« Corniche Pastie leads England to Shock Win over Australia | Main | The Kiwi Column: All Blacks Choke, France Proceed To The Semis »
Captain Kirk: Uhuru to judge?
"For every new rugby power rising, an old power has sunk. To sum it up Anglo-Saxons and Celts have given way to Polynesians and Latins. The pupil has become the master and there is no going back."
The last New Zealander to get his paws on the Webby, David Kirk, has given his verdict on the state of the rugby nation after the pool stages of the Rugby World Cup and it makes interesting reading. The little man from Otago says that the future looks bleak for the so-called "Home nations" and that two teams in the quarter-finals might be as good as it gets for the British rugby nations (in which I presume he includes Ireland; not an academic, obviously).
More than that, he believes that what has "protected the UK nations and kept them in the top flight of world rugby" is everything to do with "handicaps visited on the emerging nations", ie. lack of funding, coaching and strong regional competitions. "With the ball in play more and a premium on aggressive defence and physical power at the tackle and in the backs, the explosive athleticism of the Pacific Island nations becomes all the more effective". The discipline and organisation engendered by professional coaching has done the rest. The new Stellenbosch laws which are "on the way" - Scrumbag thought that they were still be voted on, but there you go - further reward athleticism and physicality, which is why the Pac nations have prospered (and Argentina, I guess). So it seems that the British/ UK/ Home nations (plus the Irish, I guess) are pretty screwed. Interesting theory. Does it hold up? Does it really explain why Wales and Ireland have gone home, why Argentina beat France, why England are so poor? Let's take a look...
Wales and Ireland really disappointed, it's true. Expectations were high, despite their dire warm-ups campaigns. Argentina served notice on Wales in Cardiff, despite just coming together as a squad, and Italy - who had such an anonymous World Cup that you had to check if they were still there or taken an early break - ran Ireland so close in Belfast after Scotland had put the Irish away 31-21 that EOS' men were on the skids way before Georgia wrestled them into near-submission.
Then again, Samoa had possibly the best talent available to any Poly- or Melanesian nation. A real set of forwards, huge physicality and atheliticism, real ambition... so why did they get so badly turned over by England and South Africa (discounting some ref assistance)? Or, put it another way: what did Tonga and latterly, Fiji (in one great game) have that Samoa didn't? Easy.
A fly half.
Seru Rabeni, Akapusi Qera and Vilimoni Delasau got most of the plaudits from the pundits after dumping Wales out, but the most significant figure on the pitch was stretchered off in the 79th minute. Nicky Little gave the best 7s players in the world direction in attack, bringing in the runners from deep at the right time. In defence, he kicked his lines like a classical 1st 5/8. Grant Fox with a Pebbles hairstyle. When nothing was on, he took the right tactical option and gave Wales the ball plus 80 metres to the line. He converted penalties to points so that Fiji didn't have to score extra tries, and they made it over the finishing line in front. His pedigree? Canterbury, North Harbour, Sale Sharks, Dax, Pontypridd, released by Saracens and now at Petrarca Padova. David Kirk would probably think he had lived his club career in reverse order. He's a reject from the "world's best competitions and the world's best coaches" that Kirk points to for the Pac Island/ Puma improvement, but his northern-born structured rugby was the bolt-on that the 7s talent needed to compete.
Man of the match between South Africa and Tonga? Fly-half Pierre Hola of the J-League's Kobe Steelers. Did he play against England in the decider? Hard to tell, we didn't see his left boot and it was all run, run, run. Samoan 10 Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu couldn't provide the same confidence for his forwards when they were on the back foot against a structured, punchy Springbok pack; Gavin Williams couldn't kick the goals. Only Loki Crichton gave them a glimmer of what control could look like, and the rest of the time it was throw-around stuff. Athleticism and physicality? So what?
And how relevant are those things to the Pumas' success? The key to the opening win against France: putting up bombs and keeping up the pressure, playing off French mistakes. Against Ireland, keep drilling them backwards with that huge boot of JM Hernandez, and beat them to a pulp up front. Felipe Contepomi proved himself to be five times the player that Ronan O'Gara is; I guess that proves Kirk right insofar as he's pointing out the folly of sponsoring foreign players to perfect their game. It can come back and bite you on the arse.
Following his logic, the old "handicaps" of lack of funding, coaching and strong regional competitions are no longer effective in protecting the 'Home nations' and so the exclusive nature of the SANZAR squads and competitions are the only things keeping New Zealand, South Africa and Australia ahead. That argument is very compelling, but actually doesn't reflect well on Kirk's own country; the economic power of New Zealand, combined with the refusal of SANZAR unions to incorporate Pac Island teams in the Super 14 - as John Connolly proposed last week - makes it all the more likely the NZ and Australia will continue to get the best of Polynesian and Melanesian talent playing in black or green and gold. Smart, David, but not exactly a moral paradise to live in.
There's also the distinct possibility that, Murray Mexted-like, David Kirk has no real idea of the drivers of Celtic failure and English ineptitude, the administrative palsy that afflicts the international game in the north. Australia will be playing the fag-end of England's 2003 side on Saturday and really must beat them. No English supporter really expects otherwise, whatever they might hope. But with 68% English representation in the Guinness Premiership's twelve 45-member squads, ie. well over 300 players, there's definitely talent already waiting on the shelf. Wales have refused to move on from notions of a "Welsh way" to just winning, with no closure since their Stalin-like purge of successful general Mike Ruddock after the 2005 Grand Slam. They're a shambles who only play attractive rugby when everything is almost lost. Ireland suffered from the hubris of two seasons where they finished as runners-up in the Six Nations and don't have a fly-half.
All these are issues which can be fixed as quickly as Australia 'found' Berrick Barnes, if the right people take the right decisions and the right time. We can't help feeling that rumours of the north's death are greatly exaggerated.
Last point: in Kirk's own words: "I didn't know that Argentina were simply stronger, better organised and mentally tougher than any of the UK nations." Mate, check the IRB rankings occasionally... you've been hanging out with Muzza too much...
October 6, 2007 in Rugby World Cup 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfcfe53ef00e54eee6c198833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Captain Kirk: Uhuru to judge?:
» Alprazolam n126. from Alprazolam.
Alprazolam no prescription. History alprazolam. Alprazolam. Cheap alprazolam. [Read More]
Tracked on 29 Aug 2009 11:18:44
» Tramadol hcl. from Tramadol maintence.
Comparative potencies of opioids tramadol. [Read More]
Tracked on 8 Sep 2009 18:45:04
Comments
Well said Scrumbag. This sounds to me a lot like the old "rugby isn't a game for smaller guys anymore" argument that was old even when Dominici embaressed NZ in *that* game in 99. Someone is always predicting the demise of a particular brand of rugby, and it wasn't too many years ago when the same SH guys were predicting the end of huge, powerful, pack-driven sides before England went on and won the WC in that same year.
Wales do have muscular forwards (there has not been a genetic shift since the 70s), we just are not developing them properly (hate to say it, but Butler's "intensity" message is partly true here) and those we do have we don't always employ them correctly in games, we become too obsessed (or in the case of the Fiji game, just blindly panic) with getting the ball out and around the pitch.
Ireland, as you say, have suffered from their best players (O'Gara, D'arcy and Stringer) suffering a criminal level of drop in form right at the wrong time, and also not actually being as good as they thought they were.
England (and I say this grudgingly) are getting better now they seem to remember their best game is strangling the opposition, getting Jonny to tick the scoreboard over, then letting loose when the opposition get frustrated with the pace of the game and that 3,6,9... creeping points deficit that Jonny gets them.
Your final point hits the nail right on the head - if this really is the time when the islanders go forward then one of the biggest sufferers will be NZ, shorn of all those honest-to-goodness NZers like the Fijian born Lomu.
There's nothing inherent in the style, strength and depth of the Celtic game that can't be put right, but I doubt it actually will be put right with the current people in charge of the game.
Posted by: brighty | 2 Oct 2007 16:11:57
Brighty - sorry I know you were probably trying a WUM - but have to put you right in case not. Lomu was born in Auckland and is of Tongan descent.
Posted by: pip | 2 Oct 2007 21:30:27
I think it's time to put to rest the old whinge from up north that the AB's are only competitive because we have Pacific islanders in the team. What we need is an experimental game where NZ filed a team with no islanders in it. England (where most of the moaning originates) can pick their best team to play us.
No wait a minute, that's not fair. England would get done. Let them cherry pick some talent from the Home Unions to help them.
No wait a minute, that's not fair either. They'd still get a thrashing. Let's take out all the pakeha (ie.white) players from the AB's as well.That's about 85% of the rugby playing pool eliminated from NZ. So that's fair.
Now let's give each mythical team a name - how about "British and Irish Lions" for the NH team and how about "NZ Maori" for us. Now let's play the game two years ago when England were still genuine World Champs and Ireland were starting to peak. I wonder what the score would be?
Does 19 -13 to NZ Maori sound about right?
Posted by: shelby jake | 2 Oct 2007 23:32:42
Brighty, Lomu is of Tongan descent, not Fijian, and was born in Auckland. I can assure you that he very much considers himself a New Zealander, but you may wish to take the issue up with him. Unfortunately, this is the type of ignorant comment that too often creeps into the debate on this subject.
Scrumbag says:
"the economic power of New Zealand, combined with the refusal of SANZAR unions to incorporate Pac Island teams in the Super 14 - as John Connolly proposed last week - makes it all the more likely the NZ and Australia will continue to get the best of Polynesian and Melanesian talent playing in black or green and gold. Smart, David, but not exactly a moral paradise to live in."
Given nearly all of the ABs of Pacific Island descent play for New Zealand because they were either born there or moved there at a very early age, I doubt allowing Pacific Island teams into the Super 14 would make any difference. Large scale economic migration to New Zealand from the 60's to the early 80's is of course the main reason New Zealand has a large number of talented polynesian rugby players. I could be wrong, but I don't think this was part of a scheme by the NZRFU to secure the long-term success of the ABs.
Posted by: apples | 3 Oct 2007 00:25:59
keep telling yourselves that apples! vidiri ierimea and loads more examples, eg. nzru chasing caucau until irb said no go. large scale migration is true but you're doing that self-serving thing all kiwis do ignore the lack of a viable career choice in representing samoa tonga or fiji. the proof would be the amount of support by kiwis for connolly's idea, ie. having the 3 PI nations in the super14, i reckon most kiwis would cough and say bad idea or something when they realise that a kid like rokococo who moved to nz when they were 5 would represent fiji instead. then it's just pakeha and nz polynesian ie. maori, like it should be, and the other island groups properly represented and not raped for their player resources.
shelby jack how about just going back 4 years instead and seeing how new zealand did at the world cup or doesn't that fit in with your insecure little master race theory
Posted by: big ed | 3 Oct 2007 07:41:46
Apologies for picking Lomu as an example, my facts were not straight but anyway, the main thrust of my argument wasn't intended to be anti-NZ (god you ABs fans are sensitive souls) but pointing out that I believed the poor performance of Wales et al was down to current problems, not some "changing of the guard" in the world order. Rugby is now a harder game right across the world, the idea that it's basically all over for NH teams who can't field 7ft ahtletic giants is nonsense.
So anyway, as you ABs seem to want to harp on about one point in my comment, in the interests of getting my facts right and proving that NZ do have their pick of the islands a quick web search points me to
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/theamateur/september07/allblackssecretcia.htm
choice comments
"But how else is Rodney So'oialo playing number eight for New Zealand when his brother Steve is half-back for Samoa? Finau Maka is the star of the Tongan pack, while his brother, Isitolo, is ex-All Black.
Seilala Mapusua had an All Black trial last year but is now in the centre for Samoa. But most criminal of all is that Sitiveni Sivivatu was picked out of a Fijian school aged 16 by the NZRFU, who paid for him to go to Wesley College in South Auckland for two years. By the time he finished school he was almost residentially qualified to be an AB, and the rest is history. These are but a few instances."
So come on, we all do it (Sonny Parker, Chris Horsman ..) but let's at least fess up to it and stop blaming everything on "whinging poms" as a knee jerk reaction whenever you get criticised.
Posted by: brighty | 3 Oct 2007 12:14:49
There really is no escaping this issue is there?
The impression has been that the All Black team is essentially a NZ + Pacific Island side much like the British Lions, or maybe how Scottish and Irish play for England in the cricket.
The truth is far more complicated but with the relative success of Tonga and Fiji (and the relative failure of a Samoa side that should have done better) this issue certainly ain't going away is it?
Posted by: Bentos | 3 Oct 2007 13:12:59
"But most criminal of all is that Sitiveni Sivivatu was picked out of a Fijian school aged 16 by the NZRFU, who paid for him to go to Wesley College in South Auckland for two years. By the time he finished school he was almost residentially qualified to be an AB, and the rest is history."
Strong, emotive claims. But unfortunately, as ever on such matters, replete with factual error on almost every single count, large and small:
1. Sivivatu came to NZ aged 15, not 16. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitiveni_Sivivatu
2. While it is often alleged in NH blogs that Siti came to Wesley College on an NZRFU-funded school scholarship, no-one has ever produced a shred of evidence of this. It seems highly unlikely that the NZRFU would waste considerable money on the Herculean task of identifying international rugby talent at age 15, talent that they have in addition no legal right to force to play for NZ
3. Under the IRB rules, time spent in a NZ secondary school does not qualify for residency purposes. See the Wikipedia article on the qualification process Siti had to follow post-school
4. A NZ blogger on the Beeb claimed to have played against Siti at top school boy level in Auckland, aged 16, where Siti represented Wesley College - AT 1ST XI SOCCER!
Criminal, right? Got to agree, but the crime's not in the Kiwi poaching.
Posted by: STC | 3 Oct 2007 16:17:37
Amazing comment on that wikipedia page you pointed us at:
Sivivatu made his test debut for the inaugural Pacific Islanders rugby union team against the Australian Wallabies in 2004. This game was granted test status by the IRB and among his teammates were Sione Lauaki who also became an All Black. Sivivatu and fellow All Black wing Joe Rokocoko regard themselves as "cousins" as Sivivatu lived with the Rokocoko family, but they are not actual cousins.[2]
So lemme see, he played, in a test, for the Pacific Islanders and yet is still a Kiwi? C'mon......
Posted by: brighty | 4 Oct 2007 14:23:21
The truth is that many pacific islanders have lived most of their lives in New Zealand and are have often been born there. There are actually similar or larger numbers of pacific islanders living in New Zealand than in the rest of the pacific. Ethnically they are Samoan, Tongan or Fijian however they often have spent most of their lives in New Zealand and therefore are New Zealanders.
They are brought up in New Zealand and develop their rugby predominately in New Zealand. When they come up through the age grades some of them take opportunities to play for teams from their country of origin and I think it is a good thing really. It allows players who may not be good enough to play for New Zealand teams to get a taste of international rugby for other teams.
It seems that there is widespread commentary in the English media citing pacific islanders as the reason that New Zealand rugby team is internationally quite strong. However I suspect this is really just the English making excuses for their inability to form a strong national side. England is a far larger country than New Zealand and really has far more resources at its disposal when it comes to rugby development. I think it may just be a case of the English having "sour grapes" really.
The English seem to be underachieving in all international sports really not just rugby but also cricket, soccer whatever. I would hypothesize that the underlying reasons for this are actually cultural. England has the 2nd highest obesity rates of English speaking nations and low levels of activity. Whilst Australians and New Zealanders like being fit and active and playing sport the English seem to like watching sport. English youth are not playing as much sport as the equivalents in Australia and New Zealand and therefore there are smaller pools of sporting talent to develop. I think this is the underlying reason why England seems to consistently under achieve in sport. Australia and New Zealand are not better at rugby because there are more islanders in these countries, they are better at rugby because youngsters in these countries constantly play sport rather than watching it.
Posted by: bobsmigth | 5 Oct 2007 04:01:07
Bob Smith, as a New Zealander I have to tell you that your theory of kiwis being a population of rippling muscles and sporting freaks is a load of old bunkem. People aren't as fit as you think they are in Aotearoa and probably if you had a look at the Forbes Fattest countries index you would see for yourself that New Zealand is streaks ahead of the UK at number 17 on world obesity scales, while your so called couch potatoes in the British Isles come in quite some way behind at 28 on the list.
Posted by: pip | 5 Oct 2007 05:33:46
You see, poms can't even win at being morbidly obese any more. [repeat to fade]. Pip, without wanting to get into an area which is sticky - as sticky as a bus seat where a big fat fatty has dropped the wrapper from a cream bun - could that stat about Team Aming-y coming in at number 17 be driven by the high levels of PI immigration in NZ? Those Polynesians are big boys, even the girls sometimes...
Bob Smith, fair play. Apart from the fact that in most global sports we participate in, either England or GB consistently come ahead of NZ (Australia is a different matter), win World Cups etc., we are hamstrung more by a post-war soft socialist anathema for anything related to competion, elite groups or promoting participation in sports through schools. It's heart-breaking really. Our problem, for us to sort out. I don't think there's some sort of underlying fecklessness when it comes to sport that needs addressing tho' - check out triathlon, it just depends on organisation, access and good administration of the particular sport.
My question to you would be: OK, I'll accept everything you say, but would you as a NZer say yes or no to Samoa, Tonga and Fiji squads competing in the Super14 or an expanded competition, if that meant that NZ-raised Polynesians/ Melanesians were no longer available to the ABs? Their absence would make a hell of a lot of difference outside 1st 5/8 - which is traditionally like the "only white guys play quarterback" thing in gridiron.
Now, where's that chocolate cake?
Posted by: jonnyboy71 | 5 Oct 2007 05:55:03
Sorry Johnnyboy, but I am confused - how would the pacific islands competing in an expanded 'super' competition mean that NZ born or raised Polynesians/Melanesians were not available for the ABs?
You seem to be assuming that someone who has lived all (or almost all) of their life in a country would automatically want to represent the country their parents/ancestors come from. My mother is english, but there's no way I would even play tiddlywinks for England - if I was good enough. Of course thats up to the individual, and if someone wants to choose their ancestral country over the place they were bought up, then good luck to them, thats fair enough. However, I fail to understand why you assume that a large proportion of people would.
In addition, I think that a more basic flaw in your argument is that it seems to assume that individuals of polynesian/melanesian descent can only play professional rugby if they play/want to play for NZ. This is simply not true - there are super 14 players who play for PI teams (Lome Fa'atau in the Hurricanes for example), and there is always the option of playing in the UK or France, which a lot of NZ players of all ethnic backgrounds seem to be taking up more and more.
So as a NZer I think it would be great for a PI combined team/single teams to play in the Super-whatever. I dont think it would affect which national side an individual would want to play for much at all - after all, that choice of a country to represent is more to do with one's identity than making a crust, isn't it?
Posted by: FiddyPence | 5 Oct 2007 15:12:45
Fiddy, it's more the angle that once you play representative rugby for your country (whichever one you choose, if you have dual nationality, or qualify for another on residence), you're locked into playing for that country. And due to economic reasons - the same that many PI-origin families and individuals who have nothing to do with rugby would consider for emigrating to NZ - at present, you're going to be more likely to play for NZ, or Australia. I take your Lome Fa'atau example, but take Caucau - Mr. Max the Cash. He only "committed" himself to Fiji (ha ha) after being stopped from adopting the Black. The guy has a talent and wants to make the most of it, as will many others, and that means getting the income stream from club/ province + a major one from country. NZRU offers relatively decent $$$s - currently, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa do not because they don't play in that many high-profile competitions. I guess, with reference to your last para, that we just disagree about the impact of a rational financial decision on which country you'd choose to play for. Practically, money = NZ.
It does look suss when you have the So'oialo brothers representing different countries, Maka bros, etc.. Another great example: Finau offered to play for France and was a bit miffed they didn't want him! Money talks, my friend...
Posted by: jonnyboy71 | 5 Oct 2007 15:40:17
Well, thats a fair point about the economic benefits of playing for NZ rather than Samoa for example, in that the additional income beyond the Super 14 level is higher for an All Black.
However, the amount of money that can be made by playing for a UK club (for a good player) is far more than the NPC/Super/All Blacks income combined - so why shouldn't player X play for a European club side but an Island national team (as indeed many do)? The only reason the ABs dont play in europe (until they're over the hill) is that they wont be selected for the national side, but this problem isn't there for Samoa/Tonga/Fiji.
Caucau is a bit of a maverick (in many ways), and I think it would have been a big mistake if he had been allowed to play for NZ - he's just not a NZer, having moved to NZ as an adult purely to play rugby. He definitely seems to be "in it for the money" rather than national pride, which I think kinda sucks.
As for the So'olialo brothers and the Makas - well, to be fair neither of us knows what motivated them. Money may have been a factor, but it should be noted that it was the younger so'olialo who opted for NZ - i.e. the one who moved here as a younger child, and who thus might be expected to identify more with NZ as his country. Additionally, his brother may indeed have wanted to play for NZ, but just wasnt good enough and so opted for his ancestral home, which is fair play to him. I am surprised that Finau Maka offered to play for France - perhaps he really is a mercenary, like Caucau.
Anyway, I may be naive, but I would like to think that money isn't as much a motivator for representing your country as it is for choosing your club side - if it was, there'd be no All Blacks left cos they'd all be up north!
Posted by: FiddyPence | 5 Oct 2007 16:24:48
Have to agree with Fiddy, Caucau WOULD have been a true example of poaching, a bit like that Kiwi fella...what's his name...Henry Paul...who was poached by the Poms and treated so cruelly. These guys can be considered poached in the sense that all their rugby talents were developed outside the country they ultimately represent (or who were trying to steal them). The obvious cricket paralell is, of course, Mr Mercenary Kevin Pietersen.
I didn't here too many complaints from our neck of the woods over the Poms poaching Paul. And what about Vainikolo? If he happens to play for England as it clear from reported comments that he wishes to, he'll be another true rugby mercenary, again for England.
Still, for me Caucau would have been a step too far for the ABs - as was Joeli Vidiri in actuality, rather than as a possibility - it feels/felt mercenary at the time. We don't want Pietersens in the ABs.
However I'm perfectly comfortable with the other boys of PI origin who play for the ABs, because they feel like Kiwis to me. It just doesn't feel wrong when someone went to school and learned their footy in NZ. Their profiles do not look like Pietersen's.
The Maka boys were raised and learned their rugby in Wellington. I have read an interview with Finau where he said his early ambition was to be an AB, as his big brother Isitolo was. Clearly as this was not going to happen, he explored his options elsewhere. Again, as he was a Kiwi raised boy, I would have been happy had he been selected.
Maybe in the north you do not realise the cachet of the AB jersey, irrespective of the $, to guys who have grown up and learnt their rugby in NZ.
I'm also not convinced that a quality joint PI/NZ qualified player, the mercenary individual motivated by money who Johnny hypotheses about, could not do better $-wise at Heineken Cup level than they could at super 14/AB level in NZ. Plus playing in the NH does not disqualify that player from PI international teams as it does from the ABs. UK club=more money than an NZ AB choice for PI origin players. The most striking evidence for this monetary gap is two words - Carl Hayman, but there have been others on huge contracts, short (Tana) and long. If money were their motivating object, you would not see the quality NZ PIs for dust as they scampered onto the 747 to Heathrow with the ink wet on the contract paper and a fat stash of squid or yoyos in their fists.
There are other reasons to think the mercenary money thing over-rated in the decision of ABs of Pacific origin to play for NZ. For many it is highly likely to be a decision taken with the family in mind - not an individual mercenary one. For many of these guys, whose families are domiciled in NZ, the status which devolves to the parents and wider family in NZ from a son playing for the ABs may be a very important factor in decisions. It gives a sign of status and achievement in the new society they have migrated too, and they're giving something concrete to their new country. Plus being an AB will also matter to the family back in the home island. Giving status to the family is incredibly important in Pacific cultures.
In terms of explaining the situation of the So'oialo brothers, Fiddy's suggestions are quite plausible (Rodney is I think five years younger than Mike, who himself attended secondary school in NZ), and the split decision is not the least "suss". It is also quite possible, knowing Samoan society a bit - though I have no information for this specific case - that Mr So'ioalo snr told son number 1 (Mike) to play for Samoa and son number 2 (Rodney) to go for ABs to fulfil what he felt was a dual set of obligations to two societies.
Now on to this absolute cracker from Johnny:
"[what say] NZ-raised Polynesians/ Melanesians were no longer available to the ABs? Their absence would make a hell of a lot of difference outside 1st 5/8 - which is traditionally like the "only white guys play quarterback" thing in gridiron."
"hell of a lot of difference" - coughs politely - with respect, this is complete and utter scrofulous pox-ridden dogs gonads, man:
Try this NZ born backline:
Kelleher, Carter, Mauger, Smith, Evans, & Howlett. All from the current RWC squad. I've put McDonald on the bench.
But bugger, I'm missing a winger by dumping Ted's foreign born (Fijian) first choices. In my view Rico Gear, left at home, is as good or better than Rokocoko and Sivavatu. Personally I think Siva has poor hands and is out of form and would not select him as first choice anyway.
If there is a difference in quality in what I've selected, it is pretty small. It's Mils (arrived in NZ aged three) in my mind, who shades Conrad on the quality stakes.
Oh and try these quality first fives for NZ who were Maori or PI in origin - Steve Bachop, Steve Pokere, and Carlos Spencer - to name just three. Moving over the ditch, Mark Ella was a pretty handy for a non-white guy (he was a fucking genius, more like). Nicky Little for Fiji's not bad either - oh bugger, he's born in NZ and learned his rugby there. Still, press on and try and ignore that one too, eh?
Posted by: STC | 5 Oct 2007 20:54:47
STC, cracking post. I'm not messianically trying to 'save the native' from the clutches of the dastardly Kiwi, I'm just pointing out - in response to the thread that the original post led on to - that an economically viable "provincial" set-up for the 3 PI nations within the bosom of S14 rugby would produce an impact on the All Blacks, to a greater or, as you compellingly put, a lesser degree now and over the coming years. I full recognise the kudos of the black jersey and respect it - hell, I'm a rugby fan, not a football tragic.
But bringing the thread back to the original post, David Kirk is really only presenting a very select view of the current dynamic of representative international rugby to make an argument that is as boring and repetitive for northern rugby fans as the "you nick Islanders" mantra is to Kiwis. That was my original contention. RWC 2007 has shown the north the pitfalls of not controlling that dynamic in your own favour, among other things - strategy, coaching and skills being some of those other things. With the lesson of failure and the financial muscle of a game that is still burgeoning at provincial (club) and international level commercially, all it needs is some savvy management to rebuild for success, particularly in England and France. Kirk is playing the one-eyed Kiwi to a T.
Above all, it has been a thoroughly enjoyable Cup and will produce some great rugby before it ends. Leaving aside these skirmishes, what a great time for global rugby and long may it continue.
Best of luck this weekend!
Posted by: jonnyboy71 | 5 Oct 2007 21:15:37
Good calls STC, I forgot about Joeli Vidiri - I agree that was out of order. As for Lesley Vainikolo - born in Tonga to NZ-born parents, and grew up in Auckland and played league for the Kiwis, but wants to play for England? Weird. He cant try for the ABs because he lives in England, but I would have thought his allegiance would be more with Tonga. Still, I wont care if he plays for England - no complaints of poaching here! In fact, given that he's a NZer, I can support at least a small part of the English team if he gets in...
Also gotta agree on the Polynesian first fives - Frano Botica is another example; good tactical player in both league and rugby.
On the main point of the thread, I think that Kirk has some points, but that Jonnyboy is right - with the correct admin and coaching input, the north can and will improve again - there's just too many people and too much money for it not to. And to be fair, its good for world rugby if more countries are strong (tho hopefully not as strong as us, no offence to anyone else!).
It has indeed been a good world cup, and I hope this weekend is a cracker - go England, Fiji, the Argies and of course NZ!!
Posted by: FiddyPence | 6 Oct 2007 12:07:04
bobsmigth, STC, et al. Your claims of this being a load of English hype, coupled with claims of "us" not understanding NZ culture/politics/economics might have more weight if you stop freely interchanging the words British and English. I'd have thought a rugby nation at least would know that Britain is also NI, Wales and Scotland? I'm Welsh, so please stop attributing my comments to the English.
Anyway, all NZers look away right now, cos I'm about to get very childish.
CHOKERS!!!! CHOKERS!!! CHOKERS!!!
Stick that Kirk you superior-minded idiot. The demise of NH rugby my arse. It has come to something when a Welshman is cheering on England to beat Australia because he's getting sick of the pompous arrogance of the antipodean commentators gleefully rubbishing the 6 Nations competition and all the teams who play in it. So come on France, let's keep the cup up North for 4 more years.
Posted by: brighty | 7 Oct 2007 08:05:27
Brighty
"bobsmigth, STC, et al. Your claims of this being a load of English hype, coupled with claims of "us" not understanding NZ culture/politics/economics might have more weight if you stop freely interchanging the words British and English."
Ummm...I believe I used the words "north", "UK", and "Poms" to describe you guys. I don't see the words "British" and "English" at any point in what I wrote, let alone conflated as you claim. Nor did I make any claims for your - personal or generic - lack of understanding of NZ - I simply tried to explain the situation of PI players in NZ rugby as I saw it. Your arguments were taken seriously. Do me the honour too.
Does this mean my words now carry more weight with you? Thanks for that fella.
That said it is sadly true - indeed inevitable given our relative sizes, history, and NZ's geographical isolation from major population centres - that NZers on average have a considerably clearer and better understanding of the UK society and culture than vice versa. We grow up with your accents, music, TV, sport and literature. You don't grow up with ours. Most of us have English ancestry, including many in the Maori and PI population of NZ, in the recent or more distant past. Most of you don't have Kiwi ancestry. Most of us at some point study, or work and generally enjoy the people and the life in the UK (I personally really liked the folks up in northern England). Some Poms make it down south to NZ (some of my best friends, etc...), but proportionately much fewer than NZers who head north. This is all fact, for which no blame can attach to Poms.
But much of your media commentary on NZ, including us in relation to the RWC, unfortunately, appears based on lazy repetition of easy myth and shallow 50 year old cliche (pretty, lots of sheep, people boring and humourless, arrogant, sore losers - pick your mix and stir vigorously) (as an aside, it will be interesting to see the evolution of the Scrumbag poll on reasons for the AB loss versus France - when I looked only 6% of 70 odd respondants were blaming the ref - looks like sore losers are a small minority).
When ignorance is pointed out - the poaching issue is a brilliant example - a wall of harrumphing, repeating of the original position ad infinitum, and irrelevant abuse ("chokers")can often, but not always (see Jonny above for a nice example of grace), descend.
It will be interesting to see if for RWC 2011, UK rugby journos like Stephen Jones will be able to break habits of a life-time, and try to see NZ rugby and society without the constricting prisms of old cliche and easy prejudice. Mind you, it's harder work that way, having to think and consider, isn't it? And that, in a nutshell, is the human, not Pommy, problem.
Now on to the subject...Captain Kirk will always have a revered place in our hearts for lifting the first RWC. However, his command of rugby logic has been seriously polluted by the two of the most malign influences to clear thinking on the planet known to man - an English "higher" education (Rhodes scholarship to Oxford), and more than a decade working in Sydney, Australia for Fairfax media. Cut the man some slack would ya, these experiences would do anyone's head in!
Posted by: stc | 8 Oct 2007 08:47:30
Here, here. Fiji and Tonga won with thinking, structured big-game play. The ABs could take a few pointers from them. ABs have shown that you can have the best team in the world but still lose with bad tactics (and the English have proved the converse).
SANZAR unions owe their polynesian neighbours to support them. As a kiwi, I find it embarrassing that when SANZAR chose to expand the Super 12, then overlooked some of the best small rugby-playing countries and went with an Australian state that doesn't know what to do when the playing field isn't round and they can't bounce the ball. There are rivalry issues and a risk that a pacific franchise would degenerate into a quagmire of egos and small town politics (not unlike the reasons why the home nations have their own separate teams), but I didn't get the feeling anyone really tried.
As for Kirk, ppl only listen to him once every four years, so he has to make the most of it.
Posted by: Marty | 9 Oct 2007 17:53:49
As for theory - you have to explore it yourself. As for practice - maybe I could give some help. I found an interesting soft on one of the thematic forum recently. It searches for combination automatically. Nice one, though poor in interface. Program is based on Martingale system with the corrected algorithm. It`s based on searching and waiting a series of results («red or black» usually). But this one I got is for «head or tail». There were discussion
Posted by: booster | 13 Jan 2009 11:41:31
