Bledisloe #1
-
I got my years confused.
Now I don't know what your point is. We looked good in early 2003, but it turned out badly. Therefore if we look bad this year it will turn out well?
-
@Chester-Draws said in Bledisloe #1:
I got my years confused.
Now I don't know what your point is. We looked good in early 2003, but it turned out badly. Therefore if we look bad this year it will turn out well?
Now you're tying yourself up in knots. My original point was that the ABs have lost a pre RWC game to Aus since 2007 and that if we'd been a player down in any of those game we would also have been thrashed. You made some comment about how we played in the years we didn't win. So what is your point exactly?
-
Ah the Fern, two posters arguing and neither know what each other’s point is. Gold.
Put it on the homepage banner
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe #1:
It's just getting silly now
There's a very easy solution to all of this.
As soon as the ball carrier hits the deck he has to let go
And anyone going off their feet intentionally gets penalised - free kick in general play, penalty inside the 22.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe #1:
Ah the Fern, two posters arguing and neither know what each other’s point is. Gold.
Put it on the homepage banner
I liked your comment. I'm not arguing now. I really don't know what his point to argue.
I think our current form is shit. Which is because we are shit. Which means we will likely enter the Cup still shit.
I don't think previous years is much guide. How we are playing now is a much better guide.
-
@Chester-Draws I agree. In particular looking back at previous WC years really has no value given changes to coaches, players, opposition, schedules etc. The only value is filling a bit of bandwidth in between test matches.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Bledisloe #1:
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe #1:
Ah the Fern, two posters arguing and neither know what each other’s point is. Gold.
Put it on the homepage banner
I liked your comment. I'm not arguing now. I really don't know what his point to argue.
I think our current form is shit. Which is because we are shit. Which means we will likely enter the Cup still shit.
I don't think previous years is much guide. How we are playing now is a much better guide.
It's really very straightforward. We've played shit prior to other world cups and won them. We've also played really well prior to a world cup and been handed our arse. Using prior form as a guide would also have written us off in 87 and 95. Now, again, what was your original point?
-
@Chris said in Bledisloe #1:
@Mick-Gold-Coast-QLD said in Bledisloe #1:
I was unconvinced by Richie Mo'unga from the start, was drawn back in during the recent Super series (when he employed "the pass to someone else now and then" tool) but have now reverted to my initial reading of him.
He simply does not have the instincts of Beauden Barrett, or Dan Carter and Andrew Mehrtens before him to spontaneously sight and seize opportunity.Bullshit His decision making was exceptional for the Crusaders can't cop that at all. He turned nothing into a lot of great individual moments from kicking into space for the wingers taking on the defensive line and breaking it.RM also ran from FB from broken play to create some great tries for the Crusaders.
Well now, it would seem I was far too cryptic.
"I was unconvinced by Richie Mo'unga from the start" means when I first saw him at international level I was expecting more and was disappointed.
"was drawn back in during the recent Super series" means that from watching more of his Super Rugby 2019 outings I was more impressed, especially by his work with the players around him (I agree with your observation about his kicking and the wingers). Prior to that I reckoned he didn't pass often enough or early enough, this year he has matured and plays with patience. He was exceptional at times in 2019 with the Crusaders, it was a good year for him.
"He simply does not have ..." is clear enough - I'm commenting on his Test performance. In my opinion on Saturday he was not as sure footed and confident.
-
Third quarter rewatch.
A period of two halves:
- In first 10 Wobblie forwards bullied us, making easy metres through Pick n' Go. Not surprising with one lock, IMO mistake.
They were also winning collisons, mostly advancing after tackles.
Both tries via blindside, albeit first quite big. First time Benda ineffective, the second BB head on miss against Kerevi, after Koroibete pick and go.
Cane cleaned from side blatantly in lead up to first try.
- Moli/Ta'Avao/Tuipulotu on at 50.
Much better go forward, in particular Patty T best of out locks in game.
Held on to ball well (18 phases?) and BB magic for try.
RM also excellent during this period.
Oz replacements on 56 minutes.
White again found space close to ruck.
Tupou big impact. Excellent steal at 60 and monstered Moli at first scrum.
- Ended 26-19. Three tries each at that stage.
My main takeaway poor defence around fringes.
-
@rotated said in Bledisloe #1:
@pakman said in Bledisloe #1:
@barbarian said in Bledisloe #1:
Can ANYONE explain why we chose to play first ten minutes of second half with only one lock?They made the judgement that keeping legs as fresh as possible (by giving Cane a second stint after the break thereby reducing Patty T’s workload) was better than whatever they have up at setpiece.
If they had a lead I’m sure the calculus would have been different. Playing from behind and with an already shortened bench after Goodhue went down it was probably the right call.
IMO the lack of a second lock was a big contributor to two tries Wobblies scored in first ten of second.
-
@Mick-Gold-Coast-QLD said in Bledisloe #1:
@Chris said in Bledisloe #1:
@Mick-Gold-Coast-QLD said in Bledisloe #1:
I was unconvinced by Richie Mo'unga from the start, was drawn back in during the recent Super series (when he employed "the pass to someone else now and then" tool) but have now reverted to my initial reading of him.
He simply does not have the instincts of Beauden Barrett, or Dan Carter and Andrew Mehrtens before him to spontaneously sight and seize opportunity.Bullshit His decision making was exceptional for the Crusaders can't cop that at all. He turned nothing into a lot of great individual moments from kicking into space for the wingers taking on the defensive line and breaking it.RM also ran from FB from broken play to create some great tries for the Crusaders.
Well now, it would seem I was far too cryptic.
"I was unconvinced by Richie Mo'unga from the start" means when I first saw him at international level I was expecting more and was disappointed.
"was drawn back in during the recent Super series" means that from watching more of his Super Rugby 2019 outings I was more impressed, especially by his work with the players around him (I agree with your observation about his kicking and the wingers). Prior to that I reckoned he didn't pass often enough or early enough, this year he has matured and plays with patience. He was exceptional at times in 2019 with the Crusaders, it was a good year for him.
"He simply does not have ..." is clear enough - I'm commenting on his Test performance. In my opinion on Saturday he was not as sure footed and confident.
RM was very good in first 60 on Saturday.
-
@MiketheSnow I played that rule in golden oldies last October, was awesome to avoid some of the aggression and content issues around the breakdown.
-
@Mick-Gold-Coast-QLD said in Bledisloe #1:
"He simply does not have ..." is clear enough - I'm commenting on his Test performance. In my opinion on Saturday he was not as sure footed and confident.
Ok understand where you are coming from
Don’t agree with this comment
"He simply does not have ..." is clear enough - I'm commenting on his Test performance. In my opinion on Saturday he was not as sure footed and confident.I think he went well considering we had 14 players for the 2nd half and our forwards didn’t really stand up.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Bledisloe #1:
@Chester-Draws said in Bledisloe #1:
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe #1:
Ah the Fern, two posters arguing and neither know what each other’s point is. Gold.
Put it on the homepage banner
I liked your comment. I'm not arguing now. I really don't know what his point to argue.
I think our current form is shit. Which is because we are shit. Which means we will likely enter the Cup still shit.
I don't think previous years is much guide. How we are playing now is a much better guide.
It's really very straightforward. We've played shit prior to other world cups and won them. We've also played really well prior to a world cup and been handed our arse. Using prior form as a guide would also have written us off in 87 and 95. Now, again, what was your original point?
What are you on? We played no prior matches in 1987 to have any form. The previous year's tour of France went OK enough, considering the dislocations of that year. In 1995 we only played Canada that year, and we fielded a fresh young side. We went in with very little by way of real form.
Using prior form in 1991 would have indicated that we were on the slide. Which we were, that time, as it happened.
So prior form has proved to be a very poor guide to our RWC form. Nor anyone else's really, for that matter.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Bledisloe #1:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Bledisloe #1:
@Chester-Draws said in Bledisloe #1:
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe #1:
Ah the Fern, two posters arguing and neither know what each other’s point is. Gold.
Put it on the homepage banner
I liked your comment. I'm not arguing now. I really don't know what his point to argue.
I think our current form is shit. Which is because we are shit. Which means we will likely enter the Cup still shit.
I don't think previous years is much guide. How we are playing now is a much better guide.
It's really very straightforward. We've played shit prior to other world cups and won them. We've also played really well prior to a world cup and been handed our arse. Using prior form as a guide would also have written us off in 87 and 95. Now, again, what was your original point?
What are you on? We played no prior matches in 1987 to have any form. The previous year's tour of France went OK enough, considering the dislocations of that year. In 1995 we only played Canada that year, and we fielded a fresh young side. We went in with very little by way of real form.
Using prior form in 1991 would have indicated that we were on the slide. Which we were, that time, as it happened.
So prior form has proved to be a very poor guide to our RWC form. Nor anyone else's really, for that matter.
My entire bloody point is that form prior to the RWC is a pretty shitty gauge of how the ABs will perform in the actual RWC. That applies not just for us but pretty much every major nation. I've made that clear multiple times. Now for the umpteenth time, what is your point?
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe #1:
Ah the Fern, two posters arguing and neither know what each other’s point is. Gold.
Put it on the homepage banner
They are still at it 😀
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Bledisloe #1:
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe #1:
Ah the Fern, two posters arguing and neither know what each other’s point is. Gold.
Put it on the homepage banner
They are still at it 😀
Don't blame me. I simply said that previous form is a poor indicator of RWC success. He's arguing that I'm wrong and that previous form is a poor indicator of RWC success. I think. Actually I have no fooking idea.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Bledisloe #1:
Actually I have no fooking idea.
It doesn't matter. Nobody has a clue what is going on but stick to your guns, never back down, argue your side of an argument that doesn't exist. It's just the way it is done here.
