Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | ... | 642

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2343973 27-Oct-2019 01:00

So the answer would have been to do what Australia did and concede 40? We turned the ball over 11 times in our own half because England were significantly better than us in the forwards and putting us under huge pressure.

You are seeing what you want to see and descending into abusing players who have put their heart and soul into preparing for this game.

Handle9

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2343975 27-Oct-2019 01:16

Batman:

Well playing two 10s wasn't going to work,

It worked pretty well for England...

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2343977 27-Oct-2019 01:46

TeaLeaf:

I think Barrett consistently kicking the ball (and not well) was giving them field position when we needed to hold onto the ball and ruck it up the field, just like the showed SA graphically have been doing, holding onto the ball, forming malls off of good rucks, then spin it wide once near the 22.

You cant win games when you have 30% territory and low possession if you just kick your possession away, thats what you do when you are leading. Really amateur from BB

Your previous post was poor, sorry. had you watched the ENG vs AUS game as I did, you would have seem AUS had 70% possession. ENG then kept the game in opposite territory. If AUS cough it up, you have an opportunity. If they penalise you have a kick. Thats what happened tonight. As I told my 3 mates before the game tonight, its about the tactic. It was no secret. Two of us saw that tonight, when they failed to run the ball out, as being kept in their territory was risky. They had the opportunity to play the game in ENG's half. It was a repeat of ENG vs AUS, pure and simple.

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2343979 27-Oct-2019 01:55

TeaLeaf:

networkn: An unfortunate way to see the end of so many distiquished careers but that's knock out football.

Its going to be an interesting looking team in 4 years time with so many of our players gone. A lot of retiring coaches too.

Batman:

Whoa that's a bit of politics. Let me ask a question - can Aussies be knighted alongside Englishmen like Clive and Alf?

Im glad somebody got the humour and didnt take it too seriously ;-p.

I think Eddie Jones would accept knighthood if he became a UK resident. :-)

I said that about this team 4 years ago, when it was decreed after easy wins over island nations as the best team ever produced, by the media. And got bashed. This team has given many examples why its easily beatable. But you will find that in a year or two it will be up with the Richie, Dan, Conrad, Nonu team of the past.

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2343981 27-Oct-2019 01:59

TeaLeaf:

Handle9:

If you can't get the ball in the right part of the field you can't win.

Thats why Im so hard on BB and think hes a muppet at elite level rugby as somebody else said.

He needed to run the ball to centre pitch and with our loosies guarding every phase just graft that ball to the right part of the field.

Starve possession but at same time control the game. The in the right part of the field, unleash our strike force with set plays aiming at cutting a hole in the opposition line.

Nope, BB kick the ball to touch. Big time player. Muppet.

You are saying we should have used the tactics ENG did? We had a clue, their last game.

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2343982 27-Oct-2019 02:04

TeaLeaf:

Handle9:

It's fairly obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

Im suppose to give a .... what somebody who has no comments thinks?

Its quite clear you need to drink some more. I care less for a random personal attack.

I have been banished by You and by Handle for my "not so favourable comments about the AB's in the past" But your comments are rants, and his are IMO real

Its sour grapes or its reality. Your choice what you think about that. End of the day its a bitch, but that's sport. An old fashioned comment is "its not if you win but how you play the game" Tonight we did what we though was best, it fell short, thats all

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2343983 27-Oct-2019 02:08

Handle9: So the answer would have been to do what Australia did and concede 40? We turned the ball over 11 times in our own half because England were significantly better than us in the forwards and putting us under huge pressure.

You are seeing what you want to see and descending into abusing players who have put their heart and soul into preparing for this game.

Its a shame that a less than ideal result ends up like this, as you foresaw the other day.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
29737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2343986 27-Oct-2019 06:59

Handle9:
Batman:

Well playing two 10s wasn't going to work,

It worked pretty well for England...

They could have played with four props and still would have won! While we don't have a constant starting 15 in the last 12 months. We have so many world class players who come in and out of form (?injuries) and I was surprised that the team was still evolving even during the tournament.

If I recall correctly Ford was playing the 10 role and Farrell stuck to the role of a 12, no sharing duties. He's played at 12 for England for 2.5 years. Whether he is a good 12 I don't know, because 13 was a monster.

But we were outplayed and while I was moaning the lack of contest for my entertainment, after a good sleep I can now see that NZ were trying but were completely outplayed.

But why did they not change tactics from playing sexy footy to a different plan? I still think because one 2 many cooks. Hence my statement. But hey we could have had only one 10 and any other first XV and still would have lost. Our game plan was completely nullified by old fashioned forwards heavy rugby that usually wins knockout matches.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2343990 27-Oct-2019 07:46

no actually this is why we lost https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/rwc-2019-japan/116953175/the-richie-mccaw-curse-strikes-again-as-former-all-blacks-skipper-watches-rwc-defeat

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2343991 27-Oct-2019 07:50

Well done England 💪 an absolute dominance all over the park. At the physical game like that, forwards did their job very well for England.

I think ABs lost their game in the dressing room, the tactics, the mind set, all went wrong for them. If it was any other team the score board would be 50+ for England.

The golden decade is over for NZ rugby :(

helping others at evgenyk.nz

Batman

Mad Scientist
29737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2343995 27-Oct-2019 08:11

kobiak: Well done England 💪 an absolute dominance all over the park. At the physical game like that, forwards did their job very well for England.

I think ABs lost their game in the dressing room, the tactics, the mind set, all went wrong for them. If it was any other team the score board would be 50+ for England.

The golden decade is over for NZ rugby :(

we saw that last week

Batman

Mad Scientist
29737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2344006 27-Oct-2019 09:35

I re-watched the whole match, while we were completely outplayed, we didn't do much wrong (exact things could be said about Australia last week!), though there were a few common themes

1. England's plan was simple when they had the ball - give it to the forwards, and they gain 5 metres per phase. There was the dominant forwards.

2. When we got the ball, we weren't too bad actually, but we would eventually be either outmuscled or nullified in some way. There was the dominant forwards.

3. We were pretty bad at protecting our ball. Sometimes we committed nobody to the ruck.

4. We were rather bad under the high ball. Missed a few with little contest.

5. Our clearance kicks were very poor. Something that a specialist clearing full back or a specialist clearing 10 should have been pretty good at in the old days. I put this last because this wasn't the reason for the loss despite it being pretty obvious.

I won't make any couch potato we should have done this and should have done that in this post, but the 5 points are very objective.

dafman

3919 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2344061 27-Oct-2019 10:46

Batman:

I think it all started from a mental shock of going 7 down.

Or before. I thought the body language coming onto the pitch was very telling. And the large shark's mouth swallowing the haka to the strains of swing low sweet chariot felt ominous.

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2344064 27-Oct-2019 10:54

Batman:

I re-watched the whole match, while we were completely outplayed, we didn't do much wrong (exact things could be said about Australia last week!), though there were a few common themes

1. England's plan was simple when they had the ball - give it to the forwards, and they gain 5 metres per phase. There was the dominant forwards.

2. When we got the ball, we weren't too bad actually, but we would eventually be either outmuscled or nullified in some way. There was the dominant forwards.

3. We were pretty bad at protecting our ball. Sometimes we committed nobody to the ruck.

4. We were rather bad under the high ball. Missed a few with little contest.

5. Our clearance kicks were very poor. Something that a specialist clearing full back or a specialist clearing 10 should have been pretty good at in the old days. I put this last because this wasn't the reason for the loss despite it being pretty obvious.

I won't make any couch potato we should have done this and should have done that in this post, but the 5 points are very objective.

I feel like none of these are new things and have been issues for us for some time. We also seem to have taken the approach that we commit no one at defensive rucks to strengthen our defense but we now don't get anywhere near the same level of turnover ball as we used to.

I'm OK with the whole thing tbh. We played two solid games against SA and Ireland, as good as any rugby games you'll see, against two teams that have beaten us in the past few years and looked good doing it. We failed to fire against a better team who had an easier run into the Finals.

I kind of want Wales to go all the way simply because it would infuriate the English but the IRB will never let that happen. So I guess I'm supporting the Bokke if they make it to the final?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2344066 27-Oct-2019 11:02

11 hrs to go ... can't wait ...

1 | ... | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | ... | 642