June Internationals: New Zealand - France, 2nd test

[austingtir]

I agree with smartcooky in that i think it was pressure that made France crack and i'll use a word thats been used against us many a time i felt like France CHOCKED in this game. You could see it in their eyes as the game went on just like us in the semi finals of the WC when things didnt go right for us.

When you put that much defensive pressure on a team they will crack just like we did at the WC on a few occasions. And when you crack its not just your defence that goes out the window its your attack aswell.

I do actually. And I'm not trying to take anything away from any team that plays France, or the team I'm cheering for. It's just a fact France was poor as shyt, and trust me, it's not a preferred alternative for me to say that....that my national side was poor as shyt.

The only reason we stay in certain games is because we have world class players, and abnormally high quality at certain positions. In some games we actually have nice cohesion and can string very pretty attacks lately...but nothing like November since the defeat to Italy that first weekend of the 6N.

This is the 30-0 (or wtvr big score to nil) that feels the least like we've been crushed. It's NZ taking advantage of the nothing we produced.

NZ didn't heroically resist France's immense pressure during those 50-phase sequences, it's France that just had someone grab the ball and throw himself at the defense. When we went wide, it was after the slowest ball, the most predictable passes. All I can give NZ is props for the effort, but obviously they weren't just gonna let us in, but the defense was just tidy and....there. It was just there...

I knew we couldn't score a try on NZ today, because we SUCKED on attack, ya dig ?
France completely deserved the 30-0 result, but maybe a little 3 or 6 pts were due, for effort.

NZ played well, we played like total shyt in everything but the scrum (and defense most of the way), which are the two things that require no creativity or game plan (well defense a bit...).
That's all. That's all I'm saying. Good win for NZ...and a terribly awkward scoreline for us.....:mellow:

One thing i must add... of course its going to be about A. Smith. This guy is a huge liability for us on defence. Im watching this game again now and he is just totally ineffective at tackling as you expect for a guy his size. I see him just constantly hovering around the back of the ruck not even commiting to the defence line for hardly anything... Then you see Weepu or Kerr barlow come on and our defence just steps up big time around the ruck and in general. Its a massive difference and quite noticeable. It really is a bit baffling to me why you would want to start a game with this guy not adding anything in this area. The only reason i can see we are getting away with it is our first line of defence has been quite effective and maybe we can get away with it but i can only see that lasting until someone figures out good plays to expose this.

 

[Shaggy]

One thing i must add... of course its going to be about A. Smith. This guy is a huge liability for us on defence. Im watching this game again now and he is just totally ineffective at tackling as you expect for a guy his size. I see him just constantly hovering around the back of the ruck not even commiting to the defence line for hardly anything... Then you see Weepu or Kerr barlow come on and our defence just steps up big time around the ruck and in general. Its a massive difference and quite noticeable. It really is a bit baffling to me why you would want to start a game with this guy not adding anything in this area. The only reason i can see we are getting away with it is our first line of defence has been quite effective and maybe we can get away with it but i can only see that lasting until someone figures out good plays to expose this.

...and yet, he was partnered with Aaron Cruden (who is also small), and had Picamole running at them all day, and they still held the French scoreless ... obviously the AB selectors value his passing abilities, and quickness at clearing the ball from the rucks, as making him worthy as the starting half back.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

unfortunately I didn't get to see the game last night as I wasn't home or near a pub with foxsports but from the score it sounds like the ABs really turned it up a notch

 

[smartcooky]

I see him just constantly hovering around the back of the ruck not even committing to the defence line for hardly anything... .

TBH that is where I would expect him to defend at least some of the time, depending on the situation.

Firstly, someone has to defend behind the ruck, especially near the goal-line, to prevent a player from simply going over or through the ruck.

Secondly, being behind the ruck means he is marking up in the opposing "acting scrum half" so he his able to float to follow his opponent if he decides to run instead of pass. If there is no defenders behind the ruck, or the acting scrummie commits himself to the defensive line on one side or the other, then he leaves open the possibility that his opponent will see this and skirt around the other side of the ruck.

 

[austingtir]

TBH that is where I would expect him to defend at least some of the time, depending on the situation.

Firstly, someone has to defend behind the ruck, especially near the goal-line, to prevent a player from simply going over or through the ruck.

Secondly, being behind the ruck means he is marking up in the opposing "acting scrum half" so he his able to float to follow his opponent if he decides to run instead of pass. If there is no defenders behind the ruck, or the acting scrummie commits himself to the defensive line on one side or the other, then he leaves open the possibility that his opponent will see this and skirt around the other side of the ruck.

Well of course thats obvious he did do alot of directing players around in the defensive line..... (thats about all he did defensively imo).

Im more talking about the instances where i think he should be up in the line. You watch kerr barlow or weepu both of them go from being behind the ruck when they need to be to up in the line adding to the wall of defence when they need to be. Smith will sooner direct someone else into the hole than risk taking it himself. Which is why i state that he is a liability. He is hiding behind others just like Quade Cooper used to but noticeably has stepped up this year because clearly he had to.

I still think that having both him and Cruden on the field is a recipe for disaster. We have simply been lucky no team other than perhaps England has exposed him for his weaknesses yet.

I just think between him and Cruden he is by far the more expendable out of the two. Imo Cruden has almost surpassed Carter as our first choice first five even if it isnt actually the case and Hansen and Carter would never admitt it.

Also to add about Piccamoles he was really the only effective French forward there was nobody backing him up or he wasnt getting away offloads. If he had a couple of mates that were picking and driving straight off him or he got offloads away this could of been quite a different series.

The other thing i Noticed about Piccamoles is when they were hard on our line he never seemed that keen to really take a good run up at us and fire into the line. Imo thats all he had to do is a big crash ball and we would probably of been in real trouble but I dont think he did it once which is quite unbelievable.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Perhaps if your understanding of the Laws of Rugby were better, you would realise why both Wayne Barnes and Alan Rolland were right in their rulings and you are wrong.

I already admitted I didn't know the law perfectly and alluded to that exact law you wrote up, so you didn't need to repeat it. BUT no, I would not say the refs were always right as certainly the players didn't always get their hands on the ball before a ruck was formed, but still were allowed the turnover or the tackled player was still penalised for holding on.

I am very aware of the rules, except as I metioned already, 16.4b. This was mentioned in my previous post, so you didn't need to highlight it, and I didn't need all the rest of it as I know it already. THanks anyway.

 

[Big Ewis]

I agree with smartcooky in that i think it was pressure that made France crack and i'll use a word thats been used against us many a time i felt like France CHOCKED in this game.

It's err...it's "choked". The word you're looking for.

I'm not even sure I'd call it choking, it's not like it was a super tight game and we fell apart, we sucked from the start. I don't think the French were stressed as much as they were completely clueless man. France doesn't "choke", it's not our thing. Other teams usually get that label
No, France shows up in a tremendous way as you in particular should know as an AB fan, or we take games for granted, underestimate the opponents; or in big matches like this one, we'll just lack almost everything that usually makes us good.

You guys are all apparently too high from the scoreline, inflicting a 30-0 to none other than France, which btw almost (should have ?) won last week's test on your soil. But as a fan from the other side, I'm all too sober.
France. Played. Like. Absolute. ****, my friends.

None of the tries scored by NZ were amazing. They're pretty to watch, because NZ is pretty to watch just by default, the sexiest/most aesthetic thing in all rugby. But guys, just, understand the team you were playing yesterday...
Quick e.g. off the top of my head: Michalak, stupid drop goal attempt. What happens ? Of course, charge down. France gets ball back. Michalak commits, 5 seconds later, a knock-on right into NZ hands. Counter-attack, easy try.......

 

[easy2288]

Michalak was the main cause for the results yesterday.

 

[austingtir]

It's err...it's "choked". The word you're looking for.

I'm not even sure I'd call it choking, it's not like it was a super tight game and we fell apart, we sucked from the start. I don't think the French were stressed as much as they were completely clueless man. France doesn't "choke", it's not our thing. Other teams usually get that label
No, France shows up in a tremendous way as you in particular should know as an AB fan, or we take games for granted, underestimate the opponents; or in big matches like this one, we'll just lack almost everything that usually makes us good.

You guys are all apparently too high from the scoreline, inflicting a 30-0 to none other than France, which btw almost (should have ?) won last week's test on your soil. But as a fan from the other side, I'm all too sober.
France. Played. Like. Absolute. ****, my friends.

None of the tries scored by NZ were amazing. They're pretty to watch, because NZ is pretty to watch just by default, the sexiest/most aesthetic thing in all rugby. But guys, just, understand the team you were playing yesterday...
Quick e.g. off the top of my head: Michalak, stupid drop goal attempt. What happens ? Of course, charge down. France gets ball back. Michalak commits, 5 seconds later, a knock-on right into NZ hands. Counter-attack, easy try.......

Other than our tactical kicking and defence i didnt think we did that much in this game.... we didnt have to. France layed over and gifted us most of our points and conversely deserved their nil scoreline.

I still think your missing the point that defence wins games i dont believe for a moment that France would of choked like they did on multiple occasions on our goal line like they have been without some pressure applied to them. I can understand them muffing it last week on our goal line but what like 3 or 4 times given opportunities near our goal line and just messing it up totally... im sorry but in my book thats choking.

 

[Big Ewis]

well if you're bent on using that term, what can I tell you ?
It's hardly the bigger point...we lost 30-0. This side on paper, in theory, doesn't lose to anyone 30-0. Not even close...but it happened. *deep sigh*

 

[sifplay]

I already admitted I didn't know the law perfectly and alluded to that exact law you wrote up, so you didn't need to repeat it. BUT no, I would not say the refs were always right as certainly the players didn't always get their hands on the ball before a ruck was formed, but still were allowed the turnover or the tackled player was still penalised for holding on.

I am very aware of the rules, except as I metioned already, 16.4b. This was mentioned in my previous post, so you didn't need to highlight it, and I didn't need all the rest of it as I know it already. THanks anyway.

The problem is the laws are written down but its apply differently by different referee's. Each have their own interpretation and its basically seeing who can adapt the quickest. The referee is required to make a specific decision about a contested tackle almost 200 times a match (once every 30 seconds), and this decision is multi-dimensional, instantaneous and open to interpretation.

Different referees have a different sequence or approach to the decision, but they must judge, more or less in order: how the tackler interacts with the tackled player, when the tackle actually occurs, that the tackler releases the tackled player, that the tackled player releases the ball, when the ruck is formed, that players arriving to join the ruck remain on their feet, and that they join from the correct position and do not seal the ball off to prevent the contest. Add in that there are often multiple tacklers, so the referee has to decide who the tackler is, and you appreciate that within half a second, there's a lot to judge. Then the next problem is that many times, four or five things happen more or less simultaneously, and so it really is a judgment call.

 

[sifplay]

It's err...it's "choked". The word you're looking for.

I'm not even sure I'd call it choking, it's not like it was a super tight game and we fell apart, we sucked from the start. I don't think the French were stressed as much as they were completely clueless man. France doesn't "choke", it's not our thing. Other teams usually get that label
No, France shows up in a tremendous way as you in particular should know as an AB fan, or we take games for granted, underestimate the opponents; or in big matches like this one, we'll just lack almost everything that usually makes us good.

You guys are all apparently too high from the scoreline, inflicting a 30-0 to none other than France, which btw almost (should have ?) won last week's test on your soil. But as a fan from the other side, I'm all too sober.
France. Played. Like. Absolute. ****, my friends.

None of the tries scored by NZ were amazing. They're pretty to watch, because NZ is pretty to watch just by default, the sexiest/most aesthetic thing in all rugby. But guys, just, understand the team you were playing yesterday...
Quick e.g. off the top of my head: Michalak, stupid drop goal attempt. What happens ? Of course, charge down. France gets ball back. Michalak commits, 5 seconds later, a knock-on right into NZ hands. Counter-attack, easy try.......

Nah choking is a term the Kiw's do in WC's. Cause they would smash teams for almost 4 years and then go lose in a knock out stage when expected to win (normally by the French) comfortably

 

[Big Ewis]

^ well I was hinting at that, but wtvr I've got nothing to say on this thread. We lost 30-0, I ain't bragging about anything !
(and wait for it, wait for it...WAYNE BARNES !! FORWARD PASS !! 20-18, BULL**** !! MICHALAK ! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE !!)

 

[sifplay]

^ well I was hinting at that, but wtvr I've got nothing to say on this thread. We lost 30-0, I ain't bragging about anything !
(and wait for it, wait for it...WAYNE BARNES !! FORWARD PASS !! 20-18, BULL**** !! MICHALAK ! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE !!)

At least a forward pass is the whining you hear. We were listening to food poison BS for almost 15 years. THank god they won it in 2011 I think O could not handle another 4 years of conspiracy theories ranging from poison milk to the smoke used at the ceremony to poison the players.

 

[Shaggy]

... Choking? ... forward pass? ... food poisoning? ... I don't know what you guys are on about ... we won the first RWC, and we've still got it ... what's to complain about

... back on topic ... NZRU released stats on the game here: http://files.allblacks.com/NZRU_Med...France_Christchurch_Test_match_statistics.pdf

 

[Draggs]

That's a bingo.

 

[Shaggy]

That's a bingo.

Bingo? ... sounds way to dangerous ... there's all of those counters that someone could ... er ... choke on for a start , plus, some of those old ladies get very aggressive when the calls don't go their way

... looks like Steve Hansen has almost a full squad (including Dan Carter) to pick from for the third test, Michalak and Picamoles are both out ... sounds like Hansen will give some of the new guys a run http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/article.asp?id=39463&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

 

[sifplay]

... Choking? ... forward pass? ... food poisoning? ... I don't know what you guys are on about ... we won the first RWC, and we've still got it ... what's to complain about

... back on topic ... NZRU released stats on the game here: http://files.allblacks.com/NZRU_Med...France_Christchurch_Test_match_statistics.pdf

Yeah you only won the first cause South Africa wasn't there

 

[Shaggy]

Yeah you only won the first cause South Africa wasn't there

... Yeah, cool story Bro

 

[Jaguares]

2 big defining moments in that game that showed that the Blacks stepped up a level from last weeks game.

1. Michalaks missed kick at goal which resulted in a metre eating return from Reid, which then lead to a successful penalty kick from Cruden. After that the 1st half was the Blacks.
2. The French putting together 26 phases or so and the Blacks turn it over and score almost instantly.

French played good in the 1st game and I assumed they would lift to another level because thats whats required for the 2nd game but clearly it was only the Blacks that lifted and that was expected. They must lift, play unpredictably and look like they can score a try or otherwise its a 3-0 whitewash.

Michalak is a good player but in the important moments always wrong. Not bear the pressure when things get difficult. His technique is good but when he has to prove he can't do.

Regards