10 years...10 LONG years

Blimey. Just watched the re-un of the 2003 RWC Final.



How good were England? By a huge margin the better team - hadn't quite realised how easily we should have won that match. Yes, Australia hung in and kicked their points but they should never have been in with a shout.

Despite it being 10 years on and me knowing the result, I was pretty much shitting myself as the game progressed and extra time was almost as unbearable as it was back in 2003.

Thank heavens for Saint Jonny at the death. Absolutely bloody brilliant. How can anyone possibly deal with that kind of pressure?


A couple of mentions:

- Hats off big time to Elton Flatley - balls of steel.

- Andre Watson's performance gets no better with the passage of time.

And finally - surely that must be it? Believe me, 2003 was utterly fantastic but, as I've mentioned before, surely now it's done and dusted. Of course it isn't. The only way to forget the past is to win the bloody thing again.

2015. Game on.

2003 and all that...

You may have noticed that certain sections of the media are trying to hype up the England v Oz match at HQ tomorrow as being some sort of 10th anniversary rematch of the 2003 Rugby World Cup Final.

And therein lies the problem with the English rugby psyche. Quite aside from historical inaccuracy (22nd November being the actual 10th anniversary), isn’t it about time to, well, you know, let 2003 go?

Don’t get me wrong…even today the memories of that superb day send a shiver down my spine and cause the hairs on the back of my neck (which are many and grey) to stand up.  Great, great times but, come on, shouldn’t they now be consigned firmly to history?

Since winning the World Cup, English rugby appears to have been locked in a cycle of perennial underachievement and until we move on I suspect it will only continue. Forget the past - it’s time to create a new history. Not just the players and coaches, but also the English rugby public and, especially, the media.

Forget 2003, lest it becomes the equivalent of English football’s 1966.

Here endeth the lesson…

Shame on you Reverend

The Right Reverend Graham Henry's crass comment that match-fixing may have been to blame for the All Blacks' defeat to France in the 2007 Rugby World Cup quarter-final does his credibility, and that of New Zealand rugby, no favours whatsoever.

Henry's suspicions, apparently revealed in a forthcoming biography, do nothing more than highlight a deep-seated arrogance and ignore the basic facts that New Zealand, with a plethora of possession that day, were guilty of poor execution and terrible decision-making, both on and off the pitch (Henry’s decisions to field a palpably unfit Dan Carter and to select Mils Muliaina out of position being just two examples).

The comments are clearly designed to ensure that the biography sells like hot cakes but, whilst match referee Wayne Barnes and his team may have made errors on the day, so did New Zealand and for Henry to seek to impugn the integrity of the match officials in such a way to deflect attention away from his own failings is nothing short of disgraceful.

47

For all the advances in modern medicine there’s still no known cure for the common birthday.

47 today, going on 19.

Such an auspicious occasion demands a blog post of insight and clarity. Unfortunately you’ll have to make do with this…

The media seem to be getting their collective knickers in a twist about this week’s comments by NZRU chief Steve Tew that the prospects of the All Blacks going to England for the 2015 Rugby World Cup are very slim under the current financial model . Apparently the NZRU lose "millions" in World Cup years owing to the tournament's strict sponsorship restrictions and loss of revenue from incoming tours.

My heart bleeds. If the likes of Namibia or Romania can find enough pennies down the back of the sofa, I dare say New Zealand can manage. Of course I haven’t seen the books, but I’m guessing that during the three years in between World Cups the NZRU’s peddling of the All Black brand around the world is fairly lucrative. That they can’t adequately manage their finances every fourth year (like everyone else has to) is their problem, no one else’s. It’s called budgeting.

It’d be interesting to see what would happen were the IRB to call their bluff.

Now you see me...

In an extraordinary turn of events, it emerged today that England have decided to dump both its controversial black change kit AND the traditional white kit for the forthcoming Rugby World Cup.

The decision has been taken following an official protest from the New Zealand Rugby Union relating to the black kit and in response to recent reports which suggest that England’s penalty count dips by 25% when they are not wearing their white kit.

Instead, the RFU have commissioned Nike to produce a camouflage kit for use in all matches during the World Cup.

“We’re very excited about the proposed new kit,” claims an RFU insider. “Our scientific advisers assure us that, with the referees more or less unable to see the players, England’s penalty count will be all but eradicated, which gives us a huge advantage going into the tournament.

“Although the colour white has traditionally been worn by England teams, when you think about it our troops have been going into battle wearing khaki for over 100 years, so we believe the shirt will be a fitting tribute to them. If anything it will be even more traditional than the traditional white shirt.”

The connection with the armed forces doesn’t stop there. The new shirt is said to be made from military grade fabric and will be the strongest shirt that Nike have ever produced whilst also providing improved sweat evaporation, enhanced freedom of movement and superior shape retention. The shirt will also work with the body during exertion to provide compression to support muscles and improve circulation and has a unique 4D grip zone on the chest to enhance ball grip.

Initial tests on the kit in training by the England squad, however, have not been a complete success, with players complaining that they have been unable to locate their colleagues when attempting to pass the ball. Unconfirmed reports suggest that this potential drawback has not affected Mike Tindall’s game in the slightest.

Just...bloody...brilliant!