All Blacks v Argentina II
-
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
Love is athletic, but he's little.
If hurricane stats are realistic, he's 1.84 m, 92kg when last weighed.
Bigger than DMac, taller than Dan Carter, and probably about the same weight now. He isn't a towering fullback but he's not that little.
-
@sparky said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
I took this seriously until the Welsh Anthem bit.
"I used to be the norm. It is not good enough."
That would be right, no one is 'supposed' to be best in the world. It's not a given. Teams have to fight for it.
It doesn't matter if their club teams are amateur if their national side has international experience and their coaches (cough cough) are better than ours.
Not impressed with his manchild rant. -
Had a little re-watch this evening. A few things that spring to mind.
We made far too many largely unforced errors. Early on dropping cold a couple of catchable passes, Jordie's skewed chip, giving away dumb penalties and towards the end a couple of lineout malfunctions. You could easily find ten errors from poor skills or foolishness that stopped momentum cold.
Three yellow cards to nil - again handing momentum to Argentina - and points. A killer, but still not terminal even for this side - though Sevu's probably gets close.
Kicking. The Argentine's seemed to largely be kicking with momentum behind them - so their kicks were attacking kicks, while most of ours were defensive. They mainly kicked off shorter than we did and got arms up into the receptions to contest (and win), while we mainly kicked off deeper. Similarly, with box kicks - especially later in th game - almost all of theirs were contestible and they were rolling the dice by getting an arm up to disrupt the catcher - sometimes knocking on, but other times causing us to spill the ball loose. Ours were mainly too deep to contest. Sometimes to touch. Maybe we were backing our lineout?
These things are fixable.
What I wonder about our backline, though is - do we have to go back to the lesson of RWC 1991.
That day, we fielded Bachop, Fox, Timu, McCahill, Innes, Kirwan and Crowley.
Afterwards Simon Poidevin (the Wallaby openside) said the game was pretty easy for him because he knew neither Fox nor McCahill would run - so he just headed straight for Innes. Crowley also wasn't much of an offensive threat and Timu a bit mediocre. So Innes and Kirwan - can't remember if Bachop ran or not. Late in the game Foxy dummied and broke clear, but the cover mopped him up because he had no real pace.
The lesson was - almost everyone in your backline needs to offer offensive threat. Otherwise it's too easy to mark the threats and shut them down. We need size, speed, outrageous skills.
When you're running around with Christie, Beaudy, Rieko, Jordie, Billy, Sevu and Will - who will, apart from Will?
It's pretty bland offensively.
-
-
-
@Chris-B Yes, there is a predictability on attack. By attempting to play it safe and minimise mistakes they actually magnify their errors. Mils Muliana also made a good point on the breakdown on the critical nature of the 8-9-10 axis as decision-makers. We’re not seeing that right now. Parker obviously was on debut in this test. Christie and BB, while knowing each other from the Blues, weren’t up for experimentation as Christie is a fourth choice selection. The difference maker in the AB backline is Roigard and his absence, along with the of Hotham, I think has been fatal for the attack. Roigard keeps the opposition guessing. He has a deeper and more accurate box kick than the rest of the candidates, but also a superior running and passing game.
When you add the dysfunction in the back three under the high ball, this is an easy backline to decode. In fact, there is nothing there to decipher whatsoever. There is not a functioning brain in the backline. Yes, Jordan, but he was trying to do the job of three people and I firmly believe his cynical play that led to the yellow card reflected the fact that neither Reece nor Rieko were stepping up;
The issue for the team overall is a lack of confidence - in the gameplan (assuming there is one), in each other and in themselves.
Is it fixable? You would hope so. But it is going to take coaches with clear, calm communication skills and a cool eye for strategy to turn this around. And I don’t see that at all right now
-
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Nepia He's not from Hawkes Bay is he?
Seven tries in 26 tests - he's not really in the conversation for great AB wings. Kirwan, Wright and Inga all rate higher from his tenure.
But, way to distract from the point.
He went to Lindersfarne which is essentially the equivalent of being from Ta$man/Crusaders.
Inga was in that same team (he's the guy who should come in when Timu goes to fullback) and he only scored 5 test tries - it wasn't a try glut era. Those two, and JK would have bucketloads in the modern era.
No one said he was in the conversation for greatest AB wings at any rate, but he was far from mediocre. Your comments on him suggests you didn't actually watch rugby in that era ....
Also, I'm not trying to distract from your point, I'm just pointing out a statement you made is wrong.
-
It’s always entertaining reading these threads after the fact, especially after a loss.
Shit performance, and I hate losing as much as the next man, but…
-
We are currently number one in the world, some of the doomsayers on here need to get a grip.
-
Argentina are a good side, played to their strengths and did it bloody well.
-
We played shit, which really sucks. Happens sometimes.
-
Our forwards are shit hot, with growing depth in all positions.
-
Backs are a bloody worry, no rhythm, no timing, when was the last time we saw a sharp backline move in some space with the good front foot ball our forwards are providing.
-
We need to ditch our god awful, kicking game. Specifically shitty box kicks, or chip kicks.
-
Pick D Mac at 10, then pick the backs around him that will make the most of his excellent passing game.
All doable, but will Razor open his eyes to what we can all see.
-
-
@His-Bobness Yes - Roigard can hopefully make a difference - even Hotham and Ratima at his best. In fact, I agree with those whgo said Christie was one of our best in this test - but, he's more glue guy than game-breaker - and I think we've got too many glue guys.
Roigard should help. If Clarke can recapture his form from last year, he will. Tangitau looks very promising.
Throwing babies out with bathwater at this point won't be helpful, though. A couple of subtle changes.
-
@nostrildamus said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
Love is athletic, but he's little.
If hurricane stats are realistic, he's 1.84 m, 92kg when last weighed.
Bigger than DMac, taller than Dan Carter, and probably about the same weight now. He isn't a towering fullback but he's not that little.
Yes, he compares fine in size to people playing 10 - where he should play too.
-
@Nepia I wasn't really meaning to dismiss him - but, he';s a mediocre talent in terms of overall AB wings - and he was basically a kid at that world cup.
As I recall, Wright was supposed to play fullback.
And then like a few other HB greats he fucked off to league!
-
@nzzp said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Chris said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
I can only think he is the person setting this way of playing.
This is what you said that's probably not exactly what you intended. It reads like you are sheeting home responsibility to Smith.
No doubt Wayne may be pushing for a fast brand of rugby, but he should not be setting the direction of the team.
That must come from Razor and his assistants.It would be incredibly weak of the AN head coach to not set out the way his teams play.
I don't think Smith has that amount of power
-
Timu was much more of a threat with ball in hand than wright. Wright was a great finisher; but Kirwan and Inga were all round threats.
If you played Fox, why would you have Crowley at the back; Timu Kirwan Innes Inga as outsides - way more threatening. Especially if you've got Fox and who? inside who are zero threat to run the ball.
Yeah would have been easy for Poidevin.
I think your memory is no good - Fox breaking the line! I sure as hell cant remember ever seeing that!
Search for that and even AI will just give you an lol! -
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
Had a little re-watch this evening. A few things that spring to mind.
We made far too many largely unforced errors. Early on dropping cold a couple of catchable passes, Jordie's skewed chip, giving away dumb penalties and towards the end a couple of lineout malfunctions. You could easily find ten errors from poor skills or foolishness that stopped momentum cold.
Three yellow cards to nil - again handing momentum to Argentina - and points. A killer, but still not terminal even for this side - though Sevu's probably gets close.
Kicking. The Argentine's seemed to largely be kicking with momentum behind them - so their kicks were attacking kicks, while most of ours were defensive. They mainly kicked off shorter than we did and got arms up into the receptions to contest (and win), while we mainly kicked off deeper. Similarly, with box kicks - especially later in th game - almost all of theirs were contestible and they were rolling the dice by getting an arm up to disrupt the catcher - sometimes knocking on, but other times causing us to spill the ball loose. Ours were mainly too deep to contest. Sometimes to touch. Maybe we were backing our lineout?
These things are fixable.
What I wonder about our backline, though is - do we have to go back to the lesson of RWC 1991.
That day, we fielded Bachop, Fox, Timu, McCahill, Innes, Kirwan and Crowley.
Afterwards Simon Poidevin (the Wallaby openside) said the game was pretty easy for him because he knew neither Fox nor McCahill would run - so he just headed straight for Innes. Crowley also wasn't much of an offensive threat and Timu a bit mediocre. So Innes and Kirwan - can't remember if Bachop ran or not. Late in the game Foxy dummied and broke clear, but the cover mopped him up because he had no real pace.
The lesson was - almost everyone in your backline needs to offer offensive threat. Otherwise it's too easy to mark the threats and shut them down. We need size, speed, outrageous skills.
When you're running around with Christie, Beaudy, Rieko, Jordie, Billy, Sevu and Will - who will, apart from Will?
It's pretty bland offensively.
DMac had the backline playing pretty well last ywar for the most part.
He also made far more line breaks than any player in world rugby and was named at 10 in the world xv.
Now our backline has ground to a halt.
-
@mohikamo I have a completely precise memory of Fox breaking clear in that match. It was one of the few moments that gave us hope that we might win - and reinforced Poidevin's comment.
They ignored him, so there was space to run. He dummied and ran 25 metres - but the break was easily contained.
Nepia is somewhat correct as I recall - the post-match analyisis was that picking Crowley was a disaster (they called him up from outside the squad, I think) - we should have put Timu at the back and Inga on the wing - for the reasons I've outline above.
I daresay Grizz wanted to, but Harty countermanded him!
-
@nzzp said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
Stat watch from a mate - from WIkipedia, may or may not be fully accurate.
The last two years of Foster in the rugby championship: 9 games, 4 yellows (rest of league 32).
Current coaching: 8 games 12 yellows, (rest of league 14 cards)The whole discipline thing is a can of worms for me.
What Reece did was dumb, what Jordan did I see done all the time and Vaai getting the yellow was borderline/harsh for me. Ultimately though I have no real issue with any of the cards.........
However, Argentina had a period of 4 infringements back to back while we were hot on attack in their red zone. Berry did nothing, despite being an offside pedant all night, inside the 10 on lineouts etc.
One team gets lashed for indiscipline. The other is lauded for keeping their noses clean.
But thats not what happened was it? One team was held to a higher standard than the other by the ref.
Taavao gets a red for his tackle on Ringrose. Porter gets yellow for breaking Retallicks eye socket.
Which team is more ill-disciplined there?
Following on from this, Scott Hansen was in the media scrum a few weeks back saying we wanted to "give the TMO the night off and let him have a cup of tea and enjoy the game".
These days there are two games. There is the first game which are the 80 minutes on the field, and then game 2 is the intervening 7 days from final whistle of last game to first whistle of the next. We also fall down miserably here.
Razor or Scooter or Hansen ,in his next scrum when pressed, have to allude to the fact that while our own discipline was poor, had the same level of rigorous scrutiny been applied to both teams, then maybe the card count would have been 3-2 etc "we are just looking for consistency in that space" or some other corporate bullshit.
We have been the most carded team in the world since SBW and Garces got acquainted in 2017.
But we never cry blue murder enough at our oppositions getting away with it.
-
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@mohikamo I have a completely precise memory of Fox breaking clear in that match. It was one of the few moments that gave us hope that we might win - and reinforced Poidevin's comment.
They ignored him, so there was space to run. He dummied and ran 25 metres - but the break was easily contained.
Nepia is somewhat correct as I recall - the post-match analyisis was that picking Crowley was a disaster (they called him up from outside the squad, I think) - we should have put Timu at the back and Inga on the wing - for the reasons I've outline above.
I daresay Grizz wanted to, but Harty countermanded him!
You can all fill your boots here:
-
Hurricanes: Player
Rugby World Cup 1991 - Australia vs New Zealand
