NZ struggling to cope with Northern Hemisphere physicallity?

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 25 Nov 2013, 12:12 pm

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......

by Scratch Tue 26 Nov 2013, 7:43 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:The stats I used from espnscrum are fairly consistent with those being reported and used elsewhere.

But moreso and overwhelmingly, just watching the game gives it away.

Yeah, the NZ scrum has been a bit creaky this year and the entirely rotated front row we used in the opening against Ireland had a few problems. But 11/11 against France whilst forcing the French into crucially timed scrum errors goes to show were nobody's whipping boys in the set piece. Perhaps England have out all their eggs in the scrum basket and as a consequence the line out was disasterous and lost them the game? It's all about finding that balance.

Culturally, NZ have overwhelmed the traditional strong man approach of SA and forced them to modify their game and become more expansive. If some of these huffing and puffing NH sides played NZ more regularly, they too would get sick of losing In the same manner year after year and adapt as well. I think England need to let go of this bravado-macho idea that rugby is a metaphor some homoerotic testosterone fueled masogynistic orgy. For ten years, and long past it's sell by date in 2003 England have persisted with the "power game" believing if they can just pound enough monstrous beef into the midfield they might just be successful again. Time to grow some skill and athleticism and let go of the primal urge to bash anything that grasps a rugby ball with a blunt mallet.

Crumbs, i bet you wife insists on having the lights off when you're huffing and puffing

by GloriousEmpire Tue 26 Nov 2013, 7:45 pm

Cyril wrote:homoerotic?

Yeah, but in context with the rest of the phrase (borrowed, not mine unfortunately). This love of seeing big men running and collapsing in a pile as though it's an end in itself.

England "dominated" this and "destroyed" that and "overwhelmed" the other. It's all language indicative of a manly love of seeing manly men being manly. Which is all well and good but is it winning any games of rugby? Not really.

by Cyril Tue 26 Nov 2013, 7:45 pm

It won't be long before GloriousEmpire calls someone a 'fag' or threatens to glass them again (and then claim it was all a joke).

All this when NZ won as well.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 26 Nov 2013, 7:53 pm

Thank goodness I'm back for now Cyril, or you'd have no one to follow around all day or post attention seeking one liners at, right?

I never threatened to glass anyone. I suggested TJ might need a picture of a broken glass for when he was drunk enough to break a glass, because he had spent the entire day communicating with me via pictographs and emoticons. It was just widely misinterpreted, and I did apologise right away given the misunderstanding.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 26 Nov 2013, 7:58 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Englands lineout with Hartley was superb, however Youngs struggled badly when he came on. Did you actually watch the game? Or any game come to that?

A game is 80 minutes long. If your lineout is a shambles for 20 of those minutes that's a whole quarter of the game. Perhaps if England had selected a better lineout thrower and put less eggs in the "dooooominating the front row" basket, they might've avoided it. That's all I'm saying, fairly innocuous I would've thought?

by Cyril Tue 26 Nov 2013, 8:01 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:I never threatened to glass anyone. I suggested TJ might need a picture of a broken glass for when he was drunk enough to break a glass, because he had spent the entire day communicating with me via pictographs and emoticons. It was just widely misinterpreted, and I did apologise right away given the misunderstanding.

Nope, you changed tack quickly when you realised you had stepped over the line (again). It was quite obvious what you meant hence your latest little holiday.

It wasn't very classy, but then again using homophobia to score points as you did on the referee thread wasn't a great moment either.

Still, I guess you need a break from your anti-English rhetoric occasionally.

It was very pleasant not having to see your bile all over the English threads as per usual.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 26 Nov 2013, 8:02 pm

Who used homophobia?

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Nov 2013, 8:10 pm

You said England put all the eggs in a scrum basket and that the consequence was that the lineout was disasterous. Just not correct at all. fF anything the lineout which started the game was superior to the scrum. It was what the performance was built on. Once Youngs came on that went to pot but Youngs isn't renowned for either of his set pieces but his work around the pitch. I'm not bothered about a comment being innocuous but it just seemed you didn't watch the game.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 26 Nov 2013, 8:18 pm

I saw it. England lost three crucial lineout throws. NZ scored a try from one and a penalty from another.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Nov 2013, 8:21 pm

So you didn't think Englands lineout was good while Hartley was on? Seriously?

by GloriousEmpire Tue 26 Nov 2013, 8:26 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Lineout hardly equals physicality, it's common knowledge Youngs can't throw.

This is my point. The obsession with this "physicality" thing is becoming an all encompassing desire in itself. The lineout is one half if the core role of the forwards set piece responsibility. To say NZ suck are feeble and will clearly crumble because they allegedly can't hack some tangential chest thumping contest that results in neither a set piece platform, nor actual ball possession, nor the generation of scoring opportunities via penalties seems odd to me.

If you want to win the "who has the biggest biceps" contest, then whatever, but that's not a scoring mode in rugby and apparently doesn't set a platform for one either.

by stlowe Tue 26 Nov 2013, 11:38 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:NZ v Eng : ruck success NZ 97% ENG 90.7%
NZ v Fra : scrum success NZ 100% FRA 83%
NZ v Ire : scrum success NZ 100% IRE 83%

Source: espnscrum.com, nzherald.

Fra v NZ
61% (69%/53%) Possession (1H/2H) 39% (31%/47%)
62% (71%/53%) Territory (1H/2H) 38% (29%/47%)
88 from 89 (98.9%) Rucks won 52 from 55 (94.5%)
2 from 2 (100.0%) Mauls won 2 from 2 (100.0%)
4 won, 1 lost (80.0%) Scrums on own feed 5 won, 2 lost (71.4%)

Eng v NZ
62% (66%/60%) Possession (1H/2H) 38% (34%/40%)
60% (66%/55%) Territory (1H/2H) 40% (34%/45%)
107 from 118 (90.7%) Rucks won 60 from 62 (96.8%)
5 from 7 (71.4%) Mauls won 2 from 4 (50.0%)
5 won, 1 lost (83.3%) Scrums on own feed 3 won, 2 lost (60.0%)

Ire v NZ
47% (57%/38%) Possession (1H/2H) 53% (43%/62%)
46% (58%/34%) Territory (1H/2H) 54% (42%/66%)
94 from 98 (95.9%) Rucks won 114 from 123 (92.7%)
6 from 7 (85.7%) Mauls won 1 from 2 (50.0%)
5 won, 1 lost (83.3%) Scrums on own feed 5 won, 0 lost (100.0%)

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/174681.html
http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/173972.html
http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/174682.html

by gelodge Wed 27 Nov 2013, 12:10 am

It's generally a safe bet that when he doesn't provide a link the quotes and stats he provides are corrupted.

by quinsforever Wed 27 Nov 2013, 1:21 am

Bullsbok wrote:
quinsforever wrote:good thoughts canelion. i rarely get to watch SR.

does seem like teams are getting tactically smarter, both pre-game, and during the game (NZ still the best at changing game-plan midstride if somethings not working). i think Eng in particular identified the lack of players committed to the ruck as a potential weakness if england did commit players to the ruck, but most importantly england recognised that if you spin it wide you are going to get turned over with the extra numbers in defense that the ABs had. was really interesting to watch.

it is definitely the danger for any team who is one dimensional in their play that the oppo identifies it and counters it effectively. NZ are the least guilty in this regard. But SA, Wales, England could be put in this box potentially.
I like to think SA are not as one dimensional as people seem to think nowadays. And our ruck play has massively improved this year too .

in SAs case its really a backhanded compliment because your pack seems to be going from strength to strength. the two rolling maul from lineout tries against scotland were pretty unbelievable. haven't seen that kind of dominance since schoolboy days. i think SA has great backs, but monstrous forwards, so there is a risk that they may become overly focused on the forwards. which actually i think in their case, given how much they might be able to dominate, is their best plan for RWC2015.

terrify everyone in the forwards. keep morne steyn fit to kick the pens conceded vs your monsters, then occasionally spread it very wide very fast, or kick to the wings.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 27 Nov 2013, 6:42 am

So those stats you kept harping on about where indeed a fabrication, now theres a shock.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:00 am

I wonder what the difference between the Ellis Park test and the European tests was. At Eden Park NZ players felt the intensity of SA and despite some injuries and blood pouring from Cane I think we absorbed that physicality. At Ellis Park, perhaps the fact that the Boks wanted to play with width meant they too didn't commit many players to rucks. That said when SA tried rolling mauls from the line out NZ were able to shut them down. Where they found the gaps was through their backs. That suggests to me that both sides were able to negate each other's strengths for large parts of the game but SA in particular surprised NZ on attack.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:03 am

But hang on Pooly, Are you saying that GE is lying with his scrum stats?.... it seems to me he is bang on correct.

Or is it some other statistic?

by GloriousEmpire Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:17 am

stlowe wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:NZ v Eng : ruck success NZ 97% ENG 90.7%
NZ v Fra : scrum success NZ 100% FRA 83%
NZ v Ire : scrum success NZ 100% IRE 83%

Source: espnscrum.com, nzherald.
Fra v NZ
61% (69%/53%) Possession (1H/2H) 39% (31%/47%)
62% (71%/53%) Territory (1H/2H) 38% (29%/47%)
88 from 89 (98.9%) Rucks won 52 from 55 (94.5%)
2 from 2 (100.0%) Mauls won 2 from 2 (100.0%)
4 won, 1 lost (80.0%) Scrums on own feed 5 won, 2 lost (71.4%)

Eng v NZ
62% (66%/60%) Possession (1H/2H) 38% (34%/40%)
60% (66%/55%) Territory (1H/2H) 40% (34%/45%)
107 from 118 (90.7%) Rucks won 60 from 62 (96.8%)
5 from 7 (71.4%) Mauls won 2 from 4 (50.0%)
5 won, 1 lost (83.3%) Scrums on own feed 3 won, 2 lost (60.0%)

Ire v NZ
47% (57%/38%) Possession (1H/2H) 53% (43%/62%)
46% (58%/34%) Territory (1H/2H) 54% (42%/66%)
94 from 98 (95.9%) Rucks won 114 from 123 (92.7%)
6 from 7 (85.7%) Mauls won 1 from 2 (50.0%)
5 won, 1 lost (83.3%) Scrums on own feed 5 won, 0 lost (100.0%)

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/174681.html
http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/173972.html
http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/174682.html

Don't get your point, these stats are identic to the ones I posted other than a disagreement about scrum success against France - guess it depends how you define success and who collated the stats.

Anyway, they clearly show that NZ dominated the collision area against England, which was the main thrust of my point.

by GloriousEmpire Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:20 am

aucklandlaurie wrote: But hang on Pooly, Are you saying that GE is lying with his scrum stats?.... it seems to me he is bang on correct.

Or is it some other statistic?

Yep, I think he leapt in without reading and assumed someone else posting the exact same stats meant there was a discrepancy. It does pay to read before you leap to conclusions.

These stats paint a pretty clear picture of the All Blacks game plan if you think about it.

NZ are kicking an awful lot of possession away. England were flooding the breakdown. England put themselves through what is it? 120 rucks? That's 120 times that virtually the entire pack threw themselves into the zone and then got up - huge waste of energy. NZ had few men at each England ruck and only required half that number of contacts to score their tries. No wonder England were knackered and NZ had the legs to out them away.

Same story against Ireland.

Like I said: huffing hand puffing versus actual clinical effectiveness.

Prior to the AI's there was an article from NZ that said much this very thing...NH will be fixated on stats, meters gained, ruck arrivals, territory percentage, blah blah blah - NZ on the other hand will play energy conserving guerrilla rugby, strike when the opportunity appears and run them off their ineffective percentages game. I think stu Barnes even read it out at one point on air during the game.

Spot. On.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:26 am

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.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:27 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:
stlowe wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:NZ v Eng : ruck success NZ 97% ENG 90.7%
NZ v Fra : scrum success NZ 100% FRA 83%NZ v Ire : scrum success NZ 100% IRE 83%

Source: espnscrum.com, nzherald.
Fra v NZ
61% (69%/53%) Possession (1H/2H) 39% (31%/47%)
62% (71%/53%) Territory (1H/2H) 38% (29%/47%)
88 from 89 (98.9%) Rucks won 52 from 55 (94.5%)
2 from 2 (100.0%) Mauls won 2 from 2 (100.0%)
4 won, 1 lost (80.0%) Scrums on own feed 5 won, 2 lost (71.4%)

Eng v NZ
62% (66%/60%) Possession (1H/2H) 38% (34%/40%)
60% (66%/55%) Territory (1H/2H) 40% (34%/45%)
107 from 118 (90.7%) Rucks won 60 from 62 (96.8%)
5 from 7 (71.4%) Mauls won 2 from 4 (50.0%)
5 won, 1 lost (83.3%) Scrums on own feed 3 won, 2 lost (60.0%)

Ire v NZ
47% (57%/38%) Possession (1H/2H) 53% (43%/62%)
46% (58%/34%) Territory (1H/2H) 54% (42%/66%)
94 from 98 (95.9%) Rucks won 114 from 123 (92.7%)
6 from 7 (85.7%) Mauls won 1 from 2 (50.0%)
5 won, 1 lost (83.3%) Scrums on own feed 5 won, 0 lost (100.0%)

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/174681.html
http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/173972.html
http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/174682.html
Don't get your point, these stats are identic to the ones I posted other than a disagreement about scrum success against France - guess it depends how you define success and who collated the stats.

Anyway, they clearly show that NZ dominated the collision area against England, which was the main thrust of my point.

No they're not.

You only posted 3 stats and 1 was incorrect....nice work.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:34 am

Pooly you are very confusing:

When I read your article you appear to be basing your conclusions on watching the Ireland game last weekend, and the previous match (England).

But am I now to presume that you were actually talking about France?

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:36 am

To be fair stats rarely tell the whole story anyway and can be often twisted in whatever way to suit.

If you actually watched the games it was pretty obvious that NZ struggled upfront and their backline got them out of jail on a number of occasions.

I was thinking about scrums and NZ are well down the pecking order and it's something they'll need to address if they stand a chance of retaining the WC.

Scrum rankings?

1. Argentina
2. France
3. SA
4. England
5. Wales
6. Italy
7. Scotland
8. Ireland
9. Austrailia
10. New Zealand

Pretty accurate?

by aucklandlaurie Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:41 am

Pooly theres more to rugby than scrums.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:49 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Pooly theres more to rugby than scrums.

No theres not!!!

I know this auckland but it's just an area I think NZ are weak in, as well as the pack in general.

by GloriousEmpire Wed 27 Nov 2013, 7:54 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:To be fair stats rarely tell the whole story anyway and can be often twisted in whatever way to suit.

If you actually watched the games it was pretty obvious that NZ struggled upfront and their backline got them out of jail on a number of occasions.

I was thinking about scrums and NZ are well down the pecking order and it's something they'll need to address if they stand a chance of retaining the WC.

Scrum rankings?

1. Argentina
2. France
3. SA
4. England
5. Wales
6. Italy
7. Scotland
8. Ireland
9. Austrailia
10. New Zealand

Pretty accurate?

Sigh. Pooly, you are fairly low down the list of WUMs, mate.

Pitiful effort.

Incredible though isn't it? NZ the undisputed dominant team in world rugby and we do it with the 10th best scrum in the world. Imagine when we fix that too! Man, the European teams won't get a point off us, considering all their points apparently derive from their scrum "dominance".

Personally I come back to my point from yesterday, the metaphorical one.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 27 Nov 2013, 8:01 am

Your points are half baked at best GE.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 27 Nov 2013, 8:04 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Pooly theres more to rugby than scrums.

No theres not!!!

I know this auckland but it's just an area I think NZ are weak in, as well as the pack in general.

Tell me Pooly, how do you know this?

by GloriousEmpire Wed 27 Nov 2013, 8:04 am

Half baked is better than the raw dough being offered up by some here mate.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 27 Nov 2013, 8:08 am

I'm not sure it is to be honest.

by GloriousEmpire Wed 27 Nov 2013, 8:15 am

Which part of my analysis do you disagree with in particular?

by No 7&1/2 Wed 27 Nov 2013, 8:28 am

Your analysis in general is flawed as you deliberately miss parts out. You know this but continue to do it for reasons unexplained. Because of this nothing you say can really be taken too seriously.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 27 Nov 2013, 8:35 am

..in particular?

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 27 Nov 2013, 8:49 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Pooly theres more to rugby than scrums.

No theres not!!!

I know this auckland but it's just an area I think NZ are weak in, as well as the pack in general.
Tell me Pooly, how do you know this?

I know there's more to rugby than scrums.

It's a big weakness for NZ though, I don't think the NH teams targeted as much as they should. I'm sure Rowntree and co will have noticed though and it could be a real Achilles for NZ building up to the WC

by aucklandlaurie Wed 27 Nov 2013, 8:55 am

We're more worried about 2013, if more countries concentrated on current issues they'd probably find more success than they are currently experiencing.

The World cup isnt for another two years.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 27 Nov 2013, 8:58 am

Hansen is well aware of the areas to work on. I for one hope that teams think NZ are weak up front and in the pack in general and only need to improve in the backs to beat NZ.

I think we'll see some adjustments in Super rugby and the general standard of teams on display in autumn will keep the players and coaching staff mindful of new points of attack.

by Guest Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:20 am

Pooly, I think our forwards also have the skillset of backs, which may not be said of most teams. That last try against Ireland went through a fair few forwards' hands and the hooker popped the final pass. I don't think our forwards are a weakness at all, more likely the point of difference instead. See many of Reads offloads in the AIs, the flick passes? Don't recall many of our scrums getting demolished as if they were 'weak' either. Remember the French handling in that last scrum because ours dominated theirs?

by GloriousEmpire Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:25 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Your analysis in general is flawed as you deliberately miss parts out. You know this but continue to do it for reasons unexplained. Because of this nothing you say can really be taken too seriously.

You know, it's easier to have a discussion if you present your argument rather than implying a weakness in mine that don't quite ever express.

NZ choose to select, train and play for a balance between set piece domination and creating just enough platform to provide scoring opportunities.

We may not "smash" every scrum or pile 10 guys into each ruck, but don't imagine for a second that's a weakness. The All Blacks forwards are able to link with the backs, have the fitness to last 80 minutes and operate in a dispersed pod system maximising the width of the defensive line.

As I've said, for all the huffing and puffing and giant demented oxen crashing into the midfield, England didn't manage to achieve any attacking cohesion and scrambled just one messy try.

It's a battle of styles, no doubt. But on this occasion the All Blacks style prevailed. When you see a style prevailing so consistently you have to wonder if England et al can really deliver any improvement in their implementation of their 10 man style, or if like SA have chosen to do, they need to adapt.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:33 am

It was more of a statement GE. You misrepresent alot of your arguments. Little but important things. A missed sentence here and there. A couple of stats that would add context. It's fair enough given your aim but it means that any discussion isn't really on a level footing. If you want to start having proper discussions I'd welcome that.

by GloriousEmpire Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:35 am

Mate, as I've said. Why not actually make your point rather than suggesting a vague flaw might exist somewhere.

I'm not writing a phd thesis here, just making some comments on some rugby. Loosen up, let me know your thoughts.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:35 am

"Pooly, I think our forwards also have the skillset of backs, which may not be said of most teams"

Thats a great point ebop, I do agree with that.

I've always found NZ to at least match teams physically as well though and I don't think they have this series.

I remember the tour in 2010 or 11 when they basically schooled us in every department.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:45 am

It's just a general comment about your posts GE. Nothing major but a lot of your history suggests you're not really trying to make proper points. If you want an example I've seen you say that Joubert changed his interpretation mid match. Did he really?

by GloriousEmpire Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:48 am

If you watch the game, then yes, it appears to me that he did. Check the last 20 minutes. Seems to be a clear change in his tolerance for players competing whilst off their feet.

Richie can clearly be seen having a chat with him, explaining a few things and he says something like "I'll keep an eye on it". From there on in, there's a definite change.

It's also widely reported that he had a chat with All Blacks management after the game and explained his reasoning and admitted he needed to rethink his chicken and egg refereeing.

by Guest Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:50 am

I kinda do agree with you though pooly but temper it a bit by saying that we definitely did not dominate. Don't think we have for a while now. Ireland for instance seemed to play more agressivly than us. Healy steamrolled McCaw real good Lomu style. England were big boys smashing us to. But we stood our ground and although we didn't smash yas, we provided the goods to set up the backs at least. I see where you're coming from though but 'weak' is hard to swallow. Probably a work on as others have said though.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:56 am

I think Farrell's push on Cruden as Joubert was talking to him was a turning point. Check the penalty count from that moment on.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 27 Nov 2013, 10:59 am

So his explanation (albeit from Hansen et al) that he didn't change his interpretation but that if someone challenged at the ruck when there was sealing off the SO would be penalised whereas if people stood off it wouldn't be is now being ignored by yourself even though you've read that article?

Just a small example but one which is repeated through your posts. If you're really bothered change your style but I don't think you are as you're just trying to amuse yourself. What you get out of it i don't know. It's not wumming as it's normally too obvious to get wound up about.

Anyhow just an observation.

by GloriousEmpire Wed 27 Nov 2013, 11:03 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:So his explanation (albeit from Hansen et al) that he didn't change his interpretation but that if someone challenged at the ruck when there was sealing off the SO would be penalised whereas if people stood off it wouldn't be is now being ignored by yourself even though you've read that article?

Just a small example but one which is repeated through your posts. If you're really bothered change your style but I don't think you are as you're just trying to amuse yourself. What you get out of it i don't know. It's not wumming as it's normally too obvious to get wound up about.

Anyhow just an observation.

I think you might be failing to read between the lines in what Hansen said.

by GloriousEmpire Wed 27 Nov 2013, 11:04 am

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I think Farrell's push on Cruden as Joubert was talking to him was a turning point. Check the penalty count from that moment on.

Andy or his son? I didn't see that incident. I'll check it out later.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 27 Nov 2013, 11:16 am

The son. Cruden was speaking to Joubert who had stopped play and Farrell wanted to get going and shoved him out the way. Joubert told Farrell he was talking to Cruden and said he was entitled to be there. Found it an interesting moment in the match and my impression was the England penalty count dried up from then on. Could be way off but that's how I felt during the game.

Frankly, all three NH teams played well in this AI series and deserved to put NZ under pressure. There's no shame in losing to that kind of performance. I never saw it from France or Ireland in the 6N apart from Wales vs Ireland and less so France vs England. People focus on the parts where NZ were under the pump but seem to forget when NZ did the same. Best's try and Ben Frank's try were no different.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 27 Nov 2013, 11:31 am

ebop wrote:I kinda do agree with you though pooly but temper it a bit by saying that we definitely did not dominate. Don't think we have for a while now. Ireland for instance seemed to play more agressivly than us. Healy steamrolled McCaw real good Lomu style. England were big boys smashing us to. But we stood our ground and although we didn't smash yas, we provided the goods to set up the backs at least. I see where you're coming from though but 'weak' is hard to swallow. Probably a work on as others have said though.

I'll certainly settle on some middle ground Wink

by Sponsored content