All Blacks v France I
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v France I:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France I:
For the same reason as savea i reckon I'm close to done with DMac.
I can understand the allure, when it goes right it goes very right, but is it balanced out by the untold errors and created pressure?
I'm quite torn on DMac and Beauden, I caused a bit of a stir when I said picking Beauden for this test wasn't all that controversial as I think they are much of a muchness really. Personally I'd have DMac starting at 10 just on account of his kicking game, as we can struggle to get out of our half when on the back foot otherwise.
But outside of that both players go from the sublime to the ridiculous far too often for test match footy.
Hard disagree. McKenzie kicked the ball away badly once (and fortuitously grabbed the rebound). He also threw an intercept - which really doesn't count, as it was under penalty advantage so why not.
Aside from that , his decision-making was pretty conservative - he took contact in preference to trying too much on several occasions.My takeaway was he danced around and then flat footed just popped it to a stationary forward to get smashed.
An the same thing can be described as: he looked for gaps, and made/took a few half-gaps - and when there wasn't one he recycled and maintained possession.
And are you going to rubbish other players for similar/worse poor options? How about Roigard for ignoring Jordie inside him who would have scored? And for his bizarre kick to nobody on attack?
Oh now I see how this game is played: If I respond to a comment at odds with my opinion I then need to apply that analysis/ criticism to every other player too.
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v France I:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France I:
For the same reason as savea i reckon I'm close to done with DMac.
I can understand the allure, when it goes right it goes very right, but is it balanced out by the untold errors and created pressure?
I'm quite torn on DMac and Beauden, I caused a bit of a stir when I said picking Beauden for this test wasn't all that controversial as I think they are much of a muchness really. Personally I'd have DMac starting at 10 just on account of his kicking game, as we can struggle to get out of our half when on the back foot otherwise.
But outside of that both players go from the sublime to the ridiculous far too often for test match footy.
Hard disagree. McKenzie kicked the ball away badly once (and fortuitously grabbed the rebound). He also threw an intercept - which really doesn't count, as it was under penalty advantage so why not.
Aside from that , his decision-making was pretty conservative - he took contact in preference to trying too much on several occasions.My takeaway was he danced around and then flat footed just popped it to a stationary forward to get smashed.
An the same thing can be described as: he looked for gaps, and made/took a few half-gaps - and when there wasn't one he recycled and maintained possession.
And are you going to rubbish other players for similar/worse poor options? How about Roigard for ignoring Jordie inside him who would have scored? And for his bizarre kick to nobody on attack?
Oh now I see how this game is played: If I respond to a comment at odds with my opinion I then need to apply that analysis/ criticism to every other player too.
It's not that, it's just the persistent myth that McKenzie is still a guy who always looks for high risk plays - it irritates me, because a different standard is applied to him than other players.
He has played what, 3 super seasons in a row where he has played relatively conservatively - kicked a lot and kicked well. His sideways running is all but gone from his game, unless it's a quick look for a gap or to buy time for his forwards - which are good things, especially when you're small and need support or risk a turnover. I think he's changed (and continues to change) the way he plays hugely, and the comparisons to Barrett - who hasn't changed a thing, pretty much ever? -
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
That may be true, but I think it's a prime example of a statistic in isolation obscuring the reality of the overall picture. It's frequently multiple phases leading to an advantage, leading to multiple penalties, leading to a card, leading to try off a lineout from one of those infringements. And then frequently another score as a result of playing against 14. And the perception of the ref is that the defensive team is infringing repeatedly.
I suspect that penalties and cards are more likely from the lineout than from more phases too. I wouldn't assume that this hasn't been thought out. Multiple teams do the same thing
@Duluth said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
That may be true, but I think it's a prime example of a statistic in isolation obscuring the reality of the overall picture. It's frequently multiple phases leading to an advantage, leading to multiple penalties, leading to a card, leading to try off a lineout from one of those infringements. And then frequently another score as a result of playing against 14. And the perception of the ref is that the defensive team is infringing repeatedly.
I suspect that penalties and cards are more likely from the lineout than from more phases too. I wouldn't assume that this hasn't been thought out. Multiple teams do the same thing
Maybe they are more likely, but that doesn't really change things - you still get that lineout if you take 10 phases under advantage, and will frequently get another offside penalty/advantage in that time. That extra is then on top of the upcoming penalty at the lineout, and there's your card.
My biggest beef is with kicking it away when we have attacking momentum and don't have advantage though i.e. Beauden's grubber etc. One or two against set defence to mix it up sure, but not when we are on a roll.
-
I think doing the basics right is incredibly important but I also expect All Blacks do be doing more than just the basics. As I say, hopefully Holland develops into a player that's a bit more than just a safe pair of hands.
Again, I just think there's an interesting double standard between what we expect from a lock (in particular, this lock) and what we expect from any of our loose forwards. Retallick and Whitelock were certainly much more than just busy and accurate (and from right at the starts of their careers too). Holland may get there after only a couple of games too.
@Mr-Fish said in All Blacks v France I:
I think doing the basics right is incredibly important but I also expect All Blacks do be doing more than just the basics. As I say, hopefully Holland develops into a player that's a bit more than just a safe pair of hands.
Again, I just think there's an interesting double standard between what we expect from a lock (in particular, this lock) and what we expect from any of our loose forwards. Retallick and Whitelock were certainly much more than just busy and accurate (and from right at the starts of their careers too). Holland may get there after only a couple of games too.
I would say he puts pressure on 9s when they kicking from base of rucks more than any other lock in NZ. Even when Barrett got the charge down, who was right beside him so the 9 couldn't go that way? Holland. Stop looking for locks and props on highlight packages. He's putting pressure on at second phase most of time and making tackles (highest on Saturday with 16, 13 carries etc etc. I really feel you need to watch a little harder.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v France I:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France I:
For the same reason as savea i reckon I'm close to done with DMac.
I can understand the allure, when it goes right it goes very right, but is it balanced out by the untold errors and created pressure?
I'm quite torn on DMac and Beauden, I caused a bit of a stir when I said picking Beauden for this test wasn't all that controversial as I think they are much of a muchness really. Personally I'd have DMac starting at 10 just on account of his kicking game, as we can struggle to get out of our half when on the back foot otherwise.
But outside of that both players go from the sublime to the ridiculous far too often for test match footy.
Hard disagree. McKenzie kicked the ball away badly once (and fortuitously grabbed the rebound). He also threw an intercept - which really doesn't count, as it was under penalty advantage so why not.
Aside from that , his decision-making was pretty conservative - he took contact in preference to trying too much on several occasions.My takeaway was he danced around and then flat footed just popped it to a stationary forward to get smashed.
An the same thing can be described as: he looked for gaps, and made/took a few half-gaps - and when there wasn't one he recycled and maintained possession.
And are you going to rubbish other players for similar/worse poor options? How about Roigard for ignoring Jordie inside him who would have scored? And for his bizarre kick to nobody on attack?
Oh now I see how this game is played: If I respond to a comment at odds with my opinion I then need to apply that analysis/ criticism to every other player too.
It's not that, it's just the persistent myth that McKenzie is still a guy who always looks for high risk plays - it irritates me, because a different standard is applied to him than other players.
He has played what, 3 super seasons in a row where he has played relatively conservatively - kicked a lot and kicked well. His sideways running is all but gone from his game, unless it's a quick look for a gap or to buy time for his forwards - which are good things, especially when you're small and need support or risk a turnover. I think he's changed (and continues to change) the way he plays hugely, and the comparisons to Barrett - who hasn't changed a thing, pretty much ever?@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v France I:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France I:
For the same reason as savea i reckon I'm close to done with DMac.
I can understand the allure, when it goes right it goes very right, but is it balanced out by the untold errors and created pressure?
I'm quite torn on DMac and Beauden, I caused a bit of a stir when I said picking Beauden for this test wasn't all that controversial as I think they are much of a muchness really. Personally I'd have DMac starting at 10 just on account of his kicking game, as we can struggle to get out of our half when on the back foot otherwise.
But outside of that both players go from the sublime to the ridiculous far too often for test match footy.
Hard disagree. McKenzie kicked the ball away badly once (and fortuitously grabbed the rebound). He also threw an intercept - which really doesn't count, as it was under penalty advantage so why not.
Aside from that , his decision-making was pretty conservative - he took contact in preference to trying too much on several occasions.My takeaway was he danced around and then flat footed just popped it to a stationary forward to get smashed.
An the same thing can be described as: he looked for gaps, and made/took a few half-gaps - and when there wasn't one he recycled and maintained possession.
And are you going to rubbish other players for similar/worse poor options? How about Roigard for ignoring Jordie inside him who would have scored? And for his bizarre kick to nobody on attack?
Oh now I see how this game is played: If I respond to a comment at odds with my opinion I then need to apply that analysis/ criticism to every other player too.
It's not that, it's just the persistent myth that McKenzie is still a guy who always looks for high risk plays - it irritates me, because a different standard is applied to him than other players.
He has played what, 3 super seasons in a row where he has played relatively conservatively - kicked a lot and kicked well. His sideways running is all but gone from his game, unless it's a quick look for a gap or to buy time for his forwards - which are good things, especially when you're small and need support or risk a turnover. I think he's changed (and continues to change) the way he plays hugely, and the comparisons to Barrett - who hasn't changed a thing, pretty much ever?Yep, agree with this. If the ABs want him to play conservatively he'll play conservatively, he's done it specific games for the Chiefs for the last three years. Arguably the Chiefs veered too far away from that style in the final to their detriment.
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
That may be true, but I think it's a prime example of a statistic in isolation obscuring the reality of the overall picture. It's frequently multiple phases leading to an advantage, leading to multiple penalties, leading to a card, leading to try off a lineout from one of those infringements. And then frequently another score as a result of playing against 14. And the perception of the ref is that the defensive team is infringing repeatedly.
I suspect that penalties and cards are more likely from the lineout than from more phases too. I wouldn't assume that this hasn't been thought out. Multiple teams do the same thing
Maybe they are more likely, but that doesn't really change things - you still get that lineout if you take 10 phases under advantage, and will frequently get another offside penalty/advantage in that time. That extra is then on top of the upcoming penalty at the lineout, and there's your card.
My biggest beef is with kicking it away when we have attacking momentum and don't have advantage though i.e. Beauden's grubber etc. One or two against set defence to mix it up sure, but not when we are on a roll.
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
Maybe they are more likely, but that doesn't really change things - you still get that lineout if you take 10 phases under advantage
Burning the advantage would be criminal though. 10 phases gets into a subjective ref call. Or, another example is a bad cleanout (foul play) and you lose everything. That is a risk in the current game.
I just object to the idea that everything is stupid and that teams don't actually look at these numbers. Getting to the preferred situation immediately is a tactical call that will be thought about
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
Maybe they are more likely, but that doesn't really change things - you still get that lineout if you take 10 phases under advantage
Burning the advantage would be criminal though. 10 phases gets into a subjective ref call. Or, another example is a bad cleanout (foul play) and you lose everything. That is a risk in the current game.
I just object to the idea that everything is stupid and that teams don't actually look at these numbers. Getting to the preferred situation immediately is a tactical call that will be thought about
@Duluth said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
Maybe they are more likely, but that doesn't really change things - you still get that lineout if you take 10 phases under advantage
Burning the advantage would be criminal though. 10 phases gets into a subjective ref call. Or, another example is a bad cleanout (foul play) and you lose everything. That is a risk in the current game.
I just object to the idea that everything is stupid and that teams don't actually look at these numbers. Getting to the preferred situation immediately is a tactical call that will be thought about
I'm sure they look at it, but isn't it pretty obvious that some other teams do press the advantage? Presumably they've come to a different conclusion, so it must be debatable at least.
-
I hate that he gets no credit for beating 3 dudes
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France I:
I hate that he gets no credit for beating 3 dudes
2 dudes. I don’t think beating old revolving door Campese even counts does it ?
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
Maybe they are more likely, but that doesn't really change things - you still get that lineout if you take 10 phases under advantage
Burning the advantage would be criminal though. 10 phases gets into a subjective ref call. Or, another example is a bad cleanout (foul play) and you lose everything. That is a risk in the current game.
I just object to the idea that everything is stupid and that teams don't actually look at these numbers. Getting to the preferred situation immediately is a tactical call that will be thought about
I'm sure they look at it, but isn't it pretty obvious that some other teams do press the advantage? Presumably they've come to a different conclusion, so it must be debatable at least.
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
so it must be debatable at least.
I was responding to the claim it was stupid and 'why would a team do this'
-
I hate that he gets no credit for beating 3 dudes
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France I:
I hate that he gets no credit for beating 3 dudes
Unfortunately it's a results based business
-
Good to see that Holland has instantly transformed into a Fern favourite.
I'm looking forward to seeing him grow, amazing how upset people are getting simply because I suggested he was underwhelming. Will dip out of this debate, clearly something I'm missing!
-
Good to see that Holland has instantly transformed into a Fern favourite.
I'm looking forward to seeing him grow, amazing how upset people are getting simply because I suggested he was underwhelming. Will dip out of this debate, clearly something I'm missing!
@Mr-Fish it's a really weird take, that a guy that did everything right in his debut test at a young age in a struggling team, including topping some critical stats - was underwhelming because he didn't make a Lomu like run or two. Be worth comparing with Vaai....
-
For the second test, though Tupaea did very well when he came in, Robertson should try something different with Big Jim on the bench. How many turnovers did the ABs win on saturday ? They need someone who is a menace at the breakdown. There are none in the forwards selected as Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final. The problem with the NZ best jackalers is that none of them is AB material (Christie, Withy, Choat).
-
For the second test, though Tupaea did very well when he came in, Robertson should try something different with Big Jim on the bench. How many turnovers did the ABs win on saturday ? They need someone who is a menace at the breakdown. There are none in the forwards selected as Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final. The problem with the NZ best jackalers is that none of them is AB material (Christie, Withy, Choat).
@cgrant said in All Blacks v France I:
Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final.
Didn't Kirifi win a last minute breakdown penalty in this game to give Canes one last shot at winning?
-
@cgrant said in All Blacks v France I:
Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final.
Didn't Kirifi win a last minute breakdown penalty in this game to give Canes one last shot at winning?
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v France I:
@cgrant said in All Blacks v France I:
Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final.
Didn't Kirifi win a last minute breakdown penalty in this game to give Canes one last shot at winning?
That sounds like facts. You really need to be focused on vibe
-
@cgrant said in All Blacks v France I:
Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final.
Didn't Kirifi win a last minute breakdown penalty in this game to give Canes one last shot at winning?
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v France I:
@cgrant said in All Blacks v France I:
Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final.
Didn't Kirifi win a last minute breakdown penalty in this game to give Canes one last shot at winning?
He certainly wasn't as prominent in that game as he had been all season. Made quite a few tackles. Lakai similarly quiet. Flanders was the pick of the Canes loosies.
-
@Chris said in All Blacks v France I:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France I:
@Chris said in All Blacks v France I:
Finau for a big unit really added no impact in this game,He was passive in the tackle he got knocked back a few times.And went no where forward.
Even though Vai'i maybe found out as a bit slow at 6 in the harder games, he was 100% better than Finau.Hard disagree. He dropped an early one cold and I was ready to write him off.
But after that he ran fucking hard and made yards in tight. He has a future i think.
Nah didn’t see any of that to me he was pretty weak.
People often see what they look for.
@booboo said in All Blacks v France I:
People often see what they look for.
No they don’t….
For what it’s worth I don’t have anything against either Beaudy or DMac but both have shown flaws in their play at 1st 5 that largely mirror each other - trying too hard to create the big play or appearing to want to score on almost every phase, mixed bag kicking game.
They are both excellent when it comes to broken play footy and instinctual play in those scenarios. We’ve seen some phenomenal play from both in that regard. But a more balanced methodical approach whilst having those broken play moments is what is needed. I saw more of that balanced approach from Caleb Muntz yesterday for Fiji than Beaudy for example. Not to discount some of the very good plays Beaudy did make.
I hold my breath every time I watch these two guys play 10.
-
@cgrant said in All Blacks v France I:
Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final.
Didn't Kirifi win a last minute breakdown penalty in this game to give Canes one last shot at winning?
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v France I:
@cgrant said in All Blacks v France I:
Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final.
Didn't Kirifi win a last minute breakdown penalty in this game to give Canes one last shot at winning?
I just watched the last 2 minutes and he didn't win any breakdown penalty.
Looking at the game stats the Brumbies won 6 turnovers and the Hurricanes won zero.
-
@booboo said in All Blacks v France I:
People often see what they look for.
No they don’t….
For what it’s worth I don’t have anything against either Beaudy or DMac but both have shown flaws in their play at 1st 5 that largely mirror each other - trying too hard to create the big play or appearing to want to score on almost every phase, mixed bag kicking game.
They are both excellent when it comes to broken play footy and instinctual play in those scenarios. We’ve seen some phenomenal play from both in that regard. But a more balanced methodical approach whilst having those broken play moments is what is needed. I saw more of that balanced approach from Caleb Muntz yesterday for Fiji than Beaudy for example. Not to discount some of the very good plays Beaudy did make.
I hold my breath every time I watch these two guys play 10.
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v France I:
@booboo said in All Blacks v France I:
People often see what they look for.
No they don’t….
For what it’s worth I don’t have anything against either Beaudy or DMac but both have shown flaws in their play at 1st 5 that largely mirror each other - trying too hard to create the big play or appearing to want to score on almost every phase, mixed bag kicking game.
They are both excellent when it comes to broken play footy and instinctual play in those scenarios. We’ve seen some phenomenal play from both in that regard. But a more balanced methodical approach whilst having those broken play moments is what is needed. I saw more of that balanced approach from Caleb Muntz yesterday for Fiji than Beaudy for example. Not to discount some of the very good plays Beaudy did make.
I hold my breath every time I watch these two guys play 10.
I hope that's a real product.
I think the same can be said for Mo in test rugby outside of his franchise rugby pond where he is easily the big fish. I never really took a side in the Mo v BB battles during the Foster era because I didn't think one was better than the other. So maybe that's just the state of 10s in NZ rugby these days?
I have more confidence in DMac being able to play a balanced approach then BB because I've seen him do it often over the last few years for the Chiefs.
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v France I:
@cgrant said in All Blacks v France I:
Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final.
Didn't Kirifi win a last minute breakdown penalty in this game to give Canes one last shot at winning?
I just watched the last 2 minutes and he didn't win any breakdown penalty.
Looking at the game stats the Brumbies won 6 turnovers and the Hurricanes won zero.
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v France I:
@cgrant said in All Blacks v France I:
Kirifi is not solid enough in that kind of phase against big forwards. Remember his game against the Brumbies in the quarter final.
Didn't Kirifi win a last minute breakdown penalty in this game to give Canes one last shot at winning?
I just watched the last 2 minutes and he didn't win any breakdown penalty.
Looking at the game stats the Brumbies won 6 turnovers and the Hurricanes won zero.
It wasn’t in the last minute but he did, however the Brumbies player knocked it on in the process so instead of us getting the penalty the ref awarded us a scrum instead. Just another dodgy call that didn’t go our way that night. Was a crucial part in the game as well.
-
@Mr-Fish it's a really weird take, that a guy that did everything right in his debut test at a young age in a struggling team, including topping some critical stats - was underwhelming because he didn't make a Lomu like run or two. Be worth comparing with Vaai....
@Bones said in All Blacks v France I:
@Mr-Fish it's a really weird take, that a guy that did everything right in his debut test at a young age in a struggling team, including topping some critical stats - was underwhelming because he didn't make a Lomu like run or two. Be worth comparing with Vaai....
Don't know who was expecting him to make any Lomu-like runs?
Again, just funny that Blackadder could make all his tackles, hit every breakdown, carry 20 times and he'd again be written off as 'busy but ineffective'. Maybe if our locks were better with ball in hand we wouldn't be so reliant on our loose forwards making all the good carries. You yourself @Bones said having a more dynamic front row could have resulted in a 7-point swing.
I've been pretty open that he could grow into a great player and that I think he should get more minutes. I think Vaa'i was pretty average for his first couple of years and it was only with regular game time that he started to step up.
Just to reiterate what I said in my first post on the matter:
He didn't really put a foot wrong but he also didn't do anything to suggest he's a better option that Lord or Tuipulotu at this stage. I'm absolutely not saying he shouldn't be in there, I'm as keen to see him given a go as anyone else and I'd love for him to be the new Brodie Retallick, but I've not yet (yet is key, obviously) seen anything from Holland to suggest he's anything more than a safe pair of hands in the second row.
