All Blacks vs Springboks II
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@crucial nah, was one where he def had the ball or grabbing the ball...go trawl through the match thread to find the real time comment I made and work out where in the game it was haha
Oh, the feed I was on was about 30 sec delay, so take that into your calculations!
Just looked back on the so called highlights. My bad, I had two different instances mixed up. It was Akira that pushed Faf after the ball had gone. BBBRs one was for coming in the side, not playing the HB. There was no halfback there but the Saffa was clearly part of the ruck, not waiting to play the ball.
-
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@frye I don’t disagree. I don’t want to over analyse it but on the weekend it looked like some of our players were trying a bit too hard rather than playing their natural game. This after they looked pretty geed up and ready to go at the start.
When Foster got the AB gig there were two things that worried me from his time at the Chiefs.
Firstly his selection policy. He'd get "good" ideas, like defusing the Boks kicking game with Bridge, rather than just selecting the best player. (Linked to his tendency to play favourites.)
Mostly he's been doing a good job at selections so far this year, but it wasn't that long ago we had Jordie Barrett on the wing, as another "good" idea. The selection or not of Bridge this weekend will be a bit of a tell in that regard. I half suspect that he will have the idea of giving Bridge another chance, despite a better wing not playing, but we'll see.
Secondly, the Chiefs consistent ability to collapse when expected to win easily. Foster made a Super Rugby final, only for it to be one of the most embarrassing losses of his career, because his team were simply not ready for it mentally. He seems to be good at firing his teams up when they are under-dogs, and poor when they are expected to win. The quality of the ABs, personally, saved him last weekend, but they were clearly not calm enough.
@chester-draws said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@frye I don’t disagree. I don’t want to over analyse it but on the weekend it looked like some of our players were trying a bit too hard rather than playing their natural game. This after they looked pretty geed up and ready to go at the start.
When Foster got the AB gig there were two things that worried me from his time at the Chiefs.
Firstly his selection policy. He'd get "good" ideas, like defusing the Boks kicking game with Bridge, rather than just selecting the best player. (Linked to his tendency to play favourites.)
Mostly he's been doing a good job at selections so far this year, but it wasn't that long ago we had Jordie Barrett on the wing, as another "good" idea. The selection or not of Bridge this weekend will be a bit of a tell in that regard. I half suspect that he will have the idea of giving Bridge another chance, despite a better wing not playing, but we'll see.
Secondly, the Chiefs consistent ability to collapse when expected to win easily. Foster made a Super Rugby final, only for it to be one of the most embarrassing losses of his career, because his team were simply not ready for it mentally. He seems to be good at firing his teams up when they are under-dogs, and poor when they are expected to win. The quality of the ABs, personally, saved him last weekend, but they were clearly not calm enough.
-
Was pretty universally accepted as a "good" idea last weekend.
-
Not sure they were expected to win that Super final.
-
-
@crucial if it isnt the guy wearing 9 (or the back up) then they are usually ok to have a crack at, its the guy wearing 9 that is protected.
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@crucial if it isnt the guy wearing 9 (or the back up) then they are usually ok to have a crack at, its the guy wearing 9 that is protected.
Not in this case BBBR turned around and saw an opportunity. Just came from an obvious angle for the clean out.
-
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@machpants said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@kirwan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@hooroo said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@nzzp said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@hooroo said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
If the Boks decide to actually play rugby for a change, then it will be a decent contest. If they think they can win doing what they did last weekend again, they have rocks in their heads.
I'm not convinced. Their pack looks built for slow, grinding rugby. Trying to play with pace will be problematic.
If I were a Bok coach, I'd stick to the grind, but then add high risk rugby as soon as you win a penalty - classic NH rugby; only playing when under advantage. It's cynical, but damn effective.
I get that, and that is acceptable as a game of rugby. Kicking the ball away for up and unders for 80mins isn't rugby.
For me, this Springbok game plan is a massive humiliation of Springbok rugby. I'd be so embarrassed as an AB supporter if that was our strategy.
To me it's like they are just trying to reproduce the gameplan from 2009. The game has moved on.
As for their injury breaks, remember that it was the Boks faking injuries that changed the substition rules back in the day. Nothing new there either.
Their big chance to beat us was the first game, we'll be much better for the second. And their captain also said they had made a mistake trying to play too much rugby for the second Wallaby game, so I don't think their gameplan is going to change.
Take Bridge out of our team how do they score points?
We are always good for a few dumb penalties in goal kicking range and have been for the past 15 years!
Yeah we had Bridge 5, Akira 3, Moody 3 on stupid actions off the top of my head. Not forced, just bad and/or dumb
Two penalties by Retallick led both to points, one was dumb, the other one less so.
Which one is which?
Halfbacks deserve being pushed and you'll hardly find a game that it doesn't happen. Refs should make allowances for them being annoying little fucks.
As for the 'blocking' one? I didn't think he changed line. He is entitled to remain on his running line even if he does look back and see someone coming.
NB: these comments were typed by someone wearing a 'BBBR can do no wrong' t-shirt@crucial said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@machpants said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@kirwan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@hooroo said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@nzzp said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@hooroo said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
If the Boks decide to actually play rugby for a change, then it will be a decent contest. If they think they can win doing what they did last weekend again, they have rocks in their heads.
I'm not convinced. Their pack looks built for slow, grinding rugby. Trying to play with pace will be problematic.
If I were a Bok coach, I'd stick to the grind, but then add high risk rugby as soon as you win a penalty - classic NH rugby; only playing when under advantage. It's cynical, but damn effective.
I get that, and that is acceptable as a game of rugby. Kicking the ball away for up and unders for 80mins isn't rugby.
For me, this Springbok game plan is a massive humiliation of Springbok rugby. I'd be so embarrassed as an AB supporter if that was our strategy.
To me it's like they are just trying to reproduce the gameplan from 2009. The game has moved on.
As for their injury breaks, remember that it was the Boks faking injuries that changed the substition rules back in the day. Nothing new there either.
Their big chance to beat us was the first game, we'll be much better for the second. And their captain also said they had made a mistake trying to play too much rugby for the second Wallaby game, so I don't think their gameplan is going to change.
Take Bridge out of our team how do they score points?
We are always good for a few dumb penalties in goal kicking range and have been for the past 15 years!
Yeah we had Bridge 5, Akira 3, Moody 3 on stupid actions off the top of my head. Not forced, just bad and/or dumb
Two penalties by Retallick led both to points, one was dumb, the other one less so.
Which one is which?
Halfbacks deserve being pushed and you'll hardly find a game that it doesn't happen. Refs should make allowances for them being annoying little fucks.
As for the 'blocking' one? I didn't think he changed line. He is entitled to remain on his running line even if he does look back and see someone coming.
NB: these comments were typed by someone wearing a 'BBBR can do no wrong' t-shirtBoth were blatant stupid penalties, no rain. Most totally changed his line, and Akira pushed faf over well after ball gone and he failed to get to the next ruck. Dumb shit stuff
-
@crucial said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@machpants said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@kirwan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@hooroo said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@nzzp said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@hooroo said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
If the Boks decide to actually play rugby for a change, then it will be a decent contest. If they think they can win doing what they did last weekend again, they have rocks in their heads.
I'm not convinced. Their pack looks built for slow, grinding rugby. Trying to play with pace will be problematic.
If I were a Bok coach, I'd stick to the grind, but then add high risk rugby as soon as you win a penalty - classic NH rugby; only playing when under advantage. It's cynical, but damn effective.
I get that, and that is acceptable as a game of rugby. Kicking the ball away for up and unders for 80mins isn't rugby.
For me, this Springbok game plan is a massive humiliation of Springbok rugby. I'd be so embarrassed as an AB supporter if that was our strategy.
To me it's like they are just trying to reproduce the gameplan from 2009. The game has moved on.
As for their injury breaks, remember that it was the Boks faking injuries that changed the substition rules back in the day. Nothing new there either.
Their big chance to beat us was the first game, we'll be much better for the second. And their captain also said they had made a mistake trying to play too much rugby for the second Wallaby game, so I don't think their gameplan is going to change.
Take Bridge out of our team how do they score points?
We are always good for a few dumb penalties in goal kicking range and have been for the past 15 years!
Yeah we had Bridge 5, Akira 3, Moody 3 on stupid actions off the top of my head. Not forced, just bad and/or dumb
Two penalties by Retallick led both to points, one was dumb, the other one less so.
Which one is which?
Halfbacks deserve being pushed and you'll hardly find a game that it doesn't happen. Refs should make allowances for them being annoying little fucks.
As for the 'blocking' one? I didn't think he changed line. He is entitled to remain on his running line even if he does look back and see someone coming.
NB: these comments were typed by someone wearing a 'BBBR can do no wrong' t-shirtBoth were blatant stupid penalties, no rain. Most totally changed his line, and Akira pushed faf over well after ball gone and he failed to get to the next ruck. Dumb shit stuff
@machpants said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@crucial said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@machpants said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@kirwan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@hooroo said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@nzzp said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@hooroo said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
If the Boks decide to actually play rugby for a change, then it will be a decent contest. If they think they can win doing what they did last weekend again, they have rocks in their heads.
I'm not convinced. Their pack looks built for slow, grinding rugby. Trying to play with pace will be problematic.
If I were a Bok coach, I'd stick to the grind, but then add high risk rugby as soon as you win a penalty - classic NH rugby; only playing when under advantage. It's cynical, but damn effective.
I get that, and that is acceptable as a game of rugby. Kicking the ball away for up and unders for 80mins isn't rugby.
For me, this Springbok game plan is a massive humiliation of Springbok rugby. I'd be so embarrassed as an AB supporter if that was our strategy.
To me it's like they are just trying to reproduce the gameplan from 2009. The game has moved on.
As for their injury breaks, remember that it was the Boks faking injuries that changed the substition rules back in the day. Nothing new there either.
Their big chance to beat us was the first game, we'll be much better for the second. And their captain also said they had made a mistake trying to play too much rugby for the second Wallaby game, so I don't think their gameplan is going to change.
Take Bridge out of our team how do they score points?
We are always good for a few dumb penalties in goal kicking range and have been for the past 15 years!
Yeah we had Bridge 5, Akira 3, Moody 3 on stupid actions off the top of my head. Not forced, just bad and/or dumb
Two penalties by Retallick led both to points, one was dumb, the other one less so.
Which one is which?
Halfbacks deserve being pushed and you'll hardly find a game that it doesn't happen. Refs should make allowances for them being annoying little fucks.
As for the 'blocking' one? I didn't think he changed line. He is entitled to remain on his running line even if he does look back and see someone coming.
NB: these comments were typed by someone wearing a 'BBBR can do no wrong' t-shirtBoth were blatant stupid penalties, no rain. Most totally changed his line, and Akira pushed faf over well after ball gone and he failed to get to the next ruck. Dumb shit stuff
Still, pushing a halfback should be allowed
...and if I was going to split hairs the line BBBR ran was straight. He just hoped to intersect with the chaser and when he got to the point of intersection first put the brakes on to cause the collision.
-
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@frye I don’t disagree. I don’t want to over analyse it but on the weekend it looked like some of our players were trying a bit too hard rather than playing their natural game. This after they looked pretty geed up and ready to go at the start.
When Foster got the AB gig there were two things that worried me from his time at the Chiefs.
Firstly his selection policy. He'd get "good" ideas, like defusing the Boks kicking game with Bridge, rather than just selecting the best player. (Linked to his tendency to play favourites.)
Mostly he's been doing a good job at selections so far this year, but it wasn't that long ago we had Jordie Barrett on the wing, as another "good" idea. The selection or not of Bridge this weekend will be a bit of a tell in that regard. I half suspect that he will have the idea of giving Bridge another chance, despite a better wing not playing, but we'll see.
Secondly, the Chiefs consistent ability to collapse when expected to win easily. Foster made a Super Rugby final, only for it to be one of the most embarrassing losses of his career, because his team were simply not ready for it mentally. He seems to be good at firing his teams up when they are under-dogs, and poor when they are expected to win. The quality of the ABs, personally, saved him last weekend, but they were clearly not calm enough.
@chester-draws said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@act-crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@frye I don’t disagree. I don’t want to over analyse it but on the weekend it looked like some of our players were trying a bit too hard rather than playing their natural game. This after they looked pretty geed up and ready to go at the start.
Mostly he's been doing a good job at selections so far this year, but it wasn't that long ago we had Jordie Barrett on the wing, as another "good" idea. The selection or not of Bridge this weekend will be a bit of a tell in that regard. I half suspect that he will have the idea of giving Bridge another chance, despite a better wing not playing, but we'll see.
I think the Jordie on the wing drama has been overstated somewhat given it’s a model that has worked successfully for the ABs previously and with a couple of different players.
The most recent being Ben Smith who was played on the right wing despite being a fullback.
Rightly or wrongly the coaches saw DMac as the first choice fullback at that time. That’s fine he had more experience and had some good outings in black prior to his injury and missing the RWC.
Jordie was continuing to develop his game and had a very good Super campaign. He is a multi skilled player that has played 10, 12, 13, fullback at NPC level and above. His form demanded selection (like B. Smith and Dagg previously, and Jane).
I’m pretty relaxed about that one, Frizzel on the other hand…
-
fuck i love All Black fans
Not 7 days ago this site was awash with how good the selecting was, how maybe we needed to come around on Fozzie based on the improvement in play, and in players, and the new depth we had created
A week later, after a game we fucking won, and it's "get rid of the guy who last week was the long term answer at 6" and "oh we all knew this was coming with Foster he's shit"
We are fucking insufferable. Well, not me, mainly yous
-
fuck i love All Black fans
Not 7 days ago this site was awash with how good the selecting was, how maybe we needed to come around on Fozzie based on the improvement in play, and in players, and the new depth we had created
A week later, after a game we fucking won, and it's "get rid of the guy who last week was the long term answer at 6" and "oh we all knew this was coming with Foster he's shit"
We are fucking insufferable. Well, not me, mainly yous
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
fuck i love All Black fans
Not 7 days ago this site was awash with how good the selecting was, how maybe we needed to come around on Fozzie based on the improvement in play, and in players, and the new depth we had created
A week later, after a game we fucking won, and it's "get rid of the guy who last week was the long term answer at 6" and "oh we all knew this was coming with Foster he's shit"
We are fucking insufferable. Well, not me, mainly yous
The first part was my comments and I stick by them. A few agreed but hardly 'awash' in backing them up.
As for the second part, well that ain't me. That's coming from those that have been critical the whole time. Yes they are insufferable
-
fuck i love All Black fans
Not 7 days ago this site was awash with how good the selecting was, how maybe we needed to come around on Fozzie based on the improvement in play, and in players, and the new depth we had created
A week later, after a game we fucking won, and it's "get rid of the guy who last week was the long term answer at 6" and "oh we all knew this was coming with Foster he's shit"
We are fucking insufferable. Well, not me, mainly yous
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
A week later, after a game we fucking won, and it's "get rid of the guy who last week was the long term answer at 6" and "oh we all knew this was coming with Foster he's shit"
only a few, to be fair. Foster's work against Aus and Arg has been impressive - one shit game doesn't change that (yet). Two bad weeks, on the other hand, and I'll open the pitchforks and flaming torches store
-
-
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
He looks like he's trying to win a David Havilli look-a-like contest.
-
I still think Akira is the long term AB six. His power in countering the opposition's mauls must not be overlooked, while he was the only forward to make offensive tackles. I can remember one occasion when Malherbe lost about six or seven meters against him.
-
All Blacks assistant coach Scott McLeod confirmed, following a snappy training session on Tuesday morning, that Mo’unga had taken a full part and would be available for Saturday’s competition finale against South Africa and also that they had been plunged back into level-2 restrictions after the state announced four community-acquired Covid cases in the Brisbane area
That means that for the time being they are essentially hotel-bound in Surfers Paradise, though they are able to continue training in their team bubble.
“We just got off the bus back from training, and Shandy (team manager Darren Shand) informed us it’s level 2 in terms of the tournament,” McLeod told New Zealand media on a zoom call. “We’re not allowed to go out of the hotel, except for essentials. We’ve been that way a number of weeks now, so we know how to have some fun as a group inside, and we’ll do that in the next day or two until that changes.”
McLeod said the reintroduction of restrictions was unexpected, but would not unduly affect the group as they plot a much more convincing performance against the Boks on the back of Saturday’s shaky 19-17 victory in Townsville.“Richie was snappy and sharp and tried to lift the intensity, but we had to keep him under rein. He’s been inside for two weeks, has been working hard, but we need to assess where he’s at and what’s best for the team.”
Head coach Ian Foster will ponder switching Beauden Barrett out for Mo’unga’s fresh legs, though is more likely to bring the new dad off the bench after so long away from the test arena. He last played against the Wallabies in Auckland on August 14. -
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
He looks like he's trying to win a David Havilli look-a-like contest.
@nepia said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
He looks like he's trying to win a David Havilli look-a-like contest.
Fuck me, twins
As to the awash of foster love, bollocks there was. I'll stick by he shouldn't have been extended until after NH tour ideally, minimum after boks. And if the next game isn't a romping victory against the most tactically limited side we've played i years, and a clean sweep up North, fuck him. I'll give his junior, not faced the boks before team a pass for the last game, inept as our work versus the Boks strengths was, it would be a shock. But now they know what to expect and improvement should be dramatic!
I also think that outside of bridge going back to NZ and maybe mo'unga, BB fitness being key, no change in the originally wanted 23.
-
@oompb said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@hooroo you need less flashy forwards in the backs, doing what forwards are suppose to do.
Apparently there isn't need for any back after number 9. I don't know how you can comment on what happens in the backs?
-
-
@oompb said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@hooroo ja your 1-8 went missing. Our 9-15 had to defend your 1-15
By your own admission your 1-8 went missing too then
-
