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

[TRF_heineken]

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.

But is it fair to have everyone but the All Blacks, play catch-up??

Where's the balance??

 

[FrenchFan]

Not necessarily. It doesn't come down to numbers. It comes down to priority. NZ is ahead of the posse because the ABs are the no1 priority in NZ rugby. They're on top of the pyramid. It's not the same everywhere.

Also, in order to play catch-up successfully we need a competition that enables the NH to raise the bar. The 6N of the last 3 years hasn't delivered. It's a nice competition but it doesn't challenge the RC in terms of competitiveness of the teams involved. Wales are a good side and could win the next 6N yet got taken apart by NZ in the last series.

Without a more competitive 6N it's hard to see the NH catch up with NZ given the lead they have and their ability to ride out generation changes. Tours are not enough. We've been touring for decades and it's not enough.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Not necessarily. It doesn't come down to numbers. It comes down to priority. NZ is ahead of the posse because the ABs are the no1 priority in NZ rugby. They're on top of the pyramid. It's not the same everywhere.

Also, in order to play catch-up successfully we need a competition that enables the NH to raise the bar. The 6N of the last 3 years hasn't delivered. It's a nice competition but it doesn't challenge the RC in terms of competitiveness of the teams involved. Wales are a good side and could win the next 6N yet got taken apart by NZ in the last series.

Without a more competitive 6N it's hard to see the NH catch up with NZ given the lead they have and their ability to ride out generation changes. Tours are not enough. We've been touring for decades and it's not enough.

Excellent post FF.
You have covered a major issue succinctly.
The Club system which put rugby on the map in Europe is now holding back the European rugby nations. Wales were a lot nation in the 1980's and into the 90's. If it wasn't for the difficult work by Graham Henry and co. Wales would still be in a mess. Yes it put a 'lot' of Welsh peoples noses out of joint (some are still smarting about it now) because they had their beloved club/county amalgamated into others they had enjoyed a rivalry with for generations. This action cut down the number of little slices in the cake and meant that there was a less convoluted path for the best players to make their way along the conveyer belt to the top squad. The results from the pre-Henry era don't compare well to the post Henry era. It took a long time and a lot of upheaval but...
Wales are back on the map, with trophy winning ways and a competitive side that cannot be taken lightly by anyone.
England are a different type of fish. Comparatively the game in England is so popular that the clubs have flourished and so has the national game to a certain extent. The English system is turning out quality recruits in spite of the Club structure because the player base is so numerous. There is starting to be an issue with foreign players in the English set up taking places of potential England candidates but it's not nearly as advanced as it is in France.

The 6 Nations is not delivering the kind of competition that will see the top NH teams get better, or the bottom teams improve.
It's a lovely old relic but it's just not fit for purpose anymore.
It desperately needs change to bring a better vehicle to the fore so the competing nations can have more pressure at test level.
France, England, Ireland and Wales, thats it, 4 top nations, home and away, each team gets 6 games and they will all be hard because the teams are good. It's not too long away from the club competitions and the week in week out nature of the tournament will mirror the pressures of being at a RWC.
Italy AND Scotland go down into the next tier with Georgia and Romania? and they do it again. This enriches the tier two making it much more viable and watchable. Scotland or Italy might actually win something and they could win several games instead of just one, something that never happens to Italy. Georgia and Romania would get the tv time, sponsorship and the tough international games that they desperately need and rugby would start to get more attention in their countries.
This would need to be driven and financially assisted by the IRB.
This doesn't stop test matches being arranged between the tiers during the year. They can be added as mini tours to keep the national team squad together as a unit.
No coming up and down every year. Instead base it on success at the RWC and if Scotland, Italy, Romania or Georgia do better than one of the teams from the top four so the changes in the tiers are made.
It would certainly make the NH teams sit up and try harder at the RWC.
On their last RWC performance England would possibly be in the second tier for four years, the ignominy of such a situation and the potential loss of sponsorship would demand more effort from the players, coaching staff and the management.
In short the pressure would MAKE the countries streamline their focus into bringing the best players through and giving them a bit more time with their national squads, then it would improve their abilities under fire because the quality and intensity of the competitions they were involved in are going to be ratcheted upward.
It's a pipe dream at the moment but unless changes come the status quo will remain largely untouched.

This is the kind of paradigm shift that would allow the NH teams to advance.
The talent is here and the market is ready (look at Wales structure, everything is in place they just need a higher bar than the 6 Nations format provides to strive toward every year) but the changes have to come for the NH teams to be able to take advantage.

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I cannot agree with basing the tier teams are in on world cup performances. England and Wales were in a group of death whilst someone like Scotland had a dead easy group. England doing badly in the world cup was a blip rather than the norm and 4 years of thrashing tier 2 teams because we lost just 2 games in the world cup would be ridiculous. The general format I agree with but I think it should be decided in a promotion/relegation battle between the bottom and top teams of the 2 tiers.

I doubt this would change it much though in terms of the performances being put out. What is needed is a change in coaching mentality. NH coaches still value size, power and brutishness over subtlety and skill. lurching from set piece to set piece, breakdown to breakdown is much easier than trying to coach free flowing rugby and much easier to play. England U20's play much more free flowing rugby but it seems to vanish at club level as it is trained out of them rather than reinforced. England U20's have shown they can match NZ for skill and endurance at that age but there is no desire to continue that once they become seniors, they are made to fit the existing mold.

 

[Larksea]

Ive gone over my thoughts about this in other threads but this one is actually about it so will repeat myself

The AB's current relative strength is being overstated. Saying they have taken the game to "another level" or "best ever" is simply wrong. Right now the main reason the AB's is so strong is because AU & SA hare going through tough rebuilding phases are they are our main competition year in year out. They are the teams we generally get measured against.

What this AB team has been able to do is maintain a good amount of momentum since losing an amazing group of players (Woodcock, McCaw, Carter, Smith, Nonu, Mealamu) plus a bunch of other regulars like Messam, Vito, Slade etc.

All while actually having a pretty big injury list as well.

Should be considered impressive.

But I have two major concerns.

1, Rotation seems to have been put to bed.
Rotation from 09-15 could be seen as one of the reasons we are in such a strong position now. We used to use every bit of our 32 man squads, this season only 23-24 players are getting game time unless there are injuries. I think it also means that our regulars are getting overworked somewhat. I always point out 08-09 as an example. In 2008 rotation was shelved and we used our top side consistently and I think they got overworked. 2009 many of that 08 top side spent large parts of the season injured or in poor form, we lost the tri nations and only really got our momentum back on the EoY tour.
Now the selectors clearly have a plan to develop some players like Fekitoa, Cane & Barrett by playing then constantly and giving them lots of gametime to get experience. But I really think its important to rotate out and rest some of our more experienced guys like Read, Retalick, Whitelock, Kaino & Ben Smith. I think these guys are at the stages in their careers now where the squad as a whole can benefit more from them having extra week R&R now while giving another player some game time to get experience.

2, We dont have a big enough challenge to get the best out of ourselves.
We are being conservative, with selection in particular. We have 4-6 guys in the squad who are selected on past rather than current form. Because the current squad is winning games we are not being forced to pick on form. Just running with what has worked in the past has been more than enough.

Now to argue against this point as well I think I can see the selectors plan. The culture within the squad is absolutely critical, I think they feel they simply cant risk it by making too many selection changes within the squad. I think they have decided with so many important players gone from last year they have kept changes in check to maintain squad culture as much as possible. They have only made selection changes when forced to by injury or availability.

 

[Immenso]

Part of it is just a flukey timing.

Post 2011-RWC - In 2012, Hansen blooded a generation (some back ups, some starters).
These guys were a freakish bulge of talent mostly from the 2011 U20s (Cane, Retallick, Barrett, TJP) plus some from the year or 2 before (A Smith & J Savea) plus Coles who was a late bloomer who bloomed at the right time.

Add to that S Whitelock and Cruden were debuted just prior to 2011.

Anyway, since 2011 at U20 level NZ have been relatively mediocre. There's been some individual talent among the dross elevated to AB level ( A Savea, Tuipolotu, D McKenzie). Although tbh a trickle to supplement the odd flood maybe normal. Many of the new caps have still been 2011 JRWC alumni who graduated to AB level a bit later (Sopoage, Piutau, Bird, Luatua, C Taylor)

Anyway. The 2015 to 2016 transition was so smooth due to the talent ready to go back in 2012. Had gotten the max amount of experience, and were bursting to go once the old guys vacated. The future transition in 2019 to 2020 won't be so amazing unless we get another bulge of talent in next few years.

I'm hoping NZ make this pay up to and including 2019 as these things don't last ......

 

[The Jones Boy]

Ive gone over my thoughts about this in other threads but this one is actually about it so will repeat myself

The AB's current relative strength is being overstated. Saying they have taken the game to "another level" or "best ever" is simply wrong.

Correct. We are not 'that' good, and there is no 'other level', it's simply we are playing better as a team while our major competition tries to sort itself out. You are Bang on Larksea. As the other teams sort themselves out so the games will become much closer and outcomes will become more random.

Right now the main reason the AB's is so strong is because AU & SA hare going through tough rebuilding phases are they are our main competition year in year out. They are the teams we generally get measured against.

What this AB team has been able to do is maintain a good amount of momentum since losing an amazing group of players (Woodcock, McCaw, Carter, Smith, Nonu, Mealamu) plus a bunch of other regulars like Messam, Vito, Slade etc.

All while actually having a pretty big injury list as well.

Should be considered impressive.

It is a good effort especially when you add Sonny Bill Williams to that injury list. He was earmarked as a cornerstone of our midfield in the rebuilding process.

I have two major concerns.

1, Rotation seems to have been put to bed.
Rotation from 09-15 could be seen as one of the reasons we are in such a strong position now. We used to use every bit of our 32 man squads, this season only 23-24 players are getting game time unless there are injuries. I think it also means that our regulars are getting overworked somewhat. I always point out 08-09 as an example. In 2008 rotation was shelved and we used our top side consistently and I think they got overworked. 2009 many of that 08 top side spent large parts of the season injured or in poor form, we lost the tri nations and only really got our momentum back on the EoY tour.
Now the selectors clearly have a plan to develop some players like Fekitoa, Cane & Barrett by playing then constantly and giving them lots of gametime to get experience. But I really think its important to rotate out and rest some of our more experienced guys like Read, Retalick, Whitelock, Kaino & Ben Smith. I think these guys are at the stages in their careers now where the squad as a whole can benefit more from them having extra week R&R now while giving another player some game time to get experience.

2, We dont have a big enough challenge to get the best out of ourselves.
We are being conservative, with selection in particular. We have 4-6 guys in the squad who are selected on past rather than current form. Because the current squad is winning games we are not being forced to pick on form. Just running with what has worked in the past has been more than enough.

Now to argue against this point as well I think I can see the selectors plan. The culture within the squad is absolutely critical, I think they feel they simply cant risk it by making too many selection changes within the squad. I think they have decided with so many important players gone from last year they have kept changes in check to maintain squad culture as much as possible. They have only made selection changes when forced to by injury or availability.

In the RC I'm not being rude or boastful when i say it has been too easy this year (oh thats fatal isn't it, touch wood) hopefully the away games will prove to be harder than the debacle in Sydney where we started the 2016 RC campaign.
We faced an Australia that had been psychologically splintered by a strong English tour and we eviscerated them. Only now they are away from us are the Wallabies starting to recover.
The Bokke are a powerhouse outfit being tormented by reverse racism. The 'quota' system is a twisted sort of payback by the ANC and it is hurting the Boks in the short term and may have issues for them into the medium term. Ultimately they will overcome it simply because there is so much talent in the Republic.
Argentina are a joy to behold yet they still have more ground to cover to be assured of avoiding the wooden spoon every season.

On rotation, I'm pretty sure they want to keep the team leadership as intact as possible while letting the young players and potential partnerships (midfield) have a chance to take hold and blossom. Losing 900 caps in one tournament is a big ask to recover from and that will be why the new boys are being kept together to play together, it also has to be done in a winning culture or the public at home will be calling for crucifixion.
Now with the world record for consecutive wins in the offing I can see even less change coming from the AB management team and I am not going to gainsay them on that front.
To come out of the RWC, losing 900 caps and a collection of truly 'great' players, it would have been nigh on unthinkable for them not to drop a game or two in the first year of rebuilding. If they can hold on for another 7 matches and have a clean sweep year and take one of the few records they don't already have (on their own) then its a very favourable outcome for the AB's going into the new year where they can be a little more experimental. I would like to see Moala get an opportunity in the midfield if he can stay fit and it would be nice to see Naholo have an extended run.
SBW will be back next year and that will put the cat among the pigeons.

- - - Updated - - -

Part of it is just a flukey timing.

Post 2011-RWC - In 2012, Hansen blooded a generation (some back ups, some starters).
These guys were a freakish bulge of talent mostly from the 2011 U20s (Cane, Retallick, Barrett, TJP) plus some from the year or 2 before (A Smith & J Savea) plus Coles who was a late bloomer who bloomed at the right time.

Add to that S Whitelock and Cruden were debuted just prior to 2011.

Anyway, since 2011 at U20 level NZ have been relatively mediocre. There's been some individual talent among the dross elevated to AB level ( A Savea, Tuipolotu, D McKenzie). Although tbh a trickle to supplement the odd flood maybe normal. Many of the new caps have still been 2011 JRWC alumni who graduated to AB level a bit later (Sopoage, Piutau, Bird, Luatua, C Taylor)

Anyway. The 2015 to 2016 transition was so smooth due to the talent ready to go back in 2012. Had gotten the max amount of experience, and were bursting to go once the old guys vacated. The future transition in 2019 to 2020 won't be so amazing unless we get another bulge of talent in next few years.

I'm hoping NZ make this pay up to and including 2019 as these things don't last ......

Good call, the conveyer belt is a fickle creature and it's up to the management to keep it flowing and to spot the late bloomers in the Super rugby that need to be elevated into a spotlight role.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

For once I think Mick Cleary has hit the nail on the head.

"And that is one good reason why New Zealand have become so pre-eminent. There are no such things there as conflicting ideologies. The union owns the product. Coaches coach according to the creed handed down by Steve Hansen through the Super Rugby franchises and into the provinces. The All Blacks intellectual property is the most valuable in the rugby world and the most well-guarded. The entire country is on-message, not just its rugby infrastructure".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...laboration-is-only-way-england-can-emulate-n/

 

[FrenchFan]

Agree entirely with the article. Our clubs and union have now moved into 2 separate galaxys. They no longer speak the same rugby language.

"When the game went professional in 1995, New Zealand (and others) opted to contract their players to the union. England and France dithered and private owners moved in."

This is exactly what happened here. The 1995 RWC was the watershed. The union here was already talking about contracting internationals at the time. I remember it well. But unfortunately it turned out they were just doing what unions generally do well: TALKING.

Club-country collaboration is paramount to the success (or failure) of the national team.

Shared power with the clubs is one area the union here could have gone (still can). But that takes vision, courage and no small amount of diplomacy to establish a sound working platform with the big clubs. The biggest winner could and should have been FFR. Amazingly they can't see it. Now they're the biggest loser.

There is still room for either power sharing with the Top 14 clubs (much better option than ******* down their neck) or centrally contracting the internationals. Which one will FFR take? It was their move. It still is. We're still waiting.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

A few points in relation to some of the posts above.

i) I think Wales, Ireland and Scotland are all improving to an extent that, while they will still be underdogs against the English, they will push England's standard up. Some of the young talent coming through in Welsh & Irish Pro12 sides is high quality, and there is an increase in comfortable ball handlers in the forward pack, particularly in Wales. Connacht & Scarlets will likely fail in the Champions Cup this year as they are really struggling, but that doesn't reflect the quality that is in those countries.

ii) Its worth noting that not every NZ coach employs the same tactics. Joe Schmidt is arguably very different to the conventional view of NZ coaching. There is a lot of kick & chase, territorial play and intentional lineouts with him and arguably not quite so much running from deep. It is still proving a competitive formula because he has the players to make those tactics work. I think his template might be the recipe for success for the Springboks if they choose not to go down the Lions / Stormers open rugby route.

iii) England and France are so massive in population, league structure and financially to their competitors around the world, that they don't need a perfect fusion of club & country in order to be world beaters. They just need it to be not quite as terrible a conflict as it appears to be in France. And England or France that was run even 80% as well as NZ would probably overtake them in the rankings.

 

[ianw16]

When the game went professional in 1995, New Zealand (and others) opted to contract their players to the union. England and France dithered and private owners moved in.

TBH, it was already a far more streamlined structure in NZ (and I think SA), which already lent itself to being controlled from the national union. You leave school, you play for a club in your local provincial union. You're good enough, you get picked for that provincial union. Good enough for them, and it's onto the ABs (putting aside age group teams). From 1976 in NZ there was the NPC. It was, and still is, a very good structure, with the addition of Super Rugby to provide an extra level below international. The club competitions were already run by the provincial RUs. The provincial competition was already run by the national union. Central contracts were pretty much the default position once the game went pro.
The NH was a mostly a mess. Millions of clubs, all playing 'friendlies', so you could have a northern England club playing a midlands club, or southern club. There was no structure. How the hell the selectors managed to pick an England team is beyond me. Wales wasn't so bad, with their major powerhouse clubs, who often got games against touring teams. Ireland had its provincial structure. Even with the introduction of the league system into England, I think those clubs saw themselves (and still do) as being removed from any sort of overall RFU control of what they could and couldn't do.
So I think NZ and SA, in particular, had the systems in place already that immediately lent itself to control by the national union when they went pro. And then, of course, the NZRU had known for years that professionalism was coming, and no doubt had planned for it. There seemed to be a fair amount of ostrich like behaviour north of the equator.

 

[The Jones Boy]

iii) England and France are so massive in population, league structure and financially to their competitors around the world, that they don't need a perfect fusion of club & country in order to be world beaters. They just need it to be not quite as terrible a conflict as it appears to be in France. And England or France that was run even 80% as well as NZ would probably overtake them in the rankings.

I agree, the economy of scale is staggering in the big countries.
This is all cyclical.
The big boys will roll around with a winning outfit at some stage. The French can't always be the bridesmaids, the English have done it once and away from home, they can do it again.
It's a matter of time.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I think the scale may actually work against Eng and France. Too many vested interests, too many players of roughly similar standard etc etc. Arguably we need much better co-ordination, better coaches and a higher sense of common purpose.

We won in 03 due to the happy confluence of a golden generation of players and a slightly mad coach. We did not win because of the system or by design, the following years and the reasons behind SCW's resignation were proof of that.

 

[FrenchFan]

A few points in relation to some of the posts above.

i) I think Wales, Ireland and Scotland are all improving to an extent that, while they will still be underdogs against the English, they will push England's standard up. Some of the young talent coming through in Welsh & Irish Pro12 sides is high quality, and there is an increase in comfortable ball handlers in the forward pack, particularly in Wales. Connacht & Scarlets will likely fail in the Champions Cup this year as they are really struggling, but that doesn't reflect the quality that is in those countries.

Agreed. Wales and Ireland will keep England honest. And the 6N will essentially become a 2 tier competition with Italy France Scotland in the bottom half. Not sure about Scotland. They looked improved under Cotter but he's gone and I think they will miss him.

iii) England and France are so massive in population, league structure and financially to their competitors around the world, that they don't need a perfect fusion of club & country in order to be world beaters. They just need it to be not quite as terrible a conflict as it appears to be in France. And England or France that was run even 80% as well as NZ would probably overtake them in the rankings.

Disagree. Made the point earlier that it comes down to priority, not numbers. http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...y-That-good-or?p=817422&viewfull=1#post817422

It's up to the union to decide. If they don't make that call, the clubs will step in and have their way. This is exactly what happened here.

Same goes for money. Money is with the Top 14 clubs, not with the union. And not just because some of the clubs (actually a minority) have sugar daddies.

The economy of the Top 14 is +150M euros and growing. FFr's is 100M and struggling. Oops. France womens can't go pro due to lack of union funding. France Men 7s are also notoriously under funded.

Money and players are going into the club game here. FFR can't compete. Saying we have the numbers so it will 'sort itself out' is fallacy because it all depends on where those resources are going into and more resources are currently going into the club game.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I feel England are beginning to work towards proper club-country cooperation. I feel this is another Lancaster legacy he won't be remembered for, he made England a good image to be associated with. On the whole clubs still value their independence but it seems there is much greater desire for clubs to put aside what they want to assist England than there has been before. I feel in another 10-15 years we will have a proper system set up to develop players from U20 through to something like the Saxons and development at clubs then into the senior team. At the moment we are the best in the world at the young stage but the transition (Ie when they play for clubs) is not working. It seems like clubs slam the brakes on player development as they get stuffed behind the more experienced players and forced into more conservative playstyles.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Sorry @ragerancher, my inner chimp's coming out to play...

We're the best in the world at the young stage because we start lifting weights earlier Part of the reason talent doesn't develop is the superannuated overseas player - Evans, Burger etc etc. I'm all for quotas, just not in the RSA sense.

Lancaster's job was to produce on field results not to act as a brand consultant. In that he failed.

 

[TurkishDelight]

No doubt that the AB's are very good, but I think that they've been made to look even better by the fact that South Africa and Australia are currently toilet, and if those two countries can't match them, then no other nation has a hope! England moving in the right direction mind.....

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Sorry @ragerancher, my inner chimp's coming out to play...

We're the best in the world at the young stage because we start lifting weights earlier Part of the reason talent doesn't develop is the superannuated overseas player - Evans, Burger etc etc. I'm all for quotas, just not in the RSA sense.

Lancaster's job was to produce on field results not to act as a brand consultant. In that he failed.

That is a point often levelled at England but is contradicted by some things. For starters, the England U20's have not been the largest quite a few times. I think the last time England U20 faced the AB U20 our pack was actually lighter. The U20's also show some good ball handling and play more flowing rugby like the ABs do. Lastly I know what Lancaster was supposed to do and yes he failed at it. However England's image was destroyed prior to him coming in and he did a lot to change things around in various areas.

 

[The Jones Boy]

"And that is one good reason why New Zealand have become so pre-eminent. There are no such things there as conflicting ideologies. The union owns the product. Coaches coach according to the creed handed down by Steve Hansen through the Super Rugby franchises and into the provinces.

This is utter rubbish.
Hansen doesn't dictate how coaches and what coaches should be implementing with their players outside of the AB set up.
The fact is he doesn't need to...
Kiwis have always loved running rugby and even during the 1980's when Grant Fox was following the international remit for penalty kicks being pre-eminent we were still a nation that admired running rugby and paid greatest respect to the Wales teams of the 1970's and the great running French teams that included Sella and Blanco
We lost World Cup opportunities because the desire to play attractive rugby often got in the way of playing tournament winning rugby.
There never has been a considerably conflicting ideology among the NZ public or the rugby fraternity.(Except when we have had coaches who weren't thinking expansively...
It doesn't come from Hansen.
It comes from what Kiwi's want to see when they watch rugby at any level. School, club, provincial, super or the AB's.
This attitude has been in us from the start, it didn't come upon us in recent years. Strewth, what a load of poppycock.

The importance of the forwards is never lost on us but 'the desire to run at pace and create tries has always burned in Kiwi hearts 'whether it's in touch rugby with your mates at the beach or a local park, or it's on the biggest stage.
Tries over kicks anytime.
That attitude has cost us in the past.
Doesn't matter though, thats our attitude and it won't be changing.

All Blacks intellectual property is the most valuable in the rugby world and the most well-guarded. The entire country is on-message, not just its rugby infrastructure".

There is a chunk of the Kiwi population that couldn't give a s**t if the All Blacks never existed. Rugby means nothing to them. They never watch rugby or go to games and they don't know the rules (mostly sheilas to be fair but it's still a chunk of the population) The entire country is not on message, standing excitedly anticipating a ticket tape parade etc, what a load of old rot.
If you want to see some ugly rhetoric and a disunited nation, just wait until the AB's start to lose... then it's real ugly and the provincial factions flare up.
The share of the kiwi population that cares about rugby is not on message at all. They know their rugby and if they are not happy with the 'style' of rugby being played they will be keenly forthright in their opinions, public and private regardless of the result.
Hansen is performing a miracle in our time at the moment. Not only is he winning a LOT he is also winning in an eye catching style that ardent Kiwi rugby supporters admire.
If that were to change make no mistake, the glowing rhetoric would change in a heartbeat and you would think that NZ was about to slip beneath the waves.

No doubt that the AB's are very good, but I think that they've been made to look even better by the fact that South Africa and Australia are currently toilet...

Bang on.
RSA are well below their usual high quality and Aussie have issues they can't resolve until they bring in fresh talent.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

An article with some big names giving their perspective on AB dominance. I think they all overlook player development a bit.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-union/why-the-all-blacks-are-simply-the-best-1-4259286