Bledisloe 1 - Wallabies vs All Blacks, ANZ Stadium, Sydney, 8:05pm
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
It blows my mind just how bad a team this is. From an experienced professional rugby player at the highest level... what on earth?
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
Yet in all of Forcefan's excellent work he consistently comes out looking very good.
The Snout
Ward Prentice (10)
Well, head and form suggest New Zealand win by 14-19 points. But with overseas players returning, lessons from the England loss, 4 weeks together, a mild dose of Mick Byrne, it's hard to get a read if form matters.
So Australia by 5 in what will be a totally unexpected epic test.
So Australia by 5 in what will be a totally unexpected epic test.
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
I'm expecting a rusty performance from both sides with only a few highlights that will largely determine the result. My guess is that players from both sides have been staying up to all hours watching the Olympics and drinking marshmallow laden hot chocolates to keep them awake...
is there a stat for folding backwards on contact?
it may be a bias, but i always think of Simmons as soft in the contact, not someone to ever bump someone off or go through a defending tackler
T
TOCC
Guest
Ah yes the whole general play and dynamism argument, it gets rolled out at Wallabies selection time ever 12 months. Asking for more dynamic play from Simmons in general play is like asking for more set piece refinement from players like Coleman and Arnold, they are both weaknesses in each others game.
-Simmons lacks in general play, that's not going to change, his strength is without question his input at the set piece.
-Arnold's impact is in general play, Arnold needs technical refinement in the set piece, raw physical potential but still leaning the technical aspects of the game, error rate is still to high for a test lock.
-Coleman has been completely outclassed every time he has gone up against a first class lineout opponent in Super Rugby, he is still young and learning. Long term he has a lot of promise an is potentially a long term Wallaby option, just needs more time to learn the ropes.
-Carter, needs to rediscover his 2014 form, until he does he shouldn't be in the Wallabies.
-Skelton has no place in the Wallabies until he improves his fitness and Cheika increases the lineout options in the forward pack.
-Douglas, he is probably the most balanced of Australia's locks, good work rate in general play and the set piece, but exceptional in neither.
Australia's lock selection isn't a matter of ranking them 1-10 and selecting the top 2.. It's about finding balance In the squad, whilst Cheika continue to run 2 open sides Australia's lineout will always be marginally worse off then countries like New Zealand and South Africa who have 4 jumpers.
New Zealand is also the best defensive lineout in the country, this will forever be a selection consideration for Bledisloe matches. You can't hide from lineouts, Australia tried in the RWC GF and England Test Series but failed badly at it.
My preference would be a lineout partnership of Douglas-Coleman, but like alluded to above I'm not sure Coleman is at the leve required yet.
G
galumay
Guest
Thats the trouble with trying to use stats to analyse players, they tell a story about whatever statistic is being measured, but its only a small part of the whole story. I have seen many conclusions drawn from stats on this site - they often extrapolate beyond what is logical.
T
TOCC
Guest
I hate stats for that reason, they don't factor for parochial bias, preconceived ideas or the want for illogical discussions
tragic
John Solomon (38)
I know I started the focus on the locks by commenting on the lineout prowess of Bourkes absurd team selection but there is so little between them it's not going to be the point of difference. As long as Cheiks doesn't repeat the mistake of having Skelton Pocock and Hooper in the same team the lineout will be fine - whether it's Coleman, Arnold or Simmons partnering Douglas.
The biggest influence on the outcome, as it was against England, will still be 9/10 and our kicking/ exit strategies.
If we still kick worse than a bunch of subbies on a Sunday stroll we'll get munted.
The biggest influence on the outcome, as it was against England, will still be 9/10 and our kicking/ exit strategies.
If we still kick worse than a bunch of subbies on a Sunday stroll we'll get munted.
Skelton was poor in the third test but the stats show that our lineout didn't suffer terribly.
Do I remember correctly that Moore had one terrible throw close to our line which resulted in us giving up a try? I don't think that had anything to do with Skelton.
Losing our lineout caller to injury is surely just as much if not more likely to damage our ability in the lineout.
I would be surprised if Skelton gets selected with Douglas fit again but the reality is that this is an area where we are consistently behind the All Blacks and Springboks in general play where our locks just don't do enough ball running and coaches will keep looking for options to improve that.
Do I remember correctly that Moore had one terrible throw close to our line which resulted in us giving up a try? I don't think that had anything to do with Skelton.
Losing our lineout caller to injury is surely just as much if not more likely to damage our ability in the lineout.
I would be surprised if Skelton gets selected with Douglas fit again but the reality is that this is an area where we are consistently behind the All Blacks and Springboks in general play where our locks just don't do enough ball running and coaches will keep looking for options to improve that.
A mutterer
Chilla Wilson (44)
our exit strategies were definitely weak in the england series, but even so it looked at times like we were deliberately not looking for touch.
i expect that to change with the euro crew back in the side with better kicking options, and the generally solid lineout from that series should make this a less troublesome area given the stats.
if we use skelton off the bench and he actually runs through contact looking for an offload not for a quick lie down and cuddle, the starting locks will definitely need to be jumpers.
T
TOCC
Guest
Well there in lies the problem, stats also show that that was the least number of line-outs the Wallabies have thrown in the past 18months, except for the RWC GF when Douglas was injured in the opening minutes.
Stats also show that line-outs laid the platform for 50% of Wallabies tries during the RWC, a similar stat for all teams. So shouldn't the Wallabies play to this stat?
How much of the game plan was designed around minimising the number of line-outs given the Wallabies knew it was a weakness of theirs, we all bemoaned the poor kicking performance, how much of that was related to trying to keep the ball away from the sideline and prevent line-outs? I suspect quite a bit, and it wasn't a positive or successful tactic IMO.
I don't know you can make that correlation. We also had the same number of lineout throws as we did in the first test (10).
We dominated possession in the first two tests and the second test in particular had a lot of lineouts. Some of those were due to us turning down shots at goal and taking a lineout.
The third test was more free flowing and possession was far more evenly split and both sides had less lineout throws.
Aside from missing touch on a penalty kick I'm not sure how our poor kicking game affects the number of lineout throws we have.
T
TOCC
Guest
In the first test where Rob Simmons went off injured at 24mins?
You really don't see how poor kicking impacts on the number of line-outs a match? A clearing kick which finds space is more likely to be kicked back then one which goes straight to a player, why? Because they are offered more time to react, if the ball finds space then that means the chasing team is closer, if the ball goes straight to a players, then he has an extra time and space to work with.
Go back and watch the 3rd test, unless the Wallabies were pegged near their line then they weren't going for touch, they tried to find space(poorly as well) and clear the ball that way. If they were in their 22m - 50m zone the Wallabies opted to run the ball almost all the time, again if you go back and watch the game or even read the comments on this forum the England rush defence was shutting the Wallabies down all night, there was a mile of space behind the defensive line but the Wallabies never kicked, they tried to run it out of their half.
Third test had 25% less line-outs then the preceding 2 test matches.
G
galumay
Guest
The biggest problem with stats, is not the stats, but the reality that most who use them thouroughly confuse correlation with causation.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain'
- Mark Twain'
T
TOCC
Guest
Stats serve a purpose, they don't paint the full picture, but they paint some of the picture, and often some of the picture is all that is needed to counter some of the parochialist debates or preconceived ideas which occur on this forum.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
2014 Tahs Vs 2015 Tahs. RWC wallabies vs England Tri series wallabies. I'm specifically saying he has a talent for preparing a team for a campaign and then those same teams appear to play under a mental hangover for the next campaign.
Leinster never backed up their Heineken cup win, but to be fair did well in the Celtic league. Stade Francais were losing finalists and then losing semi finalists under his watch.
I believe the way he prepares his teams is all or nothing. He doesn't play the safe middle ground like Dean's did. Which to be fair reaps reward. RWC final being case in point. We aren't the second best rugby nation in the world. But on the backside I'm glad he is the coach. His methods have the best chance of us ever taking back the Bledisloe.
- Status