SA obviously have a systematic training system that they use to induct all players with.
I wouldn't be surprised if the All Blacks just had Jordan, Mackenzie and Carter stand in a line taking turns to jump in the air and catch unchallenged why Hotham and Christie practiced their box kicks. Maybe the extra work this week was Holland and Hansen put a few kicks up as well
@Crazy-Horse You think the back three they selected were the best possible options given the number of high balls expected?
@Jet said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@sparky said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
One thing that's very easy to fix.
Start Dalton Papali'i at 7 in the Bledisloe. He managed 19.2 tackles per 80 minutes for the Blues this season.
Those extra hits would have been damn useful on Saturday when so much else turned to custard.
Closest player to Cane on the circuit you reckon?
Yeah he is. Haven't watched him too closely but how about Withy as possibly another option if they refuse to pick Paps? He seems to be in the mould of Cane and Paps. Has a high workrate and is pretty relentless at ruck time from the little I have seen of him..
@Mr-Fish said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Crazy-Horse You think the back three they selected were the best possible options given the number of high balls expected?
No
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Mr-Fish said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Crazy-Horse You think the back three they selected were the best possible options given the number of high balls expected?
No
Might not have been clear but that's what I meant by not knowing how to defuse the bombs.
Step 1 - pick the best players under the high ball
If the coaches thought that was the best method to deal with the high kicks then they would've done so, but clearly they thought better... Which to me means they don't know how to deal with high kicks.
If they wanted to run with both Barrett and McKenzie then they should've put the former at the back, at the very least.
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I didn't watch yesterday, so knowing the score and reading the thread I actually expected much worse.
I thought at half time both coaches would have been very happy. We were by far the better team, imposed ourselves and were in front. They had been outplayed but were close.
Huge turning point in that first half was we have an attacking lineout off that awesome BB kick, they have backs down all over the place. Who ever our retard of a lineout caller is, calls an overly complicated lineout, the ref lets thrm close the gap an upset our pod, turnover followed by THAT DMac chip kick. Chance to establish a big lead gone in like 30 seconds.
2nd half again we were actually really good for 29 minutes. Bok try was brilliant off that scrum, but we're in touch. Then two things happen at the same time. We sub a midfielder on our line, and once again our lineout call is idiotic. Try.
The next 4 minutes is an absolute horror show. 2 will Jordan errors, a shocker of a BB kick. Just low IQ rugby. And it never recovers.
South Africa though, wow. That 2nd half was perfect. Fast, accurate and brutal. What should concern everyone in NZ is i do not believe this AB team has that level of rugby in them. Maybe only France do TBH.
Absolute horror show last quarter for us. Absolutely sublime for South Africa. Well done to them I'm very fucking impressed.
The ABs were the better team for first 60. The scrum penalty at 42 went the wrong way ultimately costing us 7 points.
Then around 60 mark TWM started making subs and BB forgot that possession was golden and kicks from our own 22 needed to relieve pressure. KISS.
Still have to rewatch last 10, but we seem stuck with a team which is very good for 60 then misfires horribly once ‘tactical’ substitutions are made.
Can’t we pick some specialist finishers? If not other than the front row leave the starters on for 80.
@nostrildamus said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@booboo said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
- He's got to find the courage to drop Barrett
SB? BB?
Well both, but SB (refer the quoted post).
Anyway Monday morning, the bit of anger etc faded now, just a bit of disappointed. I think because I just now interested to see what is done about the result. I genuinely don't think big chnanges to team etc is answer, as I actually believe what Cruden said on Breakdown last night, the answer is till within the squad we got.
I am genuinely interested to see what answers the coaches come up with, although I always liked his approach, I wonder if Ryan has answers as forward coach. I think perhaps the trouble maybe is that he now coaching amng a group of coaches who all have no experience at this level, where as with the Foster reagn they at leats had test experience and in Schmidt a bloody good experinced coach to work with? And as for our back coaches, I have no idea what they contribute or not as seems there so many of them , I would suspect there too many nessgaes.
Oh and obviously none of them know how to handle high ball?
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I didn't watch yesterday, so knowing the score and reading the thread I actually expected much worse.
I thought at half time both coaches would have been very happy. We were by far the better team, imposed ourselves and were in front. They had been outplayed but were close.
Absolute horror show last quarter for us. Absolutely sublime for South Africa. Well done to them I'm very fucking impressed.
The ABs were the better team for first 60.
Let’s stop this idea right here. You were in the game but you were hardly on top.
Your scrum was … under pressure, your lineout was creaking, you were losing the tactical kicking game and the aerial battle and you’d managed a solitary try (requiring 2 or 3 pieces of exceptional skill) at the cost of your playmakers taking a battering and gifting us a try. Reptitive creamings caused Least Useless Barrett to set up deeper and deeper. By the end of the half, it was hard to see where the forces of darkness might generate net points.
The good guys on the other hand could look at that half and say they just needed to keep dancing with them that brung em.
They’d bombed three clear chances without doing anything all that miraculous, one of which got called back after it was converted and another was only stopped by a sensational last gasp tackle over the try line. All while rejigging their backline to deal with injuries.
They also knew that sooner or later their work in the scrum was going to pay dividends, on the scoreboard and by opening holes around the park.
So 10-7 was a fairish reflection though not a good indicator of how the work done in the first half was likely to play out in the second.
@Smuts Suggest you rewatch third quarter. Once you spot Wessels knee on ground in scrum at 42, and realise penalty went wrong way the Kolbe second try is invalidated, and other Boks highlight was run from own half at 59.
The rot set in once TWM started changing things, and worsened abruptly around 66 when our bench was emptied.
After that is was the Boks BaaBaas all over again.
@Smuts said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I didn't watch yesterday, so knowing the score and reading the thread I actually expected much worse.
I thought at half time both coaches would have been very happy. We were by far the better team, imposed ourselves and were in front. They had been outplayed but were close.
Absolute horror show last quarter for us. Absolutely sublime for South Africa. Well done to them I'm very fucking impressed.
The ABs were the better team for first 60.
Let’s stop this idea right here. You were in the game but you were hardly on top.
Your scrum was … under pressure, your lineout was creaking, you were losing the tactical kicking game and the aerial battle and you’d managed a solitary try (requiring 2 or 3 pieces of exceptional skill) at the cost of your playmakers taking a battering and gifting us a try. Reptitive creamings caused Least Useless Barrett to set up deeper and deeper. By the end of the half, it was hard to see where the forces of darkness might generate net points.
The good guys on the other hand could look at that half and say they just needed to keep dancing with them that brung em.
They’d bombed three clear chances without doing anything all that miraculous, one of which got called back after it was converted and another was only stopped by a sensational last gasp tackle over the try line. All while rejigging their backline to deal with injuries.
They also knew that sooner or later their work in the scrum was going to pay dividends, on the scoreboard and by opening holes around the park.
So 10-7 was a fairish reflection though not a good indicator of how the work done in the first half was likely to play out in the second.
I think the score is really overstating what actually took place.
It was 17-10 in the 62nd minute. The team collapsed in the final quarter after 4 successive lineout shockers.
The Kolbe intercept was a massive turning point. He took a huge gamble in what was pretty much an admittance of 'you got us, I have to take the risk and go for it'.
If the pass sticks there it's 14-0 to NZ. Not only was it an intercept, but NZ stop spreading the ball as they had done the first 15 minutes which was showing huge signs of success and consistently getting around the SA defence.
Instead they reverted back to box kicks and pretty much handed the game to SA. They were going to need extreme luck at that point to win playing the way they were, and it was obvious once they were down they would not be able to come back.
The what amounted to giving up in the last 15 minutes is shocking Abs teams just don't do that, to quit the contest like that shows a real lack of care and commitment.And they did opt out some players just did not commit on the tackle at all.
I agree with Kieran Read something is not right within the group players and coaching to let that happen, no spine as Read said.
Some players need to go if that is what they want to dish up.
The Coaching well it looks totally in disarray with no clear path out of this mess.
The All Blacks are no longer what they were and I do not think its coming back damage maybe done.
@Bones said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Can we stop using height as an excuse? Besides which, it felt like DMac dealt with the high ball the best of everyone. Certainly better than the 6'+ other wingers in the squad have.
No, height is the clear issue. Not willingness to experience discomfort because somehow Cheslin Kolbe manages to catch a shit tonne of high balls. And he's 5'5".
@kpkanz no way. We were well beaten in the first half. No territory. Kept in the game due to snatches of brilliance and a shitload of opposition knock ons, including one which overturned a try. And a JB try saving tackle.
2nd half was fucking abysmal, but we were not the better team in the first half.
@Bones said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Can we stop using height as an excuse? Besides which, it felt like DMac dealt with the high ball the best of everyone. Certainly better than the 6'+ other wingers in the squad have.
Our timing was better than last week I thought. We were actually in the right position to take the ball. But I lost count of the number of times they finished with the ball when we had hands on it.
@Smuts said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I didn't watch yesterday, so knowing the score and reading the thread I actually expected much worse.
I thought at half time both coaches would have been very happy. We were by far the better team, imposed ourselves and were in front. They had been outplayed but were close.
Absolute horror show last quarter for us. Absolutely sublime for South Africa. Well done to them I'm very fucking impressed.
The ABs were the better team for first 60.
Let’s stop this idea right here. You were in the game but you were hardly on top.
Your scrum was … under pressure, your lineout was creaking, you were losing the tactical kicking game and the aerial battle and you’d managed a solitary try (requiring 2 or 3 pieces of exceptional skill) at the cost of your playmakers taking a battering and gifting us a try. Reptitive creamings caused Least Useless Barrett to set up deeper and deeper. By the end of the half, it was hard to see where the forces of darkness might generate net points.
The good guys on the other hand could look at that half and say they just needed to keep dancing with them that brung em.
They’d bombed three clear chances without doing anything all that miraculous, one of which got called back after it was converted and another was only stopped by a sensational last gasp tackle over the try line. All while rejigging their backline to deal with injuries.
They also knew that sooner or later their work in the scrum was going to pay dividends, on the scoreboard and by opening holes around the park.
So 10-7 was a fairish reflection though not a good indicator of how the work done in the first half was likely to play out in the second.
One small part of what you wrote really struck me. You said "Your playmakers." We don't have any, and the ones we use are not very good at it. This team is lacking one, probably two natural playmakers. The ones we do use are not natural playmakers, whether it be 10, 15, 12. They have not gotten to where they are today by making play for others. We need to start valuing that quality again.
I don't watch games more than once, so correct me if i am wrong, but it also felt like a lot of Bok kicks didn't go to wingers, but rather landed on top of static midfielders or locks. I thought the outside backs did ok (Jordan inviting his own errors aside). They just thrive on putting the ball in the air in chaos areas, and they are good at getting it back.
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I don't watch games more than once, so correct me if i am wrong, but it also felt like a lot of Bok kicks didn't go to wingers, but rather landed on top of static midfielders or locks. I thought the outside backs did ok (Jordan inviting his own errors aside). They just thrive on putting the ball in the air in chaos areas, and they are good at getting it back.
Yep. Those kicks had bigger bodies in the air other than Kolbe.
In the second half the quick feet of one or two Bok backs also put a bit of doubt into our defensive line.
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Smuts said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I didn't watch yesterday, so knowing the score and reading the thread I actually expected much worse.
I thought at half time both coaches would have been very happy. We were by far the better team, imposed ourselves and were in front. They had been outplayed but were close.
Absolute horror show last quarter for us. Absolutely sublime for South Africa. Well done to them I'm very fucking impressed.
The ABs were the better team for first 60.
Let’s stop this idea right here. You were in the game but you were hardly on top.
Your scrum was … under pressure, your lineout was creaking, you were losing the tactical kicking game and the aerial battle and you’d managed a solitary try (requiring 2 or 3 pieces of exceptional skill) at the cost of your playmakers taking a battering and gifting us a try. Reptitive creamings caused Least Useless Barrett to set up deeper and deeper. By the end of the half, it was hard to see where the forces of darkness might generate net points.
The good guys on the other hand could look at that half and say they just needed to keep dancing with them that brung em.
They’d bombed three clear chances without doing anything all that miraculous, one of which got called back after it was converted and another was only stopped by a sensational last gasp tackle over the try line. All while rejigging their backline to deal with injuries.
They also knew that sooner or later their work in the scrum was going to pay dividends, on the scoreboard and by opening holes around the park.
So 10-7 was a fairish reflection though not a good indicator of how the work done in the first half was likely to play out in the second.
One small part of what you wrote really struck me. You said "Your playmakers." We don't have any, and the ones we use are not very good at it. This team is lacking one, probably two natural playmakers. The ones we do use are not natural playmakers, whether it be 10, 15, 12. They have not gotten to where they are today by making play for others. We need to start valuing that quality again.
I think this is the major worry (defence aside). We missed Roigard, yes but we miss game drivers - someone who is going to drive the team around the paddock.
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I don't watch games more than once, so correct me if i am wrong, but it also felt like a lot of Bok kicks didn't go to wingers, but rather landed on top of static midfielders or locks. I thought the outside backs did ok (Jordan inviting his own errors aside). They just thrive on putting the ball in the air in chaos areas, and they are good at getting it back.
Yep. Those kicks had bigger bodies in the air other than Kolbe.
In the second half the quick feet of one or two Bok backs also put a bit of doubt into our defensive line.
you could see even in the first half where their passes weren't sticking their pace was giving Proctor kittens and there was nearly reward there. By fuck they are fast aye?
It helped that SA were totally dominant in the air and at scrum time. And line outs weren't good to us either. They could do whatever they wanted in each of those areas and had no worries about losing possession. Thats a huge confidence boost for a team
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
We will never be a good team until we remove BB from 10. His kicking is erratic and his decision making is not good - so he can't play the kicking 10 role. His passing is slow, and he does not present a threat to the line, just stands and shovels - so he can't play the running 10.
Yeah totally agree it is a erratic as hell backline with with him not driving the team around the field.
I think De groot needs to be moved aside he offers very little around the field and was part of a struggling front row in both tests v SA and against the Argies in game 2.
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I think De groot needs to be moved aside he offers very little around the field and was part of a struggling front row in both tests v SA and against the Argies in game 2.
plays more first receiver than BB. He's the 2nd of our dual playmakers
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
I think De groot needs to be moved aside he offers very little around the field and was part of a struggling front row in both tests v SA and against the Argies in game 2.
plays more first receiver than BB. He's the 2nd of our dual playmakers
Hence why we are shit.
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Chris he drives our team around like a drunk teenager, whose parents keep giving him the keys to thier once awesome but aging Rolls Royce.
That is a great analogy.
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Duluth so thier top 5 has 20 involvements by thier big men, us, none.
Robertson doesn't want to play a possession game with forwards driving in close. It's width or kick. I think we have the players (in NZ) to generate momentum in close. The coaches disagree and we don't try
