Kia kaha aoteora! Tell me you are joking.

Read your post from Saturday about ABs being "abominable"!
You beat your traditional foe by 11 points and u r upset?
What u want?
Points for style?
I'd think any other rugby nation would have been rapt with that result.

Might be why they're where they are and the rest of us are where we are. High standards

A wins a win.
Take it for what it í.

Ah in ways I agree with you (in theory) but in other ways, and in reality,, a win can sometimes be frustrating if you think your players weren't committed enough, were slack, lacked composure, showed aspects that might have been exposed by another team.
There are a good number of reason why all of us sometimes get annoyed when our side wins but doesn't impress us.

Not sure where u from Seceret Fly but I remember watchin ABs
play SAf in 76, 81 and 86.
All pre Apartheid.
A win is always treasured.
The Boks can play.

Our defence is definitely working and we're in form there. But in the RC we haven't executed nearly as well as we would have liked-we got a taste of what we could do in the third Irish test and thought hey we're on the right track to achieve something special here.

We always treasure wins vs SA and I don't care if we win by a point in Soweto-just like the final it's the win that matters. But we're obsessed with execution in performance. If that comes, then we will score lots of tries. That would look great, and be great for the game, but also, more tries means obviously more points. We're so petrified of losing that we're impatient and want us to score an avalanche of points to not only look good but to take that nauseous feeling out of our bodies as soon as possible.

I have a feeling the next three games will be hell though and if we get through them then we'll deserve the record.

disneychilly wrote:Our defence is definitely working and we're in form there. But in the RC we haven't executed nearly as well as we would have liked-we got a taste of what we could do in the third Irish test and thought hey we're on the right track to achieve something special here.

NZ have changed their attack strategy since Ireland so it is not a surprise that there is not the same result, or the same beauty in execution. I think it is about growing this new style in the team because they are stick with it, and to be honest maybe with all respect, what worked against a fairly rag-tag Ireland team would not work against SA or AUS or even the defensive minded Argentina.

Gunner wrote:Not sure where u from Seceret Fly but I remember watchin ABs
play SAf in 76, 81 and 86.
All pre Apartheid.
A win is always treasured.
The Boks can play.

Yes when wins are rare you treasure them. However when they are not you need to be inspired by something more. Now that we have a greater than 50% chance of beating them we want a good win. After getting a few munterings by them we will cherish any win we can get.

"Munterings"

Ah I miss the slang from home sometimes.

Still waiting for someone to be referred to as a meataxe on here though.

Gunner I'm honoured you felt the need to devote a thread to me, albeit a thread questioning my sanity.

I admit there is a degree of hyperbole and mean spiritedness about my post and being a Wallaby or a SA fan must be trying in these injury ravaged times and I should get off my high horse and start being grateful for what these ABs achieve.

I can't argue with those sentiments and a win against the Boks is to be celebrated. But I wrote that thread in the heat of the aftermath and I stand by my belief that the game was a train wreck of a game and NZ didn't deserve to win it. The fact that SA's stubborn persistence in their kicking of crucial possession away meant they didn't deserve to win either does not console me.

For some reason we are committing fewer players to rucks and SA exploited this and became a right nuisance at the breakdown. Their forwards won enough ball and opportunities to score were created. Forget Morné Steyn's horror night with the ball. We can talk about the impressive defence of the ABs but with their awkward lateral movements, SA were creating enough half opportunities to warrant holding onto the ball and throwing their aimless kicking game out the window. If they had retained possession for longer, the creaking AB defence looked like breaking. Instead SA kicked away possession and relieved all pressure.

NZ are trying to play a high octane game. Management and the players have said that since the start of the competition. Our ball has been progressively slowed down by Australia, Argentina and SA respectively and we've done precious little to counter it. Our ball retention against SA was atrocious. We didn't seal off the rucks and SA capitalised and pilfered ball at will. I don't know how many phases we were able to string together but I'd be surprised if any were higher than four or five. We know what the opposition are going to do. So why has ball become slower as the tournament has gone along and why aren't we adapting to this type of play more?

I'm not saying we should be scoring a brace of tries each match. I don't care no side has scored a bonus point for 4 tries so far. But that doesn't mean we have to be so stilted on attack with such a high error rate. I've never seen a string of performances with so many errors before. We keep being told just wait until the players click. Well four games on into this tournament I don't expect things to magically click and we put 60 on Argentina at home or 20 on SA. But I do expect to see improvement in key areas somewhere down the line and on attack I have yet to see any such improvement. Indeed against SA, there was a noticeable slide in many areas not least of which ball retention, which allowed SA into the game.

So I'm afraid the win at home against SA is not enough for me. It was a game we can consider ourselves very fortunate not to have lost. I'm not saying I want NZ to hump SA and put a shedload of points on them. I also wanted more from SA to test this NZ side. The character of a side is revealed in a testing environment. That game saw SA hand over the initiative too many times back to NZ. There was a brief moment after the yellow card where we saw the forwards picking up and driving and punching gaps in the SA line. Then there was a penalty, SA kicked the ball back into the NZ half and then we never saw that back. Are they holding back or did ill discipline, poor ball retention and lack of space empty us of creativity and inspiration on attack?

Should I be more grateful for winning? Undoubtedly! Do I think we're capable of much more (and indeed SA)? Wholeheartedly. Did I buy into this bruising game of real test rugby and attrition? Did I f...

OK, I think it is inaccurate to say NZ allowed us into the game, in fact I would dare to suggest it was perhaps the opposite, SA blundered two certain tries was it not for Jean (cannot pass) de Villiers and Zane (don't know how to pass) Kirchner.

The idiotic behaviour and illdiscipline of Dean Greyling cost us not only points but also momentum.

Meyer's insistence that his over the hill Hero must kick for goal also negatively affected the outcome of the game.

The suggestion that NZ needs to be tested is also slightly wide of the mark. they were tested and they didn't exactly pass with flying colours. To suggest they would have "found another gear" if they were "tested" is mostlty subjective conjecture.

SA did everything right with their forwards bar Dean Greyling and the lineouts.

However they missed kicks, their out of hand kicking was inaccurate (as it has been this whole year) and their backs just don't have the skills or vision to know when to pass.

Lambie and Goosen will make a marked difference to the effectiveness of the backline attack if they ever do get to play a full game.

By the way, the All Blacks only kicked 3 kicks less than the Boks.

I don't think NZ allowed you into the game. In fact I think SA allowed us into their game through their kicking. What I thought NZ got wrong was their tactics.

You're right NZ were tested and looked shaky. But they have yet to be really tested on attack. Australia offered next to nothing, Argentina fell away and SA did us over in the forwards but were bumbling in the backline. I'm not saying they would've found another gear but I don't think they've been placed under enough sustained pressure to know whether they're the real deal.

Thats how I saw it. The biggest problem for SA was missing those goals. They thrive off opposition mistakes. Its their single biggest points gatherer.

By not getting them they not only failed to tick the board over and force NZ into coming from behind, where more mistakes could be made, they also denied themselves attacking opportunities in the corners- not that theyd ever turn down taking kickable goals- theyve a successful history of getting them.

It was like someone just kept loosening the lid on the pressure cooker when it was just starting to whistle...SA on attack, back to Steyn...kick...pressure off. Penalty...steyne walks up...miss...pressure off...attack the line through an AB dropped ball, out wide...lack of finishing skills...pressure off.

Thats how the whole match felt to me. Right from the start.

Only when Goosen came on at 60 did it feel like SA might have a chance...

IF SA had made a couple of kicks early on then the screws would have been turned on NZ. The confidence that a lead would have given Boks and the pressure on the ABs MAY have told leading to a different result.

Forturnately the kicks weren't made.

I think we have seen before the ABs trying to go wide too early and struggling. We get away with it usually because our defence is good and our backs can sometimes make a break but I don't think it is the right way to play rugby. Get some parity, then go forward and then run free.

Biltong wrote:
By the way, the All Blacks only kicked 3 kicks less than the Boks.

But as a percentage of posession this lead to a much lower ratio of ball aimlessly kicked away. Also the kicking was more accurate, and mostly for teritory in the "winding down the game" phase when comfortably ahead. NZ ran far more ball early in the game and it resulted in the decisive try that won the game.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Biltong wrote:
By the way, the All Blacks only kicked 3 kicks less than the Boks.

But as a percentage of posession this lead to a much lower ratio of ball aimlessly kicked away. Also the kicking was more accurate, and mostly for teritory in the "winding down the game" phase when comfortably ahead. NZ ran far more ball early in the game and it resulted in the decisive try that won the game.

I'll watch the game again tonight, but I can tell you now I doubt your assessment is accurate.

I went through the game and found that the stats were in fact incorrect.

In general play New Zealand kicked 8 times in the first half and 15 times in the second half.

15 kicks out of their 22 area.
2 out of their in goal area, one charged down.
6 other kicks of which 1 was a kick by Nonu that rolled out, 2 chip kicks and three bombs.

South Africa kicked 7 kicks in the first half and 10 kicks in the second half.
7 from inside their 22.
Kirchner tried a drop
De Villiers put a grubber into the corner
Habana chip and score try
Pienaar 2 midfield bombs
Steyn 3 midfield bombs
Frans steyn 2 bombs.

The difference on the night was our kicking was too deep, however this is once again proof that when people continue to cal us the kick and chase team they are merely going by reputation and don't actually make accurate observations.

I admit some of the kicking were poor options.

But that has more to do with decision making than kicking like everyone suggests.

Biltong wrote:I went through the game and found that the stats were in fact incorrect.

In general play New Zealand kicked 8 times in the first half and 15 times in the second half.

15 kicks out of their 22 area.
2 out of their in goal area, one charged down.
6 other kicks of which 1 was a kick by Nonu that rolled out, 2 chip kicks and three bombs.

South Africa kicked 7 kicks in the first half and 10 kicks in the second half.
7 from inside their 22.
Kirchner tried a drop
De Villiers put a grubber into the corner
Habana chip and score try
Pienaar 2 midfield bombs
Steyn 3 midfield bombs
Frans steyn 2 bombs.

The difference on the night was our kicking was too deep, however this is once again proof that when people continue to cal us the kick and chase team they are merely going by reputation and don't actually make accurate observations.

I admit some of the kicking were poor options.

But that has more to do with decision making than kicking like everyone suggests.

Exactly as I said, Biltong...

"In general play New Zealand kicked 8 times in the first half and 15 times in the second half." But you need to quote kicks/possesion stats. How many times did Cruden kick/pass/run, and compare with Steyn.

We can play this game all day long AWOP.

You said NZ kicked less in the end. no they didn't, in the last 10 minutes they kicked 4 times vs SA's twice.

This is not who is the better Flyhalf, it is about the perception that we play a kick and chase game only.

I said "as a percentage of posession" and I also said they kicked more towards the end of the game which is true. 8 times in the first half and 15 in the second, with 4x in the last 10 alone...

You need kick/pass/run stats at 9/10 otherwise compare the absolute values with no context = irrelevancy.

I can provide you two sources for stats, they both provide different stats, it is meaningless unless you do it yourself, just from general observation there wasn't much difference between Steyn and Cruden, except Steyn doesn't run.

Possession was 50/50

Make of it what you will.

It's just all about chosing the right options at the right time I suppose. If you are pre-programmed to believe the right option is always the up-and-under, then sometimes it might appear that that was the correct option on the occassion it happens to work. Which might encourage some to stick with it...even when other options might have been better from time to time.