Bledisloe II
-
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
-
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
Not at the start but he worked on these things and became very good. Regardless, even early career McCaw made more yards and did more with ball in hand than Pocock. It's not a valid comparison.
-
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
I'm not sure what your point is, but he was a much better player than Pocock is.
-
@billy-tell said in Bledisloe II:
@shark said in Bledisloe II:
Plenty of people saw it in Nonu. The problem was he was a spare part from 2003 until after RWC 2007. As mentioned, he had serious competition for the 12 jersey when Mauger and McAlister were around - and prior to that, Tana also - but once he was given a few opportunities at 12 he flourished quickly and his game developed rapidly. I don't see that early level of flourishment or development in the 12 jersey at the top level in Laumape's game and therefore I don't see him kicking on.
What a load of crap. Laumape is only 2nd season Super Rugby if I’m not mistaken. Once again it’s flavour of the month to diss him. Tuipolotou and Saiili were extremely average ABs.
3rd season, as someone said, and wholly at 12 I think. I'd be very surprised if he's had any less time in the 12 jersey at all levels than Nonu had before Nonu settled in.
It's the Nonu at 12 vs Laumape comparison that's relevant.
-
@shark said in Bledisloe II:
@billy-tell said in Bledisloe II:
@shark said in Bledisloe II:
Plenty of people saw it in Nonu. The problem was he was a spare part from 2003 until after RWC 2007. As mentioned, he had serious competition for the 12 jersey when Mauger and McAlister were around - and prior to that, Tana also - but once he was given a few opportunities at 12 he flourished quickly and his game developed rapidly. I don't see that early level of flourishment or development in the 12 jersey at the top level in Laumape's game and therefore I don't see him kicking on.
What a load of crap. Laumape is only 2nd season Super Rugby if I’m not mistaken. Once again it’s flavour of the month to diss him. Tuipolotou and Saiili were extremely average ABs.
3rd season, as someone said, and wholly at 12 I think. I'd be very surprised if he's had any less time in the 12 jersey at all levels than Nonu had before Nonu settled in.
It's the Nonu at 12 vs Laumape comparison that's relevant.
Not really just the at 12, Nonu matured as a player as he got older, his game developed and that was irrelevant to the position he played, he likely would have become a great centre if we didn't already have one there.
This discussion has all gone a bit weird, Laumape has been one of the best midfielders in NZ for the past few years. Is he at Nonu level, no, no midfielder playing in NZ currently is, even Crotty doesn't come close.
I also think a myth is developing that Laumape is only crash and bash but again that's not true.
Will Laumpae develop to be as good as Nonu, probably not, but he's still got some development in him. Nonu was playing Super Rugby for 6 years (and nearly 20 test matches) before he became the Nonu we all love.
-
I just don't see the Wallabies being that bad the week after. The lineout is solvable and even if you lose a couple, try something else... The scrum will be bolstered with Sio back and Tupou on the bench. A couple of sessions on running lines and catch-pass for the backs. Hey presto, they're competitive.
-
@antipodean said in Bledisloe II:
I just don't see the Wallabies being that bad the week after. The lineout is solvable and even if you lose a couple, try something else... The scrum will be bolstered with Sio back and Tupou on the bench. A couple of sessions on running lines and catch-pass for the backs. Hey presto, they're competitive.
They were damn good for the first half. Aggressive hard defence, straight running. On a different night with a different ref, you're looking at a healthy half time lead.
I keep saying it; ther'es not much between these sides at the top level. I don't think the Wobbles will be as bad at set piece, and I reckon supporters should be heartened by the non-set piece effort last week.
-
@nzzp I guess it also depends on how out of sorts we were in that first half too. We're we average because things weren't quite clicking or because of Oz pressure? I think we'll go up a gear also but like you say I don't think there's that much between the two teams.
-
@nzzp said in Bledisloe II:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe II:
I just don't see the Wallabies being that bad the week after. The lineout is solvable and even if you lose a couple, try something else... The scrum will be bolstered with Sio back and Tupou on the bench. A couple of sessions on running lines and catch-pass for the backs. Hey presto, they're competitive.
They were damn good for the first half. Aggressive hard defence, straight running. On a different night with a different ref, you're looking at a healthy half time lead.
I keep saying it; ther'es not much between these sides at the top level. I don't think the Wobbles will be as bad at set piece, and I reckon supporters should be heartened by the non-set piece effort last week.
All true but they don't have the heart and lungs to do it for 80. They were absolutely gone after 35 minutes. The ABs blew several opportunities in the first half as well and also lost line outs. I agree that it's a decent Aus team, but Cheika is just a shit coach.
-
@rancid-schnitzel is he though? Granted he comes across as a bit of a dick, but is he that bad?
Am sure there has been analysis done elsewhere, but what are his results like vs anyone but NZ compared to previous coaches?
Thier super rugby teams are a bit shit, how is he supposed to magically turn those same players into a team to beat the best in the world? Would any other coach do any better?
-
@taniwharugby said in Bledisloe II:
Thier super rugby teams are a bit shit, how is he supposed to magically turn those same players into a team to beat the best in the world? Would any other coach do any better?
That's the question I ask of people who want him gone based on results. Who are you going to replace him with?
-
@taniwharugby said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel is he though? Granted he comes across as a bit of a dick, but is he that bad?
Am sure there has been analysis done elsewhere, but what are his results like vs anyone but NZ compared to previous coaches?
Thier super rugby teams are a bit shit, how is he supposed to magically turn those same players into a team to beat the best in the world? Would any other coach do any better?
Like I said, I think they have the cattle but they aren't playing with the right game plan. Getting them all worked up and going nuts early on is a recipe for disaster. You simply can't sustain that against the ABs unless you're lucky enough to pile on a huge number of early points then ride it out.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@taniwharugby said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel is he though? Granted he comes across as a bit of a dick, but is he that bad?
Am sure there has been analysis done elsewhere, but what are his results like vs anyone but NZ compared to previous coaches?
Thier super rugby teams are a bit shit, how is he supposed to magically turn those same players into a team to beat the best in the world? Would any other coach do any better?
Like I said, I think they have the cattle but they aren't playing with the right game plan. Getting them all worked up and going nuts early on is a recipe for disaster. You simply can't sustain that against the ABs unless you're lucky enough to pile on a huge number of early points then ride it out.
How did they know they couldn’t match the ABs for intensity for 80 unless they try it. They had good intensity last year and were decent in tests 2 and 3.
I think their backline is very average. Beale is a genuine threat in attack and Folau can do some things but other than that they are rudderless at 10 and the others are easily handled. That I admit is a lack of class and coaching.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@nzzp said in Bledisloe II:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe II:
I just don't see the Wallabies being that bad the week after. The lineout is solvable and even if you lose a couple, try something else... The scrum will be bolstered with Sio back and Tupou on the bench. A couple of sessions on running lines and catch-pass for the backs. Hey presto, they're competitive.
They were damn good for the first half. Aggressive hard defence, straight running. On a different night with a different ref, you're looking at a healthy half time lead.
I keep saying it; ther'es not much between these sides at the top level. I don't think the Wobbles will be as bad at set piece, and I reckon supporters should be heartened by the non-set piece effort last week.
All true but they don't have the heart and lungs to do it for 80. They were absolutely gone after 35 minutes. The ABs blew several opportunities in the first half as well and also lost line outs. I agree that it's a decent Aus team, but Cheika is just a shit coach.
This can be easily fixed if they amend their game plan to slow the game down in certain areas. They were trying to play at pace when they didn't have the fitness to last the full 80. Losing Tongan Thor was a huge loss.
-
@act-crusader said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@taniwharugby said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel is he though? Granted he comes across as a bit of a dick, but is he that bad?
Am sure there has been analysis done elsewhere, but what are his results like vs anyone but NZ compared to previous coaches?
Thier super rugby teams are a bit shit, how is he supposed to magically turn those same players into a team to beat the best in the world? Would any other coach do any better?
Like I said, I think they have the cattle but they aren't playing with the right game plan. Getting them all worked up and going nuts early on is a recipe for disaster. You simply can't sustain that against the ABs unless you're lucky enough to pile on a huge number of early points then ride it out.
How did they know they couldn’t match the ABs for intensity for 80 unless they try it. They had good intensity last year and were decent in tests 2 and 3.
I think their backline is very average. Beale is a genuine threat in attack and Folau can do some things but other than that they are rudderless at 10 and the others are easily handled. That I admit is a lack of class and coaching.
Yeah but last year was a bit strange. The ABs were focussing on the Lions and were really quite hopeless in the final test.
I don't think the backline is bad at all. Plenty of attacking weapons there.
-
@act-crusader not sure lack of class in the backline is linked to Chieka's coaching....he is picking what he thinks is the best options available...the players are class players or they arent, regardless of what Chieka does.
image url)
