Whatever happens with the All Blacks this year, no-one will be able to say new coach Scott Robertson failed to do his due diligence ahead of the first Test against England.
Robertson has been tireless in his efforts to not only stay connected with eligible players in Japan such as Ardie Savea, Sam Cane and Beauden Barrett, but has also been working with New Zealand Rugby to see if a handful of other offshore players, mainly Richie Mo’unga and Shannon Frizell (he did try to persuade Sam Whitelock to return to New Zealand, too) can be persuaded to return home before their current contracts expire.
He’s also lobbied the NZR board to change the eligibility laws and the impression Robertson has left is that of a coach determined to pursue all avenues to get the best All Blacks team on the park.
It has become part and parcel of rugby life in New Zealand that there is a player exodus after World Cups. The volume of departures post-2023 would be no more significant than it was in 2019, but it is the concentrated positional expertise and experience which has been lost that may be causing Robertson an element of concern.
Partly because of his sustained success with the Crusaders and partly because he was given the job through an unprecedented appointment process which saw him named as successor to Ian Foster six months before last year’s World Cup, Robertson is coming into the role carrying an unusually high burden of expectation.
Expectation is standard fare for any new All Blacks coach, but Robertson has captured the public imagination in a way few of his predecessors have and the narrative has built that he will somehow prove transformational after what was a relatively turbulent period under his predecessor.
The All Blacks open their 2024 season with two home Tests against a rejuvenated England and then one against Fiji in the USA – a series of games that will demand Robertson’s side hit the ground running.
When he was at the Crusaders he was a no-fear selector – constantly backing young players and promoting talent ahead of experience in individual cases where calls were tight.
A Rugby Championship campaign follows, starting with two home games against Argentina, then two Tests in South Africa before back-to-back fixtures against a possibly much-improved Wallabies. Their end-of-year tour features a stopover in Japan and then Tests against England, Ireland, France and Italy on successive weekends.
Given the need to deliver results quickly, it’s easy to understand why Robertson is eager to explore all his options in trying to secure every possible player and resource.
When he was at the Crusaders he was a no-fear selector – constantly backing young players and promoting talent ahead of experience in individual cases where calls were tight.
And no doubt he’ll be willing to load his All Blacks team with new players such as Xavier Numia, Peter Lakai, Cortez Ratima, Ruben Love and Billy Proctor – a point he all but confirmed when he spoke with media recently.
“We have got a lot of established All Blacks, a lot of guys coming back from the Rugby World Cup and a lot of guys who have been All Blacks before, available,” he said. “But you spend 80 per cent of your time on the 20 per cent of players who haven’t been All Blacks before.
“You see their current form and are they executing. You look at some of the local derbies, which have been great opportunities for us to see what they are like under pressure, to see their traits. We will use all these games right until the end of the season to make sure we make the right decisions.”
One of the areas of greatest vulnerability for New Zealand is lock, where they have a lack of depth and experience, compounded by the fact that Scott Barrett, their number one player in that position, has only managed a few games so far this year due to various injuries.
But in Test football, experience counts and the complexion of the All Blacks squad and how various players could be utilised would change dramatically if Mo’unga and Frizell were available, and had Whitelock decided to come home from France instead of retiring.
The All Blacks are going to be able to pick a strong group to play England, but they would be able to pick a squad with more depth, more experience and arguably more ability if Robertson was allowed to access even just two players who are currently not available due to the eligibility policy.
One of the areas of greatest vulnerability for New Zealand is lock, where they have a lack of depth and experience, compounded by the fact that Scott Barrett, their number one player in that position, has only managed a few games so far this year due to various injuries.
Josh Lord, the young Chiefs hopeful, has also been ruled out for eight weeks and so Robertson will be looking at an undercooked Barrett, an in-form Patrick Tuipulotu and Tupou Vai’i as his match-day locks for the England series.
That’s a reasonable trio with 120-plus caps between them, but one injury will leave the All Blacks scrambling. That’s why Robertson was keen on Whitelock coming home and why he would no doubt like the option, in the case of an injury crisis, to be able to call up Brodie Retallick, even if the Japan-based veteran only needed to play one Test.
Likewise, the All Blacks face a challenge in selecting a loose trio to play England with the depth of experience that Robertson would like. Savea will be available to play – Cane is injured – but history has shown that it takes players a little time to adjust when they return to New Zealand after a club season in Japan.
Frizell is New Zealand’s only seasoned and proven Test blindside and without him, the All Blacks will face the prospect of fielding the one-cap Finau, or potentially shifting Dalton Papali’i from his preferred openside.
If the loose trio had to be picked purely on Super Rugby form, Samipeni Finau would be at No 6, Peter Lakai at openside and Hoskins Sotutu at No 8. This would be an enormously talented trio, but one with only 15 caps between them – 14 of which belong to Sotutu.
And this is the crux of the issue facing Robertson. Being able to access just one loose forward currently offshore – in this case Frizell – would greatly enhance the team’s ability to field different combinations with the right balance of experience and ability.
Frizell is New Zealand’s only seasoned and proven Test blindside and without him, the All Blacks will face the prospect of fielding the one-cap Finau, or potentially shifting Dalton Papali’i from his preferred openside.
The other options are Ethan Blackadder, who has barely played in the last 18 months, Akira Ioane, who still doesn’t convince as a Test player, or using Luke Jacobson there, even though he is a natural No 8.
When asked about Frizell, Robertson said: “He is obviously still at his peak, and he can still play great rugby. We have been monitoring him from afar and watching him over in Japan.
“Would we love to have him back? Of course we would. It gives us depth in the loose forwards, and we will see.”
Given Mo’unga’s value, and the fact he’s only just turned 30, it is entirely reasonable that Robertson wants to see if he can persuade his former Crusaders playmaker to give up his $2.2m a year contract.
It’s much the same story in the backs where the All Blacks have lost Aaron Smith to retirement and Cam Roigard to injury, so Robertson will be reluctant to field the in-form but uncapped Ratima at half-back with his club No 10, Damian McKenzie.
These two are the form Super Rugby playmakers but McKenzie has only played a handful of Tests at No 10 and having access to Mo’unga – such a calm and assured operator – would open so many selection possibilities for the All Blacks, while not leaving them short of experience or game management capabilities while they discover more about new players.
Given Mo’unga’s value, and the fact he’s only just turned 30, it is entirely reasonable that Robertson wants to see if he can persuade his former Crusaders playmaker to give up his $2.2m a year contract.
Which international coach wouldn’t try to do the same? Mo’unga, after all, has 56 caps and that sort of experience, game management and all-round ability in such a crucial position is exceptionally hard to replace.
“It’s no secret New Zealand Rugby were sorry to see Richie leave at the time he did and we would like him back,” NZR head of professional rugby Chris Lendrum told the Rugby Direct podcast. “You can imagine we’ve been talking to Richie, and others, while they’re offshore.
“Plan A is to get him back on a full-time contract as soon as we can. That involves working with his agent.”
Robertson is doing precisely what he should be doing and trying to gain access to players currently off limits, but it’s a strategy that may not be loved by those aspiring to make the All Blacks from Super Rugby Pacific.
Everyone is going to have to get used to it and accept that if the All Blacks want to compete with the best sides in the world, they are going to have to continue to look beyond their own shores to do so.
As Hurricanes wing Kini Naholo told ZB radio talkback host Jason Pine: “Stephen Perofeta and McKenzie have been playing well this year. For me, as a player, I’d probably be annoyed, but it is great competition.
“New Zealand have always had that problem, over the years. They’ve always had some of the best five-eighths. It’s good competition, but you’d probably be a bit deflated knowing they’re trying to get Richie back.”
As much as this focus on offshore talent may not sit well with home-based players, this is going to be the reality while NZR continues to allow senior figures to enjoy one-season sabbatical deals with Japanese clubs.
Everyone is going to have to get used to it and accept that if the All Blacks want to compete with the best sides in the world, they are going to have to continue to look beyond their own shores to do so.
I have worked in three organisations that offer sabbaticals and literally have my current employer's policy on my computer right now. It's a very simple concept which you've tried to twist to suit yourself.
So now you're saying that the problem is nothing to do with the current eligibility criteria but contracting errors. Which means that there's absolutely no need to change the eligibility criteria.
You've got the Barrett situation all wrong, his Japanese contract finished last month because he wanted to keep on playing in black if required. He won't play for NZ while under that contract.
The players don't hold all the cards because they know they won't be selected while under their Japanese contract. Very few players up and leave so it's been an extraordinarily effective policy.
Overall I've demonstrated significant problems that would be caused by the change in policy, which outweigh the very marginal gains. As you say though, it's probably time to agree to disagree.
No, you don’t understand the concept of a sabbatical.
No, NZR stuffed up their contracting, and are now trying to recover from the mistake. Chris Lendrum talked about it in a recent interview.
As I have already pointed out JD, Barrett did just that this year.
The eventuation I am talking about is that the players still hold their cards while negotiating from overseas because they know how highly they are rated. They know were they stand. The great year that Frizzel and Mounga had post signing to go overseas should not be for naught. We don’t have to attribute blame in that though, just be open about it (like Chris was and is now trying to rectify it).
We’ll have to disagree then, I believe those marginal benefits, those differences between winning and loosing games, are most certainly worth it.
You still don't understand the concept of a sabbatical. Your long term primary employer allows you to do something else for part of your contract. Mo’unga left NZR and signed up with TBL as his primary employer for three years. That's the reality, you can't get away from it.
Interesting that you're now calling this a debacle. All of this chatter from unimaginative journalists wouldn't exist if Razor hadn't said what he said. So what you're saying is that Razor has caused a debacle.
You don't need to be such a pessimist. The actual decision makers have made NZR'S policy very clear. Players still know that they can't play for the All Blacks while under contract to a foreign club.
What's my problem with such an “eventuation” as you put it? I've already listed some cons. Weigh them against the benefits, which you now limit to one year of RM instead of BB backing up DMac. Your benefits are so marginal, they're simply not worth it.
It’s not one or the other. All players in Japan on sabbatical have two employers. I think three year sabbaticals are a bit of a stretch, just start with two and get Mounga back early. Or just go to option 3 and all players like Brodie, Smith, and Mounga to return whenever and if they are called upon to help.
No, I don’t think players no where they stand at all (case in point this debacle). I doubt there is any qualification of any such criteria until contract negotiations start. It would be one of the big areas of improvement I’d expect to see from Razor. More visibility.
And what’s your problem with that eventuation? Like I said, they have earned their sabbatical. It is irrelevant that they took a one year deal like Frizzel or Barret did. Funny you point out they have Barrett, good job JD. Enjoy that 70% record again!
Now you’ve gone from mangling the English language to not being able to count to three. Brodie had a two year sabbatical – he missed two years of Super Rugby – 2020 and 2021. Mo’unga is missing three years – 2024, 2025 and 2026.
RM is employed by Toshiba Brave Lupus, not NZR. It’s impossible to be sent on your sabbatical to your current employer. To suggest otherwise is pure doublespeak.
Needing to agree the sabbatical beforehand isn’t arbitrary, it’s absolutely essential. At the moment players know where they stand – NZR has a policy that they know it won’t budge on. They know that they can’t play for the All Blacks while they’re contracted to an overseas club. Hence very few first choice All Blacks under 32 sign long term overseas contracts – they agree a sabbatical clause and sign a contract with NZR, playing Super Rugby for most of that contract. Or else they go overseas for six months and sign for NZ Rugby on their return.
If NZR change the rules for one player who’s signed a long term contract overseas then they’ve lost that position of strength forever. Other key players will know that they can sign for overseas clubs and wait for NZR to bend the rules again. All the cons I mentioned earlier come into play for our best players.
All this, according to you so that Mo’unga can assist DMac. When there is already a two time world player of the year first five in the squad to help. Tiny benefits with huge consequences attached.
Yes, and as I have said, Brodie wasn’t an AB during that time, so the difference I was proposing was that the players remain eligible in whatever capacity they can provide (a small but massive change to selection policy) through the duration of the sabbatical. So now we have this one train of thought going among the different options available to NZR, in this particular circumstance that would make Mounga an aid to dmac running the side, rather than as a competitor if he returns to NZ. Saving money and in my argument being the more beneficial option to hitting performance goals like 90%.
Also again, the differentiation in contracting between going on sabbatical after signing with NZR (with said clause therefor), and being/or starting on a sabbatical when signing with NZR(signed from overseas to return once finished), is arbitrary. Just because they haven’t signed for a year or two with NZR doesn’t mean they have lost all those years of service, the players are entitled to a sabbatical and I argue that the only reason they aren’t already on one is because NZR incorrectly undervalued them.
Beauden Barrett is already the example of being resigned by NZR on sabbatical in order to play immediately (tried to even get him in SR this year, would normally have to return through NPC), after he had had left himself uncontracted for next year.
Yes this website can cause confusion in that way.
A two year sabbatical is nothing new. Brodie had one when he missed the 2020 and 2021 Super Rugby seasons.
Brodie's met the definition because:
1. Brodie was still in NZR employment before he went to Japan and didn't leave it until well after he came back from Japan.
2. The sabbatical was agreed between employee and employer before he went to Japan.
If a future arrangement meets those criteria it's a sabbatical. If it doesn't it isn't.
Which proposal JD, that’s what I’m saying. I’m not posting my personal opinion here, I’m debating all ideas and can easily reply to someone with cons just like you do.
I can remember raising three options in this article. We spend millions trying to lure players back. We save on some of those millions by allowing them another year in Japan while still playing for the All Blacks. Or we can select players that have no ties to returning to NZ (for SR).
I’m not too sure which you replied to with the way this forum works. The first two are sabbaticals, as you say, because the players are returning to SR after. That last, while not necessarily being all doors open, is a big step. Surely you think the cons will differ depending on which you’re replying to? I specifically asked you what the cons were of allowing two year sabbaticals instead of one.
To make it absolutely clear, so you can see that you indeed have to succumb to the change of logic, Sam Cane is ending his AB career while away on sabbatical in Japan, it would just be the other way round if these other players were signed up by NZR and had their first year (there second away from SR) away on sabbatical in Japan. It is purely arbitrary and meaningless to truncate their two AB stints, they will simply be treated as having 2 years away from SR on sabbatical. The difference here from previous examples is that they will play Internationally still that intermediate year (in the windows that the clubs have no say over).
The cons relate to your proposal, that should be obvious.
I’m absolutely staggered that you think the definition you posted supports your argument. He's not on leave, he's left NZR’s employment for three years. He's employed by the club. If he was to play for the All Blacks while employed by the club he'd be given leave by his employer to play test rugby, he wouldn't be employed by NZR.
NZR has already extended sabbaticals to two years for Brodie. What you're proposing is radically different.
Your cons were for a removal of all eligibility criteria.
No one is proposing that.
It’s not a pass mark, its an aspirational goal that is more relevant than 100%
Sabbatical
noun
a period of paid leave granted to a university teacher or other worker for study or travel, traditionally one year for every seven years worked.
"she's away on sabbatical"
So the first and most obvious step to opening sabbaticals further is to extend that length and reduce the service requirement.
So seeing as you haven’t given any cons to having sabbaticals from SR extended to two years, I assume you don’t see any from one year sabbaticals, and as you can see the obvious benefit from sabbaticals as they are, the logical step is use them more.
Currently across the super franchises the forwards choices for Robertson is in the luxury of the competitions depth for selection . However same can’t be said regarding selection of the backs, especially the inside backs. I believe that’s where his dilemma will be. If he can’t get mouanga for the start then he should forget him and move on.
When you say inside backs I imagine you are only referring to 10? If so correct
No other position in the backline has issues with depth and talent
Conversely lock is a massive issue
Hooker to a lesser extent but still a risk with three quality options only
The new board will now be injected with people of Razor’s ingenuity and we can modernize the All Blacks eligibility criteria!
If they allow OS selections there goes rugby in NZ. Every 2nd choice for every position may as well head overseas and earn the big money that Mounga chose. Dmac and Perofeta would command big $$ in Japan or the UK.
I hope so
🤣🤣 cry babies in the comments . I hope razor gets his boy mounga . It’ll be lovely to see all the haters swallow there words … doesn’t take a genius to know mounga will preform exceptionally well with a forward pack that actually goes forward and not back wards … watch the space .
Mounga is a fantastic player and experience and talent is hard to replace
Not a crusader fan by the way but he and all other 10s will always be compared to Carter and Barrett in his prime
Yeah lets go for 3 world cups in a row where Mounga loses games. The worst period of ABs rugby has had Mounga as the 10 for the ABs. A fail for sure.
Great news Scott Robertson and NZR are pursuing the avenue of getting Richie Mo’unga back from Japan. They are perfectly within their rights to do so.Richie is the best around still as he showed in last weeks Japanese Final for Brave Lupus.He was amazing for the Crusaders and at last years World Cup.
Why cant he shut up and do what all his predesessors have done. Select from NZ.
there is always one hater. Grow up
Yes I wouldn’t panic yet
Let’s face it we are taking here about Frizzell
Whilst a good player he is easily replaceable
Lock is a major issue. Whitelock is effectively retired
Brodie would be an option for sure to fill the gap for a year or two but we just haven’t exposed enough guys to test rugby
I say do the hard yards for a year or two
And Mounga
Well let him play overseas and reassess in a year
I mean he would be available for the next World Cup
I’m for NZ changing eligibility rules. But I also agree with you 100%. If Robertson’s so great, and NZ has such amazing talent, he should make do with what he has available just like every other AB coach before him.
Agents, administrators of the game can $&#% around in the background, wheel and deal in the background. Razor should focus on coaching.
Waste of his time and energy, pick the best available in NZ and maybe he’ll just unearth a new crop of future stars to take to 2027. Few would hold it against him if he lost a few games playing inexperienced youngsters in 2024. Blame will sit on the administrators who did or didn’t make players available or eligible for selection. If he has to kiss players like Richie’s ass to come back - look elsewhere.
I’d rather we win world cups.
🤣🤣 how’s that worked out since 2015 ?? Slap yourself
Don’t do it. Stay true to what’s brought success to NZ rugby.
What success ?? 🤣🤣 haven’t been on top since 2015
I agree…currently anyway
Mounga is the only potential start to be lured back
The others have basically finished their AB careers or are replaceable
Frizell whilst good is replaceable with Finau, Blackadder, Grace and Jacobsen for starters
Keep with the sabbaticals and sign talent long term