Ardie Savea runs through the weeks preparation for the last test match of the year against Italy. / All Blacks
COMMENT
There's an old story about a peer emerging from the House of Lords who saw a friend walking along the corridors of power in Westminister. "Neil!" he cried – and half a dozen American tourists respectfully dropped to one knee.
While, for the most part we have been good little Kiwis, not overly critical of the All Blacks' bold new game plan (get tackled more and kick poorly), you do wonder whether we are not kneeling a little too much at the altar of In Steve We Trust.
The All Black selections for the team to play Italy seem to have finally revealed the selectors' plans for the World Cup. Stand up, Damian McKenzie, fullback, and Ben Smith, winger. The panel seems wedded to the two-playmaker strategy and even more welded to McKenzie as the man to dovetail with Beauden Barrett.
There is no other explanation for Richie Mo'unga starting on the bench against Italy; they clearly see him as a No. 10 and a deputy as opposed to one of the dual playmakers.
Sorry, but it's a worry. Counting tomorrow's test against Italy there are only five more to go before next year's World Cup – and some are beginning to suspect the All Black coaches might just be over-thinking this.
McKenzie at fullback has been a mixed bag – a profitable target for the accurate northern tactical kickers – though that moment in the test against England when he tricked and tiptoed past three onrushing tacklers was a thing of beauty, a reminder of his talent.
Smith, everyone agrees, is the world's best fullback. He's a world-class winger too so they have shuttled him out there so McKenzie can do the dual playmaker thing. If Smith is injured, they need another aerial specialist who can play on the wing. That explains Jordie Barrett on the wing against Italy; George Bridge could get an audition next year.
But there're some worms in this thinking. McKenzie has not only looked vulnerable to accurate high-kickers; there has been more than one example in Super Rugby of the brave little chap being bumped off when last defender.
If he is susceptible to accurate kicking, why then employ him in as an aerial specialist in the back three? Why not use Smith at the back and bring in Waisake Naholo who is not the world's best high-ball merchant – but has power and speed and can score tries (those things we haven't enjoyed many of lately against quality opposition) others can't?
Damian McKenzie of New Zealand and Chris Ashton of England lunge for the ball during the Quilter International match between England and New Zealand. Photo / Getty Images.
Why can't Smith be the other playmaker? He's as good as anyone at eluding the first tackle and slipping through the line – though he would need to brush up on his kicking from hand.
That would leave McKenzie to be used where he is best – the bee-in-a-bottle dynamo, testing tiring defences in the last 20.
Then there is the vexing question of the mystical new game plan, whatever it is. For long periods of the Ireland test match, it looked as if the All Blacks were simply trusting their innate skills to come out on top. Pass the pill, it will come…
We are told they are not balancing the new plan with instinct but the prospect of trying to be a bit too clever arises again.
At the risk of sounding like a columnist in a rival newspaper who often hilariously gives coaching advice to one of the most successful coaching teams of all time, there is another way – and we saw it successfully employed against England.
Down 15-0 and looking shaky, things had to change. The All Blacks tightened up. The pick-and-go provided forward momentum, allowing more ball retention than the wobbly kicking game preceding it.
The All Black forwards had previously changed rugby, no question, with their phase-building, ball-running, passing and offloading. But defence coaches, principally Andy Farrell (the best in the world now), had watched the videos.
In the World Cup, there will likely be a lot more All Black pick-and-go, with the forwards successfully making ground and pulling in their counterparts to defend close in. That will leave more space for the backs – rather than last weekend's scenario when it often seemed there were five Ireland defenders to every All Black ball carrier and Irish pushing them off the ball in the rucks.
The All Blacks have a world-class scrum, so can play to it. They have a world-class lineout, ditto. Their rolling maul is now an effective weapon; it used to be a thing of mystery to them, both employing it and defending it. They have a good defence so they can play territory, kick the goals and rely on defensive and scoreboard pressure to get the opposition chancing their arm – and that's when their feared counter-attack (missing last week) will re-appear.
They have a first five who has now kicked two excellent dropped goals in two test matches; another conventional weapon. It's hardly champagne rugby but, then, it's the World Cup. The champagne can be used to fill it.
Fair enough, there's no way the All Blacks should have shown their World Cup hand in Europe on this tour and we can understand wanting to win with style.
However, the team's slowness to adjust when things turned custardy was a bit alarming and do they really need to go all high-ball-defensive with the back three when a more forward-oriented power game could make the space needed for their runners?
Is such a complex game plan required when the elements for the three-peat are already largely available?
