@brodean said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
Vaa'i did well for his try. He's probably deceptively fast but he definitely runs like a lock and not a loose forward.
Don't get style points. It's not how, it's how many.
8 days later
@Duluth said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
What absolute nonsense
France did far better than any pundit predicted and will go forward with a huge playing base
Yeah the reaction to a disjointed AB side has been strangely positive in the media.
Robertson might say a bit of stuff about what the team has learned from the series but the real question is whether or not they apply that knowledge in the future. I look forward to the improved tactical kicking, better use of the bench and game plan adaptability.
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
I look forward to the improved tactical kicking, better use of the bench and game plan adaptability.
Yep, and I expect to win lotto this weekend.
@Duluth said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
Fair comment about the tactically poor appreciation of the space provided by France with both their wingers up and a shallow fullback.
Kicking in New Zealand rugby is as poor as I've ever seen it.
@antipodean said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@Duluth said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
Fair comment about the tactically poor appreciation of the space provided by France with both their wingers up and a shallow fullback.
Kicking in New Zealand rugby is as poor as I've ever seen it.
We've never recovered since DC. Everyone remembers his amazing running game and focus on getting someone who can razzle dazzle, but they forget he was a very good kicker and alround tactical 10 as well
I thought DMac played a solid game on the weekend. His kicking game was much stronger than BBs, he just didn't have much x factor. I don't mind that, and I'd like to see him get a run with Roigard and the top team
@canefan said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
I thought DMac played a solid game on the weekend. His kicking game was much stronger than BBs, he just didn't have much x factor. I don't mind that, and I'd like to see him get a run with Roigard and the top team
The backline didn’t look as smooth with DMac at 10, particularly the out the back plays close to the line that opened up the French defence so well, looked noticeably disjointed in this test.
The tries scored were not nearly as well constructed as in the previous tests. The grubber that resulted in Kirifis try was a dirt poor option that was made to look good by the French 15 fumbling it and Reece stripping it. The ALB try didn’t scream the smooth and well constructed out the back plays we saw in the previous two tests either. No real excuses for Dmac with a 9,11,13 combo he was very familiar with.
Dmac has also been targeted under the high ball and it’s a clear vulnerability in the ABs backfield. The Crusaders did it in the final and the international teams will target him.
But we’re stuck between rock and a hard place with Barrett and McKenzie. Either Love or someone else has to step up
@jimmyb said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@canefan said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
I thought DMac played a solid game on the weekend. His kicking game was much stronger than BBs, he just didn't have much x factor. I don't mind that, and I'd like to see him get a run with Roigard and the top team
But we’re stuck between rock and a hard place with Barrett and McKenzie. Either Love or someone else has to step up
I’d like to see them give Love (given he’s the options they have in squad right now) significant game time throughout the Rugby Championship, introducing him from the bench with more and more minutes each game as the tournament goes on and eventually starting, until it’s clear whether or not he’s the best option going forward. No point in mucking around with Barrett for another two years.
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@jimmyb said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@canefan said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
I thought DMac played a solid game on the weekend. His kicking game was much stronger than BBs, he just didn't have much x factor. I don't mind that, and I'd like to see him get a run with Roigard and the top team
But we’re stuck between rock and a hard place with Barrett and McKenzie. Either Love or someone else has to step up
I’d like to see them give Love (given he’s the options they have in squad right now) significant game time throughout the Rugby Championship, introducing him from the bench with more and more minutes each game as the tournament goes on and eventually starting, until it’s clear whether or not he’s the best option going forward. No point in mucking around with Barrett for another two years.
Agreed. Neither Barrett nor McKenzie are capable of winning a team a World Cup
@canefan said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@jimmyb to be fair, DMax was playing with the B team, no wonder it was clunky. I'm not totally convinced either, but he needs a decent run with the top team to see if he can lift his level. Starting BB is just wasting opportunities to look at other prospects
Exactly that, it's a shit call to say he had as good an opportunity as BB, when a vastly different team was rolled out. BB had the benefit of having DMac in his backline too...
I'd go so far as to say it's shit management by the All Black coaches to not do a little mix and match across the three games so no particular Test you could say one was full strength. You want to see how players go when substituted in with considerable first choice experience around them. To see if they're the weak link or could be a multiplier.
I'm starting to believe that they're little more than fucking idiots.
@antipodean said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
You want to see how players go when substituted in with considerable first choice experience around them.
You could argue they did do that if you look at Holland at lock, Proctor at 13, Vaai at 6 and Lio Willie at 8.
Holland looks like the find of the series, he has the size, has the tools, and will only get better. As they were explaining on the rugby pod, the best thing is that his play suits a player like Patty T perfectly, so PT could put his focus on ball running a bit more as Holland was doing heaps of cleaning.
The pod were also talking up Kirifi - apparently very very high for cleaning, and they were making a similar argument that his work at the ruck was helping save Finau's legs so that he could also get the most out of his running game. Apparently, he had 80% gainline and of those 90% were 'super' fast ball.
Thought Love looked really good at fullback and would like to see him persisted with there in the first team, with Jordan on the right wing (and probably Caleb Clarke on the left, if everyone's available). There aren't any dud games this year with no trip to Japan and I don't think Love has quite done enough at 10 for the Canes yet to justify his selection there for the All Blacks against top opposition. Let Love play 10 for the Hurricanes regularly next year then shift him there for NZ if he steps up.
Also think Hotham did enough with his time on the field to justify a few more games off the bench behind Roigard. Still not sure Hotham has the passing game to be an international halfback but we haven't exactly seen the goods from Ratima lately either.
Lienert-Brown's defence is very underrated. He got his timing wrong once or twice in this Test but also hasn't played for a little while, so his judgement will be slightly off. Happy to stick with Proctor in the first team but would also like to see Lienert-Brown get some good minutes at 13 throughout the TRC.
First-choice backline for me:
Roigard, Barrett (prefer McKenzie but resigned to the fact that Razor loves Barrett), Clarke, Barrett, Proctor, Jordan, Love. Reserves: Hotham, McKenzie, Tupaea/Ioane.
@KiwiMurph said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@antipodean said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
You want to see how players go when substituted in with considerable first choice experience around them.
You could argue they did do that if you look at Holland at lock, Proctor at 13, Vaai at 6 and Lio Willie at 8.
I would argue that's a post facto justification and a pretty poor one.
Holland starting was admittedly a big call that would be covered by Vaai moving back to lock and Finau coming into blindside if it didn't work. It did and there's very little jeopardy in keeping him there for the series.
Proctor had to be given time at 13. Again, the big surprise is they gave him another chance. Then removed an opportunity to let him continue to improve and cement himself.
Lio-Willie proved to be an adequate stopgap.
Then there's the rest of the squad...
@gt12 said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
Holland looks like the find of the series, he has the size, has the tools, and will only get better. As they were explaining on the rugby pod, the best thing is that his play suits a player like Patty T perfectly, so PT could put his focus on ball running a bit more as Holland was doing heaps of cleaning.
The pod were also talking up Kirifi - apparently very very high for cleaning, and they were making a similar argument that his work at the ruck was helping save Finau's legs so that he could also get the most out of his running game. Apparently, he had 80% gainline and of those 90% were 'super' fast ball.
I posted this table in the Blues thread when talking about Papali’i but it applies pretty well here too, so I’ll post it again.
While you could spin it in a positive way, I suppose, Holland looked like he was already digging deep into his reserves quite early in the game. It was impressive how he kept finding energy to get up and clean, again and again, but the coaches should really manage his workload or I suspect he’ll burn out somewhere during the Rugby Championship. Tuipulotu didn't look right at all, to me. I wouldn't be surprised if he was playing through an injury.
Kirifi really came to life at the breakdown in the second half but he was struggling to impose himself during the first. It was noticeable how his timing at the attacking ruck was off, which meant that he would struggle to shift the bigger French bodies.
To me, Finau looks and plays more like a number 8. Strong carrier of the ball, great offensive instincts and vision, broad skillset both in the lineout and in open play. He’s like what Scott Robertson hoped that Cullen Grace would be but then without being folded every time he carries the ball up from kick return while also being a much better defender.
That being said, I would've liked to have seen Finau at 6 alongside Savea and Lio-Willie. I think that's more balanced than Kirifi and Savea.
@gt12 said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
Did you watch / hear the rugbypod?
They provided slightly different data to yours and focused on first or second to the breakdown for Holland and Kirifi. I'm interested in how it stacks up against the stuff you presented.
No, I haven't, I'll take a listen. My numbers for the attacking ruck arrivals are very rudimentary: I just look at each breakdown and take note of who the cleaners are. It doesn't take into account the quality of the clean (although I do sometimes write down when the clean was poor) or who arrives first.
Speaking of stats, there's certainly value in looking at things yourself. I was just looking at some numbers from the U20 World Cup and comparing the stats from RugbyPass (I think they use Opta?) and the SA Rugby match centre (they use a service called 'Stratus', which I haven't heard of).
These are the numbers given by both for the metres carried for the NZ U20 back five in the U20 World Cup final against South Africa.
Perhaps they use different criteria - total metres vs. post-contact perhaps? - but it still makes very little sense that someone like Woodley has carried the ball for either 8 or 82 metres (I'd have no idea how Woodley would've gotten 74 pre-contact metres so it doesn't make a lot of sense, either way).
All of this just to say, rugby statistics still have some way to go and it's probably best to look at things yourself if you really want to make your mind up.
@Mauss said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@Mauss said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
My numbers for the attacking ruck arrivals are very rudimentary: I just look at each breakdown and take note of who the cleaners are. It doesn't take into account the quality of the clean (although I do sometimes write down when the clean was poor) or who arrives first.
Here's the opta numbers for the full match if you're interested:
| Attacking Ruck Arrival | Carries/Carry Metres | Linebreaks/Defenders beaten | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Holland | 44 | 14/56m | 0/1 |
| Tuipulotu | 23 | 16/61m | 0/0 |
| Finau (65mins) | 16 | 15/82m | 0/1 |
| Kirifi | 39 | 10/43m | 1/2 |
| Savea | 23 | 21/132m | 0/6 |
| - | - | - | - |
| Papali'i (15mins) | 11 | 4/30m | 0/1 |
Carry metres are quite different?
Any other opta numbers you want me to post?
@gt12 said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
'super' fast ball.
Which is better?
SQB or ultra quick ball?
Are both SQB and UQB quicker than very quick ball?
And is just plain or garden variety quick ball a relic from the 4 point try days?
@booboo said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@gt12 said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
'super' fast ball.
Which is better?
SQB or ultra quick ball?
Are both SQB and UQB quicker than very quick ball?
And is just plain or garden variety quick ball a relic from the 4 point try days?
Just don't let Marshall call the ball a nut in this instance.
@Duluth said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@Mauss said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@Mauss said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
My numbers for the attacking ruck arrivals are very rudimentary: I just look at each breakdown and take note of who the cleaners are. It doesn't take into account the quality of the clean (although I do sometimes write down when the clean was poor) or who arrives first.
Here's the opta numbers for the full match if you're interested:
Attacking Ruck Arrival Carries/Carry Metres Linebreaks/Defenders beaten Holland 44 14/56m 0/1 Tuipulotu 23 16/61m 0/0 Finau (65mins) 16 15/82m 0/1 Kirifi 39 10/43m 1/2 Savea 23 21/132m 0/6 - - - - Papali'i (15mins) 11 4/30m 0/1 Carry metres are quite different?
Any other opta numbers you want me to post?
These look like the stats they showed, they also had first or second to the breakdown (if you happen to have it?).
For ruck speed do they connect that with the carrier - that was the secondary argument for Finau’s carrying (theirs, not mine). They said he had 80% gainline and of those 90% were super/ultra fast ball. Is it easy to see if that is provided? This was the core of Gipper’s argument.
The argument (theirs, not mine) is that these loose forwards and locks achieved balance via different guys focusing on different roles.
@gt12 said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
they also had first or second to the breakdown (if you happen to have it?).
Nope
@gt12 said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
For ruck speed do they connect that with the carrier - that was the secondary argument for Finau’s carrying (theirs, not mine). They said he had 80% gainline and of those 90% were super/ultra fast ball. Is it easy to see if that is provided? This was the core of Gipper’s argument.
I have ruck speed stats for the team but not linked to the individual:
NZ is the first column
As for gainline %age. It can be worked out from crossed the gainline/runs:
Crossed the gainline:
Runs:
That definitely makes Finau’s effort look impressive. Seems like it allowed Ardie to do his thing too.
I’m not quite convinced about the argument for Kirifi yet but perhaps his speed is a strength there?
@Duluth said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
Carry metres are quite different?
I used the RugbyPass stats for carry metres. It does look like they use post-contact numbers, as opposed to just metres made with ball in hand.
As far as attacking rucks are concerned, I think the numbers are pretty much the same. The numbers in my table are the attacking ruck involvements for the starting back 5 for only the first 65 minutes of the game. I could see Holland and Kirifi getting another 10 to 13 involvements in the final 15 minutes, as the ABs had all the possession and built a lot of rucks in that time.
I only used the first 65 minutes because wanted to get a snapshot of everyone's involvement at the breakdown while they were on the field at the same time, and Finau got subbed at 65 minutes.
@Mauss said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@gt12 said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
Did you watch / hear the rugbypod?
They provided slightly different data to yours and focused on first or second to the breakdown for Holland and Kirifi. I'm interested in how it stacks up against the stuff you presented.
No, I haven't, I'll take a listen. My numbers for the attacking ruck arrivals are very rudimentary: I just look at each breakdown and take note of who the cleaners are. It doesn't take into account the quality of the clean (although I do sometimes write down when the clean was poor) or who arrives first.
Speaking of stats, there's certainly value in looking at things yourself. I was just looking at some numbers from the U20 World Cup and comparing the stats from RugbyPass (I think they use Opta?) and the SA Rugby match centre (they use a service called 'Stratus', which I haven't heard of).
These are the numbers given by both for the metres carried for the NZ U20 back five in the U20 World Cup final against South Africa.
Perhaps they use different criteria - total metres vs. post-contact perhaps? - but it still makes very little sense that someone like Woodley has carried the ball for either 8 or 82 metres (I'd have no idea how Woodley would've gotten 74 pre-contact metres so it doesn't make a lot of sense, either way).
All of this just to say, rugby statistics still have some way to go and it's probably best to look at things yourself if you really want to make your mind up.
Good on you, mate: keep them on their toes!
@brodean said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
Kirifi's gainline % in that last game was Blackadder low.
It worries me that we might see Kirifi and Blackadder selected together in the same All Blacks backrow at some point. And the opposition are going to have fun driving us back all game.
@Bones said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@booboo said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
@gt12 said in 2025 All Blacks v France series:
'super' fast ball.
Which is better?
SQB or ultra quick ball?
Are both SQB and UQB quicker than very quick ball?
And is just plain or garden variety quick ball a relic from the 4 point try days?
Just don't let Marshall call the ball a nut in this instance.
I’d like to hear Mex opine on this.
Now that the July series against the French is over, plenty of commentators are wondering what exactly can be taken away from the games, the French opposition being both inexperienced at Test level and overcooked from their long Top14 season. But not every aspect of play requires 100 Test caps nor a well-rested body to pressure the opposition: kick-off receipt only requires an excellent opposition kicker (check) and a coaching staff that is tactically astute (double check). And there’s plenty to unpack in that regard from these three Tests.
What is a successful kick reception?
But first, it might be interesting to quickly clarify what I understand kick reception to be about. Here, I’ll mostly be focusing on kick restart wins and losses. What do I consider to be a restart win? The kick receiver – who has been given a zone where he’s responsible for calling and making the catch, whether it’s near the 10 metre line, around the 22 or inside the 22 – takes possession from the restart, cleanly, and allows his team to set up an exit play.
The taking the ball cleanly matters. The ABs might end up with possession after the restart but only due to an opposition mistake (e.g. a knock-on). But I don’t consider that as a restart win per se since the planned reception failed. Here’s an example: Segonds kicks a restart after the first NZ try in Wellington which Holland misjudges, allowing Attissogbe to beat him to the space. The latter, however, knocks the ball on and the ball ends up in the hands of Lio-Willie.
While the ABs technically end up with possession after the restart, I do not consider this to be a restart win, since Holland was unable to properly judge the kick and get into the required position to make a clean kick receipt.
Then again, players can also immediately lose the ball after winning the restart. In the same Test, Holland catches a restart cleanly in the 55th minute, only for him to make a run and cough the ball up rather cheaply.
Still, that is a restart win in my books. The only thing that matters, in other words, is the moment of reception itself, not the eventual outcome of the passage of play. Others will have different definitions of course, with a site like RugbyPass coming to different numbers on both total restarts (e.g. 7 rather than 5 in the third Test) and win percentage (RP: 86, 78 and 73% across the Tests respectively, versus 80, 62 and 40% by my own count in the table below). I’m not quite sure how they got to those numbers but I’ll leave that aside.
Some numbers and a graph
As mentioned above, testing a team’s kick-off receipt only requires a solid boot and some tactical nous. Unsurprisingly then, the French restart kickers, Joris Segonds and Antoine Hastoy, were able to thoroughly test the AB kick-off receivers throughout the July series, putting more and more pressure on the different units across the field as the series wore on.
After first kicking exclusively to the AB left-wing reception zone (Vaa’i – Holland – Ioane) during the first two Tests (13 restart kicks, of which 9 were effectively dealt with), the French switched it around completely and exclusively targeted the ABs’ right hand side in Hamilton (Finau – Tuipulotu – Jordan) to good effect, Hastoy forcing the ABs into a paltry 40% retention rate in that final Test.
The All Blacks’ reception retention rate got lower and lower through the series, as the French were able to manipulate and consistently take the NZ backfield coverage by surprise. One reason for this is that most of the French restarts went deep but when they went shorter, they were very successful, with the ABs only catching 1 out of 5 French restarts between the 22 and the 10 metre line.
So what were the French trying to do with their restarts? Why did they mainly kick deep (10/13) when their short restarts were such a success? And what exactly went wrong for the ABs in this department throughout the series?
French tactics
The standard French restart tactic at the beginning of the Test series was to kick long, inside the AB 22, and close to the touch line. With an inexperienced Holland responsible for high ball receipts and a non-kicker in Ioane responsible for taking the ball in the 22, it allowed the French to chop down the AB kick receiver quickly and immediately pressure the NZ breakdown, looking to force them into mistakes and/or turnovers near their own try line.
In the first instance, Barlot is perhaps a bit unlucky not to be awarded for his jackal attempt, being deemed to have gone off his feet. In the second, Vaa’i is rather fortunate not to be pinged for coming in from the side. Small margins.
It fitted within a broader French strategy of pressuring the ABs in their own half, as they looked to fracture NZ confidence while steadily building scoreboard pressure and momentum through the accuracy of their kickers, Le Garrec and Segonds.
Another benefit to this tactic of kicking deep was that, when they did go short, it often caused chaos among the AB kick receivers, who weren’t expecting this change of depth. It looks like the French wanted to challenge some of the less familiar combinations within the ABs, such as those between Vaa’i and Holland in the first two Tests, and Finau and Tuipulotu in the third.
Exploiting frail combinations
The ABs use their taller, athletic back-rowers such as Finau and Vaa’i to patrol the area just beyond the 10 metre line, their coordination and jumping ability valuable commodities for potential contests in that area. But they have a double role: when the ball is kicked to near the AB 22, they are to function as the front lifters for locks like Holland and Tuipulotu. The complexity of this dual role formed the crowbar with which the French kickers wanted to break open the connection between the AB kick-off receivers.
In the Wellington Test, for example, Vaa’i was caught off guard when Segonds decides to go for a more shallow kick instead of the more typical deep kick. The former had already turned his back to the ball in order to lift Holland, only for Vaa’i to have to turn back once again in an attempt at catching the ball in his marked zone.
Vaa’i and Holland try to recover after being caught out but are in a poor position to make a successful catch, allowing the French chasers to tap the ball back and retain possession
It was more of the same in Hamilton, as the partnership of Finau and Tuipulotu was put to the sword by Hastoy’s accurate boot, as the latter tried to find the space between the two in order to make the timing and lift as challenging as possible.
In both cases where Tuipulotu loses the aerial contest to Gabin Villière, the lifting pod between Finau, Tuipulotu and Lomax is slow to form and tentative in its positioning. Tuipulotu needs to attack the ball and be quicker in claiming the space where he wants to be lifted.
Potential fixes?
It’s clear that the AB coaching staff is aware that the restart was becoming a real issue during the series. Even during the Hamilton game itself, the coaches tried to fix the problem, with Holland being put on the right hand side after Tuipulotu was unable to gather the ball off the restart two times in a row.
Jordan gathers the ball inside the 22 but Holland (number 5) is now where Tuipulotu had been in order to catch the restart
It’s an impressive feat for a 2.5-Test rookie to be asked to problem-solve in his debut series. But in the previous games, Holland had shown himself to be the most reliable option in these contestable scenarios, despite having multiple fumbles himself.
Beyond simply putting Holland at where the opposition is kicking towards, the AB coaches will do well to make sure that the combinations within the different backfield coverage-units are settled and familiar with each other. The probable return of a player like Barrett, who has built up a mutual understanding with someone like Vaa’i, would certainly help in this regard. But the players themselves will also need to show more tactical nous on the field itself, where they need to show more awareness of the potential restart strategies being employed by the opposition.
Summary or, TL;DR
While the July internationals against an inexperienced yet talented French squad cannot teach us much about the state of the AB attack, defence or set-piece, what it can show is the state of the restart reception, due to the quality of both the French kicking and tactical coaching.
In that sense, this series has shown two clear-cut things. First, the ABs have demonstrated some frailties in their kick-off reception, the inexperienced combinations between lifters and receivers able to be exploited by a clever and accurate French kicking game. And secondly, the coaches have been very quick with the faith they’ve put in the young Dutchman Fabian Holland, asking him to help fix a failing kick-off reception in Hamilton. Then again, this faith has been earned through his performances in the series, where he’s shown himself to be the most reliable option for restart receptions.
The deep high kick off to the corner tactic is perfect against the ABs because of their lack of decent kickers. Even if the ABs gather the ball cleanly and get a solid base, the exit kick is generally got good enough. It's either a short touch finder or a box kick, and we all know their struggles recently with box kicks.