All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham
-
@DaGrubster they've also had 4 years of record setting and haven't they done well. All we need is a first ever pool loss and and to not make it out of our pool all which are possibilities under Foz.
-
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@SidBarret said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@Billy-Webb I don't think the boks' performance can be called clinical - by my count they left four clear scoring opportunities on the field* as well as a couple more half chances.
I'd rather say the boks hit all their KPIs but didn't really exceed them.
*that is not to say the boks should have had an extra twenty points - some like the two held up, Mapimpi getting pushed into touch or where Moodie was slow to fold round Mapimpi; were either under advantage or led to points soon after.
I don't want to say it on this forum, but the ABs were very poor in this game. The number of errors they made meant they were invited pressure onto themselves and allowed SA to be a bit careless with opportunities they manufactured.
Why not? I think it was pretty clear to everyone that watched the game, the Boks played very well, the ABs didn't have a great outing
On review I think it was a perfect storm of overly officious and inaccurate refereeing with a very good performance by the Springboks forwards. Every time the All Blacks managed to negate one aspect, the other rose to the fore.
Does that mean the All Blacks are blameless, or don't have considerable work-ons to address over the next two weeks before France? Of course not, but I'd suggest the sky isn't falling as much as some chicken littles think.
Quite frankly I'd suggest that this was more akin to the 2007 quarter final. Some uncomfortable truths that good players and coaches learn from.
This may be a cliché, but which team would you rather be? The one for whom everything went swimmingly or the one exposed? I know which has some obvious "learnings" to apply.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
This may be a cliché, but which team would you rather be?
I would much rather be backing South Africa.
-
@Tim said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
This may be a cliché, but which team would you rather be?
I would much rather be backing South Africa.
I too would back a team with such depth they elect to go with an additional forward pack on their bench. With the current state of the game, who wouldn't play that way?
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
Does that mean the All Blacks are blameless, or don't have considerable work-ons to address over the next two weeks before France? Of course not, but I'd suggest the sky isn't falling as much as some chicken littles think.
Quite frankly I'd suggest that this was more akin to the 2007 quarter final. Some uncomfortable truths that good players and coaches learn from.
This may be a cliché, but which team would you rather be? The one for whom everything went swimmingly or the one exposed? I know which has some obvious "learnings" to apply.
The same considerable work ons they've had since circa 2017, if they've not been fixed by the current regime in almost 7 years, I'm doubtful they will be fixed in almost 7 weeks. This game has put me back to my view that I've always had under foster, that admittedly the previous 2022 games had caused me to doubt. That we only have a chance at the cup relying on luck, as any top team has, I have absolutely no confidence in winning.
-
-
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
When we play direct we can beat anyone. I just hope they were trying different things and refused to show their hand. Keeping the powder dry so to speak....
It's like déjà vu all over again
-
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
Does that mean the All Blacks are blameless, or don't have considerable work-ons to address over the next two weeks before France? Of course not, but I'd suggest the sky isn't falling as much as some chicken littles think.
Quite frankly I'd suggest that this was more akin to the 2007 quarter final. Some uncomfortable truths that good players and coaches learn from.
This may be a cliché, but which team would you rather be? The one for whom everything went swimmingly or the one exposed? I know which has some obvious "learnings" to apply.
The same considerable work ons they've had since circa 2017, if they've not been fixed by the current regime in almost 7 years, I'm doubtful they will be fixed in almost 7 weeks. This game has put me back to my view that I've always had under foster, that admittedly the previous 2022 games had caused me to doubt. That we only have a chance at the cup relying on luck, as any top team has, I have absolutely no confidence in winning.
Most RWC winners rely on luck at some point. As much as people (including me occasionally) love taking a giant shit on the coaches, at some point I think you need to accept the blindingly obvious - this isn't the 2015 team running out. If the best players still have brain farts, what coaching solves that? If they're physically and intellectually capable of reaching only to a certain level, then what?
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@sparky said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
and the journalist they had on looked really smug about it all.
The show reached a new low by having Paddy Gower on
As far as Sky shows go 'Aotearoa rugby pod' is far far better than the Breakdown. Parsons drops his Chris Handy act and does some decent analysis. Hall is ok too, but doesn't criticise players enough (too many are recent teammates)
The breakdown is like watching CNN or something, feels like propaganda to get everyone onside . 🤣
Everyone hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
-
@antipodean if foster just stopped his tactic fucking about in the 22 as default, even against set defences, I would feel much better. That is a killer, works versus minnows and a loose Australia. It worked beyond belief this year versus SA, but that realty is an anomaly. But it is dumb as fuck play, and I hope to never see it again as default. That's not brain fwrts, or poor execution by the players. It is a default 'exit strategy' under foster.
-
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean if foster just stopped his tactic fucking about in the 22 as default, even against set defences, I would feel much better. That is a killer, works versus minnows and a loose Australia. It worked beyond belief this year versus SA, but that realty is an anomaly. But it is dumb as fuck play, and I hope to never see it again as default. That's not brain fwrts, or poor execution by the players. It is a default 'exit strategy' under foster.
Defences expect to have the ball kicked from the 22, so the further you kick it to them, the easier it is to carry the ball back and find space on the return. If you don't have an overly dominating lineout, you're often just giving the ball back to them around the 40 anyway. Contestable kicks are statistically a better option. That's why most teams do them, including the top five ranked nations.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@Tim said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
This may be a cliché, but which team would you rather be?
I would much rather be backing South Africa.
I too would back a team with such depth they elect to go with an additional forward pack on their bench. With the current state of the game, who wouldn't play that way?
Their game plan stands up well in high pressure games
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean if foster just stopped his tactic fucking about in the 22 as default, even against set defences, I would feel much better. That is a killer, works versus minnows and a loose Australia. It worked beyond belief this year versus SA, but that realty is an anomaly. But it is dumb as fuck play, and I hope to never see it again as default. That's not brain fwrts, or poor execution by the players. It is a default 'exit strategy' under foster.
Defences expect to have the ball kicked from the 22, so the further you kick it to them, the easier it is to carry the ball back and find space on the return. If you don't have an overly dominating lineout, you're often just giving the ball back to them around the 40 anyway. Contestable kicks are statistically a better option. That's why most teams do them, including the top five ranked nations.
Contestable kicks are okay if you contest them, as in the Mt Smart Boks test
-
@kiwiinmelb said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@Tim said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
This may be a cliché, but which team would you rather be?
I would much rather be backing South Africa.
I too would back a team with such depth they elect to go with an additional forward pack on their bench. With the current state of the game, who wouldn't play that way?
Their game plan stands up well in high pressure games
I discussed the game with a South African (and his English girlfriend) immediately after the game ended and made the point, conceded to by my new friends, that a better team than the Springbok would have scored more points. Admittedly you only need one more point to win, but it's unlikely to have such dominance in games so each opportunity needs to count.
-
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@Machpants said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean if foster just stopped his tactic fucking about in the 22 as default, even against set defences, I would feel much better. That is a killer, works versus minnows and a loose Australia. It worked beyond belief this year versus SA, but that realty is an anomaly. But it is dumb as fuck play, and I hope to never see it again as default. That's not brain fwrts, or poor execution by the players. It is a default 'exit strategy' under foster.
Defences expect to have the ball kicked from the 22, so the further you kick it to them, the easier it is to carry the ball back and find space on the return. If you don't have an overly dominating lineout, you're often just giving the ball back to them around the 40 anyway. Contestable kicks are statistically a better option. That's why most teams do them, including the top five ranked nations.
Contestable kicks are okay if you contest them, as in the Mt Smart Boks test
Which goes to my general point. Does anyone seriously think Foster is busy telling wingers not to contest, or kickers to make them uncontestable?
How many people were calling for SS to be included until it was made perfectly clear in an actual Test why he has to work on his game?
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@kiwiinmelb said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@Tim said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
This may be a cliché, but which team would you rather be?
I would much rather be backing South Africa.
I too would back a team with such depth they elect to go with an additional forward pack on their bench. With the current state of the game, who wouldn't play that way?
Their game plan stands up well in high pressure games
I discussed the game with a South African (and his English girlfriend) immediately after the game ended and made the point, conceded to by my new friends, that a better team than the Springbok would have scored more points. Admittedly you only need one more point to win, but it's unlikely to have such dominance in games so each opportunity needs to count.
Putting us aside and what happens there.
A France v South Africa quarter final would be an interesting game , France might be the side that matches their set piece and causes them problems with their attack .
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
I too would back a team with such depth they elect to go with an additional forward pack on their bench. With the current state of the game, who wouldn't play that way?
It would have been interesting if SA had lost a midfielder/outside back early to see how they coped with that 7:1 bench. I suspect Smith might have ended up in the backline but that could have backfired.
-
@Bovidae said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
I too would back a team with such depth they elect to go with an additional forward pack on their bench. With the current state of the game, who wouldn't play that way?
It would have been interesting if SA had lost a midfielder/outside back early to see how they coped with that 7:1 bench. I suspect Smith might have ended up in the backline but that could have backfired.
Agreed, its a disaster if you get an unplanned injury.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
How many people were calling for SS to be included until it was made perfectly clear in an actual Test why he has to work on his game?
I'm not sure at this stage SS' work ons are any worse than Beauden's. It's just that Beauden has tenure. If a rookie put out a performance that Beauden did on the weekend they would get strips torn off of them.
