Category Archives: RWC2011

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.

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 →

Two crucial mistakes

Posted on by
28

The last time I was so disappointed after a sporting contest was when the Proteas lost that ODI with the last ball against Australia in the semi-finals of the 1999 (thanks Dar) Cricket World Cup.

We were by far the better team on the field today but two crucial mistakes cost us the match. The first was the turnover ball that lead to Australia’s try. That turnover resulted because the support runners were too flat and lateral. Brussow in this case tripped and lost his position -opening the hole for Aussie to compete at that ruck- because he was too lateral and flat. This limitation in our game -of support being too lateral and flat- haunted us throughout this match in fact through-out the Tri-nations and EOYT over the last four years and in this RWC against Wales and Samoa. I wrote about it repeatedly but it was the one flaw in our ball carry that the coaching staff just couldn’t see.

The other mistake was of course the Danie Rossouw penalty. What was he thinking? Right in front of the touch judge in a kickable position!

The boks played themselves to a standstill. Fact that we couldn’t win the result of lack of starter moves and not having run enough with the ball in the 4 years leading up to this tournament.

Huge respect for the Springbok team. They were great tonight but we lost this RWC in 2008 when the current coaching staff was appointed. Attention to detail wins you test matches at the highest level and there was just not enough attention to detail through-out the tenure of this bunch.

The entire SARU management should be fired.

RWC Quarters – What’s our chances?

Posted on by
21

I found the following remark in one article.

 

As Peter de Villiers explained, the Springboks were aware of the over robust play of the Samoans and decided to kick possession back at the Samoans after half time, so that the Springboks were no longer targets of the head high tackles. It was a ploy to keep the injury rate down.

 

Anyone with brains can see that this is exactly what the Springboks did. They were in no danger of losing the match because if they wished they could have gone back into the tight mauls, kept possession, forced penalties and scrums got the three pointers if their lead were threatened. They did just enough to win – in fact they did not even need to win anyway.

 

The Samoans played like desperados and were given possession purposely by the Boks, but could only score one try – off a knock-on. An actual try by the Boks was not given because of lack of evidence. Stop knocking the Springboks – their discipline had been good so far and they have played some real power rugby, which they can turn on in an instance. No one wants to admit it, but they are actually the team to beat.

 

Well this certainly put a different perspective on all this irksome whingeing by the Samoans and their supporters. I’ve lost count on the amount of times I heard how unlucky the Samoans was to lose out on being in the quarters. Let’s put it straight; they were not unlucky even in the slightest sense. They were never in a position to win the match against South Africa. Furthermore for them to get into the quarters they needed to win with 4 tries (bonus point) and the divide between them and four tries in the match was as sizable as the distance between North and South Pole.

 

This also put a different perspective on the Springbok tactics in the Samoa match as I was convinced that the Springbok management group had a brain fart and approached the second half with the wrong game strategy.

 

Regarding the Springboks and their approach towards the RWC Peter Bills writes as follows in the NZ Herald:

 

The hosts (NZ that is) look formidable, but their toughest challenge will come from the old foe.

 

Three-quarters of the way through the pool stage of the 2011 tournament, only two teams standout, the All Blacks and the Springboks. It was ever thus in world rugby’s pecking order.

 

The Springboks are the only team who have so far given a clear indication that they could match the New Zealanders. Their brutally clinical dispatching of Fiji and Namibia gave a hint of what still remains in their arsenal.

 

True, they stuttered and were dead lucky to beat Wales. But it was a first match and they have played convincingly since. They need to reproduce that form against Samoa in Auckland on Friday night.

 

South Africa standout because they are the one side that contains the physical might to force the All Blacks on to the back foot. And as we saw again from the New Zealanders on Saturday night, if they get on to the front foot, they maximise the opportunity to score with a ruthless, clinical efficiency.

 

At their best, the Springboks have the forwards to hammer any opposition pack. They have the big, powerful runners around the fringes to ask questions of the New Zealand defence. And they have huge, strong men in midfield able to smash down runners like Ma’a Nonu and Conrad Smith on the gain line. So far in this tournament, Nonu has been rampant, running through or around just about every opponent in sight. Someone has to stop him and a defence of steel on the gain line is the only way.

 

Whatever vagaries may yet further light up the tournament, it increasingly appears South Africa will meet New Zealand in the semi-final. Increasingly, too, it looks likely that whoever wins that contest will become World Champions.

 

The six aspects crucial for South Africa to win this RWC are defence, attack, discipline, goal kicking keeping possession and dominating the collisions.

 

Defensively the Springboks have been severely tested by Samoa and Wales making in excess of 300 tackles in those two matches.

 

The importance of defence becomes abundantly clear when you look at the RWC history. You would think a team that can blow opponents away with lots of tries and a mountain of points would probably be a good bet to be champions.

 

Only once in six editions of the Rugby World Cup has the team with the most points at the end of the pool stage gone on to win namely NZ in 1987.

 

Before the Springboks’ RWC 2011 opener against Wales Dick Muir had the following response to criticism that South Africa did not play enough open rugby.

 

“You’d love to be scoring tries and playing a more flamboyant style, but it’s about winning at the end of the day. Nobody remembers the tries,” said Muir, giving a clear insight into the Springboks’ priorities. “You’re always wanting to score more tries but it’s more about winning games than just scoring tries.“

 

Muir’s safety-first approach was vindicated only day later when SA scraped home against Wales 17-16.

 

The old rugby adage of ‘attack is the best form of defence’ goes only so far, and the knockout stage of a World Cup tends not to be one of those places. Here, ‘defence is the best form of defence’ is more appropriate.

 

“If you have a look at the last six World Cup finals, only nine tries have been scored,” continued Muir. “It’s down to pressure and down to opportunities, the higher the level you get, the less opportunities there are available to you.“

 

Creating opportunities (open expansive rugby) are a risky endeavour. It is hard to restrict opponents when you start throwing the ball around. Restricting opponents’ scoring chances, while putting your own points on the board is the key and the Springboks have proved very able to force penalties (with mauls and by stepping-up phase play when required) during the knock-out stages.

 

The Springboks two RWC victories to date have both come in tryless finals, 15-12 against New Zealand in 1995 and 15-6 against England in 2007 – clear cases of them restricting opponents while still managing to take their own chances.

 

Keeping things tight at RWC 2011 has not only given the Springboks four pool wins out of four, but also the best defensive record from the pool phase – conceding just 24 points, 10 fewer than the next stingiest defences of England, Ireland and Wales.

 

These statistics could be a worrying sign for South Africa’s Tri Nations rivals Australia (48 points conceded) and New Zealand (49), both exponents of a more expansive game, who possess the sixth and seventh best records respectively. Among the quarter-finalists, only France (96) has an inferior defensive record at this RWC.

 

On attack the Springboks have shown that they can score tries and keep the ball alive. I was particularly impress with the off-loads utilized during the Fiji match to keep the ball alive and to create space for the backs.

 

The discipline on defence was outstanding and the ‘boks were the least penalized of all the top teams in the pool rounds. They also were strangely more penalised on attack than on defence, which tells that they handled the pressure in a much disciplined manner.

 

Goal kicking; Morné Steyn has thus far been the stand-out kicker of the tournament.

 

South Africa has also been able to test their bench during the knock-outs and have clarity that in Bismarck du Plessis, Francois Hougaard, Willem Alberts and Beast Mtwarira they have players who can make impact from the bench.

 

The two areas of concern for me so far are the Springboks ability to hang on to the ball (structure, numbers and supportive lines) at the collisions when we carry the ball and starter moves from set piece.

 

The game tactics against Aussie is therefore going to be crucial. I don’t think kicking the ball down the throat of the Aussie backline would be sensible tactics.

 

The battle at the breakdown are going to be intense and our tactical kicking or ability to pin them into the corners as well as shutting down Cooper and Genia critical to get past the Aussies into the semi-finals.

 

We need to dominate the collisions to prevent Genia and Cooper to get front foot ball in order to shut them down. Starter moves done with speed and confidence would also be crucial for us to force them on the back foot at the tackle so that we can hang on to the ball.

 

Peter de Villiers and his cronies might have steered the ship better than a lot of us thought (me definitely). The next game will tell, I believe.

 

It’s going to be a cracker and I think I’ll need a few beta-blockers just to keep me calm.

Can NZ win the RWC without Carter?

Posted on by
58

Jeremy Paul the ex-Aussie hooker made an interesting comment after the NZ/Canada game namely that on the evidence of the Canada game NZ would not be able to win the RWC.

Weepu was not convincing on 10 neither was Slade. The rest of the NZ game was, in my, appreciation pretty good. They lost some form in the second half -which is understandable considering the scoreboard at that stage- which is a concern because they’ll have less time and space against quality opposition.

Paul obviously has the NZ/Aus Brisbane game in mind where the Wallabies secured a win by cutting down the space of the NZ halfbacks.

Putting the NZ halfbacks under pressure and winning (or at least squaring) the breakdown battle is the only way to beat NZ. Both SA and Aussie can do that with the likes of Poccock and Brussow in the respective teams.

Cowan had an average game against Canada as did Weepu and Slade. Aussies problem is that I don’t think their set piece is strong enough while they also struggle with some injuries in the back line which is their main strike force.

The NZ back three is lethal independent who play but their effectiveness depend too a large extend on the halfbacks having front foot ball and space.

Paul has a point, I think. The way to beat NZ in this RWC would be (now even more than before) to put the NZ halfbacks under pressure.

Dominating or being competitive against NZ in the set piece would be key to accomplish that and there is one team that can do that (competing against NZ at set piece and putting their half backs under sufficient pressure) and that is SA.

SA will however need to sort out their ineffectiveness/problems in controlling the ball at the rucks.

The backline also need to take a serious look at running angles like the Samoans did when running with the ball. Off-loads –like against Fiji- before we go into contact is also key to beating the All Blacks.

SA’s tactical kicking and defence would be crucial but even more important would be our ability to hang onto the ball. If the Springboks can’t sort that (ability to hang on to the ball) we’ll not beat the AB because the box kicks will not work with the current NZ back three.

Forcing play into the corners and avoiding going to ground by using off-load as we hit contact as well as angled running in the backline is in my mind key to SA winning this RWC.

We have a sniff now with Carter injured but SA coaches have to take a serious look at how Samoa ran the ball at us (the angled runners with the outside players coming in against the traffic) and we need to work on our support coming from depth (as opposed being lateral) when we take the ball up so we can utilize off-loads at contact to create space and take Poccock and McCaw out of the game.

In summary; I think the injury to Carter made NZ more vulnerable but it will still require a special team and monstrous effort to beat this NZ team. 

Maddening defensive mode almost cost boks the game

Posted on by
60

Don’t you just hate it when the Springboks go into their infuriating defensive mode of play?

Truth is the boks was never really at risk of losing the game and it was almost like a big boy holding a little kid at arms length while the little guy punch himself to a stand still.

 

The last couple of days required extreme patience from South Africans here in NZ. It took quite some maturity to stay relaxed and calm in the face of the overbearing arrogance and confidence exhibited by the Samoan supporters here in NZ.

 

Listening to them you would have thought they are the world champions and a team who have beaten every other rugby nation/team on the continent (as oppossed to the Springboks who have actually done it) so assured where they that they were going to win the match. The pre-match gamesmanship like having a team talk before doing their Haka just an example of an overbearing cocksureness that really should be the privilage of competitors that have done the hard yards and who have the track record and ability to utilze such tactics too gain advantage. If primary school kids pulls such antics against high school kids it is out of place and utterly useless because it will make no difference whatsoever to the outcome of the match.  

 

The Springboks with their defensive mode actually allowed Samoa to look far better than they really are.

 

The boks absolutely dominated set piece (scrums and lineouts) but stopped playing after taking a 13-0 lead early in the first half. The fact that the Springboks scored no point in the second half is mostly the result of constantly kicking the ball away and never really trying to run with the ball.

 

The boks brain-trust clearly had a brain fart half time as they came out in the second half with the wrong game tactics. The leadership on the field was also lacking. The key to this game was to play off set piece and to control the ball. Starter moves of set piece and forcing play into the corners was the way to go.

 

The high kicks were not working with Paul Williams brilliant under the high ball so why persist with it?

 

The Springboks tried one starter move off set piece in the first half and it almost worked with Habana just missing the catch. Why didn’t they try that more instead of keeping on kicking the ball away and losing the ball in the rucks as a result of static ‘podding’?

 

The positive of this match is undoubtedly our set piece, our defence and the fact that we won but we were absolutely horrible on attack and our attitude towards the game (defensive and safety first as well as our one dimensional approach on attack) was disappointing.

 

The referee did not have a good game and Samoa was enterprising with the ball in hand but the Samoan try was no try with a clear knock on just before the try was scored. The Samoans also utilized obstructive runners and blockers close to the set piece allowing their No 10 to double around and creating space out wide. The referee did not pick that up and the John Smit yellow card just one big blunder in my mind. The key to that incident was the fact that Smit had his palm facing skywards and his hand moving upwards and not downwards when he made contact with the ball. He was clearly going for the intercept and not deliberately trying to knock it down.

 

All and al I am relieved that we won but extremely disappointed with the way the boks played this game. I believe we had the set piece dominance and striking power to beat these jokers by at least 30 points. The fact that we were too scared to play positive rugby probably a result of our fear to lose.

 

What annoys me most is the fact that Samoa walks out of this match still with a chip on the shoulder and regarded by the media as the real winners because of their daring and enterprising display with ball in hand.

 

You go and ask any kid on the street who played the better rugby and they will say Samoa. This is exasperating irksome because the Springboks are capable of far better rugby than we saw in this match.

 

I understand the concepts of defence win rugby matches and why take risks if you can win without it but bloody hell what about the idea of playing to your true potential?

Mark Reason on the England team

Posted on by
17

 

Mark Reason the man who wrote the article about the All Blacks cheating at the break down came out with another controversial statement yesterday.

 

Essentially he is expressing dissatisfaction with the make-up of the England rugby team. Indicating that it’s full of hired-guns and that the rules have been bent since the advent of professionalism to allow players from one countries to play test rugby in another country.

 

Being a New Zealand citizen (although originally from England) he is probably the last one to talk considering the history of New Zealand utilizing South Pacific Island players like Frank Bunce, Bryan Williams, Jono Lomu and so forth.

 

Reason wrote:

 

What does team mean?

 

Half a century and a world ago, the men who played for the local soccer team were a part of the community. You had a beer with them down the local pub. You might even have a job working alongside a few of them. Some sold insurance, some worked down the pits. But you knew them.

 

More recently rugby supporters would still have a beer with the players on a Saturday night after the game. It made them feel closer to the team and the players less remote. But then professionalism came along and the players were hauled off to schmooze the sponsors.

 

Less and less is the team part of the community. More and more is it an adjunct of business. I am not sure that this is what sport should be about. I am not sure why supporting a football team full of ridiculously paid foreign mercenaries should still fulfil a primitive tribal urge.

 

But at least playing for your country still seemed to mean something. The All Blacks are an important part of New Zealand and the Springboks have been a huge force in South African culture. But it is hard to say the same about England. They have become opportunist to a shameful degree.

 

Manu Tuilagi is a Samoan who came to England on a holiday visa and stayed illegally. Thomas Waldrom is a New Zealander who realised he would not play for his country while Kieran Read was No 8 and so became an economic migrant. He thought he would have to wait three years to fulfil the ludicrous residency rule, but then he discovered a grandmother.

 

Martin Johnson has said he will pick anyone so long as they are good. Once upon a time the RFU would never have allowed such nonsense, but now they would sell their own grandmothers into slavery if it meant Daniel Carter could play for England and put a few more million on the bottom line.

I have no doubt that modern sport has saved many a man from a grim working life. But it has also become tarnished over the years.

 

And I hope Scotland win by eight points this weekend. This is an unlovely England side of mixed nationality that does not deserve your support.

 

I must say he has a point and part of England’s problem in both cricket and rugby is the tendency of English sport clubs to buy/contract international stars from foreign countries to play for them at the cost of developing young local talent.

Money calls the shots and it’s like there is no real integrity and honour any more. Players will go where they get opportunity and would always prefer to play for the best team if they can get into it hence Frank Bunce moving from Samoa (where he played his first RWC) to New Zealand.

If we leave to the players they will travel and accept nationality just to be part of the top rugby echelon. Coaches will do the same. Robbie Deans is coaching the enemy to beat the team he played for and who he coached.

Gatland is coaching Wales and Scotland has and English international coaching them.

So if you want to prevent player migration and getting test status in another country what about coaches?

Reason being an Englishman himself could probably be complimented for his stance against England’s but one has to ask is this stance because he want to keep the English team ‘pure’ or out of fear for the challenge that the ‘bastard’ English team pose for his new country?

Being a Englishman who have forsaken his own roots and adopted citizenship in another country one wonders about the old truism ‘Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass castle’.

I got the following information regarding make-up of RWC squads playing in the 2011 tournament.

 

Samoa is the greatest recipient of New Zealand’s rugby heritage and rugby development structure, with 15 of their squad from the land of the long white cloud.

 

It’s a pretty good swap for the ‘Ikale Tahi: 15 in and giving back three of the four All Blacks players not born in New Zealand (Mils Muliaina, Salelesi, Samoa; Jerome Kaino, Tutuila, Samoa; and Isaia Toeava, Moto’otua, Samoa). The only other player in the ABs squad not from New Zealand is ‘Ocker-born’ Ben Franks (Frankston, Australia).

 

Some 38 New Zealand-born players in foreign rugby squads far exceed the contributions made by Tri-Nations counterparts Australia and South Africa (13 each).

 

Australia of course has a New Zealander at the pivotal first-five possie – Quade Cooper – the Tokoroa boy. But being born here definitely doesn’t automatically earn support from NZ fans. His run ins with All Black captain Richie McCaw see him with a ‘hate that man’ target square on his back.

Home grown honours are held by Argentina, Georgia and Romania.

 

Of the real big guns though, it’s South Africa who dip the least – Tendai Mtawarira the only foreign born player (Harare, Zimbabwe).

 

Countries who don’t share their toys are France, Georgia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Namibia, Romania, Russia and Wales with no players in other squads.

 

Players born in other countries

 

Argentina: All born in Argentina

 

Australia: Dan Vickerman (Cape Town, South Africa), Radike Samo (Nadi, Fiji), Will Genia (Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea), Stephen Moore (Khamis, Saudi Arabia), David Pocock (Messina, South Africa), Quade Cooper (Auckland, New Zealand), Digby Ioane (Wellington, New Zealand)

 

Canada: Nanyak Dala (Jos, Nigeria), DTH (Daniel Tailliferre Hauman) van der Merwe (Worcester, South Africa), Jeremy Kyne (Wellington, New Zealand), Jamie Mackenzie (Troon, Scotland), James Pritchard (Parkes, Australia)

 

England: Joe Simpson (Sydney, Australia), Delon Armitage (San Fernando, Trinidad & Tobago), Alex Corbisiero (New York, USA), Matt Stevens (Durban, South Africa), Dylan Hartley (Rotorua, New Zealand), Simon Shaw (Nairobi, Kenya), Shontayne Hape (Auckland, New Zealand), Manu Tuilagi (Moto’otua, Samoa)

 

Fiji: Nicky Little (Tokoroa, New Zealand), Campese Ma’afu (Sydney, Australia), Deacon Manu (New Plymouth, New Zealand), Vitori Tomu Buatava (Melbourne, Australia), Michael Tagicakibau (Auckland, New Zealand)

 

France: Thierry Dusautoir (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire), Fulgence Ouedraogo (Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso)

 

Georgia: All Georgian-born.

 

Ireland: Ronan O’Gara (San Diego, USA), Isaac Boss (Tokoroa, New Zealand), Jamie Heaslip (Tiberias, Israel), Tom Court (Brisbane, Australia)

 

Italy: Carlo Del Fava (Umtata, South Africa), Corniel van Zyl (Nelspruit, South Africa), Quintin Geldenhuys (Klerksdorp, South Africa), Martin Castrogiovanni (Paraná, Argentina), Pablo Canavosio (Córdoba, Argentina), Luciano Orquera (Córdoba, Argentina), Gonzalo Garcia (Mendoza, Argentina), Robert Barbieri (Toronto, Canada), Sergio Parisse (Mar del Plata, Argentina), Gonzalo Canale (Córdoba, Argentina), Luke McLean (Townsville, Australia)

 

Japan: Luke Thompson (Christchurch, New Zealand), Michael Leitch (Burwood, New Zealand), Ryukoliniasi Holani (Nuku’alofa, Tonga), Shaun Webb (Blenheim, New Zealand), Justin Ives (Mosgiel, New Zealand), Sione Talikavili Vatuvei (Nuku’alofa, Tonga), James Arlidge (Hamilton, New Zealand), Murray Williams (Lower Hutt, New Zealand), Ryan Nicholas (Broken Hill, Australia), Alisi Tupuailai (Manunu, Samoa)

 

Namibia: Jacques Nieuwenhuis (Brakpan, South Africa), Piet van Zyl (Worcester, South Africa), Danie Dames (Pretoria, South Africa), Chrysander Botha (Walvis Bay, South Africa), Conrad Marais (Walvis Bay, South Africa) Note: At the time of their birth Walvis Bay was South African territory.

 

New Zealand: Mils Muliaina (Salelesi, Samoa), Ben Franks (Frankston, Australia), Jerome Kaino (Tutuila, Samoa), Isaia Toeava (Moto’otua, Samoa)

 

Romania: All Romania born.

 

Russia: Adam Byrnes (Sydney, Australia), Vyacheslav Grachev (Tashkent, Uzbekistan)

 

Samoa: Census Johnston (Auckland, New Zealand), Anthony Perenise (Wellington, New Zealand), Olé Avei (Wellington, New Zealand), Daniel Leo (Palmerston North, New Zealand), Kane Thompson (Paraparaumu, New Zealand), Kahn Fotuali’i (Auckland, New Zealand), Jeremy Sua (Wellington, New Zealand), Tusi Pisi (Auckland, New Zealand), Sailosi Tagicakibau (Auckland, New Zealand), James So’oialo (Wellington, New Zealand), Ti’i Paulo (Christchurch, New Zealand), Filipo Lavea Levi (Hamilton, New Zealand), Junior Poluleuligaga (Auckland, New Zealand), Tasesa Lavea (Taihape, New Zealand), Paul Williams (Auckland, New Zealand)

 

Scotland: John Barclay (Hong Kong), Nathan Hines (Wagga Wagga, Australia), Dan Parks (Hornsby, Australia), Jim Hamilton (Swindon, England), Ruaridh Jackson (Northampton, England), Max Evans (Torquay, England), Graeme Morrison( Hong Kong)

 

South Africa: Tendai Mtawarira (Harare, Zimbabwe)

 

Tonga: Tukulua Lokotui (Auckland, New Zealand), Kurt Morath (Takapuna, New Zealand), Alipate Fatafehi (Sigatoka, Fiji), Ephraim Taukafa (Auckland, New Zealand), Joseph Tuineau (Suva, Fiji), Thomas Palu (Wellington, New Zealand), Andrew Ma’ilei (Auckland, New Zealand), William Helu (Otahuhu, New Zealand), Siale Piutau (Auckland, New Zealand)

 

USA: Takudzwa Ngwenya (Harare, Zimbabwe), Iñaki Basauri (Monterre, Mexico), JJ Gagiano (Cape Town, South Africa), Matekitonga Moeakiola (Vaini, Tonga), Valenise Malifa (Pago Pago, American Samoa), Hayden Smith (Penrith, Australia), Tai Enosa (Faga’alu, American Samoa), Andrew Suniula (Pago Pago, American Samoa), James Paterson (Christchurch, New Zealand), Tim Usasz (Brisbane, Australia), Junior Sifa (Faga’alu, American Samoa), Roland Suniula (Pago Pago, American Samoa)

 

Wales: Luke Charteris (Camborne, England), Danny Lydiate (Salford, England), Toby Faletau (Tofoa, Tonga), Jonathan Davies (Solihull, England), George North (King’s Lynn, England)

 

Importers and Exporters

 

Importers

15: Samoa (all from New Zealand)
12: USA
11: Italy
10: Japan
9: Tonga
8: England
7: Australia, Scotland
5: Canada, Fiji, Namibia, Wales
4: Ireland, New Zealand
2: France, Russia
1: South Africa
0: Argentina, Georgia, Romania

 

Exporters

38: New Zealand
13: Australia, South Africa
6: Argentina, England
5: American Samoa, Samoa
4: Tonga
3: Fiji
2: Hong Kong, USA, Zimbabwe
1: Burkina Faso, Canada, Cote d’Ivoire, Israel, Kenya, Mexico, Scotland, Uzbekistan
0: France, Georgia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Namibia, Romania, Russia, Wales

 

New Zealand export by far the most. 15 New Zealand-born players play for Samoa. Three Samoan-born players play for New Zealand.

The three SANZAR countries export more than all the other countries combined.

 

The implication of all that if is that if rugby deteriorate in New Zeland (and to a lesser extend in South Africa) it will hurt the rest of the world.  

NZ rugby in trouble?

Posted on by
37

NZRU boss Steve Tew yesterday warned the International Rugby Board that the All Blacks may not be involved in the 2015 World Cup if the current finance structure isn’t addressed.

 

Tew believes the future of the World Cup will come under threat unless there is fundamental change to ensure leading nations do not lose millions in revenue at the 2015 tournament in England.

 

He said competing at the World Cup has cost the NZRU more than $NZ13m, and at a time when player costs were rising and the world economy was struggling.

 

Tew’s views have been supported by Australian rugby boss John O’Neill.

 

The problem for New Zealand is of course smaller population and economy which essentially means that the big broadcasting corporation have them at the balls.

 

Tew went as far to say that NZ will withdrew from the 2015 RWC if the current finance structured is not addressed.

 

Personally I am almost at a point where I wouldn’t mind if the whole thing collapse and we get back to medium size tours.

 

Everyone was raving about the quality of the rugby after the first week of this year’s RWC. I was not as impressed and expressed my views in some other posts. Interestingly enough the raving has stopped and we’re back at cricket scores.

 

In accordance to this Chris Rattue came out with an article today stating that ‘The World Cup is a façade’ and that ’NZ rugby is in trouble’.

 

He wrote:

 

The day has finally arrived when the 13-a-side code will not only share the limelight with union, but overshadow the national obsession.

 

After 16 rollercoaster years, the Grand Final Warriors are close to delivering on their huge potential. Shaun Johnson and Kevin Locke will fill billboards and become household names, the way the imports did in season dot. Glen Fisiiahi, Sam “Super Size” Lousi plus ex-rugby players Konrad Hurrell and Omar Slaimankhel await.

 

More will come. This time, the buzz will last. Rugby’s blazer brigade hasn’t got a clue what they are in for as action-packed league takes hold.

 

The All Blacks have a special and exalted place in New Zealand life, but below them rugby is struggling for public appeal. The World Cup is a facade. Rugby is in trouble, especially in Auckland.

 

The World Cup has given rugby a shot in the arm, but rugby shot itself in the foot with the poorly designed and oversized Eden Park, a monument to foolishness.

 

Rugby visitors to Auckland may struggle to understand this, but the locals who usually stay away don’t. And Auckland rugby can’t even produce its own stars any more.

 

In contrast, while the Warriors’ home at Mt Smart Stadium is also outdated and unfortunately parked in a used-muffler haven, it is perfectly sized for most NRL games and young stars are emerging from within the club.

 

Our financially ailing rugby, which is controlled by fiddling Wellington-based bureaucrats, isn’t set up to resist the Warriors’ rise in Auckland and this World Cup is no panacea.

 

I went to the Georgia / Romania game last night with my kids and they enjoyed the carnival atmosphere but the rugby match itself was killed by the referee.

 

Walking to the stadium I overheard a number of kids stating that this was their first attendance of a live rugby match ever. That’s right ‘New Zealand kids’ 12 years and older who have never been to a rugby match and who just don’t seem to care about rugby at all.

 

What a disappointment this Georgia / Romania game must have for them. Killed by Paddy O’Brein and his referee’s. I also attended the Scotland / Argentina match which was another match where the referee determined the outcome of the match by missing a blatant offside in the final minutes of the match.

 

This is ironic because the rules have been changed –giving in essence more power to referee’s- to make the game more attractive. What we see is the exact opposite, in my view. We see flap/flap phase rugby where referee help teams with no ability to score tries to hang onto the ball. We also see matches that’s blown into tatters because the new breakdown rule interpretations had led to that area becoming a hotspot for rugby criminal behaviour (cheating).

 

Chris Rattue continuous:

 

The public have lapped the tournament up, which is great. It has been a festival of humanity in a way so far, and the rugby tension will rise from the quarter-finals on. But with no apologies to the World Cup apologists, a lot of this tournament has been ridiculously lopsided and about as entertaining as mowing the lawns. My warm fuzzies haven’t survived watching Scotland plodding about, or witnessing Wales three million, Namibia nil. The tournament is loaded against smaller countries, including New Zealand, who host a final that will end in the vicinity of midnight.

 

Whatever the outcome, today’s kids will delight if they wish in the World Cup then skateboard off to play league, soccer, basketball, golf, computer games and whatever else takes their fancy. Street parades don’t last forever – just look at the America’s Cup.

The open-field running, offloading and one-on-one hits of league suit the physical and psychological makeup of the brilliant young Maori and Pacific Island prospects in New Zealand. The game thrives on television coverage, and has a knack of producing close-contest thrillers and off-field drama.

 

To those who disagree, tell us – please – why just 14,000 people turned up to watch the Blues and Waratahs in a Super 15 playoff match and compare that to the rising hysteria about the Warriors’ Grand Final appearance.

 

He is absolutely correct. Last weekend the France/AB game was big news here in New Zealand. I went to a friend’s house that had a big screen TV set-up with about 20 people invited. We arrived and everyone was having a great time not bothering to watch the England game that was screened just before the France/AB match. In fact nobody even knew what the final score of the England match was. To be honest I actually can’t remember against who England played (I’ll have to look it up).

 

The France match was only of interest due to the fact that it was a revenge match for the AB’s. However the NZ league team –the warriors- was playing in a semi-final match at almost the same time. They started 10 minutes or so before the end of the AB/France match and we had the bizarre situation that someone took control of the remote and started to jump between channels staying increasingly longer periods on the league match channel way before the All Balck/France match was over.

 

Now I like to listen to the interviews after the match and get the players and coaches’ perspectives but the moment the final whistle of the AB/France match went the channel was switched and the involvement of the New Zealanders around me changed from predominantly silent viewing to enthusiastic shouting and commentary about what was happening on the screen.

 

This was an eye opener to me as I don’t like league and don’t watch it but are clearly part of a dying breed here in New Zealand.

 

The Haka – Soul of the nation?

Posted on by
12

Peter de Villiers surely did put the attention back on the Haka with his remark that over performing it will impact on its effect.

The other side of the coin is that the more it is performed in the streets the more it connects the people to the tribe/nation.

 

I often get the impression that New Zealanders –especially the Islanders- have difficulty understanding that the rest of the world just don’t have the same romantic obsession with the Haka than them.

 

As an outsider one can feel that they just don’t get it namely that outsiders tolerate it and are not in awe of it. That outsiders are being polite and not overwhelmed by it when they make compliments and positive remarks about it.

 

For outsiders it is hard to understand how the Haka connects the individual to the Soul of the nation. For the kiwis the Haka is a serious war dance.

 

For the rest of us it’s a performance which includes facial contortions such as showing the whites of the eyes and the poking out of the tongue, and a wide variety of vigorous body actions such as slapping the hands against the body and stamping of the feet. As well as chanted words with a variety of cries and grunts.

 

If the Haka was not performed in total unison, this was regarded in war time as a bad omen for the battle.

 

In a sense it is almost like thieves/soldiers/spies or ninja’s synchronizing their watches before they embark on a mission. Psychologically speaking and in a rugby context the Haka potentially synchronises the team which produce greater cohesiveness.

 

Some New Zealanders could predict how the All Blacks will play by watching whether the Haka shows unity or lack of it.

 

I do believe the Haka has some psychological beneficial effect on team cohesiveness.

 

It is like a war cry before going into battle. A war cry that pulls the individual out of individualistic mind-set into tribal mind-set; taking the individual beyond I into we; where they lose inhibitions and start to engage in the battle of the group.

 

The war cry in short pushes the individual over the edge into battle lust; beyond the mind-set of focusing on personal survival towards battle madness.

 

The best example of how the Haka effect the individual is the famous incident between former All Black hooker Norm Hewitt had his opposite Richard Cockerill in 1997.

 

The All Blacks were about to start their match against England at Old Trafford when Cockerill got up close and personal with Hewitt, who led the All Blacks in the haka.

 

Hewitt said the following regarding this incident, which ended with pushing and shoving between the pair, and the English team standing toe to toe with the All Blacks:

 

“It was like there were only two people on that field. At one point I thought to myself ‘if I had a patu [club] I would have cut his head off’ and I was going into that place.

I don’t know why … it was a big game and we were going to war and he’s my enemy, [a] kill or be killed scenario”.  

 

I also believed the Haka had much to do with creating racial integration and getting the Islanders (Maori and Samoans) to embrace the All Black team as theirs as opposed to playing for the white people’s team.

 

While the country faced some racial problems in the founding years it was provided with a “model combination of culture and creed” through the racial togetherness of rugby.

 

Keith Quinn in a TV interview illuminated on the awesome restorative and just powers of the Game.

 

“There was a strain of people in the 1970s who had a lot of prejudice against Samoans. Some people referred to them as FOBs, fresh of the boats, which wasn’t very nice, but this prejudice stopped the moment it was discovered Samoans could play rugby.“

 

Keith also had his own version of how Maori came to play the game. “I imagine in the past, last century, Maoris watched the pioneers playing the game and soon joined in,” he said.

 

It is unclear why the Haka was introduced into rugby before matches. It perhaps was more of an attempt to do something exotic –impress upon the audiences of Europe something of New Zealand’s exotic nature and culture- in the early years than a war dance.

 

The Springboks came up with a Zulu war dance in the early years most likely for the same reason and they persisted with it until 1928. All Black vice-captain of the 1928 All Black team to South Africa Mark Nicholls remembers the Springboks’ war dance as “not much of a success“. In all fairness neither was the All Black version of the haka in 1921 as can be seen in the next picture showing the 1928 All Blacks performing the Haka before the 3rd test against South Africa.

 

 

The 1928 version of the Haka.

 

 

The 1928 Springboks performing a Zulu War dance at the start of the fourth test.

 

 

The Haka has come a long way since those early days and it was transformed from a ridiculous looking calisthenics exercise (as can be seen on the next picture showing the 1905 All Blacks performing the Haka in the UK) into the fearsome war dance it is today.

 

 

The 1905 invincibles waving their arms in front of them like alzhemic old men, and looking pretty stupid performing their version of the Haka.

 

It was Buck Shelford who revamped the rugby Haka when he became All Black captain in 1987. Prior to Shelford the rugby Haka was a poorly executed performance which neither motivated the All Blacks nor put fear into the hearts of the opponents.

 

Wayne ‘Buck’ Shelford decided if they were going to do it they should do it properly.

 

Buck took the team to Te Aute College where the students showed the ABs what it was all about. It was electrifying.

 

You got the impression that the All Blacks suddenly learnt how incredibly intimidating it could be to face a haka, they must have been intimidated by the Te Aute haka which was performed with the ferocity of unstinting pride.

 

The difference Buck made was obvious and huge. All subsequent shots of the Haka showed its sublime aggression to its fullest and you had to feel sorry for the English toffs that spoke of facing their first ever haka.

 

By the 1970s, after nearly 80 years of doing the haka, you might think the All Blacks would have had a fair idea of how to do it. Its history stretches back to 1888 when a New Zealand Natives side, containing five non-Maori, performed an unknown haka 17 years before the All Blacks did Ka Mate.

 

But footage from years past shows a gradual decline in its performance. And if the All Blacks’ 1973 showdown against the Barbarians was considered one the greatest matches ever, the haka before it was surely one of the worst.

 

The man credited with bringing mana back to the All Black haka, Buck Shelford, said the haka was “the bloody last thing” on his mind when he made the 1985 side that toured Argentina. A chat with Hika Reid changed things – and the way the All Blacks’ haka have been performed since. “I said to Hika, ‘if we are going to do it, we’re going to do it right, we are not going to disrespect our haka’.”

 

In 1987, the All Blacks went to Te Aute College, near Hastings, where 400 students gave an inspiring haka performance. “It went from there really, getting people into their lines and teaching people the actions, words and what it was all about.”

 

The All Blacks duly won the inaugural World Cup and Shelford started to notice the haka really “began to mean something”.

 

“Our Samoan boys like Joe Stanley and Michael Jones and our Pakeha boys, they really took to it and people wanted to see it. It gave us that mana over the opposition before you headed into the game.”

 

Below are a few clips of how the All Black Haka has evolved over the years!

 

The clips are in the following order.

 

Back in 1925:

 

Then in In 1973:

 

The Ka Mate in modern times:

 

The Kapa o Pango done the first time before a test against the Springbok in Dunedin:

 

The last clip is of a South African hockey team doing a Zulu war cry during a tournament.

 

Pretty fearsome too.

 

Maybe it’s time that South Africa re-introduces a Zulu War dance before Springbok matches?

Fiji

Posted on by
21

Well this was much better. The Springboks was innovative and clearly made some adjustments to how they play the game. Probably because of the change in game plan most of the players played well. A few played exceptionally well like Frans Steyn, Danie Rossouw, Schalk Burger, Brussow, Guthro and Bismarck when he came on.

 

Danie ‘Pakslae’ Rossouw was outstanding in everything he did and maintained a high workrate on defence and on attack. Out wide he showed some deft touches, good decision making and a surprising turn of speed.

 

The most pleasing aspect of the whole match the fact that they kept the ball in hand.

 

For the first time in a long time the ball was actually spread to the wing. It was however the manner in which they did it that was most impressive, for me. There were decoy runners and constant variation between taking it wide and attacking channels 1 and 2. Danie Rossouw in particular came charging into those channels with fearless abundance but it was the way in which they altered between attacking channels 1 and 2 and taking it wide that had the Fijians totally perplexed.

 

During the latter stages of the match the gaps opened up for our backline players in the inside channels notably the break that Morné Steyn made because the Fijians didn’t know where to defend any more.

 

Strategically there were about 9 major changes I could detect:

 

  1. The chargers into channels 1 and 2 came from depth and with speed but most importantly they ran into space and did not try and run over the defenders.
  2. The support runners were supporting from depth as compared to being flat or lateral with the ball carrier. The consequence of this that we could off-load better and that the support at the breakdowns were quicker in line with the ‘gate’ and therefore more effective.
  3. We kept the ball in hand and stayed upright as we hit contact using off-loads to supporting runners sitting deep allowing us to move the ball away from the contact area. This is a major shift away from trying to smash through defenders.
  4. We counter rucked at the breakdowns with aggression in the golden first two seconds after the rucked formed.
  5. We had numbers at the ruck entering with low body positions and with speed.
  6. We spread the ball to the wings using decoy runners.
  7. We used the maul as a decoy for some other planned starter moves at the back of the lineout. The fact that we actually had starter moves is a big step forward.
  8. We tackled the big guys around the ankles and avoided going into a chest tussle with them for the ball. Hitting them on the knees took them down and made it hard for them to offload.
  9. We didn’t go into defensive mode after we took the lead like we did against Wales but kept the ball alive and actually ran with the damn thing.

 

The Springboks always had good backline players. The only reason why we don’t run the ball is because it was never really necessary due to the fact that we could dominate most teams upfront.

 

There is risk in running with the ball and why take the risk if you can win matches playing 10-man rugby.

 

However, the new rule interpretation has changed the ball game and in the modern game it is the team that keep the ball in hand that win matches.

 

Our biggest problem has always been that we lost the ball once we go to ground with it. This new approach of staying upright and shifting the ball away from the contact point with off-loads to supportive runners supporting from deep and not lateral to the ball carrier is therefore a brilliant adjustment which suddenly allow us to play the expansive game.

 

A last word on Frans Steyn. This guy was a revelation on 12 and maybe it was on instruction but he was the man that got the ball wide with outstanding distribution skills.

 

I have been complaining about our number twelve’s in particular Jean de Villiers and Juan de Jongh’s inability to get the ball wide on previous posts. Frans Steyn was therefore a breath of fresh air in this regard but so effective in doing that because of the new way in which the boks approached the game.

 

The off-loads at the collisions gave our backline more space allowing us to take the ball wide.