Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2
-
@antipodean Ireland are a team which intentionally go out and hunt cards.
They can absolutely 100% fully and utterly get f**ked.
-
@MiketheSnow fingers crossed all deliberate shoulders to the head are reffed the same way. Special type of player that has the wherewithal to tuck the elbow when in the D line but not expect to tackle.
-
@Chris-B said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@sparky said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Chris-B In the 2008 Grand Slam tour, the All Blacks only conceded 24 points and not a single try.
Of course, that 2008 team had the fabulous Crusaders McCaw and Carter wearing the 7 and 10 jerseys, while this outfit has to make do with the ex-Hurricanes Savea and Barrett.
I presume that "absolutely, positively" slogan is long gone from the capital?
Finally we've found the answer. Tom Christie and Mo'unga, obviously.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
The mitigation was it was a forward pass
That is a unique excuse. No one else saw it, nor did would it have impacted the tackle situation.
Come on ...
-
@Tim said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
The mitigation was it was a forward pass
That is a unique excuse. No one else saw it, nor did would it have impacted the tackle situation.
Come on ...
Kelleher asked the ref to look at the pass. Ref didn't.
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
Then it changed in an instant and he made head contact in the collision.
It certainly wasn't a tackle.
-
@booboo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@ACT-Crusader said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@frugby said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@ACT-Crusader 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.
And how many minutes did Aaron Smith average during that purple patch of AB rugby….
Pre 2015, roughly 70,
2016-2017, roughly 65
2018-2023, roughly 60And in that 2013 test vs Ireland he played all 85 minutes!
That 2023 match against Ireland he played the whole game too ...
Only played 70 mins
-
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Tim said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
The mitigation was it was a forward pass
That is a unique excuse. No one else saw it, nor did would it have impacted the tackle situation.
Come on ...
Kelleher asked the ref to look at the pass. Ref didn't.
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
Then it changed in an instant and he made head contact in the collision.
It certainly wasn't a tackle.
The game is ass at the moment
-
@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 many people simply shrugged their shoulders.
My thoughts after that match was that a loss at Eden Park to Australia is the last straw for Razor. Like losing a series at home against Ireland should have been it for Foster (although based on the Irish reaction on social media in the last 48 hours, we could claim to be robbed by a red card in the Dunedin test). Since Wellington we've beaten Australia and Ireland away (Chicago is away as far as I'm concerned). If we win a grand slam, then he'll have appeared to have corrected course. If we lose to England, he's still in purgatory. If we lose to England and Scotland and/or Wales, then we need to throw a bag full of cash and a dozen hookers at Schmidt.
-
@MiketheSnow come on bro, really?
Bierne in the d line but not prepared to make a tackle? No way he knew if BB was to receive the ball or not, and the pass, irrelevant, "foul play" will always trump that.
We have had discussions like this before, but from opposite sides, because I hate cards, I hate how an accidental head contact is carded, and I hate this card, but it is "consistent" with how accidental head contacts have been dealt with for years now.
-
@Mauss said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@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.
Lakai and Parker combined to complete 12 tackles. Newell made 11. Taylor made 15. You cant just put it down to lack of Irish possession for their loosies making more tackles. Relative to their team mates the ABs loosies are not lifting their fair share. Our loose forwards failed to show up defensively in that record Bok loss and that's when you need your loosies leading the defence.
This is a weak Irish side that got a red card. Theres not much to read into this game.
We weren't winning the ruck speed in the RC until the games against a spent Wallabies side.
-
-
@brodean said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Mauss said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@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.
Lakai and Parker combined to complete 12 tackles. Newell made 11. Taylor made 15. Our loose forwards failed to show up defensively in that record Bok loss.
This is a weak Irish side that got a red card. Theres not much to read into this game.
We weren't winning the ruck speed in the RC until the games against a spent Wallabies side.
Weak Irish and spent Wallabies teams.
Out of interest, have we had a good win this year?
-
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Tim said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
The mitigation was it was a forward pass
That is a unique excuse. No one else saw it, nor did would it have impacted the tackle situation.
Come on ...
Kelleher asked the ref to look at the pass. Ref didn't.
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
Then it changed in an instant and he made head contact in the collision.
It certainly wasn't a tackle.
Sir, that is the most fucked up turnaround I've seen in a while. Any colour other than black and you would be the strongest voice saying the defender must do better.
-
Beating the Springboks was a good win. They're easily the best side in the world at the moment and they've had our number over the last two years.
We beat them fair and square. They wanted to break that Eden Park record and would have been up for that game.
After 2 decades of owning the Wallabies and the Bledisloe you'll excuse me if Im not pumped about another couple of wins against the Wallabies.
-
@brodean said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Beating the Springboks was a good win. They're easily the best side in the world at the moment and they've had our number over the last two years.
We beat them fair and square. They wanted to break that Eden Park record and would have been up for that game.
After 2 decades of owning the Wallabies and the Bledisloe you'll excuse me if Im not pumped about another couple of wins against the Wallabies.
Slightly better Wallabies team than the last few years. I thought beating them in Australia would be tough, had that at 50-50 at best
-
@Chuck72 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 springboks in auckland was good
But seems like some think we only win when the opposition play bad so that game probably doesn't count eitherAnd even if we beat a good team like the Springboks, "we only won by 7". I don't think they're as great as we're cracking them up to be either. We were a good referee and a bad D Mac miss away from beating them 2-0 away last year. I guess we'll find out next year.
We've unearthed some decent players and in 2 years, we should be firing*
*I'm well aware we won't accept losses in the meantime
-
@brodean said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Lakai and Parker combined to complete 12 tackles. Newell made 11. Taylor made 15. You cant just put it down to lack of Irish possession for their loosies making more tackles. Relative to their team mates the ABs loosies are not lifting their fair share. Our loose forwards failed to show up defensively in that record Bok loss and that's when you need your loosies leading the defence.
This is a weak Irish side that got a red card. Theres not much to read into this game.
We weren't winning the ruck speed in the RC until the games against a spent Wallabies side.
I’d agree that not a lot can be taken from this game. To me, it was mostly a continuation of the form post-Wellington: some good (breakdown pressure, defensive cohesion, bench impact) with a lot of areas still in need of much improvement (lineout, kick and passing accuracy, decision-making).
The issues in defence are, in my opinion, systemic rather than player-based. I don’t really see any issues in terms of work rate for either Lakai or Parker (Sititi is a bit more ambiguous but I think he’ll be fine, eventually). Lakai made 14 tackles in Perth (first start), and Parker made 12 and 14 tackles during the Bledisloe series. Those aren’t poor numbers by any means.
The fact that Taylor and Newell tackled more just seems like a distribution of roles. That’s what they’re there for: they clean rucks and they tackle. The loose forwards need to provide go-forward on attack and that’s what they did. Again, it wasn’t perfect (or even particularly good) but all in all, I think they did a reasonable job.
Parker had probably his worst game up to this point: reasonably inaccurate and nowhere near physical enough at the breakdown. If he gets another shot against Scotland, he’ll have to do a lot better.
-
