All Blacks maul hapless Samoans

Nobody's sure why we chose black. It dates back to 1893. The theory is that it comes from the use of the silver fern as the team's emblem -- i.e. silver on black. The 1888/89 "Natives" wore black, so perhaps they were inspiration. At first they wore white shorts like the Rugby League team, but they changed to all black in 1901. But we wore grey in Cardiff.

OJ; take your point.People who feel disadvantaged and somehow excluded from mainstream society have always been a thorn in the side of the establishment.NZ is not alone,some footabll fans in England are a case in point, but they may well cause you grief in the RWC. But there's something else. It's that endless dreary black you're all lumbered with. I guess we'll see stadiums full of people in black. I remember thinking during the match in Cardiff against France; there was your PM ( whom I like by the way) dressed head to toe in black and her hubby too.Funereal is not the word.Why did you choose black by the way? My advice would be to take the happy pills the Australians took during the Olympics. It worked and was a stunning success.The volunteers ,God bless them ,were gold ( excuse the pun).Most of it came down to smiling , enjoying themselves and being helpful. Good luck - NZ can't afford to stuff up.

I'm not being sensitive but it is a pointless waste of energy to be so glib. It does nothing for you or me. Why bother? To be honest it seems to be predominantly from league contributors. I'm content to watch both codes personally, so why can't others? Everybody has a preference but it's only sport... I saw something truly shocking tonight, so lets get a perspective.

Oh come on Benjamin, don't be so sensitive. And you read the league threads so know just as much stirring of the pot goes on there as well.

Well actually Samoa are ranked 12th in the world, and it wasn't even their 3rd best team. So that's a rather pointless comment. The recent World Cup illustrated the competativeness of rugby union. Perhaps you should do some research about the games featuring Fiji(11) and Tonga(13). It would be interesting to see whether the 13th ranked team in the league WC could take the eventual winners (Australia or England) to the wire. It would also be interesting to see how many Roar union contributors decide to make childish, facile comments on league threads. Not many I would imagine.

the world's best rugby team plays the world's 6th best rugby team and 87 points is the difference. What a great global competition! I guess the difference between League and Union is that League doesn't pretend to be a global force.

Tah, Leicester sometimes play at the Leicester football stadium. Bath have been trying to upgrade for years but no cigar as of yet. London Irish, Wasps and Saracens all play at football stadiums. Jerry, true. But Spiro was implying that an English WC would have smaller matches pushed upon small, decrept stadiums - his justification for this being a game from 1999. Nonsensical. Aside from OT, geographically you have Headingley in Leeds, Aston Villa's stadium, Liverpool's stadium. There are countless football stadiums that could be employed. The only smaller pitches tend to be at the smaller clubs. I mentioned the London Clubs because I would hold the knockout stages in London and use Wembley, the Emirates and then Twickenham.

It's more the abuse of other country's rugby supporters that's the problem. There's a certain demographic dragging the rest of the country down.

'Provided we improve our reputation as hosts'. RWC will have to give the Kiwis happy pills for six months before the games commence and they must do something to stop booing at grounds when opponents take kicks.

Staging all those games in Auckland is purely financial. The decision to play all of the quarterfinals outside of Auckland was a great move. Rugby World Cup Ltd were against it because of the financial implications, but it fulfills New Zealand's bid for hosting the WC in the first place. The atmosphere ought to be very good, provided we improve our reputation as hosts. I was against NZ getting the rights and even more against Japan getting the rights, but it's done now and it ought to be a small but strong WC.

'The football flea bit the AB's were given in Bristol for the opening match of RWC 1999' Charming Spiro - never complain about anyone else being rude on this site.Oh and the RWC is in 2011, so careful you don't miss it. I also notice today, in what passes for rugby commentary in the SMH, that both semis and the final of the RWC2011 will be in Auckland - presumably because no other ground is suitable - even for a semi.So much for great facilities in NZ.

True Tah - Wales played test at Wembley while Millennium Stadium was being constructed. Benjamin - given that Wembley, White Hart Lane and Emirates Stadium are all in London which is already well served by Twickenham, those grounds don't really do that much to address Spiro's point. Presumably matches will be scheduled in other cities for the 2015 WC should it go to England. There will be other premiership football grounds available in other cities obviously (assuming the RFU can secure the use of them and that the ground's owners are willing to risk the pristine pitch being cut up), but my concern isn't with the stadiums but with the pitches - specifically the length of them and whether the in goal areas will be able to be big enough.

Benjamin, aside from Old Trafford, have any futbol grounds been used to host rugby matches? I alsio understand that quite a few of the clubs like Leicester and Bath are looking at upgrading the size of their grounds, since they usually hold less than 20,000 and are normally at full capacity. Another thing, whilst Twickenham has been referred to as the home of english rugby, the soul of english rugby is in the southwest - Devon/Cornwall/Gloucester/Bath, has the RFU ever looked at any decent stadiums in this area to possibly hold test matches. When will Cornwall ever get a team in the top flight?

From the sounds of things it was a massive PR hit for the All Blacks. Visiting the heartlands is a clever strategy in the build-up to the Rugby World Cup. If they do this once a season, the RWC will have a retro '87 feel to it.

I see. 6 World Cups would be quite impossible, but prior to various WCs NZ have achieved the wins and success that England did in 2003. To that extent the WC hasn't been an accurate reflection of ability.

That's only 2 years, Paul was talking about the last 21 years. I don't think we've ever sustained the type of dominance where we would've won six straight World Cups.

NZ pretty much swept all before them in 2005/6, OJ. Spiro, I dont' see how a ground used nearly a decade ago would be relevant to the 2015 WC. I imagine there was a reason for the use of that stadium. Twickenham aside, the football grounds Old Trafford, Wembley (even White Hart Lane and the Emirates) in particular are equal to all anything in the SH.

Probably, but realistically the All Blacks haven't swept all before them at any point in their history. Before the World Cup came along, we could never beat the Springboks in South Africa.

Thanks Wally, but does the fact that there is a dominant team for so long in league mean anything? it just means we are the best at it. NZ has been favourites for every RWC since its inception. The fact they have managed to lose most is a blessing. Imagine the ABs swept all before them, would that mean the same argument applies?

should be gap* not gab