Reaction of the All Blacks

First topic message reminder :

The age old question of how a team reacts to defeat is looming for nz this week. For great teams throughout all of sport defeats do come but normally so does an answer of sorts to questions about commitment, performance etc etc.

We saw how the agressive physicality was upped by nz following defeat in Chicago; we saw the lions and Vunipola up it and cross the line at times last week though ironically after sbw had seen red.

Will nz use this positively and use the hopefully better weather to cut loose or front up into a battle of the forwards first....and then hand us our backsides?!

I still feel there are a few unanswered questions on their loss of leadership in the team and squad loosing so many great players over a few months to retirement and now injury and suspension. A lot hangs on read for me and how he leads the team over the 80 min. This is going to come more down to approach and mentality than skill for once.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11885901

Best is so good in very department, it's crazy he can't near the test side

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

In those three tests Best hasn't conceded a single penalty and has only missed 2 tackles. He was outstanding.

He wasn't outstanding in the last match against the AB's. He only made 4 tackles and missed 2 of those!

He didnt need to make a lot of tackles as Ireland had the majority of the possession due to his work at the breakdown. Two missed tackles in 3 tests is good. George has already missed 3 and given away 1 penalty.

But 2 missed tackles from 4 in 1 game isn't so good...no? We seem to have a different opinion on what is an "outstanding performance" I think.

Its hardly a sign he cant tackle if they were his only missed tackles in 3 tests. I said he was outstanding over the three tests.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
Not a big difference really much like the lineout.

A 56% increase in missed tackle percentage. Sounds big to me.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Best is so good in very department, it's crazy he can't near the test side

I chalk it down to one of Gatland's idiosyncratic selections. It is an odd one alright. Not that George is a bad player, just not as good as Best.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

In those three tests Best hasn't conceded a single penalty and has only missed 2 tackles. He was outstanding.

He wasn't outstanding in the last match against the AB's. He only made 4 tackles and missed 2 of those!

He didnt need to make a lot of tackles as Ireland had the majority of the possession due to his work at the breakdown. Two missed tackles in 3 tests is good. George has already missed 3 and given away 1 penalty.

But 2 missed tackles from 4 in 1 game isn't so good...no? We seem to have a different opinion on what is an "outstanding performance" I think.

Its hardly a sign he cant tackle if they were his only missed tackles in 3 tests. I said he was outstanding over the three tests.

Since when do people look at stats over 3 games in 3 years?

His last game he produced pretty dire tackling stats, that's the fact here.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Best is so good in very department, it's crazy he can't near the test side

I chalk it down to one of Gatland's idiosyncratic selections. It is an odd one alright. Not that George is a bad player, just not as good as Best.

I don't think George is that good either if I'm honest but his throwing certainly is and that is what Gatland seems to be selecting him on.

LondonTiger wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
I'm impressed that we pinched 2 Ireland lineouts in Chicago given our paucity of lock resources on the day

Pfft Jerome Kaino is the lock you have been missing all your lives

He got yanked for Barrett (S) on debut in the 44th minute. Then Read went to lock in the 58th when Tuipolotu got injured.

Worse still was Cody Taylor playing #6 with Ardie Savea at centre for the final 5 minutes after Moala got injured (Fekitoa had already come on for Crotty early on)

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
Not a big difference really much like the lineout.

A 56% increase in missed tackle percentage. Sounds big to me.

That has to be one of the dumbest stats I have read, both players made over 30 tackles and missed relatively few.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:Why are the Ireland v New Zealand stats only going back 3 games? What happened 4 games ago?

Oh, I see...

Ireland dominated the lineout in that game too despite getting destroyed.  Different coach back then too.

NZ 13 won, 1 lost (92.9%) Lineouts on own throw Ireland 14 won, 1 lost (93%)

Best's poor throwing is largely exaggerated.

So you could say then that a good or bad line-out can make no difference whatsoever to the match? If Ireland can dominate a line-out and still lose 60-0.

Therefore comparing line-outs from one player to the next is irrelevant. Can we move on?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
Not a big difference really much like the lineout.

A 56% increase in missed tackle percentage. Sounds big to me.

That has to be one of the dumbest stats I have read, both players made over 30 tackles and missed relatively few.

Bit of a backtrack from 'George has already missed 3'.

You do seem to select your stats to chose Guns. You remind very much from our very own Beshocked, he likes to gloss over things he doesn't like either.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
Not a big difference really much like the lineout.

A 56% increase in missed tackle percentage. Sounds big to me.

That has to be one of the dumbest stats I have read, both players made over 30 tackles and missed relatively few.

Bit of a backtrack from 'George has already missed 3'.

No not really, there are three tests in a Lions series. Best missed two in his last three tests v the ABs George has already missed 2 presuming he starts on Saturday.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You do seem to select your stats to chose Guns. You remind very much from our very own Beshocked, he likes to gloss over things he doesn't like either.

Whereas you offer nothing really to back up your arguments?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
Not a big difference really much like the lineout.

A 56% increase in missed tackle percentage. Sounds big to me.

That has to be one of the dumbest stats I have read, both players made over 30 tackles and missed relatively few.

The stats are all moot anyway.

While I'm not Gatland's biggest fan, he's out there trying to win. He sees all 3 hookers in training each day, and he was (almost) an international hooker himself, and he's picking the 2 he thinks are best suited to beating NZ. Given that access to all of the players on current form he presumably knows a lot more about their relative merits than us keyboard warriors thousands* of miles away.





*Tighthead excepted of course

MichaelT wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:Why are the Ireland v New Zealand stats only going back 3 games? What happened 4 games ago?

Oh, I see...

Ireland dominated the lineout in that game too despite getting destroyed.  Different coach back then too.

NZ 13 won, 1 lost (92.9%) Lineouts on own throw Ireland 14 won, 1 lost (93%)

Best's poor throwing is largely exaggerated.

So you could say then that a good or bad line-out can make no difference whatsoever to the match? If Ireland can dominate a line-out and still lose 60-0.

Therefore comparing line-outs from one player to the next is irrelevant. Can we move on?

Feel free to move on yourself. The claim is that Bests lineout throwing is poor however, the stats simply don't back that claim up.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You do seem to select your stats to chose Guns. You remind very much from our very own Beshocked, he likes to gloss over things he doesn't like either.

Whereas you offer nothing really to back up your arguments?

Apart from the 50% tackle completion in Best's last game against the AB's from an impressive 4 tackles.....

I like your 3 games over a 4 year period too....what a joke.

You don't need stats, just watch him!

Stats are not concrete proof that a player is good or bad in a department. Best missed 2 of 4 tackles against the AB's, I don't think he's got poor workrate or a bad tackler.

I watched him for years, he's not a good thrower, that's all it is really.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
Not a big difference really much like the lineout.

A 56% increase in missed tackle percentage. Sounds big to me.

That has to be one of the dumbest stats I have read, both players made over 30 tackles and missed relatively few.

The stats are all moot anyway.

While I'm not Gatland's biggest fan, he's out there trying to win. He sees all 3 hookers in training each day, and he was (almost) an international hooker himself, and he's picking the 2 he thinks are best suited to beating NZ. Given that access to all of the players on current form he presumably knows a lot more about their relative merits than us keyboard warriors thousands* of miles away.


*Tighthead excepted of course

I saw Gatland play for the All Blacks against Leinster in Lansdowne road in the late 80s.

Yes he does know more than all off us. Should we just shut the forum down now?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You don't need stats, just watch him!

Stats are not concrete proof that a player is good or bad in a department. Best missed 2 of 4 tackles against the AB's, I don't think he's got poor workrate or a bad tackler.

I watched him for years, he's not a good thrower, that's all it is really.

Classic. Does that mean you win?

All 3 of the hookers are decent and can do a reasonable job – none outstanding though. I think PH has missed a trick though as I think the English pair are probably the best in B&I – start with Hartley to cover the basics well and set up a platform, and bring on George later to take advantage of any looser play with his greater rugby skills. PH seems to prefer to keep his subs down though.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:Why are the Ireland v New Zealand stats only going back 3 games? What happened 4 games ago?

Oh, I see...

Ireland dominated the lineout in that game too despite getting destroyed.  Different coach back then too.

NZ 13 won, 1 lost (92.9%) Lineouts on own throw Ireland 14 won, 1 lost (93%)

Best's poor throwing is largely exaggerated.

So you could say then that a good or bad line-out can make no difference whatsoever to the match? If Ireland can dominate a line-out and still lose 60-0.

Therefore comparing line-outs from one player to the next is irrelevant. Can we move on?

Feel free to move on yourself. The claim is that Bests lineout throwing is poor however, the stats simply don't back that claim up.

Stats don't need to back it up. Best is known for poor throwing. I've watched Ulster, Ireland and two Lions tours now and on an important line-out it doesn't go well. Wouldn't trust him, and that is why he isn't picked for Lions tests. Stats or no stats.

Thought this was about nEW Zealand reactions....we know how they react, look at Dublin. They confuse tough with dangerous, one hopes the referee will be fully aware of this tendency to go over the top - the Dublin referral stats and injuries don't lie - so that the game is tough but safe, frankly I've had enough of New Zealand claiming they aren't dirty players when in two tours we have had two outrageous challenges, one of which left the victim feeling that he may die, god only knows how Watson feels after copping that idiot on his head.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You don't need stats, just watch him!

Stats are not concrete proof that a player is good or bad in a department. Best missed 2 of 4 tackles against the AB's, I don't think he's got poor workrate or a bad tackler.

I watched him for years, he's not a good thrower, that's all it is really.

Classic. Does that mean you win?

Certainly looks that way.

On the plus, we're giving the NZ guys a break from your constant wumming.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You don't need stats, just watch him!

Stats are not concrete proof that a player is good or bad in a department. Best missed 2 of 4 tackles against the AB's, I don't think he's got poor workrate or a bad tackler.

I watched him for years, he's not a good thrower, that's all it is really.

Classic. Does that mean you win?

George offers a lot more than Best. Its a head scratcher.

Jamie George is so like his dad Bobbie - darts good but maybe just shy of top drawer... got the same big barrel chest though.

Gooseberry wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You don't need stats, just watch him!

Stats are not concrete proof that a player is good or bad in a department. Best missed 2 of 4 tackles against the AB's, I don't think he's got poor workrate or a bad tackler.

I watched him for years, he's not a good thrower, that's all it is really.

Classic. Does that mean you win?

George offers a lot more than Best. Its a head scratcher.

Would you sacrfice an excellent set piece operator for a guy who is good around the park but misses say 3 in 12 lines and sometimes get drilled in the scrum?

Not related to George but just an question that comes up when discussing hookers.

For me you can be the best ruck operator, the best carrier, the best tackler but nothing beats a guy who can win you every lineout, every scrum for me. Hartley is the best in the home nations by far in that department but I acknowledge his nutcase mentality is dangerous.... albeit I think Kyle Sinckler is worse.

The ref has to be strong in this match. You can't have some guy who won't be afraid to put someone in the bin in case its "unpopular". For me the ref in the first 20 mins will set the tone and will be the most important person on the pitch come Saturday.

This match will have as much tension for the NZ players as the RWC11 final but IMO, worse. Players will fly in, well executed tackles last week may be 2 seconds too early, 2 seconds too late.

To lose would make them literally the only kiwis under 70 who have lost a series to the lions. Pressure of winning.... thats expected, no one will call you a legend for beating the lions. They will label you the worst performing AB team in 50 years if they lose.

Lions don't have much to lose. No expectation, they will go home with heads high. They know they have to expect the biggest test of their careers but its not the end of the world if they lose. For NZ it wouldn't even be worth contemplating.... and that could tip the balance.

I heard Best was so disappointed not to be selected that he ran out of the meeting, but unfortunately he failed to run straight through the double door (it was big, some say like a Barn door) and hit the wall instead.

It's great when Best's throwing comes up in threads, as it immediately highlighs how little some posters know about rugby and how gullible they are believing fake news.☺

When saw the team was surprised Ionae was dropped for a more experienced
player.BUT apparently he is sick Naholo,Crotty,B.Smith not considered SBW
suspended.With Poite the Scrum area will be stop start probably a lot of
penalties in that area but tends to be a bit of a Homer.
Kaino will be back for the first time really as Lineout option,and at the breakdown.
RED Card no chance several yellows maybe especially if he polices
the offsides properly.
The addition of Jordie Barrett boosts the goal kicking he`s top class
there,Beauden then ready to concentrate on creating holes.
BOTH sides will be looking at discipline issues this one promises to be
a zinger

fa0019 wrote:Hartley is the best in the home nations by far in that department but I acknowledge his nutcase mentality is dangerous.... albeit I think Kyle Sinckler is worse.

Funny you say that, I heard Sinkler gave TJ the w*nker hand shuffle as the ABs walked through the guard of honour. Top guy that Sinkler

Gwlad wrote:Thought this was about nEW Zealand reactions....we know how they react, look at Dublin. They confuse tough with dangerous, one hopes the referee will be fully aware of this tendency to go over the top - the Dublin referral stats and injuries don't lie - so that the game is tough but safe, frankly I've had enough of New Zealand claiming they aren't dirty players when in two tours we have had two outrageous challenges, one of which left the victim feeling that he may die, god only knows how Watson feels after copping that idiot on his head.

He said he felt fine, that SBW had apologised, that he thought it was just unfortunate.

A pity their fans can't stop themselves from over exaggerating on their behalf.

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Thought this was about nEW Zealand reactions....we know how they react, look at Dublin. They confuse tough with dangerous, one hopes the referee will be fully aware of this tendency to go over the top - the Dublin referral stats and injuries don't lie - so that the game is tough but safe, frankly I've had enough of New Zealand claiming they aren't dirty players when in two tours we have had two outrageous challenges, one of which left the victim feeling that he may die, god only knows how Watson feels after copping that idiot on his head.

He said he felt fine, that SBW had apologised, that he thought it was just unfortunate.

A pity their fans can't stop themselves from over exaggerating on their behalf.

So you agree SBW is an idiot.

NZ 'media' even branded it violent stupidity.

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Thought this was about nEW Zealand reactions....we know how they react, look at Dublin. They confuse tough with dangerous, one hopes the referee will be fully aware of this tendency to go over the top - the Dublin referral stats and injuries don't lie - so that the game is tough but safe, frankly I've had enough of New Zealand claiming they aren't dirty players when in two tours we have had two outrageous challenges, one of which left the victim feeling that he may die, god only knows how Watson feels after copping that idiot on his head.

He said he felt fine, that SBW had apologised, that he thought it was just unfortunate.

A pity their fans can't stop themselves from over exaggerating on their behalf.

So you agree SBW is an idiot.

NZ 'media' even branded it violent stupidity.

Not as big a one as you are. At least he gets it.

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Thought this was about nEW Zealand reactions....we know how they react, look at Dublin. They confuse tough with dangerous, one hopes the referee will be fully aware of this tendency to go over the top - the Dublin referral stats and injuries don't lie - so that the game is tough but safe, frankly I've had enough of New Zealand claiming they aren't dirty players when in two tours we have had two outrageous challenges, one of which left the victim feeling that he may die, god only knows how Watson feels after copping that idiot on his head.

He said he felt fine, that SBW had apologised, that he thought it was just unfortunate.

A pity their fans can't stop themselves from over exaggerating on their behalf.

So you agree SBW is an idiot.

NZ 'media' even branded it violent stupidity.

Not as big a one as you are. At least he gets it.

Calm down Taylor, stop reacting to him

Gooseberry wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Thought this was about nEW Zealand reactions....we know how they react, look at Dublin. They confuse tough with dangerous, one hopes the referee will be fully aware of this tendency to go over the top - the Dublin referral stats and injuries don't lie - so that the game is tough but safe, frankly I've had enough of New Zealand claiming they aren't dirty players when in two tours we have had two outrageous challenges, one of which left the victim feeling that he may die, god only knows how Watson feels after copping that idiot on his head.

He said he felt fine, that SBW had apologised, that he thought it was just unfortunate.

A pity their fans can't stop themselves from over exaggerating on their behalf.

So you agree SBW is an idiot.

NZ 'media' even branded it violent stupidity.

Not as big a one as you are. At least he gets it.

Calm down Taylor, stop reacting to him

He's a great reflection of his brethren, pressure comes on and when he can no longer think he gets dirty. Shame.

Gwlad wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Thought this was about nEW Zealand reactions....we know how they react, look at Dublin. They confuse tough with dangerous, one hopes the referee will be fully aware of this tendency to go over the top - the Dublin referral stats and injuries don't lie - so that the game is tough but safe, frankly I've had enough of New Zealand claiming they aren't dirty players when in two tours we have had two outrageous challenges, one of which left the victim feeling that he may die, god only knows how Watson feels after copping that idiot on his head.

He said he felt fine, that SBW had apologised, that he thought it was just unfortunate.

A pity their fans can't stop themselves from over exaggerating on their behalf.

So you agree SBW is an idiot.

NZ 'media' even branded it violent stupidity.

Not as big a one as you are. At least he gets it.

Calm down Taylor, stop reacting to him

He's a great reflection of his brethren, pressure comes on and when he can no longer think he gets dirty.  Shame.

Unlike the Irish who just lose the ability to throw straight

fa0019 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You don't need stats, just watch him!

Stats are not concrete proof that a player is good or bad in a department. Best missed 2 of 4 tackles against the AB's, I don't think he's got poor workrate or a bad tackler.

I watched him for years, he's not a good thrower, that's all it is really.

Classic. Does that mean you win?

George offers a lot more than Best. Its a head scratcher.

Would you sacrfice an excellent set piece operator for a guy who is good around the park but misses say 3 in 12 lines and sometimes get drilled in the scrum?

Not related to George but just an question that comes up when discussing hookers.

For me you can be the best ruck operator, the best carrier, the best tackler but nothing beats a guy who can win you every lineout, every scrum for me. Hartley is the best in the home nations by far in that department but I acknowledge his nutcase mentality is dangerous.... albeit I think Kyle Sinckler is worse.

Jamie George was one of the players that held Sinckler back and tried to calm him down. That man management was important as Sinckler is a bit of a hot head.

beshocked wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:You don't need stats, just watch him!

Stats are not concrete proof that a player is good or bad in a department. Best missed 2 of 4 tackles against the AB's, I don't think he's got poor workrate or a bad tackler.

I watched him for years, he's not a good thrower, that's all it is really.

Classic. Does that mean you win?

George offers a lot more than Best. Its a head scratcher.

Would you sacrfice an excellent set piece operator for a guy who is good around the park but misses say 3 in 12 lines and sometimes get drilled in the scrum?

Not related to George but just an question that comes up when discussing hookers.

For me you can be the best ruck operator, the best carrier, the best tackler but nothing beats a guy who can win you every lineout, every scrum for me. Hartley is the best in the home nations by far in that department but I acknowledge his nutcase mentality is dangerous.... albeit I think Kyle Sinckler is worse.

Jamie George was one of the players that held Sinckler back and tried to calm him down. That man management was important as Sinckler is a bit of a hot head.

Which is why you need Hartley to calm things down..................







Joking aside, Hartley's discipline record for England is not bad at all and he is very, very good at man management on the field. That is why he is EJ's first choice, WG made a big mistake in not taking him on tour, even if he was only a dirt tracker, he has the ability to get through to the players that other captains cannot reach

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:
Which is why you need Hartley to calm things down..................







Joking aside, Hartley's discipline record for England is not bad at all and he is very, very good at man management on the field. That is why he is EJ's first choice, WG made a big mistake in not taking him on tour, even if he was only a dirt tracker, he has the ability to get through to the players that other captains cannot reach

Hartley used to be a player who had a bit of edge - now that he has lost the edge he is simply a player. He should have gone to NZ though - he wouldn't have got bored looking at tattooed men shaking sticks and shouting obscenities at him.

Particularly as he is a New Zealander.