Sport is always about bringing performances week in and week out. For the two teams involved in the second Tri Nations game tonight, South Africa and New Zealand, one kept the same level as last week and another stepped up marginally.

South Africa were totally outplayed last week. This week they performed at a good standard at points in this game - 10 min after half-time, a few patches in the second half - which may be enough to get them over Australia, but not this current All Blacks side.

The story for NZ was the opposite. For the majority of the game we played an outstanding, exciting kind of rugby, but something which has cropped up over the 5 tests we've had this season is that there's been a consistent teething period of 5 - 10 minutes when the bench has rolled on where everything turns a little Yakety Sax.

Passes that are more like 20/80 than 50/50 get thrown, forwards get left to chase down stab-through kicks and players are caught out of position on returns. It's a lucky thing that the All Blacks' coaches have such emphasis on defence or this period of games could have proven costly at this point in the season.

On the whole though, this team is peaking. It's still early in the campaign and I'm reluctant to say it until we play Australia but I really don't see them offering anything in the way of a challenge, so I'll throw it out there.

This is a 2005 standard All Blacks unit. We pantsed the Lions that year and aside from South Africa nobody even looked like touching us. This season it appears that it'll be the same story, except not even SA is near us. Yes, you can feel free to come back here and point out how I was wrong if we lose one.

It's a tough thing to go undefeated - in fact, we haven't done it since 1997 when we won 11 and drew with England - but this is an All Blacks side which isn't demolishing teams in a dominant fashion, it's subtly and slowly piling on pressure and leaving other sides to play catchup.

In terms of tonight's performances, there are a couple of standouts and a couple who deserve a bit of a seeing to. First up is Dan Carter. Much is always made of his 'form slumps' and how he has purple patches but this is a two-way street. He was given a lot of space and time last week as the Boks appeared to focus on Cowan and Nonu, whereas this week he was almost completely nullifed. Even when he managed to get a kick off it was pretty touch-and-go. His goalkicking wasn't up to par but it's something commented on every time he plays in Wellington.

Next was Rene Ranger. He's had to slot in to a semi-established combo, but I'm left to wonder why Zac Guilford didn't get the call up. Ranger's a good player, but he's one of those young Carlos Spencer hit-or-miss players, even on defence. Whenever he has the ball in his hands he's looking to spark something - usually for himself - and when he's tackling he goes in 100% and either knocks someone for 6 or gets beaten. I just think somebody needs to sit him down and remind him he's in a team of outstanding players, not the Blues or Northland.

In terms or praises, I'm gonna wax lyrical about the loose forwards. We've finally got a trio to replace the effectiveness of the So'oialo/Collins/Masoe relationship. One of the massive benefits of musketeers McCaw/Read/Kaino is that all of them can play for 80 minutes, and all of them can play at each position. In a discussion during tonight's game the question 'who is the best player in international rugby at the moment' came up - the usual suspects, McCaw, Bryan Habana, Dan Carter were thrown up but I think Kieran Read is getting near that mix. He's everywhere on defence, he clears the ruck and fetches, he can link with backs and how many times have we seen him throw that last offload 5m from the line to a back to storm over? Mainstream pundits, you can go on and on about Pierre Spies but this year Read is better. And that's coming from a reformed Read hater.

I didn't want to write anything throughout the week in case I jinxed the team again, but here's a bit of a milestone that was missed by those in the media. Remember all those weeks ago when I wrote that the last time the All Blacks didn't score a try was in 2004? [Here it is if you missed it] Well tonight's game was the 75th consecutive game that the ABs have managed to cross the white line.

So from here we turn the evil eye of Mordor to Brisbane for next week's tussle between the under-performing Boks and the baby Wallabies. Can either side step up and offer something that will put a stick in the front wheel of the Kawasaki that is the 2010 All Blacks?

Final score: All Blacks 31, South Africa 17.

All Blacks;
Tries to Ma'a Nonu, Mils Muliana, Rene Ranger, Israel Dagg. Dan Carter 2 penalties, 1 conversion, Piri Weepu 1 penalty.

South Africa;
Tries to Danie Rossouw and Schalk Burger.
Morne Steyn 1 penalty, 2 conversions.

Picture the following scenario:

A large company launches a new product. All goes well until a few months later when technical complications prevent customers from being able to use said product. People from all walks of life are cut off from the service you provide. Some of them made major investments to be early adopters. They get upset and leave your company for a competitor.

But as fate would have it, you're a major sponsor of your country's largest national sport team. That same team has lost a lot of the support it previously almost unquestioningly had due to its apparent 'failure' to be successful.

How can you combine these two negatives to come up with a positive?

Some bright spark at Telecom had the idea of creating BackingBlack, kind of an All Black street team. I'm all for it, great to see someone getting out there and giving some positive energy to the All Blacks after the amount of flack they cop.

But - and I know it's early days - having followed their progress for a wee bit, I'm wondering where it's heading. At the moment it's just a group of people going to matches, giving stuff away and chanting - there are some mid-week activities to be sure - but isn't this just preaching to the converted?

When I heard about the campaign I thought it'd be using social media to connect with the Gen Yers. Instead, it's more of a disconnect. There's a Twitter account that doesn't seem to take any steps to interact with people, a Facebook page with a different name and of course, their own website.

Now, Scott [I thought] did a great job on his Northern Hemisphere tour last year with the insight and footage he was sending back. But do the others behind the social media drive realise that social media is about engagement? Nobody wants to watch you talk amongst yourselves and film yourselves hanging out. Where are the visits to the 80-year-old widow in Cromwell who has a signed jersey from the 1974 team?

A few friends of mine went to the game in Hamilton - and I know others who were at Carisbrook. The running theme seems to be much the same as I feel; it's a great idea with a lot of potential but at the moment that potential isn't being realised. Why are we having marches to the game to amp people up? They will do that themselves. Why are we forcing other fans to chant during the game? The drunken student mob already have that one covered.

Also, is it even needed? The All Blacks get a rough time in the papers and on talkback, there's no mistaking that. But when they get out on Eden Park, Rugby Park or any of the other venues in NZ they look around and see a capacity crowd. Rugby passion isn't dying at the top level, it's dying at the regional level.

The stuff they're doing for the All Blacks is meaningless. New Zealanders are always going to be able to support their rugby team, just like their football, cricket and netball teams. They get the exposure.

What should be the focus is the local base.

How many people, upon hearing Adam Thomson or Jerome Kaino's name in the All Blacks' squad three years ago said "who?" - I did - and on a regional level there are loads of these players who don't get exposure other than among their team base and if they score a try or become a phenom. The disconnection between the punter and the All Blacks starts at a regional level.

It used to be easy to follow a player and their rise through the ranks. You'd go to the games, your mates would talk about them, you'd read the match reports. The MY SKY generation have it even easier. Too easy. The fall in viewership may not be so much in a growing boredom with rugby as an ability to choose. You may not want to watch Wellington play Northland, so you'll record it - or skip it altogether. Then before you've watched it, you might hear the score - rendering the match useless unless you really wanna see it.

It's all well and good to give each other back slaps and feel good after you've gotten to go along and have select seats and camera time but ask yourself, BackingBlack, are you growing rugby support or are you just maintaining it? Get your same network together and put your weight behind some ITM Cup teams instead of wasting energy trying to get people excited about a game they're already willingly shelling out for and while you're at it, re-assess the way you're doing things. Are you going to focus on one age group or all? If you're gonna focus on Gen Y get into high schools, get along to local rugby matches, take some injured ABs or local players with you. Do some skill sessions, go go-karting or something similar. Just because we don't chant doesn't mean we don't have passion.

Disclaimer: I'm not a part of BackingBlack, so I don't know what their plans are. If you've already planned to do something special for the ITM Cup, good on ya. While this may come across as a bitter, jealous post, I genuinely wish the BB crew all the best.

 So the South Africans came to Eden Park to try and overturn a legacy of unbeaten All Black sides and continue their Tri Nations form from last season, but the Blacks stood up and said 'like fuck!'

In the heart of latte country and in front of a capacity* crowd, the New Zealanders were the superlative side and picked apart a bokke carcass that struggled to provide any real answers.

It looked tight for the first quarter with both sides mounting some promising attack and meeting stoic defense and each walking away with 3 points, though the All Blacks' gained a one man advantage when Bakkies Botha was sent off.

Bakkies will probably be seeing the judiciary in the next couple of days after being caught on camera tackling Jimmy Cowan and headbutting him from behind. Bakkies was mistaken if he thought this would affect Jimmy's gameplaying ability, as the Southern man is used to a sore head from years of drinking sessions - if anything it brought back the 2007 era Jimmy, a man unafraid to run straight at the biggest man on the field.

The only concern I'd like to raise is with regard to the tactical kicking. There wasn't much and when it was attempted it wasn't pretty. The ABs have gained Mils Muliana back from injury, but it's worth throwing up for discussion that Israel Dagg's tactical abilities, at the moment at least, appear to have the edge.

The return from injury of Mils and Ma'a Nonu was superb with both players performing as though they'd been in the team and getting minutes for the entire Steinlager Series. Mils' first touch of the ball made people in pubs up and down the country throw their hands in the air as he went up to field a kick and landed awkwardly, coughing up the pill. From then on he atoned for his sins, setting Dan Carter, Cory Jane and Joe Rokocoko alight as he split through the South African defense on the counter-attack like the Russian forces against Napolean.

Ma'a had a standout game as far as I'm concerned, working the draw-and-pass with great effect and putting up a few kicks [?!] which wouldn't have been the preferred option but were very successful. And one which wasn't.

Piri Weepu came off the bench with 25m left and once again showed why he's an explosive bench player - he comes off and injects a sense of pace in the backline, getting to the ruck and spreading the ball faster than the tired opposition defense can react.

In terms of set piece, both the lineout and scrum have progressed since last season. The All Black scrum, in my opinion, hasn't been a concern since 2008 - since then we've managed to hold our own. But how fantastic was it to not only see them hold their own, but the green-booted South African loosies backpedalling and slipping as the All Black pack put the heat on in several scrums.

Every team's lineout should be judged against the South African side as long as Victor Matfield is on the field and I'd say ours is at the same level, which it arguably hasn't been since 2006 when the Ali Williams/Matfield rivalry was at its fiercest. Keven Mealamu, Brad Thorn and Tom Donnelly were in sync throughout the whole game and once the Springboks sent on their bench their lineout fell to pieces.

The most noteable thing to walk away with though is penalties. This is what lost us the games against the republic last season. Morne Steyn can kick almost anything within a range of 50m of the posts so it was fantastic to see him only get a few chances and have to look for two drop goals - once as a last resort and once on an offensive drive that would have left a few South African players unimpressed with his decision. That's something to be applauded.

Final score: All Blacks 32, South Africa 12.

All Blacks;
Tries to Conrad Smith [16th international try], Ma'a Nonu [15th international try], Kieran Read [2nd international try], Tony Woodcock [6th international try]. Dan Carter 2 penalties, 3 conversions.

South Africa;
Morne Steyn 4 penalties.

As long term readers will be aware, last year I wrote a post about the declining number of tries being scored in international rugby. I think I went deep enough into the trend there and my reasoning behind it, but today I got to thinking:

What about specific teams?

Everyone knows 'oh we last beat those guys in xxxx' but what about tries? The Welsh test on the weekend made me wonder, because we didn't concede a try on that tour of course and 2008 was a great NH trip too.

The answer? November 19, 2006. And that was dotted down by a flanker. That's one hell of a drought, no wonder they had a winger taking a penalty on Saturday; he just wanted to be able to say he scored against the mighty All Blacks!

This dubious record is only exceeded by Scotland, who haven't scored against us since 2005. There's obviously a large discrepancy in the stats though - for example we've only played the Scots twice since 2005 but we've had four matches against Wales in the same period - but it's still an interesting stat-line to look at and may be helpful in seeing where some teams are going wrong later in the year. So here're the stats for 3N teams v 6N;

New Zealand:

v England - Last try was 21 June 2008 in Christchurch. They lost that match 44-12 and scored two tries to the All Blacks' 5. The two sides have met twice since.

v France - Last try was on June 20, 2009 in Wellington. They lost that match 14-10, with both sides scoring one try each - to Ma'a Nonu and Cedric Heymans respectively - but France ultimately lost due to NZ slotting 3 penalties. The two sides have met once since, in Marseille, where the All Blacks romped to a 39-12 victory.

v Italy - Last try was on 08 September 2007 in Marseille. The two sides met in pool play at the Rugby World Cup with Italy being throughly outplayed in the All Blacks' 76-14 win. The two sides have met twice since, both in 2009.

v Ireland - Last try was 12 June 2010 in New Plymouth. A match which will probably be remembered more for Ireland's lack of discipline than the dominant performance put forward by the All Blacks, Ireland went down 66-28. This is the most recent time the two sides have played.

v Scotland - Last try was 26 Nov 2005. The All Blacks would emerge on top 29-10 scoring four tries to Scotland's one. The two sides have met twice since, but not since Nov 2008.

v Wales - Last try was almost a year after Scotland to the day, 25 Nov 2006. The All Blacks won that game 45-10. The two sides have played each other three times since at the time of writing, with a fourth match to be held this weekend.

In looking into these I also checked out the All Blacks try-scoring stats. Incredibly, the last time we didn't score a try in an international was 07 Aug 2004 against Australia who beat us 23-18 - their sole try making all the difference. That's a 61-match streak the All Blacks sit on where they have scored a try in which they have lost 11 matches - seven to South Africa and two each to France and Australia. That's insane!

Conversely, the last time Australia were held tryless was last year at the 3N match at the Caketin which the All Blacks won 33-6 [you know, the one against the All Blacks that James O'Connor looked real out of his depth in. What do you mean that doesn't narrow it down?] Their record against the 6N is as follows:

Australia:

v England - Last scored a try on June 19 2010. The English won this match 21-20 in Sydney, their first win over Australia since the 2007 Rugby World Cup quarterfinal. This is the most recent time the two sides have played.

v France - France last crossed the chalkline on 22 Nov 2008. They lost that match 18-13. They have met once since, in 2009.

v Italy - Last try was June 13 2009. Australia won that game 31-8. The two sides have met once since, a week later.

v Ireland - Last scored 15 Nov 2009. That match ended in a 20 all draw. As much as the All Blacks appear to have the wood on Ireland, they seem to be Australia's bogey team. Since the last time Australia held Ireland tryless - 09 Nov 2002 - they've met seven times with the shamrock men always able to get across no matter what the score difference is. This is the most recent time the two sides have played.

v Scotland - 25 Nov 2006 is actually a bad day for both the Welsh and Scottish, as it's the last time the Scottish scored a try against Australia. They played last year - 21 Nov 2009 - and won 9-8 despite being held tryless. Last year's match was the only one which has been contested between the two sides since 2006.

v Wales - Last try scored on Nov 29 2008. Wales won that match 21-18, equalling Australia's two tries and getting an extra penalty. The teams have met once since, on Nov 28 2009.

The mighty imperial empire of South Africa is actually, on paper, a bit odd. For example, they're the 3N team most recently held tryless as they failed to take a five pointer against the Wallabies on September 05 2009.

South Africa:

v England - England last scored a try against the bokke in the leadup to the 2007 World Cup on June 02. The Boks seemed to learn from that match which they won 55-22 anyway, holding the English tryless in both pool play and the final at the RWC. The two sides have met three times since the last time England scored a try.

v France - Les Blues managed to get across the line twice on 12 Jun 2010, despite being thoroughly pantsed by the Saffers. This is the most recent time the two sides have played.

v Italy - Italy followed France and played SA this past weekend, managing to score one try. This is the most recent time the two sides have played.

v Ireland - Last scored a try on 28 Nov 2009. Like Australia v Scotland, SA have only played Ireland once since 2006. Almost unbelievably, Ireland have won their last three games against SA - in 2009, 2006 and 2004. This is the most recent time the two sides have played.

v Scotland - Last scored 15 Nov 2008 in their 14-10 loss to SA. This is the most recent time the two sides have played.

v Wales - Last scored on 05 Jun 2010. This math was even on the try ledger with both sides scoring three tries. SA ultimately grabbed the W with the final score being 34-31.

So while logistically we can't take much from these stats there are some interesting stats - for example South Africa appears unable to hold teams out from their tryline, but end up winning through a superior penalty count. The All Blacks have bucked the SH trend against Ireland and Australia seems to be like South Africa in struggling to maintain a stoic defense.

So what I posit is that we are too harsh on the All Blacks' defense at times. While it is relatively common to concede a match at 3N level, can't we put it in the perspective that we are playing Australia and South Africa more frequently than the 6N teams so of course we will figure out each other's differences.

In other words, we have a wall of blackness to celebrate, not lambast.

How on earth can we judge the merits of this All Blacks performance when a test match effectively became a mismatch before even quarter of an hour had passed? We can't, that's the simple answer.

Excuse me, Marc Hinton, but I'm going to disagree with that. We can analyse last night's 66-28 win. STOP. Hammertime:

Lineouts:

 We had a lineout which operated well, keeping all of our throws and competed with the Irish - winning one of theirs and in two other Irish throws we looked like almost skimming it off the top too. Boric, Thorn and Whitelock worked well for their respective stints. Mealamu's throws looked to be hitting the correct tempo and while he only threw [I think] one in, Aled de Malmanche had it sailing right down the middle like a silver arrow.

Scrums:

Some concerns came out of this. The two Franks boys and Mealamu had a respectable night up the front but there wasn't much communication with the rest of the pack - we got pinged for pushing early on one feed and it had happened a few other times throughout the night. Kaino and McCaw got caught on the back foot detaching a couple of times and allowed an Irish scrum without a number 8 to get some metres off the set piece.

Forwards:

In general the A unit combined well. It was clear, however, that we weren't competing at the ruck in our half. Not that we were getting dominated but we weren't going for it. There were several times when the Irish would have a ruck with one defender - in one case there was no-one there - and the forwards didn't go for it. So, it didn't come as a surprise to me when the Irish counter-ruck attack had some initial success in the second half. It seemed to be a clear tactic from the team though, perhaps in an effort to minimise penalties - I remember the Blues using a similar tactic in the Super 14.

I was surprised to learn that Kieran Read hadn't scored a try before because he's often been a linking player. Kaino had a bruising night around the ruck and there'll be a few Irish players who struggled to sleep last night with the image of him sprinting at them emblazoned on their eyelids. Owen and Ben Franks got around the field well - as you'd expect from two brothers - and Mealamu had an exceptional night. He's not the bruising battering ram that Andrew Hore and de Malmanche are, but he's stoic and I didn't seem him make any mistakes. Richie was Richie, I don't know if I need to elaborate. A lot of positive factors from last night's match.

Backs:

I'm going to start off with a negative, though I don't want to. It was his first match and he's in there because of injuries, but Benson Stanley didn't have the abilities of an international second-five. His distribution was great and his running ability was fine, but it was clear that he wasn't physical enough. He got beaten on the inside on defence a fair few times, and brushed off on others. Perhaps it's because I'm used to seeing physical players in the mold of Ma'a Nonu, Stirling Mortlock and Mathieu Bastareud but he didn't come across as a Jaque Fourie or Berrick Barnes.

I'm being harsh but the reason those players succeed and Stanley got shown up a bit is that when you're defending a 12, you need to do two things - shut him down and limit his passing ability. Stanley would do one or the other and it led to the d-line getting burned a lot. But this isn't me calling for him to be dropped - he worked VERY well with Dan and Conrad and this is something that will be picked up on and highlighted in tape sessions no doubt.

To the rest of the back-line, Jimmy Cowan didn't have his best night I didn't think, but it wasn't too bad either. Dan Carter was Dan Carter [see Richie McCaw] and should be commended on his fantastic goal kicking. Conrad Smith atoned for that awful match he played for the Hurricanes against the Waratahs. He was well set on defense and the amount of times he broke the backline and set Cory, Israel or Joe up with open space was great. It was also good to see a player who doesn't often get highlighted get rewarded for his work with a well-deserved try. Cory Jane had an interesting night. He was fine with the ball in hand but there were a few times where he was caught drifting off his man. Israel Dagg had one glaring mistake which almost cost a try when he misjudged a kick and couldn't pick it up, but he definitely didn't look like a youngster on debut, and nor did he, Joe and Cory look like a back 3 who'd never played together. Joe Rokocoko had a Joe Rokocoko kind of night. No major mistakes, was positionally aware, but with the ball in hand couldn't spark that x factor to get across the line and for that reason seemed a bit invisible.

Another thing worth looking at is the restarts - and there were a lot of them - there were two times I saw when the man fielding the kickoff was set and had his lifters with him, only to be dropped. There was also a lineout where Sam Whitelock [I think] got dropped.

The four tries scored against us is a yard-stick that many are using to judge last night's performance but I think a better measure would be the amount of time the Irish spent in our 22 and the ease they seemed to have getting there. It's commendable that we didn't concede a penalty in that situation until late in the game, but it needs to be highlighted that the Irish would get the ball from their territory to ours with relative ease until we manned up. Remember that before Heaslip got sent off they were camped on our line and had been in the 5m line for 8 phases or so.

As to that knee, I think it deserves the same treatment as a gouge. It was deliberate, there was intent and if McCaw hadn't had the fortune to have his head between some Irish thighs it could have had nasty consequences had it connected with his nose or a temple.

Here's a replay [also, I love the Irish call "If there's gonna be a fight you can be pretty sure that Jimmy Cowan will be in the centre of it somewhere... and there he is"]

As always, leave your thoughts in the comments - and here are highlights for those with hazy memories thanks to Rugbydump, as always.

On Monday I took a look at the All Blacks' team for the Steinlager Series, so now it's on to the NZ Maori.

The team has been brought back into existence for its centenary season after not playing in 2009 due to economic reasons. The decision was roundly [and rightly] criticised, but the NZRU had always promised they'd be back in 2009.

They've delivered on that promise - did they have a choice? And announced a while back that the Maori will play the NZ Barbarians, Ireland and England in one-off matches this month. As well as that, they've given them a pretty kick-ass uni [which has sold out already!].

An interesting thing about this jersey, and the series, is one that hasn't really been talked about - sponsorship. The NZ Sevens team has had Air NZ and Telecom as jersey sponsors recently, but I can't remember the NZ Maori having one. I know that nobody agrees with me, but I truly believe that the Maori and Juniors and any other teams should be opened up to commercial sponsorship - not the All Blacks or Black Ferns though. Because essentially what is happening is the NZRU has incoming revenue streams from adidas and individual series sponsors, and that's it. Then when the NZRU tries to save money by cutting teams they're vilified, but the next season when they announce a loss they're attacked again. This upcoming series is sponsored by Sealord, but how much money do you think they'll be paying to their logo on the pitch and printed on the ticket, as opposed to the jersey?

Anyway. I'll commend the NZRU for bringing the team back and getting them games against two strong opposition sides. I have just one teeny-tiny little question though. Why aren't they in the Pacific Nations Cup?

This is the first year in recent history that NZ haven't fielded a team in the PNC, and Aussie haven't been involved since last year. And surely playing against Tonga, Fiji and Samoa would be a great way for the Maori to celebrate their history?

But enough of that. The squad has some very, very good players. The loose forwards will play the perfect NZ Maori style of rugby - big hits and lots of running - but I do wonder what the Waldrom brothers have done wrong since 2008 to not even get a look in.

They've got a few nice combos there, with Piri having already worked alongside McAlister [and that should be a duo who compliment each other well] and Ripia, while Gear and Maitland on the wings with I'm guessing either Brett or Robinson at fullback will provide both outside pace and up-the-guts crash and bash.

Kia Kaha e Tama ma! Kei a koutou te kaha, te mana, te aheitanga hei eke panuku.

Ben Afeaki * North Harbour Ngati Awa
Colin Bourke * Bay of Plenty Ngati Wairere
Stephen Brett Canterbury Ngapuhi
Dane Coles * Wellington Ngati Porou
Jacob Ellison Wellington Ngati Porou
Corey Flynn Canterbury Kai Tahu
Hosea Gear Wellington Ngati Porou
Romana Graham * Waikato Ngati Awa
Jarrad Hoeata Taranaki Ngati Kahungunu
Tanerau Latimer Bay of Plenty Tapuika
Karl Lowe * Hawke’s Bay Ngati Kahungunu
Sean Maitland * Canterbury Ngapuhi
Luke McAlister North Harbour Te Atiawa
Liam Messam ( c ) Waikato Ngai Tuhoe
Bronson Murray Northland Ngapuhi
Clint Newland Hawke’s Bay Ngati Kahungunu
Daniel Ramsey * Wellington Kai Tahu
Willie Ripia* Taranaki Ngai Tuhoe
Robbie Robinson * Southland Ngati Tuwharetoa
Isaac Ross Canterbury Ngati Kahungunu
Aaron Smith * Manawatu Ngati Kahungunu
Chris Smylie North Harbour Ngati Mutunga
Dwayne Sweeney Waikato Ngati Mahanga
Andre Taylor* Manawatu Ngati Tuwharetoa
Hayden Triggs Otago Ngati Kahungunu
Jackson Willison* Waikato Ngati Mahuta

The equation is simple: If we beat the Waratahs in Sydney this Friday night we make the top 4. That's it. If we beat the Tahs there is no way we can't make it in. If a few results go our way - the Crusaders beat the Brumbies and the Stormers lose to the Bulls [regardless of whether they get four tries and lose by less than 7] while we win with a bonus point - we can be back in Wellington next weekend. Hell, if we just win, the Crusaders beat the Brumbies and the Stormers lose without gaining a bonus point, we can get a home semi. But that's not the important thing.

The important thing is we have to win. If we lose we're out, there's no 'mathematical chance'.

Before I get into the teams, I'd like to take a brief trip down the history lane. The Hurricanes have met with the Waratahs 15 times, winning 8 and losing 7. If we take out the semi we won against them in 2006, both teams have won half of the games we've played. Three out of our seven wins have been by more than 13 points, while the Waratahs have beaten us by more than 13 4 times.

Since that 2006 semifinal win [by two points] however, we have not beaten the Tahs. Not once. Last year we lost 26-22, in 2008 there was that incredibly embarrassing 20-3 loss and the last time we met in round 14, 2007, we lost 38-14. That loss was also pretty embarrassing as although we weren't in contention for a top 4 spot, we should have beaten the Tahs. Until that final round, the Tahs had only won two matches - against the Lions and Reds.

These recent losses would suggest the Tahs have the wood on us, but it'll be interesting to see how the teams match up. I haven't watched a Tahs game in full since round 8 but at that point in the season they had not shown anything dramatic to impress me.

Their main strength has been their forward pack. Their loose forwards have adjusted to the new interpretations really well and are great at drawing penalties, particularly re-repatriated Kiwi Dean Mumm. Their front row hasn't appeared to be very good at scrum time, more so [again] at drawing penalties, but is a mobile unit which travels around the field at a great rate of knots.

Their backline has been an enigma. Sure, they've got Berrick Barnes, Tom Carter, Rob Horne, Drew Mitchell and Lachie Turner, but until they put Kurtley Beale [who I think is the JaMarcus Russell of S14 rugby] in at Fullback, they looked incredibly clunky and disjointed. In fact, the majority of the time their only saving grace was Barnes' ability to draw and pass. The only way to disrupt his playmaking ability has appeared to be to get at him.

If someone can get in his face quickly on each phase he tends to rush things, seemingly lacking the ability to simply take the tackle and go to the next phase [Hurricanes fans will be familiar with this style of play, having spent years cringing with Jimmy Gopperth in the side] and favours the step. If we could change our defensive style [though I don't see this happening as it's too large a change to make in a week] and have Piri/Tyson rush at Barnes from the ruck and Cruden cover, it could do a lot to nullify Barnes and also take away the cross-field kick he likes to send to those speedsters, Lachie and Drew.

Their problem appears to be in the centres - they've got two quality wings but can't get the ball out to them quickly enough - while that's one of the Canes' strengths. With Conrad 'Snakey' Smith and Ma'a Nonu we've got a centre pairing which will always be a tough opposition, but since the Crusaders game Ma'a has been in tremendous form [though I do wish he'd pass more often sometimes] and Conrad has been rock solid on defence.

Our forward pack has been - dare I say it - the best out of the NZ sides this competition. We've got the best scrummaging forward pack of all the teams, in my jaded opinion, and the work rate across the field of Victor Vito, Michael Paterson and Andrew Hore is phenomenal. Our problem though has been an indecisiveness at the ruck. We seem to struggle to decide whether to clean out or protect the ball when we're on attack, and whether to try and steal it or guard the fringes when we're on defence.

But our biggest concern heading into this week should be the Tahs biggest strength, the long bomb. We've got Cory Jane who's insanely gifted under the high ball, but aside from that there's Tamati Ellison and Hosea Gear - both are capable enough under the kick, but can't really return serve. And I'm not sure how they will compare to two of the fastest chasers in Australia without being able to rely on the kick to regain territory. If we can stick to our gameplan - phase play using the backs - and not get sucked in to a kicking battle, I think we'll have it in the bag. I'd love to see us get a semi at home, but ultimately let's just go out there and beat the Tahs and get in to the top 4!

•  At the other end of the table, the Lions play the Cheetahs this week and may create a bit of history if they lose. They'll be the first team to lose every game in the Super 14, and the second Super team to go through a season not winning a game since the Bulls in 2002.
• This year's Lions outfit has already conceded the most points ever in Super Rugby after that 2002 team, and if they lose by more than 2pts this weekend they'll officially hold the worst points differential in history. But seeing what that Bulls team has achieved in the last 8 years may give them hope...

A fair bit of attention has been given to the SA S14 teams lately and rightly so. The Stormers pulled off a very rare clean sweep of NZ teams after they beat the Crusaders, and they and the Bulls both appear to be heading to the final.

The Bulls have been the form team in the competition - despite what others may have said - for the last 2 1/2 years. They've got there with the help of a lot of factors. You know what isn't one of them? Having their national representative players involved in their domestic competition.

Rugby in SA is a complex beast and hard to understand. Often things which go on in the republic get completely overlooked here, and it's a shame because in order to understand your opponent it is often beneficial to look at where they've come from. I've tried to follow the twists and turns of their governance over the last couple of years, but as an outsider it's simply impossible.

For example, I cannot remember hearing a thing about Kamp Staaldraad, what sounds like a truly horrific experience and one I cannot comprehend, especially considering the players were professionals. It may have gotten attention at the time, but I cannot remember it. If someone else can, please correct me in the comments.

What's our closest experience of something similar? Oh yeah, the rest and rotation policy where we got our titties in a twist because players weren't allowed to play in the S14. Puts it in perspective and when you think that 8 of the 2003 team who went to Kamp are still playing, including Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield, it may go some way to explaining their unrelenting psychology [even though John Smit says they enjoyed it].

Also, an issue in NZ which has recently reached the politic fore is the NZRU's refusal to apologise for their historic decision not to select Maori players when touring SA. In SA, there have been repeated calls to have the man who exposed Kamp be thanked and honoured. Two separate issues, but both showing that rugby boards often stick to their own guns and ignore the wishes of the public even when it's just one word.

Then, like everything else in SA, there's the politics. We heard the cries of 'trophy coach' with regard to Peter de Villiers when he was given the role, but that's only the start of it. With Oregan Hoskins SARU appears to have finally lucked into a decent president, but the man before him - Brian van Rooyen - sounds like a right pillock.

Van Rooyen, by all accounts, sounds like the corrupt politician accepting bribes from oil companies and allowing them to dump waste on beaches. His actions, that I can uncover, were wholy unjust and one wonders how he managed to retain power.

For example, it is alleged he paid one of the member unions and promised them a tier-1 international test in return for their support in his re-election campaign. He was also regularly known to play favourites, allocating Springbok tests to unions who had supported his notions in the past.

But rugby in SA has not always been bad. Their ability to retain players - either those who attract foreign interest or those recovering from injury - is second to none and something NZ and Australia could learn from. The current SARU board has also had their eyes to the future and have implemented several incredible measures, the most obvious of which is the creation of several rugby academies for young adults.

Already those rugby factories are starting to churn out players - the most notable so far is Pierre Spies - and it is a move which is benefiting SA immensely, similar to the Australian Institute of Sport.

NZ meanwhile potters on with a rugby academy in Palmy and the Millenium Institute in Auckland [a fantastic facility] and I do wonder if we'll be left behind. It's one thing to develop talent, it's another to train it from a young age to be prepared for the big stage.

NZ rugby and the NZRU have their own problems, but it's just worthwile to note that part of the reason SA has been peaking since 2007 probably has a lot to do with where they came from, and the measures they've put in place to achieve significant results in the near future.

I can't remember where I read it, but I saw an article over the past week talking about how fans no longer see the All Blacks as 'world beaters' on the back of the NZRU's announcement of a $15.9m loss for the 2009 financial year.

I come to contest that claim and suggest that any argument painting the All Blacks as less successful than those before them - in terms of a winning record - is bullshit.

It's always easy to sit there and point out losses and how bad we performed and how we lost the Tri-Nations, etc etc etc but stats don't lie.

Between 1900 and 1909 the All Blacks won 78.6% of their 14 matches, recording one loss and two draws. Over the next decade we only played 10 matches and all but one of them were against Australia no doubt due to the effects of World War 1 [the other team was the US, a 51-3 win in 1913]. The All Blacks won 8 of those 10 matches for an 80% win record.

Between 1920 and 1929 we played 14 matches and won 7, lost 6 and drew one, an oddity not often discussed. That draw was 0-0 against South Africa at Athletic Park in 1921. I wonder what the 18,000 strong crowd thought of that game. Obviously that's a 50% win record for the decade. From 1930-1939 we played 22 games, won 14, lost 7 and drew one for 63.6%. One of those losses was the 6-3 loss to the British and Irish Lions in the first game of their 1930 tour.

Over the World War 2 decade, the All Blacks only played 10 matches - all against South Africa and Australia. We won 4 of them and lost 6, though never by too many points. That's a 40% win ratio. It is worth noting that all 6 losses came in 1949, a year when the team did not win or draw a single match.

With the war over the All Blacks began making up for lost time. From 1950-1959 the team played 30 matches - only 10 out of the country - won 22, lost 7 and drew 1 for a 73.3% win record. In 1954 we beat Scotland 3-0 before losing to France the next week by the same score. Imagine what today's newspapers would have to say about that!

1960-1969 was the All Blacks best ever decade, though it's only 1.3% better than the second-place getter [more on that later]. 42 matches, 35 wins, 4 losses and 3 draws. The 83.3% win record for this decade was helped by the undefeated rein of Fred Allen. All told, the ABs played 17 matches between 1965 and 1969 and did not lose a single one of them, an impressive feat.

The next decade was a bit of a stumble though. The ABs played three more matches, upping their total to 45, but won 27, drew 3 and lost 15 for a 60% win record. The Lions toured in 1971 which I believe [if memory serves] is the only series they've won against NZ.

1980-1989 is of course the decade where we won the inaugural Rugby World Cup, and over those years we played 57 matches, winning 45, losing 9 and drawing 3 for a 78.9% win percentile. So not even our best in terms of wins, but we only lost the Bledisloe for two years over the decade, and as mentioned, won the RWC. We had the best team in the world, the best players, the best fans. Surely we dominated the shamateur part of the 90s and the professional era, thanks to the likes of Zinny, Cullen, Lomu, Fitzy and Foxy?

Sort of. While I have fond memories of that decade - being the first decade I can remember - we were actually slightly worse than in the 80s. The influence of professionalism was obvious, as the All Blacks played an unbelieveable 92 matches over the 90s, winning 68, losing 22 and drawing 2. That's a win rating of 73.9%.

Then there's last decade. You know, the shit decade. The one with the coaches who didn't know what the fuck they were doing, no-name players who couldn't catch, pass or tackle and a crisis at all positions except fullback. Oh wait, what was that? You're wondering why I haven't pointed out the second-best decade in All Blacks history? That's because it was this one.

From 2000-2009 the All Blacks played 122 matches, with one draw against France in 2002, 21 losses and an even 100 wins. That gave us a winning percentile of 82% and means that we're the first team ever to have 100 wins in a decade. The next closest was the Boks with 76.

Comparing just the last two decades with other IRB tier-one nations, we're definitely world beaters.
Australia: 90s - 74% 00s - 60.2%
Springboks: 90s - 65.9% 00s - 60.8%
France: 90s - 64.6% 00s - 61.3%
England: 90s - 67.0% 00s - 62.6%
Argentina: 90s - 41.6% 00s - 54.1%
Italy: 90s - 31.8% 00s - 27.3%
Ireland 90s - 30.0% 00s - 64.9%
Scotland 90s - 43.9% 00s - 37.5%
Wales: 90s - 49.0% 00s - 47.0%

So the truth of the matter is that we are world beaters. Losing one game can cost us a trophy, but it shouldn't lose us the support of our fans and journalists. England's football team haven't won the world cup since 1966, but do they get vilified for losing a friendly before their season kicks off? Do they have reporters within their own country writing them off a season before the world cup so if they lose the journalists can say 'I was right!' and if they win the journos can claim the team used their writing as extra motivation. Doubt it. So why the world beating All Blacks?

Following on from the last post, I have a hypothetical question. At this stage in the 2010 Super 14 there is one team [the Crusaders] in the top 4 and the Hurricanes still have a chance to get in - but must in their last 3 games, including two against teams above them, to stand a chance of getting in.

The Crusaders, who currently lie in third, face the two teams above them over the next fortnight, then the team currently sitting 6th.

If either the Hurricanes or Crusaders drop one game and results don't go their way they could be out of the top 4 and their season may be over.

What happens if both teams don't make the semis?

We've already seen crowds decline at matches, and anecdotally interest in Super Rugby and domestic rugby appears to be down, while people are - for whatever reason - growing disenchanted with an All Blacks team which was actually more successful over the last decade than in the 90s.

So without an NZ team to support even just to be a dick to the Aussies at work, what happens? Do people tune out and get excited again next year?

Or more realistically do they read the doomsday scribbles of Rattue et all and believe them?