Auckland vs Otago
-
Well done Otago. We didn't deserve to win that. Good learning curve for a young Auckland side.
-
@african-monkey very well said,just leadership was the difference,not the end of the world,this is a very young side something that should not be forgotten..
-
-
-
@stargazer Didn't suprise me one bit tbh. Otago aren't a bad side and would have run Canterbury a lot closer if they took their chances last week. Not trying to make excuses for Auckland but it was a very young side out there lacking leaders and we paid the price for it and as I said earlier in the thread, I expected it to go down to the wire. Faiane, Nanai, Gibson and Whetton were missed badly out there and I hope to never see Ravouvou again.
-
-
@stargazer not overly surprised given some of the personal Auckland had missing and losing 2 players early would not have helped ,but on saying that credit to the visitors..they were better on the night..
I do like the look of Jacob Umaga,only 21 years old looks like he has time and good game management.. -
Take solace in the results showing in the Mitre10Cup.co.nz website which shows the score currently at Auckland 26 - 00 Otago
-
Anonymous said:
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
Collins' infringement was classified as cynical though since Otago was in a compromised position.
You're inventing an infringement. The ref clearly said "you can't knock the ball back". He did not say "you can't knock the ball into touch".
-
-
African Monkey said:
Yep, fair cop.
Good evening, pity about the result. Otago did just enough to keep Auckland out, and scored some good tries - though some seemed against the run of play. Auckland defended poorly at times.
Otago 9 was really good.
Auckland paid price for not doing the basics. Hell of a learning experience.
also, Eden Park when mostly empty is soulless. Not much fun without 15k in there.
-
@Dice said:
We lacked leadership and organization in the end
There was a moment late in the game when Papali'i was motioning to Umaga to calm down and think (patting his hands towards the ground and then pointing to his head)
Umaga had some nice touches but I think we would have won that game with Plummer was at ten for the entire matchThere were plenty of other issues. The defence, apart from Papali'i, was passive compared to the first month.
Ultimately the error rate inside their 22 was the deciding factor.
I hate 6/2 splits. We couldn't afford to lose a centre or a fullback early. So of course that's what happens
-
Yep, on field leadership was missing. But even so, we bombed about five trys and should have still won, so not bad when considering who wasn’t playing.
The pass when over the try line was the worst!
Shows the value of our First choice players at hooker, lock, flanker, first and second five.
Get most of those back and we are back to normal. Scrum also dismantled them at times, that was great to watch. One of them would have marched 20metres if allowed!
-
@kirwan I thought Umaga looked very good back there before having to go to 10. Would like to see him there again.
