The Argentinians asked the age old question in the past few days – “why are the All Blacks always so good?”
They are not alone in asking that. What is the secret behind New Zealand having the best record of any nation in this sport?
Further, to put the naysayers in their place, why is their record suggestive of the All Blacks being the most successful sporting team of all time?
Least anyone comes up with something to dispute this, let the question remain: why are they so damned hard to beat and why does this amazing record continue in the professional age?
The All Blacks are not always the top dogs and have been out-gunned by the Springboks in 1937, the Wallabies especially following the 1999 World Cup, the English in 2003 and the Bokkie grilled them in 2009.
But no other nation has traditionally bounced back so quickly from defeat and the dynasty rolls on. I believe I may have found the answer …. it is called “rugby smarts.”
We are seeing it now right before our eyes. They are never satisfied to stick to the same game plan or to allow others rugby coaches to come up with a formula to counter their current playing style.
After the 37 Boks cleaned them up, it became a nationalistic crusade for the men in black to prove their manhood and overturn the South Africans in the 1956 series. It was crude and tough and with Kevin Skinner sorting out the visitors in the front row, the All Blacks overcame the “invincibility” aura of their greatest rival.
But it was in 1967 under Freddie Allen that the mantra 15 man rugby beats ten man rugby became the new way of thinking for New Zealand. It was no longer important to necessarily have the best forward pack {the corollary of which was that backline play was often undervalued and stifled with the first five directing play back to the forwards).
This, I believe, was the genesis for them to expand their tactics and give them more than one string in their bow to tackle any and all other teams. They were able to overcome the might of the strong South African and English forwards and to compete with the flair of the French and Australian backlines. All because of 15 man rugby.
But that is only part of the formula for ongoing success. Never satisfied with their performances, the coaches and players always looked for ways to improve and to learn and adapt from defeat.
The most recent example is 2009 when the Springboks beat the Kiwis three to nil by exposing the weakness in the All Black backline under the high ball and by playing a territorial game.
The answer came swiftly when the three to nil results were overturned the following season when the wingers and fullback were changed to those with great skills under the high ball.
And therein lies the secret of the continuing dominance (with occasional exceptions) by this small country with its resolve to stay on top. It is the willingness to look beyond today and change tactics, to stay in front in the thinking of the game and how to disarm potential opposition who have worked out how to counter the All Blacks tactics.
Look at how the game plan is different to that of two to three years ago. The emphasis on territorial kicking and attacking from deep while still important has been replaced by playing under extreme pressure from rush defences.
Recognising the difficulty of coping with screen and shallow defences and reaping the rewards is the work-on at present. Whether they succeed remains to be seen but the oppositions are now faced with something new from the Abs.
So, to conclude, the secret to their success lies in them not resting on their laurels and reinventing themselves to remain one step ahead. Looking at themselves first and foremost and changing the profile of the wheel so to speak.
Eddie Jones will have little or no idea what will be presented to him and England when they meet next year and I would suggest the coaches and players with the Black colours may not either. But sure as hell, it will be different to what we see now.
ScottD
Guest
Like touch but you rip a tag off
Jeffrey
Guest
Not really. The argument is can the guys be replaced by European players of equal ability. Of the starting team, of which I was generous enough to even include two Maoris as Polynesians, only Aaron Smith and Reiko Ioane are irreplaceable. If we removed the two Maori players, then only Reiko is irreplaceable. I can find a European player to replace most of the players you have named and the standard will be just the same, but I guess you are not interested in objective facts. Not to mention that many young European kids give up the game early as they can't compete against the more physically developed Polynesian kids, and this has to be taken into account as well if you are being truly objective. You have to take intro account the opportunity cost as well. Anyway, of the players you have named, only Faumaina and Laulala can't be replaced by someone of equal talent. The rest can, and I see you have also on purpose included a couple of Maori boys in Parenara, TKB and Skudder to improve your paper thin argument. Guys like Jack Goodhue, Jordie Barrett, Damien Mckenzie, Enor, Mitch Hunt, Cruden, Matt Todd, Scott Barrett, Blake Gibson, Blackadder, Dunshea, Will Jordan, Christie etc could all do the job. Given time and experience, these guys would be just as good as the names you mentioned.
Mike
Roar Rookie
Ripper-tag? Never heard of it.
richard
Guest
And the kiwis team at the end of WW2.
Harry Jones
Expert
No, not really. I posited the theory that NZ would still be at the level of SA or England (with ups and downs, and not as dominant as currently) if they did not have a rather unique competitive advantage over other Tier One nations, in that they have a rugby-mad sector of their population (as well as large immigrant groups) from a pool that just happens to be almost perfectly adapted to the sport of rugby. SA can actually do better when the speediest group on the planet becomes more interested in rugby, as is seen in Sevens. But Maori and Tongan and Fijian and Samoan peoples are undeniably well-suited for rugby. I am not denigrating the superior coaching and systems of NZ, nor am I minimising the effect of the communal aspects of Kiwi society, open and free and non-corrupt and quite frankly, a model for the world. I have written often and fully about my love of NZ. When I was in NZ for RWC 2011, I really fell in love. But I do remember a lot of non-Maori and non-PI locals telling me that their sons were going more and more into soccer or basketball because they could not handle the physicality in schools rugby brought by their more rugged counterparts. Not sure if that's PC, but it's what they said. I think there are fine margins in elite sport, and maybe it's only 2% or whatever of what is making ABs so hard to beat AT ALL by ANYONE, but it's a possibility. The better comparison would the reliance of the USA in basketball on (fully, 100%, totally American) citizens of African heritage. Yes, the US has the best coaches, gyms, systems, and level of interest in basketball. It's just that even if you magically exported that to Thailand, they would lack the raw tall agile explosive athletes to dethrone the US any time soon.
Terry Tavita
Guest
because they don't have any money and no professional teams to aspire to that's why..isn't it bloody obvious?
Terry Tavita
Guest
island unions don't have money and no professional teams..
Terry Tavita
Guest
that's pretty selective..how bout faumuina, savea, naholo, laulala, sopoaga, laumape, kaino, leinart-brown, skudder, tu'ungafasi, perenara, kerr-barlow, etc?..but then I guess that wouldn't fit in to your argument aye?
Jeffrey
Guest
Drongo, I see you ignore the fact that this current AB team is predominantly of European and Maori heritage, yet they have the best record of any AB team in history. The Crusaders are the most successful NZ team in Super history and they have been predominantly a team made up of European players. I know the last fifteen years have been extremely hard for a proud Aussie such as yourself to handle, but please don't try to diminish NZ's achievements by showing zero objectivity. The counter to your argument is that many talented European kids are giving up rugby at an early age because they are up against Polynesians kids who mature a lot faster than them. This is a real problem, especially in Auckland and Wellington and I know s something the NZRU are really concerned about.
scottd
Guest
totally agree.
scottd
Guest
Agree mostly. NZ IS a Pacific Island country and I don't really know why people make a point that there is a lot of migration to NZ from the surrounding PI countries. It is what it is.
scottd
Guest
that's because Aus is reliant on the PI influence rather than enhanced by it. This is because Aus hasn't got the "other things" right.
scottd
Guest
he has his moments
Garth
Guest
This might help explain how New Zealand rugby is at the grassroots level: "The Ground We Won" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eHliywSNMU A small rural club, true, but the atmosphere and culture is representative.
Coconut
Guest
What people seem to keep failing to grasp that these people ARE New Zealanders, mostly. That is, they are born and raised there and have played all their rugby there. Saying NZ Rugby benefits by having Pacific Islanders in their team just doesn't make any sense (and please spare me the exceptions to this, as they are so few as to be irrelevant to the discussion). I am not aiming this spray at you particularly Harry, but its akin to saying the only reason South Africa is any good at rugby is because they have big boned Afrikaners in their national team. May be a different ethnic group, but no less South African... correct me if I'm wrong but is this in fact the same argument being advanced here?
Alex the jock
Guest
We are trying not to be at least that was Nelsons dream. I am proud to be South African, I am Russian, Polish, Jewish, Scottish and Xhoza. So there is a long history. I guess that makes me mean with my money? The first out the cab last one at the bar philosophy. What is bugging us saffa's is the enforced quotas and then the entitlement that comes with it, whereby you are not the best player, but the best of your race so we have to build a team around you, despite the fact you dont love the game and you prefer football. But are paid packets more because of this government quota. Now where is the justice in that? You see we would love to compete merit against merit. Best against best. But we cannot because of this little issue we have. In-fact I think it will kill rugby because it invites mercenaries into the game, who are not passionate about rugby. Which is why we love the KIWI'S so much. We both love rugby. Get this. Right now a Chinese guy also makes the quota over none quota some one who looks European lol. So much for Mandela's dream.
Fionn
Guest
Over the winter months people don't spend much time outdoors in Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Finland or Russia.
scottd
Guest
The All Blacks are so good because every player in the team knows that if they don't put their heart and sole into every game they will be dropped - it's an approach that Australian coaches could learn from. Alternatively; Every player knows that if he doesn't play his best then he'll have to go home to explain himself to his mum. Take you pick of which option you reckon works the best.
taylorman
Guest
Leagues not that big in NZ. We don't have our own Pro comp so given that I think we do quite well. How many are playing in the NRL? Besides the Warriors its gotta be at least another 50 or so? Heard somewhere that 200 rugby players from Auckland alone are playing League in oz of some sort.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
To be fair Fionn, if that’s a serious observation then it’s quite rediculous.