Springboks v All Blacks 2
-
@Steve said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
we are honestly getting into the territory of just telling the players :
"the ball doesn't go passed Mo'unga"
up the guts and kick the leather off it.
Move the scoreboard in increments of 3.
James Parsons alluded to it on the latest Aotearoa podcast. Some guys such as Bower are waiting as tip runners to throw a pass out the back. Instead of just telling them to fucking mill into the next ruck. They are trying to be ball players too.
At least until we actually get some go forward and for the love of Wonder Woman, Aaron Smith, please run from the base of the ruck.
-
sadly that is a predictable if uninspiring set of selections. I didn't see us just rissoling the starting props. The locks weren't changing. I just fucking knew that Frizzell was getting the gig. The change at 10 was coming. No other backline changes were in the wind, despite them shitting the bed in a massive way last week.
I honestly can't be fucked going through all the ways i am disappointed, so let's get positive.
How does this 23 win the game?
Well, why did we lose the last one? Possession and territory. Why were they issues? Breakdown protection and catching high kicks. So, we cut down those two areas and the game already looks different. The breakdown might be the more difficult to solve as i believe it's structural as much as anything. But if we can catch our high kicks, and immediately turn the Boks around with the long boots at 14 and 15 (and even 10 this week) then the Boks need to find a different outlet for points.
We did cause the Boks issues when we played direct, and threw a few inside balls. More of that, and less having tight forwards thinking "pass first" rather than being gainline focused.
The Boks scored two tries all day, one from a lucky bounce from a contested kick, and one from a shitty dropped ball. Remember that, it should make us feel better about how we defended. It won't take us much to force them to look for points elsewhere. Then it is a different game.
If we do the same as we did last week, expect the same result. But two little areas on improvement will bring an enormously different game.
-
Akira was driven so far beyond the ruck last week he should have had tickets for where he ended up.
Stuff that changed momentum in the Irish series such as the cleaning beyond the ruck penalties and Leicester getting done for contact in the air were not pinged in the Springbok game when they happened to Akira and Jordie.
The Allblacks need to scream blue murder.
-
@mariner4life said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
How does this 23 win the game?
Play like the Crusaders in the Super Final.
-
@Kirwan said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@canefan said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@Kirwan said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@Kirwan said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Props that struggle at scrum time. Locks that have been playing undisciplined (neck roll for Whitelock). Frizzel has never played well at Test level against the good sides. Cane hopelessly out of form and his injuries have caught up with him.
Ardie playing in a position that’s keeping a potential star at Test level out instead of at seven where his size is much more suited.
Smith is in a slump.
Ritchie is the backs version of Frizzel, and a poor defender. Havilli is also playing terribly, just like last year.
RI is trying too much (when the ball makes it that far). Jordan is off the back of a poor Test by his standards and has the flu, and JB is not adding anything but good goalkicking.
Fuck me days.
RM is a good defender, no?
Lol, no.
Has to be hidden out of the front line, often missed tackles. Same as Havilli
So we have to hide two front line players out of the front line? Holy moly 🧀
No, I meant DH misses tackles too. Can be up to 4 or 5 a game. It’s a channel that’s going to leak big time.
Yeah I think we agree. The first channel will be holy like Swiss cheese
-
@stodders said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Jake White: The All Blacks are in uncharted territory
I’ll tell you a little story. When I was coach of the Springboks, after a particularly tough encounter against the All Blacks, I remember...
I found this comment interesting
The big advantage they have is really being shown with that 6-2 bench. Replacing the front row after 50 minutes gives them a real advantage. As a coach, I’d question that, because the laws were made for a 5-3 split. The lawmakers may need to think about enforcing that ruling. The way it's going, what’s to stop it being a 7-1 bench, if you get a forward who is really athletic and use him in the backs? It’s funny, if the lawmakers enforced a 6-2 split, guys would be saying, I want 5-3 split and three backs. We know what head coaches are like!
I had a look at WR and the Laws simply state 8 players and a separate statement around when 23 players selected there must be a total of 6 suitable front rowers. Nothing about the forward/back split.
Edit: I get what he is saying now. He means that a new law designating a 5/3 split should be in place as per the original intentions
-
@Crucial said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
There's a possibility here of half the game with the Saders FR
Yeah, that stood out to me as well when looking at the team. Newell gets to play with Bower and Taylor.
The AB scrum has always looked stronger with BBBR as the TH lock. I don't think Whitelock offers the same power on that side.
-
-
@chimoaus said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@mariner4life said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
How does this 23 win the game?
Play like the Crusaders in the Super Final.
So we are hoping for rain now?
-
@Kirwan said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@chimoaus said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@mariner4life said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
How does this 23 win the game?
Play like the Crusaders in the Super Final.
So we are hoping for rain now?
Cripes! You should be coaching the ABs!
-
@chimoaus said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@mariner4life said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
How does this 23 win the game?
Play like the Crusaders in the Super Final.
that team had a different coach. Might make a slight difference.
-
@Crucial said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@stodders said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Jake White: The All Blacks are in uncharted territory
I’ll tell you a little story. When I was coach of the Springboks, after a particularly tough encounter against the All Blacks, I remember...
I found this comment interesting
The big advantage they have is really being shown with that 6-2 bench. Replacing the front row after 50 minutes gives them a real advantage. As a coach, I’d question that, because the laws were made for a 5-3 split. The lawmakers may need to think about enforcing that ruling. The way it's going, what’s to stop it being a 7-1 bench, if you get a forward who is really athletic and use him in the backs? It’s funny, if the lawmakers enforced a 6-2 split, guys would be saying, I want 5-3 split and three backs. We know what head coaches are like!
I had a look at WR and the Laws simply state 8 players and a separate statement around when 23 players selected there must be a total of 6 suitable front rowers. Nothing about the forward/back split.
Edit: I get what he is saying now. He means that a new law designating a 5/3 split should be in place as per the original intentions
I was interested too but no way will a coach like Foster stack the bench with forwards even though we have 1000 loosies that would probably play in our disjointed backline as well or better than some of the backs especially in the last 30 minutes.
-
@nostrildamus said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@Crucial said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@stodders said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Jake White: The All Blacks are in uncharted territory
I’ll tell you a little story. When I was coach of the Springboks, after a particularly tough encounter against the All Blacks, I remember...
I found this comment interesting
The big advantage they have is really being shown with that 6-2 bench. Replacing the front row after 50 minutes gives them a real advantage. As a coach, I’d question that, because the laws were made for a 5-3 split. The lawmakers may need to think about enforcing that ruling. The way it's going, what’s to stop it being a 7-1 bench, if you get a forward who is really athletic and use him in the backs? It’s funny, if the lawmakers enforced a 6-2 split, guys would be saying, I want 5-3 split and three backs. We know what head coaches are like!
I had a look at WR and the Laws simply state 8 players and a separate statement around when 23 players selected there must be a total of 6 suitable front rowers. Nothing about the forward/back split.
Edit: I get what he is saying now. He means that a new law designating a 5/3 split should be in place as per the original intentions
I was interested too but no way will a coach like Foster stack the bench with forwards even though we have 1000 loosies that would probably play in our disjointed backline as well or better than some of the backs especially in the last 30 minutes.
Bring Sotutu on and put Ardie in place of Havili. I like that.
-
@Crucial said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@nostrildamus said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@Crucial said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@stodders said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Jake White: The All Blacks are in uncharted territory
I’ll tell you a little story. When I was coach of the Springboks, after a particularly tough encounter against the All Blacks, I remember...
I found this comment interesting
The big advantage they have is really being shown with that 6-2 bench. Replacing the front row after 50 minutes gives them a real advantage. As a coach, I’d question that, because the laws were made for a 5-3 split. The lawmakers may need to think about enforcing that ruling. The way it's going, what’s to stop it being a 7-1 bench, if you get a forward who is really athletic and use him in the backs? It’s funny, if the lawmakers enforced a 6-2 split, guys would be saying, I want 5-3 split and three backs. We know what head coaches are like!
I had a look at WR and the Laws simply state 8 players and a separate statement around when 23 players selected there must be a total of 6 suitable front rowers. Nothing about the forward/back split.
Edit: I get what he is saying now. He means that a new law designating a 5/3 split should be in place as per the original intentions
I was interested too but no way will a coach like Foster stack the bench with forwards even though we have 1000 loosies that would probably play in our disjointed backline as well or better than some of the backs especially in the last 30 minutes.
Bring Sotutu on and put Ardie in place of Havili. I like that.
I know Ardie at 12 has been a running joke but I'd wager he'd do better than DH as the game runs into the final minutes..he wouldn't just crawl sideways into a tiny paper bag when a tackler approaches him at least...
-
@mariner4life said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
sadly that is a predictable if uninspiring set of selections. I didn't see us just rissoling the starting props. The locks weren't changing. I just fucking knew that Frizzell was getting the gig. The change at 10 was coming. No other backline changes were in the wind, despite them shitting the bed in a massive way last week.
I honestly can't be fucked going through all the ways i am disappointed, so let's get positive.
How does this 23 win the game?
Well, why did we lose the last one? Possession and territory. Why were they issues? Breakdown protection and catching high kicks. So, we cut down those two areas and the game already looks different. The breakdown might be the more difficult to solve as i believe it's structural as much as anything. But if we can catch our high kicks, and immediately turn the Boks around with the long boots at 14 and 15 (and even 10 this week) then the Boks need to find a different outlet for points.
We did cause the Boks issues when we played direct, and threw a few inside balls. More of that, and less having tight forwards thinking "pass first" rather than being gainline focused.
The Boks scored two tries all day, one from a lucky bounce from a contested kick, and one from a shitty dropped ball. Remember that, it should make us feel better about how we defended. It won't take us much to force them to look for points elsewhere. Then it is a different game.
If we do the same as we did last week, expect the same result. But two little areas on improvement will bring an enormously different game.
I've said this time and time again. We got reamed. Not doubt about it. But for two ridiculous mistakes, on the scoreboard, there wasn't much in it. As bad as we played, the two tries scored were really from errors I would say somewhat unforced. Well, one needed more protection and the other was at the death. For all that fire and brimstone, SA didn't offer much. We still would have lost and deservedly so but if we can cut down that error rate with one or two balls sticking or the bounce of the ball going our way (we need to make our own luck), we're really in the fight. I still expect us to lose but we are still and outside chance.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@mariner4life said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
sadly that is a predictable if uninspiring set of selections. I didn't see us just rissoling the starting props. The locks weren't changing. I just fucking knew that Frizzell was getting the gig. The change at 10 was coming. No other backline changes were in the wind, despite them shitting the bed in a massive way last week.
I honestly can't be fucked going through all the ways i am disappointed, so let's get positive.
How does this 23 win the game?
Well, why did we lose the last one? Possession and territory. Why were they issues? Breakdown protection and catching high kicks. So, we cut down those two areas and the game already looks different. The breakdown might be the more difficult to solve as i believe it's structural as much as anything. But if we can catch our high kicks, and immediately turn the Boks around with the long boots at 14 and 15 (and even 10 this week) then the Boks need to find a different outlet for points.
We did cause the Boks issues when we played direct, and threw a few inside balls. More of that, and less having tight forwards thinking "pass first" rather than being gainline focused.
The Boks scored two tries all day, one from a lucky bounce from a contested kick, and one from a shitty dropped ball. Remember that, it should make us feel better about how we defended. It won't take us much to force them to look for points elsewhere. Then it is a different game.
If we do the same as we did last week, expect the same result. But two little areas on improvement will bring an enormously different game.
I've said this time and time again. We got reamed. Not doubt about it. But for two ridiculous mistakes, on the scoreboard, there wasn't much in it. As bad as we played, the two tries scored were really from errors I would say somewhat unforced. Well, one needed more protection and the other was at the death. For all that fire and brimstone, SA didn't offer much. We still would have lost and deservedly so but if we can cut down that error rate with one or two balls sticking or the bounce of the ball going our way (we need to make our own luck), we're really in the fight. I still expect us to lose but we are still and outside chance.
It's a fools errand looking at things like the bounce of the ball. The facts are that South Africa were in complete control the entire game, and played as much as they needed to.
They simply didn't need to take any risks and backed their defence.
Yes the score blew out to a record margin late, but if anything, that scoreline was extremely flattering to the All Blacks.
-
@Kirwan said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Yes the score blew out to a record margin late, but if anything, that scoreline was extremely flattering to the All Blacks.
They butchered a few chances in the first half in particular.
Mind you, so did we at times.
