Pumas v All Blacks
-
@nepia said in Pumas v All Blacks:
Lucky TVs are wide screen now or Bates' ears wouldn't be in the frame!
and high for Webers forehead
-
@nepia said in Pumas v All Blacks:
Lucky TVs are wide screen now or Bates' ears wouldn't be in the frame!
@nepia said in Pumas v All Blacks:
Lucky TVs are wide screen now or Bates' ears wouldn't be in the frame!
Fuck off out of a decent rugby team thread
-
What a dreadful second half that was.
-
First test match I've thought McKenzie could be a keeper. By far his best match in Black. Barrett was good in the 1st 40. As was SBW. 2nd half was pretty muck.
As for Laurie Mains and Rugby Clichés 101 "The Pumas have a good scrum". Um, no they don't. Their scrum has been poor this RC, and was once again very average.
-
@billy-tell said in Pumas v All Blacks:
First test match I've thought McKenzie could be a keeper. By far his best match in Black. Barrett was good in the 1st 40. As was SBW. 2nd half was pretty muck.
As for Laurie Mains and Rugby Clichés 101 "The Pumas have a good scrum". Um, no they don't. Their scrum has been poor this RC, and was once again very average.
Yup. The Pumas have had a good scrum in the past. The B side scrum smashed them today, made worse by the Argies terrible technique. (Case in point, the guy who got sent off for his plank-like engage.)
-
Missed the second half live so logged off the thread. Watched replay yesterday arvo so will pipe up with my remaining 2c now ...
@tim said in Pumas v All Blacks:
@mokey It's definitely been a big step up.
Yeah nah not really. He's been playing well over most of the season. His errors in previous games have been highly visible though. Subsequently any other errors just serve people's confirmation bias. He wasn't by any means error free yesterday but they were less consequential. And he got outjumped at least once, short arse. And his attack was as potent as it has been all year.
I think he'd been harshly judged previously. But once you get a reputation, deserved or otherwise, you're not shaking it for some considerable time.
Perhaps he was slightly better ie a couple less errors but not a "big" step up.
My MOTM.
-
@anonymous said in Pumas v All Blacks:
How can you blow time off, ask players to move, then say you see it on the ground after a minute?
That was awful refereeing. Stop the play, Can't see the ball, wait 30s until you can while the players are still playing it.
Terrible use of the TMO protocols.
I'm taking 36-3, 5 tries to nil
Edit: Engrish
-
@taniwharugby said in Pumas v All Blacks:
Why wasn't that Puma allowed to attack the ball after coming through that maul?
The Todd rule?
-
@no-quarter said in Pumas v All Blacks:
Another awful cross field kick from Beauden to sum up the 2nd half to date.
Beaudie is doing a bit much of that.
Low percentage option in each case.
-
@taniwharugby said in Pumas v All Blacks:
Hate to be the team that comes up against us if we can string it together for 60+ mins
Springboks at Albany?
-
-
@booboo
re dMac - yeah, on a rewatch today (slightly more sober) - he still made mistakes, but got away with them. And his "run sideways until I spot a gap" actually came off once or twice. So - played as he normally does, but the opposition flattered him a bit.re: the referee and the Argy try - what the actual fuck? That just seemed like a pity try, or listening to the constant Argy yapping. And fuck - there was a lot of that... is there a correlation between the amount players yap at refs vs how popular sook-er is in that country? I wish I wasn't too lazy to make a chart on that.
re: Beaudie's cross field kick - again, what the actual fuck? Indeed - way too much of that recently when it's not necessary. On a replay - sure, he was kicking to 5 ABs vs 1 Blue-n-White... but that's still a 1-in-6 chance of no-try, when just being patient and passing it out was almost a sure thing. There was also the little chip-kick through at some point, too drunk to remember if it was BB or TJP?... which seemed like a sure try if they were patient, but fucked up trying to be fancy. Like everybody, I love the fancy shit when it comes off, but, just... 2 chances that just reeked of unnecessary.
-
This game showed how much Cane was missed, particularly on defence. I didn't think Todd was that effective at the breakdown and we didn't see those dominant tackles that Cane delivers.
Savea hasn't impressed as either a starter or impact sub in the last month so I'm not surprised he isn't on the plane to SA.
-
-
@chris-b said in Pumas v All Blacks:
That's surely pointing to Kaino starting and Squire on the bench?
Possibly, but Squire did very well in his last game vs SA. Or Cane just plays the full 80 mins.
They can either:
(a) Have Tuipulotu as the reserve lock with Barrett as 6 cover (again), and Todd as a specialist 7 on the bench
(b) Use Read to cover 7 and include both Kaino and Squire in the 23 with no ToddWith no Retallick I don't think the ABs can afford not to have a lock in the reserves as an injury to Whitelock/Barrett means it's Chicago all over again.
-
with Ardie not having the impact off the bench, maybe it is time to let Cane go 80.
-
@bovidae Yeah - I think all three locks will be in the match day 23. That means there's five loosies to fill four spots.
I can't really see them dragging JK to Argentina and South Africa and not giving him some game time - and he's almost never come off the bench in recent times - plus, if the plan is to increase the tempo in the final third of the match, then JK's not really the man for that job. So I've got him as a strong favourite to start at 6. Kieran is bound to be at 8. Cane most likely at 7 (they could start Todd with Cane on the bench covering all three loose forward positions, but that's not been done before as far as I recall).
So - Todd or Squire sits on the bench and the other is just there as injury cover. Somehow, if just seems a bit unlikely to me that they'd send Fifita home and fly Squire to South Africa if they didn't plan to use Liam somewhere.
However, I've been wrong before.
