NZ struggling to cope with Northern Hemisphere physicallity?

Firstly congratulations to NZ on a fantastic year, they've been unreal and rightly deserve to again ranked Number 01 in world rugby, but......

I've not see NZ packs struggle so much for a long time.

Their scrum was often a shambles, the Irish dominated this area and they're hardly renowned for being a scrummaging unit.

England and Ireland dominated the breakdown for large parts of their respective games. NZ struggled to get a foothold in the pack in both games and relied heavily on their magical backline to produce the goods.

Yes they didn't get beat this year but I doubt many NH sides will be worried about facing New Zealand in the future knowing they can get on top in the forwards.

Now we just need to stop those backs......

Yes the AB's pack looked almost out on its feet at times yesterday. However they have recently played a hugely physical French team and England's forwards bossed large amounts of that match. if you consider what happens at the end of our season when the home nations head south, i think the AB's have done exceptionally well.
i would agree that they are maybe peaking a bit early for the World cup whereas the Boks look like they are still heading upwards in their performances.
From this autumn series france is the team that has looked most competitive against the the SH teams, but will PSA's sound selections continue over the 6 N's? , time will tell.

No, I think the NH teams played above themselves physically and intensity wise against the ABs - but couldn't sustain it for 80 min.

If anything this tour has illustrated how superior the ABs are physically and mentally.

They seem to handle it fine in our summer.

Remember this is the end of their season and the beginning of ours. The two best times to play the AB is the last game of the AI and first game of the summer.

Last game of the AI, we've got 2 or 3 games under our belt to shake off rust, a relatively fresh and building to the 6 nations. They're at the end of the season playing a friendly, which they generally (almost always) win.

In the first game of the 6 nations it's almost the opposite. We're coming to the end of our season but will have had a little rest between the end of the season and the game. Two months previously we'd have had time together in the 6 nations. They'd be coming from their domestic teams, still a bit rusty and haven't played together for over 6 months.

I wouldn't say struggling, although I do think the gulf between NH and SH has narrowed slightly (there's a still a pretty big gulf though).

You're right though when to talk up the difference between the backs. The creativity of the SH backs is in the different league. Their attacking play and handling skills under pressure are a long way ahead, and they are so much more clinical than we are in converting chances into tries.

Still, I thought the games in this AI series were more competitive than in the past, albeit that the result aren't much different.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Firstly congratulations to NZ on a fantastic year, they've been unreal and rightly deserve to again ranked Number 01 in world rugby, but......

I've not see NZ packs struggle so much for a long time.

Their scrum was often a shambles, the Irish dominated this area and they're hardly renowned for being a scrummaging unit.

England and Ireland dominated the breakdown for large parts of their respective games. NZ struggled to get a foothold in the pack in both games and relied heavily on their magical backline to produce the goods.

Yes they didn't get beat this year but I doubt many NH sides will be worried about facing New Zealand in the future knowing they can get on top in the forwards.

Now we just need to stop those backs......

I just think they were tired after a horribly long season tbh. Unlike the Springboks, both the Aussies and Kiwis didnt have a break after the Rugby championship

I think NZ were struggling mentally to move back up to the mental high of Ellis Park.

Definitely things to work on. Scrum is an obvious choice as is knowing how many players to commit to the rucks.

Good luck if you're thinking NZ will flatline now in performance while other teams involve. NZ are definitely aware of those peaking teams and can now assess their problem areas and improve in that area. Kaino and Conrad Smith come back next year and young players like Luatua, Retallick etc still have much to learn.

The NH can be proud of their performances against NZ but so too are Kiwi fans proud of their players. Not so many changes required next year so that means greater building of combinations.

The NH struggled to cope with NZ skill levels!

After the AIs I'm more concerned about the way SA are developing than NZ. We can't out skill the ABs, but they can be knocked with enough physicality and intensity at the set-piece and breakdown. I don't think any team can top SA in those areas though.

Given their style of rugby seems to suit the condensed knock-out format of the WC more as well, I think the Boks will be 2015 champions.

I think the Boks had the best November tour as well. I'm not so sure it's the "physicality" of northern sides as the style of refereeing. This isn't a whinge. I've said before we have to adapt to what's in front of us. The northern game at the moment is refereeed to a laxer degree at the start of the ruck. In that the tackler can go for the ball without releasing and players are quick to go off their feet and the sealing off of the ball. The other features for me is that the offside line isn't policed as stringently. These were predictable. It changes the nature of the game and particularly the fight for possession.

blackcanelion wrote:I think the Boks had the best November tour as well. I'm not so sure it's the "physicality" of northern sides as the style of refereeing. This isn't a whinge. I've said before we have to adapt to what's in front of us. The northern game at the moment is refereeed to a laxer degree at the start of the ruck. In that the tackler can go for the ball without releasing and players are quick to go off their feet and the sealing off of the ball. The other features for me is that the offside line isn't policed as stringently. These were predictable. It changes the nature of the game and particularly the fight for possession.

the flipside of this is that SH teams don't seem to be committing as many men to rucks. is this a Super Rugby thing? it's obviously going to lead to some differing interpretations when NH teams meet SH teams and they compete differently at the breakdown. for example, if there is only 1 NZ defender at the breakdown and he gets cleaned out by 2 or 3 NH forwards, they are all going to end up off their feet (unless possibly its read!).

quinsforever wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:I think the Boks had the best November tour as well. I'm not so sure it's the "physicality" of northern sides as the style of refereeing. This isn't a whinge. I've said before we have to adapt to what's in front of us. The northern game at the moment is refereeed to a laxer degree at the start of the ruck. In that the tackler can go for the ball without releasing and players are quick to go off their feet and the sealing off of the ball. The other features for me is that the offside line isn't policed as stringently. These were predictable. It changes the nature of the game and particularly the fight for possession.

the flipside of this is that SH teams don't seem to be committing as many men to rucks. is this a Super Rugby thing? it's obviously going to lead to some differing interpretations when NH teams meet SH teams and they compete differently at the breakdown. for example, if there is only 1 NZ defender at the breakdown and he gets cleaned out by 2 or 3 NH forwards, they are all going to end up off their feet (unless possibly its read!).

Truth is I don't know. I've got a couple of theories. This what I think (take it with a grain of salt).

I think it's a combination of both tactics, style and refereeing. I'd be interested if anyone else has any ideas or info.

1. I think SH refs started to come down hard on players bridging and not releasing the ball. I remember it being talked about in the press releases. Partly I think this was a response to a number of issues. There had been a number of players who were very good at supporting their bodyweight over the ball, using their hands for partial or full support. These included McCaw, Brusou and Pocock. There was also a trend of players going in the tackle, or as the second tackler, and getting or staying on their feet and going for the ball. As you can imagine at different times the opposition, coaches, press and fans all screamed blue murder. From memory there were a couple of things happened the RFU (or possibly the IRFU can't remember for sure now) asked for clarification on the issue from the IRB and we had the Springboks-Wallabies quarterfinal (which was the last of a number of games where the issue had come to a head). The end result was a clear ruling on the practice and practical ruling on refereeing from the referees committee. Players got penalised for bridging, and not clearly releasing the tackled player before going for the ball. Added to this was the realisation in 2009, that players where ahead of the kicker and defensive backlines were jumping the gun. My feeling is this changed the way you could deal with rucks.

2. I think one of teams in last 5 years, maybe the Crusaders, realised you could commit fewer players to the ruck and maintain a defensive line. My guess is that this gave a number of advantages. Good technique in the right circumstances could still give turnover ball (e.g. a runner who's support was a bit slow in getting there, vulnerability or to a counter ruck when few players were committed). If the player went to ground there are a lot of players available for the defensive line. It seems to me it gives them a probably numerical advantage when they get turnover ball. I'm guess they might expend less energy (fewer players charging into rucks).

I think we're re adapting already. I thought Canterbury were quite different in the provincial comp, and I see the AB's are more proactive in the tackle. I'm guessing that super rugby will see a slightly different approach at the ruck. More players potentially bridging, sealing of the ball and putting more players into the rucks.

As I said, a large part  guess work. Possibly a work of fiction. I'm sure Wayne Smith would read this and shake his head.

good thoughts canelion. i rarely get to watch SR.

does seem like teams are getting tactically smarter, both pre-game, and during the game (NZ still the best at changing game-plan midstride if somethings not working). i think Eng in particular identified the lack of players committed to the ruck as a potential weakness if england did commit players to the ruck, but most importantly england recognised that if you spin it wide you are going to get turned over with the extra numbers in defense that the ABs had. was really interesting to watch.

it is definitely the danger for any team who is one dimensional in their play that the oppo identifies it and counters it effectively. NZ are the least guilty in this regard. But SA, Wales, England could be put in this box potentially.

quinsforever wrote:good thoughts canelion. i rarely get to watch SR.

does seem like teams are getting tactically smarter, both pre-game, and during the game (NZ still the best at changing game-plan midstride if somethings not working). i think Eng in particular identified the lack of players committed to the ruck as a potential weakness if england did commit players to the ruck, but most importantly england recognised that if you spin it wide you are going to get turned over with the extra numbers in defense that the ABs had. was really interesting to watch.

it is definitely the danger for any team who is one dimensional in their play that the oppo identifies it and counters it effectively. NZ are the least guilty in this regard. But SA, Wales, England could be put in this box potentially.

I like to think SA are not as one dimensional as people seem to think nowadays. And our ruck play has massively improved this year too .

I wish we had a player like JP Pietersen...i think hes class..he can play AND he has massive physicality.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I wish we had a player like JP Pietersen...i think hes class..he can play AND he has massive physicality.

When I first saw him in 2006 I wondered what drugs White was taking... who is this lazy, slow and clumsy runner they're now playing.... but boy did I get that wrong. Top class performer.... he's the type of 3/4 like Brown that isn't defined by their speed... he'll last a long time in the game way beyond his peers.

Thats the thing...they just seem so difficult to tackle / stop. And its not like its poor tacklers trying to stop them...its the top teams.

If we had a Pietersen esque player v NZ we'd have won that game (well in my humble opinion anyway)

England may have created the illusion of "winning the breakdown" because they flooded the area and as already discussed, were allowed incorrectly by Joubert (as he now admits) to seal off the ball.

NZ appeared to be "battered" at the breakdown because they rarely committed large numbers.

However contrary to what you might think, NZ made far more turn overs at the ruck than England did. Statistics show NZ resounding "won" the breakdown.

NH teams tend to be like a blunt instrument at the ruck. Big numbers. Lots of huffing and puffing.

It's a feature of NZ's game to select rucks to compete at carefully, conserve numbers and generally be more technical and analytic about the experience.

It can make it look like NZ are being beaten up, but watch carefully and you'll see something else is happening.

Victories are constructed up front right? Last time I checked NZ won three from three in the nh.

In the scrum...NZ were powerful enough to win a last minute scrum penalty on their own line to win the France game.

Are we perfect? No. Can we improve? Yes. Is it a weakness to be exploited? Apparently not.

Its been a long 10month season for all the SH sides. That has to be taken into consideration.

Disagree with most of that GE, I thought NZ really struggled with the physical aspect against the NH packs. Their scrum was pretty dire, possibly the worst I've seen all season.

What they can do though is finish and the NH's paid the price for giving their backs a sniff of the try line.

I look at the NZ pack and nobody is physically intimidating. There's no Thorn, Kaino etc....I think NZ miss these players.

How can you disagree with turn over and ruck stats? As a measure of ruck success? NZ won both stats in all three games.

There's a difference as I said between huffing and puffing and actually achieving anything.

Perhaps the NH sides might want to reflect on their approach, which seemed to lead to them being too physically exhausted to compete in the last 20 minutes?

The fact is that the NH sides were all out witted, out skilled and out lasted and that's why they all lost.

In the backs they were, NZ were dominated by every pack they met.

Where are these stats?

Even if NZ did get a superior turn over rate it's hardly equal to pack control. Aus often have a higher turnover stat but more often than not are on the back foot in the forward pack.

NZ narrowly beat the NH due to being clinical in the backline not because they got on top in the pack

NZ v Eng : ruck success NZ 97% ENG 90.7%
NZ v Fra : scrum success NZ 100% FRA 83%
NZ v Ire : scrum success NZ 100% IRE 83%

Source: espnscrum.com, nzherald.

Just a taster. Also NZ cleaned up England in the lineouts.

Forward weakness? Where?

As I said, you are mistaking huffing and puffing for effectiveness. You are not looking for the right things and hence you are being deceived.

Lineout hardly equals physicality, it's common knowledge Youngs can't throw.

Interesting stats...they mean nothing but interesting.

NZ got hammered in the scrum by all NH teams.

GloriousEmpire wrote:How can you disagree with turn over and ruck stats? As a measure of ruck success? NZ won both stats in all three games.

There's a difference as I said between huffing and puffing and actually achieving anything.

Perhaps the NH sides might want to reflect on their approach, which seemed to lead to them being too physically exhausted to compete in the last 20 minutes?

The fact is that the NH sides were all out witted, out skilled and out lasted and that's why they all lost.

Mmm, England seemed to achieve such a dominant position at the ruck that the ref gave up regarding it as a contest.

Not sure that constitutes huffing and puffing.

Sorry but the stats above clearly show that NZ and not England were dominant. And Joubert has already admitted he was wrong to allow England to illegally seal of the ball for 60 minutes - imagine if he hadn't! It would've been utterly one way traffic.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11159105

For all the refs help, all that huffing and puffing didn't achieve parity at the ruck or a victory. Hmm...what now for England? Let me guess, more huffing and puffing.

Fact is, NZ don't have a pack to worry about. Their scrum is possibly the weakest of any tier one nation and they can be physically dominated upfront.

They are however unreal in the backline and can score from anywhere.

I find talk of this being one of the strongest NZ teams ever a bit of a joke, I've not seen them struggle this much upfront for a long time.

NZ ref whining about the ref.....shock

Joubert has not admitted his refereeing of the breakdown during the Twickenham match was wrong. Not really surprising, given that it wasn't wrong.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Fact is, NZ don't have a pack to worry about. Their scrum is possibly the weakest of any tier one nation and they can be physically dominated upfront.

They are however unreal in the backline and can score from anywhere.

I find talk of this being one of the strongest NZ teams ever a bit of a joke, I've not seen them struggle this much upfront for a long time.

Wow. You really have a completely limited ability to analyze the game don't you?

Reality however speaks for itself. 14-0 against all comers. And in that time plenty of performances in the scrum like the 11 from 11 against France - the best scrummaging team in the NH.

Some of your replies are hilarious GE, I take it you don't watch the games? You just tune into the NZ press and look at the stats

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Fact is, NZ don't have a pack to worry about. Their scrum is possibly the weakest of any tier one nation and they can be physically dominated upfront.

They are however unreal in the backline and can score from anywhere.

I find talk of this being one of the strongest NZ teams ever a bit of a joke, I've not seen them struggle this much upfront for a long time.

And i find it laughable that after 14 games unbeaten and one loss in 27 games people still have such comments to make ? Just because they struggled but still beat everyone is not a reason to refuse to accept this is the best All blacks team in recent memory . Stop trying to look for negatives where there are non and give credit where its due . If your pack had gone 13 games unbeaten it'd struggle too . 

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Fact is, NZ don't have a pack to worry about. Their scrum is possibly the weakest of any tier one nation and they can be physically dominated upfront.

They are however unreal in the backline and can score from anywhere.

I find talk of this being one of the strongest NZ teams ever a bit of a joke, I've not seen them struggle this much upfront for a long time.

Poorly...you wager an unconvincing argument where all the stats say otherwise. If we indeed struggle then why have WD lost one match in two seasons? Or are you saying backs win matches because according to you our pack ain't winning it.

The AIs are at the very end of what's now a very tough season. We used to perform in the AIs more convincingly but last two years we've had the summer tours increased from two to three tests and have had the argues added to our RC. So fact is it is one of our strongest teams...the results confirm that. Our pack isn't the strongest around but I doubt very much there's been a better 8 all year.

Poorly??? Brilliant, you can't find valid ways to debate so lets pick on usernames.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Some of your replies are hilarious GE, I take it you don't watch the games? You just tune into the NZ press and look at the stats

The real test for the the AB pack will be when England come a calling next summer . We'll see how well the English perform after a gruelling 6N campaign against players who are fresh and getting into form in Super Rugby .

And apparently they won't be allowed to go off their feet next time...it'll be interesting.

Should be a good contest Bulls, looks like we'll be missing the majority of our first choice squad for the first test.

I can't see this being an issue in the pack but our best backline isn't close to NZ never mind our 2nd string.

GloriousEmpire wrote:And apparently they won't be allowed to go off their feet next time...it'll be interesting.

Lets hope we get a ref who can see dominance in the scrum, could get nasty for NZ if so.

I'm sure you'll be too tired. Or rusty.

I think this is a formidable All Blacks team but I have no problem with the idea that a better team can lose more matches than a lesser team.

England were better in 2001 than 2003 but we couldn't win a Grand Slam in 2001. The All Blacks side which lost the 1995 World Cup still rate as one of the finest sides I ever saw. It's difficult, and also invidious, to make comparisons so far apart, but I'm tempted to say they are better than the side which won in 2011.

I don't know where this current side stands by comparison but they have been a joy to watch. It's always worth discussing where a team might have weaknesses but talk is cheap if no-one is actually exploiting them to win.

They always get credit for skills. But less people give them credit for being absolute warriors. Yes they were dominated up front in the first half by Ireland, but they weren't beaten up. They came out in the second perfectly capable of coming back into it. They never stopped fighting.

I reckon 'international' rugby is pretty strong at the moment amongst the top half. There's fewer blowouts for one thing and especially in the AIs. I think it's tougher than ever and I rate this ABs team the best I've seen (since mid 80s).

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Poorly??? Brilliant, you can't find valid ways to debate so lets pick on usernames.

Sorry that actually was a typo...or spell check. Don't usually correct them on a tablet if the meaning is still there.obviously should hav.ddidn't notice it. 

I'll forgive you Taylor

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Fact is, NZ don't have a pack to worry about. Their scrum is possibly the weakest of any tier one nation and they can be physically dominated upfront.

They are however unreal in the backline and can score from anywhere.

I find talk of this being one of the strongest NZ teams ever a bit of a joke, I've not seen them struggle this much upfront for a long time.

Ever wondered where these unreal backs get the ball from?

If we acted in accordance with your findings Pooly, we would be better of to drop the forwards and just play with 15 backs.

ebop wrote:I reckon 'international' rugby is pretty strong at the moment amongst the top half. There's fewer blowouts for one thing and especially in the AIs. I think it's tougher than ever and I rate this ABs team the best I've seen (since mid 80s).

Its a tough one. The game is so much tougher these days where margins are tighter, there's more matches than ever and so much more demands overall on individuals and sides. Key to this side is its management of the players and team as a whole. Bringing in 21 players over two years has been critical to this sides success, the last twenty minutes of the Irish match belonging to the subs who if they had not been in the AB camp and enviroment for as long as they have could not have stood up to that challenge.
So to bring in 21 players while managing and maintaining the winning streak they have us nothing short if visionary. The key resting and rehabilitation of players also playing a factor.

I'd think more of GE 'sources' if they weren't always the NZ Herald or The Daily Mail.

GE, you really need to improve your reading material, man!

The stats I used from espnscrum are fairly consistent with those being reported and used elsewhere.

But moreso and overwhelmingly, just watching the game gives it away.

Yeah, the NZ scrum has been a bit creaky this year and the entirely rotated front row we used in the opening against Ireland had a few problems. But 11/11 against France whilst forcing the French into crucially timed scrum errors goes to show were nobody's whipping boys in the set piece. Perhaps England have out all their eggs in the scrum basket and as a consequence the line out was disasterous and lost them the game? It's all about finding that balance.

Culturally, NZ have overwhelmed the traditional strong man approach of SA and forced them to modify their game and become more expansive. If some of these huffing and puffing NH sides played NZ more regularly, they too would get sick of losing In the same manner year after year and adapt as well. I think England need to let go of this bravado-macho idea that rugby is a metaphor some homoerotic testosterone fueled masogynistic orgy. For ten years, and long past it's sell by date in 2003 England have persisted with the "power game" believing if they can just pound enough monstrous beef into the midfield they might just be successful again. Time to grow some skill and athleticism and let go of the primal urge to bash anything that grasps a rugby ball with a blunt mallet.

homoerotic?

Englands lineout with Hartley was superb, however Youngs struggled badly when he came on. Did you actually watch the game? Or any game come to that?