On the first Wednesday of April I had the good fortune to share a stool in Busker Brownes with many legends of our game, including Mils Muliaina.

A hundred All Black Test caps is impressive, so too a World Cup winner's medal in 2011, but it is the six Tri Nations medals that most interested me, with two questions springing to mind.

Which international team was his toughest opposition and who was his favourite team-mate? The answer is less relevant than his reasons.

He had a staggering 84 per cent win rate in his 100 tests. Considering that 47 of those 100 games were against South Africa and Australia, his win ratio is extraordinary. His win ratio against South Africa was 68 per cent, and against the Wallabies it was 76 per cent.

And yet he says Australia were his toughest opponents. In 25 Tests Muliaina played against them, he said they were the fastest learners he had ever experienced. Yes, he acknowledged their learning curve from World Cup to World Cup, but he stated that their greatest asset was their ability to learn mid-match.

If New Zealand exploited a hole in the Wallaby defence, logic would dictate to keep attacking the weakness, but that hole would have closed, remaining forever shut.

Conversely if a move the Wallabies employed failed; they’d learn, adjust and exploit, making it work moments later. Knowledge culture over strategy?

Muliaina then explained why winger Sitiveni Sivivatu was the best player he played with. Like Toulon or Leinster last Sunday, the All Blacks would prepare all week for their Test match. But according to Muliaina, in Sivivatu, the All Blacks had a player who could spot opportunities that lay unnoticed by the rest.

Ten minutes in Sivivatu would sidle up to Muliaina and bring him up to speed with a whole series of opportunities to attack that wouldn’t have been practised or prepared all week.

Leinster credit

Yes, Leinster management and players deserve huge credit for their approach in Marseille last Sunday. They also deserve huge credit for matching the money bags of Toulon in what is fast becoming an unfair playing field.

All week Leinster were being written off. I didn’t buy into this; yes Toulon are an awesome side but I felt Leinster had a lineout to compete but implored them to put pressure on Toulon’s throw. They did and won three cracking steals while disturbing their “world class” opponents.

I noted that with referee Wayne Barnes’ recent scrum interpretations, notably the penalty try and sin-binning in the Exeter vs Northampton Saints match, the correct picture from Leinster’s loose head would gain advantage. Again they received huge reward from the picture they gave Barnes.

Toulon huffed and puffed and at times blew Leinster away but Leinster’s lineout, scrum and command of the corridor of power stunted and stuttered Toulon.

Hence Toulon were forced into a negative game with troubled outhalf Frederic Michalak under massive pressure, electing to find inside blind runners such as Delon Armitage.

But each time his timing was out and the horribly wet ball was covered by the immense blue blanket of Leinster. The hard part of the job was done and done well by Leinster; that is the Leinster brain and brawn trust had worked. So to win the game, Leinster needed to augment the brains with suitable dollops of chaos to test the Toulon tempo and age-related fitness levels.

Much of the statistics balanced out in Marseille but an interesting one pops up; with possession of 50 per cent overall and similar in territory stats it looked equal but in both stats Leinster pulled well away in the second half from 35 to 56 per cent possession and 30 to 57 per cent territory. With these stats Leinster of old would land heavy creative punches regardless of the opposition.

There are plenty of creative thinkers in Leinster and as Toulon fatigued the opportunities presented, such as off left hand field scrums inside their own half. Due to the nature of Toulon’s back three, finding green grass was tough so Leinster went for the crossfield chip kicks.

Unfortunately this play risked a turnover should Toulon catch; either way Leinster were still inside their half. But Toulon were defending extremely narrowly and off those Leinster scrums employed a 2.5 defensive line with outhalf and first centre up and Mathieu Bastareaud lying slightly deeper.

All three were inside the posts and with Toulon’s back three miles back, giving Leinster a 40m attacking channel to exploit.

Fixing Bastareaud and a simple double skip gets Rob Kearney into huge space. Should Toulon react Kearney could always drill the tram tracks thereby hunting for the deep break with huge odds in Leinster's favour; worst-case scenario a deep accurate kick; controlled chaos.

Poor decisions

With creativity come poor decisions or good decisions executed poorly from both sides. This happens in every match, nobody is perfect. How one reacts to the opposition’s errors is a reflection on culture. I was reminded of management consultant Peter Drucker’s quote “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Did Leinster do all they could to win?

They were magnificent in managing Toulon; being 6-9 up at half time and 12-12 at full time, so many would answer yes, especially as that Jimmy Gopperth drop goal effort would have won the game for Leinster.

I say, world rugby culture has changed with strategy winning out. Drucker argued that a company’s culture would surpass any attempt to create a strategy that was incompatible with its culture.

Yes, given another chance Gopperth would convert that drop goal, justifying the strategy, but this Leinster team have an attacking culture worth more. liamtoland@yahoo.com