Let us know what you think!
Why Were They So Bad...?
How long is it since the All Blacks actually looked convincing on the paddock? It certainly wasn't in the Tri Nations and you could hardly say England were demolished in the three games before that. As we all know, the third test against England was an absolute shocker and we've been crying into our beer ever since.
From what was assumed to be a "hiccup" in the third test against England, New Zealand teams had appeared to dominate the Super 12. Then inexplicably, the All Blacks went on to record their worst string of test defeats in history. If you look carefully at two key Super 12 teams, this in fact may not be surprising, and here's why.
Two New Zealand teams made the Super 12 final - The Crusaders and the Blues. Though the final was an exciting game, particularly for the Cantabrians among us, looking carefully at each teams performance on defense and attack may help explain the dismal All Black performances that followed...
First of all the surprising lack of penetration from the Blues. Admittedly they were up against the best defensive unit in the competition, but they rarely looked sharp enough to break through. A team with firepower like Vidiri, Lomu, Spencer and Cashmore at their disposal should have produced far more fireworks. Having said the Blues were weak on attack, Canterbury too lacked punch in their backline. In fact they were probably worse. Key players often lacked direction and imagination and the back line as a unit didn't have the cohesiveness and inventiveness we've come to expect. The back lines of both teams were often flat and predictable.
For much of the season the Crusaders appeared to base their gameplay around strong and determined defense. It was this stoic stubborn defense that won them the Super 12. Many of their games were won based on the theory that if you don't let the opposition score, you only have to score once to win. Though only theoretical it worked well. The frustration felt by other teams at their inability to score often left holes in their defense which were quickly opened up and exploited.
So how does this relate to the AB's you ask? Well, John Hart selected a back line composed mainly of Cantabrians and Aucklanders. Those who played regularly were Ofisa Tonu'u, Eroni Clark, Jonah Lomu, Joeli Vidiri, Carlos Spencer from the Blues, and Justin Marshall, Andrew Mehrtens, Mark Mayerhofler from the Crusaders. It was a back line made up of players who had been in general performing poorly on attack. Hart expected flair and silky skills from players who had recently been unable to cut through quality opposition in the Super 12. This was horribly obvious against Australia and South Africa where when given the ball and half a chance the backs only rarely tested the opposition defense. They were always quickly shut down with nearly no cutout passes or variations of angle being employed to break through.
Even worse, gaping holes quickly appeared in the All Black back line as incompatible defensive combinations failed. The patterns the Crusaders players had become used to were gone as they struggled to combine with their new teammates. A group of players drilled in defense was unsuccessfully trying to combine with a group of players drilled to attack.
Add to this a flat footed forward pack going backwards, poor player selection (that's another story!), and suddenly 5 test losses in a row is not such a big surprise.
AT
| Hey - who does this guy think he is criticising the mighty Crusaders!
I'll send him away for a weekend with Bernard the Bull Buggering Bastard from
Bedford. That should quieten him down a bit...
|
|
Let us know what you think! |
|