New Zealand v Australia - Auckland - 23 August 2014

[Scrubber2050]

How did you watch the game?
I don't think anyone who saw it on TV saw how diabolical and illegal Crockett was in the first half and how bad Cowan was when he came on.
If Crockett played for the Wallabies he would be binned in every game. If you concede that point it may be possible to have a sensible discussion.

Don't know how long Scott Sio is out for but would have liked Robinson to be brought into the 23 over Pek. It seemed that our scrum became under pressure in that last 10

 

[Quick Hands]

"

Anyone else see this as Hansen trying to influence Poite pre-game to penalise aussie scrum?

The thing with Poite is, he doesn't really try to work out who has technically infringed. He decides in the first few scrum which scrum is dominant and they basically get the penalties for the rest of the match.

 

[Braveheart81]

The two run on locks were doing their jobs for the game. Skelton was brought on to offer that impact in the last 10. He showed some of that but certainly didn't break the game wide open. He was still a good option. Horwill is a player no different to the run-ons - in that he can go for the full 80 - He is not an impact player, well not anymore.

If one of either Simmo or Carter get injured in the first 10 or 20 then I would be concerned about Skelton playing 60 or 70 at this level.

He got a few touches and made one good pass whilst being tackled by two players.

That's what he's there for. Maybe in another 10 minutes he could have made a play that broke open the game.

Losing any player in the first 10 or 20 minutes is a worry. I think Skelton would rise to the occasion and do well if he had to. Presumably he'd temper his involvements so he could last out the match.

 

[Tip]

If Simmons or Carter went down in the first 10 -20 minutes, I think we'd see Fardy move to the Second Row and Higgers come off the bench.

The idea of a player tempering his involvements to last the match probably suggests that he isn't up to any more than 50 minutes against the All Blacks.

 

[Braveheart81]

If Simmons or Carter went down in the first 10 -20 minutes, I think we'd see Fardy move to the Second Row and Higgers come off the bench.

The idea of a player tempering his involvements to last the match probably suggests that he isn't up to any more than 50 minutes against the All Blacks.

Skelton's normal role has been to play about half an hour and have as many involvements as possible and be absolutely spent at the end of it.

If you want that player to play 60-70 minutes you'd expect them to decrease the frequency of their involvements.

When a player comes off the bench you're expecting them to go harder than when they're starting the match and expecting to play 80 minutes. If they're not doing that they're not doing their job.

I agree that we could possibly see Fardy move to lock and Higginbotham to 6 if a lock went down really early (particularly if it was Simmons who calls the lineout).

 

[Ash]

Interesting about the talk of our scrum being beaten. I agree it was most of the time AFTER Cowan was on for Slipper. Apart from that, Crockett got one over Kepu and got a penalty, but that was the anonamly. I am sure that a few times our starting front row drove them back, including one that I am surprised we didn't get a penalty from.

Convenient how the Australian scrum weakness focuses on our replacements, but ignores how well our starting front row did.

 

[ACT Crusader]

How did you watch the game?
I don't think anyone who saw it on TV saw how diabolical and illegal Crockett was in the first half and how bad Cowan was when he came on.
If Crockett played for the Wallabies he would be binned in every game. If you concede that point it may be possible to have a sensible discussion.

The scrum in question wasn't in the first half IS. Crockett wasn't on the pitch, it was Ben Franks at loosehead against Kepu

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The thing with Poite is, he doesn't really try to work out who has technically infringed. He decides in the first few scrum which scrum is dominant and they basically get the penalties for the rest of the match.

I'd like to see video evidence of the actual conversation between Hansen and Peyper before I accepted this bit of psychological manipulation of the hapless Poite.
Poite should have been calling Crockof for every scrum in the 1st half but the guy is a light weight.
He will succumb to this pressure.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The scrum in question wasn't in the first half IS. Crockett wasn't on the pitch, it was Ben Franks at loosehead against Kepu

Im not debating the specific instant - I'm pointing out that the mighty ABs have a massive problem with their current first choice LHP for which they are never pinged: the guy came out of the womb with his shoulders lower than his hips! Poite must have been the attending obstetrician.
I actually thought one reason why Hooper should not have taken the scrum rather than the shot was because it would bring Franks on - who is many times a better scrummager to my eyes.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Interesting about the talk of our scrum being beaten. I agree it was most of the time AFTER Cowan was on for Slipper. Apart from that, Crockett got one over Kepu and got a penalty, but that was the anonamly. I am sure that a few times our starting front row drove them back, including one that I am surprised we didn't get a penalty from.

Convenient how the Australian scrum weakness focuses on our replacements, but ignores how well our starting front row did.

I agree Ash, it was a good contest both ways. But it denigrated into a farce in the 2nd half in my opinion. I thought the ABs with the two Franks and Mealamu were putting both the OZ starting front row and the replacements under alot of pressure. Hence the OZ tactic to delay the put in occurred.

I actually don't think the OZ scrum is a weakness per se, but they were under pressure in that 2nd 40 from a couple of expereienced campaigners that came on for the ABs

 

[Inside Shoulder]

with the two Franks and Mealamu were putting both the OZ starting front row and the replacements under alot of pressure

It most un AB like not to go with this set up (or even leave Mealamu out - I'd be chance with those franks brothers holding me up) - it would be a real issue from the get go for us if they did

 

[Redsman]

Was just stirring the kiwis in the office stating how really all the PRESSURE is on the AIG this weekend... (actually quite hilarious... considering I may not have much to annoy them with next week....)

Every kiwi on the planet EXPECTS the AIG to take it out this weekend - and the %s weigh in their favour...

But REALISTICALLY this just increases the PRESSURE on the homeside - Links's boy will have nothing to hold back from - fearlessly pushing the boundaries on what appears (weather forecast) to be a dry, cool track...

The PSI levels would reverse though if the wallabies find themselves in the hunt and... big question.... will they have the coolness of mind to finish the job...

3days to go...

 

[ACT Crusader]

Im not debating the specific instant - I'm pointing out that the mighty ABs have a massive problem with their current first choice THP for which they are never pinged: the guy came out of the womb with his shoulders lower than his hips! Poite must have been the attending obstetrician.
I actually thought one reason why Hooper should not have taken the scrum rather than the shot was because it would bring Franks on - who is many times a better scrummager to my eyes.

You quoted my post that was in response to the discussion on the Dowd article.

As for Crockett, "never pinged"? That's hyper-bowl. The stats don't show that at all.

 

[Ash]

I agree Ash, it was a good contest both ways. But it denigrated into a farce in the 2nd half in my opinion. I thought the ABs with the two Franks and Mealamu were putting both the OZ starting front row and the replacements under alot of pressure. Hence the OZ tactic to delay the put in occurred.

I actually don't think the OZ scrum is a weakness per se, but they were under pressure in that 2nd 40 from a couple of expereienced campaigners that came on for the ABs

I'd say the replacement Wallaby scrum is a weakness as Cowan struggled abit, and Kepu did late in the game before he was replaced.

Crockett I don't think put us under any pressure. I would need to watch again in more to see how much pressure we were under once Crockett was subbed; but I definitely remember we really struggled with Cowan on.

And yes, once Cowan was on we definitely got lucky with the delayed put ins, it looked like Charles was struggling to even hook at the time.

I think the non-call on Franks missing a bind near the goal posts late in the game was an attempt at a square up for what the ref let us get away with earlier, but we did got away with more late in the game.

Did anyone else notice the that NZ halfback (Smith, mainly) was calling the shove on Wallaby scrums? That allowed them to shove as the ball was fed.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Was just stirring the kiwis in the office stating how really all the PRESSURE is on the AIG this weekend. (actually quite hilarious. considering I may not have much to annoy them with next week..)

Every kiwi on the planet EXPECTS the AIG to take it out this weekend - and the %s weigh in their favour.

But REALISTICALLY this just increases the PRESSURE on the homeside - Links's boy will have nothing to hold back from - fearlessly pushing the boundaries on what appears (weather forecast) to be a dry, cool track.

The PSI levels would reverse though if the wallabies find themselves in the hunt and. big question.. will they have the coolness of mind to finish the job.

3days to go.

I agree.
The Wallabies have nothing to lose.
Its only 2 here.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You quoted my post that was in response to the discussion on the Dowd article.

As for Crockett, "never pinged"? That's hyper-bowl. The stats don't show that at all.

He wasn't pinged for his diabolical body position: I don't blame him for an early engage - if he was on when those frees were given.
Do you say he was penalised for something he did in a live scrum? I sure don't trust my memory.

 

[ACT Crusader]

It most un AB like not to go with this set up (or even leave Mealamu out - I'd be chance with those franks brothers holding me up) - it would be a real issue from the get go for us if they did

It's definitely a balancing act and a trade off. Crockett has the highest work rate of the props in NZ in terms of tackles, hitting rucks, and the best line speed defensively. Plus his height and long levers do help with the lift at LO time.

With Ben Franks he is a more natural tighthead but was our versatlie prop for a few years before the 8 man bench came in. Given Woody and Faumauina were out were were fortunate to be able to have him cover there given we have more promising up and coming tighteads in NZ at the moment.

 

[KOB1987]

I'd like to see video evidence of the actual conversation between Hansen and Peyper before I accepted this bit of psychological manipulation of the hapless Poite.
Poite should have been calling Crockof for every scrum in the 1st half but the guy is a light weight.
He will succumb to this pressure.

I thought much the same thing when I read the article, although I was angling more for a response from Peyper..if he reads the article and it is in fact crap you would think he would convey this to Poite..

Or if Poite reads it, you'd think he'd ask Peyper about it's authenticity..

but they are refs so maybe not

 

[Quick Hands]

I know why we didn't perform at the weekend," Hansen said. "There were certain areas of our game we were very poor at, and there was another reason which we won't go into here, but that's been dealt with as well.
"We've spoken to the referee about the scrummaging. He put his hand up, said he got the free-kicks wrong. But we can't control [the referee], we've had the discussion we needed to have and moved on. It's about us playing our game and playing it better than we played it last week."
After declaring he wouldn't get into the refereeing issues, Hansen was asked what Peyper had conceded he got wrong.
"Where do you want me to start?" he barked. "The free-kick he felt was wrong and he was not sure why he called pre-engage. The first yellow card was wrong - the ball was out.
"It was a good conversation, I respect the man for his honesty . he's no different than players -- some days you have a bad day. He had a bad day at the office and put his hand up.
"But I've got to emphasise, it wasn't just his problem. We had a hell of a bad day ourselves so we'll forget about him and concentrate on what we can do."

I've just re-read this little gem.

I especially loved the bits in bold - aren't you really just trying to control the referee with your comments Steve?

Not wanting to talk about refereeing issues and then launching into the referee.

AB referee management obviously extends beyond the on field conversations with the captain.

I wouldn't want to have a private conversation with Hansen - seems it might end up in the press fairly quickly.

The one thing I agree with is that Peyper had a bad day, although in refereeing terms that is situation normal for Jaco.

 

[PiXeL_Ninja]

Just dont tackle any NZ players with any sort of vigor on their home strip. You WILL be carded.

Also, Geezuz Hansen is a whiny coach, ranks up their with some of my hatiest players.