2012 Rugby Championship R5G1 Springbokke vs Wallabies @ the Bull Ring

[vidiot]

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!

Who admitted that the match officials stuffed up? The Aussie team officials?

 

[en_force_er]

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?
.

It's creeping into the game Bruce I promise I'm not making it up.

Basically this move is often used as a transition phase between backs and forwards. The whole forward pod will be aware of what's going on and will get just (so "a foot") past the advantage line then go to ground on purpose, clean out, and place the ball simultaneously thus creating quick ball for the backs and catching the opposition defensive line-out of place.

It's obviously not an always move but when it's done right it CAN work but can fuck up hugely when a team can hold you up, for this watch the Ireland V Wobs WC game.

You may have never heard of it but a plenty of professional teams have this in their repertoire. When you start noticing it happening you'll see what I mean.

 

[Mr Doug]

Who admitted that the match officials stuffed up? The Aussie team officials?

As reported today, by Jim Tucker in Pretoria.

 

[I like to watch]

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.

But your premise says it's the captain's fault, not the general!
Time for yet another premise.

 

[ChargerWA]

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

I have a feeling this is not going to be pretty. I expect the Boks to win purely on enthusiasm.

Wow, I'm more excited to see how the Bokke turn out. Great to see those youngsters getting their turn.

Hmmm, tipped the Bok in a landslide and said nice things about them. Aren't I terrible.

 

[Schadenfreude]

But your premise says it's the captain's fault, not the general!
Time for yet another premise.

So you're saying you believe there's no possible improvement to the team's physical, mental, strategic or cohesive capacity? You think Deans has completely and effectively prepared them, and communicated his orders so there can be no misinterpretation? Because that's the role of the General.

The captain is responsible only if the above has been done, and the players don't execute the plan. And to be fair to our ever-growing list of captains, when Sun Tzu wrote "Captains" he was writing in a military context, so we could probably include the assistant coaching staff as "Captains".

Your premise is that I wan't Link in charge, whereas I honestly have no preference. You're reading some sort of self interest into my position that doesn't exist based on your own self interest. ("First seek to understand before being understood" - you can look that up)

So what's your position? Deans has done nothing wrong and we should continue down the same path?

 

[cyclopath]

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.

Acid would not affect a headless chicken in its running patterns, given it is an hallucinogen. Its static head might be freaked out. Briefly.

 

[I like to watch]

My position is that I believe Nuci is the next in line and he will be worse.
I think Deans is a better coach that many give him credit for.
I don't think Link is the oracle that many think he is.
Would he have done a better job than RD with the current injury list?
I don't know.
I'm not saying Link is not a good coach,merely that others have a higher opinion of him than I do.
With this injury toll, no coach will look great.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I think Deans is a better coach that many give him credit for.

No-one gives him any credit

I don't think Link is the oracle that many think he is.

Not that I've advocated Link in any way, so thanks for bringing him up again (for what purpose I don't know) - but Deans hasn't set the bar high for improvement for whoever.

What you're actually saying is "It's easier to do nothing than face the uncertainty of change". Go and read "Who moved my cheese", listen to John Eales' story about The Bullocks, and watch Band of Brothers (He's not a bad leader because he makes bad decisions. He's a bad leader because he makes no decisions).

 

[I like to watch]

It makes no sense to change unless you believe the alternative is better.
Being a good coach is all about having good cattle.Look at how Henry went with Wales and the British Lions, or even the AB's his first time around.
All our cattle are crook, it doesn't matter who is coaching them ATM.

 

[Schadenfreude]

It makes no sense to change unless you believe the alternative is better.
Being a good coach is all about having good cattle.Look at how Henry went with Wales and the British Lions, or even the AB's his first time around.
All our cattle are crook, it doesn't matter who is coaching them ATM.

What you're saying is, it doesn't matter who the coach is, because it will be the same players?

So why keep him?

 

[Jnor]

If Nuci is next in line - and I think I speak for everyone here in saying I hope to God he's not - then we are well and truly fucked. Surely, surely the ARU could not be so stupid as to not make Link the next Wallaby coach.

 

[Jiggles]

It makes no sense to change unless you believe the alternative is better.
Being a good coach is all about having good cattle.Look at how Henry went with Wales and the British Lions, or even the AB's his first time around.
All our cattle are crook, it doesn't matter who is coaching them ATM.

Henry had excellent cattle with the Lions but it was his piss poor man management that cost him that series. But he learnt from his mistakes and installed an excellent culture within the ABs which had been subsequently torn to shreds and spat on by guess who? Mitchell and Deans. Henry from Lions to All Blacks is an example of a coach putting his ego aside and learning from his mistakes.

Deans in his two international appointments has done the following:

• Incoherent game-plan - check!
• Odd selections both in position and out of position - check!
• setting double standards with regards to fitness - check!
• Piss poor cultural of no accountability - check!
• develop a piss head culture - check!
• Alienate key players - check!

Thats a mighty track record at both the All Blacks and the Wallabies.
Deans has learnt sweet fuck all in his time as an international coach. He has not developed and he continually excuses poor results and passes the buck. The results over his long tenure at the Wallabies is proof of that.

 

[jimmydubs]

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.

6th on the ladder, but best in Oz with no QC (Quade Cooper) most of the year and up against Jake White coached Brums. What was his win % the year before? What's Robbie's win %? This is far from apples and apples but you started the fruit salad

 

[PaarlBok]

Hmmm, tipped the Bok in a landslide and said nice things about them. Aren't I terrible.

Its not about what you qouted on the Boks Boet, its more this line of you

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

Thought you know me much better then that, I take losing on the chin, so pardon me if I get a tad overboard after my team won. It did not happen that many times over the Wallabies in the last couple of years.

 

[southsider]

It's creeping into the game Bruce I promise I'm not making it up.

Basically this move is often used as a transition phase between backs and forwards. The whole forward pod will be aware of what's going on and will get just (so "a foot") past the advantage line then go to ground on purpose, clean out, and place the ball simultaneously thus creating quick ball for the backs and catching the opposition defensive line-out of place.

It's obviously not an always move but when it's done right it CAN work but can fuck up hugely when a team can hold you up, for this watch the Ireland V Wobs WC game.

You may have never heard of it but a plenty of professional teams have this in their repertoire. When you start noticing it happening you'll see what I mean.

dont worry en_force_er i know what your talking about


id imagine the tactic was originally based off touch football and oztag, drawing as many players in as possible then surrendering the touch/tag so they can dump the ball quickly and try to catch defenders offside, very effective in both touch and rugby if done right

 

[Groucho]

Sure precious Can't catch a high ball though

It's not me being precious. We have a community consensus not to call players names like "fucks". If you don't like that then go to another forum.

 

[Antony]

dont worry en_force_er i know what your talking about


id imagine the tactic was originally based off touch football and oztag, drawing as many players in as possible then surrendering the touch/tag so they can dump the ball quickly and try to catch defenders offside, very effective in both touch and rugby if done right

It seems like an extension of Eddie Jones`old phase play philosophy, thinking shifting defenders and maintaining possession across several phases can be worth sacrificing an extra yard or two on individual phases - thus the player occasionally yields right in front of his support. Seems like it makes sense, if that`s what you guys are talking about.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

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.

It turns out it was a strategy with a huge risk and that our highly paid staff were unaware of the rule. We all make mistakes my problem with this one was the absence of an "oh shit" moment when the staff realized they had overlooked a law of which they were otherwise aware.
The other difficulty with the strategy is that it REQUIRES one of our props to get injured late in the game: otherwise, as I understand it, Robinson cannot return to the field. Unless you "know" that your medic is going to deem the LHP unfit to continue at 65 or 70 minutes how can this be a sound approach?
Realization of the foregoing calls in question whether the late game return of FatCat in prior tests has been legitimate: and surely puts the "strategy" in doubt for the future once the IRB reads this post!

Edit: I now see vidiot claiming the match officials have admitted making a mistake but has been asked for clarification.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DannyC]

6th on the ladder, but best in Oz with no QC (Quade Cooper) most of the year and up against Jake White coached Brums. What was his win % the year before? What's Robbie's win %? This is far from apples and apples but you started the fruit salad

True far from apples and apples so maybe you should compare Link win % VS Deans win % in super rugby? only way of being even close to apples and apples.
I do however think Deans has had his run with the Wallabies and it is time for a change but i am not convinced that Link is going to be able to turn around the team quick enough for the rugby public to not lose faith in him.