Aus vs NZ - 1st Test Sydney 17Aug2013

[Hawko]

bullshit he only passed the ball 6 times. quicker service my arse

Maybe it was due to tapatalk 4 beta (whatever that is), but this comment has me scratching my head. Who is "he"? Genia, White or du Preez? And how does the number of times that "he" passed it bear any relation to how quickly the passes travelled or how short or long the time was before the ball was picked up?

Cat A where are you?

 

[Pusser]

bullshit he only passed the ball 6 times. quicker service my arse.





Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Look I don't really care about White. On the weekend I watched 2 SA, 2 NZ , 1Arg and Genia (and White but we can ignore him seeing you don't count his six passes). Of them all, Genia was the slowest to clear the ball from the ruck and the scrum. If you don' t think that is worth worrying about ok but it is not the performance I would expect from someone regularly touted as "the world's best halfback". I don't advocate dropping him but cannot see how he got points in the MOTM.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Slim 293]

White's service was definitely quicker when he came on......... I think nearly everyone has agreed on that........

While the forwards did Genia no favour, he took his sweet time when the ball was made available for him and out Gregan-ed Gregan with his shuffle..........

 

[Bullrush]

I actually think Genia is pretty close to being whistled for not getting it out when the ref calls for him to use it. I've seen him do it Super Rugby as well during the BIL - ref calls use it and he leaves it there for at least another 3-5 sec before passing it.

I reckon a ref should actually call him for it - it mire actually make him realise that he needs to get it out.....like Smokey in Friday - puff, puff, GIVE!

 

[Slim 293]

There was one ruck on the weekend where I thought Joubert was going to bust him, but he must've pushed his timing to the last second........

 

[Ash]

After watching the game again, a few things that I didn't see real time:

- kuridrani was very poor in his stint.

- Genia was also poor, masked by his runaway try which was set up by hooper anyway. His decision to chip for Horwill to chase was as bad as they come, his box kick was also poor plus delayed service many times.

- Slipper and mowen were better on second viewing, although both have scope for improvement as well.

- Simmons was not far behind hooper as our best forward

Even Hooper, as our best forward, has areas he needs to improve on next week. Hooper's work in defence and at defence rucks was way under par. His effectiveness was through the roof with his steals, but otherwise he needs to lift his defensive work rate (see Scott's analysis), particularly number of defensive rucks he hits, and number of tackles.

The amount of work our backrow DIDN'T do is gob smacking when you compare it to the amount of work a supposedly out of shape and unfit Richie McCaw DID do (in under 80 minutes, no less).

Our work done to slow down and screw up the All Blacks rucks was very, very poor. They disrupted our rucks well, we didn't disrupt thiers. You may call this "cheating", but it's how the game is played - get in there, get over the ball, drive into their rucks, knock them over, make them messy. You don't need to give away penalties to achieve that goal, just attack their ruck. For this to happen our backrow needs to be more involved at ruck time.

And the opposite holds true - we were poor at getting the All Blacks players disrupting our ruck out of there. It isn't always the ref's job to get those guys out of there.

 

[Braveheart81]

Even Hooper, as our best forward, has areas he needs to improve on next week. Hooper's work in defence and at defence rucks was way under par. His effectiveness was through the roof with his steals, but otherwise he needs to lift his defensive work rate (see Scott's analysis), particularly number of defensive rucks he hits, and number of tackles.

Is there a bit of confusion over defensive rucks and attacking rucks?

To my understanding, an attacking ruck is when we have the ball.

A defensive ruck is when we don't.

Wasn't Hooper's work superior at defensive rucks with his numerous steals and then inferior at attacking rucks because he didn't get there first often enough?

I would have thought it was at attacking rucks that he really needs to lift his workrate.

The number of tackles between the two teams was dramatically different. The All Blacks made 146 tackles and we made 90. That is always going to skew the statistics in favour of the team who made more tackles when you're coming up with some sort of workrate figure.

 

[Bullrush]

Even Hooper, as our best forward, has areas he needs to improve on next week. Hooper's work in defence and at defence rucks was way under par. His effectiveness was through the roof with his steals, but otherwise he needs to lift his defensive work rate (see Scott's analysis), particularly number of defensive rucks he hits, and number of tackles.

The amount of work our backrow DIDN'T do is gob smacking when you compare it to the amount of work a supposedly out of shape and unfit Richie McCaw DID do (in under 80 minutes, no less).

Our work done to slow down and screw up the All Blacks rucks was very, very poor. They disrupted our rucks well, we didn't disrupt thiers. You may call this "cheating", but it's how the game is played - get in there, get over the ball, drive into their rucks, knock them over, make them messy. You don't need to give away penalties to achieve that goal, just attack their ruck. For this to happen our backrow needs to be more involved at ruck time.

And the opposite holds true - we were poor at getting the All Blacks players disrupting our ruck out of there. It isn't always the ref's job to get those guys out of there.

What I got from Scott Allen's analysis is that Hooper needs to do more work in getting to attacking rucks and securing quick fast ball for Genia. The All Blacks were disrupting a lot of ball for the Wallabies and even though I thought Genia was pretty average overall, the quality of ball he was getting certainly did him no favours.

There's no doubt about Hooper's effectiveness but reading Scott's write-up was certainly eye-opening in terms of how much other work Hooper got involved in.

I keep thinking back to the game in 2011 in Brisbane and how the Wallaby forwards really 'turned up' for that game. That needs to be BAU for these guys. That's should just be 'how we do's it!!'....not something you have to dig deep for or get up for.....just in their DNA - to use a term some people hate...LOL

 

[RedsHappy]

Hansen now joining the anti-QC (Quade Cooper)-booing campaign:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/stop-booing-cooper-all-blacks-coach-20130820-2s8f1.html

 

[No4918]

Hansen now joining the anti-QC (Quade Cooper)-booing campaign:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/stop-booing-cooper-all-blacks-coach-20130820-2s8f1.html

I doubt it will change until their Lord and Saviour makes it known that he is unhappy with booing Cooper and that he will look favourably upon those who abstain from this passtime.

 

[I like to watch]

The people that boo him,don't strike me as God fearing types.
Happy to accept I could be wrong though.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

The might listen to the Lords of the Darkness, and their apostle Sir Richie GOAT.

It really is getting a little tiresome.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Is there a bit of confusion over defensive rucks and attacking rucks?

To my understanding, an attacking ruck is when we have the ball.

A defensive ruck is when we don't.

Wasn't Hooper's work superior at defensive rucks with his numerous steals and then inferior at attacking rucks because he didn't get there first often enough?

I would have thought it was at attacking rucks that he really needs to lift his workrate.

The number of tackles between the two teams was dramatically different. The All Blacks made 146 tackles and we made 90. That is always going to skew the statistics in favour of the team who made more tackles when you're coming up with some sort of workrate figure.

We only made 90 ?? With JOC (James O'Connor) and Moggy's missed ones it should have been 92

 

[Ash]

Is there a bit of confusion over defensive rucks and attacking rucks?

To my understanding, an attacking ruck is when we have the ball.

A defensive ruck is when we don't.

Wasn't Hooper's work superior at defensive rucks with his numerous steals and then inferior at attacking rucks because he didn't get there first often enough?

I would have thought it was at attacking rucks that he really needs to lift his workrate.

The number of tackles between the two teams was dramatically different. The All Blacks made 146 tackles and we made 90. That is always going to skew the statistics in favour of the team who made more tackles when you're coming up with some sort of workrate figure.

My bad, you are right. Our backrow needed to be more involved in our attacking rucks - Hooper only made 7 of our attacking rucks all night, according to Scott Allen. Unless you are carrying the ball a lot, not good enough (he carried for 4 times). edit: so that's 11 involvements, from 102 attacking rucks - 11%, very, very bad for an openside.

Although, I do think that our backrow needs to be more involved in both attacking and defensive rucks, as shown by Scott Allen.

On the 65 rucks from NZ (our defensive rucks), Hooper was involved (not first there, involved, according to Scott Allen) in 12. That's 18% of rucks - almost criminally low for an open side (if Scott Allen's numbers are right). The fact that Hooper got 4 turnovers from 12 rucks is astounding and full credit to the man. But, and here's the but, he needs to get more involved or someone needs to carry his workload for what he isn't doing (and it sure as hell wasn't his backrow partners in that game).

Don't get me wrong, Hooper was our best forward - he had the most impact and highest efficiency. However, he still needs to be more involved. It's almost impossible to maintain efficiency like that, and if that drops off then he'd be invisisble, like Mowen and MMM were.

You are right, according to rugby stats, we made 90 tackles with 28 missed, NZ made 146 with 29 missed. So, NZ made an extra 62% of tackles than we did.

According to rugby stats, our backrow:
MMM - 5 tackles, 3 missed
Hooper - 5 tackles, 2 missed
Mowen - 8 tackles, 3 missed
Liam Gill (replaced MMM) - 2 tackles, 1 missed.

Total 20 made, 9 missed.

Collectivity, that is not good at all. I'd expect that maybe one or two of them may have lower stats, but all three in one game is surprising.

Again, of the three, Hooper was the only one with impact, with 4 turnovers and a great touch to set up Genia's try. However, all three need to improve their work rate, including Hooper.

NZ's backrow:
McCaw had 11 tackles, 2 missed.
Luatua had 16 tackles, 1 missed.
Read had 10 tackles, 1 missed.

Total 37 tackles, 4 missed. 85% more, and with half the amount missed! I'm willing to bet that their ruck involvements were much higher, as well.

I don't disagree that Hooper was our best forward. I do think that he also has areas to improve in, like the rest of our pack.

 

[Bullrush]

Luatua is quickly becoming my favourite player.....bloody hard worker, good ball carrier and seems to have a pretty steady head for a young guy. It wasn't flashy but IMO he had a very impressive debut Test start.

 

[Scrubber2050]

My bad, you are right. Our backrow needed to be more involved in our attacking rucks - Hooper only made 7 of our attacking rucks all night, according to Scott Allen. Unless you are carrying the ball a lot, not good enough (he carried for 4 times). edit: so that's 11 involvements, from 102 attacking rucks - 11%, very, very bad for an openside.

Although, I do think that our backrow needs to be more involved in both attacking and defensive rucks, as shown by Scott Allen.

On the 65 rucks from NZ (our defensive rucks), Hooper was involved (not first there, involved, according to Scott Allen) in 12. That's 18% of rucks - almost criminally low for an open side (if Scott Allen's numbers are right). The fact that Hooper got 4 turnovers from 12 rucks is astounding and full credit to the man. But, and here's the but, he needs to get more involved or someone needs to carry his workload for what he isn't doing (and it sure as hell wasn't his backrow partners in that game).

Don't get me wrong, Hooper was our best forward - he had the most impact and highest efficiency. However, he still needs to be more involved. It's almost impossible to maintain efficiency like that, and if that drops off then he'd be invisisble, like Mowen and MMM were.

You are right, according to rugby stats, we made 90 tackles with 28 missed, NZ made 146 with 29 missed. So, NZ made an extra 62% of tackles than we did.

According to rugby stats, our backrow:
MMM - 5 tackles, 3 missed
Hooper - 5 tackles, 2 missed
Mowen - 8 tackles, 3 missed
Liam Gill (replaced MMM) - 2 tackles, 1 missed.

Total 20 made, 9 missed.

Collectivity, that is not good at all. I'd expect that maybe one or two of them may have lower stats, but all three in one game is surprising.

Again, of the three, Hooper was the only one with impact, with 4 turnovers and a great touch to set up Genia's try. However, all three need to improve their work rate, including Hooper.

NZ's backrow:
McCaw had 11 tackles, 2 missed.
Luatua had 16 tackles, 1 missed.
Read had 10 tackles, 1 missed.

Total 37 tackles, 4 missed. 85% more, and with half the amount missed! I'm willing to bet that their ruck involvements were much higher, as well.

I don't disagree that Hooper was our best forward. I do think that he also has areas to improve in, like the rest of our pack.

Our front 3
Slipper -8 tackles, 2 missed
Moore - 8 tackles, 1 missed
Alexander 7 tackles, 2 missed

Total 23 made 5 missed

interesting

 

[Lee Grant]

I took some notes on the game at the ground on Saturday night, some of them whimsical. Thought I had lost them, but found them today.

- Why did the ball-boys wear black jerseys?

- The Kiwis showed their class by booing the big screen when Quade's photo was put up as a reserve player.

- JOC (James O'Connor) best position on attack is winger or fullback but a schools coach would drop him the following week for his 4th XV winger's defensive mistake for the first All Black try.

- First scrum - Oz pushed off the mark before the put-in which would have been a penalty in the old days but get away with it - enjoyed Joubert giving the crooked feed free-kick, except it was against the Aussies.

- But AB's put-in just as skew and not sanctioned.

- Next scrums - scrummies not putting ball in if their team is going back - referees: you must ping pushing off the mark before the put-in otherwise we will have everybody doing the Gregan delays. The scrum shouldn't start with the ref giving the put-in command, but with the put-in itself. This problem was foreseen.

- Aussies physical in collisions and after contact, early - also getting off ground well. How long will it last?

- Charge-down try. Shit happens but why doesn't the closest player to the kicker (who is off-side anyway and can't advance) always, always, run on a backwards line to where a charged-down ball is likely to be. It wouldn't have mattered for that particular kick but it is a one or two percenter to save a try.

- Magic try from Genia though it disguises slower delivery compared to A. Smith. He needs a disposal-of-crap-ball masterclass from Catchpole or Hipwell.

- Hooper created the try: having a first half blinder. And why don't other Oz forwards accelerate in their first few steps into the tackle-line like he does - short steps and as quick as possible.

- Cruden's movement, line of run and change of pace before he passes the ball attracts defenders - not enough of our guys do that.

- Why did Jesse Mogg take penalty kicks for touch near the Wallabies left-hand touchline when he is a left-foot kicker?

- To'omua kicked like the Tahs last year: to opponents - kick to the seagulls lad - bad kick = try for C.Smith set up by A.Smith - they didn't even need B. Smith.

- Most NZ kicks get contested - they use it as an attacking weapon.

- Aussies can't even pass the ball along the back-line - could get out of 22 when there is no pressure, but the delay in catching their own bad passes creates pressure for themselves.

- Kiwis have better rugby sense = get most out of opportunities . Aussies need more opportunities to get same number of break-outs.

- Thank goodness for AB lineouts not being great. Only real area of ordinary play.

- ABs more alert for balls squirting out of scrum, rucks, tackles - they expect these things to happen - our guys have to see evidence first - reactions are a heart-beat or two slower.

- Kiwis in crowd must be worth points - chanting of "All Blacks, All Blacks" like a mantra. Funny - decades ago in NZ the chant was always "Black, Black."

- A Kiwi on the other side of the aisle from me was braying every time NZ did something good in a constant chuckle - which was often. When he asked why I was staring at him I said I was wondering why he wore a yellow golf hat to the footie - he was. He didn't understand.

- The Kiwis are more comfortable with the ball in hand - without pressure, or even with pressure.

- Kiwis do more off the ball like good rugby league players - are willing to show up on attack when not likely to be needed, then get in a position to do so again. When they are needed they are going flat out.

- Kiwis also do more off the ball on defence, but they are able to because Oz does not deceive as well.

- Conrad Smith thinks three moves ahead especially on the rush - impressive, but it didn't do him any good the last time he played at Twickenham; so Oz should think about doing what the Poms did: run behind his heels as he rushes.

- Few Wallabies would get into the current All Black team, because they don't play well enough. But as I have said before: get the 23 Oz players into a parallel universe where they are born in NZ and have 20 odd years of being coached and playing in NZ, then beam them back here to play in this universe wearing gold jerseys against the All Blacks, and they would be more competitive.
.

 

[Newbie]

LMAO@LG's last paragraph!

It's so true!

 

[Scrubber2050]

none would Lee because they are Aussies - but point taken anyway

 

[Lindommer]

Found my thoughts on Saturday's match lost somewhere in the dusty corners of my mind.

1. Australian set-piece was serviceable to good. Apart from one scrum when the ball went straight through the tunnel did we win all of our put-ins/throws? And we snuck an AB lineout or two. I was behind the posts at the southern end so can't comment about straight or crooked feeds, but I was pleased to see the odd free kick for crooked ones.
2. What's happened to the fabled smarts of Australian backs? Our passing was, in a word, execrable. Folau didn't get the ball via a backline passing movement once, and yet the AB right winger scored three tries! Yeah, he had a quiet game and should've gone looking for work a lot more, but, fer Chrissake, you blokes inside him GIVE HIM THE PILL!
3. The AB support play, and getting the ball to those in support, was miles ahead of ours. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) ran straight towards me when he made that break in the first half, his ability to set up his outside backs has never been good and in this instance his shortcoming cost us a try. Macqueen used to impress on his charges "there are times when you must not get tackled". Times like this when a back makes a break and has a modicum of space are those times; it's imperative the breakouter find a team-mate also in space to carry on the breakout. A black mark against AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) for his work here.
4. JOC (James O'Connor) had a poor game. His ball-in-hand-dancing-feet practice is now known by all, and is easily nullified. But, more importantly, his defence was woeful: too many tries on his wing is a poor result. I will say in his defence he usually plays right wing as well as not playing wing for a while, but he's supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread and should be able to read opponents' plays better than he did on Saturday night. Overall, the work of our outside backs was poor.
5. To'omua was obviously told to play a ball-through-the-hands game and did what he was told. This resulted in the Wallabies going wide before they went forward, a surefire way not to win a match. Genia's service was a bit too slow all night (fix it up, Will!) which caused the backs some difficulty. His slow pass to Lealiifano went some way to causing the chargedown (I could see that coming even from the other end) and the second try. BTW, are Genia and Lealiifano completely fit?
6. The forwards were out-muscled by the ABs at the breakdown. What a surprise! As I've droned on endlessly, competition at the breakdown defines New Zealand rugby, and so it did on Saturday night. We HAVE to bash the bastards off the ball, simple as that.
7. Deans used to remark about how he looked for how much a player does off the ball. I was very impressed how hard the BIL backs ran to put themselves in a position to do something if/when their pigs won a ruck or maul, a try usually resulted on the other side of the field to the breakdown as a serviceable backline was in position. So it was with the ABs on Saturday night. How many tries did they score because they had one more player in a hastily-formed backline? Was it three? Well done, ABs.
8. We had enough possession and territory in the first quarter to win five matches but let in two tries in this period. Very frustrating to watch.

We'll have to get much better for next week's match or the score'll be something similar.