[2013 TRC] New Zealand vs. Australia in Wellington (24/08/2013)

[ABs2011]

Wouldn't Tom Taylor be the prefect replacement for Nonu at 12 once carter, cruden and barrett return? seems to have showed a bit of promise at test level at 12 is his position at the crusaders right?

Nonu is a strange cat, so much talent that he's awesome, probably one of the most dangerous players when he has the ball, but he flushes it down the toilet with his lack of discipline. There was recent talk about "the rebels should sign him" as he is not contracted. I hope not, we just got rid of Cipriani, O'Connor and Beale.

I think he would be a good 12 BUT the AB game has relied on a big crash-em-up ball running 12 which Taylor isnt. They'd have to change their game plan a bit with Taylor in at 12. SBW offered that hard running style as well. I think the ABs feel they way the current game is going you need a big lad at 12 that can hit the ball up like a forward and maintain posession when needed. IMO that's why Nonu fits in and plays well for the ABs but isnt as good at Super Rugby level where coaches try and use him in a different way.

 

[IRISH RUGBY MAN]

Yup! In all seriousness I think he needs his Mum around him. She keeps him in line!

Haha Mummy Nonu looking after big son Ma'a at the age of 31

 

[IRISH RUGBY MAN]

Sonny Bill is the answer, simple

 

[ABs2011]

Haha Mummy Nonu looking after big son Ma'a at the age of 31

haha, yup! I saw her give him a good old verbal walloping at New World once. It was funny, he looked like a little kid getting told off and did exactly what she said after that as well....

 

[admartian]

haha, yup! I saw her give him a good old verbal walloping at New World once. It was funny, he looked like a little kid getting told off and did exactly what she said after that as well....

If I were Ewen Mckenzie, I would select a team full of All Black players' mums; Ben Smith's mum: "Don't you dare score a try on me, Benjamin Robert Smith!", Ben Smith: "Yes mum."

 

[ABs2011]

Sonny Bill is the answer, simple

YUP!

I couldn't stand SBW when he first came to Union but the guy won me over rather easily in the end. It was amazing how fast he picked up the game and how dominant he became. The NZRFU will do what ever it takes to get him back, be sure of that.

You almost wonder if it would be beneficial for us Union folk if Sydney win the NRL so he can tick that one off and come home.

I've heard that while he was "part of the AB RWC winning team" he wasn't satisified with how big a role he played. He will know looking at NZ rugby right now that if he comes back in time, i.e. for next seasons Super Rugby, he will likely cement the 12 spot and be a key figure in the ABs trying to go back to back...

Then and only then will he feel he has done it all...Oh and maybe wining this years Rugbly League world cup as well

 

[admartian]

YUP!

I couldn't stand SBW when he first came to Union but the guy won me over rather easily in the end. It was amazing how fast he picked up the game and how dominant he became. The NZRFU will do what ever it takes to get him back, be sure of that.

You almost wonder if it would be beneficial for us Union folk if Sydney win the NRL so he can tick that one off and come home.

I've heard that while he was "part of the AB RWC winning team" he wasn't satisified with how big a role he played. He will know looking at NZ rugby right now that if he comes back in time, i.e. for next seasons Super Rugby, he will likely cement the 12 spot and be a key figure in the ABs trying to go back to back...

Then and only then will he feel he has done it all...Oh and maybe wining this years Rugbly League world cup as well

The way I saw it, I think that's a big reason he left - that he wasn't anointed king, given a crown and the Iron Throne and a harem simply because he turned up. It seemed like sulking or kicking his toys, to me. Of course I'm not 100% saying that's the case, but I recall all the talk of him (and I think his agent) about his playing time and involvement in the team, prior to and during the RWC and some hints about his future and being intertwined with that. WHich is why I think they were fairly non-committal about the whole thing until he got a bit more play time.

Like I said, that's just how I saw it and certainly not parading it as fact.

In saying all that, I'd take SBW over Nonu right now. Primadonna agent and all.

 

[smartcooky]

Just a few game stats (courtesy of Haka.co.nz):

[TABLE="class: tablestyle_4, align: center"]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #8B9671, colspan: 3, align: left"]NZ Penalty Offences[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tackled player[/TD]
[TD]A Smith[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tackler not rolling[/TD]
[TD]Whitelock, A Smith[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Going off feet[/TD]
[TD]Dagg[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Offside from kick[/TD]
[TD]Dagg[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Offside general play[/TD]
[TD]C Smith[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Scrum[/TD]
[TD]Crockett[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Deliberate knock down[/TD]
[TD]B Smith[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]TOTAL[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: tablestyle_4, align: center"]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: #8B9671, colspan: 2, align: left"]Wallabies Penalty Offences[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tackled player[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tackler[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ruck hands[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ruck off feet[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Offside from Kick[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Holding player back[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Scrum[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Obstruction[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]TOTAL[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

This is not to say that the AB's should not have been yellow carded for repeated infringements, rather to show how ridiculous it would be to imply that the AB's where the only team that was repeatedly infringing (as indeed Australia were penalized at the tackle twice as often as the AB's).

Blatant infringements in the 'red zone' (aka 'professional fouls') are another matter altogether. I agree these warrant straight yellow cards, and there were several occasions where I believe AB's should have been yellow carded. However there were at least as many occasions that Australian players performed similar professional fouls - anyone who thinks that the AB's were the only team guilty of this needs to watch the game again!

Those are great stats mate; a real "shut the fack up" to those who accuse the All Blacks of being the only team that gets away with not being yellow carded for repeat infringements.

However, watching the game again wearing the same "Wallaby Infringement Filter Glasses" won't change how they see it.

ETA:

NO New Zealand player gave away more than two penalties, and McCaw was not penalised at all.
On the Wallaby side, four of the five penalties conceded at the tackle were by McCaw's opposite, Michael Hooper. The other one was by Mowen.
Also, Ben Alexander gave away three scrum penalties.

Who's getting away without yellow cards fpr repeat infringements now?

 

[Gavin]

I was discussing with someone the new scrum laws and we came up with an interesting point (if this has been mentioned then I apologise). The scrum is given for an infringement against a team, so the opposition is allowed to put the ball in. The hooker of the team who puts the ball in will attempt to hook the ball back, whilst the opposition will go for the 8 man shove. This means that the team in possession will have to deal with an 8 man shove whilst only having 7 players shoving whilst the hooker attempts to hook. Any thoughts that this is unfair?

 

[Tony Manx]

However, watching the game again wearing the same "Wallaby Infringement Filter Glasses" won't change how they see it.

HaHaHa...............incidentally, is there a site that gives the statistics (possession, territory, tackles etc) of games? I am looking more for Top 14 games but would find others quite intersting also.............after all most televised games show such so some one must keep records?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I was discussing with someone the new scrum laws and we came up with an interesting point (if this has been mentioned then I apologise). The scrum is given for an infringement against a team, so the opposition is allowed to put the ball in. The hooker of the team who puts the ball in will attempt to hook the ball back, whilst the opposition will go for the 8 man shove. This means that the team in possession will have to deal with an 8 man shove whilst only having 7 players shoving whilst the hooker attempts to hook. Any thoughts that this is unfair?

Had the same thought.

Something that worked a treat for our hooker at school level that might work at test level if the ball is anywhere near the correct channel and not directly under the opposition first row's feet is that he used to kick the ball which he could do on a constant basis. More often than not the ball used to come out very quickly on the opposition side or spill out the side and we had a nugget scrummie quick off the mark that got the ball back a lot of times. Usually they got hold of him but he was enough of a difficult bugger that we mostly got the ball back and he managed to off load a good few times. At worst the opposition scrummie got it rushed and under pressure.

 

[smartcooky]

I was discussing with someone the new scrum laws and we came up with an interesting point (if this has been mentioned then I apologise). The scrum is given for an infringement against a team, so the opposition is allowed to put the ball in. The hooker of the team who puts the ball in will attempt to hook the ball back, whilst the opposition will go for the 8 man shove. This means that the team in possession will have to deal with an 8 man shove whilst only having 7 players shoving whilst the hooker attempts to hook. Any thoughts that this is unfair?

Had the same thought.

Something that worked a treat for our hooker at school level that might work at test level if the ball is anywhere near the correct channel and not directly under the opposition first row's feet is that he used to kick the ball which he could do on a constant basis. More often than not the ball used to come out very quickly on the opposition side or spill out the side and we had a nugget scrummie quick off the mark that got the ball back a lot of times. Usually they got hold of him but he was enough of a difficult bugger that we mostly got the ball back and he managed to off load a good few times. At worst the opposition scrummie got it rushed and under pressure.

Well, in theory, both hookers should be in a position to hook

[TEXTAREA]20.2 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS’ POSITIONS

(c) Hooker in a position to hook. Until the ball is thrown in, the hooker must be in a position
to hook the ball. The hookers must have both feet on the ground, with their weight firmly on
at least one foot. A hooker’s foremost foot must not be in front of the foremost foot of that
team’s props.
Sanction: Free Kick[/TEXTAREA]
If the non-throwing in hooker has got both feet back ready to push, then he should be free kicked!


However, the issue that most people miss when talking about this 7 v 8 situation, is that the real power of the forward shove actually comes from the second row, not the front row.

The props' job is to keep the scrum up and stable and to try to (legally) disrupt his opponent. The job of the second row is to push as hard as they can!

 

[TRF_heineken]

Had the same thought.

Something that worked a treat for our hooker at school level that might work at test level if the ball is anywhere near the correct channel and not directly under the opposition first row's feet is that he used to kick the ball which he could do on a constant basis. More often than not the ball used to come out very quickly on the opposition side or spill out the side and we had a nugget scrummie quick off the mark that got the ball back a lot of times. Usually they got hold of him but he was enough of a difficult bugger that we mostly got the ball back and he managed to off load a good few times. At worst the opposition scrummie got it rushed and under pressure.

Yeah, I used to do that, Another trick that works is the manner in which the scrumhalf puts in the ball. instead of rolling it in, he bounces the ball in, letting the one side towards the opposition's side touch the ground first, letting the ball bounce back towards his own hooker's feet...

The thing is, that with the new patrolling and laws, the team has to decide on what they are going to do at the scrumtime. ensure they get the ball, and sacrifice their hooker on the initial shove, letting him hook the ball, and then let him join in on the second shove (which the All Blacks did brilliantly by the way). the other things is, the opposing team will do this same strategy, and if their own hooker thinks that he might get a tighthead, then they will also have only 7 players at the initial shove...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I see Aus are below England in the IRB rankings. A quick look told me that they could potentially bounce all the way up to 2 with a win over SA by 15+ or remain where they are with a smaller win or a loss. They can't go below France even with a big loss at home. SA can only drop down to 3rd or stay at 2 with a marginal increase. Our big opportunity will be against NZ at home where we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. A win should bring us to within touching distance of NZ and a win by 15+ will see us go top (big ask to trounce NZ by 15+ at home and in fine form though!!) NZ are clear in front and only have everything to lose; I suppose such is the price of being on top of the pile.

The rankings as it stands:

[TABLE="class: table_main"]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]1(1)
[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

NEW ZEALAND
[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]91.64
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]2(2)
[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

SOUTH AFRICA
[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]87.29
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]3(3)
[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

ENGLAND
[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]85.76
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]4(4)
[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

AUSTRALIA
[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]85.32
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: l"]5(5)
[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]

FRANCE
[/TD]
[TD="class: l"]81.59
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I am of course getting ahead of myself but with no test rugby to see out to on the weekend..

 

[IRISH RUGBY MAN]

I don't understand how England are above Australia and fairly close to South Africa. I don't know what it is about the English team but they just seem to grind out the results and just get under my skin ( probably cause I'm Irish to be fair ).

 

[Jaguares]

I don't understand how England are above Australia and fairly close to South Africa. I don't know what it is about the English team but they just seem to grind out the results and just get under my skin ( probably cause I'm Irish to be fair ).

Apparently, IRB have given much importance to victory against ABs. Doesn't seem right, it was the last game of the year, ABs were tired.

Cheers

 

[TRF_heineken]

Apparently, IRB have given much importance to victory against ABs. Doesn't seem right, it was the last game of the year, ABs were tired.

Cheers

Not the all blacks, but the no. 1 ranked team...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Apparently, IRB have given much importance to victory against ABs. Doesn't seem right, it was the last game of the year, ABs were tired.

Cheers

It's not subjective but a mathematic system. Question the system/formula if you like but it doesn't discriminate.

 

[lynam1104]

The system while overly at first complicated makes a lot of sense to me tbh, once you have a decent understanding it's quite simple.

 

[ABs2011]

Haha Mummy Nonu looking after big son Ma'a at the age of 31

Latest rumor out of Wellington is that Nonu will not sign with the Hurricanes and will take a sabbatical!