So the All Blacks' coaching team have assigned him a simple but effective task. Other than his defensive duties and a part in some backline moves, his core function is to take the ball up and make it available, often through those famous offloads.
He sometimes takes multiple defenders out when he has the ball. This creates space for others even if he doesn't offload. He does this better than Ngani Laumape, Anton Lienart-Brown or Jack Goodhue - who will compete for a place in the All Black backline, but the latter two more likely against Ryan Crotty, better suited to 13 than 12.
SBW's 34 years of age also probably equates to a 27-year-old's in fitness terms. Maybe if Charlie Ngatai was in full bloom, the selectors might prefer a player who can breach defences with hand, foot and link skills - but at the moment SBW still seems the best bet, at least to this observer's way of thinking.
Maybe 'thinking' is the wrong word to apply to the recent column by Bret Harris, an Australian writer for the Guardian, pointing to the All Blacks' current dominance as bad for the sport as a whole. He said the yawning gap between the All Blacks and the rest was turning into "a big yawn".
This kind of analysis rates right up there with the teasing tabloid treatment of a story like 'Senior politician found in women's clothing'. Then you turn to page 6...and discover it's Paula Bennett.
Harris's piece is based on a misconception. The blurb read: "Never in the history of sport has there been such a dominant team - and that could have serious ramifications for the game."
Really? In the history of sport? Nope, don't think so. It's not even true in All Black history.
There's the small matter of Buck Shelford's All Blacks between 1987 and 1990 when they won the World Cup and everything else - playing 50 matches on the trot without a loss (a 19-19 draw against Australia marred the perfect record) until the Wallabies beat them in Wellington in 1990.
Those All Blacks were so dominant, they were often forced to talk about their search for 'the perfect game' to provide motivation.
We haven't heard Steve Hansen, Kieran Read and co occupy that ground yet - it's probably too soon after that shock loss to Ireland in Chicago. Those who would point to the message seen on the whiteboard in their team room in 2013 ("We are the most dominant team in the history of the world") are missing the point.
That was not describing Hansen's specific team; it was a perspective gained over 112 years of All Black rugby, underlining the legacy stiffening the spine of every All Black outfit - not just a sports team but guardians of tradition; of excellence.
There are other things to say about the proposal a dominant sports team damages the sport:
1.Tell it to Barcelona, Manchester United, the 1991-98 Chicago Bulls, the New York Yankees, the Australian and West Indies cricket teams, Michael Schumacher, Serena Williams and many others whose dominance only enhanced their sport.
2. Excellence is its own reward - and produces the greatest motivation of all in opponents. If it doesn't, there's something wrong with the opponents.
3. The 1987-90 All Blacks may have been hugely dominant during that period but who won the World Cup in 1991? That'd be Australia - and again in 1999 but we didn't hear about Australian dominance ruining rugby then.
Harris's column was big on the boredom of dominance but offered no solutions beyond everyone else getting better. Surely the only real way forward is a global competition, a league based on world rankings, enlivened every four years by the World Cup.
A championship backed up by a knockout cup competition is a tried and tested format, especially now the old tours format is mostly history.
It likely won't happen - too much entrenched self-interest affecting clubs, national teams and broadcasting - but if it's a "big yawn" we truly want to stifle, then big steps need to be taken.
