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.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@Duluth so thier top 5 has 20 involvements by thier big men, us, none, while our most involved forward is one that usually.averages a metre or so at a time...

@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

@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@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

I am interested in who you would select as our best 23 not just in this squad but everyone.
Do you have a 23 in mind ?.

@Chris

Under what tactics? My point was that if we change tactics the squad would change a bit

I would prefer we play a more simple and direct possession based game. That is certainly not the opinion of these coaches

@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@Chris

Under what tactics? My point was that if we change tactics the squad would change a bit

I would prefer we play a more simple and direct possession based game. That is certainly not the opinion of these coaches

Under the Tactics you think is the best way forward,Not under the current coaches thinking.

@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@Chris

Under what tactics? My point was that if we change tactics the squad would change a bit

I would prefer we play a more simple and direct possession based game. That is certainly not the opinion of these coaches

given carte blanche selectorial control, who would you bring in and play where?

not a wind up, genuinely interested in what your 23 is to play that game

@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@Chris

Under what tactics? My point was that if we change tactics the squad would change a bit

I would prefer we play a more simple and direct possession based game. That is certainly not the opinion of these coaches

given carte blanche selectorial control, who would you bring in and play where?

not a wind up, genuinely interested in what your 23 is to play that game

Yeah me too

Cody at 2 and Aumua on the bench

Williams and ???
Newell and Tosi

PT and Darry with Scooter on the bench

Vaa’i at 6.

i like Holland, he looks the part and should start. Love Patty T off the bench too, though his last start was pretty good.

I haven't called for sweeping changes. I would have some different loosies and a couple of differences in the outside backs.

Papal'i at 7 to help the defence, Savea at 8 and 6 is a massive problem. Vaa'i has been the best. Sotutu on the bench

I would have Clarke, JRK & Jordan in the back three

RI on the wing was just dumb at his age. Yes he isn't the best passer but I think we can see the value of picking an excellent defensive centre

Scott Barrett demoted so he isn't an automatic starter. He's still valuable but doesn't demand a place in the 23

Not a huge number of personnel changes. I disagree with the kicking strategy

You can pick the best 23 in the country, if the coaches are retarded it really doesn't matter.

Fellas, they not going to bring in anyone from outside squad, and I don't think they need to anyway. I maintain any changes needed are probably in coaching ranks anyway, But after a couple of days, I have calmed down, we will be right.

Two players who need to be looked at seriously are Beauden Barrett and Savea. The way they play disrupts the backline and the loose forward balance. If these 100-plus test automatic picks were judged as though they only had ten or twenty caps, would they even make the team? These sorts of players are also the guys who probably aren't going to change the way they play, whereas a less experienced player may be more willing to fall in line with a new strategy.

There also needs to be coaching accountability and the assistant coaches are going to find themselves in the firing line. I think the first replacement they'll be looking for is a defensive coach. That area is a mess. Others are in trouble too but they could see improvement by just keeping things simple and sticking to a basic, low-risk game plan, at least for the time being.

The other big question I have is how they come back from that defeat mentally. As a number of people have pointed out, the team looked like they completely gave up, which isn't something All Blacks teams do. Robertson fancies himself a motivator. He's got his work cut out for here but not just for the next game - they're going to have to step up mentally week to week.

@ShaquilleOatmeal the team will win strongly for the next game, and then be shit the next. Papering over cracks and ensuring we don't win anything of note.

@ShaquilleOatmeal said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

Two players who need to be looked at seriously are Beauden Barrett and Savea. The way they play disrupts the backline and the loose forward balance. If these 100-plus test automatic picks were judged as though they only had ten or twenty caps, would they even make the team? These sorts of players are also the guys who probably aren't going to change the way they play, whereas a less experienced player may be more willing to fall in line with a new strategy.

There also needs to be coaching accountability and the assistant coaches are going to find themselves in the firing line. I think the first replacement they'll be looking for is a defensive coach. That area is a mess. Others are in trouble too but they could see improvement by just keeping things simple and sticking to a basic, low-risk game plan, at least for the time being.

The other big question I have is how they come back from that defeat mentally. As a number of people have pointed out, the team looked like they completely gave up, which isn't something All Blacks teams do. Robertson fancies himself a motivator. He's got his work cut out for here but not just for the next game - they're going to have to step up mentally week to week.

Ardie still has the X factor and should be picked provided the loose forward balance is right.,

Beaudie needs to be put out to pasture. Well past it.

@Kirwan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@ShaquilleOatmeal the team will win strongly for the next game, and then be shit the next. Papering over cracks and ensuring we don't win anything of note.

Yep. In between those two games a couple of players will likely proclaim that they've "proved the doubters wrong". Then proceed to foul the nest again like Wellington & Argentina II.

It's rinse and repeat under Dumb and Dumber.

@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.

And yet so many posters didn't think it was a good idea to give Plummer a go, because he's too "boring" .

I sound like a bloody fanboy, but I'm not. I just thought that his skill set and the way he played for the Blues in their winning season suited test rugby

I think our problem is that we're treating test rugby differently to super rugby.

We're terrified to play with the ball in hand.
Australia has genuinely made a mockery of that viewpoint this year.

They are literally playing super rugby at test rugby level, and shouldve had a Lions series win and already have a drawn series away to South Africa to show for it.

@ShaquilleOatmeal although after playing 6 games where kicking game has been being the game plan, BB did play the passing and side to side game on Saturday, 1st time this year, it was pretty rusty.
While Ardie is suited to finishing the last 20 or set up with two ruck happy Flankers. Ardie followed the expansive game plan setting himself among the backs out wide, link player etc on Saturday.

@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@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.

And yet so many posters didn't think it was a good idea to give Plummer a go, because he's too "boring" .

I sound like a bloody fanboy, but I'm not. I just thought that his skill set and the way he played for the Blues in their winning season suited test rugby

I didn't think Plummer should of got a go, just because I never thought he was good enough. I don't care how exciting or boring a player is, it's how good.

@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

I think our problem is that we're treating test rugby differently to super rugby.

We're terrified to play with the ball in hand.
Australia has genuinely made a mockery of that viewpoint this year.

They are literally playing super rugby at test rugby level, and shouldve had a Lions series win and already have a drawn series away to South Africa to show for it.

It is fine to kick the ball away if you have the aggressive defence to force mistakes and turnovers. Turnover ball has been a core part of AB gameplan for some time.

ABs don’t have that defence right now, so aren’t getting the broken field opportunities.

What is the current AB DNA?

@hydro11 said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@Kiwidom said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

When will nzrfu admit that breaking away from sth African super teams has seriously damaged us..super doesn't prepare us for this type of physical rugby

But South Africa chose to broke away? Not us?

Erroneous.

The reality is, during COVID, travel restrictions from the Hermit Kingdom left SA teams with no real option but to head north. Let’s not pretend they had much choice when NZ and AU cooked up a shared comp and left SA out in the cold.

Mark Robinson should've spent less time nodding along at Jacinda’s Fortress NZ routine and more time safeguarding the future of Super Rugby.

@MN5 said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@ShaquilleOatmeal said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

Two players who need to be looked at seriously are Beauden Barrett and Savea. The way they play disrupts the backline and the loose forward balance. If these 100-plus test automatic picks were judged as though they only had ten or twenty caps, would they even make the team? These sorts of players are also the guys who probably aren't going to change the way they play, whereas a less experienced player may be more willing to fall in line with a new strategy.

There also needs to be coaching accountability and the assistant coaches are going to find themselves in the firing line. I think the first replacement they'll be looking for is a defensive coach. That area is a mess. Others are in trouble too but they could see improvement by just keeping things simple and sticking to a basic, low-risk game plan, at least for the time being.

The other big question I have is how they come back from that defeat mentally. As a number of people have pointed out, the team looked like they completely gave up, which isn't something All Blacks teams do. Robertson fancies himself a motivator. He's got his work cut out for here but not just for the next game - they're going to have to step up mentally week to week.

Ardie still has the X factor and should be picked provided the loose forward balance is right.,

Is that X factor when he chip kicks to the opposition immediately placing us under pressure?

@Tim said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

View embedded content

When Victor dead-pan asked JK if he "Was going to pull through"

@PN said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@Tim said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

View embedded content

When Victor dead-pan asked JK if he "Was going to pull through"

I guess this was always going to be the reaction when the Boks finally broke free of their professional era oppressors

@Dan54 said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:

@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.

And yet so many posters didn't think it was a good idea to give Plummer a go, because he's too "boring" .

I sound like a bloody fanboy, but I'm not. I just thought that his skill set and the way he played for the Blues in their winning season suited test rugby

I didn't think Plummer should of got a go, just because I never thought he was good enough. I don't care how exciting or boring a player is, it's how good.

How can you honestly know? He outduelled DMac in the SR final for starters, and played consistently at a high level during that SR season. He deserved a legitimate shot