All Blacks v Pumas 1
-
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@broughie said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@ACT-Crusader The primary reason why the backs played so much better is that we had a competitive forward pack on Saturday which has been the problem all along. I might even accept Havilli at 2nd five if he is not on the back foot all the time.
I'd say a primary reason was we played with depth so we could better attack from too. It enabled us to better manage the rush defence which the Boks centre their defence and attack off. Plus having a 1st 5 that has an intent to attack and set his outsides (and the odd Bok
) up was integral to that.AND I would say the primary reason we won was we attacked with variety, pods tipped and flushed and hit up, backs drew and passed into gaps rather than just fire wide a hope for a line break
I imagine this means it was a bit of all of these things
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@MN5 said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
If you listened to Foster in the few actual rugby related questions in his PC he perked up when asked about the young props and whether he thinks they may have found what they are looking for. I expect them to get another go and be firmly in the experience gathering phase.
Frizell will start over Akira. Akiraâs biggest flaw was obvious the other night and that is that he is an upper body player and they want more leg drive. If I could be bothered I would try and find clips but he carries leaning into the tacklers and swatting/shrugging away without pumping the legs. I really hope he can get past this instinct as it doesnât serve well at top levels. Frizell usually drives that extra half metre plus and has the tacklers going backwards.
I think we will stick with the midfield. Any testing there will only come from the bench and at the moment the plan seems to be QT covering both positions (as ALB would). RTS doesnât offer that.Interesting. If you read the fern itâs as simple as âAkira is God, Frizell is shitâ but thereâs obviously more to it than that as youâve pointed out.
So what youâre saying if Akira doesnât fend the guy straight away he goes to ground ?
He looks more capable of going up the guts than Frizell at first glance I have to say.
Iâm at pains to point out that Iâm not an Akira hater. I love watching X factor type skills and players that bring something different/extra. Thatâs why I will often defend DMac. It would be hypocritical if I didnât also like Akira
With both though I can see why their strengths become their weaknesses at the very top levels and habits that work well for them elsewhere donât translate.
They are great against all except the good forward power based teams of which, sadly for them and us, there are a couple more at the moment.
I can see why there is reluctance from selectorsLike you I quite keen on Akira, but I think perhaps we would be better served to keep Frizell starting and work on us actually making metres close to ruck etc so we got support right there, I tend to think Akira's strenth is running a little wider, a role covered by Ardie I think.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@broughie said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@ACT-Crusader The primary reason why the backs played so much better is that we had a competitive forward pack on Saturday which has been the problem all along. I might even accept Havilli at 2nd five if he is not on the back foot all the time.
I'd say a primary reason was we played with depth so we could better attack from too. It enabled us to better manage the rush defence which the Boks centre their defence and attack off. Plus having a 1st 5 that has an intent to attack and set his outsides (and the odd Bok
) up was integral to that.I tend to think the reason we attacked from depth is the quick front foot ball we got so defence was on backfoot and our backs had the room to have the depth.
-
@ACT-Crusader You may be correct in that they played with depth but without front foot ball in the forwards, which is been a developing problem since Hansen, we would not as played as well. Rush defense was non existent with the Bok going backwards.
I agree Moanga played well and his kicking and distribution was excellent.
-
@broughie playing with a bit of speed and depth makes the defence harder to reset and come up wave after wave, which we allowed in the Irish tests purely by playing so flat and static.
-
@taniwharugby not disagreeing but it should be common knowledge now that our forwards set the table for our success. Jeez. I can not believe I am defending this position? Show me a winning side and 9 times out of 10 they are winning the forward battle. Is this partly why we donât think Foster is a good coach and why they brought in Ryan? Why did we lose the semifinal against England? What about Ireland? What about Australia in Perth. France etc etc.
-
@broughie said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@taniwharugby not disagreeing but it should be common knowledge now that our forwards set the table for our success. Jeez. I can not believe I am defending this position? Show me a winning side and 9 times out of 10 they are winning the forward battle. Is this partly why we donât think Foster is a good coach and why they brought in Ryan? Why did we lose the semifinal against England? What about Ireland? What about Australia in Perth. France etc etc.
Backs win rugby matches and get the women
-
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@broughie said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@taniwharugby not disagreeing but it should be common knowledge now that our forwards set the table for our success. Jeez. I can not believe I am defending this position? Show me a winning side and 9 times out of 10 they are winning the forward battle. Is this partly why we donât think Foster is a good coach and why they brought in Ryan? Why did we lose the semifinal against England? What about Ireland? What about Australia in Perth. France etc etc.
Backs win rugby matches and get the women
Yep but only get the women when the forwards pss them back to you!!!
-
The list of players released for the NPC probably hints at the selections for this game:
Counties Manukau: Nepo Laulala, Dalton Papalii, Hoskins Sotutu
Taranaki: Stephen Perofeta
Canterbury: Braydon Ennor
Northland: Ofa Tu'ungafasi, Jack Goodhue
Wellington: Dane Coles
Ta$man: Leicester Fainga'anuku, Sevu Reece
Otago: Josh Dickson
Auckland: Roger Tuivasa-Sheck
Bay of Plenty: Aidan Ross
Hawkeâs Bay: Folau FakatavaSo no player from the 23 that played SA is released. So maybe a similar 23 vs Argentina?
I think the only players who didn't play in the weekend that weren't released are Ta'avao and Tuipulotu. Are there any injuries? Perhaps Whitelock is getting a rest?
-
-
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Duluth pretty sweet backline there.
and Ennor......
Gets a new lease of life at fullback.
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Duluth pretty sweet backline there.
and Ennor......
id still take him at NPC level
-
I think the biggest issue facing The Fern around Frizell's selection is working out if Frizzel is spelt with two Zs and one L, or one Z and two Ls or two Zs and two Ls. However, we can probably be certain Frizel is not spelt with one Z and one L.
-
@Crazy-Horse at least his first name isn't Richard.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
I think the biggest issue facing The Fern around Frizell's selection is working out if Frizzel is spelt with two Zs and one L, or one Z and two Ls or two Zs and two Ls. However, we can probably be certain Frizel is not spelt with one Z and one L.
Predictive text only recognises frizzle, so I'm sticking with that
-
-
@Dan54 said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@broughie said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@ACT-Crusader The primary reason why the backs played so much better is that we had a competitive forward pack on Saturday which has been the problem all along. I might even accept Havilli at 2nd five if he is not on the back foot all the time.
I'd say a primary reason was we played with depth so we could better attack from too. It enabled us to better manage the rush defence which the Boks centre their defence and attack off. Plus having a 1st 5 that has an intent to attack and set his outsides (and the odd Bok
) up was integral to that.I tend to think the reason we attacked from depth is the quick front foot ball we got so defence was on backfoot and our backs had the room to have the depth.
The 10 sets the depth. Ironically when ball is quick depth is less on an issue as defences on back foot.
