Rugby - The game they play in heaven

[Havak]

you'll get a chance to see us beat you in november.

I was going to say the exact same thing.

Your mob need to do something about the problem in a hurry

They are trying. One major problem is that clubs and the RFU are not on the best of terms. When the RFU tells a club to rest players it generally causes massive friction.

I naturally assumed that on the basis that you couldn't possibly have been serious with any of it.

Well you know what they say about assumption – it’s the mother of all mis-understandings.

If you want to showcase the game, play nothing but Barbarians matches.

Oh you mean like England-NZ or NZ-France in the self same tournament?

Methinks you should locate some tapes of some of his performances in S12 and Tests this season.

Oh I’m sure I will see more than I want to of him in November. Much more probably.

But his qualities don’t distract from the Lip’s in any way – and I saw nothing in the Tri-nations games I caught to suggest he has anything like Austin’s unpredictable genius?

It’s likely, with Dan Luger injured yet again, you will see a wing-fullback combination of Cohen-Robinson-Healey against all the SH sides in November. That’s strength, pace and unpredicatability in that order. Should be fun.

It is no secret that amongst England’s (no doubt many) failings it is true our backs do not use phase 1 ball as effectively as either the Wallabies or All Blacks can. It’s something that great effort is being expended on here. I fully expect we will have dominant possession against both of you but still find the result is tight as heck. Never the less your forwards will know they have been in a game I’m sure.

he skipped over explaining what he got up to on his Bank Holiday weekend

*skip*

[LDiCesare]

I suppose it's a rough equivalent of the jump ball in basketball. The difference, though, is that the team that puts the ball into the scrum retains the advantage - technically - because the odds are they should win the scrum. As is only right, because a team is awarded a put-in to a scrum when the opposition has breached a law.

Having won the ball from the scrum, the team then controls the ball, and, therefore, the play. But a team putting the ball into the scrum can lose control of the ball. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's the result of great play by the opposition.

You forget to say that a scrum is a lot of pushing. This means if you push the scrums (which is done a lot in France, and probably in NH in general), there are 2 consequences:

Immediate:
If your scrum pushes the opponent scrum 1 foot and they still keep the ball, their attack is strongly compromised because the scrum half will have trouble with his pass, and defenders will make contact sooner. This means the attacking team may have to resort to kicking or a maul in the center of the field instead of attakcing wide.

Longer-term (less true when lots of coaching come around, but that can force coaching):
You tire the opponent scrum. This results in their being late in other phases of the game, making more errors and so on. Consequences of the scrum are also big on morale. Get grinded once in a scrum, and you will remember it for the rest of the play. It takes some guts to play at your top when you are suffering in the scrum.

Scrums look like a test of pure muscle but they're much more than that. A truly great scrum outfit (called "the pack") deals (as well as in strength) in the timing of their drive against the opposition pack, the coordination of the drive (given that their 8 players in a pack), the angles at which they drive, and so on. So winning an opposition ball in a scrum is a massive achievement.

I cannot agree more. I'd add the way you link together is very important, and the way props link with their vis-a-vis is also very important. Looking at front rows in a scrum is always very interesting if you can read the game. Sometimes after the first scrum, you know that a player will be penalized soon because he won't be able to withstand the facing prop, or that the prop won't last the whole game... But it is hard to see when you haven't played in the front row.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
What are you saying...?

I forgot to add - pop into any NZ church on a Sunday morning and you'll no doubt find the vicar reciting the AB stats to the congregation.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by finbar

I forgot to add - pop into any NZ church on a Sunday morning and you'll no doubt find the vicar reciting the AB stats to the congregation.

You forgot to mention the big screen out the back in the watchamacallit and the "seasonally-revised" prayers.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
One major problem is that clubs and the RFU are not on the best of terms.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I reckon it's your biggest problem of all. We have our ARU -v- S12 (and club) skirmishes, but nothing like the crap that happens over there.

BTW, can you elaborate on that thought you had about Kafer not winning your fans to the extent that his predecessor did? I remember Rod Kafer could be a surly, provocative character. Or were you talking in purely football terms? There's certainly nothing flash or particularly exciting about Mr Kafer's play.

Well you know what they say about assumption – it’s the mother of all mis-understandings.

The Mothers of Invention. I remember them well. Poor old dear, departed F. Zappa.

Oh you mean like England-NZ or NZ-France in the self same tournament?

Yep. Touch football, I think they call it.

It’s likely, with Dan Luger injured yet again, you will see a wing-fullback combination of Cohen-Robinson-Healey against all the SH sides in November. That’s strength, pace and unpredicatability in that order. Should be fun.

We shall see, we shall see.

*skip*

A-ha! That's telling. I've got it! You spent the entire Bank Holiday weekend standing on the coffee table doubling as a dress dummy while Mrs Havak pinned up her hems!

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon
You forgot to mention the big screen out the back in the watchamacallit

*ravagon blows his chances at the Pearly Gates*

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
You forget to say that a scrum is a lot of pushing. This means if you push the scrums (which is done a lot in France, and probably in NH in general), there are 2 consequences:

Immediate:
If your scrum pushes the opponent scrum 1 foot and they still keep the ball, their attack is strongly compromised because the scrum half will have trouble with his pass, and defenders will make contact sooner. This means the attacking team may have to resort to kicking or a maul in the center of the field instead of attakcing wide.

Longer-term (less true when lots of coaching come around, but that can force coaching):
You tire the opponent scrum. This results in their being late in other phases of the game, making more errors and so on. Consequences of the scrum are also big on morale. Get grinded once in a scrum, and you will remember it for the rest of the play. It takes some guts to play at your top when you are suffering in the scrum.

Good one, LDiCesare, very well explained. I hope SuperSneak reads it.

Oh, and contrary to rumor, there's a hell of a lot of pushing in SH scrums too. In fact, I can recall seeing a couple of tight-heads this season.

I cannot agree more. I'd add the way you link together is very important, and the way props link with their vis-a-vis is also very important. Looking at front rows in a scrum is always very interesting if you can read the game. Sometimes after the first scrum, you know that a player will be penalized soon because he won't be able to withstand the facing prop, or that the prop won't last the whole game... But it is hard to see when you haven't played in the front row.

I'm sure that's true. Actually, I'm hoping Havak will soon regale us with some of his tales of life in the front row.

[finbar]

Wallaby & All Blacks stats (1993-2002)

Okay, Cal, here we go. I've done exhaustive research. And, gee, I have to tell you, this is a whole lot more fun - not to mention more useful and productive - than work.

I've taken the 10 years from 1993 to 2002, including the recently concluded Tri-Nations. I've counted Wallaby and All Blacks matches against the following teams:

Each other; Springboks; England; France; Lions; Ireland; Scotland and Wales.

In those 10 years, against those teams, the Wallabies have played a total of 77 matches. The All Blacks have played a total of 76 matches.

The Wallabies have won 49, the All Blacks have won 52. The variables - number of matches against, um, weaker teams - tend to cancel themselves out. For example, the All Blacks have played 3 more matches against Scotland, but the Wallabies have played 3 more matches against Wales.

There are some interesting stats along the way. The All Blacks have done much better in that period against the Springboks - 15 wins, 6 losses, 1 draw - than the Wallabies have - 10 wins, 9 losses, 1 draw.

(Edit. I went back and checked the respective performances against the Springboks in matches played in South Africa and it underlines the Wallabies' bugbears about playing there. The All Blacks played 11 matches in South Africa for 4 losses, while the Wallabies played 8 there for 7 losses.)

OTOH, the Wallabies have performed better against the French - 8 wins, 2 losses - than the All Blacks have - 4 wins, 5 losses.

OTOH, the All Blacks have performed better against England - 5 wins, 1 loss, 1 draw - than the Wallabies have - 4 wins, 3 losses, 1 draw. But it is roughly one month short of 3 years since you played them, so slip up there and give them a belting?

Very, very interesting.

[Havak]

We have our ARU -v- S12 (and club) skirmishes, but nothing like the crap that happens over there.

No surprises – it is all down to money (and therefore power). The RFU negotiated some very nice TV deals in the late nineties and then pretty much spent the money on the RFU. The clubs, who assets were securing this money for the Union, were seeing very little of it. You can see why that went down well. Lots has been resolved and it’s a relatively peaceful period but war is only ever one Francis Baron or Rob Andrew comment away.

It’s a damn good job our clubs are getting so professional as left to the RFU I’m sure we would still be in the era of boot money.

I remember Rod Kafer could be a surly, provocative character. Or were you talking in purely football terms? There's certainly nothing flash or particularly exciting about Mr Kafer's play.

I was talking both. He does not interact with the crowd whereas Pat did. This is down to personal player choice – some do, some don’t – but it was his bad luck to follow a lad that did – it made for a very marked difference. Yes Rod is a very different kind of player indeed and your description is quite accurate. Rod will never break the line with a silky ‘step and go’ I think

Surly and provocative can’t be an issue. Tigers don’t tolerate locker room prima donnas so he must have settled in well. Mind you Rod is currently struggling with a groin injury he picked up in training and is out for four to five weeks. It’s hard work up here in the NH.

Of course we never wanted pat to leave and if ACT are mis-using him we will have him back anytime please. He only left because he wanted to push for the green and gold again and that seems miles off?

The Mothers of Invention

My mis-quotations are usually deliberate. Usually.

Yep. Touch football, I think they call it.

I dread to think what that says about Australia when both touch rugby NH sides shoved them off the park last time out?

We shall see, we shall see.

No trust me – one way or the other it will be fun. I just don’t know which way.

And I don’t think I have ever been accused of being a dress dummy before.

I do love reading the stuff from LDiCesare – he knows his forward play all right. I think my playing tales would send you to sleep to be honest.

By the way Finbar – I’m impressed you restricted the analysis to the professional era. It would have flattered the Wallabies more to go back beyond 95 (we didn’t play you between 91-95 so going from 93 makes no difference). And, as we know, the All Blacks don’t play us enough. If you check the last 25 fixtures it takes you back to the 30s!

Statistics are all well and good but they do what you want them to. I could point out Australia never beat Wales for eight years in the seventies, or that they only scored 3 points against them in that time. I could mention that the Wallabies haven’t beaten England this century. It’s all meaningless – in November we find out what is what.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Of course we never wanted pat to leave and if ACT are mis-using him we will have him back anytime please. He only left because he wanted to push for the green and gold again and that seems miles off?

He's miles away from a Wallaby guernsey. In fact, further away than before he left to go to you, unless they consider him as a back-up fly-half, but I haven't heard his name mentioned. I've always liked him as a player. He was stiff that he matured as a player about the same time as Larkham was making his mark and (from memory) Horan and Little were still around. At another time, I think he would have had more chances.

My mis-quotations are usually deliberate. Usually.

You didn't misquote. I just deftly changed the subject to off-beat 60s bands.

I dread to think what that says about Australia when both touch rugby NH sides shoved them off the park last time out?

Listen, Havak, if you're expecting wit and logic, you've got a dang long wait!

No trust me – one way or the other it will be fun. I just don’t know which way.

My thoughts exactly.

And I don’t think I have ever been accused of being a dress dummy before.

*Meanwhile, Havak skips the question yet again*

I do love reading the stuff from LDiCesare – he knows his forward play all right. I think my playing tales would send you to sleep to be honest.

I love reading him too. I have a mental image of him as a short, gnarled individual with shoulders eight feet (buggered if I know what that is in these new-fangled metrics) wide and cauliflower ears. (Maybe I'd better put a couple of s there just to make sure he knows I'm joking! )

But don't think you're getting off that lightly, Havak, we're awaiting your anecdotes from the front row.

By the way Finbar – I’m impressed you restricted the analysis to the professional era. It would have flattered the Wallabies more to go back beyond 95 (we didn’t play you between 91-95 so going from 93 makes no difference). And, as we know, the All Blacks don’t play us enough. If you check the last 25 fixtures it takes you back to the 30s!

It's pointless going further back because the results would skew all over the place. As I said the other day, the last 10 years only proves how much the Wallabies have improved. When they bloody well had to.

Statistics are all well and good but they do what you want them to. I could point out Australia never beat Wales for eight years in the seventies, or that they only scored 3 points against them in that time. I could mention that the Wallabies haven’t beaten England this century. It’s all meaningless – in November we find out what is what.

I thought you'd appreciate that I hadn't mentioned that minor defeat England suffered in Brisbane 4 years ago. Obviously stats can mean whatever you want them to, but there were some interesting things - the Wallabies' problems with the Boks, the All Blacks' problems with the French.

Tomorrow morning, I think I'll make it a priority to dig up England's stats over the last 10 years.

Edit. I couldn't wait. Out of interest, I looked at England -v- Wallabies since 1948. What I hadn't realised - and is quite extraordinary - is that they played so rarely back then. They played in '48, '58, '63, '67, etc. You wouldn't have wanted to pull a hammy the day before the match, would you.

BTW, 24 matches. Wallabies won 15, England 8, with 1 draw.

[Caligastia]

Re: Wallaby & All Blacks stats (1993-2002)

Originally posted by finbar
Okay, Cal, here we go. I've done exhaustive research. And, gee, I have to tell you, this is a whole lot more fun - not to mention more useful and productive - than work.

I've taken the 10 years from 1993 to 2002, including the recently concluded Tri-Nations. I've counted Wallaby and All Blacks matches against the following teams:

Each other; Springboks; England; France; Lions; Ireland; Scotland and Wales.

In those 10 years, against those teams, the Wallabies have played a total of 77 matches. The All Blacks have played a total of 76 matches.

The Wallabies have won 49, the All Blacks have won 52. The variables - number of matches against, um, weaker teams - tend to cancel themselves out. For example, the All Blacks have played 3 more matches against Scotland, but the Wallabies have played 3 more matches against Wales.

There are some interesting stats along the way. The All Blacks have done much better in that period against the Springboks - 15 wins, 6 losses, 1 draw - than the Wallabies have - 10 wins, 9 losses, 1 draw.

I think it was in 96 that NZ beat SA 4 games out of 5 as we had a test series and tri-nations matches. Revenge for the RWC? It was the first time NZ won a test series in SA, and conicidentally the first time a NZ tour of SA had been refereed by non-SA refs.

(Edit. I went back and checked the respective performances against the Springboks in matches played in South Africa and it underlines the Wallabies' bugbears about playing there. The All Blacks played 11 matches in South Africa for 4 losses, while the Wallabies played 8 there for 7 losses.)

Its amazing to think that there are still stadiums in SA (Jo-burg) where the Wallabies have never won. (Is that really never or just a really long time?) Im sure they will crack it eventually though, just as they cracked Carisbrook last year.

OTOH, the Wallabies have performed better against the French - 8 wins, 2 losses - than the All Blacks have - 4 wins, 5 losses.

The french are usually tough for the All Blacks to beat, but sometimes NZ will thrash them.

OTOH, the All Blacks have performed better against England - 5 wins, 1 loss, 1 draw - than the Wallabies have - 4 wins, 3 losses, 1 draw. But it is roughly one month short of 3 years since you played them, so slip up there and give them a belting?

Hopefully, yes. Has it really been 3 years?? My God! Thats ridiculous! How long has it been since England toured NZ?


Thanks for doing all that research Finbar, it was very interesting and I appreciate your effort.

[finbar]

Re: Re: Wallaby & All Blacks stats (1993-2002)

Originally posted by Caligastia
Its amazing to think that there are still stadiums in SA (Jo-burg) where the Wallabies have never won. (Is that really never or just a really long time?) Im sure they will crack it eventually though, just as they cracked Carisbrook last year.

24/8/1963. Wallabies -d- Springboks 11-9 at Joh'burg. And not since.

How long has it been since England toured NZ?

In recent times - two tests in NZ in 1998, two tests in NZ in 1985. But for the record:

09 Oct 1999 England vs New Zealand
16-30 London-Twickenh

27 Jun 1998 England vs New Zealand
10-40 Auckland-Eden P

20 Jun 1998 England vs New Zealand
22-64 Dunedin-Carisbr

06 Dec 1997 England vs New Zealand
26-26 London-Twickenh

22 Nov 1997 England vs New Zealand
 8-25 Manchester-Old Available

18 Jun 1995 England vs New Zealand
29-45 Cape Town

27 Nov 1993 England vs New Zealand
15-9  London-Twickenh

03 Oct 1991 England vs New Zealand
12-18 London-Twickenh

08 Jun 1985 England vs New Zealand
15-42 Wellington-Athl

01 Jun 1985 England vs New Zealand
13-18 Christchurch

19 Nov 1983 England vs New Zealand
15-9  London-Twickenh

24 Nov 1979 England vs New Zealand
 9-10 London-Twickenh

25 Nov 1978 England vs New Zealand
 6-16 London-Twickenh

15 Sep 1973 England vs New Zealand
16-10 Auckland-Eden P

06 Jan 1973 England vs New Zealand
 0-9  London-Twickenh

04 Nov 1967 England vs New Zealand
11-23 London-Twickenh

04 Jan 1964 England vs New Zealand
 0-14 London-Twickenh

01 Jun 1963 England vs New Zealand
 6-9  Christchurch

25 May 1963 England vs New Zealand
11-21 Auckland-Eden P

30 Jan 1954 England vs New Zealand
 0-5  London-Twickenh

04 Jan 1936 England vs New Zealand
13-0  London-Twickenh

03 Jan 1925 England vs New Zealand
11-17 London-Twickenh

Thanks for doing all that research Finbar, it was very interesting and I appreciate your effort.

As I said, it beats the hell out of working!

[LDiCesare]

a short, gnarled individual with shoulders eight feet (buggered if I know what that is in these new-fangled metrics) wide and cauliflower ears

Alas, my shoulders are not that wide. And my ears are pretty. There is only a light scar on my nose to demean my otherwise perfect features .

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Alas, my shoulders are not that wide. And my ears are pretty. There is only a light scar on my nose to demean my otherwise perfect features .

In that case, LDiCesare, you are unique amongst front-rowers. I imagine Havak must have a couple of the biggest cauliflowers in existence!

[Havak]

At another time, I think he would have had more chances.

I have heard it said he lacks that little bit of pace, to go with the undoubted skills, that could have pushed him into international contention? At club level that isn’t so critical of course, particularly at both ACT and Tigers where he has quick men linking either side?

I still really like the guy I have to say.

I just deftly changed the subject to off-beat 60s bands.

So deftly it sailed right over my head (okay so that isn’t too hard!)

Listen, Havak, if you're expecting wit and logic, you've got a dang long wait!

No worries. As an Englishman you tend not to expect both in a debate.

But don't think you're getting off that lightly, Havak, we're awaiting your anecdotes from the front row.

Well given I was a thoroughly clean player I’m guessing you want to hear about the many ways in which I was humiliated around the park? Strangely I don’t recall any.

I never faced a RFU disciplinary hearing myself but I do have some tales of foul play and my manful efforts to break it up. Have to keep it for another day those – very busy day ahead of me (and behind you? The time difference freaks me out sometimes)

the Wallabies' problems with the Boks, the All Blacks' problems with the French.

England’s problems with everyone Yeah thanks for not mentioning Brissy. I was just thinking about that the other day – some of those young lambs who were thrown to the Wallaby wolves have grown into very good players (OTOH some have never recovered). Were that fixture played again I think it would be pretty close. Bizaree isn’t it that such a drubbing could have resulted in some good?

BTW, 24 matches. Wallabies won 15, England 8, with 1 draw.

Sadly I was ware of this. It might take us another seven years to take the lead (fingers firmly crossed).

Having remarked before how you punch above your weight there is no denying we have historically punched below ours. It’s a crying shame and I point the finger firmly at the RFU – they fought tooth and claw against the idea of leagues in the eighties and then the same against Professional status in the nineties. Now to hear them talk you would think they proposed both ideas.

Hopefully, yes. Has it really been 3 years?? My God! Thats ridiculous! How long has it been since England toured NZ?

Yes three years it is. And four since we toured as Finbar pointed out though that was the ‘tour of death’ – no senior players were involved at all. However it isn’t our fault it’s been so long – we tried to get a series against you this summer but your Union chose Ireland instead – perfectly understandable when you wanted gentle warm up games for the tri-nations but disappointing for both of us I think?

I imagine Havak must have a couple of the biggest cauliflowers in existence!

I went to great lengths to protect my ears and they look pretty normal thank goodness. My nose is extremely flat however, and my hairline definitely suffered.

Okay news from England on the dawn of the new season – Tigers have signed Joseph Naufahu from Canterbury (the club side) as cover for the back line crisis. He appears to have left after not being drafted by Crusaders in 02 (he was in 01 apparently). Do you know anything about him Caligastia?

It was announced yesterday our play offs have been reformed – no longer will the top 8 contest QF, SF and Final rounds. Now the team that tops the league stage at the end of 22 games goes straight into the play off final and the second and third placed teams play each other for the right to meet them. This is an effort to reduce the number of games for most clubs, and seems sensible to me. Following this reform the play off winner be get top seeding for Europe (unless the holders retain the cup) but the league winners remain champion club as far as I know – i.e. league and play off remain separate competitions unlike in S12.

*edit* I was wrong - the play off winners will be labelled "champion club". Makes no difference - it will still be us I hope.

And in other news not only do I get to see Tigers opening league game (away to Leeds) on Sky tomorrow they are also showing the Canterbury NPC game live in the morning.

And finally the ARU is enticing the Bok under 21 captain to move to Australia and quailfy whilst with ACT. More despicable border hopping - Australians should play for Australia!!