NZ struggling to cope with Northern Hemisphere physicallity?

First topic message reminder :

Firstly congratulations to NZ on a fantastic year, they've been unreal and rightly deserve to again ranked Number 01 in world rugby, but......

I've not see NZ packs struggle so much for a long time.

Their scrum was often a shambles, the Irish dominated this area and they're hardly renowned for being a scrummaging unit.

England and Ireland dominated the breakdown for large parts of their respective games. NZ struggled to get a foothold in the pack in both games and relied heavily on their magical backline to produce the goods.

Yes they didn't get beat this year but I doubt many NH sides will be worried about facing New Zealand in the future knowing they can get on top in the forwards.

Now we just need to stop those backs......

NZ scrum needs to improve, granted. Especially if the guys that started against Ireland are seen as the future.

Every team will have its weak parts and its stronger ones - it's either that or they're invincible!  And we all know how so many of you go into a cold sweat if you're boxed into a corner to say such a thing about New Zealand.

So - they're not invincible.  Therefore, they'll always have weak areas that can be targeted by the right coaches with the wisest heads.

But it's all relative.  Struggling to cope with NH physicality?  
Hmmm - three wins say not enough to be panicing about it.  

I mean that, in New Zealand terms, they have the kinds of players they want - and what you might lose in a certain level of scrum resilience, you can make up for in broken field mobility and pace (and don't Ireland know about that trick)

Forwards come in many colours, New Zealand might suggest theirs does what they want them to do....which might not necessarily be what many NH sides want them to do.

SecretFly wrote:Every team will have its weak parts and its stronger ones - it's either that or they're invincible!  And we all know how so many of you go into a cold sweat if you're boxed into a corner to say such a thing about New Zealand.

So - they're not invincible.  Therefore, they'll always have weak areas that can be targeted by the right coaches with the wisest heads.

But it's all relative.  Struggling to cope with NH physicality?  
Hmmm - three wins say not enough to be panicing about it.  

I mean that, in New Zealand terms, they have the kinds of players they want - and what you might lose in a certain level of scrum resilience, you can make up for in broken field mobility and pace (and don't Ireland know about that trick)

Forwards come in many colours, New Zealand might suggest theirs does what they want them to do....which might not necessarily be what many NH sides want them to do.

Yep. Agree. Well posted.

Yeah ? Well a cure for this would be for the ABs to play Scotland !

aucklandlaurie wrote: I think what they (Sgt Pooly and Gelodge) must be saying is that unless you use "their" statistics then you are fabricating the situation.

I personally think ESPN are pretty reliable, I believe they are colated by a gang of Aussie guys.

GE's source was cited as originating from ESPN, as was Stlowe's, so all the stats should have been identical. All ESPN's sites use data from the UK company Opta Sports, which is the biggest sports data company in the world.

nth wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: I think what they (Sgt Pooly and Gelodge) must be saying is that unless you use "their" statistics then you are fabricating the situation.

I personally think ESPN are pretty reliable, I believe they are colated by a gang of Aussie guys.

GE's source was cited as originating from ESPN, as was Stlowe's, so all the stats should have been identical.  All ESPN's sites use data from the UK company Opta Sports, which is the biggest sports data company in the world.

They were sourced from the same site, which is why they were identical. On further examination. I MADE A MISTAKE. I copied the scrum stats from the wrong France game. This happened because I was browsing whilst posting in a taxi on an iphone whilst not wearing my glasses.

I hereby officially apologise for this mistake and for unintentionally misleading anyone into believing NZ won 11 scrums in the France game in the AI's rather than the last France game of the June tour.

Yes, NZ lost a couple of scrums. However, they won the vital one when it counted. When France were forced into an offence and NZ cleared their lines and won the game.

The remaining stats I posted about the England and Irish games were correct. And I stand by the assertion that they prove my point regardless of the earlier mistake.

They don't really prove anything. Stats can be very misleading and you're much better off watching the game and forging your own opinion rather than being spoon fed numbers.

Ah Pooly. I see what you did there. You tricked me into posting some stats after having said they were meaningless, and then you switched and said they were meaningless using my own argument back on me.

Yes! You have very cleverly discredited both of your own arguments. Well done!

I never bring up stats, they're pretty meaningless.

All I done was corrected you when you lied.

Just watch the games GE, rugbys great entertainment.

Thanks Pooly. Likewise to you. I find an improved viewing experience if you keep both eyes open! Happy viewing!

That's right Sgt...particularly the scoreboard. That doesn't seem to reflect the op for at least some ...8 years?
Until any 'struggle' turns into an 'L' don't see the point if the op.
Scrum laws have changed...takes a while to adjust. Through that adjustment we continue to win. And scrums, when I last checked...don't win matches.
One things for sure...the ABs learn, and scrums are no different.
No problems with the physicality. We have been better this year than the AIs. Id suggest none of the NH sides would have matched the ABs pack at Eden park vs boks this year.
Don't see any need to worry from where we sit.

The All Blacks certainly did destroy some books at home this year, didn't they? I hear Sam Whitelock tore through Pride & Predjudice on his own!

GloriousEmpire wrote:

nth wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: I think what they (Sgt Pooly and Gelodge) must be saying is that unless you use "their" statistics then you are fabricating the situation.

I personally think ESPN are pretty reliable, I believe they are colated by a gang of Aussie guys.

GE's source was cited as originating from ESPN, as was Stlowe's, so all the stats should have been identical.  All ESPN's sites use data from the UK company Opta Sports, which is the biggest sports data company in the world.

They were sourced from the same site, which is why they were identical. On further examination. I MADE A MISTAKE. I copied the scrum stats from the wrong France game. This happened because I was browsing whilst posting in a taxi on an iphone whilst not wearing my glasses.

I hereby officially apologise for this mistake and for unintentionally misleading anyone into believing NZ won 11 scrums in the France game in the AI's rather than the last France game of the June tour.

Yes, NZ lost a couple of scrums. However, they won the vital one when it counted. When France were forced into an offence and NZ cleared their lines and won the game.

The remaining stats I posted about the England and Irish games were correct. And I stand by the assertion that they prove my point regardless of the earlier mistake.

NZ v Fra 2013 Tour

1st Test: 11 won, 0 lost (100.0%) Scrums on own feed 5 won, 1 lost (83.3%)
2nd Test: 6 won, 1 lost (85.7%) Scrums on own feed 7 won, 0 lost (100.0%)
3rd Test: 4 won, 1 lost (80.0%) Scrums on own feed 12 won, 0 lost (100.0%)

GloriousEmpire wrote:Thanks Pooly. Likewise to you. I find an improved viewing experience if you keep both eyes open! Happy viewing!

Enjoy fabricating those stats GE

Thanks for that, Rainman.

Stats can be very informative in analysing a performance as long as you know how to interpret them and their limitations.

One of the things we often get on here is people not recognising this or being selective in what particular stats they put up.

It was interesting for instance that Glorious chose to give us the ruck stats for the England game and then changed to the scrum stats for the France and Ireland games.  These all favoured New Zealand (incorrectly in the case of the France game), whereas the opposite selection of stat type (scrum for England and ruck for France and Ireland) wouldn't have.  The replying poster's fuller selection of stats gave us a more open impression of how the forward battles went.

Oh FFS. Can you really not see that Pooly is having a laugh? And I'm playing along? Can you really really really honestly not see that?

Yes but they give no idea how the match went. Unless you map a stat ultimately to the final scored they never tell the full story.
Here the op is looking for a small win where the big one is lost. To do that it must be convincing. It ain't.

Like I said Taylorman, can be informative in helping to analyse but with notable limitations.

Glorious, my comment on the nature of stat use on this site from yesterday's posts really has nothing to do with any fun you might now be having with Pooly.

Wapner at three, definitely three.