All Blacks vs Springboks II
-
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
ABs played much too much in their 22 to halfway. The 50/22 rules would seem to be an obvious tactic to add.
No one kicks it out for territory anymore
It might have been handy had Beaudy and Ritchie pulled it out when the odds made it the best play.
Yeah. Like in the final moments of the last test. Roll it into the 22 and make the Boks go 80m to beat us
-
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
ABs played much too much in their 22 to halfway. The 50/22 rules would seem to be an obvious tactic to add.
No one kicks it out for territory anymore
It might have been handy had Beaudy and Ritchie pulled it out when the odds made it the best play.
Yeah. Like in the final moments of the last test. Roll it into the 22 and make the Boks go 80m to beat us
DON'T!
Even the Yaapie commentators around the 50 were suggesting the ABs were trying to play too much football.
-
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
ABs played much too much in their 22 to halfway. The 50/22 rules would seem to be an obvious tactic to add.
No one kicks it out for territory anymore
It might have been handy had Beaudy and Ritchie pulled it out when the odds made it the best play.
Yeah. Like in the final moments of the last test. Roll it into the 22 and make the Boks go 80m to beat us
DON'T!
Even the Yaapie commentators around the 50 were suggesting the ABs were trying to play too much football.
Roll it as in kick it into touch around inside the bokke 22
-
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
ABs played much too much in their 22 to halfway. The 50/22 rules would seem to be an obvious tactic to add.
No one kicks it out for territory anymore
It might have been handy had Beaudy and Ritchie pulled it out when the odds made it the best play.
Yeah. Like in the final moments of the last test. Roll it into the 22 and make the Boks go 80m to beat us
DON'T!
Even the Yaapie commentators around the 50 were suggesting the ABs were trying to play too much football.
Roll it as in kick it into touch around inside the bokke 22
STOP IT!
-
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
ABs played much too much in their 22 to halfway. The 50/22 rules would seem to be an obvious tactic to add.
No one kicks it out for territory anymore
I have never liked the "no passing back into the 22 rule" as it means nobody want the ball 30 meters from their own line and I think the 50-22 is only going make it worse. I am willing to bet that most 50-22s are going to be like this match where one team clears to the opposition 10m, the opposing fullback will just try bangs it to the corner.
It is already too difficult to exit your own final third without penalties, making random calls way too important.
-
@sidbarret said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
ABs played much too much in their 22 to halfway. The 50/22 rules would seem to be an obvious tactic to add.
No one kicks it out for territory anymore
I have never liked the "no passing back into the 22 rule" as it means nobody want the ball 30 meters from their own line and I think the 50-22 is only going make it worse. I am willing to bet that most 50-22s are going to be like this match where one team clears to the opposition 10m, the opposing fullback will just try bangs it to the corner.
It is already too difficult to exit your own final third without penalties, making random calls way too important.
There are a few too many "assumptions" that referees make in the modern game that make having territory far more important than having possession. One is that a scrum going backwards must be penalised. Another is that a maul going forwards always earns a penalty. The other is that a team defending in its 22 is always offside.
-
@junior said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@sidbarret said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
ABs played much too much in their 22 to halfway. The 50/22 rules would seem to be an obvious tactic to add.
No one kicks it out for territory anymore
I have never liked the "no passing back into the 22 rule" as it means nobody want the ball 30 meters from their own line and I think the 50-22 is only going make it worse. I am willing to bet that most 50-22s are going to be like this match where one team clears to the opposition 10m, the opposing fullback will just try bangs it to the corner.
It is already too difficult to exit your own final third without penalties, making random calls way too important.
There are a few too many "assumptions" that referees make in the modern game that make having territory far more important than having possession. One is that a scrum going backwards must be penalised. Another is that a maul going forwards always earns a penalty. The other is that a team defending in its 22 is always offside.
I mean territory has always been important.
If that graph is right SA won the territory 66% to 33%. That's absurd in a game mostly decided by penalties.
-
@frye said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@junior said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@sidbarret said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
ABs played much too much in their 22 to halfway. The 50/22 rules would seem to be an obvious tactic to add.
No one kicks it out for territory anymore
I have never liked the "no passing back into the 22 rule" as it means nobody want the ball 30 meters from their own line and I think the 50-22 is only going make it worse. I am willing to bet that most 50-22s are going to be like this match where one team clears to the opposition 10m, the opposing fullback will just try bangs it to the corner.
It is already too difficult to exit your own final third without penalties, making random calls way too important.
There are a few too many "assumptions" that referees make in the modern game that make having territory far more important than having possession. One is that a scrum going backwards must be penalised. Another is that a maul going forwards always earns a penalty. The other is that a team defending in its 22 is always offside.
I mean territory has always been important.
If that graph is right SA won the territory 66% to 33%. That's absurd in a game mostly decided by penalties.
I don't disagree. The point I am making is that the game at the moment skews too heavily in favour of territory alone
-
@frye said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@junior said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@sidbarret said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
ABs played much too much in their 22 to halfway. The 50/22 rules would seem to be an obvious tactic to add.
No one kicks it out for territory anymore
I have never liked the "no passing back into the 22 rule" as it means nobody want the ball 30 meters from their own line and I think the 50-22 is only going make it worse. I am willing to bet that most 50-22s are going to be like this match where one team clears to the opposition 10m, the opposing fullback will just try bangs it to the corner.
It is already too difficult to exit your own final third without penalties, making random calls way too important.
There are a few too many "assumptions" that referees make in the modern game that make having territory far more important than having possession. One is that a scrum going backwards must be penalised. Another is that a maul going forwards always earns a penalty. The other is that a team defending in its 22 is always offside.
I mean territory has always been important.
If that graph is right SA won the territory 66% to 33%. That's absurd in a game mostly decided by penalties.
Kicking to the centre makes sense when le Roux is there. Not so with Steyn.
-
Were the AB forwards dominated? Certainly not in first half.
Scrums pretty much even. Lineouts? Boks lost two: on 5m line and overthrow when BBBR challenged in middle. ABs took one quick throw and Taylor threw in five. Four were won, but Etzebeth got an arm to one thrown to Scottie. One to BBBR off top and the Akira one at back which led to Savea try. 3/5 to front.
Probably why Bok front row, and in particular, hooker replaced. Marx only had one lineout not secured, but Vermeulin caught that but dropped it under pressure from Akira.
Second half?
No AB throw ins from halftime to 58! This was a period when ABs were under pressure and largely in own half. My hunch is that Boks made a decision not to kick to touch! If so, it worked.
Aumua threw in all five throws in last 22 minutes. One to Akira at back. Four at front. None to BBBR.
Were ABs unconfident in his throwing? That would also explain RM kicking from own 22 to miss touch.
Of four to front, one botch to Kitshoff (why not to middle -- Boks don't jump?), and one was flailing Etzebeth arm knocks ball out of Akira's hands (Not a knock on BTW).
So strong implication that Aumua's throwing was critical weakness in last quarter.
No lineouts lost in middle and back, but only 3/10 thrown there.
What is certain is that in the one quarter in which Boks were better team it wasn't because of AB lineout.
Even Bok mauls were largely contained.
My conclusion is that in that period the dominance by Boks principally because of their vastly superior use of kicks. Steyn substitution was key.
-
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Were the AB forwards dominated? Certainly not in first half.
You can have 'ok' set piece numbers and still get dominated. I thought our scrum edged them the week before, but the ref didn't blow it that way.
The dominance I saw was around physicality. They had big bodies moving quickly carrying and hitting rucks. We struggled with that - it's their game, and it's their DNA. In fairness, we have (2015, 2019 RWC games) struggled with this, but produced enough magic to win.
It comes back to a philosophy to me as well. We won't consistnetly produce bigger stronger or faster players; in pro environments relying on that is not going to be a winning strategy. Our players should have rugby smarts and ball skills to really play... that's our edge, that's our DNA. The ball playing of our tight forwards is my current concern. This used to be a real strength of ours, and others have improved, and we seem to have gone backwards.
-
Another great analysis
Why the All Blacks couldn't crack the Springboks defence
The All Blacks needed to have been smarter to break down the Springboks' defence.
-
@bones said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@machpants plus
Key point is that the variety of Springbok threats in and around the breakdown caused the All Blacks increasing discomfort as the game unfolded. 'New Zealand want to win their quick rucks with, at most, two cleanout players (and preferably only one) committed to the ball.' SA used extra numbers to upset that.
-
@nzzp said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Were the AB forwards dominated? Certainly not in first half.
You can have 'ok' set piece numbers and still get dominated. I thought our scrum edged them the week before, but the ref didn't blow it that way.
The dominance I saw was around physicality. They had big bodies moving quickly carrying and hitting rucks. We struggled with that - it's their game, and it's their DNA. In fairness, we have (2015, 2019 RWC games) struggled with this, but produced enough magic to win.
It comes back to a philosophy to me as well. We won't consistnetly produce bigger stronger or faster players; in pro environments relying on that is not going to be a winning strategy. Our players should have rugby smarts and ball skills to really play... that's our edge, that's our DNA. The ball playing of our tight forwards is my current concern. This used to be a real strength of ours, and others have improved, and we seem to have gone backwards.
I think the hookers are all good. Joe and Ofa a bit off, but perhaps rusty.
Whilst he's a first rate prop, Nepo has no turn of speed, so will usually make only one metre. What I noticed was that in this game he had a poor sense of where to be standing. Once or twice in front of last foot at ruck. And on one occasion in front of BBBR but between him and Codie, so when Beaudy passed to BBBR his onpass was blocked. There was space out wide if the ball was passed quickly.
That was something on which ABs failed to capitalise several times.
-
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Aumua threw in all five throws in last 22 minutes. One to Akira at back. Four at front. None to BBBR.
Were ABs unconfident in his throwing? That would also explain RM kicking from own 22 to miss touch.
what
-
@frye said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Aumua threw in all five throws in last 22 minutes. One to Akira at back. Four at front. None to BBBR.
Were ABs unconfident in his throwing? That would also explain RM kicking from own 22 to miss touch.
what
We were under pressure in our 22 and RM kicks to land about 5m in from touch around half way. From memory Boks stream forward and win penalty.
Just kick the ball into touch, even if slightly less distance out and get time to reorganise?
It looked to me to be a deliberate tactic. But Boks would have had throw so maybe not because of Aumua!
-
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@frye said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@pakman said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Aumua threw in all five throws in last 22 minutes. One to Akira at back. Four at front. None to BBBR.
Were ABs unconfident in his throwing? That would also explain RM kicking from own 22 to miss touch.
what
We were under pressure in our 22 and RM kicks to land about 5m in from touch around half way. From memory Boks stream forward and win penalty.
Just kick the ball into touch, even if slightly less distance out and get time to reorganise?
It looked to me to be a deliberate tactic. But Boks would have had throw so maybe not because of Aumua!
Yeah when you kick it out the opposition has the throw. Glad we got there.
