What's more daunting: competing against your likeness or your opposite?

There are plenty of ways to skin a cat. Having never skinned one I wouldn't know. A knife would seem the best option but dynamite might also work, albeit nowhere near as effectively.

Rugby teams have the same amount of players - at least at the start of the match - but there are different ways of coordinating them. NZ now embarks on its most difficult RC away games. The environment goes a long way to ensuring that but I suggest the clash of styles also has a lot to do with it.

Argentina showed last year in their home game the danger of imitating your opposing team's preference for playing the game. Whilst the opening try of Argentina was a beautiful display of running from a set piece move and keeping the ball alive, the Pumas thought they could match NZ in their offloading and passing game and beat them. They entered into a high tempo game and came away conceding more than 50 points to NZ.

I believe Argentina will look at last year's home game and this year's away game and look to apply pressure through the scrum. They have their veteran lock Albacete back which should shore up their wonky lineout and they will look to take it to the game to NZ using their strengths.

When you look at the NZ games where they've struggled, this seems to be the best method of playing them. Win the forward battle or get up in their faces at the breakdown, flood the area and contest the ball. Rush up at the NZ defence and narrow down their space. There are some sides who are better suited to this style of play and it would seem foolish to play the game suited to NZ's style of play. The RWC match in 2003 with Wales, arguably NZ's closest equivalent in the NH, was sure entertaining to watch and probably caused a flutter or two in the NZ camp. But France in 1999 and England last year stand out as examples of beating NZ at their own game. Teams like France, Ireland, Scotland or Italy have looked their best against NZ when they have turned the game into an attritional battle. Open the game up and NZ believe they can outscore their opponents playing that way and they invariably do. Apply pressure with points on the board and snuff out NZ opportunities and you can squeeze them into errors.

It raises the question though, how good are your strengths and how good are your opponents' strengths? Wales might argue that their overall balance is superior to a team like Australia. Certainly the Welsh scrum is evidently up there with the best in world rugby and they have big names in the backs that can do damage to teams. How to explain their inability to win against a side that doesn't share their particular strengths? Is this a case of Australia minimising their weaknesses and nullifying their opponent's strengths better? When Scotland play Italy, why do we get so few games like this year's 6N where Scotland makes use of their attacking players and get drawn into close pitch fighting that sucks out your will to live? Why has France in recent times been capable of turning on attacking brilliance against weaker teams and then putting in turgid, impotent displays against stronger teams without playing to their numerous strengths? Is that a reflection of their opponents' abilities to draw them into a game that flatters France to deceive or is it the wrong assessment of what exactly the French strengths are?

You often hear good teams figure out their opponents. What does this mean? Does it mean they figure out what the other team's strengths are and play in a way that doesn't suit them. Or does it mean they concentrate on their own strengths and don't worry about what the other team's strengths are? Execute what you are best at and have the self belief that will be enough? It would seem it's a combination of the two but the fact that so many teams lack consistency in their performances suggests that there are indeed many ways to skin a cat and sometimes we don't know which way suits us best. The Pumas are a difficult prospect to skin at home. Is it a case of being patient and knowing when to strike or is it a case of going out there and imposing the way you want to play the game right from the get go like England did to NZ last year?

In recent times I've often heard the comment from NZ fans that we fear Australia because we don't know what to expect from them because with SA we know what to expect. I haven't heard that comment this year because sadly we know what to expect from Australia at the moment and it hasn't been all that great. SA, on the other hand, believe that they have a game with their set piece, driving mauls from the lineout, physicality at the breakdown and rush defence that can negate NZ's strengths. They certainly have a lineout technician in Etzebeth which makes NZ sit up and notice. Their forward play can disrupt NZ ball at the breakdown. France have looked best when they imitate this style but the high profile wins overlook the fact that NZ have won more games imposing their own style. NZ do lose games but they're very good at analysing why they lose and where they need to improve. I think if SA tried to imitate NZ, they would move away from their strengths. But Ellis Park will hopefully be a good indicator of how both sides are able to compete against the other side's strengths and execute what they do best.

Dont think the Boks need to imitate NZ, they just have to hand a higher % of the reason for winning a match to the backs. If the backs all have good games across the board at Ellis, theyll win such is the sides improvement.

I get more nervous when sides are able to dominate us in certain areas. But I also love those matches because it means NZ has to find a way to counter that. There are very few instances I can think of when NZ has been bettered at their own game. France in 1999 and the try from the end of the world were high profile games that leap to mind. But more often than not our defeats come from squeezing defensive pressure and using the set piece as a platform to set up their attacks.

Ellis Park is a mythical ground. It's the SA equivalent of Eden Park. Like away tests in Argentina there's an alien feel about the ground. It doesn't feel like other matches. Playing in a football stadium gives that alien feel in Argentina but with Ellis Park it's the altitude, the locals as hard as the landscape and who equal our obsession with rugby. You don't go to JBurg to play rugby. You go there to be taught a rugby lesson. That's the vibe they give off and when you see that ball soar epic distances and bounce up like a basketball, you know you're witnessing something special.

If you play against your likeness, you try to do things differently. When you play against your polar opposite you try to do what you do best and limit what your opponents do as much as possible. That swing of the pendulum is what makes for a more enthralling contest in both situations. Who can strike when the opportunities present themselves? Who can ride out the other team's highs during the match and come away relatively unscathed to be able to fight back?

A lot is to do with the mental side. A few seasons back in the autumn internationals, we were leading Canada at half time and the sports psychologist said that the team was relaxed and in a positive frame of mind for the second half. However, when we were (somehow!) leading against SA at half time, the psychologist said there was a totally different atmosphere and from talking to the Scottish players, they were nervous as they need SA would come back at us - which they duly did.
Despite the fact we were the better team in the first half, we let SA's reputation get inside our heads and this, as much as anything, led to our downfall.
Maybe not totally relevant to the initial question but an alternative take?

I was more thinking along the lines of playing teams similar to your preferred style of play or those who differ greatly in their intent. The psychology of facing your likeness or your opposite.

Sorry, Kia. I realise that but I was just trying to make the point that the most daunting are those who have a reputation, justified or not. If you look at it playing style-wise it must be easier to prepare for a team who have similar strengths and weaknesses. The reason why so many NH teams lose to the likes of Samoa is because we are not used to their style of play and they just blow us away with their power etc and I don't think any amount of coaching can prepare you for some if the big lumps that prowl the pitch wearing a Samoa top

Are we talking international only?

As a coach I would fear a team that plays opposing rugby far less than a team who plays a similar style.

If your a tight 5 team, who likes to dominate the set peice, and play territoryally then a 'total rugby' type would play into your hands, dictate where they play and live off mistakes. It's when you come across another muscle up team that gets you nervy, and takes you out of your comfort zone, knowing you have to do something different to win

Any type of rugby butterfingers.

Certainly Australia are proving what you say but it doesn't have to be a difference of set piece. France have a solid set piece but its been a while since we've seen them go beyond the conservative out wide against the big sides. Both sides could have solid set pieces but one team likes a high tempo and the other a more territorial measured tempo.

No worries IYA. Samoa are a good example of owning up to their style couldn't foot it in test rugby if they didn't have a solid set piece. Fiji are still struggling in this area and I'd argue teams like Wales or Scotland were not so much outdone by the physicality of Samoa's or Tonga's backs but they found their improved set piece difficult to dominate.

depends where you strengths and weaknesses lie.

England - Wales at the moment are better at the 10 man game. Historically, the boks have near always been superior.

Boks - Rarely gets done over up front.... teams with a bit of guile to them i.e. Ireland, France etc have got success now and again by mixing it up. Aus until recently were a bogey side for them... but often these sides require a decent pack to counter bok power.

NZ - Can anyone out NZ NZ? The French perhaps when they go for it. Still suspect at the set piece compared to other powers such as England and SA so that is where those teams concentrate their game... i.e. the ABs recent quick lineouts in the last match.

It depends the make up of your side and your bench. What's your plan A? Do you have the options of a plan B if A isn't going well... do you have the players to impliment it?