Have New Zealand improved over the last 24 months or have Aus and South Africa just fallen aprt?

Australia seem to be in freefall, with their test 1 loss to the lions probably being their best total performance this year.

SA have been struggling recently, and have little to shout about.

Argentina have proved stern opposition for 60 minutes.

Even the injury ravaged Wales and slump of French int rugby have aided NZ's recent unbeaten run.

Infact the last team NZ played with any sort of feel good factor, or optimism was England, does this highlight that NZ's dominance at the top of the tree could be down to their consistency of player selection, and ability to look after their best? How exactly does this NZ side rank against their best, I am starting to get the feeling that with all the problems in world rugby NZ are in a bit of a Calzaghe quandry, they are the best because there is noone to challenge them, and no real competition.

Where have SA been struggling recently? In 18 matches they have lost 3- to Oz and NZ only, winning their last 9 tests straight- or is your definition of struggling not winning convincingly?

If anything all Ive seen is Oz have dropped terribly, the Lions win is looking less meritorious by the day- the only side to lose to them this year, and nearly twice.

Not challenging NZ isnt a recent thing. Its been there for years- other that the complimentary occasional one off.

NZ and SA are now clear going by this years results, next week a compelling standoff where finally, we have a reason to be concerned.

Yeah, I'm not sure SA have been in that bad shape at all.

I think we sometimes just get influenced by biltong's pessimism. It's all a sneaky plan

Totally agree about Aus though. Not sure where they're heading but it looks like down. Shame, because they're one of my favourite sides (along with the French who're struggling too!).

Butterfingers are not totally wrong.

We are very inconsistent, and champion teams can perform consistently.

This is our only really "big" win since Meyer took over.

Terrible WUM. Entirely transparent.

SA are rightly the second best team in the world and mounting a series challenge for first.

NZ are in transition. With both superplayers in DC and McCaw near the end if their careers. They've done well to maintain ranking after the RWC through some consistency of selection and careful and timely introduction of new talent, but remain vulnerable in the midfield and the loose. The new scrum interpretation works against their current style and that will need tactical adaptation and some selection rethinking. 

Australia are at the steep end of an evolution that may require some revolution but are still footing it in the best competitions in the world with a super rugby finalist and a plethora of young talent emerging.

The England victory over NZ occurred, as ever, to mark a decade of disappointment and was quickly followed by 6N capitulation.

The next RWC tempts as one of the most open ever with th emergence  of Wales as a contender and Argentina as more than just spoilers. 

Should be great, but lets not kid ourselves that those at the top are being flattered by the general mediocrity of the north - there is still time for a revolution in style there too, should their respective unions choose to grasp it.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Terrible WUM. Entirely transparent.

Takes one to know one chief.

I think by 15 Ireland will be more of a force- as soon a they BOD to pasture and bring the new players through. Schmidt has two seasons to turn them around. The boks re improving. Thats undeniable. They play a style that isnt going to turn heads but they looked good- the backs having more good moments this year than I've seen for ages. How they go against the ABs rock solid defence will be interesting.

This isn't a wind up, I was recently chatting to a friend, and neither of us could agree on the placing of how good this (or more specifically the RWC2011) NZ team is.

Would this NZ rank higher than others? would it rank higher than the RWC, trin nation and lions winning SA team of 2007-2009?

I get the feeling that NZ have managed to keep key players fit, a long term coaching setup, with a duely executed transition plan to the next coaching team, and therefore have been spectacularly consistent, instead of truely great. Argentinas immense run of wins that include should've being beat by Argentina and Wales in recent years, not to mention the RWC semi loss, and Tonga's one bounce away from victory, they have been good and extremely poor at times.

I'm not sure whats transparent about asking a simple question of how good a team are in context of great teams?

Sorry meant SA's run of wins...

Of the four games you mention when SA were "extremely poor" they won 3 and the loss was a game they dominated (was the QF btw, not the SF), not only that but the games stretch over 5 years. Not sure what you mean by "immense run of wins either".

This is a silly post. Even if SA aren't the finished article, you can hardly say they are falling apart. If anything they have been slowly improving over the past year or so...

If a NH side beat Oz by 26 points would they fit trhe 'falling apart' category...poorly timed comment at least I'd suggest, regardless of how bad oz are. shoulda coulda losts dont do it either, especially when every other side actuall IS losing...perhaps just poor wording. But agree, NZ do seem to win these days a little easier, often or second and even third gear.

But we do have the players- 18 new is it now since the world cup for one loss? Not a bad effort- has anyone introduced as many to test rugby- perhaps SA...not sure.

Truly great or exceptionally consistent?

The answer is that NZ were consistently exceptional and consistently great.

Debutants since RWC 2011

Marcell Coetzee
Eben Etzebeth
Juandre Kruger
Coenie Oosthuizen
Jaques Potgieter
Pat Cilliers
JJ Engelbrecht
Tiaan Liebenberg
Johan Goosen
Duane Vermeulen
Elton Jnatjies
Jaco Taute
Arno Botha
Willie le Roux
Trevor Nyakane
jan Serfontein
Jano Vermaak
Piet v Zyl
Siya Kolisi

yes I thought so biltong, and its starting to show now with some consistency building, slowly but sure. Not perfect but at least the ledger is sorted, and as we know quality comes from consistency and confidence. Meyer knows he now has a foundation to work with.

Sadly some of these players are currently injured, Armo Botha, Taute and Goosen, Paul Jordaan is certain to get his opportunity when he returns from long term injury as well.

I hope Piet v Zyl gets more opportunties as well.

England have introduced more than either NZ or SA, albeit with far less success results wise!

From Barritt down, I make that 24 new caps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_England_national_rugby_union_players

Given injuries and below-strength sides for tours etc most top tier sides will have had a large number of debutants over the last couple of years.

It's the nature of the game.

Ah, beaten to it by BamBam

We had a lot of retirements, hence our number of debutants.

Biltong wrote:We had a lot of retirements, hence our number of debutants.

Yeah, retirements (and 'moving away') are a big factor too. Especially for SA.

kind of...they all flew in from everywhere for this one...

How long will it take before guys popping back to Europe for a weekend and then flying to Australasia for a test takes its toll?

GloriousEmpire wrote:How long will it take before guys popping back to Europe for a weekend and then flying to Australasia for a test takes its toll?

As long as pubs need glass collectors during big Heineken Cup weekends it shall continue.

2-0 to emirates team New Zealand after day 1 of the Americas cup. Add that to oracles 2 match penalty and its looking tough for the yanks. 

Irrelevant I know. But thought I'd mention it.

Sailing

I'm really interested to see where England and South Africa go this year. For me they stand out as two teams that look like they could step up.

My point regarding SA is that they have not had a feel of optimism around their team since 2009/2010, they have been struggling with injuries, retirements, coaching, politics etc...

Aus havn't put together a performance worthy of top tier rugby since the lions test 1, and are in the worst transition mess I've ever seen.

Whereas NZ have done well to transition between coaching staff, and keep a core of key players fit and healthy while blooding new players.

I think a lot of people are missing my point, it's not wether this NZ team are the best, it's wether this team would beat SA of 2007/8, England 2002/3, NZ 1986/9, Wales 1972/6. Eliminating the obvious progressions in science and the sport obviously.

I think this is a very consistent NZ and they are very succesfull, but they aren't showing 'greatness' simply because the likes of France, Aus, England and SA are not at their best, you don't go down in boxing history for continually beating fighters noone rates. Make sense?

not really. Who were the tough acts any of those sides beat? And NZ doesnt need the current side to beat the Wales 72-76 one- the one back then did in 72. In 07/08 NZ beat the Boks 4 out of 5 losing one by two points.

Better effort required butterfingers though the monikers probably apt with the dropping of the ball.

"The England victory over NZ occurred, as ever, to mark a decade of disappointment and was quickly followed by 6N capitulation."

1 loss(albeit a big one) in the 6N is hardly a capitulation.

GloriousEmpire wrote:2-0 to emirates team New Zealand after day 1 of the Americas cup. Add that to oracles 2 match penalty and its looking tough for the yanks. 

Irrelevant I know. But thought I'd mention it.

I was in the technical centre with Stan Honey yesterday watching. Fantastic result for New Zealand... Lets hope the Auld Mug goes to Auckland this time...

Amazing how even the American Sailors are hoping ETNZ win...

https://www.606v2.com/t47802-so-the-americas-cup-is-a-lot-more-entertaining-than-first-thought#2270932

Wales of '72???

Has there ever been a more over eulogised side? Im not sure what they are supposed to have done, I imagine a situation very similar to the over-hyping of the 2011 RWC losing side. A lot of hot air about very little.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"The England victory over NZ occurred, as ever, to mark a decade of disappointment and was quickly followed by 6N capitulation."

1 loss(albeit a big one) in the 6N is hardly a capitulation.

Yeah, but the loss was to Wales...

GloriousEmpire wrote:Wales of '72???

Has there ever been a more over eulogised side? Im not sure what they are supposed to have done, I imagine a situation very similar to the over-hyping of the 2011 RWC losing side. A lot of hot air about very little.

If you don't know, why comment so negatively.

There is plenty of footage of Welsh teams of the entire seventies online. Watch the style of rugby and I am sure you will understand.

They failed to beat NZ. Can't have been that great.

You don't get points for style - just winning.

Greatest player ever, greatest try ever, best ever team awards aren't handed out by piers and players throughout history for nothing.

WI'm not sure why everyone is being so precious, I'm not questioning NZ as a nation, just this side. There have been some great NZ teams, who have had to overcome some great teams of their era, my point is this NZ is the best, but is it great and who have they had to beat to become so. People were mocking the French who only managed 1 decent win in the RWC2011, and shouldve won the final to boot, Australia are in their worst position for years, and SA have been the most french like team for recent years (Ironically the French have been consistent of late) Wales were hugely injury hit last 2 years and resorted to feilding 4th/5th choice players with barely U20 experience, and well England are well adversed to false dawns. So many teams have been lacking quality, stability and/or experience, and NZ have beaten them all with the exception of the one team with a bit of a good feeling, the young and promising English team.

IF SA go to Eden park and win does this mean I have a point? or is this the best SA side of a generation?

I personally rate this NZ side as worlds current best, and in the top 5/6 of rugbys history, probably beaten by at least another 2 NZ teams, a South African team, possibly a Welsh team and English team. But thats just me

butterfingers wrote:Greatest player ever, greatest try ever, best ever team awards aren't handed out by piers and players throughout history for nothing.

Sounds like very subjective things to me. Perhaps easy to cling on to such sentimental nonsense in the lack of any tangible achievement to celebrate.

The welsh certainly talk a romantic line on their alleged super heroes. However it's somewhat a case of objects appearing larger in the rear view mirror.

Is that where you get your tackle out to measure?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

butterfingers wrote:Greatest player ever, greatest try ever, best ever team awards aren't handed out by piers and players throughout history for nothing.

Sounds like very subjective things to me. Perhaps easy to cling on to such sentimental nonsense in the lack of any tangible achievement to celebrate.

The welsh certainly talk a romantic line on their alleged super heroes. However it's somewhat a case of objects appearing larger in the rear view mirror.

I'm guessing Welsh peers over the age of 60. can't see a Kiwi, Aussie or Saffer voting for the side, player or try. They'll all have their own favourites. I'm guessing any pom aged around 40 would go for SCW's England side. I'm sure that the Irish, Scots and French have their own favorites. I can think of a couple of fantastic French tries.

Has anyone actually watched the 1973 barbarians All Blacks game. It's like watching amateur club rugby. I know it was great back in the day.

butterfingers wrote:Greatest player ever, greatest try ever, best ever team awards aren't handed out by piers and players throughout history for nothing.

WI'm not sure why everyone is being so precious, I'm not questioning NZ as a nation, just this side. There have been some great NZ teams, who have had to overcome some great teams of their era, my point is this NZ is the best, but is it great and who have they had to beat to become so. People were mocking the French who only managed 1 decent win in the RWC2011, and shouldve won the final to boot, Australia are in their worst position for years, and SA have been the most french like team for recent years (Ironically the French have been consistent of late) Wales were hugely injury hit last 2 years and resorted to feilding 4th/5th choice players with barely U20 experience, and well England are well adversed to false dawns. So many teams have been lacking quality, stability and/or experience, and NZ have beaten them all with the exception of the one team with a bit of a good feeling, the young and promising English team.

IF SA go to Eden park and win does this mean I have a point? or is this the best SA side of a generation?

I personally rate this NZ side as worlds current best, and in the top 5/6 of rugbys history, probably beaten by at least another 2 NZ teams, a South African team, possibly a Welsh team and English team. But thats just me

Good 2nd to last point. I think longer term reputations are won on the back of consistent results. It could be the start of a great dawn for South African rugby. I think what most people can agree on is that a win in NZ is meritorious. Longer term it would depend if they could fend off NZ, England etc over the next 12 months. Just as importantly it might mark the end of a great NZ side. There's a lot of water to go under the bridge before anyone can make either call. Like the look of the boks though.

They are what they are. Comparing this side to others in the past is pure conjecture. Point is theyre winning, with one loss since the 3N final in 2011. Thas pretty good and just over par for the AB's for the last 10 years or so, give or take a couple of years.

I thought the 1995 world cup losing side and the 2004 grand slam with two completely different sides were right up there but because they dont have some fantasic sequence doesnt mean they werent better sides.

I remember reading somewhere the team list from the game where the ABs annihilated the aussies at athletic park back in 96 or 97. Not a weak link in that team

Dowd
Fitzy
Brown
I Jones
R Brooke
M Jones
J Kronfeld
Z Brooke
J Marshall
A Mehrtens
Lomu
Little
Bunce
Wilson
Cullen

Tough to beat that team

butterfingers wrote:Greatest player ever, greatest try ever, best ever team awards aren't handed out by piers and players throughout history for nothing.

WI'm not sure why everyone is being so precious, I'm not questioning NZ as a nation, just this side. There have been some great NZ teams, who have had to overcome some great teams of their era, my point is this NZ is the best, but is it great and who have they had to beat to become so. People were mocking the French who only managed 1 decent win in the RWC2011, and shouldve won the final to boot, Australia are in their worst position for years, and SA have been the most french like team for recent years (Ironically the French have been consistent of late) Wales were hugely injury hit last 2 years and resorted to feilding 4th/5th choice players with barely U20 experience, and well England are well adversed to false dawns. So many teams have been lacking quality, stability and/or experience, and NZ have beaten them all with the exception of the one team with a bit of a good feeling, the young and promising English team.

IF SA go to Eden park and win does this mean I have a point? or is this the best SA side of a generation?

I personally rate this NZ side as worlds current best, and in the top 5/6 of rugbys history, probably beaten by at least another 2 NZ teams, a South African team, possibly a Welsh team and English team. But thats just me

Well butterfingers, I have no doubt that should SA win, you will indulge in another WUMfest. Not sure if this amounts to having an actual point. In fact it would seem to discredit your claim that SA are in decline.

The fact is that the AB vs SA rivalry is, and has been the pinnacle of world rugby competition for essentially the duration of competitive rugby. Even at their peaks one has rarely dominated the other. The recent reciprocal white washes have been blips rather than a norm. 

So does a NZ win mean SA are in decline and merely a road bump on the way to world domination? No.
Does a SA win indicate NZ are spent and any previous win is only a product of SA weakness? No.

These are the one and two ranked sides in the world. And for good reason. They both better their opponents more often than not.

NZ's record of post RWC victories far outstrips any other victors, and is challenged only by their own post 1987. It is inevitable that with retirements ageing out of a consistently selected squad that there will be some instability. And hence some decline in domination periodically.

But NZs record (as south Africa's) show a side that is consistently great, as I have said. And greatly consistent.

As i said after the sumer it is NZ SA and then everyone else.

As has been pointed out SA have beaten Aus in Aus by a large score. When NZ did a simillar think it was look how good NZ are. SA is much better then last year and i think they are catching back up to NZ after years of poor management.

I think every teir one nations feels they can beat Aus and 2011 on all have except Italy and Wales who were really close to doing it. Not sure how close Argies came dont think they have won.

On the other hand few expect to beat SA and NZ.

The AIs could be the end of a long season for Aus and they could loose nearly all their games. On the other hand NZ and SA might loose one.

One good game doesn't make a side. Beating AUS in AUS is never easy regardless of what people are saying about them.

Are SA more polished then NZ, no but they are at different stages in their cycle.

The leadership they lost in Smit, Bakkies, Matfield, Du Preez, Smith and Burger has had a significant impact when things get tight... only now are they looking like they can hold the line like before.

What we are seeing though is a very exciting side with still players like Jaque Fourie, Frans Steyn, JP Pietersen & (potentially) Schalk Burger to come back.

perhaps fa but this year it seems everyones beating them and in recent seasons Scotland and Samoa have beaten them so theres definite signs oz are not the force they were.

Im just glad we have a real match up at for us a great venue for this match. Wouldnt have picked this scenario a year ago.

Taylorman

I think teams are beginning to work them out certainly. Until they get a front five that can compete I think SF positions at world cups are the best they can expect.

Give them a platform with perhaps some Boere bloed in their front five (its already trickling in) and I think they will bounce back.

They have too much talent to write away.