• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

All Blacks v Pumas 1

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Rugby Matches
allblacksargentina
1.3k Posts 92 Posters 98.0k Views
All Blacks v Pumas 1
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    replied to nostrildamus on last edited by
    #75

    @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?

    nostrildamusN 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • nostrildamusN Offline
    nostrildamusN Offline
    nostrildamus Banned
    replied to Bones on last edited by
    #76

    @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).

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    Frye
    replied to MiketheSnow on last edited by
    #77

    @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.

    MiketheSnowM 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnow
    replied to Frye on last edited by
    #78

    @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

    BonesB antipodeanA 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    replied to MiketheSnow on last edited by Bones
    #79

    @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!

    Screenshot_20220816-162915.png

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • P Offline
    P Offline
    pakman
    replied to MiketheSnow on last edited by
    #80

    @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

    That PSDT non-release MM pilfer combo is same idea as key incorrect AG penalty against Ta'avao in Bok1, which BTW was a gimme 3 for Jordie.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • Dan54D Offline
    Dan54D Offline
    Dan54
    replied to Nepia on last edited by
    #81

    @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.

    Hey hey Nepia, thems fighting words!! The mighty Nua cannot be called a shitty province in my hearing (or reading) without some comeback 😛 , and funnily enough I have even considered looking at buying a house in Shannon when I head back down that way, I personally wouldn't of considered it 20 years ago, but place is not bad at all now!

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to Dan54 on last edited by
    #82

    @Dan54 funny, I always thought of Shannon as being in the Poo.

    NepiaN 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • NepiaN Offline
    NepiaN Offline
    Nepia
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #83

    @Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Dan54 funny, I always thought of Shannon as being in the Poo.

    So did I, hence my comment ... if it's in the Nua then I apologise @Dan54. 😉

    Dan54D CrucialC 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • Dan54D Offline
    Dan54D Offline
    Dan54
    replied to Nepia on last edited by
    #84

    @Nepia said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Dan54 funny, I always thought of Shannon as being in the Poo.

    So did I, hence my comment ... if it's in the Nua then I apologise @Dan54. 😉

    Whew ,I don't have to go looking for my club, and come hunting (while making sure I never found you lol)..😜

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to Nepia on last edited by
    #85

    @Nepia said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Dan54 funny, I always thought of Shannon as being in the Poo.

    So did I, hence my comment ... if it's in the Nua then I apologise @Dan54. 😉

    It's still in the flax swamp though.

    NepiaN 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • NepiaN Offline
    NepiaN Offline
    Nepia
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #86

    @Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Nepia said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Crucial said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Dan54 funny, I always thought of Shannon as being in the Poo.

    So did I, hence my comment ... if it's in the Nua then I apologise @Dan54. 😉

    It's still in the flax swamp though.

    Wiki list it as in the Poo-Wanganui region so close enough.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Victor Meldrew on last edited by antipodean
    #87

    @Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @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.

    I can't help but feel that's always what they've been supposed to do, but instead of putting doubt into the minds of the defence, they've stayed stationary and passed the ball, totally negating the point.

    Victor MeldrewV 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to MiketheSnow on last edited by
    #88

    @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

    Nah. Easy penalty to Black. Every other ref will say to Marx "you're fine, but you're only there because PSDT didn't roll away first".

    1 Reply Last reply
    6
  • Victor MeldrewV Offline
    Victor MeldrewV Offline
    Victor Meldrew
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #89

    @antipodean said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @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.

    I can't help but feel that's always what they've been supposed to do, but instead of putting doubt into the minds of the defence, they've stayed stationary and passed the ball, totally negating the point.

    And/or the passes have been of similar width.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • Crazy HorseC Offline
    Crazy HorseC Offline
    Crazy Horse
    wrote on last edited by
    #90

    Do the ABs do public training runs? If so, anyone know where and when they are training this week in Christchurch? I am guessing Rugby Park?

    BonesB 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    replied to Crazy Horse on last edited by
    #91

    @Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    Do the ABs do public training runs? If so, anyone know where and when they are training this week in Christchurch? I am guessing Rugby Park?

    Ohhh suuuuure, like we're going to give you the whereabouts of Foster. Want to know good grassy knoll hiding spots too?

    Crazy HorseC MN5M KiwiwombleK 3 Replies Last reply
    11
  • Crazy HorseC Offline
    Crazy HorseC Offline
    Crazy Horse
    replied to Bones on last edited by
    #92

    @Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    Do the ABs do public training runs? If so, anyone know where and when they are training this week in Christchurch? I am guessing Rugby Park?

    Ohhh suuuuure, like we're going to give you the whereabouts of Foster. Want to know good grassy knoll hiding spots too?

    Fuck, I didn't think anyone on here was smart enough to work out my plan.

    BonesB 1 Reply Last reply
    6
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    replied to Crazy Horse on last edited by
    #93

    @Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    Do the ABs do public training runs? If so, anyone know where and when they are training this week in Christchurch? I am guessing Rugby Park?

    Ohhh suuuuure, like we're going to give you the whereabouts of Foster. Want to know good grassy knoll hiding spots too?

    Fuck, I didn't think anyone on here was smart enough to work out my plan.

    Fuck off and find your own spot, you're knocking my rifle cradle.

    nzzpN Crazy HorseC 2 Replies Last reply
    5
  • nzzpN Offline
    nzzpN Offline
    nzzp
    replied to Bones on last edited by
    #94

    @Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Bones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    @Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

    Do the ABs do public training runs? If so, anyone know where and when they are training this week in Christchurch? I am guessing Rugby Park?

    Ohhh suuuuure, like we're going to give you the whereabouts of Foster. Want to know good grassy knoll hiding spots too?

    Fuck, I didn't think anyone on here was smart enough to work out my plan.

    Fuck off and find your own spot, you're knocking my rifle cradle.

    you boys are no @Snowy

    Crazy HorseC 1 Reply Last reply
    4

All Blacks v Pumas 1
Rugby Matches
allblacksargentina
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.