Ireland NZ Tour 2022

[Kevin77]

Thought it was pretty weak, I have yet to see too many 7s who aren't a shit Richie McCaw

So true.

I'm not sure if he'd really say that either.
Maybe in the heat of the moment but at the end? Seems strange

 

[Jeffrey]

Plenty of Kiwi analysis on here already so not much to add on them.

It basically feels like;

1st test - Ireland lost their composure in the 15-20 mins before half time and lost the game
2nd test - NZ lost their composure in the 15-20 mins before half time and lost the game

The details obviously break down the why but that's essentially it.

Ireland rattled NZ and they lost their discipline and made errors.
Ireland failed to adapt to the referee in the first test and paid. NZ did the same in the second.

I'm delighted ireland were able to make up for that first test as it really felt they let themselves down in 10-15 minutes which ultimately made for a nasty scoreboard.

The tight five went up a level and played like we know they can. Porter has taken time to settle in on the loosehead side but was immense on Saturday. Sheehan has all the makings of a top class hooker and Furlong showed why he is one of the very best tight head props.
Tadgh Beirne was immense.

I reckon the HIA for Retallick was a big moment too as once he went off the NZ tight five went to pieces. Much the same as the Chicago match once NZ don't have Retallick and Whitelock they become an easier proposition up front.

You'd think with Retallick fully fit, Whitelock back in harness and Savea hopefully available for the full game that All Black pack will be hungry this Saturday.

My hope is Ireland can back it up but if I'm honest I think NZ just won't want to lose a second test at home and that might just be enough.

In the first test, Ireland rattled NZ in the first 15-20 mins. But the real killer was Sevu Reece's try. It was an intercept, a spontaneous act, and went under the sticks. This was a sucker punch - for all that dominance, we are down 9 points. Conversely, for the ABs - with that lead buffer, they could relax and start playing.

But even in the first test, the Irish had:
- more defenders beaten
- more line breaks
- more offloads
- they made less tackles, but the percentage of tackles made was the same.
- Ruck percentages were about the same
- the Irish lost more line-outs
- the Irish lost 1 scrum

Sports narratives are based on the result. Based on the result, we then formulate a story on how to explain the match. The ABs put 40 points, so it was a big win. But by quantitative measure and qualitative assessment, this is just not true.

Consider how easy it has been for the IRish to carve up metres on attack. Conversely, how laboured it is for NZ, stuck at the same advantage line over and over again phase after phase. Consider the variation and deception of the Irish attack, and how predictable the ABs are. Man for man, we probably do shade the Irish just slightly. But as a team, the Irish are larger than the sum of their parts through strategy, understanding (from Leinster), and balance - there is a real balance between the big boshers and the hard grafters.

In game 2, the Irish dominated the ABs for most of the game. Name any moment in the game where the AB looked like winning. Perhaps only 1, at the stroke of halftime, with a somewhat fortuitous try to BB. But there was a major difference.
The Irish were the ones leading. They never relinquished the lead. So they knew they had rewards, albeit not as large as they would like, for their efforts

 

[Bullrush]

In the first test, Ireland rattled NZ in the first 15-20 mins. But the real killer was Sevu Reece's try. It was an intercept, a spontaneous act, and went under the sticks. This was a sucker punch - for all that dominance, we are down 9 points. Conversely, for the ABs - with that lead buffer, they could relax and start playing.

But even in the first test, the Irish had:
- more defenders beaten
- more line breaks
- more offloads
- they made less tackles, but the percentage of tackles made was the same.
- Ruck percentages were about the same
- the Irish lost more line-outs
- the Irish lost 1 scrum

Sports narratives are based on the result. Based on the result, we then formulate a story on how to explain the match. The ABs put 40 points, so it was a big win. But by quantitative measure and qualitative assessment, this is just not true.

Consider how easy it has been for the IRish to carve up metres on attack. Conversely, how laboured it is for NZ, stuck at the same advantage line over and over again phase after phase. Consider the variation and deception of the Irish attack, and how predictable the ABs are. Man for man, we probably do shade the Irish just slightly. But as a team, the Irish are larger than the sum of their parts through strategy, understanding (from Leinster), and balance - there is a real balance between the big boshers and the hard grafters.

In game 2, the Irish dominated the ABs for most of the game. Name any moment in the game where the AB looked like winning. Perhaps only 1, at the stroke of halftime, with a somewhat fortuitous try to BB. But there was a major difference.
The Irish were the ones leading. They never relinquished the lead. So they knew they had rewards, albeit not as large as they would like, for their efforts

I think this is a bit revisionist. Last week was a big win by any assessment.

The ABs scored 6 tries to the Irish's 3 tries despite the Irish having more possession and territory. Yes, the intercept try was opportunistic but it still came from good AB defence and pressure - a strong point of the ABs in that game as you highlighted in the fact that they made more tackles but still had the same (actually, slightly higher) percentage made.

If any team was laboured in attack, it was Ireland - their first try came after 17 phases. For all that possession and territory, the Irish had less clean breaks and only 2 more defenders beaten. Their 2 other tries also were built on weight of possession after multiple phases, not great variation or deception.

I agree that apart from BB's try at half-time, the ABs never really seemed in the contest in Game 2. But given they played the majority of the game with at least 1 player less than the Irish, is that really so surprising?

For mine, the forwards definitely were a step down from Test 1 and yeah, I'm not convinced that Foster has the coaching nous and ability to get the most out of this team but if the roles had been reversed in Test 2 with the Irish getting all the cards, I think the winning margin would have been more than 11 points.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Ta’avao to front the WR (World Rugby) judiciary today (no time given) on a charge of "an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13 (a player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously) in New Zealand’s test match against Ireland on 9 July."

July tests independent disciplinary update: Angus Ta’avao (New Zealand) | World Rugby

New Zealand prop Angus Ta’avao will attend an independent disciplinary hearing after receiving a red card for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13 (A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously) in New Zealand’s test match against Ireland on 9 July.

www.world.rugby

I'm thinking a two-week suspension & much outrage from the "they're not taking this seriously enough" brigade who just can't or won't accept that not all head-on-head contact is avoidable.

 

[zer0]

Are we able to replace him - or any of the other wobble-bottom props - with younger, more dynamic, alternatives, or are we stuck with Fosters bed of thorns?

 

[KiwiM]

If any team was laboured in attack, it was Ireland - their first try came after 17 phases.

That isn't a good thing. They rolled up the field for 17 phases and scored. Almost identical to the start of test 1. Almost identical to Dublin last year. The AB scramble defence is good but it's also passive, which allows the opposition to dominate territory and possession - which in test match rugby is a killer.

The two AB tries on the weekend, one came from a fluky kick through from Beauden (who butchered a try earlier) and a try in garbage time (i.e. when the game is over).

 

[Dismal Pillock]

The wailing against Fozzie is reaching Mitch&Deans03/Henry 07 pitch

Guess Fozzie will be thinking "can't resign now, that will look like admitting defeat, like I'm quitting on the team....."

Meanwhile 99% of rugby fans in NZ is like "no we won't think that of you, you'll be doing us a service by relinquishing the reigns. It's an actual disservice to the team, the history, the "brand", the players, and most importantly the fans your financial equity overlords at Silver Lake you and your 8th string assistants staying on. Admitting you're all in over your head would be an ultimate act of bravery and national service".

 

[Marce]

Taking those away, Foster has coached 18 first-class games for the ABs. Out of those 18, he has won 11 (8 of which come against Australia and Argentina).

Are Australia and Argentina Tier 2 nations for u???

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Are Australia and Argentina Tier 2 nations for u???

 

[Dismal Pillock]

I'm kidding! Of course they are, Marce.

TBH, watching the last test I was embraced by nihilism after about 2 minutes and completely couldnt give a shit if NZ lost. Was more pumped watching those Blues preseason matches in the empty rainswept Welly rec centre.

 

[Kevin77]

In the first test, Ireland rattled NZ in the first 15-20 mins. But the real killer was Sevu Reece's try. It was an intercept, a spontaneous act, and went under the sticks. This was a sucker punch - for all that dominance, we are down 9 points. Conversely, for the ABs - with that lead buffer, they could relax and start playing.

But even in the first test, the Irish had:
- more defenders beaten
- more line breaks
- more offloads
- they made less tackles, but the percentage of tackles made was the same.
- Ruck percentages were about the same
- the Irish lost more line-outs
- the Irish lost 1 scrum

Sports narratives are based on the result. Based on the result, we then formulate a story on how to explain the match. The ABs put 40 points, so it was a big win. But by quantitative measure and qualitative assessment, this is just not true.

Consider how easy it has been for the IRish to carve up metres on attack. Conversely, how laboured it is for NZ, stuck at the same advantage line over and over again phase after phase. Consider the variation and deception of the Irish attack, and how predictable the ABs are. Man for man, we probably do shade the Irish just slightly. But as a team, the Irish are larger than the sum of their parts through strategy, understanding (from Leinster), and balance - there is a real balance between the big boshers and the hard grafters.

In game 2, the Irish dominated the ABs for most of the game. Name any moment in the game where the AB looked like winning. Perhaps only 1, at the stroke of halftime, with a somewhat fortuitous try to BB. But there was a major difference.
The Irish were the ones leading. They never relinquished the lead. So they knew they had rewards, albeit not as large as they would like, for their efforts

Stats are interesting and tell a story but the only one that matters is the scoreline.

NZ scored 6 tries to 3 and despite Ireland's possession and 'entries into the 22' NZ outscored them. They were lethal off turnover ball and arguably ireland lost their defensive nous for a period which was costly. That was the NZ I'm used to. Being totally ruthless.

Ireland were much better in the second test however there is still the issue of how hard they work to get tries. You only have to look at how dominant they were in the first half yet ended the half 10-7. If they'd shown any composure they'd have been at least another 1-2 tries in front.

It worries me that they have to get everything right (and NZ get everything wrong) for ireland to stop NZ scoring.

Maybe Ireland's attack will click this week but I if I was putting money on any one clicking it would be NZ.
Rugby is still a sport where the hungrier team can dominate by sheer will (assuming all other things are relatively equal) and I think their pride is hurt.

Objectively this is a very good Irish team (as seen in the last year with home and away wins v NZ, a win at Twickenham and a very strong showing against the best team in the world in Paris - without Sexton). On their day they can literally beat every team in the world.

The issue is that they've got a few injuries and in reality an injury to either Tadgh Furlong, Andrew Porter, either of the second rows or Sexton leaves them exposed. If they can all stay fit and play the bulk of the game in Wellington and every thing does go right then their a chance.

 

[Kevin77]

Jeffrey - you raised an interesting point about NZ shading it man for man.

After two tests anyone care to pick a combined XV of NZ/Ireland?

Here's mine for what it's worth;

1. Bower
2 Sheehan
3. Furlong
4. Retallick
5. Whitelock
6. O'Mahony
7. Van Der Flier
8. Savea
9. Smith
10. Sexton
11. Ioane (moved to wing as not impressed with either wingers)
12. Aki
13. Henshaw
14. Reece
15. Keenan

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

Lot of pundits seem to be confidently saying AB's will win the 3rd test. What are the grounds for their optimism?

"Fozzie will reveal a bold new attacking template"

LOL

"AB's always fire up after a loss"

LOL. Getting "fired up" doesnt cut it at the cutthroat altitudes of test match rugby anymore

"The senior players will get them home"

LOLLLL. The "senior players" are now indentured failures who are past their sell-by date

Apart from some tinpot intercepts and capitalising on ever-briefening spells of open field chaos, I just dont see the potential for change. A proud speedbump untethered and lost in f***ing space with no gameplan is still a speedbump.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

8. Savea

Doris for me in a red hot second.

 

[Bullrush]

That isn't a good thing. They rolled up the field for 17 phases and scored. Almost identical to the start of test 1. Almost identical to Dublin last year. The AB scramble defence is good but it's also passive, which allows the opposition to dominate territory and possession - which in test match rugby is a killer.

The two AB tries on the weekend, one came from a fluky kick through from Beauden (who butchered a try earlier) and a try in garbage time (i.e. when the game is over).

My point was that the Irish weren't playing with great variation or deception.

And while the BB try was fortuitous, it was also scored after 10 phases of rugby where the ABs were putting huge pressure on Ireland.

The reality is that at Test level rugby against Top Tier 1 opposition, teams will have to go periods of sustained defence against multiple phases of attack. Turning the ball over is not all that easy. Part of the reason the ABs often lose the possession and territory stats is because not only is their defence very good - which means the opposition struggle to score even though they can keep recycling possession but they are also very good at scoring off opposition turn-overs and mistakes. We have players like Reece, Ioane, BB, A Smith etc who can turn half gaps and opportunities into tries quickly without the weight of possession or territory.

And while the ABs may have only scored 2 tries on the weekend, so did Ireland despite having an advantage in numbers for the bulk of the game. How does an attack that apparently have so much variation and deception not score more tries despite having more players on the field?

 

[Bullrush]

Jeffrey - you raised an interesting point about NZ shading it man for man.

After two tests anyone care to pick a combined XV of NZ/Ireland?

Here's mine for what it's worth;

1. Bower
2 Sheehan
3. Furlong
4. Retallick
5. Whitelock
6. O'Mahony
7. Van Der Flier
8. Savea
9. Smith
10. Sexton
11. Ioane (moved to wing as not impressed with either wingers)
12. Aki
13. Henshaw
14. Reece
15. Keenan

I'd keep Ioane at 13 - he was huge in Test 1 and didn't get a lot of chances in Test 2.

Aki has hardly played - did he even take the field in the first Test? I'd still take him over Tupaea though sooooo...

No way I'd take Sexton over BB.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

The time is nigh to send out the bat signal to The Blues Death Squad.

6 Akira
7 Paps
8 Hoskins

Fuck the failures, Cane and Ardie.

Speedbumps and last years men.

Be brave and cut your losses.

tl/dr only the The Blues Death Squad can save Fozzie and New Zealand.

 

[KiwiM]

Part of the reason the ABs often lose the possession and territory stats is because not only is their defence very good - which means the opposition struggle to score even though they can keep recycling possession but they are also very good at scoring off opposition turn-overs and mistakes.

The AB defence isn't very good.

What's the old saying - you need to get to 20 points to beat the ABs.

Since the start of last year the ABs have conceded 20 points in 8 different tests. In the last 4 tests they've conceded 40 points, 29 points, 19 points and 23 points.

The AB defence doesn't pressure the opposition - which is why the opposition can rack up phase after phase. Combine that with the poor kicking quality of the ABs right now it means they lose the territory battle so are stuck in their own half.

The scramble defence and goal line defence is very good. The issue is they are being asked to scramble and goal line D far too much.

 

[Kevin77]

The AB defence isn't very good.

What's the old saying - you need to get to 20 points to beat the ABs.

Since the start of last year the ABs have conceded 20 points in 8 different tests. In the last 4 tests they've conceded 40 points, 29 points, 19 points and 23 points.

The AB defence doesn't pressure the opposition - which is why the opposition can rack up phase after phase. Combine that with the poor kicking quality of the ABs right now it means they lose the territory battle so are stuck in their own half.

The scramble defence and goal line defence is very good. The issue is they are being asked to scramble and goal line D far too much.

I guess you've made the point but their defence in their own 22 has been pretty decent.

In the first test they spoiled Ireland multiple times (arguably against the laws of the game - but fair play they got away with it) which killed irelands momentum.

It was their desperation in their own 22 which kept the score down in the second test too.

Part of me also thinks Ireland's attack was wasteful when they had opportunities and as someone rightly pointed out, if NZ had that numerical advantage they would have racked up 40+.

Speaking objectively, I don't feel NZ have the cattle. They are still in the top 3-4 sides in the world but whereas 5-10 years ago they had almost every player in the top 2-3 players in the world in their position, a handful of the greatest players ever and a massive amount of experience they are now just another team in the top 3-4 who can all knock each other off.

For a long time it was NZ number one in the world, daylight and then the others. They're now back to the pack.

I think other teams have closed the gap and NZ have come off their peak a touch which is great if you're a fan of any of the other sides or if you want to see a competitive top tier in rugby.

NB. Watch NZ put 50 on Ireland this weekend to put me back in my box

 

[Kevin77]

I'm quite interested to see how the game today goes.
It's interesting that the first game against the Maori and the first test against NZ mirrored each other with the 10-15 mins before halftime seeing NZ rip Ireland apart with quick tries.

Will Ireland improve and tighten up the defence or will the Maori run riot again?