Search results

Some of that is form. A whole bunch of our players started the year in a form slump and stayed there. They haven't suddenly become bad players. And some is injury. All our top wingers. All our top 12s. The Brumbies for example would've been a very different proposition with Speight, Tomane...

Although I'm not Braveheart, I'll answer regardlesss. :) I'd say he's the best coach we've had since Eddie Jones, which isn't saying much, considering the dross we've had since then. I'd say he's a better coach than Jones was then, but Jones is better now. He's by far the best current...

False binary. There is a wide range of opinion between mediocrity and an unbelievable job. I doubt that anyone on here thinks he's doing an unbelievable job.

Seven changes? That would be a Wallaby record. I think that after the first two wins of the year, some consistency is called for.

Seriously? That's one of the saddest things I've seen written on here.

Don't tell that to the fuddy-duddies. Let's wait till he has proven himself in the NRC.

Good point, but I think I'd be looking to attack their weaknesses, not counter their strengths. McMahon vs. Boks to spread them out, and Timani vs. Pumas to draw them in.

Or David Brockhoff, or Des Connor. Generally speaking, international players don;t make the best coaches. For each one that succeeds ten come through other paths. The closest Steve Hansen got to the All Blacks when playing was organising the pies. Like Graham Henry, although it was the turps...

It really pisses me off. It's the Boris Johnson school of narcissistic journalism, now generally adopted by the SMH rugby pages, where the journalist fluffs themselves up by lambasting some random thing in the most lurid way, positioning it the reason why everything is rooned, and then...

Goddamn it Seb, I'm gonna shout. THREE JUMPERS AND A HOOPER. THREE JUMPERS AND A HOOPER. I SAID THREE JUMPERS AND A HOOPER. ;-) I think it potentially does strengthen the lineout. We scored the most tries off our lineout at the last RWC of any team, with (you guessed it) three jumpers and...

dru, my maths is right but (crucially) speed into the air isn't the main differentiator in lineouts: it's height and skill, just like everyone says. A lineout with just one or two much taller or much more skillful men will dominate. My point is only that a skilful fast man complements three...

Like I said, the problem of the tallest man. I really wasn't talking about playing four Hoopers, as I tried to make clear. A more pertinent comparisonis four Simmons vs. three Simmons and a Hooper. I'd back that one because of the second lineout has the fastest man, in addition to three equal...

I think resting hand height is the right number, dru. (Target hand height - raised resting hand height) gives us distance traveled, and thus r in -GMm/r.

Several points. Firstly, I'm not talking about Hooper (or any shorter, lighter jumper) being used instead of the locks, but as a fourth main target, in addition to the locks and the six / eight, thus giving us four primary options. This isn't a new idea. Hooper has been used in this role at...

I would hope any Wallaby would be able to bring down any player 5m out if they can get both hands on him!

I'm sure the opposite is true. Cheika recruited Holloway and patiently developed him instead of rushing him into the first XV. It's purely a coincidence that his breakout year was after Cheika left to coach the Wobs, and had more to do with Wycliff Palu than Cheika.

I just don't think that their home record this year (two 6-point wins and a 6-point loss to Ireland and a very scratchy 7-point win over Argentina) automatically qualifies them as favourites.

Why can't Hooper be a primary jumper? He may be 18cm shorter than the tallest locks, but he's also 20kg lighter, and thus can be lifted higher, and crucially faster. We dont lose lineouts because their defensive jumper gets higher than our target, but because he gets in front of our man.

That sucks. Thankfully we don't agree.

Possibly!