All Blacks defence - Poor, or just the way they play? Is it right for RWC 2015?

[Jack Reacher]

Just looking back over the results in this perfect year. NZ has shipped a lot of points. 22 and 19 this last week, 29, 27, 33 against Aus and Africa, even Argentina managed 15 and 13
I think I remember the same situation in 97 when we went unbeaten, a lot of close games with poor displays.....but winning in the end.
Is it OK to ship all these points and win, obviously the answer is yes but will this have a negative affect for the world cup where no matter what attitude of rugby you play defence is key.
The Australia semi final was probably the most perfect match in recent times, I've watched it 3-4 times now but looking back we pretty much played like England are at the moment - waiting for penalties, cautious back play etc. If Saturdays match was a WC final would players like Savea, Piutau, Coles, Kerr-Barlow and maybe even Dagg be picked?
I think 2014 has to be an experimental year, we've got the perfect season, won everything now we need to start playing like it was a world cup.

 

[smartcooky]

2013 RECORD SO FAR

13 matches
48 tries scored (nearly 4 per game)
16 conceded (just over 1 per game)
Average score 33 - 17
Smallest winning margin 7 points (v France in Paris)

What was the problem again?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Not a problem. If you take away the tries SA scored it becomes almost comically few tries NZ have conceded this year.

 

[Jack Reacher]

The problem is we were a couple of wonky lineout throws away from losing to England on penalties. Also how many intercept tries do we give, I know its the way we play but just of the top of my head I can think of 3 this year.
My thread wasnt just on tries, its all points and we have shipped alot lately

 

[TRF_heineken]

The problem is we were a couple of wonky lineout throws away from losing to England on penalties. Also how many intercept tries do we give, I know its the way we play but just of the top of my head I can think of 3 this year.
My thread wasnt just on tries, its all points and we have shipped alot lately

Whether you win by an inch or a mile... What does it really matter??

If South Africa beats the All Blacks and the All Blacks outscore them on tries and we just score points on penalty kicks (which used to be the case) I wouldn't even be mad. I'd take a crappy win over any loss every day of the week...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

All Blacks defence is immense.
We may have scored 22pts, but we scored one try and how long did it take us to get that after pressuring on the line/with the set piece? 9 times out of 10 that will end up in a try.
Our backs never looked like breaking through the black wall in front of them.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Dear Jack, you are looking at the points against to the detriment of all other areas. Thats a statistical trap that doesn't answer the questions effectively.
When we were in a hole against France we fought it out in the trenches camped on our own line for what seemed like an eternity and then snuck the win, just like you would expect in a RWC.
The boys can do it they just want to play wider when given the chance.

I look at the opposition and gauge them against us.

Most dangerous first and that is clearly South Africa, who have improved one helluva lot under their new coach.
Their forwards are young, fired up on the boil and they really take some stopping.
They have the players in their back line, especially with the return of the excellent Jacques Fourie to have an awesome back line. De Villiers is on fire , Le Roux looks like a real classy act and if they give Lambie a run they may find a mercurial no.10 that offer som much more than Morne Steyn. Habana is in vintage form and Pietersen has come of age. Keep Kirchner on the bench for a while until he matures.

Second most dangerous... England. Big forward pack and good kicker, if they ever sort out their back line watch out they will be monstrous to deal with.

Third, France, depending on how they show up

4th- equal... Aussie and Wales.

Saffers and England are the big improvers and my query is about our playing personnel.
Which of the long standing All Blacks is actually going to make it to the RWC fit enough to play the whole tournament?
Saffrica and England are bringing through plenty of youngsters but the AB's have a lot of old guard hanging in there.

 

[Jack Reacher]

I'll take a win anyday, sometimes you watch a match and its all you can be satisfied about. I know this sounds stupid considering we win 90% of our games but if you listen to the after match talks the players are constantly talking about improving and the 'perfect' match. We cant improve our offence much so they must mean defence which, again, isn't just tries. We have been down on possession and territory the last two games and it has been our goal line defence that is saving us. You need to go 2-3 steps back and look at why we are there.
On saturday, straight after Reads try we messed the kick off up, got possession back but kicked it straight out then spent a good 3-4 minutes defending and the TMO awarded the try (btw I thought the drive over try was more likely a try).
We need to work on restarts, taking them is fine but its the next option. Aus and south africa both let their kickers claim the deep ones and boot it right back deep, England let a forward bring it back and gain metres. We seem to like setting up mauls then either box kick it 10-15 metres or deep pass it to dagg to clear it close to half way which is no good.

 

[j'nuh]

EDIT: Oops

 

[Jack Reacher]

EDIT: Oops

this highlights my point, thanks. NZ let England have and extra 38 runs, hence too much possession, which is all a part of defense - I dont like the line break/miss tackle stats. Technically there were no line breaks or missed tackles in Reads try.

 

[Big Ewis]

Good thread, interesting points. Yes NZ have been perfect this year and very, very impressive at doing it. But it's a good idea to stop and look at the facts.

The tremendous try-defending I don't even buy too much:
- New Zealand have played France 4 times this year and France were very poor in most of those 320minutes and have had identity and attacking issues all year.
- New Zealand conceded 6 tries in two SA matches.
- Conceded 6 tries in 3 AUS matches.
- Argentina have been in complete decay this year, while England have big issues themselves scoring tries just look at the 6N and match against AUS, they need an illegal screen/obstruction to get in a try

I'm not nitpicking, but those points stand. There isn't a good try-scoring side in Europe atm, and SA and AUS (despite their bad form during the tournament) have given NZ some grief on defense, haven't they.

Also, they've given away a bunch of penalties, or at least quite more than their opponent (NZ the first figure, in bold):
- France test 1: 10 to 9
- France test 2: 11 to 5
- Aus NZ: 12 to 6
- NZ ARG: 10 to 10
- NZ SA: 14 to 8
- ARG NZ: 12 to 7
- SA NZ: 9 to 5
- in France: 12 to 7
- in Twickenham: 12 to 9

Notice how (almost) all of those are double digit for NZ vs single digit for the opponents.

Possession and territory are stats to look at as well, here are some notable possession stats (NZ in bold):- an avg. of 52% in the 3 France tests, so 48% including one game with just 40% (ironically the 30-0 test)
- AUS NZ: 60-40
- NZ-SA: 52-48
- SA-NZ: 58-42
- in France: 61-39
- in Twickenham: 62-38

All teams who have played against them this year have managed a *huge* advantage in possession, even Australia in their first encounter; with Argentina the only team that hasn't accomplished that.
On one hand, it's remarkable they've managed to win all those games, and usually by a good margin (test 2 vs France they had 40% and thrashed their tourists 30-0).
But on the other hand, it is something to look at. Four of five teams they've faced have managed '60-40' type figures against them, France having the advantage 3 of 4 tests. They've certainly had trouble taking the ball from the opponents, even though the few turnovers they got they usually converted to 7 points !

So remarkable, but smt to bear in mind for sure. Those are some very one-sided stats.

 

[Jack Reacher]

Thanks Big Ewis, I knew the proof was out there, I was quoting on pure emotion and memory. The possession stakes has been a concern of mine for a couple of years, yes NZ are very patient and eventually the tries will come (think of what the score could have been Saturday if we didn't go off the boil after Reads try) but opposition teams do get from their 10m to our 22 very easy - a lot of people say we cheat at the breakdown etc, I think NZ is too careful here now. McCaw got pinged on Sat for doing nothing (penalty to put Eng ahead) simply by reputation, he wasn't off his feet, he wasn't diving over and he wasn't blocking the ball - go figure!
I think this is where we miss Kaino and Thorn, no disrespect to Messam or Rettalick/Romano but we need that enforcer. The forwards have too much freedom now and our tight play is suffering.

 

[Big Ewis]

Jack Reacher:
well I think the truth is NZ really haven't been 'great' at the breakdown. They've had less presence, less assertiveness and the stats speak volumes and are rigidly one-sided.
btw I realize possession/territory doesn't count as defense per se, but it's certainly in direct correlation with this thread.

And yes, as you've said, sides get from their 10 to the NZ 22, or at least from mid-field to the NZ 22 all too easily. France have literally "camped" (term used by Saint-André himself and many fans) in the NZ 22 for a bit of a shocking portion of those 4 consecutive tests.
The amazing things are that France have been blatantly incapable, time after time, consistently, of actually scoring the tries.
But this thread is about NZ: the other amazing thing is, sure sides get there often, but most of them don't have the finishing touch.

AUS have much less impressive stats than say France in 4 tests or England, but they've managed many, many more tries.

My only conclusion about the whole try-scoring and possession/territory is this: only capable sides, basically the other two SANZAR nations, will score tries on NZ. The All-Blacks can't just hold such sides to no try at all in every confrontation, that's not reasonable thinking. In fact, nobody is asking for that. And as long as while they give teams a lot of possession and ground, they make sure they in turn score a ton of tries, it's all good, it doesn't matter.

The two examples this year of opponents scoring a lot (total, and tries) on them, they've just simply scored more themselves:
- "final" in Jo-burg. NZ concedes 4 tries and 27 points total. Ouch.......ouch ? Not really. They in turn score 5 and 38.
- Bledisloe 3, Dunedin: Wallabies score 3 tries and 33 points total. NZ with 4 and 41.

But as I've said previously: it's still a big stat, it's definitely consistent this year in particular, and it is something to look at for a team that strives for more than quality, but rather strive for perfection, may it be said.

 

[Jack Reacher]

Big Ewis;
Agree, I am just so passionate about NZ Rugby (I live in the Uk now so my national pride is even higher)I just want to win and win well every time - gives me some sort of 'anti homesick shot'!
Some of Aus tries this year have been consolation and deflated the winning margain, but also very soft and the French matches we did enough to win no more, no less. The tries against us are never well constructed, usually scrambling, intercept or tired defence. I was at the Scotland game last year that seems to be the start of this current playing structure. Last years NZ TRC team was much stronger and performed defensively better.
I've literally just got off the phone with my English boss who thought England played well but he felt that if they scored again, NZ would score twice etc which is exactly your point. I just don't see that when I'm watching if you ignore the scores we look like the poorer team on many occasions - this team however will be written down in history as the greatest of the professional era.
Though shouldn't moan, I still can remember the poor sides of 98, 02 and maybe 09 plus the unforgettable WC exits. So I'll go look at my WC picture and have a smile!

 

[Chikwa]

Why change a winning formula of deadly counter attacking rugby?
My primary concern is the personnel as had been quoted in threads above .We really do not yet have understudies at 12 and 13 and 8 which are key positions.
The opposition coaches must be baffled when they look at the statistics and see an undefeated side .
My view is whatever works for you stick to it.one loss and one draw since Hansen took over!!!

 

[Chikwa]

Why change a winning formula of deadly counter attacking rugby?
My primary concern is the personnel as had been quoted in threads above .We really do not yet have understudies at 12 and 13 and 8 which are key positions.
The opposition coaches must be baffled when they look at the statistics and see an undefeated side .
My view is whatever works for you stick to it.one loss and one draw since Hansen took over!!!

Watch newzealand defend carefully there is method in what seems like madness.When do they ferociously attack the breakdown! And when are they content to spread their wings?

 

[Big Ewis]

Jack Reacher:
since you've opened the talk to New Zealand's success and possible flaws in general, I must say this.
First, let me pay a final tribute to the All-Blacks' greatness:
Clearly NZ have been amazing this year. In a parallel universe, they could have only just won matches, come within 1 or 2 points at times, and had many noticeable flaws that were substantially debilitating. But in this current world, they don't. They didn't only win every single match this year, they never came *that* close. The closest was in France with a tie in the making that never happened, but still a 7point margin.
So NZ have been absolutely stunning, and absolutely deserve the praising of everyone around the world. If not, then those are disgruntled fans, as NZ have been amazing on attack - *amazing*. Very little errors, almost always a super fluid attack, every single try practically a masterpiece, beautiful combinations, and pure athleticism, force and speed from the individuals themselves.

All world class players, would probably make up 50 to 75% of the current World XV off the top of my head, and by far the most amazing machine to behold as a machine. They could have much lesser players at every position, like, if every guy on the team were 33% a lesser player, they'd still be the best team in the world because they're the best, most fluid system there is.

BUT:
though some have disagreed with this, I must insist: New Zealand can show signs of psychological fragility. Without getting into details, they looked a bit suffocated in Twickenham for e.g. and given their "choking" reputation in the RWC, I can see a team taking them down given the current complexion of world Rugby and its respective sides after a good year of 2013 international ball. Pressure does seem to get to them, and England are a fine team at home but aren't 'great' and they did come back from 3-17 down to take the lead at 22-20 at the 60' and all of a sudden I felt the All-Blacks were all-vulnerable again, like England were gaining on them and their clinical aggressiveness was getting to them. I thought "man, the English fans watching must think they're going to win this right now..."

So I don't mean to criticize, but if I were a NZ'er, I'd be quite skeptical about my team in that regard precisely: psychological frailty and the perpetual, inherent pressure that has meant the All-Blacks' doom many times before in key moments, and they haven't looked heads and shoulders above their opponent in pressure games. Major credit for what they accomplished in the TRC final in Jo-Burg though, no doubt, scoring even a Read try comfortably with 14 men, but these current AB's match up very well against those current Boks, not to take away from them.

 

[Isurus]

Possession and territory are stats to look at as well, here are some notable possession stats (NZ in bold):- an avg. of 52% in the 3 France tests, so 48% including one game with just 40% (ironically the 30-0 test)
- AUS NZ: 60-40
- NZ-SA: 52-48
- SA-NZ: 58-42
- in France: 61-39
- in Twickenham: 62-38

All teams who have played against them this year have managed a *huge* advantage in possession, even Australia in their first encounter; with Argentina the only team that hasn't accomplished that.
On one hand, it's remarkable they've managed to win all those games, and usually by a good margin (test 2 vs France they had 40% and thrashed their tourists 30-0).
But on the other hand, it is something to look at. Four of five teams they've faced have managed '60-40' type figures against them, France having the advantage 3 of 4 tests. They've certainly had trouble taking the ball from the opponents, even though the few turnovers they got they usually converted to 7 points !

So remarkable, but smt to bear in mind for sure. Those are some very one-sided stats.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Possession stats, particularly with regards to the All Blacks, can tell a very false tale.

Teams with strong forward packs but who are unable to convert possession into tries will almost always show up with strong possession stats. They win plenty of set piece possession, and hold onto the ball for long periods. France and England over the past 2 weeks are obviously examples of this. The All Blacks use their possession much more effectively which is why the most important "stat" is always the scoreboard.

Forgetting about specific teams, take 2 theoretical teams, A and B, of equal ball winning and retaining ability. Set piece stats will look very similar. Now make one of those teams, say A, significantly better at turning possession into tries. What ends up happening? A holds the ball for less time because they convert their possession into tries more effectively and much more quickly, while B holds the ball for longer periods. End result: A wins on the scoreboard most of the time while B wins the possession stats most of the time.

There is rarely a clean mapping from theoretical to actual but in international rugby we have it with A=New Zealand and B=France/England.

Am I wrong on this?

Take another perspective on this: is there an actual example, or can you forsee a scenario, where the All Blacks win the possession stats significantly but lose on the scoreboard? I may be wrong but I doubt there is a single case of this in the past ten years.

Possession stats can be interpreted to mean domination of one team over another where the truth can be almost the complete opposite. I will say it again, the most important stat by far (i was going to say 'the only stat that matters' but that is too short sighted) is the scoreboard.

 

[Isurus]

BUT:
though some have disagreed with this, I must insist: New Zealand can show signs of psychological fragility. Without getting into details, they looked a bit suffocated in Twickenham for e.g. and given their "choking" reputation in the RWC, I can see a team taking them down given the current complexion of world Rugby and its respective sides after a good year of 2013 international ball. Pressure does seem to get to them, and England are a fine team at home but aren't 'great' and they did come back from 3-17 down to take the lead at 22-20 at the 60' and all of a sudden I felt the All-Blacks were all-vulnerable again, like England were gaining on them and their clinical aggressiveness was getting to them. I thought "man, the English fans watching must think they're going to win this right now..."

So I don't mean to criticize, but if I were a NZ'er, I'd be quite skeptical about my team in that regard precisely: psychological frailty and the perpetual, inherent pressure that has meant the All-Blacks' doom many times before in key moments, and they haven't looked heads and shoulders above their opponent in pressure games. Major credit for what they accomplished in the TRC final in Jo-Burg though, no doubt, scoring even a Read try comfortably with 14 men, but these current AB's match up very well against those current Boks, not to take away from them.

You identified the moment when England took the lead as the moment of maximum New Zealand fragility, yet the opposite is true. That is the very moment when the mental strength took hold. The All Blacks took that amazing moment of immense and sustained pressure that can happen in sport at the highest level and completely owned it. They took the game by the throat and dominated the remainder of the match.

You would have a much stronger argument if you talked about the period leading up to England taking the lead. I don't think a lack of mental strength was a factor at all in that 40-50 minute period in the middle when England were on top. England played very well in that period, we lost a key man for ten minutes, and significantly I think the refereeing played a huge role.

There are times in the past when I think we have been fragile, the most significant being the World Cup Final. But not in these last 2 matches. England and France are world class teams and they can be difficult to deal with at times. Don't take credit away from them and call it NZ fragility, that undermines what the opposition did on the field.

 

[Big Ewis]

I don't think they were fragile in France, I think they were great to score those two tries. The defense France played that day was unreal.
England weren't as good on defense when they hosted the Blacks, and yes, I was referring to the moment when England just rose back into the game. Sure the All-Blacks responded well, but they let smt happen which they shouldn't have.
A team can be extremely stressed but still succeed, and vice versa: a team can be playing fantastic, confident ball but have difficulty scoring points because the opposition is that suffocating.

It looked for a moment like England were going to do it again, everybody felt that. And of course they earned that rise-up all the way to take the lead, but the All-Blacks looked like they were being subjected to the rhythm again, all too reminiscent of Twickenham 2012. But yes, they still responded. Although given the match, surely New Zealand could have done better than 30-22, I think. I think they were very bothered, and limited by the atmosphere and the stakes. England played very well, but the AB were supposed to come to London and conquer, take a gourmet revenge on England. This looked anti-climactic, devoid of spirit, esp. after the Reade-to-Savea try in the first 5min, surely everybody thought NZ were going to stop at nothing and show a starving appetite. Though, again, England played very well, very clinically, NZ were subjected to England's pounding, and certainly not the other way around.
So I'm not taking credit away from any team, this isn't what I'm doing. New Zealand don't look like they're beasts on the psychological aspect, and we were all looking to see which team would show the most bloodlust, England looked frantic, simply. NZ looked like they were trying to survive the England waves; constant wave after wave; and sting every once in a while with a precision masterplan for 7points.