KEY POINTS:
It's good that the IRB are reading my column and responding. Only two weeks ago, I called for old-fashioned tours to be reinstated and the IRB are now looking at doing exactly that.
About time. Now, chaps, this week let's have a look at what can be done for retired players, particularly those having to deal with unseasonably hot conditions on the farm. Just kidding.
Yes, I think it will be good if the IRB reinstate proper tours. The Northern Hemisphere nations were probably never going to ditch the June window and I think it is realistic to take the weakened Northern Hemisphere teams coming down here - if that is what we get in spite of the agreement not to - and send them throughout the country, winning back the fan base.
People will turn out to see England, France, Ireland and Scotland and the likes play in the smaller centres too, not just test matches.
It puts the game back in touch with those who arguably enjoy it the most - and raises interest levels when the game badly needs it.
I spoke to former All Black fullback Fergie McCormick the other day. He told me he gets more enjoyment out of watching schoolboys rugby than the `big boys'.
When someone like Fergie says something like that - and he admits he's a grumpy old sod - the game's bosses have to sit up and take notice. That's the heartland speaking.
As I said in the previous column, it cuts both ways too. The All Blacks have to organise midweek games on their tours and stop taking weakened teams or teams subject to so much rotation.
It doesn't prove anything and it damages the game. You have three coaches on board _ why not assign Wayne Smith and/or Steve Hansen to take the midweek teams while Graham Henry takes the Saturday team?
If someone is injured or out of form, replace him with someone from the Wednesday team and the other guy drops back into the midweek team.
It's simple, clear and motivational. Just like it always used to be.
There's no need to rotate and the only person getting tired would be Henry because he'd have to watch two games every week.
After the Scotland match last week, I heard some commentators saying debut prop Jamie Mackintosh had a hard time.
Well, if you'll put up with the view of an old, once-was All Black prop, I think Doug Golightly and people like him who talked about a "baptism of fire" should stick to soccer.
I believe the Scottish prop was the one taking the scrum down. It was him taking the soft option.
You only had to watch the game to see that the scrum was being wheeled back on John Afoa's side. Afoa played okay but it was definitely his side being wheeled.
I think Mackintosh actually had the wood on the Scottish guy and it was the Scot who went to the floor - Mackintosh just may not have the experience to deal with that yet and play it to his advantage with the ref.
So I think he had a pretty good debut, all things considered.
He is very young but he was still putting a potential Lions prop under a bit of strain.
So I have to ask: why substitute him? I didn't think that his replacement brought all that much to the table and all it did was make people jump on Mackintosh's back.
You could see he looked very disappointed to be subbed. Why not let him play the full game on his debut, rather than yanking him off and letting the doubts grow?
The only other grizzle I'd make is about Joe Rokocoko. Why was he selected on the wing instead of the in-form Richard Kahui? If the selectors want to reward Kahui for good performance and give him game time - there's the answer.
