RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
-
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
We will miss Joe Schmidt. I have zero confidence in McDonald, but one thing I am sure of with Razor in charge is that we won't be such a stupid team and that our discipline will be far better.
Mo'unga (who didn't take the drop goal according to the article writer linked here) was "too stupid" despite playing for years under Razor. Sam Whitelock gave away a crucial (if unbelievably soft) penalty against England in 2019...
I find it unlikely that these players get dumber or less disciplined because they're in an All Black squad. I'd say it's a by-product of playing SR more than anything because that little competition tends not to reward such behaviours.
-
What about red cards in SR because of the 20 minute rule less damage than in a test match so is discipline not as good as NH teams ? again treading back to SR.
-
@Chris yeah good point. That additional disparity with the international game surely doesn't help either.
-
@Chris said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
What about red cards in SR because of the 20 minute rule less damage than in a test match so is discipline not as good as NH teams ? again treading back to SR.
7 cards for us in the tournament, far and away the most. 2/3 red cards (arguably should have been two out of plenty, but hey).
Our discipline isn't up to it
-
@antipodean said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
We will miss Joe Schmidt. I have zero confidence in McDonald, but one thing I am sure of with Razor in charge is that we won't be such a stupid team and that our discipline will be far better.
Mo'unga (who didn't take the drop goal according to the article writer linked here) was "too stupid" despite playing for years under Razor. Sam Whitelock gave away a crucial (if unbelievably soft) penalty against England in 2019...
The drop goal thing I disagree with. We were never close enough to go for a drop goal. Whenever we would threaten to enter their 22, the ball would get turned over and we would miss our chance. Had Ardie not shat the bed and shown some composure by holding on to the ball in the 79th minute instead of throwing the miracle offload, then we could have had a chance to attempt one.
As for Whitelock's penalty, that was so out of character for him and that's the only time I can recall Whitelock screwing up.
I am just basing my opinion on what I see in SR, the Crusaders are a smart team and that doesn't just happen by accident. The Hurricanes, Blues and the Highlanders are incredibly stupid teams with bad decision makers and that doesn't happen by accident either.
-
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I think you’ve nailed it pretty much. You always expect NZ to play the most intelligent rugby, but the Saffers played smarter on the day imo. Odd, because you clearly have some intelligent players. What’s the issue? Leadership? Coaching?
I think the point everyone is missing is that South Africa were the clearest about what they were trying to do and played knock out rugby - ie they did what they needed to do to win. Take the last 10 minutes. They played as deep in NZ half as possible and hit every tackle, ruck and breakdown like their life depended on it, because thats what they needed to do.
New Zealand couldn’t do it because they haven’t spent 4 years doing it, they, like most teams, haven’t spent 4 years practicing winning the tiny moments. Ireland did, but their game is more technical, more things have to work and they didn’t get to practice the intensity of South Africa then NZ two weeks in a row very often - they tried but they were fucked at the end of the NZ game.
However many decisions went each way - and don’t kid yourself that Barnes and team only went one way, South Africa consistently reacted better. I hate that it’s true.
-
@antipodean said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Chris yeah good point. That additional disparity with the international game surely doesn't help either.
Yeah that is a major problem making SR an attractive competition with more time in play ball in hand competition to attract fans and sponsors,
But also try to keep it a decent competition as a stepping stone to test Rugby.
It seems the international rules are so far away from what we want see in our rugby no idea how we bring them closer. -
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I think you’ve nailed it pretty much. You always expect NZ to play the most intelligent rugby, but the Saffers played smarter on the day imo. Odd, because you clearly have some intelligent players. What’s the issue? Leadership? Coaching?
I think the point everyone is missing is that South Africa were the clearest about what they were trying to do and played knock out rugby - ie they did what they needed to do to win. Take the last 10 minutes. They played as deep in NZ half as possible and hit every tackle, ruck and breakdown like their life depended on it, because thats what they needed to do.
New Zealand couldn’t do it because they haven’t spent 4 years doing it, they, like most teams, haven’t spent 4 years practicing winning the tiny moments. Ireland did, but their game is more technical, more things have to work and they didn’t get to practice the intensity of South Africa then NZ two weeks in a row very often - they tried but they were fucked at the end of the NZ game.
However many decisions went each way - and don’t kid yourself that Barnes and team only went one way, South Africa consistently reacted better. I hate that it’s true.
Are you nocturnal or something? Isn't it like 2am over there!
-
@Chris Yes, but don’t they play the 20-minute red card in the Rugby Championship as well?
-
@His-Bobness said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Chris Yes, but don’t they play the 20-minute red card in the Rugby Championship as well?
Yes they do but it doesn't relate to WCs or NH tours.
-
@akan004 Interesting that Razor chose McDonald where there seems little evidence for the selection. Is this because they’re old Crusader mates or is there a real respect there?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I think you’ve nailed it pretty much. You always expect NZ to play the most intelligent rugby, but the Saffers played smarter on the day imo. Odd, because you clearly have some intelligent players. What’s the issue? Leadership? Coaching?
I think the point everyone is missing is that South Africa were the clearest about what they were trying to do and played knock out rugby - ie they did what they needed to do to win. Take the last 10 minutes. They played as deep in NZ half as possible and hit every tackle, ruck and breakdown like their life depended on it, because thats what they needed to do.
New Zealand couldn’t do it because they haven’t spent 4 years doing it, they, like most teams, haven’t spent 4 years practicing winning the tiny moments. Ireland did, but their game is more technical, more things have to work and they didn’t get to practice the intensity of South Africa then NZ two weeks in a row very often - they tried but they were fucked at the end of the NZ game.
However many decisions went each way - and don’t kid yourself that Barnes and team only went one way, South Africa consistently reacted better. I hate that it’s true.
Are you nocturnal or something? Isn't it like 2am over there!
I have a strange relationship with Monday nights
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I think you’ve nailed it pretty much. You always expect NZ to play the most intelligent rugby, but the Saffers played smarter on the day imo. Odd, because you clearly have some intelligent players. What’s the issue? Leadership? Coaching?
I think the point everyone is missing is that South Africa were the clearest about what they were trying to do and played knock out rugby - ie they did what they needed to do to win. Take the last 10 minutes. They played as deep in NZ half as possible and hit every tackle, ruck and breakdown like their life depended on it, because thats what they needed to do.
New Zealand couldn’t do it because they haven’t spent 4 years doing it, they, like most teams, haven’t spent 4 years practicing winning the tiny moments. Ireland did, but their game is more technical, more things have to work and they didn’t get to practice the intensity of South Africa then NZ two weeks in a row very often - they tried but they were fucked at the end of the NZ game.
However many decisions went each way - and don’t kid yourself that Barnes and team only went one way, South Africa consistently reacted better. I hate that it’s true.
I've mentioned it several times, SA know what they are playing. They could play like the ended the game because they were in front. If they were behind I believe they'd have been stuffed. But they never were
-
@Machpants said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I think you’ve nailed it pretty much. You always expect NZ to play the most intelligent rugby, but the Saffers played smarter on the day imo. Odd, because you clearly have some intelligent players. What’s the issue? Leadership? Coaching?
I think the point everyone is missing is that South Africa were the clearest about what they were trying to do and played knock out rugby - ie they did what they needed to do to win. Take the last 10 minutes. They played as deep in NZ half as possible and hit every tackle, ruck and breakdown like their life depended on it, because thats what they needed to do.
New Zealand couldn’t do it because they haven’t spent 4 years doing it, they, like most teams, haven’t spent 4 years practicing winning the tiny moments. Ireland did, but their game is more technical, more things have to work and they didn’t get to practice the intensity of South Africa then NZ two weeks in a row very often - they tried but they were fucked at the end of the NZ game.
However many decisions went each way - and don’t kid yourself that Barnes and team only went one way, South Africa consistently reacted better. I hate that it’s true.
I've mentioned it several times, SA know what they are playing. They could play like the ended the game because they were in front. If they were behind I believe they'd have been stuffed. But they never were
this is the key point. For all this chat, in the end it was a point. They didn't score after the 34th minute. And we missed two kicks at goal that would have won it. There was nothing in this game. there is no great awakening of the strength of one over the other. The game was a bees dick either way.
But, in that frantic last 10 minutes they were in front, and we were the ones who needed to do something. And that's a great space to be in for a team that defends really well. Especially in a world cup final where you know the ref is swallowing the whistle (that's not a ref moan, they all do that in that situation).
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I think you’ve nailed it pretty much. You always expect NZ to play the most intelligent rugby, but the Saffers played smarter on the day imo. Odd, because you clearly have some intelligent players. What’s the issue? Leadership? Coaching?
I think the point everyone is missing is that South Africa were the clearest about what they were trying to do and played knock out rugby - ie they did what they needed to do to win. Take the last 10 minutes. They played as deep in NZ half as possible and hit every tackle, ruck and breakdown like their life depended on it, because thats what they needed to do.
New Zealand couldn’t do it because they haven’t spent 4 years doing it, they, like most teams, haven’t spent 4 years practicing winning the tiny moments. Ireland did, but their game is more technical, more things have to work and they didn’t get to practice the intensity of South Africa then NZ two weeks in a row very often - they tried but they were fucked at the end of the NZ game.
However many decisions went each way - and don’t kid yourself that Barnes and team only went one way, South Africa consistently reacted better. I hate that it’s true.
I’m not here to take anything away from the Boks, but in that match they needed a bit of fortune to get that win. We have had our share of luck too.
In most close games particularly one pointers there are small things that get amplified because the margin between winning and losing is so very fine. We make one of two kicks and all those so called tactics of the Boks come back to haunt them as “not winning rugby.”
I just think it was two contrasting styles that clashed. The Boks gave away a lot of penalties, I doubt that was that part of the strategy? Boks lost 4 out of 10 lineouts, doubt that was in the grand plan especially as the ABs had been well known for attacking defensive lineouts.
I thought our tactics were pretty clear and we countered what the Boks put in front of us for large parts of the game. Yes we made mistakes and got cards but so did the Boks.
In that last 10 minutes there were periods we were in their half attacking. In the last couple of minutes they definitely had it down the right end.
Now the fortune they got against France…
-
@Machpants said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I think you’ve nailed it pretty much. You always expect NZ to play the most intelligent rugby, but the Saffers played smarter on the day imo. Odd, because you clearly have some intelligent players. What’s the issue? Leadership? Coaching?
I think the point everyone is missing is that South Africa were the clearest about what they were trying to do and played knock out rugby - ie they did what they needed to do to win. Take the last 10 minutes. They played as deep in NZ half as possible and hit every tackle, ruck and breakdown like their life depended on it, because thats what they needed to do.
New Zealand couldn’t do it because they haven’t spent 4 years doing it, they, like most teams, haven’t spent 4 years practicing winning the tiny moments. Ireland did, but their game is more technical, more things have to work and they didn’t get to practice the intensity of South Africa then NZ two weeks in a row very often - they tried but they were fucked at the end of the NZ game.
However many decisions went each way - and don’t kid yourself that Barnes and team only went one way, South Africa consistently reacted better. I hate that it’s true.
I've mentioned it several times, SA know what they are playing. They could play like the ended the game because they were in front. If they were behind I believe they'd have been stuffed. But they never were
Foster and Cane, and anyone else that was making decisions on the night, should have it etched onto them, "Kick your kicks, get ahead and make the saffas chase you"
-
@canefan said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Machpants said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I think you’ve nailed it pretty much. You always expect NZ to play the most intelligent rugby, but the Saffers played smarter on the day imo. Odd, because you clearly have some intelligent players. What’s the issue? Leadership? Coaching?
I think the point everyone is missing is that South Africa were the clearest about what they were trying to do and played knock out rugby - ie they did what they needed to do to win. Take the last 10 minutes. They played as deep in NZ half as possible and hit every tackle, ruck and breakdown like their life depended on it, because thats what they needed to do.
New Zealand couldn’t do it because they haven’t spent 4 years doing it, they, like most teams, haven’t spent 4 years practicing winning the tiny moments. Ireland did, but their game is more technical, more things have to work and they didn’t get to practice the intensity of South Africa then NZ two weeks in a row very often - they tried but they were fucked at the end of the NZ game.
However many decisions went each way - and don’t kid yourself that Barnes and team only went one way, South Africa consistently reacted better. I hate that it’s true.
I've mentioned it several times, SA know what they are playing. They could play like the ended the game because they were in front. If they were behind I believe they'd have been stuffed. But they never were
Foster and Cane, and anyone else that was making decisions on the night, should have it etched onto them, "Kick your kicks, get ahead and make the saffas chase you"
you think that would help the kickers not miss?
-
@junior said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@nzzp said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@gt12 I wrote us off at half time too but it was far from over as it played out. Poor goalkicking and a lack of rugby smarts cost us the win in the 2nd half. A very winnable game even with only 14 men.
I thought we dropped a huge amount of ball as well, and we don't seem to be talking about it. It was one of the keys to losing - drop ball, missed kicks, TMO/discipline (choose your poison) and arguably lack of rugby nous.
When Mbonambi went off, I thought we should be kicking for lineouts and putting pressure. If that starts disintegrating, you create space in the middle of the field.
In the second half, we should have kicked the ball out in their half much more and really pressured their line out. I can't recall a single pinout in that time that was contested and that they won. We should have turned the screws on them in that area the entirety of that second half. The breaks in play that the line outs would have created would have allowed us - the team playing with 14 men - also to get some rest and preserve energy for late on in the game.
First we need to find kickers who know how to do that!
-
Only got ourselves to blame. It felt like the stars were aligning - easy pool, hard quarters but getting Argentina over England meant that the semifinal was always going to be a breeze, and then a final against a fatigued Bok team. For once, we were the ones with the easy path and SA had to slog to reach the final.
Apart from the draw, we didn't have any injuries either which is so rare in a RWC campaign. We had every advantage available to us, all we had to do was to keep 15 on the field. Opportunity blown.
-
@akan004 I wouldn’t necessarily classify playing France and Ireland before reaching a semi final is an easy path.
One could very much argue that the Boks had an easy semi also given the way England had been and were playing. Not much different between them and Argentina in terms of performance output.
