SPIRO: June Test series is a winner
By Spiro Zavos, 21 Jun 2012 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, England rugby, Ireland Rugby, Mike Harris, Pumas, rugby, rugby international, Rugby Union, Springboks, Test rugby, Wales rugby, wallabies
151 Have your say
The Wallabies were brought back down to earth by Scotland (AAP Image/Paul Miller)
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- South Africa Springboks news
- England Rugby Union news
- 2013 Wallabies squad news
It has surprised me that so many people were disappointed Wales did not defeat the Wallabies in Melbourne. I don’t mean the usual suspects, like Mike Carlton and the John Connolly camp of dissidents (which includes one prominent rugby writer – no names).
Just ordinary sports lovers, like the NRMA chap who so splendidly fixed up my car battery that had gone flat while I was in Mebourne (hint: don’t leave the boot slightly ajar with the light on).
Campo wants Cooper to play off the bench. Agree?
Anyway, he told me after he had fixed everything up that he felt Wales deserved to win and was disappointed for them when they didn’t.
To me this is nonsense. Teams don’t deserve to win. The name of the game is to win. As I heard the late great Fred Allen tell someone who suggested the All Blacks were lucky to defeat the Springboks in a close Test at Christchurch: ‘A win is a win, son.’
The crucial aspect of the win over Wales, as Paul Cully pointed out yesterday on The Roar, is that the Wallabies pulled off a superb driving maul from the last lineout in the match to force a penalty. The Wallabies are not a mauling side. Yet they achieved a perfect rolling maul when they desperately needed it.
And Mike Harris had to kick the penalty from near the touchline to get the winning points.
The same sort of comment applies to the All Blacks in their last minute victory over Ireland. They won a scrum penalty just outside their own 22. From the lineout inside Ireland’s half they mounted a varied, tough and well-executed 14-phase attack to allow Dan Carter a shot at a drop goal.
The referee got in the way of the pass from Piri Weepu and Carter had his kick touched in flight.
From the five-metre scrum, which was as steady as a rock, Carter was able to kick the winning drop goal.
The point here is that both the Wallabies and the All Blacks got their crucial points when they desperately needed they really needed them.
And what this gets down to is that the rugby culture in Australia and New Zealand, and in the southern hemisphere countries, is a culture focussed on scoring points.
It is no accident, in my view, that the Springboks (against England) and the Pumas (against France) also scored in the last minutes of play in their Tests last weekend to ensure their home victories.
Robert Kitson, a fair-minded, well-informed and stylish rugby writer for The Guardian, has listed the five lessons for the northern hemisphere sides from the June series in the southern hemisphere:
1. Test rugby is an 80-minute game.
2. Winning in the southern hemisphere is as hard as ever.
3. England need to learn from Wales and Ireland.
4. The rugby law book needs reviving.
5. Rugby is only a game.
On lesson three, the point is that England played really brain-dead rugby against the Springboks. The halfback, Ben Youngs, from his first touch, inside his 22, to almost his last touch kept on putting in box kicks.
The first kick, after England fielded the kick-off, was caught by the Springboks well inside England’s half and lead to their opening try.
The tactic (which does not deserve this description) gave the ball back continually to the rampaging Springboks who smashed up a strong first half lead which England could not overcome.
The irony in all of this is that England found huge gaps in the Springboks defence which they turned into tries when they finally ran the ball.
On lesson four, I would remind Robert that it was the so-called Home Unions, led by England’s RFU, which killed off the ELVs package which did simplify the laws of rugby in a holostic rather than a piece-meal manner.
I would make a slight diversion here to note that in the Junior World Cup which is taking place in South Africa, with the finalists being New Zealand and South Africa, the Junior Wales XV adopted the same tactics as England in their semi-final against England.
Using these tactics in the rain in their pool match against the Junior All Blacks, Wales recorded a memorable victory. But on a dry ground in the semi-final Wales were comfortably defeated 30-6. Like the Springboks, the Junior All Blacks used the ball to score points.
And this is the lesson that Brian Moore, usually an anti-southern hemispjere curmudgeon, makes after last weekend’s results: “England, Wales and Ireland, he wrote, still trail the southern hemisphere giants were it counts – on the scoreboard.”
The series system, though, has given these three teams a final chance to get things right. This is what the format so interesting. Ireland learnt the lesson of their first Test and almost pulled off a victory in the second.
Will the All Blacks learn from this experience?
The Wallabies seemed to have most aspects of the Wales game covered at Melbourne. Can Wales come up with any surprises? Will Kurtley Beale light up the Wallabies attack?
Can England play any other game than a kicking-reliant style? Or will they go back to the Sir Clive Woodward style of ball-in-hand, thunderous set pieces and kicking for position only?
It’s up to the coaches now to come up with some new plays and counters to plays that have proved hard for their teams in these June series to counter, so far.
As Sun-Tzu, Rod Macqueen’s favourite guru on coaching, noted: “Battles are won before they are fought.”
Spiro Zavos, a founding writer on The Roar, was long time editorial writer on the Sydney Morning Herald, where he started a rugby column that has run for nearly 30 years. Spiro has written 12 books: fiction, biography, politics and histories of Australian, New Zealand, British and South African rugby. He is regarded as one of the foremost writers on rugby throughout the world.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.



June 21st 2012 @ 1:21am
bennalong said | June 21st 2012 @ 1:21am | Report comment
I agree Spiro
All hale the three test series………..where even the dead rubber ain’t dead!
And who could have scripted it better, with all three offering probably the same winners, but only probably. You be nuts to bet your cajones on a winner, that’s for certain!!!
And it’s an afternoon match at the SFS! (instead of that soulless White Elephant)
I get great joy from the success of the Tahs component – players who have busted a gut all year but have suffered from a revolving backline and a game plan to match, hounded and harried by their erstwhile supporters.
They were destined to keep losing by small margins and now they’re back in the winners circle, albeit in green and gold, and playing at ‘our house’.
Can they make it three out of three. Will their recently ‘prodigalled’ son Kurtley make a lightning contribution?
Will the All Blacks punish Ireland for their temerity?
Will England be allowed to play to their strengths and do an Ireland?……………………..AahhHHHHH !!! How sweet it is!
Go the WALLABIEEEZ!!!!
June 21st 2012 @ 1:28am
The Werewolf said | June 21st 2012 @ 1:28am | Report comment
First of all I hadn’t realise that the SH teams had come up with something so brilliant. ‘a culture of scoring points.’ Clearly the NH have somehow forgotten to do this and I bet they’re scratching their heads right now and probably thinking wait it’s not like playing golf at all. Darn we were meant to be trying to score more points. Oh thank you Spiro.
Also a bit harsh on Youngs.
The box kick is a valuable tactic if executed correctly. I remember a side in 2007 did it very well at the world cup for instance.
Obviously the key is first the trajectory and second the chase because if done well you’ve made valuable territory without your forwards having to expend valuable energy and fight their way through 110-125kg opposition forwards, and you’ve given yourself an even chance of regaining it with immediate momentum ensuring those monster opposition forwards are momentarily out of the game.
The problem is it is giving the ball away if not done well of course. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad tactic to gain easy metres from within your own half.
So there’s that and secondly Youngs scored two tries and set the other one up with a quick tap and go worthy of great praise.
Next is the RFU and the Home Unions should have the major say in the running of the game. At the end of the day they have over a million and a half registered players in the UK which is twice as big as the trin ations combined. Plus of course they have the bigger fan base. We need to understand that if the Home nations’ Union’s and public rejected the ELV’s then so be it.
Last of all and some may say most important of all, if as you say this man that fixed your car was in melbourne don’t you mean the RACV?
June 21st 2012 @ 1:56am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 1:56am | Report comment
These series certainly provide far more interest that the one-off tests of past years and provide more of a challenge to SOO focus at this time of year. I add a remark I made on Paul Cully’s thread yesterday: ‘Probably in the long term these tours will be good for the northern nations. They often select average sides with steady players such as Flood and Priestland at the helm who are fine for weaker teams but no good for better ones. They would write off single results against southern hemisphere teams but cannot dismiss a series. It will make them realise that steady but average players are no good against better teams. So Priestland will guarantee you a win against a weaker team which Hook may not, but Hook will allow you a chance against a stronger one (The All Blacks have the same problem because they have not recently had to play teams regularly that are as strong as them).’
Wales and Ireland were the only teams that did well last week in that they were the only ones that made something like the most of their resources, which are more limited than the other four nations. Australia did as well in that the coach used what resources he had as well as possible, but in the larger picture the ARU have failed to make the most of the resources they have, exemplified by two teams worth of Wallabies being found as ex-Australian schoolboys playing in the NRL. The All Blacks, South Africa and England failed to make the use of their playing resources and the coaching of them. England/South Africa was very low quality.
Australia were not lucky to win: Wales were lucky that Hooper dropped the ball just out from the line, that he dropped it again on the counter-attack in the Wales half, and that Barnes missed a kick in front through injury. The Wallabies finally nailed a chance.
As Sun-Tzu, Rod Macqueen’s favourite guru on coaching, noted: “Battles are won before they are fought.” Do any rugby coaches ever refer to a writer besides Sun-Tzu? Is there no one else from the history of philosophy, history, military biography etc…who has produced a single thought they find useful? If they must limit themselves to books specifically on war rather than more imaginatively looking at other kinds of writing, what about Clausewitz?
June 21st 2012 @ 2:07am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 2:07am | Report comment
Wales and Ireland were the only teams that did well last week in that they were the only ones that made something like the most of their resources, which are more limited than the other four nations”
Which other four nations? The southern ones or the northern ones?
How did Ireland make something like the most of their resources last weekend?
When have Ireland selected (I presume you purposely) average sides when touring in June?
June 21st 2012 @ 3:37am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:37am | Report comment
PH Ireland chose their best team and played well-tactically, NZ, SA, England did not while although Australia did the ARU have squandered much of their talent.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:46am
Colin N said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:46am | Report comment
“PH Ireland chose their best team”
Best (available) team.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:03pm
Demon Dez said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
Their best available team IS their best team… Please leave the excuses out…
June 21st 2012 @ 10:11pm
Colin N said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Hey? Their ‘best’ team would include O’Connell, Ferris, Bowe, possibly Fizgerald.
It’s like Wales’ best team would include Robert., Australia – Cooper, Beale, O’Connor. England – Robshaw, Croft, Lawes. New Zealand – Carter, Read.
June 21st 2012 @ 2:27am
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 2:27am | Report comment
“England/South Africa was very low quality.”
So must have missed the first half then, eh?
June 21st 2012 @ 3:07am
matthew said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:07am | Report comment
Agreed Biltongbek. If you cant admire the first 20 minutes of Bok play then you cant admire much about the game of the rugby.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:18am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:18am | Report comment
Why stop at 20 minutes? I thought the full 80 minutes from both sides was full value.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:22am
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:22am | Report comment
I’m going to chuck out a big obese objection to that, Pot. I thought England were staggeringly incompetent in the first 30-40 minutes.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:30am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:30am | Report comment
Ok so.
I thought the full 80 minutes between both sides contributing great play at various stages during the match that kept this viewer entertained until the referee decided to blow his whistle to indicate the ending of the match – was full value.
Better?
June 21st 2012 @ 7:48am
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Just about… Only just mind.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:34am
matthew said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:34am | Report comment
They were just outclassed Ben. They played as well as they were allowed to play.
June 21st 2012 @ 7:50am
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Really? So Ashton’s push on Kruger which gave away a 3 pointer was down to SA pressure? Finding props in the midfield during back moves was down to SA? Unforced handling errors on the wing? Forward passes metres before the gainline etc? … Gloss over it how you want, but as well as SA played that first half from England was one of the worst in recent memory. It was abysmal.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:13am
Rugby Diehard said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Ben S – do you understand why England were making these mistakes? The whole goal of the speed at contact of the SH game is designed to make your opposition make mistakes through tiredness and scoreboard pressure. The goal of quick ball and turnover possession is to create a situation where your best and most elusive runner are coming up against a prop in mid-field.
“Gloss over it how you want” – but England were outrun by a clearly better side who outmuscled them at contact and outclassed them round the field. England showed that a capability to play this game, but just didn’t have the class or experience at the faster more physically demanding SH style of rugby. Once again the Bok side showed a willingness to play a far more entertaining style of rugby and this was reflected, once more, on the scoreboard.
June 21st 2012 @ 7:33pm
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:33pm | Report comment
I repeat: so Chris Ashton charging upfield and clattering into Kruger upon a restart is an example of the SH pressure game? The majority of errors were unforced. Just rewatch the first half. No more discussion is needed. It’s not open to debate.
Wouldn’t have thought there was a generic SH style either.
Far more entertaining? Did you watch the game?
June 21st 2012 @ 7:59pm
Rugby Diehard said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
Ben S – Yes, actually it is open to debate and that’s what we are doing. If we are talking about right and wrong in rugby we only have results and the scoreboard to rely on – other than that its just your opinion.
You are right there is not a generic SH style, there is just a tendency and obvious willingness to run the ball more than our NH counterparts – it is strange that nearly all the NH coaches and players acknowledge this yet you do not.
Yes I did watch the game and yes I did find the Springbok style far more entertaining. As I said England did show a capability to run the ball but bizarrely only did so when they were all but out of the game – a very standard theme for NH sides (although Wales and Ireland’s willingness to try this style almost brought about great wins for both teams). It was a great effort to get back into the game but I thought there was a certain air of inevitability about the result given where they’d come from in the match and they were playing a style of Rugby that was largely unknown to them. I look forward to more regular NH vs SH clashes so the pace of the game is picked up by the NH teams. You clearly think the status quo is fine and always have a barrel load of excuses for the performances.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:22pm
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
SA’s first try was not due to SA pressure. England had the clear scrum edge and Cole buckled Mtawarira.
SA scored two tries due to great pressure, but that aside England were the architects of their own downfall. I repeat – Ashton banging Kruger – totally unecessary. That’s another 3 points. Steyn scored a drop goal, so that’s 11 points. And the final Pietersen try, excellent try as it was, was down to a shocking kick from Joseph and 7 missed tackles. Just watch the game again – that kind of negates any need for debate. Forward passes on the gainline, knock ons when there is no SA defender within metres, throwing the ball out straight in to touch following a wing movement, tight five footballers lingering in the midfield etc. This was one of the worst England performances in years, and whilst SA played excellent rugby, you don’t make so many errors due to pressure.
Btw, If you watch English rugby then you know chucking the ball about is hardly unknown. These stereotypes are eyewatering. Australia and SA are kicking sides. Stop trying to lump in with NZ. The first two tries scored by SA (not including the scrum) were barged down the middle, and overlaps were ignored multiple times. That’s entertaining? How did England only show a willingness to run the ball when the game was beyond them? They didn’t have any possession in the first half for goodness sake.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:40pm
Rugby Diehard said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
I watch a fair amount of NH rugby mate, but it is fairly difficult as you can appreciate, but I watched a lot more when I lived and played in old blighty for a couple of years so I do have some experience with it andmy experience was that there was a massive difference between the way we played and encouraged one another to play the game, I would add I still loved my Rugby and the Rugby culture in the UK which I have found similar wherever I have travelled.
I think Australia’s willingness to run the ball is shown by the number of brilliant ball runners we have produced over the years and certainly by the collection we have in our current squad – Beale, Cooper, Genia, Ioane, O’connor. The ability of these guys in broken play is also the reason we love our ball pilfering #7s, because turnover ball = opportunity for these individuals.
I would agree with your comments above about Ben Youngs, who is clearly a very talented attacking Rugby 9 and that’s why it’s so devastating to see him constantly kick possession away with box kicks which give away possession and result (usually) in massive territorial advantage to the opposition.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:52pm
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
Australia doesn’t have a willingness to run the ball, as evidenced by its kicking statistics. Australian running rugby is a total myth. Agreed Beale and O’Connor and Ioane are brilliant runners, but Australia under Deans has been mechanical, tactically inflexible and generally very kick happy.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:59pm
Rugby Diehard said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
For once we agree. We all want to get rid of that Kiwi Deans as he doesn’t understand Australia’s willingness to run the ball.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:59pm
Jutsie said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:59pm | Report comment
Correction “australia under deans since the world cup have been mechanical etc.”
Do you not remember the wallabies performances in the 2011 tri-nations or all of 2010?
His current selections are stifling the attacking flair of aus rugby but that doesn’t mean it doesnt exist.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:03pm
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:03pm | Report comment
Yes, I do. Do you remember them? Do you remember the 2008 and 2009 seasons?
The attacking flair we see from the Waratahs, Brumbies, Force and Rebels you mean? Even the Reds side that won the Super tournament kicked the most.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:07pm
Demon Dez said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Give it up Ben S… I’m with u Diehard…
June 23rd 2012 @ 3:12am
Ben S said | June 23rd 2012 @ 3:12am | Report comment
Of course, of course.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:36am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:36am | Report comment
biltong I thought neither team were at their best. The SA pack was very good, but the backline lacked creativity and in my opinion need revolution and a different 10. England’s pack were good but not great, their backs limited. I don’t think either team will progress until they get more impressive backlines to back up their packs.
I hear Meyer has shipped some new backs in which is a start.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:44pm
Royce Strauss said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
No, just ignore kingplaymaker’s posts, especially anything he says about Springbok rugby. The only blogger who dislikes the Boks more than Zavos.
June 21st 2012 @ 4:05pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
I would add Original Ben S to that list from the nature of his posts.
I know you may find this shocking but we do have our detractors.;)
Strange indeed.
June 21st 2012 @ 7:34pm
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
Oh do get a grip for goodness sake. Is objectivity taboo in SA?
June 21st 2012 @ 8:18pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
There is objectivity and then there is your constant criticism of anything related to SA rugby Ben, perhaps if you comment less criticism and comment more objectively your opinions may actually hold more credibility when it comes to SA rugby.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:28pm
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
There is a theme with SA posters that unless they are praised to the sky any criticism is anti-SA. It’s evident all over the various rugby forums. I’ve only come across a handful of SA posters who can debate their side objectively. Suzy and Rusty are very interesting posters on the Roar, but them aside… The constant ego trip makes it impossible to debate rugby. If SA lose it’s down to politics, or the coach, or the fact their players were tired, or feel sorry for their opponents and let them back in the game, or because the players simply weren’t concentrating. Every other player is world class etc… Same old, same old.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:46pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
The perhaps you have been talking to the wrong South Africans.
I am the Springboks biggest critic, but even I can see when someone is anti South African Rugby.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:11pm
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
You’re right… I’m anti-SA, and that’s why I’ve had various discussions with other SA posters about the excellence of players like Adrian Strauss, Kruger, Willem Alberts, Frans Steyn, Juan De Jongh etc etc…
Typical stuff really, and I’m far from the first to point this out. Shame really.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:45pm
Rugby Diehard said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:45pm | Report comment
Ben S – being critical of England is not saying we played so poorly and that is why we were beaten. Then backing this up with a list of the points that were wrongly accumulated by your opposition. You’ll forgive us if we don’t feel that is objective nor in the spirit of accepting a loss like a rugby man should.
It really just sounds like sour grapes.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:57pm
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:57pm | Report comment
If you want to make sweeping statements based on statements re: one match then that’s your prerogative. I’ve been critical of England for seasons now, but my points remain that England were poor not solely due to SA pressure. That’s pretty irrefutable. For example, England have struggled for seasons now with tight forwards cluttering up their midfield. That has nothing to do with SA. Chris Ashton has a history of conceding silly penalties at Test level. That has nothing to do with SA, and so forth…
Don’t talk to me about a ‘rugby man’, for goodness sake. Irony much? Who do you think you are? David Pocock? Not interested in bickering thanks.
June 22nd 2012 @ 9:02am
Mike said | June 22nd 2012 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Ben S, you are never really critical of England. You just offer excuses as to why they didn’t perform well in a particular match. And yes, you are as “interested in bickering” as the rest of us!
June 23rd 2012 @ 12:28am
Ben S said | June 23rd 2012 @ 12:28am | Report comment
‘Ben S, you are never really critical of England. You just offer excuses as to why they didn’t perform well in a particular match. And yes, you are as “interested in bickering” as the rest of us!’
Absolute guff. I have no interest in bickering, but I do have an interest in refuting constant and tiresome misquotes and incorrect assertions from childish discontents.
Never critical of England as in Manu Tuilagi is awesome physically but has poor hands, lacks vision and flies up out of the defensive line far too much? Critical like saying Mourtiz Botha is committed and has a great work rate bus has poor handling skills and is nothing but a journeyman? Crfitical like saying Courtney Lawes is an excellent defender and a good athlete but carries the ball too upright and too often? Critical like saying Brad Barritt is an excellent defender and has a great work rate but is too tunnel visioned, has poor kicking and distribution skills? Never critical as in saying England has some very good depth in certain positions but none in others, that the side is badly coached and badly selected? What planet are you on? And you claim SA posters are objective… If you had ever paid any attention to what I’ve written historically then you could have stopped wasting my time hours ago. Ridiculous.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:44pm
Rugby Diehard said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:44pm | Report comment
Disagree – I find Biltongbek’s posts to be fairly objective most of the time. equally, isn’t there a saying about those who live in glass houses?
June 21st 2012 @ 8:53pm
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
There’s a surprise….
Pretty familiar with that saying, yes. However, given that I’m actually critical of England I’m not really sure of its relevance in your post.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:20pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
Thanks mate.
June 22nd 2012 @ 9:10am
Mike said | June 22nd 2012 @ 9:10am | Report comment
I agree, RD, and I actually find most SA fans fairly objective, at least on their own blogs. Quite robust in their comments, but they usually reserve the most vicious comments for their own team. I don’t know any bunch of fans as hard on their own team as the Saffas.
June 21st 2012 @ 12:05pm
sittingbison said | June 21st 2012 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
KPM von Cluasewitz is only useful when playing against the French
June 21st 2012 @ 12:15pm
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
sb in that case Sun Tzu is only useful when different Chinese states get Super franchise licenses
June 21st 2012 @ 2:33pm
Jim Boyce said | June 21st 2012 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Re Your last para what about someone closer to the sporting scene , Rinus Michels . What rugby teams are now being urged to do, has a great relationship to the Dutch team of the late 1960s. You could also throw in Vince Lombardi who had some interesting relections on how sport should be played. Could go on but other sports have their other philosophers that rise above their own sport.
June 21st 2012 @ 11:56am
Sledgeandhammer said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:56am | Report comment
The public didn’t reject the ELVs, they didn’t even see them as they weren’t trialled in the North.
June 21st 2012 @ 6:44pm
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:44pm | Report comment
They were.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:19pm
Colin N said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
Some of them were, in fact, most of the ones that were accepted, such as the quick lineout can be passed backwards, kicking back into the 22 etc.
Things like changing some offences to short-arm free kicks – which produced one of the worst seasons of Super Rugby in recent memory – and taking down the maul were rightly thrown out (although the way South Africa took down England’s in the lead up to the third try, you would have thought it was kept).
Ironic isn’t it? Australia winning a game through a collapsed rolling maul, something that would have been legal under the ELV’s.
So it seems a bit rich for Spiro to be complaining 1) Because Australia benefited at the weekend and 2) The ‘better’ ones were actually voted in.
June 22nd 2012 @ 10:39am
Jutsie said | June 22nd 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Im not a fan of reducing penalties to short arm either, it just encourages cynical teams to infringe more as there is less incentive not to.
June 21st 2012 @ 1:30am
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 1:30am | Report comment
A poor kick is a poor kick if it’s badly chased. Kicking isn’t bad in itself – please change the record. It’s broken, badly scratched and not easy on the ears. Youngs was obviously under instruction to kick (as he was in the 1st Test), and anybody who has actually ever watched him play knows that he is a breaking 9. You’d think an Australian ‘rugby journalist’ would have a good recollection of Ben Youngs…
Btw, in the Australia v Wales Tests Australia kicked 49 times from hand to England’s 47, and they made 17 offloads to England’s 19. Hmmm….
Aah… the ELVs… Forgot about those beauties. Damn those awful Home Unions!
June 21st 2012 @ 6:44am
Justin2 said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:44am | Report comment
Yes those that actually gave you more scrums if you wanted to use it….
We still have too many penalties. A short arm “penalty” where you can’t kick for goal could make the game brilliant IMO.
Having matches decided by dubious 50/50 calls and teams kicking goals is NQR…
June 21st 2012 @ 8:03pm
Rugby Diehard said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
RIght behind you on the short arms.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:56pm
Ben S said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
But who wants scrums? I’d wager only Italy and Scotland really.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:28am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:28am | Report comment
I don’t think the June series is a winner. It may be viewed as such by SANZAR supporters given the whitewash so far.
However, if this were to be repeated year in, year out, it would quickly pall. Fortunately, the Lions tests and RWC break up this possibility somewhat.
The problem with the June series is that it shouldn’t be in June.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, I think the June series should be shifted to earlier in the year as part of a wider re-structuring due to happen in NH rugby in the next couple of years.
The English and French clubs have formally notified the ERC of their withdrawal from the Heineken Cup contract which is due to finish in 2015. They are seeking a change in the qualification process, and also, critically, the times of the season, when it is played. They have a preference for their players being absent on International games in one solid chunk.
I would propose that the June matches should be shifted to directly after the 6 Nations so that all tests are played in one complete window. This would match the current and future structure of how tests are played in the South with Tri(Quad) Nations matches followed (with a recuperation/traveling gap) by the November Internationals.
If all NH tests were played from Feb to April (5 + 3 or 4) the NH season would benefit from having the business end of its leagues and cups running until end of June on drier and sunnier pitches.
The Super Rugby break would shift from June to April – relatively easy to achieve – but would still finish on time for the Quad Nations.
June 21st 2012 @ 6:48am
Justin2 said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:48am | Report comment
I’d suggest you have your parties muddled up. I would have thought the international block would be played later on dry sunny pitches. After all tests are the pinnacle…
June 21st 2012 @ 7:03am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:03am | Report comment
Well which would be a better time to play in the SH – weather wise – April or June?
“After all tests are the pinnacle…”
Quite. So NH and SH players would be fitter, less tired, and NH players would have continuity and preparation heading into the SH tests – similar to Trii nations heading into November tours.
June 21st 2012 @ 2:24pm
Funk said | June 21st 2012 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
I can just imagine those red Irish faces as they play the Wallabies on a sunny, 30 degree Brisbane afternoon in April. Perfect timing for our friends up north to vist!
June 21st 2012 @ 9:01pm
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:01pm | Report comment
As opposed to ploughing around a mud bath in the wind and rain a la the Scotland match?
June 22nd 2012 @ 9:12am
Mike said | June 22nd 2012 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Fair comeback… Scotland taught us a lesson. I hope we’ve absorbed it.
June 21st 2012 @ 7:06am
moaman said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:06am | Report comment
I have to jump in here to support Pot Hale on this one;His ideas regarding shifting the Test Window to a place more sustainable seems very sensible to me.
If we are happy to have a break in the Super Competition then what does it matter when that break occurs?
Hosting the series earlier would mean better weather here and that has obvious benefits.If the ‘RC’ followed -on immediately after the tours,club rugby might even see some of the international or at least Super players in their ranks(depending on the length of the Super season) which would be great.
June 21st 2012 @ 2:58pm
AndyS said | June 21st 2012 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Absolutely agree. While my preference would be a move to a single international season, that is always going to be a big ask. Short of that though I think PH is spot on and, if they are prepared to play with the NH comps and tour here earlier, I’d be all for it. June is too close to the SR finals, the weather would be better earlier (especially for afternoon matches) and everyone has a few good matches under the belt before it starts. May might be even better, but the only thing I would really like to see is a week off for everyone before the first Tests to get the side sorted (like the HC does before the November Tests). That might add a week, but if we actually want them at their best…
June 21st 2012 @ 7:28am
King of the Gorgonites said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:28am | Report comment
I see an issue with your proposal. So all of europes top players would be out of Europe during April? Will club games still be going on? Would nations send extended squads as they did this year? If so, the clubs wouldn’t like it? I just dont quite get how it will work.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:18am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:18am | Report comment
KOTG. I’m deliberately linking this with the proposed changes that are going to occur with the European Cup – changes being led by the English and French clubs who have the power and money. Some of their key spokespeople have indicated that they want the calendar de-cluttered. One window for tests, another for European Cup, another for domestic leagues.
This would be a move towards that. The European Cup pool matches will be more clumped together. The Six Nations and the April test tours would be in one window. The domestic leagues and finals stages of the cups would then shift by 3-4 weeks into June instead of ending in May currently. The NH season would still end in June except players would be playing on better pitches in better weather, better crowds, and they’d all finish up the season at home, rather than 10,000 miles away on the other side of the world.
Club games keep going during the 6 nations currently across all 3 leagues. Under this model, depending on whether the number of teams in the Heineken Cup were reduced (another possible proposal), this mightn’t have to happen. But they would not play during the southern test tours in April.
Thus, this year, for example, 6 Nations started on 4 Feb and finished 17 March. Teams then fly out to respective countries for recuperation/preparation. Possibly start with a warm-up match the following weekend on 24th and first test on 31st March, second test on 6th April and third on 13th. Done and dusted and fly home on 14th. Leagues resume the following week.
And this coming weekend, we’d be seeing the finals of the European Cup and or playoff-finals of leagues. Super Rugby meanwhile would have taken a three week break and now be playing round 16..
Simples.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:58am
The Bush said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Are you suggesting an eight week (minimum) break in the middle of the season? Seems extreme.
Surely the better proposals are to either move the Six Nations to April-May, wrapping up domestic comps in April and then teams jumping on planes down south in June (one block of internationals) or moving European comps to a summer timetable…
June 21st 2012 @ 4:20pm
Photon said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
The Northern Hemisphere teams just need to win now and again Pot and the June tours will become a gold mine? If they keep the tours going the Northern Hemisphere players will become more familiar with the Southern Hemisphere and more importantly they will eventually bring sides to the South with players who’ve been on 3 or 4 full tours as opposed to 1 Lions tour, they will realise that they are just playing men that they can win. Last week could have been a huge turning point, it didn’t work out but it won’t take long if the tours continue. That’s why Ellis Park was sold out last week, a lot of South Africans including myself were surprised by how competitive the English have been
June 21st 2012 @ 8:19pm
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
Talking for myself I wasn’t surprised at how competitive the english have been.
June 21st 2012 @ 6:40pm
the breakdown said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
‘i don’t think the june series was a winner’
Did someone keep stealing your lollipops when you were a kid to turn you into a grump?
June 21st 2012 @ 9:00pm
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
Nope. Actually I said: “I don’t think the June series is a winner.” Because it is being held in June. That’s my point.
Two game tours were not resulting in many wins for NH teams. So the answer has been to make them 3 game tours against the same opposition.
I’m simply saying that there’s a danger of perpetuating the same problem without addressing the underlying issues. Whether SH fans want to acknowledge it or not – but NH teams traveling down south to play tests at the end of a very long season is not a recipe for greater success.
The results so far would seem to endorse this.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:41am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:41am | Report comment
PH I doubt you’ll get the wish. These tours have provided far more popular than the previous one off matches.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:50am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:50am | Report comment
I wonder why, KPM?
And more popular with whom?
June 21st 2012 @ 4:12am
biltongbek said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:12am | Report comment
Pot Hale, the reason why these tours are so popular is not because there is a whie wash on the cards, of the seven matches so far, only the first match between Ireland and N was not a fiercly fought battle.
In my view test series is a must, purely because you get time to suss out your opponent, players get to experience their opponent and correct technique, gameplan etc, where as with one off matches you study video tapes, hardly sufficient comparison to face a SBW or Willem Alberts face to face.
June 21st 2012 @ 4:23am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:23am | Report comment
I appreciate all those points Biltongbek.
June 21st 2012 @ 3:59am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 3:59am | Report comment
PH more popular with the southern hemisphere fans. I don’t think it’s just because they have won but because the three test idea is more interesting. It’s only the first year: it could well be that next year the northern teams will know how to manage these tours better and tactically how to play. If there is no change in two or three years then the tour idea could be reassessed.
June 21st 2012 @ 4:28am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:28am | Report comment
Hmmm..
Next year, four of the northern teams will be in Australia. France have played two tests this year. They’re committed to a three test tour against NZ next year. Don’t know who SA get.
There’s 3 test series in 2014. RWC in 2015.
Where’s the continuity for learning how to manage these tours better and tactically how to play? Would you really assess in two or three years? What would you be assessing?
June 21st 2012 @ 6:50am
Justin2 said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:50am | Report comment
It’s a lion year clearly. What’s wrong with France 3 tests v nz? Or 3 tests v anyone?
June 21st 2012 @ 7:11am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:11am | Report comment
Justin – if you read the 2-3 thread posts directly above, you’ll be able to answer your questions.
There’s nothing “wrong” with France playing 3 tests v NZ.
Or 3 tests vs anyone.
June 21st 2012 @ 4:24pm
Photon said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
Yes Pot there will not be another tour next year, but many of those players from this year will have toured this year. Gatland will find tremendous value in the Welsh players who will be touring Australa for the 2nd time in as many years. That’s where the value will come from. You don’t need everyone to have a ton of experience, just 10 or so players in 30 who have been there and done it before
June 21st 2012 @ 4:26am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:26am | Report comment
To add to that PH, extra matches early in the tour would familiarise the players with the speed of SH rugby and get them back into game practice if they have not played for a while.
June 21st 2012 @ 5:03am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:03am | Report comment
“extra matches early in the tour would familiarise the players with the speed of SH rugby and get them back into game practice if they have not played for a while.”
Like Scotland’s match against the Wallabies?
If they haven’t played in a while? They finished their end of season, then played the Barbarians, then went on tour.
And I’ll repeat re your earlier comment Next year, four of the northern teams will be in Australia. France have played two tests this year. They’re committed to a three test tour against NZ next year. Don’t know who SA get.
There’s 3 test series in 2014. RWC in 2015.
Where’s the continuity for learning how to manage these tours better and tactically how to play? Would you really assess in two or three years? What would you be assessing?
June 21st 2012 @ 7:08am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:08am | Report comment
In that case if Ireland started playing like Scotland supposedly do then the tests will be perfectly competitive…
June 21st 2012 @ 7:15am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:15am | Report comment
Also the SH tours to Europe are at the end of a long season.
June 21st 2012 @ 7:16am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:16am | Report comment
Yeah, yeah. On the subject of Scotland, are you familiar with the expression “you’re talking through your erse” ?
What’s the November tours got to do with anything? The SH sides do fine in those.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:01am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Maybe, better than being a bad loser though. Test series are fine if you show up and play well.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:24am
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Tests series where the players are fresher and fitter are even better. And in better conditions too.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:00am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:00am | Report comment
That line doesn’t work either: the SH teams tour the NH teams at the end of an exhausting season too.
It’s just about playing well and not making excuses. There’s nothing wrong with this challenge for a good team. I’m sure the SH would be happy to tour the NH for three tests at the end of their schedule and wouldn’t complain if it were tough.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:04pm
Pot Hale said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
You miss the point completely.
June 21st 2012 @ 6:26am
Damo said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:26am | Report comment
Spiro , good article.
In defense most Sydney siders and NS welshemen know what Nrma means.
Maybe he is writing primarily to a smh audience?
Oh and the rugby… It’s been good. Can’t wait till tomorrow.
Wales have played too well to deserve a 3 nil whitewash but the wallabies need to lift towards the mammoth challenges of Bledisloe, Quad Nations, and lions.
So it’s a must win for them too.
Like to see how this almost ideal pack (according to some posters) goes.
June 21st 2012 @ 6:54am
Dean Vincent said | June 21st 2012 @ 6:54am | Report comment
Well done Spiro, you got through an entire article without mentioning Stephen Jones!
Still managed to get a comment in about the “evil empire” though.
Your “culture of scoring points” comment is quite interesting. I seem to remember the 2003 England team being criticised for doing just this and also for not winning games in style!
June 21st 2012 @ 7:23am
moaman said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Off-topic I know but the AB team for the 3rd Test contains some surprises!
Starting XV (test caps):
1. Tony Woodcock (85)
2. Andrew Hore (64)
3. Owen Franks (33)
4. Luke Romano *
5. Samuel Whitelock (27)
6. Liam Messam (9)
7. Sam Cane (1)
8. Richie McCaw – captain (105)
9. Aaron Smith (2)
10. Aaron Cruden (11)
11. Hosea Gear (8)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (16)
13. Conrad Smith (57)
14. Ben Smith (4)
15. Israel Dagg (14)
Reserves:
16. Keven Mealamu (92)
17. Ben Franks (17)
18. Brodie Retallick (2)
19. Adam Thomson (26)
20. Piri Weepu (58)
21. Beauden Barrett *
22. Tamati Ellison (1)
June 21st 2012 @ 7:28am
Darwin Stubbie said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:28am | Report comment
Excellent to see Manawatu will once again be providing the halfback / 1st 5 combo … Been a long time between drinks
June 21st 2012 @ 7:31am
moaman said | June 21st 2012 @ 7:31am | Report comment
DS-It is reported that Carter suffered a hammy at training;call me cynical but I find that a tad dubious considering the noises that Cruden was making in the press about his chances of playing at Hamilton.
Switching both wingers and the changes to the bench are very interesting.No sign of Nonu.Wow! I worry about McCaw at 8;will Messam play a dual role ie typical 8 in the loose,back covering kicks etc.How will the scrum go? This side is far more ‘experimental’ than I would have expected after the close brush of the Grim Reaper’s ropey breath last Saturday.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:47am
Riccardo said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Hi Moa,
Very surprised to see Nonu’s omission. SBW looked a bit bewildered last week.
Cane deserves an opportunity after a fine 40 last week and exciting to see Beauden on the pine.
That said, this is a level of experimentation I too had not expected after last week’s near death experience. Surely the required lessons from last week are harder to instil in a squad with this many changes?
Hope Cron has been working hard with Ben Franks, the locks and back row as they were all shown up in the 2nd half at set-piece.
Thee Irish must smell their next opportunity.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:59am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Riccardo I think it’s unfair on SBW to say he looked bewildered when he was obviously told just to be a crash ball runner. He seems to be being used differently this year from last and I don’t think making him a hit up merchant is playing to his strengths.
Gear better than Guildford, all gain. Ben Smith bizarre!
Messam is a player who has always shown the potential to be a fine international though he will have to do the work of a 6 and 8 with both Cane and Mccaw and the backrow does look light. I would have gone for Mccaw/Thomson/Messam in the back row.
Probably would have put Gear and Savea on the wings from within the squad. Although few will agree, I think as Weepu is such a large and aggressive 9 it might have been worth a shot to start him to face the big Irish forwards at the breakdown.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:21am
moaman said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Kiaora Riccardo! Got to say that I am revising my opinion on this new panel.I expected conservatism and caution would rule….perhaps a little flexibility with results behind them and was prepared to wait till at least halfway through the RC to see whether or not they were up to it.
This side,in the context of what happened last week,seems almost reckless! It smacks of either profound confidence in their troops or……..or something I dread to think about!!
Let’s look at the positives; Wider squad members being tested(well and truely) in a meaningful contest with nothing less than a 107 year legacy at stake!
A loose trio with an abundance of..er..mobility and a set of backs with strike-power.Game-plan must be fairly clear.
If I had said to you that we would be going into a Test with Weepu,Barrett and Ellison as our 3 back benchmen,say 3 months ago,would you have believed me?
I have to say,I’ll be glued to the tv come saturday!
KPM; I suspect that they have ‘rested’ Savea like they have done with Retallick;two hard matches,early days for these two fine prospects.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:58am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:58am | Report comment
moaman of course it’s very hard to know whether in this situation a player is thought to be doing badly or rested but in the case of those two I’m sure you’re right.
Gear must be pleased to have stayed: under a month later he’s starting for the All Blacks. Not only that, but after Guildford’s anonymous showings and with Kahui injured, the left wing spot is his for the beginning of the four nations if he plays remotely well.
I think it’s reckless to play both Cane and Mccaw against a powerhouse Irish backrow, especially when Messam is less of an enforcer type than Vito or Kaino. With no real 6, the pressure on Messam will be immense. However I’m sure he like Gear will be very pleased with a chance of any sort.
Ben Smith Moaman, I mean Guildford was bad enough but both of them, for the All Blacks?
June 21st 2012 @ 10:28am
moaman said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:28am | Report comment
KPM; I’m happy for B Smith to prove me wrong but his selection has a lot to do with his good form at Super level,his nous and versatility and,crucially,timing with the injuries to the incumbents( Jane/Kahui).
My gut feeling is not good about the loose forward mix for this match.You never know,but it might never again appear in that configuration.RM doesn’t convince me he is a top level option at either 6 or 8 and I fear his days at 7 are numbered.Great chance for both Cane and Messam (again) but reeks of “stop-gap” for mine.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:34am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Moaman I think one has to feel sorry for Gear and especially Messam. Not having Carter inside him makes it tough for Gear, while playing in that backrow and having to play the roles normally filled by two or three players is a nightmare for Messam. Given that they were given a curve ball last year by playing in the mickey mouse match in the B team against South Africa, it’s a little unfair to give them another curve ball this time.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:39am
moaman said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
KPM-that would all be valid were it the fickle fans who were selecting the team with no thought givenn to context.As it is,I’m certain the coaches and selectors will be aware of the circumstances
June 21st 2012 @ 10:54am
ohtani's jacket said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:54am | Report comment
My first reaction was that this was the team Hansen had planned all along, which Rugby Heaven seems to have confirmed. Carter probably would’ve been on the bench if not for his injury.
The weak point is again the backrow. The idea that we would be covered by Vito/Thomson/McCaw/Read has sure disappeared in a flurry. At this rate we’ll have the weakest/least settled backrow heading into the RC. Read was a bit disappointing in the Christchurch test, I thought. He was ranging around too much and didn’t get stuck into the tight stuff. If McCaw plays 8 like he did in the last five minutes he’ll go okay, but he’s not athletic enough to contest the kick-offs like Read does. We’ll have to see whether Messam gets swallowed up by the Irish. Even with Heaslip out they’ll be backing themselves at the breakdown.
Excited to see how Cruden goes. SBW does look a bit lost at this level, but perhaps Cruden will form a better combination with him. Ben Smith deserves a start as he hasn’t had much ball so far.
So much for Hansen being CONSERVATIVE, though I do worry that there’s not enough POWER to compensate for the lack of LINEBREAKS, you dig?
June 21st 2012 @ 11:14am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:14am | Report comment
‘SBW does look a bit lost at this level’ You can’t really believe that. He’s obviously just being used as a battering ram.
I would say whoever the coaching assistant in charge of the backs or attack is a bit lost at this level.
June 21st 2012 @ 11:27am
Jutsie said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:27am | Report comment
He has feet for hands, it may be down to nerves but in every big game I’ve seen him play he makes a number of handling errors, whether its dropped balls, passes to no one or making off loads when its not on. At the moment he is coming a cross as a flat track bully. Looks sublime when there’s no pressure on but invisible when it counts.
June 21st 2012 @ 11:38am
ohtani's jacket said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Nobody made him knock the ball on with his first touch last weekend. It was nerves, pure and simple. SBW is nervous in an All Black jersey. He did make up for it with a strong run after we won a tighthead off the ensuing scrum, but he hasn’t shone in the No.12 jersey this series.
I don’t agree with using him for crash ball and I think he’s trying hard in the face of some serious Pat McCabe like attention from the Irish, but carrying the ball over the advantage line is one of the things Nonu had to adjust to at test match level. It took him a while to learn how to get his leg strength working and make extra metres in the tackle.
June 21st 2012 @ 11:38am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Jutsie as you’re not an anti-SBW poster I’ll give you a full answer on my thoughts. In his first year they tried to get him to off-load all the time as this is his biggest skill: thinking this was too much, this year they have swung in the other direction and converted him into a battering ram who never looks for the off-load. Something in the middle is probably the solution.
On top of that, the New Zealand back play seems to have taken a dive in sophistication since Wayne Smith left, and nowhere does it seem to be getting very far. SBW is the kind of player who relies to a great degree on how he fits in to the team’s backline structures as they need to be there for his off-loads and as he is so heavily marked they must allow him to emerge at a point where there is less attention on him, through decoy runners, loops etc…So his success depends very much on how good the team’s attacking strategies are and how he is integrated.
June 21st 2012 @ 11:49am
Jutsie said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:49am | Report comment
The question KPM is it the coaches that encouraged him to look for the offload at every oppurtunity and now have got him to be a battering ram?
Or was it him over playing his hand because he was new on the scene and eager to impress, then the coaching staff had a word with him telling him to reign it in a bit, and now he’s trigger shy?
I tend to think the latter scenario is more likely but that’s just matter of opinion. I don’t blame him for being eager to impress either, he’s a controversial figure like QC and people expect them to entertain every-time they touch the ball but they both need to learn to underplay their hand.
June 21st 2012 @ 11:55am
kingplaymaker said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Jutsie this trend has been going on at the Chiefs all year so it must be the coaches. Wayne Smith has got him to rein in the freer part of his game and do more battering: this is well-attested so it must be the coaches. It could be, who knows, that the AB coaches are trying to get him to play the same way as at the Chiefs but without Wayne Smith’s strategies to integrate him.
As for dropping the ball, that’s a separate question and is presumably nerves or over-eagerness: maybe even the damp conditions, Mccaw did it four times in the second half.
June 21st 2012 @ 11:58am
Jutsie said | June 21st 2012 @ 11:58am | Report comment
I think he has been very effective for chiefs and he still incorporates the offload, so I think wayne smith has been a good influence on him.
My main point is that he goes missing or makes more mistakes in big S15 games and at test level.
I agree with OJ that it is probably down to nerves as well as the reduced amount of time and space. He just needs to have a bit of patience I guess.
June 21st 2012 @ 5:12pm
matthew said | June 21st 2012 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
That’s one of the weakest All Black sides you’ll ever see. Wow. I wish they were going into the RC with that side.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:06pm
Justin2 said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:06pm | Report comment
Wow, brave from Hansen. Be funny if they get rolled after last week… I’d be furious as an AB fan