Agree - there's nothing wrong with tactical kicking; nothing wrong with exit kicking and there's nothing generically wrong with well-executed bombs, chips or grubber kicks either.
It's just that you don't want too much of that from your team in the game and—like passing, catching, scrums, lineouts, mauls etc—the kicks have to have a favourable result, or at least a strong likelihood of such.
It's getting away from my earlier point about running the ball out from one's own 22 to a fault, instead of having a good exit strategy, but we should be talking more about a fellow's ability to kick.
In particular we should be talking about who can perform exit kicks with their left foot.
And how many times do we see well-executed bombs by Aussie kickers and chasers except from the Brumbies?
Sometimes a fullback or acting fullback has to hoist the ball up because there is no other option. In the hands of the All Blacks such a kick can be effective, say, 60% of the time, because 1. it lands in the right place and 2. there is a challenger for the ball chasing the kick.
This is not part of the All Black tradition, but as they have done throughout their history, they have just adapted to the realities of rugby life and the effect of current laws and their interpretation.
If these change they will be the first to adapt in a Darwinian way: to get a comparative advantage over their competitors for survival.
If they are at 60% with bombs, most of our teams would be at 30% effectiveness, yet we bang on about running rugby.
I have digressed from the thread subject; but whatever Beale or his fellow Tahs do next year they have to improve their kicking, including chasing them, even if it is a smaller part of their game than it has been in recent years.
Running the ball back from their own red zone to a fault, like Forrest Gump, is as bad as kicking to a fault.
Mind you: Forrest didn't drop too much ball on contact.
.