Monthly Archives: October 2011

27 June 1956 : Springboks versus Poverty Bay-East Coast Combined

Posted on by
15

Springboks 22 / Poverty Bay-East Coast Combined 0

 

The Springboks travelled by plane -for the first time on tour- from Wellington to Gisborne to play a combined Poverty Bay-East Coach team.

 

Gisborne was a lovely town (now a city) nestling amid the hills and woods which fringe Poverty Bay, where Captain Cook made his first landing in Aotearoa.

 

Brief description of Captain Cooks landing in New Zealand

“The land on the Sea-Coast is high with steep cliffs, and back inland are very high mountains…the face of the Country is of a hilly surface and appeares to be cloathed with wood and Verdure”

 

Captain Cook’s journal, 8th October 1769

 

James Cook was born in Yorkshire, England, and entered the navy as an able seaman in 1755. By 1768 he had been promoted to first lieutenant, and was given command of the bark Endeavour, a well-constructed ship of 368 tons.

 

In this same year, Cook received instructions to set sail for the Pacific in order to study the passage of the planet Venus across the disc of the sun. This was predicted to take place on 3rd June 1769, an event which would not take place again for another 105 years. The second set of instructions concerning this voyage was secret. After the observation of Venus, Cook was to search for the mysterious and elusive “southern continent” – Terra Australis incognita.

 

On 26th August 1768, the Endeavour set sail from Plymouth, stocked with 18 months supplies, and with 94 men aboard. Accompanying Cook were Joseph Banks, the botanist, Daniel Solander, a naturalist, and Charles Green, from the Greenwich Observatory.

 

On 13th April 1769 the Endeavour laid anchor in Tahiti, where the passage of Venus was duly observed, in perfect conditions. Friendly relations were established with the Tahitians. A Tahitian chief named Tupaia, who spoke some English and who wanted to travel, joined the Endeavour with his boy servant when the ship left Tahiti for New Zealand, and the search for the southern continent. Tupaia was an invaluable companion, advising Cook and Banks of the practices and customs of native inhabitants of other islands on route, as the Endeavour continued its southerly course.

 

On 6th October 1769, Nicholas Young, the surgeon’s boy, sighted the coastline of New Zealand from the masthead of The Endeavour.

 

On 8th October the Endeavour sailed into a bay, and laid anchor at the entrance of a small river in Tuuranga-nui (today’s Poverty Bay, near modern Gisborne). Cook named a peninsula in this bay “Young Nick’s Head” after Nicholas Young.

 

Noticing smoke along the coast, an indication that the country was inhabited, Cook and a group of sailors headed for shore in two small boats, hoping to establish friendly relations with the natives, and to take on refreshments. Four sailors were left to guard one of the boats, but were surprised by the sudden appearance of four Maori brandishing weapons. When one Maori lifted a lance to hurl at the boat, he was shot by the coxswain.

 

Cook’s party returned to the Endeavour, and the next day came ashore once again, accompanied by Tupaia. Some Maori were gathered on the river shore, and communication was made possible as Tupaia’s language was similar to that of the Maori. Gifts were presented, but the killing of the day before had left the Maori hostile. When one Maori seized a small cutlass from one of the Europeans, he was shot.

That afternoon Cook and would have attempted a further landing, but heavy surf made this impossible. On noticing the appearance of two canoes Cook planned to intercept them by surprise, with the idea of taking the occupants prisoner, offering them gifts, gaining their trust and then setting them free.

 

However, the canoe occupants noticed the arrival of one of the Endeavour’s small boats, and attacked as it approached. The Europeans, firing in self-defence, killed or wounded three or four Maori. Three other Maori who had jumped overboard were picked up by the Europeans, and taken on board the Endeavour. They were offered gifts, food and drink, and soon overcame their fear. Communication was possible via Tupaia, and the next day the three Maori were taken back to shore, where their armed kinsmen were waiting. There was no violence on this occasion.

 

Cook however, upset by the killings which had already taken place, decided to leave this area. He gave it the name Poverty Bay, as he had been unable to take on refreshments.

 

 

Picture of the James cook landing spot near Gisborne.

 

This picture shows the Gisborne coastline.

Gisborne is regarded as the place with most sunshine in New Zealand; with its beautiful setting and ‘perfect weather’ the Springboks all wondered what on earth induced Captain Cook to name the site of the town Poverty Bay (see text in the box above how he came to that name).  

 

The usual lavish New Zealand hospitality culminated in a huge buffet for the players which had some players going for second and third helpings causing a bit of a stir about the Springboks eating habits and food being the new enemy of the team. This started blather about the Springboks eating habits which eventually culminated in Craven pulling the team together -after a very uninspiring performance against Hawkes Bay -which was the next match- and set some eating rules. It was this meeting (in Hawkes Bay) that turned out to be just that one more gravitational factor that tipped the balance beam in the wrong direction and which saw the tour perpetuating into a sour and dour experience for the players and team management.

 

Warwick Roger (Old Heroes) writes: After an uninspired win over Hawke’s Bay, Craven called his men together for a long team talk. He told some of his players that in his opinion they shouldn’t have been on the tour in the first place, and he criticised them for not training hard enough and for over-eating. He may have had a point.

 

The Herald’s T.P. McLean can remember Wilf Rosenberg in Whangarei, after eating three main courses, polishing off six different desserts on two heaped plates ‘without a suggestion of distress’. Craven sternly announced that from that point on sandwiches were banned at afternoon tea-time; only a cup of tea was permitted.

 

The Players were equally unhappy. Not all were confident in Viviers’ leadership particularly some of the forwards who would have preferred Salty du Rand to have been captain. Many felt the fullback simply wasn’t a good enough player; and now he was injured.

 

They complained too about their coach’s harsh training methods which they felt were responsible for their injuries. Craven in turn blamed the soft grounds, their boots, ‘too much sitting around’, and ‘mental tension reflecting itself in muscle tension’.

 

 

Drawing of Basie Viviers who was not very popular as captain and injured for most part of the tour.

 

The Springboks were still struggling with a number of injuries going into the game but were glad to have Ian Kirkpatrick being able to play his first match on the New Zealand leg of the tour in spite of having him playing on the wing. Brain Pfaff the incumbent test flyhalf had to serve on centre while Paul Johnstone selected for the tour as a wing started at fullback due to the fact that both tour fullbacks Buchler and Viviers were still injured and unable to play.

 

The Springbok team for this match was: Paul Johnstone; Ian Kirkpatrick; Brain Pfaff; Jeremy Nel; Tom van Vollenhoven; Clive Ulyate; Tommy Gentles; Harry Newton-Walker; Bertus van der Merwe; Piet du Toit; Dawie Ackermann; Jan Pickard; Salty du Rand (Captain); Chris de Wilzem and Butch Lochner.

 

The Poverty Bay-East Coast team was no pushover. It had beaten Hawkes Bay 20-6 the week before and was captained by incumbent All Black lock ‘Tiny’ White. The other lock Hapi Potae and ‘Bobbie’ Henare the No8 was Maori representative players. The right wing ‘Mick’ Cossey was also a class player who would play for New Zealand in 1958 against Australia. The fullback Knox Karaka became and All Black trialist in 1957.

 

The Poverty Bay match was a match of two halves and although the Springboks won comfortably in the end -scoring 6 tries- they led only 3-0 at half time thanks to a clever worked try scored by Dawie Ackermann in the 37th minute.

 

 

Picture showing Dawie Ackermann scoring one of his two tries against Poverty Bay combined. Ackermann scored the Springboks only try in the first half after a double scissors movement between Lochner and Ulyate and then Ulyate and Nel which threw the home teams backs into confusion and created the opening for Ackermann to slip through dot down behind the posts.

 

Mclean writes: It was so warm and glorious an afternoon at what I would be inclined to call the most picturesque Rugby ground I have seen that it was possible to become sunbird. However, the sun had nothing to do with the red faces of the Springboks at half-time. The cause was mortification, not unmixed with shame.

 

The Springboks poor performance in the first half was apparently the result of 3 major reasons which the boks were partially able to overcome in the second half. These three elements were: 

 

  • The halfbacks (Gentles and Ulyate) struggling under pressure due mostly to some technical issues at the line-out. Terry McLean writes as follows about Clive Ulyate who played flyhalf for the boks in this match: Henare, a burly 15-stone Maori of no great pace but any amount of devil playing at No8 fixed so badly an eye upon Ulyate that the latter scuttled about like a startled war-horse for the whole of the first half. 

Maxwell Price in his book ‘Springboks at Bay’ writes: The first half of this game was stogy, and the Springboks lacked sparkle. There was a weakness at half-back, where Gentles, was troubled by the attentions of Potae. Ulyate, too, was not playing with his usual confidence, and he was severely harassed by the local number eight, B. Henare.

 

Price continuous his storyline and pen the following regarding the Springboks structures at the lineout and Tommy Gentles tussle at scrumhalf in this match:

 

Potae, a huge man with a genial grin, often came through the line-out to baulk scrum-half Tommy Gentles. Afterwards Potae said to me: “Every time the Springboks jumped for the ball I found an opening at number five, so I walked through.” The trouble was the Springbok prop, young Piet du Toit, did not move forwards as Pickard at five went up to leap or wedge.  

 

  • The incumbent All Black lock ‘Tiny White’ who was also the captain of the combined side totally dominated the line-out in the first half. 
  • Injuries going into the match resulted in players being played out of position in the backline and this was further complicated when both Pfaff and Kirkpatrick got injured during the match. Kirkpatrick had to leave the field for an extended period to get stitches. He then came back and moved to his favoured position of center because Pfaff injured his hamstring and was moved to fullback with Johnstone slotting in on the wing. 

 

The Springboks ran away with the match in the second half scoring 5 tries (Nel, Van Vollenhoven, Ackermann, Van Vollenhoven and Lochner) due to some adjustments made in the second half: 

 

  • They sorted Tiny White. White received a hard blow on his nose bursting a blood vessel and that saw him starting to fade thereafter. It’s not clear whether the blow on the nose was deliberate but McLean suggest something of that nature with his wording that the South Africans ‘most accurately tabbed him’ to eliminate him as a nuisance/threat. The sorting couldn’t have been too serious because White afterwards commented on the clean spirit in which the game was contested and paid tribute to the manner in which Newton-Walker, during the heat of the battle, had helped the loose-forward who were forced by injury to one of the Poverty Bay props to pack against him in the scum. 

 

In the drawing above can be seen Harry Newton-Walker with his father Alf. They hold the record of being the first father and son who played for the Springboks. Alf played for South Africa in 1921 and 1924 and Harry in 1953 and 1965. It was Harry in the drawing above who were praised by All Black lock ‘Tiny’ White for helping his opponent with the technical issues of scrummaging midway through the match. 

  

  • The Springbok backline started to get some flow when Kirkpatrick came back on the field after receiving stitches for an open head wound. This flow in the backline was also a result from four more corresponding factors namely injuries to the Poverty Bay team, the Springbok scrum starting to dominate and Du Randt and Pickard taking control in the line-outs and the Springboks reverting to a 1952 style of playing.

 

Concerning the injuries to the Poverty Bay team they had their forwards Blair (No7) and Dews (No3) off the field at different times and the fullback Karaka was also playing for a large part of the second half with an injury. This resulted in the Poverty-Bay team losing an alarming amount of form and their unique defensive system was put under pressure and found wanting.

The highly successful Springbok team of 1952 was renowned for its open style of playing which had the forwards and backline linking with each other with devastating impact on the opposition. Mclean has the flowing on the 1952 type style of play the Springboks adopted in the second half: To compensate for its ingloriousness, and in defiance of injuries which had Kirkpatrick off the field for a time and Pfaff to fullback, South Africa then began to play the kind of Rugby it had exhibited against New South Wales in the second match of the tour.

 

Forwards linked with backs, passes were crissed and crossed, astonishing speed was generated and a highly peculiar staggered defensive system adopted by the Preston brothers at five-eighths and Watson at centre was exploited for all the holes it contained.

In the scrum and line-out the Springboks stated to control proceedings and Bertus van der Merwe on hooker took 9 tight heads while du Rand and Pickard gave the backline a plentiful supply of ball from the line-outs.

 

It was a concern for the Springboks that they messed-up multiple try scoring opportunities. The legendary All Black fullback George Nepia who attended the match remarked afterwards that the Springbok backline -in spite of scoring 5 tries in the second half- was not totally convincing with their passing and decision making. Maxwell Price estimated that conservatively speaking the Springboks missed out on at least 20 more points due to squandered changes.

 

Another concern was the ease at which opposition came through the Springbok line-out and pressurised the halfbacks which looked very tentative under pressure.

 

Craven confronted the team before the match with a rucking bag –a sack filled with shavings and saw dust- in an attempted to sort the deficiencies the Springbok forwards had shown so far on tour at the ruck. The practice worked wonders and a considerable improvement was evident in this match in Gisborne. It was however weak opposition and the truth was that the Springbok pack only really came into the match after the Poverty Bay team started to lose some form due to injury to key players.

 

A number of Springboks impressed in this match. Johnstone was hard to stop whether playing on the wing or on fullback. The others that impressed were Ackermann, Lochner, Du Rand, and De Wilzem.

 

 

The above three pictures shows first Ackermann and second and third Lochner who were outstanding in the loose and who both showed some real speed in scoring tries. Lochner scored a 65 meter try during which he showed a clean pair of heels to the opposition as did Ackermann in his second try. Ackermann in scoring both his tries showed an impressive ability to read play and to ran himself into position.

 

 

Du Rand and de Wilzem impressed with their work rate. The first picture here is a drawing of Salty du Rand while the second picture shows De Wilzem in action in the Gisborne match. 

 

 

Van Vollenhoven was dangerous with ball in hand but again proved very suspect on defence. This picture shows Van Vollenhoven scoring one of his two tries.

 

Jeremy Nel scored the first try in the second half with a fine individual effort. He made a clean break before evading Watson the one centre and then sold a dummy to Karaka the fullback to score close to the uprights. Nel’s decision making let him down on occasion and it was felt that he should have played the ball more to the wings.

 

Click here to read about the first 5 matches of the 1956 tour.

Constitution of a successful rugby team

Posted on by
32

Ian Jones made an interesting remark the other night on TV during pre-match run-up to the RWC final.  The panel were debating Graeme Henry’s tenure as All Black coach and what makes him so successful. Jake White over emphasized –for understandable reasons- the fact that NZRU stuck with Henry and gave him another change which brought that experience of having been there and knowing what it’s all about into the team environment. Jake have a good point to which I’ll return a little later in my dialogue but Ian Jones took a different angle.

Jones revealed that Henry’s approach has always been –even as a schoolboy coach- that you need world breakers in 5 key positions and that you then built the rest of the team around those players.  The 5 positions being:

  1.  Tight head prop to solidify the scrum
  2.  An enforcer at No4 who can do his line-out job
  3. A ‘fetcher’ flank who can win the battle at the breakdowns
  4. and 5 being the other flanker and the No8 who need to combine with the ‘fetcher’ to win the battle of the break down but also have the ability as ball carriers to punch holes  and link with the back line.

 

Jones being a forward obviously are naturally inclined to being biased towards the forwards as the core of a rugby team hence the fact that all five key players are forwards in his estimation.

Looking at the All Black team they also had a decision maker in one of the pivotal positions of 9 and 10 (first Carter and later Weepu) someone in the midfield that asked serious question of the defence and lastly some real flair and speed in the back three.  

Having world breakers in key positions is undeniably a non-negotiable fact. You can’t win the Melbourne stakes or the July handicap with a donkey but there is more to it, I believe.

Even after having selected the right players in the key positions these players still need to be gelled into a cohesive unit. Rugby after all is a team sport where the collective energy of 15 players working as a unit should be able to triumph over 15 brilliant players playing as individuals. Another aspect is desire or hunger to succeed. 

In my mind there are consequently two other factors crucial for success at the highest level (I say top level because I am arguing from the perspective that you have the best players selected and not players selected for political reasons or to coach the side because the coach can’t do it).

The two factors include fronting-up and proper coaching.

Fronting-up

It was Brad Thorne who brought this concept to my awareness when he –during an interview- said the most important thing he learned at the Crusaders was to front-up. To front-up at practice and at matches no matter how you feel and no matter what else might be going on.

France fronted-up in the final for the first time this season and almost won the match. This emphasize what is possible if the players really front-up. New Zealand teams/players front-up for every single practice and match. This is the key to their success; winning and being the best is what the All Blacks are all about.

Philippe Sela told our kiwi blogger friend Kimbo that the difference between NZ and France is: “France remembers when they win while New Zealand remembers when they lose.”

That is exactly the reason why France have a 55% overall success rate while New Zealand has a 75% one. Winning every time is just not important enough for the French players and nation.

This desire to be the best is what is driving New Zealand rugby.  The desire is imbedded in the nation psyche as was evidenced when 200 000 people showed up on Monday for the All Blacks victory parade through the streets of Auckland.

Is that desire to be the best and that willingness to front-up still present in South Africa rugby?  

If you want to be the best you also make sure you appoint the best coach.  Not a coach for political or personal agenda’s but it goes even deeper than that you appoint the right people to run the national rugby administration. Also those people in charge will be willing -like the Samurai- to fall on their own swords if disgraced in battle.  

It is time for SARU management and administration to front-up, to get it right or to fall on their swords in admission of their lack of backbone. Nothing less nothing more; front-up or get the hell out of there.

Stop being puppets that are manipulated by fools with agenda’s and answer to your own consciousness and get the consciousness issue right; it’s not about corrective action it’s about selecting a coach that can take SA rugby forward. Make no mistake the Springbok coach is the most important person in South African rugby. Not the SARU president but the Springbok coach because he more than anyone else sets the standards and unite the S15 and provincial coaches into a collective unit that has only one thing in mind namely to raise the winning percentage of the national team.    

So let’s look at coaching as the second pillar of a successful team

Coaching

It is no co-incidence that 3 of the four teams that played in this year’s RWC semi-finals had kiwi coaches.

It is no co-incidence that each of those 3 had more years coaching experience than all the other coaches of all the other national teams together.

It is no co-incidence that all three those coaches had success records at the highest level. They earned the right to coach on that level. They proved themselves before they got handed the national teams of those respected countries.

It is no co-incidence that both the teams who are going to play in this year’s Currie Cup final has kiwi coaches namely Plumtree and John Mitchell.

It is no co-incidence that both Mitchell and Plumtree are experienced coaches with track records of success at the highest level.

Laurie Mains took the Lions from last in the S12 to a semi-finalist the next year. Mitchell made a massive impact on the Lions this year. One of his biggest challenges he said halfway through this year’s S15 campaign was to change the existing culture of softness. There is a culture of softness; a culture of not fronting-up at the Lions and the team will only start to win once they learn to front-up.

Now fronting-up starts with the president, the administration and the coach. They need to front-up first and set a culture of fronting-up by selecting the right people and only then will you get the players to buy in and front-up on the paddock.

Fronting-up on the paddock only really works when it was preceded with fronting-up in preparation (that is good coaching and working hard in training).

Today in the news is the fact that neither Rassie Erasmus nor Alistair Coetzee wants to coach the Springboks. This is the biggest vote of no confidence in SARU that you can get. It is, if nothing else, an admission of not wanting to work for SARU because they don’t feel comfortable with them and don’t trust them.

If nobody else but Peter de Villiers wants to put their hands up to coach the pride of the nation, the Springbok team, then it’s a vote of no confidence in administration and then the right thing to do for SARU management is to fall on their swords and not to re-select a person who they know cannot do the job.     

You need a national coach that is respected by players and peers and who can inspire and unite everyone involved in SA rugby into a unified and collective strategy to improve the skills of individual players and the quality of the rugby in the country at large.

This is no easy task but starts with the national coach knowing exactly how he want to play and what sort of players he is looking for in each of the key positions on the field. The national coach would then communicate this message to his franchise coaches and will identify players he wants to see developed and who he wants to see managed with care so that they are not over played. He would travel from franchise to franchise during the S15 tournament to work with the S15 coaches and the players he wants to develop certain abilities/skill sets.

Now you tell me which current coach in South Africa has the stature, the knowledge and the ability to do just this? Which coach has the reputation and the respect of players and other coaches to be accepted as a guru and national leader?

I know the answer and I am sure most readers/bloggers will know who that person it. No more than two current South African coaches (with a possible third who I don’t consider because he is not currently coaching) will spring to mind, I am sure.

Here is a challenge for the current SARU management group. Let each member write the name of the person he think should coach the Springbok team down -in private- on a piece of paper and hand it to the convenor. If there is not 95% agreement get out of there; hand in your resignations and get the hell of there because you’ve got no idea what you are doing.

If there is consensus go and offer that person the job and don’t accept no for an answer. 

Hat’s off to both teams

Posted on by
43

What an epic final. France was simply outstanding winning everything except on the scoreboard.

 

I underestimated them; who didn’t? They showed up and surprised us all taking the All Blacks on up front and at the rucks. Like South Africa against Australia maybe just a bit too predictable and lacking variation on attack. Some stab through kicks into space behind the NZ backline maybe an option they should have considered.

 

The French backrow was simply inspirational. The ball control at the rucks excellent and some good offloads as well to keep the ball off the ground and alive. What about that French tight five taking the AB’s on in the scrum and line-out and winning the battle? Simply heroic stuff.

 

That pressure upfront transferred into Weepu and Cruden who both didn’t had the space the All Blacks halfbacks normally enjoy. This eliminated Weepu greatly as playmaker and took the NZ backline out of the match culminating into a situation where we saw even Nonu being replaced late in the second half.

 

On the tournament as a whole France probably did not deserve to win. On the night they were very unlucky not to pull it off.

 

I feel for France as they left nothing on the park and played at 120% of their ability for 80 minutes.

 

Did New Zealand choke?

 

They were certainly extremely lucky to walk off the field as winners. They were rattled at stages under pressure, I thought, but all credit to McCaw for keeping his troops together when France were hammering relentlesly in the trenches at the All Black defence.

 

Lastly, considering how the kickers (in both teams) succumbed under the pressure one has to take your hat of for two-step Percy Montgomery who handled all that pressure in 2007 and won us the cup with his place kicking.

 

Congratulation New Zealand for learning the lessons of the last 24 years and accepting that the RWC is won with tournament rugby and not with flashy fancy pants razzle dazzle stuff.

 

NZ played for position and pinned the French team down in the right side of the field in the first half and kept on pushing them back with long ranging kicks in the second half.

 

Perversely though I would have enjoyed a French victory just for the pure sake of nailing NZ for the next four years with the ‘chokers’ tag. 

When class merge with proper preparation

Posted on by
31

The concept of the X-factor actually comes from racehorses, specifically from a horse called Eclipse. An extremely large heart is a trait that occasionally occurs in Thoroughbreds, linked to a genetic condition passed down via the dam line, known as the “x-factor”. The x-factor can be traced to the historic racehorse Eclipse, which was necropsied after his death in 1789. Because Eclipse’s heart appeared to be much larger than other horses, it was weighed, and found to be 14 pounds (6.4 kg), almost twice the normal weight. Eclipse is believed to have passed the trait on via his daughters, and pedigree research verified that arguable the best racehorse ever namely Secretariat can trace in his dam line to a daughter of Eclipse. In the 20th century, the heart of Phar Lap was weighed and also documented to be 6.35 kilograms (14.0 lb), or essentially the same size as that of Eclipse.

 

Now you might ask what this has got to do with the All Blacks and the RWC final.

 

I recently saw a movie about the above mentioned famous racehorse Secretariat who became only the ninth horse in history to win the Triple Crown.

 

In the United States, the three races that compose the Triple Crown are:

  1. Kentucky Derby, run over 1-1/4 miles (2.01 km) dirt track at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky;
  2. Preakness Stakes, run over 1-3/16 miles (1.91 km) dirt track at Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore, Maryland;
  3. Belmont Stakes, run over 1-1/2 miles (2.41 km), the longest dirt track in thoroughbred racing, at Belmont Park in Elmont, New York.

 

No horse has won the U.S. Triple Crown since Affirmed in 1978.

 

A summary of Triple Crown winners since 1919 can be seen in the table below:

 

Year

Winner

1919

Sir Barton

1930

Gallant Fox

1935

Omaha

1937

War Admiral

1941

Whirlaway

1943

Count Fleet

1946

Assault

1948

Citation

1973

Secretariat

1978

Affirmed

 

 

Secretariat at the Blemont Stakes in 1973. Notice the distance between him and the other horses.

 

What makes the Triple Crown such a hard assignment is the fact that the three races are run over three different distances with the Belmont Stakes considerably longer than the other two races.

 

The story of Secretariat is a fascinating tale of struggling against the odds by a woman with the name of Penny Chenery (Penny Tweedy) who inherited the horse before its birth from her father,

 

Secretariat’s sire was a sprinter and although Secretariat was named horse of the year as a two year old there was serious doubt whether he will succeed as a three year old because the races of the 3 year olds are ran over longer distances.

 

The fact that he lost one of his early races as a three year old when he had (unknown to the trainer) a tooth abbess didn’t help to the get the tag all-speed-no-stay of his back.

 

So even after Secretariat went on and won the first two races of the Triple Crown (over 2 and 1.9 km respectively) in 1973 there was still serious doubt as to whether he had enough speed endurance to last the distance in the Belmont Stakes ran over 2.4 km.  

 

Only four horses competed against Secretariat for the June 9, 1973, running of the Belmont Stakes, including Sham, which had finished second in both the Derby and Preakness which is of course the two other races of the Triple Crown.

 

Secretariat was renowned as a slow starter who only moved to the front late in the race so the tactic by Shams owners going into the race was to try and pull Secretariat to the front and tire him out.

 

One race day before a crowd of 67,605, Secretariat and Sham set a fast early pace, opening ten lengths on the rest of the field. Everyone was thinking what the hell is the Jockey doing but Secretariat was such a dominating personality that the instruction to his Jockeys was always along the lines of ‘let him run his own race’. After the six-furlong (1.2 km) mark, Sham began to tire, ultimately finishing last. Secretariat astonished spectators by continuing the fast pace and opening up a larger and larger margin on the field. (See video clip below).

 

In the stretch, Secretariat opened a 1/16 mile lead on the rest of the field. At the finish, he won by 31 lengths (breaking the margin-of-victory record set by Triple Crown winner Count Fleet in 1943, which won by 25 lengths), and ran the fastest 1½ miles on dirt in history, 2:24 flat, which broke the stakes’ record by more than two seconds. This works out to a speed of 37.5 mph for his entire performance. Secretariat’s world record still stands, and in fact, no other horse has ever broken 2:25 for 1½ miles on dirt.

 

Secretariat became the ninth Triple Crown winner in history, and the first in 25 years since 1948.

 

Watching the movie the sheer class of Secretariat brought tears to my eyes. I watched that movie three times and cried each time due to the class and astounding brilliance of that magnificent animal.

 

After his death in 1989 a necropsy revealed his heart was significantly larger than that of an ordinary horse.

 

Now the interesting thing about Secretariat was that he was not totally invincible and in a career of 21 races he won 16 (76.1%). The devastating form revealed on June 9, 1973 at the Belmont Stakes had much to do with his trainer Lucien Laurin getting it right on that particular day. Laurin sensed after the Preakness Stakes that the horse had more to give and contrary to common practice which was to taper the horse in the weeks prior to the Belmont Laurin pushed the horse harder.

 

So it was very much a case where class (genetic potential/x-factor) fused with the right preparation to produce something spectacular.

 

The All Blacks are probably the team with the most x-factor players in the entire rugby world. Combine that with 24 years of simmering frustration and 3 coaches with a burning desire and relentless commitment over 4 years to rectify a mistake you have the same mix as on June 9, 1973 during the Belmont Stakes; x-factor coalescing with proper preparation.

 

So my gut feeling is that NZ is going to pull a Secretariat on France this weekend and I predict the pure class; the desire and preparedness of this All Black team are going to produce something out of this world on Sunday night.

 

We all love to see the underdog defy the odds.

 

There is nothing as exhilarating as to see the human spirit triumph against all odds and that is probably one of the reasons why the French team is always everyone’s favourite second team. They -more than any other nation on earth- have the uncanny ability to defy the odd; to produce upsets that leaves behind a sense of everything are possible.

 

The other side of the coin which also leave us with and an enduring sense of reverence is when class merge with preparedness and produce something that stuns the world into awed silence. It will be one of those moments, I believe, where in the midst of it we will realize we are witnessing something incomparable to anything we’ve seen before.

Some thoughts on the 2011 RWC

Posted on by
44

The final is upon us and the New Zealand public/population is over the moon with the prospect of a final. The general mood is one of pre-mature celebration so sure are most of a victory. A constant stream of articles aimed at tempering the pre-mature victory celebration has done very little to stem the tide of conviction that the All Blacks will smash the French into submission. And who can blame them; the French was far from convincing in the tournament so far and they have Lievremont as coach.

 

The outspoken French coach Marc Lievremont is never too far from controversy. The former test flanker who played in the 1999 world cup feature against New Zealand has always had a fractious relationship with the French media. In the lead-up to the game against Canada he walked out of a press conference appearing frustrated with a journalist’s line of questioning.

 

Lievremont’s relationship with his players has appeared tense at times during this tournament. He labelled his players “spoiled brats” after the team went out on the town to celebrate their narrow semi-final win over Wales in Auckland. He went on to describe his team as “disobedient, sometimes selfish, and always complaining” and ended up in a confrontation with his senior players after just such media outburst this week.

 

The French however are using all this and the media and public certainty that they are going to lose as motivation. The French rugby team has cut out and posted up all the predictions that they will lose the Rugby World Cup final around the living room of their hotel as they prepare to show the knockers they are wrong.

 

After mounting criticism from local and international press, the French team is taking an “us against the world” approach to the Rugby World Cup final this weekend.

 

Vilified, mocked and humiliated the French team find they are all alone at the end of the world. One for all; All for none, like the French Musketeers.

 

Yann Delaigue, a former French first five-eighth, has boldly predicted a 23-20 victory for France. He writes: “We are a team which… can reverse the trend and defeat the odds, and since we have a Latin temperament we are filled with pride. And we have talented players able to surprise everyone, even in the World Cup final.“

 

Delaigue wrote that every world cup, France has a “match of their lives“. They are yet to have their one outstanding game of the tournament, he argued.

 

I have played in a number of games where we were the out and out underdogs and came out victorious. There is just nothing that motivates so much as knowing that you are in serious trouble; that the opponent is classy and relentless and that you will have to play at 120% level just to come out of the match unscathed and not feeling like a total failure.

 

So that’s all fine and dandy (the French being highly motivated) but I nevertheless have my doubts whether this is going to be enough this time round. The current New Zealand team is intensely focussed after 24 years of failure to cap being the top ranking team in the world with the trophy in the cupboard.

 

France was undoubtedly one of the biggest flops of this tournament. There were some other flops like Quade Cooper, England, Fiji, the refereeing and Jonny Wilkinson.

 

Quade Cooper went into the World Cup brimming with confidence. His wheels began to come off when he was targeted as a defensive weakness by Ireland in their 15-6 victory in Auckland. Robbie Deans attempted to hide Cooper at fullback but he had some shockers against both SA and NZ in the quarter and semi-finals respectively.

 

England’s whole tournament was a shocker on and off the field. They showed no respect for the jersey and were an embarrassment to the nation and all previous English test players.

 

Fiji after their superb display at the 2007 tournament in France, Fiji failed to live up to expectations and endured a torrid campaign in New Zealand.

 

The Refereeing in this tournament probably the worst of all world cup tournaments to date. There were a number of incidents like the James Hook’s disallowed penalty kick against South Africa, the Nigel Owens questionable calls during the Springboks’ 13-5 victory over Samoa but the climax of referee muck-ups without a doubt the Bryce Lawrence show in the quarter final between SA and Australia.

 

Jonny Wilkinson the star of England’s World Cup 2003 triumph in Australia struggled when kicking for goal and missed five penalty attempts in the 13-9 defeat of Argentina in Dunedin’s roofed stadium. He was left out of the squad against Georgia, but returned in the 67-3 rout of Romania. He helped his team to a tense 16-12 victory over Scotland but he endured an unhappy night in the 19-12 defeat to France and was eventually substituted in the 65th minute.

 

Other big events during the tournament were the Dan Carter injury, The Mike Tindall royal public smooch with a blonde and Sad Sack Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu tweeting war against the IRB.

 

The two semi-final matches were big disappointments for me. Wales could have been the story of the tournament but that was ruined by a red card while Australia clearly didn’t belong on the same field as New Zealand in the other semi-final match. I still haven’t made-up my mind on whether it was because New Zealand where so good on the day or whether Australia is just overated. This weekend’s match-up for bronze might tell us just how far Robbie Deans have come with this Australian team. I predict a Wales victory.

 

The final is unfortunately a non-event. Not that New Zealand is complaining.

 

New Zealand in the final analysis are going to be deserved winners but I will always remember this tournament as the tournament in which we was cheated out of an opportunity to defend our title against a truly worthy challenger and eventual champion New Zealand.

Rugby Union lost its soul?

Posted on by
2

I still just can’t get over that quarter final loss.   

The more I think about it the more I feel we were robbed. Yes, the referee was bad and wrong and yes we contributed to our demise with how we approached the game and by the appointment of a puppet as Springbok coach 4 years ago. However, all of that (poor referee, game plan, coach selection) and the Pool construction process at this year’s RWC is part of an insidious virus, in my opinion, which is destroying Rugby Union as we know it. It is this virus which orchestrated our demise in the RWC quarter final match against Australia.   

Chris Laidlaw in his book ‘Somebody stole my game’ wrote: “Whether we like it or not, the 2011 World Cup will make or break the long-term future of Rugby in New Zealand.”   

Seeing that and reading his thoughts on the crises the game has in New Zealand at grassroots level with player numbers and funding the whole Pool construction conspiracy as outlined by Conspirator is probably not such a farfetched idea.  

There is nothing as tasty for the mind as a good conspiracy theory to chew on. No doubt there was serious tampering with the Pool construction process for the 2011 RWC but it all culminated I think from professionalism (attempts to increase profit margins) and not from New Zealand’s need to win.   

Money and the broadcasting corporations are the real culprits here and not NZRU management.  

Think money during the Pool games. What would be more exciting for European viewers than a revenge match-up between France and New Zealand? How to keep the Northern hemisphere viewers turned in during the later stages of the tournament? Answer you make sure you have enough Northern hemisphere teams in the quarters, semi-finals and one in the finals. How to keep the Australian public interested and tuned-in? Answer make sure Australia stay in the contest. 

 

Springbok AND All Black rugby is in serious crisis, regardless of who wins the World Cup, and I reckon Australia is the main culprit.  

 

Australia does not have a player base or a domestic competition, and rugby as we know it is not played/taught in many schools in Australia. Australia needs Super Rugby and the Tri-nations/ Four Nations more than SA and NZ. Without it they have no competition or club/provincial structures to build from. 

Chris Laidlaw writes as follows regarding Australian rugby: “One of the most defining characteristics of Australians today is that they pride themselves on being hard-minded businessmen who can foot it in any company. There is an absence of sentimentality when it comes to business and that absence is reflected in the business of the rugby relationships. John O’Neil, a banker by trade, is a thoroughly engaging individual but he is utterly unsentimental when it comes to the interest of the ARU.   

Australia is desperate to enlarge the market for rugby domestically. It has agitated for more Super rugby franchises because they are far more dependent on Super rugby for developing their market than either NZ or SA.”  

By selling the All Blacks and the Boks to SANZAR we have undermined our own domestic rugby infrastructure to get broadcasting fees from an Australian Company, News Corporation. Meaningless Tri-nations fixtures do not capture the imagination of real rugby people in NZ or SA; they just generate TV rating for an Australian broadcasting company. These people care not about our game.  

What will sell to the Aussie public- dictates how the game is developed and approached in Australia. Since the professional era the ‘keep the ball alive’ heresy has been inflicted upon union rugby worldwide but especially in the Southern hemisphere. The problem with that is that the Southern hemisphere seems to dictate rule adjustments in world rugby. Furthermore S15 are all about money and pleasing spectators. Spectacular back line movements and a fast pace game has become the norm and none are more critical about the South African style of 10-man rugby than the Aussies. Rugby is being turned at an increasing rate into a league hybrid which is all about flashy fancy pants razzle and dazzle with orgasmic style yelling by television commentators whose main job and objective is to make it sound and look more spectacular than it really is.  

Rugby as one of South Africa’s and New Zealand’s All Black national institutions has changed dramatically, and is now in grave danger of becoming just a business, driven purely by the financial returns to shareholders in those company’s which have purchased broadcasting rights.  

Unfortunately rugby supporters do not seem to be looking at the deeper underlying causes of what is wrong with Springbok and All Black rugby. If we think carefully, it actually stems from what has gone wrong with our domestic rugby.  

These media driven influences are controlled, and motivated without any regard for the cultural structure that has facilitated the nurturing of great talent in South Africa and New Zealand. If the game is not nourished at the grassroots level, the game will crumble, and inevitably undermine the chances of the All Blacks or Springboks winning future world cups. We should blame ourselves for letting the situation get so bad.  

Just yesterday the New Zealand Herald featured two articles about the privatisation of the S15 franchises in New Zealand. The first article ‘Super Rugby outfits on market by end of year’ states that New Zealand Rugby Union chief executive Steve Tew said the board had given approval to continue working on ways to “sharpen up the governance” of the Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders.  

“We are short of fresh capital or equity in these businesses and we have to find some way of injecting that into it,” Tew said. 

“We’ve got an issue around the long-term financial survival of the franchises if the current economic environment continues and we’ve got to find a way of improving that.“ 

The board, which met in Auckland on Friday, agreed the NZRU should work towards inviting parties at the end of the year to express interest in holding a licence.  

It would be a similar set-up to the A-League, Australia’s professional soccer league that includes the Wellington Phoenix. The licence-holders would be able to try to recoup money through merchandising and commercial deals, though those would no doubt be vetted by the NZRU so as not to conflict with deals they already have in place.  

The second article ‘Super Rugby franchises up for grabs’ starts by saying that New Zealand’s five franchises – the Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders – are effectively owned by the NZRU but the organisation has decided that the financial model is broken.  

Tew was speaking in the knowledge that the model for the New Zealand domestic game cannot continue and that plans are under way which could result in radical changes.  

“A key priority for NZRU is ensuring professional rugby in New Zealand is financially sustainable,” he said.  

“A draft review has been sent to provincial unions and franchises for their feedback, before it is presented to the NZRU Board for discussion.  

While the NZRU board has yet to make any decisions concerning the draft findings and recommendation, the draft report clearly recognises the financial realities of the game and suggests recommendations on the future governance, ownership and financial viability of Super Rugby.  

Given that we are in the middle of the review process and reviewing feedback from provincial unions on the draft findings, it would not be appropriate to speculate further on specific options or outcomes.“

  

If given the green light, franchises could be owned by individuals in much the same way as professional rugby clubs are in Europe.  

Now all this sounds pretty innocent when looked at from a purely business perspective. The long-term implications on rugby however are ominous. This idea of private owners is of course based on the French model. Laidlaw writes: “French club rugby has become a major economic force in recent years. The larger clubs have become enormously powerful, too powerful for their won and the game’s good in many respects. French rugby has come to be dominated by a small group of exceptionally wealthy individuals who has bought up clubs, lock, stock and barrel, and who put commercial success ahead of any other consideration. “  

Considering the business powers involved in French rugby is it any surprise that this French team shown little national pride and evidence of cohesiveness and unity. In spite of that and the fact that they were by far the worst of all the top tier nations during this tournament they are in the 2011 RWC final. A co-incidence? Of course it is. There is just no way it could have anything to do with money.

  

Back to the impact of all this on Springbok rugby.  

The average Aussie is of the opinion that Australia can only be successful in rugby if they play a style very similar to League namely a fast tempo game in which the ball flash from hand to hand in spectacular movements. That is why rucking, contested lineouts, rolling mauls, have been eliminated (Rod MacQueen former Oz coach is on the IRB rules committee). Australians have never been good at the nitty gritty side of rugby, so they removed it from the game. This is a crime.  

We in NZ have to have pay TV, or we are reduced to watching highlights on Australian Prime TV almost a day after the game. Something is very wrong if the people with a stake in New Zealand provincial teams need to pay Australians to edit the highlights they get to watch a day after the event.  

Australia is the only country that benefits from the Tri-nations tournament. I say withdraw the All Blacks, withdraw the Boks and leave them to rot, they are destroying the game we learned to play. Stuff the money, we need to play hard ball. Australia needs us a lot more than we need them.  

Imagine a test series Boks v ABs, provincial games mid-afternoon, who cares if Australians does not want to watch?  

We need to make these decisions now because we already sit in a situation that rugby is in the hands of sponsors and multi-national media interests, which are infringing on the cultural soul of the game, and corrupting our national identity and sporting values. Commercialism is threatening to make the final cut from the Corinthian values that have defined rugby.  

If rugby is reduced to a franchised branch of the entertainment industry by Australian media interests, its social significance in our respective countries will decline. When domestic and international rugby becomes a media managed experience, the connection between players and the public is not as close as it has historically been in our countries. The sense of us all having a stake in our team is replaced by the players need to justify their money, rather than the team expressing our hopes and collective desire with the ball.  

The game will get changed from the top down and on grassroots level clubs will have to amalgamate or cease to exist. The surviving clubs will be at the mercy of the big franchises and they will start to live of the scraps spilling from table. Only those franchises and clubs that attract viewers will survive and to attract viewers you need to win and do so in a style that resonate with the fickle viewers who seek nothing else than fancy pants razzle dazzle stuff.  

It will become same-old-same-old flap-flap recycle boring stuff a la league rugby which will mean the end of the fatties in rugby and the end of traditional Springbok rugby. 

SA rugby where to from here?

Posted on by
21

 

Read and interesting article by Jake White today on being Springbok coach and why things went wrong in this RWC campaign. I know some don’t like Jake and that he sometimes just seems to try too hard to be Springbok coach but he went off pretty well as an expert panellist before games on TV here in NZ. He was interesting to listen to and talked a lot of sense.

 

His main thrust in this article is also not to criticize Peter de Villiers but to provide his genuine perspective on SA rugby.

 

He starts off with the following remarks when it comes to Peter de Villiers: “I have a great deal of sympathy for Bok coach Peter de Villiers. The expectations of a nation just add to the heavy load the man had to carry. My feeling is that SA Rugby now needs to take time to reflect what happened and not to blame De Villiers for their own failings. I feel for him. De Villiers now has to stand out there on his own and take all the flak.”

 

He continues by saying: “Now there is talk of a committee evaluating New Zealand 2011 and then going through the whole rigmarole of appointing a replacement for De Villiers in the New Year. It’s a chilling thought when you realise that the committee will be pretty much the same bunch of individuals who decided on De Villiers in the first place. SA rugby urgently needs to understand that their decisions have an impact on the on-field performances for, as cycling great Lance Armstrong said, “the Tour de France is won off the bike”.

 

Yes. Armstrong’s book is entitled; “It’s not about the bike.” It’s not the tools/equipment or the size of your players who are going to win the world cup or test matches for us.

 

Traditionally South African rugby have relied on the big strong boys to run over the opponents and scrum them into the ground and if that didn’t worked they kicked high into the air and rushed –up to apply pressure. That tactic doesn’t work anymore. It’s the modern era of technical analysis, constant rule changes, state of the art training methods, careful planning and being smarter than your opponent on the field. New Zealand clinched a comprehensive victory against Australia in the semi-final not with brutal force and crash, bang and smash tactics but because they were smarter than them. They had a game plan –which the players followed to a T- which neutralised the Aussies strength and forced them into a kicking game.

 

We on the other hand lost against Aussie with 70% plus of the ball and territory because we went into the game without a clear plan on how to beat them. We went on the field with the idea we’ll just keep the ball and run at them.

 

I therefore agree with Jake’s assessment when he states that: “This World Cup was lost by SA Rugby with the decisions they made four years ago.”

 

To truly understand the above remark by Jake White you need to read the following sick tale by Mark Keone of just how Peter de Villiers was appointed: End of an error by Mark Keone.

 

It is absolutely sickening stuff this tale of scheming and manipulation that lead to the appointment of Peter de Villiers. The scheming, deceiving and self-righteous characters like of Riaan Oberholzer, Keone and their conspirators should be kept as far as possible from rugby in SA and the appointment of the new coach in my opinion.

 

It is absolutely essential that SA Rugby appoints a coach now that is smart enough to take us forward. We need a strategist with sound rugby knowledge and coaching experience at the highest level and who have the respect of both the players and all the S15 coaches in the country. As things stand now, the Springboks have to start all over again from a base of zero.

 

Yes they have Bismark and Jannie du Plessis, Pierre Spies, Chilliboy Ralepelle, Juan Smith, Schalk Burger, Jean de Villiers, Jaque Fourie, JP Pietersen and Frans Steyn. But don’t lose sight of the fact that we had them in 2007, says Jake White.

 

We all know there is an abundance of talent in South Africa. But such is the case in New Zealand and that will always be the case with New Zealand rugby, while Australia has the youngest squad at the World Cup.

 

These two rugby nations are our top rivals every year and they have the best exercise fitness trainers and the best coaches to take them forward. People appointed by a committee without political and personal agendas and who make appointments based on track records and proven ability. We need to get out of that mind-set that the ‘bike’ or the talent and size of our players are going to do it for us.

 

The ball is in the hands of those stooges who appointed Peter de Villiers 4 years ago. The fact that no real candidate has put up his hand to take the coaching job so far is a reflection on them. It reflects, for me, that the good coaches don’t feel comfortable with happened 4 years ago in terms of the scheming, deceiving and manipulative operational power that egocentric pricks hiding in the shadows have in SA rugby.

 

Can we feel comfortable about the future of SA rugby with people like Keone and Obersholzer lurking in the shadows and considering how badly our ‘B-team’ played and lost in the away leg of the tri-nation this year?

 

I lost a lot of confidence in SA rugby after reading the Mark Keone ego trip entitled: End of an error. South African rugby I believe is at a cross road. We are either going get rid of these administrative douche-bags or allow them to proceed to pull SA rugby further and further down the slope called the international raking order until we are no longer a country with any rugby credibility.

 

Appointment of the wrong coach now will see us lose more and more of our stalwarts; great players disappearing into the money pockets of Europe. The lower we slide down the hierarchal mountain of international standings the more players we’ll lose, the more chaos we’ll start to see on administrative level and the more political interference will start to happen and consequently the harder it will be for us to get back to the top; the proverbial vicious cycle.

 

It’s about creating an environment which is attractive for top coaches and players. Why would a coach like Gert Small or Mallet want to get involved again in SA rugby considering the amount of money they can earn in Europe and considering the amount egocentric pricks they will need to deal with and who are constantly lurking and contriving and plotting their downfall for personal reasons behind the scenes? How can you be your own man and not end up as a puppet if you get appointed by those scheming devils in the first place and if your future are secondly dependent on their continuous goodwill?

 

John Mitchell is paid a fortune to coach the Lions; the same with Plumtree at the Sharks. Why give up that money to go and coach the Springboks were you have to deal with quota issues and be exposed to the behind the scene sickening plotting as exposed in the mentioned Keone saga.

 

A lot of people are angry with Bryce Lawrence. I am absolutely vivid with anger with Keone, Oberholzer and Nayo as well as with the rest of the committee who were taken for a ride by this bunch 4 years ago.

 

I hope SARU gets it right this time but they’ve got only themselves to blame for the mess they have to sort right now.

Outstanding All Blacks

Posted on by
22

An All Black team looking pretty serious and a lot less cocky than 4 years ago demonstrated last night that they’ve matured into a team that can play tournament rugby.

They came out with the right tactics and put on a clinical display in accordance to a well thought-out script by a team of coaches who worked 8 years overall at it. The last 4 years with meticulous care to recify/prevent mistakes made on the first attempt.

The game plan for this match was clearly to take Pocock out of the match by keeping it close and by rucking with aggression, power and numbers whenever the ball goes wide. The other tactic was to force Pocock to make the tackles and then ruck over him with numbers. Pocock looked flustered and apart from maybe one or two steals he was essentially no factor in this match.

The fact that he was targeted or that a whole game plan was developed around him probably a compliment to his ability at the tackle ball. The New Zealand team obviously decided that every individual are going to contribute to make sure that Pocock is no factor. The aggression, intensity and commitment at the ruck were something to behold. Everyone pitched in and you could see how they geared into super boost every time the ball went to ground. It was almost like they’ve made a pact that Aussie will not win one single ruck.

Gone was the obsessiveness with razzle and dazzle running rugby. The focus on defence and not on attack. The focus when running with the ball also more defensively orientated namely to keep the ball; to force penalties and to keep the scoreboard ticking. Cruden even got a partisan elaborate cheer for a dropgoal from a crowd well renowned to boo dropgoals.

The referee was outstanding and we saw both Aussie and NZ players getting pinned quickly and decisively for infringements at the breakdowns.

Aussie was totally outplayed at the collisions, the scrums and the line-outs by a New Zealand side playing smart rugby like a well-oiled machine.

It was interesting to note how the New Zealand rugby commentators and media people are lately also starting to use the word ‘fetcher’ when refering to the likes of Pocock and Brussow. New Zealand has a slightly different approach with regard to loose forwards. They consider them as an attacking and defensive combination and not as three individuals with different skill sets and tasks namely one being a ball carrier, the other being a ‘fetcher’ and the No8 having a roaming role. Maybe Kimbo would so kind as to give us a bit more information on the New Zeland views regarding the loose trio.

The breakdown is so intervowen or intergated in the New Zealand pattern/style of play that competting at the breakdown and creating frontfoot momentum at the tackle is considered an ‘every player’ task/skill like tackling. It was this collective energy and comitment (‘bees to the honey comb’ they like to call it) at the collisions and ground ball that was, in my mind, the foundation for this oustanding All Black performance. They did not rely on the referee to sort Pocock (and he did on one or two occations) but took responsibilty as a team to own the breakdowns.

Lastly in terms of my previous post on the red card of Warburton. Check-out this tackle by Kahui on Cooper.

 If Cooper took his hand of the ground and put that hand on the ball we would have seen his head lower than his legs and that would have mean it’s a spear tackle. Circumstances (quick reactions) prevented this from being ‘classed’ as dangerous.

This is how blurred the lines between a red card and no card can be.

How long before the players start to manipulate circumstances like this to milk red cards in important matches? A Judo-like hand slab on the ground followed by a sharp twist so that his shoulder went into the ground first could have been used by Cooper in this situation to milk a red card.

RWC 2011 – Mother of all referee muck-ups

Posted on by
42

No matter the outcome of tonight’s semi-final match and who eventually win this tournament this 2011 RWC will be remembered as the mother of all referee muck-ups.

 

If Australia and France where to play in the final I won’t even watch it because neither of those two teams deserve to be there. Roll that into a zoll Paddy O’Brien and smoke it.

 

A New Zealand victory over Aussie would ensure a pretty one-sided final which should see the All Blacks running away with it.

 

It will no doubt give the All Blacks immense satisfaction to annihilate the French a second time in this tournament on the back of the 2007 controversial quarter final loss but it will not be a match that will elicit great expectations or excitement around the rugby world.

 

The All Blacks should assemble an unassailable lead within the first 20 minutes in such a match up and apart from Kiwi supporters the rest of the world will lose interest and switch to other channels for something more interesting to watch.

 

It will therefore be a bit of a hollow victory -not that the kiwis will complain- due to the muck-ups made by referees in this tournament.

 

The sad thing about this tournament is that it’s the referees that will be remembered and not the rugby or rugby players. Every RWC tournament so far have produced super stars or players that were immortalized by the tournament itself; in 87 it was John Kirwan with his try against Italy and Blanco with his try that secured the French a place in the final and which took the Aussies out of the competition; in 95 it was Jonu Lomu; in 1991 it was David Campese; in 1999 it was Jannie de Beer with his 5 drop goals against England; in 2003 it was Johnny Wilkinson; in 2007 it was Victor Matfield and so forth.

 

At this stage no player stands out for the 2011 tournament. Instead two referees have immortalized themselves and will for ever be remembered due to their influences on the outcomes of two critical matches and the tournament. It makes one wonder about the power of the modern day referee. Apart from the Aussie/SA debacle and this red yard in last nights match we also have the sad sack Sapolu affair that sprang to life after the SA/Samoa match.

 

It has always been my belief that the referee should not be the centre of attention and that a characteristic of a good referee is that he/she is invisible.

 

Since the introduction of yellow/red cards and lately the new break down rule interpretation referees have become the main talking points after matches due to them being the main determinants of the outcome of matches.

 

I’ve seen to many matches ruined by red and yellow cards and lately by referee decision made at the breakdowns. Both these two areas of refereeing are in need of serious attention, in my opinion.

 

Referees seem to lose perspective and forget that rugby matches are supposed to be a contest and not a rugby rulebook tutorial/demonstration or educational dvd. Card trigger happy referees seem to be the norm today. Dishing out a card should be an absolute last resort after repeated offences and should be enforced only after consultation with both the two ‘touchies’ and the video ref in my opinion.

 

Surely, accidental offences which saw no real harm done to players involved should be weighed against the importance of the match situation. A red card in a match that will determine who play in the final of a RWC tournament should not even be on the cards so to speak. The message to referees at quarters, semi and finals matches of RWC tournaments should be that we want a contest no a display of referee power and a red or yellow card could mean the end of your referee career.

 

The breakdown rule and/or how its officiated need to be changed as well because mark my words the New Zealand/Australia semi-final tonight (with Pocock and McCaw playing) are at risk to also be ruined by referee decision making at the breakdown and consequently a card.

 

Sadly -no matter what happens tonight- it is already too late. New Zealand’s tournament and their possible second RWC win in 24 years has already been marred by referees.

 

Read here for a detailed analysis of referee muck-ups during this tournament: http://www.rugby-talk.com/?p=36982&cpage=1#comment-171222

 

It is a sad outcome to what should have been a magnificent tournament.

Thirteen reasons why we lost

Posted on by
54

Halfway through a frustrating night -during which I didn’t sleep well due to the massive disappointment of SA dropping out of the 2011 RWC- I started to see some reasons why we lost. 

The thing that kept me awake most was the fact that we had 76% of the ball, dominated scrums and line-out (Matfield taking 6 of their line-out ball), had territorial advantage for most of the match and had them under massive pressure for almost the entire match and still lost the game. 

Here are the 13 reasons I came up during my night of suffering.  Continue reading →