Tri Nations Game 3 New Zealand v Australia - Saturday 6 August 2011 - 3N2011

[Athilnaur]

Yes, I recognise this thematic refrain so well.

2009 S14 season: Queensland rugby media, fans, etc: 'the Reds are just being beaten by better teams, it's that simple, we don't have the NZ or SA depth, etc'.

2010, more or less same Reds team as in 2009, it wasn't quite that simple after all, as the Bulls and Stormers got knocked over.

2011, we all know what happened to 2009's 'better teams'.

Can't speak for others but I became a fan on the back of their talent in 2008. In 2009 it was their finishing that worried me not their team.

Hmm, what does that remind me of?

As an aside, as of this year my number two team is the Tahs. Beauty of living in Melbourne, having lived in Gold Coast, but born in Sydney, can pick and choose! And while I am at it the Force reminded me a lot of the Reds 09 this year, talented, close, not quite there. Brumbies I won't comment on because this is a polite board.

Anyways back on topic, Higgers in, McCalman out Samo, vickers as impact subs. I can see the argument for giving AF a run, but my sense is the urgent need for the backs to get their patterns sorted at half-centre, and McCabes rapid improvement every game he gets will bring Anthony undone.

 

[Richo]

Exactly how I saw it, and it seems it’s being received in the typical NSW way too. Calls to sack the coach, sack the captain, wholesale changes; but not one person willing to give credit to the opposition.

Ridiculous blanket statement. I doubt anyone criticizing the Wallaby performance has or would fail to give credit to the Kiwis for an awesome display of rugby.

 

[Riptide]

I see you're still in full crusade Riptide

Just to clarify my personal position, (which I'm not sure you've got as you've already attributed a whole bunch of videos to me that I didn't make - Scarfie's and Scott's for instance):

1) I agree with you that the Wallabies should be smarter and play harder in those grey zones. I thought the Reds did this year to good effect. ]

Yes, the Reds did and I recall a Ruggamatrix podcast in which Link credited Daniel Braid with bringing some additional nous to the Reds in how they approached the breakdown. It's very much an "If you can't beat them, then figure out what the fuck they are doing and replicate it." Since you now "suck up" to Link on Twitter, maybe you can ask him a little more about that.

2) I think it's valid for anyone to point out where refs need to be looking harder. How teams and players "push the laws" keeps changing - we all need to keep up with it. I personally find this part of the professional game fascinating. Video analysis is a great tool here because a lot of it goes unnoticed in the hurly burly of a game. It's the sort of depth of analysis that I think makes this site different - you wont find it on Rugbyheaven for example. ]

Nobody is disputing that such video analysis is insightful, interesting and helpful in highlighting tactics, team strengths, weaknesses and tendencies and also how refs call games. It is fascinating. Here is an example of what I object to: when Bob Dwyer's excellent coaching credentials so selectively highlight NZ's egregious transgression of the laws when there is ample evidence to highlight similar Wallaby transgressions should he so choose. It strikes me as mere hyperbolic bile that loses so much of its merit because it is so biased.

3) You, and most kiwis, tell us how New Zealand, and specifically Richie McCaw is so excellent partly because he "bends the rules" (euphemism for breaks them) more than anyone else, and in so many different ways, and gets away with it. We're not just talking "grey area" at the breakdown, we're talking practised scrum and line-out moves.
Now, if you break the rules of a game (often pre-meditated) more than anyone else, what kind of label are you fairly opening yourself up to? ]

Being able to pick out the odd occasion ("odd occasion" because by your own admission McCaw and co do it more often i.e. "better" in your view) where other teams also break the rules doesn't negate (3), or mean that you can't discuss it, or label it for what it is. ]

Err, just to be clear, I am not a Kiwi. And, so I don't come across as being pedantic or obnoxious, I'd just want to raise the following flags in the interest of argument and I'm going to explore a couple of other points you raised. Again, no harm intended. McCaw's excellence in the game we all love and on which we all spend considerable time watching, reading and posting can be attributed to his athleticism, courage, intensity, an exceptional motor, a great instinctive rugby brain that have produced consistent performances for 10 years at the top of the sport. I still recall his Test performance at Brisbane a couple of seasons ago with awe. If anything, he is deserving of respect (grudging though it may be from all who love the game and support the Wallabies) and not to be hailed with the moniker "cheat" which you and many other so casually throw. I'd love to know the basis for your confident assertion that the AB transgressions at the lineout and scrum are all premeditated and practiced - apparently unique to them too as no other team has been so accused by you. Can anyone remember Bill Young's test career was built around knowing when/how to bind illegally and collapse scrums? Robbie Deans was McCaw's head coach throughout his successful Super rugby coaching career and his well-known hands-on attention to detail surely oversaw the tutoring on the area beyond the "grey area" to which you refer along with others whom you must surely regard as his fellow cheaters while at the Crusaders. So, I imagine that Deans is likewise now tutoring on the area beyond the ""grey area" at the breakdown" and talking "practised scrum and line-out moves" designed to take advantage of a ref's inability to police everything, or is it your argument that the ARU and the Wallabies wouldn't countenance such a thing and that we're all just too pure? While we're at it, Jim Williams cut his coaching teeth at Munster, who were comfortably the dominant European team at the breakdown and just simply schooled other teams regularly on the dark arts beyond the grey. I would dearly like Jim to improve his teaching techniques as he clearly has the knowledge][/QUOTE]

1, 2 and 3 above all coexist together and I don't see why we should have any fear in discussing or analysing them.

Not trying to pick a fight or be an arse here but the the connections are spurious at best. It might be better just to note that "This is how NZ and NZ teams cheat" and that refs are simply missing them. A little footnote that watching the full video properly will probably reveal an equal number of quite similar Wallaby transgressions that the ref failed to pick up would also probably reduce the amount of whining and inference that NZ (or any team that might consistently beat the Wallabies; I remember when it used to be England) are winning partly because they cheat and refs are too intimidated to police them. It is distracts from the real issue that Wallaby tactics, game preparation, base player skills, game-time intensity, composure, and bench just aren't good enough.

On top of that it riles the shit out of Kiwis so why wouldn't we make fun of it to boot? ]

Well, yes, that has merit.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

have a look at the 46 minute mark. ABs are attacking near the goal line, ball gets spun wide to reid, who juggles with it (eventually dropping it backwards). Cooper is marking up against reid and rather than lining him up and smacking him, cooper goes for an intercept and tries to pick the ball out of the air. he misses and flies past reid, who regathers the ball and charges toward the line. from the next phase carter kicks a drop goal from straight in front.
I have seen him tackle, so I know that he can. but he clearly doesn't like to and prefers to go for the flashier option first. defense isn't about being flashy. it's about sticking your tackles and stopping the forward momentum. he just doesn't do it, and as much as I am a fan of his offence, he has got to step the defensive side of his game. hiding him on the wing under the guise of "his counter attack is too valuable" is absurd. beale is a better counter attacker anways imo. against the better teams, he's going to be on defense no matter where you stick him on the field for a lot of the game and relying on him having the boundary to push people into isn't enough, he's got to stick a f#cking tackle. he's like cipriani out there.

further to whats already been said, have a look at the height at which elsom goes into contact. he also stops his leg drive relatively quickly. oppose this with kaino in particular. he's in low and he is continuously pumping his legs to keep him up till support comes and gaining more yards. elsom's body positioning on defense was also too high, prime example nonu's try. nonu gets right down low and powers through a far too upright elsom.

can't see sonny bill getting a starting role. amazing how much nonu and smith step it up in the black.

carter is sensational in every aspect of the game. QC (Quade Cooper) has miles to go. i'd pick wilkinson over him based on that performance.

 

[What2040]

just MO but will look at stats when available

Slim 293,
Just looked at Ath's stats - Kepu hit 4 rucks/mauls and Ben A didn't rate that many - so my original thoughts persist.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Riptide - I agree with everything you say.

However, like onlookers to a car crash, I can't wait for the next installment of GAGR's analysis of the All Blacks at the breakdown. It will wind me up no end probably, but I'll still watch it. Kind of like Dwyer's reports. Not sure what's wrong with me.

Funny story though, I was at dinner on Saturday night with a bunch of Aussies & one of the blokes started talking about GAGR. I said I knew of the site, but didn't really read it as it just seems to be about accusing NZ of cheating. His exact comments were that I should read some of the analysis/join the forums as opposed to just reading Dwyer's reports!

 

[Thomond78]

He'll be busy punching Quade in the head when he flick passes over the goal line to no-one. Kepu could do it?

The entire pack would volunteer, plus Genia.

To quote one of the lads on Gwlad: "Genia's interior monologue when he passes to Cooper must be like mine standing over a roulette wheel"...

 

[antipodean]

His exact comments were that I should read some of the analysis/join the forums as opposed to just reading Dwyer's reports!

Why read the same thing twice?

 

[Zeno]

I said I knew of the site, but didn't really read it as it just seems to be about accusing NZ of cheating.

Wow. Smell the paranoia.

 

[Slim 293]

Slim 293,
Just looked at Ath's stats - Kepu hit 4 rucks/mauls and Ben A didn't rate that many - so my original thoughts persist.

I read the rugbystats which had Alexander as 2 'ruck/mauls'... however he was clearly present at more than that...

 

[Sandpit Fan]

Now I am not trying to troll or provoke a fight, personally I doubt that anyone seriously thinks that Paddy's integrity is in question, but it does raise the rancour of some of us - quite justifiably some might say. Anyway we are far off subject so I shall retire from the argument

The problem with Paddy's integrity is that while he may not be bent (probably isn't), his actions on a few occasions have left him wide open to speculation about it. If you were being generous about it, you would call him naive. People should not be surprised when the issue is raised. T78 summed it up pretty well I thought.

Paddy O'Brien couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone a conspiracy. He just inflicts his half-assed ideas like that "hands-in isn't" piece of genius that tubed six months of rugby in 2009, and appoints his favourites like Bryce the Bollockless come what may because he hasn't got the brains or guts to back down.

He's not bent. He's just as inept a chief ref as he was a ref.

 

[Gagger]

Nobody is disputing that such video analysis is insightful, interesting and helpful in highlighting tactics, team strengths, weaknesses and tendencies and also how refs call games. It is fascinating. Here is an example of what I object to: when Bob Dwyer's excellent coaching credentials so selectively highlight NZ's egregious transgression of the laws when there is ample evidence to highlight similar Wallaby transgressions should he so choose. It strikes me as mere hyperbolic bile that loses so much of its merit because it is so biased.

I don't have the time to go through every line of your previous post (I didn't think you were a Kiwi btw, that's why I used a comma)

But it comes down to this - I don't personally, nor for this site, feel some obligation to be completely unbiased (in whoever's viewpoint 'unbiased' would be). This site has never promised that, and I'm not sure it ever could, without becoming pretty uninteresting, and divorced from the reality of passionate rugby support.

A couple of examples of how I don't see this as workable.

1) Bob writes a great article (like he did last weekend - glowing on New Zealand, scathing on Australia) writes about something in the final paragraph that, as a passionate Wallabies supporter, pisses him off. It's also an interesting point of play that had an impact in the game. I, and plenty of others find it interesting, but such 'bile' might offend souls like yourself. Are you saying I should censor Bob for the sake of "balance"? Or get him to write about an Australian transgression to 'balance' it up?

2) We see the All Blacks employing a dubious tactic that we find interesting and want to explore it with video analysis. According to you we can't do this as its 'unbalanced'. How many Wallaby transgressions do I need to pull out to be 'balanced'? Is it 1:1? Is that what balanced is, because maybe the Wallabies didn't actually commit as many (according to you we need to get better at it), or shit, maybe we committed more and I'd be under-representing it with 1:1?

With exception to what Austin did last week, and is looking to do this week, in putting the few videos together that we have (a handfull over 4 years?) we haven't even tried to be numerically balanced in them because that's not the point. They aren't quantitative analysis, just as when we look at elements of the Wallaby play (which we do more than anything else) isn't meant to be.

Finally, we're very open as to who uses the site from a viewpoint perspective - more than many others you'll find (or so I'm told). I think this is a good thing. Feel free to say you don't agree with analysis or viewpoints put forward. However, if you're going to find what you've seen so far hard to stomach, then I guess this isn't the site for you.

Since you now "suck up" to Link on Twitter, maybe you can ask him a little more about that.

Cheap shot. The quotation marks and smiley face don't make it better.

 

[Athilnaur]

Slim 293,
Just looked at Ath's stats - Kepu hit 4 rucks/mauls and Ben A didn't rate that many - so my original thoughts persist.

Thanks for the mention What2040

Just on that I think its fair to say ruck and maul counts are a bit hit or miss (haha). Hit or miss or not, I think it is fair to say anyone who only rated say 2, 3, or 4, looks pretty average against Horwill's 14, and Rocky/Moore's 10. Unless they have been told to do something else?

On that topic, in my view Horwill, Elsom, and Moore had HUGE games - and the data bears this out. Horwill, Elsom and Moore had the highest ruck maul counts in the game. Horwill and Elsom had the best run metres gained by any forward in the game. All three did well on tackle counts but guess what? All three had abysmal missed tackle counts. . My point here is that those three were everywhere fighting fires.

Anyways I need to complete the video analysis before I can put it on my blog, and I still don't have the ability to cut my recording of the game to youtube, but I am hopeful to get that to peeps asap.


For those interested, I rely on the same stat data as everyone else - http://www.rugbystats.com.au and http://www.ruggastats.com/.

I really like the way Rugga Stats doesn't use 'rucks and mauls' but OOA 1st 3 - atk and OOA 1st 3 - def. It seems to me knowing who the first three to pile in is a very helpful thing. Unfortunately those stats can take days to come out.

 

[Bullrush]

For All Black stats, haka.co.nz is pretty good too

 

[Athilnaur]

Yeah it's great Bullrush. Shame Tracey doesn't provide the stats for both teams in the game.

 

[BarneySF]

So if the All Blacks played the Under-16 Shamrocks and beat them 300-0, does that mean the Shamrocks would have the advantage next time because they had so much room to improve?

 

[Riptide]

But it comes down to this - I don't personally, nor for this site, feel some obligation to be completely unbiased (in whoever's viewpoint 'unbiased' would be). This site has never promised that, and I'm not sure it ever could, without becoming pretty uninteresting, and divorced from the reality of passionate rugby support.

A couple of examples of how I don't see this as workable.

We see the All Blacks employing a dubious tactic that we find interesting and want to explore it with video analysis. According to you we can't do this as its 'unbalanced'. How many Wallaby transgressions do I need to pull out to be 'balanced'? Is it 1:1? Is that what balanced is, because maybe the Wallabies didn't actually commit as many (according to you we need to get better at it), or shit, maybe we committed more and I'd be under-representing it with 1:1?

Well, Gagger, I guess we will just have to disagree on what effectively constitutes normal fan bias, enthusiasm and analysis versus what can almost be characterized as an effort to falsely demonize certain players/teams as serial, premeditated cheaters when their transgressions are in no way unique.

This site is vasty superior to the infantile shit fights that pervade Planet-Rugby, and the frequently narrow-minded, parochial discussions that afflict other sites. I enjoy the diverse points of view and informed opinion that grace its pages. And you are to be commended for creating this site, and fostering its civil tone. So, I'm not looking to pursue this further or get into a shit fight on the matter.

Cheap shot. The quotation marks and smiley face don't make it better.

No cheap shot was intended in any way whatsoever. But given your sensitivity on the issue, I'll certainly withdraw that comment and any others I might have on the matter.

 

[Langthorne]

The All Blacks were outstanding and very intense pretty much until the game was safe, hence the consolation try at the end. They were not perfect, and there are still a couple of potential changes that could even strengthen the team. I certainly don't subscribe to the theory that there is no way they could have been beaten, nor that we 'don't have the cattle' (the Reds have reminded us that attitude and stategy are more important anyway). In order to do it there needs to be execution at, at least, the same level as them, no matter who plays. There needs to be some changes in the forward pack - if not personel then attitiude. The main issue is that we need more guys who can knock them back in both attack and defence - TPN and Palu spring to mind, but given they are injured I'd say give Samo a crack. The other issue is tactics and on field direction, both of which have been discussed enough here. Robbie Deans is no better or worse a coach than he was last week, I think it is just a case of different people having different breaking points.

 

[What2040]

I read the rugbystats which had Alexander as 2 'ruck/mauls'... however he was clearly present at more than that...

To be honest I thought he was more involved than 2 as well and Kepu more than 4 - point is that they weren't involved enough - if 2 of tight 5 (and add in Simmons so 3 of 5) aren't doing the hard work all game then its very difficult to win or be competitive at the breakdown.

 

[Jay]

To be honest I thought he was more involved than 2 as well and Kepu more than 4 - point is that they weren't involved enough - if 2 of tight 5 (and add in Simmons so 3 of 5) aren't doing the hard work all game then its very difficult to win or be competitive at the breakdown.

I think with those sorts of stats, it's not the total number they were involved in but the number that they were in the first 1 or 2 players to the breakdown. There's no way an international forward could get away with only hitting a ruck every 20 minutes (unless their name was Rocky).