I've always wondered why other teams do so poor in NZ. I mean all the crowds in New Zealand are **** poor-not many people deny this. No atmosphere other than an occasional all blacks chant. And hostility is nothing compared to what i've seen of the South African crowds on tv. There's no reason why Eden Park should be a fortress-but it is. The best crowds i've seen in NZ were in replays of the old Blues sides of 96 and 97 when they thrashed their opposition and won back to back super 12's. But apart from this the rest of the crowds have been pretty silent and obsolete.
Another thing is that seems to me, that all games in NZ just seem a little slower for some reason. I mean you watch games played at Suncorp and ANZ stadium and even in Africa and everything happens at a hundred miles per hour, and even if it's raining conditions look great. Is it just me? And then you have teams like the Reds that come across and play a helpless Hurricanes side at a half empty Caketin, and the Reds end up playing **** themselves, then the minute they get back to Suncorp, they're back to playing rapidly paced rugby again.
1. I think the international crowds in New Zealand are fine, it's mainly for the ITM Cup and Super Rugby in the last 10 years where it has been pretty quiet. If you ever saw crowds in the NPC/Super 12 around Carisbrook in the mid 90's, there is no way you could claim there is no atmosphere. I was at the USA v Australia game and the crowds at Westpac ("Wellington Regional") Stadium was electric. Even NZ v Canada had a pretty good atmosphere. It's just a case that we don't have an especially unruley culture in watching sporting matches, and when there is a hostile atmosphere (France v New Zealand 2009 in Dunedin) it's rightly discouraged.
Disagree what you say about pace. There is no way that New Zealand play a slow paced game at home or overseas. Obviously when there is bad weather (which is a problem in most stadiums in NZ) that'll be different, but when it's dry it's usually much quicker.
Well you will never know now would you? Graham Henry had ample opportunity to test some guys out! Hell even Luke Mcalister might have been a good back-up for DC.
As for Mccaw's back-up... Why didn't they use Matt Todd during the Tri-nations? that would've been perfect for him...
It's depressing to see how magnificant McAlister is in the Top 14 right now
. ,. The reality is that he should have been given more oppertunities when he came back to New Zealand, but the fact that he acted with a bit of maturity and play for North Harbor and did well, he'd probably be in the All Blacks right now. He should have been given many more oppertunities after being rushed back in 2009, but he was often injured and out of form. I'd have had him in the All Blacks in the end of year tour, but it's just one of many selection issues I've been complaining about, and his attitude stopped him from progressing.
In terms of Adam Thomson covering openside flanker, it's the thing I've been complaning about since the WC squad was named, and openside is a position that Henry has really neglected for two years. It was always a risk, and people said that "in reality McCaw will play every big game", but now that he's injured and could be in trouble, it seems obvious that Thomson should have been replaced with Luke Braid/Matt Todd/Scott Waldrom all of whom were in fantastic form.
Interesting question, if Donald trys too hard to be like Carter and rips his groin before the match, who is the next guy in?
Barrett? Brown? Bleyendaal? Anscome? Matthewson? Maybe break their own rules and get Evans?
Good question. Maybe bring in Evans/McAlister or bring in another halfback and make Weepu the replacement 10. No one out of the other possible replacement would be anywhere near ready.
)
