[2018 Rugby Championship] Round 2: New Zealand v Australia (25/08/2018)

[Kiwiwomble]

Ben Smith is so bloody underrated. He is nothing short of phenomenal.
BB is so good on offence that sometimes people overlook how good he is on defence too.

is he?....i thought he was pretty universally accepted as one of the best players on the planet..

 

[mania]

is he?....i thought he was pretty universally accepted as one of the best players on the planet..

Agree. No one in NZ underrates him. Definitely the best fullback at the moment

 

[All Black]

Agree. No one in NZ underrates him. Definitely the best fullback at the moment

He's probably the 2nd best fullback I have ever seen play for the All Blacks.

When I compare him to other good ones in the past, he is the best all round fullback.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

2017 McK was the fb of the season in SR. This season it was all about Foulau and Alaimalo. I would have picked him over any of those, then and now.
Hell, i've even seen some mention Banks and Boffelli and omit Smith.
So yes, i think he is underrated.

He might not be as electric on offence as McK or Foulau but he is 10 times more consistent. 15 is one of those positions where every mistake is very exposed. I can't think of a single instance where i though "well that was a silly decision" or "you should/could have" made that tackle.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I think you may have missed the subtext. I think generally all the talk about DMac or basically anyone else other than Foulau was with the assumption smith was still one of the two best (along with Foulau) in the comp.

more a case of people talk about those that have improved rather than every weeks saying smiths still one of the best

i guess most importantly i dont know of anyone that DOESN'T rate him so i dont think he can be underrated

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yep Alpha , but if you go back to mine you will see where I mentioned Italy etc packing out grounds to watch ABs play, same as Scotland etc. I agree it hurting Aus because ABs play them so bloody much, it's what they seem to keep seeing is the ABs winning again.

Of course people are going to come out and watch the best team in the world when they only come once every two to four years, it's inconsequential to my point though. If it gets to the stage where the RWC is as good as a foregone conclusion it'll stop being the most anticipated rugby union event, just look at league as an example.

Fortunately I don't think that will happen, the other three RC sides aren't the best the world has to offer anymore, it's the denial of that down there that's causing this argument. NZ will have to beat three of the four best six nations sides, whoever they may be, since the last world cup they've played the team who finished third in the previous six nations three times and have never played first or second and they're not unbeaten in those games.

 

[unrated]

Of course people are going to come out and watch the best team in the world when they only come once every two to four years, it's inconsequential to my point though. If it gets to the stage where the RWC is as good as a foregone conclusion it'll stop being the most anticipated rugby union event, just look at league as an example.

Fortunately I don't think that will happen, the other three RC sides aren't the best the world has to offer anymore, it's the denial of that down there that's causing this argument. NZ will have to beat three of the four best six nations sides, whoever they may be, since the last world cup they've played the team who finished third in the previous six nations three times and have never played first or second and they're not unbeaten in those games.

There is a lot of ifs involved there, this happens every time, the NH might get a win here or there against a SH side and it will be talked up greatly but when the time comes for the WC the the SH teams perform. And they dont just win it they come 1st, 2nd ,3rd and 4th. This world cup will be the same. And in the November Internationals this will be confirmed again as it is every year.

So if you are saying that the Abs arent getting the competition they need because the other RC sides are not performing, and that the ABs are not playing the best Six nations team every year then i have to disagree.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

There is a lot of ifs involved there, this happens every time, the NH might get a win here or there against a SH side and it will be talked up greatly but when the time comes for the WC the the SH teams perform. And they dont just win it they come 1st, 2nd ,3rd and 4th. This world cup will be the same. And in the November Internationals this will be confirmed again as it is every year.

So if you are saying that the Abs arent getting the competition they need because the other RC sides are not performing, and that the ABs are not playing the best Six nations team every year then i have to disagree.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have to ignore a lot of what has happened in the last three years to come to that conclusion. Australia had lost one test series to a touring NH side in history before 2015, they have lost two in a row now and had their record losing margins v England and Scotland, SA have shipped record losses to England and Ireland and lost at home to Ireland for the first time, Argentina have been tragic.

All this has happened in 2.5 years, if you think this has precedent or means nothing it's nothing short of denial. New Zealand's stiffest competition is in the north right now and it looks likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

 

[TRF_heineken]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have to ignore a lot of what has happened in the last three years to come to that conclusion. Australia had lost one test series to a touring NH side in history before 2015, they have lost two in a row now and had their record losing margins v England and Scotland, SA have shipped record losses to England and Ireland and lost at home to Ireland for the first time, Argentina have been tragic.

All this has happened in 2.5 years, if you think this has precedent or means nothing it's nothing short of denial. New Zealand's stiffest competition is in the north right now and it looks likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

Well there are 2 sides to every coin, while I do agree in part that the other RC teams have been less of a competition for the AB's in recent years, I can't comment as much on the NH teams. If we look at South Africa, yes we did lose for the very first time ever on home soil to Ireland last year, but still we won the series, and the same this year when England came to our shores. When there were talks that we would lose the series ahead of the matches actually taking place.

But the issue is broader than this. How many times do the NH teams send a "B"-team for the June series to the SH, to experiment ahead of the NH season starting? Only to then get thumped, and then at the EOYT have a better team who then puts up a better performance against the battered SH teams who by then have been playing non-stop rugby since January???

What you are also forgetting is the change in personnel and other factors within each nation/union. I think SA again maybe has had the unique situtation where we fired a coach midway through his contract (something that last happened in 1997), and got an interim coach (for the first time ever) to build a team for the 2019RWC.

But the question is Who is NZ's stiffest competion now? Ireland? Maybe, but they only narrowly beated the Wallabies in June, and NZ comfortably smashed them now twice in a row. So who else? England? Same argument could be used with South Africa, who is yet to play the All Blacks this year.

That leaves us with France, Wales and Scotland. Out of those 3, Scotland might be the better of the 3 at the moment...

 

[Nubiwan]

RWC is going to be a ******* bore next year. But hey while international rugby dies at least we can enjoy the Kiwi circle jerk some more.

I watch the rugby championship in the hope of other sides upsetting the ABs, and for two first halves, the ozzies have been competitive, so that's been decent. I don't think some decisions have gone their way at crucial times, and then the ABs have rather just found their 3rd of 5 gears to cantor away with it.

I am reminded of the newspaper article in the uk media which essentially asked why bother with the rugby championship as the outcome is a forgone conclusion. I reckon, people like me live in hope that other countries can scrape together a result, or at least start being relatively competitive with the ABs on a regular basis. So, it's not about the ABs losing per say, but seeing a contest.

In an age when most sports are found to be much closer at the top level, even when clubs with greater finances can buy success (European football being a prime global example), then the dominance the ABs have acheived in my own lifetime alone, is unprecedented.

The entire NZ nation bleeds rugby. Hats off to them. I am happy I got an occasion to play there. Many moons ago.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I love how SH sides always use the excuse of how long the players have been playing when the EOYT rolls round, yet the NH players have played significantly more rugby by the time the mid year tests roll around and it means nothing.

 

[Nubiwan]

Well there are 2 sides to every coin, while I do agree in part that the other RC teams have been less of a competition for the AB's in recent years, I can't comment as much on the NH teams. If we look at South Africa, yes we did lose for the very first time ever on home soil to Ireland last year, but still we won the series, and the same this year when England came to our shores. When there were talks that we would lose the series ahead of the matches actually taking place.

But the issue is broader than this. How many times do the NH teams send a "B"-team for the June series to the SH, to experiment ahead of the NH season starting? Only to then get thumped, and then at the EOYT have a better team who then puts up a better performance against the battered SH teams who by then have been playing non-stop rugby since January???

What you are also forgetting is the change in personnel and other factors within each nation/union. I think SA again maybe has had the unique situtation where we fired a coach midway through his contract (something that last happened in 1997), and got an interim coach (for the first time ever) to build a team for the 2019RWC.

But the question is Who is NZ's stiffest competion now? Ireland? Maybe, but they only narrowly beated the Wallabies in June, and NZ comfortably smashed them now twice in a row. So who else? England? Same argument could be used with South Africa, who is yet to play the All Blacks this year.

That leaves us with France, Wales and Scotland. Out of those 3, Scotland might be the better of the 3 at the moment...

We are talking a country that lives and breaths rugby football competing with countries where rugby union is perhaps 4th or 5th in terms of popular sport interest among "natives", if any at all. I'd say darts is possibly bigger than Union in the UK at present. Many countries where there is no professional rugby presence at all. Rugby Union, as a world concern, gets very little appreciation. Certainly in my quarter of the world. In the USA, the world largest sporting economy, rugby gets effectively zero national interest. Competes with high paying sports like nfl, nhl, nba, mlb to name but just 4. What athlete, in their right mind, would chose to play rugby.

So this is what competes with a country where, upon birth, a rugby ball is place in your hands, and your are told to go and run. Male or female.

Top athletes in other countries do not get the same introduction as New Zealanders do, and if they are determined to be athletic, at an early age, then it's likely to be in a different sport than rugby, to which they are likely never exposed in the first place. While putting a potentially narrow view on the situation, the national sides of many countries are formed with what is essentially the best of the rest, in terms of athletic ability.

Ask yourself what are the top sports in any countries who have a chance of upsetting the ABs in a match. England, Argentina, Ireland, oz, France, etc. Rugby is likely well down the pecking order of sports interest for many of their people. New Zealand, it's the reverse. Everyone plays rugby, and those who do not excel, play something else.

My own rugby experience started out of chance, and against personal wish to play at a footballing "grammar" school in the uk. I was 11 before I even kicked a rugby ball. I already had 8 or 9 years to make upon my New Zealand counterpart. Plus I still had an urge to play football, so my time was split between two sports. Even while playing rugby at a decent level. Even then, All the rugby players I knew had other sports interests. Which might not be so unique in of itself.

In developing rugby nations, like the USA, I bet most rugby players don't start till their teens. And the best will likely face competition from much more lucrative pursuits than rugby union.

 

[Nubiwan]

I love how SH sides always use the excuse of how long the players have been playing when the EOYT rolls round, yet the NH players have played significantly more rugby by the time the mid year tests roll around and it means nothing.

Personally thought England's performance in South Africa a disappointment. Ireland squeaked past Australia, after England had done so convincingly, a couple of years ago. Considering their ambitions to better the ABs at the World Cup, it's fair to suggest they both have a lot of work to do.

On their day, the ABs still 20 points better than anything I have seen of late. At least 20.

 

[smartcooky]

I love how SH sides always use the excuse of how long the players have been playing when the EOYT rolls round, yet the NH players have played significantly more rugby by the time the mid year tests roll around and it means nothing.

But you don't send your best sides south do you? With the exception of Ireland, and possibly Wales, you send a lot of second stringers, who have not played anywhere near as much rugby as the top players. When we send an All Blacks team north, we send the best.

You should take a look at the size of your Premiership squads and compare them with the size of our Super Rugby squads. In the Aviva Premiership, its not unusual to have squads of 50 players or more. Add to that your team's Development Squads of around a dozen players who can be rotated in and out of the main squad, and that means your clubs can call on upward of 60 players during the season.

Super Rugby squads are only allowed to have 38 players, and only 30 are allowed to be taken for away tours. While we have "wider training squads" those players cannot be rotated in and out of the main squad. If any Main Squad player is replaced from the WTS, that player is out for the rest of the season.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The thing I find most amazing about the ABs is it's simple things like taking the ball at pace from the back of a ruck or running straight and then passing when you have an overlap. They are consistently doing this whilst other teams get tunnel vision too easily. The ABs just do the basics and what works to an extremely good level and that builds pressure and creates opportunities. It's infuriating the number of times I've watched England where we have a 3 on 2 or better and butcher it by running sideways or shovelling the ball along whilst staying static. Likewise when we pass out of the ruck, 90% of the time every other player on the pitch is static and doesn't move until the 1st or 2nd pass is complete. NZ also ALWAYS have a player in support, they rarely get isolated. England put players into positions where they are getting isolated too easily because nobody can be arsed to actually track them and see what happens, they have already been coached to prepare for the next phase and ignore what is happening in the current one.

I'd like to say the majority of what the ABs do isn't difficult, although clearly it must be to a degree. It must be a player mentality thing hammered into them from a young age. AB coaches have also coached other sides with limited success. We need to change grassroots rugby elsewhere away from the conservative style many play to a more open play. Scotland are the closest in that regard but still have the habit of trying to force games and becoming like headless chickens when the flair rugby stops working.

 

[Nubiwan]

The thing I find most amazing about the ABs is it's simple things like taking the ball at pace from the back of a ruck or running straight and then passing when you have an overlap. They are consistently doing this whilst other teams get tunnel vision too easily. The ABs just do the basics and what works to an extremely good level and that builds pressure and creates opportunities. It's infuriating the number of times I've watched England where we have a 3 on 2 or better and butcher it by running sideways or shovelling the ball along whilst staying static. Likewise when we pass out of the ruck, 90% of the time every other player on the pitch is static and doesn't move until the 1st or 2nd pass is complete. NZ also ALWAYS have a player in support, they rarely get isolated. England put players into positions where they are getting isolated too easily because nobody can be arsed to actually track them and see what happens, they have already been coached to prepare for the next phase and ignore what is happening in the current one.

I'd like to say the majority of what the ABs do isn't difficult, although clearly it must be to a degree. It must be a player mentality thing hammered into them from a young age. AB coaches have also coached other sides with limited success. We need to change grassroots rugby elsewhere away from the conservative style many play to a more open play. Scotland are the closest in that regard but still have the habit of trying to force games and becoming like headless chickens when the flair rugby stops working.

New Zealand superiority can often be summed up in two words: The offload!

Just about what you said.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

New Zealand superiority can often be summed up in two words: The offload!

Just about what you said.

For me the ABs superiority can be summed up in three words: exploiting turnover ball.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/analysis-one-passage-play-sums-differences-blacks-wallabies

Some good analysis in this piece from rugbypass.

 

[smartcooky]

The thing I find most amazing about the ABs is it's simple things like taking the ball at pace from the back of a ruck or running straight and then passing when you have an overlap. They are consistently doing this whilst other teams get tunnel vision too easily. The ABs just do the basics and what works to an extremely good level and that builds pressure and creates opportunities.

Here a great example of that tunnel vision

The Wallabies have just had a great break downfield, foiled just short of the All Blacks goal line when Aaron Smith intercepted the last pass. The All Blacks all descended on the danger zone , but the Wallabies have won the turnover. Jack Goodhue is the player under the posts, and the All Blacks left is totally exposed, with four Wallabies in position. Quick ball and two passes will result in a try to the Wallabies, but what they they do?

They truck it up three more times - and in the space of just a few seconds, the All Black cover is in place - the opportunity has been butchered.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Like father like son, Straight out of the England playbook

 

[Derpus]

Smart Cooky, we did nearly exactly the same thing against Ireland in the last test. Final play of the game was a 5 on 3 overlap on their line to win the game and series. All our wide players overran it/Foley flung it out. ABs score that every day of the week.

Anyways, i'm officially throwing my support behind Bristol as my official northern hemisphere club team for when the International game tanks, as i lived there for a year and it is a nice town. Hopefully Piutau can help keep them in the first division.