When the Philistine army gathered for war against Israel, they gathered on the opposite side of a valley, preparing for what lay ahead. Goliath, measuring over nine feet tall, came out every 40 days to challenge and mock the Israelites to fight.
David, merely a teenager at the time, was running messages from home to his father at the battle front when he heard the taunts from the giant Goliath.
David’s response was to suggest he would accept the challenge of Goliath and, after some persuasion, King Saul agreed David could face this almost impossible challenge.
Dressed in a simple Shepherd’s tunic and armed with only his sling and a few stones, David went out to face Goliath.
As we all know, David slayed the giant after knocking him to the ground with one shot to head.
I would suggest if David were to face Goliath consistently with the same tactic, it is unlikely he would defeat Goliath after the first day.
Once Goliath knew the tactics of David and knew the weakness in his armour that David exploited, he would have adapted his suit of armour and David would have had to search for another weakness.
What I am getting at is New Zealand has very few weaknesses, and although the story of David and Goliath only partly resembles the same scenario as any team facing New Zealand, the principle of beating New Zealand remains the same.
To beat New Zealand you need to bring something new to the table, the same strategies of the past years are unlikely to bring you the required results.
Even when New Zealand has the perfect season, they continually seek improvement, they never remain stagnant.
It therefore means you are not chasing a stationary target, it is constantly moving.
For South Africa, Australia, England, France or any other team to beat New Zealand in a one off, never mind beat them consistently, they need to realise trying to catch New Zealand is not enough.
The only manner you will beat New Zealand is to find ways to surpass them, thereby bringing new tactics, new personnel and better structures to the game.
The All Blacks are very innovative in the way they approach each individual facet of rugby.
When you consider the restart, the coaching staff in recent seasons have decided the restart can be utilised as an attacking platform, breaking it down into bits and, with the aid of Dan Carter’s accurate boot, have become the number one team in reclaiming restarts.
In fact there isn’t a team that comes close to their ability to reclaim restarts.
Offloads have always been part of rugby, but New Zealand was the first team who effectively and accurately created a new facet of play in the manner they use offloads.
In specific, the support runner who comes off the shoulder or from directly behind the ball carrier, who could offload from the ground and thereby avoiding not only the breakdown, but also managing to hit the hole previously blocked by the would-be tackler on the original ball carrier.
It doesn’t stop there though.
South Africa in 2009 were the kick-and-chase kings of world rugby, but in only a few seasons, New Zealand has surpassed the aerial capability and accuracy with which these kicks are employed, taking it to another level.
Not only did they improve the use of the up-and-under, but had a revamp of the total use of the tactical kicking game.
There are likely many facets that can be used as examples of how the New Zealand coaching structure looks to improve individual facets of play.
Now each of these chasing nations has their own unique challenges they face. Be it structural, political, technique, player depth or whatever else you could think of.
But the simple fact is, if we want to beat the All Blacks we need to find ways to break down every facet of play and have an in-depth look at how it can be improved on a constant basis.
We need to become innovators, because the same old styles, tactics and personnel is not going to make much difference.
Problem is though, the one challenge we all have in common is that the collective thinking cap of our nations’ coaching fraternity is non existent.
Morgan Popham
Roar Pro
I think that SA aren't far off the All Blacks at all and neither are other sides including England, France and even Australia. We saw this year with the results there weren't too many blowouts by the AB's. I believe a few of the All Blacks older players are on the wane as written in my article being Carter, Woodcock, Mealamu and even McCaw. If these players are kept on or replaced with younger and inexperienced players means either way the All Blacks will be vulnerable in 2014 and especially 2015 paving the way for the Springboks to take over the number one ranking, if they are good enough.
wazza
Guest
Yes Rugby Tragic, Kiwi lids are born with a rugby ball in their hands and it brings tears to the mothers eyes.
Hi Ivan, totally agree with you. The point is not to emulate what NZ does though, we need to be innovative within our strengths, there might not be much at first glance you can do to improve our strengths, but technically there are always ways to improve. Also when you look at the way Nz are able to analyse traditional strengths of other teams and improve upon that, the same way we must look toward certain aspects of their game that can firstly fit into our strengths and how to improve them.
IvanN
Roar Guru
Nice analogy BB, also very true - However, if i may add some introspection... If we turn our Analogy to Motor Manufacturers, We could also argue that Daimler made the first internal combustion engine, great innovation at the time - but along came other manufacturers and improved the formula, and produced better cars. NZ are innovators for sure, and when they bring out the rifle, the indians with their bows n arrows are pretty defenseless, but innovation in this game is now at a level that will stand for a period, and the indians will develop gun powder. There are really two styles being played at the moment (i speak very vaguely), but there is the NZ style - which is in part aspired to by teams like Aus, France and Wales. Then there is the SA style, which is also employed by teams like Eng, Arg, Ire, Sco SA are better than NZ are lineouts, mauls, and getting there with rucks. NZ and SA are probably the best at their respective styles for now, and I would imagine that SA can challenge NZ using their own style - Point in case, I felt that SA were putting NZ under immense pressure before Biz was sent off in NZ, I felt they had a better chance of winning that test, than the return leg in SA. When they came back to Ellis Park, SA needed to beat NZ at the NZ game, and nobody can play that game as well as NZ. Had they only needed to win by 1, without 4 tries, I imagine that slowing the game to a grind, and playing the power game may have yielded a different result. my point is, NZ are the innovators - but thats not to say they will be the best at every aspect of the game next year, just as Daimler is no longer the best car maker.
richard
Guest
"A notch on the wb belt just like they used to be' pfft,what alternative universe do you live in? Your only true period of dominance was during the 1998-02 period.When the ABs had a whole series of great players retiring at the same time,leaving a vacuum in leadership and experience which took time to replace.An anomoly,rather than the norm. Don't hold your breath expecting that to happen anytime soon!
firstxv
Guest
Really? SA incensed at what the ABs did? Don't recall that at all. After all the boks had just sent a full C side to Aus and NZ when the book world cup side were at some secret camp so they were hardly in a position to preach that sort of thing. At least we only had 9 key players out.
Correct TinfoilHat, but we need playmakers on the inside of him, that will provide him with much more attacking opportunity.
Fristxv, I have never protected playing a closed game, you know that, we have been chatting since 2009 on Bok rugby, I have always maintained the Springboks must use their structures as their strengths, but vary their points of attack. I have been advocating that the Springbok attack is predictable even when we beat the AB's 3 zip in 2009 Unfortunately I cannot access my articles I did on the old 606 just after the Trinations of 2009 Me defending the SA way is nonsense, me saying we must not try to emulate the All Blacks is more accurate
TrueBlue
Guest
Did you like the way Richie was leading Nigel Owens around the paddock on the weekend telling him where they would like to take the penalty from? Not sure if they carved off any extra territory in the end but it was an entertaining sight
firstxv
Guest
Hi ya biltong. I think a lot of it is about being open and honest about where a side is at. I have been advocating this sort of reasoning for years and it has fallen on deaf ears. You yourself are now whistling to a different tune. For a long time you were defending the books approach to the game, supporting not opening up their game because it wasn't ' the SA way'. Two or three years ago you wouldn't have written a piece like this and I think its reflective of the changes the books are now embracing. The good thing about this realisation is now to pinpoint those areas the books can get a competitive advantage over not just the ABs but all sides. I think it must inevitably come from the traditional set piece play but I think initially it will come purely from introducing play and players like the le rouxs of 2013. NZ has been turning out those sorts of backs for years and if SA can 'flood its market' via the sxv stocks it will then have a deeper selection option for its leroux type backs. For me it is that combination of the two that will see it competitive with NZ with the innovative thinking you refer to opening up for more options. SA is long overdue in having great backs rolling of the tongue when world xvs are discussed Habana the only in the last ten years with a hope in getting a mention in that class. That for a number two side is poor whichever way you look at it and thankfully is changing.
Matthew Skellett
Roar Rookie
Naaah you just need refs and linesmen who arent kissing all black ass 24 hours a day
sokahn
Guest
+1, Which means currently ABs are like Harlem Globetrotters, superior in skills then their oppositions. Come 2015, it is not a shoo in for them
Horatio Hornblower
Guest
Nice theory. What does 'inevitably infringe mean'. You don't think the AB's are capable of turning over the ball legally? You seem to be forgetting that the Wallabies give away penalties like candy on Halloween. All the AB's have needed to do is keep the pressure on and inevitably the Wallabies have made mistakes or infringed. Thats how it has been working for a while now. So your theory for victory is for Aus to do to NZ what NZ has been doing to Aus. Insightful. On a side note, if power poses are the way to go, that must mean the PI teams are successful against NZ. No, wait...
Tinfoil Hat
Guest
The Wallabies in particular. Just ask Kearns or EM.
Tinfoil Hat
Guest
Habana has X factor with a big X. His two tries in the Ellis Park test this year (particularly the second individual effort) were fantastic to watch. His coming off due to injury had an impact on the outcome of the game imho.
Rob, the stories are just so confkicting at the moment, who knows wayt SARU wants.
richard
Guest
England,SA or NZ to win in 2015.
alex
Roar Pro
i rate kolisi he is what u boks need
RobC
Guest
BTB, our national rugby comp is meant to rectify an old domestic problem re player and coach stock, and to redevelop groundswell of local support. Not sure it will reduce the appetite for SRs local derbies at state level, yet. In fact, I believe there's talk about going more to conference for 2016 from SA? The challenge w/SR is the need for home / away games vs timezone travel, scheduling v other domestic and international comps, on occasion to play for specific interstate trophies, and player fitness. Given limited the time window - would like to see more games between the good teams, and relegate others until they become competitive. But I know that's not realistic
alex
Roar Pro
Im starting to think you are the smartest South African on the planet BB