All Blacks v Pumas 1
-
@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.
-
@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.
When has the Fern ever cared about how to spell names? I doubt Messam and Weber have ever had their names spelt correctly for two posts in a row.
Anyway just as easy to call him Shannon, the shittiest town in one of the shittiest province, it's very apt.
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
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
Hawke’s 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?
I think Coles was only one who played in SA. I suspect more about blowing off some rust and having full squad available for P1.
No commentary regarding Patty T!
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
When has the Fern ever cared about how to spell names? I doubt Messam and Weber have ever had their names spelt correctly for two posts in a row.
Anyway just as easy to call him Shannon, the shittiest town in one of the shittiest province, it's very apt.
But is it Shannen, Shannan or Shannon?
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
When has the Fern ever cared about how to spell names? I doubt Messam and Weber have ever had their names spelt correctly for two posts in a row.
Anyway just as easy to call him Shannon, the shittiest town in one of the shittiest province, it's very apt.
Shannon is awesome!
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Bovidae said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Often he gets the ball while almost stationary
Every AB did in the first 4 Tests. I would like to see him play with the deeper alignment that was used in the second Bok Test
The thing is that when he came on, he was still receiving it stationary. It's definitely a work on for him.
If this Ryan bloke is as good as being touted, then I'm looking forward to seeing what he can with Akira. However for me, Frizell is currently the incumbent so he'll have to wait.
-
@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 thought the depth in our attack was a big factor in Rieko looking so dangerous all game. Do you think that was down to RM starting at 10 or a different game plan? It just seems so silly for BB to always play so flat when it's his running game that is his biggest strength. When he's able to get a head of steam up before getting to the defensive line he puts the opposition in two minds and becomes so much more effective.
-
@No-Quarter 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 thought the depth in our attack was a big factor in Rieko looking so dangerous all game. Do you think that was down to RM starting at 10 or a different game plan? It just seems so silly for BB to always play so flat when it's his running game that is his biggest strength. When he's able to get a head of steam up before getting to the defensive line he puts the opposition in two minds and becomes so much more effective.
10's normally set how deep they sit depending on what sort of player they are.
I played 2nd five a lot so I sat deeper on the 10 as he was a player who liked to take it the line easy for me to run off his shoulder at the gaps. -
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Still think it would be ALB in there if he were fit.
I think he's world-class and first choice and his versatility to play 12 or 13 has been invaluable when midfield partners have been injured. It would be ironic if the Havili/Reiko combination is the right one (as Nonu & Conrad are saying) and matures into something solid and long term, but a good place for AB rugby.
-
@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
I thought the depth in our attack was a big factor in Rieko looking so dangerous all game. Do you think that was down to RM starting at 10 or a different game plan?
I noticed passes from the ruck to a forward standing a metre or two back who went forward or passed backwards and wider to either Ritchie or DH. It seemed put uncertainty into the Bokke defence and gave options for attack from deeper.
-
@No-Quarter 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 thought the depth in our attack was a big factor in Rieko looking so dangerous all game. Do you think that was down to RM starting at 10 or a different game plan? It just seems so silly for BB to always play so flat when it's his running game that is his biggest strength. When he's able to get a head of steam up before getting to the defensive line he puts the opposition in two minds and becomes so much more effective.
Pretty hard to say off the one game, but the difference was RM actually feeding those in space, rather than a panicked shovel or hold.
Beauds used to rely on pace off the mark a lot, I haven't seen evidence he's still got it, almost looks injured. That break he made in the first test looked like he was running in treacle, very unlike him.
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
Robbie Henshaw would be laughing at this if he was on the fern
-
@MN5 said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
Robbie Henshaw would be laughing at this if he was on the fern
You're a dick Robbie
