• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2014 TRC] Australia v New Zealand in Sydney (16/08/2014)

sanzar said:
Wow... Brodie Retallick looks like what I imagine a hairless Yeti would look like when you see him up close like that lol
Click to expand...

you have a place in your mind for how you'd see a *hairless*......Yeti ?..
Well I must say, you know, you do surprisingly make an awful lot of sense.
 
austingtir said:
No I dont realise that at all its in the interpretation and you interpreted it wrongly. And thanks for highlighting that part of my post I ment to bold it.......
Click to expand...

Aren't you a charming bloke!
Australia dominated for large chunks of the game when the AB's had all 15 on the pitch, and both of those perfectly justified yellow cards came from infringements caused by constant Aussie pressure.
Maybe it's you who is misinterpreting stuff fella, or are you just that one eyed? ;)
 
I admire this austingtir character, he speaks his mind and comes across as likeable even if you don't agree with what he says.
 
Still cant believe the Wallabies couldn't score with AB's having 14 men for 20 mins.
 
Also, just from a spectator standpoint, there were 6000 more people last night at the ground than at the Super Rugby final, but the Waratahs crowd was way more vocal and much louder. I don't know what it is, but people just can't get up for the wallabies.[/QUOTE]

That is a crying shame really.
 
Maxwell said:
Still cant believe the Wallabies couldn't score with AB's having 14 men for 20 mins.
Click to expand...


Thats still the major difference between these two teams. If the AB's had got as many opportunities as they did then the scoreline would of been a blowout.


I will say though I do think the Wallabies can rectify that before next year. With the right players getting selected they will be far tougher.


The AB's have a similar issue though to many players in there on reputation. The fact that the wallabies could change their team so much from last year against a near top selection AB's side and get this draw is a bit of a worry imo.


I still think the Wallabies were helped a great deal in this match though. If the they get within 10 points of the AB's this weekend you guys can colour me surprised.
 
Been a bit busy, so am a bit slow to post my thoughts on the match. Overall it was an average game (in appalling conditions), though the fact it was close keep it interesting. I thought the ref was poor (for both sides). He was inconsistent with his advantages, erroneously gave out yellow cards, and it appeared neither side knew how he was refereeing the breakdown (I certainly didn't!). I thought Peyper looked a very promising young referee a couple of years ago, but he appears to be more an more erratic these days. From where I was watching (with my AB's eye patch) I felt Australia probably got the rub of the green in terms of referee's decisions, but more often than not the dominant side gets the rub of the green (which is why everyone claims the refs favour the AB's...).

Despite a slow start I felt Australia were the better side overall, and we were very lucky to get away with the draw. I was screaming for us to "kick the bloody ball out" at the end as I was more than happy with a draw given the fact we were outplayed. I can't recall us breaking the line all match, and the way Peyper was refereeing the breakdown we were at a real risk of being penalised in our own half gifting Australia the chance to win the match.....

On the players:
- Crockett didn't impress. I feel his yellow card was completely wrong, but it wasn't the only time he conceded a penalty that 1st half. Owen Franks was average too. He seemed to slip over a lot and miss tackles (which is uncharacteristic of him) - I wonder if he needed longer sprigs. Moody was solid on debut.
- Coles was excellent in the wet conditions. He did make a couple of handling errors but his lineout throwing was impressive and he saved a try at one stage by getting back and stepping the chasing player. Mealamu on the other hand was poor when he came on. He is clearly well past his best, but there are no other alternatives at the moment...
- Retallick and Whitelock were the pick of the AB's for me.
- Kaino, McCaw, and Read were all pretty accurate, though McCaw continues to give away far too many stupid penalties.
- I was impressed with Aaron Smith in the wet conditions. These conditions don't suit him but I thought he controlled the game quite well. Cruden was quiet but made his tackles and (most of) his kicks.
- Nonu was pretty average IMO, but Fekitoa didn't look out of place at centre. I thought Crotty made a good impact when he came on too with his accurate (and quite physical) defense.
- The back three were all very quiet but didn't make many (if any?) mistakes.
- The standout player on the park for me though was Michael Hooper. His leg drive is phenomenal, and that little spin he has develops makes him even harder to bring down!
 
Last edited:
Peyper going to win SA ref of the year. Things just work like that.
 
Last edited:
It's quite interesting looking at the stats, people seem to think Australia dominated New Zealand but that's just because they had a lot of possession and possession isn't everything - it depends on what kind of possession.

The territory stats show the game was mainly played in the middle of the park, Australia only entered NZ's 22 6 times the whole game, and NZ entered Australia's 5. Yet both came away with the same points.

Tackle count is off the chart, NZ making 137 to Australia 62, but what you have to see there is the Kiwis transition defence was never troubled it was just sideways shuffling by the Australians, 137 tackles by NZ yet 0 line breaks (officially - though i'd count both cooper and Hooper as having made a line break)

Beale had the ball 20 times, passed 18 ran 2 - never kicked once (Toomua did the majority of the kicking - and badly)

To me that all indicates that NZ were the more efficient team with their possession, so i think Australia were actually the lucky ones.
 
goodNumber10 said:
It's quite interesting looking at the stats, people seem to think Australia dominated New Zealand but that's just because they had a lot of possession and possession isn't everything - it depends on what kind of possession.

The territory stats show the game was mainly played in the middle of the park, Australia only entered NZ's 22 6 times the whole game, and NZ entered Australia's 5. Yet both came away with the same points.

Tackle count is off the chart, NZ making 137 to Australia 62, but what you have to see there is the Kiwis transition defence was never troubled it was just sideways shuffling by the Australians, 137 tackles by NZ yet 0 line breaks (officially - though i'd count both cooper and Hooper as having made a line break)

Beale had the ball 20 times, passed 18 ran 2 - never kicked once (Toomua did the majority of the kicking - and badly)

To me that all indicates that NZ were the more efficient team with their possession, so i think Australia were actually the lucky ones.
Click to expand...

What???
 
austingtir said:
Thats still the major difference between these two teams. If the AB's had got as many opportunities as they did then the scoreline would of been a blowout.


I will say though I do think the Wallabies can rectify that before next year. With the right players getting selected they will be far tougher.


The AB's have a similar issue though to many players in there on reputation. The fact that the wallabies could change their team so much from last year against a near top selection AB's side and get this draw is a bit of a worry imo.


I still think the Wallabies were helped a great deal in this match though. If the they get within 10 points of the AB's this weekend you guys can colour me surprised.
Click to expand...

This has to be the single most arrogant thing I've ever read on TRF . Your post isn't far away from comparing it to a game against your little brother where he does quite well and you pat him on the head and say "I'll try next time"

Maybe if you took your head out your arse you might see that the ABs were largely at fault for not winning this game as were the Aussies NOT the referee
 
goodNumber10 said:
It's quite interesting looking at the stats, people seem to think Australia dominated New Zealand but that's just because they had a lot of possession and possession isn't everything - it depends on what kind of possession.

The territory stats show the game was mainly played in the middle of the park, Australia only entered NZ's 22 6 times the whole game, and NZ entered Australia's 5. Yet both came away with the same points.

Tackle count is off the chart, NZ making 137 to Australia 62, but what you have to see there is the Kiwis transition defence was never troubled it was just sideways shuffling by the Australians, 137 tackles by NZ yet 0 line breaks (officially - though i'd count both cooper and Hooper as having made a line break)

Beale had the ball 20 times, passed 18 ran 2 - never kicked once (Toomua did the majority of the kicking - and badly)

To me that all indicates that NZ were the more efficient team with their possession, so i think Australia were actually the lucky ones.
Click to expand...

We were very efficient at kicking the ball away! We ran the ball 64 times and kicked it 23 times. Obviously this was highly influenced by the conditions, but if you kick away most of the ball you have you aren't going to score many tries (in contrast Australia only kicked 19 times and ran it 123 times). Despite kicking the ball fewer times Australia still dominated the territory stats. As you suggest the territory stats alone can be a bit misleading (as a lot of this match was played in the middle of the park), but Australia was playing the majority of the match in the right end of the field, which is exactly what you want to be doing given the conditions (as you have a chance to get points if you are awarded a penalty).

New Zealand didn't take care of their possession at all either. Despite running the ball only half as often as Australia we turned the ball over almost the same number of times (13 vs 15). The fact Australia weren't recorded as having a linebreak may suggest they were not that effective with ball in hand, but given the conditions clean linebreaks were always going to be rare. Australia did break quite a few tackles and did march up field at a slow (but steady) rate on a number of occasions, which is often the best you can hope for in such weather. When you add in the fact that the AB's conceded more penalties (14 vs 9) and missed a lot more tackles (21 vs 6) I believe based on the stats alone Australia were the dominant side (which is the same impression I got from watching the match). They may have been even more dominant (and actually won the match) if they have played a bit better tactically too....
 
goodNumber10 said:
what don't you understand?

In the p*ssing rain New Zealand did more with their possession than Australia did.
Click to expand...

They scored as many points, that's for sure. The Wallabies attack was pretty lateral wasn't it - all the ABs had to do was slide, and so they did.

Our attack definitely needs straightening and our tactical kicking needs to be vastly improved. It's a shame we don't have Mark Gerrard running around any more, because he had the best long tactical kicking game I've seen here. You're right that Toomua was predictable and Beale needs to get in on the attack with his kicking and run more.

The other thing I'd argue is that not having specialist wings hurt us. I can think of 5 wingers in the NRL who more than likely would have pulled off a freakish try in McCabe's position (the amount of flying one arm put downs, where their whole body is out in mid air, I've seen this year is unbelievable), but that's what happens when you put safe tackling defenders on the wing.

The other thing we really need to do is utilise Folau - no one beats him in the air, so next time we get a penalty advantage on NZ's line someone has to put in a cross kick for him. If he doesn't score (and if the kick is well placed that's unlikely) we get the ball back anyway, so why not try it?
 
sanzar said:
They scored as many points, that's for sure. The Wallabies attack was pretty lateral wasn't it - all the ABs had to do was slide, and so they did.

Our attack definitely needs straightening and our tactical kicking needs to be vastly improved. It's a shame we don't have Mark Gerrard running around any more, because he had the best long tactical kicking game I've seen here. You're right that Toomua was predictable and Beale needs to get in on the attack with his kicking and run more.

The other thing I'd argue is that not having specialist wings hurt us. I can think of 5 wingers in the NRL who more than likely would have pulled off a freakish try in McCabe's position (the amount of flying one arm put downs, where their whole body is out in mid air, I've seen this year is unbelievable), but that's what happens when you put safe tackling defenders on the wing.

The other thing we really need to do is utilise Folau - no one beats him in the air, so next time we get a penalty advantage on NZ's line someone has to put in a cross kick for him. If he doesn't score (and if the kick is well placed that's unlikely) we get the ball back anyway, so why not try it?
Click to expand...

I can't understand why Australia didn't try use tactic. New Zealand's outside backs are all very good in the air (indeed Smith and Jane are among the best in the world in this regard), but Folau is even better. Given how difficult it was to score with ball in hand I would have though this would have been a particularly attractive attacking option...
 
yeah it's kind of silly Australia can't have more adequate wingers I mean, for an alien who visits our planet and we show him Rugby and he looked at the different styles/cultures of play from country to country, his intuition would be the Australians must have the best wingers in the world for sure and it's really far from being the case. I don't care there's league too and the nation is torn between like 10 different grassroots sports or variations of Rugby and what not, Wallabies should be rocking two monsters at 11 and 14. Two guys with super catchy last names too, so it's even more sexy when you hear the pundits yell their names for a try.
A winger with a boring name is just no good...
Julian Savea. BAM. Tommy Bowe. Whew. Tim Visser. Nasty. Marland Yarde, what language is this in ? and then I mean, "Cory Jane", if that doesn't sound like a hermaphrodite pornstar, I dunno what the heck I'm talkin' about here okay I'm going to bed.
 
Big Ewis said:
yeah it's kind of silly Australia can't have more adequate wingers I mean, for an alien who visits our planet and we show him Rugby and he looked at the different styles/cultures of play from country to country, his intuition would be the Australians must have the best wingers in the world for sure and it's really far from being the case. I don't care there's league too and the nation is torn between like 10 different grassroots sports or variations of Rugby and what not, Wallabies should be rocking two monsters at 11 and 14. Two guys with super catchy last names too, so it's even more sexy when you hear the pundits yell their names for a try.
A winger with a boring name is just no good...
Julian Savea. BAM. Tommy Bowe. Whew. Tim Visser. Nasty. Marland Yarde, what language is this in ? and then I mean, "Cory Jane", if that doesn't sound like a hermaphrodite pornstar, I dunno what the heck I'm talkin' about here okay I'm going to bed.
Click to expand...

Speight will be there soon, and next year we'll have Ione and JOC too.

Just a shame we couldn't get a guy like Greg Inglis for outside centre and Jarryd Hayne for wing in time for the RWC. They'd both devastated teams.

Love this try:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coOitwMuQIc
 
Aussies need some solid props before they go chasing the League-Footy wonder boys. I mean, actual props, not "well, he held his own against the Rebels and weights 120kg".
Maybe keeping some current rugby players in Australia would be desirable. Surely Kane Douglas would be better off, rather than another utility back? Horwill is busted, Simmons too unpredictable, Jones out in the cold for whatever reason, and Carter young. I thought it was disappointing to see Pyle leave as well.
 
TRF_Draggs said:
Aussies need some solid props before they go chasing the League-Footy wonder boys. I mean, actual props, not "well, he held his own against the Rebels and weights 120kg".
Maybe keeping some current rugby players in Australia would be desirable. Surely Kane Douglas would be better off, rather than another utility back? Horwill is busted, Simmons too unpredictable, Jones out in the cold for whatever reason, and Carter young. I thought it was disappointing to see Pyle leave as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know what you mean, but Inglis is just an absolute machine and I'd just love to see what he could do with a bit of space in rugby.
 

Similar threads

TRF_stormer2010
[2023 TRC] New Zealand vs Australia
2 3
Replies
56
Views
3K
Kiwiwomble
Kiwiwomble
Jaguares
[2023 TRC] Argentina vs New Zealand
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
Welsh Exile
W
TRF_stormer2010
[2023 TRC] New Zealand vs South Africa
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
AngloScotsHybrid
A
Jaguares
[2023 TRC] Australia vs Argentina
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
Welsh Exile
W
TRF_Olyy
[2023 TRC] South Africa vs Australia
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
3K
Ragey Erasmus
Ragey Erasmus

Latest posts

Top