Official Rugby Thread

[Blaze]

I see Stephen Jones launched another extrordinary attack on New Zealand rugby overnight.

Calling the new All Black Haka "thug-like" and basically trashing our forward pack as per usual.

He failed to note that even with 7 men in the forward pack we still managed to flatten the English pack on one occassion and never went backwards at any stage.

Steven Jones is a plonker. An absolute knob. The stuff they did based on him on face-lift was very funny. He writes to frustrate NZers though. I doubt he believes half the crap he writes, in fact I have seen an interview with him where he basically admits to writing flame bait to annoy us.

The call about the new All Black haka is extraordinary. It has nothing to do with the opposition. It is our challenge to them, and is part of our tradition and heritage.

I read about how he said that England proved the way to beat the All Blacks is to challenge them in the forwards and they will fall to pieces, as you point out he failed to mention how we held out England for 30 minutes with 7 forwards.

If someone was able to question him about some of the crap he writes in his columns he would be made to look very stupid. For example this time last year he wrote that France would be far too strong in the forwards for us and would comfortably beat us.. the result a 40 point demolition with us forcing the French into golden oldies.

It really would be great if someone could interview him and point things out like how we managed to contain the English with 7 forwards in the second half and how he predicted a Lions series victory because 'New Zealand were unproven under pressure'. He would struggle to come up with things to say to defend how over rated we are if someone like Telfer from radio sport was asking him questions on the spot.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

TBF the ref called Corry & Umaga together twice to warn them both he was going to brandish cards if both teams didn't cut out the cynical play. Hardly "willy nilly". If any team is going to deliberately commit fouls to prevent scoring opportunities they have to expect it.

The first card was OK. We didn't get to see a replay, but the linesman saw Woodcock collapse the maul; a player is usually sent off for repeated offences, but, as you've said, the ref warned both Corry & Umaga about infringements. The second card was the ref caving in to pressure from the English players. People can talk about discipline all they like, but infringements are a part of the game & happen under pressure -- the ref should've played advantage or awarded the penalty. There was no need to send the player off. The third card was ridiculous. Masoe was making a legitimate attempt at a turnover. You can't send someone off for a technicality.

What annoyed New Zealand fans is that England were just as guilty of killing the ball, yet the ref didn't send any of their players off. At one point we were marched 10 metres for backchat, yet England argued about every call.

It seemed to us that the ref bought into Andy Robinson's claims that NZ cheat at the breakdown -- New Zealand are sometimes penalised for infringements in the ruck, since a fair turnover is a judgement call -- but not to the extent that their players ought to be sent-off. If we had this ref every time, McCaw wouldn't last a game.

 

[cric_manic]

The first card was OK. We didn't get to see a replay, but the linesman saw Woodcock collapse the maul; a player is usually sent off for repeated offences, but, as you've said, the ref warned both Corry & Umaga about infringements. The second card was the ref caving in to pressure from the English players. People can talk about discipline all they like, but infringements are a part of the game & happen under pressure -- the ref should've played advantage or awarded the penalty. There was no need to send the player off. The third card was ridiculous. Masoe was making a legitimate attempt at a turnover. You can't send someone off for a technicality.

What annoyed New Zealand fans is that England were just as guilty of killing the ball, yet the ref didn't send any of their players off. At one point we were marched 10 metres for backchat, yet England argued about every call.

It seemed to us that the ref bought into Andy Robinson's claims that NZ cheat at the breakdown -- New Zealand are sometimes penalised for infringements in the ruck, since a fair turnover is a judgement call -- but not to the extent that their players ought to be sent-off. If we had this ref every time, McCaw wouldn't last a game.

NZ do cheat at the breakdown,so do every other team its just the really good teams(like NZ) that get away with it often

 

[ohtani's jacket]

There's a big difference between contesting the breakdown & blatant cheating. I don't doubt that we get away with a lot, but if a player is penalised for attempting a turnover, that's hardly cheating, even if they did infringe.

 

[Tim]

Well its almost laughable that England are complaining about NZ offending at the ruck & mauls when they're probably just as bad, if not worse. After all, they've got players like Steve Thompson, Danny Grewcock etc who are constantly baiting the opposition.

I've never seen a team talk as much to the referee as much as the English side do and its time they put a stop to it.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

The British press have created a lot of bad feeling on this tour. I've been browsing the bbc's rugby forums and the animosity is pandemic. I have to admit, I was angry at the end of the Test & wanted us to get the f' out of Twickenham with a win.

 

[Smudge]

NZ does cheat at the breakdown. But then again, any good team does. Neil Back made an artform out of it and was at his best during England's great run. McCaw cheats - not all of the time, but certainly some of the time. It's part of the game.

As for the English players ranting and raving en masse to the referee, that has got to be stopped and erased from our game for good. It's exceptionally ugly and has no place in rugby. The captain talks to the referee and no one else, unless spoken to first.

 

[Smudge]

A few thoughts I penned re: this year's AB team.

Newspapers and the writers behind them are often accused of indulging in a little too much hyperbole.
"Greatest test innings ever!" the headlines shout.
"Celebrity couple's miracle baby!" the covers of women's magazines scream.
And, since the internet entered the media market in the 1990s, the competition has hotted up, forcing journalists to become "***ier" (ignore my mugshot) and fill their reports and columns with sensational tidbits.
But while some of my more learned colleagues might be frothing at the mouth over the results achieved by the 2005 All Blacks, I'm being a little more cautious.
Assuming New Zealand beats Scotland this weekend - and yes, I know what assumption is the mother of - this year's All Blacks will be only the second All Black side to achieve the Grand Slam - a win over all four Home Nations.
Toss in a Lions series win, a Tri Nations win and a successful defence of the Bledisloe Cup, and you've got yourself an outstanding haul for a year's work.
But where does this place the 2005 side on the All Black hall of fame?
This side has only dropped one match and has ground out some gritty wins - the latest of which was last weekend.
All these results are thoroughly commendable, but the players and management still have some way to go to be placed up on the All Black pedestal alongside teams like the 1924 Invincibles, Fred Allen's great team of the 1960s or the "Incomparables" of 1996-7.
World rugby is in a funny old state at the moment, with teams rebuilding as often as a clumsy child with his Lego blocks.
Australia has just come out of its worst losing streak in over 30 years, Wales is showing about as much depth as a paddling pool and England is only just starting to recover from the post-World Cup blues - although Sunday's performance should have opposition coaches shifting nervously in their seats, particularly if the English can find some midfield backs.
Only South Africa could be considered as a side in a fairly comfortable footballing state - although the search for a decent Springbok number 10 continues.
France is France. No one knows what French team will arrive at the ground - the wonderfully creative and instinctive performance seen at Eden Park in 1994 or the mechanical, stagnant plodders that were demolished by the All Blacks in Paris last year.
So is rugby worldwide strong enough for this year's All Black side to rate as one of the best? I don't think so.
Certainly, Tana Umaga's men are playing some clever and quick rugby this year when they're on song. But the 1996 All Blacks faced a Springbok side fresh from a World Cup victory and an Australia side that put up a torrid fight at Brisbane in 1996; the 1967 All Blacks faced a Welsh side containing clever playmakers and future legends of the game; and the Invincibles faced an energy-sapping tour including a tough test match against England, in which Cyril Brownlie was the first All Black to be sent off.
It's probably a backhanded compliment to Graham Henry and his men, but it says something about the depth of world rugby when he can tinker round with 30 players and still put 40 points on Home Nation sides.
I'm not too worried about the All Blacks' results next year - Henry can keep experimenting for all I care - but my focus is turning already to France in 2007. If the Henry Cartel and the players can bring home the William Webb Ellis trophy, then I'll be throwing out the superlatives left, right and centre.

 

[shaka]

If the Henry Cartel and the players can bring home the William Webb Ellis trophy, then I'll be throwing out the superlatives left, right and centre.

As would I, the WC is the most important thing that has not yet been achieved since 1987

 

[BoyBrumby]

Come the WC I think Tom Varndell will be one of our wings (you heard it here first!), he's 6' 3" & like schisse off a wet shovel. Only 20 too.

Where I lead, Robinson merely follows! The England squad for Somoa:

Backs: M van Gisbergen (Wasps), J Lewsey (Wasps); B Cohen (Northampton), M Cueto (Sale Sharks), T Varndell (Leicester), T Voyce (Wasps), J Simpson-Daniel (Gloucester); J Noon (Newcastle), M Tindall (Gloucester), O Barkley (Bath), C Hodgson (Sale Sharks), M Dawson (Wasps), H Ellis (Leicester), P Richards (Gloucester).

Forwards: A Sheridan (Sale), P Vickery (Gloucester), M Stevens (Bath), P Freshwater (Perpignan); S Thompson (Northampton), L Mears (Bath); D Grewcock (Bath), S Borthwick (Bath), S Shaw (Wasps), L Deacon (Leicester), C Jones (Sale), M Corry (Leicester, capt), J Forrester (Gloucester), A Hazell (Gloucester), L Moody (Leicester), P Sanderson (Worcester).

Just hope he doesn't make both of us look daft now....

 

[open365]

Varndell's not an international player atm,and i'm a leicester fan.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Varndell's not an international player atm,and i'm a leicester fan.

He impressed me no end when I saw him live. Unpolished, certainly, but Samoa (no disrespect to them) is an ideal opportunity to test a few players out. He's got all the raw materials you'd want in a wing.

Personally I'd like to see someone other than Noon partner Tindall in the centres too (or vice versa, v similar players). Not sure Simpson-Daniel is the answer tho, 'cos he's a v obvious 13. Maybe Abbott now he's fit again? Not even in squad tho.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

It's far too early to call this current side one of the all-time greats, since they've only been at it a year (from Stade de France until Twickenham), but they are the best side we've had in almost a decade. If they dominate for the next two years and win the World Cup, then they'll be one of the great All Blacks sides, but for now, they're just playing well.

The Grand Slam, despite being one of rugby's great challenges, has been more of a novelty than the mark of a great touring side. I'm not reading too much into being only the second side to achieve it in 100 years -- it's not as though we've tried since '78 and failed; the '89 All Blacks could've done it, so too the '97 All Blacks, they just never had the opportunity. And I doubt the 2005 All Blacks will be remembered as a great touring side, like the '84 Wallabies, since Henry cheapened it somewhat. As for the rest of the year, well, only one Lions side has ever won a series in NZ and we've won the Tri-Nations before without being the best team, so while it's an achievement we should be proud of, it's really just build-up for the one we haven't won in 20 years.

The most satisfying thing for New Zealand rugby is that we've shown that we're more than just the Harlem Globetrotters, traipsing around the world. We've clawed our way back into Tests; we've scored tries to win; we've held our line to win & we've won in some of the toughest places to play, bar South Africa. And the most satisfying of all -- we've done it on the back of a dramatically improved forward pack.

But remember, this All Blacks side is rebuilding as well. We still have weaknesses. We don't have a "true" half-back, fullback, centre combination or number eight. I don't think we have any idea who to play as second five & there's no guarantee that all of these players will last until the next World Cup. I do think it's significant that we've risen to the top when last year it seemed like anyone could beat anyone; a lot of people are saying that we've peaked too soon, but that's impossible to say, since we're a work in progress.

At least we have faith in our coach (for now), which has been our undoing in every post-Lochore World Cup.

 

[Smudge]

It's far too early to call this current side one of the all-time greats, since they've only been at it a year (from Stade de France until Twickenham), but they are the best side we've had in almost a decade. If they dominate for the next two years and win the World Cup, then they'll be one of the great All Blacks sides, but for now, they're just playing well.

The Grand Slam, despite being one of rugby's great challenges, has been more of a novelty than the mark of a great touring side. I'm not reading too much into being only the second side to achieve it in 100 years -- it's not as though we've tried since '78 and failed; the '89 All Blacks could've done it, so too the '97 All Blacks, they just never had the opportunity. And I doubt the 2005 All Blacks will be remembered as a great touring side, like the '84 Wallabies, since Henry cheapened it somewhat. As for the rest of the year, well, only one Lions side has ever won a series in NZ and we've won the Tri-Nations before without being the best team, so while it's an achievement we should be proud of, it's really just build-up for the one we haven't won in 20 years.

The most satisfying thing for New Zealand rugby is that we've shown that we're more than just the Harlem Globetrotters, traipsing around the world. We've clawed our way back into Tests; we've scored tries to win; we've held our line to win & we've won in some of the toughest places to play, bar South Africa. And the most satisfying of all -- we've done it on the back of a dramatically improved forward pack.

But remember, this All Blacks side is rebuilding as well. We still have weaknesses. We don't have a "true" half-back, fullback, centre combination or number eight. I don't think we have any idea who to play as second five & there's no guarantee that all of these players will last until the next World Cup. I do think it's significant that we've risen to the top when last year it seemed like anyone could beat anyone; a lot of people are saying that we've peaked too soon, but that's impossible to say, since we're a work in progress.

At least we have faith in our coach (for now), which has been our undoing in every post-Lochore World Cup.

Agree with most other things you say, but there's a reason why Muliaina has played 30+ tests in a row - he's world-class. Actually, he's the best fullback in the world consistently. As for 12, I would love to see Carter and McAlister playing together.

McAlister at 12 also provides us with two different styles of player at centre if the Umaga retirement rumours are true - either Smith or Nonu, who bring different skillsets to the position. I would be a lot more comfortable with a McAlister/Smith defensive duo than Mauger/Smith (even though Smith simply doesn't miss tackles).

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Mils has grown into the role of fullback and he's better at 15 than anywhere else on the park; he's a good attacking footballer, which suits the All Blacks' running game & counter attack, but I wouldn't call him a complete fullback. Having said that, I suppose in the modern era you don't really need a tactical fullback with a great punt, since it's more about possession than territory gains. I trust Mils under the high ball more than I do Leon McDonald, who I don't rate above club level.

Umaga and Smith look like the best centre combination so far, and they'll be playing again against Scotland. I can't quite figure Mauger out, since he doesn't seem to fit into any kind of pairing. The centres are something we need to get sorted, since it was a massive achilles' heel at the last World Cup. What I wouldn't give for a centre combination like Schuster & Stanley or Bunce & Little.

 

[JASON]

I see Stephen Jones launched another extrordinary attack on New Zealand rugby overnight.

Calling the new All Black Haka "thug-like" and basically trashing our forward pack as per usual.

He failed to note that even with 7 men in the forward pack we still managed to flatten the English pack on one occassion and never went backwards at any stage.

He is an idiot as most Rugby followers even in England would admit .

But the All Blacks must be weary of being branded as a Team that indulges in rough tactics in terms of tackling as the British Press and various other vested interests have been trying to do .

The ABs must be extremely weary of this , particularly after the 'O Driscoll' saga , as this may hamper their prospects at the World Cup in 2007, if some of the referees start penalising them excessively like Alan Lewis did at the Weekend.

After watching that game (v England at the weekend) I couldn't help but feel that Alan Lewis was attempting to achieve some personal retribution/satisfaction (being an Irishman) over the O'Driscoll episode, by sending off three ABs in succession at a point in the game where the ABs could've lost the Test .

 

[KennyD]

Agree with most other things you say, but there's a reason why Muliaina has played 30+ tests in a row - he's world-class. Actually, he's the best fullback in the world consistently. As for 12, I would love to see Carter and McAlister playing together.

McAlister at 12 also provides us with two different styles of player at centre if the Umaga retirement rumours are true - either Smith or Nonu, who bring different skillsets to the position. I would be a lot more comfortable with a McAlister/Smith defensive duo than Mauger/Smith (even though Smith simply doesn't miss tackles).

~sigh~

I envy how you can just throw up various names for positions and still be able to put a strong team out on the park.

 

[Anna]

The England team v Samoa:

15) J Lewsey (Wasps)
14) M Cueto (Sale)
13) J Simpson-Daniel (Gloucester)
12) M Tindall (Gloucester)
11) T Voyce (Wasps)
10) C Hodgson (Sale)
9) H Ellis (Leicester)

1) A Sheridan (Sale)
2) S Thompson (Northampton)
3) M Stevens (Bath)
4) S Borthwick (Bath)
5) L Deacon (Leicester)
6) P Sanderson (Worcester)
7) L Moody (Leicester)
8) M Corry (Leicester, capt)

Replacements: L Mears (Bath), P Freshwater (Perpignan), S Shaw (Wasps), J Forrester (Gloucester), M Dawson (Wasps), O Barkley (Bath), T Varndell (Leicester).

A much more creative (I hope!) backline there. Glad to see Danny Grewcock'll be playing for Bath at the weekend- they most definitely need his help!

 

[open365]

disgracefull performance by the samoans.

tuilangi and the fly-half should be servely punished.

i cant realy blame moody of cueto for retaliating,cueto's nearly been injured 3 times and moody had to protect him.

 

[steds]

disgracefull performance by the samoans.

tuilangi and the fly-half should be servely punished.

Would that be Fereti Tuilagi, The original Freddie? He was an absolute legend at Saints. Slips in off his wing, then bang, some big opposition prop was writhing in agony on the ground. Never went high, either, all fair hits. What a guy.

Just wondered what Jimmy boy makes of his comments to me on msn that Scotland would be the All Blacks easiest game, now. It's not often he's wrong twice in such a short space of time.