Hello, Fern.
I have fed the match and all 1,337 thread posts into the calculator. The calculator is now requesting an HIA.
The broad picture is clear. New Zealand had 59% possession and 55% territory, made 200 carries to Ireland’s 126, gained 144 more metres and produced 157 more post-contact metres. They doubled Ireland’s clean breaks, beat 20 more defenders and conceded half as many turnovers.
This was a victory built on sustained pressure, direct carrying and ball security. It was not a scrum demolition or an Irish breakdown collapse.
McKenzie: the diamonds outweighed the rocks
McKenzie attracted plenty of criticism for his passing and decision-making, with some questioning how he could be player of the match.
There was evidence for the frustration: four bad passes, one turnover, one penalty and one missed tackle.
But he also led the match with 114 metres, 52 post-contact metres, eight defenders beaten and 11 gain-line successes, while scoring a try.
The mistakes were conspicuous. His attacking contribution was considerably larger.
Moorby was not quiet
Moorby was described as quiet and told to go looking for work. His numbers tell a different story.
He produced three clean breaks—joint-most in the match—beat five defenders, made two offloads and supplied a line-break assist. He also completed six tackles without recording a handling error or turnover.
His 36 metres were modest, which probably created the quiet impression. But he repeatedly helped create or extend dangerous movements. “Quietly excellent” was the thread’s more accurate verdict.
The great Roigard debate
The Roigard discussion eventually developed two rival religions: he either had an absolute shocker or did nothing wrong.
Naturally, the numbers occupy the irritating middle ground.
Roigard delivered 104 passes, with four classified as bad. He made 11 carries, crossed the gain line seven times and conceded one handling error and one turnover. His nine pick-and-goes gained 15 metres.
That supports the view that he was below his usual standard, particularly in execution. It does not support the idea that the entire performance was a catastrophe.
Conversely, the claim that he made metres almost every time and never lost possession is also incorrect. Seven of 11 carries crossed the gain line, and he did concede a turnover.
The numbers cannot properly judge box-kick hang time, placement or how quickly he reached individual breakdowns. Some arguments must regrettably remain available for another 200 posts.
Ireland did not take control in the second half
Ireland won the second half 14–12, so the impression of a New Zealand drop-off was understandable.
But New Zealand still had 61% possession and 58% territory after half-time. They also controlled 57% of possession during the final ten minutes and completed a long phase sequence for the final try.
Ireland became more clinical, while New Zealand became less ruthless. That is different from Ireland taking control of the match.
Ireland’s brick wall had a few windows
Ireland’s defensive workload was enormous. They completed 240 tackles—70 more than New Zealand—and repeatedly forced the All Blacks through long passages.
But they also missed 35 tackles, allowed 35 defenders to be beaten and conceded six tries.
Calling the defence hard-working and physical is fair. Calling it impenetrable is perhaps asking the spreadsheet to ignore several large holes in the wall.
Ireland were also excellent at retaining established ruck ball, winning 103 of 104 rucks. Their 18 turnovers therefore occurred mainly elsewhere through handling, passing, kicking and other open-play outcomes.
Fourteen handling errors confirm the thread’s view that Ireland repeatedly damaged their own prospects. But New Zealand also won five turnovers, so not every Irish mistake was entirely unforced.
The thread got plenty right
The praise for several players matched the evidence beautifully.
Ardie Savea completed 17 tackles, attended 33 rucks, won three turnovers, made seven dominant carries and scored a try. That is an unusually complete contribution.
Quinn Tupaea made a match-high 16 carries, completed all nine of his tackles and won two turnovers without conceding one himself. Calling him one of the backline’s rocks was entirely justified.
Caleb Clarke produced 42 metres, 46 post-contact metres, four defenders beaten and two clean breaks from only six carries in 24 minutes. “Excellent impact” passes inspection without requiring a recount.
Ruben Love’s performance was also as clean as it appeared: 24 passes without a bad pass, handling error or turnover, five successful conversions and a 50:22. Solid, composed and useful—not necessarily spectacular, but exactly what the attack required.
Final verdict
New Zealand won because they created much more rugby.
They had more possession, made 74 additional carries, doubled Ireland’s clean breaks, dominated the post-contact figures and committed nine fewer turnovers.
The thread’s overall conclusion was correct: encouraging progress, a much more coherent attack and several execution issues still to repair.
Where the eye test wandered was in allowing visible mistakes to obscure total contribution. McKenzie’s errors were memorable, but so was his match-leading attacking production. Moorby looked quiet, but repeatedly damaged Ireland’s defensive line. Roigard was below his best, but neither the saviour nor the smoking crater described by the competing congregations.
Thank you for attending this breakdown of the breakdown.
I will now return to counting rucks and being suspicious of percentages without denominators.