Ballsy plays under pressure

About the only thing to come out of yesterdays Aus-NZ draw at Brisbane was Capt McCaw's decision to take a scrum on a penalty some 75 mtrs from the opposition tryline and 3 mins into injury time. From the scrum, NZ were awarded a penalty which Weepu took quickly and the ball found its way to Ben Smith who like a bolt of lightening got NZ into the Aus half and on the attack. NZ set up several phases and the last ditch droppie, some 6 mins into injury time, just faded to the right leaving the scores locked at 18 all.

This was a pretty ballsy approach from McCaw, not accepting a draw in a dead rubber (quire right too). So, with this in mind I'd like you to share other ballsy moments that won the day (or almost). I can think of a couple more, both Munster and Quins won H Cup fixtures through endless recycling to work their way into a position for a droppie which O'Gara and Evans duly slotted. On an individual basis, we all know the famous "game they played in heaven" ie Aus v NZ in 2000 ended with a great Lomu try, but it was the basketball style 'flop' pass from Randell that was the ballsy part of that play....he had two Wallabies descending upon him and either defender could have got a touch on the pass and it would have gone anywhere but to Lomu, so in fact we were millimetres away from losing

Please feel free to share. Like I say, it doesn't have to have ended up in a win but we should rejoice in those who were prepared to go for a win, rather than surrendering meekly

Can't see why its considered ballsy myself. I expected exactly that. In fact the decision to first scrum I thought was silly.

I also thought the drop attempt was lame. Oz had just put together 22 phases and were spent. We should have taken it up more to the line to either draw the penalty or score. The droppie reduced our chances of winning to a 50/ 50.

So if theyre going to be ballsy, they should stick to it. The end, the miss...all summed up the AB effort perfectly.

Dawson's break into the Aussie 22 in the 03 WC final? Most scrum-halves would have either set up a forward rumble or set up the fly-half from 40-meters plus. Coming in the dying seconds of a WC final, I thought it was pretty ballsy...

I'd have been disapointed had McCaw gone with the draw TBH, the chance to get a world record number of successive wins doesn't come along all that often.

Equally, Munster and Quins were losing, so needed to set up the drop-goal (or look for a penalty).

Taylorman ,I don`t agree but then you`ve never liked Drop goals the constant battering at the line was`nt working.the penalties wer`nt coming you were well into injury time.Kurtley Beale should have tried one even if it failed the Ref would have whistled game Over.There was a case for taking a Penalty attempt after the second tap,instead of a third but it still was`nt a certainty.Weepu`s pass was in accurate and the drop missed.It was one of those games they are still unbeaten and the chance to better the 1987 sides mark is still there of 23 unbeaten games by beating France 3-0 in.2013.IF The AI`sre all won and that is being Arrogant and presumptious but is a very real possibility.

Just because the penalties weren't coming doesn't mean they wont. Just because they didn't score a try doesn't mean they wouldn't.
Just like just because they took the drop doesn't mean it would go over. In the end the drop decision was wrong because it failed.
Same thing as 07 when they didn't go for them. If the decision not to drop was wrong then, then so was it now. Can't have it both ways.

Joubert had just penalised oz on the offence and chances are he would find fault with NZs ruck. His earlier approach to penalising defenders sealing off or joining from the side or hands in had long since evaporated.

I think the ABs were nervous of his erratic unreadable display and punted for the dropped before he made another unfathomable call in favour of Australia.

Two weeks on the trot they got on the wrong side of the ref. Perhaps referees get so overawed by occasions were records are on the line they lose their impartiality...

Loss had nothing to do with the ref. The match was between two inept sides both trying their damnedest to lose- and neither could even manage that!

Taylorman wrote:Just because the penalties weren't coming doesn't mean they wont. Just because they didn't score a try doesn't mean they wouldn't.
Just like just because they took the drop doesn't mean it would go over. In the end the drop decision was wrong because it failed.
Same thing as 07 when they didn't go for them. If the decision not to drop was wrong then, then so was it now. Can't have it both ways.

That makes no sense whatsoever,are you saying that in 07 if NZ had tried a drop and missed then it would have been the wrong decision.Talk about being results orientated.

England scoring THAT try at HQ against Oz in '10. Scores were pretty close at the time and there was huge pressure coming at us, we turned it over and broke from under our own posts to score under the posts at the other end.

Beautiful...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpzejrMlEo

Wales vs Scotland 2010

Clock was red, Stephen Jones opts for a crossfield kick to Halfpenny, who just manages to keep it in field, I'm sure I'm not the only person who screamed as Jones for kicking it but the lucky bounce eventually lead to the try that won us the game.

Any balls Jones grew then must have shrivelled up and turned into a pair of beef curtains during the 2011 semi final though. Carter screwed up a big dropkick on the weekend but at least he had a shot.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Just because the penalties weren't coming doesn't mean they wont. Just because they didn't score a try doesn't mean they wouldn't.
Just like just because they took the drop doesn't mean it would go over. In the end the drop decision was wrong because it failed.
Same thing as 07 when they didn't go for them. If the decision not to drop was wrong then, then so was it now. Can't have it both ways.

That makes no sense whatsoever,are you saying that in 07 if NZ had tried a drop and missed then it would have been the wrong decision.Talk about being results orientated.

No. I'm saying the decision in 07 not to drop was and has been widely criticised for years. Well, this time they took it, and are surely subject to the same criticism. The decision this time is wrong because it missed. They could have taken it to the line instead, an option that would have given them more than a 50/50 shot. They had oz reeling after they themselves had gone for 22 phases, were penalised twice, and were forced back 50 yards back towards their own line. In short they were stuffed and cool heads would have maintained the momentum.

You could say carter ad his own donald duck.

Again that makes no sense,if the decision is only wrong because he missed then you are way too results orientated.

The players picked what they felt was the best way of winning the match,the fact that it failed does not make it the wrong decision.They could have taken it to the line and given away a penalty which the Aussies tapped and ran in a length of the field try.We can indulge in hypothetical discussions all day but that doesn't prove anything.

edit:Also you do a great disservice to Dan Carter by claiming that his drop made it only a 50/50 chance to win.I'd say it was more like 75/25.

disneychilly wrote:Any balls Jones grew then must have shrivelled up and turned into a pair of beef curtains during the 2011 semi final though. Carter screwed up a big dropkick on the weekend but at least he had a shot.

Very true but it was a horrific attempt by Carter. At least I have seen Jones nail them under pressure before. I've only ever seen Carter take them when he's looking to get a round of applause as the AB's pump someone else.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Again that makes no sense,if the decision is only wrong because he missed then you are way too results orientated.

The players picked what they felt was the best way of winning the match,the fact that it failed does not make it the wrong decision.They could have taken it to the line and given away a penalty which the Aussies tapped and ran in a length of the field try.We can indulge in hypothetical discussions all day but that doesn't prove anything.

edit:Also you do a great disservice to Dan Carter by claiming that his drop made it only a 50/50 chance to win.I'd say it was more like 75/25.

Again you fail to grasp the point.
In 2007 the overwhelming consensus is that the decision not to take the drop goal was a wrong one.
I disagreed and still do.
What has happened since then is we have fallen into the trap of relying on them at the death when other options are available. NZ have won more tests at the death through scoring tries than relying on dropped goals. And the disservice is not to just carter. It relied on a good pass from weepu who again failed to deliver it correctly. It meant carter had to adjust and subsequently rush the final kick. Pulling it.
Traditionally, more drop goals fail than succeed so there's also argument for less than 50% and carter is certainly no drop expert.
I'm saying if 2007 is generally accepted as a wrong decision, then I'm arguing that so is this, regardless had the kick gone over or not.

Did you not see the second Ireland test Yappy?

Yeah its a personal choice thing Disney. Theres times to take them and times not to. Obviously we shouldnt put ourselves in the position but my point is taking up the stance of ALWAYS relying on them. This is one time its not come off, Ireland it did. Making the decision to not back ourselves to score removes one of the cornerstones of AB rugby and adds the concept of doubt into our confidence in scoring tries- something we do better than anyone.

Extend it out and we get to a point where 5 minutes to go we're taking 2 or 3 pot shots trying to secure the win when a try may have been scored and we end up looking like we did on Saturday night- chumps with the 10 holding his hands behind his head like I've seen so many other sides do over the years.

Buck Shelford against France. Had a testicle half severed off in a ruck and kept on playing. I'll take a pepsi challenge over any other ballsy incident and wipe the floor with Buck's. The story that is, not his hanging testicle.

Taylorman wrote:

Again you fail to grasp the point.
In 2007 the overwhelming consensus is that the decision not to take the drop goal was a wrong one.
I disagreed and still do.
What has happened since then is we have fallen into the trap of relying on them at the death when other options are available. NZ have won more tests at the death through scoring tries than relying on dropped goals. And the disservice is not to just carter. It relied on a good pass from weepu who again failed to deliver it correctly. It meant carter had to adjust and subsequently rush the final kick. Pulling it.
Traditionally, more drop goals fail than succeed so there's also argument for less than 50% and carter is certainly no drop expert.
I'm saying if 2007 is generally accepted as a wrong decision, then I'm arguing that so is this, regardless had the kick gone over or not.

That's because you failed to make that point.You said that " the decision in 07 not to drop was and has been widely criticised for years. Well, this time they took it, and are surely subject to the same criticism."

How can they be subject to the same criticism for taking a completely different option?

Now I recognise you were trying to make a different point but you can't say I didn't grasp it when you didn't phrase it properly.