On September 11, 2011 the United States national rugby team will play Ireland in their first Rugby World Cup match in New Plymouth. Meanwhile in America 24hrs later there will be commemorations for the 10th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center.

For the past year focus has been given to 'party central' and the delay in finalising a venue and building it. I ask, what plans are there in New Plymouth for the US team? Sure it's not something we have to do, but surely someone will eventually connect the dots. Was this match scheduled intentionally to allow some kind of ceremony or was this an oversite by the IRB?

Do you think that NZ, as a country - bearing in mind we're pursuing a free-trade agreement with the US - is obligated to remember the events of that day and provide some sort of service for the team and its supporters on that day, or is this an international tournament and that should be all it remains?

In 2009 we got used to seeing a Springboks side that seemed almost unstoppable. They could retain possession until they decided to kick it down your throat and force you to make a mistake. They had a tight 5 that could hold up - or collapse - any scrum they wanted to, flankers that could bully you at the ruck if you were behind the 8 ball and a halfback-first 5 combo that worked effectively to distribute the ball and kick for territory. Arguably their weak links were in the midfield and at fullback.

In contrast the Wallabies side of 2009 was a little bit disjointed. A forward pack which could work together if it had to, too many cooks in the kitchen at halfback and first/second five, but from there on out it was all positives. Personally I think James O'Connor at fullback was their weak link - they worked better with Adam Ashley-Cooper at the back - but the whole team had a disjointed feel to it with occasional flashes of brilliance bringing it all together. Like the Waratahs, Hurricanes or Chiefs.

One year has been enough to change those perceptions.

Make no mistake, the Springboks were outplayed in tonight's match. In the first half they did well to keep up - and throughout the whole game they outplayed the Wallabies at the ruck and the scrum. But as the game wore on it became increasingly obvious this was a South African team without a game plan. Last year everything seemed so structured, so clinical, so formulaic. Tonight every ruck was different. Clearing kicks were made without chasers - in one case Danie Roussow was the only Springbok sprinting after the ball - forwards were caught in midfield, backs were made to pick-and-go from 60m out... The only two players who seemed to have any idea what they were doing were Ruan Pienaar, Morne Steyn and Jacque Fourie, barring his yellow card.

It's already become a Tri Nations campaign of desperation for the South Africans. Schalk Burger will most likely lose a couple of weeks to ruminate on his discipline after getting caught on camera doing something dodgy to Pocock's eye socket in one of their many scuffles. Their carbon credit bill will be enormous with the cost of replacing all these players getting bans.

There's also the issue of the particularly dodgy but seemingly legal tactic bokke was using when chasing kicks, where the chaser would go up with arms and legs akimbo clearly not pursuing the ball but aiming to put off the opposition.

I'm beginning to ask some serious questions of the Boks' plans for this season and why after four games have they still failed to correctly deploy their wingers and fullback on attack. The ball either gets to Fourie too late to pass it, or he holds it, breaks the line and there's no runners there in support.

The Wallabies side wasn't perfect either. They played like the All Blacks last week but in reverse. They started off not looking too flash but ended strongly after getting a bit of confidence.

One thing they definitely need to focus on over the next week is their scrum. The flankers were slipping and sliding and the front rowers were getting pounded almost every time, which led them to resort to some pretty obvious flouting of the laws in an effort to just keep the thing up long enough that they wouldn't be penalised.

There's also the issue of James O'Connor. I've not been a fan of him at fullback and his problems were exacerbated on the wing. I believe he was very lucky that Habana didn't get a chance to run at him with the ball in hand because his defence is poor and his ability under the high ball is limited. Yet when you watch him at a Super 14 level it's like chalk and cheese. Dingo Deans needs to find a way to get that confidence and ability to show on the field.

Personally I'd support giving Kurtley Beale the start at fullback against the blackness and putting Adam Ashley-Cooper on the wing, because O'Connor's struggles against the Boks tonight will be nothing compared to facing a resurgent Mils Muliaina in New Zealand in two weeks - or even in Australia next weekend.

A hat-tip has to go to Pocock and Rocky Elsom for their work around the field tonight. They put the bokke loosies back in their cage in emphatic style and it looks like the Australians have finally realised that when you're first to the ruck you can get away with a lot of rule-bending. All in all it will be interesting to see how Australia's "give it some air, show the crowd some flair" tactics shape up against New Zealand's "let's give it to Dan/Ma'a and see what he does". Ah, who am I kidding. We'll pump the criminals.

Final score:
Australia 31 - South Africa 13.
Australia: Tries to Drew Mitchell and Will Genia. Matt Giteau 5 penalties, James O'Connor 1 penalty, 1 conversion.
South Africa: Tries to Jacque Fourie and Guthro Steenkamp. Morne Steyn 1 penalty.

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.

 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.

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 sum of the whole is greater than its parts.

Particularly succinct this year, when none of the NZ Super 14 teams looked like holding it together to go the distance. The 'shaky at the start before we lose our best players to injury' Chiefs had appeared to get rid of that apron only to find it was replaced with 'win at the start then lose all our best players to injury'.

Then the 'we'll lose all our games until we have to win them all to have a shot and stage a late-season rally' Blues blew it about half-way through.

The 'mathematical chance' Hurricanes were replaced by the 'You what? The game's 60 minutes through and we're down by 3 tries? Oh well we better start trying then' 2010 squad and the 'MC Hammer' Crusaders became all about 'well we're a young team, in a rebuilding phase'.

Meanwhile the perennial 'young team, in a rebuilding phase' Highlanders shouted their mantra from the rooftops: 'lose our best players to injury, lose all our games before a late season rally, the game's 60 minutes through and we're down by 3 tries? Oh well we may as well give up'.

Let's be honest here. The Bulls and Stormers looked brilliant from the first whistle in 2010, yes? Seconded? Right. Motion carried.

Let's move on. The Tri-Nations is just about a month away and you can bet your bottom dollar that that means an exponential increase in the number of 'the All Blacks are crap, there's no direction, look at South Africa it's like the People's Army marching forward to slaughter our poor All Blacks' articles.

Wasn't last year's team the worst ever? So surely with the number of new players [four] and players out injured this is the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel scraping effort that should convince us all that Robbie Deans was the man for the job, we've been led astray by the NZRTEW and we deserve all we get?

Or maybe - just maybe - we do still have the best team in the world, gathered from five provinces - not two [cough South Africa and to a lesser extent Australia]. We've managed to slot in four new caps and many who haven't cracked double digits yet. We've got a winger coming back after proving himself through the Super 14 [cough toldyouso] and the world's first and second best fullbacks. We have a forward pack that can out-play any in the world on their day, and with their referee.

We have the best loosehead prop in the world [Tialata], the second-best lock combo in the world [Thorn and Donnelly], the best loose forward rotation in the world, the best first-five in the world [Carter], the best centre in the world [Smith] and I've already mentioned the fullbacks.

You know the only thing the 'worst team ever' was missing last year? A first-five who could kick insanely long penalties and dropgoals that no human being should be able to make. That's it. You take Morne out of the Boks side and Donald out of ours and we woulda beasted them.

So maybe this bottom-of-the-barrel 2010 unit isn't gonna be so bad after all.

PS: I could talk about Ireland and Wales, since this team is playing them first - but what's the point? They're not those cheating Frenchies so they won't beat us. Also, no-one in the UK will be talking about them either 'cause there's something more meaningful going on.

2010 All Blacks Squad: [June Internationals]

Anthony Boric North Harbour (13)
Aled de Malmanche Waikato (2)
Tom Donnelly Otago (6)
Ben Franks Tasman (uncapped)
Owen Franks Canterbury (9)
Jerome Kaino Auckland (25)
Richie McCaw (capt) Canterbury (80)
Keven Mealamu Auckland (71)
Kieran Read Canterbury (16)
Adam Thomson Otago (15)
Brad Thorn Canterbury (37)
Neemia Tialata Wellington (41)
Victor Vito * Wellington
Tony Woodcock North Harbour (61)

Backs:

Daniel Carter Canterbury (66)
Jimmy Cowan Southland (33)
Aaron Cruden * Manawatu
Israel Dagg * Hawke’s Bay
Zac Guildford Hawke’s Bay (2)
Cory Jane Wellington (12)
Richard Kahui Waikato (8)
Mils Muliaina Waikato (82)
Josevata Rokocoko Auckland (60)
Conrad Smith Wellington (33)
Benson Stanley * Auckland
Piri Weepu Wellington (35)

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?