By Spiro Zavos
July 15th 2009 @ 1:43am
Related coverage
Can the Wallabies storm Fortress Eden Park?
All Blacks captain Richie McCaw celebrates a 39-10 victory over the Wallabies during the Rugby Union Bledisloe Cup Australia v New Zealand rugby test match at Eden Park in Auckland, New Zealand, Saturday, August 2, 2008. AAP Image/Photosport, Andrew Cornaga
Teams have their fortress grounds. England are hard to beat at Twickenham. The Wallabies generally win at ANZ Stadium. The Springboks go to Ellis Park when they want a win, although this did not happen against the Lions. The All Blacks have Eden Park, Auckland, as their fortress when a victory is desperately needed.
So it was no surprise when Eden Park was scheduled for the first Bledisloe Cup of 2009 on Saturday.
Last season the Wallabies comfortably defeated the All Blacks at Sydney, only to be thrashed 39 – 10 the next weekend at – Fortress Eden Park.
The last defeat the All Blacks suffered at Eden Park was in 1994 against a French side that scored ‘a try from the end of Earth,’ an ensemble attack that started virtually from the French tryline and went through several phases and many hands before the try was scored.
In the last 32 Tests at Eden Park, the All Blacks have had only one defeat, one draw and 30 victories.
The last Wallaby victory at Eden Park was in 1986, with Alan Jones’ Bledisloe Cup-winning side playing the All Blacks off the park.
Since then the Wallabies have lost 9 Tests at Eden Park.
This year, the Wallabies must be rated the favourites to defeat the All Blacks in a four-Test Bledisloe Cup series. Robbie Deans has all his players available. The team has played reasonably well in defeating Italy and France.
The all-round play of Matt Giteau and Berrick Barnes, the playmakers, has been excellent. And for the first time in years, the Wallabies have real pace in their back three.
Perhaps even more importantly, this is Deans’ third campaign with the Wallabies. They seem to be learning the lessons of playing what is in front of them and playing smart.
Deans’ game plan, too, with its quick responses required to move the ball skilfully out wide, is now being accepted by the players.
The New Zealand build-up has been dreadful.
The All Blacks played without mongrel or skill against Italy and France. The backs are nervy and did not seem to have plans in place to confront a strong front-line defence.
Neither five-eights used impressed. Stephen Donald played with the stiffness of a Leg-man. And Luke McAlister played as if he were afflicted with sudden panic attacks at crucial moments.
The All Blacks played the same way as they have this season at Sydney last year. But when Richie McCaw came back into the side last year, the All Blacks turned their season around and did not lose another Test.
McCaw is back for this Test. Will history repeat itself with his return, and with the fortress qualities of Eden Park for the Wallabies?
And just as a footnote that might be relevant to this discussion, last year the Springboks defeated the All Blacks at Carisbrook, Dunedin, the first time this result had been achieved by South Africa since the two teams had played Tests there in 1928.
Hoodoos about fortress grounds, in other words, are there to be broken.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(174)
Cutter said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:20am | Report comment
Spiro – minor things but worthwhile editing:
1. this is Deans’ second season in charge, not his third.
2. Elsom is still injured so the Wobs dont have all players available.
Mitch (in Valencia) said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:47am | Report comment
Spiro, when you say Robbie Dean’s third campaign with the Wallabies, are you meaning the 3N and Bledisloe from last year were his first two? Or did mean to say its his second Bledisloe campaign?
Have to agree wholeheartedly with your last statement. Just like rules are made to be broken, so are records. The more you win, the closer you get to a loss, and if ever the Wallabies looked good to break a hoodoo at Eden Park, then this Saturday is it.
Go the Wallabies!
Mitch (in Valencia) said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:49am | Report comment
Spiro, didnt mean to harp on the same point as Cutter, he must have posted as I was writing…
Knives Out said | July 15th 2009 @ 4:06am | Report comment
This is certainly a very good opportunity for the Wallabies to win: continuity in Australian selection; an improving pack; Deans’ personal knowledge of the Kiwis; 2nd season in charge means a growing understanding of desired playing structures etc; issues surrounding the NZ 10 jersey; fitness issues over the NZ talisman; home game pressure and antipathy toward Henry. That said, the All Blacks were heavily written off last season and looked what happened there.This may be a NZ team in transition but will the Wallaby pack be able to brutalize the All Blacks as the French did? Will the brand employed against Italy and France be enough? I’m not sure. It would be foolish to write off any All Black side.
Grandpabhaile said | July 15th 2009 @ 4:20am | Report comment
Wallabies will take the All Blacks apart at the weekend. this is deans year of greatness and Henry’s year of depression after hitting unreal heights last year. the New zealanders benefited from playing teams in transition, poorly resourced and the changes brought by the ELV introduction. And has been shown, NZ are fragile without key personnel such as Carter and McCaw. McCaw will be raw. luke mcalister will be found out. nz not good enough. Oz by 15 points.
Jerry said | July 15th 2009 @ 5:12am | Report comment
Wouldn’t rely too much on McCaw being raw. He was ‘raw’ last time the Wallabies played at Eden Park – how’d that work out?
Mike said | July 15th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
I don’t know that “The New Zealand build-up has been dreadful”. Its certainly not what they wanted, but neither was Australia’s. A number of commentators in both countries seem to consider that only a whitewash of other visiting sides amounts to a “good build up” for 3N. At times this verges on hubris (not in Spiro’s case).
Wallabies look somewhat stronger across the three halves, ABs look somewhat stronger in the forwards. Too close to call.
Hammer said | July 15th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Is it possible for a Zavos article about the Wallabies and Deans to ever appear without the phrase “playing what is in front of them ” … I doubt it …
“This year, the Wallabies must be rated the favourites to defeat the All Blacks in a four-Test Bledisloe Cup series” .. why ? based on the light run arounds against the babas, Italy and a tired French outfit – in all those games the Wallabies still looked as though they fell off in intensity for large portions of the 80 mins ….and when was the last time the Wallabies beat the AB’s 3 times in a season ?
“And just as a footnote that might be relevant to this discussion, last year the Springboks defeated the All Blacks at Carisbrook, Dunedin, the first time this result had been achieved by South Africa since the two teams had played Tests there in 1928.” … yip true however they needed a piece of magic from their scrumhalf to do it in a game they never looked like winning for 79 minutes … against one of the rawest AB’s sides put out for quite sometime …
Is it going to be tight – of course … but the Aussie forward pack holds no fears for the AB’s … whereas given the the lopsided make up of the Wallaby bench the AB pack obviously does for Deans …
We saw last year what happened when an over confident wallaby team turned up at Eden Park … seeing that AB side just named … I can see a similar result happening
Worlds Biggest said | July 15th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
As others have pointed out, if ever there is a time to break the Eden Park hoodoo it is this weekend. The AB’s have been scratchy and 5/8 is an issue. The Wallabies are settled and apart from the Lote drama they are having a good preparation. BUT the return of McCaw is a massive lift for the AB’s and it will be a different team on Saturday. Last year we went to Eden Park a little cock-a-hoop and got belted. The AB’s generally start there test season a little slow out of the blocks but then ramp it up a few notches for the Tri Nations. We have seen the Wallabies get off to good starts in June Tests but the wheels come off at Tri Nations time. Here is hoping the wheels are in motion and we drive out of Mt Eden with a win.
LeftArmSpinner said | July 15th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
knives, Im with you. Dont EVER write off an AB team. EVER, EVER, EVER.
Correction: Unless it is a RWC semi or final.
Seriously, the AB’s have not had an ideal prep but, I dont think this will matter. the skills are there, the continuity and McCaw. A strong bench. It is interesting to hear from Knives that this is an AB team in transition. That is a surprise. I’m not close enough or knowledgeable to assess that. On one hand, if so, the ABs are back in synch for a good run in RWC11. But they have 500 test caps in their run on team. Phew.
I think at best it will be a good battle and one that the Wallabies really need to harden them and be a benchmark for their 2009 season so far. I cant wait, but I will be watching ABC’s Sydney rugby first!!!!
Knives Out said | July 15th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Spinner,
Personally I would consider Owen Franks, Ross, Read, Donald & Jane (and perhaps even Kaino) as developing players, hence the reference to transition. Of the 500 caps that you refer to 141 come from McCaw and Muliaina, with Woodock and So’oialo contributing another 107. Australia has similar experience: Baxter (66), Sharpe (76), Smith (99), Giteau (67) and Mortlock (78), however that experience is more evenly distributed throughout the spine of the team. The average Saturday All Black has 33.3 caps, and the average Wallaby has 38.7 caps.
Bill said | July 15th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Hammer – 3 wins from 4 matches for the Wallabies to win the Bledisloe considering 2 games are on NZ soil appears a very tall order.
I will settle for 2 Wallaby wins, 1 draw, 1 loss to claim the Bledisloe Cup! [winks]
I would question though whether there has ever been a Wallaby side over-confident playing the AllBlacks on NZ soil??? The Australian press/supporters can be guilty of this but the players themselves…. I doubt it!
Tarpo said | July 15th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
First campaign ended with Tri Nations last year, 2nd campaign was the European tour, this is indeed the 3rd campaign.
Never write the ABs off (anywhere, least of all at home), Wallabies do have the best OPPORTUNITY for quite some time to win one at thehome of the 2011 RWC final. Breaking the Hoodoo now would make it that little bit easier mentally to do again in a couple of years. There is an awful lot riding on this test, both teams will rise to the occassion, expect a vintage test.
Worlds Biggest said | July 15th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
I agree with Bill, no Wallaby team playing in NZ would ever be over confident. The same applies when playing AB’s here. You right off the AB’s at your peril, never a smart thing to do. They were hammered by media and public after the Italy game so they will be fired up on Saturday.
Hammer said | July 15th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
World’s biggest has nailed the important factor the relentless media and public opinion since the Itlaians is the key … the focus will be intense in that AB camp …
I’m expecting that AB pack to really rip into the Wallabies and without the sanctions law to protect them this time around I can see a very old fashion AB conservative approach of accumulating points early and then opening in the 2nd half
Hoy said | July 15th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Going to be tough. South Africa haven’t had a good 5/8 for years, and they seem to win comfortably enough, often enough, so I don’t know that Donald at 5/8 will be that much of an issue.
McCaw is the most awesome athlete. I can’t imagine what sort of work he does to be a fit as he is.
The Wobblies must be 100% for the whole game to win this weekend. That is for sure.
ohtani's jacket, said | July 15th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
This Test at Eden Park was scheduled long before the June Tests, so I don’t see what’s so surprising about it being the first Test venue.
The “[Wallabies] played reasonably well in defeating Italy and France” sounds like a euphemism for “the Wallabies didn’t play that well, but were better than the All Blacks.”
Personally, I don’t think the Wallabies are capable of a forward performance like the All Blacks gave in the second Test against France, but the key to this Test will be whether the Wallabies can raise their game to a higher level than an All Black team who could hardly be playing any worse.
The Wallabies never once kicked into an extra gear against the Italians and French, which raises the question of whether they’re being coached properly. If being solid in all phases of play gets them nowhere at Eden Park, I think there ought to be reservations over whether a New Zealander can coach the Wallabies. Australians play rugby a certain way. New Zealanders play it differently. If you try and force NZ systems on an Australian team, you dull some of those characteristics.
Anyway, this is the Wallabies best opportunity to win in NZ since 2001. If they blow this, I want recriminations.
JK said | July 15th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Tahs broke a 80 year hoodoo @ Eden Park
Anythings Possible!
stuff happens said | July 15th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Entirely agree with OJ.This is it for Australia – best opprtunity for yonks.No excuses!.
For the AB’s a tough two weeks; they have to back up against the ‘Boks at Bloemfontein on July 25. (another terrible TN schedule)
OldManEmu said | July 15th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
I sniff an ambush of monumental proportion and I also sniff something else (Nat Myles – is that you) because the Wallabies as a team will be sh*&tting bricks in the sense, they will be very very keyed up and nervous. They will know that if they cannot get over the ABs this Saturday night, then they have butchered a golden opportunity.
The rational analysis says Wallabies in a canter:
1- Good build up over steadily increasing opponent
2- Team at full strength apart from Elsom
3- Finally depth in key positions
4- Excellent coach
5- Set piece finally not a liability
6- Great decision makers with flair in the 10-12 channel
7- ABs having rested or being forced due to injury top players on the sideline
None of this will count for squat on Saturday night.
This is the first time for probably eight years that it could be fairly said that the Wallabies are favourites. How will they handle it. My guess is not very well.
Beware the ABS.
Jameswm said | July 15th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
OJ I don’t think Deans’s Crusaders used to play in a classic NZ manner and they were different to the other NZ teams.
We won’t know whether the Aussies have improved for a few weeks yet, but then if Australia win this weekend there’ll be the old “it was a weakened AB outfit” chestnut.
Mark said | July 15th 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
LAS – very funny (sob).
I agree with Mike, Wallabies look better 9-12 but the AB forwards stood up after the first French loss & should have the edge on the Wallabies. AB backs have been close to finding their game i.e. angles have ben good just passes poping out a touch early or late. Jane on the wing with Conrad at centre will help.
ABs by 7.
captain nemo said | July 15th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
If the wallabies pigs turn up, then the team will turn up. That is where this game will be won or lost. I am looking forward to the battle. Deans has really improved the wallabies clearance ability from the ruck and within a battering of an eyelid its is in the hands of the outside centres. I hope the wallabies keep the pill in tight and show us some good old fashioned canterbury style rolling and mauling. Does anyone know who will be blowing the pea this weekend????
Mike said | July 15th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
“Is it going to be tight – of course … but the Aussie forward pack holds no fears for the AB’s … whereas given the the lopsided make up of the Wallaby bench the AB pack obviously does for Deans … ”
Hammer, your first point may well be right (we will find out on Saturday night) but with respect to the Australian bench, Deans appears to be focussing on speed to the breakdown, hence his emphasis on fast backrowers.
Stash said | July 15th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
It should be a cracker…
27km winds on Sat. – rain all week will make a slippery paddock – rain on Sat – (though not torrential). Expect a soapy ball.
Dan Carter training Donald – tightening up his communication in play (so that others actually have forewarning on what he is doing) and kicking lessons to boot from the master.
Rocko out – only the hungry allowed…
10 changes from Italy.
Angry and fired up Richie,Rodney and Co. and smarting, strongly partisian home crowd…Auckland will be painted black (literally).
…and the knowledge that if the ABs can take this game – heartbreak for the Wallabies and the Bledsloie will look pretty secure for 2009.
CronullaKiwi said | July 15th 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Won and lost in the forwards where AB’s have the better pack. Keeping it close around the fringes for much of the game with pick and goes will see the AB’s win by 5.
Simon said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
It’s a funny thing how the Aussie psyche works. They have such a strong under-dog mentality. They always play well when they are the under-dogs, or their backs are against the wall, or if they rate the opposition highly. They always play bad if they think they are playing a weak team, or if they expect to win. It’s almost as if they subconsciously want the underdog to win.
In the build-up to this game, there have been no over-confident comments from any of the players. They have given the NZ players total respect. They seemed to have the belief that it will be very hard – almost like they believe they are the under-dogs.
AUS by 12
captain nemo said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
playing the blacks in Auckland, we are the underdogs!!!!!! can’t wait
Mike said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Surprised Tialata and Cowan made it.
I don’t think ABs would win if McCaw not there. Its not just his play, but his leadership. Like Steve Price in league – everyone seems to settle down when he is on the field. I expect to see a calmer steadier AB side on Saturday night, which will make them hard to beat.
captain nemo said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
I agree with you Mike. I suppose the main thing here is that McCaw, So’oialo (and Palu) will be a tad weary in the legs in the last 20, especially if the track is going to be heavy as some on here have suggested. Over the last few years, the battle of Smith Vs McCaw was worth tuning in for alone. a Kiwi mate of mine has been SMSing me about the “Richie and Rodney” feel good factor within the black camp so your probably on the money Mike. Rodney So’oialo and Wycliff Palu are facing off with only a couple of club games each under their belts recently. Have the blacks decided weather Mcalister or Donald will be facing off against Giteau???
Worlds Biggest said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
I don’t know how anyone can suggest the Wallabies are favourites this weekend. The Blacks will be baying for blood and will start like a steam train. The Wallabies are still a work in progress remember. We are the underdogs. OME I don’t agree with your point 3 in regards to depth in key positions. If Baxter and Sharpe go down we are in Nate Myles territory. Our 2 row stocks are depleted at the moment. Apart from the AB’s backlash I am concerned about the Wallabies inability to put it together for 80 minutes. They drift in and out of games too often. This has to change starting Saturday.
Amateur Hour said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
A lot of talk about comparisons to last year and the return of Richie. Was a certain D Carter on the field last year? There doesn’t seem to be too much focus on him missing this time.
It’s great for the game and especially the ABs that Richie is back, but surely Carter is as valuable to them, if not more?
I love this time of year.
Stash said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Nemo – Donald is running on at 10 – McAllister on the bench (which is most likely the better choice)
Mike said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Nemo, Donald at 10, McAlister at 20.
WB, you make a good point. I have been at a loss as to some of the criticism of Sharpe on Roar. Whilst he is not the most exciting player, his ability to play at the same intensity for 80 minutes is backbone of the pack. If he goes down, then the only option is bring Mumm up …
I see both Henry and Deans as taking similar risks, each relying on McCaw and Sharpe (respectively) going the full 80.
reds fan said | July 15th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
AB’s by more than 20. Wallabies will get a rude shock.
reds fan said | July 15th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
NZ had three of the four Super Rugby final spots. Oz?? zip. We have had a soft build up – drunk baabaa’s, second tier Italy and homeward bound and tired frenchmen. All praise and not much adversity…
Its quiet……. far too quiet….. (AMBUSH!!!!!!)
Spencer said | July 15th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
There are a lot of comments claiming the NZ foward pack is superior. I disagree. Looking at a man-for-man comparison Australia more than match the NZ team. Discuss.
Mike said | July 15th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
sounds like an exam question…
JamesB said | July 15th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Spiro – England are hard to beat at Twickenham. Maybe for other teams but not the All Black’s whose record at Twickenham is played 17, won 11, lost 4, draw 1 or 65pct.
Spencer said | July 15th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
As you like, Mike.
Rickety Knees said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
The game will be decided in the last 5 mins by which way the ball bounces …..
Lion Red said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
Will be a tight affair. Suspect the Wallabies will want to run the AB’s forward pack around the park but the weather will probably put that to bed. The AB’s forward pack should dominate rucks & mauls with McCaw & Siaoalo back. Not too sure about the scrum as the Wallabies have a world class front rowers in Moore & Robinson. Lineouts will be even. Weather will nullify both backlines. Will come down to kicking for territory and dominating rucks & maul and maybe the referee. Too close to call. AB’s by 13 or less. Go the AB’s!
CronullaKiwi said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
AB’s have the better back row all though two of them are severly lacking in game time which might be telling. I would have Thorn over any of the other locks, Woodcock and Tialata are both better players than their opposites also. Wallabies just dont counter ruck like the AB’s can – a tight game will suit the AB’s far more than the Wallabies I would imagine. But if its an open game, will concede your backs will have it over our boys for sure.
ohtani's jacket, said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
Jameswm,
I don’t think it’s that weakened an All Black side. It’s really only missing Carter, Williams and Kahui. We’ve been the Aussies before with Carter and I don’t see that as an excuse. They’ve known about Carter’s injury since February.
Donald had a bit of a shocker in the rain against France, but he also played well in similar conditions in the Chiefs’ final home games. Looking at the team sheet, I don’t agree with Cory Jane playing wing, but I guess Henry wants an extra kicking option. Andrew Hore will make a huge difference if he’s fit and hungry.
Good to see it’s a sell-out. Should be an enjoyable Test one way or another. I think Barnes will have a huge role to play because his injury last year really helped the All Blacks get a leg up over the Aussies.
Mark said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
OJ – I’d have Conrad over Kahui & Ross has played well enough that not having Williams shouldn’t be an issue. Should be a cracker anyway.
Mike said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
CK, agreed, Wallabies’ poor counter-rucking worries me. It was the one area where the French were clearly ahead of us, helped them hold us to only one try.
Spencer said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Robinson and Moore are better than Woodcock and Hore. Tialata and Baxter is a split decision (both suspect).
Thorn is tougher than Horwill. However in the loose Horwill matches him. Sharpe is a superior line-out foward to either of Ross or Thorn. Slightly favourable to NZ.
Smith can match McCaw, and is match fit (playing his 100th game he will also be well motivated). Split decision.
Kaino has flattered to deceive all year and I don’t think he will out enthuse Brown. Number 6 is Browns best position and he will be hungry to make the most of his chances whilst Elsom is injured. Split decision.
Siaoalo is better at the brakdown and linking than Palu, however Palu is a better carrier. Points decision to Rodney.
CronullaKiwi said | July 15th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
Mate, dont know how you could say Robinson is better than Woodcock thats pretty outrageous to be honest. Woodcock has been coming off injury so hasn’t been at his best but hes a huge scrummager, massive work rate around the park and has 5 tries in his last four tests against aussie what has Robinson done to better this? Woodcock has been the games best loose head for many years mate end of.
Will let you have the rest.
Mark said | July 15th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Jeez Spencer – you bored or what ?? Scrum & lineout is combination of individual, team, & tactics. French showed how that can be used to nulify an opponents advantage. Individual matchups is for tennis & boxing dude. Forwards are part of a pack & should scrum, ruck, maul, & hunt as such. Deans proved with the Crusaders he could produce a winning pack in games where they should’ve been blown off teh park based on teamwork & tactics. Henry has proven he can get the AB pack working to a level above most other nations (think England doing granny scrums). I’m drooling at the prospect of the forward battle as it will probably be a simple case of who wants it more.
Whomever can get front foot ball to their backs will win – now how’s that for stating the bleeding obvious.
Oh yeah, who said Thorn is no good in the loose, just watch the 2nd & 3rd AB tests of this year…….
Hammer said | July 15th 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
CK … I’d go further Hore is easily the equivalent if not better than Moore … and Tialata is superior to Baxter … all in all the AB front row is superior … and if Smith can match McCaw then why pack the bench with opensiders ? … the AB pack is better and that’s where the game will be won – especially if the weather is as bad as it has been recently – throw in the introduction of Weepu at 55 mins .. it’s NZ all the way …
Gordon said | July 15th 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
Agree this is wallabies best chance in years…but ‘d be a little more comfortable if Rocky was in the back row this week end..as much as I think Brown has done well, there’s always a risk playing out of position…
also, interesting to see the 5/2 bench split…obviously flyers chosen to contest the breakdown…but still, if we have a few injuries in the backline during the night, we could be a litlle exposed there…having Ryan Cross on the bench was always nice insurance I thought…also anyone notice that whilst we have genuine pace in the back three now which is good, and two + kicking options in field, we actually are quite a small backline?? Apart from Morty at 103kg, now that Lote and Crossy aren’t there this week end, I dont think we have anyone in the backline over 88kg..Still, I guess as long as they tackle like Barnesy does, size isn’t everything….go the wallabies!
Mike said | July 15th 2009 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
Hmmm, Spencer, CK, Hammer – good to see your positions staked out so clearly.
In three days’ time we will see exactly where these teams really are vs each other at the present time (as opposed to where they were last season).
Go the west island…
Sambobly said | July 15th 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
Gordon. Adam Ashley-Cooper is listed as around 98 kilos. I think he would be the biggest after mortlock. AAC may not be tall but he is strong.
Ben C said | July 15th 2009 @ 5:17pm | Report comment
I am backing the Wallabies of course, and think they have a good chance to win but the AB’s are definitely the favourites going in. The All Blacks have several advantages:
(a) pretty even in the scrum. Robinson is improving. Woodcok is better but has been below average coming back from injury. Tialata is stronger than Baxter but inconsistent. Hore and Moore are both strong.
(b) NZ are probably ahead in the lineout. We only have two solid jumpers. Brown has a lot of energy but our backrow doesn’t really have a real third option. This is a surprising deficiency given our tactical kicking with Giteau and Barnes is probably superior.
(c) We have picked several fetchers for the breakdown. We don’t have a lot of size in the backrow and the French demonstrated we are vulnerable to counter-rucking, a NZ speciality. We may be in for a rough night. On the other hand McCaw is coming back from injury and won’t be 100% (his 80% is still better than most). I think a key will be So’oialo more than McCaw. McCaw is quality no matter what. So’oialo’s value is that he frees up McCaw to work on the ball rather than doing that much directly himself. Australia’s multiple fetcher attack may pin McCaw down if Smith gets more support from Brown/Palu than McCaw gets from Kaino/So’oialo. on the night. I am not convinced this is a viable long term strategy but Elsom will be back soon which will improve the lineout and stiffen up the breakdown.
(d) We are ahead in tactical kicking.
(e) We are ahead in tactical control of the backline at 10 and 12. Nonu offers more punch and has developed a nice short passing game but he isn’t a distributer and Donald can be fragile.
(f) For the outside backs, Mortlock is superior to Smith but Smith adds much needed tactical nous to the NZ backline. Sivi gives the AB a genuine gamebreaker and Muliaina is weak at kicking but probably the best fullback in the Southern Hemisphere (I would love to see Muliaina head to head against Kearney or Byrne). Probably a very slight edge to NZ.
Overall its pretty balanced but the NZ pluses are in the forwards which could determine the outcome, particularly if it is wet. If the ground is dry, the Wallabies emphasis on speed may pay dividends. Anyone know the forecast for Auckland?
TommyM said | July 15th 2009 @ 6:09pm | Report comment
Ben C- have said it many times on this site- Brown is an excellent lineout option. Yes, he’s not that tall, but height isn’t everything. He is a regular go-to man for the Force and was even jumping at 2 for the Wallabies at some point in the last test if my memory serves me right!
TommyM said | July 15th 2009 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
Hammer- the bench (and the starting pack- Brown and Smith) is packed with opensiders because of the change in the interperetation in the ruck rule as mentioned in the original article. The same tactic has been employed in all the Wallabies tests this year and this I presume will continue so long as the new interpretation remains. Watch for other teams to follow Deans’ lead later in the year….
Katipo said | July 15th 2009 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
I think the expectation has to be for the AB’s to win. They are the worlds number 1 ranked team playing at home. Anything less than a win at Eden Park would be hugely disappointing really.
It will be interesting to see how the Dean’s factor plays out over the 4 test series too. He is cunning and more astute than the kiwi coaches however the kiwis have the form players to choose from (3/4 of S14 final teams etc). If the Wallabies can get parity up front, meet them physically, then I think they can out smart the All Blacks like France did. Once the French met the AB’s aggression at the breakdown they had nothing.
A fascinating series should unfold. I can’t wait for Saturday. Bring it on.
ohtani's jacket, said | July 16th 2009 @ 12:30am | Report comment
On what basis is Deans more cunning or astute than the All Black coaches? Honestly, people act like the All Blacks aren’t coached at all. What Deans factor? Did 2008 not happen? 1-3 people.
Were Henry & Co. not more astute than Deans last year?
Knives Out said | July 16th 2009 @ 2:27am | Report comment
On the basis that Deans has instilled the Wallabies with a spirit that allows the to ‘play what’s in front of them’.
pothale said | July 16th 2009 @ 5:53am | Report comment
Honestly KO, is there a single response on the whole forum from you that doesn’t have the phrase ‘play what’s in front of them’ in it?
onside said | July 16th 2009 @ 5:57am | Report comment
It might all come down to how the referee interprets the rules . There are four Bledisloe matches.
Four different referees, equal four different interpretations. Especially relevant in a close game.
Knives Out said | July 16th 2009 @ 6:12am | Report comment
I like to play what’s in front of me, Pothale.
Mike said | July 16th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Katipo, you fool! You praised Deans… don’t you know you must never NEVER do that?!?!?!
Mark said | July 16th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
OJ – it comes down to the theory that Deans is the best coach in the world based on what he did with the Crusaders. I’ve started before & stillbeliev that I’m more thyan happy for Deans to learn the ropes of being an international coach for th Wallabies then replace the current master (Henry) once he’s refined his skillset from a S14 lead coach to an international lead coach.
People love to write Henry off, me, I can’t understand it, he’s got the best win loss record of any coach around. Oh yeah, he’s the AB coach so all he’s got to do it turn up & the team will win………you gotta love it.
Onside – The ref always has an influence, ocassionaliy it’s blatant, but it’s always there. It’s what gives losing supporters the opportunity to ‘what if’.
Worlds Biggest said | July 16th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
All our Kiwi Roarers seem very confident as they should be about there teams chances, happy to concede favouritism to AB’s and rightly so. I don’t see how a dry track would favour the Wallabies, it was dry last year and we got flogged. The Wallabies when playing in NZ should always prepare for wet weather conditions and it appears it will be very wet on Saturday. The AB pack has the advantage IMO, they work very well as a unit and there work at the breakdown is fierce. The Wallaby pack has to work collectively with everyone putting in and not the usual suspects doing all the work. The backs cancel each other out, Nonu was such a handful in this corresponding game last year. The Wallabies kicking game may have a slight edge however no team is better at counter attack than AB’s and Mils is the best Fullback in the World. Assuming it’s wet, it will come down to field position, defence & discipline. GO WALLABIES !
OldManEmu said | July 16th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Damn you Biggest – we must go in as Underdogs – PRAISE PRAISE PRAISE the mighty All Blacks.
JamesB said | July 16th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
It’s fecken freezing cold and wet here in NZ right now. The Aussies hate that, though Deans being a Christchurch boy will probably be kitted out in shorts and tee-shirt!
Tarpo said | July 16th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
IAS bet has NZ 1.62 Aus 2.30 no doubt about who is the favourite.
Amateur Hour said | July 16th 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Remarkably similar odds to those on offer against NSW in the Origin last night. Look how that turned out.
Mike said | July 16th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
I would be happy to give the wallabies an infusion of Watmough…
Campese in Tele today writes Wallabies by 9… I hope he predicts as well as he played
CronullaKiwi said | July 16th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Mike too right how bloody good was watmough last night!
Even looser said | July 16th 2009 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
As I watched the SOS last night I thought ‘hope RD makes this compulsory viewing’.
The passion & committment shown is exactly what I reckon the Wallabies need a huge dose of. We need to be first to the break down everytime and have the forwards act as a cohesive unit.
And contest each & every lineout. Give ‘em nothing. Cut off their oxygen. Starngle the buggers. Win the ball and play smart footy.
reds fan said | July 16th 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
EL, it wont happen…. we are in danger of disappearing up our own a**s through falling for the “we play smart” claptrap…. all it does is instill an inferiority complex in the physicality stakes…. even the daft use of the word “physicality” should be banned by the Wallabies. Talk about “toughness” and “aggro”, and “violence”. Physicality???? That’s how they describe male models who aren’t completely effeminate! And no disrespect to the male clothes horses out there, but I want a bit more “bloke” in my rugby players.
OldManEmu said | July 16th 2009 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
Even Looser – how do you starngle someone?
Spencer said | July 16th 2009 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
OME – I think you shine a bright torch directly into their eyes! …but not in a physical way, however definitely with aggression.
Hemjay said | July 16th 2009 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
Once again common theme throughout.
Seems everyone thinks the Wallabies have a chance not because they are good but because the Kiwis are weak.
Even looser said | July 16th 2009 @ 11:20pm | Report comment
OME – You leave that to me lads. When I give the word just pass me the torch. When I’m done with that, THEN we strangle ‘em.
Spencer said | July 17th 2009 @ 1:56am | Report comment
I think the Wallabies will win because they are better players, better prepared, have a better coach, better jerseys, better mentally, better physically, and just alround good chaps!
How about you Hemjay: tell us why you think the Wallabies will win?
BTW – welcome back. When did you get out of jail?
Knives Out said | July 17th 2009 @ 2:26am | Report comment
‘Once again common theme throughout.’
Which is?
Hemjay said | July 17th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Spencer,
The Wallabies will win if the All Blacks fail to contain Giteau and Aus manage to void the prescence of McCaw,
Knives out I see now the great one is saying that the All Blacks are a team in transition. Oh how quickly one changes his tune. You and your buddies refused to let me even hint that the All Blacks are far from their best. But thats right if you say it. it’s ok.
Spencer as for the jail comment, some of us actually have lives and like to live them hence the absence. Seriously makes me wonder if some posters in here do anything else. Seems certain posters spend all day locked in a dark room watching rugby and commenting in here 24/7.
As for the theme throughout go back to the top and have a read of certain posters where many are alluding to the Wallabies best chance ever as the All Blacks are weak.
Knives out you said the following
“This may be a NZ team in transition but will the Wallaby pack be able to brutalize the All Blacks as the French did?”
Bit of reality the French didn’t get close to playing this team that the Aussies will play on saturday in any of the tests so I think your taking to much from their win,
“NZ are fragile without key personnel such as Carter and McCaw. McCaw will be raw. luke mcalister will be found out. nz not good enough. Oz by 15 points.” posted by Grandpabhaile
Just a couple of more obvious comments in here but do habe a look most Aussies are claiming superiority then further down everyone is now saying the TAB/ Centrebet has them as underdogs whoopie who really cares they are not the gospel. How can roarers bang on about how great Australia are then claim underdog status. As for the AB’s one poster has said that if the AB’s lose they will claim they are a weak team. Why can’t they after all it seems a large majority of you are saying they are now.
I could guarantee most of you wikll be screaming Australias lack of experience and blaming their dodgey June build up should they lose on Saturday night. Although many have been banging on how great the Wallabies are after a very average build up in my opinion. Two close encounters with the Italians and a goalfest win over a french team who were thinking of home, rocked by the Pinocchio affair in wellington and in general a shadow of a team that fronted up to play a All Blacks tea, who in the first test were missing 11 first choice players for a match day 22. But thats right Iforgot I’m not allowed to state the fact KO doesn’t like it only he is allowed to have an opinion.
It will be a close game but the All Blacks will come out on top, noone has seen this team play yet and with a third of our team coming back from rest and injury recovery I don’t think many will know what hit them
“
Mike said | July 17th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
“I could guarantee most of you wikll be screaming Australias lack of experience and blaming their dodgey June build up should they lose on Saturday night.”
Not really. This is a clash between the world No 1 and the world No 3 – it could go either way on the night. At this level, the slightest difference in commitment or error of judgment could make the difference. Yet everything is unpredictable, as shown by World Cup 2007 where these two teams (ranked No 1 and No 2 at the time I believe) were both bundled out in the quarter finals.
“noone has seen this team play yet and with a third of our team coming back from rest and injury recovery I don’t think many will know what hit them” – That sounds a bit arrogant towards the French, who are the world number 5 and played intelligent and committed rugby for their solitary win in NZ. I read a lot of NZ opinions who believe that history will repeat itself in terms of ABs blitzing Australia in Auckland – maybe it will…
From Australia’s point of view, we want the world cup in 2011, and the best preparation for that is to thump the ABs now. Whether we can do that…? I believe our biggest hurdle is the great Richie McCaw, both as player and captain. If we can win this one, then we face the next test – thumping the ABs when they have the equally great Dan Carter. The Wallabies will not know they are better than the ABs until they have beaten them with both Carter and McCaw.
Then comes the big test – smashing the Bokke. This is a huge ask for Australia, but why set out sights low?!
Mike said | July 17th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Apologies – what I meant was that the scenario of defeating both ABs and Bokke is the “huge ask”, not just beating SA!
Hemjay said | July 17th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Mike,
How is it arrogant?
I’m just stating the absolute truth the French did not play the best All Black team far from it. It was a patch up at best.
How about accepting reality. Look how the Boks were a shadow of themselves without so many first choice players in the third Lions test. Reality is people try to seek more glory than is on offer that is what is arrogant in my opinion.
As for being the 5th best team in the world that doesn’t really mean Jack does it?
The 5th best in the world beats the Number one team missing 11 players who would certainly be in a Bledisloe 22.
The Irish are 4th best yet they have never beaten the All Blacks how the hell do you work that one out? So on the back of one good year they leapfrog teams who have beaten the number one team in the world.
But like I said lets get real this All Black team is a totally different beast than what we seen in the June tests while untested they will still put up one hell of a battle and I believe will take line honours
June First Test – 1. Tony Woodcock 2. Andrew Hore 3. Neemia Tialata 4. Brad Thorn 5. Isaac Ross 6. Kieran Read 7. Adam Thomson 8. Liam Messam 9. Jimmy Cowan 10. Stephen Donald 11. Josevata Rokocoko 12. Ma’a Nonu 13. Isaia Toeava 14. Cory Jane 15. Mils Muliaina – captain
Reserves: 16. Keven Mealamu 17. John Afoa 18. Bryn Evans 19. Tanerau Latimer 20. Piri Weepu 21. Luke McAlister 22.Lelia Masaga
Bledisloe First Test Team – 1. Tony Woodcock 2. Andrew Hore 3. Neemia Tialata 4. Brad Thorn 5. Isaac Ross 6. Jerome Kaino
7. Richie McCaw – captain 8. Rodney So’oialo 9. Jimmy Cowan 10. Stephen Donald 11. Sitiveni Sivivatu 12. Ma’a Nonu 13. Conrad Smith 14. Cory Jane 15. Mils Muliaina
Reserves: 16. Keven Mealamu 17. Owen Franks 18. Jason Eaton 19. Kieran Read 20. Piri Weepu 21. Luke McAlister 22. Josevata Rokocoko
Having a look at these two squads there is 5 changes to the starting 15 which played the French in the first test with 5 senior All Blacks coming back into the fold how could anyone in their right mind say that the first test was anywhere near a top notch team. Not to mention the 4 changes to the reserves bench I think you could quite easily say 9 changes to the make up of the match day 22 is very significant and will have a huge impact. To say the team that played against France is as good as the team that will play the Wallabies on Saturday is to stretch the truth considerably.
Dean Pantio said | July 17th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
“if ever there is a time to break the Eden Park hoodoo it is this weekend”
I’m sure I heard that exact line a year ago…
captain nemo said | July 17th 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Ok Gentleman, its Friday afternoon, time to put you money where your mouth is. Fulltime predictions please. I will predict wallabies win by 7 or less…………..
Rickety Knees said | July 17th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Pocock to score the winning try with 2 minutes to go ……
minchi said | July 17th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Wallabies by 9
Spencer said | July 17th 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Wallabies by 8 points. MOM will be Berrick Barnes.
Jameswm said | July 17th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
As I just said in another article – the difference this year is that NSW and Qld have both broken through psychologically with wins in the S14 at Eden Park. Whether this matters or not, time will tell.
I do recall the Aussies doing better at the House of Pain when NSW started beating the Highlanders there.
Hammer said | July 17th 2009 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
AB’s by 18
ohtani's jacket, said | July 17th 2009 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
All Blacks by 13.
Mike said | July 17th 2009 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Hemjay,
I wrote “a bit arrogant”, however after reading your post I will amend that to “really arrogant”. You wrote: “As for being the 5th best team in the world that doesn’t really mean Jack does it? ”
Actually it does, whether or not your xenophobic attitude lets you see it.
And please spare me your long list of “if only” players. Its irrelevant – you play with who you’ve got on the night, and we the fans appreciate the game for what it is.
Tarpo said | July 17th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Wallabies by 4
Brett McKay said | July 17th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Australia by 1 will do….
Spencer said | July 17th 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Brett is that a prediction or hope? Are you allowed to make predictions now that you are on the red side.
Even looser said | July 17th 2009 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
Strewth how do you make a call based on the information? Heart says Wallabies just. Head says All Blacks can spoil the party.
Wallabies by 5. Burgess rediscovers the art of clearing the ball fast and wins Man of the Match and is then carried on the shoulders of All Black fans in a lap of honour.
OldManEmu said | July 17th 2009 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
ABs by 12
Hemjay said | July 17th 2009 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
Mike get a grip mate you are not the only person who has an opinion.
I guarantee you will be the first to come up with excuses should Australia go down.
Don’t start claiming the moral high ground, I wonder if you even know what the word xenophobic means?
If anything is arrogant it is someone like yourself refusing to let anyone else have a differeing opinion so your glory hunting can remain up there with the best. Even the Great Knives Out has finally got it into his head that the ABs who played france were a shadow of the team that will run out onto Eden Park.
So Mike can you tell me how the hell Ireland of all nations can climb to 4th place in the world when in over a Hundred years of rugby they have never beaten the All Blacks. In my opinion if we are lead to believe the posts in here over the last few weeks, shouldn’t the French be ahead in the rankings after all they did beat the best team in the world.
Reality is there is still a gulf in class between the SANZAR nations and the Northern Hemisphere unions. Until we start seeing these nations beating the top three nations in the world on a consistant basis I will start giving the rankings merit. As is the French got points for beating the All Blacks yet the ABs get none for beating them in return, its a joke and peopkle like yourself will continue to look for every single oppurtunity to grab more plaudits especially for any team playing the ABs.
I can see the headlines now even if the Aussies do manage a win, Wallabies break Eden Park Hoodoo with great win over NZ. Anyone with half a brain knows there is no hoodoo its mental toughness something many take great pleasure in reminding the ABs of.
So I will await another self righteous rhetoric from you proclaiming to be the rugby encyclopedia and another attempt to denegrate me with a big words
ohtani's jacket, said | July 17th 2009 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
Savvy old Emu.
BTW, you can bet now at Typhoon Pools just in case you didn’t notice.
Knives Out said | July 17th 2009 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
‘Knives out I see now the great one is saying that the All Blacks are a team in transition. Oh how quickly one changes his tune. You and your buddies refused to let me even hint that the All Blacks are far from their best. But thats right if you say it. it’s ok.’
‘Bit of reality the French didn’t get close to playing this team that the Aussies will play on saturday in any of the tests so I think your taking to much from their win’
Bit of reality.. Exact same tight five, and any rugby fan knows that is where the breakdown battle begins. Conversely, somebody should make you aware, as I have tried on various occasions, to recognise that France were missing key players – 6 in fact. Also, your comparison of NZ teams is patently faulty because Rokocoko is far more experienced than Sivivatu and Toe’ava only has 1 less cap than Smith.
‘The Irish are 4th best yet they have never beaten the All Blacks how the hell do you work that one out? So on the back of one good year they leapfrog teams who have beaten the number one team in the world.’
Not much of a rugby fan, eh?! That really is the silliest comment I have read in a long, long time. Kudos to you. Check out the IRB website, you should find it quite informative.
‘To say the team that played against France is as good as the team that will play the Wallabies on Saturday is to stretch the truth considerably.’
Nobody said that.
Katipo said | July 17th 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
OK guys. I’m tipping a draw.
Brett McKay said | July 17th 2009 @ 9:51pm | Report comment
Spencer, it’s both a prediction and hope!!
And my column colour doesn’t change my hope!! Former All Black scrumhalf Chris Laidlaw wrote a very complimentary piece about the Wallabies today, but I don’t think we expect him to tip anything other than a New Zealand win. I’ve started making complimentary notes about the ABs, just in case that tactic works…
ohtani's jacket, said | July 18th 2009 @ 7:22pm | Report comment
No gloating since it wasn’t a convincing performance from either side, but I was happy to see the All Blacks show up in the final quarter.
Mike said | July 18th 2009 @ 7:41pm | Report comment
“I guarantee you will be the first to come up with excuses should Australia go down.”
Hemjay, in this case that is exactly what I am going to. That was the worst refereeing performance I have ever seen in my life (at any level), and the fall clearly favoured the ABs. The ABs are entitled to the win of course, and I would cheerfully grab it also if the situation had been reversed. But this made crystal clear what I have suspected for a long time – the Australian front row is as good as any, and Baxter is a thoroughly competent tighthead. Joubert should never be allowed to referee test again (or even professionally).
I am glad for Richie McCaw’s sake that he got both the win and the try – unlike many of his foolish supporters, you will never hear a nasty word from him.
“So Mike can you tell me how the hell Ireland of all nations can climb to 4th place in the world when in over a Hundred years of rugby they have never beaten the All Blacks.” Are you serious? You analyze current world rankings by what happened 100 years ago? What are you smoking???
“shouldn’t the French be ahead in the rankings after all they did beat the best team in the world.” No, they just beat the All Blacks. Based on tonight’s performance, well… pretty scrappy from both sides. We can beat the All Blacks, that is obvious. But we can’t beat the ABs and Craig Joubert. So be it.
Jerry said | July 18th 2009 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
Jeez Mike, open the other eye – the Wallabies got some bad calls their way too you know.
Mike said | July 18th 2009 @ 8:31pm | Report comment
Jerry,
I can cope with bad calls, they happen in every test, and they very rarely influence a result.
In any case, its irrelevant – that would be to denigrate the hard work put in by the ABs for their win.
But it is just happening too often, a referee who does not know what he is doing with a scrum resorts to, “ummm, ahhh, better give a penalty in favour of the most experienced prop, or the one with a “good reputation” or against Al Baxter because I heard someone say that he is a bad prop. And I won’t make a decision on what is right in front of my eyes because I don’t actually understand what it means”. Unfortunately, Australia is regularly on the receiving end of this.
Knives Out said | July 18th 2009 @ 8:35pm | Report comment
I hardly think Al Baxter is blameless. There was one call when he was motioning to the touch judge that Woodock hadn’t bound when in fact replays showed that Baxter was pulling down on Woodcock’s jersey. Obviously that is only one incident but Baxter hardly monstered Woodcock. The scrum will always collapse on Baxter’s side – never Robinsons, and this has been the case for years. Coincidence? You’re blaming the referee when this sort of erratic scrum management has been part and parcel of union for years. Write a letter to the IRB.
Mike said | July 18th 2009 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
No, if we are talking about the same incident, Baxter was correct, just as Crowley and Horan also commented – Woodcock was to blame. Woodcock went back and down and all Baxter could do was follow him.
This was a clear case of a referee not having a clue what was going on, and deciding to penalise Baxter because “everyone knows that it must be Baxter’s fault”. No other reason.
Still, Australia made a lot of mistakes in open play (actually both teams seemed to be playing well below their best), kudos to ABs for the win.
Good night gents, I look forward to more arguments tomorrow.
Knives Out said | July 18th 2009 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
‘No, if we are talking about the same incident, Baxter was correct, just as Crowley and Horan also commented – Woodcock was to blame. Woodcock went back and down and all Baxter could do was follow him.’
We may be talking about separate incidents because the one I am referring to Woodock was not able to bind because Baxter had pulled his grip down. Further, a lot of collapses showed Baxter bent double with Woodcock sprawled flat out, which suggests that Baxter just couldn’t cope with the hit.
Bonza said | July 18th 2009 @ 9:03pm | Report comment
I will state it again as I did a month ago – the absence of Michael Foley will cost the Wallabies this season – He did an outstanding coaching job with the same props during s14 and saw off everyone including Woodcock – Deans declined to recontract him and has probably already paid a price as the scrum has not been consistent all season. Playing without a recognised tighthead cover on the bench is crazy – I will remind you all in another month to save you the trouble of wondering why
Hemjay said | July 18th 2009 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
The Wallabies lost because the just weren’t up to the task, a team that has been playing together for the last 4 weeks failed to take a team that had 9 changes 5 in the starting lineup. Like I said in previous posts take the ABs lightly at your own peril, and Mike funny now to vent your frustration and your obvious lack of sportsmanship you feel the need to have a go at me how juvenile.
The Wallabies were the greatest thing since sliced bread to most of you and were always going to win. Mortlock was talking tough here in New Zealand on how they were going to break a so called wifes tale hoodoo. Maybe the wallabies should concentrate more on the game and less time talking
Wow I even find myself agreeing with my nemesis Knives Out.
tarpo said | July 18th 2009 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
Bonza,
I must agree with you here, maybe there is some kind of personality clash that you & I are not aware of, but for my money why wouldn’t you move heaven & earth to keep Foley in there
mattamkII said | July 18th 2009 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
I think the ref was poor but almost equally to each team….
The scrum situation was bullshit.
The truth is, no ref knows what the hell is going on but the clear directive they have to make their decision is “whom ever elbow hits the ground first looses”….simple and clear. Each time Baxter still had his bind so the ref was wrong.
Knives Out said | July 18th 2009 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
‘Each time Baxter still had his bind so the ref was wrong.’
That simply isn’t true.
CronullaKiwi said | July 18th 2009 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Mike, you are ridiculous.
Katipo said | July 18th 2009 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
Congratulations to the all blacks. They out enthused the Wallabies up front. Not much splits these teams though. The Wallabies had their chances but let the AB’s off the hook. (I think they needed a 10 point lead at half time and could have had that, but not to be).
I commented to my mate that Craig Joubert looked very nervous before kick off “that’s a worry” and he refereed with high anxiety. I’d ask for consistency in application, particularly the advantage rule. And bring back the free kick ELV for technical scrum infringements eh? It’s a lottery again…
ohtani's jacket, said | July 18th 2009 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
Y’know, I don’t remember the All Blacks actually getting a shot at goal from a scrum infringement.
That advantage ruling was a good call from Joubert.
Katipo said | July 18th 2009 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
Hey OJ, no one said anything about shots at goal from scrum penalties. What are you on about?
And I said I’m looking for consistency in advantage application – eg Joubert sometimes let advantage run for a long time before bringing it back, but with the O’Connor knock on the advantage was much shorter. Neither is right or wrong, just do it the same each time for both teams… simple.
hammer said | July 18th 2009 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
So the ref is rubbish because Baxter can not scrum properly yet giteau throws his standard 3-5 forward passes per game but that ok
Baxter is / has been a contstant blight on the scrum – answer to the problem is get a new prop
The abs played ok but not great – yet they dominated the second half – and once again we witnessed another deans miscalculation – but I’m sure he’ll get a soft landing from the Aussie press – Aust rugby are becoming an extension of Canterbury
ohtani's jacket, said | July 18th 2009 @ 10:56pm | Report comment
Katipo,
If it doesn’t cost you any points, it’s just a turnover. If you have to move on from it like the All Blacks moved on from their poor lineout in the first half, which cost them 10.
Maybe he should’ve pulled Baxter sooner? Wasn’t that the Vickery debate?
mattamkII said | July 18th 2009 @ 11:25pm | Report comment
oh what rubbish. Take a look at the replays lads. The Kiwis bind was wrong and or dropped first every time.
And yes, the ABs did get at least one shot at goal from scrum call….think they missed BTW.
Fair game, but the ref and a few blokes here have no idea at scrum time.
Stash said | July 18th 2009 @ 11:28pm | Report comment
Well that’s that then… the Wallabies did not storm Fortress Auckland – though they started off very well and they will be lamenting the lost golden opportunity when Barnes made the break into the AB 22 (what happened there? -weird) Donald managed to perform relatively well considering the extra bit of attention he was getting.
The ABs looked very exposed on the wings at times, especially when the ball went wide with speed. Some terrible kicking by the Wallabies helped seal their fate.
Critically, the ABs were tougher at the breakdown, and that was their saving grace. The Wallabies tackled well but never seemed to contest the breakdown when it was AB ball? (Williams was cringing in the coaching box).
The Wallabies were better in the first half – but the All Blacks continued growing through the whole game and deserved the win.
Tough on the Wallabies – the Bledsloie took 1 step away from their grasp for 2009.
Knives Out said | July 19th 2009 @ 12:26am | Report comment
Not one Australian fan has questioned why the NZ players actually seemed to desire the ball game that much more than their counterparts. Australia were fired up at the beginning but at the end it was painfull stuff watching Thorn, Kaino and Read tear into any yellow jersey.
Bonza said | July 19th 2009 @ 12:37am | Report comment
Probably because we were constantly told by everyone from the Wallabies that they were going to change history and they had the “belief” that they would get the job done. In a semi comatose state from the mind numbing chanting, it is easier to blame the referee than credit the opposition. The credentials of this All Black team are not great and their recent results meagre but they have also been winning. Everyone thought it was goijng to happen but the All Blacks made it happen – all credit to them
Ben C said | July 19th 2009 @ 2:05am | Report comment
Well some tough calls at the scrums for Australia and an absolutely dire advantage blunder from Joubert but we lost the game because we did not commit to the breakdown and pi$$ed away possession with poor kicking in the first half when we had the advantage of the wind. At the breakdown the All Blacks wanted the ball more and there are a lot more breakdowns than scrums. I queried before the match the selection strategy of Deans and I am getting concerned that Deans may be a master of man management but has made some strange selection choices. Again shades of England bundling us out of the RWC QF by smashing us at the breakdown.
Aside from selection, Deans has to look at resolving the fact the Australian forwards appear mentally brittle.
Despite their superior play, exspecially at the breakdown, the All Blacks did not look too convincing either. The match against South Africa will be interesting as the Boks were as dominant against the Lions as many expected. It still looks like a fairly open Tri-Nations series and the Wallabies still have a chance with a few tweaks although the Bledisloe now looks like a bridge too far.
Knives Out said | July 19th 2009 @ 2:39am | Report comment
‘as the Boks were as dominant against the Lions as many expected’
Errr… are you sure, Ben?
Sam Taulelei said | July 19th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
the all blacks won the game but its no clearer how good either team are. similar pattern to last years bledisloe fixtures ; wallabies start well but are run down in second half. lapses in concentration continue to hamper the wallabies play and progress under deans. they looked the more threatening side in attack particularly in the first half but as knives wrote earlier the wallabies would play conservatively when a more attacking approach would have applied greater pressure than their tactical kicking. now the wallabies have another three week break before their next game, is this their best preparation? all blacks were conservative also although they’ll say pragmatic and they’ll need to find the timing and rhythm in their attack to score more than one try to beat the boks next week. well earned victory by the all blacks and thought donald’s clean break late in the first half boosted his confidence enormously and he was more assured in the second half. his general play and goalkicking in difficult conditions proved the difference in the end. he’s earned his test stripes now.
Hemjay said | July 19th 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Does it really matter who was more dominant if you didn’t win?
Seriously guys stop arguing shoulda coulda wouldas its really boring. The better team won on the night, like I have been saying for weeks now, the Wallabies prior matches were with very average opposition and the Australian fans got very carried away with the results and took far too much out of the wins. Of course they will look shit hot against sub standard opposition but put them up against their equals or superiors and they crumbled under the pressure. Matt Giteau was hardly convincing and did nothing to warrant being classed as good as Carter in my opinion. If anything Stephen Donald had a much better performance in the number 10 jersey.
The Wallabies with Giteau closed down were somewhat devoid of ideas and it showed.
The bombing of the certain second try was absolutely hilarious and the jibes from the crowd must have really got to them. 36 thousand people laughing and cheering your blunder has got to knock your confidence.
The fact that this was also the first game together for what can be dubbed our best available team only missing a few 1st choice players starting in Williams and Carter who has every chance of being back for the remaining Bledisloe and final South African test. I would be slightly worried being Australia, more so as they have been a team who has played for four weeks together and they were made to look very ordinary by a rather rusty All Blacks team.
Back to the dominance factor that some of you keep debating like I said above it means absolutely squat if your team loses after being dominant at said aspect of the game, in my opinion it makes a team look stupider than the loser tag. Seriously if they had the best backs why didn’t they use them.
Poor decision making by both coach, captain and Smiths head
The game is 80 minutes long and it doesn’t matter one iota when where or how you score your points as long as they are scored within the timeframe. It’s no good dominating for the first twenty racing out to a ten point lead then sitting back and go oh hell what do we do now these boys are starting to beat us up. Once again proving the better team won not only did they overhaul the Wallabies the put 6 more points on the scoreboard than them also.
KO I will agreee with you in your obvious distaste for Ben C saying that the Boks dominated the Lions but what I will say to you is
What does it say for the Lions if the Boks only needed 20mins in both of the first two tests to secure the series?
For all their suppossed dominance the Lions still lost the third test meant nothing to crazy pete, the series was already in the bag. This to me shows how inept the Lions actually were you could guarantee had the Wallabies or All Blacks had the same dominance of a match for 60 minutes as you suggest the Lions did they would both win and quite convincingly. The Lions suppossed dominance and lack of series win speaks volumes they just weren’t good enough.
Sam Taulelei said | July 19th 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
mike understand your frustration at some of joubert’s rulings but some of your criticism’s are an over reaction. worst refereeing performance ever? never referee another test or professionally again? apply the same criteria to the players and there will be a new team after each loss. there were no complaints about joubert following the wallabies win in sydney last year.
Knives Out said | July 19th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
I think a significant issue for Henry is that as demanding as the NZ public is I am under the perception, perhaps mistakenly, that the NZ public are willing to accept a season of something approaching mixed results. This NZ team is certainly a team with some very callow players and that means that Henry simply has to win his home games and make the team competitive on the away legs. Last season was a season of over achievement due to myriad reasons (the ELVs, injuries and player emigration), and yet NZ won the 3N and passed their European test with flying colours. Australia didn’t and despite that a gradual pressure of expectancy seems to be seeping onto the Roar (Australia by 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, for example) and I would guess that is the case throughout Australia (Campese said Wallabies by 9). Wallaby fans are talking in extremes – ‘make or break’… ‘great team’ etc. To that extent this win was big for NZ because it keeps the few doubters at bay and inflicts pressure upon Australia. I think that the draw for the 3N favours Australia a little bit, but that the All Blacks won through sheer desire and aggressiveness is a major issue for Australia because as Henry noted previously, you can’t just buy ‘haredn up’ pills over the counter. This is a long 3N but straight away Deans’ selection is being questioned, just as it was last year. I think this loss is deeper than the scoreline would suggest.
JamesB said | July 19th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
This was a hugely significant victory for the AB’s and psychologically a big blow for the Wallabies. Their best chance to topple the men in black in their fortress of Eden Park, where importantly the RWC2011 finals will be staged. For the AB’s, with 5 players coming back from injury and little rugby, and key personnel such as Williams, Carter and Kahui missing, they will only get better. What this did show is what a soft underbelly the Aussie forwards have, and that despite all the talk about how they are better scrummages, more physical, and will go the distance, it was the same old story. Those last 20 minutes were brutal! And without a doubt Henry beat Deans in the strategic battle of substitutions. Henry is a willy old bugger who should not be under estimated, and he deserves credit for turning around this AB team in just a few weeks. As for the Wallabies, where do they go from here? The media have talked them up all year, and they were at full strength. With 6 years of dominance by the AB’s, most of the Wallabie players have only ever known defeat and that must surely be playing on their minds every time they play them.
katzilla said | July 19th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
I can’t believe all the BS going on here from people who think they’re scrum gurus.
Sure you know more about scrums then Joubert, he only does hours of training in the application of the laws at scrum time every year. He was only standing right next to Baxter. He doesn’t have the advantage of being a couch potato expert.
The calls went both ways, Australia almost scored from a blatant Giteau forward pass, and Conrad Smith was hard done by on two occassions.
Australia lost because, as i said beforehand, they were dominated at the breakdown.
The Australian forwards just dont have enough aggression.
NZ grinded out the win. It may have been ugly but dont forget the weather was horrible.
mattamkII said | July 19th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
haha.. Dont think anyone has said ABs didnt deserve to win the game buddy.
Fuzz` said | July 19th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
Weather actually wasn’t that bad, it rained well drizzled for all of 5 minutes. It was cold yes but not exactly poor weather or really worth writing about. It does nothing for an argument whatsoever.
How do I know I was there!
Ben C said | July 19th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
KO
Sorry, should have been Boks were NOT as dominant against the Lions as many (SH) pundits were expecting. I was writing my earlier post at about 1.30am.
katzilla said | July 19th 2009 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
Fuzz – You played alot of rugby at 7.30 in Auckland during the winter?
Let me guess? You were at the game in shorts and a t shirt?
Mike said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Hemjay,
Can you possibly rise above 5-year old in your posts? The ABs won in very unconvincing fashion on the back of extremely favourable refereeing decisions. All credit to them for the win, but it certainly was not the sign of the world number one team. Mind you, that fits, as they would have lost the number one slot if they had lost this game.
What have we seen from the ABs this season? They scraped a win against the world number 5 after losing the first one, and sent the Gallagher trophy off to France. They also made a pretty unconvincing win against the 12th ranked side Italy.
Against the Wallabies, well I will give the ABs credit that they made less mistakes. That’s about it .
The sad thing about this is that the ABs themselves are decent sporting people, its just a pity they have a small number of ignorant and uneducated supporters like you. But hey, that’s not their fault!
Mark said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Katzilla – could’ve been worse, they might have been playing at Carisbrook.
Mike – Are you serious – baxter was binding on his arm, now when you’re one of the two key supports for an 800 kg scrum you can’;t hold a scum up with binding on the arm – there’s no consistent support & your won body mechanics are wrong as your force is no longer 100% committed to going forward. Joubert told him what he was doing wrong twice, is baxter really that thick to be told & then ignore the ref ? I know some refs don’t pick it up but Joubert did.
Sam – Agree it’s early days yet & the team was rusty, but at the end of the year we’ll only remember it was a win. Was good to see Donald get a decent outing under his belt.
Roll on RSA.
Mike said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Give me a break Mark, he bound on what he could get. Woodcock fell away, and at times didn’t bind at all. There was no skill demonstrated by Woodcock in those scrums, except at playing the referee.
Mark said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Mike – you reach forward & grab on the body…or are his arms too short ?? It’s not rocket science & it’s nice to see a ref who picked it up, now if he also watches for shoulder dropping that’s most of the front rows bag of tricks gone & we’ll have scruims that stay up (mostly).
BTW – nice to se you’re a good loser, even Hemjay’s got you going…..
Dean Pantio said | July 20th 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Mike said: “Can you possibly rise above 5-year old in your posts? The ABs won in very unconvincing fashion on the back of extremely favourable refereeing decisions.
The sad thing about this is that the ABs themselves are decent sporting people, its just a pity they have a small number of ignorant and uneducated supporters like you. But hey, that’s not their fault!”
You want to talk about petulant and ignorant? Take a deep breath and review your own posts.
The Wallabies lost because some of the forwards didn’t front, they didn’t take their opportunities and Burgess has feet for hands.
Joubert was quite clear to Baxter what he was doing wrong. No one pretends Woodcock is as pure as the driven snow, but only one of the two is recognised as being world class in his position – it certainly isn’t Baxter who appears to have taken over Young’s mantle. The sure fire sign of a prop who has dominance is one who can provide a stable platform on their own scrums and disrupt the opposition’s.
Mike said | July 21st 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Mark,
“Mike – you reach forward & grab on the body…or are his arms too short ?? It’s not rocket science …”
Of course Mark – the dynamics of a scrum are very simple, its all black and white, and no thinking is involved.
Okay, now lets get back to reality – and spare us your ignorance. You are apparently the only other person who could see the faults Joubert was picking in the scrum. His refereeing was incomprehensible, and if you know anything at all about scrums, you know that was the fact.
“BTW – nice to se you’re a good loser, even Hemjay’s got you going…..”
I wouldn’t go taking cheap shots at Hemjay – how are your posts different than his?
Mike said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Dean,
“You want to talk about petulant and ignorant? Take a deep breath and review your own posts.”
When you can come up with a coherent comment, I will respond to it.
“The Wallabies lost because some of the forwards didn’t front, they didn’t take their opportunities and Burgess has feet for hands”
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you on those points. Howver, none of them are inconsistent with my criticism of Joubert’s incompetence in refereeing the scrum.
“Joubert was quite clear to Baxter what he was doing wrong”. No he didn’t, not only was Baxter none the wiser, neither was anyone else. And they still aren’t.
On this game, I cannot see why Woodcock is alleged to be a “world class” prop. He did nothing to show it – mind you, that might also be Joubert’s fault. Under competent refereeing, Woodcock might have been given the chance to show off his skills.
“The sure fire sign of a prop who has dominance is one who can provide a stable platform on their own scrums and disrupt the opposition’s”. Only if they do it legally.
Jerry said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
“not only was Baxter none the wiser, neither was anyone else. And they still aren’t.”
If that’s true then Baxter (and everyone else) is completely thick, cause Joubert explained clearly to Baxter after the 2nd and 3rd penalties that he was pinging him for binding on the arm – basically he said that if he binds like that and the scrum goes down, it’s Baxter’s fault.
Mike said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
“basically he said that if he binds like that and the scrum goes down, it’s Baxter’s fault.” – which in the circumstances was an invitation to Woodcock to keep dropping his shoulder and failing to bind, secure in the knowledge that Baxter would be blamed.
Its about as smart as penalising a punched player for allowing his face to contact the other player’s fist.
As I said originally, incompetent and incomprehensible refereeing.
Jerry said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
And yet the scrum stopped collapsing.
Mark said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Mike – this is hilarious. He was warned by the ref, do you even know why ? He was bindingin te oppennts armpit i.e. the upper part of the arm & I’m not going to explain teh mechanics of this to you as you’re obviously knee deep in that Egyptian river. Jeez dude, hate to see you when you do get a bad ref display…….
Chillo ut, it’s only a game, & it was one heck of a game too, frantic pace, great skills, & won by each side having a few botch ups.
Mike said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
I agree Mark, your ignorance is hilarious.
Baxter was warned by the ref because the ref didn’t hav a clue what he was looking at, and made an arbitrary decision to blame Baxter.
“He was bindingin te oppennts armpit i.e. the upper part of the arm”
Hello? Earth to Mark? Woodcock wasn’t binding at all, not even draping his arm over Baxter. Some props are subtle in the way they try to do this, but Woodcock didn’t even bother with subtlety – he didn’t have to, just rely on a referee who didn’t know what he was looking at, and Baxter’s “reputation”.
Mark said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Actually Mike Woodcock did bind the first few times, then when he knew Joubert was onto Baxter probably didn’t try too hard when Baxter bound wrong. Score = Woodcock 1 Baxter 0.
Mike said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Mark,
I am not talking about later on, I am talking about the first three penalties.
Mike said | July 21st 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Oops, hit the send button too soon. I was going to write that it appeared to me that Woodcock’s binding was better later in the match – after a number of complaints and expressions of disbelief from Baxter and Mortlock, I think Woodcock realised he had pushed things as far as he could get away with.
Harry Callahan said | July 21st 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Mike …so as Mark posted – “Woodcock 1 – Baxter 0″ !!
Agree Joubert’s referring left much to be desired but a poor team effort at the breakdown cost the Wallabies the game moreso that Joubert. Also, why is it so often that when Wallabies spread the ball, the last 3 on the line are locks and front rowers. Tight 5 my arse!!
Mike said | July 21st 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
he he, fair comment harry!
Dean Pantio said | July 21st 2009 @ 5:37pm | Report comment
“Baxter was warned by the ref because the ref didn’t hav a clue what he was looking at, and made an arbitrary decision to blame Baxter.”
Wrong Mike. He was spot on. Have a look at the first two times Baxter was penalised. Have a look at my posts in this thread: http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/07/20/deans-exasperated-by-scrum-calls/
Joubert was correct.
Mike said | July 21st 2009 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Dean,
Thanks for the reference to that article which I hadn’t seen and is right on point re the refereeing controversy.
Dean Pantio said | July 21st 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
You’re welcome.
Mark said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Dean – inteiresting that baxter kept binding like that later in the game but wasn’t pinged, so it was OK as long as the scrum didn’;t collapse by the looks of it.
On another note – for the RSA supporters, there were quite a few Botha style clearouts in the first TN game which weren’t penalised, so it looks like you were hard done by.
Mike said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Mark,
There was nothing wrong with Baxter’s binding, except when Woodcock didn’t bind at all and wouldn’t let Baxter get hold. Woodcock may have scrummaging skills but it was something else he demonstrated on Saturday night.
The comparison with Bakkies getting pinged in the Lions’ test is also instructive. On Saturday night, Joubert’s refereeing was bad in open play as well as the scrums – he missed a large number of infringements in open play (not just in fabour of one team I might add). This is the sort of low standard of refereeing that has allowed players like Bakkies to flourish, and it has to be stamped out. Fortunately the IRB is just starting to make an impact in this area – Bakkies’ suspension was a good start. Hopefully he will get the message – clean up his play, or retire.
Dean, note my reply on the refereeing article. Good to see that many others have seen the same thing I did.
Mark said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Mike – we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I thought the stats on the scrums that OJ provided were enlightening.
Jerry G said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Mike – seriously, give it up. “There was nothing wrong with Baxter’s binding”? Except it being illegal of course.
Have a look at this little video (ironically put together to show how bad the reffing is) and you can see that Baxter binds on Woodcock’s arm or sleeve all 3 times and that Woodcock binds on Baxter’s jersey on the first and second penalties.
Mike said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Mark, that’s fair enough. Whatever one’s opinion about the reffing, ABs deserved their win. And as always, their off-field comments and bearing were exceptional.
Jerry G, happy to check the vid, but the link doesn’t appear to have come through on your post…?
Jerry G said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Mike – my bad.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spotlight+on+joubert&search_type=&aq=f
Hemjay said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Mike,
You asked the following “What have we seen from the ABs this season? They scraped a win against the world number 5 after losing the first one, and sent the Gallagher trophy off to France. They also made a pretty unconvincing win against the 12th ranked side Italy.
Well The first French test All Blacks missing 11 first choice players lets see how Australia or any other nation on earth goes missing 11 of their match day 22. All Blacks lost the Gallagher trophy oh well it happens at least we have trophies to lose…
NZ scrapped past Italy hmmm I don’t recall the Wallabies beating them by much more and at least the Italians never crossed the All Blacks try line oops did I bring up something you may like to have forgotten or are choosing to ignore.
Oh and most recently what have the All Blacks acheived hmmm I know they played some tough talking team, not quite sure who it was though I hear they were red hot and had talent to burn and were going to break a imaginary hoodoo that sits only in the mind of their players. Now who was it again????
Their number 10 is suppossedly as good if not better than Daniel Carter but from memory it was clear the underratted Stephen Donald left him for dust.
I know that they and their supporters have been and still are crying in to their cornflakes and blaming the ref and accusing the All Blacks of cheating.
Oh I get it now it can only be one of two countries. But as it’s the Tri-Nations it can be only one
The ALL BLACKS BEAT AUSTRALIA 22-16 extending their unbeaten run at Eden Park to 24years and a 4 match winning streak over our West Island neighbours.
Mike said | July 22nd 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Hemjay,
Glad to see you agree with me. As long as you keep the All Blacks achievement in perspective (i.e. according to my post above), then we have no argument.
Mike said | July 22nd 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
Jerry G,
Thanks for the link. This youtube video should be compulsory viewing for anyone who thinks that Joubert knew what he was doing last Saturday night. There is no room for doubt – Woodcock simply failed to bind at all. This bears out what many have suspected for a long time – Al Baxter is the competent tight head, the one who is playing to the rules. The penalties on Saturday night for collapsing the scrum should have been given in Baxter’s favour.
Obviously Joubert should never have been put forward as a test referee in the first place. He is incapable of providing a fair result.
But this leads one to ask what has been going on in Tri-Nations for the last two or three years? The evidence that the Wallabies have been unfairly penalised in scrums on a regular basis is overwhelming, and that raises the question of how the Tri-Nations can be taken seriously as a competition.
Jerry G said | July 22nd 2009 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
Mike – I think you’re watching the video wrong if you think that – half the stuff the guy is claiming is flat wrong. Look where Baxter is binding – on the arm every time, that’s illegal and why he was pinged.
Also, look at the George Smith penalty where he claims Smith was ‘on his feet’ – his entire torso is horizontal, he’s blatantly not supporting his own weight so he’s off his feet and therefore offside.
And I’m not even sure why he included the Palu and Robinson calls, those were both spot on.
A couple of those calls were wrong, but most of the plays the video highlights are actually correct – the guy who made it simply doesn’t know the laws properly.
Jerry G said | July 22nd 2009 @ 7:32pm | Report comment
And also Mike – I didn’t see any Aussies complaining about Joubert last year when the Wallabies beat NZ in Sydney.
Spencer said | July 22nd 2009 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
Jerry G – I would like to get your opinion on the penalty leading to the final 3 points for ABs. I am not sure why the penalty was awarded.
1. Robinson and Moore make the tackle.
2. Moore goes to ground as the ruck forms.
3. Moore rolls away from the tackle area.
4. Robinson remains on his feet and competes for the ball.
5. Penalty awarded to ABs.
AndyS said | July 22nd 2009 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
Really? Just picking one at random…http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/07/28/no-more-jerseys-for-dunces/
Jerry G said | July 22nd 2009 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
Spencer – I thought it was a bit harsh – Moore does kind of roll away but is prevented from fully rolling away by the AB players driving in. Robinson is on his feet most of the time, though there are times when he seems to be supporting himself on the tackled player to some extent.
I thought the penalty call was probably a bit harsh, but it was actually pretty similar to a call against Conrad Smith earlier, where Smith was pretty much prevented from rolling by attacking players, though it must be said Smith was in a position where he was affecting play more.
Jerry G said | July 22nd 2009 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
Oh and I think the penalty was against Moore – fairly harsh as I said. I do wonder if some SH refs will be a bit whistle happy at ruck and maul after reffing under the ELVs where they could call infringements willy nilly safe in the knowledge the sanction was just a free kick.
Mike said | July 23rd 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Jerry G,
Just taking the first one as an example: I think a number of viewers are confusing the fact that Baxter face-plants with his arm in Woodcock’s armpit as meaning he bound there. However that is not the case – best to look at the slow mo for this, not only because it is slow but also it is a better view: Baxter lunges for the side of Woodcock’s jersey, quite deep in fact. He doesn’t get it (i.e. doesn’t grip it, which is what a bind must do) because Woodcock backs off and down. As they fall, Baxter withdraws his arm and grabs Woodcock’s arm-shoulder for support, but he is not attempting to bind, just to keep his spinal cord intact.
OJ has made the point on another thread (in defence of Joubert) that this all happens very quickly in real time, and there may be something in that. But we are discussing where and how Baxter bound, and when you see the slow-mo there is no bind by Baxter on the arm, and he doesn’t attempt to do so.
On the other hand, Woodcock places his hand forward in what looks superficially like a classic long bind, but never attempts to grab Baxter’s jersey.
Jerry G said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Mike – I think a number of viewers are taking the fact that Baxter binds on Woodcock’s sleeve on all 3 scrums to mean that he meant to do so. Most refs would let it go – Joubert didn’t. I actually think he should have, but the fault is Baxter’s for failing to adjust.
Mike said | July 24th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Jerry G,
Please do not waste my time by continually asserting that black is white.
Baxter never at any time bound on Woodcock’s sleeve. There is no room for doubt on this. I note you make no reply to my analysis (obviously because you cannot do so).
What is interesting is how the proponents of the “Baxter can’t scrum” myth so rabidly deny the plain truth, even when the video of last Saturday’s match leave no room for doubt. This shows up that myth for what it is – It was never based on reason or analysis, just an attempt to influence referees by rumour-mongering alone. With Joubert it worked, but all that has done is demonstrate his incompetence as a referee, and cast doubt on the value or importance of Bledisloe tests.