All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Well that is almost uncanny! An incident happens at the weekend that some aussies font like.. and an article comes out proposing to change how the TMO works. Who would have thunk
Almost as uncanny as you showing up on a thread, and making your first contribution a completely unfunny attempt at wit, combined with a high probability of failure to:
- Read the article mentioned
- Understand its context
- Contest any point relating to it, using anything remotely resembling intelligence, or coherence
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@reprobate it's not shit, it's correct and is the law.
Is a correct interpretation of the Law.
You could also easily use the Law to go back to the other two other incidents.
Or the ruck where Crotty was kind of on his feet but kind of not.
Or the scrum where Moody's hand touched the ground twice.
Or Kepu for binding too high on Moody's arm.That's the grey areas for you in Rugby Laws - referee interprets, decides material effect or intent etc.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Again, other than vague references to taking the little ball he had to the line, when and where was he supposed to have taken control? It was the first half, the abs had scored 3 tries despite losing the collisions and missing too many tackles. Id be delighted to know what past legends would have done any differently? Dan Carter played in a shitload of games when the abs were down at half time despite being arguably the better team. Was he then not taking control of the game? Not being direct enough?
I'm all for fair criticism and fill your boots about the goal kicking thing, but this "take control" things appears to be based more on preconceived notions than anything that actually occurred during the game.
Dan Carter? Yes, he was regularly criticised for not taking control of the game especially towards the end of his career.
But you're right, 'control/influence' is a hard thing to quantify because there are no direct stats for it. And not made any easier in this case because Cruden wasn't a perfect comparison when he came on. But if I was to have a crack, it would be this:
Barrett played about 50 mins during which time ABs had 33% possession. Cruden played about 30 mins during which ABs enjoyed 37% possession, so a little more (and slightly better quality) but not a huge difference.
Barrett's kick-run-pass-metres run stats were 1-7-1-0. Cruden's were 7-15-6-27.
My interpretation is that one player is demanding the ball in his hands and trying to make things happen and the other isn't. I'm sure your interpretation is different. But I think it's more informative than pointing at the number of tries that were scored while each player was on.
Just to be clear, I think Barrett is deservedly our starting first -five. I just don't think his general performance this time was particularly dominant. But we're obviously never going to agree so I'll just leave it there.
It's ridiculous to compare players who are on the park at such vastly different stages of the game. The comparison is absolutely meaningless. Sorry to knit pick, but BB was hooked after 44 minutes, so Cruder essentially played the entire 2nd half.
Of course it wasn't his greatest performance, but you've still yet to pinpoint any stage of the first half when him demanding the ball and taking on the line would have made any difference to the result. You weren't claiming anything about a dominant performance, you claimed that this game was evidence that he was unable to control a game when the forwards were getting munched. Obviously I find that criticism to be more than a little unfair.
If you read back a few pages (sorry, but I am one of those NH timezone posters now) I went and watched BB for the first 20 minutes or so.
He almost seemed to avoid taking the ball as much as possible. He just wasn't in the game. You could hardly see the guy in shot except when a static kick was required and he would jog into frame from a distance away.
I admit that it doesn't necessarily back up any view that he didn't impose himself when we were under pressure (as we weren't really under pressure then) but it did explain the different stats between he and Cruden. I don't know if it was a deliberate thing, something due to him not being quite onto things with his ear infection or what. Could have been a combo. I decided not to take it as evidence to back up my (still standing) concern.
I have simply never seen BB take control of a game other than looking for (and getting) breaks with ball in hand. -
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I have simply never seen BB take control of a game other than looking for (and getting) breaks with ball in hand.
One of the Bled games he had it on a string - from boot, from hand, attacking the line. He was great.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Again, other than vague references to taking the little ball he had to the line, when and where was he supposed to have taken control? It was the first half, the abs had scored 3 tries despite losing the collisions and missing too many tackles. Id be delighted to know what past legends would have done any differently? Dan Carter played in a shitload of games when the abs were down at half time despite being arguably the better team. Was he then not taking control of the game? Not being direct enough?
I'm all for fair criticism and fill your boots about the goal kicking thing, but this "take control" things appears to be based more on preconceived notions than anything that actually occurred during the game.
Dan Carter? Yes, he was regularly criticised for not taking control of the game especially towards the end of his career.
But you're right, 'control/influence' is a hard thing to quantify because there are no direct stats for it. And not made any easier in this case because Cruden wasn't a perfect comparison when he came on. But if I was to have a crack, it would be this:
Barrett played about 50 mins during which time ABs had 33% possession. Cruden played about 30 mins during which ABs enjoyed 37% possession, so a little more (and slightly better quality) but not a huge difference.
Barrett's kick-run-pass-metres run stats were 1-7-1-0. Cruden's were 7-15-6-27.
My interpretation is that one player is demanding the ball in his hands and trying to make things happen and the other isn't. I'm sure your interpretation is different. But I think it's more informative than pointing at the number of tries that were scored while each player was on.
Just to be clear, I think Barrett is deservedly our starting first -five. I just don't think his general performance this time was particularly dominant. But we're obviously never going to agree so I'll just leave it there.
It's ridiculous to compare players who are on the park at such vastly different stages of the game. The comparison is absolutely meaningless. Sorry to knit pick, but BB was hooked after 44 minutes, so Cruder essentially played the entire 2nd half.
Of course it wasn't his greatest performance, but you've still yet to pinpoint any stage of the first half when him demanding the ball and taking on the line would have made any difference to the result. You weren't claiming anything about a dominant performance, you claimed that this game was evidence that he was unable to control a game when the forwards were getting munched. Obviously I find that criticism to be more than a little unfair.
If you read back a few pages (sorry, but I am one of those NH timezone posters now) I went and watched BB for the first 20 minutes or so.
He almost seemed to avoid taking the ball as much as possible. He just wasn't in the game. You could hardly see the guy in shot except when a static kick was required and he would jog into frame from a distance away.
I admit that it doesn't necessarily back up any view that he didn't impose himself when we were under pressure (as we weren't really under pressure then) but it did explain the different stats between he and Cruden. I don't know if it was a deliberate thing, something due to him not being quite onto things with his ear infection or what. Could have been a combo. I decided not to take it as evidence to back up my (still standing) concern.
I have simply never seen BB take control of a game other than looking for (and getting) breaks with ball in hand.It was most likely tactics and keeping the opposition guessing rather than BB losing the plot due to the immense Aus pressure.
You've clearly never seen BB play if you believe that last statement. Either that or your definition of take control is Dan Carter or Grant Fox from some RWC game that bore no resemblance to the game just played. Just on that, I find it weird that a guy who has only made the run-on side this year is having his performances critiqued in comparison with alltime great displays from guys who had been established in that position for far longer.
I realise that we NZ fans are hard task masters, but pointing at this game as evidence that BB can't control a game or folds under pressure is straight out nuts.
-
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Well that is almost uncanny! An incident happens at the weekend that some aussies font like.. and an article comes out proposing to change how the TMO works. Who would have thunk
Almost as uncanny as you showing up on a thread, and making your first contribution a completely unfunny attempt at wit, combined with a high probability of failure to:
- Read the article mentioned
- Understand its context
- Contest any point relating to it, using anything remotely resembling intelligence, or coherence
I understand the context.... it is just an Aussie bleating the day after a loss.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Which is why I have spelled out clearly that I am not taking this game as evidence of my concerns.
How are those reading comprehension classes going? -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I understand the context.... it is just an Aussie bleating the day after a loss
LOL clearly you fucking don't.
But then, you're not that smart, anyway.
-
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I understand the context.... it is just an Aussie bleating the day after a loss
LOL clearly you fucking don't.
But then, you're not that smart, anyway.
Bleat on cobber.
You will just have to take it on the chin that I think the timing of your cry for change is amusing. -
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@reprobate it's not shit, it's correct and is the law.
Is a correct interpretation of the Law.
You could also easily use the Law to go back to the other two other incidents.
Or the ruck where Crotty was kind of on his feet but kind of not.
Or the scrum where Moody's hand touched the ground twice.
Or Kepu for binding too high on Moody's arm.That's the grey areas for you in Rugby Laws - referee interprets, decides material effect or intent etc.
Ahh yeah but we're not talking about those decisions. I seem to recall someone earlier moaning about whataboutery? Sounds like good advice...
-
@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I also find it funny how before the match everyone was bitching about Julian's selection and afterward voting for him in MOTM votes. He did exactly the thing I wanted to see him there to do. A Lomu-esque run to break the game open. I haven't seen Naholo do that.
Excuse me, @Bones and I were fluffing Savea as hard as we could before the match in the face of all the detractors. Bones even posted evidence to back up our fluffing (very rare on the Fern).
Now the MOTM poll has him as one of our top 3 peformers. I feel very vindicated.
I'm just confused as to why people only watched the last 20 minutes of the game.
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I also find it funny how before the match everyone was bitching about Julian's selection and afterward voting for him in MOTM votes. He did exactly the thing I wanted to see him there to do. A Lomu-esque run to break the game open. I haven't seen Naholo do that.
Excuse me, @Bones and I were fluffing Savea as hard as we could before the match in the face of all the detractors. Bones even posted evidence to back up our fluffing (very rare on the Fern).
Now the MOTM poll has him as one of our top 3 peformers. I feel very vindicated.
I'm just confused as to why people only watched the last 20 minutes of the game.
What's got me confused is I thought @Crucial was the reason I posted those stats in the first place!
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Ahh yeah but we're not talking about those decisions. I seem to recall someone earlier moaning about whataboutery? Sounds like good advice...
Actually its just examples of what the TMO could see that affect play. The result of any penalty from the scrum, through to DHP is the same in terms of scoreboard: no try.
Read the blog post. It'll clear up what I'm getting at. Unless you're Baron.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Chris-B. said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Thoughts on the All Blacks playing without a goal kicker?
Wondering about this.
Beaudy was pretty ordinary in the first part of the Super season. Came right in the ABs camp, but he seems to be regressing.
I wonder how long the coaches will put up with substandard goal kicking - eventually it will cost us a match, so he needs to sort it - otherwise he'll have to be relegated to super-sub status again.
General performance from Beaudy has me wondering again how effective he can be when his forwards are getting munched. I didn't see him trying to take control at any point. In fact after the game I realised I could barely remember seeing him.
They had 30 something percent possession in the first half. He barely had the ball enough to make an impression before he was hooked. When and where was he supposed to take control?
35% is not great but it's adequate. A more controlling performance from a Beauden Barrett would include, for example, taking on the line himself - something that has been his hallmark this season. Aaron Cruden had more direct influence on proceedings when he came on, though admittedly not always positive.
As mentioned, he only had the ball a handful of times in attack. It would be interesting to know at what stage him taking the ball to the line would have been a controlling performance or indeed called for under the circumstances.
Cruden came on and failed to find touch from a penalty and then sent a harmless kick into the 22. With much more possession and a tiring opponent of course he's going to be more involved.
BB totally deserves any criticism for his kicking, which could prove crucial in some of the typical arm-wrestles up north. It could even be argued that Lima S gets the nod if BB cant get at least 70%. But complaining that he didn't control the game enough when his team had 35% possession and he barely touched the ball in attack is absolutely ridiculous.
Far from ridiculous but OK, if you're happy with that level of influence from your field general , then fair enough. You can probably even argue that the pattern this team plays removes the need for one central decision maker and that's probably what got them through on Saturday.
Still, the great first five performances I remember were the ones where, when things weren't panning out, the player demanded the ball and took the game on his shoulders. And that includes situations where possession was poor. Andrew Mehrtens is a classic example, he often played behind a pack that served up less than 40% possession, especially in the latter half of his career. Dan Carter was frequently in those situations too.
I've got no doubt Barrett will get there with more time under his belt but he hasn't yet and Saturday's game was clear evidence of that.
Jesus, the way you're banging on you'd think we were getting hammered and severely under the cosh. But the abs were farking leading at half time and if BB had had his kicking boots on the buffer would have been rather healthy. So you have a team that has scored 3 tries to 1 and is leading at the break and you reckon that's a poor reflection on the flyhalf, who has had little ball to work with?
I'm sure BB would have become much more involved as the game wore on, but it's absurd to criticise him for a first half performance when the abs scored 3 tries with 35% possession. But I'm sure if he put his head down and took the ball to the line those stats would look so much better and the forwards would start winning the collisions and making tackles.
He touched the ball 6 times in the 1st half and missed 3 kicks at goal.
6 times. For a 10. Did we only win 6 ducks in the half?
I agree with Crucial, this is exactly the sort of game that you would like your general to take hold of and steer his team around the park and make the play and yet he only touch the ball once every 7 minutes.
Then it is revealed that he has an ear infection.
Perhaps he should have been left out be wise he clearly wasn't right
-
Watching at the ground it seemed like Owens decided to refer the try to the TMO after watching a couple of replays on the big screen. Is that correct procedure? I remember the grumbling when we got a try disallowed in SA a few years ago and I wonder if the protocol for using the TMO has changed?
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Nepia said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I also find it funny how before the match everyone was bitching about Julian's selection and afterward voting for him in MOTM votes. He did exactly the thing I wanted to see him there to do. A Lomu-esque run to break the game open. I haven't seen Naholo do that.
Excuse me, @Bones and I were fluffing Savea as hard as we could before the match in the face of all the detractors. Bones even posted evidence to back up our fluffing (very rare on the Fern).
Now the MOTM poll has him as one of our top 3 peformers. I feel very vindicated.
I'm just confused as to why people only watched the last 20 minutes of the game.
What's got me confused is I thought @Crucial was the reason I posted those stats in the first place!
Not me. I wrote a post explaining why I was happy with Saveas selection after reading some grizzles
-
@canefan said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Watching at the ground it seemed like Owens decided to refer the try to the TMO after watching a couple of replays on the big screen. Is that correct procedure? I remember the grumbling when we got a try disallowed in SA a few years ago and I wonder if the protocol for using the TMO has changed?
Says under Guiding Principles
The TMO is a tool to help referees and assistant referees. The referee should not be subservient to the system. The referee is responsible for managing the TMO process
ā¢ The referee is the decision-maker and must remain in charge of the game
ā¢ Any relevant information taken into consideration must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS and in the context of materiality
ā¢ The application of the TMO system must be credible and consistent, protecting the image of the game. -
@da_grubster said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Chris-B. said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Thoughts on the All Blacks playing without a goal kicker?
Wondering about this.
Beaudy was pretty ordinary in the first part of the Super season. Came right in the ABs camp, but he seems to be regressing.
I wonder how long the coaches will put up with substandard goal kicking - eventually it will cost us a match, so he needs to sort it - otherwise he'll have to be relegated to super-sub status again.
General performance from Beaudy has me wondering again how effective he can be when his forwards are getting munched. I didn't see him trying to take control at any point. In fact after the game I realised I could barely remember seeing him.
They had 30 something percent possession in the first half. He barely had the ball enough to make an impression before he was hooked. When and where was he supposed to take control?
35% is not great but it's adequate. A more controlling performance from a Beauden Barrett would include, for example, taking on the line himself - something that has been his hallmark this season. Aaron Cruden had more direct influence on proceedings when he came on, though admittedly not always positive.
As mentioned, he only had the ball a handful of times in attack. It would be interesting to know at what stage him taking the ball to the line would have been a controlling performance or indeed called for under the circumstances.
Cruden came on and failed to find touch from a penalty and then sent a harmless kick into the 22. With much more possession and a tiring opponent of course he's going to be more involved.
BB totally deserves any criticism for his kicking, which could prove crucial in some of the typical arm-wrestles up north. It could even be argued that Lima S gets the nod if BB cant get at least 70%. But complaining that he didn't control the game enough when his team had 35% possession and he barely touched the ball in attack is absolutely ridiculous.
Far from ridiculous but OK, if you're happy with that level of influence from your field general , then fair enough. You can probably even argue that the pattern this team plays removes the need for one central decision maker and that's probably what got them through on Saturday.
Still, the great first five performances I remember were the ones where, when things weren't panning out, the player demanded the ball and took the game on his shoulders. And that includes situations where possession was poor. Andrew Mehrtens is a classic example, he often played behind a pack that served up less than 40% possession, especially in the latter half of his career. Dan Carter was frequently in those situations too.
I've got no doubt Barrett will get there with more time under his belt but he hasn't yet and Saturday's game was clear evidence of that.
Jesus, the way you're banging on you'd think we were getting hammered and severely under the cosh. But the abs were farking leading at half time and if BB had had his kicking boots on the buffer would have been rather healthy. So you have a team that has scored 3 tries to 1 and is leading at the break and you reckon that's a poor reflection on the flyhalf, who has had little ball to work with?
I'm sure BB would have become much more involved as the game wore on, but it's absurd to criticise him for a first half performance when the abs scored 3 tries with 35% possession. But I'm sure if he put his head down and took the ball to the line those stats would look so much better and the forwards would start winning the collisions and making tackles.
He touched the ball 6 times in the 1st half and missed 3 kicks at goal.
6 times. For a 10. Did we only win 6 ducks in the half?
I agree with Crucial, this is exactly the sort of game that you would like your general to take hold of and steer his team around the park and make the play and yet he only touch the ball once every 7 minutes.
Then it is revealed that he has an ear infection.
Perhaps he should have been left out be wise he clearly wasn't right
Those were clearly the tactics. Blame Hanson for that. Probably makes perfect sense when BB has a target on him these days. Perhaps he would have seized control in the 2nd half (i.e. when games are usually taken control of), but we will never know because he was hooked after 44 minutes.
Ultimately my beef is that certain posters were trying to use this game as evidence that BB can't control a game when under pressure. Obviously I think that's boulderdash.
-
Laws of the Game | World Rugby Laws
