[2013 TRC] New Zealand vs Argentina in Hamilton (07/09/2013)

[Tony Manx]

It was pretty average to be honest. This would have been something like 40-6 in dry conditions. The Pumas could have played far better than that.

And a 23 point loss is much to boast about either and that would have been more to if it were not a more conservatively played RWC knockout match and the referee used the yellow card earlier for persistent penalties.

Did you get out the "I want an argument" side of the bed this morning?

 

[Jaguares]

Ranger has made himself unavailable for international rugby, so there is not much point in putting his name forward is there.

I know that is why I'm angry since I learned of his departure to France

 

[Big Ewis]

I know that is why I'm angry since I learned of his departure to France

I dunno, I think it's got something to do with teh moneys.

 

[austingtir]

I didnt really rate Saili in this game either. Nonu is way way better than him atm (still clearly the best international second five in the world imo). I really dont think Nonu has anything to worry about from Saili.

Saili is a fine player but he clearly needs more time to develop.

SA is going to be a huge game cant wait for that. Mccaw gone..... evens things up alot.

 

[marianodan]

Second year in a row that a downpour has prevented the All Blacks from thrashing the Pumas in this fixture.

You know, it's rain, not kryptonite.

 

[jessta]

I didnt really rate Saili in this game either. Nonu is way way better than him atm (still clearly the best international second five in the world imo).I really dont think Nonu has anything to worry about from Saili.

Saili is a fine player but he clearly needs more time to develop.

SA is going to be a huge game cant wait for that. Mccaw gone..... evens things up alot.

Surley jean de villers over nonu any day... and maybe jaime roberts?

 

[smartcooky]

You know, it's rain, not kryptonite.

Perhaps not, but there is an old saying that bad weather is "The Great Leveller", and its 100% true.

 

[Larksea]

apart from the one mistake that handed Argentina a try Saili had a bloody good game. Strong running and his passing was very good, generally better passing than we see from Nonu in an average test.

 

[Tony Manx]

... and maybe jaime roberts?

You are joking aren't you? He may have been a challenger before his big injury but that was a couple of years back!

 

[InsaneAsylum]

agree'd saili started with a blunder but picked himself up nicely and had a good game.

great game to watch even with the rain, I was equally impressed with Argentina and the All Blacks

 

[jessta]

The all blacks selections for sa are gonna be very interesting. Im interested to see whether luatua starts even though messam rreturns ( think he should). But then does messam make the bench with no openside cover? Maybe they will start messam and put luatua as lock cover with todd on the bench for backrow cover... alot to ponder on. Will charles piutau make the bench with dc covering 12 or will they be compelled to put saili on the bench to cover centers? Interesting stuff!

 

[hjklhjkl]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/9140204/Matt-Todd-called-in-as-cover-for-Richie-McCaw

Matt Todd called in as cover for Mccaw. I imagine Cane will start with Todd on the bench against SA which means Messam (if fit) will probably start at 6 with Luatua on bench as blindside/lock cover. i hope I'm wrong as I'd love to see Luatua up against the Boks.

 

[Colombia]

It was pretty average to be honest. This would have been something like 40-6 in dry conditions. The Pumas could have played far better than that.

And a 23 point loss is much to boast about either and that would have been more to if it were not a more conservatively played RWC knockout match and the referee used the yellow card earlier for persistent penalties.

Who's boasting? I'm pointing out this fixture in NZ usually has a 15pt difference between the teams after being competitive for 60 minutes irrespective of weather. It was only a late Read on 80 minutes which inflated the RWC score. 26-10 might have been more reflective of the match, but 33-10 in NZ at a home World Cup ain't bad for Argentina, the Wobs didn't fare that much better a week later.

Your use of 'would' on multiple occasions is telling, in sport and in life we tend to be more concerned with what 'is'. Pumas have rallied well after a tough start in the RC. Credit to Phelan, Henry, the team and whoever else for turning things around.

 

[William18]

Luatua has to start against the Boks. We need his physicality at the breakdown area. The coaches also can't use him out wide against the Boks. We will need him at the contact area.

 

[psychic duck]

Who's boasting? I'm pointing out this fixture in NZ usually has a 15pt difference between the teams after being competitive for 60 minutes irrespective of weather. It was only a late Read on 80 minutes which inflated the RWC score. 26-10 might have been more reflective of the match, but 33-10 in NZ at a home World Cup ain't bad for Argentina, the Wobs didn't fare that much better a week later.

Your use of 'would' on multiple occasions is telling, in sport and in life we tend to be more concerned with what 'is'. Pumas have rallied well after a tough start in the RC. Credit to Phelan, Henry, the team and whoever else for turning things around.

So your judging a pattern based on 1 match? That was RWC knockout match and it was par as opposed to all that impressive. No other top 8 team would be thinking a 23 point loss was all that great. Australia weren't exactly praising their effort in the semi final unlike Argentina who were full of it.

I also disagree that the Pumas played well in this game, given the conditions they should have kept it closer. The ball carrying was ineffective and there is no attacking pattern or invention to the play. Rarely is even an inside ball, a loop, a switch or anything attempted other than simple passing and rubbish kicks ahead. When you don't have big ball carriers, you need more than chip aheads to challenge a defence.

There was a thread on Phelan lately and nearly every match put forward in his defence by the apologists was a "brave effort" in a loss. Yet despite that, in the more winnable matches they have consistently failed to take the win. 2 wins and a draw in 5 years against top 8 opposition says it all, and that is what "is". Scotland have more wins against the Tri Nations sides than Argentina have against the top 4 6 Nations sides under Phelan.

When Ireland or England came close to South Africa last year but lost at home, or Wales when they lost closely to Australia and South Africa so often, I hardly heard any of their fans be delighted with the result. But when Argentina do it is seen as great by the Phelan apologists. It's almost as if they are yearning to be back in the 1990's and return to the status quo. South Africa at home and Australia are eminently beatable, Argentina are a good enough side not to have people bleating on with platitudes about effort and should be taking more of the chances they get (England 2011, South Africa & Australia 2012, South Africa 2013 spring to mind).

 

[Big Ewis]

@ psychic:
now I can't talk about the NZ ARG game, haven't seen it yet...and you may have a point globally, but obviously that SA side that barely won in Ireland and Twickenham last year wasn't nearly as strong as this current one. They've replenished since, and started playing much better as of 2013. I mean they were struggling in Scotland, no offense to the latter, but they had to count on that fat-ass blonde kid Strauss to score tries : p
And Argentina still are the challengers, the outsiders, and heavily the underdog. It's only their second tournament ever still. And their performance overall last year was admirable. Sure they couldn't follow through with the efforts all 80min long, but one can't just erase everything else they'd managed. I won't go through it all yet again, but a draw at home against the Boks+ their performance in NZ+ both games against the Wallabies are fine results in deed.

Sides like Wales or England don't brag about coming close against such SANZAR teams because it would be ridiculous they would, they've been Tier 1 since the dawn of Rugby. Argentina still are a complete anomaly of a Tier 1 side. No local pro league, players dispersed all around France, and then add some injuries here and there and they're out of focus. They're still "young" in the grand scheme of int'l Rugby, not overall as a nation, they got 3rd place two RWC ago, but as a challenger against the SANZAR nations.
As fans, we must stay humble and just can't expect their backs to run rampant and score 3 tries each match, string the prettiest attacks with consistency like Dagg and DCarter and co., and the rest can only take them so far. They've just found their scrum again, and managed a fine result at home against a formidable SA side these past few months.

Their attack however is a disappointment, granted. Esp. after what you've said about this past NZ match, which I haven't seen, but will take your word they were without imagination - as they have been for the past few showings.

 

[austingtir]

Luatua has to start against the Boks. We need his physicality at the breakdown area. The coaches also can't use him out wide against the Boks. We will need him at the contact area.

I dunno about this. I would be starting Messam for this game. He is just way more experienced and even though it was good as far as seagulling goes we havent seen Luatua against a real quality side yet.

SA are going to rolling maul the hell out of us they are crazy if they dont. We NEED Messam to start this game trust me.

 

[psychic duck]

@ psychic:
now I can't talk about the NZ ARG game, haven't seen it yet...and you may have a point globally, but obviously that SA side that barely won in Ireland and Twickenham last year wasn't nearly as strong as this current one. They've replenished since, and started playing much better as of 2013. I mean they were struggling in Scotland, no offense to the latter, but they had to count on that fat-ass blonde kid Strauss to score tries : p
And Argentina still are the challengers, the outsiders, and heavily the underdog. It's only their second tournament ever still. And their performance overall last year was admirable. Sure they couldn't follow through with the efforts all 80min long, but one can't just erase everything else they'd managed. I won't go through it all yet again, but a draw at home against the Boks+ their performance in NZ+ both games against the Wallabies are fine results in deed.

Sides like Wales or England don't brag about coming close against such SANZAR teams because it would be ridiculous they would, they've been Tier 1 since the dawn of Rugby. Argentina still are a complete anomaly of a Tier 1 side. No local pro league, players dispersed all around France, and then add some injuries here and there and they're out of focus. They're still "young" in the grand scheme of int'l Rugby, not overall as a nation, they got 3rd place two RWC ago, but as a challenger against the SANZAR nations.
As fans, we must stay humble and just can't expect their backs to run rampant and score 3 tries each match, string the prettiest attacks with consistency like Dagg and DCarter and co., and the rest can only take them so far. They've just found their scrum again, and managed a fine result at home against a formidable SA side these past few months.

Their attack however is a disappointment, granted. Esp. after what you've said about this past NZ match, which I haven't seen, but will take your word they were without imagination - as they have been for the past few showings.

This is BS. It doesn't matter how good or how long teams have been, if they are up to a certain standard now you don't set the standards to what was the status quo in the 1990's. If Italy managed to rise up in the world of rugby and had a much more capable group of players, then it would be ridiculous for them to blow a chance of winning against Ireland and be satisfied just because they normally lost to them throughout the last decade and be happy as the achieved in terms to the status quo.

Hardly that new as a challenger against the SANZAR nations. They had better results against New Zealand in the last decade than the 33-10 scores they celebrate these days. It was 10 years ago now that they lost by just a last minute kick playing in South Africa's back yard. Setting lower standards is a certain pathway to mediocrity.

That result in Mendoza wasn't fine either. They should have won that game. You didn't see Ireland cheering about losing by 4 points to SA last November, neither should Argentina who have been on a similar level to them since 1999.

 

[Big Ewis]

Setting lower standards is a certain pathway to mediocrity.

Certainly, that much is right. I do disagree with the rest, though I see where you're coming from. I don't think it's an 'excuse' for Argentina, obviously their defeat in Johannesburg was an absolute disgrace. It's just silly it happened, it's comparable to France losing at home to Australia in 2010 (though that was the last match of the year, and obviously physical freshness just clearly wasn't there for France). They're things that downright shouldn't happen.
But here, any Tier 1 nation playing a good game could have taken a big phallus in their behinds in NZ, you're never sheltered from being annihilated there, no matter how focused and galvanized your troops are. Argentina managed 28-13 there, 15-10 at HT (AB)...and looked very good against the Boks at home, and that's quite a rebound (17-22).
I know what you mean, but I don't think it's a matter of making excuses. Losing close matches at the very end can mean many things, but if it's the same squad that falls short many times in a row (i.e.: Wales, the perfect paradigm in that exercise) then that recurrent pattern means something.
For Argentina, it just means they can't keep that level for 80min, which is normal, because they're constantly punching higher than their weight. They're actually leading in many of those efforts, but it's only a matter of time before the level naturally drops - you can't suspend the weight up in mid-air forever, and with time they'll up their endurance and will still have oxygen in those last 15-20 minutes.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I do disagree with the rest, though I see where you're coming from.

That is a typical politician/teacher sentence that people say when they lost/are about to lose an argument...