New Zealand rugby is in a state of decline

Yup.

Basically, our top two sides are in semi-final contention like they usually are. That may not satisfy some pundits who'd like to see four NZ sides in the semis or at the minimum our top sides dominating the competition to guarantee an all-NZ final and another NZ Super 14 title, but there's a few things that irk me about that sort of thinking. Firstly, it seems rather apparent to me that all three countries with sides in the mix makes for a more exciting competition than NZ dominating. Considering how boring most of us find the Super 14, you'd think we'd welcome the competitive nature of this year's competition. Moreover, given the number of people who claim they'd rather see the NPC restored to it's former glory than support the Super 14, I have to wonder why they care about our form. I guess it's convenient when you want to push your own agendas or make damning statements about the state of the game and the people running it. Lastly, if South African rugby is stronger than us, good for them! It was only a decade ago that Australian rugby was stronger than us at least at Test level and everyone was talking about how much faster Australia had adapted to professionalism than us. Man do people have short memories. It was only a matter of time before New Zealand's status in the game was challenged. The only real questions I have are how long will it last for and how bad will it get because a lot of people are suggesting that South Africa are building some sort of long term dominance. At least sanity prevailed and they remained a part of SANZAR.

I don't disagree with you, my point was aimed more at those lazy journos who love to talk up Deans Super rugby record as an explanation for his perceived superiority as a coach compared to Henry. Chris Rattue (and Spiro) are often guilty of this. I was merely pointing out any comparison has to be made at international level. So if you started the comparison of Deans and Henry from 2008 against each other and all countries, Henry still comes out ahead. I don't see the point about comparing against predecessors as the rugby landscape has changed so much from the last NZ coach (John Mitchell). The All Blacks are regularly playing 15 tests a season now so statistically there is a greater probability that their percentage of losses will increase. The All Blacks are now playing their greatest rivals three times a year, that's never happened before so Henry has had to contend not only with a busier test program than any of his predecessors but also against tougher competition. Deans is in the same position with the Wallabies and that is why I stand by my comment that any comparison between the two coaching records at international level is not only relevant but also accurate. I know that you're no Deans sycophant and have held him to higher scrutiny than many of your countrymen and I'm not anti-Deans despite my posts as I'm a great admirer of the teams he has coached in NZ and believed he should have got the All Blacks job in 2007. But he didn't and I've moved on and wholeheartedly support Henry as the current coach and see Deans as the enemy like PDV. There has been a lack of balance in many of the articles posted on the Roar in reference to Deans and Graham Henry.

Sam you very well know the historical win loss ratio of the AB's is a lot higher. You need to compare how they achieve against predecessors not against each other. Historically NZ is a stronger rugby nation than Australia. How many tests would Henry win with Italy?

I agree with Sam and OJ. The AB's have the wood on us, mainly stemming from self belief whilst the Wallabies doubt themselves. Deans does have systemic issues he still needs to address. Maybe if Deans does make some personnel changes and form young guys are picked it may change.

I actually think that Graham Henry is the All Blacks greatest asset. He's the most experienced international coach and his record with the All Blacks will be incomparable. Clive Woodward believes the best thing that could have happened for him was when Nick Mallett and John Hart were shown the door as they were very experienced rivals and at international level, experience counts for everything as a coach. People love to bag Henry and his failure in 2007 gives them the perfect weapon to draw, aim and fire whenever they try to destabilise and play down the All Blacks chances. Comparing Deans to Henry as international coaches is no comparison at all, although you wouldn't think it if you follow the game and read the column inches dedicated to singing Deans praises and his "expected potential" in turning the Wallaby fortunes around. If the worst was to happen for the Wallabies next year, will the ARU still consider their investment a sound and astute one? Will the fans wear it and blame the "cattle" or will there be questions and demand for answers when reviewing the past three years results in its full context. The irony is that Deans knows that if he achieved the same results as coach of the All Blacks for the last two years he'd be out on his ear and would expect no less. So are Kiwis more demanding and expect higher standards than Australian rugby?

"By the end of 2010 I expect the Wallabies to be on par with the All Blacks as man for man there is very little difference with both current squads." You must be referring to last years squads as this years haven't been selected yet for either side. If you ran through and compared each player against their trans-tasman counterpart from last years squad there was obviously a clear difference mentally and that is where we've had the wood over the Aussie for the last two years. It's no different to the mental advantage the 2000-2002 Wallabies had over the All Blacks. There were at least two tests last year that we would have and should have lost if the Wallabies were a better team than they pretend to be. If Deans has addressed the mental yips in his players minds when they play NZ and when they play in NZ then the balance of power will start to shift across the Tasman. But until then there will continue to be doubts in the players minds and minds of their supporters over their ability to beat NZ, win consecutive matches against NZ and win in NZ. 2010 is definitely the year to lay some or all of those ghosts to rest if they want to be a realistic contender next year.

I think that it is fair to say that this year, NZ teams have definitely been very inconsistent and pretty brain dead in their tactics against the good South African outfit. Injuries can be used at a bit of excuse, but for the Chiefs not to win a home game is a bit of a joke - your home ground should be your fortress. Whilst the hurricanes were impressive in the second half, the sin binning was the crucial act of the game. Up until that point, with the little ball that the reds had got, they were breaking the Canes at will. That said, I did think to myself that taking the approach of the reds of flat passing and quick interplay would be extremely risky at international level. Great when it comes of but was largely the philosophy of the AB's in 05-07 that came un-sruck against a committed French defensive outfit at RWC. Anyway I digress. I think that whle the Canes will put up a spirited display, I think the Tahs at home will win. I think the Crusaders will beat the Brumbies even with the travel. The Stormers vs Bulls game will be very interesting. I reckon the Stormers will win in a bit of a boil over. In regards to NZ rugby being in decline, not sure. The fact that the under 20's have won the last two wc's indicates there is plenty of talent coming through. The constant raiding from European and Japanese clubs definitely has had an effect on NZ super 14 level. Hopefully the fact that the teams have not been that great will mean Australian teams are targeted more (or is the fact that NZ super 14 players are paid more poorly than their South African and Australian counterparts, I am not sure). Reason I say Australia and not South African, as South Africans are targeted heavily as well - though a lot go to Saffa friendly Sarcens. I reckon next year, there will be a real buzz in NZ in regards to rwc and that will lift the whole nz rugby fraternity. A lot of people comment that the pressure of playing at home will be to much for the AB's. but think such thoughts are under estimating the effect of playing at home will actually have in galvanizing the AB's. Rugby is the country's heart beat, and watch the country came alive with it!

Yeah we need to keep the garden of Eden as our invincible homeground advantage until November next year. In terms of the Tri Nations, winning both home tests against the Boks is imperative but I won't be expecting any new tactics in backplay and the loose forwards until the grand slam tour this year. That will be the time that Henry show clues in terms of how he sees the All Blacks playing to win a world cup. He'll want to keep his powder dry during next years Tri Nations to maintain whatever edge he believes they have as everyone knew how we were going to play at the 2007 tournament and where our strengths and weaknesses were and we didn't really have a plan B. I'm not even worried about McCaw and Carter's indifferent form so far, it's a long season and we'll see how well the early season form setters are playing by the end of the year in comparison.

Man for man the Wallabies are as good as the All Blacks? Was that before or after the Australian Super 14 teams came crashing down to earth? In all seriousness, the Wallabies have some major issues that the Super 14 has failed to resolved. Deans has had two years to sort out these problems and has barely made inroads. What makes this year any different?

The NZRU bet the farm on the players they re-signed after 2007 and there's not much they can do to back out now. Our back play is starting to look a lot better in recent weeks and hopefully that continues into the June Tests, as I know both you and I have lamented the All Blacks' back play in recent years. We're looking a bit thin in the forwards and certainly we're behind the eight ball there in regards to the South Africans, but I think if we get the backrow right from the outset this year and concentrate a bit on the set pieces we'll be all right. I see Loe is worrying about the All Blacks in the Herald this morning despite the two very good performances from the Hurricanes and Crusaders. This type of worrying is going to continue at every phase until Labour weekend next year. I do think the All Blacks should concentrate on a clean sheet at home this year. You wouldn't want the Boks winning at Eden Park a year out from the WC.

I fear for New Zealand Rugby in general as crowds and TV ratings are down. What can be done.

Premature article however as OJ has mentioned a couple of times which I also agree with, the personnel that has served NZ so well for so long are on the wane. There aren't enough 40-50 test experienced players in the current squad to offset the gap between the long serving All Blacks and rookies. Frank O'Keefe made a very astute observation that the All Blacks are also going through growing pains since 2007 but their overall results gloss over it as their win/loss ratio is still ahead of all teams apart from their head to head against SA last year. What is evident is that NZ teams are still struggling to combat SA's style of play and are finding winning in the Republic as difficult as NZ teams from the 1900's experienced. Conversely the Bulls, Stormers and Sharks are winning more games on the road in NZ than before. Most people extrapolate those results to mean that at international level the All Blacks will struggle to beat the Boks and Wallabies this year. However test matches are the best XV against another country's best XV and when you take your best XV players out of their Super rugby teams their individual teams form doesn't weigh as much as a factor in assessing a national team's strengths. Even if there are no Aussie teams in the semifinals this year, the quality and improvement of their players still offers a stronger Wallaby team and severe challenge to their SANZAR colleagues than last year.

I think your rant is just that a very lopsided and typical one eyed rant that are quite commonfrom you. I recall a while back posters pulling you up on this, one even asked why the hell you are living there when all you seem to dfo is bag the place. So I'll ask the same thing, all it seems you do in here is bag new Zealand teams and the All Blacks but you really have no ground to do so when it's been 6 years since Australia won the Bledisloe and just about the same time since Australia won a Super title we won't even start down the track of the 3N, The much hyped Reds have fallen spectacularly the Brumbies and Waratahs are coming into form but both had wins over very poor opposition last night. The Tahs will be competitive next week however the Brumbies and their star studded line up are in for a reality check in Christchurch. Cooper is over rated and Genia has shown he is just as liable to spit the dummy as Cowan. Elsom goes missing in action and Waugh is a liability. Mitchell is great when he turns up as is James O'Conner, Giteau is one of the most over rated players in the entire Wallabies squad but who else is there to slot in. Australia are in no better position than any other nation and it really is just speculation to say otherwise. Australia has two games away in the republic this year, South Africa has two in New Zealand, NZ has two in Australia but have shown in recent years they know how to win in Australia. Flip a coin it's anyones competition to win, however I do think all three nations have their eyes on 2011 and this campaign will be used primarily as another chance to gel combinations.

Right the AB's off at your own peril

I agree its too early to make this call for 2010. I understand why you have that perception and I suspect you are right but lets see how the tri-nations unfolds (albeit a flawed competition structure where some teams get home advantage over others 2 times to 1). Decline? Dunno yet but NZ rugby is definitely flat lining while the Boks, Aussie & French seem to be progressing. I think this reflects the lack of change & new ideas at selector/coaching level in NZ. Henry Smith Hansen are stale. What have they added since 2007? PDV/Muir, Deans & Lievermont on the other hand. I get a sense that they are building something. mactheblack, you'll enjoy this: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-sport-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502180&objectid=10642779

Are we talking about the same team in decline that started the 2009 3N with injuries to key players, lost three games to the Saffas (x 2 away from home, and the one at home by three points), whitewashed the Aussies, didn't concede a try in the northern tour tests and finished the year ranked world no.1?

Eastboy if I had put my Aussie version through on the same peice it would have become the lord of the rings part four. If you read my piece correctly I actually mention the Wallabies going close to winning the TN however also said I doubted they could win the Bledisloe which means 2 all in that contest (assuming four BC games played this year?). Of course the SA are going to be the hardest team to beat and for the ABs having a side that dominated you last year will allow for Aussie to possibly upset you as well. Although I have just used the upset word by the end of 2010 I expect the Wallabies to be on par with the All Blacks as man for man there is very little difference with both current squads. After tonights games I will forward my Wallaby squad as wish to see the Brumbies continue their possible form improvement and whether some of the Tahs can rediscover theirs. My final comment is on the 'Tanty' remark regarding Genia. A frustrated young man who rightly berates two of his players for a stupid but crucial mistake costing them a possible fourth try and a valuable bonus point. Compare this with the number one AB 9, Jimmy Cowan who must be considered a liability with his rants at the referee and ill disciplined play costing the Highlanders plenty this season and potentialy the ABs if selected. Have a dig mate but I think I am pretty fair in my comments and give kudos to those who deserve.

I think its important for boks to win trinations this year, they need to beat NZ in their backyard for preparation for next year! NZ at home at a world cup is gonna be very hard to beat. World cup next year gonna be very very tough!! NZ,SA and france have great chances. Aus i think will still be very green to win a world cup.

NZ will win the WC. Nothing wrong with their players - just look at that fantastic Bulls/Crusaders game! Plus home advantage and that fierce pride in that jersey. Boks on the slide down - aging players and inability to really use their backs to full adavantage. Wobblies hampered by reading local journos whose knowledge of game is, at best, mediocre.