Springboks v All Blacks 2
-
@Crucial said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@stodders said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Jake White: The All Blacks are in uncharted territory
I’ll tell you a little story. When I was coach of the Springboks, after a particularly tough encounter against the All Blacks, I remember...
I found this comment interesting
The big advantage they have is really being shown with that 6-2 bench. Replacing the front row after 50 minutes gives them a real advantage. As a coach, I’d question that, because the laws were made for a 5-3 split. The lawmakers may need to think about enforcing that ruling. The way it's going, what’s to stop it being a 7-1 bench, if you get a forward who is really athletic and use him in the backs? It’s funny, if the lawmakers enforced a 6-2 split, guys would be saying, I want 5-3 split and three backs. We know what head coaches are like!
I had a look at WR and the Laws simply state 8 players and a separate statement around when 23 players selected there must be a total of 6 suitable front rowers. Nothing about the forward/back split.
Edit: I get what he is saying now. He means that a new law designating a 5/3 split should be in place as per the original intentions
I was interested too but no way will a coach like Foster stack the bench with forwards even though we have 1000 loosies that would probably play in our disjointed backline as well or better than some of the backs especially in the last 30 minutes.
-
@nostrildamus said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@Crucial said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@stodders said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Jake White: The All Blacks are in uncharted territory
I’ll tell you a little story. When I was coach of the Springboks, after a particularly tough encounter against the All Blacks, I remember...
I found this comment interesting
The big advantage they have is really being shown with that 6-2 bench. Replacing the front row after 50 minutes gives them a real advantage. As a coach, I’d question that, because the laws were made for a 5-3 split. The lawmakers may need to think about enforcing that ruling. The way it's going, what’s to stop it being a 7-1 bench, if you get a forward who is really athletic and use him in the backs? It’s funny, if the lawmakers enforced a 6-2 split, guys would be saying, I want 5-3 split and three backs. We know what head coaches are like!
I had a look at WR and the Laws simply state 8 players and a separate statement around when 23 players selected there must be a total of 6 suitable front rowers. Nothing about the forward/back split.
Edit: I get what he is saying now. He means that a new law designating a 5/3 split should be in place as per the original intentions
I was interested too but no way will a coach like Foster stack the bench with forwards even though we have 1000 loosies that would probably play in our disjointed backline as well or better than some of the backs especially in the last 30 minutes.
Bring Sotutu on and put Ardie in place of Havili. I like that.
-
@Crucial said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@nostrildamus said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@Crucial said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@stodders said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Jake White: The All Blacks are in uncharted territory
I’ll tell you a little story. When I was coach of the Springboks, after a particularly tough encounter against the All Blacks, I remember...
I found this comment interesting
The big advantage they have is really being shown with that 6-2 bench. Replacing the front row after 50 minutes gives them a real advantage. As a coach, I’d question that, because the laws were made for a 5-3 split. The lawmakers may need to think about enforcing that ruling. The way it's going, what’s to stop it being a 7-1 bench, if you get a forward who is really athletic and use him in the backs? It’s funny, if the lawmakers enforced a 6-2 split, guys would be saying, I want 5-3 split and three backs. We know what head coaches are like!
I had a look at WR and the Laws simply state 8 players and a separate statement around when 23 players selected there must be a total of 6 suitable front rowers. Nothing about the forward/back split.
Edit: I get what he is saying now. He means that a new law designating a 5/3 split should be in place as per the original intentions
I was interested too but no way will a coach like Foster stack the bench with forwards even though we have 1000 loosies that would probably play in our disjointed backline as well or better than some of the backs especially in the last 30 minutes.
Bring Sotutu on and put Ardie in place of Havili. I like that.
I know Ardie at 12 has been a running joke but I'd wager he'd do better than DH as the game runs into the final minutes..he wouldn't just crawl sideways into a tiny paper bag when a tackler approaches him at least...
-
@mariner4life said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
sadly that is a predictable if uninspiring set of selections. I didn't see us just rissoling the starting props. The locks weren't changing. I just fucking knew that Frizzell was getting the gig. The change at 10 was coming. No other backline changes were in the wind, despite them shitting the bed in a massive way last week.
I honestly can't be fucked going through all the ways i am disappointed, so let's get positive.
How does this 23 win the game?
Well, why did we lose the last one? Possession and territory. Why were they issues? Breakdown protection and catching high kicks. So, we cut down those two areas and the game already looks different. The breakdown might be the more difficult to solve as i believe it's structural as much as anything. But if we can catch our high kicks, and immediately turn the Boks around with the long boots at 14 and 15 (and even 10 this week) then the Boks need to find a different outlet for points.
We did cause the Boks issues when we played direct, and threw a few inside balls. More of that, and less having tight forwards thinking "pass first" rather than being gainline focused.
The Boks scored two tries all day, one from a lucky bounce from a contested kick, and one from a shitty dropped ball. Remember that, it should make us feel better about how we defended. It won't take us much to force them to look for points elsewhere. Then it is a different game.
If we do the same as we did last week, expect the same result. But two little areas on improvement will bring an enormously different game.
I've said this time and time again. We got reamed. Not doubt about it. But for two ridiculous mistakes, on the scoreboard, there wasn't much in it. As bad as we played, the two tries scored were really from errors I would say somewhat unforced. Well, one needed more protection and the other was at the death. For all that fire and brimstone, SA didn't offer much. We still would have lost and deservedly so but if we can cut down that error rate with one or two balls sticking or the bounce of the ball going our way (we need to make our own luck), we're really in the fight. I still expect us to lose but we are still and outside chance.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@mariner4life said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
sadly that is a predictable if uninspiring set of selections. I didn't see us just rissoling the starting props. The locks weren't changing. I just fucking knew that Frizzell was getting the gig. The change at 10 was coming. No other backline changes were in the wind, despite them shitting the bed in a massive way last week.
I honestly can't be fucked going through all the ways i am disappointed, so let's get positive.
How does this 23 win the game?
Well, why did we lose the last one? Possession and territory. Why were they issues? Breakdown protection and catching high kicks. So, we cut down those two areas and the game already looks different. The breakdown might be the more difficult to solve as i believe it's structural as much as anything. But if we can catch our high kicks, and immediately turn the Boks around with the long boots at 14 and 15 (and even 10 this week) then the Boks need to find a different outlet for points.
We did cause the Boks issues when we played direct, and threw a few inside balls. More of that, and less having tight forwards thinking "pass first" rather than being gainline focused.
The Boks scored two tries all day, one from a lucky bounce from a contested kick, and one from a shitty dropped ball. Remember that, it should make us feel better about how we defended. It won't take us much to force them to look for points elsewhere. Then it is a different game.
If we do the same as we did last week, expect the same result. But two little areas on improvement will bring an enormously different game.
I've said this time and time again. We got reamed. Not doubt about it. But for two ridiculous mistakes, on the scoreboard, there wasn't much in it. As bad as we played, the two tries scored were really from errors I would say somewhat unforced. Well, one needed more protection and the other was at the death. For all that fire and brimstone, SA didn't offer much. We still would have lost and deservedly so but if we can cut down that error rate with one or two balls sticking or the bounce of the ball going our way (we need to make our own luck), we're really in the fight. I still expect us to lose but we are still and outside chance.
It's a fools errand looking at things like the bounce of the ball. The facts are that South Africa were in complete control the entire game, and played as much as they needed to.
They simply didn't need to take any risks and backed their defence.
Yes the score blew out to a record margin late, but if anything, that scoreline was extremely flattering to the All Blacks.
-
@Kirwan said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Yes the score blew out to a record margin late, but if anything, that scoreline was extremely flattering to the All Blacks.
They butchered a few chances in the first half in particular.
Mind you, so did we at times.
-
@Kirwan said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@mariner4life said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
sadly that is a predictable if uninspiring set of selections. I didn't see us just rissoling the starting props. The locks weren't changing. I just fucking knew that Frizzell was getting the gig. The change at 10 was coming. No other backline changes were in the wind, despite them shitting the bed in a massive way last week.
I honestly can't be fucked going through all the ways i am disappointed, so let's get positive.
How does this 23 win the game?
Well, why did we lose the last one? Possession and territory. Why were they issues? Breakdown protection and catching high kicks. So, we cut down those two areas and the game already looks different. The breakdown might be the more difficult to solve as i believe it's structural as much as anything. But if we can catch our high kicks, and immediately turn the Boks around with the long boots at 14 and 15 (and even 10 this week) then the Boks need to find a different outlet for points.
We did cause the Boks issues when we played direct, and threw a few inside balls. More of that, and less having tight forwards thinking "pass first" rather than being gainline focused.
The Boks scored two tries all day, one from a lucky bounce from a contested kick, and one from a shitty dropped ball. Remember that, it should make us feel better about how we defended. It won't take us much to force them to look for points elsewhere. Then it is a different game.
If we do the same as we did last week, expect the same result. But two little areas on improvement will bring an enormously different game.
I've said this time and time again. We got reamed. Not doubt about it. But for two ridiculous mistakes, on the scoreboard, there wasn't much in it. As bad as we played, the two tries scored were really from errors I would say somewhat unforced. Well, one needed more protection and the other was at the death. For all that fire and brimstone, SA didn't offer much. We still would have lost and deservedly so but if we can cut down that error rate with one or two balls sticking or the bounce of the ball going our way (we need to make our own luck), we're really in the fight. I still expect us to lose but we are still and outside chance.
It's a fools errand looking at things like the bounce of the ball. The facts are that South Africa were in complete control the entire game, and played as much as they needed to.
They simply didn't need to take any risks and backed their defence.
Yes the score blew out to a record margin late, but if anything, that scoreline was extremely flattering to the All Blacks.
I believe you are always a chance against the Boks if you can do what @mariner4life outlined, because of the way they play. They played very similar to that against Wales and that was a close series.
Problem with last weekend for me was that I didn’t get the sense that we could do the right things for long enough periods to turn it around.
Hope this week is different.
-
I’ve been watching the ABs since 87. This is the very first time I have us as firm underdogs.
The selecting is hopeless at the moment. We keep making changes on the fringes, liking dropping Reece or rotating props, and refuse to make the calls that matter.
Its also the very first time I almost hope we lose, so this nightmare can be over.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
I’ve been watching the ABs since 87. This is the very first time I have us as firm underdogs.
The selecting is hopeless at the moment. We keep making changes on the fringes, liking dropping Reece or rotating props, and refuse to make the calls that matter.
Its also the very first time I almost hope we lose, so this nightmare can be over.
I finally know how Australian supporters have been feeling for the last 20 years.
-
So I have gone and booked myself into a hotel with no Sky TV. Any chance this game is on free to air in NZ?
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
So I have gone and booked myself into a hotel with no Sky TV. Any chance this game is on free to air in NZ?
where are you staying, 1992?
-
@Crazy-Horse yes, Sunday 2pm on prime...
-
@mariner4life said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
@Crazy-Horse said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
So I have gone and booked myself into a hotel with no Sky TV. Any chance this game is on free to air in NZ?
where are you staying, 1992?
A new place in Frankston Queenstown. Amazing they don't have it.
-
-
@stodders said in Springboks v All Blacks 2:
Richie and David to the Boks:
the only way "You Shall Not Pass" will happen is if someone steals the Boks' prunes before the match.
-
Which of the current AB tighthead props is better than Franks as a scrummager?
-
loved the quote about the Allblacks having 8 forwards told to express themselves and players with nice boots, nice haircuts and nice tattoos.
We have come a long way from Hayman, Brad Thorn, the Franks brothers et al.
"Head down, arse up" rugby players.
We have a load of sunshine boys in the team.
