Can Cheika ball work for the Wallabies?

[mst]

Take the two comments in conjunction:

My point being: Rowntree might be able to get the most out of his scrum - even when it comes to turning Marler into a cheat. But it changes the dynamic of the game Cheika is trying to play.

In addition, you have to account for the fact that Marler gets to cheat like a useless, mohawked fuckbeard because England. NONE of our props get any leeway with the referees because Wallabies.

I think you are on the money about how it would change the dynamic of the game Cheika wants to play.

But then again I am pretty sure it would change any game and I believe that’s it’s usually an objective of opposition teams to make sure the opposition can’t play the way they want.

Deficiencies in teams like weak scrums are not new. A quick look around and you can see the Poms are a team of forwards as they can’t find any decent backs, the Bok’s are also trying get a backline and are struggling with it. The All Blacks have decided to be good all over, but not brilliant and as they don’t have the size they use speed - and teams are now starting to catch up to their game pace. The reality is you do the best with what you have at the time. You adapt your play to suit the players you have, not the other way around.

With the Wallabies are we overlooking an inherent flaw with our game though? I mean we have had 3 regime changes, this is game plan V3.0 (at least) and so far each game plan has produced mixed results. Logically if you have a game plan and not the right players the game plan is worthless right? Dress it up with whatever PR you want, add in x-factor, promote and market it all you want. Shit even bring in big $$ super stars, worlds best at certain position, even cart loads of x-factor. Still won’t make it work.

So, have we all, player, coach, administrator, media and supporters alike in Australia all collective brain-fucked ourselves and each other and are still having a deluded circle jerk that we just need a better game plan? FFS how many times do we need to do this????

But remember we have impaled ourselves on to a dildo of caveats, limitations and expectations; it’s all about running rugby right? Just like all the supporters want, it’s what we are marketing; it’s the Wallaby way and Aussie way. Hard to be convinced with the results it’s producing and the support its building – so just pretend it’s a good pain and learn enjoy it – it’s what you wanted and asked for.

So blame the players? They have been there for years, same results or there or there about - rinse and repeat. Shit at times they have even won games. So they are a known quantity and we know they can perform both well and poorly. So the real question is if they are so shit why doesn't someone grow a pair and cut them all loose and bring in the next generation? At least the results can’t be worse and the supporters will be optimistic about building a future and may expand the supporter base and reconnect the disenfranchised.

Or is it a management / coaching issue? We know what we have player-wise, we know what works and doesn’t (read a forum!), so why don’t we have a plan that suits our player strengths? There is no way we can say that these game deficiencies are new and surprise us. So why can’t we get the results? Flawed game plan or wrong players?

So, what about the unwavering support of the fans? Well maybe a piece of the puzzle is the brain fucking we, the fans do to some of the Wallabies. So the forwards bleed on the field and give it their all, maybe they aren't the world’s best, but good or bad they are going to get bagged regardless of the results – that’s a sure thing nowadays, (again read a forum). So how’s their confidence? (I also figure this would help influence a referee’s perspectives I expect when a shitload of their own supports think that the THP is odds on to fold!). So apparently they are shit and have been for years. So what have we done about it? Did we get a Laurie Fisher in, or a Rowntree. Nope, we spend $$ on an Izzy and obsess about running rugby. Playing the Aussie way and about x-factor backs bringing us miracles. Hard work up front, nah too slow and not entertaining!

Should I mention the locks?

Do the maths on the elements and we may see indicators why some players are walking, and why the supporter base is dwindling.

When this thread changes to "Can the Wallaby-ball keep evolving and improving?"" people might re-subscribe. Feel free to argue the subtleties and nuances, but the “team and player” parts seem a secondary thought behind who is performing the miracles and magic off field, and is it entertaining.

How many years of the Wallaby plan version “ashitload” have we put up with this and here is the same sort of [mast]debate from 2 world cups ago. FFS, we did this already do this with the Tahs 3 year plan over the last 20 years. When will we learn?

My point being, yes we need a scrum, kicking half backs and good locks and the relevant skill coaches to go with it then build a game plan around the strengths we have.

Sadly the players are walking and guys like Lord Laurie that eat, drink, breathe and shit scrums and anything to do with forwards are more welcome in the other hemisphere.

So Pfitzy, the answer is………. get another coach to fix it. An Argie one this times to be different. Tadahhh! Fixed.


Now, where’s my tin foil hat and All Blacks jersey. Viva Les Bleus and swing low.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Put me more in the camp of deciding the style of game you want to play and then find the players best to deliver on that plan. My reasoning for this is that without some kind of philosophy that underpins the way you approach the game you'll be forever trying to chase the latest trend, spend so much time second guessing your opposition that you forget any kind of plan of your own and maybe even throwing as many talented players out on the field as you can without regard for the best player for the position.

Our most successful Wallaby coaches (A Jones, Dwyer, MacQueen) in my time watching the game have started with their preferred game style and then worked bloody hard to find players capable of delivering the plan and trained them precisely in that manner. They were relentless in articulating their vision for achieving success to the players and all the practice sessions and team meetings would have been about that. What they didn't do was simply get the best fifteen rugby players in Australia and tell them to go out there and work it out as they went along.

We can bemoan the fact that we don't have a strong scrum (for instance) and that all of our tight forwards are rubbish, but doesn't that (a) admit defeat and (b) say that ability/talent is destiny and players can't improve? You can't tell me that if we really decided to get serious about having strong set pieces at Test level that with the coaching resources the Wallabies have we couldn't achieve it. We had a rubbish scrum under Eddie Jones because he reportedly chose to ignore it, not because there were no good props or tighthead locks in the country. Our player numbers are sufficient that enough quality, coachable athletes will be produced to be suitable for Test footy.

Cheika showed last year that he had a game plan that could take a playing group that had perpetually under-achieved and turn them into winners (McKenzie did too, but that's a debate for another time). He's done it at other places too, so it was no fluke. I am quite certain that he has worked out his rugby philosophy with respect to the Wallabies and will be crystal clear with the players and assistant coaches about how he intends to achieve that. There will be some players who won't make it of course, either because they don't share the vision or aren't quite good enough to deliver their part. Some may not make it because of a poor attitude too.

My biggest concern is that he might not have enough time in charge of the team before the RWC to implement his plan. If Link had survived or Cheika had taken the job 12 months earlier I'd be feeling pretty content with our chances, but that's not how it's worked out unfortunately.

 

[wamberal]

No time for experiments. The coach will analyse the strengths and weaknesses of his resources, and design a playing style that is the most appropriate in terms of exploiting the strengths and hiding or at least minimising the weaknesses.

It would be the height of stupidity to decide to play a style for which we do not have the talent.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Best we adopt the style of the Tahs from last year then.

 

[wamberal]

Cheika grew up in the Randwick culture in which the whole team ran the ball, just about every player could catch and pass effectively, because they practised that a lot at training.

Because they favoured the open, running, game, Randwick tended to attract players who wanted to play that style.


However, make no mistake, their forward pack was always effective in the stuff that forwards are there for.

 

[Slim 293]

There was an interview with Bernie in today's Oz...............

Here's a snippet re: Brumbies style of play and Wobs' attack coach:

Larkham said the Brumbies would still, to a certain extent, play the percentage style introduced by former head coach Jake White in 2012. But he is making changes to their attack and defence, which will be coached by former Brumbies backrower Peter Ryan.

“Still the same philosophy. To win the Super Rugby competition you need good set-piece. You need good defence and you need to play risk-averse rugby at times,” Lark- ham said.

“That has served us well over the last couple of years in terms of being fairly consistent in getting out of our end. Playing a fairly strong kicking game and waiting for opportunities in the opposition half.

“We are not going to go too far away from all that sort of stuff, but we are going to change a few policies in defence and we are going to change our set-piece attack and a few little tweaks to our multi-phase attack as well.”

Larkham was keen to accept an invitation to join Wallabies coach Michael Cheika’s coaching staff for the World Cup, but he is yet to sign up formally until he is satisfied the role will not encroach overly on his duties with the Brumbies.

“Michael wants to make sure he is 100 per cent focused on the Waratahs season and that’s the underlying factor for me as well,” Larkham said.

“If it encroaches on the Brumbies’ preparation or season, I’m not going to be involved in it. They have assured me that won’t be the case. I’m very keen to be involved, but nothing has been signed yet.”

With the Brumbies playing their opening game against the Queensland Reds in Canberra on Friday night, Larkham said he wanted to resolve the Wallabies issue sooner rather than later.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...ow-larkhams-team/story-e6frg7o6-1227212374433

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Cheika grew up in the Randwick culture in which the whole team ran the ball, just about every player could catch and pass effectively, because they practised that a lot at training.

Because they favoured the open, running, game, Randwick tended to attract players who wanted to play that style.


However, make no mistake, their forward pack was always effective in the stuff that forwards are there for.

I don't think anyone disputes any of that. Randwick footy is just about the best to watch I've probably ever seen, successful too. I agree that all of their great sides had excellent packs.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

There was an interview with Bernie in today's Oz.....

Here's a snippet re: Brumbies style of play and Wobs' attack coach:

Keen to be involved, happy days!

 

[Quick Hands]

Cheika grew up in the Randwick culture in which the whole team ran the ball, just about every player could catch and pass effectively, because they practised that a lot at training.

Because they favoured the open, running, game, Randwick tended to attract players who wanted to play that style.


However, make no mistake, their forward pack was always effective in the stuff that forwards are there for.

Their whole style of play was built on having dominant forward packs.

 

[wamberal]

If I were Cheika I would be working on strengthening our obvious weaknesses first and foremost.


The scrum is the most obvious. But quite a few of our first choice players could use some intensive coaching.


For example, Foley could learn to kick the ball out of hand. That used to be a fairly important skill that EVERY fly-half needed.

 

[fatprop]

Their whole style of play was built on having dominant forward packs.

and hard work

 

[Strewthcobber]

For example, Foley could learn to kick the ball out of hand. That used to be a fairly important skill that EVERY fly-half needed.

Could you send everyone that wants to play in the back 3 to the same kicking clinic?

 

[Quick Hands]

and hard work

can't have one without the other

 

[wamberal]

Could you send everyone that wants to play in the back 3 to the same kicking clinic?

Good point, cobber!

 

[Quick Hands]

Could you send everyone that wants to play in the back 3 to the same kicking clinic?

one of the issues is that the drop punt is the only type of kick that any of these guys are taught (if they're taught at all).

No doubt its more accurate and easier to control, but it has a much shorter range and it tends to drop straight down and is thus easier to catch or if it bounces it often bounces straight up or backwards or can dribble slowly forwards. A torpedo punt on the other hand is harder to master, but has a far longer range and because it spirals it is far harder to catch and if it bounces it tends to run end over end for quite a distance.

IMO it's a great advantage having someone in a team (at any level) who can belt the ball 50 or 60 metres downfield and into touch with a torpedo punt.

 

[Brumby Runner]

IMO it's a great advantage having someone in a team (at any level) who can belt the ball 50 or 60 metres downfield and into touch with a torpedo punt.

Too true, but our experience in recent times seems to see the ball go into touch in goal.

 

[Quick Hands]

Too true, but our experience in recent times seems to see the ball go into touch in goal.

True, which is why these guys need to practice these skills.

I saw Andrew Johns speak about kicking a couple of years or so back. He used to spend time before, after and away from training practicing his kicking skills. A lot of rugby people like to criticise league, but have a look at how often the good players get the ball to stop pretty much where they want it to stop. In league that usually means in the in-goal area. In rugby it means either just short of the goal line or in touch somewhere in the opposition 22.

It's actually an area in which league guys have much more skills than rugby players, which is ironic considering one of the main criticism league supporters have about rugby is too much kicking. In 5 tackle kick, precise kicking skills are vital, for too long rugby in Australia has neglected the skill of kicking from hand and so we are hopeless at it (speaking generally).

IMO anyone who wants to play 10 or 15 should be spending time before, after and away from training à la Andrew Johns at all different types of kicking. Like scrummaging, it's an area of the game not valued by junior rep coaches and selectors and therefore most players spend little time on it.

 

[Strewthcobber]

for too long rugby in Australia has neglected the skill of kicking

IMO anyone who wants to play 10 or 15 should be spending time before, after and away from training

Hear hear. I think it was against south Africa when Rob Horne got the ball in trouble and his only option to kick. The commentators said something along the lines of "he's not a renowned kicker" and then chuckled in unison when the ball went 15m straight up and sideways.

Meanwhile I nearly threw the remote through the TV. Fully pro players playing for the wallabies and they can't even perform a mediocre kick. Such a poor reflection of our coaching systems at all levels.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^ an result of not having enough primary school playgrounds that are big enough for a good old fashioned game of "force back" at lunchtime.

 

[Gnostic]

^^^ an result of not having enough primary school playgrounds that are big enough for a good old fashioned game of "force back" at lunchtime.

and to toughen one up a good old game of Bulldog on the asphalt.