How Springboks’ World Cup success has raised the bar for Blitzboks

First, we have to ensure you think big picture, right? There’s no point looking at like a jar of sweets.

It would be different if you had Mounga, Frizzel, Aaron Smith and Leicester in your starting line up right?

Yes, in the immediate term it would improve the squad and performances (lets say), but what are the consequences going to be long term Necusil?

Another interesting topic I’ll give to you is one that has been used often for South Africa (who is a little ahead of Argentina in that they opened eligibility why Argentinians where still required to play for Jaguares), and that is that all their overseas pros grew up and left SA after they had finished their development.

How much different is it going to be when Argentina’s players haven’t had multiple seasons in a pro team like Jaguares before they go overseas? How are you going to identify all the new players that are going to start growing up overseas? What quality was the environment of Jaguares? Was it over and above the majority of clubs that their players find themselves in now?

And lastly, what would you want, a strong Los Pumas playing great rugby and winning big games, or a strong Los Pumas playing great rugby and winning big games and a strong Jaguares playing great rugby and winning big games? South Africa disbanding Super Rugby by their decisions to join URC, that left Jaguares in a tough predicament, but really they were probably in the same predicament where they couldn’t afford to have the players sit out another year doing nothing waiting for COVID to pass. That doesn’t mean they can’t be part of Super Rugby now that is back up and running again.

I’m not sure you’re also factoring in wages, NZR pays more for International, NH players get more for domestic. Perhaps they’d get more money choosing NZ?

Which players do you think would sacrifice international careers with Wales, Ireland, England and Scotland to hold tackle bags and “be opposition” for the starting team

You’re confusing the two different points I was replying to. I’ve made a huge list of players for current open eligibility already if you actually want to know who they potentially could have been. You have no note that we would have no idea who these players are as theres no point tracking their performance when they weren’t able to be selected. The premise though is that any in '“form” could have been better than any in form (or not, as this less numbers to chose from you often have to pick an out of form player) at home.

That second concept was that they could secure the best from playing for another country, and of those of course have already been named, and of course the benefits from being able to offload the current hasbeens from the current squad. Also with this second factor, you’d probably say it is a more recent one, where previously the NH hasn’t been able to develop players to the required level, so only those that left NZ already developed would have been a viable option. Now, we could see any unknowns potentially rise to the top and never be eligible to be chosen.

This of course is not to say I’m arguing for this decision. I was more giving a better perception of this particular component to the larger decision of ‘would it work’. In your proposition there is benefit to change if even one player would improve the team, so theres no point bring further names into the equation, and we don’t really want to do that, to go into the bottomless whole that is balancing the required benefit improvement in the squad from overseas selection compared to factors that may reduce improvement on the home side due to exodus.

The bottom line is that you are obviously going to A) continue to be able to select quality players that leave, therefor improving the squad, and B) be able to select for capture and assessment NZ talent from overseas. I’m not posting to show you the degree of talent.

Also, if you’re wondering why, Aki grew up with a less than beneficial background. He’s one of those that came through the long way round, working an actual 9-5 job, so he wasn’t as advanced as even those younger prospects in the squad (still played some great rugby though, tough), so the Chiefs had to cut him from the main squad. Thankfully his performances and opportunity the previous year were frequent and good enough to get a pro contract still (instead of going back to work for the family support again)!

Foster’s win rate was 63% when rescued somewhat by Jase Ryan & Joe Scmidt in August 2022. At that stage, the ABs were in the toilet & a laughing stock which forced Rugby NZ to intervene. Thank goodness they did.

I wouldn’t say that going as far as NZ in style etc, but definitely more rounded and able to change from game to game.

That might be the simple concepts were seeing (which I think your indicating are new last yer) of instead of saying ‘wingers are chasing kicks’, theres also now a lot of ‘kickers chasing wings’. As in kicks are looking for where their wingers are going to be and putting the ball there for them to try and attack with, rather than kicking to space or where the wingers can chase to then put the opponent under the most pressure on the next phase.

Instead that didn’t do anything of note to counter them, much like how they were impotent against Ireland in test two or three (only getting by on brute power like with Akira solo try).

Those SA matches perhaps show how hard it is really going to be. They started by running and finding space but then got ground down only to see SA grind their way back into the lead, and most importantly here, then how NZ attack hardly even tried to fire a shot in return.

Guys with Fire and Brimstone attitude like Brodie Retallick (I’m not firing a shot at the current locks here) just seem to have a little bit more flair for backing themselves too. You enjoy moments where theyre going to risk throwing a dummy and step (could get nailed backwards) or stay up straight an pump the legs to break through rather than just worrying about recycling the ball every damn time. Then theres a bit of in your face hows your father and the two sides go at it.

Yep I think you’ve got it right on that last game too. That team was 15 and 2, with 1 draw from 18 games leading into that Final match. It was wasn’t a long enough stretch. Moments like Jordie looking to pass but not being confident enough to yet and getting smoked typified much of the play in the game. If they’re keeping at it they will improve and that match would be relayed quite differently.

Again, that answers obviously different for everyone, but as you can no doubt gather I’m first of all of the belief that one will flow into the other. That even if it’s not the winning solution for one off Finals, having a connected group of players consistently (trying) to put on points would at least restore a winning legacy. I say this because they other teams aren’t their yet, only France has that in patches, whims. Ireland had it in a formular and got really far with a very average team, but now it’s been ruined by Leinsters desire to get over the line against much better (staffed) French teams. I’m not sure they know enough about their winning formular, and obviously defences like NZs improved their shape to counter a lot of it’s strengths, but I reckon if they or other int sides could evolve it NZ will be on the back foot playing numbers wise, to having enough talent to pull it off.

But if we just say for argument sake that it’s either one or the other, and in a world where were playing well enough to look good, pulling off tries from halfway etc, just not enough to win, then that’s what I’d enjoy. I’d like how we play, I would be invested in how we play, and enjoy talking about the little things like who might be better or fundamentals that let them down a bit too much etc. I’m not really indicative I don’t think though, I can watch a game and team losing lineouts and scrums, and multiple parts of the ‘contest’, but if theyre moving the ball around the park by hand and foot and scoring more tries (like NZ used to do every game with 30or 40% possession) I’d think theyre the better team.

But I’m indebted to the game. So what I want wouldn’t come first in how I’d act. I’d do what’s right for rugby to thrive in NZ, so if that is one of these hypothetical situations where the laws of rugby dictate we need to do things like play 10 man rugby then so be it. So you’re talking finding whatever way they can to win in order to keep that All Black profile of dominance and it’s place in the marketing world, if money is what it came down to as being most important.