Australia vs South Africa - Brisbane 7th Sept 2013

[boyo]

Just a minor aside:

Something must be done via Qld Stadiums to deal with the obvious seriously poor playing surface now in place at Suncorp.

It was bad enough during the BIL series when the rainy June here was a vaguely plausible excuse. But then and now - and after a hot, dry August - the surface still looks badly mottled with uneven grass coverage and the grass and top soil is breaking up far too easily, witness the many slippages and awful mess the surface becomes after just a typical scrum. Contrast this, for example, with typical NZ stable and solid fields where there's less sun, less heat, and more rain. You can see the positive difference immediately.

I suspect the post 2011 flood major resurfacing done at Suncorp wasn't done well at a technical design or execution level. With such a superb viewing and well-positioned stadium, the latest Suncorp surface is far from living up to the stadium's justifiably high reputation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

The grass cover at Waikato Stadium in Hamilton is pretty bloody good.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

he braced himself for impact. You're not obliged to move out of the way. Even your commentators thought it was barely a penalty. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) took a soccer like dive. If you'd yellow that I wouldn't want to have you as a ref

Thankfully I'll never have to watch you play then

 

[Gnostic]

Since the Wallabies scrum cannot get their basic set up right perhaps they should all sit down and watch this tutorial from Mike Cron teaching school boys in NZ.

Seriously I have had a bit more of a look at the Wallabies scrum in this RC and they are still setting up in the same way they did for the "hit". As I said in an earlier post the Wallabies only ever did well in the scrum over the last 10 years when Robinson was fit and in form and able to dominate the hit. If the Wallabies did not dominate the hit there were too many flaws in their scrum set up it could only go one way. Now there is no hit to dominate or hide the flaws in, and the refs aren't worried about just getting away from the scrum with all necks intact the Wallabies are being exposed.

I do not care who is selected, if they are not being coached to perform basics such as setting up the scrum correctly it wouldn't matter if Hercules was at LHP and Atlas THP the results would be the same.

 

[TSR]

This is probably a post for a different spot, but the selection of Slipper at LHP troubles me.

I understand Slipper prefers Loosehead, but he plays predominantly THP for Qld. Given Qlds top 4 props are all predominantly loose heads, this is not likely to change.

On the one hand, with the emergence of Sio, Alexander is finally playing mostly tight head at Super & Test level. But now it seems Slipper is playing a different position at test & super level. It would seem to me to be far more beneficial in the long term for Robinson & Sio to be played on the LH side & Slipper, Alexander & Kepu to fight out THP.

Given the extra prop on the bench I don't understand there is any reason to play guys on opposite sides anymore.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Wasn't Heyneke Meyer rather animated during the brief crosses to the coaches box?

Is he always like that?

He was as fidgety as a wombat on bull ants nest.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Our forwards are too small, simple as that.

They might be 2m tall, but they look like AFL players compared to the AB's and Boks.

All of 'em - Too friggin' small!

Are they really "too friggin' small" "compared to the AB's and Boks", nugget? Most of the TV commentators and print media seem to agree with you, particularly with regard to the Springboks, with the stand-out being the headline, "Wallabies pack eye 'Goliath' Springboks".

Let's check the facts. I have used the body weights listed on Google.

Firstly our most recent Bledisloe game. Our pack weight totalled 906kg and the All Blacks 905kg.

Then we turn to the Goliaths. Our pack from last night's game totalled 911kg and the Springboks 939kg. An average advantage of 3.5kg doesn't exactly constitute a David vs. Goliath situation in my opinion.

As I indicated earlier in this thread, the underlying problem is PPPP - Piss Poor Physical Preparation, with the result that our blokes present as being undersized compared to their opponents. The problem is lack of functional strength and endurance not size. It's about time this issue was recognised and addressed.
.

 

[Sully]

Only a complete fucking idiot would blame last night's loss on one player. If you think that player was the flyhalf you would make the idiot look a genius. Not one single Australian player was better than their opposition. It really is time to get over continually bashing one player because you don't like the person you think he is.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4

 

[barbarian]

My main issue with Cooper was his organisation of the attack, or lack thereof.

I was under the impression that one of the main benefits of picking Cooper at 10 is his understanding and combination with Genia. Yet they looked like they have never played together on Saturday. Our backline play was muddled and disorganised, and Genia made poor decisions at the ruck base.

He had a poor game IMO, but he certainly wasn't alone there (I would class 13 or 14 other players in that class) and he didn't have much quality ball to play with.
.

 

[Gnostic]

Are they really "too friggin' small" "compared to the AB's and Boks", nugget? Most of the TV commentators and print media seem to agree with you, particularly with regard to the Springboks, with the stand-out being the headline, "Wallabies pack eye 'Goliath' Springboks".

Let's check the facts. I have used the body weights listed on Google.

Firstly our most recent Bledisloe game. Our pack weight totalled 906kg and the All Blacks 905kg.

Then we turn to the Goliaths. Our pack from last night's game totalled 911kg and the Springboks 939kg. An average advantage of 3.5kg doesn't exactly constitute a David vs. Goliath situation in my opinion.

As I indicated earlier in this thread, the underlying problem is PPPP - Piss Poor Physical Preparation, with the result that our blokes present as being undersized compared to their opponents. The problem is lack of functional strength and endurance not size. It's about time this issue was recognised and addressed.
.

Exactly Bruce. You could add in lack of technique.

Everyone should remember what happened to the Tahs when they "bulked up" under Foley in 2012. How did that go? Every player has an ideal weight range and some of the lighter weights can be the most effective. I remember Topo as being one of the smaller props running around Australia but his technique was so far ahead of anybody else and lets not forget one of my favourite props of all time, Tom Smith of Scotland, at his heaviest he would have been lucky to break the ton, but he was rarely defeated like our "big" boys have been over the last few years.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Since the Wallabies scrum cannot get their basic set up right perhaps they should all sit down and watch this tutorial from Mike Cron teaching school boys in NZ.

great video

 

[Blue]

Wasn't Heyneke Meyer rather animated during the brief crosses to the coaches box?

Is he always like that?

He was as fidgety as a wombat on bull ants nest.

He has always been like that. Very animated but apparently on the training paddock in front of the players he is generally very calm.

 

[Joe Blow]

It is just not about size in the forwards.
As Bruce points out we have a pack that will match most kilo for kilo. The problems are attitude, leadership, technique and most of all hunger......and not only in the forwards.
The SA backs were just as aggressive and abrasive in contact and at the breakdown as their forwards. It really was boys against men stuff.
Very sad to watch.
Dropping Robinson is looking like a very bad decision, particularly with Horwill, Pocock and Higginbotham out. Our pack lacks leadership and direction. Squeaky Moore should be leading the forwards and we cannot go into a test match against any reasonable opposition with a second row of Simmons and Douglas. Both are followers and have a tendency to wilt in the face of a Bok like onslaught. Kepu's back was as bent as a 2 bob hooker at scrum time and he is seriously lacking condition, as many of our forwards probably are.
It is a bit harsh to judge the backs playing behind a pack being destroyed but we did get a reasonable amount of pill that was not used well.
Genia is just completely lost. Why? White's service was so much better when he finally came on but it is hard to imagine he can be more effective than Genia on top of his game.
Lealifano does not look to be test standard and Quade is almost as lost as Genia.
I don't have a clue as to which changes may make a difference but would suggest Link will now finish out the RC with more or less the same players limiting damage where possible and re-think his Wallaby side/squad for the EOYT.

 

[Mank]

Congratulations must go to the South Africans for the grace they showed in victory.
The captain and coach were terrific and I sensed the victory meant a hell of a lot to them and the whole squad.

And then some. This victory felt very very good for a fan, I imagine what it must have felt like for the boys on the field and the coaches. Commiserations to Australia, they had some good play but were consistently below average. Still, I'm not going to let that ruin a fantastic victory by the Boks who played superbly.

 

[It is what it is]

Can anyone remember Kepu's last strong game at any level?
Does he lack the will to impose himself on his opposition prop?
Where has his running game and athleticism gone?
Is he fit enough for anything more than 10 minutes of rugby per stint?
He is racking up test appearances, but sadly will go down as one of our more forgettable Wallabies if he doesn't dramatically lift his game for what's left of his career. Wake up man and make the most of your god given abilities.
He also seemed a better player as a raw newcomer than he does now with all this time in 'the system'.

 

[Richo]

A couple of things. Was he right call made with the first try? There was no evidence. Is isn't that a reason not to award a try? Personably I think he probably scored it but no visual evidence.

The other one was nick cummins tapping the ball back in on the 5 mt line when steyn locked for touch from a penalty. Why was that called in touch?

This world was almost too topsy-turvy for me to handle. We get thrashed at Suncorp, Tony Abbott is PM, and Clive Palmer is going to Canberra. But at least some things stay the same. Never change, Shiggins.

 

[hughbert]

tekay hughbert I really think you lot are missing the point. The backs aren't the problem. Quade isn't the problem. To'omua isn't the problem. Since when have the "Quade fan club", you so affectionately labelled, come out on here and said he was the SAVIOUR of the wallabies? For all my 'parochial' bullshit, red tinted glasses and Gorilla like behaviour, I've actually said he was no better or worse than To'omua. I said they both need to have a functioning and competitive forward pack to lay any claim to the 10 jersey at all.

All you have presented so far are a list of stereotypes that surround his play like the fact "he can't defend" when he defended sufficiently well on saturday night, or "he can't take responsibility for mistakes" or "hes just a flashy idiot who should be playing touch". That is the kind of stuff I expect to see on Facebook comments from people who have no clue what half the team are doing on the field.

YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK SHIT BEHIND A SHIT FORWARD PACK. Or at best, you'll look average. And both Cooper and To'omua have looked average so I think they deserve some credit considering what they had to deal with. So how many times does it have to be said? How many times will it take for you to realise that this is not a question of my provincial bias, but rather, how the hell we can improve the efforts of the forwards. Only then will we be able to truely judge whether Quade "has no vision" or To'omua "is our future in the flyhalf jersey".

So, once again, just to be clear, just so you don't get mixed up, We won't know who the best flyhalf is until the forwards step up. At the moment, Quade and To'omua are our best options, and I'm happy with whoever gets the gig at the moment, no one is our saviour at flyhalf as far as I'm concerned.

tekay hughbert I really think you lot are missing the point. The backs aren't the problem. Quade isn't the problem. To'omua isn't the problem. Since when have the "Quade fan club", you so affectionately labelled, come out on here and said he was the SAVIOUR of the wallabies? For all my 'parochial' bullshit, red tinted glasses and Gorilla like behaviour, I've actually said he was no better or worse than To'omua. I said they both need to have a functioning and competitive forward pack to lay any claim to the 10 jersey at all.

All you have presented so far are a list of stereotypes that surround his play like the fact "he can't defend" when he defended sufficiently well on saturday night, or "he can't take responsibility for mistakes" or "hes just a flashy idiot who should be playing touch". That is the kind of stuff I expect to see on Facebook comments from people who have no clue what half the team are doing on the field.

YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK SHIT BEHIND A SHIT FORWARD PACK. Or at best, you'll look average. And both Cooper and To'omua have looked average so I think they deserve some credit considering what they had to deal with. So how many times does it have to be said? How many times will it take for you to realise that this is not a question of my provincial bias, but rather, how the hell we can improve the efforts of the forwards. Only then will we be able to truely judge whether Quade "has no vision" or To'omua "is our future in the flyhalf jersey".

So, once again, just to be clear, just so you don't get mixed up, We won't know who the best flyhalf is until the forwards step up. At the moment, Quade and To'omua are our best options, and I'm happy with whoever gets the gig at the moment, no one is our saviour at flyhalf as far as I'm concerned.

Tell me, did you have this "the forwards are the issue and the identity of the flyhalf is a non issue" attitude after the two bledisloes and before last night, or were you all for having cooper start last night in lieu of To'omua?

The only reason that you're unprepared to discuss the merits of a flyhalf switch is thy you k is you can't reasonably argue that quade is better, so suddenly "they are the same and it doesn't matter"

No matter how shit the forwards are, if quade had done even one thing last night not best described as mediocre, we all know that you'd be championing for his starting the next 10 tests. A switch at at flyhalf is now "pointless" because your man happens to be the incumbent.

 

[The Red Baron]

The Boks are looking scary good. They are really well drilled in the forwards, and show discipline in the backs. What I found most disconcerting (from a Wallabies point of view) was how they showed so much patience in defence, effectively forcing the turnover.

In contrast, the Wallabies looked horribly lost. I barely saw a pod of forwards all night. There was no real structured phase play, but that is because we were getting punished at the breakdown. The Kiwis did the same thing to us. At one point I saw Ben Alexander receive the ball, give it a puzzled look, and then glance about to see who was with him. Once he was satisfied that the nearest support player was about 5 metres away, he promptly charged the ball up into the teeth of the waiting Bok backrow. No surprises as to what happened next.

We need to get fit, we need to get strong, and we need to show some fucking mongrel. Nothing against Hooper, as he has been a standout in a very ordinary team, but if it wasn't clear before what Pocock brought to the team, it is now - a dominant physical presence. The forwards need to start manning up, look to inflict the hurt on teams, and actually play like a pack. No more one out shit. Relish the physical challenge.

I have a feeling the NZ-SA game is going to be a cracker though. They are going to go hammer and tongs at each other.

 

[The Red Baron]

Tell me, did you have this "the forwards are the issue and the identity of the flyhalf is a non issue" attitude after the two bledisloes and before last night, or were you all for having cooper start last night in lieu of To'omua?

The only reason that you're unprepared to discuss the merits of a flyhalf switch is thy you k is you can't reasonably argue that quade is better, so suddenly "they are the same and it doesn't matter"

No matter how shit the forwards are, if quade had done even one thing last night not best described as mediocre, we all know that you'd be championing for his starting the next 10 tests. A switch at at flyhalf is now "pointless" because your man happens to be the incumbent.

Stop baiting, it's getting old. Pretty much everyone on the field last night was mediocre. Quade included. While we a posturing though, who is to say that To'omua would have been any better behind a pack that was utterly destroyed?

As for whether lewisr had a certain attitude or not, go back over the threads and have a look.

We have 3 flyhalfs in the squad. One has played 2 matches so far in the RC, and wasn't all that crash hot. He had moments, but really couldn't take his chances. A large portion of that is because the forwards were manhandled, giving the 10 no platform to work on. Another 10 has played one game, and suffered from the same issue. Wasn't brilliant, but again was playing behind a pack that was being demolished. The other 10 is Foley, and he hasn't had a game yet.

So based on the evidence so far, they are pretty even. Neither flyhalf that has played has taken owned the jumper, and were hampered by a beaten pack. So yeah, the forwards are the issue. The flyhalf, not so much.

Please give the anti Quade vitriol a rest.

Edit - and quit playing the man.

 

[lewisr]

Tell me, did you have this "the forwards are the issue and the identity of the flyhalf is a non issue" attitude after the two bledisloes and before last night, or were you all for having cooper start last night in lieu of To'omua?

The only reason that you're unprepared to discuss the merits of a flyhalf switch is thy you k is you can't reasonably argue that quade is better, so suddenly "they are the same and it doesn't matter"

No matter how shit the forwards are, if quade had done even one thing last night not best described as mediocre, we all know that you'd be championing for his starting the next 10 tests. A switch at at flyhalf is now "pointless" because your man happens to be the incumbent.

The red Baron has pretty much answered this... In fact, I did believe the forwards were the main issue behind our poor performances in the first two tests. But I will also admit that I was all for giving Quade a shot at Suncorp against the Boks, as were many on this forum. He was an unknown, why not give it a go? Especially in his own town. I don't really see this as some sort of weird anti-To'omua, pro-reds campaign. I like To'omua as a player, but his first two games were average, just as Quade was last night. We can now safely say that they are on par with each other as the the Pack was comprehensively beaten on all occasions.

Since when have I been unprepared to discuss the merits of a flyhalf switch? I'm simply pointing out that you're beating down on one player who was hardly the biggest criminal on the night.

Yet again, you're just putting words in my mouth mate... I will be perfectly fine with To'omua starting next week, I would also be perfectly fine with "My man! Wooo! Go Quade!" starting. Unfortunately, neither are going to have a blinder if we don't smash the Argies up front.

EDITTING: I really need to give this a break though because I'm sure people are sick of it. This is my last comment on the matter.

 

[gel]

Are they really "too friggin' small" "compared to the AB's and Boks", nugget? Most of the TV commentators and print media seem to agree with you, particularly with regard to the Springboks, with the stand-out being the headline, "Wallabies pack eye 'Goliath' Springboks".

Let's check the facts. I have used the body weights listed on Google.

Firstly our most recent Bledisloe game. Our pack weight totalled 906kg and the All Blacks 905kg.

Then we turn to the Goliaths. Our pack from last night's game totalled 911kg and the Springboks 939kg. An average advantage of 3.5kg doesn't exactly constitute a David vs. Goliath situation in my opinion.

As I indicated earlier in this thread, the underlying problem is PPPP - Piss Poor Physical Preparation, with the result that our blokes present as being undersized compared to their opponents. The problem is lack of functional strength and endurance not size. It's about time this issue was recognised and addressed.
.

I'm a bit suspicious of the weight listings for a number of the players, seem to be rather over inflated. When seeing two guys who are supposed to be equal in weight (or near enough) there must be an awful lot of air in the Bok one to justify the much larger size with almost no weight difference.

I am sure it wasn't just me that was looking at the boks last night and thinking they were huge by comparison.

I am not saying conditioning is not important - it is - I am just suggesting that the size issue might well be there as well given the numbers may well be fictitious.