2012 Rugby Championship R5G1 Springbokke vs Wallabies @ the Bull Ring

[I like to watch]

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.

And yet you supported the continued selection of the snake shouldered big mouth for years,why the change in standards?

 

[randalf8]

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.

Oh, yeah, I see. Yes they got the ball wide much more often.

The 10 could always line up slightly deeper, but we'll have to wait for that to come back into fashion first.

 

[Jiggles]

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.

I think when Larkham and Gits were around they had options who always hit the line running coming from depth. You don't see that at all now, the backline (or forward runners) are stationary as the 10 gets the ball then they're undeicded or confused as to which line option they should take.

All good teams from the ABs down to some well drilled 15As schoolboy team generally have a number of backline patterns they can run off any phase, say 4 for arguments sake. Then within those patterns they have up to 4 options which the 10 or first receiver can exploit as he chooses.

It looks to me as if the Wallabies have zero patterns and its up to the 10, who ever it may be, to decide on what to do for that phase, then for a runner to see what he is doing and interpret that. to execute like that at test rugby is going to take players with telepathy, to be honest.

 

[kbw]

I think when Larkham and Gits were around they had options who always hit the line running coming from depth. You don't see that at all now, the backline (or forward runners) are stationary as the 10 gets the ball then they're undeicded or confused as to which line option they should take.

All good teams from the ABs down to some well drilled 15As schoolboy team generally have a number of backline patterns they can run off any phase, say 4 for arguments sake. Then within those patterns they have up to 4 options which the 10 or first receiver can exploit as he chooses.

It looks to me as if the Wallabies have zero patterns and its up to the 10, who ever it may be, to decide on what to do for that phase, then for a runner to see what he is doing and interpret that. to execute like that at test rugby is going to take players with telepathy, to be honest.

That would explain why te backs can't catch nor pass properly and more to the point why they are such poor position to recieve the ball

 

[Fireworks]

Anyone know the rationale behind Phipps rarely opting for same way attack in the past two games he's started in?

 

[tigerland12]

Anyone know the rationale behind Phipps rarely opting for same way attack in the past two games he's started in?

Because his game style is basically running around like a headless chicken on acid.

That's not to say he's a bad player, but I don't think structure is what he is best at.

 

[Schadenfreude]

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

And by your logic we have always been dominated. Oh wait, we haven't been.

 

[I like to watch]

And by your logic we have always been dominated. Oh wait, we haven't been.

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[PaarlBok]

Ahhh, a nice bit of good ole Paarl's "wining with humilty and grace" to wash it down with.

Can excuse Randalf being new here but you? You want me to bring back my pre match qoutes?

 

[Schadenfreude]

That makes absolutely no sense.

Your premise:
We were physically dominated.
That's someone other than the coaches fault.

My Premise:
It's the coaches responsibility to prepare the players.
If the players aren't prepared, then the coach hasn't prepared them.
There's more to a game of rugby than brute force, and if you play a larger side there ARE tactics to give yourself supremacy.
If the coach doesn't teach players these tactics (ie prepare them, ensure they are "fit") then who will?

 

[en_force_er]

Anyone know the rationale behind Phipps rarely opting for same way attack in the past two games he's started in?

It's about drawing players into to that particular section of the field to create opportunities on the outside. You can also set up a pod quicker if they simply have to stand up then if they have to stand up then rap around.

So say hypothetically say you divide the field into 3 channels (right, left and middle). You hit the middle for 3 ideally quick phases (left, right, left within the middle channel) then rely on the team setting to attack either the left or right channel (wherever the defence is thinner).

When doing this teams will often deliberately try to only get 1 foot over the advantage line then surrender because it keeps the ball quick and structured.

It can work, but often it doesn't.

 

[I like to watch]

Your premise:
We were physically dominated.
That's someone other than the coaches fault.

My Premise:
It's the coaches responsibility to prepare the players.
If the players aren't prepared, then the coach hasn't prepared them.
There's more to a game of rugby than brute force, and if you play a larger side there ARE tactics to give yourself supremacy.
If the coach doesn't teach players these tactics (ie prepare them, ensure they are "fit") then who will?

Sounds to me like your premise starts with, RD is crap.How can I justify this opinion.
Let's extend that same logic to whom I assume you believe is the natural successor.
His team finished 6th on the ladder in the Super 15 this year, with a success rate of just over 2/3.
This is not an acceptable win rate for most Wobbly supporters.
RD detractors logic would say he has taken them from premiers to also rans in a season.

 

[kiap]

a success rate of just over 2/3

A 66-percent-plus win rate. Most Wobbly supporters would kill for that right now......

 

[Penguin]

Oh and before I forget, here you go Penguin, meet Beanber, he'll be your avatar for the month. You're welcome:

I deserve this avatar for making silly bets!

Cheers PiXeL_Ninja, you're a good sport

 

[Jiggles]

That avatar is just um, yeah..

 

[Penguin]

Might not see me much for the next month

 

[Bruce Ross]

So say hypothetically say you divide the field into 3 channels (right, left and middle). You hit the middle for 3 ideally quick phases (left, right, left within the middle channel) then rely on the team setting to attack either the left or right channel (wherever the defence is thinner).

When doing this teams will often deliberately try to only get 1 foot over the advantage line then surrender because it keeps the ball quick and structured.

Eh? I must have been nodding off whenever this tactic has been deployed, en_force_er. Trying "to only get 1 foot over the advantage line" you say, then surrendering? A very modest if somewhat precise objective. It wouldn't exactly be wearing the defence down or causing them to commit many men to the tackle area.

Do the teams which "often deliberately try" to advance just "1 foot" win many games?
.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Sounds to me like your premise starts with, RD is crap.How can I justify this opinion.
Let's extend that same logic to whom I assume you believe is the natural successor.
His team finished 6th on the ladder in the Super 15 this year, with a success rate of just over 2/3.
This is not an acceptable win rate for most Wobbly supporters.
RD detractors logic would say he has taken them from premiers to also rans in a season.

Actually my premise is most succinctly expressed in "The Art of War". It's the General's responsibility to plan and to be understood. If the general is understood and the troops still don't do do as their told its the responsibility of the captain.

What is absent from this whole situation is a bit of OWNERSHIP.

It's my premise that if you make a mistake and don't improve from it you should move aside.

 

[vidiot]

a success rate of just over 2/3.
This is not an acceptable win rate for most Wobbly supporters.
RD detractors logic would say he has taken them from premiers to also rans in a season.

If the wallabies were premiers last season (ie world cup holders) I think most of us would be a little more satisfied with our current status as also rans in danger of finishing in the wrong half of the table. We really could blame injuries.

 

[Mr Doug]

So Morahan to be reserve (full) back, and the addmission that a match official stuffed up with the substitutions, (not the Aussie team officials), shows that the drama continues for our beleaguered Wallabies!