Christophe Ridley highlights three things he has learned as a referee

Besides, that's why caring employers don't put their employees through that spin-dry cycle following redundancy, although Fozz would have relished the opportunity to ride the waves to redemption. He had come within a whisker. I'm guessing Fozz's contract wouldn't have allowed him to terminate employment, glory of RWC aside. Now, I'm not saying fora second that Fozz was a fine head coach because he had erred like Razor is with selections across the board.

The captaincy debacle is just that, so agree with that. More significantly for me, Barrett has the unenviable record of collecting two red cards in test rugger — the most anyone has. His 2nd test against the Boks was questionable, considering the lock hadn't carried the ball until after the 60th minute. In both Boks affairs, he was hardly visible as a leader.

DMac is a Hobson's choice. You can have a "unique" kicking game but if the others are not on the same page, is it worth anything? Player, selection, and/or head coaching issue? For me it's all 3. I've not religiously watched Super Rugby Pacific matches but I did see how the Fijian Drua had homed in on DMac at The Tron. He was rattled and even started complaining to the ref. That's where we part ways with "aggression". All pooches are ferocious behind their owner's fenced property. DMac enjoys that when he has the comfort of protection from the engine room. The pooch is only tested when it wanders outside the confines of the yard on to the street to face other mongrels. Boks were going to be the litmus test, although no home fan saw the Pumas coming. At best, a bench-minutes player.

Leon MacDonald. Well, besides debating the merits of his prowess as "attacking guru", it doesn't override one simple fact — Razor chose his stable of support coaches. Its starts and ends there. If MacD didn't slot into the equation, Razor is accountable.

Why appoint a specialist when you're not going to listen to him, especially if you have an engine-room background? Having fired him, Razor looks even more clueless now than ever with his backline, never mind attacking. Which raises the pertinent question? Which of his other favoured coaches have assumed the mantle of backline/attacking coach? (Hansen/Ellison?) If so, why is Razor not dangling them over burning coals?

"His [MacD's] way might be great for some team, maybe in another country, and with the right people." Intriguing because he has led his team in his own country's premier competition to victory against a number of franchise players who are in the ABs squad that had failed to make the cut after a rash of losses and Razor's "home". You see, it's such anomalies that make the prudent question the process. All it does is make Razor look just like another member of the old boys' network. Appreciate the engagement.

He's never had the opportunity to enjoy great Australian passion playing for his team. It's sad and no wonder he's not really that interested or motivated.

He will just coast thru next year pretending to put a bit of effort in to playing for the Tahs then he'll be off overseas.

And Lomax, well, b...... kiwis bludging off Australians, again. Kerr Barlow, Ben Franks, etc. Strewth.

I am more surprised that their stats match Ireland to be fair, Ireland's ability to compete with SA over their two series was incredible.

Also, who is your pick for the AB's backrow?

Cane + Savea are smaller, but Savea is certainly stronger than most in that back row, maybe Valetini is big enough. I don't think Cane is likely to start this next game with Ethan Blackadder back, so it will likely be Sititi, Savea, Blackadder.

Set piece retention + disruption, tackle completion %, and ruck speed, are the stats I would pick to define a cohesive forward pack.

NZ have averaged 84.3% from lineout and 100% from own scrum feed in their last three games against top 4 opponents. Their opponents averaged 87.7% from the lineout and 79.7% from own scrum feed.

In comparison, Ireland averaged 85.3% from lineout and 74.3% from own scrum feed. Their opponents averaged 87.7% from the lineout and 100% from the scrum.

France also averaged 90.7% from lineout (very impressive) and 74.3% from own scrum feed (very bad). Their opponents averaged 95.7% from lineout (very bad) and 83.7% from scrum.

As we can see, at set piece NZ have been very good at disrupting opposition scrums while retaining own feed. However, lineout retention and disruption is bang average with Ireland and France, with the French pulling ahead. So NZ is right there in terms of cohesiveness in lineouts, and is better than both in terms of scrums. I have also only used stats from tests within the top 4.

France have averaged 85.7% tackle completion and 77.3% of rucks 6 seconds or less.

Ireland have averaged 86.3% tackle completion and 82.3% of rucks 6 seconds or less.

NZ have averaged 87% tackle completion and 80.7% or rucks 6 seconds or less.

So NZ have a higher tackle completion %, similar lineout, better scrum, and similar ruck speed.

Overall, NZ seem to have a better pack cohesiveness than France and Ireland, maybe barely, but small margins are what win big games.