Where you underwhelmed by the Autumn internationals?

First topic message reminder :

I was. I've been watching rugby religiously for most of the last 40 years and occasionally there are periods where the quality of the game is dire. I like competition, contest for the ball, the variety of ways teams can break down the opposition. The competition between brawn and skill, power and endurance. Occasionally, I find the game one dimensional. For most of my life I've supported Waikato and the Chiefs (I now support Wellington due to the kids growing up here). Ironically, with the current All Black selector Ian Foster at the helm I got bored. I struggled even though Fossie went to the same University hostel as me. They were so so so boring. I got to the point where I turned down free tickets to games.

I find myself having the same thoughts this autumn. I can usually watch most rugby games. I can still watch the AB's, but most of the autumn internationals  have left me cold. Reading Paul Hayward's column in the Telegraph I see I'm not the only one.

So was it a feast of rugby from Nov 8-29? No, and the sport needs to do more to encourage skill and enterprise if it is to hook fans outside the cognoscenti. You can cram as many punters as you like into the Ruck & Maul bar, and keep the post-match gig going so long it feels like a package holiday, but without good rugby the game will not draw a new congregation.

My feeling is we've stepped back in time about 5 years. It's basically dominated by defence and kicking. Better policing of the ruck and offside line would improve the game pretty quickly. Discuss......

I'd argue that if you have a true attacking side then you should have inferior possession (and potentially territory). When you are an attacking side, then once in possession you progress down the field and come away with a score. If you are effective in doing that then the % time that your team spends in the opponents half or 22 ends up being quite low because instead of racking up minutes in that part of the field you're turning it into scores.

Same goes for possession, it shouldn't be purely a case of as many minutes as possible to hold onto the ball. Again, if you only need 4-5 phases of play to go the length of the field and score then you aren't racking up possession stats either.

It would be interesting to check but I'd reckon that the best attacking sides in the professional era had lower possession and territory stats in their peak years.

This is why I tend to like the equivalent of the NFL redzone efficiency (when you get within the opponents 20 yrd line, how are you are converting it into scores). For rugby how many visits were there to the opponents 22 and what did you come away with?

Yes, but again, attacking posture isn't always for purely attacking reasons but can simply aid in getting through 80 minute games with the ball in your hands rather than in theirs; as without it, they can't score.

So I think the theory is coming down on two clear examples of each.  
We have straight defending (because you're not good enough to attack and need to defend as best you can)
Then we have Attack defending (which is giving the ball to a weak opponent then pinning them into their own half with aggressive defending and turnovers)
Then we have passive attack - (the weak team with no cutting edge or penetration but having lots of possession to toy around with)
And finally Genuine Attack - stronger team ratcheting up points on creative surges both through forwards and backs

So four ways to do two things seems to be the conclusion.

Its a byproduct of the professional game that defence is always one step ahead - the defence is reactive to the attack, but as through analysis the defending team can work out exactly what the attacking team will do the defending team is at a massive advantage.

I think its time to make the ruck a no contest and reduce the number of phases an attacking team can play to 5 ...maybe make a penalty kick worth 2 points.

.................. are we going back to League again?

League chat is coming up quite often in recent weeks!!!! Omenous!

SecretFly wrote:.................. are we going back to League again?  

League chat is coming up quite often in recent weeks!!!!  Omenous!

or next set of rule changes, just a coincidence they are tested and researched in AUS.

I'd definitely go with underwhelmed.

NZ did just enough to keep their massively dominant record intact. And none of the NH sides could make a dent in them despite this.

SA were at sixes and sevens with Ireland lucky to catch them on a bad day at the office. Think they'd already gone home by the time the Welsh match came around.

Aus understandably hamstrung with the new coach in the dressing room a wet week - their results showed that - although the usual hammering by England reverting to type and grinding them into the dust was horribly depressing. They were unlucky not to come back against Ireland and sneak the win in the end. France deserved their victory.

As for the rest, a little done, a hell of a lot more to do. France are going to p*ss everyone off by getting their act together in the shortest amount of time, win the 6N and end up in the RWC semis with the other Tri-Nations.

Same old, same old.

If France have a another below average 6N and yet come to the WC party all guns blazing then I'm sorry, but I'll be remembering the article I put up a week or so ago and thinking bad thoughts.

I don't think I'm prepared to pretend I believe in these miraculously perfect form timings any more - from any sides.  I'm getting too old to serve that beast much longer.

So Secret Training Facilities dug into the side of Mountains with high security and no cameras?????   That's not loadsa money - that's suspicious, is wot that is

SecretFly wrote:If France have a another below average 6N

Well technically since France are underwhelming more often than not these days shouldn't it be considered above average when they do well......

I think seriously this is the issue here, the tendency of the unconcious mind to subliminally filter unwanted memories of the past based on preconceived expectations, which gives an inaccurate reality of the present.

Here's the thing about dour rugby. I often enjoy watching it as much as 'attacking' rugby, sometimes more.

What matters for me is intensity, physicality. I'll happily watch two teams who employ a kicking game if the game is physical and intense and competitive.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:If France have a another below average 6N

Well technically since France are underwhelming more often than not these days shouldn't it be considered above average when they do well......

I think seriously this is the issue here, the tendency of the unconcious mind to subliminally filter unwanted memories of the past based on preconceived expectations, which gives an inaccurate reality of the present.

I'm actually talking a full view...all 15 years of it, Rodders. Plus WC record.  Now 6N history might be unwanted by some of us (and Ireland would prefer forget some of it ) but it's a true reflection of expectation when averaged out.

France have won the 6N five times, more than anyone else so far.  3 of those were GSs (equals record with Wales)  But the important point as regards their competition average is consistency; and that isn't detected in wins but in all positions over time.  
They've certainly had their dramatic recent dip - accepted - but they've been 3rd on three occasions and 2nd on three occasions.  So that's eleven years out of fifteen that they've been 3rd or higher.  4th last year suggest they're heading back up again.  I'd say their competition average is definitely in the higher reaches than in the wooden spoon terrain.

Notch wrote:Here's the thing about dour rugby. I often enjoy watching it as much as 'attacking' rugby, sometimes more.

What matters for me is intensity, physicality. I'll happily watch two teams who employ a kicking game if the game is physical and intense and competitive.

Dead on, mite! When dour rugby is good, it's very very good indeed.

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:If France have a another below average 6N

Well technically since France are underwhelming more often than not these days shouldn't it be considered above average when they do well......

I think seriously this is the issue here, the tendency of the unconcious mind to subliminally filter unwanted memories of the past based on preconceived expectations, which gives an inaccurate reality of the present.

I'm actually talking a full view...all 15 years of it, Rodders.  Plus WC record.  Now 6N history might be unwanted by some of us (and Ireland would prefer forget some of it ) but it's a true reflection of expectation when averaged out.

France have won the 6N five times, more than anyone else so far.  3 of those were GSs (equals record with Wales)  But the important point as regards their competition average is consistency; and that isn't detected in wins but in all positions over time.  
They've certainly had their dramatic recent dip - accepted - but they've been 3rd on three occasions and 2nd on three occasions.  So that's eleven years out of fifteen that they've been 3rd or higher.  4th last year suggest they're heading back up again.  I'd say their competition average is definitely in the higher reaches than in the wooden spoon terrain.

Six Nations All Time Table

Thought I'd leave this one for a while and in reviewing the posts overnight theres been quite a balanced view of the topic and the rugby played overall. A few years ago this would have been full of spits and spats but I think the general even- ness of the AI's results between North and South has brought some very balanced and well thought out responses.

The SH view here is really about the quality of the rugby played, the high error rates, low number of tries etc, mostly regardless of win or lose.

But the NH really turned up this time, far beter han any other AI's and that will give them confidence. From 1-8 plus Argie theres not an awful lot between them- closest ever I would think.

But I think it's gone a long way to signalling what to expect next year. We know now all the NH sides will be stronger than probably at any time in the past (down to Scotland at least).

I think Hansen has focussed on winning 4 matches on our tour in a way that it have us the best chance of winning all 4- not 2 or 3...all 4. We 'needed' to go to the lower batting order vs Scotland to win both the last two matches- and that showed with Oz and the Boks playing their best sides every match. We had to take the risk to get that result versus Wales.

Next year its a little earlier and we won'y have such a comprehensive home season, so I believe the bells and whistles will come off the AB game and focus will be in securing the win however. Versus England we showed we could grind out a win vis retention in the forawards and via Wales by hurting them in the oxygen stakes to steal it at the end.

I also hink Hansen has cards up his sleeve and has got a lot out of this tour. In terms of a winning focus, I think this will be the toughest side of all World cups in the end, the prep work having already started.

In all truth that's the game I think New Zealand were playing this time.  It's almost as if they were looking to make things as tough as possible for themselves and then test how a 'Dig Out' might go. They seemed to repeat the 'test' through each game.

I think they came to risk and learn.  Don't think they showed up expecting to win all games.  Don't think they showed up ready to lose some games.  But they did show up ready to risk, to put themselves under some pressure to check for responses to adversity.

Quality control.  It's terrible the things you have to do to keep your mind occupied when so far ahead of the pack.

Notch wrote:Six Nations All Time Table

Yay. We may not win much these days but we win the 6 nations overall!

It's remarkably balanced actually!

England  75
France    75
Ireland   75
Wales    75
Scotland 75
Italy      75


Even Stevens!   Glad to see even Italy wasn't as bad as people were making out.  Just goes to show you how the media can pull the wool over people's eyes

SecretFly wrote:In all truth that's the game I think New Zealand were playing this time.  It's almost as if they were looking to make things as tough as possible for themselves and then test how a 'Dig Out' might go.  They seemed to repeat the 'test' through each game.

I think they came to risk and learn.  Don't think they showed up expecting to win all games.  Don't think they showed up ready to lose some games.  But they did show up ready to risk, to put themselves under some pressure to check for responses to adversity.

Quality control.  It's terrible the things you have to do to keep your mind occupied when so far ahead of the pack.

in a nutshell...its not just the onfield rugby that's mproved I see...

Geez its going to be cat and mouse next year... be interesting how the 6N plays out with the Wcup on its shoulders...injuries particularly... no one wants to miss the World cup soooo...

NZ vs Ireland...that's all I'm saying ....

I enjoyed many of the games. the only ones I didn't really were England pretending it was 2000 and up the jumper rugby is good to beat Aus and Wales dire match against SA.

Scotland had a decent series, Ireland showed how to win against the SH ( or at least one way to win) and I thought their victories good indeed.

Taylorman wrote:
 in a nutshell...its not just the onfield rugby that's mproved I see...

Irish Provinces are old hands at playing wounded duck at different times during a year (sometimes they really are wounded! - like Leinster right now    - sometimes though its been bluffs to put pressure on and test things or disguise true intentions)  Munster often cruised close to the bone in certain games to put a future opponent into a relaxed kind of hypnosis

The Irish are masters of peaking for one-off big unstoppable performaces. That's why the HC format always suited us. And the RWC format does not. If we need to defend with that energy sapping intensity for huge portions of every game to win we will not make a RWC final. Because of the draw we could make a semi final. But there'll be nothing in the tank when meeting England, Wales or Australia in the semi.

I found the AI's hugely entertaining. France v Australia and Ireland v Australia were the best spectacles. Wales v South Africa was the worst. I've thought for a while that the "gap" is not between the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere, but between New Zealand and everyone else. This series seems to back that up.

FecklessRogue wrote:I've thought for a while that the "gap" is not between the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere, but between New Zealand and everyone else. This series seems to back that up.

In terms of the results 'wins vs losses' that's probably true but immediately beneath that layer is a string of results that could have gone against us.

On paper a head to head comparison probably has us well ahead in terms of experience and ability across the team and I think our depth in most positions (and therefore the bench) is second to none, but man are we struggling to get the space we need to apply pressure on the scoreboard.

Doors are closing all around the AB's and they keep having to be creative just to stay ahead.

Don't know about other kiwi's but despite a lacklustre AI's from our point of view the pressure for next year feels like its already started.

Taylorman wrote:

FecklessRogue wrote:I've thought for a while that the "gap" is not between the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere, but between New Zealand and everyone else. This series seems to back that up.

In terms of the results 'wins vs losses' that's probably true but immediately beneath that layer is a string of results that could have gone against us.

On paper a head to head comparison probably has us well ahead in terms of experience and ability across the team and I think our depth in most positions (and therefore the bench) is second to none, but man are we struggling to get the space we need to apply pressure on the scoreboard.

Doors are closing all around the AB's and they keep having to be creative just to stay ahead.

Don't know about other kiwi's but despite a lacklustre AI's from our point of view the pressure for next year feels like its already started.

I think your right about many close games this year. I think Hansen been developing the depth of the squad this year. Partly due to injuries and partly with an eye on next year. There's been a lot more starts and extended playing time for 2nd string players and a good look at 3rd and 4th choice options.

Here's a couple of examples. Kerr Barlow was the 2nd choice halfback last year. Injuries forced him out for much of this year and the mantle has fallen to Perenara. He generally played 4-6 minutes a game start of the year. The second half of the year saw 10-14 minutes and starts. At loosehead we started with Woodcock, backed up by Crockett. With the injury to Woodcock we've seen Crocket step up and improve, and Moody develop as the next cab on the rank. We've tried 4 12st 5's at various times this year, given Fekitoa and SBW a chance to develop. For me this year is about development and establishing a good 30-40 player base for next year.

In terms of the original post. It's not so much about the AB's or any one team. It's more about a general tend to a very defensive game. I enjoy a good hard game. If all the games end up be one dimensional it loses it's appeal to me. I think that's where we are heading. I hope I'm wrong.

The conditions in northern Europe in November will always result in more defensive rugby though. Unless we make it an indoor game (too expensive), or try and accelerate global warming (too apocalyptic).

FecklessRogue wrote:The conditions in northern Europe in November will always result in more defensive rugby though. Unless we make it an indoor game (too expensive), or try and accelerate global warming (too apocalyptic).

Possibly. I think it's more than this. I think rugby is a bit cyclic I am pretty sure that in both 2004 and in 2010 the IRB issued guidance to referees to address many of the same issues I think are creeping back into the game. For me its about the ruck and offside. I think a reminder to referees would clean the game up.

It is cyclic, 2009 was a low point in terms of entertainment. A couple of years later the Reds, Australia and Leinster were winning silverware with running rugby. This happens with all sports and isn't necessarily explained or fixed by changing the rules or interpretations. It happens naturally anyway. It's good that there are multiple ways to win.

With the offside line I actually think the southern teams were taken by surprise by the line speed of the European's who tended to be incredibly quick and absolutely relentless. It may be one part of the game that the European's are actually better. But there was a lot of offside's in every game as always, but is that a new thing?

One thing Ireland did at the ruck against South Africa, that I don't actually see any other team doing is hacking at the ball with their feet when it comes out of a ruck and kicking it up the field which I believe is legal. It's brilliant for turning an attacking team around and sending them scrambling backwards in a panic. It really turns momentum around. I don't know why other teams don't seem to do it. In fact it seemed to take the Springboks completely by surprise.

For once, maybe the south aren't tactically ahead of us.

FecklessRogue wrote:For once, maybe the south aren't tactically ahead of us.

The NH has done it before. It was only England last time.

blackcanelion wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

FecklessRogue wrote:I've thought for a while that the "gap" is not between the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere, but between New Zealand and everyone else. This series seems to back that up.

In terms of the results 'wins vs losses' that's probably true but immediately beneath that layer is a string of results that could have gone against us.

On paper a head to head comparison probably has us well ahead in terms of experience and ability across the team and I think our depth in most positions (and therefore the bench) is second to none, but man are we struggling to get the space we need to apply pressure on the scoreboard.

Doors are closing all around the AB's and they keep having to be creative just to stay ahead.

Don't know about other kiwi's but despite a lacklustre AI's from our point of view the pressure for next year feels like its already started.

I think your right about many close games this year. I think Hansen been developing the depth of the squad this year. Partly due to injuries and partly with an eye on next year. There's been a lot more starts and extended playing time for 2nd string players and a good look at 3rd and 4th choice options.

Here's a couple of examples. Kerr Barlow was the 2nd choice halfback last year. Injuries forced him out for much of this year and the mantle has fallen to Perenara. He generally played 4-6 minutes a game start of the year. The second half of the year saw 10-14 minutes and starts. At loosehead we started with  Woodcock, backed up by Crockett. With the injury to Woodcock we've seen Crocket step up and improve, and Moody develop as the next cab on the rank. We've tried 4 12st 5's at various times this year, given Fekitoa and SBW a chance to develop. For me this year is about development and establishing a good 30-40 player base for next year.

In terms of the original post. It's not so much about the AB's or any one team. It's more about a general tend to a very defensive game. I enjoy a good hard game. If all the games end up be one dimensional it loses it's appeal to me. I think that's where we are heading. I hope I'm wrong.

Yes building depth comes at the expense of continuity and consistency, playing to certain gameplan's. 10 and 13 major disruptions to our patterns. I think with the AB's its more about what Hansen's not telling us.

With the games themselves I think it was a combo of our sides at the end of the year combined with an improvement across all the NH sides. We aren't getting our way anymore so we got a lot of 'when push comes to shove' matches. We don't get to do as many things at this time of the year as we do earlier at home, and they still don't get to score tries, so the matches become long battles of attrition.

The mid year tours still prove that the gap is wider when the NH sides travel but how long that remains true we don't know. But I think we all got to see what we are in for next year...

FecklessRogue wrote:...2009 was a low point in terms of entertainment...

The Lions series in 2009 was great entertainment. Hard to see that year as a low point.

Yes actually I agree the Lions series was brilliant. The 2nd test is legendary already. The Lions were the better attacking team but South Africa were the best kicking team and won the series. Which was the pattern that year.

I sometimes say "entertainment" when I actually mean "more passing and running". But I'm a Leinster man (ie ladyboy) so I love the fancy flashy stuff.

FecklessRogue wrote:It is cyclic, 2009 was a low point in terms of entertainment. A couple of years later the Reds, Australia and Leinster were winning silverware with running rugby. This happens with all sports and isn't necessarily explained or fixed by changing the rules or interpretations. It happens naturally anyway. It's good that there are multiple ways to win.

With the offside line I actually think the southern teams were taken by surprise by the line speed of the European's who tended to be incredibly quick and absolutely relentless. It may be one part of the game that the European's are actually better. But there was a lot of offside's in every game as always, but is that a new thing?

One thing Ireland did at the ruck against South Africa, that I don't actually see any other team doing is hacking at the ball with their feet when it comes out of a ruck and kicking it up the field which I believe is legal. It's brilliant for turning an attacking team around and sending them scrambling backwards in a panic. It really turns momentum around. I don't know why other teams don't seem to do it. In fact it seemed to take the Springboks completely by surprise.

For once, maybe the south aren't tactically ahead of us.

I think the issue is, as JK and a  number of other ex players, current coaches and commentators have alluded to is that it's often illegal and is penalised more strictly in the SH. As I've pointed out we've had similar issues in the past and the IRB has stepped in. I've said that we can expect more of the same next year in September. One option is to just allow killing of the rucks, a lot more off side and boring in the scrums in next years super rugby competition. I'd certainty back that in terms of preparation for the WC. In terms of my enjoyment of the game I'd be tempted to take a year off.

p.s. I'm pretty happy with the scrums this autumn as a spectacle I don't mind angled entry into the scrum. But there's no point in emphasising straight pushing if all your opponents aren't. When in Rome and all that.

This isn't about the results of the Autumn internationals. As an AB's fan, Hansen managed to experiment and take care of England, Wales and Scotland. Scotland was probably the closest and was playing a AB's C team. As much as anything this is about general rugby and watching the neutral games for me. I found it relatively dire. More of this and I'll probably fall asleep during the Wales v England wc clash.

Sorry if that sounds incredibly negative. I have no doubt many people probably found all the games exciting and enthralling. I didn't and I guess that's what ranting about. Listening to others would probably make for better discussion, but it was a long weekend looking after the kids....

Telegraph's 'World XV'

1 Joe Marler (England)
2. Agustin Creevy (Argentina)
3. Owen Franks (All Blacks)
4. Courtney Lawes (England)
5. Paul O'Connell (Ireland)
6. Jerome Kaino (All Blacks)
7. Chris Robshaw (England, capt)
8. Jamie Heaslip (Ireland)
9. Aaron Smith (All Blacks)
10. Johnny Sexton (Ireland)
11. Jonny May (England)
12. Jean de Villiers (South Africa)
13. Robbie Henshaw (Ireland)
14. Tommy Bowe (Ireland)
15. Willie Le Roux (South Africa)

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11367498

It is the Telegraph. They are to rugby reporting what avocado is to creme anglais. That puts them ahead of the Times. Plenty of other XV's out there. Thought Guscott's approach in the BBC was easier 1 for NH and another for the South.

That team is silly. Although it is nice to see Bowe in it. He is a try machine and quite an under rated player for a guy who seems to have a telepathic understanding of positioning and timing and a very

Taylorman wrote:
Don't know about other kiwi's but despite a lacklustre AI's from our point of view the pressure for next year feels like its already started.

I think this Kiwi team has shown themselves capable of dealing with pressure and expectation like no team in history, and the pressure will be nothing like the last 2 RWCs now they have the chokers tag put to bed.

Every other team to win the RWC has suffered a post tournament dip, sometimes never to recover but the ABs have gone on to become even more dominant.

Physically I think they are not the best anymore, and the depthwise the conveyor belt of talent seems to be drying up but when it comes to skill, mental strength, fitness and tactics I think they are a cut above. Just when a side thinks they have the template to win, they adapt and come back stronger and smarter.

I disagree with a lot of the comments - I thought this was fabulous autumn - one that has slowed down the relentless drift towards power, size and athleticism on the eve of the RWC - and shown that with the right tactics, commitment, innovation and appreciation of the laws that a supposedly physically inferior team can still win the day - otherwise the Toulonification of rugby union will continue.

If England and to a lesser extent SA had have had dominant Autumns I'd have been concerned about the RWC and future of the game.

Jeez, what a side, I'm embarrassed for the Telegraph. Mind you, I'm always embarrassed for the Telegraph. Looks a bit like a Guscott selected team - full of vague nonsense.

Surely the world team would be the ABs with a little strengthening around the FR, OHs and one wing.

Rodders wrote:If England and to a lesser extent SA had have had dominant Autumns I'd have been concerned about the RWC and future of the game.

Why?

rodders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
Don't know about other kiwi's but despite a lacklustre AI's from our point of view the pressure for next year feels like its already started.

I think this Kiwi team has shown themselves capable of dealing with pressure and expectation like no team in history, and the pressure will be nothing like the last 2 RWCs now they have the chokers tag put to bed.

Every other team to win the RWC has suffered a post tournament dip, sometimes never to recover but the ABs have gone on to become even more dominant.

Physically I think they are not the best anymore, and the depthwise the conveyor belt of talent seems to be drying up but when it comes to skill, mental strength, fitness and tactics I think they are a cut above. Just when a side thinks they have the template to win, they adapt and come back stronger and smarter.

I disagree with a lot of the comments - I thought this was fabulous autumn - one that has slowed down the relentless drift towards power, size and athleticism on the eve of the RWC - and shown that with the right tactics, commitment, innovation and appreciation of the laws that a supposedly physically inferior team can still win the day - otherwise the Toulonification of rugby union will continue.

If England and to a lesser extent SA had have had dominant Autumns I'd have been concerned about the RWC and future of the game.

Really? Ireland were the most successful (aside from NZ but they always are) and their game seem to be very much based on athleticism, hard work and constant pressure. Both Wales and England, while less successful, seemed to be too. In fact the only team who were really playing adventurous rugby in every game was Australia, and results wise they had a very poor tour.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Jeez, what a side, I'm embarrassed for the Telegraph. Mind you, I'm always embarrassed for the Telegraph. Looks a bit like a Guscott selected team - full of vague nonsense.

Surely the world team would be the ABs with a little strengthening around the FR, OHs and one wing.

Why go so far? They seldom need to.

The World Team IS the All Blacks. Everyone knows that. Therefore the other business is just yet another post competition list for discussion purposes and bit of fun - about as necessary and meaningful as the 'Lions' Selection that's already got an outing here.
When I see 606 abandon endless needless Lists (endlessly revised), then I'll criticise lists in the printed media

The props are NZ's biggest weakness I think. Coles is improving rapidly and his set piece is strong and Hansen will give him a kick up the jacksie to reel his red mist in, but I'm fine with him. Woodcock and Franks haven't beasted anyone for a long time and teams will definitely target them at scrum and maul time. Sure their passing game adds continuity but I'd probably swap those strengths for more physical players and better scrummagers.

People often pick World XV players with an eye on their own team i.e. who would I pick to go into my team. This means that you'd pick the best player for your team's gameplan but not necessarily the best player. I think Vermeulen outplayed Read this year but I'd still have Read as his skill set fits the way the ABs are trying to play better than Vermeulen. Same with Aaron Smith, who isn't physical but his passes are key to NZ being able to blow teams off the park in the last ten minutes of games.

disneychilly wrote:The props are NZ's biggest weakness I think. Coles is improving rapidly and his set piece is strong and Hansen will give him a kick up the jacksie to reel his red mist in, but I'm fine with him. Woodcock and Franks haven't beasted anyone for a long time and teams will definitely target them at scrum and maul time. Sure their passing game adds continuity but I'd probably swap those strengths for more physical players and better scrummagers.

People often pick World XV players with an eye on their own team i.e. who would I pick to go into my team. This means that you'd pick the best player for your team's gameplan but not necessarily the best player. I think Vermeulen outplayed Read this year but I'd still have Read as his skill set fits the way the ABs are trying to play better than Vermeulen. Same with Aaron Smith, who isn't physical but his passes are key to NZ being able to blow teams off the park in the last ten minutes of games.

NZs dicipline in terms tends to be quite good in general. However, how much of that is good coaching or just something that comes with winning all the time. My point being you are more likely to get frustrated if you are losing.

Never been more excited about Scottish Rugby, we scored a barrowload of tries for the first time in years. I reckon we scored more in these 3 games than we have in the last few seasons combined!

Bathman_in_London wrote:

rodders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
Don't know about other kiwi's but despite a lacklustre AI's from our point of view the pressure for next year feels like its already started.

I think this Kiwi team has shown themselves capable of dealing with pressure and expectation like no team in history, and the pressure will be nothing like the last 2 RWCs now they have the chokers tag put to bed.

Every other team to win the RWC has suffered a post tournament dip, sometimes never to recover but the ABs have gone on to become even more dominant.

Physically I think they are not the best anymore, and the depthwise the conveyor belt of talent seems to be drying up but when it comes to skill, mental strength, fitness and tactics I think they are a cut above. Just when a side thinks they have the template to win, they adapt and come back stronger and smarter.

I disagree with a lot of the comments - I thought this was fabulous autumn - one that has slowed down the relentless drift towards power, size and athleticism on the eve of the RWC - and shown that with the right tactics, commitment, innovation and appreciation of the laws that a supposedly physically inferior team can still win the day - otherwise the Toulonification of rugby union will continue.

If England and to a lesser extent SA had have had dominant Autumns I'd have been concerned about the RWC and future of the game.

Really? Ireland were the most successful (aside from NZ but they always are) and their game seem to be very much based on athleticism, hard work and constant pressure. Both Wales and England, while less successful, seemed to be too. In fact the only team who were really playing adventurous rugby in every game was Australia, and results wise they had a very poor tour.

No I don't think so - I think there is a clear pattern in certain teams selection policy to go for the biggest, most powerful players - youth, pace.

I think the ABs and Ireland are the exception in the top tier sides picking guys who are fit, technically sound and clever, irrespective of their size and age - e.g. D'arcy, Conrad Smith, Madigan - in the pack guys Heaslip, Reid, McCaw - there are a lot of similarities.

Yes there are some powerful specimens like SBW, Savea etc. but there isn't the obsession with size and athleticism that there is with some sides, and more emphasis on fitness and technique.

rodders wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

rodders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
Don't know about other kiwi's but despite a lacklustre AI's from our point of view the pressure for next year feels like its already started.

I think this Kiwi team has shown themselves capable of dealing with pressure and expectation like no team in history, and the pressure will be nothing like the last 2 RWCs now they have the chokers tag put to bed.

Every other team to win the RWC has suffered a post tournament dip, sometimes never to recover but the ABs have gone on to become even more dominant.

Physically I think they are not the best anymore, and the depthwise the conveyor belt of talent seems to be drying up but when it comes to skill, mental strength, fitness and tactics I think they are a cut above. Just when a side thinks they have the template to win, they adapt and come back stronger and smarter.

I disagree with a lot of the comments - I thought this was fabulous autumn - one that has slowed down the relentless drift towards power, size and athleticism on the eve of the RWC - and shown that with the right tactics, commitment, innovation and appreciation of the laws that a supposedly physically inferior team can still win the day - otherwise the Toulonification of rugby union will continue.

If England and to a lesser extent SA had have had dominant Autumns I'd have been concerned about the RWC and future of the game.

Really? Ireland were the most successful (aside from NZ but they always are) and their game seem to be very much based on athleticism, hard work and constant pressure. Both Wales and England, while less successful, seemed to be too. In fact the only team who were really playing adventurous rugby in every game was Australia, and results wise they had a very poor tour.

No I don't think so - I think there is a clear pattern in certain teams selection policy to go for the biggest, most powerful players - youth, pace.

I think the ABs and Ireland are the exception in the top tier sides picking guys who are fit, technically sound and clever, irrespective of their size and age - e.g. D'arcy, Conrad Smith, Madigan - in the pack guys Heaslip, Reid, McCaw - there are a lot of similarities.

Yes there are some powerful specimens like SBW, Savea etc. but there isn't the obsession with size and athleticism that there is with some sides, and more emphasis on fitness and technique.

I suggest you compare player sizes and weights. There is not much difference between any of them.

Take no 8's as an example

TOby Faletau 1.87 meters, 110 KG
Keiran Read 1.93 meters, 112 KG
Duane Vermeulen 1.96 meters, 116 kg
Wycliff Palu 1.94 meters, 120kg
Billy VUnipola 1.88 meters, 126 kg
Jamie Heaslip 1.93 meters, 109kg
Sergio Parrise 1.96 meters, 112 kg

Let's take no 15
Israel Folau 1.93 meters, 102 kg
Rob Kearney 1.83 meters, 95 kg
Israel Dagg 1.86 meters 96 kg
Willie le Roux 1.86 meters, 90 kg
Mike Brown 1.83 meters 89kg
Lee Halfpenny 1.78 meters, 85 kg

Let's take lock
Victor Matfield 2.01 meters 110 kg
Eben Etzebeth 2.03 meters 121 kg
COurtney Lawes 2.01 meters 118 kg
POC 1.98 meters 110 kg
Brodie Retallic 2.04 meters 121 kg
Sam WHitelock 2.03 meters 114 kg


OK, I am tired now, but you get my drift

rodders wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

rodders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
Don't know about other kiwi's but despite a lacklustre AI's from our point of view the pressure for next year feels like its already started.

I think this Kiwi team has shown themselves capable of dealing with pressure and expectation like no team in history, and the pressure will be nothing like the last 2 RWCs now they have the chokers tag put to bed.

Every other team to win the RWC has suffered a post tournament dip, sometimes never to recover but the ABs have gone on to become even more dominant.

Physically I think they are not the best anymore, and the depthwise the conveyor belt of talent seems to be drying up but when it comes to skill, mental strength, fitness and tactics I think they are a cut above. Just when a side thinks they have the template to win, they adapt and come back stronger and smarter.

I disagree with a lot of the comments - I thought this was fabulous autumn - one that has slowed down the relentless drift towards power, size and athleticism on the eve of the RWC - and shown that with the right tactics, commitment, innovation and appreciation of the laws that a supposedly physically inferior team can still win the day - otherwise the Toulonification of rugby union will continue.

If England and to a lesser extent SA had have had dominant Autumns I'd have been concerned about the RWC and future of the game.

Really? Ireland were the most successful (aside from NZ but they always are) and their game seem to be very much based on athleticism, hard work and constant pressure. Both Wales and England, while less successful, seemed to be too. In fact the only team who were really playing adventurous rugby in every game was Australia, and results wise they had a very poor tour.

No I don't think so - I think there is a clear pattern in certain teams selection policy to go for the biggest, most powerful players - youth, pace.

I think the ABs and Ireland are the exception in the top tier sides picking guys who are fit, technically sound and clever, irrespective of their size and age - e.g. D'arcy, Conrad Smith, Madigan - in the pack guys Heaslip, Reid, McCaw - there are a lot of similarities.

Yes there are some powerful specimens like SBW, Savea etc. but there isn't the obsession with size and athleticism that there is with some sides, and more emphasis on fitness and technique.

I'd disagree there Rodders. Ireland are picking big lumps like most teams. Jack McGrath ahead of Kilcoyne, Rhys Ruddock ahead of O'Donnell or Dom Ryan, Mike McCarthy ahead of Dave Foley against South Africa, Henshaw and Payne ahead of Olding etc. It makes sense to pick big solid players if you're going to play like Ireland plays so I can see Schmidts point.

profitius wrote:
I'd disagree there Rodders. Ireland are picking big lumps like most teams. Jack McGrath ahead of Kilcoyne, Rhys Ruddock ahead of O'Donnell or Dom Ryan, Mike McCarthy ahead of Dave Foley against South Africa, Henshaw and Payne ahead of Olding etc. It makes sense to pick big solid players if you're going to play like Ireland plays so I can see Schmidts point.

Of course they are - but physically to a man Ireland are smaller than SA or England in the pack or Australia in the backs - as are NZ.

rodders wrote:

profitius wrote:
I'd disagree there Rodders. Ireland are picking big lumps like most teams. Jack McGrath ahead of Kilcoyne, Rhys Ruddock ahead of O'Donnell or Dom Ryan, Mike McCarthy ahead of Dave Foley against South Africa, Henshaw and Payne ahead of Olding etc. It makes sense to pick big solid players if you're going to play like Ireland plays so I can see Schmidts point.

Of course they are - but physically to a man Ireland are smaller than SA or England in the pack or Australia in the backs - as are NZ.

No they are not.

I compared lock, eighthman and fullback

One is bigger, one is smaller and the other two equal.