Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Surprise! The all blacks are playing in 42 hours
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umaga&#039;s Witness" data-source="post: 1004441" data-attributes="member: 65365"><p>Both of you have some good points.</p><p></p><p>I would agree with the no plan b as a reason for not winning the World Cup, and in fact would put it as the number one reason if rephrased slightly. Two plans is not enough either, you really need to develop many options and develop a team and particularly leaders who can choose the right options at the right time. The notion of a plan b doesn't prevent The real problem with the plan A - over coaching/ structuring to the extent the players simply have no idea how to deal with contingencies.</p><p></p><p>ultimately though, my view is at the time of selecting the World Cup semifinal team, they weren't really playing any one out of position, because Beauden was actually the form fullback at that time. They picked everyone on form for that game with the exception of Scott barrett (they should have picked cane But not at the expense of savea. I still don't understand why they ever tied to Play savea at 6 when they had read who largely played like a 6 anyway. Without getting too hung up on roles what they needed was a game plan that would enable canes ability to tackle players before they reached the advantage line, and saveAs ability To get turnovers. Australia has done exactly that with hooper and pocock, but we never executed anywhere near to that same extent. And they didn't do it with hooper and pocock playing strict 6 and 7 roles, and I think our problem is we thought we'd magically be able to do it With savea in a more traditional 6 role, without thinking too hard about exactly hoW to execute, realising we would need a slightly different role definition.)</p><p></p><p>So the other key reason they lost the World Cup, is that they picked solely on form instead of accounting for experience. They should have looked at the team and realised they needed more experience in there, so they had players more likely to react to England having worked out our game plan, to try a plan b, c, etc. they needed better leaders too, as the likes of Sam whitelock weren't doing a leadership job of keepIng everyone calm and confident, instead they were outwardly showing a disbelief of us having any chance of a comeback. They should have started Crotty and had bender on the bench, even though they weren't the form players.</p><p></p><p>theoretically, the more playmakers you have, the more likely you can come up with and execute a plan b, so I don't think dual playmakers was a mistake, instead perhaps they needed more than just three. There's a possibility that Jordie on the wing will fulfil that capacity. Otherwise, I agree that he should have Been picked at fullback.</p><p></p><p>also, I agree with you both that we lost the World Cup because England were better. I don't think we should get too hung up on losing the World Cup, in fact I really despise the fact it is given such importance, as the truth of the matter is it's not possible to have full control over your ability to win every single game. You can control your winning percentage, over time, but that's it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umaga's Witness, post: 1004441, member: 65365"] Both of you have some good points. I would agree with the no plan b as a reason for not winning the World Cup, and in fact would put it as the number one reason if rephrased slightly. Two plans is not enough either, you really need to develop many options and develop a team and particularly leaders who can choose the right options at the right time. The notion of a plan b doesn’t prevent The real problem with the plan A - over coaching/ structuring to the extent the players simply have no idea how to deal with contingencies. ultimately though, my view is at the time of selecting the World Cup semifinal team, they weren’t really playing any one out of position, because Beauden was actually the form fullback at that time. They picked everyone on form for that game with the exception of Scott barrett (they should have picked cane But not at the expense of savea. I still don’t understand why they ever tied to Play savea at 6 when they had read who largely played like a 6 anyway. Without getting too hung up on roles what they needed was a game plan that would enable canes ability to tackle players before they reached the advantage line, and saveAs ability To get turnovers. Australia has done exactly that with hooper and pocock, but we never executed anywhere near to that same extent. And they didn’t do it with hooper and pocock playing strict 6 and 7 roles, and I think our problem is we thought we’d magically be able to do it With savea in a more traditional 6 role, without thinking too hard about exactly hoW to execute, realising we would need a slightly different role definition.) So the other key reason they lost the World Cup, is that they picked solely on form instead of accounting for experience. They should have looked at the team and realised they needed more experience in there, so they had players more likely to react to England having worked out our game plan, to try a plan b, c, etc. they needed better leaders too, as the likes of Sam whitelock weren’t doing a leadership job of keepIng everyone calm and confident, instead they were outwardly showing a disbelief of us having any chance of a comeback. They should have started Crotty and had bender on the bench, even though they weren’t the form players. theoretically, the more playmakers you have, the more likely you can come up with and execute a plan b, so I don’t think dual playmakers was a mistake, instead perhaps they needed more than just three. There’s a possibility that Jordie on the wing will fulfil that capacity. Otherwise, I agree that he should have Been picked at fullback. also, I agree with you both that we lost the World Cup because England were better. I don’t think we should get too hung up on losing the World Cup, in fact I really despise the fact it is given such importance, as the truth of the matter is it’s not possible to have full control over your ability to win every single game. You can control your winning percentage, over time, but that’s it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Surprise! The all blacks are playing in 42 hours
Top