All Blacks v Springboks
-
@nevorian Aaron Smith has a habit of taking the quick tap and it rarely comes off. The guy is excitable but he needs to reign in his excitement levels and use his brains at times.
@akan004 said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@nevorian Aaron Smith has a habit of taking the quick tap and it rarely comes off. The guy is excitable but he needs to reign in his excitement levels and use his brains at times.
particularly whilst waiting around at airports
-
@nevorian Aaron Smith has a habit of taking the quick tap and it rarely comes off. The guy is excitable but he needs to reign in his excitement levels and use his brains at times.
@akan004 said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@nevorian Aaron Smith has a habit of taking the quick tap and it rarely comes off. The guy is excitable but he needs to reign in his excitement levels and use his brains at times.
I think it's deliberate. He's scored some tries that way -- it's probably a higher percentage play than trying to break down a set defensive line. Therefore, a tactic encouraged by teh coaches and that can look silly when it doesn't come off... but with sound reasoning behind it.
-
@no-quarter The Caketin - the last 2 home losses have been there.
@bovidae said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@no-quarter The Caketin - the last 2 home losses have been there.
The NZRU schedulers. Would have won at Eden Park.
-
@chester-draws how many due to his kicking?
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@chester-draws how many due to his kicking?
The original statement was that his kicking doesn't matter much, because he makes up for it in other ways, so we don't lose many with him. Except we have started losing more since he moved in to 1st-5.
I say that Breauden's too hot and cold. He's brilliant one day and people are talking about him as the best player ever. Two weeks later he's rather obviously not.
I have said for ages I don't think he's good for the outside backs. Instead we rely on his brilliance, and when that doesn't turn up . . .
I'm not actually blaming him for the loss though, because I think our basic game plan is wrong anyway. We play for Beauden's brilliance instead of planning for his off days, which magnifies the wins -- and the losses.
Our game plan is to play high risk rugby and run people off their feet. Every time we play a team who keep making their tackles even when tired we struggle. We make lots of intercepts because players are encouraged to take big risks. The players who made them in the Boks game aren't notoriously error prone usually, they are in part following orders.
It's a flawed plan IMO. It's really obvious, and so the counter is not hard to figure out. I really hope we move on from it before the RWC.
Currently we often only start beating teams after 60 minutes. If the other teams can extend that time a bit, to 70 minutes, then we are only an intercept away from a loss every time.
I'd rather we played for the off-days, and take any brilliance if it comes. I don't care about 50 point wins if they come with stupid losses in between.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@chester-draws how many due to his kicking?
The original statement was that his kicking doesn't matter much, because he makes up for it in other ways, so we don't lose many with him. Except we have started losing more since he moved in to 1st-5.
I say that Breauden's too hot and cold. He's brilliant one day and people are talking about him as the best player ever. Two weeks later he's rather obviously not.
I have said for ages I don't think he's good for the outside backs. Instead we rely on his brilliance, and when that doesn't turn up . . .
I'm not actually blaming him for the loss though, because I think our basic game plan is wrong anyway. We play for Beauden's brilliance instead of planning for his off days, which magnifies the wins -- and the losses.
Our game plan is to play high risk rugby and run people off their feet. Every time we play a team who keep making their tackles even when tired we struggle. We make lots of intercepts because players are encouraged to take big risks. The players who made them in the Boks game aren't notoriously error prone usually, they are in part following orders.
It's a flawed plan IMO. It's really obvious, and so the counter is not hard to figure out. I really hope we move on from it before the RWC.
Currently we often only start beating teams after 60 minutes. If the other teams can extend that time a bit, to 70 minutes, then we are only an intercept away from a loss every time.
I'd rather we played for the off-days, and take any brilliance if it comes. I don't care about 50 point wins if they come with stupid losses in between.
@chester-draws people have been saying his kicking will cost us matches since, well, I guess since he started, how many has his kicking lost us?
You can argue this one, one conversion ties it up, but really, other factors lead to him needing to make one, and our boys unusually just lacked a bit of composure due to the fact they dont often have the blow torch on them as much as the Saffas did by the way they defended and forced our players to make errors...they say there is only about 5% between the top teams, but then it woulda been 105% to 100% and I think we win if we are 100%.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@chester-draws how many due to his kicking?
The original statement was that his kicking doesn't matter much, because he makes up for it in other ways, so we don't lose many with him. Except we have started losing more since he moved in to 1st-5.
I say that Breauden's too hot and cold. He's brilliant one day and people are talking about him as the best player ever. Two weeks later he's rather obviously not.
I have said for ages I don't think he's good for the outside backs. Instead we rely on his brilliance, and when that doesn't turn up . . .
I'm not actually blaming him for the loss though, because I think our basic game plan is wrong anyway. We play for Beauden's brilliance instead of planning for his off days, which magnifies the wins -- and the losses.
Our game plan is to play high risk rugby and run people off their feet. Every time we play a team who keep making their tackles even when tired we struggle. We make lots of intercepts because players are encouraged to take big risks. The players who made them in the Boks game aren't notoriously error prone usually, they are in part following orders.
It's a flawed plan IMO. It's really obvious, and so the counter is not hard to figure out. I really hope we move on from it before the RWC.
Currently we often only start beating teams after 60 minutes. If the other teams can extend that time a bit, to 70 minutes, then we are only an intercept away from a loss every time.
I'd rather we played for the off-days, and take any brilliance if it comes. I don't care about 50 point wins if they come with stupid losses in between.
@chester-draws said in All Blacks v Springboks:
It's a flawed plan IMO. It's really obvious, and so the counter is not hard to figure out. I really hope we move on from it before the RWC.
I'm guessing you've not noticed our win loss ratio for the last decade?
-
@raznomore I don't think I get the joke
-
@chester-draws said in All Blacks v Springboks:
It's a flawed plan IMO. It's really obvious, and so the counter is not hard to figure out. I really hope we move on from it before the RWC.
I'm guessing you've not noticed our win loss ratio for the last decade?
@antipodean said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@chester-draws said in All Blacks v Springboks:
It's a flawed plan IMO. It's really obvious, and so the counter is not hard to figure out. I really hope we move on from it before the RWC.
I'm guessing you've not noticed our win loss ratio for the last decade?
Our dropping ratio? Yeah, I noticed.
The current style not been our plan for "a decade". You don't get to use the Carter and Cruden periods to back up how good Beauden is.
We used to play fast, but we didn't use to take the risks we take now. We didn't leave every game to deep into the second half to wrap it up.
The old plan was better. Attack at all times, sure, but be prepared to take it in to contact if nothing was going on.
Have some set plays, if possession is not yielding points. Use strike weapons other than your 1st-5 in those plays.
Take easy kicks for penalties even at 40 metres out (like what made Donald a hero -- imagine if we had chosen to not take that kick --we'd likely have lost). That was seven years ago. I think the current team would lose that match.
The cross-field kicks were much rarer too. They're typical of the new scheme -- great if they come off, but often just a turn-over of possession.
The willingness to defend for long periods is starting to slide too. Journalists can get all excited about how defence no longer wins big games in the new AB paradigm, but they're wrong.
It's just one loss. We've lost before and we'll lose again. What i don't like is that we lost while sticking to our plan.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@chester-draws said in All Blacks v Springboks:
It's a flawed plan IMO. It's really obvious, and so the counter is not hard to figure out. I really hope we move on from it before the RWC.
I'm guessing you've not noticed our win loss ratio for the last decade?
Our dropping ratio? Yeah, I noticed.
The current style not been our plan for "a decade". You don't get to use the Carter and Cruden periods to back up how good Beauden is.
We used to play fast, but we didn't use to take the risks we take now. We didn't leave every game to deep into the second half to wrap it up.
The old plan was better. Attack at all times, sure, but be prepared to take it in to contact if nothing was going on.
Have some set plays, if possession is not yielding points. Use strike weapons other than your 1st-5 in those plays.
Take easy kicks for penalties even at 40 metres out (like what made Donald a hero -- imagine if we had chosen to not take that kick --we'd likely have lost). That was seven years ago. I think the current team would lose that match.
The cross-field kicks were much rarer too. They're typical of the new scheme -- great if they come off, but often just a turn-over of possession.
The willingness to defend for long periods is starting to slide too. Journalists can get all excited about how defence no longer wins big games in the new AB paradigm, but they're wrong.
It's just one loss. We've lost before and we'll lose again. What i don't like is that we lost while sticking to our plan.
@chester-draws said in All Blacks v Springboks:
Our dropping ratio? Yeah, I noticed.
2009 71.42%
2010 92.85%
2011 83.33%
2012 89.28%
2013 100%
2014 89.28%
2015 91.66%
2016 92.85%
2017 82.14%
2018 85.71%Dropping from what, our perfect season? You do realise our biggest wins in 2016 were with Beauden as five-eighth? Or did we magically move from everything in 2017?
The willingness to defend for long periods is starting to slide too.
Yeah, haven't seen people posting about us winning with scraps of possession...
-
@Chester-Draws I think it's worth keeping in mind that Beauden's move to 10 coincided with a bunch of all time greats retiring, including the GOAT himself McCaw. I think our record has been nothing short of remarkable since the RWC15 given that mass exodus. No other team in the world could lose that much experience in one go and still beat basically all comers.
-
We're building a good list of scapegoats now:
Jordie - outrageous quick throw with Bok defenders everywhere
Rieko - bundled into touch too often / called for quick throw then ran away from it
ALB - dumb intercept gifting them a try / ignored A Smith on his outside butchering a try Folau style
Beauden - woeful kicking, both at goal and in general play
Read - buck stops with the captain when setting up the winning play (drop goal FFS)
TJP - butchered a try running the complete wrong angle and got cut down by a big fat no. 8
DMac - poor ball security on the final play when we had an overlapThink that covers it - anyone else we can hate on?
@no-quarter said in All Blacks v Springboks:
We're building a good list of scapegoats now:
Jordie - outrageous quick throw with Bok defenders everywhere
Rieko - bundled into touch too often / called for quick throw then ran away from it
ALB - dumb intercept gifting them a try / ignored A Smith on his outside butchering a try Folau style
Beauden - woeful kicking, both at goal and in general play
Read - buck stops with the captain when setting up the winning play (drop goal FFS)
TJP - butchered a try running the complete wrong angle and got cut down by a big fat no. 8
DMac - poor ball security on the final play when we had an overlapThink that covers it - anyone else we can hate on?
In other words it was a team effort. Based on the comments by some of these nutcases youd think it was an inside job by the Barrett family.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@chester-draws said in All Blacks v Springboks:
It's a flawed plan IMO. It's really obvious, and so the counter is not hard to figure out. I really hope we move on from it before the RWC.
I'm guessing you've not noticed our win loss ratio for the last decade?
Our dropping ratio? Yeah, I noticed.
The current style not been our plan for "a decade". You don't get to use the Carter and Cruden periods to back up how good Beauden is.
We used to play fast, but we didn't use to take the risks we take now. We didn't leave every game to deep into the second half to wrap it up.
The old plan was better. Attack at all times, sure, but be prepared to take it in to contact if nothing was going on.
Have some set plays, if possession is not yielding points. Use strike weapons other than your 1st-5 in those plays.
Take easy kicks for penalties even at 40 metres out (like what made Donald a hero -- imagine if we had chosen to not take that kick --we'd likely have lost). That was seven years ago. I think the current team would lose that match.
The cross-field kicks were much rarer too. They're typical of the new scheme -- great if they come off, but often just a turn-over of possession.
The willingness to defend for long periods is starting to slide too. Journalists can get all excited about how defence no longer wins big games in the new AB paradigm, but they're wrong.
It's just one loss. We've lost before and we'll lose again. What i don't like is that we lost while sticking to our plan.
@chester-draws said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v Springboks:
@chester-draws said in All Blacks v Springboks:
It's a flawed plan IMO. It's really obvious, and so the counter is not hard to figure out. I really hope we move on from it before the RWC.
I'm guessing you've not noticed our win loss ratio for the last decade?
Our dropping ratio? Yeah, I noticed.
The current style not been our plan for "a decade". You don't get to use the Carter and Cruden periods to back up how good Beauden is.
We used to play fast, but we didn't use to take the risks we take now. We didn't leave every game to deep into the second half to wrap it up.
The old plan was better. Attack at all times, sure, but be prepared to take it in to contact if nothing was going on.
Have some set plays, if possession is not yielding points. Use strike weapons other than your 1st-5 in those plays.
Take easy kicks for penalties even at 40 metres out (like what made Donald a hero -- imagine if we had chosen to not take that kick --we'd likely have lost). That was seven years ago. I think the current team would lose that match.
The cross-field kicks were much rarer too. They're typical of the new scheme -- great if they come off, but often just a turn-over of possession.
The willingness to defend for long periods is starting to slide too. Journalists can get all excited about how defence no longer wins big games in the new AB paradigm, but they're wrong.
It's just one loss. We've lost before and we'll lose again. What i don't like is that we lost while sticking to our plan.
You have to wonder if you actually watched the ABs play prior to 2017. If you're having a cry now, God knows how you handled the late 90s and early 2000s, not to mention 2007-2009.
-
@bovidae said in All Blacks v Springboks:
While we're pointing the finger at players, a friend who was at the game said TJP would have scored his try after the Goodhue linebreak if he had ran towards the corner. For some unknown reason he cut back towards the defence and was tackled by Whitely.
He cut back because he was getting run down. I think the main camera angle showed that IMO.
Don't scapegoat TJPs decision, scapegoat his pathetic weany slow-twitch fibres ...... :man_running_light_skin_tone:
His getting a good head start and running stupidly flat support running lines ..... now explained .........
-
-
If people are honest with themselves ... was anybody really that bothered by the loss?
I only managed to get the last 2o minutes live and I was tense as fark. Then as soon as DMac dropped it, I was remarkably sanguine ... in fact, I was almost happy for the Boks and their fans. The only bad thing about that loss was the FUCKING HERALD posting that "Owens mistake" shit pretty soon after.
Obviously jumped on by all and sundry outside NZ to build to the legend that is arrogant whinging All Black fans.
-
@majorrage
Yeah I was at the game and was high fiving and hugging a bunch of awesome Bok fans who were nearby, most exciting and fun game I've seen from the AB's for ages. Prefer by a factor of a million to the previous one, the red card shite fest against France where I was actually bored. -
Couple of posts calling out TJP for showing off by doing a hongi. What the? That's a bit off...and weird.
@bones a get off my lawn moment from curmudgeonly me, but I subscribe to distractions are ok if performance don't suffer, otherwise you're clogging up your focus with trivia
Well, that's my theory on getting cutesy after a haka and during a subbing, it better add to your performance
