Australia v Scotland, 3:00pm 17 June Sydney Football Stadium

[amirite]

Don't agree with this but at all.
Heaps of the threads on this site,are chock full of observations about tactics etc.

I've been to plenty of pre match functions, and undoubtedly the bits that have the rooms undivided attention, is when a member of the coaching panel gives a brief overview of the day's game plan, with a few video segments to illustrate it.

Many prefer to debate about the ingredients of the sausage to consuming it.

Sure, but I would argue those in a function room prematch are different again.

In a 30 minute press conference all that's really being hunted for is a couple of 7 second sound bites for the news. Stuff like "we need more heart" plays better on a sound bite than analysis.

I honestly think it's a case of playing to the audience. Same reason Kafe (a knowledgable former professional head coach) spouts basic drivel half the time.

 

[Twoilms]

Our option taking and execution at key times was poor. We make too many critical errors and panic at both ends of the field at pivotal moments in the game.

We also created very few clear attacking opportunities and mauled terribly. All we needed was one decent maul out of the 4 or 5 shots we had at it.

 

[RedsHappy]

If they arrived at Suncorp instead of Italy this Saturday, would we beat the cut-down EJ (Eddie Jones)-coached England side that beat Argentina in recent weeks?

 

[Braveheart81]

If they arrived at Suncorp instead of Italy this Saturday, would we beat the cut-down EJ (Eddie Jones)-coached England side that beat Argentina in recent weeks?

Depends how many tries we gift to the opposition.

If we played Scotland again next week we'd probably beat them. We don't generally gift two tries in a game and still had a lot of opportunities to beat them.

I'm incredibly disappointed we lost to Scotland because it's a match we should have been in control of.

I'd be far more disappointed if we'd been outplayed in many facets of the game but that simply isn't the case.

 

[Micheal]

Depends how many tries we gift to the opposition.

If we played Scotland again next week we'd probably beat them. We don't generally gift two tries in a game and still had a lot of opportunities to beat them.

I'm incredibly disappointed we lost to Scotland because it's a match we should have been in control of.

I'd be far more disappointed if we'd been outplayed in many facets of the game but that simply isn't the case.

I thought it was an entertaining game and that we were the more dominant team. We weren't as clinical and left chances out there, but I agree, if we played again tomorrow I'm fairly certain we'd win.

I'm not that fussed as to the outcomes of these June internationals and I simply view them as part of our build up to the RC. Personally, they've answered a few questions: Robertson to the bench, Timani to 6, Powell to start, Hunt to stay at 12, Hardwick to stay on the bench. Depending on their games against Italy, perhaps Carter to the bench and Arnold to start.

Do I think Hanigan and Robertson will start against the ABs? No. Do I think they're better for the experience? Yep.

Otherwise, I don't quite understand the immense outrage.

My support of the Wallabies isn't dependent ON THEM ALWAYS BEATING SCOTLAND DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORICAL RANKINGS OF THESE TWO TEAMS I DO AND THE WALLABIES SHOULD BE BETTER AND ALWAYS BE BETTER AND NEVER LOSE REGARDLESS OF THE CLOSENESS OF RECENT GAMES, THE INHERENT CYCLES OF TEAM FORM / SELECTIONS AND THE RECENT RISE OF SCOTLAND.

As put by an Irish fan on Reddit:

"Assumption 1: Australians are inherently superior to all others in any sport.
Assumption 2: All match results must indicate which side is in a better state at all times.
Conclusion: Wallaby team losing means they must be not trying hard enough / they aren't good enough / coaching team isn't good enough. Only possible explanation.
Repeat after every bad result. No exceptions."

Assumption 2 is particularly insightful I think.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Depends how many tries we gift to the opposition.

If we played Scotland again next week we'd probably beat them. We don't generally gift two tries in a game and still had a lot of opportunities to beat them.

I'm incredibly disappointed we lost to Scotland because it's a match we should have been in control of.

I'd be far more disappointed if we'd been outplayed in many facets of the game but that simply isn't the case.

I agree with the sentiment but after the number of tries we gifted to England over 4 games last year, I'm not confident at all that we wouldn't do exactly the same if the Poms were here now

 

[Strewthcobber]

I thought it was an entertaining game and that we were the more dominant team. We weren't as clinical and left chances out there, but I agree, if we played again tomorrow I'm fairly certain we'd win.

I'm not that fussed as to the outcomes of these June internationals and I simply view them as part of our build up to the RC. Personally, they've answered a few questions: Robertson to the bench, Timani to 6, Powell to start, Hunt to stay at 12, Hardwick to stay on the bench. Depending on their games against Italy, perhaps Carter to the bench and Arnold to start.

Do I think Hanigan and Robertson will start against the ABs? No. Do I think they're better for the experience? Yep.

Otherwise, I don't quite understand the immense outrage.

My support of the Wallabies isn't dependent ON THEM ALWAYS BEATING SCOTLAND DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORICAL RANKINGS OF THESE TWO TEAMS I DO AND THE WALLABIES SHOULD BE BETTER AND ALWAYS BE BETTER AND NEVER LOSE REGARDLESS OF THE CLOSENESS OF RECENT GAMES, THE INHERENT CYCLES OF TEAM FORM / SELECTIONS AND THE RECENT RISE OF SCOTLAND.

As put by an Irish fan on Reddit:

"Assumption 1: Australians are inherently superior to all others in any sport.
Assumption 2: All match results must indicate which side is in a better state at all times.
Conclusion: Wallaby team losing means they must be not trying hard enough / good enough / coaching team isn't good enough. Only possible explanation.
Repeat after every bad result. No exceptions."

Assumption 2 is particularly insightful I think.

I reckon the issue Michael is that we have to believe that each test match matters and it's vital that its won.

The alternative is that these sort of matches are actually "friendlies" that don't matter at all in the scheme of things, and then there's barely a reason to tune in except for once every 4 years


Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Kev]

Otherwise, I don't quite understand the immense outrage.

My support of the Wallabies isn't dependent ON THEM ALWAYS BEATING SCOTLAND DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORICAL RANKINGS OF THESE TWO TEAMS I DO AND THE WALLABIES SHOULD BE BETTER AND ALWAYS BE BETTER AND NEVER LOSE REGARDLESS OF THE CLOSENESS OF RECENT GAMES, THE INHERENT CYCLES OF TEAM FORM / SELECTIONS AND THE RECENT RISE OF SCOTLAND.

As put by an Irish fan on Reddit:

"Assumption 1: Australians are inherently superior to all others in any sport.
Assumption 2: All match results must indicate which side is in a better state at all times.
Conclusion: Wallaby team losing means they must be not trying hard enough / they aren't good enough / coaching team isn't good enough. Only possible explanation.
Repeat after every bad result. No exceptions."

Assumption 2 is particularly insightful I think.

Yeah I have to agree. I was pissed about losing but I wasn't that pissed. It's sport - one team wins and the other loses. It's especially getting out of hand on Wallabies social media.

 

[Braveheart81]

This team badly needs to eliminate some of their major mistakes and it shouldn't be that difficult.

Take Foley's yellow card for example. He was perfectly entitled to be where he was and the contact wasn't late. His problem was that he dropped the shoulder and the yellow card was entirely the correct decision for using no arms in the tackle.

If you're going to do what he did, you effectively have to "take the charge" like in basketball and just take the impact on the chest. He made it to the spot early enough that he wasn't obstructing the player's running line unfairly.

 

[amirite]

As put by an Irish fan on Reddit:

"Assumption 1: Australians are inherently superior to all others in any sport.
Assumption 2: All match results must indicate which side is in a better state at all times.
Conclusion: Wallaby team losing means they must be not trying hard enough / they aren't good enough / coaching team isn't good enough. Only possible explanation.
Repeat after every bad result. No exceptions."

Assumption 2 is particularly insightful I think.

I like that. A lot.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Depends how many tries we gift to the opposition.

If we played Scotland again next week we'd probably beat them. We don't generally gift two tries in a game and still had a lot of opportunities to beat them.

I'm incredibly disappointed we lost to Scotland because it's a match we should have been in control of.

I'd be far more disappointed if we'd been outplayed in many facets of the game but that simply isn't the case.

If recent history suggests anything, then it would probably be an arm wrestle test again and only a few points in it. These players are creatures of habit and I can't see things changing that much in the course of a week.

 

[Braveheart81]

If recent history suggests anything, then it would probably be an arm wrestle test again and only a few points in it. These players are creatures of habit and I can't see
things changing that much in the course of a week.

Definitely. Our games against Scotland have been very close in recent years.

 

[I like to watch]

Sure, but I would argue those in a function room prematch are different again.

In a 30 minute press conference all that's really being hunted for is a couple of 7 second sound bites for the news. Stuff like "we need more heart" plays better on a sound bite than analysis.

I honestly think it's a case of playing to the audience. Same reason Kafe (a knowledgable former professional head coach) spouts basic drivel half the time.

Don't agree with this either.
The print media are not 'hunting' for sound bites, they prefer real analysis.
Why do all telecasts love reporting on 1/2 time chats if the general audience has no appetite for tactics etc.

I think you might find that Kafer delivers drivel at 1/2 time, because he has a set time to speak,and has to contribute something.
Sometimes he can add value, sometimes he's just chewing up the clock.
The very fact that he has an allotted time space,indicates that the telecaster believes that people are interested tactically.

 

[Braveheart81]

If Cheika had hung shit on Genia and Polota-Nau for giving up two tries between them which would have been the most accurate representation of why we lost the game then people would be all over him for not supporting his team.

It's hard to come out of a press conference after you've lost a game you should have won with a positive outcome.

 

[Upthenuts]

If Cheika had hung shit on Genia and Polota-Nau for giving up two tries between them which would have been the most accurate representation of why we lost the game then people would be all over him for not supporting his team.

It's hard to come out of a press conference after you've lost a game you should have won with a positive outcome.

has cheika been asked at all what his tactic for the game was? where he saw the scotish weakness, is it a plan to kick too deep to contest. or to only rely on foley for kicking? if. folau was on the wing and it was contestable box kicking all night at least there would be a obvious tactic on display.

 

[Quick Hands]

Words are cheap. Let's see a good team selected, and let us see them play with structure in both attack and defense. Let us see a coherent game plan which, if it is not producing fruit, is changed in a planned, constructive, way.


Above all let us never forget that at this level of the game, effort is a given. Brains, skills, and above all, tactics, that is what produces wins.


And while you're at it, do something about Popgun Foley's kicking quickly, please. Either fix it, or fix him.

I really don't understand how a professional athlete cannot execute a core skill of his position (kicking from hand) or the core skill involved in his specialist duty (goal kicking). Either he lacks the ability to do either at this level (in which case he shouldn't be picked) or he isn't being coached at all in these skills or he isn't putting enough work in.

 

[stoff]

I really don't understand how a professional athlete cannot execute a core skill of his position (kicking from hand) or the core skill involved in his specialist duty (goal kicking). Either he lacks the ability to do either at this level (in which case he shouldn't be picked) or he isn't being coached at all in these skills or he isn't putting enough work in.

Or it indicates a greater issue insofar as he is the best at those core skills available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Or it indicates a greater issue insofar as he is the best at those core skills available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For every problem identified the alternative is either no better or an unknown.
There is no short term fix.

 

[I like to watch]

For every problem identified the alternative is either no better or an unknown.
There is no short term fix.

Much easier to find faults than remedies......

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Much easier to find faults than remedies..

Yep.
In reality the problem we have now is a manifestation of the things we neglected in the early naughties.
But when you add the austerity - and a story on 7 news tonight fronted by 2 blues president concerning declining numbers because of cost - it's hard to see the bottom of the cycle.
If we had some reserves we could spend them on the future but it's hand to mouth.
Very concerning.
We need a benefactor or world rugby or nz to bail us out.