As difficult as it might be to score 96 points and still fly under the radar, New Zealand are doing just that at the World Cup. It strikes me that while France, South Africa and Ireland are all talked about as potential winners, the All Blacks are not in that conversation as much at the moment and that makes them dangerous.
There is pressure on Ireland as the world No 1 nation but one who have never made it beyond the quarter-finals; there is pressure on France as the host nation and there is a bit of pressure on South Africa as the defending champions and question marks over their goal kicking. New Zealand, on the other hand, have been ticking along nicely since their opening defeat by France.
It’s interesting that so much was made of their attacking flair when they thrashed Italy but what struck me most was their physicality. That, and the performance of Aaron Smith at scrum-half. It’s not an exaggeration to say that he is as important to the All Blacks as Antoine Dupont is to France. If New Zealand are going to win this tournament, Smith is going to have a huge influence on that coming to pass.
The quality and difference he makes to that team is huge – he’s a real energy ball, there is the speed with which he gets the ball away, and the decision-making he executes when under pressure. His kicking is vastly impressive too. He gives the side great direction, both when they get down into the 22 and defensively. If you watch him around the rucks, the way he fills into the defensive line around the guard, the way that he paints a picture for the opposition that there’s no space at the ruck is very clear. He is a massive leader for the All Blacks and a great ally for whoever is captain.
Against Italy, with Smith in such good form and New Zealand bringing such physicality, they were able to win the gainline, win the breakdown and replicate lightning-quick ball at consecutive rucks. At times Italy were just chasing shadows. The transition attack was just brilliant. The messaging beforehand was that New Zealand wanted to make a statement and I think they did that. Italy weren’t at their best but they weren’t allowed to be.
It starts with the set piece. In the past year there have been lots of questions about that area of the game for New Zealand but they dominated the scrum and lineout against Italy. I’m a big believer that you’ve got to have a good set piece to launch attacks to give you clean, quick ball but also, when you’re in tough positions, get those penalties and earn that right to exit.
The urgency around the breakdowns caught my eye, too – the back row of Dalton Papali’i, Shannon Frizell and Ardie Savea were so impressive. They don’t stop at breakdowns and wait for someone to get over the ball. There’s no tempo change, so the ruck speed is so quick, often less than two seconds. When you can do that regularly, you beat the fold, the defence can’t get off the line and it gives the fly-half a bit of an armchair ride. So teams will be looking at how they can slow the All Blacks’ ruck down and how they can put pressure on the 9 and 10 axis.
I’ve seen it suggested that New Zealand would have preferred a more difficult test but I think that’s a bit unfair, both on Italy and the All Blacks in terms of underestimating their performance. In 2007 we didn’t have a stern test in the pool stages, we went into the knockouts and we came up against a French side who were rampant. But this side had a stern test against France, they lost the match and that was a big marker. I know the tournament goes on for a long time but that will be pretty forefront in their minds. They’ll be well prepared for what is coming in the quarter-finals and still have to navigate Uruguay in their final pool game.
I’ve also seen what Ian Foster had to say about New Zealand’s performance against Italy, comparing it with the South Africa v Ireland match and talking about which match was better to watch. Even though I coach at Harlequins and we play with a certain style, I disagree with what Foster says but to be honest I think it was all a bit tongue in cheek, throwing something out there to get people talking and create some narrative. Personally I couldn’t take my eyes off South Africa v Ireland. Not once did I find myself thinking that the ball-in-play time should be higher. It was epic, titanic, physical, passionate, edge-of-your-seat stuff. I challenge anyone who watched that game and didn’t think it was a great advert for rugby.
