Pragmatism or romanticism? How will the All Blacks tackle the Rugby World Cup?

"Interesting, Taylorman, that when England in the second test in June came back to within one point of the ABs it was ‘a one point hammering’ and the ‘ABs already had the game won’ (a view I’m broadly sympathetic with) yet when a very similar game unfolded in Twickenham in 2002 it was ‘no, it’s called the opposition rallying to forge a comeback.’ I suppose that’s what makes AB fans, AB fans." Birdy, I've been staying out of this debate but come on, that comparison is bogus. In 02, England were up big after 50 minutes and the All Blacks pulled it back to 3 points with 10 minutes to go. In that second test, NZ were up by 8 till past the 80 minute mark. It wasn't a flogging, but that game was over with a few minutes to play.

Interesting, Taylorman, that when England in the second test in June came back to within one point of the ABs it was 'a one point hammering' and the 'ABs already had the game won' (a view I'm broadly sympathetic with) yet when a very similar game unfolded in Twickenham in 2002 it was 'no, it’s called the opposition rallying to forge a comeback.' I suppose that's what makes AB fans, AB fans. WQ, you and Taylorman haven't 'rolled out any facts', at least in the generally accepted sense of the word. What you've done is what fanatics and obsessives do the world over. For some reason (which speaks volumes) you had your noses put out of joint by a foreign team that beat everyone put in front of them repeatedly. So you seemed to need (again it speaks volumes) to apply some label to undermine their achievements. So '10 man rugby' is the conclusion you must reach regardless of the 'facts'. To reach your desperately needed conclusion you have to use statistics in a way that is laughable. First, remove the games where England ran up try after try. So Ireland in Dublin; Wales in Cardiff; France etc become 'minnows'. Having reduced it to the 'big 3' you then have to remove the Boks game where they scored 7 tries; refuse to talk about the 2002 game in Australia where they ran the WBs ragged; provide a weird 'interpretation' that you'd never use in assessing any other team, of the Twickenham game against the ABs to say hey presto, having done enough statistical and intellectual gymnastics to win an Olympic gold medal I've proved something called '10 man rugby'. My favourite though is the belief that England fans are trying hard to 'sleep at night thinking that once upon a time they had a Team that could attack like the All Blacks!!' Talk about projection. It's this sort of thing that has got Kiwis the reputation for borderline mental illness when talking about rugby. When England fans think about the 2003 RWC side they think of one of the best teams ever, that beat everyone in front of them using a variety of styles that included use of a world class kicker and some excellent try-scoring backs - do you know the one thing they don't think about? The All Blacks!!!!

Birdy it was you that made the statements we have simply rolled out the facts to prove you wrong! I for what it is worth, thought it was clever Rugby and playing to their strengths, they did what they needed to do to win. I will not be fed rubbish though about them matching the attacking prowess of the All Blacks just so English Rugby supporters can sleep at night thinking that once upon a time they had a Team that could attack like the All Blacks!!

Squirrel Aawww shucks, what's the matter, are all your squirrel mates not sharing the love cos they're hoarding the chestnuts and leaving nothing for you....?? Must make you feel left-out and angry....like a chipmunk perhaps??

Sheek Yeah mate I remember that '70s series but if you rewind 5yrs and compare the forward packs against the Boks in NZ, then you'd notice the ABs lost a few hard nuts through retirements by the time they hit the 1970 tour to SA. Players like McLeod (hooker), Gray (prop), S Meads (lock), Tremain (flank) - all hard bastards who took the brunt of the Boks pack in 1965 to win that series 3-1 but were missing from the AB tour in 1970. Still, I suppose it works both ways but from my seriously flawed memory-recall, I always figured the Boks had no problems finding replacement behemoths for their 1970's pack from the ravages of the '65 tour. The AB's had no answer to the ferocity the Boks unleashed in 1970 suffering their biggest test loss in the 1st test for years.....I listened to that game at some ungodly hour of the morning with the old man and we couldn't believe what we were hearing over the radio. It was lambs being sent for the slaughter. Colin Meads absence was a definite bummer but I doubt if he could've had any influence on that 1970 Bok pack. Yes, we came back in the 2nd test but only just - then it was literally "goodnight Irene" thereafter. Never mind, it was a massive series that began the test career of one the NZ's favourites....Bryan "thunder-thighs" Williams. What a player and what a series. It was never easy trying to win in the Republic.....sometimes, you'd swear that nothing's changed, today.......

Love, 'before they stupidly took their foot off and let the ABs back in'....no, it's called the opposition rallying to forge a comeback. Do you really think the English thought, hmmm...shall we stupidly let the ABs back in? They were out scored 4 tries to 3 in that match which must have meant wilkos goal kicking made the diff. 8 of the 12 matches were won by less than 8 points. They scored 20 tries to 15 in the 12 wins and remove the big SA win they were out scored by 15 tries to 13! They are good wins but they were simply not won playing 15 man rugby which by its definition uses all 15 players to combine to score the winning points. England scored 225 points from kicks and 100 points from tries...70% were from kicks. Opposition scored 75 points from tries and 119 points from kicks at 61% so opposition sides played a more open game than the English. Contrast that with say the ABs since the beginning of the World Cup versus the SH3. 453 points scored. 44 tries at 3 a game and 51% scored via kicks. 70% versus 50% in kicks is the very difference between 10 and 15 man rugby.

You often use the phrase Taylorman, 'that's just how it was' when it rarely is. England played the ABs twice in that period. In the game at Twickenham they were 31-14 up early in the second half before stupidly taking their foot off the gas and letting the ABs back in. In Australia they were 22-9 up and cruising. In both those game the ABs and Australia convinced themselves that if they made it a 'fast open game' it would suit them - they had their backsides handed to them through tries. 12 consecutive times the 'big 3' tried a variety of ways to beat that England side. Play it fast and open - lost; give it the biff - lost; play structured and tight - lost. It makes me laugh that this seems to still rankle with some Kiwis and Aussies for reasons I don't understand. My view, for what it's worth, is that when the 'Arrogant English' stuff was hurled at them instead of doing what most England teams have done and denied it whilst trying to 'win respect' they made it quite clear that they didn't give a rat's wobbly bits what Kiwis and Aussies thought of them. This seemed to send some of you lot (even the Aussie PM at the RWC prize giving) over the edge of rationality; and still does.

And it would be great if that side did rout the SH sides by scoring tries but they just didn't. The numbers, and from memory the matches, we're all usually close affairs, battles of attrition where England found a way to get up every time. Haven't done the check but how many matches was the winning point scored by a try? I can guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that any AB run of matches will just about always end up with a try as the last score, probably more. That is the difference. Not a chip, that's just how it was. The numbers are undeniable.

Except for SA, those are not big numbers, and think you'll find they didn't even out score the opposition in the try tallies you mention so that's hardly notable. You just need to accept birdy that the England side played excellent 15 man rugby versus the non SH side, excellent 10 man rugby versus the SH3, were the dominant team in World rugby for the duration, and worthy World Cup winners. Anyway, tired of talking about that team. There have been better sides than that.

Wow guys; do you not think that maybe, just maybe, you're coming across as a little sad with a laughably large chip on your shoulders? How long have you spent going through selective statistics about a foreign rugby team from 12 years ago? You must be a hoot in the pub. Even I've not got the time or inclination, and they're my team, to go through 3 years of match records against only 3 teams then weed out how many times England back moves were stopped through penalty infringements to end up sticking a finger in the air and conclude '10 man rugby'. I know that England's try scoring record stacked up against anyone. I know that in the 5 games against the 'big 3' before the 2003 RWC they scored 7 tries against the Boks at Twickenham; 3 against the ABs at Twickenham; 2 against the Aussies; then there was a slug fest in the rain in Wellington before the following week England scored 3 tries in Australia all from flowing back moves. Is that 10 man rugby, or simply effective test match rugby where kicks and tries were mixed up as all top sides in history have done? It depends on your definitions. England scored lots of tries and were one of the best teams ever. As a fan, that was enough for me. However, if for some strange, slightly weird personal or national reasons you feel a desperate need to label them as you do; knock yourselves out.

go man go, How? That's just being as ridiculous as Marto. And what have you achieved in your sporting life?

As mentioned Birdy I did apply the same mentality to the All Blacks and removed the 100's of points and dozens of tries they scored against minnows. At this point I would also like to point out the English side scored very few tries against any of the Southern Hemisphere Teams. If you look at those games only, let's just say you don't want to know! The All Blacks tries almost all came against Southern Hemisphere Teams. Birdy facts are, against decent opposition they quite simply played 10 Man Rugby!!

Campese has embarrassed us ever since

I am a huge admirer of Kiwi rugby. They are the most pragmatic & adaptive of nations. Interesting, although things do change over time, in some ways they don't & there remains one constant about All Blacks rugby, which apparently hasn't changed since the early test days of 1903/07. Doing everything at pace. Whether rucking, mauling, counter-attacking or spinning the ball wide, the ABs do it at pace, with energy, with momentum, with obvious enthusiasm. And they commit with numbers, whether in attack or defence. I think it's fair to say the average Kiwi rugby player is more productive in a game than players from any other country. They learn at an early age to be engaged, to be involved, to be committed, until it becomes second nature to them. I was reading recently about the 1970 series against the Boks in South Africa. The ABs arrived as world champions unbeaten in three years & left defeated 1-3 in the series. The great Colin Meads, who broke his arm & missed the first two tests, observed after the series, that often there wasn't anyone to clean up, an often typical ABs trait. The ABs lost that series partly because they had become complacent in their play. Anyway, like I said at the top, I am a great admirer of Kiwi rugby. They are the most pragmatic & adaptive of nations. You can win a one-off 'battle' against the ABs, but you rarely win a 'war' (series) against them.

Marto, You are embarrassing. Yes, Campo was brilliant in 1991, but we don't need to gloat about it.

15 ...

WQ, I will convince you without a shadow of a doubt that the England side of 2002 ish played 10 man rugby. Have done it before, can do it again. Birdy knows this which is why he is offering up terms like 'infringing'. Fact is, against the 3 SH teams the stats clearly point to 10 man rugby. 15 man rugby is about scoring tries. That side scored less than two tries per match versus the SH sides. That is not winning by 15 man rugby. I have the stats and a comparison with a side that actually did win playing 10 man rugby.

Did you work out how many of the ABs tries came against 'minnows'? The simple fact is both England and the ABs averaged about 4.5 tries per game in 2002. Is that an unusually low average rate for the ABs? I've no doubt whatsoever that 'nothing will convince you that that team played anything other than 10-man rugby'. It was the last desperate straw that many Kiwi and Aussie fans and media grabbed onto. At first it was 'you can't beat the SH teams'. Then it was 'you can't beat the SH teams away from Twickenham'. Then it was (because the fixture list meant they hadn't played the ABs) OK you might be able to beat the Boks and WBs, but you won't be able to beat the ABs. Then it was 'you're boring'; then when England had racked up over 50 points against the Boks; over 30 against the ABs; and ran the WBs ragged in Australia it was 'Dad's Army'; then it was you'll never win the RWC because you're too old. Then, finally, because the RWC final was won by a dropped goal; we went back to '10-man rugby'. It was all a bit pathetic at the time, and it hasn't improved in maturity down the years. What that England team had was a winning mentality. They'd take the points on offer. Many teams started killing the ball as they were under pressure. England had a world class kicker (as opposed to the ABs over some of this period), so would take the points and keep the scoreboard ticking over. I saw many internationals where England would start off like a train, running the ball, and sides off their feet, until the opposition would start killing the ball at the breakdown because of the pressure. Wilkinson would take the points; so England would be 12-0 up, for example, all through penalties, not because they played '10-man rugby', but because teams were infringing.

Abs are getting all romantic thinking that there dad's army will merrily take the Webb Ellis and Carter McCaw, Conrad , Nonu and dagg will get their cup. They will be rudely mistaken.

Just a few stats from your English Try scoring wizards in the early 2000's - 2000 scored 270 points with 23 tries of which 59 of those points and 7 tries coming against a minnow. Take away the minnow Test and it is 37.91% of their points coming from tries. - 2001 scored 542 points with 70 tries of which 343 points and 50 tries coming against minnows. Take away the minnow Tests and it is 50.25% of their points coming from tries. - 2002 scored 326 points with 36 tries of which 45 points and 6 tries coming against a minnow. Take away the minnow Test and it is 53.38% of their points coming from tries. - 2003 scored 644 points with 65 tries of which 230 and 30 tries coming against minnows. Take away the minnow Tests and it is 42.27% of their points coming from tries. Over those 4 glory years your point scoring machines averaged 45.95% of their points from scoring tries. Applying the same mentality to the All Blacks during the same time frame they scored 58.76% of their points from tries. Your point about England's try scoring rate in 2002 nearly being comparable to the All Blacks is a valid point if looked at in isolation. However that happened to be the high point of that period for England and the absolute low point of that period for the All Blacks. You will struggle to convince me they played anything but 10 man Rugby!