All Blacks vs Springboks II
-
I don't watch games more than once, so correct me if i am wrong, but it also felt like a lot of Bok kicks didn't go to wingers, but rather landed on top of static midfielders or locks. I thought the outside backs did ok (Jordan inviting his own errors aside). They just thrive on putting the ball in the air in chaos areas, and they are good at getting it back.
-
I don't watch games more than once, so correct me if i am wrong, but it also felt like a lot of Bok kicks didn't go to wingers, but rather landed on top of static midfielders or locks. I thought the outside backs did ok (Jordan inviting his own errors aside). They just thrive on putting the ball in the air in chaos areas, and they are good at getting it back.
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I don't watch games more than once, so correct me if i am wrong, but it also felt like a lot of Bok kicks didn't go to wingers, but rather landed on top of static midfielders or locks. I thought the outside backs did ok (Jordan inviting his own errors aside). They just thrive on putting the ball in the air in chaos areas, and they are good at getting it back.
Yep. Those kicks had bigger bodies in the air other than Kolbe.
In the second half the quick feet of one or two Bok backs also put a bit of doubt into our defensive line.
-
@Smuts said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I didn't watch yesterday, so knowing the score and reading the thread I actually expected much worse.
I thought at half time both coaches would have been very happy. We were by far the better team, imposed ourselves and were in front. They had been outplayed but were close.
Absolute horror show last quarter for us. Absolutely sublime for South Africa. Well done to them I'm very fucking impressed.
The ABs were the better team for first 60.
Let’s stop this idea right here. You were in the game but you were hardly on top.
Your scrum was … under pressure, your lineout was creaking, you were losing the tactical kicking game and the aerial battle and you’d managed a solitary try (requiring 2 or 3 pieces of exceptional skill) at the cost of your playmakers taking a battering and gifting us a try. Reptitive creamings caused Least Useless Barrett to set up deeper and deeper. By the end of the half, it was hard to see where the forces of darkness might generate net points.
The good guys on the other hand could look at that half and say they just needed to keep dancing with them that brung em.
They’d bombed three clear chances without doing anything all that miraculous, one of which got called back after it was converted and another was only stopped by a sensational last gasp tackle over the try line. All while rejigging their backline to deal with injuries.
They also knew that sooner or later their work in the scrum was going to pay dividends, on the scoreboard and by opening holes around the park.
So 10-7 was a fairish reflection though not a good indicator of how the work done in the first half was likely to play out in the second.
One small part of what you wrote really struck me. You said "Your playmakers." We don't have any, and the ones we use are not very good at it. This team is lacking one, probably two natural playmakers. The ones we do use are not natural playmakers, whether it be 10, 15, 12. They have not gotten to where they are today by making play for others. We need to start valuing that quality again.
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Smuts said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I didn't watch yesterday, so knowing the score and reading the thread I actually expected much worse.
I thought at half time both coaches would have been very happy. We were by far the better team, imposed ourselves and were in front. They had been outplayed but were close.
Absolute horror show last quarter for us. Absolutely sublime for South Africa. Well done to them I'm very fucking impressed.
The ABs were the better team for first 60.
Let’s stop this idea right here. You were in the game but you were hardly on top.
Your scrum was … under pressure, your lineout was creaking, you were losing the tactical kicking game and the aerial battle and you’d managed a solitary try (requiring 2 or 3 pieces of exceptional skill) at the cost of your playmakers taking a battering and gifting us a try. Reptitive creamings caused Least Useless Barrett to set up deeper and deeper. By the end of the half, it was hard to see where the forces of darkness might generate net points.
The good guys on the other hand could look at that half and say they just needed to keep dancing with them that brung em.
They’d bombed three clear chances without doing anything all that miraculous, one of which got called back after it was converted and another was only stopped by a sensational last gasp tackle over the try line. All while rejigging their backline to deal with injuries.
They also knew that sooner or later their work in the scrum was going to pay dividends, on the scoreboard and by opening holes around the park.
So 10-7 was a fairish reflection though not a good indicator of how the work done in the first half was likely to play out in the second.
One small part of what you wrote really struck me. You said "Your playmakers." We don't have any, and the ones we use are not very good at it. This team is lacking one, probably two natural playmakers. The ones we do use are not natural playmakers, whether it be 10, 15, 12. They have not gotten to where they are today by making play for others. We need to start valuing that quality again.
I think this is the major worry (defence aside). We missed Roigard, yes but we miss game drivers - someone who is going to drive the team around the paddock.
-
We will never be a good team until we remove BB from 10. His kicking is erratic and his decision making is not good - so he can't play the kicking 10 role. His passing is slow, and he does not present a threat to the line, just stands and shovels - so he can't play the running 10.
-
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I don't watch games more than once, so correct me if i am wrong, but it also felt like a lot of Bok kicks didn't go to wingers, but rather landed on top of static midfielders or locks. I thought the outside backs did ok (Jordan inviting his own errors aside). They just thrive on putting the ball in the air in chaos areas, and they are good at getting it back.
Yep. Those kicks had bigger bodies in the air other than Kolbe.
In the second half the quick feet of one or two Bok backs also put a bit of doubt into our defensive line.
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I don't watch games more than once, so correct me if i am wrong, but it also felt like a lot of Bok kicks didn't go to wingers, but rather landed on top of static midfielders or locks. I thought the outside backs did ok (Jordan inviting his own errors aside). They just thrive on putting the ball in the air in chaos areas, and they are good at getting it back.
Yep. Those kicks had bigger bodies in the air other than Kolbe.
In the second half the quick feet of one or two Bok backs also put a bit of doubt into our defensive line.
you could see even in the first half where their passes weren't sticking their pace was giving Proctor kittens and there was nearly reward there. By fuck they are fast aye?
-
It helped that SA were totally dominant in the air and at scrum time. And line outs weren't good to us either. They could do whatever they wanted in each of those areas and had no worries about losing possession. Thats a huge confidence boost for a team
-
We will never be a good team until we remove BB from 10. His kicking is erratic and his decision making is not good - so he can't play the kicking 10 role. His passing is slow, and he does not present a threat to the line, just stands and shovels - so he can't play the running 10.
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
We will never be a good team until we remove BB from 10. His kicking is erratic and his decision making is not good - so he can't play the kicking 10 role. His passing is slow, and he does not present a threat to the line, just stands and shovels - so he can't play the running 10.
Yeah totally agree it is a erratic as hell backline with with him not driving the team around the field.
-
I think De groot needs to be moved aside he offers very little around the field and was part of a struggling front row in both tests v SA and against the Argies in game 2.
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I think De groot needs to be moved aside he offers very little around the field and was part of a struggling front row in both tests v SA and against the Argies in game 2.
plays more first receiver than BB. He's the 2nd of our dual playmakers
-
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I think De groot needs to be moved aside he offers very little around the field and was part of a struggling front row in both tests v SA and against the Argies in game 2.
plays more first receiver than BB. He's the 2nd of our dual playmakers
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I think De groot needs to be moved aside he offers very little around the field and was part of a struggling front row in both tests v SA and against the Argies in game 2.
plays more first receiver than BB. He's the 2nd of our dual playmakers
Hence why we are shit.
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
We will never be a good team until we remove BB from 10. His kicking is erratic and his decision making is not good - so he can't play the kicking 10 role. His passing is slow, and he does not present a threat to the line, just stands and shovels - so he can't play the running 10.
Yeah totally agree it is a erratic as hell backline with with him not driving the team around the field.
@Chris he drives our team around like a drunk teenager, whose parents keep giving him the keys to thier once awesome but aging Rolls Royce.
-
@Chris he drives our team around like a drunk teenager, whose parents keep giving him the keys to thier once awesome but aging Rolls Royce.
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Chris he drives our team around like a drunk teenager, whose parents keep giving him the keys to thier once awesome but aging Rolls Royce.
That is a great analogy.
-
@Duluth so thier top 5 has 20 involvements by thier big men, us, none, while our most involved forward is one that usually.averages a metre or so at a time...
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Duluth so thier top 5 has 20 involvements by thier big men, us, none.
Robertson doesn't want to play a possession game with forwards driving in close. It's width or kick. I think we have the players (in NZ) to generate momentum in close. The coaches disagree and we don't try
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Duluth so thier top 5 has 20 involvements by thier big men, us, none.
Robertson doesn't want to play a possession game with forwards driving in close. It's width or kick. I think we have the players (in NZ) to generate momentum in close. The coaches disagree and we don't try
@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Duluth so thier top 5 has 20 involvements by thier big men, us, none.
Robertson doesn't want to play a possession game with forwards driving in close. It's width or kick. I think we have the players (in NZ) to generate momentum in close. The coaches disagree and we don't try
I am interested in who you would select as our best 23 not just in this squad but everyone.
Do you have a 23 in mind ?. -
@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Duluth so thier top 5 has 20 involvements by thier big men, us, none.
Robertson doesn't want to play a possession game with forwards driving in close. It's width or kick. I think we have the players (in NZ) to generate momentum in close. The coaches disagree and we don't try
I am interested in who you would select as our best 23 not just in this squad but everyone.
Do you have a 23 in mind ?. -
Under what tactics? My point was that if we change tactics the squad would change a bit
I would prefer we play a more simple and direct possession based game. That is certainly not the opinion of these coaches
@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Under what tactics? My point was that if we change tactics the squad would change a bit
I would prefer we play a more simple and direct possession based game. That is certainly not the opinion of these coaches
Under the Tactics you think is the best way forward,Not under the current coaches thinking.
-
Under what tactics? My point was that if we change tactics the squad would change a bit
I would prefer we play a more simple and direct possession based game. That is certainly not the opinion of these coaches
@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Under what tactics? My point was that if we change tactics the squad would change a bit
I would prefer we play a more simple and direct possession based game. That is certainly not the opinion of these coaches
given carte blanche selectorial control, who would you bring in and play where?
not a wind up, genuinely interested in what your 23 is to play that game
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Under what tactics? My point was that if we change tactics the squad would change a bit
I would prefer we play a more simple and direct possession based game. That is certainly not the opinion of these coaches
given carte blanche selectorial control, who would you bring in and play where?
not a wind up, genuinely interested in what your 23 is to play that game
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Under what tactics? My point was that if we change tactics the squad would change a bit
I would prefer we play a more simple and direct possession based game. That is certainly not the opinion of these coaches
given carte blanche selectorial control, who would you bring in and play where?
not a wind up, genuinely interested in what your 23 is to play that game
Yeah me too
