I might also point out, as some one wiser than me has already, that the early 3N season had been jumped started for the Bokke, with three training runs against the Lions adapting to the new rules. The Wallabies and All Blacks also took a couple of games to adapt to the new rules. The Bokke also had a better run with injuries than the ANZACS.

I would not be surprised if we revert to the natural order of things next year and the Bokke come third, particularly with two games in NZ.

Your comment below your article makes clear your intent with this – and I agree.

The physicality the AB’s brought to their back play in that game had a huge bearing on the result. The extra impact that their bulk brought to the contact area must have physically taken it out of the French defenders, and the idea of running straight forcing each player to tackle is more draining than letting them get away with drifting across without having to commit to the tackle.

Yes a smaller player can tackle a bigger one effectivly – but if you force them to do it time and again throughout a test they will be more physically fatigued from that than an equally sized player would be.

The AB’s forced the French to make a lot of tackles and I believe this really took it out of their players – perhaps contributing to their lack of penetration on attack?

As for Nonu, a “banger” (the label used by a friend of mine) par excellence, I think his current success has to be seen in the context of who is playing inside of him. Basically Dan Carter is such a complete player that there is no need to have a “second five eighth” on deck, and instead New Zealand can go for a 12 with Nonu’s strengths. But as we saw in the first half of the international season, if Dan Carter is not playing at 10 for NZ, then everything changes and 12 ceases to be Nonu’s optimum position for NZ. (Or to put it another way: Carter is so amazingly good that he makes anyone look better at 12.)

Australia’s outside backs last weekend weren’t exactly giants either. Nor are players like Rob Kearney, Shane Williams (mentioned by someone above) and Lee Byrne. I actually feel that, as far as outside backs are concerned, the pendulum has swung away from size a little bit. What NZ have learned this year is that it’s far more important to have wingers who can catch high balls and kick judiciously than it is to have big wingers.

However, for those backs closer to the “collision zones”, size and strength may be more important.

“Dwyer rates inside centre Ma’a Nonu as the most improved player in world rugby.”

I agree that he’s really rounded out his game. Surprisingly though, one still hears many callers to RadioSport NZ fretting that Nonu is not up to it. (I stress that this is not my opinion.)

On the basis of the last few months, especially his performances last weekend and against Australia in Wellington, I’d have to nominate Tom Donnelly as “the most improved player in world rugby.” I had him pigeon-holed as a journeyman, but it seems I was very, very wrong.

The try fest may just as well be explained as ‘end of the season’ or “nothing to lose’ hit out against a very ordinary French outfit.

On smaller guys & guts and technique – I have to agree that some guys are wonderful tacklers and it’s a joy to see a smaller player bring a big bloke crashing down BUT ….. with their smaller frame versus a bigger frame , they need to get it exactly right everytime.

If you can get to someone, no matter how big they are you can bring them down. Good tackling skills will fell the biggest player. Berrick Barnes is a shinning example of great tackling by a small bloke. I believe speed will usually beat brawn in attack.

Can we get someone with an original thought in S14?

The other obvious player was Alfie Langer most probably the consummate small guy in a big guys game.

The other part about the size of the backs is that forwards can leave them to work for the turnover. There is not a lot of extra weight the forwards are going to bring unless it is Palu, Horwill or Elsom. Both props are not that big. This is obviously both good and bad.

It was only a few years ago that we had Mortlock (101), Tuqiri (104), Sailor (108) and Latham (101)… And into the mix Rathbone (101), Burke (100), Gerrard (100).

Sorry Bruce…a couple of big kiwis running around on Saturday (that have actually been running around for a few years now) doesnt demonstrate a shift. In fact, as mentioned above , most countries back are no bigger and are often smaller than they were at the 2003 RWC.

They were all big, fast and skillful, and at that time played a fantastic gameplan under McQueen.

I think the French when they beat New Zealand in 1999 were giving away massive Kilos, but they still won. There will always be a place for small players, provided they are good enough. A big man can be tackled by a strong defender, just like a big man can break weak tackles.

Bruce your point about NZ possessing “big, powerful direct-running 12″ is a throwback to All Black backlines of the past where you had a confrontational player in close and a playmaker out wide like the Bill Osborne/Bruce Robertson midfield. That changed in the mid 1980′s when Joe Stanley played centre and was partnered with players like Warwick Taylor and John Schuster. Then we had the Little/Bunce combination and recently Mauger/Umaga.

As Stillmissit correctly mentioned Nonu can still be shutdown by a smaller player tackling him round the legs but his general play has improved, particularly his decision making, passing and defence. Although I disagree with Stillmissit that the Springbok backs are smaller than NZ’s backs.

Mortlock, Ashley-Cooper, Cross, Ioane are powerful runners. Brian O’Driscoll is no midget and neither is Jamie Roberts, Gavin Henson and Tom Shanklin from Wales. Mike Tindall, Stuart Abbott, Damian Hipkiss, Cueto and Banahan don’t lose in any size comparison and neither do Jauzion, Traille, Heymans and Rougerie. Don’t even get me started on the PI teams who feature some giants masquerading as backs.

The difference between the top teams and the rest as Stillmissit states are player and coaching skills, belief, mental toughness and confidence. The relative size of your backline is just the icing on the cake really.

What I’m actually hoping to see is a Wallaby coaching team that actually delivers a game plan that plays to our strengths and exploits opposition weaknesses. Wouldn’t that be nice?

As stated in the great NZ movie Once Were Warriors – “All weight work, not enough speed” and so it has been proven. Ma Nonu on his day is unstoppable but he doesnt have many of those days. Giteau seemed to me to have his number tackling him and didnt give him a highway to the line. OK they played very well against France but the All Blacks love it when we write this ‘how can we ever beat the AB’s’ stuff.

Reality guys let’s stick to reality. They are just a bunch of guys in shirts the same as our guys, the difference comes from all the small things that make teams strong ie good coaching, faith in the other members of the team, skills and of course that deep feeling that you will not let these bastards get the better of us.

I would agree with you, Sam, if the article was intended to be just about player size. The title that I submitted for this article was “A glimpse of rugby’s future – physical imposition by big, fast backs”. For some reason Roar’s sub-editors don’t like the titles I choose and frequently change them, with the occasional result, as in this case, that the focus of what I have written is obscured.

The main point is not that the All Blacks backs were big but rather that they have taken the advantage available from superior size and power to its logical conclusion. For 80 minutes they physically imposed themselves on the French, looking for heavy engagements rather than aimlessly kicking possession away or throwing pointless cut-out passes. Eventually the French backs were worn out and ground down.

By contrast the Springboks have achieved short term success by using tactics which are not really suited to their big players. Putting up high kicks with long hang times could be exploited by great chasers like Habana and Pietersen but it tended to take their big powerful backs out of the game. Once opposing teams learnt how to cope with the bombing raids the ‘Boks no longer looked a super side.

While there is still a place in the game for less powerfully built players, they are the exception and the first thing they do when they play at the highest level is spend the summer months bulking up. The width of attacks is more compressed with defensive lines stretched across the field and there is less space on the field compared to 10 years ago so more often than not players have to try and barge their way through defenders rather than go round them. I wouldn’t say that the current All Blacks backline is a pointer to the future as the future has already arrived. Look at teams rated in the top 10 and it’s possibly Australia who has the lightest and smallest backline compared to their peers. That’s a reflection of Deans selection policy and the players available and not an indication the Wallabies are bucking the trend.

As for the game becoming too much like league, there are certainly some league influences with defensive lines, second man plays and banana kicks but union is still very different from league and any NRL fan will happily tell you that until the’yre blue in the face.