final in the 2007 World Cup, since 2002. They haven’t lost to Wales since 1953.
There are two ways of looking at this run of wins. It has to come to an end, perhaps sooner rather than later? Or, the victories over Wales have become self-fulfilling prophecies for the All Blacks which are liable to continue for years to come.
My guess is (and a guess is a less confident assessment that a prediction) that Australia will defeat England on Saturday and then Ireland the week later. And the All Blacks will beat Wales and then England two weeks later.
If these results come through, then the bragging rights for yet another year will go once again to the Southern Hemisphere rugby powers. And sooner rather than later, these bragging rights will surely turn into real rights for the Southern Hemisphere in deciding the future course of the world rugby game, on and off the field.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
- Explore:
- All Blacks, England rugby, Jonny Wilkinson, Rugby Union, Wales rugby, wallabies

Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 2:31am | Report comment
What a progressive article about the coming games. Somebody needs to contact HMV because this record is broken.
Rowdy said | November 5th 2009 @ 2:36am | Report comment
I don’t suppose this meaningless, stupid and destructive NH – SH name-calling will go away in my lifetime, will it ?
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 2:39am | Report comment
No, you crazy, SA SH conservative bastard!
Only joking, Rowdy. Boring isn’t it?
sportym said | November 5th 2009 @ 3:04am | Report comment
Frankly who cares! This NH v SH stuff is irrelevant.
Given the Wallabies record this year and the press talking up the 1984 grand-slam, anything less then 3 wins for the wallabies will be totally unacceptable. Could are less about history of the game, what I expect is to see the wallabies winning again!
Corey said | January 29th 2010 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
I would actually like to see a NH team (like the British and Irish Lions do) vs a SH team (imagine that- it would mostly only have South Africa and New Zealand, with a token Wallaby and Argentinian). It would be a great advertisement for the game.
Jay said | January 29th 2010 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Good idea. Lets play it under the expanded EVL’s here and existing rules there for a joke!
However, an ANZACs side was mentioned a couple of years ago to replicate the lions tours and practically, I think this will be possible given Aus and NZs geography, demographics and cultural history.
Rowdy said | November 5th 2009 @ 3:13am | Report comment
Boring yet strangely irritating, KO.
Sportym, it is meaningless outside of sports hacks up here and down there. Interesting that 3 wins is a pass for the Wallabies – we think it’s a minimum of 2 wins for England to get a pass mark.
I’m expecting a 10-13 point win for the Wallies followed by Rob Andrew saying not my fault guv and Johnno telling us that the England team was badly affected by injury. Even though I suspect that this XV is actually better than his first choice would be (and which we’ll presumably see again come 6N time).
6 years of poor selection, no discernible game plan, narrow losses hailed as We’re moving in the right direction.. I think I may start following football.
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 3:31am | Report comment
I would be feeling more comfortable with England having had a warm-up game under their belt, Rowdy. I think the game will be close, with Australia having shown no backline cohesion whatsoever. I don’t think that the selection is spot on, but what can you do with nearly 30 injured players?
Colin N said | November 5th 2009 @ 4:22am | Report comment
“I don’t think that the selection is spot on, but what can you do with nearly 30 injured players?”
Who would you have picked KO?
Personally, I would have had Foden in at full-back with Monye on the wing instead of Banahan, and Tait on the bench instead of Erinle.
I also don’t rate Deacon, but is there anyone else? I wouldn’t start with Lawes straight away.
I would have started with Hartley, but I think a slight hamstring niggle means he’s on the bench.
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 6:42am | Report comment
In an ideal world I would have Flatman at 1 and Borthwick not in the team, but from the EPS squad I would definitely have selected a different 22: Bell to start ahead of Wilson because a) Wilson hasn’t played much this season and b) Bell is huge man who is an excellent technical scrummager. I think that Robinson would struggle to gain any advantage off him. Also, what impact can Bell offer in the latter stages of the game? Conversely Wilson could offer real impact in the dying stages. Payne has reasonably soft hands so perhaps Johnson envisages a carrying front row.
Deacon should not be starting at 4, but considering injuries what other options are there given that Kennedy and Kay are both middle jumpers? Like you say Lawes deserves to be brought along modestly. I also have issues with the back row. Armitage is the form 7 but is still young. Moody has looked rejuvinated following his lay off and he is very experienced. It makes sense to play him with Croft and Crane, but I don’t like the balance. Payne, Deacon, Borthwick and Crane are all plodders who lack dynamism. They need to secure quick ball but I don’t think they’re capable of doing that. In light of that I think it would have made sense to have played Worlsley instead of Moody (and played Moody off the bench) and really looked to do a number on the Australian pack. At least Haskell offers power from the pine.
The backline looks exciting, but like the pack I am worried about the balance. Monye is not a fullback. His handling was shown to be suspect on the wing on the Lions tour and yet he is being selected to counter the Australian kicking game. Monye could either thrive due to the fact that the Australian kicking game has been erratic this year, or he could struggle under a succession of Giteau bombs. Further, of the entire back three none are first rate kickers. I also worry that Banahan’s lack of sprinters pace will be exposed. I would have preferred to see a player like Strettle.
Payne, Thompson, Bell, L. Deacon, Borthwick, Croft, Worsley, Crane, P. Hodgson, Wilkinson, Monye, Geraghty, Hipkiss, Cueto, Foden
Hartley, Wilson, Lawes, Moody, Care, Goode, Tait
hayden said | November 5th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
What difference does it make if Armitage is young? If he’s the form 7, surely he should be in the side, on the bench at least. Why is it England seems averse to picking youngsters? I can think of many Kiwi players who were picked young, and went on to great things, often playing their best rugby in their younger years – BG Williams, Lomu, Kirwan, M Jones, McCaw, Carter etc.
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
How can England be averse to picking youngsters when Johnson has selected so many over the past season? Armitage is young and 7 is a key position. Croft and Crane are equally inexperienced thus a balance needs to be struck, hence the inclusion of Moody.
CraigB said | November 5th 2009 @ 6:51am | Report comment
KO everytime you mention the injury count it keeps getting bigger. The figure I have read is 21 out 60 squad members from both the England and Saxon squads. Imagine if that squad your entire professional pool of players…. Build a bridge mate we all have injuries
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Build a bridge? Build a brain, mate. Australia has no injuries except Sharpe. SA has no injuries except Spies and Smith. Imagine if England spent 4 months in test camp, played the best players in the world regularly, played in the best tournaments in the world regularly and played the least debilitating amount of games per-season. Imagine that? Nobody in the world has a pool of 60 professional players to choose from except perhaps Argentina. Try this on for size:
Sheridan (32 caps), Mullan (uncapped), Wood (uncapped), Mears (34), Webber (uncapped), Vickery (73), White (51), Cole (uncapped), Shaw (52), Blaze (uncapped), Rees (15), Woods (uncapped), Easter (27), Narraway (7), Ellis (25), Flood (25), Cipriani (7), Vesty (2), Flutey (9), Turner-Hall (uncapped), Tindall (60), Waldouck (uncapped), D. Armitage (11), Morgan (2)… All from the previous EPS squads.
Not 27, but not 21 either. I read 26 and thus boosted the 26 to 27 in light of Tindall’s injury.
Harry said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Enteratning reading Poms. Knives Out …. “Australia has no injuries except Sharpe”. Err not quite … Mortock, Barnes, a hhost of locks/second rows.
Rowdy … “6 years of poor selection, no discernible game plan, narrow losses hailed as We’re moving in the right direction..
Wallaby supporters know exactly how you feel. In fact quite a few Aus supporters have defected to following soccer … its only the true rugby supporters left. Players like Cross and Hynes are nowhere near previous Australian backs like Campes e and Horan.
Two poor sides, but heh it will still be a great contest. The Poms have home advantage which might tell.
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Right… Barnes.. my bad. Mortlock is on tour and fit. So that’s Barnes and Kimlin?
Bay35Pablo said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Shepherd, Caldwell (OK, uncapped, but would be in there ahead of Dennis), Mortlock will miss the 1st two tests, Horne.
anopinion said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Sharpe, Mortlock, Barnes and Horne.
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
No injuries except Sharpe. And Barnes, and Mortlock. Plus the couple that weren’t selected to tour because of injury (Waugh, Sheppard, Cummins)
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Mortlock is stil on tour. Barnes and Horne from the tourists, and Sharpe, Kimlin and Cummins prior to the tour. Shepard has been a long-term injury, no?
CraigB said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Mortlock is on tour but still injured. Barnes,Sharpe, Kimlin,Waugh,Sheppard,Horne.
Dunning just come back from serious injury same with Kepu. As I said we all have injuries.
Vented Relief said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Adam Freier, Sam Wykes…. the list goes on
Pete said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Its almost as if we’re trying to outdo each other in the ‘underdgo states” so whoever loses has an excuse. As Chopper would say “Harden up people” .
Thems the cards we’re dealt. Get behind the team and support them! No excuses…
Hermin said | November 5th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Graigb,
Don’t be silly my boy, SH teams are not allowed to have injuries and it can never be used as an excuse for an indifferent performance by a SH team.
I alluded to this point in another post afew days ago and was subjected to a torrent of ridiculous accusations and rubbish from the same Mr Knives Out,
Strangely he would not accept the ABs having 11 players out to injury in the June tests but expects us to take pity on the English who I assume is his team because they have a few injuries.
Funny that!
Everyteam has injuries but only the NH can use it as an excuse for failure
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
Firstly I didn’t subject you to a torrent of anything. I simply stated that you were quite obviously Hemjay. Secondly you are Hemjay. That is abundantly clear from the same old nonsense you are trotting out months after a NZ defeat. I should also remind you that I have pointed out at various times that I am pro-NZ, and at no point did I gloat or jibe NZ following that loss. I should remind you further that France were missing nearly 10 players so please try and balance your mildly perverse obsession with a bit of accuracy and clarity. If you think that SA missing Smith and Spies and Australia missing Horne, Sharpe and Barnes is commensurate with the injuries hat England has then I would have to seriously question your intelligence.
Hermin said | November 5th 2009 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
The only thing abundantlky clear here Knives is your constant ranting and raving.
Seriously who do you think you are. I have no idea who you are accusing me of being. So heres the deal. Just run along and entertain yourself because I do not have time for obnoxious posters such as yourself.
Put up or shutup I think is the correct term.
The only one who needs their iintelligence questenioned here. Is the obnoxious cyber wannabe bully that is Knives out. How about you take a breather buddy and get off those paranoid pills. the world and the roar is not about Knives Out! Like you others are allowed opinions if you don’t like it suck it up and move along.
I look forward to your next post of self promotion and another pathetic attempt to accuse me of being someone else.
How about posting in your own nations threads and spin your theories there because its blatantly obvious they need all they help they can get!
Then again our rugby is better down in these parts and quite obviously so are the SH columns, why else would you be here so much?
Viscount Crouchback said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Not sure how you work out that this XV is better than England’s first choice XV, Rowdy. Sheridan, Vickery (or White), Shaw, Easter, Armitage and Flutey would be nailed on certainties if fit. That’s six players – more than a third of the team. You can make a case for adding Tindall, Mears and Rees to that list, which makes nine players.
The point about the injuries is not that England don’t have capable chaps to come in – they do – but rather that most of those chaps will have never played together before. A lack of experience between combinations tends to be brutally exposed at any level of rugger, but especially at Test level. England’s 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 have never played together. It’s laughably ignorant to expect them to be anything other than hit-and-miss.
Nick (KIA) said | November 5th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
“6 years of poor selection, no discernible game plan, narrow losses hailed as We’re moving in the right direction.. I think I may start following football.”
Sorry, did you say you were a Wallabies or England fan? That statement would do for either…
Neil said | November 5th 2009 @ 3:21am | Report comment
Just substitute every reference to “southern hemisphere” with “an australian led and managed sanzar alliance” and i think we come close to actual motive behind this article.
tell me again where all our players go to earn proper money and see out their careers with stability and a future?
last i checked it wasn’t australia. i think the country’s with the most financial clout, stability and invested interest in the future of the sport should have the final say in the future of the sport. and once again, that certainly isn’t australia.
in fact, given the nature of this constant complaining about the quality of the game the rest of the world loves week in week out, i don’t think australia even has a future in the sport, let alone a divine right to decide it’s future.
Bay35Pablo said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
So why are we bothering with the arbitration about Melbourne v Kings. If Australia is in control?
Bill said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Has there been any word on the date when the arbitration decision will be made public?
Neil said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:02pm | Report comment
I don’t refer to the current status quo with that statement, just John O’Neill’s vision.
Brendan said | November 5th 2009 @ 3:29am | Report comment
Great article Spiro and also necessary as rugby must be the only major world sport where the historically dominant teams have had little or no say on how the game should be played.
Spiro, you could also have mentioned the english referee who, in a game played in England in the late 19th or early 20th century, penalised the one side for throwing a cut out pass, apparently on the basis that it was un-sportsmanlike!!
Lee said | November 5th 2009 @ 5:15am | Report comment
Yes its the “laws” fault eh?
It’ so refreshing when teams get to play under the ELVs like they did in the Currie Cup final, Super 14 semi and final involving the Bulls, the British and Irish Lions tour, the Brisbane Australia-SA game…oh wait…those were played with the rules that clearly require “needed reforms”.
Maybe the state of the rugby has everything to do with: 1) the lack of quality players in the Aussie teams this year 2) the desire of teams to slow the ball down in their own 22 because they would rather give away 3 than 7 points.
Actually good point, I have one law change that would result in more tries – the introduction of a new card – mayb the blue card – that carries a 5 minute sin bin, it is to be handed out to any player who commits a professional foul in the aim of preventing the opposition attacking continuity in their own 22. 2 whites = yellow so therefore any player who gets 4 white cards gets a red.
fred said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:03am | Report comment
yeah and a rainbow card to go with your tuti-fruti idea and more LBW DECISIONS.
LEAGUE AND AFL WILL BE ECSTASIZING
Lee said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Uh..yeah sorry figured Aussies wouldn’t go for it. There team would constantly be playing with 14 or less….
You’re right much simpler to change every other law – thats the aim eh? The more law changes the better???
Pete said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
“Aussies wouldn’t go for it” we do very well in games when there are only 13 on the field…
Lee said | November 5th 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Haha good call…but what if the opposition had 15?
Bay35Pablo said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
That’s Spiro’s point. The Home Nations need to show they can play with similar enterprise under the new old laws.
Lee said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Why?? If that is the style of rugby they chose to play, where is it written that they have to play what Aus/NZ view as “real” rugby.
Besides this constant moaning that the north doesn’t play entertaining rugby is rubbish – watch the Lions tour, watch the Ireland-Wales 6 Nations game, or France or even England sometimes. They are all capable of playing “real” rugby they just don’t think it is the be all and end all like the Australasians do. (Will choose to ignore the fact tha if the Aussies ever won a game through penalties I very much doubt that Spiro would write an article saying they should have taken the loss).
Rugby has many different styles (like many other games) to label one as being better or more in the spirit of the game than the other, quite frankly shows an arrogance.
Lee said | November 5th 2009 @ 5:58am | Report comment
Just a quick follow up about the ELVs…..
Here are the results of the Super 14 for the last 2 years(excluding semi finals and finals)…
2009 2008
Points scored 4042 4000
BP 4 tries 58 46
BP -7 48 36
Tries 498 483
As you can see 2008 with the ELVs yielded fewer points, fewer tries, and fewer Bonus Points.
When you look at the range of competition points Top of table – bottom of table. The range ofr 2008 was 40 and the range for 2009 was 34, perhaps indicating a closer competition…
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 6:45am | Report comment
Incidentally, I recall working out that if one took the ELV 3N and worked out the average amount of tries scored per game the figure is around 4.23 (or something similar – this is off the top of my head), and that the amount of tries scored per game from 00-08 (excluding the conditioning 07 3N) is basically the same at 4.2 (or something).
Vented Relief said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
So what are you trying to say? That in 2009 the players and coaches had become accustomed to the ELVs and had started opening up the game?
Lee said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Hardly when in 2009 the game was not played under the ELVs. What I am saying is that the constant complaining that the reason there are so many penalties in the game and that it is boring is because the north didn’t accept the ELVs is pure nonsense..
From the figures it looks as if running rugby is in fact possible under either set of rules – but I wouldn’t expect the facts to get in the way of any agendas.
What I would like to see is the stats for the use of the up and under with the ELVs(specifically no kicking out on the full when the ball was passed back into the 22) compared to without.
Vented Relief said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:05pm | Report comment
Lee your argument makes no sense. The ELVs were applied for both the 2008 and 2009 seasons in Super 14.
Lee said | November 6th 2009 @ 5:03am | Report comment
For the 2009 season the sanction ELVs were dropped as well as a few others.
The sanction ELVs are the main ELVs that were not trialed in the Northern Hemisphere(they did trial others) and the ones that you assume Spiro is the most upset about losing as these directly effect the number of penalties/free kicks.
These sanction ELVs were supposed to free up the game and cause more tries when according to the stats they did not.
pothale said | November 6th 2009 @ 5:11am | Report comment
The sanction ELVs were trialled in the NH – by both Scotland and France. And they likely voted for them as well. Ireland, England and Wales didn’t. SA didn’t want to vote for them either, but got ‘persuaded’ by their Australasian partners to vote for them.
I’d have voted for the sanctions too if they got rid of the bloody 22 rule instead – drives me crackers.
Lee said | November 6th 2009 @ 5:39am | Report comment
Yip Pothale the 22m rule drives me crazy but to me it is the lesser of 2 evils. IN saying that it is the primary reason for some many up and unders, if this ELV was removed, players could kick to touch. The opposition would get a lineout about half way to attack from and knowing that a mid field bomb could be passed back into the 22 and booted out, they would then be more inclined to keep the ball in hand.
The sanctions ELVs turned the game I like into a helter skelter no structure game that involved 30 players running around like headless chickens. And as the stats show contributed in no way to more tries and probably more scrums – which in turn leads to more time restting scrums etc.
vinay verma said | November 5th 2009 @ 6:22am | Report comment
I see a comment here that ” countries with the most financial clout should have the final say” These countries presumably are France,England and Japan. In the case of cricket it has happened with India having the final say. This is not in my opinion the best thing for the game,its traditions and culture. Money should not be the determining factor. It is important but it can be short sighted.
The North South debate is tedious and only highlights administrators with egos and power-centric agendas. Get more recently retired players in positions of administrative power in all sports and the games will be better for it.
Robbo said | November 6th 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
Vinay – don’t believe the hype. The Japanese Rugby Union has bugger all financial clout.
For all this talk about them being the next rugby Super power the average Japanese couldn’t differentiate Rugby from American football.
vinay verma said | November 6th 2009 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Robbo, I did say that financial clout was the last thing that should determine the direction. It doesn’t follow that money is always right. Stanford proved that with Cricket.I am not well versed in the History of Rugby but unless you nourish talent at the grass roots you cant have a strong National Team. Culture,tradition and respect for the History of the game have to be taught from an early age. How many young schoolboys actually know who Ken Catchpole or Mark Loane were? John Thornett anyone?
Pippinu said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:12am | Report comment
Spiro
As you intimate – a few will not thank you for airing the dirty linen again – but another terrific article.
Some of these records (in terms of the time that has elapsed since various countries were able to chalk up a win over others) are so gobsmackingly and outrageously long that one is entitled to ask themselves: could that be right??
Surely, somone in the NH will one day wake up and proclaim out loud: I say my good fellows, let us bring this sort of public humiliation to an end – or at the very least, this sort of realisation: “ Ne c’est pas possible! ”
The return of Wilkinson reminds me of some other famous returns of legendary heroes:
1. Maradona returning to the Argentine national team to single handedly take them into the 1994 World Cup (his 5th time as a member of a WC squad)
2. Langer being recalled by Bennett from England to save an SOO series (which I think he managed to do)
3. Jesus arising from the dead to save the world (I’m not sure if this one was a success or not – only time will tell).
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Australians… a wonderful talent for melodrama. Must be all that Fosters, makes then sentimental I suppose. Reminds me of that other Australian hero/genius Dick McGruther.
Lindommer said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
KO, no one in Australia drinks Foster’s these days. Get up to date, mate.
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Just bathe in it instead do they, followed by a quick game of knifey-spoony?
Brett McKay said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Even better than bathe in it Knives, we export it!!
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Not to me you bloody don’t! I’m certainly not falling for that new ‘extra cold’ trick either.
Pete said | November 5th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
…we export it…after we have bathed in it
fox said | November 5th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
We send you our expired beer – and rugby players.
pothale said | November 5th 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
And we send you back re-packaged ELVs – fair exchange of duds, I suppose.
Knives Out said | November 5th 2009 @ 5:47pm | Report comment
Not to Europe you don’t send your players. Nobody wants them.
Rusty said | November 5th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
except the only place Fosters is actually drunk in copious amounts is the UK..you would battle to find it in Australia and then even more to find an Aussie drinking it…. for some reason those cans from ASDA taste so much better than local version
Lee said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Not to mention, Jonah Lomu returning to International Rugby in 2011 to lead the ABs to the WC….
Pippinu said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Now that might take the proverbial cake!!!! (with apologies to Jesus)