5:00AM Sunday Sep 27, 2009
By Gregor Paul
If you torture statistics for long enough, they will tell the story you want to hear. Or in the case of the All Blacks and the influence wielded by Richie McCaw and Dan Carter, they will tell the story no one wants to hear - that the All Blacks can't afford to be without either player.
Since 2003 - the year Carter made his debut - the All Blacks have lost 14 of 87 tests. No one can quibble with that. No other side gets close, not even South Africa, when viewed over the same period.
Of those 14 losses, only five have occurred when both Carter and McCaw have started. Now that's an incredible influence. The Wallabies have managed just one victory against the All Blacks when both McCaw and Carter have started. That was the 20-14 win in Melbourne before the World Cup.
The other wins in that period have been achieved when New Zealand's super pairing have been split; in the 2003 World Cup loss, Carter didn't play; in 2004, Carter played at second five and McCaw was in the stands with concussion; and in 2008, McCaw wasn't involved due to his injured ankle.
|
Over the same period, the Springboks have been better able to operate against the All Blacks both generally and specifically against Carter and McCaw. The Boks beat the All Blacks in 2005, 2006 and again this year when both men started.
France, in the 2007 World Cup quarter-final, are the only other side to have beaten the All Blacks when both Carter and McCaw have started. It has come to the point where the All Blacks are two different sides; they carry a hint of vulnerability when one or both of their superstars are not involved. With them, they are a different prospect.
With Carter and McCaw, the accuracy is that little bit higher; the confidence flows, the game-plan comes together, the on-field leadership is more obvious and the All Blacks more convincing.
Last week's test in Wellington was the perfect example of the Carter/McCaw effect. The captain was in his element. After some injury troubles, he's back in top nick, his confidence restored and his performance was world class against the Wallabies.
Carter has given the All Blacks obvious stability and structure since he returned to the No 10 shirt in Sydney. His very presence has calmed jittery nerves around him, with Ma'a Nonu able to feel it is not up to him to singlehandedly destroy the opposition.
It's little wonder, on the stats alone, that the New Zealand Rugby Union made the retention of Carter and McCaw top priority last year. It's also no surprise that there is widespread concern about the lack of cover for these two invaluable soldiers.
It's not that everyone expects to have replacements of equal ability. These are once-in-a-generation players and their back-up will never be of quite the same calibre. But the back-up should at least be All Black calibre and firmly established as the second choice.
Currently neither box has been ticked, which has been the case for most of the past six years, with brief periods when there were alternative options.
Again, statistics can paint a damning picture; they can show precisely the danger of not having top class alternatives.
McCaw and Carter have played 38 tests together and the All Blacks have won 88 per cent of those. That compares with an overall win ratio since 2003 of 84 per cent.
The All Blacks have played 49 tests in the past seven years without one or both Carter and McCaw and have managed to win 40 of them - for a win ratio of almost 78 per cent. They are 10 per cent worse off without Carter and McCaw. That's a big drop and the pressure is on the selectors to fix this problem.
The end of year tour has to herald the dawn of a new age. There must be some brutal decisions made to reach agreement that no progress has been made on those fronts so far this year. Or, more accurately perhaps, progress has been made in the sense that some contenders can now be eliminated.
At the start of the test season, Adam Thomson was the great hope at openside and Stephen Donald at first five.
"We've got to be honest and say we've tried the odd thing from time to time that hasn't worked and that's probably one of them," assistant coach Steve Hansen said recently of using Thomson at No 7. "We're desperately looking for someone that can back Rich up. That was a test match where we thought we'd give that a go. We thought he'd [Thomson] displayed a lot of the skills needed but in fairness to him, he's gone back to six and he's telling us through his form that that's the position he should play in."
Having agreed Thomson is a blindside, and quite clearly the best in the country, he needs to be seen as a specialist and not swapped between the two sides of the scrum.
He's not McCaw's successor and nor, in the immediate future, is Tanerau Latimer. He's a good athlete. He possesses an admirable work-rate, good attitude and appetite for his chores.
For all that, however, he's not quite there yet. Latimer looks the kind of player who would be comfortable to back up against the likes of Italy, Canada and Fiji but out of his depth should he have to front the Boks or Wallabies in a must-win clash. Scott Waldrom looks to be in a similar position, although he does have an X-factor with his pace.
The pick of the contenders has to be George Whitelock, who has the size, pace, strength, rugby knowledge and leadership. In his cameo performance against Italy, he was immediately composed.
Long term, he has all he needs for test football. All he lacks is exposure. He needs to be built into a test class openside. If he's taken on tour, he'll make giant strides just by being indoctrinated into the All Black ways. Next year, he can be drip-fed into action - regular game time off the bench and the odd start against lesser nations would bring him on further.
The clock is ticking now in terms of the World Cup and the All Blacks have to make a commitment to one player and stick with it. If it's Whitelock, then back him all the way - make a two-year plan that sees him reach September 2011 as McCaw's deputy.
It's the same with first five. Much has been invested in Donald but he's not the answer. He's an intriguing bench option with his unorthodox range of skills and he has shown he can change the dynamic of the contest when he's introduced. But he's not a game manager. He's not equipped to control and dominate, a la Carter.
Luke McAlister is not in that mould either. He's a 12 who can reluctantly play 10 but that's not a solution. First five is for specialists - men who relish the responsibility and want to own the game. It's not a berth you can be shoved into.
Options are thin on the ground with Aaron Cruden screaming out as the best choice. He's young. He's still raw with flaws and areas of weakness. But he reads the game well. He understands how his role works and he wants to take it on.
He is an orthodox first five who has a few extras - like his ability to run and escape trouble. Like Whitelock, he needs commitment from the coaches. His development plan should be similar to Whitelock's and the journey needs to start next month.
No comments:
Post a Comment