State of the union. NZ

Well another summer tour season over. It's probably a good time to review the game and where various nations are at. I'll kick off with NZ.

NZ came into the series with Ireland as current world champions. This has not always been a great burden for nations to bear, with many teams going into decline post world cup. It's probably too early to say, but the early signs look good. A new(ish) coach, assistants and selectors can be relatively pleased with the 3-0 result and the two big wins. But, as always, we'll have a better idea once the rugby championship and end of year tours are completed.

The tournament was a chance to blood new players and for second string players to step up. By in large this has worked for NZ. With the retirement of Brad Thorne, injury/break to Kaino and injuries to Jane, Read, Vito, Ali Williams, Carter and Cruden have seen a number of players get opportunities. It seems that we have depth in most positions going towards 2015, with the possible exception of the Front row, and midfield (due to the age of the incumbents). New Players to shine include Rittilick(sp?), Cane (7), Smith (9) and Barrett (10). Other players with limited experience came on (e.g. Vito, Messam, Cruden, SBW and Gear). Some (e.g. Savea) were a mixed bag, or failed to impress (Guildford).

By in large the teams tactics and personnel stood up to the Irish challenge, with the exception being the 2nd test. When the All Blacks were able to play their game they looked very strong. The caveat being when the opposition controlled the pace of the game we struggled. The obvious assessment is that South Africa in particular will be a sterner test. With a big hard forward pack and strong midfield, they'll seek to choke of primary possession and eliminate front foot ball.

In general we able to dominate the tackle area and more than hold our own at the set piece and re starts. When Ireland put pressure on us at the ruck, we struggled. We are going to have to improve all these areas of our game if we are to win the next tournament.

The last comment relates to the opposition. It was great to have Ireland here. There are some question marks about the team however. How tired were they after a long season, that included the world cup and six nations and finals in two club competitions for many players, especially when combined with the loss of a couple of key Players. Are they a team on fall, after a golden generation. We'll have a better context to judge these all Blacks by in 12 months time.

We will be in a better position to judge this All Black team in a couple of months time when we play South Africa and Australia.

In terms of Ireland, three games on successive weekends was a week too far for Ireland.

Evening gents. Yes its easy to get carried away with the state of our union and i think thats partly because weve been waiting for a while to see some AB rugby post world cup.

Having these tours on at the same time is very different from what we're used to and tne comparisons make the 4N that more interesting.

Overall I think were in a good position and in at least as good a position at this point as either oz or SA. Weve added youth and excitement to the blend and things are ticking along nicely.

Kaino and Thorn left big holes. I think Romano looks like a player with more physical presence than Rettalick and therefore is a better locking partner for Whitelock. Maybe injuries played a hand but I think it was a very bold move to introduce Sam Cane and you were right Laurie, that boy can play. Hopefully Read can recover from his head knock and he gets a rest from the Crusaders. These things shouldn't be rushed. McCaw showed he can play there but I tend to agree with disney that he could fit in at 6 as well. Thomson is a good replacement to bring on when legs are tired but he doesn't have enough physical presence to dominate the breakdown. Messam was better yesterday but we need to see him against the likes of SA and Australia to see if he can make himself seen in that area.

In the backs we have finally a halfback who has a quick pass and someone who can attack the line running as well. Cruden has matured and is now genuine cover and Barrett looked composed and seemed to enjoy himself last night. SBW will learn a lot from this series and it's good to see him scoring tries. Nonu still is a good bet to make his comeback and like Mealamu Super form doesn't mean much. Williams has probably played his last ABs match and that is a good thing. We need to get out of this habit of always replacing the halfback. Aaron Smith is a player worth keeping on the field for the whole game. Australia don't substitute off Genia. We had halfbacks who couldn't play a whole match mainly because they weren't up to it but now we do have one and he should stay on the park for the whole match.

It was good to see Gear rewarded for his loyalty and though Savea would've enjoyed those conditions yesterday, Gear looked quick and physical. Jane will come back on the other wing and Dagg was even doing the goalkicking last night and was using that big punt of his in open play.

So all in all to me 6 seems the trouble area at the moment and I think we look better than we did this time last year in general. The future looks good. The future is black. kia kaha

I will go and disagree slightly with some of what is being said on here...

Firstly NZ are clearly the best team in the world at present, but for me there are a few worrying signs.

I'll adress the JWC first, after recieving their first ever defeat at the hands of Wales, they then go and lose another just 3 games later. That is worrying for a number of reasons, the roger Bannister effect, inconsistancies in performance, and a number of players just not being as talented as some of the previous teams.

Then to the first team, we all know the hole that can be left when Mccaw and Carter don't play. They aren't youngsters, Mccaws on the cliff and there isn't world class directly behind him. Also Cruden is looking good, but he isn't Carter and there isn't a lot behind him.

Theres a bit of a hole at 6, the scrum has looked ropy at times, and I just get the feeling the tight 5 aren't as stand out as they used to be.

Weepu is not god, and there are some very athletic wingers but not any where near as many game changers in the backline as there used to be.

For me this NZ team is very good, but definately not unbeatable, I can't wait to see how the 4N go.

I don't know, mate, Cane and Todd are both as good as most country's starting 7s at fetching IMO. Behind Cruden is Slade, Barrett and Anscombe, all good players (and Nev but let's not go there) and Cruden is better than DC at some things. Nobody is Dan Carter, except maybe God, but on that basis every other country is screwed anyway because they don't have Dan Carter

...some of them have God though...

Thats what I mean, Dan Carter has been a match winner plenty of times, and theres not another Carter there behind him.

Cruden is good, but he's not a match winner, Slade is a little over rated IMO, Barrett I don't know enough about, but Anscombe is a kicking 10 isn't he?!

Cruden isn't a match winner? His 25 minute cameo proved a match winning performance. NZ was up 26 0 largely through him in no time.

No team is unbeatable but you look at a team that had Jane, Kahui, Carter, Read, Nonu and the retirement of Thorn and the unavailability of Kaino and they beat Ireland 60 0. Can't recall many results like that among the NH teams.

He certainly looks like one from the JRWC last year but that's a good if different optionto have available

Keep stirring the pot bluesman...not sure how you would recognise a matchwinner though? Cant be from experience...

Kia

A 10 scoring points and running freely with a totally dominant pack in front of him is not a match winner!

Jane Kahui Read are good players, but not going to effect the team with thier loss, and do you really think NZ are a 60 point better team than Ireland? I'd say the 2nd test was more like an indication of the 2 teams at present.

There were no 60 pointers up north, but Ireland have this tendancy to not turn up recently, look at their 6N game with England. Ireland IMO are the better team but were smashed by an average English side.

My point is, if you look at NZ's results over Wales in the 80's and 90's and even early 2000's, they were a country mile ahead of us, with todays tech, training, tactical knowledge and analysis I don't think NZ are going ot have their own way for much longer, highlighted by the JWC IMO.

Taylorman

What pot am I stirring?

I think you are struggling with the term, by definition a matchwinner is someone able to turn a game, to perform to a standard that he is irreplacable, as Genia did in the first test V Wales!

I think you're placing far too much importance to the U20 JWC. One blip and they come second and suddenly it's all over for NZ. NZ were outpowered by SA but still did other things very well.

Of course NZ are not better than 60 points than Ireland but equally ludicrous is the notion that the second test showed the level of both sides. 3 tests and 2 were comfortable victories. That's more an indication of the two sides.

I agree that the other teams are improving their levels with professionalism but from what I saw on evidence on Saturday with a mixture of youth and experience NZ still look very impressive. The 4N will provide a much better benchmark and then the tests in November.

As for Cruden, I think if you had a choice between him and Priestland, I know which one I'd go for.

The NZRU has acknowledged their JWC errors, last year they sent a team with a host of players with NPC and even Super XV experience (and a couple of them became ABs this year) this year it was a completely new, fresh squad with no provincial experience. One year maketh not a trend.

And the 2nd test was a combination of Ireland playing out of their skin and NZ playing poorly. I'd say the first test was closer to describing the 2 teams than either the first or third - over 3 matches the average score was ~ 40-10

Well if I were putting points on it I'd say NZ were a 10 point team over Ireland, my point was the 2nd test and only'test' was nearer Irelands true colours.

You claim Ireland played out of their skind and NZ were poor, but you could argue that Ireland were poor in 1 and 3 instead. I'd say Ireland were not there in 1, unlucky in 2 and didn't turn up at all in 3.

If I had the choice to switch RP with Cruden, I don't think Id bother. RP is playing poorly, because he is targetted as Wales lynchpin and the way of stopping Wales backline, this would be just as true if Cruden was there, and without his armchair ride I could see him really struggling!!!

I know the kiwis don't take criticism well, and well why should you, your the world champs, but that'll be a bit of a problem for you in the near future IMO.

I think NZ's junior system IS the reason you've been far stronger than everyone for so long, that is being negated somewhat these days, and I expect a number of nations finding other ways to surpass NZ's level of abilities soon enough, as well as development of the Islands junior systems, of which I've seen a few Implimentation plans.

Yeah but not turning up mentally to games is a part of how good your team is. If you are going to go missing against NZ and thus get trounced in 2 games by them, that makes the team a "lose by 30" rather than "lose by 10" side, doesn't it?

Really?

Would you call Scotland a 3 point team over Aus? Which would you put your money on? Yet Scotland are now 2-0!!

Ireland also didn't do that in a one off match- if they lost 2 games heavily because they didn't turn up mentally in a 3 match tour that implies it is the norm for them and thus they can expect to be comfortably beaten. I personally thought the first Test was the best indicator of how close they are to New Zealand and the answer is not very. Same for all of us. You can't say "if I'd played my best, I would have won". The key thing is to play your best and win. If onlys and would haves mean eff all

So your agreeing that Scotland beating Aus is now the norm, and Scotland are the better team?

Don't know i'll guess we'll see when they next play. But beating a side doesn't make you absolutely better than them, just means you are better at playing them. a>b and b>c doesn't lead to a>c in logic, because the value of being "better" is qualitative not quantitative and far more importantly is utterly subjective

I disagree, Aus are currently better than Wales, and NZ are currently better than Ireland. That is not subjective!

But, and I can see that you'd disagree and that'd be fine, if Wales had won, no matter that it was against an Aussie team without JOC etc, Wales IMO would have been better, unless some horrible injustice occurred. Maybe only better on the day, but who knows what the next result would be? So until it is otherwise demonstated, at the moment Scotland are better than Australia in a direct match up, like Nadal was better than Federer even though Federer was better overall back before Nadal overtook him in the rankings.

Well I think we've exhausted it for tonight, it's my bed time (missus said so) so I must leave.

Good chatting with a sensible poster though, cheers

If Oz played Scotland last Saturday instead of Wales, who would have won Bluesman? If your answer isnt Oz then I'm sorry, you don't know much.

We see things a little more simply here.

Ya Blues, good debate. Taylorman, I think that your comment should be addressed to me?

As I have already pointed out in a thread I wrote that the AllBlacks DO lack depth in some areas with experienced players in some areas specifically in the forwards Hooker,Lock,Prop and number 6.That is to say in CAPPED players in that area,BUT they have fantastic strength in depth coming thru.This is the immediate RWC post period the All Blacks will cope and adapt as they did post 2003 and 2007 when they lost whole squads especially in the post 2007 period.
They usually use the two strongest super squads as a base 2008 Crusaders and
Hurricanes..Now Chiefs and Crusaders the hole was far bigger in 2008 Thorn is gone Romano,Retalick.Hoerta, Eaton, Calum Clarke,Donnelly will plug the gap.
At 6 the options are Vito,Messam.Thomson,Brad Shields,George and Luke Whitelock.Even Read or McCaw if they choose NO side is unbeatable certainly not this one.BUT they are still as good or better than ANY other side in the world until proved otherwise. Australia and the Boks are in a similar position they have a lot of good players at Super level.BUT they still have to prove it at Test level consistently.Test Rugby isn`t about individuals it is about playing as a TEAM.Lets put the JWC thing to bed to the NZRFU got to casual with the JWC,because they were unbeaten in 4 years they thought they were invincible.Only 4 players in the squad had ITM experince,the rest none 4 players with S15 experience were refused release Panaara is in hospital with a broken ankle,Sam Cane gained a Full All Black cap on Saturday.THEY could have fielded the usual strength side in the JWC had they chose.IF you look at the players not
available or bubbling under you will see the AllBlacks are still in an excellent position.This year I expect the AllBlacks will play to par the average is 2 losses in the 15 or so tests they will play this year.They have already won 3 get down the bookies and see what odds you will get on 4 or more losses then put your money down.

Main thing is we got to herald in some new players, probably more than we intended (Cane, A Smith, Retileck, Romano, Barrett)

-and got some fringe players back into the fold (Messam, Gear, Cruden, Smith, Elliot, SBW, Weepu, Ellison, Guilford)

-and got some core ones back on the field- Mealamu, Weepu (he didnt fit anywhere else)

-and still have Nonu, Carter and jane to return from injury.

- and managed to not lose a match, winning one by a record margin.

Forget Slade till at least next year- theres better around, and theyre actually playing.

So all in all, I think we got maximum value from the Irish tour where I can't say the same for any other team other than perhaps SA- who could have at least tried a new 10, and Scotland.

We certainly shouldnt be moaning. I dont think things could have gone better to be honest.

When one considers that post 2007 ,Hayman, Collins,Jacks,Robertson,s,Masoe,Luaki,reuben Thorn,Nick Evans,Carter,Mauger,McAlister.Kelleher,Howlett,Oliver the position now is hardly a ripple by comparison.

Geez...no wonder we lost..

Yes Alan we are in a fantastic position I reckon. The problem, and its one Henry had in 2004/5 is selecting the right players and combinations for the job, then the timing of the subs.

I mean Hore comes off Mealamu goes on. carter comes off cruden goes on...same with SBW...Nonu. Gear/ jane/ Smith/ Savea etc

We're getting seconds who are as good as the firsts again...

Two thing I have to say. First is Bluesman miss some point in that NZ U20s (not junior all blacks - that is different team!) are a bit rebuilding because so many player graduate and now in SXV and all blacks senior and junior teams! Still not so bad result with so many unexperience young players to make the final in SA is a good achievement!

Now also on NZ there were some points missing in the original post.

First one was that NZ lineout do very good and losing just one throw in on three tests. There is some incredible considering on the last Ireland tour where Ireland dominate the lineout and all blacks resolve to tricky quick throw ins to avoid the set piece all together!

Another thing is all blacks scrum get a bit buillied in second test which to me is all about lose the experience locks. They fix this by change the second row combinator and bring in "prickle". I think this game was start the pension plan for Ali Williams.

NZ didnt have a quick distributor in 9 for some time. As far back as Justin Marshall and Byron Kelleher days which were one of the best all blacks side of all time even then NZ always struggle because Marhsall criticised for the wobbling pass and take two steps.

Before this serie I was worry for all blacks and thinking they go the same way as England post world cup because lose so many players but now I changing the mind. I think NZ will win rugby championship quite easy because they too much class for Australia and too many dimensions to the game for South Africa who look just terrible with this new coach. Meyer idea seems to be prehistorical and just one dimension about some traditional springbok cliche.

Finally Tom Taylor should be in the combinator for RC. Israel Dagg continue his bad SXV form into the test international.

AWOP you have to realise that when key players retire or go abroad the replacements arn`t going to play the same way.When Robertson,and Jack retired went North and Ali Williams was injured the replacements.Thorn and Anton Borich were next on the block.Jerry Collins went North,and Read,Thomson and Finally Kaino stepped up.They are hard to replace instantly The Scrum problems are that it is an 8 man unit if due to injuries or unwise substituitons is effected.First Test Vito injured,Thomson had his nose broken Read took a bang it effected the Scrum.Second test Read off,McCaw takes over at 8 ,Cane comes on,Owen Franks goes off.THATS when the Scrum problems began Ben Franks is a good Tight Head,BUT not as good as his Brother and a useful no more loose head.Next Year with the 4 Prop rule in force Wyatt Crockett covers Loose Head .Luke Romano would be my choice with Whitelock and Retalick on the Bench.Ali according to Hansen if surgery is successful hopes will be back for 4Ns.As to Scrum halfs only Loveridge and Grame Bachop have had the delivery speed of Aron Smith .Brendan Leonard on his 2007 form was there or there abouts but injuries since seem to have slowed him down.
Crudon isn`t better than Carter[who is] he`s different in the same way Fox was to Botica or Spencer to Merthens .In the 1960`s it was a cab rank who`s next.[A.H Clarke,Neil Wolfe.Mac Herewini,Bruce Watt,RossBrown,Steve Nesbitt,Nicky Allen etc.] The Back Row AB`s have many options McCaw.Thomson,Read would be my choice with Cane on the bench,Wings there about 6 there or there abouts.Isreal Dagg had an outstanding 1st and 3rd Test and was Solid except for the Charge in the Second test.The Charge was clumsy not malicious,and was repaid in kind in the 3rd test.
On out and out fetcher is a luxury except for versus Pocock and Oz the breakdown is a matter of gettingt he right numbers to it.

Emack! I don't say they need to play the same way. Just push as hard in the scrum! The second test was underpower. Is not about McCaw position because if you watching he never push to the scrum anyway. He always bind lightly and pouncing like the tiger. I don't think NZ so much use the no.8 shunt but I could be wrong because ever though I am fat I am no forward!

The 3-4-1 Scrum is about leg positioning and the simultaneous thrust as the ball goes in or should be.The Ritual dance makes it more difficult now,the 8 is a TIGHT/Loose forward.His thrust is crucial.,Ritchie packing at 7 or 8 is a different roleat scrum time.IF he packs at 8 he has to shove his weight too.

emack2 wrote:The 3-4-1 Scrum is about leg positioning and the simultaneous thrust as the ball goes in or should be.The Ritual dance makes it more difficult now,the 8 is a TIGHT/Loose forward.His thrust is crucial.,Ritchie packing at 7 or 8 is a different roleat scrum time.IF he packs at 8 he has to shove his weight too.

I'm talking about "8 shunt" not pushing. When the 8 trigger the engagement and work like Newtons Cradle.