Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

First topic message reminder :

       
IRELAND v NEW ZEALAND
19 November 2016
KO: 17:30
Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Live on Sky Sports 2

Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
Assistant referees: Mathieu Raynal (France), Ian Davies (Wales)
Television match official: Jon Mason (Wales)
Assessor: Chris White (England)

A. Head to Head

29 Played 29
1 Won 27
1 Drawn 1
27 Lost 1
310 Points 812

B. Recent Form 

5 November 2016
Soldier Field, Chicago IL
40–29 to Ireland

24 November 2013 
Aviva Stadium, Dublin 
22 – 24 to New Zealand 

23 June 2012 
Waikato Stadium, Hamilton 
60 – 0 to New Zealand 

16 June 2012 
Rugby League Park, Christchurch 
22 – 19 to New Zealand

9 June 2012 
Eden Park, Auckland 
42 – 10 to New Zealand

20 November 2010 
Aviva Stadium, Dublin 
18 – 38 to New Zealand 

C. Teams

IRELAND 

R Kearney; A Trimble, J Payne, R Henshaw, S Zebo; J Sexton, C Murray; J McGrath, R Best, T Furlong; D Toner, D Ryan; CJ Stander, S O'Brien, J Heaslip.

Replacements: S Cronin, C Healy, F Bealham, I Henderson, J van der Flier, K Marmion, P Jackson, G Ringrose.

NEW ZEALAND

B Smith; I Dagg, M Fekitoa, A Lienert-Brown, J Savea; B Barrett, A Smith; J Moody, D Coles, O Franks; B Retallick, S Whitelock; L Squire, S Can, K Read (capt).

Replacements: C Taylor, W Crockett, C Faumuina, S Barrett, A Savea, TJ Perenara, A Cruden, W Naholo.

Munchkin wrote:The Stander incident:

JOE.I.E

Two GIFs

Doesn't look good.

I forgot about that one, why wasn't Dagg cited? His is the most deliberate of the lot

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The Stander incident:

JOE.I.E

Two GIFs

Doesn't look good.

I forgot about that one, why wasn't Dagg cited? His is the most deliberate of the lot

It's a puzzle. I'm not sure how they could believe it wasn't at least worth a look at. There were 12 incidents sent to the citing commissioner (11 possible AB citings). So you would think the Stander incident would be included. An odd one.

Munchkin wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The Stander incident:

JOE.I.E

Two GIFs

Doesn't look good.

I forgot about that one, why wasn't Dagg cited? His is the most deliberate of the lot

It's a puzzle. I'm not sure how they could believe it wasn't at least worth a look at. There were 12 incidents sent to the citing commissioner (11 possible AB citings). So you would think the Stander incident would be included. An odd one.

Especially as Cane escaped because he tried to wrap his arms, Dagg didn't the very definition of what they are looking for

It's also worth having a look at the Dagg hit on Zebo's torso when he was defenceless in a ruck. Looked like broken ribs and he had to go off immediately after.

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The Stander incident:

JOE.I.E

Two GIFs

Doesn't look good.

I forgot about that one, why wasn't Dagg cited? His is the most deliberate of the lot

It's a puzzle. I'm not sure how they could believe it wasn't at least worth a look at. There were 12 incidents sent to the citing commissioner (11 possible AB citings). So you would think the Stander incident would be included. An odd one.

Especially as Cane escaped because he tried to wrap his arms, Dagg didn't the very definition of what they are looking for

Well the TMO said he tried to wrap his arm, the same one who said it was a head clash, but the citing panel might believe differently. I agree, the Stander one does look much more obvious. I don't believe Cane deliberately targeted the head. Can't say the same for Dagg.

The All Blacks are a very good rugby team. It makes me a bit sad however when you get the impression that for them winning justifies actions like that. I have taken the liberty of quoting from a RTE web page who quoted Beauden Barrett.
https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/1120/833137-beauden-barrent-ireland-new-zealand-all-blacks/

Beauden Barrett wrote:
"It's hard getting that balance but our intent was we wanted to be physical," said Barrett, man of the match."
"Technique may have let us down a couple of times with the yellow cards, but it's up to the referee to make those decisions.
"It was more attitude and intent. Our actions were the biggest focus.
"The game and the way we play the game happens if we get that first bit right.
"I was pleased with how we turned up."
"We're getting back to showing how much it means to us through our actions, and doing the jersey justice. That's what it was all about."

I'm not sure whether shoulder to head shots like Dagg's or Cane's do the All Blacks jersey justice

NZ were very dirty and cynical but Im more disappointed with Pyper for effectively letting them away with it.

Why do NZ literally never get red cards?

I didn't think the hit on Henshaw was that bad if I may be honest. Looks more to me that Henshaw got into an unfortunate position. Cane appeared to wrap his arms as well.

The hits on Zebo and CJ were very poor and I have no idea how Dagg escaped a citing as he did not attempt to wrap, straight shoulder charge.

Likewise could be said for Sexton, I feel he is a very lucky boy to escape a citing with his tackle on Barrett.

On the positives, Jackson again showed me that he is close to pushing Sexton out of the starting 10 position with another excellent showing. Best, what can I say, he was immense yesterday and led brilliantly.

There was plenty in that performance (OK Ireland lost) that showed me that Ireland are not that far behind the All Blacks and if there were to be a 3rd match, I feel Ireland could win that. I certainly feel that Ireland can beat the Aussies.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:NZ were very dirty and cynical but Im more disappointed with Pyper for effectively letting them away with it.

Why do NZ literally never get red cards?

The ref was incompetent and lost control. The TMO was atrocious. They should be held to account, but won't. That's a serious problem.

eirebilly wrote:I didn't think the hit on Henshaw was that bad if I may be honest. Looks more to me that Henshaw got into an unfortunate position. Cane appeared to wrap his arms as well.

The hits on Zebo and CJ were very poor and I have no idea how Dagg escaped a citing as he did not attempt to wrap, straight shoulder charge.

Likewise could be said for Sexton, I feel he is a very lucky boy to escape a citing with his tackle on Barrett.

On the positives, Jackson again showed me that he is close to pushing Sexton out of the starting 10 position with another excellent showing. Best, what can I say, he was immense yesterday and led brilliantly.

There was plenty in that performance (OK Ireland lost) that showed me that Ireland are not that far behind the All Blacks and if there were to be a 3rd match, I feel Ireland could win that. I certainly feel that Ireland can beat the Aussies.

We are told that the intent is irrelevant, look at Stander in SA on Lambie

The Sexton one on history is probably foul play though one Ive always disagreed with and its over the shoulder and not on the neck

What frustrated me about Rory on Saturday, he was too respectful of Peyper though and should have been a bit more aggressive in his approach

Chris Rattue, kiwi journalist, has accused him of yapping which is ironic given they had Richie McCaw at it for years

GunsGermsV2 wrote:NZ were very dirty and cynical but Im more disappointed with Pyper for effectively letting them away with it.

Why do NZ literally never get red cards?

Agree. And may I say his assistants and TMO. He had the swagger of a man who was not going to be guided either by Captains' concerns or indeed by the drone of assistants in his ear. The muteness of those assistant 'advisory pull-backs' was pointed. You'd be expecting Peyper to be holding his earpiece a lot in that game, being advised to probably have a closer look at A, B or C. But it seems the assistants didn't want to interfere with Peyper on the job. Did he tell them not to be unduly annoying him in his ear before the game began?

It would have been ridiculous to cite Sexton for the tackle on Barrett. Maybe it was a penalty but there was nothing malicious. its pretty obvious he was trying to wrap up the ball/knock it out of Barrett's hands.

If you compare the movement of Barretts head in the tackle to Zebos head in the high tackle against him it is night and day. Barretts head barely moved because Sextons arm was around the shoulder and chest whereas Zebos head moves a lot.

eirebilly wrote:I didn't think the hit on Henshaw was that bad if I may be honest. Looks more to me that Henshaw got into an unfortunate position. Cane appeared to wrap his arms as well.

The hits on Zebo and CJ were very poor and I have no idea how Dagg escaped a citing as he did not attempt to wrap, straight shoulder charge.

Likewise could be said for Sexton, I feel he is a very lucky boy to escape a citing with his tackle on Barrett.

On the positives, Jackson again showed me that he is close to pushing Sexton out of the starting 10 position with another excellent showing. Best, what can I say, he was immense yesterday and led brilliantly.

There was plenty in that performance (OK Ireland lost) that showed me that Ireland are not that far behind the All Blacks and if there were to be a 3rd match, I feel Ireland could win that. I certainly feel that Ireland can beat the Aussies.

Both Ireland and the ABs are going to be physically and mentally drained after those two Tests. It isn't going to be easy to recover in time for the Australian and French Tests. Doable, but a real challenge.

marty2086 wrote:

What frustrated me about Rory on Saturday, he was too respectful of Peyper though and should have been a bit more aggressive in his approach

There's a fine balance to be struck when you know you're dealing with a headstrong ref.  You can only do so much protesting, marty.  If you overdo it and don't run along when they tell you they're not interested, well - they're all human - and you could end up paying heavy prices later in the game if they feel their authority is too publically being questioned in front of the world.
Rory did all he could.  Any more verbal aggro was too dangerous in that game.

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

What frustrated me about Rory on Saturday, he was too respectful of Peyper though and should have been a bit more aggressive in his approach

There's a fine balance to be struck when you know you're dealing with a headstrong ref.  You can only do so much protesting, marty.  If you overdo it and don't run along when they tell you they're not interested, well - they're all human - and you could end up paying heavy prices later in the game if they feel their authority is too publically being questioned in front of the world.
Rory did all he could.  Any more verbal aggro was too dangerous in that game.

I understand that but maybe if he pushed back a bit more Peyper would have taken notice, sometimes you have to find where the line is rather than avoiding crossing it

As the ABs have mastered

Maybe we should have created a bit of handbags to highlight one or two incidents. Certainly the Stander one.

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

What frustrated me about Rory on Saturday, he was too respectful of Peyper though and should have been a bit more aggressive in his approach

There's a fine balance to be struck when you know you're dealing with a headstrong ref.  You can only do so much protesting, marty.  If you overdo it and don't run along when they tell you they're not interested, well - they're all human - and you could end up paying heavy prices later in the game if they feel their authority is too publically being questioned in front of the world.
Rory did all he could.  Any more verbal aggro was too dangerous in that game.

Agree, Best has been magnificent and although initially looked like a temporary pick as captain in POMs absence and having a difficult 6N, has stepped out of the shadow of his two iconic predecessors over the last few months.

Munchkin wrote:Maybe we should have created a bit of handbags to highlight one or two incidents. Certainly the Stander one.

Well I did have my old war-handbag sitting right next to me on the couch, Munch - still with the dried blood of many an English, Welsh, French or Aussie player on it. But I'm sorry I couldn't be at the game to lend my handbag to the pitch invasion you had planned. Maybe next time against on of our old handbagging colleagues the Aussies

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Maybe we should have created a bit of handbags to highlight one or two incidents. Certainly the Stander one.

Well I did have my old war-handbag sitting right next to me on the couch, Munch - still with the dried blood of many an English, Welsh, French or Aussie player on it.  But I'm sorry I couldn't be at the game to lend my handbag to the pitch invasion you had planned.  Maybe next time against on of our old handbagging colleagues the Aussies

You should wear your worn out handbag with pride. If handbags could talk, they would tell the tale of many glorious nearly fights.

We should all be men and admit to our love of handbags

eirebilly wrote:Likewise could be said for Sexton, I feel he is a very lucky boy to escape a citing with his tackle on Barrett.

Sexton's tackle was high but considering it was no worse than literally teens of AB high tackles, it would have been very harsh to cite him and not also cite Coles, Reid, Squire, Moody, Retallick, Ardie and Julian Savea!

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

What frustrated me about Rory on Saturday, he was too respectful of Peyper though and should have been a bit more aggressive in his approach

There's a fine balance to be struck when you know you're dealing with a headstrong ref.  You can only do so much protesting, marty.  If you overdo it and don't run along when they tell you they're not interested, well - they're all human - and you could end up paying heavy prices later in the game if they feel their authority is too publically being questioned in front of the world.
Rory did all he could.  Any more verbal aggro was too dangerous in that game.

Agree, Best has been magnificent and although initially looked like a temporary pick as captain in POMs absence and having a difficult 6N, has stepped out of the shadow of his two iconic predecessors over the last few months.

I think in the vast majority of our matches the respect that Best gives the referee works to our benefit, Unfortunately Pepper didn't deserve any respect

I'd still have to highlight Peyper's assistants on the day. He had his mind - he had decided what he was going to rate 'dangerous' or 'cynical' and obviously his limit rating was set high. Okay - so that was his view of rugby and that game in particular. But again, that's why there is more than one official. I didn't sense that any of them were prepared to step up for their interpretations or that they were barking into the ref's earpiece that he should take a second look at things.

I'd put all the other officials equally in the dock with Peyper. It was curious that in such a ruthlessly physical contest, he truly did seem to be making all major contentious decisions independently. If he didn't get a ring in his ear from the side, he'd just keep playing.

Dont forget Peyper reffed Ireland v France in the 6 nations this year which was an equally dirty and cynical performance from the French.

SecretFly wrote:I'd still have to highlight Peyper's assistants on the day.  He had his mind - he had decided what he was going to rate 'dangerous' or 'cynical' and obviously his limit rating was set high.  Okay - so that was his view of rugby and that game in particular.  But again, that's why there is more than one official.  I didn't sense that any of them were prepared to step up for their interpretations or that they were barking into the ref's earpiece that he should take a second look at things.

I'd put all the other officials equally in the dock with Peyper.  It was curious that in such a ruthlessly physical contest, he truly did seem to be making all major contentious decisions independently.  If he didn't get a ring in his ear from the side, he'd just keep playing.

Fly you are assuming they didn't we don't always hear what the touch judges say so they could well have been ignored, I think it was the England game on Saturday you could hear a touch judge call for a penalty one way but the ref gave it the other way

Though saying that Savea tipped an Irish player at one point which looked borderline right in front of the touch judge and they screamed at him and just got a shoulder shrug in response

I hadn't looked up the ref for the day until I saw him there - and I'll admit, I felt we were going to be in for a hard game when I saw him.  I didn't expect that hardness to mean in the physical sense, but I felt we might ourselves get whistled out of the game.  He tends to have a real fondness for his SA SH interpretations.  So I thought we'd annoy him with our NH methods.  But I never suspected he'd have left his whistle at home

I seem to remember Davies having a word or two in Peypers ear. Davies isn't a bad ref. Can't remember anything from Raynal. Mason and peyper are the most obviously culpable though.

I expect not much will be done to sanction the extremely poor officiating. WorldRugby will likely sweep it under the carpet, even though they recently sent out a strongly worded directive on these type of incidents.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11751901

Just leaving this here and running for cover

marty2086 wrote:

Fly you are assuming they didn't we don't always hear what the touch judges say so they could well have been ignored, I think it was the England game on Saturday you could hear a touch judge call for a penalty one way but the ref gave it the other way

Though saying that Savea tipped an Irish player at one point which looked borderline right in front of the touch judge and they screamed at him and just got a shoulder shrug in response

I only saw the game once.... so of course I can't be totally certain - but thinking back I think I picked up on the body language that he was not getting much protest from the side during the game. It can be pretty pointed if sideline people have a disagreement. There is pauses and ear holds and little bits of conversation you can pick up on. You can work out that the ref is being encouraged from the side to recheck things. I didn't get that impression throughout the game. I got the impression of a bunch of very quiet almost submissive officials just following his lead.

Gooseberry wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11751901

Just leaving this here and running for cover

"....they are not a dirty team - in the Southern Hemisphere"

So, who is wrong, who is right?

The ABs weren't playing rugby in the SH. They were playing a NH side in the NH.

The AB were not playing according to the laws of the game, and the recently sent out WorldRugby directives.

The officials at the game were not complying to the recently sent out WorldRugby directives.

Peyper may be a SH official, but he ignored the directive.

Are NH sides now supposed to ignore rugby law/directives when playing a game officiated by a SH referee?

Gooseberry wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11751901

Just leaving this here and running for cover

Nice Tourist Board music from the NZH lads. And tisn't it glad we are to have had them, to be sure, to be sure, begorrah.

At least it wasn't Joe dressed up like a Clown. Thank goodness for small mercies

Well, they can stay down south if they refuse to play by the same rules as everybody else.

Normally I would criticise my own team for not adapting to the referee's interpretation of the laws, especially at the breakdown, if the other team is allowed to be cynical. A smart team will just do the same in return. Part of me would suggest that Ireland should have just responded to NZ with the same dirty play on Saturday, but obviously that is just wrong. Dirty play should never be encouraged. Concussion is not a joke. It is quite distressing that the NZ fans and media cannot understand why their players are cited or what they did wrong.

That interview from Barrett posted by MrsP says a lot. Hansen should be disciplined if such play continues from this side.

I would have been quite happy to see Ireland respond by giving a few of their players a bit of extra special attention, but not around the head area.

If Ireland had played the way the ABs did I would have been very disappointed in them.

Munchkin wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11751901

Just leaving this here and running for cover

"....they are not a dirty team - in the Southern Hemisphere"

So, who is wrong, who is right?

The ABs weren't playing rugby in the SH. They were playing a NH side in the NH.

The AB were not playing according to the laws of the game, and the recently sent out WorldRugby directives.

The officials at the game were not complying to the recently sent out WorldRugby directives.

Peyper may be a SH official, but he ignored the directive.

Are NH sides now supposed to ignore rugby law/directives when playing a game officiated by a SH referee?

They weren't getting beat in the SH either, they were winning quite comfortably until they came north

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11751901

Just leaving this here and running for cover

"....they are not a dirty team - in the Southern Hemisphere"

So, who is wrong, who is right?

The ABs weren't playing rugby in the SH. They were playing a NH side in the NH.

The AB were not playing according to the laws of the game, and the recently sent out WorldRugby directives.

The officials at the game were not complying to the recently sent out WorldRugby directives.

Peyper may be a SH official, but he ignored the directive.

Are NH sides now supposed to ignore rugby law/directives when playing a game officiated by a SH referee?

They weren't getting beat in the SH either, they were winning quite comfortably until they came north

Exactly. Alter the game plan to include cheap shots. Hansen probably afraid a loss would give Schmidt his job.

I think Hansen is pretty comfortable. 1 loss or even 2 ain't going to dent his credentials.

Probably more ego than anything, if Ireland won again the debate will be whether Schmidt is the better coach. I don't think that would sit well with Hansen

fa0019 wrote:I think Hansen is pretty comfortable. 1 loss or even 2 ain't going to dent his credentials.

He is now, but not convinced he would be if losing the second Test and Schmidt keeps producing results coming up to the end of his contract. All the talk has been of Schmidt being lined up for the ABs gig, after the first Test. Not so much now ....

fa0019 wrote:I think Hansen is pretty comfortable. 1 loss or even 2 ain't going to dent his credentials.

Come on fa, we all know at this point that the AB coach is a 'symbolic role' - an honour system, almost like a King or a non-executive President. Hansen no more runs the AB system than Queen Elizabeth runs the UK. We all know it's a system that permeates the entire Nation and that all high end coaches contribute to the AB machine in many ways (public and private). Hansen is just the figurehead for these years. Another figurehead will prop up for another few years - but the machine itself is a much more collegiate affair, thus perhaps why they do always have the edge. It's the Borg - it assimilates all info and constructs the ABs around all the info.

Hansen could have stayed at home and that ABs side would still have played a re-energised game to take the smile off Irish faces.

marty2086 wrote:Probably more ego than anything, if Ireland won again the debate will be whether Schmidt is the better coach. I don't think that would sit well with Hansen

Hansen has lost matches before. It happens now and again. Yet his consistency is pretty impressive... we could run out the stats of double world champs, RC winners 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, unbeaten at home since 2009.

Even if they lost again it would have been a bit of a far stretch to say Schmidt was clearly better.

Schmidt will never get the NZ job unless he really out does himself with Ireland and a few notable wins ain't going to do it. Sure he's beaten SA and NZ this season which have been great results but firstly I think he's out of sync with NZ rugby in general so it would be a little tricky going in cold... they would expect him to return and get a job back in NZ first.
Secondly say they can't topple England over the next RWC cycle in the 6N... even if he's good will NZ want someone perceived to be 2nd best? Probably has to win at least 2 of the next 3 6N titles and get some serious scalps on 3N sides... if anything at all it would require a >50% win rate.

I do like the way he sets his sides up mind. Its achievable but its a long road to NZ in my opinion and probably less likely than likely.

fa0019 wrote:

Schmidt will never get the NZ job unless he really out does himself with Ireland and a few notable wins ain't going to do it. Sure he's beaten SA and NZ this season which have been great results but.....

And what did Hansen achieve before he went to the ABs as assistant?

PS...but you're right. I hope he doesn't get it When he's done his stint as Irish coach he could then slip into Nucifora's role and help unearth our new generation.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Schmidt will never get the NZ job unless he really out does himself with Ireland and a few notable wins ain't going to do it. Sure he's beaten SA and NZ this season which have been great results but.....

And what did Hansen achieve before he went to the ABs as assistant?

Nice little losing streak with Wales?

To be fair to him he prepared them as well as anyone could have done in 2003... although by sending out his C side vs. NZ in the pools there is no way he expected them to be competitive. Just one of those things.

fa0019 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Probably more ego than anything, if Ireland won again the debate will be whether Schmidt is the better coach. I don't think that would sit well with Hansen

Hansen has lost matches before. It happens now and again. Yet his consistency is pretty impressive... we could run out the stats of double world champs, RC winners 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, unbeaten at home since 2009.

Even if they lost again it would have been a bit of a far stretch to say Schmidt was clearly better.

Schmidt will never get the NZ job unless he really out does himself with Ireland and a few notable wins ain't going to do it. Sure he's beaten SA and NZ this season which have been great results but firstly I think he's out of sync with NZ rugby in general so it would be a little tricky going in cold... they would expect him to return and get a job back in NZ first.
Secondly say they can't topple England over the next RWC cycle in the 6N... even if he's good will NZ want someone perceived to be 2nd best? Probably has to win at least 2 of the next 3 6N titles and get some serious scalps on 3N sides... if anything at all it would require a >50% win rate.

I do like the way he sets his sides up mind. Its achievable but its a long road to NZ in my opinion and probably less likely than likely.

I think the Joe to NZ idea has been put to rest; he is staying in Ireland and I am delighted we have him. Excluding his very first match in charge Ireland have always played with dignity and passion under him. We have won tournaments, had record wins against SA and NZ and have massive unfinished business in the RWC. Looking at Joe's winning stats the worst team we have done against by far is England with 1 win from 4. We need to change this in the 6 nations against the second best team in the world.

fa0019 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Probably more ego than anything, if Ireland won again the debate will be whether Schmidt is the better coach. I don't think that would sit well with Hansen

Hansen has lost matches before. It happens now and again. Yet his consistency is pretty impressive... we could run out the stats of double world champs, RC winners 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, unbeaten at home since 2009.

Even if they lost again it would have been a bit of a far stretch to say Schmidt was clearly better.

Schmidt will never get the NZ job unless he really out does himself with Ireland and a few notable wins ain't going to do it. Sure he's beaten SA and NZ this season which have been great results but firstly I think he's out of sync with NZ rugby in general so it would be a little tricky going in cold... they would expect him to return and get a job back in NZ first.
Secondly say they can't topple England over the next RWC cycle in the 6N... even if he's good will NZ want someone perceived to be 2nd best? Probably has to win at least 2 of the next 3 6N titles and get some serious scalps on 3N sides... if anything at all it would require a >50% win rate.

I do like the way he sets his sides up mind. Its achievable but its a long road to NZ in my opinion and probably less likely than likely.

I dont think it would be that much of a stretch. Hansen and Henry before him didnt have particularly stellar coaching careers until they became NZ head coach. He is certainly a good coach but he also has the best players in the world at his disposal.

Hansen and Henry got the NZ job despite fairly average spells with Wales.

Id be fairly happy anyway if NZ arent interested in Schmidt. He is an Ireland citizen now too anyway.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Hansen and Henry got the NZ job despite fairly average spells with Wales.

Gatland must fancy his chances still then

Munchkin wrote:I would have been quite happy to see Ireland respond by giving a few of their players a bit of extra special attention, but not around the head area.

If Ireland had played the way the ABs did I would have been very disappointed in them.

.............................. well................................. within reason. Within reason there, Munch.

Gooseberry wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Hansen and Henry got the NZ job despite fairly average spells with Wales.

Gatland must fancy his chances still then

Gatland has definitely had a much more significant career than Henry and Hansen had before they became NZ coach.

Gooseberry wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Hansen and Henry got the NZ job despite fairly average spells with Wales.

Gatland must fancy his chances still then

I wouldn't be surprised.

Wales seems to be the testing ground for AB head coach qualifications. If a coach can handle the mental minefield of super elation/super-deep depression Wales, then that coach can probably handle any mental pressure anywhere in the world. If a coach don't crack in Wales, he's liable to be a teak tough ol' cuss.

Watched the highlights of the game on youtube and the Kiwi commentators reckoned that Sexton's tackle was dangerous. This is echoed by the NZ Herald and some posters here. However, compared to some of the NZ tackles it is peanuts.

When I watched the replay its pretty clear that there is very little head movement from Barrett when he is hit by Sexton because the arm is around the shoulder and chest. When you see a photo from the other angle you can clearly see this. Refer to photo in the below article.

Cant post links yet - NZhearld dot com "Sam Cane and Malakai Fekitoa cited after Ireland"

Maybe it was a penalty at the very most as it is in the neck area. By contrast NZ appeared to actually be going out to injure Ireland players.

Sean O'Brien was taken out in the air on the opening kick off.
Sam Cane and Malakai Fekitoa's tackles could both have seen red.
Israel Dagg's shoulder charge was dangerous too.

The reaction from Hansen and the NZ media is fairly typical of a side who literally never admit any wrong doing. Seems pretty gutless from the Kiwis in my opinion.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I would have been quite happy to see Ireland respond by giving a few of their players a bit of extra special attention, but not around the head area.

If Ireland had played the way the ABs did I would have been very disappointed in them.

.............................. well................................. within reason.  Within reason there, Munch.

Within reason. All the good bits I would happily accept