All Blacks v Argentina II
-
@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 heās our best prospect as a genuine 10 without all the extras.
I donāt 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 spokenā¦.
-
@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.
-
Just saw a clip of Taylor in his 100th cap
Fuck that's a shit piece of millenery
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@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.
Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't look seriously at changing the assistant coaches, just that we need to find out what is actually going wrong and what solutions there are before doing that in a knee-jerk manner. Appointing new assistants to fix problems you don't fully understand is a likely recipe for disaster
By the way, Foster wanted Ryan as forwards coach from day 1 when he took the job but was unavailable as he was aligned with Robertson's campaign. Also Schmidt, who wasn't available until 2022.
Did anyone in NZR think that one thru and work to give the head coach the assistants he wanted? Nah.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@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.
Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't look seriously at changing the assistant coaches, just that we need to find out what is actually going wrong and what solutions there are before doing that in a knee-jerk manner. Appointing new assistants to fix problems you don't fully understand is a likely recipe for disaster
By the way, Foster wanted Ryan as forwards coach from day 1 when he took the job but was unavailable as he was aligned with Robertson's campaign. Also Schmidt, who wasn't available until 2022.
Did anyone in NZR think that one thru and work to give the head coach the assistants he wanted? Nah.
He wanted Jamie Joseph
-
@zedsdeadbaby said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
He wanted Jamie Joseph
He wanted Ryan as Joseph had indicated he was coaching Japan. .
-
More from Dagg
'Half-hearted': Israel Dagg criticises All Black winger's performance
The back three had it's struggles against Argentina in Buenos Aires, especially under the high ball, after the home side put continuous pressure on Rieko Ioane, Sevu Reece and Will Jordan throughout the game.
āYou look at our chases at the moment, and Rieko, this isnāt a plot on him as a person, but he just canāt get up and chase and put pressure on the ball, like you look at him and heās getting up and heās kind of just half hearted into the into the jump,ā Dagg said on Sport Nationās Breakfast with Scotty & Izzy. āHeās not winning it, heās not brave, heās not courageous, and heās not getting up and trying to put a knee in the bloke, like, thatās what youāve got to do.ā āItās a 50-50 play, and right now itās a 70-30 play, because opposition would have seen that and itās gonna continue to come throughout the rest of the year and if we do not fix that, itās gonna be a difficult season.ā Dagg gives credit to Argentina whose kicks were accurate, and not too far that their chasers couldnāt get up and contest. āArgentina, they kicked really well, they werenāt kicking it too long, and I think thatās the problem at the moment. from our own kicks, we are kicking it too long and thereās not enough height on it. āSo youāre not giving our chasers a genuine option to get up and disrupt, Iāve got to be completely honest, thereās only one bloke there at the back at the moment they can catch high ball, and youāre relying heavily on a Will Jordan to get up and and do whatās asked of him.ā -
I'm not a fan of Squidge, because although he is entertaining, makes really good points and provides excellent analysis, it's just impossible to keep up with him
half the time.But ...
After France I he posted an analysis of how the ABs were setting up attack with four forwards creating ... something fuck I don't know, some voodoo drawing the defence half an inch closer and tricking the Frogs into missing tackles when they decide to pass wide or some shit.
Made a degree of sense at the time.
I don't watch rugby with any degree of detail. I watch which team is getting over the gainline, catching passes, making breaks etc. Not HOW they are doing it. I couldn't tell you how teams defend, just if they are. Hell, do I LOOK like @Mauss ?
But, i kinda looked out for that pattern again on the weekend, and didn't see it. Wondered if that was a deliberate ploy and they were trying some other pattern that real analysts of the game could spot, or perhaps we just dropped so much ball we didn't execute up for it.
Any thoughts from the hive mind of the Fern?
-
-
-
@booboo said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@pakman said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@booboo It did strike me that the ABs might have indulged in some sandbagging.
Powder dehydration?
Dessication
-
@booboo said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
After France I he posted an analysis of how the ABs were setting up attack with four forwards creating ... something fuck I don't know, some voodoo drawing the defence half an inch closer and tricking the Frogs into missing tackles when they decide to pass wide or some shit.
Made a degree of sense at the time.
I think you're referring to the flat pods teams are using nowadays? It's something you see a lot and mostly has to do with the fact that the pace of the game requires pods to form on the fly rather than being pre-set like they used to be. Nick Bishop has a good, short article on it for the Rugby Site.
How to work a modern pod system with LQB | The Rugby Site's Blog
Modern pod systems have been transformed by the new breakdown guidelines. Nick Bishop looks what effects they are having on o... (continued)
āThe quickeningā allowed less time for the offence to regroup and drop into set pod formations like the 2-4-2 or the 1-3-3-1, and these are now rare birds at elite level. While one forward will likely continue to drop to either edge in multi-phase play, the roles of the other six forwards in between them are far more fluid than they used to be.
As for the second Test against Argentina, it looked like the ABs didn't want to play with too much width between the 22s and wanted to target the area around the ruck (see the Ratima snipes before going off). But they made so many errors in possession - at set piece and in the air - that it's hard to know what the plan was exactly. They had way too little ball to do anything meaningful with it.
Like I tried to convey in my own wonky analysis, they were very good inside the ARG 22 and pretty terrible everywhere else. Not sure how that constitutes sandbagging, though.
-
-
@Mauss said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@booboo said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
After France I he posted an analysis of how the ABs were setting up attack with four forwards creating ... something fuck I don't know, some voodoo drawing the defence half an inch closer and tricking the Frogs into missing tackles when they decide to pass wide or some shit.
Made a degree of sense at the time.
I think you're referring to the flat pods teams are using nowadays? It's something you see a lot and mostly has to do with the fact that the pace of the game requires pods to form on the fly rather than being pre-set like they used to be. Nick Bishop has a good, short article on it for the Rugby Site.
Modern pod systems have been transformed by the new breakdown guidelines. Nick Bishop looks what effects they are having on o... (continued)
āThe quickeningā allowed less time for the offence to regroup and drop into set pod formations like the 2-4-2 or the 1-3-3-1, and these are now rare birds at elite level. While one forward will likely continue to drop to either edge in multi-phase play, the roles of the other six forwards in between them are far more fluid than they used to be.
As for the second Test against Argentina, it looked like the ABs didn't want to play with too much width between the 22s and wanted to target the area around the ruck (see the Ratima snipes before going off). But they made so many errors in possession - at set piece and in the air - that it's hard to know what the plan was exactly. They had way too little ball to do anything meaningful with it.
Like I tried to convey in my own wonky analysis, they were very good inside the ARG 22 and pretty terrible everywhere else. Not sure how that constitutes sandbagging, though.
When we got ball from broken play, ideally Iād have liked 10 to pass straight to 13 and truck ball up wide with wing/Jordan/Jordie running lines off and a wide loosie to hit any rucks. Instead pattern seemed to be BB pass to forward then pause and the moment was lost.
-
@pakman said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
When we got ball from broken play, ideally Iād have liked 10 to pass straight to 13 and truck ball up wide with wing/Jordan/Jordie running lines off and a wide loosie to hit any rucks. Instead pattern seemed to be BB pass to forward then pause and the moment was lost.
That just sounds like you want Leicester Fainga'anuku to be at 13 which, to be fair, is something that needs to be tried this year at some point. But I'm not sure that's a style of play that suits Proctor's skillset all that much.
The current pattern isn't that effective with so few genuine ball carriers amongst the forwards (Parker can be a bit inconsistent in that area and didn't make a lot of physical impact against the Pumas). Vaa'i had a good start against the French in Dunedin (8 carries) but has since really fallen off in that area (avg. 2.6 carries per game). An on-form Sititi is needed somewhere in the back row and Jordie needs to up his physicality at 12. Some of the latter's carries in midfield were way too soft which led to easy turnovers for Argentina.
Rugby World Cup 1991 - Australia vs New Zealand
