The All Blacks, swashbuckling their way through Europe with their cut-and-thrust rugby, are producing a familiar scene.
Just as familiar is their premature exits from World Cups - their pass-and-run formula, so successful in the interim, suddenly becomes the wrong style for the biggest stage; where fear takes grip and kick-and-tackle wins matches.
Having left a trail of road kill in their wake these past four weeks as well as pocketing the Tri Nations in a clean sweep, questions of sustainability can't help but surface. With a parochial hat on, the question is simply whether the All Blacks are playing a brand of rugby that can win them a World Cup.
Yet there is something more fundamental to consider first.
Rugby blew a hole in its own head at the last World Cup. With the global audience at unprecedented levels, there was opportunity to capture millions of new fans; there could have been rugby converts swearing their allegiance all across the planet.
But the three critical knock-out matches were unlovable; they were frumpy, acne-ridden things that meant the instant they were finished, casual observers switched off and never once thought about rugby again.
The failing of these games wasn't the lack of tries. It was the lack of diversity in styles and the almost total refusal of the four teams - England, France, South Africa and Argentina - to express themselves.
The essence of rugby is that it is multi-faceted; chess for thugs. New Zealanders often take the moral high ground, believing high-tempo rugby is somehow more worthy, but that's not it all.
Rugby is about choice; it is about playing to strengths, exposing weaknesses and the greatest games are often clashes between teams who have radically different philosophies about how to play the game.
The failure of 2007 was that the four semifinalists opted out - they wanted to play without the ball; they focused on not making mistakes and it was the equivalent of watching golfers hit mid-irons off the tee, play for bogeys and hope their opponents would eventually bottle it.
The global recession and the volatility and complexity of the rules has played a role in the intervening years but rugby's obvious drop in popularity is largely down to the failure of the World Cup to win hearts and minds.
The game now sits in a precarious place. There have been noticeably more empty seats, thousands of them, across the UK for these autumn tests.
The irony is that the rugby has been open, skilled and enjoyable. Finally, England are working the full range of their talent. They are playing expressive rugby - brutal up front with a previously unseen desire to find space out wide.
The Irish are a more complex team now as well - they want the ball and have clear ideas what to do with it. The Welsh are close to the All Blacks in philosophy, just lacking the composure and power to make it really count. Even the Scots, desperate against New Zealand, showed the following week they can exert pressure and score points against the best teams when they beat South Africa.
It might seem puzzling that rugby is such a hard sell at the moment when the product is infinitely better. But fans have been burnt in the last few years; they have lost faith and trust. It takes time to rebuild.
Next year's World Cup is rugby's chance to convince its followers and others that it has changed. If teams turn up in New Zealand and crawl into their shells; choke down on the club and take a half swing, then the game will never grow beyond its current frontiers.
It feels like this point is finally being grasped by everyone - administrators, executives, coaches and players. The law interpretations have set a fire burning.
In 2008 and 2009, the All Blacks didn't concede a try on their northern tour. Before this morning's game, they had leaked three.
Inevitably, the rugby will tighten come the knockout rounds next year and an element of conservatism will take grip. But there is reason to believe the big boys are going to turn up to play - France, England, Ireland and probably even South Africa are going to be expressive and passionate in a way they weren't in 2007 or World Cups previously.
Which brings everything back to the original question of whether the All Blacks can win the World Cup playing their current style of rugby.
"I think the game has lifted at home and we are seeing the same here," says All Black assistant coach Wayne Smith. "With the tweaking of the law, it has made it possible to play with ball in hand and there is choice.
"I think things will tighten up. Knockout rugby tends to be like that. The challenge will be to keep making use of the laws that exist and play as expansively as you can."
The great hope is there will be risks taken within these tighter parameters. There should be a shift in mindset from playing to not lose, to playing to win. It won't be carnival stuff - but it will be that little more open and the All Blacks won't look so at odds with the rest of the world.
But should there be a massive regression in 2011, the All Blacks can at least be pacified by the belief they are now better equipped to deal with ultra-conservatism. If the World Cup becomes all about survival, a marathon of drudgery, then they appear to have the experience and skills to cope.
The lineout is stable, their collision work is exemplary and they have an improved kicking game.
"We all know come World Cup time, things are a lot tighter and that is something we have to address as a team," says Dan Carter.
"But we are pretty confident in the way we have been playing and the way we have been executing that we can go into next year playing the same style.
"It wouldn't be a bad thing if it became an arm-wrestle. We have had games this year where it has been a bit of an arm-wrestle. The game against Australia in Christchurch springs to mind where it was really tight, especially the second half.
"We had to play for possession and territory - and it shows we have had those odd occasions and that we can come through."
All Blacks: Running into difficulties
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.