All Blacks vs Boks
-
@NTA said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@mimic well I'm not going back now - the commentary from Marshall made me nauseous enough.
Excellent analysis Nick. I echo your thoughts about the broadcast.
As a former pretty boy back with good hair, I was never interested in the set pieces and only used that opportunity to fix my hair, straighten my socks, make sure the jersey is immaculately tucked in, etc.
Also to make eye contact with the closest pretty girl.However, as I've matured and watched a whole shedload more of rugby, I have really enjoyed watching the set pieces as they really are the litmus test for how a team is going in any match... and that is difficult for a pretty boy back to admit.
Watching TV broadcasts out of NZ were always head and shoulders above others in terms of showing the game in detail, camera angles, focusing on the game itself.
But in recent years, the NZ broadcasts have fallen away somewhat. They have fallen into the trap of showing too much crowd or focusing on close ups on particular players and as you said, focusing on the backline when the real interest is what's happening with that scrum or lineout.
I think that Meg's commentary has had a lot to do with this as he is often talking over a scrum about how the backline is set or what the next backline move will be off the set piece and then the director/camera guys change the picture to show more what the backs are doing rather than focusing on the scrum.
It really pisses me off when we get a picture of SBW shaking or blowing into his hands rather than watch a scrum set. It seems the camera crews/directors really have a thing for SBW in particular as he get's more individual closeups than any other AB.
Now I have to go and wash my mouth out with soap... and then check my hair in the mirror as well while I'm at it
-
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Info about this game (which wasn't a test): http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/teamsheet.asp?MT_ID=1354
-
@NTA said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@mimic well I'm not going back now - the commentary from Marshall made me nauseous enough.
Excellent analysis Nick. I echo your thoughts about the broadcast.
As a former pretty boy back with good hair, I was never interested in the set pieces and only used that opportunity to fix my hair, straighten my socks, make sure the jersey is immaculately tucked in, etc.
Also to make eye contact with the closest pretty girl.However, as I've matured and watched a whole shedload more of rugby, I have really enjoyed watching the set pieces as they really are the litmus test for how a team is going in any match... and that is difficult for a pretty boy back to admit.
Watching TV broadcasts out of NZ were always head and shoulders above others in terms of showing the game in detail, camera angles, focusing on the game itself.
But in recent years, the NZ broadcasts have fallen away somewhat. They have fallen into the trap of showing too much crowd or focusing on close ups on particular players and as you said, focusing on the backline when the real interest is what's happening with that scrum or lineout.
I think that Meg's commentary has had a lot to do with this as he is often talking over a scrum about how the backline is set or what the next backline move will be off the set piece and then the director/camera guys change the picture to show more what the backs are doing rather than focusing on the scrum.
It really pisses me off when we get a picture of SBW shaking or blowing into his hands rather than watch a scrum set. It seems the camera crews/directors really have a thing for SBW in particular as he get's more individual closeups than any other AB.
Now I have to go and wash my mouth out with soap... and then check my hair in the mirror as well while I'm at it
@roninwc said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@NTA said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@mimic well I'm not going back now - the commentary from Marshall made me nauseous enough.
Excellent analysis Nick. I echo your thoughts about the broadcast.
As a former pretty boy back with good hair, I was never interested in the set pieces and only used that opportunity to fix my hair, straighten my socks, make sure the jersey is immaculately tucked in, etc.
Also to make eye contact with the closest pretty girl.However, as I've matured and watched a whole shedload more of rugby, I have really enjoyed watching the set pieces as they really are the litmus test for how a team is going in any match... and that is difficult for a pretty boy back to admit.
Watching TV broadcasts out of NZ were always head and shoulders above others in terms of showing the game in detail, camera angles, focusing on the game itself.
But in recent years, the NZ broadcasts have fallen away somewhat. They have fallen into the trap of showing too much crowd or focusing on close ups on particular players and as you said, focusing on the backline when the real interest is what's happening with that scrum or lineout.
I think that Meg's commentary has had a lot to do with this as he is often talking over a scrum about how the backline is set or what the next backline move will be off the set piece and then the director/camera guys change the picture to show more what the backs are doing rather than focusing on the scrum.
It really pisses me off when we get a picture of SBW shaking or blowing into his hands rather than watch a scrum set. It seems the camera crews/directors really have a thing for SBW in particular as he get's more individual closeups than any other AB.
Now I have to go and wash my mouth out with soap... and then check my hair in the mirror as well while I'm at it
It's more the decision making from the producer that isn't in tune with the watcher. If the scrum or lineout is developing an interesting battle then you want to see what is going on there (without Marshall rabbitting on about something else). If they are pretty much restarts and the outcome is fairly certain then checking out the wide setup is great.
Either way, gag Marshall and the outcome is better. -
Saffer analysis w/ photos...
How All Blacks blanked Bok attack
[...]
[L]ook at how the All Blacks take out the first Bok support player.
First picture, Eben carry but Whitelock focus on taking supporter Franco out of the equation. Second one Beast carry and Crockett prevent Eben from sealing. Third is a All Black taking Dreyer out on his way to clean over Eben. These carries is very important to try and get the defence going backwards so that you can start to dictate, but the All Blacks very cleverly targets the support runners and then able to get over the ball and slow it down. Huge.
And it is kind of legal. [...]
More...
https://www.alloutrugby.com/how-all-blacks-blanked-bok-attack/
-
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Info about this game (which wasn't a test): http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/teamsheet.asp?MT_ID=1354
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
-
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
B/c it wasn't officially declared a Test match. The '49 Tour to SA had four Test matches; Rhodesia was none of them. (They played Rhodesia twice.) (Worst AB tour ever.) (British Lions used to regularly play Rhodesia on their SA tours as well, and those were not test matches either.)
-
Saffer analysis w/ photos...
How All Blacks blanked Bok attack
[...]
[L]ook at how the All Blacks take out the first Bok support player.
First picture, Eben carry but Whitelock focus on taking supporter Franco out of the equation. Second one Beast carry and Crockett prevent Eben from sealing. Third is a All Black taking Dreyer out on his way to clean over Eben. These carries is very important to try and get the defence going backwards so that you can start to dictate, but the All Blacks very cleverly targets the support runners and then able to get over the ball and slow it down. Huge.
And it is kind of legal. [...]
More...
https://www.alloutrugby.com/how-all-blacks-blanked-bok-attack/
@salacious-crumb said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Saffer analysis w/ photos...
How All Blacks blanked Bok attack
[...]
[L]ook at how the All Blacks take out the first Bok support player.
First picture, Eben carry but Whitelock focus on taking supporter Franco out of the equation. Second one Beast carry and Crockett prevent Eben from sealing. Third is a All Black taking Dreyer out on his way to clean over Eben. These carries is very important to try and get the defence going backwards so that you can start to dictate, but the All Blacks very cleverly targets the support runners and then able to get over the ball and slow it down. Huge.
And it is kind of legal. [...]
More...
https://www.alloutrugby.com/how-all-blacks-blanked-bok-attack/
No wonder SA rugby is terrible if normal play needs an analysis.
-
@roninwc said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@NTA said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@mimic well I'm not going back now - the commentary from Marshall made me nauseous enough.
Excellent analysis Nick. I echo your thoughts about the broadcast.
As a former pretty boy back with good hair, I was never interested in the set pieces and only used that opportunity to fix my hair, straighten my socks, make sure the jersey is immaculately tucked in, etc.
Also to make eye contact with the closest pretty girl.However, as I've matured and watched a whole shedload more of rugby, I have really enjoyed watching the set pieces as they really are the litmus test for how a team is going in any match... and that is difficult for a pretty boy back to admit.
Watching TV broadcasts out of NZ were always head and shoulders above others in terms of showing the game in detail, camera angles, focusing on the game itself.
But in recent years, the NZ broadcasts have fallen away somewhat. They have fallen into the trap of showing too much crowd or focusing on close ups on particular players and as you said, focusing on the backline when the real interest is what's happening with that scrum or lineout.
I think that Meg's commentary has had a lot to do with this as he is often talking over a scrum about how the backline is set or what the next backline move will be off the set piece and then the director/camera guys change the picture to show more what the backs are doing rather than focusing on the scrum.
It really pisses me off when we get a picture of SBW shaking or blowing into his hands rather than watch a scrum set. It seems the camera crews/directors really have a thing for SBW in particular as he get's more individual closeups than any other AB.
Now I have to go and wash my mouth out with soap... and then check my hair in the mirror as well while I'm at it
It's more the decision making from the producer that isn't in tune with the watcher. If the scrum or lineout is developing an interesting battle then you want to see what is going on there (without Marshall rabbitting on about something else). If they are pretty much restarts and the outcome is fairly certain then checking out the wide setup is great.
Either way, gag Marshall and the outcome is better.@crucial said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Either way, gag Marshall and the outcome is better.
Marshall was fluffing Albany and North Harbour for the incredible feat of getting 30,000 spectators from the greater Auckland region to turn out for an All Black test match against the Springboks. Truly amazing!!
A streaker running onto field for a time stoppage and those same supporters performing Mexican waves only made it better.
-
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
B/c it wasn't officially declared a Test match. The '49 Tour to SA had four Test matches; Rhodesia was none of them. (They played Rhodesia twice.) (Worst AB tour ever.) (British Lions used to regularly play Rhodesia on their SA tours as well, and those were not test matches either.)
@salacious-crumb said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
B/c it wasn't officially declared a Test match. The '49 Tour to SA had four Test matches; Rhodesia was none of them. (They played Rhodesia twice.) (Worst AB tour ever.) (British Lions used to regularly play Rhodesia on their SA tours as well, and those were not test matches either.)
I think Rhodesia was in the Currie Cup B competition so these were just touring matched and Rhodesian players were available for the Springboks during that era..
-
@salacious-crumb said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
B/c it wasn't officially declared a Test match. The '49 Tour to SA had four Test matches; Rhodesia was none of them. (They played Rhodesia twice.) (Worst AB tour ever.) (British Lions used to regularly play Rhodesia on their SA tours as well, and those were not test matches either.)
I think Rhodesia was in the Currie Cup B competition so these were just touring matched and Rhodesian players were available for the Springboks during that era..
Pretty sure that Springbok Ian Robertson from 1976 tour represented Rhodesia. Maybe he was just from Rhodesia? He was a real prick.
Via RUGBY TALK
1976 All Blacks – Fourth test
[Excerpt]
[...]
There was 26 minutes left on the clock when the most controversial incident in this match that would ultimately also define this [1976] tour and series ensued. From within their own 10 meter area Going went left putting Bryan Williams in space. Williams chipped ahead and Kevin Eveleigh running up in support re-gather the ball. Eveleigh ran a few meters and inside the Springboks 10 meter area throw a long netball-like pass to Bruce Robertson at full tilt. Robertson chipped ahead, the ball bounced and sat-up neatly about 1 meter from the goal line. Robertson had a clear run to the ball with Springbok cover defense at all sorts to try and beat him to the ball. Just before Bruce Robertson could re-gather the ball Johan Oosthuizen (some sources reckon it was Ian Robertson) on cover defense held him just long enough around the shoulders for Peter Whipp to get to the ball first and dot it down. The All Blacks in person of Ian Kirkpatrick demanded a penalty try but referee Bezuidenhout only awarded a penalty. The International Law Book is quite specific: “A penalty try shall be awarded between the posts if, but for obstruction, foul play or misconduct by the defending team, a try would probably have been scored.”
Bezuidenhout maintained that he did not see the incident but the legitimate question by the All Blacks was why a penalty then and not a 5-meter scrum for Whipp carrying the ball over. In order to award a penalty he must have seen the incident.
Both Robertson’s (Bruce and Ian) was involved in another obstruction incident which according to the Kiwis should have been a penalty try as well. The other incident was in the first half and was nowhere as clear-cut as the one in the second half. Doug Bruce chipped ahead and Robertson following through nudged the ball over the tryline. Bruce Roberson had a clear run to the line with no Springbok close enough to beat him to the ball. Springbok fullback Ian Roberson coming from the right -also on his way to the ball- bumped into Bruce Robertson inside the Springboks 22-meter area throwing him off balance for several strides just long enough for Chris Pope to pass them both and win the race to the ball.
[...]
http://www.rugby-talk.com/2011/04/76-all-blacks-fourth-test/
-
Pretty sure that Springbok Ian Robertson from 1976 tour represented Rhodesia. Maybe he was just from Rhodesia? He was a real prick.
Via RUGBY TALK
1976 All Blacks – Fourth test
[Excerpt]
[...]
There was 26 minutes left on the clock when the most controversial incident in this match that would ultimately also define this [1976] tour and series ensued. From within their own 10 meter area Going went left putting Bryan Williams in space. Williams chipped ahead and Kevin Eveleigh running up in support re-gather the ball. Eveleigh ran a few meters and inside the Springboks 10 meter area throw a long netball-like pass to Bruce Robertson at full tilt. Robertson chipped ahead, the ball bounced and sat-up neatly about 1 meter from the goal line. Robertson had a clear run to the ball with Springbok cover defense at all sorts to try and beat him to the ball. Just before Bruce Robertson could re-gather the ball Johan Oosthuizen (some sources reckon it was Ian Robertson) on cover defense held him just long enough around the shoulders for Peter Whipp to get to the ball first and dot it down. The All Blacks in person of Ian Kirkpatrick demanded a penalty try but referee Bezuidenhout only awarded a penalty. The International Law Book is quite specific: “A penalty try shall be awarded between the posts if, but for obstruction, foul play or misconduct by the defending team, a try would probably have been scored.”
Bezuidenhout maintained that he did not see the incident but the legitimate question by the All Blacks was why a penalty then and not a 5-meter scrum for Whipp carrying the ball over. In order to award a penalty he must have seen the incident.
Both Robertson’s (Bruce and Ian) was involved in another obstruction incident which according to the Kiwis should have been a penalty try as well. The other incident was in the first half and was nowhere as clear-cut as the one in the second half. Doug Bruce chipped ahead and Robertson following through nudged the ball over the tryline. Bruce Roberson had a clear run to the line with no Springbok close enough to beat him to the ball. Springbok fullback Ian Roberson coming from the right -also on his way to the ball- bumped into Bruce Robertson inside the Springboks 22-meter area throwing him off balance for several strides just long enough for Chris Pope to pass them both and win the race to the ball.
[...]
http://www.rugby-talk.com/2011/04/76-all-blacks-fourth-test/
@salacious-crumb said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Pretty sure that Springbok Ian Robertson from 1976 tour represented Rhodesia. Maybe he was just from Rhodesia? He was a real prick.
Via RUGBY TALK
1976 All Blacks – Fourth test
[Excerpt]
[...]
There was 26 minutes left on the clock when the most controversial incident in this match that would ultimately also define this [1976] tour and series ensued. From within their own 10 meter area Going went left putting Bryan Williams in space. Williams chipped ahead and Kevin Eveleigh running up in support re-gather the ball. Eveleigh ran a few meters and inside the Springboks 10 meter area throw a long netball-like pass to Bruce Robertson at full tilt. Robertson chipped ahead, the ball bounced and sat-up neatly about 1 meter from the goal line. Robertson had a clear run to the ball with Springbok cover defense at all sorts to try and beat him to the ball. Just before Bruce Robertson could re-gather the ball Johan Oosthuizen (some sources reckon it was Ian Robertson) on cover defense held him just long enough around the shoulders for Peter Whipp to get to the ball first and dot it down. The All Blacks in person of Ian Kirkpatrick demanded a penalty try but referee Bezuidenhout only awarded a penalty. The International Law Book is quite specific: “A penalty try shall be awarded between the posts if, but for obstruction, foul play or misconduct by the defending team, a try would probably have been scored.”
Bezuidenhout maintained that he did not see the incident but the legitimate question by the All Blacks was why a penalty then and not a 5-meter scrum for Whipp carrying the ball over. In order to award a penalty he must have seen the incident.
Both Robertson’s (Bruce and Ian) was involved in another obstruction incident which according to the Kiwis should have been a penalty try as well. The other incident was in the first half and was nowhere as clear-cut as the one in the second half. Doug Bruce chipped ahead and Robertson following through nudged the ball over the tryline. Bruce Roberson had a clear run to the line with no Springbok close enough to beat him to the ball. Springbok fullback Ian Roberson coming from the right -also on his way to the ball- bumped into Bruce Robertson inside the Springboks 22-meter area throwing him off balance for several strides just long enough for Chris Pope to pass them both and win the race to the ball.
[...]
http://www.rugby-talk.com/2011/04/76-all-blacks-fourth-test/
Need gifs.
Whinging about refereeing in the age before gifs took a lot more effort.
-
@roninwc said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@NTA said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@mimic well I'm not going back now - the commentary from Marshall made me nauseous enough.
Excellent analysis Nick. I echo your thoughts about the broadcast.
As a former pretty boy back with good hair, I was never interested in the set pieces and only used that opportunity to fix my hair, straighten my socks, make sure the jersey is immaculately tucked in, etc.
Also to make eye contact with the closest pretty girl.However, as I've matured and watched a whole shedload more of rugby, I have really enjoyed watching the set pieces as they really are the litmus test for how a team is going in any match... and that is difficult for a pretty boy back to admit.
Watching TV broadcasts out of NZ were always head and shoulders above others in terms of showing the game in detail, camera angles, focusing on the game itself.
But in recent years, the NZ broadcasts have fallen away somewhat. They have fallen into the trap of showing too much crowd or focusing on close ups on particular players and as you said, focusing on the backline when the real interest is what's happening with that scrum or lineout.
I think that Meg's commentary has had a lot to do with this as he is often talking over a scrum about how the backline is set or what the next backline move will be off the set piece and then the director/camera guys change the picture to show more what the backs are doing rather than focusing on the scrum.
It really pisses me off when we get a picture of SBW shaking or blowing into his hands rather than watch a scrum set. It seems the camera crews/directors really have a thing for SBW in particular as he get's more individual closeups than any other AB.
Now I have to go and wash my mouth out with soap... and then check my hair in the mirror as well while I'm at it
It's more the decision making from the producer that isn't in tune with the watcher. If the scrum or lineout is developing an interesting battle then you want to see what is going on there (without Marshall rabbitting on about something else). If they are pretty much restarts and the outcome is fairly certain then checking out the wide setup is great.
Either way, gag Marshall and the outcome is better.@crucial said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@roninwc said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@NTA said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@mimic well I'm not going back now - the commentary from Marshall made me nauseous enough.
Excellent analysis Nick. I echo your thoughts about the broadcast.
As a former pretty boy back with good hair, I was never interested in the set pieces and only used that opportunity to fix my hair, straighten my socks, make sure the jersey is immaculately tucked in, etc.
Also to make eye contact with the closest pretty girl.However, as I've matured and watched a whole shedload more of rugby, I have really enjoyed watching the set pieces as they really are the litmus test for how a team is going in any match... and that is difficult for a pretty boy back to admit.
Watching TV broadcasts out of NZ were always head and shoulders above others in terms of showing the game in detail, camera angles, focusing on the game itself.
But in recent years, the NZ broadcasts have fallen away somewhat. They have fallen into the trap of showing too much crowd or focusing on close ups on particular players and as you said, focusing on the backline when the real interest is what's happening with that scrum or lineout.
I think that Meg's commentary has had a lot to do with this as he is often talking over a scrum about how the backline is set or what the next backline move will be off the set piece and then the director/camera guys change the picture to show more what the backs are doing rather than focusing on the scrum.
It really pisses me off when we get a picture of SBW shaking or blowing into his hands rather than watch a scrum set. It seems the camera crews/directors really have a thing for SBW in particular as he get's more individual closeups than any other AB.
Now I have to go and wash my mouth out with soap... and then check my hair in the mirror as well while I'm at it
It's more the decision making from the producer that isn't in tune with the watcher. If the scrum or lineout is developing an interesting battle then you want to see what is going on there (without Marshall rabbitting on about something else). If they are pretty much restarts and the outcome is fairly certain then checking out the wide setup is great.
Either way, gag Marshall and the outcome is better.I seem to be Marshy's white night.
But the only time I have taken the effort recently to complain about the NZ* comments man was when Marshall was absent from the Canes v Crusaders top of the table clash. Got some jokes though from Mehrts, even if zero analysis on how the on-fire Barrett and co were kept tryless.
I'm happy to have lack of scrum analysis if the comments man is enlightening me about backline set up out of camera shot. Especially on NZ scrums, as that is usually where the money shot is coming from. Scrum analysis happens on replays anyway, not live action.
*I've taken the effort several times to lament Kearns' ability to suck the will to live of anyone watching. Probably get some scrum analysis though.
-
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
B/c it wasn't officially declared a Test match. The '49 Tour to SA had four Test matches; Rhodesia was none of them. (They played Rhodesia twice.) (Worst AB tour ever.) (British Lions used to regularly play Rhodesia on their SA tours as well, and those were not test matches either.)
@salacious-crumb said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
B/c it wasn't officially declared a Test match. The '49 Tour to SA had four Test matches; Rhodesia was none of them. (They played Rhodesia twice.) (Worst AB tour ever.) (British Lions used to regularly play Rhodesia on their SA tours as well, and those were not test matches either.)
A good read about this "worst AB tour ever" (incl photos) on this SA site: http://springbokrugby.webs.com/1949allblacks.htm
On the same site, there's this about the two Rhodesia games, again from a SA perspective: http://springbokrugby.webs.com/49rhodesia.htm
On the Roar website: http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/07/10/miracle-bulawayo/
Ahhhh, the things you find on the web: a tiny wee paragraph about the AB's loss to Rhodesia in the Canberra Times of 29 July 1949: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2815913
Okay, I'll stop now. But there's more to be found!
-
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
Back in the day Test matches were only between full member nations of the IRB. With the odd exception.
-
Second half thoughts:
Again, Boks weren't too bad for first 30.
In third quarter ABs scored in pretty much the only time they got into SB 22. At 58 Boks replace TH and hooker. Their scrum under the pump from then on. Three successive penalties, which dissipated any momentum they gained. Lineout not much better.
Lima coming on got the AB backs humming. Some nice touches from BB outside centre.
At 74 Pollard bad miss on ALB and Lima under sticks. Little resistance from there.
To me, Boks can stay with ABs for reasonable periods, but the pace at which we play eventually gets them to 'overheat' mentally (and physically), at which point decision making lets them down. ABs absolutely ruthless in such situations.
I think their Super set up this year, with only Lions playing dynamic rugby and too many dud teams has meant the players simply aren't used to extended periods of making decisions at speed. In contrast ABs have had benefit of many NZ Super derbies, which are probably second tier nation test standard.
Until and unless they can get their Super set up sorted can only see Boks are playing for second.
With their huge talent base we're all the poorer for this. -
Second half thoughts:
Again, Boks weren't too bad for first 30.
In third quarter ABs scored in pretty much the only time they got into SB 22. At 58 Boks replace TH and hooker. Their scrum under the pump from then on. Three successive penalties, which dissipated any momentum they gained. Lineout not much better.
Lima coming on got the AB backs humming. Some nice touches from BB outside centre.
At 74 Pollard bad miss on ALB and Lima under sticks. Little resistance from there.
To me, Boks can stay with ABs for reasonable periods, but the pace at which we play eventually gets them to 'overheat' mentally (and physically), at which point decision making lets them down. ABs absolutely ruthless in such situations.
I think their Super set up this year, with only Lions playing dynamic rugby and too many dud teams has meant the players simply aren't used to extended periods of making decisions at speed. In contrast ABs have had benefit of many NZ Super derbies, which are probably second tier nation test standard.
Until and unless they can get their Super set up sorted can only see Boks are playing for second.
With their huge talent base we're all the poorer for this.@pakman said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Second half thoughts:
Again, Boks weren't too bad for first 30.
In third quarter ABs scored in pretty much the only time they got into SB 22. At 58 Boks replace TH and hooker. Their scrum under the pump from then on. Three successive penalties, which dissipated any momentum they gained. Lineout not much better.
Lima coming on got the AB backs humming. Some nice touches from BB outside centre.
At 74 Pollard bad miss on ALB and Lima under sticks. Little resistance from there.
To me, Boks can stay with ABs for reasonable periods, but the pace at which we play eventually gets them to 'overheat' mentally (and physically), at which point decision making lets them down. ABs absolutely ruthless in such situations.
I think their Super set up this year, with only Lions playing dynamic rugby and too many dud teams has meant the players simply aren't used to extended periods of making decisions at speed. In contrast ABs have had benefit of many NZ Super derbies, which are probably second tier nation test standard.
Until and unless they can get their Super set up sorted can only see Boks are playing for second.
With their huge talent base we're all the poorer for this.The new Super format will be a hell of a lot better for SA, and all the more so if Jaguares can reach anything like their potential:http://allblacks.com/News/31458/home-derbies-to-kick-off-super-rugby-2018
