Why this feels different...
-
This may be severely tainted with my bitterness about walking out the stadium last night, at these fluffybunny Englishmen bleating about wonderful they were and how shit we were. And they were right, I had nothing to say except that they were, and are, worthy winners and deservedly favourites for the WC.
The risk analysis tragedy at the heart of the All Blacks
Every teams loses. Sport wouldn’t be interesting if a team didn’t– at least occasionally - lose. However, the AB loss to England was an embarrassing defeat for a group of coaches – and players - supposedly thought to have taken rugby to a 'new level'. The risk loving play and tactics of the players, when the situation clearly doesn’t call for it, has been a hallmark of Steve Hansen’s coaching since 2015 - and it’s one we should face up to as look to a new needed coaching group.
Firstly, let’s talk about how incredibly accurate, well-coached, and defensively sound England were. Watching the game live at the stadium, I was truly impressed at how much better they were – both offensively and defensively – than the ABs. They kicked very accurately, defended strongly (less accurately than NZ overall at 82% to 89%, but for more dominantly) and conceded less turnovers, with very few penalties. Furthermore, they didn’t play in their own half – they got the ball out into the NZ 40 (or deeper) and tried (successfully) to keep the game there.
The ABs on the other hand, well, that’s a different story.
Beyond the personal tragedies of this game from supposed leaders – such as Read’s five missed tackles (and BBBR’s three!), or Beauden Barrett’s three turnovers, or Aaron Smith’s ridiculous up and under to their 22 when we had great attacking ball – it is the consistent decisions by ABs to engage in risky plays that highlights why we couldn’t even get close to this England team. We simply never put them under any pressure. Why?
It amazes me to think that professional rugby players don’t know the (old) Ps, but it certainly seems that way: position, possession, pressure, points. We didn’t seem to value any of the first two, so it is little wonder that we didn’t seem to get any of the last.
Consistently, when we had opportunities, rather than try to work it through the forwards – we would try to go around the English, sometimes getting caught midfield (thanks to their effective rush) but often turning it over due to little kicks. Even those we regathered often had little meaning. An example is the cross kick to ALB – who was easily well covered – he caught it but was then easily taken to touch. Why kick that? Beauden Barrett, Aaron Smith, and Richie Mo’unga were all guilty of possession giveaways. It seems to be that the thinking is we’ll get plenty of opportunities, so one of them will come off. But, what if we only get one or two opportunities? Then what happens? You’ve just kicked it away to a team that won’t give it back in any place you want it. Now what? That’s All Black arrogance.
Even worse, when territory mattered, we’d either do something stupid (I’m looking at you Jordie Barrett with that stupid fucking attempted run and offload) or not kick deep enough. Sadly, our exits were just, pretty shit. Smith had two good exit box kicks to touch that I saw – apart from that I never saw us try to exit our territory with any real class. Barrett’s kicks were generally too short, while we commonly got pushed around by the English with superior kicks that found grass – posters have been talking about how Reece could be taken advantage of in this way and finally a team put that into play against us effectively. His danger man status hid the fact that he was also defensively a liability on kick coverage. His is the risk-loving strategy in selection.
Furthermore, we were just too happy to try and play rugby inside our half, rather than put it in their half. As a result, England had 62% of territory (and I’ll bet most of ours was in between halfway and their 40), making the game pretty easy in terms of tactics for them. Our kicks never put them under any territorial pressure, so they could attack us at will, from almost any field position. My favorite memory of the AB-Oz game from 2011 was Piri Weepu’s first kick to the corner – we got position to put on pressure, from which we generated possession and later on - points. It was beautiful and simple, but so well done. Where is that in this team? Why can’t we be traditionally pure with classical tactical soundness? Isn’t that a club that we are meant to have in our bag?
The Jordie Barrett attempted offload that led to a penalty – which put the game beyond reach - is the perfect example of this AB team seeing ‘pictures’ (as the coaches refer to them) that don’t match with the real risk involved. I’m sure that in Jordie’s mind, he could make a few metres, possibly even break through with an offload, and start us up on our way towards the winning try. But, he’s in our 22. If he fucks up, or anyone fucks up, or if the ball is dropped, it’s potentially curtains. That’s the game situation. He has a 99% certain clearance chance if he kicks or passes to BB for the clearance, but he chooses a risky run.
Why?
I think the problem is that he doesn’t accurately assess the risk of his action. He sees an isolated ‘picture’, designed (I think) to help players express themselves as well as they can. However, He didn’t seem to see it within the wider game, that is, with respect to the scoreboard pressure or the context. Even worse, that’s a pattern for him for which there has been no improvement.
But beyond the selection (hi Ben Smith @Tim) problem here, I wonder who is in charge of guiding these young men as they make decisions about how to respond to key pressure situations? Are they assessing these challenges appropriately? Is this game just a normal rugby game? Isn’t this rugby game very different to every other game? Isn’t that what we’ve learned from the last 30 years?
Once upon a time, we won a final by recognizing that we had to be a different kind of team – playing to the situation and context. It was certainly not pretty, but it was driven by a leader (and a group of senior players) who knew what the situation required.
Yesterday showed that the current players – including the leadership group and particularly this coaching group – haven’t learned that lesson. It’s been forgotten in trying to ‘revolutionize’ our play – devolving responsibility to players to make decisions based on what they ‘see’. But what if what they ‘see’ is not even close to the full picture? Is not assessed against the real potential risks of competition tournament rugby?
Is it because there has also been an abandonment of an overall game strategy? Certainly, we don’t have the quality of leadership as we had (no McCaw, Smith, etc.) but also shouldn’t two WC wins give the coaching team a better idea of what is required in that situation? How can this team continue to make bad decisions over 24 months (let’s go back to the Lion’s series) when faced with the rush defence? That’s on the coaches and the players. Why has there been no attempt to have multiple ways of playing the rush – incredibly they left the guy behind the pod alone all night last night, after one or two times it was clear that this player (often BBBR, also often Mo’unga) was under so much pressure they needed help, yet there was no inside fallback option available. They were just alone back there with flat options to the side they couldn’t use. The pass to the inside runner was completely shelved and our outsides were just pushed to the sideline while we never used our front running pods well at all. Then, we conceded interceptions, yet the risk-loving strategy to find outside space or try to kick to that space continued.
We are still one of the best teams in the world, certainly by player talent standards. We have the players - Japan has even shown that good players can be amazing with great coaching and a clear strategy – this is a problem of preparation. People go on about Eddie Jones and his brilliance – who the fuck didn’t know we were going to play England here? In this game? You’re fucking kidding me if that was a surprise, and furthermore, his brilliance seems to be more based on a desire to work harder and stronger and be more prepared than anyone out there. He’s even come out and said he’s been working on this for two and a half years. Of course he has. Who at the Abs hasn’t been considering that? Where were our plays designed to play to their weaknesses?
Maybe it suggests that after two WC wins, we just don’t want it enough anymore? Really want it – like ‘bone deep’ want it as they say? Have we got a preparation and conscientiousness problem in the players and coaches? Or, are they just not strategically sound enough to design tactics against the other premier coaches? If so, why the fuck would we reappoint any of the current coaches?
This team and coaching setup couldn’t beat the Lions. They lost to Ireland, twice. And, we got belittled by England at the WC. It’s not the defeat but the manner of it. Every time we’ve had to produce – except for Bledisloe cup games against an equally weak Aussie side while playing at Eden Park – we’ve been shown up.
This team has been too happy to make game losing decisions - it’s time to reassess the strategic and tactical goals of the ABs and relearn some key strategic insights from past failures. Maybe that’s why winning three WCs in a row will be the ultimate challenge for any team – it may be that the playing and coaching group just doesn’t have enough desire against teams desperate to make up for their past WC failures.
@gt12 awesome post.
The worst part for me is we did have the game and tactics to be successful, we even saw them in this game. However, inexplicably whenever something worked successfully, it was very quickly put back in the box. That series of pick and go's in the second half that took us close to the tryline being a prime example (and eerily reminiscent of lions series). Once we got close, they oddly decided to just start throwing it wide to where the England defence was....and when that failed we never saw pick and go's again. Wtf?
-
@gt12 awesome post.
The worst part for me is we did have the game and tactics to be successful, we even saw them in this game. However, inexplicably whenever something worked successfully, it was very quickly put back in the box. That series of pick and go's in the second half that took us close to the tryline being a prime example (and eerily reminiscent of lions series). Once we got close, they oddly decided to just start throwing it wide to where the England defence was....and when that failed we never saw pick and go's again. Wtf?
@Bones said in Why this feels different...:
@gt12 awesome post.
The worst part for me is we did have the game and tactics to be successful, we even saw them in this game. However, inexplicably whenever something worked successfully, it was very quickly put back in the box. That series of pick and go's in the second half that took us close to the tryline being a prime example (and eerily reminiscent of lions series). Once we got close, they oddly decided to just start throwing it wide to where the England defence was....and when that failed we never saw pick and go's again. Wtf?
We also used the tactic to good effect in the QF. I dont believe the poms are that superior physically, I think we had enough skill and power to win, but we just played into their hands with poor selection and gameplan
-
@Bones said in Why this feels different...:
@gt12 awesome post.
The worst part for me is we did have the game and tactics to be successful, we even saw them in this game. However, inexplicably whenever something worked successfully, it was very quickly put back in the box. That series of pick and go's in the second half that took us close to the tryline being a prime example (and eerily reminiscent of lions series). Once we got close, they oddly decided to just start throwing it wide to where the England defence was....and when that failed we never saw pick and go's again. Wtf?
We also used the tactic to good effect in the QF. I dont believe the poms are that superior physically, I think we had enough skill and power to win, but we just played into their hands with poor selection and gameplan
-
@canefan it was basically anti game plan. I think the state of the lineout is probably an apt description for the performance. Pathetic execution and appalling accuracy.
The plan was there, the selection was fine.
@Bones said in Why this feels different...:
@canefan it was basically anti game plan. I think the state of the lineout is probably an apt description for the performance. Pathetic execution and appalling accuracy.
The plan was there, the selection was fine.
It was like all of the lessons we learned from 2007, with the senior player group and shared responsibility, were ignored. When the game went against us we couldn't right the ship
-
I feel really sanguine about it. It’s been a great run.
I’ll comment again after work tomorrow.
I’ll comment again after work next Monday when England win the thing.
-
@sparky Ioane BROTHERS?? Akira is such a waste of talent it's criminal.
He needs a huge super season to be even sniffing an AB Jersey next year.
Yes the forward pack will not be one we look back at and go wow they are up there among the great packs we have fielded. Some great indivduals, and some that may go on to become AB greats, but not yet.
Just not enough raw horsepower in tjis front row. Sometimes the broadsword beats the rapier. I think Franks was missed. Didnt see anything more from Laulala than Frank's used to produce.
We were just straight out outplayed from minute 1 to 81.
@BartMan Agree that Akira's waste of talent is almost criminal. He was outstanding at the business end of NPC in 2018. Graham Henry likened Akira to Jonah Lomu.
Compare him with Billy Vunipola. Similar players, but for whatever reason Saracens and England have got Billy focussed and working very hard especially so in the six months or so. Akira not so much.
My point is that the cattle were there for NZ. Eddie spotted four years ago the players he wanted in his pack for the RWC knockouts and made damn sure they were fit and hungry what it mattered most. Lesson there perhaps for the next AB coach.
-
@Number-10 yeah we had 2 calls go to us, we could have really got a hiding, the worst game the ABs have collectively played in my memory I reckon. (1981 Bokke series).
@BartMan said in Why this feels different...:
@Number-10 yeah we had 2 calls go to us, we could have really got a hiding, the worst game the ABs have collectively played in my memory I reckon. (1981 Bokke series).
I'd argue we were worse in the 1991 semi final against Australia.
-
@Kruse said in Why this feels different...:
@gt12 said in Why this feels different...:
It was horrible walking past all those fucking crowing English fluffybunnies to leave the stadium.
THIS!
I sat down outside the stadium for about half an hour to get my shit together (unsuccessfully), and you could still hear bouts of that hateful “swing low” coming from inside.
Absolute fluffybunnies.
But with good reason to celebrate... their team was bloody good. The filthy bastard fluffybunnies.I must say, all of the pommie fans I talked to, in the stadium and outside back in Tokyo were very nice. In turn we were very gracious. The guys sitting in front us were almost apologetic and couldn't believe they won. Well played
@canefan said in Why this feels different...:
@Kruse said in Why this feels different...:
@gt12 said in Why this feels different...:
It was horrible walking past all those fucking crowing English fluffybunnies to leave the stadium.
THIS!
I sat down outside the stadium for about half an hour to get my shit together (unsuccessfully), and you could still hear bouts of that hateful “swing low” coming from inside.
Absolute fluffybunnies.
But with good reason to celebrate... their team was bloody good. The filthy bastard fluffybunnies.I must say, all of the pommie fans I talked to, in the stadium and outside back in Tokyo were very nice. In turn we were very gracious. The guys sitting in front us were almost apologetic and couldn't believe they won. Well played
Yep. One of the best things about rugby.
I'm still not going to stop throwing up a little in my throat every time I see a StGeorges cross for a few days but. -
@ACT-Crusader said in Why this feels different...:
Rewind 12 years ago and you could replay many of the same tag lines being put out last night and today with those following the France loss.
Disagree. In 07 we got shafted by a perfect storm of poor game from us, dodgy refereeing and an 'up for it' French side.
This time around, we went 'ok' - didn't really shit the bed, just got thoroughly out played. THat, and in 07 we hadn't come off back to back wins, and put out a statement performance in a knockout game the week before.
I'd argue that this game was South Africa in the Semi in 2015. We just weren't as good, and not able to handle it. I re-watched that game again in the buildup to this tourney, and we got beaten up all over the park all night ... but did enough to come away. Critical drop goal from Carter, and a bunch of really good contributions (including SBW). This lot just aren't as good in tight games, and I don't think there's much shame in that
-
I know the ABs will have done plenty of analysis, but it feels like maybe we walked into the unknown last night having played England only once in five years. And expected to just carry on with that game - hence picking Scott Barrett. Suddenly an England side we didn't know started playing a game we hadn't seen, and no one could come up with any answers for it.
-
It's funny, if you'd asked me what would hurt more, the All Blacks or Black Caps coming up short in the WCs, I'd have said the ABs all day long.
But here we are. I'm still genuinely not over the CWC. That one really hurt for so many reasons, namely:
- It felt like a once in a lifetime opportunity for the BCs to get a WC.
- They played well enough to get it done, but were cruelly denied by:
- An absurd deflection for 4 from Stokes bat at an absolutely crucial time.
- The umpires then inexplicably gave 6 runs instead of 5 which meant England were able to draw.
- The Super over then heavily favoured the English as they got to bat first so their set batsmen just kept going.
- Despite that we did enough to win, except hang on a second, the ICC has, for reasons unknown to anyone that knows even the first thing about cricket, decided boundaries hit is more important than wickets lost.
The combination of the multiple injustices and the very rare chances the BCs get to win tournaments has made that result impossible to swallow.
This ABs loss has none of those things. We were just outplayed by a team that played much better rugby on the night. In fact for us to win we would have had to steal that against the run of play, rather than really deserving it. We've also won the thing 3 times, and will get many more chances to win it again.
Don't get me wrong, it does hurt and I'm pretty bloody pissed at some of the decisions from the coaches and selectors that fed into this comprehensive defeat, which have been well covered already.
2007 hurt the most for me because I'm too young to remember 1987, so had grown up supporting the best team in the world that kept falling over at WCs. After getting so utterly screwed by one of the most incompetent reffing performances ever I was starting to doubt we'd ever win the damn thing again. Thank fuck for 2011 and 2015!
-
It's funny, if you'd asked me what would hurt more, the All Blacks or Black Caps coming up short in the WCs, I'd have said the ABs all day long.
But here we are. I'm still genuinely not over the CWC. That one really hurt for so many reasons, namely:
- It felt like a once in a lifetime opportunity for the BCs to get a WC.
- They played well enough to get it done, but were cruelly denied by:
- An absurd deflection for 4 from Stokes bat at an absolutely crucial time.
- The umpires then inexplicably gave 6 runs instead of 5 which meant England were able to draw.
- The Super over then heavily favoured the English as they got to bat first so their set batsmen just kept going.
- Despite that we did enough to win, except hang on a second, the ICC has, for reasons unknown to anyone that knows even the first thing about cricket, decided boundaries hit is more important than wickets lost.
The combination of the multiple injustices and the very rare chances the BCs get to win tournaments has made that result impossible to swallow.
This ABs loss has none of those things. We were just outplayed by a team that played much better rugby on the night. In fact for us to win we would have had to steal that against the run of play, rather than really deserving it. We've also won the thing 3 times, and will get many more chances to win it again.
Don't get me wrong, it does hurt and I'm pretty bloody pissed at some of the decisions from the coaches and selectors that fed into this comprehensive defeat, which have been well covered already.
2007 hurt the most for me because I'm too young to remember 1987, so had grown up supporting the best team in the world that kept falling over at WCs. After getting so utterly screwed by one of the most incompetent reffing performances ever I was starting to doubt we'd ever win the damn thing again. Thank fuck for 2011 and 2015!
@No-Quarter Well said, sporting wise I don't know that I'll ever be over the 2019 CWC.
-
I'm probably going against the grain a bit here but on reflection this one hurts more than 2007 for me. There were factors that went into that loss that didn't happen here (forward pass, no penalties, both 10s limping off) and I don't have a problem with the 12 selection (Lucky Luke was just better at the time and was easily one of our best on the park in the match).
This match we selected poorly (no point going over them again), were out coached and then out played. We got beaten up and never looked like winning and we had a team that could win that match (I'm finding it odd that in the aftermath some are now pretending England were always going to win when that clearly wasn't in the air before the match).
What I do think is that I'm just a (wee) bit more mature and can handle the loss better than I did back in 95-07.
I'm not really a cricket fan so didn't feel the pain of that loss like others did, but my mate last night said the cricket loss was worse, but he woke up this morning and said that he feels equally as shit today.
-
Yep nailed it there. Nothing like those other losses. Beat by a better team on the day, in fact we were damn lucky as the scoreline flattered us.
Now get to watch the rest of the cup stress free.
Now if we don't perform in 2023 then that loss dread is probably sure to come back
@Rembrandt said in Why this feels different...:
Yep nailed it there. Nothing like those other losses. Beat by a better team on the day, in fact we were damn lucky as the scoreline flattered us.
Now get to watch the rest of the cup stress free.
Now if we don't perform in 2023 then that loss dread is probably sure to come back
I dunno, this feels a bit like 2003 - right down to the manner and margin of the loss and the opposition coach involved. England likely to be the tournament champs also.
My hope is that, like 2003, this heralds a fresh start for the coaching team and a change in attitude as to how we approach the game.
-
Well on the bright side Foster is unlikely to fuck over any of my teams anymore
-
@BartMan Agree that Akira's waste of talent is almost criminal. He was outstanding at the business end of NPC in 2018. Graham Henry likened Akira to Jonah Lomu.
Compare him with Billy Vunipola. Similar players, but for whatever reason Saracens and England have got Billy focussed and working very hard especially so in the six months or so. Akira not so much.
My point is that the cattle were there for NZ. Eddie spotted four years ago the players he wanted in his pack for the RWC knockouts and made damn sure they were fit and hungry what it mattered most. Lesson there perhaps for the next AB coach.
@sparky said in Why this feels different...:
My point is that the cattle were there for NZ. Eddie spotted four years ago the players he wanted in his pack for the RWC knockouts and made damn sure they were fit and hungry what it mattered most. Lesson there perhaps for the next AB coach.
Eddie has hoped the Vunipola boys and Tuilagi would be fit for the RWC for the majority of his time in charge - Mako and Billy were out for large chunks of 2017/2018, Manu missed 2015-2019.
When England played without them, they often struggled when their forwards were contained. In 2018 England had a 46% win ratio, losing to SA, NZ, Ireland, France, Scotland and Wales.
While Eddie has done a lot of good work, he took some big risks. Would we have tolerated Hansen losing games and hoping McKenzie was fit knowing there was a big hole to fill if he didn't recover?
-
Its different because I'm older and more mature (I think). I'm not gnashing my teeth at the world but I'm maybe more disappointed in ourselves than in previous failures.
It's very disappointing as I don't feel like they turned up.
2003 called and said Mitchell and Dean's want their strategy back.
In the aftermatch interviews, both Retallick and Beauden lamented not taking our opportunities. By which I assume fluffed counter attacks.
I'm lamenting that we ignore half our team in our strategy and assume teams will provide us with gilt edged counter attacking opportunities. I want an approach that puts destiny in our own hands, not an approach that turns an opponent's off day into a nightmare.
Very disappointing. Acceptable with a young naive team and coaching group in 2003, but inexcusable now.
More comprehensive than 2003 though, which at least had an early 12 to 14 point sliding doors moment to leave you wondering about 'psychic energy'. Saturday was comprehensive to the extreme.
England played a superb game of knockout football. Even that doesn't do it justice as it is good play regardless of whether it was knockout.
Selections, and rotation, dont bother me at all. Just red herrings. The strategy and mental game bother me.
-
Its different because I'm older and more mature (I think). I'm not gnashing my teeth at the world but I'm maybe more disappointed in ourselves than in previous failures.
It's very disappointing as I don't feel like they turned up.
2003 called and said Mitchell and Dean's want their strategy back.
In the aftermatch interviews, both Retallick and Beauden lamented not taking our opportunities. By which I assume fluffed counter attacks.
I'm lamenting that we ignore half our team in our strategy and assume teams will provide us with gilt edged counter attacking opportunities. I want an approach that puts destiny in our own hands, not an approach that turns an opponent's off day into a nightmare.
Very disappointing. Acceptable with a young naive team and coaching group in 2003, but inexcusable now.
More comprehensive than 2003 though, which at least had an early 12 to 14 point sliding doors moment to leave you wondering about 'psychic energy'. Saturday was comprehensive to the extreme.
England played a superb game of knockout football. Even that doesn't do it justice as it is good play regardless of whether it was knockout.
Selections, and rotation, dont bother me at all. Just red herrings. The strategy and mental game bother me.
@Rapido said in Why this feels different...:
Its different because I'm older and more mature (I think). I'm not gnashing my teeth at the world but I'm maybe more disappointed in ourselves than in previous failures.
******It's very disappointing as I don't feel like they turned up.
2003 called and said Mitchell and Dean's want their strategy back.
In the aftermatch interviews, both Retallick and Beauden lamented not taking our opportunities. By which I assume fluffed counter attacks.
I'm lamenting that we ignore half our team in our strategy and assume teams will provide us with gilt edged counter attacking opportunities. I want an approach that puts destiny in our own hands, not an approach that turns an opponent's off day into a nightmare.
Very disappointing. Acceptable with a young naive team and coaching group in 2003, but inexcusable now.
More comprehensive than 2003 though, which at least had an early 12 to 14 point sliding doors moment to leave you wondering about 'psychic energy'. Saturday was comprehensive to the extreme.
England played a superb game of knockout football. Even that doesn't do it justice as it is good play regardless of whether it was knockout.
Selections, and rotation, dont bother me at all. Just red herrings. The strategy and mental game bother me.
Your'e not the journo who asked that question to Hansen in the post match interview after the loss are you?
I don't agree at all..they turned up all right and wanted it as much as England but they were stunned by the English strategy to get the first king hit in first then nulify the best attacking side in the world by playing 20 players on the field for the rest of the game. As Reid said we gave it everything we had but couldn't play the game we wanted because they wouldn't let us. The first try rattled the ABs and they never recovered where as it gave the POMS the confidence they needed: Get in king hit first. Tick. Now stop the attack. Tick. Win the Semi. Tick.
-
Its different because I'm older and more mature (I think). I'm not gnashing my teeth at the world but I'm maybe more disappointed in ourselves than in previous failures.
It's very disappointing as I don't feel like they turned up.
2003 called and said Mitchell and Dean's want their strategy back.
In the aftermatch interviews, both Retallick and Beauden lamented not taking our opportunities. By which I assume fluffed counter attacks.
I'm lamenting that we ignore half our team in our strategy and assume teams will provide us with gilt edged counter attacking opportunities. I want an approach that puts destiny in our own hands, not an approach that turns an opponent's off day into a nightmare.
Very disappointing. Acceptable with a young naive team and coaching group in 2003, but inexcusable now.
More comprehensive than 2003 though, which at least had an early 12 to 14 point sliding doors moment to leave you wondering about 'psychic energy'. Saturday was comprehensive to the extreme.
England played a superb game of knockout football. Even that doesn't do it justice as it is good play regardless of whether it was knockout.
Selections, and rotation, dont bother me at all. Just red herrings. The strategy and mental game bother me.
@Rapido said in Why this feels different...:
It's very disappointing as I don't feel like they turned up.
...
I'm lamenting that we ignore half our team in our strategy and assume teams will provide us with gilt edged counter attacking opportunities. I want an approach that puts destiny in our own hands, not an approach that turns an opponent's off day into a nightmare.Very disappointing. Acceptable with a young naive team and coaching group in 2003, but inexcusable now.
Felt very like Dublin last year -we just didn't fire a short.
I'm a bit loathe to criticise the coaches too much though. They got the team up for two massive games already at this world cup. Even in the game on Saturday the selection and likely tactics weren't terrible - we shuold have been playing territory and attacking their lineout. Really don't know why they didn't execute though, was terribly disappointing.
Every time we got the ball, we just kicked it away and didn't contest, or just turned it over with poor ball security.
