This may be severely tainted with my bitterness about walking out the stadium last night, at these fluffybunny Englishmen bleating about wonderful they were and how shit we were. And they were right, I had nothing to say except that they were, and are, worthy winners and deservedly favourites for the WC.

The risk analysis tragedy at the heart of the All Blacks

Every teams loses. Sport wouldn’t be interesting if a team didn’t– at least occasionally - lose. However, the AB loss to England was an embarrassing defeat for a group of coaches – and players - supposedly thought to have taken rugby to a 'new level'. The risk loving play and tactics of the players, when the situation clearly doesn’t call for it, has been a hallmark of Steve Hansen’s coaching since 2015 - and it’s one we should face up to as look to a new needed coaching group.

Firstly, let’s talk about how incredibly accurate, well-coached, and defensively sound England were. Watching the game live at the stadium, I was truly impressed at how much better they were – both offensively and defensively – than the ABs. They kicked very accurately, defended strongly (less accurately than NZ overall at 82% to 89%, but for more dominantly) and conceded less turnovers, with very few penalties. Furthermore, they didn’t play in their own half – they got the ball out into the NZ 40 (or deeper) and tried (successfully) to keep the game there.

The ABs on the other hand, well, that’s a different story.

Beyond the personal tragedies of this game from supposed leaders – such as Read’s five missed tackles (and BBBR’s three!), or Beauden Barrett’s three turnovers, or Aaron Smith’s ridiculous up and under to their 22 when we had great attacking ball – it is the consistent decisions by ABs to engage in risky plays that highlights why we couldn’t even get close to this England team. We simply never put them under any pressure. Why?

It amazes me to think that professional rugby players don’t know the (old) Ps, but it certainly seems that way: position, possession, pressure, points. We didn’t seem to value any of the first two, so it is little wonder that we didn’t seem to get any of the last.

Consistently, when we had opportunities, rather than try to work it through the forwards – we would try to go around the English, sometimes getting caught midfield (thanks to their effective rush) but often turning it over due to little kicks. Even those we regathered often had little meaning. An example is the cross kick to ALB – who was easily well covered – he caught it but was then easily taken to touch. Why kick that? Beauden Barrett, Aaron Smith, and Richie Mo’unga were all guilty of possession giveaways. It seems to be that the thinking is we’ll get plenty of opportunities, so one of them will come off. But, what if we only get one or two opportunities? Then what happens? You’ve just kicked it away to a team that won’t give it back in any place you want it. Now what? That’s All Black arrogance.

Even worse, when territory mattered, we’d either do something stupid (I’m looking at you Jordie Barrett with that stupid fucking attempted run and offload) or not kick deep enough. Sadly, our exits were just, pretty shit. Smith had two good exit box kicks to touch that I saw – apart from that I never saw us try to exit our territory with any real class. Barrett’s kicks were generally too short, while we commonly got pushed around by the English with superior kicks that found grass – posters have been talking about how Reece could be taken advantage of in this way and finally a team put that into play against us effectively. His danger man status hid the fact that he was also defensively a liability on kick coverage. His is the risk-loving strategy in selection.

Furthermore, we were just too happy to try and play rugby inside our half, rather than put it in their half. As a result, England had 62% of territory (and I’ll bet most of ours was in between halfway and their 40), making the game pretty easy in terms of tactics for them. Our kicks never put them under any territorial pressure, so they could attack us at will, from almost any field position. My favorite memory of the AB-Oz game from 2011 was Piri Weepu’s first kick to the corner – we got position to put on pressure, from which we generated possession and later on - points. It was beautiful and simple, but so well done. Where is that in this team? Why can’t we be traditionally pure with classical tactical soundness? Isn’t that a club that we are meant to have in our bag?

The Jordie Barrett attempted offload that led to a penalty – which put the game beyond reach - is the perfect example of this AB team seeing ‘pictures’ (as the coaches refer to them) that don’t match with the real risk involved. I’m sure that in Jordie’s mind, he could make a few metres, possibly even break through with an offload, and start us up on our way towards the winning try. But, he’s in our 22. If he fucks up, or anyone fucks up, or if the ball is dropped, it’s potentially curtains. That’s the game situation. He has a 99% certain clearance chance if he kicks or passes to BB for the clearance, but he chooses a risky run.

Why?

I think the problem is that he doesn’t accurately assess the risk of his action. He sees an isolated ‘picture’, designed (I think) to help players express themselves as well as they can. However, He didn’t seem to see it within the wider game, that is, with respect to the scoreboard pressure or the context. Even worse, that’s a pattern for him for which there has been no improvement.

But beyond the selection (hi Ben Smith @Tim) problem here, I wonder who is in charge of guiding these young men as they make decisions about how to respond to key pressure situations? Are they assessing these challenges appropriately? Is this game just a normal rugby game? Isn’t this rugby game very different to every other game? Isn’t that what we’ve learned from the last 30 years?

Once upon a time, we won a final by recognizing that we had to be a different kind of team – playing to the situation and context. It was certainly not pretty, but it was driven by a leader (and a group of senior players) who knew what the situation required.

Yesterday showed that the current players – including the leadership group and particularly this coaching group – haven’t learned that lesson. It’s been forgotten in trying to ‘revolutionize’ our play – devolving responsibility to players to make decisions based on what they ‘see’. But what if what they ‘see’ is not even close to the full picture? Is not assessed against the real potential risks of competition tournament rugby?

Is it because there has also been an abandonment of an overall game strategy? Certainly, we don’t have the quality of leadership as we had (no McCaw, Smith, etc.) but also shouldn’t two WC wins give the coaching team a better idea of what is required in that situation? How can this team continue to make bad decisions over 24 months (let’s go back to the Lion’s series) when faced with the rush defence? That’s on the coaches and the players. Why has there been no attempt to have multiple ways of playing the rush – incredibly they left the guy behind the pod alone all night last night, after one or two times it was clear that this player (often BBBR, also often Mo’unga) was under so much pressure they needed help, yet there was no inside fallback option available. They were just alone back there with flat options to the side they couldn’t use. The pass to the inside runner was completely shelved and our outsides were just pushed to the sideline while we never used our front running pods well at all. Then, we conceded interceptions, yet the risk-loving strategy to find outside space or try to kick to that space continued.

We are still one of the best teams in the world, certainly by player talent standards. We have the players - Japan has even shown that good players can be amazing with great coaching and a clear strategy – this is a problem of preparation. People go on about Eddie Jones and his brilliance – who the fuck didn’t know we were going to play England here? In this game? You’re fucking kidding me if that was a surprise, and furthermore, his brilliance seems to be more based on a desire to work harder and stronger and be more prepared than anyone out there. He’s even come out and said he’s been working on this for two and a half years. Of course he has. Who at the Abs hasn’t been considering that? Where were our plays designed to play to their weaknesses?

Maybe it suggests that after two WC wins, we just don’t want it enough anymore? Really want it – like ‘bone deep’ want it as they say? Have we got a preparation and conscientiousness problem in the players and coaches? Or, are they just not strategically sound enough to design tactics against the other premier coaches? If so, why the fuck would we reappoint any of the current coaches?

This team and coaching setup couldn’t beat the Lions. They lost to Ireland, twice. And, we got belittled by England at the WC. It’s not the defeat but the manner of it. Every time we’ve had to produce – except for Bledisloe cup games against an equally weak Aussie side while playing at Eden Park – we’ve been shown up.

This team has been too happy to make game losing decisions - it’s time to reassess the strategic and tactical goals of the ABs and relearn some key strategic insights from past failures. Maybe that’s why winning three WCs in a row will be the ultimate challenge for any team – it may be that the playing and coaching group just doesn’t have enough desire against teams desperate to make up for their past WC failures.

The rewatch

So, I re-watched the game - thank god for Sapporo Hana-bi-yabi beer (try it!)

I focused upon Ardie Savea, so I'll get there soon, but first I want to talk about some team issues, and who - IMO - were the worst players out there (Hint: Not Ardie!)

Overall, what I see on the rewatch is a lot of individual skill errors leading to turnovers, penalties, and opportunities missed. I also see us not responding to opposition tactics (like attacking our ball) with players not making any attempt to clean effectively, meaning shit ball, meaning less opportunities.

Team Issues

Cleaning

We got done around the break down because no one appeared to give a fuck about cleaning appropriately - or being on hand to secure the ball after the cleaners have gone over. This was the primary problem on the edges, where the French put men in and we had only one or two men making ineffective cleans (or sometimes only one). ALB was one of the few making strong cleans, but seemed to be alone to often. A few examples:

34:20 - Scott Barrett non attempt followed by weak Moody clean out leads to French turnover on our left flank.

39:15 - Squire and Cane blow over to the ball, but there’s no one there to help. S Barrett and S Whitelock are backing off, not seeing that we are losing the ball.

42nd minute - Cane breaks through, L Whitelock with no feel for the counter attack, leaves Cane isolated, result is turnover and opportunity gone.

76:23 - Players only setting for the next play, no cleaners. Fifita just watching

Effort

I only really remember two dominant tackles (Squire once, L Whitelock once) in the whole game, indicating we aren't really putting in the effort.

A related concern was the lack of urgency on defence, most obviously seen by defenders not making a big enough effort to roll away. Examples: S. Barrett, S Whitelock, N Harris

A Lack of patience

We'd start breaking them down outside, only to push it, rather than reset (no cleaners for that anyway, I guess) and go again. Some examples:

First half - Cody Taylor attempted offload in traffic on the sideline, leading to a turnover

46:40 - Unnecessary offload by Ioane leads to metres lost and Dmac to kick for the corner, which uuuust goes out on the full.

Later on - Ioane in space, pushes the late pass (rather than passing earlier or holding) leading to a turnover.

Individuals

Worst of the night: Sam Cane
The worst I've ever seen him play. Behind the play, and when he caught up, he'd penalize (three times), and missed almost as many tackles as he made (4-3). Totally off the pace.

Second Worst: Owen Franks
Holy shit, when he wasn't waving people through (first French no-try) he was hitting the ground faster than a 10 dollar hooker. Offered no ball running, hardly any cleaning, and was exploited for his lack of pace at least twice - made as many tackles as he missed (3-3). May have been injured, but he's also completely out of form.

Third Worst: Vaea Fifita
You'd struggle to know if he was out there. One turnover, but was just constantly ball watching. It's incredible. He may have been injured, but he was terrible. According to ESPN, 3 carries and no metres gained. Supposedly made 9 tackles.

Joe Moody
In his 50 minutes, he scored a good try, but also was packing on his knees, and missed two tackles that I saw. He also dropped a sitter 5 out when we were on attack. A numbr of poor clean outs and just looked tired.

Nathan Harris
Terrible. One not straight when we are hard on attack, plus one overthrow, plus a missed tackle in the build up to the second French non-try (68:30), followed by a rolling away penalty. I'm not sure he made a positive contribution.

Codie Taylor
Terrible offsides to give French ball in our territory

Aaron Smith
Consistently bad passing, including the forward to Jordie

TJ Perenara
Handling, kicking, and passing all not good enough. Worst of all, no patience when we got opportunities.

Dmac
Bad drop 5 out when we were hot on attack
Bad short pass to Franks, who promptly goes down like a 10 dollar hooker, which is followed by a bad clean out from Dmac and S Barrett, while Squire backs off rather than coming to secure possession
Stupid chip kick at 53 mins
Cracking box kick at 65:28, best of the night be a player in black
McKenzie quick tap at 70:50, needed to get territory, we went quick and ended up turning it over (Crotty drop)

Ardie Savea (14 tackles, 3 misses, 1 clean break, 7 metres, 1 offload, and I think 3 turnovers earned)

Not good, but busy.

I think he gets (mostly) a hard time from us, mainly due to his inaccuracies (3 misses), and some problems with the way he gets himself back in the defensive line - in one case running past the obvious pillar spot to the other side of the ruck, leaving a gap for the french (which they exploit). I think this is the point @Bones makes a lot.

Having said that, he was busy as fuck, particularly in comparison to Fifita. However, his tackles don't tend to be dominant, and he tends to be busy as fuck for 1 minute, then unsighted (even though he's right there watching ) for the next minute. My notes below:

First tackle stops Basteureux (ND)
Stands up and helps next tackle (ND)
Cover tackle on Thomas (ND)
Another after the line out (D) then competes for ball, slowing it down
Misses tackle at 53 mins but gets up and tackles the following player (ND) and follows that by almost securing a turnover

Then goes missing during the next 5 minutes, always the guy holding off the tackle, then misses the fullback on the cut and looks worn out? Follows up and covers by getting the turnover when the ball comes out, then loses it, then he and Fifita tackle together (and Fifita gets hurt).

Is missing at 61 when TJ and Laumape can’t clean Basteureud quickly and we concede another breakdown penalty, even though he's coming across. Maybe I'm being unfair to ask him to get to that breakdown as others are closer, but backing off to set up, in accordance with our shitty cleaning strategy all night.

He stands by as we go backwards at 62:20, then makes a (ND) tackle, gets up, runs to the other side of the ruck, rather than setting a good pillar. That creates a gap that the French break through. TJP goes to the bin at the next ruck.

Makes a stopping tackle at 63:30 after getting stepped by Basteureud, followed by a (ND) tackle at 63:40, then is straight back up and makes the next tackle, but gets carried along, loosing metres.

Turns it over (or L Whitelock does) at 68:30, from a line out drive, and that allows the French to break for the line - it's ruled out due to double movement - note Harris shaken off by the Frenchie there too.

Makes a (ND) tackle at 70 mins, followed by a non-completed tackle at 70:29 that allows Frog to crawl a few metres. Nice miss though, because the Frenchie gets penalized.

Makes a good tackle on Thomas at 71:41, followed by a reasonable tackle with L Whitelock at 71:55.

Makes a tackle at 74:41, followed by turnover, relieving the pressure on us. Again, he makes a tackle at 78:28 followed by a turnover won, which goes five out, and then Perenara throws it away. Fuck.

Ardie makes a tackle at 79:5, while Fifita has been watching on, then Ardie concedes penalty adv trying to attack the ball, stands up and makes the next tackle, and the next one, while Fifita never comes across to cover the blindside pillar - even though he is clearly a passenger at this point and could use his body at least, leaving the blind open for them to open us up. They break through and everyone is too tired to run them down, and that's that.

Overall, I think Ardie is just still too inaccurate, and too busy without being purposeful. He seems to wear himself out then drop out for a few minutes, then jump in all blood and guts, then go missing again. It looks like they need to give me better strategic directions about how to apply himself.

I think it’s time to face the fact that this AB team is good, but not great. It’s going to be a cracking World Cup, but our chances are as low as they’ve been since 1991. That's probably good for rugby, but it also shows how very very lucky we've been for, well, about 10 years really.

Ireland play a great pattern, were incredibly accurate, and took their opportunities well, while (mostly) shutting us down. They deserve the No. 1 world ranking and I assume took it with this victory. They also rightly showed that the current balance of power in world rugby has tipped to the North. The Wallabies suck, and the Saffas come and go, while the most consistent teams in the last three years are all from the North. We should recognize that, then set out to destroy it.

From looking at the overall stats, it’s two evenly matched teams (territory, possession, defense percentage, kicks in play, clean breaks, defenders beaten all the same or very close) with them having the territory and possession edge in the first half and us in the second. The game was broken open by one excellent play from them to score a very good try, with us also conceding a greater number of turnovers, and more than twice as many penalties - some of them absolute coach killers from some of our most experienced players (5/11 from Whitelock and Read).

On another day, the movement that they scored from may have been shut down, and Read may have picked up the charge down and given it to Goodhue, and we’d be celebrating a close AB victory. If Rieko's break or another had been finished, we'd be celebrating a good win.

Luckily, that didn't happen, because whether or not this is the loss that this team needed or not, it was certainly the loss that we needed. I've seen posters crowing about us putting 20 points on them in the lead up, and following the loss others hoping that this is due to us 'saving' stuff for next year. Well, that is a fucking dream. We couldn't break down the Lions and we couldn't break down this team, with, let's face it, pretty much our first choice team minus two, while Ireland were missing at least as many big names - especially Murray, which makes them even harder to beat. It's time to face the fact that this All Black team is good, but not great.

This AB team may be able to win a WC. However, as @rotated pointed out very well, very few of this team have experienced real difficulty in the AB jersey, and strangely their continued failures seem to be explained away: This post 2015 team did not win a series against the Lions; has lost to Ireland twice; has not had the highest win percentage (in comparison to the other top three teams) during any year since Richie stopped pulling on the black jersey (England, England, Ireland, source: ESPN statsguru); and has conceded more tries (per game) than any other AB team of the professional era.

Beyond the fact that we should be celebrating the rise of an excellent and well-coached Ireland team, the simple fact is that we, as fans, need to clearly recognize that this team is not that good. They aren't as poor as 1998, but neither are they really that strong, and as @mariner4life points out very well in his post, there are just too many questions about strategy and selection - and the gap between. We appear to have too many old-timers or out-of-formers and as everyone gets older, how are we maintaining our supposed attack? On the back of huge run metres from Barrett, B Smith, Ioane, and Dmac. Of our 338 metres in this match, more than 50% (about 170) come from those four players, which is fine, but equally our forwards are not making enough metres. To put this in perspective, our highest running forward (Savea with 23) only ran as much as their fourth highest forward (O'Mahony) as Ireland got 173 metres out of their forwards, while we managed only 102 from ours. Only three of our 13 forwards ran for more metres than their counterparts (Taylor with 12 versus Best's 4; Retallick with 9 compared to Toner's 4; and COles with 7 compared to Cronin's 3), while their loosies killed us with about twice as many running metres (100 odd versus 50 idd, including subs). As many have stated, we miss some ball-running capability. It's not happening in the midfield either where our starters got 27 touches (12 passes, 15 runs, 41 metres) while theirs got 47 (15 passes, 32 runs, 51 metres). Were we chasing and regathering like two years ago, that might be ok, but we aren't.

The Ireland try came about from almost exactly the same manipulation as England’s try last week, but this time relied on a chip chase. I’m not sure we can be better defend that manipulation than we did today , although perhaps Smith could make a better decision. It seems that we can be manipulated easily though. So, who is the defense coach and is this system that good?

On the other hand, two weeks in a row, we were out-coached with teams having plays deliberately set up to take advantage of our defensive systems, yet we produced what to combat theirs? Chip kicks. Maybe I'm being unfair, but my dad could give the same analysis about using little kicks behind against a rushing defense. Is it possible that Ireland (and the Lions) had also thought about that and have systems in place for trying to deal with it? Is it possible that our attack coach is not really coming up with anything innovative about how to break these teams down? Aren't we really just about the same as the 1998 - 2003 teams in relying on some brilliance from our outsides?

We’ve also got skill problems limiting our attack. Beyond the kicking and dropped balls, we have turned into a team with poor passing - when we had chances today, we often had bad passes - TJP’s to Ofa which resulted in a penalty jumps out here, but it's also been a pattern this year (e.g., Smith to Savea vs England). Do we miss Nick the kick? Who is our skills coach, and do they need the boot?

The 2011 winning team was coached by a group of individuals who weren't complacent - can our coaches say that about themselves?

Are they good enough or skilled enough to know what complacency looks like?

Is Kieran Read in the the same league as McCaw in that he should never be taken off? I just don’t see him being the same leader, and when he’s poor, he rarely turns it around mid game. He’s been so up and down this year, and our performance next year is really reliant on his form and leadership, because as @mariner4life explains, there doesn’t appear much planning behind him. I think @Duluth may be right in that a move to 6 could work, with a ball runner such as Akira as the primary midfield pod runner, with Read moving back out to the left and Taylor on the right. The problem with that is whether he still has the speed for that (as M4L mentioned), but at least he should be strong enough to be the lone forward in ruck attendance out there. If he doesn't move, what is our strategy for our forwards? Can Read get back to full fitness? Where and how are we covering the ground to run teams down, and who is doing it? Barrett? Dmac? Seems pretty easy to counteract that, so who and where are the hard yards being put it?

Furthermore, have we stopped at the 1-3-3-1? Ireland made it look pretty easy to defend against. If we can't run teams down by going behind them or side to side, ala Backadder Crusaders, what is the back-up plan? And, who are the players to put that in action? It's not so much the defeat today, as the total lack of ideas by - supposedly - some of the most gifted players on the planet. Perhaps, just perhaps, those players need us to make a little more space for them to do their work?

So, up front, beyond the loosies and locks - where we will hopefully never have BBBR in such bad form again - is being good at set piece really enough? Poor old Karl found out what it's like to come up against the best today (8 tackles, 2 misses, 0 passes, 0 runs, 0 metres, 1 penalty conceded). Let's hope it was a good 'learning'. Furlong jumps out with his performance - not only at set piece, but also around the field - and it is backed up by the stats (6 tackles, no miss, 6 passes, 11 runs, 22 metres, 1 defender beaten) while he was also supported by Healy (12 metres) and McGrath (10 metres off 5 runs). Is there a reason why we can't get better help around the field from our front rowers? It's not to say that Franks did poorly - he put in a good shift on defense (17 made, 1 missed, 3 runs, 2 metres). However, I think this game really throws in to light a potential problem about us only expecting our tighties to scrum and clean. Don't we also ask all our players to clean when needed - poor fucking Dmac is in there half time when the ball goes wide. So, what's up? Is it due to our forwards coach only really being a scrum coach?

I'm no pro and I'm sitting on my couch writing this, but I think that this statement is a fair enough reflection of where they are at: This AB team isn't great. The first step to solving a problem is recognizing that you have one.

Interesting discussion.

Right now, we are struggling to replace absolutely world class players, and the players we have bedded in over the last two-three years haven't stepped up as required. IMO, it’s that simple, and there is no quick fix. Our 2015 team was, almost man for man, better than our current team, and will likely be better than what we can put out next year.

On the plus side, I’m not sure many teams have really improved since 2015, the Irish, the Wobs look likely right now, and Saffas are potentially very dangerous.

With no injuries, we are right there though, but without some key players, it’s an average AB team. Some bad luck but also bad management has lead us here. Bad luck would be the locks and props and hooker where injuries have taken away players ready (eg, Hames, Nepo, Moli) or getting there (eg, Aumua). Plus some injuries during the lead up (Moody, Cane, Franks, Squire) has meant we have a number of players under cooked right now, which makes us look worse. So, with most of those players back and with a bit of rugby, we could be laughing next year with a much bigger group of players ready to step up.

Bad management includes a bit of a lack of planning and investment for the future, including mainly Luatua, but also losing Vito too, while holding on to Kaino for the Lions, meaning that we are one year out from the WC with a back row light on experience - after keeping some players on contract who shouldn't have been. IMO, not trying to keep Charlie for two more years was also a shame (understandable given his age and the choice between him or Franks, but Charlie was playing really well). They had spent big on Savea in 2015, and I suspect they are paying too much for SBW, when they should really know that we can produce 11-15 all over the ship, but 1 through 10 is much harder, and 1 through 8 lay the platform for us to win test matches.

With Nepo back, I think we are looking OK at TH, as although Franks is looking like he should be put out to pasture, with the three of them (including Tuungofasi) we are alright for the WC and then just need some new blood post that (e.g., Moli). I think Ofa has been excellent, and has done a fantastic job stepping in to Charlie's role, so it's only really hindsight and Franks' current form that makes me miss Charlie, I guess. With Nepo fit, I doubt I'll be concerned.

LH is suddenly a bit of a problem. Moody is shit right now, and hopefully that’s just due to a lack of rugby. Karl looks better than Hames, which is incredibly lucky, but both of them look a bit unfit (Karl was really struggling in the last 10 last week). After that, it’s looking a bit weak.

Hooker is fine if Coles comes back with any form. We’d then have him and Taylor for now, both world class, with Aumua for the future, and adequate squaddies around when needed. The problem is that Harris and the chubby toddler are there due to two injuries. It’s worth remembering that, as we could be much much stronger overnight if Coles regains fitness. Of course, if he doesn't, Taylor's value, well, Mastercard and all that. My third biggest concern.

Locks are a problem, because there are just less physically able bodies about. For that reason, a bit more effort into developing Bird would probably have been a good idea, because he came right at Super level for the Chiefs then left. But, some of that is on the players not working out (I’m looking at you Tuips), so hard to put that on the coaches. I suspect that if Tuips has gone to the Landers or Saders, he’d be a better player and ready to be the bench player and potential starter that he should be. Can’t really lay that at Shag’s door. If he has become the player he was developed to be, our bench would be pretty fearsome and he could do the starter role too.

So, simply put, we just have a huge lack of class behind two absolute greats. Romano has filled in well, but has never been the future, and Tuips hasn’t worked out - yet. He is still young though, so still could get there with some greater consistency. Players with the workrate seem to be too small (Barrett, Hemopo, although we’ll find out). This is actually my biggest area of concern for us because we have put lots into Scott Barrett and I'm still not convinced he's even better than Romano. Those watching the young dudes might provide us with some hope here, but right now we are so dependent on SW and BBBR, I’d have lock identification and development as an absolute priority. For that reason, selecting Fifita looks a real bad idea, and one that is a bit unfathomable for me. Surely, there are others they could be looking at, such as Louisi?

Regarding the loosies, with Read missing, it’s the huge gap in class that many predicted would appear once we lost the obvious back up (Luatua). Akira appears to be the answer to many of us, but he’s not ready, doesn’t have the workrate, or is a dick. I’m worried that he’ll get the same Luatua treatment, in which case he’ll leave right about the same time as he becomes world class, and there seems to be a bit of a pattern with some of the Auckland boys (Luatua, Tuips, Akira) being harder to get integrated. Is that because they are fat and unfit? Uncoached? Uncoachable? I think some of this can be laid at the Blues not really developing players. Ofa has come on as an All Black, so I'm happy that Akira keeps getting tot he camps, even if he isn't named. A t least, he should know what he needs to do.

Anyway, putting Akira aside, this is clearly the major problem right now because I'm not convinced that Read will come back any good. Whitelock is good without being good enough to be a dominant AB 8 to take us through to a WC wine - my god I wish Luatua were out there. Whitelock makes some dominant tackles and does plenty of leg work, which makes him Sam Cane II (who I think will be ok once he actually gets fit), but he does much less around the field as a creator in comparison to Read (or Luatua), making us very reliant on Moody, Taylor, Squire and BBBR to get us metres and offloads.

At my most optimistic, Squire looks like Kaino in 2004/2005, Messam in 2008/2009 and Vito in 2010/2011, in that he appears to have the tools, but can't consistently do it for 80, or even 60. But, who else is there? @tim would say Akira at 6, but I think he's a natural 8. Fifita is an athlete who doesn't seem to do the hard yards (also, Kaino 2004 reminiscent), and was missing as a ball runner too, while Taufua is small (and injured, and better at 8). If we can solve that problem, we are much more set, but we are really just hoping that Read comes back and that Squire works out, or, that they've literally picked the next Kaino from nowhere and @nepia is wrong about the new boy.

Backup 7 is fine, with Todd the next starter always on stand by. Ardie made more tackles than anyone else last week (Source: ESPN stats) but still doesn’t seem to have a clear role. I’m not as down on him as others, especially off the bench, but I feel like Taufua could do the same role better.

Anyway, I'm tired now, but I think we are fine in the backs - Dagg, Ben Lam, Thompson, Taimanivalu, Alaimalo can't even get into the team (some of them are miles away), and although I'd like us to have another WC ten coming through, I'm much happier about 10 with Barrett looking OK, Mo'unga looking ready, and Dmac looking OK in the bench role. The halfbacks both played like shit last week, but we have heaps of depth, so no dramas there, and more quality midfielders than we have places for.

If we can solve our dissolving depth and lack of experience up front, we're fine. If not, we're buggered.

The re-watch: Is it now time to leave Fifita behind?

In a gripping game that SA will feel unlucky about only drawing, a number of ABs showed the selectors why they shouldn’t be at the world cup. Some players appear past it, and some are just not good enough.

What is happening with our starting front row?

First, the starting front row performance was pretty woeful – with the possible exception of Taylor. Although it is their first AB game of the year, the invisibility of Owen Franks – except for his defensive lapses (including some comical misses) is a key issue. One hopes that it is form and both he and Moody have enough to turn it on in Japan. The stats show that Taylor had 6 metres, 1 bad throw, 9 tackles, and no misses. Moody gained 3 metres from 2 runs, including 1 terrible cold drop turnover. He did earn 1 turnover, and made 4 of his 5 tackles. Owen Franks had no stats on offence (according to Sanzar) – no carries, metres, or passes. However, on my rewatch, which I'll discus below, I did notice one carry at 42:27, where he gained about one metre. He made 5 tackles and had his customary 2 misses. I’m wondering why Ofa, Nepo, or Ta’avao can’t get a chance here – each can carry, clean, and tackle plus I wonder if there is so much difference in their scrummaging. Is this Cron focusing too much on the scrum?

SBW

Second, it’s probably time to recognize that SBW is not the key to breaking down the rush – in fact he can be targeted due to the way he carries. He had one magical pass (that to be fair most 12s should give), but that was it. Apart from that, our (starting) midfield was pretty up and down. It seemed that ALB was a little more dynamic when he came on, although the stats don’t really bear that out too much – probably because they don’t capture the metres gained from a couple of his passes. Anyway, by the numbers, SBW was penalized once, and turned over the ball twice, while making 7 tackles with no misses) and running for 16 metres off 10 carries. ALB had two runs with one defender beaten, 1 tackle with no misses, and had 3 passes, one of which found space.

The continuing problem at Six

Finally, six remains a key problem. It’s puzzling that they only gave Paps 4 minutes, but I think it’s because they wanted to see Frizell's contribution, and there was a bit of talk in the game thread about him being a bit anonymous, so after @Duluth suggested that he be the focus on today’s post, I looked at him and Fifita – always good for plenty of discussion – in my re-watch. First, the stats according to Sanzar:

Frizell won 3 lineouts, ran for 16 metres, made 5 tackles with 1 miss, and wasn’t penalized, conceding no turnovers. His fellow starters were busy, Todd had 14 tackles with no misses, and ran for 17 metres (more than any forward not named Dane Coles [31]). At eight, Read made 8 tackles with no misses. Looking at those stats, Frizell certainly looks like the weak link, but as my re-watch will show, he’s actually doing a fair bit of suitcase work. Furthermore, I really like the way he chases play, even to make a clean. That point separates him from Fifita, who after coming on to replace Retallick also won 3 lineouts, but made zero tackles in nearly 19 minutes with one offload while running for 4-6 metres off 5 carries. It’s not exactly what we’d like from a supposedly amazing athlete, but I think he just isn’t physical or active enough at this level – he’d end up on the wing or be the guy standing behind the ruck, rather that the guy who chases the play and make a strong contribution.

As you’ll see below, altogether I get about 40 odd ruck attendances for Frizell, at many of which he makes effective cleans.

On the other hand, I have Fifita with about 9 during his 19 minutes, so it seems similar right? It’s not.

Fifita is a ruck leaner – very seldom a ruck cleaner.

I’m no AB selector (clearly), but if one six is to be dropped from Frizell, Fifita, and Hemopo, it should be Fifita.

Frizell

00:07: joins ruck
00:20: pillar
00:25: joins ruck after charge down
00:57: first man to the ruck, attacks ball ineffectively

SA get penalty and kick

02:19 good shot on Vermeulen after kick off
02:51 joins ruck from wrong side on defense (lucky to not be penalized)
03:36 good clean on Vermeulen who is attacking the ball

Lots of kicking

06:00 ruck lean
06:03 ruck clean
08:19 attacks ball on the ground

SBW penalized, they kick for goal

10:06 attempts charge down
11:10 line out win
11:23 clean out on the other side of the field - we win penalty
13:37 line out win
18;01 non dominant tackle
18:59 tackle
19:26 missed tackle on Kwagga
20:18 wins line out

We turn it over and they go on attack

25:20 attacks ruck as first man there - is cleaned out, but I like the way he followed the play across to get involved

We get penalized and they miss

29:20 joins ruck and secures ball (Todd turned it over)
30:22 carries for 2 meters
30:30 gets up and helps clean
32:18 non dominant tackle and allows player to offload
32:27 excellent clean to secure the ball
34:23 stopping tackle in midfield
35:20 first man to the ruck after Ioane drop - cleans SA player ineffectively

Plays goes on and we score

40:05 joins ruck from wrong side but gets away with it, we clear and that’s the half
40:31 ruck lean
40:55 good clean
41:15 another clean
41:40 follows play and cleans again
42:02 effective clean
42:08 gets up and cleans again
42:31 ruck lean/clean
43:13 tackle
43:55 arrives at ruck to pass

Disappears to the wing for a minute or two

46:53 joins ruck
47:11 ruck lean
47:21 ruck lean
49:20 attacks ball at their ruck
49:30 strongish tackle on Etzebeth as he passes
49:47 second tackler and attacks ball
51:58 good clean
52:13 catch pass in the tackle
55:28 strong carry for 2-3 meters, gets us going forward (we win a penalty)
56:26 lifts Read
56:48 sort of tackle (guy is going down anyway)
57:22 gets inside ball and makes 6-7 easy meters

BBBR goes down Fifita comes on

61:14 tackle
61:41 ruck clean
62:10 carries for 1-2 meters
62:32 tackle
63:37 run in space (10-12 meters) then passes to Bridge
64:13 ruck clean
64:27 catch/pass then big clean
64:44 ruck lean/protect HB for box kick, cleans arriving player
68:36 arrives at ruck to pass
69:02 arrives to clean but is ineffective and can’t prevent turnover penalty
71:48 cleans just in time
71:55 ruck lean/HB protection
72:09 overruns but comes back to clean
72:24 cleans the ball carrier passes
72:31 ruck lean

We get penalty

75:24 joins ruck, gets ball and gives it to HB
75:37 comes over to next ruck and makes a needed clean, is clearly fucked and out of gas - Fifita stations himself on the wing
76:04 cleans
76:28 ruck lean/clean
76:45 Goes off

Fifita

61:32 ruck lean
61:56 ruck lean
62:05 carries well for 3-4 meters
62:35 ineffective not quite tackle on Kwagga
62:39 ruck lean
63:46 catch, carry, 1 meter
64:06 ruck lean
64:25 ruck lean
64:46 another ruck lean coming as we get the penalty
67:39 line out take
68:25 catch/pass in the tackle
68:46 carries for 1-2 meters
71:53 ineffective join/clean
72:15 carries hard and makes 4-5 as we attack their line
72:31 ruck lean
74:26 catches kick off and gets taken out, we get a penalty
75:16 excellent lift on Read
76:10 ruck lean that turns to a real clean
78:11 attacks line out (that was not straight), joins maul
78:54 is offside and lucky not to get called
as Bridge comes charging in leaving the left flank completely exposed (Bridge does the same thing in the next passage and they take advantage) as Fifita comes across but not in time

Well, the good news is that we aren't terminating - we're having a baby (oh god, I'm fucking terrified).

But, it's only just become a real thing, because we waited for the test to see if our kid would have any problems (or kill the wife). That test can't be done (here at least) until you're at least 10 week's preggers, so if it has been positive, we wouldn't have been able to abort until after 12 weeks (probably about 15), which means here they have to actually induce delivery (seriously).

So, abortion has been on our minds quite a bit lately, and all I can say is that we would have pulled the pin if there had been a problem. We've been through IVF a few times and couldn't get going, but even though this finally worked, we also wanted to make sure that if we do bring a life in to this world, that it has as much chance as possible to be successful. It's also of course because we are selfish, and given the choice between knowing that our kids has problems or not having one, we would chose no kid.

I don't know what that makes me (and Mrs gt12), although I know some who would call me a (potential) murderer, but what i do know is that I'm happy with the choice we thankfully didn't have to make.

So right now, we're just hoping for a healthy little baby, and I'm living with a truly out of control Mrs gt12...

The problem at six: Fifita’s last chance?

Vaea Fifita was perhaps lucky to get the first opportunity in the 6 jersey, as Frizell’s injury saw him left at home. Overwhelmingly, TSF posters appear pretty disappointed with his effort against Argentina, in the All Blacks lucky win in Buenos Aires overnight.

They are right.

After the first game of the season, it seems that the six question remains unanswered. He seems to remain a coach favorite, but this should be his last test this year.

The Stats

Rugbypass stats indicate a mixed effort in comparison to the other loose forwards out there. In 57 minutes, he made 6 tackles, missed 1, and gained one turnover. With the ball, he ran 5 times for 7 metres, beating one defender. In the line out, he won three off our throws, and stole one. He also conceded one turnover and two penalties. Overall, he was equally highest with Retallick as a line out target, but may have lost ground to key competitors in some key areas (NB: ESPN stats have him only making one tackle and missing one).

To start, by comparison his opposite number Matera ran for 40 metres off 12 carries, with one offload and one defender beaten, while making 9 tackles with one miss, one line out won, and the same number of penalties conceded (NB: ESPN stats have him making nine tackles and missing four).

Against the starting AB loosies – who it should be mentioned both played 80 - Fifita also looks to be less involved: Ardie took 31 metres from 8 runs, beat one defender, gained one turnover, and did not concede any turnovers nor penalties while making 11 tackles with no misses. He was, admittedly, probably our best player out there though. The other starter, Sam Cane, had one terrible dropped ball (and a total of three turnovers conceded), but was very involved with 17 tackles (leading the team), two misses, and two penalties conceded. Cane had one offload and ran 6 times for 31 metres (NB: ESPN stats have Ardie making 24 metres off 9 runs and Cane making 24 off 6).

Perhaps even worse, key competitors (Hemopo, Jacobson) came on and each played relatively well: In 23 minutes, Hemopo had 3 metres off one carry, with one offload, five tackles and no misses. In the same amount of time, Jacobson got quite stuck in on defence – making 8 tackles with no misses, while winning two line outs. He conceded one turnover but no penalties, and had no running metres. Noticeably, Jacobson made some pretty hard (NB: ESPN stats have Hemopo making 3 tackles, with Jacobson at 9 tackles).

So, putting things together, what do the numbers indicate? Firstly, to me, I wonder what his role is? Looking at the numbers, he appears to be doing the Read role - he is used as the primary line out option, is not the main ball runner (Ardie), and is not the primary tackler (Cane). Is he the main cleaner and player making high impact tackles? Jacobson jumped out with his work there after coming on, and Hemopo has some runs in the bank on that front too. So, I focused primarily on his off the ball duties in my re-watch. To what extent is Fifita involved? After being replaced, to what extent was Jacobson involved?

The re-watch

Fifita

2:32: Wins lineout jumping at four
3:08: Stays out on the left and passes to Barrett then gets cleaned out trying to join the ruck – poor clean as Smith gets put under pressure
4:01: Third player to the ruck as Abs head back for a kick
4:26: Second ineffective tackler, doesn’t roll, and gets penalized
7:17: Attacks their lineout
11:06: High tackle and is penalized – then takes no part in any of the defence against the Argie attack on our line – is also unseen in the next break out which leads to a penalty
15:10: Wins the lineout at four
16:19: Good lift for BBBR as we win the line out and attack
16:30: Sort of attends one breakdown then is the support of Ardie who takes about 8 metres as we attack their line.
16:52: Cleans a breakdown, then gets up and receives the ball. Is tackled immediately for no gain. As we were under advantage, Gardner awards the penalty – Smith taps and Laumape goes in.
19:30: Joins maul against Argentina throw
21:10: Good clean after Laumape’s break
21:26: Inspects a ruck
21:40: Good clean
21:47: Gets up and puts in another good clean
24:52: Part of the maul defence (we concede a penalty)
27:08: Third ineffective tackler (kind of hits, kind of misses)
28:05: Joins/inspects ruck (4th man there)
29:35: Wins lineout and we set a maul
30:35: Joins our maul towards their line, we win a penalty
32:11: Wins the lineout and we maul
33:03: Fifita jumps at the lineout but can’t get two hands on it
33:50: Receives a pass from Barrett and makes about 1 metre
34:19: Receives the second pass from BBBR and drops it
37:33 Gets ball in our 22 and gets about 4-5 metres
40:15: Tries to win the ball but misses, then inspects the ruck. Ball goes out and that’s the half
40:48: Joins maul in defence
41:41: Lifts BBBR at the lineout
43:21: Steals a line out jumping at 2 then stations himself on the wing – conspicuous by his absence during the next 30 seconds as we try to get going
45:49: Second or third tackler/first ruck cleaner as Argentina attack our line – gives away the penalty for not rolling
46:01: Makes initial tackle but doesn’t take the player to the ground – Creevy offloads, they kick, and score
48:45: Joins maul defence (BBBR gets penalized)
50:58: Catch/pass
51:09: Rushes out of the line and is beaten
51:50: Is unlucky as BB can’t find him after his break
52:41 Is lucky not to get penalized for joining a ruck from an offside position (Coles about to be penalized)
53:44: Lifts Patty and then defends against the Argie maul
55:00: Terrible clean and we are lucky to not get turned over
55:34: Second (ineffective tackler)
56:00: Gets 4 metres with the ball - might have beaten one man
Is taken off at 57:20

I didn’t see one dominant tackle from Fifita – in fact, he is hardly in the middle of the field – usually spending most of his time on the wings. He had one good period were he made two good cleans, but apart from that and one good steal, he’s hardly involved.

Jacobson

Looks a bit lost for the first few minutes and doesn’t really get involved until
60:04: Makes a good tackle on Labanini
61:56: Tracks across and cleans
62:41: Wins the line out
63:30: Is unlucky as he is outside Cane when he drops a sitter cold with no one in front of him
66:34: Dominant tackle in midfield
66:46: Second effective tackler
67:40: Second (ineffective) tackler / ruck joiner
67:53: Third (ineffective) tackler /ruck attacker
68:08: Excellent ruck clean to assist Coltman and we almost win the turnover
68:28: Strong tackle on man off the ruck [You almost never see Fifita defending here]
70:39: Ankle tackle and doesn’t get shaken off
71:01: Makes a tackle as the Argie player loses the ball
72:40: Third man to attend the breakdown (behind Cane and Reece)
73:01: Good clean to secure ball
74:30: Accurate clean after following BFA
76:47: Wins the line out at the back, then is strong at wrestling he attacking defenders in the following maul
78:15: Ankle tackle
78:37: Stopping tackle, then straight up again and attacks the ball at the next ruck – he’s unlucky because he would win it too, but as the Argies are under advantage, Angus goes back to the penalty

I see eight or maybe nine tackles in that short period of time, including three of four very effective tackles. Furthermore, he puts himself into positions to be influential – following the play more and putting himself one of the ruck – something Fifita almost never does. Furthermore, I saw three good cleans and one ruck attack, plus he was a pretty effective line out option.

What does it mean?

Firstly, rugbypass has some of the friendliest stats out – Fifita seemed to get credit for a lot of poor tackle assists. ESPN’s seem much more on the money (I’ve added them as a result).
Based on what I saw, I can’t how Fifita can continue to be selected. Jacobson has the Read look about him – he’s involved and he’s accurate. I’d be taking a much longer look at him and Papalii – both of them have versatility, toughness, and can contribute around the field. Frizell also deserves a chance.

Overal, if this was Fifita’s WC try out, he should have just played his last test for this year.

@majorrage

Interesting post.

I look at it from a slightly different perspective which is that many/most of the best sportspeople are total selfish piston wristed gibbons, so expecting Hubbard to be somehow different and consider their impact beyond wanting to compete and win seems slightly strange to me.

I have a huge problem with the policy and believe it should be changed, and I think it is a massive blow to female sport, but because I see people as primarily bad people who can be good (rather than the opposite), its the policy that is the problem. I don’t have anything specific to say about Lauren and her intentions.

@bovidae

I've completely given up on him, he's never fit and seems to be one of those 'unlucky' players who is never going to get there.

@bovidae

If he can become a reliable thrower, he’ll likely become an All Black.

If we had a trustworthy line out, we’d also likely shoot straight back to being the second or third best team in NZ (I know we finaled in SRA, but we got there through a bunch of lucky wins and Dmac’s boot).

With BBBR back we will automatically go from having lock be a position of weakness, to one of strength, but I’d like it if we had another younger player to bring through who is more clearly a lock, rather than a lock/6 or 6/lock.

However, with BBBR, Vaii, and Lord, I guess I shouldn’t complain.

@higgins

Edit: Since the government started taking it seriously, things are improving.

Data/Source below:

Child poverty is a serious social problem in many developed nations, including Japan. Contrary to common perception, Japan’s child poverty rate is not low. It is 13.9% (2015 value, OECD Stat), indicating that one out of seven children in Japan lives in poor households. This rate is higher than the U.K.(11.2%), Germany (11.2%), France (11.3%) and most European countries, even though it is lower than Korea (16%), Canada (17.1%) and the U.S. (20.2%). However, for a long time since 1960s, the Japanese government and the society in general was not aware of this problem and it is only after 2009 that “child poverty” became a recognized social issue. In 2013, the Law to Promote Measures against Child Poverty, the first law in Japan which has directly addressed child poverty.

The reason that Japanese society and the government was not aware of this social issue for decades was not that there was no child poverty in Japan. In 1985, the child poverty rate was already higher than 10%. The problem was that, unlike in many countries, Japanese child poverty did not manifest visibly, such as in rising adolescent crime rates and undesirable behaviors. For this reason, Japan’s poverty is sometimes called “invisible poverty”.

Recently, the effects of this “invisible poverty” on children have increasingly become apparent with the use of social surveys. The talk will illustrate just how bad the child poverty problem is in Japan and how it is affecting children, using recently conducted social surveys on children in Tokyo.

Single Mothers

One staggering statistic leading to child poverty is the proportion of children living in single-parent households. Currently, 16 percent of children live in poverty; among this number, approximately 55% of these children are raised by one parent that is most likely the mother.

The Hill kind of touched on it today in their video, explaining that the Israeli right wing aligned itself with the GOP and therefore now Israeli politics is aligned with US politics, meaning that the 100% support for Israel is not starting to get diluted across party lines, and which means that as the US gets more liberal over time the support for Israeli policies will likely change to a more negative stance:

@Snowy probably has a few stories about this

@bones said in Nomination - Broken record award:

Gt12 and exits.

I was going for the most level headed ferner with my game thread comments.

We won’t final, but at least we got out of there without a loss.

Those fucking YCs were terrible and it cost us Jacobson for 20 (and more) minutes, and it will likely cost us any chance of finalling in this competition.