Are the All Blacks setting themselves up for a World Cup tumble?

Everyone's beatable in a Cup. The tournament has a complete disregard for consistency-once it's QF time if you lose you're gone. NZ wins 3 out of 4 games. So it's entirely stats appropriate to lose one as it's in line with the 1 loss out of 4 (especially 7 in a WC). The "This side isn't great because the other teams are weak" is a load of crap. Not many dared to mention in 2003 that it was SA's worst ever side, nor that NZ was in its worst ever run from 98-04. You play what's in front of you. If we're going by trends Hansen's years have gone: 1 draw and 1 loss, perfect, 1 draw and 1 loss. So this year will be perfect. Silly? Yep, but so is all that closing the gap talk. Most teams are capable of beating New Zealand in one game. This is magnified in a World Cup. But try beating them in ten. Everyone's got favourites so the best ever chat is subjective. However the stats demand serious consideration. Woodward said this isn't the best ever NZ side of all time-well what is the best? How far do you go back? Their record over the last 11 years has been 15% better than Woodward's own era. Food for thought? Yup-but all it takes is just one game apparently. Look at the depth Hansen's introduced since 2011, compare the stats, and tell me he's not a good coach.

England only lost the series due to yellow cards and the Boks have dropped a bit but still beat them. Theis is a very good side but beatable for sure.

Funny things opinions and what people read into an article, i dont believe i disrespect the opposition at all, in wanting a All Black dominant perormance from the start of the game and not just in the last 20 minutes. And dominance had no relevance to a high score as some people have assumed i meant. No where did i say blow out scores is what i want, dominance is owning the game and a relevance is the second half against England, to me that second half was a thing of beauty. Sorry to use your post as a response to a number of posters OB, but I am away on business and a lack of time to respond to others prevails.

You may disagree with my writing, but your answer, is what i desire, its not blow out scores, its dominance on the field of play, its controlling the game. A case in point wad the whole second half of the game against England, that was dominance.

Respectfully disagree with this piece. You heard it here first: Hansen will deploy a strategy next year where the AB's decisively win the FIRST HALF, you know the old days when the ABs scored a try or two and DC slotted a few kicks. The opposition won't see it coming. The second half will be all about defensive shut-outs, plus the final quarter surge. It will be epic. The English media will be distraught. Did I say, you heard it here first. (crossing fingers this happens!)

Nup, we'll win it.

Wow Wow Wow,,really,,You want the All Blacks to dominate from start to finish? Thats not gonna happen because thats what happen before previous worldcups and we fail in all!!! We won by more than30to50 points and still lost in worldcups,thats gone do you know why? Bcuz teams learn from us day by day and start believe they can beat us only,,when they're in the front foot and lead the game bt when they r behind they never came back to beat us!! I like da way we go into next years worldcup,bt we know to work from start to finish bt teams dont allow us to do that today.But to win games that u should have loose in the dying minutes its great to go into worlcup,,,so please forget about the history"things change"diffrent laws, team,character,game plans, thats why they are the best ever "ALL BLACKS TEAM"with the best chance to retain the rugbyworldcup next year!!!

Same here harry, I keep it simple and only bench press 120kgs x 4 sets of 20 reps these days (that's obviously 80% of what I can do). Yeah, no need to push too hard or want to look like Pierre Spies, why would I!? ;)

DC You said: "We might win the World Cup, we might not, but you can’t fault Hansen as he is covering as many bases and as many scenarios where possible, whilst maintaining a ridiculous winning statistic. And the bottom line is right now I wouldn’t want to trade places with any other team." And that really is it in a nutshell. Whoever wins the RWC, would've faced 7 different opponents all potentially, playing with different game tactics and styles, different team sheets (obviously) but also different scrum and lineout challenges, different strengths across each team in both forwards and backs individuals. To that end, you would assume that it is incumbent upon each respective coach to have used the multitude of lead-up test matches of the previous 3years, to try and determine the strengths and weaknesses of every team that may, become an opponent in both the round robin and sudden death rounds of the RWC. We have witnessed these manoevres particularly this year - it is no mere coincidence that England have played 4 tests against the ABs this year...but, that is why mid-term and EOYTs are arranged....so teams can address the style and tactics of potential opponents. IMO, that is why the ABs struggle to play one weekend and then pull a sub-lime game out of the hat in the next match. It is about changing tactics and trying different strategies, using different team sheets - basically, placing the team in a position of pre-empting their opponents tactics and game styles as soon as the opposition's team sheet, has been announced. I agree, Hansen is just trying to cover all bases and have his team prepared as best he can,to face all-comers next year.

corporal punishment,agree with this.Have said the same on British sites,but got shot down.I really thought that 2003 England team was slightly over the hill by the time the RWC arrived but were fortunate that the opposition was really poor. Regardless,they were still the best team,and deserving winners in '03.

Birdy - that is exactly my point. Over this period, the All Blacks were weak, hence the ability for the English to string together their long winning sequence. England only won those two games against a poor All Black side by the skin of their teeth. Yes England were a good side, but their results over that period have to be seen in the context of the weak state of world rugby over the period. I agree with you about the close scores the Ab's have been winning by against England and others. The rest of the world have caught up with the All Blacks. The English forward pack in particular is formidably strong, and out muscled the AB pack for significant periods of each game. However, the superior fitness and skills of the AB forwards and team as a whole was enough to get them out of jail.

NOS, yes, I think Meyer thought the same thing, and so in the two NZ-SA games this year, the gap in fitness had closed a bit.

Match fit. There are a lot of rugby actions you can simulate in a gym, but not all. And a guy like Duane Vermeulen won't ever look like Pierre Spies, but we all know who can bring it better for 80. I like very active core-conditioning exercises for a team. Grappling. Wrestling. Tackling in a small square. 3-on-3 drills Not so much maxing on squats for the tight five--but being able to squat 20 times your 80% Stuff like that.

I reckon us Kiwi supporters need to show more faith in Hansen. I'm one of the doomsayers who gets a bit negative about our RWC chances but the circumstances will always be the same. Knockout rugby dictates as such. You don't have to be good enough to win the RWC to be able to beat New Zealand. Magic Sponge is stating the bleeding obvious in that NZ are very beatable. Every great team in rugby has been beatable. You don't need to be miles better than the rest to have the record NZ does. You just have to be a little bit better all of the time. The All Blacks are the most consistent winning team in sport at this level. But every game they are there for the taking. You just need to be good enough. And most haven't. This team stands beside 1905, 1924, 1967, 1987, 1995-96 and 2005-06 as the very best All Black sides ever. As Fred the Needle said, just look at the bloody record. This of course counts for nothing in a World Cup when we have seen favoured teams dip out and surprise us all. You just have to question if you should judge teams on one game, despite all the rest. Every test is important to NZ-and Hansen's planning I'm sure involves winning being the top priority. If you don't do that and then go mammaries up every four years, you have nothing to show for it. Henry's success in 05 and 06 in creating a great team environment and great results gave him the chance to redeem himself after the Cardiff debacle. The front row is a weakness for sure. England and SA will feel they can get the upper hand physically and at scrum time. I have no issue with 4 to 8, but Franks and Woodcock have scrummaged on reputation for a while now and can be bested. As is NZ's defence of the rolling maul. England did brilliantly in isolating Smith against a speedster for May's try but I don't think he's past it just yet. In fact RWC games tighten up and his nous under pressure, especially in a historically problem position for NZ, will be valuable. His percentage play allows for the unorthodox and slightly riskier SBW and Nonu to express themselves and potentially break games open. I'm optimistic that Hansen kept some powder dry this year. It's been harder for NZ as the games have gone on to win as teams have studied the innovations they've come up with and how to negate them-of course they are more familiar with NZ's tactics as the seasons go on and have had a good look at how to counter them. Think England in 12 and Ireland in 13. I'm worried about NZ not committing numbers to rucks and losing the possession battle, playing a reactive game off turnovers. This worked brilliantly in 03 where NZ put 50 on Aussie and SA in a week, but Aussie learned that if you dictate terms that approach will flounder and hence thumped them in the semi. The other thing that worries me is the tightening up of games. NZ have to have the courage to play the high octane expansive game that kills teams in the last 20. If a game constricts their fitness edge is negated. They can mix it up with the best of them-see the second half against England at Twickenham this year-but doing it against a tiring side will be a helluva lot easier than a fresh side. If they have the gumption to play that flowing game, that may well be considered playing the percentages. It's just that the advantages will be felt in the last quarter. I wouldn't be too concerned DubaiKiwi. Basically I've resigned myself to the fact that the proverbial is going to happen. It'll happen to every team at some stage, and how they deal with it will make or break them. NZ have more ways to hurt you than any other team, are fitter, and have dealt with more types of pressure than any other team in the last few years. The trick is to prepare yourself for any scenario. We might win the World Cup, we might not, but you can't fault Hansen as he is covering as many bases and as many scenarios where possible, whilst maintaining a ridiculous winning statistic. And the bottom line is right now I wouldn't want to trade places with any other team.

CP. By 'handful of wins' over the SH; I presume you mean 12 straight? In the game at Twickenham England were winning by 17 then eased up allowing some late AB scores. They then had a close win in bad conditions in Wellington. Interestingly those results mirror a couple of games this year between England and ABs. Every AB fan I read seems to sneer at the idea that narrow margins necessarily mean the games were close - particularly late scores, apparently, give a 'false impression of the dominance'. Personally, I think they've got a point. In 25 games that England team lost 1; a warm-up game for the world cup when Woodward picked a 2nd team against the French 1st XV in Marseilles.They lost by one point then put 40 on the French the next week. If it wasn't for that warm-up game England would have had the most consecutive wins in international history. Between 2000-2003 England beat Australia 5 consecutive times - a period in which I believe Australia beat NZ 4 times.

Thanks! Yes it wasnt as smooth as v England and earlier part of TRC. I believe. It all started when a certain flyhalf stayed up a little late, and missed the flight.

I think the AB coaches having been holding a bit back this year through tactics and selection. Expect a much sharper ABs come the WC

No ........that is all.

Tick!

That's also my impression Richard, All Blacks have the best physical conditioning of all teams, the right balance, not too many games, not too few, enough cardio and weights but nothing that changes body types drastically. The French have always said the main difference when they play the ABs is conditioning and the fact they cant keep up for 80min. That's why this year they have adopted a similar approach in terms of conditioning/follow up and for the first time have limited the number of games played per season (club + France) for a group of 30 players "expected' to be part or close to the rwc squad. Which means guys like Dusautoir, Picamoles etc should not be burnt comes next year rwc. Will it be enough probably not but I think its a good start. But yes, conditioning is key to ABs success, that's why they are the only ones who can play the fast game tempo everyone dreams about for 80min. And I feel all players have the 'right' body type, nothing freakish.