Riddle me this Mr All Blacks man
November 08, 2008
As long as rotation is a reality, debating its merits will always remain a valid exercise.
But when it involves significant hypocrisy, the debate loses respect and relevance.
By selecting enough players to take on a six-month overseas tour, Henry and co. always signalled that this end of year tour would involve some degree of rotation.
Only a deaf, dumb and blind mute could possibly not be aware that our elite coaching panel firmly believe that as a rule, our top 15 players are incapable of playing two tests in a row, mainly due so we're informed, to mental fatigue.
That's why we're asked to accept as fans, that making 12 changes from the test in Hong Kong to the test in Edinburgh was absolutely necessary.
Now, I don't intend to rake over all the old rotation coals here again.
But what has acutely occurred to me is the hypocrisy involved when it comes to massive rotation becoming a significant feature of a tour of the Home Nations.
That's because whenever England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland dare to bring a second-string team to New Zealand, our administrators and coaches let their displeasure be known loudly and clearly.
"No respect" they claim.
"World rugby's the loser" they moan.
Of course, they're obviously allowed their opinions.
But opinions to me that would carry far more respect if it wasn't for the inherent hypocrisy.
Please enlighten me.
Tell me the difference between for example, a largely second-string Scottish team being sent here and the All Blacks playing a largely second-string squad in Edinburgh.
Please don't give me that nonsense that the All Blacks squad contains our best players and a watered-down squad being sent here doesn't.
That's all very well on paper.
But at Murrayfield on November 9th, 2008, the stark reality is that a predominantly second-rate All Blacks XV will run out onto the field.
You tell me the difference when it comes to respect from either touring team, be it happening in Edinburgh or in Auckland.
My strong contention is that there isn't any.
Our best XV faced the Aussies.
Twelve changes to that team undoubtedly makes for a weakened All Blacks outfit.
And whatever strength team any Home Union chooses to play against the All Blacks on this tour is not the point either.
Principles are principles.
They are not unconditional, they are not up for compromise.
For Graham Henry and co. to impose ones that differ at home and abroad is the height of hypocrisy to me.
Do you agree? Or is one rule for teams from overseas and one rule for the men in black fair somehow?
But when it involves significant hypocrisy, the debate loses respect and relevance.
By selecting enough players to take on a six-month overseas tour, Henry and co. always signalled that this end of year tour would involve some degree of rotation.
Only a deaf, dumb and blind mute could possibly not be aware that our elite coaching panel firmly believe that as a rule, our top 15 players are incapable of playing two tests in a row, mainly due so we're informed, to mental fatigue.
That's why we're asked to accept as fans, that making 12 changes from the test in Hong Kong to the test in Edinburgh was absolutely necessary.
Now, I don't intend to rake over all the old rotation coals here again.
But what has acutely occurred to me is the hypocrisy involved when it comes to massive rotation becoming a significant feature of a tour of the Home Nations.
That's because whenever England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland dare to bring a second-string team to New Zealand, our administrators and coaches let their displeasure be known loudly and clearly.
"No respect" they claim.
"World rugby's the loser" they moan.
Of course, they're obviously allowed their opinions.
But opinions to me that would carry far more respect if it wasn't for the inherent hypocrisy.
Please enlighten me.
Tell me the difference between for example, a largely second-string Scottish team being sent here and the All Blacks playing a largely second-string squad in Edinburgh.
Please don't give me that nonsense that the All Blacks squad contains our best players and a watered-down squad being sent here doesn't.
That's all very well on paper.
But at Murrayfield on November 9th, 2008, the stark reality is that a predominantly second-rate All Blacks XV will run out onto the field.
You tell me the difference when it comes to respect from either touring team, be it happening in Edinburgh or in Auckland.
My strong contention is that there isn't any.
Our best XV faced the Aussies.
Twelve changes to that team undoubtedly makes for a weakened All Blacks outfit.
And whatever strength team any Home Union chooses to play against the All Blacks on this tour is not the point either.
Principles are principles.
They are not unconditional, they are not up for compromise.
For Graham Henry and co. to impose ones that differ at home and abroad is the height of hypocrisy to me.
Do you agree? Or is one rule for teams from overseas and one rule for the men in black fair somehow?
make 12 changes as they have for this week's game against Italy, how about we LISTEN
to what the coaches say,(they don't do it to piss us off, they have what in their minds are
valid reasons). We can do our part which is to support the teams they select and kick ass
ONLY when it comes unstuck.
newslash..we have lost a lot of last years seasoned players to the NH's cashed up clubs..do you expect that Henry and co just keep playing the same 1st fifteen! or do we blood players like they did today and give thier newbies experience at test level the only way they can, by playing them!....sports expert indee
Post a comment
To post a new comment, you must Sign in first.