The All Blacks, are they 'That' good, or...

[Every Time Ref]

If NZ we're having a poor championship, and the question was "Are the ABs that bad, or is it just timing?", we'd all be saying, they've just lost a load of top class players, of course they're going to struggle a bit, give them a break.

"Timing" is actually against NZ as much as it is against any other team. But their systems and infrastructure and player base have enabled them to ride it out easily.

There's a slight argument that they are "lucky" not to be playing England soon, as there best challenger, but cone on - even over here, no one really thinks we're ready. Ratsapprentice nails it, anyone who can get good ball wide quickly will outflank us, and the ABs are the best at that.

 

[TheOvalBall]

People need to get off the back of the All Blacks, as some are saying they are ruining rugby. However, their standard of play should be admired.
The problem lies with the other nations who haven't caught up.

 

[Peat]

If NZ we're having a poor championship, and the question was "Are the ABs that bad, or is it just timing?", we'd all be saying, they've just lost a load of top class players, of course they're going to struggle a bit, give them a break.

But we would be asking if whoever was giving NZ a poor championship was really that good or benefiting from an AB dip. Its a legit question.

Either the All Blacks have got better or Aus/SA have got worse in the last couple of years. The case for the former on the team sheet is dubious. The case for the latter is obvious. We can see their systems and infrastructure and player base cracking all the way from oop north.

Will be interesting to see how Ireland go against them. Couple of years back, they pushed them all the way. There's been a lot of injuries and dents to the confidence since then, but there's still roughly the same team available.

 

[gaston le gaff]

the only thing i can say is their hooker Coles (i think) gave 3 passes all class which produced 3 tries in the corner, his ball handling skills are of a 3/4 and he is not on his own, so very difficult to critise a team that have won the tournament with 2 games in hand. They are the best by streets its up to everyone else to up their game, already feeling sorry for France in Nov. but they will up their game for that one i hope.
Two WC's on the trot how can you say anything but BRAVO!!!!!!

 

[The Jones Boy]

If those evil Springboks can get a decent coach they will be a totally different team in no time

 

[TheOvalBall]

The only real chance of the All Blacks losing is away from home.

 

[Shaggy]

People need to get off the back of the All Blacks, as some are saying they are ruining rugby. However, their standard of play should be admired.
The problem lies with the other nations who haven't caught up.

I agree, when the Boks were on top, the onus was on the rest of us to catch up, same with England, and when the Aussies had the wood on us back in the late 1990's early 2000's ... no suggestion that any of those teams should take the foot of the pedal for the good of the game as a whole, always that the rest should strive to close the gap/beat them

 

[Peat]

I agree, when the Boks were on top, the onus was on the rest of us to catch up, same with England, and when the Aussies had the wood on us back in the late 1990's early 2000's ... no suggestion that any of those teams should take the foot of the pedal for the good of the game as a whole, always that the rest should strive to close the gap/beat them

Has anyone actually said this other than a few isolated lunatics?

 

[Shaggy]

Has anyone actually said this other than a few isolated lunatics?

... I haven't been keeping count, only know it seems to be topical in "some" media down here, and that some are concerned with the state of the game in Australia and South Africa, and that some might be getting a little board with the All Blacks convincing wins.

 

[TheOvalBall]

... I haven't been keeping count, only know it seems to be topical in "some" media down here, and that some are concerned with the state of the game in Australia and South Africa, and that some might be getting a little board with the All Blacks convincing wins.

I think a big reason why the All Blacks might lose in the future is boredom. They are human after all.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

If NZ we're having a poor championship, and the question was "Are the ABs that bad, or is it just timing?", we'd all be saying, they've just lost a load of top class players, of course they're going to struggle a bit, give them a break.

"Timing" is actually against NZ as much as it is against any other team. But their systems and infrastructure and player base have enabled them to ride it out easily.

There's a slight argument that they are "lucky" not to be playing England soon, as there best challenger, but cone on - even over here, no one really thinks we're ready. Ratsapprentice nails it, anyone who can get good ball wide quickly will outflank us, and the ABs are the best at that.

I will have you know I said it and not Ratsapprentice, at least in this thread. You mis-quoting swine!

 

[Every Time Ref]

But we would be asking if whoever was giving NZ a poor championship was really that good or benefiting from an AB dip. Its a legit question.

Either the All Blacks have got better or Aus/SA have got worse in the last couple of years. The case for the former on the team sheet is dubious. The case for the latter is obvious. We can see their systems and infrastructure and player base cracking all the way from oop north.

Will be interesting to see how Ireland go against them. Couple of years back, they pushed them all the way. There's been a lot of injuries and dents to the confidence since then, but there's still roughly the same team available.

Obviously SA and Aus have got worse, but NZ could also have got worse given the players they lost, but they didn't. That is success on their part. The question is legit, absolutely, I just think that the answer is to put their continued dominance down to "timing" is not giving them enough credit. I also think that if Aus and SA did not have these problems they would still be behind the ABs along with the rest of us, but that is just conjecture.

You could also argue it's always a question of timing - were England 2002-3 just lucky with timing? Well, in a sense yes, they were only the best team in the world because noone else was as good as them at that time. Were they lucky because the current ABs didn't exist then?

... I haven't been keeping count, only know it seems to be topical in "some" media down here, and that some are concerned with the state of the game in Australia and South Africa, and that some might be getting a little board with the All Blacks convincing wins.

Really? I haven't read anything like that, do you have an example?

I think a big reason why the All Blacks might lose in the future is boredom. They are human after all.

You remember when it was in the media that they had forgotten to erase the board after a team meeting and apparently they had been talking about being the best team in the world at any sport? That is their approach to stave off boredom - keep on pushing for bigger and bigger things. Nothing more to achieve in rugby? Look bigger.

- - - Updated - - -

I will have you know I said it and not Ratsapprentice, at least in this thread. You mis-quoting swine!

**** sorry, I'm in a hurry, I see the Bath logo and I jump to conclusions!

You can fight it out between you about who should be more offended ...

 

[ratsapprentice]

You are correct on one point, universally; Ratsapprentice said it best.

 

[Every Time Ref]

You are correct on one point, universally; Ratsapprentice said it best.

If you were that good you'd be the Rat not the Apprentice

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

As I said on another thread. I think the timing is perhaps exaggerating the scoreline at the moment, and this is due to the succession planning for the AB's, post RWC.

As it's been mentioned, most of the test playing nations are in the rebuild phase after the RWC, it's just that NZ are better prepared.

Which means that in two years time, NZ will be beautifully bedded down while we're still wondering about our best midfield and back row combinations.

Of all the countries, I think NZ's the one where everything is most geared to the national team and I also think there are some cultural reasons - emphasis on skills from an early age etc and it just matters more to them. But one area where they really excel is their succession planning. Think of who they lost at the RWC and just a year on their replacements are already pretty experienced....

* Macaw - Cane 37 caps
* Woodcock - Moody - 17
* Mealamu - Coles 43 (OK Kevan was mainly benching, but you get the drift)
* Nonu - Crotty 21
* Carter - Barrett 43
* Smith - Fekitoa 19

Those are pretty decent additions to the stable base of the locks, Read, Kaino and a couple of Smiths.

Continuity seriously helps. Take England's top 10 most capped players. Goes down to 75 caps and all bar bar Underwood and Hartley were involved around 2003, when we were the best around.

No coincidence that only one of NZs top ten retired before this current golden era and we can forgive Fitzy most things. NZ's top ten goes down to 83 caps and includes 6 centurions. Two are still active, 6 retired after RWC 15, Muliaina retired in 2011 and Hore in 2013.

 

[ncurd]

I think their's a minor factor of how long a real success (like a RWC win) translates to increased talent avaliable from inspired kids.

NZ have had sustained success going back decades and have had systems for brining people up from the talent pool up for a long time.

England for example far less so 2003 is still our greatest triumph and we are probably only just seeing the results from that now with current crop of youngsters being the right age to have been inspired by that success. Up until now everyone playing from Rugby were likely in the systems prior to 2003. Grassroot changes made to capaltalise on that success will only just be starting to take ffect.

Success doesn't breed instant success. The real question is will the wilderness years where we weren't as successful following 2003 have a harmful effect on future crops of players?

NZ are an example of once the success train start's really rolling and those gaps get smaller and smaller you really start to reap the rewards in terms of talents going through. Argubly in this country we've had the same thing in Rowing (for many year's it was Regrave and Pincent only) and Cycling (Boardman had moderate success before the Hoy, Wiggins and Pendleton years) it both sports were now a major force to be rekoned with.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I'm looking or ward to getting at them. With Joe signed on until the next World Cup, I think we'll see an Irish team vastly improved from the poor/unlucky 6nations and SA tour. If we're not absolutely ravaged by injury again I can see us reeling them in to score less than 25 points in both games, we'll need to be at our most clinical since the South Africa game in 2014 if we want to out score them though.

As as for the question I think it's simply that they quite obviously have the best players in the world and are one of two sides that are completely settled at the moment, this has surprised everyone but it's impossible to sustain, injuries and bad form will come eventually and while that is not enough to stop them being the best in the world it will see them drop games against opposition who have their **** together.

 

[MojoPin]

I think a big reason why the All Blacks might lose in the future is boredom. They are human after all.

Solid plan. Let's re-brand them the All-Beiges and watch the the victories roll in!

Anywho, back on topic, honestly wonder whether the current AB XV could have actually beaten the one that won the RWC. All the doubts about experience and legacy have been replaced with raw ambition, energy and skill. Will be interested to see how England and Ireland fare against them in their next matches - get the feeling that England will at least give them their first properly close game of the season. Don't think it'll be enough, but we might see glimpses of the possibility that they can be matched.

 

[Peat]

Obviously SA and Aus have got worse, but NZ could also have got worse given the players they lost, but they didn't. That is success on their part. The question is legit, absolutely, I just think that the answer is to put their continued dominance down to "timing" is not giving them enough credit. I also think that if Aus and SA did not have these problems they would still be behind the ABs along with the rest of us, but that is just conjecture.

You could also argue it's always a question of timing - were England 2002-3 just lucky with timing? Well, in a sense yes, they were only the best team in the world because noone else was as good as them at that time. Were they lucky because the current ABs didn't exist then?

Well yeah. It is partially always a question of timing and luck.

I think it would be better to have phrased the thread as "To what extent". No enterprise this big ever comes down to one sole factor. Of course this recent spate of victories is not just down to timing and luck that their rivals have decayed.

As of yet, I don't think we know for sure whether they've avoided getting worse or not. The sample size is too small. If they look a bit more human when away from home (and if SA and Aus continue to struggle when they come north) then maybe we have an argument for "Yes compared to 2015, no compared to the Rugby Championship because they got even worse". If they continue to crush everyone while the rest of the Rugby Championship roflstomps the north as well then the answer is "Probably not".

Still. I never once in my wildest dreams thought England would win 3-0 in Australia. I never saw the Irish winning a test in SA, not with their injury list. There is something clearly wrong with SAAR.

I have to say one thing NZ have over the rest of us is that if the match is tight at 80 minutes, they trust to their superior fitness and bench and they've been right pretty much every time. If games were 60 minutes long, they'd have suffered a few more defeats in recent times iirc. Between this and my belief that the NZ team are avoiding catastrophic injury losses better than the rest of us, I think a key part of what's going on is they've got a physical march on us. They're still pretty amazing but if teams were meeting them better in terms of fitness, I think it'd be less pronounced. Just like 2002-03 England's dominance would have been a bit less pronounced if they'd been confronting teams who were on the same wavelength in terms of gym work.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Well yeah. It is partially always a question of timing and luck.

I think it would be better to have phrased the thread as "To what extent". No enterprise this big ever comes down to one sole factor. Of course this recent spate of victories is not just down to timing and luck that their rivals have decayed.

As of yet, I don't think we know for sure whether they've avoided getting worse or not. The sample size is too small. If they look a bit more human when away from home (and if SA and Aus continue to struggle when they come north) then maybe we have an argument for "Yes compared to 2015, no compared to the Rugby Championship because they got even worse". If they continue to crush everyone while the rest of the Rugby Championship roflstomps the north as well then the answer is "Probably not".

Still. I never once in my wildest dreams thought England would win 3-0 in Australia. I never saw the Irish winning a test in SA, not with their injury list. There is something clearly wrong with SAAR.

I have to say one thing NZ have over the rest of us is that if the match is tight at 80 minutes, they trust to their superior fitness and bench and they've been right pretty much every time. If games were 60 minutes long, they'd have suffered a few more defeats in recent times iirc. Between this and my belief that the NZ team are avoiding catastrophic injury losses better than the rest of us, I think a key part of what's going on is they've got a physical march on us. They're still pretty amazing but if teams were meeting them better in terms of fitness, I think it'd be less pronounced. Just like 2002-03 England's dominance would have been a bit less pronounced if they'd been confronting teams who were on the same wavelength in terms of gym work.

Maybe better fitness is a consequence of better skills? There's always finite time for training, maybe teams who have better ball skill, for example, take less time to nail down their backs moves and there fore have more time to spend on conditioning?