Australia v New Zealand - Sydney 16 Aug

[barbarian]

So just watched the game again. I feel a little bit better about how we played.

We maybe should have won, but there wasn't a moment you could point to where we botched a certain try. Generally in these games there is a last pass that goes to ground, or a 3 man overlap ignored, or someone held up etc. In reality the closest we got was McCabe in the corner, and that was a 20/80 chance at best. The ABs just defended well.

Big positive was our defence. Second game this year we haven't conceded a try. Bodes well for the RWC.
.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Game clock for each kick - its kind of hard to judge for some because the replays and whatnot.



Cruden 1 : tee arrives at mark 02:45. Strikes the ball at 03:30. 45 seconds.

Beale 1: tee arrives some time between 10:22 and 10:46 (probably close to 10:40 judging by setup after they cut back from replay). Strikes the ball at 11:35. 55 seconds.

Cruden 2 (miss): tee arrives 13:04. Strikes at 13:53. 49 seconds.

Cruden 3: tee arrives at 15:20 (time was off so assuming the trainer got it out there. Strikes at 16:05. 45 seconds

Cruden 4: tee arrives 21:12. Strikes 21:55. 43 seconds.

Beale 2 (miss): tee arrives approx 40:50. Strikes 41:35. 45 seconds.

Beale 3: tee arrives 43:30. Strikes 44:18. 48 seconds

Beale 4: tee arrives approx 55:10. Strikes 55:53. 43 seconds.

Cruden 5: tee arrives approx 58:45. Strikes 59:40. 55 seconds.

Beale 5: tee arrives 69:12. Strikes 69:54. 42 seconds.

Cruden averaged 47.4 seconds. Beale averaged 46.6

The Kiwi trainer was running their tee out a hell of a lot quicker than our bloke, so their elapsed time between whistle blown and striking the ball would have been lower as well from what I observed. Only one penalty (his last) did Cruden take some extra time with.

Shows how biased my spectating was!
Bit I still say take the kick: if we can't defend the ensuing kick off we weren't going to win anyway.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'd like to see the box kick binned. It's a blight on the game and actually a very low percentage play. It's OK for a half to kick for field position, but how often do we see a box kick come off?

Almost never.

 

[Wilson]

Considering the possibility of a drop goal to win it, how many drop goals have Beale/To'omua/Foley kicked in their careers? I can't remember more then one or two in super rugby from Beale and none from the rest. That's not to say they can't kick them, just that part of the problem seems to be drop goals only being considered when 3 points will win it and there's less then 5 minutes on the clock, which tends to be the hardest time to kick them.

Conversely Quade seems to kick one or 2 a season in super rugby and the occasional test drop goal, often using them to pressure the opposition and keep the scoreboard ticking over earlier in the game. I'm not trying to suggest that had Quade been out there we would have won the test no worries, there are too many variables to consider there and it's a largely meaningless exercise(though I do think when fit he's our best option at 5/8). What I would like to see though is one or two of Beale/Foley/Toomus developing it as a weapon in their games so we have more then one viable option come world cup time.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Think it was an immature decision of Hooper not to take points on 2/3 occasions. KB (Kurtley Beale)'s kick that hit the posts was fucking poor.

The points were on offer. The defence (by both sides great). At all levels everyone knows you take the points - whether you like it or not the match was lost because of that decision. Similar to Pocock against Scotland.

You can talk about running rugby, had 'em on the ropes, blah blah - The AB's always tick the scoreboard over - we didn't. I'm filthy because we had that game - it was so fucking important to us.

Having said that the Wallabies have come a long way.

 

[Braveheart81]

@Wilson - I'm sure they practice it.

I think we would have seen an attempt one or two phases later if Cane hadn't won a penalty at that ruck. Whilst we absolutely should have secured our ball then, giving away a penalty at the first phase is not something you really plan for.

I'd guess Foley would have taken the shot if we'd had one. To'omua would have been the other option but you'd probably favour the fresh player.

 

[Braveheart81]

Think it was an immature decision of Hooper not to take points on 2/3 occasions. KB (Kurtley Beale)'s kick that hit the posts was fucking poor.

Yes. It was a poor kick but he kicked well overall. 2 of his penalties were reasonably wide out from about 40m and he slotted them. Hard to complain when your kicker kicks at 80%.

Cruden also kicked 4 from 5 and missed one by a long way.

I would have also taken shots at goal every chance we had.

 

[swingpass]

for everyone advocating some bombs for izzy to chase, i agree its an under used option, but it is predicated on someone who can kick with reasonable accuracy. certainly not beale, perhaps To'omua or foley , but the tah's haven't used it much (if at all ?) as a weapon.

 

[USARugger]

It's risky because teams will do a lot to stop Izzy from ever getting near that ball, or the referee will change his line and run directly into him.

It's a safer option once Israel is actually under the ball but whether or not he's even going to actually get a chance to contest is a big question a lot of the time.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's a difficult play to pull off and is risky because if the opposition wins the ball and aren't tackled immediately they could have no defence in front of them.

When you combine very wet conditions it's a really low percentage chance of succeeding and would presumably be lower of the priority list of plays to attempt.

I'd guess that McKenzie would want his backline to have plenty of cracks at scoring a try with ball in hand before they resort to cross field kicks for Folau.

Same with the Waratahs. Their success rate scoring tries with ball in hand would have made it a pretty low priority in terms of options that they wanted to take with attacking ball.

 

[Pfitzy]

Crossfield bombs sound good in practice - if, like in League, you have about 10 chances per game to execute one during a defined set of 6 with no competition for the ball. But haven't we all just been discussing that kicking the ball away is bad?

If you put it up short, the opposition can mark it. If it goes too deep, you're in-goal and the opposition can ground it or make it dead.

Either way you're back outside the 22 in short order unless you beat everyone and actually ground the ball, on a wet night where possession was all that kept us in the game.

 

[Wilson]

@Wilson - I'm sure they practice it.

I think we would have seen an attempt one or two phases later if Cane hadn't won a penalty at that ruck. Whilst we absolutely should have secured our ball then, giving away a penalty at the first phase is not something you really plan for.

I'd guess Foley would have taken the shot if we'd had one. To'omua would have been the other option but you'd probably favour the fresh player.

I don't doubt they practice it, I want to see them using it in game, developing the sense on when to use it and the confidence to pull it off. As a weapon they are at their most potent when the opposition knows you are capable and inclined to use them whenever you want, not just in the final 5 minutes to win the game.

 

[TahDan]

Crossfield bombs sound good in practice - if, like in League, you have about 10 chances per game to execute one during a defined set of 6 with no competition for the ball. But haven't we all just been discussing that kicking the ball away is bad?

If you put it up short, the opposition can mark it. If it goes too deep, you're in-goal and the opposition can ground it or make it dead.

Either way you're back outside the 22 in short order unless you beat everyone and actually ground the ball, on a wet night where possession was all that kept us in the game.

That's all true and fair, except in cases where you're playing with a penalty advantage, as we did in the Bledisloe on Saturday.

In a situation like that, a cross field bomb with a specialist like Folau has a fairly good chance in coming off for a try, but if it doesn't you come back for a penalty anyway.

I understand that the 22 drop out makes it a poor choice most times, but if you've got an advantage why not at least try it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

That's all true and fair, except in cases where you're playing with a penalty advantage, as we did in the Bledisloe on Saturday.

In a situation like that, a cross field bomb with a specialist like Folau has a fairly good chance in coming off for a try, but if it doesn't you come back for a penalty anyway.

I understand that the 22 drop out makes it a poor choice most times, but if you've got an advantage why not at least try it?

It's a pretty low percentage play in the wet. They probably backed themselves to score a try with ball in hand.

It's not the easiest thing to set up for from general phase play. You need to be pretty shallow to the try line and have plenty of field to work with.

I'd also like to see it tried more often but I can understand why it's not the go to move.

 

[TahDan]

It's a pretty low percentage play in the wet. They probably backed themselves to score a try with ball in hand.

It's not the easiest thing to set up for from general phase play. You need to be pretty shallow to the try line and have plenty of field to work with.

I'd also like to see it tried more often but I can understand why it's not the go to move.

I know what you mean, and perhaps it's got to do with our kickers too, but we've got to work out some way to bring Folau's aerial game into our attack more prominently, because it's not used at all right now in attack.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I agree with you BH. It was done in NRL because it was the 5th tackle and a low percentage play was worth a shot since you would just hand the ball over.

Plenty made the highlight reel but how many resulted in nothing?

In rugby it's not a better option, because if it doesn't come off, you lose possession that you could have retained otherwise.

 

[Braveheart81]

Let's also remember how often Folau has scored from close range or set up a try by drawing in extra defenders and getting an offload away.

It's not like he's a one trick pony.

 

[TahDan]

Let's also remember how often Folau has scored from close range or set up a try by drawing in extra defenders and getting an offload away.

It's not like he's a one trick pony.

To be clear guys - I'm not advocating we try emulate League and do it all the time. Just that it at least out to be a well rehearsed attacking option we have in our bag of tricks when we're playing a team like NZ.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

At 37:46 minutes, Peyper penalised Crockett. KB (Kurtley Beale) picked up the ball immediately and by 37:48 had taken a quick tap from the mark. I don't think that there was any time for Hooper to make a Captain's Decision before KB (Kurtley Beale) had played on. After Six phases of advantage, at 38:31 minutes, Simmonds lost the ball forward in contact.

Jaco took them back to the site of the original Crockett infringement, and sent Crockett to the Sin Bin.

Hooper decided to take the scrum option, at 38:42 minutes to force the opposition to drop a player in order to contest the scrummage. Scrum was about 15 metres out, 4 metres to the right of the sticks. From the sideline commentary position, Sharpie called that the strategy was to get The Darkness to drop a loosie.

The scrum was fed at 39:41. 4 phases later, at 40:17, Jaco pinged the AIG's for being offside. Penalty was 6 metres from the tryline, 15 in metres from the left touch line. Hooper indicated shot at goal. KB (Kurtley Beale) took the ball back to the 22 m line for the shot. It was kicked at 41:35 and hit the right upright an the Men in Gold regathered from the ricochet. From the ensuing ruck, Palu was bundled out into touch at 41:55.

Peyper called for Oranges.

IMHO there was nothing wrong with the decision making of Hooper over that period. Points were on offer and it was inaccurate execution by #10, and the scrambling defence of the AIG's not the decision making of the Captain why the points (3, 5 or 7) were not achieved.

Different kettle of fish with respect to the decision making surround the non-drop goal option in the dying stages of the match.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Not a fan of cross field "bombs" but.......
It may be a way of combining 2 requirements - the lower percentage play of IF regaining the ball coupled with the need to create doubt in the minds of the defenders and push them back on their heels occasionally to stop them getting up so quickly.
ABs used the sliding grubber well against us but because we have Rule #1 "No kicking" we don't even look at it.
They know we will not kick away possession so its just one less thing they have had to worry about.
A shallow cross field catchable kick with IF looming may give him more room next time he is joining the line because of the possibility of a kick behind their defensive line.
Our attack is not causing too much doubt in the minds of the AB's - anything that does should be evaluated.