England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2
-
That is 2 pastings. From the bit I saw England looked very impressive and nz a bit clueless.
-
-
@sparky said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
England looked professional and very organised. NZ looked amateur and like they are had just met.
Which is exactly the case. Like 7s we've carried on like we did in the past and other teams went pro and changed their org well before us. SR will help, but that's too late for this world cup cycle.
But the 7s has shown we can come back, as long as the investment is there.
-
@billy-tell said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
That is 2 pastings. From the bit I saw England looked very impressive and nz a bit clueless.
professionalism makes a difference. Critical to invest in our players if we're serious about competing long term
-
NZ needs to find a competitive forward pack in the next 12 months. For 2 weeks in a row they've been outmuscled up front and can't stop the lineout drive. I really question the decision of not competing in those 5 m lineouts. Some of the young players (e.g., Mikaele-Tu'u, Leti-I’iga, Maliepo and Robins-Reti) stood up but without a forward platform the rockstar backs aren't in the game enough.
I really hope that Bayler gets a start in one of the tests against France. Cocksedge was really poor again and seemed too involved in niggle.
-
@yeetyaah said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
Ludacris call. Cockedge yellowed for a "deliberate knock down" as her hand touched the ball in the tackle process, eyes on the player not the ball. So stupid.
Just saw this (watching the replay, couldn't watch live). Absolutely terrible call. If she even touched the ball (and that's a big "if"), then there's no way it was deliberate.
-
-
England Roses are very reminiscent of how far NZ were ahead of the rest in 1987. The gap is that big. Being professional since 2017 has given them a huge advantage, and with good coaching they have capitalised on that advantage.
However...I remember watching the ABs play France in Lyon in 2006. They won 47-3 that night and it could have been more. There was daylight between the teams. Which made 2007 all the more insane.
Pressure and expectation does peculiar things.
-
@bovidae said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
NZ needs to find a competitive forward pack in the next 12 months. For 2 weeks in a row they've been outmuscled up front and can't stop the lineout drive. I really question the decision of not competing in those 5 m lineouts. Some of the young players (e.g., Mikaele-Tu'u, Leti-I’iga, Maliepo and Robins-Reti) stood up but without a forward platform the rockstar backs aren't in the game enough.
I really hope that Bayler gets a start in one of the tests against France. Cocksedge was really poor again and seemed too involved in niggle.
You basically described the men's team there.
Clearly there is an issue across all levels and sexes with the "NZ style"
-
@junior said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
@bovidae said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
NZ needs to find a competitive forward pack in the next 12 months. For 2 weeks in a row they've been outmuscled up front and can't stop the lineout drive. I really question the decision of not competing in those 5 m lineouts. Some of the young players (e.g., Mikaele-Tu'u, Leti-I’iga, Maliepo and Robins-Reti) stood up but without a forward platform the rockstar backs aren't in the game enough.
I really hope that Bayler gets a start in one of the tests against France. Cocksedge was really poor again and seemed too involved in niggle.
You basically described the men's team there.
Clearly there is an issue across all levels and sexes with the "NZ style"
Unless we "outmuscle" Ireland and France?
-
@junior said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
@bovidae said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
NZ needs to find a competitive forward pack in the next 12 months. For 2 weeks in a row they've been outmuscled up front and can't stop the lineout drive. I really question the decision of not competing in those 5 m lineouts. Some of the young players (e.g., Mikaele-Tu'u, Leti-I’iga, Maliepo and Robins-Reti) stood up but without a forward platform the rockstar backs aren't in the game enough.
I really hope that Bayler gets a start in one of the tests against France. Cocksedge was really poor again and seemed too involved in niggle.
You basically described the men's team there.
Clearly there is an issue across all levels and sexes with the "NZ style"
NZ have powerful athletes who play an all-court style of game. Forwards and backs interplaying. Speed of ball is key to stretch defensive systems and create overloads. NZ skills allow them to take advantage of that.
In recent times, this advantage has been negated. Key to this has been the officiating of the breakdown. If refs allow a free for all at the breakdown (which has become more common), NZ have had to commit more players, which leaves fewer available to stress opposing defences.
This leaves NZ with a choice - do they move away from developing the athletic player who has served them so well over the past 2 decades for bigger, more powerful, but less mobile/skilled players who can move pianos but will be spent after 50 mins? I think there is some merit here in selecting a couple of bigger more damaging ball carriers. But there aren't many in NZ right now. Or am I wrong?
One problem at the moment is that refs allow too many stoppages in play. If you want to slow play down and play a set piece dominated game, fine. Disrupt the breakdown and defend like madmen. It is like the counter attacking style in football. Soak up pressure then strike. Teams that go for bigger players shouldn't be given more time for them to get their breath back. Play should only stop for serious injuries. When the ball goes out, play should be restarted within a set time. Any longer should result in a free kick and concession of the ball.
The other issue is the carnage that is called the breakdown. It truly is a mess and is heavily weighted to the defensive side right now. Too many turnovers and slowing of ball is as a result of clearly illegal play by players not supporting their own bodyweight. It is a blight on the game.
I like the different styles international sides have. I like the big, powerful sides that prioritise their set piece and defence. I also like watching sides that seek to inject pace in the game and back their fitness and skills over 80 mins, whilst ensuring they have a good enough set piece to compete. There are many teams that sit along this spectrum of styles.
Long may this clash of styles continue. To do that, refs have enough laws to sanction teams/players and allow a fair contest. May the best team/style win.
-
Specifically for the Ferns, the English pack was bigger, more powerful and more importantly, played as a pack. They knew their roles and executed brilliantly. Look no further than their lineout and maul. This is a sign of great coaching and hours and hours of practice.
NZ Ferns, especially in first test, looked like they were lobbing the ball in and hoping it would stick. When they did secure possession, England knew NZ were going wide so fanned out. NZ need to develop their forward game to keep England in 2 minds as to what they are going to do. It was too easy for England to defend against.
The hope for NZ is that when they did tie in England's forwards and allow the backline to go at England's, they created opportunities and scored.
The lineout can be fixed. The scrum went ok. But the breakdown and collisions were owned by England. And once NZ went through several phases and the England defence was set, it was a case of waiting for the ball to be dropped or a turnover or an intercept. Can NZ develop enough strength and power in their forwards within 12 months.
Oh, and Cocksedge needs to be benched. Her replacement in test 2 brought much needed speed and energy.
-
@stodders said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
@junior said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
@bovidae said in England Red Roses v Black Ferns 2:
NZ needs to find a competitive forward pack in the next 12 months. For 2 weeks in a row they've been outmuscled up front and can't stop the lineout drive. I really question the decision of not competing in those 5 m lineouts. Some of the young players (e.g., Mikaele-Tu'u, Leti-I’iga, Maliepo and Robins-Reti) stood up but without a forward platform the rockstar backs aren't in the game enough.
I really hope that Bayler gets a start in one of the tests against France. Cocksedge was really poor again and seemed too involved in niggle.
You basically described the men's team there.
Clearly there is an issue across all levels and sexes with the "NZ style"
NZ have powerful athletes who play an all-court style of game. Forwards and backs interplaying. Speed of ball is key to stretch defensive systems and create overloads. NZ skills allow them to take advantage of that.
In recent times, this advantage has been negated. Key to this has been the officiating of the breakdown. If refs allow a free for all at the breakdown (which has become more common), NZ have had to commit more players, which leaves fewer available to stress opposing defences.
This leaves NZ with a choice - do they move away from developing the athletic player who has served them so well over the past 2 decades for bigger, more powerful, but less mobile/skilled players who can move pianos but will be spent after 50 mins? I think there is some merit here in selecting a couple of bigger more damaging ball carriers. But there aren't many in NZ right now. Or am I wrong?
One problem at the moment is that refs allow too many stoppages in play. If you want to slow play down and play a set piece dominated game, fine. Disrupt the breakdown and defend like madmen. It is like the counter attacking style in football. Soak up pressure then strike. Teams that go for bigger players shouldn't be given more time for them to get their breath back. Play should only stop for serious injuries. When the ball goes out, play should be restarted within a set time. Any longer should result in a free kick and concession of the ball.
The other issue is the carnage that is called the breakdown. It truly is a mess and is heavily weighted to the defensive side right now. Too many turnovers and slowing of ball is as a result of clearly illegal play by players not supporting their own bodyweight. It is a blight on the game.
I like the different styles international sides have. I like the big, powerful sides that prioritise their set piece and defence. I also like watching sides that seek to inject pace in the game and back their fitness and skills over 80 mins, whilst ensuring they have a good enough set piece to compete. There are many teams that sit along this spectrum of styles.
Long may this clash of styles continue. To do that, refs have enough laws to sanction teams/players and allow a fair contest. May the best team/style win.
I think we need much more variety in our domestic competitions. Super Rugby Aotearoa is basically 5 teams all trying to play the same game with varying degrees of success. It would be better for the company and our international team(s) if we had 5 teams who played quite different styles. That way, I am sure we could find 30 guys for an AB squad and put together a match day 23 who could take on all comers playing any style. Maybe I’m too optimistic in that view
-
@junior I think NZ have been able to get this from their coaches who have been overseas and had to fashion game plans based on the players at their disposal. It has forced them to innovate.
Maybe an idea for NZ would be to (shock, horror) invite some non-NZers to coach in NZ and introduce NZ players to different approaches and techniques. Worked ok for the Crusaders with Ronan O'Gara.
