Bledisloe 2 at Eden Park 18/10/20

[Highkicks]

Well said. I think poor chip kicks set an immediate precedent for a poor game given the history of poor kicking in the wallabies. Much like like a few poor box kicks.

To be fair, To'omua has a smart rugby mind. He always seems to do a kick behind the defensive line early in the game to keep the defence guessing from early on. I like this idea - even if the execution is average.

One of this kicks later in the match was also under advantage so that was nothing lost there (although the wobs do seem to kick away advantage too often).

So I give him a pass for these kicks, then I think he had 1 or 2 other kicks behind the line which were poor options.

I don't want to seem spiteful but I genuinely think he had a poor game. General play was fine but he kicked away multiple attacking opportunities and he does it regularly. I've specifically watched him in Super rugby and am going back through the game currently too.

In the first 30 mins he kicked away the ball on attack 3 times, on all occasions no one else was aware, we were hot on attack, twice had overlaps against a broken defense and were building pressure. These are just huge errors for me and the opposite of a smart rugby mind. After the first kick it was clear our lineout was struggling and there was no point kicking to the corner, best case we end up where we were with the ball but against a set defense, worst unfortunately was them stealing our ball and scoring at the other end. One of the kicks was completely reactionary/instinctual too, AB's had rushed up, he saw the outside runner wasn't in a good position and he kicked it away.

Obviously we judge the impact of these differently but that is worse than 3 knock ons for me. These were all very poor options and had a big negative impact on the game. I'm not up to the second half but I know he kicked at least one more away.

Also I am curious just how an early kick changed their defense? They are going to keep the exact same structure, there are players that sweep behind the font line to cover kicks. In what world do you as a defender, see someone kick on attack and then think " Jesus they can kick it?! Well I'd best hang back from now on so that they don't try that again, despite the fact there would be zero point, our structure already takes that into account and it would give them more room in attack, to either run or kick." I know it keeps getting trotted out that it will keep the defense in two minds but I really don't think that's how it works. Everyone knows prior to the match that an attacking kick is an option players can take.

Again I don't mean to be too harsh or argue for the sake of it, this probably comes across more aggressive than I intended but I am just not seeing the things you guys are saying at all.

 

[Zero_Cool]

Oh, I'm not suggesting Wright counts for 2 players, but the energy expenditure required from guys like Rob V to make up for the difference in breakdown work.
Wright controls the breakdown really well, and would allow the other lose forwards to stay about where they were with energy expenditure.
So in terms of breakdown work he counts for 1.5 of Valetini/Wilsons. Just because he's more mobile and a little more rugged with his breakdown work. More saying starting him is the only way I'd feel comfortable going with a 5/3 split given who strong NZ were over the ball.

I do agree with Highkicks that To'omua was poor (perhaps poor is harsh, average), but they aren't replacing him, not yet. Perhaps if we give Lol'o a crack against Argys/SA and he performs. Then you could move O'Connor to 12 and ditch To'omua, but he'd have to have a few poor games by that point to base that decision on. To'omua did aimlessly kick away possession FAR too often. The two that REALLY stick out in my mind were one where we had advantage and he kicked to Daugunu -- against Jordie Barett (very dumb), and once where we were in the AB's red zone (about 15m out, but deep in the Kiwi 22) and he put a grubber in that was easily cleaned up (I think there was another but it didn't really stick out in my mind). Having said that it should be an easy thing to cut out of his game.

 

[Braveheart81]

Valetini was very poor.

What did Valetini do poorly? He came on in the 75th minute and made two tackles. Maybe he could have had more impact in the time he was on but he also didn't make a mistake from what I can tell.

Regarding our concern with turn overs, it is worth considering within the whole game.

Turnovers conceded - New Zealand: 21
Turnovers conceded - Australia: 12

The penalty count indicates perhaps discipline was a bigger issue.

Yeah, but those penalties were due to being isolated. We almost need a 'pilfer penalty' that gets counted differently or something.

Yep. Let go of the ball so it becomes a turnover rather than a penalty and both those stats start to even out.

There were certainly still a number of penalties you'd consider dumb that we need to avoid giving away.

 

[Viking]

I don't want to seem spiteful but I genuinely think he had a poor game. General play was fine but he kicked away multiple attacking opportunities and he does it regularly. I've specifically watched him in Super rugby and am going back through the game currently too.

In the first 30 mins he kicked away the ball on attack 3 times, on all occasions no one else was aware, we were hot on attack, twice had overlaps against a broken defense and were building pressure. These are just huge errors for me and the opposite of a smart rugby mind. After the first kick it was clear our lineout was struggling and there was no point kicking to the corner, best case we end up where we were with the ball but against a set defense, worst unfortunately was them stealing our ball and scoring at the other end. One of the kicks was completely reactionary/instinctual too, AB's had rushed up, he saw the outside runner wasn't in a good position and he kicked it away.

Obviously we judge the impact of these differently but that is worse than 3 knock ons for me. These were all very poor options and had a big negative impact on the game. I'm not up to the second half but I know he kicked at least one more away.

Also I am curious just how an early kick changed their defense? They are going to keep the exact same structure, there are players that sweep behind the font line to cover kicks. In what world do you as a defender, see someone kick on attack and then think " Jesus they can kick it?! Well I'd best hang back from now on so that they don't try that again, despite the fact there would be zero point, our structure already takes that into account and it would give them more room in attack, to either run or kick." I know it keeps getting trotted out that it will keep the defense in two minds but I really don't think that's how it works. Everyone knows prior to the match that an attacking kick is an option players can take.

Again I don't mean to be too harsh or argue for the sake of it, this probably comes across more aggressive than I intended but I am just not seeing the things you guys are saying at all.

Fair points, but I still think a bit harsh in my opinion. But I also think I was a bit light on him too after your post, the reality of his performance is probably somewhere in the middle.

The second part is easy to answer "In what world do you as a defender, see someone kick on attack and then think " Jesus they can kick it?!"
That would be the last 4 years under Chieka strategies where we run absolutely everything from every area of the field. Now they can return to the normal world.

 

[Joe Blow]

Valetini looked a little off the pace. Could not blame him as he came on and almost straight into that frenetic crazy 8 minutes.
If LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) is moving to 6 and playing out the 80 then for sure Wright or McReight on the bench makes more sense.
But you cannot underestimate what it takes to stop those big bodies that the ABs were throwing at our defensive line for the last 10 minutes.

 

[Joe Blow]

Valetini spilt the pill cold the last time on the half way line when we were looking for another penalty opportunity.
He was OK but looked a bit shell shocked by the pace.

 

[Uh huh]

I think we can acknowledge that Fainga'a had a barry without believing that starting Uelese is the solution. The bloke went on with 20 to go and was absolutely gassed by the end, literally crawling back onside. I get that you play high energy as a sub, but there were three starting forwards out there still running.

 

[Derpus]

I think we can acknowledge that Fainga'a had a barry without believing that starting Uelese is the solution. The bloke went on with 20 to go and was absolutely gassed by the end, literally crawling back onside. I get that you play high energy as a sub, but there were three starting forwards put there still running.

Uelese had a better throw rate in SRAu apparently. But, yeah, i wouldn't be dropping anyone yet. Everyone on the field, bar Daugunu, could improve on their performance.

 

[Uh huh]

Uelese had a better throw rate in SRAu apparently. But, yeah, i wouldn't be dropping anyone yet. Everyone on the field, bar Daugunu, could improve on their performance.

I didn't know that about Uelese's throw accuracy. That's very good news, given it's an area he's previously struggled with.

 

[Viking]

Then you could move O'Connor to 12 and ditch To'omua, but he'd have to have a few poor games by that point to base that decision on. To'omua did aimlessly kick away possession FAR too often. The two that REALLY stick out in my mind were one where we had advantage and he kicked to Daugunu -- against Jordie Barett (very dumb), and once where we were in the AB's red zone (about 15m out, but deep in the Kiwi 22) and he put a grubber in that was easily cleaned up (I think there was another but it didn't really stick out in my mind). Having said that it should be an easy thing to cut out of his game.

I don't think moving JOC (James O'Connor) to 12 is a good option. He doesn't offer as much at 12. He won't straighten the line like To'omua or Simone does, and you lose the hard hitting defence.

I think we have to view JOC (James O'Connor) as a 10 only. If To'omua is dropped, Id say Simone is the next in line. Or i'd rather see Paisami/Petaia 12/13.

 

[Viking]

What did Valetini do poorly? He came on in the 75th minute and made two tackles. Maybe he could have had more impact in the time he was on but he also didn't make a mistake from what I can tell.

I may be wrong, but I thought he knocked on. So one error and then no impact = poor game IMO.

 

[Zero_Cool]

Yeah Uh huh is on the money. I think even saying FF (Folau Fainga'a) was bad is even a little harsh. He certainly didn't have a good game, and it was two key turnovers that lead to what should have been two key AB's tries. But Uelese has somehow made a career out of not being noticed but having 'PoTeNtIaL'. I don't think we do anything drastic -- drill both hookers (all the forwards really) extensively on the lineout and be ready to pull the trigger early on FF (Folau Fainga'a) if he is poor.

Rob V was bad but didn't really get a chance to do anything much. But we've got probably 6 guys at test standard in the back row waiting so if you aren't good then you're probably out. And Wright would go a long way to fix a lot of our issue around the breakdown. I think that's a no brainier to drop Valeniti, Wright has to come into the 23, the real question is if you start Wright for the ho-hum Samu who had a 5/10 game. I'd start Wright safe in knowing I can shift LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) to 6/8 if/when we bring Willson off, and Samu (or even Wright) would give us that speed to close out the game.

I think it sounds like Jordie was 'probably fit' this game but not 100% so IMO he slots into the (his) 13 jersey (Hunter was just keeping it red hot for him, fuck he was exceptional all things condiered).

I don't think we get any real improvement out of White or O'Connor, a bit out of To'omua, Banks was fine, Koro was good. So I don't think we have a whole lot of room for growth in our backline beyond going to Jordie or shaking things up with Lolesio, but I think Lol'o will have to wait until the SA/Argy games now.

Forwards wise, I don't think we can judge the scrum. Phillip & LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) were good. And the back row is.. the back row. I'd love to see a team where you could play around with Hooper being on the bench or out of the team, because we are clearly searching for back row balance and I feel like being forced to start him takes away on of the variables we have to find the idea combination. Plus I just really like the idea of Hooper coming off the bench but alas.

 

[Highkicks]

Valetini did knock it on.

I don't think there should be wholesale changes either but we didn't win a winnable game and a few players didn't have great days. If they were rookies I'd not consider dropping them but the 3 biggest question marks for me were FF (Folau Fainga'a), To'omua and Simmons. I can't see how you lose anything dropping Rob and if Uelese gives us a better set piece then definitely start with him.

It will be interesting to see if they try Paisami at 12, if not for this game then at some point. He executed a great midfield kick and we know he hits like a truck. Paisami/Petaia is a very exciting combo for me.

 

[Joe Blow]

SAMU was ho hum? Take another look............in slow motion.
He reads the play so well and was in everything. He’s one of those that get through a mountain of work without being flashy most of the time. Replacing him would be a big mistake and I am sure that Rennie knows it.
The backrow had great balance.

 

[Zero_Cool]

That would be interesting -- Pitaia & Paisami in the centers would be interesting. I'd have Jordie at 12 because he's got better hands while Hunter is more the crash ball 13. But I'd probably tend to have Hunter -- hunt rolleyes: ) at 12 and Jordie defend at 13 but that's all fine and they could easily swap between the two.

 

[Derpus]

That would be interesting -- Pitaia & Paisami in the centers would be interesting. I'd have Jordie at 12 because he's got better hands while Hunter is more the crash ball 13. But I'd probably tend to have Hunter -- hunt rolleyes: ) at 12 and Jordie defend at 13 but that's all fine and they could easily swap between the two.

You'd happily have the Reds trot out at Eden Park, though.

Have either of those guys played a single game of professional rugby at 12?

 

[Up the Guts]

I thought we managed to hide Koroibete from the high balls very well.

In that first half I watched NZ struggle with the high ball so much, the wind buffeted it back so it landed 15m away from where they'd expect. I was terrified when the halves were switched they'd do the same but nothing came of it. I was happily surprised by that.

This is where Banks was a bit of an unsung hero. DMac had a torrid time under the high ball and Banks snaffled everything. His positioning was excellent in the wind.

FWIW, I also thought there were times where NZ dropped a high ball and were lucky for it not to be called a knock-on.

 

[Highkicks]

You'd happily have the Reds trot out at Eden Park, though.

Have either of those guys played a single game of professional rugby at 12?

I thought Hunter had played at 12 but maybe he hasn't. Harry Wilson hadn't had a professional game at 6 before last match had he? I feel shifting into 12 shouldn't be a huge issue but I'd understand the hesitation to be moving players around too much.

 

[Derpus]

I thought Hunter had played at 12 but maybe he hasn't. Harry Wilson hadn't had a professional game at 6 before last match had he? I feel shifting into 12 shouldn't be a huge issue but I'd understand the hesitation to be moving players around too much.

Harry Wilson played the exact same game he was required to for the Reds, though.

 

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

I can't see how you lose anything dropping Rob and if Uelese gives us a better set piece then definitely start with him.

You lose you're back-up lineout captain. If Phillip goes down with an injury, you're left with LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) and Hosea, neither of whom run lineouts for their province.