The Silver Fern

This thread has given me some serious PTSD and I’m having flashbacks to 2003!

But seriously, and putting aside the hyperbole (eg Hansen = Satan / Hansen = Jesus), I will look very favourably upon the Hansen era and I do think he has taken the All Blacks to another level, enhanced the legacy and all that other jazz. Simply put, the rugby we played between 2012 to Chicago 2016 was revolutionary and we may never see any team play with such skill consistently ever again. Yes, he’s had the cattle to do it, but his time steering the ship made much better use of the cattle, IMO, than anyone before him (I still think Henry didn’t get as much out of his team as he should have).

That being said, I think Hansen held on too long - he should have gone after the Lions as planned. Since we won in 2015, we’ve obviously had a lot of bad milestones - losses to Ireland, drawn Lions series etc - but we’ve also seen a drop off in skill levels, consistency, muddled selections, poor game plans, lack of calm under pressure and - more worrying than anything - a resignation or “c’est la vie” attitude in defeat. To me, it just looked like Shag had lost that absolute hunger to win and it seems to have rubbed off on his players.

Similarly, I’d argue he’s become a bit bored and overconfident with all the easy wins and has fallen into the habit of tinkering unnecessarily.

Every team at this Cup has a very clear style of how they play. Except for last week, we on the other hand have looked confused and unclear about which plan or style we are playing with in any given match.

I know this isn’t the match thread, but I’d like to make a couple of observations about the match today, which are demonstrative of the issues since 2016 that can be firmly directed at the coaching:

1. We looked completely surprised that England started so well and made life very difficult for us - this was evident in the poor decision making and option taking from the start to the end of the match.
2. We played with a game plan last week that would have beaten any team in the world if executed well. Yet, we shelved it completely today and went with the side to side shit from the opening whistle, together with stupid options like putting up bombs in their 22. The only time we put together some pods and ran at their forwards, Reece had acres of space, ran into the corner and we scored an easy try from the ensuing lineout. In short, we played into their hands, throughout that match.

Waking up today and thinking over the match again, as well as reading some of the comments from Foster and the players, has made me go from being angry to simply depressed. I am depressed mainly because this team is so clearly performing below their obvious abilities.

I am a little bit sick of hearing or reading people say we just don't have the cattle any more. It's right, we don't have 2005 to 2016 quality and depth that we got used to. But we do have:

1. Two of the best 3 AB locks of all time, one who has played 130-odd tests and the other who has played nearly 100 tests and at one point was the World Rugby Player of the Year.
2. Absolutely ridiculous depth in our loose forwards that should be the envy of practically every other team in the World.
3. A 100-plus test halfback, the greatest in AB history, at various times of the last 10 years the best halfback in the world, and one of the greatest passes of all time
4. Stupidly talented 10s, one of whom is a 100-test veteran and 2x World Rugby Player of the Year, while the other is 6x Super Rugby title winner.
5. Absolutely ridiculous depth in our midfield that should be the envy of practically every other team in the World.
6. As is usual, a multitude of back 3 options all of which are seriously potent attacking threats (and in Jordan, close to the most exciting young talent in world rugby right now).

And so what I find so depressing is that we have a coaching team that can't put together a game plan to get consistent performances out of that collection of obvious talent. Now, clearly our tight 5 is gash - hence why I haven't mentioned it - but that's most of my point: a decent coaching team would find a way to maximise the above strengths while minimising the weaknesses. Our coaching team does neither and its farking depressing

@barbarian said in Red cards:

I’ve complained about this on Twitter, and had a few people respond ‘just tackle lower’.

But I’m not sure those people have ever played rugby. High tackles are just a part of the game, and I’m not sure you can ever eradicate them. Yes some are a result of reckless play, but others are just instinct (sticking out an arm when you’ve been stepped by a halfback near the ruck), or tiredness (being caught on the back foot in the late stages of a game).

I’m not sure how you eradicate that from the game. Especially for players above 6ft 6.

At the moment World Rugby have signalled they are happy to ruin games as a spectacle in order to change player behaviour. I think that’s too big a trade-off, and think they need to find a better balance between protecting the players and ensuring games are enjoyable for fans.

This is probably the best post on this issue so far and clearly written from the practical perspective of someone who has played the game (presently or at least in the recent past by the look of things).

The objective is an entirely noble one, but the means adopted by WR go too far. You simply cannot treat a marginally high tackle, caused by a timing issue (e.g. a late, high speed change of angle) in the same way your treat out-and-out foul play.

It's just entirely unfair to the players, most importantly.

There will be a red card during one of the knockout games in this tournament and it will cost a team 4 years of hard work and maybe even some careers. How on earth is that fair punishment for a purely accidental, fractionally mis-timed tackle?

Edit: our only hope is that the unfortunate recipients of a red card in such a situation is England - only then will there be a sufficiently critical mass of whinging that WR will actually take a sensible approach to this issue.

@No-Quarter said in Five Greatest ABs of the past 50 years:

I know Lomu wasn't a complete player by any stretch, but his running game was so much better than anyone else that has played the game it's not even funny. Without exaggerating he was probably about 5 times more effective with ball in hand than any other player. People had nightmares about trying to defend against him. The combination of pace and power he had were basically inhuman. Has to be in the top 5 given the way he could break games apart with such ease.

Also, and I think @mariner4life summed it up well earlier, being the "greatest" or even a "great" All Black goes far beyond mere rugby playing ability (although that's most of it). It also includes what impact he had on the jersey and the legacy - did he add to it and, if so, how much? Jonah's impact on the jersey and the legacy are almost - almost - unparalleled. He's the benchmark by which we judge all of our wingers - he's why no-one rates George Bridge,

You've also got to say that the guy made huge physical sacrifices for the jersey. We quite rightly talk of McCaw's foot, Fitzy's ear, Pinetree's arm and Buck's testicle. But, let's not forget that Jonah played with a life-threatening and debilitating kidney disease and made several comebacks are bouts of dialysis and a fucking kidney transplant.

Anyone who doesn't have in in their Top 5 - because he was slow on the turn or some other nit-picking bullshit - can seriously go and eat a bag full of dicks!

@kiwi_expat said in Blues v Hurricanes:

I'd say the reason for Blackwell being continually selected is because he's a key leader in the group, he's a senior player, he was the Hurricanes player of the season in 2019, was pretty outstanding in Super Rugby Aotearoa last year too. Also isn't he the Wellington Lions captain?

Welcome to the 'Fern, Mrs Blackwell

@Virgil said in Im leaving:

@antipodean said in Im leaving:

@Winger said in Im leaving:

@reprobate said in Im leaving:

As I read it, it was a joke at BSG's expense

Its a joke at another persons expense. Why do this? Who knows what goes on in BSGs life or whether he still reads this forum.

Because he was a monumental hypocrite.

BSG was a monumental prick here, he was constantly rude and abused his moderator powers. He gave little to no regard for anyone else's thoughts or opinions.
He is not missed.

One of my favourite BSG idioms was "I am not saying anything here that I wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub" - my immediate thought was that he either gets decked every time he goes to the pub or he clearly doesn't go to the pub very often.

@W32 said in Boks v Wobblies I:

Joe Schmidt seems to be living on pre Farrell Ireland reputation.. hasn’t added much to any team he’s been involved with since then, and Ireland have been better under Farrell. A bit like Plumtree. Posers

Two weeks after the greatest weekend of rugby ever, this match, unfortunately, demonstrated almost everything that's wrong with modern rugby:

• From the very first penalty, where Frizzel gets cleaned out by Kitshoff onto Bongi's leg and gets carded.
• Bongi then gets "tactically" subbed, which apparently means he can come back on (but Wayne never mentioned under what circumstances he could).
• Cane gets a red card for something less dangerous than what Etzebeth (yellow card) and the Argie bloke (not even a penalty) did 2 weeks ago.
• Barnes pings Savea, then accepts that he was wrong to do so, but does not change his decision.
• Kolisi gets yellow carded for another flying headbutt (consistent with the Etzebeth call 2 weeks ago I guess).
• The game in the second half largely devolves into 2 teams trying the box kick their way to victory in the hope that the opposition will drop the ball and gift them the trophy.
• Multiple interventions by the TMO, not just for foul play.
• A try scored off what at first glance appears might be a knock on but which the TMO - who's already made a dozen interventions - doesn't appear to check.
• A ref who decides to swallow his whistle in the last 10 mins resulting in some inconsistent breakdown interpretations, which will always favour the defending team.
• Water breaks for tired props, and the associated invasion of the pitch by "medics" all mic'd up to the coaching box.

The only thing missing were the scrum and maul penalties, but that was mainly because we scrummed and mauled well.

@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: All Blacks v Namibia (Pool :

@westcoastie said in RWC: All Blacks v Namibia (Pool :

@kev said in RWC: All Blacks v Namibia (Pool :

@No-Quarter you have to wrap your arms, you can’t lead with your shoulder. Have to stand in front and let them hit you, or let them go past and tackle from side.

push the ball carrier into the turf and fall on them.

I think the confusion stems from setting yourself low initially, then he falls , it’s hard to mark adjustments , especially if you are a big bloke

Exactly, you just cannot win with the way the rules are being implemented at the moment.

Yesterday, the problem was that Lavanini was stood up too high and, therefore, his shoulder was always at risk of crashing into the chin of Farrell (a much shorter man). So, the answer to that problem is to get the body height low and make sure contact is low (i.e. below the shoulders).

Today, we've seen Nepo and Ofa do what they should - set themselves low to ensure contact below the shoulders. However, as soon as they initiate their movement to tackle, the attacking player goes lower, basically removing any possibility to make contact below the shoulders - i.e. completely removing the target. So, the answer to that problem is to keep the body upright. But then, we just end up in Lavanini territory again!

So, as a defending player, you're buggered either way.

World Rugby really has to re-think this. There's got to be a bit of an onus on the attacking player to also protect his head. You simply cannot tell me that clever players and coaches will look at the past couple of days and make a tactical move to carry low and lead with the head.

If attacking coaches and players themselves are not going to be worried about their noggins, then why should defending teams be...?

@antipodean said in Bledisloe Two: Auckland, October 18:

@nzzp said in Bledisloe Two: Auckland, October 18:

@Nepia said in Bledisloe Two: Auckland, October 18:

I actually thought that was pretty good, especially after everyone complaining about The Breakdown in the other thread.

They asked some good questions and I thought Foxy answered them pretty well even if he was a bit agitated.

Definitely defensive though - leading about 'you can't want the ABs to win all the time, and also want a contest - if we have a contest sometimes we lose'. I dunno, as i said, seemed very defensive and agitated.

I got the impression he's sick of the attitude permeating NZ Rugby public that has grown accustomed to unrealistic expectations because of an outlier team even amongst the All Blacks' record.

My issue is that his attitude seems to be "the NZ public has to understand ... there's a lot we're trying to do that the NZ public doesn't understand etc.". My attitude is, well explain to us what we don't know. Tell us what you're thinking is - even after the fact. Maybe then we'll be able to see why certain things were done a certain way and we'll be less critical. But, this don't ask, don't tell stuff just isn't going to cut it with a rugby public who, for the most part, know a bit about the game.

@mariner4life said in RWC SF: All Blacks v Argentina:

"This wasn't how it was supposed to beeee" they wailed

"It was our time!" They cried

"Deseeeeerved" they sobbed

Delicious salty tears making the inevitable NZ v SA final even sweeter. Salted caramel if you will.

Lots oh wailing about the RWC "not being fit for purpose" because the beat team over the past 2 years got knocked out in the QF - "the Nations League can't come soon enough" they say. Cry me a river, you fucks - no one gave a shit in 2007 or 2011 when it was big SH teams getting bundled out at the QF stage.

@jimmyb said in Wales v All Blacks:

@akan004 said in Wales v All Blacks:

A good performance according to Jeff Wilson and Mils.

One amateur era player and the guy who got replaced by Dagg cause he can't catch a high ball? Lucky we have those two rugby geniuses on our TVs

Some serious revisionist bullshit going on here. Mils was gobbling Up the highball in 2010. He was injured for most of 2011 and Dagg’s attacking play was irresistible.

I was very fortunate to pick up a last minute ticket for this match and I must say that it was a complete anticlimax - one of most beautiful anticlimaxes ever in fact. I’ve never felt more serene watching the BCs play it was really quite weird. Best part was watching about 10k Indian fans all up and leave simultaneously once we got to about 65/1.

@Tim yeah mate. Been a while but felt to dip my toe as the tour heated up.

@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks 2022:

@chimoaus said in All Blacks 2022:

Honest question, what do we want from the AB's in 2022/23? How do they evolve to match the strengths of the NH teams and SA

Some shifts to both the attacking and defensive shape would help a lot.

More picking and going in attack, more angled runners, more variety. Watching the standard pod attack where 9 biffs it out to a forward 10 metres from the ruck time and time again makes me want to rip my hair out.

In defense be far less passive - let's employ the rush defence ourselves - let's counter ruck - this passive 'soak' defence sucks.

If the last year taught us anything, it's that our attack looks better when our point of attack is actually closer to the ruck, rather than in the wider channels (and this is what we did in the first Lions test, and for much of the second, in 2017). This is what I would like to see more of in 2022 - an ability to change / vary the point of attack

@mariner4life said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:

@antipodean said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:

At the moment I don't think our shape affords him much space and time to use his threats as much as we'd like.

the last 3 games our midfield played very straight and very narrow to pull in defenders and free up Mo'unga to the loop. SA shut it down instantly the first time we ran it, so we just played straight and narrow.

Working out how to free up RI should the attack coaches first priority

Take this comment against the background that I have been such a massive RI fanboy that my mates call him my "son" but... if I was the attack coach, I would totally re-shape the way we attack to get as much depth and space as possible for RI to use his pace. The "flat" backline relies on bruisers or steppers to get over the gain line or make breaks and RI is neither of those things. His pace is the whole reason to move him to 13, but we've hardly seen have the time or space to use that pack, mainly because of our shape, but also because what time and space our shape creates has been created for RM and BB to use.

@Machpants said in RWC: All Blacks v Namibia (Pool :

Just let them fall over then attack the ball fuck heads.

Not that simple, Ofa was committed and had begun his "lunge" into the tackle. There's really not much he could have done to avoid neck contact there, other than not try to wrap his arms. However, if he did that, it would be a shoulder charge and he'd be looking at an even worse sanction. So, I guess you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

@antipodean said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:

I reckon Sam's right about the public knowing sweet fuck all about rugby. I'm astounded at the commentary I see on FB, reddit, roar etc. Even at club rugby and people talk about tactics from the 80s as if they'd work now, or their understanding of the laws and interpretations are mired back when.

I remember Matt Burke getting grief for trying to explain to people they didn't know what they were talking about given the game at that level is unrecognisable from park footy.

If you traditionally know you're in for a good team performance by certain indicators, why would you believe the result would be any different?

It’s absolutely true but doesn’t need to be and shouldn’t be said. Not only is it very condescending (and probably alienating) it smacks of defensiveness, hypersensitivity and - crucially - a belief that nothing can be learned from outside the bubble / echo chamber. This last part is particularly concerning given that the bubble has produced next to nothing to address successfully the very apparent issues the team has has for the last 3 years.

@mariner4life said in Blues v Hurricanes:

Ioane must be terrifying to defend in the midfield. I might change my tune.

He’s no George Bridge though

@siam said in Cricket 2021: NZ in England and WTC Final:

@majorrage and yet we thrashed the Indians just after they beat Tim Paine.
Me thinks tim might have a bit of tunnel vision...

Turns out the Aussie cricket team much like their public only pay attention to what happens in international cricket during the 3 months a year where they are beating up on opposition in their own backyard