Can Cheika ball work for the Wallabies?

[Viking]

You could apply that pretty equally to any style the Wallabies have tried to play.

Invariably our weakness has been physicality in the forwards and this goes a long way towards that. This problem has existed for years bar the odd test (once or twice a year) where we really muscle up.

I think our biggest problem currently is the makeup of our bench forwards. I feel like Skelton is getting selected because we can't provide any real ball running from the other options.

Robinson/Alexander/Faulkner are all lacking in that dominant carry ability. Sio is probably the best option to provide that off the bench so hopefully he comes back into contention next year.

One thing that has become noticeable with Fainga'a finding such good form is that he's now miles better than Hanson. Hanson is coming onto the field and trying to add to his carrying by stayhing on his feet and getting extra metres that way but it is costing us turnovers. Bring Moore and/or TPN back in and we've immediately got much more from the bench spot.

None of Carter, Simmons and Horwill are providing consistent physicality, particularly with ball in hand which is why I think we're seeing Skelton selected.

In the backrow, Hodgson is good off the bench for certain jobs but he isn't providing that dynamic aggressive running that we need. Schatz won't bring that either. We need someone like a Scott Higginbotham for the replacement backrower role.

Its not all the bench. In regards to the front row, then yes our bench is letting us down.

But our starting backrow was having trouble against Wales, got clearly beaten by the French and the Ireland too. Maybe they just had a bad run because I think they played better in the RC, but it is still worrying.

Our locks are even worse, I don't think they outplayed their opposite numbers all year.

Honestly the only thing I'm pleased with in our forward pack is our starting front row.

 

[Pfitzy]

But our starting backrow was having trouble against Wales, got clearly beaten by the French and the Ireland too. Maybe they just had a bad run because I think they played better in the RC, but it is still worrying.

*ahem* Fardy.

 

[Viking]

*ahem* Fardy.

Fardy is a massive loss. But does he fit into the Cheika-ball style? Unfortunately I don't think so. His work-rate and smarts around the ruck is what makes him so effective. He certainly isn't the pyshically dominate type of player required for Cheika-ball.

I think this re-inforces the fact we should play to our strengths. Would we really like to see Fardy dropped for say Higgers? IMO having Fardy in the squad is a must on his current form.

Although shifting Fardy to lock and teaching him how to scrum their could work too.

 

[fatprop]

Our locks are even worse, I don't think they outplayed their opposite numbers all year.

I thought Simmons & Carter did rather well on Saturday, both rolled their sleeves up, worked hard and did well at the lineout

 

[qwerty51]

I thought Simmons & Carter did rather well on Saturday, both rolled their sleeves up, worked hard and did well at the lineout

They were my two best players on the field. They need to replicate it again.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Played well in Brisbane too, and in Capetown.

 

[Gillys_ghost]

we need an O'Connell, or a retallick and we dont have a single lock available that fits that bill

 

[Viking]

Maybe best on field for the wallabies but still outplayed by O'Connell.

 

[Braveheart81]

Fardy is a massive loss. But does he fit into the Cheika-ball style? Unfortunately I don't think so. His work-rate and smarts around the ruck is what makes him so effective. He certainly isn't the pyshically dominate type of player required for Cheika-ball.

I think this re-inforces the fact we should play to our strengths. Would we really like to see Fardy dropped for say Higgers? IMO having Fardy in the squad is a must on his current form.

Although shifting Fardy to lock and teaching him how to scrum their could work too.

Yes, I think if Fardy was available he'd be picked at 6 right now.

Fardy works hard and is physical at the breakdown. I think he's exactly what Cheika is looking for.

 

[Viking]

Yes, I think if Fardy was available he'd be picked at 6 right now.

Fardy works hard and is physical at the breakdown. I think he's exactly what Cheika is looking for.

But he mostly disrupts opposition ball, he is almost like another fetcher. I always thought Cheika-ball was more skewed to toward dominate tackles and counter rucking, rather then low racking tackles and over-the-ball play which i think is more suited to Fardy.

Fardy is great at cleaning out though so he certainly works on attack in that aspect but he is also not the most dominate ball-runner.

Certianly not ideal for Chieka-ball, but like i mentioned maybe if he was shifted to lock it could work.

 

[fatprop]

Maybe best on field for the wallabies but still outplayed by O'Connell.

That is fine by me, being a pig is about the team effort, our's were good, worked hard and did their job. Now if someone comes along who is an upgrade, that is fine as well.

But at the moment they are the best two we can field with the next level a long way a down

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't know, but if I was to guess what Cheika would say to Scott Higginbotham it would be to increase his aggression at the breakdown to be more like Fardy.

I think Fardy is one of our more physical breakdown forwards and that is something we're currently lacking. We need more players making strong effective cleanouts both in attack and defence.

There's no deep mystery to the style Cheika tries to play. It is built on high workrate and fitness and consistent physicality both in attack and defence.

Some people seem to be suggesting that it's akin to trying to turn the Wallabies into a Fijian 7s team.

 

[Viking]

That is fine by me, being a pig is about the team effort, our's were good, worked hard and did their job. Now if someone comes along who is an upgrade, that is fine as well.

But at the moment they are the best two we can field with the next level a long way a down

If everyone outplays their opposite number we win. Simple. If our locks are consistently being beaten by their opposite number then that means the rest of the pack will have to make up the difference.

You may be fine with that but I am not. Players at least need the ability to be able to reach that level. I think this is why in-consistant players are somtimes preferred such as Higgers and Palu.

 

[Viking]

I don't know, but if I was to guess what Cheika would say to Scott Higginbotham it would be to increase his aggression at the breakdown to be more like Fardy.

I think Fardy is one of our more physical breakdown forwards and that is something we're currently lacking. We need more players making strong effective cleanouts both in attack and defence.

There's no deep mystery to the style Cheika tries to play. It is built on high workrate and fitness and consistent physicality both in attack and defence.

Some people seem to be suggesting that it's akin to trying to turn the Wallabies into a Fijian 7s team.

I actually picture Chieka-ball as trying to turn the wallaby forwards into a Boks style bash-them and counter ruck.

 

[fatprop]

If everyone outplays their opposite number we win.

Sure

But Aus has won plenty of games going backwards at scrum time or in the past Lomu monstering humans on his wing.

My point? rugby is a team game, you do your job as well as you can, the guy on the right & left does the same and a good team becomes better than the sum of it's parts

 

[thierry dusautoir]

It's about trusting your systems. The wallabies over the last year have not trusted their systems. Hence when the going gets tough they lose shape and go forward.

Ireland are such a good team right now because they stick to the same gameplan and do the same in the 80th minute as they would in the 1st.

When the wallabies play that running style of game they shred teams (look at the last 10 minutes against France) but a lot of the time they get their feathers easily ruffled.

Phipps is someone who can easily be thrown off his game, and after a while puts more effort into shit niggle rather than crisp passes.

The Irish really got into some players heads even Hooper started getting frustrated with all the extra attention he was getting.

I think with a bit of time and work on mental fortitude this team will be a real goer.

 

[cyclopath]

But he mostly disrupts opposition ball, he is almost like another fetcher. I always thought Cheika-ball was more skewed to toward dominate tackles and counter rucking, rather then low racking tackles and over-the-ball play which i think is more suited to Fardy.

Fardy is great at cleaning out though so he certainly works on attack in that aspect but he is also not the most dominate ball-runner.

Certianly not ideal for Chieka-ball, but like i mentioned maybe if he was shifted to lock it could work.

Fardy has the mongrel, and the angry-beard. He's just what Cheika would like. I think.

 

[Ash]

Not sure exactly what is implied by Cheika ball, but if you are asking if exactly what the Tahs did will work for the Wallabies, then no, I don't think it will. There are too many weaknesses, such as neglecting set pieces to focus on attacking and linking training, or relying heavily on fitness when you cannot guarantee the fitness of the players from their provincial teams.

Will a variation work? I think it may do. But going by how long it took the Waratahs to adjust, it will probably take the Wallabies a long while, and they don't have nearly as much time together so it will be a tough ask.

What I think we will see is the first pain Link found, in that things that work at Super Rugby don't necessarily work in Test rugby. Super Rugby there exists much more time, and weaknesses can be hidden much better with them rarely being exploited. Test games have much less space and tend to find weaknesses that are being hidden.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Cheika has taken on a tough task.
Firstly, the EOYT squad he took away was not the squad he would have selected.
He signed on for a multi year deal for a reason.
Does anyone think he would have gone anywhere near signing a 12 month contract through until the 2015 RWC?


If he doesn't find what he's looking for, don't be surprised if he calls on overseas players, such as Douglas. Douglas ticks a number of boxes as he is big, hits hard and can work a scrum.

I would be interested in finding out your thoughts on who would (or might) have been included in the EOYT if Cheika had been able to select the squad. I judge by your comments that you believe he wouldn't have taken those players who haven't made the team for a game yet, so presumably Godwin and English. By the same token he probably would have initially included Beale and Schatz given that he's brought them in mid-tour. But others? Who else was available?

I do believe it will be the end of the Aussie Super franchises being competitive if Cheika starts bringing in overseas based players. There would then be no reason for top line players to stay and play here. Added to that is the problem of really knowing how good European or Japanese form is for those overseas players. It is not unusual for any of those who go OS to apparently show an immediate gain in form and skills levels. Makes you wonder does it not?

 

[qwerty51]

I don't think he doesn't rate Godwin and English but they were clearly only there for injuries and given there's been none in the backline why should they be given time? Cheika needs to play his best 23 and they're not in it.