Peaking and Rebuilding

Last year the All Blacks became the first team in the professional era to go through a season winning every game, this backed up a prior season containing just one loss and one draw.
 
Detractors from this feat have suggested that NZ might have peaked between world cups, and that an ageing New Zealand team will struggle to compete in coming years against more youthful sides in "development mode".
 
Most notable amongst these comparisons is a strong suggestion that the youthful and rebuilding Springbok team may eclpise the All Blacks.
 
However, let's take a look at some squad statistics. This is based on the EOYT squads, excluding guys who did not play any minutes (no Ardie Savea for instance).
 
All Blacks: Average Age (Squad/Forwards/Backs) : 26/26.9/24.8 - 1202 caps of experience in total.
Springboks: Average Age (Squad/Forwards/Backs) : 26.4/26/27 - 1071 caps of experience in total ( but! this was a 34 man squad, in comparison to NZ's 36 man squad ).
 
The average age of the youngest run on squad the AB's could name : 23.6 years with 265 caps total (61 of those contributed by Kieran Read's)
The average age of the youngest run on squad that SA could name : 23.8 years with 270 caps total (95 of those contributed by Bryan Habanas )
 
(Youngest side namable is calculated using the first specialist positions of all players and doesn't include fringe possibilities.
 
There are a few interesting insights to be had there. Most notably that SA seem to lack depth in experienced wing options versus NZ's lack of depth in the front row. In general this reflects that NZ tend to be longer in the tooth in the forward units, whereas SA tend to be the reverse.
 
However overwhelmingly, reality debunks the idea of a "youthful, developing SA side" who are catching an "over-the-hill AB side" with many players ripe for retirement.
 
The team age and experience profiles are just too close to call any real difference.

I wouldn't say SA are an emerging youthful side. Contrary to NZ though they did lose a lot of experience post RWC11 i.e. Smit, Matfield, Burger, Bakkies - i.e. their leadership core. NZ have been able to keep these type which lessened the impact.

That was more important then the average caps/age of the side.

The boks over the last 2 years had they had better/more experienced leaders in their side they would have won some games they lost for sure. Thats why Meyer brought back Du Preez, the gulf left by the Smit-Matfield-Burger era was huge and as talented as their replacements are, talent alone doesn't win matches.

Similar to Umaga's loss to the side in 2007. He should have stayed on and I think Henry made a big mistake allowing him to go. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Johnson's impact of leaving the England setup abd Wilkinson's 3 year injury... they were SCW 2 major players and all of a sudden they were gone. Dillaglio, Robinson or not, lose your key pivotal players and you will suffer.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Last year the All Blacks became the first team in the professional era to go through a season winning every game

Did they?   

I must have missed that!   

Meh. I don't buy it. NZ lost the following players since the RWC in 2011:
 
Piri Weepu  (71 caps)
Mils Mulliaina (100 caps)
Andrew Hore (83 caps)
Brad Thorn (60 caps)
Ali Williams (77 caps)
Jerome Kaino (49 caps)
Jimmy Cowan (51 caps)
Andy Ellis (26 caps)
 
Isaia Toeava (35 caps)
Adam Thompson (29 caps)
Victor Vito (22 caps)
Stephen Donald (23 caps)
Sonny Bill Williams
Zac Guilford
Colin Slade
 
And had partial loss of:
 
(Conrad Smith - 75 caps) - Sabatical
(Daniel Carter - 100 caps) - Sabatical/Injured
(Richie McCaw - 124 caps) - Sabatical
 
 
 
That's almost a whole team - and some hell of a leadership core and awful lot of experience/ability to lose including intermittent loss of once-in-a-life-time legends DC and captain tackles himself.  You'll notice it's both senior half backs, the senior locking partnership, senior hooker, senior full back, senior flankers and first preferred deputy, senior first five eighths, preferred deputy and preferred white-baiting world cup stand-in. The mid field and two wingers. Wow. Just about full-house, minus a couple of props.
 
The thing is that NZ have been finding youthful replacements who are stepping up. This is my point.

If I look at your list I would say only Brad Thorn was within the leadership group... the others weren't senior players... perhaps Kaino and Mils.
But now way the outright leaders of the team... i.e. McCaw and Carter.

All those sabbaticals.... none were for the test season... only club rugby.

Ali Williams was in the senior leadership group as was Adam Thompson. McCaw, Carter, Smith, Mils, Brad, Hore, Kaino and Vito.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Ali Williams was in the senior leadership group as was Adam Thompson. McCaw, Carter, Smith, Mils, Brad, Hore, Kaino and Vito.

Ali Williams was a bit part only. He was like Dillaglio in 2007. By then Dillaglio was being dictated to by Easter.

Adam Thompson and Victor Vito..... come on dude. They were fringe players who had only been capped recently.

Ali Williams was one half of the senior locking duo. Not a bit part at all. Such was his leadership capacity that he frequently fronted the press meetings for the players.
 
I think you fail to understand the collaborative leadership doctrine of the All Blacks, and also maybe fail to understand Victor Vito's cultural mana.  Perhaps the current AB side has eclipsed your memory of just who the preferred AB lineup was in 2011. Check it out. Thompson and Vito were stalwarts. Hardly fringe players.
 
You are also wrong about the Sabaticals. McCaw was unavailable during the early part of the season and missed the French tests and Conrad Smith absent for the second half.  Carter has hardly been available at all for one reason or another.

Good debate, but who said the Springbok team is youthfull?

Victor Vito had 8 caps at the beginning of the RWC11 as hadn't been with the side 12 months.

Here is the no. of matches played since the RWC11 by the 3 sabbatical players

McCaw = 21/28 75% inc. 10/12 RC matches 83%. Started all matches.
Smith = 20/28 71% inc. 11/12 RC matches 92%. Started all matches.
Carter = 15/28 54% inc. 6/12 RC matches 50%. Started all matches.

For any player to be involved in over 80% of tournament matches and +70% of all matches  is a good turnaround for test players given expected injuries at any one time over a 2 year period.

Carter has been injured sure... but I don't think he's actually been missed that much. There was certainly no need to rush him back earlier... unlike previous years.

"Not missed that much". Yep. This is my point.

Despite losing that staggering number of caps (hundreds) and a whole team of players, the rebuilding All Blacks side has kept its standards up (improved) and this is why the amount of rebuilding going on hasn't been noticed and there are erroneous assumptions that the team is a veteran side due for high attrition and will be caught by more "youthful" sides. As you can see, this is just nonsense.

Well on Carter I agree... on Smith and McCaw, not really due to their playing record over the last 2 years highlighted above.

You've skewed the stats by counting back. How about just post stats for this unbeaten year?

The stats/maths in the OP is a bit dodgy!

How so Cyril?