[2014 EOYT] Wales vs New Zealand

[Larksea]

Pretty sure that's a drastic exaggeration. Didn't someone post some stats to show over the last couple of Super seasons he has better %'s than both Barrett and Carter? He has kicked poorly in the last two games, which has been said by the team to have been caused by an injury. You've explained away Barrett's poor kicking to injury but you won't do the same for Cruden? By the way, when did Barrett become a reliable kicker? He has always been erratic, likely to kick 7/7 one week then 1/5 the next.

Cruden is 8 from 18 from his last three tests.

barretts Super Rugby kicking percentage has been better than Crudens for the last two seasons.

Cruden 2013= 69% 2014 = 72%
Barrett 2013 = 74% 2014 = 75% (pretty good for someone erratic?)

I think with Cruden he has goon through purple patches both years and kicked over 80% but has not been able to maintain it and dropped away.

All Blacks 2013 kicking
Cruden = 74%
Barrett = 80%

one stat I dont have is range. I think its safe to assume that Barrett attempts and gets a lot of kicks that Cruden simply wont even attempt because he does not have the range. All things being equal you would expect Crudens kicking %age to be higher. I mean if barrett is only getting 60% of the attempts he takes from 46-5Xm then he's still getting goals Cruden would not even attempt.

Generally when Crudens kicking has been on form hes been particularly good at slotting conversions and close range penalties. When barrett is kicking well he's shown the ability to slot long range penalties. I dont think I need to tell anyone what is more important come World Cup time.

Prior to 2013 Barretts main issue was his defense, that has clearly changed.
Tackle % 2013 for the All Blacks
Cruden = 78%
barrett = 83%

This is not the first time Crudens goal kicking has been an issue. he had a golden patch for a while (~2 years) which seemed awesome but really he was only kicking with similar success to barrett. outside that he's had long periods kicking 50-60% and range has been an ongoing concern.

IMO with Crudens range he really need to be operating at ~80% we have seen him do it but he's not been able to maintain it for long enough to be reliable. With the extra range Barrett has ~75% is very good in comparison.

As far as injuries go barrett has clearly been carrying an ankle injury since I think one of the first games against Aussie this year and its affected a lot of his game kicking included. I dont know about Cruden he did have an issue in super rugby for a bit but that was a while ago I thought I read that he sorted it out. I doubt many know the whole picture.

Best scenario, barrett, Cruden and Carter all at their best.

Carter starts, Barrett from the bench without question.

Come WC finals crudens range issue, becomes even more of an issue. because of that he would drop down behind even slade and taylor IMO. WC finals = kicking important penalties often from longer range that is a straight up fact.

 

[Darwin]

Considering how World cup finals games go Cruden would be my absolute last pick of the current 10's because of his 50% success rate and sub par range. I know you love Cruden but if you think about it I think you would agree. In world cup finals we need a goal kicker on the field at all times with good range and 75% success rate. That is not Aaron Cruden. For about a year and a bit he made up for his lack of range when he seemed to be able to slot anything within his limited range. but that period has turned out to be the exception rather than the Rule. Over long periods of time Carter, Barrett, Slade and Tom Taylor have been more successful and their extra range opens up points scoring opportunities not available when Cruden is kicking.

The chances are much greater that Barrett will overcome his ankle injury and get his kicking back to where it has for the majority of his career or that Dan Carter will get back on par after his sabbatical & injury setbacks than Cruden will be to fix problems he has had for most of his career and start kicking goals better than he ever has.

On a side note its a shame Dagg isn't kicking goals, he was right up with the best kickers in NZ when he was kicking for the highlanders. Dagg could kick goals and Cruden could focus on what hes good at much like 2011 when Weepu was kicking for Cruden.

As donmcdazzle points out you are just making that figure up. Over the last few seasons Cruden's kicking has been almost identical to Barrett's. Barrett does have longer range as you say, but overall there is very little between them in terms of goal-kicking ability. I did an analysis of them at Super Rugby level recently (can't find it at the moment) and they both had identical goal-kicking percentages (72/73% I think). I just quickly looked through their stats at test level over the last few seasons and again they have had an identical kicking percentage since the last RWC (72% - Cruden 97/135, Barrett 31/43). Cruden has had two bad games from the kicking tee in recent weeks (probably not helped by his injury and the fact he kept getting shots from the sideline!), but that doesn't suddenly made him a rubbish kicker - he kicked at 78% during the Rugby Championship this season (Barrett kicked at 70%). Whether kicking at 72-73% is good enough for test level is an interesting debate (personally I think it is borderline), but if Cruden is ruled out due to inconsistent goal-kicking Barrett will be too.

I don't 'love' Cruden anymore than I 'love' Barrett, but I think people severely under-rate how well Cruden controls a backline. Last time I checked the Chiefs have won 2 Super Rugby ***les in the row with him at the helm, and I understand the All Blacks have never lost a match that he has started! We won the World Cup last time he started in a Rugby World Cup final - I have no doubt we would have won more comfortably if (a) he had been kicking goals and (b) he hadn't got injured. The AB's were in control before he went off the field - if Weepu hadn't missed 3 easy shots early in the match we would have had a good lead on the scoreboard too.....

 

[donmcdazzle]

Cruden is 8 from 18 from his last three tests.

barretts Super Rugby kicking percentage has been better than Crudens for the last two seasons.

Cruden 2013= 69% 2014 = 72%
Barrett 2013 = 74% 2014 = 75% (pretty good for someone erratic?)

All Blacks 2013 kicking
Cruden = 74%
Barrett = 80%

one stat I dont have is range. I think its safe to assume that Barrett attempts and gets a lot of kicks that Cruden simply wont even attempt because he does not have the range. All things being equal you would expect Crudens kicking %age to be higher. I mean if barrett is only getting 60% of the attempts he takes from 46-5Xm then he's still getting goals Cruden would not even attempt.

Generally when Crudens kicking has been on form hes been particularly good at slotting conversions and close range penalties. When barrett is kicking well he's shown the ability to slot long range penalties. I dont think I need to tell anyone what is more important come World Cup time.

Prior to 2013 Barretts main issue was his defense, that has clearly changed.
Tackle % 2013 for the All Blacks
Cruden = 78%
barrett = 83%

This is not the first time Crudens goal kicking has been an issue. he had a golden patch for a while (~2 years) which seemed awesome but really he was only kicking with similar success to barrett. outside that he's had long periods kicking 50-60% and range has been an ongoing concern.

IMO with Crudens range he really need to be operating at ~80% we have seen him do it but he's not been able to maintain it for long enough to be reliable. With the extra range Barrett has ~75% is very good in comparison.

2013 Cruden had an injured knee and Anscombe did the bulk of the kicking so his stats for that season are over a smaller sample size.

2012 Cruden 78% Barrett 73%

Barrett in 2014 was 73% (not sure where your 75% came from) so he hasn't really improved since 2012. He is as erratic as he ever was.

You're cherry picking defensive stats too. Over the Super season where they played more comparable minutes you'll get more meaningful comparisons, there is too much small sample size bias in using the handful of games Barrett had off the bench in 2013. So over the past 3 years he has hovered around the low-mid 70's without drastic improvement.

2014 Super
Barrett 76% Cruden 81%

2013 Super
Barrett 75% Cruden 78%

2012 Super
Barrett 73% Cruden 81%

 

[turmeric2015]

1, Crockett
2, Coles
3, O Franks
4, Whitelock
5, Retalick
6, Kaino/Messam (kaino has been carrying an injury)
7, McCaw
8, Read
9, A Smith
10, ????
11, Savea
12, SBW
13, Conrad Smith/Crotty
14, Ben Smith
15, Israel Dagg

16, Mealamu
17, Moody/Ben Franks
18, Faumaina/Ben Franks
19, P Tuipalotu (or has thrush done enough? I dont think so, Pat has been superb so far and he's earned this spot)
20, Liam Messam/Sam Cane (if Kaino is injured)
21, Perenara/Augustine Pulu
22, Barrett/Slade/Carter (will depend on who starts, Cruden lacks versatility for the bench he will either start or not be in the 23)
23, Fekitoa

Hey bro, agree pretty much with your team. Pretty much the only contentious positions are Starting 10 and bench 10. I go Cruden/Barrett.

1, Crockett
2, Coles
3, O Franks
4, Whitelock
5, Retalick
6, Kaino - Kaino starts at 6 if he's fit, with loose forward bench cover being Cane (Messam if Kaino still out)
7, McCaw
8, Read
9, A Smith
10, Cruden - For sure I think they should start with Cruden, and as I've said before, I think Barrett has become the preferred bench cover at 10, regardless of the starting 10. His ability to cover fullback, and his pace has got him that spot.
11, Savea
12, SBW
13, Conrad Smith
14, Ben Smith
15, Israel Dagg

16, Mealamu
17, Ben Franks
18, Faumuina - Faumuina gets bench spot as well over Moody.
19, P Tuipalotu - I think Tuipolotu is the preferred bench cover at lock, despite how well Thrush played last week. That being said, Thrush may be rewarded for his tremdous performance. I just don't think he has the impact the coaches are looking for coming off the bench that Tuipulotu offers.
20, Sam Cane
21, Perenara - Perenara should get spot on the bench.
22, Barrett
23, Fekitoa

That's my preferred "best" AB team right now and what I hope they play v Wales!

 

[nzlizard]

Hey bro, agree pretty much with your team. Pretty much the only contentious positions are Starting 10 and bench 10. I go Cruden/Barrett.

1, Crockett
2, Coles
3, O Franks
4, Whitelock
5, Retalick
6, Kaino - Kaino starts at 6 if he's fit, with loose forward bench cover being Cane (Messam if Kaino still out)
7, McCaw
8, Read
9, A Smith
10, Cruden - For sure I think they should start with Cruden, and as I've said before, I think Barrett has become the preferred bench cover at 10, regardless of the starting 10. His ability to cover fullback, and his pace has got him that spot.
11, Savea
12, SBW
13, Conrad Smith
14, Ben Smith
15, Israel Dagg

16, Mealamu
17, Ben Franks
18, Faumuina - Faumuina gets bench spot as well over Moody.
19, P Tuipalotu - I think Tuipolotu is the preferred bench cover at lock, despite how well Thrush played last week. That being said, Thrush may be rewarded for his tremdous performance. I just don't think he has the impact the coaches are looking for coming off the bench that Tuipulotu offers.
20, Sam Cane
21, Perenara - Perenara should get spot on the bench.
22, Barrett
23, Fekitoa

That's my preferred "best" AB team right now and what I hope they play v Wales!

Only change I make is Smith to fullback and Piutau to start on the wing, while I felt he didn't have the best game last week I think he will benefit from that starting backline.

 

[Mikel92]

I don't 'love' Cruden anymore than I 'love' Barrett, but I think people severely under-rate how well Cruden controls a backline. Last time I checked the Chiefs have won 2 Super Rugby ***les in the row with him at the helm, and I understand the All Blacks have never lost a match that he has started! Last time I checked we won the World Cup last time he started in a Rugby World Cup final - I have no doubt we would have won more comfortably if (a) he had been kicking goals and (b) he hadn't got injured. The AB's were in control before he went off the field - if Weepu hadn't missed 3 easy shots early in the match we would have had a good lead on the scoreboard too.....

I take your point, but I think that might have more to do with Dave Rennie and Wayne Smith than what it does Aaron Cruden.

Although yep, Cruden's goal kicking for the Cheifs is usually pretty good. There was a season (can't remember which) where his stats were excellent. But he'll need to start kicking better than what he did against England - especially if you wanna prove you deserve to hold out Dan Carter (at his best).

 

[turmeric2015]

I take your point, but I think that might have more to do with Dave Rennie and Wayne Smith than what it does Aaron Cruden.

Although yep, Cruden's goal kicking for the Cheifs is usually pretty good. There was a season (can't remember which) where his stats were excellent. But he'll need to start kicking better than what he did against England - especially if you wanna prove you deserve to hold out Dan Carter (at his best).

On current form who are you saying should be the AB starting 10?

Disc: Im absolutely with Darwin on this one. I think people definitely underestimate Cruden's impact on a game. It's the less obvious things that he really excels at; controlling a back line, and making the right choices (run, kick, pass). For me he is hands down the #1 starter (on current form).

Agreed his kicking needs to be improved, but Cruden absolutely has that in him and shouldn't be too much of an issue going forward.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I take your point, but I think that might have more to do with Dave Rennie and Wayne Smith than what it does Aaron Cruden.

Although yep, Cruden's goal kicking for the Cheifs is usually pretty good. There was a season (can't remember which) where his stats were excellent. But he'll need to start kicking better than what he did against England - especially if you wanna prove you deserve to hold out Dan Carter (at his best).

Cruden did have a pretty big part in those ***les, he started every game over those two seasons (or close to it). The coaches and a number of other players were also very important, but that doesn't diminish Cruden's role. Those ***les would have been a hell of a lot harder to win with Stephen Donald at 10 put it that way.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Cruden's kicking against England (and USA) was pretty poor and he will definitely have to improve it. I think what I (and maybe Darwin) are trying to say is it is a bit hasty to write him off as not being a good enough kicker to be the starting 10 based off two games (where he was supposedly carrying an injury).

I know a few guys who have played a lot of rugby with him for Manawatu, and apparently he is a fantastic game manager; in that he is constantly talking to the 9 and his backs to tell them what's on etc and basically just steers everyone around. Apparently he makes everybody else's job a whole lot easier when he plays.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Hey bro, agree pretty much with your team. Pretty much the only contentious positions are Starting 10 and bench 10. I go Cruden/Barrett.

1, Crockett
2, Coles
3, O Franks
4, Whitelock
5, Retalick
6, Kaino - Kaino starts at 6 if he's fit, with loose forward bench cover being Cane (Messam if Kaino still out)
7, McCaw
8, Read
9, A Smith
10, Cruden - For sure I think they should start with Cruden, and as I've said before, I think Barrett has become the preferred bench cover at 10, regardless of the starting 10. His ability to cover fullback, and his pace has got him that spot.
11, Savea
12, SBW
13, Conrad Smith
14, Ben Smith
15, Israel Dagg

16, Mealamu
17, Ben Franks
18, Faumuina - Faumuina gets bench spot as well over Moody.
19, P Tuipalotu - I think Tuipolotu is the preferred bench cover at lock, despite how well Thrush played last week. That being said, Thrush may be rewarded for his tremdous performance. I just don't think he has the impact the coaches are looking for coming off the bench that Tuipulotu offers.
20, Sam Cane
21, Perenara - Perenara should get spot on the bench.
22, Barrett
23, Fekitoa

That's my preferred "best" AB team right now and what I hope they play v Wales!

That's exactly what I think we will see this weekend - the biggest question mark for me is over that 23 jersey.

As others have said, I'd probably prefer Piutau in for Dagg, but I don't think that will happen.

 

[William18]

Cruden should start at 10 IMO. Barrett on the bench. Carter sent back to NZ to learn how to play rugby. While I can see the logic behind giving Carter more time, starting him versus Wales would likely do more harm than good. He looked woefully short of rugby versus Scotland - one match isn't going to change that - so it wouldn't surprise me if he was poor against Wales too (if selected). That's not going to help his confidence one bit. If Carter is able to play a season of Super Rugby - and his form suggests he is capable of performing at test level - then I would consider playing him again for the ABs.

I think we need to be playing the 10 who will be most likely be starting at the business end of the RWC next year. For me that is Cruden. Carter will almost certainly be watching in the stands (or on his tv at home) injured....

But Carter's injuries have absolutely nothing to do with his age. Both were freak accidents.

 

[nzlizard]

But Carter's injuries have absolutely nothing to do with his age. Both were freak accidents.

The older you get the more wear and tear you suffer from, the easier it is to get injured and the stay injured for longer.

Obviously there are exceptions but this is the general rule. While the injuries were accidents his recovery time and prolonged symptoms may be age taking its toll.

 

[turmeric2015]

That's exactly what I think we will see this weekend - the biggest question mark for me is over that 23 jersey.

As others have said, I'd probably prefer Piutau in for Dagg, but I don't think that will happen.

yeah, you may be right. I didn't think too much about that position. It may well be the case they go with Crotty, possibly Piutau. Although the trend seems to be to play have one specialist midfielder on the bench, and one specialist 10 who can also cover 15 (and to an extent wing). That trend suggests it may be tougher to for Piutau to get that spot vs Crotty/Feki. They seem to think Feki is a bit tired from a long season, so maybe they go with Crotty.

 

[Darwin]

But Carter's injuries have absolutely nothing to do with his age. Both were freak accidents.

Both? Carter has picked up more than a couple of injuries in the last few years. There were a couple of major ones, but according to this report Carter has had 10 separate injuries that have caused him to miss All Blacks matches. 10 injuries in 3 years. That's not just bad luck. That's a chronic problem.

Since the RWC the AB's have played 41 tests. Carter has been involved in 17 (41%) or these. He's been involved in even less in the last 2 years (only 8/27 matches!), and has gone off with serious injuries in more a couple of these matches too. As much as I would love to see Dan Carter in top form starting for the AB's, I have serious doubts as to whether we will see him string together a sufficient number of matches to get back to anything close to his best.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

For wales is Hook and Priestland really there only options now? Williams is the only other Welsh player to get regular gametime that is fit.

 

[Larksea]

2013 Cruden had an injured knee and Anscombe did the bulk of the kicking so his stats for that season are over a smaller sample size.

2012 Cruden 78% Barrett 73%

Barrett in 2014 was 73% (not sure where your 75% came from) so he hasn't really improved since 2012. He is as erratic as he ever was.

You're cherry picking defensive stats too. Over the Super season where they played more comparable minutes you'll get more meaningful comparisons, there is too much small sample size bias in using the handful of games Barrett had off the bench in 2013. So over the past 3 years he has hovered around the low-mid 70's without drastic improvement.

2014 Super
Barrett 76% Cruden 81%

2013 Super
Barrett 75% Cruden 78%

2012 Super
Barrett 73% Cruden 81%

I'm not cherry picking stats, I goggled a page that compared barretts stats to cruden and I basically posted everything. I do think defence stats for the AB's is more important than super rugby, Barrett plays outside perenara in super rugby and there was a long period where Perenara had major issues on defense and that impacted Barretts stas as well. Bottom line is he tackled 83% for the AB's in 2013 and his defensive issues are well and truly in the past. Not to mention the fact that when Barrett is on the field he is arguably the fastest player on both teams and he's shown the ability to run down players.

 

[Shaggy]

If Barrett and Cruden were the two 10's in my match day 23, I'd start with Cruden, and sub him for Barrett in the second half.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other (I have confidence in them both), I just think Barrett's skill set is better suited to exploiting tiring defenses than Cruden's is.

I'm pretty sure Barrett will feature in the match day 23, as Hansen indicated he was going to give all of the players two games on tour ... I know Slade has only had one also, but he was an injury replacement for Jane, so I'm not sure he'll get two.

Maybe they'll start Barrett, and have Slade on the bench as cover, but I'm not sure that's wise or likely against Wales.

... I know talking about benching or leaving Smith, B is considered blasphemy on these boards (Shaggy nervously braces himself for the backlash) , but Piutau went pretty well against the Scots, and they were concerned about Smith's work load (the number of games he's played), so is the back three of Savea, Piutau, and Dagg a possibility?

 

[Larksea]

As donmcdazzle points out you are just making that figure up. Over the last few seasons Cruden's kicking has been almost identical to Barrett's. Barrett does have longer range as you say, but overall there is very little between them in terms of goal-kicking ability. I did an analysis of them at Super Rugby level recently (can't find it at the moment) and they both had identical goal-kicking percentages (72/73% I think). I just quickly looked through their stats at test level over the last few seasons and again they have had an identical kicking percentage since the last RWC (72% - Cruden 97/135, Barrett 31/43). Cruden has had two bad games from the kicking tee in recent weeks (probably not helped by his injury and the fact he kept getting shots from the sideline!), but that doesn't suddenly made him a rubbish kicker - he kicked at 78% during the Rugby Championship this season (Barrett kicked at 70%). Whether kicking at 72-73% is good enough for test level is an interesting debate (personally I think it is borderline), but if Cruden is ruled out due to inconsistent goal-kicking Barrett will be too.

I don't 'love' Cruden anymore than I 'love' Barrett, but I think people severely under-rate how well Cruden controls a backline. Last time I checked the Chiefs have won 2 Super Rugby ***les in the row with him at the helm, and I understand the All Blacks have never lost a match that he has started! We won the World Cup last time he started in a Rugby World Cup final - I have no doubt we would have won more comfortably if (a) he had been kicking goals and (b) he hadn't got injured. The AB's were in control before he went off the field - if Weepu hadn't missed 3 easy shots early in the match we would have had a good lead on the scoreboard too.....

8 from 18 I did not make that figure up.

the fact that their kicking % age is similar but Barrett has an extra ~10m or so range is actually a MASSIVE difference. think about it. That range is also a factor in kicking for territory.

Cruden didn't kick in the 2011 WC because his kicking form at the time was much like it is right now. If Donald was not there to step up and take the kicks it may have been Dagg.

It's pretty clear history now that Cruden lasted 30min in the 2011 final, didn't fire a shot and it actually worked out well in the end as Donald ended up the perfect man for the job. When the game turned to Chaos as the french got desperate Donald made more tackles for the time he was on the field than any other All Black. Two critical turnovers resulted from two dominant tackles he made. Cruden is a good defender for his size, good heart and technique but he would have been totally out of his depth when the french went on a rampage trying to close the gap. He would have been grabbing at ankles in situations Donald was stopping runners Ball and all. Don't try and pretend the game would have been an easy All Blacks win if Cruden had played the 80 and been the main goal kicker. The more likely better theoretical result would have been if Donald had started he probably would have slotted the Shots Weepu missed. As it turned out Weepu was injured and it affected his kicking, yet he was still preferred kicker over Cruden.

The fact you credit the 2011 WC final to Cruden shows your bias.

Final statement before this thread goes totally off the rails.

Cruden is a great play maker. In that part of the game he's probably #1 in NZ
History shows that in world cup finals that will mean almost nothing.

Tom Taylor is probably our 5th - 6th 10? Yet hes maybe the best goal kicker in NZ has really good range on his kicks, is smart and can tackle anything. For all other rugby Cruden is #1-2 in NZ Taylor is #5-6 for WC finals Cruden is #4-5 Taylor is #1-2 I think we would all like to see a WC decided by running rugby line breaks and try assists. It's not going to happen. WC finals are about inches.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I'm not cherry picking stats, I goggled a page that compared barretts stats to cruden and I basically posted everything. I do think defence stats for the AB's is more important than super rugby, Barrett plays outside perenara in super rugby and there was a long period where Perenara had major issues on defense and that impacted Barretts stas as well. Bottom line is he tackled 83% for the AB's in 2013 and his defensive issues are well and truly in the past. Not to mention the fact that when Barrett is on the field he is arguably the fastest player on both teams and he's shown the ability to run down players.

You are cherry picking because you've picked one period where he played limited minutes off the bench, half the time at fullback. Over 3 seasons at first five, he hasn't really improved defensively and was lower than Cruden every year.

Perenara's defence over those 3 seasons by the way: 2012 79%, 2013 80%, 2014 79%. Not sure at which point there he was struggling and it seems a bit off base to blame him for Barrett's defensive weakness.

The fact you credit the 2011 WC final to Cruden shows your bias.

Final statement before this thread goes totally off the rails.

Cruden is a great play maker. In that part of the game he's probably #1 in NZ
History shows that in world cup finals that will mean almost nothing.

Tom Taylor is probably our 5th - 6th 10? Yet hes maybe the best goal kicker in NZ has really good range on his kicks, is smart and can tackle anything. For all other rugby Cruden is #1-2 in NZ Taylor is #5-6 for WC finals Cruden is #4-5 Taylor is #1-2 I think we would all like to see a WC decided by running rugby line breaks and try assists. It's not going to happen. WC finals are about inches.

And the fact that you think starting Stephen Donald in a World Cup final would have been the best option for us shows your bias! Man the stories you tell about that game get more fanciful with every telling.

Also, if Tom Taylor was the starting 10 then I think we would battle to even make the WC final.

 

[Larksea]

You are cherry picking because you've picked one period where he played limited minutes off the bench, half the time at fullback. Over 3 seasons at first five, he hasn't really improved defensively and was lower than Cruden every year.

Perenara's defence over those 3 seasons by the way: 2012 79%, 2013 80%, 2014 79%. Not sure at which point there he was struggling and it seems a bit off base to blame him for Barrett's defensive weakness.



And the fact that you think starting Stephen Donald in a World Cup final would have been the best option for us shows your bias! Man the stories you tell about that game get more fanciful with every telling.

Also, if Tom Taylor was the starting 10 then I think we would battle to even make the WC final.

Donald played 50min, only Conrad Smith made more tackles (in 80min) in the backs and it was only a couple more, two critical turnovers came from Donald Tackles including the final one of the match to give the AB's final possession to run the clock down. He made 1 of the 2 All Black line breaks in the entire game and he kicked the winning goal.

Am I wrong yes or no?

Then in your own words (Or Darwin) explain how Aaron Cruden should be the one getting credit for the victory? Feel free to get creative I know you will have to. Heck maybe I missed something and Cruden should have been man of the match?!

It's true my saying the AB's would have had an easier win if Donald had started is speculation, I happily admit that. Still a more realistic speculation than thinking the AB's would have won in cruise control with Cruden playing 10 and kicking goals for full 80. Cruden played a bit role in the feel out period of the game. Donald played a HUGE role in the actual result, his physicality on the inside channel when McCaw was stuck at the bottom of rucks when the french went on their 2nd half rampage as IMO even more important than the goal he kicked. It's been well documented that even though Donald had not been training when he came into camp his goal kicking clicked and he was slotting everything in training, the one shot he took he nailed and he could easily have got the shots Piri was missing, they would have been regulation kicks for Donald and he proved he was up to the pressure that day and Cruden simply was not trusted to take these kicks.

You think the first half of the game was the same as the 2nd? Like 2007? Like 1999? Time to wake up

As for Perenara stats dont show everything. The issue wasn't his tackling it was that he was never in the right place to make the tackles. Was actually an interview on sky with Mark Hammett discussing the fragility of the canes defense and the issues Barrett and Perenara were having implementing their patterns and that the fix was more focused on what Perenara was doing wrong and what he needed to do.

not sure where your tom Taylor comment comes from, hes had 1 high pressure chance to shine with the others injured and he nailed it, unlike Crudens first big test when he had a shocker got the shepherds crook early and Colin Slade came on and secured the victory. Considering Range and accuracy Tom Taylor has no equals in the NZ game when it comes to goal kicking. He's equal or better than Carter, Barrett or Anscome at their best. he has a smart under rated low risk attacking game hes fantastic on support and followup and can tackle anything. The guy is "taylor" made for WC rugby even if he's not the best week in week out for tests and the fact is the All Blacks could get through the group phase with any of our top 10 first fives and it wont matter what the PD is. Heck the AB's could get through group play with Benji Marshall at 10!

 

[The Jones Boy]

I'm pretty sure we are playing Wales this weekend, how about we refocus on the game chaps.
Wales are a top side who can beat anyone on their day and they are gonna be real tough in their home stadium.