I honestly declare the New Zealand All Blacks are playing the best rugby I have ever seen!

That just about sums it up.

I think I've watched all their RC games this season and seriously their game plan and execution there of is above and beyond anything I've ever seen before.

You might argue that this hasn't been a classic RC? But not for me, take yesterday's Durban triumph. The Africans were more than game and scrapped for ever inch until the damn could be held no more.

Ok I might concede that both RSA or OZY are average when comparing their teams of yesteryear (OZY 99 & RSA 07), however neither are complete mugs and add to that Argentina are probably at their zenith in terms of team development. So congratulations must be given to the ALL Blacks.

For me they are playing the game of heaven and if they continue as they are they will take a third WC in Japan. Small crumbs but lets just hope that they're peaking to soon and also, thank our lucky stars (England) that we're not playing them till next autumn by which time we might have learnt which end of the ball you'r meant to throw with.

I can't see the Lions having a chance, 05 all over again.

Fair play to NZ.

One more game against OZY and then Soldier Field and Europe for and end of season romp. Hopefully plenty of game and games for everyone to celebrate yet?

Yes, this is a rugby forum, so we should be acknowledging just how dominant NZ are right now.

The teams they are playing look at sixes and sevens but it's impossible to imagine any other side putting them to the sword with such ease.

They are a class act and I echo the OP in that I'm glad we're not playing them imminently.

They are playing fantastic rugby and I think the Lions, with little chance to have full cohesion in time, are in big trouble. I hold out hope that if we continue to build under EJ and get the rub of the green and a possible unbeaten record under Jones by the time we face NZ, that England could upset them, but that's a lot of ifs

Right now, the All Blacks look as dominant as England were in the 2000/2001 season.

England's best consecutive run was up to, and slightly beyond,  the 2003 World Cup. If we hadn't agreed to play a second string against France's first string in the World Cup warm-ups, then England would have had an unbeaten run of 25 games.

It's a hypothetical record, but I've often thought no modern team would come close. The truth is, NZ look like they could do it and go further.

To be honest, they are so good I've stopped watching them. As a neutral, there is no tension for me to any game they play any more. It's a bit like when you record a game but then someone tells you the result so you don't bother watching. When New Zealand play, I feel I already know the result before kick off so I go and do something else.

Magnificent team, obviously, just the one team in world rugby I have no interest in watching.

stub wrote:They are a class act and I echo the OP in that I'm glad we're not playing them imminently.

Ireland are playing them twice this autumn. Fun times!

To be honest, I don't mind that at all. If we get pumped by 40 points- which is probably what will happen based on recent form- everyone will say thats what happens to everyone NZ play and no one will make a big deal of it. No-one ever really expects Ireland to beat New Zealand anyway. If, by some unlikely twist of fate, we do win it will be seen as maybe the biggest upset of the international season given how the Rugby Championship has gone.

So its a bit of a no-lose situation for us.

Notch wrote:

stub wrote:They are a class act and I echo the OP in that I'm glad we're not playing them imminently.

Ireland are playing them twice this autumn. Fun times!

To be honest, I don't mind that at all. If we get pumped by 40 points- which is probably what will happen based on recent form- everyone will say thats what happens to everyone NZ play and no one will make a big deal of it. No-one ever really expects Ireland to beat New Zealand anyway. If, by some unlikely twist of fate, we do win it will be seen as maybe the biggest upset of the international season given how the Rugby Championship has gone.

So its a bit of a no-lose situation for us.

Yes, absolutely nothing to lose and knowing Ireland I'm sure you'll make them work for anything they get. I'll be cheering on the men in green.

Yes, the ABs are going good at the moment, thing is we all know its not forever, one day they will be beaten and I cant help but think that that will happen when the team (and probably the fans) least expect it.

When Wales toured there in the summer, I was very critical of us (Wales). Reflecting on other results, I think I was a bit harsh on my own countries performances, considering how New Zealand have done against others since. I still think England will beat them when they next play though.

I still think England will beat them when they next play though

I know what you are doing and it just won't work.

NZ are lightyears ahead at the minute - game plan, execution and the top two inches, they've got it all right.

Our only chance is a snap glaciation of the NH ("yeah sorry mate can't play you at the minute cos of all this ice") lasting a few decades, but even then the Twickenham area might escape inundation (it did last time) and with the under soil heating might surmount the ravages of a periglacial environment...

( I know it's a long shot - but hey! you gotta have a plan....)

TrailApe wrote:I know what you are doing and it just won't work.

What are you going on about ?

I honestly believe England will beat the All Blacks. They do not seem to have the same fear factor of them, or any other SH team all the others have. Bookmark this now if you like, but I honestly believe the next game between the two, England will win it.

but I honestly believe the next game between the two, England will win it.

Based on what?

Sure England are starting to find some potentially good players, but on the results of the recent games how can you see England coming anywhere near NZ at the minute?

There is potential in the England line up but NZ are actually - at this minute- displaying a game above anything that England can do even if that potential is realised in the next year or so.

And considering this is an NZ side which has just recently lost some game changing players - it's frightening.

We might catch up with them eventually (if the conveyor belt of young talented players keeps coming through and if the RFU put in place a world class coaching team), but I'm looking long term, definitely not in the next year or so.

Naaah - NZ top dogs for next few years (bar food poisoning or some nasty bug)

TrailApe wrote:Naaah - NZ top dogs for next few years (bar food poisoning or some nasty bug)

I'm not debating that.


All I am saying is, New Zealand will lose some day, and I think it will the next time they play England. If they were playing this Autumn, then I would say it would be then. But I suppose we will just have to wait.

...can't say that I disagree. Also was there a specific reason Arg played Aus at Twickenham? I must have missed it but it was probably a good reason.

mikey_dragon wrote:...can't say that I disagree. Also was there a specific reason Arg played Aus at Twickenham? I must have missed it but it was probably a good reason.

What a farce that was. Half empty stadium, with absolutely no atmosphere what so ever. Would they have honestly made more ££££'s playing it there ?

LordDowlais wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:...can't say that I disagree. Also was there a specific reason Arg played Aus at Twickenham? I must have missed it but it was probably a good reason.

What a farce that was. Half empty stadium, with absolutely no atmosphere what so ever. Would they have honestly made more ££££'s playing it there ?

Apparently everyone was over at the Wembley and Old Trafford stadiums, watching the soccer and the League.

I can't tell if the other RCC teams are as bad as they looked or if NZ just make them look that way. But NZ are just so good.

Some of their tries look so simple to complete, you end up thinking 'oh we could do that too' then you watch your shovel handed players throw it forward/at the floor/above the player, the ball gets fropped and you realise how tough it is!

LordDowlais wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:...can't say that I disagree. Also was there a specific reason Arg played Aus at Twickenham? I must have missed it but it was probably a good reason.

What a farce that was. Half empty stadium, with absolutely no atmosphere what so ever. Would they have honestly made more ££££'s playing it there ?

It was still the 3rd biggest crowd of the RC. I imagine that the Argentinian RU made substantially more money than they could have done at home; given the limited resources they have available, I expect that's quite a big deal for them.

It's a shame the team didn't do better - but they are only a final pass away from being a serious threat. I also imagine it will have helped this team to play in an NH stadium in preparation for the AIs. They are looking pretty threatening. for all that they finished last.

NZ can remain unbeaten for 2 to 3 seasons there is no team that comes close presently.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:...can't say that I disagree. Also was there a specific reason Arg played Aus at Twickenham? I must have missed it but it was probably a good reason.

What a farce that was. Half empty stadium, with absolutely no atmosphere what so ever. Would they have honestly made more ££££'s playing it there ?

Apparently everyone was over at the Wembley  and Old Trafford stadiums, watching the soccer and the League.

There were 15,000 rugby fans packed into a sold out Stoop across the road watching Quins as well.
The other mistake was scheduling during a busy period for London pubs meaning most of the Aussie support couldn't get time off work.

I think a higher crowd would've been hoped for though, I guess the welsh were just too busy to make the trip sitting in their no-athmosphere half empty stadia watching sub- standard pro12 rugby .



That aside it was still the second highest attendance for an Argentina game in the rugby championship since they joined.

rainbow-warrior wrote:NZ can remain unbeaten for 2 to 3 seasons there is no team that comes close presently.

While I'm inclined to agree with the original post, this for me is too much. No team is unbeatable, and every team (no matter how good) is going to have the occasional off day. NZ have looked hugely dominant for about the last 10 years, but that doesn't change the fact that periodically they lose against a team when you really wouldn't expect it. At this point I'd say NZ look good to do another unbeaten season, but I'd be surprised if they managed two back to back and gobsmacked if it was 3.

Big wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:NZ can remain unbeaten for 2 to 3 seasons there is no team that comes close presently.

While I'm inclined to agree with the original post, this for me is too much.  No team is unbeatable, and every team (no matter how good) is going to have the occasional off day.  NZ have looked hugely dominant for about the last 10 years, but that doesn't change the fact that periodically they lose against a team when you really wouldn't expect it.  At this point I'd say NZ look good to do another unbeaten season, but I'd be surprised if they managed two back to back and gobsmacked if it was 3.  

Except for this current All Black team... Look what they did to SA and Aus!

mikey_dragon wrote:

Big wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:NZ can remain unbeaten for 2 to 3 seasons there is no team that comes close presently.

While I'm inclined to agree with the original post, this for me is too much.  No team is unbeatable, and every team (no matter how good) is going to have the occasional off day.  NZ have looked hugely dominant for about the last 10 years, but that doesn't change the fact that periodically they lose against a team when you really wouldn't expect it.  At this point I'd say NZ look good to do another unbeaten season, but I'd be surprised if they managed two back to back and gobsmacked if it was 3.  

Except for this current All Black team... Look what they did to SA and Aus!

All we did was kick the ball back to them for 80 minutes. who knows what could happen if you try play a game of rugby against them*???


*Soul crushing defeat, almost certainly

Wales tried to play a bit of rugby against them, but eventually got crushed. It was the same for Argentina.

mikey_dragon wrote:Wales tried to play a bit of rugby against them, but eventually got crushed. It was the same for Argentina.

The crucial difference was the ability to maintain the pace in the final quarter against an All Black side that maintains its structure and discipline up to 80 minutes and beyond. Argentina aren't mature enough in their play to do that, whereas Wales's tactics work best in exploiting when the game breaks up in the last quarter. The ABs are physically and mentally fit enough to play the same way throughout the game, but are equally ready to exploit any errors.

England's performances in Australia weren't good enough to beat the All Blacks, but they showed enough ability to maintain structure, especially in the second test, that they might eventually be able to challenge them. The attack is nowhere near good enough yet - but that's always the last thing to gel with a new coaching team.

It would certainly be interesting to see England play NZ right now, but I think them All Blacks would still win it. If England lose by around 10 points or less then that's a fairly good result.

mikey_dragon wrote:It would certainly be interesting to see England play NZ right now, but I think them All Blacks would still win it. If England lose by around 10 points or less then that's a fairly good result.

A 10 point loss would be my guess today. In a year or so, it could be closer, though you'd still give the ABs the edge.

Rugby Fan wrote:Right now, the All Blacks look as dominant as England were in the 2000/2001 season.

England's best consecutive run was up to, and slightly beyond,  the 2003 World Cup. If we hadn't agreed to play a second string against France's first string in the World Cup warm-ups, then England would have had an unbeaten run of 25 games.

It's a hypothetical record, but I've often thought no modern team would come close. The truth is, NZ look like they could do it and go further.

Somewhat (red)rose-tinted viewpoint there, is it not?
England's form at the that time was very good indeed, they were thoroughly deserving of their RWC victory and #1 ranking. But you can't really put an asterisk against that France defeat and not against the victory against the understrength French the following week. Also, being a bit uncharitable here, I would guess the average ranking of their opponents wouldn't be helped by playing Scotland and Italy numerous times, not to mention Georgia and Uruguay.

As for 'no modern team coming close', well NZ going 60odd games with only 3 defeats in the last 5 years or so would suggest they must have on at least a couple of occasions. If we are going to allow a 'gimme', I think NZ had a run of 40ish games undefeated (a draw or 2 in that run) and if they had beaten Oz last year would be on 26 consecutive victories at the moment.

For what it's worth, I think the run of 5 victories in a row over each of SA and Australia and 2 against NZ is a very impressive streak and unlikely to be repeated.

goneagain wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Right now, the All Blacks look as dominant as England were in the 2000/2001 season.

England's best consecutive run was up to, and slightly beyond,  the 2003 World Cup. If we hadn't agreed to play a second string against France's first string in the World Cup warm-ups, then England would have had an unbeaten run of 25 games.

It's a hypothetical record, but I've often thought no modern team would come close. The truth is, NZ look like they could do it and go further.

Somewhat (red)rose-tinted viewpoint there, is it not?
England's form at the that time was very good indeed, they were thoroughly deserving of their RWC victory and #1 ranking. But you can't really put an asterisk against that France defeat and not against the victory against the understrength French the following week. Also, being a bit uncharitable here, I would guess the average ranking of their opponents wouldn't be helped by playing Scotland and Italy numerous times, not to mention Georgia and Uruguay.

As for 'no modern team coming close', well NZ going 60odd games with only 3 defeats in the last 5 years or so would suggest they must have on at least a couple of occasions. If we are going to allow a 'gimme', I think NZ had a run of 40ish games undefeated (a draw or 2 in that run) and if they had beaten Oz last year would be on 26 consecutive victories at the moment.

For what it's worth, I think the run of 5 victories in a row over each of SA and Australia and 2 against NZ is a very impressive streak and unlikely to be repeated.

Just in case anyone is wondering between the 6th March 2002 and the 6th March 2004 when Ireland ended Englands long, dominant streak England had played 26 games, won 24, lost 2- including that home loss to Ireland (Did I mention that it was Ireland that ended their run? Yes? Well I just want to reiterate that   )

Meanwhile, in the same timeframe (2 years exactly counting back from today) New Zealand have played 26 games, won 25, lost 1.

So it's almost a dead heat in terms of overall dominance. New Zealand scored quite a few more tries than England did in their two-year period of dominance and scored more points overall. However, England scored more penalties, drop goals and conceded less points.

So much the same as England in terms of form really! One side much more kicking and defence orientated, one side much more creative but very similar results and winning percentage. Oh, and both streaks include a victory in a World Cup Final. The current NZ side and the England side of 2002 to 2004 are literally so close in terms of how good they were on paper.

I would say the current New Zealand team is very slightly better than the England team that won the 2003 RWC. But it is unbelievably close. Thats just my opinion.

I do think that this New Zealand team will go on to bigger and better things than that England side did- like whitewashing the Lions next summer, and very possibly 3 in a row at Japan 2019. Whereas the 2004 Six Nations was the start of a long period in the wilderness for England.

The World Cup in 2003 represented England peaking. I do not think this New Zealand team has reached its full potential yet.

Notch wrote:I would say the current New Zealand team is very slightly better than the England team that won the 2003 RWC. But it is unbelievably close. Thats just my opinion.

That's how it would appear, if you cherry pick the most favourable possible window for that England team. If you extend it a little it starts to look a lot better for NZ.
Last 3 years P40 W37 L2 D1.
Last 4 years P57 W49 L3 D2.
Last 5 years P65 W60 L3 D2.
So I would probably say that the England team got close to this NZ team for a brief period.

Slightly different rules etc but the England pack still looks head and shoulders with some sparkle in the backline as well. Would be a good game if NZ could ever get the ball.

Far out

"Last 5 years P65 W60 L3 D2"

That'd be unrivalled right?

What about since the blip in 2009, last 6-7 years?

ps full credit to that England side it was formidable without doubt

No 7&1/2 wrote:Slightly different rules etc but the England pack still looks head and shoulders with some sparkle in the backline as well. Would be a good game if NZ could ever get the ball.

Considering the total points difference between England's best ever team and a decent but not stellar NZ team in the 2 games that they played back then was only 5 points, I would say the current NZ team would do OK.

goneagain wrote:

Notch wrote:I would say the current New Zealand team is very slightly better than the England team that won the 2003 RWC. But it is unbelievably close. Thats just my opinion.

That's how it would appear, if you cherry pick the most favourable possible window for that England team. If you extend it a little it starts to look a lot better for NZ.
Last 3 years P40 W37 L2 D1.
Last 4 years P57 W49 L3 D2.
Last 5 years P65 W60 L3 D2.

So I would probably say that the England team got close to this NZ team for a brief period.

I agree totally, I'm just comparing England at their very best to the current New Zealand team. We already know there is no parallel between how dominant New Zealand have been over the past five, ten years and any other team in sport more generally, never mind just rugby.

goneagain wrote:
Considering the total points difference between England's best ever team and a decent but not stellar NZ team in the 2 games that they played back then was only 5 points, I would say the current NZ team would do OK.

You say that, but I remember that period pretty well. In the autumn test, the scoreline seriously flattered NZ. They were well beaten and only made the scoreline look respectable towards the end when England took their foot off the gas. England were a much better side at the time. In much the same way that recent results between Eng and NZ have made Eng look closer than they really are.

The most impressive thing IMO about NZ is their ability to replace old players with new ones almost seamlessly. They have a ethos,gameplan and culture which every player buys into. It's why they they have kept up their sustained dominance.

England in comparison under Clive had a short term goal which they achieved but left English rugby failing to replace the 2002-2003 stars. Only now are we seeing the England machine starting to re emerge as a potential threat to SH dominance (spearheaded by of course NZ).

I would say the key to anything in general is having your own identity - what makes you, you.

NZ have clearly found a formula which works for them and makes NZ, NZ.

Teams should not look to directly copy NZ. SA have the best record vs NZ because they've played to their strengths. Unfortunately for SA they are going through a rough patch but that's for another discussion.

It's hard to beat someone at their own game, especially when they've been perfecting that game for years. Instead looking what works for you is the key.

NZ are the best team in the world but I do not think they are unbeatable. You just need to do certain things better than them.

I think primarily you need to be more physical than the ABs and maintain it for the full 80. Easier said than done of course.

Most teams do not have this capability and this is why they lose.

Wales have put up some mightily brave performance vs the ABs but have ran out of steam.

NZ have just had that bit extra.

goneagain wrote:...Somewhat (red)rose-tinted viewpoint there, is it not?...

I don't really see how. I'm acknowledging now that the All Blacks are better than England at their best, even before they break the old consecutive Test victory record, let alone go about setting a mark near the one I think England might have reached if not for some horse-trading. Not only that, the record is being set by different teams, since there is clear difference between the 2015 World Champion squad and this side.

However, from an actual performance perspective, rather than win record, I think England played best in the 2000/1 season. That also happens to be one of the years we didn't play NZ, and I'm often struck by the fact that a lot of All Black supporters never saw England's dominance around this time, and only really know the team of around two years later. The second side have the trophies but there's a good case to argue the earlier side was superior. They used to score tries for fun, just like NZ do now. Even so, NZ are better now than we were then.

I'd like to have played you then. You can't draw any firm conclusions from parallel results but NZ lost to Australia, SA and France in 2000, and we beat all three of them that year.

Still, that team doesn't stand out in the record books because the Six Nations was disrupted by the foot and mouth outbreak, When we reassembled to play the postponed Dublin match, an out-of-sorts England were defeated by Ireland, and yet another Grand Slam went begging.

One reason I constantly bang on about how Lions tours disrupt the preparation of the home nations sides, is because that's exactly what happened to England after the 2001 tour. Instead of kicking on, we had to start again. Later that season, France got under Wilkinson's skin in the 2002 Six Nations to deny us another Grand Slam chance. That's when England turned into the side which won the World Cup.

Actually, the 1995 NZ side was something very special too. They also don't have the trophies or records of later All Black teams but anyone who saw them thought they were playing rugby from another planet.

World rugby rankings show that New Zealand currently sits on 96.57.

Trouble is the rankings only commenced a shade after that English team peaked, thereby depriving us now of a good measurable comparison.

The year after a RWC is notoriously difficult to judge because of changes
to Coaches/Players often on a knee jerk principle.
England under Geoff Cooke,JackRowell,SCW were special,BUT despite
SCW inheriting many of Rowells Squad.From 1997 it took a lot of years
and losses to be come the side it became.
When England were winning with some ease we got the boring England bit.
When SCW left there was noting left,one of the reasons it was alleged he
had no control of his players[Club before Country]
SL side with refinements by EJ have become a force in World Rugby,would
he have achieved what EJ has?
Most of the NH sides especially England are far more than been rebuilt than
the SH sides.Look at players in RWC and compare them to the recent June/
RC sides.
Believe it or not the AB`s side is not yet up to the 2015 squads standards
YET.Wales played NZ side in transition replacing the best 10,,12,13 in the
World not to mention 7.Was never going to be easy even with there resources.
NZ`s supremacy started in 2003 since then they have been IRB number 1
except for briefly.In 2003,2007 post RWC and 2009 for half the season won
Two RWC`s back to back,world record tied twice on 17 games unbeaten,an
unbeaten season plus RC wins in in all except 2004 and 2009[SA]2011,15[OZ]
IF you want to compare England and NZ`s bear in mind NZ`s was v 2 or 3
in the world and involved lots of travel.
England are number 2 on merit,and ANY team can beat another the invincible
side has yet to be seen in modern Rugby.
BUT as Heynek Meyer said of the Boks we will be great agai when we can
beat NZ consistently.
IF they met in Twickenham England would have a 40/60 chance in NZ?

Thats a bit generous Alan, I would have thought the market would be more like:

At Twickenham 30/70, and at Eden Park 10/90.

NZ are now > 7 points ahead of England in the rankings. That means that at home (where they get a 3 point bonus in the points exchange calculation), the gap would be 10 points.

Because the points exchange model is set up so that if you have a 10 point gap over another team, you can't win points off them by beating them.

In effect, the ranking model says that New Zealand are currently expected to be unbeatable at home. Doesn't mean they are - but I can't remember a previous team being so far ahead of anyone else.

Something that gets lost, is that once you go past around 92/93, it is neigh on impossible to go any further, it will be a long time before we see another team (including ABs ) get to 96.57 again.

I haven't checked this stat but I read that SA has been the only side to get within single digits of the All Blacks during their current 17-game win streak

ebop wrote:I haven't checked this stat but I read that SA has been the only side to get within single digits of the All Blacks during their current 17-game win streak

Not surprised. Their conversion rate when they get a the slightest sniff of a chance is through the roof. It's not often they get into the opponents 22 and fail to do some serious damage.

Even really, really good teams are going to concede a huge amount of points unless they dominate the game.

Notch wrote:

ebop wrote:I haven't checked this stat but I read that SA has been the only side to get within single digits of the All Blacks during their current 17-game win streak

Not surprised. Their conversion rate when they get a the slightest sniff of a chance is through the roof. It's not often they get into the opponents 22 and fail to do some serious damage.

Even really, really good teams are going to concede a huge amount of points unless they dominate the game.

Don't agree. Conversion rate is pretty poor this year this year. Look at the number of tries the AB's have blown this year. It's through the roof. Added to that poor goal kicking there's plenty to work on.

How can you expect Beaudie to kick goals when he's busy kickin' rrse.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
How can you expect Beaudie to kick goals when he's busy kickin' rrse.

Probably came out wrong. Pretty happy with the way things are going and this may be the best side I have seen. However, I see some room for improvement. Time will tell.

Maybe he should get a theraputiuc use exemption for arse pills then.

GG Im amazed you havent exploded reading some of what son here, excellent self control.

Im also amazed no-one has mentioned the Welsh team of the 1970s yet, how times have changed on here.



Best is a problematic term ...but theres no denying this is by far the most dominant team we have ever seen in rugby. The gap is huge, how much thats down to South Africa and Australia being on a low ebb is another thing.




But theres hope for the rest of the world XV, Wayne Barnes will be reffing the France game. If nothing else its good to see that world rugby have a sense of humour still.