RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales



  • @junior said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    I think this is possibly the worst take on things I've seen on here (no disrespect intended, MR, as I usually agree with your view of the world).

    People all agreeing is boring. So it's good that I at least have generated some discussion ...

    There is absolutely no way we would not have beaten England with a well-executed and tactically smart game plan (as opposed to the poorly executed game plan we actually trotted out).

    I don't buy this at all. It was 19-7 with two disallowed tries for England. They destroyed us up front, and I'm not sure the game plan was entirely the issue. It's a factor for sure, but not enough to turn around that margin.

    You're talking about a forward pack that beat the best of the home nations combined in 2017 and dismantled a very English-like (not as good, but similar) forward pack the week before. It's hardly 2007 Australia in its softness!

    It's all about trajectories. I think that English forward pack was just starting to get it's mojo going in 2018. I think we peaked, as a pack, around 2016 if not 2017. Having an underdone Brodie Retallick just put us even further on the back foot. South Africa went from 57-0 to beating us on home soil in a year.

    Now, whether we then go onto beak the Boks is obviously completely hypothetical. But, certainly, there wouldn't have been any fear-factor (perhaps we would have had the psychological edge on them) and, indeed, it's likely we'd have had greater certainty in our skill execution and decision-making coming up against a familiar opponent.

    I totally agree. However, I still think there is a high chance of us losing that match, as I think Erasmus would have learned a lot from the pool game. He knew they were at least our equal up front by this point, so keeping it tight and doing what they did to England on the weekend would have had a substantial chance of generating a different result.

    In short, I don't see us getting flogged by the Springboks in the same way that England did.

    (As a final point, I disagree with your assessment of the Twickenham match last year. After their fast start, our forwards were on top for the rest of that match, with a strong set piece and go forward close in. It was our backs' lack of penetration - due in part to the wet conditions - and them losing the kicking battle, which kept England close enough to get within a TMO-decision of winning.)

    Yeah, thats probably a fair assessment. I was at the game though, and I remember us just getting munched at the start. It took something special from Brodie to turn that around.



  • @sparky said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    This. Worst thing about this tournament was the terrible standard of the referees.

    The refs were OK & consistent in indivisual games - it was the inconsistency between matches and Refs which got me.



  • @junior said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    (As a final point, I disagree with your assessment of the Twickenham match last year. After their fast start, our forwards were on top for the rest of that match, with a strong set piece and go forward close in. It was our backs' lack of penetration - due in part to the wet conditions - and them losing the kicking battle, which kept England close enough to get within a TMO-decision of winning.)

    This is spot on.

    The England forwards were being hammered by the AB's in the 3rd quarter of that game. Some of the drives and hits near where I was sitting were staggering



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    @junior said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    (As a final point, I disagree with your assessment of the Twickenham match last year. After their fast start, our forwards were on top for the rest of that match, with a strong set piece and go forward close in. It was our backs' lack of penetration - due in part to the wet conditions - and them losing the kicking battle, which kept England close enough to get within a TMO-decision of winning.)

    This is spot on.

    The England forwards were being hammered by the AB's in the 3rd quarter of that game. Some of the drives and hits near where I was sitting were staggering

    Which begs the question, why did we not try that established game plan?



  • @canefan said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    @junior said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    (As a final point, I disagree with your assessment of the Twickenham match last year. After their fast start, our forwards were on top for the rest of that match, with a strong set piece and go forward close in. It was our backs' lack of penetration - due in part to the wet conditions - and them losing the kicking battle, which kept England close enough to get within a TMO-decision of winning.)

    This is spot on.

    The England forwards were being hammered by the AB's in the 3rd quarter of that game. Some of the drives and hits near where I was sitting were staggering

    Which begs the question, why did we not try that established game plan?

    I wonder if the TWM expected a repeat of November 2008 and aimed to get ascendancy from about 20 minutes onward -esp. in the line-out.

    They didn't, Read got that wild look in his eyes, mistakes multiplied...and the rest is history.



  • @junior said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    @MajorRage said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    @pukunui said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    Agree with all of that. Especially the myth of Ben Smiths poor form that even Hansen had convinced himself of.
    But adding the Ben Smith non selection to the Barrett over Cane selection, bringing in green props on the eve of the RWC, the poor management of Rieko, the muddled selections in midfield, the complete fuck up that was made of finding a replacement for Kaino and the general push towards a helter skelter style of play (aka non RWC winning) to fit BB and DMac into the side and it’s clear Hansen has lost the plot a bit over the last 2 years.

    Time for some fresh ideas.

    If only Hansen had that perfect 20/20 vision that you had (without the ever so slight advantage of hindsight).

    I think you're wrong. I think Hansen knew full well that we simply didn't have the cattle to take on England, SA upfront. At the end of 2018 we beat both England and SA away by bugger all both games and then got comprehensively munched by Ireland. In each of those three games we got completely taken to upfront.

    I think Hansen saw both SA & England were seriously building, perhaps that Ireland had peaked and looked at our cattle and wondered if we had what it took to take them on. He then concluded that we probably didn't and realised that our backline was our only real shot. Then came the Bledisloe 1 and he realised that he really had to roll the dice. So he did.

    It worked for a bit - we munched Aus in Bled 2 and then due to 15 mins of brilliance got past SA in the opening WC fixture. But I suspect both Eddie & Rassie watched that match and realised we still were extremely beatable up front. And so it proved.

    Time for fresh ideas? Maybe. But I think as long as rugby is a pure 23 man game with 6 extra forwards on the bench, we are going to struggle to compete in the forwards battle.

    I think this is possibly the worst take on things I've seen on here (no disrespect intended, MR, as I usually agree with your view of the world).

    There is absolutely no way we would not have beaten England with a well-executed and tactically smart game plan (as opposed to the poorly executed game plan we actually trotted out). You're talking about a forward pack that beat the best of the home nations combined in 2017 and dismantled a very English-like (not as good, but similar) forward pack the week before. It's hardly 2007 Australia in its softness!

    Now, whether we then go onto beak the Boks is obviously completely hypothetical. But, certainly, there wouldn't have been any fear-factor (perhaps we would have had the psychological edge on them) and, indeed, it's likely we'd have had greater certainty in our skill execution and decision-making coming up against a familiar opponent.

    In short, I don't see us getting flogged by the Springboks in the same way that England did.

    (As a final point, I disagree with your assessment of the Twickenham match last year. After their fast start, our forwards were on top for the rest of that match, with a strong set piece and go forward close in. It was our backs' lack of penetration - due in part to the wet conditions - and them losing the kicking battle, which kept England close enough to get within a TMO-decision of winning.)

    Just on the pack that played the Lions in 2017, I think it’s fair to say that the pack that was played against England in 2019 was quite different.

    Franks still playing good footy particularly at the ruck. Laulala had little impact.
    In 2017 our locking combo was the best duo in the world. 9 days ago Retallick looked short of a gallop and didn’t have that psycho thing going on. Whitelock also looked tired.
    Kaino factor. And a Read that had two more years in the legs.
    These two packs were in my opinion not comparable.



  • @MajorRage said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    @junior said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    I think this is possibly the worst take on things I've seen on here (no disrespect intended, MR, as I usually agree with your view of the world).

    People all agreeing is boring. So it's good that I at least have generated some discussion ...

    There is absolutely no way we would not have beaten England with a well-executed and tactically smart game plan (as opposed to the poorly executed game plan we actually trotted out).

    I don't buy this at all. It was 19-7 with two disallowed tries for England. They destroyed us up front, and I'm not sure the game plan was entirely the issue. It's a factor for sure, but not enough to turn around that margin.

    You're talking about a forward pack that beat the best of the home nations combined in 2017 and dismantled a very English-like (not as good, but similar) forward pack the week before. It's hardly 2007 Australia in its softness!

    It's all about trajectories. I think that English forward pack was just starting to get it's mojo going in 2018. I think we peaked, as a pack, around 2016 if not 2017. Having an underdone Brodie Retallick just put us even further on the back foot. South Africa went from 57-0 to beating us on home soil in a year.

    Now, whether we then go onto beak the Boks is obviously completely hypothetical. But, certainly, there wouldn't have been any fear-factor (perhaps we would have had the psychological edge on them) and, indeed, it's likely we'd have had greater certainty in our skill execution and decision-making coming up against a familiar opponent.

    I totally agree. However, I still think there is a high chance of us losing that match, as I think Erasmus would have learned a lot from the pool game. He knew they were at least our equal up front by this point, so keeping it tight and doing what they did to England on the weekend would have had a substantial chance of generating a different result.

    In short, I don't see us getting flogged by the Springboks in the same way that England did.

    (As a final point, I disagree with your assessment of the Twickenham match last year. After their fast start, our forwards were on top for the rest of that match, with a strong set piece and go forward close in. It was our backs' lack of penetration - due in part to the wet conditions - and them losing the kicking battle, which kept England close enough to get within a TMO-decision of winning.)

    Yeah, thats probably a fair assessment. I was at the game though, and I remember us just getting munched at the start. It took something special from Brodie to turn that around.

    MR, I'll throw a bit of support your way. I agree with you and ACT Crusader, this pack up was well short of the 2017 vintage.

    We picked what were supposed to be ball-running props, but we didn't see that all tournament. Coles has been a shadow of his former self for a while now, and Taylor never had his skills with ball in hand. Retallick came off a tough injury and probably wasn't 100%. Whitelock has looked tired all year. Savea a workhorse, but still undersized, especially in terms of hitting hard defensively (as opposed to utilising that freakish legdrive and willpower when ball running), and Read is well off his former best. Cane should have started for me, but I'm not sure it would have mattered. It certainly didn't change things after the break (tactics didnt help, I know)

    We may have used a tighter system against Ireland to great effect, and England may not be THAT much tougher upfront than Ireland, but just a little bit can matter a lot in terms of gaining ascendancy.

    We'll never know if we could have beaten England by playing closer and tighter, or whether we would have beaten the Boks a week later. I suspect the answer to the latter is still no, given the toll of the semi. The Boks looked fresh and ready, I don't know that we would have said the same.

    When you look across the park at the Boks an NZ, where are our advantages? Set piece? Nah. Breakdown dominance ? Nope. Tactical kicking? Fuck no. Pace and finishing out wide? Nuh uh. Ability to play different styles? Maybe. Ball skills and handling? Sure.

    I honestly think that given the path SA had vs ours (if we beat England) , we would have lost the final.



  • @voodoo said in RWC: 3rd/4th game All Blacks vs Wales:

    Cane should have started for me, but I'm not sure it would have mattered. It certainly didn't change things after the break (tactics didn't help, I know)

    There was no way Cane coming on at half time could reverse things, all he was able to do was tackle like a demon in a team way behind the 8 ball. The damage was done. Plus the play behind the advantage line tactics seemed to be more prevalent in the 2nd half.

    Cane was needed at the start to shut down runs and make a nuisance of himself, which would have freed up Savea for his running game. It would have mattered.



  • @Nepia As I said, I was definitely in favour of him starting. As it was, he probably should have been brought on for Read rather than Barrett.🤢



  • In hindsight a tough call probably needed to have been made and one of our stalwart locks shouldn’t have started. Scott Barrett was pretty good in that first half and he along with Cane would’ve been pretty handy with how the game was being played.

    Given we barely competed at England’s LO ball, the loss of one of our 2 metre locks wouldn’t have mattered.


Log in to reply