All Blacks vs Boks
-
@pakman said in Wallabies v Pumas:
Did you watch AB-SA? Thought Dreyer 'competed' very effectively until Nige cottoned on!
I'll answer that one here:
04:00 First Scrum - Marx's bind on Dreyer involves getting right down to the seam on his jersey - probably because those ridiculous shiny shirts are fucking hard to bind onto. You can see him bunching it up, in order to get maximum grip. Looks like Hames simply missed his bind.
But check Dreyer's back as he goes to set: its a little bent, meaning on the hit he's probably going down a little, then straightening. That is what causes Hames to miss IMHO - a lack of jersey to bind onto doesn't help, but he can adjust to go up over the shoulder if he holds his back straight and then drives up a bit.
Let me also say that if the fucking useless OB director for Sky stopped cutting away to shots of backs doing nothing, that scrum could have had a more thorough analysis.
08:50 Second Scrum no bunching of the shirt this time by Marx. Maybe he forgot. Maybe the shirt isn't so hard to grip. Hames binds on Dreyer's shorts, which is illegal.
Boks drive through using Etzebeth and the flanker to destroy Hames. Whitelock loses his bind. ABs weren't ready for that. They sheared left a little, but nothing illegal when the opposing loosehead side is turning and not retreating.
Shit actually watching the replay on the feed, I think the AB THP got walloped as well - suddenly Retallick's arse is in the air. Coles isn't happy, but after getting buttfucked, you never are.
16:22 Third Scrum - jersey is bunched by Marx. Hames binds the shorts again. Boks try the push, but Retallick and Whitelock are ready this time and the scrum goes up a bit before being called to use. Fact: the Bok 6 is on Dreyer's side (being openside), whereas previous was the big blond unit wearing 7.
Another interesting point: the Boks knock it on in the subsequent play, so its AB advantage and then Owens calls a penalty against the Boks. Not many refs bother going past the knock on as the first offence and would take it back for scrum. Quick tap, kick, try to Ioane.
And fucking hell Jantjies is a liability for that team.
25:38 Fourth Scrum - bunched jersey. Hames takes the shorts, and they try to drive but it folds in and collapses as the ball comes out.
Hames is having an unhappy game, generally.
28:00 Fifth Scrum - bunched jersey. Hames goes shorts. Smith feeds the second row
and the ABs get a bit of motion on. Boks creak a bit to the left. Ball out.Replay of Squires' head knock - fucking hell that's almost a red card by Mostert. It looked bad at full speed but nothing was done at the time. Hometown director
Jeez Hames gives away a stupid penalty holding a Bok player around the neck.
And Marx has some serious technique issues with his throwing.
31:50 Sixth Scrum - jersey is riding up a little, but plenty to grab. Problem seems to be Hames wants as long a bind as possible, instead of going for any available jersey space. Hoping to use his more compact arms to exert pressure
Can't help but think he'd be better off trying to get up on the back and using it for leverage.Anyway, Dreyer's feet are all over the shop, with his left (inside) boot waaaaay back pre-engage, and he overextends. Owens penalises him for angling down. And fair enough - got one of the strongest locks in the world behind you - don't need to stretch.
Another note: at 39:03 Cane wins a penalty for a turnover despite clearly landing on his elbows past the ball. Jeez Nige... he's got one hand on the fucking ground.
Anyway, that's how I saw the scrums in the first half. It was pretty even overall, with the Boks probably taking a points victory for that massive shove.
-
-
-
@number-10 said in All Blacks vs Boks:
I think it was during 1996 that we finally went ahead of South Africa in terms of wins.
I believe the W-L record P.S. (Post-Suzie) is 39-13, a 75% win ratio. (There was a bad hiccup stretch about a decade ago where Boks beat ABs four-out-of-five which put a serious crimp on the stats, otherwise would have been higher.)
-
@nta said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@pakman said in Wallabies v Pumas:
Did you watch AB-SA? Thought Dreyer 'competed' very effectively until Nige cottoned on!
I'll answer that one here:
04:00 First Scrum - Marx's bind on Dreyer involves getting right down to the seam on his jersey - probably because those ridiculous shiny shirts are fucking hard to bind onto. You can see him bunching it up, in order to get maximum grip. Looks like Hames simply missed his bind.
But check Dreyer's back as he goes to set: its a little bent, meaning on the hit he's probably going down a little, then straightening. That is what causes Hames to miss IMHO - a lack of jersey to bind onto doesn't help, but he can adjust to go up over the shoulder if he holds his back straight and then drives up a bit.
Let me also say that if the fucking useless OB director for Sky stopped cutting away to shots of backs doing nothing, that scrum could have had a more thorough analysis.
08:50 Second Scrum no bunching of the shirt this time by Marx. Maybe he forgot. Maybe the shirt isn't so hard to grip. Hames binds on Dreyer's shorts, which is illegal.
Boks drive through using Etzebeth and the flanker to destroy Hames. Whitelock loses his bind. ABs weren't ready for that. They sheared left a little, but nothing illegal when the opposing loosehead side is turning and not retreating.
Shit actually watching the replay on the feed, I think the AB THP got walloped as well - suddenly Retallick's arse is in the air. Coles isn't happy, but after getting buttfucked, you never are.
16:22 Third Scrum - jersey is bunched by Marx. Hames binds the shorts again. Boks try the push, but Retallick and Whitelock are ready this time and the scrum goes up a bit before being called to use. Fact: the Bok 6 is on Dreyer's side (being openside), whereas previous was the big blond unit wearing 7.
Another interesting point: the Boks knock it on in the subsequent play, so its AB advantage and then Owens calls a penalty against the Boks. Not many refs bother going past the knock on as the first offence and would take it back for scrum. Quick tap, kick, try to Ioane.
And fucking hell Jantjies is a liability for that team.
25:38 Fourth Scrum - bunched jersey. Hames takes the shorts, and they try to drive but it folds in and collapses as the ball comes out.
Hames is having an unhappy game, generally.
28:00 Fifth Scrum - bunched jersey. Hames goes shorts. Smith feeds the second row
and the ABs get a bit of motion on. Boks creak a bit to the left. Ball out.Replay of Squires' head knock - fucking hell that's almost a red card by Mostert. It looked bad at full speed but nothing was done at the time. Hometown director
Jeez Hames gives away a stupid penalty holding a Bok player around the neck.
And Marx has some serious technique issues with his throwing.
31:50 Sixth Scrum - jersey is riding up a little, but plenty to grab. Problem seems to be Hames wants as long a bind as possible, instead of going for any available jersey space. Hoping to use his more compact arms to exert pressure
Can't help but think he'd be better off trying to get up on the back and using it for leverage.Anyway, Dreyer's feet are all over the shop, with his left (inside) boot waaaaay back pre-engage, and he overextends. Owens penalises him for angling down. And fair enough - got one of the strongest locks in the world behind you - don't need to stretch.
Another note: at 39:03 Cane wins a penalty for a turnover despite clearly landing on his elbows past the ball. Jeez Nige... he's got one hand on the fucking ground.
Anyway, that's how I saw the scrums in the first half. It was pretty even overall, with the Boks probably taking a points victory for that massive shove.
Excellent analysis! ABs really disintegrated in second scrum: kudos to Boks. Much better after Coles word to Nige (something like TH [getting] in). Thought Marx was popped in third scrum and Dreyer collapsed fourth.
Like you I thought Laulala looked under pressure in second (and third) scrums.
First half points to Boks.
In second, replacement TH not up to scratch. Three penalties in successive scrums (10/1/12) undermined Boks just when they were starting to compete elsewhere. Clear win for ABs. -
@pakman not surprising when you consider half the starting lineup for the Boks had never faced NZ before. The bench wasnt going to be much better.
As for the whole jersey bind thing: even though Hames bound the shorts, material effect is what the refs are looking for
-
@mimic said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Wow.. I am shocked that we are ahead by 20 wins..
It feels like not long ago that we were neck and neck.. still remember when people reported that the All Blacks finally had a winning record against all test nations..ABs getting awfully close to pulling level for test matches played in SA. Right now W-L record in the Republic is 22-25 w/ 3 draws. Let's hope they inch even closer after Cape Town...
-
@NTA said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@mimic well I'm not going back now - the commentary from Marshall made me nauseous enough.
Excellent analysis Nick. I echo your thoughts about the broadcast.
As a former pretty boy back with good hair, I was never interested in the set pieces and only used that opportunity to fix my hair, straighten my socks, make sure the jersey is immaculately tucked in, etc.
Also to make eye contact with the closest pretty girl.However, as I've matured and watched a whole shedload more of rugby, I have really enjoyed watching the set pieces as they really are the litmus test for how a team is going in any match... and that is difficult for a pretty boy back to admit.
Watching TV broadcasts out of NZ were always head and shoulders above others in terms of showing the game in detail, camera angles, focusing on the game itself.
But in recent years, the NZ broadcasts have fallen away somewhat. They have fallen into the trap of showing too much crowd or focusing on close ups on particular players and as you said, focusing on the backline when the real interest is what's happening with that scrum or lineout.
I think that Meg's commentary has had a lot to do with this as he is often talking over a scrum about how the backline is set or what the next backline move will be off the set piece and then the director/camera guys change the picture to show more what the backs are doing rather than focusing on the scrum.
It really pisses me off when we get a picture of SBW shaking or blowing into his hands rather than watch a scrum set. It seems the camera crews/directors really have a thing for SBW in particular as he get's more individual closeups than any other AB.
Now I have to go and wash my mouth out with soap... and then check my hair in the mirror as well while I'm at it
-
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Info about this game (which wasn't a test): http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/teamsheet.asp?MT_ID=1354
-
@roninwc said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@NTA said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@mimic well I'm not going back now - the commentary from Marshall made me nauseous enough.
Excellent analysis Nick. I echo your thoughts about the broadcast.
As a former pretty boy back with good hair, I was never interested in the set pieces and only used that opportunity to fix my hair, straighten my socks, make sure the jersey is immaculately tucked in, etc.
Also to make eye contact with the closest pretty girl.However, as I've matured and watched a whole shedload more of rugby, I have really enjoyed watching the set pieces as they really are the litmus test for how a team is going in any match... and that is difficult for a pretty boy back to admit.
Watching TV broadcasts out of NZ were always head and shoulders above others in terms of showing the game in detail, camera angles, focusing on the game itself.
But in recent years, the NZ broadcasts have fallen away somewhat. They have fallen into the trap of showing too much crowd or focusing on close ups on particular players and as you said, focusing on the backline when the real interest is what's happening with that scrum or lineout.
I think that Meg's commentary has had a lot to do with this as he is often talking over a scrum about how the backline is set or what the next backline move will be off the set piece and then the director/camera guys change the picture to show more what the backs are doing rather than focusing on the scrum.
It really pisses me off when we get a picture of SBW shaking or blowing into his hands rather than watch a scrum set. It seems the camera crews/directors really have a thing for SBW in particular as he get's more individual closeups than any other AB.
Now I have to go and wash my mouth out with soap... and then check my hair in the mirror as well while I'm at it
It's more the decision making from the producer that isn't in tune with the watcher. If the scrum or lineout is developing an interesting battle then you want to see what is going on there (without Marshall rabbitting on about something else). If they are pretty much restarts and the outcome is fairly certain then checking out the wide setup is great.
Either way, gag Marshall and the outcome is better. -
Saffer analysis w/ photos...
How All Blacks blanked Bok attack
[...]
[L]ook at how the All Blacks take out the first Bok support player.
First picture, Eben carry but Whitelock focus on taking supporter Franco out of the equation. Second one Beast carry and Crockett prevent Eben from sealing. Third is a All Black taking Dreyer out on his way to clean over Eben. These carries is very important to try and get the defence going backwards so that you can start to dictate, but the All Blacks very cleverly targets the support runners and then able to get over the ball and slow it down. Huge.
And it is kind of legal. [...]
More...
https://www.alloutrugby.com/how-all-blacks-blanked-bok-attack/
-
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
-
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
B/c it wasn't officially declared a Test match. The '49 Tour to SA had four Test matches; Rhodesia was none of them. (They played Rhodesia twice.) (Worst AB tour ever.) (British Lions used to regularly play Rhodesia on their SA tours as well, and those were not test matches either.)
-
@salacious-crumb said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Saffer analysis w/ photos...
How All Blacks blanked Bok attack
[...]
[L]ook at how the All Blacks take out the first Bok support player.
First picture, Eben carry but Whitelock focus on taking supporter Franco out of the equation. Second one Beast carry and Crockett prevent Eben from sealing. Third is a All Black taking Dreyer out on his way to clean over Eben. These carries is very important to try and get the defence going backwards so that you can start to dictate, but the All Blacks very cleverly targets the support runners and then able to get over the ball and slow it down. Huge.
And it is kind of legal. [...]
More...
https://www.alloutrugby.com/how-all-blacks-blanked-bok-attack/
No wonder SA rugby is terrible if normal play needs an analysis.
-
@crucial said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Either way, gag Marshall and the outcome is better.
Marshall was fluffing Albany and North Harbour for the incredible feat of getting 30,000 spectators from the greater Auckland region to turn out for an All Black test match against the Springboks. Truly amazing!!
A streaker running onto field for a time stoppage and those same supporters performing Mexican waves only made it better.
-
@salacious-crumb said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@pn said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@stargazer said in All Blacks vs Boks:
(which wasn't
Great researching abilities! Thanks for the link. How was this not a test though?
B/c it wasn't officially declared a Test match. The '49 Tour to SA had four Test matches; Rhodesia was none of them. (They played Rhodesia twice.) (Worst AB tour ever.) (British Lions used to regularly play Rhodesia on their SA tours as well, and those were not test matches either.)
I think Rhodesia was in the Currie Cup B competition so these were just touring matched and Rhodesian players were available for the Springboks during that era..
-
Pretty sure that Springbok Ian Robertson from 1976 tour represented Rhodesia. Maybe he was just from Rhodesia? He was a real prick.
Via RUGBY TALK
1976 All Blacks – Fourth test
[Excerpt]
[...]
There was 26 minutes left on the clock when the most controversial incident in this match that would ultimately also define this [1976] tour and series ensued. From within their own 10 meter area Going went left putting Bryan Williams in space. Williams chipped ahead and Kevin Eveleigh running up in support re-gather the ball. Eveleigh ran a few meters and inside the Springboks 10 meter area throw a long netball-like pass to Bruce Robertson at full tilt. Robertson chipped ahead, the ball bounced and sat-up neatly about 1 meter from the goal line. Robertson had a clear run to the ball with Springbok cover defense at all sorts to try and beat him to the ball. Just before Bruce Robertson could re-gather the ball Johan Oosthuizen (some sources reckon it was Ian Robertson) on cover defense held him just long enough around the shoulders for Peter Whipp to get to the ball first and dot it down. The All Blacks in person of Ian Kirkpatrick demanded a penalty try but referee Bezuidenhout only awarded a penalty. The International Law Book is quite specific: “A penalty try shall be awarded between the posts if, but for obstruction, foul play or misconduct by the defending team, a try would probably have been scored.”
Bezuidenhout maintained that he did not see the incident but the legitimate question by the All Blacks was why a penalty then and not a 5-meter scrum for Whipp carrying the ball over. In order to award a penalty he must have seen the incident.
Both Robertson’s (Bruce and Ian) was involved in another obstruction incident which according to the Kiwis should have been a penalty try as well. The other incident was in the first half and was nowhere as clear-cut as the one in the second half. Doug Bruce chipped ahead and Robertson following through nudged the ball over the tryline. Bruce Roberson had a clear run to the line with no Springbok close enough to beat him to the ball. Springbok fullback Ian Roberson coming from the right -also on his way to the ball- bumped into Bruce Robertson inside the Springboks 22-meter area throwing him off balance for several strides just long enough for Chris Pope to pass them both and win the race to the ball.
[...]
-
@salacious-crumb said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Pretty sure that Springbok Ian Robertson from 1976 tour represented Rhodesia. Maybe he was just from Rhodesia? He was a real prick.
Via RUGBY TALK
1976 All Blacks – Fourth test
[Excerpt]
[...]
There was 26 minutes left on the clock when the most controversial incident in this match that would ultimately also define this [1976] tour and series ensued. From within their own 10 meter area Going went left putting Bryan Williams in space. Williams chipped ahead and Kevin Eveleigh running up in support re-gather the ball. Eveleigh ran a few meters and inside the Springboks 10 meter area throw a long netball-like pass to Bruce Robertson at full tilt. Robertson chipped ahead, the ball bounced and sat-up neatly about 1 meter from the goal line. Robertson had a clear run to the ball with Springbok cover defense at all sorts to try and beat him to the ball. Just before Bruce Robertson could re-gather the ball Johan Oosthuizen (some sources reckon it was Ian Robertson) on cover defense held him just long enough around the shoulders for Peter Whipp to get to the ball first and dot it down. The All Blacks in person of Ian Kirkpatrick demanded a penalty try but referee Bezuidenhout only awarded a penalty. The International Law Book is quite specific: “A penalty try shall be awarded between the posts if, but for obstruction, foul play or misconduct by the defending team, a try would probably have been scored.”
Bezuidenhout maintained that he did not see the incident but the legitimate question by the All Blacks was why a penalty then and not a 5-meter scrum for Whipp carrying the ball over. In order to award a penalty he must have seen the incident.
Both Robertson’s (Bruce and Ian) was involved in another obstruction incident which according to the Kiwis should have been a penalty try as well. The other incident was in the first half and was nowhere as clear-cut as the one in the second half. Doug Bruce chipped ahead and Robertson following through nudged the ball over the tryline. Bruce Roberson had a clear run to the line with no Springbok close enough to beat him to the ball. Springbok fullback Ian Roberson coming from the right -also on his way to the ball- bumped into Bruce Robertson inside the Springboks 22-meter area throwing him off balance for several strides just long enough for Chris Pope to pass them both and win the race to the ball.
[...]
Need gifs.
Whinging about refereeing in the age before gifs took a lot more effort.
1976 All Blacks – Fourth test | Rugby-Talk.com