Is New Zealand’s back row their Achilles heal.

First topic message reminder :

I’m starting to think this is the poorest All Blak backrow I can ever remember.Kieran Reid is one of the greats as far as I’m concerned but he looks like he’s running on empty at the moment. Savea is an impact player to me and I can’t even remember who was playing 6 as they were pretty much anonymous. All Blak backrows in times gone by were the most frightening part of their team but now very average,I’m not sure in a world team now who would make it even onto the subs bench. I know Cane will hopefully be back for the World Cup but genuine question to our New Zealand friends who’s waiting in the wings? Where’s the next McCaw, Michael Jones or Kronfield coming from?

Collapse2005 wrote:I think if Sam Cane is NZs answer at back row then the OP has been answered.

The standard isn't high enough in NZ back row forwards anymore. As Clive Woodward has said NH sides just aren't pushed around anymore by Aus, NZ and SA packs.

True, now that theyve borrowed a few from them, and continue to do so.

Without SHs help theyd be pushed around forever, and would be coached by clueless coaches like Lancaster.

Most NH sides are composite SH/NH sides these days. Add SH coaching in the mix it’s little wonder they’ve improved. Will it mean they’ll always need to bring SH people to maintain their standards or will they go it alone one day? Doubtful.

Yep, remove all SH IP from the NH game and bith club and i ternational rugby will collapse. I see that happening one day when the golden rainbow dries up. At least one kiwi born was in all four NH sides this series, none of whom would have been an AB starter. They do well with our leftovers though.

The NH just can’t produce half decent head coaches. Strip out SH players and coaches from the British/Irish sides you probably get something that looks a bit more like France in terms of quality.

ebop wrote:The NH just can’t produce half decent head coaches. Strip out SH players and coaches from the British/Irish sides you probably get something that looks a bit more like France in terms of quality.

Yes, cake and eat it too stuff. They say we’re falling behind while pushing the shopping trolley down the SH isle.

Ill bet Ireland are privately crapping about going back to a non SH coach. They just dont know whats required at test level. They could seriously regress under local leadership. A pity Cotter didnt stay at Scotland.

Taylorman wrote:

ebop wrote:The NH just can’t produce half decent head coaches. Strip out SH players and coaches from the British/Irish sides you probably get something that looks a bit more like France in terms of quality.

Yes, cake and eat it too stuff. They say we’re falling behind while pushing the shopping trolley down the SH isle.

Ill bet Ireland are privately crapping about going back to a non SH coach. They just dont know whats required at test level. They could seriously regress under local leadership. A pity Cotter didnt stay at Scotland.

The inconvenient truth is that the two best coaches in the NH Gatland and Schmidt were made in the NH. They just happen to be from NZ. Gatland had 5 coaching gigs in Ireland and England before ever coaching in NZ. Schmidt also worked in Ireland before getting a top professional job in NZ and all his head coach roles have been in Ireland and he has coached in the NH much more now than NZ including for the last 10 years.

Nobody had a bog who he was in NZ until he made it here.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I think if Sam Cane is NZs answer at back row then the OP has been answered.

The standard isn't high enough in NZ back row forwards anymore. As Clive Woodward has said NH sides just aren't pushed around anymore by Aus, NZ and SA packs.

True, now that theyve borrowed a few from them, and continue to do so.

Without SHs help theyd be pushed around forever, and would be coached by clueless coaches like Lancaster.

There are about 4 or 5 home grown Irish back row players that would get into the NZ squad. Easy peasy.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I think if Sam Cane is NZs answer at back row then the OP has been answered.

The standard isn't high enough in NZ back row forwards anymore. As Clive Woodward has said NH sides just aren't pushed around anymore by Aus, NZ and SA packs.

True, now that theyve borrowed a few from them, and continue to do so.

Without SHs help theyd be pushed around forever, and would be coached by clueless coaches like Lancaster.

There are about 4 or 5 home grown Irish back row players that would get into the NZ squad. Easy peasy.

There are none. Theyre not kiwis. Unlike your lot, we dont go looking for seasoned pros like okee, stander, shields, maitland, anscombe etc to make our sides. And if they just happen to be kiwis, where are the irish coavhes that’ just happen to be irish’. None huh? Funny that. You continue to bite the hand that feeds you. The day Ireland wins with a domestic coach with domestic players is the day they get my respect. Until then, this hybrid side will do. Quite the laugh you fullas.

Irish rugby post Schmidt will be amusing to watch, seeing them all fall all over eachother scrambling how to match Schmidts kiwi style. Laurel and hardie back again

I bet the Irish are c!?’apping big time and be no surprise if theyre already considering the likes of rennie, joseph, cotter etc before looking locally. Farrells not a head coach. Hes best doing exactly what hes doing.

Love to see the shortlist now. Bet theres not an irishman on it.

Jumping into this with a few serious points...

1. Lancaster obviously isn't a clueless coach. Never was - got thrown under the bus post-RWC '15, but is proving his worth in Ireland. Not perfect, but you can't call him clueless and expect to be taken seriously.

2. This was a discussion/debate/thread on the relative weakness of NZ's backrow. It's become one where a Kiwi and (forgive me if I'm wrong, ebop?) an English admirer of the All Blacks are attacking the Northern Hemisphere en masse for their (very prevalent, and very important) employment of New Zealander and SH coaches and players. Not sure how the two are linked in good faith, to be honest - or at least, running down the NH seems to be given more thread-time relative to the importance it probably has on NZ's backrow problems.

Does it belie the fact that there is in fact a weakness of personnel/quality in that position after McCaw's era, where the All Blacks' dominance of the opposition was so crucial to them winning? As mentioned above, not many of those SH back row options playing abroad, particularly for NZ (less so South Africa), would be pushing for a starting spot. Perhaps more relevant is having them in NZ to help the transition from old to new - that is very obviously a big loss the any system or country. But I'm not sure it's the whole answer to what is, perhaps, an emerging issue/the topic of the thread.

3. This is the main point I wanted to make. Obviously, SH coaches are in high demand; this is because, generally speaking, the standard of rugby was/is better in most facets compared to the Northern Hemisphere. Skills, fitness, mentality...there's a whole lot more, but it's no surprising when a fairly solid, but unheralded, player like Hadleigh Parkes arrives in Wales, he becomes a mainstay in the best professional team, and then goes on to sort out Wales' issues in midfield, replacing Jamie Roberts who will be regarded as an important and in some ways great player for Wales, but who is very limited. This is true also in the coaching stakes; if you're brought up in a system whereby standards are higher, obviously you will bring more value if you move to an equivalent 'level' of rugby in the north, where the standards and environment is not as good.

There's a few reasons, and one or two caveats to this. The main reason is partly based on my experience, and partly on conjecture - the UK school system is highly uncompetitive when it comes to sports coaching/encouragement. Generally speaking. Likewise, I would say, the UK culture. Probably, you can extend that to large parts of Western Europe. There are exceptions - individual families, even perhaps certain locations, and schools. Top of that would be the fee paying schools in Ireland and England, where the inequality of resources between wealthy and less wealthy can be incredible; the opportunity within the pathway system is vast. In SANZAR, I get the impression that, culturally and academically, sport and sporting excellence/success is much more widespread, encouraged, and valued. Not saying inequality of opportunity doesn't exist - I'm sure it does when it comes to rugby in Australia, for sure - but not quite to the same extent as the UK. And playing numbers aren't everything - you can have 500,000 fat, old men trundling around a muddy pitch at 2:30 on a Saturday in the UK, but it doesn't really help push standards. Clearly, although it should help, in places like the UK, it seems to be negligible relative to culture as impacting on the standards of pro rugby. This is the caveat though: particularly in a place like Wales, there is a huge drop-off from international/pro rugby to the standard below it. In many ways, the NH's systemic inequality goes all through the system to the very top, including the ability to bring in external talent based on their economic power. This has the net effect of improving the test sides, of course, but it also filters down and improves standards lower down (see Joe Schmidt) albeit, if those standards are SH standards, as soon as that coach has left NZ, say, they're already out of the loop of the elite environment and always playing catch-up to the homeland.

We could go round and round in circles on this, and I've brought up no stats on this becaue I cba and also, it's not the point of the thread. However, it felt like it was moving away from the topic, and one or two inane statements were being put down without challenge.

When it comes to attack, creativity, and basic skillsets required, the south (and particularly NZ) is comfortably ahead of the north, both playing and coaching. That isn't even up for debate I don't think.

I'd counter that by saying the NH tops the SH when it comes to two facets of coaching: kicking and, in particular, defence. You could include some things like sport science, fitness etc., but that's very hard and I'm not sure I could make the case for it, but it stands to reason that with more resources comes greater ability to attract and implement the best research and skills in those areas, which are far less parochial than rugby players or coaches. Certainly goal-kicking seems to be better in the NH, both the end product and the coaching it is given; perhaps as a way to offset attacking deficiences, and I'm not going to deny that it isn't. Tactical kicking seems less cut and dry, as lots of NH seem content to get drawn into poorly-executed kicking battles with each other and then get exploited when they face a SANZAR side. SH teams probably lead the North when it comes to overtly attacking/chance-creating kicks, but positional kicks, however negative, are probably better coached in the north.

Which leads me onto firmer ground: NH defences are better. The best defence coaches are from the northern hemisphere - specifically, it seems, the North of England, and Rugby League. You might not value it etc., but defence coaching matters, and I'd say now that fitness levels between the two hemispheresaren't miles apart, the execution of these defensive systems is probably the major factor in the NH bridging the results gap to the SH giants.

Fair read, but Lancaster is a rubbish coach at test level. He flopped. No point glossing or excusing rubbish when an outsider is able to come in and in short time having them beating everyone. If a NZ coach had taken a promising side to not qualify out of pool at home there is zero ... less than zero chance you would accept that he was a good coach. Stop trying to lipstick the pig. Bomber is one of rugbys all time flops. Period. Theres no bus. Buck stops with the coach. Bomber... bombed.

The rest I agree with but the reason the NH are ‘better’ at kicking and defence is because theyre traditionally negative. Risk averse. The reason the ABs are not stronger defensively, even though I think they are, a 90% odd success rate kinda confirms that, but we’ll humour that for now. For me claiming the ‘best in defence’ label is merely describing an absence in attack. And thats not acceptable to us. We like to enjoy the game.

England for example. There would not be one back that would get ‘anywhere’ near a greatest of all time list. The nearest, wilko was best known for , yes, you guessed it, his kicking and his defence. Go figure.

On the original post, the back row is fine. Part of that issue is we lost kaino, messam, luatua in the last 12 months. Id mention Shields but the barrell doesnt quite need scraping yet. Weve produced by far the best loosies of all time and will again. Its ‘what we do’.

Taylorman wrote:Fair read, but Lancaster is a rubbish coach at test level. He flopped. No point glossing or excusing rubbish when an outsider is able to come in and in short time having them beating everyone.

Na, not having that. Not to drag a debate happening in another thread into this one, but you can't claim Hansen (& Henry) were great coaches for Wales and Ruddock reaped the success by winning a Grand Slam as soon as he came in, and dismiss Lancaster and laud Eddie Jones for the same dynamic.

The reality lies somewhere in the middle. Lancaster turned around a truly shocking England side and made them consistently competitive again. It's perhaps easy to forget how truly awful England were post-Woodward.

On the topic of Woodward, here was a man who revolutionised England and made them, albeit briefly, the best team in the world. Very quickly, it became clear that time and management skills had caught up with him and he was exposed as being well out of his depth. He quite rugby coaching to go into boardroom management swiftly after (to mixed success) and never looked back. Does this make him a bad coach/manager? He's perhaps not the perfect example as he was much more of a manager than a coach, but equally I'd say that's exactly what Gatland has been for Wales since he's been here. He's been much more focused on driving standards, expectations, and culture than he has on the rugby - not to say he's been completely off the training pitch, but the day to day has fallen to other people, by and large, to mixed success.

Anyway, England made a succession of poor Head Coach appointments until Lancaster. Even he was a poor choice in theory, and did far better than he should have done. I'd say he exceeded expectations tbh given his experience at the time. England fluked it to the 2007 WC final. It's worth remembering England were consistently awful until Lancaster came in: his failure was producing consistently good teams and results without going the extra mile to win anything (finish 2nd in the 6Ns year on year). The RWC was a failure, no doubt; I'd say the RFU collectively bottled it. From funding the Burgess deal, to the focus on getting the players lean and underpowering the pack, to the misfortune of suffering from Wales' boom-and-bust-9th-place-in-the-world form (a Howlerism), a lack of good, top level experience was costly for them, and they all paid the price. Ireland is now reaping the rewards for the RFU's hasty, if inevitable, decision to cast all those coaches asunder.

But he turned around a pedestrian, backward, uncompetitive team in the 2011 RWC (Johnson won the 2011 6Ns but England did very little bar the 2007 RWC since 2003) to beating NZ in 2012, and pushing them v close in 2 out of 3 tests in NZ in 2014 (I think, perhaps 2013). England have underperformed for years, no doubt, because of their resources, but Lancaster got good results v quickly with England. If he'd won a 6Ns or two, he may have survived the RWC group exit. But because he didn't, he was an easy scapegoat. Not going to go into Eddie here, I literally called it on this board two years ago that he'd get found out (didn't think it would be as dramatic, but I did say it would be this year - also said South Africa would be better than them by the RWC, which I'm probably going to miss out on, just).

In any case, I'm not saying Lancaster wasn't/isn't a flawed/deficient head coach for test rugby. I think you could apply that to quite a few at the moment - Ledesma, Cheika (doesn't seem like it now, but he does have his good qualities), Townsend, even Gatland. In fact, bar Schmidt and maybe Hansen, who doesn't have one or two flaws/weaknesses to their coaching? Isn't that the point? Anyway, given the level Lnacaster was coaching when he was hired, he performed better than could be expected, I believe. Calling him clueless is just wrong.

Why do you complain about the players that are playing for other teams and then talk about how rubbish they were and would never get near a squad.

In the Ireland v USA game the commentator was talking about Irish players who were in the USA team. Us Irish are super happy for them. That's how us Irish are. It just seems the NZ people begrudge anyone who doesn't stay at home (well going by the people on the internet)

Taylorman wrote:The rest I agree with but the reason the NH are ‘better’ at kicking and defence is because theyre traditionally negative. Risk averse. The reason the ABs are not stronger defensively, even though I think they are, a 90% odd success rate kinda confirms that, but we’ll humour that for now. For me claiming the ‘best in defence’ label is merely describing an absence in attack. And thats not acceptable to us. We like to enjoy the game.

Yeah, I partly agree. But it's not the whole truth. It fits your narrative, but honestly it's overly simplistic - the kind of black-and-white thinking that leads to NH defensive and bad, SH/NZ attacking and good.

Certainly Wales have had to 'learn' to adapt to priritising defence in the Gatland era. Before him, we had Gareth Jenkins whose approach was a romantic throwback to relying on Wales' traditional strengths: binge drinking and throwing the ball as wide as possible in the hope of a bit of magic from the backline. It's a nice idea, and at times it worked, but it wasn't really the way to approach rugby, let alone in the modern era. It sort of left out the parts involving the set piece, and defensive discipline, and tactical kicking - these things, whether you or Gareth Jenkins like it or not, are literally fundamental to rugby. You can place them lower down the hierarchy of importance, and 'purity', than attacking play, and you'd perhaps be right to do that. Equally, awards/prestige may not be handed out to the defensive, or kicking, players, but Wilkinson was fundamental to winning a RWC. Prioritising conservative tactics has its place, clearly...

And I'm not actually arguing with your premise. The likes of Wales and Ireland (although they were traditionally always more conservative/negatively inclined in my opinion than even England when it comes to style of play) have had to adopt defence-oriented gameplans to compete, and beat with any consistency, the SANZAR teams because there is a skill gap. I'm not debating that.

Surely, the whole point of this thread is why NZ have come off the boil a bit in terms of dominance in the backrow. Player migration is definitely relevant. As is the paucity of opposition from SA and AUS for a few years, so things like quotas and decline in interest in those countries play a part, too. But so does the defensive coaching in Super Rugby. And so does failing to replace McCaw. As does the NH's significant improvement, which cannot solely be attributed to SH imports, in all fairness. Focusing just on NH poaching seems to be missing the point a bit, surely?

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:The rest I agree with but the reason the NH are ‘better’ at kicking and defence is because theyre traditionally negative. Risk averse. The reason the ABs are not stronger defensively, even though I think they are, a 90% odd success rate kinda confirms that, but we’ll humour that for now. For me claiming the ‘best in defence’ label is merely describing an absence in attack. And thats not acceptable to us. We like to enjoy the game.

Yeah, I partly agree. But it's not the whole truth. It fits your narrative, but honestly it's overly simplistic - the kind of black-and-white thinking that leads to NH defensive and bad, SH/NZ attacking and good.

Certainly Wales have had to 'learn' to adapt to priritising defence in the Gatland era. Before him, we had Gareth Jenkins whose approach was a romantic throwback to relying on Wales' traditional strengths: binge drinking and throwing the ball as wide as possible in the hope of a bit of magic from the backline. It's a nice idea, and at times it worked, but it wasn't really the way to approach rugby, let alone in the modern era. It sort of left out the parts involving the set piece, and defensive discipline, and tactical kicking - these things, whether you or Gareth Jenkins like it or not, are literally fundamental to rugby. You can place them lower down the hierarchy of importance, and 'purity', than attacking play, and you'd perhaps be right to do that. Equally, awards/prestige may not be handed out to the defensive, or kicking, players, but Wilkinson was fundamental to winning a RWC. Prioritising conservative tactics has its place, clearly...

And I'm not actually arguing with your premise. The likes of Wales and Ireland (although they were traditionally always more conservative/negatively inclined in my opinion than even England when it comes to style of play) have had to adopt defence-oriented gameplans to compete, and beat with any consistency, the SANZAR teams because there is a skill gap. I'm not debating that.

Surely, the whole point of this thread is why NZ have come off the boil a bit in terms of dominance in the backrow. Player migration is definitely relevant. As is the paucity of opposition from SA and AUS for a few years, so things like quotas and decline in interest in those countries play a part, too. But so does the defensive coaching in Super Rugby. And so does failing to replace McCaw. As does the NH's significant improvement, which cannot solely be attributed to SH imports, in all fairness. Focusing just on NH poaching seems to be missing the point a bit, surely?

Im not saying Hansen at Wales was good at all. He was rubbish. The stats say so, and thats how you rate a coach.

But hes certainly better now. And it took him 8 years under Henry to be ome a good coach. Lancaster was dropped. He lost over a third of his matches and was replced by someone who knew less than the average English fan about England rugby yet got them winning immediately. Those two items alone can only be described as a complete failure. Maybe your standards are ...much... lower. He might imorove as Hansen did, probably not as successfully but for now...one of the sports failures. Just my opinion though, and probably any kiwis were our coach to do what he did or didnt do.

And re the back row, what am I expect to comment on when there are no players to mention. The good ones have gone overseas or retired so we need to start again. You seem to be saying we should be producing the next best back row instantly. We have Cane, Frizzell, Dixon, Taufua, Papali’i, Hemepo and a couple of others, mostly young and waiting their turn. What else is there to say? Make something up?

And I think it is black and white. Test sides tend to go one way or another. Set piece focus, minimal ball movement, less risk. That describes Ireland to a tee.

The ABs are at the complete opposite end of the spectrum.

The rest fall someewhere in between so it grays a bit there and the NH sides are opening up a bit more, bar Ireland. Their way to the top is the same route England and SA took. NZ, Oz, France, the Pac. Island sides tend to play the more open game.

I dont see a NH side ever winning a world cup final by a large margin. They revert to type in pressure situations. Ireland might win but the scores probably wont be pretty, same as England in 03. NZ has had one close final win and loss, and two ‘easy’ wins, oz have had the only other big win.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I think if Sam Cane is NZs answer at back row then the OP has been answered.

The standard isn't high enough in NZ back row forwards anymore. As Clive Woodward has said NH sides just aren't pushed around anymore by Aus, NZ and SA packs.

True, now that theyve borrowed a few from them, and continue to do so.

Without SHs help theyd be pushed around forever, and would be coached by clueless coaches like Lancaster.

There are about 4 or 5 home grown Irish back row players that would get into the NZ squad. Easy peasy.

There are none. Theyre not kiwis. Unlike your lot, we dont go looking for seasoned pros like okee, stander, shields, maitland, anscombe etc to make our sides. And if they just happen to be kiwis, where are the irish coavhes that’ just happen to be irish’. None huh? Funny that. You continue to bite the hand that feeds you. The day Ireland wins with a domestic coach with domestic players is the day they get my respect. Until then, this hybrid side will do. Quite the laugh you fullas.

Irish rugby post Schmidt will be amusing to watch, seeing them all fall all over eachother scrambling how to match Schmidts kiwi style. Laurel and hardie back again

I bet the Irish are c!?’apping big time and be no surprise if theyre already considering the likes of rennie, joseph, cotter etc before looking locally. Farrells not a head coach. Hes best doing exactly what hes doing.

Love to see the shortlist now. Bet theres not an irishman on it.

Easily 5 maybe 6. Not good enough. Wheres your depth?

Arriving on a boat from Tonga any minute now.

Brendan wrote:Why do you complain about the players that are playing for other teams and then talk about how rubbish they were and would never get near a squad.

In the Ireland v USA game the commentator was talking about Irish players who were in the USA team.  Us Irish are super happy for them.  That's how us Irish are.  It just seems the NZ people begrudge anyone who doesn't stay at home (well going by the people on the internet)

100% well said

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I think if Sam Cane is NZs answer at back row then the OP has been answered.

The standard isn't high enough in NZ back row forwards anymore. As Clive Woodward has said NH sides just aren't pushed around anymore by Aus, NZ and SA packs.

True, now that theyve borrowed a few from them, and continue to do so.

Without SHs help theyd be pushed around forever, and would be coached by clueless coaches like Lancaster.

There are about 4 or 5 home grown Irish back row players that would get into the NZ squad. Easy peasy.

There are none. Theyre not kiwis. Unlike your lot, we dont go looking for seasoned pros like okee, stander, shields, maitland, anscombe etc to make our sides. And if they just happen to be kiwis, where are the irish coavhes that’ just happen to be irish’. None huh? Funny that. You continue to bite the hand that feeds you. The day Ireland wins with a domestic coach with domestic players is the day they get my respect. Until then, this hybrid side will do. Quite the laugh you fullas.

Irish rugby post Schmidt will be amusing to watch, seeing them all fall all over eachother scrambling how to match Schmidts kiwi style. Laurel and hardie back again

I bet the Irish are c!?’apping big time and be no surprise if theyre already considering the likes of rennie, joseph, cotter etc before looking locally. Farrells not a head coach. Hes best doing exactly what hes doing.

Love to see the shortlist now. Bet theres not an irishman on it.

Easily 5 maybe 6. Not good enough. Wheres your depth?

Arriving on a boat from Tonga any minute now.

Who is yours? What have they done? Wheres you depth at 15,14,13, 10, 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1? Dont see it at ll myself. Currently one player would make the ABs. Furlong. Sexton wouldnt. Too conservative. Murray might. About it.

Your best player Retallick looked like a rookie against Ireland.

James Ryan is a better player now.

Brauden balls Barretts drought against NH sides continues..

Collapse2005 wrote:Your best player Retallick looked like a rookie against Ireland.

James Ryan is a better player now.

Brauden balls Barretts drought against NH sides continues..

Yes we know this ailment. One win and it goes to their heads. This ones got it bad. Pity he didnt have the same faith in his own team.

Ireland 9 v New Zealand 21

Even the hairdresser at 9 was anonymous. Wheres your famous Kiwi depth?

Collapse2005 wrote:
Even the hairdresser at 9 was anonymous. Wheres your famous Kiwi depth?

Yeah, already one silly post too long. Ciao guns, boredoms kick in again. All yours pal

I can see things getting worse for NZ before they get better.

Take the kiwi coach away from Ireland and it’ll be the usual yo-yo bouncing up and down the rankings. Coaching Ireland to No. 2 has already burnt Schmidt and his family out. Poor guy, no wonder he wants to leave and stop pretending to be Irish.

Haha.

Why would you leave the best team in the world to coach the second best?

Ummm, Ireland = No 2, check the rankings. Are you another one of these 7.5 type guys that makes stuff up?

I believe Mr Hansen was quite clear on how he viewed the defeat.

Yeah, Hansen heaped some pressure on Ireland by saying they’re the best and RWC favourites. Some people actually believe that.

Rugby: A hooligan’s game, played by gentlemen, discussed by idiots.

Maybe Steve does. I wouldn’t expect your average kiwi to believe it (god knows 90% don’t know what an Ireland is ). I don’t believe your average Irish person believes it either. It’s probably only Hansen. The only thing is that there is a blueprint on how to beat the ABs. In reality it was the French who patented it (except for the dodgy ref) in 2011. Schmidt has shown how to play that game consistently maybe that’s what worries those in nz who have “some” rugby knowledge.

Cyril wrote:Rugby: A hooligan’s game, played by gentlemen, discussed by idiots.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king

Indeed, Geen. Indeed.

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:Maybe Steve does. I wouldn’t expect your average kiwi to believe it (god knows 90% don’t know what an Ireland is ). I don’t believe your average Irish person believes it either. It’s probably only Hansen. The only thing is that there is a blueprint on how to beat the ABs. In reality it was the French who patented it (except for the dodgy ref) in 2011. Schmidt has shown how to play that game consistently maybe that’s what worries those in nz who have “some” rugby knowledge.

Its just something hes picked up along the way. Praise the bejesus out of the opposition and theres nothing to discuss or take him up on. I mean are folks really going to argue their team is worse?

The point is what he says means jot.

You're sounding pretty stupid ebop. I've not made anything up.

Ebop, stop sounding pretty stupid on a website.

I'd be shocked if Hansen believes Ireland are the best team in the world. He spouts rubbish regularly but as Taylor says, there is always a point to it. It's a part of what makes NZ the best, their win-at-all-costs approach.

They will do whatever they can to win be it;
All out attack running rugby,
Stuffing the ball up the jumper,
Kicking the leather off it,
Cheating in the ruck,
Hitting high and late to intimidate,
Trying to get the opposition cited,
Rolling out players in pre-match press conferences who have previously stuffed the opposition,
Selling out their spiritually scared war dance to Addidas for some extra cash.

Skill, physicality, psychology, economics. Whatever it takes to gain an edge.

Engine#4 wrote:I'd be shocked if Hansen believes Ireland are the best team in the world. He spouts rubbish regularly but as Taylor says, there is always a point to it. It's a part of what makes NZ the best, their win-at-all-costs approach.

They will do whatever they can to win be it;
All out attack running rugby,
Stuffing the ball up the jumper,
Kicking the leather off it,
Cheating in the ruck,
Hitting high and late to intimidate,
Trying to get the opposition cited,
Rolling out players in pre-match press conferences who have previously stuffed the opposition,
Selling out their spiritually scared war dance to Addidas for some extra cash.

Skill, physicality, psychology, economics. Whatever it takes to gain an edge.

Excellent, Ill take two

Well, Hansen did use a press conference earlier this year to state Australia should be favourites for their game with NZ. 


How do you know when Steve Hansen is lying?  His lips move, of course.

I swear NZ doesn't have discipline problems Irish media. Wah wah wah.

You’re still crying about that game, lol

The discipline issues still haven't gone away have they?

Engine#4 wrote:I'd be shocked if Hansen believes Ireland are the best team in the world. He spouts rubbish regularly but as Taylor says, there is always a point to it. It's a part of what makes NZ the best, their win-at-all-costs approach.

They will do whatever they can to win be it;
All out attack running rugby,
Stuffing the ball up the jumper,
Kicking the leather off it,
Cheating in the ruck,
Hitting high and late to intimidate,
Trying to get the opposition cited,
Rolling out players in pre-match press conferences who have previously stuffed the opposition,
Selling out their spiritually scared war dance to Addidas for some extra cash.

Skill, physicality, psychology, economics. Whatever it takes to gain an edge.

Damn! That's my kind of team too. Gotta admit

Everything except hitting little old ladies with dumbbells.... I'd baulk at hitting little old ladies with dumbbells.

This time next year the RWC will be over BUT all ready the Buzzards are hovering
over the NZ Squad.Franks,Crotty,B.Barrett,Read,will be going,or on sabbaticals.

Post 2011 NZ lost a team,2015 a squad this time will be no better,Hansen is trying

to ensure there will be a AB side for his successor to carry on.
I`ve been accused of doing down NH sides,there is a reason I hate the Club
before Country,and BUYING titles in Premier/Top14 titles.

ITS why gave up on Soccer years ago.England and Ireland MAY win a RWC to

do it the must First,get past the QF or beat NZ in a RWC BOTH will be firsts.

As to Lancaster he left a TEAM for his successors,SCW didn't because he was
frustrated with the club first attitude.

Its pro sport, anything goes right. And the polar opposite to Shag is Bomber who was so naive as a leader. Interesting that Burgess stuck up for him this week claiming player ego was the issue....yes it really was and If ever I saw an over inflated ego its his.

NZ are the experts at Winning At All Costs and apparently any debate over this or their methods also just feeds their machinery as apart from undermining it.

Its rugby Blitzkrieg effectively, while the rest of us perhaps are still obsessing over rugby as a gentleman's game and Queensbury Rules. Those days are long gone.

Pie wrote:Its pro sport, anything goes right. And the polar opposite to Shag is Bomber who was so naive as a leader. Interesting that Burgess stuck up for him this week claiming player ego was the issue....yes it really was and If ever I saw an over inflated ego its his.

NZ are the experts at Winning At All Costs and apparently any debate over this or their methods also just feeds their machinery as apart from undermining it.

Its rugby Blitzkrieg effectively, while the rest of us perhaps are still obsessing over rugby as a gentleman's game and Queensbury Rules. Those days are long gone.

If NZ were so good at reflecting and fixing the errors along the way so did they fail to spot that their dicipline was an issue after Jaco Peyper famously bottled it in Dublin in 2016. Fast forward to the next summer they get their first red card in 50 years and it costs them a lions tour. They still havent figured out how to beat the blitz defense that they struggled with on the Lions tour and their dicipline is still an issue as was evident v Ireland a few weeks ago with some rrally daft penalties and a couple of yellow card close calls.

I can see them getting worse before they get better. Hanson is starting to persist with square peg in round hole solutions like playing Barrett and McKenzie.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Pie wrote:Its pro sport, anything goes right. And the polar opposite to Shag is Bomber who was so naive as a leader. Interesting that Burgess stuck up for him this week claiming player ego was the issue....yes it really was and If ever I saw an over inflated ego its his.

NZ are the experts at Winning At All Costs and apparently any debate over this or their methods also just feeds their machinery as apart from undermining it.

Its rugby Blitzkrieg effectively, while the rest of us perhaps are still obsessing over rugby as a gentleman's game and Queensbury Rules. Those days are long gone.

If NZ were so good at reflecting and fixing the errors along the way so did they fail to spot that their dicipline was an issue after Jaco Peyper famously bottled it in Dublin in 2016. Fast forward to the next summer they get their first red card in 50 years and it costs them a lions tour. They still havent figured out how to beat the blitz defense that they struggled with on the Lions tour.

I can see them getting worse before they get better. Hanson is starting to persist with square peg in round hole solutions like playing Barrett and McKenzie.

Barrett is class mcKenzie I think can be found out

For some reason they've been so far ahead for so long I think they were allowed to get away with stuff other mere mortal teams couldn't....they'll refute this of course but we all know that hen under the cosh they play close to the bone. Physicality becomes the main weapon in any shape or form. Of course their fans love all this conjecture and how the ROW is so obsessed with them. I always thought it would be discovered there was mass drug abuse tbh but their cultivation of PI players has probably been their biggest developmental asset. Now every side is cottoning on to this. By next RWC there will be 2 Vunipola's, a Tuilagi and a Cokanasiga in the first choice England XV. While all the other nations are starting to realize that if you take PI physicality and train and resources eit properly us pasty faced westerners dont really cut it.

Maybe Pichot is right.

No i dont think thats why they are good. More to do with having good structures in NZ rugby and probably in part that they are one of the few countries in the world where rugby is a national obsession.

Their imports have helped though.

At least youre both there or thereabouts. We certainly do seem to bring better players through. Our isolation...wouldnt be many countries that coukd say its over three hours flying to get to its nearest neighbour, gives us a separateness thats rather unique.

We have immigrants like anyone else and rugby is still at the top of our sport focus, despite playing every other sport to some degree as everyone else does.

NZ will work out the rush defence but it will more likely be its own limitations that bring its downfall. For a side to just keep doing the same limited thing match after match has got to have its downsides.

Will Ireland for instance be able to be as punishing defensively during pool play, quarter, semi then again in the final.

Perhaps if they were putting away the tough sides by big margins, but theyre not. Many matches, particularly away theyre winning close matches.

NZs discipline issues are being overated here. Why? Because guns is the only one who thinks its a genuine issue. He cant even find snyone to dis uss it with

Well that was interesting discussion to wade through.

In summary, NZ are brilliant no matter what, the whole of the NH with its SH coaches and players propping up everything is poo.

Oh no it's not.

Oh yes it is.

Ad lib ad nauseam.

Pretty much the story so far. Ill let you know when that changes