@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean

Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes

I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.

Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.

Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.

It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.

But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...

Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.

@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean

Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes

I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.

Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.

Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.

It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.

But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...

Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.

The defensive line is more prepared for constestables. It's expected they will lose the ball some times. Losing the ball by a breakdown steal is more of a surprise.

Last year for example the Blues won the most ruck turnovers by backs.

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean

Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes

I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.

Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.

Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.

It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.

But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...

Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.

The defensive line is more prepared for constestables. It's expected they will lose the ball some times. Losing the ball by a breakdown steal is more of a surprise.

Last year for example the Blues won the most ruck turnovers by backs.

and the defensive cross-kick? Rieko didn't look very prepared for that one...

@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean

Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes

I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.

Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.

Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.

It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.

But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...

Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.

The defensive line is more prepared for constestables. It's expected they will lose the ball some times. Losing the ball by a breakdown steal is more of a surprise.

Last year for example the Blues won the most ruck turnovers by backs.

and the defensive cross-kick? Rieko didn't look very prepared for that one...

It seems to me that we have no clear plan when it comes to our kicking game. Many times it seems like the only player who knows a kick is coming, and where it's going, is the kicker themselves. Our box kicks are almost never contested, and it feels like the coaches have given BB, DMac and anyone else licence to chance their arm from anywhere. Hence the low percentage chip and grubber kicks

There surely has to be a middle ground, where we kick deep for touch when we are in our own 25, and be a little more selective with the tricky stuff. Right now we are predictably unpredictable

@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean

Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes

I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.

Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.

Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.

It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.

But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...

Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.

The defensive line is more prepared for constestables. It's expected they will lose the ball some times. Losing the ball by a breakdown steal is more of a surprise.

Last year for example the Blues won the most ruck turnovers by backs.

and the defensive cross-kick? Rieko didn't look very prepared for that one...

Given that he hasn't started on the wing in quite a few years it's no surprise. Kick receive or chase was never a strong suit of Rieko's anyway.

@canefan said in All Blacks v France I:

@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean

Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes

I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.

Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.

Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.

It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.

But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...

Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.

The defensive line is more prepared for constestables. It's expected they will lose the ball some times. Losing the ball by a breakdown steal is more of a surprise.

Last year for example the Blues won the most ruck turnovers by backs.

and the defensive cross-kick? Rieko didn't look very prepared for that one...

It seems to me that we have no clear plan when it comes to our kicking game. Many times it seems like the only player who knows a kick is coming, and where it's going, is the kicker themselves. Our box kicks are almost never contested, and it feels like the coaches have given BB, DMac and anyone else licence to chance their arm from anywhere. Hence the low percentage chip and grubber kicks

Possibly there is an idea where after a certain amount of phases if nothings happening they just kick the ball away and defend?

They don't want kick it out for a lineout because they don't want the other team to have a rest? They want to keep them moving?

They don't want a couple of players running out of the line to chase because then the defensive line is broken?

@frugby said in All Blacks v France I:

One tactical change the All Blacks may make is to bring Tavatavanawai into the matchday 23, purely because he can cover the wing to a better level than the other midfielders.

I had a thought when the squad was named that Tavatavanawai and Ioane might have been fighting it out for a bench spot, with the idea they'd come on with 20-30 minutes to go either on the wing on in midfield in an impact role against tired defence. That's probably wrong and they obviously want to see how Ioane goes back on the wing but I still think there's value in that idea.

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@canefan said in All Blacks v France I:

@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean

Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes

I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.

Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.

Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.

It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.

But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...

Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.

The defensive line is more prepared for constestables. It's expected they will lose the ball some times. Losing the ball by a breakdown steal is more of a surprise.

Last year for example the Blues won the most ruck turnovers by backs.

and the defensive cross-kick? Rieko didn't look very prepared for that one...

It seems to me that we have no clear plan when it comes to our kicking game. Many times it seems like the only player who knows a kick is coming, and where it's going, is the kicker themselves. Our box kicks are almost never contested, and it feels like the coaches have given BB, DMac and anyone else licence to chance their arm from anywhere. Hence the low percentage chip and grubber kicks

Possibly there is an idea where after a certain amount of phases if nothings happening they just kick the ball away and defend?

They don't want kick it out for a lineout because they don't want the other team to have a rest? They want to keep them moving?

They don't want a couple of players running out of the line to chase because then the defensive line is broken?

I can see that, but then wouldn't we be kicking deeper?

@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@canefan said in All Blacks v France I:

@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@antipodean

Well Tavatavanawai did win more turnovers than Kirifi this SRP season but then again the Highlanders were probably defending more than the Canes

I get the point you're making, but I'd rather select the person whose job it is to play openside than a winger/ centre trying to do that role.

Breakdown turnovers won out wide are actually more likely to result in a try if the team is good at counter-attacking because the defence is usually has more misalignment.

Let's accept that statement as true for argument's sake, and the underlying premise that "out wide" means backs, you've just taken out a back to attack with.

It also means that it has to be a clear turnover, not a penalised offence.

But if all of that is true, then it obviously means you should select a backline of turnover specialists...

Elephant in the room. Defensive box kicks provide the opposition with turnover ball (50/50 on a good day), many times out wide, in your own half, and with defensive lines in disarray. They are consistently done by the ABs, puts them under pressure, and often leads to an opposition score. They seem not to be concerned about that kind of turnover ball and want to make the game exciting.

The defensive line is more prepared for constestables. It's expected they will lose the ball some times. Losing the ball by a breakdown steal is more of a surprise.

Last year for example the Blues won the most ruck turnovers by backs.

and the defensive cross-kick? Rieko didn't look very prepared for that one...

It seems to me that we have no clear plan when it comes to our kicking game. Many times it seems like the only player who knows a kick is coming, and where it's going, is the kicker themselves. Our box kicks are almost never contested, and it feels like the coaches have given BB, DMac and anyone else licence to chance their arm from anywhere. Hence the low percentage chip and grubber kicks

Possibly there is an idea where after a certain amount of phases if nothings happening they just kick the ball away and defend?

They don't want kick it out for a lineout because they don't want the other team to have a rest? They want to keep them moving?

They don't want a couple of players running out of the line to chase because then the defensive line is broken?

I can see that, but then wouldn't we be kicking deeper?

Well the deeper they kick the more its likely to be one of three options:

1. A force back kicking duel which doesn't usually go well with Beauden.
2. They kick it out for the lineout which means a rest for the other team.
3. Or it gives a guy like Théo Attissogbe a chance to wind up and slice through.

It's interesting that the prevailing opinion is we kicked a lot of ball away, yet at the same time we held 62% of possession which is pretty dominant.

@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v France I:

It's interesting that the prevailing opinion is we kicked a lot of ball away, yet at the same time we held 62% of possession which is pretty dominant.

It's not the amount of kicking as such, it's the timing and type of ball we kick away. We were dominating the contacts, making linebreaks, flooding forward... and then kicking.

@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:

@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v France I:

It's interesting that the prevailing opinion is we kicked a lot of ball away, yet at the same time we held 62% of possession which is pretty dominant.

It's not the amount of kicking as such, it's the timing and type of ball we kick away. We were dominating the contacts, making linebreaks, flooding forward... and then kicking.

Yeah a feature of Plummers game last year for the Blues compared to BB is Plummer just kept the possession until they scored rather than kicking it away.

@brodean said in All Blacks v France I:

@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:

@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v France I:

It's interesting that the prevailing opinion is we kicked a lot of ball away, yet at the same time we held 62% of possession which is pretty dominant.

It's not the amount of kicking as such, it's the timing and type of ball we kick away. We were dominating the contacts, making linebreaks, flooding forward... and then kicking.

Yeah a feature of Plummers game last year for the Blues compared to BB is Plummer just kept the possession until they scored rather than kicking it away.

They did kick, but Plummer was more conventional in his option taking

@canefan

They did but not when they had front foot ball. They certainly kicked less. BB often kicks away when it's good front foot ball.

@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:

@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v France I:

It's interesting that the prevailing opinion is we kicked a lot of ball away, yet at the same time we held 62% of possession which is pretty dominant.

It's not the amount of kicking as such, it's the timing and type of ball we kick away. We were dominating the contacts, making linebreaks, flooding forward... and then kicking.

Agree. And it’s also the optics of it. Too many occasions our kicks look rushed or indecisive or a bit haphazard.

I think back to when DC played and when he was siting in the pocket to get on to that sweeping left boot or when he was attacking the line with confidence for a rare chip, it was done with confidence. And whilst he didn’t nail every kick perfectly, at least it sent a message to the opposition that he had a kicking game to be worried about.

@His-Bobness said in All Blacks v France I:

Rugby is fucked. Too many laws. Too many pedantic piston wristed gibbons making decisions. Just fuck off. This is farcical. It is a broken game. People are not going to watch this shit.

You're not wrong, we are in the somewhat ridicolus situation where world rugby tweaks rules to "make the game faster" by saving at most a few seconds of game time while on the same hand being more than comfortable for the game to be brought to an absolute grinding halt for 3 minutes plus while the TMO, referee and both assistant referees stand in the middle of the park watching slow-mo replays on endless loop.

On the weekend all 3 tries were seen by the referee who ruled at the time they were ok, so it's not like he missed seeing them but he was overuled via slow-mo replay picking out minute infringements, Proctors non-try was laughable.

Cricket at least protects it's referee's with the defaut being that the ref is correct and only if clear and obvious evidence is provided otherwise is their decision overturned. The clear and obvious part is provided by technology i.e snicko, ball tracking, hot spot. Rugby has no more technology than people huddled around a TV screen and its farcical.

I'll say it one more time, we need to get a brains trust (former players, coaches, refs, not just administrators) into a room, clear the rule book

15 a side
dimensions of the field
try's and conversions
we want scrums and lineouts
cant pass the ball forward...
....whats next?

i feel too many of the current interpretations are built ontop of previous interpretations and like a game of telephone it gets distorted

@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v France I:

@reprobate said in All Blacks v France I:

@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v France I:

It's not the amount of kicking as such, it's the timing and type of ball we kick away. We were dominating the contacts, making linebreaks, flooding forward... and then kicking.

Agree. And it’s also the optics of it. Too many occasions our kicks look rushed or indecisive or a bit haphazard.

I think back to when DC played and when he was siting in the pocket to get on to that sweeping left boot or when he was attacking the line with confidence for a rare chip, it was done with confidence. And whilst he didn’t nail every kick perfectly, at least it sent a message to the opposition that he had a kicking game to be worried about.

Driving opposition teams back with long kicks seems to have been abandoned completely. Even with Carter injured during the 2011 World Cup, instead of forgetting about that tactic, the team used Dagg to good effect, particularly in the semifinal against Australia.

No that it really matters, but have heard that scratching out the Will Jordan try has been ruled the incorrect decision - try should've stood.