RWC 2015 final - All Blacks vs. Wallabies - Saturday 4pm

Billy86

Digifriendly wrote: »

No they didn't. They lost to France in Paris in a warm up pre RWC.

Yes, but France are an unbeatable machine that New Zealand were lucky to avoi- oh, wait.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, but France are an unbeatable machine that New Zealand were lucky to avoi- oh, wait.

Not sure what point you trying to make. If your being sarcastic your coming across more smug than anything else.

Yeah_Right

I have to admire the persistence of KingBrian2. No matter how often his arguments are destroyed with facts, he keeps going. He sticks to his guns.
Much like the Welsh team against 13 man Australia. They kept going with the same plays again and again and again because they knew they would eventually get the desired result.

Billy86

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I have to admire the persistence of KingBrian2. No matter how often his arguments are destroyed with facts, he keeps going. He sticks to his guns.
Much like the Welsh team against 13 man Australia. They kept going with the same plays again and again and again because they knew they would eventually get the desired result.

Or the mighty English against a 14 man, injury decimated Wales. :pac:

Kiwi in IE

Billy86 wrote: »

Or the mighty English against a 14 man, injury decimated Wales. :pac:

Yes but if Wales hadn't have beaten them in that game they would have cruised through the 1/4's, semis and gone on to win the tournament. Then the SH teams would have met their match rather than playing the finals between their unimpressive selves.

Bridge93

I'm lost for words at this point. This is the most ridiculous idea I think I've heard on here possibly ever unless it's a windup. There are literally no facts or stats that back up anything KingBrian2 is saying. Not one. total disregard for any that point this out and then pulls nonsense from all sorts of places.

captbarnacles

England bossed that match for so long, its amazing they managed to lose. Hard to know where they'd have gone after a win. Momentum is huge particularly at home. All that said, Lancaster wasn't sure who his best 10 or centres were so probably nowhere

KingBrian2

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes but if Wales hadn't have beaten them in that game they would have cruised through the 1/4's, semis and gone on to win the tournament. Then the SH teams would have met their match rather than playing the finals between their unimpressive selves.

You keep saying that England or Wales are the sides that would have won the tournament I did not say that but what I did say was that South Africa and Australia were poor during the entire competition. The English Welsh match was a really good game in comparison to the Australian New Zealand game. Yes I saw a brave Australia come out and score two tries but the English would definitely have tested the All Blacks or so would have the Welsh or Irish.

In any case the All Blacks won with little in the way of opposition. They were miles ahead of any of the other teams. Kick to the corners, win your line outs and lets not forget the Australian were defending too deep if they were defending from a position up in the All Blacks half they could have pinned them back. The All Blacks looked suspect at the scrum a decent scrumming side with attacking flare could have breached their lines. You not going to beat them defending so deep.

Bridge93

Did you or did you not see Australia humiliate England by 20 points on their home pitch!?

Also: the English scrum was demolished by Australia

KingBrian2

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes but if Wales hadn't have beaten them in that game they would have cruised through the 1/4's, semis and gone on to win the tournament. Then the SH teams would have met their match rather than playing the finals between their unimpressive selves.

The Australians were defending way too deep. Had they kicked their corners, won their lineouts they would have been able to keep the All Blacks pinned back who's scrum was suspect.

Stheno

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Australians were defending way too deep. Had they kicked their corners, won their lineouts they would have been able to keep the All Blacks pinned back who's scrum was suspect.

Do you know what the possession stats were for the final?

KingBrian2

Stheno wrote: »

Do you know what the possession stats were for the final?

That's the point I making the Australians gave to much ball to the All Blacks. The match was over by half time. I was saying to myself midway through half time they have this match in the bag.

Stheno

KingBrian2 wrote: »

That's the point I making the Australians gave to much ball to the All Blacks. The match was over by half time. I was saying to myself midway through half time they have this match in the bag.

Australia didn't have the possession to do what you are suggesting is what I meant.

Midway through the second half NZ had 69% possession

You can't do an awful lot if you don't have the ball.

KingBrian2

Stheno wrote: »

Australia didn't have the possession to do what you are suggesting is what I meant.

Midway through the second half NZ had 69% possession

You can't do an awful lot if you don't have the ball.

Agreed which is why you kick for territory and win your lineouts. The English, French can play the field well and Wales have great runners. Australia was relying totally on defending within their own half. In the second half they put it up to them and a noticeable difference occurred.

Stheno

KingBrian2 wrote: »

In the second half they put it up to them and a noticeable difference occurred.

For the ten minutes NZ were down to 14

Bridge93

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Agreed which is why you kick for territory and win your lineouts. The English, French can play the field well and Wales have great runners. Australia was relying totally on defending within their own half. In the second half they put it up to them and a noticeable difference occurred.

I'll repeat. Did you not see Australia humiliate England at their home ground? Don't even try to bring Franve into it they are a shambles including their lineout.

KingBrian2

Bridge93 wrote: »

I'll repeat. Did you not see Australia humiliate England at their home ground? Don't even try to bring Franve into it they are a shambles including their lineout.

Maybe Australia peaked too soon. Either way I won't disagree with the deserved champions even though the teams they were up against were uncharacteristically poor.

captbarnacles

I see a little bit where Brian is coming from . Nz did not face the best 2 teams in the NH who with their BEST 15 would give them a game but through injuries and poor performances neither got far enough.

sydthebeat

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/rwc-final-ruck-analysis-all-blacks-v-wallabies/

i enjoy reading deep analysis like this, really gives a truer story to what is harder to see watching the game.

Just shows why mccaw truely is one of the best ever.

Had a quick chat to my old man back in NZ this morning. Always love hearing his biased rants about the All Blacks.

His opinion is that Genia should have been yellow carded for whacking the ball out of Smiths(?) hands after the forward pass, as it's the exact same offence as Habana last week - professional foul. Wouldn't that have been something?!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Basil3 wrote: »

Had a quick chat to my old man back in NZ this morning. Always love hearing his biased rants about the All Blacks.

His opinion is that Genia should have been yellow carded for whacking the ball out of Smiths(?) hands after the forward pass, as it's the exact same offence as Habana last week - professional foul. Wouldn't that have been something?!

Bloody Kiwi's! Two World Cups in a row and still you find something to gripe about

captbarnacles

McCaw could have been yellow carded for cynically trying to bring down the maul that Aus scored from. I'm not saying that was the right decision but there was precedence set in semi-final where Habana was carded even though NZ scored anyways in that move.

lunarhog

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/top-10-moments-of-the-2015-rwc/

Some nice moments in there!