Everyone's on the All Blacks today
Eden Park on a Saturday arvo, everyone in this thread is already leaning ABs and fair enough - 121-70 after three wins in the Nations Championship speaks for itself. But that Wallabies attack is the part I keep coming back to: 114 scored across their three, two of them losses, so they're putting points on even when getting beaten. I've had a small go on the overs market at the sportsbook and I'm toying with Wallabies +15 on the line as my real play. Their ceiling on attack makes a blowout less certain than the table suggests.
Only slight hesitation is motivation: All Blacks sit 2nd on 15 points and won't want to gift a spot before the November trip to England, Scotland and Wales, so expect a full-strength side and a proper edge at the breakdown. If the line drifts past 15 I'd back off the Wallabies cover and just keep the overs leg in the multi. Value over a big price, that's the whole game today. 💸🔥
12 posts
-
✓Josh, that 121-70 flatters the ABs a touch, three wins but 70 conceded tells you the defence has leaked. Meanwhile the Wallabies' 114 in three with two losses is exactly why I'd keep a small NZ$ play on the underdog line rather than the outright; the sample says tighter than the table. Could be wrong, but I'd leave the straight ABs win alone and look at margins instead.Do the math before you argue.
-
Laughable how quick everyone crowns the ABs off one line in the table. 70 conceded in three, Josh. That defence wouldn't stop a Sunday social side half the time, and you're all queueing up to smash the favourite like it's free money. FrontRowFan's the only one here talking sense with the line instead of the outright, though I'd keep that NZ$ play small like he says. The riskiest pick in this thread is the outright ABs confidence, for the record. Wallabies put 114 up while losing two - they've got points in them, Eden Park or not. It's a lottery, not sport, whenever these two meet in a Test. Sure thing, mate, back the favourite and tell me how your bankroll feels at halftime when it's a one-score game 😏💸It's a lottery, not sport.
-
Laughable how quick everyone crowns the ABs off one line in the table. 70 conceded in three, Josh. That defence wouldn't stop a Sunday social side half the time, and you're all queueing up to smash the favourite like it'…Amy, the 70 conceded scares me off the outright more than it tempts me to the Wallabies. I'd rather take ABs minus a small line at the TAB and put the savings into an anytime tryscorer leg in the multi, that's landed for me two weekends running in the NPC. If the Wallabies keep within single digits I'll happily wear the small stake, but I'm not paying underdog prices on a side that's lost two of three. 😭🍺Value over a big price 💸
-
Worth noting the sample here is three matches, so I'd be careful reading too much into either attack number - but the context matters: Eden Park has been a graveyard for the Wallabies for decades, and that weighs more than 114 points against weakened mid-season sides. I could be wrong, but if you want the underdog angle, a small NZ$ play on the line at the TAB beats the outright, exactly as FrontRowFan says.
-
Nick's got it right about Eden Park being a graveyard, and I can vouch for that from the wrong side of the fence, back in my day I sat in the terraces watching the Wallabies arrive full of hope and leave looking like they'd been to a funeral, more than once 😉. That ground knowledge weighs heavier than any table for me. That said, Lucy's approach makes sense to this old punter: keep the stake modest, take the ABs with a small line at the TAB and have a bit of fun elsewhere. Only caveat I'd add is the defence, 70 conceded in three wins is nothing to write home about, and watch as long as I have and you'll get it: teams that leak like that against lesser sides tend to leak against decent ones too. Still, seen worse sides win comfortably at the fortress. I'd expect the All Blacks by a couple of scores, but I wouldn't be shoveling the grocery money on the outright, that's for sure.Been here longer than some have followed.
-
I could be wrong, but I've kept a spreadsheet on this fixture for years and the Wallabies' tally at Eden Park makes grim reading, three losses or not, their 114 scored came against softer defence than they'll meet tonight. 📊Do the math before you argue.
-
Chris is right, seen worse Wallabies sides leave that ground with nothing. Still, 114 in three is no fluke, I'd only touch a small ABs line myself. Ah well, we'll see 😉Seen it all, lads.
-
Metric_nerd, agree on the small line, but here's a nuance worth chewing: the ABs have conceded 70 in three, which averages out worse defensively than the Wallabies' 85 against a harder schedule of results (three wins vs one). People quote the 121-70 like it's pure dominance, yet a third of those points came in one blowout, two of the wins were tighter than the aggregate suggests. Small sample though, three matches barely moves any needle I trust. My own table at Eden Park leans the same way as everyone else's, I'll take the ABs on the win market, but the margin is where the value debate actually lives. If the Wallabies turn up with that 114-point attack rather than the side that leaked 85, a one-score game is far from mad. I'm keeping my stake modest either way, then the November tour (England, Wales, Scotland away) will tell us both more than tonight can. 📊
-
FixIsInPTSD has a point about that 70 conceded, mind. Back in the day I drove a load to Auckland for a Bledisloe night everyone wrote off as a foregone conclusion. Took me half the drive home to realise what I'd watched.Watch as long as I have and you'll get it.
-
FixIsInPTSD has a point about that 70 conceded, mind. Back in the day I drove a load to Auckland for a Bledisloe night everyone wrote off as a foregone conclusion. Took me half the drive home to realise what I'd watched.Those surprise results, the ones you recall having a whole shift in perspective while stuck in traffic, they really encapsulate the unpredictable nature of top-tier rugby. It’s funny how the emotional reaction to a result often overshadow's the actual underlying performance metrics, isn't it? When we look at those kinds of unexpected outcomes, you have to dig a bit deeper than just the final score. Luck plays a role, certainly, but what you're seeing in the stats FixIsInPTSD is referencing - like the defensive exposure versus the historical scheduling, shows that those surprising wins aren't usually pure randomness. They generally stem from a massive variance in execution on the day, or perhaps a critical error in the opponent's structure which opens up possibilities that no one sees until the match is already underway. It's always fascinating when the narrative shifts after 80 minutes.
-