Timbo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:11 am
I thought the breakdown was pretty competitive with not a huge amount in it. You always remember your own team failing to get quick ball or being turned over, but we were actually credited with 6 ruck turnovers. After the first quarter we also managed to slow the AB ball up considerably. Their phase play really didn’t make a dent for the last 50 odd minutes.
As for Earl, it was a bad miss for their second try, but his workrate was insane. Can’t be calling it a bad game when he knits so much of our play together on both sides of the ball. 19 tackles and 24 carries, had by far the highest Actions per Minute ratio in the match.
Interesting- where did you access the stats.
The consensus from the pundits was that breakdown was an issue, and on observation once only in real time, I felt they made much more of a mess of our breakdown than ours, but as you say, confirmation bias or summat- and agree we shut them down pretty well after about 30 mins. On Earl, I thought his decision making at the breakdown was average- he'd be more effective if he wasn't gaming the ref so much imo....he has a ton of talent. Focused action if you like.
We also need to look at the 3 times we kicked it away in their 22 early on.
Timbo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:11 am
I thought the breakdown was pretty competitive with not a huge amount in it. You always remember your own team failing to get quick ball or being turned over, but we were actually credited with 6 ruck turnovers. After the first quarter we also managed to slow the AB ball up considerably. Their phase play really didn’t make a dent for the last 50 odd minutes.
As for Earl, it was a bad miss for their second try, but his workrate was insane. Can’t be calling it a bad game when he knits so much of our play together on both sides of the ball. 19 tackles and 24 carries, had by far the highest Actions per Minute ratio in the match.
Interesting- where did you access the stats.
The consensus from the pundits was that breakdown was an issue, and on observation once only in real time, I felt they made much more of a mess of our breakdown than ours, but as you say, confirmation bias or summat- and agree we shut them down pretty well after about 30 mins. On Earl, I thought his decision making at the breakdown was average- he'd be more effective if he wasn't gaming the ref so much imo....he has a ton of talent. Focused action if you like.
We also need to look at the 3 times we kicked it away in their 22 early on.
Yep. The odd grubber can be very effective but we overdid it.
Timbo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:11 am
I thought the breakdown was pretty competitive with not a huge amount in it. You always remember your own team failing to get quick ball or being turned over, but we were actually credited with 6 ruck turnovers. After the first quarter we also managed to slow the AB ball up considerably. Their phase play really didn’t make a dent for the last 50 odd minutes.
As for Earl, it was a bad miss for their second try, but his workrate was insane. Can’t be calling it a bad game when he knits so much of our play together on both sides of the ball. 19 tackles and 24 carries, had by far the highest Actions per Minute ratio in the match.
Interesting- where did you access the stats.
The consensus from the pundits was that breakdown was an issue, and on observation once only in real time, I felt they made much more of a mess of our breakdown than ours, but as you say, confirmation bias or summat- and agree we shut them down pretty well after about 30 mins. On Earl, I thought his decision making at the breakdown was average- he'd be more effective if he wasn't gaming the ref so much imo....he has a ton of talent. Focused action if you like.
We also need to look at the 3 times we kicked it away in their 22 early on.
Yep. The odd grubber can be very effective but we overdid it.
This board has made that criticism a few times previously!
Is it simply the overall coaching policy - 'if in doubt, kick'? Is it a question of cohesion? Is it as much/more the fault of the position/timing of the potential receiver as the kicker?
I think our back line is getting better game on game. I'd back them to take more chances and botch fewer if we give them time.
Freeman was not at his best. Maybe, his support positioning was the issue? He won't have a second iffy game, I'd bet.
I think we often opt for a few early (and varied if possible) kicks in behind to try and slow the line speed a bit, but didn’t seem to be done with a lot of thought or decent enough execution.
I feel like Lawrence had a good kick through, and I don’t generally trust his kicking at all.
The consensus from the pundits was that breakdown was an issue, and on observation once only in real time, I felt they made much more of a mess of our breakdown than ours, but as you say, confirmation bias or summat- and agree we shut them down pretty well after about 30 mins. On Earl, I thought his decision making at the breakdown was average- he'd be more effective if he wasn't gaming the ref so much imo....he has a ton of talent. Focused action if you like.
We also need to look at the 3 times we kicked it away in their 22 early on.
Yep. The odd grubber can be very effective but we overdid it.
This board has made that criticism a few times previously!
Is it simply the overall coaching policy - 'if in doubt, kick'? Is it a question of cohesion? Is it as much/more the fault of the position/timing of the potential receiver as the kicker?
I think our back line is getting better game on game. I'd back them to take more chances and botch fewer if we give them time.
Freeman was not at his best. Maybe, his support positioning was the issue? He won't have a second iffy game, I'd bet.
As Mikey says the Lawrence grubber through was well placed and resulted in McKenzie being shoved into touch for an attacking lineout.
I was disappointed by the Slade and Smith grubbers. Smith because he had some numbers outside him and I'd have liked to see him have a crack, particularly given how many running options we had. Smith's was at least on even if he does miss hit it and put it too close to McKenzie. Slade's was trying to thread the eye of a needle and just gave the ball away though Puja might show something we missed on the mbm.
I don't dislike the tactic. When the momentum slows or you don't have numbers, then grubber through and pressure. Try to force a wayward kick or an attacking lineout and we'll go again. Given Furbank is the one likely to counter attack as well it's not a bad shout. Felt like we went to that option too early a couple of times though, particularly that Smith one.
Yep. The odd grubber can be very effective but we overdid it.
This board has made that criticism a few times previously!
Is it simply the overall coaching policy - 'if in doubt, kick'? Is it a question of cohesion? Is it as much/more the fault of the position/timing of the potential receiver as the kicker?
I think our back line is getting better game on game. I'd back them to take more chances and botch fewer if we give them time.
Freeman was not at his best. Maybe, his support positioning was the issue? He won't have a second iffy game, I'd bet.
As Mikey says the Lawrence grubber through was well placed and resulted in McKenzie being shoved into touch for an attacking lineout.
I was disappointed by the Slade and Smith grubbers. Smith because he had some numbers outside him and I'd have liked to see him have a crack, particularly given how many running options we had. Smith's was at least on even if he does miss hit it and put it too close to McKenzie. Slade's was trying to thread the eye of a needle and just gave the ball away though Puja might show something we missed on the mbm.
I don't dislike the tactic. When the momentum slows or you don't have numbers, then grubber through and pressure. Try to force a wayward kick or an attacking lineout and we'll go again. Given Furbank is the one likely to counter attack as well it's not a bad shout. Felt like we went to that option too early a couple of times though, particularly that Smith one.
I also groaned at first on Smith's grubber, but on the highlight, the Kiwi defense was up very quickly to close down the runners, and there was the space. So it wasn't a bad decision, per se. Just not accurate enough.
Timbo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:11 am
I thought the breakdown was pretty competitive with not a huge amount in it. You always remember your own team failing to get quick ball or being turned over, but we were actually credited with 6 ruck turnovers. After the first quarter we also managed to slow the AB ball up considerably. Their phase play really didn’t make a dent for the last 50 odd minutes.
As for Earl, it was a bad miss for their second try, but his workrate was insane. Can’t be calling it a bad game when he knits so much of our play together on both sides of the ball. 19 tackles and 24 carries, had by far the highest Actions per Minute ratio in the match.
Interesting- where did you access the stats.
The consensus from the pundits was that breakdown was an issue, and on observation once only in real time, I felt they made much more of a mess of our breakdown than ours, but as you say, confirmation bias or summat- and agree we shut them down pretty well after about 30 mins. On Earl, I thought his decision making at the breakdown was average- he'd be more effective if he wasn't gaming the ref so much imo....he has a ton of talent. Focused action if you like.
We also need to look at the 3 times we kicked it away in their 22 early on.
Agree on Earl - he has to shut up and play up. He seems a little fond of his own image.
Danno wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 12:40 am
Stream deets for next week please
Mentioned earlier on here. Rugby Stream.me
There was some annoying pop ups but once you've got through those the stream worked.
Also to add - don't use Firefox for this.
Rugbystream and viprow are two of my go-to.s, but the last year or so Firefox has been refusing to support them for some reason.
Worked fine once I though to try on chrome, I've been told Brave is the best browser for streaming (haven't tried yet).
Thanks both. Been using Brave for years now and can confirm it's good while blocking most jank.
Baxter was obliterated for one of those scrums. Young lad on debut suddenly had to play a lot of the game including against a fresh and more experienced (and bigger) tighthead. Not a massive surprise he got caught out a couple of times. Generally we did quite well, the ABs weren't big on supporting their weight and were no doubt delighted when sir insisted we raise the height of the scrum to find more stability as scrummaging low is Baxter's advantage over those AB monsters.
Cole isn't the monster at scrum time he used to be either. Generally keeps things solid, England do need to replace him probably by the 6N.
Which scrum did Baxter get obliterated at? 3 scrums in the 2nd half. First one De Groot stood up yet again but got pinged. 2nd one Cole went backwards at a rate of knots, Baxter merely stood still while everyone else moved to the side and forwards. 3rd one NZ ran round the corner. He was to blame for none of those.
The one you're blaming Cole for. The AB tighthead goes straight through the gap between Baxter and George. Baxter is then a complete passenger as Cole and George get left to face the AB scrum with an expected result. I doubt the AB tighthead's angle was particularly good but he kept it straight enough to avoid sanction.
Alrighty then. You mean the one where Cole goes up and back at a rate of knots then Newell stands up when the scrums ended? Seriously FKAS, the action was on the other side. Cole gets forced up and back, NZ hooker and Dan follow him up and the 2 Eng locks rise cos they're going backwards. In contrast Newell keeps low (having collapsed his side in the previous setup and not been pinged luckily for him). Baxter could do naff all about what was going on except try to keep Newell up which was proving difficult. And Newell pops his head up when it’s over.
Timbo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:11 am
I thought the breakdown was pretty competitive with not a huge amount in it. You always remember your own team failing to get quick ball or being turned over, but we were actually credited with 6 ruck turnovers. After the first quarter we also managed to slow the AB ball up considerably. Their phase play really didn’t make a dent for the last 50 odd minutes.
As for Earl, it was a bad miss for their second try, but his workrate was insane. Can’t be calling it a bad game when he knits so much of our play together on both sides of the ball. 19 tackles and 24 carries, had by far the highest Actions per Minute ratio in the match.
I felt for Earl with that missed tackle. The sidestep from the 15 was quite extraordinary.
Timbo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:11 am
I thought the breakdown was pretty competitive with not a huge amount in it. You always remember your own team failing to get quick ball or being turned over, but we were actually credited with 6 ruck turnovers. After the first quarter we also managed to slow the AB ball up considerably. Their phase play really didn’t make a dent for the last 50 odd minutes.
As for Earl, it was a bad miss for their second try, but his workrate was insane. Can’t be calling it a bad game when he knits so much of our play together on both sides of the ball. 19 tackles and 24 carries, had by far the highest Actions per Minute ratio in the match.
Interesting- where did you access the stats.
The consensus from the pundits was that breakdown was an issue, and on observation once only in real time, I felt they made much more of a mess of our breakdown than ours, but as you say, confirmation bias or summat- and agree we shut them down pretty well after about 30 mins. On Earl, I thought his decision making at the breakdown was average- he'd be more effective if he wasn't gaming the ref so much imo....he has a ton of talent. Focused action if you like.
We also need to look at the 3 times we kicked it away in their 22 early on.
Agree on Earl - he has to shut up and play up. He seems a little fond of his own image.
I felt the issue was with him that he kept trying stuff that wasn't quite on. That gap might've been big enough against Wales or Italy, but it definitely wasn't against NZ and there were a couple of times that I thought he went for something when an offload would've had someone else running a much better line.
The consensus from the pundits was that breakdown was an issue, and on observation once only in real time, I felt they made much more of a mess of our breakdown than ours, but as you say, confirmation bias or summat- and agree we shut them down pretty well after about 30 mins. On Earl, I thought his decision making at the breakdown was average- he'd be more effective if he wasn't gaming the ref so much imo....he has a ton of talent. Focused action if you like.
We also need to look at the 3 times we kicked it away in their 22 early on.
Agree on Earl - he has to shut up and play up. He seems a little fond of his own image.
I felt the issue was with him that he kept trying stuff that wasn't quite on. That gap might've been big enough against Wales or Italy, but it definitely wasn't against NZ and there were a couple of times that I thought he went for something when an offload would've had someone else running a much better line.
Puja
it was more his lack of aplomb at the breakdown, basics if you will.
Spiffy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 3:51 pm
Agree on Earl - he has to shut up and play up. He seems a little fond of his own image.
I felt the issue was with him that he kept trying stuff that wasn't quite on. That gap might've been big enough against Wales or Italy, but it definitely wasn't against NZ and there were a couple of times that I thought he went for something when an offload would've had someone else running a much better line.
Puja
it was more his lack of aplomb at the breakdown, basics if you will.
Which he's never been amazing at. Bit of a luxury pick
He was an absolute terror for them breaking off the scrum with Mitchell, Smith, Lawrence off his shoulders, you can see the panic and I love it.
This board has made that criticism a few times previously!
Is it simply the overall coaching policy - 'if in doubt, kick'? Is it a question of cohesion? Is it as much/more the fault of the position/timing of the potential receiver as the kicker?
I think our back line is getting better game on game. I'd back them to take more chances and botch fewer if we give them time.
Freeman was not at his best. Maybe, his support positioning was the issue? He won't have a second iffy game, I'd bet.
As Mikey says the Lawrence grubber through was well placed and resulted in McKenzie being shoved into touch for an attacking lineout.
I was disappointed by the Slade and Smith grubbers. Smith because he had some numbers outside him and I'd have liked to see him have a crack, particularly given how many running options we had. Smith's was at least on even if he does miss hit it and put it too close to McKenzie. Slade's was trying to thread the eye of a needle and just gave the ball away though Puja might show something we missed on the mbm.
I don't dislike the tactic. When the momentum slows or you don't have numbers, then grubber through and pressure. Try to force a wayward kick or an attacking lineout and we'll go again. Given Furbank is the one likely to counter attack as well it's not a bad shout. Felt like we went to that option too early a couple of times though, particularly that Smith one.
I also groaned at first on Smith's grubber, but on the highlight, the Kiwi defense was up very quickly to close down the runners, and there was the space. So it wasn't a bad decision, per se. Just not accurate enough.
Yeah me too, almost popped up over McKenzie’s head for a score, but really should have been a lighter touch or a shallower angle towards Freeman on the wing.
I felt the issue was with him that he kept trying stuff that wasn't quite on. That gap might've been big enough against Wales or Italy, but it definitely wasn't against NZ and there were a couple of times that I thought he went for something when an offload would've had someone else running a much better line.
Puja
it was more his lack of aplomb at the breakdown, basics if you will.
Which he's never been amazing at. Bit of a luxury pick
As Mikey says the Lawrence grubber through was well placed and resulted in McKenzie being shoved into touch for an attacking lineout.
I was disappointed by the Slade and Smith grubbers. Smith because he had some numbers outside him and I'd have liked to see him have a crack, particularly given how many running options we had. Smith's was at least on even if he does miss hit it and put it too close to McKenzie. Slade's was trying to thread the eye of a needle and just gave the ball away though Puja might show something we missed on the mbm.
I don't dislike the tactic. When the momentum slows or you don't have numbers, then grubber through and pressure. Try to force a wayward kick or an attacking lineout and we'll go again. Given Furbank is the one likely to counter attack as well it's not a bad shout. Felt like we went to that option too early a couple of times though, particularly that Smith one.
I also groaned at first on Smith's grubber, but on the highlight, the Kiwi defense was up very quickly to close down the runners, and there was the space. So it wasn't a bad decision, per se. Just not accurate enough.
Yeah me too, almost popped up over McKenzie’s head for a score, but really should have been a lighter touch or a shallower angle towards Freeman on the wing.
I also groaned at first on Smith's grubber, but on the highlight, the Kiwi defense was up very quickly to close down the runners, and there was the space. So it wasn't a bad decision, per se. Just not accurate enough.
Yeah me too, almost popped up over McKenzie’s head for a score, but really should have been a lighter touch or a shallower angle towards Freeman on the wing.
Yeah me too, almost popped up over McKenzie’s head for a score, but really should have been a lighter touch or a shallower angle towards Freeman on the wing.
or hold on to the fckr and use the space outside
Wasn’t much space outside…
But some
Point being, better to keep destiny in your own hands esp when not under pressure.
Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:45 am
Interesting- where did you access the stats.
All on RugbyPass.
I’ve seen Jamie George mentioned the breakdown as an area needing work after the game, so maybe they did shade it. Don’t feel there was too much in it, but definitely needs some tidying up.
Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:45 am
Interesting- where did you access the stats.
All on RugbyPass.
I’ve seen Jamie George mentioned the breakdown as an area needing work after the game, so maybe they did shade it. Don’t feel there was too much in it, but definitely needs some tidying up.
Cheers! Think it’s about adapting to playing faster and developing instincts?
SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 10:40 pm
Encouraging performance however also a great opportunity missed. Feel like NZ will get stronger when adding Roigard, Mo’unga and Jordan to their line up.
The jury is still out on MSmith for me (not solelt kicking related). I think Id like to see FSmith start on the weekend and definitely see Ford as our 10 to the world cup. I also think MSmith would work better coming on alongside a more conservative 9 like Spencer / JvP.
Props are a huge area of concern for me. Baxter I thought did well considering he played 60 odd mins on debut so LHP may be ok but Cole / Stuart are not top international standard (but are the best we have). I can’t see any THP coming through in the next few years (the current u20 are too young) which is a worry.
This is wild. Fin came on and just kicked the ball away badly for the last 10 minutes while we were chasing the game.
Spencer was absolutely dire.
Smith needs to be on the pitch, alongside Mitchell, Randall or Quirke.
Danno wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 12:40 am
Stream deets for next week please
Mentioned earlier on here. Rugby Stream.me
There was some annoying pop ups but once you've got through those the stream worked.
Also to add - don't use Firefox for this.
Rugbystream and viprow are two of my go-to.s, but the last year or so Firefox has been refusing to support them for some reason.
Worked fine once I though to try on chrome, I've been told Brave is the best browser for streaming (haven't tried yet).
Brave is so much better than chrome, on pc and mobile. It's pretty much identical for everything except ads/privacy.
Why M Smith outside a conservative 9 ( not that JVP is naturally conservative imo). Quick ball is what he thrives on, also play broken with a threat inside.
I have read reports mentioning NZ hurting teams because they can play so quickly. Hoping to slow them down or kicking more (especially late in the game) seems the wrong response if we are to beat them. We need to match them for speed of thought and action. Marcus is essential in that aim and the quicker he gets the ball the better. I'm not a Randall fan but he is a better bench option than Spencer with speed of delivery in mind. Marcus is far and away our best carrying FH. His eye for a break keeps the opposition defence tight and creates space outside. It is time to back him not doubt him.
.....not many, if any sides, match NZ in speed and action (our rugby pyramid isn't yet good enough for that; skills levels under pressure still lacking, decision making more so), but you have to have the ability to shift gears and plans, and as Timbo pointed out out, we (nearly) have the mobility to play with more pace and width (though again exposed at breakdowns wider from the initial play). Marcus cost us the game imo with his misses, but sh*t happens. I'm more worried about his ability to run a cohesive backline tbh- he's a nightmare to play outside unless you are really used to reading his body language I'd think. Very talented, and his defensive shift and backfield play was very solid. I would give him another go.
Meh. The easiest of his misses led directly to our try, and we would never have scored the try with fin at 10, Marcus had 3 or 4 massive involvements.
Finn is decent but Marcus is on another level entirely. To ford as well.
I have read reports mentioning NZ hurting teams because they can play so quickly. Hoping to slow them down or kicking more (especially late in the game) seems the wrong response if we are to beat them. We need to match them for speed of thought and action. Marcus is essential in that aim and the quicker he gets the ball the better. I'm not a Randall fan but he is a better bench option than Spencer with speed of delivery in mind. Marcus is far and away our best carrying FH. His eye for a break keeps the opposition defence tight and creates space outside. It is time to back him not doubt him.
.....not many, if any sides, match NZ in speed and action (our rugby pyramid isn't yet good enough for that; skills levels under pressure still lacking, decision making more so), but you have to have the ability to shift gears and plans, and as Timbo pointed out out, we (nearly) have the mobility to play with more pace and width (though again exposed at breakdowns wider from the initial play). Marcus cost us the game imo with his misses, but sh*t happens. I'm more worried about his ability to run a cohesive backline tbh- he's a nightmare to play outside unless you are really used to reading his body language I'd think. Very talented, and his defensive shift and backfield play was very solid. I would give him another go.
Meh. The easiest of his misses led directly to our try, and we would never have scored the try with fin at 10, Marcus had 3 or 4 massive involvements.
Finn is decent but Marcus is on another level entirely. To ford as well.
Kinda missed the points as did our 10. I agree Marcus is a different player to Finn and as said, worth another go.
But you have a point on being reductive in a game.
