Mixed reaction to World Rugby's 10 temporary law changes

On the Joe El defence, the shooter variation has been made to look more like a schoolboy error and it’s always going to be vulnerable to special plays. If you look at the Boks example, a two man miss pass, if they had gone on the outside, puts the England full back in trouble trying to cover a 3 v 2 overlap and they’re fully cooked if the missed Bok inside runners are moving fast in support. And the all blacks cut back was sublime with the pass inside to Jordan eliminating the need that arendse had to step the first defender on the short side. Cracking analysis Nick and it seems to show that Joe’s plan is almost doomed from the off…?

Regardless of the game, or which team you favor, both teams are likely to have "left points behind" or "gifted" their opponents some scores.

The truth is that in these four games NZ were not good enough to impose themselves and deliver the wins. Teams can improve, and I hope NZ does so, but let's not avoid the fact that they tried and failed.

Its not "left wins behind", but "this year we weren't good enough".

I don't think your claims about a lack of buy-in from England players is right though. What evidence do you have for that? As you can see, I could only find positive comments.

The EP is also the highest ball-in-play league in the world right now, so I don't buy the lazy and unfit line on England players. The problem is the system not the players.

We'll continue to produce tallent only to have many of our second tier (and first sometimes) of professional players picked off because of the All Black centric model.

This obviously dilutes the quality and competition at SR level. The only way to increase the wage pool for such players at this point is to allow some of our marquee players to play abroad to reduce the wage bill pressure. This already happens under the cover of "sabaticals", but it could be formalised. Do we really need Beauden Barrett playing in NZ, for example. I remember quite clearly he wanted to negotiate a contract that allowed him to be NZ's first official Japanese based player. Part of him doesn't want to be turning out for the Blues every week in any case.

Some of his huge salary could have been used to keep Plummer, or invest in other valuable tallent essential for the health of Super Rugby.

He should be under-committing and over-delivering, to give the team a shot at rising to the top over the longer term. Having said that, it did not work for Eddie Jones. The RFU administrators don't like that kind of thing.

My main takeaway has been the number of tries that have been left on the field. Thinking back to Fozzie's first couple of years they really struggled to create anything, but took their chances pretty well when they came and still had the individual talent to conjure the odd piece of magic against the run of play.

This year's team has been given a lot more license to attack and have created so many opportunities, only for so many to go begging. I thought the efforts against SA, Ireland and France were all worthy of 4 tries minimum, but simple mistakes at the wrong time, pushing passes instead of retaining the ball, and taking completely the wrong option has kept us to 2 tries when 3 would have won it.

It certainly has the makings of something good, but next year will be the real litmus test to see if this is an attacking structure that can evolve and improve, or will always be hit and miss because of it's very nature and lack of structure.