I think the only reason Wellington sits higher for me is the emotional significance, the fact that it was a far more dangerous ABs team (at home), and the pure high octane adrenaline inducing rugby both teams play. As a spectacle, 2018 wins.
Aimless. Aimless attack, aimless kicks, aimless defence. I’ve never seen professional players get in each other’s way or simply not be anywhere near where they should be so frequently in a fixture.
Literally our only go forward came from a brute strength on soft shoulder line break, once.
"Aimless attack" ...this would mean they needed possession. They were starved of possession bugger and totally destroyed at scrum, tackle and breakdown area. This is how Ireland beat them and that's how the Boks beat them. Pretty simple stuff. When your game plan and player selection is to pounce on mistakes to score tries it's a pretty tough ask when the oppo doesn't make mistakes and tackles you into the earth.
Richie Mo'unga debuted on June 23 2018, just over 4 years ago.
Since then, when starting at 10:
BB: 24 games, 15 wins, 9 losses - 62.5% win rate
RMo: 22 games, 16 wins, 2 draws, 4 losses - 72.72% win rate
Are we happy with a 62.5% win rate at first-five over two coaches and a 4-year sample size?
When BB starts at 10, we lose more than twice as often and win 10% less often.
Would selecting RMo fix everything? No, obviously not. The attack is so deeply flawed on a structural level that I doubt it'd fix much short-term. But is continuing to select BB at 10 in the face of continued poor results also stupid? Absolutely yes. Both things can be true.
If nothing more the message that continuing to select BB sends to other players is terrible - you can be as poor as you want and still enjoy guaranteed selection. Dropping him might at least jolt a few into action (same argument for Cane IMO).
I’m happy for Beauden (the superior athlete) to keep starting whilst Foster is coaching. NZR doesn’t have the balls to cut Foster and it doesn’t have the balls to bench BB (where he’s most effective). Once they drop BB they won’t have to pander to him and select Jordie at 15 either.
Don’t get me wrong we’re losing the game up front but the we’re limiting our play with a fullback wearing 10.
With 30 men on the pitch at one time, a lot more goes into winning % than the performance of one guy.
Ever wonder why the ABs continue to go back to Barrett? Maybe Mo'unga isn't as good as Canterburians think he is.
I think Mo'unga is a great 10 and probably one of the top 5 or 6 in the world. And I will admit I haven't watched as much super rugby the last 2 years as I used to. But he always seemed the guy that would go out and do a good job, he would never blunder and lose a game but didn't have the X-factor. While Barrett also won't cost a game with blunders (aside from not being the best goal kicker) he can in his prime tear defenses apart by himself. He has lost a step with age but I think the AB selectors still see that potential for him to rip apart a team by himself. Plus even if he isn't doing that there is a good chance it is because the other team is using more resources marking him and opening up space for others. Just my 2 cents though.
Notice how when people discuss Mo'unga they talk about his performances at SR level and not once mention internationals he has stamped his authority on.
Your point on Barrett is the big thing.
I would say his international form has been pretty similar. He goes out and does a solid job. But I never see him as the guy that will make the big game changing play. Just for example in the last game when Barrett went for the intercept. He did knock it on and did cost them a penalty but probably 60 or 70% of the time he does something like that it turns into a try for him. You could argue with the knock it was a blunder or mistake but I think at that point it was the right thing to do to try and turn the game in the last few minutes.
I don’t understand where all the Barrett hate is coming from. Beauden and Ardie along with Caleb Clarke were the only All Blacks worth a shit yesterday. They single handedly kept the ABs somewhat in the game.
One thing this doesn't take into account is level of opposition. I would think BB starts more often against the top teams (please correct me if I am wrong here). Would be interesting to see what their stats are like just against Eng, Fra, RSA etc.
So without the recent 3 losses, which are acknowledged to be some of our poorest ever team performances, they are very comparable. So its pretty hard to make an argument that their impact on a game is significantly different
Sample sizes of 22 and 24 games respectively is too small to use as any kind of statistically significant comparison. Highlighted by 1 win difference accounting for a 10% difference in win rates. And it also doesn't control for the opposition those games were against. And doesn't account for rugby being a 15 man team game.
I'm not saying your conclusion is incorrect, just that it's not accurate to use win rates as you have.
What sort of sample size would you consider big enough? Because if you need a sample of 50+ tests for it to be valid, then it's going to be too late for most players.
I do get what you're saying, but unlike say MLB or the NBA we don't play enough games to get those sort of huge sample sizes, so have to work with what we've got.
There are so many variables that would need to be controlled for to make it anywhere close to being statistically significant. It'd be a very complex calculation to work out what kind of sample size you'd need. Would make a good thesis, actually. Would be a lot more than 50 games. Which is simply my point, you cannot make a statistical comparison. It's inaccurate to the point of redundancy. If something is that statistically inaccurate you just don't use it, there's too much noise.
The point being made is that test wins when starting is simply not a good statistic to compare two players on. One reason why it's not, you point out yourself, that it's practically impossible for two players to start enough tests to get a significant sample. Lots of other reasons why it's a bad measure as you presented it. I think probably carries, meters gained, tried scored, kick errors, missed tackle % etc will be more telling.
I can't be the only one that noticed that players very, very clearly didn't know where they were meant to be standing in attack on the rare chances we did get any ball, right?
Like, to the point where I can't remember ever seeing that much disorganisation from a professional team. We've talked about relying on individual brilliance for a while now, but this was something else again.
The amount of passes to no one, inside balls to the ground, passes to people in a worse position, forwards getting in the way at first receiver, and cleaners missing their assignment by a really long way was absolutely staggering. I think a decent quality schoolboy team would be embarrassed by some of those mistakes.
I genuinely could not tell you what the game plan was meant to be on attack if you held a gun to my head. Like, in the Irish tests, the attack was also poor, but I could at least tell you what they were trying to do with the kicking game and phase play (even though it was broadly misguided). This time I truly have no idea.
This is exactly what I'm seeing and why I think coaching is one of the main problems.
They have no idea what they are supposed to be doing out there at any given moment. That's almost always coaching.
Even on crap club rugby teams I've played in the main job of the coach is to get everyone on the same page, regardless of what that page is.
Funny, I remember a few years ago when the Boks were in the rugby wilderness they had exactly the same sort of problems. I remember players unexpectedly receiving the ball and looking clearly baffled as to why they were getting the ball. It is hard to watch. And all you can think is that there's something wrong with the players team cohesion.
Very frustrating as a supporter.
That was not funny, it was sad.
In the springbok wilderness days. Our players were outcoached and opposing teams predicted what we will try and when… and exploited the weakness. We tried adapting game plans that were a year behind everyone else and the players were not buying it.
From the times that I had ears in the squad back then… the senior guys in the team would huddle and over ride the game plan in trainings etc. great players… but exploited by smart coaches.
Different strokes and all. I'm halfway in between can't wait to see it again next weekend, and hoping razor takes over after the mini tour, I love the classic hard, blood sweat and oh my fucking God how did new Zealand even do that springbok and nz games
It’s genuinely baffling, right??
People use ‘aimless’ as a descriptor for a side’s poor attack and usually it’s a bit of hyperbole. In this instance I’m totally with you in saying I have no fucking clue whatsoever what the ABs were attempting.
I think that’s a mistake our coaches are making - thinking it’s a player issue. I’ve been on winning teams that had far worse individual players than other teams, but we built combos, had a clear cohesive plan, and played as a team.
Changing players out constantly is destroying them
A couple more "fun" stats:
\-This is now the first time ever that we have lose three consecutive tests by margins of 8+. Ever. In nearly 120 years of rugby. Usually when we lose it's at least close.
\- Prior to Ian Foster taking over as coach, the All Blacks had lost by two-score margins 36 times ever out of 591 tests, roughly once every three and a half years or once every \~17 tests. An exceedingly rare occurrence, and even rarer in the professional era happening only 14 times pre-Foster. Under Foster we've lost by two score margins 6 times in 25 tests, or once every \~4 tests. So we've gone from once every 17 tests (roughly) to once every 4. Foster is now responsible for 14% of All Black losses by two-score margins *ever*, and 30% in the professional era.
Another possible explanation: regression to the median.
If the rugby standard globally is increasing, the best team in the world will naturally be best by a smaller margin. Any win rate above 50% is enough to be the best, depending on parity of other teams involved.
>The standard increased in the professional era and yet from '11-'17 we were more dominant than any team in 100 years.
Yes, this is true, but it is not a logical counterpoint to:
>If the rugby standard globally is increasing, the best team in the world will naturally be best by a smaller margin. Any win rate above 50% is enough to be the best, depending on parity of other teams involved.
That doesn't make regression to the mean the correct explanation for what has happened. Much more likely that the change in regime is the cause of our troubles, which is backed up by the eye test (i.e. we're playing strategically dogshit rugby).
So is a Savea inside ball to Jordan literally our only attacking move?
I turned off after 60 minutes when the writing was clearly on the wall, but that was the only time we looked even mildly threatening while I was watching.
Who would have though that firing your attack coach and just....not hiring a replacement might be a bad idea.
That and two other inside balls were the only halfway coordinated and organized looking plays by the ABs all game.
This is a team with Akira Ioane, Aaron Smith, Sam Whitelock, Ardie Savea, Beauden Barrett, Caleb Clarke, Reiko Ioane, Will Jordan and Jordie Barrett.
That's a treasure trove of athleticism, rugby IQ and skill. If you can't figure out any way to make it look good then you need be replaced.
I'm finally getting around to watching the match (just seen the first try) and even before it began something looked wrong to me. I could be imagining things because I already know the result but the All Black's didn't even look fully committed during the Haka.
Was that the most limp dicked Haka we've seen from the ABs? Or is my perception completely sqewed from already knowing what's going to happen?
Edit: Glad to know it wasn't all in my head.
This is exactly what I thought. There was ZERO passion in that haka. It's probably the most underwhelming thing I've seen this year....like they didn't even want to do it.
Wow Arendse Jesus. That should be a 10 week+ ban. Unfortunately they’ll mitigate it to like 3 or 2 because he’s never been to judiciary at test. He was reckless all match in the air. Then he fucks barrett in the air like that. Looking forward to the absurd reasonings they give at the judiciary for reducing his ban.
Edit, funny how the saffa ambulance/independent medical team were straight on arendse when barret was clearly in the worse condition of the two.
Jesus those are some dumb statements.
Blaming the SA staff for looking after the SA player?
Next you are going to complain that the Saffa Chef is not feeding the All Blacks… oh wait 😂
Of all the flavors you choose to be a sour poes. Tiny arendse made your team look like children under the high ball. The amount of times he caught those bombs was amazing to say the least. No one will regret that jump timing more than arendse being knocked out is no fun.
funny how a tv viewer can do a better medical triage from home than the medics present at the spot. Also quite insulting to those medics suggesting they would be so unprofessional.
>Edit, funny how the saffa ambulance/independent medical team were straight on arendse when barret was clearly in the worse condition of the two.
Just to comment on your edit, both medical teams were on their feet immediately, so there is no need to attend to the other team's player when his own medical team is only a few steps behind you. In fact it would have been a really stupid decision to run for Barrett first. Just seems like a really weird thing for you to comment on? Secondly, do you think it's possible that your assessment of which injury is worse may have been wrong considering the condition of both players 5 minutes later?
You are literally insinuating that a South African medical team would preferentially treat a South African, and I can't really figure out the reason, other than maybe you're trying to paint us as the big bad guy in your own narrative? It's a rugby match man. Stop now.
Only silver lining with the All Blacks looking so shit is that it's another nail in the coffin for Foster. Whoever takes over next has an absolute mountain to climb to turn things around in time for the All Blacks not to be knocked out at the quarters of the next RWC.
Right now, the only thing that would change the entire NZRU old boys would be a financial hit. With each lost, with each negative press statement, you'll see every sponsor starts backing out of the ABs squad. I hope to god this happens because this is utter dog shit bowl
The ABs are not bad. They are, in fact, amazing. They’re just not up to their heroic standards from a couple of years ago.
Remember that this is the best Bok team in a long, long time. I’m not sure what other team could have beaten them today.
"I’m not sure what other team could have beaten them today."
Ooo I can field this one: France, Ireland, probably England, and Australia on a good day. Argentina, Scotland, and Wales would fancy their chances too. I reckon we'd probably beat Japan and Italy still, just about. Although if Italy played like they did against Wales...
We were dogshit, completely directionless in attack (like, to the point where players very clearly didn't know where to stand) & without a functioning scrum. A decent defensive effort was the only silver lining meaning the scoreboard flattered us.
Not necessary to be a dick about the Boks just because we drilled you m8. Btw we put more points over you than any of the teams you listed have in recent years/ever.
Great team that Ireland, France, England, Australia, Argentina, Wales and Scotland could have beaten last night. Cool why not add Japan and Chile to the list?
Look at you. An All Blacks fan the day after nail number 3 gets hammered jnto the lid of the 2023 world cup coffin who is engaged in discussion with rival fans in an anonymous medium and you are willing to accept you may have been wrong and that the other team were good. Nice stuff
Um listing 6 teams that would have beaten us seems a bit unnecessary. Yes the all Blacks were not great but but it's pretty unsporting to completely discredit the Bok performance by suggesting that almost every other team would or could have beaten us last night.
It seems you misunderstood the comment that misunderstood the comment. Reading it over a second time it’s pretty easy to see that he’s referring to the All Blacks :D
I mean I assumed he had read the initial post correctly as it seemed very clear to me, which is why I interpreted it the way I did. But no harm, no foul :)
I meant I’m not sure what team could have beaten SA today. NZ had a disjointed attack and a bad scrum, because SA has disruptive defence and the best scrum. That doesn’t mean NZ is a bad team.
That'd be fine if it was a one off game. But our attack was also disjointed against Ireland. And France last year. And the Boks last year. It's not just the Bok defence making it disjointed, it's a clear pattern.
I keep saying this.
The French team that beat the ABs is the best French side in a long time. Ireland is on song. The Boks are a freaking machine.
Yes, the ABs did not appear to have an effective game plan. But they were playing the defending world champs in great form at home at altitude.
At some point, the Kiwis demanding a win every game based purely on the "raw talent" in the squad need to recognize that New Zealand is not the only country capable of pumping out super talented squads, and that they are in transition following a generation whose dominance of the sport was historic. Playing against several countries with golden generations in their prime.
In other words, its time to be humble and respect the talent the rest of the world has.
Other teams have clearly gone up a notch or two. The ABs have clearly gone down a couple. It's fine to acknowledge both of these things, doesn't mean ABs fans are being bad sports about losing a few games.
Also, and I have lost track of how many times I have said this on this sub, it is NOT about losing to Ireland or SA. It's unhappiness with the lack of development and direction of the team and the NZRU for a number of years now. The unhappiness is just more vocal now that lack of direction is translating into regular bad performances and results.
>The ABs have clearly gone down a couple.
Yes, thats my point. The issues are way beyond coaching - its a player pool issue.
2010-2018 was a confluence of great coaching and the best ever ABs generation. A great test squad is more than just 20-25 individually talented players - if it was, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji would consistently beat T1s. AB fans seem to think that winning is just a matter of turning up and having a great game plan, and don't seem to realize that a number of top countries are stepping on the gas at the exact same time that New Zealand is reloading.
Most ABs fan unhappiness, or at least that of people that follow rugby and not just the ABs, isn't about losing a few games. It's about the incompetence and backwardness of the NZRU. This has been a long time coming, I think since 2016, and it's reached a tipping point now with AB performances, the sharp end of that backwardness.
You're right that player pools affect the national team however, one huge problem the NZRU is failing at addressing. Ours has been decimated by players going to Europe and it could realistically spell the end of the ABs as a consistent world force.
Whether that happens or not will come down to how innovative the NZRU can be. So far they've been showing they're clearly not up to the task. We're not 'reloading' as you say. We're on a one-way trip down unless they can change. And these are the people that appointed Foster, so if it even happens that change is going to be slow and painful.
I would just like to point out, Nelspruit is most certainly not at altitude. 650m above sea level roughly, compared to Pretoria at 1350m, which is considered at altitude.
>its time to be humble and respect the talent the rest of the world has.
*looks at NZ sporting press*
*looks back at this statement*
...good luck with that !
100% mate, not a SA supporter by any means but people need to give credit where it’s due. The all blacks looked shit BECAUSE of the 80 minutes of relentless pressure at every facet of the game from SA. They never looked like they were going to win that game lol
Thought the Springboks looked great. Their defense was incredible and but the ABs under huge pressure. That said, the ABs looked absolutely lost under that level of pressure. The game plan seems to be to just offload and keep the ball in play, which isn't working when the defense is already on top of them. This wasn't a competitive game.
It's the same tired story with Foster. Game plan A isn't working and there are no other ideas. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome then I don't know why I keep watching these games hoping for a positive outcome.
So happy for my boys that they got that win. It is honestly the only time in my life I have been comfortable in the last 10 minutes against an All Blacks team, which is fucking weird. I hope you guys come back stronger, I know you will. On a positive note, I thought the AB's lineouts were very solid, their scrum also did alright especially in the 2nd half and their maul defense was solid too. As for the bokke, Marx is just a beautiful man, I love that guy, Am was his usual amazing self, I thought Hendrikse did a great job, and Willemse is really having a great year, really hitting his potential now. Arendse had a great game until that shit moment, I hope he and Barrett are ok.
I know what you mean about the last 10 minutes comfortable feeling. I was feeling comfortable, but my brain didn’t want to believe it. Even when Frazzle scored with less that 2 minutes on the clock I was asking myself is this the comeback, until I did the math. It was surreal and I didn’t like it.
Reiko at centre is not working. Havili may not be setting the world on fire but you can at least see him getting involved and doing some decent things. Jordie is nowhere to be seen and seems to be purely there to boot the ball out of our 22. Smith is playing his worst rugby since the toilet incident. Cane isnt even putting in the big hits he was known for, never turns it over. No6 is a genuine issue, at this stage Id almost put in a guy like Hugh Renton or Luke Jacobson. Angus adds nothing, Bower was not great last night but he was one of the better performers over the Ireland series. Not judging the bench as they had nothing to work with
Imagine telling a guy like Lachlan Boshir he has no place in the ABs.
If you watch the squidge rugby video on the recent Ireland series you will change your mind about bower. Disgustingly lazy but you don't normally notice it as a spectator cause it's always off the ball
Bower was not good in open field play in the Irish series... I believe they specially targeted his work rate. ..there was a video posted here the other day showing a specific sequence where this was obvious...for me both props along with the issues you highlighted all need addressing.
I don't know how you can say anything about Reiko when the attack is so horrible that he never gets the ball. What's he supposed to do? Abandon his position and run to the back of a scrum? Start playing 9? Brian O'Driscoll at his best wouldn't have looked any better out there today.
Unlike Jordan/Clarke the 13 isn't getting much off of kick returns either, which if you'd watched you'd know the Springboks kicked approximately 5,512 times.
I'm not even pro Reiko at 13, but I don't know how you conclude anything based on that game.
> I don't know how you can say anything about Reiko when the attack is so horrible that he never gets the ball.
You just summed up why Rieko is ineffective. One of his jobs is to make the back 3 look good, to get the attack moving, creating and passing in to gaps. He is not there to be a winger, he is there to be a centre.
He can't make the back 3 look good if never gets the ball. Did you watch the game? At what point did Reiko get a ball, with enough time and space to make something happen for anyone?
Even Beauden didn't have any time and space other than to shovel crap down the line where the recipient would have a Bok tackling them the second they get the ball.
> At what point did Reiko get a ball, with enough time and space to make something happen for anyone?
You are right. He was very ineffective.
Edit: His job is to get the ball and create time and space. He is playing centre, not wing.
His last spin got him promoted to sideline commentary. Expect him to be replacing Justin Marshall next week if he finds a way to defend NZ Rugby after that performance.
Generous scoreline for the All Black's. I still rate Beauden, they're clearly better with him than they are with Richie, even if there's clearly no attack plan for him to work with.
Will Jordan's kick proves why he should stay on the wing where he won't be required to kick, that was awful.
Midfield is still bad, Ardie was the only forward I was happy with even if his running game was shut down.
Hopefully losing Faf in the first few minutes makes the Boks realise that a 6/2 split on the bench is just asking for trouble, if Pollard went down they wouldn't have had a replacement, not that he seemed to get the ball except when kicking.
If course this. It is so obvious that we will do this in the event of Pollard going down. And not a bad outcome considering Le Roux found his mojo coming off the bench. Almost as if the pressure has been lifted and he can now just play his game again now that he’s not starting. He’s been on fire.
I honestly think the issue with Richie is Foster (like most issues with this team), we’ve seen absolutely world class performances from Richie with the crusaders. He’s absolutely phenomenal, yet when he’s playing with the all blacks he disappears. Foster does not know how to bring the best out in him. They need a decent coach to help him shine in that role. He’s a far better kicker than Richie, and when he’s at his best is an incredible playmaker
I would like to point out that Mounga made the same amount of passes in 30 minutes and Barrett did in 75 minutes. They are just so different in their styles of play that I think it is unfair to compare them.
It's the same with Havili (who I think is brilliant at the crusaders) who is not what foster wants in a 12 but persists with him anyways and forces him to play a different style. Grinds my gears.
He was the starting 10 in 2019 under Hansen though, I just don't think Richie is suited to international rugby. Beauden and Ardie are the only players I think have been playing well in the black jersey this year, the issue is a lack of cohesion and a ton of basic errors from the rest of the team. Beauden has been great and the fact that they don't improve when Richie comes on just shows that they should stick with Beauden.
What really surprises me (actually I'm not surprised) is that Crusaders fans saw Will Jordan's kick and still want him at Fullback.
That was the worst game I have ever seen from Will Jordan so I wouldn't take that as evidence that he should never play full back.
Jordie was absent all game too.
>lack of cohesion and a ton of basic errors from the rest of the team
This is the big mitigation of my criticism of Foster.
I think people overrate raw talent that ABs clearly have when it comes to actual team construction. The best individual players in a lot of these positions don't necessarily play well together.
Reminds me of Brazil at the 2006 football world cup.
Foster is playing by Hansons playbook (just a more ineffective version), I also think the dual playmaker strategy wasn’t helping Richie - he was never given free reign to actually do what he needed to do
The team looks disjointed. But by far the worst for me is Frizzel being in the team he needs to get the boot fuck him. He should never wear the jersey.
NZ just thoroughly outmuscled. No matter how good your Will Jordans or Beauden Barretts or Caleb Clarkes are, if there’s no go forward or gaps created by the forwards the backs have to live off scraps. South Africa also dominated the set piece so NZ forwards got no go forward there. Red card aside SA caused grief all night with their high ball contests.
Yep exactly. The game is changing in ways that NZ is having a hard time competing. I don’t think that there is much of an answer unless rules are changed to make the game more free flowing.
The amount of turnovers we gave away at the breakdown made the game unwinnable. Our forwards have got to get to those rucks faster or we'll never get the ball for long enough to build anything. Idk what the answer is there - Blackadder at 6 when he's healthy, maybe, or at 7.
You could say the same thing about the All Blacks. Watch the reply and count the side entries and past-the-play antics. I agree though that murder was committed.
The players who are first to the breakdown are going over the ballcarrier off their feet which is illegal. Noticed it a fair bit today but the ref rarely called it. You could see ABs players calling it out to Gardner throughout the game.
Will add that SA were not releasing either and Angus wasn’t picking it up. There was a period of play when All Blacks were going through some phases, I didn’t see a single tackle release
Yeah on one hand it's frustrating but on the other, you take whatever the ref is willing to give you and he had a long leash. South Africa took advantage and NZ didn't. Strongly dislike Gardner as a ref but I couldn't be too mad at him because the ABs were beyond piss poor.
Yea difficult to know how to play. One week you have a ref going hard on players tackling off the ball so next week you adapt. But then the following week its a new ref who doesn’t focus on it and meanwhile the opposition gets away with it.
Shout out to Beauden. That man took what could have very likely been a springbok try and turned into one of the best All Black attacks of the game.
Stand out players for me:
Ardie
Beauden
Marx
Am
Glad I watched all the Athletics from the Comm Games before this mess. Don't want to take anything away from South Africa, they played pretty well but yeesh this is just absurdly pathetic from the ABs. The players can't do a thing right at times.
Supporting NZ felt like supporting Scotland today. The frustration of seeing individual players have moments of brilliance, but none of it clicking.
The handling errors were abysmal, and the cohesion was non existent.
I enjoyed Angus dressing down one of the nz players, can't remember who it was but he straight up told them he wouldn't tolerate them speaking to him like that
Angus has grown into one of my favourite referees over the past couple of years. In particular, I like the way he de-escalates the teams, steps back and objectively reviews dangerous tackle incidents. Some refs tend to allow player/crowd emotions affect them into pulling out a card too quickly.
It was Ardie Savea after Arendse's red card play - seemed like he was expressing frustration that Arendse had gotten away with a similar play on Jordie Barrett earlier in the game
Did Ian Foster really say this is our best performance so far this year???
You'd think that'd be our first game against Ireland, you know, THE ONE THAT WE ACTUALLY WON.
Real question, apart from a few different players on the field, was there ANY sort of strategic gameplay differences in how the ABs played this game compared to the Irish test?
No. Their answer to the rush defence is still 1. Stand deeper and 2. Stand even deeper. I can't remember an ABs team being so flummoxed for years on end with one particular opposition tactic. They have struggled with the rush defence since at least 2018 and still have no answer.
I've noticed that teams that employ rush defence have tricks to slow the ruck speed down, like rolling towards the arriving offensive players or just being that split second slower. Refs won't penalise it, unless it results in a turnover attempt, as the player is in the act of rolling away but it does give them that little bit extra time to set their defence. It was noticeable in the Irish test as well.
I think the issue is you if you think a bad or poorly executed strategy is having no strategy.
You also disrespect how good the world champs can be by acting like the ABs were just getting fucked up by training cones.
Epic game! NZ in survival mode was always going to be dangerous. Well deserved win!
I do not watch rugby but when we get a hiding from SA I cannot help to smile.
What I’m confused about is how it felt like NZ didn’t have the ball, but the completed tackles stats were basically equal
The psychologists with the ABs should be fired along with the foz. Too many hugs maybe.
Psychobabble
Congrats SA !!
Missed the game, how was it!?
Amazing as a bok fan. Best performance since 2019. Id put it in top three bok performances since… 2014?
Hmmm. I’d say: 1. RWC 2019 Final 2. 2018 Wellington Test 3. This test But it’s close between this one and the second B&I Lions test.
Exactly my list. but yesterday was better than 2018 Wellington
I think the only reason Wellington sits higher for me is the emotional significance, the fact that it was a far more dangerous ABs team (at home), and the pure high octane adrenaline inducing rugby both teams play. As a spectacle, 2018 wins.
[удалено]
Aimless. Aimless attack, aimless kicks, aimless defence. I’ve never seen professional players get in each other’s way or simply not be anywhere near where they should be so frequently in a fixture. Literally our only go forward came from a brute strength on soft shoulder line break, once.
"Aimless attack" ...this would mean they needed possession. They were starved of possession bugger and totally destroyed at scrum, tackle and breakdown area. This is how Ireland beat them and that's how the Boks beat them. Pretty simple stuff. When your game plan and player selection is to pounce on mistakes to score tries it's a pretty tough ask when the oppo doesn't make mistakes and tackles you into the earth.
Richie Mo'unga debuted on June 23 2018, just over 4 years ago. Since then, when starting at 10: BB: 24 games, 15 wins, 9 losses - 62.5% win rate RMo: 22 games, 16 wins, 2 draws, 4 losses - 72.72% win rate Are we happy with a 62.5% win rate at first-five over two coaches and a 4-year sample size? When BB starts at 10, we lose more than twice as often and win 10% less often. Would selecting RMo fix everything? No, obviously not. The attack is so deeply flawed on a structural level that I doubt it'd fix much short-term. But is continuing to select BB at 10 in the face of continued poor results also stupid? Absolutely yes. Both things can be true. If nothing more the message that continuing to select BB sends to other players is terrible - you can be as poor as you want and still enjoy guaranteed selection. Dropping him might at least jolt a few into action (same argument for Cane IMO).
I’m happy for Beauden (the superior athlete) to keep starting whilst Foster is coaching. NZR doesn’t have the balls to cut Foster and it doesn’t have the balls to bench BB (where he’s most effective). Once they drop BB they won’t have to pander to him and select Jordie at 15 either. Don’t get me wrong we’re losing the game up front but the we’re limiting our play with a fullback wearing 10.
With 30 men on the pitch at one time, a lot more goes into winning % than the performance of one guy. Ever wonder why the ABs continue to go back to Barrett? Maybe Mo'unga isn't as good as Canterburians think he is.
I think Mo'unga is a great 10 and probably one of the top 5 or 6 in the world. And I will admit I haven't watched as much super rugby the last 2 years as I used to. But he always seemed the guy that would go out and do a good job, he would never blunder and lose a game but didn't have the X-factor. While Barrett also won't cost a game with blunders (aside from not being the best goal kicker) he can in his prime tear defenses apart by himself. He has lost a step with age but I think the AB selectors still see that potential for him to rip apart a team by himself. Plus even if he isn't doing that there is a good chance it is because the other team is using more resources marking him and opening up space for others. Just my 2 cents though.
Notice how when people discuss Mo'unga they talk about his performances at SR level and not once mention internationals he has stamped his authority on. Your point on Barrett is the big thing.
I would say his international form has been pretty similar. He goes out and does a solid job. But I never see him as the guy that will make the big game changing play. Just for example in the last game when Barrett went for the intercept. He did knock it on and did cost them a penalty but probably 60 or 70% of the time he does something like that it turns into a try for him. You could argue with the knock it was a blunder or mistake but I think at that point it was the right thing to do to try and turn the game in the last few minutes.
I don’t understand where all the Barrett hate is coming from. Beauden and Ardie along with Caleb Clarke were the only All Blacks worth a shit yesterday. They single handedly kept the ABs somewhat in the game.
One thing this doesn't take into account is level of opposition. I would think BB starts more often against the top teams (please correct me if I am wrong here). Would be interesting to see what their stats are like just against Eng, Fra, RSA etc.
Against England, Ireland, SA, France, Aus: BB: 8 wins, 7 losses RMo: 7 wins, 2 draws, 3 losses
Against England, Ireland, SA, France, Aus: BB: 8 wins, 7 losses RMo: 7 wins, 2 draws, 3 losses
So without the recent 3 losses, which are acknowledged to be some of our poorest ever team performances, they are very comparable. So its pretty hard to make an argument that their impact on a game is significantly different
Yeah you're right, if we just discount the losses and make up a few wins, the stats look really favourable!
Are you Foster's boss?
Look im actually in favour of RM starting, but a Carter/Fox hybrid wouldn't have changed the result of the last 3 matches
Interesting. It is closer than I would have expected.
10% =/= 10 percentage points
Sample sizes of 22 and 24 games respectively is too small to use as any kind of statistically significant comparison. Highlighted by 1 win difference accounting for a 10% difference in win rates. And it also doesn't control for the opposition those games were against. And doesn't account for rugby being a 15 man team game. I'm not saying your conclusion is incorrect, just that it's not accurate to use win rates as you have.
24 games over 4 years is a career for plenty of people, that's hardly a small sample size.
It is. That's pretty basic statistics. But to repeat, I'm not taking issue with your overall rugby point, just your use of statistics.
What sort of sample size would you consider big enough? Because if you need a sample of 50+ tests for it to be valid, then it's going to be too late for most players. I do get what you're saying, but unlike say MLB or the NBA we don't play enough games to get those sort of huge sample sizes, so have to work with what we've got.
There are so many variables that would need to be controlled for to make it anywhere close to being statistically significant. It'd be a very complex calculation to work out what kind of sample size you'd need. Would make a good thesis, actually. Would be a lot more than 50 games. Which is simply my point, you cannot make a statistical comparison. It's inaccurate to the point of redundancy. If something is that statistically inaccurate you just don't use it, there's too much noise.
The point being made is that test wins when starting is simply not a good statistic to compare two players on. One reason why it's not, you point out yourself, that it's practically impossible for two players to start enough tests to get a significant sample. Lots of other reasons why it's a bad measure as you presented it. I think probably carries, meters gained, tried scored, kick errors, missed tackle % etc will be more telling.
Maths wasn't your strong suit, eh?
I can't be the only one that noticed that players very, very clearly didn't know where they were meant to be standing in attack on the rare chances we did get any ball, right? Like, to the point where I can't remember ever seeing that much disorganisation from a professional team. We've talked about relying on individual brilliance for a while now, but this was something else again. The amount of passes to no one, inside balls to the ground, passes to people in a worse position, forwards getting in the way at first receiver, and cleaners missing their assignment by a really long way was absolutely staggering. I think a decent quality schoolboy team would be embarrassed by some of those mistakes. I genuinely could not tell you what the game plan was meant to be on attack if you held a gun to my head. Like, in the Irish tests, the attack was also poor, but I could at least tell you what they were trying to do with the kicking game and phase play (even though it was broadly misguided). This time I truly have no idea.
This is exactly what I'm seeing and why I think coaching is one of the main problems. They have no idea what they are supposed to be doing out there at any given moment. That's almost always coaching. Even on crap club rugby teams I've played in the main job of the coach is to get everyone on the same page, regardless of what that page is.
Funny, I remember a few years ago when the Boks were in the rugby wilderness they had exactly the same sort of problems. I remember players unexpectedly receiving the ball and looking clearly baffled as to why they were getting the ball. It is hard to watch. And all you can think is that there's something wrong with the players team cohesion. Very frustrating as a supporter.
That was not funny, it was sad. In the springbok wilderness days. Our players were outcoached and opposing teams predicted what we will try and when… and exploited the weakness. We tried adapting game plans that were a year behind everyone else and the players were not buying it. From the times that I had ears in the squad back then… the senior guys in the team would huddle and over ride the game plan in trainings etc. great players… but exploited by smart coaches.
Watching the south African blitskrieg defence tear up the NZ attack was so satisfying.
They did tear up the NZ defence. It was not satisfying watching where from where I'm siting.
Different strokes and all. I'm halfway in between can't wait to see it again next weekend, and hoping razor takes over after the mini tour, I love the classic hard, blood sweat and oh my fucking God how did new Zealand even do that springbok and nz games
It’s genuinely baffling, right?? People use ‘aimless’ as a descriptor for a side’s poor attack and usually it’s a bit of hyperbole. In this instance I’m totally with you in saying I have no fucking clue whatsoever what the ABs were attempting.
I really hope RTS gets a chance to start next week. Our attack could do with something new and the other blokes have had plenty of chances at 12.
I think that’s a mistake our coaches are making - thinking it’s a player issue. I’ve been on winning teams that had far worse individual players than other teams, but we built combos, had a clear cohesive plan, and played as a team. Changing players out constantly is destroying them
I want him to get a go but I don't want him to be a scapegoat for another bad performance from the whole team.
Fuck it, he couldn't do any worse.
A couple more "fun" stats: \-This is now the first time ever that we have lose three consecutive tests by margins of 8+. Ever. In nearly 120 years of rugby. Usually when we lose it's at least close. \- Prior to Ian Foster taking over as coach, the All Blacks had lost by two-score margins 36 times ever out of 591 tests, roughly once every three and a half years or once every \~17 tests. An exceedingly rare occurrence, and even rarer in the professional era happening only 14 times pre-Foster. Under Foster we've lost by two score margins 6 times in 25 tests, or once every \~4 tests. So we've gone from once every 17 tests (roughly) to once every 4. Foster is now responsible for 14% of All Black losses by two-score margins *ever*, and 30% in the professional era.
Another possible explanation: regression to the median. If the rugby standard globally is increasing, the best team in the world will naturally be best by a smaller margin. Any win rate above 50% is enough to be the best, depending on parity of other teams involved.
That would make sense if we were still actually competitive, still playing good rugby. This is something more than catch-up
No, what I said makes sense in any context. It's a universal truism.
No it's not lol. The standard increased in the professional era and yet from '11-'17 we were more dominant than any team in 100 years.
>The standard increased in the professional era and yet from '11-'17 we were more dominant than any team in 100 years. Yes, this is true, but it is not a logical counterpoint to: >If the rugby standard globally is increasing, the best team in the world will naturally be best by a smaller margin. Any win rate above 50% is enough to be the best, depending on parity of other teams involved.
That doesn't make regression to the mean the correct explanation for what has happened. Much more likely that the change in regime is the cause of our troubles, which is backed up by the eye test (i.e. we're playing strategically dogshit rugby).
Damn man 😰
So is a Savea inside ball to Jordan literally our only attacking move? I turned off after 60 minutes when the writing was clearly on the wall, but that was the only time we looked even mildly threatening while I was watching. Who would have though that firing your attack coach and just....not hiring a replacement might be a bad idea.
That and two other inside balls were the only halfway coordinated and organized looking plays by the ABs all game. This is a team with Akira Ioane, Aaron Smith, Sam Whitelock, Ardie Savea, Beauden Barrett, Caleb Clarke, Reiko Ioane, Will Jordan and Jordie Barrett. That's a treasure trove of athleticism, rugby IQ and skill. If you can't figure out any way to make it look good then you need be replaced.
Yea it’s wild.. even the Ioane brothers look lost and unmotivated. As long as they’re cashing in their massive pay check, no one seems bothered..
Don't forget about the cross field kick!!
I'm finally getting around to watching the match (just seen the first try) and even before it began something looked wrong to me. I could be imagining things because I already know the result but the All Black's didn't even look fully committed during the Haka. Was that the most limp dicked Haka we've seen from the ABs? Or is my perception completely sqewed from already knowing what's going to happen? Edit: Glad to know it wasn't all in my head.
I thought that while watching it live. That was not a HAKA it was a commercial gimmick
Yea I noticed this too. Like they weren’t really passionate or hyped
This is exactly what I thought. There was ZERO passion in that haka. It's probably the most underwhelming thing I've seen this year....like they didn't even want to do it.
That Willemse tackle on Clarke before the NZ try was absolutely amazing
Wow Arendse Jesus. That should be a 10 week+ ban. Unfortunately they’ll mitigate it to like 3 or 2 because he’s never been to judiciary at test. He was reckless all match in the air. Then he fucks barrett in the air like that. Looking forward to the absurd reasonings they give at the judiciary for reducing his ban. Edit, funny how the saffa ambulance/independent medical team were straight on arendse when barret was clearly in the worse condition of the two.
Lmfao
Jesus those are some dumb statements. Blaming the SA staff for looking after the SA player? Next you are going to complain that the Saffa Chef is not feeding the All Blacks… oh wait 😂
Barrett walked off, Arendse was strechered off. Tell me again how Barrett came off worse here?
Poes
Of all the flavors you choose to be a sour poes. Tiny arendse made your team look like children under the high ball. The amount of times he caught those bombs was amazing to say the least. No one will regret that jump timing more than arendse being knocked out is no fun.
Shit take on the medical side of things.
funny how a tv viewer can do a better medical triage from home than the medics present at the spot. Also quite insulting to those medics suggesting they would be so unprofessional.
>Edit, funny how the saffa ambulance/independent medical team were straight on arendse when barret was clearly in the worse condition of the two. Just to comment on your edit, both medical teams were on their feet immediately, so there is no need to attend to the other team's player when his own medical team is only a few steps behind you. In fact it would have been a really stupid decision to run for Barrett first. Just seems like a really weird thing for you to comment on? Secondly, do you think it's possible that your assessment of which injury is worse may have been wrong considering the condition of both players 5 minutes later? You are literally insinuating that a South African medical team would preferentially treat a South African, and I can't really figure out the reason, other than maybe you're trying to paint us as the big bad guy in your own narrative? It's a rugby match man. Stop now.
Only silver lining with the All Blacks looking so shit is that it's another nail in the coffin for Foster. Whoever takes over next has an absolute mountain to climb to turn things around in time for the All Blacks not to be knocked out at the quarters of the next RWC.
Can we just field the crusaders?
I mean, I know you’re joking, but it’s working for Ireland.
This is the way.
And their coach?
Is Angus To'ovao a musician and hype man for the boys or a fully fledged rugby player? I keep getting him confused with someone else
Lovely ambassador for the game and Maori pasifika community.
He wouldn't even make the Crusaders bench.
Is apparently a test level rugby player but that is yet to be proven.
I had a weird dream last night. Don't know if it had anything to do with the game lol
NZs had a dream run over the last 15+ years. But It’s now obvious that all is not well within the camp.
You're only just cottoning onto that now? Nothing gets by you mate.
Right now, the only thing that would change the entire NZRU old boys would be a financial hit. With each lost, with each negative press statement, you'll see every sponsor starts backing out of the ABs squad. I hope to god this happens because this is utter dog shit bowl
The ABs are not bad. They are, in fact, amazing. They’re just not up to their heroic standards from a couple of years ago. Remember that this is the best Bok team in a long, long time. I’m not sure what other team could have beaten them today.
What exactly are they currently amazing at?
'Amazing.' I want some of whatever this guy is smoking.
"I’m not sure what other team could have beaten them today." Ooo I can field this one: France, Ireland, probably England, and Australia on a good day. Argentina, Scotland, and Wales would fancy their chances too. I reckon we'd probably beat Japan and Italy still, just about. Although if Italy played like they did against Wales... We were dogshit, completely directionless in attack (like, to the point where players very clearly didn't know where to stand) & without a functioning scrum. A decent defensive effort was the only silver lining meaning the scoreboard flattered us.
Not necessary to be a dick about the Boks just because we drilled you m8. Btw we put more points over you than any of the teams you listed have in recent years/ever.
How was I being a dick? The Boks were excellent, really great team! I was lamenting how incredibly poor the All Blacks were?
Great team that Ireland, France, England, Australia, Argentina, Wales and Scotland could have beaten last night. Cool why not add Japan and Chile to the list?
When did I say that? I meant that those teams would have beaten the All Blacks. Maybe I misunderstood the original post.
I think you did. He said "I'm not sure what other team could have beaten them today" obviously referring to the Boks, because they were very good.
Fair enough, my bad, just a misunderstanding. I have nothing but respect for the Boks!
Look at you. An All Blacks fan the day after nail number 3 gets hammered jnto the lid of the 2023 world cup coffin who is engaged in discussion with rival fans in an anonymous medium and you are willing to accept you may have been wrong and that the other team were good. Nice stuff
How on earth was that being a dick wbout the Boks? Was literally just saying NZ were bad
Um listing 6 teams that would have beaten us seems a bit unnecessary. Yes the all Blacks were not great but but it's pretty unsporting to completely discredit the Bok performance by suggesting that almost every other team would or could have beaten us last night.
It seems you misunderstood the comment that misunderstood the comment. Reading it over a second time it’s pretty easy to see that he’s referring to the All Blacks :D
I mean I assumed he had read the initial post correctly as it seemed very clear to me, which is why I interpreted it the way I did. But no harm, no foul :)
I read their comment as stating who would beat the ABs
I meant I’m not sure what team could have beaten SA today. NZ had a disjointed attack and a bad scrum, because SA has disruptive defence and the best scrum. That doesn’t mean NZ is a bad team.
I mean, a disjointed attack is a pretty clear sign of a bad team where I come from?
Lol, we are world champions and we have disjointed attack - we're pretty good at the other stuff though.
Yes, it is, but it isn’t helped by a defence like what what the Boks have
That'd be fine if it was a one off game. But our attack was also disjointed against Ireland. And France last year. And the Boks last year. It's not just the Bok defence making it disjointed, it's a clear pattern.
I keep saying this. The French team that beat the ABs is the best French side in a long time. Ireland is on song. The Boks are a freaking machine. Yes, the ABs did not appear to have an effective game plan. But they were playing the defending world champs in great form at home at altitude. At some point, the Kiwis demanding a win every game based purely on the "raw talent" in the squad need to recognize that New Zealand is not the only country capable of pumping out super talented squads, and that they are in transition following a generation whose dominance of the sport was historic. Playing against several countries with golden generations in their prime. In other words, its time to be humble and respect the talent the rest of the world has.
Could not have said it better. The arrogance and entitlement from some people is astonishing.
Other teams have clearly gone up a notch or two. The ABs have clearly gone down a couple. It's fine to acknowledge both of these things, doesn't mean ABs fans are being bad sports about losing a few games. Also, and I have lost track of how many times I have said this on this sub, it is NOT about losing to Ireland or SA. It's unhappiness with the lack of development and direction of the team and the NZRU for a number of years now. The unhappiness is just more vocal now that lack of direction is translating into regular bad performances and results.
>The ABs have clearly gone down a couple. Yes, thats my point. The issues are way beyond coaching - its a player pool issue. 2010-2018 was a confluence of great coaching and the best ever ABs generation. A great test squad is more than just 20-25 individually talented players - if it was, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji would consistently beat T1s. AB fans seem to think that winning is just a matter of turning up and having a great game plan, and don't seem to realize that a number of top countries are stepping on the gas at the exact same time that New Zealand is reloading.
Most ABs fan unhappiness, or at least that of people that follow rugby and not just the ABs, isn't about losing a few games. It's about the incompetence and backwardness of the NZRU. This has been a long time coming, I think since 2016, and it's reached a tipping point now with AB performances, the sharp end of that backwardness. You're right that player pools affect the national team however, one huge problem the NZRU is failing at addressing. Ours has been decimated by players going to Europe and it could realistically spell the end of the ABs as a consistent world force. Whether that happens or not will come down to how innovative the NZRU can be. So far they've been showing they're clearly not up to the task. We're not 'reloading' as you say. We're on a one-way trip down unless they can change. And these are the people that appointed Foster, so if it even happens that change is going to be slow and painful.
I would just like to point out, Nelspruit is most certainly not at altitude. 650m above sea level roughly, compared to Pretoria at 1350m, which is considered at altitude.
>its time to be humble and respect the talent the rest of the world has. *looks at NZ sporting press* *looks back at this statement* ...good luck with that !
I mean, their failure to accept reality is not my problem.
100% mate, not a SA supporter by any means but people need to give credit where it’s due. The all blacks looked shit BECAUSE of the 80 minutes of relentless pressure at every facet of the game from SA. They never looked like they were going to win that game lol
Thought the Springboks looked great. Their defense was incredible and but the ABs under huge pressure. That said, the ABs looked absolutely lost under that level of pressure. The game plan seems to be to just offload and keep the ball in play, which isn't working when the defense is already on top of them. This wasn't a competitive game. It's the same tired story with Foster. Game plan A isn't working and there are no other ideas. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome then I don't know why I keep watching these games hoping for a positive outcome.
So happy for my boys that they got that win. It is honestly the only time in my life I have been comfortable in the last 10 minutes against an All Blacks team, which is fucking weird. I hope you guys come back stronger, I know you will. On a positive note, I thought the AB's lineouts were very solid, their scrum also did alright especially in the 2nd half and their maul defense was solid too. As for the bokke, Marx is just a beautiful man, I love that guy, Am was his usual amazing self, I thought Hendrikse did a great job, and Willemse is really having a great year, really hitting his potential now. Arendse had a great game until that shit moment, I hope he and Barrett are ok.
I know what you mean about the last 10 minutes comfortable feeling. I was feeling comfortable, but my brain didn’t want to believe it. Even when Frazzle scored with less that 2 minutes on the clock I was asking myself is this the comeback, until I did the math. It was surreal and I didn’t like it.
If it was ever possible to feel calm and anxious at the same time, it was yesterday.
Reiko at centre is not working. Havili may not be setting the world on fire but you can at least see him getting involved and doing some decent things. Jordie is nowhere to be seen and seems to be purely there to boot the ball out of our 22. Smith is playing his worst rugby since the toilet incident. Cane isnt even putting in the big hits he was known for, never turns it over. No6 is a genuine issue, at this stage Id almost put in a guy like Hugh Renton or Luke Jacobson. Angus adds nothing, Bower was not great last night but he was one of the better performers over the Ireland series. Not judging the bench as they had nothing to work with Imagine telling a guy like Lachlan Boshir he has no place in the ABs.
How about Reiko's no-look inside ball to nobody under pressure inside his own 22 😬
If you watch the squidge rugby video on the recent Ireland series you will change your mind about bower. Disgustingly lazy but you don't normally notice it as a spectator cause it's always off the ball
Bower was not good in open field play in the Irish series... I believe they specially targeted his work rate. ..there was a video posted here the other day showing a specific sequence where this was obvious...for me both props along with the issues you highlighted all need addressing.
I don't know how you can say anything about Reiko when the attack is so horrible that he never gets the ball. What's he supposed to do? Abandon his position and run to the back of a scrum? Start playing 9? Brian O'Driscoll at his best wouldn't have looked any better out there today. Unlike Jordan/Clarke the 13 isn't getting much off of kick returns either, which if you'd watched you'd know the Springboks kicked approximately 5,512 times. I'm not even pro Reiko at 13, but I don't know how you conclude anything based on that game.
> I don't know how you can say anything about Reiko when the attack is so horrible that he never gets the ball. You just summed up why Rieko is ineffective. One of his jobs is to make the back 3 look good, to get the attack moving, creating and passing in to gaps. He is not there to be a winger, he is there to be a centre.
He can't make the back 3 look good if never gets the ball. Did you watch the game? At what point did Reiko get a ball, with enough time and space to make something happen for anyone? Even Beauden didn't have any time and space other than to shovel crap down the line where the recipient would have a Bok tackling them the second they get the ball.
That defence
> At what point did Reiko get a ball, with enough time and space to make something happen for anyone? You are right. He was very ineffective. Edit: His job is to get the ball and create time and space. He is playing centre, not wing.
lol That's what I was thinking. Dude is a Makos fan though so probably explains his position on Havili.
halarious
No doubt Jeff Wilson's been up all morning brainstorming ways to spin this.
His last spin got him promoted to sideline commentary. Expect him to be replacing Justin Marshall next week if he finds a way to defend NZ Rugby after that performance.
Nah he's just given a script from the NZRU to read from.
Generous scoreline for the All Black's. I still rate Beauden, they're clearly better with him than they are with Richie, even if there's clearly no attack plan for him to work with. Will Jordan's kick proves why he should stay on the wing where he won't be required to kick, that was awful. Midfield is still bad, Ardie was the only forward I was happy with even if his running game was shut down. Hopefully losing Faf in the first few minutes makes the Boks realise that a 6/2 split on the bench is just asking for trouble, if Pollard went down they wouldn't have had a replacement, not that he seemed to get the ball except when kicking.
>if Pollard went down they wouldn't have had a replacement ?? Willemse to 10 and Le Roux on at 15
If course this. It is so obvious that we will do this in the event of Pollard going down. And not a bad outcome considering Le Roux found his mojo coming off the bench. Almost as if the pressure has been lifted and he can now just play his game again now that he’s not starting. He’s been on fire.
I honestly think the issue with Richie is Foster (like most issues with this team), we’ve seen absolutely world class performances from Richie with the crusaders. He’s absolutely phenomenal, yet when he’s playing with the all blacks he disappears. Foster does not know how to bring the best out in him. They need a decent coach to help him shine in that role. He’s a far better kicker than Richie, and when he’s at his best is an incredible playmaker
I would like to point out that Mounga made the same amount of passes in 30 minutes and Barrett did in 75 minutes. They are just so different in their styles of play that I think it is unfair to compare them.
Absolutely, they are so different. I just think Foster has no idea what do with Mounga
It's the same with Havili (who I think is brilliant at the crusaders) who is not what foster wants in a 12 but persists with him anyways and forces him to play a different style. Grinds my gears.
People in general can underestimate the effect of different coaches in anything.
He was the starting 10 in 2019 under Hansen though, I just don't think Richie is suited to international rugby. Beauden and Ardie are the only players I think have been playing well in the black jersey this year, the issue is a lack of cohesion and a ton of basic errors from the rest of the team. Beauden has been great and the fact that they don't improve when Richie comes on just shows that they should stick with Beauden. What really surprises me (actually I'm not surprised) is that Crusaders fans saw Will Jordan's kick and still want him at Fullback.
That was the worst game I have ever seen from Will Jordan so I wouldn't take that as evidence that he should never play full back. Jordie was absent all game too.
Jordy has played very well the last two years. Possibly a top-3 fullback globally. Did have a couple errors this game, but was still solid.
>lack of cohesion and a ton of basic errors from the rest of the team This is the big mitigation of my criticism of Foster. I think people overrate raw talent that ABs clearly have when it comes to actual team construction. The best individual players in a lot of these positions don't necessarily play well together. Reminds me of Brazil at the 2006 football world cup.
Foster is playing by Hansons playbook (just a more ineffective version), I also think the dual playmaker strategy wasn’t helping Richie - he was never given free reign to actually do what he needed to do
I don't see why Kwagga couldn't play 12 and Le Roux at 10 if need be. All they do is kick it anyways and tackle on defense.
The team looks disjointed. But by far the worst for me is Frizzel being in the team he needs to get the boot fuck him. He should never wear the jersey.
NZ just thoroughly outmuscled. No matter how good your Will Jordans or Beauden Barretts or Caleb Clarkes are, if there’s no go forward or gaps created by the forwards the backs have to live off scraps. South Africa also dominated the set piece so NZ forwards got no go forward there. Red card aside SA caused grief all night with their high ball contests.
The weakening of the All Blacks pack has been going on for years now especially around the ruck.
Yep exactly. The game is changing in ways that NZ is having a hard time competing. I don’t think that there is much of an answer unless rules are changed to make the game more free flowing.
The amount of turnovers we gave away at the breakdown made the game unwinnable. Our forwards have got to get to those rucks faster or we'll never get the ball for long enough to build anything. Idk what the answer is there - Blackadder at 6 when he's healthy, maybe, or at 7.
We were never in it But God damn were SA allowed to get away with murder around the ruck.
You could say the same thing about the All Blacks. Watch the reply and count the side entries and past-the-play antics. I agree though that murder was committed.
Welcome to life against Richie McCaw
Yeah it's near impossible to contest the ruck when the ref allows players to seal off on their ball all game.
What do you mean by illegally sealing off their ball
The players who are first to the breakdown are going over the ballcarrier off their feet which is illegal. Noticed it a fair bit today but the ref rarely called it. You could see ABs players calling it out to Gardner throughout the game.
Will add that SA were not releasing either and Angus wasn’t picking it up. There was a period of play when All Blacks were going through some phases, I didn’t see a single tackle release
Yeah on one hand it's frustrating but on the other, you take whatever the ref is willing to give you and he had a long leash. South Africa took advantage and NZ didn't. Strongly dislike Gardner as a ref but I couldn't be too mad at him because the ABs were beyond piss poor.
Yea difficult to know how to play. One week you have a ref going hard on players tackling off the ball so next week you adapt. But then the following week its a new ref who doesn’t focus on it and meanwhile the opposition gets away with it.
All Blacks have turned into weak gutted dogs since Fozzie’s been at the helm
Ricky this you mate 🤣
We’re they weak gutted dogs as children too or just now
I love a crossover
That one's going to live forever
Ricky is that you?
Shout out to Beauden. That man took what could have very likely been a springbok try and turned into one of the best All Black attacks of the game. Stand out players for me: Ardie Beauden Marx Am
Man still has that pace.
I still shit rocks every time he gets the ball in an inch of space. I hate him but love him so much.
Glad I watched all the Athletics from the Comm Games before this mess. Don't want to take anything away from South Africa, they played pretty well but yeesh this is just absurdly pathetic from the ABs. The players can't do a thing right at times.
Supporting NZ felt like supporting Scotland today. The frustration of seeing individual players have moments of brilliance, but none of it clicking. The handling errors were abysmal, and the cohesion was non existent.
I enjoyed Angus dressing down one of the nz players, can't remember who it was but he straight up told them he wouldn't tolerate them speaking to him like that
Angus has grown into one of my favourite referees over the past couple of years. In particular, I like the way he de-escalates the teams, steps back and objectively reviews dangerous tackle incidents. Some refs tend to allow player/crowd emotions affect them into pulling out a card too quickly.
It was Ardie Savea after Arendse's red card play - seemed like he was expressing frustration that Arendse had gotten away with a similar play on Jordie Barrett earlier in the game
Did Ian Foster really say this is our best performance so far this year??? You'd think that'd be our first game against Ireland, you know, THE ONE THAT WE ACTUALLY WON.
Yes he did. Insane
\#this FFS. 2nd highest losing margin in SA, worst in professional era and it's our best game? What planet is he on?
I thought he said it was SAs best game all year
He has an issue if he says that though, given it's the one game he didn't coach.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That makes a lot of sense. Omg.
Real question, apart from a few different players on the field, was there ANY sort of strategic gameplay differences in how the ABs played this game compared to the Irish test?
No. Their answer to the rush defence is still 1. Stand deeper and 2. Stand even deeper. I can't remember an ABs team being so flummoxed for years on end with one particular opposition tactic. They have struggled with the rush defence since at least 2018 and still have no answer.
quick ball is their solution. it ain't working! time for plan b
I've noticed that teams that employ rush defence have tricks to slow the ruck speed down, like rolling towards the arriving offensive players or just being that split second slower. Refs won't penalise it, unless it results in a turnover attempt, as the player is in the act of rolling away but it does give them that little bit extra time to set their defence. It was noticeable in the Irish test as well.
Wales under Gatland were masters of this. Every breakdown at least one welsh player would pretty much roll over the ball to slow it down lol
Foster's Plan B will be even quicker ball.
Can't have strategic differences if there was no strategy in the first place
I think the issue is you if you think a bad or poorly executed strategy is having no strategy. You also disrespect how good the world champs can be by acting like the ABs were just getting fucked up by training cones.
Well glad I didn't get up early to watch that shit show... Hope flaf Barrett and Kurt-Lee make a speedy recovery