All Blacks v Wallabies, Dunedin, 19th October 2013

[Shiggins]

Retiring players supposedly disrupting the opposition half back's pass.

I understand we accept playing breaking the rules now and again but some repeated things should not be called smart play. It should be called cheating. It seams no one can cheat in the game of rugby because we call cheating smart play. Pretty interesting really

 

[Muttonbird]

I understand we accept playing breaking the rules now and again but some repeated things should not be called smart play. It should be called cheating. It seams no one can cheat in the game of rugby because we call cheating smart play. Pretty interesting really

Agreed. So Scarfman's 2010 video titled "All Blacks at the breakdown" can now be regarded as a lesson in smart play. I'm happy about that.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Come on Bruce, you wouldn't be pushing a product you are aligned with now would you?

I hardly keep it a secret, TOCC, as with my true identity. I'm compulsively up-front, make of it what you will.
.

 

[badabing59]

The biggest problem the All Blacks have is Hooker. All you have after the old fellas is Coles.

Ged Robinson is in NZ now, with no super contract to my knowledge. He is a more than useful hooker, yet remains unsigned (to my knowledge). Am I missing something here? Surely even the highlanders beckon?

 

[Ruggo]

Speaking of the Highlanders, I like the look of Colten as an up and coming hooker.

Hika Elliot fell out of favor quick.

 

[Richo]

1. As a frequent critic of the front row and scrum, I was pleased to see a better showing on that front this week. Not good as such, but we got a tighthead and weren't often under too much pressure. Again, though, we were much better once Robinson came on. As long as he gets a solid 30 mins it's not too bad, but I still think we'd be better off establishing a stronger scrum earlier in the match.

2. I reckon the most pleasing thing last night was that our attack structures seem to be coming together. We're getting width faster while still going forward. Genia's decision making has been really good and Quade has been demanding the ball at the right moments.

3. Although it was a better Wallabies performance, the score line doesn't really reflect the AB dominance. We were never close after the first 30 minutes.

4. Betham -- congrats on a solid debut!

 

[Groucho]

I, for one, don't think so. Best pair of wingers long term will be Henry Speight and the Honey Badger imo with Joe Tomane not far behind. I would have both Crawford and Betham in front of JOC (James O'Connor) but Quade has shown that if the effort is made someone with JOC (James O'Connor)'s problems can turn his life around. Same goes for KB (Kurtley Beale), but both of these have a long way to go to prove their worth.

The Honey Badger is deeply ordinary. Speight is obviously good. Betham is potentially good. JOC (James O'Connor) in form is a world class player.

 

[Zander]

Correct, Cummins can only go over the top of people, he's not elusive at all.

 

[Scotty]

The Honey Badger is deeply ordinary. Speight is obviously good. Betham is potentially good. JOC (James O'Connor) in form is a world class player.

Deeply ordinary?

Professional rugby player that has represented his country. There is nothing ordinary about that.

There is certainly nothing ordinary about Nick Cummins.

 

[redstragic]

JOC (James O'Connor) in form is a world class player.

Forget JOC (James O'Connor), he is poison on the team. What was the Sydney Swans policy? I think we need that first and foremost. Betham, Cummins and Tomane would thrive in that team.

 

[fatprop]

The Honey Badger is deeply ordinary. Speight is obviously good. Betham is potentially good. JOC (James O'Connor) in form is a world class player.

We get to disagree about Cummins, I rate him very highly, he is one of the few Aus wingers who works hard off the ball and can make bad kicks into pressure, he and Speight work hard off the ball, something units like JOC (James O'Connor) have failed to work out yet.

 

[Tordah]

I see GAGR has posted an article about the maul call, and the author is having a whinge about the no release by Faumuina that led to the Read try. About 5 seconds after the game started, Moore does the exact same thing to Thrush, yet this finds no mention.

Of course Hooper's professional foul of lying ontop of the ruck and in from the side where AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) wins the penalty after the Ben Smith / Messam break isn't commented on, as well as the Genia offside from the scrum that eventually led to Kuridrani's try.

I'd suggest the author also to look at the maul at 61 minutes and see what McCalman does to Messam (who is bound the entire time): unbinds, in from behind and choking the opposition player.

I'm sure if you look at the game as a whole you'll find plenty Joubert missed and/or got wrong for either side, I thought he had a particular mediocre game.

The point is, the article reads as if the Wallabies were (as always) the unlucky ones regarding the referee, and you just have to read the comments on there and those going along the lines of "ABs aren't that good, refs only cut them more slack" are the ones that get upvoted 50 times. The wallowing in self-pity is just cringeworthy.

 

[Jnor]

I see GAGR has posted an article about the maul call, and the author is having a whinge about the no release by Faumuina that led to the Read try. About 5 seconds after the game started, Moore does the exact same thing to Thrush, yet this finds no mention.

Of course Hooper's professional foul of lying ontop of the ruck and in from the side where AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) wins the penalty after the Ben Smith / Messam break isn't commented on, as well as the Genia offside from the scrum that eventually led to Kuridrani's try.

I'd suggest the author also to look at the maul at 61 minutes and see what McCalman does to Messam (who is bound the entire time): unbinds, in from behind and choking the opposition player.

I'm sure if you look at the game as a whole you'll find plenty Joubert missed and/or got wrong for either side, I thought he had a particular mediocre game.

The point is, the article reads as if the Wallabies were (as always) the unlucky ones regarding the referee, and you just have to read the comments on there and those going along the lines of "ABs aren't that good, refs only cut them more slack" are the ones that get upvoted 50 times. The wallowing in self-pity is just cringeworthy.

Of course there are examples on both sides. Jamie also points out instances where Joubert made wrong calls that favoured the Wallabies.

I don't think the article was whingey, it simply pointed out one instance where 99 times out of 100 that call would not have been made and a (potentially game-changing) try would have been scored.

 

[cyclopath]

I see GAGR has posted an article about the maul call, and the author is having a whinge about the no release by Faumuina that led to the Read try. About 5 seconds after the game started, Moore does the exact same thing to Thrush, yet this finds no mention.

Of course Hooper's professional foul of lying ontop of the ruck and in from the side where AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) wins the penalty after the Ben Smith / Messam break isn't commented on, as well as the Genia offside from the scrum that eventually led to Kuridrani's try.

I'd suggest the author also to look at the maul at 61 minutes and see what McCalman does to Messam (who is bound the entire time): unbinds, in from behind and choking the opposition player.

I'm sure if you look at the game as a whole you'll find plenty Joubert missed and/or got wrong for either side, I thought he had a particular mediocre game.

The point is, the article reads as if the Wallabies were (as always) the unlucky ones regarding the referee, and you just have to read the comments on there and those going along the lines of "ABs aren't that good, refs only cut them more slack" are the ones that get upvoted 50 times. The wallowing in self-pity is just cringeworthy.

You meant comment? As in one - at the time you wrote this?
I think that maul was worth analysis, as it was clearly a contentious decision. I'll give you a tip, it's an Aussie site, so most of the analysis will be pitched from that angle.
If you'd prefer to only hear awesomeness about the All Blacks, watch Jake the Muss' video-piece that aired for 3 minutes before it (I can imagine the reaction from NZ if such a piece was made and aired here), or just hang around the Fern.
But hang around here, debate it all you like.
Incidentally, examination of one piece of play is not predicated on the fact that other errors may have been made, or offences committed.

 

[Dam0]

This call gets made from time to time, and people always seem confused by it, but the law is pretty well established, and should be understood better by the players and commentators.

If the maul stops once, you can move it forward, but if it stops a second time you have to take the ball out of the maul, going forward won't do.

I think it's rarely seen because players normally just take the ball out on instruction from the referee, but on this occasion they didn't. I can remember this occurring a few times during Super XV this year, and once in the England v NZ test last year, each time with the commentators calling it a bad decision.

 

[Braveheart81]

Whether Joubert made the correct call "to use it now" at that point is irrelevant. He made that call and the Wallabies have to release the ball from the maul. They don't have the option then to push the maul forward again.

I would argue that there was enough forward movement in the maul prior to that that the second call of the maul being stopped and to use it was incorrect but that is life.

 

[Dam0]

Whether Joubert made the correct call "to use it now" at that point is irrelevant. He made that call and the Wallabies have to release the ball from the maul. They don't have the option then to push the maul forward again.

I would argue that there was enough forward movement in the maul prior to that that the second call of the maul being stopped and to use it was incorrect but that is life.

I think you would be on stronger ground in arguing that the first stoppage was premature. The second time looked very stationary to me.

 

[Braveheart81]

The biggest problem the Wallabies had in that game was that three of our forwards were complete passengers.

Slipper, Alexander and Horwill were all completely ineffectual apart from in the scrum and it killed our competitiveness in many areas. Slipper and Alexander had pretty solid games in the scrum but around the park were awful. Slipper getting held up twice and turned over and Alexander missing a bunch of tackles. Horwill with that simple dropped ball and was generally anonymous around the park.

A fair bit has been said about our lack of competitiveness at the breakdown but I think much of that is down to the fact that our backrow had to work ridiculously hard in defence and were distracted from their core duties.

Mowen got through a lot of defence but was also not very involved at the breakdown or as a ball runner.

We simply can't compete with the All Blacks forward pack if we've got players not pulling their weight.

Getting benched for a couple of games did wonders for Will Genia. Maybe against England, Fardy should return to lock and our backrow can stay the same. In the last few tests, Rob Simmons has certainly shown that he's in better form than Horwill.

 

[Ruggo]

In fairness to Joubert, that maul was a split second thing that it started going forward after he made the call to use it. It had clearly ceased momentum when he made his call. Got to blame the Wallabies for not clearing it as they were instructed.

In real time I think Joubert made the right call.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think you would be on stronger ground in arguing that the first stoppage was premature. The second time looked very stationary to me.

Yeah, that's fair.

Whatever happened, it was dumb play by the Wallabies. They'd been told to use it and rather than get the ball out to Genia (and him scream for the ball), they decided to push forward again.