TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98)
-
I know a lot of the criticism has been on the ABs inability to cope with the rush defence but the onus needs to go on the forwards to provide front-foot ball and be direct so the backs have a platform to work from. If the opposition are retreating they can't rush up as quickly, and the speed of the pass will always beat the man. Cron needs to earn his money.
Losing BBBR is huge in this regard because he, along with Moody, are the only members of the tight 5 who are effective as ball-carriers. Even Aust gets more from their props and locks than we do. Taylor/Coles are link players.
They tried to use Frizell in those wider channels but not enough to make a difference. Ardie was really missed.
-
@Bovidae said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
I know a lot of the criticism has been on the ABs inability to cope with the rush defence but the onus needs to go on the forwards to provide front-foot ball and be direct so the backs have a platform to work from. If the opposition are retreating they can't rush up as quickly, and the speed of the pass will always beat the man. Cron needs to earn his money.
They did make some inroads and when they kept it tight and hit in and around the ruck, they got space out wide. Poor execution rather than tactics hurt us tonight.
One thing is that without a pre RC hit out test, we have looked poor two weeks in a row.
-
The last 20 minutes today were all set up for a McKenzie cameo off the bench. He has holes in his game but he could have been a rwc game turner off the bench.
For all the doom and gloom the ABs defence has been generally very good these last 2 weeks.
-
@Kirwan said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
@kev said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
To win the World Cup you need a squad. No problem with selections. But have to have your best goal kicker kicking. Dumb.
Got to pick the best ten first. Was notable how much BB played at ten in the second half and how much better the backline looked when he did.
Richie is a big step down at 10.
In fact BOTH BB and Ritchie looked better at 10 than RM did in first half. For much of that Smith on, and his pass delivers more time. Faf off and AB forward giving faster ball, which could also be factors.
BB came in to 10 more, but RM's passing started to yield results, in particluar when ALB at 12.
Thought Smith/RM/ALB in fact looked good.
-
@98blueandgold said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
What I like about Mounga and ALB (and Coles) against rush D is they use footwork so you can’t get a good shot on them. Mounga fir me helped us get some momentum through his runs where as Barrett just runs hard and straight which often gets nullified by massive forwards. Noticed a change in A Smiths game as well, was running across 2-3 steps to hold rush then hitting first reciever which was having a lot of success. Worth persevering.
Glad you posted this. FWIIW my biggest take on 12 was that Boks could defend direct 'power' charges all day long. On comes ALB with a pause, a feint and a shuffle and it was 'open sesame'.
-
-
@booboo said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
We never win when I don't watch.
Known as "The Curse of the Meldrews" in these parts.
-
@pakman said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
BB came in to 10 more, but RM's passing started to yield results, in particluar when ALB at 12.
Like the Cane/Ardie conundrum at 7 , I'm more than happy with a Aaron/TJP conundrum at 9. Good problem to have those sort of selection dilemma
Thought Smith/RM/ALB in fact looked good.
I remember both Dan C & Conrad pointing out that Nonu's communication and vision helped them enormously. Was certainly vocal for the Chiefs.
Perhaps ALB is just bloody good at this while SBW isn't.
-
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.
-
Dont expect us to play as rough again as we were in that first half. Just shit all round which made fighting rush D even tougher. But for such a poor half we got to halftime with our noses in front.
Having AS start to have the dropsies occuring faster wouldn't have helped and TJP made some big plays.
We had a better flow across that park in the second half, AS pass speed let us ramp that up and passes were sticking.
Thought our sub front row were good on D and in the loose, couple of wobbly scrums though.Guzzler is a huge loss fingers crossed he can make it back.
Read... has really fallen away. 6 or bust now imo.We got caught twice out wide with our wingers or outside defender being totally out of position. Bridge made a mare of that last play.
Plenty to work on, bring on Oz!!
-
So 2 tries in 160 minutes.
Conceded 2 tries, both from kicks that we could have and should have fielded.
Our general defence seems good, but there is no penetration anywhere.
Yes this rush defence is an issue but even 8 or 9 phases deep when the defence is being reorganised over and over we are making no ground, with players who we know can bend a line.
Obviously the SA defence was staunch too, and there in lies the issue, we usually find ways to break down defences, make line breaks and more importantly, finish them.
Obviously no BBBR is a huge, huge loss, have yo think SB will slot in, I think Hemepo needs to be bench lock, probably 6 cover too.
While Frizell went ok, better in the 2nd half, he still had minimal impact for such a unit.
Have to think Hansen and co must be open to reconsider their previous stance around not playing Cane/Ardie as think seems clear to most as the best option given Read is a lock at 8.
That said, I don't think selection issues does anything to deal with the real problem, which is dealing with the rush defence.
SA targeted SBW, who they obviously see as our backline key to unlocking the rush d too.
SBW looked like a guy that hadn't played for 6 months, and has he ever played outside RM before...I know we are in the trial and error phase but these ain't friendlies and sacrificing a test win to iron out combos ain't on.
Any who, I can see what they are trying to achieve, however I think for them to achieve anything they need to be putting out the same players to build combinations, but what will we see v Aus?
-
@Paekakboyz said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Thought our sub front row were good on D and in the loose, couple of wobbly scrums though.
First scrum was dominant with BBBR still at lock but the scrum noticeably depowered once Fifita was playing there.
-
@Jaguares4real said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
Clearout was fine
First time I've seen the vision.
You have an interesting idea about what constitutes "fine". Cleanout was the very definition of illegal.
-
@Machpants pretty wide gate...
-
Yeah but nothing out of the ordinary. According to the laws
An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.
A player may join alongside but not in front of the hindmost player.
A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
That's it, the grinning giant was fine for me. Dozens of joins like that every game
-
@Machpants agree to disagree (about him being ok, but agree it happens all the tIme and is pinged as much as not)
Any how, irrelevant in the discussion of why we struggled in this game, is cos he was injured it is getting more attention.
