L
Leonidas
Guest
Like Mallet said - I don't care about this competition really. This has been a good lesson, at a good time, to learn ahead of the World Cup.
Interesting discussion just now about the call for uncontested scrums. Who made the call in the Springbok camp?
Like Mallet said - I don't care about this competition really. This has been a good lesson, at a good time, to learn ahead of the World Cup.
What grind my gears is that the same is being said every time we lose. Honestly, the All Blacks didn't play that good today.
Our starting 15 was all round good except for Hendricks, what an abortion of a player ....... and then once we made changes, Strauss, Trevor, Koch, Flip - our game went to hell.
Do not want Jean back, De Allende and Kriel work bloody well and they need to stay.
The Boks played gave everything and played very well in keeping the ABs subdued for the first 50-60 minutes. But a tiring Bok team with too many changes forced at the same time will never keep up with the ABs for 80 minutes.
Schalk didn't contest the decision... and Heyneke acted like Heyneke.
Similar to last week against the Aussies.
Schalk didn't contest the decision... and Heyneke acted like Heyneke.
There just seemed to be a lot more purpose today, but the Boks were ultimately let down by the depth of the bench and timings of the subs.
But the starting 15 all played very well and the trick must now be to mix up the 23 so that the introduction of the subs is a strength rather than today where it was a weakness. Ok, some of the timings were forced, but mixing it up a bit with for example, Whitely starting and Louw, a super strong influential player, being introduced later.
I thought a real positive today was with the backs where 11-15 all played well and prodded away nicely at the ABs defence. As has already been said, De Allende and Kriel surely have to stay at centre, but knowing Meyer, JdV will be straight back into the team as soon as he can walk again.
Was wondering if Nyakane himself couldn't have spoken up?
About our try was it in or out as it looked in to me.
Short.
“We were brilliant at the breakdown and our plan worked perfectly. But it was a big blow when Jannie du Plessis went off, and then Vincent Koch, who did well as his replacement, also went off. If two tightheads go off the referee has to protect the players, and it was probably the right call to order uncontested scrums, but it did change the game for us.
...
Meyer said that the Boks would probably have won the game despite the injuries had they been awarded the decision off a 50/50 TMO call when De Jager reached out to dot down what would have been the Boks’ third try. There was also a call that went against Heinrich Brussow earlier on when he was over the line.
“These two teams are so close together that it is small things that make the difference. There were two millimetres in it this week if you think about Lood’s try, and it was the same last week when we lost and there were 50/50 TMO calls. Had that try been awarded that would have been the game.”
Hansen appeared to concur with Meyer’s view on both the TMO decisions and the injuries when he pinpointed the five minutes when his team was under severe pressure at the time of the De Jager TMO call as what made the difference between his team winning and losing.
“It was that five minutes of defending our hearts out that won it for us,” said the All Black coach.
“Had they scored then it would have been really difficult for us to come back into the game. They also had injuries that led to golden oldie scrums. We had Sam Whitelock off at that point due to a yellow card and had we been scrumming seven against eight we would have been in trouble. That was crucial.”