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."
-
@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
-
@No-Quarter Its got to be hard to make a decision like that after 75 minutes of running around. I don't envy his role in that respect, brain must be frazzled.
The longer you look at his decision the worse it gets though:
I think it was the 2 previous restarts we fluffed? 1 penalty and I think the other was a knock on? Can't fully remember. I'd prefer to fluff a restart in the lead.
If we had scored, the French would have to score a try to win minimum, surely it would be better to rumble up the field with possession, in the lead by a score, trying to achieve the same thing as if you were 1 point behind.
On that note, not to Barrett bash, I think Savea should be captain. I think Scotts position may be under threat soon. Savea not so much.
-
@Billy-Tell or South African 😂😂😂 resident Saffas exempted - but my God, some of your fellow countrymen and women have a pathological victim complex going on. Andrew Brace tried to rob the Boks on Saturday rather than the Boks being indisciplined and inviting pressure.
-
@stodders said in All Blacks v France:
@Billy-Tell or South African 😂😂😂 resident Saffas exempted - but my God, some of your fellow countrymen and women have a pathological victim complex going on. Andrew Brace tried to rob the Boks on Saturday rather than the Boks being indisciplined and inviting pressure.
Are you confusing me and @Billy-Tell ?
(For the record, I think the Boks went through a 20 minute patch of the worst ruck indiscipline I'd seen in quite some time. Rightfully penalized for it).
-
@nzzp said in All Blacks v France:
@Bones said in All Blacks v France:
Yeah very unselfish
In fairness, I don't think it's selfishness. I think it's mindset and decision making.
The brilliance in some facets blinds some people to areas he's not as good.
Fair - but to me it looks more like he puts the blinkers on and doesn't trust that he can do better with teamwork. You reckon he just gets too frazzled? Not ideal from someone I'd say should be experienced by now.
-
@Halfback said in All Blacks v France:
@No-Quarter Its got to be hard to make a decision like that after 75 minutes of running around. I don't envy his role in that respect, brain must be frazzled.
The longer you look at his decision the worse it gets though:
I think it was the 2 previous restarts we fluffed? 1 penalty and I think the other was a knock on? Can't fully remember. I'd prefer to fluff a restart in the lead.
If we had scored, the French would have to score a try to win minimum, surely it would be better to rumble up the field with possession, in the lead by a score, trying to achieve the same thing as if you were 1 point behind.
On that note, not to Barrett bash, I think Savea should be captain. I think Scotts position may be under threat soon. Savea not so much.
Scott Barrett’s position is no way in danger he will stay captain and starting lock.
There is some right BS being spoken about his performances.
Savea is the one who should be gone to the bench at least he has been a highlight reel for some time now. -
@DaGrubster said in All Blacks v France:
They don’t really have a bigger pack to select.
Perhaps bigger is not the right word. Players who thrive more in the tight spaces, something like that? Against France, NZ tried to keep the ball tight and go through the middle in the French 22 but the pick and go was very messy. Cleaners were often unable to keep their feet at the ruck and carriers didn't dominate contact, leading to a lack of forward momentum and French turnover ball.
Ireland’s win against South Africa in Durban came after selecting Beirne at six and playing more directly. They then tried a similar line-up against NZ (without playing as direct) and it didn’t work. I don’t want to simplify things too much, but with how close the top teams are (with Argentina and Australia on the rise), I’d think a horses for courses-approach might be best. In this approach, you’d have something like a "Crusader" gameplan for certain opponents (Ireland, England, Australia, Argentina) while taking on a Cotter/Schmidt/Blues-style for others like South Africa and France. The latter means more aggressive ruck defence, lots of blindside switches in attack, and picking players who excel in the pick and go and are able to dominate contact in close (Tu’ungafasi, Sotutu, Savea, Taukei’aho, Tuipulotu, etc.).
I don’t think it’s particularly likely that Robertson is going to go for something like this, but he can’t keep losing to teams with this playing style without coming onto serious pressure. I also don’t think this is unique to Robertson. Anyone who has been watching NZ U20s rugby for the past 12 years will probably have noticed how much these teams struggle with forward packs who stay tight together and flood the breakdown on attack and defence (some examples: SA 2012, ’14, ’19; FR 2018, ’23, ’24; WL 2012, ’19; IRL 2016; AU 2019, ’23). Those are a lot of coaches – Penney, Boyd, Robertson, Philpott, Laidlaw, Gibbes – who haven’t been able to successfully tackle this issue.
Robertson is a big believer in cohesion so that would go against this sort of mixed approach. I guess we’ll find out in the coming years whether cohesion is enough to overcome this close quarter forward-style.
-
@Mauss said in All Blacks v France:
@DaGrubster said in All Blacks v France:
They don’t really have a bigger pack to select.
Perhaps bigger is not the right word. Players who thrive more in the tight spaces, something like that? Against France, NZ tried to keep the ball tight and go through the middle in the French 22 but the pick and go was very messy. Cleaners were often unable to keep their feet at the ruck and carriers didn't dominate contact, leading to a lack of forward momentum and French turnover ball.
Ireland’s win against South Africa in Durban came after selecting Beirne at six and playing more directly. They then tried a similar line-up against NZ (without playing as direct) and it didn’t work. I don’t want to simplify things too much, but with how close the top teams are (with Argentina and Australia on the rise), I’d think a horses for courses-approach might be best. In this approach, you’d have something like a "Crusader" gameplan for certain opponents (Ireland, England, Australia, Argentina) while taking on a Cotter/Schmidt/Blues-style for others like South Africa and France. The latter means more aggressive ruck defence, lots of blindside switches in attack, and picking players who excel in the pick and go and are able to dominate contact in close (Tu’ungafasi, Sotutu, Savea, Taukei’aho, Tuipulotu, etc.).
I don’t think it’s particularly likely that Robertson is going to go for something like this, but he can’t keep losing to teams with this playing style without coming onto serious pressure. I also don’t think this is unique to Robertson. Anyone who has been watching NZ U20s rugby for the past 12 years will probably have noticed how much these teams struggle with forward packs who stay tight together and flood the breakdown on attack and defence (some examples: SA 2012, ’14, ’19; FR 2018, ’23, ’24; WL 2012, ’19; IRL 2016; AU 2019, ’23). Those are a lot of coaches – Penney, Boyd, Robertson, Philpott, Laidlaw, Gibbes – who haven’t been able to successfully tackle this issue.
Robertson is a big believer in cohesion so that would go against this sort of mixed approach. I guess we’ll find out in the coming years whether cohesion is enough to overcome this close quarter forward-style.
I agree with your comment about the lack of forward momentum.
Robertson hasn't picked the squad to play Vern ball when needed. You would need to add 3 big loose forwards to the current squad and 2 big midfielders. In the game which the Blues beat the Canes Heem absolutely dominated Jordie.
