Argentina v Australia TRC Round 4 Sunday 8 September 5am (AEST)

[Wilson]

I always thought of world class as meaning a player that would get picked in a world 23. I don't think we getting anyone in there.

That's a very narrow definition that doesn't really fit with how people use it - World Class isn't the best player in the position in the world, it's competing at the highest level for that position. Selecting a world 23 is a useful starting point, but the line for World Class is in consideration for it, not would be picked for it.

The number of world class players per position can also vary wildly in a way that best 23 doesn't account for - there might be one half back so dominant as to not even bother talking about others, 5-10 wingers all killing it and competing at a similar level while bringing different games that makes it hard to rule any of them out of the hypothetical.

 

[Pfitzy]

Maybe getting rid of the rebels will help

Number of Super teams isn't as big a factor as what feeds them.

The systems that get kids from U6 into a senior program are badly lacking, and we need to realign them desperately. Hopefully that is part of Horne's remit, because you can't change high performance unless you're feeding enough fuel into it.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

This is going to be what happens with our current cattle. We always turn and blame coaches and administration and don't get me wrong they have well and truly fucked things up over the last 20 years repeatedly but our players aren't up to the standard required to routinely win International Tests. Are they the best we have? I'd say yes but they just aren't up to it.

The way I see it you need the following Test standard players to be a genuine competitor in every game you play. (By Test standard I mean could get picked for other top international sides.

Prop: 4 (we have 2)
Hooker: 2 (we have 0)
Second Row: 3 (Maybe 1)
Blindside: 2 (we have 1)
Openside: 2 (we have 1)
Number 8: 1 (we have 0) - Valetini might be able to do it but as on now hes my 1 Blindside
Halfback: 2 (we have 0)
Flyhalf: 2 (we have 0)
Inside Centre: 1 (we have 0)
Outside Centre: 1 (we have 1)
Winger: 3 (We have 1) - I think of Koro but he seems on the slide now
Fullback: 1 (we have 0) - Wright has improved tbf

So my dumb brain thought you need at least 24 legit top level talents. As far as I consider we have 7 maybe 8 if Wright keeps improving.

We'll win an occasional Test v good nations when everyone is fit and firing and the sub standard players do their best but overall we will just be in the chase group of nations until more talent is brought through or held on to.

When do we make the hard calls on a few older players who are legends but past it and won't get it back?

 

[cyclopath]

Marce has it pretty much right funnily enough. I was referring to all athletes, not just rugby players, and meant to add ‘on a per capita basis’.

But how does that help us with rugby? Those Olympic and Commonwealth stats are skewed big time by swimming, by the way.
You think "we can make it happen if we want to" but there has been little evidence of that for a long time.

 

[Ignoto]

Commonwealth results, Olympic Games results, number of sports where both countries are powerhouses.

We're seen as a "powerhouse" as we were one of the first nations to pile money into female sports and we're reaping the rewards for it. The girls absolutely clean up in the swimming.

But not all athletes are built the same. Just because we have good athletes certain sports, does not mean it translates into good athletes in Rugby 15 side.

Just because we have slender boys and girls good a swimming or cyclists who can ride a bike does not mean they would be a good flyhalf, prop, hooker or anywhere else.

We seem to have a massive chub for wanting to pick "big blokes", but look at the traditional large men sports at the Olympics. When was the last time we were consistently good at power lifting, wrestling, any explosive track or field event ie 100-200, object throwing.

There's a raft of reasons why were also doing so well on the Commonwealth tally. Of the commonwealth, how many of those first world nations actually have the funding in the sporting bodies like we do?

It's just a silly metric to even use when you look past the medals.

 

[Dctarget]

It was nice being able to listen to my podcasts again last week. Oh well, back into the void.

I switched off the last 30. What happened to Koroibete, was it just poor positioning?

Especially painful as Nawaqanitwase has had such a successful debut weekend in league.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

We're seen as a "powerhouse" as we were one of the first nations to pile money into female sports and we're reaping the rewards for it. The girls absolutely clean up in the swimming.

But not all athletes are built the same. Just because we have good athletes certain sports, does not mean it translates into good athletes in Rugby 15 side.

Just because we have slender boys and girls good a swimming or cyclists who can ride a bike does not mean they would be a good flyhalf, prop, hooker or anywhere else.

We seem to have a massive chub for wanting to pick "big blokes", but look at the traditional large men sports at the Olympics. When was the last time we were consistently good at power lifting, wrestling, any explosive track or field event ie 100-200, object throwing.

There's a raft of reasons why were also doing so well on the Commonwealth tally. Of the commonwealth, how many of those first world nations actually have the funding in the sporting bodies like we do?

It's just a silly metric to even use when you look past the medals.

In terms of Olympic Lifting it's a fairly niche sport in aus that really we find out best in Crossfit which then takes away from their ability in Olympic Lifting... sounds silly I know. If Power lifting was in the Olympics we'd go alright. We have world class lifters in that but it's a rogue sport in regards to drug testing so it'll never be in the Olympics.

It is a moot point like you say as we are more likely have blokes in the Rugby codes who if they picked Discuss would probably be elite at it.

Aussies play sports. We have good weather and money to do it. I always laugh at the winter Olympics that it's just rich nations having a holiday. Can't recall too many Afgan snow sport teams even though they have plenty of it.

They have tried the sprinter route with Trae Williams who had a bit of a background in the sport but it didn't work out. Wasn't Caderyn Neville an Australian Youth Rower? One of the only sports that you think could transition locks. Fully dependant on ability in contact though.

 

[Pfitzy]

Fact the First: We don't keep enough players in the ranks - in fact if you were to look at our systems as a complete outsider, you would wonder why the designers of such a poor-looking trifle had baked in certain factors like culling players at U15, U18, and U20 level.

Fact the Second: we don't have the infrastructure to give these players the kind of toughening up they need, from the formative years through to seniors. None of our club competitions or age programs are fit for purpose in developing pro-ready players; we're throwing guys with less than 30 professional games into Test rugby, out of necessity.

Fact the Third: solutions are unlikely in the current environment, because there are too many people saying nothing is wrong, and another tranche of people flapping their hands and saying "we can't change it because X". The former need to be sidelined, and the latter need to grow a pair and start pushing back.

Fact the Fourth: the talent is there. We're just too stupid/blind/stubborn as a code to embrace the necessary changes. Hopefully Peter Horne can talk some sense into the obstructions.

I mean, we can keep doing what we're doing and watch the game die. I'm certainly working my arse off to try and help, but when I get pats on the head from wankers who think I don't understand how it all works, I wonder why.

Easier to just go buy a Swans membership.

 

[KOB1987]

But how does that help us with rugby? Those Olympic and Commonwealth stats are skewed big time by swimming, by the way.
You think "we can make it happen if we want to" but there has been little evidence of that for a long time.

I’m aware of the swimming skew, also cycling to an extent and usually rowing. A country like France has its skewed to things like fencing.

My point is about getting more people playing rugby, or more to the point sticking with it. Which ultimately comes down to being able to offer more professional contracts at competitive values, which involves a professional pathway into the 4/5 super rugby sides.

Edit: I just read Pfitzy’s post above, which is bang on and an extrapolated version of my thinking

 

[dru]

Fact the Third: solutions are unlikely in the current environment, because there are too many people saying nothing is wrong, and another tranche of people flapping their hands and saying "we can't change it because X". The former need to be sidelined, and the latter need to grow a pair and start pushing back.

All your facts are right, but this is the one that seriously blows my mind.

 

[emuarse]

Yeah correct. This is not the worst situation the game has been in here and other sides have copped hidings and come back from them. Anyone remember when we beat England 76-0 or South Africa 49-0? Both of those teams went on to win World Cups, South Africa in the following year.

Last night's result is not great but it's not the death of the game here or anything.

I think you'll find that England side was their 'B' team. At the time. they left their 'A' team at home. Just saying.

 

[Derpus]

All your facts are right, but this is the one that seriously blows my mind.

I mean - shortly after Raelene got axed by Phil Kearns he gave an interview stating everything was rosy now that she was gone and that we had exciting playmaking prospects coming through the development pathways. The exciting prospect being Edmed...

These people are idiots.

 

[Derpus]

That's a very narrow definition that doesn't really fit with how people use it - World Class isn't the best player in the position in the world, it's competing at the highest level for that position. Selecting a world 23 is a useful starting point, but the line for World Class is in consideration for it, not would be picked for it.

The number of world class players per position can also vary wildly in a way that best 23 doesn't account for - there might be one half back so dominant as to not even bother talking about others, 5-10 wingers all killing it and competing at a similar level while bringing different games that makes it hard to rule any of them out of the hypothetical.

Yeah I agree with this. 'Would get picked' could cover a number of players in each position except where there is a clear stand-out.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Hard to disagree with anything Pfitzy said above. I remain steadfast in my view that all is not lost, but change is clearly required. I applaud everyone who is fighting the good fight to effect it. Hopefully Horne will roll his sleeves up and get us on a better path.

 

[Pfitzy]

All your facts are right, but this is the one that seriously blows my mind.

Usually through self-interest.

There are individuals and clubs who think that everything is peachy because their club/school/corner of the rugby landscape is fine. Such people don't tend to have more than a few brain cells to rub together. Inbreeding? I dunno.

 

[Marce]

But not all athletes are built the same. Just because we have good athletes certain sports, does not mean it translates into good athletes in Rugby 15 side.

But in the case of Australia. This country has been a power rugby nation just 20 years ago. Maybe 10 years ago with the 2015 RWC squad that was probably the last great Wallaby team that lost a RWC Grand final against the 2015 All Blacks who are the best rugby team in Professional Era for most of the experts

Just because we have slender boys and girls good a swimming or cyclists who can ride a bike does not mean they would be a good flyhalf, prop, hooker or anywhere else.

That's a good point cause swimming is one of the most expensives sports in terms of infraestructure and physical conditioning. An Olympic swimming pool is expensive as hell and an Olympic swimmer have to train for hours and eat something like 10k calories per day. For that reason only developed countries with HUGE budgets can be succesfull in that sport. You never gonna see a medal gold swimmer from Haiti or Nepal. It's very expensive.

Argentina can't get 2 or 3 Olympic medalists in swimming due to their cost but they can manage to grow their rugby and get 120 professional rugby players most of them palying in Top European competitions and in their 2 semi-professional franchises. Meanwhile their current U20s players are bigger and faster than the Junior Wallabies.

And Australia has excellent atheletes in Rugby League and Aussie Rules which are very similar sport to Rugby Union. Not the same but you can get a lock from AFL or an inside centre from the NRL. It's not gonna happen cause they are the big boys and you are the younger brother but you have the athletes. The main problem is rugby became in a tiny sport and nobody cares about it

 

[Yoda]

This is going to be what happens with our current cattle. We always turn and blame coaches and administration and don't get me wrong they have well and truly fucked things up over the last 20 years repeatedly but our players aren't up to the standard required to routinely win International Tests. Are they the best we have? I'd say yes but they just aren't up to it.

The way I see it you need the following Test standard players to be a genuine competitor in every game you play. (By Test standard I mean could get picked for other top international sides.

Prop: 4 (we have 2)
Hooker: 2 (we have 0)
Second Row: 3 (Maybe 1)
Blindside: 2 (we have 1)
Openside: 2 (we have 1)
Number 8: 1 (we have 0) - Valetini might be able to do it but as on now hes my 1 Blindside
Halfback: 2 (we have 0)
Flyhalf: 2 (we have 0)
Inside Centre: 1 (we have 0)
Outside Centre: 1 (we have 1)
Winger: 3 (We have 1) - I think of Koro but he seems on the slide now
Fullback: 1 (we have 0) - Wright has improved tbf

So my dumb brain thought you need at least 24 legit top level talents. As far as I consider we have 7 maybe 8 if Wright keeps improving.

We'll win an occasional Test v good nations when everyone is fit and firing and the sub standard players do their best but overall we will just be in the chase group of nations until more talent is brought through or held on to.

When do we make the hard calls on a few older players who are legends but past it and won't get it back?

The Ghost. Load of garbage. The squad is the best we have according to our pretty handy coaches. Skelton and Rodda would help in the forwards if they wanted to play and can be released from their clubs. The players need to work on doing the simple things well and play like we did for the first 30 minutes on Saturday for 80 minutes. That‘s what the coaches are working on. Simple as that. The negativity on here is astounding. Other nations are improving which is also a factor but a good one in my opinion.@

 

[cyclopath]

But in the case of Australia. This country has been a power rugby nation just 20 years ago. Maybe 10 years ago with the 2015 RWC squad that was probably the last great Wallaby team that lost a RWC Grand final against the 2015 All Blacks who are the best rugby team in Professional Era for most of the experts



That's a good point cause swimming is one of the most expensives sports in terms of infraestructure and physical conditioning. An Olympic swimming pool is expensive as hell and an Olympic swimmer have to train for hours and eat something like 10k calories per day. For that reason only developed countries with HUGE budgets can be succesfull in that sport. You never gonna see a medal gold swimmer from Haiti or Nepal. It's very expensive.

Argentina can't get 2 or 3 Olympic medalists in swimming due to their cost but they can manage to grow their rugby and get 120 professional rugby players most of them palying in Top European competitions and in their 2 semi-professional franchises. Meanwhile their current U20s players are bigger and faster than the Junior Wallabies.

And Australia has excellent atheletes in Rugby League and Aussie Rules which are very similar sport to Rugby Union. Not the same but you can get a lock from AFL or an inside centre from the NRL. It's not gonna happen cause they are the big boys and you are the younger brother but you have the athletes. The main problem is rugby became in a tiny sport and nobody cares about it

Exactly, so what's your point? Apart from pointing out the bleeding obvious.

 

[Overtime]

Wow, where to start. A game of two halves, ha ha.

Actually, the Wallabies did look good in the first half. Tizzano was in everything; Wilson had a belter; the backline was effective; Gus Bell ruled the park and the scrum was at least at parity. They were competitive and it showed on the scoreboard.

Come the second half, and Bell gives way to Slipper, AAA already with 10 - 15 minutes on the field in the first half, the scrum starts going backwards and the defence opens up cracks as large as the Sydney Heads. Unfortunately, Argentina decided to play fast, open, attacking rugby and everything they tried came off. An exceptional performance from them.

On the scrum, it looked to me that we gave ground only on the LH side. James Slipper was shuffling backwards under pressure and Rob Valetini illegally joined the front row on occasions to support him. I thought Allan Ala'alatoa was still strong but can anybody actually point out any penalties he gave away? I don't recall any. And I'd say 50 minutes of Allan with effort around the ground and parity on his side of the scrum serves the team better than 30 minutes of Tupou in a handful of scrums and laziness around the ground.

The size of the loss however was due to the backline failing to perform in defence. This could simply be down to the number of changes made from the past few weeks, or to their inability to rejoin the fray after one involvement under the pressure of the sheer pace of the Puma's attack, or some poor defensive reads and efforts on the part of some individuals. Len Ikitau went backwards from his efforts in last week's game but may have an injury excuse. Koroibete and Donaldson missed tackles they should have made and by the end Kellaway was simply ushering the Puma players through to the tryline.

For the upcoming tests and EOYT, I think serious thought has to be given to :-
* replacing, or at least resting, James Slipper. Bell needs to go 60 minutes or thereabouts and either Kailea or Hodgeman come on from the bench.
* Tupou needs to be managed better. Thirty minutes is not enough time in a test match.
* Lynagh is not yet anywhere near test match standard and may never be. He is too slow and too small at this level and doesn't offer any other skills to compensate. Pretty much the same problems as Noah has.
* Stewart has had one good game and one poor to average in his two tests. Stick with him for the present until a bigger body with better skills comes along. Paisami is not that man.
* replacing Koroibete altogether as he is over the hill and is a liability to the team.
* moving Kellaway to the bench.
* dispensing with playing both Rob Valetini and Harry Wilson at the same time. They are similar players but Harry just doesn't have Rob's presence on the field. Langi Gleeson also doesn't provide the necessary impact as a replacement for Valetini.

I was (perhaps alone) in thinking Max Jorgenson had a good game in the circumstances. Very few errors, if any of note and solid if not spectacular. He will improve. Good to also see Canham get a little bit of game time. I see him as backup/competition to Frost for one second row spot.

Brumby Runner, I fully agree with your analysis great post.

 

[Froggy]

Marce, the Wallabies greatness covers two eras, the early 1980's and 1998 to 2002. The rest of the last 100 years has varied between okay and rubbish, and at the moment we are in a rubbish era. One of the problems on here is that anyone under about 45 seems to think the wonderful period of time between 1998 and 2002 is the way it always was. Sadly, just not true. In fact, the 50's, 60's and 70's were very ordinary, just how bad it's hard to ascertain because A) there was no such thing as world rankings B) there was no World Cup C) we played a lot less tests and D) countries like Fiji and Argentina hadn't started playing test rugby.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that we shouldn't be aiming to get back up near the top, just that all the 'this is the end of rugby' we'll all be rooned' is a bit over the top.