Pfitzy - I won't both trying to explain my position to you. You constantly deride through use of sarcasm, invective and other highly evolved debating methods any contrary point of view.
However, for the sake of completeness, I did not forget that the Mackenzie plan at the Tahs was very limited. Indeed if you had done a modicum of research on my posts on the Tahs subject you will see a length submission that was very critical of his time at the Tahs regardless of his results being far better than any other Tahs coach except Macqueen. Indeed the piece asked whether the prevailing political culture at the Tahs created an environment where the coaches were forced into a percentage type rugby plan to ensure their own year to year survival. The same thing could be seen at the Wallabies Level with the massive change in approach that Deans undertook (and continues) just prior to the RWC 2011.
Mackenzie did not play a 10 man game at all. He played a conservative game with some flaws because he didn't have a dominant kicker at 10, floating between Hangers and even Tim Donnelly. As for nobody cared about it, well obviously they did because Mackenzie didn't get his contract renewed, and then Hickey likewise and Foley was sacked all while the crowds dwindled. They didn't dwindle because they lost indeed the Tahs lost as many and in some cases more games this year but crowds have been better! I won't even bother to discuss your personal comments about Foley.
Finally I do think the mode of play matters in this series, win or lose. This is the biggest advertisement for the Wallabies since the 2003 RWC. It matters how the game is presented and I don't think that anybody who is not a Rugby fanatic would be engaged by the games we have seen. they were gripping for the passion and intensity and closeness of the scoreline, but certainly not for the quality of the play.
