New Zealand Out Half Crisis

First topic message reminder :

Damian McKenzie, who has not been ruled out of the rugby world cup, was seemingly Steve Hansen's back up 10 for the All Blacks. Bearing in mind that no New Zealand based back up 10 has much in the way of international experience has Hansen been guilty of putting all his eggs in one basket at 10?

Possible back up players.

Richie Mo'unga - 10 caps, mostly as sub
Brett Cameron - 1 cap
Otere Black - 0 caps, Blues 10

or

Stephen Donald - 24 caps

I think its fair to say that NZ's hopes revolve a bit around Beauden Barrett.

Xenophobic turds

Are they on Folau's list??

I’ll check for you... but from memory, you should be ok..

As if it needed confirming you're clutching at straws here, you clearly take your views on NH players from the tabloid media. Good to know...

No idea what youre on about.

You're the one who has no idea what they're on about. Try watching NH rugby before giving your views on it.

Cracking banter guys. No wonder this forum is so busy these days. Miaow, you will have destroyed all conversation in a few months

Get off your high horse. Blaming me for that is ridiculous. Just because you're no longer a WUM doesn't mean you have any moral highground here...

Cyril wrote:Cracking banter guys. No wonder this forum is so busy these days. Miaow, you will have destroyed all conversation in a few months

Cyril, why not try contributing something rather than constantly positioning yourself as the forum busy body. You only ever seem to appear to whinge about other posters. Whats the point?

It will be interesting to see what Hansen does in the rugby championship. I would be surprised if Mounga doesnt start or feature heavily in most games. As it stands I can see NZ struggling in the big games if Barrett gets injured.

Taylorman wrote:I’ll check for you... but from memory, you should be ok..

And you definitely won't be

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:I’ll check for you... but from memory, you should be ok..

And you definitely won't be

Oh, I'm definitely on there, no harps all day for me, looking forward to it!

Collapse2005 wrote:It will be interesting to see what Hansen does in the rugby championship. I would be surprised if Mounga doesnt start or feature heavily in most games. As it stands I can see NZ struggling in the big games if Barrett gets injured.

Mo'unga won't start unless Barretts injured. Selections to date point to that 100%. Hansen has said many times Barrett will steer the ship at 10, even though it hasnt always been successful, the odd rare glitch. Mo'unga's unproven in the furnace of a clutch test like a world cup knockout and could freeeze up, where barrett has flourished in his minutes on the field of a final.

The interest is more around a possible 3rd 10 given 2011.

Henry has thrown around getting Carter in there if even for '10 support' but unless he's playing Super rugby he shouldnt take the field, or can at most cover the Canada and Namibia games, where Fox has already pointed to a utility for those, preserving Barrett and Mo'unga for the Bok first and knockouts. Crudens also mentioned and if Glasgow or anyone else thinking of taking him on were smart theyd encourage a return to the All Black fold as a kick start to any future NH contract.

It's possibly a lot of fuss over nothing as the problem of a third 10 after Barrett and Mo'unga isnt one many have. More crossing i's etc.

I'd be more concerned about who misses out midfield of Laumape, Nonu and SBW...with ALB, Crotty and Goodhue likely in already, one to find.

6 and no right wing specialist in form other than Smith is also a concern.

miaow wrote:You're the one who has no idea what they're on about. Try watching NH rugby before giving your views on it.

Cips was in Melbourne when he did the let me in I’m famous routine and I’ve been there plenty of times to watch sport so don’t need to be in the NH for that do I?

and are you saying the many tabloids, amongst others, are wrong on the bus thing or are only NHers allowed to comment on it? Bit precious isn’t it.

I watch the 6N and have done for forty years, I’ve watched every lions tour since 1977. I’ve watched every AI’s and southern tour for decades.

I watch some of the club matches so we get the bulk of your rugby here anyway but I dont follow it closely because I have enough of ours to watch.. But when I do I don’t see NH rugby, I see many, many players from ex southern sides so actually separating out the two is a bit of a task, so not inherently worth it.

Do you follow our super rugby? Our mitre 10, you know, the place where a lot of ‘your’ players come from.

So yeah, I’m not sure how much nh rugby one has to watch when you’ve already seen several hundred matches but hey, it’s your comment.

Seems to be a bit of panic in NZ over Barrett's back up. Talk of TJ Perenara covering 10:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/rwc-2019-japan/112202345/rugby-world-cup-tj-perenara-could-be-surprise-key-as-all-blacks-search-for-backup-no-10s

Some in the NZ media are having a field day. It’s a bit of a joke to be fair. Hand wringing about the back up to the back up. Come on, no one is buying it so I wish they’d stop the nonsense. Would be interesting to see other countries 2nd and 3rd ranked no.10s.

ebop wrote:Some in the NZ media are having a field day. It’s a bit of a joke to be fair. Hand wringing about the back up to the back up. Come on, no one is buying it so I wish they’d stop the nonsense. Would be interesting to see other countries 2nd and 3rd ranked no.10s.

I posted that earlier in the thread. Only Scotland have a back up 10 with less caps albeit Hastings has more starts for Scotland than Mo'unga does. It does seem like Hansen doesn't really trust him to start in big games at all.

Start the back-up in big games? That’d be a bit adventurous wouldn’t it?

ebop wrote:Start the back-up in big games? That’d be a bit adventurous wouldn’t it?

Maybe but other sides have done it. Anscome started all games for Wales this year, England also switched from Ford to Farrell. Scotland played Hastings ahead of Russell albeit due to injury. Ireland started Carbery in the first test v Australia. SA have recently switched from Jantjies to Pollard.

Hansen doesn't even start Mounga that much in smaller games. I think he has one start at 10 no?

Grant Fox, one of the ABs selectors, is saying they’re considering only taking two first-fives given Japan is relatively close if injury were to strike. Opens up a spot elsewhere. TJ could play 10 against Namibia, Canada and Italy and we’d win. If we’re needing a 3rd no.10 in a crunch game then you’d have to admit we’ve been a bit unlucky. Mo'unga Is a quality player and despite what you’re implying Guns, he would step up if needed. He’s better than all NH no.10s in my opinion.

What am I implying?

Taylorman wrote:Do you follow our super rugby? Our mitre 10, you know, the place where a lot of ‘your’ players come from.

This is getting really, really, really, REALLY boring. But firstly: yes. Mitre 10 in bits when I can.

The main thing you're confusing yourself about is the difference between France and the NH as a whole. There's a couple of select international players in the Welsh regions, Scottish clubs, and Irish provinces.

Ireland did a job on players like Stander, but also targeted project players who would qualify for Ireland by their early to mid 20s. Not many people like that - it's why the 5 year rule has been brought in. Scotland have targeted Scottish-qualified players - like Grigg, Sam Johnson, Sean Maitland, McGuigan, Seymour, Huw Jones - better than just about any team in World Rugby. They have a very high percentage of players not born in Scotland - some, like Barclay, were raised there but simply born overseas. Some were born in England and have that dual heritage so many British people do. Same goes for Wales here, with players like Lydiate, Shingler etc. born in England. But they've take a few 'proper' English players - Francis, Jake Ball - who have Welsh grandparents, as well as Anscombe, an excellent find with a Welsh mother. The only clear 'poach' would be Hadleigh Parkes. England have quite a few SH players and have done for a while, mostly qualifying through residency based on the strength of their domestic competition. Players like Vainokolo, Moritz Botha etc. up to Tuilagi the younger who moved due to his brothers' employment. You also have them doing what Wales did with Anscombe with Brad Shields, targeting someone on the fringes of the test pathway and snapping them up.

The English Premiership has quite a sizeable number of foreign players. Nearly every club - bar Exeter, as a far as I can tell, who do really well with lots of homegrown and British players, topped up by a few Argentinians/Italians/whoever else - has some fairly decent, but not spectacular, players from all over the world: SA, the Pacific Islands, Georgia, France, Italy, Oz, NZ. As well as many, many Irish, Welsh, and Scottish players. You can argue the merits and the effects of that.

But the French league? It's literally packed full of Islanders. Not just the first league, but the second league as well. Lots of them. Also South Africans, central Europeans, and South Americans. Not too many British players are going out there any more, but there's still quite a few, particularly those looking to retire on a big paycheck (like many of the SANZAR test stars do after a RWC). The French league is 'cosmopolitanism' taken to the extreme - but it is not the whole of the NH. I think that's what you don't seem to understand.

Most of the 'Celtic' club/regional/provincial teams have 3-4 SH players in their squads. Perhaps a few more in some cases, a few less in others. But by and large I see zero difference in Super Rugby - what's Tyler Ardron doing playing for a NZ SR team!?

The reality is, if the money made sense, SR teams would love to have some NH players in their teams. But it doesn't make sense, so players very rarely move, unless they really want a challenge/need to rehabilitate themselves. It's less to do with standards and more to do with money. More NH players would certainly improve some of the dodgy defence that goes on in NZ...

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/26359331/nsw-waratahs-riding-high-back-blue-wall-defence

Taylorman wrote:

miaow wrote:You're the one who has no idea what they're on about. Try watching NH rugby before giving your views on it.

Cips was in Melbourne when he did the let me in I’m famous routine and I’ve been there plenty of times to watch sport so don’t need to be in the NH for that do I?

Young rugby player has a bit too much to drink: shock horror. You want unprofessional and irresponsible, look no further than Zac Guildford.

Reality is, majority of rugby players do something stupid when theyre young. Less so the case these days, but even in pro era: but theyre not household names like Cipriani, because of who he dated. The tabloids and paps don't care (too much) if some mid rank Prem player goes out, gets battered, and acts a bit like a tw@t.

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/sport/338954/rugby-s-drinking-culture-under-scrutiny-in-review

Looks like there's big problems in NZ too...

Can't believe I'm defending Cipriani. Utterly pointless. The fact is he's a decent, if slightly unreliable, playmaker - something you pretended the NH didn't have.

As I said, take Barrett's pace away and Russell isn't far behind. Pace plays a huge, huge part in any sport, but particularly rugby - look at Jonny May.

Cipriani never learns though. He is still attracting the wrong sort of attention on nights out. That's the difference between him and most others.

Are you sure about that?

miaow wrote:Are you sure about that?

Yes.

On paper, it may look as if the All Blacks may have a concern over their Fly Half position but what country doesn't really? The All Blacks have always seemingly had issues like this going into major tournaments but always seem to address it through seamless integration of back ups.

Of all the countries in the world, I feel that New Zealand and Wales have the best systems in place for having players seamlessly integrate into a team/system.


I would not be so concerned if I were an AB fan.

Collapse2005 wrote:

miaow wrote:Are you sure about that?

Yes.

Ok, good stuff. Apparently you know more than the players who were with him in Jersey.

eirebilly wrote:On paper, it may look as if the All Blacks may have a concern over their Fly Half position but what country doesn't really? The All Blacks have always seemingly had issues like this going into major tournaments but always seem to address it through seamless integration of back ups.

Of all the countries in the world, I feel that New Zealand and Wales have the best systems in place for having players seamlessly integrate into a team/system.


I would not be so concerned if I were an AB fan.

I think the issue - if there is one - is how they deal with it mentally. The squad is very different to 2015, the only time they've won a RWC away from NZ. No Carter, and particularly McCaw, to keep pushing them through. Not only does this NZ team look a lot less settled, it also looks like it's lacking in leadership. The Lions tour was a big worry - Warburton look head and shoulders above Read as a captain on the field. But more than that, it was NZ's inability to put the Lions away - and that starts with the coaches all the way down.

If Barrett goes down before or during the tournament, suddenly NZ become mortal again. Losing to Ireland twice, the Lions once...they've lost some of their aura in the NH. Like Manchester United without Ferguson: without McCaw and Carter, they're not quite the same. Still unbelievably good, still the best team in the world: but mortal.

And without Barrett, they become plagued with the issues every other team has to worry about: is the injury replacement good enough, rather than simply 'yes, they are'. Mo'unga looks very good but then Super Rugby isn't test rugby. Barrett withstood England's onslaught last Autumn - I get the impression Mo'unga would have folded like a deck of cards in that second-half. That can be the difference between winning and losing a RWC - how do key players react in certain pressurised moments in key games?

It's not just 10 though. McKenzie was excellent in his own right building play as a second playmaker in the backfield/during the phaseplays. Not sure McKenzie is replaceable himself, really.

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

miaow wrote:Are you sure about that?

Yes.

Ok, good stuff. Apparently you know more than the players who were with him in Jersey.

Correct

miaow wrote:

eirebilly wrote:On paper, it may look as if the All Blacks may have a concern over their Fly Half position but what country doesn't really? The All Blacks have always seemingly had issues like this going into major tournaments but always seem to address it through seamless integration of back ups.

Of all the countries in the world, I feel that New Zealand and Wales have the best systems in place for having players seamlessly integrate into a team/system.


I would not be so concerned if I were an AB fan.

I think the issue - if there is one - is how they deal with it mentally. The squad is very different to 2015, the only time they've won a RWC away from NZ. No Carter, and particularly McCaw, to keep pushing them through. Not only does this NZ team look a lot less settled, it also looks like it's lacking in leadership. The Lions tour was a big worry - Warburton look head and shoulders above Read as a captain on the field. But more than that, it was NZ's inability to put the Lions away - and that starts with the coaches all the way down.

If Barrett goes down before or during the tournament, suddenly NZ become mortal again. Losing to Ireland twice, the Lions once...they've lost some of their aura in the NH. Like Manchester United without Ferguson: without McCaw and Carter, they're not quite the same. Still unbelievably good, still the best team in the world: but mortal.

And without Barrett, they become plagued with the issues every other team has to worry about: is the injury replacement good enough, rather than simply 'yes, they are'. Mo'unga looks very good but then Super Rugby isn't test rugby. Barrett withstood England's onslaught last Autumn - I get the impression Mo'unga would have folded like a deck of cards in that second-half. That can be the difference between winning and losing a RWC - how do key players react in certain pressurised moments in key games?

It's not just 10 though. McKenzie was excellent in his own right building play as a second playmaker in the backfield/during the phaseplays. Not sure McKenzie is replaceable himself, really.

Yes but who without Farrell, Sexton, Pollard, Foley, Sanchez wouldnt suddenly become vulnerable? Without sexton and farrell for instance england and ireland have next to no chance in winning three knockouts. NZ would still be favourites without Barrett. Our third 10 goes down and unlike everyone else, who dont even have one nearly as good, have an issue. Go figure. DMac is only an issue as impact. He was never starting.

I wouldn't say no chance but it wouldn't help at all but you can say the same for all teams including NZ. Just ask Lima Soapaga. Even Stephen Donald who stepped in in the final had come in for a lot of criticism for losing against Australia in a previous Beldisloe test.

Oh yes theres an entire movie dedicated to beaver, the Hong Kong loss getting him on the bad side of AB fans in a way we dont usually see, all for not running the ball up at the end instead of kicking it downfield. To then a year later to be put in a position to kick what was to be the winning points in the final was surreal.

But that was a particularly bad run of tens very late in the piece, from memory Slade, Crudes and Carter all going down during the knockouts or something like that.

We expected the same last tourney when carter somehow got through all three knockouts despite being injured ‘as a rule’ for most of the four years up to it.

So you never know. Biggest issue for us at ten for me is what it is the ABs have in the mix to negate the rush on barrett particularly. They keep saying theyve got a couple of things in store but arent sharing that until the right time.

I think its a mixture of subtle tweaks as opposed to something innovative.

Not that long to go now. Five months, nearly here...again.

Taylorman wrote:Yes but who without Farrell, Sexton, Pollard, Foley, Sanchez wouldnt suddenly become vulnerable? Without sexton and farrell for instance england and ireland have next to no chance in winning three knockouts. NZ would still be favourites without Barrett. Our third 10 goes down and unlike everyone else, who dont even have one nearly as good, have an issue. Go figure. DMac is only an issue as impact. He was never starting.

A few reasons, not least a long history of NZ bottling it at RWCs. The McCaw generation is the exception to the rule - although an average and knackered SA side gave them a tought test in the semis.

The point is, the ABs didn't have enough to put the Lions away. The second test you can put down to the red card - although you have to factor in how stupid that decision was. But the drawn third test? That's a sign there's some big worries there. The biggest competition since the last RWC and, without Carter and McCaw, NZ failed to pass the test.

You take away one of their star players - likewise, if you removed TJ and Smith - and it's a big ask for NZ to cope. No issue with your comparison: as I said, it's making NZ 'normal' in that there isn't a clearly readymade replacement lined up behind like there usually is in most positions. You take away one or two things from a team and the cracks that have been paper over might burst open. I don't rate the NZ scrum at all. Fantastic hookers but the props all look a bit average. Not sure the lineout is as solid as you'd like, either. So, take Barrett away, and will these weaknesses be exploited to the point NZ fail and open the door some Ireland, England, SA, even Wales or Australia as well?

This looks horrific.

Incidentally, this is a great watch:

Taylorman wrote:Oh yes theres an entire movie dedicated to beaver, the Hong Kong loss getting him on the bad side of AB fans in a way we dont usually see, all for not running the ball up at the end instead of kicking it downfield. To then a year later to be put in a position to kick what was to be the winning points in the final was surreal.

But that was a particularly bad run of tens very late in the piece, from memory Slade, Crudes and Carter all going down during the knockouts or something like that.

We expected the same last tourney when carter somehow got through all three knockouts despite being injured ‘as a rule’ for most of the four years up to it.

So you never know. Biggest issue for us at ten for me is what it is the ABs have in the mix to negate the rush on barrett particularly. They keep saying theyve got a couple of things in store but arent sharing that until the right time.

I think its a mixture of subtle tweaks as opposed to something innovative.

Not that long to go now. Five months, nearly here...again.

SBW offload is a good antidote to the rush. Didnt the Blues beat the Lions thanks to a SBW offload?

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Yes but who without Farrell, Sexton, Pollard, Foley, Sanchez wouldnt suddenly become vulnerable? Without sexton and farrell for instance england and ireland have next to no chance in winning three knockouts. NZ would still be favourites without Barrett. Our third 10 goes down and unlike everyone else, who dont even have one nearly as good, have an issue. Go figure. DMac is only an issue as impact. He was never starting.

A few reasons, not least a long history of NZ bottling it at RWCs. The McCaw generation is the exception to the rule - although an average and knackered SA side gave them a tought test in the semis.

The point is, the ABs didn't have enough to put the Lions away. The second test you can put down to the red card - although you have to factor in how stupid that decision was. But the drawn third test? That's a sign there's some big worries there. The biggest competition since the last RWC and, without Carter and McCaw, NZ failed to pass the test.

You take away one of their star players - likewise, if you removed TJ and Smith - and it's a big ask for NZ to cope. No issue with your comparison: as I said, it's making NZ 'normal' in that there isn't a clearly readymade replacement lined up behind like there usually is in most positions. You take away one or two things from a team and the cracks that have been paper over might burst open. I don't rate the NZ scrum at all. Fantastic hookers but the props all look a bit average. Not sure the lineout is as solid as you'd like, either. So, take Barrett away, and will these weaknesses be exploited to the point NZ fail and open the door some Ireland, England, SA, even Wales or Australia as well?

The mccaw ‘generation’  as you call it also lost two world cups so that side didnt happen overnight. They lost when they had great players as well. Re the scrum the ABs scrum is fine, that its not is a complete myth. Lineout as well, no one has a better lineout than when Retallick, Read and Whitelock are on song so if you think thats a weakness youre really stretching. Come world cup time, both scrum and lineout will be as good and if not better than anyone. Our front row will Im picking dominate anyone in the knockouts, simply because we’ll have managed our depth better. Franks, Moody and Taylor, with Ofa, Karl T, Laulala and Coles back up, if all fit, is as good as anyone, likely better across the backups.

But sure, take a whole bunch of key players away and theyre vulnerable. But so is everyone. And as ireland showed, their propensity to not avoid injury and over a longer term, not compete at knockout time is far...far...more likely. Theyve NEVER proved they can get past quarters. How can that possibly create a ring of confidence over NZs pedigree and chances. Forget what theyve done last three years, world cup is a different beast. Especially for southern teams where they will get better, the northern sides are what they are.

NZ can lose? Sure. But so can anyone.

World cup year I keep saying, is different. We’ve spent many, many years learning and finally understanding that.

For me, England is the norths only real chance of winning this year...again. Wales and Ireland can't do big campaigns away with any authority, or at all. Ireland I think are past their very best in the past three years and need more ideas, Wales dont have the firepower to dominate three knockouts, and England will cope best, and more likely win those tough ones that NH sides usually lose at knock out time.

Last time a NH side won a knockout vs the SH was in 07- losing the last 9, and the last tournament was in England.

You keep saying I don't know NH rugby. I think I know it better than you, in terms of its relationship and comparison with the SH. So often you see NH teams with high hopes only to be demolished when they didn't see it coming.

One thing I know for a fact is...NZ wont be 'thrashed' in 2019. If someone beats them it will be anyones match in the last 5 minutes. Can't say the same for any north side.

any out half crisis should be put in the context of the style the replacement out halves play, compared to who they are replacing, if the system is rigid.

if the system is inherently flexible, then the pure quality of the replacement is more relevant.

any NZ out half replacements will be fine in my opinion. they may be inferior to their incumbent, but it won't have a major impact.

Certain NH teams will struggle however - notably Ireland. Carbery may be good, but Ireland's game plan is structured around Sexton.

England have ford on the bench, and as long as Daly is on pitch for the longer kicks then i think he is a really good back up who offers a different gameplan that complements englands interesting choices at centre (Slade,Te'O, Tuilagi).

Wales have two really strong, but different, options at 10.

Scotland have Finn Russell. if he falls Scotland are doomed.

France, i have no idea whether 9 or 10 is more important, but it wont matter because their fat centres and props will stuff it up at some point.

Sorry but thats garbage. Mounga and Barrett have fairly diferent styles of play.

NZ will be fine. Ireland are already in trouble. Wales have two decent 10s, neither amazing. Russell has more bad days than good.

From an England perspective, we’re in good shape. As always, come the World Cup, it’ll be the SH who will be the standard.

Collapse2005 wrote:Sorry but thats garbage. Mounga and Barrett have fairly diferent styles of play.

Yeah they do, I see it the reverse of Ireland where we have our more creative player starting, so most of the gameplan, Mo’unga as impact. Ireland are the reverse, the ‘standard’ 10 starting.

Ideally, Barrett, as does Carbery, should be impact as the game can be opened up more later, and Barrett is the proven king of subs. That means without Dmac, Mo’unga must provide the impact, and that could be an issue. It shifts the risk taking to earlier in the piece with barrett.

Ireland play to a style that simply cannot handle having to score tries late...get behind, they dont come back easily,if at all. That makes Carbery critical. Unfortunately, probably too much will be placed on his shoulders if Ireland ‘do nothing’ for the first 60, scorewise.

Cyril wrote:NZ will be fine. Ireland are already in trouble. Wales have two decent 10s, neither amazing. Russell has more bad days than good.

From an England perspective, we’re in good shape. As always, come the World Cup, it’ll be the SH who will be the standard.

With Sexton and Carbery ireland look ok dont they? Unless its about form or injury.

I think england will be the toughest from a southern perspective. I think it will be england nz semi after Aus lose to england- geez they meet a lot- and in the other two of SA, Wales or Ireland, where I think Wales will beat Ireland if they get past a tough SA match. That makes a Wales or SA finalist.

But who knows...

I think SA may top their pool.

Cyril wrote:I think SA may top their pool.

Sure, if they beat NZ first up. They demolished England in pool in 07 so thats possible. This is by far the toughest pool match NZ has ever had from memory so SA could get the jump. And overall just as losing to Ireland last year is currently paying for itself, a first ever pool loss for NZ wouldnt be a bad thing in terms of waking the side up. Post loss AB sides usually have a bit more ...sting shall we say

Its good that NZ play SA before Scots v Ireland otherwise you can be sure of. tactical outcome to that encounter.

I guess so. SA beat NZ then no one wants the Scot Ireland win?
That will be fun.

quinsforever wrote:

Certain NH teams will struggle however - notably Ireland. Carbery may be good, but Ireland's game plan is structured around Sexton.

This is what worries me the most. Sexton is a great player and one certainly worthy to have a team and game plan built around him but if he gets injured Ireland will struggle due to this. We all know what Sexton can do so I would like to see Carberry start the warmup games so that Schmidt can formulate a non Sexton orientated game plan as a back up.

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:I think SA may top their pool.

Sure, if they beat NZ first up. They demolished England in pool in 07 so thats possible. This is by far the toughest pool match NZ has ever had from memory so SA could get the jump. And overall just as losing to Ireland last year is currently paying for itself, a first ever pool loss for NZ wouldnt be a bad thing in terms of waking the side up. Post loss AB sides usually have a bit more ...sting shall we say

I can see SA beating New Zealand and then losing to Italy.

Nice to know NZ are planning another loss - strange it's in a RWC, but there we go. Suppose we jut have to defer to the nation that never loses...unless they want to...