posted earlier ... and met with some resistance for the three debutants picked
9 Genia
10 To'omua
11 Digby
12 Lilo
13 AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14 JOC (James O'Connor)
15 Mogg
April Wallaby 30 Man Squad
- Thread starter Dumbledore
- Start date
- Status
9 Genia
10 To'omua
11 Digby
12 Lilo
13 AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14 JOC (James O'Connor)
15 Mogg
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Scott Higginbotham selected over Mowen
Richo
John Thornett (49)
A year and two days, I believe. But moving on....
P
Paradox
Guest
Seagulling is the word.
Swat
Chilla Wilson (44)
P
Paradox
Guest
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...eale-the-prime-culprit-for-fumbling-Wallabies
Now you need to provide some examples of his tackling that makes him better defensively than others.
Badger
Bill McLean (32)
There was a logistics camp in January this year.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/w...ney/story-e6frf55l-1226553830355#.UW_ci0qVhCI
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
No. That's just wrong. Deans overtook, or undertook rather, Jones last season. In addition under Eddie, who was average, we never lost 10 in a row to the All Blacks.
Winning the Bledisloe has always been a battle. The All Blacks however, have only been "invincible" since Deans took over as Wallaby coach. Prior to that, even our "5th" ranked Wallabies managed at least a home win annually.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/wiki/wallabies-coaches/\
I may be incorrect, because the EOYT may have put the percentage back in Deans favour. This is the record prior TRC. One less game for one less loss. He did dip below on percentage during The Rugby Championship. I'm unable to find any up to date statistic so I can't confirm whether he is now back above it again.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
What's interesting there is that Bob Dwyer, in his first stint, had 43.75%.
It is not just the Wallabies who've struggled against the All Blacks in recent years.
Since Deans took over as Wallabies coach, the All Blacks have played 63 tests, won 54 of them, drawn one and lost 8.
2 of the losses and the draw have been against the Wallabies.
France and South Africa are the only teams to have beaten the All Blacks in New Zealand (once each).
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
Mowen is part of why the Brumbies is so successful. White have a simple tactic. Boot the ball in the opposition half then either grab their line out or turn over the ball. Mowen is the most successful jumper in the line out in Super RUgby. White the clever analyst he is and what have been identified since the rugby 2007 rugby world cup is that most tries comes from line out. So securing line out ball is number one priority.
Cooper have been kicking a lot and his tactical kicking is poor and hence the reason you see so many Reds players making so many tackles.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
How many home tests had they lost prior to this since say, 2001? I'd wager not too many.
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
Its one of the great honor in sports and one of the great achievements in World sport. Not many has done it in the entire history of the game. Only a few elites have achieved that..... and Rhodesia (Zimabawe)
89 matches, 74 wins, 1 draw, 14 losses. 3 of those 14 losses were at home.
So 83.1% winning record between 2001 and mid 2008 (when Deans took over) against 85.7% from 2008 to now (since Deans took over the Walllabies).
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
The wide range of opinions expressed on this thread and the Wallabies Watch thread, I think, illustrates the uncertainty surrounding the way the Lions tests should be played being felt by the rugby community. This seems to manifest itself in debates about the selection of particular players as well as the selection strategies that should be adopted, ie whether incumbancy should overrule current form and/or potential, particularly when the latter would involve a debutant, or whether a conservative game plan is needed against the Lions. To a degree, I can understand where various posters are coming from. A few Tahs fans have argued strongly in favour of incumbancy maybe because that will see more of their players making the matchday 22. Reds fans seem to favour changing the Wallabies' game plan to be more attacking, and the only way to get that is to have Genia, Cooper and Taps at 9, 10 and 12. Brumbies' fans, including me, tend to say that incumbancy should not take precedence, hoping that a few more in-form Brumbies will be selected.
I would like to put forward the proposition that the Lions tests are not the be-all and end-all of the Wallabies' season. In fact, the real game is still the RC and Bledisloe contests. Will winning or losing to the Lions affect the Wallabies' ranking in any fashion. I don't know, but would be extremely disappointed if that was the case. The Lions do not represent a single rugby playing nation and to my knowledge do not have a ranking. In fact, they are more in the nature of Barbarians matches, though will play a more traditional and competitive game because they are together for a comprehensive tour rather than just being thrown together with almost no preparation time.
So what type of approach and game plan should the Wallabies adopt? Would winning or losing the series affect the Wallabies' position in world rugby? Or would it see Deans appointed for a further period, or alternatively sacked? To my way of thinking, this series should be seen as a forerunner to the real contests later in the year. It would be great to win 3-0, but I would prefer it to be an opportunity to set the Wallabies up for the All Blacks et al. I therefore believe we should be adopting a more attacking game plan, and be selecting the players who are in form and capable of playing to that plan. I do not subscribe to the notion that players should be selected simply because they are incumbant. In similar vein, I do not believe the Lions series should prevent worthy debutants from gaining selection.
I would submit that players who are known to be heading overseas or to other codes ought to be omitted if they will not be available for the later tests. The players selected should otherwise be the best available even if it means they are debuting. Most importantly, they need to be those who have consistently demonstrated sufficient attacking flair to contribute to a game plan that could threaten or even defeat the All Blacks, Saffas and Argies later in the year.
I would like to put forward the proposition that the Lions tests are not the be-all and end-all of the Wallabies' season. In fact, the real game is still the RC and Bledisloe contests. Will winning or losing to the Lions affect the Wallabies' ranking in any fashion. I don't know, but would be extremely disappointed if that was the case. The Lions do not represent a single rugby playing nation and to my knowledge do not have a ranking. In fact, they are more in the nature of Barbarians matches, though will play a more traditional and competitive game because they are together for a comprehensive tour rather than just being thrown together with almost no preparation time.
So what type of approach and game plan should the Wallabies adopt? Would winning or losing the series affect the Wallabies' position in world rugby? Or would it see Deans appointed for a further period, or alternatively sacked? To my way of thinking, this series should be seen as a forerunner to the real contests later in the year. It would be great to win 3-0, but I would prefer it to be an opportunity to set the Wallabies up for the All Blacks et al. I therefore believe we should be adopting a more attacking game plan, and be selecting the players who are in form and capable of playing to that plan. I do not subscribe to the notion that players should be selected simply because they are incumbant. In similar vein, I do not believe the Lions series should prevent worthy debutants from gaining selection.
I would submit that players who are known to be heading overseas or to other codes ought to be omitted if they will not be available for the later tests. The players selected should otherwise be the best available even if it means they are debuting. Most importantly, they need to be those who have consistently demonstrated sufficient attacking flair to contribute to a game plan that could threaten or even defeat the All Blacks, Saffas and Argies later in the year.
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
But Australia in 2001 and a couple of years after that had much better personal than what Deans had?
Just out of interest, who do you think has NOT demonstrated 'sufficient attacking flair'?
Other than a token, misguided (IMO) 'Berrick Barnes' I am unsure as to exactly who falls in this bracket.
.
- Status