All Blacks v France I
-
@cgrant you think that Tavatavanawai is more of a threat than Kirifi?
What sort of defensive shape are we taking to have him ruck hunting?
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@Nepia said in All Blacks v France I:
@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.
It's more than that - people treat the two as comparable as both having had sooo many AB chances and not proven themselves. It's bullshit.
Beauden first started at 10 for the ABs in 2014. 20-fucking-14! He had his 7th start at 10 for the ABs in 2016. McKenzie probably had his 7th start last year I'd say? Last year was certainly the first time he has ever started two in a row.
BB has had far, far, far more opportunities than McKenzie. These guys are not in the same situation at all. One is a 100% known quantity at test level and is never going to be the player we want at 10, the other has shown glimpses and needs more opportunitiesDMac sort of shat the bed in the quarter final and final of Super rugby this year. I agree he needs a few more chances, but the jury is well and truly out on whether he can stand strong and not do silly shit when his pack isn't dominating.
@Frank said in All Blacks v France I:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:
@Nepia said in All Blacks v France I:
@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.
It's more than that - people treat the two as comparable as both having had sooo many AB chances and not proven themselves. It's bullshit.
Beauden first started at 10 for the ABs in 2014. 20-fucking-14! He had his 7th start at 10 for the ABs in 2016. McKenzie probably had his 7th start last year I'd say? Last year was certainly the first time he has ever started two in a row.
BB has had far, far, far more opportunities than McKenzie. These guys are not in the same situation at all. One is a 100% known quantity at test level and is never going to be the player we want at 10, the other has shown glimpses and needs more opportunitiesDMac sort of shat the bed in the quarter final and final of Super rugby this year. I agree he needs a few more chances, but the jury is well and truly out on whether he can stand strong and not do silly shit when his pack isn't dominating.
He was quiet and well looked after and his team was beaten. That's not ideal, but it's just not true to say he shat the bed or was doing silly shit. He wasn't dominant and he had been in the regular season, that's all. You could say the same for his forwards.
-
If people think Blackadder is a solution just go and watch the first game of Super Rugby this year, Kirifi completely runs over him. That probably sealed his fate IMO.
Certain players have had plenty of time in the jersey to make a statement and they haven’t taken their chance. It’s now time for these new guys to have a real crack at cementing their spots. Maybe instead of writing players off after one test, let’s give them a real chance instead of making changes every second game. To me that’s half the problem, we need some sort of consistency in selection.
-
If people think Blackadder is a solution just go and watch the first game of Super Rugby this year, Kirifi completely runs over him. That probably sealed his fate IMO.
Certain players have had plenty of time in the jersey to make a statement and they haven’t taken their chance. It’s now time for these new guys to have a real crack at cementing their spots. Maybe instead of writing players off after one test, let’s give them a real chance instead of making changes every second game. To me that’s half the problem, we need some sort of consistency in selection.
@Canes4life said in All Blacks v France I:
If people think Blackadder is a solution just go and watch the first game of Super Rugby this year, Kirifi completely runs over him. That probably sealed his fate IMO.
Certain players have had plenty of time in the jersey to make a statement and they haven’t taken their chance. It’s now time for these new guys to have a real crack at cementing their spots. Maybe instead of writing players off after one test, let’s give them a real chance instead of making changes every second game. To me that’s half the problem, we need some sort of consistency in selection.
Clarke ran over him in the SF
-
One tactical change the All Blacks may make is to bring Tavatavanawai into the matchday 23, purely because he can cover the wing to a better level than the other midfielders.
I'd argue that DMac coming on and Jordan sliding to the wing changed the way we would have played to a significant degree. If Jordan is your fullback, then ideally he shouldn't really be moving to the wing unless there is an injury IMO. I think it is preferable that unless Jordan gets injured, that when DMac comes on, he replaces Barrett.
A spine of Roigard, Barrett & DMac is too far in the direction of risk-taking and needs to be balanced with a safer pair of hands (Jordan).
-
@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:
@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.
Do we know the stats on where on the field do teams elect to take certain options? Not stating anything with confidence, just exploring possible reasons.
-
Re Tavatavanawai.
I thought he was a chance at EOYT last year (think I said so ... have no proof) because of his robust tackle busting running. He wasn't the turnover guru he became this year.
I don't think he was picked for his t/os. He was picked for his physicality. If they pick him I reckon it will be as a power runner, not an extra openside.
-
Jordan takes plenty of risks. That's why he had the most turnovers conceded in Super Rugby this year.
Having said that I would prefer to see Jordan at fullback over Dmac.
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Jordan takes plenty of risks. That's why he had the most turnovers conceded in Super Rugby this year.
Having said that I would prefer to see Jordan at fullback over Dmac.
As we know, stats don’t always tell the full story. I’d say generally speaking Jordan is less likely to run across the field, and is less likely to try a chip and chase than both BB and DMac.
-
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Jordan takes plenty of risks. That's why he had the most turnovers conceded in Super Rugby this year.
Having said that I would prefer to see Jordan at fullback over Dmac.
As we know, stats don’t always tell the full story. I’d say generally speaking Jordan is less likely to run across the field, and is less likely to try a chip and chase than both BB and DMac.
@frugby said in All Blacks v France I:
is less likely to try a chip and chase than both BB and DMac.
I wouldn't be so sure - some more promising signs this year, but I wouldn't have included DMac there (think it'd be a struggle to find anyone in the world that chips more than BB, I'm pretty sure Faatonu Fili is retired).
-
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
-
Re Tavatavanawai.
I thought he was a chance at EOYT last year (think I said so ... have no proof) because of his robust tackle busting running. He wasn't the turnover guru he became this year.
I don't think he was picked for his t/os. He was picked for his physicality. If they pick him I reckon it will be as a power runner, not an extra openside.
@booboo said in All Blacks v France I:
Re Tavatavanawai.
I thought he was a chance at EOYT last year (think I said so ... have no proof) because of his robust tackle busting running. He wasn't the turnover guru he became this year.
I don't think he was picked for his t/os. He was picked for his physicality. If they pick him I reckon it will be as a power runner, not an extra openside.
I reckon they have. All of the better teams have at least one backline player that puts extra pressure on when it hits the deck. We’ve had our fair share over the years too. His low centre of gravity is a great asset and he can get in under the cleaners hits.
-
I have a bit more hope for game 2. I don't think we knew at all what to expect in the first match and we now know that the French team can tactically kick and expose gaps ruthlessly.
They are far too good of a team for us to try and score off every possession, so I anticipate we'll bring a much more controlled game plan where by we try to execute the basics much better and reign in all the grubbers, chips and hospital passes.
One can only hope.
-
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 said in All Blacks v France I:
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!
Mate in no way was I upset, just (same as you) giving my opinion of what I saw. I have no probs at all with you being underwhelmed, but I not sure he suddenly became a Fern favourite. I have sung his praises for a couple of years (but I am a nerd who watches young players etc). Plus I think a few Ferners who haven't seen him are posters who more watch their own teams a bit more, and a tight forward is not usually someone you notice in highlight packages. It is in no way suggesting(well from me personally) suggesting you shouldn't have a different opinion mate, but please give us the same right mate, none of us is definitely right or wrong just giving opinions.
-
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.
Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.
It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.
But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...
-
@Mr-Fish said in All Blacks v France I:
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!
Mate in no way was I upset, just (same as you) giving my opinion of what I saw. I have no probs at all with you being underwhelmed, but I not sure he suddenly became a Fern favourite. I have sung his praises for a couple of years (but I am a nerd who watches young players etc). Plus I think a few Ferners who haven't seen him are posters who more watch their own teams a bit more, and a tight forward is not usually someone you notice in highlight packages. It is in no way suggesting(well from me personally) suggesting you shouldn't have a different opinion mate, but please give us the same right mate, none of us is definitely right or wrong just giving opinions.
@Dan54 said in All Blacks v France I:
@Mr-Fish said in All Blacks v France I:
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!
Mate in no way was I upset, just (same as you) giving my opinion of what I saw. I have no probs at all with you being underwhelmed, but I not sure he suddenly became a Fern favourite. I have sung his praises for a couple of years (but I am a nerd who watches young players etc). Plus I think a few Ferners who haven't seen him are posters who more watch their own teams a bit more, and a tight forward is not usually someone you notice in highlight packages. It is in no way suggesting(well from me personally) suggesting you shouldn't have a different opinion mate, but please give us the same right mate, none of us is definitely right or wrong just giving opinions.
I think it's been fairly obvious since he was 18 or 19 that he would be a 50+ cap All Black minimum.
He's always been a much bigger body than Darry and Lord with the extra weight.
Maybe he had to carry a bit more this game because Newell and De Groot were starting?
Might be better to start Tosi or Norris to have another close in carrier in the tight five? Though I guess Tuipulotu might be starting if the captain is injured?
-
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.
Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.
It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.
But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.
Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.
It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.
But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...
Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.
Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.
It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.
But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...
Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.
Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.
It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.
But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...
Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.
The defensive line is more prepared for constestables. It's expected they will lose the ball some times. Losing the ball by a breakdown steal is more of a surprise.
Last year for example the Blues won the most ruck turnovers by backs.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.
Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.
It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.
But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...
Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.
The defensive line is more prepared for constestables. It's expected they will lose the ball some times. Losing the ball by a breakdown steal is more of a surprise.
Last year for example the Blues won the most ruck turnovers by backs.
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:
@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:
Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes
I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.
Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.
Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.
It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.
But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...
Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.
The defensive line is more prepared for constestables. It's expected they will lose the ball some times. Losing the ball by a breakdown steal is more of a surprise.
Last year for example the Blues won the most ruck turnovers by backs.
and the defensive cross-kick? Rieko didn't look very prepared for that one...
