Can Cheika ball work for the Wallabies?

[Brumby Runner]

and you seem to read that is more kicking and I read that as better efforts to create options from support runners

at the moment there aren't enough lines being run off the ball from phase play to create defensive doubt

Nope - can't see that interpretation at all. He quite specifically says the plan used at the Waratahs doesn't work at test level. I read that to mostly mean the playing a flat backline with the No 10 just shovelling the ball wider is what's not working and more variety is required. Incidentally, I agree if that is what is meant. Now if more variety means running deeper attacking lines or kicking for territory more, just when does that constitute a change from the Tahs game plan?

 

[Train Without a Station]

No. I'm, saying (actually I'm not, Bernard Foley is) that there needs to be variation from what worked for the Waratahs.

I'm not sure how you've come to any conclusion as to what I read, as I merely used that as a response to the original post with zero comment.

 

[fatprop]

Nope - can't see that interpretation at all. He quite specifically says the plan used at the Waratahs doesn't work at test level. I read that to mostly mean the playing a flat backline with the No 10 just shovelling the ball wider is what's not working and more variety is required. Incidentally, I agree if that is what is meant. Now if more variety means running deeper attacking lines or kicking for territory more, just when does that constitute a change from the Tahs game plan?

Isn't it amazing how two people can have such different interpretations of the same quote ...........

 

[fatprop]

No. I'm, saying (actually I'm not, Bernard Foley is) that there needs to be variation from what worked for the Waratahs.

I'm not sure how you've come to any conclusion as to what I read, as I merely used that as a response to the original post with zero comment.

you say variation, I say options

one thing we lacked against Ireland was that inside runner too often so the defense could not read the play as easily

I have said all year the biggest thing the Wobs lack is effort off the ball to become a threat

We need units continually being prepared to run those inside lines and angled runs to create the doubt, we need more effort to get back to give the kick receiver options

 

[Train Without a Station]

you say variation, I say options

No. Bernard Foley says that.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the development of the gameplan at test level will only involve subtle changes.

At the Waratahs, they started out trying to run the ball from everywhere before they realised that they had to get better at exiting their 22 and kick it from there on most occasions. The risks of running it out from the 22 were too great. That is ratcheted up a level in test rugby and we need to be a bit more conservative and play field position. This is simply because opposition teams are better and allow less leeway and punish mistakes better.

In attack, it's harder to get the runner over the advantage line and even harder to get offloads working. There are simply less week defenders to capitalise on and less mistakes in the opposition's defensive structure.

Like others have said, that means developing more options and having players working hard running angles and keeping the defence guessing.

The foundation of Cheika's plan will always be physicality and aggression combined with hard work. The players need to be incredibly fit and they need to work really hard off the ball. It's about having support players there so that weak tackles can be converted to line breaks and half chances into tries.

Despite losing, I think the Ireland game was a substantial step forward. Our defence didn't regularly break down and our attack was far more fluid and threatening against a very solid defensive team.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think people are getting to caught up in some aspects though.

BH the key points that you note that I am referring too are:

• Physicality;
• Incredibly fit;
• Working hard off the ball.

These are not new concepts that Cheika has revolutionized by bringing in the game.
I doubt there are any teams that don't go into their pre-season with the goal of being the fittest team in their competition. Likewise, it's not uncommon that the best team is the fittest.

Physicality is another point. I doubt that McKenzie, Deans and even Connolly didn't target their team being more physical than their opponents. This is no revelation that it is part of success. How often do teams win games when they have lost the physical battle? All the Wallabies wins generally have included that and most of their losses attributed to that.

Working hard off the ball. Once again, almost all teams have performed well when they have runners in motion and multiple options and strong support which means players will work hard for minimal reward. The Reds were good in 2011 because of this for example.

My point is when every coach has struggled to achieve consistent success in these aspects with the Wallabies, despite these being acknowledged and easily noticed attributes of winning teams why is this suddenly going to change. People have acted as though Cheika identifying these is some revolutionary tactic. Has Cheika's record of motivating players been any superior to those before him? No. That's not a slight on Cheika's record, that's a compliment on the record of McKenzie, Deans and Connolly. Fuck, even Jones begrudgingly.

 

[Braveheart81]

Of course they aren't new concepts and of course all good rugby involves those characteristics to some degree.

The fitness particularly is especially crucial under Cheika's tactics. It simply won't work unless the team is exceptionally fit and can maintain that sort of pace for the 80 minutes.

Physicality is also a universal concept in rugby (and any contact sport). I would say that this is becoming a more crucial aspect of any successful style of play. Having an aggressive defensive line and pushing up fast seems almost imperative now to have any chance against the best teams on a consistent basis. Having a more passive defence seems like a system that is destined to fail now regardless of how few tackles are missed.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But my point is that these are critical to be a successful team. This is regardless of the tactics used.

I doubt they have just been glossed over by previous coaches. I'd wager it's more likely they have been too hard to achieve in the Wallaby set up with the limited time and contact with players.

Much like it won't be successful picking the most talented players, regardless of fitness or physicality, it likely won't be successful picking the fittest and most physical players regardless of talent.

That's where the trade off comes in, and that's where these aspects are compromised.

 

[Joeleee]

To bring it back to game plan a little bit:

I noticed that the Tahs, particularly towards the end of the season, would intentionally not send their kicks into touch out of their 22 sometimes. I feel like this was because their line out was not that strong compared to some other teams, while they backed themselves to defend the counter-attack with their strong scrambling defence and potentially force a turnover. A couple of questions:

a) Do you think that some of the kicks from the 22 that haven't found touch by the Wallabies are intentional?

b) Do you think this tactic could work at Test level?

My answers:

a) No, probably not, though Foley may be somewhat stuck in that mindset, so it might be something of an unconscious thing

b) Yes, to a degree, and against some teams. I think the Wallabies have the same deficiencies at the lineout (maybe even worse, since other Test teams have overall better units), so avoiding them is a positive. I also think that they could develop their counter defence to a point where they can effectively use this as an option. I'm particularly thinking against the Boks, where they have such a strong lineout/are such a threat in the rolling maul and by keeping the ball in play you might be able to tire out their large forwards.

Thoughts?

 

[fatprop]

Foley's best kicks find grass, they did vs Wales and didn't against Ireland

finding grass gives the defensive line time to get organised and the shooter an opportunity to create real preasure

 

[A mutterer]

I think it may have been part of chieka's tactics for the oirishh to keep the ball in play. It seemed to work for the middle 40 mins when we fought back but let us down at the back end of the game.

 

[It is what it is]

I think people are getting to caught up in some aspects though.

BH the key points that you note that I am referring too are:

• Physicality;
• Incredibly fit;
• Working hard off the ball.

These are not new concepts that Cheika has revolutionized by bringing in the game.

I doubt there are any teams that don't go into their pre-season with the goal of being the fittest team in their competition. Likewise, it's not uncommon that the best team is the fittest.

Physicality is another point. I doubt that McKenzie, Deans and even Connolly didn't target their team being more physical than their opponents. This is no revelation that it is part of success. How often do teams win games when they have lost the physical battle? All the Wallabies wins generally have included that and most of their losses attributed to that.

Working hard off the ball. Once again, almost all teams have performed well when they have runners in motion and multiple options and strong support which means players will work hard for minimal reward. The Reds were good in 2011 because of this for example.

My point is when every coach has struggled to achieve consistent success in these aspects with the Wallabies, despite these being acknowledged and easily noticed attributes of winning teams why is this suddenly going to change. People have acted as though Cheika identifying these is some revolutionary tactic. Has Cheika's record of motivating players been any superior to those before him? No. That's not a slight on Cheika's record, that's a compliment on the record of McKenzie, Deans and Connolly. Fuck, even Jones begrudgingly.

I think if you asked the players themselves at Leinster, the Waratahs and even already at the Wallabies the answer would be a resounding YES, he does have a superior record of motivating players.
The thing in common is that all 3 of these teams had a prior period of around 10 years of under achievement before he arrived.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think if you asked the players themselves at Leinster, the Waratahs and even already at the Wallabies the answer would be a resounding YES, he does have a superior record of motivating players.
The thing in common is that all 3 of these teams had a prior period of around 10 years of under achievement before he arrived.

I think if we get into a discussion we're looking at the minute detail.

The Reds were quite successful under Connolly and dropped off after his departure. The Crusaders greatest ever period was under Deans. The Waratahs reached 2 Super Rugby Grand Finals under McKenzie and the Reds went from 13th to 5th in his first season there.

Barring McKenzie and when he took over at the Waratahs, all of these teams were almost immediately better with their replacement coach. All were worse with the replacement.

Once again, improving a team isn't something Cheika invented. Look at Deans and McKenzie at their most successful appointments. Neither of them brought in a number of experienced, internationally capped recruits. In Deans case it was a lot of youth, in McKenzie's case it was players unwanted by the other Australian franchises.

 

[It is what it is]

I think if we get into a discussion we're looking at the minute detail.

The Reds were quite successful under Connolly and dropped off after his departure. The Crusaders greatest ever period was under Deans. The Waratahs reached 2 Super Rugby Grand Finals under McKenzie and the Reds went from 13th to 5th in his first season there.

Barring McKenzie and when he took over at the Waratahs, all of these teams were almost immediately better with their replacement coach. All were worse with the replacement.

Once again, improving a team isn't something Cheika invented. Look at Deans and McKenzie at their most successful appointments. Neither of them brought in a number of experienced, internationally capped recruits. In Deans case it was a lot of youth, in McKenzie's case it was players unwanted by the other Australian franchises.

Wouldn't the players be best at answering this question about who is better at motivating them?
That was the point I was making.
Many of them have had all three of Deans, McKenzie and now Cheika as coach.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Wouldn't the players be best at answering this question about who is better at motivating them?
That was the point I was making.
Many of them have had all three of Deans, McKenzie and now Cheika as coach.

You reckon any player is going to say, "Nah I reckon Link or Deans motivated me better"? Hard to get an honest answer.

The only thing certain in any coaching change, is newspaper and sports magazines articles quoting players on how excited they are about the change, how certain aspects are already better, etc.

For example today I read AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) saying how this has been the most enjoyable tour he's been on. Certainly hasn't seemed to correlate with any positive results though, has it?

That's not a dig at Cheika's results just a note that a player has basically said he's found what could potentially on the weekend end up being Australia's worst EOYT in the modern era (or equal) by results, has been more enjoyable than their best (or equal) by results.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Once again, improving a team isn't something Cheika invented. Look at Deans and McKenzie at their most successful appointments. Neither of them brought in a number of experienced, internationally capped recruits. In Deans case it was a lot of youth, in McKenzie's case it was players unwanted by the other Australian franchises.

McQueen was the master of turning outcasts into a great team. I would argue he had the motivation skills of Cheika, the analytical approach of McKenzie and the expectation of excellence of Deans...

Again, my problem with this thread is that we're going over a moot point... the game plan only works (at international level) when you have the players to make it work. I don't think Australia has the players now to compete against 1 and 2 in the world consistently. We do have the players to compete against 3 and down with a reasonable success rate... International rugby demands a high skill level, high motivation, high work rate and fitness, and a high degree of physicality because the coach only has the players for a (relatively) short period, and the national team should not have to work with the squad on these areas. We don't have enough depth to provide those players across the park on a consistent basis, and our best 23 is not as good as the best 23 in NZ or SA on a consistent basis.
That said, I hope everyone keeps passionately arguing that we should be better because I'd hate Australian Rugby supporters to be like Wales, Scotland or Ireland where they are generally happy to be 4 or lower in the rankings

 

[Athilnaur]

BR I think we do have the players to beat 1 and 2. Not consistently, but with frequency. All three sides draw from the Super Rugby comp and we have not 1 but 3 sides that have been grand finalists over the past four years. Moreover our biggest problem has usually been the front row and our front row is the best it has been for years. We are weak at Lock and that in my view is a crucial area, yes, but be assured we have the resources. We need continuity and unity. Purpose. Happily that is something Cheika is well known for. I hope he, we, can find a way to build on it over the coming Super Rugby season. We need must.

 

[Brumby Runner]

McQueen was the master of turning outcasts into a great team. I would argue he had the motivation skills of Cheika, the analytical approach of McKenzie and the expectation of excellence of Deans.

Again, my problem with this thread is that we're going over a moot point. the game plan only works (at international level) when you have the players to make it work. I don't think Australia has the players now to compete against 1 and 2 in the world consistently. We do have the players to compete against 3 and down with a reasonable success rate. International rugby demands a high skill level, high motivation, high work rate and fitness, and a high degree of physicality because the coach only has the players for a (relatively) short period, and the national team should not have to work with the squad on these areas. We don't have enough depth to provide those players across the park on a consistent basis, and our best 23 is not as good as the best 23 in NZ or SA on a consistent basis.
That said, I hope everyone keeps passionately arguing that we should be better because I'd hate Australian Rugby supporters to be like Wales, Scotland or Ireland where they are generally happy to be 4 or lower in the rankings

So, where do we fall down on the physicality scale. Obviously the replacement props, possibly all of our locks atm, maybe at No 8, No 10 and the replacement No 10/12. Can we improve in these areas?

 

[Brendan Hume]

So, where do we fall down on the physicality scale. Obviously the replacement props, possibly all of our locks atm, maybe at No 8, No 10 and the replacement No 10/12. Can we improve in these areas?

Lock, 6 and 8 depth have been an issue for a long time. A truly world class winger... and these are only the starting players. And reserves are a huge problem, particularly in Prop.

I think Australia need a world class locking pair, and a world class player in the back three (as much as I love Folau as an attacking weapon, imho he has a long way to go to being a complete fullback with regards to kicking, defensive positioning and unlocking a counter attack - he's great at running the ball in counter attack, not so great at organising a second touch for himself)...

Many players across international rugby aren't far off their counterparts but these are some obvious deficits that we have.