Bledisloe 2. Eden Park, 24th Sept 7.05pm NZT. 5.05 pm AEST, 3.05 WA

[Joe Blow]

Let's break that down:

SCRUM: Kiwis are talking up their scrum, but their only dominance was with Holloway off the park. Bell got outsmarted at his first couple of scrums, but corrected it and we had no real problems there.

LINEOUT: Our lineout was fine. The ABs didn't really mark up on Holloway and our hookers were accurate. We stole one and disrupted at least one other.

RUCK: Several times - particularly at restarts - we blew the Kiwis off the ball and they only got it back by the skin of their teeth. There were multiple instances where we put on significant pressure, and the only times we were really suffering on our own ball was where it was a couple of backs getting piled into by several forwards i.e. we made a poor decision for kick return. Most pleasingly there were very few turnovers where we were simply inaccurate or committed too few bodies to the breakdown. There were a few where we overcommitted.




Now you're just talking rubbish. Each of our halves have strengths and weaknesses and to single out a particular player there as The Answer (or The Problem) is facetious, to say the least.

I bow to your superior understanding but how do we go 40-0 down without getting belted up front? Scrum was also under pressure when Bell came on and he struggled to hold his feet. Lineout did look OK.
I like Gordon and the bloke gives 100% but our play seems disjointed when he is at 9, or at least more so than when White (in particular) is on. White gives the attack a more recognisable structure. Not sure if that is good or bad but we seem to make more progress that way IMHO.

I cannot bare to watch a replay. My thoughts are based on watching it live and screaming at the box a lot. I may get to it at some point.

 

[runningrugbyrules]

OK fackers. I finally watched the game, and quite frankly I don't know what some of you are pissing and moaning about

First half thoughts in no particular order:

Stupid yellow card Holloway after splitting them open and leaving Retallick in the dust
Stupid yellow card Porecki but what the fuck is wrong with our maul defence? We stopped the Boks after all.
Why no warning to Whitelock or YC for Taylor when Samu got within a few metres of the line? We were hot on attack.
Fucking hell Marika. Left foot in please.
Fire Wright into the sun. Fucking useless. More like Wrong.
Defensive line suffered with Foketi going off injured.
Akira Ioane is a passenger on defence.

Other than that, we're not actually that far away. We went a couple too many pick n gos when the backline should be given a shot.

Second half thoughts:

No real issue with the "own try". Can't really see what the fuss is about. If Bell was a bit quicker he could have just knocked the ball out instead of trying to grab it.
Physicality in this game is pretty good from both sides.
Brace is right on the money with no straight throws but doesn't carry that through to scrums.
EdG maybe a touch lucky with the shot in Ikitau - he was eyes down from about 5 metres away. Different ref or TMO might see that differently.
The crying action was fucking funny tho. I assume it was directed at White.
Who needs to shut the fuck up, really.
Wallaby lineout is functioning reasonably well. ABs don't appear to be marking up on Holloway much, so easy ball.
Wallaby scrum was pretty solid - Lomax might have been smashing it in the first half with Valetini at lock when Holloway had his YC, but it wasn't as clear-cut with our full complement.
Bell's height was all wrong for his first few scrums. Once he sorted himself out it stabilised.
Foley having a few shockers on the decision-making front.
Petaia is not the hype that QLDers built him up to be.
Tom Wright is still shit.
OK so we're living in a universe where the TMO can pick up a neck roll by Porecki in the first couple of minutes but a very definite head clash for Reece on Hodge isn't even worth a mention. Cool, cool... Must have been taking a piss.
Some flaky decision making on the bouncing ball by the Wobs.
AB maul most of the difference in the game IMHO - and if your discipline gives a dominant opposing maul field position, it is going to be a long night.
I am shocked that last try to Petaia wasn't called for a forward pass.

Other than that I don't know what the doomsayers are on about. The score flatters the ABs to a degree and there was nothing wrong with our physicality. Scrum wasn't great but we fixed that.

If Holloway doesn't lift Papali'i...
If Marika's foot is not in touch...
If Foketi doesn't get injured...

Yeah that's grasping a bit, but I'm not prepared to quit just yet.

 

[stillmissit]

I bow to your superior understanding but how do we go 40-0 down without getting belted up front? Scrum was also under pressure when Bell came on and he struggled to hold his feet. Lineout did look OK.
I like Gordon and the bloke gives 100% but our play seems disjointed when he is at 9, or at least more so than when White (in particular) is on. White gives the attack a more recognisable structure. Not sure if that is good or bad but we seem to make more progress that way IMHO.

I cannot bare to watch a replay. My thoughts are based on watching it live and screaming at the box a lot. I may get to it at some point.

Joe, I'm a Tahs fan and Gordon has won a few games for us due to his running but his work at the breakdown drives me mad. He was missing a few times on Saturday and took his god-awful time a few times and we nearly lost it as AB's saw what he was up to and counter rucked our already won ball. When Arron Smith slows it down you get there is a plans in the next play, but with Gordon, it seems like no plan just slowing the game down and giving the opposition time to set their D. I Prefer Nic White with Tate in reserves until Tate improves his passing and takes over.

 

[runningrugbyrules]

Joe, I'm a Tahs fan and Gordon has won a few games for us due to his running but his work at the breakdown drives me mad. He was missing a few times on Saturday and took his god-awful time a few times and we nearly lost it as AB's saw what he was up to and counter rucked our already won ball. When Arron Smith slows it down you get there is a plans in the next play, but with Gordon, it seems like no plan just slowing the game down and giving the opposition time to set their D. I Prefer Nic White with Tate in reserves until Tate improves his passing and takes over.

Just to be clear I like Gordon as a player, but if he trains and plays one way with NSW for 6-7 months and then has to switch to a more open style with 10 Brumbies and a Kiwi coach. It’s not going to work.
If Gordon switched to the Brumbies and had 6-7 months in that system before next years RWC it would be ok.
For a century the Wallabies only major successes against NZ has come by running the ball (and holding on to it) 1948, 80, 86, 92,99-02
Ive seen Gordon play that style for Syd Uni, but after years in the NSW system he looks slow and awkward.

Ivan Cleary dominates the NRL with the Panthers and their up tempo aggressive style and structure, but if you dropped him into South’s team hed look pretty ordinary in comparison. If you put him into the Eels which have a similar style to Panthers he’d go well

Jake Gordon can play but the NSW system has let him down

 

[Viking]

Let's break that down:

SCRUM: Kiwis are talking up their scrum, but their only dominance was with Holloway off the park. Bell got outsmarted at his first couple of scrums, but corrected it and we had no real problems there.

LINEOUT: Our lineout was fine. The ABs didn't really mark up on Holloway and our hookers were accurate. We stole one and disrupted at least one other.

RUCK: Several times - particularly at restarts - we blew the Kiwis off the ball and they only got it back by the skin of their teeth. There were multiple instances where we put on significant pressure, and the only times we were really suffering on our own ball was where it was a couple of backs getting piled into by several forwards i.e. we made a poor decision for kick return. Most pleasingly there were very few turnovers where we were simply inaccurate or committed too few bodies to the breakdown. There were a few where we overcommitted.

Now you're just talking rubbish. Each of our halves have strengths and weaknesses and to single out a particular player there as The Answer (or The Problem) is facetious, to say the least.

Scrum: You say Bell was poor for his first couple of scrums. So how many scrums did he actually take part in? 4? Cos that means he loses 50% of the time. There is no room to be "outsmarted" a couple of times in Test rugby. Maybe once, definitely not twice.

Line-out: I agree line-outs where fine, I think Porecki threw one (or two?) not straight though.

Rucks: Now you're talking rubbish, we got 40+ points scored against us, it is clear we were thoroughly beaten in this area. I thought we were thoroughly beaten in the tackle and contact zone, which led to poor rucks, from all players not just forwards (but forwards definitely shit-house compared to their counter-parts bar Valetini and Samu).

 

[cyclopath]

Theory that 7 Wallabies that I watched the game with on Sat at their reunion agree with. The theory has been going for 4/5 years now and keeps proving itself true.

Most of them were Waratahs and can’t stand watching their old team play these days

You'd be the first person I've heard say that the Waratahs played 10 man rugby this year. Which was my point. Awesome you have 7 Wallaby friends.

 

[Bullrush]

Rucks: Now you're talking rubbish, we got 40+ points scored against us, it is clear we were thoroughly beaten in this area. I thought we were thoroughly beaten in the tackle and contact zone, which led to poor rucks, from all players not just forwards (but forwards definitely shit-house compared to their counter-parts bar Valetini and Samu).

I'm not sure that it was so much the ruck area that the Wallabies lost as opposed to the initial contact. The Wallabies fell off too many tackles and lost too many meters post-contact. The ABs seem focused not just on making the tackle but trying to drive players back. Trying to dominate the ruck area is so much harder if you have to go backwards from the initial contact to get into the ruck. That extra half-meter or two can make a big difference to having more impact at the ensuing ruck.

 

[The Red Baron]

I'm not sure that it was so much the ruck area that the Wallabies lost as opposed to the initial contact. The Wallabies fell off too many tackles and lost too many meters post-contact. The ABs seem focused not just on making the tackle but trying to drive players back. Trying to dominate the ruck area is so much harder if you have to go backwards from the initial contact to get into the ruck. That extra half-meter or two can make a big difference to having more impact at the ensuing ruck.

Absolutely spot on. If you win that initial collision it opens everything up.

 

[stillmissit]

Absolutely spot on. If you win that initial collision it opens everything up.

True Baron BUT if the support is not there or they don't commit and secure the ball, the initial contact means zip.

 

[Viking]

True Baron BUT if the support is not there or they don't commit and secure the ball, the initial contact means zip.

Good point. Our support play, and even kick-chase has been below par for years now.

I just don't get it. It's like they are surprised every time a break is made.

 

[John S]

Good point. Our support play, and even kick-chase has been below par for years now.

I just don't get it. It's like they are surprised every time a break is made.

That's been my biggest gripe for years - every other team chases kicks as a team, we just haphazardly go after then like a bloody Sunday stroll with a few exceptions

 

[Lyall]

.
.
Could anyone kindly explain a couple of things I didn't understand about what happened during the game;

The Whitelock try, was it ruled that Whitelocks hand never separated from the ball, I thought it came loose and Bell grounded it, have I got that wrong? and,

I thought Retalick clearly jumped over Slippers tackle (two feet planted and hopped over), when I was playing this was a big no-no but it's hardly got a mention. Am I seeing this wrong too?

Cheers.
.
.

 

[Mr Pilfer]

I like Gordon and the bloke gives 100% but our play seems disjointed when he is at 9, or at least more so than when White (in particular) is on. White gives the attack a more recognisable structure. Not sure if that is good or bad but we seem to make more progress that way IMHO.

I cannot bare to watch a replay. My thoughts are based on watching it live and screaming at the box a lot. I may get to it at some point.

I watched the game again last night. It was just a mess from the start. After Holloway made that great break you watch Gordon gets to the ruck and we have a 4 on 2 overlap on the blind side. Gordon doesn't even look that way and comes back open (you see Wilson throw his hands in the air) then we get isolated, Holloway commits the yellow card offence and the rest is history. That was in the first minute.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not having a shot at Jake, but that apparent lack of vision is a frequent failure of all of our No 9s. They do not appear to play heads up rugby, or are not getting the calls from the play makers as to which way to go in any given instance. Very frustrating when, as in this case, they send play to the wrong side of the ruck.

 

[Pfitzy]

I'm not sure that it was so much the ruck area that the Wallabies lost as opposed to the initial contact. The Wallabies fell off too many tackles and lost too many meters post-contact.

The post-contact metres was a product of poor tackling - 25 missed to the ABs 6.

On our own ball we were driving hard into the line, and both teams were pretty effective at post-contact metres and retaining ball. A few of turnovers at ruck time each way, but otherwise accurate and effective cleanouts.

The reason we conceded "40+" points wasn't our ruck work; it was missed tackles and discipline. Three AB tries were maul-based, from field position, produced by poor discipline by the Wallabies. Another one was Jordan skinning Petaia. The middle one being Whitelock driving at the line off a couple of rucks.

Was it our ruck work that lost us the game? Not nearly as much as discipline, maul defence, tackling.

 

[Pfitzy]

Scrum: You say Bell was poor for his first couple of scrums. So how many scrums did he actually take part in? 4? Cos that means he loses 50% of the time. There is no room to be "outsmarted" a couple of times in Test rugby. Maybe once, definitely not twice.

Yeah good point. I'll call Dave and get him to fire all our props.

 

[Pfitzy]

I watched the game again last night. It was just a mess from the start. After Holloway made that great break you watch Gordon gets to the ruck and we have a 4 on 2 overlap on the blind side.

It is 4 on 3 at best, but closer to matching numbers in a dynamic sense.

The 10-20-30 on that blindside is Retallick-Mo'unga-AIoane with Jordie Barret on the wing calling people over, and Beauden Barrett still in the pocket, ready to sweep. Smith is standing on the openside pillar but could also move to support.

Opposing and ready to take the ball are Foketi Wilson, Ikitau, and Kellaway.

I agree that Gordon should have at least looked that way on his way into the ruck - it even looks like Foley is pointing that direction. It probably would have resulted in a better gain line and maybe even a score if the hands were good, or a penalty if not.

 

[gel]

.
.
Could anyone kindly explain a couple of things I didn't understand about what happened during the game;

The Whitelock try, was it ruled that Whitelocks hand never separated from the ball, I thought it came loose and Bell grounded it, have I got that wrong? and,

I thought Retalick clearly jumped over Slippers tackle (two feet planted and hopped over), when I was playing this was a big no-no but it's hardly got a mention. Am I seeing this wrong too?

Cheers.
.
.

Whitelock did not release the ball. Freakish tbh. My thought when I saw the ball flip over was that he let it go, but the replay clearly was in his control the whole time. Brilliant.

I can't recall the "jump" one tbh.

 

[stillmissit]

The post-contact metres was a product of poor tackling - 25 missed to the ABs 6.

On our own ball we were driving hard into the line, and both teams were pretty effective at post-contact metres and retaining ball. A few of turnovers at ruck time each way, but otherwise accurate and effective cleanouts.

The reason we conceded "40+" points wasn't our ruck work; it was missed tackles and discipline. Three AB tries were maul-based, from field position, produced by poor discipline by the Wallabies. Another one was Jordan skinning Petaia. The middle one being Whitelock driving at the line off a couple of rucks.

Was it our ruck work that lost us the game? Not nearly as much as discipline, maul defence, tackling.

True Pfitzy, it was one of those rare games where the breakdown did not dictate the outcome. As you say it was discipline and tackling followed by poor maul D which was surprising considering how many Brumbies are there in players and coaches.
I don't think we won the breakdown we came out about even.

 

[stillmissit]

Whitelock did not release the ball. Freakish tbh. My thought when I saw the ball flip over was that he let it go, but the replay clearly was in his control the whole time. Brilliant.

I can't recall the "jump" one tbh.

Gel, I thought it was brilliant from both Whitelock and Bell and the decision could have gone either way. Never seen anything like it before.