Looks like South Africa has learnt nothing from the World Cup. One try (from a rolling maul) and four penalties. Stimulating stuff!

The last round of the 6 Nations last season shows what you can do if the incentives are right. It was coincidental that you had three sides who could win the championship in the last round but it would come down to points differential. And the result? Tons of tries, tons of excitement, and many were saying that 6 Nations can be exciting. Take away the incentives and we’ve had the often dire displays of this season. What’s wrong with managing the process so that exciting rugby is probable rather than just possible?

Great read – on the day when Martin Crowe died it’s nice to read a feel good story. But what’s this “Maori” Wars? I think all now recognise there was another party, probably more blameworthy, involved and they’re called the Land or NZ Wars.

The Hurricanes were so bad in Canberra that you need to be careful in reading too much into either team’s performance. The Brumbies looked good and their defence was all embracing, but they got two tries from mauls and two from appalling defence by the Hurricanes (and a bit of ingenuity by the Brumbies in one!).

Three other All Black/Wallabies have been Ned Jessep, Keith Gudsell, and Owen Stephens. There was even an Aussie in the first representative NZ team in 1884, Henry Braddon. He stayed in Sydney after the tour and then played for NSW. As there was no Australian team then he could be counted as a 4th.

Interesting concept for an article, but do we need an image from the USA to base it on?

Discussions re the great ones are almost always weighted in favour of the more recent players. Men such as Billy Wallace and George Nepia of NZ; Danie Craven of SA; Catchpole of Aus; and Porta of Argentina were giants of their time, and while they may hardly be known to the kids of today, I think you need a little time to pass before you bestow such mantles as “the greatest” on anybody. Wasn’t Campese the one who threw the pass that lost a series to the Lions?

Can anybody explain to me why through most of the article and the comments, one player (Angelique Kerber) is referred to by her family name and one (Serena Williams) by her first name? Yes, I know there are two Williams featuring in most Opens, especially at the start, but surely common courtesy would have Kerber referred to by her first name if you are doing that for Williams. I fear that at the bottom of this is some kind of sycophantic paying homage to the USA, as if they are the masters or mistresses of the universe and deserve special treatment.

We’ve got the Aussie Tennis Open to tide us through till the 6 Nations starts; we’ve got Anzac cricket; we’ve got all the Wallabies and All Blacks playing in Europe so we have a passing interest in Toulon, Pau, Racing 92, etc. Then the real sport starts late Feb. If there was rugby all year I don’t think I’d bother watching the Kings play the Force. 3 months off gives you time to reflect on the last season (and what a glorious World Cup it was) and get ready for the new one. If I ate a lamb roast and pavlova every day I’d get sick of it.

Brad Thorn the best cross code player? He’s up against Dally Messenger, George Nepia, Ray Price et al. A big call!

If the South African teams are good enough they will get three into the QFs, and with the Australasian split going 3/2 they will be the equal best off. And I wouldn’t write off the chances of the Sunwolves. A certain country did that to the Sunwolves’ alter ego in Brighton a few months ago, and ended up with egg on their face.

That’s the problem with people trying to abrogate the right to a generic name like “football” to refer to their specific game. Depending upon what country you are in throughout the world (or city as in Australia) it could mean rugby union (NZ, South Africa); rugby league (Brisbane, Sydney); AFL (Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth); soccer (many parts of world and SBS); gridiron (US). It’s only when people such as Les Murray or his acolytes on SBS assume soccer has a God-given right to the name that it gets up my nose.

For me the most interesting thing in Super Rugby will be how all the sides settle down who have lost top players to retirement or transfer. Against a virtual Pumas Test team it’s going to be tough, especially when they play in Argentina. How will the Crusaders go without McCaw and Carter? The Blues under Umaga? The Hurricanes without Conrad Smith and Nonu? And can the SA sides retrieve some of the prestige lost by the Boks against Japan? So many questions, soon to be answered.

South Africa had little trouble with Wales in the Quarter Final!!!? They just won in the last few minutes.

In the early years of Test cricket it was not a rare event for one batsman to outscore all of the opposition in an innings. Given the number of collapses on sticky wickets this was always a possibility. The interesting thing though in the following examples is that they were all achieved by Englishmen, in England and Australia.

1880, Oval: WG Grace, 152; Australia, 149
1886, Lord’s: Shrewsbury, 164; Australia, 121
1886, Oval: WG Grace, 170; Australia, 68
1888, Sydney: Shrewsbury, 44; Australia, 42
1892, Adelaide: Stoddart, 134; Australia, 100
1893, Oval: FS Jackson, 103; Australia, 91

In the Sydney Test of 1892 there was the interesting example where a batsman on either side almost achieved the feat: Abel with 132, Australia 144 in the first innings; then Lyons with 134, England 156 in the second innings.

There’s a story behind every name. Just starting with the letter A in Australian Test players:

Ted A’Beckett – played 4 Tests, first wicket taken was that of Jack Hobbs
George Alexander – played 2 Tests, managed Australian and English teams at different times
Harry Alexander – played 1 Test, as foil to Harold Larwood
Francis Allan – played 1 Test, in which Spofforth took first Test hat-trick
Peter Allen – played 1 Test, once took all 10 Vic wickets in an innings at the MCG
Reg Allen – played 1 Test, uncle of the great Gubby Allen
Tommy Andrews – played 16 Tests, twice got to the 90s but no Test tons
Ken and Ron Archer – played 5 and 19 Tests respectively, brothers
Warwick Armstrong – played 50 Tests, came into Test cricket tall and slim (and played in VFL Grand Final), sailed out of cricket as the “Big Ship”.

Why do we need to look to societies like the USA for inspiration, in sport or anything else? The trash-talking that we hear from its mega rich sports people is so foreign to our culture. Even the use of “college” is inappropriate in an Australian setting. Colleges are for secondary school kids. We don’t need the glitzy pantomimes that parade as sport in the USA, just as they will never play cricket – although they once did, before they developed baseball!

The headline reminds me of David’s article pre RWC Final, when he listed all the firsts that would be achieved when the Wallabies won the final – except they didn’t. Instead the ABs achieved a bagful of firsts.

And who has installed the Aussie women as favourites for Rio gold? With about 8 months to go till the Olympics start it’s absurd to talk about favourites, and typical journalistic overspeak. They will obviously be one of the main contenders, but that’s all.

Context is very important when looking at wonky decisions. The All Blacks in 2007 suffered from an appalling miss by Wayne Barnes and his touch judge in the quarter final, but they didn’t lose because of it. They had another 20 minutes or so when they camped in the French half and couldn’t score, and that’s why they lost. If Barnes had done this in the last minute, as did Joubert against the Scots, it’s a different matter.

That’s why I don’t think Llong’s decision lost the game for the Black Caps. They should have got the last 2 wickets for little damage, they should have batted better in the 2nd innings. They didn’t, and they lost a game they could have won. Llong’s blunder is not of the same order as Joubert’s because of context.

Again we hear that Cheika was voted “The Coach of the Rugby World Cup”. He wasn’t. It was coach of the year, a year in which his Wallabies lost to Ireland, France, England, and New Zealand (twice); his Waratahs got cleaned up at home by the Highlanders; and he was on a good behaviour bond for a misdemeanour which he almost stuffed up by talking to a ref at half-time. Surely he can’t do as poorly as this in future years, so it looks like the title is his for as long as he wants it.

I agree that desperate teams tend to appoint Messiahs, and when they don’t produce, they get crucified. I thought also that Cheika was given the “Coach of the Year” title, not just of the tournament. There is significant doubt about him being the coach of the tournament, but of the year it was even more farcical.

I’m sure it’s the sub-editor’s fault, not Spiro’s, to mess up a fine article of a great man with a headline that is everything Richie is not. Knighthoods are a disgusting and irrelevant overhang from England’s feudal past, when it was felt that you needed a barrier between someone who had made it and the common people. This is so Tony Abbott. Everybody knows that Richie is a great and a humble man. He doesn’t need Ms Windsor to artificially endorse this.

If Steve Hansen can carry on with his new look ABs, beat the Lions in 2017, and maybe go on to win in Japan in 2019, perhaps he could beat Cheika to being Coach of the Year!!!?

Just a reality check, Peter. I acknowledge that the Wallabies made it through to the Final in what was essentially a three horse race, and in the Final they played with the determination and sometimes flair that I expect of them, and not of most others. But my point was what is the hard evidence that Cheika is the saviour of Australian rugby, let alone the coach of the year. I don’t think it’s enough that he got what was a rabble back on track – that’s his job. So far the results do not justify the accolades, and the potential has yet to be proven. I did not mention in my article that Cheika was on a good behaviour bond recently, and he almost blew it when he had his chat with a referee during Super Rugby. If that’s appropriate for a coach of the year I’d like to see the criteria they used.

There is so much hubris oozing out of Sydney, and other places Orstralian, that you would think the Cup has been won already. The form team of the RWC!!!? Should have been beaten by Scotland, struggled to beat a Wales which couldn’t score against 13 men, made to look silly by Argentine running. And Cheika as the new Messiah? Isn’t he the one who showed his self control by shattering a wall (or window?) in the coach’s box, and had an illegal word in the ref’s ear at half-time? And how did he go in Europe in Nov/Dec?
How did his Waratahs go against the Highlanders in the semi final? Before lining him up for the Secretary-General position at the UN, I’d like to see a bit more before the Pope sanctifies him. And as for the Wallabies going number 1 in the rankings, how does their record in the last 12 months stack up against the ABs. I make it four losses (and two lucky squeaks at the end) to the Wallabies, and one to the ABs.

Re in-step kicking for goal, try Barry John with the British Lions in NZ in 1971.

Re excitement machines on a rugby field, there’s Milner-Skudder, Inglis, Slater. Doesn’t matter whether they play union, league or whatever, inventive and talented players will bring pleasure to anybody with an open mind.