RWC - how the poms beat us..



  • too lazy to see if this was posted before (someone delete if it has) - but I just watched it and thought it was a pretty awesome analysis - well worth a watch... even if it does show how Eddie completely out coached Hansen.



  • @WillieTheWaiter say what you want about Eddie, but he's a fucking clever coach.

    Combine that with a complacent AB side that had lost a fair bit of what made us great, and it was a disaster for us in the making.



  • @mariner4life said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @WillieTheWaiter say what you want about Eddie, but he's a fucking clever coach.

    Combine that with a complacent AB side that had lost a fair bit of what made us great, and it was a disaster for us in the making.

    agree - thing i liked about the vid - just proves rugby still a simple game - couple of very small tactical things fcuked us completely!



  • @WillieTheWaiter Thanks for posting that. It shows the huge level of preparation Eddie and his men did. Kudos to them!

    By contrast, it also shows how reliant on a single, Plan A and inflexible Steve Hansen's All Blacks had become.

    In hindsight, it is amazing that:

    1. The ABs brain trust didn't go back and look at Eddie Jones's work with the Brumbies. He had a gameplan he knew had been very succesaful against NZ sides in his back pocket.

    2. The ABs went wide early in attacks so often in that game without earning the right up front to do so.

    3. The ABs kept using almost exclusively the three-pod when it became obvious England were targetting it.

    4. The ABs gave Aaron Smith so much to do in defence.

    5. RIchie Mo'unga was given the vital role of the 13 channel in defence when he looked so uncomfortable there.

    6. Beauden Barrett didn't stand a bit deeper at fullback to anticipate George Ford's big boot.

    7. The ABs didn't rethink Scott Mcleod's pattern at defensive goalline rucks after the catastrophe of Perth. It's almost like Krusty and Eddie were swapping notes.

    8. Hansen left Sam Cane on the bench for such a key game.



  • @sparky said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    The ABs went wide early in attacks so often in that game without earning the right up front to do so.

    in typical TSF thread digression...I hate that saying 'earn the right' to go wide.

    Fark off, what about those fuckers that didnt earn the right and run 90m to score?

    It's a game of inches, so often the difference between winning and losing can be the bounce of a ball, or a ball/jersey just within/outside your grasp...not always 'earned'



  • @taniwharugby said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @sparky said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    The ABs went wide early in attacks so often in that game without earning the right up front to do so.

    in typical TSF thread digression...I hate that saying 'earn the right' to go wide.

    Fark off, what about those fuckers that didnt earn the right and run 90m to score?

    It's a game of inches, so often the difference between winning and losing can be the bounce of a ball, or a ball/jersey just within/outside your grasp...

    I love that saying, because it's so true. In my mind, you have to go straight first, to win those inches in the back line by turning them in slightly or gettig them onto the back foot. Not much, just slightly. If you don't win the battle up front, the balls' a bit slower, their backs are a bit more on the front foot and it just doesn't work.



  • @nzzp for me it is slightly different to saying you need to do the work up front first...saying you need to earn it is BS IMO.

    Still need to take chances when they present themselves, saying you have to earn it means, if you havent earnt it, when that gate opens, you shouldnt go through it.



  • @taniwharugby A saying often becomes a cliche because it is true.

    Those cross kicks from Mo'unga to Reece were a great surprise tactic off go-forward ball against the Boks. Off slow ball against England when they had learned how to spot them, not so much.



  • @taniwharugby said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @nzzp for me it is slightly different to saying you need to do the work up front first...saying you need to earn it is BS IMO.

    eh, semantics. The corollary is that if you don't work/earn up front, going wide is futile. From years of painfully watching the blues trying to outflank teams from static ball, I absolutely 100% endorse the sentiment.

    It's like the NFL quote in some ways - you run to set up the pass, and pass to set up the run. If you only do one thing (tight or wide) it's massively easier to defend



  • @taniwharugby said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    in typical TSF thread digression...I hate that saying 'earn the right' to go wide.

    Northland hasn’t earned the right since Glenn Taylor.. it doesn’t stop them trying

    Not sure if I’m helping your argument



  • I'm sort a foot in both camps. If you can manipulate the defense with out just smashing it up a bit first, you do that.

    I hate it as a rugby saying because it basically is held to mean "smash it up before you let the blouses have the ball" which is total bullshit.



  • @mariner4life said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    I'm sort a foot in both camps. If you can manipulate the defense with out just smashing it up a bit first, you do that.

    I hate it as a rugby saying because it basically is held to mean "smash it up before you let the blouses have the ball" which is total bullshit.

    Again, the corollary is if you don't smash it up in the forwards, it's damn hard to make metres out wide. The basis is fine, it's just a cliche now ...



  • as I said, its the word 'earn' that is BS to me.

    I can handle the old 'forwards win matches, backs decide by how much' and 'you gotta win up front first' ones but saying you have to 'earn' it is BS...I mean thats implying if some traditionalist is playing, and an opportunity presents itself, they wont take the opportunity it if they havent 'earnt it'

    You take opportunities as they present themselves, earned or not, otherwise an even more used cliche is wrong too...never look a gifthorse in the mouth.

    Anywhoo, back to the main topic, we were out thought before we started, and then outplayed.



  • Have listened to a couple of Hansen interviews post RWC 2019 and it surprises me that when asked what his major regrets/failures are, he didn't mention this game. I would have thought that this would be at the top of his list due to the fact he was so comprehensively out coached by Eddie.



  • @akan004 said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    Have listened to a couple of Hansen interviews post RWC 2019 and it surprises me that when asked what his major regrets/failures are, he doesn't make note of this game. I would have thought that this would be at the top of his list due to the fact he was so comprehensively out coached by Eddie.

    Too embarrassed by it so ignoring it maybe? Kind of like Wally Lewis pretending Olsen Filipaina didn't exist.



  • What has Eddie said about his analysis for the final?



  • @WillieTheWaiter said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    too lazy to see if this was posted before (someone delete if it has) - but I just watched it and thought it was a pretty awesome analysis - well worth a watch... even if it does show how Eddie completely out coached Hansen.

    Good vid, thanks for sharing

    Some simple stuff as you say, but as we all know, tough to pull off in the moment with some big blokes in black running at you!

    How wicked would it be to sit down to dinner and a few reds with Eddie and Steve and hear them open up about their intentions, tactics, what was calculated and what just fell into place.



  • @voodoo said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @WillieTheWaiter said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    too lazy to see if this was posted before (someone delete if it has) - but I just watched it and thought it was a pretty awesome analysis - well worth a watch... even if it does show how Eddie completely out coached Hansen.

    Good vid, thanks for sharing

    Some simple stuff as you say, but as we all know, tough to pull off in the moment with some big blokes in black running at you!

    How wicked would it be to sit down to dinner and a few reds with Eddie and Steve and hear them open up about their intentions, tactics, what was calculated and what just fell into place.

    In my view you can plan all you want and try and manufacture stuff in practice for game like situations, but to me a game like rugby has so many variables (which what makes it great) that it a lot of it is what happens in front of you.

    In the spirit of @taniwharugby I also can’t stand that when the ABs lose it’s because we “only had a Plan A”. To me that is not only a simplistic conclusion, but defies reality when you think about the hours and hours of training, analysis, etc that occurs in a professional side like the ABs.



  • @taniwharugby this is bang on. Especially in context. Hansen selected a team designed to exploit turnovers and half chances in transition. That’s why Beaudy was at fullback.

    And personnel issues also drove the tactics. Retallick’s shoulder and lack of a loosie (Or even hooker) who could consistently bend the gainline in tight probably drove a plan designed to minimize the need to establish forward dominance before going wide. Especially because against SA, England, recent Irish teams and France (sometimes) you’ve developed forward dominance by stretching your attack, penetrating out wide and forcing the opposing pack to work harder than your pack.

    And this worked pretty damn well at RWC 2019.

    I had the dubious pleasure of flying 10,000 Kms to see it work magnificently against the boks. You belted Ireland on the back of it.

    Having said all that, I wonder how England would have coped if the ABs had shifted tactics to kicking deep, defend like mongrels and slam SBW/Goodhue down Ford’s channel all day long, with the odd inside ball to a steaming winger thrown in to keep it interesting? Pull dogroll, get Cane in early and make the breakdowns a real shitfight.

    But you can’t blame the ABs for dancing with them that brung em - trusting themselves to execute a plan which had worked well in the past.



  • @nzzp really you should take what the defence is giving you. The hard part is when, like England were, they weren’t giving you much anywhere and it wasn’t obvious where you could get traction.



  • @mariner4life said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @WillieTheWaiter say what you want about Eddie, but he's a fucking clever coach.

    He certainly is, but the All Blacks is a massive blind spot for him. Four years of planning not to win the competition, but to merely beat a contender.



  • @antipodean that is some very tough marking.



  • @Smuts said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @antipodean that is some very tough marking.

    But pretty much true. Eddie virtually admitted as much during an evening audience with him. From the word go he was targeting NZ in RWC 2019. It was the same in 2003 and both times it worked but maybe came a game too early.



  • @Catogrande It isn’t wrong exactly, so far as it goes.

    But wat was the alternative?



  • @Smuts said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @Catogrande It isn’t wrong exactly, so far as it goes.

    But wat was the alternative?

    I’m not sure about alternatives which probably explains my coaching career peaking with the St Leonards Primary School tag rugby squad.

    What I think it does show though is that Eddie has a blind spot or maybe obsession re the ABs. During the audience thing mentioned above he actually said and this was in respect of not only his England tenure but also Aus and the Brumbies, “we cannot compete with the natural athleticism of the New Zealander’s”.



  • @mariner4life said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    I'm sort a foot in both camps. If you can manipulate the defense with out just smashing it up a bit first, you do that.

    I hate it as a rugby saying because it basically is held to mean "smash it up before you let the blouses have the ball" which is total bullshit.

    Coz you shouldn't let the blouses gave the ball at all?



  • @Catogrande said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @Smuts said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @antipodean that is some very tough marking.

    But pretty much true. Eddie virtually admitted as much during an evening audience with him. From the word go he was targeting NZ in RWC 2019. It was the same in 2003 and both times it worked but maybe came a game too early.

    Jones wasn't out coached in the final; England were just outplayed.



  • @hydro11 said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @Catogrande said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @Smuts said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @antipodean that is some very tough marking.

    But pretty much true. Eddie virtually admitted as much during an evening audience with him. From the word go he was targeting NZ in RWC 2019. It was the same in 2003 and both times it worked but maybe came a game too early.

    Jones wasn't out coached in the final; England were just outplayed.

    Kyle Sinkler getting injured and going off in the firat five minutes s and Dan Cole having to pkay 75 minutes plus was unfortunate for them.



  • @Catogrande said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @Smuts said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

    @antipodean that is some very tough marking.

    But pretty much true. Eddie virtually admitted as much during an evening audience with him. From the word go he was targeting NZ in RWC 2019. It was the same in 2003 and both times it worked but maybe came a game too early.

    I think the opening line of the vid summed it up well - he’s the master of the upset.

    I wonder if he thought to himself (secretly) that he could afford to do that because England would have enough talent to beat whoever made it to the final from the other side of the draw without giving them as much focus as the All Blacks (certainly a year out I thought that might be his approach just looking at the way draw was likely to pan out)