Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November
-
@taniwharugby
On further viewing I don't think it was as bad as I initially thought, but more because he didn't land too badly. Still deserved a look though, was certainly worse than Taylor giving the Argie a front-on push for trying to stop us getting a quick tap. -
random thought, does anyone have a feel for the width of the pitch on the weekend
just after watching the game at eden park and then the test, it looked tiny, maybe because its normally a league pitch?
if true it really is an indictment of the coaches and tactics as anything, lack of ability to change that attack plan
-
@Kiwiwomble It might also account for the seemingly lack of space the week prior there too - Wallabies v Pumas.
-
@KiwiMurph how many tackles were dominant ?
-
@Kiwiwomble Not sure how they calculate the stats on "dominant" but it was clear when I watched the game again he used his strength effectively in defence - was definitely not passive.
-
@Stargazer said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@No-Quarter said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@Nevorian said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
I have just rewatched first half and feel like the RM critics must have watched a different game - assume it will all go to shit in the 2nd. Only bad judgement I could see was his cross kick to JB when he could have possibly created a three on two overlap with loads of space 20 out from the line
My thoughts too. It's like we have Mannix Mk 2 out there if you go by some of the comments.
RM is no Carter, but him and Barrett are the best we have and there is nobody else knocking on the door.
I actually think RM would go better without BB on the field and vise versa. Might force them to take control of the game, whereas at the moment for example if things start going awry BB slots in at first receiver and I don't think either player is that clear on their role.
I think it was Glen Jackson, who already said in his analysis on the Breakdown (last year) that BB was too dominant in the combo. He still played as a first five, while he should be the fullback in the combo. John Kirwan (I think) said something similar after Bled 1.
About two(?) weeks ago, Matson also said on the Breakdown that one of the things that negatively affected RM's game was that there wasn't enough communication. With the quick linespeed of the Aussies in Bled 4, RM had so little time to take decisions that his team mates should have communicated better where the space was and the threats were. The fullback must be the eyes of the 10 at the back; the wing must let him know better when he sees space in front of him; the midfielders should point out the threats. That didn't happen sufficiently.
In Crusaders games RM has a very good communicator at the back in Havili. In the ABs, the best communicator (and organiser) used to be Crotty. We always talk about how one of the midfielders needs to be the new Nonu; I think we need someone to step up and be the new Crotty (and the fullback that Ben Smith used to be). I still think that that could be BB, but it may require a change in mindset. And I hardly dare to say it on the Fern, but I also would like to see Havili back in black to see how he goes.
Really good points and it's another strong argument against playing players out of position. I doubt BB has a lot of experience playing that communicator role at the back when he's played all his rugby at 10. His instincts will be to get his hands on the ball, and when things go pear shaped he'll naturally do that more and more. It's really frustrating that everyone can see the issues with this tactic, but the coaches just blindly continue with it.
-
@No-Quarter said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@Stargazer said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@No-Quarter said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@Nevorian said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
I have just rewatched first half and feel like the RM critics must have watched a different game - assume it will all go to shit in the 2nd. Only bad judgement I could see was his cross kick to JB when he could have possibly created a three on two overlap with loads of space 20 out from the line
My thoughts too. It's like we have Mannix Mk 2 out there if you go by some of the comments.
RM is no Carter, but him and Barrett are the best we have and there is nobody else knocking on the door.
I actually think RM would go better without BB on the field and vise versa. Might force them to take control of the game, whereas at the moment for example if things start going awry BB slots in at first receiver and I don't think either player is that clear on their role.
I think it was Glen Jackson, who already said in his analysis on the Breakdown (last year) that BB was too dominant in the combo. He still played as a first five, while he should be the fullback in the combo. John Kirwan (I think) said something similar after Bled 1.
About two(?) weeks ago, Matson also said on the Breakdown that one of the things that negatively affected RM's game was that there wasn't enough communication. With the quick linespeed of the Aussies in Bled 4, RM had so little time to take decisions that his team mates should have communicated better where the space was and the threats were. The fullback must be the eyes of the 10 at the back; the wing must let him know better when he sees space in front of him; the midfielders should point out the threats. That didn't happen sufficiently.
In Crusaders games RM has a very good communicator at the back in Havili. In the ABs, the best communicator (and organiser) used to be Crotty. We always talk about how one of the midfielders needs to be the new Nonu; I think we need someone to step up and be the new Crotty (and the fullback that Ben Smith used to be). I still think that that could be BB, but it may require a change in mindset. And I hardly dare to say it on the Fern, but I also would like to see Havili back in black to see how he goes.
Really good points and it's another strong argument against playing players out of position. I doubt BB has a lot of experience playing that communicator role at the back when he's played all his rugby at 10. His instincts will be to get his hands on the ball, and when things go pear shaped he'll naturally do that more and more. It's really frustrating that everyone can see the issues with this tactic, but the coaches just blindly continue with it.
John Mitchell knew his shit, pure instinct players are a liability at the back.
suck it @Nepia
-
@KiwiMurph I only ask because frizell made 15 in bledisloe 1 and 6 lineout take and it was brushed of because they weren't "dominant"
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@KiwiMurph I only ask because frizell made 15 in bledisloe 1 and 6 lineout take and it was brushed of because they weren't "dominant"
jeez, i didn't even need satnav to see where that was going.
-
@Kiwiwomble I'm not sure they calculate "turnovers won" but Akira ripped the ball free twice in defence resulting in the ABs getting the ball and another tackle when tracking back forced a Puma knock on. That's certainly effective defence - 3 pieces of defence resulting in AB ball.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@Kiwiwomble I'm not sure they calculate "turnovers won" but Akira ripped the ball free twice in defence resulting in the ABs getting the ball and another tackle when tracking back forced a Puma knock on. That's certainly effective defence - 3 pieces of defence resulting in AB ball.
won a turnover penalty on our line too.
it was a beast of a game.
but, i have seen blindsides have stormers against Argentina before...
-
@Kiwiwomble I think the AB coaches will have access to the data of what they consider 'dominant' but as always, the trickle down of meaningful stats form rugby are limited.
-
@mariner4life don't get me wrong, thought he had a great game and happy for him to continue at 6, just trying to see the same standard used
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@mariner4life don't get me wrong, thought he had a great game and happy for him to continue at 6, just trying to see the same standard used
it is, and if you opened both your eyes you would see the difference.
-
@mariner4life ….didn't I just say he played great and should continue at 6?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Argentina Two: Newcastle, 28 November:
@mariner4life ….didn't I just say he played great and should continue at 6?
everything said before a "BUT" is meaningless
-
@mariner4life what "but"?
-
just because you didn't physically type it doesn't mean it's not there
-
