TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98)
-
@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.
-
This post is deleted!
-
-
@taniwharugby yeah it's more that it happens all the time, so that must be the official interpretation. Or refs are just shyte and can't police it, just like the off side line, esp a few out from the ruck
-
@Machpants said in TRC: The All Blacks against the Springboks (version 98):
yeah Franks is only there for the scrum, nothing else. But he was wank there today, so he should be gone. with fijita on, our replacement props sturggled, but they were better than the starters until then
Oddly Angus and Ofa looked good against starting Bok front row. But when shorter replacement Bok TH came on he managed to shear Ofa a couple of times, each time gaining penalties. IMO Ofa is NOT answer against best THs.
-
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.
In a WC year you really have to go with the latter. I'm really disappointed in the way RM played, not for the first time he has been found wanting when his team is on the back foot. I'd hoped he would step up after another fine SR campaign but he was very poor. I think he's too much of a risk - we are going to be under the pump like that three games in a row at the RWC and we just can't afford our 10 to shit the bed.
