NZRU says no to World Cup rule change for Hayman

Jeremy, Hayman and Baxter are both tight heads. It was Tony Woodcock who has dealt to 'Fuse' over the years.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0810710#m_en_gb0810710 STATISTIC Pronunciation:/stəˈtɪstɪk/ noun * a fact or piece of data obtained from a study of a large quantity of numerical data:the statistics show that the crime rate has increased 20 - 18 was a fact obtained obtained from a careful study of how many tries, conversions, and penalties were scored. As you know, there were no drop goals in that game. This study resulted in the statistic 20-18. I wonder what that statistic represents? And keep in mind this is the OXFORD Dictionary Daniel. If something is British and says 'Oxford', that means excellence. 20 - 18 = :)

Hayman humbled Sheridan on NH tours. The Wallabies scrum in 2008 still had Baxter and Dunning (why Deans didn't see the need for a change I don't know), and while the scrum was still weak and was being penalized, it did better against New Zealand in 2008. John Connolly said it in 2007 that he expected Australia to do better in the scrums when Hayman went north. Now while some might say that Connolly was trying to explain away why Australia's scrum never improved under him, that really was respect and lots of it. Even against South Africa, when Os went off you saw a huge deterioration in SA's scrum.

Jamesb, the selection policy is the cornerstone of rugby development in NZ. The whole idea is that the ultimate benefit for premier players playing in NZ is that they are eligible for AB selection. By saying offering to ship players back from whichever club they're at in the world and give them a black jersey at the airport you're setting up NZ to be a rugby player exporter, severely depleting the domestic competition - which is the backbone of NZ rugby - and removing the non-financial incentive that overcomes the relatively poor player salaries in NZ. Carter was an exception and he remained contracted to the NZRFU whilst he was playing in France; essentially he was on sabbatical, ie he was allowed to play for a season in France on the understanding that he'd return to NZ and play the domestic competition there. Selecting the 'best team possible' could ultimately affect the viability of rugby in NZ, hence they don't do it.

Frank, IMHO Carl Hayman scared the crap out of you because his local competition was Mean Al Baxter and Matt 'The Fat Canadian' Dunning, who simply didn't have a clue on how to deal with the guy. By comparison the Boks scrum were pushing the ABs around pre-2007 and Hayman got into real trouble during the NH tours, repeatedly penalised when up against the Poms especially. Al Baxter was, unfortunately, the yardstick for the Wallabies scrum for a decent period of time, head to head with Hayman. Prior to every Bledisloe match he'd trot out the same boring old crap about not being scared of the ABs front row, then concede three tightheads and a penalty and get subbed at the 31st minute. Hayman would find the current Wallas frontrow a challenge, to say the least. (in my humble opinion).

"He showed how much he valued the black jersey" If there's that much mythical value attached to the black jersey, why is there a German sports apparel manufacturer's logo on it?

I heard he didn't like it, does that still qualify?

There is one distinct difference; the peak earning potential in their careers is compacted into a maximum of ten years (and usually far shorter), and they lose out on the professional development that would occur in those 10 years. The flow on from playing to, say, coaching or mentoring or commentating is abysmally low. I do, however, rate the NZRFU and ARU's (and AFL for that matter) player development programmes that attempt to upskill the players as they run through their careers.

Why does it matter that he is in it for the money? I've never understood the idea that it is bad for sportsmen to be 'mercenaries' when any of us would, at the very least, consider leaving our workplace if we recieved a substantial enough financial offer. We romanticise sportsmen; we like to believe that they play for the glory and for the honour of representing their country/club. That probably is true, however at the same time they have careers and families, and they aren't much different from us.

Hayman and Evans were in the squad last time and it didn't make a difference to the end result. There's no way of knowing how well Hayman or Evans would play for the All Blacks. The only players who've managed to successfully work their way back in were Thorn and MacDonald, let alone joining the squad straight from the European season. The NZRU tried to get both guys back and were turned down. Hayman and Evans have made their peace with not being All Blacks and it should be left at that.

That's not a statistic.

It seems NZ isn't really as serious or hung-up about winning the RWC. If they were, they would ignore the "rules" and select the best prop in the world. All this talk of Franks being as Hayman good is utter nonsense. Yes he is a very good prop on the up and getting better all the time, but when you are in a pressurer cooker match of a RWC semi-final or final with 10 mins to go 10 points down, who would you rather have on the pitch? Hayman was renowned as a very mobile prop, so its also nonsense to say he would find the game too fast these days. If NZ wants to break the drought, its simple - select the best team possible. This means they MUST select Hayman and Evans. Evans is the second best first-five in the world, so why wouldn't they?

"They dominated that match statistically." 20 - 18

No trick question, as I said I haven't seen him scrummage since he headed north - that is over three years ago.

France are a different proposition from Portugal or even Italy. Hayman was dominant at Murrayfield but Scotland decided to field a weak team and concentrate on their quarterfinal instead. I don't remember what I said about it at the time, but they played better in the first half against France. They dominated that match statistically.

As I said to you when they played Scotland, I thought New Zealand played badly. If I recall Scotland didn't score in that game. New Zealand won by about 40 by playing messy, ugly rugby. I remember you, the big Graham Henry fan, saying Henry was trying to get the side to win by playing grinding rugby, which they'd need to win the final games where teams are more conservative and need to grind out wins. Turns out New Zealand weren't any better in the next game. New Zealand demolished Scotland's scrum in that game. Yes Scotland gave that game up before it started. Hayman was the best player that day though, IMO. I didn't see the Portugal game. How do you judge who's the best from a pool competition? You watch a few of the games and see. France played terribly against Australia this year, but the fact they were poor competition didn't make it hard for me to say AAC was the best player on the field.

Hayman was sinbinned against Italy, subbed on as a lock against Portugal, didn't play against Romania, and was part of the All Black side who struggled against Scotland C. I think it's fair to say he had a forgettable World Cup. Having said that, how do you judge who the best All Black was in pool competition? From memory, Collins looked good in the early matches, Williams was starting to come into his own, and Howlett was in the best form amongst the backs.

I should have guessed. My bad.

If Hayman wasn't the best player in that World Cup before New Zealand were eliminated, who was? Watch how New Zealand decimated Scotland and how awesome Hayman was in the scrums. Who else in the New Zealand side was better than Hayman in that World Cup? Chris Jack played very well, and so did Ali Williams. Carter wasn't as great as he usually was. I'm not saying he was Man of the Tournament, I'm just saying he was as impressive as anybody before New Zealand got eliminated.

Sorry, I was getting confused with a million New Zealand dollars.