2012 Rugby Championship R5G1 Springbokke vs Wallabies @ the Bull Ring

[waratahjesus]

A good test for most things in rugby is "what would the all blacks do?".
I dont see them adopting this strategy.

We have lost 10 bleds in a row, I think copying the all blacks is to ensure that we never catch up. I don't know if I agree with the strategy or not but our plan should be what's best for our players not what there doing elsewhere.

 

[Ruggo]

Finally watched it for various reasons.
I won't rehash all the injury issues - except to say the sheer volume of them in Aus rugby of late cannot be all bad luck, and I agree S & C and some poor techniques (AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), TPN etc) have to be looked at far more closely.
For us, a couple of good patches, with some great commitment at times. Hooper, Beale gave us something, Sharpe solid, McCabe honest and never gave up, but that's about it. Flat, static attack again most of the time, defence good at times but some bad reads also.
The Bokke - far more physicality, urgency with better support play, front foot runners. Far from perfect, which is a worry as we were far from them. A good win.

I think Harris gave it an almighty crack when he was on.

 

[jimmydubs]

I admit I don't pay all that much attention to Aussie substitution decisions, but I thought the plan is to have him go nuts for 30 mins, let him rest for another 30 mins and then plan for an injury to one of the other props at about the 60 minute mark so he can come on for a frenetic final 20 minutes.

Nothing wrong with the strategy apart from the fact it means you effectively only have a 6 man bench. It only came unstuck because there were so many injuries.

Agree. I mean having that strategy means that you can only every use 6 of your 7. Which is just daft. You have a 7 man bench and the last few weeks Deans has picked that bench KNOWING he can't use one. Probably didn't bother him given his non-bench-using history. But it clobbered him this time. It's been time for the BONE for year (or more). Time to give it.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

G'day Pixel Ninja,
I am a little disappointed with your choice of avatar for Penguin. I would have much more vindictive. Anyhow, I guess that you are Saffer based when you refer to staying up to watch the Men in Gold resolutely defeat Los Pumas next week.

Over here we won't be staying up like you suggest. A 9am (local) or 10 am with Daylight savings game of Rugby on Fox is a very nice way to start a lazy Sunday Morning before heading off to Church.

Some wags may say that their Sunday Church will start at 9am/10am with a service in honour of St William of Webb-Ellis.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

At least we smashed the saffas in the cricket tonight.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bruce Ross]

A 9am (local) or 10 am with Daylight savings game of Rugby on Fox is a very nice way to start a lazy Sunday Morning before heading off to Church.

Those of you who are so devout that you are prepared to give up a perfectly good Sunday morning to go to church - at least you miss the Mormons when they come knocking - should consider going to early mass this coming Sunday. Our boys in Argentina need you to go before the game not after. They desperately need your prayers, and perhaps you might take the trouble to invest in lighting a dozen candles as well.
.

 

[troxler]

At least we smashed the saffas in the cricket tonight.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2

Fuck yes was another huge game by watson!!

 

[en_force_er]

Sorry - I have to call bullshit on this one. Being physically dominated is caused by a lack of preparation. And who is responsible for preparation? The coach.

Could be that or a huge variety of other things. It's likely a combination of many things.

Didn't think it's that wildly controversial to suggest a coach isn't 100% to blame for all loses.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

We have lost 10 bleds in a row, I think copying the all blacks is to ensure that we never catch up. I don't know if I agree with the strategy or not but our plan should be what's best for our players not what there doing elsewhere.

Well the full version is what would the NZers do? It only applies to rugby!
It's not copying them its a means of testing our performance: take the Beale kick just after half time. Would the ABs do that? No!
Would NZ allow a situation to develop in which our best option is to play a prop for 25 minutes? No.
Would NZ appoint Deans coach? No!
See how reliable it is just from those random examples?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lindommer]

Deans & Egerton should offer to resign immediately. It is clear they were oblivious to the 7 replacement substitution? rule but Jean De Villiers was well aware of it - he explained it to Sharpie when Rolland was telling the 2 captains they were going to uncontested scrums. Egerton argued the toss with Roland so there is no doubt they did not know the law. If a player, in the heat of battle can work it out, how come our coaches can't when they are planning for a match? Surely it's Test Match Coaching 101.

Having been a referee and a Level II touchie in the past I've never quite got the gist of the replacement/substitution definitions. The Laws seem to say replacements are for those injured and substitutions are for those not. See here: http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/Law_3_EN.pdf That Law states a team can have up to seven substitutions (two front rowers and five others) but no mention of the number of replacements. Another section of that Law mentions replacements/substitutions in one breath. And another section states the union with jurisdiction over the match may alter these numbers. I'd suggest a sideline lawyer may have been able to successfully argue Australia were allowed to run Fainga'a on under Laws 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14.

As clear as mud. Are there any other SANZAR competition rules we don't know about?

 

[I like to watch]

Sorry - I have to call bullshit on this one. Being physically dominated is caused by a lack of preparation. And who is responsible for preparation? The coach.

This is the most ridiculous statement of this thread.By your logic, a club team coached by Link would physically dominate most international sides.

 

[Dam0]

Having been a referee and a Level II touchie in the past I've never quite got the gist of the replacement/substitution definitions. The Laws seem to say replacements are for those injured and substitutions are for those not. See here: http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/Law_3_EN.pdf That Law states a team can have up to seven substitutions (two front rowers and five others) but no mention of the number of replacements. Another section of that Law mentions replacements/substitutions in one breath. And another section states the union with jurisdiction over the match may alter these numbers. I'd suggest a sideline lawyer may have been able to successfully argue Australia were allowed to run Fainga'a on under Laws 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14.

As clear as mud. Are there any other SANZAR competition rules we don't know about?

I agree with the sentiment about there being a bit of confusion, although I think that if you really look at the laws closely, Rolland got it exactly right and its pretty hard to argue with him.

Unlike Inside Shoulder, I don't blame Deans or the other Wallaby staff for the move; it was clearly a preplanned strategy to get the best out of the 3 props (some might say its a little cynical, but whatever) which only came unstuck because of the absurd numbers of injuries that happened. Given there is so much going on, and the slight ambiguity in the laws I'd suggest there was a better than even chance that they would have gotten away with it. It just happened to be Australia's bad luck that Rolland was the ref because he is the biggest stickler for the laws amongst the pro refs.

I can recall a similar situation in a Bledisloe in Sydney (?) a few years ago when the AB's brought their halfback back on to replace another halfback who was injured (not a bloodbin like in the Semi at the RWC). Despite objections from the team and other officials, the referee at the time just shrugged his shoulders and let it happen. Rolland should be admired for sticking to his guns and not allowing the breach.

 

[randalf8]

Just rewatched the game. If Beale is going to have a serious crack at 10 for the wobs he needs to learn to be decisive with ball in hand. To many times he got the ball rather flat, jinked one way, decided maybe that wasn't the best way, then the other way might be an option, finally isolating himself or chucking a speculator.

Mind you its not an issue isolated to just Beale at 10, it happened to Cooper last fortnight. If he was running a team which had a plan, and runners understanding which lines they should be running he would be able to make proper decisions. Phipps also panicked and flung him the ball a number of times too. Phipps looked confused most of the game. He is a very ordinary decision maker.

and, uh, every other game he's played for the wallabies.

 

[en_force_er]

Just rewatched the game. If Beale is going to have a serious crack at 10 for the wobs he needs to learn to be decisive with ball in hand. To many times he got the ball rather flat, jinked one way, decided maybe that wasn't the best way, then the other way might be an option, finally isolating himself or chucking a speculator.

Mind you its not an issue isolated to just Beale at 10, it happened to Cooper last fortnight. If he was running a team which had a plan, and runners understanding which lines they should be running he would be able to make proper decisions. Phipps also panicked and flung him the ball a number of times too. Phipps looked confused most of the game. He is a very ordinary decision maker.

It seems to me that we're playing a game plan where the 10 stands flat and is meant to feed early and leave the 2nd receiver with the time and space. Who is usually 2nd receiver? Barnes (despite wearing 15).

This is the way Gitts and Larkham played for years with much success. Whenever this is the right way to play for the CURRENT Wobs is in question but this is a way of attacking that can work.

So when Quade and KB (Kurtley Beale) look like they're fresh out of options (and they often did) it's because they are meant to feed early, not jink around until the pass option is gone.

The 10 needs to make and execute his decision quickly otherwise the attack will be stilted, particular when the opposition are racing up hard in the centres.

NOTE: I could be wrong, I've never been a back but I certainly have read about and watched a heap of backs tactics.

 

[Scotty]

Finally watched it for various reasons.
I won't rehash all the injury issues - except to say the sheer volume of them in Aus rugby of late cannot be all bad luck, and I agree S & C and some poor techniques (AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), TPN etc) have to be looked at far more closely.
For us, a couple of good patches, with some great commitment at times. Hooper, Beale gave us something, Sharpe solid, McCabe honest and never gave up, but that's about it. Flat, static attack again most of the time, defence good at times but some bad reads also.
The Bokke - far more physicality, urgency with better support play, front foot runners. Far from perfect, which is a worry as we were far from them. A good win.

McCabe got caught doing some pretty serious ball watching for the break that should have lead to the Goosen try (Boks look to be dudded on that one.) It was stuff that wouldn't be accepted in schoolboys from McCabe.

 

[randalf8]

This is the way Gitts and Larkham played for years with much success.

How do you measure "success", may I ask?

For all th nostalgia, those teams weren't much better than the current one. Win all your home tests but for those against NZ, rarely win in SA, struggle in the North in November and get raped in New Zealand.

I guess they didn't drop tests to Samoa and Scotland, though Giteau was part of that also.

 

[Scotty]

This is the most ridiculous statement of this thread.By your logic, a club team coached by Link would physically dominate most international sides.

So what happened between this game and Perth then? Did our players shrink?

 

[randalf8]

So what happened between this game and Perth then? Did our players shrink?

Perhaps they didn't apply themselves adequately? Is that the fault of the coach?

 

[en_force_er]

How do you measure "success", may I ask?

For all th nostalgia, those teams weren't much better than the current one. Win all your home tests but for those against NZ, rarely win in SA, struggle in the North in November and get raped in New Zealand.

I guess they didn't drop tests to Samoa and Scotland, though Giteau was part of that also.

Success in this case means they got more ball to 3rd receiver and wider. I'm purely discussion the merit of a tactic, not the merit of a team or player.

Those blokes were at their peak when I knew nothing of rugby, no nostalgia goggles here merely attempted tactical analysis.

 

[I like to watch]

So what happened between this game and Perth then? Did our players shrink?

What's your point? There were no coaching changes.