All Blacks V Wallabies, Hong Kong, October 30th

[woodward]

i feel sorry for stephen donald, he made a bad little grubber kick and gave possession right back and yeah he failed to kick the ball into touch in the 78th min, but there still was time to play anyway, the game wouldn't have been over, the only bad thing about that kick is it meant aus ran the ball right back into our 22, and he missed one penalty. but other than that he played ok, i reckon he's still better than cruden and delaney and i don't think slade is above him yet but may be in the future. but i believe aucklands gareth anscombe will move ahead of all of them next year

Cruden played way better it a team that was getting smashed, Cruden played better than some other backs considered by many the best in the world. Donald made more mistakes in 20minutes than Cruden did in 60 and two of those were game deciding. Plus Donald is in his mid twenties for caps and age. He is below Cruden, Slade, Delaney, McAlister, Brett and in a way Ascombe, Barrett, Robinson etc because they atleast have a chance of playing for the All Blacks after this tour.

 

[Hurricane Nate]

Who's the Aussie kicking coach fark he needs to be shown the door general kicking and goal kicking was shocking. Is he from waikato by any chance?.

 

[Hurricane Nate]

but i still think toeava had a worse game because not only did he get constantly exposed on defense and throw that forward pass, but he was also the reason aus scored one of their tries when he fell over, aus scored that try from inside their own half only because toeava fell over leaving a big gap and thats what i mean when i say most of aussies points only came because of nz mistakes like this, once those mistakes are gone aus will be in trouble. and yes i know australian fans are gonna get ****** at this too

Toeava was out of position too in the D line and Aus exploited it and then he fell over after he saw what was going down. So I don't really consider this try one off our mistake but more of Aus reading the defence and exposing it to the maximum. Toeava shouldn't even be there hopefully he's another one that plays himself out of world cup contention this tour.

 

[dan the man]

I think Donald was just trying to do too much! As he always seems to do at test level... That little grubber was pointless. If he just did the simple things right he'd be far better, thats the job of a first-five, to stay composed and control the game and he always seems too rushed. That's why everyone (including myself) would back Slade over Cruden or Donald. Simply because he does what he needs to and stays composed. take the Sydney Test for example, Slade didn't do anything amazing (although his kicks in gameplay were very accurate) and he's a star!
I really cant see Donald wearing the Black Jersey after this tour...

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Up until the point where Carter went off, the AB's had that game under control. Then on came Useless, and the game turned to ****.

I just knew this would happen. Sorry Waikato fans, but Steven Donald is NOT up to test standard. The evidence has been mounting that he can't handle the real pressure of test rugby and tonight's abysmal performance just added to it. (Colin Slade will be laughing into his beer!!)


Donald is not useless... he's worse than useless, he's a chocolate soldier

Just a few minor points of rebuttal - though I do agree Donald didn't kick wisely.

1) Australia should've won this game, as well as the last. The scariest thing for New Zealanders is that Australia have missed so many of their kicks - they should've been up 20-0. In both this game and the last had both teams kicked all their goals Australia would've won considerably - come World Cup I'm sure Oz will be kicking goals well, so we need to beat them in other ways.

2) I think the Asia test is always difficult to use as an assessment of a team, because they always lack the structure of other tests. Partly due to being rusty, partly due to wanting to have a bit of fun, but both teams lacked a lot of structure, and come World Cup I'm sure the affair will be much more controlled than it was.

3) Momentum swung in Oz's favour after Carter came off not because of Donald - he only touched the ball five or six times really. Straight after Carter went off Australia scored because Isaia Toeava slipped over, leaving a huge gap in our midfield, which Australia wisely exploited - this of course cost us 7 points, but I'd hardly blame Toeava for our loss. Likewise, Carter missed two kicks at goal I believe, but I wouldn't attribute the loss to him either. In the same vain, I wouldn't say Donald caused our loss. He didn't ensure us winning, but it wasn't him and him alone that lost us the match. You could easily say Nonu and Jane missing Ashley-Cooper lost us the match.

4) Austalia really should've scored that try down the flanks where Barnes' pass didn't hit O'Connor where it should've - not due to our defence, just due to Barnes' mistake. Australia didn't capitalise in this position, whereas after Donald's kick they did. After his kick, at least two players missed Beale - he should never have been allowed to run as far as he did. The kick wasn't good, but it wasn't the cause of the try. Likewise, had he kicked it out, who's to say Oz wouldn't have scored?

5) It is inevitable that Australia would beat us sometime in the next half year - I'd much rather it was now than in the World Cup, or in the last game of the Tri Nations before the World Cup. I'd bet money that in 9 months time you'll have people saying thank god for that loss - it's where we got stronger as a team. I personally don't care about the winning streak, and I'd much rather go into the Cup with four or five wins in a row than the 20 odd they might've had.

SmartCooky your comments are incredibly ignorant and one eyed - you would've found a way to blame a loss on Donald no matter what. His defence was actually superb, bar one missed tackle, and I don't believe he lost us the game at all. Take your useless comments somewhere else, maybe think a bit and try and contribute to some discussion, rather than just looking up synonyms for bad in the dictionary and pasting them across the forums.

 

[smartcooky]

SmartCooky your comments are incredibly ignorant and one eyed - you would've found a way to blame a loss on Donald no matter what. His defence was actually superb, bar one missed tackle, and I don't believe he lost us the game at all. Take your useless comments somewhere else, maybe think a bit and try and contribute to some discussion, rather than just looking up synonyms for bad in the dictionary and pasting them across the forums.

Actually I do contribute well to this forum, and I am effing well entitled to my opinion, and you entitled to take your comments elsewhere!

By they way, I find you last comment insulting. I have a really good command of the English language, so I do not need to look up synonyms for "bad" in any dictionary.

Stephen Donald is NOT up to Test standard IN MY OPINION. This test is the latest in a series of tests that have proved this to MY satisfaction beyond any doubt. When you are in the safety of your own 22m, and 5 points up with 79min 45sec on the clock... you KICK THE F**KING BALL OUT. If he still hasn't learned this after 19 previous tests, when will he learn. How many more tests do you think it will take!

I don't particularly care whether you agree or not, but I think the tide of opinion is that he is useless at test level.

That's why everyone (including myself) would back Slade over Cruden or Donald. Simply because he does what he needs to and stays composed. take the Sydney Test for example, Slade didn't do anything amazing (although his kicks in gameplay were very accurate) and he's a star!

Absolutely, There you saw the difference between Slade and Donald,

In Sydney, Slade closed the game out, taking us from a losing to a winning position, by doing the simple things well and competently, and trusting his team-mates to capitalise on his good service

In Hong Kong, Donald tried to outsmart himself, and ended up making a complete dick of himself instead. You would not see Dan Carter trying one of those stupid grubber kicks while leading in the closing minutes of a tight test match. Its a low percentage play that is almost certain to give possession away. Dumb rugby!

 

[Shaggy]

Just a few minor points of rebuttal - though I do agree Donald didn't kick wisely.

That's right, he did - any fringe player (and some of the established ones too) are going to be under the microscope and be judged/picked in future based on their performance ala Cruden & Vito ... that match was won, but they aren't in the squad now, are they?

QUOTE=Invictus;350838] 1) Australia should've won this game, as well as the last. The scariest thing for New Zealanders is that Australia have missed so many of their kicks - they should've been up 20-0. In both this game and the last had both teams kicked all their goals Australia would've won considerably - come World Cup I'm sure Oz will be kicking goals well, so we need to beat them in other ways.[/QUOTE]

Australia should have won this game and did because they converted enough of their opportunities into points ... the All Blacks should have, and did win the last match for the same reason ... to say they should have won by more because they couldn't convert their penalty shots, is like saying the All Blacks should have won because if they hadn't thrown a forward pass or knocked the ball on, they would have scored a try.

2) I think the Asia test is always difficult to use as an assessment of a team, because they always lack the structure of other tests. Partly due to being rusty, partly due to wanting to have a bit of fun, but both teams lacked a lot of structure, and come World Cup I'm sure the affair will be much more controlled than it was.

i think both teams were a little rusty, but I don't think they were out there to have fun - the AB's wanted to keep their winning record against the Wallabies for psychological reasons, and for the Wallabies, it's a huge Monkey off their backs winning this match ... you can tell how seriously both nations were taking this match by the fact that they fielded their strongest teams possible.

The lack of structure is a testament to the pressure both sides put upon one another.

3) Momentum swung in Oz's favour after Carter came off not because of Donald - he only touched the ball five or six times really. Straight after Carter went off Australia scored because Isaia Toeava slipped over, leaving a huge gap in our midfield, which Australia wisely exploited - this of course cost us 7 points, but I'd hardly blame Toeava for our loss. Likewise, Carter missed two kicks at goal I believe, but I wouldn't attribute the loss to him either. In the same vain, I wouldn't say Donald caused our loss. He didn't ensure us winning, but it wasn't him and him alone that lost us the match. You could easily say Nonu and Jane missing Ashley-Cooper lost us the match.

Yes, you could argue that the whole team is responsible for the loss for that matter (and they are), but if you come on as a replacement and your team is leading when you come on, you are a fringe player with others at home closely contesting your place in the squad, and you make a tactical error that leads to the opposition scoring the try and conversion that wins the game, you are going to be one of the first players under scrutiny don't you think.

4) Austalia really should've scored that try down the flanks where Barnes' pass didn't hit O'Connor where it should've - not due to our defence, just due to Barnes' mistake. Australia didn't capitalise in this position, whereas after Donald's kick they did. After his kick, at least two players missed Beale - he should never have been allowed to run as far as he did. The kick wasn't good, but it wasn't the cause of the try. Likewise, had he kicked it out, who's to say Oz wouldn't have scored?

Yes there were times when NZ were through the defense as well, only to knock on or forward pass ... well done Australia for finishing the opportunity when it was presented to them ... i would argue that if you kick the ball to the opposition giving him time to build up momentum, it's a lot harder to make the tackles, than if Donald had kicked it out, making the Wallabies try to breach a structured defense from the resulting line out ... i'm afraid the players missing the tackles in an attempt to clean up a poorly judged kick (so it's their fault) doesn't really wash with me.

5) It is inevitable that Australia would beat us sometime in the next half year - I'd much rather it was now than in the World Cup, or in the last game of the Tri Nations before the World Cup. I'd bet money that in 9 months time you'll have people saying thank god for that loss - it's where we got stronger as a team. I personally don't care about the winning streak, and I'd much rather go into the Cup with four or five wins in a row than the 20 odd they might've had.

I don't think people will care to be honest - I think AB supporters will be saying thank God we finally won the RWC again, or they'll be looking for something to blame for why we dipped out again ... any win or loss will only be beneficial for what the AB's take out of it, how the players fix their errors, or who is retained or discarded as a result.

SmartCooky your comments are incredibly ignorant and one eyed - you would've found a way to blame a loss on Donald no matter what. His defence was actually superb, bar one missed tackle, and I don't believe he lost us the game at all. Take your useless comments somewhere else, maybe think a bit and try and contribute to some discussion, rather than just looking up synonyms for bad in the dictionary and pasting them across the forums.

I know you have directed this comment at SmartCooky - I am not a Donald fan, as I believe there are better candidates left at home for the 1st five position, but having said that, I was 100% behind the ABs selected, and I really wanted the likes of Donald to succeed ... Donald's kick may not have been the sole reason for the loss, but in the crucial position of 1st five, you expect that player to be both sound tactically and in execution. Why shouldn't he,like all of the other players, be subject to scrutiny?

 

[Sam Owen]

SmartCooky your comments are incredibly ignorant and one eyed - you would've found a way to blame a loss on Donald no matter what. His defence was actually superb, bar one missed tackle, and I don't believe he lost us the game at all. Take your useless comments somewhere else, maybe think a bit and try and contribute to some discussion, rather than just looking up synonyms for bad in the dictionary and pasting them across the forums.

Vic, did you have to pick out only Cookys post?...theres others that feel the same and have written similar or probably worse.

I do agree with alot of your post it makes sense to me except for the last paragraph above.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

That's right, he did - any fringe player (and some of the established ones too) are going to be under the microscope and be judged/picked in future based on their performance ala Cruden & Vito ... that match was won, but they aren't in the squad now, are they?

1) Australia should've won this game, as well as the last. The scariest thing for New Zealanders is that Australia have missed so many of their kicks - they should've been up 20-0. In both this game and the last had both teams kicked all their goals Australia would've won considerably - come World Cup I'm sure Oz will be kicking goals well, so we need to beat them in other ways.

Australia should have won this game and did because they converted enough of their opportunities into points ... the All Blacks should have, and did win the last match for the same reason ... to say they should have won by more because they couldn't convert their penalty shots, is like saying the All Blacks should have won because if they hadn't thrown a forward pass or knocked the ball on, they would have scored a try.

I agree, but kicking is easily fixed, let's be honest. At International level goal kicking is usually above 80% - a far cry from the latest performances by Giteau and co. If one player knocked on the ball a number of times then I'd be more aggressive towards them than had they knocked it on once. I believe the goal kicking is easily fixable - if you disagree then so be it.

i think both teams were a little rusty, but I don't think they were out there to have fun - the AB's wanted to keep their winning record against the Wallabies for psychological reasons, and for the Wallabies, it's a huge Monkey off their backs winning this match ... you can tell how seriously both nations were taking this match by the fact that they fielded their strongest teams possible.

The lack of structure is a testament to the pressure both sides put upon one another.

The above I agree with - replace having fun with wanting to give the ball a bit of air in the sun

Yes, you could argue that the whole team is responsible for the loss for that matter (and they are), but if you come on as a replacement and your team is leading when you come on, you are a fringe player with others at home closely contesting your place in the squad, and you make a tactical error that leads to the opposition scoring the try and conversion that wins the game, you are going to be one of the first players under scrutiny don't you think.

I have nothing wrong with scrutinising Donald's performance, it's laying all the blame on one guy I disagree with. I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't see any other players receiving anywhere close to as much criticism.

Yes there were times when NZ were through the defense as well, only to knock on or forward pass ... well done Australia for finishing the opportunity when it was presented to them ... i would argue that if you kick the ball to the opposition giving him time to build up momentum, it's a lot harder to make the tackles, than if Donald had kicked it out, making the Wallabies try to breach a structured defense from the resulting line out ... i'm afraid the players missing the tackles in an attempt to clean up a poorly judged kick (so it's their fault) doesn't really wash with me.

So if one player misses a tackle they should've made, and then another five players miss tackles, you only find fault with the first tackler?

I don't think people will care to be honest - I think AB supporters will be saying thank God we finally won the RWC again, or they'll be looking for something to blame for why we dipped out again ... any win or loss will only be beneficial for what the AB's take out of it, how the players fix their errors, or who is retained or discarded as a result.

I know you have directed this comment at SmartCooky - I am not a Donald fan, as I believe there are better candidates left at home for the 1st five position, but having said that, I was 100% behind the ABs selected, and I really wanted the likes of Donald to succeed ... Donald's kick may not have been the sole reason for the loss, but in the crucial position of 1st five, you expect that player to be both sound tactically and in execution. Why shouldn't he,like all of the other players, be subject to scrutiny?

Again, he should be - but laying a loss on one player is ludicrous, unless they perhaps literally give the ball to the opposition.

Vic, did you have to pick out only Cookys post?...theres others that feel the same and have written similar or probably worse.

I do agree with alot of your post it makes sense to me except for the last paragraph above.

Directed at Cooky because he was the obvious choice, as a hater of Donald no matter what.

 

[smartcooky]

Invictus

Six of one, half a dozen of the other

I don't hate Donald, I just think he is not up to test standard. I can think of at least three 1st 5/8 in NZ who are more deserving of an All Black jersey than he is.

You, on the other hand, thinks he's The Messiah, a Golden Boy who can do no wrong.

I also don't lay the blame for the loss entirely on Donald... I blame the selectors too for picking him in the first place.

He was shown up so badly in this match, I just cannot see how anyone can spin it up to him being a test standard player, which he clearly is not.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Invictus

Six of one, half a dozen of the other

I don't hate Donald, I just think he is not up to test standard. I can think of at least three 1st 5/8 in NZ who are more deserving of an All Black jersey than he is.

You, on the other hand, thinks he's The Messiah, a Golden Boy who can do no wrong.

I also don't lay the blame for the loss entirely on Donald... I blame the selectors too for picking him in the first place.

He was shown up so badly in this match, I just cannot see how anyone can spin it up to him being a test standard player, which he clearly is not.

Yep, he's God - probably better than Carter at the moment, to be honest. I'd imagine that come the World Cup he'll probably be the starting first five, after he gets a few games in a row.

 

[SavageLez]

If Carter starts for the AB's then they will most likely win, however if he doesn't then Australia will have the best chance to finally beat New Zealand

Great call!

 

[madflyhalf]

LOST:

But the first guy was NOT supposed to leave!

 

[woodward]

Invictus he cost us the game, face it. He was kicking that goal for the game, he couldn't handle it. For that reason alone he will never play for the All Blacks again after this tour, the fact that he's a **** player and an idiot is really just embarrassing to the country.

He will always be remembered as the Worst All Black of all time.

 

[woodward]

haha exactly, Donald shouldn't have left the Island either he should have stayed here and achieved his maximum potential coming runner up in the ITM Cup

 

[ranger]

As i have said countless times before, Donald isn't a bad player.
He just doesn't have the composure, rugby brain or playmaking chops to run a test backline. Its as simple as that. He has been given enough chances to show what hes got and he has continuously come up short in those areas. This test just solidified my view.

I'm not sure that Slade is the messiah either however. I'm not yet convinced that he wont crumble under pressure like Donald does. The way he spectacularly failed when he first got a start at first five for the Crusaders is fresh in my mind. He has rarely been under duress since then and im not sure if he could handle it. Although, this tour would have been the perfect opportunity to test him and see weather he could handle the rigors or not..

I still think that the best option at the moment is Cruden. He has shown with Manawatu that he can handle being on the back foot, he can think clearly and calmly under fire and most importantly he can steer a backline around a field. Thats what we really need from a 10 at the end of the day.

As far as the next generation under that, i'm not sure on Anscombe as the next Carter. Hes talented but looks a bit flash in the pan. Beauden Barrett looks a safer bet.

 

[cyRil]

Maggie Gyllenhaal in the u20s looked very good at the world cup, but obviously that's all I've seen of him. What do Kiwis think of his prospects?
Also, I love Stephen Donald - just because of what he does at the Chiefs. At that level he is class.
Not so much when he's in all black though...

 

[lynam1104]

I kinda feel bad for Donald it's happened to well not me I'm a 2nd row but my team, but the rest of his game was **** i was fearful the minut he came on despite his ITM cup form I knew he would **** up. It was a great game and overall the Wallabies deserved to win.

 

[cyRil]

Mad how critical sport has got, isn't it? If he'd made touch, yeah people would still be saying he's not good enough for NZ, but not to this vitriolic extent.

 

[nickdnz]

I think people are being a little too harsh on Toeava. Yes, he slipped and had bad positioning, but Nonu did the same earlier in the game, I think it was a lot down to the turf. His knock on was annoying, but that too happened to Nonu several times, and some think he had a very good game (I'm not one of them, and I usually think Nonu's fantastic).

Both Toeava and Donald are in a similar kind of situation in a way. Both are stand out S14 and NPC level players, and both have been given plenty of oppertunities at test level, and not made the most of it. The difference I feel, is that Toeava has had the odd test in which he's looked fantastic, and regardless of this test, there does seem to be some gradual improvement. Slipping over in a test, while perhaps clumsy, could realistically happen to anyone, it's a mistake that doesn't really show a lack of talent or intellegence. Kicking the ball with 20 seconds left on the clock, into the field of play however, shows a lack of common sense. If he ran the ball up for a few more phases, the All blacks would have likely won. If he kicked the ball into touch, the All Blacks would have either instantly won, or at least been able to form a defensive pattern. If he passed the ball, and tried to run it out, they may have at least maintained possesion, and the All Black would have won. His tactic however, is my tactic, for when I want the other team to win in Rugby 08, and the clock is on over time. It was stupid, and it shows he can't handle pressure.

If this wasn't one year out from the World Cup, then fine. He may improve. But he's been an All Black for two years now, and has shown no improvement. Yes, we don't know how well Cruden and Slade would have done in that situation, but it has to be asked, could they have done much worse? They were probably both watching the game, with a smug smile on their faces, knowing that Graham Henry (who's a good coach, but a poor selector) f*cked up.