RugbyRebels

Bledisloe I is almost upon us, opening the Rugby Championship in Sydney.

The Wallabies, who are winless so far this year, will be looking to get their international season back on track, and to salvage something of a season that is looking to be an even bigger implosion than 2005.

The Wallabies are just one of three teams to have defeated the All Blacks, although their record at Sydney in the Rugby Championships does not make good reading at 2 losses, 1 draw and 1 win. Their two losses (and the draw) have all come from opening round fixtures as well.

Wallabies
1. Scott Sio
2. Stephen Moore (C)
3. Sekope Kepu
4. Kane Douglas
5. Rob Simmons
6. Ben McCalman
7. Michael Hooper
8. David Pocock
9. Will Genia
10. Bernard Foley
11. Dane Haylett-Petty
12. Matt Giteau
13. Tevita Kuridrani
14. Adam Ashley-COoper
15. Israel Folau

16. Tatafu Polota-Nau
17. James Slipper
18. Allan Alaalatoa
19. Dean Mumm
20. Scott Fardy
21. Nick Phipps
22. Matt Toomua
23. Rob Horne


All Blacks
1. Wyatt Crockett
2. Nathan Harris Codie Taylor
3. Owen Franks
4. Brodie Retallick
5. Sam Whitelock
6. Jerome Kaino
7. Sam Cane
8. Kieran Read (C)
9. Aaron Smith
10. Beauden Barrett
11. Waisake Naholo
12. Ryan Crotty
13. Malakai Fekitoa
14. Ben Smith
15. Israel Dagg

16. Dane Coles
17. Kane Hames
18. Charlie Faumuina
19. Liam Squire
20. Ardie Savea
21. TJ Perenara
22. Aaron Cruden
23. Julian Savea

The Bledisloe Cup? Is that still a thing . . . ?

cashead wrote:Bledisloe I is almost upon us, opening the Rugby Championship in Sydney.

The Wallabies, who are winless so far this year, will be looking to get their international season back on track, and to salvage something of a season that is looking to be an even bigger implosion than 2005.

The Wallabies are just one of three teams to have defeated the All Blacks, although their record at Sydney in the Rugby Championships does not make good reading at 2 losses, 1 draw and 1 win. Their two losses (and the draw) have all come from opening round fixtures as well.

.

Did you mean since Hansen took over? 7 teams have beaten the All Blacks in tests - Wales, Aussie, SA, Lions, England, France, and a World XV.

Lizard wrote:

cashead wrote:Bledisloe I is almost upon us, opening the Rugby Championship in Sydney.

The Wallabies, who are winless so far this year, will be looking to get their international season back on track, and to salvage something of a season that is looking to be an even bigger implosion than 2005.

The Wallabies are just one of three teams to have defeated the All Blacks, although their record at Sydney in the Rugby Championships does not make good reading at 2 losses, 1 draw and 1 win. Their two losses (and the draw) have all come from opening round fixtures as well.

.

Did you mean since Hansen took over? 7 teams have beaten the All Blacks in tests - Wales, Aussie, SA, Lions, England, France, and a World XV.

Did they play an official test against a World XV? I vaguely recall a series back in the early or mid-90s, which was a little farcical with some players treating it like a glorified training run and shying off tackles and so on. If they rated that an official test, but not Fiji in 1974 or 1980, t'would be a bit ironic. I understand the Zimbabwe RU has retroactively recognized all of Rhodesia's matches against touring international teams as official tests, which means they too can claim a victory over the All Blacks. Presumably the Fiji RU also regards all of its games against NZ to have been official tests as well - and rightfully so, IMHO - though the closest they got was a one-point loss at Suva in 74.

All Blacks played a capped, 3-test series against a World XV in 1992 to mark the 100th anniversary of the NZRU. They lost the first test but came back to win the series 2-1.

There was controversy over the decision to award caps, the timing (three tests in 8 days) and the selection of one Gary Whetton for the World team.

As for other nations regarding uncapped All Blacks matches as full tests, that is their prerogative I guess.

It appears that Fiji recognises uncapped matches in 1968, 1974, 1980 x2, and 1984 as tests. If Zim has retrospectively awarded caps against touring sides to Rhodesia, that is about daft as Aussie capping post-war NSW teams. I can't find any respectable test stats that confirm the status according to Zim (happy to be pointed to any, though).

Care should be taken because often those All Blacks teams were more like an NZ A side. For instance when the first All Blacks team to Uruguay & Argentina was selected in 1976, it did not include anyone (AFAIK) who had been selected to tour SA immediately beforehand. Similarly, in 1980 v Fiji, the tourists to Australia that year were largely rested.

I think put a post in Stat of the Day about teams awarding caps against uncapped NZ sides. Could be on an old board, though.

Related to previous post:

The Union became affiliated to the South African Rugby Board and Rhodesian players were considered eligible for selection for the Springboks. In 1960 Des van Jaarsveldt became the only Rhodesian to captain South Africa, leading the Springboks to an 18-10 victory in their one-off Test against Scotland.
Their last Currie Cup under the Rhodesia name was in 1979 during which season their competitive name changed to Zimbawe-Rhodesia, but Independence thereafter ended their Currie Cup connection. Until 1981, when Zimbabwe made its bow as a Test-playing rugby nation, Rhodesian players (whose main competitive activity was in the Currie Cup) were always referred to as "representative players" and never given the senior cap status accorded to South Africa or in other rugby-playing nations. There was never any claim that their games against overseas tour sides should be regarded as Tests, although their matches against the Lions, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Italy were referred to as "internationals". These games have never been regarded as Tests by their opponents.

http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/146789.html

So in 1949, when Rhodesia beat the All Blacks, they were not even representing a national union, but a provincial sub-union of the SA union. Although that reflects well on their performance, it should rule out the idea of national caps being awarded.

Lizard wrote:

cashead wrote:Bledisloe I is almost upon us, opening the Rugby Championship in Sydney.

The Wallabies, who are winless so far this year, will be looking to get their international season back on track, and to salvage something of a season that is looking to be an even bigger implosion than 2005.

The Wallabies are just one of three teams to have defeated the All Blacks, although their record at Sydney in the Rugby Championships does not make good reading at 2 losses, 1 draw and 1 win. Their two losses (and the draw) have all come from opening round fixtures as well.

.

Did you mean since Hansen took over? 7 teams have beaten the All Blacks in tests - Wales, Aussie, SA, Lions, England, France, and a World XV.

Yeah, I meant 2012 onwards. Only 3 losses in in 4 and a bit seasons is an incredible hit rate.

And I can't believe this argument is still even a thing, but it's not unusual for one team to award test caps, while the other doesn't. There are teams that have and still award test caps against teams like the Barbarians (got the jab at Wales out of the way early), and the Maori All Blacks. I think it was also Fiji that awarded test caps against an Ireland A team, although there were extenuating circumstances in that decision by the Irish.

Lizard wrote:Related to previous post:

The Union became affiliated to the South African Rugby Board and Rhodesian players were considered eligible for selection for the Springboks. In 1960 Des van Jaarsveldt became the only Rhodesian to captain South Africa, leading the Springboks to an 18-10 victory in their one-off Test against Scotland.
Their last Currie Cup under the Rhodesia name was in 1979 during which season their competitive name changed to Zimbawe-Rhodesia, but Independence thereafter ended their Currie Cup connection. Until 1981, when Zimbabwe made its bow as a Test-playing rugby nation, Rhodesian players (whose main competitive activity was in the Currie Cup) were always referred to as "representative players" and never given the senior cap status accorded to South Africa or in other rugby-playing nations. There was never any claim that their games against overseas tour sides should be regarded as Tests, although their matches against the Lions, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Italy were referred to as "internationals". These games have never been regarded as Tests by their opponents.

http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/146789.html

So in 1949, when Rhodesia beat the All Blacks, they were not even representing a national union, but a provincial sub-union of the SA union. Although that reflects well on their performance, it should rule out the idea of national caps being awarded.

Yeh, I know the history of it very well, but I'd heard the Zimbabwe RU had recognized Rhodesia's games against touring teams as full internationals. That's all. It's not quite the same thing as NSW Waratahs - quite the opposite in fact - because Zimbabwe appears to be reclaiming its pre-independence heritage.

Can you remember where you heard that? If it's true, there are some statisticians I need to alert.

Just a report I read once (a few years ago) on the http://allafrica.com/ website. I just googled it and couldn't locate it. But it quoted Zimbabwean RU officials, as I recall, so I assumed it was reliable. I'm pretty sure those games are not recognized as official tests by either World Rugby or the NZRFU, however.

World Rugby actually has no role in deciding whether a match is an official test match or not.

Precisely. So it would all depend on whose records you were looking at.

Lizard wrote:World Rugby actually has no role in deciding whether a match is an official test match or not.

There must be a rule in place for ranking points purposes. By default therefore I'd say there's a rule for determining whether something is an official Test.

Generally there is mutual consent on the issue, which basically entails the elite bullying the others into accepting whatever status they want. Zimbabwe's retroactive recognition of Rhodesia's games against touring international teams as official test matches would be one of the very few cases in which there is not a mutual agreement. Without that mutual agreement, World Rugby is highly unlikely to recognize those games as official tests in its own official records. Personally I believe any international at senior level should be regarded as a 'test,' including where 'A' teams and 'XVs' are concerned. Quite simply, that will help to sell the games, and otherwise it's purely academic. The elite unions need to stop taking themselves so seriously and focus a little more on promoting the game around the world.

Meanwhile, on the subject of Rhodesia, I personally think it is a tragedy that South Africa did not have the vision to develop them as an international rival, especially as they became increasingly isolated due to the Apartheid system. Rhodesia may have competed in South Africa's provincial competitions and contributed to the Springboks, but they were never part of of South Africa politically or geographically. The Rhodesian team was probably on a par with, say, Fiji, and the victory over New Zealand's second-stringers at Bulawayo in 1949, followed three days later by a draw in the capital, was in fact its only notable accomplishment against international opposition. However, if South Africa had engaged them in a regular Bledisloe Cup-style test series, they might have developed at the same rate the Wallabies did in the 20th century.

Incidentally, their most famous player was probably prop Andy Macdonald (who actually played his rugby in northern Rhodesia, now Zambia), who toured NZ & Australia with the Boks in 1965. Later decscribed by All Blacks legend Colin Meads as 'the most imposing physical specimen we ever lined up against,' Macdonald made world headlines the following year when he emerged victorious from a brawl with a lion (which left him requiring 400 stitches).But in 1987, at the age of 52, he was murdered along with his wife in Bulawayo.

I think that rankings points are allocated only for matches which both sides nominate as tests, but WR has no say in whether they do that. World Cup games might be an exception but it would be pretty unlikely that any country would not award caps for a RWC game! Technically, a union (say NZ) could stymie another nation's rankings ambitions (say England's) by refusing to recognise any internationals between the two as tests.

Other than the rankings, I don't think WR keeps any "official records." Regulation 8, dealing with national eligibility of players, uses very convoluted language to avoid talking about "tests", "caps" or "full internationals."

It's a bit of an historical accident, this situation, really stemming from the days of the old IRFB with only 8 or so members, some of whom wouldn't recognise matches against non-members as tests. I think there was, and still is, a place for nations to put up deliberate 2nd XV's or "A" teams or whatever against another nations 1st XV. Having competitive international matches can be more useful than a massacre for the development of both sides. That would be less likely if such matches were mandatorily regarded as tests. It is less common these days, but making every international a test would effectively rule out a NZ A team was competing in the PNC, or the Saxons in some 2nd tier European thing.

There definitely is a fair bit of discretion involved from the individual governing unions over what games are test matches, basically. Just because one side is awarding test caps doesn't mean the other side is obliged to do so, and that appears to be the ongoing theme. Like, Wales awarding test caps to players who appeared against the Barbarians a few years ago is a classic example. I doubt the IRB had much to do with the WRU's decision to award test caps for that game, and I doubt they really gave a shit either.

I think they do have some say on whether a game is a first class match or not, since I think it was them that declared the All Blacks game agains the Pacific Barbarians in 2000 or thereabouts in Tokyo didn't count as a first class match on some technicality.

So just to bring this full circle, I think we can all agree that NZ should not be awarding caps against Aussie this year.

Ironically in football, a much bigger sport internationally, they don't really seem to give a toss about any of this. Countries often send out third or even fourth-string teams for friendly games but they all go into the books as 'official internationals.' & while the Olympics may be technically an age-grade event, fans around the world clearly view them as internationals as well. Rugby's relative stuffiness can only be attributed to its heritage among the British gentility.

All Blacks have been named, Barrett is set to start at 10, and Harris at 2. Kane Hames gets a spot on the bench as loosehead prop cover. Team has been added to the OP.

All Blacks v Australia, Sydney, 10pm Saturday
15 Israel Dagg
14 Ben Smith
13 Malakai Fekitoa
12 Ryan Crotty
11 Waisake Naholo
10 Beauden Barrett
9 Aaron Smith
8 Kieran Read
7 Sam Cane
6 Jerome Kaino
5 Sam Whitelock
4 Brodie Retallick
3 Owen Franks
2 Nathan Harris
1 Wyatt Crockett

Reserves: Codie Taylor, Kane Hames, Charlie Faumuina, Liam Squire, Ardie Savea, TJ Perenara, Aaron Cruden, Julian Savea.

Crotty. I just don't get it.

Defensively, he's safe as houses and is seen as one of the backline leaders within the Canterbury set-up. That, plus the likelier candidates like Ngatai and SBW are out injured.

So we have Read's Squire and the runaway Ardie Savea hype train on the bench. Sh*t gonna get crazy in the final 20 minutes.

zer0 wrote:So we have Read's Squire and the runaway Ardie Savea hype train on the bench. Sh*t gonna get crazy in the final 20 minutes.

Plus we'll presumably get Cruden on for one of the back three and run a two-pivot system for the last 15 or so.

I'm not a massive Crotty fan but who else in the circumstances? Midfield is no place to take a punt v Aussie.