All Blacks master adaptability to stand on the verge of history

The All Blacks face Australia in Brisbane on Saturday having won their last 16 Test matches, two short of the record held by Lithuania. The best record of a leading nation is 17, set by South Africa in the Nick Mallett era.

They are out on their own at the head of the world rankings, more than seven points ahead of Australia: seven points are the difference between the Wallabies and the team in eighth, Argentina. The Wallabies were the last team to defeat them, 14 months ago in Brisbane when the World Cup loomed, since when they have taken possession of the Webb Ellis Trophy and claimed the first Rugby Championship.

They are in Europe next month where they will play Scotland, Italy, Wales and England. Scotland and Italy have never defeated the All Blacks; Wales last managed it in 1953 while England have not done so at Twickenham since 2002. Throughout their history New Zealand have a success rate of more than 75%, a record only the Springboks can claim to rival, albeit remotely .

Never mind the various failures in World Cups between 1991 and 2007, the record is remarkable for any country, never mind one with a relatively small population and which, in the professional era, has had to contend with the much greater commercial clout of unions in Europe.

The All Blacks have developed into the biggest brand in the game, something the New Zealand Rugby Union has exploited to the full, but through the years there has been a grudging response to their success. They were portrayed in the amateur era as unsmiling assassins, a team so focused on winning that players trampled over the spirit of the game as well as a number of opponents.

In the professional era, they have been accused of self-promotion, creating an image of being better than they actually are. "All Blacks are simply the best – at PR hype," ran one headline last weekend. Such was the glee that their defeat by France in the World Cup quarter-final in Cardiff five years ago generated that questions of how the game was officiated that evening went unasked, which was not the case in last year's final against Les Bleus in Auckland when New Zealand were the beneficiaries of some questionable decisions.

A difference between those two World Cup campaigns was the way the All Blacks reacted on the field. They should have beaten France in 2007, never mind the fact they were not awarded one penalty in a second half they dominated; they did not try to win the game with a drop goal and seemed to have overdosed on fatalism.

It was different last year. Richie McCaw, the All Blacks' captain, revealed in his autobiography published earlier this month that he had disobeyed the orders of his coaches in the second half of the final. They wanted the All Blacks, who were defending a one-point lead, to tighten up and play for position, kicking the French deep into their own half.

McCaw, concerned at the danger France posed on the counterattack, opted to keep the ball in hand and trust his players not to concede penalties. It worked, just, and it was an example of how the initiative should lie with the players. Coaching has generally become too prescriptive; in an attempt to wean his players off what he felt was a dependency on coaches sitting in the stand when he was in charge of Wales, the current New Zealand coach, Steve Hansen, told them of a key Super 12 match when he was with the Crusaders which turned on a decision made by the players in defiance of instructions from the bench.

McCaw has led the All Blacks in 112 Tests: they have won 100 of them. He is taking a six-month break from the game after the end of the European tour, part of a programme to keep him playing until the 2015 World Cup. If the All Blacks preserve their winning run against an Australian side that, despite its place in the world rankings, is playing for the future of its New Zealand coach, Robbie Deans, they would be on course to set a new landmark against Italy.

The Rugby Championship showed, as did the World Cup, that the All Blacks are far from invincible. They were asked searching questions by Argentina at home and South Africa in Soweto, as they were in the second Test of the series with Ireland in the summer, but found the answers.

If the All Blacks of old could be stereo-typed – although Fred Allen's tourists in 1967 were image-shattering – the current team wins any which way. There is an emphasis, given the chase for the dollar in New Zealand, on ambition and entertainment in a way there was not in the years when the men in black stomped their way to success, but what marks them out is their ability to react to changing events.

The All Blacks have not placed a premium on entertainment on their past few tours of Europe, often content with scoring one try and keeping their line intact, and it will be interesting to see how they react at the end of what will be the longest year in southern hemisphere rugby.

Their game is based less on set-pieces, where they function rather than dominate, and more on the breakdown and defence. They put boot to ball more than most and bide their time in attack, waiting for the right moment. They are also more proficient in the off-load than any other side.

When Scott Johnson, now with Scotland, was the Wales assistant coach, he said that he never spoke the words All Blacks because they symbolised something he felt was partly mythological. To him, they were always New Zealand, "a poxy couple of islands in the Pacific".

It made no difference; Wales lost to the Kiwis again. It is not a matter of whether the All Blacks are hit or myth but of the example they set and how others respond to that.

By Paul Rees

Source: www.guardian.co.uk