Bledisloe I (All Blacks team room bugged)

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.

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="608278" data-time="1471912135">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
I'm sure Pocock could do 1000 pull ups without breaking a sweat, but he has fuck all leg drive and no real pace so doesn't have the explosiveness. He's like the opposite of Ardie Savea.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="608287" data-time="1471913760">
<div>
He's like the opposite of Ardie Savea.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Short?

broughie

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="608263" data-time="1471910929">
<div>
<img src="https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14022244_1083775188376891_5472025415597811278_n.jpg?oh=f05079615b41c9c3b1586790fd9ad669&oe=584EFD44" alt="14022244_1083775188376891_54720254155978">
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Were their also individual models too for each player?

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mick Gold Coast QLD" data-cid="608125" data-time="1471861428">
<div>
 
I think there is another 35 points and more margin coming up!
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Among other interesting odds NZ TAB has
 
ABs at $1.07; Wallabies at $7.50.
 
Wallabies to take the Bledisloe $31
 
They're giving the Wallabies 19.5 points headstart at evens.
 
 Ta$man are at $3.75 to beat Canterbury in ChCh, which looks bloody unlikely to me - but apparently twice as likely as the Wallabies!
 
Might be worth a small bet on the Wallabies and some prayers for yellow cards. :)

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="608253" data-time="1471910326">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Not really - when you've got a private school system as blinkered as ours, as long as he was a bit bigger and stronger than most of his opponents, he'd be a great back in GPS.

taniwharugby

Virgil

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="608381" data-time="1471935577"><img src="https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14051775_652541271580067_4775217163419110762_n.jpg?oh=2bacbdc54ca864947469431baf0e93e1&oe=5859A698" alt="14051775_652541271580067_477521716341911"></blockquote>
 
Richie, Dan, Conrad, Ma'a, Kevin, Tony..

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="608383" data-time="1471935703">Richie, Dan, Conrad, Ma'a, Kevin, Tony..</blockquote>And a bunch of the replacements are out too, and our hooker had a bunch of painkilling injections and couldn't scrummage or tackle that hard...

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="608278" data-time="1471912135">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think part of that is his pilfer technique. Richie & George Smith were outstanding at making the tackle, sort of letting go, leaping to their feet & grabbing the ball. Pocock almost seems to want to give guys a little shove & let their momentum take them down while he remains standing the whole time - so he can then get straight on the ball. It works well for the 3 or 4 turnovers he gets, but it means his other 10 or 15 tackles have zero bite & let the opposition get front foot ball. Or worse bury him in a ruck.
 
Its not helped by the overall lack of bite in the backrow, a lot of our turnovers to Read or Rodney or McCaw over the years came as they stepped in after Kaino or Collins had smashed a player backwards delaying the support players. No one is doing that hit for the Wallabies right now.

mimic

wallabies don't need to smash players backwards.. they let the ball carriers break thru the line and get isolated.. and and then they pounce.. they're strong enough to survive the cleanout..

The Silver Fern

Bledisloe I (All Blacks team room bugged)