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.
-
@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.
-
@frye said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@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.
Interesting thing was that other than 50:22 Boks didn't kick for touch in third quarter. Mind you they were hardly in their own 22 at all.
-
@frye said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@dagrubster said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Someone mentioned it earlier about not being able to find where the ABS were offside in the last ruck.
I looked over the highlights and from the maul we were onside. the next ruck in front of the posts, Janties goes to pass the ball from the ruck and pulls back on the pass (like a dummy pass), the ABs rush up, he then passes and the ref sticks his arm out.
I don't believe that type of 'dummy pass' from a ruck is a legal play anymore?
can anyone confirm?
Baulking from the base is illegal but I thought Jantjies picked and then double pumped. Which I'd say is not illegal.
But then I don't think Tu'ungafasi was offside at the time Jantjies picked either. If he was it was very marginal. Certainly not deserving of the match winning penalty but whatever.
The problem was we shouldn’t have been down that end of the field at that stage of the game. Chances are with the pressure the Boks were applying a penalty of some sort was likely to occur anyway
-
@machpants said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Squidge's Take
Interesting that several of ABs best moves had Rieko taking the ball at 12. I also notice once or twice Havili was misaligned, which meant BB didn't use him. Both times had DH been at a conventional 12 position there was a skip pass on direct to wing and outside Bok hook.
One thing Squidge didn't pick up was that Bok kicking game in first game led ABs in second to hanging off in anticipation, which allowed Boks to bit ball at pace and breach gain line:
-
There is also a premium article on Rugbypass, pointing out similar errors. In addition, the lack of growth in attacking plays, with the same plays that were used Vs Fiji& Oz, also used Vs boks. Not only that, they've been around since the Hansen era
The try mentioned is the Savea one, which was just saying beaudy brilliance, and not a set play
The try highlighted the possibilities for the All Blacks had they schemed deliberately for what they were facing, instead of rolling out Foster’s same old menu and trying to take on the Springboks in areas of strength like the maul.
Based on their two games against the Springboks, Rennie and his staff looked far superior to the All Blacks brains trust when it came to game planning for the world champions.
They tailored their game to the opposition to attack the weaknesses, whereas the All Blacks naively went brazenly forward trying to attack South Africa’s strengths and it backfired.
This should be a key lesson for Foster’s All Blacks moving forward. In the organised parts of the game, they cannot change the pieces performing the roles, run the same plays against everyone and expect them to work.
There needs to be some flexibility there and more thought into the process.
The fact that they were running the same starter play with McKenzie on the left wing showed a certain level of naivety that, to no surprise, blew up.
In tight test matches where counter-attacking opportunities dry up, the All Blacks will need to have a clinical set-piece attacking plan which, at times, needs to be adjusted for the opposition.
They might have the most attacking talent in the world, but they still need decent plans to be devised to help them get the match-ups and space they need to let their skills shine.
You cannot roll up and play the same against Fiji as you do against the Springboks and expect to win handsomely.
It could work, or it could just as easily blow up like it did twice in the Rugby Championship..
