The REAL story...why the AB's lost!

Discussion in 'The Clubhouse Bar' started by Gay-Guy, Dec 29, 2007.

  1. Gay-Guy

    Gay-Guy Guest

    Ok ok...so you have heard a lot of theories on why the AB's lost....well after much thought this is an exclusive on why the AB's failed to win the RWC.



    The All Blacks lost because of Dan Carter and Gilbert Enoka.
    The man responsible for these two underperforming was Graham Henry.


    So the All Blacks ultimately lost because of Graham Henry.



    FIRST FIVE[/b].



    NZ won the RWC in 1987 with a team that had the Fitzpatrick leading the battle up front, Captain Kirk giving orders to direct forward or back play....and they had a first five GRANT FOX WHO GAVE THE DIRECTION WHICH ORDERS KIRK SHOULD FOLLOW and where the team should be going. The 1987 AB's were NOT led by the management off the field and most of the NZ public do not know who their coach was or even one of the selectors! Some of the NZ public even think that the coach was their non playing captain Andy Dalton! The lasting impression New Zealanders have of the 1987 RWC is that of David Kirk holding a trophy.....it was won by the players alone on the day, ateam who were directed by the useless soldier yet brilliant general GRANT FOX!



    Since 1987 the NZ team has had First Five Eighth's who have moved away from the primary focus of directing their team and had them move towards more of a second five eighth's role of flair. Bachop ran more than Fox, Merhtens ran more than Bachop, Carlos ran more than Merhtens. Then we have Carlos' successor....Dan Carter. He is encouraged to keep developing his PERSONAL skills rather than his TEAM GOVERNANCE skills. The NZ public are more concerned about Carter playing well PERSONALLY rather than Carter playing the TEAM better. Carter was not taught the skills to lead the team. Henry did not empower him to be a "leader amongst equals". Carter did not take the team by the scruff of the neck and point them in the right direction. He was never given full reign to adjust the gameplan on the field. He was not given full responsibility to change things as he sees fit. Carter could see what was happening on the field yet he could not "percieve". He had been trained to only see what was in front of him...the "moment" rather than the bigger strategic picture. Merhtens bossed Bunce and Brooke around. Fox told Stanley and Schuster what the haps was. Carter looks at Mils and Mauger and says "Hope it works what Henry wants".



    For the next RWC NZ simply need a THINKING first five eighth's who is confident to lead the best soldiers in the world to fight battles in the right areas because even a brilliant army can be defeated by having no general.



    Henry chose to be the general of the AB's. By not having an on-field general his fantastic team were without ground zero direction and as a result ambushed.



    In conclusion I again restate that even though Carter unwillingly and probably unknowingly failed on the field and even though Enoka only half prepared his players to play and not to think, ultimately the blame must lie on Henry who directed both these men to make these critical errors.
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. shtove

    shtove Guest

    Hallo, is there anybody out there? Hallooooo?

    Sorry, Gay Guy - most NZ international posters have flown south for the winter. But the SA guys stuck around!

    That psychological approach sounds like the Borg - each member focuses on a small task, and collectively they move as one. I suppose there's plenty of fine theory to back it up - flocking patterns, wisdom of crowds etc. Interestingly, Ireland's WTF! campaign has officially been put down to a collective failure - so it works both ways. And Ireland's lack of strength up front is blamed on not having full internationals before the tournament. But Ireland were a very settled team. So lots of parallels and contrasts there.

    The weakness I saw in Carter was his failure in tactical kicking, or really just kicking long in to the corners. But then I'm a fan of Ireland's O'Gara. In THE match, Carter wasn't on the pitch (nor was his replacement) to prove his quality as general in choosing a 2003 Jonny-style late DG. If you take that actual score as a comparison, you can see that England were bent on DGs throughout the final - Jonny missed two, I think - but that the last, wonderful move was down to three key players: Johnson, Dawson and Jonny. So England kept plugging at a tactic that could have lost them a game they should have won, and finally it paid off. The ABs too kept plugging away with forward drives, but they didn't have those key players when it mattered.

    And let's not forget two brilliant tries by France! I was delighted at the result, but as the tournament unfolded after that I kind of wished we could turn back the clock. We'll see in the 6N if the ping-pong horror is with us long term.
     
  4. Ripper

    Ripper Guest

    Carters problem is that he seems to have been bitten by the injury bug in the last 12 months, and was unhealthy for the quarter final. A Fit Carter letting rip will still be better than any other alternative in the world. He didn't have the chance to take the game by the scruff of the neck has he was limping off around the same time as Kellehar so we had Leonard (an inexperience Halfback, although he didn't disgrace himself in the situation) and Evans, and later our 3rd Fly Half of the game McAlister who hasn't had a good game in the Fly Half spot since saving the AB's in the 05 Tri Nations from Panadol.

    The thing which screwed the All Blacks the most apart from that useless English Tosser (God I hope the rumours of him reffing the AB/Irish test in Wellington next year are true) was the fact we had our 3rd Choice Fly Half playing in the crunch. If Evans hadn't gone off I would've bet my own mother that we would've won, whenever he touched the ball the French Defense line seemed to on AWOL.

    Also, what hasn't been talked about much is Toeava, if he hadn't missed that game at the MCG and put in a solid performance he probably would've sealed the 13 Jersey after he shut down Mortlock in the Bledisoe Decider, but he had to pull out, and the Cartel felt they hadn't seen enough (which they probaly would've if he had put in 2 good performances against Mortlock rather than just the one) so they kept trying to bring back Conrad Smith, neglected Toeava, so when Smith bombed (which anyone with half a brain should've saw coming after doing nothing in his 8 minutes in the Tri Nations and looking like **** against sub standard NPC Teams) we had to put Mils there. Toeava only touched the ball twice in the quarter final, but those two touches he ran at the line more dangerously than the other two 13's had shown all year.

    And the French tries weren't brillant. One was a foward pass, and the other was a simple overlap which any decent team worth their salt should score when facing a team with a man in the bin. McAlister's try was much better (Jauzion is still his bitch no matter the result)
     
  5. shtove

    shtove Guest

    But what about GG's view on AB generals over the years? Put it another way - are NZ fans content to think that Carter would have done the job if he'd been fit? And is that good enough for next time round?

    Forward pass is debatable - marginal in my view, given Traille was stopped in his tracks as he offloaded - but the first try must have been the first time in years the ABs were ripped apart and left strewn all over the field from one touchline to the other. Some credit to your opponents please, Mr Bok lover.
     
  6. Gay-Guy

    Gay-Guy Guest

    Forward pass is debatable - marginal in my view, given Traille was stopped in his tracks as he offloaded - but the first try must have been the first time in years the ABs were ripped apart and left strewn all over the field from one touchline to the other. Some credit to your opponents please, Mr Bok lover.
    [/b][/quote]



    It was a forward pass. However that was not why the try was scored. The try was scored because no one in the AB team gave the correct calls to mark up properly. There was nobody thinking on how to defend the French movement. Carter who was leadership lacking was off the field, Evans was a deputy so was taking orders from Mils who was a makeshift centre taking the senior role in this defensive pattern because MacAlister was inexperienced in comparison and had shown himself to be unreliable in Australia earlier this year. MacCaw was buried on the openside of the scrum and Leonard the halfback was not confident enough to look beyond getting the best of his opposite in front of him.

    What we had was this...a midfield scrum. There are two French players on the blindside who are marked up correctly by MacAlister and Rocokoco so we have an even two on two there. You will see on the video that the ball goes to the back of the scrum and that Michalek tries to time his backdoor run from the open to the blindside to get a three on two overlap. However the French scrum is slow getting the ball out and Michalek's little surprise becomes a non event as he joins the bindside but there is no ball passed out to him. So you would think the NZ defence would look up and say "Hey look, get someone onto Michalek on the blindside". Instead the video shows Mils following an obvious TEAM PATTERN and holding his position on the openside. Logic says that NZ must be employing Brendon Leonard to check his halfback to force the halfback to pass and then try and make ground (hopefully with Collins supporting) drifting out on the blind to run down Michalak. This is where Leonard makes the mistake of getting sucked around to the back of the French scrum as the French halfback does not pass the ball out yet waits for Leonard to commit to him. An intelligent general would have seen that Leonard was engaged with the French scrum and told Jerry and Rodney to break and run for their lives after Michalak as soon as the ball is out....BUT NO ONE DOES...there is no leadership and direction for Jerry and Rodney who keep pushing rather than breaking at the moment of the pass. You will see on the video that the French halfback realises that Leonard is caught with him and won't cover the extra man on the blindside (Michalak) so he immediately passes out to the blind. You can see Leonard almost looks resigned to defeat when he realises he should be covering the first reciever on the blind (not Michalak but the other French guy as Michalak goes to second reciever on the blind - an attacking role) and tries his best to make up the ground. MacAlister tries to hang off the marking the tackle on the first reciever (he is wary of Michalaks presence and what he can do if he recieves the pass) and only goes back in to make the tackle when it all seems too late....however BANG...the ball is offloaded to Michalak who leaves Evans (the cover defence from the openside) a trail to follow...draws the NZ defence going for him.....passes to the French wing who is unmarked and scores.



    All through this movement there was NO TACTICAL LEADERSHIP on defence....the AB's should have realised when Michalek made his run to the blindside to call Leonard to keep an eye on the blind and leave Jerry and Rodney to follow any halfback or No8 blindside run. No one did....in fact the whole game had instances of no one taking control with LEADING the team. The AB's were at one point up on the scoreboard and incredibly winning all their lineouts and and stealing or disrupting the French throw. Any decent leader would have said "We need to play the territory game. Kick it out deep in their territory and we have the edge in this game at lineout time so we will try and disrupt them. We are ahead on the scoreboard so they have to make the next move...lets make sure the possession they have to make their moves is when they are in their half". Instead the dumb AB's carry on with their predetermined plan and kick for distance KEEPING THE BALL IN PLAY! Anyone can tell you that when you are behind on the scoreboard and you are given free possession it does not matter where you are on the field you will use it cos you are playing catch up. The French used it, grew in confidence....and got back into the game. NZ did not close out a game they should have won because no one on the field was thinking.
     
  7. Steve-o

    Steve-o Guest

    Flogging...a...dead...horse...

    Interesting theory you got there. That psychologist seems to have brain washed your team more than anything. I've got a few questions to ask. Firstly where does McCaw fit in all of this? As I remember he was captain. He was there for the coin toss, and sobbing in the press conference afterwards. He is not to be held accountable for not being the general? Secondly, do you really believe the French had nothing to lose in that match, really? If so, why did they have nothing to lose?
     
  8. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest


    All highly valid points that illustrate the biggest mistake GH made in his team selections for this match. IMO they were missing the one player who above all others, has fullfilled this role (for both the Crusaders and the All Blacks) for the last few years, of seeing the bigger picture and understanding what needed to be done in those last 20 minutes.... Aaron Mauger.

    Of all the cock-ups GH made, leaving Aaron Mauger out of the quarter-final was the worst by a long shot!!
     
  9. Gay-Guy

    Gay-Guy Guest



    Yes



    Aaron Mauger covered a lot of what Carter lacked. MacAlister is the better attacker but he could only function in that role properly if Carter called the offensive and defensive tactics which Carter couldn't without Mauger's help. Mauger brought with him the experience gained from working with Merhtens.
     
  10. i think alot of it had to do with realy bad timing. i think if tana was captain and playing we would have done alot better. the npc showed he was still all black material. so with no tana, we had a back line with names like lenard, carter, mcallister, mulinina, toeava and smith. yes carter and mills have had a wc under their belt, but these names, which consisted of most of our backline in the french game, were very unexperianced, and have a positive future for them. i belive that this backline in 2011 will be something worth looking at. but they were just too new. especially at centre. if tana had of been playing, it was only really 2nd 5/8 which would have had a question mark over its head. being choices of mcallister, mager or toeava.

    as for smartcooky's comment on mauger, as much as i despise the guy, he might have helped. just that little bit of experiance. imo the backline the downfall was experaince. mcallister and toeava both **** all over mauger, but the experiance that he added...???
     
  11. Gay-Guy

    Gay-Guy Guest





    MaCaw's job is the same job all AB captains have had for years. Coin toss, talk to the ref, spur his troops on, talk to the press, etc. Captains are generally not the thinking type when it came to tactics....that job belongs to the first fives. McCaw does not have a tactical rugby brain...he is simply a very good scavenger on the ground and mainly plays what is in front of him.



    The French had nothing to lose in so much as their fans expected a defeat, they had lost to Argentina, they were playing away from their fans in a foreign country, the AB's looked better allround and man for him were a better team, the AB's had beaten them every time for a few years and some of those defeats were heavy. So if the French had lost it would not have been seen as a huge tragedy as they were not really expected to win that game. Their victory was heralded as a huge upset....similar to the English victory being proclaimed as a shock win over the Aussies.















    Yep.....the brains trust in our backline had vanished. Though Henry did not invest in having the boys think for themselves at AB level...it was almost like the culture in the AB team was that they fervently do a job following the game plan from the stands.
     
  12. candybum

    candybum Guest

    Send this to Mr Henry! lol

    It felt to me as though the AB's themselves had the belief that they knew that were going to win it, as if they were way over confident. They didn't even perform the Kapa o pongo lol When they performed the old Ka mate haka, i was like "true? not that serious huh." and as the first half unfolded i was then like "WC Finals here we come" (because England had beaten Aus and i knew we were gonna flog them once we beat the french). But then the inexperienced of the team showed once those injuries occurred. They simply panicked. All the on field tactics/decisions in the 2nd half were of the wrong ones. GG, you made a very interesting read, pretty valid to i suppose. However i still want to blame mr Barnes!! he sabotaged the AB's so england would have had an easier passage to the finals!haha

    Oh well Bring on 2011.
     
  13. Dmx#1

    Dmx#1 Guest

    Barnes really did f*** the ABs over :%#%#:

    I think the main thing that held us back (apart from the shitty ref) was the lack of experience. I mean look at England for example they showed that having crusty old men in your team isnt such a bad thing after all.
     
  14. shtove

    shtove Guest

    Jeez, GG goes to the trouble of figuring out why the best players in the competition went home losers - and you're still harping on this one?

    Maybe McAlister will earn his stars with Sale. I expect he'll be the AB #10 next time round.
     
  15. Gay-Guy

    Gay-Guy Guest

    The AB's ALLOWED Barnes to screw them over They put themslves into a posiion where a conoversial decision agaist them could be made. The question is not the controversial decisions. The question is....How did they end up defending against the French on heir own line in the first place? Where was their defence, their tactics? Why didn't anyone wake up when the French did a quick restart from their 22 and ran it all the way to the AB line? After the first half they SHOULD have carried on and won the game bu they gave the FRENCH a sniff and put the ref into a position where he may make a mistake that could go agaist them. The AB's were leaderless and as a result put themselves intoa position where the bounce of the ball could go either way and unfortunately for them it was not going ther way BUT THEY HOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THAT POSITION TO LOSE IN THE FIRST PLACE!



    Yeah I was thinking exactly the same. The AB's attitude at haka time gave a hint of complacency...which gives any team a chance if they show courage.....which is what the French did....they stood up to the haka and menaced over the AB's staring them down.
     
  16. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    IMO the forward pass wasn't the only thing Barnes did wrong. His positional play was pretty much third rate for most of the second half, as he seemed determined to place himself in a position to referee one side, and it wasn't the French. He really was like a possum caught in the headlights, and anyone with an ounce of refereeing experience could see that he was totally out of his depth. How the hell the IRB managed to appoint a referee with so little experience to a RWC quarterfinal involving two of the top teams in the world is beyond me. Can you imagine FIFA appointing a refereee with only half a dozen internationals under his belt to, say, a Brazil v Italy quarter final? I can't.

    Also, he wasn't the only useless official on the paddock that day. The TJ's pretty much seemed determined to ignore French illegalities. One of the enduring images of that match for me was a camera shot on the near touchline, late in the second half, of a French hand reaching down in a ruck and rolling the ball back in full view of the TJ, who was only standing 3 metres away and looking right at it. He said and did NOTHING! :wall:
     
  17. Dmx#1

    Dmx#1 Guest

    Jeez, GG goes to the trouble of figuring out why the best players in the competition went home losers - and you're still harping on this one?[/b][/quote]

    Yep

    No he wont.
     
  18. yes it was the all blacks own fault that they lost.



    BUT - the reff was deninatly an issue. its times like these you need to have a look at what the refs are doing. the refs were acting on their own, and not as a team. barnes was so far over his head that the touchies should have helped him out. i feel sorry for the poor barstard. when they saw how badly barnes was doing they should have jumped in and helped him out.



    but they didnt. they were as bad as he was because they have been told to stay out of the game by the irb. they have been tought that the reffereeing job that they have been designated to is to be their sole job and they are not alloud to have ANY more imput than that. then we move on to the video ref.



    there are (i think) 7 refs in a rugby game 3 on the feild, 3 in the box and one as a substitute (ie like the nz vs sa game where the ref pulled a hammy) the fact that the video ref(s) did not put a message down at least to say "hey mate, theres [offside] play happening, or that there is neumerous [hands in the ruck/ruck obstructions] happening, just keep an eye out for it / stand on other side of the ruck" at the VERY LEAST. this combined effort of reffereeing showed that there is no work done between refs.



    no team work at all. people forget this. imagine a swat team raiding a house with no communication. it just wouldnt work. refs need to be put through training camps, team building excersises and team bonding sessions JUST LIKE PLAYERS do. and to the extent that they do to. i mean if south africa can put their entire squad through a army boot camp NAKED (2003) then surely we can ask the refferees to spend just a little more time togeather to get adequate teamwork for them.
     
  19. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    Gay-Guy, I do hate to spoil all of this in depth psycho-analytical and tactical and positional analysis but...do you think that Henry even thought about practicing a drop goal set piece with the team at any point up to that fatal quarter-final?
     
  20. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest


    In an interview with on Radio Sport, Henry said that was talked about, and they were planning to do that if the opportunity arose, but it never did. They were never close enough in the centre of the field at the late stages of the game. They sould have been awarded a dozen or so penalties, but blind-pew had his eyes shut!
     
  21. candybum

    candybum Guest

    also the forwards "picked and go'ed" outwards rather than inwards for the set up of the drop goal. But yes the illegal play went "unnoticed"
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page