Lax All Black Pack Cracks But Shag Backs Dagg To Drag Match Back.

First topic message reminder :

Wow. Just wow. South Africa look to be in awesome form.

Granted Australian rugby is in its most miserable state for fifty years, but there is no disguising how intimidating  this Springbok side is.

The Boks have now married their power game with a rapier precision in the Back line and the experience to know when to switch modes. Add Morne Steyn's siege boot and back in form long range goal kicking and you have a serious unit that will be tough to beat. 

Normally poor tourists, South Africa easily outmuscled a fragile looking Australia and clinched a convincing win at the bastion of Australian resistance, the parochial Suncorp stadium.

In this kind of form I can see South Africa ending new Zealand's long run of success at Eden Park. Especially with captain Richie out injured and Dan Carter out of form.

Hats off to Heyneke Meyer. I was a detractor and I put my hand up and say I was wrong.

Most impressive is south Africa's command at the breakdown. Defensively they must have the best turn over rate in the rugby championship and on attack they can maintain pressure through numerous phases and patiently wait their chance to pounce.  Just awesome stuff.

And much like last year we haven't shown much in that area. In large part that's been the conditions. That's why this weekend's game is important. The Pumas won't make the same mistake as last year to make the game open. They'll stick to their strengths. So we must find the gaps and be patient in our structure. Good practice for the following weekend where SA will be even more persuasive in their intent to play the game.

I think we need to avoid hyperbole here: SA were not shafted, nor did their backline have a melt-down. They only lost by 15 points, away, and that being with a man down for much of the game (whether or not it was valid or, whether or not it was because Bismarck was asking for it, the point remains SA were down by one man).....yes I'd agree that in sum NZ played better than SA, but lets not get to excited now...

Let's get excited Fishpaste because this could well be the match of the year but, as you say, there's not much in this game and both sides will have to play well if they have aspirations of winning.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:I think we need to avoid hyperbole here: SA were not shafted, nor did their backline have a melt-down. They only lost by 15 points, away, and that being with a man down for much of the game (whether or not it was valid or, whether or not it was because Bismarck was asking for it, the point remains SA were down by one man).....yes I'd agree that in sum NZ played better than SA, but lets not get to excited now...

From 43 to 72nd minute SA were down by one man. That's 29 minutes. The second yellow card was valid, so of that 29 minutes, 10 was "deserved".

That means SA were down a man for 10 minutes in the first 40, and 19 minutes of the second 40, or a total of 29 minutes from the 80 minute game.

That's 36%. Not "much of the game". I would suggest "much of the game" would require as an absolute bare minimum 50%...although that would probably be "half of the game", so you'd be looking at upward of two thirds in order for it to be "much" I'd say. 36% is half of much of the game I'd estimate.

You also need to factor in that NZ as a result of DP's actions were without DC from the 17th minute, for example it would probably fair to say NZ were without their record point scorer for much of the game (63%).

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:I think we need to avoid hyperbole here: SA were not shafted, nor did their backline have a melt-down. They only lost by 15 points, away, and that being with a man down for much of the game (whether or not it was valid or, whether or not it was because Bismarck was asking for it, the point remains SA were down by one man).....yes I'd agree that in sum NZ played better than SA, but lets not get to excited now...

From 43 to 72nd minute SA were down by one man. That's 29 minutes. The second yellow card was valid, so of that 29 minutes, 10 was "deserved".

That means SA were down a man for 10 minutes in the first 40, and 19 minutes of the second 40, or a total of 29 minutes from the 80 minute game.

That's 36%. Not "much of the game". I would suggest "much of the game" would require as an absolute bare minimum 50%...although that would probably be "half of the game", so you'd be looking at upward of two thirds in order for it to be "much" I'd say. 36% is half of much of the game I'd estimate.

You also need to factor in that NZ as a result of DP's actions were without DC from the 17th minute, for example it would probably fair to say NZ were without their record point scorer for much of the game (63%).

You omitted one crucial aspect.

The All Blacks scored 3 tries during that time.

They'd probably have scored more otherwise.

GE

come the last 10 mins of the game the result was assured, it didn't matter if the ABs had a player in the bin or not. Once a team has raked up 3 tries to nil ahead in the period where they had a man advantage, if parity returns it doesn't mean they are back to being on a level playing field.

GloriousEmpire wrote:They'd probably have scored more otherwise.

Yeah, and maybe we would have scored more if it was equal numbers.

you see this conjecture isn't going to go anywhere, I can be as arrogant and cocksure as I want to be, or as humble as I want to be, I can say on here just what I want.

It isn't going to change the facts.

does anyone know what the stats are on average points lost during a sin bin? I recall it was about 7 from some commentary but they also said its difficult to calculate as often teams put in massive physical effort to cover ground during the period that they are exhausted when numbers parity returns and they also leak points soon after too.

It'd be interesting to see fa. Also there are some teams who actually score more points because they feel they need to lift their performance but it'd be interesting to see how often that occurs. Stats geeks the gauntlet has been thrown down.

The Abs also scored one try when it was 15 all- the only team to do so with the boks also scoring one a man up. the nature of the 3 tries were not critical in terms of being a man down. Read and Cane both scored from one off runs at the line from the first pass. Du Plessis's going way to high on Read then getting turned around allowed Read to gain the extra momentum he needed to go over.

Du Pleesis attrocious tackle when directly in front of a scrambling Conrad Smith after another terrible Pienaar tackle on Barrett that allowed him to run through half the side gave up the other one. If we're nitpicking those two tries were not scored in any major way by DPs absence. Man up advanteges are gained when there arent the players avaible to ake the key tackles, not where they are. For all 4 AB tries, the key defensive setups were there, they just executed them poorly.

What the boks suffered more from besides poor one off tackles, was an ability to score points during dPs absence, and that comes through having an overall limited gameplan. Same as when Brussouw went off in 2011, same here. Keep saying it, the boks need things to go their way to win the big ones. They dont have the flexibity to cope with any adversity thrown at them.

I'm not sure any team when playing a top tier rival can cope with that long down to 14 men.

Wales almost won the world cup quarterfinal against France with 14 men.

In the end I'd say it wasn't the lack of an extra man that cost them. It was the usual late game composure fade that has seen Wales lose so many close fixtures.

If you say so. I'd be worried if I was an AB supporter then as teams get better results while playing with their full compliment 99 times out of 100.

Yes, and I wonder what the full time score might have been if Kieran Read hadn't been sent off in utter farscial procedings with ten minutes to go in Auckland, and if Ma'a Nonu hadn't been harshly treated for a tackle, which in the context of the game, was no worse than at least 10% of the tackles that had occurred.

If NZ hadn't been reduced to 13 men for the last ten minutes, NZ might really have opened up the score. But as it was they will be satisfied with having secured the bonus point win and denied the Springboks a vital bonus point.

Don't be silly GE.

"Nonu harshly treated for that tackle"

GE - Please note that wasn't a tackle. When you drop your shoulder into the opposing players chest and don't attempt to move your arms above your waist let alone wrap them around the player then its not a tackle.

What's your point? He got a yellow card. Did you expect a lynching too? Point is NZ were down to 13 men.

tough couple of matches coming up with argie pressing both Aus and SA already. Theyre going to win one soon. ABs cant take their eyes off the ball or we could find we lose both and the title- not likely but certainly possible.

boks will be unforgiving at Ellis park so a tough trip and our tournament to lose. Havnt lost a 4N match yet, sooner or later we will, hopefully not this year.

you said he was harshly treated... as in the yellow card was harsh. He didn't get a ban and no one has called for it. Where is the harsh treatment?

Best is to leave GE to his illusions and windups, there is nothing to gain by discussing these matters further.

Let the teams do their talking on the field.

GE is right when he says that Nonu was harshly treated though, I distinctly remember frowning when he walked off the pitch.

It was silly of Nonu to run into JDV with his shoulder. Was more a bump than an intentional attempt to hurt. And he certainly wasn't as convincing as habana when he ran into Dagg accidentally. Both non events really.

It was a yellow, no more no less. There was no attempt to use the arms, it could have been dangerous, more then it was.

Although I think Smith could have got a yellow about 10 seconds later for playing the ball on the floor when SA were attacking and NZ looked vunerable. It was quite cynical.

But it would have been harsh to card 2 players in one event.

What does it matter anyhow. The game is gone. It was ruined as a spectacle by a ref who should be knocked down a couple of pegs or two. Lets hope the rematch is remembered for something more positive.

For sure, there's very little high ground to stand on.
Yup, it's building already and we're not even playing this weekend! Going to be epic. Hope you guys learned your lesson and play like powder puffs to avoid a repeat (yeah right).

pray for the Australians... nothing worse then a wounded beast.

I'm predicting Australia to win it. Unlikely though that may sound.

Horwill may return so that helps them but to be honest away in SA without chaps like Pocock and Higginbottom there chances are very unlikely. When you're getting marched backwards every hit and without a unique player like Pocock it makes the game near impossible.

They have severe problems upfront and being home or away doesn't change that.

Wallabies, except for a few games, since 2001 always had problems up front. But now there seems to be problems in the backs, as well as a few primma donnas in the squad, moral looking a bit low, confidence gone, nothing in the pipeline coming thru, back of a thrashing by the boks at home, 2 scrappy wins in 7, or is it more, games, will probably be lured into the nice drinking establishments in CT, going onto the field with butter smeared on their fingers, some players still learning the rules and style of union, any attacking thoughts biffed into the back of their minds by the constant need to tackle, which they usually do quite well by the way, couple of injured key players, generally seems a disjointed outfit at the mo, so GE, much as my heart would love a Wallabies win, my head tells me that with the current mood and ability of the boks squad, we may lose and maybe lose badly.
Still be down the pub with my top on barracking for them though!!

Australia have nothing to lose and SA, everything.

SA rugby blood pressure is collectively pushing critical at the moment as the angry beast was mortally wounded last week by a resolute All Black unit and I wonder if they'll have the composure to put the Aussies away.

I could see a reckless, frustrated SA team with one eye on the All Blacks believing the game is a formality and paying the price that so many have before them.

I can't. This side is stronger mentally in that area. Another easy win for the boks and Oz are as bad as they look. Not one pint in an entire second half vs argie t home? How that translates to a win in SA or resembles anything like previous results is beyond me.

Man oz have missed Higgginbotham this year.

I agree Taylorman... although on the lineout Mowen has been a near equal replacement, out of the set piece he's been heavily missed, as has Pocock.

SA won't buckle, they may not get a bonus point though.. Newlands isn't the pitch the rake up the tries.

Well, time will tell but I'm sticking to my guns on this one.

be the surprise result of the year...mind you we havnt really had a big one yet. I think oz are just stuffed. The Lions has required them to peak extra early this year and its now being dragged out for them. In SA with two weeks to get over their tour theyll be humming again this weekend particularly with a sniff of the title. Im assuming with the time zones SA play first?

I'd put a wager on it.

youd get better odds at the tab than evens...good luck...I think we'd be more likely to lose one of the two than oz beating SA.

I'm putting £1000 on the Aussies.

I bet you're not

I'll give you good odds for a Team NZ, Argentina and Australia trifecta GE.

How about odds that McCaw will be fit for SA Kia?

1 to 1 ebop. The guy is a freak. He's like a self repairing Six Milllion Dollar Man. I'm broken but I can rebuild me.

Yeah McCaw should certainly give up his body to medical sciences when he finally kop's it as we need to know for mankind what keeps him going... he's an absolute machine, plays in the physically most brutal position (perhaps shy of the the front row), is all action and yet he is nearly always fit.

Richie McCaw started about a year or two before Schalk Burger (the original crash test dummy).... both have been first choice opensides for the last decade.... McCaw has what 120 caps.... Burger has <70. Says it all really.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm putting £1000 on the Aussies.

 

Bismark Du Plessis dropped by the springboks for this weeks test.

They've gone for a less volatile option perhaps - but is this already a sign they have taken their eye off the ball?

nganboy wrote:I bet you're not

Just did. When I saw SA had rotated the team and seem to be taking Australia lightly.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Bismark Du Plessis dropped by the springboks for this weeks test.

They've gone for a less volatile option perhaps - but is this already a sign they have taken their eye off the ball?

Is Strauss the replacement? Not a bad one. It's a drop in standard but not as big as other nation's would find if picking their second choice hooker.

Understand why we wouldn't believe you old chap.

Strauss brings a better ball carrying alternative but less ball retention and ruck work. A very good deputy.
Keeps Bismarck sharp for the final showdown.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not sure any team when playing a top tier rival can cope with that long down to 14 men.

I seem to remember England winning against the All Balcks in New Zealand whilst being down two forwards to 13 men for a portion of the game.  

Chjw131 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not sure any team when playing a top tier rival can cope with that long down to 14 men.

I seem to remember England winning against the All Balcks in New Zealand whilst being down two forwards to 13 men for a portion of the game.  

Yeah, similarly dubious yellows as I remember.