Canterbury issues apology for recent Ireland jersey gaffe

Compare him to Caleb who was actively hunting for the ball and injecting himself in the backline. Ioane on a few occasions would stop in his tracks or avoid running support once he passed the ball, he wasn't even involved in the try to Jordan where as he probably should have been in Sititi's place or ran cover once it went to Aumua.

Hence they think they have to play more conservative rugby. The argument being that if say Irelands success was obtained without those 5 foreign stars they would have the confidence to say, "lets keep our high skill, high technique game going, we have the systems in place". Fact is they realise they did get so many key players from a source they are no longer going to have access to, so theyre adjusting and shifting their game.

Theyre no longer playing that attack structure, so kinda irrelevant I feel. Sexton's metronomic tempo was perfect for that sort of football though. I really shouldn't say anything disparaging about his ability and influence on a northern style as he's probably a much closer footballer to the great Dan Carter than the modern NZ tens are. Still feel the game is better off in the NH now that players like Smith and Ntamack are able to lead the way with their performances.

I suggest not falling into that trap of replacing someone. They don't need a Sexton at 10, that guy and influence can come from anywhere in the team. Wallace Sititi for example has done so much to flip the debate on the NZ midfielders needing to have Nonu/Smith level distribution. They're trying to transition their game into a fast contest, ala their two victories against SA, but also losing out on that against SA and England (possible NZ too). Nienaber being seen as more beneficial to that outcome than Lancaster. I too think they're wrong though, it was a gift Faz got provided with but I haven't seen the Irish psyche want to recognize that. Some might say it's disrespectful to credit all of Irelands success on the back of a fortuitous style of play they discovered (were gifted, w/e) but I'll tell anyone that that's all New Zealands success is based off, and if a more natural organically grown pressuring style it's still something that is ingrained on everyones instincts just the same and can easily be lost of not appreciated.

Schmidt of course won't put our best players in their best position because then the team starts to look like it might threaten the All Blacks. He will also avoid Rodda who can pick apart an All Black lineout.

McDermott is way better than Gordon but then again, Gordon will be no threat to the All Blacks. Kellaway and Wright must swap but Schmidt wont. That's what kiwi coaches in Australia do.

As for Donaldson, fair dinkum he's about the 5th best 10 in Australia if he's lucky. We know what you are doing Joe. Protecting the All Blacks.

Maybe a development contract.

No time to experiment with a serial underachiever like Finau.

Would love to see both 9's go after Dupont so they can see first hand how he handles pressure. Lakai can go after him as well. We get to see what sort of speed and guile he can bring the jersey plus Dupont has such a status that it would be no skin off the bone if Dupont made them look like the inexperienced players they are.

And you never know, they could possibly harass him into the ground and shut him down to guarantee vicotry!

So I am putting two and two together, and assuming that he has been caught up in Hansens briefing of what the plan is to Dmac. But on a wider level I'm just suggesting that you shouldn't really create a new law to introduce something that coaches could be encouraging their players to do for them, right?

Several times in the Ireland game they have their players going off their feet to get over or around the ruck and if a nice strong half back like Ratima and just shrug one or two of those attempts off he'll find lots of space in behind, which will soon see the opposition holding back and giving Ratima more space and time. The same result that introducing a 'no hustle' law would have, but with a much more interesting dynamic and no additional factors for refs to worry about (it's simple the offside line at the time the balls no longer touching turf, rather than when they think the 9's started moving).