Auckland going through the blues
They lost again though the Blues did show more fight then they have done in recent weeks.
But two things occurred to me while I watched this.
First, the Blues are doomed for an extended period of time and apart from their impressive run in 1996-1998 they have been remarkably underwhelming underachievers, especially given they have one quarter of the countries population.
Secondly, the habit of sacking and blaming coaches for poor performances is irrational, coaches are not that important in rugby, they have less effect than in other sports, before you go crazy, hear me out.
To my first point, the Blues are awful and have been for some time now. I wrote in my previous article about the fact that they have only finished in the top 4 three times in the last 14 years and have a similar average finishing position to three of the other New Zealand franchises – around sixth to seventh.
That is pretty shabby for a team with high expectations. In reality there is something fundamentally wrong with this organisation and supporters hold on to those glory days of the mid 90′s resulting in delusions of grandeur and unrealistic expectations.
Sadly I do not have access to the inner working of the Blues organization but it seems to often that their sides revolve around a team full of stars rather than a star team, kind of like the Dallas Cowboys, all hat and no cattle. There seem to be selections based on past heroics Ala McAllister, yes he was good, but when he came back from France he appeared soft around the middle and got injured repeatedly. They picked up Nonu and Weepu. Nonu then shopped himself around in Japan rather than playing in the preseason and Weepu turned up looking like he would be starring in the next Nutty Professor movie.
There seems to be a lot of one and done players. What do I mean by this. The player in question has one good season then falls in to rugby obscurity or a European team pays huge money for them only to discover they are actually awful. Does anyone remember what happened with Ron Cribb? How about Rupeni Caucaunibuca? These are the sort of players I am talking about. They have one possibly two good seasons and then completely fall over. It almost seems there is a big city feel to this. “I have hit the big time” then they just kind of exist after that.
The sad news is that after the Blues supporters crucify Pat Lam, for supposedly failing them, the person that takes his place is going to walk into a nightmare. It is going to get a lot worse for the Blues before it gets better. Does this sound dramatic? Well lets take a walk through reality.
Toeava, the supposed rugby Jesus according to Graham Henry, continues to under perform and is injured. He has not really shown the development other young “Glory Boys” like James O’Connor, Kurtley Beale or Israel Dagg have. I would not try to build your franchise around him.
You are currently playing with the dying carcasses of Ali Williams, Tony Woodcock, Keven Mealamu, Daniel Braid and Brad Mika. They are old and have a lot of mileage on the clock, there is not much left in them before their play regresses significantly or they shop themselves to Europe and Japan. This is a lot of experience being lost in key areas.
Jerome Kaino is going to Japan… wait, this means in the next few years they are going to lose five All Black quality forwards. Old Mother Hubbard would be impressed how bare this cupboard is becoming.
Ma’a Nonu is going to Japan.
Piri Weepu currently has the same food consumption as a small European country. He also does not have much time left. None of this would excite me if I was a Blues fan. So just calm down Auckland. The coach is not the problem, very rarely has it been. The coach is the easiest target.
Even great coaches, like Nucifora, have failed in Auckland.
This is the point where you will be saying, “oh yeah, but that Brumbies team Nucifora coached could run itself.” there may be something to this, however, the two coaches before him had exactly the same winning percentage as Nucifora. They were privy to the same level of talent. These other two coaches were McQueen and Jones, both World Cup winners. The coaching changes in relation to this Brumbies side seemed to have little effect. This would explain why Nucifora was unsuccessful with the blues, the coached changed but the players and front office did not change as dramatically.
This leads into my second point; coaching has little effect in rugby.
In rugby the coach has little direct control over what happens on match day. The coach can set several game plans before they head out to the field. However, in the heat of battle it is purely up to player instinct. The coach can not tell the fly half when to kick, or for Ma’a Nonu to get the glue off of his hands when he sees the try line. Ultimately the person that has a greater effect on the game is the captain. The captain has continual access to all players at all times, they can change the game plan immediately. The captain can inspire and control the players during the game. The coach can only sit in the box and hope like hell that his players remember how to catch the ball.
In other sports the coach has a far greater effect. The prime example is American Football. The coach sets the defensive structure for the season. How they will run their offence, run orientated, air it out or a complex mix. The coach will call specific plays telling the quarter back exactly what to do. There are several options the quarterback can choose from within this play, but ultimately the coach calls what will happen. On defence the coach sets out exactly where each player will stand, who they will mark, whether or not they will blitz or drop back into coverage. Now that is a coach effecting the outcome of a match.
In AFL the coach has runners to send instructions out onto the field continuously and the high level of interchanges means that messages can be relayed quickly. The coach can decide who matches up on who and change that at a drop of a hat. Communication between coach and players can be achieved easily and readily.
Rugby does not have this. In rugby you set a loose fabric of the game plan, what you may do in certain situations, how to deal with the other team changing theirs. But ultimately, other than half time, the coach has little impact. The players make the calls in to the line out, the moves for the back lines, whether to pick and drive, whether or not to off load. Put simply the players are a far more significant factor in the outcome of a season than the coaching they receive.
Then comes the front office. You can not polish turd, so if a coach is given the wrong, underdeveloped players or walks into a team with poor morale and team chemistry then they will struggle to succeed. The front office is responsible for developing the game in the lower levels, employing coaches which will enhance the young talent and provide them with the basic fundamentals to be able
to contribute on the big stage. If these players have not been nurtured properly the senior coach is on a hiding to nothing and it is too late to fix it. You are dealing with damaged goods and sadly, there are not any refunds.
So what am I saying? I am saying to Auckland fans, buckle up and get ready for a rocky road ahead. This season is a sign of things to come. Firing the coach may make you feel warm and fuzzy over the summer while you wait for the new season with bated breathe, but by firing the coach you achieve nothing, it won’t fix the problem.
It very rarely does.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- SPIRO: ‘Captain Magic’ Quade Cooper goes down with all flags flying (333)
- Deans confirms no spot for Quade Cooper (281)
- SPIRO’s Lions Diary: Foley does Australian rugby a disservice (261)
- Want to beat the Lions? Pick Quade Cooper (229)
- SPIRO: All Blacks learning to live without Carter (218)
- Wallabies’ six worst-kept secrets confirmed (204)
- A lesson in Deans-speak (154)
- British and Irish Lions teams post WW2 (part 3) (13)
- Fifteen reasons why the Lions will beat the Wallabies (26)
- Lions vs Wallabies: the teams I’d pick (17)
- My Waratahs vs Lions experience (2)
- Brumbies vs British and Irish Lions: Tour match live scores, blog (220)
- These British and Irish Lions are different (49)
- Robbie Deans can learn from those Randwick Greens (27)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Auckland Blues, Rugby Union

April 15th 2012 @ 8:13am
Thurl said | April 15th 2012 @ 8:13am | Report comment
If the coach isn’t important whycould the blues win three titles with Graham Henry as a coach, but can’t with anyone else.
And why could the All Black coaches get results out of Cory Jane, Nonu and Hore during the World Cup when Hammett couldn’t.
The Chiefs seem to be doing rather well with a new coach.
If you think coaches aren’t that important in Rugby, you don’t understand the role of the coach.
Nucifora isn’t a great coach, btw
April 15th 2012 @ 2:03pm
Vanilla Gorilla said | April 15th 2012 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
thurl you have hit on a good point and the exact subject of my next article. That is the fact of the world cup hangover. Have you noticed that the 2 teams stacked with all blacks from the starting 15 of that side are currently in the bottom of the NZ conference, coincidence, i think not. At the moment the research I am doing currently supports this.
The blues are similar to the brumbies that nucifora coached and the crusaders of today. here is a list of all the all blacks they had during that time
Lomu
Spencer
Olo Brown
Craig Dowd
Sean Fitzpatrick
Robin Brooke
Adrian Cashmore
Riechelman
Zinzan Brooke
Andrew Blowers
Micael Jones
That right, all 8 players in the forward pack had played for the All Blacks.
The chiefs got a new coach, but they also acquired SBW, who has been beastly, and Aaron Cruden who is only getting better as time goes on. It helps when you have a monster offloading the ball all the time. Look how less potent the crusaders backline is without SBW. The simple fact is that the coach cant make decisions for players during the game. Also players always perform better for the All Blacks, if you remmeber a few years back Woodcock maile it in all season for the blues and only once he was relegated to the bench for the All Blacks did her realise he needed to perform again… That isnt a coach issue, thats a player issue. My understanding of a coach, which i have done at verious levels, is that you can only prepare your players, you can not play the game for them, you cant tell them what to do and when during the game. Also the Chiefs did well under their last coach with significantly less fire power than they have this year, they lost to the Bulls in the final a few years ago
April 15th 2012 @ 4:09pm
Vanilla Gorilla said | April 15th 2012 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
the list above is the players available to Graham Henry.
April 15th 2012 @ 9:15am
Onor said | April 15th 2012 @ 9:15am | Report comment
I agree.. nucifora is average at best. the blues just dont have very many thinkers on board. Far too much muscle. why on earth ranger is on the wing is beyond me. Id say things go higher than the coaches. theres issues with the board and there have been for some time.
April 15th 2012 @ 2:04pm
Vanilla Gorilla said | April 15th 2012 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
i agree with everything you said, except for Nucifora. 3 finals appearances with the brumbies and a finals win means he must know what he is doing. He is reknowned in rugby circles as a great mind of the game whos knowledge is sought out regularly. He just got a raw deal trying to coach the blues
April 15th 2012 @ 3:15pm
STU said | April 15th 2012 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
VG,yes i think youre right.He seems to have some intestinal fortitude which is missing with some other coaches.
April 15th 2012 @ 11:57am
sixo_clock said | April 15th 2012 @ 11:57am | Report comment
VG,
Oz Rugby has the same underperformance problem with the ‘Tahs and before Ewen the Reds. Big city, big exposure, egos, politics hence things get muddled. On the other hand the Brumbies blend of youth with a coach who ‘gets’ Rugby is proving to be an awesome structure.
While I agree that the coach in Rugby is not as influential in the heat of play compared to other team sports as Thurl highlights above some do better with the same players and it boils down to work ethic. GH probably works his butt off getting things ready, can all other coaches say the same?
April 15th 2012 @ 2:08pm
Vanilla Gorilla said | April 15th 2012 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
I agree as well. I think Graham Henry being a school principal of one of NZ’s largest schools probably helped as well, he had a significant advantage in dealing with large groups of developing and maturing young men. This is what has probably made him so good, it is something that most coaches will never have. I think White is having a significant effect on the Brumbies at the moment but it isnt as influential as other sports. Even league is more influenced by the coach. Everywhere bennet goes there is a noticeable change and improvement. The same can be said for Hasler. The coach has a noticeable effect in rugby, my main point is that the coach should not be the first one lined up and shot for poor performances
April 15th 2012 @ 2:38pm
Jiggles said | April 15th 2012 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Really good article even if I don’t agree with some aspects of it. On the coach topic, I believe a good coach, especially at this level, is incredibly important to teams success or lack of.
If we compare the 2010 Wallabies and All Black teams, I really don’t think you can separate them in terms of ability and skill. Beale is as good as Dagg, Ioane as good as Jane, Moore and Mealamu, Pocock and McCaw etc. Sure some players are much better such as Kaino, Carter, Genia etc. but you get my idea there isn’t really much separating the teams. They are all pro athletes playing at the elite level in a team game.
The difference between those two teams is the game-plan they use. The Wallabies seem to be lost at times, as if they don’t understand what their role is within a specific period of the game. Additionally they don’t understand what to do when plan A comes unstuck. They don’t know how to switch to plan B (Is there even one?) or get plan A moving again. Cooper has even come out and said he doesn’t understand Deans’ plan. Conversely the All Blacks have been tactically brilliant throughout 2010 and 2011. And this comes down to the coach.
Onto the Blues. Well I said it last week and got attacked by a number of trolls on this site, but I maintain what I said then. This squad, the 2012 Blues side, is one of the most pathetic Super Rugby team I have ever seen.
April 15th 2012 @ 4:14pm
Vanilla Gorilla said | April 15th 2012 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
yes but is this the wallabies plight an issue with the coach or the lack of adaptability of the wallabies player group. Remember Robbie Deans created the greatest franchise in the history of super rugby, from scratch. So is it his fault that the Wallabies are not performing or is the game not being taught properly at grass roots, development camps and the AIS?
April 15th 2012 @ 5:10pm
Justin said | April 15th 2012 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
Deans did not build it from scratch at all. He came in after they had win at least 2 titles and ABs out his backside to work with.
April 15th 2012 @ 6:37pm
Jiggles said | April 15th 2012 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
I think the Reds showed last year that Australian players are just as talented as any in the world, but a game plan created to suit the skills and the types of players in the team is the key to success. Australian teams are never going to beat others with slow ball and yet this is what Deans focused on for the world cup. The Irish game should of been a wake up call, but it wasn’t received.
Anyway back onto the Blues, I think there situation is more complex then that of the Wallabies. The issue is both with the cattle and the coach. Lam has clearly lost the confidence of the group, and key members of that group don’t believe they have to put in to gain higher honours, such as Nonu, Weepu and Woodcock. I will be interested to see if Nonu gets pick for the All Blacks this year, his form doesn’t warrant it thus far, but he is always amazing when in black.
April 15th 2012 @ 9:25pm
ohtani's jacket said | April 15th 2012 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
Woodcock has been playing well since his return. I don’t think Nonu has played poorly, the Blues just need a first five. That’s been their problem for years.
April 15th 2012 @ 10:00pm
Jiggles said | April 15th 2012 @ 10:00pm | Report comment
I don’t think the Blues can really use the 5/8 excuse for either this season or last. Sure Brett/McAlister last year were no Dan Carter’s (but who is?), but they would be good enough enough choices for most teams. Anscombe/Hobbs this year are promising and certainly not the reasons for the 1-6 season.
April 16th 2012 @ 12:40am
ohtani's jacket said | April 16th 2012 @ 12:40am | Report comment
Both Anscombe and Hobbs are generic. You can’t win a Super Rugby title without a good first five and I can’t think of any side that would start either Anscombe or Hobbs.
April 16th 2012 @ 1:31am
Jiggles said | April 16th 2012 @ 1:31am | Report comment
Anscombe has been one of the more consistant Blues players this year, he will also improve with age and if he had a pack giving him clean ball. Anyway him at 5/8, or Hobbs for that matter, is not the reason why the Blues are sitting in 14th place. I’ve been impressed with the 5/8s in New Zealand this year in general really. All have deficiencies in their games, but they are young so time is on their side with regards to improvement. Cruden, who I have thought overrated in the past, is really stepping up.
April 16th 2012 @ 10:16am
Colin N said | April 16th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
I think it’s harsh that you call Anscombe generic. He was the stand-out New Zealand under-20 player and has shown plenty of promise. But it’s alway going to be difficult for a young guy to come into a struggling outfit.
April 16th 2012 @ 10:51am
ohtani's jacket said | April 16th 2012 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Beauden Barrett faced the same challenge with the Hurricanes and their backline has been one of the most exciting in the competition. The Blues sell themselves on running rugby. Anscombe isn’t a running first five and would be better suited to the Crusaders than the Blues.
April 16th 2012 @ 9:00pm
Colin N said | April 16th 2012 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
But the structure of the Hurricanes this season has allowed Barrett to thrive. It’s also allowed Savea to thrive as well, who despite his talent, really strugged last season.
Anyway, the Blues’ pack are failing to get quick ball, there is too much chopping and changing at scrum-half to get any continuity which doesn’t help who is playing at 10. The backline alignment has also been all wrong which admittedly Anscombe has to take some blame for, but tbh all the players are lacking confidence atm and they don’t seem to know what each other is meant to be doing.
It’s interesting to note that Beauden Barrett was full-back for the under-20s and Anscombe was the fly-half and, although Barrett was earmarked, Anscombe was the one who stood out. Perhaps Barrett has adapted quicker to Super Rugby, but I would suggest the problems run deeper that that.
April 15th 2012 @ 6:38pm
Jiggles said | April 15th 2012 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
Also Wayne Smith should take credit for a lot of that success at the Crusaders, not Deans.
April 16th 2012 @ 3:11pm
Winston said | April 16th 2012 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
And the chiefs too
April 16th 2012 @ 3:30am
Onor said | April 16th 2012 @ 3:30am | Report comment
yea.. too many “no brainers” in the blues team. The difference between the AB’s and the wallabies is the Allblacks know how to play tuff. Get stuck in, do the hard yards and get their hands dirty. Wallabies football is almost too “backs” orientated. Only once have I seen the Allblacks pack play second fiddle to the Wallabies pack in the last 5 or so years, and that was their tri nations win last year. The first 20 minutes the forwards rolled up their sleeves and got stuck in. If the wallabies wanna beat the Allblacks.. they need to get some hard nut players with big balls who wanna go out there and absolutely beat up the allblacks.. in the rucks in the mauls in the clean outs and in the scrums.. but the breed of aussie forwards have barely any mongrel in them.
April 15th 2012 @ 2:45pm
RebelRanger said | April 15th 2012 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
VG what do you make of playing Wulf at 15 and Munro on the wing against the Rebels.
What of the inconsistent selections at 10? What does this do for anyones development?
The immediate introduction of Weepu, Nonu after they showed no loyalty to the Blues by either going to Japan during pre season or showing up out of shape? What does this say for the culture implemented by Lam?
What of the insane substitution of Anscombe for Hobb with the game on the line and 10 minutes to go?
Why haven’t the Blues played structured rugby? If the players are just not buying his game plan then why hasn’t he just selected those that will and bench the others?
Personally I think Lam should go. I don’t think this will lead to immediate results but we need to bring in someone that will immediately change the culture of the Blues. I don’t mind a few losses next year if it means we are not making the same mistakes.
How do we go about clearing front office? The addition of Weepu was doomed from the start as we already had a good halfback and upcoming 10′s that needed game time to develop. With the come backs of Mika and Daniel Braid they have probably sent future All Blacks to other teams and stemmed the development of guys like Luke Braid.
Many problems at this franchise and no one solution. New coach is a start.
April 16th 2012 @ 11:13am
RebelRanger said | April 16th 2012 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Thats what I thought haha
April 15th 2012 @ 3:51pm
Fog said | April 15th 2012 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
You are forgetting the Blues of 2003. They won the championship with the best sustained rugby I have seen in the super championship. No one else has come close to the performance of that team, especially the backline.
April 15th 2012 @ 4:25pm
Vanilla Gorilla said | April 15th 2012 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
You are right, that was a great team and Sloane got a great bunch of players out of it. But if i remember correctly they started slow in 2004 and the calls for Sloane to be sacked begun. He missed the finals in his next two seasons, just, and decided to leave. He wouldnt have left if the supporters thought he was a good coach. Also it seems everyone has forgotten the Blues won 10 games last year and finished 4th after losing to the eventual champions, the reds. It just seems that everyone is so quick to swing the axe without actually looking at the facts. A side can’t be amazing every year, except for the crusaders, they are ridiculous. If he keeps his job next year and wins 9-10 games suddenly everyone will be saying he is a genius.
April 15th 2012 @ 7:16pm
kiwidave said | April 15th 2012 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
Sloane wasn’t that flash, the difference between 2003 and the preceeding and following seasons was the presence of Graham Henry in the coaching staff as a technical adviser.
April 15th 2012 @ 4:54pm
ohtani's jacket said | April 15th 2012 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Lam needs to go and the team needs a major overhaul. If Joseph can overhaul the Highlanders and Rennie the Chiefs then the Blues need to follow suit. Your point about coaches is best exemplified by the silencing of the Hammett critics, but Hammett is clearly doing more with the Hurricanes franchise than you give coaches credit for. Coaches built teams and coach players. Henry was the coach of the dominant Auckland team that made up the majority of the catchment area for the Blues sides. He crafted those early Blues teams. This is a poor Blues side with only a few players playing well and they aren’t being coached well. I don’t know whether Lam has lost the locker room, but nothing about their on field results suggests that Lam should stay. With most of them games they haven’t lost by many so where are the adjustments?
April 15th 2012 @ 5:37pm
colvin said | April 15th 2012 @ 5:37pm | Report comment
There’s no doubt some of your points are correct. But I don’t believe your comment that coaches have little effect in rugby can be left unchallenged. They are vitally important.
Look at the Brumbies with Jake White and Eddie Jones.
Look at the Highlanders with Jamie Joseph
Look at the Hurricanes with Mark Hammett
Look at the Chiefs with Rennie and Wayne Smith
Look at the Reds with Euan McKenzie
Look at the Crusaders with Deans and then Blackadder.
White and Jones, Joseph, Hammett, Rennie and Smith and McKenzie made instant success out of their teams. But it’s not all the coach. A key feature of the success of the Franchises mentioned above was that the Administrations of each Franchise revamped themselves to support the whole Franchises’ infrastructure. In the case of the Crusaders the Administration was always considered top notch.
Regarding the importance of coaches you just need to look at the way the Brumbies closed off O’Connor, Beale and Capriani yesterday. That was coaching.
Where the Waratahs and the Blues have gone wrong is that it all starts with the Administration, and in both cases they have not sorted themselves out. Then, the all important coach has to deliver. I believe Pat Lam is a good and upcoming coach notwithstanding some seemingly strange decisions, and the current pressure could be the making of him. But he certainly hasn’t had the enlightened thinking and support that is available at the successful Franchises. And therein lies the problem for the Blues. The team has been a little unlucky in some games but fundamentally there have been too many mistakes made at a higher level all of which show through in the team’s weekly performances.
April 15th 2012 @ 6:07pm
Vanilla Gorilla said | April 15th 2012 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
I am not saying they are irrelevant, I am simply pointing out that they are more important in other sports during the actual playing time.
In regards to the brumbies, McQueen, Jones and Nucifora all had comparable records with the same playing group. Yet everyone says that Nucifora is a poor coach and that Jones and McQuuen are geniuses. This is my point. Three different coaches, similar personel, same results. Also Eddie Jones coached at the reds for a year… They finished 14th that year.
In regards to the Crusaders, Deans left and they still have a similar talent level and results have stayed pretty similar, except for this year. So it wasnt the changing of the coaches in this situation that helped the team to win it was the playing group. Remember Blackadder was untested as a coach… So is the coach really that instrumental?
Look at what happened with John Mitchell. He was good with a stacked waikato team. Good with a stacked All Blacks team. He has been awefull at every other stop. Deans has been a bit of a bust with the wallabies as stated before but was amazing with the crusaders, so has he suddenly become a poor coach, no, he has inferior products to work with that have not been developed properly. Also i should point out Mckenzie was a huge bust in Europe before coming to a team filled with great talent
April 15th 2012 @ 7:25pm
colvin said | April 15th 2012 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
Fair enough. In the early days of the Brumbies the team developed a specific gameplan that was very different and an independance that was quite unusual. I think the point about Nucifora was that he was a good coach but he lost the dressing room. When he went to Auckland he seemed to lose it again, i.e. Ali Williams in particular. Also, the Administration at the Blues was a problem then as it is now.
Eddie Jones was a disaster at the Reds. But that was all before a total overhaul of the whole Reds setup. McKenzie came in with potentially a good team but he had superb support from a new Administration.
Deans and his Administration created much of the Crusaders success and helped develop Blackadder. So the quality of performance continues. The talented players coming through is all about the systems of development put in place by the very capable Administration together with exceptional recruiting; and then introduction to the Crusaders culture.
John Mitchell was seemingly fine with England and did quite well with the AB’s but don’t forget he had huge support from Deans. Without Deans, and on his own, his results have varied. He’s done well in SA with all teams he’s had except for some reason the Lions. So with that I would point my finger at the Lions Administration.
I still have it in mind that without a strong, forward thinking Administration providing unwaivering and enlightened support a coach no matter how good and team will fail.
April 15th 2012 @ 6:07pm
King of the Gorgonites said | April 15th 2012 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
The warriors are struggling just like the blues. But the warriors drew 15k today. What did the blues draw? It’s just not good enough. The people of Auckland should have a good hard look at themselves.
April 15th 2012 @ 7:23pm
kiwidave said | April 15th 2012 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
The Blues pulled 18,000…
http://www.theblues.co.nz/Draw-and-Results/Draw-and-Results.aspx