JN does your post relate to mine or is it a response to something else? Written from my airconditioned office in Canberra (surely even more disgraceful than Sydney).

The coaching side I have little issue with, because there are areas where structures/techniques can be taken from other codes and then applied. Les Kiss was an early mover with Oz in the late 1990’s and did a good job as a defensive coach same with John Muggleton.

I wouldn’t be troubled if a coach identified things from League, AFL etc. that they felt could be useful in strengthening the side (be it skills, a way of looking at a phase of the game, a set play etc.) but I would be happier if they looked at bringing over the know how to teach it rather than just grabbing a player that has something they think would work well.

Enjoyed the article, thanks.

Fast Eddie is difficult to write about in some ways. He has some endearing qualities (humour being one), he has a lot of players of pedigree (Larkham, Gregan are just two and there are also some in ENgland) who speak of him as the best coach they have had, he can point to some impressive coaching achievements (Super Rugby trophy, clean sweep of NZ in 2001 including a very, very rare win at Dunedin, 2003 and 2019 RWC finalist, England’s record v Oz during his tenure, Japan’s 2015 RWC performances), he seems to have been considered a significant factor in the 2007 SA RWC winners coaching group and he is obviously bright and hard working.

The negatives are also pretty significant. There was the debacle at QLD in 2007. He has been involved in more losing finals than winning ones (i.e. Super Rugby 2000, 2003, 2019 RWC), his coaching reigns have tended to end the same way, in a welter of acrimony and with the side weaker than when he started. He laso has a lot of pedigree players who don’t think much of him (Matt Burke was one who had some pretty devastating comments and Toutai Kefu voted with his feet; Owen Finnegan might be put down to spite, but the guy knew his rugby). He has a tendency to tinker endlessly in mid-field, he has an obsession with League (the issue there being that the two codes are very different, that League is basically rugby with 13 backs and that rugby matches are won in the forwards, with backs determining by how much, so that League players risk being very expensive additions with little impact on whether you win or not), for a forward when he played he also seems largely uninterested in set piece.

I have been appalled at his return. More back to the future. The movie from 2001-2005 ended badly and it looked very like the England movie of 2016-22. Let’s hope Jonestown III has a different set of script writers, but the early signs are not good at all. In movies I and II he took very good sides and ran them into the ground.

I suppose the hope might be that with Japan he took an unfancied side and delivered RWC 2015 and this Wallaby group is a similar story – in terms of world rankings at least. But then in 2007 he took a poor QLD side and arguably made it worse.

Time will tell.

Peter, I enjoy your articles greatly and your love of the game is a joy, so I hope you and others will take what I have to say as coming from a place of respect.

I have no issue with writing about the sporting prowess of people who served odious regimes. However, I do think some mention needs to be made of this beyond ‘suffering isolation’, or a mere nod to South Africa’s ‘sporting isolation’. The passing reference, the neutral treatment, runs strong risks of feeding a narrative that makes people like Gerber seem like victims. It minimises the very active role that sports and sportspeople played in supporting the violent, dehumanising, racist apartheid regime. Gerber ‘suffered’ very little in comparison to Steve Biko, Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo and millions of people who opposed a very brutal police state that enforced explicitly racist policies in every aspect of national and personal life. Sport was used by this police state as an important part of its internal and external politics of justification. Internally, the Springboks were a way to show that racism worked and externally to promote the regime as just one of many in the world, to encourage contacts and to present a ‘wholesome picture’.

Gerber and others like him had a choice. Many white South Africans took the path of exile because they were sickened by the regime and gave up on being able to change it from within, or were not prepared to risk social isolation, imprisonment, physical violence and death to oppose it. Others stayed and suffered to oppose from within. Others, perhaps for reasons it is not hard to understand (we should not pretend it is easy to oppose the status quo, especially when it is backed up by the education system, the police, the army, the church, social groups and sport, friends, parents, family etc.), chose to stay and do nothing, whatever they may have felt about apartheid. Gerber seems to have been one of these. They profited by their choice. They suffered isolation, but so did Mandela for over two decades; so did Biko when he was murdered by police thugs. Gerber’s sporting discomfort doesn’t really rate for me.

Tommy Bedford was a Springbok who took a stand against racism and lost his rugby career. There were others.

I don’t argue for ignoring Gerber or others like him. All I ask is that there be a few lines at least reminding us that while they got to play for their country, to display their prowess, they benefitted from several centuries of privilege based on race, that while they played, others were being shot at Sharpeville, Soweto, in the vicious bush wars in Angola, Namibia, ‘Rhodesia’, others were losing their chance to display their prowess because they spoke out – as Bedford did.

Sometimes defining moments arrive. This wasn’t Liberal v Labor, or the more routine sort of political difference. This was whether the colour of your skin determined often whether you lived or died, more routinely how you lived and died. It rates a mention.

It also rates mention that the regime exported the use of violence against its opponents overseas and that for 30 or more years demonstrating against apartheid South Africa’s sporting teams brought you up against police thuggery in New Zealand, Australia and Britain. It also brought you face to face with the thuggery of people who wanted to enjoy watching the likes of Gerber without having to worry about the brutality of the system that was sending these sides out and using them for support. 40 years on a lot of people have forgotten, a lot weren’t even alive, but this is just one example https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-50422755 Police violence in Australia against the anti-Springbok tour protests was also very real.

To be clear, I am not accusing you of complicity, or racism or anything beyond sharing a love of rugby with me and other Roarers. I have no idea what your politics are, how you view the issue of apartheid and sport’s relationship to politics. Keep writing, because I love your articles (even this one). All I ask is a few lines to remind readers that Gerber was at the apex of a system and that whatever he suffered needs to be seen in context.

I also don’t bear Gerber any feelings, one way or the other, having not met him. He was from a relatively poor background, he comes across in interview as a simple man who, like many, just wants to just get on with his life, something I have no trouble relating to. But I take you back to the fact that this was not a relatively egalitarian society, or even a vaguely ‘normal’ one. It can be a misfortune, or an opportunity, to be alive in a time and in a place where the situation is so extreme you have to make a choice. Not standing up, not speaking out is a choice. It offered the chance to display your great talents in a way that was denied the ‘black’ and ‘coloured’ kids Danie played soccer with before he played rugby. It offered the chance to do what was denied the likes of Bedford who did respond to what he saw on tour as a Springbok. It was denied to Biko and the thousands killed by South Africa’s police, military and security services as they sought access to being treated as humans.

There are clear issues with the Brumbies’ relative difficulty scoring points freely from tries at Super Rugby level.

However, this article doesn’t seem to me to explain how a coaching team that was made up of one Brumby (the forwards’ not the backs’ coach) for the overwhelming majority of the time spoken of have created the issues for the Australian attack.

Rennie has a reputation for being a coach who wants to do things his way (and so he should), whether that was at NZ ‘colts’, the Gallagher Chiefs franchise, or overseas. If the argument is about a Brumby takeover it needs to explain how this occurred when the backline was being coached by a non- Burmby and the head coach was a non-Brumby. The preferred fly half has never been Lolesio (whatever you may think of Lolesio) – he has been in and out of the side and for a while O’Connor and Cooper seemed to be preferred and then more recently Foley. Lolesio would work well in an attack playing Brumbies’ rugby but it doesn’t and he looks out of place.

The running lines of the Australian backs are not those of the Brumbies. They run a lot of very lateral stuff and they tend to look to probe much wider channels than the Brumbies do – they usually work a lot of ball very close to the ruck. The probing out in wider channels looks much more akin to Rennie’s time at the Gallagher Chiefs.

What does have a Brumbies flavour is a lot of play off 9 (Nic White – a Brumbies man) and a muted use of the 10. However, unlike the Brumbies, Australia have rarely deployed a kicking game off 10 worthy of the name, even though Lolesio does that with the Brumbies, sharing the tactical kicking with White. Rennie also used to run a fair amount of play off 9 before he allegedly fell under the spell of a wicked Brumby cabal (are they also stealing votes and masterminding electoral fraud?).

My own view is that there have been selection issues from day 1, including a policy that has been inconsistent, hard to follow and with almost built-in issues in terms of the type of game that Rennie probably would like to play. There have been injury issues from early on in Rennie’s tenure and with COVID as well it hasn’t been easy.

The Brumbies have usually worked on getting the basics of the game right and building off those. They have usually been good at adapting to meet changes in the laws and interpretation of same. They have typically been highly organised off the pitch as well. Queensland used to be like that but that largely petered out in the aftermath of the ‘Knuckles’ Connolly era.

If there is a backline in Australia that has most resembled the present Australian backline in structure it would actually be Queensland/The Reds, who employ a 10 who is not a strong/consistent tactical kicker and who run a lot of play into wider channels than the Brumbies tend to.

For mine not much of Australia’s attack has looked persuasive. The forwards have struggled to lay a consistent platform and the lineout has been a frequent bugbear. It isn’t a great place to start from. Trying to play a quick game from inconsistent ball isn’t ideal. When the Brumbies struggle to make progress there they tend to get rid of the ball because under the current law interpretations (and they have been this way for some years), trying to play ball in hand when the forwards aren’t going forwards is just asking to be heavily penalised. Guess what? The Australian side is a heavily penalised side.

On top of that, Australia have struggled to get the kind of momentum from the midfield in the backs that Rennie and many other NZ coaches (quite rightly, in my view) value. In NZ that has also involved the use of a powerful winger running inside lines. Injury to Kerevi will have been very much a blow to the way Rennie would like to play. If the forwards are struggling to get go forward consistently and to secure phase ball consistently and there are problems gaining momentum in midfield then trying to run it out wider just increases the work your own forwards have to do and if they are stuggling already it is not a recipe for success. The Brumbies kick when they can’t make quick progress in the backs and they tend to go wider only when they are generating momentum, because otherwise the referee focus on carrier immediate release over tackler roll away just increases the likelihood of penalties against the attacking side. What Australia do is not very Brumby-like but it is reminiscent of what Queensland have been doing in recent years.

Lest you think I am trying to turn Nic Bishop’s Brumby scare into a Red Scare, the same issues apply – there are not many Queenslanders in the Rennie coaching group.

The real issue is trying to play rugby without the essential platform and then trying to play a mish-mash of all the worst parts of the backline play seen in Australia. When White kicks at 9 for the Brumbies there is a clear plan and a lot of chasing pressure applied. When he kicks for Oz there is a lot of unpressured ‘stuff’. Lolesio is given little kicking work for Australia, O’Connor is not a strong and reliable kicker and where the Brumbies play close to the ruck until they make progress, or get rid of what becomes a penalty magnet if you are not progressing, Oz tend to look to run wide channels without making forward momentum first and they just keep at it until … guess what – turnover or penalty.

At any rate, let’s build a straw man out of a province that plays more like La Rochelle than the author’s preferred side. Like Australia’s coaching group and selectors we can then ignore reality in favour of other narratives. There won’t be much progress but that is ok, there will be continuity as Australia continues to pursue myths about rugby (including myths about its own rugby style) that have marked the performances of the last twenty odd (often very odd) years. The alternative might be to do what Queensland, then Australia did in the 1970’s and recognise some truths about rugby as a game and devise gameplans and selections accordingly. The Brumbies brought more of this to the table (courtesy of quite a lot of Queenslanders and with a strong infusion of hard nosed Randwick but especially Gordon) in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. Australian teams of the ‘golden era’ played off a generally workable scrum, a really strong lineout, world class loose forwards, the ability to secure possession and backs that were never afraid to kick a lot if that was demanded. The backs played direct rugby often using exciting play off set-piece. But when they played ball in hand they did it to a purpose that was easy to see and that made rugby sense. It would be more useful to look at that than spurious stuff about alleged national rugby DNA, or the alleged disease of Brumbyisation.

The bit about the dire coaching is spot on, but hardly news. It is a bit disappointing that we then lapse into what is looking like more and more like an element of Cato the Elder and ‘Carthago delenda est’ in the call that the side plays like the Brumbies and that is the problem. If they played more like the Brumbies they would probably be more successful (although that side needs to find a way to score more points, so I don’t see them as perfection), but watch the way the ball is run in possession and that is far from the Brumbies, who tend to run much closer to support, not laterally. Likewise, watch the kicking game and, whilst the Brumbies kick a lot (like most successful sides), they apply a lot of pressure on their kicks, but I still see far too much of Australian kicking of the aimless and unpressured type. The Brumbies also tend to concede smart penalties but the Oz side gives away dumb ones. The side plays like the worst elements of the Rennie era Waikato/Gallagher Chiefs and present-day Queensland with confused selections (not helped by injury). The worst thing about this side is that it lacks any identifiable character – it is a mish-mash. It’s a pity because there are a lot of good people working hard and there are difficult circumstances, but from day 1 selections and tactics have been oddly unaligned and seem to take little account of the prevailing refereeing trends.

As for arguments that set piece and kicking isn’t part of the Australian DNA, last time I checked, Canberra was the nation’s capital, not some off-shore entity and no-one has to give up their vegemite and meat pies when they move to play there. The great QLD sides knew how to play set piece and how to kick; or perhaps Paul McLean and that foreign interloper Michael Lynagh were here under false pretences? The great sides of the 1980’s and 1990’s also kicked a lot and Bob Dwyer loved mauling prowess – 1991 RWC Final anyone? Recognition of the need for strong set-piece led to the recruitment/poaching of Topo Rodriguez, ‘Pato’ Noriega amongst others by those un-Australian types, Alan Jones (actually, it would be good to be able to disown him) and Rod Macqueen. But they also found unAustralian local types to partner the imports; Ewan McKenzie, Tommy Lawton, for example.

Australian sides do like to play with ball in hand, but the best sides have also understood that to run it, you have to get it (set piece) and keep it (ruck and maul) and points win matches and points come from pressure in the right positions. What the great sides got right was the mix. What this agglomeration hasn’t come close to getting right is the mix.

Thanks for this very enjoyable article. Clearly a very talented operator and a gifted coach, he also seems to have a gift for running his teams into the ground. He is another short term type of coach – perhaps 2 -3 years maximum.

I am interested to see a few people mention Jake White as the option after 2023. I wasn’t a fan when I heard he was coming to the Brumbies but a South African woman who was slightly acquainted with him said he was exactly what the brumbies needed after their ‘Barcelona’ side (anyone remember them?) had imploded. I really didn’t believe her but it turned out she was absolutely right. His focus on the basics of rugby meant that he could take the rubble and the rabble and give them a simple, clear mission which they had it in them to execute. That Brumbies side in 2012 didn’t have a lot of big names at the start but within 2 seasons it did. The present state of officiating also would fit the more direct approach. I wanted to see White get the gig in 2013, but McKenzie was a legitimate alternative. I think the case for White is more compelling now.

Not everything White touches turns to gold, however. He has had one unsuccessful appointment in France and it is interesting to contemplate that he and fast Eddie seem to see a lot in each other that they relate to. Much as it pains me to say it, the NSW/Waratah coach might be a worthy alternative and although I have some reservations, Dan McKellar has legitimate claims. I would be cautious about reading too much into the performance of the Oz forwards under him (though it can’t be disregarded) as the overall framework in which they play is quite different to the structures he uses at the Brumbies. Still, I would roll the dice and see if White can be brought in.

Thanks for the article, well written. I really enjoyed the games I caught and England v NZ could be a game for the ages.

I suspect that a few extra dollars could be found for the women’s game if it was a priority, although I appreciate there are always competing demands. Perhaps not blowing huge sums of League outside backs might free up some cash for at least a little extra support. Of course, we all know that Rugby is a game won by the outside backs and the forwards just add the icing on the cake, so one can see why that spending foible continues. The point here, is less about the specific and more about the possibility of using existing funds with a little more care.

Thanks for the article Harry, a good read as always. I am not too excited by the apparent balance of the NZ backrow, whilst the Oz one looks closer (though I am not convinced there is a typical flyer at 7, Pete Samu runs good lines, maybe good enough to cover that). The Oz locks will need to pull out a blinder to avoid the set pieces getting ugly. I don’t know how much time Neville will have had coming back from injury to really forge combinations, but he is a hard worker. Could be an interesting game as it looks like NZ are going all out for a bonus point win, but first you have to win. There’s a few selections and combos that could turn out to be banana skins.

Brace isn’t exactly a ref who usually lets the game breathe too much so NZ may be working against both Oz and the refs in the quest for that BP.

I see we are talking about what you think should happen and like many discussions of the world that might be, it has to take second place to the world that is when we discuss an event that occurs in the world that is.

In terms of ‘irrelevant’, I am afraid it seems to me to be only too relevant, given my point about the above. It now seems that you say the ref should have adopted an unprecedented approach (and one which has no support in the Laws) whilst reserving the right to criticise the ref for taking an approach for which there are, in fact, many precedents and which is clearly written into the Laws. I think the expression ‘having your cake and eating it too’ was made for this very thing.

More significant, you haven’t said anything on the real issues, even when I raise them in article and response and that underlines the danger in a focus on the ref that is all too common and which I see as being a large part of the reason for Australian rugby having a 20 year period of underperformance, or in terms of the present regime, woeful underperformance. What a pity. For two, maybe three, decades or so Australian rugby was characterised where it mattered by intelligence, a keenness to adapt and learn, a recognition that they had a lot to learn (that defeat to Tonga in 1973…), a hard nosed focus on how to win and the playing of intelligent and, most often, very attractive rugby. Never mind there is always a ref to blame, or the weather, or cheating (insert name of opposition), or the crowds, or the bounce of the ball, or anything but the real problems.

Had it been me, once Foley was in motion I would have let it go as well, but like Foley the ref was in motion, having put up with more than enough. They don’t call time off immediately after awarding a penalty unless they need to deal there and then with a foul play issue. Here the issue only arose because one side was mucking about and testing the ref’s patience, having been put on notice. He then did the right thing, called time off to warn (and we can argue all day about whether he was clear enough, but some of the Oz players clearly got it) and then time back on.

But the real issue is why were they defending near their line, why were they taking on the ref’s patience there of all places? Why didn’t they switch on to defend the last plays of the games? Did they even really have the right plan for this game with this ref for the present law interps?

Thanks for your comments Riccardo. Agree re the mental side and Oz getting ahead of themselves and not really being in the moment or being able to switch to the next moment. Can you imagine Horan, Lynagh, the other Foley, Dan Herbert, Mortlock, dropping their bundle after the ref’s call? I think it would have just made them madder and more determined. Ditto the Mex, or Buck, or Kaino etc.

I don’t want to be too harsh on the players because even a relatively weak international player is an extraordinary player, in truth and they can be too easy a target from the armchair. But the most successful do seem to read the ref, not always perfectly, of course and to draw from adversity to lift their performance, not lower it. New Zealand had to do a fair bit to win the game even after the Reynal call. Hard to defend your line, but also hard to score under that pressure and for this side under the intense scrutiny (and from some, a will to lose) under which it has labored this season.

True although I have always thought that Barnes refereeing of that game as a whole was a shocker and NZ got very little play out of him; in that sense very much less evenly shocking than Thursday! However, NZ gave him an ‘in’ that day in 2007.

As I suspect you also think, I am of the view that referees rarely are the only reason that a side loses, or wins, though they can be and commonly are, very influential. That RWC 2007 was one of the worst I have seen ref wise, but a lot of other factors still came into play. NZ worked that out – I wonder if Oz will? I am not so sure.

I guess we will know a bit more about what both sides took from Thursday after this weekend. Brace is another ruck policeman, so the players and coaches will have another opportunity to play under the current rather ugly Law interps.

If I recall correctly you also pop up on the cricket side of this site a bit – what are you making of Bazball?

Cato the Elder. He held the important office of Censor towards the fag end of his career, having been Consul earlier. He was a reactionary in all things political and cultural, so not really my bag (I am more of a Gracchi supporter – I seem to gravitate to the losers in life, history etc.), but if one takes a lighter view, his focus on the simple Roman virtues appeals in a rugby context and it seemed apt here.

Cato the Younger was of similar cut and is better known, so I can see why you’d assume as you do. I find nothing much to like about him, I am afraid, although historians, like lawyers, are known to differ on the same points. I suppose he could join my pantheon, given that he ended up a loser (in some respects), but his politics repel me.

The focus on the basics of life, on simplicity and being rather uncompromising about core truths/values I do agree with. The willing use of political violence to entrench and preserve privilege, that I cannot like. The Younger’s death, arguably a result of the forces he and his like chose to unleash, strikes me as a fitting irony.

One of the pleasures of rugby is that people of very different politics (as I suspect yours and mine might be) can have a common view of rugby that to some degree brings them together. Che Guevara played rugby, after all.

Keep on rucking, I really enjoy your work. In rugby, the pleasures of seeing the simple things done well, the core parts of the game honoured as things that make this game distinctive and endlessly engaging (and for many enraging – scrum, maul, ruck, penalty) are what I want to see whenever I watch the game. There are a lot of styles and methods that can be built off that, but without the fundamentals it isn’t music, it is just stuff. The main reason I have loved NZ rugby is that they have been a progressive force in rugby that at the same time have honoured what makes the game what it is. Nations are basically an artificial division of people, so I don’t really care who plays, I care how they play. It will be pleasing to see NZ return to a better way.

” Cetero censeum Carthaginem esse delendam…’ Highlander, you naughty boy, must you be the new Cato of New Zealand rugby? Highlander the Censor, rooting out the last vestiges of the old enemy.

I actually agree with the large portion of what you say, but do you fall into the trap of giving nothing to Foster for that which succeeds, whilst reserving all the credit for him for everything that goes wrong? Perhaps that is right and Foster is a total chump, but as you probably know, I think he is neither total rugby moron, nor rugby genius. Like Cato, is there not a risk that by endlessly focusing on one target (Carthage/Foster), your important points risk becoming bound up in the animus?

I think there are weaknesses in a lot of the players being produced in NZ in recent years, as a look at the (relatively) poor performances of the U20’s in recent years suggests. A lot more players seem to be coming through with the sorts of issues in core skills that seemed to have been ironed out in earlier years.

Equally, being something of a rugby fundamentalist, I agree that rugby is a sport where the internal laws and structures of the game make it very dangerous to think that you can build sustained success on players with winger’s instincts playing at 13, the most demanding defensive position on the field, or that the core and different functions, skills and instincts of the three back row positions are in some way interchangeable. But what do you do, when the material coming to you is deficient? The choice is to look for an alternative to manage, or to work doubly hard to pare back the game to the player’s limited capacities whilst you do the work others should have done to repair and improve. I suspect you and I would choose the latter, but I am not sure that Foster deserves all blame and no credit. There is no evidence of which I am aware that he was resistant to Schmidt, who was unavailable for any role when Hansen’s successor was chosen (and I will leave aside whether that was a well-managed process).

For Australian fans, I think very similar issues apply and have applied here for about forever (particularly in areas like the scrum), but have become dominant since the early 2000’s and are very much to the fore under the present regime. Australia have a talented coach, also from the dread Waikato (in coaching terms, not by birth, but it is enough for him to be given the honorary golden cowbell) who seems to have plans beyond the scope of most of the players and a reluctance to cut his cloth accordingly.

I thought NZ handled the loss of key defensive organisers very well – Cane does a lot more than just hit in the tackle, for example and the loss of both midfield organisers hurt. Not many sides could survive what that does, particularly when your 13 is not (yet?) a noted organiser or decision maker on defence.

I suspect that Foster as head coach is more of a Chairman of the Board than the guy running about in trackies with the clipboard, so Fosterism, if it is a thing, whilst deserving a sparing reference, might be overstated, even if many of the issues are not. Even in terms of setting general directions and selection policies, Foster may well by nature be more of a coordinator than a dictator. On that I don’t pretend certainty but it is the impression I have and he doesn’t come across as the same type of dominant personality that someone like Henry or Hanson were. Having said that, I also suspect that the instincts of those from Waikato are for a form of rugby that needs some restraint at this level, where a harder nosed approach, especially under the present approach to the Laws is needed.

In case it isn’t clear, I loved the article and agree with most of it, but I do wonder if Carthage is really the Cato thought and if the scourge of Fosterism needs so heavy a trowel? It is a question, not a statement.

Says it all, doesn’t it? Even if those numbers were reversed and the ref was not being ‘fair’ I’d still say you have to play to what you get. Don’t give him chances where he can hurt you. Conspicuously not what Oz did.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Peter, I love your articles on past players, so it is nice to have any comment from another writer.

I am in the rare position of just enjoying rugby, the game. I am not too fussed by who is playing. If I watch skillful, intelligent sides I am happy. If there are two playing at the same time, I am really happy. I greatly enjoyed the bright but structured and smart rugby played by various Oz sides in the 1980’s, 1990s, as I enjoyed the boa constrictor rugby of England in the 1990’s and beyond, the wonderful cut and thrust of many of the NZ sides of the 1990s and then most of the last 20 years, that glorious French side of the 1990’s and so on. Lots of ways to play rugby, lots of ways to win, provided you honour the fundamentals of this game and then develop a coherent plan. They all had to deal with the Reynals (and worse) of the refereeing firmament. They often had to deal with real home-town bias as well.

Agree that Foley shouldn’t be the scapegoat. There are lots of people, including the coach, who deserve to share the blame. All good people, might I add, but this side is a losing side, playing losing rugby and with a loser’s mentality. It doesn’t have to be that way. I doubt they could be the 1999 side, but that side had been clean swept by NZ in 1997, so things can turn quickly with the right plans, analysis and commitment.

Khun Phil, It isn’t my position that it was a ‘good decision’ and as I said, he could ideally have been a lot more clear, but he is what he is. I think he is an awful type of referee. But he is such a well-known quantity that Hamish Bidwell wrote in the days leading up that he was afraid that Reynal would insert himself as the centre of attention and be the dominant factor – and guess what?

The thing is, if Oz had performed core tasks competently, they would have been managing this time bomb way down the other end of the field where the risks would also have been for NZ.

No issue from me that my preference is for the ref who tries to manage the players and to look at the purpose of the rules rather than the letter of the law. I don’t prefer 10 man rugby, or refs whistling up 30 plus penalties a game. At the ruck I would like to see more balance than at present to allow teams to build more than 2-3 rucks before being penalised (that is about what most games are seeing at present) and I would have the scrum engage without a shove and be stable, before the ref calls the feed to reduce the number of resets, amongst other things.

And, yes, I am supportive of steps to reduce time wasting generally and not just at the death of a half.

I differ from you on the matter of the spectacle being ruined. A long time ago I realised that if I let the referee performance influence my enjoyment of the game I wouldn’t enjoy many games. The pedants, the policman style ref issuing penalties without much notice, the unfair perceptions etc. are a baked in part of this game and, it would seem, of most sports. I have a mate who hates wet days and windy days. It seems similar. You have to manage it, because it probably isn’t going to change.

What I think really ruins the spectacle is teams that are unable to do the basics, unwilling to learn or admit their faults, teams that don’t change their gameplan to adapt to the conditions, or the opposition or the referee. I didn’t really love the rugby in the Lions’ series recently, but both sides were right to take the view that the refs for that series made it very dangerous to play much ball in hand near your own sticks. Gatland overdid it and paid the price. But I enjoyed the series overall because it featured well coached sides with a clear plan executed well. Australian sides used to be able to manage these types of refs and still play a lot of attractive rugby. Since around 2002 that seems largely to have stopped.

I readily agree that rugby, especially at the test level but even at provincial level, is not in a pretty stage and that I will be very happy if and when it moves back to a more open style. But that isn’t now and it was never going to be Melbourne and the reason Australia have one win and a draw from and inclusive of 2020 against a NZ side in transition and in an unusually vulnerable state is not because of Reynal. Wonky lineouts, up and down scrum, game plans that only about three or four players are capable of playing (and at least 3 of them are the wrong end of 30), continuing weak skills, poor leadership on field, leaky defence – all these things strike me as being much more to blame.

I wish I was so clever. If you think my message is that Australia deserved it because they are Australian, your wit matches the respectful and reasoned argument you present. Uriah Heep made an album titled Return to Fantasy; is there a reason this would come to mind?

Who cares? He was warning Australia for trying to run down the clock, they had put themselves at the wrong end of the field and under pressure. That is the ref they were dealing with, that is the situation their inability to complete basic parts of the game had put them in. Then they gambled and lost. Then they failed to execute man on man defence on their line. But let’s focus on the ref.

The ref wasn’t arguing about speeding the game up. He was focused on the issue of winding down the clock by the side under pressure. At the dead end of both halves that was Australia. Ask yourself why that was Australia at the end of H1? Was that the refs fault or did Australia make an error then and compound it at the ensuing ruck?

Have a look at Australia’s results in recent seasons, if 20 years is too much and ask yourself if Reynal is the common factor. I would say that the reason they lost was other things. I would say that the great Oz sides would have handled almost every aspect of the game differently, not just because they had better players but because they did the basics right, they honoured the fundamentals of the game, they knew how to manage referees. I would say that is probably why Canterbury.Crusdaers and the Brumbies are such consistently successful groups as well. But let’s focus on the refs instead. That is bound to be more profitable.

Look, I get the unhappiness with the ref. I think he is awful. But his type is common, has been common and will likely remain common. Even if you think he was too heavily focused on one side (and I don’t), is that really that uncommon? We might well yearn for a more perfect world but so did Jesus and his mates and they are still waiting, 2000 years later.

Without a change of focus the wait for the return of the Bledisloe might take about as long. Cast your mind back to Jonathan Kaplan and the 2000 Bled in Wellington and the unprecedented length of time he allowed in that game. Australia clawed their way back during the unprecedented period of ‘extra time’, outplayed NZ to draw a penalty and then John Eales kicked it from wide out to win. Kiwis were not happy, but one of their papers ran this headline ‘Bugger!’ They did analyse Kaplan’s performance, but they really looked at why they ended up where they did after outplaying Australia for most of that game. That loss stopped them regaining the Bled and it hurt them, a lot. Where was their focus though? How have they gone in the eyars since? I don’t believe Kiwis are genetically smarter, or better at rugby than anyone else. It isn’t in the water. The difference is in focus. They realised during the 1990’s that their comparative strengths needed to be better harnessed for them to regain a dominant position in rugby. They relaised that to play the way the felt could give them a huge advantage over everyone else required a big upgrade in basic skills. They put up with a decade of near misses as they went about this. Ask yourself whether that looks like what Oz have been doing for the last 20 years, or have they largely been trying to whinge and take short cuts?

Harty if you that is your read on my article I can’t help you. If you think the decision on a law in the book that has been used for other restarts (that is the category) is unprecedented, then again, I can’t help you. If you think that a side that can’t manage to defend a simple restart sent their way and then exit is less the issue than trying to complain one’s way to victory, again, I can’t help you.

Australia whinged last year about Adamson in their dreadful performance against a weak Welsh side – forgive me if I am wrong but I didn’t detect a French accent in his refereeing. His decision on the deliberate knockdown was the subject of lots of moaning as well. Australia have a real ability to complain about unprecedented officiating that is in inverse proportion to their capacity to manage the basics of the game, or to plan for the known characteristics of the match officials. But you are right, it isn’t the ability to play what is in front of you, or to defend your try line, or to read the ref, or to complete a basic exit play that is the issue it is the French. Or the Scottish. Or the whole cheating world. Or the rolling maul, or the weather or the quality of the pies. Anything but self-reflection. Do you really think that the great Australian sides of the increasingly distant past didn’t have to deal with all the same issues? That they would have fluffed basic parts of the game? That they would have used ‘discombobulation’ as an excuse for not defending their line? Maybe you do.

Last night I saw upon the stair,
A little man who wasn’t there,
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away….

No argument his communication in his second language could have been more clear but his irritation was being communicated loud and clear in a language that is international – tone and body language. On this, I am happy to have Nigel Owen on side.

Like yellow carding a player in the last few minutes, I agree that it is often a case of too little too late, but in his defence, I think his issue was with time wasting at the end of halves by the side under pressure and so it was less about the overall speed of the game than that specific issue. Now, if that is so, ideally he might have communicated this but he isn’t obliged to and he would be one of the last refs I would tke a chance on, because he has form as trigger happy ref. Play the ref, play the whistle or risk the consequences. Or bleat about it. I know which I would find more profitable but Rennie and his charges seem to have a different take.

Absolutely agree, but his irritation was quite clear to anyone watching who cared to look, including some of the Oz team. Why take him on? Or, rather, why take him on and then complain when it turns out badly?

I have sympathy for their pain but not much else. The side’s problems are where they don’t want to look. Against a clearly fragile New Zealand side since the record is dreadful and Reynal didn’t referee each of those debacles. He also didn’t ref the dreadful northern tour last year.