All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.
-
The problem with the mainstream rugby media in Australia is that all but two appear to be on the ARU payroll. The two being Zavos and Paul Cully. The rest would rather look for excuses and deflect a la Cheika before offering proper analysis of the games, and hence Cheika can carry on like a petulant child and get away with it. That's why I tend to not watch the 360 and other mainstream shows anymore. The GnGR podcasts are good, even though most of the posters on that site are one eyed plums, but the best show going around is the Rugga Matrix one on youtube. I think the media in both countries have been disgraceful over the last two years with their irresponsible reporting. Smith was a case in point. This clown picture is a disgrace, and the various attempts from the Aussie media to poke fun at the haka, Richie and the cheating claims have been just as bad.
-
@cgrant said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Chris-B.
Barrett regressing ?
I have watched the Durban game two times and if you had done the same, you could have seen him tear the SA defence on his own on multiple occasions. He was involved and prominent in most of the tries.
I agree his kicking from the tee has regressed (maybe a question of confidence ?), but not his general play.My comments are all about his goalkicking.
The rest of his play is outstanding - but, enough to keep him ahead of two other excellent first fives? Maybe not if he's going to consistently leave 10 points out there.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Chris-B. said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Thoughts on the All Blacks playing without a goal kicker?
Wondering about this.
Beaudy was pretty ordinary in the first part of the Super season. Came right in the ABs camp, but he seems to be regressing.
I wonder how long the coaches will put up with substandard goal kicking - eventually it will cost us a match, so he needs to sort it - otherwise he'll have to be relegated to super-sub status again.
General performance from Beaudy has me wondering again how effective he can be when his forwards are getting munched. I didn't see him trying to take control at any point. In fact after the game I realised I could barely remember seeing him.
They had 30 something percent possession in the first half. He barely had the ball enough to make an impression before he was hooked. When and where was he supposed to take control?
35% is not great but it's adequate. A more controlling performance from a Beauden Barrett would include, for example, taking on the line himself - something that has been his hallmark this season. Aaron Cruden had more direct influence on proceedings when he came on, though admittedly not always positive.
As mentioned, he only had the ball a handful of times in attack. It would be interesting to know at what stage him taking the ball to the line would have been a controlling performance or indeed called for under the circumstances.
Cruden came on and failed to find touch from a penalty and then sent a harmless kick into the 22. With much more possession and a tiring opponent of course he's going to be more involved.
BB totally deserves any criticism for his kicking, which could prove crucial in some of the typical arm-wrestles up north. It could even be argued that Lima S gets the nod if BB cant get at least 70%. But complaining that he didn't control the game enough when his team had 35% possession and he barely touched the ball in attack is absolutely ridiculous.
Far from ridiculous but OK, if you're happy with that level of influence from your field general , then fair enough. You can probably even argue that the pattern this team plays removes the need for one central decision maker and that's probably what got them through on Saturday.
Still, the great first five performances I remember were the ones where, when things weren't panning out, the player demanded the ball and took the game on his shoulders. And that includes situations where possession was poor. Andrew Mehrtens is a classic example, he often played behind a pack that served up less than 40% possession, especially in the latter half of his career. Dan Carter was frequently in those situations too.
I've got no doubt Barrett will get there with more time under his belt but he hasn't yet and Saturday's game was clear evidence of that.
-
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Bones it's a shit call because savea made first contact, and the Aussie was running a valid support line. If that were called every time it happened the game would be a joke.
The law is pretty clear that you can't run a support line that impedes a would be tackler. If the law changes to your way then chasing defenders could be shoved away by "support" players. That really would be a joke.
The only questionable aspect of this call was materiality. DHP put himself in the hands of a notoriously crap TMO and lost the gamble. If Savea wasn't a risk to Speight then he didn't need to touch him or run a support line either. -
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Chris-B. said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Thoughts on the All Blacks playing without a goal kicker?
Wondering about this.
Beaudy was pretty ordinary in the first part of the Super season. Came right in the ABs camp, but he seems to be regressing.
I wonder how long the coaches will put up with substandard goal kicking - eventually it will cost us a match, so he needs to sort it - otherwise he'll have to be relegated to super-sub status again.
General performance from Beaudy has me wondering again how effective he can be when his forwards are getting munched. I didn't see him trying to take control at any point. In fact after the game I realised I could barely remember seeing him.
They had 30 something percent possession in the first half. He barely had the ball enough to make an impression before he was hooked. When and where was he supposed to take control?
35% is not great but it's adequate. A more controlling performance from a Beauden Barrett would include, for example, taking on the line himself - something that has been his hallmark this season. Aaron Cruden had more direct influence on proceedings when he came on, though admittedly not always positive.
As mentioned, he only had the ball a handful of times in attack. It would be interesting to know at what stage him taking the ball to the line would have been a controlling performance or indeed called for under the circumstances.
Cruden came on and failed to find touch from a penalty and then sent a harmless kick into the 22. With much more possession and a tiring opponent of course he's going to be more involved.
BB totally deserves any criticism for his kicking, which could prove crucial in some of the typical arm-wrestles up north. It could even be argued that Lima S gets the nod if BB cant get at least 70%. But complaining that he didn't control the game enough when his team had 35% possession and he barely touched the ball in attack is absolutely ridiculous.
Far from ridiculous but OK, if you're happy with that level of influence from your field general , then fair enough. You can probably even argue that the pattern this team plays removes the need for one central decision maker and that's probably what got them through on Saturday.
Still, the great first five performances I remember were the ones where, when things weren't panning out, the player demanded the ball and took the game on his shoulders. And that includes situations where possession was poor. Andrew Mehrtens is a classic example, he often played behind a pack that served up less than 40% possession, especially in the latter half of his career. Dan Carter was frequently in those situations too.
I've got no doubt Barrett will get there with more time under his belt but he hasn't yet and Saturday's game was clear evidence of that.
Jesus, the way you're banging on you'd think we were getting hammered and severely under the cosh. But the abs were farking leading at half time and if BB had had his kicking boots on the buffer would have been rather healthy. So you have a team that has scored 3 tries to 1 and is leading at the break and you reckon that's a poor reflection on the flyhalf, who has had little ball to work with?
I'm sure BB would have become much more involved as the game wore on, but it's absurd to criticise him for a first half performance when the abs scored 3 tries with 35% possession. But I'm sure if he put his head down and took the ball to the line those stats would look so much better and the forwards would start winning the collisions and making tackles.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
So is all the constant claims of the ABs being cheats not also disrespectful? IMO calling someone a cheat is worse than calling them a clown, I call my son a clown all the time.
That's not at you NTA
Yeah and I agree - the shit our papers have gone into is complete rubbish.
The fact that an AB coach has not commented on it is neither here nor there for me - bringing it up when you're winning looks churlish, and bringing it up when you're losing looks churlish. Right? Using "None of our coaches have ever said anything about your shit papers!" is massive whataboutery in my mind. Concentrate on the incident at hand.
Cheika has a right to comment on it. He definitely went about it the wrong way i.e. linking it to the ABs.
I think Moore's response was probably appropriate. He didn't mention the ABs, but said he found that representation of the jersey disrespectful.
For me it isn't about the fact Cheika was drawn as a clown, it was putting the Wallaby crest on it. And that is also true of featuring the silver fern on the whole "Richetty Grub" thing.
@akan004 said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
The GnGR podcasts are good, even though most of the posters on that site are one eyed plums
Unlike TSF which is populated entirely by paragons of broad-minded, balanced dialogue?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Jesus, the way you're banging on you'd think we were getting hammered and severely under the cosh. But the abs were farking leading at half time and if BB had had his kicking boots on the buffer would have been rather healthy. So you have a team that has scored 3 tries to 1 and is leading at the break and you reckon that's a poor reflection on the flyhalf, who has had little ball to work with?
I'm sure BB would have become much more involved as the game wore on, but it's absurd to criticise him for a first half performance when the abs scored 3 tries with 35% possession. But I'm sure if he put his head down and took the ball to the line those stats would look so much better and the forwards would start winning the collisions and making tackles.
No, I said I didn't think Barrett's general play was as influential as it has been previously and it might be an insight into his ability to take control of a game where his forwards are getting beaten. Then I pointed out that other first fives in history have been able to do that in similar situations and that probably comes with experience.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
The law is pretty clear that you can't run a support line that impedes a would be tackler. If the law changes to your way then chasing defenders could be shoved away by "support" players. That really would be a joke.
The only questionable aspect of this call was materiality. DHP put himself in the hands of a notoriously crap TMO and lost the gamble. If Savea wasn't a risk to Speight then he didn't need to touch him or run a support line either.Firstly, the Law says nothing about "support lines", so let's just leave that aside.
The relevant Law is:
10.1 Obstruction
(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Sanction: Penalty kick(b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick(e) Ball carrier running into team-mate. A player carrying the ball must not intentionally run into team-mates in front of that player.
Sanction: Penalty kickSo DHP gets done under (c) for blocking the tackler as you mentioned previously.
The officials have to consider the material effect of DHP's actions on "prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier" in this case.
Similar to e.g. penalty try situations, where the probability has to fall in favour of the scorer. Here it has to fall in favour of the tackler and the probability of him getting to the ball carrier..
DHP's problem is he ran that line while Savea was still in range of Speight. If he'd waited another second, it wouldn't have been an issue. Or maybe it would, because Veldsman...
-
Dean Mumm to miss Wales game
Wallabies backrower Dean Mumm will miss the Spring Tour opener against Wales, suspended for one week for striking. Mumm was cited for striking All Blacks lock Brodie Retallick in the 55th minute of the Wallabies’ 37-10 loss to the All Blacks at Eden Park. The blindside flanker seemed to elbow Retallick high, with the All Blacks lock going down, though the movement followed vision where Retallick appeared to hold Mumm back in a ruck. The incident was missed by referee Nigel Owens at the time, but the citing commissioner deemed it met the red card threshold in his review of the match. Mumm pleaded guilty to the charge, which has an entry point o a two-week suspension, but Mumm was offered one week by the SANZAAR judicial officer, which he accepted.Mumm will be available for the November 12 Test against Scotland at Murrayfield. -
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I also find it funny how before the match everyone was bitching about Julian's selection and afterward voting for him in MOTM votes. He did exactly the thing I wanted to see him there to do. A Lomu-esque run to break the game open. I haven't seen Naholo do that.
Excuse me, @Bones and I were fluffing Savea as hard as we could before the match in the face of all the detractors. Bones even posted evidence to back up our fluffing (very rare on the Fern).
Now the MOTM poll has him as one of our top 3 peformers. I feel very vindicated.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@reprobate said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Bones it's a shit call because savea made first contact, and the Aussie was running a valid support line. If that were called every time it happened the game would be a joke.
The law is pretty clear that you can't run a support line that impedes a would be tackler. If the law changes to your way then chasing defenders could be shoved away by "support" players. That really would be a joke.
The only questionable aspect of this call was materiality. DHP put himself in the hands of a notoriously crap TMO and lost the gamble. If Savea wasn't a risk to Speight then he didn't need to touch him or run a support line either.what, so you can't run a support line between a defender and the ball once a break has been made? come on, that happens all the time, and if it were penalised all the time the game would be a farce and most of the great breakout tries ever scored would be called back. savea pushed the aussie first, then got shoved back as the aussie continued to try to run valid support lines, then savea complained to the ref. if the situations had been reversed i would have been screaming at the tv.
-
@Marty said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Jesus, the way you're banging on you'd think we were getting hammered and severely under the cosh. But the abs were farking leading at half time and if BB had had his kicking boots on the buffer would have been rather healthy. So you have a team that has scored 3 tries to 1 and is leading at the break and you reckon that's a poor reflection on the flyhalf, who has had little ball to work with?
I'm sure BB would have become much more involved as the game wore on, but it's absurd to criticise him for a first half performance when the abs scored 3 tries with 35% possession. But I'm sure if he put his head down and took the ball to the line those stats would look so much better and the forwards would start winning the collisions and making tackles.
No, I said I didn't think Barrett's general play was as influential as it has been previously and it might be an insight into his ability to take control of a game where his forwards are getting beaten. Then I pointed out that other first fives in history have been able to do that in similar situations and that probably comes with experience.
Again, other than vague references to taking the little ball he had to the line, when and where was he supposed to have taken control? It was the first half, the abs had scored 3 tries despite losing the collisions and missing too many tackles. Id be delighted to know what past legends would have done any differently? Dan Carter played in a shitload of games when the abs were down at half time despite being arguably the better team. Was he then not taking control of the game? Not being direct enough?
I'm all for fair criticism and fill your boots about the goal kicking thing, but this "take control" things appears to be based more on preconceived notions than anything that actually occurred during the game.
-
@NTA the other issue, as i'm sure you're aware nick, is that savea broke the law first by interfering with DHP who didn't have the ball. i don't think that was bad enough to be penalised either, but if the ref is going to be a pedant they should at least be a proper pedant.
the whole thing to me was just 2 guys jostling for the same position, as happens all the time - savea lost because he was behind. play on.
as for savea throwing his hands up and bleating to the ref rather than trying to play the game. well. habana-esque. -
@NTA I think it fits more into rule A....
(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Sanction: Penalty kickMate, our media are a bunch of fluffybunnies, I wasnt defending them, or the clown thing, just stating the constant banging on about the ABs as being cheats it as bad if not worse IMO, and this comes form all media, not just Aussie ones.
Just I think the Aussie media think the sheep jokes are still amusing....
As I havent watched the game properly on TV I am not sure what Moore was like with Owens this time, but it didnt appear he was whining the whole game which he seems to have been doing most other games, and he played much better this time too (used to be my fave Aussie player, if one can have such a thing
) -
What I find odd about the Mumm-Retallick thing was that Retallick seemed ot be struggling after the impact and I dont recall him leaving the field, but we hear after he has had concussion, one assumes from this incident...so either the Dr's let him stay on or he knew how to pass the test??
Seemed odd we kept Whitelock on too when he seemed to be limping heavily the whole time with 3 rolls of taping on his foot.
-
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@NTA I think it fits more into rule A....
(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Sanction: Penalty kickNup - that is running only for the ball. Not a ball carrier.
So it covers the Coles/Foley situation, for example
-
@NTA Savea is running for the ball...Speight has it, basic fundamental of rugby, get the ball!
Dean Mumm to miss Wales game
