Australia v Italy, Suncorp Stadium, 24th June 2017 @ 3:00pm

[RedsHappy]

Using the same or similar players without addressing other things like coaching, attitude etc etc (as I have said previously) will bring the same result (performance irrespective of win or lose).

Something else needs to change but few on here acknowledge that. Says a lot..........

Broadly I agree S2050.

Let's all be honest - for fans and in terms of objective results, 2016 was an appalling Wallaby year and this one has started no better with the home loss to Scotland combined with very poor crowd levels reflecting the obvious opinion of our rugby fans regarding the calibre and the 'I'll pay to watch that' attractiveness of the current Wallabies.

There is no evidence that major changes are not needed. The team is not improving; in some respects it's degrading. With an elite and well-paid coaching group, it absolutely should be.

Australian rugby fans don't give a fig about the the Wallabies beating Italy as they now know all too well such wins against markedly weaker teams are almost always false dawns of 'better things to come.......... that don't come' against the teams our fans do care about, England, the ABs, somewhat RSA.

The squad of players we have is more or less the one most would pick, perhaps with a few alterations at the margin.

The issue therefore has to be in a rigorous, objective review of coaching capabilities, coaching resources and coaching MO in all pertinent respects.

With the ARU in complete disarray (they know nothing about elite rugby coaching even if they were not) and Cheika's seeming disinterest in a tough review of the appropriateness of his coaching team, it looks as though there will be no changes of many meaningful kind to our coaching regime, or its attitude to team development.

(I keep saying it: look at what coaching enhancements have done for England, Ireland and Scotland and none of these teams are chock full of dazzlers and manifestly world-class players. The evidence is overwhelming that coaching calibre is the difference to these teams' outcomes.)

Accordingly, I see no rational basis for expecting any improvement in the Wallabies 2017 version from the given 2016 team trajectory of relative playing mediocrity, low ensemble play innovation, poor fitness at required Test levels, ordinary skills in (crucially) unstructured play, uneven intensity through 80 mins, and indecipherable or inconsistent game plans generally not well-enough executed.

Hyper-loyal posters here will get their usual cheap thrills (and why not) from 'star plays' and 'much improved skills' and 'we're building and developing' and such like vs Italy but it will all solely be built upon the less demanding standards and capability of a notably weaker team, just as was the case vs Fiji; we were soon exposed via Scotland, a team from a cold, rainy nation of c. 5.3m people utterly dominated by soccer and missing its best 3 players.

So the latent underpinnings of a deeper crisis unfolding continue to build.

 

[Twoilms]

How do you look at our squad and conclude that they are definitely not the reason that we are under-performing. How many of the players that we have available would actually make a New Zealand, England or South African side.

Not a single player is good enough for the All Blacks.

We might sneak a few outside backs into the English side. Maybe a few more into the frankly garbage South African side.

We just aren't that good. Your expectations for these players is far beyond what they are actually capable of.

Cheika on the other hand has form when presented with a passable playing group.

 

[Moono75]

How do you look at our squad and conclude that they are definitely not the reason that we are under-performing. How many of the players that we have available would actually make a New Zealand, England or South African side.

Not a single player is good enough for the All Blacks.

We might sneak a few outside backs into the English side. Maybe a few more into the frankly garbage South African side.

We just aren't that good. Your expectations for these players is far beyond what they are actually capable of.

Cheika on the other hand has form when presented with a passable playing group.

Adam Coleman??

 

[Braveheart81]

Adam Coleman??

He'd possibly make the All Blacks bench.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Highlander35]

Adam Coleman??

Not ahead of Retallick and Whitelock at the very least.

Line ball call v Romano. Coleman does a lot of what the two starters do as well, so I'd favour him too, but eh.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

So looking at pics on facebook of what looks to be a scratch match has me filled with joy.

In the team consisting of Foley, Hooper, TPN and Folau also contained Hodge and wait for it.... Horne God help us if that is any indication as to this weekends team.

 

[RedsHappy]

Interesting theory - we have a crap-ish limited squad but good Test coaches.

I remember so well how the England squad was described in similar terms after their RWC 2015 debacle - 'worst ever', etc.

Since then with EJ (Eddie Jones) they've lost just 1 Test.

 

[KOB1987]

So looking at pics on facebook of what looks to be a scratch match has me filled with joy.

In the team consisting of Foley, Hooper, TPN and Folau also contained Hodge and wait for it.. Horne God help us if that is any indication as to this weekends team.

It probably doesn't mean anything as they all have a run with different combinations. That said Horne was brought into the squad as cover for 13 when Kerevi got injured and Kuridrani had a Barry on the weekend.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

It probably doesn't mean anything as they all have a run with different combinations. That said Horne was brought into the squad as cover for 13 when Kerevi got injured and Kuridrani had a Barry on the weekend.

I wouldn't usually read to much into it however it was a training run they were 2 defined reams with different uniforms. Also I would say if Horne was in the starting side it would be for Hunt who didn't look to good at the end of the Scotland game.

 

[Twoilms]

Interesting theory - we have a crap-ish limited squad but good Test coaches.

I remember so well how the England squad was described in similar terms after their RWC 2015 debacle - 'worst ever', etc.

Since then with EJ (Eddie Jones) they've lost just 1 Test.

Not at all. Most marvelled at how Lancaster managed to lead one of the most talented generation of English players into a group stage exit and got immediately sacked afterwards.

 

[RedsHappy]

Not at all. Most marvelled at how Lancaster managed to lead one of the most talented generation of English players into a group stage exit and got immediately sacked afterwards.

We have some different recollections of October 2015 then.

Scotland and Ireland must have co-incidentally accumulated 'better than ever' squads as well so their relatively new coaches can't take much credit for their teams' improvements.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Adam Coleman??

No

 

[Twoilms]

I was in England at the time. I guarantee you that was the sentiment. Dear old Eddie Jones struck gold with that appointment.

 

[Moono75]

No

IS did you push post too early? Did you mean to say..."No you are correct Moono i forgot Adam is an oustanding player deserving of a place in any International team and is a credit to the Force, my second favourite team. I also like crunchy peanut butter".

Im amazed i was able to interpret your comment correctly

 

[formerflanker]

This is mind boggling.

Quades been demonstrably worse than Foley all Super rugby season and in the test season prior to that.

He has a good 20min off the bench and all of a sudden he's hit form and is a deserved starter?

Foley may not be setting the house on fire but the alternative isn't an unknown. Quades had all the chances in the world to prove he's the better candidate and the vast majority of the evidence indicates that he's not.

To take your theory to its natural conclusion, Australia only has one 5/8 worthy to be starting in all future tests. Foley. That's too risky.
Quade needs to start. It tells Foley to stop with the yellow card behaviours and start getting more distance on his kicks. It says there is another player ready to step up. Quade has the potential to ignite the rugby field.
If Quade fails against the Italians, he drops out of Wallaby selection altogether and we come up with a plan B. We need someone to pressure on Foley over the next 3-4 years.

 

[Micheal]

To take your theory to its natural conclusion, Australia only has one 5/8 worthy to be starting in all future tests. Foley. That's too risky.
Quade needs to start. It tells Foley to stop with the yellow card behaviours and start getting more distance on his kicks. It says there is another player ready to step up. Quade has the potential to ignite the rugby field.
If Quade fails against the Italians, he drops out of Wallaby selection altogether and we come up with a plan B. We need someone to pressure on Foley over the next 3-4 years.

That's a slippery slope / false equivalence fallacy.

I'm not saying Australia has one 5/8 worthy to be starting in all future tests.

I'm saying that in the immediate future Foley is the only flyhalf thats shown the required form to be starting, most particularly in reference to the Italy game.

Quade excelled from the bench and hopefully he has a few more games there to showcase his wares. I think his performance indicated he is available to start if Foley is injured, but I don't think it warrants his promotion over Foley. Especially not until he shows a long period of strong form, as Quade's form has been historically patchy.

So no, not really.


I also don't agree that if "Quade fails agains the Italians, he drops out of Wallaby selection altogether". The guys a talented footballer but he's a confidence player and his form has been unbelievably patchy throughout his career with performances that are fundamentally bipolar in their range.

He's still by far the 2nd best option, with Lance the third and daylight the fourth.

If anything, the trend we're used to posits that he probably will have a bad game against Italy but its up to the coaching team to get him in the headspace to have several good performances, back-to-back.

I think the bench is the best place to bring that confidence out of him, atleast for the foreseeable future.

 

[gel]

What????

Why the fuck does Foley need someone breathing down his neck in order to perform?

Surely, being a professional athlete he is motivated to be better than his opposition and Excel in his chosen sport?

His goal surely can't be just to be picked, but rather to outplay the opposing team. He should be striving to be better than every other 10 in the world, not just get picked.

Does he not want to crush his enemies? Or see them driven before him? Or hear the lamentations of their women?

 

[Joe Blow]

How do you look at our squad and conclude that they are definitely not the reason that we are under-performing. How many of the players that we have available would actually make a New Zealand, England or South African side.

Not a single player is good enough for the All Blacks.

We might sneak a few outside backs into the English side. Maybe a few more into the frankly garbage South African side.

We just aren't that good. Your expectations for these players is far beyond what they are actually capable of.

Cheika on the other hand has form when presented with a passable playing group.

Yes and no. The defensive system we have in place is not working very well. The breakdown work is not up to scratch and by his own admission the players are not putting in enough effort.
Sure there may be a lack of depth but we need some changes in direction and coaching for the side. A new defensive system and/or coach and the addition of a specialized forwards coach would be a start. I also think going back to having a selection panel comprised of the coach and two former test players who are still involved in the game is a very good idea.
We are off the pace in the 3 areas. Attack, defense and breakdown.
Sometimes Cheika just gets it wrong and has trouble seeing it when it happens. He's human.

 

[Gnostic]

Its interesting to see X player getting lambasted for doing or not doing something. Hooper makes a line break (or just gets away from defence I don't give a shit how its characterised) and nobody is within cooee to support before the retreating Scots make the tackle and get over the ball. The Wallabies dominate Possession and territory, make more line breaks virtually every stat is in their favour including a hugely one sided penalty count.

So we can write off the players as shit, even though many have been lauded as world class in their positions at times, Foley (maybe not here but in Euro post 2015), Genia, Kepu, Moore, Kurindrani, Folau, Hooper. That is not to say their skills have improved, Foley still has a small kick which misses touch way too often for test rugby, Folau still cannot kick acceptable for a test fullback, Genia box kicking is still woeful as it was when he was at the Reds etc etc.

I just do not accept that Australian players are intrinsically worse. I have argued for years their skills are poor, that is different. But when a team can dominate all the stats and do Sweet FA with the ball they have there is not a problem with the players it is what they have been told to do with it. Look at the structures. Last year and this year I have been saying the game reminds me of Macqueen's constant recycle plan and the more I look at it the more it does. Where does that come from?

In defence Grey's pattern was never water tight, at the RWC 2015 it let a lot of half breaks be made on the flanks and through kick pressure turn overs/territory gains. It was saved back then by the work rate of players and so massive scrambling defence. We haven't seen that in '16 and '17 at Wallabies or Tahs levels and both are leaking points.

The most tell defensive play for me remains the exit strategies, as I posted in the Scotalnd game thread, every single exit is kicked by the 9 or 10. None of the 9 or 10 options in Australian Test Rugby have effective exit kicks. Hunt, DHP and Hodge all have far bigger and more effective kicks. When have they ever been used and when have they ever been in position to be used. This to me is the starkest indicator of a coaching group focussed on their patterns to the exclusion of what other teams are doing about them. They are totally predictable as a result and are easily nullified.

What do we have from the coaching group - well the same old rhetoric about just needing more passion, more accuracy. Blah Blah Blah.

What do we get from players, well Foley says that the Wallabies attack will be better than the ABs if they get the accuracy better. Well Bernard, the statistics tell a starkly different story, you don't do shit with the ball when you have it except shuffle it around and get tackled on or behind the gain line then kick and have an ineffective chase.

They will win against Italy I have no doubt, Italy are a shadow of what they were a decade ago, they will score some scintillating tries with no real testing pressure on them. A false dawn will break.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I was in England at the time. I guarantee you that was the sentiment. Dear old Eddie Jones struck gold with that appointment.

Likewise and agreed.