Just about every Kiwi ever to play up here remarks on how much more time is spent in the weights room. I don't think we're spending more time on conditioning than them. I think we're doing conditioning wrong.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
The All Blacks, are they 'That' good, or...
- Thread starter The Jones Boy
- Start date
Just about every Kiwi ever to play up here remarks on how much more time is spent in the weights room. I don't think we're spending more time on conditioning than them. I think we're doing conditioning wrong.
The weights room isn't what leaves you with more in the tank than your oppo after 70 minutes, I'm talking about cardio, lung capacity and all that jazz. Not a particular gym bunny so excuse the lack of technical knowledge in this area, but you know what I mean.
I know it isn't. My point was its not that the Kiwis are all sodding off to the gym early because they're so slick on their backs moves while we labour out there all day. That clearly isn't the case. We are not spending less time on the physical training aspect of the game.
We are clearly spending it differently though.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 22,765
- Reaction score
- 11,013
It's all in one though. You could have the best aerobic and anaerobic fitness in the world but if the muscular endurance isn't there you'll be gassed or broken at the end of a match. NZ have it the best, probably with a bit of a genetic advantage having the Pacific Islanders in such a good system, and they always push on in the last ten minutes while other sides falter. Mental fatigue probably cones into it too because they are so well drilled they don't need to think their way through games as much as other sides, this could have been neutralised in the past by dirty tactics but not so much anymore in the big brother era of rugby.
Fair enough, my hypothesis is ******** by the sound of things.
Like I said, don't know enough about that side of things to comment but it's clear they're doing something better than the rest of the world
Like I said, don't know enough about that side of things to comment but it's clear they're doing something better than the rest of the world
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,755
- Reaction score
- 10,610
Good technique helps with match fitness though. If you keep your opponent moving more than you are, they will tire first even if fitness levels are similar. Nz can make defences run all over the place and don't let them rest at the breakdown, they keep the ball moving. That is the killer. I think if teams can slow down NZ at the breakdown or alternatively play that fast back to them, NZ will not be any better at the end of the match.
The Jones Boy
First XV
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,708
- Reaction score
- 772
I wouldn't call that luck, I would call that great management. Hansen has been masterful in the way he has managed this team with ensuring game time for players so that no-one is dropped in the deep end. Barrett didn't just appear from nowhere to replace Carter, he had 36 caps under his belt at the beginning of this International season. Remember Cruden? He had 37 and he didn't play any tests in 2015! He was supposed to be Carter's understudy, but injury hampered that plan so badly that he missed the 2015 RWC.
It isn't luck that we have a great pool of talent to choose from and that we have depth in all positions. For the position example you have chosen, at 10, we also have Sopoaga, and then waiting in the wings, Richie Mo'unga, Otere Black, Ihaia West and others. We have the NZRU's excellent oversight of the game in this country to thank for that. Although the two parts of the NZRU, the Board and the Executive are sometimes at odds over what should be done, they continue to pay the bills for the National Provincial Championship (Mitre 10 Cup) even though it loses a truckload of money every year, because they understand its vital importance in the identification, development and nurturing of talent for the future of the game here.
IMO, Australian Rugby would be in a far better position than it now finds itself had it not axed the Australian Rugby Championship (ARC) after just one season (2007). The raising, seven years later, of the National Rugby Championship (NRC) from its ashes is a tacit acknowledgement of what a monumental blunder that was. All the time, the ARU spent the money it should have spent supporting concepts like the ARC, on a series of has-been Rugby League players, e.g. Timana Tahu, Mat Rogers, Wendell Sailor, Lote Tuqiri, Jarrod Saffy and Cooper Vuna, in an effort use a "top down" approach to get a winning International rugby squad. This sort of thing is at best, a stop-gap measure, and at worst, seriously undermines the grass roots of the game.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,902
- Reaction score
- 6,942
I really doubt the ABs are that much fitter, I suspect it's just easy to look that way when you're winning. Their success is much more down to being smarter rugby players than better physical specimens.
There aren't any other great teams around at the moment, but the best chance of beating any team is trying to make them play a way they don't want to. If that means slowing it down, playing really tight and ruining the spectacle for the neutral then fine. I think the ABs are probably just too good at the moment, but I do know that taking them on at their own game is the road to madness.
There aren't any other great teams around at the moment, but the best chance of beating any team is trying to make them play a way they don't want to. If that means slowing it down, playing really tight and ruining the spectacle for the neutral then fine. I think the ABs are probably just too good at the moment, but I do know that taking them on at their own game is the road to madness.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,755
- Reaction score
- 10,610
I kinda disagree, I think the way to beat NZ is to do exactly that. They tire teams out because their recycling is so fast. I compared the NZ game to some NH games and they NEVER faff about at the ruck slowing the whole game down, it is constant speed and pressure. Slowing down at the ruck allows defences to reset and gaps to be filled, NZ make sure that doesn't happen. The thing is, people are terrified of trying to do it back to them, dominating the ruck area and keeping the ball fast to constantly keep the AB defence under pressure. As it is most teams try to slow it down and win an arm wrestle. The thing is, the ABs are no weaker than any other side and are tactically superior so that will never beat them. When England used to beat the ABs it was because we just kept them under pressure constantly and that is how they are to be beaten.
So basically we need to bite the bullet and learn how to play without stopping every few seconds. There is no 2 ways about it, if you can't play like that then you can't defend against it either. NH teams need to learn to be ruthless and never slow down their own attack. A large part of this is the Scrum halves fault, nearly all NH scrum halves want everything nice and set before they do anything.
Not sure whether or not we are discussing semantics here. Of course it is neither all ABs good work nor 100% other teams bad luck. I have acknowledged Hansens work (1st line, 3rd paragraph from the post you quoted) but i cannot even fathom the idea of things like Lambie's injury not being bad luck.
When you have a player like Jantjies having a solid SR season, consistently kicking above 70% every game and he suddenly starts kicking at 50% in key TRC games, dropping silly balls in his own 10 yards, well, i have a hard time placing all the blame on the the coaches or trainers or preparation.
NZ loses the (arguably) best fly half in the history of the sport and the replacements not only pick up the baton but even manage to raise the bar. That has a big part of talent pool, a big part of the staff to make sure that such a pool is exploited properly, but the raising the bar, well, i don't think a lot of people saw that one coming so i have to give luck a place in the rationale too.
What happened to RSA's fly half would be the equivalent of NZ losing Barrett and Cruden and having your third pick kicking at a 20% lower accuracy rate than he does in SR.
Again, i don't think anyone here is denying NZ's talent pool nor the way such pool has been (rightly) managed to prevent gaps in the transitions, but the point of this entire thread is about how good the ABs are in comparison to other teams. It is a relative measure.
When you have a player like Jantjies having a solid SR season, consistently kicking above 70% every game and he suddenly starts kicking at 50% in key TRC games, dropping silly balls in his own 10 yards, well, i have a hard time placing all the blame on the the coaches or trainers or preparation.
NZ loses the (arguably) best fly half in the history of the sport and the replacements not only pick up the baton but even manage to raise the bar. That has a big part of talent pool, a big part of the staff to make sure that such a pool is exploited properly, but the raising the bar, well, i don't think a lot of people saw that one coming so i have to give luck a place in the rationale too.
What happened to RSA's fly half would be the equivalent of NZ losing Barrett and Cruden and having your third pick kicking at a 20% lower accuracy rate than he does in SR.
Again, i don't think anyone here is denying NZ's talent pool nor the way such pool has been (rightly) managed to prevent gaps in the transitions, but the point of this entire thread is about how good the ABs are in comparison to other teams. It is a relative measure.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,902
- Reaction score
- 6,942
I totally agree with that. But that pressure was exerted more through using our strengths of a strong pack and a metronomic kicker, than taking them on at their preferred faster wider game (not that our backs were mugs). Asking players to play against the ABs in a way they don't instinctively do for their countries or even clubs won't work.
Last edited:
So I did some research and wanted to see how each tier 1 nation (in today's terms) have responded to the professionalization of rugby. So basically I compared their win% from before oct. 1996 (i gave a year for nations to adjust to professionalization for a year). I also divided the Professional Era into 4 benchmark years in which the win% from that year runs from that year until modern day.
So basically the All Blacks were more successful before hand and afterwards, but they have continued to get period during each period. South Africa is basically the same as it was in 1996. Wales and Ireland have improved the most.
My theory is that the All Blacks started the professional era already better at rugby and they had a better plan and execution for how to operate with pro rugby. They have continued to have success because all their current Internationals grew up in an era when New Zealand Rugby was so far ahead of everyone else in terms of structure and preparation of professionalization (I believe they continue to be as well.)
Eventually their efforts are going to hit decreasing returns to scale and the gap between them and the teams who have adapted well to the pro era. Who that is and when it happens I have no idea? but i think a lot of the All Blacks success is due to their preparation for the professionalization of rugby.
- - - Updated - - -
luck is just the error term, a lot of things that people say are luck are often the results of things that they didn't do but their opponent did
So basically the All Blacks were more successful before hand and afterwards, but they have continued to get period during each period. South Africa is basically the same as it was in 1996. Wales and Ireland have improved the most.
My theory is that the All Blacks started the professional era already better at rugby and they had a better plan and execution for how to operate with pro rugby. They have continued to have success because all their current Internationals grew up in an era when New Zealand Rugby was so far ahead of everyone else in terms of structure and preparation of professionalization (I believe they continue to be as well.)
Eventually their efforts are going to hit decreasing returns to scale and the gap between them and the teams who have adapted well to the pro era. Who that is and when it happens I have no idea? but i think a lot of the All Blacks success is due to their preparation for the professionalization of rugby.
- - - Updated - - -
luck is just the error term, a lot of things that people say are luck are often the results of things that they didn't do but their opponent did
Fair enough, but that is precisely why i used Lambie's example.
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,708
- Reaction score
- 772
Luck does play its part, but usually on the negative side mor than the positive
This is called "pressure". Any international rugby player will tell you that the level of the game is a step up and everything happens faster and under more pressure. There are many Super Rugby/Top14/Premiership players who were really good at domestic level but simply were not good enough to make the grade at the next level. In NZ I can think of a few...Isaac Ross, Mark Ranby, Casey Laulala & Craig Newby. Perhaps Jantjes is one of those who simply isn't good enough to handle the pressure and speed of the International game
Well, that did already happen to us didn't it - lost Carter, then Slade, and had to call in the 4th no 10 for the bench in the final, then lost Cruden early in the final and on came our 4th choice 10. They even made a movie about it.
I'm under the impression that the ABs put more emphasis on cardio/speed as well as strength, but a bit less so on "bulking up" whereas the NH players all seem to be as large as they can humanly get. I don't see many that look like Beauden Barrett, Ben Smith, Damien McKenzie, Conrad Smith or even Sam Whitlock or Ardie Savea in the NH. Even a guy like Dane Coles looks like he "could" be bulkier, but he isn't.
On the subject of WC drop off they have lost players getting up their in age with replacements that are basically just as good:
Carter - B.B.
Richie - Cane/Savea
Nonu/Smith - not as great, but still even Crotty and Fekitoa aren't bad.
Does look that way Kempistry, aye.
And on player replacement/luck - the more players you have, the unluckier you can afford to be. The stronger the side, the unluckier you can afford to be too. If you'd stuck Stephen Donald into this year's Boks team, things woulda looked a bit ugly. Jantjies would have probably gone better in 2015 ABs.
Frankly, it feels where ever you look, they're doing things better.
And on player replacement/luck - the more players you have, the unluckier you can afford to be. The stronger the side, the unluckier you can afford to be too. If you'd stuck Stephen Donald into this year's Boks team, things woulda looked a bit ugly. Jantjies would have probably gone better in 2015 ABs.
Frankly, it feels where ever you look, they're doing things better.
Since we are talking about relative terms, a team's bad luck is another teams good luck, hence my comment. I sincerely believe we are discussing semantics here. Lets move on.
There might be a bit of that, in many cases actually a lot, but you cannot always blame pressure and in many cases the sample size is too small to arrive to any sort of definitive conclusion. Some people crack under pressure and some people just have a bad day, week, month. There is quite a lot of statistical analysis and the results are mixed at best. You need more evidence before you conclude someone choked.
When we talk about things like these i can't help thinking about Quade Cooper. With just a tiny bit of cherry picking i can easily put a couple of games together to show how the guy plays better under pressure in a big stage or pick another couple and show how the guy is amazing at unimportant games and drops the ball when it matters and the stakes are high.
Personally, i think the guy is just erratic. You never know which one is going to show up, regardless of the pressure. My opinion course, you don't have to agree, but i hope you see the point i am trying to make.
You are not going to like this example but bear with me please: following your logic, that when a better team loses against a worse one (relative terms again) you can explain such event by "pressure", you could easily argue that the ABs WCs loses against Australia in 2003, France in 2007 were because of the ABs not being able to handle the pressure. I do not believe that for a second, and i assume you do not either. What i do believe, just to avoid any potential misunderstandings here, is that the best team had a bad day and the worst team had a good one, and that was enough to compensate for the difference in skill, preparation, training, coaching and talent. It happens. Sucks when it happens at a world cup but sometimes it is impossible to predict how a ball is going to bounce, regardless on whether it is friendly game at the local club or the world cup final.
Cheers
I think if we compare the previous teams like the 2007 Springboks and 2003 England, one of the reasons for their downfall (if we can say that), was the argument of Boring Rugby being played. And what happened? Changes were made.
The introduction of the ELV's brought to fastening up the game which lead to England not "keeping up the pace" to teams like Australia and NZ, especially on dry fields. After 2007 RWC, changes to rucks and kicking-and-chasing was the start of the demise of the Springboks.
All the changes that were brought forward was done to make the game more attractive and to get more viewership, yet, the teams who has been affiliates of World Rugby since inception, were becoming less powerful and proud records started to tumble into the abyss.
Now for the past 8 years there has been a dominance we haven't seen in the history of the Rugby World, and while the laws are still changing, it's making the AB's more powerful and weakening other teams.
Teams like England and South Africa can't use their traditional dominance anymore, and have no other choice but to fit in and adapt to the new laws and the pace of the game.
The introduction of the ELV's brought to fastening up the game which lead to England not "keeping up the pace" to teams like Australia and NZ, especially on dry fields. After 2007 RWC, changes to rucks and kicking-and-chasing was the start of the demise of the Springboks.
All the changes that were brought forward was done to make the game more attractive and to get more viewership, yet, the teams who has been affiliates of World Rugby since inception, were becoming less powerful and proud records started to tumble into the abyss.
Now for the past 8 years there has been a dominance we haven't seen in the history of the Rugby World, and while the laws are still changing, it's making the AB's more powerful and weakening other teams.
Teams like England and South Africa can't use their traditional dominance anymore, and have no other choice but to fit in and adapt to the new laws and the pace of the game.
The Jones Boy
First XV
But they will catch up and be be better in time to come.
The vastly greater player reserves they have to call upon dictate this... in time.
The vastly greater player reserves they have to call upon dictate this... in time.
