South Africa v NZ

First topic message reminder :

Well, SA 6-0 up but don't want to tackle....NZ just have to be paitent as SA are being cut to shreds

So New Zealand B team lose by 13 and South Africa B team lost by 33 , ummm

Rangoria, SA B team was a B- team, our pack had two players with 150 caps and the other 6 had 10 caps.

The all Black B+ team had over 300 caps between them spread evenly throughout.

There is no comparison.

Thing is though,if you do the simple things well,tackle,scramble kick goals.
It could be enough to win another RWC,the win probably means you are
IRB number two.All Blacks lose next week they could be down to IRB 2 or 3
starting the RWC.

Majestic Imperialman ,Iagree your sentiments they are the same as mine.
BUT the Boks did not play there first team to try and win the 3Ns they hid ALL of them for two matches.

Your thoughts on the game.

Mine are a bit of something for everyone.

For the boks:

The positives: They won the game and beat NZ. They were able to get territory and kick points a la the traditional springbok play. The win over NZ has to be good as they are seeded to meet in the semi final at Eden Park. It should take some of the heat of the coaches and team leading into the world cup.

The negatives: They look fairly bereft of ideas on attack. The game was won on the back of solid work at the breakdown and a good kicking game. They looked more fragile on defence than any bok team I can remember in recent times. They are unlikely to meet a second string AB or Wallaby lineup in the world cup.

For the AB's:

They created enough chances to easily put this game away. Players who have been out of the game for months looked to find their feet for the most part.

The negatives: The team lacked maturity. The AB's will miss Carter and McCaw especially if injured. many of the Ab's combinations need more game time to gel.

For the rest:

The positives: If you can meet the AB's up front and put pressure on them you can win.

The negaitives: France, England, Australia and South Africa are probably the only teams capable of doing this.

Just re read the post. Should really pull it, but don't know how.

Anyway full credit to the boks. I think while the victory is good for moral, it papers over some cracks. For the All Blacks it exposed some. The next game against the Aussies should be a cracker.

Was a must win forThe Boks,obeyed the first rule of Rugby play your best
goal kicker always.All Blacks only had to kicks at goal all match,Bok scrum
went well.
All Blacks ,I don`t realstically think it was winnable with the team picked.
Too many players feeling there way back after injury.Woodcoc k and Slade
both injured again,or taken off as a precaution.
Well Done Boks,tried to run at times too defences on both sides were excellent.
Never expected them to change there styles it is the standard RWC formula.
Final thought don`t get carried away people,an All Black side with only 4 certain forwards starters[one just returning from long term injury]and one certain back starter.Did`nt do badly some refs penalties [at least two could have gone either way]
That side with 3 or 4 games under there belt[ABs]would beat most sides,tey`ll play worse and win too.

The nice thing for you guys BCL is that the cracks that may have appeared yesterday don't really exist with your full first team out on the pitch. The rest of dont really have that reassuring thought, even with full strength sides. Bring even 4,5 or 6 of the missing players back, and the usual non-starters like Slade / SBW / etc will be playing in a much more assured environment, which in turn will help them to perform.

Yes, definitely a return of the old South Africa yesterday.

A solid forward performance, a reliable kicker and little ambition beyond kicking for territory and then taking the 3 points. Brutally effective if not pretty.

We also saw the unfortunate return of another old touring tradition - the suspicious late replacement of a match official for a local school teacher who could conveniently "forget" the boundaries of his duties in order to favour the home side. Whether or not this local man knew what he was doing is really irrelevant, the referee should have done the correct thing. Yet another example of an Irish official making a crucial error.

Aside from refereeing debacles the AB performance brought pretty much what was predicted before the game. An exciting yet rusty back line combination lacking match fitness utterly tore the South African defence to shreds, but ultimately failed to have the cohesion in combination to execute clinically and finish it off. Like South Africa last week, they'll be better for game time together.

Ali Williams surely has finally played himself out of contention. Like Smit, he's just no longer the player he used to be. He is making too many errors and is missing the 5% extra that used to make him a sure starter.

Slade had a mare, clearly suffering from the pressure. But he seemed to be learning as he went. GH and co. will persevere with him for his defence despite Aaron Cruden's belter over the weekend.

But where this game was lost was not dodgy local officials or try opportunities squandered - it was in the NZ back row. As predicted before the game, they were brutally effective on defence, but lacked the nuance on attack that ultimately yielded the penalty-point scoring opportunities for Steyn from the half way line and beyond. Hopefully Henry now knows he needs specialist cover at 7 and will bring in Matt Todd.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

We also saw the unfortunate return of another old touring tradition - the suspicious late replacement of a match official for a local school teacher who could conveniently "forget" the boundaries of his duties in order to favour the home side. Whether or not this local man knew what he was doing is really irrelevant, the referee should have done the correct thing. Yet another example of an Irish official making a crucial error.

GG

I presume you refer to the disallowed try. My take is this.

Clancy asked, 'is it a try?'. He did not specify what he wanted checked, i.e grounding etc.

The TMO came back and said 'there is nothing wrong with the grounding, do you want information prior to the try line?'

Ok, so that is a slightly leading question as it kind of implies that there is something untoward prior to crossing the line, but for me it is immediately before the line and therefore pretty much in the act of scoring.

Correct decision made as it was forward, and I think great work by the officials.

Given the fact that you have on a number of occasions bemoaned the missing of a forward pass that effectively cost New Zealand the game against France in 2007, I would have thought you would have supported this decision as it is clearly the correct decision being made. The fact that you are complaining shows just how one-eyed you in fact are. Even Graham Henry had the good grace to say that had it been at the other end he would have been happy with the decision.

I was surprised how poor Slade at 10 was - didnt look an international player never mind an All Black - In all honesty he wouldn't be in the welsh squad. Weepu a 9 has much more game awareness and tactical nous. Slade looked like a rabbit in the headlights which is strange to see a NZ player like that.

Correct decision made as it was forward, and I think great work by the officials.

Absolutely wrong. It wasn't the correct decision. The match officials are bound by their jurisdiction. The local south african teacher over stepped his jurisdiction. TMOs are simply not allowed to comment on anything that happens prior in the field of play.

Here is a local man with an agenda, effectively duping a supposedly senior Irish offical. I certainly hope the review promised by Paddy O'Brien will see Clancy stripped of his world cup duties.

Thing was the Springboks didn't look like they were ever going to score a try,they were busy kicking penalties.
I find the decision by Clancy quite funny because any referee and television match official reffing provincial level knows that they cant rule on a forward pass using the replay technology, yet here is an International referee who didnt have a clue of the rule...

Well done to officials for preventing what was clearly an illegal try.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Correct decision made as it was forward, and I think great work by the officials.

Absolutely wrong. It wasn't the correct decision. The match officials are bound by their jurisdiction. The local south african teacher over stepped his jurisdiction. TMOs are simply not allowed to comment on anything that happens prior in the field of play.

Here is a local man with an agenda, effectively duping a supposedly senior Irish offical. I certainly hope the review promised by Paddy O'Brien will see Clancy stripped of his world cup duties.

And had the same try been scored by South Africa at the other end, and Clancy had not gone to the TMO and allowed it you would be on here moaning your backside off about it, probably at least until 2015 going on previous form shown by you GG.

You a big Paddy O'Brien fan now that it suits then mate, as you are normally on here giving him the mother of all slaggings, mainly due to him not stoning Wayne Barnes to death for missing a forward pass ironically?

If you look at Clancy's work in general during the match it's clear to see that he was obviously intimidated by the crowd.

There's a certain amount of schadenfreude in the air whenever the ABs lose a match, but frankly those who are making various weak arguments supporting this blatantly wrong call are showing their bias.

Whether or not you think the laws of the game are wrong, and whether or not you think this would be a perfect example to cite in support of changing the law is irrelevant. The officials are simply not allowed to do what they did. This is vigilante refereeing and it needs to be stomped out immediately by POB. We can't have referees autonomously changing the laws as they see fit.

There is no schadenfreude from me mate, I am a huge fan of the All Blacks. Whilst your final point has some validity, it is your inconsistency that shows your own bias as on previous threads you have supported the use of technology in relation to stopping incorrect decisions.

LDCPete wrote:There is no schadenfreude from me mate, I am a huge fan of the All Blacks. Whilst your final point has some validity, it is your inconsistency that shows your own bias as on previous threads you have supported the use of technology in relation to stopping incorrect decisions.

To be fair to GG he may have previously supported the use of video technology for these sort of decisions but only if the technology had been approved. Referees cannot bend/break the rules when they feel like it - EVEN if the correct decision is eventually made.

I think it's ridiculous that TMOs can't have a word in the referees ear. But they can't.

Finding a local teacher who wants to behave like a vigilante adjudicator to suit his home team on one random occasion is utterly different from consistently allowed TMOs to call forward passes in the line of play.

No inconsistency from me there.

I agree that TMOs should be allowed to give their inpiut to the refs - but judging forward passes is a very difficult job. Some are clear cut, but many could be argued all day long, so having the TMO decide these would be very difficult - unless some sort of cricket-like technology could be used to 100% determine whether a pass went forward or not?

Sorry,Biltong been teasing you about PDV BUT he`s a political appointment
the powers that be may be looking to keep him on.
No one is fooled by yesterday certainly not me,THE BOKS have a great squad,great players,and have a very real chance of the RWC this year.
It wasn`t pretty,but it was damn effective a team playing for pride.
For the All Blacks i`ll make the same statement I did last week.
Was this Team MATCH fit palpably NO,was it the best team from the Squad
NO,why no Nonu on the bench,why start Afoa not Franks he`s never a starting prop.
The Line outs went well,broke up the Rolling Maul with ease,Scrum at least stayed up most of the game and not a lot in most of them.
Most of the backs played well,Slade was patchy trying to play himself into the game.Crudon had a blinder SO the ITM is along way from the Boks at home.
HE did`nt have the luxury of playing behind a first choice pack,in a first choice back line.He linked well with his backs,to many little chip kicks by him and Cowan.
To much trying running it out from there own 22,or kicking for space not for territory.Trust your lineout,The All Blacks only lost one on there own throw,as did the Boks on theres.
Far more Lineout options than with Brad Thorn,Ali Williams did his grunt work well,so he`s not a centre? GG with the injuries he had it`s a miracle he`s still playing never mind at this level..
Don`t blame the loss on a technical point of the TMO it was palpably forward.Indeed maybe it`s time the TMO started ruling on forward passes.
THE best team on the day won IF you have to blame anyone,BLAME the All Black selectors sending out a squad to get match fit as part of a rotation policy.
Not Finishing playing the tournament there in before another starts,even IF
other sides do it.
Finally a lot of the back moves,too many little pop passes and hail mary passes hoping.Instead of keeping possession recycling and going again.
The combinations were`nt there and never were going to be given the number of players coming back after injury.
The Back row tigerish in defence butoffered little in attack,did Victor Vito get on.

Casper
The TMO probably thought he was in line for one of those gold Louis Luyt watches like that Welsh referee Bevan got in 1995.

As I said above, the TMO wasn't to blame for the loss. We could see before the game that we'd struggle at the breakdown offensively - this bore out through the high number of turn overs and penalties conceded. It's a shame this back line will get just this one chance, because I think another week together and they would be absolutely lethal. Gear is struggling for form, and despite his potential, he'd be one to miss out for the RWC squad.

Toeava again. What can you say? Caught out of position hopelessly on a couple of occasions. Tried to be too cute with little kicks and handling let him down again.

I'd replace Mils with Dagg immediately and use Kahui to cover the back line rather than Toeava.

Really GG I concur with your comments mostly,but really impossible to judge
backline on yesterdays form.I suspect Cory jane and Guildford will be cut.
Mils will go because of his experience.Sivi I undestand is touch and go whether he`s fit.Boric is a big risk fit yes,BUT any doubt in a RWC sorry.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I think it's ridiculous that TMOs can't have a word in the referees ear. But they can't.

Finding a local teacher who wants to behave like a vigilante adjudicator to suit his home team on one random occasion is utterly different from consistently allowed TMOs to call forward passes in the line of play.

No inconsistency from me there.

GG That is exactly what the "TMO" should beable to do(Advice the ref) that their has been any infringement in that act of scoring at

I personaly believe that the Ref should beable to call on the TMO any tme and the TMO should along with the lines man beable inform the Ref if their have bgeen any infringements that the ( REF OR LINESMAN HAVE MISSED)

There is a difference between what you personally believe and the laws of the game.

Some might think there are many things wrong with the laws of the game, but frankly referees and TMOs can't autonomously change the laws as they see fit, they have to stick to the bounds of their jurisdiction. In this case Clancy should be struck off from RWC duties, you can't have a vigilante on your staff.

Don't talk nonsense GG, it is hardly vigilanteism. Clancy applied common sense to the decision making process. TMO's can adjudicate on things that happen 'in the act of scoring'.

Define for me 'in the act of scoring'. As I do not believe that it is clear in the laws of the game.

Clearly anything that occurs over the try line and be construed as 'in the act', but it is a grey area. Was the forward pass to the tryscorer virtually on the tryline 'in the act'? The referee and TMO clearly felt that it was and personally I agree.

The right decision was made to disallow the try as it was a forward pass, and for me that is the bottom line.

I am sure that it will be looked at as to whether it was within the jurisdiction of the referee/TMO to do so, but my belief is that under the laws if the game the referee is the sole arbiter for 80 minutes as to what is right or wrong on the field of play, and as such I have no problem with him using the technology available to him.

Grey Ghost, are you saying that Clancy should be struck off from RWC duties, just because the Abs Lost yesterday.

Thye Abs was simply not good enough to win yesterday,If they was then they wood of won without CHEATING,(Forward pass) and trying to claim a try.

No, Clancy should be struck off from RWC duties because he made a fundamental error that shoes that either he doesn't understand very basic requirements of refereeing, or he was swayed under pressure from the home team.

Let's be clear, this decision didn't change the outcome of the game and wasn't the reason for the loss.

But we can't have vigilante referees at the RWC. We need guys who can focus for 80 minutes and not make such school boy errors.

LDCPete wrote:Don't talk nonsense GG, it is hardly vigilanteism. Clancy applied common sense to the decision making process. TMO's can adjudicate on things that happen 'in the act of scoring'.

Define for me 'in the act of scoring'. As I do not believe that it is clear in the laws of the game.

The TMO asked the referee if he wanted to know about something that happened beforehand, rather than in the act of scoring, so your point is irrelevant.

POB has already made a statement indicating that the decision was incorrect, and very disappointing. It seems that following the match review some decision will be made on Clancy's future.

Of course he understands the basic requirement of refereeing GG, he is an international referee. He has not made a fundamental error, he has applied common sense to the process of using the TMO to ensure that a correct decision is made.

You can't replace the laws of the game with "common sense" though. They are the laws, and the referees have to abide by them until the ruling body changes the laws.

We can't have vigilante referees letting their whims get the better of them. Clearly this local school teacher had an agenda, and he pushed it well. But Clancy needed to understand his lack of impartiality and the reasons behind his desire to overstep his remit.

Frankly behaviour like Clancy's brings the game into disrepute and he should be removed from RWC duties immediately.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

LDCPete wrote:Don't talk nonsense GG, it is hardly vigilanteism. Clancy applied common sense to the decision making process. TMO's can adjudicate on things that happen 'in the act of scoring'.

Define for me 'in the act of scoring'. As I do not believe that it is clear in the laws of the game.

The TMO asked the referee if he wanted to know about something that happened beforehand, rather than in the act of scoring, so your point is irrelevant.

POB has already made a statement indicating that the decision was incorrect, and very disappointing. It seems that following the match review some decision will be made on Clancy's future.

You are attempting to deliberately misinterpret what the TMO said to suit your own purpose. He asked, do you want information from prior to crossing the tryline. Given that Cowan dived over the line in an attempt to put the ball down prior to scoring he is clearly 'in the act of scoring' prior to crossing the tryline, therefore it is a legitimate question from the TMO.

Yes POB has made a statement that it was incorrect to use the technology available to come to what is a correct decision as per the laws of rugby (not IRB regulations on the use of the TMO). That says a lot about the state of the game, and POB's inability to see the wood for the trees. What he should be doing is coming out in support of the referee who did the right thing and made the right decision and forcing the IRB to take a look at their own regulations and ensure that they are fit for purpose.

TheGreyGhost wrote:You can't replace the laws of the game with "common sense" though. They are the laws, and the referees have to abide by them until the ruling body changes the laws.

We can't have vigilante referees letting their whims get the better of them. Clearly this local school teacher had an agenda, and he pushed it well. But Clancy needed to understand his lack of impartiality and the reasons behind his desire to overstep his remit.

Frankly behaviour like Clancy's brings the game into disrepute and he should be removed from RWC duties immediately.

The real question for me here GG is this. Have I underestimated the size of the chip on your shoulder and just how bad a loser you are, or are you now firmly into wumming territory and merely pushing your vigilante/he should be banned form the WC argument as a means of ensuring the debate continues. I sense from some of your responses that your tongue is firmly in your cheek, but internet forums make these things very difficult to judge.

Out of interest, because I cant at the moment recall, any other times when the TMO has asked the ref does he want any information before crossing the line, since the introduction of TMO's.

Like what the TMO did in that he had the cojones to do what he thought was right, and hopefully this will lead to the rule being changed. Wouldn't have made a difference to the result though.

On the other hand NZ's finishing and options in the tackle would have-was abysmal. Awesome physicality from the Boks and that coupled with Brussow's work ensured NZ never had the advantage in the forwards.

Backs always looked dangerous but will someone smack SBW upside the head and tell him to run at the line? It's all well and good looking for passes but it helps having some go forward yourself. Kahui played well and I expect him to be on the plane.

Thomson was worringly inaccurate and I was surprised he wasn't carded. Brussow kicked his butt and Steyn kicked the rewards. Great game from the Bok 10 too. SA's scrum definitely had the upper hand-Afoa was pants. Expect to see the advantage swing NZ's way if the top pack is out. Well done to both packs as there were hardly any resets.

Impressed NZ didn't leak a try and the one on one D was outstanding. Dagg looked really good. Toeava had lots of go forward but had the dropsies a bit near the end again and I hope Jane gets picked for the cup as I feel he is more secure.

On the team side of things, I'd have Guildford on there, being a one eyed Cantab as he 's about the only one who can keep up with Dagg

Great point Rangiora, I recall many times where we've seen tries allowed that shouldn't have been simply because the referee and TMO knew the laws properly and stuck to them. I.e. the officials didn't cheat to ensure an advantage to their favoured team.

Now, given that every other referee sticks to the rules, what claim does Vigilante Clancy have for an esteemed place as an adjudicator in the games show piece tournament?

The game needs officials who are consistent, we can't have a hope of that if we have loose cannon Clancy and his cohorts making up the rules as they go along.

One wonders at the lack of stingeing NH-style criticism of the Boks in winning a game solely by the boot. If this had been England or France kicking a win....

What's up GG? So you're all for incorrect decision making and cheating are you?

The mistake Clancy made was to put the TMO on the spot by asking "if it was a try or not?". We all know that should never had happened. The TMO went beyond his scope of adjudication by offering a little more information to assist Clancy to make a decision.
Well done I say.

In the end, the correct decision was made and you and your dodgy NZ commentators can whine all you like. Once again, you prove what a WUM you are GG - and the chip on your shoulder is only getting bigger by the day.

It's interesting how TMOs only overstep their position and collaborate with poor referees when it helps their cause of disadvantaging New Zealand. The rest of the pack smell the blood and come in like a pack of hyenas to have a snipe. I guess that's just the price you pay for being at the top of the pile.

But I do wish we could just play the game on a level playing field, and that so many games weren't ruined by controversial refereeing to suit the agendas of various nations.

Pot Hale wrote:One wonders at the lack of stingeing NH-style criticism of the Boks in winning a game solely by the boot. If this had been England or France kicking a win....

How true, whenever the Boks win in this way it's because of an 'awesome physical forward display' or some such eulogising, for England it's 'same old boring England, no attempt to play 'attractive' rugby'. For me styles make matches and there is a place for this approach, turgid as it may occasionally be.

Anyway, outside of the obvious chip i have on my shoulder over this, i think it's a sorry state of affairs that we are supporting the absence of common sense in refereeing decision making. Do we really want a golf type game of endlessly ridiculous officious law making and enforcement. Way to turn people off the game.

One other question, can anyone tell me why Slade looked so nervous. You'd think knowing you are likely to be 2nd string at best would provide some freedom, or is it the thought of Cruden etc breathing down his neck. I just don't get it, surely his is a 'no lose' situation?

GG,

Why would it be done to "suit the agendas of various nations"?

Surely, you can't be serious?

The thing that grates is that questioning the forward pass is not in the remit of the TMO at this time, therefore although correct with his decision, he was kind of out of line to make that decision. As I understand the linesman was on the spot and should have made the call. Paddy OB has come out and said it was wrong fr the TMO to call it however I absolutely think te right call was made.

What needs to happen now is for the law ruling out forward passes by TMO to be brought in to avoid rugby becoming a farce where ring in officials forget their jobs.

Looking in the larger context, if referees are excused for ignoring the laws that they are supposedly there to uphold then the ensuing in game anarchy can be exploited by teams who's chances are based on fringe cases.

For example, if this action by Clancy isn't severly dealt with, then what happens next time we get this situation? Does the TMO/ref ignore the rules to enable the "common sense" solution, or do they stick to the rules set down by the IRB? Suddenly we have a game with one set of rules for one set of teams, and a different set of rules for different teams.

Frankly I think with the gold watch incident, the food poisoning and the Wayne Barnes debacle, that the IRB would see sense and remove this clown who is single handedly trying to encourage more corruption and controversy at the show piece tournament.

Clancy has to be fired, it's as clear as that.

When rugby fans like to get all self-righteous about how the game is different and questioning of the ref isn't tolerated, i will point them towards GG's ramblings. A lot could be learned from cricket, a sport that by complete coincidence, England happen to be pretty good at at the moment, ahem

The relentless pursuit to drive common sense out of referring will harm the game as much as officials over-stepping their mark. The logical conclusion of this is that we have rules that cast in stone the certainty of rubbish/incorrect decisions being made.

And to call for a ref to be fired because they made a mistake that harmed your side's chances is a really awful trait in anyone and smacks of a poor loser.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Looking in the larger context, if referees are excused for ignoring the laws that they are supposedly there to uphold then the ensuing in game anarchy can be exploited by teams who's chances are based on fringe cases.

For example, if this action by Clancy isn't severly dealt with, then what happens next time we get this situation? Does the TMO/ref ignore the rules to enable the "common sense" solution, or do they stick to the rules set down by the IRB? Suddenly we have a game with one set of rules for one set of teams, and a different set of rules for different teams.

Frankly I think with the gold watch incident, the food poisoning and the Wayne Barnes debacle, that the IRB would see sense and remove this clown who is single handedly trying to encourage more corruption and controversy at the show piece tournament.

Clancy has to be fired, it's as clear as that.

What a load of nonsense. New Zealand more than any other team get away with incidents that the referee has missed. Cory Jane's ridiculous knock on try v Oz. Mils Muliania killing the ball on the line v SA. Basically what you want is for New Zealand to be awarded a try that blatantly wasnt a try and the ref should be sacked because he disallowed it. What a complete whinge bag you are.

I would understand if New Zealand were robbed a legitimate try but they werent nor would a try then have made any difference to the outcome to the game. Clancy had a good game, New Zealand were comprehensively beaten by a better team, proof that that they will struggle without Carter and you just cannot accept it.

You refer to the "Wayne Barnes debale". Presumably you meant the incident where Barnes allowed a flat pass stand in the France v NZ quarter in '07, yet you whinge that NZ sould be allowed get away with a forward pass. Get a grip.

This is getting out of hand,a decision was made,the decision was correct
whether the TMO confirmed it or not.
I`m as big an all Black supporter as ANY here on the day the best team won.
It proved you cannot throw a scratch team together,no matter how talented the individuals.Then expect to what was pretty much the Bok first
choice squad at home.
It was the rotation policy by another name,saving players for the RWC,doing exactly what happened in 2007.
I hate the things,but hope they win this year because I fear the 3Ns is gone.
BUT PLEASE no more whinging about the TMO it didn`t effect the result the Boks outplayed them on the day.

There is a lot being said here about the forward pass try that should have been given even though it wouldn't have been a ligitimate try.

I for one think justice have been done, you would say I think that way because I am a Bok supporter. Be it as it may. I have on the same lines noted that the forward pass in 2007 should not have been a try and changed the game, may times.

For once it would be nice to get a win over the All Blacks without the hints of excuse.

In 2009 there were injury excuses, now the forward pass.

As you all know I call it like I see it and are objective, the first to criticise my own team and never one for blowing smoke up someones back side.

Yes the All Blacks are a better team than us without a doubt.

The stats say of the last 8 tests we won 4 and All Blacks have won 4, no matter the reasoning behind it, Henry will be nervous come Semi Final time and they have to face us.

The match was a good reminder of the fact that Daniel Carter will provide the crucial difference between New Zealand winning and losing the World Cup.

If he's fit and playing well, the All Blacks will win the RWC. If not, they will struggle. Carter has a unique partnership with Nonu and SBW, which can rip teams apart.

NZ shouldn't worry too much. The World Cup is in the bag.