NZ must rise above Deans' verbal jousting

Sorry that should have been 1995 for Laurie Mains and not 2005

Craig this is one of rugby's greatest urban myths that NZ sacks their incumbent coach after a world cup failure. Only one coach has ever been sacked after a world cup failure and that was John Mitchell in 2003. In 1991 Alex Wyllie resigned and John Hart didn't reapply, in 2005 Laurie Mains resigned and in 1999 John Hart resigned. Graham Henry conceded that he was going to resign in 2007 when told by the NZRU board that he would have to reapply but had a late change of heart. While you could argue that those men leapt before they were pushed the facts are contrary to popular belief and this behaviour isn't isolated to NZ rugby either, guess how many unsuccessful world cup coaches from any of the FIFA powerhouses from South America survive? Zero.

That's true Craig, in the context of the general season then, not post-WC. I would generally consider NZ fans sombre, hence the hush during games. I'm not trying anything? I'm not sure what you mean?

Knive Out - NZ Rugby slightly less reactionary????? I take you haven't been anywhere near NZ when the AB's have just lost another unlossable world cup??? I'm pretty sure they are the only power house team to sack their coaches immediately after RWC's on at least 2 occasions.... Come on mate your gonna have to try harder than that!

Not really, pretty mediocre game, but you were right, Pieterson is magnificent. Those tries made up for the none he scored on tour and the multitude he didn't score in the 3N. He is magnificent, probably the best wing in the world.

"Reminds me of yesterday when a South African swore that JP Pieterson was magnificent and far better tha Rokocko." I hope you enjoyed the Sharks and Blues' games, Knives.

McCaw said in his post match interview that Waldrom and Lowe made his life misery which is a huge rap from the best in the business.

Agreed, until Fairbrother and Tialata came on in the second half their scrummaging was ordinary, the lineout was pretty good I thought but they miss Hore. Chiefs finally woke up in the second half and were applying pressure to the Sharks. Scrum was much better than against the Waratahs and they came so close to either winning the game or securing a possible draw but some great defence from the Sharks and bad luck kept them out. I still reckon the try by Messam was legitimate and if anything a penalty try could have been awarded as the Beast was clearly offside when tackling Messam's lunge for the line which slowed his momentum. On the flipside I tipped the Sharks by less than 12 so get maximum points for that game. That Scotland try was a beauty!!!

I only saw the Canes match and I thought their loosies were unsung heroes. They kept McCaw pretty quiet. The backs were good, though nothing compared to the try I saw from Scotland just before. The problem is the set pieces. You can avoid a lot of set pieces by taking quick taps or keeping your kicks in play, but when you have scrums or lineouts from an attacking position, you need a solid platform and from what I saw those areas are pretty woeful.

Hey OJ what did you think of the Chiefs v Sharks game? and did you catch the Canes match?

Fair point Sam, I think that SA confidence/border-line arrogance is still evident now, which is bizarre given that it wasn't pre-WC. Anyhow, each to their own I suppose. Nothing wrong with confidence.

Yes I am from NZ, living in Australia but it's not only Aussies who are reactionary. Last year there was a lot of hype from SA fans about the Boks winning the Tri Nations last year (and justifiably so coming off their World Cup win) they had a strong squad with no obvious deficiencies and NZ and Australia were vulnerable. After consecutive losses to NZ and Australia at home there was much doom and gloom being posted and then of course they were all cock-a-hoop after their record thrashing of Australia. The same thing happened after our ass whipping last year at Telstra Stadium against Australia, there weren't many Kiwi fans brave enough to suggest that the All Blacks would be good enough to turn their performance around in a weeks time and many had already consigned the Bledisloe as good as gone. After Eden Park, the mood of the country was buoyant, the knives for Henry were placed back in their sheaths (until his next loss) and confidence was restored.

I dunno about that. Last year we had a two Test crisis.

Are you not from New Zealand, Sam? I tend to find most New Zealand rugby fans as slightly less reactionary than Australian fans, a bit more pragmatic perhaps. If Australians are sky high one week, the next they will surely be as low as low can go. Maybe that's a stereotype, but my observations aren't meant to be presumptuous or insincere.

Knives Out, couldn't agree with you more but that's what makes us sportsfans the enigmatic and fickle people that we are. I've been involved with this site for over a couple of years now and I've learned that there is an enormous amount of knowledge, passion and skilled analysis from contributors but we tend to recycle the same topics for discussion just under different banners. It was guaranteed that following the disappointing results in the opening rounds for Kiwi teams that most articles would bemoan the state of NZ rugby, the lack of depth, player drain to overseas clubs, player welfare and burnout, extensive travel, refereeing decisions, excessive kicking within the ELV's etc. The same thing will happen this year when Aussie teams go without a win in some rounds and SA teams. Cue the international season and the same themes will emerge. But that's why I love it and enjoy this site so much.

Sam Taulelei, all due respect to Australian rugby and its supporters, but from O'Neill downward to the fans they are the one set of peoples prone to amazing hyperbole. For example, pre-Spring tour Nathan Sharpe was public enemy number one, post-Spirng tour he was public hero number one and now following one mediocre game in round 2 he is public enemy once more. You only need to traverse this site to see that: rugby is not a spectacle any more, the opposition to the ELVs is an English conspiracy, the ELVs are solely responsible for some "super entertainment" in the S14 thus far - which has been amazing, Phil Waugh pioneered the current generic openside style, Robbie Deans does not engage in mind games etc. It seems that Australian rugby fans have an amazing propensity for huge paradigm shifts week by week and that everything is either black or white. I suppose this could be labelled passion. My response to Deans is that he has a great record with the Crusaders, and a mediocre record with the Wallabies, but it is early days so he needs time more than extensive imaginary accolades. Henry is unfairly maligned and yet he achieved something extraordinary last year.

Oh and NZ doesn't have to rise above any verbal jousting from Deans, Nucifora or anyone else for that matter taking pot shots. The slate is wiped clean and it's a brand new year for coaches and players alike. Results in 2008 will have no bearing on what will happen this year.

Oops sorry got the win/loss ratio wrong, Australia lost 5 (forgot about the loss to Wales) and SA only 4 last year.

Heh, heh nice one James. You've taken a fair degree of journalistic license with your paraphrasing of Deans comments "South Africa is not only the benchmark rugby nation, but also that the most dangerous teams in the Super 14 all hail from the Republic" relating to an earlier interview by Deans. In that interview Deans rated the teams HE most expected to excel in this season's comp being the Waratahs, Hurricanes, Sharks and Crusaders. That's a big stretch from Deans quote to your throwaway line attributed to the same man. Anyway why let the facts get in the way of a good story, especially when it generates such passionate responses. One thing that has me puzzled though is all the hyperbole used to describe Deans, particularly by the Aussie press and fans. "Master coach, super coach, remarkably balanced coach, brilliant commander etc" the list is endless. Yet if you apply the same logic Deans has in rating the best performances by an international side last year then surely Peter de Villiers would be mentioned in the same breath, especially when considering their respective sides win/loss ratio from last year which were the same. By the same token Henry is described as someone constantly under pressure to win back Kiwi rugby fans hearts after the failure of 2007 and the person who stole the All Blacks job from Deans, yet he won the IRB coach of the year award for the third time and his team won all the silverware on offer. It's not difficult to see that one is enormously popular with the press and enjoys a fair amount of leniency, whereas the other two are clearly not.

!I imagine most people are partial to their own country’s players, but the man-for-man argument is a little stupid. It reminds me of last year when Wallaby supporters swore they had a better pack than the All Blacks." Reminds me of yesterday when a South African swore that JP Pieterson was magnificent and far better tha Rokocko. Brad, that's an interesting perspective. Could you expand on it please?