Bledisloe I (All Blacks team room bugged)

pakman

Just goes to show what no one has pointed out so far (as far as I can see), which is that Read is worth his weight in Gold to the ABs.

Crucial

I know I'm a broken record on this but Pocock is primarily a one-trick pony that is extremely good at his one trick to the detriment (at times) of his other duties. He is so busy hunting for those stat building turnovers that his positioning on defence is neglected.
As an example watch the BB try again. Watch Pocock's running line. He is sucked toward the Reado ruck set up leaving a hole the size of a Hamilton whore during Feildays week for BB to step through. He changes his mind way too late and looks like a poor club player trying to get to the tackle.
 
Turnovers from a long armed, short legged Popeye ain't everything.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="DMX" data-cid="608172" data-time="1471889532">
<div>
Even if Pocock and Hoopah get turnovers there are many occasions when they miss the turnovers and are left vulnerable outside. Add to this NZ Backrow are better lineout forwards, better in the collision and better over the gainline.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
This!
 
the obsession with turnovers hurts the rest of the game. It's like arguing with some people about wingers (not Winger, but wingers)...
 
- Look at the great tries he scores
- yep, but how about his high ball work, defensive alignment and tackling
- none of that matters! He's really fast!
 
To be fair, you can carry one bloke who's brilliant in one area but weaker in others, but when you start combining, you give a lot away. I don't think it is any surprise that the ABs made metres wide - the focus of the Wobbles to pile bodies into the breakdown means there is stretched defense everywhere elsewhere.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gary" data-cid="608139" data-time="1471864246">
Don't know where all this feel sorry for the Aussie rugby comes from you guys obviously can't remember the 1998 to 2003 and John O'Neil's ARU.</blockquote>
 
Agree 100% karma is a cruel bitch

taniwharugby

Dunno about feeling sorry, more that it isn't good for rugby.

jegga

Things can change pretty quickly , 2009 wasn't that long ago and we sucked.

reprobate

lotsa pocock at 8 isn't great for balance, and the aussies need a traditional 8 - so which of the aussie 8s in super rugby wouldn't have been completely outplayed by read? they all would have, they all would have lost at the colllision, none of them would have got around the field like read does, and they wouldn't have got those turnovers.
 
this international quality traditional 8 is just in your heads, he doesn't actually exist in australia.

Frye

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="608205" data-time="1471906239">
<div>
lotsa pocock at 8 isn't great for balance, and the aussies need a traditional 8 - so which of the aussie 8s in super rugby wouldn't have been completely outplayed by read? they all would have, they all would have lost at the colllision, none of them would have got around the field like read does, and they wouldn't have got those turnovers.
 
this international quality traditional 8 is just in your heads, he doesn't actually exist in australia.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Pocock would have played 7. And still got the turnovers.
 
Meanwhile Hoopah could have sat on the bench and a bigger, taller body could have added starch to the pack and height to the lineout.
 
Not a difficult concept.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="608220" data-time="1471907445">
<div>
Pocock would have played 7. And still got the turnovers.
 
Meanwhile Hoopah could have sat on the bench and a bigger, taller body could have added starch to the pack and height to the lineout.
 
Not a difficult concept.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
People must be missing a bunch of posts to not get it by this stage.
 
If Chieka doesn't want to start Palu, then he should look for his most mobile lock/ blindside options. Currently that would be Mumm if they're not going to look at people like Lopeti Timani. He can push in the scrum, run with the ball and jump in the lineout. Fardy can hit rucks and jump in the lineout. Pocock can get turnovers.
 
I'd also swap Simmons for Will Skelton for the first half - he at least bends the line and shifts bodies.

RoninWC

Having watched a replay, recorded live on the IQ2, (after watching the game live on TV with a few too many beverages under the belt - I'd actually fallen/passed out on the couch for the hour before the game and only managed to watch because the wife checked in on me and woke me up) the second viewing really highlighted some amazing work from JK.
 
Kaino had an absolutely fabulous match. His tight work, big driving hits on D and making yards with every carry in tight gave Reid the space to work out wide which he did so well. He was everywhere and absolutely dominated the collinsions getting the better of his opponents.
 
Kaino carried the Blues in the early part of the SR season and then got injured and clearly the rest did him some good because his form in that game was as good as it's ever been.
 
And this is why we have such a well balanced back row, Kaino and Cane doing a lot of tight work, Reid (and our 4th loosie Coles) causing havoc out wide and a tight 5 that just kept hitting rucks but not over committing numbers at rucks.
 
I also think our decision making at the ruck is a hell of a lot better than the Aussies, we barely got any turnovers but our offensive defence caused a lot of dropped ball by the Aussies. Where as the Aussies seem to just pile in an look for the turnover at almost every ruck committing numbers which then creates space outwide. Sure Pocock get's turnovers but in the end, I'm very happy with our smarter and more effective defense based on not committing numbers, fast line speed and offensive defense.
 
One other thing that stood out to me in this game was the AB's linespeed in D. I think that was one of the tweaks that the brains trust would have made after watching how successfuly this was employed by the 'Canes during the SR finals. The Aussies seem to rarely make it over the gainline due to the AB's linespeed in D.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="608176" data-time="1471894218">
<div>
This!
 
the obsession with turnovers hurts the rest of the game. It's like arguing with some people about wingers (not Winger, but wingers)...
 
- Look at the great tries he scores
- yep, but how about his high ball work, defensive alignment and tackling
- none of that matters! He's really fast!
 
To be fair, you can carry one bloke who's brilliant in one area but weaker in others, but when you start combining, you give a lot away. I don't think it is any surprise that the ABs made metres wide - the focus of the Wobbles to pile bodies into the breakdown means there is stretched defense everywhere elsewhere.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Always baffles me that Pocock is so poor with ball in hand as it did with Ruben Thorne all those years ago. With that low centre of gravity he looks like the kind of guy they'd pass to five metres out from the line and he'd go over every single time no matter who was in front of him. McCaw got better and better at this facet of the game as he got older but Pocock doesn't look a hope of emulating that.

ACT Crusader

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="608220" data-time="1471907445">
Pocock would have played 7. And still got the turnovers. 
Meanwhile Hoopah could have sat on the bench and a bigger, taller body could have added starch to the pack and height to the lineout. 
Not a difficult concept.</blockquote>
Concept isn't difficult but there is difficulty in finding who that no8 might be. 
Every other option has more downside than up IMO.

ACT Crusader

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="608238" data-time="1471908990">People must be missing a bunch of posts to not get it by this stage. 
If Chieka doesn't want to start Palu, then he should look for his most mobile lock/ blindside options. Currently that would be Mumm if they're not going to look at people like Lopeti Timani. He can push in the scrum, run with the ball and jump in the lineout. Fardy can hit rucks and jump in the lineout. Pocock can get turnovers. 
I'd also swap Simmons for Will Skelton for the first half - he at least bends the line and shifts bodies.</blockquote>
 
Timani isn't fit for test rugby. He struggles with the pace of Super rugby. Lots of walking around. 
Mumm has played some blindside, but Cheika clearly only sees him as a "mobile lock" and fair enough given the lock stocks aren't exactly flourishing. 
McCalman is a decent player and has experience at no8, but whenever he starts he goes missing. The best footy I've seen him play is off the bench as an impact type. 
Leroy Houston has developed a bit of mongrel in him and he would be a guy is throw in there. But again there are big risks given he's been away from international footy for so long.

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="608220" data-time="1471907445">
<div>
Pocock would have played 7. And still got the turnovers.
 
Meanwhile Hoopah could have sat on the bench and a bigger, taller body could have added starch to the pack and height to the lineout.
 
Not a difficult concept.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yes this obsession with turnovers is pretty weird. I'll bet Read, Cane or Savea could pilfer more if that was all they were assigned to do.
 
I was talking the other day with a guy who works with analysis for the Reds. He was lamenting this fixation with turnovers and how it is to the detriment of Aus rugby. He was saying Pocock might get 4 turnovers, but the opposition will get the same or more across the entire team. Obviously it's a great skill to have but should be part of a broader skill set, not be the one and only skill you have.

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="608245" data-time="1471909651">
<div>
Always baffles me that Pocock is so poor with ball in hand as it did with Ruben Thorne all those years ago. With that low centre of gravity he looks like the kind of guy they'd pass to five metres out from the line and he'd go over every single time no matter who was in front of him. McCaw got better and better at this facet of the game as he got older but Pocock doesn't look a hope of emulating that.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yep, the guy is a farking unit and a half. He should be wrecking ball but I'm not sure I've seen him ever break a tackle. His ball skills are also incredibly limited for a guy who used to be a back and used to force his brothers into help him practice passing.

KiwiMurph

He's also not explosive - he has a high motor so he can get to a lot of breakdowns but he has no real acceleration/top end speed.

antipodean

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="608251" data-time="1471910131">
<div>
Yes this obsession with turnovers is pretty weird. I'll bet Read, Cane or Savea could pilfer more if that was all they were assigned to do.
 
I was talking the other day with a guy who works with analysis for the Reds. He was lamenting this fixation with turnovers and how it is to the detriment of Aus rugby. He was saying Pocock might get 4 turnovers, but the opposition will get the same or more across the entire team. Obviously it's a great skill to have but should be part of a broader skill set, not be the one and only skill you have.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It's not just creating the turnover, but the quality of the ball that results from it and how quickly they can capitalise on it. Turnover ball at rucktime is far more messy and difficult to capitalise on than that of knock-on or wayward kick - and those options come with little risk of penalty compared to a pilfer.
 
So the questions is - up against Aussie why would you even bother turnovers at ruck time unless it is really on? If you have a solid defensive pattern and are physical in defense you could give them clean ball on half way and within 10 phases they will almost certainly cough it up anyway - either through poor handling or lack of imagination with the ball. The Coles and Kaino tries were the blueprint of this - metronomic defense and Aussie just had a brain fart.
 
It's almost like the old contesting the line-out debates, except this one to me is a lot more clear cut. These days you don't want to be winning turnovers because of specialised jackals, you want to be winning them only when the opposition under commits to a ruck.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="KiwiMurph" data-cid="608258" data-time="1471910728">
<div>
He's also not explosive - he has a high motor so he can get to a lot of breakdowns but he has no real acceleration/top end speed. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Also weirdly not physical in the tackle either.
 
Obviously the bloke would take my head off, but in the tackle you don't see him able to be as dominant as a guy like Read or McCaw was and there really is no physical reason for that - it's simply technique/mindset. He doesn't wrap the potential offload and very rarely gets a guy moving backwards.
 
To temper things I think at Super level where you still have top tier guys playing, but teams have a few more holes and the patterns aren't as embedded I think he can be a lethal weapon.

ACT Crusader

What Hooper and Pocock do is create opportunities from turnover ball, but where OZ have struggled is that they seem disorganised after they've got the ball to make anything of it. 
Lack of 9/10 taking control in those situations. Players quickly fanning out. The wingers ready etc. 
So unless those things are addressed then any advantage that may arise from TO ball will be negligible. 
It's a thing of beauty watching when the ABs get that sniff and then tight forwards and backs are ready to make something from it.

The Silver Fern

Bledisloe I (All Blacks team room bugged)