This thread has given me some serious PTSD and I’m having flashbacks to 2003!

But seriously, and putting aside the hyperbole (eg Hansen = Satan / Hansen = Jesus), I will look very favourably upon the Hansen era and I do think he has taken the All Blacks to another level, enhanced the legacy and all that other jazz. Simply put, the rugby we played between 2012 to Chicago 2016 was revolutionary and we may never see any team play with such skill consistently ever again. Yes, he’s had the cattle to do it, but his time steering the ship made much better use of the cattle, IMO, than anyone before him (I still think Henry didn’t get as much out of his team as he should have).

That being said, I think Hansen held on too long - he should have gone after the Lions as planned. Since we won in 2015, we’ve obviously had a lot of bad milestones - losses to Ireland, drawn Lions series etc - but we’ve also seen a drop off in skill levels, consistency, muddled selections, poor game plans, lack of calm under pressure and - more worrying than anything - a resignation or “c’est la vie” attitude in defeat. To me, it just looked like Shag had lost that absolute hunger to win and it seems to have rubbed off on his players.

Similarly, I’d argue he’s become a bit bored and overconfident with all the easy wins and has fallen into the habit of tinkering unnecessarily.

Every team at this Cup has a very clear style of how they play. Except for last week, we on the other hand have looked confused and unclear about which plan or style we are playing with in any given match.

I know this isn’t the match thread, but I’d like to make a couple of observations about the match today, which are demonstrative of the issues since 2016 that can be firmly directed at the coaching:

1. We looked completely surprised that England started so well and made life very difficult for us - this was evident in the poor decision making and option taking from the start to the end of the match.
2. We played with a game plan last week that would have beaten any team in the world if executed well. Yet, we shelved it completely today and went with the side to side shit from the opening whistle, together with stupid options like putting up bombs in their 22. The only time we put together some pods and ran at their forwards, Reece had acres of space, ran into the corner and we scored an easy try from the ensuing lineout. In short, we played into their hands, throughout that match.

Good thread.

I have a great life. My wife is beautiful, kindhearted and good fun. My wife and I both have great jobs with a decent amount of flexibility, intellectual challenge and very good remuneration. We have a great apartment and I have a nice car. We never want for anything and eat out at nice places regularly. COVID-permitting, we can travel anywhere we want and stay pretty much wherever we want when we get there. We live near the beach in a part of the world where the sun shines all year round. We pay fuck all in taxes. I play golf every weekend with a great group of mates.

If you'd asked me 5 years ago what my perfect life would like, that's pretty much it.

But, to be honest, I'm feeling dissatisfied, restless, irritable and a little helpless. Wife and I are and have been for the past 2 year trying to start a family with very little success. The clock is ticking for her and so we have gone the IVF route, which has taken a real physical toll on her and even more of an emotional toll on us both. We've basically got one more roll of the dice before we give up and live our lives as a childless couple, the hardest part of which is watching my wife come to terms with losing a large part of her "purpose" in life. It's difficult for us both right now to see our many blessings, because the truth is we'd give up almost all of them just to have our own little family.

Still working out what this all actually means in terms of my overall happiness, but a few thoughts include (a) that happiness is a completely relative concept, (b) I may have been wrong about at truly makes me happy, and (c) your own happiness can be massively influenced by the happiness (or otherwise) of others.

@Hooroo said in Happiness Scale:

This thread is kind of therapeutic. Not because there are those that have had it tougher, not at all, but because we (as men) are speaking so freely about it.

It's something that our Dads probably never got to do and likely held it in.

I salute any of you that have managed to take action because of this thread.

I once told my dad I was feeling a bit anxious about my financial situation and that it was affecting my relationship. He called me a poof and told me to harden up. He then swiftly moved the conversation on to the rugby. Good times.

@barbarian said in Red cards:

I’ve complained about this on Twitter, and had a few people respond ‘just tackle lower’.

But I’m not sure those people have ever played rugby. High tackles are just a part of the game, and I’m not sure you can ever eradicate them. Yes some are a result of reckless play, but others are just instinct (sticking out an arm when you’ve been stepped by a halfback near the ruck), or tiredness (being caught on the back foot in the late stages of a game).

I’m not sure how you eradicate that from the game. Especially for players above 6ft 6.

At the moment World Rugby have signalled they are happy to ruin games as a spectacle in order to change player behaviour. I think that’s too big a trade-off, and think they need to find a better balance between protecting the players and ensuring games are enjoyable for fans.

This is probably the best post on this issue so far and clearly written from the practical perspective of someone who has played the game (presently or at least in the recent past by the look of things).

The objective is an entirely noble one, but the means adopted by WR go too far. You simply cannot treat a marginally high tackle, caused by a timing issue (e.g. a late, high speed change of angle) in the same way your treat out-and-out foul play.

It's just entirely unfair to the players, most importantly.

There will be a red card during one of the knockout games in this tournament and it will cost a team 4 years of hard work and maybe even some careers. How on earth is that fair punishment for a purely accidental, fractionally mis-timed tackle?

Edit: our only hope is that the unfortunate recipients of a red card in such a situation is England - only then will there be a sufficiently critical mass of whinging that WR will actually take a sensible approach to this issue.

@No-Quarter said in Five Greatest ABs of the past 50 years:

I know Lomu wasn't a complete player by any stretch, but his running game was so much better than anyone else that has played the game it's not even funny. Without exaggerating he was probably about 5 times more effective with ball in hand than any other player. People had nightmares about trying to defend against him. The combination of pace and power he had were basically inhuman. Has to be in the top 5 given the way he could break games apart with such ease.

Also, and I think @mariner4life summed it up well earlier, being the "greatest" or even a "great" All Black goes far beyond mere rugby playing ability (although that's most of it). It also includes what impact he had on the jersey and the legacy - did he add to it and, if so, how much? Jonah's impact on the jersey and the legacy are almost - almost - unparalleled. He's the benchmark by which we judge all of our wingers - he's why no-one rates George Bridge,

You've also got to say that the guy made huge physical sacrifices for the jersey. We quite rightly talk of McCaw's foot, Fitzy's ear, Pinetree's arm and Buck's testicle. But, let's not forget that Jonah played with a life-threatening and debilitating kidney disease and made several comebacks are bouts of dialysis and a fucking kidney transplant.

Anyone who doesn't have in in their Top 5 - because he was slow on the turn or some other nit-picking bullshit - can seriously go and eat a bag full of dicks!

@kiwi_expat said in Blues v Hurricanes:

I'd say the reason for Blackwell being continually selected is because he's a key leader in the group, he's a senior player, he was the Hurricanes player of the season in 2019, was pretty outstanding in Super Rugby Aotearoa last year too. Also isn't he the Wellington Lions captain?

Welcome to the 'Fern, Mrs Blackwell

@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: All Blacks v Namibia (Pool :

@westcoastie said in RWC: All Blacks v Namibia (Pool :

@kev said in RWC: All Blacks v Namibia (Pool :

@No-Quarter you have to wrap your arms, you can’t lead with your shoulder. Have to stand in front and let them hit you, or let them go past and tackle from side.

push the ball carrier into the turf and fall on them.

I think the confusion stems from setting yourself low initially, then he falls , it’s hard to mark adjustments , especially if you are a big bloke

Exactly, you just cannot win with the way the rules are being implemented at the moment.

Yesterday, the problem was that Lavanini was stood up too high and, therefore, his shoulder was always at risk of crashing into the chin of Farrell (a much shorter man). So, the answer to that problem is to get the body height low and make sure contact is low (i.e. below the shoulders).

Today, we've seen Nepo and Ofa do what they should - set themselves low to ensure contact below the shoulders. However, as soon as they initiate their movement to tackle, the attacking player goes lower, basically removing any possibility to make contact below the shoulders - i.e. completely removing the target. So, the answer to that problem is to keep the body upright. But then, we just end up in Lavanini territory again!

So, as a defending player, you're buggered either way.

World Rugby really has to re-think this. There's got to be a bit of an onus on the attacking player to also protect his head. You simply cannot tell me that clever players and coaches will look at the past couple of days and make a tactical move to carry low and lead with the head.

If attacking coaches and players themselves are not going to be worried about their noggins, then why should defending teams be...?

@antipodean said in Bledisloe Two: Auckland, October 18:

@nzzp said in Bledisloe Two: Auckland, October 18:

@Nepia said in Bledisloe Two: Auckland, October 18:

I actually thought that was pretty good, especially after everyone complaining about The Breakdown in the other thread.

They asked some good questions and I thought Foxy answered them pretty well even if he was a bit agitated.

Definitely defensive though - leading about 'you can't want the ABs to win all the time, and also want a contest - if we have a contest sometimes we lose'. I dunno, as i said, seemed very defensive and agitated.

I got the impression he's sick of the attitude permeating NZ Rugby public that has grown accustomed to unrealistic expectations because of an outlier team even amongst the All Blacks' record.

My issue is that his attitude seems to be "the NZ public has to understand ... there's a lot we're trying to do that the NZ public doesn't understand etc.". My attitude is, well explain to us what we don't know. Tell us what you're thinking is - even after the fact. Maybe then we'll be able to see why certain things were done a certain way and we'll be less critical. But, this don't ask, don't tell stuff just isn't going to cut it with a rugby public who, for the most part, know a bit about the game.

@Tim yeah mate. Been a while but felt to dip my toe as the tour heated up.

@siam said in Cricket 2021: NZ in England and WTC Final:

@majorrage and yet we thrashed the Indians just after they beat Tim Paine.
Me thinks tim might have a bit of tunnel vision...

Turns out the Aussie cricket team much like their public only pay attention to what happens in international cricket during the 3 months a year where they are beating up on opposition in their own backyard

@l_n_p said in All Blacks vs Springboks I:

@kiwiwomble said in All Blacks vs Springboks I:

yeah, my comment earlier was definitely not an attempt to say the current wingers weren't good, they in general are world class by most standards

No sorry, I can't let that pass. Rieko aside, they're good international class with future upside, no more.

World class for me means you'd make a world #1 23 or world #2 23 squad so six top wingers maximum.

Top six wings off the top of my head ... Anthony Watson, Louis Rees-Zammit, Rieko Ioane, Cheslin Kolbe, maybe Marika Koroibete, + 1 more (I would have said Jonny May a year ago).

Go on, give me your top 6 wings worldwide then ...

Rees-Zammit is potential only and has less of a test match body of work than Jordan.

Watson is terrible and the Boks proved that demoattably.

Cheslin, Rieko and probably Josh Adams in the order

@cgrant said in All Blacks vs Springboks I:

I am more worried about the ABs discipline than the SA bombs. If the ABs are penalised in their own half, this would lead to kicks into touch near their goal line. Remember the first test against the Aussie when the SA scored three tries after rolling mauls. This is the aspect of the game where they are the most threatening IMO. We could see the same scenario as the AB forwards are not very good in defending mauls, with the notable exception of Brodie Retallick.

The big risk is we get caught playing too much side-to-side in the middle of the park, get turned over or give aways of penalties, from which they can launch these kinds of attacks. We did it a bit in the 2nd half against the Argies on Sat, whereas the week before BB would often put up a kick or put one in behind when we found ourselves in that areas of the park without having made much head way after a few phases. Something similar will be needed this weekend

@mariner4life said in Turning Point 9/11 and the War on Terror:

@nzzp said in Turning Point 9/11 and the War on Terror:

@nta said in Turning Point 9/11 and the War on Terror:

Turned over to the late night news, which was showing live pictures of a fire in one of the towers. I knew fuck all about New York but it was a big building and a big fire. Looked awful. Called in the to-be-wife, and we sat together just as the second plane hit. Thought WW3 was about to start.

What happened was a goddamn tragedy, and utterly unacceptable. That said, the genius was the second plane. No-one saw the first plane; it happened, and people were dealing with that. That got the eyes of the world on the second tower, and those indelible images of tragedy.

The terrorists achieved what they wanted - which was terror. One plane probably doesn't have nearly the same visceral impact

Can't believe it was 20 years already

the whole plan is staggering in its scale and execution

People always talk about the simplicity of the plan, but I am staggered at how many things had to go right not just for one plane to hit the tower, but for two planes and then a third into a fucking pentagon! Think about all the things that had to go right not just on the day with 19 hi-jackers but also in the years leading up to it with everyone else involved and the flying lessons etc.

Still mind-blowing

@toddy said in All Blacks vs Pumas II:

Looks like the new Adam Thomson to me. All elbows and knees with a huge engine.

True but with far more impact. If he can improve his accuracy his work rate really is quite elite

@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Pumas II:

@bones said in All Blacks vs Pumas II:

Welfare check on @Machpants please.

Surely the ABs are number one in the rankings, right?

We’re not number one until we beat England

But only if they are at "full strength"

@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Pumas II:

@canes4life said in All Blacks vs Pumas II:

Good win, now let’s show the Boks who’s the real no 1.

But they’re so physical. And have you seen the size of them?

Will they be at full strength though?

@act-crusader said in Openside flankers:

1 - Dalton Papali’i
2 - Ardie Savea
3 - Ethan Blackadder
4 - Sam Cane
5 - Matt Todd
6 - Tanerau Latimer
7 - Scott Waldrom
8 - Adam Thomson
9 - Chris Masoe
10 - Rodney So’oialo
11 - Daniel Braid
12 - Sam Harding
13 - Richie McCaw
14 - Marty Holah
15 - Scott Robertson
16 - Mark Carter
17 - Andrew Blowers
18 - Taine Randell
19 - Josh Kronfeld
20 - Liam Barry
21 - Kupu Vanisi
22 - Zinzan Brooke
23 - Paul Henderson
24 - Dallas Seymour
25 - Kevin Schuler
26 - Michael Jones
27 - Jamie Joseph
28 - Mark Brooke-Crowden
29 - Jock Hobbs
30 - Mike Brewer

Pretty sure Mark Carter and Kup Vanisi need to be swapped in that list

@mariner4life said in Openside flankers:

@chris-b said in Openside flankers:

Thinking about the depth we've presently got at openside flanker makes me wonder quite why it is that we've almost always had gun opensides?

I'm not sure quite when we shifted from using left and right flankers to using blind and open sides - it was after Waka Nathan and Kel Tremain, but even that pair were starting to be pretty complementary and by all accounts Nathan was a gun as a prototypical openside.

First really genuine openside might have been Ken Stewart? And since then we've had a nearly unbroken chain of Kevin Eveleigh, Graham Mourie, Jock Hobbs, Michael Jones, Josh Kronfeld, Richie McCaw and Sam Cane.

A few little lulls along the way, but also periods where we've had several excellent options - Frank Shelford, Ginge Henderson, Marty Holah and now Ardie Savea and Dalton Papali'i.

I don't think we've got another position where we've been so strong, so consistently.

yeah, it's NZ rugby's signature position. There has been an embarrassment of riches at times

Look at who was running around in say 2005 and couldn't get near a test gig.

It's a glamour spot in NZ, so athletes want to play there. And our national style compliments the position beautifully for creating hard bastards who are not only good on the ground, but hard defenders and good link players.

Yes 7 and probably now 11 are two spots where you would pick a NZer 9 times out of 10 over any other nationality.

It's a good idea for a thread (and one I've thought about starting) - World XV for nationalities. Safe to say you'd probably pick a couple of Saffers to play lock!

@mariner4life said in Foster signs 2 year extension:

@pukunui said in Foster signs 2 year extension:

Beating shit teams means nothing.

who are the good teams?

Anyone who is "full strength" apparently, which is basically no one ever

@bones said in All Blacks vs Pumas I (yay we’re not playing the Aussies again):

@kiwiwomble his option taking was dire, but if a player is doing one thing time and again, in some cases to the detriment of the team and he isn't under instruction to do just that, then I'm sure he'll get dropped pretty swiftly.

In fairness to him it did seem like there as a general instruction to take the contact when in those situations out wide where the opposition has cover in place. He actually did this well, gaining extra metres and time for his support players on multiple occasions. What was unforgivable was his failure to score or pass to his support when he got held up and bundles out in the corner. That was just awful all round.