All Blacks v France I
-
I think a massive problem for the ABs when Beauden and DMac are playing together is that it looks like we don’t know what type of game we want to play. Beaudy seems to kick a lot (mostly aimlessly), whereas DMac chances his arm a lot more and more often than not tonight he made the wrong decision. There were about four or fives times in that game where if we simply just used the ball to beat the man we probably would have gone on to score, however one of those two players kept on making the wrong decision which meant the likes of Jordan, Ioane and Proctor were wondering wtf was going on. I’m not sure what the answer is but we just looked like a bunch of headless chickens at times tonight.
Seems like a continuation of last year which is a worry but then again it’s the first test so happy to flush the dunny and move on.
-
On the Tosi penalty, I don't think his interference had any material impact on the play at all, but it's still a penalty by the letter of the law. Simple enough to just not do that, no one to blame but themselves.
@Mr-Fish said in All Blacks v France I:
On the Tosi penalty, I don't think his interference had any material impact on the play at all, but it's still a penalty by the letter of the law. Simple enough to just not do that, no one to blame but themselves.
The Proctor one was marginal and could only be seen on super slow-mo. I've seen those given. Surely there has to be some advantage given to attacking player in that situation?
The third Will Jordan try being disallowed was much, much worse. Just the wrong decision. Tosi didn't have any material impact on the play at full speed at all. A bad decision that the officials went looking for. Very disappointing and worrying.
-
I think a massive problem for the ABs when Beauden and DMac are playing together is that it looks like we don’t know what type of game we want to play. Beaudy seems to kick a lot (mostly aimlessly), whereas DMac chances his arm a lot more and more often than not tonight he made the wrong decision. There were about four or fives times in that game where if we simply just used the ball to beat the man we probably would have gone on to score, however one of those two players kept on making the wrong decision which meant the likes of Jordan, Ioane and Proctor were wondering wtf was going on. I’m not sure what the answer is but we just looked like a bunch of headless chickens at times tonight.
Seems like a continuation of last year which is a worry but then again it’s the first test so happy to flush the dunny and move on.
@Canes4life said in All Blacks v France I:
I think a massive problem for the ABs when Beauden and DMac are playing together is that it looks like we don’t know what type of game we want to play. Beaudy seems to kick a lot (mostly aimlessly), whereas DMac chances his arm a lot more and more often than not tonight he made the wrong decision. There were about four or fives times in that game where if we simply just used the ball to beat the man we probably would have gone on to score, however one of those two players kept on making the wrong decision which meant the likes of Jordan, Ioane and Proctor were wondering wtf was going on. I’m not sure what the answer is but we just looked like a bunch of headless chickens at times tonight.
Seems like a continuation of last year which is a worry.
its like having 2 Salvador Dali's in the team.
Pair of Ferrets.
-
Will try and read the thread tomorrow but my thoughts as follows ...
One of the most comprehensive four point thrashings you'll ever see.
Recall that a few years back when the ABs beat England at Dunedin and the Poms, from being 15 points down scored a couple late, after the hooter, to lose by 1, and they admitted being thrashed by one point. This was similar.
In the MOTM thread I really had to think hard about who played badly. For me only Hurricanes Jesus Proctor was anonymous, despite being glaringly obvious on that first Frog try.
He did score that try though. That was a bullshit call. As was the obstruction on Jordan’s non try.
Enjoyed the spectacle though. The margin not so much.
Was close on the score board, but not in the field
Taking the win, and flushing the dunny.
As mentioned above we smacked seven shades if shite out if them. Quite frankly 50 points better than them, and that's flattering.
A couple of defensive errors made them look good.
-
Will try and read the thread tomorrow but my thoughts as follows ...
One of the most comprehensive four point thrashings you'll ever see.
Recall that a few years back when the ABs beat England at Dunedin and the Poms, from being 15 points down scored a couple late, after the hooter, to lose by 1, and they admitted being thrashed by one point. This was similar.
In the MOTM thread I really had to think hard about who played badly. For me only Hurricanes Jesus Proctor was anonymous, despite being glaringly obvious on that first Frog try.
He did score that try though. That was a bullshit call. As was the obstruction on Jordan’s non try.
Enjoyed the spectacle though. The margin not so much.
Was close on the score board, but not in the field
Taking the win, and flushing the dunny.
As mentioned above we smacked seven shades if shite out if them. Quite frankly 50 points better than them, and that's flattering.
A couple of defensive errors made them look good.
@booboo said in All Blacks v France I:
Will try and read the thread tomorrow but my thoughts as follows ...
One of the most comprehensive four point thrashings you'll ever see.
Recall that a few years back when the ABs beat England at Dunedin and the Poms, from being 15 points down scored a couple late, after the hooter, to lose by 1, and they admitted being thrashed by one point. This was similar.
In the MOTM thread I really had to think hard about who played badly. For me only Hurricanes Jesus Proctor was anonymous, despite being glaringly obvious on that first Frog try.
He did score that try though. That was a bullshit call. As was the obstruction on Jordan’s non try.
Enjoyed the spectacle though. The margin not so much.
Was close on the score board, but not in the field
Taking the win, and flushing the dunny.
As mentioned above we smacked seven shades if shite out if them. Quite frankly 50 points better than them, and that's flattering.
A couple of defensive errors made them look good.
Im not sure if this turd is flushable though. It's a trend.
We are not killing teams off when they should be dead and buried.
-
@sparky In which case, as Jet says above, we need to take the gloves off and stop being nice guys. Go the
Razzie route and start punching heads at
World Rugby. Sic the advertisers onto the unaccountable Hooray Henrys and bumbling administrators elevated way above their station who are terrified of lawyers and the club owners. That’s what’s going on here. And if they’re not corrupt, they’re incompetent. Take your pick. Neither is good.@His-Bobness said in All Blacks v France I:
@sparky In which case, as Jet says above, we need to take the gloves off and stop being nice guys. Go the
Razzie route and start punching heads at
World Rugby. Sic the advertisers onto the unaccountable Hooray Henrys and bumbling administrators elevated way above their station who are terrified of lawyers and the club owners. That’s what’s going on here. And if they’re not corrupt, they’re incompetent. Take your pick. Neither is good.We could take the gloves off and be nice guys. Let the others bleat and moan, we should be strong enough to raise controversial, contentious issues and argue them in a convincing way without being dickheads.
PS. Tks for the heads-up on Foster's book.
-
@His-Bobness said in All Blacks v France I:
@sparky In which case, as Jet says above, we need to take the gloves off and stop being nice guys. Go the
Razzie route and start punching heads at
World Rugby. Sic the advertisers onto the unaccountable Hooray Henrys and bumbling administrators elevated way above their station who are terrified of lawyers and the club owners. That’s what’s going on here. And if they’re not corrupt, they’re incompetent. Take your pick. Neither is good.We could take the gloves off and be nice guys. Let the others bleat and moan, we should be strong enough to raise controversial, contentious issues and argue them in a convincing way without being dickheads.
PS. Tks for the heads-up on Foster's book.
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks v France I:
@His-Bobness said in All Blacks v France I:
@sparky In which case, as Jet says above, we need to take the gloves off and stop being nice guys. Go the
Razzie route and start punching heads at
World Rugby. Sic the advertisers onto the unaccountable Hooray Henrys and bumbling administrators elevated way above their station who are terrified of lawyers and the club owners. That’s what’s going on here. And if they’re not corrupt, they’re incompetent. Take your pick. Neither is good.We could take the gloves off and be nice guys. Let the others bleat and moan, we should be strong enough to raise controversial, contentious issues and argue them in a convincing way without being dickheads.
PS. Tks for the heads-up on Foster's book.
It's even our pundits Victor.
We aren't ruthless enough on podcasts, TV or print.
A collective turning of the other cheek.
-
@His-Bobness said in All Blacks v France I:
@sparky In which case, as Jet says above, we need to take the gloves off and stop being nice guys. Go the
Razzie route and start punching heads at
World Rugby. Sic the advertisers onto the unaccountable Hooray Henrys and bumbling administrators elevated way above their station who are terrified of lawyers and the club owners. That’s what’s going on here. And if they’re not corrupt, they’re incompetent. Take your pick. Neither is good.We could take the gloves off and be nice guys. Let the others bleat and moan, we should be strong enough to raise controversial, contentious issues and argue them in a convincing way without being dickheads.
PS. Tks for the heads-up on Foster's book.
@Victor-Meldrew It’s a good read. And it’s ghost written by Gregor Paul, who had been one of his biggest critics. I was impressed by his insights. But he was clearly undone off the field by some very political operators at NZ Rugby who were all about maximising value from the Silver Lake private equity funders and on the field by the perennial second guessers at World Rugby
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks v France I:
@His-Bobness said in All Blacks v France I:
@sparky In which case, as Jet says above, we need to take the gloves off and stop being nice guys. Go the
Razzie route and start punching heads at
World Rugby. Sic the advertisers onto the unaccountable Hooray Henrys and bumbling administrators elevated way above their station who are terrified of lawyers and the club owners. That’s what’s going on here. And if they’re not corrupt, they’re incompetent. Take your pick. Neither is good.We could take the gloves off and be nice guys. Let the others bleat and moan, we should be strong enough to raise controversial, contentious issues and argue them in a convincing way without being dickheads.
PS. Tks for the heads-up on Foster's book.
It's even our pundits Victor.
We aren't ruthless enough on podcasts, TV or print.
A collective turning of the other cheek.
@Jet If South Africa, England, Ireland or France had been playing at home and there had been a similar situation to the Billy Proctor "try" to one of their tries, then I am sure the home broadcaster would have mysteriously not been able to show the super slow mo at the right angle.
We need to stop being nice and enjoy being ruthless bastards again.
-
Will try and read the thread tomorrow but my thoughts as follows ...
One of the most comprehensive four point thrashings you'll ever see.
Recall that a few years back when the ABs beat England at Dunedin and the Poms, from being 15 points down scored a couple late, after the hooter, to lose by 1, and they admitted being thrashed by one point. This was similar.
In the MOTM thread I really had to think hard about who played badly. For me only Hurricanes Jesus Proctor was anonymous, despite being glaringly obvious on that first Frog try.
He did score that try though. That was a bullshit call. As was the obstruction on Jordan’s non try.
Enjoyed the spectacle though. The margin not so much.
Was close on the score board, but not in the field
Taking the win, and flushing the dunny.
As mentioned above we smacked seven shades if shite out if them. Quite frankly 50 points better than them, and that's flattering.
A couple of defensive errors made them look good.
@booboo said in All Blacks v France I:
A couple of defensive errors made them look good.
Just on this, the French attack did some nice things when they had the opportunity as well.
The second French try of the second half, which started with the van Tonder linebreak, came from the French reserve tighthead, Montagne, throwing a cut-out pass.
There is not a defender in world rugby which thinks that from this situation, the tighthead is going to fling a bullet across the face of the defensive line. Beautiful play by Montagne, a play any first five would be proud of.
-
Also, I know we're gradually sliding into fullblown conspiracy mode but Barlot pretty clearly knocked the ball on in the lead-up to the French try just after halftime.
Not sure why the TMO didn't intervene there. Or perhaps there were too many phases between the knock-on and the try? (my eye involuntarily twitched when writing that)
-
Also, I know we're gradually sliding into fullblown conspiracy mode but Barlot pretty clearly knocked the ball on in the lead-up to the French try just after halftime.
Not sure why the TMO didn't intervene there. Or perhaps there were too many phases between the knock-on and the try? (my eye involuntarily twitched when writing that)
@Mauss said in All Blacks v France I:
Also, I know we're gradually sliding into fullblown conspiracy mode but Barlot pretty clearly knocked the ball on in the lead-up to the French try just after halftime.
Not sure why the TMO didn't intervene there. Or perhaps there were too many phases between the knock-on and the try? (my eye involuntarily twitched when writing that)
Works for the Boks.
-
@booboo said in All Blacks v France I:
A couple of defensive errors made them look good.
Just on this, the French attack did some nice things when they had the opportunity as well.
The second French try of the second half, which started with the van Tonder linebreak, came from the French reserve tighthead, Montagne, throwing a cut-out pass.
There is not a defender in world rugby which thinks that from this situation, the tighthead is going to fling a bullet across the face of the defensive line. Beautiful play by Montagne, a play any first five would be proud of.
@Mauss Vive La France. They've got the skills and the vision to produce the magic.
But the flip side of the coin is that it's a pretty crap defensive line by the All Blacks. I don't think South Africa, France, Ireland or England would have had such poor line speed and leave a big gap in the middle straight after half time. And it's not the first time to put it mildly, the French reserve prop had been coached on what to look for.
-
@Victor-Meldrew It’s a good read. And it’s ghost written by Gregor Paul, who had been one of his biggest critics. I was impressed by his insights. But he was clearly undone off the field by some very political operators at NZ Rugby who were all about maximising value from the Silver Lake private equity funders and on the field by the perennial second guessers at World Rugby
@His-Bobness said in All Blacks v France I:
@Victor-Meldrew It’s a good read. And it’s ghost written by Gregor Paul, who had been one of his biggest critics. I was impressed by his insights. But he was clearly undone off the field by some very political operators at NZ Rugby who were all about maximising value from the Silver Lake private equity funders and on the field by the perennial second guessers at World Rugby
Not going to get into any Foster discussions, except to say I hope Robinson isn't treated as shabbily by NZR as Foster was. Utterly unedifying and a symptom of something rotten.
-
@His-Bobness said in All Blacks v France I:
@Victor-Meldrew It’s a good read. And it’s ghost written by Gregor Paul, who had been one of his biggest critics. I was impressed by his insights. But he was clearly undone off the field by some very political operators at NZ Rugby who were all about maximising value from the Silver Lake private equity funders and on the field by the perennial second guessers at World Rugby
Not going to get into any Foster discussions, except to say I hope Robinson isn't treated as shabbily by NZR as Foster was. Utterly unedifying and a symptom of something rotten.
@Victor-Meldrew Something rotten starts with M and ends with Y.
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
I said innocuous originally. No material contact. Nothing that impeded him sufficiently to change the play. As Antipodean said, it didn’t even change their coverage
But I’ve been on this forum long enough to know the futility of arguing with you so I’ll leave it at that
Well that's one way to concede, glad we agree there was contact.
That's a sad way to tacitly admit your claim it changed the defence from being able to cover off Beauden's pass is as bullshit as the TMO's adjudication.
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
I said innocuous originally. No material contact. Nothing that impeded him sufficiently to change the play. As Antipodean said, it didn’t even change their coverage
But I’ve been on this forum long enough to know the futility of arguing with you so I’ll leave it at that
Well that's one way to concede, glad we agree there was contact.
That's a sad way to tacitly admit your claim it changed the defence from being able to cover off Beauden's pass is as bullshit as the TMO's adjudication.
That'd be a brilliant retort if I ever made that claim.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
I said innocuous originally. No material contact. Nothing that impeded him sufficiently to change the play. As Antipodean said, it didn’t even change their coverage
But I’ve been on this forum long enough to know the futility of arguing with you so I’ll leave it at that
Well that's one way to concede, glad we agree there was contact.
That's a sad way to tacitly admit your claim it changed the defence from being able to cover off Beauden's pass is as bullshit as the TMO's adjudication.
That'd be a brilliant retort if I ever made that claim.
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
I said innocuous originally. No material contact. Nothing that impeded him sufficiently to change the play. As Antipodean said, it didn’t even change their coverage
But I’ve been on this forum long enough to know the futility of arguing with you so I’ll leave it at that
Well that's one way to concede, glad we agree there was contact.
That's a sad way to tacitly admit your claim it changed the defence from being able to cover off Beauden's pass is as bullshit as the TMO's adjudication.
That'd be a brilliant retort if I ever made that claim.
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
That was my initial take, but replays showed it was a full on block, BB clearly ran behind him and the defender could have pressed forward and put pressure on the attack if he wasn't obstructed. He was full on checked by Tosi.
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
I said innocuous originally. No material contact. Nothing that impeded him sufficiently to change the play. As Antipodean said, it didn’t even change their coverage
But I’ve been on this forum long enough to know the futility of arguing with you so I’ll leave it at that
Well that's one way to concede, glad we agree there was contact.
That's a sad way to tacitly admit your claim it changed the defence from being able to cover off Beauden's pass is as bullshit as the TMO's adjudication.
That'd be a brilliant retort if I ever made that claim.
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
That was my initial take, but replays showed it was a full on block, BB clearly ran behind him and the defender could have pressed forward and put pressure on the attack if he wasn't obstructed. He was full on checked by Tosi.
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@voodoo said in All Blacks v France I:
There was no contact
You might want to double check who's talking nonsense.
Have checked
It’s not me
But thanks for asking
I checked out of reading the rest as you started with a blatant lie. Are you really saying Tosi didn't make contact? It makes anything else you try to say, redundant.
I said innocuous originally. No material contact. Nothing that impeded him sufficiently to change the play. As Antipodean said, it didn’t even change their coverage
But I’ve been on this forum long enough to know the futility of arguing with you so I’ll leave it at that
Well that's one way to concede, glad we agree there was contact.
That's a sad way to tacitly admit your claim it changed the defence from being able to cover off Beauden's pass is as bullshit as the TMO's adjudication.
That'd be a brilliant retort if I ever made that claim.
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
That was my initial take, but replays showed it was a full on block, BB clearly ran behind him and the defender could have pressed forward and put pressure on the attack if he wasn't obstructed. He was full on checked by Tosi.
Well thanks for the clarification I didn't make that claim, I guess?
-
Well....I guess this is why I don't often frequent rugbypass.
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/all-blacks-player-ratings-vs-france-lipovitan-d-july-series/
