ALL BLACKS 2016 the Future

First topic message reminder :

Today Steve Hansen signed a contract to 2017,he hopes the rest of his coaching team will stay with him.
With a 90% win record to date he has done well and hopefully when the core players leave post RWC
he will have a good team to replace them.

The players concerned Mealamu,Woodcock,McCaw,Carter,Nonu and Conrad Smith are out of contract
and may well decide to retire from test Rugby.

Hooker,and Centre[13] may be a problem iniatially plus back up 9`s but most of the rest are covered
Front five and back row has some depth,Matt Todd for McCaw,Cane as super sub etc.Thoughts at least
the debacles of 1991,1998 and 2009 may be avoided.

A new RWC/IRB number1 side will be established,losses incurred until they get up to speed but they
may win the odd game 2016 before retaining there rightful place back at Number 1

The dullard umbrella defence has pretty much killed off blow outs. That's a fact. Keeps teams in the game but they always end up losing as they don't have enough nous to negotiate tries for themselves. Hansen has strategies to get around this. Like against Wales.

I think you have to judge the opposition and the expectation of performance ebop. You really think Aus and SA are strong that's fair enough but I don't. NZs edge comes from having better and more established players at the moment.

Taylorman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

disneychilly wrote:Hansen ten years ago isn't the same as Hansen now. With eight years' experience as an AB assistant and three in the top spot, don't you think he actually learned anything in that time?

Does experience necessarily make you a better coach?

Can't believe anyone would actually ask that. In any sport, profession or even simple hobbies.

How about Clive woodward 1997 vs Clive Woodward 2005. Andy Robinson was a top class domestic coach in the mid 90s yet after years as Woodwards no.2 he was hopeless both for ENG and subsequently Scotland. John Mitchell won 2 3Ns, had a 83% win rate with NZ yet his record post NZ has been very poor. Jake White had no experience bar junior rugby prior to taking up the bok job in 2004, after he left he has done ok, no where near as prolific.

All I was suggesting was that its not a be all and end all. Not a sure thing. Experience can help but it can also hinder, draw coaches into their shells and develop a policy of trying not to lose rather than going out to win.

No 7&1/2 wrote:To summarise then I think we have to wait until (and if) he gets another job. Bit of a failure at Wales in comparison to others and has kept NZ on top in a time where Aus and SA are struggling.

I think you're half right. Without doubt Australia has struggled over thew last three years. They were below par under Deans and their results have been poor under McKenzie. I'd disagree re SA though. Their two weak periods since they were reintroduced to world rugby were without doubt the lead in to the '95 and '03 world cups. Even considering their recent loss to Wales and Ireland they have performed well (they're sitting at about 70% for the last 3 years). If I was to pick a second team that's really struggling during Hansen's tenure it would be France.

emack2 wrote:The point is surely that the team has been rebuilt,and that they continue to win injuries
have been coped with.The ability of a good team is to win ugly the AB`s have been doing
that all year.

Key players like Carter,Cruden,Nonu,Woodcock,Cory Jane,Romano,Dagg,McCaw,Read,Kaino
have all been injured.Substitutes identified one loss all year and that one could have gone
either way.

This year has been at least since Ellis Park a dry run for the RWC trying to foresee and
overcome all obstacles.

Shadow boxing I could name the squad and first team now and wouldn't be far wrong
barring injuries.Circumstances change things do you REALLY think if the RC had been
on the line at Ellis Park.Barrett would have started at10?

Wouldn't say they have been largely rebuilt given that they still utilise

Dagg, Smith, Nonu, Cruden, Read, McCaw, Kaino, Whitelock, Franks, Mealamu in their first team.

They have new wings, a new scrumhalf and a new lock. Wings are easily interchangeable at any times and with a strong pack which still is utilising 6 starters from the Henry era its a lot less volatile for chaps like Retallick to slot in and for Smith to build his test match 9 experience.

If anything continuity of key players in key positions has been what NZ have built their continued success in. No crazy retirements, no massive en masse injuries and they have been able to bring on some talented youngsters also.

7.5, SA are strong don't worry about that. Oz going through a rough patch. England, Wales, Ireland and even dear old Scotland are on the up. Don't know much about France. Argies on the up. Mate, everyone's on the up. I mentioned it before. The 'performances' of old don't happen as often these days as defence has killed it off. It's more attritional, and I'm glad to say, the ABs have adapted and are doing ok thanks to all involved and even our coach.

I wonder if they are tweaking their game. Here are some stats I collected this year for the AB's.

Are the AB's concentrating on fitness and aerobic threshold as opposed to brute strength.
Opposition out scored the AB's in 7 of 14 1st quarters in 2014
Opposition out scored the AB's in 5 out of 14 3rd quarters in 2014.
Opposition outscored the AB's in 2 out of 14 2nd quarters
Opposition outscored the AB's in 2 out of 14 4th quarters.
More often than they're winning the end of each half...

The AB's score more tries than their opposition. The AB's score more than their opposition down the flanks. By my count roughly 50% of the AB's tries are result from attacks down the flanks. Either creating overlaps, cross kicks, inter passing or other attacks near the edge of the field. Successful attacks on the tryline by the opposition are often far more direct. Kind of ties in in with the first point.

Interesting stats there blackcanelion. I don't know if it's real, but think of all the goals in football that are scored in extra time to win the game. Usually 3 or 4 minutes. There must be a psychological tipping point where players switch on or off.

ebop wrote:7.5, SA are strong don't worry about that. Oz going through a rough patch. England, Wales, Ireland and even dear old Scotland are on the up. Don't know much about France. Argies on the up. Mate, everyone's on the up. I mentioned it before. The 'performances' of old don't happen as often these days as defence has killed it off. It's more attritional, and I'm glad to say, the ABs have adapted and are doing ok thanks to all involved and even our coach.

England are still there or there abouts every year but we're no where near a great side. If you're happy with the performances and rate hansen as a great coach fair enough. I can see where it would be doubted.

ebop wrote:Interesting stats there blackcanelion. I don't know if it's real, but think of all the goals in football that are scored in extra time to win the game. Usually 3 or 4 minutes. There must be a psychological tipping point where players switch on or off.

It'd be more useful if I'd done it for the last few years and for the other major teams. I'm a geek. I wish someone would put some meaningful stats out there. Not saying these are that great, but there must be a number of analysts out there collecting useful info. Things like dominant tackles as opposed to tackles, quick ruck ball as opposed to rucks won. I'm not sure metres run tells you much. Someone in the back three can run 10-20 metres on taking a high ball if he isn't under pressure.

Don't get me wrong 7.5, I'm not dying in the sand over it. People are more than welcome to underestimate Hansen and write off the ABs. I'm quite happy about it actually.

I'm by no means writing off NZ. They're the best. As you suggest the margin between them and the rest (NH) is getting closer, partly down to other teams starting to get it together but partly because Hansen is a good but not great coach for me.

ebop wrote:I get the sense that people don't rate a perfect season last year, an over 90% win rate over 42 tests, a RWC winner, multiple 3/4 nations champs, continual NH whitewashes very highly. Any half wit coach could have achieved all that given the woeful state of world rugby right now.

Why do you get that sense? No one is saying anyone could do that. The conversation I was hoping to have was as sensible discussion on how was it achieved?

Personally I think he is a good coach and I have noticed some changes he has implemented well.

Anyone know who is most likely to captain the side once McCaw has left? Presumably McCaw will retire after the WC. By that time he will easily be the most capped player ever. He may even break the 150 mark if he plays every game between now and then.

Fair enough 7.5, out of curiosity, who would you rate as a great coach? It would be useful to get a reference point.

Guns, if anyone here actually knew how it was achieved over and above all the points others have already posted, they'd be ABs. Maybe ph McCaw, he's a top bloke, +64 03 456 67774

I think they're few and far between. Probably in the last 10 years or so you'd be looking towards Henry and White for me.

ebop wrote:Guns, if anyone here actually knew how it was achieved over and above all the points others have already posted, they'd be ABs. Maybe ph McCaw, he's a top bloke, +64 03 456 67774

Why did you post the number?

The original point I was making was that I have read sooooo many articles on Hanson and yet there is very little insight as to how he achieves the success he has, the things he has implemented and the methods he uses.

GunsGerms wrote: have read sooooo many articles on Hanson and yet there is very little insight as to how he achieves the success he has, the things he has implemented and the methods he uses.

You are maybe not paying enough attention if you can't even remember how to spell his name.

Sorry Hansin, I mean Hansan.

Actually it is Henson isn't it?

Guns, you saw Tman's post? I'd say he summed up the general consensus very well. You want more? As in actual training methods, tactics, one on one management etc? Good luck finding that out mate. The best don't tell others why they're the best. That's 101.

ebop wrote:Guns, you saw Tman's post? I'd say he summed up the general consensus very well. You want more? As in actual training methods, tactics, one on one management etc? Good luck finding that out mate. The best don't tell others why they're the best. That's 101.

I didnt bother reading Taylorman's post as it was fairly aggressive. he was clearly upset over something. Kia and Disney's posts were useful.

Yes exactly, I am interested in the methods he has implemented, man management, tactics yes.

7.5 we are not dominating teams like we did under Henry up north. But you look at the display at Eden Park against Australia this year and name another side in world rugby who made them look as woeful. Similarly, look at how Australia played in Brisbane and how well SA played in Ellis Park and then compare those performances against other sides this year. Perhaps two tests against France in June for Australia.

I agree that this is not a dominant side. But it is a versatile side. It knows how to win games it has every right to lose. Against England in November, it wasn't working for them out wide. So they went up the guts. Against Wales, a few opportunities to open them up and it was good night nurse.

I sometimes feel people underestimate the difficulty of achieving consistency. Intensity and motivation are not able to be conjured up easily. Especially if you keep winning. Look at how the intensity ramped up though after the abject Sydney performance.

England can lose 5 consecutive games and still can be thought of threats for the RWC as they are at home and still have room for improvement. The world leaps upon a NZ loss saying they have peaked too early and are aging and in decline. 2 losses and 2 draws in three years.

That's the pressure of being at the top. Everybody wants to knock you off and knock you down. Build up their own sides' fortunes and chip away at the number one.

That's fine and perfectly natural. In a way it helps drive NZ to stay at the top. No one's saying Hansen's the best thing since sliced bread but NZ's record under his reign is no accident.

Keep the negative comments coming. I don't think it serves NZ's cause to be overwhelming favourites. Far better for them to be afraid of the chasing pack as there's good reason. It only takes one performance to throw NZ out of the tournament and no team can go unbeaten for any prolonged period.

The trick is to be able to adapt to overcome adversity. NZ every now and then win at a canter but frankly I find these close fought wins more rewarding than the convincing wins as they mirror what will surely be encountered in the knockout stages and that's when having the ability to wrestle control of a match from an imperfect performance is vital.

There are many things NZ fans would like to see improve under Hansen. The breakdown saw us ship points when we were passive on defence, our lineout suffered without Read and Whitelock, our scrum sometimes imploded after changes, our attack was not fluid and we were too lateral, our control of the game from 10 was lacking at times and our midfield looked lost with all the injury and enforced changes.

There's a great deal of room for improvement as there is for all sides. The key is to arrive at each crunch match on an upward curve. Unfortunately that is not always possible so you must find ways to dominate periods of a match. That may be a risky endeavour as sometimes you leave yourself with too much work to do like Ellis Park this year but finding ways to win when the pressure is on has been lacking in other teams with more firepower at their disposal.

Ultimately that is why Hansen's reign gives Kiwis confidence despite concerns for how close the margin of winning and losing has been.

How much of NZ's consistency can be traced back to McCaw's exemplary captaincy? He is Mr consistency and seems to be able to rally his team as and when required. NZ have come from behind quite a lot in 2014.

There are many factors GG and the example you give is indeed a great one. The guy obviously hates losing and he knows how to press the right buttons.

But you still have to work to a plan and nothing much is improvised. You're working to things you practise in training and that comes from coaching.

Leadership is definitely important though and along with Richie there is a decent core of experience money simply can't buy. Well not for less than 1.5 Million per year. kiwi dollars that is.

Who will be the next NZ captain?

Kieran Read. Already has captained NZ in McCaw's absence. Has Crusaders' captaincy as well.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:7.5 we are not dominating teams like we did under Henry up north. But you look at the display at Eden Park against Australia this year and name another side in world rugby who made them look as woeful. Similarly, look at how Australia played in Brisbane and how well SA played in Ellis Park and then compare those performances against other sides this year. Perhaps two tests against France in June for Australia.

I agree that this is not a dominant side. But it is a versatile side. It knows how to win games it has every right to lose. Against England in November, it wasn't working for them out wide. So they went up the guts. Against Wales, a few opportunities to open them up and it was good night nurse.

I sometimes feel people underestimate the difficulty of achieving consistency. Intensity and motivation are not able to be conjured up easily. Especially if you keep winning. Look at how the intensity ramped up though after the abject Sydney performance.

England can lose 5 consecutive games and still can be thought of threats for the RWC as they are at home and still have room for improvement. The world leaps upon a NZ loss saying they have peaked too early and are aging and in decline. 2 losses and 2 draws in three years.

That's the pressure of being at the top. Everybody wants to knock you off and knock you down. Build up their own sides' fortunes and chip away at the number one.

That's fine and perfectly natural. In a way it helps drive NZ to stay at the top. No one's saying Hansen's the best thing since sliced bread but NZ's record under his reign is no accident.

Keep the negative comments coming. I don't think it serves NZ's cause to be overwhelming favourites. Far better for them to be afraid of the chasing pack as there's good reason. It only takes one performance to throw NZ out of the tournament and no team can go unbeaten for any prolonged period.

The trick is to be able to adapt to overcome adversity. NZ every now and then win at a canter but frankly I find these close fought wins more rewarding than the convincing wins as they mirror what will surely be encountered in the knockout stages and that's when having the ability to wrestle control of a match from an imperfect performance is vital.

There are many things NZ fans would like to see improve under Hansen. The breakdown saw us ship points when we were passive on defence, our lineout suffered without Read and Whitelock, our scrum sometimes imploded after changes, our attack was not fluid and we were too lateral, our control of the game from 10 was lacking at times and our midfield looked lost with all the injury and enforced changes.

There's a great deal of room for improvement as there is for all sides. The key is to arrive at each crunch match on an upward curve. Unfortunately that is not always possible so you must find ways to dominate periods of a match. That may be a risky endeavour as sometimes you leave yourself with too much work to do like Ellis Park this year but finding ways to win when the pressure is on has been lacking in other teams with more firepower at their disposal.

Ultimately that is why Hansen's reign gives Kiwis confidence despite concerns for how close the margin of winning and losing has been.

What negative comments? To say Hansen isn't great? For me he isn't.

I don't mean you and I don't mean Hansen. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. It'd be boring if we all agreed.

But there seems to be a change between lauding NZ and trying to knock them down. I'm much more at ease when NZ are being dismissed as it keeps the team on edge.

GunsGerms wrote:

ebop wrote:Guns, you saw Tman's post? I'd say he summed up the general consensus very well. You want more? As in actual training methods, tactics, one on one management etc? Good luck finding that out mate. The best don't tell others why they're the best. That's 101.

I didnt bother reading Taylorman's post as it was fairly aggressive. he was clearly upset over something. Kia and Disney's posts were useful.

Yes exactly, I am interested in the methods he has implemented, man management, tactics yes.

Wel if you can see one word of aggression in my last outline then please point it out guns- and I think you will find 'methods he has implemented, man management, tactics' are all there, and elsewhere.

but fair enough..I'll stop banging my head against the wall...the message...clearly...isn't...being heard. Good luck with the 6N

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Kieran Read. Already has captained NZ in McCaw's absence. Has Crusaders' captaincy as well.

Yeah Reads the easy pick. Has captained 8 for 8 wins including leading the series versus the French during McCaws sabatical. And he's right out of the McCaw mould in terms of his leadership style. Leads by example, from the front, focussed but not the rave and rant type. Ideally suited to the AB culture.

Gatland must be crying into his cornflakes reading this news…guess he will have to wait until 2017 to take over.

Wayne Smith is back.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/64357659/Wayne-Smith-set-for-return-to-All-Blacks-for-World-Cup-defence

Great news. The Professor is a legend.

Gwlad wrote:Gatland must be crying into his cornflakes reading this news…guess he will have to wait until 2017 to take over.

Isn't he contracted until 2019 though?

yes that's great. Highlights the comparison with Michael Cheika who is looking to be head coach of both his Tahs side and the Wallabies where Smith can't support Dave Rennie at the Chiefs to support the AB's.

Odd that the Chiefs announce now they'll be without Smith. They must have known this before now as the comp starts soon and Smiths Chiefs role wil have been nailed down the well before now.