Sport Today

by **Tim Arche** » Tue, 05 Nov 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>I have been amused to read over the past few weeks the >rubbishing of the Great Britain League team, and couching >staff by their =

own supporters. What these people fail to >analyse is the strength of the opposition.

Quote:

>This current kiwi side is possible the strongest in history. >Three major factor have resulted in major changes and >therefore the =

strengthening of the kiwi side.

The New Zealand team is rather good, but I do dispute the
selection of Tyran Smith at lock. Heck, he struggled to make
first grade every week with Souths. Grant Young, he's a
surprise packet. I also question the halves. While both Ngamu
and Jones are excellent players, if I was a selector I would
have put in the Paul brothers Henry and Robbie.

I'm glad Ruben Wiki got to start over Richie Blackmore and I'm
glad John Timu got a run. I would have picked John Kirwan over
Marc Ellis though, or even Daryl Halligan.

The Great Britain side was surprisingly weak. I know they were
without Newlove, Robinson, Connolly etc but they still had some
good talent. I'm glad they picked Kieron Cunningham, he is
definitely, behind Jim Serdaris, the form *** in the world
right now. I thought he had a good series. Broadbent played
well, but what happened to McDermott? The forwards were a
little weak. I would have selected Simon Haughton, he was
brilliant in the premiership final. IMO, Steve Prescott should
have got the nod over Spruce. Harris struggled and Karl Hammond
should have got a run, his combination with the brilliant
Goulding would have helped Great Britain better.

The most disappointing aspect of the whole series was the
appalling New Zealand television coverage. Greg Clark and Brent
Todd knew all the Kiwis, but they only knew Denis Betts
(because he plays for Auckland) and Bobbie Goulding, who they
kept calling James Goulding (former NZ international). This is
something Ray Warren or Eddie Hemmings wouldn't have done.

--

Tim Archer
...............................................

http://SportToday.org/~ddpa/index.html
http://SportToday.org/~ddpa/tlog.html
...............................................
"You start off in school and they take your soul
away. They take your brains away. They don't let
you have an opinion that differs from their's."
- Johnny Rotten

by **Vibrating Bum-Faced Goa** » Tue, 05 Nov 1996 04:00:00

: I have been amused to read over the past few weeks the rubbishing of
: the Great Britain League team, and couching staff by their own
: supporters. What these people fail to analyse is the strength of the
: opposition.

Nah mate, no one's rubbishing the NZ team. At least they ought to open
their eyes if they are. I thought the GB players played very creditably
under the morale-killing excercise that is anything organised by the RFL
or the NZRL these days.

Having said that, it was a third choice 3/4 line out there. :)

by **Paul Matthe** » Tue, 05 Nov 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>2) Until recently rugby union converts to league have been tired
>hacks, or union rejects. The kiwi back line contained 4 converts, 3
>ex- All Blacks all at the peaks of their careers. It was in the backs
>where this series was won and lost, in particular the failure of the
>English centers to match their opposite numbers.

Two points - This was the BG Team, NOT England, and when were Conolly
and Newlove together in the centres? These would be my forst choices.
What about scrum half? Edwards was unfit.

This was a secind rate GB Squad before it was halved, at the end of
two seasons non-stop rugby. I could probably have got past the BG
Centres,

NZ did have a good squad, but we all knew in advance what to expect.

by **Stev** » Tue, 05 Nov 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>I have been amused to read over the past few weeks the rubbishing of
>the Great Britain League team, and couching staff by their own
>supporters. What these people fail to analyse is the strength of the
>opposition.
>This current kiwi side is possible the strongest in history. Three
>major factor have resulted in major changes and therefore the
>strengthening of the kiwi side.
>1) The majority of the team now come from 1 club, the Auckland
>Warriors. This provides combination, something never before seen in
>kiwi sides. They have now played two years in the strongest comp.
>going, and although the kiwi passion remains a professional killer
>instinct now exists.
>2) Until recently rugby union converts to league have been tired
>hacks, or union rejects. The kiwi back line contained 4 converts, 3
>ex- All Blacks all at the peaks of their careers. It was in the backs
>where this series was won and lost, in particular the failure of the
>English centers to match their opposite numbers.
>3) The kiwi's are the least effected country by the SL shambles, only
>four kiwi prospects are ARL aligned. Hermonson and Lourie (Both
>injured anyway), whose replacements were the stars of the kiwis
>forwards. McCracken (Bl.... useless), leaving only Manly's Craig
>Innes as a lose to the Kiwi's.
>Combine this with some of the worst promotion and administration seen
>in modern sport I feel your players and coaches did the best they
>could in very difficult circumstances.

> Ian.......

I saw the world cup game between NZ and Australia and was very impressed
with NZ

--
Steve

by **WiganRLf** » Tue, 05 Nov 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>I have been amused to read over the past few weeks the rubbishing of
>the Great Britain League team, and couching staff by their own
>supporters. What these people fail to analyse is the strength of the
>opposition.
>This current kiwi side is possible the strongest in history.

Is that so? Both NZ ans GB fielded understrength sides for this series
due to injury and the ARL/SL dispute. How they would have gone against
each other with full strength sides out we can only speculate. I don't
share the apparent doom and gloom notion about our international teams
prospects when it can play its full side.

If we had been better coached I reckon the first two tests would have been
possible GB victories and as to the third that was a joke. Half the GB
team was on pain killing injections and the reserves had been sent home!

Quote:

>Three
>major factor have resulted in major changes and therefore the
>strengthening of the kiwi side.
>1) The majority of the team now come from 1 club, the Auckland
>Warriors. This provides combination, something never before seen in
>kiwi sides. They have now played two years in the strongest comp.
>going, and although the kiwi passion remains a professional killer
>instinct now exists.

As a Wigan fan I will probalbly be flamed for saying it, but, IMO the best
GB teams of recent years have been when Wigan dominated the international
selections.

It may be working for the Kiwis this way with Auckland but look at the
Aussies. To my knowledge none of their recent international teams have
been dominated by one clubs so it does not have to be this way.

Quote:

>2) Until recently rugby union converts to league have been tired
>hacks, or union rejects. The kiwi back line contained 4 converts, 3
>ex- All Blacks all at the peaks of their careers. It was in the backs
>where this series was won and lost, in particular the failure of the
>English centers to match their opposite numbers.

We left all the centres at home.

Quote:

>3) The kiwi's are the least effected country by the SL shambles, only
>four kiwi prospects are ARL aligned. Hermonson and Lourie (Both
>injured anyway), whose replacements were the stars of the kiwis
>forwards. McCracken (Bl.... useless), leaving only Manly's Craig
>Innes as a lose to the Kiwi's.

Yes NZ was less affected than GB by te ARL/SL war, so what does that tell
you about the strenght and makeup of the GB side?

Quote:

>Combine this with some of the worst promotion and administration seen
>in modern sport I feel your players and coaches did the best they
>could in very difficult circumstances.

This is also true, but does this not contradict your proposition of how
strong the Kiwis really are? In two of the three tests the Kiwis were run
close by a very understrength GB side coached by what most GB supportes
reckon is the worst coach in the world.

NZ deserved to win it overall if only because they showed the more
adventorous rugby, but please don't make the mistake of thinking this is
the best GB have to offer.

Dave

Wigan RLFC - Simply the Best

by **nicho..** » Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> I have been amused to read over the past few weeks the rubbishing of
> the Great Britain League team, and couching staff by their own
> supporters. What these people fail to analyse is the strength of the
> opposition.
> This current kiwi side is possible the strongest in history. Three
> major factor have resulted in major changes and therefore the
> strengthening of the kiwi side.
>Sorry mate. Cant agree. I watched the first two tests on the Telly

and went to the last here in Christchurch. The British were clearly an
inferior lot with so many of their stars electing to avoid the tour to
take up Rugby contracts that Maurice Lindsay the Pom chairman is now
seeking to rejig the league season to prevent it.

The poor specimens that came out here showed an incapability in

(1) Defence. (except for Denis Betts and the fullback Spruce)
Most of the Kiwi tries came from appalling Lion lapses early
on in a set of six.
(2) Attack. Denis Betts aside again. The Lions were bereft of ideas in
breaking the defensive line for most of the time just hiiting it up at
half pace with the forwards or backs running at speed for 50 metres
sideways.
(3) Pace. This was epitomised in the last game when Iestyn Harris who
had broken clear in a runaway for a certain try under the posts was
brought down from behind by a forward. What a joke!
(4) Fitness. This clearly cost them the series more than anything
else. In the first two tests they capitulated in the last 10 to 15
minutes when they looked home and hosed. In the last test they were
shot. The lack of puff and the wearing off of the painkillers keeping
the wounded on the field saw them down to a walk in the end looking
absolutely pathetic.

Now given this above context and the following points, the
assertion that the Kiwis are the best side we've ever had just doesnt stack up.

The Kiwis lack

(1) Playmakers. Ridge, Jones and Kearny aside this side
lacks real depth in players with spark. The vast majority of breaks
came from just these few which reinforces the defensive inadequacies
of the Poms who could have shut down a lot of the Kiwi game quite
simply by shutting these guys down.... which brings me to the next
point
(2) An ability to consistently support the ball carrier. It was
unbelievably frustrating to see just how many times breaks by the
above could not be sustained because the above either flung out a
useless pass or there was noone to pass to. Interestingly this is a
chronic disease of the Warriors!!! How surprising.

Either of the ARL or Mudoch Aussie sides would massacre the Poms and
us. and so would I believe the Lowe coached 84 Kiwis which shows the
deep hole that I believe NZ League has dug itself into.

Mark Grahams side (the last to thrash the Poms 3zip and beat an
awesome Aussie side by 17-0) was composed of players who played here
(mostly in Auckland). They played a distinctive game unlike their main
rivals.

In the years since then our best players have headed overseas to the
UK and Aussie reducing the domestic game to the laughably weak state
it is now. The NZRL BC (before Carden) moved to address this by
setting up the Lion Red Cup funded to encourage talent to stay here
but....Auckland the player powerhouse via the Mt Albert Club resisted
this vigorously and were allowed to effectively secede with massive
sponsorship clout to become a province of Australia. So the domestic
showpiece was stuffed before it started.

The Auckland Warriors aka the Kiwis has therefore reinforced the trend
that began after Lowe was sacked ie The NZ game is now an imitation
Australian game and a poor one at that given that our player base is
so small and getting smaller despite what the NZRL spin doctors would
like you to believe.

Quote:

> Combine this with some of the worst promotion and administration seen
> in modern sport.

Agree entirely. NZ League is in the shit and getting worse and we're
deluded to believe otherwise

Professional Rugby is here and it's the leagues worst nightmare.

Cheers

Andrew

by **WiganRLf** » Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Sorry mate. Cant agree. I watched the first two tests on the Telly
>and went to the last here in Christchurch. The British were clearly an
>inferior lot with so many of their stars electing to avoid the tour to
>take up Rugby contracts that Maurice Lindsay the Pom chairman is now
>seeking to rejig the league season to prevent it.

>The poor specimens that came out here showed an incapability in

>(1) Defence. (except for Denis Betts and the fullback Spruce)
> Most of the Kiwi tries came from appalling Lion lapses early
>on in a set of six.

Some of the players were clearly out of their depth, Senior a case in
point.

Quote:

>(2) Attack. Denis Betts aside again. The Lions were bereft of ideas in
>breaking the defensive line for most of the time just hiiting it up at
>half pace with the forwards or backs running at speed for 50 metres
>sideways.

This is not the way most of the players in the GB team play week in week
out in the domestic comp. Basically these tactics are down to one man.
The coach. Hes ***and with any luck he will resign.

Quote:

>(3) Pace. This was epitomised in the last game when Iestyn Harris who
>had broken clear in a runaway for a certain try under the posts was
>brought down from behind by a forward. What a joke!

Harris's pace has been held up to question before . Couple that with the
fact he has been frozen out of the game for months prior to the tour due
to a dispute with his club I still can't quite believe he ended up as
first choice stand off.

Quote:

>(4) Fitness. This clearly cost them the series more than anything
>else. In the first two tests they capitulated in the last 10 to 15
>minutes when they looked home and hosed. In the last test they were
>shot. The lack of puff and the wearing off of the painkillers keeping
>the wounded on the field saw them down to a walk in the end looking
>absolutely pathetic.

The lack of puff was down to one major factor, the boys have played
constant RL for over 15 months without a break before going on tour. The
last test was a joke with half the team on pain killers and the rest no
doubt wondering what the point was given the appalling admin of the tour.

Quote:

>Now given this above context and the following points, the
>assertion that the Kiwis are the best side we've ever had just doesnt
stack
>up.

I would agree. Despite your somewhat extreme opinion of the GB team you
must remember the first two tests could have gone to GB with a bit of
luck. You can't assume great things from this Kiwi side based just on
this performance.

Dave

Wigan RLFC - Simply the Best

by **Simon Sherbur** » Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

[snip]
>>Three
>>major factor have resulted in major changes and therefore the
>>strengthening of the kiwi side.
>>1) The majority of the team now come from 1 club, the Auckland
>>Warriors. This provides combination, something never before seen in
>>kiwi sides. They have now played two years in the strongest comp.
>>going, and although the kiwi passion remains a professional killer
>>instinct now exists.

>As a Wigan fan I will probalbly be flamed for saying it, but, IMO the best
>GB teams of recent years have been when Wigan dominated the international
>selections.

It did have the advantage of the player knowing each others style.
Maybe the international side side play some matches together before they
go on tour. A super league 13, first division 13, oversea players 13,
etc.

It would also raise funds for the RL pocket and could be used to promote
the game by playing around the country.

Quote:

[snip]

>>Combine this with some of the worst promotion and administration seen
>>in modern sport I feel your players and coaches did the best they
>>could in very difficult circumstances.

>This is also true, but does this not contradict your proposition of how
>strong the Kiwis really are? In two of the three tests the Kiwis were run
>close by a very understrength GB side coached by what most GB supportes
>reckon is the worst coach in the world.

For small sections of the first two test, GB ignored/forgot the game
plan and out-classed and out-played NZ. The problem was they soon
returned to the ***style shown in the third test.

Quote:

>NZ deserved to win it overall if only because they showed the more
>adventorous rugby, but please don't make the mistake of thinking this is
>the best GB have to offer.

...but not without new ideas from the coaching staff.

Quote:

>Dave

>Wigan RLFC - Simply the Best

Castleford, West Yorkshire, England.

The difference between genius and stupidity: Genius has limits.

by **John Hull** » Wed, 06 Nov 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> given that our player base is
> so small and getting smaller despite what the NZRL spin doctors would
> like you to believe.

Is there any way forward for League in New Zealand with its present
administrators? Put it another way, would replacing Carden be a step
forward ? At least the NZRL's money wouldn't be spent on Carden's own
companies.

Quote:

> NZ League is in the shit and getting worse and we're
> deluded to believe otherwise

So what must be done to improve things, and by whom ?

Quote:

> Professional Rugby is here and it's the leagues worst nightmare.

But it's total maladministration that is League's downfall. That's true of
Britain as well.

John

Sport Today

Message to GB supporters.

Message to GB supporters.

Message to GB supporters.

Message to GB supporters.

Message to GB supporters.

Message to GB supporters.

Message to GB supporters.

Message to GB supporters.

Message to GB supporters.

Message to GB supporters.