So, now we know for sure. The “protesters” who defiled the grounds of parliament and who (according to their own account) intended to create in three of our major cities “maximum disruption and inconvenience” to other citizens, are not interested in democracy – indeed, quite the contrary. Their objective, quite clearly, is to deny and defy the outcome of a democratic election and to overturn an elected government.

The issues which they had earlier claimed were those that motivated them – vaccination and other measures to counter the covid pandemic – are no longer live issues. The only remaining issue is their overall hostility to our elected government and their willingness to use any means, including assaults on the rights and freedoms of other citizens, to establish a regime of indeterminate character but which would clearly not be democratic or respectful of the rights of others.

In some ways, the leaders of the so-called protesters have done us all a favour by making their nefarious objectives so clear. If the issue and choice that now confronts us is to decide between Jacinda Ardern and her elected government on the one hand and Brian Tamaki and his Destiny Church on the other, the response is surely a no-brainer. The “protesters” may have unwittingly shot themselves in the foot by showing their hand so clearly.

Enough is enough! Ian Foster must go – and if he doesn’t do so of his own accord (as he should do), he must be pushed.

That became apparent in the first minute of the match, when it became clear that neither the coach nor the team had learned any of the lessons from last week’s debacle. In the first two tests against Ireland, the Irish had blasted out of the starting blocks and scored the opening try.

Yesterday, the early possession came the All Blacks’ way. Aaron Smith, once regarded as the best halfback in the world, seemed curious as to whether the Irish could repeat the trick, so he lofted the ball back to them. They duly obliged, ran the ball back at speed and scored the first try.

From that point on, there was a succession of handling errors and poorly directed kicks, all of which invited further Irish incursions and scoring opportunities. The kicking was not accidental but clearly part of the game plan. The mindset can be seen from the fact that David Havili’s selection was explained on the basis that “he offers a further kicking option” to help support Beauden Barrett.

We can only assume that the constant kicking was seen as an effective response to the rush defence employed by the Irish (and virtually every other international team). But the kicking we used was not so much a tactical response as a capitulation.

It was only in the second half that Will Jordan demonstrated that running with the ball in hand could produce a score. Sadly, the current All Blacks do not seem to recognise that holding the ball is the prerequisite to winning matches – and their coach appears to have reinforced that failing.

The All Blacks are approaching the point when they will be obliged to abandon the haka which, with nothing to support it, will be ridiculed as pure posturing. And the World Cup? Don’t even bother. Without basic change at the top, we won’t even get out of our group.

Yesterday’s match between the Maori All Blacks and Ireland confirmed the sad state of New Zealand rugby. The contrast (and skills gap) between the two teams was at times painfully obvious and reinforced the conclusions which had to be drawn from last week’s test match.

In both matches, the locals were deficient both in knowledge of the rules of the game and in basic skills like catching and passing. The Irish, on the other hand, played largely mistake-free rugby, and when they tackled, their opponents stayed tackled. And they didn’t make simple mistakes, like kicking the ball dead, or kicking it out on the full from outside the 22 metre line.

But the most important difference was that, at every point of both games, every Irish player seemed to know instinctively what the game plan was. If they had a player yellow-carded, for example, they knew that they had to waste as much time as possible when setting the scrum – and, in general play, they knew that keeping the ball in hand and running hard was the only way to score a try.

Our two victories have shown that we can still on occasion pull out the odd top-drawer performance. But our losses reveal that we can be outplayed because the Irish, both as individuals and as a team, have superior rugby “smarts” or intelligence; and that state of affairs, we must accept, has arisen because they are used to playing at a higher level than we do. That is the reality that now confronts the NZRU. And we haven’t even mentioned the French!

Watching the All Black debacle against Ireland yesterday was a painful experience. And Silver Lake must be having second thoughts about their investment.

The obvious reaction from All Black supporters is that something has to change. How could such good players perform so badly as a team?

But how do we know that our players are as good as we think they are? What makes us think that our domestic rugby is at such a high standard?

I have recently been watching some of the French Top14 club rugby on television. My perception is that the standard is markedly higher than anything we see at home. Little wonder that France – now the top-ranked team in the world, must now be reckoned as red hot favourites for the World Cup to be contested in their own backyard in 2023.

But whatever the individual skills and commitment of the players, this still doesn’t explain why the All Blacks performed so badly as a team. As a team, the effort was there, but the teamwork and tactical appreciation were not. Isn’t this the responsibility of the coaches? Shouldn’t there be some evidence that the team is operating according to a strategy (other than simply try harder)? Shouldn’t that strategy be designed to utilise and maximise the impact of individual skills and to counteract the perceived strengths and exploit the perceived weaknesses of the opposition?

The record of the current coaching team is now well established and can no longer be gainsaid.
If the current coaches are going to keep their jobs through to the World Cup, they are in urgent need, at least, of supplementation.

The most valuable addition to the team would be Wayne Smith, but he is currently otherwise (and helpfully) engaged in raising the standard of the Black Ferns. Failing his co-option, what else is to be done?

If we are agreed that “something” must be done, we have no alternative but to look at the role of head coach. There may be few coaches with the necessary skills, track record and availability from whom a choice can be made, but there are one or two, and the inquiry must be undertaken. If we want to make a realistic challenge at next year’s World Cup, time is running out.

Stand by! If I read Boris correctly, we might expect to see the following scenario unfold.

Boris will declare that he is himself a candidate for the leadership. He will argue that the fact that he is the incumbent, at least pro tem, is an advantage, not a disqualification. He will calculate that a significant number of other hats in the ring will split the anti-Boris vote, and that he will stand a very good chance, accordingly, of coming in the top two.

In a poll of party members, the challenger, whoever he or she might be, will come under increased and critical scrutiny and Boris will further calculate that his star power will persuade a majority that he remains their best chance of seeing a further Conservative government – and, beyond that, he will fancy his chances against a somewhat wooden Keir Starmer in a general election.

Any bets against?