'S what I'm saying man.
When they were playing us often, it was very good for them.
How do they get tough club competition now while the game appears to be dying a slow death in Oz?
Perhaps it's neither here nor there but the ABs are having their worst spell and the Boks seem to have more depth than ever before.
And it's all happened since we left SR.
That's not entirely incorrect. I think we kept then honest. Without the Bok's physicality, they'd have inevitably been enveloped by their desire for total candyfloss rugby, though New Zealand has never lacked muscle. However, their problems run deeper. We've lost our hard edge a long time ago, and Super Rugby has actually severely stunted the quality and profile of player we produce. How many players in out squad can definitively pin down a single position? I'd wager maybe less than 30%. I don't think we are as useful to them as we were in 2009 and a little later. I definitively think we needed to part ways with them many, many years earlier.
2009, the PDivy era ?
That Bok side was several levels more physical than the Boks of the past seven years and far more talented. Easily. This Bok side would not beat the 2003 side. It just doesn't have the fundamentals, leadership, physicality, or skill.
I guess we'll have to see how we and the ABs go in the coming years.
But I have a feeling that in decade from now, the date that we left SR might emerge as the clear start of the decline of the ABs.
Thus far, on three years of evidence, the trend line has held.
The decline could be seen in 2017. The cracks were there. It was also the time NH sides started to revamp their programs and adopt modern structures, training methods, tactics etc. Many factors coincided. Super rugby itself died a long time ago. The last of the better years were probably around 2008 to 2012. If Super rugby was like it was prior to that time, when it was on a par with top level test rugby, I'd wholeheartedly agree. I think rugby itself has changed in a way that has regressed the All Blacks and their prior advantages. Too much space has regressed skills. Before the ELVs angles of running, and close quarter passing was more integral. Now it's screens and generic ploys to create an overlap.
I don't get the "evil" part...welcome back Card.
That is a lot taken from an opening game of a one and half month competition especially when the game had not stakes to it.
Teams will try to be fit for the quarter finals and on.
NZ collapsed as their fitness level plummetted, on the other hand, FR was fitter.
The Evil empire strikes again, it’s like Star Wars : )
2,348 posts
The All Blacks set the standard for a long time for their excellence, and ability to nearly always find a way to win. It was a hallmark of their game. You always knew that no matter what transpired, you'd have to soak up almost insurmountable pressure to close out any result. The key words here are accuracy, on top of organisation. That advantage doesn't exist anymore. It took an inordinate amount of time for other nations to catch on, but now that they have, the All Blacks look ordinary. Even in this loss to France, look at how New Zealand couldn't keep hold of the ball at key moments, control territory, and execute under pressure. It was France all the way. I don't really know how New Zealand can progress from here. They are geographically disadvantaged, they have a small population, the next generation is not as interested in sport. I suppose a like example would be Brazil in some respects, which, in soccer, has a strong tradition for development and a strong domestic game. Is this possible for New Zealand? I don't think so. Brazil has a far higher participation level and population too.