Apparently SBW had a bit of a dicky knee a while back and it affected him through some of the RC tests. Shouldn’t have played really then, but Fox has said he’s champing at the bit and set for a big World Cup.

Kia’s right on Barrett, he really looked the goods and back to his best as an impact 15. He’s stronger than he looks and his pace is devastating. Ben Smith’s does better at 14 than 15 for NZ and as well as NMS played once that switch was made they definitely looked more assured. Fa’aumuina did very well as did Crockett who was on very early for an ineffective Woodcock.

I’d say NZ’s two starting props are their Achilles heel and Hansen really needs to give them a kick up the jacksie. Read was ok skill set wise but didn’t front that much physically and I hope that Kaino stays fit as he needs to step up to compensate if we lose in that area.

Nice one Kia 🙂

Hey I’ll actually be in Madrid for semi final weekend catching up with whanau, but they won’t get there until the semi that Saturday ends. Any ideas on where to watch?

Yeah I was pretty sure that was a try. More due to physics rather than anything. When a ball bounces the part that touches the ground implodes (for want of a better word) into the ball and then as it regains its shape the ball springs off the turf. If Whitelock had just nudged the ball forward without downward pressure (as was judged by the TMO) it wouldn’t have sprung off the turf as it did. I reckon the pressure that caused the ball to spring up was enough for the try to be awarded as there would have to have been that “implosion” caused by pressure in the first place.

Nice article Chris, always nice to read your thoughts.

I reckon the 2015 ABs are a better side in terms of both skill and experience, but what may negate the advantage this side has is that the 2011 side played with desperation. They managed to channel it into their play and the semi against Australia was the epitome of that merging of desperation and motivation.

The All Blacks haven’t been good at knockout rugby. Not by others’ standards, as they’ve lost six games at RWCs and only the Boks have lost less, but rather their tournament win percentage with regard to their overall percentage. But I have faith they’re getting better at playing knockout games. In 2007 they only played one, and what they learned from it managed to get them three more in 2011, all of which of course they won.

They’ve covered more bases now and I think that they’re in good shape-not only for this RWC but for subsequent RWCs. Doesn’t mean they’ll win, as all sorts of things can happen as we know (which drives Kiwis batty as the ABs are the most consistent team in sport which means diddly squat in Cups). But there is also a big warning for the rest of the world in that 2011 cup, because they found out how to play knockout games from that semi. And if they find out how to do that consistently then they will justify their favouritism (and prevent the need for straitjackets all over NZ).

A lot of good points here, particularly like the one that mentions teams planning to knock off NZ specifically. There are heaps of points that have been made and argued to death over the years, but the one thing that I believe more so than any is this:

The All Blacks are not, nor have they ever been, miles ahead of the rest. They are just miles more consistent.

They have attributes that are miles ahead, such as ball skills under pressure among others, but test rugby is a game of inches. Out of their 76% win record only a small minority are absolute hidings. Sure, they often have more ways to hurt you on the scorecard than anyone else, and often this coupled with their fitness can cause scoreline blowouts against certain teams, but there are a hell of a lot of nailbilters and come from behind wins in that record. Look at the perfect season in 2013. The first French test and the Bok thriller were examples. I attended the Paris test, where they had a scrum on NZ’s line at fulltime only 7 behind, and I was also lucky enough to be at the Dublin comeback. Yet all of those go down as wins, and boy can they stack up.

World Cup knockout matches are one off matches after another. You win one, you get another go. Everyone’s pumped up for these. NZ’s pumped up for every test as they see every test as important, but in WCs they are just another team. Even the 76% record means they’re odds on to lose at least once at a Cup.

I’m resigned to the fact that s**t happens to NZ at World Cups. They just have to deal with it. Embrace it. I’ll be wearing a black straitjacket but hey if NZ don’t win and the result makes rugby the better for it, well we just have to suck it up. I’m dirty about not being at our best in 95 but that win meant way more to SA and I just wish we’d have lost healthy. Just gotta enjoy the ride-so good luck to everyone on said ride. Just don’t fall off.

What perplexes me about Cheika’s selection is the lack of grunt in the front five as well as the Pooper strategy, and especially with Giteau at 12. It’s basically encouraging all traffic to come down the 10-12 channel where NZ should be able to break the gain line. With two fetchers on the field it’ll make NZ think twice about spreading it from anywhere so they’ll play less expansively and look to dominate the collision to secure the ball. But Cheika has, whilst I wouldn’t say conceded, has definitely not put his best collision winning pack out. It’s a serious challenge for Australia to overcome that’s for sure, and that coupled with SBW and probably Savea running hard at Giteau also plays into NZ’s hands. If you had a big physical 12 there NZ may have wanted to spread it to possibly have a better chance of winning the gainline, but that’d come with risk due to two fetchers. But this seems like red rag to a bull stuff.

Been a while since I saw it but didn’t Pocock come through from the side before Horwill’s try? Just tried to find it but can’t really look as am at work. This site makes it look like I’m working better than YouTube 🙂

Hang on-so an Australian is telling me that they got the short end of the stick from Bryce Lawrence in the 2011 QF?

Biltong would love to hear what you have to say about this!

Another thing that really helped Australia’s chances is Brüssow going off injured.

Three of the four tries shouldn’t have been awarded and neither should the card. I’m a Kiwi so I understand why people would disregard my opinion as biased but I just think he had a crap game, much like Lawrence did in 2011. Though to take a cynical angle, you have to see what you can and can’t do in the eyes of the ref and France played a magnificent match, their defending of an ilk I have rarely seen.

You have to not only be better than the other lot but good enough to take variables out of the equation. The extraordinary French defence, the referee, lack of quality pool opposition, and (I know it sounds ridiculous to mention this) the kerfuffle with France darkening their jerseys to clash with NZ in a major win for Nike were all uncontrollables and should have been planned for and dealt with. The injury situation is also an uncontrollable (Collins’ loss was huge), but the freakish loss of not only DC but Evans I think sowed seeds of doubt. Though to have McAlister step in at 10 was a luxury indicative of NZ’s depth at the time. He just didn’t play very well in that position.

Things NZ could have controlled:

Rotation policy-not enough games for combinations to gel
Selection errors in looking at the big picture-Mils at 13, an unfit Robinson, Howlett left out
Putting a dropkick play in place
A Plan B that wasn’t necessarily about dropkicks, rather a change of approach
Mentality-they were flat.

There are more than enough things that the All Blacks could have controlled that could have potentially made up those two points. They did not perform at their best and that’s something they need to look at as it has happened at almost every World Cup. They learned how to play with the required desperation against Australia in the 2011 semi and I think now that they know this coupled with the knowledge that they can beat an inspired team in a knockout match will serve them better. They are getting better at World Cups. That chastening experience helped-but we will see if they have learned anything else in the next two months.

Well put it this way Bilt my old mate, I’d like us to be at least two ahead of you guys 🙂 SA are the best RWC side. 2/5 beats 2/7. I don’t want to do the 87 nor 91 sides a disservice, but it’s an irrational desire to have a better win % than our greatest foes.

I don’t give a toss if cups were in the amateur era or not. Basically you’re two up on us. Though if NZ win this one then the % overtakes that of the Bokke-3/8 as opposed to 2/6.

That make sense?

That guy would have to be the reason for contraception considering Australia’s first win was in the amateur era and also without South Africa.

I feel no sympathy for Rougerie that’s for sure. France were on top for 25 mins. Not 80. You can’t call France that unfortunate when NZ had Stephen Donald on and not Dan Carter, and the skip had a broken foot. I’m sure they’d gladly replay it. Even Weepu pulled his groin in the warmup so couldn’t kick for toffee. Truth is Carter would have walked it for NZ. Plus I think it’s a bit rich for any Australian to criticise the refereeing as they were the direct beneficiaries of the worst refereeing display of the tournament.

NZ were the better side for 55 mins, France 25. People remember French ascendancy more as it was A in the second half and B when the score had one point in it. Wasn’t the whole game that’s for sure.

Hey Kia. Despite NMS’ size I’m a bit perplexed as to why I’m hearing that Australia want to target him in the air. He’s got fullback experience despite his relative lack of height and if the AB forwards win the go-forward battle he could find himself in space with the ball as the possible lack of time Australia’s kickers would have could force kicking mistakes. This is why I expect Giteau to kick frequently. Piutau is left-footed (not sure if he’s left-handed too) which is almost a shame as he’s not only in good form but also has fullback experience.

Barrett and Fekitoa scream impact and I think Conrad Smith is under pressure to put a couple of good performances together against quality opposition with speed. Fekitoa has gas to burn and I actually don’t think we’ve seen enough of him at centre. Who knows-if NZ are down with 20 to go would he come on at 13 and run off SBW? You’re dead right on Barrett, think he may come on for NMS shifting Ben Smith to 14 unless DC has an attack of, well, the DCs.

The forward selection for Australia is obviously the talking point but I think if NZ really focus on ball security the perceived strentgh in pilfering will make way for the concession in physicality. Pocock is beefier but dominating collisions is not his core role. I like Romano and Retallick together and that with Kaino makes me feel NZ won’t play as expansively, but still with the same pace. There is a risk of turning over ball from anywhere with their two fetchers but they have tried and failed in that tactic before with Smith and Waugh. Not only that, but Cane is on the bench in a direct retort to their double act, with the increased bulk of 4 to 6 making up for any perceived lack of physicality with Cane there (though his performance vs SA a couple of years ago convinced me Cane can cope with the most physical of teams).

Perenara has not only come on massively this year, but he’s playing more of an Aaron Smith role for NZ. His pass is so much quicker and he is getting in, serving his backs then getting out. It adds to the high octane style that will keep sapping teams’ energy and will give our 10 more time and space to make better decisions.

I had a bad feeling about this game as I really want NZ to win it-it’s bigger than Ellis Park due to the silverware on offer, but I’m becoming more excited as I love Hansen’s selection here. Having said that I rate Cheika (living in Dublin it’s hard not to be impressed with how far Leinster have come under both him and Schmidt) and think that he’s got them champing at the bit. They’ll be spewing after last year too-as priceless as that look on Phipps’ face was you just know they’re going to bring it physically this time. Set piece dominance could well end up crucial.

Our friend Mr Barnes has the whistle and is generally very hard on teams slowing the ball down (one game early in his career being an exception-couldn’t possibly remember it) and with Australia playing two sevens it could perversely work in NZ’s favour having the added scrutiny there.

All in all it does look a cracker and hoping Dublin airport has a pub with it on. Even stevens for me.

I do agree with Armand here. Knockout rugby has the romanticism of David and Goliath in a one-off. If the big bad wolf wins all the time in the showpiece event it might not capture the imagination of people that aren’t as familiar to the game.

New Zealand are the most consistent side in sport. If the WC were a league interest would have faded away a while ago. She’s a small country, is Aotearoa, and often punches above her weight as a plucky underdog. But in this game, and this tournament, she is the big bad wolf. Akin to the hordes of Mordor, desperately seeking the one thing that would guarantee dominion over all. And haven’t the All Blacks played like world champions once they did finally get that title bestowed upon them again.

But for all their imposing statistics, the 75% win ratio means they are odds on to slip up. Winning 3/4 doesn’t add up to winning 7 in a row (yes I know you technically need only a three match run but when has a non French team come close to that?). It makes them just another team in the comp, and the 2/7 ratio reflects that. People tend to exaggerate massively about their abilities, calling them unbeatable, raising the question of anyone possibly getting close, and feigning flabbergasted surprise when they are bundled out. But New Zealand are not that far ahead of everyone else and never have been. Look at the results and you’ll find cliffhangers, nailbiters and games where a padded cell and a straitjacket should be prescribed to every Kiwi, such as the Ireland escape I was lucky enough to witness. There are one or two areas where they are markedly superior (basic skills and conditioning are two obvious examples) but there are others where a certain opposition can and do enjoy superiority. Playing to your strengths negates those of the opposition, and often you’ll find yourself calling members of your team crap impulsively before realising that it’s not all about your team and the opposition have bloody good players that play bloody well at times. Test rugby is a game of inches, and there are literally inches between those top sides. Just watch the Six Nations, Ellis Park’s humdingers and most Wales Australia clashes. If one team is flat and another inspired, the flat team is very rarely good enough to win.

South Africa, the best RWC side, have a 62% win ratio last time I looked, but even they are susceptible to an ambush like 2011. England don’t have a bad record, and France and Australia can come out of nowhere to spoil anyone’s party-the Aussies having proven big game temperament here. There have been enough World Cups now for the Celts to have a big influence, with Ireland finally knocking off a big three opponent and Wales making two semis. The islands have taken some big scalps and Italy could very well knock over an off-colour France. All of these are one-off games that turned tournaments on their heads. Pool games flip the draw, knockout games send favourites home early. Not only that, but the teams are so close that drama has been heightened by external factors possibly deciding games. Rugby is a sport where you not only have to be better than the opposition, but you have to be good enough to take these factors out of the equation. But these factors add to the drama, the intrigue, the fairytale. There have only been seven tournaments but they have packed in a lifetime of storylines that have captivated the globe. Who knew one rugby game could unite a country previously so bitterly divided? From gold watches to whistle swallowing refs to TMO calls to sending offs, RWCs have been a neverending source of debate, excuse making, soul searching and glee.

But we wouldn’t have it any other way. We all live by this sword, we will all die by this sword. Let’s just sit back and hope that we don’t get the pointy end. Because as I suit up in my silver fern embossed straitjacket next month, I’ll always know that it’s a great ride. Even if you are the big bad wolf.

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.

Hey Biltong, great article mate. Was thinking with the challenges that both teams and referees endure with regard to the NH vs SH issues, it’d be a good idea for teams and referees to gain empathy with the opposite hemisphere by maybe having one season out of four where NH refs do Super Rugby and SH refs do the European Champions Cup. Just an idea but maybe it’d help get people’s interpretations of laws a little closer to homogenisation and unambiguity.

Like the ideas for scrum resets and only giving free kick sanctions at scrum time. But I am aware of people seeing the scrum as such an important contest that dominance in that area should wield chances for points. Would like to see the clock stopped at scrum time too. More ball in play and fitness is better rewarded. I don’t like the kick through at all either as it is cynical and negative play.

It is easier to evolve defensively rather than offensively, and I’d like the interpretation of the laws to favour constructive rather than destructive play. I love to see quick ball but there is a very fine line between allowing a fair contest and allowing a free for all which will ensure no ball gets to a full backline at pace (since even the backs would have to join in to generate it).

Neither did SBW…

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.

Sounds to me like everyone’s Achilles heel is their strength-meaning if it is nullified a lot of teams will be very vulnerable. France and SA are formidable in RWCs as they have strengths when the game is both open and tight. France just turn it on when they feel like it, so bugger any strategies for them-if they catch fire just try to live with them, tackle anything and ride it out. The SA thing is more a mental approach in terms of playing expansively but that approach isn’t as effective in a tight knockout game.

NZ possess an all court game so they can deal with most thrown at them, but their scrum is I feel their weakness. You could chuck in their defence at rolling mauls too as they have shipped a few yards and a try or two. As for their mentality though, well from 2011 on they have shown such strong examples of mental fortitude that any of the old barbs have been well and truly blunted. This is not what I’m alluding to though. I’m talking about their willingness to keep playing expansively in a tight one. RWC games lurch to a snail’s pace from the QF on as the pressure ratchets up, and this can play into the hands of whoever is playing NZ. Because the tighter things are, the less expansive games are, less miles are run, taking NZ’s fitness out of the equation. This means that the opposition are in better shape, more alert, and make better decisions under pressure which forces the NZ players to question their own decision making. Wales succeeded to a point in Cardiff-ridiculous time spent for stoppages and their cryo chambers helped them lead on 69 mins, but it all caught up with them in a devastating seven minutes.

If NZ have the gumption and ability to keep their high octane wide game going for most of the match, the weapon that is their fitness will come to the fore. I’m not talking about being reckless, but maintaining accuracy with expansive quick phase play could be considered as playing the percentages as well. Aaron Smith is essential to this approach, and you could argue that Read, Retallick and Coles are too with their ball skills. Because the games will constrict even more as they near their end. The courage to run sides off their feet will be rewarded, and you’ll see teams fade in the last 15, making bad decisions themselves (France must be commended here though because I’ve yet to see them run out of puff, only interest). Then a three on two in NZ’s 22 from a turnover could mean running is the percentage option. The Hurricanes in the side are used to living off scraps and their accuracy is a huge weapon here. But as I’ve said the lack of courage to open her up could be NZ’s biggest Achilles heel as it could take NZ’s fitness ascendancy out of the game.

Hope to see him next year in Super Rugby 🙂

I’d like to see Reinach inside Pollard or Lambie. I was a bit disappointed with Meyer not sticking with Pollard after Dublin as Hougaard had a mare and didn’t give him the best pill. Not every game’s going to be on the veldt but not every game’s going to be in kaak weather either. Wanted the kid to have some continuity. However Lambie came on and played well the game after and he needs development too. But what I like about either is that Le Roux and whoever is 10 offers dual kicking options which NZ showed against Wales can really stretch an opposition.

Mate I remember you calling for JDV to step down. I know we’d all like better reasons for him not being in the team, pride heals more than a busted knee and I’m sure I’m not the only one wishing him a quick recovery, but do you think this creates an opening for SA to become even more dangerous? Or are you lamenting his loss with the idea to him being integral to the game plan that you mention above?

Hey Bilt, seems like guys like le Roux are much needed as they attack space rather than the player. You guys are capable of playing at a frenzied pace just like NZ and Australia, and despite your traditional approach not being as expansive you do need skilful guys to maintain that approach. You also see the skills evident at lineout time.

I reckon one of the few tweaks is to get the big fast runners going at space rather than trying to win the collision. They do seem to look for it more than other teams. Sometimes I do get frustrated with SA running at guys on quick phase ball instead of at space-they’re obviously more likely to find a weak shoulder if space is their target.

If SA do take that approach it’ll play into their hands for sure. RWCs make teams cut down on their expansiveness and the game does slow down a bit as pressure goes up-which means that the Boks can play the same gameplan just at a slower pace. If they win the gainline they’re odds on to get a third cup and are the side more likely than any other to send NZ packing. I’m sure there’d be a lot of support for that in the NH as everyone wants to get the top dogs.

I’m picking that Ireland will win the gainline battle and Schmidt has worked out how to counter Australia’s backs. This is easier said than done but I really rate him as a coach and with the more static pill that I think the Wallabies will provide their backs, they won’t have the platform to launch. Having said that there are always one or two opportunities for the backs to showcase their brilliance and Ireland have to maintain concentration and scramble well to prevent Australia taking advantage of these. O’Mahony has to be everywhere to clean Hooper out I feel. Not sure how the scrums are going to go but Ireland’s lineout is going ok-they did come up against Matfield and held their own so you can’t get better match practice than that.

Just amazing to see how Ireland are playing with confidence no matter who is in their team. Often if one or two have gone down the replacement hasn’t been the same level and the confidence of the team has dropped as a result. They’re playing like they have total confidence in their teammates no matter who is in the jersey and that filters into those guys themselves, which filters into the overall team. Fantastic to see.

Ireland have, what, lost one test this year? It’s a better record than NZ who have lost one and drawn one. Coupled with their close run thing against the English, this could be their chance to stake their claim for IRB Team Of The Year. Great tonic when you have a side missing Healy, O’Brien, Ferris and some other clown who used to play 13.

Hey Kia, nice post mate.

Obviously everyone knows Hansen is simulating a RWC schedule here, and Wales is the so-called final. So not only will the big guns be recalled, but we may get some insight as to how he’s thinking of going into it this week.

Rugby is one of those sports where if you play well, you make the opposition look bad. Scotland did defend bloody well and made our guys look rather toothless on attack until SBW and Savea came on, with Slade straightening the attack. But the backline is the end of the chain, and the tight five were outdone by and large by a tenacious Scottish pack which stood up to them physically and, while not dominating, harried and pressured the pack, which pressured TJP, whose rubbish delivery pressured a DC who was rusty enough, who pressured his outsides. This was a classic example of how important the big boys’ jobs are.

Sadly apart from the intercept Scotland didn’t look like scoring a try and they were clearly out of puff with 10 to go. If Laidlaw had have put them ahead I don’t think the adrenaline would have masked their empty tanks enough. NZ did well to dominate territory and possession in their 22 in the second half and it showed that Romano is a step above and is probably above Tuipolotu in the pecking order once he’s had more rugby. Wouldn’t be surprised to see him on the bench this weekend.

Kaino is crucial to NZ as he just owns people at the collision. Wales will do well to break the gainline with the guys NZ are bringing back. SBW straightened the attack and is running a lot more in 2014 than 2011. It’s looking more and more like his first option now since teams are going to swarm around him but he is so big that he’s a gainline certainty-even against Roberts this weekend. I think his offload will be a better weapon off quick phase play when defences are a little more staggered, but it should also still be used to counter an aggressive rush defence as if he gets it to someone the line will be destroyed.

Dagg’s not going as bad as some people think. What I (and obviously Hansen) like about him is his vision from the back and facilitation of counters-Dagg will often provide the scoring pass and his spark and communication are needed IMO to get the best out of Savea and Ben Smith in broken play.

All in all it was a rubbish test to watch but good to see the Scottish endeavour and NZ’s composure in the last quarter. I think Cruden and Barrett will be favourites to start but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Carter due to the time he needs in the saddle and the fact that Aaron Smith, such a vital cog in this machine now, will not give him the slop Perenara did. I think Hansen will be privately spitting tacks at the team to get it right on Saturday and quite frankly I hope they do as I didn’t fork out for a flight and tickets just to see us put in a poxy performance like last weekend 😉

Hey Kia, nice constructive criticism of all sides. Was shaking off the jet lag from Chicago for a week-just in time for the fun and games this past weekend.

England started brilliantly but you have to keep the foot on the throat and as cock-a-hoop as they were I agree with you-they needed to rein it in and keep accumulating. It is a test match and I know I sound conservative but I’d probably take the kick every time if it would bring you ahead by another multiple of 7 e.g. 6-8 point gap, 13-16, 20-23. NZ haven’t been too bad at maul defending in the last couple of years-certainly a lot better than previous and it was never a given that England would score.

May’s try was brilliant and Conrad Smith was made to look a pensioner. His body position was good he just wasn’t fast enough to cover the gap on his outside shoulder once May switched on the afterburners. Anyone in full flight is hard to stop but his shimmy past Dagg was even more impressive-kind of reminded me of getting into someone’s slipstream in F1. I remember Tim Horan standing Christian Cullen up in a Super 12 game and going round him-you wouldn’t think Horan would beat Cullen in a straight sprint.

I like the fact that both sides are complaining about Owens’ performance with the TMO. It implies that there was no issue with the winner as both teams were hard done by, and will encourage the IRB to look at the big picture. Hansen’s right and I think articulated his points on it well. It’s also good to hear it from the winners’ circle as it seems griping at the ref after a loss is customary.

I used to think wet weather would be beneficial to England who play less expansively than NZ but I’m leaning the other way after such consistent execution of the basics by the All Blacks. It wasn’t perfect, Dagg’s passing to McCaw, McCaw himself spilling that lame duck punt that would have given NZ a certain 7 and Savea spilling it 5m out annoyed me, but when it belted down Savea’s drop was the only glaring error in the period NZ were down to 14. If it were on I’m sure it would have been shifted regardless of conditions, but they were undermanned and in that rain up the jumper was the way to go. But, the phases they put together in the leadup to the third try were at pace. The two out passes under pressure they execute in dry weather primed them for this, and even on phases where they didn’t breach the gain line numbers were there to back them up and keep the ball. England being unable to clear their lines after Savea’s fumble was crucial-as NZ ran the clock down in the England 22-you could see the frustration seeping in and it told after the full complement was restored. It doesn’t matter how you play, ball skills will either make or break your approach at this level and it is not surprising that Australia is always a tough side to beat.

This defeat hurt England, no mistake about it. NZ know too well about form pre-World Cups being an irrelevance, but England were hellbent on laying some stepping stones this autumn to create this fortress. For all the talk about still building and learning, England are not where they wanted to be. In 2002 they were already there and the affirmation of that in their results gave them the mental fortitude to go down under and win, in June and November. The fact that they lost their first chance to make a statement means for them that they are already behind the eight ball, and that things aren’t going to get much easier with a chastised South Africa to come next. England can still make big statements in the next three weeks, but they need to as this autumn is probably more important to them than any other team.

Side note-congratulations Ireland and also commiserations. The manner in which you dealt to a Bok side without the platform of a dominant set piece made the world sit up and take notice, and this is a side that can not only beat anyone, but can be rightly regarded as one of the favourites for next November. This of course means that everyone’s gunning for you 🙂