SCW, hypocrisy and New Zealand

http://www.wait-of-a-nation.com/2012/02/20/sir-clive-would-would/

"The last time a Clive Woodward team got quick ball was in 2005, when the All Blacks were required by the laws of the game to kick it back to his Lions after every try."

Biff, Paff, Ouch.

Yes, it seems that even almost a decade later, the sores from wounds inflicted by England's supremacy under SCW are still open and weeping down under. (eech, terrible imagery sorry).

My hypocrisomoter just went off. Aren't Sir Clive's comments almost indentical to the advice offered by another RWC winning coach, Sir Graham Henry?

Graham Henry : "England has a backline, but they will never fulfill their potential unless the team can win quick ball." http://www.therugbysite.com/community/107-england-bravehearts-must-invade-the-enemy-by-graham-henry

Clive Woodward : "“Can England beat Wales? Yes. But only if their speed of ball from all phases is much faster than we have seen in their first two games of this season’s Six Nations.” http://wc.planetrugby.com/news/view/woodward_concerned_for_england_333457

What then, could be the need to put the boot into England's most glorific coach in any sport for more than 50 years when he's essentially paroting the previously lauded advice of the adored Henry?

Perhaps after finally avoiding choking on their own egos, leveraging home advantage and picking a suitably atuned referee to preside over the foregone conclusion, NZ have found the taste of such a hollow victory not quite sufficient to banish the bitter taste of those 24 years of anxiety and disappointment?

I have been saying the same thing, I am just not so famous.

Wasn't the Lions CW last involvement in a rugby team? In which case the idea that the last time one of his teams had quick ball was the last one of his teams is a rather stange way of putting it.

miteyironpaw wrote:Perhaps after finally avoiding choking on their own egos, leveraging home advantage and picking a suitably atuned referee to preside over the foregone conclusion, NZ have found the taste of such a hollow victory not quite sufficient to banish the bitter taste of those 24 years of anxiety and disappointment?

Ha. Yes, a hollow victory. Won with our fourth choice flyhalf and a crocked captain who if the medical team had their way wouldn't have even made the squad. A team which edged France for the first 50 mins and dominated the last 5 (when it really mattered). If it's hollow then I'll take it....hollow for me, bitter for you!

But anyways, are you that surprised by woodward-bashing? No one really begrudges England of 2003 for winning the WC, their place in history is assured but it clearly had more to do with the players than Woodward. Woodward will never be forgotten down south for his Lions tour which was on a scale of Oasis's 'Be Here Now' record for being overblown, bloated, full of ego and ultimately a let down. They both sold really well too but the punters (british) would have felt a bit short changed by the results. That is what Woodward was judged on down south, well in NZ at least.

What I don't get is why he continually needs to stress the things England should or shouldn't be doing from his cozy BOC job. If he wants to fhelp things, get involved else shut up!

The best prepared Lions team of all time....more like one of the worst Lions team to set foot in NZ.

Because he keeps getting asked. I don't think it would go down too well if he told them to f*** off.

it clearly had more to do with the players than Woodward. Woodward will never be forgotten down south for his Lions tour which was on a scale of Oasis's 'Be Here Now' record for being overblown, bloated, full of ego and ultimately a let down.

Well, yes. The players actually had to do the business on the pitch.

But it was Woodward who created that side - pretty much from scratch. It was Woodward to instilled the professionalism and attention to detail which helped make that side a great one. It was Woodward who paid out of his own pocket to move England into better accommodation when he wasn't happy with what was provided. It short, it was Woodward who made that England side believe it was great and could beat anyone.

There's no doubt he lost it on the Lions Tour afterwards - I remember discussing his squad with friends in the pub at the time and we could all see the disaster looming. But it's worth remembering that a couple of years before that tour, 2002 (I think?) a six man England pack held off 8 Kiwis for victory in NZ (Wellington, was it?). So where Woodward's Lions couldn't do it, Woodward's White Orcs did.

Chuckle. And gave rise to one of the great Rugby replies: Reporter to Martin Johnson: "What was going through your head in that scrum?"

Martin Johnson: "My spine."

To be fair, Woodward did have a disasterous to NZ late in 2003 after winning the world cup, where the White Orcs were routed by more than 30 points two weeks running. I know he said some unpopular and bitter things on that particular tour, but it seems extreme that so many in NZ are apparently still holding such a grudge to a man well and truely routed and who is now only reinforcing commonly held beliefs.

Sounds like a lady doing slightly too much protesting to me...

So many in NZ? This is a blog by somebody who is probably from NZ.

This seems to me more a post aimed at NZ rugby than analysing what Clive Woodward has said.

I don't see these sores from England's supremacy in 2002-3 you speak of. I remember cheering England on in the final in 2003. At the time I lived next to Australia so preferred to see an England win. We didn't play well enough to get to the final so an England win wasn't an issue.

I think thou dost generalise too much sir.

This is a blog by somebody who is probably from NZ.

Yes, he is. Pretends to be English though.

Fair few English in NZ. Brits are our biggest immigrant group. So could easily be both - English in NZ

Henrys advice was more around englands approach to the game as a whole. SCW was applying it to the England Wales match even though such a turnaround in a short timeframe was unlikely.
To get quick ball players need to clear out the area in front of the ball. England currently have no aspirations in doing this so although scw is correct, he makes a moot point- it aint likely to happen against wales, the team who probably pose the biggest threat to force turnovers if they do.

He was asked about the game specifically. The concensus view is that England have some of the best backs around but fail to supply them with good ball with time and space to do something with it. That would apply to any game. What was SCW supposed to do? Say "Oh, it's hopeless, Wales will win". What would be said of him then?

cowshot starting to come around to your way of thinking, today has opened my mind on the subject!!

Well whether the best tactic was to completely change their game plan- which is what would be required to open their game up- into an all out attacking one in one match probably isn't what Henry was referring to if SCW was aligning with that theory.

Henry was referring to the culture of English rugby over the last ...well...decades it seems.

Perhaps he could have balanced it a little more by utilising the teams current strengths, a phased approach to opening it up more. From memory England in 91 did exactly what he's suggesting and it backfired.

Its not something you learn overnight, and its likely some of the wrong players are there for it now- given they were selected under the auspices of a different game plan.

What exactly is it that you think SCW has said? and in what context?

I don't think england will completely change their game plan. They must focus on changing only a few things.

One.

Get the supporting players to the breakdwon quicker, and secure the ball, immediately clear it to raise their pace of the game and to put the Wlesh defence under pressure. If they don't do this, Wales won't buckle.


Two
Get their backs and backrow to run onto the ball at pace, it does not help to get stationary ball, but they need to run to their support, not away from it, otherwise Wales will isolate their runners and get turn overs.

For now that is the only thing I beleive they must change.

miteyironpaw wrote:What exactly is it that you think SCW has said? and in what context?

All I've gone from is your excerpts above as I don't see theres a lot in this. I just found the comparison between one persons general statement of England rugby as a whole and the tactics of the very next match...2 very different things as far as I can see.

biltongbek wrote:
... immediately clear it to raise their pace of the game and to put the Wlesh defence under pressure. If they don't do this, Wales won't buckle.

Thats the key part Biltong, because its at that point Englands tactic is to focus on recycling to set up another phase...

Must admit I've not watched the full matches so far as I knocked Sky off over Xmas due to too many sports I couldnt be bothered with, and to take a break. Its back now so I'm looking forward to the England match to see how both teams have progressed after coming here.

Woodentop was a revolution in the late 90's and nothing will take away his achievment with England. They were the best team in he world in 2002 and were still good enough (just) to win the WC the following year.

He was also about as wrong as its possible to be in 2005 with the most pathetic attempt to run a Lions tour ever. Thank goodness Geech and Gerald rescued the Lions four years later.

Quick ball?? Play at pace?? Come on - my Granny can come up with that analysis.

Taylorman wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:What exactly is it that you think SCW has said? and in what context?

All I've gone from is your excerpts above as I don't see theres a lot in this. I just found the comparison between one persons general statement of England rugby as a whole and the tactics of the very next match...2 very different things as far as I can see.

The Henry quotes come from his website, where he is discussing England in a broader context; The Woodward comments were his response to a direct question "Can this England team beat Wales".

Essentially they both say exactly the same thing - England can't get quick ball at the moment and if they do, then they have the players to use it and win.

The differences in the presentation of their answers (which are slight) are a function of the context of the comments.

I really fail to see how Henry is lauded and SCW ridiculed when they are saying the exact same thing.

nganboy wrote:Fair few English in NZ. Brits are our biggest immigrant group. So could easily be both - English in NZ

Some friends of my parents moved to NZ a few years ago, they were insufferable over here and now they are insufferable over there. They complain constantly about their new homeland and on the rare occasion they visit these shores they complain about dear old Blighty. I feel i must apologise on behalf of the entire United Kingdom for sending you these ghastly souls and hope you never have the misfortune of meeting them. Just had to get that off my chest!

Carpe Diem wrote:

nganboy wrote:Fair few English in NZ. Brits are our biggest immigrant group. So could easily be both - English in NZ

Some friends of my parents moved to NZ a few years ago, they were insufferable over here and now they are insufferable over there. They complain constantly about their new homeland and on the rare occasion they visit these shores they complain about dear old Blighty. I feel i must apologise on behalf of the entire United Kingdom for sending you these ghastly souls and hope you never have the misfortune of meeting them. Just had to get that off my chest!

And they sent us GG in return, who got the bum deal?

Personally I always thought GG was harsh but fair.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

nganboy wrote:Fair few English in NZ. Brits are our biggest immigrant group. So could easily be both - English in NZ

Some friends of my parents moved to NZ a few years ago, they were insufferable over here and now they are insufferable over there. They complain constantly about their new homeland and on the rare occasion they visit these shores they complain about dear old Blighty. I feel i must apologise on behalf of the entire United Kingdom for sending you these ghastly souls and hope you never have the misfortune of meeting them. Just had to get that off my chest!

And they sent us GG in return, who got the bum deal?

Believe me i would rather suck GG's shoite through a sweaty sock than have this particular couple back here!

I cannot abide ex-pats who bitch and moan about their adopted countries. Ifn you think it´s so bad then why don´t you scoot back from whence you came.

When you travel the world, you realise that there´s no such thing as the perfect place. There are many things that infuriate me about Madrid but so too were there in London, Huntington Beach, Austin, Paris, Chamonix, Sydney, Lautoka ad nauseum. But each place has its own things worth raving about and that is what you should focus on otherwise if you´re so hung up on the bad things about a place then maybe you should think twice about living there.

I miss GG. He knew his rugby and the odd time you got him off the topic of England or referees he made some very insightful comments.

Sounds like the officials got this one wrong. Clearly there is a groundswell of support to find this GG and ask him to return to the forum.

I think mitey you´re making too much of this blog writer. To say Henry was widely supported on his views and Woodward was panned for his is stretching it a bit far.

I just think Woodward in his Olympic role is now seen removed from the job much like a NZ coach like John Hart is. Both are free to comment on the game as far as I´m concerned but as both are no longer involved in rugby coaching I think we shouldn't read too much into what they say. It´s just filler for newspapers or blogs in this case. I hardly think this blog is representing widespread opinion.

miteyironpaw wrote:Sounds like the officials got this one wrong. Clearly there is a groundswell of support to find this GG and ask him to return to the forum.

If only we knew where he was. I don't suppose you know do you?

miteyironpaw wrote:Sounds like the officials got this one wrong. Clearly there is a groundswell of support to find this GG and ask him to return to the forum.

Yeah, I second that.