Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2
-
@antipodean said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@canefan said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@No-Quarter said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 not sure anyone is asking for any players to be sacked, but the coaches... can you name a worse AB performance then that home loss to SA? As far as I can tell that's the worst performance of all time, so "worst AB team in last 50 years" isn't exactly over-egging it after that. 43 fucking 10 with players giving up in the final 10. On the back of that performance, and the shit show we served up for the first 60 minutes of that match before Ireland shat the bed, yeah people are going to be harshly critical. Unless we just accept mediocrity in the ABs these days, maybe we should?
The only player who is getting almost universal calls from TSF to be dropped is BB
Not to be taken as an argument for his retention, but the try that killed Irish hopes was Beaudy's evasion, isolation of the Irish rush defender and well timed pass to DMac (who hit the hole perfectly).
I'm sick of reading about his general play kicking as it's obviously the game plan to prevent the rush defence (as DMac does the same when starting). It's the obvious point his legs aren't what they were that's the problem.
Damien has a nicer pass on him, but with his predilection for flat passes, more likely to give an intercept.
That was a lovely try that showcased the strengths of both men. If I was the coach and BB wasn't doing what I asked of him, I would drop him. So clearly he is doing what he is told, and apparently better at it than DMac. Which points the fault at Razor
-
@antipodean said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Bones said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
What whinging and victimhood are we talking about? I must have missed it.
Perhaps it's a convenient way to suggest we've abandoned the moral high ground after countless examples showing there's no benefit to turning the other cheek.
Perhaps if we're as bad as every other nation WR will change the law interpretation and application.
I know it's unusual for me, but that was a genuine question!
-
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
yes, it was horrific. And pretty shocking how badly they threw in the towel. I don't think we're as bad as that result though
Horrific is an understatement.
I've been watching since '71 and never, ever seen an AB team simply give up like that. It was the worst AB performance I've ever seen by some margin. And the worrying thing is too many people simply shrugged their shoulders.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
yes, it was horrific. And pretty shocking how badly they threw in the towel. I don't think we're as bad as that result though
Horrific is an understatement.
I've been watching since '71 and never, ever seen an AB team simply give up like that. It was the worst AB performance I've ever seen by some margin. And the worrying thing is too may people simply shrugged their shoulders.
Old ABs used to talk about the fear of losing and how it drove them. It doesn't look like the new generation hold any such fear
-
@Snowy said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@frugby said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Went under the radar, but Ratima got about three minutes. I get they rate Roigard, but the All Blacks aren't in a great place when a halfback has to go 77 minutes when, what is in theory our #2 halfback is on the bench.
Turned out to be a pretty good call to leave him on ay?
Yeah, sure you play what is front of you. If the plan is to change at 65/70 mins which is probably the norm, then thats all good, but why stick to a pre game plan if there is no need?
Roigard was clearly good to keep playing, and proved it so. I mean, he had 12 minutes in the first half to chill out whilst the modern rugby rules were put in play so would have been less drained than expected.
What's playing out in front of you, should be of equal importance, if not more, to what was in the pre-arranged plan.
-
@Bones said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
What whinging and victimhood are we talking about? I must have missed it.
You are probably right on the victimhood part, but certainly not the whinging.
I didn't watch it live and knew the result when I caught the replay so my emotions were much more in check than people watching live. If you read through the thread, the negativity for the first hour was over whelming, which is understandable, but even when we scored it was still pretty negative. Comments seemed more about Ardie adding to his highlight reel than us actually building back into the game.
Many a legendary AB team has been down/level with the opposition through 60 mins before pulling away in the last 20. I'd almost say that is our standard game. Thats exactly what happened here, but instead of embracing it, TSF seems to be far more negative about the whole thing. I'm not saying the headless and clueless chicken shit we saw is excusable, it's not and deserves the pitchforks.
As I said, emotions were in check when I watched, so perhaps I'm being a little obtuse, but ultimately, we levelled with a top tier nation for 60 mins then pulled away in the last 20 for a 4 try to 1 drubbing. That's All Black rugby.
-
@MajorRage ohhhh, I read your post as saying there was over the top whinging about Ireland/ref.
-
Rewatched the 1st half. We really get very little out of our loose forwards. Despite being a man up for 20 mins, they were hardly hitting rucks. Let alone making aggressive tackles. It looks like Tupaea, Faingaʻanuku, and even Clarke had better breakdown technique. Savea is absolutely not a 7.
I think that the MOTM votes were accurate reflections of performances:
-
@Bones said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MajorRage ohhhh, I read your post as saying there was over the top whinging about Ireland/ref.
Good point. Maybe that was what the original rant was referring to ... I just jumped on board as I thought the negativity towards the team through that first hour was pretty rough.
Sadly, I don't think the referee was actually criticised enough. It made for a shocking advert for rugby.
-
@Bones our long-suffering Welsh mate’s head was fair bitten off for a pretty middle of the road take on the red.
And that was from normally sensible handles. First time in ages that I’ve chosen not to participate in a thread because I didn’t want to deal with the whinging and abuse that looked sure to follow.
But maybe I was missing some subtle irony.
-
For Saveas try, did I see De Groot skip onto the ball, draw a player and then fire a pass out to that invisible blindside?
De Groot at 10 for the next game.
I thought the ABs won the set piece battle. Line out could have been better with a couple of wayward throws but for the most past I thought it was good.
I thought the red was 100% deserved and tbh I'm disappointed it wasn't for the whole game. We drew a series, lost a series and a RWC final off the back of red cards. When it's our turn to capitalise we get 20 minutes. Great.
-
@ExiledHalfback said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
I thought the red was 100% deserved and tbh I'm disappointed it wasn't for the whole game. We drew a series, lost a series and a RWC final off the back of red cards. When it's our turn to capitalise we get 20 minutes. Great.
It was certainly clear that there were zero mitigating factors. He went in completely upright and straight on to the ball carrier, there was no change of direction, no dip, and direct contact with the head. You could argue the force maybe, but we have been on the receiving end of much worse. Was not in the mood for NH posters to suddenly have a completely different approach to high tackle red cards ...
-
@Smuts said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Bones our long-suffering Welsh mate’s head was fair bitten off for a pretty middle of the road take on the red.
And that was from normally sensible handles. First time in ages that I’ve chosen not to participate in a thread because I didn’t want to deal with the whinging and abuse that looked sure to follow.
But maybe I was missing some subtle irony.
As intimated by @Tim, said chap is a big proponent against foul play, often supported by yours truly. For there to be a complete about face was a very notable instance in a seemingly recent trend against black.
-
@Tim said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Rewatched the 1st half. We really get very little out of our loose forwards. Despite being a man up for 20 mins, they were hardly hitting rucks. Let alone making aggressive tackles. It looks like Tupaea, Faingaʻanuku, and even Clarke had better breakdown technique. Savea is absolutely not a 7.
The Savea-at-openside discussion is interesting. To be honest, I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference what number Savea is wearing on his back, he pretty much plays his game whether he’s wearing 7 or 8 (or 6 or 12...). If you’d look at the table here, who’d you reckon the openside would be and who’d be the 8?
Guess the player: carries, post-contact metres, tackles completed, attacking rucks attended, defensive rucks attended and turnovers wonPlayer B has all the hallmarks of your classic number 8: double figures in carries and tackles, significant post-contact metres and multiple defenders beaten. Player A, on the other hand, fits more the profile of an openside: more rucks attended than carries, with less impact made per carry.
In case you’re still wondering: these are the numbers of Savea and Lakai against the Irish in Chicago, with Savea being player B and Lakai being player A. So while Savea is ‘technically’ wearing the openside-jersey, he is very much playing like a 7/8-hybrid right now (his 17 rucks attended and 2 pilfers being a solid contribution at the breakdown, as well).
And let me get ahead of critiques of Lakai’s “low numbers”: Lakai was effectively acting as the defensive ‘key’ throughout the game, connecting the ruck defence with the defensive line as third defender out from the ruck, shutting down opposition backline moves (his charge down of Gibson-Park is a good example of this, as defensive work that doesn’t show up on the stat sheet). As a result, he was continuously all over the pitch, making reads and shutting down potential gaps in the line. It’s typically one of the roles given to a mobile openside.
So why the numbers?
So why not just put Lakai in the openside-jersey and Savea in the number 8? This is just my own speculation but if I were to hazard a guess, it’s an attempt at turning both Savea and Lakai into more complete players. The ABs are trying to implement a very fluid structure, where everyone can fill into another’s role, whether it’s as a cleaner, as a carrier or as a playmaker (the Savea-try, with de Groot and Lord in the attacking line being a good example of this).Savea, if put at 8, does have a tendency to abandon some of his other responsibilities. By putting him at openside, you could argue that he’s forced to play closer to the breakdown, balancing out his natural tendency to drift to the edge.
Funnily enough, Lakai has the opposite tendency: when playing at openside, the Hurricanes loose forward can become too focused on his support role, foregoing his own carrying ability. He's often been rather anonymous when playing at 7 for the Hurricanes, unable to complement his openside-role with his excellent carrying ability. By putting him at 8, he’s being forced to balance the two (Sidenote: Papali’i has a similar issue, where he can find it difficult to involve himself beyond the team's structures; his low contribution of 3 carries for the AB XV against the Barbarians would be another example of this).
Those are just my own observations and speculations on why Savea and Lakai are wearing their current jersey numbers, I could be totally off. But it (kind of) makes sense to me. Either way, in reality, Savea is certainly fulfilling the role of a number 8.
And finally, the loose forwards as a whole
I’ll agree that the AB loose forward-mix is a work in progress but I don’t agree with this idea that they’re consistently being outplayed. Against Ireland, the AB loose forward group thoroughly outplayed their counterparts on attack, carrying more, making more metres, beating more defenders, and winning the turnover battle.
Irish and AB loose forward involvements: carries, post-contact metres, defenders beaten, offloads, turnovers won/lost, tackles completed/missed, and dominant tacklingIt is only on the defensive side that the Irish loose forwards were more involved, putting in double the tackles while only missing two. But that is also the result of the Irish inability to win the possession-battle, especially in the 2nd half. They were unable to force the ABs into turnovers, allowing the latter to build rucks and pressure in their own half.
This ties in with another often-heard claim about the AB loose forwards losing the breakdown battle. Throughout the Rugby Championship and now this Test against Ireland, the ABs have typically come out on top when it comes to turnovers won (+1.3 on average), lost (-3.3 on average) and rucks lost (-0.6).
Possession and breakdown stats: turnovers won, turnovers lost, rucks won, and rucks lostThat means that the ABs win the ball more often, lose it less than their opponents and lose less rucks than their opponents on average.
By far the biggest stumbling block throughout the Rugby Championship is that the ABs have not built enough rucks to accumulate pressure on their opponents. They’ve averaged around 10 rucks less formed than their opponents, which has given them insufficient opportunities to score. That means that they’ve kicked away too much possession that they haven’t been able to regather. This doesn't mean that the ABs have to kick less; it simply means that they have to kick better.
The balance was better against the Irish, with 23 more rucks formed than their opponent. The ball-carrying and -retention from the bench is a huge factor in this regard as well, with Sititi (8 carries, 45 post-contact metres), Taukei’aho (3 carries, 14 post-contact metres) and McKenzie (8 passes, no kicks) providing lots of impetus in this regard. It’s a template that Robertson will want to expand on during the tour. But that means keeping the scores close for the first 60 minutes, before overwhelming your opponent in the final quarter through set piece- and carrying-dominance.
The loose forward-duo of Savea and Lakai - with their breakdown disruption (8 defensive rucks attended) and defensive mobility (18 tackles with zero misses) - seem set to continue in this regard.
-
-
@Mauss said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
That means that they’ve kicked away too much possession that they haven’t been able to regather. This doesn't mean that the ABs have to kick less; it simply means that they have to kick better.
One comment here, I would imagine that the quality of ruck ball can help determine the quality of kicking. If you're going nowhere and have slow recycling, then defense has a lot more time and freedom to reset.
