The Rugby Championship

First topic message reminder :

It starts again tomorrow. As ever the interest will wane quickly if the ABs resume their usual dismantling of all opposition. They look extremely strong with Retallick and Whitelock back in harness. Their strength in depth at 10 is frightening. The Aussies do have Pocock back, but hard to look beyond another comfortable AB win.

Argentina away in SA will be interesting I think. SA look like they are improving and Argentina play some good rugby - one to watch I think.

Hoping that somebody pushes the ABs and an Aussie win tomorrow would be the perfect tonic for the tournament, however unlikely that is.

I definitely cant see Wales challenging them much. SA Ireland and England could give NZ a run for their money.

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:Ireland is beneffiting from the woe that has besieged SA, Australia and England.

Much like NZ is currently. Not really anyone that can challenge them..

I think people are giving too much weight to the actual ranking points.

They mean squat when considering no team plays the same opposition in a specific cycle, many teams pick certain matches to not put their best squads out.

Weather, injuries etc all play a role in whether you beat a team by less or more than 15 points which makes a big difference in rankings.

Thus the rankings for me is moot.

100% agree.

New Zealand are in a different stratosphere at the moment, then there is 2nd to 8th not much between them, then there is the rest.

To think that any nation is anywhere near New Zealand's level is delusional at best.

Yes, unfortunately true.

Collapse2005 wrote:I definitely cant see Wales challenging them much.

Nobody is claiming otherwise, unlike you with Ireland.

Collapse2005 wrote:SA Ireland and England could give NZ a run for their money.

That's the spirit.

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I definitely cant see Wales challenging them much.

Nobody is claiming otherwise, unlike you with Ireland.

Collapse2005 wrote:SA Ireland and England could give NZ a run for their money.

That's the spirit.

Why wouldn't I claim Ireland will give them a challenge?

Are you aware of Irelands recent results v NZ? Aggregate score across the last three games is 72 points to 70, 1 win and 2 losses. Does that not in itself suggest Ireland could give NZ a run for their money?

By contrast the aggregate score in the last 3 NZ Wales games is 115 to 46. An average 23 point loss. Cant you see the logic behind my argument?

That was a great championship for me with some excellent rugby played. NZ are just a different beast all together, they just seem to be able to go through the gears at will.

SA under Rassie are showing some excellent improvements and at the right time leading up to next years RWC.

eirebilly wrote:That was a great championship for me with some excellent rugby played. NZ are just a different beast all together, they just seem to be able to go through the gears at will.

SA under Rassie are showing some excellent improvements and at the right time leading up to next years RWC.

Yes I could not agree more. NZ always seem to be able to go an octave higher than the team they are playing. Also, it's worrying for everybody else that SA look to be getting their acts together.

LordDowlais wrote:

eirebilly wrote:That was a great championship for me with some excellent rugby played. NZ are just a different beast all together, they just seem to be able to go through the gears at will.

SA under Rassie are showing some excellent improvements and at the right time leading up to next years RWC.

Yes I could not agree more. NZ always seem to be able to go an octave higher than the team they are playing. Also, it's worrying for everybody else that SA look to be getting their acts together.

When South Africa performs with 100% selection om home based players I would agree they are getting their act together.

Currently loaning players from overseas clubs are simply papering over the cracks.

Every time an overseas player is selected it becomes a negotiation with his club, when will he be available and when not.

Rassie is at the mercy of the clubs his players work for. That is no way to build a world beating squad, continuity of selection is key, you don't have that with overseas players.

Plus preparation time is always more complex when you are at the mercy of clubs.

Nope, they aren't even close to getting their act together.

You're not at the club's mercy you simply call them up in the window. I'd agree if you mean calling them up during the club season not sure what additional time your home based players get with the national side.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're not at the club's mercy you simply call them up in the window. I'd agree if you mean calling them.up during the club season not sure what additional time.your home based players get with the national side.

Home based players go to training camps during the year, overseas players aren't available for that. It is more than just that.

You want your best players to compete head to head in a local tournament. That makes selection based on merit, not selection based on reputation.

Same as england then. Strengthens your local leagues if you can keep the rules tight.

The biggest issue is when you continue to select overseas players you are basically telling home based players they won't make the Springbok team, then they go overseas in search for international jersey elsewhere.

It just repeats the cycle.

You need the jersey to be valuable, something home based players can strive for, you take that dream away, they are gone.

Just look at the exodus of players leaving our shores

True. You're going to have a lot of it anyway similar to England through the amount you produce.

No doubt, but SARU must do whatever they can to keep the best at home.

I don't think the rugby rankings are too often at odds with what the average fan thinks. Certainly, you can always argue that some team should be at six rather than eight etc, but such cases usually arise when the points difference isn't that great. The five teams ranked 3rd to 7th are all quite closely bunched, and I don't think many would be confident of beating eighth placed France in an away fixture. Scotland, England and Wales all lost their recent games in France, while South Africa and Australia managed wins by only one and two points respectively.

New Zealand are the best team at the moment but, when that was true of England for around three years (much shorter than the NZ hold on the position) it didn't stop us dropping matches every year. So far, New Zealand's losses haven't really cost them anything other than pride. England lost Six Nations championships, but New Zealand have still won Rugby Championships, drawn the Lion series, and lost no title in Chicago to Ireland.

At the World Cup, however, everything is on the line.

Today, the All Blacks would still be favourites taking the field against any opposition, home or away, but I think the odds of someone turning them over at the Cup have increased. Of course, we know that the team which lost twice at home in 2009 went on to win in 2011. Still, that final was a close affair.

I half think some New Zealand supporters wouldn't mind dropping a game before their season ends (provided it isn't against England) to keep players and coaches minds concentrated on the ultimate prize.

True rugby, losing has more context longer term than the one match. Losing to England and Ireland, the no.1 ranking would provide the best chances for the ABs in the Wcup for instance, as it will place pressure on not only the side but hansen as well and we are back to the no stoned unturned scenario.

Going for the ABs world cup time is Hansen, having been through a liss and win as deputy and win as head coach. Hes more recent experience than anyone in matters world cup at both ends of the tournament.

The timing of about now next year also suits us perfectly.

Its gonna be tough and the next few weeks i think is more about what everyone wants to show and tell and who actually wants these more in terms of the world cup itself.

Its true that if Ireland for example do beat NZ in November and that the number 1 spot there would be more pressure on them which would probably not be a good thing going to the RWC. However the flip side of that would be the belief that beating NZ would give a side. As such my preference would be to win v NZ but I think its probably not going to happen.

Yes the general talk over the summer after the England loss in 2012 really set things buzzing around NZ domestic chat. We love to challenge our ABs and their minders and they came out with the only 100% calendar year to date in the pro era and part of that included managing the side to the very last minute of the season, something they needed to beat Ireland after that last minute. If not for the England loss Ireland would have belted that side in 2013 with the first half start.

To a point its hard to take these AI's as seriously as the media will hype them up to be. After next years world cup final no one will really care what happened.

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I definitely cant see Wales challenging them much.

Nobody is claiming otherwise, unlike you with Ireland.

Collapse2005 wrote:SA Ireland and England could give NZ a run for their money.

That's the spirit.

Why wouldn't I claim Ireland will give them a challenge?

Are you aware of Irelands recent results v NZ? Aggregate score across the last three games is 72 points to 70, 1 win and 2 losses. Does that not in itself suggest Ireland could give NZ a run for their money?

By contrast the aggregate score in the last 3 NZ Wales games is 115 to 46. An average 23 point loss. Cant you see the logic behind my argument?

Ireland can and will challenge NZ, maybe even beat them. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn’t pay much attention to rugby.

Same goes with anyone in the 6Ns except Italy and Scotland, Gareth.

[/quote]

Ireland can and will challenge NZ, maybe even beat them. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn’t pay much attention to rugby. [/quote]

Thats true. They could also get thrashed. Its an all on the day thing in the end. NZ's had more than a wake up call from the Boks and have been again shown what a team can do if it challenges itself, the Bok side at the start of the Championship up to the Oz game where they were awful, as were Oz, is a distant memory from the one that ended it.

Luckily we have Dane Coles, Laulala and Moody back in Mitre 10 this weekend so that will boost the forwards a bit if they get up to speed quick enough for north. Next years AB front row is going to take some beating with the depth we have now, as long as theyre all fit.

Danger looms!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/107727470/dangerous-irish-could-loom-for-all-blacks-if-they-stumble-to-boks-in-world-cup-pool-game

'they are proving to be one of those teams that is quite happy to play without the ball and back their defence. It's the sort of footy that suits sudden-death games.'

ho hum...

...

Taylorman wrote:Danger looms!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/107727470/dangerous-irish-could-loom-for-all-blacks-if-they-stumble-to-boks-in-world-cup-pool-game

'they are proving to be one of those teams that is quite happy to play without the ball and back their defence. It's the sort of footy that suits sudden-death games.'

ho hum...

There's always a few shocks in the world cup and I think there could be more than usual in Japan.


There's no guarantee of Ireland beating the Scots and Japan could beat the Scots. Italy could be a banana skin for the Boks providing they improve a bit.


The French usually are hard to beat in world cups. They just have a massive squad and plenty of talent and their constant chopping and changing keeps the team fresh.


I think player rotation will be crucial. If you keep playing the same players in every match they will get seriously fatigued, physically and mentally.

Yes a lot to be excited about. Its quite good from about now going into the World cup year with the AI's then the 6N where we'll be watching both more keenly than normal. Particularly as theres been so much movement in the game since 2015, rankings, upsets, tour wins etc that we didnt previously get a lot.

Taylorman wrote:Danger looms!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/107727470/dangerous-irish-could-loom-for-all-blacks-if-they-stumble-to-boks-in-world-cup-pool-game

'they are proving to be one of those teams that is quite happy to play without the ball and back their defence. It's the sort of footy that suits sudden-death games.'

ho hum...

The reason Ireland are a danger to New Zealand is precisely because we don't like to play without the ball.We're fairly conservative with the ball so don't give up many turnovers or set pieces in dangerous positions, the two areas N.Z. get most of their scores.

Cyril wrote:Same goes with anyone in the 6Ns except Italy and Scotland, Gareth.

Really? Scotland have come closer to beating NZ than Wales England and France lately. Just saying.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Danger looms!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/107727470/dangerous-irish-could-loom-for-all-blacks-if-they-stumble-to-boks-in-world-cup-pool-game

'they are proving to be one of those teams that is quite happy to play without the ball and back their defence. It's the sort of footy that suits sudden-death games.'

ho hum...

The reason Ireland are a danger to New Zealand is precisely because we don't like to play without the ball.We're fairly conservative with the ball so don't give up many turnovers or set pieces in dangerous positions, the two areas N.Z. get most of their scores.

‘With’ im assuming. But playing without the ball is a crap wayto play rugby. Kids dont aspire to play rugby so they can play ‘without the ball’ so its inherently flawed as a concept but necessary. Schmidt has had to bite his lip on that compromise.

we are used to it with England and South Africa over the years.

Reason we are a threat to ireland is cos we usually love to play with the ball. Not always, but ABs can do either.

You assume wrong. Ireland  dominate posession against most teams including NZ in all of the last 3 games. Not by much but it was a clear goal.

If you look at the Ireland game plan it is pretty much the opposite of what SA do. Ireland tend to try to dominate the breakdown and keep as much possession as possible. Ireland also run the ball deceptively more than most people think however, they are conservative with what they do when they run it. Never any miracle passes however, Ireland do like to play with possession more often than not.

You don't appear to really understand Schmidt's game plan at all.

Last three games:
2013 - Ireland 57% possession.
2016 (Chicago) - Ireland 51% possession.
2016 (Dublin) - Ireland 66% possession.

Irony there T/Man the AB`s are comfortable without the ball see France series,but in the red zone
they always come away with points.Many see the RWC as the be all and end all,and look down on
teams who have`nt won one.The Rush defence relies on playing from an offside position.
BUT look at England v Wales their records against each other both matches and trophies are near
identical,bar the one RWC.
Is the standard of PRO 14? lower than that of Premiership or Top 14,the Cup played is dominated
by Pro 14 sides mainly Irish.
The RWC is the only time teams are at near full strength,at my age this maybe my last love
to see a Nz v SA final with NZ winning.BUT can`t see it.
Failure of that a new name on the Cup why not Ireland or France?winner will be world number 1
till they are knocked off there perch.
Winning it is one thing,defending it another,post 2011 NZ lost a team,post 2015 a whole squad,
post 2019?

Taylorman wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Danger looms!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/107727470/dangerous-irish-could-loom-for-all-blacks-if-they-stumble-to-boks-in-world-cup-pool-game

'they are proving to be one of those teams that is quite happy to play without the ball and back their defence. It's the sort of footy that suits sudden-death games.'

ho hum...

The reason Ireland are a danger to New Zealand is precisely because we don't like to play without the ball.We're fairly conservative with the ball so don't give up many turnovers or set pieces in dangerous positions, the two areas N.Z. get most of their scores.

‘With’ im assuming. But playing without the ball is a crap wayto play rugby. Kids dont aspire to play rugby so they can play ‘without the ball’ so its inherently flawed as a concept but necessary. Schmidt has had to bite his lip on that compromise.

we are used to it with England and South Africa over the years.

Reason we are a threat to ireland is cos we usually love to play with the ball. Not always, but ABs can do either.

When I think of NZ I think of a team sitting back and defending for a lot of the game but switching into overdrive for a few minutes and scoring a lot of points very quickly. Having less possession doesn't matter if you have enough points on the board. Historically I remember a lot of Eng NZ games where we would have good spells but never look like winning, and I would not be surprised if we had more possession overall.

So what's your definition of world class then Alan? And that of near identical for that matter as I count up 6 nation wins.

Taylorman wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Danger looms!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/107727470/dangerous-irish-could-loom-for-all-blacks-if-they-stumble-to-boks-in-world-cup-pool-game

'they are proving to be one of those teams that is quite happy to play without the ball and back their defence. It's the sort of footy that suits sudden-death games.'

ho hum...

The reason Ireland are a danger to New Zealand is precisely because we don't like to play without the ball.We're fairly conservative with the ball so don't give up many turnovers or set pieces in dangerous positions, the two areas N.Z. get most of their scores.

‘With’ im assuming. But playing without the ball is a crap wayto play rugby. Kids dont aspire to play rugby so they can play ‘without the ball’ so its inherently flawed as a concept but necessary. Schmidt has had to bite his lip on that compromise.

we are used to it with England and South Africa over the years.

Reason we are a threat to ireland is cos we usually love to play with the ball. Not always, but ABs can do either.

No my post is correct as written, Ireland consistently dominate possession and force teams into record tackle numbers, that's the opposite of playing without the ball. As I've said we're pretty conservative with what we do with the ball but we keep it if at all possible.Schmidt hasn't compromised one bit ,it's the way he believes the game should be played and if he ever coaches N.Z. he'll have them playing the same way.

I don`t define it,to me there is no such thing as an exhibition or friendly game there all TEST MATCHES.
It used to be harder to win the RC,or 6Ns than a RWC maybe it still is RWB Number 1 is harder to
achieve in my opinion.
The best team in the world does`nt always win the RWC but in most cases they did,France knocked
out NZ twice.But the effort was such they did`nt turn up for the final.

So in your eyes everyone is world class then. Ok. And it appears you agree that Wales and england don't have near identical trophies so again another step in the right direction. Now to teach you the difference between there and they are. We'll leave their for a minute.

alanmackie6 wrote:I don`t define it,to me there is no such thing as an exhibition or friendly game there all TEST MATCHES.
It used to be harder to win the RC,or 6Ns than a RWC maybe it still is RWB Number 1 is harder to
achieve in my opinion.
The best team in the world does`nt always win the RWC but in most cases they did,France knocked
out NZ twice.But the effort was such they did`nt turn up for the final.

Its harder to win the RWC in my view. More pressure and potentially better opponents even if you get an easy run.

7.5 don`t be a nit picking troll some of your posts in the past was as if you were drunk.
I`m PC dyslexic as stated in the past and at my age can`t be bothered to learn,read my
posts or not all the same to me.

There's no such thing as pc dyslexic.
And I don't troll I simply pick apart weak arguments expecially ones where people realise they were a bit too heavy on hyperbole and now don't want to define what they mean by world class or accept that saying wales and england have a similar number of trophies is false.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Danger looms!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/107727470/dangerous-irish-could-loom-for-all-blacks-if-they-stumble-to-boks-in-world-cup-pool-game

'they are proving to be one of those teams that is quite happy to play without the ball and back their defence. It's the sort of footy that suits sudden-death games.'

ho hum...

The reason Ireland are a danger to New Zealand is precisely because we don't like to play without the ball.We're fairly conservative with the ball so don't give up many turnovers or set pieces in dangerous positions, the two areas N.Z. get most of their scores.

‘With’ im assuming. But playing without the ball is a crap wayto play rugby. Kids dont aspire to play rugby so they can play ‘without the ball’ so its inherently flawed as a concept but necessary. Schmidt has had to bite his lip on that compromise.

we are used to it with England and South Africa over the years.

Reason we are a threat to ireland is cos we usually love to play with the ball. Not always, but ABs can do either.

No my post is correct as written, Ireland consistently dominate possession and force teams into record tackle numbers, that's the opposite of playing without the ball. As I've said we're pretty conservative with what we do with the ball but we keep it if at all possible.Schmidt hasn't compromised one bit ,it's the way he believes the game should be played and if he ever coaches N.Z. he'll have them playing the same way.

Oh ok so you do like to play with the ball. Youre just happy to not do anything with it?

Same thing for me. ABs have been winning many tests where the opposition have had max territory and possession. The two of three examples given Ireland lost!

Tell me what the point of that is?

And no, Schmidt wont get near the ABs with so much inexperience in being able to develop attacking rugby. The number of times Ive seen an Ireland backline thrill in a test is few, I cant actually remember a great Ireland back move in the last twelve months. There might be a few, but it aint Schmidts expertise. Too much worried about parity up front. Boring, lacklustre rugby.

Lol,you're exposing your ignorance there.Schmidt doesn't limit himself to backline moves,he uses whatever players are best suited so we currently have a TH prop who is very important to our attacking movie as he can pass like a centre and is a very strong ball carrier.
We're coming from a lower skil set to NZ so in that regards he's had to work with what's available but now that the next generation of players are coming through we're beginning to see what he can do whether you can remember it doesn't matter, it's there.

Dont expect Tman to have a slightest bog about Irish rugby.  I see Barnes have been given the Ireland v NZ game. For me that means we can absolutely forget about a win.

Ireland's try against England in Twickers was a great backline move. One of the best I can think of from memory. Its true Ireland aren't that creative in the backs but there are many ways to skin a cat and Ireland don't exactly have low try scoring numbers under Schmidt. How many sides have put 40 points on NZ in the last few years? Only 1 as far as I know.

Dominating possession is not a guarantee of winning.

In the 2011 RWC quarter final South Africa had 67% territory and 75% possession and lost to Australia.

Just three weeks ago New Zealand had 75% and lost.

Weather and conditions and referees all play external roles in whether possession is good or bad on a given matchday.

The question is not how does your tram fair with ball in hand stats in their favour, but how does your team fair when they don't have possession.

Liking to play with ball in hand is not a prerequisite to majority possession.

Collapse2005 wrote:Dont expect Tman to have a slightest bog about Irish rugby.  I see Barnes have been given the Ireland v NZ game. For me that means we can absolutely forget about a win.

No it means we have to play an absolutely Perfect game with absolutely NO mistakes/errors/or grumbles.

Accept, Accept, Accept and play and play and play for the full 136 minutes.

Tough call as NZ will only have to play their usual 58.362% rate stuff to win comfortably

Biltong wrote:Dominating possession is not a guarantee of winning.

In the 2011 RWC quarter final South Africa had 67% territory and 75% possession and lost to Australia.

Just three weeks ago New Zealand had 75% and lost.

Weather and conditions and referees all play external roles in whether possession is good or bad on a given matchday.

The question is not how does your tram fair with ball in hand stats in their favour, but how does your team fair when they don't have possession.

Liking to play with ball in hand is not a prerequisite to majority possession.

No one claimed it was. The stats I presented were simply to demonstrate Ireland's game plan is centered around dominating possession to counter argue T'mans believe that Ireland's tactic is to play without the ball. Its not.

I'm not saying Ireland's focus on dominating possession guarantees they will win all I'm saying is that's their game plan.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Dominating possession is not a guarantee of winning.

In the 2011 RWC quarter final South Africa had 67% territory and 75% possession and lost to Australia.

Just three weeks ago New Zealand had 75% and lost.

Weather and conditions and referees all play external roles in whether possession is good or bad on a given matchday.

The question is not how does your tram fair with ball in hand stats in their favour, but how does your team fair when they don't have possession.

Liking to play with ball in hand is not a prerequisite to majority possession.

No one claimed it was. The stats I presented were simply to demonstrate Ireland's game plan is centered around dominating possession to counter argue T'mans believe that Ireland's tactic is to play without the ball. Its not.

I'm not saying Ireland's focus on dominating possession guarantees they will win all I'm saying is that's their game plan.

Yeah, I have no issues with their game plan, what I am saying is wanting to play with ball in hand and actually managing to play with ball in hand are two different sides of the coin.

Yeah that's fair enough but to be honest there haven't been too many games in the last couple of years that Ireland haven't dominated possession from memory. Cant think of any. Like you say it doesn't always work but it seems clear to me that that is part of Schmidt's game plan.

One thing Ill say about NZs performance on Saturday is that I reckon Mo'unga is probably NZ's best outhalf. I can see him being back up OH at the RWC ahead of McKenzie. Barrett is an amazing player who can play out half but Mo'unga is probably better in the position.

Collapse2005 wrote:One thing Ill say about NZs performance on Saturday is that I reckon Mo'unga is probably NZ's best outhalf. I can see him being back up OH at the RWC ahead of McKenzie. Barrett is an amazing player who can play out half but Mo'unga is probably better in the position.

Yea its starting to look that way. Plus hes a straight runner, Barrett looks to shift sideways too much sometimes. Vs Ireland, England I would have him start, Barrett to FB, Smith to wing.

WR are surely having a laugh. Jerome Garces at Twickenham and Wayne Barnes in Dublin. Classic joke by WR.

ebop wrote:WR are surely having a laugh. Jerome Garces at Twickenham and Wayne Barnes in Dublin. Classic joke by WR.

Yes saw that. Guns thinks it goes against them. Weve lost far mire tests under Barnes than any other ref and garces is no better. We’re over that anyway, barnes did far more for nz rugby than any human in history.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:One thing Ill say about NZs performance on Saturday is that I reckon Mo'unga is probably NZ's best outhalf. I can see him being back up OH at the RWC ahead of McKenzie. Barrett is an amazing player who can play out half but Mo'unga is probably better in the position.

Yea its starting to look that way. Plus hes a straight runner, Barrett looks to shift sideways too much sometimes. Vs Ireland, England I would have him start, Barrett to FB, Smith to wing.

So would I if I was Hanson.