Can Cheika ball work for the Wallabies?

[Sully]

I know it works. I've seen it work for the Waratahs.

But they had a two full pre-seasons and all of 2013 (perhaps some of 2014) to get it right. With the limited preparation time the Wallabies have can his systems be put into place with out picking 23 Waratahs?

We seem to be leaking points while the new defence system beds in. This is not what I'm refering to in this post. I'm certain that aspect will improve. It's more the attacking style of play that I'm interested in hearing peoples opinions of.


Please keep you state bias out of it. This is a Wallaby question.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Please keep you state bias out of it. This is a Wallaby question.

Good luck with that.
I think the first hurdle to it working is the selection issues it raises.
I think QC (Quade Cooper) offers more than Foley but I'm not sure he suits what TGC wants.
I also think To'omua is a serious test level 12 but Cheika evidently thinks KB (Kurtley Beale) suits CheikBall.
End result: I don't think that Cheikball can merely be transported across to tests.

But arguably more importantly it requires really effective 4, 5 and 6 ball running. I don't think (a) he's got the cattle to do that at this level and (b) its unlikely we ever would. Some adjustments needed there too. There's no Pottgeiter and we can't wait for Son of Potgeiter!

I think the tinkering with it necessary to make it work at this level means it will only be half done by RWC 2015.

 

[Sully]

We also don't have a crazy South African backrower to get us over the gain line. So the tweaking must have already started.

 

[Forcefield]

I wasn't super impressed by our attack last night. I'd rate two of our three tries as coming from opposition mistakes (e.g. Phipps' first) leading to unstructured play. We only really created one (which arguably was a forward pass). We have the skills to capitalise on those unstructured situations and it was beautiful to watch, but when it came to trying to construct something in the last ten minutes or so we had nothing. At the end, it looked like we were trying to do what the Force often do (run through the phases and keep on grinding until a gap opens up) but it didn't work. I think we are much more likely to construct a try from good set piece play and, for this reason, I can't understand why we are persisting with Skelton. I'll leave that there so that this doesn't just become a Skelton bashing thread.

Also, can we please stop calling a certain coaches style of play "Jakeball" or "Chiekaball" or whatever. And stop calling scandals "Textgate" or "Bealegate". It is a bit lame.

 

[Lorenzo]

Link's wallabies were giving away far too many points per match also, so the defense issues are not just due to readjustment.

To me, Super Rugby is to test rugby (at least test rugby against the Boks and Blacks, and increasingly against the 6N and Arg) what College Football is to the NFL. I know this in many respects is a flawed analogy, but i think in some respects apt.

There are several offensive schemes used in college football that are considered inappropriate for use against NFL caliber defenses. I think many a winning strategy in Super Rugby is not appropriate for use in test match rugby. For instance, a 10-12 combination of Foley and Beale has 0.00% chance of working (even disregarding defense) in test match rugby in my mind. It relies too much on athletic and skill superiority, and at test level those players don't have enough athletic superiority to get over the competition. An AB team (or most of the others on most of the occasions) on defense will never give Beale and Foley anywhere near the room to do their thing that they get in Super Rugby.

In Dwyer's words, you don't often run around players at test level. You need big men running straight upfield. Obviously Kuridrani is a revelation. But we need to see more straight running from the others, or new players that can.

At a tactical/strategic level, this wallabies side is sorely missing a kicker that can move the game into the oppo 22. Every other side has that. Even last night, the commentators were happy to describe Ireland doing that as "very smart play" but can't contemplate anything other than ball in hand when we have the pill.

I've no faith in us being turned into a promising unit by the RWC. Obviously as a wobs fan I want to be proven wrong.

Hopefully the build that happens post RWC will be done with the right balance.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I wasn't super impressed by our attack last night. I'd rate two of our three tries as coming from opposition mistakes (e.g. Phipps' first) leading to unstructured play. We only really created one (which arguably was a forward pass). We have the skills to capitalise on those unstructured situations and it was beautiful to watch, but when it came to trying to construct something in the last ten minutes or so we had nothing. At the end, it looked like we were trying to do what the Force often do (run through the phases and keep on grinding until a gap opens up) but it didn't work. I think we are much more likely to construct a try from good set piece play and, for this reason, I can't understand why we are persisting with Skelton. I'll leave that there so that this doesn't just become a Skelton bashing thread.

Also, can we please stop calling a certain coaches style of play "Jakeball" or "Chiekaball" or whatever. And stop calling scandals "Textgate" or "Bealegate". It is a bit lame.

I think TGC hope Skelton might become his Potgeiter. I cannot see it.
The only way we will see incisive breaks is if we stop running across field - there's little chance of that with KB (Kurtley Beale) on the radar and IF a fixture.

 

[Train Without a Station]

What worked with Cheika at the Waratahs, much like Link at the Reds was a de-emphasis on the set piece.

Link needed a very hard working pack where scrummaging was secondary.

Cheika needed a strong running pack where both scrummaging and the line out were secondary.

We learnt under Link's early time at the Wallabies that any short comings in the set piece could kill us.

The players that suit either of the super rugby styles do not have the set piece skill to strongly compete with the best in the world.

So to answer. No. It requires ignoring critical parts of test rugby.

 

[Sully]

Mate. If you don't want a player to be bashed in a thread don't bring his name up. But he seemed to handle Cheikaball okay for the Tahs.

And no you have no chance of stopping things being called ball or gate.

 

[Forcefield]

I think TGC hope Skelton might become his Potgeiter. I cannot see it.
The only way we will see incisive breaks is if we stop running across field - there's little chance of that with KB (Kurtley Beale) on the radar and IF a fixture.

I get that and I agree with you about not agreeing with Cheika. I guess the ideal would be to have guys like TPN and Palu back from injury. It's a shame Kane Douglas left. At the time I didn't think it was a big deal but with the downturn in Horwill's form we are left with egg on our faces.

 

[Paradox]

We seem to get lost on attack after a few phases and I do think Cooper is more capable than Foley in being able to pull out the killer move and seal a try. However, at this stage Cheika is just feeling out what he's got to work with and I'm not going to assume we are going to play Cheika-ball or that Cheika won't change things at test level. Cheika singled out To'omua specifically for praise after the Irish match so no one can assume Bubbly is going to get selected at 12.

Those inside passes from To'omua were very good to see. Is that Cheika ball?

 

[cyclopath]

I wasn't super impressed by our attack last night. I'd rate two of our three tries as coming from opposition mistakes (e.g. Phipps' first) leading to unstructured play. We only really created one (which arguably was a forward pass). We have the skills to capitalise on those unstructured situations and it was beautiful to watch, but when it came to trying to construct something in the last ten minutes or so we had nothing. At the end, it looked like we were trying to do what the Force often do (run through the phases and keep on grinding until a gap opens up) but it didn't work. I think we are much more likely to construct a try from good set piece play and, for this reason, I can't understand why we are persisting with Skelton. I'll leave that there so that this doesn't just become a Skelton bashing thread.

Also, can we please stop calling a certain coaches style of play "Jakeball" or "Chiekaball" or whatever. And stop calling scandals "Textgate" or "Bealegate". It is a bit lame.

Yep.
And really, I wish people would stop using TGC, even in ironic tones, it just adds a dimension of shit to threads that is not needed.

 

[cyclopath]

I wasn't super impressed by our attack last night. I'd rate two of our three tries as coming from opposition mistakes (e.g. Phipps' first) leading to unstructured play. We only really created one (which arguably was a forward pass). We have the skills to capitalise on those unstructured situations and it was beautiful to watch, but when it came to trying to construct something in the last ten minutes or so we had nothing. At the end, it looked like we were trying to do what the Force often do (run through the phases and keep on grinding until a gap opens up) but it didn't work. I think we are much more likely to construct a try from good set piece play and, for this reason, I can't understand why we are persisting with Skelton. I'll leave that there so that this doesn't just become a Skelton bashing thread.

Also, can we please stop calling a certain coaches style of play "Jakeball" or "Chiekaball" or whatever. And stop calling scandals "Textgate" or "Bealegate". It is a bit lame.

I disagree about our attack. In the first half, it was good. We were hot on attack before the intercept with some good play. Foley's and Phipps' second try both followed very good interplay in attack. There was another good bust out down the left side. Ireland's defence was very good, don't forget.
I agree we fell away from this in the second half. Too lateral too often.
I don't think we need to try to impose the whole template used by Cheika at the Waratahs to Test rugby. I think if we can get a better up-tempo effort up front - aggressive clear-outs, aggressive and fast defence that puts guys on their backsides then we have the mix of backs to capitalise. I thought the clear-outs and defence were pretty good for half the game last night. What I would say is that offloading forwards are a bit lacking at Wallaby level, and Cheika encouraged that at the Tahs.
Obviously, the set-piece needs curating, as Test rugby demands it.
So my answer is no, in part. I think aspects of it can be instigated, but I doubt the time would be on our side to make the whole thing gel before the RWC.

 

[Lorenzo]

How much better can the wallabies implement Ch-Ball than the Waratahs?

The crusaders likely wouldn't beat any of NZ, SA, IRE, Aus, Wales, Eng, Arg or Fra. They'd be a shot against Scotland and likely bets against Italy, Samoa and Tonga.

ANd that may be the wallabies' problem. The defenses they face when it matters will be a lot better than those the tahs faced. How much better can the wallabies attack be, given that they will largely be using the same personnel in the backline, and aren't likely to achieve a better outcome in the forwards than the waratahs did?

 

[RugbyReg]

Which try was the one with the Speight behind the back pass? That was a beautiful team try and as good as I have seen this season. Certainly as good as any on those IRB too tries list. Great skills, support play and depth in running.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think Cheika's game plan can (mostly) work at test level. Our set piece will have to continue to improve and by that I mean we're going to have to develop some depth in the tight five. As good as our starting front row have become for us, they need some help because they're knackered by the end of the game. In the second row, we need someone to step and demand selection alongside Simmons (who, like it or not, is our line out general). We're also going to need some go forward grunt at blindside or eight. Fortunately we're going to get Fardy back next season, so that's one problem solved and maybe McCalman has shown enough on the EOYT that he's got what it takes to be the starting eight.

The game plan itself is relatively simple, in that you've got an athletic pack hitting the ball flat and at pace, with quick recycle and a half back passing the ball out in front almost at all costs. There is very little kicking, especially at the ruck base (hooray). If you do that well enough, you're going to trouble a lot of opposition defences. The key will be securing enough first phase ball to apply that kind of pressure and I think we're going to have to improve if we're to be any chance next year. The defensive systems will be fine. It's just a matter of the team adjusting to the new formation and practicing it more.

I don't see too many problems out in the backs, because we've clearly got the firepower and creativity. Sort out one of the wings at inside centre and we're set.

 

[cyclopath]

Which try was the one with the Speight behind the back pass? That was a beautiful team try and as good as I have seen this season. Certainly as good as any on those IRB too tries list. Great skills, support play and depth in running.

That was Phipps' second. A lot of good skills in that one. Interestingly, Foley handled 2, or even 3 times I think in that sequence. As Bob Dwyer has long held, if the playmaker can get 2 or more touches, things will happen. I saw Quade trying to get that happening later, but it never quite got there. But I like to see the playmakers trying to get in position to do this.

 

[vidiot]

I think it can work, but we'll want 1) a well executed option B, and 2) better execution of plan A.

1) We need a plan B - plan A won't work all the time.

There is not a future in sight where we don't run into packs at test level that can physically impose upon us, for long periods of time, defensively.

Esp in big games is RWC, TRC.

And if we rely on the ref to stop garden variety slowing the ball, offside defenders and opportunistic injury breaks then we will be disappointed.

So being able to use contestable kicks, to find touch and terrritory, and/or to (dare I say it) box kick EFFECTIVELY and use defensive pressure to create the turnovers that open up the opposition to Plan A just makes sense, and we're not great at that now.

2) For plan A, speed and power are great but accuracy makes it all work.

Phipps esp is making decisions and executing very quickly, which means mistakes. The All Blacks and other top tier sides on their day will turn passes behind the man, intercept passes, those high passes to Foley when he is trying to clear in to points.

We will get turned over regularly when we go side to side so randomly, sometimes into the teeth of defence without being more selective.

 

[It is what it is]

I don't think you talk about Cheika ball attack without referring to his defence.
His attack is based off his team's defence.
At their best, his teams hit, hurt and pressure the opposition with and without the ball.
It's about physically and mentally dominating them.
His defence turns errors into turnovers into counter attacks and then points.
He'll know he needs to improve the tactical kicking in the side, but that will come after he's determined who can, and who can't play his ruthless style of game when they're under fatigue and pressure.
Because Cheika has brought Nathan Grey in to run his defence, this will come together pretty quickly, and soon after the attack will further develop.

 

[Shelts89]

I think you guys are wrong by calling it Cheikaball. When he was in charge of Leinster they played a smart game, yes they had good attacking game but it wasn't all they brought to a game.

Though he is right in that a fast paced game probably suits you.

 

[Lorenzo]

The defensive systems will be fine. It's just a matter of the team adjusting to the new formation and practicing it more.

I think that's optimistic. This group of players were leaking big points under Mckenzie also, it's not just the adjustment factor that sees them giving up 25 or more a match.