All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham
-
@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.
-
Good to see that all the BS about Scott Barrett’s 2nd yellow card has turned to nothing. The media in true form kept repeating he had made contact to head whereas the video evidence showed it was to shoulder. The media have become used car salesmen. No integrity.
But the important thing is that ABs will have hopefully had reinforced that the bunker and cards will lose you the game.
Got to say though that the first yellow card should not have as he was tackled into the halfback by a Bok that was probably offside. Be nice to see teams given a review option like NRL. Rugby is so slow to innovate.
-
@kiwiinmelb have to assume the French attitude toward NZ has changed somewhat, I recall around the 2011 RWC, the French were reasonably happy to lose in pool play as thier thinking was they were less likely to beat the ABs twice, so would prefer to meet them in the final.
And on that point, how is it that in 2011 we were in the same pool, but didnt meet again until the final, yet this time, we could meet again before the final? Thats how it is this time isnt it?
-
@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.
Any reason why we don't kick for touch from our 22 to say the half way line, then pressure the lineout? Would that not be a statistically better option? At worst the opposition gets the ball on your 50, best option you get it. These silly bombs often end up with the opposition with the ball close to our 22.
If you watch SA I don't believe they put up the contestables that often in their 22, they will generally feed it to Willie or someone who does a massive wiper kick out around or past the halfway. Faf does not box as much as he used to but often the ball lands past halfway when doing it.
I think that is our issue is we were unable to get past the gainline within our 22 so we were unable to setup JB to punt long, so under pressure BB or RM put up a contestable perhaps without clearly communicating to the wingers and you are practically gifting the ball back.
I would love to see the stats on just how many of these were actually contestable or the Boks simply caught it without pressure.
There is no doubt a reason why Foster persists with it but if you are not contesting what is the point.
It is also worth noting the Chiefs and Crusaders to a lesser degree went away from the contestables this year and more territory and pressure. I know SR is different but the Chiefs kicked well over twice the penalties as any other team with DMAC and SS almost refusing to kick anything but long.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@kiwiinmelb have to assume the French attitude toward NZ has changed somewhat, I recall around the 2011 RWC, the French were reasonably happy to lose in pool play as thier thinking was they were less likely to beat the ABs twice, so would prefer to meet them in the final.
And on that point, how is it that in 2011 we were in the same pool, but didnt meet again until the final, yet this time, we could meet again before the final? Thats how it is this time isn't it?
Pretty sure we can only meet them in the final. We play SA/IRE/SCO in Quarters then likely AUS/ENG/WAL in the semi then France in final.
-
@kev said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
Good to see that all the BS about Scott Barrett’s 2nd yellow card has turned to nothing. The media in true form kept repeating he had made contact to head whereas the video evidence showed it was to shoulder. The media have become used car salesmen. No integrity.
But the important thing is that ABs will have hopefully had reinforced that the bunker and cards will lose you the game.
Got to say though that the first yellow card should not have as he was tackled into the halfback by a Bok that was probably offside. Be nice to see teams given a review option like NRL. Rugby is so slow to innovate.
A review option? Just going to slow the game down even more. In theory it sounds a good idea, but for me no thanks.
-
@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.
Smith is the guy that gives them the ability to carry an extra forward.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
unplanned injury.
Not too many are planned ...
-
@chimoaus said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
It is also worth noting the Chiefs and Crusaders to a lesser degree went away from the contestables this year and more territory and pressure. I know SR is different but the Chiefs kicked well over twice the penalties as any other team with DMAC and SS almost refusing to kick anything but long.
Just checking numbers on this (stats from just before the final)
Kicking Metres
1st McKenzie (6778m 15 matches)
4th Mo'unga (3939m 14 matches)
5th B Barrett (3724m 12 matches)
9th Burns (2228m 9 matches)No other NZ sides 10's in the top 10 (so less than 2117m)
Kick metres per 80mins of rugby
1st McKenzie (486m)
6th B Barrett (327m)
7th Burns (323m)
9th Gatland (312m)No other NZ sides 10's in the top 10 (so less then 311m)
Edit: I worked out Mo'unga number from his minutes played: 286m
There's also a stat for metres per kick. It's dominated by fullbacks though.. 10s are more likely to put up contestables
Backs up what your saying about the Chiefs. Crusaders however kicked shorter than the Blues but were ahead of the Hurricanes.. Similar to the Highlanders maybe
-
@booboo said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
unplanned injury.
Not to many are planned ...
Dunno there might be a planned one to get pollard into the squad
-
@chimoaus 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.
Any reason why we don't kick for touch from our 22 to say the half way line, then pressure the lineout? Would that not be a statistically better option? At worst the opposition gets the ball on your 50, best option you get it. These silly bombs often end up with the opposition with the ball close to our 22.
I'd be interested in seeing the stats because either we're operating under confirmation bias or the data analysts aren't providing the information to the coaching staff. Or they maybe are and that means the coaches collectively believe better execution will change the game in their favour.
Our kicks appear to be inaccurate to my eye more often than they should. That no man's land between long and contestable.
-
@antipodean contestable is fine in the middle of the field if you've got not much on - that's how the boks use it. As an exit strategy though it is braindead, because it goes to the opposition in our territory a significant portion of the time, and puts the team under pressure - which is when we make mistakes, and give away penalties, which create more pressure, which create team yellow cards etc etc. he's playing a theory game 'if it works there then it should work here' which ignores the reality of player psychology in different parts of the field.
It is just so fucking dumb, and our dipshit coach can't see that. sadly we've now had one game where it actually worked, which is only going to have convinced him further that it is just poor execution stopping his brilliant plan working. i am no robertson fluffer, but i cannot wait until this dumb fluffybunny is gone. -
@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@kev said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
Good to see that all the BS about Scott Barrett’s 2nd yellow card has turned to nothing. The media in true form kept repeating he had made contact to head whereas the video evidence showed it was to shoulder. The media have become used car salesmen. No integrity.
But the important thing is that ABs will have hopefully had reinforced that the bunker and cards will lose you the game.
Got to say though that the first yellow card should not have as he was tackled into the halfback by a Bok that was probably offside. Be nice to see teams given a review option like NRL. Rugby is so slow to innovate.
A review option? Just going to slow the game down even more. In theory it sounds a good idea, but for me no thanks.
Yep, they need to work on time. All the BS around lineouts, kicks, scrums would be good starts. Minimising bunker to tries and obvious red cards would be good. Yellow cards should be reviewed after the game - just go on report as with league. But one review a game might still be a good thing to avoid Ref howlers.
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@chimoaus said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
It is also worth noting the Chiefs and Crusaders to a lesser degree went away from the contestables this year and more territory and pressure. I know SR is different but the Chiefs kicked well over twice the penalties as any other team with DMAC and SS almost refusing to kick anything but long.
Just checking numbers on this (stats from just before the final)
Kicking Metres
1st McKenzie (6778m 15 matches)
4th Mo'unga (3939m 14 matches)
5th B Barrett (3724m 12 matches)
9th Burns (2228m 9 matches)No other NZ sides 10's in the top 10 (so less than 2117m)
Kick metres per 80mins of rugby
1st McKenzie (486m)
6th B Barrett (327m)
7th Burns (323m)
9th Gatland (312m)No other NZ sides 10's in the top 10 (so less then 311m)
Edit: I worked out Mo'unga number from his minutes played: 286m
There's also a stat for metres per kick. It's dominated by fullbacks though.. 10s are more likely to put up contestables
Backs up what you’re saying about the Chiefs. Crusaders however kicked shorter than the Blues but were ahead of the Hurricanes.. Similar to the Highlanders maybe
Probably because the Blues spend so much time defending because of how they kick vs Crusaders who achieve good position and squeeze. Maybe metres per kick might be a better measure?
-
@kev said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
Probably because the Blues spend so much time defending because of
Average number of tackles attempted per game shows the Blues actually defended less per match
I think the kicking stats are exactly what they appear to be. McKenzie kicked further than anyone else & Mou'nga gets credit for things he doesn't do
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
@kev said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:
Probably because the Blues spend so much time defending because of
Average number of tackles attempted per game shows the Blues actually defended less per match
I think the kicking stats are exactly what they appear to be. McKenzie kicked further than anyone else & Mou'nga gets credit for things he doesn't do
the regular season games were Dmac and Stephenson kicking Mounga and Havili to death, as the Crusaders lost every duel and eventually were forced to run it back. I never saw the final so can't tell you what adjustments the Crusaders made.
