Rugby - The Lull After The Storm

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I made the assumption that you were saying that Mitchell couldn't coach forwards to save his life when in actuality you were merely praising the current Tigers forward coach.

I think what Havak was saying was that forwards don't (or didn't) feature in Mitchell's tactical scheme of things. His WRC Plan A was unstructured attack and there was no real Plan B. The flaws in the strategy were evident in the ABs' last two Tri-Nations matches against the Boks and the Wallabies. The Boks couldn't capitalise on what they learned earlier in the year, the Wallabies did. That aside, the AB forwards Mitchell had at his disposal would never be ranked alongside some of the better AB forwards over the years. They were better than Australia's forwards, but that's not saying much.

If Mitchell loses the coaching job, and, given the vitriol that has flowed between the NZRFU and him since the WRC, it seems highly likely, it will be a shame. He's obviously an intelligent chap, presumably capable of learning from mistakes. But we shall never know. His competition for the job, OTOH, is a known failure at the top level.

[ravagon]

I'm still hoping that its all just a smokescreen - Mostly just a matter of putting the guy in his place a little with a reminder that there are alternatives.
I rather doubt that anybody else, available in a timely fashion anyway, will be able to do much better.

I would like to point out though that a fair portion of the rhetoric directed against the NZRFU has come from Mitchell's supporters rather than from the man himself - a point that will no doubt be emphasised by both sides in the aftermath should he, perchance, retain his current role.

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon
I would like to point out though that a fair portion of the rhetoric directed against the NZRFU has come from Mitchell's supporters rather than from the man himself

True. A lawyer friend of his suggested he had grounds for legal action against the NZRFU. If Mitchell does indeed want the job, and he seems to - with friends like that, who needs enemies? OTOH, Mitchell has definitely made life difficult for himself with his public utterances about a lack of support from the NZRFU, et al. Certainly, he was responding to public utterances from the head of the NZRFU, but a wiser, cooler head might have copped same stoically and taken up the matter behind closed doors.

You might be right about the NZRFU putting the wind up Mitchell by advertising the job. Some sort of attempt to stamp their authority, believing they lacked that authority over him last time. It's the sort of stupidity of which they're capable, though more associated with the last incarnation of the NZRFU, they who stuffed up the WRC hosting situation along with a number of other things. I think, though, that he's for the high jump. Unfortunately.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Tamerlin, however, is another matter...

[Havak]

when in actuality you were merely praising the current Tigers forward coach.

I certainly was not saying he couldn’t coach forwards to ‘save his life’. But with our forwards still being a formidable unit and our backs in disarray he is not the man we need right now. Coaching our forwards to be a jump off point for unstructured attack at this time would be suicide – hence my rather flippant comment about ruining our last strength. And our back line couldn’t play the type of game he has used with the ABs anyway.

Ah “The Sun” Finbar. Murdochs populist rag. It’s pretty laughable most of the time, unti, you realise the three million saps reading it believe the contents. The rugby ball story on the other hand reached Radio which is why I thought it might have credibility.

It's a major concern and hardly a laughing matter

Well it’s all a matter of perspective there but it was gallows humour on my part.

I think part of the problem is that they sack coaches far too quickly so generations of talent get wasted. There have been a lot of Kiwi’s head up here after being sacked or ignored by their Union – Smith still coaches Saints, Shelford had Saracens and wasn’t Hart somewhere hereabouts recently?

Graham Henry is a backwards looking choice – I would commend our Kiwi friends to read any of the diaries of a Lions player from 2001 and think hard on whether they want Henry at the helm.

Mitchell I think can be the man if given the chance – all that is needed is a slightly different (more adaptive) gameplan and perhaps one or two key changes up front IMO.

I think perhaps we need to remember that Tamerlin is not posting in his primary language. His underlying point does have some foundation. Does anyone truly think the AB forwards acquitted themselves well at the RWC? I’m not accusing them of being ‘awful’ but there are certainly areas of concern I would want worked on if England had shown them.

Do the Kiwis really disagree with that? If so then by all means ignore me, appoint Graham and no doubt all will be well in 2007.

Oh and before anyone says it there are things I want England to work on anyway – we certainly showed weaknesses.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
And our back line couldn’t play the type of game he has used with the ABs anyway.

Lacking a Rokococo and a Howlett does make that difficult. And please don't bracket Robinson with them. At least they know in which direction their next step is taking them.

The rugby ball story on the other hand reached Radio which is why I thought it might have credibility.

I think the "Sun" started it. It made the papers here, too, hence stupid Sandra Nori sticking her bib in. The ARU and the IRB and the mob who ran the lottery for the WRC final footballs eventually cleared it up.

I think part of the problem is that they sack coaches far too quickly so generations of talent get wasted.

Sums it up rather well. That's the problem in a country where rugby is a religion. Losing is death.

I think perhaps we need to remember that Tamerlin is not posting in his primary language.

He need his hand held like I need J**** wrapped in tinsel under the tree on Christmas morning!

Oh and before anyone says it there are things I want England to work on anyway – we certainly showed weaknesses.

They looked particularly idiotic jammed like sardines on that stupid big bus tootling through London streets past hordes of salivating yobs before they had their photo taken with some old Gran before they were received at the War Office.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by NeoStar

Cheers Tamerlin , that was the sort of answer I was looking for. I'm afraid I find present day European attitudes much a mystery having never been there.

Different background, different teachings and experiences means we don't think the same way. Though the differences are not as important as they are with the Asians, this means there are things we can have some trouble to understand in each other's mindset. If we consider Australia, I can assure you that I am baffled at the way the Australians (at least their ancestors) are destroying their own land...

I agree with you when you say when looking at his cruelty one must look at the period he lived in. I'm also glad that French history is favourable towards him, he is comparable to the likes of Caesar and Alexander the Great in many ways, and you see many instances (a small example - a comment in Seinfeld about him being a 'ruthless warmonger') that are from the assumption he was another dictator - I think the difference was he had intent for good to come to France and Europe.

True, Napoléon was a conqueror like Caesar or Alexander the Great but the means at his disposal were far superior and deadlier, here lies the difference IMO. He was also ruthless, but I suppose you have to when you are a soldier and a conqueror, war is a dirty thing and being ruthless is a quality on the battlefield.

But in the same time he furthered science and culture, the scientists and artists he brought with him in Egypt threw the basis of Egyptology while the artworks realized during this campaign are still valued as they are testimonies of things that have disappeared (like the colors of the hieroglyphs that adorned many temples).

England was indeed, quite aggressive in constantly trying to incite war with bribes and lies in order to stop a potential competitor to their superiority emerging from the continent. And also as you stated, his story is in part mythical for his rise and importance as an individual (even the age is often called 'Napoleonic') and can be easily embellished. It is ironic such a man simply withered away in isolation and obscurity - no great betrayel, death in battle, suicide - simply stomach cancer.

The competition between the European nations was called the Great Game in the 19th century. In this game the roots of the opposition between France and England is age old and I think that France would have done the same thing if it had been in England's position. This is rather easy to understand when you consider France was almost the only naval power able to compete with England, moreover I can understand that a powerfull neighbour like France at this time could make you feel uneasy.

Once again, I am convinced that Napoléon had a great vision for Europe, in which France was the dominant power of course, and that peace and greatness were his two main goals.

I can't help wonder whether they would have been a World War I or II had he succeded in uniting Europe, maybe as it is today.

With a bit of luck (I should rather say without the bad luck and the worst winter of the century) the Russian campaign could have been a tremenduous success. The face of history would have been very different but like Charlemagne and Alexander's empires we can wonder if the French Empire would have survived the death of its Emperor. Spain proved a foreign country could be a real nightmare to hold and Italy was a nest of rebels. The German states would have been easier to hold though as they were divided but they could have united themselves to get rid off the French domination as soon as the said Empire would have demonstrated the least of a weakness. We can only wonder...

This is very difficult to
BTW - I was amazed at the anti-French sentiment in the US over Iraq - it almost tells you they have little comprehension of their own history with the French essential for their victory in the Revolution and Napoleon's sale of the Louisiana territory (for a tiny price) which doubled their size - without which they'd be no America as we know today.

And what to say about Lafayette and the French navy...

Well, the Anti-French feeling is as ridicule as the Anti-American feeling generated by a well thinking French press (this is better than a feeling generated by a well controlled American press though) in that they are both surrealist and out of proportion. I am convinced that if you ask most people what they are thinking about this they are unable to say anything more than the crap they heard watching the TV or the crap printed in the newspapers.

Though many stupid things have been said in France I can help thinking that renaming French fries is still one of the most ridiculous thing ever done in America's history...

And Tamerlin, if you play Civ3 (which I just picked up again after a year and a half) their is a Napoleon scn in the new expansion - very easy but a nice portrayel nevertheless.

Well, I have a trouble with Civilization 3. Some of its features are great but others are really ill implemented (your allies unable to use your road network for example). As far as I am concerned the combat system is outdated (I really don't like this one unit against one unit fight) and the workers are a real pain especially when you reach the end of the game (I really prefer the Public Work points you can find in Civ: CtP and CtP2). But what I really don't like is the gameplay and the way the AI is cheating as it is spoiling my pleasure. I am not a warmonger when I play Civ like games, I am rather of the Empire Builder kind, and Civilization 3 does not really allow me to play this way. Civ3 has been designed so that the software use all the dirty tricks and flaws found by the Civ2 players to beat the AI, tricks that I have never used and that I am not really interested in using as my goal is to have fun and not to beat the strongest (cheating) AI possible.

I might give Conquest a try though as the Agressiveness level of the AI civs can be reduced... perhaps is it improving the gameplay enough for the Empire Builder I am.

About the scenario, whatever the civ like games I have played I must admit that I have never played a scenario, I am only playing the campaigns or epic games. I should give Conquest's scenarios a try though.

Originally posted by Havak

I think perhaps we need to remember that Tamerlin is not posting in his primary language.

Tell everybody you have some trouble to understand what I am writing.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar

He need his hand held like I need J**** wrapped in tinsel under the tree on Christmas morning!

At least my English level is enough to tease Caligastia and Finbar...

They looked particularly idiotic jammed like sardines on that stupid big bus tootling through London streets past hordes of salivating yobs before they had their photo taken with some old Gran before they were received at the War Office.

I suppose the Australian players would have looked far better tootling through Sydney...

Jealous!!!

[Havak]

And please don't bracket Robinson with them. At least they know in which direction their next step is taking them.

Robinson lacks their pace anyway. Only Balshaw and Lewsey possibly have that turn of speed. I still think Robinson is the harder player to defend against – that step may look silly but it’s a huge weapon against a drift defence.

As I have mentioned before Tigers are badly missing Murphy in our back line. Have I mentioned the young lad Baxter they are trying on the wing – he looks very good, being both big, strong and fast. If they could get some ball to him more often we might score a few more tries.

hence stupid Sandra Nori sticking her bib in

Even your politicians call us ‘Poms’ I note.

So the Sun ran a story with terribly brittle foundations. Wish I could say I am shocked. The paper claims over ten million readers daily which is fairly amusing as I think even at it peak circulation it never sold much over four million. Ah but you see each copy is read by 2-3 people. And they know this apparently.

He need his hand held like I need J**** wrapped in tinsel under the tree on Christmas morning!

I have a sneaky feeling you might actually get on rather well with Mr J. But as for me I am building up good will. By the end of this week my accommodation for the 6N should be booked and you never know – I may bump into him in Paris.

Plus if Tigers ever do qualify for Europe again they may draw Toulouse at some point.

They looked particularly idiotic jammed like sardines on that stupid big bus tootling through London streets past hordes of salivating yobs before they had their photo taken with some old Gran before they were received at the War Office.

Out of their depth perhaps? It was a little disconcerting to me I have to admit – very Imperial in tone as your war office reference hints. A touch of the VA day about it – and somewhat over the top. Not to mention maybe one in ten there knew what shape ball the game is played with!

As for tea with Gran and the later supper with ‘God’ well that is fair enough. The image of Jonno talking several feet down to Her Madge will stick with me a while – as will the piccies of geriatric incontinent corgies wandering willy nilly throughout.

And Will Greenwood – the ultimate in cheeky Jack the Lad type players - trying to make small talk with Liz was quite funny too.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak

As for tea with Gran and the later supper with ‘God’ well that is fair enough. The image of Jonno talking several feet down to Her Madge will stick with me a while – as will the piccies of geriatric incontinent corgies wandering willy nilly throughout.

Appalling pictures I agree...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar
I think what Havak was saying was that forwards don't (or didn't) feature in Mitchell's tactical scheme of things. His WRC Plan A was unstructured attack and there was no real Plan B. The flaws in the strategy were evident in the ABs' last two Tri-Nations matches against the Boks and the Wallabies. The Boks couldn't capitalise on what they learned earlier in the year, the Wallabies did. That aside, the AB forwards Mitchell had at his disposal would never be ranked alongside some of the better AB forwards over the years. They were better than Australia's forwards, but that's not saying much.

Well, I just wanted to rebut the suggestion that Mitchell is not capable of coaching forwards. His work with the Waikato forwards was outstanding, and one of the reasons he got the AB coaching position.

If Mitchell loses the coaching job, and, given the vitriol that has flowed between the NZRFU and him since the WRC, it seems highly likely, it will be a shame. He's obviously an intelligent chap, presumably capable of learning from mistakes. But we shall never know. His competition for the job, OTOH, is a known failure at the top level.

I know...I shudder to think what will happen to NZ rugby with Henry at the helm. Mitchell should definitely get another chance. It's beyond me why he continued with his unstructured game plan so far into the RWC, but like you say, I think he can learn from his mistakes.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak


I certainly was not saying he couldn’t coach forwards to ‘save his life’. But with our forwards still being a formidable unit and our backs in disarray he is not the man we need right now. Coaching our forwards to be a jump off point for unstructured attack at this time would be suicide – hence my rather flippant comment about ruining our last strength. And our back line couldn’t play the type of game he has used with the ABs anyway.

I agree. The style he coached the ABs with certainly would not work with any other team. I think the only reason it worked for so long was because of individual brilliance in the AB team. Mitchell should take a leaf from Woodward's book and get some decent structure going.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
As for tea with Gran and the later supper with ‘God’ well that is fair enough. The image of Jonno talking several feet down to Her Madge will stick with me a while – as will the piccies of geriatric incontinent corgies wandering willy nilly throughout.

My English Gran went through several corgies...most of them died of heart attacks while going for a walk.

[Caligastia]

Finbar is funny.

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Well, I just wanted to rebut the suggestion that Mitchell is not capable of coaching forwards. His work with the Waikato forwards was outstanding, and one of the reasons he got the AB coaching position.

Forget it mate, they're determined to bag anything to do with our forwards, and take delight in doing so.

Our attack was indeed unstructured at times but there were other times where our forwards showed what they're capable of. Our pack is young and promising - McCaw, Jack, Mealamu, Colins, and there are other players emerging. Our backline has extraordinary talent and so the question the NZRFU face becomes who is best to develop all this talent.

Sure the NZRFU are aware that Mitchell did do fantastic work with Waikato, but then why did he stupidly eliminate rucking? We got laughed at by the opposition all tournament when we only whinged to the ref when they slowed the ball down. The lineouts looked good but stuttered somewhat under fierce contention, and both of these areas are Mitchell's direct responsibility.

Then the NZRFU probably don't like the fact that Mitchell and Deans were out-coached and out-thought by Hansen and Jones. Hansen did his homework. Mitchell and Deans did not.

Then the NZRFU have gone on record in saying they have concerns about how Mitchell and Deans dealt with the media. Rugby is big business in NZ, even our NZ$ took a hit after the semi loss. It must be very concerning when our team becomes the least popular side in the tournament.

I personally want to see Mitchell stay. If he is capable of learning from his mistakes then it would be, imho, a huge mistake not to continue with the status quo. I've been busy lately and haven't caught up on the last thread but I’m sure someone will have already mentioned the benefits England gained from continuity in coaching staff. Coaches also need experience, and to learn from their mistakes, just like the players.

I don't know it's going to go. Henry does have a good track record of delivering with strong pools of talent, and when the team is sympathetic with his aims. His weakness in 2001 was primarily that his players didn't like him. His problems with Wales were that he was unable to rebuild quickly, when his pool of talent dried up. I don't think either of these aspects is an issue for the All Blacks at present.