Rugby - See You In Ten!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Frozzy
Two points about the game.

Why is it when the ABs have the best backline in the world did they kick it so much?

I wondered the same thing. I recall they did the same thing last year - was it last year? the return match after you beat us in arctic conditions in Dunedin? - and it cost them the game that time. I can only think Carlos was trying to pressure our defence under the high ball, counting on the speed of your runners to be there to profit from the mistakes. Which, on the whole, didn't come.

Carlos stepped up to the mark when he was needed.

Not in the goal kicking department. Yet again.

The Doug Howlett try was a thing of beauty.

Which one? Hopefully not the second one, the fraudulent one.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by finbar
Yeah well, more of the same. The Wallabies lift for the occasion, but commit suicide with their sheer impotence in attack and some appalling kicking that hands the ABs tries on a platter.

Same as in Sydney. Kick it to the AB back line, you'll get hammered.

The Wallabies could easily have won. What on earth Kaplan was thinking when he let Collins pilfer the ball that led to Howlett's second try? Collins was in an offside position, Kaplan was calling "Leave it Black!", and, with no change in the situation, he let Collins reach down and pick up the ball.

Yawn... Collins was behind the last mans feet, ball pops out of the scrum. If he gets it, fair play to him.

Larkham's non-try with the ball against the post was just as ludicrous. If he hadn't touched the ball against the post, and the video evidence was inconclusive, a penalty try should have been awarded for McCaw illegally diving on top of him to prevent the try.

Were we watching the same game? McCaw got him from the side, shoved his mitt between the ball and the post. Sorry... nothing illegal there.

So there's a 12 point swing, regardless of Carlos' - yet again - incompotent kicking.

Again... Carlos kicked when he needed to.

Whether the Wallabies deserved to win or not is a different matter. They had ample attacking opportunities in the second half, but persisted with their mindless hammering head-first up the middle - or up the blindside - into the AB defence.

The Aussies were unimaginative. When it's 1 try versus 2, no matter how close the scoreline is, you can tell they lacked depth and creativity.

Lote Tuquiri must wonder what he's doing in this team. Where is the vision when in possession and attacking? The imagination? And when, if ever, will Matt Rogers pass the ball? His sole intention seems to be to break the line, ignoring the crucial option of off-loading to exploit the gaps left by the defenders committed to tackling him.

Not enough head to fill the ego.

On the plus side, Larkham had his best game for a long time. Sadly, his field kicking, which used to be very good, has deserted him.

Again... he kept kicking it to the AB backline... trouble.

Our back row also managed to put Carlos under some - but not enough - pressure. Our forwards lifted their game against the ABs' A pack. And, Mealamu's speed and mobility aside, I thought our forwards more than held their own, which should be a worry for the ABs. Debutant Al Baxter did well when he got his chance and has to replace Noriega. David Giffen's organisation of the lineout exposed - yet again - the ABs' real problems in that area. Nathan Sharpe, when he came on, proved to be much more effective than Vickerman driving the ball forward. Sadly, Kefu obviously wasn't fit after his calf injury, and shouldn't have started.

I thought the packs were well matched. However, the AB need to commit less players when recycling the ball. If you saw against the Springboks, they commited two or three while we commited four or five. You can't get an overlap when you have less players available. It's a simple maths lesson.

Oh, and I'm sure Havak burst a pyjama button with delight when David McHugh, on the touchline, pinged the AB runners for being in front of Carlos when he kicked.

He looked about 5 seconds away from a heart attack.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by finbar
I wondered the same thing. I recall they did the same thing last year - was it last year? the return match after you beat us in arctic conditions in Dunedin? - and it cost them the game that time. I can only think Carlos was trying to pressure our defence under the high ball, counting on the speed of your runners to be there to profit from the mistakes. Which, on the whole, didn't come.

Trying to play Super 12 in a test match.

Not in the goal kicking department. Yet again.

I was referring to goal kicking actually. When a kick meant nothing more than a nail in the coffin, he missed. When it was something like pushing them over the 7 point mark, he nailed it.[/quote]

Which one? Hopefully not the second one, the fraudulent one.

Yes. The second one. You can think what you like whether Collins was behind the last man's feet or not, but Muliaina's run from the 22 up the Wallaby territory, Mealamu's dummy to Waugh, then Howlett in for the try. It exposes why you NEVER EVER kick to the AB backline... ala Sydney.

But Carlos' kick over the top, bounces perfectly for Howlett reminded me of Carlos' banana kick in the Super 12 final... wonderful.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Frozzy


Same as in Sydney. Kick it to the AB back line, you'll get hammered.

Precisely. Mindboggling in its stupidity.

Yawn... Collins was behind the last mans feet, ball pops out of the scrum. If he gets it, fair play to him.

1. He wasn't.
2. It didn't.
3. So it wasn't.

He looked about 5 seconds away from a heart attack.

Imagine the heart attack Havak would have suffered if McHugh hadn't pinged them.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Frozzy


Trying to play Super 12 in a test match.

Not necessarily. It's a reasonable tactic if the defence is weak under a high ball. But Latham has never been weak under a high ball. He's prone to brain fades after he's claimed the mark, but that's a different matter. Still, as you said earlier, why he was kicking with that backline at his disposal is the question.

I was referring to goal kicking actually. When a kick meant nothing more than a nail in the coffin, he missed. When it was something like pushing them over the 7 point mark, he nailed it.

Yes. The second one. You can think what you like whether Collins was behind the last man's feet or not

I will. He wasn't.

The problem for me is that I've backed the ABs to win the WRC. On last night's effort, the England forwards will murder the AB forwards.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
On last night's effort, the England forwards will murder the AB forwards.

So will do France's forwards...

As you are speaking about the forwards, the AB ones should have been penalized more heavily especially near their try line where they have committed intentional fouls to avoid australian tries. A penalty try would not have been scandalous...

[LDiCesare]

If he hadn't touched the ball against the post, and the video evidence was inconclusive, a penalty try should have been awarded for McCaw illegally diving on top of him to prevent the try.

??
I didn't see the match, but as far as I remember, the laws say that posts are part of the in-goal. Did an AB prevent an aussie from touching the post?
(move away stealthily after putting some oil on the fire)

[Tamerlin]

IMO LDiCesare the Australians should have been awarded a penalty try... but not at this time. It seems an AB arm was also around the ball while Larkham was sliding towards the post and could have thus been between the ball and the said post. The video was indeed inconclusive as Finbar wrote it earlier.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


So will do France's forwards...

They could too.

As you are speaking about the forwards, the AB ones should have been penalized more heavily especially near their try line where they have committed intentional fouls to avoid australian tries. A penalty try would not have been scandalous...

Or a yellow card or two. The ref did issue a final warning about intentional fouls and threatened a card next time. The ABs persisted with the intentional fouls, but the ref chickened out.

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

??
I didn't see the match, but as far as I remember, the laws say that posts are part of the in-goal. Did an AB prevent an aussie from touching the post?

Yes, if the ball is placed against the post, it's a try. Unfortunately, the ball was buried from sight on all angles on the video replay.

(move away stealthily after putting some oil on the fire)

[LDiCesare]

I saw a replay on TV, along with Laporte's comments. He said Australia should have been awarded a penalty try because the kiwi flanker fell on the player who was already down, and this is illegal. Since he's the guy who blocked the ball, I think Laporte's analysis was quite good. Not that it will help Australia.
One bad thing for France is that Pieter de Villiers will not play the RWC. Some kind of injury, I didn't get it. They will announce the selection tomorrow I believe. (Or that may be just for the tests against England).

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I saw a replay on TV, along with Laporte's comments. He said Australia should have been awarded a penalty try because the kiwi flanker fell on the player who was already down, and this is illegal. Since he's the guy who blocked the ball, I think Laporte's analysis was quite good. Not that it will help Australia.

One bad thing for France is that Pieter de Villiers will not play the RWC. Some kind of injury, I didn't get it. They will announce the selection tomorrow I believe. (Or that may be just for the tests against England).

I think I remember reading he had a motorbike accident or something similar.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I think I remember reading he had a motorbike accident or something similar.

I heard it was an "All Terrain Bicycle" accident in the comments before the AB-Australia game. More on this in this week's Midi Olympique.

[finbar]

Probably ripped at the time.

[Frozzy]

Makes my day.... Rugby player out of RWC after falling off his bike...