RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
-
Same starting lineup but the bench will be
Coles, Newell, Williams, Laulala, Tu'ungafasi, Whitelock, Papali’i, Christie
Savea covering the backline 😎
-
Question for the front row committee/props on here - Bernard Jackman says that Porter demolished Lomax in the QF, but Barnes penalised Porter because of a preconception about Porter.
Given the Bok scrum’s strength, is there any credence to Jackman’s claim? I’m not interested in bagging his claim because he’s Irish, more if he a valid point or not.
“ I think Barnes went into the game with a preconception about Andrew Porter and he refereed like that. We conceded three penalties from the four scrums the All Blacks had and looking back at multiple angles, Barnes was completely wrong on two of them.
Certainly if you look at a screenshot at certain points Porter’s hips are out and he looks like he is driving across. However, if his opposite man, their tighthead Tyrel Lomax, turns in towards our hooker without earning the right to do that by winning his battle with Porter first, then either Porter follows him in and tries to break his ribs like he did or he slips his bind to stay straight but leaves his pack exposed to a weaker scrum that could now go forward.
The most frustrating penalty was when New Zealand had a man in the bin and decided not to bring a centre in for the scrum to go eight v eight or even move their number eight behind Lomax to try and help him. Any good loose head in the world will exploit this mismatch. Lomax was destroyed by Porter, but Barnes penalised Ireland.
For a top class and experienced referee not to see this, especially when they decided to risk seven versus eight, is mind blowing. But to be fair, it’s been a very difficult World Cup for referees and the other officials and will be a big focus for World Rugby over the next cycle.”
Bernard Jackman: How Joe Schmidt’s influence was central to Irish exit
The hangover from Ireland’s loss to New Zealand has hung around all week. There is genuine disappointment and sympathy for the squad who have given us so m...
-
@Jailbreak7 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
If we want to look at the periphery I think the ABs sent a significant message which will not have been lost on Rassie & co, when they decided not to replace SB after his YC was up, and played out the game with 14 men keeping the scoresheet clean for the entire 2nd half. That's a statement.
Should they be allowed? To voluntarily not replace someone?
-
@Billy-Tell said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Jailbreak7 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
If we want to look at the periphery I think the ABs sent a significant message which will not have been lost on Rassie & co, when they decided not to replace SB after his YC was up, and played out the game with 14 men keeping the scoresheet clean for the entire 2nd half. That's a statement.
Should they be allowed? To voluntarily not replace someone?
Huh? Why not?
-
@Bones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Billy-Tell said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Jailbreak7 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
If we want to look at the periphery I think the ABs sent a significant message which will not have been lost on Rassie & co, when they decided not to replace SB after his YC was up, and played out the game with 14 men keeping the scoresheet clean for the entire 2nd half. That's a statement.
Should they be allowed? To voluntarily not replace someone?
Huh? Why not?
Fundamentally rugby is a game of 15 vs 15. A team making the decision to deliberately reduce to 14 seems against the spirit of the game. Could we have subbed off another player to finish with 13 in order to give someone a rest? All seems a bit Rassie-like.
-
On the rivalry thing ,
The ABs v Boks is unique imo , due to the respect,
Most rivalries involve hatred
-
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
On the rivalry thing ,
The ABs v Boks is unique imo , due to the respect,
Most rivalries involve hatred
Reading this thread, the hatred is left to the fans
-
Uh oh. Matt Dawson thinks NZ are favourites in the final.
“New Zealand will be significant favourites. Their semi-final win against Argentina was almost a training run compared to South Africa's slugfest. They have also had an extra day's rest. Their attack is crackling with threat.
A record fourth title is theirs for the taking. There is no hesitation in my mind about that.”
-
@Billy-Tell protecting your players from injury and opening up more space on the field, whilst handing the opposition an advantage is against the spirit of rugby? Pretty shithouse spirit then eh.
It's about the complete opposite of Rassie.
-
ABs clear favorite given the history of the last 30 years. Just hoping for a competitive showing from the boks, after two super high intensity, physically and mentally draining games. Sure it will be as they respect the ABs and it will be a dream final for them as well. Just not sure they have enough left.
-
@sparky said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
No official announcement yet, but the Torygraph is reported that Wayne Barnes will be in charge of the final.
I don't doubt this is true, but I am convinced there is no leak here and it is more just common sense
-
@Billy-Tell As Foster said, bringing SB back on for 5 mins in a game already won was a risk not worth taking after the YC.
-
@stodders said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@antipodean DDA, for all his strengths is not a distributor at 12. Neither is Kriel at 13. Ball rarely gets beyond them , even on a dry track. Bok wings are brilliant kick chasers and broken field runners on turnover ball, but they are rarely, if ever, on the end of structured backline moves.
Boks are married to their kicking gameplan it seems. Unless they have some dry powder waiting to be unleashed.
Bok gameplan is kick and klap. It maul for penalties and maul drive tries. It is applying pressure until their opponent breaks and pouncing on those mistakes. Simple, reduces errors that cost them.
Get in front of them like ABs did against Ireland (13-0), and I don’t know if they will claw it back. They did last night because England posed so little threat on their try line. They did against France because the French couldn’t catch high balls and provided them unstructured turnover ball.
If they are to win, at least make them earn their tries.
https://www.espn.com/rugby/playerstats?gameId=596199&league=164205
A wet night, so probably not surprising that neither team played with much adventure, but the player stats make amusing reading for the centres.
They only passed the ball to Jesse Kreil once - and he dropped it (I think I recall that). Otherwise made three tackles and missed one.
Marchant got the ball once - apparently ran for 6 metres and got turned over. Made two tackles.
Neither fullback had to make a tackle. Willemse topped the Bok run metres with 27.
