Sir Graham Henry remarked that a loss for New Zealand leading up to the World Cup would be ideal. There is a theory that you learn more from your losses than your victories. To me, this is a fallacy.
The overwhelming feeling you get from losing is the stinging burn of defeat in the pit of your stomach.
This is really what Henry was alluding to. You do not necessarily learn rugby lessons from losing.
Look at Wales against the SANZAR nations. When you review the game, there is not a moment of enlightenment where the players smile and say to one another, ‘That’s where it all went wrong!’
Believe it or not, the winning side is also looking at where things went wrong and areas on which they can improve.
Motivation is what you get from losing. The more you are accustomed to winning, the more driven you become to recapture that winning feeling. I read a comment on The Roar this week that New Zealand play best when the pressure is off. I disagree. New Zealand play best when they feel that their legacy is under threat.
The evidence is there. England’s resounding victory in 2012 gave rise to the first ever unbeaten year in the professional era. After Sydney this year, Ewen McKenzie implored New Zealand to bring their A game. After their limp effort the previous week, they duly obliged.
Last year the yellow card debacle saw South Africa gunning for revenge. They were confident of victory, and rightfully so, as they had markedly improved from the previous year and Ellis Park had proven a happy hunting ground against New Zealand. They did bring their A game but unfortunately so did their opponents.
Indeed, you can trace the legacy of Steve Hansen’s squad to 2009 when Henry was still in charge. That year saw three defeats by South Africa and one by France. Granted, rugby lessons were learned and New Zealand gave in to reason. Henry and his wise men found a back three capable of claiming the high ball, abandoned their stubborn insistence on keeping the ball-in-hand inside their own half and sought to improve their lineout.
Since that annus horribilis, New Zealand have been undefeated at home. It is significant to note that they lost away to South Africa and Australia in 2011. The last ever Tri Nations crown was claimed by Australia but you could argue that loss drove New Zealand to their compelling victory in the World Cup semi-final.
Where New Zealand seem to falter is when they are expected to win. Australia has been a thorn in New Zealand’s side when it comes to matches when consecutive victories are at stake. Much has been written about New Zealand’s performances at World Cups.
When you start claiming New Zealand are over the hill and are on the slide, you awaken an angry beast that burns with desire to prove itself. When you start claiming New Zealand are a step ahead of the rest and unbeatable, you set them up for failure.
You could well argue, then, that this weekend is the ideal moment to drop a game if you had to choose one. Maybe rest a few players and give others more game time. Dane Coles flying out to Johannesburg suggests that Hansen does not buy into this way of thinking. There is doubt over the selections of Brodie Retallick and Malakai Fekitoa for differing reasons, but I expect Hansen to put out his best possible side.
Hansen had responded to Henry’s comments knowing all too well from where his friend was coming. Yet I believe Hansen is trying to tweak the All Blacks’ culture slightly. Much was made in the media of the whiteboard scrawling before the Twickenham match last year, but I think what Hansen is trying to do is instil in the players a winning culture regardless of the context of the upcoming match.
I have a theory. New Zealand finds itself invariably in a relatively easy World Cup pool. They are the only unbeaten team in pool play. However, as a result they arrive at the knockout games to find opponents all too aware of the challenges ahead.
Typically, the All Blacks are made favourites and are expected to advance to the next stage. Their opponents know only their best will be good enough to topple New Zealand and we all know the rest.
In a way, the following matches in South Africa and Australia are ideal preparation for that scenario. New Zealand are expected to win by nature of the fact they have already won the Rugby Championship and have yet to lose.
It does not matter how remarkable that achievement is or how daunting the task is at Ellis Park. That’s the expectation. It does not equally matter that South Africa and Australia are both desperate to claim victory over their arch rivals. What has happened before is of little relevance to them. Sound familiar?
Henry might give a wry smile if South Africa give their coach his first highly prized New Zealand scalp. He might resort to his customary frown if Australia do the same, but would still feel New Zealand have been done a favour in terms of motivation to regain respect the following year.
Hansen, on the other hand I feel, would inwardly be devastated. To me, in a rugby sense, dead rubber is the dirtiest combination in the English language. Hansen wants his players to win in any situation, whether they’re written off or raging favourites.
The All Blacks are set impossibly high standards. To win at Ellis Park with nothing to play for? Quite the opposite. There is more at stake from a New Zealand perspective, which Hansen would be willing to admit.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Even if the unthinkable happened - you know of what I speak - I think what Hansen has achieved with this group would see him re-appointed after the 2015 RWC. If it worked for Ted, a shot at a Japan RWC where, let's face it, both finalists are going to be in unfamiliar territory would suit continuity. If Hansen can pick Wayne Smith's brain, then all the better! The NZRU would certainly look at other coaches but if Hansen made his case and still wanted the position I don't think anyone could oust him. That gives Schmidt and Rennie more time to build up their profile and let's see how Gatland's team gets on in the RWC pool of death. As for Deans, personally I'd like to see him return to the Crusaders and work alongside Blackadder before we start discussing his credentials for the All Blacks job.
chochie
Guest
yeah right...who has history of coming up with pathetic excuses.....we bringing back Suzie waitress for Suncorp
Old Bugger
Guest
RT My picks: Coles, Harris, Mealamu O Franks, Woodcock, Crockett, Faumuina Whitelock, Rettalick, Bird, Romano McCaw, Read, Kaino, Cane, Messam, Luatua Forwards: 17 Smith, TKB, TJP Carter, Cruden, Barrett Nonu, Smith, Fekitoa, SBW Savea, Smith, Dagg, Piutau Backs: 14 If there are any season ending injuries during SR next year then my cover selections would be: Hooker - any one of Coltman, Marshall or Parsons Prop - Moody (LH) and B Franks(TH) Lock - Tuipolotu Loose - Squires (N8), Todd (F) HB - Ellis?? FH - Slade IC - Crotty OC/W - any one of Jane, Gear Some tough calls next year for sure....
Andrew Jardine
Roar Guru
Hi Kia, I have subbed enough of your stories to recognize an expert!
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
No worries, mate. Nothing wrong with old school beliefs. What was good for the goose back then is good now for the gander. I dare say your team's winning percentage wasn't as high as this current NZ side's. If it was, you're a legend! Nowadays, as you allude to, you have video reviews both of what the players did and the players they'll face. Whether you won or your lost, you're better in touch with what worked and what didn't. When Thorn retired in 2011 we lost a warrior, who just didn't entertain the idea of losing. Luckily we still hung on to Richie and he takes a loathing of losing to a new level. Yet there are many senior players who are also unaccustomed to losing like Conrad Smith whose winning percentage tops that of Ritchie's. Then add in the younger players like Beauden Barrett who hasn't ever been on a losing side and you start to think what are these guys' thought processes? Not long to kick off now. Really champing at the bit to see the game.
Old Bugger
Guest
Thats a fair call mate - they did introduce a lot of newbies to the fold....
Digby
Roar Guru
Awful decision and with 99 fresh in the mind too. Adding to the confusion was Mills at 15 given he had played centre for the Blues in the past. Still remember the dread from that team announcement.
Digby
Roar Guru
Just befor my time RT but have seen plenty of footage.
Old Bugger
Guest
Yep - RMs words spoke volumes about Dingo's management style, didn't it?? That, basically sealed it for me....Dingo was too cocky and paid the price.
Old Bugger
Guest
Me too Digs...that call against TU in '03 was just unforgivable....and for me, it smacked of Crusty cronyism.
Old Bugger
Guest
I did say in my last paragraph that a review would IMO, happen after a win but perhaps the difference would be the degree of such review when compared, to a review after a loss. And no, I dont think Shag would've said sweet as after the Irish match - what I think he would've said was something like..... " Bloody hell, we pinched that bugger against a very fired-up Irish team, its the last game of a very long season so we'll get back home and have a decent look not only on the match but on the season overall. Oh and btw, I feel so very proud for what this team has just achieved...an unbeaten pro-season against all-comers. We'll have a beer tonight and wait till we get home before reviewing our season..." IMO, Shag is not one to say "business as usual" because he just shows so much respect for all opposition sides, that play against his side. But hey, those are just my thoughts.....
Old Bugger
Guest
Cheers mate... Maybe I'm too much old school but even in my playing days, gee we'd go over the match we lost with a toothpick to understand and try to resolve all the queries that naturally surfaced. A loss - any loss, certainly made us as a team, go back to the drawing boards but funnily enough, not so much if we won. I think that's because every opponent, particularly in today's pro-setup, plays differently, they have their own particular attacks and defence lines so its always a requirement to use the week before kick-off, to thoroughly revisit, review and choose your own opportunities to help you defeat those teams in a match.....because, its a given that all teams practice to win - it just comes down to which side has found the winning style. Lastly, my take on the Irish match - it goes back to how well the ABs systems and players were composed during the match. Aaron Smith when speaking about the team leaders, spoke highly about their input during this match particularly, RMs input. He said when the ABs were down 19-7 early in the second half, RM and Co were walking amongst the side voicing encouragement that the ABs can still win the game but, the side needed to remain composed, rely on their systems and the players perform their core roles. The win would come if they went back to these base elements. I was gob-smacked when I read that....IMO, its a belief in your team-mates that they can overcome the adversity that was mounting as the game progressed and just be composed to allow themselves every opportunity to be decisive with clear, concise and correct decisions. In hindsight, I can only say that maybe without such a leadership group, perhaps the result of that match wouldn't have favoured the ABs....but a win is a win whether its by 1pt or 100pts, the important aspect IMO, is how to achieve it. Thanks mate for the chin wag....
Rugby Tragic
Guest
Mate, it would make my day to hear Smithy utter the words about RWC 2015, "Yeh, I'm in" ... at my age it might be better than an orgasm! ........ Oops did I say that!
Rugby Tragic
Guest
But I will die with a big smile on my dial!
Sylvester
Guest
Yeah, that seemed to be more about Deans' autocratic leadership style in regards to his assistants. McCaw preferred the open "think tank" style that Henry operated. I recall he was also critical of the communication around why players were dropped.
Rugby Tragic
Guest
I also don't know but in McCaw's book, if you read it, Richie seemed to have some issues.
Sylvester
Guest
I'm not so sure about the criticism of Deans' player management skills. He's obviously a guy who's big on systems and people who work well within those systems - he couldn't handle the problematic players in the Wallabies for that reason, it appears. With the ABs, like the Crusaders, that rarely seems to be an issue.
Sylvester
Guest
Mitchell/Deans had a pretty handy record for guys who introduced a lot of fresh blood into the ABs.
Sylvester
Guest
OB, I'm sure it doesn't take a loss to trigger some self-reflection. It will all be down to quality of performance and execution. Do you think that after sneaking that win against Ireland last year, Hansen thought "sweet as, another victory, business as usual"?
kiwihaydn
Guest
I think he burnt some bridges deciding to go straight into coaching the old enemy - at least the other coaches mentioned went to lower ranked teams. Any NZ coach who has been at the helm for any of Eng, SA and Oz would struggle to come back. Plus I think Deans has proven time and again he doesn't have the man management skills required at the top level, and I'd suspect he doesn't have the respect of the current NZ crop of players.