“The one huge loss – the worst in history – looked like a return to the bad old days.”

If you’re looking back to the “bad old days”, the 1936 All Blacks vs Wallabies test at Carisbrook resulted in the greatest shellacking ever between NZ and Australia. 9 tries to 2 versus 6 tries to one last week. The difference was in the score, which was 38-13, when tries were only 3 points. If you put it in today’s terms of 5 point tries the score would have been 56-17, or a 39 point margin.

That’s one point more than last week’s “worst in history”!

The comment at the end of Joker’s article is not strictly correct. That is “they went down by the biggest margin in any game against New Zealand.”

In the 1936 test at Carisbrook in Dunedin the Wallabies went down by 9 tries to two. A real shellacking. The score was 38-13 when tries were three points each. If you scored that today it would have been a score of 56-17 or a margin of 39 points. Versus 38 points on Saturday.

Lots of interesting discussion here.

I’ve covered this topic in four (4) Roar articles back in 2007 entitled “The Art of Captaincy” and in Part 2 (updated in 2014) specifically covered the issue of kicking a penalty versus taking the line kick for the corner in hope of scoring a try from the ensuing play. Here it is:

The Art of Captaincy – Part 2: Rugby Tactics

In this Part 2 we’ll look at one attribute of successful captaincy – the ability of the captain “to change tactics and play many times during a game without reference to the coach.”
A chapter could be written on rugby tactics, and another chapter on an extension of that – set moves. Time and space do not permit a full analysis. However one of the most basic tactics that often reveals a captain’s ability is: what do you do when you receive a penalty within kicking range? Does the captain take the kick for goal, kick for the corner to maul a try from the lineout, take a scrum, take a tap kick or cross kick to an unmarked wing?
The basic rule is “you always take your points!” It is rare that the other options succeed. The key exceptions are (1) when you’re so far ahead or behind on the scoreboard it doesn’t matter – say 30-40 points; and (2) when you’re into the last 3 or 4 minutes, there is only one scoring opportunity left and you need a try or converted try to win. Yet the number of times Super 15 and even experienced international captains forget this basic principle is remarkable.
Why is the captain’s decision to always take the points so important? Several:
(1) It keeps the scoreboard ticking over – either increasing the lead or narrowing the gap;
(2) It sends a message to the offending side that they will be punished and should be more careful;
(3) It puts a psychological little nail in the coffin in the minds of the offending side every time they have to come back to half way to kick off again;
(4) Going for a try with a 10-20% probability of success just doesn’t compete with today’s goal kicking success ratio of some 75-80%;
(5) Securing the win is the first priority, ahead of bonus point considerations – exceptions are rare
(6) It is especially vital in the last 20 minutes of a game, when you’re behind and need more than a converted try to win. If you don’t take the points, the offending side knows it can infringe with impunity, yet not have points scored against them. What about the risk of a yellow card? Defending sides presumably reason it is better to risk a yellow card than give away vital points! Cynical? Yes, but regrettably it happens and it wins games. Ergo – always take the points!

Let’s also summarise key tactics in the critical last twenty minutes of a game: [added Feb 2014]

Attacking Tactics: Behind and need up to say 10 points to win

(1) Always take your points – as above – while you still have time to score twice, until 3-4 minutes to go
(2) Hang on to possession ruthlessly
(3) Do not kick away possession – no chips, grubbers, cross kicks, centre kicks, up and unders!
(4) Only exceptions are when the kick is to an unmarked wing, or you are about to be forced into touch, an inside pass is not possible and you must keep the ball in play
(5) Maintain an attacking mindset – eg ensure leaders trained and ready to take penalty tap kicks
(6) Position team for set/special moves
(7) Position team for a dropped goal… you can’t rely on forcing a penalty
(8) Must not kick the ball out unless in your own 22 and you are last line of defence
(9) Only take a penalty kick for a corner lineout and maul if less than 3-4 minutes to go and you need to score a try – ie 4-7 points to win…. “last throw of the dice”
(10) Avoid scrums at all costs – they are too time consuming
(11) Endeavour to take opposition line kicks for quick lineout restarts

Defence Tactics: Ahead and need to maintain/increase lead for last twenty minutes

(1) Always take your points – penalties – to increase the lead
(2) Hang on to possession ruthlessly
(3) Maintain an attacking mindset – ie do not go ‘into your shell’ mode:
(4) On attack position for special moves
(5) On attack position for the drop goal. If it succeeds the lead is increased. If not it soaks up extra time for the restart, therefore position to regain possession from 22 dropout and repeat (3) and (4)
(6) When out of range take penalty kicks for the line to win ground and maintain possession
(7) Take scrums on each optimum occasion to soak up time – typically up to a minute per scrum
(8) Do not kick away possession
(9) On defence and a line kick is last practical option, ensure the ball goes into the crowd to avoid quick opposition restarts. Putting the ball out safely is more important than distance gained.

Let’s now look at some examples of tactics.

In the first year of the Tri-Nations – 1996 – the All Blacks played the Springboks at Cape Town in the last game of the series, immediately prior to the three-test series. It was all South Africa for most of the first half and five minutes after half time, they led 18-6. The comeback was effective. First Mehrtens kicked two penalties. Then with just 13 minutes left Osborne scored down the left wing cutting back to the posts. Mehrtens converted and so the All Blacks led for the first time 19-18. With the Springbok forwards now tiring in the final 10 minutes, prop Craig Dowd drove over, Mehrtens kicked another penalty and the All Blacks had won 29-18. On interview after the game, Sean Fitzpatrick said, “Yes, it was good wasn’t it? We just kept chipping away.” In other words, through his leadership he did not allow his team to panic, they remained patient, took the penalty points as they came, and finally in the last 15 minutes, when they had control in the forwards, scored two tries. It was no coincidence that, immediately afterwards, New Zealand won its first ever test series in South Africa 2-1 under Fitzpatrick’s leadership.

After the Crusaders had beaten the Brumbies in the 2000 Super 12 final, Blackadder was finally appointed captain of the All Blacks “nine months too late” according to Robbie Deans. Yet in two tests there were key lapses in his tactical skills. In the Wellington Bledisloe Cup test the All Blacks were ahead 23-21 with just 2 or 3 minutes to go, with a scrum feed in centre field on the Wallabies 22. The sensible tactic was for a Marshall-Mehrtens dropped goal which would give the All Blacks a five point lead. Otherwise a 22 drop out would soak up precious seconds while giving possession back to the All Blacks. Inexplicably the All Blacks ran the ball, possession was lost in the ensuing lineout, the Wallabies got the ball upfield, the All Blacks were penalised in the ruck and John Eales, cool as ever, calmly slotted the penalty. Blackadder later admitted “I just put my head in the scrum and left it to the backs.” A vital lapse. Two weeks later came the Tri-Nations test between the All Blacks and Springboks in Johannesburg. It was a helter-skelter mistake riddled match with the Springboks uncharacteristically attacking in the backs, to be up 33-13 before half time and the All Blacks recovering to 33-27 at half time. The Springboks continued to attack and led 46-40 with 15 minutes to go. The All Blacks pressed hard into the Springboks 22 on multiple occasions, forcing mistakes and several penalties. Inexplicably, although there was plenty of time, Blackadder declined to take the points and kicked for the corner lineout – all these attacks being successfully repulsed by the Springboks. The score remained 46-40. And so, in tight contests like these, little tactical lapses by the captain had a major impact on the result.

2001 came with a new All Black captain in Anton Oliver. His deficiencies as a captain were exposed in the Tri-Nations and Bledisloe Cup test in Dunedin, won by the Wallabies 23-15. Firstly a penalty try was awarded against Ron Cribb for tackling Joe Roff without the ball, described in Men in Black as, “a dumb move by Cribb, characteristic of the lack of thought under stress by many of the All Blacks that day.” While Oliver could not have stopped Cribb’s error, a good captain would not have allowed the latter to happen, or at least nipped it in the bud. Secondly, with one minute to go, eight (8) points behind and no hope of winning, the All Blacks were awarded a kickable penalty. Inexplicably Oliver spurned the three points that would have given the All Blacks a bonus point. Later, to general disbelief, he tried to explain he was “still playing for the win!”

Three weeks later at Stadium Australia, it was the All Blacks ahead 26-22 with 12 minutes to play. Only a try to win! Twice Eales spurned the opportunity to take the points from two penalties and twice the Wallabies failed to score the try. Finally, just a minute to go, another penalty and again kicked for the corner lineout. Followed by the lineout win and Toutai Kefu’s memorable charge to score by the posts. Australia 29-26. * Then came a brief interview with Oliver, All Black jersey out down almost to his knees, socks around his ankles, looking slovenly, his eyes darting everywhere but at the camera. Later on stage for the presentation and John Eales farewell, all he could manage were a few perfunctory remarks to John Eales, saying, “It’s all yours mate.” It was a graceless performance. The contrast between Oliver and one of the most outstanding international captains of all time could not have been more marked.

We’ll look at a few more examples in Parts 3 and 4.

What about the captain’s ability to vary the type of play? (Attributes 2 and 5 of Captaincy.) Again if you’ll pardon the self indulgence, back in 1989 just two months before he died, my father outlined to me his approach to developing the game plan and tactics for each match in the 1950’s. His rugby brain was as sharp as ever in this “interview” summary: “Our tactics against the opposition were always carefully worked out for any match we played. We made up our own tactics – we weren’t worried what the opposition was going to do – it was what we were going to do. We looked at their strengths, their weaknesses and their ability and what sort of football they played – orthodox or otherwise. A well trained side played orthodox Rugby and always went to the right place at the right time. Consequently you could play unorthodox rugby against them, because they turned up at the ‘right’ place, when we were scoring tries going the other way. If you’re against an unintelligent side, you only played orthodox rugby, because there’d always be some silly clot who would turn up at the ‘wrong’ position at the right time and smother the attempt.”

Today one would include both France and Fiji as unorthodox, unconventional sides, versus unintelligent – but the same principles apply. Taine Randell was clearly incapable of doing this against France in 1999.

The important point is that it is the captain’s responsibility during the course of a game to change the type of play to counter the opposition, if the opposition’s tactics or type of play are succeeding. A top captain, supported by his senior leaders, will read the opposition play and make adjustments accordingly. This may sound simple, yet it takes years of experience. It’s perhaps no coincidence that six World Cups have been won with captains virtually at the zenith of their careers.

* I would have taken the points, however who am I to question John Eales – one of the all time great international captains. Eales’ reading of the game may have been that he was sufficiently on top of the All Blacks and he’d crack them in time. Which he did.

In the last two articles we’ll look at examples of how Australian and New Zealand – Super 15 and international captains have measured up in the attributes, including tactical ability and varying the play:
Part 3: Australian Captaincy – assessment and selection
Part 4: New Zealand Captaincy – assessment, selection and five failed World Cup campaigns

Bruce J Rankin
November 2007
Updated February 2014

Monty,

An excellent analysis thankyou Monty. Always good when you have someone on the spot with Rex, who’s been there and seen the most recent games, to give honest feedback.

Certainly Eddie Jones has made great strides with England and most importantly in giving the team a feeling of self belief and confidence in themselves.

However I for one have not thought for one second that England would be ‘easybeats’.

England were rightly excoriated for not getting out of the RWC pool stage last year under Lancaster. But I do not think they were as woeful as made out by every man and his dog!

My view was – and is – that it came down to one ‘small’ instance of captaincy failure by Chris Robshaw. But a massive impact.
At the end of that Wales game, England was 3 points behind with ~7-10 mins to go, get a very kickable penalty near the 22 towards touch – BUT Robshaw goes for the corner instead. Result: no try and Wales hold England out as we know.
My feeling is Robshaw was hugely impressed by the way Japan spurned kickable penalties until they got that fabulous post full time try to beat the Boks. (The 2nd best moment of RWC (imo!)) Probably conditioned by that wonderful moment, Robshaw similarly went for death or glory!

With ~5-10 minutes to go a cool headed captain would have followed the dictum “you always take your points”, because there is still time to come back again for a try, a penalty or a drop goal to get the win. Ensuring the draw first and foremost was critical to England. Plus in this case, even if England didn’t score again, the extra two points for a draw for England and two less points for Wales would have meant England would have gone thru to the Finals. With the actual Pool points situation, it would have reversed Wales 13, England 11 on the final Pool points table to Wales 11 and England 13. (I think it was Wales 9 England 11 before the game.)

In the last critical 20 minutes of any game, especially in the last 10 when you’re behind by a few points, the captain must be constantly summing up the situation, changing tactics as needed (with the leadership group), mentally doing the calculations with a cool head and making the right decisions. Robshaw should have been acutely conscious of that.

Accordingly, in my view anyway, the overall England performance was not as bad as the manner in which they’ve been pilloried by every man, dog and scribe. It came down to that one moment of captaincy failure by Robson.

Hence England were never going to be “easy beats” in the first place, albeit being well beaten by the Wallabies a week later.
The improvements England have made since have guaranteed a fascinating, tough and exciting series.
I feel the Wallabies will do well to win 2-1.

Yes not only was Dean Mumm from NZ, but his grandfather Bill Mumm from Buller (South Island west coast) was a 1949 All Black versus Australia.
He was also an NZ champion axeman and very powerfully built.
As a schoolboy at the time I actually saw Bill play for Buller in a Ranfurly Shield match against Canterbury in 1954!

I talked briefly to Dean at the Wallabies 1st season launch a couple of weeks ago, mentioned the above and he said he left NZ when he was only 18 months old – but did remember meeting his grandfather later.

Procrastinating Colm??? Try prognosticating. Just being picky.

A good article and lots of good discussion.
Twill be interesting to see how your side changes by the end of the next Six Nations – before the selection and actual tour.

An excellent analysis as always Spiro,

It makes complete sense to clean out the old guard after a World Cup and start rebuilding for the future.
And I agree wholeheartedly that the 60/7 rule should be kept for World Cup years only.
It also makes sense to me that Cheika must first and foremost focus on the job at hand: the England tests, then Rugby Championship/Bledisloe, then the European autumn tour. But always keeping an eye ahead to the World Cup.

The Wallabies did an outstanding job getting to the Final, via the toughest route through the ‘Pool of Death’.
Then played very well in the final, pushing the ABs with two tries to get within four points. However the 2015 All Blacks were a class act. Australia is back to 2nd in the world rugby pecking order. Why would we complain about that? Of course we want to be No 1. But there are 18 teams from RWC below them, who would be delighted to be where the Wallabies are.

The other major outcome in RWC was that the semi-finalists were all from the southern hemisphere: NZ, Australia, South Africa and Argentina. The latter is a team transformed to attacking rugby. South Africa is the one team that, in my view, is somewhat mired in the past and has not fully grasped the need for attacking rugby.

Sadly the northern hemisphere mostly plays what I would describe as a bankrupt style of rugby, focused on excessive kicking, rolling mauls (may look good but what do they really achieve?) and a grinding-it-out approach. OK there will be exceptions. But why would SH players want to play there, with that style of rugby – apart from money?

I would suggest it is Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship that has produced the outstanding results achieved in RWC.

As Spiro observes Super Rugby is the best provincial rugby tournament in the world. This year with Japan (who can forget their win against the Boks?), the Jaguares (a near Pumas side) and an extra SA team, the Super 18 presents an even greater challenge to win. Albeit despite and maybe because of the somewhat confusing structure.

So with this new expanded opportunity, why would SH players not give their eye teeth to play here and be developed?
Unless they’re not good enough to make it in Super Rugby/Rugby Championship?
In which case these lesser players can go to Europe for the money, deprive upcoming European players of opportunities and help keep northern hemisphere rugby at a lower level than us!! (Tongue firmly in cheek.)

Excellent article Spiro,

Many interesting contributions too on the Giteau Rule – I generally concur.

Also very interesting on the England coaching situation. Two things occurred to me:

Firstly when Sir Graham Henry spoke at our Sydney Christchurch BHS Old Boys dinner two years ago – just before the final Wallabies v Lions test – he strongly expressed his view that he couldn’t believe that Australian cricket and rugby would appoint non-Australian coaches in Mickey Arthur (SA) and Robbie Deans. Robbie was sacked a few days later and Arthur was sacked in the middle of the India tour a few months later (I think.) Now both rugby and cricket have Aussie coaches.

Secondly therefore, why should England NOT appoint English coaches?? I’ve just spent 10 weeks in Europe, mostly around RWC going to pool matches, followed by a wonderful 2 1/2 weeks with 8 couples all watching the finals on TV in three French gites at Faysselle (Google it – between Agen and Moissac). We had a big TV with the English ITV channel. The best English coaches were potentially sitting there right in front of us, doing much of the TV commentary! Why not bring back Sir Clive Woodward as head coach, supported by backs coach Johnny Wilkinson and forwards coaches Martin Johnson and Lawrence Dallaglio?

Collectively they are all astute men with the strategic and tactical knowledge, skills, experience and nous to do the job. Even though his four year 2011 coaching campaign ended badly, Johnson at least has coaching experience, while it’s hard to believe Wilkinson and Dallaglio would not be better than anyone else. Could they be persuaded? (Steve Hansen asked for All Black fly half Grant Fox to be part of his new coaching team in 2012 because of his tactical nous, even though – as far as I’m aware – Fox had no coaching experience at Super or provincial level.)

Of the non-English contenders I’d expect Eddie Jones and Jake White to be front runners. In fact both together would make a powerful combination as Eddie Jones worked with White during the Springboks successful 2007(?) campaign. I believe Gatland when he says he isn’t interested – with all the injured players back, Wales will be much more potent and Gatland may get the opportunity to coach the Lions in NZ in 2017. Would he really want to coach England then? Graham Henry has spent his time with Argentina and look what he’s achieved in that time. Hansen has said he wouldn’t coach against the All Blacks and I doubt if Wayne Smith would either. The other UK based NZ coaches might. But again look at what Schmidt has done with Ireland and Cotter with Scotland especially v Australia. Surely that is incentive enough for them to stay where they are?

Bottom line, England should really appoint an English coaching team to rebuild from the mess – one solution is right there staring them in the face.

Excellent article Spiro,

I’ve been concerned for yonks about these two blights on our beloved game:

(1) the provocateur does the jersey pulling, holding on, illegally impeding etc and the opposition player reacts with a punch, open handed ‘slap’, kick out with the foot, shove, slashing with arms to get free etc. The reactor gets penalised, yellow carded, or possibly red carded, BUT the provocateur gets off scot free, knowing full well the laws of the game are in his favour. In my mind both parties are equally guilty. My recommendation to clean this up is that the IRB/World Rugby change the law to state, that in a ‘simple’ offence the reactor gets penalised and the provocatuer warned that a further instance will result in a penalty against him. In a yellow card offence, the reactor gets penalised, but both get yellow cards. In a red card offence, reactor gets penalised plus red card, provacateur gets a yellow card.

(2) in taking a dive, lying prone, feigning terrible injury etc, my recommendation is that the IRB/World Rugby change the law to state that if a player lies prone for more than say 10 seconds, then he’s clearly seriously injured (definitely concussed!) and the referee orders a mandatory 10 minutes on the sideline until formally medically cleared as ok. Or possibly even mandatory sidelined till the end of the game. That might stop the diving in its tracks! For feigned injuries, then the referee must also order a mandatory 10 minutes on the sideline until formally cleared by an independent medical officer – with the team medical officer present – until he is able to take the field again.

I don’t think either of these are too complicated.
After all with ‘injuries’ officials are acting in the best interests of the player’s wellbeing!

Very timely article Elisha, with lots of pertinent contributions.

Have to confess I’m a dyed in the wool Cantabrian and Crusaders supporter from way back in 1953 when Canterbury routed Wellington 5 tries to nil to lift the iconic Ranfurly Shield and hold it until 1956. As a schoolboy I went (bicycled!) to Lancaster Park to see nearly all of the 23 challenges. Yes “Rugby Tragic” we were called ‘one eyed’ way back then.

Many of the Crusaders’ attributes have been mentioned, however I feel one unmentioned key has been the family culture of the Crusaders, especially fostered by Robbie Deans. Draft players coming from other provinces to join the Crusaders, including their wives, partners and girlfriends, were made to feel part of the family. Deans’ wife was key in providing support and friendship, including them in social events, plus helping with all sorts of advice, guidance and counselling. Winger ‘Strormin’ Norman Berryman from North Auckland for example was perhaps a difficult character, yet with careful ‘handling’ by Deans he thrived in the team/family culture, scoring 7 tries in 4 weeks in the first title season of 1998. There have been many others since (most not ‘difficult’) culminating with Fijian Nadolo who has been brilliant for the last two years.

Yet despite having typically 13-17 All Blacks in the side for each of the last seven years under Blackadder, the Crusaders have no title to show for it. While Blackadder was a great captain, a good guy and appears a very good coach, I don’t feel he has the necessary mongrel to get the Crusaders over the line in critical games to be able to win finals, like Cheika with the Waratahs for example. (Agree with many here who said 2011 was their best performance, with every game being away from home.) Sadly however it’s time for Toddy to move on.

Another factor is that Keiran Read’s captaincy is lacking in tactical awareness. In last year’s final for example, half back Willi Heinz replaced Ellis with five minutes to go with the Crusaders leading by 2 points. The first two possessions he got, Heinz kicked the ball upfield and gave away possession. Game over. Heinz should have had strict instructions from Read not to kick the ball away in any circumstance, but hang onto possession at all cost. In the final rematch in Sydney two weeks ago, when Latu was yellow carded for his (and Skelton’s) driving tackle on Whitelock, Read did not change his tactics to take advantage of the forward situation. Instead the Crusaders continued to spin the ball from one side to the other – when the Waratahs scored 10 points. Normally a yellow card gives away 10 points to the non-offending side. Read should have immediately changed tactics and driven the ball up in the forwards from scrums, lineouts, rucks, mauls and pick and goes. Both examples show lack of captaincy nous at a crucial time.

Lastly, this year I’ve felt the Crusaders have, at times, been playing like tired old men. Maybe they thought that with 16 All Blacks + Nadolo all they had to do was turn up. Fat chance. Every side starting with the Rebels in the first game is out to knock off a leading team. Paul Cully had a perceptive article in the Herald just before the recent Crusaders v Waratahs game. He observed – correctly in my view – that while the Crusaders had five or six relatively new All Blacks (Bird, Crotty, Moody, Slade(?), Taylor and Luke Whitelock) – none of them was a genuine game breaker.

This year McCaw, Carter, Slade, Tom Taylor and one other will be moving on. Do all these factors mean that the Crusaders dynasty is over? Not necessarily. There is still a core of 11 All Blacks and new talent coming through. After a World Cup year there will be something of a cleanout from all franchises as players move overseas or finally hang up their boots. eg The Waratahs are losing a number of players, while the Hurricanes will probably say goodbye to Conrad Smith , Nonu and Cory Jane.

Always an interesting proposition.

More on the Hooper-Phipps front, quoting from our compatriot INKY:

“The Blues were not only empty-handed but justifiably aggrieved after being hijacked 23-11 in Sydney by the Waratahs. A clearly forward pass from Waratahs flanker Michael Hooper to halfback Nick Phipps was replayed six times for the TMO by the Australian broadcasters, but of course from an irrelevant angle. He kept asking for different replay, only to be shown the same angle from a wider shot.

“Both angles, however, showed Hooper giving the pass on the 22 and Phipps receiving it two yards past it. All the nonsense about balls somehow going backwards when leaving the hands and only then travelling forward is getting more than a little annoying. It’s science, say those who dropped science after fourth form. Screw that. It’s a myth that allows fools to be right or wrong depending whether or not their team is the one getting away with it. It’s what used to be called a forward pass.”

QED

Well it was indeed a tough win to the Tahs, who can perhaps consider themselves fortunate to win.

The first try to Phipps came from a blatantly forward pass from Hooper on the 22. I was there on the half way line with my binoculars and even from my angle it looked doubtful. Then it became abundantly clear from the six (6!) reviews for the TMO – and the three referees – on the fantastic new big screens, that the pass was about two metres forward. How the TMO (Peter Marshall?) and the referees could conclude it was not forward is beyond belief. Our INKY compatriot has said the same in his excellent newsletter.

That’s the way it sometimes goes. However, without that seven point deficit, the Blues might well have been spurred to an unlikely win.

In the Bulls v Crusaders game in Pretoria, the Crusaders scored two excellent “tries”, each of which was ruled out by the TMO because of a forward pass of about a metre. The sum total forward distance of both these forward passes was about equal to the distance of the Hooper-Phipps forward pass! In Pretoria the home town TMO did get it right.

So how could Peter Marshall get it so wrong?

Excellent article Spiro.

As also was Cam Avery’s on the Highlanders unexpected win over the Tahs, noting that the Highlanders were a team with just 3 all Blacks and the rest made up of ‘no names’!

Agree with you about the coach being the most important person given his influence on the production of great teams that win titles.
Cheika is a great example of one who set the standards of fitness, discipline, winning culture and teamwork/team spirit required right up front. Thereby creating the basics for a winning team. The next key is how the coach translates the winning strategies and tactics via the captain and team leaders to the whole team, because it’s the 15 players who actually have to go out and play the game for 80 minutes. The captain can’t put up his hand and ask: “please Coach what do I do next?”

Very sad that a great player and fine man like Sir John Kirwan just doesn’t have it as far as coach of the Auckland Blues goes.
Cam noted that Auckland arguably have the greatest talent pool for the sport in the world. But “slightly apathetic”, lacking “desperation and hunger” and “an enigma” [Luatua] were how he variously described the Blues.

I would add there is a key ingredient missing from the Blues, and that is teamwork and team spirit when the chips are down. However the Blues appear largely as individual talents and try to win the game on their own as individuals – when what is needed is the focus as a team to work out the winning tactics – and play to them as a team – especially in the last 20 minutes. Again it is the coach’s job to instill the prerequisite teamwork culture noted above, so the team can and will perform on the field. In my mind here iis where Kirwan is failing.

Lastly you mention the valuable role of Mike Harris as a utility who can fill several backline positions and kick goals. Agree in spades. The Crusaders are blessed in that regard by having two All Blacks in Colin Slade and Tom Taylor, who can fill roles from No 10 to fullback plus being excellent goal kickers. Even Dan Carter became a utility by playing at inside centre, with Slade at No 10 on Saturday.

Hi Scott,

Have just tuned back into the Comments and I’m delighted to see that the ‘silent majority’ have spoken in spades, many under their own name (including one John Eales) and many posting for the first time. By my count there are 430 posts in support out of 482 total (to date) – or 89% support. That speaks for itself and is a wonderful tribute to you.

Whereas, by my count, there are only 52 posts (11%) that are mostly negative, inane one-liners – and every one hiding behind a pseudonym. Of the 24 negative ‘posters’, three (3) account for 27 of the 52 posts.

Sadly this is a complete reversal of the typical posts to the many excellent articles by yourself, Spiro and many others. My guess is that some 80% of comments are negative, inane, abusive and/or potentially defamatory, so that the positive 20% minority get lost in the fog. It is no wonder that many have said here that is a reason why they have not contributed or commented before, or may take their leave from The Roar with Scott.

Zac and Tristan – perhaps The Roar has become a victim of its own success. I realise that with 55,000 posts per month (~1850 per day) it must be impossible to effectively moderate all posts. Several suggestions have been made such as community moderation, voting buttons, turning Comments off, and enforcing registration of one user name etc.

Whatever, doing NOTHING is not an option!

Else you may suffer loss of readership and worse: outstanding contributors like Scott may go elsewhere.

Accordingly I’m revising my earlier recommendations for your consideration:
1. Any person who wishes to Comment must be Registered first with The Roar, with full name, address, contact details disclosed
only to The Roar.
2. Only one registration per person
3. As suggested charge a nominal registration fee of $10 (say) per registration
4. Use of pseudonyms no longer permitted
5. Consider providing the ability to turn Comments off
[The foregoing should materially improve the level of debate going forward, plus reduce the number of inane, abusive and
personally derogatory posts. Thereby making moderation easier and more effective.]
6. Permanently remove persistent offenders who do not conform to acceptable standards of commentary
7. Insist that each post refers to the original Roarer’s post (if it’s not to the author) so the thread can be followed
8. Post your rules for Comments so they are clear to all.

Over to you!

Lastly Scott – congratulations on the fantastic job you have done for The Roar with your 125 articles. You must have spent hours dissecting footage of rugby games for each article ….. my guess is 8-10 hours for each one ( maybe more?) plus the time to prepare each article. That so many Roarers have said what a great help they have been in their coaching is testimony to their lasting value. What a wonderful contribution. All the very best in your coaching.

Hi Scott,

I’ve enjoyed your articles very much – especially your incredible in depth analysis and insights, which few of us spot I’m sure.

I have to agree with you – strongly – about two things:

The first is the use of pseudonyms to hide behind. I appear to be one of few prepared to use their own name.
I’d strongly recommend The Roar only permit the use of each Roarer’s actual name. Newspapers require it (eg SMH) so why not here? It would make for more civilised discussions perhaps.

Secondly I’ve been concerned for some time, where popular articles (especially by Spiro and yourself) elicit often 200+ responses and sometimes north of 400. Sadly, when I receive them in my Inbox, I find that 90% of them have descended into inanities, occasionally are over the top (abusive) and it’s impossible to see what thread of the discussion many comments actually relate to.

While I’d like to contribute more frequently (I’ve written a few Roar articles) for the above reasons I pause, then decide it’s not worth it, as the post would probably just get lost in the fog. That’s my experience with the relatively few Comments I’ve made. I hasten to add I don’t mind disagreements, different opinions and perspectives – they all add to the mix and enjoyment of our great game. I enjoy the banter and and friendly riposte. But not when it goes beyond that.

Zac – over to you. Please consider the following changes:
1. Real names only – no pseudonyms
2. Delete all abusive and personally derogative posts, PLUS permanently remove persistent offenders
3. Insist that each post refers to the original Roarer’s post (if it’s not to the author) so the thread can be followed.
4 Do a more rigorous job of filtering out the inanities… usually a one-liner or less… so we can focus on useful contributions
5 With the above in place, please persuade Scott to postpone his ‘retirement’ (He’s way younger than me…. I started going to games in 1954.)

Spiro, Very good article – especially the way you’ve interleaved/contrasted the Wallabies play with the way the All Blacks played against Wales. And also your comment about Michael Hooper being “just too young and inexperienced to remain the Wallabies captain.”

In February last year, just before the Super 15 competition started I wrote to then new Waratahs coach Michael Cheika on the captaincy issue, as there appeared to be no standout candidate at the time. (And in my view the lack of a top class captain and leader being a prime reason the Waratahs had not won a Super Rugby Championship in 17 years.)

I suggested Michael Hooper as a ‘bolter’ choice for the captaincy role, provided there was strong support from the senior leaders and naturally the coach. However I was not aware of Dave Dennis’ leadership credentials at the time and felt Cheika made an excellent choice with Dennis – as the results this year have demonstrated. Then he got injured, Hooper took over, did the job and the Waratahs fully deserved their Championship win. And in the absence of Moore and Pocock, Hooper went on to the Wallabies captaincy.

However it’s early days, with mixed results and I concur with your thoughts above.

Two post match comments by Hooper stand out: after the Brisbane Bledisloe last minute loss, Hooper was quite upbeat with how the team played, that they’d got so close, it was a great test etc. (Perhaps partially underfstandable in the aftermath of the Beale affair and the associated trauma.) Similarly after this loss to Ireland in today’s SMH: “… we’re definitely improving…. it was an enjoyable Test and we’re disappointed with the loss, but we’ve improved and we can go forward next week.” Blah blah blah.

If I were the captain I would be gutted by the loss and say so, give “full credit”(!) to the opposition, then express our utter determination to fix the mistakes in time for next week’s test. In other words he did not express the necessary ruthlessness then in his remarks, nor was that ruthlessness and critical tactical awareness evident in his on field leadership. Especially sensing the need to change tactics if something is not working against the opposition.

Another thing I noticed was his appearance: not only does Hooper look untidy with his long unkempt hair, the headband and his jersey hanging out, his socks initially pulled up, were down around his ankles by the last quarter. This slovenly look, in my view, is a sign of a slovenly mind, which does not think clearly, especially in stressful last quarter situations, when crucial tactical decisions are necessary to pull the game out of the fire. He does not look a captain – yet. (You may pillory me for saying this, but that’s ok.)

I think it was one of the famous American NFL coaches (Vince Lombardi?) who said: “Winning is not a matter of life and death. It’s much more important than that.” Hooper has to develop not only that absolute ruthlessness but also the tactical awareness and decision making that goes with it.

Apart from the rare born leader, fortunately captaincy and leadership are skills that develop over time. Richie McCaw had his painfully visible experience aged 26 in the All Blacks 2007 quarter final loss to France after just 23 tests as captain. He’s learned from that, become an outstanding captain and leader with an incredible 88 wins in 100 tests as captain. Hooper is even younger at 23 so has more time to strive for similar achievements.

Thanks dsat24 and John for your comments re rehearsed moves.

I missed the Joubert “waterboy” comment to Conrad Smith. One thing that makes Joubert such a top referee (the best?) is that he’s almost invariably calm, relaxed and clear in his messages to players. In a game like the US Eagles, the All Blacks were so far ahead that he could perhaps afford to be making such comments. Helped the tenor of the game.

Pot Hale – great comment about the presumption for the November internationals for the “SH teams to be match-hardened but tiring and NH teams to be fresh but rusty.” Spot on. That the SH teams still do so well in the NH indicates the strength of the SH teams.
But SH will drop the odd match like the All Blacks did in their last test v England in 2012. They looked pretty tired and England were very much on their game to take advantage.

A pity about NH teams coming to SH for the June internationals for their routine beatings – they’re generally pretty tired at the end of their long season (Six Nations, Heineken Cup etc), quite a few out with injuries, players not released by clubs for their finals, so a lot of new selections in their teams and therefore rusty as teams because the Six Nations finished 2-3 months previously. Both tired AND rusty!

Spiro,

Most interesting regarding your view that “attacking sides in rugby should have a series of rehearsed plays, like The Four Horsemen, so that every player knew what was going to happen next.”

Well there was one perfect example of that in the All Blacks v US Eagles test!

I also thought it the most amusing incident of the game! Late in the second half, after Moody scored his try thru the gap in the middle of the split lineout from Read’s take and pass down to Moody, Craig Joubert awarded the try, then, as he walked upfield, could be heard to ask: “Wonder where I’ve seen that move before?”

It was the “Teabag” lineout move, pulled by the All Blacks in the 2011 RWC Final against France, early in the first half. ABs threw the ball deep inside France’s 22, the ABs lineout split with the rear half going backwards, the front half crowding forward, leaving a gap, Woodcock came round into the gap, took the ball from Kaino’s lineout take, charged thru the gap and scored! ABs 5-0. Perfectly executed with Joubert the referee on both occasions! “Teabag” (Woodcock’s nickname!) was devised by Hansen and first used against the Wallabies at Auckland in 2008 – then put on ice until the 2011 RWC Final.

Beautifully rehearsed and beautifully executed on each occasion.

Agree it is a pity there is a dearth of rehearsed moves these days.

Spiro,

Right on the money with your comment:
“Michael Cheika turned around the Waratahs by getting them fit. McKenzie needs to do the same or step down and allow Cheika to do with the Wallabies – the Coogee Steps and all of that – what he has done for the Waratahs.”

I emailed Michael Cheika in February before the Super season started, along similar lines re the Waratahs fitness:
“Last year it was great to see your focus on extreme fitness from the outset. Fairly obviously achieving higher levels of fitness creates the ability to outperform less fit teams in those critical last 20 minutes of a game, but equally importantly you set the mental standards you want to achieve in the minds of team members. Very pleased to see you’ve continued that theme again this year…. the examples of the Coogee Steps and guys retching is very much what’s needed.” The Tahs result for 2015 speaks for itself.

It’s all very well to say we held the Boks for 70 minutes. That is just not good enough. Fumbling, handling errors and poor decision making etc result when you’re not fit enough for the last crucial minutes. No answer other than supreme fitness for 85 minutes.

With the All Blacks v Argentina, Argentina again proved they are a hard side to beat. And All Blacks opening RWC pool game against Argentina next year looming as an even tougher obstacle.

Accordingly I was amazed that even leading by only 20-6 after 55 minutes, McCaw turned down four (4!) kickable penalty shots, to go for a corner try from lineout and maul. Not surprisingly against a tough pack like the Argies, each one of the four attempts failed. (a typical zero success rate!) Kicking the penalties with a 75% success rate (versus his actual 100% in the test) Barrett would have added 9 points to the AB’s score. You really have to wonder where McCaw’s tactical brain has gone. First job is to secure the win – by always taking your points – then go for the four tries. Dumb, dumb, dumb. At least they got the four tries, but no thanks to the wasted penalty kicks to the corners.

While the AB’s did get a convincing win, with the Bok’s on fire in the last 10 minutes over Aust, methinks it’ll be an even tougher ask for the AB’s to beat the Boks at their Johannesburg fortress next Saturday.

Spiro,

A hugely insightful pick for Italy to beat France and in the same breath pick France to win the tournament!