All Blacks v Argentina II
-
Your Jordan example wasn't about coaching
It was poor passing making the receiver check their stride that was the problem
If the ball had been passed for Jordan to run on to it he could have used that speed to bisect the two defenders and/or grubber kick ahead at close to top speed with both Argentinian defenders having to turn
Both options would have resulted in dramatically different outcomes
EDIT
Saw your point 2
-
-
-
@pakman said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
I noticed during rewatch. Don’t have equipment to capture it clearly.
I think your eyes might be deceiving you. You can see the ball at the top of the right hand post, its shadow briefly appearing on the inside of the post as it's going through. Seems pretty clear to me.
-
@junior said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Chris said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@brodean said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Chris said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@brodean said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Chris said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@canefan said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Chris said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@canefan said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
Can anyone remember how Razor's Crusaders teams played? My recollection was they did the basics well. But I could be wrong
Strong set piece, good kicking game and put a lot of phases together to exert pressure on the oppositions defence.
That's what I thought. That's what I based my hope for Razor on. So what is this shit we're being served up then???
The one different piece of the coaching puzzle is Wayne Smith this really is a fingerprint of Smiths helter skelter run at all costs game, as it was mentioned above the Black Ferns used this pattern as soon as Smith came on board.
I can only think he is the person setting this way of playing.
As it makes no sense Razor,Hansen especially had a completely different way of playing for 7 years at the Crusaders.Razor and Hansen are culpable. You can't make Smith a scape goat. He's only an occasional mentor.
Who said I am making him a scapegoat but why change a game plan that worked for 7 years and won 7 titles to a game plan similar to what the Black ferns and other teams have used under Smith, seems to point to something changing.
He is a mentor they talk to every week more than once I know that for a fact.You continue to try and make Smith a scape goat with this comment.
Robertson and co are middle aged men with decades of coaching experience.
They can choose to take and leave whatever advice Smith gives them but the buck stops with them and ultimately Robertson is 100% responsible for the outcomes as head coach.
No I am stating a fact its there for you to see why things may have changed since the Crusaders.
And I did state Razor needs to be responsible for his decisions
You are just picking out a true statement and bleating about it.Why are you putting the change entirely down to Smith’s influence? Maybe Razor and co have decided they can’t or don’t want to play the same way as the Crusaders because of the talent available in the ABs. Maybe there is another reason why they think a different approach is warranted at AB and test level. Putting it all down to Smith’s influence - especially when you have Ryan and Holland also added to the mix - seems like a real stretch.
If you read my other posts you will see I have stated this is on Razor to make the ultimate decisions it is on his head.
That is hardly completely blaming Smith. -
-
@antipodean and a player who spent a fair bit of time at FB
-
From a mate who rewatched the game (which is probably more than a lot of professional pundits seem to do). Long story short, the stats support the initial response that our aerial work was suuuuuck.
NZ kicked for distance that was clearly a coaching tactic.
In the first half we only had two kicks out of 14 that we put pressure on the reciever (Not aerial contested just within about 5m of the player when he gets the ball). This was Jordie's Dumb Chip Kick that went 5min and Billy's 70 Punt from a turnover, ie not planned plays.
Second half we put Up a few more contestable but did not win a single aerial contest off our 27 kicks. We only put them under pressure a third of the time. On the wingers Reiko contested one, and Sevu Reece 0.Now Argentina They kicked 28 times and only 6 of those did not have pressure. When there was an aerial contest they won 9 out of 13 and there was a couple of no contests that they won too. Alot of these kicks were really short 10-15m but the 11, 14 and the two big flankers just got up and caused trouble.
Sevu Reece did not contest a single high ball all game, he often stood aside when Will J was coming through.
Largely they did not target Reiko under the high ball but the two that he "contested" he looked freaken terrible.
NZ got possession back on 2/7 contestables that Will Jordan went up for ie Kicks that WIll Jordan was in an aerial contest for (5 on defence, 2 on offence)
We won 4 of 18 aerial contests in the match. These are: a Holland Lifted catch off a kick off, a knock on in the contest and two tap backs by Will J and Jordie.
-
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
Maybe they were a sticking plaster for deeper issues? We really can't say one way or another
We have changed the coaching staff. after RWC2023. The only area we haven't is Jason Ryan - the one area where things are looking good.
Look at how far the Wallabies have come in 2 years under Schmidt.
But isn't that a re-hash of the "look how well the Crusaders have done under Razor" argument? Maybe there's deeper problems.
Even if they were sticking plaster on deeper issues - it worked - there's no reason you can't make changes in the short term and look at deeper issues. It's not mutually exclusive - I'm not saying don't look at deeper issues - I'm saying doing that doesn't mean you should exclude looking at the current coaching group and look to make changes.
Moar and Plumtree weren't up to it. It was a bad look for Fozzie because it was the coaching staff he put in place.
Jase Ryan is performing well because he's shown to be a good test level coach - it didn't take him very long at all when he came in during 2022 to show some big shifts in the forwards. There were some ups and downs for sure but the trend was definite improvement and quickly.
The likes of Holland and Scott Hansen have been with the coaching group for 19 tests. Plumtree and Moar got 24 tests.
19 tests and these blokes are putting out the worst AB backline I can ever recall. It's not knee jerk to suggest there should be changes.
Schmidt at the Wallabies and Razor at the Crusaders are two completely different scenarios - one is test rugby - one is franchise rugby - Schmidt had taken over the Wallabies at one of their lowest ebbs ever with 15 odd tests to prepare for the Lions without any established 10s (then losing the one 10 he hitched his ride to the game before the Lions). Razor also didn't have an established 10 but did have a young gun 10 that he had coached to the title in the npc and took over the most successful franchise in Super Rugby - and whilst they had only made the quarter finals and missed the playoffs the prior 2 years - they had made the final 2 of the 4 years before that.
-
@KiwiMurph time to get Reihana in I reckon. I think he’s our best prospect as a genuine 10 without all the extras.
I don’t mind Love as a player but as a 10 he just seems like a younger version of DMac - a 15 trying his best to play 10.
-
@voodoo said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@canefan said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Chris said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@canefan said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
Can anyone remember how Razor's Crusaders teams played? My recollection was they did the basics well. But I could be wrong
Strong set piece, good kicking game and put a lot of phases together to exert pressure on the oppositions defence.
That's what I thought. That's what I based my hope for Razor on. So what is this shit we're being served up then???
As old mate @ACT-Crusader would say, there are clearly not enough Crusaders in this side
Truer words have never been spoken….
-
@nzzp said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
From a mate who rewatched the game (which is probably more than a lot of professional pundits seem to do). Long story short, the stats support the initial response that our aerial work was suuuuuck.
NZ kicked for distance that was clearly a coaching tactic.
In the first half we only had two kicks out of 14 that we put pressure on the reciever (Not aerial contested just within about 5m of the player when he gets the ball). This was Jordie's Dumb Chip Kick that went 5min and Billy's 70 Punt from a turnover, ie not planned plays.
Second half we put Up a few more contestable but did not win a single aerial contest off our 27 kicks. We only put them under pressure a third of the time. On the wingers Reiko contested one, and Sevu Reece 0.Now Argentina They kicked 28 times and only 6 of those did not have pressure. When there was an aerial contest they won 9 out of 13 and there was a couple of no contests that they won too. Alot of these kicks were really short 10-15m but the 11, 14 and the two big flankers just got up and caused trouble.
Sevu Reece did not contest a single high ball all game, he often stood aside when Will J was coming through.
Largely they did not target Reiko under the high ball but the two that he "contested" he looked freaken terrible.
NZ got possession back on 2/7 contestables that Will Jordan went up for ie Kicks that WIll Jordan was in an aerial contest for (5 on defence, 2 on offence)
We won 4 of 18 aerial contests in the match. These are: a Holland Lifted catch off a kick off, a knock on in the contest and two tap backs by Will J and Jordie.
There is one other problem with the kick long approach aside from the fact that you can't contest long kicks..... You have to cover so much more ground to.even have a chance to make any kind of play on the ball.
Exhibit a - After Argies score their first penalty BB kicks long, deep into the 22 and so all the ABs have to cover ground from the halfway line to the 22.
Contrast with the Argie approach of kicking short -their restarts are barely going 10 metres so their contesters barely have any running to do.
Kicking short in this sense is just a much more efficient and energy saving tactic.
-
I realize that the rationale for kicking long is to concede possession in exchange for territory and pressure the opposition into making mistakes in their ,22 but this is where the AB plan was flawed -
Argentina are very good at exiting their 22. Frankly they did a phenomenal job in the first test in getting out of their 22 WITH EASE every time the ball was kicked long. They also tends to get a lot of mileage with their kicks so even if the ABs got a lineout it was not deep in Argie territory it was nearer the halfway line.
-
@gt12 said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@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:
Amazing how you can AI imaginary games that never happened.
Rugby World Cup 1991 - Australia vs New Zealand