Bled 1: That we did. Nutta's View. - Green and Gold Rugby
Rugby

Bled 1: That we did. Nutta’s View.

Bled 1: That we did. Nutta’s View.

Oh how Saturday night felt familiar. I ranted and raved on Saturday night and into Sunday and then into Monday – just like previous years. I railed at the tv screen with indignant cries of “Oh F… me Peyper! What game are you watching!?!?” – just like previous annual episodes. I was like so many other thousands of Wobbly rugby fans all over the nation full of loathing, gnashing of teeth and playing our seasonal game of Déjà vu.

So then I simply drank more and chased dreamless bliss…

I had to wait until today to try and strip out some emotion and even begin to have a little objectivity. And so in that vein I put my Commercial hat on to look at this as a commercial-competitive analysis in a more ‘Money-Ball’ manner.

As such I offer this as no scientific analysis, but as the sort of first-pass Q&A test I generally apply to ascertain relative (if any) likely competitive advantage before I contemplate further assessment or analysis to committing shareholder funds to a competitive scenario. It lacks any attempt at poetry or cuteness and it’s simply a straight-up review as I saw of the competitive differences in the teams themselves and their performances. The results are reasonably objective by applying a test of ‘actual or probable outcome’ and I think the result is actually fairly instructive:

1. Did we pick a team that could fundamentally score tries? Yes. Advantage: 1 try to us.

2. Did they pick a team who could score tries? Yes. Advantage: 1 try to them.

Note: so no comparative advantage as-yet.

3. No one can think the best team in the world, with a history of scoring plenty of tries and with players taken from dominating teams in a try-scoring-based competition (Super rugby) won’t be scoring multiple tries. To be competitive against them you must score 7pters to match. Advantage: minimum 1 try to them.

4. If an opponent prevents 7pts by illegal play (twice in the opening 10min), you don’t reward them by giving up 4pts and kicking 3pts. By pushing for 7pts over 3pts you force the opponent to keep giving up the penalties and force the yellow card. We chose the 3pt route and gave up 4pts twice. Advantage: a conservative 50% conversion rate so minimum 1 try to them for points we gave up.

Photo Courtesy of Keith McInnes

Photo Courtesy of Keith McInnes

5. No one can think we can give the best team in the world that much ball from lost lineouts (2 penalty opportunities inside attacking 22m and I think 5 or 6 others), thus have your defence start unprepared and 20m off the contact line, and think they won’t score more tries. Advantage from giving them 7 or 8 more possessions with plenty of attacking space: 2 tries to them.

Note – current score is 1 try to Wobblies and 5 tries to AIB. Starting to get ugly…

6. Inability to muster a responsive wide defence following turn-overs is always disastrous for the team that can’t react. Advantage: 2 tries to them.

7. We’ve been running the same play-book for 3yrs now. Regardless of natural ability, no one can think we can give the best team in the world 3yrs to study our game and think they won’t have a counter sorted. Advantage: 1 try to them.

8. We bombed 2 open-field running opportunities. You just can’t do that when playing the best in the world. Advantage: conversion rate of 50% already established so a minimum of 1 try to them.

9. I really don’t care what anyone else says – based on the refereeing of test matches this year, Naholo’s tackle on Folau may arguably have been a red card if you were French but a yellow at least for anyone else. In my view of rugby, I think that would be wrong, but it’s what has been reffed all year. That would arguably mean a try to the Wobblies whilst the opponent is at 14men. Advantage probable: 1 try to us.

So based on the above I would have expected the AIB to score 9 and possibly 10 tries versus 2 to us at best. 9 tries to 2 gives a healthy victory to the AIB no matter which way we cut it.

What was the score again? Whilst my heart hurts and it tears me up to say it, I think we got off lightly by about 20pts or so.

Or am I wrong Punters?

  • OeildeNuit Nighteyes

    Je pense que le gros souci des lignes arrières de l’Australie est que ça manque de cerveau : des soldats sans chef ne peuvent pas aller loin. Beale ou Foley n’en sont clairement pas depuis le temps qu’ils jouent, et aucun des autres ne semble en être capable. Peut-être que Tommua pourra remplir ce rôle (quelqu’un qui parle aux autres, adapte le plan de jeu).

    • Patrick

      For the non-French, basically, there is no leader of the backs or at least none with a brain or a tongue.

      Hard to argue.

      He forgot only to mention that there is not one in the forwards, either, at least not that actually is communicating their thinking to the rest of the team during the match… !

      So I would certainly be onboard with dumping the captain and trying to identify players able to lead a backline. Toomua is not a bad suggestion.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        Thanks Patrick

    • disqus_NMX

      QC is a leader of a back line, but the Australian coaches prefer someone who meekly does what he’s told, not someone who wants to do the telling.

    • Brisneyland Local

      “I think the biggest problem with the back lines of Australia is that it lacks brains: soldiers without leaders can not go far. Beale or Foley have clearly not been, since they started playing, and none of the others seem to be able to. Maybe Tommua can fill this role (someone who speaks to others, adapts the game plan).”

      Sorry my French isnt that good these days, but hey I tried.

      I agree!

      • Parker

        Thank you

        • Brisneyland Local

          Vous êtes les bienvenus
          you are Welcome

      • OeildeNuit Nighteyes

        I am sorry… i should speak in english (your french is excellent!).
        I think that Beale lacks patience in the last 40. He wants to do the “”

        • Brisneyland Local

          Merci.
          I agree, with you. I hope Beale matures as we need him.

    • Greg

      Bienvenue chez Green and Gold Rugby

      Great to have different contributors…. even in French!

      • OeildeNuit Nighteyes

        Thanks. Greenandgold is a good website. I read the daily news and the articles about super rugby and test matches… and stay positive: you lost against the ab but france is worst than you those days

    • Greg

      Your mission now is to get on the phone to M.Cheika. He speaks french. Maybe you can have more luck connecting with him than we have had!

    • Hoss

      je suis d’accord

      • Greg

        @hoss I asked yesterday…. does your wife/partner/friend read the forum. he/she/they would have loved the lineout calls yo proposed!

        • Hoss

          No mate, i dont believe Trevor frequents these pages.

        • Funk

          Does she know you call her that?

    • Nutta

      Hey long-term G&GR Tragics, does this make mine the first article to get a foreign language response?

      • idiot savant

        Sed prope cigar

  • Kiwi rugby lover

    Nutta you are a friggen legend mate. The only point I have is that World Rugby brought out a review of the tackle and the rule is now; lifting = penalty. Landing determines colour and that landing didn’t really meet the threshold for yellow now. Comparing it to what was ruled earlier in the year is pointless because they’ve changed the criteria.
    As per the post below I’d also look at the ability to lead the team – and by that I mean; read the game and be able to change tactics on the fly, manage the interactions with the referee, fire the troops up, etc. 2 nil to NZ at the least. Maybe it’s more than 20 points

    • Garry

      It was interesting that in the light of two serious injuries to school kids this year, that the ARU wasn’t more outraged by Peypers’s decision re that tackle. Or perhaps they wanted to keep that ugly vision out of the press? Complicating matters is that the head of the ARU is a kiwi.
      One thing it does inflame is the one rule for NZ, one for the rest argument. I went back and had a look at the French red card from the AB match, and this tackle has much more intent to injure. Go figure.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        Mate, sorry I didn’t seem to explain it well. World Rugby have changed the interpretation for the referees. Under the new interpretation that tackle did not meet the Yellow criteria. Judging it against previous mandated interpretations is just confusing the issue. Personally I think the new interpretations are much better and will actually help rugby. There is still the options for cards but the criteria has changed both in what the referee rules on and what is needed to be seen for a card to also be used.

        • Brumby Runner

          This just doesn’t cut it with me KRL. With the interpretations outlined by you, it clearly means that a player must be injured, or put in a position to be injured, before a card is issued. That is not the philosophy of the game that I want to see. A lifting tackle should be viewed as a send off offence in its own right, not only when it ends in injury.

          There are many ways to effect a legitimate hard tackle and many players with that ability. We should not condone an action that puts the onus on the innocent party to avoid injury.

        • Greg

          Two different points being made here I think.

          1) According to the current definitions was the decision correct? Answer seems to be yes.

          2) Is it right that a decision is made largely on the result rather than the intent? general feeling seems to be no (Froggy with broken skull refers).

        • Funk

          Agree , the only reason Folau wasn’t injured in that tackle is because he protected himself by twisting and getting an arm out onto the ground to stop himself from landing on his neck/head. By making the yellow determined by the injury, the Argies are going to milk it like Neymar!!!

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          No I’m not saying that at all. A lifting tackle driving a player down is,still red regardless of the injury that does or doesn’t occur. Naholo lifted and so was penalized. He didn’t drive Folau into the ground and in fact stopped and let him down. If he’d just dropped him it would probably have been yellow and TBH I thought it was borderline anyway and would have accepted a yellow. But the officials accepted he wasn’t driven and wasn’t just dropped so penalty only

        • Brumby Runner

          i’m not referring to the Naholo/Folau incident specifically, but the philosophy around what is acceptable and what is not. Any tackle that has the tackled player upside down in the air is inherently dangerous and should be excised from the game entirely. The only way to do that is make the starting point for sanction a yellow card, and goes to red if the tackled player is brought to ground in a dangerous manner. Get rid of lifting tackles altogether. There is too much risk of serious injury to the lifted player despite the intentions of the tackler.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          I get your point mate and I sort of agree. We’ve already stopped pulling people out of rucks, tackling in the air, holder charges and the like so maybe it’s time. I just think that if a player does lift but then lowers the tackler down so there’s no injury, why punish them?

        • Brumby Runner

          It is no accident when a player is lifted. The lifter might reconsider during the tackle, but many won’t. Therefore, get it out of the game altogether. Lift equals YC, if dangerous then RC.

        • RobC
        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Just a picture mate. Doesn’t show anything about the force. Note he’s still holding him so could legitimately demonstrate either lowering or driving him down

    • Mart

      I think the main point here is if Folau stays down or gets stretchered off Naholo gets carded. It encourages soccer antics

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        I’m not so sure mate. There is always going to be the odd injury in rugby because it’s a physical game with high levels of contact. I think WR are making the point that an injury isn’t necessarily a criteria for a card, somethimes good tackles just hurt.

        • Mart

          Finally something i can disagree with you on ;) Naholo lifted him above the horizontal and dumped him upside down. I don’t really agree but that’s a card any day of the week and reffing inconsistency is a massive issue with rugby

        • Nutta

          Personal opinion only, but I don’t think necessarily simply going past the commonly interpreted horizontal is putting someone in danger. A frontal tackle where the Tacklee finishes up flat on his back but legs 90* in the air (because he folded at the waist) is not dangerous. It fkn well hurts to cop, but it’s not dangerous just because the legs went past horizontal. What IS dangerous is when the TORSO goes past 90* and the Tacklees head is linear-lower than his chest. That’s unarguably dangerous. My opinion is that should get a yellow at that point. Whether it’s a red or not depends on the actions of the Tackler next; if he de-powers and is actively observable in decreasing impact then the yellow stays. If he in any way is not observably proactive in minimising the coming impact (or God-forbid follows-through) then it’s a red. It should have nothing to do with outcome of injury in my opinion.

        • Mart

          I agree But it’s about consistency with reffing. We all know that gets carded usually

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Happy for you to disagree mate and as I’ve said I thought it was borderline and would have accepted a yellow. Probably thought it was harsh but fair

      • Mica

        Just read your comment after posting above.
        I think we have already seen some of this with playing for a video review by certain players during SR.
        I agree – this type of ruling could encourage this type of behaviours in certain players.
        It also wouldn’t surprise me if it wasn’t admonished by some coaches if it gave them an advantage.

    • Timbo

      This new ruling puts the onus back on the tacklee not the tacker. If you protect your head, then the tackler gets a penalty. If you don’t, the tacker gets a yellow for a shoulder and red for a head. It’s entirely up to the upended player what happens when it should be up to the tackler to make sure that the ball carrier isn’t put into a dangerous position. Naholo didn’t do that.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        don’t agree mate. To me and my interpretations the simplified explanation is: lifted = penalty, dropped = yellow, driven down = red. That’s what I took from the interpretation and what I apply when refereeing

        • Timbo

          I was under the impression that Peyper only gave a penalty because Folau protected his head with his arm?

        • Greg

          this is true.

          Had Folau allowed himself to land on his head/shoulder, it would have been yellow or red.

          It also would have been very dumb as he had the chance to protect himself. What if his arm had been caught up in the tackle?

        • Mica

          What if he stayed down holding his shoulder or neck?
          By reducing the penalty in this circumstance there is less incentive to change the play.
          A lifting tackle is risky, one where the head/shoulder/outstretched arm is more risky.
          The previous rule was simple and is more likely to stamp out this risky behaviour – why the change?
          Did they even review it? Maybe through the TMO on the run, but don’t recall hearing/seeing this during the play.

    • Nutta

      Cheers KRL. I have 2 issues:
      1. If the WR changed the scenario, what was the communication strategy to make sure the consumer knew of it? Howdafuk do they think the consumer reacts to a product that is inconsistent or misunderstood? Not having a crack at you – just ranting at the ether.
      2. WR is wrong. No one in their right mind can think we should put any player in a position of upside-down near-vertical by means of a lifting tackle and not get time in a naughty-chair. I don’t care what else happens around it – if it’s arms-out, air-bags, no-injury, Jupiter behind Uranus, blood moon or 2nd coming of Christ – that ain’t right. It’s just wrong.

      • Greg

        This is also true when a gold player is the tackler.

        • Nutta

          Has to be. I’m talking ‘in the interests of the game’ stuff. But don’t start a ‘he said, she said’ or we will wind up arguing over Measles and Humungus on BOD etc etc etc

      • Mica

        point 2 also punishes the player in danger who is honest and get’s straight up after an incident.
        If this is now the case, what would have happened if Israel stayed down and milked the situation.
        Doe Naholo now get a yellow card?
        I’m not advocating this, but I have seen plenty of players in recent time staying down and playing for the penalty to the point that you think they need to be taken off and sent to hospital only to get up and make dominant and try saving tackles 30 seconds later. Apparently this is ok because it is part of playing to the ref and being a professional outfit.

        • Nutta

          $hits me to tears.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Me too. Far to much a poofter soccer approach

        • Nutta

          Look out! You will have the Nelly Cops on you shortly. But yeh, it’s soft as custard.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        the interpretation change wasn’t done well and to be fair my simple explanation is more for my process when referring.
        Not every lifting tackle us intentional, I most often see it as a combination of factors and the issue isn’t the lift, its what happens afterwards. Most players recognize the stuff up and try to lower the player – still a penalty. Some just drop the player – yellow. And some idiots drive them down – red.
        It’s not perfect but I think creates a balance to keep the game going and not reduce the contact we love.

      • mikado

        In my fantasy world the tv commentary team would be familiar with the latest interpretation of the laws, and would explain to the viewers.

        Apart from that, broadcasting the officials’ thought processes, as per league, would add clarity.

    • Nutta

      Awww… Shucks.

  • Mart

    Good stuff Nutta. Don’t agree with point 4. It’s an international.

    Take the points, take the points, take the points. Every day of the week. The Kiwi’s would. I was pissed off they didn’t take the first shot and went for the corner and lost the line out.

    Take the points build pressure, you have to leave the reffing to the ref.

    • Greg

      Disagree that point 4 as well Nutta.

      You forget Rule #1…. New Zealand players don’t get yellow card for cynical defence.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        absofriggenlutely mate. Glad you understand the World Rugby ruling

      • Archie

        Except maybe when they do… like last season when they were the most carded tier one nation.

        (Sorry to ruin a good story with one of those pesky ‘fact’ thingees :)

        • Nutta

          Mark ‘Chopper’ Read: See I’m the most discriminated-against fella going round! See how much time in gaol I’ve done?

          Reporter: No Mark. You did so much time because you shot, tortured and killed people for money.

    • disqus_NMX

      Absolutely agree Mart, if we’d taken the points every time then I suspect we would have won the Irish series.

      • st saens

        My son (who has a much sharper rugby brain than I) has been telling me for several years now that you take the 3 points on offer against all test sides except the ABs (exception being gimmes in front of the posts).
        The result of taking 3’s against the ABs is a scoring sequence of 3:0 – 3:7 – 6:7 – 6:14 – 9:14 – 9:21 and so on…
        He calls this the kiwi Fibonacci sequence.

        • disqus_NMX

          I love it, but what is the sequence if you don’t take the points?!

        • Mart

          Exactly. You take the points… or you mostly walk away with nothing

    • Nutta

      Gents you can both go for 3pts. And against teams like (say) the Irish that will probably pull a result. However what is the competitive advantage your product (team) has to overcome or claw-back what you just gave up relative to the opposition? The logic to take the 3pts is on the presumption you can prevent them scoring more tries and the competitive product in question (the AIB) simply won’t be held to that (self-evident recent history). They are playing a points-per-minute approach – almost a basketball or Aussie-rules mentality – whereby they are clocking points at a pace and are also slowing your ability to do same. The only way to beat that is to either score points faster then them or slow down their scoring rate. Taking 3pts does neither against this opposition.

      • disqus_NMX

        My take on it is, if you take the points every time, it is pure probability that you will end up with a higher score on average. When you go for a try, you are giving up on this high probability average in exchange for a lower chance of a higher score. So basically, if you are either so far ahead, or so far behind, that you don’t think 3 points will make any difference, then you may as well go for the try. So by that logic, I guess what you are saying is that against the Nearlies, we have given up before the game starts, so may as well just go for the low probability, higher score option right from the get go?

        • Nutta

          At the current point in time the normal probabilities don’t apply to them in isolation. There needs to be an identified competitive advantage – something that sets us apart – to break the cycle of point-per minute rugby. That’s the key. it’s not giving up, but it is recognising that where a shotgun and a quiet, static position is generally good for shooting ducks, it isn’t the approach for shooting pigs.

      • Adrian

        With the lineouts so shit, the choice was points from a goal, or give them the ball.

        I think Hooper could see that.

        He normally goes for tries

        • Nutta

          I agree. He went for points because he didn’t trust the lineout. And in isolation of that one decision his logic was sound. But by being transactional in that moment he forfeited strategy. Therein lay the surrender because with the the combination of AIB ability to score tries, combined with our inability to stop them, combined with the dynamics of the game and referees being so try-friendly atm, to walk away without the try is fundamentally a surrender in the face of an opposition who is going to score a heap of tries.

          The only way to beat these buggers at the moment is to ensure you can score a minimum of 5 or 6 tries against them (possession through the middle 3rd of the ground) AND slow their scoring down to under 5 tries a game (play at their end of the field)

        • Adrian

          I do agree Nutta.

          My view is that we pick players this time round who will maximize our ability to score points.

          I think that is reasonable, and I think our lineout and scrum will work in the next game via more practice (mainly), a different ref, one or two different selections and NZ focussing on something else.

          eg Naivalu and Banks would be in my team

        • Who?

          Not sure I agree on this Adrian, and for one reason. We took the points before we’d really even seen a lineout. So Hooper couldn’t make a call that avoided a lineout for that reason if he didn’t know he needed to avoid the lineouts. If it was later in the match, I’d agree with you. I think he was reading effort for points, recognizing we weren’t winning the contact, passing the gain line or securing fast ball, and believed (rightly) that we were better taking the 3 than coming away with nothing (which was likely).

        • Adrian

          Ok, yes, didn’t think about the timing of the first kick Who

        • Nutta

          Fair point – had not assessed lineout. Good spot. So he went in with that thinking/instruction then.

  • Brisneyland Local

    Sadly Nutta, you are 100% correct.
    we lost that game, we deserved to lose that game. Our game has not changed or developed, so again we deserve to lose that game.
    we keep picking unbalanced and poor squads, again we deserve to lose that game.
    We suck!

  • Hoss

    Morning Nutta,

    Great read and i love the approach.

    I admit i am at the crossroads with the Wallabies, a mental / emotional crossroads. Do i continue to invest the emotion in following them and believe we are a team that can consistently challenge and win or do i step outside in the harsh, searing sun of reality and accept we are a 20-30 point worse side than the nearlies and this is my lot in life.

    I too sat down a second time and watched devoid of emotion (as best i could). I saw both Jeckyl and Hyde. Good fitness, aggressive and some good skill – perhaps i also saw a team trying to play TOO much Rugby. Why not go northern hemisphere for a while, kick for the corners, slow it down, play territory and then squeeze. Basically have the ability to change gears as needed. Helter-Skelter for 80 taxes us more than the nearlies.

    I saw lots of little errors, compounded by some interesting officiating that ended up blowing out the final score. The most frustrating part for me continues to be selections and lack of a flexible game-plan – something you can adjust on the go.

    Disappointment aside the things that killed us on Saturday weren’t massive and seem an easy fix, add to that a more ‘objective’ ref and a bounce here and we will be more competitive – sadly, even in my delusion a win at Eden Park seems the stuff of fantasy.

    But i will buck up and challenge Messrs Cheika and the players (avid readers of this site I’am sure) with a quote from the Gipper

    ‘If not us, who ?
    If not now, when?’

    Indeed.

    .

    • Greg

      Wobs by 6?

      • Hoss

        At some point, yes.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Not on Saturday night though

        • Hoss

          et tu Brutus.

    • disqus_NMX

      nearlies?

      • Hoss

        They aren’t ‘All Black’ there is white all over there kit and some pine tree needle or something on their shirt, so their nearly all black = ‘Nearlies’

        Also takes this mythical ‘air’ away about them – 23 men in black and white shirts, good – yes, beatable – absoflogginglutely.

        • disqus_NMX

          Like it!

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Love it mate

        • Don’t forget the original etymology of the name; it was a misprint of All Backs.

          I’m sure Foley understands that quite well (I am so over him as a player, but Metallick’s dummy even fooled the end on camera man !!)

        • Archie

          Clever mate, like it. Though I don’t understand who is claiming they aren’t beatable? They do lose… at least 3-4 times every decade ;)

        • Hoss

          Is that your knife in my shoulder blades ???

          You can be so cruel sometimes.

    • Nutta

      Do not go gentle into that good night…
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      Apologies to Dylan Thomas.

    • Who?

      Hoss, this line…
      The most frustrating part for me continues to be selections and lack of a flexible game-plan – something you can adjust on the go.
      For me, the most frustrating part of it all is that there’s ‘easy’ improvements available through selection and game plan, and there’s also no development shown by those on the field. The frustrating part is that we’re not at our best, we’re not the sum of our parts, and there’s parts that might also swap in and push us further, but they’re ignored. The Wallabies are not reaching their ultimate potential. If we were playing our best – showing good game plans, intelligence and skill in execution, but we were simply outgunned, then fair enough – that’s called honourable losses. That’s what the SunWolves do – they play great rugby, to their absolute best, but they get outgunned physically. And for their efforts, there is no shame. Because they get closer to their talent capacity than the Wallabies do.
      What hurts isn’t losing, it’s failing to give it your best shot, and that’s not solely on players.

      • Hoss

        Bulls-eye.

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      Mate, I still firmly believe that while the bounce of the ball, the odd referee interpretation and luck does play a part, by far the biggest difference is the mental ability of the ABs to challenge what is happening and to make consistemntly better decisions under pressure. Not all of the AB decisions are good but I think a significant number of them are and that allows them to have that flexible approach and to adjust to the uncontrolable like the bounceof the ball and the referee.

      It’s much more of head issue than a physical issue but just doesn’t seem to be addressed here.

      • Hoss

        NO argument here mate and part of my logic (or lack thereof) in starting a few greenhorns this Saturday is exactly around that – no mental scars. I reckon some key players in gold simply don’t believe that we can beat the AB’s and therefore start the game resigned to defeat.

        Something just doesn’t add up does it.

        If we had a car that on the service had a good engine, solid brakes, all the basics were there but the fucker kept on braking down you would dig deeper to find the fault wouldn’t you – same with the Wob’s. We all agree somethings broken (i am not including RA, The Force, Grass Roots ad nausea) i am talking about 23 finely tuned, smart, well prepared athletes. The issue has got to be the 6 inches from left to right. So what do we do about it……………………nada.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Gold

  • Brendan Hume

    Just on point 1 – I’m not sure we’re a team that can score tries unless our forwards start making yards more consistently. I’m not a big fan of Foley, but fuck he’s on a hiding to nothing when you’ve got one of the best defensive teams in the world coming at you without having to take a step backwards because your pigs can’t get over the gain line for three of four phases in a row. We looked okay with the pill from time to time but there was never any serious sustained pressure applied to the AB’s.

    • Nutta

      See pt7.

      No one ever in any body-contact sport could go sideways without first earning the space. You can’t get space to move effectively unless the opponent is not wary of you coming forward first. Otherwise they press-up and box you in. It’s the same in boxing, wrestling, AFL, NFL etc etc. In Mungo parlance you have to earn the right to ‘spread it’.

  • Adrian

    Great analysis Nutta, but how we played was massivelt influenced by our set piece.

    The impact on the game of the hugely ambushed set piece was huge.

    There are lots of examples (eg our set piece moves “unavailable”), but one that hasn’t got much mileage is our taking 2×3 points in the first half.

    Normally Hooper goes for the line, and tries to get tries. He’s often criticized for this.

    This time, it was SO OBVIOUS that the ABs had worked us out, that even blind Freddie could see we were little or no chance unless something drastically changed. Therefore goals.

    Hooper probably should have overridden the coaches and Coleman, and had long lineouts with the throw to the front, but mightn’t have worked either.

    The set-piece debacle totally fucked us in oh so many ways!

    I suspect we’ll fix most of it, because we were good v Ireland, but they’ll probably ambush us somewhere else.

    Our best hope is Kiwi complacency I think,…notw notwithstanding that with the right tactics and preparation, we are better than we seemed

    • Nutta

      Agree re set peice. “Meat & Potato first Boy!” But that’s largely part of my point. We have had a good scoring percentage off 1st and 2nd phase play off set-piece for some time now. It’s part of pt7. So their tactic was to attack the set-piece and engineer out that strength (full credit to them). What we don’t have is a clear competitive advantage – something that makes our chocolate bar better than theirs. Until we identify and clarify that we will be pushin’ it uphill

      • Brumby Runner

        Nutta, the only potential competitive advantage I can see that might help to limit the tries scored by the ABs is in the area of defense. We would need to have a defensive line and structure that can be relied on to repel the nearlies before they can work their wonders. We simply do not have that advantage with the current team makeup, especially in the backline. Both players and structures are deficient.

        • Nutta

          We were doing it in the first half but decided not-to in the 2nd half.

  • Bernie Chan

    That photo is an inspired choice…highlights the lineout “lift” execution of the ABs vs the Wallas…Was it an issue of timing alone or poor execution of the lift…? The AB jumper is more than half a metre higher…

Rugby

Underfed front-rower with no speed or ball skills. Started playing footy in the 70's and still going. Can't remember the last time I passed on a ball, beer or karaoke mike. Motto - "Meat and potatoes first. Then gravy. And you don't put gravy on the plate first Boy."

More in Rugby