All Blacks v France
-
@dogmeat said in All Blacks v France:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks v France:
Let's not compare to the previous 4 years where against the big teams we were a genuine DISTANT second each time and looked like we needed them to capitulate for us to have a chance.
Actually against the big teams we were a lot like we have been this year. Looking world beaters one minute and utter chumps the next.
I'd actually disagree. Against the big teams last cycle we never looked like world beaters.
That's why it was so depressing. We looked like we never had a chance, imo.
Agree to disagree.
-
I'm also confused by this narrative that we were cowards for taking the 3, and it was un-All Black like.
To me it seems much more brave and confident to say "We're not going to camp out here and hope to sneak a try in with pick and go or maul for the next 5 minutes.
Instead, we're so confident we can get back here and you can't stop us getting here, that we'll take the 3 and be back here within 5 minutes to win the game."
Which btw we actually did get back near their 22 within the 5 minutes, only for Beauden/Rieko to screw up.
I guess Scott didn't take that into account unfortunately.
-
@kpkanz said in All Blacks v France:
I'm also confused by this narrative that we were cowards for taking the 3, and it was un-All Black like.
To me it seems much more brave and confident to say "We're not going to camp out here and hope to sneak a try in with pick and go or maul for the next 5 minutes.
Instead, we're so confident we can get back here and you can't stop us getting here, that we'll take the 3 and be back here within 5 minutes to win the game."
Which btw we actually did get back near their 22 within the 5 minutes, only for Beauden/Rieko to screw up.
I guess Scott didn't take that into account unfortunately.
Not sure if anyone on here has called them cowards, it was definitely not a cowardly move. I just think it was a stupid call.
What would the French have preferred? Defending a lineout 5-10 metres from their line and potentially being pinned in their red zone for the next few minutes, or to be 1 point ahead with a deep kickoff into the opposition half against a team that doesn't exit well? I think they would have been extremely relieved when we took the 3.
-
@dogmeat said in All Blacks v France:
Assuming we beat Italy the season would get a pass from me, if we hadn't lost badly to Argentina. Two close matches against the Bok offset by one dismal display against the Wobblies.
This, along with the continued picking of past it/never been it players means this year is not a pass for me. I expected Razor to
- Use the time to blood more young uns not forced by injury
- Related to above, not do favourite region and senitmental picks
- Change our 'play at speed to win' gameplan to a more test sensible just smash the fuckers like the saders gameplan. I will take winning over looking pretty every day. I'd prefer both, but the skill sets and fitness difference isn't there anymore - and won't be ever again
-
@kev said in All Blacks v France:
@Halfback said in All Blacks v France:
I think it's time for the Barrett brothers gimmick to be put to bed. Scott isn't the answer at captain, Beauden is out of date by a couple of seasons and Jordie barely gets a pass mark.
The 3 points with 5 to go is a pathetic call.
Also, anybody know what Havilli has added to this tour? Instagram shows me he's doing nothing but playing golf? Probably best, if he were playing he'd be throwing intercept passes.
They each stand on their own merits.
Scott looks like a good captain to me. Measured and one of our best players every game.
BB reverts to type and chooses the kick option too much. These were all poor:
- half time drop goal
- cross kick to Reece
- grubber in their 22
Jordie is Jordie.
sorry.....says they all stand on their own merits...then lists the players name as a merit...12s have to be named jordie?
-
@akan004 said in All Blacks v France:
Not sure if anyone on here has called them cowards, it was definitely not a cowardly move. I just think it was a stupid call.
Yeah not here, seemed to be passed around some of the media.
@akan004 said in All Blacks v France:
What would the French have preferred? Defending a lineout 5-10 metres from their line and potentially being pinned in their red zone for the next few minutes, or to be 1 point ahead with a deep kickoff into the opposition half against a team that doesn't exit well? I think they would have been extremely relieved when we took the 3.
I think we made the right choice. We had been in their 22 multiple times most of the game and failed to score. We hadnt scored a try since the Roigard individual play, which was 50 minutes earlier.
If we go for the lineout there, and then WE get penalized trying to score, France kick it down field with possession and we're now down 4 with a minute left with near no chance of winning.
Instead we take the 3 on offer, and then get back to their 22 (which we did) and then the french can't even risk being aggressive at the breakdown or offside or the game is over.
That's my perception of it. If we were more clinical in the 22 during the game I would have said go for the lineout, but we weren't.
I believe Scott felt more comfortable attacking from within our half to get back to their half and then only need a penalty, than he did actually getting past the tryline, which is how the entire game had gone really.
-
@junior said in All Blacks v France:
If Razor has half a brain, over the next 3 years, we will become much more a 10 man rugby team, that scores tries off mauls, close in running and chaos ball counter attacks.
Sounds like the style of a certain Super rugby coach
-
@akan004 said in All Blacks v France:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks v France:
I'm also confused by this narrative that we were cowards for taking the 3, and it was un-All Black like.
To me it seems much more brave and confident to say "We're not going to camp out here and hope to sneak a try in with pick and go or maul for the next 5 minutes.
Instead, we're so confident we can get back here and you can't stop us getting here, that we'll take the 3 and be back here within 5 minutes to win the game."
Which btw we actually did get back near their 22 within the 5 minutes, only for Beauden/Rieko to screw up.
I guess Scott didn't take that into account unfortunately.
Not sure if anyone on here has called them cowards, it was definitely not a cowardly move. I just think it was a stupid call.
What would the French have preferred? Defending a lineout 5-10 metres from their line and potentially being pinned in their red zone for the next few minutes, or to be 1 point ahead with a deep kickoff into the opposition half against a team that doesn't exit well? I think they would have been extremely relieved when we took the 3.
Don't know about the French, but Sir Richie would have been relieved.
Home
Access comprehensive player and match statistics for the All Blacks and Black Ferns. Explore career stats, player profiles, and historical data from New Zealand's iconic rugby teams.
At 26-22 down, Gavin Henson stepped up to put Wales one point behind with four minutes remaining. But they were unable to make any further headway.
McCaw said he was relieved at the Welsh captain's decision: "Wales could easily have had a crack at our line from their 76th-minute penalty if they had kicked for a line-out, but I was quite pleased that they went for goal because if they'd had a crack who knows what would have happened.
"It was a tough decision but they always say that in Test matches you take the points on offer. "But I guess for us there was a bit of relief that they took the shot at goal instead of going for the try."
-
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v France:
@akan004 said in All Blacks v France:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks v France:
I'm also confused by this narrative that we were cowards for taking the 3, and it was un-All Black like.
To me it seems much more brave and confident to say "We're not going to camp out here and hope to sneak a try in with pick and go or maul for the next 5 minutes.
Instead, we're so confident we can get back here and you can't stop us getting here, that we'll take the 3 and be back here within 5 minutes to win the game."
Which btw we actually did get back near their 22 within the 5 minutes, only for Beauden/Rieko to screw up.
I guess Scott didn't take that into account unfortunately.
Not sure if anyone on here has called them cowards, it was definitely not a cowardly move. I just think it was a stupid call.
What would the French have preferred? Defending a lineout 5-10 metres from their line and potentially being pinned in their red zone for the next few minutes, or to be 1 point ahead with a deep kickoff into the opposition half against a team that doesn't exit well? I think they would have been extremely relieved when we took the 3.
Don't know about the French, but Sir Richie would have been relieved.
Home
Access comprehensive player and match statistics for the All Blacks and Black Ferns. Explore career stats, player profiles, and historical data from New Zealand's iconic rugby teams.
At 26-22 down, Gavin Henson stepped up to put Wales one point behind with four minutes remaining. But they were unable to make any further headway.
McCaw said he was relieved at the Welsh captain's decision: "Wales could easily have had a crack at our line from their 76th-minute penalty if they had kicked for a line-out, but I was quite pleased that they went for goal because if they'd had a crack who knows what would have happened.
"It was a tough decision but they always say that in Test matches you take the points on offer. "But I guess for us there was a bit of relief that they took the shot at goal instead of going for the try."
So are we now the equivalent of 2004 Wales?
The shot at goal at that time did not sit well with me and it did not feel that it was part of the All Black DNA.
-
@kpkanz the points you make are why other posters feel it was an un-AB like decision. There are not many AB teams in history that wouldn't back themselves to kick for the corner and score a try to win it with 5 minutes on the clock. The fact that we did get back up field isn't evidence that it was a good decision; a lot has to go right to get all the way up field in one of the final plays and convert it into points, and as it turned out we got close but couldn't maintain it long enough. It's symptomatic of a game plan that isn't well suited to test footy.
If there is one positive to take from losing by 1, it's that hopefully this tour hasn't papered over the significant selection issues with this coaching team.
The biggest positive from this season is that we absolutely do have the cattle to be No. 1 again, but we need a much smarter game plan and much bolder selections from Razor and his team next season.
-
between that and the intercept where he was never getting away it's damning vision.
-
@nzzp said in All Blacks v France:
Y'all should also apologise to @Bones; he's been consistent with his observations of Will Jordan - elite in some facets, but missing some bits that make great Test fullbacks. That's not a hit on Will, just that he's a better wing where the things he isn't as good at don't get exposed so much.
Yeah look, Will can do some amazing stuff and fuck it's pretty to watch him in space. Just what annoys me is he still plays like that guy growing up who was bigger and better than everyone and so just grabbed the ball and did it on his own. It's not stuff that can't be worked on and I certainly would've hoped to see vast improvement this season - but there's nothing.
How is it that he's still consistently choosing selfish options, constantly overrunning players with the ball, etc? He doesn't value possession and just readily hands it back to the opposition.
If I could see even a tiny bit of improvement across his many seasons then I would be more comfortable, but he just doesn't appear to have any application or desire to improve - or he's not being taught well.
-
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France:
@Bones devil's advocate - being played on the wing isn't the best way to develop his fullback skills.
It's not fullback skills though - it's rugby skills.
Besides which, where does he play all his rugby below test level? The list of players that successfully transitioned from the wing to fullback is surely longer than the unsuccessful. I can't really think of anyone, but that's me.
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v France:
@nzzp said in All Blacks v France:
Y'all should also apologise to @Bones; he's been consistent with his observations of Will Jordan - elite in some facets, but missing some bits that make great Test fullbacks. That's not a hit on Will, just that he's a better wing where the things he isn't as good at don't get exposed so much.
Yeah look, Will can do some amazing stuff and fuck it's pretty to watch him in space. Just what annoys me is he still plays like that guy growing up who was bigger and better than everyone and so just grabbed the ball and did it on his own. It's not stuff that can't be worked on and I certainly would've hoped to see vast improvement this season - but there's nothing.
How is it that he's still consistently choosing selfish options, constantly overrunning players with the ball, etc? He doesn't value possession and just readily hands it back to the opposition.
If I could see even a tiny bit of improvement across his many seasons then I would be more comfortable, but he just doesn't appear to have any application or desire to improve - or he's not being taught well.
Whilst I agree his best position is wing, some of the things you have attacked Will on are just plain silly. He sets up other players well, is definitely not selfish (don't know where that is coming from), and his defensive positioning is very good (could be more physical in the tackle of course).
His best position is wing I think because he doesn't have the kicking game or maybe even the decision nous for fullback I think (neither does Jordie on the decision front....). On the wing he can roam and not have the same responsibilities that limits a fullback from getting in the game. -
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France:
He sets up other players well, is definitely not selfish (don't know where that is coming from)
Right, so the multiple instances of him ignoring support and/or taking the limp option then turning the ball over is great team play? Keep drinking the coolade man. What's good about him not looking to link when he breaks, or overrunning the ball carrier, kicking the ball away randomly or throwing a shit 20/80 pass when he's eventually caught? Yeah very unselfish.
-
-
@Mauss said in All Blacks v France:
@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks v France:
The ref was fine. Let’s not become Irish.
My comment on Amashukeli wasn’t intended as a slight against him. I also think it’s possible to talk about refereeing without it turning into ref bashing.
A ref’s interpretation of the breakdown is always important but I feel like it gains more weight when you have two opposing teams with very different playing philosophies, like New Zealand and France have. Whereas the French forward pack generally plays like a tight, cohesive unit (where they are always within a 20 metre radius of each other), the ABs like to keep width and have forwards and backs dispersed across a backline.
That also means that the tackle area becomes very important for a side like the All Blacks, as they try to limit the number of players committed to securing the ruck. When the tackle area is a mess, and you have, for example, only Will Jordan and Sevu Reece available to clean out in a ten metre radius, then it’s easy to see how that quickly turns into a problem.
That being said, there’s certainly a case to be made that the current game plan isn’t working when facing sides like France and the Springboks. In all three tests, New Zealand lost the game through their inability to win the breakdown, both on attack and defence, with France and South Africa finding it too easy to generate scores through the pick and go when within the NZ 22. In all three tests, Robertson’s solution – of running them off their feet by keeping the ball – hasn’t worked. And you’d have to wonder whether he should radically alter his approach to these teams, for example, by picking a bigger pack and by tightening the game plan.
The current game plan can still work, I think, but then you have to have a number of strike moves off of lineout and scrum which almost guarantee points (similar to how France had that maul try with the early shift up their sleeve). Currently, the ABs are getting too little purchase of those attacks for them to win these test matches.
So again, definitely not intending to bash the ref. Simply trying to get some more insight on what went wrong against France.
They don’t really have a bigger pack to select.
Holland would make it bigger though.
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v France:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks v France:
He sets up other players well, is definitely not selfish (don't know where that is coming from)
Right, so the multiple instances of him ignoring support and/or taking the limp option then turning the ball over is great team play? Keep drinking the coolade man. What's good about him not looking to link when he breaks, or overrunning the ball carrier, kicking the ball away randomly or throwing a shit 20/80 pass when he's eventually caught? Yeah very unselfish.
It’s Kool Aid.
I’ve got your back bro
