• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

EOYT: Scotland v AIG All Blacks, 11/11/2012

Just watching this one right now, the Scottish commentary complaining about the fans booing Carter while he kicks....just wait till Scotland comes to Toronto in 2014!!!!
Have no problem with home fans booing the other team - I mean that's why it's home field advantage and all innit? Still, I have a ton of respect when the Irish and Japanese are deafly quiet during kicks.
 
You mean the z(z-1) term? Well, yeah under normal circumstances. But the formula is for approximating the mass of an atomic nucleus and the Z term in question has to do with proton-proton repulsion. z^2 becomes z(z-1) as you must include the case where you have just one proton, (eg. Helium and Hydrogen) which can't repel itself.

But still, good catch, should have used a different formula to make myself seem all fancy and smart.
You just wouldn't see this on a soccer forum!
 
Thoughts on NZ:

- Very sloppy game from them, especially on defence. The attack was ok, but it was made to look great by very poor Scottish defence.
- Vito was probably my pick from the forwards, he had a great game. It would be nice to see him play at 8 against a top team now.
- Thomson shot himself in the foot.
- Weepu wasn't bad. He wasn't good.
- The midfield went pretty well, especially on attack. Again, it would be good to see the combination against a better team, but I doubt we will see it.
- Savea was very good, Barrett was ok when he came on, did most things well.
- Coles made a good impact, Kerr-Barlow wasn't great. Can't take much from this cameo though.

Nice sum up. Echo my thoughts pretty well.

1. Wyatt Crockett - Had a good game overall I thought. Carried pretty well and actually had some nice link play. His scrummaging dominated the Scottish (although he did tend to bore in). 7/10
2. Andrew Hore - Somewhat critical of him in this game. Other than a try which he showed a bit of grunt, his ball carrying was pretty average. He only rarely made it past the advantage line. Good scrummaging - but didn't see so much pilfering. 6/10
Owen Franks - Scrumaged well. Made tackles. 7/10
4. Luke Romano - Was actually very impressed. One of the main reasons our setpiece was dominant. Won some good lineouts against the throw and our scrum was solid. Fairly good ball carrying too. 7.5/10
5. Sam Whitelock - Probably my forward of the game. Ran well with the ball, lineouts went well. Didn't do muh wrong all game. 8/10
6. Adam Thomson - The problem is he drifted in and out of the game. He'd be useful and then invisibile, then useful, then invisibile. I'm not just talking about his yellow card either. 6/10
7. Richie McCaw - Good game from McCaw like always, made plenty of turnovers and carried well. - 7/10
8. Victor Vito - Carried very well, as you'd expect with that much space. Big fan of him but he still doesn't move bodies from a ruck like he does for the Canes. Still good game and he certainly benefitted from playing in his prefered position. 7.5/10
9. Piri Weepu - Got a lot of praise after the game. He was quicker than he usually is, but by no means was he quick. Interesting bringing him along for those games where it's 'wet', when the new quick ball interpretations means we need to speed up delivery. Still, not a bad game - just not one which should keep him safe from Peranara. 6.5/10
10. Daniel Carter - Magic. One bad pass intercepted, but the rest was magic. Hard to believe the guy is 30 with his dancing feet. All class, deserved man of the match. 8.5/10
11. Julain Savea - On the whole was good. Scored two nice tries (I think he's scored more tried now than games he's played?). Sometimes I wish he'd back himself to run a bit more, rather than kick (as he's not especially good at it). 7.5/10.
12. Tamati Ellison - Suprised more people aren't talking about him, thought he was slightly better than Ben Smith, which is annoying cause usually I don't rate him THAT highly. Had very good feet and distribution. Wish he wasn't just about 30. 8/10.
13. Ban Smith - Always prefered him at centre than at fullback, certainly had a good game there. Nice hands and vision with a handy bit of speed for a centre. 7.5/10.
14. Cory Jane - Good under the highball, kept the ball alive well for Hore's try, scored a nice one himself but never really got that much space. Did pretty well considering. 7/10.
15. Israel Dagg - Did well till he got hit in the mouth, landed heavily on his arse and awkwardly on his leg all in the fraction of a second. Hope he isn't too injured. 7/10.

16. Dane Coles - Looked pretty good when he came on. Cleared a lot of ball from the rucks, carried reasonably well when he got the chance - scrum didn't hurt while he was on. 7/10.
17. Tony Woodcock - Didn't notice the game change much when he came on. Continues to scrum well. 7/10.
18. Ben Franks - See Tony Woodcock. 7/10.
19. Ali Williams - Didn't do anything exceptional while he was on but didn't screw up much either. Hope he doesn't play against Wales or England. 7/10.
20. Sam Cane - N/A
21. Tawera Kerr-Barlow - Looked very nervous. Good to see him get a run. His passes always fast and crisp, but a few weren't very accurate. Still, I expect to see him improve in the coming games when the nerves aren't as big. 6/10.
22. Beuden Barrett - Was very impressed with Barrett. Didn't notice he was at fullback for much of it, as he joined the line as a second distributor very often. Still, had some very nice passes, especially one leading to one of Savea's tries. 7.5/10.
23. Ma'a Nonu - N/A

My thoughts on the overall game - All Blacks were poor in defense. We let Scotland get momentum and run up rather than hit the line at pace and drive them back. We made too many errors in our own half, and didn't play enough down in theirs. We were too passive at the breakdown, relying on them to make mistakes rather than really contesting (something which I thought was one of the reasons we drew with Aussie). To be honest, if you let Scotland in for three tries - that's worth tripple the number for just about any other team - so we have a LOT to work on.

Scotland actually played fairly well. A few too many errors but overall wasn't a bad effort. Gray was a monster running the ball - often sucked up three tacklers to get him down and still made it far past the advantage line during those quick taps. Visser did very well to score two tries - if Maitland makes the Scotland team they well have a very, very good back three. Mike Blair was class as usual. Was suprised with Nick de Luca as he looked good about two or three times in the game when he ran hard, almost breaking the line, but rarely seemed to get the ball. Don't know why David Denton doesn't start - clearly one of the best looseforwards going.
 
You would if there was a complex mathematical formula that involved "diving"

You could also find that formula on The Silverfern.

if-you-know-what-i-mean-420x250.png
 
I still can't work out if the All Blacks are playing at such a level that nobody can touch them, or if the rest of the world are all going through synchronised form slumps. I've yet to be overly impressed with them in any of our matches this year, as I still feel like they haven't quite hit top gear. I dunno, maybe it's just me.
 
Don't know why David Denton doesn't start - clearly one of the best looseforwards going.

Because he has been utter arse so far this season.

The way the Edinburgh players fronted up today has me beelin. I don't care if they hate Bradley's guts, if they had put in half the effort for Edinburgh this season as they did yesterday they may even have won a game or two.

Can't believe I am saying this, but Lawson needs to start, and Ford needs to be sent somewhere far, far away.
 
Good win for the all blacks but scotland played with a lot of heart and did well just poor in defence at times with many errors but did better than I thought they would overall!
 
I still can't work out if the All Blacks are playing at such a level that nobody can touch them, or if the rest of the world are all going through synchronised form slumps. I've yet to be overly impressed with them in any of our matches this year, as I still feel like they haven't quite hit top gear. I dunno, maybe it's just me.

I don't think they have hit top gear either. The team they have at the moment is fantastic, but is not as clinical and polished as previous AB sides. I think the reason why they are playing at such a level that noone can touch is for a number of reasons, mainly:

1)Their ball skills are far better than any other nation. Slick, fast, accurate passing. Players receiving the ball rarely have to slow down. And it's hard to defend against, especially when they pass out of the tackle. Lots of teams do this, but invariably knock the ball on so often revert to just hitting it up. Easy to defend against. You watch when they get into their oppositions 22, they have a ruck on the tramline, the ball gets passed from 9 - 10 - all the way to 11 who scores in the corner. No fancy moves, just very, very good passing. Not many teams can do that. England did on Saturday, but only in patches.

2)Tactics - they rarely make stupid tactical errors. They pass when should and kick when they should. When I have watched Scotland, in general they often play quite poorly from a tactical perspective. They often just kick possession away in their oppositions half, silly chips or grubbers or kicking for the line. Hoping the opposition make a mistake.

3)Reserves - the guys they bring on are as good as the guys they replace

4)Most top teams have great conditioning, but the ABs have always seemed to have just that little bit more.
 
I don't think they have hit top gear either. The team they have at the moment is fantastic, but is not as clinical and polished as previous AB sides. I think the reason why they are playing at such a level that noone can touch is for a number of reasons, mainly:

1)Their ball skills are far better than any other nation. Slick, fast, accurate passing. Players receiving the ball rarely have to slow down. And it's hard to defend against, especially when they pass out of the tackle. Lots of teams do this, but invariably knock the ball on so often revert to just hitting it up. Easy to defend against. You watch when they get into their oppositions 22, they have a ruck on the tramline, the ball gets passed from 9 - 10 - all the way to 11 who scores in the corner. No fancy moves, just very, very good passing. Not many teams can do that. England did on Saturday, but only in patches.

2)Tactics - they rarely make stupid tactical errors. They pass when should and kick when they should. When I have watched Scotland, in general they often play quite poorly from a tactical perspective. They often just kick possession away in their oppositions half, silly chips or grubbers or kicking for the line. Hoping the opposition make a mistake.

3)Reserves - the guys they bring on are as good as the guys they replace

4)Most top teams have great conditioning, but the ABs have always seemed to have just that little bit more.

I agree with all that and would also like to add

- continuity
They've been ahead for so long now that they havn't had the need to change anything and the structures are in place so that they have had continuity in coaching staff and game plan as well as players in that they bring the young guys in throughout a cycle and these guys invariably hit the ground running as

- centralised structures
their SR franchices and the national team play similar enough games as they are almost microcosms of the national side whereas most other nations' clubs have characters that vary much more in relation to each other and to the test team. Central contracts help with spreading the talent evenly so that you're best are getting consistant game time but you have enough control to implement keep a hold on the conditioning of the players

- depth in talent
just means you can afford to rest someone like McCaw and there is always someone to come in and make the step up.

- other teams have had major loss of continuity through injury and/or major changes in selections and/or gameplans
IE each new coach tries to reinvent the wheel rather than develop the suspension and work on the aerodynamics.
 
I agree with all that and would also like to add

- continuity
They've been ahead for so long now that they havn't had the need to change anything and the structures are in place so that they have had continuity in coaching staff and game plan as well as players in that they bring the young guys in throughout a cycle and these guys invariably hit the ground running as

- centralised structures
their SR franchices and the national team play similar enough games as they are almost microcosms of the national side whereas most other nations' clubs have characters that vary much more in relation to each other and to the test team. Central contracts help with spreading the talent evenly so that you're best are getting consistant game time but you have enough control to implement keep a hold on the conditioning of the players


- depth in talent
just means you can afford to rest someone like McCaw and there is always someone to come in and make the step up.

- other teams have had major loss of continuity through injury and/or major changes in selections and/or gameplans
IE each new coach tries to reinvent the wheel rather than develop the suspension and work on the aerodynamics.

I think that in particular is a very interesting point.

I guess, as you've both pointed out, what is central to the ABs' play atm is the neat passing and fitness. It looks simple, but the fact is that a lot of teams can't execute it at the same level of consistency.

I did notice from watching a couple of the other EOYT matches this weekend that where a lot other teams are lacking is by simply doing the basic things right. I'm not sure why these things are missing, however. Even though rugby is firmly New Zealand's number one sport, you would think that other countries where it's not as prominent would focus primarily on doing the basics right. I don't mean that as a slate, btw, but even the most limited of talent pools can give any team a go if their game is built around the basics (and that doesn't mean ten man rugby). A couple of times I heard the Scottish commentators mention how the Scottish needed to 'keep up' with the All Blacks, inferring, almost, that it was a matter of fitness. In a lot of cases, I think it is. If other teams can't keep up with the style of play, then there is a need to be fitter. I had a hockey coach once who said that if you're fit, you should be able to at least match it with any team on the field. I can't see that there's much different here.

Basically, what I'm saying is there's no reason why the rest of the world shouldn't be up there with the All Blacks too, because as far as I can see, the biggest difference is that the All Blacks largely do the 'easy' things to perfection. That and their support play. Again, I don't think there's any great secret to this, but maybe it's just that it's made to look that way by the ABs.

Agree about the tactics, btw, Zed. But that comes with naturally reading the game, another thing that can't be taught.
 
With regards to fitness, look at Allen Jacobsen.

He was told to lose mass over the summer, he did a bit, looked a little fitter (and by that I mean he could get around the park to be penalised even more), but has now gained more fat, he is even big than he was before.

No player with the stomach the size of his would even get a sniff at the All Blacks, Weepu must be in awe of Jacobsen's ability to retain weight in spite of modern professional fitness and dietary regimes.
 
I think that in particular is a very interesting point.

I guess, as you've both pointed out, what is central to the ABs' play atm is the neat passing and fitness. It looks simple, but the fact is that a lot of teams can't execute it at the same level of consistency.

I did notice from watching a couple of the other EOYT matches this weekend that where a lot other teams are lacking is by simply doing the basic things right. I'm not sure why these things are missing, however. Even though rugby is firmly New Zealand's number one sport, you would think that other countries where it's not as prominent would focus primarily on doing the basics right. I don't mean that as a slate, btw, but even the most limited of talent pools can give any team a go if their game is built around the basics (and that doesn't mean ten man rugby). A couple of times I heard the Scottish commentators mention how the Scottish needed to 'keep up' with the All Blacks, inferring, almost, that it was a matter of fitness. In a lot of cases, I think it is. If other teams can't keep up with the style of play, then there is a need to be fitter. I had a hockey coach once who said that if you're fit, you should be able to at least match it with any team on the field. I can't see that there's much different here.

Basically, what I'm saying is there's no reason why the rest of the world shouldn't be up there with the All Blacks too, because as far as I can see, the biggest difference is that the All Blacks largely do the 'easy' things to perfection. That and their support play. Again, I don't think there's any great secret to this, but maybe it's just that it's made to look that way by the ABs.

One of the reasons why their skill level is so high, is because of touch rugby. Touch comps are huge in Nz & Oz & a lot of rugby players play touch 2 - 3 times a week in the off season. So you get props and second rowers playing touch and learning how to throw 15/20m passes as well as learning how to catch bullets and also things like running lines and angles. So you end up with forwards that have pretty handy ball skills. And we have decent weather, so the ball gets flung around a lot. I think in the UK, it's wet and cold and not conducive to open rugby, so people don't get a chance to develop these vital skills. Watching the England game, they had a simple two on one and their prop with the mohawk threw a spanner pass and bombed the try. You could see by the way he was holding the ball and by the way he passed, it was not something that was natural to him. Those lack of basic skills cost teams games.
 
did anyone catch the scottish commentator say Carter was "hugely overrated"

really ?! No...
I heard him say "they're just a class above everybody else", which is obviously true...he seemed pretty admirative of their display.
There's no discussion about Carter though...it's overwhelmingly obvious he's that good, not overrated at all...perhaps the greatest candy for the eyes in the world of rugby, ever...
 
Top