Or How I learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Sun's Headline Writers
This must surely be the second best headline that's going to come out of the World Cup after "Welsh Wonder Williams Wins World Cup".
Andy Powell, surely you're not going to let England win the 'most debauched post-match' competition, which as we all know is what rugby is really about?
One of the sideshows in the build up to the Rugby World Cup has been the not-at-all-tedious subject of shirt colours. England and Wales both revealed black away kits, this prompted some pompous whining from New Zealand about some sort of divine right to be the only team allowed to play in black. While their traditional black shirt is undoubtedly one of the iconic kits in sport, up there with Brazil's all yellow and Barcelona's claret and blue football shirts, it doesn't give them a right to claim a monopoly on a colour. But I do have some sympathy for them as the shirt is not only iconic, they were also the only team to always play in black...
...except for when they wear this
Yeah, the 'All Blacks' white away kit. Something England could have whined over "We're the only team to play in white and our shirt is just as important to us as yours is to you." but they didn't, because it would have come across as churlish and petty. So why did New Zealand, a nation with such rugby stature, react this way? I believe it's indicative of a deeper problem that goes to the root of why they've gained the reputation as 'chokers'.
I'd like to inject this caveat here before I continue; I have a lot of love for New Zealand, I've visited the country and found it to be one of the most incredible places I've ever been to, with people who are friendly and accommodating to a fault. I'm also a huge admirer of the All Blacks. Any rugby fan who doesn't enjoy watching them play with that sublime balance of power and skill is either not a true fan of the sport, or that certain type of joyless fan who believes that the rolling-maul is the pinnacle of rugby skill and entertainment. But no matter how much weight New Zealand amass on the 'I Love You' side of my national fondness scale, they always go ahead and chuck a weight on the 'Oh Piss Off' side.
In spite of their almost continual dominance of the sport (expect when World Cups roll around) they can be surprisingly precious and thin-skinned, and it's not a new occurrence confined to shirt colours. The reaction of some opposition to the Haka, and New Zealand's following reaction to that, is a constant source of amusement to anyone who likes to see grown men have tantrums about dancing.
You wouldn't see Gaving Henson get so
tetchy about dancing!
I understand that the Haka is an important part of the All Blacks, and by extension, New Zealand's culture and identity, so I don't want to offend anyone here. I mean I wouldn't like it if people made mocking statements about Welsh culture and identity.
For example, our right to form sexual congress
with sheep
Personally I think the Haka is great with the way it lays down the challenge to the opposition, and it's much more exciting than how it's actually done...
to: New Zealand Rugby Union
from: Welsh Rugby Union
subject: re: Rugby
Dear Wales,
Fancy a game of rugby?
Kind Regards,
New Zealand
| Hiya New Zealand!
|
| Oh tidy like! Go on then butt.
|
| Nice One,
| Wales
It's an exciting pre-cursor to the game and an entertaining sideshow to the day. So with that praise out of the way and my view of the Haka established (I'M FOR IT! For those of you not following) I can now start to criticise it. Well, not the Haka per se, but what goes on around it.
There are numerous examples of teams offering some kind of response to the Haka, usually by approaching the All Blacks or by simply standing their ground, a la Wales in 2008...
I was at that game, and while I didn't much care for the crowd chanting while the Haka was being performed, I thought the Welsh response was fantastic. It was quite honestly the best pre-match atmosphere I've ever experienced, as Wales wanted to respect the Haka but also answer the challenge. As Ryan Jones said:
"We wanted to show it was our stadium, our pitch and our fans and we weren't prepared to give up the ground"
To me this seems like a reasonable and spirited response, although responding by actually winning the game, which Wales lost 26-9, would arguably have been even better. The All Blacks however didn't see Wales response as reasonable at all, and Ma'a Nonu had this to say:
"What the Welsh did wound us up. People back home will have been hurt by what they decided to do. Standing in the way like they did is asking for a fight."
That last line I think is very telling, "Standing in the way like they did is asking for a fight". So what would be the correct response to the challenge from these rugby Übermensch? Lying down and not fighting? Meek acquiescence? Although even that has been too much for them to bear at times. Maybe the opposition should blow them kisses and shower them in rose petals to show how honoured they are to be graced by the presence of the All Blacks.
"Thank you New Zealand for this 30 point demolition
we are about to receive"
It appears that the All Blacks view themselves as existing somewhere above the messy swamp of 'mortal' international teams, as something more than just a rugby side. And maybe, that's because they are.
New Zealand is the only country in the world I can think of which has its identity so closely intertwined with sport. You mention 'New Zealand', and for most people, I'd wager the first associative thought to pop into their heads would be 'rugby'. No other country is so synonymously linked with a sport.
I was going to say 'Brazil' also is with 'football', but they're
better known for something else. That's right, inequality.
And this deep connection with rugby is something they embrace, and why not, they're bloody good at it! So, when you view the All Blacks in a national context rather than an international rugby context, their defensiveness becomes more understandable. When people 'disrespect' the shirt or 'disrespect' the Haka, they're disrespecting something that is at the very core of the New Zealand identity.
And this, I suspect, is why New Zealand have 'choked' at the last few World Cups. They have had talent in abundance every year since the World Cup started in '87, enough to win it more than the once that they actually have. But these high expectations coupled with a country that takes rugby so, so seriously must create an intolerable pressure on the players, where the failings of the team could be construed as a failing of the country. They're not just representing New Zealand, they are New Zealand.
When I started writing this piece I was working towards a conclusion that said "New Zealand, enjoy your colour, do your dance, but be real and accept that you will not have things your way in the modern professional era". But while writing and considering this piece, I've changed my mind...
"New Zealand, fuck everyone else".
New Zealand, I can't truly understand, even as a Welshman where rugby plays a huge role in our culture and identity, how important the All Blacks, their history and their tradition are to you. But I think you should fight for that iconic shirt and you should fight to keep the respect for the Haka, because with the cynicism of professional sports, everyone knows the price but not the value of such things. But I think that you do.
In fact, go further, show you are the true rugby purists, the ones who only play the game at the highest level because you hold it in the highest regard. You are already the only team not to defile your shirt with a garish sponsor, now ditch that cynical, pointless, nickle-and-diming white away kit. Show that it is possible not to bend to the will of the money masters and to exist with a higher purpose in mind.
And when you do need to fight for these things, when others do things you see as disrespectful to your heritage and legacy, don't belittle yourselves by responding with whiney complaints in the media. It sounds like insecurity and provides your defeated opponents with something to latch on to and hold up as diversion from their loss. You don't need to do this! Your actions on the rugby pitch provide a more forceful and clear reply than any post-match interview could ever offer. Next time a team faces-off to you at the Haka simply turn your backs on them when you're done, retreat into your own strength and then show, over 80-minutes, that they were fools for thinking they could match you.
I didn't mean for this post to get so worthy and 'deep' (or to be such a love letter to New Zealand), I was just going to have a pop at the All Blacks (what can I say, they're a big target and provide lots of opportunities for poking fun at them). But writing it made me consider how rugby has changed and how it continues to do so.
More money comes into the sport each year, and while this may lead to higher levels of athleticism and greater spectacles, it can also crush many of our traditions which are not deemed to be 'profit-making' and which damage the bottom line. This resonates very strongly with me as a Cardiff supporter.
There is only one club side in the whole world that has ever been inducted into the International Rugby Board's Hall of Fame, and that's Cardiff RFC. This is the team that pioneered the modern style of eight forwards and seven backs. This is the team that has supplied more players to the Welsh national side and the British & Irish Lions than any other. This was the club of Gareth Edwards, Barry 'The King' John, Gerald Davies and Cliff Morgan, some of the best there ever were, and in the case of Edwards, maybe the G.O.A.T. It is a club with a glorious history, one that is now sadly just a distant romantic memory.
Cardiff RFC no longer exist as a top-level club. With the introduction of regions as part of the effort to drag Welsh rugby into the professional era, the 'Cardiff Blues' region was created. This team is basically the old Cardiff RFC team with the same players, but rebranded.
Since then the links with that famous rugby institution have been slowly eroded; the kit has moved away from the light blue, inspired by the Cambridge University kit worn by one of Cardiff's earliest players in 1876, (which was used as an alternative to, fittingly for this piece, an all-black kit, but one with a white skull and crossbones on it! They basically wanted to wear a pirate flag! How amazing would that have been?) to a connotation and controversy free dark blue, as a way to appease fans from areas outside of Cardiff. There have been calls to drop the 'Cardiff' prefix to the 'Blues' altogether, shoring it of as much of it's old identity as possible, transforming it from a local club which is part of the city's identity and history, into a sterile and easily transferable 'brand'.
The technical descendent of that great club, Cardiff RFC, who set the world-record for attendence at a club game, with 48,500 watching a derby match with Newport RFC in 1951, with that famous ground in the middle of the city, now play in a tinny grey shed on the featureless outskirts of town in front of crowds of only a few thousand.
And Jesus wept.
Many will argue that the changes to the Cardiff club were necessary, maybe not always desirable, but realistically necessary in the modern era. I guess my reply is, 'have we given up too much for the sake of modernism?'. There are some rugby institutions that have survived and even thrived with the transition, such as the Barbarians and The Lions, and I also believe New Zealand. At this world cup, where hundreds of millions of NZ$ will be made, I hope that the All Blacks can show us how tradition and modernism can combine to create something that is stronger than what has gone before.
So if Wales don't win the World Cup (hint; they probably won't), then I hope New Zealand do, because it will also be a win for the rugby romantics.
Normal banter about sheep-shaggers and boring, boring 5-yard-drive-5-yard-drive-5-yard-drive-win-a-penalty-Johnny-kicks-for-3-rinse-and-repeat England, will resume next week. Thank you.
So in yesterday's RWC preview I covered the likely qualifiers from the four groups. For those of you too damn lazy to go and look at it, I had the group winners as:
New Zealand, England, Australia and South Africa
And the runners-up as:
France, Scotland, Ireland and Wales
Pretty standard stuff really, no shocks to speak of. But the group stages can forgive lackluster performances and even the occasional slip up, as it's all about the best over four games. The knockout stages though, not so kind. This is where mental fortitude is tested as rigorously as playing aptitude (hi New Zealand 2007!) and where any dog having it's day can topple a feckless giant (hi Australia 2007!). The importance of 'form' begins to waver as smaller variables have larger effects; an intercepted try may not ruin your tournament at the group stage, but it sure as hell can during the knockouts. This is where the World Cup really comes to life.
So in this do-or-die arena what can we expect from the quarter finals?
Quarter Final 1 - New Zealand vs Scotland
New Zealand to win. I don't know what more analysis I can provide. They'll win by a lot, probably. Maybe 20 points. Maybe 30. Actually I suppose there is one thing you can say; if Scotland don't qualify then New Zealand will likely face Argentina, and as both of those two are relatively weak quarter finalists, it may leave the All Blacks ill-prepared for whoever awaits them at the next stage. But probably not.
At least they can join Canada, Tonga and Georgia at Milford Sound.
It really is very nice, and well worth visiting.
Quarter Final 2 - England vs France
We're either going to see England grind out a narrow win by boring France, the officials and every non-English fan to tears, or France having one of those games where they seem to ascend from the realm of mortals and play like Gods, temporarily looking like the greatest team to ever chuck a rugby ball around...
A bit like these fellas (Wales 1971!)
A lot of people are citing England's impressive record against France in the World Cup and the Six Nations, going back to when they turned them over in the semi-finals in 2003, as evidence of them having some sort of psychological edge over the wayward French. But on their bad days a team of badgers have a psychological edge over France, the question is can England pressure them into having one of those bad days, the kind where they all mope around in their own half questioning the pointlessness of rugby and the Sisyphean nature of tournaments. Only a brave or foolish man would try and predict which French team will turn up. Luckily I'm pretty foolish (you should see the bets I've put on for this tournament!), so I'm going to call it for... France. They won't waste all that talent and be dumped out by England again. Surely?
Don't call me Shirley. It's DAME Shirley to you!
Quarter Final 3 - Australia vs Wales
*Groan* I've tried with all my specious reasoning and one-eyed delusion to find a way to convince myself that Wales have got a GOOD chance to beat the Wallabies, but it's just not happening. This view will change the closer we get to the quarter final (assuming Wales haven't undone themselves by losing to Namibia, or reinstating Gareth Jenkins), and by the time we're hearing the anthems being sung I'll be foaming at the mouth proclaiming an 80-point Welsh victory is imminent.
Don't worry, I'll calm down once Australia score
a breakaway try after 5 minutes.
Australia have been looking particularly good recently and Wales just don't look to be on the same level, plus they're not a team to cause too many upsets, they're usually the ones suffering them. I suppose if you're going to go out, better to do so against one of the likely finalists, there's no shame in that. This is what I, sadly, expect to be repeating to myself on October 8th. Thankfully, with these early morning kick-offs I'll be able to get drunk a lot quicker. Ah sweet, sweet alcohol, eases the pain.
Quarter Final 4 - South Africa vs Ireland
This one's going to be tasty. I envisage these two out of form teams having a bloody tear up on the ground, with two grizzled packs of gnarled old forwards clashing in a nasty and brutish fashion, trying to wrestle possession from one another. For those of us who don't mind occasionally seeing a rugby field turn into a battlefield (so that's most of us), it should provide plenty of entertainment.
It's gonna be like this, but with clothes. Sorry ladies,
and some of the chaps
As for who will win, well South Africa have the best World Cup pedigree of any team since they first entered in 1995, so I'm going to have to go for the Boks. They just know how to win games.
So again, no real surprises with the winners. Perhaps some would pick England over France, which is a fair shout, but apart from that it's likely that the three Southern Hemisphere powerhouses will be competing for those final spots.
I'm going to leave the semi-finals for now and come back to them once the pool stages have played out, when we will know who will actually be playing in the quarters. For the record though, my pre-tournament tip is, boringly, like everyone else's it seems; New Zealand to beat South Africa, Australia to beat France, then New Zealand to go on and win the whole darn thing.
The most fun thing about these sort of predictions is the knowledge that the nature of sport means you will most likely be proven wrong on a few points, and that's when things get really interesting.
With the Rugby World Cup 2011 almost upon us (I'm so ready) I had a gander at the different groups and possible qualifying permutations so that I can give you, gentle reader, something to think about and discuss. Or dismiss and ridicule. Whatever, it's your life.
So for those with short attention spans, here's the summary. New Zealand gon' win. There, now you can go back to watching people fall off skateboards or something on Youtube.
Seriously though, this one's worth watching.
Just keep on reading once you're done
For the rest of you, here's a (slightly) more expansive analysis.
GROUP A - A for 'Absolutely fucked if you're not 1st or 2nd seed'
New Zealand - France - Tonga - Japan - Canada
Oh man. Tonga, Japan, Canada, thanks for coming, I hope you enjoy your brief visit to New Zealand. Check out Milford Sound if you've got time. Silly me, you'll have plenty of time, because you're definitely going out at the pool stage!
But seriously, there's no point speculating; New Zealand and France will go through. Not even France's capricious crippling Gallic indifference will be great enough to undo them against Tonga, Japan and Canada. Surely?
Shirely doesn't care about France, she only cares about Wales!
No, of course she hasn't been there in ages! She lives in the south of France!
So with the two qualifiers sorted, that brings us to the question of who's going through on top. New Zealand are strong favourites, but France have been something of a bogey team for them at previous World Cups, having caused upsets by knocking the favoured All Blacks out with that incredible comeback victory at the quarter-finals in 2007, and in the semi-finals in 1999.
Will it be a case of history repeating itself and France once again refusing to follow the form-book and instead humbling the favourites? Well no, probably not. For one, New Zealand look to be considerably better than France, who in their usual well thought out, sensible, pragmatic way have already announced that the coach leading them into the World Cup will be leaving.
CAPTION NOT REQUIRED
But more importantly, New Zealand won't have that extra pressure of each game being do-or-die, which comes with the later knock out stages. At the group level I think the All Blacks will keep their heads and qualify top, relegating France to second spot. Either way, New Zealand v France on Saturday September 24th is the pick of the pool stage matches. GROUP B - B for 'Best group to be in'
Argentina - England - Scotland - Georgia - Romania
England's defence coach, Mike Ford, said that England were "probably in the group of death". If he thinks having Argentina and Scotland as your main competititors constitutes a 'group of death', then he's either high or not aware of who else is competing in the tournament.
"Ha ha, I'm sorry, what do you mean 'New Zealand and Australia are
going to be at the World Cup'? What? Oh crap! They're much tougher!"
There's possibly an argument that by being in a comparatively weaker group the team won't be properly tested and hence not prepared for tougher games to come. Interesting, but that ignores the fact that being in a weaker groups has its own considerable benefits like; the players won't be as tired, there's possibly less chance of injury and IT'S REALLY BLOODY EASY FOR ENGLAND TO GET TO THE QUARTER FINALS.
For the record I like Argentina and they are most definitely not the whipping boys of years gone by, but Wales dispatched them handily only a few weeks ago and I expect England to do much the same. As for Scotland, they might be able to engineer good victories over England in the 6 Nations, but I think the psychological difference that comes with a World Cup, i.e. there's bigger fish to fry, will enable England to beat Scotland too. So basically, England to finish top of Group B.
As for second place, well I can't see Georgia and Romania being in the mix, although apparently the popularity of rugby has grown significantly in both countries, which is great to hear. So it'll be a tear up between Argentina and Scotland then. This one's a tough call. I suspect this particular match, in fact this whole group, will be dominated by forward play, and on that basis I think 2nd place will go to... Scotland. Why? I don't know, I don't think there's that much to choose between the two, but I'd like to see Scotland get a bit of luck and do well for a change. A very scientific reason for picking them, I'm sure you'll agree.
GROUP C - C for 'Crikey mate! That's a walk in the park'
Australia - Ireland - Italy - Russia - USA
Australia are unsurprisingly favourites to qualify top of this group, but at first glance it might not seem that easy. Ireland have a pretty good reputation, Italy have come on a long way since their last World Cup, USA aren't terrible and Russia... well I don't know much about Russia, but you can't imagine them being soft.
Basically it's a group which has some well established teams in it. But establishment won't get you out of the group. The fact is Ireland, as shown in the warm-up games, are seriously struggling with a side that has come to rely too much on the genius of Brian O'Driscoll to conjure up tries. It shouldn't be this way, on paper they've got a good mix of hardened old-heads and talented young-tyros. But the team on he pitch recently don't resemble this paper team, and they're not looking too hot going into the tournament.
The next challenger in the group is Italy. I was really, really impressed with them in the last 6 Nations, and their upset of France goes down as my moment of the tournament. But they won't repeat that upset against the much more level-headed, and I think it's fair to say talented Wallabies.
At the bottom we've got USA and Russia, now that's a tasty match up... if we were all wearing global hyper colour t-shirts and this was 1986. But it ain't, so there's not much to say about these two. Although I am interested to see if Russia field a team of pituitary-glands with legs or maybe fifteen Siberian ice giants. We live in hope.
This is my basis for what the Russian team will be like.
So, given prevailing forms, Australia look to be in an even cushier position than England and I'm confident they will walk the group. That leaves Ireland and Italy to scrap it out for second, which I'm going to give to... Ireland. I think when it comes down to it, with the likes of Paul O'Connel, Jamie Heaslip and Brian O'Driscoll, they will have enough strength, talent and grit to get a victory against Italy. Being as it's their last group game it might not be a pretty one, but they'll do enough to get through to the quarters.
GROUP D - D for 'DEATH'
South Africa - Wales - Fiji - Samoa - Namibia
Now this is the group of death. For real. I'm not just saying that as a preemptive attempt to save Wales' blushes if they don't get out of the group, there are four teams here with a genuine chance of qualifying. South Africa, despite their poor form in the Tri-Nations where they fielded weakened sides, are strong favourites. They're one of those teams that seem to be able to turn up to World Cups with fairly unspectacular sides and then go on to do better than expected. A bit like Germany in football.
Less likeable than those cuddly Germans though.
So assuming South Africa do qualify top thanks to a mix of calmness under pressure, hard work, aggression and egregious cheating *Cough* Second Lions Test *Cough*, who will be joining them in the last 8?
The smart money is on Wales, but no one who is smart puts money on Wales. Which explains why I do. Repeatedly. And one of their few consistencies is that they struggle against the Pacific Island teams, especially Fiji and Samoa. Here's a brief history lesson to illustrate my point:
1991 World Cup - Wales lose to Western Samoa and exit at the pool stage
1999 World Cup - Wales lose to Samoa in the pool stages, but qualify from the group
2007 World Cup - Wales lose to Fiji and exit at the pool stage
So yeah, the precedent doesn't look good for Wales, and yet, I'm going to put them down to finish second in the group. I put my hands up now, this is based on little more than blind optimism. Yes they had some pretty good warm up games, but so did Samoa, who recorded a shock 32-23 win over Australia. But if Wales defend and commit themselves like they did against England and Argentina and don't give away possession through aimless kicking (I'M LOOKING AT YOU LEE BYRNE!), which is rugby suicide against these hard running sides, then they can secure second spot.
Come on, you didn't really expect me to tip them to exit the pool stages, did you?
GROUP SUMMARY
So the group winners are (or will be)
New Zealand - England - Australia - South Africa
And the runners up...
France - Scotland - Ireland - Wales
No real surprises or upsets to offer sadly. These eight qualifying from the groups seems to be the consensus. Having all the home nations in the quarter finals would be great, although seeing a couple upsets and an underdog or two get through would be great as well. As long as it's not at the expense of Wales!
