Australia Vs. England, Twickenham, 2nd November 2013

[S'UP]

Everyone in the wallabies is very well coached by the PR people they say all the right things to create a positive PR image. what they need to do is accept some rersponsibility for their own play. It would be refreshing to hear " we were crap and if we cannot improve we should give it away"
But that won't happen the same guys will run around next week with the same excusses and we'll sit here a bitch about it. If you compared the wallabies to the all black how many would squeeze into the blacks maybe 4 but you would struggle to justify them. We only have 30 players in this country who are good enought to play test rugby so if they don't perform you have nothing else. Maybe the ARU could cut their wages spend some money on junior rugby and maybe in 5 years time we will be producing rugby players who play for the team not themselves, the national gold squad has a lot to answer for with the current culture of "its all about me"

 

[BPC]

I do not think that the coach is responsible for the skill levels of the players at this stage of their careers. He is responsible for his selections, and I do not hear too many alternative selections being canvassed. He is also responsible for tactics, and as Fatprop has pointed out, perhaps that is an area where he can be criticised. Nor is he responsible for a lack of committment and aggression amongst the forwards.

I agree that skills development has been lacking at the Australian Superugby franchises and this is not doing Link any favours. That said, as IS points out, he could be doing something about it.

On team cohesiveness, we have heard the usual players talking up the culture change in the media but I don't see it on the field. Case in point, look at the team work and aggressiveness of the Poms at the scrum, breakdown and coming up from the defensive line. Australia has some players charging up and creating gaps while others amble up then lean on a ruck. With a few exceptions there is no fire in their belly. I am not claiming they don't want to win. But compare Moore, Fardy, Hooper, Two-Dads giving 100% whereas some players are most definitely not digging deep and giving their all. To me, that screams of a weak team culture. This reflects on both team selections and attitude on the field.

We have a scrum coach, he is primarily responsible for the performance of the scrum.

Our scrum coach may be lacking. But Link is both an experienced forward, experienced forwards coach and captain of the ship. It is his responsibility.

Frankly, I think a large part of the problem is that the players are rooted after a long and tiring season, with more than a fair share of dramas.

While there is an element of truth in that, look at players like Hooper, Moore and Two-Dads who seem to find the will to leave it all out on the park despite playing almost every minute during the internationals. On the other hand, lumps like Sitaleki who have been rested for several games don't seem to have the energy of those three. The long season doesn't explain it all.

I agree that Link is not to blame for everything, but he doesn't seem to be adding anything to solving the problems. In fact, I think the problems have gotten worse since he came in. The playing group has barely changed so it is hard to ascribe that to anything other than Link.

 

[S'UP]

I know this maybe tantamount to treason, but I think we aren't that good.

We are playing with a pretty average set of forwards and mediocre backs

Link is doing the same thing Deans did when he first came in, wanting to play open rugby with aggressive fast moving forwards, and backs playing what is in front of them. He as I'm sure link will do is realise that he doesn't have the cattle and needs to revert back to "boring rugby" to win

 

[BPC]

I am trying to be positive but I am fast losing patience with Link and several of the players. At this point I am all for sending over some young guys on a plane and sending some of the current mob back home. As an example, if we swap Sitaleki for Luke Jones (or Fardy to 4 and Jones to 6) we may get a young player who is still a bit callow but at least he will give it a red hot go. I would rather send over players from Shute Shield or Queensland Premiership. They may not be as skilled as some of the current loafers (although that may be arguable) but 100% effort from a weaker player is better than 40% effort (I am looking at Sitaleki but he is not the only offender) from an allegedly more skilled player.

I know Link is trying to build combinations (look how long he has persisted with a woeful set of props) but I think he needs to drop a testie down each leg of the shorts, go completely balls out and dump about half the current forward pack. I would rather see some young guys get smashed but try their hearts out than keep watching Sitaleki (on the few occasions he is seen) lie on rucks, Alexander chewing the turf in a 'scrum' or Genia scowl at his teammates after he box kicks into the opposition or hovers indecisively at the back of ruck.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

The team culture fix. Pick up the phone and give General Peter Cosgrove a call. Ask him to speak with one of army buddies to arrange a loan to the Wobs of one of their Regimental Sergeant Major's for a while.

They seem to manage to prepare some of our finest youth to go overseas, onto a two way firing range for 6 or so months, and most of them come back alive again. While they are there the team ethic is so strong in the individuals that extraordinary feats are performed for their mates, all the while they are sleeping in field cots, eating ration packs, and getting limited sleep with little or no grog, playstation/Xbox facebook or twitter.

That is that sort of work ethic and culture that we need to see from Camp Wallaby.

 

[Scotty]

I think that the ball is still deemed to have gone out so even if you had gog go gadget arms, if the ball crosses over the line, there should be a line-ou.

The maul rule is fine as it is. The ball is almost always killed before it goes to ground. That's why the opposition is trying to keep the ball up first.

The opposition is trying to kill the ball by first keeping it up and then not allowing it to be played when the maul collapses. You can't see how that isn't really in the spirit of the game.

If they instead had to be the team going forward - imagine how that would change the contest and spectacle - players would drive in from both sides to try and get the forward momentum.

Same rule should be applied to the ruck - if a dominant tackle is made and the ball becomes unplayable then the feed goes to the defensive team.

 

[Gnostic]

Why? The bloke didn't have the ethics or stones to honour his contract and don't forget that he was looking to get out of it in the first year and head back to test coaching. We all know there has been a massive culture issue in the Wallabies and I am not sure that even if dumping Link after half a year would be the answer this fellows mercenary attitude and behaviour wouldn't be good for the personalities in the Wallabies.

 

[Dumbledore]

How much longer till the honeymoon is over?

I would have more patience if he was more candid about shortcomings,rather than putting a spin on the performance.
Did he really take a photo of the touchie's blunder to the presser?

I'd be inclined to give him a longer honeymoon if he hadn't campaigned so hard, and so openly, for the job and then hadn't been so forward in saying he knew how to beat New Zealand.

Instead, we've regressed in almost all areas, and there aren't exactly any positive signs going forward save a few blokes coming back from injury.

 

[Gnostic]

BPC,

I do not think that the coach is responsible for the skill levels of the players at this stage of their careers. He is responsible for his selections, and I do not hear too many alternative selections being canvassed. He is also responsible for tactics, and as Fatprop has pointed out, perhaps that is an area where he can be criticised. Nor is he responsible for a lack of committment and aggression amongst the forwards.

We have a scrum coach, he is primarily responsible for the performance of the scrum.

Frankly, I think a large part of the problem is that the players are rooted after a long and tiring season, with more than a fair share of dramas.

If we had a swag of development players, this tour should have been treated as a development one. But we don't. We are near the bottom of the barrel. I am buggered if I can see any coach in the wide world changing reality at this stage.

If the coaches are not responsible for the skill levels of the players then who is? Who is giving them critique on the issues in their games and encouraging them to improve? All professionals need to be critiqued throughout their career and offered (coached) solutions to the flaws in their techniques.

If at test level there is no need for coaches because the players are as developed as they can be because they are all so elite and nobody can comprehend what is happening in Burkesque fashion then I can see some massive saving that can be made by the ARU in staffing, accommodation and travel expenses for various people running around in Wallaby type tracksuits and suits giving media interviews but never actually playing.

As for the "the players are tired" argument I have to say how many games do the NRL players play? What are the strength and conditioning staff doing? And finally WTF are they flogging the same players in every game instead of taking some of those who are fringe players who certainly couldn't do any worse than these "tired" blokes.

 

[I like to watch]

I thought this tour was always considered a development tour.
Guys like Carter,Pyle,Neville,Jones etc. should be on the tour, to see if they can cope with the higher level.
He should be starting Foley this week,we all know what QC (Quade Cooper) can and can't do at this level,but we need to see more of Foley to make a judgement on him as a Test player.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

If you listen to the Pulveriser, the ARU is broke or about to be. The razer gang has gone through the place like a dose of epsom salts in the punch at the School Formal.

We have to keep flogging the usual suspects because they are on contract and we have to pay them regardless. We probably can't afford the airfares, food and accommodation of the fringe players. Each fringe player we take overseas means there is one less "overhead" on the overseas jolly.

NRL players fly up and down the Eastern seaboard of Australia and go to UN Zud once a season. Very little travel fatigue and re-acclimatisation involved. The Sydney based players can drive to most games.

 

[I like to watch]

Call me a cynic, but I think it has more to do with arresting the fucking atrocious win/loss ratio of the new coach than budgetary considerations.
Any coach of worth would not tolerate interference from HO about selections to save on match payments.

 

[Dumbledore]

I thought this tour was always considered a development tour.
Guys like Carter,Pyle,Neville,Jones etc. should be on the tour, to see if they can cope with the higher level.
He should be starting Foley this week,we all know what QC (Quade Cooper) can and can't do at this level,but we need to see more of Foley to make a judgement on him as a Test player.

Exactly. When are we going to give these guys a chance? The June Tests? The RC? Presumably we won't next EOYT because suddenly we're almost at the WC and need to 'develop combinations.'

How about that Force kid Manu? Or some of the young scrumhalves - Frisby, Prior, Stirzaker? Foley is a good shout. Have we completely discarded Horne? How about Quirk, does Schatz deserve a proper run? Will Colby get a shot if he starts tearing things up for the Rebels? We need to have a look at some hookers too - do we give Charles a run, Hanson maybe? Christ, Tessman even?

 

[Gnostic]

I'd be inclined to give him a longer honeymoon if he hadn't campaigned so hard, and so openly, for the job and then hadn't been so forward in saying he knew how to beat New Zealand.

Instead, we've regressed in almost all areas, and there aren't exactly any positive signs going forward save a few blokes coming back from injury.

I don't know who we can have regressed.

Lets check the keys areas of the game:-

1) Scrum - generally poor to abject failure but can have moments of surprising success. Regressed? No - same as it has been since 2004-2005 with gradually evolving players and very brief periods of dominance. So no regression just the same level of shitness.
2) Breakdown - Australia has historically been dominant when attention has been paid to the area and two players were available (smith and Pocock). Adjusting for those players and we see that the Wallabies are achieving exactly what they always do in their absence. The Wallabies do not flood the ruck at any stage believing that 1 or two attackers or defenders should be enough to compete because of the special skills displayed when Smith and Pocock were available. So again no regression - just the same level of shitness.
3) Lineout - as always it depends who is selected but generally the Wallabies are dominant in this aspect (on their own ball) as they have been for long periods. So no regression, no improvement either (they are not winning as much of the opposition ball as I would hope or even competing effectively).
4) Skills execution - from passing to kicking. In all aspects of individual skill execution I believe the Wallabies have been on the slide since 2003. We see players selected at Super level and their skill set is stagnant from then on. Here I will use AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) as an example and he is only an example there are many others who have similar glaring issues - after nearly 7? years as a professional Rugby player he still cannot pass effectively from both hands. So no regression just the same lack of personal attention to detail from the coaches.
5) Support Play - I haven't seen support play in depth from the Wallabies since ironically John Connolly was coach and that was limited as they struggled to shake off the shackles of the play by the numbers Jones era. Deans was all about playing what was in front of the individual so nobody knew who to support and where it was going (that was before the narrow one of the ruck period of late). So no regression just the same shit, but there have been glimmers of hope, but is it just an aberration or the start of the renaissance?
6) Fitness/Conditioning - This is one for Bruce Ross. There have been periods though where I wonder if the Wallabies are fit for purpose (ie. have they had the correct strength and conditioning work for the plan to be employed). Remember when the Wallabies selected the virtual Tahs pack in their bulked up phase and then played the first Deans plan of "play what's in front of you." I seriously don't know the answer here.

 

[Gnostic]

If you listen to the Pulveriser, the ARU is broke or about to be. The razer gang has gone through the place like a dose of epsom salts in the punch at the School Formal.

We have to keep flogging the usual suspects because they are on contract and we have to pay them regardless. We probably can't afford the airfares, food and accommodation of the fringe players. Each fringe player we take overseas means there is one less "overhead" on the overseas jolly.

NRL players fly up and down the Eastern seaboard of Australia and go to UN Zud once a season. Very little travel fatigue and re-acclimatisation involved. The Sydney based players can drive to most games.

This was a big advantage and IMO opinion a missed opportunity of doing away with the whole ARU top up system. With a pure incentive based system I believe we would have got a more committed side and a more flexible one. I agree fully with you Jarse and believe that this is indeed why most of the out of form players are in the squad. It is why injured players get selected even when they are literally running on one leg. The ARU has already paid the cash and hence has to use them. IMO they have missed the biggest opportunity they are likely to see to truly reform player contracting in Australia. IMO the next contracts Wallabies players will see could well be pure match based payments that are based directly on the gate takings from each game as the ARU will be broke and in receivership. With the way the Wallabies are playing and the forecast revenues our game is in very serious trouble.

 

[Dumbledore]

@Gnostic

Mate, that's a really good post. Hard to disagree with any of that. The one thing I think you've missed is defence. I haven't had a look at the stats, but my feeling is we've been significantly worse this year than we have in the past. We had that one blowout in the third Lions Test, but apart from that my feeling is that our defence under Deans was pretty solid over the last couple of years? Happy to be wrong about that though.

I do think we've regressed at the breakdown though. We were getting completely blown up by the English. Complete opposite of what happened a year ago, when Hooper actually had some help and turned the entire English pack into his personal plaything.

 

[wamberal]

If the coaches are not responsible for the skill levels of the players then who is? Who is giving them critique on the issues in their games and encouraging them to improve? All professionals need to be critiqued throughout their career and offered (coached) solutions to the flaws in their techniques.

A player without the right skills should not be playing Soup, let alone Test rugby. Of course the coaching staff (all the coaching staff) will be constantly giving players feedback on their performance, drills will be used to hone skills. But frankly skills cannot be magically improved overnight, except in very unusual situations, IMHO

If at test level there is no need for coaches because the players are as developed as they can be because they are all so elite and nobody can comprehend what is happening in Burkesque fashion then I can see some massive saving that can be made by the ARU in staffing, accommodation and travel expenses for various people running around in Wallaby type tracksuits and suits giving media interviews but never actually playing.

I did not say that coaches are not needed, of course they are. The head coach has a strategic role, the assistants work on the technical aspects that allow the strategy to be implemented. The head coach is basically the selector, as I understand it, he has to have some sort of succession plan for every position in the squad, that alone would take countless hours of work, I would guess.

As for the "the players are tired" argument I have to say how many games do the NRL players play? What are the strength and conditioning staff doing? And finally WTF are they flogging the same players in every game instead of taking some of those who are fringe players who certainly couldn't do any worse than these "tired" blokes.

The NRL season does not usually run from early February until December.


Okay, what is your simple explanation for our present situation? It is all the coach's fault?

Fantastic. All we have to do is change the coach and - hey presto - all our ills will be fixed.

 

[Gnostic]

@Dumbledore

I knew I missed something - defence (just like the Wallabies this year )

I don't know about regression at the breakdown. I know what you are saying about England last year, but perhaps that was just a factor of that particular England team on that day (France like) because the next week they did the ABs at nearly every aspect of the game, and the Wallabies certainly weren't that good last year. I have seen a change in how they approach the breakdown with the numbers being committed. I just do not think they are seek to compete, just secure the ball or send in an opportunist for the hand on pilfer. When have the Wallabies attempted to really counter ruck past the ball with any consistency. It just isn't something they seem to even look to do. I actually see this as why Hooper is being selected over Gill, simply the breakdown is just something that happens and not something that is to be competed.

 

[Gnostic]

A player without the right skills should not be playing Soup, let alone Test rugby. Of course the coaching staff (all the coaching staff) will be constantly giving players feedback on their performance, drills will be used to hone skills. But frankly skills cannot be magically improved overnight, except in very unusual situations, IMHO
I did not say that coaches are not needed, of course they are. The head coach has a strategic role, the assistants work on the technical aspects that allow the strategy to be implemented. The head coach is basically the selector, as I understand it, he has to have some sort of succession plan for every position in the squad, that alone would take countless hours of work, I would guess.



The NRL season does not usually run from early February until December.


Okay, what is your simple explanation for our present situation? It is all the coach's fault?

Fantastic. All we have to do is change the coach and - hey presto - all our ills will be fixed.

A coach will select players on potential and develop that potential eg. Timani, Kearns, Campese, Horan, Little, Eales etc etc etc. All young, all talents, all flawed and incomplete. All selected on talent and on potential. The coaches had to work on it over extended periods. I never said a coach will be able to improve something overnight, but surely in the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) example he should now after so many years a professional be able to pass effectively from both hands. Look at Israel Dagg & Savea - how have they improved in their approach to taking the high ball. Contrast that with every Australian back excepting Folau who came to the game with the skills from another sport.

I know you didn't say that coaches were not needed, I was being facetious. Surely though if they do not impart such things and ensure that the skills are improved the players will not improve. If the coaches say they are doing this (and I mean not only test level but super and club level also) then I can only judge by the actual results and say they need to radically change their methods, because they are failing utterly.

No the NRL season doesn't run Feb to Dec. But how many games do they play in the season, including all the rep games, because we should compare apples with apples.

I am not seeking to lay all the blame on the coach, but ultimately they do have to take responsibility as they are the one in charge of the systems to improve the aspects we have been talking about. There are many things that they cannot control, but they can and should be judged on what they do control and are responsible for.

 

[Dumbledore]

I actually see this as why Hooper is being selected over Gill, simply the breakdown is just something that happens and not something that is to be competed.

Partially disagree. I don't think it's so much they're ignoring the breakdown, it's that we actually need one forward who can run the ball. From the pack that we've seen most under Link, who would you actively class as a ball-carrier?

Slipper
Moore
Alexander
Horwill
Simmons
Fardy
Hooper
Mowen

I reckon you're looking at Fardy and Hooper there. I know Gill is more than just a straight up breakdown monster, but you're going to be hard pushed to argue he has the same game as Hooper ball-in-hand. I reckon if you bring either one, or both, of Higgers and Palu into the team then Gill gets selected. Even a lock like Carter or Pyle or Jones who can make some serious metres frees up room for Gill.