It's more about how it will affect the minds of the All Blacks, rather than opposition teams gunning for us... like last World Cup I think thrashing Ireland made us complacent against England. You could see straight away were weren't psyched up like we were for the Irish game the week before...Dan54 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 8:25 pm Tough one isn't it? If we beat France will the other teams be gunning for us even more? I not sure I think any team that plays ABs generally go to another level anyway. The one thing with a WC is you can afford a bad game in pool matches (or even bad luck etc) bit from QF, it really can be bounce of the ball at times, generally so little between top teams these days it will be nerve racking!!
For those that were around in 1987, remember how relaxed we could be then?? The rest of world were just shit really, so we could be confident (and no SA)
NZ Rugby selection thread / all blacks
It wasn't just a one off, though. Beaver had gone into that test with plenty of doubters already, after a number of ropey performances.
With Carter injured in 2010, Donald took over with mixed success. New Zealand won only two of the five Tests he started that season...
http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/profile.asp?ABID=1075
Ironically it was the same for the English the following week. They spent their load on the semi.Grandpa wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 8:41 pmIt's more about how it will affect the minds of the All Blacks, rather than opposition teams gunning for us... like last World Cup I think thrashing Ireland made us complacent against England. You could see straight away were weren't psyched up like we were for the Irish game the week before...Dan54 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 8:25 pm Tough one isn't it? If we beat France will the other teams be gunning for us even more? I not sure I think any team that plays ABs generally go to another level anyway. The one thing with a WC is you can afford a bad game in pool matches (or even bad luck etc) bit from QF, it really can be bounce of the ball at times, generally so little between top teams these days it will be nerve racking!!
For those that were around in 1987, remember how relaxed we could be then?? The rest of world were just shit really, so we could be confident (and no SA)
It happens a lot. I'm surprised psychologists don't prepare sides for it... maybe they do... but not well enough! Hansen and Jones have both admitted they screwed up on that side... but how many times do you see in sport an underdog beating a heavy favourite in a one-off game? Quite a lot...Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 9:12 pmIronically it was the same for the English the following week. They spent their load on the semi.Grandpa wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 8:41 pmIt's more about how it will affect the minds of the All Blacks, rather than opposition teams gunning for us... like last World Cup I think thrashing Ireland made us complacent against England. You could see straight away were weren't psyched up like we were for the Irish game the week before...Dan54 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 8:25 pm Tough one isn't it? If we beat France will the other teams be gunning for us even more? I not sure I think any team that plays ABs generally go to another level anyway. The one thing with a WC is you can afford a bad game in pool matches (or even bad luck etc) bit from QF, it really can be bounce of the ball at times, generally so little between top teams these days it will be nerve racking!!
For those that were around in 1987, remember how relaxed we could be then?? The rest of world were just shit really, so we could be confident (and no SA)
That is brilliant... Gumboot could do a book of All Black caricatures...
I'd love to be able to draw like that...
I dunno though, England were a machine until the final. We'd given the Aussies a hiding before the NZ game and had been pretty ruthless before that, so it's not like we summoned up the energy for one game. The final saw the wheels come off but there's a bunch of things that would all have contributed, including: getting to the stadium late with fucked-up preparation, selection being a huge issue given the challenge we were going to face up front, SA being our kryptonite because of the physicality they bring neutering our strengths, and some players just actually being quite shit (hello Ben Youngs).Grandpa wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 9:32 pmIt happens a lot. I'm surprised psychologists don't prepare sides for it... maybe they do... but not well enough! Hansen and Jones have both admitted they screwed up on that side... but how many times do you see in sport an underdog beating a heavy favourite in a one-off game? Quite a lot...Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 9:12 pmIronically it was the same for the English the following week. They spent their load on the semi.Grandpa wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 8:41 pm
It's more about how it will affect the minds of the All Blacks, rather than opposition teams gunning for us... like last World Cup I think thrashing Ireland made us complacent against England. You could see straight away were weren't psyched up like we were for the Irish game the week before...
True, there may have been other factors. But you could see a difference from the start... in the NZ game, England were wide eyed and aroused straight from the off... whereas in the final... I could sense it felt different just looking at the players before kick off...JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:43 amI dunno though, England were a machine until the final. We'd given the Aussies a hiding before the NZ game and had been pretty ruthless before that, so it's not like we summoned up the energy for one game. The final saw the wheels come off but there's a bunch of things that would all have contributed, including: getting to the stadium late with fucked-up preparation, selection being a huge issue given the challenge we were going to face up front, SA being our kryptonite because of the physicality they bring neutering our strengths, and some players just actually being quite shit (hello Ben Youngs).Grandpa wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 9:32 pmIt happens a lot. I'm surprised psychologists don't prepare sides for it... maybe they do... but not well enough! Hansen and Jones have both admitted they screwed up on that side... but how many times do you see in sport an underdog beating a heavy favourite in a one-off game? Quite a lot...
Be a fascinating study... the optimal arousal of athletes in team sports. How to switch it on and off...
Sounds like you're angling for a new career. Well, good luck to you. Make sure to drink plenty of fluids. By which I mean water.Grandpa wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:35 pmTrue, there may have been other factors. But you could see a difference from the start... in the NZ game, England were wide eyed and aroused straight from the off... whereas in the final... I could sense it felt different just looking at the players before kick off...JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:43 amI dunno though, England were a machine until the final. We'd given the Aussies a hiding before the NZ game and had been pretty ruthless before that, so it's not like we summoned up the energy for one game. The final saw the wheels come off but there's a bunch of things that would all have contributed, including: getting to the stadium late with fucked-up preparation, selection being a huge issue given the challenge we were going to face up front, SA being our kryptonite because of the physicality they bring neutering our strengths, and some players just actually being quite shit (hello Ben Youngs).Grandpa wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 9:32 pm
It happens a lot. I'm surprised psychologists don't prepare sides for it... maybe they do... but not well enough! Hansen and Jones have both admitted they screwed up on that side... but how many times do you see in sport an underdog beating a heavy favourite in a one-off game? Quite a lot...
Be a fascinating study... the optimal arousal of athletes in team sports. How to switch it on and off...
Actually I did do that study... or something similar, on limited information compared to now... almost 40 years ago at university. I can't remember anything from it though...JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:36 pmSounds like you're angling for a new career. Well, good luck to you. Make sure to drink plenty of fluids. By which I mean water.Grandpa wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:35 pmTrue, there may have been other factors. But you could see a difference from the start... in the NZ game, England were wide eyed and aroused straight from the off... whereas in the final... I could sense it felt different just looking at the players before kick off...JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:43 am
I dunno though, England were a machine until the final. We'd given the Aussies a hiding before the NZ game and had been pretty ruthless before that, so it's not like we summoned up the energy for one game. The final saw the wheels come off but there's a bunch of things that would all have contributed, including: getting to the stadium late with fucked-up preparation, selection being a huge issue given the challenge we were going to face up front, SA being our kryptonite because of the physicality they bring neutering our strengths, and some players just actually being quite shit (hello Ben Youngs).
Be a fascinating study... the optimal arousal of athletes in team sports. How to switch it on and off...
No. Not automatic. But he could still be cited. If he isn't cited, he can play against France...
I hope Lomax recovers... and we practise scrummaging and lineout before the French game... Ryan must have been spitting tacks... though the whole team looked off... I don't think they were in the same mental state as the Boks... you could see it in the anthem.. SA were amped...
-
ScarfaceClaw
- Posts: 2412
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:11 pm
Any optimism from the rugby championship has gone. We’re gone by the quarters.
Hard to argue with this...
https://archive.ph/4ga7u#selection-867.0-1169.434
Why South Africa and the Rugby World Cup are made for each other
While New Zealand have a history of flattering to deceive on the biggest stage, the Springboks rise to the occasion with a game plan that is hard to beat
Last month, South Africa put the fear of God into their rivals before the World Cup. At Twickenham they produced a performance packed with power and pace in beating the All Blacks 35-7, a record defeat for the nation with the greatest win ratio in the history of the sport.
While the Springboks have been mixing and matching their teams in the build-up to the tournament in France, with varied results, New Zealand have been picking pretty much full-strength teams (excluding the win in Dunedin against an ailing Australia).
The All Blacks are under pressure to win matches. It’s part of the national psyche. No side are near them when it comes to winning. Take the professional era into account. They have won the Tri Nations/Rugby Championship on 20 of the 28 occasions it has been played. South Africa and Australia have four titles apiece. It’s hardly the stuff of rivalry.
What with New Zealand winning a first series in South Africa in 1996, it is impossible not to generally perceive the men in black as the world’s elite rugby nation. When South Africa beat the Kiwis it tends to be tight; whereas New Zealand have delivered a thumping or two over the years.
And yet . . . when it comes to the World Cup, South Africa are the most successful side in the world. Like New Zealand, they have conquered the world on three occasions. Unlike their rivals, however, the Springboks have competed in only seven tournaments. They are running at an astonishing World Cup win rate of just under 43 per cent, whereas the All Blacks are a shade over 33 per cent.
New Zealand have a history of flattering to deceive, while South Africa rise to the occasion. What is the difference? Where do South Africa have the advantages missing in non-World Cup years? New Zealand have played the most exciting brand of rugby in the world since the game went professional, but South Africa have traditionally been the kings of pragmatism.
The higher the level of competition, the greater the psychological pressure. The greater the psychological pressure, the easier it is to maintain your shape under the duress of a World Cup knockout match. Is it any coincidence the Kiwis have never lost a pool match? For the best teams these are not sudden-death affairs. There’s the buffer of finishing second and qualifying for the quarter-finals.
And so the All Blacks dazzle us — as they did in 2019, when they thrashed the Springboks in the pool stage — before subsiding against England in the semi-final. England were then overpowered by a game predicated broadly on ten-man rugby. Broadly, not completely.
So what do we have that suits the Springboks in Rugby World Cups? The combination of a stripped-back style and — with it — the psychological strength of knowing their game. The history of their three triumphs illustrates these assets and a few more.
The most controversial — intangible to some doubters, ridiculous to those who weren’t at Ellis Park for the final on June 24, 1995 — is magic. Yes, I know. But on that day the infinitely inferior team (food poisoning or not) were beaten by a host nation that had no right to win. Nelson Mandela’s presence in that stadium united a nation for a sports event in a way I’ve never come close to seeing repeated. The Springbok was once perceived as part of apartheid. On that day it changed. South Africa seemed to play for their entire country.
When Joel Stransky’s extra-time drop-kick soared through the posts, South Africa and the World Cup became inextricably linked. Belief is important and, come a World Cup, somewhere deep inside, the African nation can draw on their astonishing opening effort in 1995. New Zealand, in contrast, fear the worst.
The other — more obvious — aspect of the Springbok game that helped them to their first title was defence. Without the ball in hand, South Africa sides are more belligerent than any other team. It is a state of mind. Big men massively committed to pressurising potentially more skilled attacks. Under the spotlight of the sport’s grandest occasion, it is far easier to defend than dazzle your way to glory.
The tournaments in 1995, 2007 and 2019 delivered teams with an aptitude for the tackle. The most recent World Cup in France, in 2007, was won ugly against England, having beaten them 36-0 in the pool stage. In Fourie du Preez (like Faf de Klerk and the late Joost van der Westhuizen) they possessed a dominant scrum half. But even more than that, they had packs capable of turning territory into points.
There hasn’t been a better second-row pairing than Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha (2007) and there isn’t a better second-rower than Eben Etzebeth. He was the leading lock in 2019 and enters France as the outstanding second-rower still. He spearheads a pack that guarantees great possession for its half backs and makes life intolerable for opponents.
It’s the sheer simplicity that keeps the machine rolling at full tilt in contrast to the Kiwis, who come off the rails under the pressure of the competition. The South Africa pack produced the novelty of the “bomb squad” in Japan four years ago. The replacements are the starters this time, the starters the replacements coming into the action for the final half-hour or so.
This forward power is the essence of their play. It enables half backs to put them in position to roll over opposing sides from close range. The pack serves the half backs, the half backs the pack. Everyone tackles — in 1995 that was almost literally the case with Jonah Lomu hunted out of the final — it couldn’t be simpler. But 2007 and 2019 cannot be used to explain the record of the Springboks at the World Cup without a reference to their wings. Bryan Habana was voted player of the tournament in 2007. He was both the quickest and the best wing in the world. Great football teams need their finishers to score the goals. Springbok wings are predatory.
Amid all the memories of the scrum shellacking that England suffered in the 2019 final, it is worth remembering the sidestep Cheslin Kolbe produced to seal victory, leaving Owen Farrell grasping at thin air. They have a straightforward love of the bludgeon but that’s not to forget the magic out wide.
This 2023 vintage have the most exciting balance of attacking wide backs. They could be tempted to trust their fleet-footed runners to win them the game — if they were any other country — but Twickenham was a reminder that forwards remain pre-eminent.
The World Cup is upon us and the pressure is set to grow. France and Ireland have sturdy game plans but neither is as straightforward as South Africa’s. Jacques Nienaber, the head coach, has used the past year to develop an unusual attack game (but not an unheralded one) while gathering forward strength.
They believe in what they do. Why wouldn’t they? Their game plan is not complex but it takes some stopping. A potent pack, a robust pair of half backs, a non-stop defence and fabulous finishers. Throw in the self-belief and the sprinkle of 1995 magic and it’s not hard to see why South Africa and the World Cup are made for each other. A fourth title would be no surprise — although I’m sticking with France beating them in the final.
https://archive.ph/4ga7u#selection-867.0-1169.434
Why South Africa and the Rugby World Cup are made for each other
While New Zealand have a history of flattering to deceive on the biggest stage, the Springboks rise to the occasion with a game plan that is hard to beat
Last month, South Africa put the fear of God into their rivals before the World Cup. At Twickenham they produced a performance packed with power and pace in beating the All Blacks 35-7, a record defeat for the nation with the greatest win ratio in the history of the sport.
While the Springboks have been mixing and matching their teams in the build-up to the tournament in France, with varied results, New Zealand have been picking pretty much full-strength teams (excluding the win in Dunedin against an ailing Australia).
The All Blacks are under pressure to win matches. It’s part of the national psyche. No side are near them when it comes to winning. Take the professional era into account. They have won the Tri Nations/Rugby Championship on 20 of the 28 occasions it has been played. South Africa and Australia have four titles apiece. It’s hardly the stuff of rivalry.
What with New Zealand winning a first series in South Africa in 1996, it is impossible not to generally perceive the men in black as the world’s elite rugby nation. When South Africa beat the Kiwis it tends to be tight; whereas New Zealand have delivered a thumping or two over the years.
And yet . . . when it comes to the World Cup, South Africa are the most successful side in the world. Like New Zealand, they have conquered the world on three occasions. Unlike their rivals, however, the Springboks have competed in only seven tournaments. They are running at an astonishing World Cup win rate of just under 43 per cent, whereas the All Blacks are a shade over 33 per cent.
New Zealand have a history of flattering to deceive, while South Africa rise to the occasion. What is the difference? Where do South Africa have the advantages missing in non-World Cup years? New Zealand have played the most exciting brand of rugby in the world since the game went professional, but South Africa have traditionally been the kings of pragmatism.
The higher the level of competition, the greater the psychological pressure. The greater the psychological pressure, the easier it is to maintain your shape under the duress of a World Cup knockout match. Is it any coincidence the Kiwis have never lost a pool match? For the best teams these are not sudden-death affairs. There’s the buffer of finishing second and qualifying for the quarter-finals.
And so the All Blacks dazzle us — as they did in 2019, when they thrashed the Springboks in the pool stage — before subsiding against England in the semi-final. England were then overpowered by a game predicated broadly on ten-man rugby. Broadly, not completely.
So what do we have that suits the Springboks in Rugby World Cups? The combination of a stripped-back style and — with it — the psychological strength of knowing their game. The history of their three triumphs illustrates these assets and a few more.
The most controversial — intangible to some doubters, ridiculous to those who weren’t at Ellis Park for the final on June 24, 1995 — is magic. Yes, I know. But on that day the infinitely inferior team (food poisoning or not) were beaten by a host nation that had no right to win. Nelson Mandela’s presence in that stadium united a nation for a sports event in a way I’ve never come close to seeing repeated. The Springbok was once perceived as part of apartheid. On that day it changed. South Africa seemed to play for their entire country.
When Joel Stransky’s extra-time drop-kick soared through the posts, South Africa and the World Cup became inextricably linked. Belief is important and, come a World Cup, somewhere deep inside, the African nation can draw on their astonishing opening effort in 1995. New Zealand, in contrast, fear the worst.
The other — more obvious — aspect of the Springbok game that helped them to their first title was defence. Without the ball in hand, South Africa sides are more belligerent than any other team. It is a state of mind. Big men massively committed to pressurising potentially more skilled attacks. Under the spotlight of the sport’s grandest occasion, it is far easier to defend than dazzle your way to glory.
The tournaments in 1995, 2007 and 2019 delivered teams with an aptitude for the tackle. The most recent World Cup in France, in 2007, was won ugly against England, having beaten them 36-0 in the pool stage. In Fourie du Preez (like Faf de Klerk and the late Joost van der Westhuizen) they possessed a dominant scrum half. But even more than that, they had packs capable of turning territory into points.
There hasn’t been a better second-row pairing than Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha (2007) and there isn’t a better second-rower than Eben Etzebeth. He was the leading lock in 2019 and enters France as the outstanding second-rower still. He spearheads a pack that guarantees great possession for its half backs and makes life intolerable for opponents.
It’s the sheer simplicity that keeps the machine rolling at full tilt in contrast to the Kiwis, who come off the rails under the pressure of the competition. The South Africa pack produced the novelty of the “bomb squad” in Japan four years ago. The replacements are the starters this time, the starters the replacements coming into the action for the final half-hour or so.
This forward power is the essence of their play. It enables half backs to put them in position to roll over opposing sides from close range. The pack serves the half backs, the half backs the pack. Everyone tackles — in 1995 that was almost literally the case with Jonah Lomu hunted out of the final — it couldn’t be simpler. But 2007 and 2019 cannot be used to explain the record of the Springboks at the World Cup without a reference to their wings. Bryan Habana was voted player of the tournament in 2007. He was both the quickest and the best wing in the world. Great football teams need their finishers to score the goals. Springbok wings are predatory.
Amid all the memories of the scrum shellacking that England suffered in the 2019 final, it is worth remembering the sidestep Cheslin Kolbe produced to seal victory, leaving Owen Farrell grasping at thin air. They have a straightforward love of the bludgeon but that’s not to forget the magic out wide.
This 2023 vintage have the most exciting balance of attacking wide backs. They could be tempted to trust their fleet-footed runners to win them the game — if they were any other country — but Twickenham was a reminder that forwards remain pre-eminent.
The World Cup is upon us and the pressure is set to grow. France and Ireland have sturdy game plans but neither is as straightforward as South Africa’s. Jacques Nienaber, the head coach, has used the past year to develop an unusual attack game (but not an unheralded one) while gathering forward strength.
They believe in what they do. Why wouldn’t they? Their game plan is not complex but it takes some stopping. A potent pack, a robust pair of half backs, a non-stop defence and fabulous finishers. Throw in the self-belief and the sprinkle of 1995 magic and it’s not hard to see why South Africa and the World Cup are made for each other. A fourth title would be no surprise — although I’m sticking with France beating them in the final.
-
Guy Smiley
- Posts: 4961
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm
It’s romantic bullshit with just enough reality to keep it sounding relevant. Barnes at his best / worst.
I think it's true though. The alternative is that we don't have the innate character to win World Cups as often as we should?Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:23 pm It’s romantic bullshit with just enough reality to keep it sounding relevant. Barnes at his best / worst.
I'd prefer the option that we play a more sophisticated form of rugby that angels in heaven dance to.. and this in turn is harder to replicate under severe pressure... whereas SA use blunt force trauma which even under the severest of pressure is simple to repeat... time after time...
-
Guy Smiley
- Posts: 4961
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm
The sample size is minute. He's talking winning percentages over 7 world cups, fercryinoutloud. We could launch into a similarly specious argument about the NH only winning one... and for that matter, why isn't he critiquing the Wallabies in the same manner?Grandpa wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 1:31 pmI think it's true though. The alternative is that we don't have the innate character to win World Cups as often as we should?Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:23 pm It’s romantic bullshit with just enough reality to keep it sounding relevant. Barnes at his best / worst.
I'd prefer the option that we play a more sophisticated form of rugby that angels in heaven dance to.. and this in turn is harder to replicate under severe pressure... whereas SA use blunt force trauma which even under the severest of pressure is simple to repeat... time after time...
The best NZ teams have featured hard, strong forwards. Where we have 'failed' in recent years is in trying to be too smart, too cute with selections, trying to shoehorn good players into sides away from their best positions. We are well capable of fielding well balanced, hard teams with uncompromising forward packs. Our pattern of failure though, centres more on poor selection / tactics.
Perhaps our national coaches become blinkered by talent and lose their way trying to include it... or they fail to develop enough depth in combinations to cover injury. We're going into the opening game of this RWC with Papali'i playing at 6 FFS.
I hope we develop better pathways at under 20 level... we seem to be in danger of developing mobile forwards but lacking power... you are right, our best sides had power and speed...Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 1:51 pmThe sample size is minute. He's talking winning percentages over 7 world cups, fercryinoutloud. We could launch into a similarly specious argument about the NH only winning one... and for that matter, why isn't he critiquing the Wallabies in the same manner?Grandpa wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 1:31 pmI think it's true though. The alternative is that we don't have the innate character to win World Cups as often as we should?Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 12:23 pm It’s romantic bullshit with just enough reality to keep it sounding relevant. Barnes at his best / worst.
I'd prefer the option that we play a more sophisticated form of rugby that angels in heaven dance to.. and this in turn is harder to replicate under severe pressure... whereas SA use blunt force trauma which even under the severest of pressure is simple to repeat... time after time...
The best NZ teams have featured hard, strong forwards. Where we have 'failed' in recent years is in trying to be too smart, too cute with selections, trying to shoehorn good players into sides away from their best positions. We are well capable of fielding well balanced, hard teams with uncompromising forward packs. Our pattern of failure though, centres more on poor selection / tactics.
Perhaps our national coaches become blinkered by talent and lose their way trying to include it... or they fail to develop enough depth in combinations to cover injury. We're going into the opening game of this RWC with Papali'i playing at 6 FFS.
-
Guy Smiley
- Posts: 4961
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm
-
Guy Smiley
- Posts: 4961
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm
His worst, easily.
Almost Barrettesque.
-
Guy Smiley
- Posts: 4961
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm
Perhaps you could clarify just how poorly you think Jordan played?
We've all seen BB frustrate through his lack of ability to unleash his outside players. We've all seen Jordie have brainfarts at crucial moments. We've seen Scott Barrett attract cards like horsehit pulls blowflies.
Those things are Barrettesque. Jordan gave up a YC and he was involved a lot in general play. He wasn't a disaster.
-
Guy Smiley
- Posts: 4961
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm
Ok... I've got work in the morning. I'll call it a night, we're not going anywhere with this.
Furry muff. I'm sleep deprived but still splashing paint around in a passably controlled fashion, so may stay up a bit later.Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:38 am Ok... I've got work in the morning. I'll call it a night, we're not going anywhere with this.
