Why are we so good at the rugby?
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="592972" data-time="1467250978">
<div>
<p>That's true, did those guys who just left build a culture of excellence? I remember it was Ted's first challenge, to turn a pretty ordinary, booze-fueled culture around. Is our success down to Richie?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>On your forwards in the backline (but they better not kill the move, haay-ay-a-ay-ay) thing, the moment i really noticed it was a test in Ireland when Boric drew his man in treffic, threw the perfect soft pass to Thorn coming on the perfect angle for a try, and i thought "what other country's locks would combine like that?". The inspiration of Ali Williams to be more than a lanky fluffybunny hitting rucks?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Jones and Brooke did that bloody well back in their day too.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some point out the whole "hard working farmer" mentality as a building block for the legacy but I don't buy that as a reason cos as far as I know other countries have farms too.</p> -
<p>I think that's a great question and not an easy one to answer.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You've covered off a lot of it, though as you say a lot of those are symptoms.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A couple of points for me is:</p>
<p>1) The Pacific Island influence. A generalisation for sure, but the PI players have always loved to run with the ball. If you watch any amateur footy being played in the Islands there is sweet fuck all kicking. They have brought that style of play to NZ which, when mixed with people that enjoy a more "conservative" brand of rugby, has worked very well. Being able to play the percentages, but also take advantage of any opportunities to run the ball is what the ABs are all about.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2) Kids. We teach our kids to run and pass before we teach them to kick. I think that makes a massive difference. And when I say "teach" I mean we tell them to have at it with little instruction. Running and passing are so much more instinctive then kicking, so you need to do it from the get go or it will be very difficult to pick up later on. Kicking can be taught at any age and much more mechanical. E.G. in this situation, kick for touch. In this situation kick for distance. Running the ball at pace and knowing when to step or pass etc are split second decisions so you rely on your instincts so much more.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As you say we have incredible depth and another big point of difference is having 23 world class players, whereas other teams have probably 6 - 10 at any given time. Which makes our bench potent as fuck. Hard to say why we have so much depth, but I guess rugby is the choice of sport for most youngsters here. My 3 year old goes on about the All Blacks, he has a black pair of shoes that are his favourite and he calls them his "All Blacks" shoes. I haven't made him watch anything to do with the All Blacks myself, that's just stuff he's picked up from other kids at Day Care etc. We are taught from a young age that they are our national team and to take pride in them :)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="592977" data-time="1467251294">
<div>
<p>I think that's a great question and not an easy one to answer.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You've covered off a lot of it, though as you say a lot of those are symptoms.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A couple of points for me is:</p>
<p>1) The Pacific Island influence. A generalisation for sure, but the PI players have always loved to run with the ball. If you watch any amateur footy being played in the Islands there is sweet fuck all kicking. They have brought that style of play to NZ which, when mixed with people that enjoy a more "conservative" brand of rugby, has worked very well. Being able to play the percentages, but also take advantage of any opportunities to run the ball is what the ABs are all about.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2) Kids. We teach our kids to run and pass before we teach them to kick. I think that makes a massive difference. And when I say "teach" I mean we tell them to have at it with little instruction. Running and passing are so much more instinctive then kicking, so you need to do it from the get go or it will be very difficult to pick up later on. Kicking can be taught at any age and much more mechanical. E.G. in this situation, kick for touch. In this situation kick for distance. Running the ball at pace and knowing when to step or pass etc are split second decisions so you rely on your instincts so much more.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As you say we have incredible depth and another big point of difference is having 23 world class players, whereas other teams have probably 6 - 10 at any given time. Which makes our bench potent as fuck. Hard to say why we have so much depth, but I guess rugby is the choice of sport for most youngsters here. My 3 year old goes on about the All Blacks, he has a black pair of shoes that are his favourite and he calls them his "All Blacks" shoes. I haven't made him watch anything to do with the All Blacks myself, that's just stuff he's picked up from other kids at Day Care etc. We are taught from a young age that they are our national team and to take pride in them :)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Not sure I buy point one, nowadays it would be unthinkable to go into a test without a few hard running island players but the ABs dominated for many years before that when there wasn't a single brown face in the team........</p> -
<p>Firstly, great post, well thought out.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>All of the above, plus...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think it starts with our 4 and 5 year olds. The basics are drilled into them at such a young age, that by the time they're grown men performing these skills is just second nature to them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thinking about when I was growing up, I'd play rugby on Saturday morning, sometimes two games - filling in for the next grade up, or sometimes even filling in for another club. Then the afternoon was spent running around the back yard , or the rugby club with oval ball in hand, while the old man watched the seniors, with either one, or a combination of the following : mates, cousins, local delinquents, sooky hockey players, sisters....in other words anyone within cooeee.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'd say this is pretty typical of thousands of kiwi kid childhoods, and these hundreds of hours living and breathing rugby as a youngster have to have a huge hand in they way the All Blacks perform.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="592978" data-time="1467251565">
<div>
<p>Not sure I buy point one, nowadays it would be unthinkable to go into a test without a few hard running island players but the ABs dominated for many years before that when there wasn't a single brown face in the team........</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Fair point, but my point wasn't that we always had brown faces in the team, but that the style of rugby we play is influenced by Maori (I should have said that before) and PI players. In my lifetime we have always played a different brand of rugby to up north, that has always been far more effective.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="592978" data-time="1467251565">
<div>
<p>Not sure I buy point one, nowadays it would be unthinkable to go into a test without a few hard running island players but the ABs dominated for many years before that when there wasn't a single brown face in the team........</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>In the 60s the All Blacks weren't exactly known for their running. They had a forward pack that inspired genuine fear among other nations.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For me, putting aside the professionalism of the NZRU which is a pronounced improvement from what it was at the advent of professionalism and the change inherent in the culture of the All Blacks now as m4l pointed out, it's the standard at every level of New Zealand rugby. So to stand out you need to be that much better. Any nation can find 15 athletes, some of whom are genuinely talented, but despite some nations having better athletes, they don't have better rugby players across the field. Nor the depth.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="592981" data-time="1467252260">
<div>
<p>Fair point, but my point wasn't that we always had brown faces in the team, but that the style of rugby we play is influenced by Maori (I should have said that before) and PI players. In my lifetime we have always played a different brand of rugby to up north, that has always been far more effective.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Same here, I'm only a few years older than you but we've all seen the grainy footage of days gone by, heard about the "invincibles" etc. Probably a few Maori boys in that team but there wasn't a PI player til BG Williams in the 70s.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You hear stories about Pinetree, Lochore, Tremain etc. Much harder to name the backs from that era.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Touching on what antipodean says about the athletes look at Conrad Smith.....on paper the 100kg units he regularly faced should have made mincemeat of him but how often did that actually occur ? </p> -
<p>all pretty close i reckon. </p>
<p>the culture of success - and this goes way back to those early fellas - the farmers, hard as nails outdoor pioneering country people. farmers per se are largely irrelevant now, but the lifestyle - space and small population - in nz (still now, but more then) is/was very different to europe. even in auckland people have space. the saffas have the same thing with the boers but they also have a big mess to clean up.</p>
<p>the way we grow up throwing the ball around means our forwards have great ball skills and can run. our backs get more opportunity to run rather than kick. the weather is better than the uk. from what i've read even back in 1905 or whenever we were running it more than the poms were used to.</p>
<p>in my memory we have always had more depth than other countries - and the way bench use has changed advantages us a shitload. to be honest i don't really like it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>we love the game. we watch the game, and people know the game. i played soccer first when i was a young fella, started playing and made a few rep teams so was encouraged to keep going - but i watched rugby, and knew far more about it than soccer where i literally couldn't name a favourite team or player. then when i switched and started playing rugby, i already had the skills from the endless games of touch / league / bullrush at lunchtime at school, knew the rules and tactics from watching every game on tv and talking with and listening to adults who knew the game well. it's just all through the fabric of society - i learned it before i even started playing it.</p> -
<p>because technically very good. And smart, so a good option taker. And tough. And came through the NZ system. Club, NZ Universities, Super Rugby, ABs. And worked for the lot. </p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="592978" data-time="1467251565"><p>
Not sure I buy point one, nowadays it would be unthinkable to go into a test without a few hard running island players but the ABs dominated for many years before that when there wasn't a single brown face in the team........</p></blockquote>. <br><br>
We dominated for a long time with what was often called 10 man rugby , I can remember in the late 70s early 80s the Aussies in particular were to starting to expose us a bit with their flair and running game .We were a bit predictable in comparison. <br>
And we seemed to respond after that with our own brand of running rugby aided by the Polynesian influence that added a physicality that the Aussies didn't have -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="592977" data-time="1467251294">
<div>
<p>2) Kids. We teach our kids to run and pass before we teach them to kick. I think that makes a massive difference. And when I say "teach" I mean we tell them to have at it with little instruction. Running and passing are so much more instinctive then kicking, so you need to do it from the get go or it will be very difficult to pick up later on. Kicking can be taught at any age and much more mechanical. E.G. in this situation, kick for touch. In this situation kick for distance. Running the ball at pace and knowing when to step or pass etc are split second decisions so you rely on your instincts so much more.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think this is key.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Be they props, locks or where ever, they are encouraged to run.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My son is playing JB4 (U11) and there are a few kids that are superb kickers, last week in the hosing rain was the only time we said to the kids (down by 2 at the break) if you are in your 22, kick it; any other day, kids first instinct is to run, and run well.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If the instinct is to kick, then is tough to change what your brain is wanting to do first chance it gets.</p> -
<p>I think confidence is the key. </p>
<p>Any sport is about getting in that 'zone' where everything you do just seems better and easier. Nearly every AB in every game seems to be in that zone, even the debutantes who have no real claim to it. You see it when out of form AB's seemt o thrive in the AB environment,. they havent suddenly found form, they arent being helped by other players.. it is all mental.</p>
<p>Where does the confidence come from? A winning history and clture and the the knowledge that the 22 guys in the team with you are all confident bastards in the 'zone'. You always elevate your game when yuo play with such people, even average players up thier game. Not because the others make them look better, but because they know they are good, they know the team mates are good, they know they are in the best team in the world. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You cannot fake or manufacture this sort of mentality, the Aussies show it in numerous sports.</p> -
Christ there’s so many reasons. I’ll just concentrate on the macro rather than the micro (micro being the current AB management and NZRU leadership since approx 2004). <br><br>
Macro being the structre, traditions and culture etc .....<br><br><br><br>
· Traditional rugby structure: Club > Provincial > (modern times) Super Rugby > All Blacks<br><br>
· Cultural reasons: rugby being national sport means it is adopted earlier by kids, and attracts top athletes<br><br>
· Grassroots coaching reasons: How kids learn. 10 a side, barefoot rugby back in the da, rippa rugby now a days.<br><br>
· Climate reasons: we are neither a wet weather country nor a dry weather country. We are both and our players skills and coaches approach are adaptable by the week.<br><br><br>
· Subsitution changes: Since 1996 (when tactical subs became allowed) we have had 21 man rugby morphing into nowadays 23 man rugby, rather than 15 man rugby gives us a huge advantage over say Australia, Wales, Ireland etc – and means Scotland and Italy etc will never in my lifetime even challenge NZ.<br><br><br>
· Rules changes: Rugby opened up since the 1992 law changes, since then NZ have become far more expansive than our traditional approach of the previous 80 odd years. This also coincided with the bulge of pacifica talent starting to work its way through the system. IMO NZ pulled away at this point from our traditional peer South Africa.<br><br><br>
· Touch rugby: no explanation needed (although this also coincided with the late 80s and early 90s change to expansive rugby and all round skills). Again differentiates NZ from South Africa.<br><br><br>
· Physical playing conditions improvements: Synthetic rugby balls, and improved grass/turf fields. Again coincides with about the 1990s and NZs pacifica population’s greater influence on our rugby style. Again something I attribute to us pulling away from the saffas.<br><br><br>
· Professionalisms unintended consequences on NZ rugby: The constant churn of the ‘not quite made its’ or the ‘on the declines’ to Europe actually has a positive effect at the elite level. Although it pains me to admit this as I would much prefer a professional 12 team NPC than 5 Super Rugby teams (if we could afford it). But you no longer get the modern equivalent anymore of e.g. a John Kirwan circa 1993 and 1994 holding back a younger better player. But I will contradict myself and also stray into the micro reasons a bit. The huge part of the 2007 to 2015 success was the retention of the core of experienced all blacks (who all just retired) – while the Hosea Gears and Julians Saveas of this world let nature take its course on the periphery.<br>
Edit: although this also almost derailed our 2011 World Cup when we got down to our 7th choice first five. Hmmmm. -
<p>How many of us walked to school with friends/family and passed a ball on the way? Or were pretty much glued to a rugby ball which you'd just pass, kick, throw around on a daily basis.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I remember we used to make up games to try and kick or pass through a hole in a fence or some other kind of challenge. Not to mention playing forceback to hone your kicking skills. At college every spare moment was for playing touch or league/scrag (easier than setting up lunchtime rugby) and if you didn't have training you probably had a pick up game at the park.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That all adds up and by the time you are growing and starting to find out if you are a back or a forward you've got a skill base to work with. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>One team I played in always had goal kicking challenges after Tuesday or Thursday practice - and there would always be that one toe-hacking prop or lock who was dead keen to be the kicker on sat! ha ha awesome thread man, this has taken me way back :good1: </p> -
Meritocracy. From grass roots up. In our best moments we have been loyal to a fault with it, in our worst moments we stumble. So many of the great things about All Black rugby stem out of it - McCaw willing to play 6/8 when needed at the drop of a hat, Henry being willing to cut the throat of a guy like Mils who he recruited at HS level when Dagg deserved a spot, to being willing to persist with proven commodities like Ted/McCaw/Smith/Shag after failures. <br><br>
Not just at AB level. Every lower level we reinforce this the stronger the whole structure is.<br><br>
No gifting NRL converts AB jerseys, no giving veterans undeserved victory laps, no crowning middling results with long term contracts or commitments (did Ted or Shag ever sign a contract as long as Cheika's), and absolutely no skiting or shit talking in the media. No senior players going into bat for their mates either.<br><br>
Same applies to the Australian cricket team during their best times.<br><br>
The real pity is Bok rugby has this in them too which is why they were such formidable appointments. It was always about winning too. But this current situation for better or worse could run more counter to that culture.<br><br>
So while you'd think professionalism would make it tougher against little old NZ, it probably helped. More money, more ego the easier it is to stray from anything else but performance on the park. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="593000" data-time="1467255033">
<div>
<p>I think confidence is the key. </p>
<p>Any sport is about getting in that 'zone' where everything you do just seems better and easier. Nearly every AB in every game seems to be in that zone, even the debutantes who have no real claim to it. You see it when out of form AB's seemt o thrive in the AB environment,. they havent suddenly found form, they arent being helped by other players.. it is all mental.</p>
<p>Where does the confidence come from? A winning history and clture and the the knowledge that the 22 guys in the team with you are all confident bastards in the 'zone'. You always elevate your game when yuo play with such people, even average players up thier game. Not because the others make them look better, but because they know they are good, they know the team mates are good, they know they are in the best team in the world. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You cannot fake or manufacture this sort of mentality, the Aussies show it in numerous sports.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree with this mental stuff and would add good decision-making under stress. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>More of a recent thing and obviously doesn't apply at al levels of the game.</p> -
<p>Here's an overseas perspective, a good read imho.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/sep/11/all-blacks-how-new-zealand-sustains-its-rugby-dynasty'>https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/sep/11/all-blacks-how-new-zealand-sustains-its-rugby-dynasty</a></p> -
<p>The culture of success that defines the post-2007 era is probably down to realising that having all the other stuff (fitness, skills, ambition) isn't always enough. A lot of work was clearly done in the top two inches, as well as putting the destiny (and the legacy) of the All Blacks into the players' hands. That is only the very tip-top of the iceberg though.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If we go back down the chain, I think its the aspiration that is part of a majority of Kiwi kids to play for the ABs one day. At various stages, the knowledge that you won't probably dawns on you, but when you've got a proper national competition at schools level - even if its dominated by a handful of schools - the exposure is what you get most of all.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Contrast that to Australia: we have schools who proudly trumpet their "rugby nursery" qualities, however they're in limited supply, in limited areas, with limited competition. And look, some of the GPS schools here would slaughter their competition if it was open slather, but how the fuck is anyone else going to get better when a few sections of the system are hoovering up the best talent, and no-one can see what a step up looks like? It would be a hard road, but I'd like to see the ARU open things up a bit over here and try to emulate that widespread competition that NZ has.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>After all, that's why League and AFL are so big here: big competitions, exposure for kids at all schools, and the chance for the little bloke to slay Goliath.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="592972" data-time="1467250978">
<div>
<p>That's true, did those guys who just left build a culture of excellence? I remember it was Ted's first challenge, to turn a pretty ordinary, booze-fueled culture around. Is our success down to Richie?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> End of 2004, start of 2005 Henry, Smith and Hansen meet with two senior team members and it was there that it was decided to move away from the booze culture. Would love to know who the senior players were. Tana and Ritchie?</p>