3News » Home

All Blacks absences prove Trial Nations in 2011

Dan Carter and Richie McCaw have both been left at home Dan Carter and Richie McCaw have both been left at home
Fri, 12 Aug 2011 3:33p.m.

By Jim Kayes

So now the All Blacks test in Port Elizabeth is historic. 

Graham Henry can all have the justification in the world (cup) for leaving behind half his regular test side but he can't avoid the simple fact he's thumbed his nose at the history and traditions that make rugby great.

Of course if he wins the World Cup all will be forgiven. 

For 24 barren years that's been the Holy Grail for All Blacks coaches despite the fact it has no real relevance to who is the world's best team.

With this year's tournament in New Zealand Henry will need a bolt hole harder to find than his Waiheke Island bach if the All Blacks don't win.

And even more so now.

For as long as rugby has been played, tests between New Zealand and South Africa have been the pinnacle of the international game. 

Titanic battles between the sport's behemoths. That changed when Peter de Villers brought his 'B' Boks to New Zealand for the test in Wellington and has changed again now the All Blacks squad to travel to South Africa has been named. 

Sure there are World Cup concerns around fatigue, injury and travel, but shouldn't this test now be reclassified a 'friendly' given who Henry is leaving behind? 

At the very least the Tri-Nations are now clearly the Trial-Nations as that's exactly what happened in Wellington and is happening again in Port Elizabeth.  

They are World Cup trials, plain and simple. In no other circumstance could it be justified to leave behind the All Blacks captain, Richie McCaw, and their other best player in Daniel Carter, let alone the small posse that joins them in Owen Franks, Brad Thorn, Kieran Read, Conrad Smith and Mils Muliaina.

It will certainly be interesting to hear NZRU boss Steve Tew justify this weakened tour squad given his disappointment with the squad South Africa sent to New Zealand. 

At least Henry is being up front about his decision to leave so many players at home and isn't hiding behind a veil of supposed injuries while his 21 players train in secret in Rustenburg. 

Still, this is a defining moment for New Zealand rugby which begs the question - what should we call this squad travelling to South Africa?   The Half Blacks, or perhaps the Almost All Blacks. 

And maybe Adidas could release another jersey with one and half stripes' instead of the regular three. They'd have to drop the price though.

Meanwhile the pressure's increased on Henry (if that's at all possible) to win the World Cup.

If nothing else he has to show that his deliberate disregard for the values and traditions of test match rugby were worth it.

 

Comments [5]

Richard
25 Aug 2011 10:02a.m.

"For as long as rugby has been played, tests between New Zealand and South Africa have been the pinnacle of the international game." No, that is not true, it is how it USED to be before perhaps the second world cup. Quite evidently it is NOT the pinnacle any more. The focus this year is the world Cup and winning that would be the pinnacle to the All Blacks, the All Black coaches, and MOST of the All Black supporters.

Kepplar Crudsen
23 Aug 2011 02:43p.m.

I rate winning the test series in SA in 1996 as bigger than winning the WC. It took a string of tough wins to do it and you don't have to do that at the WC where you often get a lot of easy lead-up games before the semis. Now we're way ahead of SA in head to head contests I just want to keep it that way. It doesn't get better than beating the Boks, they're always the ultimate test in my opion.

Horst Bucholz
23 Aug 2011 01:42p.m.

Jim Kayes has nailed it. Test rugby is the ultimate and playing the Boks -- and beating them -- in the Tri Nations is just as important as it is in the WC. We should never put out a deliberately under-strength team against them. I love the fact that since the Boks returned to the world rugby stage we've owned them about 60 per cent of the time, perhaps more. OK, but they have won two world cups in that time. Yes but in that period if you discard matches againt minnows their success rate in tests is just above 50 per cent, while NZ's is around the 80 per cent mark. Would I swap all that success for the Boks' two world cups and their overall mediocre results? No way in the world. I'd rather have all that success, the WC just aint worth backing a losing team three years out of four. The more test wins the better, especially against SA.

mornie duplusee
22 Aug 2011 12:33p.m.

graham henry should have been sacked after the last world cup when he said rotation was the way to win the cup and lost. now he is making the same mistake again, the all blacks will be under pressure to win the tri nations now so henry is forced to put out his top team. if we lose,it's too late to sack the coach that should have been gone 4 years ago. never learn . my pockets are full from backing the boks 13 and over because they have never won their and we sent a team of indivuals rotating positions. no cup again as henry is now panacking and everyone is praying that the beach boys carter and richie don't get hurt because it will be all over.

Coertze
17 Aug 2011 03:12p.m.

Oh realy? It does not matter who wins the world cup? Yet NZ will give all kinds of excuses why they lost all the world cups from 1987. It seems they only believe that they can win if they hold it in NZ...

Post a comment

Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:


3News Video 3News Audio