So what's derailed the AB locomotive?

You missed out another problem and that is Crotty - when you listed the  elderly getting weaker.   What bothered me is the inability of the AB backline when it came to scoring of tries,   When last did a backline player score a try for the AB's?

I am amazed by your posting about the fact that players lose their competitive edge as they get older- a first time ever you admitted it.  Does it only apply to NZ players and not the Springboks over the hill lot you so loyally supported when selected by Meyer?

Maybe you have learned something new yesterday? 

Whens the last time an AB back scored for NZ? Ummm

Umm B Smith, BB, and Ioane scored againgst OZ. And Mckenzie scored againgst England. SO their goes your logic LOL. 

I dont think NZ has lost their edge. I just think sides like Ire has figured how to beat NZ. And employed a gameplan to shut down NZ space. NZ play on quick ball, phase play, and speed. They got none of this. Ire as Eng did. Dominated possession and territory. I Dont think physicality is a problem. And not sure where Read is weak is coming from. Read was solid per usual Their ruck dominance just not good enough. I do have a feeling NZ are holding a few cards up their sleeve, for the WC. They are struggling with the rush defense Going to have to figure out how to combat that. One shining light though was the lineout, prob best in the world atm. Really troubled Ireland. 

I Think the inconsistency is selections is not helping. I Think Lauamape is a real option. BB just has no one to feed or distribute. I think ALB was impressive. Would not mind him at 12. I Dont think age is a factor. The average age of the 2003 Eng side was 32. Game Experience matters though. NZ lost 1000 test caps from the 2015 side. I just think the other sides namely Ire, have caught up. As an AB Fan I am not in panic stations yet. We lost to OZ in 2015 before WC, and it actually helped them re focus. However, I would make some changes for nxt year.

15 .B Smith 14. J Barrett 13. J Goodhue 12. N Luamape 11. R Ioane 10. B Barrett 9. TJ Peranara 8. K Read 7. A Savea 6. S Frizell 5. B Retalluck 4. S Whitelock 3. O Franks 2. D Coles 1. J Moody

16. C Taylor 17. K Tufuakfe 18. O Tungafusi 19. S Barrett 20. V Fifita 21. A Smith 22. R Mounga 23. D Mckenzie/ALB

As new players enter the side, it's inevitable that those personalities change the atmosphere and the hierarchy.

One combination will never function exactly the same as the previous one and the overall synergy of combinations is probably the biggest hurdle for the ABs right now.

True, it's not panic station time, but it is clear that the ABs have lots of work to do. 

More so when you consider that yet more new combinations will be forced on them after 2019.

They beat both the Boks and England by a mere sliver. Had they lost those two games...then their season would have looked very different.

The Boks lost lots of games this year and yet as far as trajectories go, one would almost rather be a Bok fan than an AB one right now.

Odd really.

Mozart

The Springboks never were the best - they were selected on reputation - hence the Japan disaster.

Do you really know whether there are not better alternatives in NZ rugby?   How many matches have you watched in Super Rugby?

I would say that I would think the following would be improvements:-

Ben Smith    -  Ben Lam

Crotty           -   Ngani Laumape

Read             -    Akira Ioane

Whitelock     -    S Barrett

There are potential improvements in every other position listed by you as well.

However, I think Hansen may just keep the experienced players  and it is likely that in another year -

*   they could show further decline in performances; and

*   like happened to Meyer in 2015 let Hansen down in 2019.  

Lol I am sorry Mike, but attempting to make any correlation or comparisoom. Between Meyers 2015 Bok side, and Hansons 2018 AB side is ludricous. Difference being NZ has a far better ratio of youth and exp. So talking about old heads. DC and Richie great example. Talk was old and passed it. They ended up being both stars at the RWC. So I think its quite premature to make those kinda judgements. So for instance saying S Whitelock who was great againgt ire. And Read are out of form and past it. IS a generilisation. No different to DC and RM in 2015. Abs drop Sam whitelock. Whos a world class lock And Read who just came back from Back Surgery. They well def decline. This AB side is def in a transistional periorid. But sorry see no substantial evidence. Hansons ABS are even near 2015 Boks. 

Meyer never had a Laumape, Goodhue, Akira et al. Our pool of usable players was patchy under Meyer. Meyer repeatedly went to youth first throughout his tenure and they didn't replay his faith. Players like Steph and Malherbe, who have been good this year, were nowhere near test quality in 2015. Steph was one of those responsible for the defeat to Japan, so too Lood, Lambie and Kriel. 

New Zealand have the players to be a top 2 side for years to come, but I don't believe in Hansen. Is he handling this transition well? I don't think he is. I believe the real problem is at the top. He doesn't know who his next best players are in too many instances. 

Luke

It was not a comparison between teams - it was the crazy believes of Mozart at play that I tried to expose.    

AO

In the Japan disaster team there were two players with less than 10 tests.   The rest were made up of mostly has beens and in some cases never has beens, making the team the most capped team in the history of  Springbok rugby.  

Would have been none if Etz ebeth started and Jacque Fourie not turned  up in such a shocking physical condition in the June 2015 training camp that there was no chance of him being coached back into acceptable fitness  for the WC.

The story about Meyer trying out new players have been shown up as imaginary BS.

Luke

I think there is a misunderstanding as to selection of players    In the first instance age should never be a criterium when it comes to selection of players - the only issue should always be performance.

In essence there are a number of issues that could impact on performances and those are-

*   that although there are frequent exceptions it is in general accepted that the prime performance age of rugby players are  between the ages of 25 and 29, and

*   that due to age factor  there are indications that once the age of 30 is reached one must look carefully at whether a decline in performances have set in, what the degree of decline is and whether  it could impact on team success,

Let me be explicit - injuries and other factors can start a decline in player performances at any age and decline can even set in earlier than the age of 30.

I think the regular evaluation of player performances  should be a continuous process and that player performances should be  compared  to what they achieved  during the past two years and what they the deliver at present.

That means all players, because some player showed decline earlier than others  and some at for instance 33 years old may not show any difference in performance.

Now back to team performances - I think that this year would mt go down in the history of All Blacks rugby  as a prime success year - there are even indications that the AB's may have lost the number 1 ranking in world rugby for the first time in near to a decade.  I think an re-evaluation is necessary.

From an amateur perspective it seems as some player performances have declined over the past year to such an extent that is impacting on success in tests.

The discussion is purely whether that has impacted  on test results, and which of the players should be subject to an evaluation  process.        

Mike looks at numbers on a page and weaves a shoddy narrative around that. If those numbers don't work for him, he makes them up or omits certain inconvenient details. He is the kind of person who begins with a preconceived idea and works backwards, squeezing and contorting the data until it conforms with his preconceptions. If by any chance that doesn't work, he'll lie. His references for age decline have mostly been fallacious. For months he has been debunked at every turn. If he had any sense, he'd have given up long ago. 

Pollard was a player who took to test rugby immediately, but with some experience, he is growing into a much better player. Experience is invaluable, especially when it comes with a winning mentality. Think of all the nuances of each position, all the preparation work and application on the field. Someone who knows the standard, who can set the example to the rest of the team, you can't be without them. Willemse is very talented, but reckless. He feel for the game has been off in every game. In a couple of years, injuries aside, God forbid, he will be a much more usable player.

Mike looks at ages on a page, then determines from that who is useless. Against Japan in 2015, he singled out Victor and Schalk. Both were our most productive forwards, Victor comfortably out playing Steph, Lood et al. This year, he refuses to accept that Beast has had any good games. He was a standout performer in the England series and the opening Puma test. He did good work throughout the year. He is over 30, so no, he did nothing. So too Louw. Willemse's errors were glossed over, as we're Damian's and Steph's. There is a clear bias to his thinking as he strains to repress every form of evidence which stands against him. 

The All Blacks were fatigued after a very long season - playing Argentina twice, Wallabies thrice, Boks twice and then Japan, England and Ireland I think was a bridge too far. Retallick had nothing else left in the tank.

Hakwa

Retallick did play in the June tests, but I think he played 1 test in the RC and since then he played in two tests before playing in the Ireland test.  That should leave a lot in his tank.

Mozart - Mozart - Mozart

As per normal you missed the point total once again.  Louw made you claimed two turnovers against France - he made another 1 in all tests played.   That is less than Du Toit made thus far this year.   His tackle count was nowhere in sight.   So he failed as per normal.

You are always wrong - you claimed that Mostert was credited with the driving maul leading to the try and your claim was proved to be BS. 

You claimed that Willemse was out of position to field a kick without regard to what happened in the five minutes before the penalty was kicked.    That shows how shallow your observations normally are. 

Elderly failures have caused more test losses in the past than failures by younger players.      Get real for a change

Forget another load of BS - we are not discussing one of the best players in he word - but Louw - one of the laziest and non productive loosies imaginable.  

Lazy? Look at Damian. Running threat right in front of me? Nah, I'll pass, my cover defence has it. They scored a try? Damn. My bad brah.

No, Louw is far from lazy. If he in any magical way falls under lazy, then I hope we have the laziest team on earth. We'll win more tests. 

Foeitog - did I correctly indicate a flopping Louw with his atrociously low work rate and it hurts too much for his defenders to absorb.

Take two test examples in the first two tests against the English in June - when Louw made 15 tackles and missed 6.    What a show in TWO tests,

Then the famous observer  has the audacity to ignore the two ball turnovers made at breakdowns on Saturday by De Allende.   So he talks his normal BS as expected.

De Allende played for 56 minutes  and made 3 tackles - one of which was a try-saving tackle on Jones that sent Mozart hopping mad.   How dare that happens when they write str ings of BS to discredit the player.

The normal diversion to try and cover up Louw's non-performance.           

Keep prattling. For each idle word, you add an egg atop your dome. 

AO

Let me ask you a simple question - after lying about the Mostert role in the last maul in the French test I am sure I am entitled to kniow about another story Mozart started on site.

I tried to find out that one of the "turnovers"  made by Louw was not a turnover at all,   A French player lost possession of a ball and Louw fell on it and a maul ensued - won by the Springboks,  That type of thing is never credited as a turnover, since if the Springboks did not get the ball back from the resultant maul it would have meant a scrum to them.

The only other turnover after Louw came on was made by Vermeulen - so where did Louw feature in the second "turnover"? 

Can somebody please give clarity on the famous two "turnovers"  made by Louw in the French test.  Whewn and how did it happen to be turnovers by Louw?

Can somebody please give clarity on the famous two "turnovers"  made by Louw in the French test.  Whewn and how did it happen to be turnovers by Louw?

It's this kind of kindergarten nonsense that drives me away from this board. Last week, Mike, you admitted that Louw made turnovers against France. Now suddenly you can't find them nor recall them. And so we're stuck in this tedious loop of trampling over ground already thoroughly covered yet again.

The All Blacks have been on a downward trend since all their key players called it a day. 

It's nothing new. Many of us saw that Hansen had lost the plot.

It's easy to be rated as a good coach when you have the worlds best players in your team ... ask Meyer ... but a whole new ball game when you have to actually coach a winning game plan from scratch ... again, ask Meyer.

Losing to the quota riddled Boks at home was a shocker. It's been a long time coming and in truth I'm pleased that these arrogant pricks lost to the Irish on Saturday.

Long may it continue.

Pakie

I do not trust anything Mozart and AO comes up with in games - it is mostly disinformation.  Why don't you post a clip of what happened from minute 75 in the game.   That can settle things - since far too often Mozart has written falsehoods when descriptions rugby incidents on site - help your hero in this if you can.

Everyone except you has acknowledged those turnovers (well, you did, but now you don't because honesty has rather a short shelf life with you). Ask Blikkies. Ask Xavi. Ask Kingcorn. Ask Sharkbok. Ask Plum. Ask BokBF. Ask any rugby journo (from the TimesLive report: A final play that started close to Boks’ tryline when flank Francois Louw won his second turnover penalty in the closing five minutes...)

So no. I won't indulge your dishonesty any longer. Go waste someone else's time.

Mike, here are the 2 turnovers by Francois Louw. 76.2 min. and 79.4 min and then he was massively involve in protecting our ball at 78.15 min.

No, Louw had an outstanding performance in that last 10 minutes he was on.

Well, well, well ... great to see you back man ... I missed ya!

Haaaahahahahaaa!! You and Dense go way back. Will it ever end?

In all honesty, he didn't want to give me his nick either when I asked him for it ... so I have no idea under what name he's playing.

Sorry ... can't say I understand why he feels the need to be so secretive. Deep rooted trust issues I guess.

I did the same on RHP a few years back. Challenged him (Atlas1) under a different name and beat him several times over. He called me a liar and told everyone how much better a chess player he is than I.

Needless to say ... I called him out... asked him to put his money where his mouth is ... and ... well ... as expected, he skulked off with his tail firmly tucked. That was the last of it.   

Last I heard, he and Plum were going to have a little round robin with other invited players during the off season. Plum invited me to partake. I somehow doubt we'll see Denny though.

Would be great if you too were part of the mix. Probably the best of the lot of us.

I haven't played for a few months. Think I'll start up again.     

Nah ... as I said, he has ducked my every challenge.

I gave him all the opportunities he needed to confirm his "superiority" ... he wasn't interested.

Good to know your nick. I will definitely challenge you to a match or three. Let me just get back into it first.

I have just opened up a new account under "DarkKingsPawn" ... 

Look forward to taking you on. If I remember correctly you are currently 2 - 1 up ... right?

No matter. It's a new day ... a new challenge. 

Gosh, this chess stuff is getting serious.

What does the piece with the little horsie on it do again?

Please let me know since i can't figure it out and am sure it will be necessary information if i wish to compete

I wonder how this lot came into a thread dealing with the AB's.

I wonder how this lot came into a thread dealing with the AB's.