Mils centre of attention
4 Jul 2006
The All Blacks search for Tana Umaga’s successor now shifts to Mils Muliaina, considered by many to be the game’s best fullback.
With Ma’a Nonu not available because of a broken thumb, the All Black selectors named their first choice fullback at outside centre for the Vodacom Tri Nations opener against the Wallabies in Christchurch.
Richie McCaw captains his country for the first time at home in a team showing 10 changes from the one that beat the Pumas in Buenos Aires. The team also shows six changes from the one that beat Ireland in Auckland.
It is without doubt the strongest New Zealand can put on the park and the injury to Nonu means the All Black selectors get to play Leon Macdonald and Muliaina.
The Crusaders and Hurricanes players supply nine players to the starting XV.
“We’ve got two very capable players in Leon MacDonald and Mils Muliaina, we wanted to find a place for both of them in the team and they both couldn’t play fullback. So this was a natural thing to do which was always in the forefront of our minds through the early part of the season,” Henry told the media. “It’s just the balance of the side,” he added. “It was good to have both of them in there, and Mils is more suited to centre than Leon is. We’ve got total confidence in his ability to play there. It’s a pretty experienced rugby team isn’t it … that backline has played a lot of test matches, and quite a few together, though maybe not in those positions. They’re mature, they’ve experienced top-line rugby and they’ll be able to handle Saturday.”
Eaton, at lock, has edged out Ali Williams. Rico Gear starts ahead of Doug Howlett and Tony Woodcock is instead of Greg Somerville. Anton Oliver misses out as a sub and the second choice hooker responsibility goes to Andrew Hore.
All Blacks: 15 Leon MacDonald, 14 Rico Gear, 13 Mils Muliaina, 12 Aaron Mauger, 11 Joe Rokocoko, 10 Daniel Carter, 9 Byron Kelleher; 8 Rodney So’oialo, 7 Richie McCaw (c), 6 Jerry Collins, 5 Jason Eaton, 4 Chris Jack, 3 Carl Hayman, 2 Keven Mealamu, 1 Tony Woodcock. Subs: 16 Andrew Hore, 17 Greg Somerville, 18 Ali Williams, 19 Chris Masoe, 20 Piri Weepu, 21 Luke McAlister, 22 Isaia Toeava
92 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
4 Jul 2006, 11:34 am
chch,
What are you so wound up about? I don’t think Chiefsfan is looking to take away anything that the Crusaders have achieved, he’s just tried to show that alot of teams go through cycles. The Crusaders have indeed been through a couple of cycles in the S12/S14. It is testament to Robbie Deans and the support structure of the Crusaders that they have been so dominant. I believe Henry is doing that which Deans has been doing for years – believing in the backup players to allow the premier players to stay fresh. The Crusaders looked a little vulnerable at the beginning of this year with no Mehrtens, Hewett, Marshall etc. But they answered the critics in the best possible way, and long the way they unearthed a couple more gems for future years – Ellis and Crockett.
The ABs I think are doing the same thing. Henry, Hansen and Smith know who their 1st XV is. But they also know if any one of those XV go down they have a player who can come in and can do a good job. Of course if you lose a player like McCaw or Carter you will feel it, but the winning mentality has now been instilled in the team and the players rally for each other – like the Crusaders do.
4 Jul 2006, 11:35 am
stodders, but we still have the history, since 1887 or something, it happens every WC year and I can’t see 2007 being any different. We are not hoping, we sort of know…
4 Jul 2006, 11:37 am
Koos,
Boston Red Sox – all things eventually come to an end. Heck, even Brazil had a break of 24 years between winning World Cups (1970-94).
4 Jul 2006, 11:40 am
Be patient then mcCaw, the Red Socks waited a while longer…as they say, don’t hold your breath!
4 Jul 2006, 11:43 am
No curse of the Bambini here!
4 Jul 2006, 11:44 am
Suzie maybe…
4 Jul 2006, 11:52 am
More importantly Stodders, that teams can go through LONG cycles. It’s not that unusual for a side to dominate a competition for four or five years. Hence the fact that the ABs are good now, does not automatically imply this “peaking” thing.
Graeme Henry has every chance to get the team to France next year and win it. Being good now only improves his chances: only an idiot thinks that somehow having a **** season the year before a big tournament is a good idea.
4 Jul 2006, 11:52 am
Koos,
Only in RWC 1987 and 1995 could the ABS have been classed as the favourites.
In 1987, their team was so far in front of anyone else it wasn’t funny, hence why they won the cup and dominated the game for the next 3 years (until 1990).
In 1991, the team were over the hill and were racked by internal problems. The Ozzies were the best team in the world at that point and duly showed it by beating NZ in the semis and taking the cup.
In 1995, NZ had a poor 1994 and only really took on the favourites tags during the tournament with some convincing performances during the tournament. On finals day it could have gone either way. But with the weight of a nation behind them, the Springboks prevailed.
In 1999, NZ again were in dire straights. They had a coach who was 2 years past his sell by date and had issues with selection. They fielded a team of superstars, but didn’t have a superstar team (check out their results prior to the tournament for proof.) Oz were the form team that year, and agina, they duly took home the prize.
In 2003, NZ had some pretty good victories, but their gameplan and team selection was flawed. Mitchell had instructed his team not to ruck, and so part of the ABs had been lost – the aggressive way they play the game. On top of that Mitchell didn’t take Mehrtens, he didn’t play Carter and his forward pack were ok, but not fearsome. Oz caught them cold with a brilliant gameplan which was executed to perfection. The favourites of course were England as they had been playing the winning rugby for the previous 2 years. Although their game nearly fell to pieces by the final, England still had enough to win and were able to claim the cup.
What does 2007 hold? Well, this Tri Nations should tell us more. At this point in time it is fair to say that NZ are the form team in the worl based on results. Their performances in the first three games have not been great though. France at home also have to be classed as co-favourites as they are incredibly difficult to beat at home. Whoever performs best in the Tri-Nations this year will be in pole position for next year. Henry has the ABs in a good state. Fresh players who are hungry for success and with experience. They have the winning mentality again and are able to squeeze out the tight games again. That’s what should be making the rest of us a little bit worried.
NZ haven’t lost to France in France for 6 years now though, so there’s something to bear in mind.
4 Jul 2006, 11:57 am
Keep up the good work boys, if you keep on telling yourself 2007 will be different..well, keep up the good work!
4 Jul 2006, 11:58 am
Stodders. Not wound up. Chiefsfan always puts in good constructive comments. I did not intend to add anything harsh sounding (I suggested a book and did you miss post 37).
I still don’t agree with the cycle thing though. I have been preparing myself for a few years on the losing side of things but it just hasn’t happened. Some years preseason the Crusaders look quite ordinary (compared to the prvious year) but they seem to still do well (very quick team rebuilds + pull in talent from other provences that were missed).
From a support point of view I do not care if they lose though, they are my team (view shared by most poeple on this site which is why I like being on it).
I did not mean to be a big head with the 2002 thing but it sticks in my mind becasue I lived in Sydney at the time. The 96 pint win followed by what I thought was the best Crusaders performance ever (in the final). Both ‘The Panel’ and the Fox sports roundup would not admit that the Crusaders performance was good. It got very minimal air time as the game of rugby (as it does in Aussie when they lose) fell off the face of the earth.
I have waited 4 years to say that. Ok, think I am ok now
I think you get the point…I just remember 2002.
4 Jul 2006, 12:03 pm
LOL chch
Fair enough mate. I saw both of those games you mentioned – the Waratahs took a couple of years to get over that hiding and the Crusaders were awesome in that final. But how often when the big games come round do we end up saying the “Crusaders were awesome”?
I’m glad you got it off your chest.
4 Jul 2006, 12:04 pm
Koos,
Only if you keep on telling everyone that 2007 will see the status quo continued
4 Jul 2006, 12:07 pm
stodders, got history on my side
Anyway, just stirring and the ‘choking’ tag is one that will stay around at least till ’07 WC final…or will it continue after WC 07 semie!
4 Jul 2006, 12:11 pm
Koos,
So who do you think will win the RWC in 2007? We know you think the ABs will fail(as I suspect several million Kiwis half do in the backs of their minds if they are honest). Who are you putting your money on…
Btw, I don’t do this whole “choke” thing. I think it’s an easy term to use for bait when fishing for Kiwis, but it’s not really true when you look at the facts. I think post 58 is pretty true IMO. The ABs are consistently the best team in the world more times than not. Sometimes other countries develop a great group of players and are just that bit better over a sustained period of time (SA 1996 to 1997, Oz 1999 to 2001, England 2002/03). So I think it is fair to say that the ABs are always more competive than most and have a consistency that other countries can only dream of results and performance wise, but they haven’t always been the best.
4 Jul 2006, 12:13 pm
He’s got what it takes, solid in every respect, both offensively & defensively. Will ask serious questions about opposition’s midfield in both respect, though not Tana. What would we give for such natural talent?
4 Jul 2006, 12:18 pm
Kamate,
You can’t replace someone like Tana. He was unique really. That’s why he’ll be remembered as one of the greats.
Muliaina is a good tackler, though he won’t knock you back across the gain line like Umaga. What he does have is a good rugby brain, speed, a great swerve and good distribution skills. How many tries in the last 2 to 3 years have NZ’s wingers scored from a final pass from Mils? I think NZ are looking to change the playing style of their #13. When Conrad Smith comes back, he will be in the mix too as he is a footballer with a good rugby brain and very good distribution skills.
With Muliaina, Nonu and Smith as centre options, Henry can choose which centre to play according to the opposition and the gameplan that will be used.
4 Jul 2006, 12:21 pm
Stodders, as I said the ‘choking’ is nothing more than a wind-up, made easier because the kiwis put so much pressure on themself, not necessary for anyone to make it harder!
As for 2007, as you said, this 3nations may give an indication but probably nothing more than to see if the Wobblies will actually be a factor come next year.
Honest opinion, I expect the last 4 to be the AB’s, France, the Wobblies and the winner of the Boks/poms game. Unfortunately I am still not sure we have the good. We will put up a fight as usual but if it will be enough I do not know.
From there it is straight shoot-out, one the AB’s should win on current form…
4 Jul 2006, 12:22 pm
Fair dues Koos. Thanks for putting your balls on the line with a prediction
4 Jul 2006, 12:28 pm
Actually, I think Tana was pushed out of the ABs, because his game wasn’t what was needed and wasn’t getting any better. He obviously isn’t getting tired of rugby (see his signing up to play the off-season), so we can lay that to rest.
Tana is a great #13: but he is a great *defensive* #13. So, just as Marty Holah, who is a world class *defensive* #7 struggles to make the AB side, so would Tana.
Frankly, I thought the AB outside backs in 2005 were pretty average, given the quality ball they got. Henry is prepared to take risks on defence, so long as the attack gets proportionately better. Thus he persists with Nonu, despite him being a defensive liability. He also persists with Masoe, who is much less reliable in cover than Holah.
Neither does Tana offer as much at captain as McCaw in my opinon. Through-out his time the ABs struggled with their discipline in giving away lots of penalties for dumbass things, which is never a good sign.
4 Jul 2006, 12:43 pm
Chiefsfan,
I can kind of agree with some of what you wrote.
What Umaga did was bring “mana” back to the ABs. Under his captaincy they began to play as a team again. He pulled the Pakeha, Maori and Polynesian players together and united them together for the cause. All of the players would have liad their bodies on the line for the captain, as that was the example that they were set to follow. It allowed them to edge tight games through the belief they each had in each other. That will be his greatest legacy. McCaw may well go on to be a better captain, and i’ve seen examples where this may well be the case. But Tana laid the foundation for this team to grow. And all of the NZ should be grateful for that.
4 Jul 2006, 12:48 pm
stodders, chief,
Anyway I can contact you guys, would like to tell you about a group I belong to, rugby that is! Think you may enjoy…or else check the 100+ thread where I posted the address for Walter.
4 Jul 2006, 12:50 pm
That will be the the Lions thread…below.
4 Jul 2006, 12:51 pm
Chiefsfan,
Have you also noticed how McCaw and Umaga share one frustrating trait in their game? They both suffer from “tits for hands” syndrome sometimes. Umaga suffered most when he was match rusty. McCaw tends to suffer from it more because he’s generally in the right position to receive the ball as the support player more often than anyone else, hence he has a higher probability of dropping it. IMO, this really is McCaw’s only flaw. But i’ve noticed in this years S14 that he was cutting down on his errors.
If McCaw brings the cpataincy he showed for the Crusaders into the ABs, I expect the ABs to do well. He is passionate and is a warrior leader, but is quite canny too. He leads by example and I think he is the right person to carry on the mantle from Umaga.
4 Jul 2006, 12:57 pm
WHAT chiefy?
Tana has the best ofload in tackle ever.
How many tries have been scored by guys Tana has put through the gap? More than all my fingers and toes put together
AND did you not see Masoe’s defense in 2 of the last 3 S14 games (excluding the final cos no-one saw that!)
AND since when has Macaw been the lily white angel who never concedes a penalty. The amazing thing about Richie is that somehow he gets all the last warnings but never sees a card!
4 Jul 2006, 13:00 pm
ricane, you sure you a kiwi, S14 finished…
4 Jul 2006, 13:02 pm
Ricane,
Are you a Canes supporter by any chance? You guys and your provincial bias cracks me up. you should be happy that McCaw plays for the ABs, not being negative about how he plays for his province.
Tana does possess an incredible ability to offload in the tackle. Masoe is getting better the more he plays at the top level too.
Tana’s time is up though…he’s in the past and won’t be returning. Until the ABs find a #13 with a playing presence (and this doesn’t necessarily mean a physical one), other teams will see it as a weak link in the ABs. In Smith, Mils and Nonu, I’m not seeing it as being that weak…explosive more like.
4 Jul 2006, 13:10 pm
Sorry ‘ricane, that was the Tana of ’03 and ’04. He just wasn’t getting it done in ’05. Oh he didn’t embarress himself, but neither did he set up his outside backs very much.
Masoe is far more flashy than Holah, to be sure. You notice when he makes a tackle. But he is also likely to run bad lines and just be absent when he should be present. He is also much more likely to do something really stupid.
As for McCaw and penalties: that goes to show just how the man actually *thinks* when playing rugby. At the start of a game he tests the ref’s limits. He finds out what is going to be allowed and what is not. As the game goes on, he works out where the line is and plays *exactly* to it. That is what makes him soooooooo much classier than guys like Burger who are otherwise his physical match.
Stodders: McCaw takes a while to get into a game. He often drops the ball early, often in frustratingly good positions. As the game goes on his error rate drops. This way of playing, combined with working out the refs (above) is one of the reasons teams he is in tend to take a while to get going.
I would much rather have his early dropsies than a player who comes out with a hiss and a roar but fades as the game goes on.
4 Jul 2006, 13:13 pm
Note that I’m not saying picking Masoe is bad. Just that Henry is accepting extra attacking performance as worth a small drop in defence.
4 Jul 2006, 13:14 pm
Also Masoe covers more positions better.
4 Jul 2006, 13:18 pm
Give me the address Koos!
4 Jul 2006, 13:20 pm
Hey Stodders, of course I’m a CANES supporter and I’m very happy that now the S14 is over I don’t have to hate Richie and his cheating (OOPS I MEAN INCREDIBLY SKILLFUL PLAY) anymore
Macaw is the man and we love him!
Chiefy, I actually agree with you on Tana, I think he exited wisely while he was still classed as a current legend.
We will have to agree to disagree on Holah vs Masoe.
You guys are most welcome to keep Holah up in cocky moolooland
4 Jul 2006, 13:29 pm
Chief
sarugby-subscribe at yahoogroups dot com
If you want to check it out first try..
sports dot groups dot yahoo dot com/group/sarugby/
Sh*t, if that does not work try email me at johann_s8 at yahoo dot com dot au
4 Jul 2006, 13:45 pm
Mils is a naturally gifted footballer. That side is pretty good, just wish there was a scrumhalf that could give perfect service 2 dan carter 24/7, test after test. Aaron Mauger is one of the most underrated players in the world. I would have him in my team ten times out of ten. Not many people know that howlett is standing at close to an average of one try per game over a career of over fourty tests. He’s not in the starting line-up. On the other hand SA picks players based on a) are they part of JW’s “untouchables”?; b) if out of form, what’s their past reputation (de wet barry); and c) must have at least two black players starting and/or on the field at any given time.
4 Jul 2006, 14:33 pm
will we hail mils as the best 13 in world rugby in a few months time? impossible?
remember carter? also played “out of position”?
i think tana was pushed into retirement and by then gh already knew that he may shift mils to centre.
4 Jul 2006, 16:08 pm
Remember Asha1, he is replacing Tana — who had never touched centre until moved there. At least Mils has played serious rugby there on and off.
4 Jul 2006, 16:33 pm
ChiefsFan
thats exactly my point. i think he’s gonna be a revelation there. its just sad that i had to repeat myself ChiefsFan…sadly
4 Jul 2006, 18:51 pm
Wallabies can hurt them in the midfield but to surprise them in Christchurch would be too much to ask.
5 Jul 2006, 01:05 am
Good Move, without Conrad Smith, Mils would be the next best natural ball playing centre I would select to take the AB 13 jersey. Australia to beat NZ?!? NZ have just come out of 3 hard earned test matches in conditions that is going to be similar to that for this weekend, Australia impressed in the dry pitches of Australia, including indoor pitches, so to have Australia bring there running rugby into Chch and be labelled as favourites?!? I guess its all for the bookies at the end of the day. Good Luck to both teams, this game will settle the nerves.
5 Jul 2006, 02:38 am
I dont like the Centre they have chosen I would have called in Casey Laulala in which I thought he handled O’driscoll quite well.I saw Mils play centre in the Super14 and it wasnt pretty but they know better and I hope it works but I dont think it will.
5 Jul 2006, 06:12 am
The Saders are really the only Kiwi team to win the S12 14 oh and that lot from the other island so what makes their rugger so strong. No Canterbury no Kiwi rugger.
5 Jul 2006, 08:15 am
Sadly Pompies, this time you are talking s**t.
I lived in Auckland for many years … sadly, and I had to endure Aucklanders telling me that when Auckland rugby was poor then NZ rugby was poor. What’s worse was that they were deadly serious, not just kidding. However, the present state of Kiwi rugby indicates that they were kidding themselves.
Just as Canterbury finished last in a Super12, without it having any noticeable effect on the ABs.
5 Jul 2006, 10:10 am
All the rejects from the blues go down the high way to the Chiefs. Ha and this last season back fired on them. Go the Chiefs.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.