TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98)
-
@98blueandgold hopefully we see some of the tight forwards used against Australia, running at Pocock if he is back.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Who could have been better in that 91 team? I just think they weren't good enough and that coaching bullshit didn't help.
Tight 5 was solid enough. M Jones absent because he didn't play on Sunday so nothing to be done there. Maybe AJ Whetton could have been replaced, but Zinzan was there over Buck.
Backline was best 9, best 10 (albeit injured and no proper backup - Mannix lol), Bernie M was ordinary at 12 but Johnny the Shoe had gone to league (bastard), best 13 (Innes), best wingers (Kirwan and Timu - maybe Inga but he was still raw as f) and best available FB due to Gallagher and Ridge pissing off to League and Wright being injured.
The biggest problem now imho is not old players but tactics and combinations. Foster's backline has been pants for ages (when did they last execute a decent set piece move) and the error rate and discipline have been terrible. I think the team that went out last night is good enough to win the RWC (and of course adding Cane, Ardie and Laumape) but not if they play like that.
I'm not going to argue who was better in 1991, because it will just bog down into an argument over individuals. What we heard at the time was their experience was irreplaceable. So we played a game plan to suit them, and it didn't work. We could have played an different game plan, but we would have had to have had different players selected from well before the Cup squad came round. The next year things when the irreplaceable old ones were replaced, the replacements were noticeably better.
We're hearing exactly the same things again. Have faith. Experience is key. Player X will come right. They've got something up their sleeves.
I think the ABs are still the most likely side to win the Cup, but my faith that they will do it is down to about 40% chance. Last time I rated it about 80%. To a large extent it will depend on injuries -- we get better if SBW breaks, for example, but worse if Coles does.
-
The ABs have been together as a group (that's including all Crusaders who played the SR Final) only for a week. One day in the week leading up to the trip to Argentina, and then after their return to NZ. That week will have included one rest day, as well. I would have been highly surprised if all combinations had worked well in this first test with all players available (except Scott Barrett and Ryan Crotty), esp if they had several new structures to learn.
-
@Chester-Draws said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Who could have been better in that 91 team? I just think they weren't good enough and that coaching bullshit didn't help.
Tight 5 was solid enough. M Jones absent because he didn't play on Sunday so nothing to be done there. Maybe AJ Whetton could have been replaced, but Zinzan was there over Buck.
Backline was best 9, best 10 (albeit injured and no proper backup - Mannix lol), Bernie M was ordinary at 12 but Johnny the Shoe had gone to league (bastard), best 13 (Innes), best wingers (Kirwan and Timu - maybe Inga but he was still raw as f) and best available FB due to Gallagher and Ridge pissing off to League and Wright being injured.
The biggest problem now imho is not old players but tactics and combinations. Foster's backline has been pants for ages (when did they last execute a decent set piece move) and the error rate and discipline have been terrible. I think the team that went out last night is good enough to win the RWC (and of course adding Cane, Ardie and Laumape) but not if they play like that.
I'm not going to argue who was better in 1991, because it will just bog down into an argument over individuals. What we heard at the time was their experience was irreplaceable. So we played a game plan to suit them, and it didn't work. We could have played an different game plan, but we would have had to have had different players selected from well before the Cup squad came round. The next year things when the irreplaceable old ones were replaced, the replacements were noticeably better.
We're hearing exactly the same things again. Have faith. Experience is key. Player X will come right. They've got something up their sleeves.
I think the ABs are still the most likely side to win the Cup, but my faith that they will do it is down to about 40% chance. Last time I rated it about 80%. To a large extent it will depend on injuries -- we get better if SBW breaks, for example, but worse if Coles does.
I just don't think the cattle was available and we probably would have lost to Aus regardless. The following year involved a lot of chopping and changing until the side for the Aus tour was settled. Even then I'm not sure the guys selected in 92 would have made a big difference or even been good enough in 91. Walter Little is perhaps one who should have been there, but we would have still lost. Ironically, if Ireland had held on in that QF we probably would have won the thing.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel I think we could have won against Oz if the game was on a Saturday and MJ was playing ... Kirwan was making breaks all the time in that match but didn’t have the support inside from MJ or outside at fullback ... Timu being played there might have helped. Anyway, that Sunday was the day I knew that god doesn’t exist.
Not taking Brewer on a technicality was stupid, as good as AJ was in 87, Brewer was better by 1991.
But yeah, crazy to think we probably would have won if the Irish had held out.
-
@Nepia said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@Rancid-Schnitzel I think we could have won against Oz if the game was on a Saturday and MJ was playing ... Kirwan was making breaks all the time in that match but didn’t have the support inside from MJ or outside at fullback ... Timu being played there might have helped. Anyway, that Sunday was the day I knew that god doesn’t exist.
Not taking Brewer on a technicality was stupid, as good as AJ was in 87, Brewer was better by 1991.
But yeah, crazy to think we probably would have won if the Irish had held out.
Botica, Schuster and Ridge/Gallagher would have made a huge difference as well.
-
@nzzp said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@No-Quarter said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Right now Beauden is clearly our best 10 and 15.
If we play him at 15, we have to start a rookie at 10.
If we play him at 10, we start one of our most experienced players at 15.
... and our experienced 15 isc oming back from a leg injury. Fitness and pace will come back as he gets mroe training time.
Also a comment for the Read/Cane/Savea combo. Great aroudn the park, but leaves us only three lineout options. Three is probably not enough against a top side, they'll read it too easily. Our defensive lineout steals have become a weapon over the last fwe years, and that by itself will take a step down if BBBR isn't there.
Four. Two x locks, Read, Savea. And that's not a tall joke.
-
@booboo said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@nzzp said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@No-Quarter said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Right now Beauden is clearly our best 10 and 15.
If we play him at 15, we have to start a rookie at 10.
If we play him at 10, we start one of our most experienced players at 15.
... and our experienced 15 isc oming back from a leg injury. Fitness and pace will come back as he gets mroe training time.
Also a comment for the Read/Cane/Savea combo. Great aroudn the park, but leaves us only three lineout options. Three is probably not enough against a top side, they'll read it too easily. Our defensive lineout steals have become a weapon over the last fwe years, and that by itself will take a step down if BBBR isn't there.
Four. Two x locks, Read, Savea. And that's not a tall joke.
Yep, Ardie is often used by the Canes in the lineout.
-
-
@akan004 said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Listened to today's PC. The good news is they won't be taking SBW to Australia, the bad news is that Hansen thinks Frizell played well.
Playing for Counties apparently. Look I'm no selectorial expert but surely a game against Australia would serve him better than off loading and shoulder charging a bunch of potential part timers ?
-
-
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@booboo said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Four. Two x locks, Read, Savea. And that's not a tall joke.
Yep, Ardie is often used by the Canes in the lineout.
Cane is used for the Chiefs as well.
Usually it's Read and Whitelock as the main targets but BBBR and Frizell were used more often than Whitelock.
-
@MN5 said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@akan004 said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@MN5 Agreed. I meant it was good news for ALB and/or Laumape. This gives them another chance to impress.
He may as well not even bother cos he won't be going to the WC.
True, although the chances of SBW breaking between now and the start of the WC would be pretty high.
-
@booboo said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@nzzp said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@No-Quarter said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Right now Beauden is clearly our best 10 and 15.
If we play him at 15, we have to start a rookie at 10.
If we play him at 10, we start one of our most experienced players at 15.
... and our experienced 15 isc oming back from a leg injury. Fitness and pace will come back as he gets mroe training time.
Also a comment for the Read/Cane/Savea combo. Great aroudn the park, but leaves us only three lineout options. Three is probably not enough against a top side, they'll read it too easily. Our defensive lineout steals have become a weapon over the last fwe years, and that by itself will take a step down if BBBR isn't there.
Four. Two x locks, Read, Savea. And that's not a tall joke.
Only in the same way that we used to think Rodders, Richie and Jerry weren't bad line-out options, while we wondered why Mealamu and Hore couldn't throw into lineouts. Our hookers became a lot better at it when Kaino and Read came on the scene.
Ardie is a free throw to Pieter Steph du Toit (or Vermuelen) all day - big part of the reason why Hansen was ruling out pairing him with Cane (though he may yet have to renege on that).
-
@akan004 said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Listened to today's PC. The good news is they won't be taking SBW to Australia, the bad news is that Hansen thinks Frizell played well.
And I agree with him. He hoovered up line out ball in the first half and was more prominent in the 2nd. He defended well. It was a 7/10 from me compared to 3/10 from Fafita the week before.
Not convinced he’s the answer but he wasn’t hopeless.
-
In other news, plumbers made an emergency call out last night to a local residence for sewerage overflow. The workers weren’t giving anything away, but a neighbour reported it was the Hansen residence and the problem stemmed from flushing the dunny one too many times.
-
So the All Blacks are usually burnt out by November, and also 'always start the season with rust'. We must be due for some exciting rugby in the middle then...
As for the 1991 parallels, let's hope no-one has a David Campese to run around the entire backline!
-
@Rapido said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
I though Moouga was good after shaky start.
Actually one of the few bright spots for me.
Dark spots are forward grunt lacking, tactics, some selections, and just getting old. Oh, and shit skills for entire first half .... and shit game management while such shit skills were putting us under pressure.
I thought our forwards looked much better after Angus and Ofa came on. The ability of those two with ball in hand (and in Ofa's case when he doesn't drop it) and in defence went a long way to us looking much more dynamic in attack in the 2nd half.
While Frizell went ok, better in the 2nd half, he still had minimal impact for such a unit.
Yes, he actually did quite a lot in that match (particularly in the 2nd half) but didn't do any of it with any real force. Maybe he's too nice a guy?
That said, I don't think selection issues does anything to deal with the real problem, which is dealing with the rush defence.
It appeared to me that we set-up our attack much differently to what we did last week against Argie, who also employ the rush D. Our runners seemd much more one-out, whereas against Argie, we ran in two-man pods and sent a lot of balls behind the decoy runners close to the ruck. (Someone posted a rugbypass article highlighting the new set-up in the Argie match - I wonder if they'll do something similar for this match.)
