Before the Sydney test, there was much debate as to which captain was the bigger loss to his side, Mortlock or McCaw. After Sydney, it looked like the answer was McCaw. After Auckland, it is certain that the answer is McCaw.
Corollary of this: whither Mortlock, especially with all the leaguies (Cross, Tahu and perhaps Gasnier) coming on stream?
If rugby players are peaks on a stage of the Tour de France, then McCaw and Carter of Saturday night’s match are alone as “HC” (“above category”).
As anyone who watches cycling knows, it’s the HC peaks that determine who wins – the size of the other peaks does not really matter. Giteau aspires to be HC, but Saturday night illustrated – especially through his many ineffective kicks – that his peak is still a signfically smaller one in Carter’s shadow.
Corollary of this: whither New Zealand when Carter has his upcoming “sabbatical” in the south of France?
What is it about Eden Park?
Australia has not won there since 1986, and the harder they try, the worse it seems to get. In 2006 and 2007 the Wallabies were arguably the better side in matches there, but could not win. This time they weren’t that good, but they weren’t as bad as a 29-point defeat suggests.
If something could go wrong, it did, right down to the TMO absurdly awarding a bounced ball as a try in the last play of the game – even most Kiwis are admitting this was a ridiculous decision. I have noticed over the years that in cricket New Zealand often beats much better teams in tests at Eden Park, e.g. South Africa in 2004 and England in 2002.
It just seems to be a ground where visiting teams are cursed.
In cricket one can explain this through the weird alignment – players struggle with their bearings because of the pitch being at 45 degrees to the stands.
But in rugby?
Since a match against France in 1994, the All Blacks have not lost at what is truly a “Garden of Eden” for them.
Corollary of this: will the redevelopment of Eden Park for the 2011 World Cup undo this curse for visiting teams? Or does this history make a 2011 World Cup triumph a near certainty for the All Blacks, given that both semi-finals and the final of the event will be played at this ground?
Teams are playing matches in this year’s Trinations in 3-week blocks.
A clear trend is emerging: teams play very well in their second match (e.g. South Africa in Dunedin, Australia in Sydney, New Zealand in Auckland) and very poorly in their third match in a row (e.g. South Africa in Perth, Australia in Auckland).
I suspect a sports scientist would say that the reasons for these trends are obvious: the first week is getting into the groove, the second is optimum performance, and then by the third there is exhaustion.
Corollary of this: the next block of three is South Africa hosting New Zealand, Australia and then Australia again. If the trend continues, then South Africa will be at a peak for their first match against Australia, but by the week after the tables will be turned. So will this second South Africa-Australia clash see Australia manage a rare win in the republic?
There were so many things wrong with the selection of Phil Waugh that it is hard to know where to start:
a. Most obviously he is not an international quality 6, and probably he’s not international quality full-stop. Even if McCaw outplayed George Smith, at least Smith was very much in the game and was still one of Australia’s best players.
Waugh, on the other hand, was invisible (even allowing for his concussion).
I have maintained for a long time that Waugh’s role in international rugby is as a high-impact substitute with a specific task – usually to wreak destruction with frenzied defence – over the last 20 minutes of a match.
He’s very good at this, but that’s all. As a starting player one could argue that David Pocock is already better than Waugh.
b. Robbie Deans has successfully used two “fetchers” with the Crusaders, but that was always with positive tactical intent: to play a very fast game that tired big South African forwards.
What was he doing playing two fetchers with the purely negative tactical intent of outplaying McCaw?
In hindsight that was never going to work, because one of the things about great players is that they do not get outplayed at their own game.
This tactic would be a bit like England choosing two leg-spinners and putting on a turning wicket in the hope of outplaying Shane Warne. Or playing two beanpoles to out-jump Eales.
The way to defeat great players is to shape the game differently to the skills that make them great. This was never going to happen playing Smith and Waugh.
c. As has been widely discussed, the Australian lineout imploded, with the selection of Smith and Waugh being a major reason for this.
All of New Zealand’s first 18 points arose because of an Australian lineout malfunction (including poor defence on New Zealand’s throws), either directly or in an immediately preceding play.
And at 18-3 the match was already lost given that it was being played in Auckland (see point 3), this even though Australia had actually been playing quite well up until that point.
Who now remembers that the first five minutes of the match were completely dominated by Australia and looked like a seamless continuation of much of the Sydney test?
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Henry's All Blacks should've won the World Cup and I think he handled the 2007 campaign the wrong way. Resting players from the Super 14 probably had more of an effect on the way we played in the June Tests & Tri-Nations, so I'm more inclined to agree with Jerry's idea about not playing his best side through the pool games & I also think our WC preparation wasn't good enough. We should've played some warm up games. Despite all that, I still think we were the best side in the tournament. Henry went to some lengths to make the All Blacks more accessible to the media, which was the big falling out Mitchell and Deans had with the NZRU. I don't know if Henry handled the WC aftermath particularly well, but he had the NZRU on his side, which isn't usually the case after being knocked out of the WC.
Justin
Guest
OJ - thats fair enough. How would you class Henry's campaign on the same criteria?
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Mitchell only had two years to develop a World Cup winning squad, which isn't long enough in the modern era. He accomplished the immediate goal of NZ rugby, which was to win the Bledisloe back, but his World Cup campaign was a disaster not only on the field but in terms of public relations.
Justin
Guest
Jerry - spot on.
Jerry
Guest
Justin - Mitchell took over for the end of year tour in 2001, following the AB's under Wayne Smith losing 2-0 in the Bledisloe.
Benjamin
Guest
Justin, we could talk about it all night but the key difference is that England had Wilkinson on all game whereas there had been issues over Carter's fitness prior. Also that England team was far more experienced. Anyhow, I've had my say on this matter now. Each to his own.
Justin
Guest
One thing is clear is that perhaps great sides find a way to win. England v NZ as you guys have showed with 2 men down. NZ couldnt do it against France at the most crucial time last year. Jerry I thought mItchell took over after that series, ie for the NH tour in November. Could be wrong.
Benjamin
Guest
I see that as down to the NZ front row to keep it up in that case. Anyhow, we'll have to disagree. Maybe I'll check it out on youtube.
Jerry
Guest
Yeah, but it's hard to get pushed back when the scrum has collapsed which is why the English scrum was pinged - there was a reason the scrums had to be reset. They did maul/pick and go up the field and get a penalty with 6 forwards, a very impressive feat - I don't deny the England pack was a formidable beast, but the 6 man scrum thing is just a bit of hyperbole.
Benjamin
Guest
Isn't it amazing how people remember things differently. England did hold out the ABs with 6 men. There were 6 men on the pitch and they didn't get pushed backwards. Is that not holding out? And I am concinced it was 3 scrums?! The England pack did nonetheless maul the AB pack down the pitch when reduced to 13 men. From my memory the AB pack did not hold out that well. I also think that the weather hindered both teams, and not just NZ, as England proved in Melbourne.
Jerry
Guest
"Mitchell’s NZ pack didn’t run England close. The backs did. England outscrummed NZ three times on their own try line with 6 men." Ok, I gotta call you on this cause the "6 man scrum" myth is a personal bugbear of mine. England didn't hold out the AB's with 6 men, they collapsed the scrum and got pinged! So'oialo (who had a very bad day that day) then took a quick tap, was tackled by a player who hadn't retired back to the goal-line (ie in an offside position) and got called for a double movement. As good as England played in that game, and they did play very well, the idea that they held the AB's out due to the power of their scrum isn't accurate - it's revisionist history. They held out due to tenacity, skull-duggery and a bit of luck in not getting penalised again. The forwards held up reasonably well in that game - they gave the AB's enough possession and territory to win, but Spencer had a shocker with the boot. They also suffered a bit of bad luck when Marshall injured his hamstring on the break out which would have likely resulted in an All Black try otherwise (though that was probably cancelled out by Howlett not being called for being in front of Spencer for his try).
Benjamin
Guest
Fine, SA - conceded, however I imagine Henry's ABs have far greater results against all the other nations.
Jerry
Guest
Justin - Mitchell also lost to Aus in 2002. Benjamin - Mitchell's team put 51 points on SA in SA in 2003, that win being the highest margin of victory by the All Blacks in any test against SA. Johnny Boy - You're on the drugs yourself if you can't concede Henry has a superd record. One home loss in 4 and 1/2 years, only 1 loss to an NH team in the same period, 3 consecutive TN titles, 4 consecutive Bledisloe Cups, Grand Slam, Lions series win. You may not like the guy, but you're a bloody idiot if you try and deny that's a bloody good record.
Benjamin
Guest
Justin, I'm European and even I thought the French try was outrageous and the yellow card was a poor, poor call. NZ then lost two fly halves in the space of 8 minutes. How do you have a contingency plan for that? Henry's only error was the conditioning window, and that was a tactic also followed by Wales and Ireland which suggests there was some solid theory behind it. There is a vast difference in that QF defeat and the manner in which Mitchell's team got blown out of the water by that Australian team. Mitchell's NZ pack didn't run England close. The backs did. England outscrummed NZ three times on their own try line with 6 men. Henry's pack out scrummed England at Twickenham with six men. See the difference? During Mitchell's era England set the tone, during Henry's era NZ set the tone. We will have to agree to disagree but Henry's record is clearly better than Mitchell's. Some of the absolute thumpings he delivered will never be matched by future international coaches. People in NZ clearly dislike Henry for personal reasons but Mitchell was just as political and conceited. As far as I am concerned, as an independent observer, Henry brought the ABs back to where they should be in the world order.
Justin
Guest
Henry may or may not be a better coach but clearly the facts show that he is not in another class. The Lions? They were the most pathetic team assembled in that jumper ever. Is that the same depth that Henry counted on to get them through RWC last year? Against an average French team in a qtr final? There may have been some less than great teams but to run the England side so close with a joke of a pack as you say must give credits to that team and coach... We will have to agree to disagree as to Henry's superiority and the respective sides they coached.
johnny boy
Guest
Benjamin - Henry's record is superb ? - you've gotta get off those drugs man
Benjamin
Guest
Yes but all the other major teams were comparatively poor in that period - SA, France, Ireland, Wales, Australia. Henry turned that shambles of a pack into the best in the world. He created depth when previously there had been none for years. He won a home nation grand slam, beat the lions 3-0 and in specific games absolutely smashed every single nation in the world. 40 points on SA in SA? In Mitchell's dreams.
Justin
Guest
So is Mitchell's - he lost to England twice, both times by 2 points (at home and away) and that was the Eng WC winning side, drew with France in France and lost to AUS in WC semi. So all up 3 losses and a draw in 2 years of which 3 of the results were away.
Benjamin
Guest
His record is superb.
Justin
Guest
As in Henry is so far superior?