All Blacks v Pumas 1
-
@broughie said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Victor-Meldrew I don't know about over the top. There were some good things that appeared to be happening. Although maybe the Boks really are not that good which made our second test result look even better. The Boks looked horrible yesterday. I think the first half for us was good and we stuck to a plan. This went out the window in the second half for some reason.
We beat the Boks in the second test largely due to fitness. They used 4 subs in the first half, effectively ruining their "bomb squad" approach and the forced back line sub early in the game messed up their defensive structure giving the All Blacks attack more impact. And with that combination, South Africa ran out of gas in the second after running us VERY close.
From a South African perspective, giving Duane and Dweba game time backfired badly as they contributed very little but that was down to giving them game time and managing Marx game time for the larger 2022 campaign.
I'm not suggesting SA threw the game to keep Foster safe, but they were heavily impacted by Kriels injury and two individuals performance.
-
@kiwiinmelb said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Yeah strange game , at halftime while I didn’t think we were great , I thought we were tracking ok ,
Could see new things I thought were the new coaches at work , and thought that was a bit satisfying
Then fucked if I know what happened second half , we went back to the shambles that more resembled the season so far .
Yeah - unfortunately for Fozzie he already used the "signs of improvement" line after Boks 1, when I didn't think there were.
Last night I thought we were looking significantly better in the first half and at 15-3 it was looking like being the comfortable victory I was expecting. I don't think Fozzie would be well-advised to use "coach-killers" to describe the penalties around halftime, but that's what they were. And then conceding a soft try...
Really, with the possession, territory, scrum dominance, running metres we had - we should have been able to put that game away pretty comfortably. But the Pumas made us work hard to progress inside their 22, and once we had we repeatedly fucked it up - one way or another.
The Argies defended well, kicked from hand effectively, and Boufelli punished us like Don Clarke did the Lions many years ago - but they didn't offer much on attack and in the end, didn't need to.
Hard not to think that yet another trick missed, in Fozzie's reset, was not sacking Sammy C. along with Plumtree and Mooar. Ardie at 7 and Sotutu at 8 seem like they'd offer more.
I guess running out the Crusaders front row together "seemed like a good idea at the time", but it seemed very early and as many others have noted, we should have been getting more miles out of Sami and far fewer out of Codie.
One thing Fozzie is right about, though, is that we do need a fair bit of stability in a crisis. Seems like the Fern collectively has proposed dropping just about everyone. What's that Warriors line about a matter of faith?
-
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
One thing Fozzie is right about, though, is that we do need a fair bit of stability in a crisis. Seems like the Fern collectively has proposed dropping just about everyone. What's that Warriors line about a matter of faith?
Well, for the first time in ages we were able to run out the same squad two games running. Didn't help. Should we keep doing it until it does?
Most Ferners don't want a lot of personnel changes. Like many, I want Reiko on the wing and Ardie at openside but not many actually dropped -- Cane and reserve hookers mostly. A few swaps of starters, Havili out and RTS and Tupea in.
Until the coaching set up realise that they have a major problem, and that it requires major fixes, we are screwed. So I think he is entirely wrong to want stability.
-
@Steve said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Well, before the match I said Argentine were a good side playing well and I'd be happy with a good, solid win. One out of three would have been good...
The whole team started well and there were some good touches and progress (I liked the way we kept it simple to try and regain momentum) but as the game went on, the same old problems we've seen for the last 5-6 years came into the foreground - stupid mistakes by senior players, lack of patience and a creeping collective terror of minimal time left to win the game.
Without re-watching the game, it seemed to me that apart from the scrums and a maul or two, the forwards went backwards from last week. The breakdown work was ineffective and the discipline was poor. Taylor was truly awful though the lineout jumpers and captain deserve some of the blame as well, as the co-ordination was poor - particularly on the last AB lineout throw. The swapping of the front row was dumb or mis-timed, but the elephant in the room was how poor the replacements actually were at the breakdown. They are all Crusaders so used to working together so you have to question their preparation for the game.
Jordie made metres on attack but that was about it, Clarke and Jordan never really hit their straps and Reiko was a shadow of his Ellis Park self. Mo'unga was pretty awful at times and looked to have the yips with the boot. Havili was solid without being spectacular. The whole attack looked slow, one-dimensional and lacking in penetration. Yet no-one played badly - it was either a poor attack plan and/or poor analysis of Argentinian defence.
Buggered if I know what the problems are, but it's pretty dumb to blame it all on Foster. Last week it was all about Jason Ryan getting credit for the forwards improvement and this week they seem to have regressed. Ditto Joe Schmidt on attack and analysis. I do, however, question the effectiveness of the AB leadership group. Are they too powerful? Are they seeing the on-field issues as they occur and addressing them or do they get the collective yips?
My preferred solution after the Ireland fiasco was to sack Foster and replace him (either Schmidt or Robertson or ANO) and give the new bloke 8-9 games to demonstrate improvement and, if not, then a full scale review after the EOYT to see what the issues really are to fix what can be fixed before RWC2023. It seemed to me the best mix of possible progress and risk management. Sadly, the first part of that ship has sailed, but there's still the option for the second bit.
The clusterfuck of omnishambles
I had a two and fro with Bones in the Ellis park thread regarding RIeko. For all his good scramble last week it was arguable he was out of position for most of his tackles. HIs wheels got him out of trouble. He is not a centre. It's plain to see from my barstool. Clarke and Jordan are getting served up a load of slop.
Put Rieko on the left wing and leave him there to break Howletts record.
Look at these highlights and look at the Ioane we are utilising now.
Caleb doesn't have the toe to go 60 meters.
I agree he's no centre, but the guy claiming Sam Cane is the worst player in history and should drop himself told me off.
-
@Chester-Draws Yeah - I'd agree with most of those changes - but, pairing RTS and Tupaea in the midfield is pretty experimental. We'd be a lot better off if we had ALB or Goodhue to play alongside one of them.
-
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Chester-Draws Yeah - I'd agree with most of those changes - but, pairing RTS and Tupaea in the midfield is pretty experimental. We'd be a lot better off if we had ALB or Goodhue to play alongside one of them.
Agree RTS and Tupaea sounds scary.
-
I wouldn't voluntarily play both either. But we don't have any other centres, if you take Reiko out.
It's not like the current set-up offers much, so provided they defend adequately they can't really be worse.
-
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
I guess running out the Crusaders front row together "seemed like a good idea at the time", but it seemed very early and as many others have noted, we should have been getting more miles out of Sami and far fewer out of Codie.
There was a noticeable drop in the quality of our forwards general play after that substitution
Taylor should be nowhere near an AB squad right now
Towards the end of the game there was some awful decisions made by individuals though. That soft penalty Cane gave away. Maybe it was frustration, but it made winning the game much more difficult.
It probably should be his last act as captain but I'm not sure if Foster will make that changeFrizell's blatant maul penalty that resulted in a card was retarded. The chances of us scoring twice with 15 was already slim, with 14 the Test match was all but over.
-
@Duluth You really have to wonder how the team is run, and whether there is any accountability in their culture, when noticeably under-performing players can keep getting picked for years. Are there consequences for playing poorly if you are a favoured player?
-
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@kiwiinmelb said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Yeah strange game , at halftime while I didn’t think we were great , I thought we were tracking ok ,
Could see new things I thought were the new coaches at work , and thought that was a bit satisfying
Then fucked if I know what happened second half , we went back to the shambles that more resembled the season so far .
Yeah - unfortunately for Fozzie he already used the "signs of improvement" line after Boks 1, when I didn't think there were.
Last night I thought we were looking significantly better in the first half and at 15-3 it was looking like being the comfortable victory I was expecting. I don't think Fozzie would be well-advised to use "coach-killers" to describe the penalties around halftime, but that's what they were. And then conceding a soft try...
Really, with the possession, territory, scrum dominance, running metres we had - we should have been able to put that game away pretty comfortably. But the Pumas made us work hard to progress inside their 22, and once we had we repeatedly fucked it up - one way or another.
Agreed. It should've been patently clear to them that the attacking team was getting penalised for playing rugby, so with a lead we should've forced the Argentinians to play some rugby out of their half to chase the scoreboard. We chose the opposite.
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Towards the end of the game there was some awful decisions made by individuals though. That soft penalty Cane gave away. Maybe it was frustration, but it made winning the game much more difficult.
It probably should be his last act as captain but I'm not sure if Foster will make that changeI very much doubt it - as above, I think Fozzie should have made that call at the earlier blood-letting.
Probably the best we can hope is that Fozzie will decide he needs to be "rested" for the next game and then maybe events will overtake him.
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Frizell's blatant maul penalty that resulted in a card was retarded.
I reckon Taylor coulda gone then too as he had infringed at that same maul.
@Tim yeah i mentioned that in the foster thread, they have allowed a culture of mediocrity in...i know Taylor is copping alot, but he is a prime example of all that is wrong currently...what does he have to do to be dropped?
What is the next wave of young players thinking they need to do to become an AB, when a player who has been in pretty poor form for well over a year keeps getting selected?
-
@taniwharugby Problem is - there's not really anyone demanding to be picked at hooker. There's probably been half a dozen names thrown up in the post-game analysis, but none of them are compelling.
What do they need to do? Demand selection - like Sami T. has.
It is a significant problem right now - Taylor and Coles looking like poorer versions of the latter days of Kevvy and Hore.
-
@Chris-B that may be the case, but is irrelevant when Taylor isnt demanding selection either, he is being handed it by default, and then like last night, gets 35 mins over one of our best players in black this season...you'd think being dropped for Sami-T would give him a kick and drive to get better, nope, he is still in a huge hole.
Not saying he is the only issue, just he is basically the beacon for the issue.
-
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@taniwharugby Problem is - there's not really anyone demanding to be picked at hooker. There's probably been half a dozen names thrown up in the post-game analysis, but none of them are compelling.
What do they need to do? Demand selection - like Sami T. has.
It is a significant problem right now - Taylor and Coles looking like poorer versions of the latter days of Kevvy and Hore.
Taylor is demanding to be dropped
-
@chimoaus said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Chris said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Cheika even thinks Robertson is a great coach a piece from the Pumas press conference.
He’d been asked about No 8 Pablo Matera, who helped the Crusaders win a record-extending 13th Super Rugby crown this year, and played a big hand in a superb performance by the Pumas’ loose forwards
“I think that the Crusaders have made a really huge mark, and Scott Robertson has made a really huge mark on Pablo. He came here to learn more about rugby, didn't come here for money or anything like that, and it shows the quality of the franchise and the coaching here, he's come back a heaps better player - mentally and technically.
That is some A level mind games right there, well played Cheika.
Maybe but is it wrong?
-
@kiwiinmelb said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@chimoaus said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Chris said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
Cheika even thinks Robertson is a great coach a piece from the Pumas press conference.
He’d been asked about No 8 Pablo Matera, who helped the Crusaders win a record-extending 13th Super Rugby crown this year, and played a big hand in a superb performance by the Pumas’ loose forwards
“I think that the Crusaders have made a really huge mark, and Scott Robertson has made a really huge mark on Pablo. He came here to learn more about rugby, didn't come here for money or anything like that, and it shows the quality of the franchise and the coaching here, he's come back a heaps better player - mentally and technically.
That is some A level mind games right there, well played Cheika.
I’ve actually changed my opinion on Cheka a bit after watching him on Stan in their rugby media team ,
He has a bit more humorous mischief about him in the Eddie jones mould than I thought
he said he was always fine after a game but I think he has mellowed.
-
@Duluth said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@taniwharugby Problem is - there's not really anyone demanding to be picked at hooker. There's probably been half a dozen names thrown up in the post-game analysis, but none of them are compelling.
What do they need to do? Demand selection - like Sami T. has.
It is a significant problem right now - Taylor and Coles looking like poorer versions of the latter days of Kevvy and Hore.
Taylor is demanding to be dropped
If no replacement is better, at least they'd improve from being in an AB camp? Surely? There is something mightily wrong with Taylor and it is damaging his confidence to play him.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
@Chris-B that may be the case, but is irrelevant when Taylor isnt demanding selection either, he is being handed it by default.
No doubt - but, I'm really replying to the implication that any of the young hookers who aren't in the squad are hard done by. I don't think any of them have really earned it.
For what it's worth, I'd imagine we'll see Dane Coles off the bench next week.
Overall, I don't think Fozzie's squad selections have been too far off the mark - his game day deployment probably falls a bit short!
-
@Chris-B thing is, he or Coles probably shouldn't have been selected for the irish series, and one def not for TRC, this is when they needed to nut up and look at a youngster to blood and throw thier lot in with Sami who has been the best 2 in nz for the last year anyway.
