• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[EOYT] Ireland vs New Zealand 24/11/13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, you have a different definition of "deserving" then me. It frustrates me that because we have a different definition of a word that I'm labeled cocky and lacking humility.

To me if you score more points in 80 minutes than the other team you deserve to win except if the referee has a major influence. I think if the scoring was reversed and Ireland scored Kearney's try in the last minute people would then say that the AB's deserved to win. Basically if people see a team leading for most of a game they get it into their head that they deserved to win. We actually won many statistical categories - we had more possession, more territory, made a higher percentage of tackles and ran twice as many metres. None of that is why we deserved to win.

I really don't get that someone can say Ireland deserved to win because of their first half blitz. It's a bit like in soccer when a team has 90% possession and 20 shots on goal and lose 1-0. Did they deserve to lose? Yes! Because they did not take their chances. Same with Ireland - their fitness could not last for 80 minutes and our substitutes were better.

If a game of rugby is 21-20 and Team A wins. Let's say Team A scores 7 penalties and Team B scored 4 unconverted tries. Some might say that Team B deserved to win because they played more attacking rugby. I say no! Team B was undisciplined and couldn't kick goals - two key facets of the game. If Crotty had not scored and Ireland had won then of course Ireland would have deserved to win. Their defence would have been strong enough to hold on. As it stood Ireland could only score 3 points in the last 60 minutes of a rugby game and were not guilty of any negative bias by the referee. Therefore the result is fair. It's tough, it's sad but pointing out cold hard reality should not make one cocky. I even sad it was sad for Ireland in my original post!

I also fail to see how most New Zealanders are not being humble in this thread?

+1 Well said.

I do think that many of the perceived 'negative' comments here regarding the ABs/NZ are due to people simply being tired of you guys winning on top of people cheering on the underdog and a it's-lonely-at-the-top kind of thing LOL
 
Well, you have a different definition of "deserving" then me. It frustrates me that because we have a different definition of a word that I'm labeled cocky and lacking humility.

To me if you score more points in 80 minutes than the other team you deserve to win except if the referee has a major influence. I think if the scoring was reversed and Ireland scored Kearney's try in the last minute people would then say that the AB's deserved to win. Basically if people see a team leading for most of a game they get it into their head that they deserved to win. We actually won many statistical categories - we had more possession, more territory, made a higher percentage of tackles and ran twice as many metres. None of that is why we deserved to win.

I really don't get that someone can say Ireland deserved to win because of their first half blitz. It's a bit like in soccer when a team has 90% possession and 20 shots on goal and lose 1-0. Did they deserve to lose? Yes! Because they did not take their chances. Same with Ireland - their fitness could not last for 80 minutes and our substitutes were better.

If a game of rugby is 21-20 and Team A wins. Let's say Team A scores 7 penalties and Team B scored 4 unconverted tries. Some might say that Team B deserved to win because they played more attacking rugby. I say no! Team B was undisciplined and couldn't kick goals - two key facets of the game. If Crotty had not scored and Ireland had won then of course Ireland would have deserved to win. Their defence would have been strong enough to hold on. As it stood Ireland could only score 3 points in the last 60 minutes of a rugby game and were not guilty of any negative bias by the referee. Therefore the result is fair. It's tough, it's sad but pointing out cold hard reality should not make one cocky. I even sad it was sad for Ireland in my original post!

I also fail to see how most New Zealanders are not being humble in this thread?

I merely mentioned the "deserved" part, that NZ didn't deserve it as they were always expected to win. And on the 80 minute mark, the All Blacks were still behind on the score board. And then they sneaked the try. As I said in my original post on this thread, Ireland snatched defeat out of the jaws of Victory. That's the only reason why I say Ireland didn't deserve to lose. They showed immense resilience and in the end it just wasn't enough.

I picked the All Blacks to win this game by 20+ points. If you want, I'll even send you my Superbru picks confirmation e-mail.

And I agree, most NZ'ers are humble in this thread, but those who aren't, are overshadowing the rest of you. And that's always the case. People focus more on the negative than the positive.
 
freaking hilarious comparing the TMO checks on the first Irish try to the last All Black try

Irish Try - quick single look flashed up on screen and ignore pretty obvious knock on evidence, award the try and stop replaying it so people don't actually see and realize the ball moved and hit the ground independently of the players arm, hand or body

All Black try - check clear back passes not even line balls three times

Whoa, hang on there.

I agree the first Irish try was a bit dodgy. It definitely looked like the ball was dropped before it was grounded.

But for the winning try, the pass from Cruden to Coles was very much a line ball. Coles definitely caught it ahead of a line across the field through where Cruden passed it; thats why the crowd were off about it. Of course, that doesn't mean it was forward.

Also, there was a mis-communication between Graham Hughes (TMO) and Nigel Owens, who was having a lot of trouble with his comms equipment in the second half. Initially, Hughes thought Owens wanted the last pass looked at, and it was about 30 seconds and a few replays before Owens realised that Hughes was looking at the wrong pass.
 
I merely mentioned the "deserved" part, that NZ didn't deserve it as they were always expected to win. And on the 80 minute mark, the All Blacks were still behind on the score board. And then they sneaked the try. As I said in my original post on this thread, Ireland snatched defeat out of the jaws of Victory. That's the only reason why I say Ireland didn't deserve to lose. They showed immense resilience and in the end it just wasn't enough.

I picked the All Blacks to win this game by 20+ points. If you want, I'll even send you my Superbru picks confirmation e-mail.

And I agree, most NZ'ers are humble in this thread, but those who aren't, are overshadowing the rest of you. And that's always the case. People focus more on the negative than the positive.

Now I think your further fallacy is by coming into the game with prejudged expectations. Rugby is not a handicapped sport. Just because a team is expected to win by 20+ points and only wins by 2 points does not mean they did not deserve to win. It's about what happens in the 80 minutes on the field as to who deserves to win; not what happens before or afterwards. That's the way I see it anyway - you are welcome to have an alternative interpretation if you want. I just hope I'm not called cocky for how I define a word.

Once again, Ireland were brave and showed great character but deserved to lose. Same thing happened to my soccer team Wellington Phoenix on Saturday Night conceding a winner in the 93rd minute. Hey, they didn't play to the last minute. The same thing happened to my other team Man U this morning - we all know what it feels like and it sucks.
 
Whoa, hang on there.

I agree the first Irish try was a bit dodgy. It definitely looked like the ball was dropped before it was grounded.

But for the winning try, the pass from Cruden to Coles was very much a line ball. Coles definitely caught it ahead of a line across the field through where Cruden passed it; thats why the crowd were off about it. Of course, that doesn't mean it was forward.

Also, there was a mis-communication between Graham Hughes (TMO) and Nigel Owens, who was having a lot of trouble with his comms equipment in the second half. Initially, Hughes thought Owens wanted the last pass looked at, and it was about 30 seconds and a few replays before Owens realised that Hughes was looking at the wrong pass.

I had no issues with the Irish try, thought he had enough control for it to be given. I also thought the Dagg try should've been awarded, I think given the shape of the rugby ball it would've been almost impossible for it not to have been grounded. And the final AB try was quite obviously allowable after seeing the replay, given how that kind of thing has been refereed in the last year or so (I don't know if I've actually seen any forward passes ruled forward by a TMO?).
 
Now I think your further fallacy is by coming into the game with prejudged expectations. Rugby is not a handicapped sport. Just because a team is expected to win by 20+ points and only wins by 2 points does not mean they did not deserve to win. It's about what happens in the 80 minutes on the field as to who deserves to win; not what happens before or afterwards. That's the way I see it anyway - you are welcome to have an alternative interpretation if you want. I just hope I'm not called cocky for how I define a word.

Once again, Ireland were brave and showed great character but deserved to lose. Same thing happened to my soccer team Wellington Phoenix on Saturday Night conceding a winner in the 93rd minute. Hey, they didn't play to the last minute. The same thing happened to my other team Man U this morning - we all know what it feels like and it sucks.

fair enough.

Perhaps we do have different interpretations of the word "deserve". In that case, Ireland deserved the win more than NZ in my opinion...
 
fair enough.

Perhaps we do have different interpretations of the word "deserve". In that case, Ireland deserved the win more than NZ in my opinion...

I don't want to labour the point, but why do think they deserved to win?
 
I do think that many of the perceived 'negative' comments here regarding the ABs/NZ are due to people simply being tired of you guys winning on top of people cheering on the underdog and a it's-lonely-at-the-top kind of thing LOL

Thats a fair cop.
The All Blacks are most concerned with bettering their performance everytime they go out.
They set the benchmark against themselves to improve and improve.
They do not look at other teams, they look at themselves, at their mistakes and where they can improve.
A mentality like that is treading the correct path to improving results and scorecards for the future.
 
I don't want to labour the point, but why do think they deserved to win?

I'm saying this from a neutral point of view, and it's just my opinion, with which you can differ.

Ireland deserved the win because they did something which no other team could this year, not even my beloved Springboks, and that was that they left the Kiwi's shell-shocked. They gave everyone watching the game the belief that this Kiwi team, which has been dubbed as one of the best teams ever, and with their record of the perfect season, they showed that they are not afraid of this mighty All Black team. that first half blitz was something nobody expected. and to have such a big lead and to keep it up to full time has to be commended. I think most would agree with me that it was expected for NZ to come back in the second half and score, they showed that the last year that they go into another gear. But up to 80 minutes, the Irish hang in there, fighting to keep their lead, and to win the kiwi's for the first time ever...

They were the true underdogs for this match. Everyone likes the underdog. It took real gusto from every player to hold on. and in the end it just wasn't enough.
 
Tackle in the air from a grubber...ridiculious.
agree, does that mean if you field a kick you start running and any time a tackler comes near you, you jump in the air to avoid being tackled. If we hadnt won this Owens would be for it, he should be anyhow as that was such a weird display, the rucks were a free for all!
 
However, I would like to highlight that while they're the first side to win every match in a calendar year during the professional era, they aren't the first "unbeaten" side. Ireland were the first, going through 2009 unbeaten (nine wins and a draw against the Aussies).

Sorry pal... Hate to take your little victory away from you...

The All Blacks in 1997... 11 wins and a draw in the final test of the season against England. (beating Ireland 63-15 at the old landsdowne road by the way)

still though... I'm sure the Irish team of 2009 were a great side...

they obviously didn't play the all blacks though... otherwise they wouldn't have been unbeaten... But you can only beat who's in front of you right....

Well done to the Irish though... One hell of a test...
 
Irish got away with murder at the breakdown. That was the only reason the Irish got anywhere near the All Blacks. Any time the All Blacks got into the Irish 22 they'd slow it down, play off their feet, or put hands in the ruck. Nigel Owens warned and warned them yet never dug into his pocket. Good win to pull through. Ben Smith is not a centre, they've lost so much structure, shows how influential Conrad is to this side.
Owens let so much go, there were hardly penalties in the match which he probably thinks was due to his efficient officiating! The main reason NZ has been so inconsistent on tour is the different refereeing interpretations. If Joubert was reffing yesterday we would have won by 10-15 as the Irish were flying off their feet, last week the English were blocking the ball and Joubert allows that, NZ are so cautious (maybe too much) around this area as we get pinged for 'potentially' doing something wrong!
 
Well, after letting some time go by here are my thoughts.

Agree with almost all of Mr Fish's points.

I think the starting front row were solid but pretty unspectacular. Andrew Hore had a pretty forgettable game for what is likely his last and I'm not suprised he was subbed early. We're used to seeing him be much more effective in the breakdown. He was solid enough but didn't contribute in the breakdown area like we're used to seeing from him. Wyatt Crockett made one run all game, and just didn't stand out. The starting tight fives scrum went alright, was pretty much even with Ireland's scrum, which not to be overly critical but I think they are aiming a bit low if that's a good performance.

I actually think Coles was exceptional when he came on. I've been critical that he's often not physical enough, but he did exactly what we needed him to do. He made all his tackles, beat defenders and made a clean line break, while he linked very well with the backline in a way which all of our other forwards did not. I probably put that as his best test. Both the Franks brothers also offered impact at the bench. Once again I'm often not a huge fan of Ben Frank's scrummaging, but both brothers provided a solid platform. Most importantly though, it was those two brothers that allowed us to retain the ball for as long as we did towards the end, they were much more solid in protecting the ruck than anyone else - and that was an area which Ireland were really dominating.

The second row was alright. Someone said Sam Whitelock had a quiet game. I would have said there was no other All Black who worked as hard. He was everywhere, diving on loose balls, making tackles and hitting rucks. Other than a loss ball on an own throw (which was under thrown to be fair) he had a very good game. Retallick was also very busy, but seemed to be used constantly as a running option, so much so that no one else touched the ball as much as him. The problem was that many of these runs just seemed to be a lack of ideas, and Ireland were anticipating that he may pass back on the inside. The result was that he made metres usually when he touched the ball, but wasn't especially effective other than to buy time and was often pressured into errors.

The looseforwards did not have a good game. I'm a big fan of Luatua - but he really needed to show a lot more mungrel. Not that this is especially Luatua's fault, but the ABs are just completely without an enforcer. Against England you have Farrell pushing Cruden - this game you have O'Brien running up to push Aaron Smith. A few years ago Brad Thorn would have defended his team and likely scared the crap out of the opposing team. This team however just seems to have an attitude of 'I'd rather be passive in conflict and play the game' - which seems right however I feel it translates in how we play the game. Someone like Lutua should have been much more influential in terms of out-muscling the Irish, but as athletic as he is didn't show much aggression. Richie McCaw made the most tackles, but also missed a few which includes getting bumped - and I was watching this game thinking most of the time that Sam Cane would genuinely have done a better job. Kieran Read was quiter than usual - not a bad game and was still consistently one of our better players in terms of getting go forward ball, but it still wasn't his best day. Messam was good off the bench. I'd still rather have Kaino than Messam every day of the week, but he came on fresh and enthusiastic and added some impact with his runs.

Aaron Smith had a pretty good game I thought. He wasn't well protected at the breakdown, but I dispute Kerr-Barlow would have been better or even half as good as his delivery has been terrible when under pressure over the last 12 months. Aaron Smith didn't box kick often which really is a fantastic improvement, especially with Ireland's backs being very solid in the air, and I thought he took the right options almost every time. A criticism I do have is he doesn't really seem to have much idea of controlling pace as we were pretty frantic in times in which he'd pass the ball out to Retallick instead of letting the backline set up an effective pattern. His link play was also good. I'm super annoyed Peranara wasn't given an oppertunity this tour, he should have been on the bench against France or England. I appreciate this probably wasn't the right game to test him, but Hansen really hasn't given this guy a fair shot.

Aaron Cruden had a mixed game I thought. Other than not kicking out once, his kicking from hand was generally pretty effective. He also took the line on plenty and despite support usually being well covered he'd made a good decision. However our backline without Conrad Smith or Daniel Carter has been terrifically disorganized. The number of times Cruden ran sideways, jinking and looking for an option and there not being one was making me pull my hair out. I'm certainly not SBW's biggest fan, but for some reason when he played with SBW there always a good option for the ball outside him to offload to or pass to and link back up. Nonu just doesn't provide that option and so Cruden can tend to look lost.

The centres weren't outstanding. Nonu's stats according to scrum.com are actually pretty outstanding. He's credited with 4 turnovers, three defenders beaten with one clean break - only one kick (which is a nice change) and the similar numer of runs as passes with 13 passes and 12 runs. That said I just didn't think he made the right decisions most of the time. When there was space outside he ran into traffic and when there was no space he'd pass. Some of his errors really put the All Blacks under pressure such as his self-tackle. Despite Larkea liking Ben Smith I thought he once again looked pretty lost at centre. He made 102ms apparently which is hard to complain about, but he just doesn't seem to be comfortable defensively there, and the backline just is unorganized with him there. When he brieftly slotted into fullback he looked considerably better and I was pretty happy when he went on the wing afterwards. Shame saying it as I thought he had the most potential at centre. Crotty was solid when he came on and think god he got that try at the end!

Outside backs were mixed. Julian Savea was good. Nice try, was always dangerous with ball in hand and good work for the second week off the ball. Cory Jane was quiet but just didn't seem to have many chances. I would have liked to see both wingers counter attack more. Dagg was the worst All Black on the field. Other than his handling error which was bad but pretty forgivable had there been nothing else - he continiously out the team under pressure with his terrible jog and then goos step. Guess what Dagg, when you do a small jog and goose step in the counter attack, your team has to go back and get behind you cause you haven't done anything with pace - and the ball gets turned over! For the second week in a row he only made two tackles - which is fine if they're not breaking the line - but Ireland did break the line. Worst of all - his kicking game has gone to crap, which has been the only reason he's been starting the last few week.

Beuden Barrett is the reason we won this match. Before he came on I think the ABs were beat. The energy he brought onto the field lifted the team dramatically, and Ireland did not look like they could contain him. He backed himself with hard running, made great decisions and just did everything you could ask of the guy (even beating Cian Healy in contact). I want him to become a great 10 and hope he stays there for the Canes, but he has just been to good to not start games and hope he is given a chance at fullback if not fly half.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying this from a neutral point of view, and it's just my opinion, with which you can differ.

Ireland deserved the win because they did something which no other team could this year, not even my beloved Springboks, and that was that they left the Kiwi's shell-shocked. They gave everyone watching the game the belief that this Kiwi team, which has been dubbed as one of the best teams ever, and with their record of the perfect season, they showed that they are not afraid of this mighty All Black team. that first half blitz was something nobody expected. and to have such a big lead and to keep it up to full time has to be commended. I think most would agree with me that it was expected for NZ to come back in the second half and score, they showed that the last year that they go into another gear. But up to 80 minutes, the Irish hang in there, fighting to keep their lead, and to win the kiwi's for the first time ever...

They were the true underdogs for this match. Everyone likes the underdog. It took real gusto from every player to hold on. and in the end it just wasn't enough.

As I said in my post above I think it has been overstated how well the Irish played in the first half. They didn't have all the running. We made line breaks and got close to scoring a few tries. The lead flattered them at halftime and we were hardly she'll shocked. They scored two lovely tries and a fluke one. We scored three well put together constructed tries, one under the most testing circumstances. I think we thoroughly deserved it.
 
As I said in my post above I think it has been overstated how well the Irish played in the first half. They didn't have all the running. We made line breaks and got close to scoring a few tries. The lead flattered them at halftime and we were hardly she'll shocked. They scored two lovely tries and a fluke one. We scored three well put together constructed tries, one under the most testing circumstances. I think we thoroughly deserved it.

fine, I'm not going to rip you apart for your comments. I take it as it is.

That's the beauty of opinions, they are different... I respect your point of view and am happy with it. I'm sticking with my opinion and you with yours. No animosity, no disrespect... Everyone wins...
 
Of the fact that Brian O'Driscoll is better than any outside back New Zealand have produced in the professional era.

Someone says hello!!

art-jonah_lomu1-420x0.jpg
 
Regarding Beauden Barrett, yep, the kid's on fire.
He's done it all in the heat of the moment against the powerful Boks and against a rampant Irish team, he deserves a chance at the starting line up.
Lets see what he's got when all the opposition players are fresh, not after 60 minutes.


Of the fact that Brian O'Driscoll is better than any outside back New Zealand have produced in the professional era.

BOD is a brilliant player but he stands out in a traditionally average Irish side, I'll start naming NZ outside backs that are better, had more successful test careers and were bigger stars on the international scene... tell me when to stop. Cullen, Lomu, Wilson, Umaga, Howlett, Rococoko, I'd put BOD level with Conrad Smith and Muliaina. Biased maybe, truth yes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rVGgr7f.jpg

A picture is worth a thousand words.......
 
The faces tell the story, great photograph.
Oh Ireland, such an amazing first half performance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top