All Blacks peaking too soon.... maybe?

twinytwo

Thoughts?

I can see them them strolling through the rest of the tri nations and prob hockey the life out of everyone come the AI's.. but can they keep it up all the way to and through the WC?

handsomecake

world cups are funny old things, ive always referred to south africa as false champions as they only beat :england,samoa,tonga,united states,fiji,argentina,england to win in 2007.they didnt have to play nz,aus,france,ireland ,wales.i also think the rugby that gets played in a world cup is completely different to that which is played in between world cups,to the point it is almost a completely different game.argentina played no sort of rugby in the last world cup and kicked the leather off every ball,france adopted this blueprint when they came up against a better team eg the allblacks,then reverted to type against england eg ran the ball and lost.the last world cup rewarded no sort of enterprise.the stakes are too high and teams like the all blacks and ireland who had been playing "nice" rugby in between world cups were stifled by the likes of argentina and france respectively. the fact that england got so far after being beaten 36-nil in their first match and having played the whole tournament without a backline is indicative of this.
rugby is different from soccer in the sense that when the stakes are raised the product essentially changed.the game hinges on drop goals and penalty kicks.how many drop goals has dan carter scored since the last world cup? 1 ?if even?.he hasnt had to,because they are always winning by a good margin. the alblacks need to learn how to play boring rugby and win ugly and they will be fine.
am i confident they are the best team in the world -yes.i win money on them nearly every week because they even beat the handicap betting with ease.am i confident they will win the world cup-no ,not at all,because its a completely different rugby thats played.remember how bad georgia made us look?

thomond2006

I definitely think they peaked too soon before the last world cup, around 2005-2006 they were awesome but blew it when it mattered in 2007.

Hard to tell if they have peaked too soon now, I suppose we'll know after 2011.*

























*choke

PhatPiggins

I'd like to see SA or OZ keep 15 men on the pitch and play well against NZ before making any decisions. Its easy to say Kiwi have been great buth the other two have been largely rabble.

False champions :pac: ,even the most one eyed plastic AB fan would take that.

handsomecake

PhatPiggins wrote: »

I'd like to see SA or OZ keep 15 men on the pitch and play well against NZ before making any decisions. Its easy to say Kiwi have been great buth the other two have been largely rabble.

False champions :pac: ,even the most one eyed plastic AB fan would take that.

i agree,but you must admit,cushiest route to a final you will ever see.

sock puppet

handsomecake wrote: »

world cups are funny old things, ive always referred to south africa as false champions as they only beat :england,samoa,tonga,united states,fiji,argentina,england to win in 2007.they didnt have to play nz,aus,france,ireland ,wales.

If you look at the teams that NZ and Australia managed to beat the list is even less illustrious. Ireland and Wales were both awful at the world cup so they don't deserve a mention with the rest really. France were pretty dire bar the New Zealand game too.

handsomecake

sock puppet wrote: »

If you look at the teams that NZ and Australia managed to beat the list is even less illustrious. Ireland and Wales were both awful at the world cup so they don't deserve a mention with the rest really. France were pretty dire bar the New Zealand game too.

exactly,france,wales,nz ireland were bad at the world cup because of what i said .it was the teams who played with plenty of niggle,plenty of kicking and up your jumper stuff that went far, argentina,south africa ,england.

but what im saying is on paper even though ireland ,wales,france,nz ,aus didnt play at all well,south africa were still pretty blessed to avoid them all.

sock puppet

handsomecake wrote: »

exactly,france,wales,nz ireland were bad at the world cup because of what i said .it was the teams who played with plenty of niggle,plenty of kicking and up your jumper stuff that went far, argentina,south africa ,england.

but what im saying is on paper even though ireland ,wales,france,nz ,aus didnt play at all well,south africa were still pretty blessed to avoid them all.

You must have watched a different world cup to everyone else. Wales and Ireland were awful full stop. Wales were knocked out by Fiji and Ireland struggled to beat Georgia. You're right that some teams with a more conservative gameplan did well but that was because they all had a good set of forwards, something which Wales and Australia lacked.

handsomecake

sock puppet wrote: »

You must have watched a different world cup to everyone else. Wales and Ireland were awful full stop. Wales were knocked out by Fiji and Ireland struggled to beat Georgia. You're right that some teams with a more conservative gameplan did well but that was because they all had a good set of forwards, something which Wales and Australia lacked.

i must have

JustinDee

twinytwo wrote: »

Thoughts?

I can see them them strolling through the rest of the tri nations and prob hockey the life out of everyone come the AI's.. but can they keep it up all the way to and through the WC?

The pressure won't be any different had they not found this current form ie. it is colossal for them anyway and the expectancy wouldn't change.

toomevara

Good question this, think the AB's have moved the game on in the way they've played this tri-nations, I guess the question is can the major nations like SA Oz and France rise to it?

Amazotheamazing

People forget that the All Blacks had serious injuries in that game against France, they finished the game with their third choice outhalf playing. Very hard to win when you're relying on your third choice in a key position.

PhatPiggins

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

People forget that the All Blacks had serious injuries in that game against France, they finished the game with their third choice outhalf playing. Very hard to win when you're relying on your third choice in a key position.

True but the glut of possession and and territory they had should have been enough regardless of having McCallister at 10(not exactly a huge handicap).

What struck me about that game was NZ's lack of bottle and Henry's coaching blindspots. They had ample chances to work Evans/McCallister into a drop goal positions but after spending 4 years belittling England/JW for winning the 03 WC that way it looked to me that they had never even considered it as an attacking weapon. That and the assumption that they could score tries at will.

Amazotheamazing

PhatPiggins wrote: »

True but the glut of possession and and territory they had should have been enough regardless of having McCallister at 10(not exactly a huge handicap).

McAllister is a good player, he'd walk into a lot of teams but he's not hugely experienced as an outhalf. When you need a guy to get a drop goal at the death, experience is vital, imo. How often had McAllister played outhalf, under that much pressure, in a must win game? Carter on the otherhand can control a game however he likes.

handsomecake

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

McAllister is a good player, he'd walk into a lot of teams but he's not hugely experienced as an outhalf. When you need a guy to get a drop goal at the death, experience is vital, imo. How often had McAllister played outhalf, under that much pressure, in a must win game? Carter on the otherhand can control a game however he likes.

he scored a 63 m penalty today in torrents of rain agianst auckland.maybe he is taking a step in the right direction. i remember watching the game against france in 07 agog that they didnt take a drop goal.if any one can remember,they went through something like 25 -30 phases at the end of the game.it was a crazy match.wayne barnes didnt award nz a single penalty in the second half and dusatoir made something like 30 tackles on his own.it was a crazy crazy game.carter injured,evans injured and the forward pass.christ just thinking about it annoys me.

PhatPiggins

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

McAllister is a good player, he'd walk into a lot of teams but he's not hugely experienced as an outhalf. When you need a guy to get a drop goal at the death, experience is vital, imo. How often had McAllister played outhalf, under that much pressure, in a must win game? Carter on the otherhand can control a game however he likes.

True but they had Evans on the pitch for a good stretch of the time that they only needed 3 points but kept looking for the try!! McAllister was only at 10 for 9/10 minutes

sock puppet

PhatPiggins wrote: »

True but they had Evans on the pitch for a good stretch of the time that they only needed 3 points but kept looking for the try!! McAllister was only at 10 for 9/10 minutes

They might have thought it was a little too early to go for the drop goal with a lot of the match left to go. Even if they did score there's the chance of a French penalty or try.

d'Oracle

twinytwo wrote: »

Thoughts?

I can see them them strolling through the rest of the tri nations and prob hockey the life out of everyone come the AI's.. but can they keep it up all the way to and through the WC?

You can never right off the germans.....Wait......

Judgement Day

Former AB's captain Sean Fitzpatrick in his column here dismisses speculation about the boys peaking too early: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-sport-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502180&objectid=10662788

As several of those agreeing with his piece say - what do people want - the All Blacks to play badly? Any true AB fan wants to see them sweep all before them - roll on Christchurch this Saturday. The Aussies haven't won on New Zealand soil since 2001.

Incidentally there are further ructions in the Aussie camp - hardly a good start ahead of this crucial game. http://www.scrum.com/trinations2010/rugby/story/120661.html

twinytwo

Judgement Day wrote: »

Former AB's captain Sean Fitzpatrick in his column here dismisses speculation about the boys peaking too early: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-sport-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502180&objectid=10662788

As several of those agreeing with his piece say - what do people want - the All Blacks to play badly? Any true AB fan wants to see them sweep all before them - roll on Christchurch this Saturday. The Aussies haven't won on New Zealand soil since 2001.

Incidentally there are further ructions in the Aussie camp - hardly a good start ahead of this crucial game. http://www.scrum.com/trinations2010/rugby/story/120661.html

Its not that they want them to play badly but they cant play awesome all year round i mean i could wrong:pac:

sock puppet

The All Blacks are also relatively injury free right now. The only missing players I can think of are Hore, Sivivatu and Donald. Hore couldn't really start on current form and Donald may have been dropped from the 22 anyway.

From last year's winning team South Africa are missing Du Plessis, Botha through suspension, Smith, Brussow, Du Preez and Pieterson with Steyn gone overseas. Australia are missing Nau, Alexander, Horwill, Palu, Cooper through suspension, Ioane, Hynes and now Horne.

I think even considering those players New Zealand are the best of the lot but I think it's a bit closer than this year's results would suggest.

stephen_n

New interpretations are suiting the AB's but by the WC the Ozies, Saffers and Probably French will have all caught up. Seems to be typical of the all Blacks to peak this early and that usually costs them as the other teams get to study them and counter it. However they have home advantage and it's pretty hard to counter a running game like they have at the moment but it's still too early to tell IMO