All Blacks & AB XV Northern Tours 2025

[waiopehu oldboy]

Also posted on the NZ Team Watch thread but it's more immediately relevant here...

The Post

www.thepost.co.nz

As noted on the other thread, I feel Cully is saying what a lot of us are thinking...

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Linked article is paywalled but goes on:

But that’s symbolic of the deeper mess New Zealand rugby has got itself into over the past decade in the key position, when the template left by late-career Dan Carter - a tactically astute playmaker and strong goalkicker - has been chipped away by the erroneous belief that hybrid No 10-15s are the way to go.

That scrambled thinking has been a strategic error and has left the All Blacks effectively hanging for the return of Richie Mo’unga to lift their Rugby World Cup hopes.

Mo’unga’s comeback next year will at least provide the All Blacks with a specialist in the position, but the pecking order beneath him looks to be in a state of flux and it’s quite possible that New Zealand rugby doesn’t actually know what it’s looking for or has gone so far down the wrong track that it’s too late to turn around.

Is Beauden Barrett a No 10 or 15? Ditto Damian McKenzie. And will Love, Josh Jacomb or Rivez Reihana even be the starting No 10s at their Super Rugby clubs next year?

The fact that no one can answer any of those questions with certainty is a huge concern, especially as the New Zealand rugby system is supposedly set up in a centralised fashion to prevent this sort of muddied thinking.

To be fair to Love, if he starts for the All Blacks against Cardiff, he has to be the Hurricanes No 10 next year come hell or high water.

The idea that anyone can consistently play No 10 at test level without years of seeing the pictures at the next level down isn’t just naive, it’s setting the player in question up to fail.

The other part of the No 10 issue that is troublesome is that New Zealand rugby as a whole has decided that it wants run-first, X-factor No 10s without the alternative model ever being tested.

What would the All Blacks have looked like over the past two tests with a No 10 with a big boot, tactical smarts and a simple desire to get them into the right areas?

The simple answer is: better. And yet, when this type of player - Harry Plummer - won Super Rugby with the Blues in 2024, there was still this underlying, borderline-arrogant narrative that he “wasn’t an All Blacks No 10”.

Plummer got five minutes off the bench for the All Blacks against the Wallabies in Sydney last year and was never seen again.

But he was just included in the Top 14 team of the month for October for his exploits for Clermont in France, so the 27-year-old can play and his retention would have at least provided the All Blacks with some tactical variety at No 10 - the possibility of a plan B.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Mafileo has fractured a rib in training so unavailable for Wales, Dyer called up as cover.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[Dan54]

Also posted on the NZ Team Watch thread but it's more immediately relevant here...

The Post

www.thepost.co.nz

As noted on the other thread, I feel Cully is saying what a lot of us are thinking...

You know where he misses a huge point with what's wrong? I genuinely think we lack enough ruthlessness. I genuinely wonder if we (and a few teams) are seeing the result of worrying about appearances (probably not right word) and not just winning.
You know we heard and read for a few years how the Boks were hurting the game of rugby with the 'Bomb Squad' and I read it here, in press heard it on rugby shows etc. I kept saying, no it works for them and they are winning, now it's becoming a thing. It's like being at Wellington and watching the Boks have a players go down anytime the ABs got a roll on, they were playing game at their pace to win!!
And I said same thing with things like underarm ball in cricket, Chappell made sure the Aussie's won which is correct thing to do. Same as Carey (was it ) running out that Pom in ashes series. F*** it in tests etc the point is to win not look pretty.

Ok that my rant for day!!

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Doesn't "What would the All Blacks have looked like over the past two tests with a No 10 with a big boot, tactical smarts and a simple desire to get them into the right areas?" kinda say AB need a 10 (& backups) who cares about winning moreso than flashy, @Dan54 ?

 

[Dan54]

Doesn't "What would the All Blacks have looked like over the past two tests with a No 10 with a big boot, tactical smarts and a simple desire to get them into the right areas?" kinda say AB need a 10 (& backups) who cares about winning moreso than flashy, @Dan54 ?

Yep, need a whole team like that. Not saying BB trying to look flash or any of them. I genuinely wonder at times if the trouble is perhaps even from supporters (and a lot of teams have same trouble) is we want everything to look flash, and not high work rate. Even the fact we think it only the 10 that makes the difference strikes me as how we not getting it quite right. I don't think anything is as simple as saying, let's get a draught horse who just kicks etc, because that is how test rugby is played. It has been a discussion that has gone on since I can remember, even before the Fox/Botica discussions. I remember some in 60s used to think Herewini ran too much etc. Same as when Kirton played, some thought he was a bit free and easy, but he fitted into whole team. Tell you what smarter rugby brains than us are trying to work it all out.

 

[Willin1]

After re watching Roebuck’s final try I’m surprised there wasn’t more discussion about the support line Pillock ran. (I know it’s pollock but hes such an annoying twat he will be forever known as Pillock). Running in front of roebuck with his arms out blocking the defender. Surely obstruction and no try!?

 

[Willin1]

After re watching Roebuck’s final try I’m surprised there wasn’t more discussion about the support line Pillock ran. (I know it’s pollock but hes such an annoying twat he will be forever known as Pillock). Running in front of roebuck with his arms out blocking the defender. Surely obstruction and no try!?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Looked to me that he was running in support, and behind, Roebuck and in that case his running line was perfectly ok. Arms out might have looked like obstruction (and might have been) but equally was just celebration of the try. No issue at all with the try in my book.

 

[Wilson]

After re watching Roebuck’s final try I’m surprised there wasn’t more discussion about the support line Pillock ran. (I know it’s pollock but hes such an annoying twat he will be forever known as Pillock). Running in front of roebuck with his arms out blocking the defender. Surely obstruction and no try!?

Normally I'm of the view that a support player in position to receive the ball has a fair bit of lee-way in the lines they choose, but looking at the overhead angle here (at about 5:50) he is clearly in front of the ball carrier and changes his line to make a block. Easy yellow card for mine:

Looks like he knows exactly what he's done the way he reacts too.

 

[Willin1]

Normally I'm of the view that a support player in position to receive the ball has a fair bit of lee-way in the lines they choose, but looking at the overhead angle here (at about 5:50) he is clearly in front of the ball carrier and changes his line to make a block. Easy yellow card for mine:

Looks like he knows exactly what he's done the way he reacts too.

Been reading pom rugby forums and opinion is mostly that it was an illegal block.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't think there can be any argument that he's breaking a few laws of the game.

The refs decision will be if it's clear, obvious and material, and did he interfere with play (ie is it worth penalising?)

I could see how the could decide that it wasn't material.

10.1A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it. An offside player must not interfere with play

9.2An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play

9.3A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.

9.7A player must not: a). Intentionally infringe any law of the game.

 

[Wilson]

I could see how the could decide that it wasn't material.

Yeah, there's an argument there given the 'block is pretty light. But considering the player blocked does make it to the try scorer just as he gets it down I think they probably got that wrong and the player was prevented from making an attempt to tackle (or hold up/dislodge the ball) that he otherwise would've been able to make.

 

[WFDS]

I don't think there can be any argument that he's breaking a few laws of the game.

Just like McCaw (amongst others) did for large parts of their careers. I guess the best know how to do it & they do it well.

The kid has undoubted talent & who knows how far he will go. But it's a a sad indictment when grown men (not you cobber) have to single a young man out and hate on him for nothing more than his enthusiasm for the game we love.

He's obviously very popular in England amongst the fans that will help inspire the younger generation and Borthwick did point out that he makes them a better team on many levels. He was very much accepted & liked by his Lions team mates from all accounts.
But sadly, everyone needs an Englishman to hate. So we return to sanctioned xenophobia

All's fair in love and war