Looking at the world cups, what is needed to win it more than anything else, is a really powerful all-round pack, and a really good half and first five combination.
In 1987, the AB's did it with a great pack and Kirk-Fox. Fox was utterly brilliant, ran the game with precision. Kirk I rate as one of NZ's most underrated players. He is second to me behind Loveridge in recent times. He was a Rhodes Scholar, say no more!
In 1991, the Wallabies had the best pack I think they have produced in my time, excellent across the board. They had what I consider the best half-back-first five combo I have seen (I didn't see Edwards-John in the flesh, they may have been better). They were streets ahead of any combo at that point.
In 1995, the South Africans had a great pack that could match the AB's (at least food poisoned), one of the best half backs of their history Joost Van der Westhuizen who is underrated by Kiwi's but was a devastating player. Joel Stransky was not utterly brilliant but with Joost, was a great combination.
1n 1999, the Australians again had a really good pack, and another utterly dynamic and brilliant half-first five combo, Gregan and Larkam. What a team!
In 2003 it was the turn of the English with the then at his absolute best Johnny Wilkinson and Matt Dawson, another underrated halfback. The pack was tremendous in every way.
In 2007 the South Africans had a great pack, especially at lineout time. Their half back Fourie Du Preez is brilliant, along with Pichot the best in the world. And we saw the coming of age of the erratic Butch James, another underrated player.
So it seems to me that to win the world cup, above all you need these elements. It helps to have flashy backs and you must have great defensive backs. But if you want to control games, you have to have a really good all round pack without weaknesses and a half and first five that can control the games. There must be a world beater in the halves somewhere. Like a Fox, Farr-Jones, Lynagh, Van der Westhuizen, Gregan, Lynagh, Wilkinson, Du Preez.
So NZ, if you want to win the world cup, you need to get the forwards to a point of completeness. No more lineout weaknesses, keep the scrum strong, and with powerful mobile loosies. You need to find a half back; at the end of the day Bachop, Marshall and Kelleher were not there. They were very good but not great. And you need Carter at his best. He is certainly there, but he has to be there when it counts.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Can we put an end to the 'end of the day'?
It was Sean Fitzpatrick who coined the term 'at the end of the day'. It is now in the NZ psychie as the way to describe the moment where it all comes to the crunch. How many times do we have to put up with it? It is driving me insane. So, in the hope that some NZ sports nuts will move to a new vocab, can I suggest:
'At the conclusion of the light hours'
'At the beginning of the night'
'At the point at which the sun goes down over the horizon'
'When we all go to bed'
There is always the 'when the fat lady sings' or the politically correct version, 'when the well-portioned man-woman sings'
'When the game is over!' How about that!
'When the pies are put out'
'When the lights go out'
Now, there are many more you may come up with. However, this is enough for now. Sean was a great captain but a boring repetitive cliche one-liner speaker. Can we see a new breed of NZ sports people who don't parrot good old Fitzy!
'At the conclusion of the light hours'
'At the beginning of the night'
'At the point at which the sun goes down over the horizon'
'When we all go to bed'
There is always the 'when the fat lady sings' or the politically correct version, 'when the well-portioned man-woman sings'
'When the game is over!' How about that!
'When the pies are put out'
'When the lights go out'
Now, there are many more you may come up with. However, this is enough for now. Sean was a great captain but a boring repetitive cliche one-liner speaker. Can we see a new breed of NZ sports people who don't parrot good old Fitzy!
Knock Out Coaches
Perhaps we have all got it wrong. Without doubt the coach in NZ who knows how to win Knock Out rugby is without doubt Gordon Tietjens! He has proved it again and again, taking NZ sevens teams with a wide array of skill and experience, and more often than not, pulling it off. Perhaps it is time to give him the AB's to show us how it is done. He is a legend at getting people fit, knows how to put together a team on the smell of an oily rag and knows how to win a tournament. SOS Gordon Tietjens, coach for the 2011 rugby world cup.
The Myth of All Black Supremacy
There is this romanticism that is associated with NZ rugby supporters. We look at today's pampered AB's arguing that they have no mental toughness, cannot win the big ones, are not up to it when the pressure is on. We look back on the 'hard men' of NZ rugby in the 'good old days' and we pine for former glories. 'If they had had world cups in the good ol' days, we would have won them all'! Yeah right.
Track back into the archives and the AB's have always dominated (as they do now actually) but they had some really tough times and lost matches unexpectedly. Our best period was clearly the 60's but we still lost surprisingly to South Africa in 1960 at home, to the Aussies in 1964 in the third test (a shocker), drew against Scotland 0-0 in 1964, lost to the Springboks in 1965 in the third test when way ahead at half time. From 1965 to 1969 they were unbeaten, a time in which we possibly would have won the world cup. However, as 1970 showed, we may have lost if we had played in South Africa.
The 1970's were hit and miss. We lost to the South Africans in 1970, the Lions in 1971, drew with Ireland and lost to France and England in 1973, drew with the Aussies in the second test in 1974, lost to the Springboks in 1976, lost a test against the Lions and the French in 1977, lost the third test on Eden Park to the Aussies in 1978 and the French in 1979. We can't say we would have won a world cup in this time, we struggled with all countries at some time or another.
In the 1980's we were more dominant but still had our moments. We were beaten thoroughly by the Aussies in 1980, just pipped the Springboks in 1981, lost a test to the Aussies in 1980, drew with Scotland and lost to England in 1983 after losing a test to the Lions in 1983, lost the first test in Australia in 1984. In 1986 the Cavaliers were beaten by the Springboks, Australia took the Bledisloe 2-1 and we lost to the French. We then won the world cup! We had a good few years after this only drawing once with the Aussies until 1990 when we lost again to them.
The point is that we still had bad days where we did not front up. The difference was, that none of these fell in the final three knockout games of a World Cup. Hence, even though our record now is similar to the 'good ol' days', the World Cup now occurs.
Tracking back, we may have won in 1983, we had a really good team. Remember though, that we lost to the English in 1982, South Africa were always powerful, and the French could beat anyone on the day. Not to mention the Aussies who, with their full team, were powerful.
In 1979, I am not sure we would have won. We lost to the Aussies in the third test in 1978 and they thrashed us in 1980. The South Africans had beaten us in 1976. The French beat us once that same year and once in 1977. England beat us in 1979. I really wouldn't be sure at all.'
In 1975 we played one water-logged test, lost to the South Africans in 1976 and would have faced the powerful British teams, fresh off a good hammering of the Springboks on their home track in 1974. The French had blitzed us in 1973, as had England. I think we would not have won a 1975 world cup.
In 1971 there is no way we would have won whereever it was played. Wales would have had to be favourites with Edwards-John-JPR Williams in full flight, if their forwards were up to it. The year before the Springboks had demolished us completely. The Irish drew with us in 1973, the French beat us. I can't see NZ having won the world cup in 1971. South Africa or Wales were most likely, the Irish too, were strong (McBride-Gibson).
So 1967? Yes, we had a great team under Fred the Needle and may have pulled this one off. Remember though the South Africa were always strong in those days. If it had been played on the Veldt, I am sure they would have been almost unbeatable, as in 1970.
In 1963 it would have been another possible victory, with NZ and SA dominant. Aussie did pull out a one-off in 1964, and on the tour of Britain did not 'put the opposition away', all games were tight and close.
So we really need to get a realistic look at out ourselves. Sure, we pulled out some great teams and we were dominant, but we still are. Our record in the last 4 years is sensational. If Graham H, John H, John M or Laurie M had pulled off a WCup, they would be beside Fred the Needle in the pantheon of glory! What is to say that these other teams would not have 'choked' and failed to pull off the big one. Any world cups in South Africa would have been almost certainly won by them. Perhaps the same could be said in the 1960's, but we cannot be sure.
It might have gone like this:
1963: South Africa or NZ probably
1967: NZ but maybe South Africa, depending on where played
1971: South Africa or Wales (England and Ireland also strong)
1975: France, Wales, England, Ireland or South Africa. NZ a distant outside
1979: Australia, France, NZ, South Africa, England: anyone's guess
1983: NZ, South Africa, England, Australia
You can see, we really are a romantic lot! Who knows? We need to get over ourselves. We are a great rugby nation who are dominant. But where World Cups are concerned, can anyone ever be sure?
Note too, that if we go back to the 1950's and beyond, it was even more of a lottery. South Africa and Wales especially would have been tough to beat.
Track back into the archives and the AB's have always dominated (as they do now actually) but they had some really tough times and lost matches unexpectedly. Our best period was clearly the 60's but we still lost surprisingly to South Africa in 1960 at home, to the Aussies in 1964 in the third test (a shocker), drew against Scotland 0-0 in 1964, lost to the Springboks in 1965 in the third test when way ahead at half time. From 1965 to 1969 they were unbeaten, a time in which we possibly would have won the world cup. However, as 1970 showed, we may have lost if we had played in South Africa.
The 1970's were hit and miss. We lost to the South Africans in 1970, the Lions in 1971, drew with Ireland and lost to France and England in 1973, drew with the Aussies in the second test in 1974, lost to the Springboks in 1976, lost a test against the Lions and the French in 1977, lost the third test on Eden Park to the Aussies in 1978 and the French in 1979. We can't say we would have won a world cup in this time, we struggled with all countries at some time or another.
In the 1980's we were more dominant but still had our moments. We were beaten thoroughly by the Aussies in 1980, just pipped the Springboks in 1981, lost a test to the Aussies in 1980, drew with Scotland and lost to England in 1983 after losing a test to the Lions in 1983, lost the first test in Australia in 1984. In 1986 the Cavaliers were beaten by the Springboks, Australia took the Bledisloe 2-1 and we lost to the French. We then won the world cup! We had a good few years after this only drawing once with the Aussies until 1990 when we lost again to them.
The point is that we still had bad days where we did not front up. The difference was, that none of these fell in the final three knockout games of a World Cup. Hence, even though our record now is similar to the 'good ol' days', the World Cup now occurs.
Tracking back, we may have won in 1983, we had a really good team. Remember though, that we lost to the English in 1982, South Africa were always powerful, and the French could beat anyone on the day. Not to mention the Aussies who, with their full team, were powerful.
In 1979, I am not sure we would have won. We lost to the Aussies in the third test in 1978 and they thrashed us in 1980. The South Africans had beaten us in 1976. The French beat us once that same year and once in 1977. England beat us in 1979. I really wouldn't be sure at all.'
In 1975 we played one water-logged test, lost to the South Africans in 1976 and would have faced the powerful British teams, fresh off a good hammering of the Springboks on their home track in 1974. The French had blitzed us in 1973, as had England. I think we would not have won a 1975 world cup.
In 1971 there is no way we would have won whereever it was played. Wales would have had to be favourites with Edwards-John-JPR Williams in full flight, if their forwards were up to it. The year before the Springboks had demolished us completely. The Irish drew with us in 1973, the French beat us. I can't see NZ having won the world cup in 1971. South Africa or Wales were most likely, the Irish too, were strong (McBride-Gibson).
So 1967? Yes, we had a great team under Fred the Needle and may have pulled this one off. Remember though the South Africa were always strong in those days. If it had been played on the Veldt, I am sure they would have been almost unbeatable, as in 1970.
In 1963 it would have been another possible victory, with NZ and SA dominant. Aussie did pull out a one-off in 1964, and on the tour of Britain did not 'put the opposition away', all games were tight and close.
So we really need to get a realistic look at out ourselves. Sure, we pulled out some great teams and we were dominant, but we still are. Our record in the last 4 years is sensational. If Graham H, John H, John M or Laurie M had pulled off a WCup, they would be beside Fred the Needle in the pantheon of glory! What is to say that these other teams would not have 'choked' and failed to pull off the big one. Any world cups in South Africa would have been almost certainly won by them. Perhaps the same could be said in the 1960's, but we cannot be sure.
It might have gone like this:
1963: South Africa or NZ probably
1967: NZ but maybe South Africa, depending on where played
1971: South Africa or Wales (England and Ireland also strong)
1975: France, Wales, England, Ireland or South Africa. NZ a distant outside
1979: Australia, France, NZ, South Africa, England: anyone's guess
1983: NZ, South Africa, England, Australia
You can see, we really are a romantic lot! Who knows? We need to get over ourselves. We are a great rugby nation who are dominant. But where World Cups are concerned, can anyone ever be sure?
Note too, that if we go back to the 1950's and beyond, it was even more of a lottery. South Africa and Wales especially would have been tough to beat.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Richardson Factor
Mark Richardson rocked as a cricketer. He started off as a number 11 left arm spin bowler and ended up a NZ test opener with one of the best records of any NZ test opener, only Glen Turner can match him in terms of averages! The thing that was brilliant about Mark Richardson is that he played to his strengths and within his limitations. He was rudely exposed in One Day cricket, but in test cricket, he played to his strengths.
The England rugby team demonstrated the same at the recent world cup. They played brilliantly to their strengths, forward brutality and Johnny W kicking teams off the park.
South Africa too dominated in the same way. Brilliant line out, great half back, awesome defence, and picked up the scraps with their devastatingly quick wings.
NZ on the other hand to me had an identity crisis and have fatal flaws. They want to play the razzle dazzle game but in the quarter final lost their mojo. They tried to play like England. Through the season they dropped too much ball. They are a team that has to work out their strengths and play to them. We need the Mark Richardson factor.
One more example. Two netball world cups ago, we consistently lost to Australia. We had brilliant players but the team made too many errors and lacked consistency. Eventually they settled and began to reduce the error rate and played to their strengths, especially Irene van Dyk. They won the last world cup and commonwealth games.
To me the AB's have to develop a solid game plan with a reduced error rate, but maintaining their attacking superiority over other teams. We need the Richardson factor. We need to isolate our areas of superiority and become increasingly brilliant at them. Then a very good team may become a great team.
The England rugby team demonstrated the same at the recent world cup. They played brilliantly to their strengths, forward brutality and Johnny W kicking teams off the park.
South Africa too dominated in the same way. Brilliant line out, great half back, awesome defence, and picked up the scraps with their devastatingly quick wings.
NZ on the other hand to me had an identity crisis and have fatal flaws. They want to play the razzle dazzle game but in the quarter final lost their mojo. They tried to play like England. Through the season they dropped too much ball. They are a team that has to work out their strengths and play to them. We need the Mark Richardson factor.
One more example. Two netball world cups ago, we consistently lost to Australia. We had brilliant players but the team made too many errors and lacked consistency. Eventually they settled and began to reduce the error rate and played to their strengths, especially Irene van Dyk. They won the last world cup and commonwealth games.
To me the AB's have to develop a solid game plan with a reduced error rate, but maintaining their attacking superiority over other teams. We need the Richardson factor. We need to isolate our areas of superiority and become increasingly brilliant at them. Then a very good team may become a great team.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
South African Cricket Tour
Why is it that I am not confident concerning the chances of NZ in the South African cricket tour. We do not do well on tours of the subcontinent at the best of times. This time we are weak in the openers (again, what is new) and they are running well having just smashed Pakistan in Pakistan.
I don't rate our chances against Kallis, Pollock and the gang. They are a mature team with strength throughout except perhaps a quality spinner, not that seems to matter to them. They seem to crack against Australia, but we are not the Aussies. I think we are in trouble.
I can't see how we will combat Steyn and Ntini, who traditionally relish the NZ batting line up on the bouncy SA pitches. I just can't see Michael Papps and Craig Cumming putting up stern resistance, one can imagine Steyn and Ntini licking their lips with glee! Then they will face either Ross Taylor or Stephen Fleming at 3. I hope it is the latter; however, it will mean our best batsman is facing the new ball on a consistent basis. The Styris will come in and hopefully Taylor at five. Having said that, Taylor may enjoy the bouncy tracks.
We will have strength further down with Oram, McCullum, Vettori and Franklin. However, they cannot be expected to rescue us again and again and turn 5 for 100 into 450 which is what they will have to do.
They on the other hand are well equipped with a powerful batting line up on their home tracks battle hardened from Pakistan led by the absolutely world class Kallis to combat Bond, Franklin, Martin, Oram and Vettori. So I am bracing myself for a tough start to the cricket season. In light of what has gone down in the rugby season with the South Africans with the silverware, it will be hard to take! All we ask is that the boys fight and fight with all they have.
I don't rate our chances against Kallis, Pollock and the gang. They are a mature team with strength throughout except perhaps a quality spinner, not that seems to matter to them. They seem to crack against Australia, but we are not the Aussies. I think we are in trouble.
I can't see how we will combat Steyn and Ntini, who traditionally relish the NZ batting line up on the bouncy SA pitches. I just can't see Michael Papps and Craig Cumming putting up stern resistance, one can imagine Steyn and Ntini licking their lips with glee! Then they will face either Ross Taylor or Stephen Fleming at 3. I hope it is the latter; however, it will mean our best batsman is facing the new ball on a consistent basis. The Styris will come in and hopefully Taylor at five. Having said that, Taylor may enjoy the bouncy tracks.
We will have strength further down with Oram, McCullum, Vettori and Franklin. However, they cannot be expected to rescue us again and again and turn 5 for 100 into 450 which is what they will have to do.
They on the other hand are well equipped with a powerful batting line up on their home tracks battle hardened from Pakistan led by the absolutely world class Kallis to combat Bond, Franklin, Martin, Oram and Vettori. So I am bracing myself for a tough start to the cricket season. In light of what has gone down in the rugby season with the South Africans with the silverware, it will be hard to take! All we ask is that the boys fight and fight with all they have.
Thanks Macca
So Craig McMillan has retired. I loved the way he batted. Good test batting figures by NZ standards: 3116 runs at 38.46 with 6 centuries and 19 fifties and a high score of 142. He alos got 28 wickets at 44.89. Not many Kiwi's crack the 40 average mark. He did this with diabetes and eye-sight issues and that should not be forgotten. He also played with an almost Aussie belligerance which I liked. His one day record was not as sharp. Yet he still scored 4707 runs at 28.18 with 3 centuries and 28 half centuries with a high score of 117. He also got 49 wickets at 35.04, a fine all round performance. He was a lethal 20-20 player with 187 in 8 games with high score of 57 and impressive average of 31.16. He could hit sixes for sure, with the most at the recent 20-20 world champs. I think he has been underated by NZ cricket fans and deserves to be remembered with great fondness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)