By Spiro Zavos
October 19th 2009 @ 5:53am
Related coverage
All Blacks revolution: new players and ‘new’ coaches
All Blacks coach, Graham Henry. AAP Images
None of the New Zealand pundits got anywhere near picking the 33 players selected for the All Blacks Spring tour. Four of the tourists have never played Test rugby (Mike Delany, Tamati Ellison, Zac Guilford and Ben Smith).
Three of them have six Tests between them (Tom Donnelly 1, Tawerau Latimer 3, and Liam Messam 2).
Of these seven new or newish All Blacks, only Guilford looks certain to go on to become a first choice All Black.
Guilford was one of the stars of the IRB Junior World Rugby tournament this year. During the final, while he was playing brilliantly on the field, his father who was watching in the grandstand suffered a fatal heart attack.
Guilford (20) is big, fast enough and has a nose for a try. Graham Henry likened him to a young John Kirwan, arguably New Zealand’s greatest winger. This is rather like comparing a young cricketer to Bradman. Guilford, though, is level-headed, mature (he handled his father’s tragic death with dignity and composure) and has all the attributes to be a great winger.
Ben Smith is 23, has played one season of Super Rugby and three seasons of provincial rugby. This year he has been outstanding for Otago on the wing and at fullback. He comes into the squad as a sort of permanent back-up, I would guess, for Mils Muliaina (who is on his way out of the starting XV, unless he regains his old form) and Cory Jane who is a Cullen-type of running fullback who will probably get a chance in one of Tests.
The intriguing aspect of the selection of Guilford and Smith is the non-selection of Hosea Gear, Joe Rokocovo and Rudi Wulf, all Test wingers.
And the reason why these wingers have been dropped? Because Graham Henry has acknowledged that the high ball kicking game is here to stay and that New Zealand has to have players who are sound catchers and (this is the important point) who also have a strong running-back game.
The interesting aspect of rugby is that it is a clever game. Tactics are developed that allow sides that pioneer them to become dominant. But sooner or later, generally later, someone develops counter-tactics and trains new skills in his players to thwart and overturn the old current dominant style.
For some years, and luckily in the 1999 Rugby World Cup, the continuity and re-cycling game developed by Rod Macqueen, when his teams went through phase after phase until they found a gap to exploit, was almost impossible to defeat. Macqueen’s Wallabies scored a memorable try, a touchdown by Matt Burke, against the All Blacks at Christchurch with 19 phases.
Robbie Deans finally devised the counter to this continuity game. His Crusaders committed few players to the rucks and mauls while the phases were being played out UNTIL one of the attackers went in too high or without a proper support. Deans’ players would then attack the vulnerable ball carrier, force a turnover, put the ball wide and a try was on on most occasions.
So far no one has been able to create a winning strategy against the high-ball kicking game of the Springboks. But the British and Irish Lions, who were unlucky not to at least square their series earlier this year, showed the outlines of a counter-strategy. The bombs have to be defused and then run back at the Springboks.
When the Wallabies were able to do this at Brisbane they had a rather comfortable wins over the Springboks. The next week at Hamilton, the All Blacks dropped their high balls and were monstered in the lineouts and were out of the match by half-time. But when they began to win some lineouts and catch the high balls and run them back they piled on the points against the Springboks and if a cross-kick had been caught in the last play could have won the Test.
The thing about the high-ball tactic is that it relies on the catching side to make mistakes. The kicking side gives away possession (something the Springboks can afford to do if their lineout is dominant) and relies on getting the ball back from a catching mistake. No mistakes, no ball for the Springboks to run to score tries.
Moreover, if the referees force the attacking forwards out of the 10m circle near the catcher, big areas of unguarded territory open up for the catching side to exploit (provided the ball is caught, of course). In the excellent New Zealand provincial championships this year, players like Guilford, Smith and Mike Delany (27) have been catching and running back brilliantly.
Delany has been outstanding at five-eighths and fullback and clearly is being given a chance to displace Stephen Donald as Daniel Carter’s back-up whenever that great player is injured.
Henry has selected this touring side, therefore, with an eye on the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament when South Africa, England, France and Argentina, Scotland and Ireland (at least) will play the kick high and chase game.
The real revolution in the make-up of the All Blacks touring squad, though, is in the changed duties of the coaches. Henry himself is taking over the forwards, after concentrating on defence (which was the only part of the All Blacks game that was sound this year).
Wayne Smith, a sort of mad professor on back play, has been given the role of defensive coach, presumably to implement Henry’s systems and practices.
And Steve Hansen, who was widely and correctly criticised for his work (?) with the All Blacks forwards, has been given the status of the attack coach. This is not as curious as it might seem. Hansen, like Henry, was a provincial centre in his playing days. He had Wales playing a most attractive and dangerous running and attacking game in the 2003 RWC tournament.
It will be interesting and informative for followers of the Wallabies to see how this new system works out. There may be something in it for the Wallabies and their coaching staff and its systems, if it works.
For all the criticism they have received, the Henry/Hansen/Smith triumvirate have not lost a Test in Europe during their reign. In fact, in the 29 Tests in the professional era the All Blacks have played in Europe (aside from the 1999 and 2007 RWC tournaments), the All Blacks have won 25, lost 2 and drawn 2.
Given this splendid record and the poor record this season with four Tests defeats, it is hardly unexpected that the NZRU has forced the selectors/coaches to come up with something new to get back to the old winning ways.
The senior players have been empowered, too, with greater input into the tactics and playing style the team will adopt after the rather confused style presented by the team for most of this year until the final Test at Wellington against the Wallabies.
So we have an experienced All Blacks side (with one new long-term starting player), a longtime captain and a re-gigged coaching staff taking on a stable Wallaby coaching staff, a number of new potential Test players and a new on-field leadership at Tokyo in two weeks.
This confrontation is set to provide an intriguing Test with implications for the success of the Wallabies grand slam quest and Rugby World Cup hopes in two years time.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(32)
Knives Out said | October 19th 2009 @ 6:33am | Report comment
Just a few questions/points/observations/thoughts:
‘For some years, and luckily in the 1999 Rugby World Cup, the continuity and re-cycling game developed by Rod Macqueen, when his teams went through phase after phase until they found a gap to exploit, was almost impossible to defeat.’
Is it not more logical that the superb Australian defence was what made them so strong, rather than a patient attacking game?
‘Robbie Deans finally devised the counter to this continuity game.’
Robbie Deans pioneered a playing style to deconstruct the game that people copied off Australia? Rugby isn’t rocket science. There’s two ways to beat a patient phase game, either back off and rely on an organised defence, or swamp the contact zone.
‘Henry has selected this touring side, therefore, with an eye on the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament when South Africa,
England, France and Argentina, Scotland and Ireland (at least) will play the kick high and chase game.’
What is this presumption based on? Also, is Henry really looking at 2011? His European touring sides have always contained great numbers of debutants. I would have thought his reluctance to rest Woodcock, Muliaina, So’oialo, Thorn, McCaw and Hore etc means that Henry is looking for results. Significantly, if NZ rugby seeks to retain the staus quo through asserting dominance over European rugby how much will the new set-up affect the playing side? It’s also interesting, IMO, that Henry has only brought two hookers, one of whom is injury prone.
‘The thing about the high-ball tactic is that it relies on the catching side to make mistakes.’
It also relies on accurate execution, which is why SA are the team to beat. The technical ability of Du Preez and M. Steyn as kickers is exceptional. If poor catching will be exploited then so should poor kicking.
PastHisBest said | October 19th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
“Is it not more logical that the superb Australian defence was what made them so strong, rather than a patient attacking game?”
I don’t think so KO. While the defence was excellent, so was the defence of a number of international sides. It was the constant build up of pressure caused by retention of possession that was the key to this success.
“There’s two ways to beat a patient phase game, either back off and rely on an organised defence, or swamp the contact zone.”
Or a combination of both. And I’m pretty sure that’s what Spiro was describing in his article.
Knives Out said | October 19th 2009 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
The Australian 1999/2000/01 defence was ground breaking, hence they only conceded two tries in the 1999 WC, and it is somewhat contradictory to suggest that because various sides had excellent defence therefore the Australian success was built on attack.
‘Or a combination of both. And I’m pretty sure that’s what Spiro was describing in his article.’
I don’t think so which is why there is no reference to tight forward play.
Ben J said | October 19th 2009 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
I have to add to KO’s observations that NZ were at least equalled at the breakdown against South Africa which slowed their own ball and killed their momentum. If I was Henry I would look for the next Richie McCaw cause there aint’ no-one in NZ with the same ability to combat a fit Brussow if he is still around in 2011.
Bay35Pablo said | October 19th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
As much as it is probably about countering the current winning bomb style, I suspect Henry is also looking to blood new players and find depth. The cry from many Kiwis this year appeared to be the ABs were on the wane because they had lost so many to Europe, and didn’t have the depth to cope with injuries or players being off form. This is the perfect (and last) chance to find some more depth on the run into 2011. This time next year they will be finalising the team, not trying to build it.
Hermin said | October 19th 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Bay you are right in what you say, Most kiwis where gobsmacked at the abysmal showing from the national team this year. They were passionless, skillless and totally clueless for most of their games. Many also dubbed this team to be the worst of the professional era if not one of the worst of all time.
Due to such a shocking display and 4 matches dropped changes were always going to happen if they didn’t the NZ rugby public would be up in arms right now. The NZ rugby public is a knowledgable bunch as are the english football fan, not only is their knowledge of their respective codes a commonality but also the pain of under performing when it comes to world cups.
The shock inclusions of Delaney and Smith has the country buzzing immensly and has everyone talking many with a smile on their face especially those from the smaller unions because it once again shows that you do not have to be playing for the big five to make the All Blacks.
Will these players go onto be regular starting All Blacks remains to be seen.
Delaney while being hot to trot in the opening half of the ANZC provincial competition, BOP has falling to the wayside losing four straight and scraping past lowly Manawatu by one point on the weekend and much of that form also has to be placed on Delaney as he just didn’t step up, one is entitled to accolades but also must take some of the blame. Smith has been a shining light in an otherwise disappointing Otago team. Guildford has had a stellar year and deserves his spot I’m picking he’ll get a start against Italy and be on the bench for one of the bigger matches.
All in all changes had to come something was not right in the camp this year it was obvious for the world to see, player defections to europe poor, selections maybe and the biggest Injury to key personnel have all hindered the All Blacks this season. I also believe they were complacent they were so used to winning that they expected to win.
Now these guys have had a taste what it feels like to be that close to the wooden spoon it may reignite that fire, also the fact they were 3 zip losers to South Africa is certainly something that this team will need to use to motivate them on the Northern Hemisphere tour.
France should be wary of a All Black team with a deflated ego, retribution is imminent and the only way is up.
fox said | October 19th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Henry should try resting more players and have two rotating sides. Sounds like great perparation for a world cup to me.
Jokes (?) aside, it looks like a pretty strong squad to me and KO, the “presumption” as you call it, that Henry is picking players to counter the bomboozle tactic is fairly clearly argued. Is it true? It seems logical. Maybe Henry was on loo when Spiro called for comment.
There is no doubt that Macqueens gameplan on attack was to recycle possession and look for weaknesses in defences, but it is also evident that he did think about a little thing called defense as well (it’s not rocket surgery!) and delegated that duty to the great Les Kiss.
That is all.
Knives Out said | October 19th 2009 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
The presumption I query is which teams will be playing a kick and chase game in the 2011 WC. I would be intrigued to hear the logic behind Mr Zavos’ assertion.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 19th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
the youngsters are all good pups, particularly Guildford, Messam and Latimer.
In these and all selections are coded messages to all players. For me, the messages are 1. play well or bye bye, 2. I am not afraid to being in more youngsters. 3. I hear and see the obvious problems with the lineout and will address them personally. 4. rugby is an evolving game, and attack and counter attack have become a partially lost arts. 5. the high ball is in vogue. 6. Possession is still the name of the game for the AB’s and a competent line out is essential to this. 6. AB’s are short of big, tall timber.
Fox, resting players is a failed strategy. It has more of a dulling effect than too much rugby for the majority of players in the majority of positions. There is nothing like a match to hone skills.
All in all, we spectators are in for some exciting rugby if the trend is to run it back. Counter attack is not as risky as it appears. next time some one kicks, take a snap shot of the defensive line, “as crooked as a dog’s hind leg” disjointed and without the time to reassemble. so there is space for the ball runners and pressure on tacklers to make those one on one tackles.
Harry said | October 19th 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Its been noticeable to me while watching the Kiwi’s domestic comp that their kicking – and kick return – seems to be on the improve. For high kicks landing just aoutside the 22 (where the majority of kicks go these days) the catchers seem to be learning/mastering a technique of starting from a metre or two beyond where the ball is going to land and then when they jump they are also moving forward rather than stationery – the advantages being 1) if caught cleanly the player hits the ground with forward momentum, including the ability to better run it back 2) make it harder for the Oppo to keep their eye on the ball and contest, if they collide in the air they run the real danger of being pinged for tackling in the air and 3) even if the ball is spilled its likely to be spilled forward – not ideal but at least better than going behind you.
Hopefully our lot are also practicing this, but, as is the current malaise, we have no idea how it will go in the games. Guess we’ll find out when the tour starts …
Lee said | October 19th 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Teams have been doing this for awhile, watch the Tri Nations games. Most backs will do this when contesting the ball in the air or catching a kick – I don’t think it is a new thing.
Harry said | October 19th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Accept that Lee but I was just noting that the top level Kiwi players are practicing, and executing, this skill more effectively than us. Example – James O’Conner in Wellington.
Bay35Pablo said | October 19th 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Here’s hoping that the NZ counter will kill the current boring style. If so, all will follow, and in a season or 2 we could be back to more attractive rugby. If anyone can do it, and is committed to doing it, it is NZ.
The fact that blokes are getting picked from NZC shows why Australia needs an equivalent. Can you imagine a bloke getting picked for the Wallabies from club rugby? Some would argue Dave Dennis is an example, but he was in the Tahs squad, so he is a professional player. Other than the S14 players, Aussie club players are semi-pro at best, so the step up to the Wallabies will be just too huge.
Trivia question, who was the last Wallaby to be picked for Australia without playing for his province. Don’t tell me it was Phil “Boxhead” Kearns from Randwick 2nd grade …. I don’t know the answer, so would be interested to know as an aside to this issue. I’m betting no one in the professional era.
Pippinu said | October 19th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
To be honest, it doesn’t make much sense that you’d go looking for players who haven’t been blooded at the super level (in the Australian context).
The only exception would be if we had a run of injuries in some specialist positions – and needed some very last minute stop gaps.
PastHisBest said | October 19th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
It makes sense when you haven’t got any depth. Exactly the reason Deans attended club games this year, it wasn’t just to have a gander at the returning wallabies.
Pippinu said | October 19th 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
But apart from injuries – what are the circumstances where a player might debut as a Wallaby ahead of actually getting a game at super level?
If a player can slot straight into a starting position with the Wallabies, never having played a super game – what does that say exactly for the coaching staff of Australian super teams?
PastHisBest said | October 19th 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Departures overseas (ala Hugh McMenimin), developing depth, and the timing of the competitions. The S14 finished an age ago.
Harry said | October 19th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Ben Alexander had played zero games for the Brumbies – at least as a starting prop, when picked for the Wallabies at loosehead against Italy last year. He may have come on as a replacement fro the Brums in 08, but I don’t think so.
I’m pretty sure Giteau hadn’t played for the Brumbies in 2002 when he made a (poor) debut for the Wallabies as a replacement in 2002 at Twickenham.
I think you’ll find Genia has started more games for the wallabies (2) then he has for Queensland by the way …
Knives Out said | October 19th 2009 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
I recall Giteau’s debut at Tiwckenham (at 13) and I don’t think he’d played Super rugby at that point. Had Lloyd Johansson played for the Reds prior to his test debut?
stu said | October 19th 2009 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Harry – you are right about giteau.
jeznez said | October 19th 2009 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
Kind ot the reverse for what you guys are looking for but David Lyons was an interesting one, played for NSW and the Wallabies before he played club rugby for Uni, going straight on through from Hurlstone Ag and the schoolboys side.
JamesB said | October 19th 2009 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
Fair comment, but you are wrong about Mils Muliaina. Admittedly not his best season, but he remains the worlds premier fullback. Remeber – form is temporary, class is permanent. An absolute certainty come 2011.
ohtani's jacket said | October 19th 2009 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
It’s an important tour for the All Blacks not only in terms of building depth but also playing style. We haven’t had much of a playing style over the past two seasons and that’s something that needs to be addressed on the upcoming tour.
It’s early days yet, but I think the coaching shake-up is a good move, and I like the fact that the players have pushed for a forward platform. The wing situation may be a ploy to diffuse the high ball situation, but it also addresses the fact that Rokocoko is and always was an 11. You really need a different type of player to complement your 11, ala Williams/Batty, Wilson/Fraser, Kirwan/Wright and Wilson/Lomu, otherwise you end up attacking the same way down both sides.
Hopefully, we’ll peak for the game against France and go undefeated on tour. We’ll see how brave Henry is in terms of giving new caps significant game time. I hope he gives one or two players an entire Test against the likes of Wales, England and France. It’ll also be interesting to see how big an effort the NH sides make to copy the successful French and South African tactics against NZ. If we can get through this tour with reasonable performances, I think the year will have been a minor success.
katzilla said | October 19th 2009 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
I agree OJ, if we can get through this tour with our unbeaten records against certain teams in tact and with a fresh out look, rather then the dull droll dished out in the 3N then most Kiwis would be happy.
johnny-boy said | October 19th 2009 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Typical b…… Henry – more interested in how to make himself look like a genius rather than the players. Dropping Isaac Ross and telling him to bulk up is idiotic. He obviously didnt take to being a Henry yes boy so the headmaster has sent him off to detention. His old man Jock, a no nonsense Canterbury man will be mightly p……… off.
You can just smell Henry wanting to come up another ‘genius’ strategy leading up to the next World Cup, to make up for the last one, the biggest coaching cock up of all time. Wayne Smith as forwards coach. Hilarious. He might go quite well as soon enough the All Black forwards will figure he hasnt got a clue about forwards either and will just get together and do their natural thing. That could spell danger.
ohtani's jacket said | October 19th 2009 @ 10:40pm | Report comment
Ross is no good in the tight, and Henry is taking over as forwards coach. As you were, johnny-boy.
Ande said | October 19th 2009 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
Spiro,
A cople of points in contention…
1. The Pumas played the bomb kick and chase strategy effectively in the 2007 WC and were defused by the Boks in the semi final. The Bomb Kick is a good counter strategy to rush defence propagated by Jake White and then adopted the following year by other teams like wales which gave them the 6 N title.
2. “and if a cross-kick had been caught in the last play could have won the Test.” last time I heard the catcher must be behind the kicking line when the ball is launched. The camera clearly shows in line that the AB players were waiting well ahead of the kicking line, clearly offside… in fact the legality of the preceding McCaw catch and try is highly questionable. The last AB try attemps were desperate rather than stratregic and they were just lucky to get away with it as Graham would have put it…”they got the rub of the green that time”.
ohtani's jacket said | October 19th 2009 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
BTW, the high ball strategy is a counter attack method. Securing possession is the first step to diffusing it. Most of the All Blacks’ errors against the Boks could’ve been stopped a few phases earlier.
I’m not sure why anyone should be worried about the Boks. They hardly flexed their muscle at all this year. If that’s the best they can do, I’m not phased.
TommyM said | October 19th 2009 @ 10:57pm | Report comment
Why on EARTH did the ABS have a back coaching the forwards? How very peculiar…
jools-usa said | October 20th 2009 @ 1:52am | Report comment
Spiro has just confirmed my worst fears, the NPC breeds great players & has ‘em in spades.
Delaney et al are so strong & getting better experience, I’m (again) depressed again re the Bledisloe.
Jools-USA
swamprat said | October 20th 2009 @ 3:21am | Report comment
Rightly or wrongly ,rugby will continue to be more like League as commercial interests drag the 2 codes together . Temporary popularity , defined by viewing numbers and sponsorship ,is chimeric.
Knives Out said | October 21st 2009 @ 1:09am | Report comment
‘And the reason why these wingers have been dropped? Because Graham Henry has acknowledged that the high ball kicking game is here to stay and that New Zealand has to have players who are sound catchers and (this is the important point) who also have a strong running-back game.’
Hang on… most wings and full backs were selected due to their running ability prior to the current SH trend for kicking. When did coaches ignore the fact that their back three might have problems under a high ball? Rokocoko is simply out of form.