ABs' lift in intensity showcases tactics

Much attention has focused on players like Kieran Read and Sonny Bill Williams, but what most impressed me about the All Blacks during Friday night's opening Rugby Championship test in Christchurch was the performance of the tight five.

The lift in intensity against Argentina was quite noticeable and, while it's easy to focus on the people at the end of the chain, none of that happens without tight forwards playing like loosies.

If you're a purist and you sit down and rewatch the game, it's quite obvious how integral the tight five is to the All Blacks' gameplan. When you typically think of those players in attack, you picture them simply receiving the ball and running, but the All Blacks' tight forwards take the ball with both hands out in front and shift it like a back-rower.

That's what makes the All Blacks so difficult to defend against. The opposition doesn't know whether players are going to run, whether they're going to pass to another forward, or whether they're going to miss that forward and spread it wider.

Which means you've got eight forwards playing the game similarly to backs. And that's a pretty daunting prospect - when you're facing 15 ball-players all punching on to the ball and showing similar skillsets.

And it's not just about the skillsets - the tight five are recognising and thinking about their options and their roles. When they get that rhythm and they get that gameplan going, it's why we're so successful, because it's a unique advantage that New Zealand forwards have over any other pack in the world.

Which brings us to the Springboks-Australia game on Saturday night in Brisbane.

The South African forwards might not have been matching the All Blacks in that area, but they were helping their side control the game.

The Springboks were very impressive and they looked like they were going to annihilate Australia once they got into a lead. But then two things happened.

First, they made a swathe of changes and, all of a sudden, their set piece started to wobble and that was the start of their downfall. I thought the Beast was playing well, Jannie du Plessis was having one of his better games and Bismarck du Plessis was outstanding - why Heyneke Meyer replaced them, I have no idea.

None of those players looked so fatigued that they couldn't continue exerting the dominance they had been. So why sub them? Did the coaches not have a feel for the game? Are they premeditating that a certain guy can only play 60 minutes?

When you take off a player, a substitute has to come off the bench and get into the game, which takes time. And those changes ultimately cost South Africa the game, because it was penalties from scrums and getting pushed off their own ball that enabled Australia to pile on the pressure.

Before those subs, South Africa were looking strong with ball in hand and had built a good lead, but then they reverted to their stereotypical kicking game. I think they probably would have kicked a dozen times to Israel Folau, and he just kept catching it and Australia just kept attacking. It's such a simplistic gameplan.

The Springboks have some really good ball-players - de Allende, Kriel, Habana, Pietersen, Pollard - and when they play the way modern rugby is being played, they look unstoppable. But they drifted away from that gameplan and allowed Australia back into that game.

The Wallabies should have never been close, but South Africa's poor decision-making and substitutions cost them the match. Australia did not win that test - the Springboks lost it.

I really fear for South Africa if they continue to kick so much at Ellis Park, because the All Blacks will cut them apart.

Considering how good his men are in the air, Steve Hansen will be praying the Springboks kick them that much ball next weekend.