"Teams look to bet on Black"

by Guest Tue Jun 26 2012, 15:45

I have looked at some of the post tour so called 'analysis' on here and frankly got bored by most of it. Fundamentally the NH are playing an inferior game physically and tactically and in some cases mentally, with also ref interpretation being a factor and the current contingent making up the IRB refereeing panel.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10815170

The above highlights the current trend in how various NH teams are attempting to address the gap and immediately conceding to chasing and trying to catch up the leaders, rather than looking for a different approach. This will always fail as those that leave NZ, will only be predominantly secondary to those that stay and hence inferior, otherwise they would have been found roles in the admittedly limited number of teams in the top tier.

In previous era's Cooke, Rowell, Woodward & McGeechan all attempted to set the agenda with specific styles and structures in the international game, with varying levels of success. No-one currently in the NH is trying to do this and by meekly accepting the NZ way as the only way and kowtowing & accepting the current ref interpretations, the NH will never effectively challenge consistently the NZ hegemony and in turn doing rugby a disservice by making our varied game more homogenous and RL like in some facets of the game.

Some of the tour results and subsequent posts on here, were pretty depressing but the real issue is challenging the game we wish to play and watch and who sets that initiative to assist in achieving consistent results.

As an aside, Kidney is surviving because the alternative is a kiwi, which the IRFU can't stomach......? Just a thought.

by **Biltong** Tue Jun 26 2012, 15:53

The All black way is about execution, momentum, rythm and fluidity.

Not every team will be able to emulate it and shouldn't.

The fundamentals of the game still remains the same, dominate possession, execute your set phase ball, compete and negate the opposition line out, generate fast ruck ball, attack in the first channel to draw defenders, attack wide when the overlap is on, attack throught the midfield, all of these things are fundemantal to rugby.

Some teams have better skilled players than others.

It isn;t about emulating the All Black blue print, it is about taking their blue print and adpating those funadmentals onto your team and their abilities.

by disneychilly Tue Jun 26 2012, 15:56

Or the 3 Ps, which is the AB mantra. Position, possession, and pace.

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue Jun 26 2012, 15:59

disneychilly wrote:Or the 3 Ps, which is the AB mantra. Position, possession, and pace.

Or the 3 Ps, which is the Scotland mantra. Pish poor performance.

Until now.

by Guest Tue Jun 26 2012, 16:00

Don't disagree with any of the above, but it is the how, not the what, in order to achieve consistent success. The NH is currently following the NZ agenda and by following, will consistently come second.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue Jun 26 2012, 16:02

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
disneychilly wrote:Or the 3 Ps, which is the AB mantra. Position, possession, and pace.

Or the 3 Ps, which is the Scotland mantra. Pish poor performance.

Until now.

by disneychilly Tue Jun 26 2012, 16:06

I agree Recwatcher. The game, players and coaching all constantly evolve. If Ireland take a snapshot of what NZ are doing now and evolve to that level, they will still end up behind the 8-ball as NZ would have evolved to the next phase from there. I like Schmidt, and think he'd be a great international coach one day, but still am not sure that it would work. What works at HC level doesn't necessarily work at Test level, though I do think that given experience his systems could get up to speed and his teams could do well.

Ireland are not Leinster though.

by Guest Tue Jun 26 2012, 16:21

I read that article, and all it seems to me is a bit of a tongue in cheek rant about teams poaching NZ players and coaches. I don't think teams, be it club or international, would ever think that by employing a Kiwi they are getting the inside scoop on the All Blacks and that it will allow them to be as good as the All Blacks. Rather, you've got players in NZ who are playing in a very high standard league and if they're not quite good enough to make the grade then they can still be very good for foreign leagues. England picking Waldrom is not an attempt to put All Black blood into the team to improve the fortunes. It's just that he's a very good player and happens to be available for England, not wanted why the Blacks, so why wouldn't you pick him?

Like I said, a tongue in cheek 'pocahing' article. Lots of tongue in cheek articles from the NZ Hearald.

by Guest Tue Jun 26 2012, 16:37

Disney, yes the HC is not Test level despite what some NH media spout, just as S15 is not either. The other factor not mentioned is the consolidating of players into fewer teams with central coordination which as a top down structure offers fewer opportunities for aspiring coaching professionals (and fans) to access top tier rugby.

Perhaps England and France should reduce their top tier to five teams of English only and not offer professional terms to PIs and other's but where would that leave the global game??

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Jun 26 2012, 16:45

Im pretty sure AWOP is a New Zelaand Herald reader.

by Taylorman Tue Jun 26 2012, 16:49

Interesting view. I think as AB supporters we take some things for granted. I for one dont know what its like supporting a team against the ABs and fan only guess what its like. Must admit we watch most matches expecting to win and admittedly to see that point in the match where the back is broken. With some teams it comes very early, most with about 20mins to go some are close and others never at all. We are never sitting there waiting for an onslaught of points from which we will never recover as that very rarely occurs.

When we are beaten its usually a last minute try or kick but i cant recall match we werent in with 10 to go.1999 perhaps.

So we definitely take things for granted and it must be tough for others, especially if they are modelling off us. I dont think thats the way to go necessarily. There are aspects to our structure that are unique. We have a top down structure for where everyone plays to roughly the same gameplan. From schoolboy level theres one path...school.. club.. itm.. sxv...all blacks.

We dont have clubs dictating to the abs. We dont have imports. We all talk the same rugby language. We dont have any inhibiting political issues. We dont have hugely competing sports thogh the league under 20 programme is certainly suckng out our auckland youth.

Its simple and it works. We have our moments but as john kirwan says...when things arent working...go back to the plan.

Without this structure we wouldnt be nearly as successful.

So modelling without the underlying structure is a flawed concept i believe. But then i dont know the answer either. What works for us obviously doesnt work for others.

by Guest Tue Jun 26 2012, 17:01

There is no doubt that NZ took over the mastery of the breakdown following the breakup of the English dominance in 03. The subsequent recycling speed is vital to their game but identifying this and trying to compete against it are different things, particularly with SH refs.
It is also interesting to note the number of captains now playing at no.7 in Test rugby. NZ, France, Wales, England and currently Oz. That is no a coincidence.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Jun 26 2012, 17:06

It is fair the say that Martin Johnson for sure made a point of trying to bring some of the attitude he picked up in NZ to England, and didnt exactly shy away from layers he knew would be immersed in that culture too....whether that was Woods who spent time as a teenager there or Flutey who played for the Moari.
Its a pity he didnt quite work out the bit about beating Wales every time they play.

by fa0019 Tue Jun 26 2012, 17:42

The same could be said about NZ.

NZ never would have achieved RWC success in 11 if they hadn't hired a coach who had been in Europe and learnt the best bits of the NH and applied it to his AB side IMO.

Before Henry took over, the one weakness you could pinpoint was their strength in the front five.. Henry added that edge which he learnt at Wales playing ENG & FRA in particular.

Does that mean that NZ success can be put down to Henry's continual losses on the hands of the ENG & FRA when coaching WAL???

Anyhow, personally I think ENG has move influence from SA than from NZ in terms of rugby but its undoubted that NZ produces a lot of talent which 5 teams cannot contain, its natural that there will be an abundance of players and coaches which will flood foreign leagues for work.

IF NZ & SA were financially attractive for players and coaches I'm sure you would see many people moving south... but its just not the same. People move where the money is.... and its all in Europe.

by emack2 Tue Jun 26 2012, 18:06

The current problem to some extent is the IRB the laws are in black and white.This year in the SH Super league fine tuning of laws in some areas are experimentally happening.From the fact mostly NH Officials were officiating presumbably theStandard interpratations applied.Next year different set will be trialled in the NH.Frankly this only excerbates problems,the SH were lumbered to with the ELVs for 18months.NH decided they did`nt want them NH has more
votes on the IRB Council what the Nh wants it GETS!!.The constant innuendo that NZ somehow rruns the IRB is frankly ingenuos,inaccurate total tosh.There is NO way to play the game that is correct,NZ won more games playing tight and kicking goals than England ever did.Because they now tend to play a running game it is up to the other side to negate it.Nz is and has always been .doing the simple basic things well,at pace if possible.If you put your self about,close down there space,by ANY means legal or otherwise. They are as mortal as any side Ireland showed that. BUT it must be for the whole 80 plus minutes,there heads won`t go down they will keep on fighting till the end.ireland discovered that too.

by fa0019 Tue Jun 26 2012, 19:25

emack2

Sorry dude but your ideas on the ELVs are quite off the mark. The ELVs were a SH thing and whilst they were rejected in part by those in the NH.. the only rules which were rejected were joke rules which were making so many tune off, if I saw another free kick I think I would have been sick.

Because of the ELVs the up & under came back with a vengence, prior them it was firmly nailed down in its coffin bar the odd rain drenched fields of NW Europe in the mid of winter.

Prior to this Habana used to have near a try a game... post this he's averaged about 1 every 5 games.

by emack2 Wed Jun 27 2012, 04:39

THAT was`nt my point ,my point was that the constant tinkering IF it has to happen.Should be ACTIONED simultanesously in both Hemispheres. As to the ELVs not in the position to comment can`t remember them all.BUT the ELVs were`nt the cause of the kick a thons as suited the Boks circa 2009.Or the fact the the SH sides played 3 sets of rules in Test matches in 2008.OR the fact that the NH STILL has more votes in the IRB and what they want ifthey stick together they get.

by ultra Wed Jun 27 2012, 07:41

3 P's, like it.....england's at the moment seem to be: Push, Pass then Punt!

On a serious note the ELVs will never be moulded via the NH simply because of an old school, dare I say it, arrogant mentality still adopted by the RFU. They still seem to cling to the 'we invented the game therefore we are superiour' attitude. IF the ruling NH bodies could ever work as a single unit we could reverse the rugby league-esque dilution of the game. Unfortunately its a big IF

by anotherworldofpain Wed Jun 27 2012, 08:00

A true is there is some psychological here.

The NH are mediocre because they happy to be mediocre.

Like my mother saying to me: When you aspire for win the limbo competition you never be high jump champion!

You see the celebration here when someone win the 6N! Is ridiculous in compare with the rank of the teams in the competition! All winners of the 6N think they earned already the right to beat SANZAR team. When both things are not connected. "We won the 6N! as GRANDSLAM CHAMPIONS!!! Now we will go beat Australia!!!!" is not logical this argument and why the teams like Wales this year get so disappointment.

There is lack about perspective because most fans and most money is in Europe. So feels like win in front of the big adoring fans is some high achievement. There is no push to the next level and no driving up effect because there is some happy with be just good enough for the pond.

Even England win the RWC they all get honours from a Queen! Is so overreaction. How they expect to go out and win next time when they see the players get this high honour for winning. Sets the idea more that is something very lofty instead of some expected thing.

For example again, Ireland would treat one win over NZ as the goal and not win the series.

Another factor is NH some rigid anxious thing about "WIN" always from the young age. And is making not relaxed and not enjoyment and expressive. There is some dusty institutional league and cup competition and all players so nervous and learn the conservative game. In NZ there is more about play run around the sun and have a good time with a lot friends. Is very competing, yes! but more banterish competor around being the alpha man.

Comparing to this English where young boys get some grey austere terror about some old rusty cup. A bit Polynesian culture I learning there is about take a share at winning and this "last try win" game which is change the focus and encourage a lot enjoyment and develop the skills from young age to creativity and team work and thinking and read the game! Just my mind king

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Jun 27 2012, 09:19

ultra wrote:3 P's, like it.....england's at the moment seem to be: Push, Pass then Punt!

On a serious note the ELVs will never be moulded via the NH simply because of an old school, dare I say it, arrogant mentality still adopted by the RFU.

Really? Its the RFU that led the way in 8 men benches, something the SH has desperately tried to drag its heals on...especially the Aussies who cant even get 3 decent props let alone 4
Theres plenty of other innovations suggested by the North too. Its complete bunk to say its one way traffic.

by anotherworldofpain Wed Jun 27 2012, 09:21

You are correct Peter Seabucket. All unions act like political lobby group and strive for best outcome for their strengths.

SANZAR lobby to get faster game. ENG lobby for more reserve props.

Is wrong to pointing the finger from either hemisphere to the other. Although is funny because I would think 2 props, let alone 3, let aloned 4!!! is plenty to beating Australia. Hug

by fa0019 Wed Jun 27 2012, 09:31

anotherworldofpain

Yes the don't celebrate winning here in the SH... the last time SA won the RWC they didn't just do an open top parade in their capital.... they did it in their entire country and visited over half a dozen cities, over an entire week.

Forget the MBE's which ENG got for winning the RWC... people in NZ were actively campaigning for Richie McCaw to get a knighthood last year post RWC win.

You're totally right... those in the SH are so much more relaxed about winning an old rusty cup.

Jake White was heralded for winning the 3N in 2004 but when his team got beat up at Twickenham a few months later he came out and said... that was the toughest game we've ever played this year, ENG are the best team in the world'.

Schalk to this day says this was the toughest match he has ever played... and he won world player of the year that year.

Does that mean the 3N they won is undervalued because at the time... ENG were better???

If you want to look at the sporting mentality of a nation better look at all sports rather than just one in particular. AUS for instance are by far superior in sporting terms than NZ even after adjusting for population... but rugby is perhaps their 4th best sport so they don't compete on an even keel in rugby.

by anotherworldofpain Wed Jun 27 2012, 09:48

fa0019 wrote:anotherworldofpain

Yes the don't celebrate winning here in the SH... the last time SA won the RWC they didn't just do an open top parade in their capital.... they did it in their entire country and visited over half a dozen cities, over an entire week.

Forget the MBE's which ENG got for winning the RWC... people in NZ were actively campaigning for Richie McCaw to get a knighthood last year post RWC win.

You're totally right... those in the SH are so much more relaxed about winning an old rusty cup.

Jake White was heralded for winning the 3N in 2004 but when his team got beat up at Twickenham a few months later he came out and said... that was the toughest game we've ever played this year, ENG are the best team in the world'.

Schalk to this day says this was the toughest match he has ever played... and he won world player of the year that year.

Does that mean the 3N they won is undervalued because at the time... ENG were better???

If you want to look at the sporting mentality of a nation better look at all sports rather than just one in particular. AUS for instance are by far superior in sporting terms than NZ even after adjusting for population... but rugby is perhaps their 4th best sport so they don't compete on an even keel in rugby.

I think you go look for offence from my post and deliberate to miss the point!!!!

by gowales Wed Jun 27 2012, 09:52

anotherworldofpain wrote:You are correct Peter Seabucket. All unions act like political lobby group and strive for best outcome for their strengths.

SANZAR lobby to get faster game. ENG lobby for more reserve props.

Is wrong to pointing the finger from either hemisphere to the other. Although is funny because I would think 2 props, let alone 3, let aloned 4!!! is plenty to beating Australia.

Wtf? I think you'll find that's the whole of the European rugby nations, not just England. It's a good idea as well, so that we don't have any more farcical uncontested scrums like rugby lite and so that props can focus on one position.

by fa0019 Wed Jun 27 2012, 10:00

not offended by your post at all.... sorry if this was your aim.

I do find your post mildly amusing however... although I'm not laughing with you. Have you lived in these countries you speak describing their chilled out reactions to winning??? I live in the SH and I can tell you one thing... a loss in the SH is the worst thing in the world and the people take it very very badly. They celebrate just as wildly too... probably even more so.

Think of the times SA got knocked out of RWC11 or NZ got knocked out of RWC07... then think of the names Bryce Lawerence & Wayne Barnes.

by anotherworldofpain Wed Jun 27 2012, 10:19

fa0019 wrote:not offended by your post at all.... sorry if this was your aim.

I do find your post mildly amusing however... although I'm not laughing with you. Have you lived in these countries you speak describing their chilled out reactions to winning??? I live in the SH and I can tell you one thing... a loss in the SH is the worst thing in the world and the people take it very very badly. They celebrate just as wildly too... probably even more so.

Think of the times SA got knocked out of RWC11 or NZ got knocked out of RWC07... then think of the names Bryce Lawerence & Wayne Barnes.

You miss the point. I am not talk about top level rugby. I am talk about grass root level.

Yes I lived in NZ and Australia and Eng and many part to Europe and Asia when I was grow up and teenager and twenties so I knowing what I talk about here! My last year to high school was in new zeaalnd on exchanging and my school rugby team play every week in the schools challenge but was not league and on the weekend also and onto the beach and play and mix up the player and now I see in ENG this kind of immersion not exist and even the youngest player get put into the team stuck there with one coach and play once per week and chasing after one league and cup. And the not good player not get the chance and give up and go for football or take the drug instead.

by gregortree Wed Jun 27 2012, 10:21

You do not see many French posters on here for reasons of langauge. But from the NH, the French seem to find the secret key to unlock the ABs more than any other NH side. What can we learn from the French way ?

by gowales Wed Jun 27 2012, 10:23

Be able to compete with your pack and with the backs, and be completely unpredictable.

And mostly just be French... Wink

by fa0019 Wed Jun 27 2012, 10:28

I doubt many fans would want their teams to be more like the French... lose to Tonga one week beat ENG the other. You would become a manic depressant that way... then again, it was preferable to being a Scot supporter until a few weeks ago. Then we just had to lows..... bring out the violins!! Sad

by beshocked Wed Jun 27 2012, 10:40

Gregortree it's partly psychological. New Zealand don't have the same hold over France as they do over the other NH sides. Also France have built up their reputation as being an unpredictable side.

Every side have teams they struggle against for whatever reason.

It's not just about having the talent. It's the belief and the ability to finish off the opposition.

I believe Wales for example have the players to match the tri nations but just don't have the belief they will win. They need a win to show they can do it. Till then there will always be doubts in the Welsh minds.

I don't think England have the players to match NZ yet.

by gregortree Wed Jun 27 2012, 11:26

So England & France seem to have the magic 'belief' from NH.
But England's current young players still in development, so I agree are nowhere near the ABs at the mo, and for some time to come.
England believe they can & do compete with the other 2 Sanzars.

by emack2 Wed Jun 27 2012, 11:29

Play the French way WHAT exactly is that there most successful periods have been when they played.Forward orientated kick Goals game with solid defence,in the 1950`s .They had no line out so they thought outside the box,the Line out peel,plus several back row Scrum moves were there invention.France seldom play two matches in a row the same a team with 3 RWC final appearances,and 3 RWC final losses is hardly a good example.A team that tries to finesse 2 RWCs by not trying for most of the time to get an easier ride is not a good example.Also IF you think they arn`t afraid of the AllBlacks it`s only relative 4 wins in the professional era.The All Blacks have as many as that with just RWC wins.IF you wish to be pedantic Australia overall has a more successful Sports win rate than Anyone except the USA or USSR during the cold war period.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Jun 27 2012, 11:42

Theyve only won twice in the last decade

by kiwi4ever Wed Jun 27 2012, 11:49

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
ultra wrote:3 P's, like it.....england's at the moment seem to be: Push, Pass then Punt!

On a serious note the ELVs will never be moulded via the NH simply because of an old school, dare I say it, arrogant mentality still adopted by the RFU.

Really? Its the RFU that led the way in 8 men benches, something the SH has desperately tried to drag its heals on...especially the Aussies who cant even get 3 decent props let alone 4
Theres plenty of other innovations suggested by the North too. Its complete bunk to say its one way traffic.

Don't give us the BS. It is because the NH players are to fat and slow to last 50 minutes against SH teams, thats why they want extra players on the bench. Just like it takes most NH teams 20 minutes to start falling over like soccer players so their forwards can have rest.

Bloody hell it was only 5 years ago my cousin played in a guniess premiership team after he relised he was never going to crack the Crusaders full time starting team. He was hooker and was one of fittest guys on his team once he got to the UK!!!! Their forwards were professional players and most had a big jelly gut. Rolling Eyes

anotherworldofpain wrote:
You see the celebration here when someone win the 6N! Is ridiculous in compare with the rank of the teams in the competition! All winners of the 6N think they earned already the right to beat SANZAR team. When both things are not connected. "We won the 6N! as GRANDSLAM CHAMPIONS!!! Now we will go beat Australia!!!!"

I've never been able to understand that mentality. Isn't the 6N nations rugby's equivalent of special Olympics; I mean its great for special participants and you give them the support just like the others but not on the same level of meaning.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Jun 27 2012, 12:00

kiwi4ever wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
ultra wrote:3 P's, like it.....england's at the moment seem to be: Push, Pass then Punt!

On a serious note the ELVs will never be moulded via the NH simply because of an old school, dare I say it, arrogant mentality still adopted by the RFU.

Really? Its the RFU that led the way in 8 men benches, something the SH has desperately tried to drag its heals on...especially the Aussies who cant even get 3 decent props let alone 4
Theres plenty of other innovations suggested by the North too. Its complete bunk to say its one way traffic.

Don't give us the BS. It is because the NH players are to fat and slow to last 50 minutes against SH teams, thats why they want extra players on the bench. Just like it takes most NH teams 20 minutes to start falling over like soccer players so their forwards can have rest.

Bloody hell it was only 5 years ago my cousin played in a guniess premiership team after he relised he was never going to crack the Crusaders full time starting team. He was hooker and was one of fittest guys on his team once he got to the UK!!!! Their forwards were professional players and most had a big jelly gut.

Sorry where is Thomas Waldrom from again?

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Jun 27 2012, 12:46

disneychilly wrote:Or the 3 Ps, which is the AB mantra. Position, possession, and pace.

Wales aren't bothered with the second P, they'd rather defend than attack. I cannot for the life of me understand why.

by **Biltong** Wed Jun 27 2012, 13:05

We do the same thing, but apparently the reason why we prefer to defend is because we don't know how to attack. Whistle

Maybe you have the same problem? "Teams look to bet on Black" Idunno10

by fa0019 Wed Jun 27 2012, 13:21

I love it how the worst some in the SH can say about the NH campaigning to change rules is the additional prop in the bench.

Its done so for safety reasons... how the two position are so specialised that if you sub in one player and then another gets injured we have the farce of uncontested scrums.

The SH however....

well they can only be guilty of creating the ELVs

Why did they create the ELVs.... they were first researched when ENG won the RWC... the SH were not happy that their crown had been pinched by a large group of pesky englishman so they decided to change the rules to hamper ENG's natural game/benefit their own.

and what happened??? Well tries went down and kicking increased... Awesome!!!!

In the end if the NH have a majority share in rugby its because... well, we invented the sport. Its ours to change. Your countries.... you just play it. Can Samsung change the ipad because they don't like it.

if you want you're more than welcome to create your own sports. Those from the NH are not sneeky in that we change rules to suit our game... we do so for the benefit of the sport. We agreed to some awful changes suggested by yourselves to "boost" viewing figures in AUS specifically.. hows thats gone over the course of the last 4-5 years???

In Football, the home nations actually have 50% voting rights in all rule changes.. why because again... we invented the sport.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed Jun 27 2012, 13:42

fa0019 wrote:I love it how the worst some in the SH can say about the NH campaigning to change rules is the additional prop in the bench.

Its done so for safety reasons... how the two position are so specialised that if you sub in one player and then another gets injured we have the farce of uncontested scrums.

The SH however....

well they can only be guilty of creating the ELVs

Why did they create the ELVs.... they were first researched when ENG won the RWC... the SH were not happy that their crown had been pinched by a large group of pesky englishman so they decided to change the rules to hamper ENG's natural game/benefit their own.

and what happened??? Well tries went down and kicking increased... Awesome!!!!

In the end if the NH have a majority share in rugby its because... well, we invented the sport. Its ours to change. Your countries.... you just play it. Can Samsung change the ipad because they don't like it.

if you want you're more than welcome to create your own sports. Those from the NH are not sneeky in that we change rules to suit our game... we do so for the benefit of the sport. We agreed to some awful changes suggested by yourselves to "boost" viewing figures in AUS specifically.. hows thats gone over the course of the last 4-5 years???

In Football, the home nations actually have 50% voting rights in all rule changes.. why because again... we invented the sport.

The ELVs were devised by a committee including representatives from England, France, Wales and Ireland as well as the 3Ns. And some of the changes proposed were never tested - what wound up coming in was a hybrid version, one contributor to it's failure.

And back when the rules were completely set by the home unions there were several occasions where they changed the rules to slow down the ABs. Most notably banning the 2-3-2 scrum.

NZ and SA seem to have no problem developing props who can play both sides - personally I think that versatility is a valuable skill set to have. And uncontested scrums are rare downunder

by fa0019 Wed Jun 27 2012, 13:50

True... but they were driven & championed by only those in the SH, that is undeniable. I can't remember one person of note in the NH who liked them. Everyone was against them.

not sure about the hybrid version comment.... its far far better than what was originally proposed and tested in the SR/3N of 09.

You had the defender at rucks having the upper hand. The tap free kicks....

It was near enough to turn die hard fans to ballet.

I don't recall last seeing uncontested scrums in a NH test either but its the sensible thing to do... for safety, for continuation of a fluid contest and to stop the threat of teams doing "a Wasps/a Edwards/a Gatland" and taking off "injured" props with no replacements which happens to occur when they're getting a beasting.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed Jun 27 2012, 13:59

fa0019 wrote:True... but they were driven & championed by only those in the SH, that is undeniable. I can't remember one person of note in the NH who liked them. Everyone was against them.

not sure about the hybrid version comment.... its far far better than what was originally proposed and tested in the SR/3N of 09.

You had the defender at rucks having the upper hand. The tap free kicks....

It was near enough to turn die hard fans to ballet.

I don't recall last seeing uncontested scrums in a NH test either but its the sensible thing to do... for safety, for continuation of a fluid contest and to stop the threat of teams doing "a Wasps/a Edwards/a Gatland" and taking off "injured" props with no replacements which happens to occur when they're getting a beasting.

I was playing a bit of devil's advocate on the ELVs there, I wasn't a massive fan either so hence my attempt at sharing blame (Paddy O'Brien was on that committee, more proof that he should have bowed out of the game completely in 2002).

There were uncontested scrums in one of the NZ vs Ireland tests, but I was more referring to SXV/INL cup scrums generally remaining competitive.

by anotherworldofpain Wed Jun 27 2012, 15:00

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
kiwi4ever wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
ultra wrote:3 P's, like it.....england's at the moment seem to be: Push, Pass then Punt!

On a serious note the ELVs will never be moulded via the NH simply because of an old school, dare I say it, arrogant mentality still adopted by the RFU.

Really? Its the RFU that led the way in 8 men benches, something the SH has desperately tried to drag its heals on...especially the Aussies who cant even get 3 decent props let alone 4
Theres plenty of other innovations suggested by the North too. Its complete bunk to say its one way traffic.

Don't give us the BS. It is because the NH players are to fat and slow to last 50 minutes against SH teams, thats why they want extra players on the bench. Just like it takes most NH teams 20 minutes to start falling over like soccer players so their forwards can have rest.

Bloody hell it was only 5 years ago my cousin played in a guniess premiership team after he relised he was never going to crack the Crusaders full time starting team. He was hooker and was one of fittest guys on his team once he got to the UK!!!! Their forwards were professional players and most had a big jelly gut.

Sorry where is Thomas Waldrom from again?

He grow up live on the same road as Dylan Hartley and Manu Tuilagi is some rumour. Whistle

by disneychilly Wed Jun 27 2012, 16:14

Waldrom's a Lower Hutt boy. Him and his brother Scott played for Avalon in Wellington club rugby. I'm a Hutt boy-a mate of mine's husband played with him for Avalon.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed Jun 27 2012, 16:37

fa0019 wrote:I love it how the worst some in the SH can say about the NH campaigning to change rules is the additional prop in the bench.

Its done so for safety reasons... how the two position are so specialised that if you sub in one player and then another gets injured we have the farce of uncontested scrums.

The SH however....

well they can only be guilty of creating the ELVs

Why did they create the ELVs.... they were first researched when ENG won the RWC... the SH were not happy that their crown had been pinched by a large group of pesky englishman so they decided to change the rules to hamper ENG's natural game/benefit their own.

and what happened??? Well tries went down and kicking increased... Awesome!!!!

In the end if the NH have a majority share in rugby its because... well, we invented the sport. Its ours to change. Your countries.... you just ~~play~~ perfect it. Can Samsung change the ipad because they don't like it.

if you want you're more than welcome to create your own sports. Those from the NH are not sneeky in that we change rules to suit our game... we do so for the benefit of the sport. We agreed to some awful changes suggested by yourselves to "boost" viewing figures in AUS specifically.. hows thats gone over the course of the last 4-5 years???

In Football, the home nations actually have 50% voting rights in all rule changes.. why because again... we invented the sport.

Fixed that for you. Hug

by nganboy Thu Jun 28 2012, 12:23

We invented the sport so we can do what we want...

picard

oh dear

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Jun 28 2012, 12:24

nganboy wrote:We invented the sport so we can do what we want...

oh dear

We bought global branding to the sport so we can do what we like

by AlastairW Thu Jun 28 2012, 12:29

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
nganboy wrote:We invented the sport so we can do what we want...

oh dear

We bought global branding to the sport so we can do what we like

I bought Pizza i can do what i like.

Tumbleweed

by gregortree Thu Jun 28 2012, 12:43

The Webb Ellis pizza 'to go' service.
Rugby town centre, Warwickshire.

"Where to sir ?"
....
"Did you say Auckland, New Zealand ?"
...
" Its been a long time since we last delivered to that address.. I'm very sorry but we will have to charge extra this time."
...........
" No, you are not a regular customer. I'm sorry... CLICK"

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu Jun 28 2012, 17:14

Ring back: but what about my loyalty card I got sent in the mail? It said you anticipated me ordering these pizzas every four years from now on instead of every 24. Very Happy

by gregortree Thu Jun 28 2012, 19:23

..........ok, now where's Auckland again ?

by Sponsored content