All Blacks v Argentina II
-
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.
“You look at our chases at the moment, and Rieko, this isn’t a plot on him as a person, but he just can’t get up and chase and put pressure on the ball, like you look at him and he’s getting up and he’s kind of just half hearted into the into the jump,” Dagg said on Sport Nation’s Breakfast with Scotty & Izzy. “He’s not winning it, he’s not brave, he’s not courageous, and he’s not getting up and trying to put a knee in the bloke, like, that’s what you’ve got to do.” “It’s a 50-50 play, and right now it’s a 70-30 play, because opposition would have seen that and it’s gonna continue to come throughout the rest of the year and if we do not fix that, it’s gonna be a difficult season.” Dagg gives credit to Argentina whose kicks were accurate, and not too far that their chasers couldn’t get up and contest. “Argentina, they kicked really well, they weren’t kicking it too long, and I think that’s the problem at the moment. from our own kicks, we are kicking it too long and there’s not enough height on it. “So you’re not giving our chasers a genuine option to get up and disrupt, I’ve got to be completely honest, there’s only one bloke there at the back at the moment they can catch high ball, and you’re relying heavily on a Will Jordan to get up and and do what’s asked of him.” -
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)
‘The quickening’ 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)
‘The quickening’ 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 I’d 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 I’d 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.
-
The back five seems to me the key. I like the idea of Holland and Barrett to start, with Lakai or Jacobson at 7, Vaa’i 6 and RD at 8. Then at 60 Patty T in for Scooter. Vaa’i to 5, Parker or Finau to 6 and Sititi on at 8. RD either moves to 7 or gets an early shower.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
Nah thats a bullshit take.
The bloke coming from furthest back calls "my ball" as he is arriving onto it at pace and with full vision.
It was ever thus.
Our highball work is shite and both Barretts in that photo are persona non grata with me, but the photo proves nothing.
-
@Mauss said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@pakman Ball reaches the backline within 3 phases. Didn’t really know how to abbreviate that.
Not sure I understand. Ball off top of lineout, passed 9 to 10. Is that BLin3? Or does it have to get back to backlaine AGAIN within 3 phases?
-
@pakman said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
The back five seems to me the key. I like the idea of Holland and Barrett to start, with Lakai or Jacobson at 7, Vaa’i 6 and RD at 8. Then at 60 Patty T in for Scooter. Vaa’i to 5, Parker or Finau to 6 and Sititi on at 8. RD either moves to 7 or gets an early shower.
I’d agree that the back 5 is key but, to be honest, I can’t really figure it out. Holland has done really well since the start of the Test season but I feel like he might be coming back to earth a bit in recent games. But then again, he’s become crucial for the lineout as well as restarts so can you afford to put him on the bench?
I don’t think Ardie Savea is direct enough to be an 8. He makes a lot of metres and beats a lot of defenders but he uses a lot of footwork and hesitation moves to make these metres, which often breaks the rhythm. Sititi is much more of a head down, smash into collisions-type player which is what I think you need in that spot. I think the Savea-Lio-Willie combo worked well, and I think the Savea-Sititi combo is that on steroids.
It's annoying how blindside remains a thing. I don’t like agreeing with Nick Bishop because he comes across as incredibly smug but it’s hard to argue against the evidence here:
Old mate Pablo Matera showed the back-row remains at the heart of Razor's All Blacks riddle
Scott Robertson's long-time friend and ex-Crusader exposed cracks in the Kiwi pack as Argentina claimed an historic victory.
Those are just way too many soft shoulders from Vaa’i on show here. And when you’ve basically been bullied in the physical exchanges in ARG II, then you need to draw your conclusions for the Springbok Tests.
So after all that, and with a complete lack of confidence, I’d go: 4. Barrett 5. Vaa’i 6. Parker/Finau 7. Savea 8. Sititi 19. Holland 20. Parker/Finau 21. Lakai. But to be honest, I don’t really know anymore.
The pack is in dire need of some real bastards - that Argentina side is filled with them, even amongst the backs, like that yappy midget Mateo Carreras - but it's hard to see where they'll come from. Dane Coles needs to set up a school somewhere.
-
@pakman said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
Not sure I understand. Ball off top of lineout, passed 9 to 10. Is that BLin3? Or does it have to get back to backlaine AGAIN within 3 phases?
No, it's a bit of a strange metric to distinguish between possessions off lineout or scrum (1) which were meant to be kept amongst the forwards, or (2) which were meant for a backline play.
But it's difficult to make this distinction because you'd often have the forwards keep the ball for a few phases (for example, through a peel or blindside play off the lineout) before releasing the ball to the backline. The ball was always meant to go wide but was kept amongst the forwards for a few phases in order to condense the defence before initiating the backs' strike.
So this "within 3 phases" was basically my way of saying: was the set piece strike meant to come into the backline or not? Does that make sense?
-
Jason Ryan is a good tight five coach but he's been average with the loose forwards. Last year it was said that Robertson was choosing the loose forwards but Ryan has final responsibility.
I honestly have no clue who the preferred loose trio is at this stage and one of our few world class players has been shunted between 7 and 8 all year - often in the same game.
Our loose forwards have largely been riding the coat tails of the tight five.
Our loose trio was most effective this year at the breakdown in the last 20 minutes in the last French test.
Vaai as good as he's been will I believe always be vulnerable defending off the side of the scrum from runners like Matera. I recall one year the exact same scenario with the Pumas and Papali'i got there and made the tackle, then got up and tackled again immediately. Vaai just doesn't have that speed off the scrum or off the deck.
