Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Culture

All Black cultural impact is huge on New Zealand, in season, the All Blacks are on the news almost everyday and the country goes on a deppression when they lose, so i ask for someone to research this and add a section.Mexaguil 06:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The All Blacks arn't on the news quite that much. But on another cultural note; on this line (1st article 2nd paragraph) "Rugby union is New Zealand's premier sport and selection for the All Blacks is the greatest honour that a Kiwi sportsman can achieve." I think we should consider an alteration of the last part. Being selected for the All Blacks is only the greatest honour that a Kiwi rugby union sportsman can achieve, because I'd class revieving an olimpic medal, or the NZ sportsperson of the year award as a higher achievement and therefor a greater honour. -- Faded_Mantis 06:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll make the change tomorrow then --Faded_Mantis 09:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Some famous All Blacks

A good start to the list but some names seem strange - eg Reuben Thorne along side Michael Jones? No offense to good 'ol Reuben, but hes not quite in the same class as a lot of the names here. Same goes for Jerry Collins. Kiwimade 11:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But Thorne was a (very succesful) captain even if there were doubts about his place in the team. And Jerry's topicla being a current player. Lisiate 01:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it may have been me that added Reuben Thorne to that list, and if so, I suspect that I was motivated as much by the fact that we have a decent article on him on Wikipedia as by any other consideration.. :-) —Stormie June 28, 2005 07:24 (UTC)

Results update

Currently the article says this is up to date to 21 November 2004 (ie. vs France at Paris). I'm about to add wins against the Lions and Fiji this year. Feel free to revert if this has been added already. Lisiate 03:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Lions results

Just on the topic of Lions results please be aware that the All Blacks have actually played the Lions 38 times. A couple of sites including allblacks.com only list tours up to 1930. There were actually 4 other recorded tests between the two teams. Three in 1908, and one in 1903. Here are 3 sites I could find that actually have the right figure at 38 played, 29 won by NZ and 3 draws. Lummie 13:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Pick and Go Stats site (Enter Bri & Lions and NZ as the two teams in the search engine)
South Africa Website Lions Preview
Scrum.com Lions History of NZ

The British Lions (now known as the British and Irish Lions) made their first fully inclusive tour in 1930 of New Zealand. The composite teams that toured NZ in 1904 and 1908 were not fully representative of the 4 teams that now make up the B&I Lions.

Great Britain in 1904 - Not endorsed by Irish Rugby Union
Anglo-Welsh in 1908 - the Scottish and Irish Rugby Union's refused to support the tour.

The result's on stats.allblacks.com are the official breakdown of test matches by the All Blacks as endorsed by the NZRU. They show the correct breakdwon of test matches. I think that the WIKI should follow that what is recognised by the NZRU, and not by any number of other 'stat' site's that are not official. --BMR789 21:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Userbox

Here is an All Blacks user box :

This user supports The All Blacks

Some famous All Blacks

Why this list? Probably Jonah Lomu is the only famous person on this list. Some of these people would not even be known outside New Zealand. Examples of famous people in sport may be Michael Schumacher, Olga Korbut or Pele. To be famous, you need to be known worldwide. Wallie 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I took the list from the list of famous rugby union players as a starting point. The idea is that people should add to the list.

As for not being famous outside NZ, I'm English and I know most of them are. Lomu is on a different planet in terms of fame from the rest being well-known by people in rugby union playing nations who aren't interested in rugby union. However he would be total unknown in South America, India or China, there are no rugby players in the same category of fame as Schumacher, Korbut or Pele.

"I'm English and I know most of them are..." - Surely you didn't mean that most of them are "English"? No, on the contrary - most of them are stolen from the South Sea Islands. New Zealand how are ye! I don't think the All Blacks are chokers, but there is a fair amount of gagging after their silly dance on the pitch. Is this inflammatory?--shtove 23:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

None of them are 'English'. People bron and brought up in New Zealand aren't English.GordyB 13:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO this does not mean that there shouldn't be any players nominated as being particularly noteworthy.GordyB 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. But half this list I have personally never heard of. Maybe because I am not English. They are so famous that there is no article for them. I think the list is a disgrace and an insult to the great All Blacks. Bob Stuart is not on the list. He won a lifetime achievement award from the IRB, was captain of the All Blacks, coach of the All Blacks and gave a lifetime of support to the game. Bob may not be as trendy as Dan Carter, but has done more for the game, that's for sure. Bob Scott is not there. He was possibly the best fullback the All Blacks ever had. In his day, he was famous in NZ. Neither is Sid Going ot any of his brothers. I believe he was possibly the best halfback to have played for the All Blacks. Wallie 13:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You're free to add those name on the list to rectify the situation.--GringoInChile 14:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the converse action is required, actually, and I have taken it. Any All Black who has a Wikipedia article about himself is, by Wikipedia's own definition, notable, and an All Black who doesn't, isn't. Therefore, I have deleted those that don't from this list - this was tough action considering some of these men were boyhood heroes of mine. However, this must be right: otherwise, an entry simply says "xxx" is notable" without giving any grounds for that notability. Anyone who disagrees with these deletions (and on their merits, I can certainly see a case for including Lochore, Dalton, Bunce, Tremain and Whetton, and others who aren't currently on the list (Ron Jarden, Tane Norton, Wilson Whineray, Keith Murdoch, Robbie Deans, John Mitchell for starters) should first create an article about the player, and then cite them here. ElectricRay 22:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should come up with some form of criteria for the Notible All Blacks section, and maybe some qualities that would require a player to be on the list. The big one is that they have a wikipedia article on them, but another would be All Black captain's? I think if they have captained a test (maybe a minimum of 2 or 3?) then they should be included. Please add to this list. (Shudda ^talk 00:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

I believe they were listed in there because they are not just famous as an All Blacks but because some of them I would say are/were WORLD-CLASS Players during their playing days.. (peads 04:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)).

Like I said before, there is a clear and obvious criteria for this list: the player having an article of his own on Wikipedia. All Black captains may deserve a wikipedia article, but until they have one, they have no place on this list. ElectricRay 00:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of criteria is definitely needed, and the criteria should be narrow enough that only a reasonable number of players are listed in the section. What is reasonable? My feeling is somewhere around 20 to 25. We don't need to list every All Black here, that is what Category:All Blacks is for. Some suggestions for criteria, in order of importance:

• Those with widespread international media coverage (ie Jonah)
• Those in the International Rugby Hall of Fame
• Those who have notable achievements outside of rugby (eg as an MP or in business)
• Those awarded honours (MNZM or MBE, or if that includes too many players then ONZM or OBE)
• Those who played in most tests over a long period (8 years?)

Any thoughts on these criteria?

Of course anyone on the list should have a reasonably thorough article. -- Mako 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Spot on. Though I'd add that involvement in a major incident might also be a criteria (England's Prince Oblensky springs to mind) or earning 50+ caps.GordyB 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

God

Why did God create a race perfect for playing rugby, and then let the All Blacks steal them from the South Sea Islands?--shtove 18:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I beleive there is a limit to the number of players with foreign nationality that a team can have, I think it is somewhere in the region of 3-4, this means that the majority of players on the All Blacks are New Zealand citizens -- Faded_Mantis 09:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but the ABs have a reputation for twisting the rules.--shtove 02:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Shtove, this is an encyclopedia, and this talk page is for discussing the All Blacks encyclopedia article. I suggest you save your fanboi trolling for rugby web forums and newsgroups. --Stormie 06:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Shtove the talk page is for discussing issues on the page in question and information to be added. As Stormie mentioned you should discuss this point on a forum as its your opinion and not informative. Lummie 07:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of the All Blacks breaking any rules on player selection. I always find it a curiousity that NZ are accused of stealing players that are in many cases born and bred in NZ or at least moved to NZ at a very young age. If none of these players were selected some would call it racism, often the same people who would accuse them of player theft.GordyB 13:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The debate is generally raised because many players who would be eligible for playing for say Samoa, Fiji or some of the other pacific islands tend to play for the All Blacks for a variety of reasons. It is quite unusual because an article the website Planet Rugby wrote showed that many of the other major countries are guilty of stealing talent. The other thing is that these players are not "stolen" as these players have to sign contracts. They are free to play for who they want. Also if they are not from New Zealand they generally have to play for at least 3 years before they become eligible so its not easy with the large amount of talent from NZ means its not like NZ has to steal, but occasionally foreign players will be selected. Much like Australia. I mean people should note guys like George Gregan, Mark Gerrard, Tatafu Polota-Nau, Wendell Sailor, Lote Tuqiri, Morgan Turinui could all be eligible for other south pacific teams but play for Australia. Fact is NZ had a few high profile names in the past and present and that seems to mean somehow NZ is the only to point the finger at. Lummie 14:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Many players are eligible to play for more than one country - the eligibility rules are fairly generous. There are players in the All Blacks who are eligible to play for another country as well as New Zealand, but who have chosen to play for New Zealand. There are also New Zealand-born players in a number of other national rugby teams, including Australia, Wales, Scotland and Italy. It's hardly any great scandal or controversy, and if anyone thinks that "the ABs have a reputation for twisting the rules", I suggest that you follow the advice below the edit box, and base that claim on verifiable sources before trying to add it to this article. --Stormie 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Why did God create a race perfect for playing rugby, and then let the All Blacks steal them from the South Sea Islands? LOL! That is so true. :) Narrasawa 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Choking comments not going away

I thought it would be worth making a point about the chokers comment that a few people continue to try and add. While many believe the All Blacks are chokers the comment is POV, not fact. Im not sure whether something needs to be done about it, but its the second time today someone has decided to change the comments to chokers. Lummie 14:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

They may accuse me of trolling, but it's not me.--shtove 16:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• IMO, it should be included under All_Blacks#Rugby_World_Cup. It is a fairly common term, despite it being somewhat of an insult, it is quite commonly spoken about that they have "choked" at every world cup post-87 Narrasawa 10:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Image for article

Found this at the Wikipedia Commons. Could be used in this article. Forever young 06:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

International competition begins

Since this part deals with the rivalry between New Zealand and South Africa, it is only fair to include South Africa's series win in New Zealand in 1937. Currently, only New Zealand's 1996 series victory in South Africa is mentioned, giving the impression that South Africa had never beaten New Zealand in New Zealand.

Articles aren't perfect. Most of the history is derived from various essays and news articles all merged together. For whatever reason none of them mentioned 1937. You are more than welcome to include this or anything else you can think of, articles are there to be edited.GordyB 10:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

New Haka

I thought that the new haka had only been performed against South Africa and England? Not the Lions? Was the Lions series not prior to the Tri-nations? If so that would make some of the info in the first paragraph incorrect. Just thought I'd check before correcting. - Shudda 11:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right - I have removed the reference to the Lions. I only recall the new haka being deployed against the Springboks at Carisbrook (which was definitely the first appearance and was definitely after the Lions tour) and then against England on the end-of-2006 Northern Hemisphere tour. —Stormie 12:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists

Are there lists of players or coaches anywhere in the wikipedia? If not perhaps there should be. Or at least an addition of notable coaches on the main page. I think. Kansaikiwi 03:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Squad

The squad listing is a mess. Is that because it's a work in progress? Willnz0 04:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Quality of page

How come this page is not as good as the othe 3Ns teams? I thought the All Blacks page would be the best considering how popular they are, even the Poms have a better page! Whats the deal

If you feel so strongly then I suggest you do something about it. I've done as much as anybody else for this page and I'm a pommy.GordyB 11:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

AB's Captains schools

Saw the following info, thought it would be good to use on here just no to sure how to incorporate it;

There have been 58 All Blacks Captains for the 361 Test matches played until July 14th 2002

Leading Providers of All Black Captains are:

Southlands Boys High School 6 New Plymouths Boys High School 4 Auckland Grammar 3 Christchurch Boys High School 2 St Kevin’s - Timaru 2 Timaru Boys High School 2 Wairarapa College 2 Wanganui Collegiate 2 Wellington College 2

There are 12 All Black Captains that do not claim a secondary school on their CV. All of these were active in the first 50 years of the last century, so it is possible they did not attend any secondary school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KiwiRangus (talk • contribs) 15 August 2006 .

Where did you see this information? It is interesting, but needs to be sourced. ElectricRay 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also possible that the school that they'd attended simply wasn't recorded (or the record has been lost). Looking over some of the bios at allblacks.com I see this is the case for Dick Roberts (captain in 1914) and Jimmy Tilyard (captain in 1920) and probably some others. I don't think that this amounts to evidence that they didn't attend school. -- Mako 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Info was on the Taranaki unions website. Mako, I agree with your statement

History section

I think we should try and make the history section more chronological. Just reading it, it jumps from the Sout African rivalry back to the 1880s and the development of a legacy. Allblacks91 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking at doing some edits to it today I agree. It goes from talking about South Africa in 1921, 1937, 1956 and 1996 to talking about the 1888 tour by the British Isles in the next paragraph. I propose that the history section be rewritten in a more chronological manner. For someone unfamiliar with the All Blacks it would be terribly confusing as is. - Shudda ^talk 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

\ More info on the World XV matches would be good.

Some say that the All Blacks greatest opponent is their own legacy

Removed "Some say that the All Blacks greatest opponent is their own legacy." 'Some say' makes this statement inappropriate. If someone has a quote from someone notiible that says something similar, then by all means add it. Eg. 'Former All Black Joe Blogs once remarked that the All Black's greatest opponent is their legacy' (cited reference). But for now I think the statement should be removed. Shudda ^talk 07:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I must say I have seen/heard that saying numerous times. I think it definantly should be mentioned somewhere in the article, as the saying has been used in many books/DVDs and so on.Cvene64 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As Shudda says, this needs to be sourced. If it has been said so often, what are these "many books/DVDs and so on"?? Hippo43 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hippo, what I meant was that phrase (maybe not word-for-word) is suggested in some readings/media I have come across, but I could not tell you for sure, unless I found them again. For what it is worth, I found this googling:

I know for a fact that there is no opposition as intimidating as your opponent’s legacy. When you play against the All Blacks, you’re going up against a team that has a 74% win record over the past 104 years, the most sensational winning percentage in all of global sport. [1]

However it is pretty POV, but if referenced, I guess the article could reflect upon this type of notion..? Cvene64 12:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's POV, however you are right that it could possibly be included but I think it would have to be a quote from someone notable, e.g. an ex All Black or ex AB's coach. I think if it were to come from someone who hadn't been directly involved in an AB's team it would not be credible. - Shudda ^talk 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Advertising

The manufacturer of the jersey is relatively unimportant except as advertising, it was prominently mentioned twice within a few sentences and included detail. I removed it. I must apologize, for some reason it logged me out when I saved from preview so the post appears anonymous. Digitalblister 11:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Adidas is actually pretty important as it is one of the few things on the shirt! and the silver fern.

Oddity - two tests lost on same day

How come this info is under its own heading? Doesnt anyone think it should be in the history section? Its only a handful of lines, and looks kind of random/scrappy/out of place right now. Cvene64 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%.GordyB 13:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't. It logically immediately follows the Record and Overall (records) subheadings. If it was ever going to look out of place it would be up near the top in the history section. Moriori 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well, it does seem strange to have it there. It might seem logical but it doesn't read well. It does look a bit scappy, i think it could be incorporated into the history section. - Shudda ^talk 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Moriori, I just don't think it deserves its own section, I mean, how much can possibly be written about it? Cvene64 07:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You originally criticised it because it was "a handful of lines and looks kind of random/scrappy/out of place". Now you wonder how much can possibly be written about it. What? What exactly are you on about? Nothing more can be written about it. Nothing more needs to be written about it. It is concise, accurate, all encompassing and informative. It is a true oddity, a quite amazing record unique to the ABs. It justifies it own little mention because of all of those reasons. WTF is wrong with that? Moriori 07:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Err mate, calm down. I can have as many criticisms as I wish. If little can be written about it, then obviously its notability to demand its own heading is dubious. Im a huge rugby fan, and I have not really ever heard of it, only really through the wiki article. Thats not to say it is not notable, but I thought it may have been written in by an Aussie or something, and noone took any notice of it, and it just stayed there. What am I on about? I thought having a few lines about one event did not look too good, and I had my doubts if it deserved its own heading. Unless its notability (to uphold its own heading or sub-heading) can be proven, I think it should be merged. Why? Because it looks stupid and out of place. And I dont know what your problem is (Some people apparently prefer large chunks of text...?) I consider it a style issue more than anything. Cvene64 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to have criticisms, but stick to facts. I neither wrote nor inferred anything remotely like "little can be written about it". I said it already "is concise, accurate, all encompassing and informative," and nothing more "can be" or "needs to be" written about it. Moriori 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Current team

I think we should list out the current team like the notable players section is done, as the box always appears hidden due to there being more than one of those types of templates...Narrasawa 09:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• It would be nice but given the large squads these days it would be a nightmare keeping it all up to date. Lisiate 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure what is being asked for here, but I'm going to change it. It is no good to anyone if we can't see it. There are only about two or three ABs squads every year, so the most current squad should be listed, it seems to work fine on a lot of the other pages. I'm going to add the November squad. Cvene64 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Change colours

In the graphic - The change colours - I'm fairly sure the socks are black, not white? IE the only difference is that the Jersey is white. COuldn't be 100% sure, but thought i'd mention it. ElectricRay 08:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest when was the last time the ABs wore a white strip? Are there any images on the net or anything? Cheers. Cvene64 12:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually when they play Scotland in New Zealand. In World Cups in a third country I think one of the teams is designated the 'Home' team at random. I can't remember the most recent tour by Scotland. NZ last played Scotland in a world cup in the 1999 quarterfinals. Lisiate 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh ok. Thanks for the information. Cvene64 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Hi I was using Flickr to check out some photos that could be used for this article, maybe someone could upload some of them if anyone thinks it would look good: (NZ/ENG @ Twickenham), (NZ/AUS @ ?), (Haka v ENG). Theres not much, but maybe you can zoom in on the Haka and (cut it out) and use in place of the copyright image, as the less copyright images the better yer?.-(Rugbeefan)

GA Passing

Honestly, I can't think of anything wrong with this article. It's brilliantly sourced, unlike any article I've seen before. It covers the subject very well, well written and the little things (like "Refs" comming after the punctuation) are all in order. I'd send this to FAC ASAP. But that's just my opinion. Good Work everyone

†he Bread 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Nothing wrong? - Shudda ^talk 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I've submitted the article for a peer-review, please go to WP:PR and leave comments if people suggest improvements. This is important if we want to get this article to FA status. - Shudda ^talk 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly constitutes a Grand Slam Tour?

It is mentioned in the history section that the All Blacks narrowly missed out on a Grand Slam tourin 1972/73 by drawing with Ireland. But if I remember correctly, they lost to France in that very same tour. So did a Grand Slam mean beating just England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, or all the teams in the 5 nations tournament? Tomos ANTIGUA Tomos 13:26, 03 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked that the 1972 tour was not a grand slam. The articles claims that this was due to a draw with Ireland. A grand slam is wins over England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. France is not part of it. See Grand Slam (Rugby Union).GordyB 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixtures

Numerous users made comments that the fixtures/results section should go (see Peer Review). It is fine to have them on other national team articles, but some users are working towards making the All Blacks a Featured Article, and it was thought that a list of current events was not appropriate. I imagine that if the Irish/Springboks articles were going through the same process, the same thing would happen. If you have other thoughts, please discuss them here...cheers. 05:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cvene64 (talk • contribs).

The upcoming fixture information is mostly in 2007 Tri Nations Series and 2007 Rugby World Cup, which will become permanent records of those games after the fact. If we create an article for All Blacks 2007 May/June Tests or some such, everything will be recorded without cluttering up the All Blacks article. --Stormie 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable players

This needs to be delisted. I have written a summary of the Inductees into the International Rugby Hall of Fame here. Please have a look and comment on it. Another section can be written for major record holders, however this could maybe be separate. Comments? - Shudda ^talk 09:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Carlos Spencer??? - Poppa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poppa quirke (talk • contribs).

The reason for ony adding International Rugby Hall of Fame members is it is otherwise very subjective (and POV). So the list will probably be restricted to members of the Hall of Fame and also record holders. I'm hoping for comments on what I've written rather then who is considered notable. - Shudda ^talk 04:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is better than before ... I know its still POV but shouldn't players such as Jonah Lomu or Christian Culled be added (there are many more of course), considering Jonah was considered the sports first "global superstar" and Cullen holds the NZ record for test tries. --ET....I love you 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff :). That is a much better way than just a list. Great job. I think it is fine as it is, otherwise pov gets out of control...but yeah record holders (Lomu and Spencer I guess) can be written about as well. But yeah, it looks really great, this article gets better everytime I see it. Narrasawa 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is mention of Jonah in the Rugby World Cup section, because he holds a record there. Someone can add a records section to players, that can discuss record holders. So record try scorers, point scorers etc etc. Needs to be done carefully though. The list would need to be kept reasonably short, unfortunately with over 1000 previous All Blacks we just can't mention everyone that we think deserves it!!! - Shudda ^talk 20:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Could be called "former player" with a link to List of All Blacks via {{main}}--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that would be easy enough - Shudda ^talk 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)