Bledisloe #1



  • @NTA Kerevi is easily the best inside centre in world rugby imo. Sure he's not the best distributor but his go forward and ability to break tackles is second to none. His defence has improved out of sight as well.



  • @kev the point is that if we had consistent backline selections with the odd change here or there, no matter their age, we would’ve been in a far better situation.

    We’ve had ageing players in recent times that had fluctuating form - eg Nonu, Smith, Carter, Jane. These guys didn’t always perform when in black, some of them had howlers, but they were good more often than not and the combinations and experience no doubt helped them perform.

    We simply haven’t done this.



  • @ACT-Crusader it’s a good point.

    For me last night was all about our forwards being dominated. It was 80/20 and not even the best backline can exist with those ratios.



  • @kev said in Bledisloe #1:

    For me last night was all about our forwards being dominated. It was 80/20 and not even the best backline can exist with those ratios.

    Sure, but the backs were giving away plenty of ball too. The 80% possession the Aussies had in the first half was caused by poor options, errors and penalties.



  • @E-African-Troll said in Bledisloe #1:

    @akan004 said in Bledisloe #1:

    his defence as well but still rate him above Perry

    In case anyone has doubts about the validity of S Barrett's Red Card:

    Hmmm... mitigating factors might play a factor in his sentencing.



  • @junior said in Bledisloe #1:

    @E-African-Troll said in Bledisloe #1:

    @akan004 said in Bledisloe #1:

    his defence as well but still rate him above Perry

    In case anyone has doubts about the validity of S Barrett's Red Card:

    Hmmm... mitigating factors might play a factor in his sentencing.

    what mitigating factors? It was stupid and clumsy, and a Red is a valid outcome. I don't think it was malicious or cynical, just very poor technique and decision making



  • Let's not forget that Barrett's foul wasn't out of the blue. He did it because we were in desperate straits, and needed to stop them before they scored another try. Tiredness and desperation do that.



  • @Duluth yep agree with that.



  • So finally completed my after the match thread read through, as entertaining as ever.

    Firstly, the Wallabies played bloody good rugby, they were direct and beat us up in the forwards.

    Secondly was watching with an Aussie mate who was wondering whether to place a bet on the Wallabies, as soon as Garces was mentioned before the game I said chuck some money on them as he's a leveller. 🤔

    I'm not sure if I think Barrett deserved the red for that, but if that's the bar then that's the bar and every player needs to watch themselves. But, did I read someone in the thread say they thought Barrett was having a good game? He did one stand out tackle but was average the rest of the half.

    There seems to be some shitfights over the backs but the game was won up front by the Aussies. They had front foot ball all game and denied the ABs ball for crucial parts of the game.

    After the Boks game I said that I thought the ABs weren't playing direct deliberately before the RWC and I think this was another game that highlights that. They just seemed to go side to side for most of the game, hell even Laumape didn't run hard and straight for most of the time he was on. I hope that we're just foxing ....

    Don't really want to wade into the 10 debate but I don't think Mo'unga was as bad as made out and I don't think Barrett was as relatively good as made out. Firstly on defence since it was a source of debate, Mo'unga makes his tackles and Barrett is still an awesome cover defending and still a bit iffy front on. Secondly they are both prone to stupid kicks. Thirdly, there was barely any structure to the ABs attack aside from the side to side, but I'm not sure if we blame the tactics, the pack, or Mo'unga (or indeed a senior back like Barrett or Smith).

    Read and Savea are getting the share of loose forward plaudits but I think Cane put in a decent shift. He was making tackles and being a nuisance in rucks putting his body on the line in a pack that didn't really put their bodies on the line that much. But, we need a frikkin 6, a proper one, or if we are going to play the two 7s lets turn Cane 100% into one and just tell him to smash people. If not then bring back Frizzell or give Hemopo a go (basically anyone from the Highlanders 😉 ).

    So much of the midfield play was ALB getting flat foot ball and trying to run or jink on to some front foot ball. Ioane oddly had a better game than in his last couple but in reality he was mostly starved of decent ball.

    One thing I noticed from the Wallabies and credit to them is that they were taking out AB's behind the ruck line as "clean outs". Was annoying me at the time, but if you can get away with it keep doing it.

    At the very least I'm now very much looking forward to next weeks match!





  • @nzzp said in Bledisloe #1:

    @junior said in Bledisloe #1:

    @E-African-Troll said in Bledisloe #1:

    @akan004 said in Bledisloe #1:

    his defence as well but still rate him above Perry

    In case anyone has doubts about the validity of S Barrett's Red Card:

    Hmmm... mitigating factors might play a factor in his sentencing.

    what mitigating factors? It was stupid and clumsy, and a Red is a valid outcome. I don't think it was malicious or cynical, just very poor technique and decision making

    I can see them rebuking the following arguments: reactionary contact, ie not in open play with a good chance to line him up; Hooper was falling as contact was made and after Barrett had committed to contact; and initial contact was on the upper back, sliding up to the neck and then head.

    Now, at best, I think this may take it down to a 4-week suspension from the staring point of 6. However, I reckon it will stay at 6 weeks in order to send a message before the RWC.



  • @Chris Lol some crazy ratings there.


  • Banned

    @Chris said in Bledisloe #1:

    [link text](link url)https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/rugby-world-cup-2019/2019/08/opinion-all-blacks-v-wallabies-bledisloe-cup-i-player-ratings.html?fbclid=IwAR2JiY8yK5JpVgLbz_WY10A13HDBpUZGqrPNrhaNrGnOaQQYjmMtA79a0qc

    Some interesting ratings and comments on The AB's in this article

    What farking game did those clowns watch? Christ on a bike that is shitty journalism.



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel

    I actually had to check the date to make sure it was yesterdays game.



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel well I am in Brisbane watching it which is along way away but I reckon I saw it better than these clowns


  • Banned

    🤣 🤣

    Is this Gregor Paul guy always this salty when ABs lose or is this clickbait trash



  • @E-African-Troll A bit rich coming from Georgina, who is well known for being a whinger over the years. Gregor is usually pretty balanced to be fair, I don't even really think he's an ABs supporter. He's from Scotland and rarely shows any bias towards the ABs.



  • @akan004 Gregor used to be pretty good but has succumbed to the God of click bait in the last couple of years

    Although TBF Garces is a bit of an average ref if I am being nice about him


  • Banned

    @taniwharugby said in Bledisloe #1:

    average ref if I am being nice about h

    Better get used to French Refs: There will be 4 of them coming to Japan

    I like the Frenchie refs

    They give teams a fair crack at the breakdown as well as being strict at scrums


  • Banned

    😍 😍







  • @Tim said in Bledisloe #1:

    thanks John, when we want your opinion we'll call you aye?



  • @canefan said in Bledisloe #1:

    Scott Barrett has an unlikely supporter

    is there any video of the two 'possible reds' from the Eng Wal game? I had a quick google but didn't see anything



  • It has been interesting to read this thread from beginning to end in one go.

    Team announced: Thank Fark. That really is our best team apart from Retallick. The Wobblies are in for a world of hurt.

    Post Game: Hanson's shit. Team's shit. Tactics shit. Captain Shit. Wallabies brilliant. We are doomed. Worst loss ever. We need to bring in more Blues/Crusaders (delete depending on your provincial bias).

    The only bit I really agree with is the Wallabies were brilliant. The shame of the game for me is that we really didn't see enough IMO to determine if the two experiments held any promise although I agree Smith looked ponderous. I'm also struggling to remember when tandem open sides has ever worked for us. To be fair Hanson came out against the idea but I guess Savea's form and the lack of bona-fide 6's made it worth a go. I didn't read too many complaining about it earlier in the week. As such I think it is worth persevering with. We know what the other options at blindside are.

    The one player I thinks has well over-stayed his welcome is Franks.

    It confirmed what I have thought for the last 4 years; Retallick is our most important player. When he went down against the Boks I feared our RWC defence was in tatters.

    We looked much better when we kept hold of the pill instead of aimlessly hoofing it downtown. I think we created at least two dead cert tries if the 15th man had been there to take the final pass.

    How good were Aussie? Very, very good. How good did we allow them to be? Too friggin good...



  • @dogmeat said in Bledisloe #1:

    Post Game: We need to bring in more Crusaders

    To be fair I was saying that pre-game 😀



  • @dogmeat said in Bledisloe #1:

    We looked much better when we kept hold of the pill instead of aimlessly hoofing it downtown.

    This has not been mentioned enough. The option taking was poor.

    Even allowing for us having to kick more because of bad territory.. we still kicked a lot more often than them.
    It contributed to the forwards not performing.



  • @Duluth said in Bledisloe #1:

    @dogmeat said in Bledisloe #1:

    We looked much better when we kept hold of the pill instead of aimlessly hoofing it downtown.

    This has not been mentioned enough. The option taking was poor.

    Even allowing for us having to kick more because of bad territory.. we still kicked a lot more often than them.
    It contributed to the forwards not performing.

    It felt like we barely had the ball in the first 40, and the ball we did have we either spilled or kicked away. Time to tighten up. Those flat passes in the face of the D are not working



  • @canefan 20% possession, 13% territory - probably as bad as I've ever seen



  • @canefan said in Bledisloe #1:

    @Duluth said in Bledisloe #1:

    @dogmeat said in Bledisloe #1:

    We looked much better when we kept hold of the pill instead of aimlessly hoofing it downtown.

    This has not been mentioned enough. The option taking was poor.

    Even allowing for us having to kick more because of bad territory.. we still kicked a lot more often than them.
    It contributed to the forwards not performing.

    It felt like we barely had the ball in the first 40, and the ball we did have we either spilled or kicked away. Time to tighten up. Those flat passes in the face of the D are not working

    We’ve had a fair amount of success with the close in flat passing over the years because of the players that we have done it with - Whitelock, Retallic, Squire, Faumuina, Tuipulotu, Moody and dare I say even Franks (in the past). Guys like Cane and Savea shouldn’t be getting those balls.



  • @Duluth said in Bledisloe #1:

    This has not been mentioned enough. The option taking was poor.

    Even allowing for us having to kick more because of bad territory.. we still kicked a lot more often than them.
    It contributed to the forwards not performing.

    Just expanding on this: We had more kicks from hand than the Aussies. This is despite them having a significant possession advantage

    Just for a rough gauge of how often we kicked I though I'd check the number of kicks per minute of possession (clock time, not ball in play time of course)

    Aussie one kick every ~4mins 20secs
    NZ one kick every ~1min 45secs

    Now plenty of that is forced by field position etc but its a rough measure of the frequency

    It was clear pretty early in the match we were struggling to get possession. Also our defence was falling off tackles way before the card.
    Yet we still voluntarily gave the ball back to them time after time.

    At least that should be relatively easy to fix



  • @Duluth The opposition not kicking the ball to us should not be a surprise as teams have mentioned that doing so invites the AB to counter-attack, and they have adjusted to take away a strength.

    Even allowing for the lack of possession in the 1st half, a lot of the kicking was aimless with no chance to contest. And when it was, the likes of Smith were beaten in the air.



  • @Bovidae Agree so we need to retain the ball longer which means we need a forward pack than can do this or the kicking has to be better.



  • @dogmeat said in Bledisloe #1:

    The only bit I really agree with is the Wallabies were brilliant. The shame of the game for me is that we really didn't see enough IMO to determine if the two experiments held any promise although I agree Smith looked ponderous. I'm also struggling to remember when tandem open sides has ever worked for us. To be fair Hanson came out against the idea but I guess Savea's form and the lack of bona-fide 6's made it worth a go. I didn't read too many complaining about it earlier in the week. As such I think it is worth persevering with. We know what the other options at blindside are.

    I hope Hansen saw enough in the first half to be kicking himself for breaking one of his coaching precepts - i.e. playing a big, physical blindside. We are going to have to beat several teams with big, physical packs to win this RWC and I don't see us doing that without matching them up front.

    Krusty has tried using Hooper and Pocock enough against us that he's got a blueprint for how to play against it - we looked pretty much like Australia out there.

    I'm also wondering whether the "two pivots" thing is something that sounds better in theory than it works in practice. Toddy Blackadder was quite a proponent of cramming first fives into his backline - Carter, Slade, Tom Taylor etc - and it didn't ever work out happily across a season for him.



  • If Pocock is available to play in Auckland it will be interesting to see what Cheika does (re: selection of his loose forwards). Maybe he is introduced off the bench but I can't see Hooper being the player replaced.



  • I was surprised with how little trouble the Savea/Cane/Read backrow caused us at the breakdown.

    From memory they won three turnovers, one of which was dubious. But more than that, they rarely slowed our ball at all, allowing White to have a great platform to keep the attack rolling.

    It's a chicken-and-egg discussion in some ways, because quick, front-foot ball allows our forwards to get over the gain line, which in turn makes it harder for the ABs to disrupt at the breakdown. But still I expected more from three world class players.

    Retallick is such a huge loss, and once Barrett went off you were fielding a very light pack indeed. In the end Arnold, Naisirani and Salakai-Loto all had a field day, both in their clearouts and with ball in hand.



  • @barbarian Wobs domination upfront negated ABs any loose forward or backs potential dynamism. "Games are won upfront" couldn't have been clearer on Saturday.



  • @Chris-B the two pivots has worked well in the final 20 when Mo’unga has come off the bench and provided impact, and I think that is where it will be most effective moving forwards. I’d be starting Beauden at 10 from here on out.



  • @No-Quarter Yeah - that's the way I'm leaning too.

    We've had success with lifting the tempo in the last quarter and running teams off their feet - but, I think maybe we need to "earn that right" by wearing them down first.

    It was us who looked knackered at the end on Saturday - we'd defended ourselves into the ground.



  • @dogmeat said in Bledisloe #1:

    It has been interesting to read this thread from beginning to end in one go.
    Team announced: Thank Fark. That really is our best team apart from Retallick. The Wobblies are in for a world of hurt.
    Post Game: Hanson's shit. Team's shit. Tactics shit. Captain Shit. Wallabies brilliant. We are doomed. Worst loss ever. We need to bring in more Blues/Crusaders (delete depending on your provincial bias).

    You don't need to read very much of the recent Fern to find plenty of people here who have been saying for a long time that our tactics have been shit for a while, that our selections have been abysmal for a while and that Read is in worryingly bad form. I've been saying that I have terrible 1991 vibes all season.

    There were some people who didn't think we would crush them, though the majority were of the opinion we would. I thought we would win, but that didn't mean I thought our issues were sorted. Mostly we were foolish to believe what Hansen had told us -- that he was building up to this game, and ignore the form up to then.

    The other surprise was how good the Wallabies were. That came out of nowhere. Did you predict it?

    As for "we are doomed". Well, we probably won't win the RWC, but we're hardly doomed. Provided Foster is not appointed coach, I expect us to be in decent form next year. If Foster is appointed coach, well yeah, then we up are up Shit Creek, we don't have a paddle and the boat is leaking.


Log in to reply