It’s Test time… and the return of the Big Questions!

With the June Tests now under way in all corners of this wonderful world of rugby in which we inhabit, it’s time to park the tipping panel and get into the International banter for a few weeks.

Fortunately, I know a few blokes only too willing to chat.

But first, the elephant in the room. You can’t avoid it any longer, people.

Last week’s tipping: Brett 1. No points to anyone else.

Meaning, I was literally the only person to tip the Chiefs last week. Yep, you’re all bowing at my feet right now. Tipping genius, I tells ya…

But the Big Questions are back for June, and this is how it will work: Harry and Nobes have posed the questions this week, and Digger and I will return the favour next week. But we’ll all have our say and we can’t wait for you to have your say, too.

The winners of the June Tests – if all teams have their best 23 players and the 11 key rugby combinations – are not difficult to predict. But injuries are an intrinsic part of any combat sport. If the All Blacks field a third-string hooker, tighthead lock, No.8, halfback, playmaker, and fullback against the best of the U.K. and Ireland, all bets are off.

The Big Question is which Test squad has the least ability to lose five stars? (from Harry)

Harry Jones
“The five most crucial All Blacks since Rugby World Cup 2015 have been Dane Coles, Brodie Retallick, Kieran Read, Aaron Smith, and Beauden Barrett. No slight on Ben Smith, Sam Whitelock, and the great wings, centres, props, and other loosies, but the New Zealand rugby assembly line churns out enough like-for-like to cover even the loss of first and second-string players (possibly excepting tighthead props).

(EPA/GEOFF CADDICK)

Four of the five crucial AB players are crocked or barely back. Steve Hansen really hates Super Rugby right now.

“The (northern) Lions have depth aplenty, but mismatched. Of the eleven crucial rugby combos (1-2-3, 2-to-LO, 4-5, 6-7-8, 8-9, 9-10, 10-12, 11-14-15, 12-13, and 13-D) they only have one level that can score enough to win in NZ. Their third string would be OK; but never pinch a Test.

“The Boklings have better players in the A side (e.g. Ruan Combrinck) than are starting for the senior team (Raymond Rhule) or on the bench (Dillyn Leyds), but are thin at hooker, flyhalf, and scrumhalf if injuries strike; the French cannot win unless they have all their Toulon and Clermont stars.

“The Wallabies have actually built depth under Cheika. If catastrophic injuries befell them, there are a handful of proven Test pros to step in (e.g. Scott Fardy)

“I’ll say that the biggest headache right now is the Kiwi propensity for concussed stars. But ‘Shag’ always seems to have the answers.”

Digger
“Personally, I would say all of them, quite frankly. Some can just cope a bit better. But in all seriousness, I would suggest Argentina would be the one who may suffer the most.

“Given their policy of selecting only home-based players is a massive restriction for the Jaguares ‘lite’ and losing to an England side minus a plethora of their best at home is never a good outcome, particularly for a side that has been competing regularly in the Rugby Championship.

“I just don’t see the ability there to satisfactorily cover the likes of Creevy. In fact, I worry about the side if they are missing their inspirational Captain, who is just one player.

“Argentina, at this point would concern me the most in terms of depth.”

Brett
When Harry first asked this I immediately thought South Africa and Australia would battle the most without their ‘top five’, but the guys’ answers here have made we waiver somewhat. Let me elaborate.

I absolutely agree with Diggers’ point about Argentina, but then I also think that they are actually building experience and combinations through the Jaguares. I think they have the right idea, but Nobes’ excellent piece recently on the state of rugby in Argentina also highlights the issues of this plan. Even trying to build experience through Super Rugby, the UAR is losing players they definitely wouldn’t want to.

But I agree with Harry’s point about the Wallabies, too, and I think the number of debutants Michael Cheika has introduced in the last 18 months points to nice depth that he is building. The bigger question about the Wallabies is whether having the top five on board is enough anyway.

And that applies to South Africa, too. Right now, you take Eben Etzebeth, Warren Whiteley, and Elton Jantijies out of the current side, and they’re significantly worse off. Throw Duane Vermeulen into the mix, and it gets worse. And that’s only four.

But I think you could do the same thing with Ireland, Wales, and Scotland and find the same problem. France seem to be perennially battling for depth, no doubt a result of the Top 14 being the rugby equivalent of cricket’s IPL.

So maybe the best way to answer this very good question is to turn it around: realistically, only New Zealand and England look best equipped to cover losses of that magnitude.

Is the June window taken as a place to see new faces and give new players the chance to make the national teams for first time and it use for trying new things and strategies, thus is one of less quality in terms of rugby than the window in November?

Harry
“The world ranking system is rubbish, in general. There is no algorithm that fits.

“I would appoint ten good rugby men and true; let them seed the nations as in Wimbledon. Scotland and France were never better than South Africa in rugby. One bad ‘Kootchie Koo’ Alister Coetzee season notwithstanding.”

Nobes
“My point it will be if there are true value on the points earned or lost for world ranking in this window. During the years that we have the Lions tours, the individual countries of the UK play also the window without their best players which are selected to play for a different venue.

If Argentina beats (this still to happens) a second string “England it will counts as the same in terms of points for ranking than if they have won against England at full of its capabilities in terms of players.

“This is also the same when the Springboks won over France last weekend. The French squad did not have the players from their best two teams that reached the finals, however South Africa climbed in the World ranking due to victory in this game. I think that the window in question has to be taken in consideration on this respect, it is in my opinion that the points should not have the same value.

“These ranking points may not seem very important right now, but in the future they could mean a lot when the Rugby World Cup comes to a draw.

“On the other hand, it is great opportunity for coaches and public to see other players that may challenge the ones that feel that own the jerseys, and also for coaches to study different things.

“It is in my opinion that only New Zealand has the depth to use different players in different positions and still remain strong enough to confront any challenge.

“Let’s hear what the crowd has to say about this.”

(AAP Image/Joe Castro)

Digger
“Short answer is No, I don’t believe so. In fact, I think that such a question could be levelled at the tours up North as well.

“I think the reality is that a tour is a perfect opportunity to get a larger group together and see what a prospect can do, how he fits within the culture and handles himself away from the comforts of home.

“We have seen the All Blacks in recent times offer an ‘apprentice’ type role as a soft introduction, I suppose, for budding young players. The other factor of course is that both windows in June and November come at the end of each hemispheres’ season so there are always likely to be injuries etc which need to be accounted for.

“And let’s not forget that the opposition will play a key role as well. I doubt, for example, that England would see a New Zealand tour as a prime opportunity to try out a few things or players who may or may not be up to it, unless they have too.”

Brett
I think it definitely used to be the case, and in the mid-2000s, and the northern hemisphere teams were notorious for sending sub-par teams down our way.

But like Digger says, there have been plenty of occasions when the best southern hemisphere players haven’t gone north, either, so it certainly applies equally.

Nowadays, I think International coaches use their end of season tours similarly, to test out some new players and combinations (and even coaches) to see our they go in the program, with the thought being that when push really comes to shove – the Six Nations and The Rugby Championship – they’ll have as close to the best squad available.

And I think that’s about right; the June Tests are of no less quality than the November Tests now, and if all coaches are using their end-or season tours the same way, it all evens out in the end.

I wouldn’t want different points rating applied, because then it becomes subjective – and that’s one sure way of ensuring inequity.