Part INew Zealand:
The Kiwis probably don't need to overreact as much as they are going to. They actually didn't go too far wrong. In fact their three main failings stem from the same point:
1) Rotation.
It's a sound idea, giving backup players of experience so that they are ready when called upon. But in World Cup year, it's time to bring out your best XV. Though they were close, I'm not sure that Henry and his staff were ever 100% certain of their best side, and the selection was a little out last Saturday. Where was Aaron Mauger, the man who opens up holes for the runners? Where was Howlett, who offers a different kind of threat to the more physical players? Surely Robinson didn't bring that much more of a physical presence than Chris Jack? Next time, pick the best side and run with it.
2) Leadership.
A knock on of poor selection is a lack of leadership. Leadership is not just about having a good captain, it's about having leaders around him. In 1999 and 2003 Australia and England had leaders all over the pitch. In 2003 New Zealand fell apart, because when the going got tough, Reuben Thorne (never the best captain anyway) had no-one to back him up, no experience, as Mitchell had jetissoned everyone apart from Justin Marshall. This time, the absence of the players mentioned in point 1, Mauger and Jack were absent. Should Umaga have been allowed to retire? He may have been past his prime, but the side responded to his leadership. England were ridiculed for selecting the likes of Dallaglio, yet they provide direction, and know how to seize the initiative at the key moment. Lesson for 2011, get your experienced leaders on the pitch. Getting this right is critical for losing that chokers' tag. Replace the side with youngsters, and they might be overawed by the situation. Stick with all old timers, and the scars of the past might be too much to overcome. Build a balanced side, with experience in key areas, but youthful energy, and dispatch that unwanted label.
3) Tactics.
Again, this stems from the above points. When their tactics didn't bring the reward they expected, New Zealand decided to go for the direct approach, with a little success, but not enough. Without Carter on the pitch, they seemed to lack the nous to change their game again, and apart from a badly timed effort from McAllister, the drop goal never seemed to be in their minds. They need to have players who can do plan a and plan b, but who can make plan c up on the spot when necessary.
I think the All Blacks got a lot right off the pitch, so get these things right on the pitch, and in fours years time, they will be favourites (again). But who wins against New Zealand in New Zealand?
2 comments:
unfortunately for them these are quite fundamental areas to get wrong! Although I still thought they were the better team... :-)
They are quite fundamental, you're right, but my point was that they got pretty much everything else right, and probably don't need to have the soul searching and heavy restructuring that may result from this. They have the players, they just need to get the right ones on the field.
Post a Comment