All Blacks v Pumas 1
-
@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
-
@pakman said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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
Wonder when ALB gets some game time again, supposed to be back from his injury around October. -
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
The video poster's premise is incorrect IMHO
This was posted to demonstrate that it wasn't all sunshine & lollipops for RM
-
@MiketheSnow huh? A ref ignores a textbook example of no release after a ten under pressure does what every ten should and cranks the ball up into the middle of his forwards and that's an example of RM poor play?
Like I said, I'll happily take rocks and diamonds at the moment, over rocks, slightly different rocks and a can of coke.
And no I don't think the sun shines out of his arse.
-
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
The video poster's premise is incorrect IMHO
This was posted to demonstrate that it wasn't all sunshine & lollipops for RM
Has anybody said that RM didn't make any mistakes?
I'm not sure of the drum you are banging here to be honest. I think he played well, I think he was far from perfect, and I think the backline functioned much better with him running the cutter as opposed to BB.
NZ will never ever have a perfect game managing 10 as long as we get our 10's from super rugby. It's just the way it is.
-
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
The video poster's premise is incorrect IMHO
This was posted to demonstrate that it wasn't all sunshine & lollipops for RM
I'm sorry Mike
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
The video poster's premise is incorrect IMHO
This was posted to demonstrate that it wasn't all sunshine & lollipops for RM
I am sorry Mike but the earth has been shaken to its core - I agree with Bones.
Richie might have done some flakey and headless chicken in the headlights stuff but I thought our backline was far better, faster, more decisive, it just flowed better.BB hasn't grown to boss a game or marshall his troops-at least not that I have seen. And he has had quite a few years and coaches to learn to do so. Still greatly gifted, I just don't think he has all the 10's virtues.
-
@nostrildamus the other thing to bear in mind is this was RMs first start in.... how long? After generally having to come on and play catch up in quite a different atmosphere.
I wouldn't bet the house against him falling back to previous standards in the next game, but I'm extremely enthusiastic to see if he can perform again - what's to lose?
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@nostrildamus the other thing to bear in mind is this was RMs first start in.... how long? After generally having to come on and play catch up in quite a different atmosphere.
I wouldn't bet the house against him falling back to previous standards in the next game, but I'm extremely enthusiastic to see if he can perform again - what's to lose?
Yes, and I could be shot down here, but even when the forwards have been playing well BB hasn't always played well at 10. Undervalued defensively by some, can still do freakish things, but the backline stutters. We have to give Richie more test experience (and find a 3rd or even 4th backup 10 for the RWC).
-
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
The video poster's premise is incorrect IMHO
This was posted to demonstrate that it wasn't all sunshine & lollipops for RM
You probably should watch that video the whole way through. It was highlighting PSDT's illegal action that allowed Marx the opportunity to win the turnover.
-
@Frye said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
The video poster's premise is incorrect IMHO
This was posted to demonstrate that it wasn't all sunshine & lollipops for RM
You probably should watch that video the whole way through. It was highlighting PSDT's illegal action that allowed Marx the opportunity to win the turnover.
I watched it
PSDT completed the tackle
Marx turned the ball over
Correct reffing IMHO
-
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Frye said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@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.
The video poster's premise is incorrect IMHO
This was posted to demonstrate that it wasn't all sunshine & lollipops for RM
You probably should watch that video the whole way through. It was highlighting PSDT's illegal action that allowed Marx the opportunity to win the turnover.
I watched it
PSDT completed the tackle
Marx turned the ball over
Correct reffing IMHO
Pick up your game buddy!
