The Crusaders didn't take any prisoners in Christchurch

"Dagg isn’t even in the same ballpark as Folau who the best in the world at 4-5 facets of the game" Dagg is a superb fullback at his very best and like Ben Smith he always runs magnificent support lines and was considered the best in the world in his position in 2010-12 before his series of injuries and maybe some need to watch some footage of him when he was at his best and go check out his prowess under the highball at 2011 WC - it was as good as anyone in the world now or then= game after game he and Cory Jane defused almost everything that came at them and chased and won the ball in the air throughout the tournament. They were both simply magnificent in the air. Folau is one of the best in the world under the high ball sure of course he is - but he has dropped a few as well in his time just like others. He is human not superman for goodness sake. Ben Smith is just as good under the high ball and especially in the chase because he is quicker and has better shifting step in heavy traffic than Folau. Cory Jane is also superb under the high ball as I have said. Folau's off-load game in the tackle is not that good in comparison to others and never has been. It is an area of his game that needs work And please spare me on his kicking game - he is a fullback and his kicking game - distance and accuracy - Bomb or long - is way behind Ben Smith - Dagg - Lee Half-Penny and others. Folau rarely if ever, wins and kicking duels from the back at domestic or international level and never ever against the Highlanders where Ben Smith is far superior. This is one improvement another fullback could bring if Folau did shift positions. He misses key tackles at times in defense close to the line as well where he sometimes gets caught out - either out of position or rushing forward too early. Commentators like Rod Kafer have pointed this out on more than one occasion as has Justin Marshall and they are both big fans of Izzy. This doesn't mean he is a poor defender per se, but he does make defensive mistakes close to the line at times. The problem for Cheika and Gibson is that if they move him to 12 or 13 or wing (the latter of which he has also been superb like he was in the LIons Tour) - then who do they put at fullback to defuse the high ball? But there are a couple of candidates coming into contention but I think he will stay at fullback for now. And if you are doing to argue that Folau is betters at beating defenders and breaking the line against top class opposition than others - people like Milner-Scudder- Savea - Ben Smith - George North, Nedolo or Neholo or - Damien McKenzie who is ahead of Folau in - carries - run meters gained - defenders beaten - off loads - clean breaks - tries scored - kicks in open play this season at fullback then I am sorry but there are others who are just as deadly. I mean Folau is a better finisher than Julian Savea ( the Bus ) is he? Because his international record certainly does not suggest this at all and he a better at breaking the line and finishing than Milner-Scudder, Neholo, Nedolo or the great Brian Habana is he? Remember you are arguing he is better by proxy because you are claiming he is the " best" at it Folau is a great player but his game is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and I think some really stupid claims about Folau being the best at this and that aspect of the game are bordering on hero worship not reality. And John your stats claims....are just that...claims.....??? You clearly hero worship the guy - that's fine but your judgement is clouded because of this As Rod Kafer has said on Rugby 360, you have to back a long way to remember when Folau had a genuine outstanding game and by this he means for 70-80 minutes- not just moments of brilliance and he didn't get any disagreement whatsoever form Marto, or two top Australian rugby journalists who were present

Aussie Rugby has ladled itself with a millstone...why would anyone want to play a lumbering 140kg lock that no one can lift in the lineout....what is it with Aussie Rugby....Cheika has a lot to answer for...and his options for the WBs are looking dire right now....TAHS got done, Force lost, Rebels lost....and Aussie rugby will get a home final because of the Conference system, just like SA...what a joke all of this is...the best 4 teams should be playing the finals regardless...and that will be 4 NZ teams or if it was 6...hell even the Blues could make it...

CS, disagree with both points,but pointless continue debating here. Perhaps over a beer someday.

My point wasn't that there aren't some basic requirements for various positions, but that on top of those basic requirements there are a load of different ways to play the positions. Hence both Christian Cullen and Gavin Hastings are considered great fullbacks despite having vastly different playing styles and skill sets. There are things fullbacks have to do, but there's no one play all fullbacks have to play. Folau was a very good fullback, at times arguably best in the world. As for Pocock, he's not as good a ball carrier as those you mention but he is solid enough.

Jerry, I'd have to disagree to a degree. Positions do have core requirements that need to be fulfilled for the overall balance and cohesiveness of the team. Owen Franks would suck as a fullback and Pocock is an average no.8. I've never seen a good no.8 who wasn't also a good ball carrier (the best are also good ball players). The requirements off the back of the scrum necessity this and Pocock doesn't scare anyone in this regard. Guys like Zinzan, Kefu, Vermeulen, Read were\are terrifying propositions from a 10m scrum in midfield.

Not really, but the Crusaders in Christchurch on the current form of the two teams always looked a bridge too far, to me at least. Although a harder ask without KB, and depending on how the team backs up against the Chiefs, I wouldn't rule out a win against the Blues in Eden Park at this stage.

Moderated

Paulo, it cannot be reasonably suggested that Benedict says nationalism is good or positive. He just makes a compelling historical case that it is, and analyses it in numerous manifestations, including good and bad, positive and negative. As to the national form of consciousness itself, he's ultimately agnostic. Re rugby, the Australian team is a representative national team, and an Australian coach is consistent with the representative principle. I wouldn't say that there always must be a national coach under all and every circumstance, but it is to be preferred in accordance with the principle on which the team is based.

They are not 'absolutes', merely factual truths based on evidence, into which my fondness or otherwise does not enter. What evidence, I hear you say? Let me tell you a story. In the mid-1990s, George Soros, one of the richest people on earth (then, as probably now, I haven't looked him up lately), brought together a diverse panel of scholars and librarians and asked them to draw up a list of the 100 most significant (fairly recent) books on the humanities and social sciences. Imagined Communities was listed as one of these. Ipso facto, Imagined Communities, already highly regarded around the world, was confirmed to be 'widely regarded' as one of the top 100 works. The point of Soros' initiative, btw, was to translate the works into the languages of the countries previously behind the Iron Curtain and offer them to the local publishers.This was done. The last I heard, the project spent about US$5m. to produce approx. 2000 local language editions. Anderson makes the compelling case, un-contradicted to my knowledge, that nationalism is the most common (and powerful) form of collective consciousness in the modern world.

I've read the Andreson's book CS, don't agree with several aspects of it, particularly with the notion that nationalism is positive or necessary. I like Gellner's functional analysis of Nationalism better. I like patriotism, but greatly dislike nationalism. Like most migrants, I'm patriotic in relation to my adopted country (albeit not blindly, one must keep a critical mind). I tend to agree with George Orwell: "A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist—that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating—but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations." Andrew Heywood also wrote a good comment on it: "Nationalism is inherently divisive because it highlights perceived differences between people, emphasizing an individual's identification with their own nation. The idea is also potentially oppressive because it submerges individual identity within a national whole, and gives elites or political leaders potential opportunities to manipulate or control the masses." Yes, I cited some of the worst examples of nationalism, but I think the "Australian coach for Australia" reflects exactly the worst aspect of nationalism. A more useful discussion would be on if adapting the NZ style of play to Australian teams is ineffective. But that would for me turn into a questioning of the effectiveness of the coach - a good coach would recognise the qualities of the players he has and maximise their potential, not try to fit a square peg through a round hole. Perhaps bring elements of his own playing style that would augment the players natural style, but he'd be silly to try to change it completely. I don't think Deans really tried to force the NZ style, nor think Gibson is trying. Another thought. "Australian coach for Australia" would be satisfied by promoting Michael Foley to the position, which is a coach with a playing style I don't appreciate. Or bringing Eddie back, which is also a coach I don't find positive nor appreciative of the Australian style of play. What you do want is a coach that appreciates the local style of play and can maximise the results considering the players he has (which I see Cheika doing). Where he (or she for that matter) is from is inconsequential. I'll accept that someone who has played or coached in Australia is more likely to understand, but not exclusively. Finally, if you look at high-level sport, non-national coaches leading national teams is very, very common. Most leading NH national rugby teams have foreign coaches. Last soccer WC had five Brazilian coaches (if I remember right, not verified). In gymnastics, having an Eastern European coach is almost a standard.

CS good of you to suggest some reading material. You're fond of absolutes. What makes you think "nationalism is the most common form of collective consciousness in the modern world"? Anderson "widely regarded" in the top 100 works in humanities?

That is scarcely an adequate definition of a nationalist Paulo. Nationalism is the most common form of collective consciousness in the modern world. Should you have a genuine interest, I recommend Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism by Benedict Anderson (Verso: revised edition, 2006), widely regarded as among the 100 most significant books ever published in the humanities and social sciences.

Perhaps you could say that, although Folau's athleticism makes him a more effective player at FB than Dagg. I don't really like to go down the 'he's not really a X" argument. If a player is in that jersey and is effective, they're a good 8, 10, whatever. David Pocock doesn't play like other 8's, but if he's wearing 8 and playing well he's a good 8. It's not like everyone who plays a certain position plays the same - Dagg is different to Smith who's different to Le Roux who's different to DMac..... The reality is that when Folau plays Fullback he's one of the best in the world and at times it's really only been Ben Smith who could have been argued to be better than him (and there's been times when I'd agree that Folau's been #1).

Examples of 'nationalists' movements include the one led by Adolf in Germany in the mid 30s, around same time as Benito was getting his brown shirts riled up in Italy. More recently you have Slobodan, Pinochet, Farange, LePen, Chave, Kim (so both right and left). Many of these movements were also xenophobic, but I agree that not all.

DH, it definitelty started from NZ. Sean Fitzpatrick coined the nickname first I think. It was done in a good humoured way among Kiwis but then got used more widely. A NZ press headline after an early loss to Aus under Deans was "a Dingo ate our all blacks..."

How about dagg's a better fullback, folau a better athlete.

Not the way I recall from here in oz. It was us I am afraid and it was actually quite inclusive as we had just poached him and were quite happy with ourselves

I'd say Taufua, Dixon, Kaino in that order at the mo. Last week Dixon was probably ahead. Kaino will probably get the respectful nod but Id Say he's on a short leash

Was talking about the Wallabies

he is prolific twas. lately it seems like he is the only one interested in writing up matches afterwards. hence the high post count, only place to come and discuss the match (ignoring the article). nothing to do with his quality.