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

[Isurus]

We were under the kosh no doubt about it. I agree with you that England were pounding away at us with wave after wave of attacks through the forwards. But how is that equivalent to psychological frailty? I really don't get that. To sustain such a massive pounding and then still come out on top only looks like mental strength to me.

You seem to be suggesting that we should come to Twickenham and just batter England. I don't get that either. This is fortress Twickenham. This is one of the world's powerhouse rugby nations with the largest financial and player resources of any nation on the planet. This was a big, aggressive, and very competent pack doing what they do best with a massive home crowd screaming them on. It is a pretty much universally accepted truth that England bases their game around forward power, set piece excellence, and a strong kicking game. That is where their strengths lie. New Zealand's game is built around different strengths. So why should it be the expectation that we should come to Twickenham and dominate them in the forwards?

I think we had the better of the scrums (there was a post in the match thread that detailed all of the scrums and clearly NZ had the better of them overall), we had the better of the lineouts (certainly when it mattered), and we got our asses handed to us at the restarts (this was very disappointing as it had been a massive strength of ours all season). Overall we at least matched England at the set pieces and that is a huge positive.

What kept England very much in the game was the breakdowns where we came off second best. The major factor in this in my opinion was the refereeing. Here is an article in the NZ Herald describing how the breakdowns were policed and the All Black response to it: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11159105. This is a major concern. If the reffing was unfair then that needs to be sorted quickly. If it was a case of interpretation then we need to figure out how to deal with those interpretations effectively. To be sure, the policing of the breakdown on Saturday was not consistent with how we have been refereed all season. This was a major problem for the leadership of the team on the field in the heat of the battle. Maybe Richie and co could have dealt with this better. Maybe they dealt with it as well as it was possible to deal with it. In any case I honestly don't see a lack of mental strength. I see huge mental strength on display to overcome such a serious challenge.

You said:

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.

I completely agree with you here. Mentally fragile and still win, versus mentally strong dealing with a tough challenge. There is also the case of being mentally strong but just not playing well, or playing well but the opposition playing better. In any case my interpretation of that match was that we were strong mentally while you seem to think the opposite. I am just not sure why? Is there actually any evidence of this? Just saying England had a period where they were on top, or we let a lead slip, doesn't necessarily equate to mental weakness on our part. To be honest I don't actually know what would pass as good evidence of mental weakness but I think I would recognise it if I saw it, and I haven't seen it this month from our boys. In fact, I really feel like we are witnessing one of the all time great leaders in Richie McCaw and we will only really appreciate what he has done for this team once he is gone.

 

[admartian]

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...

This. A win is a win is a win is a win.


Yeah - wanting your side to score tries looks and feels better. But the result is paramount (I'm looking at you 2013 Baltimore Ravens....).

 

[Chikwa]

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.

Here here the objective is to win games.The win is reflected on the score board.Why would you want to keep possession for long periods when you only need the ball for five minutes to score a try. Which is the telling statistic?

 

[Big Ewis]

Isurus:
you'reright, and I got to say boy does it feel good to discuss with gathered people who won't erupt out of the blue !
You're right, I might be wrong about the AB...but I still must say in all honesty, I feel there's a bit of it still. Well you ask for evidence, I don't have anything specific though that could be arranged I'd imagine, if it's a fact they were stressed and psychologically affected.

I only have a general sentiment about it. Yes, NZ reacted to the English onslaught, but that was just intensity. Stress gives you that rush, it is on the other hand precision that lacks, dexterity, the subtle skills...and I felt NZ looked like they weren't playing this game like they would another, in a way that is independent and isolated from what England were proposing. Just the suffocating atmosphere took from their ability.

I felt they had a double enemy that afternoon: find their game and not let the stress invade their thoughts and keep their composure, all the while fighting off endless waves of English weighty bodies and trying to finally assert their own rhythm onto the game and stop being subjected to the other.
As a neutral, I've felt they definitely looked down rather than high, and England had the upper hand psychologically and played with confidence and relentlessness.

And you say Twickenham is tough, the English defend it well. You're absolutely right, but, what I had in mind was what I saw there in the first 6 min. In my mind, NZ are the invincible squad who have now come to Europe and wanted to exact revenge on the English particularly since they were now on-form and ready to play 80min, and I thought they would explode with amazing Rugby the whole way, where ppl would watch and say "ah...see, that's why they're no. 1 and no one will catch them." That the crowd would be loud and the English players fired up but then all of this silenced by the AB supremacy on any field. That's how you assert yourself when away, pure confidence, silence the crowd, make the hosts look like slowpokes playing an obsolete style.

I think you've got a point in that they did react, but 30-22 I don't think is a good result for NZ, especially given how the game went, they honestly should've done better.

And this is all to say that I feel when NZ know they're going into a game with a big challenge, or a nasty rivalry, they can sometimes be subjected to the other and lose confidence in what they've been doing for months that's been successful.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

This thread is like Australia: full of kiwis and the odd saffa, pom and Frenchman

 

[Chikwa]

http://www.allblacks.com/news/23875/Wide-ranging-All-Blacks-willing-to-concede-some-ground-up-front

Interesting !!!

 

[Jack Reacher]

Some great points, all well and politely presented! Again, I write from my emotions. I haven't 'enjoyed' (possibly the wrong word) watching NZ as much this year - only because I come away feeling deflated slightly and frustrated. That is why I've joined the forums!
When we scored the first two tries on sat I was jumping and fist pumping but by the time Savea got the winner I was so frustrated and drained I simply muttered 'yes'.
Another point made by a friend is that NZ are simply just doing enough to win, if a team gets close we kick on etc. Will we ever see another match like the third test against Ireland last year or Argentina away where there is nearly 100% domination and no let up. I dont think Hansen lusts after these type of performances, its almost like they're worried about playing the ultimate game or 'peaking' too soon. Again listen to the players post match and they all say 'Its good we've got stuff to work on, we always want to improve' etc.
Hopefully the year ends on a high and we can put together an 80 against Ireland that is satisfying and makes me regret my decision not to pop over to Dublin!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Jack, you are a sadist, my friend. ;P

 

[Jack Reacher]

Jack, you are a sadist, my friend. ;P

HAHA, its just like I mentioned earlier, the rugby is my homesick antidote and when we play poor I don't get my hit! - you should have seen me after 2007 WC, I'm not one of those saddo's that its all of got in my life but its national pride pure and simple.

 

[Big Ewis]

HAHA, its just like I mentioned earlier, the rugby is my homesick antidote and when we play poor I don't get my hit! - you should have seen me after 2007 WC, I'm not one of those saddo's that its all of got in my life but its national pride pure and simple.

yeah well make sure you don't lean on the All-Blacks and Rugby only, because if that crotch breaks, you're down on the floor with nothing but tears and a broken ass. It's a fabulous sport, the most noble and beautiful one to watch imo, but it's just a sport. At the end of the day life is still right there as it's always been, and we still have to figure out how the day is going to go, the week, the month...much, much more important than some sport, as entertaining and interesting as it may be.

 

[Jack Reacher]

yeah well make sure you don't lean on the All-Blacks and Rugby only, because if that crotch breaks, you're down on the floor with nothing but tears and a broken ass. It's a fabulous sport, the most noble and beautiful one to watch imo, but it's just a sport. At the end of the day life is still right there as it's always been, and we still have to figure out how the day is going to go, the week, the month...much, much more important than some sport, as entertaining and interesting as it may be.

True, but I have friends in Aus and Uk who have severed ties following rugby, my brother couldn't identify 80% the current NZ team and he played rep rugby in the 90's! If there's one thing I'll always hold on to from NZ is following rugby - ITM, Super rugby, doesnt matter.

 

[Isurus]

The way the international calendar is structured I think we rarely see the best of the All Blacks in these autumn internationals. It is at the end of a long season after all. I can't recall a truly outstanding performance from NZ in November for some time. The 47-3 thumping of France in 2006 really sticks in the memory. The 32-6 win at Twickenham in 2008 perhaps. They tend to play pretty well in the Millenium Stadium so Wales often gets a torrid time. But those kind of performances at this time of year are rare. The All Blacks typically start their season slowly and then quickly build to peak performance. Mostly you see them at their best in mid season in the Rugby Championship. Sometimes earlier, as the Lions found out in 2005. It will be very very interesting to see the home series against England next year. If these form patterns go as expected then England could be in for a tough old time.

Another thing I want to say here. Not always, but very often opposition teams raise their game significantly when they play us at home. France and England (especially France) have not been consistently strong over the last 12 months yet they both produced a big performance against us. I am expecting Ireland to do the same and this last match is no foregone conclusion by any means. The All Blacks have to maintain a consistently high standard to win a lot of tough matches. I don't like to be too critical of them when they get through some tough games on the right side of the ledger even though they did not really reach the highest levels we know they can.

 

[Big Ewis]

Isurus, what on Earth are you talking about ?! France have been beyond glorious all year long.