Jonathan Davies: Arrogant All Blacks pay price and Wales don't need their coaches

There are two good jokes in circulation. Firstly, what do you call the seventh and eighth place in the 2007 World Cup? The answer: the Bledisloe Cup.

For the uninitiated, that's the trophy played for by New Zealand and Australia every year, and the fact they are both back home when the semi-finals are taking place is a matter of mirth in the northern hemisphere.

Joke No 2 – where are the world's most under-achieving coaches? Answer: New Zealand. Where have the Welsh Rugby Union's top three officialsgone looking for a new coach?Answer: New Zealand.

Apart from the needless expense of travelling in luxury to the other side of the world for meetings that could be con-ducted by telephone conference calls, I suggest that now is hardlythe best time to go worshipping at that particular shrine.

Leaving aside for another day the stumbling around in the dark by the WRU, what happened to New Zealand and Australia last weekend is still difficult to grasp, as was the arrogance they brought with them into the tournament. This applies to the All Blacks especially. They never used to be like that. Supremely confident, yes, but never arrogant.

It applied to the coaching staff as well. They had the best 30 players in the world under their control and carefully regulated their preparations over the past year, at the expense of all other considerations. It is beyond belief that they got it so wrong. The rotation policy just didn't work, and the reduction in the number of games each player was asked to play turned out to be a big minus rather than a plus.

When it came to the crunch, they didn't have the game awareness or the mental toughness to impose their superiority. There were no excuses. They had far more possession and territory than France but couldn't cope with the pressure. Much of what went wrong with both New Zealand and Australia can be traced back to their Super 14 competition, which has been held up over the past few years as the epitome of what rugby should be.

Sure enough, it was exciting stuff and was watched avidly by northern-hemisphere fans. The ball buzzed around thrillingly, but it was always too flamboyant for my liking and removed them from the humdrum but vital realities of what successful rugby at the top is all about.

Another telling factor is that there is no relegation in Super 14. What helps to make domestic rugby in England and France more intense week in, weekout is the ever-present threatof demotion. It is only that sort of pressure that fits men with the right attitude when the chips are down.

"Winning ugly" is a newish phrase in rugby but it helps to explain that the game's main priority is to grind out victory in the most efficient way at your disposal. Every World Cup so far has been won ugly – apart from one. The inaugural 1987 tournament was won pretty, and that was by New Zealand.

That was, I believe, the finest rugby side ever to step on to a pitch. A team with Buck Shelford, Sean Fitzpatrick and Grant Fox, and they could win any way they liked. I was there with Wales and they stuck 50 points on us playing fancy stuff. But they were just as capable of playing tight and fierce. Whichever style they played, it was awesome.

If you had said then that 20 years later they would still be in search of their second win, no one would have believed you. If you had forecast that in 2007 they would not make the semi-final, you would probably have been locked up.

What has happened to them?