All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test
-
-
What is worrying , the criticisms directed towards the ABs ,
Seem to be very similar to the crtiticisms towards the Chiefs under Foster ,
the way i remember it , it was nearly always about lack of structure and gameplan
-
What is worrying , the criticisms directed towards the ABs ,
Seem to be very similar to the crtiticisms towards the Chiefs under Foster ,
the way i remember it , it was nearly always about lack of structure and gameplan
@kiwiinmelb what worries me is these are supposed to be the best and most experienced played in the country and theyre not coming up with something better on the pitch
-
-
@pakman said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
I read that with disbelief. LF jumped to charge the ball down so the words around targeting the player by AR are just wrong. You wonder if these guys have ever played any contact sport. Everyone I have ever known braces for contact which involves protecting your chest. To the uniformed that looks like leading with a shoulder but that is just stupid. The trouble is all of this ends up about the result not the action. I have more issue with LF’s yellow card than AT’s red. AT had a responsibility to get low as tackler. No intent but still poor technique. For all their bending at the hip at scrum time some props seem to struggle to get this right when tackling - a learned skill. LF was trying to charge a ball down but with two guys running at each other. If he had caught the ball and the Irishman had taken his feet out while he was in the air, who would have been sent off?
@kev said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@pakman said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
I read that with disbelief. LF jumped to charge the ball down so the words around targeting the player by AR are just wrong. You wonder if these guys have ever played any contact sport. Everyone I have ever known braces for contact which involves protecting your chest. To the uniformed that looks like leading with a shoulder but that is just stupid. The trouble is all of this ends up about the result not the action. I have more issue with LF’s yellow card than AT’s red. AT had a responsibility to get low as tackler. No intent but still poor technique. For all their bending at the hip at scrum time some props seem to struggle to get this right when tackling - a learned skill. LF was trying to charge a ball down but with two guys running at each other. If he had caught the ball and the Irishman had taken his feet out while he was in the air, who would have been sent off?
The onus always seems to be on the defender when these incidents occur. Shouldn’t there also be some responsibility of the attacking player to try and make the situation safer?
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@Chris-B you have to wonder if Fozzie is genuinely concerned with things, or if he is happy with how we are tracking, then add in NZR.
If we lose this weekend, the blow torch surely goes on full, and the other thing, if we lose again, playing poor rugby, will stadiums keep selling out, that will hit NZR, and also does brand damage when we play Aus and cant even sell a stadium out.
Is Wellington sold out yet?
I'm sure he's concerned, but he probably doesn't have the full set of tools to fix it. Someone pointed out that he's had a unique set of circumstances to deal with - with covid, etc (to which I'd add the advent of the crazy card game) - and that is true, but, I still think I've seen enough. The mediocrity in results correlates pretty strongly with what some of the Chiefs' supporters were warning about when he was appointed.
This coming weekend will be pretty interesting. Then we've got the retaining the Bledisloe hurdle, then the Jaapies at home hurdle and then EOYT.
Pretty sure the axe won't fall until after TRC and probably after the EOYT.
I'd actually bet against it falling at all, but really execution should only be stayed if NZR genuinely believe Fozzie is the best man for the job (or it's going to cost millions and millions to axe him).
@Chris-B said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@Chris-B you have to wonder if Fozzie is genuinely concerned with things, or if he is happy with how we are tracking, then add in NZR.
If we lose this weekend, the blow torch surely goes on full, and the other thing, if we lose again, playing poor rugby, will stadiums keep selling out, that will hit NZR, and also does brand damage when we play Aus and cant even sell a stadium out.
Is Wellington sold out yet?
I'm sure he's concerned, but he probably doesn't have the full set of tools to fix it. Someone pointed out that he's had a unique set of circumstances to deal with - with covid, etc (to which I'd add the advent of the crazy card game) - and that is true, but, I still think I've seen enough. The mediocrity in results correlates pretty strongly with what some of the Chiefs' supporters were warning about when he was appointed.
This coming weekend will be pretty interesting. Then we've got the retaining the Bledisloe hurdle, then the Jaapies at home hurdle and then EOYT.
Pretty sure the axe won't fall until after TRC and probably after the EOYT.
I'd actually bet against it falling at all, but really execution should only be stayed if NZR genuinely believe Fozzie is the best man for the job (or it's going to cost millions and millions to axe him).
Crowdfunding might work
-
it was very clear from last week, and this week, that the plan is to play nothing in our half. if we start a set of phases in our own territory, kick it.
But it was like we stopped the planning after that. The how seemed to get forgotten about, so the kicks looked haphazard, and the chase like they didn't know where it was going.
Last week it sorta worked, but Ireland fielded them better this week, and then returned the kicks better, so we started losing ground (throw in a lineout fucked at selection time).
Then, when it was apparent this tactic wasn't working, and the scoreboard became an issue, we started trying to play a bit. But that's when it got ugly. It looked honestly like the players had nothing to fall back on. We just didn't seem to know how we were going to play. Seriously disjointed, off-the-cuff play right from the beginning of every set of phases. It was not pretty.
Again though, huge credit to the irish who took on board what they did well the week before, but also addressed what they did poorly. That was a significant turn around in performance, and points to a squad unified in their vision.
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
Then, when it was apparent this tactic wasn't working, and the scoreboard became an issue, we started trying to play a bit. But that's when it got ugly. It looked honestly like the players had nothing to fall back on. We just didn't seem to know how we were going to play. Seriously disjointed, off-the-cuff play right from the beginning of every set of phases. It was not pretty
This. Pretty much since 2017.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@Crazy-Horse i think the argument is he may have seen his support was being tackled and not passed, in which case you cant "punish" ireland for playing to the whistle, you have to boil it down to first principles,
tackled without the ball ? yes.....if that tackler wasn't there is there a clear overlap and no cover? yes
But how does the ref determine that player who didn’t pass would have?
Some of this stuff is just ridiculous.
I can imagine some coach in NH dreaming up plays just to try and buy a card.
I ALWAYS start from position if wanting to see 15 on 15. But recognise deliberate cheating can thwart teams. So accept the OCCASIONAL card is justified.
My gut tells me that the TMO role has gotten far too powerful. Maybe let the three on field make the calls and only bring TMO into things on request, and in post match review for foul play!
-
@Frank wonder if Razor would be happy to work with/under Schmidt? Schmidt is only there as a selector technical advisor presently isnt he?
Maybe he stays on lets Razor run the ship?
@Chris-B this year could get very, very ugly, but I'm not sure NZR have the balls to make a big call, and would Fozzie take himself out of the equation?
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
wonder if Razor would be happy to work with/under Schmidt?
May be wrong, but among all the posts I've read in the last few days, there was a link which pretty much said it was the top job or nothing for Razor.
-
Has Foster said anything about why he replaced an in form Ardie? And not replaced Dalton? In my opinion this was another one of his brain explosions. Has he been questioned? He may have been but I missed it.
@number9 said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
Has Foster said anything about why he replaced an in form Ardie? And not replaced Dalton? In my opinion this was another one of his brain explosions. Has he been questioned? He may have been but I missed it.
He didn’t have the option. Once the substitutions were made in the order they were, the sideline officials said who had to stay off. Trouble is they got it wrong, and it was DP who had to stay off as he was subbed for AT.
The worst part of this was we should have been down to 12 for needing to go to uncontested scrums. Clearly we need to name props to cover both sides to avoid this.
-
@number9 said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
Has Foster said anything about why he replaced an in form Ardie? And not replaced Dalton? In my opinion this was another one of his brain explosions. Has he been questioned? He may have been but I missed it.
He didn’t have the option. Once the substitutions were made in the order they were, the sideline officials said who had to stay off. Trouble is they got it wrong, and it was DP who had to stay off as he was subbed for AT.
The worst part of this was we should have been down to 12 for needing to go to uncontested scrums. Clearly we need to name props to cover both sides to avoid this.
@kev said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
The worst part of this was we should have been down to 12 for needed to go to uncontested scrums. Clearly we need to name props to cover both sides to avoid this.
I thought I read somewhere that teams had to nominate LH and TH injury replacements specifically - ie they can't nominate a player to cover both sides. Or am talking out of my arse again?
-
@kev said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
The worst part of this was we should have been down to 12 for needed to go to uncontested scrums. Clearly we need to name props to cover both sides to avoid this.
I thought I read somewhere that teams had to nominate LH and TH injury replacements specifically - ie they can't nominate a player to cover both sides. Or am talking out of my arse again?
@Crazy-Horse if thats the case, then thats ridiculous, as long as they have the 2 reserves on the bench, if they can cover both sides even better as it reduces the possibility of GO scrums further.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@Crazy-Horse i think the argument is he may have seen his support was being tackled and not passed, in which case you cant "punish" ireland for playing to the whistle, you have to boil it down to first principles,
tackled without the ball ? yes.....if that tackler wasn't there is there a clear overlap and no cover? yes
But how does the ref determine that player who didn’t pass would have?
Some of this stuff is just ridiculous.
I can imagine some coach in NH dreaming up plays just to try and buy a card.
I ALWAYS start from position if wanting to see 15 on 15. But recognise deliberate cheating can thwart teams. So accept the OCCASIONAL card is justified.
My gut tells me that the TMO role has gotten far too powerful. Maybe let the three on field make the calls and only bring TMO into things on request, and in post match review for foul play!
@pakman im principle i agree, subjectivity should be removed as much as possible in my mind
-
@Crazy-Horse if thats the case, then thats ridiculous, as long as they have the 2 reserves on the bench, if they can cover both sides even better as it reduces the possibility of GO scrums further.
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@Crazy-Horse if thats the case, then thats ridiculous, as long as they have the 2 reserves on the bench, if they can cover both sides even better as it reduces the possibility of GO scrums further.
Agree. Hopefully they can't be that foolish can they?
-
@kev said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
The worst part of this was we should have been down to 12 for needed to go to uncontested scrums. Clearly we need to name props to cover both sides to avoid this.
I thought I read somewhere that teams had to nominate LH and TH injury replacements specifically - ie they can't nominate a player to cover both sides. Or am talking out of my arse again?
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@kev said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
The worst part of this was we should have been down to 12 for needed to go to uncontested scrums. Clearly we need to name props to cover both sides to avoid this.
I thought I read somewhere that teams had to nominate LH and TH injury replacements specifically - ie they can't nominate a player to cover both sides. Or am talking out of my arse again?
I think you’re right. There was some controversy in Europe when props said they couldn’t play opposite side, and ‘tactical’ oldie scrums required. So must have one of each FR to cover that.
But not sure there’s anything to stop a team volunteering a player who can play both sides.
I seem to recall Ofa being nominated as LH but subbing for TH or vice versa.
-
@pakman said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
It takes some chutzpah to complain that you were dudded in the refereeing when you compare Dalton's perfectly legitimate penalty and Lowe's coat hanger.
@antipodean said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@pakman said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
It takes some chutzpah to complain that you were dudded in the refereeing when you compare Dalton's perfectly legitimate penalty and Lowe's coat hanger.
This article is the first of many this week that will seek to put pressure on the officials to keep an eye on the ABs and their countless indiscretions.
I read somewhere that Foster said that World Rugby thought the ABs should have had 4 yellow cards in test 1. Aside from Barrett's moment of madness, I'm intrigued to know what the other 3 were. It is very much one way though. Have Ireland committed any offences that went unpunished? E.g. Lowe's coathanger. Or are NZ just a cynical team getting their comeuppance.
In the build up to 3rd test, there needs to be focus on Ireland's shepherding (legal/illegal?), offside line, decoy runners/obstruction and work at the breakdown. Because if the focus is on AB indiscretions only next week...
-
@pakman said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
That Barnes sure knows his Rugby. There’s nothing more inspirational than an ex English player getting on another countries bandwagon ( another country they usually hate at the best of times ) when they beat the All Blacks.
I’m shocked there wasn’t more digs at Sam Cane. He must have been working to a deadline.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@kev said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
The worst part of this was we should have been down to 12 for needed to go to uncontested scrums. Clearly we need to name props to cover both sides to avoid this.
I thought I read somewhere that teams had to nominate LH and TH injury replacements specifically - ie they can't nominate a player to cover both sides. Or am talking out of my arse again?
I think you’re right. There was some controversy in Europe when props said they couldn’t play opposite side, and ‘tactical’ oldie scrums required. So must have one of each FR to cover that.
But not sure there’s anything to stop a team volunteering a player who can play both sides.
I seem to recall Ofa being nominated as LH but subbing for TH or vice versa.
@pakman said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
@kev said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:
The worst part of this was we should have been down to 12 for needed to go to uncontested scrums. Clearly we need to name props to cover both sides to avoid this.
I thought I read somewhere that teams had to nominate LH and TH injury replacements specifically - ie they can't nominate a player to cover both sides. Or am talking out of my arse again?
I think you’re right. There was some controversy in Europe when props said they couldn’t play opposite side, and ‘tactical’ oldie scrums required. So must have one of each FR to cover that.
But not sure there’s anything to stop a team volunteering a player who can play both sides.
I seem to recall Ofa being nominated as LH but subbing for TH or vice versa.
This is what I found on the World Rugby website. I am still a little confused.
Prior to the match, each team must advise the appropriate match official of their front-row players and possible front-row replacements and which position(s) in the front row they can play. Only these players may play in the front row when the scrum is contested and only in their designated position(s).
A replacement front-row player may start the match in another position.
